Читать книгу Palestine, or, the Holy Land: From the Earliest Period to the Present Time - Michael Russell - Страница 15

Table of Contents

History of the Hebrew Commonwealth.

Form of Government after the Death of Joshua; In Egypt; In the Wilderness; Princes of Tribes and Heads of Families; Impatience to take Possession of Promised Land; The Effects of it; Renewal of War; Extent of Holy Land; Opinions of Fleury, Spanheim, Reland, and Lowman; Principle of Distribution; Each Tribe confined to a separate Locality; Property unalienable; Conditions of Tenure; Population of the Tribes; Number of Principal Families; A General Government or National Council; The Judges; Nature of their Authority; Not ordinary Magistrates; Different from Kings, onsuls, and Dictators; Judicial Establishments; Judges and Officers; Described by Josephus; Equality of Condition among the Hebrews; Their Inclination for a Pastoral Life; Freebooters, like the Arabs; Abimelech, Jephthah, and David; Simplicity of the Times; Boaz and Ruth; Tribe of Levi; Object of their Separation; The learned Professions hereditary, after the manner of the Egyptians; The Levitical Cities; Their Number and Uses; Opinion of Michaelis; Summary View of the Times and Character of the Hebrew Judges.

Learned men have long exercised their ingenuity with the view of determining the precise form of the social condition which was assumed by the Israelites when they took possession of the Promised Land. The sacred writer contents himself with stating, that "it came to pass a long time after the Lord had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua waxed old and stricken in age; and he called for all Israel, for their elders, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers." The purport of the address he delivered on this occasion, and which is given at length in the twenty-third chapter of the book which bears his name, was solely to remind them of their religious obligations as the chosen people of Jehovah, and of the labors that they had yet to undergo in subduing the remainder of Canaan. Neither in this speech, nor in the exhortation with which he afterward at Shechem endeavoured to animate the zeal and constancy of his followers, did he make any allusion to the form of government that it behoved them to adopt; declining even to direct their choice in the appointment of a chief, who might conduct their armies in the field, and preside in the deliberations of the national council.

The first events which occurred after the demise of Joshua appear to establish the fact, that to every tribe was committed the management of its own affairs, even to the extent of being entitled to wage war and make peace without the advice or sanction of the general senate. The only government to which the sons of Jacob had hitherto been accustomed, was that most ancient and universal system of rule which gives to the head of every family the direction and control of all its members. We find traces of this natural subordination among them, even under the pressure of Egyptian bondage. During the negotiations which preceded their deliverance under the ministry of Moses, the applications and messages were all addressed to the patriarchal rulers of the people. "Go gather the elders of Israel together," was the command of Jehovah to the son of Amram, when the latter received authority to rescue the descendants of Isaac from the tyranny of Pharaoh.

But during the pilgrimage in the wilderness, and more particularly when the tribes approached the confines of the devoted nations of Canaan, the original jurisdiction of the family chiefs was rendered subordinate to the military power of their inspired leader, who, as the commander of the armies of Israel, was esteemed and obeyed by his followers as the lieutenant of the Lord of Hosts. In truth, the martial labours to which his office called him, placed the successor of Moses at the head of his countrymen in quality of a general, guiding them on their march or forming their array in the field of battle, rather than as a teacher of wisdom or the guardian of a peculiar faith and worship. Until the conquered lands were divided among the victorious tribes, Joshua was a soldier and nothing more; while, on the other hand, the congregation of the Hebrews, who seconded so well his military plans, appear at that juncture on the page of history in no other light than that of veteran troops, rendered hardy by long service in a parching climate, and formidable by the arts of discipline under a skilful and warlike leader.

From the exode, in short, till towards the end of Joshua's administration, we lose sight of that simple scheme of domestic superintendence which Jacob established among his sons. The princes of tribes, and the heads of families, were converted into captains of thousands, of hundreds, and of fifties; regulating their movements by the sound of the trumpet, and passing their days of rest amid the vigilance and formality of a regular encampment. But no sooner did they convert the sword into a ploughshare, and the spear into a pruning-hook, than they unanimously returned to their more ancient form of society. As soon as there appeared a sufficient quantity of land wrested from the Canaanites to afford to the tribes on the western side of the Jordan a competent inheritance, Joshua "sent the people away, and they departed;" and from this moment the military aspect that their community had assumed gave way to the patriarchal model, to which in fact all their institutions bore an immediate reference, and to the restoration of which their strongest hopes and wishes were constantly directed.

Actuated by such views, it cannot be denied that the Hebrews manifested an undue impatience to enjoy the fruits of their successful invasion. They had fought, it should seem, to obtain an inheritance in a rich and pleasant country, rather than to avenge the cause of pure religion, or to punish the idolatrous practices of the children of Moab and Ammon. As soon, therefore, as the fear of their name and the power of their arms had scattered the inhabitants of the open countries, the Israelites began to sow and to plant; being more willing to make a covenant with the residue of the enemy, than to purchase the blessings of a permanent peace by enduring a little longer the fatigue and privations of war. Their eagerness to get possession of the land flowing with milk and honey seems to have compelled Joshua to adopt a measure, which led at no distant period to much guilt and suffering on the part of his people. He consented that they should occupy the vacant fields before the nations which they had been commissioned to displace were finally subdued; that that they should cast lots for provinces which were still in the hands of the native Gentiles; and that they should distribute, by the line and the measuring-rod, many extensive hills and fair valleys which had not yet submitted to the dominion of their swords.

The effects of this injudicious policy soon rendered themselves apparent; and all the evils which were foreseen by the aged servant of God, when he addressed the congregation at Shechem, were realized in a little time to their fullest extent. The Hebrews did indeed find the remnant of the nations among whom they consented to dwell proving scourges in their sides and thorns in their eyes, and still able to dispute with them the possession of the good land which they had been taught to regard as a sacred inheritance conferred upon them in virtue of a divine promise made to their fathers. For example, the author of the book of Judges relates, "the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountains;" for, he adds, "they would not suffer them to come down to the valley." Hence arose the fact, that the Israelites did not for several hundred years complete their conquest of Palestine. The Canaanites, recovering from the terror which had fallen upon them in the commencement of the Hebrew invasion, attempted, not only to regain possession of their ancient territory, but even to obliterate all traces of their defeat and subjection. What movements were made by the petty sovereigns of the country, in order to effect their object, we are nowhere expressly told; but we find, from a consultation held by the southern tribes of Israel, soon after the death of Joshua, that the necessity of renewing military operations against the natives could no longer be postponed. It was resolved, accordingly, that Judah and Simeon should unite their arms, and take the field, to prevent, in the first place, an inroad with which their borders were threatened, and, subsequently, to reduce to a state of entire subjection the cities and towns that stood within the limits of their respective districts. "And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot."[11]

But, leaving these preliminary matters, we shall proceed to take a survey of the Hebrew commonwealth, as it appeared upon its first settlement under the successors of Joshua; endeavouring to ascertain the grounds upon which the federal union of the tribes was established; their relations towards one another in peace and in war; the resources of which they were possessed for conquest or self-defence; their civil rights and privileges as independent states; their laws and judicatories; and, above all, the nature and extent of their property, as well as the tenure on which it was held by families and individuals. Closely connected with this subject is a consideration of that agrarian law which was sanctioned by Moses and acted upon by Joshua, and which will be found, not only to have determined, but also to have secured, the inheritance of every Israelite who entered the Promised Land.

The extent of that portion of Syria which was granted to the Hebrew nation has been variously estimated. On the authority of Hecataeus, a native of Abdera, who is quoted by Josephus, the limits of the territory possessed by the Jews are fixed at three millions of acres, supposing the aroura of the Greeks to correspond to the denomination of English measure just specified. Proceeding on this ground, the Abbé Fleury and other writers have undertaken to prove that the quantity of land mentioned by Hecataeus would maintain only three millions three hundred and seventy-five thousand men—a computation which is liable to many objections, and has not therefore been generally received. It is obvious, for instance, that the Abderite, who lived in the reign of Alexander the Great, and is said to have afterward attached himself to the person of the first Grecian king of Egypt, described the country of the Jews as he saw it, under the dominion of the Syrian princes of the Macedonian line. He accordingly beheld only the inheritance of the two tribes which had returned from the Babylonian captivity, and of consequence confined his estimates to the provinces that they were permitted to enjoy; taking no account of those extensive districts that formerly belonged to the Ten Tribes of Israel, and which, in his days, were in the hands of that mixed race of men who were descended from the Assyrian colonists whom Shalmaneser placed in their room.[12]

Confiding in the greater accuracy of Spanheim, Reland, and Lowman, we are inclined to compute the Hebrew territory at about fifteen millions of acres; assuming, with these writers, that the true boundaries of the Promised Land were, Mount Libanus on the north, the Wilderness of Arabia on the south, and the Syrian Desert on the east. On the west some of the tribes extended their possessions to the very waters of the Great Sea, though on other parts they found their boundary restricted by the lands of the Philistines, whose rich domains comprehended the low lands and strong cities which stretched along the shore. It has been calculated by Spanheim, that the remotest points of the Holy Land, as possessed by King David, were situated at the distance of three degrees of latitude, and as many degrees of longitude, including in all about twenty-six thousand square miles.[13]

If this computation be correct, there was in the possession of the Hebrew chiefs land sufficient to allow to every Israelite capable of bearing arms a lot of about twenty acres; reserving for public uses, as also for the cities of the Levites, about one-tenth of the whole. It is probable, however, that if we make a suitable allowance for lakes, mountains, and unproductive tracts of ground, the portion to every householder would not be so large as the estimate now stated. But within the limits of one-half of this quantity of land there were ample means for plenty and frugal enjoyment. The Roman people under Romulus and long after could afford only two acres to every legionary soldier; and in the most flourishing days of the commonwealth the allowance did not exceed four. Hence the quatuor jugera, or four acres, is an expression which proverbially indicated plebeian affluence and contentment—a full remuneration for the toils of war, and a sufficient inducement at all times to take up arms in defence of the republic.

The territory of the Hebrews was ordered to be equally divided among their tribes and families according to their respective numbers; and the persons selected to superintend this national work were Eleazar, the high-priest, Joshua, who acted in the character of judge, and the twelve princes or heads of Israel. The rule which they followed is expressed in these words—"And ye shall divide the land by lot, for an inheritance among your families; and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance; and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit."