46
NEW TESTAMENT TIMES
been taken possession of during the Exile by the Edomites, and the post-exilic community was at first far too weak to drive back the intruders.* The boundary between this New-Edom and Judea was formed in the 2nd cent. B.C. by the town of Beth-zur, and this was, in all probability, approxi- mately the division between the respective terri- tories also at an earlier period. According to Neh 6, the original N.W. boundary appears to have been the Plain of Ono (bik ‘ath ’Oné, probably the modern Kefr-dnd). But ata later period the Samaritans, who lived at constant feud with the Jews, must have got possession of three places inhabited by Jews, namely Lydda, Ramathaim, and Apherema (1 Mac 11*). In the Maccabeean period, however, Judvea underwent considerable expansion. The three places just named were taken from the Samaritans and restored to the Jews as early as the time of Jonathan. After- wards the boundary was extended still farther to the north, for, according to Josephus (BJ 111. iii. 5 ; Ant. XIV. iii. 4), the N. boundary of Judzea ran by Borkaos (prob. the modern Berit) in the hill- country and Kores (now Kurdwa) in the Jordan Valley. The country in the south inhabited by the Edomites, which now bore the name Jdumea, was conquered by John Hyrcanus. As it was originally Israelitish land, the inhabitants were compelled to adopt the Law and submit to circumcision. Accordingly, from that time onwards (in confor- mity with the prescription of Dt 23°), they were regarded as Jews, although they continue to be called Idumeans. That they also regarded them- selves as genuine Jews is evident, for instance, from the words attributed to them by Josephus (BJ Iv. iv. 4, rv marpiwy iepov-. . . THs Kow fs marptdos), but of course their foreign origin could not be wholly forgotten.| On the other hand, in the cities on the Mediterranean coast, which had only transitory periods of subjection to the Jews, the population was preponderatingly heathen, al- though considerable Jewish minorities existed in them. Only in Joppa (Jaffa) were the Jews in the majority, this city having continued after the death of Herod to be united with Judza. During the war for freedom it played, accordingly, a prominent part, and had to be twice captured by the Romans (Jos. Ant. VIL. xi. 4; BJ IL. xviii. 10, NES axa).
To the north of Judea lay Samaria, which stretched as far as the Plain of Jezreel. The population of this district sprang partly from the ancient Israelites, but had received a strong inter- mixture through the heathen peoples who were settled here by the Assyrian conquerors (cf. 2 K 1774), In course of time these heathen elements were absorbed by the Israelitish remnants, but the ill-will shown by the Samaritans towards the re- turning Jews kept the latter from ever forgetting the impure origin of their northern neighbours. Matters came to an open breach when the Samari- tans built a temple of their own upon Mt. Gerizim, and thus renounced all connexion with the com- munity at Jerusalem. It is true that they, equally with the Jews, acknowledged the Law, but the breach remained irreparable, and the Samaritans continued excluded from the further development of Judaism. The contempt of the Jews which found vent in the nickname ‘ Cuth- zeans’ (Jos. Ant. IX. xiv. 3, XI. iv. 4, and in the Talmud), and which finds very sharp expression on the part even of the otherwise mild Ben Sira
* On Neh 112°. cf, now, above all, E. Meyer, Entstehung des Judentums, 106f., 114 ff.
+ Josephus says of Herod that, as an Idumean, he was only half a Jew (Ant. x1y. xii. 2). On the other hand, when Agrippa I. once felt hurt by the epithet ‘foreigner’ in Dt 1715,
the people, whom he had gained over by his friendly offices, cried out, ‘Thou art our brother’ (Meg. S6td vii. 8).
NEW TESTAMENT TIMES
(Sir 50%! «Two nations my soul abhorreth, and the third is no people: the inhabitants of Seir and Philistia, and the foolish nation that dwelleth in Sichenv’), was repaid by the Samaritans with bitter hate. This manifested itself at times in the form of attacks upon the pilgrims journeying to Jerusalem, who, in consequence, frequently pre- ferred to take the long roundabout way by the east of the Jordan (Lk 9, Mk 10!; Jos. Ant. xx. vi. 1). The destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus made no change in these re- lations, but rather embittered the feelings of the Samaritans still more.
As to Galilee, we learn from 1 Mace 5 that in the course of the post-exilic period Jews had settled in it, but that during the first half of the 2nd cent. B.C. these were still so few that they could not hold their own against the heathen popula- tion, and were consequently brought by Simon to Jerusalem. It was not until the time of Aristobulus I., as Schiirer (GJV? i. 275f.) was the first to prove, that this portion of the land and its inhabitants, regarding whose nationality we have unfortunately no more precise informa- tion, were compelled on the same ground as the Idumzeans to adopt the Law (Jos. Ané. XIII. xi. 3). It is extremely probable, however, that there were further settlements of Jews of purer birth in these fertile districts, so that they became more com- pletely Judaized. It is characteristic in this re- spect that Judith (8!) speaks of ‘our fathers,’ 7.e. the ancient Israelites. At the time of Christ the land of Galilee was essentially Jewish, and had its Pharisees and scribes (Lk 7**, Mt 89), as well as its synagogues (Mt 12°, Lk 4°75). The designa- tion ‘half-Jews’ is never applied to the Galileans as it is to the Idumeans.* It may be added that the Judaizing of Galilee embraced only the ~ southern portion of it, for Kedesh, lying to the west of Lake Hfleh, marked the boundary be- tween the land inhabited by Jews and the territory of the Tyrians. +