Encyclopaedia Britannica_ 11th Edition_ _Jevons_ Stanley_ to _Joint_ Various 1162 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Jevons,
Stanley" to "Joint"
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at
no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the
terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Jevons, Stanley" to "Joint"

Author: Various

Release date: October 14, 2012 [eBook #41055]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41055

Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH
EDITION, "JEVONS, STANLEY" TO "JOINT" ***

Transcriber’s note: A few typographical errors have been corrected. They appear in the text
like this, and the explanation will appear when the mouse pointer is moved
over the marked passage. Sections in Greek will yield a transliteration
when the pointer is moved over them, and words using diacritic characters
in the Latin Extended Additional block, which may not display in some
fonts or browsers, will display an unaccented version.

Links to other EB articles: Links to articles residing in other EB volumes
will be made available when the respective volumes are introduced online.

THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND
GENERAL INFORMATION
ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XV SLICE IV

Jevons, Stanley to Joint

Articles in This Slice

JEVONS, WILLIAM STANLEY JOHN XIX.
JEW, THE WANDERING JOHN XXI.
JEWEL, JOHN JOHN XXII.
JEWELRY JOHN XXIII.
JEWETT, SARAH ORNE JOHN I. (Roman emperor)
JEWS JOHN II.
JEWSBURY, GERALDINE ENDSOR JOHN III.
JEW’S EARS JOHN IV.
JEW’S HARP JOHN V. or VI.
JEZEBEL JOHN VI. or V.
JEZREEL JOHN VI. or VII.
JHABUA JOHN (king of England)
JHALAWAR JOHN I. (king of Aragon)
JHANG JOHN II.
JHANSI JOHN (king of Bohemia)
JHELUM (Indian river) JOHN I. (king of Castile)
JHELUM (Indian town) JOHN II.
JHERING, RUDOLF VON JOHN I. (king of France)
JIBITOS JOHN II.
JIBUTI JOHN (king of Hungary)
JICARILLA JOHN OF BRIENNE

JIDDA JOHN III. (king of Poland)
JIG JOHN I. (king of Portugal)
JIHAD JOHN II.
JIMENES DE CISNEROS, FRANCISCO JOHN III.
JIND JOHN IV.
JINGO JOHN V.
JINN JOHN VI.
JIREČEK, JOSEF JOHN (king of Saxony)
JIZAKH JOHN I. (duke of Brabant)
JOAB JOHN (margrave of Brandenburg-Cüstrin)
JOACHIM OF FLORIS JOHN (duke of Burgundy)
JOACHIM I. JOHN (elector of Saxony)
JOACHIM II. JOHN, DON (of Austria)
JOACHIM, JOSEPH JOHN, DON (the younger)
JOAN JOHN OF BEVERLEY, ST
JOAN OF ARC JOHN OF THE CROSS, ST
JOANES, VICENTE JOHN OF ASIA
JOANNA JOHN OF DAMASCUS
JOANNA I. JOHN OF HEXHAM
JOANNA II. JOHN OF IRELAND
JOASH JOHN OF RAVENNA
JOB JOHN OF SALISBURY
JOBST JOHN (of Swabia)
JOB’S TEARS JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF
JOCASTA JOHN, GOSPEL OF ST
JOCKEY JOHN ALBERT
JODELLE, ÉTIENNE JOHN ANGELUS
JODHPUR JOHN FREDERICK I.
JOEL JOHN FREDERICK (duke of Saxony)
JOEL, MANUEL JOHN GEORGE I.
JOFFRIN, JULES FRANÇOIS ALEXANDRE JOHN MAURICE OF NASSAU
JOGUES, ISAAC JOHN O’ GROAT’S HOUSE
JOḤANAN BEN ZACCAI JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
JOHANNESBURG (city of the Transvaal) JOHNSON, ANDREW
JOHANNISBERG (village of Germany) JOHNSON, BENJAMIN
JOHN (proper name) JOHNSON, EASTMAN
JOHN (the Apostle) JOHNSON, REVERDY
JOHN THE BAPTIST JOHNSON, RICHARD
JOHN I. (pope) JOHNSON, RICHARD MENTOR
JOHN II. JOHNSON, SAMUEL
JOHN III. JOHNSON, SIR THOMAS
JOHN IV. JOHNSON, THOMAS
JOHN V. JOHNSON, SIR WILLIAM
JOHN VI. JOHNSTON, ALBERT SIDNEY

JOHN VII. JOHNSTON, ALEXANDER
JOHN VIII. JOHNSTON, ALEXANDER KEITH
JOHN IX. JOHNSTON, ARTHUR
JOHN X. JOHNSTON, SIR HENRY HAMILTON
JOHN XI. JOHNSTON, JOSEPH EGGLESTON
JOHN XII. JOHNSTONE
JOHN XIII. JOHNSTOWN (New York, U.S.A.)
JOHN XIV. JOHNSTOWN (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)
JOHN XV. JOHOR
JOHN XVI. JOIGNY
JOHN XVII. JOINDER
JOHN XVIII. JOINERY
JOINT

JEVONS, WILLIAM STANLEY (1835-1882), English economist and logician, was
born at Liverpool on the 1st of September 1835. His father, Thomas Jevons, a man of strong scientific
tastes and a writer on legal and economic subjects, was an iron merchant. His mother was the daughter of
William Roscoe. At the age of fifteen he was sent to London to attend University College school. He
appears at this time to have already formed the belief that important achievements as a thinker were
possible to him, and at more than one critical period in his career this belief was the decisive factor in
determining his conduct. Towards the end of 1853, after having spent two years at University College,
where his favourite subjects were chemistry and botany, he unexpectedly received the offer of the
assayership to the new mint in Australia. The idea of leaving England was distasteful, but pecuniary
considerations had, in consequence of the failure of his father’s firm in 1847, become of vital
importance, and he accepted the post. He left England for Sydney in June 1854, and remained there for
five years. At the end of that period he resigned his appointment, and in the autumn of 1859 entered
again as a student at University College, London, proceeding in due course to the B.A. and M.A. degrees
of the university of London. He now gave his principal attention to the moral sciences, but his interest in
natural science was by no means exhausted: throughout his life he continued to write occasional papers
on scientific subjects, and his intimate knowledge of the physical sciences greatly contributed to the
success of his chief logical work, The Principles of Science. Not long after taking his M.A. degree
Jevons obtained a post as tutor at Owens College, Manchester. In 1866 he was elected professor of logic
and mental and moral philosophy and Cobden professor of political economy in Owens college. Next
year he married Harriet Ann Taylor, whose father had been the founder and proprietor of the Manchester
Guardian. Jevons suffered a good deal from ill health and sleeplessness, and found the delivery of
lectures covering so wide a range of subjects very burdensome. In 1876 he was glad to exchange the

Owens professorship for the professorship of political economy in University College, London.
Travelling and music were the principal recreations of his life; but his health continued bad, and he
suffered from depression. He found his professorial duties increasingly irksome, and feeling that the
pressure of literary work left him no spare energy, he decided in 1880 to resign the post. On the 13th of
August 1882 he was drowned whilst bathing near Hastings. Throughout his life he had pursued with
devotion and industry the ideals with which he had set out, and his journal and letters display a noble
simplicity of disposition and an unswerving honesty of purpose. He was a prolific writer, and at the time
of his death he occupied the foremost position in England both as a logician and as an economist.
Professor Marshall has said of his work in economics that it “will probably be found to have more
constructive force than any, save that of Ricardo, that has been done during the last hundred years.” At
the time of his death he was engaged upon an economic work that promised to be at least as important as
any that he had previously undertaken. It would be difficult to exaggerate the loss which logic and
political economy sustained through the accident by which his life was prematurely cut short.

Jevons arrived quite early in his career at the doctrines that constituted his most characteristic and
original contributions to economics and logic. The theory of utility, which became the keynote of his
general theory of political economy, was practically formulated in a letter written in 1860; and the germ
of his logical principles of the substitution of similars may be found in the view which he propounded in
another letter written in 1861, that “philosophy would be found to consist solely in pointing out the
likeness of things.” The theory of utility above referred to, namely, that the degree of utility of a
commodity is some continuous mathematical function of the quantity of the commodity available,
together with the implied doctrine that economics is essentially a mathematical science, took more
definite form in a paper on “A General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy,” written for the
British Association in 1862. This paper does not appear to have attracted much attention either in 1862 or
on its publication four years later in the Journal of the Statistical Society; and it was not till 1871, when
the Theory of Political Economy appeared, that Jevons set forth his doctrines in a fully developed form.
It was not till after the publication of this work that Jevons became acquainted with the applications of
mathematics to political economy made by earlier writers, notably Antoine Augustin Cournot and H. H.
Gossen. The theory of utility was about 1870 being independently developed on somewhat similar lines
by Carl Menger in Austria and M.E.L. Walras in Switzerland. As regards the discovery of the connexion
between value in exchange and final (or marginal) utility, the priority belongs to Gossen, but this in no
way detracts from the great importance of the service which Jevons rendered to English economics by
his fresh discovery of the principle, and by the way in which he ultimately forced it into notice. In his
reaction from the prevailing view he sometimes expressed himself without due qualification: the
declaration, for instance, made at the commencement of the Theory of Political Economy, that “value
depends entirely upon utility,” lent itself to misinterpretation. But a certain exaggeration of emphasis
may be pardoned in a writer seeking to attract the attention of an indifferent public. It was not, however,
as a theorist dealing with the fundamental data of economic science, but as a brilliant writer on practical
economic questions, that Jevons first received general recognition. A Serious Fall in the Value of Gold
(1863) and The Coal Question (1865) placed him in the front rank as a writer on applied economics and
statistics; and he would be remembered as one of the leading economists of the 19th century even had his
Theory of Political Economy never been written. Amongst his economic works may be mentioned Money

and the Mechanism of Exchange (1875), written in a popular style, and descriptive rather than
theoretical, but wonderfully fresh and original in treatment and full of suggestiveness, a Primer on
Political Economy (1878), The State in Relation to Labour (1882), and two works published after his
death, namely, Methods of Social Reform and Investigations in Currency and Finance, containing papers
that had appeared separately during his lifetime. The last-named volume contains Jevons’s interesting
speculations on the connexion between commercial crises and sun-spots. He was engaged at the time of
his death upon the preparation of a large treatise on economics and had drawn up a table of contents and
completed some chapters and parts of chapters. This fragment was published in 1905 under the title of
The Principles of Economics: a Fragment of a Treatise on the Industrial Mechanism of Society, and
other Papers.

Jevons’s work in logic went on pari passu with his work in political economy. In 1864 he published a
small volume, entitled Pure Logic; or, the Logic of Quality apart from Quantity, which was based on
Boole’s system of logic, but freed from what he considered the false mathematical dress of that system.
In the years immediately following he devoted considerable attention to the construction of a logical
machine, exhibited before the Royal Society in 1870, by means of which the conclusion derivable from
any given set of premisses could be mechanically obtained. In 1866 what he regarded as the great and
universal principle of all reasoning dawned upon him; and in 1869 he published a sketch of this
fundamental doctrine under the title of The Substitution of Similars. He expressed the principle in its
simplest form as follows: “Whatever is true of a thing is true of its like,” and he worked out in detail its
various applications. In the following year appeared the Elementary Lessons on Logic, which soon
became the most widely read elementary textbook on logic in the English language. In the meantime he
was engaged upon a much more important logical treatise, which appeared in 1874 under the title of The
Principles of Science. In this work Jevons embodied the substance of his earlier works on pure logic and
the substitution of similars; he also enunciated and developed the view that induction is simply an
inverse employment of deduction; he treated in a luminous manner the general theory of probability, and
the relation between probability and induction; and his knowledge of the various natural sciences enabled
him throughout to relieve the abstract character of logical doctrine by concrete scientific illustrations,
often worked out in great detail. Jevons’s general theory of induction was a revival of the theory laid
down by Whewell and criticized by Mill; but it was put in a new form, and was free from some of the
non-essential adjuncts which rendered Whewell’s exposition open to attack. The work as a whole was
one of the most notable contributions to logical doctrine that appeared in Great Britain in the 19th
century. His Studies in Deductive Logic, consisting mainly of exercises and problems for the use of
students, was published in 1880. In 1877 and the following years Jevons contributed to the
Contemporary Review some articles on J. S. Mill, which he had intended to supplement by further
articles, and eventually publish in a volume as a criticism of Mill’s philosophy. These articles and one
other were republished after Jevons’s death, together with his earlier logical treatises, in a volume,
entitled Pure Logic, and other Minor Works. The criticisms on Mill contain much that is ingenious and
much that is forcible, but on the whole they cannot be regarded as taking rank with Jevons’s other work.
His strength lay in his power as an original thinker rather than as a critic; and he will be remembered by
his constructive work as logician, economist and statistician.

See Letters and Journal of W. Stanley Jevons, edited by his wife (1886). This work contains a
bibliography of Jevons’s writings. See also Logic: History.
(J. N. K.)

JEW, THE WANDERING, a legendary Jew (see Jews) doomed to wander till the second
coming of Christ because he had taunted Jesus as he passed bearing the cross, saying, “Go on quicker.”
Jesus is said to have replied, “I go, but thou shalt wait till I return.” The legend in this form first appeared
in a pamphlet of four leaves alleged to have been printed at Leiden in 1602. This pamphlet relates that
Paulus von Eizen (d. 1598), bishop of Schleswig, had met at Hamburg in 1542 a Jew named Ahasuerus
(Ahasverus), who declared he was “eternal” and was the same who had been punished in the above-
mentioned manner by Jesus at the time of the crucifixion. The pamphlet is supposed to have been written
by Chrysostomus Dudulaeus of Westphalia and printed by one Christoff Crutzer, but as no such author or
printer is known at this time—the latter name indeed refers directly to the legend—it has been
conjectured that the whole story is a myth invented to support the Protestant contention of a continuous
witness to the truth of Holy Writ in the person of this “eternal” Jew; he was to form, in his way, a
counterpart to the apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church.

The story met with ready acceptance and popularity. Eight editions of the pamphlet appeared in 1602,
and the fortieth edition before the end of the following century. It was translated into Dutch and Flemish
with almost equal success. The first French edition appeared in 1609, and the story was known in
England before 1625, when a parody was produced. Denmark and Sweden followed suit with
translations, and the expression “eternal Jew” passed as a current term into Czech. In other words, the
story in its usual form spread wherever there was a tincture of Protestantism. In southern Europe little is
heard of it in this version, though Rudolph Botoreus, parliamentary advocate of Paris (Comm. histor.,
1604), writing in Paris two years after its first appearance, speaks contemptuously of the popular belief in
the Wandering Jew in Germany, Spain and Italy.

The popularity of the pamphlet and its translations soon led to reports of the appearance of this
mysterious being in almost all parts of the civilized world. Besides the original meeting of the bishop and
Ahasuerus in 1542 and others referred back to 1575 in Spain and 1599 at Vienna, the Wandering Jew was
stated to have appeared at Prague (1602), at Lübeck (1603), in Bavaria (1604), at Ypres (1623), Brussels
(1640), Leipzig (1642), Paris (1644, by the “Turkish Spy”), Stamford (1658), Astrakhan (1672), and
Frankenstein (1678). In the next century the Wandering Jew was seen at Munich (1721), Altbach (1766),
Brussels (1774), Newcastle (1790, see Brand, Pop. Antiquities, s.v.), and on the streets of London
between 1818 and 1830 (see Athenaeum, 1866, ii. 561). So far as can be ascertained, the latest report of
his appearance was in the neighbourhood of Salt Lake City in 1868, when he is said to have made
himself known to a Mormon named O’Grady. It is difficult to tell in any one of these cases how far the

story is an entire fiction and how far some ingenious impostor took advantage of the existence of the
myth.

The reiterated reports of the actual existence of a wandering being, who retained in his memory the
details of the crucifixion, show how the idea had fixed itself in popular imagination and found its way
into the 19th-century collections of German legends. The two ideas combined in the story of the restless
fugitive akin to Cain and wandering for ever are separately represented in the current names given to this
figure in different countries. In most Teutonic languages the stress is laid on the perpetual character of his
punishment and he is known as the “everlasting,” or “eternal” Jew (Ger. “Ewige Jude”). In the lands
speaking a Romance tongue, the usual form has reference to the wanderings (Fr. “le Juif errant”). The
English form follows the Romance analogy, possibly because derived directly from France. The actual
name given to the mysterious Jew varies in the different versions: the original pamphlet calls him
Ahasver, and this has been followed in most of the literary versions, though it is difficult to imagine any
Jew being called by the name of the typical anti-Semitic king of the Book of Esther. In one of his
appearances at Brussels his name is given as Isaac Laquedem, implying an imperfect knowledge of
Hebrew in an attempt to represent Isaac “from of old.” Alexandre Dumas also made use of this title. In
the Turkish Spy the Wandering Jew is called Paul Marrane and is supposed to have suffered persecution
at the hands of the Inquisition, which was mainly occupied in dealing with the Marranos, i.e. the secret
Jews of the Iberian peninsula. In the few references to the legend in Spanish writings the Wandering Jew
is called Juan Espera en Dios, which gives a more hopeful turn to the legend.

Under other names, a story very similar to that given in the pamphlet of 1602 occurs nearly 400 years
earlier on English soil. According to Roger of Wendover in his Flores historiarum under the year 1228,
an Armenian archbishop, then visiting England, was asked by the monks of St Albans about the well-
known Joseph of Arimathaea, who had spoken to Jesus and was said to be still alive. The archbishop
claimed to have seen him in Armenia under the name of Carthaphilus or Cartaphilus, who had confessed
that he had taunted Jesus in the manner above related. This Carthaphilus had afterwards been baptized by
the name of Joseph. Matthew Paris, in repeating the passage from Roger of Wendover, reported that other
Armenians had confirmed the story on visiting St Albans in 1252, and regarded it as a great proof of the
Christian religion. A similar account is given in the chronicles of Philippe Mouskès (d. 1243). A variant
of the same story was known to Guido Bonati, an astronomer quoted by Dante, who calls his hero or
villain Butta Deus because he struck Jesus. Under this name he is said to have appeared at Mugello in
1413 and at Bologna in 1415 (in the garb of a Franciscan of the third order).

The source of all these reports of an ever-living witness of the crucifixion is probably Matthew xvi.
28: “There be some of them that stand here which shall in no wise taste of death till they see the Son of
Man coming in his kingdom.” As the kingdom had not come, it was assumed that there must be persons
living who had been present at the crucifixion; the same reasoning is at the root of the Anglo-Israel
belief. These words are indeed quoted in the pamphlet of 1602. Again, a legend was based on John xxi.
20 that the beloved disciple would not die before the second coming; while another legend (current in the
16th century) condemned Malchus, whose ear Peter cut off in the garden of Gethsemane (John xvii. 10),
to wander perpetually till the second coming. The legend alleges that he had been so condemned for
having scoffed at Jesus. These legends and the utterance of Matt. xvi. 28 became “contaminated” by the

legend of St Joseph of Arimathaea and the Holy Grail, and took the form given in Roger of Wendover
and Matthew Paris. But there is nothing to show the spread of this story among the people before the
pamphlet of 1602, and it is difficult to see how this Carthaphilus could have given rise to the legend of
the Wandering Jew, since he is not a Jew nor does he wander. The author of 1602 was probably
acquainted either directly or indirectly with the story as given by Matthew Paris, since he gives almost
the same account. But he gives a new name to his hero and directly connects his fate with Matt. xvi. 28.

Moncure D. Conway (Ency. Brit., 9th ed., xiii. 673) attempted to connect the legend of the Wandering
Jew with a whole series of myths relating to never-dying heroes like King Arthur, Frederick Barbarossa,
the Seven Sleepers, and Thomas the Rhymer, not to speak of Rip Van Winkle. He goes even farther and
connects our legend with mortals visiting earth, as the Yima in Parsism, and the “Ancient of Days” in the
Books of Daniel and Enoch, and further connects the legend with the whole medieval tendency to regard
the Jew as something uncanny and mysterious. But all these mythological explanations are
supererogatory, since the actual legend in question can be definitely traced to the pamphlet of 1602. The
same remark applies to the identification with the Mahommedan legend of the “eternal” Chadhir
proposed by M. Lidzbarski (Zeit. f. Assyr. vii. 116) and I. Friedländer (Arch. f. Religionswiss. xiii. 110).

This combination of eternal punishment with restless wandering has attracted the imagination of
innumerable writers in almost all European tongues. The Wandering Jew has been regarded as a
symbolic figure representing the wanderings and sufferings of his race. The Germans have been
especially attracted by the legend, which has been made the subject of poems by Schubart, Schreiber, W.
Müller, Lenau, Chamisso, Schlegel, Mosen and Koehler, from which enumeration it will be seen that it
was a particularly favourite subject with the Romantic school. They were perhaps influenced by the
example of Goethe, who in his Autobiography describes, at considerable length, the plan of a poem he
had designed on the Wandering Jew. More recently poems have been composed on the subject in German
by Adolf Wilbrandt, Fritz Lienhard and others; in English by Robert Buchanan, and in Dutch by H.
Heijermans. German novels also exist on the subject, by Franz Horn, Oeklers, Laun and Schucking,
tragedies by Klinemann, Haushofer and Zedlitz. Sigismund Heller wrote three cantos on the wanderings
of Ahasuerus, while Hans Andersen made of him an “Angel of Doubt.” Robert Hamerling even identifies
Nero with the Wandering Jew. In France, E. Quinet published a prose epic on the subject in 1833, and
Eugène Sue, in his best-known work, Le Juif errant (1844), introduces the Wandering Jew in the
prologues of its different sections and associates him with the legend of Herodias. In modern times the
subject has been made still more popular by Gustave Doré’s elaborate designs (1856), containing some
of his most striking and imaginative work. Thus, probably, he suggested Grenier’s poem on the subject
(1857).

In England, besides the ballads in Percy’s Reliques, William Godwin introduced the idea of an eternal
witness of the course of civilization in his St Leon (1799), and his son-in-law Shelley introduces
Ahasuerus in his Queen Mab. It is doubtful how far Swift derived his idea of the immortal Struldbrugs
from the notion of the Wandering Jew. George Croly’s Salathiel, which appeared anonymously in 1828,
gave a highly elaborate turn to the legend; this has been republished under the title Tarry Thou Till I
Come.

Bibliography.—J. G. Th. Graesse, Die Sage vom ewigen Juden (1844); F. Helbig, Die Sage vom
ewigen Juden (1874); G. Paris, Le Juif errant (1881); M. D. Conway, The Wandering Jew (1881);
S. Morpugo, L’ Ebreo errante in Italia (1891); L. Neubaur, Die Sage vom ewigen Juden (2nd ed.,
1893). The recent literary handling of the subject has been dealt with by J. Prost, Die Sage vom
ewigen Juden in der neueren deutschen Literatur (1905); T. Kappstein, Ahasver in der Weltpoesie
(1905).
(J. Ja.)

JEWEL, JOHN (1522-1571), bishop of Salisbury, son of John Jewel of Buden, Devonshire, was
born on the 24th of May 1522, and educated under his uncle John Bellamy, rector of Hampton, and other
private tutors until his matriculation at Merton college, Oxford, in July 1535. There he was taught by
John Parkhurst, afterwards bishop of Norwich; but on the 19th of August 1539 he was elected scholar of
Corpus Christi college. He graduated B.A. in 1540, and M.A. in 1545, having been elected fellow of his
college in 1542. He made some mark as a teacher at Oxford, and became after 1547 one of the chief
disciples of Peter Martyr. He graduated B.D. in 1552, and was made vicar of Sunningwell, and public
orator of the university, in which capacity he had to compose a congratulatory epistle to Mary on her
accession. In April 1554 he acted as notary to Cranmer and Ridley at their disputation, but in the autumn
he signed a series of Catholic articles. He was, nevertheless, suspected, fled to London, and thence to
Frankfort, which he reached in March 1555. There he sided with Coxe against Knox, but soon joined
Martyr at Strassburg, accompanied him to Zurich, and then paid a visit to Padua.

Under Elizabeth’s succession he returned to England, and made earnest efforts to secure what would
now be called a low-church settlement of religion. Indeed, his attitude was hardly distinguishable from
that of the Elizabethan Puritans, but he gradually modified it under the stress of office and responsibility.
He was one of the disputants selected to confute the Romanists at the conference of Westminster after
Easter 1559; he was select preacher at St Paul’s cross on the 15th of June; and in the autumn was
engaged as one of the royal visitors of the western counties. His congé d’élire as bishop of Salisbury had
been made out on the 27th of July, but he was not consecrated until the 21st of January 1560. He now
constituted himself the literary apologist of the Elizabethan settlement. He had on the 26th of November
1559, in a sermon at St Paul’s Cross, challenged all comers to prove the Roman case out of the
Scriptures, or the councils or Fathers for the first six hundred years after Christ. He repeated his
challenge in 1560, and Dr Henry Cole took it up. The chief result was Jewel’s Apologia ecclesiae
Anglicanae, published in 1562, which in Bishop Creighton’s words is “the first methodical statement of
the position of the Church of England against the Church of Rome, and forms the groundwork of all
subsequent controversy.” A more formidable antagonist than Cole now entered the lists in the person of
Thomas Harding, an Oxford contemporary whom Jewel had deprived of his prebend in Salisbury
Cathedral for recusancy. He published an elaborate and bitter Answer in 1564, to which Jewel issued a

Reply in 1565. Harding followed with a Confutation, and Jewel with a Defence, of the Apology in 1566
and 1567; the combatants ranged over the whole field of the Anglo-Roman controversy, and Jewel’s
theology was officially enjoined upon the Church by Archbishop Bancroft in the reign of James I.
Latterly Jewel had been confronted with criticism from a different quarter. The arguments that had
weaned him from his Zwinglian simplicity did not satisfy his unpromoted brethren, and Jewel had to
refuse admission to a benefice to his friend Laurence Humphrey (q.v.), who would not wear a surplice.
He was consulted a good deal by the government on such questions as England’s attitude towards the
council of Trent, and political considerations made him more and more hostile to Puritan demands with
which he had previously sympathized. He wrote an attack on Cartwright, which was published after his
death by Whitgift. He died on the 23rd of September 1571, and was buried in Salisbury Cathedral, where
he had built a library. Hooker, who speaks of Jewel as “the worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred
for some hundreds of years,” was one of the boys whom Jewel prepared in his house for the university;
and his Ecclesiastical Polity owes much to Jewel’s training.

Jewel’s works were published in a folio in 1609 under the direction of Bancroft, who ordered
the Apology to be placed in churches, in some of which it may still be seen chained to the lectern;
other editions appeared at Oxford (1848, 8 vols.) and Cambridge (Parker Soc., 4 vols.). See also
Gough’s Index to Parker Soc. Publ.; Strype’s Works (General Index); Acts of the Privy Council;
Calendars of Domestic and Spanish State Papers; Dixon’s and Frere’s Church Histories; and
Dictionary of National Biography (art. by Bishop Creighton).
(A. F. P.)

JEWELRY (O. Fr. jouel, Fr. joyau, perhaps from joie, joy; Lat. gaudium; retranslated into Low
Lat. jocale, a toy, from jocus, by misapprehension of the origin of the word), a collective term for jewels,
or the art connected with them—jewels being personal ornaments, usually made of gems, precious
stones, &c., with a setting of precious metal; in a restricted sense it is also common to speak of a gem-
stone itself as a jewel, when utilized in this way. Personal ornaments appear to have been among the very
first objects on which the invention and ingenuity of man were exercised; and there is no record of any
people so rude as not to employ some kind of personal decoration. Natural objects, such as small shells,
dried berries, small perforated stones, feathers of variegated colours, were combined by stringing or
tying together to ornament the head, neck, arms and legs, the fingers, and even the toes, whilst the
cartilages of the nose and ears were frequently perforated for the more ready suspension of suitable
ornaments.

Amongst modern Oriental nations we find almost every kind of personal decoration, from the simple
caste mark on the forehead of the Hindu to the gorgeous examples of beaten gold and silver work of the
various cities and provinces of India. Nor are such decorations mere ornaments without use or meaning.

The hook with its corresponding perforation or eye, the clasp, the buckle, the button, grew step by step
into a special ornament, according to the rank, means, taste and wants of the wearer, or became an
evidence of the dignity of office. Nor was the jewel deemed to have served its purpose with the death of
its owner, for it is to the tombs of ancient peoples that we must look for evidence of the early existence of
the jeweller’s art.

The jewelry of the ancient Egyptians has been preserved for us in their tombs, sometimes in, and
sometimes near the sarcophagi which contained the embalmed bodies of the wearers. An amazing series
of finds of the intact jewels of five princesses of the XIIth Dynasty (c. 2400 b.c.) was the result of the
excavations of J. de Morgan at Dāhshur in 1894-1895. The treasure of Princess Hathor-Set contained
jewels with the names of Senwosri (Usertesen) II. and III., one of whom was probably her father. The
treasure of Princess Merit contained the names of the same two monarchs, and also that of Amenemhē
III., to whose family Princess Nebhotp may have belonged. The two remaining princesses were Ita and
Khnumit.

Fig. 1.

The art of the nameless Memphite jewellers of the XIIth Dynasty is marked by perfect accuracy
of execution, by sureness of intention, by decorative instinct and sobriety in design, and by the
serviceable nature of the jewels for actual wear. All forms of work are represented—including
chiselling, soldering, inlaying with coloured stones, moulding and working with twisted wires and
filigree. Here also occurs the earliest instance of granulated work, with small grains of gold,
soldered on a flat surface (fig. 1). The principal items in this dazzling group are the following:

Three gold pectorals (fig. 2 and Plate I. figs. 35, 36) worked à jour (with the interstices left open);
on the front side they are inlaid with coloured stones, the fine cloisons being the only portion of
the gold that is visible; on the back, the gold surfaces are most delicately carved, in low relief. Two
gold crowns (Plate I. figs. 32, 34), found together, are curiously contrasted in character. The one
(fig. 32) is of a formal design, of gold, inlaid (the plume, Plate I. fig 33, was attached to it); the
other (fig. 34) has a multitude of star-like flowers, embodied in a filigree of daintily twisted wires.
A dagger with inlaid patterns on the handle shows extraordinary perfection of finish.

Fig. 2.

Nearly a thousand years later we have another
remarkable collection of Egyptian art in the jewelry taken
from the coffin of Queen Aah-hotp, discovered in 1859 by
Mariette in the entrance to the valley of the tombs of the
kings and now preserved in the Cairo museum. Compared
with the Dāhshur treasure the jewelry of Aah-hotp is in
parts rough and coarse, but none the less it is marked by the
ingenuity and mastery of the materials that characterize all
the work of the Egyptians. Hammered work, incised and
Fig. 3.
chased work, the evidence of soldering, the combinations
of layers of gold plates, together with coloured stones, are all present, and the handicraft is complete in
every respect.

A diadem of gold and enamel, found at the back of the head of the mummy of the queen (fig. 3),
was fixed in the back hair, showing the cartouche in front. The box holding this cartouche has on
the upper surface the titles of the king, “the son of the sun, Aahmes, living for ever and ever,” in
gold on a ground of lapis lazuli, with a chequered ornament in blue and red pastes, and a sphinx
couchant on each side. A necklace with three pendant flies (fig. 4) is entirely of gold, having a
hook and loop to fasten it round the neck. Fig. 5 is a gold drop, inlaid with turquoise or blue paste,

in the shape of a fig. A gold chain (fig. 6) is formed of wires closely plaited and very flexible, the
ends terminating in the heads of water fowl, and having small rings to secure the collar behind. To
the centre is suspended by a small ring a scarabaeus of solid gold inlaid with lapis lazuli. We have
an example of a bracelet, similar to those in modern use (fig. 7), and worn by all persons of rank. It
is formed of two pieces joined by a hinge, and is decorated with figures in repoussé on a ground
inlaid with lapis lazuli.

Fig. 4. Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7. Fig. 8.

That the Assyrians used personal decorations of a very distinct character, and no doubt made of
precious materials, is proved by the bas-reliefs from which a considerable collection of jewels could be
gathered, such as bracelets, ear-rings and necklaces. Thus, for example, in the British Museum we have
representations of Assur-nazir-pal, king of Assyria (c. 885-860 b.c.), wearing a cross (fig. 8) very similar
to the Maltese cross of modern times. It happens, however, that the excavations have not hitherto been
fertile in actual remains of gold work from Assyria. Chance also has so far ordained that the excavations
in Crete should not be particularly rich in ornaments of gold. A few isolated objects have been found,
such as a duck and other pendants, and also several necklaces with beads of the Argonaut shell-fish
pattern. More striking than these is a short bronze sword. The handle has an agate pommel, and is

covered with gold plates, engraved with spirited scenes
of lions and wild goats (fig. 9, A. J. Evans in
Archaeologia, 59, 447). In general, however, the gold
jewelry of the later Minoan periods is more brilliantly
represented by the finds made on the mainland of
Greece and at Enkomi in Cyprus. Among the former the
gold ornaments found by Heinrich Schliemann in the
graves of Mycenae are pre-eminent.

Fig. 9.—From Archaeologia, vol. 59, p. 447, by
permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London.

Fig. 10. Fig. 11.

The objects found ranged over most of the personal
ornaments still in use; necklaces with gold beads and
pendants, butterflies (fig. 10), cuttlefish (fig. 11), single
and concentric circles, rosettes and leafage, with
perforations for attachment to clothing, crosses and stars
Fig. 12.
formed of combined crosses, with crosses in the centre
forming spikes—all elaborately ornamented in detail. The
spiral forms an incessant decoration from its facile
production and repetition by means of twisted gold wire.
Grasshoppers or tree crickets in gold repoussé suspended
by chains and probably used for the decoration of the hair,
and a griffin (fig. 12), having the upper part of the body of
an eagle and the lower parts of a lion, with wings
decorated with spirals, are among the more remarkable
Fig. 13.
examples of perforated ornaments for attachment to the

clothing. There are also perforated ornaments belonging to necklaces, with intaglio engravings of
such subjects as a contest of a man and lion, and a duel of two warriors, one of whom stabs his
antagonist in the throat. There are also pinheads and brooches formed of two stags lying down (fig.
13), the bodies and necks crossing each other, and the horns meeting symmetrically above the
heads, forming a finial. The heads of these ornaments were of gold, with silver blades or pointed
pins inserted for use. The bodies of the two stags rest on fronds of the date-palm growing out of
the stem which receives the pin. Another remarkable series is composed of figures of women with
doves. Some have one dove resting on the head; others have three doves, one on the head and the
others resting on arms. The arms in both instances are extended to the elbow, the hands being
placed on the breasts. These ornaments are also perforated, and were evidently sewed on the
dresses, although there is some evidence that an example with three doves has been fastened with a
pin.

An extraordinary diadem was found upon the head of one of the bodies discovered in the same
tomb with many objects similar to those noticed above. It is 25 in. in length, covered with shield-
like or rosette ornaments in repoussé, the relief being very low but perfectly distinct, and further
ornamented by thirty-six large leaves of repoussé gold attached to it. As an example of design and
perfection of detail, another smaller diadem found in another tomb may be noted (fig. 14). It is of
gold plate, so thick as to require no “piping” at the back to sustain it; but in general the repoussé
examples have a piping of copper wire.

Fig. 14.

The admirable inlaid daggers of the IVth grave at Mycenae are unique in their kind, with their
subjects of a lion hunt, of a lion chasing a herd of antelopes, of running lions, of cats hunting wild
duck, of inlaid lilies, and of geometric patterns. The subjects are inlaid in gold of various tints, and
silver, in bronze plates which are inserted in the flat surfaces of the dagger-blades. In part also the
subjects are rendered in relief and gilded. The whole is executed with marvellous precision and
vivid representation of motion. To a certain limited extent these daggers are paralleled by a dagger
and hatchet found in the treasure of Queen Aah-hotp mentioned above, but in their most
characteristic features there is little resemblance. The gold ornaments found by Schliemann at
Hissarlik, the supposed site of Troy, divide themselves, generally speaking, into two groups, one
being the “great treasure” of diadems, ear-rings, beads, bracelets, &c., which seem the product of a
local and uncultured art. The other group, which were found in smaller “treasures,” have spirals
and rosettes similar to those of Mycenae. The discovery, however, of the gold treasures of the
Artemision at Ephesus has brought out points of affinity between the Hissarlik treasures and those
of Ephesus, and has made any reasoning difficult, in view of the uncertainties surrounding the

Hissarlik finds. The group with Mycenaean affinities (fig. 15) includes necklaces, brooches,
bracelets (g), hair-pins (a), ear-rings (c, d, e, f), with and without pendants, beads and twisted wire
drops. The majority of these are ornamented with spirals of twisted wire, or small rosettes, with
fragments of stones in the centres. The twisted wire ornaments were evidently portions of
necklaces. A circular plaque decorated with a rosette (h) is very similar to those found at Mycenae,
and a conventionalized eagle (k) is characteristic of much of the detail found at that place as well
as at Hissarlik. They were all of pure gold, and the wire must have been drawn through a plate of
harder metal—probably bronze. The principal ornaments differing from those found at Mycenae
are diadems or head fillets of pure hammered gold (b) cut into thin plates, attached to rings by
double gold wires, and fastened together at the back with thin twisted wire. To these pendants (of
which those at the two ends are nearly three times the length of those forming the central portions)
are attached small figures, probably of idols. It has been assumed that these were worn across the
forehead by women, the long pendants falling on each side of the face.

Fig. 15.

The jewelry of the close of the Mycenaean period is best represented by the rich finds of the cemetery
of Enkomi near Salamis, in Cyprus. This field was excavated by the British Museum in 1896, and a
considerable portion of the finds is now at Bloomsbury. It was rich in all forms of jewelry, but especially
in pins, rings and diadems with patterns in relief. In its geometric patterns the art of Enkomi is entirely
Mycenaean, but special stress is laid on the mythical forms that were inherited by Greek art, such as the
sphinx and the gryphon.
Figs. 37-48 (Plate I.) are examples of the late Mycenaean treasures from Enkomi.
” 37, 38 ” Ear-rings.
” 39 ” Diadem, to be tied on the forehead. The impressed figure of a sphinx is repeated twelve times.
” 40, 41, 46 ” Ear-rings, originally in bull’s head form (fig. 40). Later, the same general form is retained, but
decorative patterns (figs. 41, 46) take the place of the bull’s head.
” 42 ” Pin, probably connected by a chain with a fellow, to be used as a cloak fastening.
” 43 ” Pomegranate pendant, with fine granulated work.
” 44, 45 ” Pins as No. 42. The heads are of vitreous paste.
” 46 (See above.)

” 47 ” Pendant ornament, in lotus-form, of a pectoral, inlaid with coloured pastes.
” 48 ” Small slate cylinder, set in filigree.

Another find of importance was that of a collection of gold ornaments from one of the Greek islands
(said to be Aegina) which also found its way to the British Museum. Here we find the themes of archaic
Greek art, such as a figure holding up two water-birds, in immediate connexion with Mycenaean gold
patterns.
Figs. 49-53 (Plate I.) are specimens from this treasure.
” 49 ” Plate with repoussé ornament for sewing on a dress.
” 50 ” Pendant. Figure with two water-birds, on a lotus base, and having serpents issuing from near his
middle, modified from Egyptian forms.
” 51 ” Ring, with cut blue glass-pastes in the grooves.
” 52 ” Pendant ornament, repoussé, and originally inlaid with pieces of cut glass-paste.
” 53 ” Pendant ornament, with dogs and apes, modified from Egyptian forms.

For the beginnings of Greek art proper, the most striking series of personal jewels is the great deposit
of ornaments which was found in 1905 by D. G. Hogarth in the soil beneath the central basis of the
archaic temple of Artemis of Ephesus. The gold ornaments in question (amounting in all to about 1000
pieces) were mingled with the closely packed earth, and must necessarily, it would seem, have been in
the nature of votive offerings, made at the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century b.c. The
hoard was rich in pins, brooches, beads and stamped disks of gold. The greater part of the find is at
Constantinople, but a portion was assigned to the British Museum, which had undertaken the
excavations.

Figs. 54-58 (Plate II.) Examples of the Ephesus hoard.
” 54 ” Electrum pin, with pomegranate head.
” 55 ” Hawk ornament.
” 56 ” Electrum pin.
” 57, 58 ” Electrum ornaments for sewing on drapery.

The cemeteries of Cyprus have yielded a rich harvest of jewelry of Graeco-Phoenician style of the 7th
and following centuries b.c. Figs. 16 and 17 are typical examples of a ring and ear-ring from Cyprus.

Fig. 16. Fig. 17.

Greek, Etruscan and Roman ornaments partake of very similar characteristics. Of course there is
variety in design and sometimes in treatment, but it does not rise to any special individuality. Fretwork is
a distinguishing feature of all, together with the wave ornament, the guilloche, and the occasional use of
the human figure. The workmanship is often of a character which modern gold-workers can only rival
with their best skill, and can never surpass.

Fig. 18.

Plate I.

EARLY EGYPTIAN.

(From Enkomi.) (From the Greek Islands.)
LATE MYCENAEAN.

Plate II.

GREEK.

ETRUSCAN. ROMAN.

The Greek jewelry of the best period is of extraordinary delicacy and beauty. Fine examples are shown
in the British Museum from Melos and elsewhere. Undoubtedly, however, the most brilliant collection of
such ornaments is that of the Hermitage, which was derived from the tombs of Kerch and the Crimea. It
contains examples of the purest Greek work, together with objects which must have been of local origin,
as is shown by the themes which the artist has chosen for his reliefs. Fig. 18 illustrates the jewelry of the
Hermitage (see also Ear-Ring).

As further examples of Greek jewelry see the pendant oblong ornament for containing a scroll (fig.
19).

Fig. 19. Fig. 20. Fig. 21.

The ear-rings (figs. 20, 21) are also characteristic.
Figs. 59-70 (Plate II.) Examples of fine Greek jewelry, in the British Museum.
” 59-60 ” Pair of ear-rings, from a grave at Cyme in Aeolis, with filigree work and pendant Erotes.
” 61 ” Small bracelet.
” 62-63 ” Small gold reel with repoussé figures of Nereid with helmet of Achilles, and Eros. From
Cameiros (Rhodes).
” 64 ” Filigree ornament (ear-ring?) with Eros in centre. From Syria.
” 65 ” Medallion ornament with repoussé head of Dionysos and filigree work. (Blacas coll.)
” 66 ” Stud, with filigree work.
” 67-68 ” Pair of ear-rings, of gold, with filigree and enamel, from Eretria.
” 69 ” Diadem, with filigree, and enamel scales, from Tarquinii.
” 70 ” Necklace pendants.

Etruscan jewelry at its best is not easily distinguished from the Greek, but it tends in its later forms to
become florid and diffuse, without precision of design. The granulation of surfaces practised with the
highest degree of refinement by the Etruscans was long a puzzle and a problem to the modern jeweller,
until Castellani of Rome discovered gold-workers in the Abruzzi to whom the method had descended
through many generations. He induced some of these men to go to Naples, and so revived the art, of
which he contributed examples to the London Exhibition of 1872 (see Filigree).
Figs. 71-77 (Plate II.) are well-marked examples of Etruscan work, in the British Museum.
” 71 ” Pair of sirens, repoussé, forming a hook and eye fastening. From Chiusi (?).
” 72 ” Early fibula. Horse and chimaera. (Blacas coll.)
” 74 ” Medallion-shaped fibula, of fine granulated work, with figures of sirens in relief, and set with
dark blue pastes. (Bale coll.)
” 73, 75 ” Pair of late Etruscan ear-rings.
” 76, 77 ” Pair of late Etruscan ear-rings, in the florid style.

The jewels of the Roman empire are marked by a greater use of large cut stones in combination with
the gold, and by larger surfaces of plain and undecorated metal. The adaptation of imperial gold coins to
the purposes of the jeweller is also not uncommon.
Figs. 78-82 (Plate II.) Late Roman imperial jewelry, in the British Museum.
” 78 ” Large pendant ear-ring, set with stones and pearls. From Tunis, 4th century.
” 79 ” Pierced-work pendant, set with a coin of the emperor Philip.
” 80 ” Ear-ring, roughly set with garnets.
” 81 ” Bracelet, with a winged cornucopia as central ornament, set with plasmas, and with filigree and
leaf work.
” 82 ” Bracelet, roughly set with pearls and stones. From Tunis, 4th century.

With the decay of the Roman empire, and the approach of the barbarian tribes, a new Teutonic style
was developed. An important example of this style is the remarkable gold treasure, discovered at
Pétrossa in Transylvanian Alps in 1837, and now preserved, as far as it survives, in the museum of
Bucharest. A runic inscription shows that it belonged to the Goths. Its style is in part the classical
tradition, debased and modified; in part it is a singularly rude and vigorous form of barbaric art. Its chief
characteristics are a free use of strongly conventionalized animal forms, such as great bird-shaped
fibulae, and an ornamentation consisting of pierced gold work, combined with a free use of stones cut to

special shapes, and inlaid either cloisonné-fashion or in a perforated gold plate. This part of the hoard has
its affinities in objects found over a wide field from Siberia to Spain. Its rudest and most naturalistic
forms occur in the East in uncouth objects from Siberian tombs, whose lineage however has been traced
to Persepolis, Assyria and Egypt. In its later and more refined forms the style is known by the name, now
somewhat out of favour (except as applied to a limited number of finds), of Merovingian.

Fig. 22. Fig. 23. Fig. 24.

Fig. 25. Fig. 26. Fig. 27.

The so-called Merovingian jewelry of the 5th century, and the Anglo-Saxon
of a later date, have as their distinctive feature thin plates of gold, decorated
with thin slabs of garnet, set in walls of gold soldered vertically like the lines of
cloisonné enamel, with the addition of very decorative details of filigree work,
beading and twisted gold. The typical group are the contents of the tomb of
King Childeric (a.d. 481) now in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. In Figs. 22
and 23 we have examples of Anglo-Saxon fibulae, the first being decorated with
a species of cloisonné, in which garnets are inserted, while the other is in Fig. 28.

hammered work in relief. A pendant (fig. 24) is also set with garnets. The
buckles (figs. 25, 26, 27) are remarkably characteristic examples, and very elegant in design. A girdle
ornament in gold, set with garnets (fig. 28), is an example of Carolingian design of a high class. Another
remarkable group of barbaric jewelry, dated by coins as of the beginning of the 7th century, was
excavated at Castel Trosino near the Picenian Ascoli, and is attributed to the Lombards. See Monumenti
antichi (Accademia dei Lincei), xii. 145.

We turn now to the Celtic group of jewelled ornaments, which has an equally long and independent
line of descent. The characteristic Celtic ornaments are of hammered work with details in repoussé,

having fillings-in of vitreous paste, coloured enamels, amber, and in the later examples rock crystal with
a smooth rounded surface cut en cabochon. The whole group is a special development within the British
Isles of the art of the mid-European Early Iron age, which in its turn had been considerably influenced by
early Mediterranean culture. In its early stages its special marks are combinations of curves, with
peculiar central thickenings which give a quasi-naturalistic effect; a skilful use of inlaid enamels, and the
chased line. After the introduction of Christianity, a continuous tradition combined the old system with
the interlaced winding scrolls and other new forms of decoration, and so led up to the extreme
complexity of early Irish illumination and metal work.

A remarkable group of gold ornaments of the pre-Christian time (probably of the 1st century) was
discovered about 1896, in the north-west of Ireland, and acquired by the British Museum. It was
subsequently claimed by the Crown as treasure trove, and after litigation was transferred to Dublin (see
Archaeologia, lv., pl. 22).

Fig. 29.

Figs. 29 and 30 are illustrations of two brooches of the latest period in this class of work. The first is
13th century; the latter is probably 12th century, and is set with paste, amber and blue.

Rings are the chief specimens now seen of medieval jewelry from the 10th to the 13th century. They
are generally massive and simple. Through the 16th century a variety of changes arose; in the traditions
and designs of the cinquecento we have plenty of evidence that the workmen used their own designs, and
the results culminated in the triumphs of Albert Dürer, Benvenuto Cellini and Hans Holbein. The
goldsmiths of the Italian republics must have produced works of surpassing excellence in workmanship,
and reaching the highest point in design as applied to handicrafts of any kind. The use of enamels,
precious stones, niello work and engraving, in combination with skilful execution of the human figure
and animal life, produced effects which modern art in this direction is not likely to approach, still less to
rival.

Fig. 30.

In fig. 31 illustrations are given of various characteristic specimens of the Renaissance and later
forms of jewelry. A crystal cross set in enamelled gold (a) is German work of the 16th century. The
pendant reliquary (b), enamelled and jewelled, is of 16th century Italian work, and so probably is
the jewel (c) of gold set with diamonds and rubies. The Darnley or Lennox jewel (d), now in the
possession of the king, was made about 1576-1577 for Lady Margaret Douglas, countess of
Lennox, the mother of Henry Darnley. It is a pendant golden heart set with a heart-shaped
sapphire, richly jewelled and enamelled with emblematic figures and devices. It also has Scottish
mottoes around and within it. The ear-ring (e) of gold, enamelled, hung with small pearls, is an
example of 17th century Russian work, and another (f) is Italian of the same period, being of gold
and filigree with enamel, also with pendant pearls. A Spanish ear-ring, of 18th century work (g), is
a combination of ribbon, cord and filigree in gold; and another (h) is Flemish, of probably the
same period; it is of gold open work set with diamonds in projecting collets. The old French-
Normandy pendant cross and locket (l) presents a characteristic example of peasant jewelry; it is of
branched open work set with bosses and ridged ornaments of crystal. The ear-ring (j) is French of
17th century, also of gold open work set with crystals. A small pendant locket (k) is of rock crystal,
with the cross of Santiago in gold and translucent crimson enamel; it is 16th or 17th century
Spanish work. A pretty ear-ring of gold open scroll work (m), set with minute diamonds and three
pendant pearls, is Portuguese of 17th century, and another ear-ring (n) of gold circular open work,
set also with minute diamonds, is Portuguese work of 18th century. These examples fairly illustrate
the general features of the most characteristic jewelry of the dates quoted.

During the 17th and 18th centuries we see only a mechanical kind of excellence, the results of the
mere tradition of the workshop—the lingering of the power which when wisely directed had done so
much and so well, but now simply living on traditional forms, often combined in a most incongruous
fashion. Gorgeous effects were aimed at by massing the gold, and introducing stones elaborately cut in
themselves or clustered in groups. Thus diamonds were clustered in rosettes and bouquets; rubies, pearls,
emeralds and other coloured special stones were brought together for little other purpose than to get them
into a given space in conjunction with a certain quantity of gold. The question was not of design in its

relation to use as personal decoration, but of the value which could be got into a given space to produce
the most striking effect.

The traditions of Oriental design as they had come down through the various periods quoted, were
comparatively lost in the wretched results of the rococo of Louis XIV. and the inanities of what modern
revivalists of the Anglo-Dutch call “Queen Anne.” In the London exhibition of 1851, the extravagances
of modern jewelry had to stand comparison with the Oriental examples contributed from India. Since
then we have learnt more about these works, and have been compelled to acknowledge, in spite of what
is sometimes called inferiority of workmanship, how completely the Oriental jeweller understood his
work, and with what singular simplicity of method he carried it out. The combinations are always
harmonious, the result aimed at is always achieved; and if in attempting to work to European ideas the
jeweller failed, this was rather the fault of the forms he had to follow, than due to any want of skill in
making the most of a subject in which half the thought and the intended use were foreign to his
experience.

A collection of peasant jewelry got together by Castellani for the Paris exhibition of 1867, and now in
the Victoria and Albert Museum, illustrates in an admirable manner the traditional jewelry and personal
ornaments of a wide range of peoples in Europe. This collection, and the additions made to it since its
acquisition by the nation, show the forms in which these objects existed over several generations among
the peasantry of France (chiefly Normandy), Spain, Portugal, Holland, Denmark, Germany and
Switzerland, and also show how the forms popular in one country are followed and adopted in another,
almost invariably because of their perfect adaptation to the purpose for which they were designed.

Apart from these humbler branches of the subject, in the middle of the 19th century the production of
jewelry, regarded as a personal art, and not as a commercial and anonymous industry, was almost extinct.
Its revival must be associated with the artistic movement which marked the close of that century, and
which found emphatic expression in the Paris international exhibition of 1900. For many years before
1895 this industry, though prosperous from the commercial point of view, and always remarkable from
that of technical finish, remained stationary as an art. French jewelry rested on its reputation. The
traditions were maintained of either the 17th and 18th centuries or the style affected at the close of the
second empire—light pierced work and design borrowed from natural flowers. The last type, introduced
by Massin, had exercised, indeed, a revolutionary influence on the treatment of jewelry. This clever
artist, not less skilful as a craftsman, produced a new genre by copying the grace and lightness of living
blossoms, thus introducing a perfectly fresh element into the limited variety of traditional style, and by
the use of filigree gold work altering its character and giving it greater elegance. Massin still held the
first rank in the exhibition of 1878; he had a marked influence on his contemporaries, and his name will
be remembered in the history of the goldsmith’s art to designate a style and a period. Throughout these
years the craft was exclusively devoted to perfection of workmanship. The utmost finish was aimed at in
the mounting and setting of gems; jewelry was, in fact, not so much an art as a high-class industry;
individual effort and purpose were absent.

Fig. 31.

Up to that time precious stones had been of such intrinsic value that the jeweller’s chief skill lay in
displaying these costly stones to the best advantage; the mounting was a secondary consideration. The
settings were seldom long preserved in their original condition, but in the case of family jewels were
renewed with each generation and each change of fashion, a state of things which could not be
favourable to any truly artistic development of taste, since the work was doomed, sooner or later, to
destruction. However, the evil led to its own remedy. As soon as diamonds fell in value they lost at the
same time their overwhelming prestige, and refined taste could give a preference to trinkets which
derived their value and character from artistic design. This revolutionized the jeweller’s craft, and
revived the simple ornament of gold or silver, which came forward but timidly at first, till, in the Salon of
1895, it burst upon the world in the exhibits of René Lalique, an artist who was further confirmed in his
remarkable position by the exhibition of 1900. What specially stamps the works of Lalique is their
striking originality. His work may be considered from the point of view of design and from that of
execution. As an artist he has completely reconstructed from the foundation the scheme of design which
had fed the poverty-stricken imagination of the last generation of goldsmiths. He had recourse to the art
of the past, but to the spirit rather than the letter, and to nature for many new elements of design—free
double curves, suave or soft; opalescent harmonies of colouring; reminiscences, with quite a new feeling,

of Egypt, Chaldea, Greece and the East, or of the art of the Renaissance; and infinite variety of floral
forms even of the humblest. He introduces also the female nude in the form of sirens and sphinxes. As a
craftsman he has effected a radical change, breaking through old routine, combining all the processes of
the goldsmith, the chaser, the enameller and the gem-setter, and freeing himself from the narrow lines in
which the art had been confined. He ignores the hierarchy of gems, caring no more on occasion for a
diamond than for a flint, since, in his view, no stone, whatever its original estimation, has any value
beyond the characteristic expression he lends it as a means to his end. Thus, while he sometimes uses
diamonds, rubies, sapphires or emeralds as a background, he will, on the other hand, give a conspicuous
position to common stones—carnelian, agate, malachite, jasper, coral, and even materials of no intrinsic
value, such as horn. One of his favourite stones is the opal, which lends itself to his arrangements of
colour, and which has in consequence become a fashionable stone in French jewelry.

In criticism of the art of Lalique and his school it should be observed that the works of the school are
apt to be unsuited to the wear and tear of actual use, and inconveniently eccentric in their details.
Moreover, the preciousness of the material is an almost inevitable consideration in the jeweller’s craft,
and cannot be set at naught by the artist without violating the canons of his art.

The movement which took its rise in France spread in due course to other countries. In England the
movement conveniently described as the “arts and crafts movement” affected the design of jewelry. A
group of designers has aimed at purging the jeweller’s craft of its character of mere gem-mounting in
conventional forms (of which the more unimaginative, representing stars, bows, flowers and the like, are
varied by such absurdities as insects, birds, animals, figures of men and objects made up simply of stones
clustered together). Their work is often excellently and fancifully designed, but it lacks that exquisite
perfection of execution achieved by the incomparable craftsmen of France. At the same time English
sculptor-decorators—such as Alfred Gilbert, R.A., and George J. Frampton, A.R.A.—have produced
objects of a still higher class, but it is usually the work of the goldsmith rather than of the jeweller.
Examples may be seen in the badge executed by Gilbert for the president of the Institute of Painters in
Water Colours and in the mayoral chain for Preston. Symbolism here enters into the design, which has
not only an ornamental but a didactic purpose.

The movement was represented in other countries also. In the United States it was led by L. C. Tiffany,
in Belgium by Philippe Wolfers, who occupies in Belgium the position which in France is held by René
Lalique. If his design is a little heavier, it is not less beautiful in imagination or less masterly in
execution. Graceful, ingenious, fanciful, elegant, fantastic by turns, his objects of jewelry and
goldsmithery have a solid claim to be considered créations d’art. It has also been felt in Germany,
Austria, Russia and Switzerland. It must be admitted that many of the best artists who have devoted
themselves to jewelry have been more successful in design than in securing the lightness and strength
which are required by the wearer, and which were a characteristic in the works of the Italian craftsmen of
the Renaissance. For this reason many of their masterpieces are more beautiful in the case than upon the
person.

Modern Jewelry.—So far we have gone over the progress and results of the jeweller’s art. We have
now to speak of the production of jewelry as a modern art industry, in which large numbers of men and
women are employed in the larger cities of Europe. Paris, Vienna, London and Birmingham are the most

important centres. An illustration of the manufacture as carried on in London and Birmingham will be
sufficient to give an insight into the technique and artistic manipulation of this branch of art industry;
but, by way of contrast, it may be interesting to give in the first place a description of the native working
jeweller of Hindustan.

He travels very much after the fashion of a tinker in England; his budget contains tools,
materials, fire pots, and all the requisites of his handicraft. The gold to be used is generally
supplied by the patron or employer, and is frequently in gold coin, which the travelling jeweller
undertakes to convert into the ornaments required. He squats down in the corner of a courtyard, or
under cover of a veranda, lights his fire, cuts up the gold pieces entrusted to him, hammers, cuts,
shapes, drills, solders with the blow-pipe, files, scrapes and burnishes until he has produced the
desired effect. If he has stones to set or coloured enamels to introduce, he never seems to make a
mistake; his instinct for harmony of colour, like that of his brother craftsman the weaver, is as
unerring as that of the bird in the construction of its nest. Whether the materials are common or
rich and rare, he invariably does the very best possible with them, according to native ideas of
beauty in design and combination. It is only when he is interfered with by European dictation that
he ever vulgarizes his art or makes a mistake. The result may appear rude in its finish, but the
design and the thought are invariably right. We thus see how a trade in the working of which the
“plant” is so simple and wants are so readily met could spread itself, as in years past it did at
Clerkenwell and at Birmingham before gigantic factories were invented for producing everything
under the sun.

It is impossible to find any date at which the systematic production of jewelry was introduced into
England. Probably the Clerkenwell trade dates its origin from the revocation of the edict of Nantes, as
the skilled artisans in the jewelry, clock and watch, and trinket trades appear to have been descendants of
the emigrant Huguenots. The Birmingham trade would appear to have had its origin in the skill to which
the workers in fine steel had attained towards the middle and end of the 18th century, a branch of
industry which collapsed after the French Revolution.

Modern jewelry may be classified under three heads: (1) objects in which gems and stones form
the principal portions, and in which the work in silver, platinum or gold is really only a means for
carrying out the design by fixing the gems or stones in the position arranged by the designer, the
metal employed being visible only as a setting; (2) when gold work plays an important part in the
development of the design, being itself ornamented by engraving (now rarely used) or enamelling
or both, the stones and gems being arranged in subordination to the gold work in such positions as
to give a decorative effect to the whole; (3) when gold or other metal is alone used, the design
being wrought out by hammering in repoussé, casting, engraving, chasing or by the addition of
filigree work (see Filigree), or when the surfaces are left absolutely plain but polished and highly
finished.

Of course the most ancient and primitive methods are those wholly dependent upon the craft of
the workman; but gradually various ingenious processes were invented, by which greater accuracy
in the portions to be repeated in a design could be produced with certainty and economy: hence the
various methods of stamping used in the production of hand-made jewelry, which are in

themselves as much mechanical in relation to the end in view as if the whole object were stamped
out at a blow, twisted into its proper position as regards the detail, or the various stamped portions
fitted into each other for the mechanical completion of the work. It is therefore rather difficult to
draw an absolute line between hand-made and machine-made jewelry, except in extreme cases of
hand-made, when everything is worked, so to speak, from the solid, or of machine-made, when the
hand has only to give the ornament a few touches of a tool, or fit the parts together if of more than
one piece.

The best and most costly hand-made jewelry produced in England, whether as regards gold
work, gems, enamelling or engraving, is made in London, and chiefly at Clerkenwell. A design is
first made with pencil, sepia or water colour, and when needful with separate enlargement of
details, everything in short to make the drawing thoroughly intelligible to the working jeweller.
According to the nature and purpose of the design, he cuts out, hammers, files and brings into
shape the constructive portions of the work as a basis. Upon this, as each detail is wrought out, he
solders, or (more rarely) fixes by rivets, &c., the ornamentation necessary to the effect. The human
figure, representations of animal life, leaves, fruit, &c., are modelled in wax, moulded and cast in
gold, to be chased up and finished. As the hammering goes on the metal becomes brittle and hard,
and then it is passed though the fire to anneal or soften it. In the case of elaborate examples of
repoussé, after the general forms are beaten up, the interior is filled with a resinous compound,
pitch mixed with fire-brick dust; and this, forming a solid but pliable body underneath the metal,
allows of the finished details being wrought out on the front of the design, and being finally
completed by chasing. When stones are to be set, or when they form the principal portions of the
design, the gold or other metal has to be wrought by hand so as to receive them in little cup-like
orifices, these walls of gold enclosing the stone and allowing the edges to be bent over to secure it.
Setting is never effected by cement in well-made jewelry. Machine-made settings have in recent
years been made, but these are simply cheap imitations of the true hand-made setting. Even strips
of gold have been used, serrated at the edges to allow of being easily bent over, for the retention of
the stones, true or false.

Great skill and experience are necessary in the proper setting of stones and gems of high value,
in order to bring out the greatest amount of brilliancy and colour, and the angle at which a diamond
(say) shall be set, in order that the light shall penetrate at the proper point to bring out the “spark”
or “flash,” is a subject of grave consideration to the setter. Stones set in a haphazard, slovenly
manner, however brilliant in themselves, will look commonplace by the side of skilfully set gems
of much less fine quality and water. Enamelling (see Enamel) has of late years largely taken the
place of “paste” or false stones.

Engraving is a simple process in itself, and diversity of effect can be produced by skilful
manipulation. An interesting variety in the effect of a single ornament may be produced by the
combination of coloured gold of various tints. This colouring is a process requiring skill and
experience in the manipulation of the materials according to the quality of the gold and the amount
of silver alloy in it. The objects to be coloured are dipped in a boiling mixture of salt, alum and
saltpetre. Of general colouring it may be said that the object aimed at is to enhance the appearance

of the gold by removing the particles of alloy on the surface, and thus allowing the pure gold only
to remain visible to the eye. The process has, however, gone much out of fashion. It is apt to rot
the solder, and repairs to gold work can be better finished by electro-gilding.

The application of machinery to the economical production of certain classes of jewelry, not
necessarily imitations, but as much “real gold” work, to use a trade phrase, as the best hand-made,
has been on the increase for many years. Nearly every kind of gold chain now made is
manufactured by machinery, and nothing like the beauty of design or perfection of workmanship
could be obtained by hand at, probably, any cost. The question therefore in relation to chains is not
the mode of manufacture, but the quality of the metal. Eighteen carat gold is of course preferred by
those who wear chains, but this is only gold in the proportion of 18 to 24, pure gold being
represented by 24. The gold coin of the realm is 22 carat; that is, it contains one-twelfth of alloy to
harden it to stand wear and tear. Thus 18 carat gold has one-fourth of alloy, and so on with lower
qualities down to 12, which is in reality only gold by courtesy. It must be remembered that the
alloys are made by weight, and as gold is nearly twice as heavy as the metal it is mixed with, it
only forms a third of the bulk of a 12 carat mixture.

The application of machinery to the production of personal ornaments in gold and silver can
only be economically and successfully carried on when there is a large demand for similar objects,
that is to say, objects of precisely the same design and decoration throughout. In machine-made
jewelry everything is stereotyped, so to speak, and the only work required for the hand is to fit the
parts together—in some instances scarcely that. A design is made, and from it steel dies are sunk
for stamping out as rapidly as possible from a plate of rolled metal the portion represented by each
die. It is in these steel dies that the skill of the artist die-sinker is manifested. Brooches, ear-rings,
pinheads, bracelets, lockets, pendants, &c., are struck out by the gross. This is more especially the
case in silver and in plated work—that is, imitation jewelry—the base of which is an alloy,
afterwards gilt by electro-plating. With these ornaments imitation stones in paste and glass, pearls,
&c., are used, and it is remarkable that of late years some of the best designs, the most simple,
appropriate and artistic, have appeared in imitation jewelry. It is only just to those engaged in this
manufacture to state distinctly that their work is never sold wholesale for anything else than what
it is. The worker in gold only makes gold or real jewelry, and he only makes of a quality well
known to his customers. The producer of silver work only manufactures silver ornaments, and so
on throughout the whole class of plated goods.

It is the retailer who, if he is unprincipled, takes advantage of the ignorance of the buyer and
sells for gold that which is in reality an imitation, and which he bought as such. The imitations of
old styles of jewelry which are largely sold in curiosity shops at foreign places of fashionable
resort are said to be made in Germany, especially at Munich.

Bibliography.—For the Dāhshur jewels, see J. de Morgan and others; Fouilles à Dahchour,
Mars-Juin 1894 (Vienna, 1895) and Fouilles à Dahchour en 1894-1895 (Vienna, 1903). For the
Aah-hotep jewels, see Mariette, Album de Musée de Boulaq, pls. 29-31; Birch, Facsimiles of the
Egyptian Relics discovered in the Tomb of Queen Aah-hotep (1863). For Cretan excavations, see
A. J. Evans, in Annual of the British School at Athens, Nos. 7 to 11; Archaeologia, vol. lix. For

excavations at Enkomi, see Excavations in Cyprus, by A. S. Murray and others (1900). For
Schliemann’s excavations, see Schliemann’s works; also Schuchhardt, Schliemann’s Excavations;
Perrot & Chipiez, Histoire de l’Art, vi. For the Greek Island treasure, see A. J. Evans, Journal of
Hellenic Studies, xiii. For Ephesus gold treasure, see D. G. Hogarth, British Museum Excavations
at Ephesus; The Archaic Artemisia. For the Hermitage Collection from South Russia, see Gillé,
Antiquités du Bosphore Cimmérien (reissued by S. Reinach), and the Comptes rendus of the
Russian Archaeological Commission (St Petersburg). For later jewelry, Pollak,
Goldschmiedearbeit. For Treasure of Pétrossa, A. Odobesco, Le Trésor de Pétrossa. For the
European and west Asiatic barbaric jewelry, see O. M. Dalton, in Archaeologia, lviii. 237, and the
Treasure of the Oxus (British Museum, 1905). For the whole history, G. Fontenay, Les Bijoux
anciens et modernes (Paris [Quantin], 1887). For the recent movement, Léonce Bénédite, “La
Bijouterie et la joaillerie, à l’exposition universelle; René Lalique,” in the Revue des arts
décoratifs, 1900 (July, August). (A. H. Sm.)

JEWETT, SARAH ORNE (1840-1909), American novelist, was born in South Berwick,
Maine, on the 3rd of September 1849. She was a daughter of the physician Theodore H. Jewett (1815-
1878), by whom she was greatly influenced, and whom she has drawn in A Country Doctor (1884). She
studied at the Berwick Academy, and began her literary career in 1869, when she contributed her first
story to the Atlantic Monthly. Her best work consists of short stories and sketches, such as those in The
Country of the Pointed Firs (1896). The People of Maine, with their characteristic speech, manners and
traditions, she describes with peculiar charm and realism, often recalling the work of Hawthorne. She
died at South Berwick, Maine, on the 24th of June 1909.

Among her publications are: Deephaven (1877), a series of sketches; Old Friends and New
(1879); Country By-ways (1881); A Country Doctor (1884), a novel; A Marsh Island (1885), a
novel; A White Heron and other Stories (1886); The King of Folly Island and other People (1888);
Strangers and Wayfarers (1890); A Native of Winby and other Tales (1893); The Queen’s Twin and
other Stories (1899), and The Tory Lover (1901), an historical novel.

JEWS (Heb. Yehūdi, man of Judah; Gr. Ἰουδαῖοι; Lat. Judaei), the general name for the Semitic
people which inhabited Palestine from early times, and is known in various connexions as “the
Hebrews,” “the Jews,” and “Israel” (see § 5 below). Their history may be divided into three great
periods: (1) That covered by the Old Testament to the foundation of Judaism in the Persian age, (2) that
of the Greek and Roman domination to the destruction of Jerusalem, and (3) that of the Diaspora or
Dispersion to the present day.

I.—Old Testament History

I. The Land and the People.—For the first two periods the history of the Jews is mainly that of
Palestine. It begins among those peoples which occupied the area lying between the Nile on the one side
and the Tigris and the Euphrates on the other. Surrounded by ancient seats of culture in Egypt and
Babylonia, by the mysterious deserts of Arabia, and by the highlands of Asia Minor, Palestine, with Syria
on the north, was the high road of civilization, trade and warlike enterprise, and the meeting-place of
religions. Its small principalities were entirely dominated by the great Powers, whose weakness or
acquiescence alone enabled them to rise above dependence or vassalage. The land was traversed by old-
established trade routes and possessed important harbours on the Gulf of ‘Akaba and on the
Mediterranean coast, the latter exposing it to the influence of the Levantine culture. It was “the physical
centre of those movements of history from which the world has grown.” The portion of this district
abutting upon the Mediterranean may be divided into two main parts:—Syria (from the Taurus to
Hermon) and Palestine (southward to the desert bordering upon Egypt). The latter is about 150 m. from
north to south (the proverbial “Dan to Beersheba”), with a breadth varying from 25 to 80 m., i.e. about
6040 sq. m. This excludes the land east of the Jordan, on which see Palestine.

From time to time streams of migration swept into Palestine and Syria. Semitic tribes wandered
northwards from their home in Arabia to seek sustenance in its more fertile fields, to plunder, or to
escape the pressure of tribes in the rear. The course leads naturally into either Palestine or Babylonia,
and, following the Euphrates, northern Syria is eventually reached. Tribes also moved down from the
north: nomads, or offshoots from the powerful states which stretch into Asia Minor. Such frequently
recurring movements introduced new blood. Tribes, chiefly of pastoral habits, settled down among others
who were so nearly of their own type that a complete amalgamation could be effected, and this without
any marked modification of the general characteristics of the earlier inhabitants. It is from such a fusion
as this that the ancestors of the Jews were descended, and both the history and the genius of this people
can be properly understood only by taking into account the physical features of their land and the
characteristics of the Semitic races in general (see Palestine, Semitic Languages).

2. Society and Religion.—The similarity uniting the peoples of the East in respect of racial and social
characteristics is accompanied by a striking similarity of mental outlook which has survived to modern
times. Palestine, in spite of the numerous vicissitudes to which it has been subjected, has not lost its
fundamental characteristics. The political changes involved in the Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian or
Persian conquests surely affected it as little as the subsequent waves of Greek, Roman and other
European invasions. Even during the temporary Hellenization in the second great period the character of

the people as a whole was untouched by the various external influences which produced so great an
effect on the upper classes. When the foreign civilization perished, the old culture once more came to the
surface. Hence it is possible, by a comprehensive comparative study of Eastern peoples, in both ancient
and modern times, to supplement and illustrate within certain limits our direct knowledge of the early
Jewish people, and thus to understand more clearly those characteristics which were peculiar to them, in
relation to those which they shared with other Oriental peoples.

Even before authentic history begins, the elements of religion and society had already crystallized into
a solid coherent structure which was to persist without essential modification. Religion was inseparable
from ordinary life, and, like that of all peoples who are dependent on the fruits of the earth, was a nature-
worship. The tie between deities and worshippers was regarded as physical and entailed mutual
obligations. The study of the clan-group as an organization is as instructive here as in other fields. The
members of each group lived on terms of equality, the families forming a society of worship the rites of
which were conducted by the head. Such groups (each with its local deity) would combine for definite
purposes under the impulse of external needs, but owing to inevitable internal jealousies and the
incessant feuds among a people averse from discipline and authority, the unions were not necessarily
lasting. The elders of these groups possessed some influence, and tended to form an aristocracy, which
took the lead in social life, although their authority generally depended merely upon custom. Individual
leaders in times of stress acquired a recognized supremacy, and, once a tribe outstripped the rest, the
opportunities for continued advance gave further scope to their authority. “The interminable feuds of
tribes, conducted on the theory of blood-revenge, ... can seldom be durably healed without the
intervention of a third party who is called in as arbiter, and in this way an impartial and wise power
acquires of necessity a great and beneficent influence over all around it” (W. R. Smith). In time,
notwithstanding a certain inherent individualism and impatience of control, veritable despotisms arose in
the Semitic world, although such organizations were invariably liable to sudden collapse as the old forms
of life broke down with changing conditions.1

3. Early History.2—Already in the 15th century b.c. Palestine was inhabited by a settled people whose
language, thought and religion were not radically different several hundred years later. Small native
princes ruled as vassals of Egypt which, after expelling the Hyksos from its borders, had entered upon a
series of conquests as far as the Euphrates. Some centuries previously, however, Babylonia had laid
claim to the western states, and the Babylonian (i.e. Assyrian) script and language were now used, not
merely in the diplomatic correspondence between Egypt and Asia, but also for matters of private and
everyday life among the Palestinian princes themselves. To what extent specific Babylonian influence
showed itself in other directions is not completely known. Canaan (Palestine and the south Phoenician
coast land) and Amor (Lebanon district and beyond) were under the constant supervision of Egypt, and
Egyptian officials journeyed round to collect tribute, to attend to complaints, and to assure themselves of
the allegiance of the vassals. The Amarna tablets and those more recently found at Taannek (bibl.
Taanach), together with the contemporary archaeological evidence (from Lachish, Gezer, Megiddo,
Jericho, &c.), represent advanced conditions of life and culture, the precise chronological limits of which
cannot be determined with certainty. This age, with its regular maritime intercourse between the Aegean
settlements, Phoenicia and the Delta, and with lines of caravans connecting Babylonia, North Syria,
Arabia and Egypt, presents a remarkable picture of life and activity, in the centre of which lies Palestine,

with here and there Egyptian colonies and some traces of Egyptian cults. The history of this, the
“Amarna” age, reveals a state of anarchy in Palestine for which the weakness of Egypt and the
downward pressure of north Syrian peoples were responsible. Subdivided into a number of little local
principalities, Palestine was suffering both from internal intrigues and from the designs of this northern
power. It is now that we find the restless Ḥabiru, a name which is commonly identified with that of the
“Hebrews” (’ibrīm). They offer themselves where necessary to either party, and some at least perhaps
belonged to the settled population. The growing prominence of the new northern group of “Hittite” states
continued to occupy the energies of Egypt, and when again we have more external light upon Palestinian
history, the Hittites (q.v.) are found strongly entrenched in the land. But by the end of the first quarter of
the 13th century b.c. Egypt had recovered its province (precise boundary uncertain), leaving its rivals in
possession of Syria. Towards the close of the 13th century the Egyptian king Merneptah (Mineptah)
records a successful campaign in Palestine, and alludes to the defeat of Canaan, Ascalon, Gezer, Yenuam
(in Lebanon) and (the people or tribe) Israel.3 Bodies of aliens from the Levantine coast had previously
threatened Egypt and Syria, and at the beginning of the 12th century they formed a coalition on land and
sea which taxed all the resources of Rameses III. In the Purasati, apparently the most influential of these
peoples, may be recognized the origin of the name “Philistine.” The Hittite power became weaker, and
the invaders, in spite of defeat, appear to have succeeded in maintaining themselves on the sea coast.
External history, however, is very fragmentary just at the age when its evidence would be most welcome.
For a time the fate of Syria and Palestine seems to have been no longer controlled by the great powers.
When the curtain rises again we enter upon the historical traditions of the Old Testament.

4. Biblical History.—For the rest of the first period the Old Testament forms the main source. It
contains in fact the history itself in two forms: (a) from the creation of man to the fall of Judah (Genesis-
2 Kings), which is supplemented and continued further—(b) to the foundation of Judaism in the 5th
century b.c. (Chronicles—Ezra-Nehemiah). In the light of contemporary monuments, archaeological
evidence, the progress of scientific knowledge and the recognized methods of modern historical
criticism, the representation of the origin of mankind and of the history of the Jews in the Old Testament
can no longer be implicitly accepted. Written by an Oriental people and clothed in an Oriental dress, the
Old Testament does not contain objective records, but subjective history written and incorporated for
specific purposes. Like many Oriental works it is a compilation, as may be illustrated from a comparison
of Chronicles with Samuel-Kings, and the representation of the past in the light of the present (as
exemplified in Chronicles) is a frequently recurring phenomenon. The critical examination of the nature
and growth of this compilation has removed much that had formerly caused insuperable difficulties and
had quite unnecessarily been made an integral or a relevant part of practical religion. On the other hand,
criticism has given a deeper meaning to the Old Testament history, and has brought into relief the central
truths which really are vital; it may be said to have replaced a divine account of man by man’s account of
the divine. Scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that the internal features are best explained by
the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. This involves the view that the historical traditions are mainly due to
two characteristic though very complicated recensions, one under the influence of the teaching of
Deuteronomy (Joshua to Kings, see § 20), the other, of a more priestly character (akin to Leviticus), of
somewhat later date (Genesis to Joshua, with traces in Judges to Kings, see § 23). There are, of course,
numerous problems relating to the nature, limits and dates of the two recensions, of the incorporated

sources, and of other sources (whether early or late) of independent origin; and here there is naturally
room for much divergence of opinion. Older material (often of composite origin) has been used, not so
much for the purpose of providing historical information, as with the object of showing the religious
significance of past history; and the series Joshua-Kings is actually included among the “prophets” in
Jewish reckoning (see Midrash). In general, one may often observe that freedom which is characteristic
of early and unscientific historians. Thus one may note the reshaping of older material to agree with later
thought, the building up of past periods from the records of other periods, and a frequent loss of
perspective. The historical traditions are to be supplemented by the great body of prophetic, legal and
poetic literature which reveal contemporary conditions in various internal literary, theological or
sociological features. The investigation of their true historical background and of the trustworthiness of
their external setting (e.g. titles of psalms, dates and headings of prophecies) involves a criticism of the
historical traditions themselves, and thus the two major classes of material must be constantly examined
both separately and in their bearing on one another. In a word, the study of biblical history, which is
dependent in the first instance upon the written sources, demands constant attention to the text (which
has had an interesting history) and to the literary features; and it requires a sympathetic acquaintance
with Oriental life and thought, both ancient and modern, an appreciation of the necessity of employing
the methods of scientific research, and (from the theological side) a reasoned estimate of the dependence
of individual religious convictions upon the letter of the Old Testament.4

In view of the numerous articles in this work dealing with biblical subjects,5 the present sketch
is limited to the outlines of the traditional history; the religious aspect in its bearing upon biblical
theology (which is closely bound up with the traditions) is handled separately under Hebrew
Religion. The related literature is enormous (see the bibliographies to the special articles); it is
indexed annually in Orientalische Bibliographie (Berlin), and is usefully summarized in the
Theologische Jahresbericht (Berlin). On the development of the study of biblical history see C. A.
Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture (1899), especially ch. xx. The first scientific historical work was
by H. Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel (1843; 3rd ed., 1864-1868; Eng. trans., 1869-1883),
popularized by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley in his Hist. of the Jewish Church (1863-1879). The works
of J. Wellhausen (especially Prolegomena to the Hist. of Israel, Eng. trans., 1885, also the brilliant
article “Israel” in the 9th ed. of the Ency. Brit., 1879) were epoch-making; his position was
interpreted to English readers by W. Robertson Smith (Old Test. in Jewish Church, 1881, 2nd ed.,
1892; Prophets of Israel, 1882, 2nd ed. by T. K. Cheyne, 1902). The historical (and related) works
of T. K. Cheyne, H. Graetz, H. Guthe, F. C. Kent, A. Kittel, W. H. Kosters, A. Kuenen, C.
Piepenbring, and especially B. Stade, although varying greatly in standpoint, are among the most
valuable by recent scholars; H. P. Smith’s Old Test. Hist. (“International Theological Library,”
Edinburgh, 1903) is in many respects the most serviceable and complete study; a modern and more
critical “Ewald” is a desideratum. For the works of numerous other scholars who have furthered
Old Testament research in the past it must suffice to refer to the annotated list by J. M. P. Smith,
Books for O.T. Study (Chicago, 1908).

For the external history, E. Schrader, Cuneiform Inscr. and the Old Testament (Eng. trans. by O.
C. Whitehouse, 1885-1888) is still helpful; among the less technical works are J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments; B. Paton, Syria and Palestine (1902); G. Maspero, Hist.

ancienne (6th ed., 1904); A. Jeremias, Alte Test. im Lichte d. Alten Orients (2nd ed., 1906); and
especially Altoriental. Texte u. Bilder zum Alten Test., ed. by H. Gressman, with A. Ungnad and H.
Ranke (1909). The most complete is that of Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Alterthums (2nd ed., 1907 sqq.).
That of Jeremias follows upon the lines of H. Winckler, whose works depart from the somewhat
narrow limits of purely “Israelite” histories, emphasize the necessity of observing the
characteristics of Oriental thought and policy, and are invaluable for discriminating students.
Winckler’s own views are condensed in the 3rd edition—a re-writing—of Schrader’s work
(Keilinschr. u. d. Alte Testament, 1903), and, with an instructive account of the history of “ancient
nearer Asia,” in H. F. Helmolt’s World’s History, iii. 1-252 (1903). All modern histories of any
value are necessarily compromises between the biblical traditions and the results of recent
investigation, and those studies which appear to depart most widely from the biblical or canonical
representation often do greater justice to the evidence as a whole than the slighter or more
conservative and apologetic reconstructions.6 Scientific biblical historical study, nevertheless, is
still in a relatively backward condition; and although the labours of scholars since Ewald constitute
a distinct epoch, the trend of research points to the recognition of the fact that the purely subjective
literary material requires a more historical treatment in the light of our increasing knowledge of
external and internal conditions in the old Oriental world. But an inductive and deductive
treatment, both, comprehensive and in due proportion, does not as yet (1910) exist, and awaits
fuller external evidence.7

5. Traditions of Origin.—The Old Testament preserves the remains of an extensive literature,
representing different standpoints, which passed through several hands before it reached its present form.
Surrounded by ancient civilizations where writing had long been known, and enjoying, as excavation has
proved, a considerable amount of material culture, Palestine could look back upon a lengthy and stirring
history which, however, has rarely left its mark upon our records. Whatever ancient sources may have
been accessible, whatever trustworthy traditions were in circulation, and whatever a knowledge of the
ancient Oriental world might lead one to expect, one is naturally restricted in the first instance to those
undated records which have survived in the form which the last editors gave to them. The critical
investigation of these records is the indispensable prelude to all serious biblical study, and hasty or
sweeping deductions from monumental or archaeological evidence, or versions compiled promiscuously
from materials of distinct origin, are alike hazardous. A glimpse at Palestine in the latter half of the
second millennium b.c. (§ 3) prepares us for busy scenes and active intercourse, but it is not a history of
this kind which the biblical historians themselves transmit. At an age when—on literary-critical grounds
—the Old Testament writings were assuming their present form, it was possible to divide the
immediately preceding centuries into three distinct period. (a) The first, that of the two rival kingdoms:
Israel (Ephraim or Samaria) in the northern half of Palestine, and Judah in the south. Then (b) the former
lost its independence towards the close of the 8th century b.c., when a number of its inhabitants were
carried away; and the latter shared the fate of exile at the beginning of the 6th, but succeeded in making a
fresh reconstruction some fifty or sixty years later. Finally (c), in the so-called “post-exilic” period,
religion and life were reorganized under the influence of a new spirit; relations with Samaria were
broken off, and Judaism took its definite character, perhaps about the middle or close of the 5th century.
Throughout these vicissitudes there were important political and religious changes which render the

study of the composite sources a work of unique difficulty. In addition to this it should be noticed that the
term “Jew” (originally Yehudi), in spite of its wider application, means properly “man of Judah,” i.e. of
that small district which, with Jerusalem as its capital, became the centre of Judaism. The favourite name
“Israel” with all its religious and national associations is somewhat ambiguous in an historical sketch,
since, although it is used as opposed to Judah (a), it ultimately came to designate the true nucleus of the
worshippers of the national god Yahweh as opposed to the Samaritans, the later inhabitants of Israelite
territory (c). A more general term is “Hebrew” (see Hebrew Language), which, whether originally
identical with the Ḥabiru or not (§ 3), is used in contrast to foreigners, and this non-committal ethnic
deserves preference where precise distinction is unnecessary or impossible.

The traditions which prevailed among the Hebrews concerning their origin belong to a time when
Judah and Israel were regarded as a unit. Twelve divisions or tribes, of which Judah was one, held
together by a traditional sentiment, were traced back to the sons of Jacob (otherwise known as Israel), the
son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. Their names vary in origin and probably also in point of age, and
where they represent fixed territorial limits, the districts so described were in some cases certainly
peopled by groups of non-Israelite ancestry. But as tribal names they invited explanation, and of the
many characteristic traditions which were doubtless current a number have been preserved, though not in
any very early dress. Close relationship was recognized with the Aramaeans, with Edom, Moab and
Ammon. This is characteristically expressed when Esau, the ancestor of Edom, is represented as the
brother of Jacob, or when Moab and Ammon are the children of Lot, Abraham’s nephew (see
Genealogy: Biblical). Abraham, it was believed, came from Harran (Carrhae), primarily from Babylonia,
and Jacob re-enters from Gilead in the north-east with his Aramaean wives and concubines and their
families (Benjamin excepted). It is on this occasion that Jacob’s name is changed to Israel. These
traditions of migration and kinship are in themselves entirely credible, but the detailed accounts of the
ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as given in Genesis, are inherently doubtful as regards both the
internal conditions, which the (late) chronological scheme ascribes to the first half of the second
millennium b.c., and the general circumstances of the life of these strangers in a foreign land. From a
variety of independent reasons one is forced to conclude that, whatever historical elements they may
contain, the stories of this remote past represent the form which tradition had taken in a very much later
age.

Opinion is at variance regarding the patriarchal narratives as a
whole. To deny their historical character is to reject them as
trustworthy accounts of the age to which they are ascribed, and even
those scholars who claim that they are essentially historical already go
so far as to concede idealization and the possibility or probability of
later revision. The failure to apprehend historical method has often led
to the fallacious argument that the trustworthiness of individual
features justifies our accepting the whole, or that the elimination of
unhistorical elements will leave an historical residuum. Here and
frequently elsewhere in biblical history it is necessary to allow that a
genuine historical tradition may be clothed in an unhistorical dress, but
since many diverse motives are often concentrated upon one narrative
(e.g. Gen. xxxii. 22-32, xxxiv., xxxviii.), the work of internal historical
criticism (in view of the scantiness of the evidence) can rarely claim
finality. The patriarchal narratives themselves belong to the popular
stock of tradition of which only a portion has been preserved. Many of
the elements lie outside questions of time and place and are almost
immemorial. Some appear written for the first time in the book of
Jubilees, in “the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs” (both perhaps 2nd
century b.c.) and in later sources; and although in Genesis the stories
are now in a post-exilic setting (a stage earlier than Jubilees), the older
portions may well belong to the 7th or 6th cent. This question,
however, will rest upon those criteria alone which are of true
chronological validity (see further Genesis).

The story of the settlement of the national and tribal ancestors in
Palestine is interrupted by an account of the southward movement of Jacob
(or Israel) and his sons into a district under the immediate influence of the
kings of Egypt. After an interval of uncertain duration we find in Exodus a
numerous people subjected to rigorous oppression. No longer individual

sons of Jacob or Israel, united tribes were led out by Moses and Aaron; and,
after a series of incidents extending over forty years, the “children of Israel”
invaded the land in which their ancestors had lived. The traditions
embodied in the books Exodus-Joshua are considerably later than the
apparent date of the events themselves, and amid the diverse and often
conflicting data it is possible to recognize distinct groups due to some
extent to distinct historical conditions. The story of the “exodus” is that of
the religious birth of “Israel,” joined by covenant with the national god
Yahweh8 whose aid in times of peril and need proved his supremacy. In
Moses (q.v.) was seen the founder of Israel’s religion and laws; in Aaron
(q.v.) the prototype of the Israelite priesthood. Although it is difficult to
determine the true historical kernel, two features are most prominent in the
narratives which the post-exilic compiler has incorporated: the revelation of
Yahweh, and the movement into Palestine. Yahweh had admittedly been the
God of Israel’s ancestors, but his name was only now made known (Exod.
iii. 13 sqq., vi. 2 seq.), and this conception of a new era in Yahweh’s
relations with the people is associated with the family of Moses and with
small groups from the south of Palestine which reappear in religious
movements in later history (see Kenites). Amid a great variety of motives
the prominence of Kadesh in south Palestine is to be recognized, but it is
uncertain what clans or tribes were at Kadesh, and it is possible that
traditions, originally confined to those with whom the new conception of
Yahweh is connected, were subsequently adopted by others who came to
regard themselves as the worshippers of the only true Yahweh. At all events,
two quite distinct views seem to underlie the opening books of the Old
Testament. The one associates itself with the ancestors of the Hebrews and
has an ethnic character. The other, part of the religious history of “Israel,” is
essentially bound up with the religious genius of the people, and is partly
connected with clans from the south of Palestine whose influence appears in

later times. Other factors in the literary growth of the present narratives are
not excluded (see further § 8, and Exodus, The).9

6. The Monarchy of Israel.—The book of Joshua continues the fortunes
of the “children of Israel” and describes a successful occupation of
Palestine by the united tribes. This stands in striking contrast to other
records of the partial successes of individual groups (Judg. i.). The former,
however, is based upon the account of victories by the Ephraimite Joshua
over confederations of petty kings to the south and north of central
Palestine, apparently the specific traditions of the people of Ephraim
describing from their standpoint the entire conquest of Palestine.10 The
book of Judges represents a period of unrest after the settlement of the
people. External oppression and internal rivalries rent the Israelites, and in
the religious philosophy of a later (Deuteronomic) age the period is
represented as one of alternate apostasy from and of penitent return to the
Yahweh of the “exodus.” Some vague recollection of known historical
events (§ 3 end) might be claimed among the traditions ascribed to the
closing centuries of the second millennium, but the view that the prelude to
the monarchy was an era when individual leaders “judged” all Israel finds
no support in the older narratives, where the heroes of the age (whose
correct sequence is uncertain) enjoy only a local fame. The best historical
narratives belong to Israel and Gilead; Judah scarcely appears, and in a
relatively old poetical account of a great fight of the united tribes against a
northern adversary lies outside the writer’s horizon or interest (Judg. v., see
Deborah). Stories of successful warfare and of temporary leaders (see
Abimelech; Ehud; Gideon; Jephthah) form an introduction to the institution
of the Israelite monarchy, an epoch of supreme importance in biblical
history. The heroic figure who stands at the head is Saul (“asked”), and two
accounts of his rise are recorded. (1) The Philistines, a foreign people
whose presence in Palestine has already been noticed, had oppressed Israel
(cf. Samson) until a brilliant victory was gained by the prophet Samuel,

some account of whose early history is recorded. He himself held supreme
sway over all Israel as the last of the “judges” until compelled to accede to
the popular demand for a king. The young Saul was chosen by lot and
gained unanimous recognition by delivering Jabesh in Gilead from the
Ammonites. (2) But other traditions represent the people scattered and in
hiding; Israel is groaning under the Philistine yoke, and the unknown Saul
is raised up by Yahweh to save his people. This he accomplishes with the
help of his son Jonathan. The first account, although now essential to the
canonical history, clearly gives a less authentic account of the change from
the “judges” to the monarchy, while the second is fragmentary and can
hardly be fitted into the present historical thread (see Saul). At all events
the first of a series of annalistic notices of the kings of Israel ascribes to
Saul conquests over the surrounding peoples to an extent which implies that
the district of Judah formed part of his kingdom (1 Sam. xiv. 47 seq). His
might is attested also by the fine elegy (2 Sam. i. 19 sqq.) over the death of
two great Israelite heroes, Saul and Jonathan, knit together by mutual love,
inseparable in life and death, whose unhappy end after a career of success
was a national misfortune. Disaster had come upon the north, and the plain
of Jezreel saw the total defeat of the king and the rout of his army. The
court was hastily removed across the Jordan to Mahanaim, where Saul’s son
Ishbaal (Ish-bosheth), thanks to his general Abner, recovered some of the
lost prestige. In circumstances which are not detailed, the kingdom seems to
have regained its strength, and Ishbaal is credited with a reign of two years
over Israel and Gilead (2 Sam. ii. 8-10; contrast v. 11). But at this point the
scanty annals are suspended and the history of the age is given in more
popular sources. Both Israel and Judah had their own annals, brief excerpts
from which appear in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, and they
are supplemented by fuller narratives of distinct and more popular origin.
The writings are the result of a continued literary process, and the Israelite
national history has come down to us through Judaean hands, with the result

that much of it has been coloured by late Judaean feeling. It is precisely in
Saul’s time that the account of the Judaean monarchy, or perhaps of the
monarchy from the Judaean standpoint, now begins.

7. The Monarchy of Judah.—Certain traditions of Judah and Jerusalem
appear to have looked back upon a movement from the south, traces of
which underlie the present account of the “exodus.” The land was full of
“sons of Anak,” giants who had terrified the scouts sent from Kadesh. Caleb
(q.v.) alone had distinguished himself by his fearlessness, and the clan
Caleb drove them out from Hebron in south Judah (Josh. xv. 14 sqq.; cf.
also xi. 21 seq.). David and his followers are found in the south of Hebron,
and as they advanced northwards they encountered wondrous heroes
between Gath and Jerusalem (2 Sam. xxi. 15 sqq.; xxiii. 8 sqq.). After
strenuous fighting the district was cleared, and Jerusalem, taken by the
sword, became the capital. History saw in David the head of a lengthy line
of kings, the founder of the Judaean monarchy, the psalmist and the priest-
king who inaugurated religious institutions now recognized to be of a
distinctly later character. As a result of this backward projection of later
conceptions, the recovery of the true historical nucleus is difficult. The
prominence of Jerusalem, the centre of post-exilic Judaism, necessarily
invited reflection. Israelite tradition had ascribed the conquest of Jerusalem,
Hebron and other cities of Judah to the Ephraimite Joshua; Judaean
tradition, on the other hand, relates the capture of the sacred city from a
strange and hostile people (2 Sam. v.). The famous city, within easy reach
of the southern desert and central Palestine (to Hebron and to Samaria the
distances are about 18 and 35 miles respectively), had already entered into
Palestinian history in the “Amarna” age (§ 3). Anathoth, a few miles to the
north-east, points to the cult of the goddess Anath, the near-lying Nob has
suggested the name of the Babylonian Nebo, and the neighbouring, though
unidentified, Beth-Ninib of the Amarna tablets may indicate the worship of
a Babylonian war and astral god (cf. the solar name Beth-Shemesh). Such

was the religious environment of the ancient city which was destined to
become the centre of Judaism. Judaean tradition dated the sanctity of
Jerusalem from the installation of the ark, a sacred movable object which
symbolized the presence of Yahweh. It is associated with the half-nomad
clans in the south of Palestine, or with the wanderings of David and his own
priest Abiathar; it is ultimately placed within the newly captured city. Quite
another body of tradition associates it with the invasion of all the tribes of
Israel from beyond the Jordan (see Ark). To combine the heterogeneous
narratives and isolated statements into a consecutive account is impossible;
to ignore those which conflict with the now predominating views would be
unmethodical. When the narratives describe the life of the young David at
the court of the first king of the northern kingdom, when the scenes cover
the district which he took with the sword, and when the brave Saul is
represented in an unfavourable light, one must allow for the popular
tendency to idealize great figures, and for the Judaean origin of the
compilation. To David is ascribed the sovereignty over a united people. But
the stages in his progress are not clear. After being the popular favourite of
Israel in the little district of Benjamin, he was driven away by the jealousy
and animosity of Saul. Gradually strengthening his position by alliance with
Judaean clans, he became king at Hebron at the time when Israel suffered
defeat in the north. His subsequent advance to the kingship over Judah and
Israel at Jerusalem is represented as due to the weak condition of Israel,
facilitated by the compliance of Abner; partly, also, to the long-expressed
wish of the Israelites that their old hero should reign over them. Yet again,
Saul had been chosen by Yahweh to free his people from the Philistines; he
had been rejected for his sins, and had suffered continuously from this
enemy; Israel at his death was left in the unhappy state in which he had
found it; it was the Judaean David, the faithful servant of Yahweh, who was
now chosen to deliver Israel, and to the last the people gratefully
remembered their debt. David accomplished the conquests of Saul but on a

grander scale; “Saul hath slain his thousands and David his tens of
thousands” is the popular couplet comparing the relative merits of the rival
dynasts. A series of campaigns against Edom, Moab, Ammon and the
Aramaean states, friendly relations with Hiram of Tyre, and the recognition
of his sovereignty by the king of Hamath on the Orontes, combine to
portray a monarchy which was the ideal.

But in passing from the books of Samuel, with their many rich and vivid
narratives, to the books of Kings, we enter upon another phase of literature;
it is a different atmosphere, due to the character of the material and the aims
of other compilers (see § 9 beginning). David, the conqueror, was followed
by his son Solomon, famous for his wealth, wisdom and piety, above all for
the magnificent Temple which he built at Jerusalem. Phoenician artificers
were enlisted for the purpose, and with Phoenician sailors successful
trading-journeys were regularly undertaken. Commercial intercourse with
Asia Minor, Arabia, Tarshish (probably in Spain) and Ophir (q.v.) filled his
coffers, and his realm extended from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt.
Tradition depicts him as a worthy successor to his father, and represents a
state of luxury and riches impressive to all who were familiar with the great
Oriental courts. The commercial activity of the king and the picture of
intercourse and wealth are quite in accordance with what is known of the
ancient monarchies, and could already be illustrated from the Amarna age.
Judah and Israel dwelt at ease, or held the superior position of military
officials, while the earlier inhabitants of the land were put to forced labour.
But another side of the picture shows the domestic intrigues which
darkened the last days of David. The accession of Solomon had not been
without bloodshed, and Judah, together with David’s old general Joab and
his faithful priest Abiathar, were opposed to the son of a woman who had
been the wife of a Hittite warrior. The era of the Temple of Jerusalem starts
with a new régime, another captain of the army and another priest.
Nevertheless, the enmity of Judah is passed over, and when the kingdom is

divided for administrative purposes into twelve districts, which ignore the
tribal divisions, the centre of David’s early power is exempt from the duty
of providing supplies (1 Kings iv.). Yet again, the approach of the divided
monarchy is foreshadowed. The employment of Judaeans and Israelites for
Solomon’s palatial buildings, and the heavy taxation for the upkeep of a
court which was the wonder of the world, caused grave internal discontent.
External relations, too, were unsatisfactory. The Edomites, who had been
almost extirpated by David in the valley of Salt, south of the Dead Sea,
were now strong enough to seek revenge; and the powerful kingdom of
Damascus, whose foundation is ascribed to this period, began to threaten
Israel on the north and north-east. These troubles, we learn, had affected all
Solomon’s reign, and even Hiram appears to have acquired a portion of
Galilee. In the approaching disruption writers saw the punishment for the
king’s apostasy, and they condemn the sanctuaries in Jerusalem which he
erected to the gods of his heathen wives. Nevertheless, these places of cult
remained some 300 years until almost the close of the monarchy, when their
destruction is attributed to Josiah (§ 16). When at length Solomon died the
opportunity was at once seized to request from his son Rehoboam a more
generous treatment. The reply is memorable: “My little finger is thicker
than my father’s loins; my father chastised you with whips, but I will
chastise you with scorpions.” These words were calculated to inflame a
people whom history proves to have been haughty and high-spirited, and
the great Israel renounced its union with the small district of Judah.
Jeroboam (q.v.), once one of Solomon’s officers, became king over the
north, and thus the history of the divided monarchy begins (about 930 b.c.)
with the Israelite power on both sides of the Jordan and with Judah
extending southwards from a point a few miles north of Jerusalem.

8. Problems of the Earliest History.—Biblical history previous to the
separation of Judah and Israel holds a prominent place in current ideas,
since over two-fifths of the entire Old Testament deals with these early

ages. The historical sources for the crucial period, from the separation
to the fall of Jerusalem (586 b.c.), occupy only about one-twelfth, and
even of this about one-third is spread over some fifteen years (see
below, § 11). From the flourishing days of the later monarchy and
onwards, different writers handled the early history of their land from
different standpoints. The feeling of national unity between north and
south would require historical treatment, the existence of rival
monarchies would demand an explanation. But the surviving material
is extremely uneven; vital events in these centuries are treated with a
slightness in striking contrast to the relatively detailed evidence for the
preceding period—evidence, however, which is far from being
contemporary. Where the material is fuller, serious discrepancies are
found; and where external evidence is fortunately available, the
independent character of the biblical history is vividly illustrated. The
varied traditions up to this stage cannot be regarded as objective
history. It is naturally impossible to treat them from any modern
standpoint as fiction; they are honest even where they are most
untrustworthy. But the recovery of successive historical nuclei does not
furnish a continuous thread, and if one is to be guided by the historical
context of events the true background to each nucleus must be sought.
The northern kingdom cherished the institution of a monarchy, and in
this, as in all great political events, the prophets took part. The precise
part these figures play is often idealized and expresses the later views
of their prominence. It was only after a bitter experience that the
kingship was no longer regarded as a divine gift, and traditions have
been revised in order to illustrate the opposition to secular authority. In
this and in many other respects the records of the first monarchy have
been elaborated and now reveal traces of differing conceptions of the
events (see Dan; David; Eli; Samuel; Saul; Solomon). The oldest
narratives are not in their original contexts, and they contain features

which render it questionable whether a very trustworthy recollection of
the period was retained. Although the rise of the Hebrew state, at an
age when the great powers were quiescent and when such a people as
the Philistines is known to have appeared upon the scene, is entirely
intelligible, it is not improbable that legends of Saul and David, the
heroic founders of the two kingdoms, have been put in a historical
setting with the help of later historical tradition. It is at least necessary
to distinguish provisionally between a possibly historical framework
and narratives which may be of later growth—between the general
outlines which only external evidence can test and details which cannot
be tested and appear isolated without any cause or devoid of any effect.

Many attempts have been made to present a satisfactory sketch of
the early history and to do justice to (a) the patriarchal narratives, (b)
the exodus from Egypt and the Israelite invasion, and (c) the rise of the
monarchy. As regards (b), external evidence has already suggested to
scholars that there were Israelites in Palestine before the invasion;
internal historical criticism is against the view that all the tribes entered
under Joshua; and in (a) there are traces of an actual settlement in the
land, entirely distinct from the cycle of narratives which prepare the
way for (b). The various reconstructions and compromises by modern
apologetic and critical writers alike involve without exception an
extremely free treatment of the biblical sources and the rejection of
many important and circumstantial data.11 On the one hand, a sweeping
invasion of all the tribes of Israel moved by a common zeal may, like
the conquests of Islam, have produced permanent results. According to
this view the enervating luxury of Palestinian culture almost destroyed
the lofty ideal monotheism inculcated in the desert, and after the fall of
the northern tribes (latter part of the 8th cent.) Judah is naturally
regarded as the sole heir. But such a conquest, and all that it signifies,
conflict both with external evidence (e.g. the results of excavation), and

with any careful inspection of the narratives themselves. On the other
hand, the reconstructions which allow a gradual settlement (perhaps of
distinct groups), and an intermingling with the earlier inhabitants,
certainly find support in biblical evidence, and they have been
ingeniously built up with the help of tribal and other data (e.g. Gen.
xxxiv., xxxviii.; Judg. i. ix.). But they imply political, sociological and
religious developments which do not do justice either to the biblical
evidence as a whole or to a comprehensive survey of contemporary
conditions.12 Thus, one of the important questions is the relation
between those who had taken part in the exodus and the invasion and
those who had not. This inquiry is further complicated by (c), where
the history of Israel and Judah, as related in Judges and 1 Samuel, has
caused endless perplexity. The traditions of the Ephraimite Joshua and
of Saul the first king of (north) Israel virtually treat Judah as part of
Israel and are related to the underlying representations in (a). But the
specific independent Judaean standpoint treats the unification of the
two divisions as the work of David who leaves the heritage to
Solomon. The varied narratives, now due to Judaean editors, preserve
distinct points of view, and it is extremely difficult to unravel the
threads and to determine their relative position in the history. Finally,
the consciousness that the people as a religious body owed everything
to the desert clans (b) (see § 5) subsequently leaves its mark upon
(north) Israelite history (§ 14), but has not the profound significance
which it has in the records of Judah and Jerusalem. Without sufficient
external and independent evidence wherewith to interpret in the light of
history the internal features of the intricate narratives, any
reconstruction would naturally be hazardous, and all attempts must
invariably be considered in the light of the biblical evidence itself, the
date of the Israelite exodus, and the external conditions. Biblical
criticism is concerned with a composite (Judaean) history based upon

other histories (partly of non-Judaean origin), and the relation between
native written sources and external contemporary evidence
(monumental and archaeological) distinctly forbids any haphazard
selection from accessible sources. The true nature of this relation can
be readily observed in other fields (ancient Britain, Greece, Egypt,
&c.), where, however, the native documents and sources have not that
complexity which characterizes the composite biblical history. (For the
period under review, as it appears in the light of existing external
evidence, see Palestine: History.)

9. The Rival Kingdoms.—The Palestine of the Hebrews was but part of a
great area breathing the same atmosphere, and there was little to distinguish
Judah from Israel except when they were distinct political entities. The
history of the two kingdoms is contained in Kings and the later and
relatively less trustworthy Chronicles, which deals with Judah alone. In the
former a separate history of the northern kingdom has been combined with
Judaean history by means of synchronisms in accordance with a definite
scheme. The 480 years from the foundation of the temple of Jerusalem back
to the date of the exodus (1 Kings vi. 1) corresponds to the period forward
to the return from the exile (§ 20). This falls into three equal divisions, of
which the first ends with Jehoash’s temple-reforms and the second with
Hezekiah’s death. The kingdom of Israel lasts exactly half the time. Of the
240 years from Jeroboam I., 80 elapse before the Syrian wars in Ahab’s
reign, these cover another 80; the famous king Jeroboam II. reigns 40 years,
and 40 years of decline bring the kingdom to an end. These figures speak
for themselves, and the present chronology can be accepted only where it is
independently proved to be trustworthy (see further W. R. Smith, Prophets
of Israel, pp. 144-149). Next, the Judaean compiler regularly finds in
Israel’s troubles the punishment for its schismatic idolatry; nor does he
spare Judah, but judges its kings by a standard which agrees with the
standpoint of Deuteronomy and is scarcely earlier than the end of the 7th

century b.c. (§§ 16, 20). But the history of (north) Israel had naturally its
own independent political backgrounds and the literary sources contain the
same internal features as the annals and prophetic narratives which are
already met with in 1 Samuel. Similarly the thread of the Judaean annals in
Kings is also found in 2 Samuel, although the supplementary narratives in
Kings are not so rich or varied as the more popular records in the preceding
books. The striking differences between Samuel and Kings are due to
differences in the writing of the history; independent Israelite records
having been incorporated with those of Judah and supplemented (with
revision) from the Judaean standpoint (see Chronicles; Kings; Samuel).

The Judaean compiler, with his history of the two kingdoms, looks back
upon the time when each laid the foundation of its subsequent fortunes. His
small kingdom of Judah enjoyed an unbroken dynasty which survived the
most serious crises, a temple which grew in splendour and wealth under
royal patronage, and a legitimate priesthood which owed its origin to
Zadok, the successful rival of David’s priest Abiathar. Israel, on the other
hand, had signed its death-warrant by the institution of calf-cult, a cult
which, however, was scarcely recognized as contrary to the worship of
Yahweh before the denunciations of Hosea. The scantiness of political
information and the distinctive arrangement of material preclude the
attempt to trace the relative position of the two rivals. Judah had natural
connexions with Edom and southern Palestine; Israel was more closely
associated with Gilead and the Aramaeans of the north. That Israel was the
stronger may be suggested by the acquiescence of Judah in the new
situation. A diversion was caused by Shishak’s invasion, but of this
reappearance of Egypt after nearly three centuries of inactivity little is
preserved in biblical history. Only the Temple records recall the spoliation
of the sanctuary of Jerusalem, and traditions of Jeroboam I. show that
Shishak’s prominence was well known.13 Although both kingdoms suffered,
common misfortune did not throw them together. On the contrary, the

statement that there was continual warfare is supplemented in Chronicles by
the story of a victory over Israel by Abijah the son of Rehoboam.
Jeroboam’s son Nadab perished in a conspiracy whilst besieging the
Philistine city of Gibbethon, and Baasha of (north) Israel seized the throne.
His reign is noteworthy for the entrance of Damascus into Palestinian
politics. Its natural fertility and its commanding position at the meeting-
place of trade-routes from every quarter made it a dominant factor until its
overthrow. In the absence of its native records its relations with Palestine
are not always clear, but it may be supposed that amid varying political
changes it was able to play a double game. According to the annals,
incessant war prevailed between Baasha and Abijah’s successor, Asa. It is
understood that the former was in league with Damascus, which had once
been hostile to Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24 seq.)—it is not stated upon whom
Asa could rely. However, Baasha at length seized Ramah about five miles
north of Jerusalem, and the very existence of Judah was threatened. Asa
utilized the treasure of the Temple and palace to induce the Syrians to break
off their relations with Baasha. These sent troops to harry north Israel, and
Baasha was compelled to retire. Asa, it is evident, was too weak to achieve
the remarkable victory ascribed to him in 2 Chron. xiv. (see Asa). As for
Baasha, his short-lived dynasty resembles that of his predecessors. His son
Elah had reigned only two years (like Ishbaal and Nadab) when he was
slain in the midst of a drunken carousal by his captain Zimri. Meanwhile
the Israelite army was again besieging the Philistines at Gibbethon, and the
recurrence of these conflicts points to a critical situation in a Danite locality
in which Judah itself (although ignored by the writers), must have been
vitally concerned. The army preferred their general Omri, and marching
upon Zimri at Tirzah burnt the palace over his head. A fresh rival
immediately appeared, the otherwise unknown Tibni, son of Ginath. Israel
was divided into two camps, until, on the death of Tibni and his brother
Joram, Omri became sole king (c. 887 b.c.). The scanty details of these

important events must naturally be contrasted with the comparatively full
accounts of earlier Philistine wars and internal conflicts in narratives which
date from this or even a later age.

10. The Dynasty of Omri.—Omri (q.v.), the founder of one of the greatest
dynasties of Israel, was contemporary with the revival of Tyre under
Ithobaal, and the relationship between the states is seen in the marriage of
Omri’s son Ahab to Jezebel, the priest-king’s daughter. His most notable
recorded achievement was the subjugation of Moab and the seizure of part
of its territory. The discovery of the inscription of a later king of Moab (q.v.)
has proved that the east-Jordanic tribes were no uncivilized or barbaric folk;
material wealth, a considerable religious and political organization, and the
cultivation of letters (as exemplified in the style of the inscription) portray
conditions which allow us to form some conception of life in Israel itself.
Moreover, Judah (now under Jehoshaphat) enjoyed intimate relations with
Israel during Omri’s dynasty, and the traditions of intermarriage, and of co-
operation in commerce and war, imply what was practically a united
Palestine. Alliance with Phoenicia gave the impulse to extended
intercourse; trading expeditions were undertaken from the Gulf of Akaba,
and Ahab built himself a palace decorated with ivory. The cult of the Baal
of Tyre followed Jezebel to the royal city Samaria and even found its way
into Jerusalem. This, the natural result of matrimonial and political alliance,
already met with under Solomon, receives the usual denunciation. The
conflict between Yahweh and Baal and the defeat of the latter are the
characteristic notes of the religious history of the period, and they leave
their impression upon the records, which are now more abundant. Although
little is preserved of Omri’s history, the fact that the northern kingdom long
continued to be called by the Assyrians after his name is a significant
indication of his great reputation. Assyria14 was now making itself felt in
the west for the first time since the days of Tiglath-Pileser I. (c. 1100 b.c.),
and external sources come to our aid. Assur-nazir-pal III. had exacted

tribute from north Syria (c. 870 b.c.), and his successor Shalmaneser II., in
the course of a series of expeditions, succeeded in gaining the greater part
of that land. A defensive coalition was formed in which the kings of Cilicia,
Hamath, the Phoenician coast, Damascus and Ammon, the Arabs of the
Syrian desert, and “Ahabbu Sirlai” were concerned. In the last, we must
recognize the Israelite Ahab. His own contribution of 10,000 men and
12,000 chariots perhaps included levies from Judah and Moab (cf. for the
number 1 Kings x. 26). In 854 the allies at least maintained themselves at
the battle of Karkar (perhaps Apamea to the north of Hamath). In 849 and
846 other indecisive battles were fought, but the precise constitution of the
coalition is not recorded. In 842 Shalmaneser records a campaign against
Hazael of Damascus; no coalition is mentioned, although a battle was
fought at Sanir (Hermon, Deut. iii. 9), and the cities of Hauran to the south
of Damascus were spoiled. Tribute was received from Tyre and Sidon; and
Jehu, who was now king of Israel, sent his gifts of gold, silver, &c., to the
conqueror. The Assyrian inscription (the so-called “Black Obelisk” now in
the British Museum), which records the submission of the petty kings, gives
an interesting representation of the humble Israelite emissaries with their
long fringed robes and strongly marked physiognomy (see Costume, fig. 9).
Yet another expedition in 839 would seem to show that Damascus was
neither crushed nor helpless, but thenceforth for a number of years Assyria
was fully occupied elsewhere and the west was left to itself. The value of
this external evidence for the history of Israel is enhanced by the fact that
biblical tradition associates the changes in the thrones of Israel and
Damascus with the work of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, but handles the
period without a single reference to the Assyrian Empire. Ahab, it seems,
had aroused popular resentment by encroaching upon the rights of the
people to their landed possessions; had it not been for Jezebel (q.v.) the
tragedy of Naboth would not have occurred. The worship of Baal of Tyre
roused a small circle of zealots, and again the Phoenician marriage was the

cause of the evil. We read the history from the point of view of prophets.
Elijah of Gilead led the revolt. To one who favoured simplicity of cult the
new worship was a desecration of Yahweh, and, braving the anger of the
king and queen, he foreshadowed their fate. Hostility towards the dynasty
culminated a few years later in a conspiracy which placed on the throne the
general Jehu, the son of one Jehoshaphat (or, otherwise, of Nimshi). The
work which Elijah began was completed by Elisha, who supported Jehu and
the new dynasty. A massacre ensued in which the royal families of Israel
and Judah perished. While the extirpation of the cult of Baal was furthered
in Israel by Jonadab the Rechabite, it was the “people of the land” who
undertook a similar reform in Judah. Jehu (q.v.) became king as the
champion of the purer worship of Yahweh. The descendants of the detested
Phoenician marriage were rooted out, and unless the close intercourse
between Israel and Judah had been suddenly broken, it would be supposed
that the new king at least laid claim to the south. The events form one of the
fundamental problems of biblical history.

11. Damascus, Israel and Judah.—The appearance of Assyria in the
Mediterranean coast-lands had produced the results which inevitably follow
when a great empire comes into contact with minor states. It awakened
fresh possibilities—successful combination against a common foe, the
sinking of petty rivalries, the chance of gaining favour by a neutrality which
was scarcely benevolent. The alliances, counter-alliances and far-reaching
political combinations which spring up at every advance of the greater
powers are often perplexing in the absence of records of the states
concerned. Even the biblical traditions alone do not always represent the
same attitude, and our present sources preserve the work of several hands.
Hazael of Damascus, Jehu of Israel and Elisha the prophet are the three men
of the new age linked together in the words of one writer as though
commissioned for like ends (1 Kings xix. 15-17). Hostility to Phoenicia (i.e.
the Baal of Tyre) is as intelligible as a tendency to look to Aramaean

neighbours. Though Elisha sent to anoint Jehu as king, he was none the less
on most intimate terms with Bar-hadad (Old. Test. Ben-hadad) of Damascus
and recognized Hazael as its future ruler. It is a natural assumption that
Damascus could still count upon Israel as an ally in 842; not until the
withdrawal of Assyria and the accession of Jehu did the situation change.
“In those days Yahweh began to cut short” (or, altering the text, “to be
angry with”) “Israel.” This brief notice heralds the commencement of
Hazael’s attack upon Israelite territory east of the Jordan (2 Kings x. 32).
The origin of the outbreak is uncertain. It has been assumed that Israel had
withdrawn from the great coalition, that Jehu sent tribute to Shalmaneser to
obtain that monarch’s recognition, and that Hazael consequently seized the
first opportunity to retaliate. Certain traditions, it is true, indicate that Israel
had been at war with the Aramaeans from before 854 to 842, and that
Hazael was attacking Gilead at the time when Jehu revolted; but in the
midst of these are other traditions of the close and friendly relations
between Israel and Damascus! With these perplexing data the position of
Judah is inextricably involved.

The special points which have to be noticed in the records for this
brief period (1 Kings xvii.-2 Kings xi.) concern both literary and
historical criticism.15 A number of narratives illustrate the work of the
prophets, and sometimes purely political records appear to have been
used for the purpose (see Elijah; Elisha). If Elijah is the prophet of the
fall of Omri’s dynasty, Elisha is no less the prophet of Jehu and his
successors; and it is extremely probable that his lifework was confined
to the dynasty which he inaugurated.16 In the present narratives,
however, the stories in which he possesses influence with king and
court are placed before the rise of Jehu, and some of them point to a
state of hostility with Damascus before he foresees the atrocities which
Hazael will perpetrate. But Ahab’s wars with Syria can with difficulty
be reconciled with the Assyrian evidence (see Ahab), and the

narratives, largely anonymous, agree in a singular manner with what is
known of the serious conflicts which, it is said, began in Jehu’s time.
Moreover, the account of the joint undertaking by Judah (under
Jehoshaphat) and Israel against Syria at Ramoth-Gilead at the time of
Ahab’s death, and again (under Ahaziah) when Jehoram was wounded,
shortly before the accession of Jehu, are historical doublets, and they
can hardly be harmonized either with the known events of 854 and 842
or with the course of the intervening years. Further, all the traditions
point clearly to the very close union of Israel and Judah at this period, a
union which is apt to be obscured by the fact that the annalistic
summaries of each kingdom are mainly independent. Thus we may
contrast the favourable Judaean view of Jehoshaphat with the
condemnation passed upon Ahab and Jezebel, whose daughter Athaliah
married Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat. It is noteworthy, also, that an
Ahaziah and a Jehoram appear as kings of Israel, and (in the reverse
order) of Judah, and somewhat similar incidents recur in the now
separate histories of the two kingdoms. The most striking is a great
revolt in south Palestine. The alliance between Jehoshaphat and Ahab
doubtless continued when the latter was succeeded by his son Ahaziah,
and some disaster befell their trading fleet in the Gulf of Akaba (1
Kings xxii. 48 seq.; 2 Chron. xx. 35-37). Next came the revolt of Moab
(2 Kings i. 1), and Ahaziah, after the briefest of reigns, was followed
by Jehoram, whose Judaean contemporary was Jehoshaphat (ch. iii.), or
perhaps rather his own namesake (i. 17). The popular story of
Jehoram’s campaign against Moab, with which Edom was probably
allied (see Moab), hints at a disastrous ending, and the Judaean annals,
in their turn, record the revolt of Edom and the Philistine Libnah (see
Philistines), and allude obscurely to a defeat of the Judaean Jehoram (2
Kings viii. 20-22). Further details in 2 Chron. xxi.-xxii. 1 even record
an invasion of Philistines and Arabians (? Edomites), an attack upon

Jerusalem, the removal of the palace treasures and of all the royal sons
with the sole exception of Jehoahaz, i.e. Ahaziah (see Jehoram;
Jehoshaphat). Had the two kingdoms been under a single head, these
features might find an explanation, but it must be allowed that it is
extremely difficult to fit the general situation into our present history,
and to determine where the line is to be drawn between trustworthy and
untrustworthy details. Moreover, of the various accounts of the
massacre of the princes of Judah, the Judaean ascribes it not to Jehu
and the reforming party (2 Kings x. 13 seq.) but to Athaliah (q.v.). Only
the babe Jehoash was saved, and he remained hidden in the Temple
adjoining the palace itself. The queen, Athaliah, despite the weak state
of Judah after the revolt in Philistia and Edom, actually appears to have
maintained herself for six years, until the priests slew her in a
conspiracy, overthrew the cult of Baal, and crowned the young child. It
is a new source which is here suddenly introduced, belonging
apparently to a history of the Temple; it throws no light upon the
relations between Judah with its priests and Israel with its prophets, the
circumstances of the regency under the priest Jehoiada are ignored, and
the Temple reforms occupy the first place in the compiler’s interest.
The Judaean annals then relate Hazael’s advance to Gath; the city was
captured and Jerusalem was saved only by using the Temple and palace
treasure as a bribe. On the other hand, Chronicles has a different story
with a novel prelude. Jehoash, it is said, turned away from Yahweh
after the death of Jehoiada and gave heed to the Judaean nobles, “wrath
came upon Judah and Jerusalem for their guilt,” prophets were sent to
bring them back but they turned a deaf ear. The climax of iniquity was
the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah. Soon after, a small band of
Syrians entered Judah, destroyed its princes, and sent the spoil to the
king of Damascus; the disaster is regarded as a prompt retribution (2
Chron. xxiv.). The inferiority of Chronicles as a historical source and

its varied examples of “tendency-writing” must be set against its
possible access to traditions as trustworthy as those in Kings.17 In the
present instance the novel details cannot be lightly brushed aside. The
position of Judah at this period must be estimated (a) from the
preceding years of intimate relationship with Israel to the accession of
Jehu, and (b) from the calamity about half a century later when
Jerusalem was sacked by Israel. The Judaean narratives do not allow us
to fill the gap or to determine whether Judaean policy under the regent
Jehoiada would be friendly or hostile to Israel, or whether Judaean
nobles may have severed the earlier bond of union. If the latter actually
occurred, the hostility of the Israelite prophets is only to be expected.
But it is to be presumed that the punishment came from Israel—the use
of Syrian mercenaries not excluded—and if, instead of using his
treasure to ward off the invasion of Syria, Jehoash bribed Damascus to
break off relations with Israel, an alternative explanation of the origin
of the Aramaean wars may be found.18

12. The Aramaean Wars.—If the records leave it uncertain (a) whether
Jehu (like Tyre and Sidon) sent tribute to Shalmaneser as a sign of
submission or, while severing relations with Hazael, sought the favour of
Assyria, and (b) whether Judah only escaped Hazael’s vengeance by a
timely bribe or, in freeing itself from Israel, had bribed Hazael to create a
diversion, it appears that the southern kingdom suffered little in the
disastrous wars between Damascus and Israel. There were, indeed, internal
troubles, and Jehoash perished in a conspiracy. His son Amaziah had some
difficulty in gaining the kingdom and showed unwonted leniency in sparing
the children of his father’s murderers. This was a departure from the
customs of the age, and was perhaps influenced less by generosity than by
expediency. Israel, on the other hand, was almost annihilated. The Syrians
seized Gilead, crossed over into Palestine, and occupied the land. Jehu’s son
Jehoahaz saw his army made “like the dust in threshing,” and the desperate

condition of the country recalls the straits in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xiii. 6,
7, 19-22), and the days before the great overthrow of the northern power as
described in Judges v. 6-8. The impression left by the horrors of the age is
clear from the allusions to the barbarities committed by Damascus and its
Ammonite allies upon Gilead (Amos i. 3, 13), and in the account of the
interview between Elisha and Hazael (2 Kings viii. 12). Several of the
situations can be more vividly realized from the narratives of Syrian wars
ascribed to the time of Omri’s dynasty, even if these did not originally refer
to the later period. Under Joash, son of Jehoahaz, the tide turned. Elisha was
apparently the champion, and posterity told of his exploits when Samaria
was visited with the sword. Thrice Joash smote the Syrians—in accordance
with the last words of the dying prophet—and Aphek in the Sharon plain,
famous in history for Israel’s disasters, now witnessed three victories. The
enemy under Hazael’s son Ben-hadad (properly Bar-hadad) was driven out
and Joash regained the territory which his father had lost (2 Kings xiii. 25);
it may reasonably be supposed that a treaty was concluded (cf. 1 Kings xx.
34). But the peace does not seem to have been popular. The story of the last
scene in Elisha’s life implies in Joash an easily contented disposition which
hindered him from completing his successes. Syria had not been crushed,
and the failure to utilize the opportunity was an act of impolitic leniency for
which Israel was bound to suffer (2 Kings xiii. 19). Elisha’s indignation can
be illustrated by the denunciation passed upon an anonymous king by the
prophetic party on a similar occasion (1 Kings xx. 35-43).

At this stage it is necessary to notice the fresh invasion of Syria by Hadad
(Adad)-nirari, who besieged Mari, king of Damascus, and exacted a heavy
tribute (c. 800 b.c.). A diversion of this kind may explain the Israelite
victories; the subsequent withdrawal of Assyria may have afforded the
occasion for retaliation. Those in Israel who remembered the previous war
between Assyria and Damascus would realize the recuperative power of the
latter, and would perceive the danger of the short-sighted policy of Joash. It

is interesting to find that Hadad-nirari claims tribute from Tyre, Sidon and
Beth-Omri (Israel), also from Edom and Palaštu (Philistia). There are no
signs of an extensive coalition as in the days of Shalmaneser; Ammon is
probably included under Damascus; the position of Moab—which had freed
itself from Jehoram of Israel—can hardly be calculated. But the absence of
Judah is surprising. Both Jehoash (of Judah) and his son Amaziah left
behind them a great name; and the latter was comparable only to David (2
Kings xiv. 3). He defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt, and hence it is
conceivable that Amaziah’s kingdom extended over both Edom and
Philistia. A vaunting challenge to Joash (of Israel) gave rise to one of the
two fables that are preserved in the Old Testament (Judg. ix. 8 sqq.; see
Abimelech). It was followed by a battle at Beth-shemesh; the scene would
suggest that Philistia also was involved. The result was the route of Judah,
the capture of Amaziah, the destruction of the northern wall of Jerusalem,
the sacking of the temple and palace, and the removal of hostages to
Samaria (2 Kings xiv. 12 sqq.). Only a few words are preserved, but the
details, when carefully weighed, are extremely significant. This momentous
event for the southern kingdom was scarcely the outcome of a challenge to
a trial of strength; it was rather the sequel to a period of smouldering
jealousy and hostility.

The Judaean records have obscured the history since the days of
Omri’s dynasty, when Israel and Judah were as one, when they were
moved by common aims and by a single reforming zeal, and only
Israel’s vengeance gives the measure of the injuries she had received.
That the Judaean compiler has not given fuller information is not
surprising; the wonder is that he should have given so much. It is one
of those epoch-making facts in the light of which the course of the
history of the preceding and following years must be estimated. It is
taken, strangely enough, from an Israelite source, but the tone of the
whole is quite dispassionate and objective. It needs little reflection to

perceive that the position of Jerusalem and Judah was now hardly one
of independence, and the conflicting chronological notices betray the
attempt to maintain intact the thread of Judaean history. So, on the one
hand, the year of the disaster sees the death of the Israelite king, and
Amaziah survives for fifteen years, while, on the other, twenty-seven
years elapse between the battle and the accession of Uzziah, the next
king of Judah.19

The importance of the historical questions regarding relations
between Damascus, Israel and Judah is clear. The defeat of Syria by
Joash (of Israel) was not final. The decisive victories were gained by
Jeroboam II. He saved Israel from being blotted out, and through his
successes “the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as of old” (2 Kings
xiii. 5, xiv. 26 seq.). Syria must have resumed warfare with redoubled
energy, and a state of affairs is presupposed which can be pictured with
the help of narratives that deal with similar historical situations. In
particular, the overthrow of Israel as foreshadowed in 1 Kings xxii.
implies an Aramaean invasion (cf. vv. 17, 25), after a treaty (xx. 35
sqq.), although this can scarcely be justified by the events which
followed the death of Ahab, in whose time they are now placed.

For the understanding of these great wars between Syria and Israel
(which the traditional chronology spreads over eighty years), for the
significance of the crushing defeats and inspiring victories, and for the
alternations of despair and hope, a careful study of all the records of
relations between Israel and the north is at least instructive, and it is
important to remember that, although the present historical outlines are
scanty and incomplete, some—if not all—of the analogous descriptions
in their present form are certainly later than the second half of the 9th
century b.c., the period in which these great events fall.20

13. Political Development.—Under Jeroboam II. the borders of Israel
were restored, and in this political revival the prophets again took part.21
The defeat of Ben-hadad by the king of Hamath and the quiescence of
Assyria may have encouraged Israelite ambitions, but until more is known
of the campaigns of Hadad-nirari and of Shalmaneser III. (against
Damascus, 773 b.c.) the situation cannot be safely gauged. Moab was
probably tributary; the position of Judah and Edom is involved with the
chronological problems. According to the Judaean annals, the “people of
Judah” set Azariah (Uzziah) upon his father’s throne; and to his long reign
of fifty-two years are ascribed conquests over Philistia and Edom, the
fortification of Jerusalem and the reorganization of the army. As the
relations with Israel are not specified, the sequel to Amaziah’s defeat is a
matter for conjecture; although, when at the death of Jeroboam Israel
hastened to its end amid anarchy and dissension, it is hardly likely that the
southern kingdom was unmoved. All that can be recognized from the
biblical records, however, is the period of internal prosperity which Israel
and Judah enjoyed under Jeroboam and Uzziah (qq.v.) respectively.

It is difficult to trace the biblical history century by century as it reaches
these last years of bitter conflict and of renewed prosperity. The northern
kingdom at the height of its power included Judah, it extended its territory
east of the Jordan towards the north and the south, and maintained close
relations with Phoenicia and the Aramaean states. It had a national history
which left its impress upon the popular imagination, and sundry fragments
of tradition reveal the pride which the patriot felt in the past. An original
close connexion is felt with the east of the Jordan and with Gilead; stories
of invasion and conquest express themselves in varied forms. In so far as
internal wealth and luxury presuppose the control of the trade-routes,
periodical alliances are implied in which Judah, willingly or unwillingly,
was included. But the Judaean records do not allow us to trace its
independent history with confidence, and our estimate can scarcely base

itself solely upon the accidental fulness or scantiness of political details. In
the subsequent disasters of Israel (§ 15) we may perceive the growing
supremacy of Judah, and the Assyrian inscriptions clearly indicate the
dependence of Judaean politics upon its relations with Edom and Arab
tribes on the south-east and with Philistia on the west. Whatever had been
the effect of the movement of the Purasati some centuries previously, the
Philistines (i.e. the people of Philistia) are now found in possession of a
mature organization, and the Assyrian evidence is of considerable value for
an estimate of the stories of conflict and covenant, of hostility and
friendship, which were current in south Palestine. The extension of the term
“Judah” (cf. that of “Israel” and “Samaria”) is involved with the
incorporation of non-Judaean elements. The country for ten miles north of
Jerusalem was the exposed and highly debatable district ascribed to the
young tribe of Benjamin (the favourite “brother” of both Judah and Joseph;
Gen. xxxvii., xxxix. sqq.); the border-line between the rival kingdoms
oscillated, and consequently the political position of the smaller and half-
desert Judaean state depended upon the attitude of its neighbours. It is
possible that tradition is right in supposing that “Judah went down from his
brethren” (Gen. xxxviii. 1; cf. Judg. i. 3). Its monarchy traced its origin to
Hebron in the south, and its growth is contemporary with a decline in Israel
(§ 7). It is at least probable that when Israel was supreme an independent
Judah would centre around a more southerly site than Jerusalem. It is
naturally uncertain how far the traditions of David can be utilized; but they
illustrate Judaean situations when they depict intrigues with Israelite
officials, vassalage under Philistia, and friendly relations with Moab, or
when they suggest how enmity between Israel and Ammon could be turned
to useful account. Tradition, in fact, is concentrated upon the rise of the
Judaean dynasty under David, but there are significant periods before the
rise of both Jehoash and Uzziah upon which the historical records maintain
a perplexing silence.

The Hebrews of Israel and Judah were, political history apart, men of the
same general stamp, with the same cult and custom; for the study of
religion and social usages, therefore, they can be treated as a single people.
The institution of the monarchy was opposed to the simpler local forms of
government, and a military régime had distinct disadvantages (cf. 1 Sam.
viii. 11-18). The king stood at the head, as the court of final appeal, and
upon him and his officers depended the people’s welfare. A more intricate
social organization caused internal weakness, and Eastern history shows
with what rapidity peoples who have become strong by discipline and
moderation pass from the height of their glory into extreme corruption and
disintegration.22 This was Israel’s fate. Opposition to social abuses and
enmity towards religious innovations are regarded as the factors which led
to the overthrow of Omri’s dynasty by Jehu, and when Israel seemed to be
at the height of its glory under Jeroboam II. warning voices again made
themselves heard. The two factors are inseparable, for in ancient times no
sharp dividing-line was drawn between religious and civic duties:
righteousness and equity, religious duty and national custom were one.

Elaborate legal enactments codified in Babylonia by the 20th century
b.c. find striking parallels in Hebrew, late Jewish (Talmudic), Syrian

and Mahommedan law, or in the unwritten usages of all ages; for even
where there were neither written laws nor duly instituted lawgivers,
there was no lawlessness, since custom and belief were, and still are,
almost inflexible. Various collections are preserved in the Old
Testament; they are attributed to the time of Moses the lawgiver, who
stands at the beginning of Israelite national and religious history. But
many of the laws were quite unsuitable for the circumstances of his
age, and the belief that a body of intricate and even contradictory
legislation was imposed suddenly upon a people newly emerged from
bondage in Egypt raises insurmountable objections, and underestimates
the fact that legal usage existed in the earliest stages of society, and

therefore in pre-Mosaic times. The more important question is the date
of the laws in their present form and content. Collections of laws are
found in Deuteronomy and in exilic and post-exilic writings; groups of
a relatively earlier type are preserved in Exod. xxxiv. 14-26, xx. 23-
xxiii., and (of another stamp) in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (now in post-exilic
form). For a useful conspectus of details, see J. E. Carpenter and G.
Harford-Battersby. The Hexateuch (vol. i., appendix); C. F. Kent,
Israel’s Laws and Legal Enactments (1907); and in general I.
Benzinger, articles “Government,” “Family” and “Law and Justice,”
Ency. Bib., and G. B. Gray, “Law Literature,” ib. (the literary growth of
legislation). Reference may also be made, for illustrative material, to
W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, Religion of the Semites; to E. Day,
Social Life of the Hebrews; and, for some comparison of customary
usage in the Semitic field, to S. A. Cook, Laws of Moses and Code of
Hammurabi.

14. Religion and the Prophets.—The elements of the thought and religion
of the Hebrews do not sever them from their neighbours; similar features of
cult are met with elsewhere under different names. Hebrew religious
institutions can be understood from the biblical evidence studied in the light
of comparative religion; and without going afield to Babylonia, Assyria or
Egypt, valuable data are furnished by the cults of Phoenicia, Syria and
Arabia, and these in turn can be illustrated from excavation and from
modern custom. Every religion has its customary cult and ritual, its
recognized times, places and persons for the observance. Worship is simpler
at the smaller shrines than at the more famous temples; and, as the rulers are
the patrons of the religion and are brought into contact with the religious
personnel, the character of the social organization leaves its mark upon
those who hold religious and judicial functions alike. The Hebrews shared
the paradoxes of Orientals, and religious enthusiasm and ecstasy were
prominent features. Seers and prophets of all kinds ranged from those who

were consulted for daily mundane affairs to those who revealed the oracles
in times of stress, from those who haunted local holy sites to those high in
royal favour, from the quiet domestic communities to the austere mountain
recluse. Among these were to be found the most sordid opportunism and the
most heroic self-effacement, the crassest supernaturalism and—the loftiest
conceptions of practical morality. A development of ideals and a growth of
spirituality can be traced which render the biblical writings with their series
of prophecies a unique phenomenon.23 The prophets taught that the national
existence of the people was bound up with religious and social conditions;
they were in a sense the politicians of the age, and to regard them simply as
foretellers of the future is to limit their sphere unduly. They took a keen
interest in all the political vicissitudes of the Oriental world. Men of all
standards of integrity, they were exposed to external influences, but whether
divided among themselves in their adherence to conflicting parties, or
isolated in their fierce denunciation of contemporary abuses, they shared
alike in the worship of Yahweh whose inspiration they claimed. A
recollection of the manifold forms which religious life and thought have
taken in Christendom or in Islam, and the passions which are so easily
engendered among opposing sects, will prevent a one-sided estimate of the
religious standpoints which the writings betray; and to the recognition that
they represent lofty ideals it must be added that the great prophets, like all
great thinkers, were in advance of their age.

The prophets are thoroughly Oriental figures, and the interpretation of
their profound religious experiences requires a particular sympathy which is
not inherent in Western minds. Their writings are to be understood in the
light of their age and of the conditions which gave birth to them. With few
exceptions they are preserved in fragmentary form, with additions and
adjustments which were necessary in order to make them applicable to later
conditions. When, as often, the great figures have been made the spokesmen
of the thought of subsequent generations, the historical criticism of the

prophecies becomes one of peculiar difficulty.24 According to the historical
traditions it is precisely in the age of Jeroboam II. and Uzziah that the first
of the extant prophecies begin (see Amos and Hosea). Here it is enough to
observe that the highly advanced doctrines of the distinctive character of
Yahweh, as ascribed to the 8th century b.c., presuppose a foundation and
development. But the evidence does not allow us to trace the earlier
progress of the ideas. Yahwism presents itself under a variety of aspects,
and the history of Israel’s relations to the God Yahweh (whose name is not
necessarily of Israelite origin) can hardly be disentangled amid the
complicated threads of the earlier history. The view that the seeds of
Yahwism were planted in the young Israelite nation in the days of the
“exodus” conflicts with the belief that the worship of Yahweh began in the
pre-Mosaic age. Nevertheless, it implies that religion passed into a new
stage through the influence of Moses, and to this we find a relatively less
complete analogy in the specific north Israelite traditions of the age of Jehu.
The change from the dynasty of Omri to that of Jehu has been treated by
several hands, and the writers, in their recognition of the introduction of a
new tendency, have obscured the fact that the cult of Yahweh had flourished
even under such a king as Ahab. While the influence of the great prophets
Elijah and Elisha is clearly visible, it is instructive to find that the south,
too, has its share in the inauguration of the new era. At Horeb, the mount of
God, was located the dramatic theophany which heralded to Elijah the
advent of the sword, and Jehu’s supporter in his sanguinary measures
belongs to the Rechabites, a sect which felt itself to be the true worshipping
community of Yahweh and is closely associated with the Kenites, the kin of
Moses. It was at the holy well of Kadesh, in the sacred mounts of Sinai and
Horeb, and in the field of Edom that the Yahweh of Moses was found, and
scattered traces survive of a definite belief in the entrance into Palestine of a
movement uncompromisingly devoted to the purer worship of Yahweh. The
course of the dynasty of Jehu—the reforms, the disastrous Aramaean wars,

and, at length, Yahweh’s “arrow of victory”—constituted an epoch in the
Israelite history, and it is regarded as such.25

The problem of the history of Yahwism depends essentially upon the
view adopted as to the date and origin of the biblical details and their
validity for the various historical and religious conditions they
presuppose. Yahwism is a religion which appears upon a soil saturated
with ideas and usages which find their parallel in extra-biblical sources
and in neighbouring lands. The problem cannot be approached from
modern preconceptions because there was much associated with the
worship of Yahweh which only gradually came to be recognized as
repugnant, and there was much in earlier ages and in other lands which
reflects an elevated and even complex religious philosophy. In the
south of the Sinaitic peninsula, remains have been found of an
elaborate half-Egyptian, half-Semitic cultus (Petrie, Researches in
Sinai, xiii.), and not only does Edom possess some reputation for
“wisdom,” but, where this district is concerned, the old Arabian
religion (whose historical connexion with Palestine is still imperfectly
known) claims some attention. The characteristic denunciations of
corruption and lifeless ritual in the writings of the prophets and the
emphasis which is laid upon purity and simplicity of religious life are
suggestive of the influence of the nomadic spirit rather than of an
internal evolution on Palestinian soil. Desert pastoral life does not
necessarily imply any intellectual inferiority, and its religious
conceptions, though susceptible of modification, are not artificially
moulded through the influence of other civilizations. Nomadic life is
recognized by Arabian writers themselves as possessing a relative
superiority, and its characteristic purity of manner and its reaction
against corruption and luxury are not incompatible with a warlike
spirit. If nomadism may be recognized as one of the factors in the
growth of Yahwism, there is something to be said for the hypothesis

which associates it with the clans connected with the Levites (see E.
Meyer, Israeliten, pp. 82 sqq.; B. Luther, ib. 138). It is, however,
obvious that the influence due to immigrants could be, and doubtless
was, exerted at more than one period (see §§ 18, 20; also Hebrew
Religion; Priest).

15. The Fall of the Israelite Monarchy.—The prosperity of Israel was its
undoing. The disorders that hastened its end find an analogy in the events of
the more obscure period after the death of the earlier Jeroboam. Only the
briefest details are given. Zechariah was slain after six months by Shallum
ben Jabesh in Ibleam; but the usurper fell a month later to Menahem (q.v.),
who only after much bloodshed established his position. Assyria again
appeared upon the scene under Tiglath-pileser IV. (745-728 b.c.).26 His
approach was the signal for the formation of a coalition, which was
overthrown in 738. Among those who paid tribute were Raṣun (the biblical
Rezin) of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria, the kings of Tyre, Byblos and
Hamath and the queen of Aribi (Arabia, the Syrian desert). Israel was once
more in league with Damascus and Phoenicia, and the biblical records must
be read in the light of political history. Judah was probably holding aloof.
Its king, Uzziah, was a leper in his latter days, and his son and regent,
Jotham, claims notice for the circumstantial reference (2 Chron. xxvii.; cf.
xxvi. 8) to his subjugation of Ammon—the natural allies of Damascus—for
three years. Scarcely had Assyria withdrawn before Menahem lost his life
in a conspiracy, and Pekah with the help of Gilead made himself king. The
new movement was evidently anti-Assyrian, and strenuous endeavours
were made to present a united front. It is suggestive to find Judah the centre
of attack.27 Raṣun and Pekah directed their blows from the north, Philistia
threatened the west flank, and the Edomites who drove out the Judaeans
from Elath (on the Gulf of ‘Akaba) were no doubt only taking their part in
the concerted action. A more critical situation could scarcely be imagined.
The throne of David was then occupied by the young Ahaz, Jotham’s son.

In this crisis we meet with Isaiah (q.v.), one of the finest of Hebrew
prophets. The disorganized state of Egypt and the uncertain allegiance of
the desert tribes left Judah without direct aid; on the other hand, opposition
to Assyria among the conflicting interests of Palestine and Syria was rarely
unanimous. Either in the natural course of events—to preserve the unity of
his empire—or influenced by the rich presents of gold and silver with
which Ahaz accompanied his appeal for help, Tiglath-pileser intervened
with campaigns against Philistia (734 b.c.) and Damascus (733-732). Israel
was punished by the ravaging of the northern districts, and the king claims
to have carried away the people of “the house of Omri.” Pekah was slain
and one Hoshea (q.v.) was recognized as his successor. Assyrian officers
were placed in the land and Judah thus gained its deliverance at the expense
of Israel. But the proud Israelites did not remain submissive for long;
Damascus had indeed fallen, but neither Philistia nor Edom had yet been
crushed.

At this stage a new problem becomes urgent. A number of petty peoples,
of whom little definite is known, fringed Palestine from the south of Judah
and the Delta to the Syrian desert. They belong to an area which merges
itself in the west into Egypt, and Egypt in fact had a hereditary claim upon
it. Continued intercourse between Egypt, Gaza and north Arabia is natural
in view of the trade-routes which connected them, and on several occasions
joint action on the part of Edomites (with allied tribes) and the Philistines is
recorded, or may be inferred. The part played by Egypt proper in the
ensuing anti-Assyrian combinations is not clearly known; with a number of
petty dynasts fomenting discontent and revolt, there was an absence of
cohesion in that ancient empire previous to the rise of the Ethiopian
dynasty. Consequently the references to “Egypt” (Heb. Miṣrayim, Ass.
Muṣri) sometimes suggest that the geographical term was really extended
beyond the bounds of Egypt proper towards those districts where Egyptian
influence or domination was or had been recognized (see further Mizraim).

When Israel began to recover its prosperity and regained confidence, its
policy halted between obedience to Assyria and reliance upon this
ambiguous “Egypt.” The situation is illustrated in the writings of Hosea
(q.v.). When at length Tiglath-pileser died, in 727, the slumbering revolt
became general; Israel refused the usual tribute to its overlord, and
definitely threw in its lot with “Egypt.” In due course Samaria was besieged
for three years by Shalmaneser IV. The alliance with So (Seveh, Sibi) of
“Egypt,” upon whom hopes had been placed, proved futile, and the
forebodings of keen-sighted prophets were justified. Although no evidence
is at hand, it is probable that Ahaz of Judah rendered service to Assyria by
keeping the allies in check; possible, also, that the former enemies of
Jerusalem had now been induced to turn against Samaria. The actual
capture of the Israelite capital is claimed by Sargon (722), who removed
27,290 of its inhabitants and fifty chariots. Other peoples were introduced,
officers were placed in charge, and the usual tribute re-imposed. Another
revolt was planned in 720 in which the province of Samaria joined with
Hamath and Damascus, with the Phoenician Arpad and Ṣimura, and with
Gaza and “Egypt.” Two battles, one at Karkar in the north, another at Rapiḥ
(Raphia) on the border of Egypt, sufficed to quell the disturbance. The
desert peoples who paid tribute on this occasion still continued restless, and
in 715 Sargon removed men of Tamūd, Ibādid, Marsiman, Ḥayāpa, “the
remote Arabs of the desert,” and placed them in the land of Beth-Omri.
Sargon’s statement is significant for the internal history; but unfortunately
the biblical historians take no further interest in the fortunes of the northern
kingdom after the fall of Samaria, and see in Judah the sole survivor of the
Israelite tribes (see 2 Kings xvii. 7-23). Yet the situation in this neglected
district must continue to provoke inquiry.

16. Judah and Assyria.—Amid these changes Judah was intimately
connected with the south Palestinian peoples (see further Philistines). Ahaz
had recognized the sovereignty of Assyria and visited Tiglath-pileser at

Damascus. The Temple records describe the innovations he introduced on
his return. Under his son Hezekiah there were fresh disturbances in the
southern states, and anti-Assyrian intrigues began to take a more definite
shape among the Philistine cities. Ashdod openly revolted and found
support in Moab, Edom, Judah, and the still ambiguous “Egypt.” This step
may possibly be connected with the attempt of Marduk (Merodach)-baladan
in south Babylonia to form a league against Assyria (cf. 2 Kings xx. 12); at
all events Ashdod fell after a three years’ siege (711) and for a time there
was peace. But with the death of Sargon in 705 there was another great
outburst; practically the whole of Palestine and Syria was in arms, and the
integrity of Sennacherib’s empire was threatened. In both Judah and
Philistia the anti-Assyrian party was not without opposition, and those who
adhered or favoured adherence to the great power were justified by the
result. The inevitable lack of cohesion among the petty states weakened the
national cause. At Sennacherib’s approach, Ashdod, Ammon, Moab and
Edom submitted; Ekron, Ascalon, Lachish and Jerusalem held out
strenuously. The southern allies (with “Egypt”) were defeated at Eltekeh
(Josh. xix. 44). Hezekiah was besieged and compelled to submit (701). The
small kings who had remained faithful were rewarded by an extension of
their territories, and Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza were enriched at Judah’s
expense. These events are related in Sennacherib’s inscription; the biblical
records preserve their own traditions (see Hezekiah). If the impression left
upon current thought can be estimated from certain of the utterances of the
court-prophet Isaiah and the Judaean countryman Micah (q.v.), the light
which these throw upon internal conditions must also be used to gauge the
real extent of the religious changes ascribed to Hezekiah. A brazen serpent,
whose institution was attributed to Moses, had not hitherto been considered
out of place in the cult; its destruction was perhaps the king’s most notable
reform.

In the long reign of his son Manasseh later writers saw the deathblow to
the Judaean kingdom. Much is related of his wickedness and enmity to the
followers of Yahweh, but few political details have come down. It is
uncertain whether Sennacherib invaded Judah again shortly before his
death, nevertheless the land was practically under the control of Assyria.
Both Esar-haddon (681-668) and Assur-bani-pal (668-c. 626) number
among their tributaries Tyre, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Ascalon, Gaza and
Manasseh himself,28 and cuneiform dockets unearthed at Gezer suggest the
presence of Assyrian garrisons there (and no doubt also elsewhere) to
ensure allegiance. The situation was conducive to the spread of foreign
customs, and the condemnation passed upon Manasseh thus perhaps
becomes more significant. Precisely what form his worship took is a matter
of conjecture; but it is possible that the religion must not be judged too
strictly from the standpoint of the late compiler, and that Manasseh merely
assimilated the older Yahweh-worship to new Assyrian forms.29 Politics and
religion, however, were inseparable, and the supremacy of Assyria meant
the supremacy of the Assyrian pantheon.

If Judah was compelled to take part in the Assyrian campaigns against
Egypt, Arabia (the Syrian desert) and Tyre, this would only be in
accordance with a vassal’s duty. But when tradition preserves some
recollection of an offence for which Manasseh was taken to Babylon to
explain his conduct (2 Chron. xxxiii.), also of the settling of foreign
colonists in Samaria by Esar-haddon (Ezra iv. 2), there is just a possibility
that Judah made some attempt to gain independence. According to Assur-
bani-pal all the western lands were inflamed by the revolt of his brother
Samas-sum-ukin. What part Judah took in the Transjordanic disturbances,
in which Moab fought invading Arabian tribes on behalf of Assyria, is
unknown (see Moab). Manasseh’s son Amon fell in a court intrigue and
“the people of the land,” after avenging the murder, set up in his place the
infant Josiah (637). The circumstances imply a regency, but the records are

silent upon the outlook. The assumption that the decay of Assyria awoke the
national feeling of independence is perhaps justified by those events which
made the greatest impression upon the compiler, and an account is given of
Josiah’s religious reforms, based upon a source apparently identical with
that which described the work of Jehoash. In an age when the oppression
and corruption of the ruling classes had been such that those who cherished
the old worship of Yahweh dared not confide in their most intimate
companions (Mic. vii. 5, 6), no social reform was possible; but now the
young Josiah, the popular choice, was upon the throne. A roll, it is said, was
found in the Temple, its contents struck terror into the hearts of the priests
and king, and it led to a solemn covenant before Yahweh to observe the
provisions of the law-book which had been so opportunely recovered.

That the writer (2 Kings xxii. seq.) meant to describe the discovery
of Deuteronomy is evident from the events which followed; and this
identification of the roll, already made by Jerome, Chrysostom and
others, has been substantiated by modern literary criticism since De
Wette (1805). (See Deuteronomy; Josiah.) Some very interesting
parallels have been cited from Egyptian and Assyrian records where
religious texts, said to have been found in temples, or oracles from the
distant past, have come to light at the very time when “the days were
full.”30 There is, however, no real proof for the traditional antiquity of
Deuteronomy. The book forms a very distinctive landmark in the
religious history by reason of its attitude to cult and ritual (see Hebrew
Religion, § 7). In particular it is aimed against the worship at the
numerous minor sanctuaries and inculcates the sole pre-eminence of
the one great sanctuary—the Temple of Jerusalem. This centralization
involved the removal of the local priests and a modification of ritual
and legal observance. The fall of Samaria, Sennacherib’s devastation of
Judah, and the growth of Jerusalem as the capital, had tended to raise
the position of the Temple, although Israel itself, as also Judah, had

famous sanctuaries of its own. From the standpoint of the popular
religion, the removal of the local altars, like Hezekiah’s destruction of
the brazen serpent, would be an act of desecration, an iconoclasm
which can be partly appreciated from the sentiments of 2 Kings xviii.
22, and partly also from the modern Wahhabite reformation (of the
19th century). But the details and success of the reforms, when viewed
in the light of the testimony of contemporary prophets, are uncertain.
The book of Deuteronomy crystallizes a doctrine; it is the codification
of teaching which presupposes a carefully prepared soil. The account
of Josiah’s work, like that of Hezekiah, is written by one of the
Deuteronomic school: that is to say, the writer describes the
promulgation of the teaching under which he lives. It is part of the
scheme which runs through the book of Kings, and its apparent object
is to show that the Temple planned by David and founded by Solomon
ultimately gained its true position as the only sanctuary of Yahweh to
which his worshippers should repair. Accordingly, in handling Josiah’s
successors the writer no longer refers to the high places. But if Josiah
carried out the reforms ascribed to him they were of no lasting effect.
This is conclusively shown by the writings of Jeremiah (xxv. 3-7,
xxxvi. 2 seq.) and Ezekiel. Josiah himself is praised for his justice, but
faithless Judah is insincere (Jer. iii. 10), and those who claim to possess
Yahweh’s law are denounced (viii. 8). If Israel could appear to be better
than Judah (iii. 11; Ezek. xvi., xxiii.), the religious revival was a
practical failure, and it was not until a century later that the opportunity
again came to put any new teaching into effect (§ 20). On the other
hand, the book of Deuteronomy has a characteristic social-religious
side; its humanity, philanthropy and charity are the distinctive features
of its laws, and Josiah’s reputation (Jer. xxii. 15 seq.) and the
circumstances in which he was chosen king may suggest that he, like
Jehoash (2 Kings xi. 17; cf. xxiii. 3), had entered into a reciprocal

covenant with a people who, as Micah’s writings would indicate, had
suffered grievous oppression and misery.31

17. The Fall of the Judaean Monarchy.—In Josiah’s reign a new era was
beginning in the history of the world. Assyria was rapidly decaying and
Egypt had recovered from the blows of Assur-bani-pal (to which the
Hebrew prophet Nahum alludes, iii. 8-10). Psammetichus (Psamtek) I., one
of the ablest of Egyptian rulers for many centuries, threw off the Assyrian
yoke with the help of troops from Asia Minor and employed these to guard
his eastern frontiers at Defneh. He also revived the old trading-connexions
between Egypt and Phoenicia. A Chaldean prince, Nabopolassar, set himself
up in Babylonia, and Assyria was compelled to invoke the aid of the
Aškuza. It was perhaps after this that an inroad of Scythians (q.v.) occurred
(c. 626 b.c.); if it did not actually touch Judah, the advent of the people of
the north appears to have caused great alarm (Jer. iv.-vi.: Zephaniah).
Bethshean in Samaria has perhaps preserved in its later (though temporary)
name Scythopolis an echo of the invasion.32 Later, Necho, son of
Psammetichus, proposed to add to Egypt some of the Assyrian provinces,
and marched through Palestine. Josiah at once interposed; it is uncertain
whether, in spite of the power of Egypt, he had hopes of extending his
kingdom, or whether the famous reformer was, like Manasseh, a vassal of
Assyria. The book of Kings gives the standpoint of a later Judaean writer,
but Josiah’s authority over a much larger area than Judah alone is suggested
by xxiii. 19 (part of an addition), and by the references to the border at
Riblah in Ezek. vi. 14, xi. 10 seq. He was slain at Megiddo in 608, and
Egypt, as in the long-distant past, again held Palestine and Syria. The
Judaeans made Jehoahaz (or Shallum) their king, but the Pharaoh banished
him to Egypt three months later and appointed his brother Jehoiakim.
Shortly afterwards Nineveh fell, and with it the empire which had
dominated the fortunes of Palestine for over two centuries (see § 10).
Nabonidus (Nabunaid) king of Babylonia (556 b.c.) saw in the disaster the

vengeance of the gods for the sacrilege of Sennacherib; the Hebrew
prophets, for their part, exulted over Yahweh’s far-reaching judgment. The
newly formed Chaldean power at once recognized in Necho a dangerous
rival and Nabopolassar sent his son Nebuchadrezzar, who overthrew the
Egyptian forces at Carchemish (605). The battle was the turning-point of
the age, and with it the succession of the new Chaldean or Babylonian
kingdom was assured. But the relations between Egypt and Judah were not
broken off. The course of events is not clear, but Jehoiakim (q.v.) at all
events was inclined to rely upon Egypt. He died just as Nebuchadrezzar,
seeing his warnings disregarded, was preparing to lay siege to Jerusalem.
His young son Jehoiachin surrendered after a three months’ reign, with his
mother and the court; they were taken away to Babylonia, together with a
number of the artisan class (596). Jehoiakim’s brother, Mattaniah or
Zedekiah, was set in his place under an oath of allegiance, which he broke,
preferring Hophra the new king of Egypt. A few years later the second siege
took place. It began on the tenth day of the tenth month, January 587. The
looked-for intervention of Egypt was unavailing, although a temporary
raising of the siege inspired wild hopes. Desertion, pestilence and famine
added to the usual horrors of a siege, and at length on the ninth day of the
fourth month 586, a breach was made in the walls. Zedekiah fled towards
the Jordan valley but was seized and taken to Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah (45
m. south of Hamath). His sons were slain before his eyes, and he himself
was blinded and carried off to Babylon after a reign of eleven years. The
Babylonian Nebuzaradan was sent to take vengeance upon the rebellious
city, and on the seventh day of the fifth month 586 b.c. Jerusalem was
destroyed. The Temple, palace and city buildings were burned, the walls
broken down, the chief priest Seraiah, the second priest Zephaniah, and
other leaders were put to death, and a large body of people was again
carried away. The disaster became the great epoch-making event for Jewish
history and literature.

Throughout these stormy years the prophet Jeremiah (q.v.) had realized
that Judah’s only hope lay in submission to Babylonia. Stigmatized as a
traitor, scorned and even imprisoned, he had not ceased to utter his
warnings to deaf ears, although Zedekiah himself was perhaps open to
persuasion. Now the penalty had been paid, and the Babylonians, whose
policy was less destructive than that of Assyria, contented themselves with
appointing as governor a certain Gedaliah. The new centre was Mizpah, a
commanding eminence and sanctuary, about 5 m. N.W. of Jerusalem; and
here Gedaliah issued an appeal to the people to be loyal to Babylonia and to
resume their former peaceful occupations. The land had not been
devastated, and many gladly returned from their hiding-places in Moab,
Edom and Ammon. But discontented survivors of the royal family under
Ishmael intrigued with Baalis, king of Ammon. The plot resulted in the
murder of Gedaliah and an unsuccessful attempt to carry off various
princesses and officials who had been left in the governor’s care. This new
confusion and a natural fear of Babylonia’s vengeance led many to feel that
their only safety lay in flight to Egypt, and, although warned by Jeremiah
that even there the sword would find them, they fled south and took refuge
in Tahpanhes (Daphnae, q.v.), afterwards forming small settlements in other
parts of Egypt. But the thread of the history is broken, and apart from an
allusion to the favour shown to the captive Jehoiachin (with which the
books of Jeremiah and Kings conclude), there is a gap in the records, and
subsequent events are viewed from a new standpoint (§ 20).

The last few years of the Judaean kingdom present several difficult
problems.

(a) That there was some fluctuation of tradition is evident in the case
of Jehoiakim, with whose quiet end (2 Kings xxiv. 6 [see also Lucian];
2 Chron. xxxvi. 8 [Septuagint]) contrast the fate foreshadowed in Jer.
xxii. 18 seq., xxxvi. 30 (cf. Jos. Ant. x. 6, 2 seq.). The tradition of his

captivity (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6; Dan. i. 2) has apparently confused him
with Jehoiachin, and the latter’s reign is so brief that some overlapping
is conceivable. Moreover, the prophecy in Jer. xxxiv. 5 that Zedekiah
would die in peace is not borne out by the history, nor does Josiah’s
fate agree with the promise in 2 Kings xxii. 20. There is also an evident
relation between the pairs: Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and
Zedekiah (e.g. length of reigns), and the difficulty felt in regard to the
second and third is obvious in the attempts of the Jewish historian
Josephus to provide a compromise. The contemporary prophecies
ascribed to Jeremiah and Ezekiel require careful examination in this
connexion, partly as regards their traditional background (especially
the headings and setting), and partly for their contents, the details of
which sometimes do not admit of a literal interpretation in accordance
with our present historical material (cf. Ezek. xix. 3-9, where the two
brothers carried off to Egypt and Babylon respectively would seem to
be Jehoahaz and his nephew Jehoiachin).

(b) Some fluctuation is obvious in the number, dates and extent of
the deportations. Jer. lii. 28-30 gives a total of 4600 persons, in contrast
to 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16 (the numbers are not inclusive), and reckons
three deportations in the 7th (? 17th), 18th and 23rd years of
Nebuchadrezzar. Only the second is specifically said to be from
Jerusalem (the remaining are of Judaeans), and the last has been
plausibly connected with the murder of Gedaliah, an interval of five
years being assumed. For this twenty-third year Josephus (Ant. x. 9, 7)
gives an invasion of Egypt and an attack upon Ammon, Moab and
Palestine (see Nebuchadrezzar).

(c) That the exile lasted seventy years (? from 586 b.c. to the
completion of the second temple) is the view of the canonical history
(2 Chron. xxxvi. 21; Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10; Zech. i. 12; cf. Tyre, Isa.

xxiii. 15), but it is usually reckoned from the first deportation, which
was looked upon as of greater significance than the second (Jer. xxiv.
xxix.), and it may be a round number. Another difficulty is the
interpretation of the 40 years in Ezek. iv. 6 (cf. Egypt, xxix. 11), and
the 390 in v. 5 (Septuagint 150 or 190; 130 in Jos. x. 9, 7 end). A period
of fifty years is allowed by the chronological scheme (1 Kings vi. 1; cf.
Jos. c. Ap. i. 21), and the late book of Baruch (vi. 3) even speaks of
seven generations. Varying chronological schemes may have been
current and some weight must be laid upon the remarkable vagueness
of the historical information in later writings (see Daniel).

(d) The attitude of the neighbouring peoples constitutes another
serious problem (cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 2 and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5, where
Lucian’s recension and the Septuagint respectively add the
Samaritans!), in view of the circumstances of Gedaliah’s appointment
(Jer. xl. 11, see above) as contrasted with the frequent prophecies
against Ammon, Moab and Edom which seem to be contemporary (see
Edom; Moab).

(e) Finally, the recurrence of similar historical situations in Judaean
history must be considered. The period under review, with its relations
between Judah and Egypt, can be illustrated by prophecies ascribed to
a similar situation in the time of Hezekiah. But the destruction of
Jerusalem is not quite unique, and somewhat later we meet with
indirect evidence for at least one similar disaster upon which the
records are silent. There are a number of apparently related passages
which, however, on internal grounds, are unsuitable to the present
period, and when they show independent signs of a later date (in their
present form), there is a very strong probability that they refer to such
subsequent disasters. The scantiness of historical tradition makes a
final solution impossible, but the study of these years has an important

bearing on the history of the later Judaean state, which has been
characteristically treated from the standpoint of exiles who returned
from Babylonia and regard themselves as the kernel of “Israel.” From
this point of view, the desire to intensify the denudation of Palestine
and the fate of its remnant, and to look to the Babylonian exiles for the
future, can probably be recognized in the writings attributed to
contemporary prophets.33

18. Internal Conditions and the Exile.—Many of the exiles accepted their
lot and settled down in Babylonia (cf. Jer. xxix. 4-7); Jewish colonies, too,
were being founded in Egypt. The agriculturists and herdsmen who had
been left in Palestine formed, as always, the staple population, and it is
impossible to imagine either Judah or Israel as denuded of its inhabitants.
The down-trodden peasants were left in peace to divide the land among
them, and new conditions arose as they took over the ownerless estates. But
the old continuity was not entirely broken; there was a return to earlier
conditions, and life moved more freely in its wonted channels. The fall of
the monarchy involved a reversion to a pre-monarchical state. It had
scarcely been otherwise in Israel. The Israelites who had been carried off by
the Assyrians were also removed from the cult of the land (cf. 1 Sam. xxvi.
19; Ruth i. 15 seq.). It is possible that some had escaped by taking timely
refuge among their brethren in Judah; indeed, if national tradition availed,
there were doubtless times when Judah cast its eye upon the land with
which it had been so intimately connected. It would certainly be unwise to
draw a sharp boundary line between the two districts; kings of Judah could
be tempted to restore the kingdom of their traditional founder, or Assyria
might be complaisant towards a faithful Judaean vassal. The character of
the Assyrian domination over Israel must not be misunderstood; the regular
payment of tribute and the provision of troops were the main requirements,
and the position of the masses underwent little change if an Assyrian
governor took the place of an unpopular native ruler. The two sections of

the Hebrews who had had so much in common were scarcely severed by a
border-line only a few miles to the north of Jerusalem. But Israel after the
fall of Samaria is artificially excluded from the Judaean horizon, and lies as
a foreign land, although Judah itself had suffered from the intrusion of
foreigners in the preceding centuries of war and turmoil, and strangers had
settled in her midst, had formed part of the royal guard, or had even served
as janissaries (§ 15, end).

Samaria had experienced several changes in its original population,34 and
an instructive story tells how the colonists, in their ignorance of the religion
of their new home, incurred the divine wrath. Cujus regio ejus religio—
settlement upon a new soil involved dependence upon its god, and
accordingly priests were sent to instruct the Samaritans in the fear of
Yahweh. Thenceforth they continued the worship of the Israelite Yahweh
along with their own native cults (2 Kings xvii. 24-28, 33). Their
descendants claimed participation in the privileges of the Judaeans (cf. Jer.
xli. 5), and must have identified themselves with the old stock (Ezra iv. 2).
Whatever recollection they preserved of their origin and of the
circumstances of their entry would be retold from a new standpoint; the
ethnological traditions would gain a new meaning; the assimilation would
in time become complete. In view of subsequent events it would be difficult
to find a more interesting subject of inquiry than the internal religious and
sociological conditions in Samaria at this age.

To the prophets the religious position was lower in Judah than in
Samaria, whose iniquities were less grievous (Jer. iii. 11 seq., xxiii. 11 sqq.;
Ezek. xvi. 51). The greater prevalence of heathen elements in Jerusalem, as
detailed in the reforms of Josiah or in the writings of the prophets (cf. Ezek.
viii.), would at least suggest that the destruction of the state was not entirely
a disaster. To this catastrophe may be due the fragmentary character of old
Judaean historical traditions. Moreover, the land was purified when it

became divorced from the practices of a luxurious court and lost many of its
worst inhabitants. In Israel as in Judah the political disasters not only meant
a shifting of population, they also brought into prominence the old popular
and non-official religion, the character of which is not to be condemned
because of the attitude of lofty prophets in advance of their age. When there
were sects like the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), when the Judaean fields could
produce a Micah or a Zephaniah, and when Israel no doubt had men who
inherited the spirit of a Hosea, the nature of the underlying conditions can
be more justly appreciated. The writings of the prophets were cherished, not
only in the unfavourable atmosphere of courts (see Jer. xxxvi., 21 sqq.), but
also in the circles of their followers (Isa. viii. 16). In the quiet smaller
sanctuaries the old-time beliefs were maintained, and the priests, often
perhaps of the older native stock (cf. 2 Kings xvii. 28 and above), were the
recognized guardians of the religious cults. The old stories of earlier days
encircle places which, though denounced for their corruption, were not
regarded as illegitimate, and in the form in which the dim traditions of the
past are now preserved they reveal an attempt to purify popular belief and
thought. In the domestic circles of prophetic communities the part played
by their great heads in history did not suffer in the telling, and it is probable
that some part at least of the extant history of the Israelite kingdom passed
through the hands of men whose interest lay in the pre-eminence of their
seers and their beneficent deeds on behalf of these small communities. This
interest and the popular tone of the history may be combined with the fact
that the literature does not take us into the midst of that world of activity in
which the events unfolded themselves.

Although the records preserve complete silence upon the period now
under review, it is necessary to free oneself from the narrow outlook of
the later Judaean compilers. It is a gratuitous assumption that the
history of (north) Israel ceased with the fall of Samaria or that Judah
then took over Israelite literature and inherited the old Israelite spirit:

the question of the preservation of earlier writings is of historical
importance. It is true that the situation in Israel or Samaria continues
obscure, but a careful study of literary productions, evidently not
earlier than the 7th century b.c., reveals a particular loftiness of
conception and a tendency which finds its parallels in Hosea and
approximates the peculiar characteristics of the Deuteronomic school
of thought. But the history which the Judaean writers have handed
down is influenced by the later hostility between Judah and Samaria.
The traditional bond between the north and south which nothing could
efface (cf. Jos. Ant., xi. 8, 6) has been carried back to the earliest ages;
yet the present period, after the age of rival kingdoms, Judah and Israel,
and before the foundation of Judaism, is that in which the historical
background for the inclusion of Judah among the “sons” of Israel is
equally suitable (§§ 5, 20, end). The circumstances favoured a closer
alliance between the people of Palestine, and a greater prominence of
the old holy places (Hebron, Bethel, Shechem, &c.), of which the
ruined Jerusalem would not be one, and the existing condition of Judah
and Israel from internal and non-political points of view—not their
condition in the pre-monarchical ages—is the more crucial problem in
biblical history.35

19. Persian Period.36—The course of events from the middle of the 6th
century b.c. to the close of the Persian period is lamentably obscure,
although much indirect evidence indicates that this age holds the key to the
growth of written biblical history. It was an age of literary activity which
manifested itself, not in contemporary historical records—only a few of
which have survived—but rather in the special treatment of previously
existing sources. The problems are of unusual intricacy and additional light
is needed from external evidence. It will be convenient to turn to this first.
Scarcely 40 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, a new power appeared
in the east in the person of Cyrus the Great. Babylon speedily fell (539 b.c.)

and a fresh era opened. To the petty states this meant only a change of
masters; they now became part of one of the largest empires of antiquity.
The prophets who had marked in the past the advent of Assyrians and
Chaldeans now fixed their eyes upon the advance of Cyrus, confident that
the fall of Babylon would bring the restoration of their fortunes. Cyrus was
hailed as the divinely appointed saviour, the anointed one of Yahweh. The
poetic imagery in which the prophets clothed the doom of Babylon, like the
romantic account of Herodotus (i. 191), falls short of the simple
contemporary account of Cyrus himself. He did not fulfil the detailed
predictions, and the events did not reach the ideals of Hebrew writers; but
these anticipations may have influenced the form which the Jewish
traditions subsequently took. Nevertheless, if Cyrus was not originally a
Persian and was not a worshipper of Yahweh (Isa. xli. 25), he was at least
tolerant towards subject races and their religions, and the persistent
traditions unmistakably point to the honour in which his memory was held.
Throughout the Persian supremacy Palestine was necessarily influenced by
the course of events in Phoenicia and Egypt (with which intercourse was
continual), and some light may thus be indirectly thrown on its otherwise
obscure political history. Thus, when Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, made his
great expedition against Egypt, with the fleets of Phoenicia and Cyprus and
with the camels of the Arabians, it is highly probable that Palestine itself
was concerned. Also, the revolt which broke out in the Persian provinces at
this juncture may have extended to Palestine; although the usurper Darius
encountered his most serious opposition in the north and north-east of his
empire. An outburst of Jewish religious feeling is dated in the second year
of Darius (520), but whether Judah was making a bold bid for independence
or had received special favour for abstaining from the above revolts,
external evidence alone can decide. Towards the close of the reign of Darius
there was a fresh revolt in Egypt; it was quelled by Xerxes (485-465), who
did not imitate the religious tolerance of his predecessors. Artaxerxes I.

Longimanus (465-425), attracts attention because the famous Jewish
reformers Ezra and Nehemiah flourished under a king of this name. Other
revolts occurred in Egypt, and for these and also for the rebellion of the
Persian satrap Megabyzos (c. 448-447), independent evidence for the
position of Judah is needed, since a catastrophe apparently befell the
unfortunate state before Nehemiah appears upon the scene. Little is known
of the mild and indolent Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (404-359). With the
growing weakness of the Persian empire Egypt reasserted its independence
for a time. In the reign of Artaxerxes III. Ochus (359-338), Egypt,
Phoenicia and Cyprus were in revolt; the rising was quelled without mercy,
and the details of the vengeance are valuable for the possible fate of
Palestine itself. The Jewish historian Josephus (Ant. xi. 7) records the
enslavement of the Jews, the pollution of the Temple by a certain Bagoses
(see Bagoas), and a seven years’ punishment. Other late sources narrate the
destruction of Jericho and a deportation of the Jews to Babylonia and to
Hyrcania (on the Caspian Sea). The evidence for the catastrophes under
Artaxerxes I. and III. (see Artaxerxes), exclusively contained in biblical
and in external tradition respectively, is of particular importance, since
several biblical passages refer to disasters similar to those of 586 but
presuppose different conditions and are apparently of later origin.37 The
murder of Artaxerxes III. by Bagoses gave a set-back to the revival of the
Persian Empire. Under Darius Codomannus (336-330) the advancing Greek
power brought matters to a head, and at the battle of Issus in 333 Alexander
settled its fate. The overthrow of Tyre and Gaza secured the possession of
the coast and the Jewish state entered upon the Greek period. (See § 25.)

During these two centuries the Jews in Palestine had been only one
of an aggregate of subject peoples enjoying internal freedom provided
in return for a regular tribute. They lived in comparative quietude;
although Herodotus knows the Palestinian coast he does not mention
the Jews. The earlier Persian kings acknowledged the various religions

of the petty peoples; they were also patrons of their temples and would
take care to preserve an ancient right of asylum or the privileges of
long-established cults.38 Cyrus on entering Babylon had even restored
the gods to the cities to which they belonged.39 Consequently much
interest attaches to the evidence which illustrates the environment of
the Jews during this period. Those who had been scattered from
Palestine lived in small colonies, sometimes mingling and
intermarrying with the natives, sometimes strictly preserving their own
individuality. Some took root in the strange lands, and, as later popular
stories indicate, evidently reached high positions; others, retaining a
more vivid tradition of the land of their fathers, cherished the ideal of a
restored Jerusalem. Excavation at Nippur (q.v.) in Babylonia has
brought to light numerous contract tablets of the 5th century b.c. with
Hebrew proper names (Haggai, Hanani, Gedaliah, &c.). Papyri from
Elephantine in Upper Egypt, of the same age, proceed from Jewish
families who carry on a flourishing business, live among Egyptians and
Persians, and take their oaths in courts of law in the name of the god
“Yahu,” the “God of Heaven,” whose temple dated from the last
Egyptian kings. Indeed, it was claimed that Cambyses had left the
sanctuary unharmed but had destroyed the temples of the Egyptians. In
Elephantine, as in Nippur, the legal usages show that similar elements
of Babylonio-Assyrian culture prevailed, and the evidence from two
such widely separated fields is instructive for conditions in Palestine
itself.40

20. The Restoration of Judah.—The biblical history for the Persian
period is contained in a new source—the books of Ezra and Nehemiah,
whose standpoint and period are that of Chronicles, with which they are
closely joined. After a brief description of the fall of Jerusalem the “seventy
years” of the exile are passed over, and we are plunged into a history of the
return (2 Chron. xxxvi.; Ezra i.). Although Palestine had not been

depopulated, and many of the exiled Jews remained in Persia, the
standpoint is that of those who returned from Babylon. Settled in and
around Jerusalem, they look upon themselves as the sole community, the
true Israel, even as it was believed that once before Israel entered and
developed independently in the land of its ancestors. They look back from
the age when half-suppressed hostility with Samaria had broken out, and
when an exclusive Judaism had been formed. The interest of the writers is
as usual in the religious history; they were indifferent to, or perhaps rather
ignorant of, the strict order of events. Their narratives can be partially
supplemented from other sources (Haggai; Zechariah i.-viii.; Isa. xl.-lxvi.;
Malachi), but a consecutive sketch is impossible.41

In 561 b.c. the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin, had received special
marks of favour from Nebuchadrezzar’s son Amil-marduk. So little is
known of this act of recognition that its significance can only be
conjectured. A little later Tyre received as its king Merbaal (555-552) who
had been fetched from Babylonia. Babylonia was politically unsettled, the
representative of the Davidic dynasty had descendants; if Babylon was
assured of the allegiance of Judah further acts of clemency may well have
followed. But the later recension of Judaean history—our sole source—
entirely ignores the elevation of Jehoiachin (2 Kings xxv. 27 sqq.; Jer. lii.
31-34), and proceeds at once to the first year of Cyrus, who proclaims as his
divine mission the rebuilding of the Temple (538). The Judaean
Sheshbazzar (a corruption of some Babylonian name) brought back the
Temple vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had carried away and prepared to
undertake the work at the expense of the royal purse. An immense body of
exiles is said to have returned at this time to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel,
who was of Davidic descent, and the priest Jeshua or Joshua, the grandson
of the murdered Seraiah (Ezra i.-iii.; v. 13-vi. 5). When these refused the
proffered help of the people of Samaria, men of the same faith as
themselves (iv. 2), their troubles began, and the Samaritans retaliated by

preventing the rebuilding. The next historical notice is dated in the second
year of Darius (520) when two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, came
forward to kindle the Judaeans to new efforts, and in spite of opposition the
work went steadily onwards, thanks to the favour of Darius, until the
Temple was completed four years later (Ezra v. 2, vi. 13 sqq.). On the other
hand, from the independent writings ascribed to these prophets, it appears
that no considerable body of exiles could have returned—it is still an event
of the future (Zech. ii. 7, vi. 15); little, if anything, had been done to the
Temple (Hag. ii. 15); and Zerubbabel is the one to take in hand and
complete the great undertaking (Zech. iv. 9). The prophets address
themselves to men living in comfortable abodes with olive-fields and
vineyards, suffering from bad seasons and agricultural depression, and
though the country is unsettled there is no reference to any active
opposition on the part of Samaritans. So far from drawing any lesson from
the brilliant event in the reign of Cyrus, the prophets imply that Yahweh’s
wrath is still upon the unfortunate city and that Persia is still the oppressor.
Consequently, although small bodies of individuals no doubt came back to
Judah from time to time, and some special mark of favour may have been
shown by Cyrus, the opinion has gained ground since the early arguments
of E. Schrader (Stud. u. Krit., 1867, pp. 460-504), that the compiler’s
representation of the history is untrustworthy. His main object is to make
the new Israel, the post-exilic community at Jerusalem, continuous, as a
society, with the old Israel.42 Greater weight must be laid upon the
independent evidence of the prophetical writings, and the objection that
Palestine could not have produced the religious fervency of Haggai or
Zechariah without an initial impulse from Babylonia begs the question.
Unfortunately the internal conditions in the 6th century b.c. can be only
indirectly estimated (§ 18), and the political position must remain for the
present quite uncertain. In Zerubbabel the people beheld once more a ruler
of the Davidic race. The new temple heralded a new future; the mournful

fasts commemorative of Jerusalem’s disasters would become feasts;
Yahweh had left the Temple at the fall of Jerusalem, but had now returned
to sanctify it with his presence; the city had purged its iniquity and was fit
once more to become the central sanctuary. So Haggai sees in Zerubbabel
the representative of the ideal kingdom, the trusted and highly favoured
minister who was the signet-ring upon Yahweh’s hand (contrast Hag. ii. 24
with Jer. xxii. 23). Zechariah, in his turn, proclaims the overthrow of all
difficulties in the path of the new king, who shall rule in glory supported by
the priest (Zech. vi.). What political aspirations were revived, what other
writers were inspired by these momentous events are questions of inference.

A work which inculcates the dependence of the state upon the purity
of its ruler is the unfinished book of Kings with its history of the
Davidic dynasty and the Temple. Its ideals culminate in Josiah (§ 16,
end), and there is a strong presumption that it is intended to impress
upon the new era the lessons drawn from the past. Its treatment of the
monarchy is only part of a great and now highly complicated literary
undertaking (traceable in the books Joshua to Kings), inspired with the
thought and coloured by language characteristic of Deuteronomy
(especially the secondary portions), which forms the necessary
introduction. Whatever reforms Josiah actually accomplished, the
restoration afforded the opportunity of bringing the Deuteronomic
teaching into action; though it is more probable that Deuteronomy
itself in the main is not much earlier than the second half of the 6th
century b.c.43 It shows a strong nationalist feeling which is not
restricted to Judah alone, but comprises a greater Israel from Kadesh in
Naphtali in the north to Hebron in the south, and even extends beyond
the Jordan. Distinctive non-Judaean features are included, as in the
Samaritan liturgical office (Deut. xxvii. 14-26), and the evidence for
the conclusion that traditions originally of (north) Israelite interest were
taken over and adapted to the later standpoint of Judah and Jerusalem

(viz. in the Deuteronomic book of Kings) independently confirms the
inferences drawn from Deuteronomy itself. The absence of direct
testimony can be partially supplied by later events which presuppose
the break-up of no inconsiderable state, and imply relations with
Samaria which had been by no means so unfriendly as the historians
represent. A common ground for Judaism and Samaritanism is obvious,
and it is in this obscure age that it is to be sought. But the curtain is
raised for too brief an interval to allow of more than a passing glimpse
at the restoration of Judaean fortunes; not until the time of Nehemiah,
about 140 years after the fall of Jerusalem, does the historical material
become less imperfect.

Upon this blank period before the foundation of Judaism (§§ 21, 23)
much light is also thrown by another body of evidence. It has long been
recognized that 1 Chron. ii. and iv. represent a Judah composed mainly
of groups which had moved up from the south (Hebron) to the vicinity
of Jerusalem. It includes Caleb and Jerahmeel, Kenite or Rechabite
families, scribes, &c., and these, as “sons” of Hezron, claim some
relationship with Gilead. The names point generally to an affinity with
south Palestine and north Arabia (Edom, Midian, &c.; see especially
the lists in Gen. xxxvi.), and suggest that certain members of a closely
related collection of groups had separated from the main body and
were ultimately enrolled as Israelites. It is also recognized by many
scholars that in the present account of the exodus there are indications
of the original prominence of traditions of Kadesh, and also of a
journey northwards in which Caleb, Kenites and others took part (§ 5).
On these and on other grounds besides, it has long been felt that south
Palestine, with its north Arabian connexions, is of real importance in
biblical research, and for many years efforts have been made to
determine the true significance of the evidence. The usual tendency has
been to regard it in the light of the criticism of early Israelite history,

which demands some reconstruction (§ 8), and to discern distinct tribal
movements previous to the union of Judah and Israel under David. On
the other hand, the elaborate theory of T. K. Cheyne involves the view
that a history dealing with the south actually underlies our sources and
can be recovered by emendation of the text. Against the former is the
fact that although certain groups are ultimately found in Judah (Judg.
i.), the evidence for the movement—a conquest north of Kadesh,
almost at the gate of the promised land—explicitly mentions Israel; and
against the latter the evidence again shows that this representation has
been deliberately subordinated to the entrance of Israel from beyond
the Jordan.44 In either case the history of separate sections of people
may have been extended to Israel as a whole, but there is no evidence
for any adequate reconstruction. Yet the presence of distinct
representations of the history may be recognized, and since the Judaean
compilers of the Old Testament have incorporated non-Judaean sources
(e.g. the history of the northern monarchy), it is obvious that, apart
from indigenous Judaean tradition, the southern groups which were
ultimately enrolled in Judah would possess their own stock of oral and
written lore. Hence it is noteworthy that the late editor of Judges has
given the first place to Othniel, a Kenizzite, and therefore of Edomite
affinity, though subsequently reckoned as a Judaean (Judg i. 13, iii. 9;
cf. Gen. xxxvi. 11; 1 Chron. iv. 13). Of Kenite interest is the position of
Cain, ancestor of heroes of culture and of the worship of Yahweh (Gen.
iv. 17 sqq.). One fragmentary source alludes to a journey to the
Midianite or Kenite father-in-law of Moses with the Ark (q.v.); another
knows of its movements with David and the priest Abiathar (a name
closely related to Jether or Jethro; cf. also 1 Chron. iv. 17).
Distinctively Calebite are the stories of the eponym who, fearless of the
“giants” of Palestine, gained striking divine promises (Num. xiv. 11-
24); Caleb’s overthrow of the Hebronite giants finds a parallel in

David’s conflicts before the capture of Jerusalem, and may be
associated with the belief that these primitive giants once filled the land
(Josh. xi. 21 seq.; see § 7, and David; Samuel, Books of). Calebite, too,
are Hebron and its patron Abraham, and both increase in prominence in
the patriarchal narratives, where, moreover, an important body of
tradition can have emanated only from outside Israel and Judah (see
Genesis). Although Judah was always closely connected with the south,
these “southern” features (once clearly more extensive and complete)
are found in the Deuteronomic and priestly compilations, and their
presence in the historical records can hardly be severed from the
prominence of “southern” families in the vicinity of Jerusalem, some
time after the fall of Jerusalem. The background in 1 Chron. ii.
presupposes the desolation after that disaster, and some traces of these
families are found in Nehemiah’s time; and while the traditions know
of a separation from Edom (viz. stories of Jacob and his “brother”
Esau), elsewhere Edom is frequently denounced for unbrotherly
conduct in connexion with some disaster which befell Jerusalem,
apparently long after 586 b.c. (see § 22).45 The true inwardness of this
movement, its extent and its history, can hardly be recovered at present,
but it is noteworthy that the evidence generally involves the Levites, an
ecclesiastical body which underwent an extremely intricate
development. To a certain extent it would seem that even as Chronicles
(q.v.) has passed through the hands of one who was keenly interested in
the Temple service, so the other historical books have been shaped not
only by the late priestly writers (symbolized in literary criticism by P),
but also by rather earlier writers, also of priestly sympathies, but of
“southern” or half-Edomite affinity. This is independently suggested by
the contents and vicissitudes of the purely ecclesiastical traditions.46

Recent criticism goes to show that there is a very considerable body
of biblical material, more important for its attitude to the history than

for its historical accuracy, the true meaning of which cannot as yet be
clearly perceived. It raises many serious problems which concentrate
upon that age which is of the greatest importance for the biblical and
theological student. The perplexing relation between the admittedly
late compilations and the actual course of the early history becomes
still more intricate when one observes such a feature as the late interest
in the Israelite tribes. No doubt there is much that is purely artificial
and untrustworthy in the late (post-exilic) representations of these
divisions, but it is almost incredible that the historical foundation for
their early career is severed from the written sources by centuries of
warfare, immigration and other disturbing factors. On the one hand,
conservative scholars insist upon the close material relation between
the constituent sources; critical scholars, on the other hand, while
recognizing much that is relatively untrustworthy, refrain from
departing from the general outlines of the canonical history more than
is absolutely necessary. Hence the various reconstructions of the earlier
history, with all their inherent weaknesses. But historical criticism is
faced with the established literary conclusions which, it should be
noticed, place the Deuteronomic and priestly compilations posterior to
the great changes at and after the fall of the northern monarchy, and, to
some extent, contemporary with the equally serious changes in Judah.
There were catastrophes detrimental to the preservation of older
literary records, and vicissitudes which, if they have not left their mark
on contemporary history—which is singularly blank—may be traced
on the representations of the past. There are external historical
circumstances and internal literary features which unite to show that
the application of the literary hypotheses of the Old Testament to the
course of Israelite history is still incomplete, and they warn us that the
intrinsic value of religious and didactic writings should not depend
upon the accuracy of their history.47 Future research may not be able to

solve the problems which arise in the study of the period now under
discussion; it is the more necessary, therefore, that all efforts should be
tested in the light of purely external evidence (see further § 24; and
Palestine: History).

21. Nehemiah and Ezra.—There is another remarkable gap in the
historical traditions between the time of Zerubbabel and the reign of
Artaxerxes I. In obscure circumstances the enthusiastic hopes have melted
away, the Davidic scion has disappeared, and Jerusalem has been the victim
of another disaster. The country is under Persian officials, the nobles and
priests form the local government, and the ground is being prepared for the
erection of a hierocracy. It is the work of rebuilding and reorganization, of
social and of religious reforms, which we encounter in the last pages of
biblical history, and in the records of Ezra and Nehemiah we stand in
Jerusalem in the very centre of epoch-making events. Nehemiah, the cup-
bearer of Artaxerxes at Susa, plunged in grief at the news of the desolation
of Jerusalem, obtained permission from the king to rebuild the ruins.
Provided with an escort and with the right to obtain supplies of wood for
the buildings, he returned to the city of his fathers’ sepulchres (the allusion
may suggest his royal ancestry). His zeal is represented in a twofold aspect.
Having satisfied himself of the extent of the ruins, he aroused the people to
the necessity of fortifying and repopulating the city, and a vivid account is
given in his name of the many dangers which beset the rebuilding of the
walls. Sanballat of Horon, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Gashmu the Arabian
(? Edomite) unceasingly opposed him. Tobiah and his son Johanan were
related by marriage to Judaean secular and priestly families, and active
intrigues resulted, in which nobles and prophets took their part. It was
insinuated that Nehemiah had his prophets to proclaim that Judah had again
its own king; it was even suggested that he was intending to rebel against
Persia! Nehemiah naturally gives us only his version, and the attitude of
Haggai and Zechariah to Zerubbabel may illustrate the feeling of his

partisans. But Tobiah and Johanan themselves were worshippers of Yahweh
(as their names also show), and consequently, with prophets taking different
sides and with the Samaritan claims summarily repudiated (Neh. ii. 20; cf.
Ezra iv. 3), all the facts cannot be gathered from the narratives.
Nevertheless the undaunted Judaean pressed on unmoved by the threatening
letters which were sent around, and succeeded in completing the walls
within fifty-two days.48

In the next place, Nehemiah appears as governor of the small district of
Judah and Benjamin. Famine, the avarice of the rich, and the necessity of
providing tribute had brought the humbler classes to the lowest straits.
Some had mortgaged their houses, fields and vineyards to buy corn; others
had borrowed to pay the taxes, and had sold their children to their richer
brethren to repay the debt. Nehemiah was faced with old abuses, and
vehemently contrasted the harshness of the nobles with the generosity of the
exiles who would redeem their poor countrymen from slavery. He himself
had always refrained from exacting the usual provision which other
governors had claimed; indeed, he had readily entertained over 150 officials
and dependants at his table, apart from casual refugees (Neh. v.). We hear
something of a twelve-years’ governorship and of a second visit, but the
evidence does not enable us to determine the sequence (xiii. 6). Neh. v. is
placed in the middle of the building of the walls in fifty-two days; the other
reforms during the second visit are closely connected with the dedication of
the walls and with the events which immediately follow his first arrival
when he had come to rebuild the city. Nehemiah also turns his attention to
religious abuses. The sabbath, once a festival, had become more strictly
observed, and when he found the busy agriculturists and traders (some of
them from Tyre) pursuing their usual labours on that day, he pointed to the
disasters which had resulted in the past from such profanation, and
immediately took measures to put down the evil (Neh. xiii. 18; cf. Jer. xvii.
20 sqq.; Ezek. xx. 13-24; Isa. lvi. 2, 6; lviii. 13). Moreover, the maintenance

of the Temple servants called for supervision; the customary allowances had
not been paid to the Levites who had come to Jerusalem after the smaller
shrines had been put down, and they had now forsaken the city. His last acts
were the most conspicuous of all. Some of the Jews had married women of
Ashdod, Ammon and Moab, and the impetuous governor indignantly
adjured them to desist from a practice which was the historic cause of
national sin. Even members of the priestly families had intermarried with
Tobiah and Sanballat; the former had his own chamber in the precincts of
the Temple, the daughter of the latter was the wife of a son of Joiada the son
of the high priest Eliashib. Again Nehemiah’s wrath was kindled. Tobiah
was cast out, the offending priest expelled, and a general purging followed,
in which all the foreign element was removed. With this Nehemiah brings
the account of his reforms to a conclusion, and the words “Remember me,
O my God, for good” (xiii. 31) are not meaningless. The incidents can be
supplemented from Josephus. According to this writer (Ant. xi. 7, 2), a
certain Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua and grandson of Joiada, refused to
divorce his wife, the daughter of Sanballat. For this he was driven out, and,
taking refuge with the Samaritans, founded a rival temple and priesthood
upon Mt Gerizim, to which repaired other priests and Levites who had been
guilty of mixed marriages. There is little doubt that Josephus refers to the
same events; but there is considerable confusion in his history of the
Persian age, and when he places the schism and the foundation of the new
Temple in the time of Alexander the Great (after the obscure disasters of the
reign of Artaxerxes III.), it is usually supposed that he is a century too
late.49 At all events, there is now a complete rupture with Samaria, and thus,
in the concluding chapter of the last of the historical books of the Old
Testament, Judah maintains its claim to the heritage of Israel and rejects the
right of the Samaritans to the title50 (see § 5).

In this separation of the Judaeans from religious and social intercourse
with their neighbours, the work of Ezra (q.v.) requires notice. The story of

this scribe (now combined with the memoirs of Nehemiah) crystallizes the
new movement inaugurated after a return of exiles from Babylonia. The age
can also be illustrated from Isa. lvi.-lxvi. and Malachi (q.v.). There was a
poor and weak Jerusalem, its Temple stood in need of renovation, its
temple-service was mean, its priests unworthy of their office. On the one
side was the grinding poverty of the poor; on the other the abuses of the
governors. There were two leading religious parties: one of oppressive
formalists, exclusive, strict and ritualistic; the other, more cosmopolitan,
extended a freer welcome to strangers, and tolerated the popular elements
and the superstitious cults which are vividly depicted (Isa. lxv. seq.). But
the former gained the day, and, realizing that the only hope of maintaining a
pure worship of Yahweh lay in a forcible isolation from foreign influence,
its adherents were prepared to take measures to ensure the religious
independence of their assembly. It is related that Ezra, the scribe and priest,
returned to Jerusalem with priests and Levites, lay exiles, and a store of
vessels for the Temple. He was commissioned to inquire into the religious
condition of the land and to disseminate the teaching of the Law to which
he had devoted himself (Ezra vii.). On his arrival the people were gathered
together, and in due course he read the “book of the Law of Moses” dally
for seven days (Neh. viii.). They entered into an agreement to obey its
teaching, undertaking in particular to avoid marriages with foreigners (x. 28
sqq.). A special account is given of this reform (Ezra ix. seq.) and the
description of Ezra’s horror at the prevalence of intermarriage, which
threatened to destroy the distinctive character of the community, sufficiently
indicates the attitude of the stricter party. The true seed of Israel separated
themselves from all foreigners (not, however, without some opposition) and
formed an exclusively religious body or “congregation.” Dreams of
political freedom gave place to hopes of religious independence, and
“Israel” became a church, the foundation of which it sought in the desert of
Sinai a thousand years before.

22. Post-exilic History.—The biblical history for the period in the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah is exceptionally obscure, and it is
doubtful how far the traditions can be trusted before we reach the reign
of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii. sqq., Neh.). The records belonging to this reign
represent four different stages: (a) The Samaritans reported that the
Jews who had returned from the king to Jerusalem were rebuilding the
city and completing its walls, an act calculated to endanger the
integrity of the province. Artaxerxes accordingly instructed them to
stop the work until he should give the necessary decree, and this was
done by force (Ezra iv. 7-23, undated; 1 Esdras ii. 16 sqq. mentions a
building of the Temple!). (b) It was in the 7th year (i.e. 458 b.c.) that
Ezra returned with a small body of exiles to promulgate the new laws
he had brought and to set the Temple service in order.51 Fortified with
remarkable powers, some of which far exceed the known tolerance of
Persian kings, he began wide-sweeping marriage reforms; but the
record ceases abruptly (vii.-x.). (c) In the 20th year (445 b.c.)
Nehemiah returned with permission to rebuild the walls, the citadel and
the governor’s house (Neh. ii. 5, 8; see § 21 above). But (d), whilst as
governor he accomplishes various needed reforms, there is much
confusion in the present narratives, due partly to the resumption of
Ezra’s labours after an interval of twelve years, and partly to the
closely related events of Nehemiah’s activity in which room must be
found for his twelve-years’ governorship and a second visit. The
internal literary and historical questions are extremely intricate, and the
necessity for some reconstruction is very generally felt (for preliminary
details, see Ezra and Nehemiah). The disaster which aroused
Nehemiah’s grief was scarcely the fall of Jerusalem in 586 b.c., but a
more recent one, and it has been conjectured that it followed the work
of Ezra (in b above). On the other hand, a place can hardly be found for
the history of Ezra before the appearance of Nehemiah; he moves in a

settled and peaceful community such as Nehemiah had helped to form,
his reforms appear to be more mature and schematic than those of
Nehemiah; and, whilst Josephus handles the two separately, giving
Ezra the priority, many recent scholars incline to place Nehemiah’s first
visit before the arrival of Ezra.52 That later tradition should give the
pre-eminence to the priestly reforms of Ezra is in every way natural,
but it has been found extremely difficult to combine the two in any
reconstruction of the period. Next, since there are three distinct
sources, for (a) above, and for the work of Nehemiah and of Ezra,
implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the present sequence of
narratives. Thus (a), with its allusion to a further decree, forms a
plausible prelude to the return of either Ezra (vii. 13) or Nehemiah (i.
3, ii. 3); and if it is surprising that the Samaritans and other opponents,
who had previously waited to address Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 14 sqq., v. 5,
17), should now interfere when Nehemiah was armed with a royal
mandate (Neh. ii. 7-9), it is very difficult not to conclude that the royal
permits, as now detailed, have been coloured by Jewish patriotism and
the history by enmity to Samaria. Finally, the situation in the
independent and undated record (a) points to a return, a rebuilding
(apparently after some previous destruction), and some interference.
This agrees substantially with the independent records of Nehemiah,
and unless we assume two disasters not widely separated in date—viz.
those presupposed in (a) and (c)—the record in (a), may refer to that
stage in the history where the other source describes the intrigues of the
Samaritans and the letters sent by Tobiah (cf. Tabeel in Ezra iv. 7) to
frighten Nehemiah (Neh. vi. 19).53 Their insinuations that Nehemiah
was seeking to be ruler and their representations to Artaxerxes would
be enough to alarm the king (cf. Neh. vi. 5-9, 19, and Ezra iv. 15 seq.,
20 seq.), and it may possibly be gathered that Nehemiah at once
departed to justify himself (Neh. vii. 2, xiii. 4, 6). Nevertheless, since

the narratives are no longer in their original form or sequence, it is
impossible to trace the successive steps of the sequel; although if the
royal favour was endorsed (cf. the account ascribed to the time of
Darius, Ezra v. seq.), Nehemiah’s position as a reformer would be more
secure.

Although there was a stock of tradition for the post-exilic age (cf.
Daniel, Esther, 1 Esdras, Josephus), the historical narratives are of the
scantiest and vaguest until the time of Artaxerxes, when the account of
a return (Ezra iv. 12), which otherwise is quite ignored, appears to have
been used for the times of Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.) and subsequently
of Cyrus (Ezra i.-iii.). Moreover, although general opinion identifies
our Artaxerxes with the first of that name, certain features suggest that
there has been some confusion with the traditions of the time of
Artaxerxes II. and III. (§ 19). But the problems are admittedly
complicated, and since one is necessarily dependent upon scanty
narratives arranged and rearranged by later hands in accordance with
their own historical theories, it is difficult to lay stress upon internal
evidence which appears to be conclusive for this or that
reconstruction.54 The main facts, however, are clear. Jerusalem had
suffered some serious catastrophe before Nehemiah’s return; a body of
exiles returned, and in spite of interference the work of rebuilding was
completed; through their influence the Judaean community underwent
reorganization, and separated itself from its so-called heathen
neighbours. How many years elapsed from beginning to end can hardly
be said. Tradition concentrated upon Ezra and his age many events and
changes of fundamental importance. The canonical history has allowed
only one great destruction of Jerusalem, and the disaster of 586 b.c.
became the type for similar disasters, but how many there were
criticism can scarcely decide.55 Allusions to Judah’s sufferings at the
hands of Edom, Moab and Ammon often imply conditions which are

not applicable to 586. A definite series knows of an invasion and
occupation by Edom (q.v. end), a people with whom Judah, as the
genealogies show, had once been intimately connected. The
unfriendliness of the “brother” people, which added so much to the
bitterness of Judah, although associated with the events of 586 (so
especially 1 Esdras iv. 45), probably belongs to a much later date.56
The tradition that Edomites burned the Temple and occupied part of
Judah (ib. vv. 45, 50) is partially confirmed by Ezek. xxxv. 5, 10, xxxvi.
5; Ps. cxxxvii. 7; but the assumption that Darius, as in 1 Esdras, helped
the Jews against them can with difficulty be maintained. The
interesting conjecture that the second Temple suffered another disaster
in the obscure gap which follows the time of Zerubbabel has been
urged, after Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12, by Kuenen (afterwards withdrawn) and
by Sellin, and can be independently confirmed. In the records of
Nehemiah the ruins of the city are extensive (ii. 8, 17, iii.; cf. Ecclus.
xlix. 13), and the tradition that Nehemiah rebuilt this Temple (Jos. Ant.
xi. 5, 6; 2 Macc. i. 18) is supported (a) by the explicit references to the
rebuilding of the Temple in the reign of Artaxerxes (1 Esdras ii. 18, not
in Ezra iv. 12; but both in a context relating to the history of the
Temple), and (b) by the otherwise inaccurate statement that the Temple
was finished according to the decree of “Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes
king of Persia” (Ezra vi. 14).

The untrustworthy account of the return in the time of Cyrus (Ezra i.
sqq.) or Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.; probably the older form) is curiously
indebted to material which seems to have belonged to the history of the
work of Nehemiah (cf. Ezra ii. with Neh. vii.), and the important return
in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 12) seems to be connected with
other references to some new settlement (Neh. xi. 20, 23, 25, especially
xii. 29). The independent testimony of the names in Neh. iii. is against
any previous large return from Babylon, and clearly illustrates the

strength of the groups of “southern” origin whose presence is only to
be expected (p. 285). Moreover, the late compiler of 1 Chronicles
distinguishes a Judah composed almost wholly of “southern” groups (1
Chron. ii. and iv.) from a subsequent stage when the first inhabitants of
Jerusalem correspond in the main to the new population after
Nehemiah had repaired the ruins (1 Chron. ix. and Neh. xi.).
Consequently, underlying the canonical form of post-exilic history, one
may perhaps recognize some fresh disaster, after the completion of
Zerubbabel’s temple, when Judah suffered grievously at the hands of
its Edomite brethren (in Malachi, date uncertain, vengeance has at last
been taken); Nehemiah restored the city, and the traditions of the exiles
who returned at this period have been thrown back and focussed upon
the work of Zerubbabel. The criticism of the history of Nehemiah,
which leads to this conjecture, suggests also that if Nehemiah repulsed
the Samaritan claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv. 3, where the building of the
Temple is concerned) and refused a compromise (vi. 2), it is extremely
unlikely that Samaria had hitherto been seriously hostile; see also C. C.
Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp. 321-333.

Biblical history ends with the triumph of the Judaean community, the
true “Israel,” the right to which title is found in the distant past. The
Judaean view pervades the present sources, and whilst its David and
Solomon ruled over a united land, the separation under Jeroboam is
viewed as one of calf-worshipping northern tribes from Jerusalem with
its one central temple and the legitimate priesthood of the Zadokites. It
is from this narrower standpoint of an exclusive and confined Judah
(and Benjamin) that the traditions as incorporated in the late recensions
gain fresh force, and in Israel’s renunciation of the Judaean yoke the
later hostility between the two may be read between the lines. The
history in Kings was not finally settled until a very late date, as is
evident from the important variations in the Septuagint, and it is

especially in the description of the time of Solomon and the disruption
that there continued to be considerable fluctuations.57 The book has no
finale and the sudden break may not be accidental. It is replaced by
Chronicles, which, confining itself to Judaean history from a later
standpoint (after the Persian age), includes new characteristic traditions
wherein some recollection of more recent events may be recognized.
Thus, the south Judaean or south Palestinian element shows itself in
Judaean genealogies and lists; there are circumstantial stories of the
rehabilitation of the Temple and the reorganization of cultus; there are
fuller traditions of inroads upon Judah by southern peoples and their
allies. There is also a more definite subordination of the royal authority
to the priesthood (so too in the writings of Ezekiel, q.v.); and the stories
of punishment inflicted upon kings who dared to contend against the
priests (Jehoash, Uzziah) point to a conflict of authority, a hint of
which is already found in the reconciliation of Zerubbabel and the
priest Joshua in a passage ascribed to Zechariah (ch. vi.).

23. Post-exilic Judaism.—With Nehemiah and Ezra we enter upon the
era in which a new impulse gave to Jewish life and thought that form which
became the characteristic orthodox Judaism. It was not a new religion that
took root; older tendencies were diverted into new paths, the existing
material was shaped to new ends. Judah was now a religious community
whose representative was the high priest of Jerusalem. Instead of sacerdotal
kings, there were royal priests, anointed with oil, arrayed with kingly
insignia, claiming the usual royal dues in addition to the customary rights of
the priests. With his priests and Levites, and with the chiefs and nobles of
the Jewish families, the high priest directs this small state, and his death
marks an epoch as truly as did that of the monarchs in the past. This
hierarchical government, which can find no foundation in the Hebrew
monarchy, is the forerunner of the Sanhedrin (q.v.); it is an institution
which, however inaugurated, set its stamp upon the narratives which have

survived. Laws were recast in accordance with the requirements of the time,
with the result that, by the side of usages evidently of very great antiquity,
details now appear which were previously unknown or wholly unsuitable.
The age, which the scanty historical traditions themselves represent as one
of supreme importance for the history of the Jews, once seemed devoid of
interest, and it is entirely through the laborious scholarship of the 19th
century that it now begins to reveal its profound significance. The Graf-
Wellhausen hypothesis, that the hierarchical law in its complete form in the
Pentateuch stands at the close and not at the beginning of biblical history,
that this mature Judaism was the fruit of the 5th century b.c. and not a
divinely appointed institution at the exodus (nearly ten centuries
previously), has won the recognition of almost all Old Testament scholars.
It has been substantiated by numerous subsidiary investigations in diverse
departments, from different standpoints, and under various aspects, and can
be replaced only by one which shall more adequately explain the literary
and historical evidence (see further, p. 289).

The post-exilic priestly spirit represents a tendency which is absent from
the Judaean Deuteronomic book of Kings but is fully mature in the later,
and to some extent parallel, book of Chronicles (q.v.). The “priestly”
traditions of the creation and of the patriarchs mark a very distinct advance
upon the earlier narratives, and appear in a further developed form in the
still later book of Jubilees, or “Little Genesis,” where they are used to
demonstrate the pre-Mosaic antiquity of the priestly or Levitical
institutions. There is also an unmistakable development in the laws; and the
priestly legislation, though ahead of both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, not to
mention still earlier usage, not only continues to undergo continual internal
modification, but finds a further distinct development, in the way of
definition and interpretation, outside the Old Testament—in the Talmud
(q.v.). Upon the characteristics of the post-exilic priestly writings we need
not dwell.58 Though one may often be repelled by their lifelessness, their

lack of spontaneity and the externalization of the ritual, it must be
recognized that they placed a strict monotheism upon a legal basis. “It was
a necessity that Judaism should incrust itself in this manner; without those
hard and ossified forms the preservation of its essential elements would
have proved impossible. At a time when all nationalities, and at the same
time all bonds of religion and national customs, were beginning to be
broken up in the seeming cosmos and real chaos of the Graeco-Roman
Empire, the Jews stood out like a rock in the midst of the ocean. When the
natural conditions of independent nationality all failed them, they
nevertheless artificially maintained it with an energy truly marvellous, and
thereby preserved for themselves, and at the same time for the whole world,
an eternal good.”59

If one is apt to acquire too narrow a view of Jewish legalism, the whole
experience of subsequent history, through the heroic age of the Maccabees
(q.v.) and onwards, only proves that the minuteness of ritual procedure
could not cramp the heart. Besides, this was only one of the aspects of
Jewish literary activity. The work represented in Nehemiah and Ezra, and
put into action by the supporters of an exclusive Judaism, certainly won the
day, and their hands have left their impress upon the historical traditions.
But Yahwism, like Islam, had its sects and tendencies, and the opponents to
the stricter ritualism always had followers. Whatever the predominant party
might think of foreign marriages, the tradition of the half-Moabite origin of
David serves, in the beautiful idyll of Ruth (q.v.), to suggest the debt which
Judah and Jerusalem owed to one at least of its neighbours. Again, although
some may have desired a self-contained community opposed to the heathen
neighbours of Jerusalem, the story of Jonah implicitly contends against the
attempt of Judaism to close its doors. The conflicting tendencies were
incompatible, but Judaism retained the incompatibilities within its limits,
and the two tendencies, prophetical and priestly, continue, the former
finding its further development in Christianity.60

The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis (§ 4) does not pretend to be
complete in all its details and it is independent of its application to the
historical criticism of the Old Testament. No alternative hypothesis
prevails, mere desultory criticism of the internal intricacies being quite
inadequate. Maintaining that the position of the Pentateuch alone
explains the books which follow, conservative writers concede that it is
composite, has had some literary history, and has suffered some
revision in the post-exilic age. Their concessions continue to become
ever more significant, and all that follows from them should be
carefully noticed by those who are impressed by their arguments. They
identify with Deuteronomy the law-roll which explains the noteworthy
reforms of Josiah (§ 16); but since it is naturally admitted that religious
conditions had become quite inconsistent with Mosaism, the
conservative view implies that the “long-lost” Deuteronomy must have
differed profoundly from any known Mosaic writings to which earlier
pious kings and prophets had presumably adhered. Similarly, the “book
of the Law of Moses,” brought from Babylon by Ezra (Ezra vii.; Neh.
viii.), clearly contained much of which the people were ignorant, and
conservative writers, who oppose the theory that a new Law was then
introduced, emphasize (a) the previous existence of legislation (to
prove that Ezra’s book was not entirely a novelty), and (b) the gross
wickedness in Judah (as illustrated by the prophets) from the time of
Josiah to the strenuous efforts of the reformers on behalf of the most
fundamental principles of the national religion. This again simply
means that the Mosaism of Ezra or Nehemiah must have differed
essentially from the priestly teaching prior to their arrival. The
arguments of conservative writers involve concessions which, though
often overlooked by their readers, are very detrimental to the position
they endeavour to support, and the objections they bring against the
theory of the introduction of new law-books (under a Josiah or an Ezra)

apply with equal force to the promulgation of Mosaic teaching which
had been admittedly ignored or forgotten. Their arguments have most
weight, however, when they show the hazardous character of
reconstructions which rely upon the trustworthiness of the historical
narratives. What book Ezra really brought from Babylon is uncertain;
the writer, it seems, is merely narrating the introduction of the Law
ascribed to Moses, even as a predecessor has recounted the discovery
of the Book of the Law, the Deuteronomic code subsequently included
in the Pentateuch.

The importance which the biblical writers attach to the return from
Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes forms a starting-point for several
interesting inquiries. Thus, in any estimate of the influence of
Babylonia upon the Old Testament, it is obviously necessary to ask
whether certain features (a) are of true Babylonian origin, or (b) merely
find parallels or analogies in its stores of literature; whether the
indebtedness goes back to very early times or to the age of the Assyrian
domination or to the exiles who now returned. Again, there were
priestly and other families—some originally of “southern” origin—
already settled around Jerusalem, and questions inevitably arise
concerning their relation to the new-comers and the literary vicissitudes
which gave us the Old Testament in its present form. To this age we
may ascribe the literature of the Priestly writers (symbolized by P),
which differs markedly from the other sources. Yet it is clear from the
book of Genesis alone that in the age of Priestly writers and compilers
there were other phases of thought. Popular stories with many features
of popular religion were current. They could be, and indeed had been
made more edifying; but the very noteworthy conservatism of even the
last compiler or editor, in contrast to the re-shaping and re-writing of
the material in the book of Jubilees, indicates that the Priestly spirit
was not that of the whole community. But through the Priestly hands

the Old Testament history passed, and their standpoint colours its
records. This is especially true of the history of the exilic and post-
exilic periods, where the effort is made to preserve the continuity of
Israel and the Israelite community (Chronicles—Ezra—Nehemiah).
The bitterness aroused by the ardent and to some extent unjust zeal of
the reforming element can only be conjectured. The traditions reveal a
tendency to legitimate new circumstances. Priesthoods, whose
traditions connect them with the south, are subordinated; the
ecclesiastical records are re-shaped or re-adjusted; and a picture is
presented of hierarchical jealousies and rivalries which (it was thought)
were settled once and for all in the days of the exodus from Egypt.
Many features gain in significance as the account of the Exodus, the
foundation of Israel, is read in the light of the age when, after the
advent of a new element from Babylonia, the Pentateuch assumed its
present shape; it must suffice to mention the supremacy of the Aaronite
priests and the glorification of uncompromising hostility to foreign
marriages.61 The most “unhistorical” tradition has some significance
for the development of thought or of history-writing, and thus its
internal features are ultimately of historical value. Only from an
exhaustive comparison of controlling data can the scattered hints be
collected and classified. There is much that is suggestive, for example,
in the relation between the “post-exilic” additions to the prophecies and
their immediately earlier form; or in the singular prominence of the
Judaean family of Perez (its elevation over Zerah, a half-Edomite
family, Gen. xxxviii.; its connexion with the Davidic dynasty, Ruth iv.;
its position as head of all the Judaean sub-divisions, 1 Chron. ii. 5
sqq.); or in the late insertion of local tradition encircling Jerusalem; or
in the perplexing attitude of the histories towards the district of
Benjamin and its famous sanctuary of Bethel (only about 10 m. north
of Jerusalem). Although these and other phenomena cannot yet be

safely placed in a historical frame, the methodical labours of past
scholars have shed much light upon the obscurities of the exilic and
post-exilic ages, and one must await the more comprehensive study of
the two or three centuries which are of the first importance for biblical
history and theology.

24. Old Testament History and External Evidence.—Thus the Old
Testament, the history of the Jews during the first great period,
describes the relation of the Hebrews to surrounding peoples, the
superiority of Judah over the faithless (north) Israelite tribes, and the
reorganization of the Jewish community in and around Jerusalem at the
arrival of Ezra with the Book of the Law. The whole gives an
impression of unity, which is designed, and is to be expected in a
compilation. But closer examination reveals remarkable gaps and
irreconcilable historical standpoints. For all serious biblical study, the
stages in the growth of the written traditions and the historical
circumstances which they imply, must inevitably be carefully
considered, and upon the result depends, directly or indirectly, almost
every subject of Old Testament investigation. Yet it is impossible to
recover with confidence or completeness the development of Hebrew
history from the pages of the Old Testament alone. The keen interest
taken by the great prophets in the world around them is not prominent
in the national records; political history has been subordinated, and the
Palestine which modern discovery is revealing is not conspicuous in
the didactic narratives. To external evidence one must look, therefore,
for that which did not fall within the scope or the horizon of the
religious historians. They do not give us the records of the age of the
Babylonian monarch Khammurabi (perhaps Amraphel, Gen. xiv.), of
the Egyptian conquests in the XVIIIth and following dynasties, or of
the period illustrated by the Amarna tablets (§ 3). They treat with
almost unique fullness a few years in the middle of the 9th century b.c.,

but ignore Assyria; yet only the Assyrian inscriptions explain the
political situation (§ 10 seq.), and were it not for them the true
significance of the 8th-7th centuries could scarcely be realized (§ 15
seq.). It would be erroneous to confuse the extant sources with the
historical material which might or must have been accessible, or to
assume that the antiquity of the elements of history proves or
presupposes the antiquity of the records themselves, or even to deny
the presence of some historical kernel merely on account of
unhistorical elements or the late dress in which the events are now
clothed. External research constantly justifies the cautious attitude
which has its logical basis in the internal conflicting character of the
written traditions or in their divergence from ascertained facts; at the
same time it has clearly shown that the internal study of the Old
Testament has its limits. Hence, in the absence of more complete
external evidence one is obliged to recognize the limitations of Old
Testament historical criticism, even though this recognition means that
positive reconstructions are more precarious than negative conclusions.

The naïve impression that each period of history was handled by
some more or less contemporary authority is not confirmed by a
criticism which confines itself strictly to the literary evidence. An
interest in the past is not necessarily confined to any one age, and the
critical view that the biblical history has been compiled from relatively
late standpoints finds support in the still later treatment of the events—
in Chronicles as contrasted with Samuel—Kings or in Jubilees as
contrasted with Genesis.62 It is instructive to observe in Egypt the form
which old traditions have taken in Manetho (Maspero, Rec. de travaux,
xxvii., 1905, l. 22 seq.); cf. also the late story of Rameses II. and the
Hittites (J. H. Breasted, Anc. Rec. of Egypt, iii. 189 seq.); while in
Babylonia one may note the didactic treatment, after the age of Cyrus,

of the events of the time of Khammurabi (A. H. Sayce, Proc. Soc.
Biblical Archaeol., 1907, pp. 13 sqq.).

The links which unite the traditional heroes with Babylonia (e.g.
Abraham, Ezra), Mesopotamia (e.g. Jacob), Egypt (e.g. Joseph,
Jeroboam), Midian (e.g. Moses, Jethro), &c., like the intimate
relationship between Israel and surrounding lands, have a significance
in the light of recent research. Israel can no longer be isolated from the
politics, culture, folk-lore, thought and religion of western Asia and
Egypt. Biblical, or rather Palestinian, thought has been brought into the
world of ancient Oriental life, and this life, in spite of the various forms
in which it has from time to time been shaped, still rules in the East.
This has far-reaching consequences for the traditional attitude to
Israelite history and religion. Research is seriously complicated by the
growing stores of material, which unfortunately are often utilized
without attention to the principles of the various departments of
knowledge or aspects of study. The complexity of modern knowledge
and the interrelation of its different branches are often insufficiently
realized, and that by writers who differ widely in the application of
such material as they use to their particular views of the manifold
problems of the Old Testament. It has been easy to confuse the study of
the Old Testament in its relation to modern religious needs with the
technical scientific study of the much edited remains of the literature of
a small part of the ancient East. If there was once a tendency to isolate
the Old Testament and ignore comparative research, it is now
sometimes found possible to exaggerate its general agreement with
Oriental history, life and thought. Difficulties have been found in the
supernatural or marvellous stories which would be taken as a matter of
course by contemporary readers, and efforts are often made to recover
historical facts or to adapt the records to modern theology without
sufficient attention to the historical data as a whole or to their religious

environment. The preliminary preparation for research of any value
becomes yearly more exacting.

Many traces of myth, legend and “primitive” thought survive in the
Old Testament, and on the most cautious estimate they presuppose a
vitality which is not a little astonishing. But they are now softened and
often bereft of their earlier significance, and it is this and their
divergence from common Oriental thought which make Old Testament
thought so profound and unique. The process finds its normal
development in later and non-biblical literature; but one can recognize
earlier, cruder and less distinctive stages, and, as surely as writings
reflect the mentality of an author or of his age, the peculiar
characteristics of the extant sources, viewed in the light of a
comprehensive survey of Palestinian and surrounding culture, demand
a reasonable explanation. The differences between the form of the
written history and the conditions which prevailed have impressed
themselves variously upon modern writers, and efforts have been made
to recover from the Old Testament earlier forms more in accordance
with the external evidence. It may be doubted, however, whether the
material is sufficient for such restoration or reconstruction.63 In the Old
Testament we have the outcome of specific developments, and the
stage at which we see each element of tradition or belief is not always
isolated or final (cf. Kings and Chronicles). The early myths, legends
and traditions which can be traced differ profoundly from the canonical
history, and the gap is wider than that between the latter and the
subsequent apocalyptical and pseudepigraphical literature.

Where it is possible to make legitimate and unambiguous
comparisons, the ethical and spiritual superiority of Old Testament
thought has been convincingly demonstrated, and to the re-shaping and
re-writing of the older history and the older traditions the Old

Testament owes its permanent value. While the history of the great area
between the Nile and the Tigris irresistibly emphasizes the
insignificance of Palestine, this land’s achievements for humanity grow
the more remarkable as research tells more of its environment.
Although the light thrown upon ancient conditions of life and thought
has destroyed much that sometimes seems vital for the Old Testament,
it has brought into relief a more permanent and indisputable
appreciation of its significance, and it is gradually dispelling that
pseudo-scientific literalism which would fetter the greatest of ancient
Oriental writings with an insistence upon the verity of historical facts.
Not internal criticism, but the incontestable results of objective
observation have shown once and for all that the relationship between
the biblical account of the earliest history (Gen. i.-xi.) and its value
either as an authentic record (which requires unprejudiced
examination) or as a religious document (which remains untouched) is
typical. If, as seems probable, the continued methodical investigation,
which is demanded by the advance of modern knowledge, becomes
more drastic in its results, it will recognize ever more clearly that there
were certain unique influences in the history of Palestine which cannot
be explained by purely historical research. The change from Palestinian
polytheism to the pre-eminence of Yahweh and the gradual
development of ethical monotheism are facts which external evidence
continues to emphasize, which biblical criticism must investigate as
completely as possible. And if the work of criticism has brought a
fuller appreciation of the value of these facts, the debt which is owed to
the Jews is enhanced when one proceeds to realize the immense
difficulties against which those who transmitted the Old Testament had
to contend in the period of Greek domination. The growth of the Old
Testament into its present form, and its preservation despite hostile
forces, are the two remarkable phenomena which most arrest the

attention of the historian; it is for the theologian to interpret their
bearing upon the history of religious thought. (S. A. C.)

II.—Greek Domination

25. Alexander the Great.—The second great period of the history of the
Jews begins with the conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great, disciple of
Aristotle, king of Macedon and captain-general of the Greeks. It ends with
the destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of the Roman Empire, which
was, like Alexander, at once the masterful pupil and the docile patron of
Hellenism. The destruction of Jerusalem might be regarded as an event of
merely domestic importance; for the Roman cosmopolitan it was only the
removal of the titular metropolis of a national and an Oriental religion. But,
since a derivative of that religion has come to be a power in the world at
large, this event has to be regarded in a different light. The destruction of
Jerusalem in a.d. 70 concludes the period of four centuries, during which
the Jews as a nation were in contact with the Greeks and exposed to the
influence of Hellenism, not wholly of their own will nor yet against it.
Whether the master of the provinces, in which there were Jews, be an
Alexander, a Ptolemy, a Seleucid or a Roman, the force by which he rules is
the force of Greek culture. These four centuries are the Greek period of
Jewish history.

The ancient historians, who together cover this period, are strangely
indifferent to the importance of the Jews, upon which Josephus is at pains to
insist. When Alexander invaded the interior of the Eastern world, which had
hitherto remained inviolable, he came as the champion of Hellenism. His
death prevented the achievement of his designs; but he had broken down
the barrier, he had planted the seed of the Greek’s influence in the four
quarters of the Persian Empire. His successors, the Diadochi, carried on his

work, but Antiochus Epiphanes was the first who deliberately took in hand
to deal with the Jews. Daniel (viii. 8) describes the interval between
Alexander and Antiochus thus: “The he-goat (the king of Greece) did very
greatly: and when he was strong the great horn (Alexander) was broken;
and instead of it came up four other ones—four kingdoms shall stand up out
of his nation but not with his power. And out of one of them came forth a
little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) which waxed exceeding great towards the
south (Egypt) and towards the East (Babylon) and towards the beauteous
land (the land of Israel).” The insignificance of the Jewish community in
Palestine was their salvation. The reforms of Nehemiah were directed
towards the establishment of a religious community at Jerusalem, in which
the rigour of the law should be observed. As a part of the Persian Empire
the community was obscure and unimportant. But the race whose chief
sanctuary it guarded and maintained was the heir of great traditions and
ideals. In Egypt, moreover, in Babylon and in Persia individual Jews had
responded to the influences of their environment and won the respect of the
aliens whom they despised. The law which they cherished as their standard
and guide kept them united and conscious of their unity. And the
individuals, who acquired power or wisdom among those outside Palestine
shed a reflected glory upon the nation and its Temple.

In connexion with Alexander’s march through Palestine Josephus
gives a tradition of his visit to Jerusalem. In Arrian’s narrative of
Alexander’s exploits, whose fame had already faded before the greater
glory of Rome, there is no mention of the visit or the city or the Jews.
Only Tyre and Gaza barred the way to Egypt. He took, presumably, the
coast-road in order to establish and retain his command of the sea. The
rest of Palestine, which is called Coele-Syria, made its submission and
furnished supplies. Seven days after the capture of Gaza Alexander was
at Pelusium. According to the tradition which Josephus has preserved
the high priest refused to transfer his allegiance and Alexander

marched against Jerusalem after the capture of Gaza. The high priest
dressed in his robes went out to meet him, and at the sight Alexander
remembered a dream, in which such a man had appeared to him as the
appointed leader of his expedition. So the danger was averted:
Alexander offered sacrifice and was shown the prophecy of Daniel,
which spoke of him. It is alleged, further, that at this time certain Jews
who could not refrain from intermarriage with the heathen set up a
temple on Mt Gerizim and became the Samaritan schism (§ 21 above).
The combination is certainly artificial and not historical. But it has a
value of its own inasmuch as it illustrates the permanent tendencies
which mould the history of the Jews. It is true that Alexander was
subject to dreams and visited shrines in order to assure himself or his
followers of victory. But it is not clear that he had such need of the
Jews or such regard for the Temple of Jerusalem that he should turn
aside on his way to Egypt for such a purpose.

However this may be, Alexander’s tutor had been in Asia and had
met a Jew there, if his disciple Clearchus of Soli is to be trusted. “The
man,” Aristotle says, “was by race a Jew out of Coele-Syria. His people
are descendants of the Indian philosophers. It is reported that
philosophers are called Calani among the Indians and Jews among the
Syrians. The Jews take their name from their place of abode, which is
called Judaea. The name of their city is very difficult; they call it
Hierusaleme. This man, then, having been a guest in many homes and
having come down gradually from the highlands to the sea-coast, was
Hellenic not only in speech but also in soul. And as we were staying in
Asia at the time, the man cast up at the same place and interviewed us
and other scholars, making trial of their wisdom. But inasmuch as he
had come to be at home with many cultured persons he imparted more
than he got.” The date of this interview is probably determined by the
fact that Aristotle visited his friend Hermias, tyrant of Atarneus, in 347-

345 b.c. There is no reason to doubt the probability or even the
accuracy of the narrative. Megasthenes also describes the Jews as the
philosophers of Syria and couples them with the Brahmins of India.
This hellenized Jew who descended from the hills to the coast is a
figure typical of the period.

26. The Ptolemies.—After the death of Alexander Palestine fell in the end
to Ptolemy (301 b.c.) and remained an Egyptian province until 198 b.c. For
a century the Jews in Palestine and in Alexandria had no history—or none
that Josephus knew. But two individuals exemplify the different attitudes
which the nation adopted towards its new environment and its wider
opportunities, Joseph the tax-farmer and Jesus the sage.

The wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (Sirach) is contained in the book
commonly called Ecclesiasticus (q.v.). At a time when men were
attracted by the wisdom and science of the Greeks, he taught that all
wisdom came from Yahweh who had chosen Israel to receive it in trust.
He discouraged inquiries into the nature and purpose of things: it was
enough for him that Yahweh had created and ruled the universe. If a
man had leisure to be wise—and this is not for many—he should study
the Scriptures which had come down, and so become a scribe. For the
scribe, as for the man at the plough-tail, the Law was the rule of life.
All, however much or little preoccupied with worldly business, must
fear God, from whom come good things and evil, life, death, poverty
and riches. It was not for men to meddle with secrets which are beyond
human intelligence. Enough that the individual did his duty in the state
of life in which he was set and left behind him a good name at his
death. The race survives—“the days of Israel are unnumbered.” Every
member of the congregation of Israel must labour, as God has
appointed, at some handicraft or profession to provide for his home. It
is his sacred duty and his private interest to beget children and to train

them to take his place. The scholar is apt to pity the smith, the potter,
the carpenter and the farmer: with better reason he is apt to condemn
the trader who becomes absorbed in greed of gain and so deserts the
way of righteousness and fair dealing. As a teacher Jesus gave his own
services freely. For the soldier he had no commendation. There were
physicians who understood the use of herbs, and must be rewarded
when their help was invited. But, whatever means each head of a
family adopted to get a livelihood, he must pay the priest’s dues. The
centre of the life of Israel was the Temple, over which the high priest
presided and which was inhabited by Yahweh, the God of Israel. The
scribe could train the individual in morals and in manners; but the high
priest was the ruler of the nation.

As ruler of the nation the high priest paid its tribute to Egypt, its
overlord. But Josephus reports of one Onias that for avarice he
withheld it. The sequel shows how a Jew might rise to power in the
civil service of the Egyptian Empire and yet remain a hero to some of
the Jews—provided that he did not intermarry with a Gentile. For
Joseph, the son of Tobiah and nephew of Onias, went to court and
secured the taxes of Palestine, when they were put up to auction. As
tax-farmer he oppressed the non-Jewish cities and so won the
admiration of Josephus.

But while such men went out into the world and brought back wealth of
one kind or another to Palestine, other Jews were content to make their
homes in foreign parts. At Alexandria in particular Alexander provided for a
Jewish colony which soon became Hellenic enough in speech to require a
translation of the Law. It is probable that, as in Palestine an Aramaic
paraphrase of the Hebrew text was found to be necessary, so in Alexandria
the Septuagint grew up gradually, as need arose. The legendary tradition
which even Philo accepts gives it a formal nativity, a royal patron and

inspired authors. From the text which Philo uses, it is probable that the
translation had been transmitted in writing; and his legend probably fixes
the date of the commencement of the undertaking for the reign of Ptolemy
Lagus.

The apology for the necessary defects of a translation put forward by
the translator of Ecclesiasticus in his Prologue shows that the work was
carried on beyond the limits of the Law. Apparently it was in progress
at the time of his coming to Egypt in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes I.
or II. He seems to regard this body of literature as the answer to the
charge that the Jews had contributed nothing useful for human life.
Once translated into Greek, the Scriptures became a bond of union for
the Jews of the dispersion and were at least capable of being used as an
instrument for the conversion of the world to Judaism. So far as the
latter function is concerned Philo confesses that the Law in his day
shared the obscurity of the people, and seems to imply that the
proselytes adopted little more than the monotheistic principle and the
observance of the Sabbath. According to Juvenal the sons of such
proselytes were apt to go farther and to substitute the Jewish Law for
the Roman—

Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges;
Judaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt ius
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moyses.

27. The Seleucids.—Toward the end of the 3rd century the Palestinian
Jews became involved in the struggle between Egypt and Syria. In
Jerusalem there were partisans of both the combatants. The more orthodox
or conservative Jews preferred the tolerant rule of the Ptolemies: the rest,
who chafed at the isolation of the nation, looked to the Seleucids, who
inherited Alexander’s ideal of a united empire based on a universal adoption

of Hellenism. At this point Josephus cites the testimony of Polybius:
—“Scopas, the general of Ptolemy, advanced into the highlands and
subdued the nation of the Jews in the winter. After the defeat of Scopas,
Antiochus gained Batanaea and Samaria and Abila and Gadara, and a little
later those of the Jews who live round the Temple called Jerusalem adhered
to him.” From this it appears that the pro-Syrian faction of the Jews had
been strong and active enough to bring an Egyptian army upon them (199-
198 b.c.). Josephus adds that an Egyptian garrison was left in Jerusalem.
This act of oppression presumably strengthened the Syrian faction of the
Jews and led to the transference of the nation’s allegiance. The language of
Polybius suggests that he was acquainted with other Jewish communities
and with the fame of the Temple: in his view they are not an organized
state. They were not even a pawn in the game which Antiochus proposed to
play with Rome for the possession of Greece and Asia Minor. His defeat
left the resources of his kingdom exhausted and its extent diminished; and
so the Jews became important to his successors for the sake of their wealth
and their position on the frontier. To pay his debt to Rome he was
compelled to resort to extraordinary methods of raising money; he actually
met his death (187 b.c.) in an attempt to loot the temple of Elymais.

The pro-Syrian faction of the Palestinian Jews found their opportunity in
this emergency and informed the governor of Coele-Syria that the treasury
in Jerusalem contained untold sums of money. Heliodorus, prime minister
of Seleucus Philopator, who succeeded Antiochus, arrived at Jerusalem in
his progress through Coele-Syria and Phoenicia and declared the treasure
confiscate to the royal exchequer. According to the Jewish legend
Heliodorus was attacked when he entered the Temple by a horse with a
terrible rider and by two young men. He was scourged and only escaped
with his life at the intercession of Onias the high priest, who had pleaded
with him vainly that the treasure included the deposits of widows and
orphans and also some belonging to Hyrcanus, “a man in very high

position.” Onias was accused by his enemies of having given the
information which led to this outrage and when, relying upon the support of
the provincial governor, they proceeded to attempt assassination, he fled to
Antioch and appealed to the king.

When Seleucus was assassinated by Heliodorus, Antiochus IV., his
brother, who had been chief magistrate at Athens, came back secretly “to
seize the kingdom by guile” (Dan. xi. 21 seq.). On his accession he
appointed Jesus, the brother of Onias, to the high-priesthood, and
sanctioned his proposals for the conversion of Jerusalem into a Greek city.
The high priest changed his name to Jason and made a gymnasium near the
citadel. The principle of separation was abandoned. The priests deserted the
Temple for the palaestra and the young nobles wore the Greek cap. The
Jews of Jerusalem were enrolled as citizens of Antioch. Jason sent money
for a sacrifice to Heracles at Tyre; and the only recorded opposition to his
policy came from his envoys, who pleaded that the money might be applied
to naval expenditure. Thus Jason stripped the high-priesthood of its sacred
character and did what he could to stamp out Judaism.

Menelaus supplanted Jason, obtaining his appointment from the king by
the promise of a larger contribution. In order to secure his position, he
contrived the murder of Onias, who had taken sanctuary at Daphne. This
outrage, coupled with his appropriation of temple vessels, which he used as
bribes, raised against Menelaus the senate and the people of Jerusalem. His
brother and deputy was killed in a serious riot, and an accusation was laid
against Menelaus before Antiochus. At the inquiry he bought his acquittal
from a courtier and his accusers were executed. Antiochus required peace in
Jerusalem and probably regarded Onias as the representative of the pro-
Egyptian faction, the allies of his enemy.

During his second Egyptian campaign a rumour came that Antiochus was
dead, and Jason made a raid upon Jerusalem. Menelaus held the citadel and

Jason was unable to establish himself in the city. The people were
presumably out of sympathy with Hellenizers, whether they belonged to the
house of Onias or that of Tobiah. When Antiochus finally evacuated Egypt
in obedience to the decree of Rome, he thought that Judaea was in revolt.
Though Jason had fled, it was necessary to storm the city; the drastic
measures which Menelaus advised seem to indicate that the poorer classes
had been roused to defend the Temple from further sacrilege. A massacre
took place, and Antiochus braved the anger of Yahweh by entering and
pillaging the Temple with impunity. The author of 2 Maccabees infers from
his success that the nation had forfeited all right to divine protection for the
time (2 Macc. v. 18-20).

The policy which Antiochus thus inaugurated he carried on rigorously
and systematically. His whole kingdom was to be unified; Judaism was an
eccentricity and as such doomed to extinction. The Temple of Jerusalem
was made over to Zeus Olympius: the temple of Gerizim to Zeus Xenius.
All the religious rites of Judaism were proscribed and the neighbouring
Greek cities were requested to enforce the prohibition upon their Jewish
citizens. Jerusalem was occupied by an army which took advantage of the
Sabbath and proceeded to suppress its observance. An Athenian came to be
the missionary of Hellenism and to direct its ceremonies, which were
established by force up and down the country.

28. The Maccabees.—Jerusalem and Gerizim were purged and converted
to the state religion with some ease. Elsewhere, as there, some conformed
and some became martyrs for the faith. And the passive resistance of those
who refused to conform at length gave rise to active opposition. “The king’s
officers who were enforcing the apostasy came into the city of Modein to
sacrifice, and many of Israel went over to them, but Mattathias ... slew a
Jew who came to sacrifice and the king’s officer and pulled down the altar”
(1 Macc. ii. 15 sqq.). Whether led by this Mattathias or not, certain Jews

fled into the wilderness and found a leader in Judas Maccabaeus his reputed
son, the first of the five Asmonean (Hasmonean) brethren. The warfare
which followed was like that which Saul and David waged against the
Philistines. Antiochus was occupied with his Parthian campaign and trusted
that the Hellenized Jews would maintain their ascendancy with the aid of
the provincial troops. In his last illness he wrote to express his confidence
in their loyalty. But the rebels collected adherents from the villages; and,
when they resolved to violate the sabbath to the extent of resisting attack,
they were joined by the company of the Assideans (Hasidim). Such a breach
of the sabbath was necessary if the whole Law was to survive at all in
Palestine. But the transgression is enough to explain the disfavour into
which the Maccabees seem to fall in the judgment of later Judaism, as, in
that judgment, it is enough to account for the instability of their dynasty.
Unstable as it was, their dynasty was soon established. In the country-side
of Judaea, Judaism—and no longer Hellenism—was propagated by force.
Apollonius, the commander of the Syrian garrison in Jerusalem, and Seron
the commander of the army in Syria, came in turn against Judas and his
bands and were defeated. The revolt thus became important enough to
engage the attention of the governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, if not of
Lysias the regent himself. Nicanor was despatched with a large army to put
down the rebels and to pay the tribute due to Rome by selling them as
slaves. Judas was at Emmaus; “the men of the citadel” guided a detachment
of the Syrian troops to his encampment by night. The rebels escaped in
time, but not into the hills, as their enemies surmised. At dawn they made
an unexpected attack upon the main body and routed it. Next year (165 b.c.)
Lysias himself entered the Idumaean country and laid siege to the fortress
of Bethsura. Judas gathered what men he could and joined battle. The siege
was raised, more probably in consequence of the death of Antiochus
Epiphanes than because Judas had gained any real victory. The proscription
of the Jewish religion was withdrawn and the Temple restored to them. But

it was Menelaus who was sent by the king “to encourage” (2 Macc. xi. 32)
the Jews, and in the official letters no reference is made to Judas. Such hints
as these indicate the impossibility of recovering a complete picture of the
Jews during the sovereignty of the Greeks, which the Talmudists regard as
the dark age, best left in oblivion.

Judas entered Jerusalem, the citadel of which was still occupied by a
Syrian garrison, and the Temple was re-dedicated on the 25th of Kislev
(164 b.c.). So “the Pious” achieved the object for which presumably they
took up arms. The re-establishment of Judaism, which alone of current
religions was intolerant of a rival, seems to have excited the jealousy of
their neighbours who had embraced the Greek way of life. The hellenizers
had not lost all hope of converting the nation and were indisposed to
acquiesce in the concordat. Judas and his zealots were thus able to maintain
their prominence and gradually to increase their power. At Joppa, for
example, the Jewish settlers—two hundred in all—“were invited to go into
boats provided in accordance with the common decree of the city.” They
accepted the invitation and were drowned. Judas avenged them by burning
the harbour and the shipping, and set to work to bring into Judaea all such
communities of Jews who had kept themselves separate from their heathen
neighbours. In this way he became strong enough to deal with the apostates
of Judaea.

In 163 Lysias led another expedition against these disturbers of the king’s
peace and defeated Judas at Bethzachariah. But while the forces were
besieging Bethzur and the fortress on Mount Zion, a pretender arose in
Antioch, and Lysias was compelled to come to terms—and now with Judas.
The Jewish refugees had turned the balance, and so Judas became strategus
of Judaea, whilst Menelaus was put to death.

In 162 Demetrius escaped from Rome and got possession of the kingdom
of Syria. Jakim, whose name outside religion was Alcimus, waited upon the

new king on behalf of the loyal Jews who had hellenized. He himself was
qualified to be the legitimate head of a united state, for he was of the tribe
of Aaron. Judas and the Asmoneans were usurpers, who owed their title to
Lysias. So Alcimus-Jakim was made high priest and Bacchides brought an
army to instal him in his office. The Assideans made their submission at
once. Judas had won for them religious freedom: but the Temple required a
descendant of Aaron for priest and he was come. But his first act was to
seize and slay sixty of them: so it was clear to Judas at any rate, if not also
to the Assideans who survived, that political independence was necessary if
the religion was to be secure. In face of his active opposition Alcimus could
not maintain himself without the support of Bacchides and was forced to
retire to Antioch. In response to his complaints Nicanor was appointed
governor of Judaea with power to treat with Judas. It appears that the two
became friends at first, but fresh orders from Antioch made Nicanor guilty
of treachery in the eyes of Judas’s partisans. Warned by the change of his
friend’s manner Judas fled. Nicanor threatened to destroy the Temple if the
priests would not deliver Judas into his hands. Soon it came to his
knowledge that Judas was in Samaria, whither he followed him on a
sabbath with Jews pressed into his service. The day was known afterwards
as Nicanor’s day, for he was found dead on the field (Capharsalama) by the
victorious followers of Judas (13th of Adar, March 161 b.c.). After this
victory Judas made an alliance with the people of Rome, who had no love
for Demetrius his enemy, nor any intention of putting their professions of
friendship into practice. Bacchides and Alcimus returned meanwhile into
the land of Judah; at Elasa “Judas fell and the rest fled” (1 Macc. ix. 18).
Bacchides occupied Judaea and made a chain of forts. Jonathan, who
succeeded his brother Judas, was captain of a band of fugitive outlaws. But
on the death of Alcimus Bacchides retired and Jonathan with his followers
settled down beyond the range of the Syrian garrisons. The Hellenizers still
enjoyed the royal favour and Jonathan made no attempt to dispossess them.

After an interval of two years they tried to capture him and failed. This
failure seems to have convinced Bacchides that it would be well to
recognize Jonathan and to secure a balance of parties. In 158 Jonathan
began to rule as a judge in Michmash and he destroyed the godless out of
Israel—so far, that is, as his power extended. In 153 Alexander Balas
withdrew Jonathan from his allegiance to Demetrius by the offer of the
high-priesthood. He had already made Jerusalem his capital and fortified
the Temple mount: the Syrian garrisons had already been withdrawn with
the exception of those of the Akra and Bethzur. In 147 Jonathan repaid his
benefactor by destroying the army of the governor of Coele-Syria, who had
espoused the cause of Demetrius. The fugitives took sanctuary in the temple
of Dagon at Azotus. “But Jonathan burned the temple of Dagon and those
who fled into it.” After the death of Balas he laid siege to the Akra; and “the
apostates, who hated their own nation,” appealed to Demetrius. Jonathan
was summoned to Antioch, made his peace and apparently relinquished his
attempt in return for the addition of three Samaritan districts to his territory.
Later, when the people of Antioch rose against the king, Jonathan
despatched a force of 3000 men who played a notable part in the merciless
suppression of the insurrection. 1 Maccabees credits them with 100,000
victims. Trypho, the regent of Antiochus VI., put even greater political
power into the hands of Jonathan and his brother Simon, but finally seized
Jonathan on the pretext of a conference. Simon was thus left to consolidate
what had been won in Palestine for the Jews and the family whose head he
had become. The weakness of the king enabled him to demand and to
secure immunity from taxation. The Jewish aristocracy became peers of the
Seleucid kingdom. Simon was declared high priest: Rome and Sparta
rejoiced in the elevation of their friend and ally. In the hundred and
seventieth year (142 b.c.) the yoke of the heathen was taken away from
Israel and the people began to date their legal documents “in the first year
of Simon the great high priest and commander and leader of the Jews.” The

popular verdict received official and formal sanction. Simon was declared
by the Jews and the priests their governor and high priest for ever, until
there should arise a faithful prophet. The garrison of the Akra had been
starved by a close blockade into submission, and beyond the boundaries of
Judaea “he took Joppa for a haven and made himself master of Gazara and
Bethsura.”

29. John Hyrcanus and the Sadducees.—But in 138 b.c. Antiochus
Sidetes entered Seleucia and required the submission of all the petty states,
which had taken advantage of the weakness of preceding kings. From
Simon he demanded an indemnity of 1000 talents for his oppression and
invasion of non-Jewish territory: Simon offered 100 talents. At length
Antiochus appeared to enforce his demand in 134. Simon was dead (135
b.c.) and John Hyrcanus had succeeded his father. The Jewish forces were

driven back upon Jerusalem and the city was closely invested. At the feast
of tabernacles of 132 Hyrcanus requested and Antiochus granted a week’s
truce. The only hope of the Jews lay in the clemency of their victorious
suzerain, and it did not fail them. Some of his advisers urged the demolition
of the nation on the ground of their exclusiveness, but he sent a sacrifice
and won thereby the name of “Pious.” In subsequent negotiations he
accepted the disarmament of the besieged and a tribute as conditions of
peace, and in response to their entreaty left Jerusalem without a garrison.
When he went on his last disastrous campaign, Hyrcanus led a Jewish
contingent to join his army, partly perhaps a troop of mercenaries (for
Hyrcanus was the first of the Jewish kings to hire mercenaries, with the
treasure found in David’s tomb). After his death Hyrcanus took advantage
of the general confusion to extend Jewish territory with the countenance of
Rome. He destroyed the temple of Gerizim and compelled the Idumaeans to
submit to circumcision and embrace the laws of the Jews on pain of
deportation.

In Jerusalem and in the country, in Alexandria, Egypt and Cyprus, the
Jews were prosperous (Jos. Ant. xiii. 284). This prosperity and the apparent
security of Judaism led to a breach between Hyrcanus and his spiritual
directors, the Pharisees. His lineage was (in the opinion of one of them at
least) of doubtful purity; and so it was his duty to lay down the high-
priesthood and be content to rule the nation. That one man should hold both
offices was indeed against the example of Moses, and could only be
admitted as a temporary concession to necessity. Hyrcanus could not
entertain the proposal that he should resign the sacred office to which he
owed much of his authority. The allegation about his mother was false: the
Pharisee who retailed it was guilty of no small offence. A Sadducean friend
advised Hyrcanus to ask the whole body of the Pharisees to prescribe the
penalty. Their leniency, which was notorious, alienated the king or probably
furnished him with a pretext for breaking with them. The Pharisees were
troublesome counsellors and doubtful allies for an ambitious prince. They
were all-powerful with the people, but Hyrcanus with his mercenaries was
independent of the people, and the wealthy belonged to the sect of the
Sadducees. The suppression of the Pharisaic ordinances and the punishment
of those who observed them led to some disturbance. But Hyrcanus “was
judged worthy of the three great privileges, the rule of the nation, the high-
priestly dignity, and prophecy.” This verdict suggests that the Sadducees,
with whom he allied himself, had learned to affect some show of Judaism in
Judaea. If the poor were ardent nationalists who would not intermingle with
the Greeks, the rich had long outgrown and now could humour such
prejudices; and the title of their party was capable of recalling at any rate
the sound of the national ideal of righteousness, i.e. Sadaqah.

The successor of Hyrcanus (d. 105) was Judas Aristobulus, “the friend of
the Greeks,” who first assumed the title of king. According to Strabo he was
a courteous man and in many ways useful to the Jews. His great

achievement was the conquest of a part of Ituraea, which he added to
Judaea and whose inhabitants he compelled to accept Judaism.

The Sadducean nobility continued in power under his brother and
successor Alexander Jannaeus (103-78); and the breach between the king
and the mass of the people widened. But Salome Alexandra, his brother’s
widow, who released him from prison on the death of her husband and
married him, was connected with the Pharisees through her brother Simon
ben Shetach. If his influence or theirs dictated her policy, there is no
evidence of any objection to the union of the secular power with the high-
priesthood. The party may have thought that Jannaeus was likely to bring
the dynasty to an end. His first action was to besiege Ptolemais. Its citizens
appealed to Ptolemy Lathyrus, who had been driven from the throne of
Egypt by his mother Cleopatra and was reigning in Cyprus. Alexander
raised the siege, made peace with Ptolemy and secretly sent to Cleopatra for
help against her son. The result of this double-dealing was that his army
was destroyed by Ptolemy, who advanced into Egypt leaving Palestine at
the mercy of Cleopatra. But Cleopatra’s generals were Jews and by their
protests prevented her from annexing it. Being thus freed from fear on the
side of Ptolemy, Alexander continued his desultory campaigns across the
Jordan and on the coast without any apparent policy and with indifferent
success. Finally, when he officiated as high priest at the feast of tabernacles
he roused the fury of the people by a derisive breach of the Pharisaic ritual.
They cried out that he was unworthy of his office, and pelted him with the
citrons which they were carrying as the Law prescribed. Alexander
summoned his mercenaries, and 6000 Jews were killed before he set out on
his disastrous campaign against an Arabian king. He returned a fugitive to
find the nation in armed rebellion. After six years of civil war he appealed
to them to state the conditions under which they would lay aside their
hostility. They replied by demanding his death and called in the Syrians.
But when the Syrians chased him into the mountains, 6000 Jews went over

to him and, with their aid, he put down the rebellion. Eight hundred Jews
who had held a fortress against him were crucified; 8000 Pharisees fled to
Egypt and remained there. Offering an ineffectual resistance to the passage
of the Syrian troops, Alexander was driven back by Aretas, king of Arabia,
against whom they had marched. His later years brought him small victories
over isolated cities.

On his deathbed it is said that Alexander advised his wife to reverse this
policy and rely upon the Pharisees. According to the Talmud, he warned her
“to fear neither the Pharisees nor their opponents but the hypocrites who do
the deed of Zimri and claim the reward of Phinehas:” the warning indicates
his justification of his policy in the matter of the crucifixions. In any case
the Pharisees were predominant under Alexandra, who became queen (78-
69) under her husband’s will. Hyrcanus her elder son was only high priest,
as the stricter Pharisees required. All the Pharisaic ordinances which
Hyrcanus had abolished were reaffirmed as binding. Simon ben Shatach
stood beside the queen: the exiles were restored and among them his great
colleague Jehudah ben Tabai. The great saying of each of these rabbis is
concerned with the duties of a judge; the selection does justice to the
importance of the Sanhedrin, which was filled with Pharisees. The legal
reforms which they introduced tended for the most part to mercy, but the
Talmud refers to one case which is an exception: false witnesses were
condemned to suffer the penalty due to their victim, even if he escaped.
This ruling may be interpreted as part of a campaign directed against the
counsellors of Alexander or as an instance of their general principle that
intention is equivalent to commission in the eye of the Law. The queen
interposed to prevent the execution of those who had counselled the
crucifixion of the rebels and permitted them to withdraw with her younger
son Aristobulus to the fortresses outside Jerusalem. Against their natural
desire for revenge may be set the fact that the Pharisees did much to
improve the status of women among the Jews.

On the death of Alexandra (69 b.c.) Aristobulus disputed the succession
of Hyrcanus. When their forces met at Jericho, Hyrcanus, finding that the
bulk of his following deserted to Aristobulus, fled with those who remained
to the tower Antonia and seized Aristobulus’s wife and children as hostages
for his own safety. Having this advantage, he was able to abdicate in favour
of Aristobulus and to retire into private life. But he was not able to save his
friends, who were also the enemies of the reigning king. In fear of reprisals
Antipas (or Antipater), the Idumaean, his counsellor, played on the fears of
Hyrcanus and persuaded him to buy the aid of the Nabataean Arabs with
promises. Aristobulus could not withstand the army of Aretas: he was
driven back upon Jerusalem and there besieged. The Jews deserted to the
victorious Hyrcanus: only the priests remained loyal to their accepted king;
many fled to Egypt.

30. The Romans and the Idumaeans.—At this point the power of Rome
appeared upon the scene in the person of M. Aemilius Scaurus (stepson of
Sulla) who had been sent into Syria by Pompey (65 b.c.). Both brothers
appealed to this new tribunal and Aristobulus bought a verdict in his favour.
The siege was raised. Aretas retired from Judaea; and Aristobulus pursued
the retreating army. But, when Pompey himself arrived at Damascus,
Antipater, who pulled the strings and exploited the claims of Hyrcanus,
realized that Rome and not the Arabs, who were cowed by the threats of
Scaurus, was the ruler of the East. To Rome, therefore, he must pay his
court. Others shared this conviction: Strabo speaks of embassies from Egypt
and Judaea bearing presents—one deposited in the temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus bore the inscription of Alexander, the king of the Jews. From
Judaea there were three embassies pleading, for Aristobulus, for Hyrcanus,
and for the nation, who would have no king at all but their God.

Pompey deferred his decision until he should have inquired into the state
of the Nabataeans, who had shown themselves to be capable of dominating

the Jews in the absence of the Roman army. In the interval Aristobulus
provoked him by his display of a certain impatience. The people had no
responsible head, of whom Rome could take cognisance: so Pompey
decided in favour of Hyrcanus and humoured the people by recognizing
him, not as king, but as high priest. Antipater remained secure, in power if
not in place. The Roman supremacy was established: the Jews were once
more one of the subject states of Syria, now a Roman province. Their
national aspirations had received a contemptuous acknowledgment, when
their Temple had been desecrated by the entry of a foreign conqueror.

Aristobulus himself had less resolution than his partisans. When he
repented of his attempted resistance and treated with Pompey for peace, his
followers threw themselves into Jerusalem, and, when the faction of
Hyrcanus resolved to open the gates, into the Temple. There they held out
for three months, succumbing finally because in obedience to the Law (as
interpreted since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes) they would only defend
themselves from actual assault upon the sabbath day. The Romans profited
by this inaction to push on the siege-works, without provoking resistance by
actual assaults until the very end. Pompey finally took the stronghold by
choosing the day of the fast, when the Jews abstain from all work, that is
the sabbath (Strabo). Dio Cassius calls it the day of Cronos. On this bloody
sabbath the priests showed a devotion to their worship which matched the
inaction of the fighting men. Though they saw the enemy advancing upon
them sword in hand they remained at worship untroubled and were
slaughtered as they poured libation and burned incense, for they put their
own safety second to the service of God. And there were Jews among the
murderers of the 12,000 Jews who fell.

The Jews of Palestine thus became once more a subject state, stripped of
their conquests and confined to their own borders. Aristobulus and his
children were conveyed to Rome to grace their conqueror’s triumphal

procession. But his son Alexander escaped during the journey, gathered
some force, and overran Judaea. The Pharisees decided that they could not
take action on either side, since the elder son of Alexandra was directed by
the Idumaean Antipater; and the people had an affection for such Asmonean
princes as dared to challenge the Roman domination of their ancestral
kingdom. The civil war was renewed; but Aulus Gabinius, the proconsul,
soon crushed the pretender and set up an aristocracy in Judaea with
Hyrcanus as guardian of the Temple. The country was divided into five
districts with five synods; and Josephus asserts that the people welcomed
the change from the monarchy. In spite of this, Aristobulus (56 b.c.) and
Alexander (55 b.c.) found loyalists to follow them in their successive raids.
But Antipater found supplies for the army of Gabinius, who, despite
Egyptian and Parthian distractions, restored order according to the will of
Antipater. M. Crassus, who succeeded him, plundered the Temple of its
gold and the treasure (54 b.c.) which the Jews of the dispersion had
contributed for its maintenance. It is said that Eleazar, the priest who
guarded the treasure, offered Crassus the golden beam as ransom for the
whole, knowing, what no one else knew, that it was mainly composed of
wood. So Crassus departed to Parthia and died. When the Parthians, elated
by their victory over Crassus (53 b.c.) advanced upon Syria, Cassius
opposed them. Some of the Jews, presumably the partisans of Aristobulus,
were ready to co-operate with the Parthians. At any rate Antipater was ready
to aid Cassius with advice; Taricheae was taken and 30,000 Jews were sold
into slavery (51 b.c.). In spite of this vigorous coercion Cassius came to
terms with Alexander, before he returned to the Euphrates to hold it against
the Parthians.

Two years later Julius Caesar made himself master of Rome and
despatched the captive Aristobulus with two legions to win Judaea (49 b.c.).
But Pompey’s partisans were beforehand with him: he was taken off by
poison and got not so much as a burial in his fatherland. At the same time

his son Alexander was beheaded at Antioch by Pompey’s order as an enemy
of Rome. After the defeat and death of Pompey (48 b.c.) Antipater
transferred his allegiance to Caesar and demonstrated its value during
Caesar’s Egyptian campaign. He carried with him the Arabs and the princes
of Syria, and through Hyrcanus he was able to transform the hostility of the
Egyptian Jews into active friendliness. These services, which incidentally
illustrate the solidarity and unity of the Jewish nation and the respect of the
communities of the dispersion for the metropolis, were recognized and
rewarded. Before his assassination in 44 b.c. Julius Caesar had confirmed
Hyrcanus in the high-priesthood and added the title of ethnarch. Antipater
had been made a Roman citizen and procurator of the reunited Judaea.
Further, as confederates of the senate and people of Rome, the Jews had
received accession of territory, including the port of Joppa and, with other
material privileges, the right of observing their religious customs not only
in Palestine but also in Alexandria and elsewhere. Idumaean or Philistine of
Ascalon, Antipater had displayed the capacity of his adoptive or adopted
nation for his own profit and theirs. And when Caesar died Suetonius notes
that he was mourned by foreign nations, especially by the Jews (Caes. 84).

In the midst of all this civil strife the Pharisees and all who were
preoccupied with religion found it almost impossible to discern what they
should do to please God. The people whom they directed were called out to
fight, at the bidding of an alien, for this and that foreigner who seemed most
powerful and most likely to succeed. In Palestine few could command
leisure for meditation; as for opportunities of effective intervention in
affairs, they had none, it would seem, once Alexander was dead.

There is a story of a priest named Onias preserved both by Josephus
and in the Talmud, which throws some light upon the indecision of the
religious in the period just reviewed. When Aretas intervened in the
interest of Hyrcanus and defeated Aristobulus, the usurper of his

brother’s inheritance, the people accepted the verdict of battle, sided
with the victor’s client, and joined in the siege of Jerusalem. The most
reputable of the Jews fled to Egypt; but Onias, a righteous man and
dear to God, who had hidden himself, was discovered by the besiegers.
He had a name for power in prayer; for once in a drought he prayed for
rain and God had heard his prayer. His captors now required of him
that he should put a curse upon Aristobulus and his faction. On
compulsion he stood in their midst and said: “O God, king of the
universe, since these who stand with me are thy people and the
besieged are thy priests, I pray thee that thou hearken not to those
against these, nor accomplish what these entreat against those.” So he
prayed—and the wicked Jews stoned him.

Unrighteous Jews were in the ascendant. There were only Asmonean
princes, degenerate and barely titular sons of Levi, to serve as judges of
Israel—and they were at feud and both relied upon foreign aid. The
righteous could only flee or hide, and so wait dreaming of the mercy of
God past and to come. As yet our authorities do not permit us to follow
them to Egypt with any certainty, but the Psalms of Solomon express
the mind of one who survived to see Pompey the Great brought low.
Although Pompey had spared the temple treasure, he was the
embodiment of the power of Rome, which was not always so
considerately exercised. And so the psalmist exults in his death and
dishonour (Ps. ii.): he prayed that the pride of the dragon might be
humbled and God shewed him the dead body lying upon the waves—
and there was none to bury it. As one of those who fear the Lord in
truth and in patience, he looks forward to the punishment of all sinners
who oppress the righteous and profane the sanctuary. For the sins of the
rulers God had rejected his people; but the remnant could not but
inherit the promises, which belong to the chosen people. For the Lord
is faithful unto those who walk in the righteousness of his

commandments (xiv. 1): in the exercise of their freewill and with God’s
help they will attain salvation. As God’s servant, Pompey destroyed
their rulers and every wise councillor: soon the righteous and sinless
king of David’s house shall reign over them and over all the nations
(xvii.).

31. Herod the Great.—After the departure of Caesar, Antipater warned
the adherents of Hyrcanus against taking part in any revolutionary attempts,
and his son Herod, who, in spite of his youth, had been appointed governor
of Galilee, dealt summarily with Hezekiah, the robber captain who was
overrunning the adjacent part of Syria. The gratitude of the Syrians brought
him to the knowledge of Sextus Caesar the governor of Syria; but his action
inspired the chief men of the Jews with apprehension. Complaint was made
to Hyrcanus that Herod had violated the law which prohibited the execution
of even an evil man, unless he had been first condemned to death by the
Sanhedrin. At the same time the mothers of the murdered men came to the
Temple to demand vengeance. So Herod was summoned to stand his trial.
He came in answer to the summons—but attended by a bodyguard and
protected by the word of Sextus. Of all the Sanhedrin only Sameas “a
righteous man and therefore superior to fear” dared to speak. Being a
Pharisee he faced the facts of Herod’s power and warned the tribunal of the
event, just as later he counselled the people to receive him, saying that for
their sins they could not escape him. Herod put his own profit above the
Law, acting after his kind, and he also was God’s instrument. The effect of
the speech was to goad the Sanhedrin into condemning Herod: Hyrcanus
postponed their decision and persuaded him to flee. Sextus Caesar made
him lieutenant-governor of Coele Syria, and only his father restrained him
from returning to wreak his revenge upon Hyrcanus.

It is to be remembered that, in this and all narratives of the life of
Herod, Josephus was dependent upon the history of Herod’s client,

Nicolaus of Damascus, and was himself a supporter of law and order.
The action of the Sanhedrin and the presence of the women suppliants
in the Temple suggest, if they do not prove, that this Hezekiah who
harassed the Syrians was a Jewish patriot, who could not acquiesce and
wait with Sameas.

Malichus also, the murderer or reputed murderer of Antipater, appears to
have been a partisan of Hyrcanus, who had a zeal for Judaism. When
Cassius demanded a tribute of 700 talents from Palestine, Antipater set
Herod, Phasael and this Malichus, his enemy, to collect it. Herod thought it
imprudent to secure the favour of Rome by the sufferings of others. But
some cities defaulted, and they were apparently among those assigned to
Malichus. If he had been lenient for their sakes or in the hope of damaging
Antipater, he was disappointed; for Cassius sold four cities into slavery and
Hyrcanus made up the deficit. Soon after this (43 b.c.) Malichus succeeded,
it is said, in poisoning Antipater as he dined with Hyrcanus, and was
assassinated by Herod’s bravoes.

After the departure of Cassius, Antipater being dead, there was confusion
in Judaea. Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, made a raid and was with
difficulty repulsed by Herod. The prince of Tyre occupied part of Galilee.
When Antony assumed the dominion of the East after the defeat of Cassius
at Philippi, an embassy of the Jews, amongst other embassies, approached
him in Bithynia and accused the sons of Antipater as usurpers of the power
which rightly belonged to Hyrcanus. Another approached him at Antioch.
But Hyrcanus was well content to forgo the title to political power, which
he could not exercise in practice, and Antony had been a friend of Antipater.
So Herod and Phasael continued to be virtually kings of the Jews: Antony’s
court required large remittances and Palestine was not exempt.

In 40 b.c. Antony was absent in Egypt or Italy; and the Parthians swept
down upon Syria with Antigonus in their train. Hyrcanus and Phasael were

trapped: Herod fled by way of Egypt to Rome. Hyrcanus, who was
Antigonus’ only rival, was mutilated and carried to Parthia. So he could no
more be high priest, and his life was spared only at the intercession of the
Parthian Jews, who had a regard for the Asmonean prince. Thus Antigonus
succeeded his uncle as “King Antigonus” in the Greek and “Mattathiah the
high priest” in the Hebrew by grace of the Parthians.

The senate of Rome under the influence of Antony and Octavian ratified
the claims of Herod, and after some delay lent him the armed force
necessary to make them good. In the hope of healing the breach, which his
success could only aggravate, and for love, he took to wife Mariamne,
grandniece of Hyrcanus. Galilee was pacified, Jerusalem taken and
Antigonus beheaded by the Romans. From this point to the end of the
period the Jews were dependents of Rome, free to attend to their own
affairs, so long as they paid taxes to the subordinate rulers, Herodian or
Roman, whom they detested equally. If some from time to time dared to
hope for political independence their futility was demonstrated. One by one
the descendants of the Asmoneans were removed. The national hope was
relegated to an indefinite future and to another sphere. At any rate the Jews
were free to worship their God and to study his law: their religion was
recognized by the state and indeed established.

This development of Judaism was eminently to the mind of the rulers;
and Herod did much to encourage it. More and more it became identified
with the synagogue, in which the Law was expounded: more and more it
became a matter for the individual and his private life. This was so even in
Palestine—the land which the Jews hoped to possess—and in Jerusalem
itself, the holy city, in which the Temple stood. Herod had put down Jewish
rebels and Herod appointed the high priests. In his appointments he was
careful to avoid or to suppress any person who, being popular, might
legitimize a rebellion by heading it. The Pharisees, who regarded his rule as

an inevitable penalty for the sins of the people, he encouraged. Pollio the
Pharisee and Sameas his disciple were in special honour with him, Josephus
says, when he re-entered Jerusalem and put to death the leaders of the
faction of Antigonus. How well their teaching served his purpose is shown
by the sayings of two rabbis who, if not identical with these Pharisees,
belong to their period and their party. Shemaiah said, “Love work and hate
lordship and make not thyself known to the government.” Abtalion said,
“Ye wise, be guarded in your words: perchance ye may incur the debt of
exile.” Precepts such as these could hardly fall to effect some modification
of the reckless zeal of the Galileans in the pupils of the synagogue. Many if
not all of the professed rabbis had travelled outside Palestine: some were
even members of the dispersion, like Hillel the Babylonian, who with
Shammai forms the second of the pairs. Through them the experience of the
dispersion was brought to bear upon the Palestinian Jews. Herod’s
nominees were not the men to extend the prestige of the high-priesthood at
the expense of these rabbis: even in Jerusalem the synagogue became of
more importance than the Temple. Hillel also inculcated the duty of making
converts to Judaism. He said, “Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace,
and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Law.”
But even he reckoned the books of Daniel and Esther as canonical, and
these were dangerous food for men who did not realize the full power of
Rome.

So long as Herod lived there was no insurrection. Formally he was an
orthodox Jew and set his face against intermarriage with the uncircumcised.
He was also ready and able to protect the Jews of the dispersion. But that
ability was largely due to his whole-hearted Hellenism, which was shown
by the Greek cities which he founded in Palestine and the buildings he
erected in Jerusalem. In its material embodiments Greek civilization
became as much a part of Jewish life in Palestine as it was in Alexandria or
Antioch; and herein the rabbis could not follow him.

When all the Jewish people swore to be loyal to Caesar and the king’s
policy, the Pharisees—above 6000—refused to swear. The king imposed a
fine upon them, and the wife of Pheroras—Herod’s brother—paid it on their
behalf. In return for her kindness, being entrusted with foreknowledge by
the visitation of God, they prophesied that God had decreed an end of rule
for Herod and his line and that the sovereignty devolved upon her and
Pheroras and their children.

From the sequel it appears that the prophecy was uttered by one Pharisee
only, and that it was in no way endorsed by the party. When it came to the
ears of the king he slew the most responsible of the Pharisees and every
member of his household who accepted what the Pharisee said. An
explanation of this unwarrantable generalization may be found in the fact
that the incident is derived from a source which was unfavourable to the
Pharisees: they are described as a Jewish section of men who pretend to set
great store by the exactitude of the ancestral tradition and the laws in which
the deity delights—as dominant over women-folk—and as sudden and
quick in quarrel.

Towards the end of Herod’s life two rabbis attempted to uphold by
physical force the cardinal dogma of Judaism, which prohibited the use of
images. Their action is intelligible enough. Herod was stricken with an
incurable disease. He had sinned against the Law; and at last God had
punished him. At last the law-abiding Jews might and must assert the
majesty of the outraged Law. The most conspicuous of the many symbols
and signs of his transgression was the golden eagle which he had placed
over the great gate of the Temple; its destruction was the obvious means to
adopt for the quickening and assertion of Jewish principles.

By their labours in the education of the youth of the nation, these rabbis,
Judas and Matthias, had endeared themselves to the populace and had
gained influence over their disciples. A report that Herod was dead co-

operated with their exhortations to send the iconoclasts to their appointed
work. And so they went to earn the rewards of their practical piety from the
Law. If they died, death was inevitable, the rabbis said, and no better death
would they ever find. Moreover, their children and kindred would benefit
by the good name and fame belonging to those who died for the Law. Such
is the account which Josephus gives in the Antiquities; in the Jewish War he
represents the rabbis and their disciples as looking forward to greater
happiness for themselves after such a death. But Herod was not dead yet,
and the instigators and the agents of this sacrilege were burned alive.

32. The Settlement of Augustus.—On the death of Herod in 4 b.c.
Archelaus kept open house for mourners as the Jewish custom, which
reduced many Jews to beggary, prescribed. The people petitioned for the
punishment of those who were responsible for the execution of Matthias
and his associates and for the removal of the high priest. Archelaus
temporized; the loyalty of the people no longer constituted a valid title to
the throne; his succession must first be sanctioned by Augustus. Before he
departed to Rome on this errand, which was itself an insult to the nation,
there were riots in Jerusalem at the Passover which he needed all his
soldiery to put down. When he presented himself before the emperor—apart
from rival claimants of his own family—there was an embassy from the
Jewish people who prayed to be rid of a monarchy and rulers such as
Herod. As part of the Roman province of Syria and under its governors they
would prove that they were not really disaffected and rebellious. During the
absence of Archelaus, who would—the Jews feared—prove his legitimacy
by emulating his father’s ferocity, and to whom their ambassadors preferred
Antipas, the Jews of Palestine gave the lie to their protestations of loyalty
and peaceableness. At the Passover the pilgrims attacked the Roman troops.
After hard fighting the procurator, whose cruelty provoked the attack,
captured the Temple and robbed the treasury. On this the insurgents were
joined by some of Herod’s army and besieged the Romans in Herod’s

palace. Elsewhere the occasion tempted many to play at being king—Judas,
son of Hezekiah, in Galilee; Simon, one of the king’s slaves, in Peraea.
Most notable of all perhaps was the shepherd Athronges, who assumed the
pomp of royalty and employed his four brothers as captains and satraps in
the war which he waged upon Romans and king’s men alike—not even
Jews escaped him unless they brought him contributions. Order was
restored by Varus the governor of Syria in a campaign which Josephus
describes as the most important war between that of Pompey and that of
Vespasian.

At length Augustus summoned the representatives of the nation and
Nicholaus of Damascus, who spoke for Archelaus, to plead before him in
the temple of Apollo. Augustus apportioned Herod’s dominions among his
sons in accordance with the provisions of his latest will. Archelaus received
the lion’s share: for ten years he was ethnarch of Idumaea, Judaea and
Samaria, with a yearly revenue of 600 talents. Antipas became tetrarch of
Galilee and Peraea, with a revenue of 200 talents. Philip, who had been left
in charge of Palestine pending the decision and had won the respect of
Varus, became tetrarch of Batanaea, Trachonitis and Auranitis, with 100
talents. His subjects included only a sprinkling of Jews. Up to his death
(a.d. 34) he did nothing to forfeit the favour of Rome. His coins bore the
heads of Augustus and Tiberius, and his government was worthy of the best
Roman traditions—he succeeded where proconsuls had failed. His capital
was Caesarea Philippi, where Pan had been worshipped from ancient times,
and where Augustus had a temple built by Herod the Great.

33. Archelaus.—Augustus had counselled Archelaus to deal gently with
his subjects. But there was an outstanding feud between him and them; and
his first act as ethnarch was to remove the high priest on the ground of his
sympathy with the rebels. In violation of the Law he married a brother’s
widow, who had already borne children, and in general he showed himself

so fierce and tyrannical that the Jews joined with the Samaritans to accuse
him before the emperor. Archelaus was summoned to Rome and banished to
Gaul; his territory was entrusted to a series of procurators (a.d. 6-41),
among whom was an apostate Jew, but none with any pretension even to a
semi-legitimate authority. Each procurator represented not David but
Caesar. The Sanhedrin had its police and powers to safeguard the Jewish
religion; but the procurator had the appointment of the high priests, and no
capital sentence could be executed without his sanction.

34. The Procurators.—So the Jews of Judaea obtained the settlement for
which they had pleaded at the death of Herod; and some of them began to
regret it at once. The first procurator Coponius was accompanied by P.
Sulpicius Quirinius, legate of Syria, who came to organize the new Roman
province. As a necessary preliminary a census (a.d. 6-7) was taken after the
Roman method, which did not conform to the Jewish Law. The people were
affronted, but for the most part acquiesced, under the influence of Joazar the
high priest. But Judas the Galilean, with a Pharisee named Sadduc
(Sadduk), endeavoured to incite them to rebellion in the name of religion.
The result of this alliance between a revolutionary and a Pharisee was the
formation of the party of Zealots, whose influence—according to Josephus
—brought about the great revolt and so led to the destruction of Jerusalem
in 70. So far as this influence extended, the Jewish community was
threatened with the danger of suicide, and the distinction drawn by
Josephus between the Pharisees and the Zealots is a valid one. Not all
Pharisees were prepared to take such action, in order that Israel might
“tread on the neck of the eagle” (as is said in The Assumption of Moses). So
long as the Law was not deliberately outraged and so long as the worship
was established, most of the religious leaders of the Jews were content to
wait.

It seems that the Zealots made more headway in Galilee than in Judaea—
so much so that the terms Galilean and Zealot are practically
interchangeable. In Galilee the Jews predominated over the heathen and
their ruler Herod Antipas had some sort of claim upon their allegiance. His
marriage with the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas (which was at any
rate in accordance with the general policy of Augustus) seems to have
preserved his territory from the incursions of her people, so long as he
remained faithful to her. He conciliated his subjects by his deference to the
observances of Judaism, and—the case is probably typical of his policy—he
joined in protesting, when Pilate set up a votive shield in the palace of
Herod within the sacred city. He seems to have served Tiberius as an
official scrutineer of the imperial officials and he commemorated his
devotion by the foundation of the city of Tiberias. But he repudiated the
daughter of Aretas in order to marry Herodias and so set the Arabians
against him. Disaster overtook his forces (a.d. 36) and Tiberius, his patron,
died before the Roman power was brought in full strength to his aid.
Caligula was not predisposed to favour the favourites of Tiberius; and
Antipas, having petitioned him for the title of king at the instigation of
Herodias, was banished from his tetrarchy and (apparently) was put to death
in 39.

Antipas is chiefly known to history in connexion with John the Baptist,
who reproached him publicly for his marriage with Herodias. According to
the earliest authority, he seems to have imprisoned John to save him from
the vengeance of Herodias. But—whatever his motive—Antipas certainly
consented to John’s death. If the Fourth Gospel is to be trusted, John had
already recognized and acclaimed Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah for
whom the Jews were looking. By common consent of Christendom, John
was the forerunner of the founder of the Christian Church. It was, therefore,
during the reign of Antipas, and partly if not wholly within his territory, that
the Gospel was first preached by the rabbi or prophet whom Christendom

came to regard as the one true Christ, the Messiah of the Jews. Josephus’
history of the Jews contains accounts of John the Baptist and Jesus, the
authenticity of which has been called in question for plausible but not
entirely convincing reasons. However this may be, the Jews who believed
Jesus to be the Christ play no great part in the history of the Jews before 70,
as we know it. Many religious teachers and many revolutionaries were
crucified within this period; and the early Christians were outwardly
distinguished from other Jews only by their scrupulous observance of
religious duties.

The crucifixion of Jesus was sanctioned by Pontius Pilate, who was
procurator of Judaea a.d. 26-36. Of the Jews under his predecessors little
enough is known. Speaking generally, they seem to have avoided giving
offence to their subjects. But Pilate so conducted affairs as to attract the
attention not only of Josephus but also of Philo, who represents for us the
Jewish community of Alexandria. Pilate inaugurated his term of office by
ordering his troops to enter Jerusalem at night and to take their standards
with them. There were standards and standards in the Roman armies: those
which bore the image of the emperor, and therefore constituted a breach of
the Jewish Law, had hitherto been kept aloof from the holy city. On learning
of this, the Jews repaired to Caesarea and besought Pilate to remove these
offensive images. Pilate refused; and, when they persisted in their petition
for six days, he surrounded them with soldiers and threatened them with
instant death. They protested that they would rather die than dare to
transgress the wisdom of the laws; and Pilate yielded. But he proceeded to
expend the temple treasure upon an aqueduct for Jerusalem; and some of
the Jews regarded the devotion of sacred money to the service of man as a
desecration. Pilate came up to Jerusalem and dispersed the petitioners by
means of disguised soldiers armed with clubs. So the revolt was put down,
but the excessive zeal of the soldiers and Pilate’s obstinate adherence to his
policy widened the breach between Rome and the stricter Jews. But the

death of Sejanus in 31 set Tiberius free from prejudice against the Jews;
and, when Pilate put up the votive shields in Herod’s palace at Jerusalem,
the four sons of Herod came forward in defence of Jewish principles and he
was ordered to remove them. In 35 he dispersed a number of Samaritans,
who had assembled near Mt Gerizim at the bidding of an impostor, in order
to see the temple vessels buried there by Moses. Complaint was made to
Vitellius, then legate of Syria, and Pilate was sent to Rome to answer for his
shedding of innocent blood. At the passover of 36 Vitellius came to
Jerusalem and pacified the Jews by two concessions: he remitted the taxes
on fruit sold in the city, and he restored to their custody the high priest’s
vestments, which Herod Archelaus and the Romans had kept in the tower
Antonia. The vestments had been stored there since the time of the first high
priest named Hyrcanus, and Herod had taken them over along with the
tower, thinking that his possession of them would deter the Jews from
rebellion against his rule. At the same time Vitellius vindicated the Roman
supremacy by degrading Caiaphas from the high-priesthood, and appointing
a son of Annas in his place. The motive for this change does not appear, and
we are equally ignorant of the cause which prompted his transference of the
priesthood from his nominee to another son of Annas in 37. But it is quite
clear that Vitellius was concerned to reconcile the Jews to the authority of
Rome. When he marched against Aretas, his army with their standards did
not enter Judaea at all; but he himself went up to Jerusalem for the feast
and, on receipt of the news that Tiberius was dead, administered to the Jews
the oath of allegiance to Caligula.

35. Caligula and Agrippa I.—The accession of Caligula (a.d. 37-41) was
hailed by his subjects generally as the beginning of the Golden Age. The
Jews in particular had a friend at court. Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the
Great, was an avowed partisan of the new emperor and had paid penalty for
a premature avowal of his preference. But Caligula’s favour, though
lavished upon Agrippa, was not available for pious Jews. His foible was

omnipotence, and he aped the gods of Greece in turn. In the provinces and
even in Italy his subjects were ready to acknowledge his divinity—with the
sole exception of the Jews. So we learn something of the Palestinian Jews
and more of the Jewish community in Alexandria. The great world (as we
know it) took small note of Judaism even when Jews converted its women
to their faith; but now the Jews as a nation refused to bow before the present
god of the civilized world. The new Catholicism was promulgated by
authority and accepted with deference. Only the Jews protested: they had a
notion of the deity which Caligula at all events did not fulfil.

The people of Alexandria seized the opportunity for an attack upon the
Jews. Images of Caligula were set up in the synagogues, an edict deprived
the Jews of their rights as citizens, and finally the governor authorized the
mob to sack the Jewish quarter, as if it had been a conquered city (38).
Jewesses were forced to eat pork and the elders were scourged in the
theatre. But Agrippa had influence with the emperor and secured the
degradation of the governor. The people and the Jews remained in a state of
civil war, until each side sent an embassy (40) to wait upon the emperor.
The Jewish embassy was headed by Philo, who has described its fortunes in
a tract dealing with the divine punishment of the persecutors. Their
opponents also had secured a friend at court and seem to have prevented
any effective measure of redress. While the matter was still pending, news
arrived that the emperor had commanded Publius Petronius, the governor of
Syria, to set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem. On the intervention of
Agrippa the order was countermanded, and the assassination of the emperor
(41) effectually stopped the desecration.

36. Claudius and the Procurators.—Claudius, the new emperor, restored
the civic rights of the Alexandrian Jews and made Agrippa I. king over all
the territories of Herod the Great. So there was once more a king of Judaea,
and a king who observed the tradition of the Pharisees and protected the

Jewish religion. There is a tradition in the Talmud which illustrates his
popularity. As he was reading the Law at the feast of tabernacles he burst
into tears at the words “Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee which is
not thy brother”; and the people cried out, “Fear not, Agrippa; thou art our
brother.” The fact that he began to build a wall round Jerusalem may be
taken as further proof of his patriotism. But the fact that he summoned five
vassal-kings of the empire to a conference at Tiberias suggests rather a
policy of self-aggrandisement. Both projects were prohibited by the
emperor on the intervention of the legate. In 44 he died. The Christian
records treat his death as an act of divine vengeance upon the persecutor of
the Christian Church. The Jews prayed for his recovery and lamented him.
The Gentile soldiers exulted in the downfall of his dynasty, which they
signalized after their own fashion. Claudius intended that Agrippa’s young
son should succeed to the kingdom; but he was overruled by his advisers,
and Judaea was taken over once more by Roman procurators. The success
of Agrippa’s brief reign had revived the hopes of the Jewish nationalists,
and concessions only retarded the inevitable insurrection.

Cuspius Fadus, the first of these procurators, purged the land of bandits.
He also attempted to regain for the Romans the custody of the high priest’s
vestments; but the Jews appealed to the emperor against the revival of this
advertisement of their servitude. The emperor granted the petition, which
indeed the procurator had permitted them to make, and further transferred
the nomination of the high priest and the supervision of the temple from the
procurator to Agrippa’s brother, Herod of Chalcis. But these concessions
did not satisfy the hopes of the people. During the government of Fadus,
Theudas, who claimed to be a prophet and whom Josephus describes as a
wizard, persuaded a large number to take up their possessions and follow
him to the Jordan, saying that he would cleave the river asunder with a
word of command and so provide them with an easy crossing. A squadron

of cavalry despatched by Fadus took them alive, cut off the head of Theudas
and brought it to Jerusalem.

Under the second procurator Tiberius Alexander, an apostate Jew of
Alexandria, nephew of Philo, the Jews suffered from a great famine and
were relieved by the queen of Adiabene, a proselyte to Judaism, who
purchased corn from Egypt. The famine was perhaps interpreted by the
Zealots as a punishment for their acquiescence in the rule of an apostate. At
any rate Alexander crucified two sons of Simon the Galilean, who had
headed a revolt in the time of the census. They had presumably followed the
example of their father.

Under Ventidius Cumanus (48-52) the mutual hatred of Jews and
Romans, Samaritans and Jews, found vent in insults and bloodshed. At the
passover, on the fourth day of the feast, a soldier mounting guard at the
porches of the Temple provoked an uproar, which ended in a massacre, by
indecent exposure of his person. Some of the rebels intercepted a slave of
the emperor on the high-road near the city and robbed him of his
possessions. Troops were sent to pacify the country, and in one village a
soldier found a copy of Moses’ laws and tore it up in public with jeers and
blasphemies. At this the Jews flocked to Caesarea, and were only restrained
from a second outbreak by the execution of the soldier. Finally, the
Samaritans attacked certain Galileans who were (as the custom was)
travelling through Samaria to Jerusalem for the passover. Cumanus was
bribed and refused to avenge the death of the Jews who were killed. So the
Galileans with some of the lower classes of “the Jews” allied themselves
with a “robber” and burned some of the Samaritan villages. Cumanus
armed the Samaritans, and, with them and his own troops, defeated these
Jewish marauders. The leading men of Jerusalem prevailed upon the rebels
who survived the defeat to disperse. But the quarrel was referred first to the
legate of Syria and then to the emperor. The emperor was still disposed to

conciliate the Jews; and, at the instance of Agrippa, son of Agrippa I.,
Cumanus was banished.

37. Felix and the Revolutionaries.—Under Antonius Felix (52-60) the
revolutionary movement grew and spread. The country, Josephus says, was
full of “robbers” and “wizards.” The high priest was murdered in the
Temple by pilgrims who carried daggers under their cloaks. Wizards and
impostors persuaded the multitude to follow them into the desert, and an
Egyptian, claiming to be a prophet, led his followers to the Mount of Olives
to see the walls of Jerusalem fall at his command. Such deceivers,
according to Josephus, did no less than the murderers to destroy the
happiness of the city. Their hands were cleaner but their thoughts were
more impious, for they pretended to divine inspiration.

Felix the procurator—a king, as Tacitus says, in power and in mind a
slave—tried in vain to put down the revolutionaries. The “chief-robber”
Eleazar, who had plundered the country for twenty years, was caught and
sent to Rome; countless robbers of less note were crucified. But this
severity cemented the alliance of religious fanatics with the physical-force
party and induced the ordinary citizens to join them, in spite of the
punishments which they received when captured. Agrippa II. received a
kingdom—first Chalcis, and then the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias—
but, though he had the oversight of the Temple and the nomination of the
high priest, and enjoyed a reputation for knowledge of Jewish customs and
questions, he was unable to check the growing power of the Zealots. His
sister Drusilla had broken the Law by her marriage with Felix; and his own
notorious relations with his sister Berenice, and his coins which bore the
images of the emperors, were an open affront to the conscience of Judaism.
When Felix was recalled by Nero in 60 the nation was divided against
itself, the Gentiles within its gates were watching for their opportunity, and
the chief priests robbed the lower priests with a high hand.

In Caesarea there had been for some time trouble between the Jewish and
the Syrian inhabitants. The Jews claimed that the city was theirs, because
King Herod had founded it. The Syrians admitted the fact, but insisted that
it was a city for Greeks, as its temples and statues proved. Their rivalry led
to street-fighting: the Jews had the advantage in respect of wealth and
bodily strength, but the Greek party had the assistance of the soldiers who
were stationed there. On one occasion Felix sent troops against the
victorious Jews; but neither this nor the scourge and the prison, to which the
leaders of both factions had been consigned, deterred them. The quarrel was
therefore referred to the emperor Nero, who finally gave his decision in
favour of the Syrians or Greeks. The result of this decision was that the
synagogue at Caesarea was insulted on a Sabbath and the Jews left the city
taking their books of the Law with them. So—Josephus says—the war
began in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero (a.d. 66).

38. Festus, Albinus and Florus.—Meanwhile the procurators who
succeeded Felix—Porcius Festus (60-62), Albinus (62-64) and Gessius
Florus (64-66)—had in their several ways brought the bulk of the nation
into line with the more violent of the Jews of Caesarea. Festus found Judaea
infested with robbers and the Sicarii, who mingled with the crowds at the
feasts and stabbed their enemies with the daggers (sicae) from which their
name was derived. He also, had to deal with a wizard, who deceived many
by promising them salvation and release from evils, if they would follow
him into the desert. His attempts to crush all such disturbers of the peace
were cut short by his death in his second year of office.

In the interval which elapsed before the arrival of Albinus, Ananus son of
Annas was made high priest by Agrippa. With the apparent intention of
restoring order in Jerusalem, he assembled the Sanhedrin, and being, as a
Sadducee, cruel in the matter of penalties, secured the condemnation of
certain lawbreakers to death by stoning. For this he was deposed by

Agrippa. Albinus fostered and turned to his profit the struggles of priests
with priests and of Zealots with their enemies. The general release of
prisoners, with which he celebrated his impending recall, is typical of his
policy. Meanwhile Agrippa gave the Levites the right to wear the linen robe
of the priests and sanctioned the use of the temple treasure to provide work
—the paving of the city with white stones—for the workmen who had
finished the Temple (64) and now stood idle. But everything pointed to the
destruction of the city, which one Jesus had prophesied at the feast of
tabernacles in 62. The Zealots’ zeal for the Law and the Temple was flouted
by their pro-Roman king.

By comparison with Florus, Albinus was, in the opinion of Josephus, a
benefactor. When the news of the troubles at Caesarea reached Jerusalem, it
became known also that Florus had seized seventeen talents of the temple
treasure (66). At this the patience of the Jews was exhausted. The sacrilege,
as they considered it, may have been an attempt to recover arrears of
tribute; but they were convinced that Florus was providing for himself and
not for Caesar. The revolutionaries went about among the excited people
with baskets, begging coppers for their destitute and miserable governor.
Stung by this insult, he neglected the fire of war which had been lighted at
Caesarea, and hastened to Jerusalem. His soldiers sacked the upper city and
killed 630 persons—men, women and children. Berenice, who was
fulfilling a Nazarite vow, interposed in vain. Florus actually dared to
scourge and crucify Jews who belonged to the Roman order of knights. For
the moment the Jews were cowed, and next day they went submissively to
greet the troops coming from Caesarea. Their greetings were unanswered,
and they cried out against Florus. On this the soldiers drew their swords and
drove the people into the city; but, once inside the city, the people stood at
bay and succeeded in establishing themselves upon the temple-hill. Florus
withdrew with all his troops, except one cohort, to Caesarea. The Jews laid
complaint against him, and he complained against the Jews before the

governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, who sent an officer to inquire into the
matter. Agrippa, who had hurried from Alexandria, entered Jerusalem with
the governor’s emissary. So long as he counselled submission to the
overwhelming power of Rome the people complied, but when he spoke of
obedience to Florus he was compelled to fly. The rulers, who desired peace,
and upon whom Florus had laid the duty of restoring peace, asked him for
troops; but the civil war ended in their complete discomfiture. The rebels
abode by their decision to stop the daily sacrifice for the emperor; Agrippa’s
troops capitulated and marched out unhurt; and the Romans, who
surrendered on the same condition and laid down their arms, were
massacred. As if to emphasize the spirit and purpose of the rebellion, one
and only one of the Roman soldiers was spared, because he promised to
become a Jew even to the extent of circumcision.

39. Josephus and the Zealots.—Simultaneously with this massacre the
citizens of Caesarea slaughtered the Jews who still remained there; and
throughout Syria Jews effected—and suffered—reprisals. At length the
governor of Syria approached the centre of the disturbance in Jerusalem,
but retreated after burning down a suburb. In the course of his retreat he
was attacked by the Jews and fled to Antioch, leaving them his engines of
war. Some prominent Jews fled from Jerusalem—as from a sinking ship—
to join him and carried the news to the emperor. The rest of the pro-Roman
party were forced or persuaded to join the rebels and prepared for war on a
grander scale. Generals were selected by the Sanhedrin from the aristocracy,
who had tried to keep the peace and still hoped to make terms with Rome.
Ananus the high priest, their leader, remained in command at Jerusalem;
Galilee, where the first attack was to be expected, was entrusted to
Josephus, the historian of the war. The revolutionary leaders, who had
already taken the field, were superseded.

Josephus set himself to make an army of the inhabitants of Galilee, many
of whom had no wish to fight, and to strengthen the strongholds. His
organization of local government and his efforts to maintain law and order
brought him into collision with the Zealots and especially with John of
Giscala, one of their leaders. The people, whom he had tried to conciliate,
were roused against him; John sent assassins and finally procured an order
from Jerusalem for his recall. In spite of all this Josephus held his ground
and by force or craft put down those who resisted his authority.

In the spring of 67 Vespasian, who had been appointed by Nero to crush
the rebellion, advanced from his winter quarters at Antioch. The inhabitants
of Sepphoris—whom Josephus had judged to be so eager for the war that he
left them to build their wall for themselves—received a Roman garrison at
their own request. Joined by Titus, Vespasian advanced into Galilee with
three legions and the auxiliary troops supplied by Agrippa and other petty
kings. Before his advance the army of Josephus fled. Josephus with a few
stalwarts took refuge in Tiberias, and sent a letter to Jerusalem asking that
he should be relieved of his command or supplied with an adequate force to
continue the war. Hearing that Vespasian was preparing to besiege Jotapata,
a strong fortress in the hills, which was held by other fugitives, Josephus
entered it just before the road approaching it was made passable for the
Roman horse and foot. A deserter announced his arrival to Vespasian, who
rejoiced (Josephus says) that the cleverest of his enemies had thus
voluntarily imprisoned himself. After some six weeks’ siege the place was
stormed, and its exhausted garrison were killed or enslaved. Josephus,
whose pretences had postponed the final assault, hid in a cave with forty
men. His companions refused to permit him to surrender and were resolved
to die. At his suggestion they cast lots, and the first man was killed by the
second and so on, until all were dead except Josephus and (perhaps) one
other. So Josephus saved them from the sin of suicide and gave himself up
to the Romans. He had prophesied that the place would be taken—as it was

—on the forty-seventh day, and now he prophesied that both Vespasian and
his son Titus would reign over all mankind. The prophecy saved his life,
though many desired his death, and the rumour of it produced general
mourning in Jerusalem. By the end of the year (67) Galilee was in the hands
of Vespasian, and John of Giscala had fled. Agrippa celebrated the conquest
at Caesarea Philippi with festivities which lasted twenty days.

In accordance with ancient custom Jerusalem welcomed the fugitive
Zealots. The result was civil war and famine. Ananus incited the people
against these robbers, who arrested, imprisoned and murdered prominent
friends of Rome, and arrogated to themselves the right of selecting the high
priest by lot. The Zealots took refuge in the Temple and summoned the
Idumaeans to their aid. Under cover of a storm, they opened the city-gates
to their allies and proceeded to murder Ananus the high priest, and, against
the verdict of a formal tribunal, Zacharias the son of Baruch in the midst of
the Temple. The Idumaeans left, but John of Giscala remained master of
Jerusalem.

40. The Fall of Jerusalem.—Vespasian left the rivals to consume one
another and occupied his army with the subjugation of the country. When
he had isolated the capital and was preparing to besiege it, the news of
Nero’s death reached him at Caesarea. For a year (June 68-June 69) he held
his hand and watched events, until the robber-bands of Simon Bar-Giora
(son of the proselyte) required his attention. But, before Vespasian took
action to stop his raids, Simon had been invited to Jerusalem in the hope
that he would act as a counterpoise to the tyrant John. And so, when
Vespasian was proclaimed emperor in fulfilment of Josephus’ prophecy, and
deputed the command to Titus, there were three rivals at war in Jerusalem—
Eleazar, Simon and John. The temple sacrifices were still offered and
worshippers were admitted; but John’s catapults were busy, and priest and
worshippers at the altar were killed, because Eleazar’s party occupied the

inner courts of the Temple. A few days before the passover of 70 Titus
advanced upon Jerusalem, but the civil war went on. When Eleazar opened
the temple-gates to admit those who wished to worship God, John of
Giscala introduced some of his own men, fully armed under their garments,
and so got possession of the Temple. Titus pressed the attack, and the two
factions joined hands at last to repel it. In spite of their desperate sallies,
Jerusalem was surrounded by a wall, and its people, whose numbers were
increased by those who had come up for the passover, were hemmed in to
starve. The famine affected all alike—the populace, who desired peace, and
the Zealots, who were determined to fight to the end. At last John of Giscala
portioned out the sacred wine and oil, saying that they who fought for the
Temple might fearlessly use its stores for their sustenance. Steadily the
Romans forced their way through wall after wall, until the Jews were driven
back to the Temple and the daily sacrifices came to an end on the 17th of
July for lack of men. Once more Josephus appealed in vain to John and his
followers to cease from desecrating and endangering the Temple. The siege
proceeded and the temple-gates were burned. According to Josephus, Titus
decided to spare the Temple, but—whether this was so or not—on the 10th
of August it was fired by a soldier after a sortie of the Jews had been
repelled. The legions set up their standards in the temple-court and hailed
Titus as imperator.

Some of the Zealots escaped with John and Simon to the upper city and
held it for another month. But Titus had already earned the triumph which
he celebrated at Rome in 71. The Jews, wherever they might be, continued
to pay the temple-tax; but now it was devoted to Jupiter Capitolinus. The
Romans had taken their holy place, and the Law was all that was left to
them.

41. From a.d. 70 to a.d. 135.—The destruction of the Temple carried
with it the destruction of the priesthood and all its power. The priests

existed to offer sacrifices, and by the Law no sacrifice could be offered
except at the Temple of Jerusalem. Thenceforward the remnant of the
Jews who survived the fiery ordeal formed a church rather than a
nation or a state, and the Pharisees exercised an unchallenged
supremacy. With the Temple and its Sadducean high priests perished
the Sanhedrin in which the Sadducees had competed with the Pharisees
for predominance. The Sicarii or Zealots who had appealed to the arm
of flesh were exterminated. Only the teachers of the Law survived to
direct the nation and to teach those who remained loyal Jews, how they
should render to Caesar what belonged to Caesar, and to God what
belonged to God. Here and there hot-headed Zealots rose up to repeat
the errors and the disasters of their predecessors. But their fate only
served to deepen the impression already stamped upon the general
mind of the nation. The Temple was gone, but they had the Law.
Already the Jews of the Dispersion had learned to supplement the
Temple by the synagogue, and even the Jews of Jerusalem had not been
free to spend their lives in the worship of the Temple. There were still,
as always, rites which were independent of the place and of the priest;
there had been a time when the Temple did not exist. So Judaism
survived once more the destruction of its central sanctuary.

When Jerusalem was taken, the Sicarii still continued to hold three
strongholds: one—Masada—for three years. But the commander of
Masada realized at length that there was no hope of escaping captivity
except by death, and urged his comrades to anticipate their fate. Each
man slew his wife and children; ten men were selected by lot to slay
the rest; one man slew the nine executioners, fired the palace and fell
upon his sword. When the place was stormed the garrison consisted of
two old women and five children who had concealed themselves in
caves. So Vespasian obtained possession of Palestine—the country
which Nero had given him—and for a time it was purged of

revolutionaries. Early Christian writers assert that he proceeded to
search out and to execute all descendants of David who might
conceivably come forward as claimants of the vacant throne.

In Egypt and in Cyrene fugitive Zealots endeavoured to continue
their rebellion against the emperor, but there also with disastrous
results. The doors of the Temple in Egypt were closed, and its
sacrifices which had been offered for 243 years were prohibited. Soon
afterwards this temple also was destroyed. Apart from these local
outbreaks, the Jews throughout the empire remained loyal citizens and
were not molested. The general hope of the nation was not necessarily
bound up with the house of David, and its realization was not
incompatible with the yoke of Rome. They still looked for a true
prophet, and meanwhile they had their rabbis.

Under Johanan ben Zaccai (q.v.) the Pharisees established
themselves at Jamnia. A new Sanhedrin was formed there under the
presidency of a ruler, who received yearly dues from all Jewish
communities. The scribes through the synagogues preserved the
national spirit and directed it towards the religious life which was
prescribed by Scripture. The traditions of the elders were tested and
gradually harmonized in their essentials. The canon of Scripture was
decided in accordance with the touchstone of the Pentateuch. Israel had
retired to their tents to study their Bible.

Under Vespasian and Titus the Jews enjoyed freedom of conscience
and equal political rights with non-Jewish subjects of Rome. But
Domitian, according to pagan historians, bore hardly on them. The
temple-tax was strictly exacted; Jews who lived the Jewish life without
openly confessing their religion and Jews who concealed their
nationality were brought before the magistrates. Proselytes to Judaism
were condemned either to death or to forfeiture of their property.

Indeed it would seem that Domitian instituted a persecution of the
Jews, to which Nerva his successor put an end. Towards the end of
Trajan’s reign (114-117) the Jews of Egypt and Cyrene rose against
their Greek neighbours and set up a king. The rebellion spread to
Cyprus; and when Trajan advanced from Mesopotamia into Parthia the
Jews of Mesopotamia revolted. The massacres they perpetrated were
avenged in kind and all the insurrections were quelled when Hadrian
succeeded Trajan.

In 132 the Jews of Palestine rebelled again. Hadrian had forbidden
circumcision as illegal mutilation: he had also replaced Jerusalem by a
city of his own, Aelia Capitolina, and the temple of Yahweh by a
temple of Jupiter. Apart from these bitter provocations—the prohibition
of the sign of the covenant and the desecration of the sacred place—the
Jews had a leader who was recognized as Messiah by the rabbi Aqiba.
Though the majority of the rabbis looked for no such deliverer and
refused to admit his claims, Barcochebas (q.v.) drew the people after
him to struggle for their national independence. For three years and a
half he held his own and issued coins in the name of Simon, which
commemorate the liberation of Jerusalem. Some attempt was
apparently made to rebuild the Temple; and the Jews of the Dispersion,
who had perhaps been won over by Aqiba, supported the rebellion.
Indeed even Gentiles helped them, so that the whole world (Dio
Cassius says) was stirred. Hadrian sent his best generals against the
rebels, and at length they were driven from Jerusalem to Bethar (135).
The Jews were forbidden to enter the new city of Jerusalem on pain of
death.

Bibliography.—The most comprehensive of modern books dealing
with the period is Emil Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im
Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols., Leipzig, 1901 foll.). Exception has been

taken to a certain lack of sympathy with the Jews, especially the rabbis,
which has been detected in the author. But at least the book remains an
indispensable storehouse of references to ancient and modern
authorities. An earlier edition was translated into English under the title
History of the Jewish People (Edinburgh, 1890, 1891). Of shorter
histories, D. A. Schlatter’s Geschichte Israel’s von Alexander dem
Grossen bis Hadrian (2nd ed., 1906) is perhaps the least dependent
upon Schürer and attempts more than others to interpret the
fragmentary evidence available. Dr R. H. Charles has done much by
his editions to restore to their proper prominence in connexion with
Jewish history the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Book of
Jubilees, Enoch, &c. But Schürer gives a complete bibliography to
which it must suffice to refer. For the Sanhedrin see Synedrium . A. H.)
(J. H.

III.—From the Dispersion to Modern Times

42. The Later Empire.—With the failure in 135 of the attempt led by
Barcochebas to free Judaea from Roman domination a new era begins in the
history of the Jews. The direct consequence of the failure was the
annihilation of political nationality. Large numbers fell in the actual
fighting. Dio Cassius puts the total at the incredible figure of 580,000,
besides the incalculable number who succumbed to famine, disease and fire
(Dio-Xiphilin lxix. 11-15). Jerusalem was rebuilt by Hadrian, orders to this
effect being given during the emperor’s first journey through Syria in 130,
the date of his foundations at Gaza, Tiberias and Petra (Reinach, Textes
relatifs au Judaïsme, p. 198). The new city was named Aelia Capitolina,
and on the site of the temple of Jehovah there arose another temple
dedicated to Jupiter. To Eusebius the erection of a temple of Venus over the
sepulchre of Christ was an act of mockery against the Christian religion.
Rome had been roused to unwonted fury, and the truculence of the rebels

was matched by the cruelty of their masters. The holy city was barred
against the Jews; they were excluded, under pain of death, from
approaching within view of the walls. Hadrian’s policy in this respect was
matched later on by the edict of the caliph Omar (c. 638), who, like his
Roman prototype, prevented the Jews from settling in the capital of their
ancient country. The death of Hadrian and the accession of Antoninus Pius
(138), however, gave the dispersed people of Palestine a breathing-space.
Roman law was by no means intolerant to the Jews. Under the constitution
of Caracalla (198-217) all inhabitants of the Roman empire enjoyed the
civil rights of the Cives Romani (Scherer, Die Rechtsverhältnisse der Juden,
p. 10).

Moreover, a spiritual revival mitigated the crushing effects of material
ruin. The synagogue had become a firmly established institution, and the
personal and social life of the masses had come under the control of
communal law. The dialectic of the school proved stronger to preserve than
the edge of the sword to destroy. Pharisaic Judaism, put to the severest test
to which a religious system has ever been subject, showed itself able to
control and idealize life in all its phases. Whatever question may be
possible as to the force or character of Pharisaism in the time of Christ,
there can be no doubt that it became both all-pervading and ennobling
among the successors of Aqiba (q.v.), himself one of the martyrs to
Hadrian’s severity. Little more than half a century after the overthrow of the
Jewish nationality, the Mishnah was practically completed, and by this code
of rabbinic law—and law is here a term which includes the social, moral
and religious as well as the ritual and legal phases of human activity—the
Jewish people were organized into a community, living more or less
autonomously under the Sanhedrin or Synedrium (q.v.) and its officials.

Judah the prince, the patriarch or nāsī who edited the Mishnah, died early
in the 3rd century. With him the importance of the Palestinian patriarchate

attained its zenith. Gamaliel II. of Jamnia (Jabne Yebneh) had been raised to
this dignity a century before, and, as members of the house of Hillel and
thus descendants of David, the patriarchs enjoyed almost royal authority.
Their functions were political rather than religious, though their influence
was by no means purely secular. They were often on terms of intimate
friendship with the emperors, who scarcely interfered with their
jurisdiction. As late as Theodosius I. (379-395) the internal affairs of the
Jews were formally committed to the patriarchs, and Honorius (404)
authorized the collection of the patriarch’s tax (aurum coronarium), by
which a revenue was raised from the Jews of the diaspora. Under
Theodosius II. (408-450) the patriarchate was finally abolished after a
régime of three centuries and a half (Graetz, History of the Jews, Eng. trans.
vol. ii. ch. xxii.), though ironically enough the last holder of the office had
been for a time elevated by the emperor to the rank of prefect. The real
turning-point had been reached earlier, when Christianity became the state
religion under Constantine I. in 312.

Religion under the Christian emperors became a significant source
of discrimination in legal status, and non-conformity might reach so far
as to produce complete loss of rights. The laws concerning the Jews
had a repressive and preventive object: the repression of Judaism and
the prevention of inroads of Jewish influences into the state religion.
The Jews were thrust into a position of isolation, and the Code of
Theodosius and other authorities characterize the Jews as a lower order
of depraved beings (inferiores and perversi), their community as a
godless, dangerous sect (secta nefaria, feralis), their religion a
superstition, their assemblies for religious worship a blasphemy
(sacrilegi coetus) and a contagion (Scherer, op. cit. pp. 11-12). Yet
Judaism under Roman Christian law was a lawful religion (religio
licita), Valentinian I. (364-375) forbade the quartering of soldiers in the
synagogues, Theodosius I. prohibited interference with the synagogue

worship (“Judaeorum sectam nulla lege prohibitam satis constat”), and
in 412 a special edict of protection was issued. But the admission of
Christians into the Jewish fold was punished by confiscation of goods
(357), the erection of new synagogues was arrested by Theodosius II.
(439) under penalty of a heavy fine, Jews were forbidden to hold
Christian slaves under pain of death (423). A similar penalty attached
to intermarriage between Jews and Christians, and an attempt was
made to nullify all Jewish marriages which were not celebrated in
accordance with Roman law. But Justinian (527-565) was the first to
interfere directly in the religious institutions of the Jewish people. In
553 he interdicted the use of the Talmud (which had then not long been
completed), and the Byzantine emperors of the 8th and 9th centuries
passed even more intolerant regulations. As regards civil law, Jews
were at first allowed to settle disputes between Jew and Jew before
their own courts, but Justinian denied to them and to heretics the right
to appear as witnesses in the public courts against orthodox Christians.
To Constantine V. (911-959) goes back the Jewish form of oath which
in its later development required the Jew to gird himself with thorns;
stand in water; and, holding the scroll of the Torah in his hand, invoke
upon his person the leprosy of Naaman, the curse of Eli and the fate of
Korah’s sons should he perjure himself. This was the original of all the
medieval forms of oath more judaico, which still prevailed in many
European lands till the 19th century, and are even now maintained by
some of the Rumanian courts. Jews were by the law of Honorius
excluded from the army, from public offices and dignities (418), from
acting as advocates (425); only the curial offices were open to them.
Justinian gave the finishing touch by proclaiming in 537 the Jews
absolutely ineligible for any honour whatsoever (“honore fruantur
nullo”).

43. Judaism in Babylonia.—The Jews themselves were during this period
engaged in building up a system of isolation on their own side, but they
treated Roman law with greater hospitality than it meted out to them. The
Talmud shows the influence of that law in many points, and may justly be
compared to it as a monument of codification based on great principles. The
Palestinian Talmud was completed in the 4th century, but the better known
and more influential version was compiled in Babylonia about 500. The
land which, a millennium before, had been a prison for the Jewish exiles
was now their asylum of refuge. For a long time it formed their second
fatherland. Here, far more than on Palestinian soil, was built the enduring
edifice of rabbinism. The population of the southern part of Mesopotamia—
the strip of land enclosed between the Tigris and the Euphrates—was,
according to Graetz, mainly Jewish; while the district extending for about
70 m. on the east of the Euphrates, from Nehardea in the north to Sura in
the south, became a new Palestine with Nehardea for its Jerusalem. The
Babylonian Jews were practically independent, and the exilarch (resh-
galutha) or prince of the captivity was an official who ruled the community
as a vassal of the Persian throne. The exilarch claimed, like the Palestinian
patriarch, descent from the royal house of David, and exercised most of the
functions of government. Babylonia had risen into supreme importance for
Jewish life at about the time when the Mishnah was completed. The great
rabbinic academies at Sura and Nehardea, the former of which retained
something of its dominant rôle till the 11th century, had been founded, Sura
by Abba Arika (q.v.) (c. 219), but Nehardea, the more ancient seat of the
two, famous in the 3rd century for its association with Abba Arika’s
renowned contemporary Samuel, lost its Jewish importance in the age of
Mahomet.

To Samuel of Nehardea (q.v.) belongs the honour of formulating the
principle which made it possible for Jews to live under alien laws. Jeremiah
had admonished his exiled brothers: “Seek ye the peace of the city whither I

have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it:
for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace” (Jer. xxix. 7). It was now
necessary to go farther, and the rabbis proclaimed a principle which was as
influential with the synagogue as “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”
became with the Church. “The law of the government is law” (Baba Qama
113 b.), said Samuel, and ever since it has been a religious duty for the Jews
to obey and accommodate themselves as far as possible to the laws of the
country in which they are settled or reside. In 259 Odenathus, the
Palmyrene adventurer whose memory has been eclipsed by that of his wife
Zenobia, laid Nehardea waste for the time being, and in its neighbourhood
arose the academy of Pumbedita (Pombeditha) which became a new focus
for the intellectual life of Israel in Babylonia. These academies were
organized on both scholastic and popular lines; their constitution was
democratic. An outstanding feature was the Kallah assemblage twice a year
(in Elul at the close of the summer, and in Adar at the end of the winter),
when there were gathered together vast numbers of outside students of the
most heterogeneous character as regards both age and attainments.
Questions received from various quarters were discussed and the final
decision of the Kallah was signed by the Resh-Kallah or president of the
general assembly, who was only second in rank to the Resh-Metibta, or
president of the scholastic sessions. Thus the Babylonian academies
combined the functions of specialist law-schools, universities and popular
parliaments. They were a unique product of rabbinism; and the authors of
the system were also the compilers of its literary expression, the Talmud.

44. Judaism in Islam.—Another force now appears on the scene. The
new religion inaugurated by Mahomet differed in its theory from the
Roman Catholic Church. The Church, it is true, in council after council,
passed decisions unfriendly to the Jews. From the synod at Elvira in the 4th
century this process began, and it was continued in the West-Gothic Church
legislation, in the Lateran councils (especially the fourth in 1215), and in

the council of Trent (1563). The anti-social tendency of these councils
expressed itself in the infliction of the badge, in the compulsory domicile of
Jews within ghettos, and in the erection of formidable barriers against all
intercourse between church and synagogue. The protective instinct was
responsible for much of this interference with the natural impulse of men of
various creeds towards mutual esteem and forbearance. The church, it was
conceived, needed defence against the synagogue at all hazards, and the
fear that the latter would influence and dominate the former was never
absent from the minds of medieval ecclesiastics. But though this defensive
zeal led to active persecution, still in theory Judaism was a tolerated
religion wherever the Church had sway, and many papal bulls of a friendly
character were issued throughout the middle ages (Scherer, p. 32 seq.).

Islam, on the other hand, had no theoretic place in its scheme for
tolerated religions; its principle was fundamentally intolerant. Where the
mosque was erected, there was no room for church or synagogue. The
caliph Omar initiated in the 7th century a code which required Christians
and Jews to wear peculiar dress, denied them the right to hold state offices
or to possess land, inflicted a poll-tax on them, and while forbidding them
to enter mosques, refused them the permission to build new places of
worship for themselves. Again and again these ordinances were repeated in
subsequent ages, and intolerance for infidels is still a distinct feature of
Mahommedan law. But Islam has often shown itself milder in fact than in
theory, for its laws were made to be broken. The medieval Jews on the
whole lived, under the crescent, a fuller and freer life than was possible to
them under the cross. Mahommedan Babylonia (Persia) was the home of
the gaonate (see Gaon), the central authority of religious Judaism, whose
power transcended that of the secular exilarchate, for it influenced the
synagogue far and wide, while the exilarchate was local. The gaonate
enjoyed a practical tolerance remarkable when contrasted with the letter of
Islamic law. And as the Bagdad caliphate tended to become more and more

supreme in Islam, so the gaonate too shared in this increased influence. Not
even the Qaraite schism was able to break the power of the geonim. But the
dispersion of the Jews was proceeding in directions which carried masses
from the Asiatic inland to the Mediterranean coasts and to Europe.

45. In Medieval Europe: Spain.—This dispersion of the Jews had begun
in the Hellenistic period, but it was after the Barcochebas war that it
assumed great dimensions in Europe. There were Jews in the Byzantine
empire, in Rome, in France and Spain at very early periods, but it is with
the Arab conquest of Spain that the Jews of Europe began to rival in culture
and importance their brethren of the Persian gaonate. Before this date the
Jews had been learning the rôle they afterwards filled, that of the chief
promoters of international commerce. Already under Charlemagne this
development is noticeable; in his generous treatment of the Jews this
Christian emperor stood in marked contrast to his contemporary the caliph
Harun al-Rashid, who persecuted Jews and Christians with equal vigour.
But by the 10th century Judaism had received from Islam something more
than persecution. It caught the contagion of poetry, philosophy and
science.64 The schismatic Qaraites initiated or rather necessitated a new
Hebrew philology, which later on produced Qimḥi, the gaon Saadiah
founded a Jewish philosophy, the statesman Ḥasdai introduced a new
Jewish culture—and all this under Mahommedan rule. It is in Spain that
above all the new spirit manifested itself. The distinctive feature of the
Spanish-Jewish culture was its comprehensiveness. Literature and affairs,
science and statecraft, poetry and medicine, these various expressions of
human nature and activity were so harmoniously balanced that they might
be found in the possession of one and the same individual. The Jews of
Spain attained to high places in the service of the state from the time of the
Moorish conquest in 711. From Hasdai ibn Shaprut in the 10th century and
Samuel the nagid in the 11th the line of Jewish scholar-statesmen continued
till we reach Isaac Abrabanel in 1492, the date of the expulsion of the Jews

from Spain. This last-named event synchronized with the discovery of
America; Columbus being accompanied by at least one Jewish navigator.
While the Spanish period of Jewish history was thus brilliant from the point
of view of public service, it was equally notable on the literary side.
Hebrew religious poetry was revived for synagogue hymnology, and, partly
in imitation of Arabian models, a secular Hebrew poetry was developed in
metre and rhyme. The new Hebrew Piyut found its first important exponent
in Kalir, who was not a Spaniard. But it is to Spain that we must look for
the best of the medieval poets of the synagogue, greatest among them being
Ibn Gabirol and Halevi. So, too, the greatest Jew of the middle ages,
Maimonides, was a Spaniard. In him culminates the Jewish expression of
the Spanish-Moorish culture; his writings had an influence on European
scholasticism and contributed significant elements to the philosophy of
Spinoza. But the reconquest of Andalusia by the Christians associated
towards the end of the 15th century with the establishment of the
Inquisition, introduced a spirit of intolerance which led to the expulsion of
the Jews and Moors. The consequences of this blow were momentous; it
may be said to inaugurate the ghetto period. In Spain Jewish life had
participated in the general life, but the expulsion—while it dispersed the
Spanish Jews in Poland, Turkey, Italy and France, and thus in the end
contributed to the Jewish emancipation at the French Revolution—for the
time drove the Jews within their own confines and barred them from the
outside world.65

46. In France, Germany, England, Italy.—In the meantime Jewish life
had been elsewhere subjected to other influences which produced a result at
once narrower and deeper. Under Charlemagne, the Jews, who had begun to
settle in Gaul in the time of Caesar, were more than tolerated. They were
allowed to hold land and were encouraged to become—what their ubiquity
qualified them to be—the merchant princes of Europe. The reign of Louis
the Pious (814-840) was, as Graetz puts it, “a golden era for the Jews of his

kingdom, such as they had never enjoyed, and were destined never again to
enjoy in Europe”—prior, that is, to the age of Mendelssohn. In Germany at
the same period the feudal system debarred the Jews from holding land, and
though there was as yet no material persecution they suffered moral injury
by being driven exclusively into finance and trade. Nor was there any
widening of the general horizon such as was witnessed in Spain. The
Jewries of France and Germany were thus thrown upon their own cultural
resources. They rose to the occasion. In Mainz there settled in the 10th
century Gershom, the “light of the exile,” who, about 1000, published his
ordinance forbidding polygamy in Jewish law as it had long been forbidden
in Jewish practice. This ordinance may be regarded as the beginning of the
Synodal government of Judaism, which was a marked feature of medieval
life in the synagogues of northern and central Europe from the 12th century.
Soon after Gershom’s death, Rashi (1040-1106) founded at Troyes a new
school of learning. If Maimonides represented Judaism on its rational side,
Rashi was the expression of its traditions.

French Judaism was thus in a sense more human if less humane than the
Spanish variety; the latter produced thinkers, statesmen, poets and
scientists; the former, men with whom the Talmud was a passion, men of
robuster because of more naïve and concentrated piety. In Spain and North
Africa persecution created that strange and significant phenomenon
Maranism or crypto-Judaism, a public acceptance of Islam or Christianity
combined with a private fidelity to the rites of Judaism. But in England,
France and Germany persecution altogether failed to shake the courage of
the Jews, and martyrdom was borne in preference to ostensible apostasy.
The crusades subjected the Jews to this ordeal. The evil was wrought, not
by the regular armies of the cross who were inspired by noble ideals, but by
the undisciplined mobs which, for the sake of plunder, associated
themselves with the genuine enthusiasts. In 1096 massacres of Jews
occurred in many cities of the Rhineland. During the second crusade (1145-

1147) Bernard of Clairvaux heroically protested against similar
inhumanities. The third crusade, famous for the participation of Richard I.,
was the occasion for bloody riots in England, especially in York, where 150
Jews immolated themselves to escape baptism. Economically and socially
the crusades had disastrous effects upon the Jews (see J. Jacobs, Jewish
Encyclopedia, iv. 379). Socially they suffered by the outburst of religious
animosity. One of the worst forms taken by this ill-will was the oft-revived
myth of ritual murder (q.v.), and later on when the Black Death devastated
Europe (1348-1349) the Jews were the victims of an odious charge of well-
poisoning. Economically the results were also injurious. “Before the
crusades the Jews had practically a monopoly of trade in Eastern products,
but the closer connexion between Europe and the East brought about by the
crusades raised up a class of merchant traders among the Christians, and
from this time onwards restrictions on the sale of goods by Jews became
frequent” (op. cit.). After the second crusade the German Jews fell into the
class of servi camerae, which at first only implied that they enjoyed the
immunity of imperial servants, but afterwards made of them slaves and
pariahs. At the personal whim of rulers, whether royal or of lower rank, the
Jews were expelled from states and principalities and were reduced to a
condition of precarious uncertainty as to what the morrow might bring
forth. Pope Innocent III. gave strong impetus to the repression of the Jews,
especially by ordaining the wearing of a badge. Popular animosity was
kindled by the enforced participation of the Jews in public disputations. In
1306 Philip IV. expelled the Jews from France, nine years later Louis X.
recalled them for a period of twelve years. Such vicissitudes were the
ordinary lot of the Jews for several centuries, and it was their own inner life
—the pure life of the home, the idealism of the synagogue, and the belief in
ultimate Messianic redemption—that saved them from utter demoralization
and despair. Curiously enough in Italy—and particularly in Rome—the
external conditions were better. The popes themselves, within their own

immediate jurisdiction, were often far more tolerant than their bulls issued
for foreign communities, and Torquemada was less an expression than a
distortion of the papal policy. In the early 14th century, the age of Dante,
the new spirit of the Renaissance made Italian rulers the patrons of art and
literature, and the Jews to some extent shared in this gracious change.
Robert of Aragon—vicar-general of the papal states—in particular
encouraged the Jews and supported them in their literary and scientific
ambitions. Small coteries of Jewish minor poets and philosophers were
formed, and men like Kalonymos and Immanuel—Dante’s friend—shared
the versatility and culture of Italy. But in Germany there was no echo of this
brighter note. Persecution was elevated into a system, a poll-tax was
exacted, and the rabble was allowed (notably in 1336-1337) to give full
vent to its fury. Following on this came the Black Death with its terrible
consequences in Germany; even in Poland, where the Jews had previously
enjoyed considerable rights, extensive massacres took place.

In effect the Jews became outlaws, but their presence being often
financially necessary, certain officials were permitted to “hold Jews,” who
were liable to all forms of arbitrary treatment, on the side of their “owners.”
The Jews had been among the first to appreciate the commercial advantages
of permitting the loan of money on interest, but it was the policy of the
Church that drove the Jews into money-lending as a characteristic trade.
Restrictions on their occupations were everywhere common, and as the
Church forbade Christians to engage in usury, this was the only trade open
to the Jews. The excessive demands made upon the Jews forbade a fair rate
of interest. “The Jews were unwilling sponges by means of which a large
part of the subjects’ wealth found its way into the royal exchequer”
(Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, ch. xii.). Hence, though this
procedure made the Jews intensely obnoxious to the peoples, they became
all the more necessary to the rulers. A favourite form of tolerance was to
grant a permit to the Jews to remain in the state for a limited term of years;

their continuance beyond the specified time was illegal and they were
therefore subject to sudden banishment. Thus a second expulsion of the
Jews of France occurred in 1394. Early in the 15th century John Hus—
under the inspiration of Wycliffe—initiated at Prague the revolt against the
Roman Catholic Church. The Jews suffered in the persecution that
followed, and in 1420 all the Austrian Jews were thrown into prison. Martin
V. published a favourable bull, but it was ineffectual. The darkest days were
nigh. Pope Eugenius (1442) issued a fiercely intolerant missive; the
Franciscan John of Capistrano moved the masses to activity by his eloquent
denunciations; even Casimir IV. revoked the privileges of the Jews in
Poland, when the Turkish capture of Constantinople (1453) offered a new
asylum for the hunted Jews of Europe. But in Europe itself the catastrophe
was not arrested. The Inquisition in Spain led to the expulsion of the Jews
(1492), and this event involved not only the latter but the whole of the
Jewish people. “The Jews everywhere felt as if the temple had again been
destroyed” (Graetz). Nevertheless, the result was not all evil. If fugitives are
for the next half-century to be met with in all parts of Europe, yet,
especially in the Levant, there grew up thriving Jewish communities often
founded by Spanish refugees. Such incidents as the rise of Joseph Nasi
(q.v.) to high position under the Turkish government as duke of Naxos mark
the coming change. The reformation as such had no favourable influence on
Jewish fortunes in Christian Europe, though the championship of the cause
of toleration by Reuchlin had considerable value. But the age of the ghetto
(q.v.) had set in too firmly for immediate amelioration to be possible. It is to
Holland and to the 17th century that we must turn for the first real steps
towards Jewish emancipation.

47. Period of Emancipation.—The ghetto, which had prevailed more or
less rigorously for a long period, was not formally prescribed by the papacy
until the beginning of the 16th century. The same century was not ended
before the prospect of liberty dawned on the Jews. Holland from the

moment that it joined the union of Utrecht (1579) deliberately set its face
against religious persecution (Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 537). Maranos,
fleeing to the Netherlands, were welcomed; the immigrants were wealthy,
enterprising and cultured. Many Jews, who had been compelled to conceal
their faith, now came into the open. By the middle of the 17th century the
Jews of Holland had become of such importance that Charles II. of England
(then in exile) entered into negotiations with the Amsterdam Jews (1656).
In that same year the Amsterdam community was faced by a serious
problem in connexion with Spinoza. They brought themselves into notoriety
by excommunicating the philosopher—an act of weak self-defence on the
part of men who had themselves but recently been admitted to the country,
and were timorous of the suspicion that they shared Spinoza’s then
execrated views. It is more than a mere coincidence that this step was taken
during the absence in England of one of the ablest and most notable of the
Amsterdam rabbis. At the time, Menasseh ben Israel (q.v.) was in London,
on a mission to Cromwell. The Jews had been expelled from England by
Edward I., after a sojourn in the country of rather more than two centuries,
during which they had been the licensed and oppressed money-lenders of
the realm, and had—through the special exchequer of the Jews—been used
by the sovereign as a means of extorting a revenue from his subjects. In the
17th century a considerable number of Jews had made a home in the
English colonies, where from the first they enjoyed practically equal rights
with the Christian settlers. Cromwell, upon the inconclusive termination of
the conference summoned in 1655 at Whitehall to consider the Jewish
question, tacitly assented to the return of the Jews to this country, and at the
restoration his action was confirmed. The English Jews “gradually
substituted for the personal protection of the crown, the sympathy and
confidence of the nation” (L. Wolf, Menasseh ben Israel’s Mission to
Cromwell, p. lxxv.). The city of London was the first to be converted to the
new attitude. “The wealth they brought into the country, and their fruitful

commercial activity, especially in the colonial trade, soon revealed them as
an indispensable element of the prosperity of the city. As early as 1668, Sir
Josiah Child, the millionaire governor of the East India company, pleaded
for their naturalization on the score of their commercial utility. For the same
reason the city found itself compelled at first to connive at their illegal
representation on ’Change, and then to violate its own rules by permitting
them to act as brokers without previously taking up the freedom. At this
period they controlled more of the foreign and colonial trade than all the
other alien merchants in London put together. The momentum of their
commercial enterprise and stalwart patriotism proved irresistible. From the
exchange to the city council chamber, thence to the aldermanic court, and
eventually to the mayoralty itself, were inevitable stages of an emancipation
to which their large interests in the city and their high character entitled
them. Finally the city of London—not only as the converted champion of
religious liberty but as the convinced apologist of the Jews—sent Baron
Lionel de Rothschild to knock at the door of the unconverted House of
Commons as parliamentary representative of the first city in the world”
(Wolf, loc. cit.).

The pioneers of this emancipation in Holland and England were
Sephardic (or Spanish) Jews—descendants of the Spanish exiles. In the
meantime the Ashkenazic (or German) Jews had been working out their
own salvation. The chief effects of the change were not felt till the 18th
century. In England emancipation was of democratic origin and concerned
itself with practical questions. On the Continent, the movement was more
aristocratic and theoretical; it was part of the intellectual renaissance which
found its most striking expression in the principles of the French
Revolution. Throughout Europe the 18th century was less an era of
stagnation than of transition. The condition of the European Jews seems, on
a superficial examination, abject enough. But, excluded though they were
from most trades and occupations, confined to special quarters of the city,

disabled from sharing most of the amenities of life, the Jews nevertheless
were gradually making their escape from the ghetto and from the moral
degeneration which it had caused. Some ghettos (as in Moravia) were
actually not founded till the 18th century, but the careful observer can
perceive clearly that at that period the ghetto was a doomed institution. In
the “dark ages” Jews enjoyed neither rights nor privileges; in the 18th
century they were still without rights but they had privileges. A grotesque
feature of the time in Germany and Austria was the class of court Jews,
such as the Oppenheims, the personal favourites of rulers and mostly their
victims when their usefulness had ended. These men often rendered great
services to their fellow-Jews, and one of the results was the growth in
Jewish society of an aristocracy of wealth, where previously there had been
an aristocracy of learning. Even more important was another privileged
class—that of the Schutz-Jude (protected Jew). Where there were no rights,
privileges had to be bought. While the court Jews were the favourites of
kings, the protected Jews were the protégés of town councils. Corruption is
the frequent concomitant of privilege, and thus the town councils often
connived for a price at the presence in their midst of Jews whose admission
was illegal. Many Jews found it possible to evade laws of domicile by
residing in one place and trading in another. Nor could they be effectually
excluded from the fairs, the great markets of the 18th century. The
Sephardic Jews in all these respects occupied a superior position, and they
merited the partiality shown to them. Their personal dignity and the vast
range of their colonial enterprises were in striking contrast to the retail
traffic of the Ashkenazim and their degenerate bearing and speech. Peddling
had been forced on the latter by the action of the gilds which were still
powerful in the 18th century on the Continent. Another cause may be
sought in the Cossack assaults on the Jews at an earlier period. Crowds of
wanderers were to be met on every road; Germany, Holland and Italy were

full of Jews who, pack on shoulder, were seeking a precarious livelihood at
a time when peddling was neither lucrative nor safe.

But underneath all this were signs of a great change. The 18th century
has a goodly tale of Jewish artists in metal-work, makers of pottery, and
(wherever the gilds permitted it) artisans and wholesale manufacturers of
many important commodities. The last attempts at exclusion were irritating
enough; but they differed from the earlier persecution. Such strange
enactments as the Familianten-Gesetz, which prohibited more than one
member of a family from marrying, broke up families by forcing the men to
emigrate. In 1781 Dohm pointed to the fact that a Jewish father could
seldom hope to enjoy the happiness of living with his children. In that very
year, however, Joseph II. initiated in Austria a new era for the Jews. This
Austrian reformation was so typical of other changes elsewhere, and so
expressive of the previous disabilities of the Jews, that, even in this rapid
summary, space must be spared for some of the details supplied by Graetz.
“By this new departure (19th of October 1781) the Jews were permitted to
learn handicrafts, arts and sciences, and with certain restrictions to devote
themselves to agriculture. The doors of the universities and academies,
hitherto closed to them, were thrown open.... An ordinance of November 2
enjoined that the Jews were everywhere considered fellow-men, and all
excesses against them were to be avoided. The Leibzoll (body-tax) was also
abolished, in addition to the special law-taxes, the passport duty, the night-
duty and all similar imposts which had stamped the Jews as outcast, for
they were now (Dec. 19) to have equal rights with the Christian
inhabitants.” The Jews were not, indeed, granted complete citizenship, and
their residence and public worship in Vienna and other Austrian cities were
circumscribed and even penalized. “But Joseph II. annulled a number of
vexatious, restrictive regulations, such as the compulsory wearing of
beards, the prohibition against going out in the forenoon on Sundays or
holidays, or frequenting public pleasure resorts. The emperor even

permitted Jewish wholesale merchants, notables and their sons, to wear
swords (January 2, 1782), and especially insisted that Christians should
behave in a friendly manner towards Jews.”

48. The Mendelssohn Movement.—This notable beginning to the removal
of “the ignominy of a thousand years” was causally connected with the
career of Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786; q.v.). He found on both sides an
unreadiness for approximation: the Jews had sunk into apathy and
degeneration, the Christians were still moved by hereditary antipathy. The
failure of the hopes entertained of Sabbatai Zebi (q.v.) had plunged the
Jewries of the world into despair. This Smyrnan pretender not only
proclaimed himself Messiah (c. 1650) but he was accepted in that rôle by
vast numbers of his brethren. At the moment when Spinoza was publishing
a system which is still a dominating note of modern philosophy, this other
son of Israel was capturing the very heart of Jewry. His miracles were
reported and eagerly believed everywhere; “from Poland, Hamburg and
Amsterdam treasures poured into his court; in the Levant young men and
maidens prophesied before him; the Persian Jews refused to till the fields.
‘We shall pay no more taxes,’ they said, ‘our Messiah is come.’” The
expectation that he would lead Israel in triumph to the Holy Land was
doomed to end in disappointment. Sabbatai lacked one quality without
which enthusiasm is ineffective; he failed to believe in himself. At the
critical moment he embraced Islam to escape death, and though he was still
believed in by many—it was not Sabbatai himself but a phantom
resemblance that had assumed the turban!—his meteoric career did but
colour the sky of the Jews with deeper blackness. Despite all this, one must
not fall into the easy error of exaggerating the degeneration into which the
Jewries of the world fell from the middle of the 17th till the middle of the
18th century. For Judaism had organized itself; the Shulḥan aruch of Joseph
Qaro (q.v.), printed in 1564 within a decade of its completion, though not
accepted without demur, was nevertheless widely admitted as the code of

Jewish life. If in more recent times progress in Judaism has implied more or
less of revolt against the rigors and fetters of Qaro’s code, yet for 250 years
it was a powerful safeguard against demoralization and stagnation. No
community living in full accordance with that code could fail to reach a
high moral and intellectual level.

It is truer to say that on the whole the Jews began at this period to
abandon as hopeless the attempt to find a place for themselves in the
general life of their country. Perhaps they even ceased to desire it. Their
children were taught without any regard to outside conditions, they spoke
and wrote a jargon, and their whole training, both by what it included and
by what it excluded, tended to produce isolation from their neighbours.
Moses Mendelssohn, both by his career and by his propaganda, for ever put
an end to these conditions; he more than any other man. Born in the ghetto
of Dessau, he was not of the ghetto. At the age of fourteen he found his way
to Berlin, where Frederick the Great, inspired by the spirit of Voltaire, held
the maxim that “to oppress the Jews never brought prosperity to any
government.” Mendelssohn became a warm friend of Lessing, the hero of
whose drama Nathan the Wise was drawn from the Dessau Jew.
Mendelssohn’s Phaedo, on the immortality of the soul, brought the author
into immediate fame, and the simple home of the “Jewish Plato” was sought
by many of the leaders of Gentile society in Berlin. Mendelssohn’s
translation of the Pentateuch into German with a new commentary by
himself and others introduced the Jews to more modern ways of thinking.
Two results emanated from Mendelssohn’s work. A new school of scientific
study of Judaism emerged, to be dignified by the names of Leopold Zunz
(q.v.), H. Graetz (q.v.) and many others. On the other hand Mendelssohn by
his pragmatic conception of religion (specially in his Jerusalem) weakened
the belief of certain minds in the absolute truth of Judaism, and thus his
own grandchildren (including the famous musician Felix Mendelssohn-
Bartholdy) as well as later Heine, Börne, Gans and Neander, embraced

Christianity. Within Judaism itself two parties were formed, the Liberals
and the Conservatives, and as time went on these tendencies definitely
organized themselves. Holdheim (q.v.) and Geiger (q.v.) led the reform
movement in Germany and at the present day the effects of the movement
are widely felt in America on the Liberal side and on the opposite side in
the work of the neo-orthodox school founded by S. R. Hirsch (q.v.). Modern
seminaries were established first in Breslau by Zacharias Fränkel (q.v.) and
later in other cities. Brilliant results accrued from all this participation in the
general life of Germany. Jews, engaged in all the professions and pursuits
of the age, came to the front in many branches of public life, claiming such
names as Riesser (d. 1863) and Lasker in politics, Auerbach in literature,
Rubinstein and Joachim in music, Traube in medicine, and Lazarus in
psychology. Especially famous have been the Jewish linguists, pre-eminent
among them Theodor Benfey (1809-1881), the pioneer of modern
comparative philology; and the Greek scholar and critic Jakob Bernays
(1824-1881).

49. Effect of the French Revolution.—In close relation to the German
progress in Mendelssohn’s age, events had been progressing in France,
where the Revolution did much to improve the Jewish condition, thanks
largely to the influence of Mirabeau. In 1807 Napoleon convoked a Jewish
assembly in Paris. Though the decisions of this body had no binding force
on the Jews generally, yet in some important particulars its decrees
represent principles widely adopted by the Jewish community. They
proclaim the acceptance of the spirit of Mendelssohn’s reconciliation of the
Jews to modern life. They assert the citizenship and patriotism of Jews,
their determination to accommodate themselves to the present as far as they
could while retaining loyalty to the past. They declare their readiness to
adapt the law of the synagogue to the law of the land, as for instance in the
question of marriage and divorce. No Jew, they decided, may perform the
ceremony of marriage unless civil formalities have been fulfilled; and

divorce is allowed to the Jews only if and so far as it is confirmatory of a
legal divorce pronounced by the civil law of the land. The French assembly
did not succeed in obtaining formal assent to these decisions (except from
Frankfort and Holland), but they gained the practical adhesion of the
majority of Western and American Jews. Napoleon, after the report of the
assembly, established the consistorial system which remained in force, with
its central consistory in the capital, until the recent separation of church and
state. Many French Jews acquired fame, among them the ministers
Crémieux (1796-1879), Fould, Gondchaux and Raynal; the archaeologists
and philologians Oppert, Halévy, Munk, the Derenbourgs, Darmesteters and
Reinachs; the musicians Halévy, Waldteufel and Meyerbeer; the authors and
dramatists Catulle Mendès and A. d’Ennery, and many others, among them
several distinguished occupants of civil and military offices.

50. Modern Italy.—Similar developments occurred in other countries,
though it becomes impossible to treat the history of the Jews, from this time
onwards, in general outline. We must direct our attention to the most
important countries in such detail as space permits. And first as to Italy,
where the Jews in a special degree have identified themselves with the
national life. The revolutions of 1848, which greatly affected the position of
the Jews in several parts of Europe, brought considerable gain to the Jews
of Italy. During the war against Austria in the year named, Isaac Pesaro
Marogonato was finance minister in Venice. Previously to this date the Jews
were still confined to the ghetto, but in 1859, in the Italy united under
Victor Emanuel II., the Jews obtained complete rights, a privilege which
was extended also to Rome itself in 1870. The Italian Jews devoted
themselves with ardour to the service of the state. Isaac Artom was
Cavour’s secretary, L’ Olper a counsellor of Mazzini. “The names of the
Jewish soldiers who died in the cause of Italian liberty were placed along
with those of their Christian fellow soldiers on the monuments erected in
their honour” (Jewish Encyclopedia, vii. 10). More recently men like

Wollemberg, Ottolenghi and Luzzatti rose to high positions as ministers of
state. Most noted of recent Jewish scholars in Italy was S. D. Luzzatto
(q.v.).

51. Austria.—From Italy we may turn to the country which so much
influenced Italian politics, Austria, which had founded the system of “Court
Jews” in 1518, had expelled the Jews from Vienna as late as 1670, when the
synagogue of that city was converted into a church. But economic laws are
often too strong for civil vagaries or sectarian fanaticism, and as the
commerce of Austria suffered by the absence of the Jews, it was impossible
to exclude the latter from the fairs in the provinces or from the markets of
the capital. As has been pointed out above, certain protected Jews were
permitted to reside in places where the expulsion of the Jews had been
decreed. But Maria Theresa (1740-1780) was distinguished for her enmity
to the Jews, and in 1744 made a futile attempt to secure their expulsion
from Bohemia. “In 1760 she issued an order that all unbearded Jews should
wear a yellow badge on their left arm” (Jewish Encyclopedia, ii. 330). The
most petty limitations of Jewish commercial activity continued; thus at
about this period the community of Prague, in a petition, “complain that
they are not permitted to buy victuals in the market before a certain hour,
vegetables not before 9 and cattle not before 11 o’clock; to buy fish is
sometimes altogether prohibited; Jewish druggists are not permitted to buy
victuals at the same time with Christians” (op. cit.). So, too, with taxation. It
was exorbitant and vexatious. To pay for rendering inoperative the
banishment edict of 1744, the Jews were taxed 3,000,000 florins annually
for ten years. In the same year it was decreed that the Jews should pay “a
special tax of 40,000 florins for the right to import their citrons for the feast
of booths.” Nevertheless, Joseph II. (1780-1790) inaugurated a new era for
the Jews of his empire. Soon after his accession he abolished the distinctive
Jewish dress, abrogated the poll-tax, admitted the Jews to military service
and their children to the public schools, and in general opened the era of

emancipation by the Toleranzpatent of 1782. This enlightened policy was
not continued by the successors of Joseph II. Under Francis II. (1792-1835)
economic and social restrictions were numerous. Agriculture was again
barred; indeed the Vienna congress of 1815 practically restored the old
discriminations against the Jews. As time went on, a more progressive
policy intervened, the special form of Jewish oath was abolished in 1846,
and in 1848, as a result of the revolutionary movement in which Jews
played an active part, legislation took a more liberal turn. Francis Joseph I.
ascended the throne in that year, and though the constitution of 1849
recognized the principle of religious liberty, an era of reaction supervened,
especially when “the concordat of 1855 delivered Austria altogether into the
hands of the clericals.” But the day of medieval intolerance had passed, and
in 1867 the new constitution “abolished all disabilities on the ground of
religious differences,” though anti-Semitic manipulation of the law by
administrative authority has led to many instances of intolerance. Many
Jews have been members of the Reichsrath, some have risen to the rank of
general in the army, and Austrian Jews have contributed their quota to
learning, the arts and literature. Löw, Jellinek, Kaufmann, as scholars in the
Jewish field; as poets and novelists, Kompert, Franzos, L. A. Frankl; the
pianist Moscheles, the dramatist Mosenthal, and the actor Sonnenthal, the
mathematician Spitzer and the chess-player Steinitz are some of the most
prominent names. The law of 1890 makes it “compulsory for every Jew to
be a member of the congregation of the district in which he resides, and so
gives to every congregation the right to tax the individual members” (op.
cit.). A similar obligation prevails in parts of Germany. A Jew can avoid the
communal tax only by formally declaring himself as outside the Jewish
community. The Jews of Hungary shared with their brethren in Austria the
same alternations of expulsion and recall. By the law “De Judaeis” passed
by the Diet in 1791 the Jews were accorded protection, but half a century
passed before their tolerated condition was regularized. The “toleration-tax”

was abolished in 1846. During the revolutionary outbreak of 1848, the Jews
suffered severely in Hungary, but as many as 20,000 Jews are said to have
joined the army. Kossuth succeeded in granting them temporary
emancipation, but the suppression of the War of Independence led to an era
of royal autocracy which, while it advanced Jewish culture by enforcing the
establishment of modern schools, retarded the obtaining of civic and
political rights. As in Austria, so in Hungary, these rights were granted by
the constitution of 1867. But one step remained. The Hungarian Jews did
not consider themselves fully emancipated until the Synagogue was “duly
recognized as one of the legally acknowledged religions of the country.”
This recognition was granted by the law of 1895-1896. In the words of
Büchler (Jewish Encyclopedia, vi. 503): “Since their emancipation the Jews
have taken an active part in the political, industrial, scientific and artistic
life of Hungary. In all these fields they have achieved prominence. They
have also founded great religious institutions. Their progress has not been
arrested even by anti-Semitism, which first developed in 1883 at the time of
the Tisza-Eslar accusation of ritual murder.”

52. Other European Countries.—According to M. Caimi the present
Jewish communities of Greece are divisible into five groups: (1) Arta
(Epirus); (2) Chalcis (Euboea); (3) Athens (Attica); (4) Volo, Larissa and
Trikala (Thessaly); and (5) Corfu and Zante (Ionian Islands). The Greek
constitution admits no religious disabilities, but anti-Semitic riots in Corfu
and Zante in 1891 caused much distress and emigration. In Spain there has
been of late a more liberal attitude towards the Jews, and there is a small
congregation (without a public synagogue) in Madrid. In 1858 the edict of
expulsion was repealed. Portugal, on the other hand, having abolished the
Inquisition in 1821, has since 1826 allowed Jews freedom of religion, and
there are synagogues in Lisbon and Faro. In Holland the Jews were
admitted to political liberty in 1796. At present more than half of the Dutch
Jews are concentrated in Amsterdam, being largely engaged in the diamond

and tobacco trades. Among famous names of recent times foremost stands
that of the artist Josef Israels. In 1675 was consecrated in Amsterdam the
synagogue which is still the most noted Jewish edifice in Europe. Belgium
granted full freedom to the Jews in 1815, and the community has since
1808 been organized on the state consistorial system, which till recently
also prevailed in France. It was not till 1874 that full religious equality was
granted to the Jews of Switzerland. But there has been considerable
interference (ostensibly on humanitarian grounds) with the Jewish method
of slaughtering animals for food (Sheḥitah) and the method was prohibited
by a referendum in 1893. In the same year a similar enactment was passed
in Saxony, and the subject is a favourite one with anti-Semites, who have
enlisted on their side some scientific authorities, though the bulk of expert
opinion is in favor of Sheḥitah (see Dembo, Das Schlachten, 1894). In
Sweden the Jews have all the rights which are open to non-Lutherans; they
cannot become members of the council of state. In Norway there is a small
Jewish settlement (especially in Christiania) who are engaged in industrial
pursuits and enjoy complete liberty. Denmark has for long been
distinguished for its liberal policy towards the Jews. Since 1814 the latter
have been eligible as magistrates, and in 1849 full equality was formally
ratified. Many Copenhagen Jews achieved distinction as manufacturers,
merchants and bankers, and among famous Jewish men of letters may be
specially named Georg Brandes.

The story of the Jews in Russia and Rumania remains a black spot on the
European record. In Russia the Jews are more numerous and more harshly
treated than in any other part of the world. In the remotest past Jews were
settled in much of the territory now included in Russia, but they are still
treated as aliens. They are restricted to the pale of settlement which was
first established in 1791. The pale now includes fifteen governments, and
under the May laws of 1892 the congestion of the Jewish population, the
denial of free movement, and the exclusion from the general rights of

citizens were rendered more oppressive than ever before. The right to leave
the pale is indeed granted to merchants of the first gild, to those possessed
of certain educational diplomas, to veteran soldiers and to certain classes of
skilled artisans. But these concessions are unfavourably interpreted and
much extortion results. Despite a huge emigration of Jews from Russia, the
congestion within the pale is the cause of terrible destitution and misery.
Fierce massacres occurred in Nizhniy-Novgorod in 1882, and in Kishinev
in 1903. Many other pogroms have occurred, and the condition of the Jews
has been reduced to one of abject poverty and despair. Much was hoped
from the duma, but this body has proved bitterly opposed to the Jewish
claim for liberty. Yet in spite of these disabilities there are amongst the
Russian Jews many enterprising contractors, skilful doctors, and successful
lawyers and scientists. In Rumania, despite the Berlin Treaty, the Jews are
treated as aliens, and but a small number have been naturalized. They are
excluded from most of the professions and are hampered in every direction.

53. Oriental Countries.—In the Orient the condition of the Jews has been
much improved by the activity of Western organizations, of which
something is said in a later paragraph. Modern schools have been set up in
many places, and Palestine has been the scene of a notable educational and
agricultural revival, while technical schools—such as the agricultural
college near Jaffa and the schools of the alliance and the more recent
Bezalel in Jerusalem—have been established. Turkey has always on the
whole tolerated the Jews, and much is hoped from the new régime. In
Morocco the Jews, who until late in the 19th century were often persecuted,
are still confined to a mellah (separate quarter), but at the coast-towns there
are prosperous Jewish communities mostly engaged in commerce. In other
parts of the same continent, in Egypt and in South Africa, many Jews have
settled, participating in all industrial and financial pursuits. Recently a
mission has been sent to the Falashas of Abyssinia, and much interest has
been felt in such outlying branches of the Jewish people as the Black Jews

of Cochin and the Bene Israel community of Bombay. In Persia Jews are
often the victims of popular outbursts as well as of official extortion, but
there are fairly prosperous communities at Bushire, Isfahan, Teheran and
Kashan (in Shiraz they are in low estate). The recent advent of
constitutional government may improve the condition of the Jews.

54. The United Kingdom.—The general course of Jewish history in
England has been indicated above. The Jews came to England at least as
early as the Norman Conquest; they were expelled from Bury St Edmunds
in 1190, after the massacres at the coronation of Richard I.; they were
required to wear badges in 1218. At the end of the 12th century was
established the “exchequer of the Jews,” which chiefly dealt with suits
concerning money-lending, and arranged a “continual flow of money from
the Jews to the royal treasury,” and a so-called “parliament of the Jews” was
summoned in 1241; in 1275 was enacted the statute de Judaismo which,
among other things, permitted the Jews to hold land. But this concession
was illusory, and as the statute prevented Jews from engaging in finance—
the only occupation which had been open to them—it was a prelude to their
expulsion in 1290. There were few Jews in England from that date till the
Commonwealth, but Jews settled in the American colonies earlier in the
17th century, and rendered considerable services in the advancement of
English commerce. The Whitehall conference of 1655 marks a change in
the status of the Jews in England itself, for though no definite results
emerged it was clearly defined by the judges that there was no legal
obstacle to the return of the Jews. Charles II. in 1664 continued Cromwell’s
tolerant policy. No serious attempt towards the emancipation of the Jews
was made till the Naturalization Act of 1753, which was, however,
immediately repealed. Jews no longer attached to the Synagogue, such as
the Herschels and Disraelis, attained to fame. In 1830 the first Jewish
emancipation bill was brought in by Robert Grant, but it was not till the
legislation of 1858-1860 that Jews obtained full parliamentary rights. In

other directions progress was more rapid. The office of sheriff was thrown
open to Jews in 1835 (Moses Montefiore, sheriff of London was knighted in
1837); Sir I. L. Goldsmid was made a baronet in 1841, Baron Lionel de
Rothschild was elected to Parliament in 1847 (though he was unable to take
his seat), Alderman (Sir David) Salomons became lord mayor of London in
1855 and Francis Goldsmid was made a Q.C. in 1858. In 1873 Sir George
Jessel was made a judge, and Lord Rothschild took his seat in the House of
Lords as the first Jewish peer in 1886. A fair proportion of Jews have been
elected to the House of Commons, and Mr Herbert Samuel rose to cabinet
rank in 1909. Sir Matthew Nathan has been governor of Hong-Kong and
Natal, and among Jewish statesmen in the colonies Sir Julius Vogel and V.
L. Solomon have been prime ministers (Hyamson: A History of the Jews in
England, p. 342). It is unnecessary to remark that in the British colonies the
Jews everywhere enjoy full citizenship. In fact, the colonies emancipated
the Jews earlier than did the mother country. Jews were settled in Canada
from the time of Wolfe, and a congregation was founded at Montreal in
1768, and since 1832 Jews have been entitled to sit in the Canadian
parliament. There are some thriving Jewish agricultural colonies in the
same dominion. In Australia the Jews from the first were welcomed on
perfectly equal terms. The oldest congregation is that of Sydney (1817); the
Melbourne community dates from 1844. Reverting to incidents in England
itself, in 1870 the abolition of university tests removed all restrictions on
Jews at Oxford and Cambridge, and both universities have since elected
Jews to professorships and other posts of honour. The communal
organization of English Jewry is somewhat inchoate. In 1841 an
independent reform congregation was founded, and the Spanish and
Portuguese Jews have always maintained their separate existence with a
Ḥaham as the ecclesiastical head. In 1870 was founded the United
Synagogue, which is a metropolitan organization, and the same remark
applies to the more recent Federation of Synagogues. The chief rabbi, who

is the ecclesiastical head of the United Synagogue, has also a certain
amount of authority over the provincial and colonial Jewries, but this is
nominal rather than real. The provincial Jewries, however, participate in the
election of the chief rabbi. At the end of 1909 was held the first conference
of Jewish ministers in London, and from this is expected some more
systematic organization of scattered communities. Anglo-Jewry is rich,
however, in charitable, educational and literary institutions; chief among
these respectively may be named the Jewish board of guardians (1859), the
Jews’ college (1855), and the Jewish historical society (1893). Besides the
distinctions already noted, English Jews have risen to note in theology (C.
G. Montefiore), in literature (Israel Zangwill and Alfred Sutro), in art (S.
Hart, R.A., and S. J. Solomon, R.A.) in music (Julius Benedict and
Frederick Hymen Cowen). More than 1000 English and colonial Jews
participated as active combatants in the South African War. The
immigration of Jews from Russia was mainly responsible for the ineffective
yet oppressive Aliens Act of 1905. (Full accounts of Anglo-Jewish
institutions are given in the Jewish Year-Book published annually since
1895.)

55. The American Continent.—Closely parallel with the progress of the
Jews in England has been their steady advancement in America. Jews made
their way to America early in the 16th century, settling in Brazil prior to the
Dutch occupation. Under Dutch rule they enjoyed full civil rights. In
Mexico and Peru they fell under the ban of the Inquisition. In Surinam the
Jews were treated as British subjects; in Barbadoes, Jamaica and New York
they are found as early as the first half of the 17th century. During the War
of Independence the Jews of America took a prominent part on both sides,
for under the British rule many had risen to wealth and high social position.
After the Declaration of Independence, Jews are found all over America,
where they have long enjoyed complete emancipation, and have
enormously increased in numbers, owing particularly to immigration from

Russia. The American Jews bore their share in the Civil War (7038 Jews
were in the two armies), and have always identified themselves closely with
national movements such as the emancipation of Cuba. They have attained
to high rank in all branches of the public service, and have shown most
splendid instances of far-sighted and generous philanthropy. Within the
Synagogue the reform movement began in 1825, and soon won many
successes, the central conference of American rabbis and Union College
(1875) at Cincinnati being the instruments of this progress. At the present
time orthodox Judaism is also again acquiring its due position and the
Jewish theological seminary of America was founded for this purpose. In
1908 an organization, inclusive of various religious sections, was founded
under the description “the Jewish community of New York.” There have
been four Jewish members of the United States senate, and about 30 of the
national House of Representatives. Besides filling many diplomatic offices,
a Jew (O. S. Straus) has been a member of the cabinet. Many Jews have
filled professorial chairs at the universities, others have been judges, and in
art, literature (there is a notable Jewish publication society), industry and
commerce have rendered considerable services to national culture and
prosperity. American universities have owed much to Jewish generosity, a
foremost benefactor of these (as of many other American institutions) being
Jacob Schiff. Such institutions as the Gratz and Dropsie colleges are further
indications of the splendid activity of American Jews in the educational
field. The Jews of America have also taken a foremost place in the succour
of their oppressed brethren in Russia and other parts of the world. (Full
accounts of American Jewish institutions are given in the American Jewish
Year-Book, published annually since 1899.)

56. Anti-Semitism.—It is saddening to be compelled to close this record
with the statement that the progress of the European Jews received a serious
check by the rise of modern anti-Semitism in the last quarter of the 19th
century. While in Russia this took the form of actual massacre, in Germany

and Austria it assumed the shape of social and civic ostracism. In Germany
Jews are still rarely admitted to the rank of officers in the army, university
posts are very difficult of access, Judaism and its doctrines are denounced
in medieval language, and a tone of hostility prevails in many public
utterances. In Austria, as in Germany, anti-Semitism is a factor in the
parliamentary elections. The legend of ritual murder (q.v.) has been revived,
and every obstacle is placed in the way of the free intercourse of Jews with
their Christian fellow-citizens. In France Edouard Adolphe Drumont led the
way to a similar animosity, and the popular fury was fanned by the Dreyfus
case. It is generally felt, however, that this recrudescence of anti-Semitism
is a passing phase in the history of culture (see Anti-Semitism).

57. The Zionist Movement.—The Zionist movement (see Zionism),
founded in 1895 by Theodor Herzl (q.v.) was in a sense the outcome of anti-
Semitism. Its object was the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine, but
though it aroused much interest it failed to attract the majority of the
emancipated Jews, and the movement has of late been transforming itself
into a mere effort at colonization. Most Jews not only confidently believe
that their own future lies in progressive development within the various
nationalities of the world, but they also hope that a similar consummation is
in store for the as yet unemancipated branches of Israel. Hence the Jews are
in no sense internationally organized. The influence of the happier
communities has been exercised on behalf of those in a worse position by
individuals such as Sir Moses Montefiore (q.v.) rather than by societies or
leagues. From time to time incidents arise which appeal to the Jewish
sympathies everywhere and joint action ensues. Such incidents were the
Damascus charge of ritual murder (1840), the forcible baptism of the Italian
child Mortara (1858), and the Russian pogroms at various dates. But all
attempts at an international union of Jews, even in view of such
emergencies as these, have failed. Each country has its own local
organization for dealing with Jewish questions. In France the Alliance

Israélite (founded in 1860), in England the Anglo-Jewish Association
(founded in 1871), in Germany the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden, and in
Austria the Israelitische Allianz zu Wien (founded 1872), in America the
American Jewish Committee (founded 1906), and similar organizations in
other countries deal only incidentally with political affairs. They are
concerned mainly with the education of Jews in the Orient, and the
establishment of colonies and technical institutions. Baron Hirsch (q.v.)
founded the Jewish colonial association, which has undertaken vast
colonizing and educational enterprises, especially in Argentina, and more
recently the Jewish territorial organization has been started to found a home
for the oppressed Jews of Russia. All these institutions are performing a
great regenerative work, and the tribulations and disappointments of the last
decades of the 19th century were not all loss. The gain consisted in the
rousing of the Jewish consciousness to more virile efforts towards a double
end, to succour the persecuted and ennoble the ideals of the emancipated.

58. Statistics.—Owing to the absence of a religious census in several
important countries, the Jewish population of the world can only be
given by inferential estimate. The following approximate figures are
taken from the American Jewish Year-Book for 1909-1910 and are
based on similar estimates in the English Jewish Year-Book, the Jewish
Encyclopedia, Nossig’s Jüdische Statistik and the Reports of the
Alliance Israélite Universelle. According to these estimates the total
Jewish population of the world in the year named was approximately
11,500,000. Of this total there were in the British Empire about
380,000 Jews (British Isles 240,000, London accounts for 150,000 of
these; Canada and British Columbia 60,000; India 18,000; South Africa
40,000). The largest Jewish populations were those of Russia
(5,215,000), Austria-Hungary (2,084,000), United States of America
(1,777,000), Germany (607,000, of whom 409,000 were in Prussia),
Turkey (463,000, of whom some 78,000 resided in Palestine), Rumania
(250,000), Morocco (109,000) and Holland (106,000). Others of the
more important totals are: France 95,000 (besides Algeria 63,000 and
Tunis 62,000); Italy 52,000; Persia 49,000; Egypt 39,000; Bulgaria
36,000; Argentine Republic 30,000; Tripoli 19,000; Turkestan and
Afghanistan 14,000; Switzerland and Belgium each 12,000; Mexico
9000; Greece 8000; Servia 6000; Sweden and Cuba each 4000;
Denmark 3500; Brazil and Abyssinia (Falashas) each 3000; Spain and
Portugal 2500; China and Japan 2000. There are also Jews in Curaçoa,
Surinam, Luxemburg, Norway, Peru, Crete and Venezuela; but in none
of these does the Jewish population much exceed 1000.

Bibliography.—H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden (11 vols., 1853-
1875; several subsequent editions of separate volumes; Eng. trans. 5
vols., 1891-1892); the works of L. Zunz; Jewish Encyclopedia passim;
publications of Jewish societies, such as Études Juives, Jewish

historical societies of England and America, German historical
commission, Julius Barasch society (Rumania), Societas Litteraria
Hungarico-Judaica, the Viennese communal publications, and many
others to which may be added the 20 vols. of the Jewish Quarterly
Review; Scherer, Rechtsverhältnisse der Juden (1901); M. Güdemann
Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden (1880,
&c.); A. Leroy-Beaulieu, Israel among the Nations (1895); I.
Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (1896); G. F. Abbott, Israel
in Europe (1905); G. Caro, Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden (1908); M.
Philippson, Neueste Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (1907, &c.);
Nossig, Jüdische Statistik (1903); and such special works as H. Gross,
Gallia Judaica (1897), &c. (I. A.)

1 On the homogeneity of the population, see further, W. R. Smith, Religion of the
Semites (2nd ed., chaps, i.-iii.); T. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, pp. 1-20 (on
“Some Characteristics of the Semitic Race”); and especially E. Meyer, Gesch. d. Altertums
(2nd ed., i. §§ 330, sqq.). For the relation between the geographical characteristics and the
political history, see G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land.

2 For fuller information on this section see Palestine: History, and the related portions
of Babylonia and Assyria, Egypt, Hittites, Syria.

3 Or land Israel, W. Spiegelberg, Orient. Lit. Zeit. xi. (1908), cols. 403-405.

4 It is useful to compare the critical study of the Koran (q.v.), where, however, the
investigation of its various “revelations” is simpler than that of the biblical “prophecies” on
account of the greater wealth of independent historical tradition. See also G. B. Gray,
Contemporary Review (July 1907); A. A. Bevan, Cambridge Biblical Essays (ed. Swete,
1909), pp. 1-19.

5 See primarily Bible: Old Testament; the articles on the contents and literary structure
of the several books; the various biographical, topographical and ethnical articles, and the
separate treatment of the more important subjects (e.g. Levites, Prophet, Sacrifice).

6 On the bearing of external evidence upon the internal biblical records, see especially
S. R. Driver’s essay in Hogarth’s Authority and Archaeology; cf. also A. A. Bevan, Critical
Review (1897, p. 406 sqq., 1898, pp. 131 sqq.); G. B. Gray, Expositor, May 1898; W. G.
Jordan, Bib. Crit. and Modern Thought (1909), pp. 42 sqq.

7 For the sections which follow the present writer may be permitted to refer to his
introductory contributions in the Expositor (June, 1906; “The Criticism of the O.T.”); the
Jewish Quarterly Review (July 1905-January 1907 = Critical Notes on O.T. History,
especially sections vii.-ix.); July and October 1907, April 1908; Amer. Journ. Theol. (July
1909, “Simeon and Levi: the Problem of the Old Testament”); and Swete’s Cambridge Bib.
Essays, pp. 54-89 (“The Present Stage of O.T. Research”).

8 On the name see Jehovah, Tetragrammaton.

9 The story of Joseph has distinctive internal features of its own, and appears to be from
an independent cycle, which has been used to form a connecting link between the
Settlement and the Exodus; see also Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme
(1906), pp. 228, 433; B. Luther, ibid. pp. 108 seq., 142 sqq. Neither of the poems in Deut.
xxxii. seq. alludes to an escape from Egypt; Israel is merely a desert tribe inspired to settle
in Palestine. Apparently even the older accounts of the exodus are not of very great
antiquity; according to Jeremiah ii. 2, 7 (cf. Hos. ii. 15) some traditions of the wilderness
must have represented Israel in a very favourable light; for the “canonical” view, see
Ezekiel xvi., xx., xxiii.

10 The capture of central Palestine itself is not recorded; according to its own traditions
the district had been seized by Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 22; cf. the late form of the tradition in
Jubilees xxxiv.). This conception of a conquering hero is entirely distinct from the
narratives of the descent of Jacob into Egypt, &c. (see Meyer and Luther, op. cit. pp. 110,
227 seq., 415, 433).

11 This is especially true of the various ingenious attempts to combine the invasion of
the Israelites with the movements of the Ḥabiru in the Amarna period (§ 3).

12 Cf. Winckler, Keil. u. das Alte Test. p. 212 seq.; also his “Der alte Orient und die
Geschichtsforschung” in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiat. Gesellschaft (Berlin, 1906) and
Religionsgeschichtlicher u. gesch. Orient (Leipzig, 1906); A. Jeremias, Alte Test. (p. 464
seq.); B. Baentsch, Altorient. u. Israel. Monotheismus (pp. 53, 79, 105, &c.); also Theolog.
Lit. Blatt (1907) No. 19. On the reconstructions of the tribal history, see especially T. K.
Cheyne, Ency. Bib. art. “Tribes.” The most suggestive study of the pre-monarchical
narratives is that of E. Meyer and B. Luther (above; see the former’s criticisms on the
reconstructions, pp. 50, 251 sqq., 422, n. 1 and passim).

13 2 Chron. xii. 8, which is independent of the chronicler’s artificial treatment of his
material, apparently points to some tradition of Egyptian suzerainty.

14 See for chronology, Babylonia and Assyria, §§ v. and viii.

15 See Jew. Quart. Rev. (1908), pp. 597-630. The independent Israelite traditions which
here become more numerous have points of contact with those of Saul in 1 Samuel, and the

relation is highly suggestive for the study of their growth, as also for the perspective of the
various writers.

16 See W. R. Smith (after Kuenen), Ency. Bib., col. 2670; also W. E. Addis, ib., 1276,
the commentaries of Benzinger (p. 130) and Kittel (pp. 153 seq.) on Kings; J. S. Strachan,
Hastings’s Dict. Bible, i. 694; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. of Holy Land, p. 582; König and
Hirsch, Jew. Ency. v. 137 seq. (“legend ... as indifferent to accuracy in dates as it is to
definiteness of places and names”); W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea, p. xli. seq. (“the lack
of chronological order ... the result is to create a wrong impression of Elisha’s career”). The
bearing of this displacement upon the literary and historical criticism of the narratives has
never been worked out.

17 Careful examination shows that no a priori distinction can be drawn between
“trustworthy” books of Kings and “untrustworthy books” of Chronicles. Although the latter
have special late and unreliable features, they agree with the former in presenting the same
general trend of past history. The “canonical” history in Kings is further embellished in
Chronicles, but the gulf between them is not so profound as that between the former and
the underlying and half-suppressed historical traditions which can still be recognized. (See
also Palestine: History.)

18 For the former (2 Kings xii. 17 seq.) cf. Hezekiah and Sennacherib (xviii. 13-15),
and for the latter, cf. Asa and Baasha (1 Kings xv. 18-20; above).

19 It is possible that Hadad-nirari’s inscription refers to conditions in the latter part of
his reign (812-783 b.c.), when Judah apparently was no longer independent and when
Jeroboam II. was king of Israel. The accession of the latter has been placed between 785
and 782. It is now known, also, that Ben-hadad and a small coalition were defeated by the
king of Hamath; but the bearing of this upon Israelite history is uncertain.

20 Cf. generally, 1 Sam. iv., xxxi.; 2 Sam. ii. 8; 1 Kings xx., xxii.; 2 Kings vi. 8-vii. 20;
also Judges v. (see Deborah).

21 Special mention is made of Jonah, a prophet of Zebulun in (north) Israel (2 Kings
xiv. 25). Nothing is known of him, unless the very late prophetical writing with the account
of his visit to Nineveh rests upon some old tradition, which, however, can scarcely be
recovered (see Jonah).

22 This is philosophically handled by the Arabian historian Ibn Khaldūn, whose
Prolegomena is well worthy of attention; see De Slane, Not. et extraits, vols. xix.-xxi., with
Von Kremer’s criticisms in the Sitz. d. Kais. Akad. of Vienna (vol. xciii., 1879); cf. also R.
Flint, History of the Philosophy of History, i. 157 sqq.

23 Cf. J. G. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris (1907), p. 67: “Prophecy of the Hebrew type
has not been limited to Israel; it is indeed a phenomenon of almost world-wide occurrence;

in many lands and in many ages the wild, whirling words of frenzied men and women have
been accepted as the utterances of an in-dwelling deity. What does distinguish Hebrew
prophecy from all others is that the genius of a few members of the profession wrested this
vulgar but powerful instrument from baser uses, and by wielding it in the interest of a high
morality rendered a service of incalculable value to humanity. That is indeed the glory of
Israel....”

24 The use which was made in Apocalyptic literature of the traditions of Moses, Isaiah
and others finds its analogy within the Old Testament itself; cf. the relation between the
present late prophecies of Jonah and the unknown prophet of the time of Jeroboam II. (see
§ 13, note 5). To condemn re-shaping or adaptation of this nature from a modern Western
standpoint is to misunderstand entirely the Oriental mind and Oriental usage.

25 The condemnation passed upon the impetuous and fiery zeal of the adherents of the
new movement (cf. Hos. i. 4), like the remarkable vicissitudes in the traditions of Moses,
Aaron and the Levites (qq.v.), represents changing situations of real significance, whose
true place in the history can with difficulty be recovered.

26 Formerly thought to be the third of the name.

27 Perhaps Judah had come to an understanding with Tiglath-pileser (H. M. Haydn,
Journ. Bib. Lit., xxviii. 1909, pp. 182-199); see Uzziah.

28 The fact that these lists are of the kings of the “land Ḥatti” would suggest that the
term “Hittite” had been extended to Palestine.

29 So K. Budde, Rel. of Israel to Exile, pp. 165-167. For an attempt to recover the
character of the cults, see W. Erbt, Hebräer (Leipzig, 1906), pp. 150 sqq.

30 See G. Maspero, Gesch. d. morgenländ. Völker (1877), p. 446; E. Naville, Proc. Soc.
Bibl. Archaeol. (1907), pp. 232 sqq., and T. K. Cheyne, Decline and Fall of Judah (1908),
p. 13, with references. [The genuineness of such discoveries is naturally a matter for
historical criticism to decide. Thus the discovery of Numa’s laws in Rome (Livy xl. 29),
upon which undue weight has sometimes been laid (see Klostermann, Der Pentateuch
(1906), pp. 155 sqq., was not accepted as genuine by the senate (who had the laws
destroyed), and probably not by Pliny himself. Only the later antiquaries clung to the belief
in their trustworthiness.—(Communicated.)]

31 Both kings came to the throne after a conspiracy aimed at existing abuses, and other
parallels can be found (see Kings).

32 But see N. Schmidt, Ency. Bib., “Scythians,” § 1.

33 So also one can now compare the estimate taken of the Jews in Egypt in Jer. xliv.
with the actual religious conditions which are known to have prevailed later at Elephantine,

where a small Jewish colony worshipped Yahu (Yahweh) at their own temple (see E.
Sachau, “Drei aram. Papyrusurkunde,” in the Abhandlungen of the Prussian Academy,
Berlin, 1907).

34 Sargon had removed Babylonians into the land of Hatti (Syria and Palestine), and in
715 b.c. among the colonists were tribes apparently of desert origin (Tamud, Hayapa, &c.);
other settlements are ascribed to Esar-haddon and perhaps Assur-bani-pal (Ezra iv. 2, 10).
See for the evidence, A. E. Cowley, Ency. Bib., col. 4257; J. A. Montgomery, The
Samaritans, pp. 46-57 (Philadelphia, 1907).

35 The growing recognition that the land was not depopulated after 586 is of
fundamental significance for the criticism of “exilic” and “post-exilic” history. G. A. Smith
thus sums up a discussion of the extent of the deportations: “... A large majority of the
Jewish people remained on the land. This conclusion may startle us with our generally
received notions of the whole nation as exiled. But there are facts which support it”
(Jerusalem, ii. 268).

36 On the place of Palestine in Persian history see Persia: History, ancient, especially §
5 ii.; also Artaxerxes; Cambyses; Cyrus; Darius, &c.

37 The evidence for Artaxerxes III., accepted by Ewald and others (see W. R. Smith,
Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 438 seq.; W. Judeich, Kleinasiat. Stud., p. 170; T. K.
Cheyne, Ency. Bib., col. 2202; F. C. Kent, Hist. [1899], pp. 230 sqq.) has however been
questioned by Willrich, Judaica, 35-39 (see Cheyne, Ency. Bib., col. 3941). The account of
Josephus (above) raises several difficulties, especially the identity of Bagoses. It has been
supposed that he has placed the record too late, and that this Bagoses is the Judaean
governor who flourished about 408 b.c. (See p. 286, n. 3.)

38 Thus a decree of Darius I. takes the part of his subjects against the excessive zeal of
the official Gadatas, and grants freedom of taxation and exemption from forced labour to
those connected with a temple of Apollo in Asia Minor (Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique, xiii. 529; E. Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 19 seq.; cf. id.
Forschungen, ii. 497).

39 In addition to this, the Egyptian story of the priest Uza-hor at the court of Cambyses
and Darius reflects a policy of religious tolerance which illustrates the biblical account of
Ezra and Nehemiah (Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. pp. 784 sqq.; see Cheyne, Jew. Relig. Life after
the Exile, pp. 40-43).

40 From Têma in north Arabia, also, there is monumental evidence of the 5th century
b.c. for Babylonian and Assyrian influence upon the language, cult and art. For Nippur, see
Bab. Exped. of Univ. of Pennsylvania, series A., vol. ix. (1898), by H. V. Hilprecht; for
Elephantine, the Mond papyri, A. H. Sayce and A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri Discovered

at Assuan (1906), and those cited above (p. 282, n. 1). For the Jewish colonies in general,
see H. Guthe, Ency. Bib., art. “Dispersion” (with references); also below, § 25 sqq.

41 See Ezra and Nehemiah with bibliographical references, also T. K. Cheyne, Introd.
to Isaiah (1895); Jew. Religious Life after the Exile (1898); E. Sellin, Stud. z.
Entstehungsgesch. d. jüd. Gemeinde (1901); R. H. Kennett in Swete’s Cambridge Biblical
Essays (pp. 92 sqq.); G. Jahn, Die Bücher Esra u. Nehemja (1909); and C. C. Torrey, Ezra
Studies (1910).

42 There is an obvious effort to preserve the continuity of tradition (a) in Ezra ii. which
gives a list of families who returned from exile each to its own city, and (b) in the return of
the holy vessels in the time of Cyrus (contrast 1 Esdras iv. 43 seq.), a view which, in spite
of Dan. i. 2, v. 2 seq., conflicts with 2 Kings xxiv. 13 and xxv. 13 (see, however, v. 14).
That attempts have been made to adjust contradictory representations is suggested by the
prophecy ascribed to Jeremiah (xxvii. 16 sqq.) where the restoration of the holy vessels
finds no place in the shorter text of the Septuagint (see W. R. Smith, Old Test. and Jew.
Church, pp. 104 sqq.).

43 The view that Deuteronomy is later than the 7th century has been suggested by M.
Vernes, Nouvelle hypothèse sur la comp. et l’origine du Deut. (1887); Havet, Christian. et
ses origines (1878); Horst, in Rev. de l’hist. des relig., 1888; and more recently by E. Day,
Journ. Bib. Lit. (1902), pp. 202 sqq.; and R. H. Kennett, Journ. Theol. Stud. (1906), pp.
486 sqq. The strongest counter-arguments (see W. E. Addis, Doc. of Hexat. ii. 2-9) rely
upon the historical trustworthiness of 2 Kings xxii. seq. Weighty reasons are brought also
by conservative writers against the theory that Deuteronomy dates from or about the age of
Josiah, and their objections to the “discovery” of a new law-roll apply equally to the “re-
discovery” and promulgation of an old and authentic code.

44 See, for Cheyne’s view, his Decline and Fall of Judah. Introduction (1908). The
former tendency has many supporters; see, among recent writers, N. Schmidt, Hibbert
Journal (1908), pp. 322 sqq.; C. F. Burney, Journ. Theol. Stud. (1908), pp. 321 sqq.; O. A.
Toffteen, The Historic Exodus (1909), pp. 120 sqq.; especially Meyer and Luther, Die
Israeliten, pp. 442-440, &c. For the early recognition of the evidence in question, see J.
Wellhausen, De gentibus et familiis Judaeis (Göttingen, 1870); Prolegomena (Eng. trans.),
pp. 216 sqq., 342 sqq., and 441-443 (from art. “Israel,” § 2, Ency. Brit. 9th ed.); also A.
Kuenen, Relig. of Israel (i. 135 seq., 176-182); W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, pp. 28 seq.,
379.

45 For the prominence of the “southern” element in Judah see E. Meyer, Entstehung d.
Judenthums (1896), pp. 119, 147, 167, 177, 183 n. 1; Israeliten, pp. 352 n. 5, 402, 429 seq.

46 See § 23 end, and Levites. When Edom is renowned for wisdom and a small
Judaean family boasts of sages whose names have south Palestinian affinity (1 Chron. ii.

6), and when such names as Korah, Heman, Ethan and Obed-edom, are associated with
psalmody, there is no inherent improbability in the conjecture that the “southern” families
settled around Jerusalem may have left their mark in other parts of the Old Testament. It is
another question whether such literature can be identified (for Cheyne’s views, see Ency.
Bib. “Prophetic Literature,” “Psalms,” and his recent studies).

47 One may recall, in this connexion, Caxton’s very interesting prologue to Malory’s
Morte d’Arthur and his remarks on the permanent value of the “histories” of this British
hero. [Cf. also Horace, Ep. 1. ii. and R. Browning, “Development.”]

48 It is noteworthy that Josephus, who has his own representation of the post-exilic age,
allows two years and four months for the work (Ant. xi. 5, 8).

49 The papyri from Elephantine (p. 282, n. 1, above) mention as contemporaries the
Jerusalem priest Johanan (cf. the son of Joiada and father of Jaddua, Neh. xii. 22), Bagohi
(Bagoas), governor of Judah, and Delaiah and Shelemiah sons of Sanballat (408-407 b.c.)
They ignore any strained relations between Samaria and Judah, and Delaiah and Bagohi
unite in granting permission to the Jewish colony to rebuild their place of worship. If this
fixes the date of Sanballat and Nehemiah in the time of the first Artaxerxes, the probability
of confusion in the later written sources is enhanced by the recurrence of identical names of
kings, priests, &c., in the history.

50 The Samaritans, for their part, claimed the traditions of their land and called
themselves the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. But they were ready to deny
their kinship with the Jews when the latter were in adversity, and could have replied to the
tradition that they were foreigners with a tu quoque (Josephus, Ant. ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6; xii. 5,
5) (see Samaritans).

51 The statement that the king desired to avoid the divine wrath may possibly have
some deeper meaning (e.g. some recent revolt, Ezra vii. 23).

52 It must suffice to refer to the opinions of Bertholet, Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Van
Hoonacker, Jahn, Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marquart, Torrey, and Wildeboer.

53 C. F. Kent, Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narratives (1905), p. 358 seq. The objections
against this very probable view undervalue Ezra iv. 7-23 and overlook the serious
intricacies in the book of Nehemiah.

54 There are three inquiries: (a) the critical value of 1 Esdras, (b) the character of the
different representations of post-exilic internal and external history, and (c) the recovery of
the historical facts. To start with the last before considering (a) and (b) would be futile.

55 For example, to the sufferings under Artaxerxes III. (§ 19) have been ascribed such
passages as Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12; Ps. xliv., lxxiv., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii. (see also
Lamentations). In their present form they are not of the beginning of the 6th century and,

if the evidence for Artaxerxes III. proves too doubtful, they may belong to the history
preceding Nehemiah’s return, provided the internal features do not stand in the way (e.g.
prior or posterior to the formation of the exclusive Judaean community, &c.). Since the
book of Baruch (named after Jeremiah’s scribe) is now recognized to be considerably later
(probably after the destruction of Jerusalem a.d. 70), it will be seen that the recurrence of
similar causes leads to a similarity in the contemporary literary productions (with a
reshaping of earlier tradition), the precise date of which depends upon delicate points of
detail and not upon the apparently obvious historical elements.

56 See H. Winckler, Keil. u. Alte Test., 295, and Kennett, Journ. Theol. Stud. (1906), p.
487; Camb. Bib. Essays, p. 117. The Chaldeans alone destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv.);
Edom was friendly or at least neutral (Jer. xxvii. 3, xl. 11 seq.). The proposal to read
“Edomites” for “Syrians” in the list of bands which troubled Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 2) is
not supported by the contemporary reference, Jer. xxxv. 11.

57 It is at least a coincidence that the prophet who took the part of Tobiah and Sanballat
against Nehemiah (vi. 10 seq.) bears the same name as the one who advised Rehoboam to
acquiesce in the disruption (1 Kings xii. 21-24), or announced the divine selection of
Jeroboam (ib. v. 24, Septuagint only).

58 See Hebrew Religion, § 8 seq., and the relevant portions of the histories of Israel.

59 J. Wellhausen, art. “Israel,” Ency. Brit. 9th ed., vol. xiii. p. 419; or his Prolegomena,
pp. 497 seq.

60 An instructive account of Judaism in the early post-exilic age on critical lines (from
the Jewish standpoint) is given by C. G. Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures (1892), pp. 355 sqq.;
cf. also the sketch by I. Abrahams, Judaism (1907).

61 Cf. the story of Phinehas, Num. xxv. 6 sqq.; on Gen. xxxiv., see Simeon. Apropos of
hostility towards Samaria, it is singular that the term of reproach, “Cutheans,” applied to
the Samaritans is derived from Cutha, the famous seat of the god Nergal, only some 25 m.
N.E. of Babylon itself (see above, p. 286, n. 4).

62 The various tendencies which can be observed in the later pseudepigraphical and
apocalyptical writings are of considerable value in any consideration of the development of
thought illustrated in the Old Testament itself.

63 Reference may be made to H. Winckler, Gesch. Israels, ii. (1900); W. Erbt, Die
Hebräer (1906); and T. K. Cheyne, Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel (1907).

64 On the writers mentioned below see articles s.v.

65 For the importance of the Portuguese Jews, see Portugal: History.

JEWSBURY, GERALDINE ENDSOR (1812-1880),
English writer, daughter of Thomas Jewsbury, a Manchester merchant, was
born in 1812 at Measham, Derbyshire. Her first novel, Zoe: the History of
Two Lives, was published in 1845, and was followed by The Half Sisters
(1848), Marian Withers (1851), Constance Herbert (1855), The Sorrows of
Gentility (1856), Right or Wrong (1859). In 1850 she was invited by
Charles Dickens to write for Household Words; for many years she was a
frequent contributor to the Athenaeum and other journals and magazines. It
is, however, mainly on account of her friendship with Thomas Carlyle and
his wife that her name is remembered. Carlyle described her, after their first
meeting in 1841, as “one of the most interesting young women I have seen
for years; clear delicate sense and courage looking out of her small sylph-
like figure.” From this time till Mrs Carlyle’s death in 1866, Geraldine
Jewsbury was the most intimate of her friends. The selections from
Geraldine Jewsbury’s letters to Jane Welsh Carlyle (1892, ed. Mrs
Alexander Ireland) prove how confidential were the relations between the
two women for a quarter of a century. In 1854 Miss Jewsbury removed
from Manchester to London to be near her friend. To her Carlyle turned for
sympathy when his wife died; and at his request she wrote down some
“biographical anecdotes” of Mrs Carlyle’s childhood and early married life.
Carlyle’s comment was that “few or none of these narratives are correct in
details, but there is a certain mythical truth in all or most of them;” and he
added, “the Geraldine accounts of her (Mrs Carlyle’s) childhood are

substantially correct.” He accepted them as the groundwork for his own
essay on “Jane Welsh Carlyle,” with which they were therefore incorporated
by Froude when editing Carlyle’s Reminiscences. Miss Jewsbury was
consulted by Froude when he was preparing Carlyle’s biography, and her
recollection of her friend’s confidences confirmed the suspicion that Carlyle
had on one occasion used physical violence towards his wife. Miss
Jewsbury further informed Froude that the secret of the domestic troubles of
the Carlyles lay in the fact that Carlyle had been “one of those persons who
ought never to have married,” and that Mrs Carlyle had at one time
contemplated having her marriage legally annulled (see My Relations with
Carlyle, by James Anthony Froude, 1903). The endeavour has been made to
discredit Miss Jewsbury in relation to this matter, but there seems to be no
sufficient ground for doubting that she accurately repeated what she had
learnt from Mrs Carlyle’s own lips. Miss Jewsbury died in London on the
23rd of September 1880.

JEW’S EARS, the popular name of a fungus, known botanically as
Hirneola auricula-judae, so called from its shape, which somewhat
resembles a human ear. It is very thin, flexible, flesh-coloured to dark
brown, and one to three inches broad. It is common on branches of elder,
which it often kills, and is also found on elm, willow, oak and other trees. It
was formerly prescribed as a remedy for dropsy.

JEW’S HARP, or Jew’s Trump (Fr. guimbarde, O. Fr. trompe,
gronde; Ger. Mundharmonica, Maultrommel, Brummeisen; Ital. scaccia-
pensieri or spassa-pensiero), a small musical instrument of percussion,
known for centuries all over Europe. “Jew’s trump” is the older name, and
“trump” is still used in parts of Great Britain. Attempts have been made to
derive “Jew’s” from “jaws” or Fr. jeu, but, though there is no apparent
reason for associating the instrument with the Jews, it is certain that “Jew’s”
is the original form (see the New English Dictionary and C. B. Mount in
Notes and Queries (Oct. 23, 1897, p. 322). The instrument consists of a
slender tongue of steel riveted at one end to the base of a pear-shaped steel
loop; the other end of the tongue, left free and passing out between the two
branches of the frame, terminates in a sharp bend at right angles, to enable
the player to depress it by an elastic blow and thus set it vibrating while
firmly pressing the branches of the frame against his teeth. The vibrations
of the steel tongue produce a compound sound composed of a fundamental
and its harmonics. By using the cavity of the mouth as a resonator, each
harmonic in succession can be isolated and reinforced, giving the
instrument the compass shown. The lower harmonics of the series cannot be
obtained, owing to the limited capacity of the resonating cavity. The black
notes on the stave show the scale which may be produced by using two
harps, one tuned a fourth above the other. The player on the Jew’s harp, in
order to isolate the harmonics, frames his mouth as though intending to
pronounce the various vowels. At the beginning of the 19th century, when

much energy and ingenuity were being expended in all countries upon the
invention of new musical instruments, the Maultrommel, re-christened
Mundharmonica (the most rational of all its names), attracted attention in
Germany. Heinrich Scheibler devised an ingenious holder with a handle, to
contain five Jew’s harps, all tuned to different notes; by holding one in each
hand, a large compass, with duplicate notes, became available; he called
this complex Jew’s harp Aura1 and with it played themes with variations,
marches, Scotch reels, &c. Other virtuosi, such as Eulenstein, a native of
Würtemberg, achieved the same result by placing the variously tuned Jew’s
harps upon the table in front of him, taking them up and setting them down
as required. Eulenstein created a sensation in London in 1827 by playing on
no fewer than sixteen Jew’s harps. In 1828 Sir Charles Wheatstone
published an essay on the technique of the instrument in the Quarterly
Journal of Science.
(K. S.)

1 See Allg. musik. Ztg. (Leipzig, 1816), p. 506, and Beilage 5, where the construction of
the instruments is described and illustrated and the system of notation shown in various
pieces of music.

JEZEBEL (Heb. ī-zebel, perhaps an artificial form to suggest “un-
exalted,” a divine name or its equivalent would naturally be expected
instead of the first syllable), wife of Ahab, king of Israel (1 Kings xvi. 31),
and mother of Athaliah, in the Bible. Her father Eth-baal (Ithobal, Jos.,
contra Ap. i. 18) was king of Tyre and priest of the goddess Astarte. He had
usurped the throne and was the first important Phoenician king after Hiram
(see Phoenicia). Jezebel, a true daughter of a priest of Astarte, showed
herself hostile to the worship of Yahweh, and to his prophets, whom she
relentlessly pursued (1 Kings xviii. 4-13; see Elijah). She is represented as
a woman of virile character, and became notorious for the part she took in
the matter of Naboth’s vineyard. When the Jezreelite1 sheikh refused to sell
the family inheritance to the king, Jezebel treacherously caused him to be
arrested on a charge of treason, and with the help of false witnesses he was
found guilty and condemned to death. For this the prophet Elijah
pronounced a solemn curse upon Ahab and Jezebel, which was fulfilled
when Jehu, who was anointed king at Elisha’s instigation, killed the son
Jehoram, massacred all the family, and had Jezebel destroyed (1 Kings xxi.;
2 Kings ix. 11-28). What is told of her comes from sources written under
the influence of strong religious bias; among the exaggerations must be
reckoned 1 Kings xviii. 13, which is inconsistent with xix. 18 and xxii. 6. A
literal interpretation of the reference to Jezebel’s idolatry (2 Kings ix. 22)
has made her name a byword for a false prophetess in Rev. ii. 20. Her name

is often used in modern English as a synonym for an abandoned woman or
one who paints her face.
(S. A. C.)

1 According to another tradition Naboth lived at Samaria (xxi. 1 [LXX.], 18 seq.; cf.
xxii. 38). A similar confusion regarding the king’s home appears in 2 Kings x. 11 compared
with vv. 1, 17.

JEZREEL (Heb. “God sows”), the capital of the Israelite monarchy
under Ahab, and the scene of stirring Biblical events (1 Sam. xxix. 1; 1
Kings xxi.; 2 Kings ix. 21-37). The name was also applied to the great plain
(Esdraelon) dominated by the city (“valley of Jezreel,” Josh. xvii. 16, &c.).
The site has never been lost, and the present village Zercīn retains the name
radically unchanged. In Greek (e.g. Judith) the name appears under the
form Ἐσδραηλά; it is Stradela in the Bordeaux Pilgrim, and to the
Crusaders the place was known as Parvum Gerinum. The modern stone
village stands on a bare rocky knoll, 500 ft. above the broad northern valley,
at the north extremity of a long ledge, terminating in steep cliffs, forming
part of the chain of Mt Gilboa. The buildings are modern, but some scanty
remains of rock-hewn wine presses and a few scattered sarcophagi mark the
antiquity of the site. The view over the plains is fine and extensive. It is
vain now to look for Ahab’s palace or Naboth’s vineyard. The fountain
mentioned in 1 Sam. xxix. 1 is perhaps the fine spring ‘Ain el Meiyyita,
north of the village, a shallow pool of good water full of small fish, rising
between black basalt boulders: or more probably the copious ‘Ain Jalūd.

A second city named Jezreel lay in the hill country of Judah, somewhere
near Hebron (Josh. xv. 56). This was the native place of David’s wife
Abinoam (1 Sam. xxv. 43).

See, for an excellent description of the scenery and history of the
Israelite Jezreel, G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. xix.

JHABUA, a native state of Central India, in the Bhopawar agency.
Area, with the dependency of Rutanmal, 1336 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 80,889.
More than half the inhabitants belong to the aboriginal Bhils. Estimated
revenue, £7000; tribute, £1000. Manganese and opium are exported. The
chief, whose title is raja, is a Rajput of the Rathor clan, descended from a
branch of the Jodhpur family. Raja Udai Singh was invested in 1898 with
the powers of administration.

The town of Jhabua (pop. 3354) stands on the bank of a lake, and is
surrounded by a mud wall. A dispensary and a guesthouse were constructed
to commemorate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897.

JHALAWAR, a native state of India, in the Rajputana agency, pop.
(1901), 90,175; estimated revenue, £26,000; tribute, £2000. Area, 810 sq.
m. The ruling family of Jhalawar belongs to the Jhala clan of Rajputs, and
their ancestors were petty chiefs of Halwad in the district of Jhalawar, in
Kathiawar. About 1709 one of the younger sons of the head of the clan left
his country with his son to try his fortunes at Delhi. At Kotah he left his son
Madhu Singh, who soon became a favourite with the maharaja, and
received from him an important post, which became hereditary. On the
death of one of the Kotah rajas (1771), the country was left to the charge of
Zalim Singh, a descendant of Madhu Singh. From that time Zalim Singh
was the real ruler of Kotah. He brought it to a wonderful state of prosperity,
and under his administration, which lasted over forty-five years, the Kotah
territory was respected by all parties. In 1838 it was resolved, with the
consent of the chief of Kotah, to dismember the state, and to create the new
principality of Jhalawar as a separate provision for the descendants of Zalim
Singh. The districts then severed from Kotah were considered to represent
one-third (£120,000) of the income of Kotah; by treaty they acknowledged
the supremacy of the British, and agreed to pay an annual tribute of £8000.
Madan Singh received the title of maharaja rana, and was placed on the
same footing as the other chiefs in Rajputana. He died in 1845. An adopted
son of his successor took the name of Zalim Singh in 1875 on becoming
chief of Jhalawar. He was a minor and was not invested with governing
powers till 1884. Owing to his maladministration, his relations with the
British government became strained, and he was finally deposed in 1896,
“on account of persistent misgovernment and proved unfitness for the
powers of a ruling chief.” He went to live at Benares, on a pension of
£2000; and the administration was placed in the hands of the British
resident. After much consideration, the government resolved in 1897 to
break up the state, restoring the greater part to Kotah, but forming the two
districts of Shahabad and the Chaumahla into a new state, which came into

existence in 1899, and of which Kunwar Bhawani Singh, a descendant of
the original Zalim Singh, was appointed chief.

The chief town is Patan, or Jhalrapatan (pop. 7955), founded close to an
old site by Zalim Singh in 1796, by the side of an artificial lake. It is the
centre of trade, the chief exports of the state being opium, oil-seeds and
cotton. The palace is at the cantonment or chhaoni, 4 m. north. The ancient
site near the town was occupied by the city of Chandrawati, said to have
been destroyed in the time of Aurangzeb. The finest feature of its remains is
the temple of Sitaleswar Mahadeva (c. 600).

JHANG, a town and district of British India, in the Multan division of
the Punjab. The town, which forms one municipality with the newer and
now more important quarter of Maghiana, is about 3 m. from the right bank
of the river Chenab. Founded by Mal Khan, a Sial chieftain, in 1462, it long
formed the capital of a Mahommedan state. Pop. (1901), 24,382. Maghiana
has manufactures of leather, soap and metal ware.

The District of Jhang extends along both sides of the Chenab, including
its confluences with the Jhelum and the Ravi. Area, 3726 sq. m. Pop.
(1901), 378,695, showing an apparent decrease of 13% in the decade, due
to the creation of the district of Lyallpur in 1904. But actually the
population increased by 132% on the old area, owing to the opening of the
Chenab canal and the colonization of the tract irrigated by it. Within Jhang
many thousands of acres of government waste have been allotted to

colonists, who are reported to be flourishing. A branch of the North-Western
railway enters the district in this quarter, extending throughout its entire
length. The Southern Jech Doab railway serves the south. The principal
industries are the ginning, pressing and weaving of cotton.

Jhang contains the ruins of Shorkot, identified with one of the towns
taken by Alexander. In modern times the history of Jhang centres in the
famous clan of Sials, who exercised an extensive sway over a large tract
between Shahpur and Multan, with little dependence on the imperial court
at Delhi, until they finally fell before the all-absorbing power of Ranjit
Singh. The Sials of Jhang are Mahommedans of Rajput descent, whose
ancestor, Rai Shankar of Daranagar, emigrated early in the 13th century
from the Gangetic Doab. In the beginning of the 19th century Maharaja
Ranjit Singh invaded Jhang, and captured the Sial chieftain’s territory. The
latter recovered a small portion afterwards, which he was allowed to retain
on payment of a yearly tribute. In 1847, after the establishment of the
British agency at Lahore, the district came under the charge of the British
government; and in 1848 Ismail Khan, the Sial leader, rendered important
services against the rebel chiefs, for which he received a pension. During
the Mutiny of 1857 the Sial leader again proved his loyalty by serving in
person on the British side. His pension was afterwards increased, and he
obtained the title of khan bahadur, with a small jagir for life.

JHANSI, a city and district of British India, in the Allahabad division
o£ the United Provinces. The city is the centre of the Indian Midland
railway system, whence four lines diverge to Agra, Cawnpore, Allahabad
and Bhopal. Pop. (1901), 55,724. A stone fort crowns a neighbouring rock.
Formerly the capital of a Mahratta principality, which lapsed to the British
in 1853, it was during the Mutiny the scene of disaffection and massacre. It
was then made over to Gwalior, but has been taken back in exchange for
other territory. Even when the city was within Gwalior, the civil
headquarters and the cantonment were at Jhansi Naoabad, under its walls.
Jhansi is the principal centre for the agricultural trade of the district, but its
manufactures are small.

The District of Jhansi was enlarged in 1891 by the incorporation of the
former district of Lalitpur, which extends farther into the hill country,
almost entirely surrounded by native states. Combined area, 3628 sq.m.
Pop. (1901), 616,759 showing a decrease of 10% in the decade, due to the
results of famine. The main line and branches of the Indian Midland railway
serve the district, which forms a portion of the hill country of Bundelkhand,
sloping down from the outliers of the Vindhyan range on the south to the
tributaries of the Jumna on the north. The extreme south is composed of
parallel rows of long and narrow-ridged hills. Through the intervening
valleys the rivers flow down impetuously over ledges of granite or quartz.
North of the hilly region, the rocky granite chains gradually lose themselves
in clusters of smaller hills. The northern portion consists of the level plain
of Bundelkhand, distinguished for its deep black soil, known as mar, and
admirably adapted for the cultivation of cotton. The district is intersected or
bounded by three principal rivers—the Pahuj, Betwa and Dhasan. The
district is much cut up, and portions of it are insulated by the surrounding
native states. The principal crops are millets, cotton, oil-seeds, pulses,
wheat, gram and barley. The destructive kans grass has proved as great a
pest here as elsewhere in Bundelkhand. Jhansi is especially exposed to

blights, droughts, floods, hailstorms, epidemics, and their natural
consequence—famine.

Nothing is known with certainty as to the history of this district before
the period of Chandel rule, about the 11th century of our era. To this epoch
must be referred the artificial reservoirs and architectural remains of the
hilly region. The Chandels were succeeded by their servants the Khangars,
who built the fort of Karar, lying just outside the British border. About the
14th century the Bundelas poured down upon the plains, and gradually
spread themselves over the whole region which now bears their name. The
Mahommedan governors were constantly making irruptions into the
Bundela country; and in 1732 Chhatar Sal, the Bundela chieftain, called in
the aid of the Mahrattas. They came to his assistance with their accustomed
promptitude, and were rewarded on the raja’s death in 1734, by the bequest
of one-third of his dominions. Their general founded the city of Jhansi, and
peopled it with inhabitants from Orchha state. In 1806 British protection
was promised to the Mahratta chief, and in 1817 the peshwa ceded to the
East India Company all his rights over Bundelkhand. In 1853 the raja died
childless, and his territories lapsed to the British. The Jhansi state and the
Jalaun and Chanderi districts were then formed into a superintendency. The
widow of the raja considered herself aggrieved because she was not allowed
to adopt an heir, and because the slaughter of cattle was permitted in the
Jhansi territory. Reports were spread which excited the religious prejudices
of the Hindus. The events of 1857 accordingly found Jhansi ripe for mutiny.
In June a few men of the 12th native infantry seized the fort containing the
treasure and magazine, and massacred the European officers of the garrison.
Everywhere the usual anarchic quarrels rose among the rebels, and the
country was plundered mercilessly. The rani put herself at the head of the
rebels, and died bravely in battle. It was not till November 1858, after a
series of sharp contests with various guerilla leaders, that the work of
reorganization was fairly set on foot.

JHELUM, or Jehlam (Hydaspes of the Greeks), a river of northern
India. It is the most westerly of the “five rivers” of the Punjab. It rises in the
north-east of the Kashmir state, flows through the city of Srinagar and the
Wular lake, issues through the Pir Panjal range by the narrow pass of
Baramula, and enters British territory in the Jhelum district. Thence it flows
through the plains of the Punjab, forming the boundary between the Jech
Doab and the Sind Sagar Doab, and finally joins the Chenab at Timmu after
a course of 450 miles. The Jhelum colony, in the Shahpur district of the
Punjab, formed on the example of the Chenab colony in 1901, is designed
to contain a total irrigable area of 1,130,000 acres. The Jhelum canal is a
smaller work than the Chenab canal, but its silt is noted for its fertilizing
qualities. Both projects have brought great prosperity to the cultivators.

JHELUM, or Jehlam, a town and district of British India, in the
Rawalpindi division of the Punjab. The town is situated on the right bank of
the river Jhelum, here crossed by a bridge of the North-Western railway,
103 m. N. of Lahore. Pop. (1901), 14,951. It is a modern town with river

and railway trade (principally in timber from Kashmir), boat-building and
cantonments for a cavalry and four infantry regiments.

The District of Jehlum stretches from the river Jhelum almost to the
Indus. Area, 2813 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 501,424, showing a decrease of 2% in
the decade. Salt is quarried at the Mayo mine in the Salt Range. There are
two coal-mines, the only ones worked in the province, from which the
North-Western railway obtains part of its supply of coal. The chief centre of
the salt trade is Pind Dadan Khan (pop. 13,770). The district is crossed by
the main line of the North-Western railway, and also traversed along the
south by a branch line. The river Jhelum is navigable throughout the
district, which forms the south-eastern portion of a rugged Himalayan spur,
extending between the Indus and Jhelum to the borders of the Sind Sagar
Doab. Its scenery is very picturesque, although not of so wild a character as
the mountain region of Rawalpindi to the north, and is lighted up in places
by smiling patches of cultivated valley. The backbone of the district is
formed by the Salt Range, a treble line of parallel hills running in three long
forks from east to west throughout its whole breadth. The range rises in
bold precipices, broken by gorges, clothed with brushwood and traversed by
streams which are at first pure, but soon become impregnated with the
saline matter over which they pass. Between the line of hills lies a
picturesque table-land, in which the beautiful little lake of Kallar Kahar
nestles amongst the minor ridges. North of the Salt Range, the country
extends upwards in an elevated plateau, diversified by countless ravines and
fissures, until it loses itself in tangled masses of Rawalpindi mountains. In
this rugged tract cultivation is rare and difficult, the soil being choked with
saline matter. At the foot of the Salt Range, however, a small strip of level
soil lies along the banks of the Jhelum, and is thickly dotted with
prosperous villages. The drainage of the district is determined by a low
central watershed running north and south at right angles to the Salt Range.
The waters of the western portion find their way into the Sohan, and finally

into the Indus; those of the opposite slope collect themselves into small
torrents, and empty themselves into the Jhelum.

The history of the district dates back to the semi-mythical period of the
Mahābhārata. Hindu tradition represents the Salt Range as the refuge of the
five Pandava brethren during the period of their exile, and every salient
point in its scenery is connected with some legend of the national heroes.
Modern research has fixed the site of the conflict between Alexander and
Porus as within Jhelum district, although the exact point at which Alexander
effected the passage of the Jhelum (or Hydaspes) is disputed. After this
event, we have little information with regard to the condition of the district
until the Mahommedan conquest brought back literature and history to
Upper India. The Janjuahs and Jats, who now hold the Salt Range and its
northern plateau respectively, appear to have been the earliest inhabitants.
The Ghakkars seem to represent an early wave of conquest from the east,
and they still inhabit the whole eastern slope of the district; while the
Awans, who now cluster in the western plain, are apparently later invaders
from the opposite quarter. The Ghakkars were the dominant race at the
period of the first Mahommedan incursions, and long continued to retain
their independence. During the flourishing period of the Mogul dynasty, the
Ghakkar chieftains were prosperous and loyal vassals of the house of
Baber; but after the collapse of the Delhi Empire Jhelum fell, like its
neighbours, under the sway of the Sikhs. In 1765 Gujar Singh defeated the
last independent Ghakkar prince, and reduced the wild mountaineers to
subjection. His son succeeded to his dominions, until 1810, when he fell
before the irresistible power of Ranjit Singh. In 1849 the district passed,
with the rest of the Sikh territories, into the hands of the British.

JHERING, RUDOLF VON (1818-1892), German jurist, was
born on the 22nd of August 1818 at Aurich in East Friesland, where his
father practised as a lawyer. Young Jhering entered the university of
Heidelberg in 1836 and, after the fashion of German students, visited
successively Göttingen and Berlin. G. F. Puchta, the author of Geschichte
des Rechts bei dem römischen Volke, alone of all his teachers appears to
have gained his admiration and influenced the bent of his mind. After
graduating doctor juris, Jhering established himself in 1844 at Berlin as
privatdocent for Roman law, and delivered public lectures on the Geist des
römischen Rechts, the theme which may be said to have constituted his
life’s work. In 1845 he became an ordinary professor at Basel, in 1846 at
Rostock, in 1849 at Kiel, and in 1851 at Giessen. Upon all these seats of
learning he left his mark; beyond any other of his contemporaries he
animated the dry bones of Roman law. The German juristic world was still
under the dominating influence of the Savigny cult, and the older school
looked askance at the daring of the young professor, who essayed to adapt
the old to new exigencies and to build up a system of natural jurisprudence.
This is the keynote of his famous work, Geist des römischen Rechts auf den
verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwickelung (1852-1865), which for
originality of conception and lucidity of scientific reasoning placed its
author in the forefront of modern Roman jurists. It is no exaggeration to say
that in the second half of the 19th century the reputation of Jhering was as
high as that of Savigny in the first. Their methods were almost diametrically

opposed. Savigny and his school represented the conservative, historical
tendency. In Jhering the philosophical conception of jurisprudence, as a
science to be utilized for the further advancement of the moral and social
interests of mankind, was predominant. In 1868 Jhering accepted the chair
of Roman Law at Vienna, where his lecture-room was crowded, not only
with regular students but with men of all professions and even of the
highest ranks in the official world. He became one of the lions of society,
the Austrian emperor conferring upon him in 1872 a title of hereditary
nobility. But to a mind constituted like his, the social functions of the
Austrian metropolis became wearisome, and he gladly exchanged its
brilliant circles for the repose of Göttingen, where he became professor in
1872. In this year he had read at Vienna before an admiring audience a
lecture, published under the title of Der Kampf um’s Recht (1872; Eng.
trans., Battle for Right, 1884). Its success was extraordinary. Within two
years it attained twelve editions, and it has been translated into twenty-six
languages. This was followed a few years later by Der Zweck im Recht (2
vols., 1877-1883). In these two works is clearly seen Jhering’s individuality.
The Kampf um’s Recht shows the firmness of his character, the strength of
his sense of justice, and his juristic method and logic: “to assert his rights is
the duty that every responsible person owes to himself.” In the Zweck im
Recht is perceived the bent of the author’s intellect. But perhaps the
happiest combination of all his distinctive characteristics is to be found in
his Jurisprudenz des täglichen Lebens (1870; Eng. trans., 1904). A great
feature of his lectures was his so-called Praktika, problems in Roman law,
and a collection of these with hints for solution was published as early as
1847 under the title Civilrechtsfälle ohne Entscheidungen. In Göttingen he
continued to work until his death on the 17th of September 1892. A short
time previously he had been the centre of a devoted crowd of friends and
former pupils, assembled at Wilhelmshöhe near Cassel to celebrate the
jubilee of his doctorate. Almost all countries were worthily represented, and

this pilgrimage affords an excellent illustration of the extraordinary
fascination and enduring influence that Jhering commanded. In appearance
he was of middle stature, his face clean-shaven and of classical mould, lit
up with vivacity and beaming with good nature. He was perhaps seen at his
best when dispensing hospitality in his own house. With him died the best
beloved and the most talented of Roman-law professors of modern times. It
was said of him by Professor Adolf Merkel in a memorial address, R. v.
Jhering (1893), that he belonged to the happy class of persons to whom
Goethe’s lines are applicable: “Was ich in der Jugend gewünscht, das habe
ich im Alter die Fülle,” and this may justly be said of him, though he did
not live to complete his Geist des römischen Rechts and his
Rechtsgeschichte. For this work the span of a single life would have been
insufficient, but what he has left to the world is a monument of vigorous
intellectual power and stamps Jhering as an original thinker and unrivalled
exponent (in his peculiar interpretation) of the spirit of Roman law.

Among others of his works, all of them characteristic of the author
and sparkling with wit, may be mentioned the following: Beiträge zur
Lehre von Besitz, first published in the Jahrbücher für die Dogmatik
des heutigen römischen und deutschen Privat-rechts, and then
separately; Der Besitzwille, and an article entitled “Besitz” in the
Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften (1891), which aroused at
the time much controversy, particularly on account of the opposition
manifested to Savigny’s conception of the subject. See also Scherz und
Ernst in der Jurisprudenz (1885); Das Schuldmoment im römischen
Privat-recht (1867); Das Trinkgeld (1882); and among the papers he
left behind him his Vorgeschichte der Indoeuropäer, a fragment, has
been published by v. Ehrenberg (1894). See for an account of his life
also M. de Jonge, Rudolf v. Jhering (1888); and A. Merkel, Rudolf von
Jhering (1893).
(P. A. A.)

JIBITOS, a tribe of South American Indians, first met with by the
Franciscans in 1676 in the forest near the Huallaga river, in the Peruvian
province of Loreto. After their conversion they settled in villages on the
western bank of the river.

JIBUTI (Djibouti), the chief port and capital of French Somaliland, in
11° 35′ N., 43° 10′ E. Jibuti is situated at the entrance to and on the southern
shore of the Gulf of Tajura about 150 m. S.W. of Aden. The town is built on
a horseshoe-shaped peninsula partly consisting of mud flats, which are
spanned by causeways. The chief buildings are the governor’s palace,
customs-house, post office, and the terminal station of the railway to
Abyssinia. The houses in the European quarter are built of stone, are flat-
roofed and provided with verandas. There is a good water supply, drawn
from a reservoir about 2½ m. distant. The harbour is land-locked and
capacious. Ocean steamers are able to enter it at all states of wind and tide.
Adjoining the mainland is the native town, consisting mostly of roughly
made wooden houses with well thatched roofs. In it is held a large market,

chiefly for the disposal of live stock, camels, cattle, &c. The port is a
regular calling-place and also a coaling station for the steamers of the
Messageries Maritimes, and there is a local service to Aden. Trade is
confined to coaling passing ships and to importing goods for and exporting
goods from southern Abyssinia via Harrar, there being no local industries.
(For statistics see Somaliland, French.) The inhabitants are of many races
—Somali, Danakil, Gallas, Armenians, Jews, Arabs, Indians, besides
Greeks, Italians, French and other Europeans. The population, which in
1900 when the railway was building was about 15,000, had fallen in 1907
to some 5000 or 6000, including 300 Europeans.

Jibuti was founded by the French in 1888 in consequence of its
superiority to Obok both in respect to harbour accommodation and in
nearness to Harrar. It has been the seat of the governor of the colony since
May 1896. Order is maintained by a purely native police force. The port is
not fortified.

JICARILLA, a tribe of North American Indians of Athapascan
stock. Their former range was in New Mexico, about the headwaters of the
Rio Grande and the Pecos, and they are now settled in a reservation on the
northern border of New Mexico. Originally a scourge of the district, they
are now subdued, but remain uncivilized. They number some 800 and are
steadily decreasing. The name is said to be from the Spanish jicara, a
basket tray, in reference to their excellent basket-work.

JIDDA (also written Jeddah, Djiddah, Djeddeh), a town in Arabia on
the Red Sea coast in 21° 28′ N. and 39° 10′ E. It is of importance mainly as
the principal landing place of pilgrims to Mecca, from which it is about 46
m. distant. It is situated in a low sandy plain backed by a range of hills 10
m. to the east, with higher mountains behind. The town extends along the
beach for about a mile, and is enclosed by a wall with towers at intervals,
the seaward angles being commanded by two forts, in the northern of which
are the prison and other public buildings. There are three gates, the Medina
gate on the north, the Mecca gate on the east, and the Yemen gate (rarely
opened) on the south; there are also three small posterns on the west side,
the centre one leading to the quay. In front of the Mecca gate is a rambling
suburb with shops, coffee houses, and an open market place; before the
Medina gate are the Turkish barracks, and beyond them the holy place of
Jidda, the tomb of “our mother Eve,” surrounded by the principal cemetery.

The tomb is a walled enclosure said to represent the dimensions of
the body, about 200 paces long and 15 ft. broad. At the head is a small
erection where gifts are deposited, and rather more than half-way down
a whitewashed dome encloses a small dark chapel within which is the
black stone known as El Surrah, the navel. The grave of Eve is
mentioned by Edrisi, but except the black stone nothing bears any
aspect of antiquity (see Burton’s Pilgrimage, vol. ii.).

The sea face is the best part of the town; the houses there are lofty and
well built of the rough coral that crops out all along the shore. The streets
are narrow and winding. There are two mosques of considerable size and a
number of smaller ones. The outer suburbs are merely collections of
brushwood huts. The bazaars are well supplied with food-stuffs imported by
sea, and fruit and vegetables from Taif and Wadi Fatima. The water supply
is limited and brackish; there are, however, two sweet wells and a spring 7½
m. from the town, and most of the houses have cisterns for storing rain-
water. The climate is hot and damp, but fever is not so prevalent as at
Mecca. The harbour though inconvenient of access is well protected by
coral reefs; there are, however, no wharves or other dock facilities and
cargo is landed in small Arab boats, sambuks.

The governor is a Turkish kaimakam under the vali of Hejaz, and there is
a large Turkish garrison; the sharif of Mecca, however, through his agent at
Jidda exercises an authority practically superior to that of the sultan’s
officials. Consulates are maintained by Great Britain, France, Austria,
Russia, Holland, Belgium and Persia. The permanent population is
estimated at 20,000, of which less than half are Arabs, and of these a large
number are foreigners from Yemen and Hadramut, the remainder are
negroes and Somali with a few Indian and Greek traders.

Jidda is said to have been founded by Persian merchants in the caliphate
of Othman, but its great commercial prosperity dates from the beginning of
the 15th century when it became the centre of trade between Egypt and
India. Down to the time of Burckhardt (1815) the Suez ships went no
farther than Jidda, where they were met by Indian vessels. The introduction
of steamers deprived Jidda of its place as an emporium, not only for Indian
goods but for the products of the Red Sea, which formerly were collected
here, but are now largely exported direct by steamer from Hodeda, Suakin,
Jibuti and Aden. At the same time it gave a great impulse to the pilgrim

traffic which is now regarded as the annual harvest of Jidda. The average
number of pilgrims arriving by sea exceeds 50,000, and in 1903-1904 the
total came to 74,600. The changed status of the port is shown in its trade
returns, for while its exports decreased from £250,000 in 1880 to £25,000 in
1904, its imports in the latter year amounted to over £1,400,000. The
adverse balance of trade is paid by a very large export of specie, collected
from the pilgrims during their stay in the country.

JIG, a brisk lively dance, the quick and irregular steps of which have
varied at different times and in the various countries in which it has been
danced (see Dance). The music of the “jig,” or such as is written in its
rhythm, is in various times and has been used frequently to finish a suite,
e.g. by Bach and Handel. The word has usually been derived from or
connected with Fr. gigue, Ital. giga, Ger. Geige, a fiddle. The French and
Italian words are now chiefly used of the dance or dance rhythm, and in this
sense have been taken by etymologists as adapted from the English “jig,”
which may have been originally an onomatopoeic word. The idea of
jumping, jerking movement has given rise to many applications of “jig” and
its derivative “jigger” to mechanical and other devices, such as the machine
used for separating the heavier metal-bearing portions from the lighter parts
in ore-dressing, or a tackle consisting of a double and single block and fall,
&c. The word “jigger,” a corruption of the West Indian chigoe, is also used
as the name of a species of flea, the Sarcopsylla penetrans, which burrows

and lays its eggs in the human foot, generally under the toe nails, and
causes great swelling and irritation (see Flea).

JIHAD (also written Jehad, Jahad, Djehad), an Arabic word of which
the literal meaning is an effort or a contest. It is used to designate the
religious duty inculcated in the Koran on the followers of Mahomet to wage
war upon those who do not accept the doctrines of Islam. This duty is laid
down in five suras—all of these suras belonging to the period after
Mahomet had established his power. Conquered peoples who will neither
embrace Islam nor pay a poll-tax (jizya) are to be put to the sword. (See
further Mohammedan Institutions.) By Mahommedan commentators the
commands in the Koran are not interpreted as a general injunction on all
Moslems constantly to make war on the infidels. It is generally supposed
that the order for a general war can only be given by the caliph (an office
now claimed by the sultans of Turkey). Mahommedans who do not
acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Ottoman sultan, such as the
Persians and Moors, look to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad;
there has been in fact no universal warfare by Moslems on unbelievers
since the early days of Mahommedanism. Jihads are generally proclaimed
by all persons who claim to be mahdis, e.g. Mahommed Aḥmad (the
Sudanese mahdi) proclaimed a jihad in 1882. In the belief of Moslems
every one of their number slain in a jihad is taken straight to paradise.

JIMENES (or Ximenes) DE CISNEROS, FRANCISCO
(1436-1517), Spanish cardinal and statesman, was born in 1436 at
Torrelaguna in Castile, of good but poor family. He studied at Alcalá de
Henares and afterwards at Salamanca; and in 1459, having entered holy
orders, he went to Rome. Returning to Spain in 1465, he brought with him
an “expective” letter from the pope, in virtue of which he took possession
of the archpriestship of Uzeda in the diocese of Toledo in 1473. Carillo,
archbishop of Toledo, opposed him, and on his obstinate refusal to give way
threw him into prison. For six years Jimenes held out, and at length in 1480
Carillo restored him to his benefice. This Jimenes exchanged almost at once
for a chaplaincy at Siguenza, under Cardinal Mendoza, bishop of Siguenza,
who shortly appointed him vicar-general of his diocese. In that position
Jimenes won golden opinions from ecclesiastic and layman; and he seemed
to be on the sure road to distinction among the secular clergy, when he
abruptly resolved to become a monk. Throwing up all his benefices, and
changing his baptismal name Gonzales for that of Francisco, he entered the
Franciscan monastery of San Juan de los Reyes, recently founded by
Ferdinand and Isabella at Toledo. Not content with the ordinary severities of
the noviciate, he added voluntary austerities. He slept on the bare ground,
wore a hair-shirt, doubled his fasts, and scourged himself with much
fervour; indeed throughout his whole life, even when at the acme of his
greatness, his private life was most rigorously ascetic. The report of his
sanctity brought crowds to confess to him; but from them he retired to the

lonely monastery of Our Lady of Castañar; and he even built with his own
hands a rude hut in the neighbouring woods, in which he lived at times as
an anchorite. He was afterwards guardian of a monastery at Salzeda.
Meanwhile Mendoza (now archbishop of Toledo) had not forgotten him;
and in 1492 he recommended him to Isabella as her confessor. The queen
sent for Jimenes, was pleased with him, and to his great reluctance forced
the office upon him. The post was politically important, for Isabella
submitted to the judgment of her father-confessor not only her private
affairs but also matters of state. Jimenes’s severe sanctity soon won him
considerable influence over Isabella; and thus it was that he first emerged
into political life. In 1494 the queen’s confessor was appointed provincial of
the order of St Francis, and at once set about reducing the laxity of the
conventual to the strictness of the observantine Franciscans. Intense
opposition was continued even after Jimenes became archbishop of Toledo.
The general of the order himself came from Rome to interfere with the
archbishop’s measures of reform, but the stern inflexibility of Jimenes,
backed by the influence of the queen, subdued every obstacle. Cardinal
Mendoza had died in 1495, and Isabella had secretly procured a papal bull
nominating her confessor to his diocese of Toledo, the richest and most
powerful in Spain, second perhaps to no other dignity of the Roman Church
save the papacy. Long and sincerely Jimenes strove to evade the honour;
but his nolo episcopari was after six months overcome by a second bull
ordering him to accept consecration. With the primacy of Spain was
associated the lofty dignity of high chancellor of Castile; but Jimenes still
maintained his lowly life; and, although a message from Rome required him
to live in a style befitting his rank, the outward pomp only concealed his
private asceticism. In 1499 Jimenes accompanied the court to Granada, and
there eagerly joined the mild and pious Archbishop Talavera in his efforts to
convert the Moors. Talavera had begun with gentle measures, but Jimenes
preferred to proceed by haranguing the fakihs, or doctors of religion, and

loading them with gifts. Outwardly the latter method was successful; in two
months the converts were so numerous that they had to be baptized by
aspersion. The indignation of the unconverted Moors swelled into open
revolt. Jimenes was besieged in his house, and the utmost difficulty was
found in quieting the city. Baptism or exile was offered to the Moors as a
punishment for rebellion. The majority accepted baptism; and Isabella, who
had been momentarily annoyed at her archbishop’s imprudence, was
satisfied that he had done good service to Christianity.

On the 24th of November 1504 Isabella died. Ferdinand at once resigned
the title of king of Castile in favour of his daughter Joan and her husband
the archduke Philip, assuming instead that of regent. Philip was keenly
jealous of Ferdinand’s pretensions to the regency; and it required all the tact
of Jimenes to bring about a friendly interview between the princes.
Ferdinand finally retired from Castile; and, though Jimenes remained, his
political weight was less than before. The sudden death of Philip in
September 1506 quite overset the already tottering intellect of his wife; his
son and heir Charles was still a child; and Ferdinand was at Naples. The
nobles of Castile, mutually jealous, agreed to entrust affairs to the
archbishop of Toledo, who, moved more by patriotic regard for his
country’s welfare than by special friendship for Ferdinand, strove to
establish the final influence of that king in Castile. Ferdinand did not return
till August 1507; and he brought a cardinal’s hat for Jimenes. Shortly
afterwards the new cardinal of Spain was appointed grand inquisitor-
general for Castile and Leon.

The next great event in the cardinal’s life was the expedition against the
Moorish city of Oran in the north of Africa, in which his religious zeal was
supported by the prospect of the political and material gain that would
accrue to Spain from the possession of such a station. A preliminary
expedition, equipped, like that which followed, at the expense of Jimenes,

captured the port of Mers-el-Kebir in 1505; and in 1509 a strong force,
accompanied by the cardinal in person, set sail for Africa, and in one day
the wealthy city was taken by storm. Though the army remained to make
fresh conquests, Jimenes returned to Spain, and occupied himself with the
administration of his diocese, and in endeavouring to recover from the
regent the expenses of his Oran expedition. On the 28th of January 1516
Ferdinand died, leaving Jimenes as regent of Castile for Charles (afterwards
Charles V.), then a youth of sixteen in the Netherlands. Though Jimenes at
once took firm hold of the reins of government, and ruled in a determined
and even autocratic manner, the haughty and turbulent Castilian nobility
and the jealous intriguing Flemish councillors of Charles combined to
render his position peculiarly difficult; while the evils consequent upon the
unlimited demands of Charles for money threw much undeserved odium
upon the regent. In violation of the laws, Jimenes acceded to Charles’s
desire to be proclaimed king; he secured the person of Charles’s younger
brother Ferdinand; he fixed the seat of the cortes at Madrid; and he
established a standing army by drilling the citizens of the great towns.
Immediately on Ferdinand’s death, Adrian, dean of Louvain, afterwards
pope, produced a commission from Charles appointing him regent. Jimenes
admitted him to a nominal equality, but took care that neither he nor the
subsequent commissioners of Charles ever had any real share of power. In
September 1517 Charles landed in the province of Asturias, and Jimenes
hastened to meet him. On the way, however, he fell ill, not without a
suspicion of poison. While thus feeble, he received a letter from Charles
coldly thanking him for his services, and giving him leave to retire to his
diocese. A few hours after this virtual dismissal, which some, however, say
the cardinal never saw, Francisco Jimenes died at Roa, on the 8th of
November 1517.

Jimenes was a bold and determined statesman. Sternly and inflexibly,
with a confidence that became at times overbearing, he carried through

what he had decided to be right, with as little regard for the convenience of
others as for his own. In the midst of a corrupt clergy his morals were
irreproachable. He was liberal to all, and founded and maintained very
many benevolent institutions in his diocese. His whole time was devoted
either to the state or to religion; his only recreation was in theological or
scholastic discussion. Perhaps one of the most noteworthy points about the
cardinal is the advanced period of life at which he entered upon the stage
where he was to play such leading parts. Whether his abrupt change from
the secular to the regular clergy was the fervid outcome of religious
enthusiasm or the far-seeing move of a wily schemer has been disputed; but
the constant austerity of his life, his unvarying superiority to small personal
aims, are arguments for the former alternative that are not to be met by
merely pointing to the actual honours and power he at last attained.

In 1500 was founded, and in 1508 was opened, the university of
Alcalá de Henares, which, fostered by Cardinal Jimenes, at whose sole
expense it was raised, attained a great pitch of outward magnificence
and internal worth. At one time 7000 students met within its walls. In
1836 the university was removed to Madrid, and the costly buildings
were left vacant. In the hopes of supplanting the romances generally
found in the hands of the young, Jimenes caused to be published
religious treatises by himself and others. He revived also the Mozarabic
liturgy, and endowed a chapel at Toledo, in which it was to be used.
But his most famous literary service was the printing at Alcalá (in Latin
Complutum) of the Complutensian Polyglott, the first edition of the
Christian Scriptures in the original text. In this work, on which he is
said to have expended half a million of ducats, the cardinal was aided
by the celebrated Stunica (D. Lopez de Zuñiga), the Greek scholar
Nuñez de Guzman (Pincianus), the Hebraist Vergara, and the humanist
Nebrija, by a Cretan Greek Demetrius Ducas, and by three Jewish
converts, of whom Zamora edited the Targum to the Pentateuch. The

other Targums are not included. In the Old Testament Jerome’s version
stands between the Greek and Hebrew. The synagogue and the Eastern
church, as the preface expresses it, are set like the thieves on this side
and on that, with Jesus (that is, the Roman Church) in the midst. The
text occupies five volumes, and a sixth contains a Hebrew lexicon, &c.
The work commenced in 1502. The New Testament was finished in
January 1514, and the whole in April 1517. It was dedicated to Leo X.,
and was reprinted in 1572 by the Antwerp firm of Plantin, after
revision by Benito Arias Montano at the expense of Philip II. The
second edition is known as the Biblia Regia or Filipina.

The work by Alvaro Gomez de Castro, De Rebus Gestis Francisci
Ximenii (folio, 1659, Alcalá), is the quarry whence have come the
materials for biographies of Jimenes—in Spanish by Robles (1604) and
Quintanilla (1633); in French by Baudier (1635), Marsollier (1684),
Flèchier (1694) and Richard (1704); in German by Hefele (1844,
translated into English by Canon Dalton, 1860) and Havemann (1848);
and in English by Barrett (1813). See also Prescott’s Ferdinand and
Isabella; Revue des Deux Mondes (May 1841) and Mém. de l’Acad.
d’hist. de Madrid, vol. iv.

JIND, a native state of India, within the Punjab. It ranks as one of the
Cis-Sutlej states, which came under British influence in 1809. The territory
consists of three isolated tracts, amid British districts. Total area, 1332 sq.
m. Pop. (1901), 282,003, showing a decrease of 1% in the decade.

Estimated gross revenue £109,000; there is no tribute. Grain and cotton are
exported, and there are manufactures of gold and silver ornaments, leather
and wooden wares and cloth. The chief, whose title is raja, is a Sikh of the
Sidhu Jat clan and of the Phulkian family. The principality was founded in
1763, and the chief was recognized by the Mogul emperor in 1768. The
dynasty has always been famous for its loyalty to the British, especially
during the Mutiny, which has been rewarded with accessions of territory. In
1857 the raja of Jind was actually the first man, European or native, who
took the field against the mutineers; and his contingent collected supplies in
advance for the British troops marching upon Delhi, besides rendering
excellent service during the siege. Raja Ranbir Singh succeeded as a minor
in 1887, and was granted full powers in 1899. During the Tirah expedition
of 1897-98 the Jind imperial service infantry specially distinguished
themselves. The town of Jind, the former capital, has a station on the
Southern Punjab railway, 80 m. N.W. of Delhi. Pop. (1901), 8047. The
present capital and residence of the raja since 1827 is Sangrur; pop. (1901),
11,852.

JINGO, a legendary empress of Japan, wife of Chūai, the 14th mikado
(191-200). On her husband’s death she assumed the government, and fitted
out an army for the invasion of Korea (see Japan, § 9). She returned to
Japan completely victorious after three years’ absence. Subsequently her
son Ojen Tenno, afterwards 15th mikado, was born, and later was canonized

as Hachiman, god of war. The empress Jingo ruled over Japan till 270. She
is still worshipped.

As regards the English oath, usually “By Jingo,” or “By the living Jingo,”
the derivation is doubtful. The identification with the name of Gingulph or
Gengulphus, a Burgundian saint who was martyred on the 11th of May 760,
was a joke on the part of R. H. Barham, author of the Ingoldsby Legends.
Some explain the word as a corruption of Jainko, the Basque name for God.
It has also been derived from the Persia jang (war), St Jingo being the
equivalent of the Latin god of war, Mars; and is even explained as a
corruption of “Jesus, Son of God,” Je-n-go. In support of the Basque
derivation it is alleged that the oath was first common in Wales, to aid in the
conquest of which Edward I. imported a number of Basque mercenaries.
The phrase does not, however, appear in literature before the 17th century,
first as conjurer’s jargon. Motteux, in his “Rabelais,” is the first to use “by
jingo,” translating par dieu. The political use of the word as indicating an
aggressive patriotism (Jingoes and Jingoism) originated in 1877 during the
weeks of national excitement preluding the despatch of the British
Mediterranean squadron to Gallipoli, thus frustrating Russian designs on
Constantinople. While the public were on the tiptoe of expectation as to
what policy the government would pursue, a bellicose music-hall song with
the refrain “We don’t want to fight, but by Jingo if we do,” &c., was
produced in London by a singer known as “the great MacDermott,” and
instantly became very popular. Thus the war-party came to be called
Jingoes, and Jingoism has ever since been the term applied to those who
advocate a national policy of arrogance and pugnacity.

For a discussion of the etymology of Jingo see Notes and Queries,
(August 25, 1894), 8th series, p. 149.

JINN (Djinn), the name of a class of spirits (genii) in Arabian
mythology. They are the offspring of fire, but in their form and the
propagation of their kind they resemble human beings. They are ruled by a
race of kings named “Suleyman,” one of whom is considered to have built
the pyramids. Their central home is the mountain Kāf, and they manifest
themselves to men under both animal and mortal form and become invisible
at will. There are good and evil jinn, and these in each case reach the
extremes of beauty and ugliness.

JIREČEK, JOSEF (1825-1888), Czech scholar, was born at
Vysoké Mýto in Bohemia on the 9th of October 1825. He entered the
Prague bureau of education in 1850, and became minister of the department
in the Hohenwart cabinet in 1871. His efforts to secure equal educational
privileges for the Slav nationalities in the Austrian dominions brought him
into disfavour with the German element. He became a member of the
Bohemian Landtag in 1878, and of the Austrian Reichsrat in 1879. His
merits as a scholar were recognized in 1875 by his election as president of

the royal Bohemian academy of sciences. He died in Prague on the 25th of
November 1888.

With Hermenegild Jireček he defended in 1862 the genuineness of
the Königinhof MS. discovered by Wenceslaus Hanka. He published in
the Czech language an anthology of Czech literature (3 vols., 1858-
1861), a biographical dictionary of Czech writers (2 vols., 1875-1876),
a Czech hymnology, editions of Blahoslaw’s Czech grammar and of
some Czech classics, and of the works of his father-in-law Pavel Josef
Šafařik (1795-1861).

His brother Hermenegild Jireček, Ritter von Samakow (1827- ),
Bohemian jurisconsult, who was born at Vysoké Mýto on the 13th of April
1827, was also an official in the education department.

Among his important works on Slavonic law were Codex juris
bohemici (11 parts, 1867-1892), and a Collection of Slav Folk-Law
(Czech, 1880), Slav Law in Bohemia and Moravia down to the 14th
Century (Czech, 3 vols. 1863-1873).

Jireček, Konstantin Josef (1854- ), son of Josef, taught history at
Prague. He entered the Bulgarian service in 1879, and in 1881 became
minister of education at Sofia. In 1884 he became professor of universal
history in Czech at Prague, and in 1893 professor of Slavonic antiquities at
Vienna.

The bulk of Konstantin’s writings deal with the history of the
southern Slavs and their literature. They include a History of the
Bulgars (Czech and German, 1876), The Principality of Bulgaria
(1891), Travels in Bulgaria (Czech, 1888), &c.

JIZAKH, a town of Russian Central Asia, in the province of
Samarkand, on the Transcaspian railway, 71 m. N.E. of the city of
Samarkand. Pop. (1897), 16,041. As a fortified post of Bokhara it was
captured by the Russians in 1866.

JOAB (Heb. “Yah[weh] is a father”), in the Bible, the son of Zeruiah,
David’s sister (1 Chron. ii. 16). His brothers were Asahel and Abishai. All
three were renowned warriors and played a prominent part in David’s
history. Abishai on one occasion saved the king’s life from a Philistine giant
(2 Sam. xxi. 17), and Joab as warrior and statesman was directly
responsible for much of David’s success. Joab won his spurs, according to
one account, by capturing Jerusalem (1 Chron. xi. 4-9); with Abishai and
Ittai of Gath he led a small army against the Israelites who had rebelled
under Absalom (2 Sam. xviii. 2); and he superintended the campaign
against Ammon and Edom (2 Sam. xi. 1, xii. 26; 1 Kings xi. 15). He
showed his sturdy character by urging the king after the death of Absalom
to place his duty to his people before his grief for the loss of his favourite

son (2 Sam. xix. 1-8), and by protesting against David’s proposal to number
the people, an innovation which may have been regarded as an infringement
of their liberties (2 Sam. xxiv.; 1 Chron. xxi. 6).

The hostility of the “sons of Zeruiah” towards the tribe of Benjamin
is characteristically contrasted with David’s own generosity towards
Saul’s fallen house. Abishai proposed to kill Saul when David surprised
him asleep (1 Sam. xxvi. 8), and was anxious to slay Shimei when he
cursed the king (2 Sam. xvi. 9). But David was resigned to the will of
Yahweh and refused to entertain the suggestions. After Asahel met his
death at the hands of Abner, Joab expostulated with David for not
taking revenge upon the guilty one, and indeed the king might be
considered bound in honour to take up his nephew’s cause. But when
Joab himself killed Abner, David’s imprecation against him and his
brother Abishai showed that he dissociated himself from the act of
vengeance, although it brought him nearer to the throne of all Israel (2
Sam. iii.). Fear of a possible rival may have influenced Joab, and this at
all events led him to slay Amasa of Judah (2 Sam. xx. 4-13). The two
deeds are similar, and the impression left by them is expressed in
David’s last charges to Solomon (1 Kings ii.). But here Joab had taken
the side of Adonijah against Solomon, and was put to death by Benaiah
at Solomon’s command, and it is possible that the charges are the fruit
of a later tradition to remove all possible blame from Solomon (q.v.). It
is singular that Joab is not blamed for killing Absalom, but it would
indeed be strange if the man who helped to reconcile father and son (2
Sam. xiv.) should have perpetrated so cruel an act in direct opposition
to the king’s wishes (xviii. 5, 10-16). A certain animus against Joab’s
family thus seems to underlie some of the popular narratives of the life
of David (q.v.).
(S. A. C.)

JOACHIM OF FLORIS (c. 1145-1202), so named from the
monastery of San Giovanni in Fiore, of which he was abbot, Italian mystic
theologian, was born at Celico, near Cosenza, in Calabria. He was of noble
birth and was brought up at the court of Duke Roger of Apulia. At an early
age he went to visit the holy places. After seeing his comrades decimated by
the plague at Constantinople he resolved to change his mode of life, and, on
his return to Italy, after a rigorous pilgrimage and a period of ascetic retreat,
became a monk in the Cistercian abbey of Casamari. In August 1177 we
know that he was abbot of the monastery of Corazzo, near Martirano. In
1183 he went to the court of Pope Lucius III. at Veroli, and in 1185 visited
Urban III. at Verona. There is extant a letter of Pope Clement III., dated the
8th of June 1188, in which Clement alludes to two of Joachim’s works, the
Concordia and the Expositio in Apocalypsin, and urges him to continue
them. Joachim, however, was unable to continue his abbatial functions in
the midst of his labours in prophetic exegesis, and, moreover, his asceticism
accommodated itself but ill with the somewhat lax discipline of Corazzo.
He accordingly retired into the solitudes of Pietralata, and subsequently
founded with some companions under a rule of his own creation the abbey
of San Giovanni in Fiore, on Monte Nero, in the massif of La Sila. The pope
and the emperor befriended this foundation; Frederick II. and his wife
Constance made important donations to it, and promoted the spread of
offshoots of the parent house; while Innocent III., on the 21st of January
1204, approved the “ordo Florensis” and the “institutio” which its founder

had bestowed upon it. Joachim died in 1202, probably on the 20th of
March.

Of the many prophetic and polemical works that were attributed to
Joachim in the 13th and following centuries, only those enumerated in
his will can be regarded as absolutely authentic. These are the
Concordia novi et veteris Testamenti (first printed at Venice in 1519),
the Expositio in Apocalypsin (Venice, 1527), the Psalterium decem
chordarum (Venice, 1527), together with some “libelli” against the
Jews or the adversaries of the Christian faith. It is very probable that
these “libelli” are the writings entitled Concordia Evangeliorum,
Contra Judaeos, De articulis fidei, Confessio fidei and De unitate
Trinitatis. The last is perhaps the work which was condemned by the
Lateran council in 1215 as containing an erroneous criticism of the
Trinitarian theory of Peter Lombard. This council, though condemning
the book, refrained from condemning the author, and approved the
order of Floris. Nevertheless, the monks continued to be subjected to
insults as followers of a heretic, until they obtained from Honorius III.
in 1220 a bull formally recognizing Joachim as orthodox and
forbidding anyone to injure his disciples.

It is impossible to enumerate here all the works attributed to
Joachim. Some served their avowed object with great success, being
powerful instruments in the anti-papal polemic and sustaining the
revolted Franciscans in their hope of an approaching triumph. Among
the most widely circulated were the commentaries on Jeremiah, Isaiah
and Ezekiel, the Vaticinia pontificum and the De oneribus ecclesiae. Of
his authentic works the doctrinal essential is very simple. Joachim
divides the history of humanity, past, present and future, into three
periods, which, in his Expositio in Apocalypsin (bk. i. ch. 5), he defines
as the age of the Law, or of the Father; the age of the Gospel, or of the

Son; and the age of the Spirit, which will bring the ages to an end.
Before each of these ages there is a period of incubation, or initiation:
the first age begins with Abraham, but the period of initiation with the
first man Adam. The initiation period of the third age begins with St
Benedict, while the actual age of the Spirit is not to begin until 1260,
the Church—mulier amicta sole (Rev. xii. 1)—remaining hidden in the
wilderness 1260 days. We cannot here enter into the infinite details of
the other subdivisions imagined by Joachim, or into his system of
perpetual concordances between the New and the Old Testaments,
which, according to him, furnish the prefiguration of the third age. Far
more interesting as explaining the diffusion and the religious and social
importance of his doctrine is his conception of the second and third
ages. The first age was the age of the Letter, the second was
intermediary between the Letter and the Spirit, and the third was to be
the age of the Spirit. The age of the Son is the period of study and
wisdom, the period of striving towards mystic knowledge. In the age of
the Father all that was necessary was obedience; in the age of the Son
reading is enjoined; but the age of the Spirit was to be devoted to
prayer and song. The third is the age of the plena spiritus libertas, the
age of contemplation, the monastic age par excellence, the age of a
monachism wholly directed towards ecstasy, more Oriental than
Benedictine. Joachim does not conceal his sympathies with the ideal of
Basilian monachism. In his opinion—which is, in form at least,
perfectly orthodox—the church of Peter will be, not abolished, but
purified; actually, the hierarchy effaces itself in the third age before the
order of the monks, the viri spirituales. The entire world will become a
vast monastery in that day, which will be the resting-season, the
sabbath of humanity. In various passages in Joachim’s writings the
clerical hierarchy is represented by Rachel and the contemplative order
by her son Joseph, and Rachel is destined to efface herself before her

son. Similarly, the teaching of Christ and the Apostles on the
sacraments is considered, implicitly and explicitly, as transitory, as
representing that passage from the significantia to the significata which
Joachim signalizes at every stage of his demonstration. Joachim was
not disturbed during his lifetime. In 1200 he submitted all his writings
to the judgment of the Holy See, and unreservedly affirmed his
orthodoxy; the Lateran council, which condemned his criticism of
Peter Lombard, made no allusion to his eschatological temerities; and
the bull of 1220 was a formal certificate of his orthodoxy.

The Joachimite ideas soon spread into Italy and France, and
especially after a division had been produced in the Franciscan order.
The rigorists, who soon became known as “Spirituals,” represented St
Francis as the initiator of Joachim’s third age. Certain convents became
centres of Joachimism. Around the hermit of Hyères, Hugh of Digne,
was formed a group of Franciscans who expected from the advent of
the third age the triumph of their ascetic ideas. The Joachimites even
obtained a majority in the general chapter of 1247, and elected John of
Parma, one of their number, general of the order. Pope Alexander IV.,
however, compelled John of Parma to renounce his dignity, and the
Joachimite opposition became more and more vehement. Pseudo-
Joachimite treatises sprang up on every hand, and, finally, in 1254,
there appeared in Paris the Liber introductorius ad Evangelium
aeternum, the work of a Spiritual Franciscan, Gherardo da Borgo San
Donnino. This book was published with, and as an introduction to, the
three principal works of Joachim, in which the Spirituals had made
some interpolations.1 Gherardo, however, did not say, as has been
supposed, that Joachim’s books were the new gospel, but merely that
the Calabrian abbot had supplied the key to Holy Writ, and that with
the help of that intelligentia mystica it would be possible to extract
from the Old and New Testaments the eternal meaning, the gospel

according to the Spirit, a gospel which would never be written; as for
this eternal sense, it had been entrusted to an order set apart, to the
Franciscan order announced by Joachim, and in this order the ideal of
the third age was realized. These affirmations provoked very keen
protests in the ecclesiastical world. The secular masters of the
university of Paris denounced the work to Pope Innocent IV., and the
bishop of Paris sent it to the pope. It was Innocent’s successor,
Alexander IV., who appointed a commission to examine it; and as a
result of this commission, which sat at Anagni, the destruction of the
Liber introductorius was ordered by a papal breve dated the 23rd of
October 1255. In 1260 a council held at Arles condemned Joachim’s
writings and his supporters, who were very numerous in that region.
The Joachimite ideas were equally persistent among the Spirituals, and
acquired new strength with the publication of the commentary on the
Apocalypse. This book, probably published after the death of its author
and probably interpolated by his disciples, contains, besides Joachimite
principles, an affirmation even clearer than that of Gherardo da Borgo
of the elect character of the Franciscan order, as well as extremely
violent attacks on the papacy. The Joachimite literature is extremely
vast. From the 14th century to the middle of the 16th, Ubertin of Casale
(in his Arbor Vitae crucifixae), Bartholomew of Pisa (author of the
Liber Conformitatum), the Calabrian hermit Telesphorus, John of La
Rochetaillade, Seraphin of Fermo, Johannes Annius of Viterbo, Coelius
Pannonius, and a host of other writers, repeated or complicated ad
infinitum the exegesis of Abbot Joachim. A treatise entitled De ultima
aetate ecclesiae, which appeared in 1356, has been attributed to
Wycliffe, but is undoubtedly from the pen of an anonymous Joachimite
Franciscan. The heterodox movements in Italy in the 13th and 14th
centuries, such as those of the Segarellists, Dolcinists, and Fraticelli of
every description, were penetrated with Joachimism; while such

independent spirits as Roger Bacon, Arnaldus de Villa Nova and
Bernard Délicieux often comforted themselves with the thought of the
era of justice and peace promised by Joachim. Dante held Joachim in
great reverence, and has placed him in Paradise (Par., xii. 140-141).

See Acta Sanctorum, Boll. (May), vii. 94-112; W. Preger in Abhandl.
der kgl. Akad. der Wissenschaften, hist, sect., vol. xii., pt. 3 (Munich,
1874); idem, Gesch. d. deutschen Mystik im Mittelalter, vol. i.
(Leipzig, 1874); E. Renan, “Joachim de Flore et l’Évangile éternel” in
Nouvelles études d’histoire religieuse (Paris, 1884); F. Tocco, L’Eresia
nel medio evo (Florence, 1884); H. Denifle, “Das Evangelium
aeternum und die Commission zu Anagni” in Archiv für Literatur- und
Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters, vol. i.; Paul Fournier, “Joachim de
Flore, ses doctrines, son influence” in Revue des questions historiques,
t. i. (1900); H. C. Lea, History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages,
vol. iii. ch. i. (London, 1888); F. Ehrle’s article “Joachim” in Wetzer
and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon. On Joachimism see E. Gebhardt,
“Recherches nouvelles sur l’histoire du Joachimisme” in Revue
historique, vol. xxxi. (1886); H. Haupt, “Zur Gesch. des
Joachimismus” in Briegers Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch., vol. vii.
(1885). (P. A.)

1 Preger is the only writer who has maintained that the three books in their primitive
form date from 1254.

JOACHIM I. (1484-1535), surnamed Nestor, elector of
Brandenburg, elder son of John Cicero, elector of Brandenburg, was born
on the 21st of February 1484. He received an excellent education, became
elector of Brandenburg on his father’s death in January 1499, and soon
afterwards married Elizabeth, daughter of John, king of Denmark. He took
some part in the political complications of the Scandinavian kingdoms, but
the early years of his reign were mainly spent in the administration of his
electorate, where by stern and cruel measures he succeeded in restoring
some degree of order (see Brandenburg). He also improved the
administration of justice, aided the development of commerce, and was a
friend to the towns. On the approach of the imperial election of 1519,
Joachim’s vote was eagerly solicited by the partisans of Francis I., king of
France, and by those of Charles, afterwards the emperor Charles V. Having
treated with, and received lavish promises from, both parties, he appears to
have hoped for the dignity for himself; but when the election came he
turned to the winning side and voted for Charles. In spite of this step,
however, the relations between the emperor and the elector were not
friendly, and during the next few years Joachim was frequently in
communication with the enemies of Charles. Joachim is best known as a
pugnacious adherent of Catholic orthodoxy. He was one of the princes who
urged upon the emperor the necessity of enforcing the Edict of Worms, and
at several diets was prominent among the enemies of the Reformers. He
was among those who met at Dessau in July 1525, and was a member of the
league established at Halle in November 1533. But his wife adopted the
reformed faith, and in 1528 fled for safety to Saxony; and he had the
mortification of seeing these doctrines also favoured by other members of
his family. Joachim, who was a patron of learning, established the
university of Frankfort-on-the-Oder in 1506. He died at Stendal on the 11th
of July 1535.