The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated) (3 page)

As there was no great
scope for political energy at this period, and no leader at once possessed of
ability and of patriotic instincts to enter upon any schemes for directing the
relationship between the Jews and their neighbors, the best interests of the
nation were naturally centered upon religion. Even the Samaritan schism no
doubt had its influence in this direction. The enquiry had to be faced, “What
is the essential difference between ns and other nations or even that community
which worships on Mount Gerizim?” And the answer was found in the minute study
of the Torah, and the elaboration of endless minutiae in the form of precepts
intended to provide for all conceivable combinations of circumstances. This
process of framing elaborate directions and thorny restrictions, this making of
“a fence to the Torah”, commenced now, and continued for centuries to be the
ruling passion of religious spirits. Thus the scribe element in the nation
acquired a vast importance. This may be seen in the position (referred to
above) which such matters as prayers, fasting, and alms obtained in the life of
the people, as shown, e.g., in Tobit, Judith, and other books of the Apocrypha.

The high-priestly power
had always been an important factor in the life of the Jewish people. In
important crises, before and after the establishment of the monarchy, it had
discharged a most important function. It was only to be expected that, aided by
the hereditary character of the office, its lofty traditions, and the popular
enthusiasm for the Law—of which, on its ceremonial side, the priests were the
natural guardians— the high priest should acquire during this period, even
independently of any claims to distinction from personal excellence, a powerful
position as a leader.

The high priests, as we
might expect, were not slow to perceive the advantages which their position
gave them. We are not without instances in which they made use of their power
for unworthy purposes. On the other hand, about twenty years after the
establishment of the Ptolemaic dynasty there arose in Judea a conspicuous high
priest, Simon the Just (circ. 300—290). “In an age deficient in great men, he
appears like a lofty and luxuriant tree in the midst of a barren country, the
only high priest who restored the priesthood to honor”. His repairs of the
city-walls and of the Temple, his introduction of a much-needed and constant
supply of water, and his other merits are set forth in the eulogy bestowed on
him in Ecclesiasticus (ch. 50). From him the study and practice of religion
received a strong impulse. “The world”, he said, “subsists on three things: the
Law, the service in the Temple, and acts of love”.

The injunction, “bring
up many disciples”, attributed to “the men of the Great Synagogue”, reflected
the spirit which even now prevailed. Schools for the instruction of the young
in the written and unwritten traditions of the Law sprang up in Jerusalem and
elsewhere, and there the pupils of the wise were instructed by the scribes in
the ever-increasing mass of decisions (Halachah) and illustrative tales
(Haggadah) which culminated later in the compilation of theTalmuds of Jerusalem
and Babylon.

The fervid admirers of
the Torah and its developments were only strengthened in their faith with
regard to its all-embracing efficacy as a rule of life and morals by the laxity
and indifference which they saw around them. As we noticed in the last chapter,
it is probably in part to the prevalence of legalism that we are to ascribe the
tendency to support the earlier Ptolemies against the Seleucid dynasty.
Although a Hellenizing party is scarcely discernible in the political life of
Judea till towards the close of the third or beginning of the second century
BC, the policy of the Macedonian conqueror must have at once acted in this
direction. That policy was, as we have noticed, in accordance with what was the
general Hellenic instinct, to plant Greek colonies in the various towns which
came under his rule, so as gradually to introduce the language and manners of
Greece throughout the empire. It is clear how effectual were the means thus
adopted by him and carried out by his successors, for the Hellenization of his
wide dominions. In particular, the planting of Greeks in such cities as Gaza,
Ashkelon, Ashdod, Joppa, and the founding of newcities in attractive
localities, such as Anthedon and Apollonia, would have an influence, more or
less gradual, on their Jewish neighbors. That influence was of a twofold
character. On the one hand, to those whose training or temperament disposed
them firmly to resist all change, and to cling closely to Jewish models in
thought and practice, the Greek laxity in belief and habit was simply a thing
which called for unqualified censure. On the other hand, the necessary
acquisition of the language of the settlers for purposes of commerce and
general intercourse had given, as we shall see, by the time of Antiochus, if
not earlier, a hold to the Greek element, which implies a considerable
antecedent period of growth. Accordingly in, and even before, Maccabean times
we shall find a strong party, in the majority at Jerusalem, in favor of
Hellenism, while in stoutopposition to them was the party which upheld the Law
as the only rule of life, and clung to the ideal as taught by the scribes. The
premature violence of Antiochus Epiphanes, forming the occasion of the outbreak
of the Jewish wars in the second century BC, was the cause which enabled the
minority, headed by Judas and his brethren, through their vehement appeal to
the patriotic and religious sentiment, to gain the day against the force of
numbers.

POLYBIUS chose the year
221 BC for the opening of his great history of the civilized world, because in
his opinion it marked a curious turning-point in the affairs of men. Several of
the greatest monarchs of the world died at that time—Antigonus Doson, Ptolemy
Evergetes,Cleomenes. Antiochus III of Syria was only just come to the throne, a
mere youth, and other inexperienced youths, Ptolemy Philopator and Philip V ascended
the vacant thrones. To those who expected a Roman invasion it must now have
seemed inevitable, and at this time the Romans could have conquered the empire
of Alexander with no difficulty. But suddenly there arose for them too the
cloud in the west; Hannibal was before Saguntum, and crossed the Ebro, and for
the next twenty years they were struggling for bare existence against the
mighty Carthaginian. So then the interference of Rome was stayed, and
Hellenistic life was allowed another generation of development.

We have already touched
upon the position of affairs in Egypt and Judea during the earlier years of the
long reign of Antiochus the Great (221-175 BC). As we have seen, he did not
establish his power in Jerusalem till twenty-four years later. Although the
Hellenizing party in the city was strong enough to assure him of support,
things were different elsewhere. The Jews in the country parts were much
harassed by the exactions and depredations practiced by the troops of the rival
claimants. Owing to the wise administration of Aristomenes, an Acarnanian,
virtually governor of Egypt during the infancy of Ptolemy Epiphanes, Antiochus
III, after his decisive victory over theEgyptians at Panion, on the upper
Jordan, made peace with the king, and undertook to give him his daughter
Cleopatra in marriage, and with her Coele-Syria and Palestine as her dowry. In
the meanwhile, however, it was arranged that the taxes should be divided
between the two kings, thus practically subjecting the people to a double amount
of oppression.

Antiochus at first
treated the Jews with much consideration, causing their religious scruples to
be respected, and even directing that the city walls and the Temple should be
repaired. On the whole, Jewish feeling at this time was decidedly against
Egypt; and, in general, it may be said that association with a kingdom like
that of the Seleucids, who ruled over such very various nationalities, would
naturally present a certain amount of attraction, as against Egypt, the
character of whose government would be likely to permit much less of
elasticity. Ptolemy Philopator (ob. 204 BC) by the severe imposts which he
enforced had alienated the nation, and they sided consequently with the Syrian
power. There appear to have been more Jews in Antioch and its neighborhood than
were to be found in Alexandria itself. From Babylon two thousand families had
been transferred to Phrygia and Lydia; in fact, the Jews were nearly the most
numerous nationality within the Syrian kingdom. We are told in the Second Book
of Maccabees (8. 20)—and probably the story is true, with some amount of
exaggeration in detail—that eight thousand Babylonian Jews had gained a victory
for Antiochus over an army of Galatians of fifteen times their own size.

The seven sons of
Joseph, the leader of the Egyptian party, by his first wife, who were named
after their paternal grandfather the sons of Tobiah, formed the champions of
Hellenism during the time of Antiochus III. Their half-brother, Hyrcanus, on
the other hand, inherited his father’s policy, and by his ability and social
qualities became, as we have already seen, a persona grata at the Egyptian
court. There he acquired much wealth, which, on the death of his patron
Philopator, he transferred in part to the Temple treasury for security, while
with another portion he erected for himself on the eastern side of Jordan, not
far from Heshbon, a costly castle, in which he took up his abode as
representative of the Egyptian interest in those quarters. Domestic broils
between him and his brethren constantly led on to civil disorder, and the state
of the country was deplorable enough during the earlier part of Antiochus the
Great’s reign, while desultory attacks from their old enemies the Idumeans,
Philistines, and Samaritans, added to the troubles of the nation.

Antiochus suffered a
severe defeat at the hands of the Roman general Lucius Scipio near Magnesia in
190 BC, a blow which involved the loss of much territory and money, as well as
of his fleet. We now for the first time hear of his son, Antiochus Epiphanes,
whom he was compelled to send to Rome as a hostage, to remain (as it turned
out) thus confined for thirteen years.

In order to pay the
excessively heavy impost which the Roman power inflicted, Antiochus betook
himself to robbing temples, and the resentment and tumult which was brought
about by his attack upon the temple of Bel at Elymais was the cause of his
being slain there, 187 BC. His son, Seleucus Philopator, succeeded him and
reigned in an uneventful manner for about eleven years. He devoted himself to
finding the money which Rome continued to demand, while the Jews remained, in a
manner, subjected to both the Egyptian and Syrian kingdoms.

The chief incident
connected with Jerusalem during Seleucus’s reign was the attempt of Heliodorus
to seize upon the Temple treasures. An official, described as “steward of the
Temple”, named Simon the Benjamite, in order to curry favor with Seleucus,
informed Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria, that there was much wealth to be
had for the capture. He reported the matter to Seleucus, who, hard pressed for
means wherewith to pay the heavy demands of the Romans, sent his chief
minister, Heliodorus, to Jerusalem. The Second Book of Maccabees (ch. 3)
relates the terror that took possession of the city on the arrival of the
Syrian envoy, and the subsequent incidents, at least in the form which the
memory of them assumed several generations later. “The priests, prostrating
themselves before the altar in their priestly garments, and looking toward heaven,
called upon him that gave the law concerning deposits that he should preserve
these treasures safe for those that had deposited them. And they that were in
the houses rushed flocking out to make a universal supplication, because the
place was like to come into contempt. And the women, girt with sackcloth under
their breasts, thronged the streets, and the virgins that were kept in ward ran
together, some to the gates, others to the walls, and some looked out through
the windows”. Thereupon appeared a horse “with a terrible rider” clothed in
armour of gold, and two young men who scourged the impious intruder, at length
laid prostrate, “speechless and bereft of all hope and deliverance”. The high
priest offers a sacrifice of propitiation. Heliodorus too makes vows, offers
sacrifice, and returns to the king. “And when the king asked Heliodorus what
manner of man was fit to be sent once again to Jerusalem, he said: If thou hast
any enemy or conspirator against the state, send him thither, and thou shalt
receive him back well scourged, if he even escape with his life; because of a
truth there is about the place a power of God”.

The high priest
above-mentioned was Onias III, who succeeded his father Simon II in 198 or 195
BC. He was a prominent member of the Assidean sect, and remarkable for his
holiness of life and close observance of the Law. As a ruler, he aimed at
strict impartiality between rival factions. He supported Hyrcanus in his use of
the Temple as a place of security for the treasures which he had obtained
through siding with Egypt, while, although he was viewed with hostility by the
Hellenistic party led by his own brother Jason, he seems to have been regarded,
for a while at least, with much favor by Seleucus. At length, however, owing to
the con¬tinual slanders of Simon the Benjamite, who remained at the Syrian
court, Onias, in the interests of his people, proceeded to Antioch, where he
abode for some years. Soon after his arrival there Antiochus Epiphanes obtained
permission to terminate his thirteen years’ detention at Rome. On his arrival
at Antioch he found that his brother was dead, probably murdered by Heliodorus,
who had assumed the throne. Epiphanes banished the murderer, and thus
unexpectedly obtained the kingdom (175 BC), Demetrius, son of the late king,
and thus the rightful heir, being now a hostage at Rome. Thisarrangement met
with the favor of the Roman power, which, on the principle Divide et impera,had
for its interest to sow dissensions among members of a royal family, and thus
gain over kingdoms which still retained more or less of independence.

Antiochus IV
(Epiphanes) reigned 175-104 BC. “He was by nature a genuine despot, eccentric
and undependable, sometimes extravagantly liberal and fraternizing with the
common people in an affected manner; at other times cruel and tyrannical”. The
latter side of his character is made abund¬antly evident by his treatment of
the Jews. The former qualities are brought out in detail by Polybius in his
history, who there speaks of him as “madman” rather than Epiphanes,
(magnificent). He was thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Hellenism, and his
great purpose was to introduce Greek worship and practices throughout his
dominions, not sparing any amount of violence or religious persecution, should
they be needful to attain his ends. The feuds which prevailed in Judea of
themselves would have attracted his attention. He received, however, a direct
appeal from the Hellenizing party there, who pointed out that Hyrcanus was
still collecting taxes in the neighborhood of his castle in the interests of
Egypt.

Hyrcanus committed
suicide, and Antiochus seized his property. In his need of money he proceeded
to plunder the Temple, a proceeding which would fall in well with his natural
dislike of the stricter party among the Jews. Jason, brother of Onias, who had
been acting as high priest since the latter had taken up his abode at Antioch,
undertook, on condition of his being confirmed in the possession of that
office, to provide amply for the king's pecuniary needs, and to encourage
Hellenism in every way in Jerusalem. In pursuance of this arrangement, “seeking
to overthrow the lawful modes of life, he brought in new customs forbidden by
the Law”, the very priests hurrying from their sacrifices to the contests
conducted in the Greek manner in a gymnasium below the citadel. Many sought to
efface the marks of circumcision. “The Greek cap”, a broad-brimmed hat, such as
appeared on the figure of Hermes (Mercury), was ordered to be worn by the
noblest of the young men. A festival in honor of Hercules was celebrated every
fourth year at Tyre, and to this Jason sent a money contribution. But the
courage of his messengers failed them, and when it came to the point, they
asked that the money should be applied to the fitting out of additional vessels
for Antiochus’s fleet.

Jason held office for
three years (174—171 BC), and his influential position is shown by the fact
that when Antiochus in 172 BC paid a short visit to Jerusalem, he was received
with acclamations and a torchlight procession.

Jason’s tenure of power
however was, after all, far from secure. Menelaus, brother of Simon the
Benjamite, was sent to Antioch with some of the promised money. He took the
opportunity of outbidding Jason and thus obtained his office; but his attempts
at fulfilling the pecuniary obligations which he had thus incurred, by rifling
the Temple-stores and carrying off its sacred vessels, procured him not only
the rebuke of the aged Onias, soon afterwards slain (171 BC), but arraignment
before the king as being the cause of riots in Jerusalem brought about by his
sacrilegious conduct. But the attack upon him proved abortive. “Menelaus,
through the covetous dealings of them that were in power, remained still in his
office”.

Antiochus now (170 BC)
relying, though without adequate grounds, on immunity from the side of Rome,
which was becoming involved in a war with Perseus, king of Macedonia, attacked
and defeated Ptolemy Philometor near Pelusium. A report that the king of Syria
had been slain brought such encouragement to the enemies of Menelaus, that
Jason, who had fled to the Ammonites, returned to the city, and compelled
Menelaus to take refuge in the citadel. The report soon proved to be erroneous;
Jason's career was at an end; he fled to Sparta and died there unmourned.

The ferocious side of
the king of Syria's nature was now fully revealed. He held a three days’
massacre in Jerusalem, sparing neither age nor sex. Menelaus himself brought
the king into the Holy of Holies, where the latter declared afterwards that he
had seen the statue of a long-bearded man (Moses), riding an ass, and with a
roll in his hand. He carried off everything of value to Antioch, leaving, as
rulers in Jerusalem, Menelaus as high priest and Philip, a Phrygian, as
governor. Of the latter it is said that he was “in character more barbarous
than him that set him there”.