[ p. 254 ]
BY B. S. E.
HEROD the Great died in late March or early April of the year 4 b.c.; this date is positively settled.
During his reign—which lasted for thirty-seven years—Palestine was technically not part of the Roman Empire. It was what was called a “federated state,” under an “allied king,” who within his own realm ruled as an independent monarch. He was, however, bound to Rome by a treaty which made him subservient to the Emperor and, in particular, forbade him absolutely to wage war. At his death this treaty expired, and Palestine came directly under Rome’s control until the Emperor Augustus should decide its future. He thought none of Herod’s family capable of governing the whole country, and accordingly he divided it into three parts. The southwest quarter— Judea, including Samaria—he assigned to a son of Herod called Archelaus. [1] The northwest quarter— Galilee—and the southeast quarter—Perea—he gave together to Archelaus’ brother Antipas; in the Gospels he is always called simply “Herod.” The remaining [ p. 255 ] quarter to the northeast went to another son of Herod [2] named Philip.[3] Other Herodians mentioned in the Gospels are a second Philip, [4] his wife Herodias—who deserted him for Antipas—and their daughter. [5]
Neither Archelaus, Antipas, nor Philip was granted the title “king.” Archelaus had to be content with the inferior grade of “ethnarch,” and the other two with the still lower rank of “tetrarch.” But, on paper, at all events, all three were independent rulers of independent countries, responsible to Rome only for the order of their respective domains, and (undoubtedly) for the payment of a regular contribution. In none of these countries was there any resident Roman governor, nor were there any Roman soldiers, so long as this arrangement lasted. In Galilee it lasted throughout Christ’s ministry, so that the “centurion of Capernaum,” whose servant he healed, was in Antipas’ service, not Rome’s; his position was about that of a modern chief of police. [6]
Archelaus was a failure, and in 6 a.d. Augustus removed him. He then turned Judea into a minor Roman province, under a “procurator.” [7] Of these procurators there were many, the most celebrated being the fifth, Pontius Pilate; he held office for ten years, [ p. 256 ] beginning in 25 or 26 a.d. Generally these procurators kept out of Jerusalem except at the time of the great feasts, [8] and for most purposes they preferred to govern through the traditional Jewish officials.
These officials were known as “elders” or “rulers,” and they acted as members of “councils” or “sanhedrins.” [9] In villages these councils contained seven members; in cities twenty-three; in Jerusalem (the “Great Sanhedrin”) seventy. In theory Palestine was governed by the Law of God as written in the Old Testament, which was thought to cover both civil and religious problems. These elders, as the authorized interpreters of the Law, were solemnly ordained to their office, and to them were committed all functions, legislative, executive, and judicial. The decisions of the Great Sanhedrin were supposedly more or less infallible, and these decisions were binding on Jews all over the world. In practice, however, the “civil law” decisions of the Great Sanhedrin could not be enforced outside of Judea, and even there they were subject to revision or veto by the procurator. Outside Judea the local Palestinian sanhedrins were controlled similarly by Antipas or Philip, while outside of Palestine Roman law of course took precedence.
Taxation was determined in Judea by the procurator, and elsewhere in Palestine by the tetrarchs. The collection of the taxes, all through the ancient world, was carried on by regular companies of professional collectors, who bid for the privilege; these collectors [ p. 257 ] were the “publicans.” [10] These taxes, while severe, were not utterly exorbitant, but they were complicated by the ancient law of the tithe. This laid a tax of 10 per cent on the gross yield of all agricultural produce, which had to be paid to the temple authorities, over and above all other taxes. As other industries than agriculture were few, the result was a crushing burden, which drove many Jews out of Palestine. Consequently, the “rich” man was usually under suspicion of dishonesty. On the other hand, in the warm climate and the open-air life, the “poor” were spared the squalid conditions of city slums.
The religion of the Jews was explicitly the religion of the Law. Consequently the correct interpretation of the Law was a vital matter and a chief Jewish preoccupation. The official interpreters, as has been said, were the elders, but there were so many elders that their average standard of education was necessarily low, and they depended for guidance largely on experts. These, known as “scribes,” and addressed by the title “Rabbi,” were men who devoted their lives to the study of the Law, after a period of elaborate training.[11] But, while a scribe’s opinion was always entitled to respect, it was not binding until it had been adopted by a sanhedrin.
The decisions of the sanhedrins, especially those of the Great Sanhedrin, and the teaching of great scribes [ p. 258 ] of the past made up the “tradition.” But in the New Testament period this tradition was not yet uniform in principle, and there were, broadly speaking, two conflicting theories. [12] One party maintained that the Law must always be interpreted literally. So new problems, not expressly treated in the Law, lay outside the Law. This was the view of the Sadducees. The other party held that the Law, being divine, must have foreseen every possible contingency, and therefore was capable of indefinite expansion; from the standpoint of the Law there was no such thing as a “new problem.” Such was the teaching of the Pharisees.
Since “Scribes” and “Pharisees” occur together so often in the Gospels, the terms are frequently confused, but in reality they describe entirely different things. The “Scribe” was a man learned in the Law, who might belong to any party or to none. [13] The “Pharisee” was an adherent of a definite party, and was not necessarily a man of special learning. To be sure, most Scribes were probably Pharisees, but only a small proportion of Pharisees were Scribes.
The Sadducees, so far as we can make out, [14] were an aristocratic group, the “blue-blood” of Israel, many of them of especially pure priestly lineage. They lived chiefly in Jerusalem and included the “chief priests” who had charge of the temple. Most high priests seem to have been Sadducees. As aristocrats, they were intensely [ p. 259 ] conservative. The Pharisees were organized around 130 b.c. as a sort of religious order, the members taking vows to observe a rigorous rule of life. [15] Their view of ever-fresh possibilities in the Law rendered them in some measure progressives; it was they who made the doctrine of a future life an article of faith for Israel.
There were about six thousand Pharisees in Jesus’ day, while the number of Sadducees was probably much smaller. The latter held most of the offices in the Great Sanhedrin, but the Pharisees controlled a majority of the votes.
The only form of worship prescribed by the Law was that of the temple. This worship, despite its gorgeousness, was losing its hold on the people. For one thing, the priests as such were not held in special respect, since any male descendant of Aaron was a priest by the fact of his birth, [16] and multitudes of Jews claimed such descent. [17] So numerous, in fact, were the priests that they could officiate in the temple only a few days each year, while the privilege of burning incense never came more than once in a lifetime. [18] Outside the temple the priests had practically no duties at all, and they lived and worked like other Jews; it is for this reason that priests are so rarely mentioned in the Gospels. The high-priesthood, moreover, had forfeited all prestige. The old high-priestly line became [ p. 260 ] extinct about 160 b.c., and, in Jesus’ day, the high priest was merely an ordinary priest appointed to discharge high-priestly duties. He was named by the procurator and paid for his office in money. He could be—and was—removed and replaced at the procurator’s pleasure.
The “synagogues,” of which we hear so much in the Gospels, were “lay” organizations, for which the Old Testament had made no provision. [19] Their primary purpose was instruction in the Law, with worship as a secondary consideration. In the synagogues, as Jesus knew them, readings from the Law and the Prophets, an instruction, and a few incidental prayers made up the service. Anyone could officiate at any part of the ceremonies, but the larger synagogues were under the control of a “ruler,” [20] who selected the officiants from the congregation.
St. Matthew ii: 22. ↩︎
By a different mother. ↩︎
St. Luke iii: i. “Caesarea Philippi” was named from him. ↩︎
St. Mark vi: 17. ↩︎
Her name, which does not occur in the Gospels, was Salome. It may be of interest to know that, after the death of John the Baptist, she married her uncle Philip and appears to have made him a very good wife. ↩︎
Tetrarchs were not permitted to keep a standing army, but vrere allowed a sufficient force of soldiers to act as constabulary. ↩︎
Hence the Roman soldiers who performed the crucifixion. ↩︎
Their residence was at Cssarea Stratonitis, on the seacoast. ↩︎
St. Matthew x: 17. ↩︎
Although they had the authority of the government behind them, publicans were not public officials. ↩︎
St. Luke, in fact, calls them “lawyers.” In later days scribes v ere ordained, but probably not at Jesus’ time. ↩︎
In reality there were more than two theories, but the others are not important. ↩︎
So today the fact that a clergyman holds a doctorate tells us nothing about his denomination. ↩︎
We really do not know very much about them. ↩︎
Chiefly as regards tithing and the laws of ritual purity. ↩︎
With a few unimportant exceptions. ↩︎
Today any Jew named “Cohen”—and many others—is supposedly a priest. ↩︎
St. Luke i: 9. ↩︎
In theory any ten male adults may organize themselves as a “synagogue” at any time. ↩︎
Appointed by the local sanhedrin. ↩︎