Emil Schürer.

A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ .. (Volume 2 pt.3) online

. (page 51 of 51)
Online LibraryEmil SchürerA history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ .. (Volume 2 pt.3) → online text (page 51 of 51)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Zeno, the philosojdier, borrowing

from Moses, ll. iii. 367.
Zeno Kotvlas, tyrant of Philadelphia,

II. i. 120.
Zenodorus, tetrarch, I. i. 409, 453,

ii. 329, 332 f. ; inscription and

coins, I. ii. 333.
Zephaniah, Apocalypse of, ii. iii. 132.
Zeugma, i. ii. 249.
Zeus worship in Aelia Capitol ina,

I. ii. 317 ; in Ascalon, ii. i. 14 ;
in Caesarea Stratonis, li. i. 17 ;
in Caesarea Philippi, ii. i. 21 ; in
Damascus, ii. i. 19 ; in Dora, ii. i.
17 ; in Cadara, ii. i. 20 ; in
Neapolis, i. ii. 267 ; in Ptolemais,

II. i. 18 ; in the Hauran, li. i. 22;
in Jerusalem in the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes, i. i. 208.

Zia, village, ii. i. 121.

Zion = the temple mount, l. i.

207 ; Ligullath Zion, Cluruth Zion

on coins, i. ii. 385.
Zizith, II. ii. lllf.; Talmudic tract,

I. i. 144.
Zoilus, tyrant of Straton's Tower

and Dora, ii. i. 84 f., 89.
Zonaras did not use Josephus, but

the Epitome, i. i. 104.
Zopliim, a place near Jerusalem, i.

ii. 213.
Zythos, Egyptian, ll. i. 42.




1. We cannot with strict accuracy speak of a "conversion of the
Itureans " by Aristobulus I. It was only a portion of the kingdom
of Iturea that was conquered by Aristobulus, and the inhabitants
of that conquered district he converted by the use of force. It is
therefore extremely probable that by this we must understand
that region which is practically coextensive with Galilee, or at
least its northern portions. See Division I. vol. 1. p. 293.

3. In Galilee, "even during the Persian age," Judaism, properly so

called, had not by any means obtained complete ascendency. The
population of that district was, even in the beginning of the
Maccabean age, predominantly non-Jewish (see Division I. vol. i.
p. 192 f.). It is correct to say only, that the resident Jews
scattered up and down through the district belonged to the
Jewish, not to the Samaritan party, and as worshippers main-
tained their connection with Jerusalem.

4, line 13 from the top, cancel the words, "and coinage." The

reference is only to differences of weights between Judea and
Galilee {Teruviofh x. 8 : Cured fish of 10 sus weight in Judea were
reckoned 5 sela in Galilee ; Kethuhoth v. 9 and Chullin xi. 2 : Wool
of 5 sela in Judea = 10 sela in Galilee).
14. The name Atargatis had certainly, down to 1879, in addition to its
appearing on the inscription of Astypalia, occurred "only three
times besides in Greek -inscriptions." A rich addition, however,
has since been made to this material by the French excavations at
Delos. See Hauvette - Besnault, Fouilles de Delos ; Aphrodite
syrienne, Adad et Atargatis {Bulletin de correspondance helUnique,
t. vi. 1882, pp. 470-503 ; the Atargatis inscriptions, pp. 495-500,
n. 12-21). In these Atargatis is generally joined with Adad
(' ABaTwi x«( ' Arot.pya.rit). Once (p. 497, n. 15) we meet with ' A'/^«
'A For the identity of Susije and
Hippus we may cite, e.g., Clermont-Ganneau, Revue critique, 1886,
Nr. 46, p. 388 ; Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements,
1887, pp. 36-38; Kasteren, Zeitschrift des DPV. xi. 1888,
pp. 235-238.

118, note 126a. The inscription cojiied by Merrill is once more published
by Allen in American Journal of Philology, vol. vi. 1885, pp. 191,
192, with the observation, that instead of [r]:p[«]7»] we should
read £[T]so[ot]j.

143, note 385. The ancient Livias or Beth-TJamtha is identical with the
modern Tell cr-Rame, south of Toll Nimrin. In the neighbour-
hood hot springs have been found. See Zeitschrift des DPV. ii.
1879, pp. 2, 3 ; vii. 1881, p. 201 If.




64 and 69. On the interesting inscriptions of Hammam el-Enf (or,
according to the common pronunciation, Hanimam-Lif) compare
the more exact descriptions by Renan, Eevue arcMoIogique,
troisieme serie, t. i. 1883, pp. 157-163, t. iii. 1884, pp. 273-275,
pi. vii.-xi. (we have here the best illustrations), and Kaufmann,
Hevue des etudes juives, t. xiii. 1886, pp. 46-61 ; for a statement of
opinion see also Reinach, Bevue des etudes juives, xiii., pp. 217-22.3.
—The first communications Avhich I followed have now been
proved inexact in several particulars, especially in the statement,
that the Christian monogram is found upon one of the inscriptions.
This alleged monogram, which stands in the text of the inscrip-
tion, is a P with a cross line as a mark of abbreviation. Since
thus every vestige of evidence for its Christian origin breaks down,
and since, on the other hand, on that inscription there is a repre-
sentation of the seven-branched candlestick, it is certain that the
inscriptions should be regarded as Jewish. So also Renan, Kauf-
mann, and Reinach. They are found upon the Mosaic flooring of
a building, therefore of a synagogue. It is certainly remarkable
that on these mosaics are figured also, beasts, fishes, peacocks, etc.
But such figures are also found in the Jewish catacombs of the Vigna
Randanini at Rome (to which Kaufmann has rightly called atten-
tion).— Seeing that on pp. 64 and 69 I have expressed myself as if
there were but one inscription in question, it may be here stated that
there are indeed three inscriptions. The one communicated on p. 64
is found on the floor of the portico, the one communicated on p. 69
on the floor of the inner room. Instead of Julia Guar we should there
read Juliana p.— The mosaics are no longer in the locality and in
their place (destroyed or stolen?). See Eevue des etudes juives, xiii. 217.
70. The washing of hands before prayer was obligatory. Compare
Maimonides, Hilchoth Tephilla, iv. 1-5 : " There are five indispens-
able requirements for prayer that must be observed even while it
is being offered. The cleanness of the hands, the covering of
nakedness, the cleanness of the place where the prayer is uttered,
the putting away of matters that dissipate the mind, and the
fervour of the heart. (2) In reference to the cleanness of the
hands the following prescriptions are to be observed. The hands
are to be sprinkled with water as far up as the wrist, and then the
worshipper proceeds immediately with his prayer. But if any one
should be on a journey when the time of prayer arrives, and there
is no water at hand, yet if it be so that between him and water
there is only a distance of four miles or 8000 ells, he is bound to
go to the water, and there wash his hands and then repeat his
prayer. But if the distance be greater, then he is obliged only to



wijie his liands witli shavings or sand or on a board, and thereafter
lie may proceed to pray. (3) The above obligation, however, only
comes into force if the Avater is found in the direction in which
tlie traveller is going : if it is behind him, he is obliged to turn back
only if it is not more than a mile distant. If the distance is
greater than a mile, then he merely wipes his hands clean and may
jn'oceed with his prayer. (4) The obligation merely to wash the
hands has reference only to those jirayers that are said at other
times than in the morning. At morning prayer, on the other
hand, the worshipper is recpiired to wash face, hands, and feet
before he can pray. But if at the time of morning prayer one be
far from water, then he merely wipes his hands and thereafter
proceeds to pray. (5) All who have been pronounced unclean, as
well as those who are clean, have simply to wash their hands, and
can then engage in prayer, for the complete submersion even if it
could be thoroughly carried out, in order to remove ceremonial
defilement, is not necessary in order to prayer." — J. F. Schroder,
Satzungen nnd Gebniuche des talmudisch-rabhinischen Judenthums
(1851), p. 25 : " Before going to the synagogue, even if they were
sure that they had not touched anything unclean, the worshippers
were required always to wash their hands." — Compare generally
also Orac. Sibyll. iii. 591-593 (ed. Friedlieb). — The statements
made by Schneckenburger, Ueber das Alter der jUdkchen Frosehjten-
Taufe (1828), p. 38, require sifting.

1G5. On Arinilus, D1^''D"1X, pee Nbldeke, ZeiUchrift der deutschen nionjcn-
Uind. Gexellsch. Bd. xxxix. 1885, p. 343 (in the criticism of Momiu-
seu's Romische Gescliichte) : '"It is simply 'Pujxv'Ao;, which ajipears
in the Syriac as DIX^DIS (Lagarde, Analed. 203. 3); Komulus is
here the representative of Rome." A similar view had been
exjjressed before by Vitringa, Observationes sacrae, vi. 21, p. 489 ;
Zunz, Die gottesdunstlichen Vortrcige der Juden, p. 282 ; Castelli,
II Messia, p. 244 stjq. ; Weber, Die altsxjnagogale paldstinische
Theologie, p. 349. Dalman, Der Uidende und der sierbende Messias
der Synagoge (1888), p. 13 f., expresses himself in a hesitating and
vacillating manner. — The original text of the Armilus legend is
given by .Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash (i. 35-57 : Midrash VajoscJui.
ii. 54-57 ; Das Buck Sernbabel. ii. 58-63 ; Die Zeichen des Messias.
iii. 65-68 ; Apocalypse des Elias. iii. 78-82 ; Mysterien des Siiii07i
ben Jochai).

167. On the Messiah, son of Joseph, compare the thorough and method-
ically conducted investigations of Dalman, Der leidende und der
sterbende Messias der Sijnagoge, p. 16 ff. The result of these investi-
gations is summed up approvingly by Siegfried (Theol. Literatur-
zeitung, 1888, p. 397 f.) as follows : The suffering Messias ben
David and the dying Mcf^sias ben Josej)!! are to be regarded as



(juite distinct. The latter is not a Messiah of the ten tribes, but is
an idea resulting from Zech. xii.-xiv. in combination with Deut.
xxxiii. 17. His death is therefore not at all regarded as an atone-
ment. The suffering Son of David rests upon the Messianic
interpretation of Isa. liii.
177. The expression oi^iyn \yv\^, which Buxtorf, Lexicon Clialdaic. col.
711 sq., quotes, and which I, led astray by Fritzsche, De Wette,
and Meyer, had described as equivalent to the New Testament
wxhiyyiuiaix, Matt. xix. 28, means not " The Restoration of the
World," but is rather equivalent to creaiio ex nihilo. Buxtorf
refers, without any further explanation, to Rambam (Maimonides),
More Nehuchim, without indicating the particular passage, and to
the Sepher Rkarim of Joseph Albo, Abschn. i. cap. 23. But there, in
fact, the subject is creation out of nothing. Buxtorf's opinion,
therefore, is correct. His translation, mnovatio mundi, however,
contributed to lead me, as well as others, into the error referred to.
— This mistake, it may be observed by the way, is the most serious
of all that the unfavourable critic of the Revue des e'tiides juives, xiii.
309-318, could ferret out among the 884 pp. of my book. There
are some others of less consequence. In regard to the majority of
his " corrections," the error lies on the side of my excellent critic,
who has found much in my book which does not indeed please
him, but is nevertheless true.
226. The inscription at Anapa is not Jewish. See the observations by
Latyschev, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentriono.lis Ponti Euxini
Graecae et Latinae, vol. 1. Petersburg 1885, ad n. 98.
273. Tlie statement that the rights of citizenship had been given to the
Jews in Ephesus by Antiochus II. Theos (b.c. 261-246) is indeed
probably correct, but is not sujDported by direct evidence. The
passage referred to by me and others in support of this opinion
. in Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 2, runs as follows : tuv yxp ^luvuu
x,tvrtdiuTO)v Ix' ecvTOv;, K»i ZiOjueuuiu tov ^ Kypiima. 'ivoi, riji Tro'kiriiot;
i}u avTolg ihux-iy ^ Avtio)co; 6 "^ihiVKov viuvo;, 6 'Trupec to?? E7iAjj(7/
&sdc My6f/.ivog, f^ovoi lA-ixixuiJiv x.r.'K. "When the people of Ionia
Avere very angry at the Jews, and besought Agrijipa that they,
and they only, might have those privileges of citizens which
Antiochus, the grandson of Seleucus, who by the Greeks was
called Theos, had bestowed' upon them," etc. There is no word
here of any grant of citizenship to the Jews, for uvrolg refers, not
to the Jews, Init to the lonians. Antiochus Theos bestowed upon
the inhabitants of the cities on the Ionian coast the citizen rights
(xoA/Ts/st) which they possessed from that time onward, namely,
autonomy and a democratic constitution, whereas at the end of
the Persian age they had been governed by oligarchs. Un-
doubtedly the oligarchical governments in those parts had been


already overtlirown by Alexander the dreat (Arrian, i. 18. 2 : k»i
rat; fiiv oXiyccp-^iu; irctvjef^w x.ctTct'Kvuv iKiMvas, OinuOKpoiTiu; Oi
i'/Kad/jTui/ui Kxl TOi/f v6f*,ov; towj a^om 'ncectrrot; ecvohovi/xi x,»i tow;
(popov; civui/act oaovg rol; /ixpficipoi; oivii^ipov. On Ephesus in par-
ticular, see Arrian, i. 17. 10. Conip. Gilbert, Handbuch der griech.
Stautmlierthumer, ii. 135 ff.). In the confusions, however, of the
arje of the Diadochoi, the state of matters underwent various changes
from time to time, and the definite restoration of the autoncMiiy
and democracy in the communities of those parts was essentially
the work of Antiochus Theos. Apart from the general testimony
of Joseidius in regard to these matters, we have also the following
]>aitirular details. The Milesians gave to Antiochus II. the name
of Theos, because he freed them from the tyrant Timarchus
(Appian, Syr. 65). In a rescript of Antiochus II. to the Council
and people of Erythraea it is said : liort i-xi re 'AM^uvOpov k»\
Ai/T/yo'yof xi/Tovou-o; tjv kxI x^ooct'Xo'yYiTOC ij iroht; vfiuD [and so
jiresumably they had been no longer so under Seleucus I. and
Antiochus I.] . . . r^v re xv-ovoi^ixv Vfilv ovi/Otxryipr;aouii/ x.xi
x^npoMyrirov; uvxi avy^G\pw^iv (Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscript.
Graec. n. IGG, after Curtius, Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie,
1875, p. 554 fl". ; the rescript is not, as Curtius had assumed, by
Antiochus I., but l>y Antiochus II.; see Dittenberger, Hermes, xvi.
1881, p. 197 f.). On an inscription at Smyrna it is said in refer-
once to Seleucus II., the son and successor of Antiochus II., that
he confirmed the autonomy and democracy of the city, ifiefixtuon/
ru ovj/^u rviv xvTovdy.ixv kxi o/ifiOKoxrixv. Since the matter spoken
of immediately before was the special marks of favour shown to
the city by Antiochus II., it is evident that he was regarded as
the great benefactor of the city. Seleucus II. only confirmed
the privileges that had been bestowed by him (Corpus Liscrijif.
Graec. n. 3137, line 10 sq. = Dittenberger, Sijlloge, n. 171 = Ilicks,
Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions, 1882, n. 176). Coni]>are
generally : Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenisnins, 2 Aufl. iii. 1. 330 f. ;
Hicks, Manual of Greek HistoricUl Inscriptions, p. 298 ; Foucart,
Hulletin de correspondance helUnique, t. ix. 1885, p. 392 sq. ; Gilbert,
Handbuch der yriechisrhen Staatsaltei-thilmer, ii. 1885, pp. 135-149.
— The facts that have been stated here are important for thi.s
reason, that they explain to us the origin of the citizen rights of
the Jews in Ephesus and the other Ionian cities. Generally
speaking, the Jews had citizen rights only in those cities
which had been rebuilt during the Hellenij-tic age. But in the
arrangements of these rebuilt cities, all the inhabitants wore
j>Iaced ui)on the same level in re.spect of the constitutional
law. When, therefore, the constitutions of the Ionian cities in
the beginning of the Hellenistic age were reorganized, the Jews
also would just then receive the i)rivilege of citizenship. Upon


the whole, this accords with the testimony of Josephus, c. Apion.
11. 4 : o/ iv Ecpiaa kocI x.oe.r» tviv uK'hnu ^luviocu toi; a.iidi'/itiat
xoA/T«;f ofA-uuvf^oiiat., Tovro •jcot.pa.tsyfiv'ruv uvtoI; tuv 8/«So;j6)k. FroiU
all that has been said, it would be more exact to say that they had
this privilege from Antiochus II. ratlier than from the Diadochoi.
279. The monograph of Ruprecht, referred to as "just published," haa
not appeared.


219 and 338 ff. Philo's systematic exposition of the Mosaic legislation
was not specially written for non-Jewish readers, but was at least
intended equally for Jews. See the proofs given of this view by
Massebieau in his valuable treatise, Le classement des oeuvres de
Philon (BibliotMque de I'ecole des hautes etudes, Sciences religieuses,
vol. i. Paris 1889, pp. 1-91), p. 38 sq. — A complete reproduction of
the contents of this interesting work of Philo is given by Oskar
Holtzmann, Das JEnde des jiidischen Staatswesens und die Entstehung
des Ghristenthums, 1888, pp. 259-279 (=Stade, Geschichte des VoUces
Israel, vol. ii. pp. 531-551).

346 f. Massebieau, as well as Diihne and Gfrorer, holds that the treatises,
cU caritate and de poenitentia (Philo, ed. Mangey, ii. 383-407), must
be regarded as occupying a place separate from and not alongside
of the treatise de fortitudine. Only the latter belongs to the
systematic exposition of the Mosaic legislation ; the other two are
an appendix to the Vita Mosis (see Massebieau, Le classement des
oeuvres de Philon, pp. 39-41). The reasons which he gives are, in
fact, hardly convincing. This, however, is not the place for re-
opening a discussion of the question, which is not of great
importance in regard to the general arrangement of Philo's
writings. — On all important points in reference to the arrangement
of Philo's writings, Massebieau agrees with me, especially in this,
that the Vita Mosis does not belong to the systematic exposition
of the Mosaic legislation, and, as might have been expected, also
in this, that the systematic exposition is an entirely different
work from the allegorical commentary on selected passages from

349-354. The arrangement of Philo's work on the persecutions, or rather
on the persecutors of the Jews, which I attempted on the basis of
the statements of Eusebius, has been subjected to a thorough
criticism by Massebieau in his work just referred to, pp. 65-78.
He feels himself obliged, even on the basis of the Eusebian state-


iiients, to assume that the first and second of the five books which
Eusebius refers to in Hi^t. eccl. ii. 5. 1, liave been lost, and that in
tlie second the persecution under Sejanus had been related. But
he believes that only the Legatio ad Cajum which has come down
to us is a fragment of those five books, whereas the treatise adverstis
Flaccum did not belong to that group. But against this theory,
and in favour of the opinion that the treatise adversus Flaccum
formed part of the five books referred to by Eusebius, the fact that
our treatise adversus Flaccum, according to its opening words, was
iindoubtedly preceded by a book on the persecutions by Sejanus,
atfords very strong presumptive evidence. From this we are
justified in concluding that the treatise adversus Flaccum formed
the third of those five books. What powerful reasons then has
Massebieau to advance against the insertion of the treatise in that
series? He starts with the assumption that the Alexandrian
]»ersecution of the Jews, which is reported in the Legatio ad Cajum,
is the same as that which is described in the treatise cuiversus
Flaccum. But one and the same occurrence could not have been
described with equal fulness and detail in two books of the one
work. Tlie Legatio ad Cajum does not by any means represent
itself as a continuation of the treatise adversus Flaccum. Now with
reference to the identity of the two persecutions, I must, in
opposition to the view maintained by me in Division II. vol. iii.
pp. 362, 353, agree with Massebieau (comp. Division I. vol. ii. p.
94). It is also correct to say that the Legatio is not the continuation
of the Flaccus. Nevertheless, I regard it as certain that the
arrangement proposed by me is the right one. Massebieau has
himself afforded the key for the solution of the difficulty. He has,
in an able and convincing manner, shown that Philo in this work
treats, not of the persecutions, but of the persecutors of the Jews.
His theme is the same as that of Lactantius in his work de mortibus
persecutarum : all persecutors of the righteous come to an evil end.
This proposition Philo supports by pointing to the cases of Sejanus,
Flaccus, and Caligula. All threti had cruelly jiersecuted the Jews.
All three came to a violent end. To each of them Philo devotes a
little nionov;ra])li, and these three treatises are bound together into
one whole only by the common point of view. Under these
circumstances it can be very easily understood that the Legatio ad
Cajum appears not as a continuation of the Flaccus, and that the
Alexandrian persecution of the Jews is related in detail in both,
although both writings form parts of one com])reheusive work.
That persecution must have been the subject in both books, because
it was carried on by Flaccus as well as by Caligula, each proceeding
in his own way. The understanding of this literary plan of Philo
has been made difficult owing to the circumstance that only the
treatise against Flaccus has come down to us complete, and that the


other treatise under its common designation Legatio ad Cajum lias
been regarded from a false point of view. The embassy of the
Jews to Caligula is in that treatise quite a secondary matter. The
main thing in it, just as in the treatise on Flaccus, is on the one
hand a description of the godless infatuation of Caligula, and on
the other hand the description of the divine judgment which over-
took him. This second part is wanting. That it did once exist
is put beyond doubt by the introduction and conclusion of the


Date Due


Online LibraryEmil SchürerA history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ .. (Volume 2 pt.3) → online text (page 51 of 51)