History of the Jews (Vol. 1-6). Graetz Heinrich

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ although the people anxiously strove for unity, there arose differences of opinion not easy to smooth over, and liable to produce friction. The people had two leaders: Zerubbabel, of the royal house of David, and Joshua, the high-priest, of Aaronide descent. One was at the head of the secular, the other, of the spiritual power. It was impossible to prevent the one power from occasionally encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the other. A circumstance in Zerubbabel's favour was the people's allegiance to the royal house of David, and he was a living reminder of a glorious past, and a pledge for an equally brilliant future, as foretold by the prophets. The prophet Haggai had called him the chosen favourite of God, His precious Signet-ring. But this in itself was an obstacle. It gave the enemies of the Judæans the opportunity to charge the community with the purpose of proclaiming him as the successor of David to the throne. On the other hand, the prophet Zechariah had proclaimed that the high-priest Joshua should wear the crown, ascend the throne, and effect the realisation of the Messianic hopes. In this way he gave the preference to the high-priest, producing tension and divisions. Peace could only be restored by the withdrawal of one of the two leaders: their joint rule could not fail to be the occasion of excitement and irritation. A choice had to be made between the two, and Zerubbabel was obliged to give way, the high-priest being more necessary than the king's son. It is probable that Zerubbabel left Jerusalem and returned to Babylon, and thus the house of David retreated into the background.

      After Zerubbabel's withdrawal, the leadership of the community was put into the hands of the high-priest Joshua, and after his death into those of his son Jehoiakim. Was this change a desirable one? True, no evil is reported of the first two high-priests, nor do they seem to have done anything specially praiseworthy towards uplifting and strengthening the community. The supreme command over the people does not seem to have been given to the high-priest, but to have been vested in a governor or administrator (Pechah), appointed over Judæa either by the Persian kings or by the satraps of Syria and Phœnicia. This official does not appear to have lived in Jerusalem, but to have visited the city from time to time, where, seated on a throne, he heard and decided disputes, but not infrequently rather caused dissensions and aggravated existing bad feelings, in order to raise complaints against the Judæans. For, as some Judæans nourished the hope, held out by the prophets, that Judah might yet become a mighty power, to whom kings and nations would bow, the suspicion that the people were plotting a defection from Persia was not removed with the retirement of Zerubbabel. Accusations on that ground commenced directly after the death of Darius, in the reign of his successor, Xerxes (Ahasuerus, 485–464). The enemies of the Judæans, particularly the Samaritans, did not fail to draw the governor's attention to the disloyalty of the Judæans, and thus caused unfavourable decrees to be issued against them at court. Added to this, the successive governors tried to oppress the landowners by excessive demands. The position of the Judæans in their own country, which they had entered with such buoyant hope, grew worse and worse in the second and third generations.

      In order to free themselves, on the one side at least, from these constant troubles, the most distinguished Judæan families took a step that led in the end to mischievous complications. They approached the neighbouring peoples, or received the advances of the latter, in a friendly spirit, and as a proof of the sincerity of their feelings, they began to form connections by marriage. As in the days when the Israelites first occupied the land of Canaan, in the time of the Judges, the necessity for friendly intercourse with neighbouring tribes led to mixed marriages, so during the second occupation of Palestine by the Israelites, similar relations led to similar results. But the circumstances differed, inasmuch as the Canaanites, Hittites, and other original dwellers in the land practised abominable idolatry, and infected the Israelites with their vicious customs, while the new neighbours of the Judæan commonwealth, particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were longing earnestly and sincerely to take part in the divine service at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The principal Judæan families determined to admit the foreigners into the community, and the high-priest, of that time, either Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the Samaritans and other neighbouring people, and even some members of the family of the high-priest formed such connections.

      The leader of the Samaritans at that time was Sanballat, a man of undaunted strength of will and energy of action, clever, cunning, audacious and persevering. He was an honest proselyte, who believed in the God of Israel, and desired to worship in His Temple; but he determined, as it were, to take by storm the kingdom of Heaven. If he were not allowed a part in it voluntarily, he would seize it by force or by cunning.

      But not only the Samaritans, also the Moabites and the Ammonites were among the people anxious to maintain friendly relations with the Judæans. Tobiah, the leader of the Ammonites, was doubly allied to Judæan families. He had married a daughter of the noble family of Arach, and a distinguished man, Meshullam, the son of Berechiah, had given his daughter in marriage to Tobiah's son. But mixed marriages with Ammonites and Moabites were specifically prohibited by the Law, until the tenth generation after conversion.

      The leaders of the Judæan community, the high-priest and others, who were not quite prepared to violate the law, doubtless eased their consciences by some mild interpretation of the text. But not all were so pliable. A small number of the noblest families had kept themselves pure from mixed marriages, which they deplored as an infraction of the law and as a cause of deterioration of the Judæan race. More especially the singers, who were the cultivators and preservers of the Hebrew language and of its ancient, venerated literature, kept themselves clear of mixed marriages. They may have raised their voices against the pliability of their co-religionists, against this blending with the stranger, but, as they were in the minority, their voices were not heeded. But when a leading authority appeared in Jerusalem from the land of exile, the minority cried out loudly against what had taken place, and a complete reaction followed, from which disagreeable complications necessarily ensued.

      It is but rarely the case that historical reformations are made with such suddenness that the contemporary witnesses of the change are themselves affected by it, and are reminded at every turn that old things have passed away, and that a new order has arisen. In general the people who live during an important historical crisis are not aware of the changes occurring in themselves, in their opinions, their customs, and even in their language. Such a change, imperceptible at first, but complete and effectual, took place in the Judæans during the first half of the fifth century. This transformation did not proceed from the community of Judæa, but from those who remained in the land of exile; it soon, however, penetrated to the mother-country, and impressed its stamp upon her.

      In Babylonia, the land of the captivity, there had remained a considerable number of the descendants of the exiles, either from material considerations, or for other reasons. But they had been touched by the unbounded enthusiasm of their co-religionists, and they had shown their sympathy by rich gifts and fervent wishes. The Babylonian Judæans laid great stress upon maintaining their own peculiarities and their own nationality. They kept themselves apart from all their neighbours, married only members of their own nation, and were guided by the inherited Law as their rule of life. Their absence from the mother-country served but to make them obey the more strictly the behests of the Law, which thus formed the bond of union that bound them together as members of one community. They could not offer sacrifices, nor keep the observances connected with the Temple service, but all the more scrupulously did they cling to those customs that were independent of the sanctuary, such as the Sabbath, the Holy Days, circumcision, and the dietary laws. Without doubt they had houses of prayer, where they assembled at stated times. Even the Hebrew tongue they cultivated to such an extent at least that it could not become a strange language to them, although they employed the Aramaic or Chaldaic in their intercourse with their neighbours and among themselves. They obtained a correct knowledge of the Hebrew from the scriptures which they had brought with them, and which they made the object of careful study. They gave particular heed to that portion of these scriptures to which, heretofore, little or only occasional attention had been paid, namely the Pentateuch, with its code of laws and observances. During the time of the captivity, the writings of the prophets had chiefly been read, because СКАЧАТЬ