The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated) (8 page)

WHEN Alexander was
dying, he is said to have advised his wife Alexandra, on whom the sovereignty
now devolved, to cultivate the favor of the Pharisees. According to one
account, his words were, “Fear neither the Pharisees nor their opponents, but
fear the hypocrites who pretend to be Pharisees, whose deeds are those of
Zimri, and who claim a reward like that of Phinehas”. Strongly supported by the
Pharisees, she succeeded in keeping her kingdom free throughout her reign not
only from internal feuds, but to a large extent also from foreign attack.
Josephus speaks of her as “a sagacious woman in the conduct of great affairs,
intent always on the gathering of soldiers together, so that she in¬creased the
army by one-half, and procured a great body of foreign troops, till her own
nation became powerful at home and terrible to foreign potentates”.

She had two sons,
Hyrcanus the elder, an indolent person, who succeeded to the high priesthood,
and Aristobulus, energetic and ambitious. The latter she sent upon an
expedition against Damascus, which, however, was not fruitful in results of any
kind. Danger also threatened on the part of Tigranes, king of Armenia.
Alexandra promptly sent him presents, thereby to procure freedom from attack.
These might easily have failed to be effectual, had it not been for the fact of
the gradual advance of the Romans in Tigranes’ direction, and his knowledge
that the insatiable legions were watching in the rear. The time was now almost
come when the eagles would find their way across the frontiers of Judea itself,
and the period of its independence would finally close.

As regards home
administration, Simon ben Shatach, who during the reign of Aristobulus had
headed the opposition to that king’s Sadducean policy and tastes, was now in
full favor with royalty. Hyrcanus, the high priest, was a nonentity, and thus
the natural supporter of the Sadducean party was helpless. Josephus’ remarks of
the queen, that “while she governed other people, the Pharisees governed her.
She had indeed the name of regent, but the Pharisees had the authority; for it was
they who restored such as were banished, and set such as were prisoners at
liberty, and, to say all at once, they differed nothing from lords”. Writers of
later times on thePharisean side record the traditions of the glories of this
period from the point of view of their party. “Under Simon ben Shatach and
Queen Salome rain fell on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the corns of wheat
were large as kidneys, the barley corns as large as olives, and the lentils
like golden denarii; the scribes gathered such corns and preserved specimens of
them in order to show future generations what sin entails”.

Simon ben Shatach now
sought to obtain further support by associating with himself an ecclesiastical
officer who, under the title of Nasi (prince), or president of the council,
should have the duty of expounding the intricacies of the legal ritual, and
deciding knotty points as they might arise. The most fitting person in respect
of attainments appeared to be Jehudah ben Tabbai, then resident at Alexandria.
Accordingly in a message couched in high-flown language he was invited to
accept the post, and in conjunction with Simon completed the enforcement of
strictness in Jewish observances. There was a dispute in later times as to
which held the higheroffice. “Wise men say Jehudah ben Tabbai was
vice-president and Simon ben Shatach was prince-president (Nasi). Who is the
author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case; because
our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that Rabbi Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I
see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to
oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death,
unless the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simon ben Shatach
said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed
innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be
put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten,
until they are both proved to be false, and they do not refund money, until
they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah benTabbai undertook that he
would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simonben
Shatach”. This, with the further discussion which thereupon ensues as to the exact
meaning of Jehudah ben Tabbai’s “undertaking” gives us a glimpse at once of the
nature of the discussion, in which he was called on to take a prominent part,
and of the style of a large portion of the Talmud, from which the above passage
is an extract. Whatever may have been the exact relative position of the two
men, their influence upon religions and intellectual life was unmistakable. The
ceremonial observances which had been neglected were restored. In particular we
are told that the ceremony observed at the Feast of Tabernacles, when water
drawn in a golden basin from the well of Siloam was poured as a libation upon
the altar, was carried out, accompanied by the most impressive ritual. So at
the feast held on the 15th of Ab (August) in honor of the wood offered for the
use of the altar, the young men chose white-robed maidens in marriage, as they
performed the sacred dance and song. Careful attention was given to education.
Schools were established for youths above sixteen, while systematic arrangements
were for the first time made for teaching boys below that age. “The schools of
Judah may be regarded as the first general attempt on the part of the nation to
encourage rabbinical scholarship, and to draw youths of promise to professional
careers”. No less than eleven different names for schools now came into vogue.
“Ourprincipal care”, such was the boast of Josephus, dating it from this time,
“is to educate our children”. “The world”, such became the Talmudical maxim,
“is preserved by the breath of the children in the schools”.

The teaching was
doubtless narrow; but viewed in connection with the times, the essay was
praiseworthy and patriotic. Improvements in the practice of the law courts and
in checking the facilities for obtaining a divorce are also to be ascribed to
the same source, as well as the imposition of the half-shekel or temple-tax, in
imitation of that which is ordered in Exod. XXX. 11-16. By this last change the
religious administration was rendered more independent of the instability necessarily
attaching to individual generosity. As long as the voluntary system prevailed,
it was suicidal to alienate those who alone were competent to contribute
largely; but when a kind of poll-tax had been welcomed by the nation, every
Sadducee could be excluded from the Sanhedrin with financial impunity, and the
whole ecclesiastical organization of Judaism was rendered independent of their
grace or generosity.

Judah ben Tabbai at
length resigned his office, owing to his being convicted, according to the tradition,
of an error in procedure. Simon succeeded him, and the honor in which he was
held is shown by the story that he accepted with Brutus¬like sternness and
fidelity the paramount claims of law. His son bad been found guilty on the
evidence of witnesses, who, ere the place of execution was reached, confessed
to perjury. He pleaded nevertheless, with the father’s acquiescence, that in
the interests of justice the sentence should be executed, lest the general
belief in witnesses’ testimony should in future cases be shaken.

The position of the
Sadducean leaders was indeed a changed one. Aristobulus, however, stood their
friend, and induced his mother to appoint them to command the chief fortresses
throughout the country, thus getting rid of their presence in Jerusalem. They
in return enabled him, when his mother's end drew near, to hire mercenaries,
and secure the fortresses on his side. Thereby on her death (69 BC) he easily
procured his own succession to the vacant throne.

ON the death of
Alexandra, Hyrcanus, as eldest son, claimed to succeed to the vacant throne.
But he was soon defeated by his warlike brother in a battle near Jericho, and
yielding his ecclesiastical position as well, retired into private life after a
reign of three months, solaced by the wealth that he had accumulated.

The end of the
Maccabean power now approached. Evidently there was no great friction between
parties within the state, nor did the Pharisees anticipate any serious change
in their position through the accession of Aristobulus II. It was from an
Idumean that the attack arose which immediately preceded the establishment of
Roman rule in Palestine. The governor of Idumea was a certain Antipater, almost
to a certainty a descendant of one of those families whom John Hyrcanus had
compelled to accept Judaism. He had a son of the same name, who, being of an
ambitions turn, bethought him that he could advance his interests much more
successfully with Hyrcanus as nominal ruler, than with Aristobulus as actually
at the head of the State. Taking up the cause of the former accordingly, and
gaining some influential adherents, he persuaded Hyrcanus, as though in danger
from his brother, to flee for protection to Aretas, king of the Nabateans, and
obtain his aid in return for large cessions of territory. Aristobulus was
vanquished in battle, deserted by many of his soldiers, and obliged to take
refuge in the temple-mount. After a blockade of several months, and much privation
on the part of the besieged, alike from lack of food and the absence of
suitable sacrifices at the Passover feast, which occurred at that time, the
siege was raised by the intervention of the Roman Scaurus, whom Pompey had
detached for this purpose in the course of the latter’s Asiatic conquests. Both
brothers appealed to him with presents. Scaurus decided to support Aristobulus
and ordered Aretas to withdraw. He was pursued and defeated by Aristobulus, who
looked forward to a reign undisputed indeed by his brother, but one from which
all independence had been for ever eliminated. Three embassies met Pompey
himself at Damascus; viz., from each of the rivals for the sovereignty, and
from the Pharisees, the last deprecating the re-establishment of the kingly
power in any shape. Pompey, who was on the way to attack Aretas, postponed a
decision for the moment, but soon considering that he had cause to doubt the
good faith of Aristobulus, he gave up for the time hisNabatean campaign, and
turned against him, compelling him to surrender the fortress ofAlexandrium, and
withdraw to Jerusalem. Thither Pompey followed, learning on his way, to his
great satisfaction, that Mithridates, the most dangerous enemy that he had had
to encounter, had fallen by his own hand. When Pompey reached Jerusalem, the
party of Hyrcanus yielding without resistance, he found that he had only
Aristobulus and his followers to deal with. They had secured themselves as they
best could in the temple-mount. After a three months’ siege the Romans, partly
through the rigid observance of the Sabbath-rest by the enemy, forced an
entrance. The priests were massacred as they proceeded with their duties at the
altars. Twelve thousand Jews are said to have perished.

Although Pompey on this
occasion violated Jewish feeling by forcibly entering the Holy of Holies, yet
his mode of dealing with the conquered people was far from severe. He left
themnominally under the hierarchical government which they desired, nominating
Hyrcanus as high priest. A heavy sum of money was exacted and the country was
placed under Scaurus, now made Roman governor of Syria. Aristobulus with his
sons and daughters, and a large body of other Jewish captives, helped to swell
Pompey’s triumphal entry to the Capitol.

Pompey had left Hyrcanus,
though without the kingly title, as the recognized high priest and still in at
least nominal control of the civil administration. The subjection to Scaurus
deprived Hyrcanus of all real power, and Gabinius becoming governor a few years
later, and taking advantage of a revolt under Alexander, son of Aristobulus,
cancelled (57 BC) all the remains of self-government, retaining Hyrcanus in the
high priesthood only, and dividing Judea into five provinces, each with its
independent assembly or Sanhedrin. Politically Jerusalem ceased to be a centre
of rule and influence, and was degraded into the head of a commune; and
whatever prerogatives of local government remained, were exercised by an
aristocracy, and not even by a titular king, and were recognized or disregarded
by the Romans at their will. The work of conquest was made light to their
western assailants by the fact that the country was torn with internalstrifes,
and that the contending parties were so blind to their own interests as to seek
protection and help from the strangers. There was no longer any trace left of
that spirit which had led the people on to victory a hundred years before.

The capture of
Jerusalem by Pompey, and the political results, were noteworthy in more ways
than one. Through his “triumph” as a victorious general, the Jewish nation came
under the personal cognizance of his countrymen at home, and thus was formed at
the metropolis of the world the nucleus of the Jewish colony, which in later
years proved so important an element in connection with the beginnings of
Christianity in that city. Henceforward the Jew became a well-known person at
Rome, and a familiar figure in its literature.

To revert, however, to
Palestine itself, we may readily grant that the dispositions made by Pompey and
his lieutenant Gabinius, although displeasing doubtless to the national pride
of the Jews, were on the whole a blessing to their neighbors. The Jewish
dominion was restricted to the limits of the country, as re-occupied after the
return from Babylon. The districts over which they had in later times acquired
authority must on this change of masters have found the Roman rule much less
exacting and severe. Samaria, the commercial cities along the Mediterranean
coast, the Decapolis in the north east of Palestine, and many Hellenic
communities on the eastern banks of the Jordan, were liberated from a yoke
which they detested, and which at times forced Judaism upon them at the point
of the sword. Gabinius caused many towns, which had been destroyed bythe Jews,
to be rebuilt. Among the most important of these were Samaria and Scythopolis.
His general policy was, by multiplying such flourishing centres of life, to
produce a wholesome rivalry among themselves, and thus diminish the danger of
political combination against the Roman power.

The  above-mentioned 
policy had of course the result of depriving Jerusalem of its  position as the
main centre of influence, and thereby of exasperating those whose interests or
sentiment were keenly affected by the degradation. Accordingly on the
reappearance of Aristobulus and his son Antigonus in Judea (after effecting
their escape from Rome), many flocked eagerly to their standard. It was,
however, only an ill-armed and untrained force that they would command, little
adapted to cope with the troops which Gabinius could bring into the field.
Aristobulus took refuge in Machaerus, and after a two years’ siege was captured
and sent back to his Roman prison. The senate, however, which thus confined
him, set his children at liberty.

Gabinius, returning (55
BC) from a campaign in support of Ptolemy Auletes, found that Alexander, son of
Aristobulus, had made his escape from his Roman guard in Pompey’s train, and
attempted revolt, which did not long survive the return of the Roman governor.

Meanwhile, political
events in Italy had their influence in provinces as remote as Syria. The
combination known as the first Triumvirate, consisting of Cesar, Pompey, and
Crassus, was formed in the year 50 BC. Of these three Crassus was by far the most
wealthy, and decided that by directing his attention to the eastern provinces,
he was using the means likely to be most successful in enabling him to outstrip
his competitors in the race for preeminence. In an expedition against the
Parthians he was defeated and slain. Before proceeding thither, he had, unlike
his colleague Pompey, plundered the Temple, and thereby incurred the enmity of
the Jews. They once again rebelled, and the moment seemed an encouraging one.
Cassius, whom the death of Crassus placed in command, although he had but
10,000 men under him in the whole of Syria, crushed the revolt, sold 30,000
Jews as slaves, and put the leader of the insurrection to death (52 BC).
Antipater, who advised this measure, was a farsighted and prudent statesman. He
perceived that, in the interests both of his own ambition and of the people
over whom he was placed, he was bound to cultivate the friendship of Rome, and
therefore of that candidate for the supreme power whose fortunes were for the
time uppermost.

In 40 BC began the
civil wars through which was effected the change from republican to imperial
Rome. During these twenty years, from Cesar’s crossing the Rubicon down to the
death of Antony, 40-30 BC, the whole Roman history was reflected in the history
of Syria and also in that of Palestine ... During this short period Syria and
Palestine changed sides and owned new masters no less than four times. Like the
other portions of the Empire, Judea had to submit to the severest exactions, in
order that the strife might be maintained among the would-be autocrats of the
world.

The death of Julia,
Pompey’s wife and daughter of Cesar, ended the alliance between the two. They
promptly sought to secure respectively the eastern and the western provinces.
Pompey landed in Egypt, and was immediately murdered. Cesar, who arrived soon
afterwards at Alexandria, was hemmed in, compelled to burn his ships, and
blockaded in one quarter of the town both by land and sea. Antipater with his
accustomed prudence adopted Cesar’s side, and showed himself a valuable ally,
going to the rescue with 3,000 soldiers, and inducing the Alexandrian Jews to
support the Roman cause.

After rendering the
most efficient service in many respects, he received a becoming reward, a large
portion of which, to do him justice, consisted in the acquisition of valuable
privileges for his people. It was doubtless through his advice that Cesar
rejected the claims of Antigonus, the younger son of Aristobulus, to the Jewish
sovereignty. Antipater continued, as always, to support Hyrcanus, feeling no
doubt that he was too incapable to be at all dangerous to his schemes. Caesar
accordingly confirmed the latter in his high priesthood, and made the office of
“ethnarch” to be hereditary in his family. He secured the Jews in the
possession of their temple-tax, and freed them from any such demands for
military service as might interfere with the requirements of the Law. They were
made autonomous as regards their own affairs. Joppa and some other coast towns
were restored to them. The Roman garrisons were withdrawn. Permission was given
that the walls of Jerusalem, destroyed by Pompey, should be rebuilt. Antipater
was given the charge of the kingdom, received immunity from all taxation, and
was made a Roman citizen.

The benefits conferred
by Cesar on the Jewish people were by no means confined to Palestine. In
accordance with his general policy to encourage contentment among provincials,
and to honor such customs as did not in his opinion go beyond harmless
prejudices, he allowed the 'Dispersion' in Asia Minor freedom to practice their
religion, while to those in Egypt, for whom the possession of such a privilege
was no novelty, he granted Roman citizenship. Of all peoples under the sway of
Rome at this time the Jews, we are told, were the most vehement in lamenting
his death.

In Jerusalem, Hyrcanus
was of course, as before, nominal ruler, and a mere puppet in the hands of
Antipater. The latter, through the advantages procured by his means for the
people, of which not the least apparent consisted in the rebuilding of the
walls now in course of  completion, had obtained the utmost popularity with the
multitude. They realized that to him the material prosperity of the country and
the immunities which they enjoyed were mainly due. But to the upper classes he
was an object of hatred. Party strife continued, and the combatants failed to
see the obvious truth that independence as against such a power as Rome was
impossible, even were the nation agreed among themselves, and that the benefits
which Antipater had procured to them were the utmost which could be looked for.

Judea, during this
troubled time, had to suffer much, but it was due to the wisdom of Antipater
that she did not suffer more. To his honor it must be said that he made the
utmost of the difficult and perilous circumstances in which the Jews were then
placed, and by abandoning a hopeless struggle with Rome obtained the most
favorable conditions possible for the people whose interests he had in charge.
Personal ambition, no doubt, entered into his calculations—it is an element in
the character of almost everyone who aspires to rule—but the important fact
remains that he possessed a clearer view of the times in which he lived, and
utilized his knowledge in the performance of far greater services to the Jewish
nation than the Jewish aristocracy who reviled and opposed him. By futile
insurrections and by fostering discontent the aristocracy added vastly to the
miseries of the population. By their opposition to the Romans they were in
reality throwing themselves across the path of the Divine purpose, which was
working itself out in history by binding the Mediterranean peoples under one
form of civil rule, as a preliminary to the advent and propagation of the
Christian faith.