CHAPTER XIII

EXTINCTION OF THE PATRIARCHATE AND FINAL DISPERSION OF THE JEWS

THE Jewish schools and the Jewish nation in the Roman provinces had attained the highest point of prosperity, when both declined, the schools to be finally closed, and the nation to be exposed to a storm of persecution which, in duration. and severity, far surpassed aught that had formerly been endured. No doubt they had not made proper use of their brief liberty. Those who had so frequently suffered from the intolerance of others, had not learned to extend again that freedom which they had so earnestly claimed for themselves. More especially their conduct towards Christians exhibited a degree of bitterness and a desire for extermination, which, when occasion offered, the latter were but too ready to retort. In truth, toleration, as distinct from persecution or indifferentism on the part of a ruling or influential majority, seems to be a virtue of most difficult attainment, requiring a thorough conviction not only of the truthfulness, but of the spirituality of our principles, as independent from and not to be promoted by material means.

The close of the reign of Alexander Severus is contemporaneous with the commencement of those great troubles which terminated in the destruction of the Roman Empire. In the trans-Euphratic provinces, to the history of which we refer at present only so far as absolutely necessary, a new dynasty, representing the ancient Persian dynasty and religion, had violently displaced the Parthian rule. [The new king, Ardashir, declared war against Rome, and invaded Mesopotamia

and Cappadocia (230).1 Alexander Severus was compelled to march against the invaders. He seems to have gained some advantage, but in the end retired without honour to Antioch.] Another invasion soon called him to the banks of the Rhine (235), where the rude Maximinus, a Thracian by birth, held an important command. Here the disaffection of the army, originally aroused by overtures for peace, ended in the murder of the emperor and of his mother, and the elevation of Maximinus to the imperial dignity; and now a period ensued which, for its confusion and pernicious effects on the commonwealth, is unparalleled. [Of twenty-three emperors who assumed the purple between the years 211 and 284, very few escaped a violent death; while in 237-238, six emperors perished in the course of a few months.3] Most of these emperors were nominated by the soldiers from amongst their generals, and speedily gave place to other equally worthless usurpers. It appears strange-almost an irony upon Rome-that at that very period one of these emperors, Philip the Arabian, should have celebrated by great festivities the Roman millennium,--1000 years having elapsed since the foundation of the city.

Amidst these rapid and frequent changes in the tenure of the supreme office in the State, one episode at least deserves. to be more particularly recorded, not only from the interest, we might almost call it the romance, attaching to it, but from its connection with our history. The new Persian dynasty had proved everywhere victorious, and the Roman emperor, Valerianus, had fallen into the hands of its representative, Sapor. His weak son, Gallienus, was both unable and unwilling to rescue his father. At that time Odænathus, the husband of Zenobia, was the hereditary chief of Palmyra.* This city, known also as Tadmor, was built on an oasis in the midst of a desert, north-east from Damascus, and at about the same distance (sixty miles) south-west from the Euphrates,

1 Comp. Mommsen, Provinces, ii. 89 f.; Schiller, Kaiserzeit, i. 779 ft.

2 Herodian, vi. 8, 9; Capitolinus, In Max. duo, 5–8.

Comp. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, p. 495 f.

4 Comp. Mommsen, Provinces, ii, 96–112.

on the high road between the Roman and Parthian monarchies. From its advantageous position, beauty, and salubrity, that city had gradually risen to opulence and importance. Odænathus was soon involved in a quarrel with the Persian monarch.1 We are told that, while Sapor was prosecuting his successful incursions into the Roman provinces, a train of camels, laden with the richest presents for him, arrived from Odænathus. But Sapor, offended because the Palmyrene chief had not appeared in person, haughtily replied to the embassy, that "if Odænathus entertained a hope of mitigating his punishment, he was to fall prostrate at the foot of his throne with his hands bound behind his back." Odænathus, repulsed in his friendly advances, threw himself into the Roman cause. He fought with success against Sapor, reduced Nisibis, and twice besieged Ctesiphon, the Persian capital.2 During six years Palmyra defended the Roman Empire, and well did Odænathus deserve the honours which Gallienus conferred upon him.

Jewish writings speak of a certain Papa bar Nazar,3 [who is styled both a king and a robber chief]; and it has been supposed that this individual, who was designated by some of the Jews as "the little horn speaking great things," was none other than Odænathus, [one of whose ancestors bore the name of Nasor 5]. According to Jewish historians, Papa bar Nazar took and destroyed the Jewish city of Nahardea. [An obscure passage in the Talmud brings Papa bar Nazar into connection with Zenobia, while Zenobia is represented as in direct conflict with some influential Rabbins.7] The Jews, who were at first adverse to the Persian power, whose fanaticism gave them too much cause for apprehension, had gradually become reconciled to it, and stood in friendly and even intimate relations with the new dynasty. On the other hand, Palmyra, as the ally of Rome, seems to have shared in the cordial hatred felt by the Jews for the Roman power.

1 Petrus Patricius, in Patrol. Gr. cxiii. 676.

2 Vita Gallieni, 10; Trig. Tyran. 15.

4 Comp. Grätz, iv. 295, 489 f.

6 Seder Olam Suta, ed. Mayer, p. 113,

5

3 Keth. 51b; Gen. Rab. 76.

Corp. Insc. Gr. iii. 4507.

7 Jer. Ter. viii. 466.

Thus Rabbi Jochanan declared that "he was happy who should witness the fall of Tadmor." 1

About 267, Odænathus was murdered, perhaps on political grounds, when Zenobia assumed the reins of government, and soon showed that she meant not only to call herself, but to act as the Queen of the East.2 If only part of the almost fabulous descriptions of Zenobia are true, that queen must. have surpassed in beauty Cleopatra, in courage Semiramis, and in energy, coupled with liberality of sentiment, the more recent royal ornaments of her sex, Elizabeth of England and Maria Theresa of Austria. To unrivalled beauty she added equal chastity; to fortitude and courage, fertility of device; to administrative wisdom, the faculty of. discerning and availing herself of the talents of others. Nor were arts and sciences less cultivated in Palmyra than statecraft. At her court we find the celebrated philosopher Longinus; [while through her favour and protection Paul of Samosata, the heretical Bishop of Antioch, was able to retain his See, although he had been condemned and deposed by a Council at Antioch for denying the divinity of our Lord 3]. Jews and Christians have in turn claimed and disclaimed Zenobia as their co-religionist. The truth seems to be, that she belonged neither to one nor other of these parties, but shared the general eclectic views of her intimate friends, one of whom, for example, Longinus, could not sufficiently express his sense of the sublimity of the command," Let there be light," in the Mosaic account of Creation.* But Zenobia's reign was cut short, in the midst of her conquests, by the victorious advance of the Emperor Aurelian, who at last took and destroyed Palmyra, and brought her queen in chains to Rome (273).

Under the reign of Diocletian, who ascended the throne in 284, the empire became for a time more settled. However rigorous and systematic were the persecutions of that emperor against the Church, which he had resolved wholly to

extirpate, or against the Samaritans, whom he is said to have forced to worship idols,1 the Synagogue escaped. According to a Jewish tradition,2 some suspicion at first existed against the Synagogue. Enemies had reported that the Patriarch and his friends had spoken in a disparaging manner of Diocletian's origin and mode of accession. Tradition asserts that when the emperor was in Paneas, at some distance from Tiberias, he suddenly sent a message on a Friday afternoon, ordering the Patriarch and the principal Jews to appear before him on Sabbath evening. The order, which seemed to involve the necessity of Sabbath desecration, reached the Patriarch and his friends while taking the Friday bath. However, a friendly demon, the Argonaut, who came to their assistance, undertook and succeeded in conveying them to Paneas before the Sabbath. The emperor, in mark of contempt, ordered the Jews to bathe for several days before appearing in his presence. But at their interview the Patriarch completely conciliated the It is difficult to indicate how much foundation in truth this story may possess. [The Patriarch referred to was Jehuda 11.,3 and Diocletian was in Syria three or four times between the years 288 and 300. Elsewhere it is stated that this emperor treated the inhabitants of Paneas with such harshness, that they resolved to leave their homes. Usually, however, the reign of Diocletian is mentioned with approbation in Jewish writings. Rabbi Chija bar Abba is said even to have risked Levitical defilement in his desire to see the emperor during one of his visits to Palestine."]

emperor.

5

Meantime the Patriarch Rabbi Jehuda II. and his friends and coadjutors had, one by one, been gathered to their fathers. If the first generation of Amoraim exhibited a sad declinature when compared with the Tannaim of former generations, their successors proved still more clearly the decadence of the Synagogue in Palestine. Rabbi Gamaliel IV.,

1 Jer. Ab. Sar. v. 44d.

2 Jer. Ter. viii. 46bc; Gen. Rab. 63. 3 [So Hamb. Enc. ii. 150, "Diocletianus"; Bacher, Pal. Amor. i. 479— after Frankel. Grätz, iv. 302 f., calls this Patriarch Jehuda III.]

* Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverwalt. i. 267.