The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated) Read online

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

  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”.

  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 illu
strative 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.