The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated) (2 page)

Some of those whom he
thus transferred to Egypt he employed in his army; for in spite of his
readiness to conciliate, so far as was possible, the native military caste, he
could not forego the employment of some foreign troops. Others settled as
civilians in Alexandria (founded about eleven years previously) with full
rights of citizenship. For the next few years Judea was the scene of conflicts
of varying issue between the forces of Ptolemy and those of Antigonus, one of
Alexander's generals. The latter, however, was slain at the decisive battle of
Ipsus (301 BC), whereupon the victors divided his possessions among themselves.
The fate of Judea and Samaria is somewhat obscure. Palestine and Coele-Syria
may have become at this time an Egyptian province. On the other hand, the
foundation (circ. 300 BC) of Antioch by Seleucus as his capital must have
rendered Ptolemy's grasp of Coele-Syria, to say the least of it, uncertain. On
the whole, it would seem that Judea was under Egyptian sway for the next eighty
years. The deaths of the last three of the Diadochi, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and
Ptolemy I, almost synchronized. The last named was succeeded in 285 BC by his
son Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), who had however reigned for the two previous
years conjointly with his father. His wars with Syria and extension of the
Egyptian rule in that direction had an important bearing upon Judea through the
encouragement which he gave to the Greek element in the cities bordering upon
that country, such as Gaza, Joppa, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Samaria, and Scythopolis.
The new king “built Philadelphia on the site of the ancient Rabbah of the
Ammonites, Ptolemais on the site of Acco, Philoteria on the Lake ofGennesaret”.
We shall see in the next chapter the great influence which these cities soon
began to exercise upon Judean ways of thought and living.

On the death of Philadelphus,
which took place in 247 BC, his eldest son Evergetes (Ptolemy III) came to the
throne. Josephus relates that on one of the occasions when his Syrian wars
brought him to the neighborhood of Jerusalem, he “offered many sacrifices to
God, and dedicated to Him such things as were suitable”. “With the third
Ptolemy, all the virtues of that great race, except, perhaps, the taste for
patronizing learning, seem to take their departure”.

In the course of his
reign (about 230 BC) there came into prominence Joseph, a nephew of the high
priest Onias II, and grandson of Simon the Just, being son of the Tobiah who
had married the daughter of Simon. He attained his position from his
exceptional strength of purpose and the acquisition of great wealth. By the skilful
carrying out of ambitious aims this man obtained paramount authority from both
a military and a financial point of view in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. He came
to the front at a time when his uncle Onias was coquetting with Seleucus II
(Callinicus) of Syria and refusing to pay to Egypt the annual tribute of twenty
talents. Joseph addressed the people in the court of the Temple, secured their
enthusi¬astic support, as well as that of Athenion, the Egyptian envoy, and
having also raised a loan from the Samaritans, met Evergetes near Memphis, and
established himself in his special favor. He held office till his death (208
BC), and constituted himself throughout a formidable rival to the high priestly
power, both by the riches which he amassed during his twenty-two years of
office, and by the almost absolute power which the support of Egypt secured
him. That he had "stripped the flesh from all Syria and left only the
bones", was a remark which was made about him in the presence of
Philopator.

Philopator (Ptolemy
IV), who succeeded his father in 222 BC, a year earlier than the commencement
of Antiochus the Great's reign, after defeating the Syrian forces at Raphia
near Gaza (217 BC), and thereby regaining Palestine and Phoenicia, is said to
have visited Jerusalem. “While attempting, in spite of the protests of the high
priest and people generally, to enter the Holy of Holies, he was seized with a
fit and carried away by his attendants. It is impossible to say what substratum
of fact lies under the subsequent highly colored details as related in the same
connection, viz., how the king showed his spite against the Jews of Alexandria,
and how in commemoration of their deliverance by providential interpositions a
feast was established. This last must of course have had some historical
origin, and probably points to the fact that in spite of the hostility shown
towards them for some reason by Philopator, they succeeded in regaining or
obtaining “the privilege of Alexandrian citizenship by payment of a large sum
of money, of which the memory rankled in their hearts, and caused them to
regard him as a national enemy”. We can assert with confidence that Philopator
earned the hostility of that people, and that they looked back upon his reign
as one of oppression and injustice.

Philopator’s death (205
BC) was speedily followed by the breaking up of the kingdom of the Nile outside
Egypt proper. The next ruler was Philopator’s son, Epiphanes, aged but six
years, and by no means equal to a contest with Antiochus III (the Great), who
had succeeded Seleucus III (Soter) as king of Syria in 221 BC. As part of a
scheme for the subjugation of Egypt entered into between Philip V of Macedon
(accession 222 BC) and Antiochus, the latter advanced for the purpose of
seizing Coele-Syria. Scopas, an Aetolian, was the leader of the forces sent
against him from Alexandria. After some signal successes, that general was
defeated by Antiochus at MountPanium.

The Jews, still
cherishing the hostility to Egypt which had sprung up during the reign of Philopator,
favored the Syrian monarch, and became included in his kingdom; and,
althoughScopas, returning somewhat later from Egypt, ravaged the country,
dismantled the fortresses, and caused much bloodshed, Antiochus (in 198 BC),
receiving ready aid from Jerusalem in the shape of provisions for his troops,
proceeded to reconquer the territory, and finally brought it under the Syrian
sway. Ten years previously, Joseph, the powerful satrap of Coele-Syria, had
passed from the scene. His seven sons by his first wife were bitterly opposed
to Hyrcanus, his son by a second union. The latter seems to have inherited his
father's ambition as well as his intellectual ability, and early acquired favor
at the court of Philopator. On one occasion while returning thence to
Jerusalem, Hyrcanus was murderously attacked by his brothers, slew two of them
in a skirmish, and being received coldly by his father on his arrival, returned
to take up his abode for the time in Alexandria, from which place in the years
that followed he exerted, we may be sure, all the force at his disposal, to
keep in check the growing power of Antiochus in Palestine. The other Tobiades,
as they were called, that is to say, the other sons and the grandsons of the
satrap Joseph, were on the side of Syria. Hyrcanus preserved his fealty to
Egypt, although his power to render that kingdom any effectual aid in
recovering Syria seems to have been practically nil.

THE vitality of the
Jewish patriotic spirit seems to have been preserved throughout the period of
the Exile. There was a continuous faith in the prophecies that within the space
of about two generations the banished would return and take up the broken
thread of national existence in their own land. It is true that comparatively
few availed themselves of Cyrus's permission. The descendants of the captives
made by Babylonian conquerors preferred, as far as the majority were concerned,
not to renounce the ties they had formed within the great city in Mesopotamia.
But the enthusiasm of those who accompanied Zerubbabel across the wide plains
which lay between them and Judea, is plainly marked in later Biblical
literature!

It was clearly
impossible that such shrunken numbers should attempt to spread themselves over
the whole of the land which once was theirs, or even over Judea. Perhaps it was
not altogether a misfortune that they were thus compelled to concentrate their
strength, and support each other's courage in the difficulties which faced
them. They were recruited by many of their nation, who actually within their
country or in its immediate neighborhood had  waited patiently the fulfillment
of their patriotic hopes. Proselytes also were not wanting in the building-up
of the community.

In many points their
religions life had undergone a change during the years of exile. The first and
most prominent of these changes consisted in the disappearance of idolatry and
the abhorrence of its memories. That reformation, which both prophetic
denunciations and the efforts of such kings as Hezekiah and Josiah had been
able only very partially to effect, had been once and for ever accomplished.
After they had come to be familiar during the years of captivity with idol
worship as practiced at Babylon, this form of sin disappeared from the Jewish
nation.

On the other hand, even
as early as the time of the prophet Malachi, there are found traces of the
skeptical and discontented spirit, whose existence is dealt with in a more
developed form in the Book Koheleth (Ecclesiastes). The problem involved in the
prosperity of the wicked presented difficulties which, as we can see, both in
the Persian and Greek periods, keenly tried men’s faith in an over-ruling
Providence. The saying of men of Malachi’s day “Everyone that doeth evil is
good in the sight of the LORD, and He delighteth in them”, and “Where is the
God of judgment?” finds its echo in the words of the Preacher, “All things have
I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his
righteousness, and there is a wicked man thatprolongeth his life in his
wickedness”. Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas, must have represented the
attitude of many minds, which failed to accept the faith expressed in the
concluding words of the book last quoted, “Fear God, and keep His commandments;
for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into
judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil”.

To the Exile also we
may with some confidence trace the beginnings at any rate of that rule which
the individual conscience came to have among the more spiritually minded
members of the race. Such narratives as those of Daniel or of Susannah show
that when they were written there was an audience to be appealed to, who would
not fail to sympathize with the resolve to risk life itself in faithful
adherence to duty.

Again, prayer assumed a
new position. This feature is illustrated in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah as
well as Daniel and elsewhere. With the enforced suspension of sacrificial
offerings during the Captivity, the more spiritual forms of worship acquired a
prominence, which they retained after the Return. Synagogue services were
established here and there as need arose. In Jerusalem there was now joined
with the animal and other offerings in kind, a ritual consisting of psalms and
prayers, the latter doubtless for a time at least unrestricted by any
hard-and-fast form.

Moreover, almsgiving
acquired prominence. He that displayed this form of charity was considered to
have thereby so amply acquitted himself of his religious obligations that his
gifts became worthy of being described by the word “Righteousness”, without
further qualification.

Once more, the Jewish
outlook upon the world, hitherto so narrow, became somewhat less circumscribed.
They were now reestablished, not so much upon a national as upon a religions
basis. They are henceforward “Judeans”, but the word has not a strictly racial
significance. It does not exclude a willingness to embrace all who would
receive their faith and unite with them in worship of Jehovah. The Exile had so
far familiarized them with the thought of the extent of humanity, that they
were ready to picture to themselves the acceptance of their religion by the
other kingdoms of the earth.

The impression made
upon the Jewish mind through the wealth and luxury affected by the higher
classes in Babylon is manifest from the description of the king’s palace in the
Book of Esther. The signal honor with which the Jews treated that book may
indeed be ascribed to its relation of the overthrow of their would-be
oppressors, and the triumph secured them by an overruling Providence working
through the good fortune and resolution of a Jewish maiden. But it also shows
the pleasure which they felt in dwelling upon the description of the
magnificence exhibited in the appointments and surround¬ings of an Oriental
court.

The purity of the
Persian mode of worship, the absence of all grossness in the way of sacrificial
offering, and the identification of Truth with the Deity in the Zoroastrian
creed, had an undoubted effect upon the Judaism of postcaptivity days. The
elaborate purificatory rites, characteristic of later Judaism, arose in large
measure from customs which bad become familiar to the nation during its sojourn
in Babylon. “The veneration for the holy fire which was kindled from the sacred
naphtha fountains of Persia by the Caspian Sea, penetrated into the Jewish
traditions in the story that, when Nehemiah rekindled the consecrated fire of
the Temple from the stones of the altar, he called it naphthar, giving it a
Hebrew meaning, a cleansing, though many call it nephi.”

The development of the
Jewish doctrine of angels at this period of their history may also be connected
with Persian influences. In that country’s faith the hierarchy of celestial
intelligences had been set forth with much elaborateness. But although the two
religions thus had much in common, the Jewish teaching on the subject possessed
a decided advantage in leading the way towards the light to be thrown upon
angelic offices by Christian revelation. In the Persian religion there seems
little, if any, trace of an interest taken by angels in the affairs or the
well-being of men; while such books as Daniel and Tobit show heavenly guardians
appointed for the surveillance and protection alike of individuals and of
states.

It is, however,
specially worthy of note in this connection that the dualism which was so
prominent a feature of the Zoroastrian religion fails to find a counterpart in
Jewish teaching. The rival powers of good and evil are never placed by the
latter on anything like a footing of equality. Satan is represented as
subordinate in position, though having in some sort access to the courts of
heaven; and as making his assaults upon the human race only by permission of a
higher power. The words of the LORD’S message, “I form the light ... and create
darkness”  express the attitude of the Jew in this matter in direct antagonism
to that of the worshipper of Ormuzd, who gave co-ordinated powers to Ahriman.
The “adversary”, the opposer of God and man, was the main idea in the mind of
the Jew, when he thought of an evil agency as personified; not the one who
makes calumnious accusations, not the “slanderer”, but the power which, within
the limits allowed him by the Most High, makes for unrighteousness.

But the characteristic
which penetrated most deeply into the national life of the post-exilic people
was the reverence and study bestowed on the Law, viewed as an absolute rule of
conduct, and an inexhaustible storehouse of precepts applicable without
exception to every circumstance of life. Ewald, comparing the working out of
this conception in detail with the elaborate literary structures of the
schoolmen and with other modern labors of a juristic character, points out that
“the difference between the legal movement over which Ezra presided and its
modern parallels lies chiefly in this simple fact, that the former found in
every ancient law which it worked up the immediate presence of the holy itself,
and therefore treated it with the utmost awe and the most scrupulous care, and
with admirable patience made the most strenuous efforts possible to secure the
legal obedience, and, by that path, the outward sanctity of man”.

But this
identification, or close conformity, of the things which were required by the
Law, and holiness of life, soon worked out in many instances to the natural
result of contentment with the careful discharge of duty, ceremonial and other,
and failure to recognize the vital power derived from unity with the Divine
source of sanctity. Moreover, when the yoke of the Law, thus interpreted,
became over burdensome to the individual, recourse was had, especially among
the higher ranks, to various devices by which an equivalent in the shape of
money or other offerings was held as a release in full from more irksome
demands.

It is very significant,
as Ewald shows, that, as cere¬monial developed, and ritual holiness became more
and more emphasized in the national life, the Divine author of the Law came to
be looked upon as further and further removed from direct spiritual contact or
converse with His people, so that the highest of His names became completely
disused, and for 'Jehovah' was invariably substituted in utterance one of the
common titles, Adonai, El, Elohim, Heaven, or later, the simple expression, The
Name.

The prophetic period of
Israel’s history had been fraught with deep benefit to their spiritual life.
Moral, as contrasted with mere ceremonial, holiness had been powerfully
enforced upon the nation before, and even after, the Exile. But when the last
of the prophets had protested against the sins of the ecclesiastical leaders of
the time, and had pointed once more to the immutable bases of morality, this teaching
more and more lost its hold and was practically to a large extent forgotten,
while formality in ritual established itself as the all-sufficient substitute.

Comments such as the
above on the religious and social condition of the people during the period
which followed the Return are necessarily of a somewhat impersonal character.
When once the generation which saw the labors of Ezra and Nehemiah had passed
away, there is a singular lack of any conspicuous figure.

We may assume that the
Persian power kept up at least a nominal control through its governor, who
seems for a while at any rate to have lived within Jerusalem. It is probable,
however, that the Jews were left pretty much to themselves as regards
administrative functions. Their position between two rival powers like Persia
and Egypt must have exposed them to occasional depredations from contending
forces. At the same time the condition of the people themselves, as portrayed
for us by Malachi, was in many respects lamentable. The enthusiasm which marked
the return from the Captivity had evidently died away after a very few
generations. The priests were chargeable with, peculation, adultery, and crimes
of violence. They mocked at purity either of ritual or life, and found the
observance of the Law a weariness. On the other hand, there were still to be
found a few faithful ones, an inner circle whose spirituality of mind caused
them to cherish the worship of God, and listen to His prophet. For them the
Messianic hope was not extinguished. Yet even they were willing to a large
extent to merge that hope in the watching for the messenger who should herald
His approach. On the appearance of Elijah the Prophet—for so they named him who
was to come in the spirit and power of the Tishbite of old— not only should the
Jewish nation be at harmony with itself, and the hearts of parents and children
turned towards one another, but the worship of the true God should be diffused
through the nations. “From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of
the same My name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense
shall be offered unto My name and a pure offering; for My name shall be great
among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts”.