The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated)

THE
AGE OF THE MACCABEES

By

Annesley
Streane

Published
by Didactic Press

TABLE
OF CONTENTS

SKETCH OF JEWISH HISTORY AFTER THE RETURN  FROM
CAPTIVITY.

THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE FROM THE
RETURN TO THE ACCESSION OF ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT.

THE HISTORY FROM THE ACCESSION OF
ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT TO THE TIME   OF THE MACCABEAN REVOLT  (222-108 BC)

THE MACCABEAN REVOLT TO THE DEATH OF
JUDAS (168—160 BC).

FROM THE DEATH OF JUDAS TO THE DEATH
OF SIMON III. (160—135  BC)

THE REIGN OF JOHN HYRCANUS (135—106  BC)

FROM THE ACCESSION OF ARISTOBULUS TO
THE DEATH OF JANNEUS (106—78  BC)

THE REIGN OF ALEXANDRA (78—69 BC)

FROM THE DEATH OF ALEXANDRA TO
HEROD’S CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM (69—37 BC)

BEFORE entering on our
main subject, it is desirable that we should take a brief retrospective glance
over that part of the earlier history which lies between the return of the Jews
from their captivity in Babylon (538 BC) and the commencement of that which we
may call the Maccabean period.

The decree of Cyrus
(538 BC) seems to have been acted upon with all speed by a portion of the Jews
resident in Babylon. That portion, however, doubtless consisted of the less
well-to-do and those who had formed no very close ties, commercial or
otherwise, with the locality in which they had grown up. Many had acted to the
full upon the advice given them by Jeremiah (29. 5-7), and, to borrow a Jewish
phrase which has been applied to the present case, the bran returned, the tine
flour was left behind in Babylon.

Thus it came to pass
that the returned exiles were the more easily reduced to inactivity by the
difficulties which speedily came upon them in their attempts at the renovation
of their old home. Mainly through the hostility of the Samaritans on their
offer of cooperation being repulsed, but perhaps in some degree owing to the
absence of royal favor on the part of Cyrus's two successors, Cambyses and the
Pseudo-Smerdis, the work of restoration was for more than nine years (529-520
BC) in abeyance. In the year 520 BC, however, two years after the accession of
Darius, the heartening which their prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, sought to
give them, and the efforts of Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel, evoked
renewed energy. Darius's approval was obtained, and four years later the Temple
was dedicated to the service of God.

There is little or
nothing to record in the way of history until, in 458 BC, Ezra is sent by
Artaxerxes to Jerusalem and finds it in a ruinous condition. The nature of the
rule exercised there had been changed, and the policy of exclusiveness
reversed, probably at an early date in the intervening period. The priests, in
whose hands lay all the guidance of the community, evidently exercised a sway
which, while seeking to conciliate their non-Jewish neighbors, was harsh
towards their poorer fellow countrymen. Ezra took a line which certainly did
not err on the side of laxity. He had not, indeed, the practical ability of
Nehemiah, but he could at any rate, as Graetzsays, “pray and arouse the
feelings of others”. This he did to some purpose, and it is to his influence
that we are to ascribe the establishment of the written Law as henceforward the
rule of faith for his people, as well as the rigid exclusiveness which was to
be the national safeguard then and subsequently. Nehemiah arrived twelve years
later. The wretched condition to which he found the city reduced has been
thought to point to a reaction against an amount of strictness for which his
countrymen were unprepared. Whatever may have been the cause or causes of the
disastrous state of things found by Nehemiah, there appeared everywhere the
need of an energetic administration such as he was well able to supply. On the
completion of Nehemiah's task Ezra's name, which has disappeared for a while
from the record, returns, he instructs the people in the Law, and takes part in
the dedication of the walls.

From the time of
Megabyzus may be dated the gradual break-up of the Persian power. In
particular, Egypt, about 405 BC, threw off the foreign yoke, and was not
resubjugated till 344 BC. The geographical position of Judea must have exposed
it to the predatory attacks of armed forces, or to a guerilla warfare no longer
repressed by the wide-reaching rule administered hitherto by imperial power.
Egyptian kings and satraps of Phoenicia, in a common hostility to the control
which Persia still sought to exercise over the remoter provinces of the empire,
made the inhabitants of Judea to be unpleasantly familiar with their own
troops, as well as with the Greek mercenary soldiers in the pay of both
parties.

A fresh trouble also
assailed the Jews, this time on the religious side. Artaxerxes II (Mnemon,
405-358 BC) had adopted an idolatrous and licentious worship, hitherto unknown
to the Persians, and insisted on its acceptance by all his subjects. On the
Jews resisting the image-worship which the king thus imposed, he is said to have
banished many of them to Hyrcania, on the shores of the Caspian. Bagoas (or
Bagoses), who had profited by his opportunities as military commander in Syria
and Phoenicia, established himself in power at Jerusalem. The severity of his
rule is shown by the daily exaction of 50 drachmae for each lamb offered in the
Temple precincts.

Artaxerxes III (Ochus),
who succeeded to the Persian throne in 358 BC and reigned for 20 years, was a
strong ruler, suppressing revolts in Egypt, which in this reign became again a
province of the empire (344 BC), as well as in Phoenicia and Cyprus. Much
suffering accordingly still fell to the lot of the inhabitants of Palestine.
Orophernes, a conspicuous leader in this war, was probably the original of the
Holophernes of the Book of Judith.

Artaxerxes III died by
violence in 338 BC, and after the short reign of his son Arses (338-335),
Darius III (Codomannus) came to the throne (335-331 BC). The year following his
accession marks the beginning of the end. In that year Alexander entered Asia
by the Hellespont, in 333 he won the battle of Issus, and in 331 finally
overthrew Darius at Arbela. Most of the time between these two battles was
spent by Alexander in establishing his authority in Phoenicia and Egypt. He
besieged and captured Tyre and Gaza. The Jews on this occasion refused to
furnish him with a contingent of troops or with provisions, pleading their oath
of loyalty to Darius. In this connection his visit to Jerusalem is related, a
visit which, if it took place at all, has doubtless been much adorned by
legendary detail.   “And when he [Jaddua, the high priest] understood that he
was not far from the city, he went out in procession with the priests and the
multitude of the citizens ... Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a
distance in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen,
and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head,
with the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, approached by
himself and adored that name, and first saluted the high priest. The Jews also
did altogether with one voice salute Alexander and encompass him about...
Parmenio ... went up to him and asked him how it came to pass that when all
others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews. To whom he
replied, I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with this high
priesthood; for I saw this very person in  dream in this very habit, when I was
at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might
obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass
over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and give me the
dominion over the Persians ... And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had
given the priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him and he came into
the city; and when he went up into the Temple, he offered sacrifice to God ...
and when the Book of Daniel was showed him, wherein Daniel declared that one of
the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself
was the person intended; and as he was then glad, he ... bade them ask what
favors they pleased of him: whereupon the high priest desired that they might
enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute in the seventh
year. He granted all they desired; and when they entreated him that he would
permit the Jews in Babylonia and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he
willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired”.

The high priest here
referred to has been variously identified with Jaddua, as above, or his son,
Onias I, or his grandson, Simon the Just. Be this as it may, Alexander's
tolerance as here displayed quite accords with his general policy of
cosmopolitanism in matters of faith.

There were, however, special
reasons for the favor shown by Alexander to the Jews. Their “trading
connections over the world, combined with the regular journeys of the
'Dispersion' to Jerusalem, made them invaluable friends to him as guides to his
intelligence department. From them too did he learn the passes into Egypt
between the marshes and deserts, and they must have announced to the Egyptians
his liberality towards their religion, and his graciousness towards those who
submitted promptly and unreservedly to his commands”. Many of these Jews were
settled by him in Alexandria, and received rights equal to those of the
Macedonians and Greeks in that city.

Judea now was made to
form part of the satrapy of Coele-Syria, and the head-quarters of the governor,
Andromachus, were placed in Samaria. There speedily followed a revolt, probably
inspired, in part at least, by jealousy of the favor shown by Alexander to the
Jews. Andromachus was burned alive; and Alexander hastened back from Egypt to
avenge the death of his representative, and continued to mark the difference of
his attitude towards the Samaritans and their hereditary enemies at Jerusalem
by planting in the city of the former people a Macedonian colony.
Thenceforward, and till Alexander's death, the affairs of Coele-Syria seem to
have been conducted in peace.

Had Alexander lived to
employ the practically unlimited resources which lay to his hand in the empire
which he had won, for the purpose of extending his power westward into Europe,
the history of the world would in all probability have been changed, and the
power of Rome crushed at an early stage of its existence. As things were, upon
the great king's death (June 13, 323 BC),not one of his generals was of
sufficiently conspicuous merit to stand out as an acknowledged successor. Hence
there arose a period of varied conflicts which continued for forty-five years.

The kingdom of the
Seleucids, with which the main portion of this historical sketch will be so
closely connected, does not yet come into view. Seleucus its founder was at the
time of Alexander's death only about thirty years of age, and thus was unable
to assert as yet his claims against those of the older commanders. Perdiccas,
the senior officer of the household at the time, became regent and took the
central management. The chief of his rivals were appointed to the government of
various provinces with full military power. This arrangement is said to owe its
origin to Ptolemy I (Soter), son of Lagus, who himself took Egypt, and worthily
earned out his duties as its ruler, founding a dynasty which was destined to
have much influence upon the welfare of men of Jewish race.

The reason probably of
his choice of a province, and certainly of his success in maintaining himself
against invasion, was the security afforded from an attack by land, and, as
regards a great stretch of its coast, from the sea as well.

“Even the Romans were
exceedingly afraid of this peculiar and isolated position, owing to the power
it conferred on its ruler, and so they took special care to let no ambitious or
distinguished person assume so unchecked an authority”. Any Egyptian ruler,
having the wisdom to secure the support both of the priesthood, who treasured
the traditions of power and wealth, and also of the military caste, who were
very jealous of the introduction of foreign mercenaries, might count on holding
a position of exceptional strength against the forces of rival sovereigns!

An early attempt of
Ptolemy to extend his dominion was, while occupying Cyprus by the way, to seek
the subjugation of the whole of Coele-Syria, which in the partition of
Alexander's Empire had fallen to Laomedon. The Jews declining to submit,
Ptolemy approached Jerusalem with an army on the Sabbath, professing that his
intentions were peaceable, and that he merely desired to offer sacrifice, as
Alexander had done before him. On obtaining permission he seized upon the city
and carried many of the inhabitants captive, while others voluntarily
accompanied him.

Egypt appears to have
had four immigrations of this sort under his rule. It appears that he, unlike
the others of the Diadochi with whom the Jews were brought into contact, was
popular with that nation. The causes of this were probably twofold: (1) The
Jews’ traditional friendliness on the whole to Egypt, as opposed to the
sentiment ever entertained towards their Asiatic conquerors; (2) the fact that
Seleucus, contrary to Ptolemy's policy, made a point of establishing a
multitude of cities founded on the Hellenic type, repugnant in many respects to
genuine Jewish feeling. Egypt had the further advantages of great fertility,
and of the facilities which such a city as Alexandria afforded for carrying on
commerce on an immense scale.