Page images
PDF
EPUB

lates,' that by order of Titus the whole western wall of the city, and the three towers of Hippicus, Phasäelus, and Mariamne, were left standing; the former as a protection for the troops that remained here in garrison, and the latter as a memorial to posterity of the strength of the fortifications, which Roman valour had overcome. Titus stationed here at his departure the whole of the tenth legion, besides several squadrons of cavalry and cohorts of foot. For these troops and their attendants there of course remained dwellings; and there is no reason to suppose, that such Jews as had taken no part in the war, or perhaps also Christians, were prohibited from taking up their abode amid the ruins, and building them up so far as their necessities might require. But, on the other hand, the language of Eusebius is no doubt exaggerated, when in commenting upon a prophecy of Zechariah,3 he assumes, in order to explain it, that the city was only half destroyed under Titus. The remark of Jerome is probably nearer the truth, that " for fifty years after its destruction, until the time of Adrian, there still existed remnants of the city." This accords also with other subsequent accounts.

For half a century after its destruction, there is no mention of Jerusalem in history. The Jews in Egypt had revolted under Trajan, and had been subdued. That emperor died in A. D. 117, and was

1) B. J. VII. 1. 1.

2) Ibid. VII. 1. 2.

3) Zech. xiv. 2, "And half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city."

4) Demonstr. Evang. lib. VI. c. 18. Τότε μὲν οὖν εἰκὸς τὸ ἡμίου τῆς πόλεως ἀπολωλέναι τῇ πολιορκία, ὡς φησιν ἡ προφητεία. Compare Jerome on the same passage.

5) Hieron. Epist. ad Dardanum, Opp. ed. Mart. II. p. 610, “ Civita

tis usque ad Hadrianum principem per quinquaginta annos mansere reliquae."-When Chateaubriand asserts that the Christians returned from Pella to Jerusalem soon after its destruction by Titus, this is nothing more nor less than a mere figment of imagination; Itineraire, Introd. p. 124. Paris 1837.*

6) See generally, Münter's Jüdischer Krieg unter Trajan und Hadrian, 1821, p. 13, etc.

followed by Adrian, who spent the greater part of his reign in journeying through the provinces of his vast empire. He appears to have been in Palestine about A. D. 130;1 up to which time, with slight exceptions, the Jews had remained quiet, though waiting doubtless for a favourable opportunity of shaking off the yoke of Roman oppression, and reasserting their national independence. The emperor could not but be aware of the state of feeling prevalent among them; and it was natural that he should adopt precautionary measures to secure the fidelity and quiet of the province. One of these was to disperse the remaining Jews in colonies in various parts, especially along the northern coast of Africa. A measure more important in its consequences, was the rebuilding of Jerusalem as a fortified place, by which to keep in check the whole Jewish population.

This determination of Adrian is assigned by the historian Dio Cassius, as the cause of the subsequent revolt and war of the Jews; who could not bear that foreigners should dwell in their city, nor that strange gods should be set up within it.3 Eusebius, on the other hand, relates, that the city was rebuilt and the colony founded by Adrian, after the revolted Jews had been once more subdued. These accounts are easily reconciled; the works had probably already been commenced, when they were broken off by the rebellion, and after this was quelled, they were again resumed and completed.5

1) Münter 1. c. pp. 29, 30.

2) Colonies of Jews sent by Adrian to Libya are mentioned by several historians; see Münter 1. c. p. 35.

3) Dio Cass. lib. LXIX. c. 12. 4) Hist. Ecc. IV. 6.

5) So Basnage Hist. des Juifs Tom. V. p. 1117. Rotterd. 1706. Münter 1. c. p. 39.-The year in

which the building of the new city was begun, is very doubtful. According to the Chron. Paschale seu Alexandr. it would appear to have been in A. D. 119. But this seems quite too early; as Adrian was not in Palestine until about A. D. 130, and the war did not break out until after his departure. Münter, pp. 73, 74.

The undertaking of this renovation, then, was the signal for the Jews to break out into open revolt, so soon as the emperor had forsaken the East, apparently about A. D. 132. The long smothered embers of hatred and discontent now burst forth into a flame, which overran and consumed both the land and the people with terrible desolation. The leader of this war was the celebrated though mysterious Barcochba, "Son of a Star." His success at first was great; the Jews of Palestine all flocked to his standard; the Christians also were tampered with, but refusing to join him were afterwards treated with horrid cruelty.2 He appears to have soon got possession of Jerusalem. This is evident from the fact of the subsequent recapture of the city by the Romans; and it would seem also, that coins (some of which are still extant) were struck by him in the Holy City. The Romans at first made light of the rebellion, and disregarded the efforts of this despised people; and it was not until the spirit of revolt had spread among the Jews throughout the empire, and the whole world (as Dio expresses it) was moved, that Adrian awoke from his apathy. The rebel Jews had already got possession of fifty fortified places, and nine hundred and eighty-five important villages. The emperor now collected troops from various quarters, and took measures to prosecute the war in earnest. He despatched his best officers into the revolted country; and recalling his most distinguished general, Julius Severus, from Britain, sent him to take charge of the war in the East. The struggle was long and desperate.

1) Münter, 1. c. p. 45.

4

2) Justin. Mart. Apol. I. 31. Euseb. Chron. ad. An. XVIII Hadriani. Orosii Histor. VII. 12. See Münter 1. c. p. 55.

3) Münter, l. c. pp. 62, 63.

The Jews were

4) An inscription now at Rome records, that even the Gaetuli in Mauritania furnished troops for this expedition against the Jews; Münter, p. 84.

numerous, and fought with the bravery of despair. Julius attacked their smaller parties; cut off their supplies of provisions; and thus was able, more slowly indeed, but also with less danger, to wear out their strength and finally destroy them.'

It is singular that the siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Romans during this war, is nowhere described, and only once mentioned, by a cotemporary writer. The historian Appian in the same century gives it a passing notice;2 but all we know further is from the slight mention of it by Eusebius and later authors, the earliest of whom wrote two centuries after the event. The writings of the Rabbins, the repositories of Jewish tradition, are silent as to the siege; though they speak of the desecration of the site of the temple. Yet the various testimonies, although scattered, are too numerous and definite to admit of doubt as to the fact. Jerusalem must naturally have been one of the chief points of Jewish defence; and the possession of it one of the main objects of the Roman policy. Of the circumstances of the siege and capture we have no account. It was not now, as under Titus, the scene of the last great struggle of the war; for this took place in the siege of the strong but now unknown city of Bether, described as situated not far

[blocks in formation]

λεως μέρος ἡμίου πολιορκηθὲν αὐ θις ἐξελαύνεται, ὡς ἐξ ἐκείνου καὶ εἰς δεῦρο πάμπαν ἄβατον γενέσθαι TOV Tónov. So also Chrysost. Orat. III. in Judaeos, Tom. I. p. 431. Frkf. 1698. Hieron. Comm. in Joel i. 4, "Elii quoque Hadriani contra Judaeos expeditionem legimus, qui ita Jerusalem murosque subvertit," etc. Ejusd. Comm. in Ezech. v. 1; in Habac. ii. 12-14, etc. etc. See these and other writers cited in Deyling 1. c. p. 455. Münter l. c. p. 69-71.

from Jerusalem.' Here the bloody tragedy was brought to a close, in the eighteenth year of Adrian, A. D. 135.2 Thousands and thousands of the captive Jews were sold as slaves; first at the terebinth near Hebron, where of old the tent of their forefather Abraham had stood, and where there had long been a frequented market; afterwards at Gaza; and then the remainder were transported in ships as slaves to Egypt.3 By a decree of Adrian, the Jews were henceforth forbidden even to approach their Holy City; and guards were stationed to prevent them from making the attempt.*

Several of the writers who allude to the capture of Jerusalem under Adrian, speak of the city as having been laid a second time in ruins, and utterly destroyed. But this circumstance stands in direct contradiction with the known purpose of Adrian to rebuild the former city; a purpose which he afterwards accomplished, and which he had probably begun to carry into execution before the war broke out; since this is assigned as the very cause of the war. It must also

1) Euseb. Hist. Ecc. IV. 6. The usual Talmudic name is. See Lightfoot Opp. II. p. 143. Reland Palaest. p. 639. Münter l. c. p. 77.

seq.

2) Münter, p. 79.

3) Hieron. Comm. in Zachar. xi. 4, "Legamus veteres historias et traditiones plangentium Judaeorum, quod in tabernaculo Abrahae, ubi nunc per annos singulos mercatus celeberrimus exercetur, post ultimam eversionem quam sustinuerunt ab Adriano, multa hominum millia venundata sint, et quae vendi non potuerint, translata in Aegyptum, tam naufragio et fame quam gentium caede truncata." Ejusd. Comm. in Jerem. xxxi. 15. Chronicon Paschale seu Alexandr. A. D. 119, p. 253. Sozom. Hist. Ecc. II. 4. See Reland Palaest. p. 715. Münter 1. c. p. 85, seq.

4) Justin. Mart. Apol. I. 47,

ὅτι δὲ φυλάσσεται (Ιερουσαλήμ) ὑφ' ὑμῶν, ὅπως μηδεὶς ἐν αὐτῇ γένηται, καὶ θάνατος τοῦ καταλαβομένου Ἰουδαίου ἐσιόντος ὥρισθαι, ἀκριβῶς ἐπίστασθε. Euseb. H. E. IV. 6. Ejusd. Chron. ἔνθεν εἴργονται πάντῃ τῆς πόλεως ἐπιβαίνειν προστάξει θεοῦ καὶ Ῥωμαίων κράτει. Sulpic. Severi Hist. Sac. II. 45, "Militum cohortem custodias in perpetuum agitare jussit, quae Judaeos omnes Hierosolymae aditu arceret."

5) Jerome is the earliest; Comm. in Ezech. v. 1, "Post quinquagenta annos sub Elio Hadriano usque ad solum incensa atque deleta est, ita ut pristinum quoque nomen amiserit." Eusebius, nearly a century earlier, merely says, that "the place became inaccessible to the Jews;" see Note 3, on p. 6, above. Münter p. 69, seq.

6) See p. 4, above.

« PreviousContinue »