A.D. 135-323.
THE JEWS UNDER THE ROMAN EMPERORS FROM ADRIAN TO CONSTANTINE.
Deplorable as had been the condition of the Jews after the war with
Titus, that of their descendants appeared to be still worse, when
their struggle for independence was closed by the fall of Bethor.
The devastation of their lands, and the destruction of their cities,
could not have been worse than it was on the former occasion. But
they were not then forbidden by their conquerors to return to their
ancient homes, or practise the initiatory rite of their religion. To
all appearance, the total extinction of the nation, by the absorption
of its scattered members among the various communities to which they
had fled for shelter, must inevitably ensue. Nevertheless, this did
not occur. On the contrary, a period of nearly two hundred years
now elapsed, during which they continued, undisturbed by Imperial
severity or intestine commotion, to recruit their numbers and
increase their wealth and influence in almost every portion of the
Roman Empire. This appears to have been due in the first instance
to the favour of Antoninus, who succeeded to the Imperial purple on
the death of Adrian. A story is told of a miraculous cure of the
Emperor’s daughter by a Jew,[37] in requital of which the edict
forbidding circumcision was repealed. But the story rests on no
trustworthy authority. The prohibition was renewed by Aurelius, when
the Eastern Jews offended him by joining the standard of the rebel
Avidius Cassius. But it was soon repealed, if it was ever acted on.
It is evident, however, that, notwithstanding the toleration extended
to the Jews, they were closely watched, and little trust was reposed
in their good faith. At Jamnia (a town, according to Eusebius,
between Diospolis and Azotus), where a great Rabbinical school had
been established after the fall of Jerusalem, the jealousy of the
Romans was roused by an imprudent speech made by the celebrated Simon
(or Simeon) Jochaides, the reputed author of the Book of Zohar,
and the person by whom (as the reader is informed in the note) the
cure of Antoninus’s daughter is said to have been effected. On
the occasion of some public debate, he denounced the rapacity and
selfishness of the heathen rulers. For this expression of opinion
he was condemned to death, which he only escaped by flight; and the
school at Jamnia was suppressed. On another occasion the periodical
sounding of the trumpet, in the month Tisri, was mistaken by the
governor of the city for the signal of a general revolt.
In Rome itself—indeed, in all the great cities of the Empire—during
the reigns of the emperors who succeeded Aurelius, up to the time
of Constantine, the Jews were but little interfered with. This was
owing partly to their long residence in the capital. The date of
their first settlement there is unknown. It has been supposed to be
coincident with Pompey’s victories, which probably did bring a large
number of Jewish slaves to Rome. Philo’s testimony to this fact, and
to their general emancipation by their purchasers, seems trustworthy
enough. But it is certain that the Jews had spread far and wide
among all nations before that date, and hence it is most unlikely
that so great a commercial centre as Rome would be overlooked by
them. Josephus says that 8,000 of them attended when Archelaus was
received by Augustus; and though Claudius banished them, it was
only temporarily. It is plain that there were great numbers there,
when St. Paul was imprisoned at Rome. Juvenal, again, speaks of
the mendicant hordes who profaned the grove of Egeria; and the
testimony of Tacitus and Martial is to the same effect. The Jews were
regarded with contemptuous dislike, but there was no inclination to
persecute them. There was another reason, too, why they were treated
with leniency. After Adrian’s time, attention was directed to the
Christians, as the professors of a faith distinct from, and alien to,
Judaism. Thenceforth the Jews were regarded in a different light.
As Christianity grew and spread throughout the empire, its converts
came to be accounted the deadly enemies of the State; and the Jews,
who disliked them as much as the heathen did, were naturally welcomed
as allies against the common enemy. In any persecution of the ‘New
Superstition,’ the Jews were ever ready to take their part[38]; and
their wealth, their numbers, and their zeal rendered their help
valuable. The Pagan rulers felt but little inclination to inquire
into the shortcomings and offences of such useful partisans.
It will be proper here to say a few words respecting the Sanhedrin,
which, during this period, as well previously and subsequently,
exercised a certain authority. The origin of this National Council
is a matter of dispute. By some it is affirmed that it was first
instituted by Moses (Num. xi. 16), and is identical with the ‘Elders’
of Joshua xxiv. 1 and Judges ii. 7. But even if that be so, there is
no mention of it in subsequent Jewish history for some 1,200 years,
and the absolute power exercised by the kings (as _e.g._ 1 Kings ii.
27-46) is altogether inconsistent with the existence of any such
judicial body in their day. Others hold that the Great Synagogue,
which Ezra established after the return from the Captivity, gradually
developed into the Sanhedrin. But it is denied by writers whose
opinion is of weight that there was any connection between the Great
Synagogue and the Sanhedrin. Its true origin seems to have been in
the time of Judas Maccabæus, or possibly his brother Jonathan. We
read how the latter wrote a letter to the Lacedæmonians in the names
of ‘Jonathan the High Priest, the Elders of the nation, the priests
and other people of the Jews.’ It is likely that the High Priest and
the Elders continued from that time forth to exercise supreme power
in judicial matters, including that of life and death, until the time
when Judæa became a Roman province, and disputes and jealousies with
the Roman procurators on the subject ensued.
The statement has already, been noticed, that the Sanhedrin escaped
destruction during the war with Titus. Some of its members were
slain, but the greater part were allowed—so it is averred—to depart
from Jerusalem, and settle at Jamnia. Thence they removed to
Sepphoris, and afterwards to Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee, whence
the President of the Sanhedrin came to be styled ‘the Patriarch
of Tiberias.’ His authority was acknowledged by all Jews residing
within the limits of the Roman Empire.[39] How far obedience to
him was voluntary, how far a matter of compulsion, it would not
be very easy to determine. The Romans in all likelihood would be
tolerant enough of the exercise of any such authority, which did not
infringe their Imperial power—nay, would probably refer to it all
matters relating to the peculiar usages of the Jews, in the same
spirit in which Claudius Lysias wrote to Felix, and Gallio refused
to listen to the Jewish disputants. The people on their part would
readily submit themselves to the Patriarch of their own nation, if
only in protest against the hated rule of the stranger. Hence, for
many generations, Gamaliel and his successors wielded a wide and
undisputed authority.[40]
The Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, who were chosen
entirely for the moral excellence of their characters. No young or
unmarried man, no alien, and no one who followed a disreputable
calling, was eligible. With these exceptions, membership was open to
all ranks and conditions of men.
To this era belongs the Jerusalem Talmud; but of that, and also
of the Babylonian Talmud, the reader will find a full account in
Appendix II.
To resume our narrative. At the accession of Septimius Severus, who
attained the Imperial purple at the close of the struggle which
ensued after the murder of Commodus, the Jews are said to have
received harsh treatment at his hands; which may well occasion the
reader surprise, as they almost everywhere joined his standard,
as the rival of their bitter enemy, Niger. Yet it is certain that
he re-enacted the old laws against proselytism, or entering the
precincts of Jerusalem; and, if Eusebius is to be credited, he
actually made war on the Jews, and a triumph was decreed him for
his successes in the campaign.[41] But even if this be true, his
anger must soon have subsided; for during his reign they enjoyed
a considerable share of his favour, for which writers hint that
they had to pay heavily. It would appear again that they prospered
under the rule of his depraved and barbarous son Caracalla.[42]
This Emperor is said in early life to have been warmly attached
to a Jewish playmate, the only person for whom he seems ever to
have felt any affection. A few years afterwards they had a still
more extraordinary and discreditable patron in Heliogabalus, the
very vilest, it may safely be affirmed, of all the Roman emperors.
Actuated by the strange caprice which commonly swayed his actions,
he adopted the Jewish customs of circumcision and abstinence from
swine’s flesh. It does not appear, however, that he bestowed
any special marks of regard on the Jews, in consequence of the
inclination he showed for their peculiar tenets. Their religion,
in fact, was only one out of many from which he borrowed one
observance or another; and if it is true that he was on the point of
proclaiming himself to be the chief object of all religious worship,
which all must render him on pain of death, his murder came only just
in time to save them from a sharp persecution. Under his successor,
Alexander Severus, they are thought to have experienced unusual
kindness,[43] because that prince had imbibed from his mother Mammæa
(the disciple, it is said, of Origen) a great prejudice in their
favour. He did show some feeling of this kind, in that he set up the
statue of Abraham in his private chapel, as one of those worthy of
Divine honours.
But it should be borne in mind that this virtuous prince was after
all a heathen, and had very vague and imperfect ideas about religion.
He regarded all good men as equally worthy of honour, and his
theology hardly extended further. In the shrine already referred to,
he placed not only the statue of Abraham, but of Orpheus, Apollonius
Tyaneus,[44] and Jesus Christ! It is needless to say that the man who
did this could have been no proselyte to Judaism (let the Rabbins say
what they will), or to Christianity either.
A similar protection was extended to the Jews during the reign of
Philip the Arabian—another sovereign about whom similar fancies are
entertained by Jewish writers, and with no more reason, apparently,
than in the other instances. The Christians also experienced the
same merciful sway. But with the accession of Decius, A.D. 249, the
persecution of the Christians, which had slumbered, with only some
slight and partial renewals, since the time of Aurelius, broke out
with greater violence than ever, and continued to rage, with rare
intermissions, through the reigns of successive emperors, until
the accession of Constantine. There is little or nothing to record
respecting the Jews during this period, so far as those of the West
are concerned, unless the war waged by one of the most powerful of
the later occupants of the Imperial throne, Aurelian, with Zenobia,
Queen of Palmyra, may be thought to have some relation to Jewish
affairs. This princess is said to have been a descendant of the
Asmonæan family, or, at all events, of Jewish birth,[45] and to have
been brought up in the Jewish faith. Some go so far as to say she was
a zealous professor of it.[46] It is certain that she built splendid
synagogues for the use of the Jews, and advanced them to the highest
posts of dignity. The celebrated Paul of Samosata,[47] who enjoyed
her special favour, has been thought to have attempted to effect a
reconciliation between Christianity and Judaism, insisting on the
necessity of the rite of circumcision, and teaching that Jesus was,
although a man, one in whom the Divine Λόγος dwelt. This, it is
thought, may have had her approval. If such was really his design, it
proved, as might have been expected, a total failure, both parties
alike rejecting his teaching. After the fall of Zenobia, he was
deprived of his office, and vanished into obscurity.
But in any case her history belongs more properly to that of the
Eastern Jews, that large section of the Hebrew race which had spread
far to the eastward of the great river, and who dwelt under the
rule of the Patriarch, known by the title of the ‘Prince of the
Captivity.’ It will be proper now to turn to their affairs.
FOOTNOTES:
[37] According to others, it was the daughter of Aurelius who was
healed. A deputation had been sent to protest against the severe
edicts of Verus. The celebrated mystic, Simon ben Jochai, was the
envoy, and he cast an evil spirit out of the Emperor’s daughter. The
Rabbins assert also that Antoninus received circumcision. But their
testimony on this, as on many similar matters, cannot be relied on.
[38] Thus it is mentioned that the Jews were more forward than the
heathen in bringing faggots to burn the Christian martyr Polycarp—‘as
is their habit,’ says the historian (_Polyc. Martyr._ xiii.).
[39] Origen affirms that the power of the patriarchs was little less
than that of a king (Orig., _Epist. ad Afric._).
[40] The Presidents of the Sanhedrin are said to have been—
1. Ezra, who, according to this list, must have survived to the
reign of Darius Codomannus, fully 200 years.
2. Simon the Just (identified by some with Jaddua who received
Alexander the Great).
3. Antigonus of Soco.
4. Joseph of Zeredah.
5. Joshua, banished by Hyrcanus.
6. Judah, contemporary with A. Jann.
7. Shemaiah.
8. Hillel, the renowned Jewish Doctor.
9. Simeon, son of Hillel, supposed by some to be the same who took
Jesus into his arms (St. Luke ii. 25).
10. Gamaliel (St. Paul’s teacher).
11. Simeon, son of Gamaliel, killed during the siege of Jerusalem.
12. Jochanan.
13. Gamaliel II., son of Simeon, first Patriarch of Jerusalem.
14. Simeon, called the Just.
15. Judah II., called Hakkadosh.
16. Gamaliel III., in whose time the Sanhedrin is said to have
ceased to exist.
17. Judah II.
18. Hillel II., who drew up the permanent Jewish calendar.
19. Judah III.
20. Hillel III.
21. Gamaliel IV., with whom the Patriarchate of Tiberias expired,
A.D. 429.
[41] It may be that it was not against the Jews, but the Samaritans,
that Severus waged war, and that he temporarily confounded them with
the Jews. The Romans continually made such mistakes.
[42] Some of the Rabbins assert that Caracalla received circumcision,
but with no more evidence in support of their statement than in the
instance of Antoninus. There was, however, something unusual in the
education of Caracalla. Tertullian says that he received a Christian
education ‘lacte Christiano educatus’ (Tertull. _ad Scop._). If so,
he profited but little by it.
[43] This seems to have been notorious, as the nickname of the
‘Ruler of the Synagogue,’ given him by the wits of the day, seems to
indicate.
[44] This extraordinary man was born at Tyana, in Cappadocia, a year
or two before our Lord. Hierocles, A.D. 300, wrote a comparison
between him and Jesus Christ, in which the main points of resemblance
are his (supposed) miraculous birth and power of working miracles,
his attempt to reform the religion of the world, and the voice from
heaven, which is said to have summoned him from earth. His history,
written by Philostratus is overlaid with exaggeration and fable; but
he is to be regarded rather as an enthusiast and a mystic than as an
impostor. His fame was at its zenith in the time of Alexander Severus.
[45] Theodoret, _de Hær. Fab. Athanas, de solit. vit._
[46] Zenobia has been claimed as an upholder of, if not a convert to,
Christianity. She was probably an eclectic with no settled faith.
Hence her patronage of Paul.
[47] This notorious heresiarch was a native of Samosata, in Syria. He
was made Bishop of Antioch A.D. 260; but his elevation seems to have
turned his head. He thenceforth affected great state and splendour.
Encouraged by the favour of Zenobia, he usurped great power in the
Church. To gain her favour, it is said, he attempted the alleged
compromise between Judaism and Christianity. A council was held A.D.
265, to consider his opinions, over which Firmilian presided, and by
which he was condemned. He refused to obey the decree; but a second
council was thereupon summoned, by which he was deposed, and its
sentence was confirmed by Aurelian.