<)u the restoration of independence, Judas Maeca- baius sought an alliance with the Romans, who were then gaining an ascendency in the East, as a counter- poise to the neighboring state of Syria (1 Mace, viii ; Joseph. Ant. xii, 10, 6) : this alliance was renewed by Jonathan (1 Mace, xii, 1; Ant. xiii, 5, 8), and by Si- mon (1 Mace, xv, 17 ; Ant. xiii, 7, 3); on the last oc- casion the independence of the Jews was recognised and formally notified to the neighboring nations, B.C. 110 (1 Mace, xv, 22, 23). Treaties of a friendly na- ture were at the same period concluded with the Lac- edemonians under an impression that they came of a common stock (1 Mace, xii, 2; xiv, 20; Ant. xii, 4, 10; xiii, 5, 8). The Roman alliance was again re- newed by Hyrcanus, B.C. 128 (Ant. xiii, 9, 2), after his defeat by Antiochus Sidetes, and the losses he had sustained were repaired. This alliance, however, ul- timately proved fatal to the independence of the Jews : the rival claims of Hyrcanus ami Aristobulus having been referred to Pompey, B.C. 63, lie availed himself of the opportunity of placing the country under trib- ute (Ant. xiv, 4, 1). Finally, Herod was raised to the sovereignty by the Roman senate, acting under the advice of M. Antony (Ant. xiv, 14, 5).
2. Their. Religious and Political Effects. — This inter- course with the heathen appears to have considerably weakened the sentiment of separation, which, in the case of the Hebrews, it was of the utmost importance to maintain. The disastrous consequences of even
the seemingly least objectionable alliances may be seen in the long train of evils, both to the kingdom of Israel and of Judah, which ensued from the marriage of Ahab with Jezebel, the king of Tyre's daughter. See Ahab ; Jezebel. These consequences had teen manifested even in the time of Solomon ; for he form- ed matrimonial alliances with most of the neighboring kingdoms, and to the influence of his idolatrous wives are ascribed the abominations which darkened the lat- ter days of the wise king (1 Kings xi, 1-8). The prophets, who were alive to these consequences, often raised their voices against such dangerous connections (1 Kings xx, 38 ; 2 Chron. xvi, 7 ; xix, 2 ; xxv, 7, etc. ; Isa. vii, 17) ; but it was found a difficult matter to induce even the best kings to place such absolute faith in Jehovah, the Head of their state, as to neglect altogether those human resources and alliances by which other nations strengthened themselves against their enemies. Remarkable instances of this are those of Asa, one of the most pious monarchs of Judah (1 Kings xv, 16-20), and, in a less degree, of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi, 5, etc. ; 2 Chron. xviii, 16, etc.). In later times the Maccabees appear to have considered them- selves unrestrained by any but the ordinary pruden- tial considerations in contracting alliances ; but they confined their treaties to distant st:.tes, which were by no means likely ever to exercise th:;t influence upon the religion of the people which was the chief object of dread. The most remarkable alliances of this kind in the whole Hebrew history are those which were contracted with the. Romans, who were then begin- ning to take a part in the affairs of Western Asia. Judas claimed their friend!}' intervention in a nego- tiation then pending between the Jews and Antiochus Etipator (2 Mace, xi, 34 sq.) ; and two years after he sent ambassadors to the banks cf the Tiber to propose a treaty of alliance end amity. By the terms of this treaty the Romans ostensibly threw over the Jews the broad shield of their dangerous protection, promising to assist them in their wars, and forbidding any who were at peace with themselves to be at war with the Jews, or to assist directly or indirectly those who were so. The Jews, on their part, engaged to assist the Iiomans to the utmost of their power in any wars they might wage in those parts. The obligations of this treaty might be enlarged or diminished by the mutual consent of the contracting paitics. This mem- orable treaty, having been concluded at Rome, was graven upon brass and deposited in the Capitol (1 Mace, viii, 22-28; Joseph. Ant. xii, 10; ether treaties with the Romans are given in lib. xiii).
3. Rites by which they were ratified. — From the time of the patriarchs a covenant of alliance was sealed by the blood of some victim. A heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon were immolated in confirmation of the covenant between the Lord and Abraham (Gen. xv, 9). The animal or animals sac- rificed were cut in two (except birds, ver. 10), to typ- ify the doom of perjurers. Between the two parts the contracting parties passed, involving imprecations of a similar destruction upon him who should break the terms of the alliance (Gen. xv, 10; cf. Liv. i, 24); hence the expression T'1~'2 T^3 (= optua Ti^iveiv, fcedus Icere), to make (lit. to cut) a treaty; hence, also, the use of the term i~l2N: (lit. imprecation) for a covenant. This usage often recurs in the prophets, and there are allusions to it in the New Testament (Jer. xxxiv, 18 ; Dan. xiii, 55 ; Matt, xxiv, 51 ; Luke xii, 46). The perpetuity of covenants of alliance thus contracted is expressed by calling them " covenants of salt" (Num. xviii, 19; 2 Chron. xiii, 5), salt being the symbol of incorruption, or fidelity, inasmuch as it was applied to the sacrilices (Lev. ii, 13), and proba- bly used, as among the Arabs, at hospitable entertain- ments. Sec Salt. Occasionally a pillar or a heap of stones was set up as a memorial of the alliance