GOVERNMENT
champion
or
deliverer,
points
to
the
fact
that
their
chief
function
was
judicial.
The
position
was
not
hered-itary,
thus
diitering
from
that
of
king
(
Jg
9
ft.
Gideon
and
Abimelech),
though
Samuel
is
able
to
delegate
his
authority
to
his
sons
(1
S
8').
Their
status
was
gained
by
personal
exploits,
implying
Divine
sanction,
which
was
sometimes
expressed
in
other
ways;
e.g.
gift
of
prophecy
(Deborah,
Samuel).
Their
power
rested
on
the
moral
authority
of
the
strong
man,
and,
though
sometimes
extending
over
several
tribes,
was
probably
never
national.
During
this
period
the
nomadic
tribe
gives
way
to
the
local;
ties
of
place
are
more
important
than
ties
of
birth.
A
town
holds
together
its
neigh-bouring
villages
('daughters'),
as
able
to
give
them
protection
(Nu
21«-
=2,
Jos
17").
The
elders
become
the
'elders
of
the
city';
Jg
8*-
"•
i=
mentions
officials
(sSrlm)
and
elders
of
Succoth,
i.e.
heads
of
the
leading
families,
responsible
for
its
government.
In
H'
the
elders
of
Gilead
have
power
in
an
emergency
to
appoint
a
leader
from
outside.
3.
The
Monarchy
came
into
being
mainly
under
the
pressure
of
Philistine
invasion.
The
king
was
a
centre
of
unity,
the
leader
of
the
nation
in
war,
and
a
judge
(1
S
8^").
His
power
rested
largely
on
a
personal
basis.
As
long
as
he
was
successful
and
strong,
and
retained
the
allegiance
of
his
immediate
followers,
his
will
was
absolute
(David,
Ahab,
Jehu;
cf.
Jer
36.
37).
At
the
same
time
there
were
elements
which
prevented
the
Jewish
monarchy
from
developing
the
worst
features
of
an
Oriental
despotism.
At
least
at
first
the
people
had
a
voice
in
his
election
(David,
Rehoboam).
In
Judah
the
hereditary
principle
prevailed
(there
were
no
rival
tribes
to
cause
jealousy,
and
David's
Une
was
the
centre
of
the
national
hopes),
but
the
people
still
had
influence
(2
K
1421
2121).
In
the
Northern
Kingdom
the
position
of
the
reigning
house
was
always
insecure,
and
the
ultimate
penalty
of
misgovernment
was
the
rise
of
a
new
dynasty.
A
more
important
check
was
found
in
the
religious
control,
democratic
in
its
best
sense,
exercised
by
the
prophets
(Samuel,
Nathan,
Elijah,
Elisha,
Jeremiah,
etc.).
The
Jewish
king
had
at
least
to
hear
the
truth,
and
was
never
allowed
to
believe
that
he
was
indeed
a
god
on
earth.
At
the
same
time
there
is
no
constitutional
check
on
misrule;
the
'law
of
the
kingdom'
in
Dt
17"
deals
rather
with
moral
and
reUgious
requirements,
as
no
doubt
did
Jehoiada's
covenant
(2
K
11").
With
the
kingdom
came
the
establishment
of
a
standing
army,
David's
'mighty
men
'
quickly
developing
into
the
more
organized
forces
of
Solomon's
and
later
times.
The
command
of
the
forces
was
essential
to
the
king's
power;
cf.
insurrec-tion
of
Jehu
'the
captain'
(2
K
9),
and
Jehoiada's
care
to
get
control
of
the
army
(11*).
Side
by
side
with
the
power
of
the
sword
came
the
growth
of
a
court,
with
its
harem
and
luxurious
entourage,
its
palace
and
its
throne.
These
were
visible
symbols
of
the
royal
power,
impressing
the
popular
mind.
The
lists
of
officers
(2
S
8",
1
K
4)
are
significant;
they
indicate
the
growth
of
the
king's
authority,
and
the
development
of
rela-tions
with
other
States.
The
real
power
of
government
has
passed
Into
the
hands
of
the
king's
clientile.
His
servants
hold
office
at
his
pleasure,
and,
provided
they
retain
his
favour,
there
is
little
to
limit
their
power.
They
may
at
times
show
independence
of
spirit
(1
S
22",
Jer
3625),
but
are
usually
his
ready
tools
(2
S
11";
cf
.
the
old
and
the
young
counsellors
of
Rehoboam,
1
K
12«»).
The
prophetic
pictures
of
the
court
and
its
administration
are
not
favourable
(Am
3=
4'
6,
Is
5
etc.).
The
methods
of
raising
revenue
were
undefined,
and
being
undefined
were
oppressive.
We
hear
of
gifts
and
tribute
(1
S
10",
2
S
8i«,
1
K
4'-
^-^
10"-«),
of
tolls
and
royal
monopoUes
(lOis.
28.
29),
of
forced
labour
(5")
and
of
the
'king's
mowings'
(Am
7'),
of
confiscation
(1
K
21),
and,
in
an
emergency,
of
stripping
the
Temple
(2
K
18").
In
time
of
peace
the
main
function
of
the
king
is
the
ad-ministration
of
justice
(2
S
ia\
2
K
15»);
his
subjects
GOVERNMENT
have
the
right
of
direct
access
(2
K
8').
This
must
have
lessened
the
power
of
the
local.elders,
who
no
doubt
had
also
to
yield
to
the
central
court
officials.
'The
elders
of
the
city'
appear
during
this
period
as
a
local
authority,
sometimes
respected
and
consulted
(2
S
19",
1
K
20',
2
K
23'),
sometimes
the
obedient
agents
of
the
king's
will
(1
K
2is-
",
2
K
lO'-
').
2
Ch
19»-"
describes
a
judicial
system
organized
by
Jehoshaphat,
which
agrees
in
its
main
features
with
that
implied
by
Dt
16'8
178-13;
there
are
local
courts,
with
a
central
tribunal.
In
Dt.
the
elders
appear
mainly
as
judicial
authorities,
but
have
the
power
of
executing
their
decisions
(I912
21.
22"
etc.).
The
influence
of
the
priesthood
in
this
connexion
should
be
noticed.
The
administration
of
justice
always
included
a
Divine
element
(Ex
18"-
is
21»
228;
cf.
word
'Torah'),
and
in
the
Deuteronomic
code
the
priests
appear
side
by
side
with
the
lay
element
in
the
central
court
(17'
19";
cf.
Is
28',
Ezk
442«
etc.).
But
the
government
is
not
yet
theocratic.
Jehoiada
reUes
on
his
personal
influence
and
acts
in
concert
with
the
chiefs
of
the
army
(2
K
1
1
.
12),
and
even
after
the
Exile
Joshua
is
only-
the
fellow
of
Zerubbabel.
The
appointment
of
Levites
as
judges,
ascribed
to
David
in
1
Ch
23'
262',
is
no
doubt
an
anachronism.
Cf.
also
art.
Justice
(ii.).
4.
Post-exilic
period.
—
Under
the
Persians
Judah
was
a
subdistrict
of
the
great
province
west
of
the
Euphrates
and
subject
to
its
governor
(Ezr
5').
It
had
also
its
local
governor
(Neh
5"),
virith
a
measure
of
local
inde-pendence
(Ezr
10");
we
read,
too,
of
a
special
official
'
at
the
king's
hand
in
all
matters
concerning
the
people
'
(Neh
112*).
The
elders
are
prominent
during
this
period
both
in
exile
(Ezk
81
I41
20')
and
in
Judah
(Ezr
5»
6'
108,
Neh
2»).
The
chief
feature
of
the
subsequent
period
was
the
development
of
the
priestly
power,
and
the
rise
to
importance
of
the
office
of
the
high
priest.
Under
Greek
rule
(after
b.c.
333)
the
Jews
were
to
a
great
extent
allowed
the
privileges
of
self-government.
The
'elders'
develop
into
a
gerousia
or
senate
—
an
aristocracy
comprising
the
secular
nobility
and
the
priesthood
(1
Mac
128
142")
;
it
is
not
known
when
the
name
'Sanhedrin'
was
first
used.
The
high
priest
became
the
head
of
the
State,
and
its
official
representative,
his
political
power
receiving
a
great
development
under
the
Hasmonaeans.
Owing
to
the
growing
importance
of
the
ofiice,
the
Seleucids
always
claimed
the
power
of
appointment.
In
b.c.
142,
Simon
is
declared
to
be
'high
priest,
captain,
and
governor
for
ever'
(1
Mac
142'-").
The
title
'ethnarch'
(see
Governor)
is
used
of
him
and
other
high
priests.
Aristobulus
becomes
king
(b.c.
105),
and
Alexander
Jannffius
uses
the
title
on
coins
(b.c.
104-78).
Under
Roman
rule
(b.c.
63)
the
situation
becomes
complicated
by
the
rise
to
power
of
the
Herodian
dynasty.
Palestine
passed
through
the
varying
forms
of
government
known
to
the
Roman
Imperial
constitution.
Herod
the
Great
was
its
titular
king,
with
considerable
Independence
subject
to
good
behaviour
(rex
socius).
Archelaus
forfeited
his
position
(a.d.
6).
Thenceforward
Judaea
was
under
the
direct
rule
of
a
procurator
(see
next
article),
except
from
a.d.
41
to
44,
when
Agrippa
i.
was
king.
Antipas
was
'
tetrarch
'
of
Galilee
and
Peraea;
Mark's
title
of
'king'
(6")
is
corrected
by
Matthew
and
Luke.
The
position
was
less
honourable
and
less
independent
than
that
of
king.
The
high
priest
(now
appointed
by
the
Romans)
and
the
Sanhedrin
regained
the
power
which
they
had
lost
under
Herod;
the
govern-ment
became
once
more
an
aristocracy
(Jos.
Ant.
xx.
x.).
Except
tor
the
power
of
Ufe
and
death
the
Sanhedrin
held
the
supreme
judicial
authority;
there
were
also
local
courts
connected
with
the
Synagogue
(Mt
522).
Its
moral
authority
extended
to
Jews
outside
Palestine.
In
the
Diaspora,
the
Jews,
tenacious
of
their
national
pecuUarities,
were
in
many
cases
allowed
a
large
measure
of
self-government,
particularly
in
judicial
matters.
In
Alexandria,
in
particular,
they
had
special
privileges
