Part 13
A certain Jonathan,[373] however, an intimate friend of Hyrcanus and a follower of the sect of the Sadducees (whose doctrines are the reverse of those of the Pharisees), asserted that Eleazar’s slanderous words had the unanimous approval of the whole body of Pharisees, and that this would be manifest if he asked them what punishment he deserved for what he had said. Hyrcanus, accordingly, asked the Pharisees what penalty they thought appropriate, expecting to prove[374] by the measure of the sentence which they pronounced that the libel had not received their approval. They replied, “Stripes and imprisonment.” The taunt did not seem to merit capital punishment; the more so as the Pharisees are naturally lenient in the matter of penalties. Hyrcanus was greatly incensed at this answer, supposing that the man’s abusive language had met with their approbation. His exasperation was increased in particular by Jonathan, who so worked upon him as to induce him to desert the Pharisees and join the Sadducean party; he also persuaded him to abolish the practices which the Pharisees had ordained for the people, and to punish any who observed them. To this cause he and his sons owed their unpopularity with the multitude.
Of this more hereafter. Here I would merely explain that the Pharisees had delivered to the people certain customary practices, handed down by their forefathers and not recorded in the laws of Moses, and for that reason rejected by the Sadducees, who maintain that only what is written (in Scripture) should be held binding, and that customs based on ancestral traditions should not be observed. On these matters the two parties had great debates and differences. The Sadducees are influential only with the wealthy and have no following among the populace; the Pharisees have the masses on their side. But of these two sects and of the Essenes I have given a precise account in the second book of my _Jewish (War)_.[375]—_Ant._ XIII. 10. 5 f. (288-298).
Footnote 372:
Cf. § (63), p. 175.
Footnote 373:
Another reading “John.”
Footnote 374:
Or, according to another reading, “to be convinced.”
Footnote 375:
See § (54).
(57) "Conciliate the Pharisees"—Alexander’s dying advice to Alexandra
Alexander Jannæus (of the Hasmonæan dynasty; reigned 104-78 B.C.), on his last campaign, lies dying during the siege of Ragaba, near Gerasa on the east of Jordan.
[Sidenote: 78 B.C.]
The Queen, seeing him to be near his end and now past hope of recovery, wept and lamented for her impending desolation and poured out her grief for herself and her children. “To whom are you thus leaving me,” so she spoke to him, “and our children who need others to help them, knowing as you do the ill-will which the nation bears you?”
Alexander advised her, if she wished to secure both the throne and their children, to comply with his suggestions. She was to conceal his death from the soldiers until she had taken the town.[376] She was then to enter Jerusalem in triumph after her victory and to concede a measure of authority to the Pharisees; for they would commend her for the honour paid them and dispose the nation in her favour. The Pharisees, he told her, had great influence with the Jews (and could use it) to the injury of any who hated them, or to the advantage of those who were on friendly terms with them; above all they had the confidence of the common people in any harsh criticism which they might pronounce on others, even though prompted by mere malice; the offence which he himself had given to the nation arose from his insulting the Pharisees. “Do you accordingly,” he said, “when you reach Jerusalem, send for such of them as are factious,[377] display my dead body, and with absolute sincerity allow them to use me as they will, whether they prefer to do despite to my corpse by refusing it burial in revenge for all they have suffered from me, or to gratify their anger by any other form of outrage to it. Promise them, moreover, that you will take no action in the exercise of your royal authority without consulting them. If you thus address them, _I_ shall obtain a more splendid funeral from them than I should have had from you—for with the power to misuse my dead body they will lack the will—and _you_ will be secure in your rule.” With this advice to his wife, he died, having reigned seven and twenty years and lived one and fifty.[378]
Alexandra took the fortress and, in accordance with her husband’s suggestions, had a colloquy with the Pharisees, leaving the disposal of the corpse and of the affairs of the kingdom entirely in their hands, and so pacified their anger against Alexander and won their good-will and friendship for herself. The Pharisees then went and harangued the multitude, rehearsing Alexander’s achievements, and telling them that they had lost a righteous king; and by their encomiums elicited from the people such lamentation and dejection on his behalf that they gave him a more splendid funeral than to any of the kings that had been before him.
Alexander left two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, but he bequeathed the kingdom to Alexandra. Of the sons, Hyrcanus was a weak administrator and preferred a quiet life; the younger, Aristobulus, was a man of action and courage. Their mother was beloved of the multitude because she appeared to take her husband’s errors to heart.
Hyrcanus she appointed high priest, because he was the elder, but still more on account of his temperamental inaction. She allowed the Pharisees complete freedom, and ordered the people to obey their behests. She also reinstated the customs which the Pharisees had introduced in accordance with ancestral tradition and her father-in-law, Hyrcanus, had abrogated.[379] She was thus nominally Queen, but the real power was in the hands of the Pharisees.—_Ant._ XIII. 15. 5-16. 2 (399-409)
Footnote 376:
Ragaba.
Footnote 377:
Conj. Niese; MSS “send for their soldiers.”
Footnote 378:
Another reading, “fifty years save one.”
Footnote 379:
Cf. § (56).
(58) How the Pharisees rose to Power under Queen Alexandra
A supplement to the final paragraph in the preceding section.
[Sidenote: 78-69 B.C.]
Beside Alexandra, and growing as she grew,[380] arose the Pharisees, a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion, and as exact exponents of the laws. To them, being herself devoutly religious, she listened with too great deference; while they, gradually taking advantage of an ingenuous woman, became at length the real administrators of the state, at liberty to banish and to recall, to loose and to bind, whom they would. In short, the enjoyments of royal authority were theirs; its expenses and burthens fell to Alexandra. She proved, however, to be a wonderful administrator of large affairs of state, and, by continual additions to her levies, doubled her (home) army, besides collecting a considerable body of foreign troops; so that she not only strengthened her own nation, but became a formidable foe to foreign potentates. Thus she ruled the nation, and the Pharisees ruled her.—_B.J._ I. 5. 2 (110-112).
Footnote 380:
Reading αὐτῆς; lit. “grew up beside into her power” (like suckers round a tree). With the reading αὐτῇ, “Beside A. there rose to power....”
(59) Herod the Great exempts Pharisees and Essenes from the Oath of Allegiance. The Essene Prophet Menahem
[Sidenote: _c._ 37 B.C.]
Most of Herod’s subjects, either from obsequiousness or fear, yielded to his demands;[381] those who showed a bolder front and took offence at the compulsory order, he found one means or other of putting out of the way. He endeavoured to persuade Pollio the Pharisee and Sameas and most of their disciples to take the oath with the rest; but they refused, and the respect in which Pollio was held secured them from sharing the penalty of the other objectors.
Exemption from this order was further extended to the Essæans,[382] as we call one of our sects, who resemble in their manner of life the Grecian school of Pythagoras. Elsewhere I shall give a more detailed account of them;[383] here the reason may be told why Herod held them in such honour and esteem as possessed of supernatural powers. The narrative, while illustrating the high opinion which this class enjoyed, will not be out of place in an historical work.
There was a certain Essene named Menahem,[384] who was reputed not only to lead a blameless life but to have been gifted by God with a knowledge of future events. This man, seeing Herod as a lad on his way to school, addressed him as king of the Jews. Herod, supposing that he spoke in ignorance or in jest, reminded him that he was only a commoner. But Menahem, with a quiet smile, clapped him on the backside and said, “For all that, be sure you will be king and will have a prosperous reign;[385] for God finds you worthy of it. And remember the blows you received from Menahem, and let them be a symbol to you of the changes of fortune. It were best to reflect on such things, even though you were to be a lover of righteousness, of piety to God and equity to your subjects. But I, knowing all, know that such will not be your character. You will surpass all men in good fortune and will win undying renown, but will be forgetful of piety and justice. God, however, will not be unmindful of these sins and at the close of your life the wrath which they merit will be remembered against you.”
Herod at the time paid little heed to this prediction of eminence to which his hopes did not aspire; but when he had by gradual stages risen to the throne and prosperity, and was at the height of his power, he sent for Menahem and asked him how long he would reign. Menahem would not reveal all. He held his peace, but on being further asked merely whether he would reign as much as ten years, “Yes,” he replied, “twenty; nay, thirty,” but fixed no term for the allotted period. With this answer Herod was content, gave Menahem his hand and dismissed him, and from that time forward continued to hold all the Essenes in honour.—_Ant._ XV. 10. 4 f. (369-378).
Footnote 381:
By taking the oath of allegiance to him.
Footnote 382:
Jos. uses this form and “Essenes” interchangeably.
Footnote 383:
Cf. § (54).
Footnote 384:
Gr. “Manæmus” (throughout).
Footnote 385:
Text doubtful. Perhaps “will begin happily.”
(60) The Pharisees refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance (another account).
[Sidenote: _c._ 37 B.C.]
Now there was one section of the Jews that prided themselves on their strict observance of inherited traditions and professed (to know) the laws[386] in which the Deity takes delight.[387] They had obtained complete control over the women-folk.[388] They were called Pharisees, and showed foresight in resisting an all-powerful monarch[389] and temerity in proceeding to open hostility and opposition.
For instance, when the whole Jewish nation took the oath of allegiance to Cæsar and to the king’s government, these men, to the number of upwards of six thousand, refused to swear. The king imposed a money penalty, whereupon the wife of Pheroras[390] paid the fine on their behalf. In requital for this service of hers the Pharisees, who through divine inspiration were endowed with the gift of foreknowledge, foretold that God had decreed the downfall from power of Herod and his family, and the transfer of the kingdom to her and Pheroras and their children. These words, coming to the knowledge of Salome,[391] were reported to the king, who was further informed that the Pharisees were corrupting some of his courtiers. The king thereupon put the principal offenders among the Pharisees to death together with the eunuch Bagoas and one Carus, the most famous beauty of his time and a royal favourite. He also killed all the members of his household who were implicated in[392] the Pharisees’[393] prediction. Bagoas had been led by them to believe that he would be called the father and benefactor of the king whose rise they foretold; that monarch, they said, would be omnipotent and would enable Bagoas to marry and beget children of his own.—_Ant._ XVII. 2. 4 (41-45).
Footnote 386:
Lit. “laid claim to the laws.” But the text is doubtful. Others read, “... observance of the laws of their fathers, and pretended that the Deity took delight in them (the Pharisees).”
Footnote 387:
Cf. Rom. ii. 18 (“knowest the will”).
Footnote 388:
That is, apparently, the women of Herod’s family. The word denotes the harem of a prince.
Footnote 389:
Text and meaning doubtful.
Footnote 390:
Herod’s brother.
Footnote 391:
Herod’s sister.
Footnote 392:
Or “had associated themselves with.”
Footnote 393:
Gr. “Pharisee’s.”
IX. JEWISH THEOLOGY, SCRIPTURES AND CUSTOMS
(61) Some Aspects of Jewish Theology. Moses as Religious Educator
Our Polity a Theocracy
There is endless variety in the details of the customs and laws which prevail in the world at large. [To give but a summary enumeration:][394] some peoples have entrusted the supreme power of government to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be permitted—may be termed a “theocracy,” ascribing the sovereignty and majesty to God. To Him he persuaded all to look, as the Author of all blessings, both those which are common to all mankind, and those which they had won for themselves by prayer in their utmost adversities. He convinced them that no single action, no secret thought, could be hid from Him. He represented Him as One, uncreated[395] and immutable to all eternity;[396] in beauty surpassing all mortal comeliness, made known to us by His power, although the nature of His real being[397] passes knowledge.
A Religion for the Many, not (like Greek philosophy) for the Few
That the wisest of the Greeks learnt to adopt these conceptions of God from principles with which Moses supplied them, I am not now concerned to urge; but they have borne abundant witness to the excellence of these doctrines, and to their consonance with the nature and majesty of God. In fact, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, the Stoics who succeeded him, and indeed nearly all the philosophers appear to have held similar views concerning the nature of God. These, however, addressed their philosophy to the few, and did not venture to divulge the true doctrine[398] to the masses who were prepossessed by (other) opinions; whereas our lawgiver, by making practice square with precept, not only convinced his own contemporaries, but so firmly implanted this belief concerning God in their descendants to all future generations that it cannot be moved. The cause (of his success) was that he far surpassed (other legislators) in promoting the good of all men to all time by his scheme of legislation; for he did not make religion a department of virtue, but the various virtues—I mean, justice, temperance, fortitude, and mutual harmony in all things between the members of the community[399]—departments of religion. Religion governs all our actions and studies and speech; none of these things did our lawgiver leave unexamined[400] or indeterminate.
The Two Methods of Education Combined by Moses
All schemes of education and moral training fall into two categories; instruction is imparted in the one case by precept, in the other by practical exercising of the character. All other legislators, following their divergent opinions, selected the particular method which each preferred and neglected the other. Thus the Lacedæmonians and Cretans employed practical, not verbal, training; whereas the Athenians and nearly all the rest of the Greeks made laws enjoining what actions might or might not be performed, but neglected to familiarize the people with them by putting them into practice.
Our legislator, on the other hand, took great care to combine both systems. He did not leave practical training in morals without a written code;[401] nor did he permit the letter of the law to remain inoperative. Starting from the very beginning with the food of which we partake from infancy and the private life[402] of the home, he left nothing, however insignificant, to the discretion and caprice of the individual. What meats a man should abstain from, and what he may enjoy; with what persons he should associate; what period should be devoted respectively to strenuous labour and to rest;[403]—for all this our leader made the law the standard and rule, that we might live under it as under a father and master[404] and be guilty of no sin through wilfulness or ignorance.
All Jews Know their Law, which is Read Every Week
For ignorance he left no pretext. He proved[405] the Law to be the most excellent and necessary form of instruction, ordaining, not that it should be heard once for all or twice or on several occasions, but that every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it; a practice which all other legislators seem to have neglected.[406]
Indeed, most men, so far from living in accordance with their own laws, hardly know what they are. Only when they have done wrong do they learn from others that they have transgressed the law. Even those of them who hold the highest and most important offices admit their ignorance; for they employ professional legal experts as assessors and leave them in charge of the administration of affairs. But, should any one of our nation be questioned about the laws, he would repeat them all more readily than his own name. The result, then, of our thorough grounding in the laws from the time when we first had any sensations whatever, is that we have them as it were engraven on our souls. A transgressor is a rarity and to elude punishment by entreaty an impossibility.—_c. Ap._ II. 16-18 (164-178).
Footnote 394:
These words occur only in Eusebius’s citation (_Præp. Ev._ VIII. 8), not in the MSS of Josephus.
Footnote 395:
Or, according to another reading, “unbegotten.”
Footnote 396:
Lit. “to time everlasting.”
Footnote 397:
Or “essence.”
Footnote 398:
Lit. “the truth of the doctrine.”
Footnote 399:
The four cardinal virtues of the Platonic School, except that Harmony (συμφωνία) here replaces the usual Wisdom (φρόνησις).
Footnote 400:
The Greek word is that used in Socrates’ famous saying, “The life which is unexamined is not worth living” (Plato, _Apology_ 38A).
Footnote 401:
Lit. “dumb.”
Footnote 402:
Or “diet.”
Footnote 403:
Lit. “and concerning strenuous application to labours and contrariwise rest.”
Footnote 404:
Cf. Gal. iii. 24, “the law hath been our tutor.”
Footnote 405:
Or “appointed.”
Footnote 406:
For the Rabbinical tradition that Moses introduced the custom of the public reading of the Law on Festivals and Sabbaths, see an art. by Dr. Büchler in the _Jewish Quart. Review_, V. 420 (1893).
(62) A Future Life—for the Law-abiding
With us the death penalty is imposed for most offences, for instance, if a man commit adultery.... Even fraud in such matters as weights or measures, or injustice and deceit in trade, or purloining another man’s property or laying hands on what one did not deposit—all such crimes have punishments attached to them which are not on the same scale as with other nations, but more severe. For example, the mere intention of doing wrong to one’s parents or of impiety against God is followed by instant death.
For those, on the other hand, who live in accordance with our laws the prize is not silver or gold, no crown of wild olive[407] or of parsley[408] with any such public proclamation (as attends those awards). No; each individual, relying on the witness of his own conscience and the lawgiver’s prophecy, which is confirmed by the sure testimony of God, is firmly persuaded that to those who observe the laws and, if they must needs die for them, willingly meet death,[409] God has granted a renewed existence and in the revolution (of the ages)[410] the gift of a better life. I should have hesitated to write thus, had not the facts made all men aware that many of our countrymen have on many occasions ere now preferred to brave all manner of suffering rather than to utter a single word against the Law.[411]—_c. Ap._ II. 30 (215-219).
Footnote 407:
As in the Olympic games.
Footnote 408:
As in the Isthmian and Nemean games.
Footnote 409:
Text doubtful.
Footnote 410:
ἐκ περιτροπῆς should, perhaps, be read in the light of the kindred passage, _B.J._ III. 374 (§ (43), p. 124 above), ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων. Or translate simply “in exchange,” “in turn.”
Footnote 411:
Cf. § (54), p. 155 above.
(63) The Jewish Scriptures and their Preservation
The Writers and Custodians of the Records
That our forefathers took no less, not to say even greater, care than the nations I have mentioned[412] in the keeping of their records—a task which they assigned to their chief priests and prophets—and that down to our own times these records have been, and if I may venture to say so, will continue to be, preserved with scrupulous accuracy, I will endeavour briefly to demonstrate.
Selection of the Custodians. Scrutiny of Priestly Marriages and Genealogies
Not only did our ancestors in the first instance set over this business men of the highest character, devoted to the service of God, but they took precautions to ensure that the priests’ lineage should be kept unadulterated and pure. A member of the priestly order must marry a woman of his own race, without regard to her wealth or other distinctions; but he must investigate her pedigree, obtaining the genealogy from the archives[413] and producing a number of witnesses. And this practice of ours is not confined to the home country of Judæa, but wherever there is a Jewish colony,[414] there too a strict account is kept by the priests of their marriages; I allude to the Jews in Egypt and Babylon and other parts of the world in which any of the priestly order are living in dispersion. A statement is drawn up by them and sent to Jerusalem, showing the names of the bride and her father and more remote ancestors together with the names of the witnesses. In the not infrequent event of war, for instance when our country was invaded by Antiochus Epiphanes [Sidenote: 170-168 B.C.], by Pompey the Great [Sidenote: 63 B.C.], by Quintilius Varus [Sidenote: 4 B.C.], and above all in our own times [Sidenote: A.D. 66-70.], the surviving priests compile fresh records from the older documents;[415] they also pass scrutiny upon the remaining women and disallow marriage with any who have been taken captive, suspecting them of having had frequent intercourse with foreigners. But the most convincing proof of our accuracy in this matter is that our records contain the names of our high priests with the succession from father to son for the last two thousand years. And whoever violates any of the above rules is forbidden to minister at the altars or to take any other part in divine worship.
The Twenty-two Books of Scripture
The task of writing (our national history) is thus one which cannot be capriciously undertaken by all alike; and there is no discrepancy in the records. No; the prophets alone (had this privilege), obtaining their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God, and committing to writing a faithful account of the events of their own time just as they occurred. From this it naturally, or rather necessarily, follows that we[416] do not possess vast numbers[417] of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those to which we justly pin our faith,[418] are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time.[419]