to lead a blameless life but to have been gifted by God with a knowledge
of future events. This man, seeing Herod as a lad on his way to school,
addressed him as king of the Jews. Herod, supposing that he spoke in
ignorance or in jest, reminded him that he was only a commoner. But
Menahem, with a quiet smile, clapped him on the backside and said, “For
all that, be sure you will be king and will have a prosperous
reign;[385] for God finds you worthy of it. And remember the blows you
received from Menahem, and let them be a symbol to you of the changes of
fortune. It were best to reflect on such things, even though you were to
be a lover of righteousness, of piety to God and equity to your
subjects. But I, knowing all, know that such will not be your character.
You will surpass all men in good fortune and will win undying renown,
but will be forgetful of piety and justice. God, however, will not be
unmindful of these sins and at the close of your life the wrath which
they merit will be remembered against you.”
Herod at the time paid little heed to this prediction of eminence to
which his hopes did not aspire; but when he had by gradual stages risen
to the throne and prosperity, and was at the height of his power, he
sent for Menahem and asked him how long he would reign. Menahem would
not reveal all. He held his peace, but on being further asked merely
whether he would reign as much as ten years, “Yes,” he replied, “twenty;
nay, thirty,” but fixed no term for the allotted period. With this
answer Herod was content, gave Menahem his hand and dismissed him, and
from that time forward continued to hold all the Essenes in
honour.—_Ant._ XV. 10. 4 f. (369-378).
Footnote 381:
By taking the oath of allegiance to him.
Footnote 382:
Jos. uses this form and “Essenes” interchangeably.
Footnote 383:
Cf. § (54).
Footnote 384:
Gr. “Manæmus” (throughout).
Footnote 385:
Text doubtful. Perhaps “will begin happily.”
(60) The Pharisees refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance (another
account).
[Sidenote: _c._ 37 B.C.]
Now there was one section of the Jews that prided themselves on their
strict observance of inherited traditions and professed (to know) the
laws[386] in which the Deity takes delight.[387] They had obtained
complete control over the women-folk.[388] They were called Pharisees,
and showed foresight in resisting an all-powerful monarch[389] and
temerity in proceeding to open hostility and opposition.
For instance, when the whole Jewish nation took the oath of allegiance
to Cæsar and to the king’s government, these men, to the number of
upwards of six thousand, refused to swear. The king imposed a money
penalty, whereupon the wife of Pheroras[390] paid the fine on their
behalf. In requital for this service of hers the Pharisees, who through
divine inspiration were endowed with the gift of foreknowledge, foretold
that God had decreed the downfall from power of Herod and his family,
and the transfer of the kingdom to her and Pheroras and their children.
These words, coming to the knowledge of Salome,[391] were reported to
the king, who was further informed that the Pharisees were corrupting
some of his courtiers. The king thereupon put the principal offenders
among the Pharisees to death together with the eunuch Bagoas and one
Carus, the most famous beauty of his time and a royal favourite. He also
killed all the members of his household who were implicated in[392] the
Pharisees’[393] prediction. Bagoas had been led by them to believe that
he would be called the father and benefactor of the king whose rise they
foretold; that monarch, they said, would be omnipotent and would enable
Bagoas to marry and beget children of his own.—_Ant._ XVII. 2. 4
(41-45).
Footnote 386:
Lit. “laid claim to the laws.” But the text is doubtful. Others read,
“... observance of the laws of their fathers, and pretended that the
Deity took delight in them (the Pharisees).”
Footnote 387:
Cf. Rom. ii. 18 (“knowest the will”).
Footnote 388:
That is, apparently, the women of Herod’s family. The word denotes the
harem of a prince.
Footnote 389:
Text and meaning doubtful.
Footnote 390:
Herod’s brother.
Footnote 391:
Herod’s sister.
Footnote 392:
Or “had associated themselves with.”
Footnote 393:
Gr. “Pharisee’s.”
IX. JEWISH THEOLOGY, SCRIPTURES AND CUSTOMS
(61) Some Aspects of Jewish Theology. Moses as Religious Educator
Our Polity a Theocracy
There is endless variety in the details of the customs and laws which
prevail in the world at large. [To give but a summary enumeration:][394]
some peoples have entrusted the supreme power of government to
monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our
lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but
gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be
permitted—may be termed a “theocracy,” ascribing the sovereignty and
majesty to God. To Him he persuaded all to look, as the Author of all
blessings, both those which are common to all mankind, and those which
they had won for themselves by prayer in their utmost adversities. He
convinced them that no single action, no secret thought, could be hid
from Him. He represented Him as One, uncreated[395] and immutable to all
eternity;[396] in beauty surpassing all mortal comeliness, made known to
us by His power, although the nature of His real being[397] passes
knowledge.
A Religion for the Many, not (like Greek philosophy) for the Few
That the wisest of the Greeks learnt to adopt these conceptions of God
from principles with which Moses supplied them, I am not now concerned
to urge; but they have borne abundant witness to the excellence of these
doctrines, and to their consonance with the nature and majesty of God.
In fact, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, the Stoics who succeeded him,
and indeed nearly all the philosophers appear to have held similar views
concerning the nature of God. These, however, addressed their philosophy
to the few, and did not venture to divulge the true doctrine[398] to the
masses who were prepossessed by (other) opinions; whereas our lawgiver,
by making practice square with precept, not only convinced his own
contemporaries, but so firmly implanted this belief concerning God in
their descendants to all future generations that it cannot be moved. The
cause (of his success) was that he far surpassed (other legislators) in
promoting the good of all men to all time by his scheme of legislation;
for he did not make religion a department of virtue, but the various
virtues—I mean, justice, temperance, fortitude, and mutual harmony in
all things between the members of the community[399]—departments of
religion. Religion governs all our actions and studies and speech; none
of these things did our lawgiver leave unexamined[400] or indeterminate.
The Two Methods of Education Combined by Moses
All schemes of education and moral training fall into two categories;
instruction is imparted in the one case by precept, in the other by
practical exercising of the character. All other legislators, following
their divergent opinions, selected the particular method which each
preferred and neglected the other. Thus the Lacedæmonians and Cretans
employed practical, not verbal, training; whereas the Athenians and
nearly all the rest of the Greeks made laws enjoining what actions might
or might not be performed, but neglected to familiarize the people with
them by putting them into practice.
Our legislator, on the other hand, took great care to combine both
systems. He did not leave practical training in morals without a written
code;[401] nor did he permit the letter of the law to remain
inoperative. Starting from the very beginning with the food of which we
partake from infancy and the private life[402] of the home, he left
nothing, however insignificant, to the discretion and caprice of the
individual. What meats a man should abstain from, and what he may enjoy;
with what persons he should associate; what period should be devoted
respectively to strenuous labour and to rest;[403]—for all this our
leader made the law the standard and rule, that we might live under it
as under a father and master[404] and be guilty of no sin through
wilfulness or ignorance.
All Jews Know their Law, which is Read Every Week
For ignorance he left no pretext. He proved[405] the Law to be the most
excellent and necessary form of instruction, ordaining, not that it
should be heard once for all or twice or on several occasions, but that
every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to
listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it;
a practice which all other legislators seem to have neglected.[406]
Indeed, most men, so far from living in accordance with their own laws,
hardly know what they are. Only when they have done wrong do they learn
from others that they have transgressed the law. Even those of them who
hold the highest and most important offices admit their ignorance; for
they employ professional legal experts as assessors and leave them in
charge of the administration of affairs. But, should any one of our
nation be questioned about the laws, he would repeat them all more
readily than his own name. The result, then, of our thorough grounding
in the laws from the time when we first had any sensations whatever, is
that we have them as it were engraven on our souls. A transgressor is a
rarity and to elude punishment by entreaty an impossibility.—_c. Ap._
II. 16-18 (164-178).
Footnote 394:
These words occur only in Eusebius’s citation (_Præp. Ev._ VIII. 8),
not in the MSS of Josephus.
Footnote 395:
Or, according to another reading, “unbegotten.”
Footnote 396:
Lit. “to time everlasting.”
Footnote 397:
Or “essence.”
Footnote 398:
Lit. “the truth of the doctrine.”
Footnote 399:
The four cardinal virtues of the Platonic School, except that Harmony
(συμφωνία) here replaces the usual Wisdom (φρόνησις).
Footnote 400:
The Greek word is that used in Socrates’ famous saying, “The life
which is unexamined is not worth living” (Plato, _Apology_ 38A).
Footnote 401:
Lit. “dumb.”
Footnote 402:
Or “diet.”
Footnote 403:
Lit. “and concerning strenuous application to labours and contrariwise
rest.”
Footnote 404:
Cf. Gal. iii. 24, “the law hath been our tutor.”
Footnote 405:
Or “appointed.”
Footnote 406:
For the Rabbinical tradition that Moses introduced the custom of the
public reading of the Law on Festivals and Sabbaths, see an art. by
Dr. Büchler in the _Jewish Quart. Review_, V. 420 (1893).
(62) A Future Life—for the Law-abiding
With us the death penalty is imposed for most offences, for instance, if
a man commit adultery.... Even fraud in such matters as weights or
measures, or injustice and deceit in trade, or purloining another man’s
property or laying hands on what one did not deposit—all such crimes
have punishments attached to them which are not on the same scale as
with other nations, but more severe. For example, the mere intention of
doing wrong to one’s parents or of impiety against God is followed by
instant death.
For those, on the other hand, who live in accordance with our laws the
prize is not silver or gold, no crown of wild olive[407] or of
parsley[408] with any such public proclamation (as attends those
awards). No; each individual, relying on the witness of his own
conscience and the lawgiver’s prophecy, which is confirmed by the sure
testimony of God, is firmly persuaded that to those who observe the laws
and, if they must needs die for them, willingly meet death,[409] God has
granted a renewed existence and in the revolution (of the ages)[410] the
gift of a better life. I should have hesitated to write thus, had not
the facts made all men aware that many of our countrymen have on many
occasions ere now preferred to brave all manner of suffering rather than
to utter a single word against the Law.[411]—_c. Ap._ II. 30 (215-219).
Footnote 407:
As in the Olympic games.
Footnote 408:
As in the Isthmian and Nemean games.
Footnote 409:
Text doubtful.
Footnote 410:
ἐκ περιτροπῆς should, perhaps, be read in the light of the kindred
passage, _B.J._ III. 374 (§ (43), p. 124 above), ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων.
Or translate simply “in exchange,” “in turn.”
Footnote 411:
Cf. § (54), p. 155 above.
(63) The Jewish Scriptures and their Preservation
The Writers and Custodians of the Records
That our forefathers took no less, not to say even greater, care than
the nations I have mentioned[412] in the keeping of their records—a task
which they assigned to their chief priests and prophets—and that down to
our own times these records have been, and if I may venture to say so,
will continue to be, preserved with scrupulous accuracy, I will
endeavour briefly to demonstrate.
Selection of the Custodians. Scrutiny of Priestly Marriages and
Genealogies
Not only did our ancestors in the first instance set over this business
men of the highest character, devoted to the service of God, but they
took precautions to ensure that the priests’ lineage should be kept
unadulterated and pure. A member of the priestly order must marry a
woman of his own race, without regard to her wealth or other
distinctions; but he must investigate her pedigree, obtaining the
genealogy from the archives[413] and producing a number of witnesses.
And this practice of ours is not confined to the home country of Judæa,
but wherever there is a Jewish colony,[414] there too a strict account
is kept by the priests of their marriages; I allude to the Jews in Egypt
and Babylon and other parts of the world in which any of the priestly
order are living in dispersion. A statement is drawn up by them and sent
to Jerusalem, showing the names of the bride and her father and more
remote ancestors together with the names of the witnesses. In the not
infrequent event of war, for instance when our country was invaded by
Antiochus Epiphanes [Sidenote: 170-168 B.C.], by Pompey the Great
[Sidenote: 63 B.C.], by Quintilius Varus [Sidenote: 4 B.C.], and above
all in our own times [Sidenote: A.D. 66-70.], the surviving priests
compile fresh records from the older documents;[415] they also pass
scrutiny upon the remaining women and disallow marriage with any who
have been taken captive, suspecting them of having had frequent
intercourse with foreigners. But the most convincing proof of our
accuracy in this matter is that our records contain the names of our
high priests with the succession from father to son for the last two
thousand years. And whoever violates any of the above rules is forbidden
to minister at the altars or to take any other part in divine worship.
The Twenty-two Books of Scripture
The task of writing (our national history) is thus one which cannot be
capriciously undertaken by all alike; and there is no discrepancy in the
records. No; the prophets alone (had this privilege), obtaining their
knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration
which they owed to God, and committing to writing a faithful account of
the events of their own time just as they occurred. From this it
naturally, or rather necessarily, follows that we[416] do not possess
vast numbers[417] of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other.
Our books, those to which we justly pin our faith,[418] are but two and
twenty, and contain the record of all time.[419]
Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the
traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the
lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years.
From the death of Moses to the (death)[420] of Artaxerxes,[421] who
succeeded Xerxes as King of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses
wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books.
The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for (the
conduct of) human life.
From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written,
but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records,
because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.
Jewish Veneration of their Scriptures
We have given practical proof of the spirit in which we treat[422] our
own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has
ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is
an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as
the decrees[423] of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully
to die for them. Time and again ere now the sight has been witnessed of
prisoners enduring tortures and death in every form in the theatres,
rather than utter a single word against the laws and the allied
documents.—_c. Ap._ I. 6-8 (29-43).
Footnote 412:
_i. e._ Egyptians, Babylonians, Chaldæans and Phœnicians, as opposed
to the Greeks, who neglected to keep records of antiquity
Footnote 413:
Reading ἀρχείων. MSS “from the ancients” (ἀρχαίων).
Footnote 414:
Or “college of priests.”
Footnote 415:
Or, perhaps, “from the archives” (ἀρχείων).
Footnote 416:
Unlike the Greeks.
Footnote 417:
Lit. “tens of thousands.”
Footnote 418:
Eusebius reads, “which are justly believed to be divine.”
Footnote 419:
See on this and the following paragraph Appendix, Note VII.
Footnote 420:
The earlier editions insert ἀρχῆς (“till the reign of ...”), not found
in Niese’s MS. Perhaps we should read simply “until Artaxerxes”
(μέχρις for μέχρι τῆς).
Footnote 421:
In Jos. Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther (_Ant._ XI. 6. 1
(184)); Xerxes = Artaxerxes of Ezra-Nehemiah.
Footnote 422:
Gr. (as quoted by Eusebius) “approach.” The MSS of Jos. read “we have
trusted.”
Footnote 423:
Or “doctrines.”
(64) Universal Imitation of our Laws the sincerest flattery
Now, since Time is reckoned in all cases the surest test of worth,[424]
I would call Time to witness to the excellence of our lawgiver and of
the doctrine which he has delivered to us concerning God. An infinity of
time has passed (since Moses) by comparison with the ages in which other
lawgivers lived; yet it will be found that throughout the whole of that
period not merely have our laws stood the test of our own use, but they
have to an ever-increasing extent instilled an emulation of them into
the world at large.[425]
Our earliest imitators were the Greek philosophers, who, though
ostensibly observing the laws of their own countries, yet in their
conduct[426] and philosophy were Moses’ disciples, holding similar views
about God, and inculcating simplicity of life and participation[427]
between man and man. But-that is not all. The masses have long since
shown a keen desire to adopt our religious observances, and there is not
one city, Greek [or barbarian, nor a single nation,][428] to which our
custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and
where the fasts and the lighting of lamps and many of our prohibitions
in the matter of food are not observed. Moreover, they attempt to
imitate our harmonious relations with each other, the charitable
distribution of our possessions, our devoted labour in the crafts, our
endurance under persecution on behalf of our laws. The greatest miracle
of all is that our Law holds out no seductive bait of sensual pleasure,
but has exercised this influence through its own inherent merits; and,
as God has permeated the universe, so the Law has found its way among
all mankind. Let each man reflect for himself on his own country and his
own household, and he will not discredit what I say. It follows, then,
that either we must convict the whole world of deliberate depravity in
their eager desire to adopt the bad laws of a foreign country in
preference to the good laws of their own, or else our accusers must give
up their grudge against us. In honouring our own legislator and putting
our trust in his prophetical utterances concerning God, we do not make
any arrogant claim justifying such odium. Indeed, were we not ourselves
aware of the excellence of our laws, assuredly[429] we should have been
impelled to pride ourselves upon them by the multitude of their
admirers.—_c. Ap._ II. 38 f. (279-286).
Footnote 424:
Or “the surest of all tests” (lit. “assayers”).
Footnote 425:
The text of this sentence is uncertain. I adopt Niese’s conjecture.
Footnote 426:
Perhaps we should read “their writings” (Niese).
Footnote 427:
Or “friendly communion.”
Footnote 428:
Niese reads “nor a single barbarian race.”
Footnote 429:
Reading πάντως (with Niese).
(65) The Oath “Corban”
Cf. Mark vii. 11.
In ancient times various cities were acquainted with the existence of
our nation, and to some of these many of our customs have now found
their way and here and there been thought worthy of imitation. This is
apparent from a passage in the work of Theophrastus on _Laws_, where he
says that the laws of the Tyrians prohibit the use of foreign oaths, in
enumerating which he includes among others the oath called “Corban.” Now
this oath will be found in no other nation except the Jews, and,
translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning “God’s
gift.”[430]—_c. Ap._ I. 22 (166 f.).
Footnote 430:
Elsewhere (_Ant._ IV. 4. 4 [73]) Jos., like Mark, renders simply, and
correctly, “a gift.”
APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTES
I. Note on § (24). QUIRINIUS
P. Sulpicius Quirinius, a native of Lanuvium, was consul in 12 B.C.;
some years later was sent on an expedition against the Homonadenses, a
mountain tribe in Cilicia, and was awarded a triumph for his successes;
accompanied Gaius Cæsar, grandson of Augustus, to the East in A.D. 2 as
his tutor; and in A.D. 6 was appointed Governor of Syria as legatus of
the Emperor, and in that capacity took over Judæa on the deposition of
Archelaus, and made the valuation of the newly-annexed district here
described by Josephus. Towards the end of his life he caused some
scandal at Rome by the divorce of his wife Lepida, whom he accused of
attempting to poison him. He remained in favour with Tiberius, who, on
his death about A.D. 21, secured him a public funeral. A mutilated
inscription found near Tivoli (Tibur) seems to prove that he was _twice_
governor of Syria. (Tacitus _Ann._ III. 48 and 22; Suet. _Tib._ 49 ;
art. in _Encycl. Bibl._).
This is not the place to discuss the formidable difficulties arising
from St. Luke’s reference (ii. 1 ff.) to “the decree from Cæsar
Augustus” and “the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of
Syria.” These are set out in full in Schürer’s _Jewish People in the
time of Jesus Christ_, i. 2, pp. 105-143; on the other side should be
read Sir W. M. Ramsay’s _Was Christ born at Bethlehem?_ (1898). It has
been held that St. Luke is guilty of an anachronism in making the birth
of Christ contemporary with the well-known enrolment under Quirinius
(Acts v. 37), which took place ten years after the death of Herod, and
that other features in his account, which lacks external support, render
the whole narrative incredible. Those who argue that the Evangelist is
guilty of such gross error must at least admit that he had not read the
last books of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus (see Note IV below). But it
is difficult to believe that a historian generally so careful has erred
in this way. Since Schürer’s indictment was written, Ramsay has adduced
important new evidence from the papyri, proving that in Egypt from the
time of Augustus a periodic census or “enrolment by household” took
place every fourteen years; he has further given reason for thinking
that this system applied to other provinces and dependencies of the
Roman Empire, and that Judæa under Herod was not exempt, although a
concession was made to local prejudice in the manner of the enrolment;
he concludes that the “first” enrolment under Quirinius and the birth of
Christ fell in the year 6 B.C. He has not quite removed all
difficulties. In particular, it seems impossible to find room within the
lifetime of Herod for the first governorship of Quirinius, unless the
ἡγεμονία mentioned by St. Luke refers to his appointment as a _special_
lieutenant of Augustus to conduct the war against the Homonadenses,
while Quintilius Varus administered the ordinary affairs of Syria. But
why in that case does St. Luke connect the census with the military
commander Quirinius, rather than with Varus?
II. Note on § (26). THE ALLEGED WITNESS TO JESUS CHRIST
Recent literature:—
(_a_) For the authenticity of the whole section.
F. C. Burkitt; in _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, Leiden, 1913, pp. 135
ff.