The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated) Read online

  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)

  SKETCH OF JEWISH HISTORY AFTER THE RETURN FROM CAPTIVITY.

  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 plea
sed 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.

  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 t
o 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.