Encyclopaedia Biblica/Heman-Hezeki

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



(|On, AIMAN [BAL]), one of the three sons of MAHOL [g.v.~\ who were renowned for their wisdom, i K. 431 [f>n] (aivav [B], tj/jiav [A]). The name appears again in i Ch. 26 (aifiovav [B]) among the sons of the Judahite Zerah. The same legendary personage, however, is intended ; the clan of Zerah was Edomite before it became Judahite (see Gen. 861317). Possibly (as S. A. Cook suggests) the name Heman may be identified with the Edomite HEMAM (oa .i) ; more probably, however, HEMAN and ETHAN, 2, are both corrupt forms of jrrn, TEMAN, one of the oldest districts of Edom, sometimes used poetically as a synonym for Edom. The whole force of the passage (i K. 431) depends on this. See MAHOL.

In post-exilic times Heman, like Ethan, gives his name to one of the guilds of singers (see PSALMS). According to the Chronicler he took part in the dedica tion of the temple (2 Ch. 5 12, RV ; cp i Ch. 1641 f. 25 6 [ai/uLavei B]). A levitical genealogy is produced for him ; he becomes the grandson of Samuel, and traces his origin to Kohath, son of LEVI (see GENEALOGIES i. , 7 ii.a, m.c). In this connection it may be remarked that Samuel himself is represented in i S. 1 1 as grand son of Jeroham, a shortened form of JERAHMKEL (g.v. , 3 ; cp JEROHAM, i). The double heading of Ps. 88 assigns that psalm first to the sons of Korah and then to Heman (cu0a/u. [A]) the Ezrahite. Heman was indeed, according to i Ch. 26, a Zarhite ( = Ezrahite) ; but this made him of the tribe of Judah ; as a singer he was a Korahite. There is thus a confusion of two representations implied in this heading.

In i Ch. 254_/C (ou/uafei [B] once in v. 4) a little section, full of difficulty, is devoted to Heman. He is called the king s seer (J ust ike his ancestor Samuel, but also like Asaph and Jeduthun), and is said to have had fourteen sons and three daughters. 1 The difficulty lies in the words which follow the king s seer, and in the closing names in the list of Heman s sons. These are as follows : Giddalti, Romamti-ezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, Mahazioth (rtSfpatr, iTJT riDDh, PlSia, mX tnOi yni.1> *nVoX Ewald 2 long ago suggested that these names might be so rendered as to form, in combination, a poetical couplet, I have given great and majestic help, I have spoken in abundance oracles. One word (nt5 p3tJ h omitted ; later scholars have sought to repair his omission by rendering to him that sat in distress (see also NAMES, 23). The theory was plausible as long as it was supposed that the Chronicler was in the habit of framing uncommon names in the interest of edification. Now, however, that the evidence for this supposition is beginning to break down elsewhere, 3 we are bound to be more strict in criticising Ewald s suggestion. It is safe to maintain not only that the rendering is extremely un natural, but that the clause produced by combining the last four names is execrable Hebrew. This objection cannot be raised against the reading proposed by Kau. 1 * in lieu of Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, viz., HBX Sx 33n PP "imf.e., Have pity upon me, O Yahwe, have pity upon me ; thou art my God ; still we must ask, How comes such a passage to be introduced just here, even as a marginal note? Eliathah is no doubt an impossible name ; but is there no better theory to account for it ? Certainly there is a better one. Joshbekashah (,iB p3B") and Mahazioth (niN ino) are corruptions of the same word, and Mallothi Orfe) and Hothir (Tnin) are corrupt fragments of it. Again and again we find different corruptions of the same word side by side, and this is the case here ; or rather, there are two words in construction, viz., rn p V33. As for Giddalti and Romamti-ezer, the former is miswritten for Gedaliah (n 71j)i the latter for a dittographed Jerimoth (niD T) ar| d Azar el (^Nllj;, a variant to Uzziel in v. 18). Gedaliah was introduced as a correction of the corrupt Eliathah (nnx ^x)- Hanani is really a dittographed Hananiah, and is to be omitted. In v. 5 D ln 1 ? pp ( to lift up the horn !) is miswritten for VOrn "1B]7, to praise his compassion. All these -viz., Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shebuel (Samuel ?), Jerimoth (Jeroham ?), Hanani, Gedaliah were the sons of Heman, the king s seer (who phesied ?) with words of God to praise his compassion. God gave to Heman seven (njnt?) sons and three daughters." The seven sons are called, quite correctly, sons of Korah (Joshbe kashah, etc.!), i.e., members of the Korahite guild. This is a sign that the Chronicler draws here from a Midrashic source (cp 2 Ch. 20 19, and WRS OT/CP), 205, n. 2). T. K. C.

1 Klostermann, who identifies Heman and Job, sees here a coincidence with Job 42 13 (taking .1JV?!? as a dual = fourteen).

2 Lehr/ itch der hebr. Sf racked, 672 ( 63).



RV Hammath (TVpn, MecHMA [B], AIMA0 [A], eMA0 [L])- the father of the house of Rechab (i Ch. 2 sst)- Elsewhere Jonadab is the father of the Rechabites, and if any one can dispute this title with him it is Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses.

The Chronicler must have known of Hobab ; and if so he must mean Hobab. The easiest solution of the problem is to suppose that JlSn is a fragment of WO Jnri, father-in-law of Moses, and to see in this an allusion to the phrase in Judg. 1 16. See HOBAB, JONADAB, 2, and on the Kenite connection see RECHABITES, KENITES. In <&, i Ch. 4 12, the avSpts pix"/ 3 [BL] (MT Recah ) appear among the Calebites (pointed out by Meyer, ./. 147), which seems to agree with the notice in i Ch. 255. T. K. C.


(nOH), Am. 6i 4 , AV, RVHAMATH [?..]. HEMDAN (Hpn, desirable [?], 77 ; Gray [HPN 64], however, suggests ppn : C p "jB cn, and see ABIDAN ; but the analogy of most of the other names in the list suggests that the | is not radical), a Horite clan-name (Gen. 3026 ; a^aSa. [ADL], aSafia [E]); in || i Ch. 141, apparently by a scribe s error, HAMRAN, AV AMRAM (pen; f^fp<av [B], a/uaSa [A], -a^i [L]). See DISHON.


For ( i ) tJ>8O, ro f, Hos. 10 4 , see GALL, i and for (2) TOD/, laaniih, Am. 6 12, see WORMWOOD.


(op NIC). Mt. 23 3 7 Lk. 13 34 (/vi| Ti.]). See FOWLS, 2 4.


(fH), one of the Babylonian Jewish delegates, temp. Zerubbabel (Zech. 6 14!). BXAQF has ei? x*P Ta so a so RV)g. ; for the kindness of the son of Zephaniah. The text is plainly in disorder. Read probably, Joshua the son of Z. (We.). See JOSIAH, 2.


(17? H), an imaginary name which, through a scribe's error, has found its way into the Rabshakeh's message to Hezekiah (2 K. 19 13, AN6C [B], AINA [A], -A[- [L]; Is. 37 13, ANAf [BN Ol" 1 ]. ANAB [N c ], ANA [A], ANAC [Q*], ANA6 [Q"*-]. 1 The text stands thus, 'Where is ... the king of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah?' 1 (RV). Underlying this is a witty editorial suggestion that the existence of cities called yjn and niy respectively has passed out of mind (cp Ps. 96 [7]), for niyi jnn clearly means 'he has driven away and over turned' (so Tg. , Sym. ). To look out for names resembling Hena and Ivvah is waste of time. The context further makes it plain that only one city was mentioned. Either pn or my must therefore be omitted, and a comparison of 2 K. 17 24 shows that jnn is the superfluous word. Probably jnn was miswritten for rnj?, or rather (see AVVA) for nty, Gaza. T. K. c.


(T]3n, HNAAAA [BXA, note confusions of A A and \ below]). A Levitical name (see below), the peculiarity of which requires notice. The name may be corrupt, and, if so, an easy emendation would be 3"m % Jonadab, a not unnatural name for a Levite. 3 Baethgen, however (Beitr. 68, n. 4) and BDB explain as Tirr|n> favour of Hadad (so also 42), cp Ph. isJlt- 3 The bearer of the name is a Levite, mentioned as the father of BINNUI [q.v. , 3] in list of wall- builders (see NEHEMIAFI, i /. , EZRA ii. , 16 [i], 15^), Neh. 3i8 (rjvaSaXaT [BN], vaj3a.d [L]), v. 24 (t)i>ada[3 [L,]), also as a signatory to the covenant (EZRA i., 7), Neh. 10 9 [i] (-nvaSap [B*t-,], -Xa/3 [B b - vid -], i)i>-r]\ad [A], iwva.5a.l3 [L]j. The name occurs once again in the difficult passage Ezra 89, on which see Ryle, Camb. Bible, adloc. (tycaaS [B], tuvadajS [L]).

In EzraSg it is best, perhaps, instead of rm.T J3 V331 to read mim 33T 4 ! I 16 corruption would arise through a misunderstanding of the name Bani (as in Ezra 2 40, etc.), helped by the preceding vnni V33- As regards Henadad, it is clear that the concluding words are out of place (cp i Esd. 557(58], and see MADIABUN), and supported by Neh. 169 [10] it may be suggested that -njn ^SD was a marginal gloss to Bani which, on being taken into the text, was rounded off by the addition of the words D l^n Dn riNI Dma- S. A. C.

1 Compare also 2 K. 18 34 (om. B, ava. [A], L differs) || Is. 36 2 Ch. 32 om.

2 Cp (S 1 - Ezra 3 9 Neh. 10g (10). The manner in which the name-lists in Ez.-Neh. have been compiled and the harmonising labours of the earliest scribes will account for the circumstance that such a familiar name could ever have gone astray.

3 Not only does one expect ; (nun with daghesh) on the analogy of ^N jn and Hannibaal, but such a Levitical name is unlocked for ; the case of AZOAD is different.

4 33, 33, or 133, cp Neh. 94/ 128, also 743 (see BANI, 3), and 1224 (see BINNUI, 2).


(153), Cant. 1 14. See CAMPHIRE.


Cq un ; eNoox [BAL]). i. i Ch. 1 3 , AV, RV ENOCH (g.v., i). 2. i Ch. 1 33, AV, RV HANOCH (i).


pan. o<J>ep [BAL]). Cp GATH-HEPHER.

i. A Canaanite city mentioned between Tappuah and Aphek in Sharon (see APHEK, 3); Josh. 12i 7 (f>p [L]). CpEpHRAiM, 12, end.

2. A district in Judah (?) which fell into Solomon s third pre fecture, I K. 4 10 ((j>ap[a^eiv] [B], <#>ap- (.LJ). See BfiN-HESED, i.



1. (o4>Ap [BK], 0)4>AP [L], A has [top]*- <t>ep[o/v\exOY,pA0i])- A name in the Chronicler's list of David s heroes, i Ch. 1136. The passage is plainly corrupt ; see ELIPHELET, 2.

2. (o<j>{p [BAFL]). The founder, or eponym, of a Gileadite clan, who is variously described as the son (Josh. 17 2, JE, t(j>ep [L]) and as the great-grandson of Manasseh (Xu. 2ti 3 2/. [ 3 6/.] 27 i. P). The clan itself is called the Hepherites ( nsnn, 6 6<f>fp[f]i [BAFL] ; Nu. 26 52) or sons of Hepher (josh. 17 2).

3 . (r)<oA [BA], ai^ep [L]). The eponym of a family of Judah, called the son of ASHHUR (i Ch. 4e).


(nipyan, usually 'in whom is my delight', 22, 107 ; but analogy favours Smend's rendering, 'in whom is delight' ; see, however, i).

1. The mother of King Manasseh, 2 K. 21 i (oi/<ei/3a IB*], a\j/. [Bab], o^crijSa [A], eit/3a [L]). The Phoen. form ^jQjtBri suggests that Hephzibah may be a deliberate distortion i of the name Hephzibaal, delight of baal (i.e., either of Baal, or of a husband). The Chronicler (2 Ch. 33 i) passes over Manasseh s mother.

2. The symbolical name of restored Zion, Is. 62 4 (0c A>jfia iy.6v [BNAQ] ; cp yff df\rfnj Mai. 3 12). Here, too, the reading SjO sSn seems preferable ; Yah we is the baal or husband who delights in his bride Zion (v. 5 ; see SBO f).

T. K. C. S. A. C.


appears three times in NT (RV m e-) as the rendering of KHpyS. f r which EV has preacher (iTi. 2? 2 Ti. In 2 Pet. 2s). Krjpvffffu means simply to proclaim ; see, e.g., Jon. 85 (<>), Mt. 3i. See MINISTRY.

In (ojpvf represents the NVTQ EV, herald, of Dan. 84. On the probable philological connection of 113 (Dan. 629 Aph. ; made proclamation ) with K7)pOcr<rei ( 87 cSuiKei/ eovo-i ai>), see Be van on Dan. 629; Kau., Graiiun. des bibl. Aram., 644; No. GGA, 84, p. 1019. KT/pvf also occurs in Gen. 41 43 (see ABRECH), Ecclus. 20 15 4 Mace. 04.


A rendering of various Hebrew terms.

z p"l% y& r <ik, that which is green, a garden of herbs, Dt. 11 10 i K. 21 2. A dinner (AV, Che., cp Ass. arahu, to eat ; RV ing. portion of herbs) Prov. 15 17.

2- 3tyy, esebh, herbage, including grasses and cereals, Gen. 1 n, etc.

3 and 4. Nt?i, dese , and vsrli h"? lr - See GRASS.

5 and 6. rhN, troth (MH rrnui), 2 K. 4 39 (ap lw [BAL], herbas agrestes). Elisha had just come down to Gilgal in time of famine and sent a man to gather ordth, herbs or vegetables for a pottage. The Talmud (} omd, 18 b) explains oroth by the word gargir (Vjlj), which means colewort (enica). Royle (Kitto s Bib. Cyc., s.v. Oroth ), indeed, insists that the oroth must have been the fruit of some plant for which the so-called wild gourds (EV) might have been mistaken. This, however, is not at all clear. The man spoken of in the story need not have confined himself to colewort. If he found a cucumber, or what he thought to be such, he would not reject it. See GOURDS, WILD.

In Is. 26ig rniK SB (<V<* [BKAQr]; ros lucis; EV dew of herbs ), if correct, means dew of lights (RV nfT- dew of light ). See DEW, 2 b. But suggests CnDIN, their heal ing (see LIGHT). And in Is. 184 AV s rendering of niK- Sj/ (as >f rnN-Sy)- upon herbs (is <f>u>s <cavju.a.T<K /j.eoT)(i/3pias [BNAQT] ; meridiana lux), is generally abandoned ; RV gives in sunshine. But the text probably needs emendation (see VINE).

7. fimdvri = NE-I, dese, 3&y, esebh, in ; grass ; Heb. 67.

8. Aaxaia=pr, yardk, and p-|<, yerek, in ; herbs, Mt. 1332.

For C"np, mfrorim, Ex. 12s, see BITTER HERBS.

1 Or an abbreviated form.

2 According to Polyb. 31 20, Arr. Alex. 2 24 etc., it was custom ary for the colonies to send embassies to Tyre in honour of their deity.


( HPAKAHC [VA]), mentioned only in 2 Macc. 4 19 /! in connection with the games held in his honour at Tyre, for which JASON \q.v. , 2] sent 300 drachmas of silver. 2 The contest was held every fifth year, and was probably based upon the Olympic games (cp further Schiir. (7/7 2 ^ ff.). Hercules was the Greek name for the Tyrian Melkarth 1 (rnpSo, i.e., ~fco mp, king of the city), whence the Greek Melikertes (see Roscher, Lex. , s.v.). See BAAL, 6, HELLENISM, 5-


(1153), Ex. 10 9 ; Herdsman (Hlh), Gen. 13 7. See CATTLE, 2a 6.


EV*-, or, CITY OF DESTRUCTION, EV ; (D-jnn Ttf ; so MT, Pesh. ) ; or, CITY OF THE SUN, EV second margin (D^Pin Y17 ; so Symm. , Vg. , Talm. , Mindhoth no a, Saad. , 2 and some Heb. MSS), or, city of righteousness (pIXil TJ? [?], noAlC ACeAeK 3 [BNAQ1 1 ] ; <\pec Aq. , Theod. , may be either DID or D~in). The name which was to be given at a future day to one of five cities in Egypt, where Hebrew would be spoken and the Jewish religion practised (Is. 19:18).

Opinion is much divided as to the reading of the name, and as to the date of the section to which the clause containing the name belongs. Some critics (Dillmann, Guthe) even hold that the clause is a later addition to the section ; this, however, seems an unnecessary refine ment of criticism, suggested by a wish to push the date of the rest of the chapter as high up as possible. Considering that there is nothing in vv. 18-25 that is decidedly favourable, and much that is adverse, to the authorship of Isaiah, and that the section only becomes fully intelligible in the light of the history of the Greek period, it is best to interpret v. 17^ as the translation of a fact of history into the language of prophecy. The meaning of the verse seems to be that early in the Greek period there were to be in Egypt colonies of Jewish worshippers of Yah we, among whom the language of Canaan was not exchanged for Greek, and that one of them would be settled in the city of Heres, or (shall we say?) of Heres. Probably Heres, not Heres, is the right reading ; it is Heliopolis, the city of the Sun-god, that is meant the city which before the foundation of Alexandria was perhaps best known to the Jews (see ON). The rare word Din is preferred to E>CE> (contrast Jeremiah s procedure, if 'Beth-shemesh' in Jer. 43 13 is correct). The reading Heres (i.e. , destruction) is no doubt an intentional alteration of Heres (a few MSS even read c~\n = anathema), just as Timnath-heres (Judg. 2g) is altered into Timnath-serah in Josh. 19 50 24 3 o.

(s reading city of Zedek (i.e., city of righteousness ), though it is defended by Geiger [Urschr. 79], Bredenk., Guthe, and half accepted by Dillmann, is very improbable, and may seem to have arisen out of a desire for a distinct prediction of the temple of Onias at Leontopolis (see Jos. Ant. xiii. 3i). pns will then mean legal correctness (cp pis *rp7. Ps. 5l2i); the Oneion was not at first regarded with dislike in Palestine. But N* S acrefi [cure, N c - a ] suggests the possibility that -etc is a later addition to ao-eS, which perhaps arose through transposition of letters ; ao-eS in fact suggests -\or\ or "1D.T On the critical questions, see further Che. Intr. Is. p. xxvi 102 f., Kittel s revision of Dill- mann s Jesaia ( 98), and Marti s commentary. To recapitulate fantastic theories which have small claim on consideration would lead the reader away from the main point (on which cp HIGH PLACE, 9, n.). T. K. C.

1 So especially C/S 1 no. 122, where for -|<{ ^J73 D the parallel Gr. has lipcucAei apXTjye rei ; cp Baethg. Beitr. zof.

2 The Oxford MS has distinctly Din^N mp- Derenbourg, however, emends mn into D"1>"!> and conjectures that Saad. gave this word the Arabicizing sense of crushing (2A TIV9 57).

3 On the supposed reading IT. axpe (in the Complutensian edition), see Del. on Isaiah, I.e.


So RV, in Judg. 8 15, to define the road which Gideon took in returning to Succoth from the battlefield. RV partly follows certain versions, which read oinn nVjffiD for oinn njJJfloSo (MT). This, however, is not enough ; we do not expect a place-name here, onrra (Symm., Theod.) would be a slight improvement.

Most probably, however, the true reading is D"infJ 'he devoted the host to destruction', originally a marginal correction of T"]nn n:riEn (v. 12, end). Tina is in fact a weak expression (cp Jos. Ant. v. 6 5, SityBeipt). For the form of the correction cp i K. <>3 [423], where the last two words are a cor rection of a preceding word, see FOWL, KATTKD.

<S s readings are inavtadfv (TTJS Traparof ea>s) Apf s [B, omitting an accidental repetition), dirb ai>a/3<icrws apf [ALJ. Ac|. had airo aim/}, rov Spvfiov (reading t/"inn)> Symm. . . . ruiy bptav, Theod. . . . opout (see Field with his quotation from Jerome in the note), Vg. ante soils ortutit, Tg. xycy SyO !? 1J, , be fore sunrise.


(Dnrnn). Mentioned with Aijalon and Shaalbim as still occupied by the Amorites, Judg. Is4/. Almost certainly in is a scribe s error for Tj?, so that we should read Ir-heres = lR-SHKMKSH. Budde in his commentary overlooks this, but makes the valuable suggestion that Ir-heres, Har-heres (?), and BETH-SHEMESH [q.v., i] may all be identified with Bit-Ninib in the district of Jerusalem (Am. Tab. 183 i4/. ). If this be so <S I! may be right and we can connect Heres with the gate Harsith of Jer. 192. We may even go further and suggest as a possibility that Din was originally vocalised differently and was a Hebraised form of Uras, a synonym of the Ass. god Ninib (worshipped at Bit-Ninib), who is primarily the fierce morning sun (see Jensen, Kosmol. 458).

@AL (f V r opei) TOW fivptriMui>os=Dnn"in:i (an anachronism, see MYRTLE); cod. 58 rov Spvuiovos (mg. TO! 6o-Tpa/eu>Sei) = cnrrina; cp Moore. reads TW oo-rpaicuiSci (oin = inn). Conder mentions the ruins of Ibn Harith in the vale of Aijalon. Cp TIMNATH-HERES. T. K. C.


(Knri; p&pAihA [B], \pec [A], A. PH C [L]), an Asaphite Levite ; i Ch. 9isf.

The name has no 1 prefixed to it ; Vg. therefore gives car- pentarius (Bnn), most improbably. A comparison of Neh. H 17 (crit. emend.) shows that yyft enn (not found in the list in Neh.) should be fl?nn.1 ^X"), the leader in the song of praise. 1 The words should have stood after Mattaniah . . . son of Asaph. T. K. C.


Heresy and sect in EV both represent AjpeciC-

For heresy in AV see Acts 24 14 ; for heresies," i Cor. 11 19 Gal. 5 20 2 Pet. 2 i. For sect, see Acts 5 17 15 5 24 5 26 5 28 22 and mg. of i Cor. 11 19. RV, however, gives a sect in Acts 24 14 (mg. heresy ) ; factions in i Cor. 11 19 ing. ; parties in Gal. 5 20 mg. ; sects in 2 Pet. 2 i mg. Both AV and RV give heretical /or aiperticot in Tit. 3 10 ; RVni- factious.

1. Biblical use of aipecris[edit]

We shall treat aifpetrts (heresy) and alperiKds (heretical) here, from a phraseological and exegetical point of view; see further HELLKNISM, 6-7. aipecris [airesis]occurs several times in the LXX (see eg. Lev 22:18 1 Macc 8:30); alperiicds neither in the LXX nor in classical writers (but see Suicer). In the OT alpfffis means free choice ; but in classical literature it has also, in pre-Christian times, the more specialised sense of freely chosen opinion. Thus ai pecm AKaSyfj-aiK-/! is equivalent to the Platonic philosophy - i.e. , Platonism. Only a short step was needed to designate the holders in the aggregate of such an opinion also as a ai pecris, though, of course, without any flavour of censure, merely in the sense of a school or party. It is in this sense of the word that Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5g, 171) describes the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes as the three aipfofts of the Jews since the Maccabean period, who had different opinions concerning human actions. Following the same usage, Acts 5 17 speaks of the aipeffis of the Sadducees and 15s (26s) of that of the Pharisees, whilst in 24 5 14 2822 the word is employed to denote the followers of Christ this last, it is true, only in the mouths of unbelieving Jews. Wherever in the first century of Christianity, whether in Jerusalem or in Rome, Jewish believers in the Messiah made their appearance, and rallied to their freely chosen ideal with a zeal and a claim of separateness recalling in some respects the manner of the Essenes, they would neces sarily appear to their fellow- Jews in the light of a new a lpfffis. The accent of superciliousness which we note when Paul's accusers at Caesarea speak of him as a leader of the aipecrs of the Nazarenes does not lie on the word aipecrs but on the genitive rCiv Nafaj/xuajp, of the Nazarenes, the deluded followers of the false Messiah from despised Galilee (see NAZARETH). If, on the other hand, Paul in Acts 24 14 in his answer to Tertullus substitutes the word 656s, way, doctrine, religion, for a ipfffis, it is not because the latter word is in itself a name of reproach, but because he regards himself as representing, not a new aipfais and, there fore, at best, only a portion of the people of God but the nation of Israel as a whole in so far as it can claim this name.

In the genuine Pauline epistles the word aipeais is met with twice : in Gal. 5 20, where in the list of the works of the flesh it is enumerated between otxooracricu ( divisions ) and >p66i>oi ( envyings ), and in i Cor. 11 19, where it is used as synonymous with (rxt 0> taTa - The new religion inscribed on its banner the motto All ye are one in Christ Jesus," and accordingly regarded with the liveliest aversion any breaking-up into narrower circles, and every tendency to give prominence to individual opinions of the school. This spirit had already asserted itself to such an extent that the otpeVets or divergent views, the existence of which to a Greek philosopher would probably have betokened a fresh and vigorous intellectual life, were deprecated as manifesta tions of grave and most disquieting import. It is only in a tone of bitter irony that the apostle (i Cor. 11 19) says there must needs be aipecrets (or factions) among the Corinthians, in order that they who are approved among them may be made manifest. Here he has in view only those factions turning on personal questions which were so specially conspicuous in the church life of Corinth not false doctrines or the formation of sects occasioned by these. 2 For these there is as yet no word with the force of a terminus technicus, otherwise Paul, who (especially in Galatia and in Colossas) had a hard enough battle to fight against false teachers, would assuredly have made use of it somewhere in that con nection. To him aifpecrts is hateful just as schism (crxur/xa) and faction (Sixoffrairia) are- in other words, only as interfering with that oneness amongst the members which is so essential to the existence of Christianity.

2. Use in post-apostoiic age.[edit]

In the post-apostolic age, as early as the time of Ignatius and Justin, as a result of the catholic tendencies of the Period, the word aipecris became the terminus technicus for heterodoxy or 'heresy' - for all doctrine that departs from the true faith, as well as for the company of the maintainers of such doctrine. Those who held to the church found it impossible to think of such departures as having their origin in anything but arbitrary self-will, the church being by revelation in possession of the entire truth attainable in the present aeon. Hence Tertullian s definition (De prcescr. har. 6), adulterae doctrinas, hasreses dictie Grasca voce ex interpretatione electionis qua quis sive ad instituendas sive ad suscipiendas eas utitur.

The word has already reached this stage in 2 Pet. 2 i where there is a prediction of false teachers who shall bring in aiptafis airu>\fia.s destructive heresies (RV) by reason of which the way of truth (cp Acts 24 14) shall be evil spoken of. Whether aiptfffis be taken here in the sense of separations or in that of sects or (better note irapeiffdyfiv ) of incorrect doctrines they are, in the mind of this writer, ipso facto and as such, something abominable, a work of falsehood ; and the additional word diroAaas is simply the expression of his belief that hell, or everlasting destruction (RV n e- sects of perdition ) is their destined end. In like manner also Tit. 3 10 enjoins that a factious man (aipfTiKO* dvOpwiros) is to be shunned if a repeated effort to bring him to a better state of mind has failed ; in that case he is an irreclaimable sinner, self-condemned ; cp EXCOMMUNICATION. This employment of an adjective aipeTi/c6j shows merely (cp cupeeriamu, Just. Dial. c. Tryph. 80) how firmly, even at that early date, the idea of all that is ungodly and against the church had attached itself to the word cti peo-ts ; an idea which, further heightened by the distinction drawn between heresy and schism, remains to this day insepar ably bound up with it in ecclesiastical phraseology.

On the New Heb. term D VO (tniniin), the origin and exact references of which are disputed, but which many (e.g., Schechter, Studies in Judaism [ 96], 420) render heretics, see H. Kraus, Begrijf und Farm der Hdresie nach Talmud u. Midrash ( 96) ; Friedliinder, Der vorchristliche jiid. Mono- (Atismus ( 98) ; Schurer, C/J and TLZ, 24 167^ ( 99>-

A. J.

1 |RV renders, After the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers," i.e., I serve the same God as my accusers, but according to a form of religion (TJI J, Judg. 222 Jer. 32 39) which is simpler and truer than theirs." Jesus of Nazareth, in other words, is a reformer of Judaism, a restorer of the primitive religion of Israel. The sect of the Nazarenes therefore deserves toleration by the Romans as belonging to the great Jewish body.]

2 Chrys. ov TauTas \tyuiv ras riuv Soy/iorair, aAAa TO? rail tT\l<THOiTU>V TOVTUf.


(rnn -W) i S. 22 5 RV, AV HARETH(<?. v. ).


(epMAC [Ti. WH], an abbreviated name) is one of five Hermes being another who with the brethren that are with them are saluted in Rom. 1614 (cp ROMANS, 4, 10). They seem to have been heads of Christian households, or perhaps class - leaders of some sort.

The names Hermas and Hermes occur twice in inscriptions belonging to the province of Asia (the former in CIG 2 2826, the latter in CIG 2 2747 2825). In the lists of the seventy apostles by the Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo - Hippolytus, Hermas figures as bishop of Philippi. No one any longer sup poses that he was the author of the Shepherd of Hermas, the date of which is about 140 A.D., though from Origen (in Ep. ad R am.) onwards church-writers have expressed this view, and accordingly have given that allegorical work a place among the writings of the apostolical fathers or immediate disciples of the apostles. Against this view see Diet. Chr, Biog., and Lipsius Hermas, Bib. Lex. Qvojf.


(ep/WHC [Ti.WH]) is one of five who are mentioned together in Rom. 16 14 (cp ROMANS, 4, 10).

The name is of frequent occurrence among slaves, especially members of the imperial household of the first century. In Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus Hermes is called bishop of Dalmatia. Cp HERMAS.


(epMOfeNHC [Ti. WH]) is mentioned in 2 Tim. 1:15-16, 'All that are in Asia turned away from me, of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes'. Nothing is really known of him, though the list of the seventy disciples of our Lord by the Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre (Chr. Pasch. , Bonn ed. 2 121) makes him bishop of Megara, while in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla he appears (with Demas) as a hypocritical fellow- traveller of Paul.

A certain Hermogenes, a magician, figures largely along with his disciple Philetus in the Apocryphal Passio Jacobi Majoris ; the names are obviously borrowed from 2 Tim. 1 15 2 17, and the story is a commonplace narrative of magical wonders (see Lipsius, Apocr. Ap.-Gesch. 8201^).


(|iEnn, belonging to, or connected with, a sanctuary, A,ep/v\CON [BAFL]), the great mountain-buttress of Antilibanus ; cp SENIR, SIRION, SIGN.

1. References.[edit]

Mount Hermon (pD"in in) occurs in Dt. 3 8_/^ (apiLiav [B*] in v. 9) Josh. 11 17 12i 5 13$ n i Ch. 623 (|| Baal-hermon and Senir ); Hermon alone in Josh. 11 3 (TTJV <pq^*rfB]), Ps.89i2[i 3 ] (aep/A*>x [B]), 1333, Cant. 4 8 (tpn<av [B] cpfi^vile]^ [BNART]) (where Senir and Hermon are combined). In Judg. 83 we find Mount Baal-hermon ; but comparing Josh. 11 17 (where Baal-gad in the valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mt. Hermon appears as the N. boundary of Israel), Budde rightly reads the Hittites that dwelt from Baal-gad which is at the foot of Mt. Hermon to the approach to Hamath (cp also Josh. 127). As the ideal N. boundary of Israel Mt. Hermon appears again in Dt.3s (cp Josh. 12s)

The poetical references to Hermon are not very many ; and those which apparently occur need careful testing. Ps. 426 [7] ( the Hermons RV, AV HERMONITES) is considered under MIZAR, HILL OF; Is. 89 12 [13] under TABOR (i.); Ps. 1883 under DEW,2(</); Cant. 4:5 under AMANA, i, and CANTICLES, 15 (d). In the first two of these passages 'Hermonim' and 'Hermon' are not genuine.

That Ezekiel (27s) should prefer the name Senir to that of Hermon is remarkable ; but we must remember that the OT passages in which Hermon occurs do not (unless Judg. 83 be an exception) represent at all an early period.

In the NT Hermon is not mentioned ; but neither is Lebanon ; and Gerizim is only referred to in John 4 2o/. as this mountain. It would be delightful to think that Hermon was the high mountain of the Transfiguration- scene ; but though, as Stanley (SP 399) remarks, high upon its southern slopes there must be many a point where the disciples could be taken apart by them selves," and Keim (Jesu -von Naz. 2585) sees no difficulty in supposing that the narrator thought of one of the spurs of Hermon, good reason has been urged by Weiss for placing the scene in Christ s usual haunts in the NW. of the Sea of Galilee (Leben Jesu, 2331 /.).

2. Sanctity.[edit]

We have still to notice a strange reference to Hermon in the Book of Enoch (66), where the wicked angels are said to have descended in the days of 'Jared' ( 'descent' ) on the summit of Mt. Hermon, and to have called it Hermon, because of the oaths which they had sworn upon it. This is a proof of the persistent sacredness of Mt. Hermon, and reminds- us of the statement of Philo of Byblus that the giants were named after the mountains of Syria Casion (Mt. Casius), Libanus, Antilibanus (Hermon) and Rpa6v = t?ri3 (?). A notable temple on the summit is referred to by Eusebius and Jerome (OS 21 7 39 ; 90 21) as the seat of pagan worship, and recent exploration has confirmed this statement. Not only have the ruins of many Roman temples been discovered round the base and sides of the mountain, but also on its highest crag there are the traces of an open-air sanctuary, and close by on the plateau is an underground chamber, hewn in the rock, perhaps a Mithraeum. 1

3. Description.[edit]

Mount Hermon has in fact three craggy summits, which rise out of a plateau ; hence it is usual to explain the plural noun ' Hermonim ' in Ps. 426 r71. 'Mount', which is a Hebraistic expression, means in this phrase a range of mountains, stretching from SW. to NE. , and separated from Antilibanus by a ravine in the N. Its modern names are Jebel es-Seh, the mountain of the (white- haired) old man, and Jebel eth-Thelj, the snow mountain. The latter agrees with the appellation found in the Targum (tuWi lie), and is specially suitable, Hermon being widely visible in Palestine. It is rare for the snow to disappear entirely, and hence, as a rule, snow from Hermon is still, as in Jerome s time (note on Prov. 25i3), used for cooling drinks in the hot weather. Hermon is 9166 feet above the sea-level. As one approaches it from the S. , it seems to swell up like a vast dome ; but it is also visible in the Jordan Valley nearly as far south as Jericho. The lower part of the mountain, says Conder, 2 consists of Nubian sandstone, which appears also in the Lebanon. The upper part is a very rugged and barren dome of hard grey fossil iferous dolomitic limestone. Snow and frost combined have produced a sort of shingle which covers the higher slopes between the rocks and pinnacles of the mountain side. Conder and Tristram give pleasing descriptions of the vegetation on the lower slopes ; both the fauna and the flora present a remarkable contrast to those of the Jordan Valley, at the foot of the mountain. On the N. and the W. slopes are vineyards and orchards, which, however, are liable to visits from Syrian bears. On the S. , the main source of the Jordan bursts from its cavern (see CyKSAREA, 7). The oak and the poplar are the chief trees on the lower slopes ; higher up, the Aleppo pine is conspicuous. Nor must we forget the famous dew of Hermon. So abundant is the moisture of the night -mist on Hermon that those who encamp there during a summer night will find their tent as com pletely saturated as if heavy rain had fallen (cp DEW, i). T. K. c.

1 Conder, in Smith s DBV), 1340*1. 2 Ibid.


(D7ienH; [BXAR T], epvu/j.tii> [R* vil1 -] ; ffermoniim) i.e. , dwellers on Mt. Hermon (so Kimchi, Ainsworth, etc.), Ps. 426 [7], AV ; RV the Hermons i.e. , the three summits of HERMON (q. v. ). See MIZAR.


1. Origin of the Family.[edit]

The ancestor of the Herodian family was Antipater, whom Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C. ) had made governor of Idumaea (ffTpaTrjybs 6\r;s T^j ISoi/yuaias, Jos. Ant. xiv 1:5). The accounts of his origin are contradictory.

Nicolas of Damascus represented him as belonging to the stock of Jews (ex T<av npMTiav > Iou6Wco ) who returned from liaby- lon (Jos. l.c.)\ but because Nicolas was Herod s minister and ap >logist Josephus rejects his testimony. His own belief is that Antipater was an Idumaean of honourable family (wpioTevtov TOV tdvovs , BJ i. 6 2 ; cp Ant. xiv. 8 i).

The Idumaeans had been subjugated by John Hyrcanus in 128 B.C., and compelled to embrace Judaism.

In course of time they came to regard themselves as Jews (Jos. Ant. xiii. 9 i) ; though they were sometimes reminded that they were only half-Jews (fit. xiv. 152, HpiaSrj . . . 161(01-17 re OVTI Kal I6ou/Aat w, TOVTfcrTiv T]fj.iiov&aita. On the other hand, when it was convenient, Herod was claimed as a Jew; Ant. xx. 8 7, TO yeVos lovSalov).

The stories of the servile and Philistine origin of the family, spread abroad by Jewish, and perhaps also Christian, foes, are to be rejected (e.g. , Just. Mart. Dial. 52, Hpujdr/i> AtTKaXuviryv ; Jul. Afr. in Eus. HE i. 7 11 ; see Schiir. Hist. 1314 n. ). The occurrence of an Antipater of Ascalon on a tombstone in Athens (cYGlns), and of a Herod of Ascalon on one at Puteoli (C/G 101746), is interpreted in favour of origin from that town by Stark (Gaza, 5357^).

2. Antipater the younger.[edit]

la. Antipater (the younger} - The history of the family begins with Antipater's son, himself also called Antipater or Antipas - a diminutive form, perhaps used to avoid ambiguity during his father's lifetime ( so wilcken, in Pauly s Realencyc., s.v. Antipatros, no. 17). Antipater the younger, who may perhaps have succeeded to his father s governorship, 1 threw himself devotedly into the cause of Hyrcanus II. in his struggle against the usurpation of the crown and high-priesthood by his brother Aristobulus II. in 69 B.C.

This struggle, in which Antipater enlisted the arms of the Arabian (Nabataean) king Aretas (Haritha), ultimately cost the Jews their independence. The bold and vigorous character of Aristobulus augured, in fact, a resumption of the national policy of the Hasmonaean house, with which the Sadducaeari nobles were in sympathy. The accession of Queen Alexandra (78-69 B.C.) had marked the abandonment of this policy, and the adoption of the Pharisaic 2 abnegation of political development. (On this conflict of ideals between the two sects, see ISRAEL, 82/; Momms. Hist, of Rome, ET4i32; Id. Prat: of R. Einl>. 1 161.) The Pharisees attempted to attain their objects under the merely nominal rule of the weak Hyrcanus, and it was among them, as well as among the legitimist Sadducees, that Antipater found support (Jos. Ant. xiv. 1 3).

It is unnecessary to tell at length the story of the over throw of the Maccabee state, effected by Pompeius as a part of his policy for the organization of Syria.

The gates of Jerusalem were opened to the legions of Pompeius by the party of Hyrcanus ; but the national party seized the temple-rock and bravely defended it for three months (Ant. xiv. 42^C). This was in the autumn of 63 B.C. The final result of the struggle was the curtailment of Jewish territory. In con formity with the general policy of Rome in the East, of basing rule upon the (Greek) 3 urban communities, Pompeius liberated from the Jewish rule all the coast towns from Raphia to Dora, and all the non-Jewish towns of the Perasa together with Scythopolis and Samaria. To all these communal freedom was restored, whilst in other respects they were under the rule of the governor of the newly-constituted province of Syria.

1 Jos. Ant. xiv. 13, however, calls him merely $i Aos TI? "fpxavov. Hence Momms. Prov. of R. Emp. 2 174 n. , wrongly says, Antipater began his career as governor of idumaea : un less we suppose the governorship to have been merely a vague commission of superintendence attached to the hereditary chieftainship.

2 Jos. Ant. xiii. 162, navra. TOIS ^apiomois sjreVpejrei/ iroieii , oTs <cai TO 77X7)805 fKt\.v<Tfi> irfiQapxeiv.

3 For the meaning of Greek in this connection, as contrasted with Jewish, see Kuhn, Die stiidt. u. biirg. Verfass. dcs Ram. Reichs, i^yjf. It signifies not nationality so much as mode of organization.

The purely Jewish portion of the Hasmonaean king dom was left under Hyrcanus, who was recognised as high priest, but had neither the title nor the powers of a king (Jos. Ant. xx. 104). The whole country was made tributary, paying its taxes through the governor of Syria (id. Ant. xiv. 44; BJ i. 76).

It is clear that as a civil governor Hyrcanus was a complete failure, succumbing, as he did, before the first attack of Alexander, son of Aristobulus. Gabinius therefore deprived him of all his secular powers, and divided the whole country (i.e. , Judosa, Samaria, Galilee, and Peraaa) into five independent districts.

These districts (o-vvo&oi, avve&pia.) were administered by governing colleges with an aristocratic organisation (Jos. BJ 1. 8 5, do>ieV<us Se TTJS ef evos CTrtKpareia; f\fv0(p<a8(i>T(S, TO AotTTOi apio-TO/cpaTi a SLWKOVVTO). This was in 57 B.C. The two following years were also marked by abortive attempts on the part of Aristobulus or his son to recover the lost crown (see on the position of parties at this time, Wellh. Prol., ET, 527^).

The position of Antipater at this period is described by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 81).

Josephus calls Antipater governor of the Jews (rtav lovoaiiav jriju.eA7)T)js) ; so also Strabo, quoted by Josephus (ibid. 3). This office was probably in the main concerned with finance, for the five districts above mentioned must have been connected, not with the administration of law merely, but also with the arrange ments for collecting the taxes. In any case Antipater was an officer, not of Hyrcanus, whose power was at this time purely ecclesiastical, but of the Roman governor of Syria. The degree to which this was evident in practice depended entirely upon the attitude of Antipater towards Hyrcanus, and it was easy for him to act as though he were merely his first minister. Probably he owed this position to Gabinius, who in 55 B.C. settled the affairs of Jerusalem according to the wishes of Antipater (Jos. Ant. xiv. 64).

It is, therefore, an inversion of the facts when Josephus assigns to the initiative of Hyrcanus the services of Antipater to Caesar in Egypt in 48-7 B.C. {Ant. xiv. 81, ^ frTo\T)s TpKavov). There was, in fact, no alterna tive open, once Pompeius had fallen. An additional reason for this policy was that in 49 B.C. Cassar had attempted to use the defeated rival of Hyrcanus against the Pompeian party in Syria. The plan was frustrated by the poisoning of Aristobulus even before he left Rome, and by the execution of his son Alexander at Antioch by the proconsul of Syria, Q. Metellus Scipio, the father-in-law of Pompeius. Antigonus, the second son of Aristobulus, still lived and had strong claims on Caesar s gratitude. The personal services of Antipater, however, carried the day ; he fought bravely and success fully for Caesar at Pelusium and in the Delta. Hyrcanus was consequently confirmed in his high-priestly office and appointed hereditary ethnarch of the Jews i.e., he was reinstated in the political authority of which he had been deprived by Gabinius. Antipater was made procurator (eTrtrpoTros : not the procuratorship of the imperial period, but an office delegated, in theory, by Hyrcanus; cp Momms. Prov. of Jf. Emp. 2174 n. ). In addition, he was granted Roman citizenship, and freedom from taxation (immunitas : Jos. Ant. xiv. 83; B/L9 S ).

The real control of the country was in the hands of Anti pater (Jos. Ant. xiv. 93 ; BJ\. 10s/. ), who strengthened his position by appointing Phasael and Herod (two of his sons by Cypros, an Arabian ; Ant. xiv. 7 3) governors (ffrparr/yoi) the former in Jerusalem and the south, the latter in Galilee (Ant. xiv. 92). This is the first occasion on which we hear of Herod. He was at this time, according to Josephus (I.e. ; cp BJ i. 104, Ko/ju.drj vtov), only fifteen years old. Probably we should read twenty-five, for Herod was about seventy at the time of his death (BJ i. 33 1 ; see Schiir. Hist. 1 383 n.).

Once again before his end Antipater had an oppor tunity of displaying that sagacity in choosing sides, to which he owed his success.

In 46 B.C., Cascilius Bassus, a member of the Pompeian party, caused Sextus Caesar, the governor of Syria, to be assassinated, and made himself master of Syria. He was besieged in Apameia by the Caesarians under C. Antistius Vetus, who was assisted by troops sent by Antipater (Jos. Ant. xiv. 11 i ; Dio Cass. 47 27). The new governor, L. Statius Murcus, obtained no advantage over Hassus and the siege continued without result, when the assassination of Caesar, and the arrival in Syria of Gaius Cassius Longinus, one of his murderers, changed the aspect of affairs. Both besiegers and besieged went over to Cassius, and the republican party was, for a time at least, dominant in the East. The ite facto rulers of Palestine, Antipater and Herod, displayed their zeal for the party in raising the 700 talents demanded as the Jewish contribution to the republican war-chest (44 B.C.).

In the following year, after the withdrawal of Cassius, Antipater fell a victim to poison administered at the instigation of a certain Malichos.

The object of the conspiracy is not clear. Was Malichos a leader of the Pharisaic section anxious for a reinstatement of the old theocratic government under Hyrcanus (so Matthews, Hist, of NT Times in Palestine, 106 ; cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 11 3, TTJV TOVTOV TeAeuTrji a<T<aAeiai/ YpKavov rrjs <xpx*)S etfai >/ojuiW) ; or was he prompted merely by ambition (so Schiir. Hist. 1 386 ; cp Jos. BJ i. 11 3, <nrfv&(av ave\eiv AvTiiraTpov TOV ejUTroStoi O.VTOV rots a6i/ojjmacrij>, and ibid. 7) ? Or, thirdly, was he a patriot who saw in the civil war an opportunity of getting rid of Roman dominion altogether ; including both Antipater and (if necessary) Hyrcanus, who were its representatives (cp Jos. BJ i. 118, end)? Lastly, was Hyrcanus himself possibly privy to the murder of Antipater ?

3. Herod the Great.[edit]

1b. Herod the Great. , l The services rendered by Herod to the cause of Cassius were rewarded by his appointment as strategos of Coele-Syria (Jos. BJ i 11:4); it was typical of the man that he should have held this position originally under the Caesarian governor, Sextus Caesar (id. Ant. xiv. 9s). Already in Galilee he had given proof of his energy and ability, and at the same time of his thorough enmity to anti-Roman sentiments, by his capture and execution of Ezekias, a noted brigand chief or patriot, who for long had harassed the Syrian border (Jos. BJ i. 10s). It was not long, however, before (41 B.C., the year in which Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II., was defeated by Herod) Herod performed another volte-face, the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi having thrown all the East into the power of Antonius.

Partly by reason of the friendship which there had been be tween Antonius and Antipater in the days of Gabinius, partly also no doubt by reason of the remarkable similarity in character between the Roman and the Idumaean, Herod had no difficulty in securing the thorough support of Antonius. Deputation after deputation from the Sadducaean party (Jos. Ant. xiv. 12 2 f.) appeared before Antonius with accusations against Phasael and Herod ; but in vain. Hyrcanus himself was fain to admit the ability of the accused.

Antonius was only consulting the interests of peace and good government in declaring both Phasael and Herod tetrarchs (Ant. xiv. 13 1).

In the following year (40 B.C. ) Herod experienced the strangest vicissitudes of fortune. The Parthians were induced by Antigonus to espouse his cause.

They passed from Syria into Judaea, where the legitimists (i.e., the aristocrats, in the main Sadducees) rallied round Antigonus, who, seeing that Hyrcanus was bound hand and foot to the hated Idumasans, was now the real representative of the Has- monaean line. Hyrcanus and Phasael incautiously put them selves in the power of their enemies. The ears of Hyrcanus were cut off in order to make it impossible for him ever again to hold the high-priesthood (Jos. Ant. xiv. 13 10). Phasael, happy in his knowledge that he had an avenger in his brother who was free, dashed out his own brains.

Herod himself, too crafty to be deceived by the Parthians, had made his escape eastwards with his mother Cypros, his sister Salome, and Mariamme, to whom he was betrothed ; Mariamme was also accom panied by her mother, Alexandra. These Herod de posited for safety in the strong castle of Masada by the Dead Sea (Ant. xiv. 13 9). He himself made his way with difficulty to Alexandria, and at length arrived at Rome, where he was welcomed both by Antonius and by Octavian. Within a week he was declared king of Judaea by the Senate ; his restoration indeed was to the interest of the Romans, seeing that Antigonus had allied himself with the Parthian enemy.

1 For an earlier notice see above, 2 end.

P. Ventidius, the legate of Antonius in Syria, succeeded in expelling the Parthians from Syria and Palestine ( Dio Cass. 4841) ; but neither he nor his subordinate Silo gave Herod real help in regaining Jerusalem.

Herod was in fact compelled to rest content for this year (39 B.C.) with the seizure of Joppa, the raising of the blockade of Masada, and the extermination of the robbers (i.e., patriots) of Galilee in their almost inaccessible caverns of Arbela (Irtia, in the Wady el-JJamdt, see AKUELA, i). Next year he joined Antonius, then besieging Antiochus, king of Commagene, in Samosata, probably with the object of securing more effectual assistance. At Daphne (Antioch), on his homeward journey, he received news of the defection of Galilee, and the complete de feat and death of his brother Joseph at the hands of Antigonus

It was not until the following year that the fall of Samosata enabled Antonius to reinforce Herod before Jerusalem with the bulk of his army under C. Sosius, the new governor of Syria ( 37 B. C. ). Herod chose this moment for the celebration of his marriage with Mariamme, to whom he had been betrothed for the past five years (Ant. xiv. 15 14). The ceremony took place at Samaria. 1 This central district of Palestine remained loyal to Herod throughout these troublous years, and a large part of his forces was recruited there from.

After a three months siege Antigonus surrendered, and was carried in chains to Antioch, where, by Herod s wish, Antonius had him beheaded 2 the first king, we are told, to be so dealt with by the Romans (Jos. Ant. xv. 12 ; Plut. Ant. 36). This was the end of the Has- monasan dynasty, and from this year dates Herod s reign (37 B.C.).

4. Herod as king.[edit]

Herod's reign is generally divided into three periods

  • (1) 37-25 B.C. , in which his power was consolidated;
  • (2) 25-13 B.C. , the period of prosperity ;
  • (3) 13-4 B.C. , the period of domestic troubles.

i. The consolidation of Herod s power (37-25 B.C.). During the early years of his reign Herod had to con tend with several enemies.

It is true that the immediate execution of forty-five of the most wealthy and prominent of the Sanhedrin i.e., of the Sadducaean aristocracy, which favoured Antigonus (Jos. Ant. xiv. 94, Train-as airfKreivev TOUS eV T<3 mvtSpitf ; cp id. Ant. xv. 1 2, TOUS npiarow; eic rrjs aipeVecus Ai/riyopov) broke the active resistance of the rival house, whilst the confiscation of their property filled the new king s coffers.

With the Pharisaic party resistance was of a more passive nature ; but the leaders of even the more moderate section, Pollio and Samoeas, 3 in advising the surrender of Jerusalem, could only speak of his dominion as a judgment of God, to which the people must submit. Opposition on the part of the surviving members of the Hasmonsean house never ceased ; its mainspring was Alexandra, Herod s mother-in-law, who found an ally in Cleopatra of Egypt. The enmity of Cleopatra was possibly due simply to pique (BJ\. 142, end). Hyrcanus, who had been set at liberty, and was held in great honour by the Babylonian Jews, was invited by Herod to return to Jerusalem, and, on his arrival, was treated with all respect by the king. 4

As Hyrcanus could no longer hold the liigh-priesthood (Lev. 21 i6_/^), Ananel, an obscure Babylonian Jew of priestly family, was selected for the post, which he occupied for a time ; but the machinations of Alexandra soon compelled Herod to depose him in favour of Aristobulus (III.), son of Alexandra (35 B.C.). The acclamations of the populace, when the young Hasmonaean prince (he was only seventeen years of age) officiated at the Feast of Tabernacles, warned Herod that he had escaped one danger only to incur a greater.

Shortly afterwards Aristobfilus was drowned by Herod s orders in the bath at Jericho.

Cleopatra constituted a real danger for Herod during the first six years of his reign, owing to her boundless rapacity and her strange influence over Antonius. In 34 B.C. she induced Antonius to bestow upon her the whole of Phoenicia (with the exception of Tyre and Sidon), part of the Arabian territory (for the revenue of which Herod was held responsible), and the valuable district of Jericho (which Herod was compelled to take in lease from the queen, for 200 talents yearly ; BJ i. 18s). Loyalty, combined with prudence, enabled the harassed king to resist the fascinations of the Egyptian enchantress when she passed through Judaa (Ant. xv. 42).

1 Mariamme was Herod s second wife. His first wife was Doris (Jos. Ant. xiv. 12 i ; BJ i. 123 22 i). By her he had one son, Antipater.

2 Dio Cass. 49 22 says that he was crucified.

3 Possibly the celebrated Abtalion, and his pupil Shemaia.

  • Jos. Ant. xv. 2 T,f. absurdly explains this as merely a piece

of treachery on Herod s part.

When the Roman Senate declared war against Antonius and Cleopatra, it was Herod's good fortune not to be compelled to champion the failing cause. In obedience to the wishes of Cleopatra herself, he was engaged in a war with the Arabian king Malchus for no nobler cause than the queen's arrears of tribute. On the news of Octavian s victory at Actium (and Sept. 31 B.C. ), he passed over at once to the victorious side (Jos. Ant. xv. 67 ; Dio Cass. Sly). He did not venture to appear before Octavian until he had removed the aged Hyrcanus on a feeble charge of conspiracy with Malchus the Arabian (Ant. xv. 63). The interview upon which his fate depended took place at Rhodes.

Herod accurately gauged the character of Octavian, and frankly confessing his past loyalty to Antonius, left it to Octavian to say whether he should serve him as faithfully. It should not be forgotten that Herod and Octavian were no strangers to each other, and that no one was better able to estimate the necessities of Herod s position during the past few years than Octavian ; probably Herod was in less danger than is sometimes imagined.

The result was that Octavian confirmed Herod's royal title ; and, after the suicide of Antonius and Cleopatra, restored to him all the territory of which the queen had deprived him, together with the cities of Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strato's Tower. The 400 Celts who had formed Cleopatra s guard were also given to him (BJ i. 203). These external successes were counterbalanced by domestic troubles.

These troubles had their origin in the eternal breach between Mariamme and her mother on the one side, and Herod's own mother and sister on the other. The contempt of the Hasmon- zans was returned with hatred by the Idurmcnn Salome. The machinations of the latter bore fruit when in a paroxysm of anger and jealousy Herod ordered Mariamme to execution. Renewed conspiracy soon brought her vile mother also to her doom (28 B.C.).

The extermination of the Hasmoncean family was completed by the execution of Costobar, Salome s second husband.

Salome s first husband Joseph had been put to death in 34 B.C. Costobar, as governor of Idumsa, had given asylum to the sons of Baba, a scion of the rival house ; these also were executed, and thus the last male representatives of the Hasmonaean line were swept from Herod s path (25 B.C.).

ii. The period of Herod s prosperity, 25-13 B.C. Secure at last from external and internal foes, Herod was free for the next twelve years to carry out his programme of development. He was governing for the Romans a part of the empire, and he was bound to spread western customs and language and civilisation among his subjects, and fit them for their position in the Roman world. Above all, the prime requirement was that he must maintain peace and order ; the Romans knew well that no civilising process could go on, so long as disorder and disturbance and insecurity remained in the country. Herod s duty was to keep the peace and naturalise the Graeco- Roman civilisation in Palestine (Rams. Was Christ born at Bethlehem f 174). The great buildings were the most obvious fruit of this period.

Strato's Tower was entirely rebuilt (BJ i. 21 5_/C), and furnished with a splendid harbour (see C*:SAREA, i). Samaria, also, was rebuilt and renamed Sebaste (Strabo, p. 760). Both these cities contained a temple of Augustus, and Herod showed his zeal for the empire by similar foundations in other cities, outside the limits of Judaea (Jos. Ant. xv.9s). Connected with this was the establishment of games, celebrated every fourth year, in honour of the Emperor (Ant. l(5s i,TOvay<ova KcuVapt Kara TrecraeTTjpiSa . . . dyeii/, at Caesarea ; cp id. Ant. xv.Si ; also at Jerusalem, ibiii.).^ With this went, of course, the erection of the necessary buildings (theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome at Jerusalem, A nt. xv. 8 1 ; BJ ii. 3 1 ; the same at Jericho, A nt. xvii. 635; BJ i.338; at Caesarea, Ant. xv. 96). The games were necessarily after the Greek model. Kven in the time of the Macccabees Hellenism in this form had infected Jerusalem (i Mace. 1 14) : see HELLENISM.

1 Cp Suet. Aug. 59 on the games and the Caesareje urbes built by the reges amici atque socii.

The defensive system of the country was highly developed, by the erection of new fortresses, or the re building of dismantled Hasmonaean strongholds. Some of these fortresses were destined to give the Romans much trouble in the great war (BJ vii. 64, vii. 8zf. ). They were designed by Herod for the suppression of brigandage (a standing evil) and the defence of the frontier against the roving tribes of the desert (Ant. xvi. 9a). So success ful was he in fulfilling this primary requirement, that in 23 B.C. Augustus put under his administration the districts of Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanaea, in habited by nomad robber-tribes, which the neighbouring tetrarch Zenodorus had failed to keep in order (BJ\. 204 ; cp Strabo 756, Kara\v0^i>Tti)v vvvl T&V irepi 7^v(>5wpov XflcrTwc). In 20 H.C. , on the death of Zenodorus, Herod was given his tetrarchy, the regions of Ulatha and Panias (Ant. xv. 10s ; cp Dio Cass. 54 9) ; and he obtained permission to appoint his brother Pheroras tetrarch of Persea. On Herod s work cp Momms. Prov. of Rom. Emp. 2 182.

Much might be said of Herod s munificence both to his own subjects and far beyond the limits of his kingdcfm.

The Syrian Antioch (Jos. Ant. xvi. 63), the cities of Chios and Rhodes, the new foundation of Augustus, Nicopolis in Epirus, and many others, experienced Herod s liberality. The Athenians and Lacedaemonians counted him among their bene factors (BJ i. 21 ii ; cp CIA iii. 1550). The ancient festival at Olympia recovered something of its old glory through his munificence (Ant. xvi. 63). At home, in 20 B.C., he remitted one-third of the taxes (Ant. xv. 104), and in 14 B.C. one-fourth (Ant. xvi. 25). In 25 B.C. he had converted into coin even his own plate in order to relieve the sufferers from famine by im porting corn from Egypt (Ant. xv. 9 if.).

The greatest benefit of all, however, in the eyes of Jews must have been his restoration of the Temple, a work which was carried out with the nicest regard for the religious scruples of the nation (Ant. xv. 116). Begun in 20 B.C., it was not entirely finished until the time of the Procurator Albinus (62-64 A.n. ), a few years before its total destruction (cp Jn. 220). Its beauty and magnificence were proverbial (cp Mt. 24 i Mk. 13 1 Lk. 21 5).

iii. Period of domestic troubles, 13-4 B.C. The last nine years of Herod s life were marked in a special degree by domestic miseries. Of his ten wives (enumer ated in Jos. Ant. xvii. 1 3 ; BJ i. 284), the first, Doris (col. 2026 n. i), had been repudiated, along with her son Antipater (BJ\. 22 1). By his marriage with Mariamme Herod had hoped to give his position a certain legitimacy.

Mariamme s mother, Alexandra, was the daughter of Hyrcanus II., whilst her father, Alexander, was a son of Aristobulus II. (brother of Hyrcanus) : consequently Mariamme represented the direct line of the Hasmonasan (Maccabaean) family.

The political intrigues of Mariamme s mother, and the mutual enmity of Mariamme and Herod s mother (Cypros) and sister (Salome), effectually frustrated these hopes. Of the three sons borne to Herod by Mari amme, the youngest died in Rome (BJ i. 222); but Alexander and Aristobulus were fated to die on the gibbet at that very Sebaste which, thirty years before, had seen Herod s marriage with their mother.

Salome had in the second tragedy also a large share, notwith standing the fact that Berenice, the wife of Aristobulus, 1 was her own daughterly Costobar, see above, i. end). The recall of the banished Antipater, son of Doris, brought a more deadly in triguer upon the scene (14 B.C. ; BJ i. 23 1). Under the combined attack of Antipater and Salome, the two sons of Mariamme incurred the suspicions of the king. The reconciliation effected by Augustus himself (Ant. xvi. 4 5 : in 12 B.C.) at Aquileia, and two years later by Archelaus, the Cappadocian king (Ant. xvi. 86), had no long continuance. The elements of discord and intrigue were reinforced by the arrival at Herod s court of the Lacedaemonian adventurer Eurykles (BJ i. 26 if.). The brothers were again accused of treason, and Augustus gave leave to Herod to deal with them as he saw fit. They were tried at Berytus before C. Sentius Saturninus, the governor of Syria (BJ i. 27 2), and condemned to death. The execution took place at Sebaste (7 B.C.).

1 The wife of Alexander was Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia. Glaphyra and Berenice were also on terms of bitterest enmity (BJ i. 24 if.).

Antipater, whose life, says Josephus, was a mystery of iniquity (BJ\. 24 1), next plotted with Pherdras to remove the king by poison. Herod's days, indeed, were already numbered, as he was afflicted with a painful and loathsome disease (BJ \. 885). He lived long enough, however, to summon the arch-plotter from Italy, and to bring him to trial before Quinctilius Varus, then governor of Syria, and finally to re ceive the emperor's permission for his execution (BJ i.337). 1

Herod is said to have contemplated the wholesale massacre of the chief men of Judaea, in the hippodrome of Jericho, in order that his funeral might be accompanied by the genuine lamenta tions of the people ; but Salome released them during his last days (Ant. xvii. 65). We may reasonably doubt whether Jewish tradition has not intensified the colours in which the closing scenes of the hated king's life are painted (Ant. xvii. 8 1).

Herod died in 4 B.C., five days after the execution of Antipater. There is probably no royal house of any i age in which bloody feuds raged in an equal degree I between parents and children, between husbands and wives, and between brothers and sisters (Momms. Prov. of Rom. Emp. 2i8o).

We cannot here discuss the question whether Herod is rightly called the Great. 2 Certainly it is not easy to be strictly fair towards him ; but so much must be clear, that, judged by the standard of material benefits con ferred, few princes have less reason to shrink from the test. In addition to the benefits of his rule at home, there were gains for the Jews of the Dispersion in Asia Minor. By his personal influence with Agrippa, he obtained safety for their Temple contributions, exemption from military service, and other privileges (Jos. Ant. xvi. 64/1). In estimating these services, Herod s posi tion in the imperial system must be remembered.

Herod was only one of a large number of allied kings (rcges socii), whose use even of the royal title was dependent upon the goodwill of the emperor, and their exercise of royal authority no less so. 3 In the most favourable case, their sovereign rights were strictly limited within the boundaries of their own land, so that a foreign policy was impossible. The right of coining money was limited ; and as, of the Herodian line, only copper coins are known, we must correct the impression of Herod s im portance derived from many of the statements of Josephus. The fact that no tribute was imposed, at least upon Judaea, made all the more imperative Herod s obligations in respect of frontier defence and internal good government.

5. Herod in NT.[edit]

The connection of Herod the Great with the NT is slight. Both Mt. (2i) and Lk. (2i) agree that the birth of Jesus took place during his reign ; but the additional information given by Lk. as to the date has caused serious difficulties (see CHRONOLOGY, $7 /. ). On the narra tive of the Massacre of the Innocents, see NATIVITY.

1 Antipater s wife was the daughter of Antigonus, the last of the Hasmonaean kings (Ant. xvii. 62).

2 Josephus, in fact, uses the title only once (Ant. xviii. 5 4, HpioSj) TW fieyd\<a Ouyare pe? e Mapia/x/xT)s . . . yivovrat &vo. Further on we have Hpcofirj HpcoSou TOU jieyaAou Traifii)- Com parison with the expression EAxias ofie -yas in Ant. xviii. 84 has suggested that Jos. meant by the title ju.e yas merely elder," marking him as head of the dynasty. Similarly it is in this sense that it is applied to Agrippa I. (Ant. xvii. 22, "AypiVn-as . . . 6 jiie yas ai 6 mxts aurou Kal OfjLtavvfj.O ;) ; but Agrippa claimed the title in the other sense (cp his coins with the legend BcuriAeirs fie yas Aypi n-iras). It is therefore not impossible that Jos. deliberately abstained from giving the title, even though it was popularly in use with reference to the first Herod. The verdict that he was still only a common man (Hitzig, quoted by Schiir. Hist. 1 467) scarcely does justice to one who for thirty-four years combated the combined hatred of Hasmonseans and Pharisees, and extended his frontier to the widest limit ever dreamed of by Solomon.

3 Cp Jos. Ant.y.v. o-j, where Herod recognises that he has his kingdom Soaei KaiVrapo? ical Wy/xaTi PwpatW.

6. The succession.[edit]

Herod made several wills. As a rex socius, indeed, he could not bequeath his kingdom without the consent of Rome - It had been, therefore, a distinct mark of favour that, on his visit to Rome to accuse Alexander and Aristobulus, he had been given leave by Augustus to dispose of his kingdom as he saw fit (Ant. xvi. 4s) : apparently it was only on the express command of the emperor that he refrained then from abdication.

On his return to Jerusalem he announced to the people, assembled in the temple, that his sons should succeed him first Antipater, and then Alexander and Aristobulus. The first formal testament did, in fact, designate Antipater as heir ; but, as the sons of Mariamme were then dead, Herod, the son of the high priest's daughter, was to succeed in the event of Antipater's dying before the king (Ant. xvii. 82). After Antipater's disgrace a second will was made, bequeathing the kingdom to his youngest son Antipas (Ant. xvii. (5 1). This was in its turn revoked by a will drawn up in his last hours, by which he divided his realm among three of his sons : Archelaus, to whom he left Judaea, with the title of king ; Antipas, to whom he gave Galilee and Persea, with the title of tetrarch ; and Philip, to whom he gave the NE districts, also with the title of tetrarch (Ant. xvii. 8:1)

7. Antipas.[edit]

2. Herod Antipas. ( H/e6$ijs (-^5. [WH]) 6 rer-paapx)s [Ti. WH], Mt. 14 i Lk. 811997 Acts 13 1 ; in correctly called king in Mk. 014, 6 /SatriAei/? ttp^ (-^S. [WH]) [Ti. WH] (so also in Mt. 14 9, 6 /3a<riAev s) ; cp Mk. 622_/C Sometimes called simply Herod (Acts 4 27) ; as often by Josephus, who also calls him Antipas [ Amtfc^vof, an abbreviated form of Avri-TTdTpOS 1).

Son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan Malthace, consequently full brother of Archelaus (Jos. Ant. xvii. Is). By Herod s last will he received the prosperous regions of Galilee and Persea, with the title of tetrarch. 1 The confederation of independent Grasco- Roman com munities called the Decapolis lay between the two parts of his territory which brought in an annual revenue of two hundred talents (Ant. xvii. 114). He had the char acteristically Herodian passion for building. In Galilee he rebuilt Sepphoris (Ant. xviii. 2i), and in Peraea Beth- aramptha (see BETH-HARAN) ; and after 26 A.D. he created the splendid capital named by him TIBERIAS [q. v. ]. Little is told us of the course of his long reign (4 B.C. -39 A.D. ). We may believe that he was a successful ruler and administrator ; but the diplomacy which distinguished Herod the Great became something far less admirable in Antipas, as we may see from the contemptuous expression used of the tetrarch by Jesus in Lk. 1832, Go ye, and tell that fox.

Perhaps, however, this utterance should be restricted to the particular occasion that called it forth and should not be regarded as an epitome of the tetrarch s character ; nevertheless we have an illustration of this trait in the story told by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 45) of his out-manoeuvring Vitellius in forwarding the report of the treaty with the Parthian king Artabanus to Tiberius. Antipas certainly did not inherit his father s qualities as a leader in war.

Perhaps it was consciousness of his weakness in this respect that prompted Antipas to seek the hand of the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas ; or he may have been urged to the alliance by Augustus, in obedience to the principle enunciated with reference to the inter marriage of reges socii by Suetonius (Aug. 48).

The connection with Herodias, wife of his half-brother Herod (son of the second Mariamme), gained Antipas his notoriety in evangelic tradition. The flight of the daughter of Aretas to her father involved him ultimately in hostilities with the Arabians, in which the tetrarch was severely defeated a divine punishment in the eyes of many, for his murder of John the Baptist (Ant. xviii. 5 2). There was apparently no need for Antipas to divorce his first wife in order to marry Herodias ; but Herodias perhaps refused to tolerate a possible rival (Ant. xviii. 5 i ; cp Ant. xvii. 1 2). 2

The story of the connection of JOHN THE BAPTIST [^f.] with the court of Antipas need not be repeated here. Later, the Pharisees warn Jesus that the tetrarch seeks his life (Lk. 13 31). On the phrase the leaven of Herod (Mk. 8 15) see HERODIANS. Again in the closing scene in the life of Jesus we meet with Antipas. Pilate, we are told by Lk. (23 if.}, sent Jesus to the tetrarch as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction.

The death of his firm friend Tiberius, and the accession of Gaius (Caligula), in 37 A. n. , led to the fall of Antipas.

The advancement of Agrippa I. to the position of king over Philip s old tetrarchy by the new emperor was galling to his sister Herodias ; and against his better judgment Antipas was prevailed upon by her to go to Rome to sue for the royal title. The interview with Gaius took place at Baia;. Agrippa meanwhile had sent on his freedman Fortunatus with a document accusing Antipas of having been in treasonable correspondence, not only with Seianus (who had been executed in 31 A.D.), but also with the Parthian king Artabanus. Antipas could not, in fact, deny that his magazines contained a great accumulation of arms (probably in view of his war with the Arabians).

The deposition and banishment of Antipas, how ever, were in all probability due as much to the caprice of the mad emperor as to real suspicions of disloyalty.

His place of banishment was Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul (Jos. Ant. xviii. 72); according to BJ ii. 96, he died in Spain, 1 and it has been suggested that his place of exile was actually Lugdunum Convenarum, at the northern foot of the Pyrenees, near the sources of the Garonne ; but this will not save the statement of Josephus. A confused remark of Dio Cassius (59 8) seems to imply that he was put to death by Caligula.

1 Since Herod Antipas is the only Herod who bore the title of tetrarch, we must refer to him an inscription on the island of Cos (C/G 2502), and another on the island of Delos (Bull, de Corr. Hell. 3 365 f. [ 79 1) ; but nothing is known about his connection with those places.

2 According to the Mishna, Sank. 24, eighteen wives were allowed to the king (see authorities quoted by Schiir. Hist. 1 455 n.).

8. Archelaus.[edit]

3. Herod Archelaus. ( A/>x<?Aaos [Ti. \VH] : Mt. 222f). Son of Herod the Great by Malthace, and elder brother of Antipas (BJ i- 33 7). Antipas actually put in a claim for the crown against him before Augustus, on the ground that he had been himself named sole heir in the will drawn up when Herod was under the influence of the accusations made by Antipater against Archelaus and Philip (see 6). The majority of the people, under the influence of the orthodox (the Pharisees), seized the opportunity afforded by Herod's death to attempt to re-establish the sacerdotal government under the Roman protectorate. Herod was scarcely buried before the masses in Jerusalem gathered with the demand for the deposition of the high-priest nominated by him, and for the ejection of foreigners from the city, where the Passover was just about to be celebrated. Archelaus was under the necessity of sending his troops among the rioters. A deputation of fifty persons was sent to Rome requesting the abolition of the monarchy. To Rome also went Archelaus claiming the kingdom a journey which probably suggested the framework of the parable in Lk. 19 ia/. Augustus practically confirmed Herod s last will, and assigned to Archelaus Judaea proper, with Samaria and Idumrea, including the cities of Caesarea, Samaria, Joppa, and Jerusalem ; but the royal title was withheld, at least until he should have shown that he deserved it (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11 4, BJ\\. 63). The city of Gaza was excepted from this arrangement, and attached to the province of Syria.

The proper title of Archelaus was ethnarch. Mt. 2 22 uses the inaccurate expression /SatriAeuei (and so Jos. Ant. xviii. 43 6 e7ri(ca.Ta<TTa6)eis ai>T<5 (SacriAeiis Ap^e Aaos vtbs lov). The troops indeed had saluted him as king on Herod s death (Ant. xvii. 8 2) ; but he refused to accept the title until it should be confirmed by Augustus (BJ ii. 1 i). Probably in popular speech it was given as a matter of courtesy. The coins with HPJ1AOY E0NAPXOY must be his, for no other member of the family bore the title ; and, like Antipas, he used the family name of Herod (so Dio Cass. 55 27 calls him HpioSrjs 6 IlaAaiaTii os. Josephus never calls him Herod.)

Of the details of the administration of Archelaus we know nothing, nor apparently did Josephus. He indeed says that his rule was violent and tyrannical (cp BJ\\. 7s, and Ant. xvii. 182, where he is charged with w/i6rr;r and rvpavvis). The description in the parable is apt Lk. 19 21 (tivdpuiros avffrripds), and hence we can the better understand the statement in Mt. 222 respecting Joseph s fear to go to Judaea. Apparently Archelaus did not take the pains to handle gently the religious prejudices of his subjects.

Not only did he depose and set up high-priests at his pleasure, 1 but he also took to wife Glaphyra, the daughter of the Cappadocian king Archelaus (probably between i B.C. and 4 A.U.). Glaphyra had been wife of Alexander, half-brother of Archelaus, who was executed in 7 B.C. (see 4, iii.). Her second husband was Juba, king of Mauretania, who was indeed still living when she married Archelaus. Moreover, she bad had children by Alexander, and for this reason marriage with her was unlawful.

After nine years of rule the chief men of Judoea and Samaria invoked the interference of the emperor, and Archelaus was banished to Vienna ( Vienne] in Gaul (Ant. xvii. 182 ; cp Dio Cass. 55 27). 2

It is to Archelaus that Strabo (765) refers when he says that a son of Herod was living, at the time of his writing, among the Allobroges, for Vienna was their capital town. If the statement of Jerome (CAS" 101 n) :t that Archelaus grave was near Bethlehem is trustworthy (cp RACHEL), he must have re turned to Palestine to die.

The territory of Archelaus was taken under the im mediate rule of Rome, and received a governor of its own of the equestrian order (^rrfrpoTroj, procurator, see ISRAEL, 90) ; but it was under the general supervision of the imperial legate of Syria (on the status of Judsea at this time, see Momms. Prov. of R. Emp. 2 185, n. ). Forthwith, of course, the obligation to Roman tribute fell upon the territory thus erected into a province (hence, in Judaea, Jesus was brought face to face with the whole question of the compatibility or otherwise of Judaism with the imperial claims: cp Mt. 22 15^ Mk. 12 13 /: Lk. 20 2o/).

1 Niese, however, rejects the reading Siraia a or loTrart a in this passage, and restores roAAux from Ant. xviii. 7 2.

9. Herod (Philip?).[edit]

4. Herod Philip. ["H/x^Sijs, Jos. ; &i\i7riros, Mk. 617; see below. ] Son of Herod the Great by Mariamme, daughter of Simon (son of Boethos), 4 whom Herod made high prest (about 24 B.C.). In spite of Mk. 617 (see below), we cannot hold that he ever really bore the name Philip ; the confusion, which is doubtless primitive, arose from the fact that the son-in-law of Herodias was called Philip (see CLOPAS, 2). Herod s first will arranged that Philip should succeed in the event of Antipater s dying before coming to the throne (see 6) ; but Philip was disinherited owing to his mother s share in Antipater s intrigues (Ant. xvii. 4 2, BJ i. 30 7). Philip lived and died, therefore, in a private station, apparently in Rome (Ant. xviii. 5 i) ; for it seems to have been in Rome that his half-brother Antipas saw Herodias. It is indeed only in connection with his wife Herodias, sister of Agrippa I., that the name of this Herod occurs in the NT.

In Mk. 6 17 all MSS read his brother Philip s wife (rr\v yvvalxa <J>iAi7r7rou TOW a6eA<oC avToG), from which it would appear that this Herod also bore the name Philip. When, however, we find that Josephus knows only the name Herod for him (cp Ant. xvii. 13,^ 0vydrr)p TOV apxiepe ws, ef %<; 6ij /ecu ojuwrvjiios avTu TTCUS yeyova), and that another son of Herod the Great also certainly bore the name Philip (see ii), suspicion is aroused, and this is confirmed when we find that of Philip is omitted in Mt. 143 by D and some Lat. MSS (followed by Zahn, Einl. 2 309), whilst in Lk. 3 19 it is omitted by NBD. That Lk. does not give the name is highly significant. An appeal to the fact that several sons of Herod the Great bore the name Herod cannot save the credit of Mt. and Mk. in this particular; for Herod was a family and a dynastic title. 5 he coexistence in the family of the names Antipas and Antipater is also no argument, for they are in fact different names.

1 He deposed Joazar because of his share in the political disturbances, and appointed his brother Eleazar. Soon Jesus took the place of Eleazar. Finally Joazar wss reinstated (Ant. xviii. 2 I).

2 6 TE ‘HpJ81)s b TIaAaaLurhs, alriav T L U ~ h b 7Gv b8eAr#& Aaphu, ;alp ~ h s ’Ahreis Sx~pwpiuBq, Kal rb pLpos T$S Appx$s a h 0 287pourJB7.

3 Sed et propter eandem Bethleem regis quondam Judcr(t Archelai tumulus ostenditur.

4 So Jos. Ant. xv. 93. In other places Boethos is the name of her father. The family belonged originally to Alexandria.

5 The name was borne not only by Archelaus (see his coins, cp 8) and Antipas (see 7), after their rise to semi -royal dignity, but also by two sons of Herod the Great who never attained thereto viz., the subject of this section, the son of the second Mariamme, and also one of the sons of Cleopatra of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xvii. 1 3, BJ\. 284).

10. Herodias.[edit]

5. Herodias.-('Hpw8r$s [Ti.], -48. [WH] : Mt. 14:3-13 Mk. 6:17-29 Lk. 3:19). Daughter of Aristobulus ( Herod's second son by Manamnie, granddaughter of Hyrcanus). Her mother was Bernice (Berenice), daughter of Salome, Herod s sister. Herod of Chalcis (see 12), Agrippal., and the younger Aristobulus, were therefore full brothers of Herodias. According to Josephus (^/. xviii. 54) she was wife first of her half-uncle Herod (see preceding section), who is erroneously supposed to have been also called Philip. The issue of this marriage was the famous Salome who danced before Herod Antipas, and thus became the instrument of her mother s venge ance upon the Baptist. Herodias deserted her first husband in order to marry his half-brother Antipas, thus transgressing the law (cp Lev. 18 16 Dt. 25s).

In Mk. 6 22 the reading his daughter Herodias (TIJS Ovya-rpbs O.VTOV Hpw5ia5os [WH]) is that of tf BDLA. This would make the girl daughter of Aiuipasand Herodias, bearing her mother s name. Certainly the expression applied to her in the same verse (Kopdviov) is in favour of this : conversely, if the ordinary reading which designates the dancer as Salome is accepted, we must admit a great disparity in age between her and her first husband Philip the tetrarch, if she is rightly called K.opa<r(.ov about 28 A.D. ; for Philip died in 34 A.D., at the age of sixty, or thereabouts. As the protest of John the Baptist in reference to the marriage by no means compels us to assume that the union was recent, it is scarcely possible to maintain that a daughter by it must have been too young to dance at a banquet. In our ignorance of the chronology of the reign of Antipas a solution is not to be had ; though it is always possible by means of assumptions to create a scheme that fits in with the received reading (cp Schiir. Hist. 228 n., and authorities there quoted).

It would scarcely be just to ascribe the action of Herodias solely to ambition ; it was rather a case of real and intense affection. It is true that it was Herodias who goaded her husband, in spite of his desire for quiet and in spite of his misgivings (Ant. xviii. 7 2), to undertake the fatal journey to Rome ; but she made what amends she could by refusing to accept exemption from the sentence of exile pronounced upon her husband by the emperor. See above, 7.

11. Philip.[edit]

6. Philip. (4>f\t7T7ros, Lk. 3i, ^iXtirirov 5e . . . reTpaapxovvTos TT}S Irovpaias KO.I TpaxwptriSos ^wpas [Ti- WH]. ) Son of Herod the Great by Cleopatra, a woman of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xvii. 13, KXeoTraVpa lepcxroXi/jUms). 1 He was left in charge of Jerusalem and Judaea when Archelaus hastened to Rome to secure his inheritance, but sub sequently appeared in Rome in support of his brother s claims (BJ \\. 61). By the decision of Augustus in accordance with the terms of Herod s last will (see 6), Philip succeeded to a tetrarchy consisting of Batanasa, Auranitis, Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and the district of Panias (which last is, apparently, what Lk. 3i calls the Iturasan region, though not indeed the whole of it). Cp ITUR^A. This list is obtained by combining the different statements in Josephus (Ant. xvii. 81 11 4 xviii. 46, BJ\\. 63). Thus Philip s territory embraced the poorest parts of his father s kingdom those lying E. and NE. of the sea of Galilee as far as Mt. Hermon : the annual revenue from it was estimated at one hundred talents. 2 The population was mixed, but was mostly Syrian and Greek i.e. , it was predominantly pagan.

Hence Philip's coins bear the image of Augustus or Tiberius, contrasting in this respect with those of Herod the Great (which have neither name nor image of the emperor) and those of Antipas (some of which bear the emperor s name, without his image). In addition, all the coins of Philip bear the image of a temple (the splendid temple of Augustus built by Herod the Great near the Grotto of Pan TO Udveiov at the source of the Jordan : cp Jos. Ant. xv. 103, BJ\. 21 3).

Having been brought up, like all Herod s sons, at Rome, Philip s sympathies were entirely Roman. Owing to the non-Jewish character of his territory his Hellenistic and Roman policy was more successful than was the case with his brothers. Of the events of his thirty-seven years of rule (4 B.C.-34 A.D.) we know indeed nothing beyond the summary given by Josephus.

1 Jos. Ant. xvii. 8 i inaccurately describes Philip as full brother of Archelaus Ap\eAaov aSeA^ui vi/rjcrup.

2 The Greek cities of the Decapolis were, of course, outside Philip s jurisdiction.

His rule was marked by moderation and quiet, and his whole life was spent in his own territory. His progresses were attended by a few chosen friends, and the seat on which he sat to give judgment always followed him ; so that when any one, who wanted his assistance, met him he made no delay, but set down the tribunal wherever he might be, and heard the case (Ant. xviii. 46).

Philip seems to have had scientific leanings, judging from the story told of his supposed discovery and proof that the sources of the Jordan were really connected by a subterranean passage with the circular lake called Phiale (*iaArj, Birket Ram ?), 1 20 stades from Ceesarea (BJ iii. 107).

Apart from his evident administrative ability, Philip retained only one quality of his race the passion for building. Early in his rule he rebuilt Panias (IIcmas, Habeas), at the head-waters of the Jordan, and named it Cossarea ; he also created the city of Julias, formerly the village of Bethsaida. See CJESAREA, 7 ff. BETHSAIDA, i. He was only once married to Salome, the daughter of Herodias and died without issue. After his death his territory was attached to the province of Syria, retaining, however, the right of separate administration of its finances (Ant. xviii. 46). Gaius on his accession (37 A.D.) gave it to Agrippa I. with the title of king.

12. Herod Agrippa I.[edit]

7. Herod Agrippa I. (Hpwdrjs [Ti.], -yd. [WH], Acts ; A7pi7T7ras, Josephus and Coins).

Son of Aristobulus (Herod the Great's son by Mariamme I.) and Bernice (daughter of Salome, Herod the Great's sister : Jos. Ant. xviii. 5 4). He was called after his grandfather's friend Agrippa (see 4). Shortly before the death of Herod the Great, Agrippa and his mother were sent to Rome, where they were befriended by Antonia, widow of the elder Drusus (brother of the emperor Tiberius). Agrippa and the younger Drusus (the emperor s son) became fast friends; but when Drusus died, in 23 A.D., Agrippa found himself obliged to leave Rome with nothing but the memory of his debts and extravagances. He retired to Malatha, a stronghold in Iduma:a, and meditated suicide ; but his wife Cypros 1 appealed to his sister Herodias, with the result that Antipas gave him a pension and the office of Agoranomos (controller of the market) at Tiberias. Before very long there was a quarrel, and Agrippa resumed his career as adventurer. For a time he was with the Roman governor Flaccus in Antioch ; but ultimately he arrived again in Italy (36 A.D.), after running the gauntlet of his creditors (Ant. xviii. 6 3). He attached himself to Gaius the grandson of Antonia. An incautiously uttered wish for the speedy ac cession of Gaius (Caligula) was overheard and reported to the old emperor, and Agrippa lay in prison during the last six months of Tiberius.

Caligula, on his accession (37 A.D.) at once set Agrippa free, and bestowed upon him what had been the tetrarchy of his half-uncle Philip, together with that of Lysanias (viz., ABILENE \tj.v.~\ Lk. 3i ; cp Dio Cass. 598), with the title of king (cp Acts 12i) and the right to wear the diadem ; he also presented him with a golden chain equal in weight to his iron fetters (Ant. xviii. 6 10). The Senate conferred upon him the honorary rank of prastor (Philo, in Place. 6). Three years later he obtained the forfeited tetrarchy of Herod Antipas (Ant. xviii. 7 2). He adroitly used his influence with the emperor to induce him to abandon his mad design of erecting a statute of himself in the temple at Jerusalem (Ant. xviii. 8 7). 2 Agrippa was in Rome when Gaius fell by the dagger of Chasrea (Jan. 41 A.D. ), and by his coolness at a critical moment contributed largely to securing the empire for Claudius (Ant. xix. 4 if. ). In return for this service he received Judaea and Samaria, being also confirmed in his previous possessions ; he also obtained consular rank (Ant. xix. 5i; nj \\. lls; Dio Cass. 608, n/xds virariKas fvfifj.f). These grants were confirmed by solemnities in the Forum (cp Suet. Claud. 25). For his brother Herod he obtained the grant of the kingdom of (Jhalcis in Lebanon. In part also at least his influence must be seen in the edicts published by Claudius in favour of the Jews throughout the empire, freeing them from those public obligations which were incompatible with their religious convictions. In putting under Agrippa the whole extent of territory ruled by his grandfather, it was certainly the design of Claudius to resume the system followed at the time of Herod the Great and to obviate the dangers of the immediate contact between the Romans and the Jews (Mommsen, Prov. of R. Emp. 2200).

  • Cypros was daughter of Phasael, whose wife was his cousin

Salampsio, Herod the Great s daughter by the Hasmonaean Mariamme.

2 Apparently this abandonment was only temporary : a peremptory decree was finally sent, and the crisis was averted only by the emperor s assassination. The account given by Josephus of the manner of Agrippa s intervention differs from that given by Philo, Leg. ad Cahttit, ssyC, and seems worked up on conventional lines this romantic apocryphal element is very conspicuous in the whole account of Agrippa s life.

Now began the second period in Agrippa's life, in which the spendthrift adventurer appears as a model of Pharisaic piety. He began his three years of actual rule with significant acts the dedication in the temple of the golden chain received from Gaius, the offering of sacrifices in all their details, and the payment of the charges of a great number of Nazirites (cp Acts 21 24). He loved to live continually in Jerusalem, and strictly observed the laws of his country, keeping himself in perfect purity, and not allowing a single day to pass over his head without its sacrifice (Jos. Ant. xix. 7s : so in the Talmud, if the references are not in part to the younger Agrippa). His appeal to Petronius, governor of Syria, in the matter of an outrage against Judaism in the Phoenician town of Dora was based on general grounds of policy and national self-respect, and need not be traced specially to his correct attitude with regard to Pharisaism. It was undoubtedly a conse quence of this attitude that, though of a mild disposi tion (Ant. xix. 7 3), he began a persecution of the Christians (Acts 12 1). James the great was sacrificed, and Peter escaped only by a miracle.

Agrippa's action against the Christians is supposed by some to have been due to the famine over all the world (Acts 11:28), a generalisation which cannot be entirely defended by the as- siduae sterilitates that marked the reign of Claudius (Suet. Claud. 18), or the enumeration of the occasions mentioned by other authors (in Rome, at the beginning of his reign, Dio Cass. 60 ii ; in Greece, in his eighth or ninth year, Kus. Clir. 2152; in Rome, in his eleventh year, Tac. Ann. 1243. Cp /arm, Einl. 2 415). Just as little can we defend the words /3ouj3pu>crTis . . Kocrjioi erre cr^eSe VO.VTO. of the inscr. of Apol- lonia in Galatia referring to famine in Asia Minor in 57 A.I). (CIG 3973; Rams. Stud. Oxon. IV., 96, p. 52^). The ex aggeration is natural. It is indeed true that often subsequently public calamities were the signal for persecution (cp Blass, Act. .\post. l.c.)\ but the famine referred to in the prophecy of Agabus occurred in 45-46 A.D. (cp Rams. Paul the 7Var f//t r, pp. 49, 68), after the death of Agrippa. Nevertheless the latest date that will fit the prophecy is 41 A.D., if not earlier. Such a prophecy might well be regarded outside the Christian circle as a threat.

The outspoken Jewish sympathies of the king cost him the affection of the towns that adhered to the Romans, and of the troops organised in Roman fashion : at any rate the report of his death was re ceived with outrageous jubilation on the part of the troops in Coesarea on the coast (KcutrapeTs KOI e/3ao-- rrjvoi, Jos. Ant. xix. 9 i xx. 8 7).

The striking incident recorded in the Mishna (Sotti, 7 8) is to be referred to this Agrippa rather than to Agrippa II. When at the Feast of Tabernacles (consequently in 41 A.D.) he read, according to custom, the Book of Deuteronomy, he burst into tears at the passage Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother" (Dt. IT 15) : but the people cried out, Be not grieved, Agrippa ! Thou art our brother ! 1

The question as to how far Agrippa was sincere in all this is difficult.

It must be remembered that Agrippa was not only a vassal king (see 4), but a Roman citizen, belonging by adoption to the Gens lulia (cp the inscr. quoted under BERENICE, and Schiir. Hist. 2 162 n.), so that he owed concessions to the imperial system that were not in strictness compatible with his position as a Jewish monarch. This fact must have been recognised by the strictest Jew (always excepting the fanatical Zealots), who must perforce have tacitly consented to the king s playing on behalf of the nation two contradictory parts. It is true, the difficulty with which he had to grapple was only the standing problem of his house. As compared with his grandfather, how ever, he had this advantage that rival claims were silenced ; or rather in his own person he combined those of both Has- monaeans and Herodians. At the same time, his long residence in Rome, where he had been in closest contact with the main spring of the imperial machinery, had given him an insight into the possibilities of his rule far superior to that possessed by any other member of the family. Two episodes of his reign show clearly that he grasped these possibilities. On the N. of Jerusalem he began the building of a wall which, if completed, would have rendered the city impregnable to direct assault. It was stopped by the emperor on the report of C. Vibius Marsus, who, as governor of Syria, had the duty of watching the imperial interests in the protected states in his neighbourhood (Jos. Ant. xix. 7 2 ; cp Tac. Hist. 5 12). Of still greater significance was the conference of vassal princes of Rome assembled by Agrippa at Tiberias, viz. Antiochus of Commagune, SampM- ceramus of Kmesa, Cotys of Armenia Minor, Polemon of Pontus, and Herod of Chalcis. This was rudely broken up by Marsus himself (Ant. xix. 8 i).

1 Strictly justified by Dt. 23 [7] /.

The skill with which Agrippa brought into alliance with himself the Pharisaic element, which, alike in its moderate and in its extreme forms, constituted the backbone of the nation, with the intention of finding therein a basis for a really national policy, proves him to have possessed statesmanlike qualities even superior to those of Herod the Great. His premature death prevented the realisation of his schemes ; but it is at least doubtful whether we shalF not be right in holding that the glory of the Herodian rule reached its real culmination in Agrippa s reign.

Of Agrippa s death we have two accounts.

According to Josephus, he went to Caesarea in order to celebrate games in honour of the emperor (Ant. xix. 8 2, itirep TTJS exeiVou <7a>T7jpi as which can only refer to the safe return of Claudius from his victorious British expedition ; spring of 44 A.D. : cp Dio Cass. 6023; Suet. Claud. 17). The leading men of the kingdom were there gathered (Acts 12 20 mentions particularly a deputation from Tyre and Sidon, introduced by Blastus, the king s chamberlain ). On the second day of the festival, as he entered the theatre clad in a robe of silver tissue gleaming in the sun, Agrippa was saluted by his courtiers as more than mortal. The shouts of #eos and eiifiCiH)S etijs, as if to a divine being, remind us of Acts 12 22, a god s voice and not man s (0eoC <j>u>iT) icai oixc avOptairov). Shortly afterwards, looking upwards, the king spied an owl sitting over his head on one of the ropes, and recognised it as the messenger of doom 1 (alluding to the omen which, during his early imprisonment, portended his good fortune, Ant. xvni. 67). He was seized at that instant with severe pains, and in five days he was dead. Though more detailed, this account agrees substantially with that in the NT.

It has been suggested, however, that the two narra tives are actually connected with each other, and that the intermediate stage is marked by the rendering of the story in Eusebius (f/E2io), in which the owl of Josephus appears as an angel. The narrative of Acts is not without its apocryphal features.

Note especially the expression he was 'eaten of worms' (r>. 23, yepdjmci Of <TKcAi)Ko/3pu>TOs). For this there is no warrant in Josephus, who describes perhaps an attack of peritonitis (cp &taKiip&Lov f<r\ev oS-uvrfv, a.8povv & aiircp rijs xoiAiat Trpocr- efyvarev aAy^^o ficra. <rc|>o6(p07TjTos ap^a/jLeifOv). To be 'eaten of worms' was the conventional ending of tyrants and monu mental criminals (c.f., Pheretime, queen of Cyrene, Herod. 4205; Sulla the Dictator, Plut., who gives other instances; Antiochus Kpiphanes, 2 Mace. 89, but not in i Macc. 6s; the end of Herod the Great is evidently regarded as very similar). In this way tradition, Christian and pagan, took its revenge.

1 ayye\oi> TOVTOC u0t>? ivoycrev KOUCWI- ecrai : cp Acts 12 23, ie tffarafti 1 avroi- dyyeAos xvpiov.

8. Herod Agrippa II.[edit]

8. Herod Agrippa II. ( Aypiiriras 6 /SaatXei s [Ti. WH], Acts 25 13; pa*. Ayp., 26 2. Ayp. 6 , veurrepos, and after his accession Ayp. simply, or 6 /3a<r. Ayp. in Jos. His full name, Marcus Julius Agrippa, is found on coins and inscriptions, see reff. in Schur. Hist. 219111. ).

Son of Agrippa I. and Cypros. He was only seven teen years old at the time of his father s death, and Claudius, though personally inclined to the contrary, was advised not to allow him to succeed to his father s kingdom (Ant. xix. 9i).

Consequently, the whole of Palestine came under the direct rule of Rome, and was administered by procurators under the supervision of the governor of Syria (cp Marq. AVw. Staatsi .(-i, 1411 n.). The Claudian government had here, as elsewhere, lighted on the right course, but had not the energy to carry it out irrespective of accessory considerations (Momms. Prov. of Rani. Etitp^lzoi). The death of the elder Agrippa, in fact, had as its consequence the final absorption of all Palestine west of the Jordan (with the exception of certain parts of Galilee subsequently given to his son) within the circle of directly-governed territory (Tac. Hist. 5 9).

Agrippa II. resided in Rome, where he was able to use his influence with some effect on behalf of the Jews (.////. xx. 1263). His uncle, Herod of Chalcis, had been invested by Claudius with the superintendence of the temple and the sacred treasury, together with the right of nominating the high priest (Ant. xx. 1 3) ; on his death in 48 A.n. these privileges were transferred to Agrippa II. 1 Agrippa also received his uncle s kingdom of Chalcis (50 A.D. : BJ\\. 12 1). Four years later he surrendered this, and received in return what had been the tetrarchy of Philip (viz. Batancea, Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis), with Abila, which had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias (///ii. 128). This was in 53 A.D. This realm was further enlarged by Nero, who conferred upon him the cities and territories of Tiberias and Taricheae on the sea of Galilee, and the city of Julias with fourteen surrounding villages (/y/ii. 182; Ant. xx. 84). This accession of territory was made prob ably in 56 A.D. (see Schiir. Hist. 2194 n. ).

Agrippa gratified his hereditary passion for building by the improvement of his capital Caesarea (Philippi), which he named Neronias (see his coins), and by adding to the magnificence of the Roman colony of Berytus (Ant. xx. 94). In all other directions his hands were tied, and the history of the previous few years must have convinced him that it was no longer possible for a Jewish king to play any independent part. It is probable that his general policy should be ascribed to astuteness rather than to indolence and general feebleness (Schiir. Hist. 2 196). By training he was far more a Roman than a Jew. 2 Occasionally, indeed, he yielded to the claims of his Jewish descent (see, however, col. 754, top) ; but as a rule he was utterly indifferent to the religious interests of his time and country, and the subtleties of the scribes can only have amused him.

(See Gratz, Agrippa II. und der Zustand Judiia s nach dem Untergang Jerusalems, MGir/ 80481-489 [ 81]).

In Acts 25 13-2632 we have an interesting account of an appearance of Paul before the Jewish king and the Roman governor Festus at Cossarea. The utterance of Agrippa in 2628 has been well explained by B. Weiss (Ap.-gesch., in Texte u. Untersuch. zur Gesch. der alt- christ. Lit. ix. 34). In accordance with what we know of Agrippa s character, it must be viewed as a virtual repudiation of that belief in the prophets which was attributed to him by Paul. King Agrippa ! believest thou the prophets, Paul had said ; I know that thou believest (v. 27). The gently ironical rejoinder amounts to this : on slight grounds you would make me a believer in your assertion that the Messiah has come. (For another view see CHRISTIAN, NAME OK, col. 754, n. i).

Agrippa did all in his power to restrain his country men from going to war with Rome and rushing on destruction (BJ\\. 164) ; and he steadfastly maintained his own loyalty to Rome, even after his Galiloean cities joined the revolutionary party. There was no other course to pursue. The catastrophe was inevitable ; the last of the Herods could not help witnessing, and to some extent aiding it. For a time he was at Rome ; but on his return to Palestine he went to the camp of Titus, where he remained until the end of the war. Probably he was present at the magnificent games with which Titus celebrated at Caesarea (Philippi) his con quest of Jerusalem (BJ vii. 2i). On the conclusion of the war Agrippa s dominions were extended in a northerly direction. In 75 A. IX he went to Rome, and was raised to the rank of prietor (Dio Cass. 66 15). We know that he corresponded with Josephus about the latter s History of the Jewish War, which he praised for its accuracy (Jos. Vit. 65 ; c. Ap. Ig). He appears to have died in Trajan s third year ( 100 A. D. ). He left no descendants ; perhaps, indeed, he was never married. His domains were incorporated in the province of Syria.

1 There is indeed no mention of the conferring of the right of appointing the high priest ; but Agrippa is found exercising it (Ant. xx. 8s ii, etc.).

2 His coins, almost without exception, bear the name and image of the reigning emperor Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and Doniitian.

14. Berenice.[edit]

9. Berenice. (KepviKr) [Ti. WH] : the Macedonian form of ^epeviKij. ) The oldest of the three daughters of Agrippa I (Jos. Ant. xix. 9l ). She was betrothed to Marcus, son of Alexander the Alabarch ; but he died before the marriage took place (Ant. xix. 5 i). About 41 A. [>. , being then about thirteen years old, Berenice became the second wife of her uncle Herod of Chalcis, 1 by whom she had two sons, Bernicianus and Hyrcanus (BJu. 116). When Herod died in 48 A.D. Berenice joined her brother in Rome, and black stories were circulated as to their relationship. 2 With the object of giving these rumours the lie, Berenice at length, 3 by means of her wealth, induced Polemon II., king of Cilicia, to be circumcised and to marry her ; but she soon deserted him (Si d.Ko\a<rlai>, tis etjxiffav, Jos. xx. 7 3) and returned to Agrippa. She accompanied him on his visit to Festus, as above related (see 13. Acts 25 23, /j-erb. iro\\rjs (pavTaffias, with great pomp, refers especially to her, as is clear from the order of the words). She is next heard of in Jerusalem, fulfilling a vow of a Nazirite (cp Nu. 6i/). That she inherited the personal courage which distinguished her family was shown by her brave attempt, at the risk of her life, to stay the massacre ordered by Florus, the last and worst of the procurators of J udcea ( BJ ii. 1 5 1 ). Her sympathy was not allowed to blind her to the prudent course ; but, like her brother, she was an ardent supporter of the Roman cause, and of the Flavian dynasty in particular (Tac. Hist. 28i). She was, in fact, a Jewish Cleopatra ( on a small scale, Momms. Prov. of Kom. Kmp. 2219), and Titus, as early apparently as 67 A. D. , had fallen a victim to her charms ; his return to Judrca from Corinth in order to Concert measures with his father on the downfall of Galba was ascribed by gossip to his passion (Tac. Hist.lz, accensum desiderio Berenices regince ). The intimacy was renewed in Rome in 75 A.D. Berenice lived on the Palatine with him as his wife (Dio Cass. 6615, iravra. ^dy ws KO.I ywr) avrov oiVa fTToiei), and it was said that Titus had promised to make her his consort (Suet. Tit. 7). He was, however, too shrewd to endanger his popularity by opposition to the public feeling, and insisted upon her departure from the capital. After Vespasian s death she returned ; but Titus took no notice at all of her she had played for an empire, and lost. 4

To these notices of her life we can only add the inscription found in Athens (CIG ^6i = C/A 3 i, no. 556): H /SovArj j ef "Apei ov irdyov KO.I r; /3ouArj T(av % Kai 6 STJ^OS lonAiW Bcpci/ci m)i @acrt\icrcrai> /jifyaXi^v, lovAi ou AypiV;ra jSacriAt tus 0vya.Tfpa al /ue-yaAwi/ /3<x<7iAe wc evepyerwi rrjs TniAecos txyovoi .

1 His first wife was Mariamme, a granddaughter of Herod the Great ; by her he had one son, Aristobiilus (Ant. xviii. 64).

2 The scandal was evidently current in Roman fashionable circles (Ant. xx. 7 3, </>rjjmr)s eruo xou oTjs, on TaSfk.<j>ta oT/i/eiT) ; cp Juv. Sat. 6 i56_/C

. . . adamas notissimus et Berenices In digito factus pretiosior : hunc dedit olim Barbarus incesta;, dedit hunc Agrippa sorori, Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges, Et vetus indulget senibus dementia porcis ).

3 iroAiii/ xp&vov (m\r)pfV(ra(ra. : Jos. Ant. xx. 7 3.

4 Dio Cass. 66 18 ; Suet. I.e., Berenicen statim ab urbe dimisit, invitus invitam ; Aur. Viet. Kpit. 10. Dio Cassius alone clearly distinguishes the two occasions.

5 The second daughter, Mariamme, is not mentioned in the NT. For her career, curiously parallel to that of her sisters, see Ant. xx. 7 3.

15. Drusilla.[edit]

10. Drusilla ( Apow/XXa [Ti. WH], Acts 24 24. A diminutive form, from Drusus ; like Priscilla, ActslSa). The youngest of the three daughters of Agrippa I., 5 born about 38 A.D. (Jos. Ant. xix. 9i). She was betrothed by her father to [ Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, king of Commagene ; but he refused to be circumcised, and the marriage did not take place. After Agrippa II. received his kingdom from Claudius, he gave his sister in marriage to Azizus, king of Emesa, on condition of his accepting circumcision. Antonius Felix, brother of the emperor s powerful freed- man Pallas, was captivated by her beauty, 1 and em ployed as his agent in seducing her affections one Simon, 2 a Cypriote, who had the reputation of being a magician (some would identify him with Simon Magus of Acts 89). Partly in order to escape the persecutions of her sister Berenice, who was jealous of her beauty, Drusilla deserted her husband and became the third wife of Felix, who was then procurator of Ju tea (for his character, see Tac. Hist. 5g; Ann. 12 54; Suet. Claud. 28, trium reginarum maritus ). This was in 53 A.n. It is not always realised that Drusilla can only have been about sixteen years old at the time.

In Acts 24 24 we read how Felix with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess (so AV ; TJJ l&icf yvvaiiei, WH : RV, with D.. his wife ; marg. his own wife ; ifii o is omitted by all uncial MSS, except BCa), heard Paul concerning the faith in Christ (in 58 A.I).). Drusilla would naturally be interested (like her brother Agrippa later, Acts 25 22) to hear some account of what professed to be the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. According to some authorities for the western text, indeed, the interview took place at her special request (so restored in ? . 24 by Blass, Act. Af>ost. ed. phil. 1895, I.e., ripiara. l^elv TOV TT. (cai axovtrai TOV \i>yov. /SouAo/nei os otiv TO iKavov Troiflv avrfj, (t.T.A. ; and in v. 27 the western text has TOV &f II. eia.<rev iv r>)p7J<rei Sia Apov- riAAaf we must then suppose 1 >rusilla to have been actuated by a spirit of revenge, like Herodias in the very similar case of John the Baptist).

Drusilla bore to Felix a son, called Agrippa, who perished in the great eruption of Vesuvius (in the reign of Titus), by which Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed (Jos. Ant. xx. 7 2, d vcavlas OUTOS avv TTJ yvvaiKi . . . rj<j>a.vi(rOri ; some take this to moan along with Drusilla, but more probably it signifies his own wife).

1 Ant. xx. 7 2, KCU yap Jfv KaAAerraatav Siacjepovcra.

2 But Niese here reads "Axo/uor

16. Authorities[edit]

The authority for the history of the whole Herodian family is Josephus ; isolated references only are found in other writers. Of modern books dealing with the history we need only mention Schurer s great work, Ceschichte des Jiidischen Volkts int Zeitaltcr Jesu Christ! ; the second edition of which is accessible in an English translation (6 vols.). Two vols. of a new edition in German have appeared (2, 3, 98). Farrar s Herods is a popular account written without sympathy or historical insight. The various Histories of NT Times, both English and foreign, deal with the family, deriving their facts from Schftrer. The evidence of the coins will be found in Madden s Coins of the Jews.

17. Genealogy and index.[edit]

Appended is a genealogy of the Herodian family. Names printed in heavy type are those of members of the family mentioned in the NT. All the names in any one upright column are names either (a) of sons (or daughters) or (b) of husbands (or wives) or (c) of fathers (or mothers) of the persons named in the adjacent columns to right or to left respectively. The numbers attached to the names are the same as those attached to them in the annexed index. w. j. w.


  • Agrippa, 73
  • Agrippa, 82
  • Agrippa I., 51
  • Agrippa II., 67
  • Agrippinus, 81
  • Alexander, 24
  • Alexander, 41
  • Alexander, 52
  • Alexander, 63
  • Alexandra, 42
  • Alexas, 21
  • Alexas, 61
  • Antigonus, d. of, 44
  • Antipas, 29
  • Antipater, i
  • Antipater, 2
  • Antipater, 23
  • Antipater, 37
  • Antipater, 39
  • Archelaus, 30
  • Archelaus, 76
  • Aretas, d. of, 47
  • Aristobulus, 25
  • Aristobulus, 55
  • Aristobulus, 62
  • Aristobulus, 74
  • Azizus, 78
  • Bernice, 38
  • Bernice, 59
  • Bernice, 80
  • Bernicianus, 64
  • Cleopatra, 15
  • Costobar, 20
  • Cypros, 4
  • Cypros, 27
  • Cypros, 43
  • Cypros, 56
  • Cypros, 71
  • Demetrius, 77
  • Doris, ii
  • Drusilla, 70; 15
  • Drusus, 68
  • Elpis, 18
  • Felix, 79
  • Glaphyra, 45
  • Herod, 6
  • Herod, 32
  • Herod, 40
  • Herod, 54
  • Herod, 72
  • Herod (Philip?), 28
  • Herodias, 46
  • Hyrcanus, 65
  • Iotape, 60
  • Iotape, 66
  • Joseph, 3
  • Joseph, 7
  • Joseph, 19
  • Malthace, 14
  • Mariamme, 12
  • Mariamme, 13
  • Mariamme, 48
  • Mariamme, 57
  • Mariamme, 69
  • Olympias, 31
  • Pallas, 16
  • Phaedra, 17
  • Phasael, 5
  • Phasael, 10
  • Phasael, 34
  • Pheroras, 8
  • Philip the Tetrarch, 33
  • Polemon, 75
  • Roxana, 35
  • Salampsio, 22
  • Salome, 9
  • Salome, 36
  • Salome, 49
  • Tigranes, 53
  • Tigranes V., 58
  • Timius of Cyprus, 50

[picture of HERODIAN FAMILY TREE goes here]


( HP 6oAiANOl [Ti.] ; -popA- [WH]). The Herodians were the adherents of the dynasty of Herod, who made common cause with the Pharisees against Jesus, as they had previously done against John the Baptist (Lk. 1831). Jesus, on his side, did not spare denunciation of his opponents, in whom he recognised in different forms the same corrupting power, the same leaven of wickedness. Besvare, he said (Mk. 815), 1 of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod (we may disregard the slightly supported read ing rHiv HpcoStctJ coj ).

In Mt. 10 12 leaven is explained to mean teaching (8iSax)). The early evangelic tradition, however, seems not to have been unanimous as to the meaning of leaven ; in Lk. 12 1 the leaven of the Pharisees is interpreted as hypocrisy. We may venture then to give the phrase the leaven of Herod its natural explanation ; it means the vital spirit of the kingdom of Herod, just as the leaven of the parable in Mt. 1833 Lk. 13 21, means the vital spirit of the kingdom of heaven. Cp GOSPELS, 140 (c).

At the time when the question respecting the tribute money was put to Jesus (Mt. 22 17 Mk. 12 14) a question in putting which the Herodians as well as the Pharisees were concerned Judasa was not under any member of the Herodian family, but under a Roman procurator. Still, the Herodian spirit lived on. It was not true, as the Herodians pretended, that they scrupled about paying tribute to Caesar ; what they longed for was the re-establishment of the Herodian kingdom in spite of its subjection to Rome, as repre senting that union of Hellenism and Judaism which seemed to enable Jews to make the best of both worlds. Such a re-establishment, however, was hindered by the preachers of Messianism, and the friends of Herodianism recognised Jesus as one of these. So these spies, as they are called (Lk. 20 20), put the in sidious question to him, Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not, simply that they might catch him in talk, and accuse him to the governor.

The Herodians are referred to again in Mk. 36. Early in the Galilaean ministry of Jesus they are said to have joined the Pharisees in plotting his destruction. This, however, is evidently a mistake. In the country of the tetrarch Antipas there could not be a party called Herodians. If Greek-speaking Jews in Galilee ever used the term Hpudiavoi, they could only mean by it members of the household of Herod, a meaning which, to be sure, is not unsupported in modern times, but is unsuitable in Mk. 12 13, and is not favoured by the phraseology of Josephus. 1

It is remarkable that in Mt. 166 the place of the Herodians is taken by the Sadducees. No stress, however, can be laid upon this ; there is no evidence that there was a faction of the Sadducees which was devoted to the interests of the Herodian family. It was more natural to the evangelist to speak of the Pharisees and the Sadducees ; he had no thought of suggesting that the Sadducees and the Herodians had any points in common. Still less can the Pharisees and the Herodians have had any real sympathy. There is in Jos. Ant. xvii. 84 a story that the Pharisees predicted the fall of Herod and his house and the accession of his brother Pheroras to the throne of Israel ; this is rightly rejected by Wellhausen (7/G( 3 ) 337 n. ). Just as little could they have attached their hopes for the future to Herod or to any Herodian prince. Yet as early a writer as Tertullian (De prescript, adv. hceret. , Append. ) speaks of those who Christum Herodem esse dixerunt, and as modern a writer as Renan ( Vie de Jhus, 226) supposes the Boethosian section of the Sadducees to be intended by the Herodians of the evangelists. Hitzig too (GVI 559) apparently agrees with Tertullian. These views and a similar theory of Ewald (G VI ^ 532 647) no longer find any support.

On the name llp<a&iai>oi cp the remarks on the form Christians, CHRISTIAN, NAME OF, 4. See also Keim, Herodianer, in Bib. Lex. T. K. C.

1 HpcuSeioi (BJ\. 16 6) = those of Herod s party, in antithesis to Apriyoi eioi.


(H poo A I AC), Mt. 146, etc. See HEROD, 10.


(H poo A ICON [Ti. WH]) is saluted in Rom. 16 ii as 'my kinsman', an expression which suggests that he was of Jewish origin (cp ROMANS, 4, 10). The name would indicate the freedman of some prince of the dynasty of Herod. Weizsacker (Apost. Age, 1397399) suggests that he may have worked for Christ within the household of Narcissus mentioned just afterwards (cp APELLES).

In the list of the Pseudo-Dorotheus, Herodion figures as bishop of Patras. According to the v7rojuiT)/ua of Peter and Paul by the Pseudo-Symcon Metaphrastes he was so consecrated by Peter, and he and Olympas were both beheaded at Rome at the time when Peter was crucified there. He is commemorated in in the Greek Metuea on 8th April.


(nS3^), an unclean bird (Lev. 11 19 Dt. 14 i8f ; x^pAAplOC [BAFL]), for which RV m K- suggests ibis as an alternative rendering (Onk. -I^N). Accord ing to the Lexicons anaphah is of quite uncertain mean ing ; Lidd. and Scott translate <5 s xa/>a5pi6s the stone -curlew or thick -kneed bustard, CEdicnemus crepitans ; but even if this be correct one hesitates to identify this bird with the anaphah. Unless the word anaphah is misplaced, we may with some confidence infer from the proximity of rn pn, stork, that it means the order of herons (note after its kind ). At least seven species of heron are common in Palestine.

Both the Common and the Purple Herons (Ardea cinerea and A. purpurea), the Egrets (A. alba and A.garzetta), and the Squacco Heron (A. ralloi des), as well as the Buff-backed, may often be seen fishing by the Sea of Galilee, and of the Buff-backed Heron (A. bnbukus), often called the White Ibis, immense flocks live and breed in the impenetrable swamps of the Huleh (Tristram NHB 241 /).

It is this class of birds which is presumably meant by the Ass. anpatu, with which the Lexicons (after Friedr. Del.) naturally compare dndphah. The Ibis, both white and black, is common in the swamps of the Egyptian Delta, and may in the winter be seen anywhere in the basin of the Upper Nile. The Egyptians held it sacred to Thoth. Ibis, however, is too definite a rendering.

T. K. C. A. E. S.


, i K. 4 10 ; AV m e- RV BEN-HESED.


(P3BTI ; eceBooN [BSAQ] ; hesebon], a town of Moab, often mentioned in the Hexateuch (JE, D, and P) ; in Is. 154 168/ Jer. 482 34 45 49s ; in Cant. ?4[s] (MT, (51, but see BATH-RABBIM) ; and in Judith 5 15 (ec-e^ow [e] tras [B], etre/Swy [KA]). Heshbon (riffepuv, eaefiuv) and the Hesebonitis (ecre/Sowns, e<r<re/3. cre/3. ) are named repeatedly also in Josephus (Ant. xii. 4n xiii. 154 xv. 85, BJ \\. 18i iii. 83) and ecrcre/3w or Esebon is defined in OS 117 29 ff. y&^ff. as being the contemporary e<r/3ous or Esbus, a notable city of Arabia in the mountains facing Jericho, 20 R. m. from the Jordan. It is the modern Hesban, which is finely situated on the edge of the W. Hesban at a height of 600 feet above the Ain Hesban, and close to the water shed from which the W. Habis drains southwards into the Zerka Ma in. The ruins, chiefly Roman, are mainly on two hills, 2930 and 2954 feet above sea level ; Mt. Nebo, 5 miles to the SW. is considerably lower (2643 ft.). There are remains of a castle and of a temple, and on the east, at the base of the castle hill, a great reservoir, now ruinous and dry. It is a difficult thing, remarks Post (PEFQ, 88, p. 190), for the imagination to restore to the reservoir the beauty which made the fishpond of Heshbon, a suitable simile for the eyes of Solomon s bride (Cant. 7 4 [5]). There are, of course, plenty of pools near the Ain Hesban (see Tristram, Land of Moab, 340). The text, however, is open to suspicion ; see BATH-RABBIM.

For the ancient history of Heshbon see MOAB, SIHON. On the modern topography see Tristram as above ; and Survey of

E. Palestine, 1 esp. 104^, and map.


(pOBTI; ACGMOON [L], BA om.), an unidentified place on the Edomite border of Judah (Josh. 15:27), mentioned with Moladah and Beersheba. Hence perhaps came the Hasmonaeans


(On), Gen. 10 15 etc. See HITTITES.


(fvnn ; the THC KATAB<MNOYCHC KM rrepicxizoycHC, and T- KdvTAB&cecoc TOY nepi- CXIZONTOC of @ BA Q do not recognise the word as a proper name ; Syr. Hethron}. The way of Hethlon is one of a series of landmarks by which Ezekiel (47 15 48 1) defines the ideal north boundary of Canaan. In Nu. 34?^ (post-exilic), where the boundary is on the whole the same, Hethlon does not appear. In Ezekiel it seems to lie between the point where the border leaves the Mediterranean and that at which it strikes the Hamathite frontier. If, as seems possible, Ezekiel (like Josh. 13s) contemplates the inclusion in Canaan of Phoenicia as far N. as Gebal and of all Lebanon, the way of Hethlon may be identical with the route from the coast up the Eleutheros (Nahr el-Kebir) round the northern slopes of Lebanon to Emesa (Hims) and Rihlah. In that case we may consider Furrer s proposal (ZDP f 827) to identify Hethlon with the village of Heitela, N. of Tripoli, between Nahr el-Kebir and Nahr Akkar (Robinson, BR 4s?6).

The scholar who warned us so pointedly against dwelling too much on possibly casual resemblances of names would not have been sorry for an excuse to abandon this hazardous conjecture (for another, see van Kasteren, Rev. bibl., 95, p. 24; cp Hommel, in Hastings DB1?>-$). As Halevy (Journ. As., Jan.- Feb. 99) has seen, -pin and -pi, the words preceding pSnn in Ezek. 47 15 and 48 1 respectively, should be -rrm (see HADRACH). It follows that p^nn ( Hethlon ) is a corruption of |mnn ; a verb is almost, if not quite, necessary. For the reason of the choice of this verb, see HOR, MOUNT, 2. W.R.S. T. K.C.




  • i. Earliest criticism ( 1).
  • ii. Analysis : Astruc, etc. ( 2-7).
  • iii. Synthesis : Vatke, etc. ( 8-12).


  • i. Layers of law ( 13-21).
  • ii. Of legendary history ( 22-24).
  • iii. Objections to hypothesis ( 25-30).

The name Pentateuch, found already in Tertullian and Origen, corresponds to the Jewish "{J O in llt^On minn (the five-fifths of the Torah, or Law) ; the several books were named by the Jews from their initial words, though, at least, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy had also titles resembling those we use viz., Priests Torah (D^HD mill), The Fifth con taining the enumeration of the people, the mustering, DHIpQn E On (&MMeccJ>eK6oAeiM, Origen, in Eus. HE 6 25), and Duplicate of the Torah (iTYin n:t?D). The Pentateuch, together with Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, with which it is usually united in Greek MSS, makes up the Octateuch ; the Pentateuch and Joshua together have recently been named the Hexateuch. The date of the division of the Torah into five books cannot be made out ; it is probably older than the Septuagint translation. See CANON, 23^

1 [The general articles on the several books of the Hexateuch and on HISTORICAL LITERATURE and LAW LITERATURE, as well as the special articles on such subjects as the EXODUS and also on the different persons and places named in the Hexa teuch narratives, deal with the critical investigations relative to the constitution and history of the Hexateuch and the problems connected therewith. But it would manifestly have been out of place to attempt to give under any one of these headings a connected history of the long march of Pentateuch-criticism from its earliest beginnings down to the period when the Graf- Wellhausen hypothesis may be held to have met with the general acceptance of scholars, a march with the stages of which it is nevertheless important that every serious student should be familiar. The following authoritative survey of its course, originally made in the Ency. Brit. (vol. 18 Pentateuch and Joshua ) in 1885, has had the benefit of a recent revision by its distinguished author. ED.]

2 Hobbes, Leviathan, 33 ; Peyrerius, Syst. theol. ex Pm- adamitanim Hypothesi, 4 i f. ; Spinoza, Tr. Theolo^ico-pol., 7 ; R. Simon, Hist. Crit. du VT, 1 5-7 ; Le Clerc, Sentitntns de guelgues theologiens de Hollande (Amst., 1685), lett. 6.


1. Earliest criticism.[edit]

At an early date, doubts suggested themselves as to the Mosaic authorship ; but it was not till the seventeenth century that these became so strong that they could not be suppressed. 2

It was observed that Moses does not speak of himself in the first person, but that some other writer speaks of him in the third, a writer, too, who lived long after. The expression of Gen. 126, the Canaanite was then in the land, is spoken to readers who had long forgotten that a different nation from Israel had once occupied the Holy Land ; the words of Gen. 36 31, these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, have no prophetic aspect ; they point to an author who wrote under the Hebrew monarchy. Again, the book of the wars of Yahwe (Nu. 21 14) cannot possibly be cited by Moses himself, as it contains a record of his own deeds ; and, when Dt. 34 10 (cp Nu. 12) says that there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, the writer is necessarily one who looked back to Moses through a long series of later prophets.

At the same time attention was drawn to a variety of contradictions, inequalities, transpositions, and repeti tions of events in the Pentateuch, such as excluded the idea that the whole came from a single pen. Thus Peyrerius remarked that Gen. 20 and 26 stand in an impossible chronological context ; and on the incon gruity of Gen. 1 and 2, which he pressed very strongly, he rested his hypothesis of the Preadamites. Such observations could not but grievously shake the per suasion that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, whilst at the same time they directed criticism to a less negative task viz., the analysis of the Pentateuch. For this, indeed, the seventeenth century did not effect anything considerable ; but at least two conclusions came out with sufficient clearness. The first of these was the self-contained character of Deuteronomy, which in those days there was a disposition to regard as the oldest book of the Pentateuch, and that with the best claims to authenticity. In the second place the Penta- teuchal laws and the Pentateuchal history were sharply distinguished ; the chief difficulties were felt to lie in the narrative, and there seemed to be less reason for questioning the Mosaic authorship of the laws.

1 Conjectures sur les inenwires originaux dont il paroit gilt Moyse s est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese (Brussels, J 7S3)- Cp Journ. des Scavans, Oct. 1767, pp. 291-305.

2. Astruc.[edit]

Spinoza's bold conjecture that in their present form not only the Pentateuch but also the other historical books of the OT were composed by Ezra ran far ahead of the laborious investigation of details necessary to solve the previous question of the composition of the Pentateuch. Jean Astruc has the merit of opening the true path of this investigation. He recognised in Genesis two main sources, between which he divided the whole materials of the book, with some few exceptions, and these sources he distinguished by the mark that the one used for God the name Elohim (Gen. 1 5 ; cp Ex. 63) and the other the name Yahwe (Gen. 2-4). J Astruc's hypothesis, fortified by the observation of other linguistic differences which regularly accompanied the variation in the names of God, was introduced into Germany by Eichhorn (Einl. in d. A T). and proved there the fruitful and just point of departure for all further inquiry. At first, indeed, it was with but uncertain steps that critics advanced from the analysis of Genesis to that of the other books, where the simple criterion of the alternation of the divine names was no longer available.

3. Fragment hypothesis.[edit]

In the hands of the Scotsman Geddes and the German Vater the Pentateuch resolved itself into an agglomeration of longer and shorter fragments, between which no threads of continuous connection could be traced l ( 'Fragment- hypothesis' ). The Fragment-hypothesis was mainly supported by arguments drawn from the middle books of the Pentateuch, and as limited to these it long found wide support. Even De Wette started from it in his investigations ; but this was really an inconsistency, for his fundamental idea was to show throughout all parts of the Pentateuch traces of certain common tendencies, and even of one deliberate plan ; nor was he far from recognizing the close relation between the Elohist of Genesis and the legislation of the middle books.

4. Historical criticism (De Wette).[edit]

De Wette's chief concern, however, was not with the literary but with the historical criticism of the Pentateuch, and in the latter he made an epoch.

In his Dissertatio Critica of 1805 (Of use. Theol. 149-168) he placed the composition of Deuteronomy in the time of King Josiah (arguing from a comparison of 2 K. 2 2 f. with Dt. 12), and pronounced it to be the most recent stratum of the Pentateuch, not, as had previously been supposed, the oldest.

In his Kritiscker Versuch uber die Glaubivurdigkeit der Bilcher der Chronik (1806) he showed that the laws of Moses are unknown to the post-Mosaic history ; this he did by in stituting a close comparison of Samuel and Kings with Chronicles, from which it appeared that the variations of the latter are to be explained not by the use of other sources, but solely by the desire of the Jewish scribes to shape the history in conformity witli the law, and to give the law that place in history which, to their surprise, had not been conceded to it by the older historical books.

Finally, in his Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte (1807), De Wette attacked the method then prevalent in Germany of eliminating all miracles and prophecies from the Bible by ex plaining them away, and then rationalizing what remained into a dry prosaic pragmatism. De Wette refuses to find any history in the Pentateuch ; all is legend and poetry. The Pentateuch is an authority not for the history of the time it deals with, but only for the time in which it was written ; it is, he says, the conditions of this much later time which the author idealizes and throws back into the past, whether in the form of narrative or of law.

De Wette s brilliant dt biit, which made his reputation for the rest of his life, 2 exercised a powerful influence on his contemporaries. For several decennia all who were open to critical ideas at all stood under his influence.

Gramberg, Leo, and Von Bohlen wrote under this influence ; Gesenius in Halle, the greatest Hebraist then living, tauglit under it ; nay, Vatke and George were guided by De Wette s ideas and started from the ground that he had conquered, although they advanced beyond him to a much more definite and better established position, and were also diametrically opposed to him in one most important point, of which we shall have more to say presently. 3

1 Alex. Geddes, Crit. Remarks on the Hel>. Script. 1800 ; J. S. Vater, Comm. iib. den rent. (1802-5).

2 [De Wette scarcely maintained the high position as a critic which he conquered by his early writings. What the causes of this were, and what were De Wette s services to the general critical and theological movement, have been described by Che. Founders, 93.]

3 H. Leo, I orlesuniren fiber die Geschichte des jii lischfn Staats, 28; C. P. W. Gramberg, Kritische Geschichte der Religiansirf en des A T, ?<)-y> \ P. v. Bohlen, Die Genesis, 35 I W. Vatke, Biblische Theologie, 35 ; J. F. L. George, Die alteren judischen Feste, 35.

5. Literary criticism.[edit]

Meantime a reaction was rising which sought to direct criticism towards positive rather than negative results. The chief representatives of this positive criticism, which now took up distinct attitude of opposition to the negative criticism of De Wette, were Bleek, Ewald, Movers, and Hitzig. By giving up certain parts of the Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy, they thought themselves able to vindicate certain other parts as beyond doubt genuinely Mosaic, just in the same way as they threw over the Davidic authorship of certain psalms in order to strengthen the claim of others to bear his name. The procedure by which particular ancient hymns or laws were sifted out from the Psalter or the Pentateuch was arbitrary ; but up to a certain point the reaction was in the right.

De Wette and his followers had really gone too far in apply ing the same measure to all parts of the Pentateuch, and had been satisfied with a very inadequate insight into its composition and the relation of its parts. Historical criticism had hurried on too fast, and literary criticism had now to overtake it. De Wette himself felt the necessity for this, and from the year 1817 onwards the year of the first edition of his Einleitung he took an active and useful part in the solution of the problems of Pentateuchal analysis.

6. Supplement hypothesis.[edit]

The Fragment-hypothesis was now superseded ; the connection of the Elohist of Genesis with the legislation of the middle books was clearly recognized, and the book of Joshua was included as the conclusion of the Pentateuch. The closely-knit connection and regular structure of the narrative of the Elohist impressed the critics ; it seemed to supply the skeleton which had been clothed with flesh and blood by the Yahwist, in whose contributions there was no such obvious conformity to a plan. From all this it was naturally concluded that the Elohist had written the Grundschrifl or primary narrative, which lay before the Yahwist and was supplemented by him ( Supplement-hypothesis ). 1

7. Hupleld.[edit]

This view remained dominant till Hupfeld in 1853 published his Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetsung. Hupfeld denied that the Yahwist followed the context of the Elohistic narrative, merely supplementing it by additions of his own. He pointed out that such Elohistic passages in Genesis as clearly have undergone a Yahwistic redaction (e.g. , chaps. 20-22) belong to an Elohist different from the author of Gen. 1. Thus he distinguished three independent sources in Genesis ; and he assumed further, somewhat rashly, that no one of them had anything to do with the others till a fourth and later writer wove them all together into a single whole.

8. Noldeke.[edit]

This assumption was corrected by Noldeke, who showed that the second Elohist is preserved only in extracts embodied in the Yahwistic book, that the Yahwist and second Elohist form one whole and the Grundschrift another, and that thus, in spite of Hupfeld s discovery, the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy being excluded) was still to be regarded as made up of two great layers. Noldeke has also the honour of having been the first to trace in detail how the Elohistic Grundschrift runs through the whole Hexateuch, and of having described with masterly hand the peculiar and inflexible type of its ideas and language. In this task he was aided by the valuable material collected in Knobel s commentaries. 3

1 Bleek, in Rnsenmuller s Repertorhitit, 1822, and in St. A";-., 1831: Ewald, St. Kr., 1831; Tuch, Genesis, 1838; especially De Wette in the various editions of his Einleitung.

2 Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A T, 69.

3 Gen., 52 ; Ex. -Lev., 57 ; Num. Dt. Josh., 61.

4 For critical sketches of Bleek, Ewald, and Hitzig see Che. Founders.

9. Synthesis.[edit]

The work of synthesis, however, did not hold even pace with the critical analysis ; indeed, the true scope of the problem was not as yet realized. As regards the narrative matter it was forgotten that, after the Yahwistic (i.e., JE s), the Deuteronomic, and the priestly versions of the history had been happily disentangled from one another, it was necessary to examine the mutual relations of the three, to consider them as marking so many stages of a historical tradition, which had passed through its successive phases under the action of living causes, and the growth of which could and must be traced and historically explained. Still greater faults of omission characterized the critical treatment of the legal parts of the Pentateuch. Bleek, 4 the oracle in all such matters of the German school of Vermittelungstheologen (the theologians who tried to mediate between orthodoxy and criticism alike in doctrine and in history), never looked beyond the historical framework of the priestly laws, altogether shutting his eyes to their substance. He never thought of instituting an exact comparison between them and the Deuteronomic law, still less of examining their relation to the historical and prophetical books, with which, in truth, as appears from his Intro duction, he had only a very superficial acquaintance. Ewald, on the other hand, whose views as to the Priestly Code were cognate to those of Bleek, un doubtedly had an intimate acquaintance with Hebrew antiquity, and understood the prophets as no one else did. But he too neglected the task of a careful com parison between the different strata of the Pentateuchal legislation, and the equally necessary task of deter mining how the several laws agreed with or differed from such definite data for the history of religion as could be collected from the historical and prophetical books. He had therefore no fixed measure to apply to the criticism of the laws, though his conception of the history suffered little, and his conception of prophecy still less, from the fact that in shaping them he left the law practically out of sight, or only called it in from time to time in an irregular and rather unnatural way.

10. True method.[edit]

Meanwhile, two Hegelian writers, starting from the original position of De Wette, and moving on lines apart from the beaten track of criticism, had actually effected the solution of the most important problem in the whole sphere of OT study. Vatke (on whom see Cheyne's book already mentioned) and George have the honour of being the first by whom the question of the historical sequence of the several stages of the law was attacked on a sound method, with full mastery over the available evidence, and with a clear insight into the far-reaching scope of the problem. Their works made no permanent impres sion, however, and were neglected even by Reuss, although this scholar had fallen at the same time upon quite similar ideas, which he did not venture to publish.

11. Reuss.[edit]

The following propositions were formulated by Reuss in 1833 (or, as he elsewhere gives the date, in 1834), though they were not published till 1879.

  • i. The historical element of the Pentateuch can and must be examined apart and not be confused with the legal element.
  • 2. Both could exist without written redaction. The mention, by the ancient writers, of certain patriarchal or mosaic traditions, does not prove the existence of the Pentateuch, and a nation can have a common law without written code.
  • 3. The national traditions of the Israelites are earlier than the laws of the Pentateuch and the redaction of the first precedes that of the second.
  • 4. The principal interest of the historian must relate to the date of the laws, because on this ground it has more chance of arriving at unquestionable results. It is consequently necessary to proceed to the interrogation of the witnesses.
  • 5. The history recounted in the books of the Judges and Samuel, and partly that included/understood in the books of the Kings, is in contradiction with the so-called mosaic laws; given that those were unknown during the time of the drafting of these books, there is stronger reason to think they did not exist in the times described there.
  • 6. The prophets of 8th and the 7th century do not know anything the mosaic code.
  • 7. Jeremiah is the first prophet who knows a written law and quotates from Deuteronomy.
  • 8. Deuteronome (4:45-28:68) is the book which the priests claimed to have found in the temple, at the time of king Josiah. This code is the oldest part of the legislation included/understood in the Pentateuch.
  • 9. The history of the Israelites, in relation to the national development given by written laws, will be divided into two periods, before and after Josiah.
  • 10. Ezekiel predates the drafting of the ritual and of the laws which have definitively organised the hierarchy.
  • 11. The book of Joshua is not, necessarily, the most recent part of the whole work .
  • 12. The redactor of the Pentateuch is clearly distinguished from the ancient prophet Moses. (L'histoire sainte et la loi,2j,f. [Paris, 79].)

12. Attempts of Graf.[edit]

The new ideas lay dormant for thirty years when they were revived through a pupil of Reuss, K. H. Graf. He too was deemed at first to offer an easy victory to the weapons of 'critical analysis', which found many vulnerable points in the original statement of his views.

For, while Graf placed the legislation of the middle books very late, holding it to have been framed after the great captivity, he at first still held fast to the doctrine of the great antiquity of the so-called Elohist of Genesis (in the sense which that term bore before Hupfeld's discovery), thus violently rending the Priestly Code in twain, and separating its members by an interval of half a millennium. This he was compelled to do, because, for Genesis at least, he still adhered to the supplement hypothesis, according to which the Yahwist worked on the basis laid by the (priestly) Elohist. Here, however, he was tying himself by bonds which had been already loosed by Hupfeld ; and, as literary criticism actually stood, it could show no reason for holding that the Yahwist was necessarily later than the Elohist. In the end, therefore, literary criticism offered itself as Grafs auxiliary. Following a hint of Kuenen's, he embraced the proffered alliance, gave up the violent attempt to divide the Priestly Code, and proceeded without further obstacle to extend to the historical part of that code as found in Genesis those conclusions which he had already established for its main or legislative part. Graf himself did not live to see the victory of his cause. The task of developing and enforcing his hypothesis was left to others, primarily to the great Leyden critic, A. Kuenen. 1


15. Grafian hypothesis.[edit]

The characteristic feature in the hypothesis of Graf is that the Priestly Code is placed later than Deuteronomy, so that the order is no longer Priestly Code, Yahwist (JE), Deuteronomy, but Jehovist (JE), Deuteronomy, Priestly Code. The method of inquiry has been already indi cated ; the three strata of the Pentateuch are compared with one another, and at the same time the investigator seeks to place them in their proper relation to the successive phases of Hebrew history as these are known to us from other and undisputed evidence. The process may be shortened if it be taken as agreed that the date of Deuteronomy is known from 2 K. 22 (see DEUTERONOMY, zff.}; for this gives us at starting a fixed point, to which the less certain points can be referred.

The method can be applied alike to the historical and to the legal parts of the three strata of the Hexateuch. For JE gives legislative matter in Ex. 20-23, 34, and Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code embrace historical matters ; moreover, we always find that the legal standpoint of each author influences his presentation of the history, and vice versa. The most important point, however, is the comparison of the laws, especially of the laws about worship, with the statements in the historical and prophetical books.

14. Laws : First period : JE.[edit]

i . The principal law-book embodied in JE, the so-called Book of the Covenant, takes it for granted in Ex. 20 24-26 that altars are many, not one. Here there is no idea of attaching value to the retention of a single place for the altar ; earth and rough stones are to be found everywhere, and an altar of these materials falls into ruins as easily as it is built. Again a choice of materials is given, presumably for the construction of different altars, and Yahwe proposes to come to his worshippers and bless them, not in the place where he causes his name to be celebrated, but at every such place. The law adopted in JE therefore agrees with the customary usage of the earlier period of Hebrew history ; and so too does the narrative, according to which the patriarchs wherever they reside erect altars, set up cippi (massebotti], plant trees, and dig wells.

The places of which these acts of the patriarchs are related are not fortuitous, they are the same places as were afterwards famous shrines. This is why the narrator speaks of them ; his interest in the sites is not antiquarian ; it is due to the practical importance they held in the worship of his own day. The altar which Abraham built at Shechem is the same on which sacrifices still continued to be offered ; Jacob's anointed stone at Bethel was still anointed, and tithes were still offered at it in fulfilment of vows, in the writer's own generation.

The things which a later generation deemed offensive and heathenish high places, massebolh, sacred trees, and wells all appear here as consecrated by patriarchal precedent, and the narrative can be understood only as a picture of what occurred daily in the first century (or thereabout) after the division of the kingdoms, thrown back into the past and clothed with ancient authority.

1 K. H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bticher des A T, 66 ; essays by Graf, in Merx s Archiv, 1225 ff. 466 ff. , A. Kuenen in De Godsdienst van Israel, 2 vols., 6q- 7o (ET 74- 7s), and his essays in Th. T, 77- 84. See also [especially] J. Well- hausen, Prolegomena zitr Geschichte Israels^), 99.

15. Second period : D.[edit]

2. The Deuteronomic legislation begins (Deut. 12), just like the Book of the Covenant, with a law for the place of worship. Now, however, there is a complete change ; Yahwe is to be worshipped only in Jerusalem. The new law-book is never weary of repeating this command and developing its consequences in every direction. All this is directed against current usage, against what we are accustomed to do at this day ; the law is polemical and aims at reformation. This law therefore belongs to the second period of the history, the time when the party of reform in Jerusalem was attacking the high places.

When we read, then, that King Josiah was moved to destroy the local sanctuaries by the discovery of a law-book, this book, if we assume it to be preserved in the Pentateuch, can be none other than the legislative part of Deuteronomy in a shorter form (see further, DEUTERONOMY).

16. Third period : P.[edit]

3. In the Priestly Code all worship depends on the tabernacle, and would fall to nothing apart from it. The tabernacle is simply a means of putting the law of unity of worship in a historical form. It is the only legitimate sanctuary ; there is no other spot where God dwells and shows himself, no other where man can approach God and seek his face with sacrifice and gifts. But, while Deuteronomy demands, the Priestly Code presupposes, the limitation of worship to one sanctuary. This principle is tacitly assumed as the basis of everything else, but is never asserted in so many words ; the principle, it appears, is now no novelty ; it can be taken for granted. Hence we conclude that the Priestly Code builds on the realization of the object aimed at in Deuteronomy, and therefore belongs to the post-exilic period, when this object had been fully secured.

An institution which in its origin must necessarily have had a negative significance as an instrument in the hands of polemical reformers is here taken to have been from the first the only intelligible and legitimate form of worship. It is so taken because established customs always appear to be natural and to need no reason for their existence.

17. Priesthood : in Dt.[edit]

The abolition of the local shrines in favour of Jerusalem necessarily involved the deposition of the provincial priesthood in favour of the sons of Zadok in the temple of Solomon.

The law of Deuteronomy tries to avoid this consequence by conceding the privilege of offering sacrifices at Jerusalem to the Levites from other places ; Levites in Deuteronomy is the general name for priests whose right to officiate is hereditary. This privilege, however, was never realized, no doubt because the sons of Zadok opposed it. The latter, therefore, were now the only real priests, and the priests of the high places lost their office with the destruction of their altars ; for the loss of their sacrificial dues they received a sort of elee mosynary compensation from their aristocratic brethren (2 K. 289).

18. In Ezekiel.[edit]

The displacing of the provincial priests, though practically almost inevitable, went against the law of Deuteronomy ; but an argument to justify it was supplied by Ezekiel (Ezek. 44). The other Levites he says, forfeited their priesthood by abusing it in the service of the high places ; and for this they shall be degraded to be mere servants of the Levites of Jerusalem, who have not been guilty of the offence of doing sacrifice in provincial shrines, and thus alone deserve to remain priests. If we start from Deuteronomy, where all Levites have equal priestly rights, this argument and ordinance are plain enough ; but it is utterly impossible to understand them if the Priestly Code is taken as already existing. Ezekiel views the priesthood as originally the right of all Levites, whilst by the Priestly Code a Levite who claims this right is guilty of baseless and wicked pre sumption, such as once cost the lives of all the company of Korah. On the other hand, the position of the Levites, which Ezekiel qualifies as a punishment and a degradation, appears to the Code as the natural posi tion, which their ancestors from father to son had held from the first. The distinction between priest and Levite, which Ezekiel introduces expressly as an innova tion, and which elsewhere in the OT is known only to the author of Chronicles, is, according to the Code, a Mosaic institution fixed and settled from the beginning. Ezekiel s ideas and aims are entirely in the same direction as the Priestly Code, and yet he plainly does not know the Code itself. This can only mean that in his day there was no such Code, and that his ordi nances formed one of the steps that prepared the way for it.

19. In P.[edit]

The Priestly Code gives us a hierocracy fully developed, such as we find after the exile. Aaron stands above his sons as the sons of Aaron stand above the Levites.

He has not only the highest place, but a place quite unique, like that of the Roman pontiff; his sons minister under his superintendence (Nu.S-t); he himself is the only priest with full rights ; as such he wears the Urim and Thummim, and the golden ephod ; and none but he can enter the holy of holies and offer incense there.

Before the Exile there were, of course, differences of rank among the priests ; but the chief priest was only primus inter pares ; even Ezekiel knows no high priest in the sense of the Priestly Code.

The Urim and Thummim were the insignia of the Levites in general (Deut. 33 8), and the linen ephod was worn by them all, whilst the golden ephod was not a garment, but a metal-plated image, such as the greater sanctuaries used to possess (Judg. 827, Is. 3022). Moreover, down to the Exile the temple at Jerusalem was the king's chapel, and the priests were his servants ; even Ezekiel who in most 'points aims at securing the independence of the priests gives the prince a weighty art in matters of worship, for it is he who receives the dues of the people, and in return defrays the sacrificial service. In the Priestly Code, on the other hand, the dues are paid direct to the sanctuary, the ritual service has full autonomy, and it has its own head, who holds his place by divine right.

Nay, the high priest represents more than the church s independence of the state ; he exercises sovereignty over Israel.

Though sceptre and sword are lacking to the high priest, his spiritual dignity makes him the head of the theocracy. He alone is the responsible representative of the commonwealth ; the names of the twelve tribes are written on his shoulders and his breast. An offence on his part inculpates the whole people and demands the same expiation as a national sin, whilst the sin-offerings prescribed for the princes mark them out as mere private persons compared with him. His death makes an epoch ; the fugitive manslayer is amnestied, not on the death of the king, but on the death of the high priest. On investiture the high priest receives a kingly unction (whence his name, the anointed priest ) ; he wears the diadem and tiara of a monarch, and is clad in royal purple, the most unpriestly dress possible. When now we find that the head of the national worship is as such, and merely as such for no political powers accompany the high-priesthood also the head of the nation, this can only mean that the nation is one which has been deprived of its civil autonomy, that it no longer enjoys political existence, but survives merely as a church.

In truth the Priestly Code never contemplates Israel as a nation, but only as a religious community, the whole life of which is summed up in the service of the sanctuary. The community is that of the second temple, the Jewish hierocracy under that foreign dominion which alone made such an hierocracy possible. The pattern of th e so-called Mosaic theocracy, which does not suit the conditions of any earlier age, and of which Hebrew prophecy knows nothing, even in its ideal descriptions of the commonwealth of Israel as it ought to be, fits post-exilic Judaism to a nicety, and was never an actual thing till then. After the Exile the Jews were deprived by their foreign rulers of all the functions of public political life; they were thus able, indeed compelled, to devote their whole energies to sacred things, in which full freedom was left them. The temple became int one centre of national life, and the prince of the temple head of the spiritual commonwealth, white, at the same time, the administration of the few political affairs which were still left to the Jews themselves, fell into his hands as a matter of course, because the nation had no other chief.

20. Sacred dues in P.[edit]

The material basis of the hierarchy in P was supplied by the sacred dues.

In the Priestly Code the priests receive all sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, the greater part of the cereal accompaniments of sacrifices, the skin of the burnt-offering, the breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Further, they receive the male firstlings and the tithe of cattle, as also the firstfruits and tithes of the fruits of the land. Yet with all this they are not even obliged to support at their own cost the stated services and offerings of the temple, which are provided for by a poll-tax. The poll-tax is not ordained in the main body of the Code ; but such a tax, of the amount of one-third of a shekel, began to be paid in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 10 32 [33]), and in a novel of the law (Ex. 30 15) it is demanded at the higher rate of half a shekel per head. That these exorbitant taxes were paid to or claimed by the priests in the wilderness, or during the anarchy of the period of the judges, is inconceivable. Nor in the period of the kingship is it conceivable that the priests laid claim to contributions much in excess of what the king himself received from his subjects ; certainly no such claim would have been supported by the royal authority. In i S. 815 the tithes appear as paid to the king, and are viewed as an oppressive exaction, yet they form but a single element in the multiplicity of dues which the priests claim under the Priestly Code. Above all, the fundamental principles of the system of priestly dues in the Code are absolutely irreconcilable with the fact that, as long as Solomon s temple stood, the king had the power to dispose of its revenues as he pleased.

The sacred taxes are the financial expression of the hierocratic system ; they accord with the condition of the Jews after the exile, and under the second temple they were actually paid according to the Code, or with only minor departures from its provisions.

21. Before the exile.[edit]

In pre-exilic times the sacred gifts were paid not to the priests but to Yahwe ; they had no resemblance to taxes, and their religious meaning, which in the later system is hardly recognizable, was quite plainly marked. They were in fact identical with the great public festal offerings which the offerers consumed in solemn sacrificial meals before Yahwe, that is, at the sanctuary. The change of these offerings into a kind of tax was connected with an entire transformation of the old character of Israel s worship, which resulted from its centralization at Jerusalem.

22. Early feasts.[edit]

In the old days the public worship of the nation consisted essentially in the celebration of the yearly feasts ; that this was so can be plainly seen from the prophets - from Amos, but especially from Hosea. Accordingly the laws of worship are confined to this one point in JE, and even in Deuteronomy. After the Exile the festal observances became much less important than the tdmtd, the regular daily and weekly offerings and services ; and so we find it in the Priestly Code. Apart from this, the feasts (especially the paschal feast) underwent a qualitative change, which claims special attention (see FEASTS, 9 ff.].

23. The narratives.[edit]

The conclusions reached by comparing the successive strata of the laws are confirmed by a comparison of the several stages of the historical tradition embodied in the Pentateuch. The several threads of narrative which run side by side in the Pentateuch are so distinct in point of form that critics were long disposed to assume that in point of substance also they are independent narra tives, without mutual relation. This, however, is highly improbable on general considerations, and is seen to be quite impossible when regard is paid to the close cor respondence of the several sources in regard to the arrangement of the historical matter they contain. It is because the arrangement is so similar in all the narratives that it was possible to weave them together into one book ; and besides this we find a close agree ment in many notable points of detail. Here, too, analysis does not exhaust the task of the critic ; a subsequent synthesis is required. When he has sepa rated out the individual documents the critic has still to examine their mutual relations, to comprehend them as phases in a living process, and in this way to trace the gradual development of the Hebrew historical tradition. In the present article, however, we cannot say anything of the way in which the Deuteronomist views the Hebrew history (see HISTORICAL LIT., 7), nor shall we attempt to characterize the differences between J and E (see GENESIS, 4+), but limit our selves to a general comparison between the narrative of JE and that of the Priestly Code.

24. JE and P narratives contrasted.[edit]

Bleek and his school viewed it as a great merit of the latter narrative that it strictly observes the difference between various ages, mixes nothing Mosaic with the patriarchal period, and in the Mosaic history never forgets that the scene lies in the wilderness of wandering. They also took it as a mark of fidelity to authentic sources that the Code contains so many dry lists, such a mass of unimportant numbers and names, such exact technical descriptions of details which could have no interest for posterity. Against this view Colenso 1 proved that just those parts of the Hexateuch which contain the most precise details, and so have the air of authentic documents, are least consistent with the laws of possibility.

Colenso, when he wrote, had no thought of the several sources of the Hexateuch ; but this only makes it the more remarkable that his criticisms mainly affect the Priestly Code. Noldeke followed Colenso with clearer insight, and determined the character and value of the priestly narrative by tracing all through it an artificial construction and a fictitious character.

The supposed marks of historical accuracy and de pendence on authentic records are quite out of place in such a narrative as that of the Pentateuch, the substance of which is not historical but legendary. This legendary character is always manifest both in the form and in the substance of the narrative of the Yahvvist (JE) ; his stories of the patriarchs and of Moses are just such as might have been gathered from popular tradition.

In JE the general plan of the history is still quite loose ; the individual stories are the important thing, and they have a truly living individuality. They have always a local connection, and we can still often see what motives lie at the root of them. But even when we do not understand these legends they lose none of their charm ; for they breathe a sweet poetic fragrance, and in them heaven and earth are magically blended into one.

The Priestly Code, on the other hand, dwells as little as possible on the details of the several stories ; the pearls are stripped off in order that the thread on which they were strung may be properly seen.

Love and hate and all the passions, angels, miracles, and theophanies, local and historical allusions, disappear ; the old narrative shrivels into a sort of genealogical scheme, a bare scaffolding to support a pragmatic construction of the connection and progress of the sacred history. In legendary narrative, on the other hand, connection is a very secondary matter ; indeed it is only brought in when the several legends are collected and written down. When, therefore, the Priestly Code makes the connection the chief thing, it is clear that it has lost all touch of the original sources and starting-points of the legends. It draws therefore, not from oral tradition, but from books ; its dry excerpts can have no other source than a tradition already fixed in writing. In point of fact it simply draws on the Yahwistic narrative. The order in which that narrative disposed the popular legends is here made the essential thing ; the arrange ment, which in the Yahwist (JE) was still quite subordinate to the details, is here brought into the foreground ; the old order of events is strictly adhered to, but is so emphasized as to become the one important thing in the history. Obviously it was the intention of the priestly narrator to give by this treatment the historical quintessence of his materials freed of all superfluous additions. At the same time, he has used all means to dress up the old naive traditions into a learned history. Sorely against its real character, he forces it into a chronological system, which he carries through without a break from Adam to Joshua. Whenever he can he patches the story with things that have the air of authoritative documents. Finally,_ he rationalises the history after the standard of his own religious ideas and general culture ; above all, he shapes it so that it forms a framework, and at the same time a gradual preparation for the Mosaic law. With the spirit of the legend, in which the Yahwist (JE) still lives, he has nothing in common, and so he forces it into conformity with a point of view entirely different from its own.

1 The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, pt. i ( 62). For a sketch of Colenso see Che. Founders.

25. Narrative of D. etc.[edit]

The middle position which the legal part of Deuteronomy holds between JE, and the Priestly Code is also characteristic of the Deuteronomic narrative, which is founded throughout on JE, but from time to time shows a certain leaning to the points of view characteristic of the priestly narrator. The order of the several parts of the Hexateuch to which we have been led by all these argu ments is confirmed by an examination of the other historical books and the books of Chronicles. The original sources of the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings stand on the same platform with JE ; the editing they received in the Exile presupposes Deuteronomy ; and the latest construction of the history as contained in Chronicles rests on the Priestly Code.- This is ad mitted (see HISTORICAL LIT., 7); the conclusion to be drawn is obvious.

26. Objections to Grafian hypothesis.[edit]

We have now indicated the chief lines on which criticism must proceed in determining the order of the sources of the Hexateuch, and the age of the Priestly Code in particular - though, of course, it has not been possible at all to exhaust the argument. The objections that have been taken to Graf's hypothesis partly rest on misunderstanding. It is asked, for example, what is left for Moses if he were not the author of the Torah.

27. Antiquity of Torah.[edit]

Moses may have been the founder of the Torah, though the Pentateuchal legislation was codified almost a thousand years later ; for the Torah was originally not a written law, but the oral decisions of the priests at the sanctuary case-law, in short, by which they decided all manner of questions and controversies that were brought before their tribunal (cp LAW AND JUSTICE, 14); their Torah was the instruction to others that came from their lips, not at all a written document in their hands guaranteeing their own status, and instructing them selves how to proceed in the sacrificial ritual. Questions of clean and unclean belonged to the Torah, because these were matters on which the laity required to be directed ; but, generally, the ritual, so far as it consisted in ceremonies performed by the priests themselves, was no part of the Torah. Whilst, however, it was only at a late date that the ritual appeared as Torah as it does in the Priestly Code, its usages and traditions are exceed ingly ancient, going back, in fact, to pre-Mosaic and heathenish times.

It is absurd to speak as if Graf's hypothesis meant that the whole ritual is the invention of the Priestly Code, first put into practice after the exile.

All that is affirmed by the advocates of that hypothesis is that in earlier times the ritual was not the substructure of a hiero- cracy, that there was in fact no hierocracy before the exile, that Yahwe s sovereignty was an ideal thing, not visibly em bodied in an organization of the commonwealth under the forms of a specifically spiritual power. The theocracy was the state ; the old Israelites regarded their civil constitution as a divine miracle. The later Jews assumed the existence of the state as a natural thing that required no explanation, and built the theocracy over it as a special divine institution.

28. Deuteronomic redaction.[edit]

There are, however, some more serious objections taken to the Grafian hypothesis. It is, indeed, simply a misstatement of facts to say that the language of the Priestly Code forbids us to date it so late as post-exilic times. On the other hand, a real difficulty lies in the fact that, whilst the priestly redaction extends to Deuteronomy (Dt. 1:3), it is also true that the Deuteronomic redaction extends to the Priestly Code (Josh. 20). The way out of this dilemma is to be found by recognizing that the so-called Deuteronomic redaction was not a single and final act, that the characteristic phrases of Deuteronomy became household words to subsequent generations, and were still current and found application centuries after the time of Josiah. (See further, HISTORICAL LIT., 7). Thus, for example, the traces of Deuteronomic redaction in Josh. 20 are still lacking in the Septuagint ; the text, we see, was retouched at a very late date indeed (cp JOSHUA, 18 ; Bennett SSOT Heb., notes).

Of the other objections taken to the Grafian hypothesis only one need be mentioned here viz., that the Persians are not named in the list of nations in Gen. 10.

This is certainly hard to understand if the passage was written in the Persian period ; but the difficulty is not insuperable. The Persians, for example, may have been held to be included in the mention of the Elamites, and this also would give the list the archaic air which the priestly writer affects.

At any rate, a residue of minute difficulties not yet thoroughly explained cannot outweigh the decisive arguments that support the view that the Priestly Code originated in and after the Exile. Kuenen observes with justice that it is absolutely necessary to start with the plain and unambiguous facts, and to allow them to guide our judgment on questionable points. The study of details is not superfluous in laying down the main lines of the critical construction ; but, as soon as our studies have supplied us with some really fixed points, further progress must proceed from them, and we must first gain a general view of the whole field instead of always working away at details, and then coming out with a rounded theory which lacks nothing but a foundation.

Finally, it is a pure petitio principii, nothing more, to say that the post-exilic age was not equal to the task of producing a work like the Priestly Code.

29. Post-exilic needs.[edit]

The position of the Jews after the Exile made it imperative on them to reorganize themselves in conformity with the entire change in their situation. Now the Priestly Code is all that we should expect to find in a constitution for the Jews after the Exile. It meets the new requirements as completely as it fails to satisfy the con ditions which a law-book older than the Exile would have had to satisfy. After the final destruction of the kingdom by Nebuchadrezzar, they found in the ritual and personnel of the temple at Jerusalem the elements out of which a new commonwealth could be built, in conformity with the circumstances and needs of the time. The community t of Judtea raised itself from the dust by holdingon toils ruined sanctuary. The old usages and ordinances were reshaped in detail ; but as a whole they were not replaced by new creations ; the novelty lay in their being worked into a system and applied as a means to organize the remnant of Israel. This was the origin of the sacred constitution of Judaism. Religion in old Israel had been a faith which gave its support to the natural ordinances of human society ; it was now set forth in external and visible form as a special institution, within an artificial sphere peculiar to itself, which rose far above the level of common life.

30. Production of P.[edit]

The necessary presupposition of this kind of theocracy is service to a foreign empire, and so the theocracy is essentially the same thing as hierocracy. Its finished picture is drawn in the Priestly Code, the product of the labours of learned priests during the Exile. When the temple was destroyed and the ritual interrupted, the old practices were written down that they might not be lost. Thus in the Exile the ritual became matter of teaching, of Torah ; the first who took this step, a step prescribed by the circumstances of the time, was the priest and prophet Ezekiel (see EZEKIKL i. 4, ii. 21 f. ). In the last part of his book Ezekiel began the literary record of the customary ritual of the temple ; other priests followed in his footsteps (Lev. 17-26) ; and so there arose during the captivity a school of men who wrote down and systematized what they had formerly practised. When the temple was restored this theocratic zeal still went on and produced further ritual developments, in action and reaction with the actual practice of the new temple ; the final result of the long-continued process was the Priestly Code.

[The student who has read and assimilated the fore going sketch will be qualified to estimate the progress which has been made since the lonely Jewish thinker of Amsterdam (Baruch Spinoza) propounded his doubts on Genesis, and since Jean Astruc, professor of medicine but also student of the Pentateuch, opened the true path of critical investigation. Now, however, we are in a different position from that at which Kuenen had arrived when he rewrote his Onderzoek and Wellhausen when he wrote his illuminative Prolegomena. The criticism of the Hexateuch is approaching a fresh turning-point, and the students of to-day need to be warned that new methods will be necessary to carry the discussion of critical problems nearer to definite solutions, \purely literary criticism has had its day, and biblical archaeology and the comparative study of social customs have forced us to undertake a more searching examination of the contents of the Hexateuch, which is leading to a com plication of critical problems not before dreamed of. With the problems we hope that we are catching a glimpse of the new methods to be applied in their solutions. These new methods will best be learned by observing the practice of the critical workers. Budde s Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. l-12s) untersucht is not a recent book (it appeared in 1883) ; but a student of method may learn much from it. With more complete satisfaction, however, we may mention Stade s admirable essays on Cain s Sign, on the Tower of Babel, and on the Torah of the Sacrifice of Jealousy/ now reprinted in his Akademische Rcden und Abhandlungen (1899). The introduction to the Hexateuch by Steuernagel will, it may be hoped, furnish many fruitful hints ; but the present writer looks forward with higher hopes to Gunkel s expected commentary on Genesis. From many articles of the present work the student will be able to gather how the present writer views the task that lies before us in Genesis, and by what means we should attempt to accomplish it. Gunkel will doubtless do much more, and for Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers the student will be in safe hands if he begins under the tuition of Baentsch. To Deuteronomy and Joshua reference is made below.

To say more just now about the road which the students of to-day will have to traverse would be unwise. It would be tantamount to doing the work superficially which in a longer or shorter time the investigators of to-day both those who have worked their way out of purely literary criticism and those who have the advantage of beginning their journey at the point now reached by critics may modestly but confidently hope to accomplish. Let our last word be this : Hexateuch criticism is passing into a new phase. This phase is largely due to archaeology and the comparative study of social customs, but in part also to the further develop ments of Hebrew philology and textual criticism. Let the student therefore devote the utmost pains to the critical study of Biblical archosology, and of the Hebrew texts, for without a better knowledge of what the texts really contain and of the circumstances in which these texts arose no secure step in advance can be taken by Hexateuch criticism.

A word, too, may be said on the present position of the study of that part of the Hexateuch which relates to the laws. The immense labour bestowed on the adaptation of the old Hebrew laws is becoming more and more manifest. The Oxford Hexateuch J indicates the nature of some of the newer problems which are at present engaging the attention of workers, especially in the department of the legal literature. Together with Holzinger s (German) Introduction to the Hexateuch it can be confidently recommended to all thorough students. It is gratifying to know that defenders of religious truth (even in the Roman church 2 ) are finding out that criticism of the Books of Moses is no enemy to religion. In fact, the wonderful ways by which God led the people of Israel towards the light of life may be studied in that strangely composite work, the Hexateuch, with as much benefit to edification as in the Psalms or the prophecies, and recent works on the religion of Israel (e.g. , vol. ii. of Duff s Old Testament Theology*} do not neglect to use the main results in pictures both of the popular and of the higher religion of Israel. The bibliographies to be found at the end of the articles on the books of the Hexateuch are so care fully selected that not much more need be said. A really satisfactory history of the religion of Israel still has to be written, and when we have reached the fresh starting-point for which we are looking, this much desired book will be written. T. K. c. ]

J. w.

1 The Hexateuch according to the R V arranged in its con stituent Documents by members of the Society of Historical Theology, Oxford, J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby (London, 1900).

2 See, e.g., M. J. Lagrange, Les sources du Pentateuque, Revue biblique, 7 10-32.

3 Prof. Duff s view of Deuteronomy, however, differs from that which is still most prevalent among critics. Cp Steuernagel's commentary, and the Oxford Hexatench. These three

books show that the origin of Deuteronomy is one of the problems which need a more thorough investigation. Steuernagel s Joshua may also be recommended.


RV HIZKI (j?fn ; AZA[e]i [BA], ezeKi* [L]), b. Elpaal in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q. v. , 9 ii. jS) ; i Ch. 8i 7 t ; cp JQR 11 103, i.