Chapter XLVII: Part 47

"The reigning Christian computation of time, that sovereign
authority in accordance with which we reckon our life, and
which is surely above the assault of any critical doubts,
goes, be it remembered, but a very little way towards the
settlement of this question [as to the year of the birth of
Jesus] in as much as its inventor, a Scythian by birth,
Dionysius the Less, Abbot of a Roman monastery (died 556 A.
D.) [see ERA, CHRISTIAN], … had certainly no entire immunity
from human frailty. … The comparatively best assured and
best supported account places the birth of Jesus in the reign
of King Herod the Great. Matthew knows no other chronology:
Luke gives the same, along with another, or, if we will, along
with two others. Matthew more particularly, in his own
account, puts the birth in the last years of that king. Jesus
is a little child at the time of the coming of the Magi, and
he is still a child at the return of Joseph from the flight
into Egypt, after the death of Herod has taken place. We shall
hit the sense of the writer most exactly if we assume that
Jesus, at the time of the coming of the Magi, who gave King
Herod ground for conjecturing a Messiah of about the age of
two,—was about two years old; at the time of Herod's death,
about four. … Now since Herod died … shortly before Easter
of the year 750 A. U. C., i. e., 4 years before the Christian
era, Jesus must have been born four years before. 746 A. U.
C., or 8 years before the reputed Christian era, a view which
is expressly espoused in the fifth Christian century;
according to Apocrypha, 3 years before Herod's death, 747 A.
U. C., 7 years B. C. If we are able in addition to build upon
Kepler's Conjunction of Planets, which Bishop Münter, in his
book, 'The Star of the Wise Men,' 1827, called to remembrance,
we get with complete certainty 747 or 748, the latter, that
is, if we attach any value to the fact that in that year Mars
was added to Jupiter and Saturn. Desirable however as such
certainty might be, it is nevertheless hard to abandon oneself
to it with enthusiastic joy. … An actual reminiscence on the
part of the Christian community of the approximate point of
time at which the Lord was born, would be hard to call in
question, even though it might have overlooked or forgotten
every detail of the youth of Jesus besides. Finally, there is
after all a trace of such reminiscence independent of all
legendary formation. The introductory history of Luke without
any appreciable historical connexion, rather in conflict with
the world of legend represented in his Gospel, places the
birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Herod's time. At the
same time there is just as little, or even less, sign than
elsewhere in Luke's preliminary story, of any dependence on
the account in Matthew, or any world of legend like his. We
should thus still be inclined to infer that Jesus, according
to ancient Christian tradition, was born under King Herod, and
more particularly, according to the legend of Matthew, which
after all is the better guaranteed of the two, towards the
close of his reign. … Luke appears … so far to give the
most precise boundary line to the birth of Jesus, inasmuch as
he brings it into immediate connexion with the first taxing of
Judæa by the Romans, which admits of exact historical
computation. The Roman taxing was indeed the occasion of
Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of
Jesus in the inn there. This taxing took place, as Luke quite
rightly observes, for the first time in Judæa, under the
Emperor Augustus, and more precisely, under Quirinius'
Governorship of Syria, and moreover, … not only after the
death of Herod, but also after his son Archelaos had been
reigning about ten years, in consequence of the dethronement
of Archelaos and the annexation of Judæa and Samaria by the
Romans in the year 760 A. U. C. 7 A. D. But here too at once
begins the difficulty. According to this statement Jesus would
have been born from ten to fourteen years later than the
Gospels otherwise assert, Luke himself included. This late
birth would not only clash with the first statement of the
Gospels themselves, but equally with all probability, inasmuch
as Jesus would then not have been as much as thirty years old
at his death, which in any case took place before the recall
of the Procurator Pilate (781 A. U. C. 35 A. D.). We are here
therefore compelled to acknowledge a simple error of the
writer. … Once more … does Luke incidentally compute the
time of the birth of Jesus. By describing the time of John the
Baptist's appearance and speaking of Jesus at that period as
about thirty years old, he favours the assumption, that Jesus
was born about thirty years before the fifteenth year of the
reign of the Emperor Tiberius. … We shall … see grounds
for considering the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, as
fixed far too early anywhere near the date 28 A. D. But if
after all we assume the figure, as it stands, the fifteenth
year of Tiberius, reckoning his reign from the 19th of August,
767, or 14 A. D., was the year 781-782, or 28-29 A. D. In that
case Jesus must have been born, reckoning about 30 years
backwards, towards the year 751-752, i. e., 2-3 years before
our reputed era. … Of the later attempts to restore the year
of Jesus' birth, those of antiquity and of modern times claim
our attention in different ways. …
{1920}
Irenæus, followed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, gives the
forty-first year of the Emperor Augustus, Clement of
Alexandria the twenty-eighth year of the same, as the year of
birth: much the same in both cases, viz. (751-752), inasmuch
as the former reckons from the first consulate of Augustus
after the death of Cæsar (731 A. U. C.); Clement from his
conquest of Egypt (724). Later authorities since Eusebius, the
first Church historian, marked the forty-second year of
Augustus, following a notice of their predecessors, that is
752-753, which date however Eusebius would make out to agree
with the year of Clement, with the twenty-eighth year from the
occupation of Egypt. But how many other years besides were
possible! Here Sulpicius Severus (400 A. D.) pushed back
beyond the limit set by Irenæus, naming at one time 746-747 as
the time of Jesus' birth, at another the consuls of 750, and
the later date has also been found … by the Arabic Gospel of
the Infancy. Here again the date was shifted lower down than
the figure of Eusebius to the forty-third year of Augustus, i.
e., 753-754. This date is found already in Tertullian in one
reading, though in conflict with the year 41; the Chronograph
of the year 354 puts it down with the express mention of the
Consuls Cæsar and Paulus at 754 A. U. C., the Egyptian monk
Panodorus (400 A. D.) has so reckoned it; and the founder of
the Christian reckoning, the Abbot Dionysius (Easter Table 525
A. D.) introduced it for all time. … What is certain is that
this year 754 A. U. C. 1 A. D., this official Christian
calendar, does not hit the tradition of the Gospels. In modern
times, thanks to the efforts of great astronomers and
chronologists, Kepler, Ideler, and Münter, the year 747 or 748
has found the greatest favour as the year of the Wise Men's
star. But since people have come back from their enthusiasm
for the discovery of this conjunction to a more faithful
regard for the Gospels, it has always commended itself afresh,
to place the birth of Jesus at latest in the first beginning
of the year 750 (4 B. C.), i. e., before the death of King
Herod, but if possible from two to four years earlier still
746-748, or 8-6 B. C. Thus Ewald inclines half to the year
748, and half to 749: Petavius, Usher, Lichtenstein to 749,
Bengal, Anger, Winer, Wieseler to 750, Wurm indeed following
Scaliger to 751, finally in latest times Rösch, attaching
great weight to the statements of the Fathers, as well as to
the Chinese star, actually gets by a multifariously laborious
method, at 751-752, in which year, as he decides, even Herod
must have been alive in spite of Josephus, and on the strength
of an innocuous observation by a Jewish Rabbi. If it was hard
enough to arrive at any certainty, or, at all events,
probability with respect to the year of Jesus' birth, we must
entirely waive all pretensions to tell the month or the day,
however justifiable may be our curiosity on this head. Our
traditional observance of the Day of Jesus on the 25th of
December is not prescribed in any ancient calendar."

_Dr. T. Keim,
History of Jesus of Nazara,
volume 2, pages 109-126._

ALSO IN:
_W. H. Anderdon,
Fasti Apostolici,
introd._

JEWS: A. D. 26.
Political situation of Judæa
at the time of the appearance of Jesus.

"Let us recall, in a few outlines, the political situation of
Judæa at the exact moment when Jesus appeared before His
countrymen. The shadow of independence, which had been left to
it under the vassal kingdom of Herod the Great, had long
vanished. Augustus had annexed Judæa to the Roman empire, not
by making it one of those senatorial provinces governed by
proconsuls, but as a direct dependant on his authority. He
associated it with the government of Syria, the capital of
which was Antioch, the residence of the imperial legate. In
consequence, however, of its importance, and the difficulties
presented by the complete subjection of such a people, the
procurator of Judæa enjoyed a certain latitude in his
administration; he at the same time managed the affairs of
Samaria, but as a second department, distinct from the first.
Faithful to the wise policy which it had pursued with so much
success for centuries, Rome interfered as little as possible
with the usages and institutions of the conquered province.
The Sanhedrim was, therefore, allowed to continue side by side
with the procurator, but its power was necessarily very
limited. Its jurisdiction was confined to matters of religion
and small civil causes: the procurator alone had the right of
decreeing capital punishment. The high-priestly office had
lost much of its importance. The Asmoneans and Herods had
reduced it to a subordinate magistracy, of which they made a
tool for their own purposes. Herod the Great had constituted
himself guardian of the sacerdotal vestments, under pretext
that he had had them restored to their first magnificence, on
the Levitical model; he bestowed them only on the men of his
choice. The Romans hastened to follow his example, and thus to
keep in their hands an office which might become perilous to
them. The procurator of Judæa resided at Cæsarea. He only came
to Jerusalem for the solemn feasts, or in exceptional cases,
to administer justice. His prætorium stood near the citadel of
Antonia. The Roman garrison in the whole of Palestine did not
exceed one legion. The levying of imposts on movable property,
and on individuals, led to perpetual difficulties; no such
objection was raised to the tribute of two drachms for the
temple, which was levied by the Sanhedrim. The tax-gatherers
in the service of the Romans were regarded as the
representatives of a detested rule; thus the publicans—for
the most part Jews by birth—were the objects of universal
contempt. The first rebellion of any importance took place on
the occasion of the census under Cyrenius. At the period at
which we have arrived, Judæa was governed by Pilate, the third
procurator since the annexation to the empire; he had found in
the high-priestly office John, surnamed Caiaphas, son-in-law
of Annas, the son of Seth, who had for a long time filled the
same office under Valerius Gratus. Pilate had an ally rather
than a rival in the Sadducee Caiaphas, who acted on no higher
principle than the interest of his order, and the maintenance
of his power. Pontius Pilate was wanting in the political tact
which knows how to soften in form the severities of a foreign
rule; he was a man of vulgar ambition, or rather, one of those
men without patriotism, who think only of using their
authority for their own advantage. He took no heed of the
peculiar dispositions and aversions of the people whom he was
to govern. Thus he sent to Jerusalem a Roman garrison with
standards; the Jews regarded this as a horrible profanation,
for the eagles were worshipped as gods.
{1921}
Assailed in his prætorium at Cæsarea by a suppliant crowd,
which no violence could disperse, the procurator was compelled
to yield to prayers, which might soon be changed into
desperate resistance. From that moment his influence was gone
in Judæa; he compromised it still further when he caused
shields of gold, bearing his name engraved beside that of the
emperor Tiberias, to be suspended from the outer walls of the
citadel of Antonia. This flattery to the sovereign, which
might have been unaccompanied with peril elsewhere, was
received at Jerusalem as a gratuitous provocation, and he was
obliged to recall a measure, persistence in which would have
led to a terrible tumult. Having thus made himself an object
of general aversion, he could not even do good without danger:
his plan to build an aqueduct, a thing peculiarly needed on
the burning soil of Judæa, created opposition so violent, that
it could only be put down by force. Under such a governor, the
national passions were in a perpetual state of agitation. This
increase of patriotic fanaticism created great obstacles to a
purely spiritual work like that of Jesus. Gaulonitis, Peræa,
and Galilee still belonged, at this time, to the family of
Herod. The tetrarch Philip governed the north-west of the
country for thirty-seven years, and was distinguished for his
moderation. … Galilee and Peræa were the portion of Herod
Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist. His divorce from
the daughter of Aretas, after his marriage with Herodias, his
brother's wife, had brought war upon the wide provinces which
he governed. He was about soon to undergo a humiliating
defeat. Like his brother, he was childless. Under the
influence of such a prince, surrounded by a licentious court,
evil propensities had free play, and the corruption of manners
was a bad preparation for a religion of purity and
self-denial. In the lowness of the times, the Herods, though
of the family of the vile despots who had sold the
independence of the Jews, were regarded as in some measure a
national dynasty. They had a party which bore their name, and
which, in religious matters, combined, after the example of
Herod the Great, Pharisaism and Sadduceeism. Such were the
political circumstances in the midst of which Jesus was
placed."

_E. de Pressensé,
Jesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work,
book 3, chapter 1._

JEWS: A. D. 33-100.
The rise and diffusion of Christianity.

See CHRISTIANITY.

JEWS: A. D.66-70.
The Great Revolt.

The oppression of the Jewish nation under the Roman governors
who ruled Judæa directly, after the death of the first Herod
Agrippa (A. D. 44), may not have been heavier in reality than
it had been while the dependent and Romanized tyranny of the
Herodian kings prevailed, but it proved to be more irritating
and exasperating. "The burden, harshly shifted, was felt to be
more galling. The priests and nobles murmured, intrigued,
conspired; the rabble, bolder or more impatient, broke out
into sedition, and followed every chief who offered to lead
them to victory and independence. … It was only indeed under
extraordinary provocation that the populace of the Jewish
capital, who were generally controlled by the superior
prudence of their chiefs, broke into violence in the streets.
… But the ruder independence of the Galileans was not so
easily kept in check. Their tract of heath and mountain was
always then, as it has since always been, in a state of
partial insurrection. … For their coercion [at Jerusalem]
the Romans had invented a peculiar machinery. To Agrippa, the
tetrarch [the second Herod Agrippa], … they had given the
title of King of the Sacrifices, in virtue of which he was
suffered to reside in the palace at Jerusalem, and retain
certain functions, fitted to impose on the imagination of the
more ardent votaries of Jewish nationality. The palace of the
Herods overlooked the Temple, and from its upper rooms the
king could observe all that passed in that mart of business
and intrigue. Placed, however, as a spy in this watch-tower,
he was regarded by the Zealots, the faction of independence,
as a foe to be baffled rather than a chief to be respected and
honoured. They raised the walls of their sanctuary to shut out
his view, and this, among other causes of discontent between
the factions in the city, ripened to an enmity. … And now
was introduced into the divisions of this unhappy people a new
feature of atrocity. The Zealots sought to terrify the more
prudent or time-serving by an organized system of private
assassination. Their 'Sicarii,' or men of the dagger, are
recognised in the records of the times as a secret agency, by
which the most impatient of the patriots calculated on
exterminating the chief supporters of the foreign government.
… Hitherto the Romans, from policy rather than respect, had
omitted to occupy Jerusalem with a military force. They were
now invited and implored by the chiefs of the priesthood and
nobility, and Florus [the Roman governor] sent a detachment to
seize the city and protect the lives of his adherents. This
was the point to which the Zealots themselves had wished to
lead him."

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 59._

A furious battle in the streets of Jerusalem occurred on the
entrance of the Roman troops. The latter gained possession of
the citadel, with the upper city, but, after seven days of
fighting, were forced to capitulate, and were ruthlessly put
to the sword, in violation of sworn pledges. "On that very day
and hour, while the Jews were plunging their daggers in the
hearts of the Romans, a great and terrible slaughter of their
own people was going on in Cæsarea, where the Syrians and
Greeks had risen upon the Jews, and massacred 20,000 of them
in a single day. And in every Syrian city the same madness and
hatred seized the people, and the Jews were ruthlessly
slaughtered in all. No more provocation was needed; no more
was possible. … The heads of the people began the war with
gloomy forebodings; the common masses with the wildest
enthusiasm, which became the mere intoxication of success when
they drove back Cestius from the walls of the city, on the
very eve of his anticipated victory—for Cestius [præfect of
Syria] hastened southwards with an army of 20,000 men, and
besieged the city. The people, divided amongst themselves,
were on the point of opening the gates to the Romans, when, to
the surprise of everybody, Cestius suddenly broke up his camp
and began to retreat. Why he did so, no one ever knew. … The
retreat became a flight, and Cestius brought back his army
with a quarter of its numbers killed. … Vespasian was sent
hastily with a force of three legions, besides the cohorts of
auxiliaries. … Of the first campaign, that in Galilee, our
limits will not allow us to write. …
{1922}
The months passed on, and yet the Romans did not appear before
the walls of the city. This meantime was a prey to internal
evils, which when read appear almost incredible. … The
events at Rome which elevated Vespasian to the throne were the
principal reasons that the siege of Jerusalem was not actually
commenced till the early summer of the year 70, when, in
April, Titus began his march from Cæsarea. … The city,
meanwhile, had been continuing those civil dissensions which
hastened its ruin. John [of Gischala], Simon Bar Gioras, and
Eleazar, each at the head of his own faction, made the streets
run with blood. John, whose followers numbered 6,000, held the
Lower, New, and Middle City; Simon, at the head of 10,000 Jews
and 5,000 Idumeans, had the strong post of the Upper City,
with a portion of the third wall; Eleazar, with 2,000 zealots,
more fanatic than the rest, had barricaded himself within the
Temple itself. … In the sallies which John and Simon made
upon each other all the buildings in this part of the town
were destroyed or set on fire, and all their corn burned; so
that famine had actually begun before the commencement of the
siege."

_W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin,
chapters 1-2._

The awful but fascinating story of the siege, as told by
Josephus and repeated by many writers since, is familiar to
most readers and will not be given here. It was prolonged from
April until the 7th of September, A. D. 70, when the Romans
forced their way into the upper city. "They spread through the
streets, slaying and burning as they went. In many houses
where they expected rich plunder, they found nothing but heaps
of putrid bodies, whole families who had died of hunger; they
retreated from the loathsome sight and insufferable stench.
But they were not moved to mercy towards the living; in some
places the flames were actually retarded or quenched with
streams of blood; night alone put an end to the carnage. …
The city was ordered to be razed, excepting the three towers,
which were left as standing monuments of the victory. …
During the whole siege the number killed [according to
Josephus] was 1,100,000, that of prisoners 97,000. In fact,
the population not of Jerusalem alone, but that of the
adjacent districts—many who had taken refuge in the city,
more who had assembled for the feast of unleavened bread—had
been shut up by the sudden formation of the siege." Of those
who survived to the end and were spared, when the Roman
soldiers had tired of slaughter, "all above seventeen years
old were sent to Egypt to work in the mines, or distributed
among the provinces to be exhibited as gladiators in the
public theatres, and in combats against wild beasts. Twelve
thousand died of hunger. … Thus fell, and forever, the
metropolis of the Jewish state. … Of all the stately
city—the populous streets, the palaces of the Jewish kings,
the fortresses of her warriors, the Temple of her God—not a
ruin remained, except the tall towers of Phasaelis, Mariamne,
and Hippicus, and part of the western wall, which was left as
a defence for the Roman camp."

_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 16._

ALSO IN:
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 7._

_Josephus,
The Jewish War._

_A. J. Church,
Story of the Last Days of Jerusalem._

_I. M. Wise,
History of the Hebrew Second Commonwealth, 7th period._

JEWS: A. D. 70-133.
After the war with Rome.
The state of the surviving people.

"It might have been expected that, from the character of the
great war with Rome, the people, as well as the state of the
Jews, would have fallen into utter dissolution, or, at least,
verged rapidly towards total extermination. Besides the loss
of nearly a million and a half of lives during the war, the
markets of the Roman empire were glutted with Jewish slaves.
… Yet still this inexhaustible race revived before long to
offer new candidates for its inalienable inheritance of
detestation and misery. Of the state of Palestine, indeed,
immediately after the war, we have little accurate
information. It is uncertain how far the enormous loss of
life, and the numbers carried into captivity drained the
country of the Jewish population; or how far the rescript of
Vespasian, which offered the whole landed property of the
province for sale, introduced a foreign race into the
possession of the soil. The immense numbers engaged in the
rebellion during the reign of Hadrian imply, either that the
country was not nearly exhausted, or that the reproduction in
this still fertile region was extremely rapid. In fact, it
must be remembered that … the ravage of war was, after all,
by no means universal in the province. Galilee, Judæa, and
great part of Idumæa were wasted, and probably much
depopulated; but, excepting a few towns which made resistance,
the populous regions and wealthy cities beyond the Jordan
escaped the devastation. The dominions of King Agrippa were,
for the most part, respected. Samaria submitted without
resistance, as did most of the cities on the sea-coast. …
The Jews, though looked upon with contempt as well as
detestation, were yet regarded, during the reign of Vespasian
and his immediate successors, with jealous watchfulness. A
garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem, to
prevent the reconstruction of the city by the fond and
religious zeal of its former inhabitants. … Still, … it is
impossible, unless communities were suffered to be formed, and
the whole race enjoyed comparative security, that the nation
could have appeared in the formidable attitude of resistance
which it assumed in the time of Hadrian."

_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 18 (volume 2)._

JEWS: A. D. 116.
The rising in Trajan's reign.

"Not quite fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in
the year 116, the Jews of the eastern Mediterranean rose
against the imperial government. The rising, although
undertaken by the Diaspora, was of a purely national character
in its chief seats, Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, directed to the
expulsion of the Romans as of the Hellenes, and, apparently,
to the establishment of a separate Jewish state. It ramified
even into Asiatic territory, and seized Mesopotamia and
Palestine itself. When the insurgents were victorious they
conducted the war with the same exasperation as the Sicarii in
Jerusalem; they killed those whom they seized. … In Cyrene
220,000, in Cyprus even 240,000 men are said to have been thus
put to death by them. On the other hand, in Alexandria, which
does not appear itself to have fallen into the hands of the
Jews, the besieged Hellenes slew whatever Jews were then in
the city. The immediate cause of the rising is not clear. …
To all appearance it was an outbreak of religious exasperation
of the Jews, which had been growing in secret like a volcano
since the destruction of the temple. …
{1923}
The insurgents were nowhere able to offer resistance to the
compact troops, … and similar punishments were inflicted on
this Diaspora as previously on the Jews of Palestine. That
Trajan annihilated the Jews in Alexandria, as Appian says, is
hardly all incorrect, although perhaps a too blunt expression
for what took place."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2)._

See, also, CYPRUS, A. D. 117.

JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
The rising in Hadrian's reign.

The Emperor Hadrian, when his tour through the Empire brought
him to Palestine, A. D. 130, resolved to erect the destroyed
holy city of the Jews as a Roman colony with a Roman name, and
to divest it altogether of the character which made it sacred
in the eyes of the Jews. He forbade their sojourn in the new
city, and exasperated them still more by showing favor, it is
said, to the Christian sect. By this and by other measures a
fresh revolt was provoked, A. D. 132, incited by the priest
Eleazar and led by the bandit-chief Barcochebas, or
Bar-Kok-heba ('Son of the Star'). The cruel struggle, redeemed
by no humanity on either side, continued for three years, and
was ended only when hundreds of thousands of Jews had been
slain. "The dispersion of the unhappy race, particularly in
the West, was now complete and final. The sacred soil of
Jerusalem was occupied by a Roman colony, which received the
name of Ælia Capitolina, with reference to the emperor who
founded it [Publius Ælius Hadrianus] and to the supreme God of
the pagan mythology, installed on the desecrated summits of
Zion and Moriah."

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 65._

"The whole body of the Jews at home and abroad was agitated by
the movement and supported more or less openly the insurgents
on the Jordan; even Jerusalem fell into their hands, and the
governor of Syria and indeed the emperor Hadrian appeared on
the scene of conflict. … As in the war under Vespasian no
pitched battle took place, but one place after another cost
time and blood, till at length after a three years' warfare
the last castle of the insurgents, the strong Bether, not far
from Jerusalem, was stormed by the Romans. The numbers handed
down to us in good accounts of 50 fortresses taken, 985
villages occupied, 580,000 that fell, are not incredible,
since the war was waged with inexorable cruelty, and the male
population was probably everywhere put to death. In
consequence of this rising the very name of the vanquished
people was set aside; the province was thenceforth termed, not
as formerly Judaea, but by the old name of Herodotus, Syria of
the Philistines, or Syria Palaestina. The land remained
desolate; the new city of Hadrian continued to exist, but did
not prosper. The Jews were prohibited under penalty of death
from ever setting foot in Jerusalem."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2)._

JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
The Nation without a country.
Its two governments.

"In less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian, before
the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present
the extraordinary spectacle of two regular and organized
communities: one under a sort of spiritual head, the Patriarch
of Tiberias, comprehending all of Israelitish descent who
inhabited the Roman empire; the other under the Prince of the
Captivity, to whom all the eastern [Babylonian] Jews paid
their allegiance. … Unfortunately it is among the most
difficult parts of Jewish history to trace the growth of the
patriarchal authority established in Tiberias, and its
recognition by the whole scattered body of the nation, who,
with disinterested zeal, and I do not scruple to add, a noble
attachment to the race of Israel, became voluntary subjects
and tributaries to their spiritual sovereign, and united with
one mind and one heart to establish their community on a
settled basis. It is a singular spectacle to behold a nation
dispersed in every region of the world, without a murmur or
repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing
themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which
rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power
whatever to enforce its decrees. It was not long before the
Rabbins, who had been hunted down with unrelenting cruelty,
began to creep forth from their places of concealment. The
death of Hadrian, in a few years after the termination of the
war, and the accession of the mild Antoninus, gave them
courage, not merely to make their public appearance, but
openly to reëstablish their schools and synagogues. … The
Rabbinical dominion gradually rose to greater power; the
schools flourished; perhaps in this interval the great
Synagogue or Sanhedrin had its other migrations, … and
finally to Tiberias, where it fixed its pontifical throne and
maintained its supremacy for several centuries. Tiberias, it
may be remembered, was a town built by Herod Antipas, over an
ancient cemetery, and therefore abominated by the more
scrupulous Jews, as a dwelling of uncleanness. But the Rabbins
soon obviated this objection. Simon Ben Jochai, by his
cabalistic art, discovered the exact spot where the
burial-place had been; this was marked off, and the rest of
the city declared, on the same unerring authority, to be
clean. Here, then, in this noble city, on the shore of the sea
of Galilee, the Jewish pontiff fixed his throne; the
Sanhedrin, if it had not, as the Jews pretend, existed during
all the reverses of the nation, was formally reëstablished.
Simon, the son and heir of Gamaliel, was acknowledged as the
Patriarch of the Jews, and Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin.
… In every region of the West, in every province of the
Roman empire, the Jews of all ranks and classes submitted,
with the utmost readiness, to the sway of their Spiritual
Potentate. His mandates were obeyed, his legates received with
honour, his supplies levied without difficulty, in Rome, in
Spain, in Africa. … In the mean time the rival throne in
Babylonia, that of the Prince of the Captivity, was rapidly
rising to the state and dignity which perhaps did not attain
its perfect height till under the Persian monarchs. There
seems to have been some acknowledged hereditary claim in R.
Hona, who now appears as the Prince of the Captivity, as if
his descent from the House of David had been recognized by the
willing credulity of his brethren. … The Court of the
Resch-Glutha [Prince of the Captivity] is described as …
splendid; in imitation of his Persian master, he had his
officers, counsellors, and cupbearers. Rabbins were appointed
as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is
probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of
the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times,
was paid for the Temple in Jerusalem. … Whether the
authority of the Prince of the Captivity extended beyond
Babylonia and the adjacent districts is uncertain."

_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 19 (volume 2)._

{1924}

JEWS: A. D. 415.
Driven from Alexandria by Cyril.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.

JEWS: 5-6th Centuries.
Early Jewish settlements in Europe.
Arian toleration and Catholic persecution.

"The survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, as
we leave Asia, with the Byzantine Empire. They already lived
in its cities before Christianity acquired the empire of the
world. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a
separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was
also a large synagogue. They were, however, expelled thence by
an emperor, either Theodosius II., or Justinus II., and the
synagogue was converted into the 'Church of the Mother of
God.' … In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had
already been settled a long time. … In Italy the Jews are
known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the
Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political
rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors.
They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of
Rome. … When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the
position of the Jews in that country was peculiar. Outbreaks
of a spirit of hostility to them were not infrequent during
this reign, but at the bottom they were not directed against
the Jews, but were meant to be a demonstration against this
hated Arian monarch. … Those nations … which were baptised
in the Arian creed betrayed less intolerance of the Jews. Thus
the more Arianism was driven out of Europe and gave way before
the Catholic religion, the more were the Jews harassed by
proselytising zeal. … In spite of the antipathy entertained
against them by the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were
happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine
empire. … Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith
the position of the Jews in Italy remained supportable. The
heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from savage
intolerance. Gregory I. (590-604), surnamed the great and
holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism,
gave utterance to the principle, that the Jews should only be
converted by means of persuasion and gentleness, not by
violence. … In the territory which was subject to the Papal
sway, in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he
steadfastly persisted in this course in the face of the
fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as
a pious work. … In the west of Europe, in France and Spain,
where the Church was first obliged to make its way
laboriously, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and
much more favourable aspect. … It was a long while before
Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and
the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until
the victorious Church gained the upper hand. The immigration
of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took
place most probably as early as the time of the Republic or of
Cæsar. … The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is,
however, not certain until the 2d century. The Gaulish Jews,
whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed
the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in
Gaul as merchants or fugitives, with the pedlar's pack or in
the garb of slaves; they were likewise treated as Romans by
the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors." The Burgundian King
Sigismund, who embraced the Catholic faith in 516, "first
raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. … A spirit
of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over
the Frankish countries. … The later of the Merovingian kings
became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews
consequently increased. … The Jews of Germany are certainly
only to be regarded as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such
of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the
Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in
France. … While the history of the Jews in Byzance, Italy,
and France, possesses but special interest, that of their
brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of
universal importance. … Jewish Spain contributed almost as
greatly to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia.
… Cordova, Grenada, and Toledo, are as familiar to the Jews
as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Naherdea
and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East,
and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigour in Spain.
… The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is
buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they came there as
free men as early as the time of the Roman Republic, in order
to take advantage of the productive resources of this country.
The tortured victims of the unhappy insurrections under
Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the
extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000
of them were dragged off to Spain as prisoners. … The Jews
… were unmolested under the Arian kings; … but as soon as
the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and
Arianism began to be persecuted, an unfavourable crisis set in."

_H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 3, chapter 2._

JEWS: A. D. 615.
Siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Persians.
Sack and massacre.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

JEWS: A. D. 637.
Surrender of Jerusalem to the Moslems.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.

JEWS: 7th Century.
General persecution.
First expulsion from Spain.

In the seventh century, during the reign of the Eastern Roman
Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610-641) the Jews were subjected to a
more general and bitter persecution than they had experienced
before at the hands of the Christians. "It is said that about
this time a prophecy was current, which declared that the
Roman empire would be overthrown by a circumcised people. This
report may have been spread by the Jews, in order to excite
their own ardour, and assist their projects of rebellion; but
the prophecy was saved from oblivion by the subsequent
conquests of the Saracens. … The conduct of the Jews excited
the bigotry, as it may have awakened the fears, of the
imperial government, and both Phocas and Heraclius attempted
to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an
end to the national existence. Heraclius not only practised
every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within
the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced
conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in
his diplomacy." Thus Heraclius induced Sisebut, the Gothic
king in Spain, and Dagobert, the Frank king, to join him in
forcing baptism on the Jews, with the alternative of flight.

_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 4, section 5._

{1925}

"Urged by the request and incited by the example of Heraclius,
Sisebuto [or Sisebut] issued an edict in the year 616, that,
within a year, the Jews in Spain should either embrace
Christianity, or should be shorn, scourged, and expelled from
the kingdom, and their property confiscated. … It was a
premium on hypocrisy; for hypocrisy was an instrument of
self-preservation. Ninety thousand Jews made a nominal
submission."

_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

JEWS: 7th Century.
The Epoch of the Geonim.
The Exilarchate and the Gaonate.

After the death of the Caliph Othman (A. D. 655), when the
followers of Mohammed were divided into two camps—the
partisans of Ali and the partisans of Moawiyah, "the
Babylonian Jews and Nestorian Christians sided with Ali, and
rendered him their assistance." Prominent among the Jewish
supporters of Ali was Mar-Isaac, the head of a school. "The
unhappy Ali valued this homage, and, doubtless, accorded
privileges to the Jewish head of the school. It is quite
probable that from this time the head of the school of Sora
occupied a certain dignity, and took the title of Gaon. There
were certain privileges connected with the Gaonate, upon which
even the Exilarch—also politically appointed—did not
venture to encroach. Through this there arose a peculiar
relationship between the two entirely opposing offices—the
Exilarchate and the Gaonate. This led to subsequent quarrels.
With Bostanaï [then Exilarch] and Mar-Isaac, the Jewish
officials recognised by the Caliph, there begins a new period
in Jewish history—the Epoch of the Geonim. … For the space
of 40 years (680 to 720), only the names of the Geonim and
Exilarchs are known to us, historical details, however, are
entirely wanting. During this time, through quarrels and
concessions, there arose peculiar relations between the
officials of the Jewish-Persian kingdom, which developed into
a kind of constitution. The Jewish community in Babylonia
(Persia), which had the appearance of a state, had a peculiar
constitution. The Exilarch was at their head, and next to him
stood the Gaon. Both together they formed the unity of the
community. The Exilarch filled political functions. He
represented the Babylonian-Persian Judaism under the Caliphs.
He collected the taxes from the various communities, and paid
them into the treasury. The Exilarchs, both in their outer
appearance and mode of life, were like princes. They drove
about in a state carriage; they had outriders and a kind of
body guard, and received princely homage. The religious unity
of Judaism, on the other hand, was represented in the two
chief schools of Sora and Pumbaditha. They expounded the
Talmud, giving it a practical application; they made new laws
and institutions, and saw that they were carried out, by
allotting punishments for those who transgressed them. The
Exilarch shared the judicial power in common with the Gaon of
Sora and the head of the school of Pumbaditha. … The head of
the school of Sora, however, was alone privileged to be styled
'Gaon'; the head of the school of Pumbaditha did not bear the
title officially. The Gaon of Sora enjoyed general preference
over his colleague of Pumbaditha."

_H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 3, chapter 4._

JEWS: 8th Century.
Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism.

See KHAZARS.

JEWS: 8th Century.
Origin of the Karaites.

See KARAISM.

JEWS: 8-15th Centuries.
Toleration by Moors and Christians in Spain, followed by
merciless persecution and expulsion.
Treatment in Portugal.

"Under the Moorish government in Spain the lot of this
persecuted, tormented people was more tolerable than in any
Christian country. … Under the Christian kings of the 12th
and 13th centuries, they rose to still greater influence as
financial advisers and treasurers, astronomers and physicians;
in Toledo alone they numbered 12,000. … Their condition in
Spain from the time of the Moorish supremacy to the end of the
13th century was upon the whole more favourable than in any
other country of Europe. … The 14th century brought disaster
to the Jews of the Peninsula and elsewhere. … They were
detested by the people; first in one town and then in another
they were attacked and murdered, and their synagogues were
burned down; and at length, in 1391, the storm broke upon them
in all its fury, and raged through the length and breadth of
Spain. … Many thousands were slain; whilst 200,000 saved
themselves by receiving baptism, but it was discovered in a
few years that 17,000 had lapsed into Judaism. A century
later, in 1492, a royal edict commanded all Jews to quit the
country, leaving their goods behind them. As the Inquisition
at the same time forbade the sale of victuals to the Jews, the
majority … were compelled to submit to baptism. Of those who
withdrew into exile—the numbers are variously reckoned from
170,000 to 400,000—the greater part perished from pestilence,
starvation, or shipwreck. The descendants of those who
survived, the Sephardim, found refuge in Italy, and under
Turkish rule in the East, and, for a short space, even in
Portugal. … In Portugal the Jews fared even worse than their
brethren in Spain. … The Inquisition was … introduced as
the approved means for handing over to the exchequer the
wealth of the new Christians."

_J. I. von Döllinger,
The Jews in Europe
(Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

ALSO IN:
_H. C. Lea,
Chapters from the Religious History of Spain,
pages 437-468._

_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
part 1, chapter 17 (volume 2)._

See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: 11th Century.
First appearance of Jews in England.
Their treatment as usurers.

"Their first appearance in England is said to have been due to
the Conqueror, who brought over a Jewish colony from Rouen to
London. They were special favourites of William Rufus; under
Henry they play a less conspicuous part; but in the next reign
we find them at Lincoln, Oxford, and elsewhere, and there can
be no doubt that they were already established in most of the
chief English towns. They formed, however, no part of the
townsfolk. The Jew was not a member of the state; he was the
king's chattel, not to be meddled with, for good or for evil,
save at the king's own bidding.
{1926}
Exempt from toll and tax and from the fines of justice, he had
the means of accumulating a hoard of wealth which might indeed
be seized at any moment by an arbitrary act of the king, but
which the king's protection guarded with jealous care against
all other interference. The capacity in which the Jew usually
appears is that of a money-lender—an occupation in which the
scruples of the Church forbade Christians to engage, lest they
should be contaminated with the sin of usury. Fettered by no
such scruples, the Hebrew money-lenders drove a thriving
trade."

_K. Norgate,
England Under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 1._

"The Church declared against capitalism of any kind, branding
it as usury. It became impossible in Angevin England to obtain
the capital for any large scheme of building or organisation
unless the projectors had the capital themselves. Here was the
function which the Jew could perform in England of the twelfth
century, which was just passing economically out of the stage
of barter. Capital was wanted in particular for the change of
architecture from wood to stone with the better classes, and
especially for the erection of castles and monasteries. The
Jews were, indeed, the first in England to possess
dwelling-houses built with stone, probably for purposes of
protection as well as of comfort. And as a specimen of their
influence on monastic architecture, we have it on record that
no less than nine Cistercian monasteries of the North Country
were built by moneys lent by the great Aaron of Lincoln, who
also boasted that he had built the shrine of St. Alban. …
The result of the Church's attitude towards Jews and towards
usury was to put the king into a peculiar relation towards his
Jewish subjects. The Church kept them out of all other
pursuits but that of usury, which it branded as infamous; the
State followed suit, and confiscated the estates of all
usurers dying as such. Hence, as a Jew could only be a usurer,
his estate was always potentially the king's, and could be
dealt with by the king as if it were his own. Yet, strange to
say, it was not to the king's interest to keep the Jews'
wealth in his own hands, for he, the king, as a good
Christian, could not get usury for it, while the Jew could
very soon double and treble it, since the absence of
competition enabled him to fix the rate of interest very high,
rarely less than forty per cent., often as much as eighty. …
The only useful function the Jew could perform towards both
king and people was to be as rich as possible, just as the
larger the capital of a bank, the more valuable the part it
plays in the world of commerce. … The king reaped the
benefit of these riches in several ways. One of his main
functions and main source of income was selling justice, and
Jews were among his best customers. Then he claimed from them,
as from his other subjects, fines and amerciaments for all the
events of life. The Pipe Rolls contain entries of fines paid
by Jews to marry, not to marry, to become divorced, to go a
journey across the sea, to become partners with another Jew,
in short, for all the decisive events of life. And above all,
the king got frequent windfalls from the heirs of deceased
Jews who paid heavy reliefs to have their fathers' charters
and debts, of which, as we have seen, they could make more
profitable use than the king, to whom the Jew's property
escheated not qua Jew, but qua usurer. In the case of Aaron of
Lincoln the king did not disgorge at all at his death, but
kept in his own hands the large treasures, lands, houses and
debts of the great financier. He appears to have first
organised the Jewry, and made the whole of the English Jews
his agents throughout the country. … In addition to these
quasi-regular and normal sources of income from his Jews, the
king claimed from them—again as from his other
subjects—various contributions from time to time under the
names of gifts and tallages. And here he certainly seems, on
occasion at least, to have exercised an unfavourable
discrimination in his demands from the Jews. In 1187, the year
of Aaron of Lincoln's death, he took a tenth from the rest of
England, which yielded £70,000, and a quarter from the Jews,
which gave as much as £60,000. In other words, the Jews were
reckoned to have, at that date, one quarter of the movable
wealth of the kingdom (£240,000 against £700,000 held by the
rest). … They acted the part of a sponge for the Royal
Treasury, they gathered up all the floating money of the
country, to be squeezed from time to time into the king's
treasure-chest. … The king was thus … the sleeping-partner
in all the Jewish usury, and may be regarded as the
Arch-usurer of the kingdom. By this means he was enabled to
bring pressure on any of his barons who were indebted to the
Jews. He could offer to release them of their debt of the
usury accruing to it, and in the case of debts falling into
his hand by the death of a Jew, he could commute the debt for
a much smaller sum. Thus the Cistercian abbeys referred to
above paid Richard I. 1,000 marks instead of the 6,400 which
they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln."

_Joseph Jacobs,
The Jews of Angevin England,
introduction._

JEWS: A. D. 1076.
Capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &C.

JEWS: A. D. 1096-1146.
Massacre of Jews in Europe by Crusaders.