The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated)

by Annesley Streane

  Balas, son of Epiphanes, bore an extraordinary likeness to Antiochus Eupator, the late king of Syria. He took the name of Alexander, and with the countenance of Attains of Pergamum and Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt in his pretensions, as well as of the Roman Senate, he claimed the Syrian throne. Demetrius, whose cruelties had alienated his subjects, was alarmed, and wrote to secure Jonathan’s aid, “with words of peace, so as to magnify him”. Balas, on the other hand, successfully capped this attempt by a present of a purple robe and a golden crown; so that he at once became prince in Judea and officiated as high priest at the Feast of Tabernacles, 152 BC, the first of his family who had held that office. Demetrius still endeavored to outbid his rival for Jewish support, and the letter which he now wrote, preserved by Josephus, illustrates the extremely severe character of the taxation which had been imposed by Syria. He says: “I will remit you most of the taxes and contributions which ye paid to my predecessors and myself ... I give you as a favor the value of the salt-tax and the (golden) crowns which ye did bring to me, and my share, even one-third of ground crops, and one-half of the fruit trees, I surrender from today. Also the poll-tax paid by every inhabitant of Judea, viz., Samaria, Galilee, Perea, I grant yon in perpetuity.” Among further concessions he promises honorable posts in military service, a larger contribution to the Temple expenses, the remission of the annual tax of 10,000 drachma paid by those who came to sacrifice at Jerusalem, and that even Jews settled in Syrian provinces should be exempt on all Sabbaths and festivals, and for three days before and after the festivals, from being called before any court of justice.

  Jonathan was prudently deaf to these appeals. Alexander overthrew his rival, who was slain in the battle, and Philometor offering to give the victor his daughter Cleopatra, the marriage was celebrated at Ptolemais, Jonathan being present as a specially honored guest. Jonathan's position henceforward was such that he was able to aim at the extension of Jewish dominion by taking advantage of the political condition of Syria, and obtaining, partly by demand, partly by conquest, such concessions of power or territory as he desired. In the exercise of this general policy he continued to support Alexander Balas when Demetrius II, son of Demetrius I, set himself up (147 BC) as rival claimant for the throne, and he more than once defeated Demetrius’sforces, and brought home rich booty. As an acknowledgment of this service he acquired fromBalas Ekron and its territory.

  In 145 BC, however, Demetrius obtained the throne with the help of Ptolemy, who transferred his daughter Cleopatra from Balas to his rival. Jonathan at this time, trusting that the Syrian forces were sufficiently employed, sought to obtain possession of the citadel at Jerusalem, which still contained a Syrian garrison. Demetrius hearing of this, summoned Jonathan to Ptolemais. The latter, however, was able as a result of that interview to obtain his own confirmation in his dignities, the promise for Judea of freedom from tribute, and the addition of the three Samaritan provinces of Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim—all this apparently on condition that Jonathan should raise the siege of the citadel.

  Antiochus VI, son of Alexander Balas, was now brought forward by Trypho (the leader of some troops whom Demetrius had disbanded) as rival king to Demetrius, and thereupon an opportunity was furnished Jonathan to make still further demands as the price of aid. Before, however, effect could be given to these, Demetrius was driven from power, and Jonathan passed over to the side of the new ruler, taking the field on his behalf, while at the same time he sent ambassadors to open up friendly relations with Sparta, as well as to Rome to renew the treaty made in the time of Judas. At this time also the city was refortified and a wall erected so as to cut off the citadel effectually from the rest of Jerusalem. At length, Trypho suspecting, and not without cause, that Jonathan was advancing rapidly towards the step of casting off completely the Syrian suzerainty, treacherously secured the person of the Jewish leader, and after a further exhibition of successful craft in his dealings with Simon Maccabeus, who had taken the command, caused Jonathan to be murdered at Bascama, and returned home.

  Simon, on his succession to power (142 BC), reaped the benefit of his predecessor's skilful policy and generalship. All that was needed was to obtain from Syria the confirmation of the concessions made to Jonathan. These were readily granted by Demetrius, who indeed had no power to refuse them, and Simon's position as an independent prince was virtually conceded, though not perhaps in language wholly free from ambiguity. He now proceeded to secure the fortress of Beth-zur and Gazara. The latter was of special importance to obtain, as being on the route between Jerusalem and Joppa, a town which was one of the most valuable acquisitions made at this time, as its trading dues were a source of large income to the Jewish commonwealth. Above all, he at last obtained possession of the citadel itself, and demolished its forts, the Hellenists who occupied it either withdrawing to Egypt, or accepting the new conditions of life in their own country, or lastly, in some few cases where they were unwilling to yield, being put to death for their idolatrous leanings. Public documents were dated from the commencement of Simon’s reign (142 BC), as a new era, thus following the example of neighboring independent states. Embassies sent by him to Sparta and to Rome procured promises of friendship and support from both. Prosperity prevailed throughout the land. According to the description of the Maccabean historian, “Then they tilled their ground in peace, and the land gave her increase, and the trees of the plains their fruit. The ancient men sat in the streets, they communed all of them together of good things, and the young men put on glorious and warlike apparel. He provided victuals for the cities, and furnished them with all manner of munition, until the name of his glory was named unto the end of the earth. He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy: and they sat each man under his vine and his fig-tree, and there was none to make them afraid: and there ceased in the land any that fought against them: and the kings were discomfited in those days. And he strengthened all those of his people that were brought low: the law he searched out, and every lawless and wicked person he took away. He glorified the sanctuary, and the vessels of the Temple he multiplied”. One more step was needed to crown the position. The office of high priesthood had been held by Jonathan with the permission of theSyrian power. Simon must assume it at the call of his own nation, and this was done with all due pomp and ceremony in September 141 BC, when it was resolved that Simon should be ecclesiastically, as well as in civil and military affairs, supreme “for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet”. Brazen tablets recording the decree were set up in the Temple court. The announcement of this solemn confirmation of the high priesthood in the house of Joarib was made to the Jews resident in Egypt in a carefully worded communication, having regard to the susceptibilities of men who had not only set up a novel temple in their adopted country, but also had among them a representative of the ancient high-priestly family of Jaddua.

  Now that the culmination had been reached, Simon, or rather, probably, the council of chief men over whom he presided, proceeded to issue shekels and half-shekels with the words (in old Hebrew characters) “Jerusalem the Holy” on one side, and on the other, “shekel (or half-shekel) of Israel”, with the number of the year, dating apparently from his consecration to the high priesthood. Emblems of his office were added in the shape of a budding rod, and a cup suggesting incense. Simon’s name does not occur on those extant, of which we have specimens of the years (142—138 BC) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

  After several years of peace, during which Simon obtained the renewed expression of Roman goodwill—of value less than doubtful, could men have foreseen the future—he was called upon by Antiochus Sidetes (138 BC) to recognize his authority as successor to Demetrius, who had been defeated and captured in the course of his Parthian expedition. Sidetes, while the contest between himself and Demetrius’s general Trypho was still doubtful, readily confirmed Simon in his independence and immunities. As soon as that leader had been captured and put to death,Sidetes claimed the restoration to Syria of the citadel in
Jerusalem and other fortresses on payment of suitable compensation, and followed up his claim by an appeal to arms. Simon, now an old man, sent his sons, Judas and John, to meet the invader between Modin and Ekron. The Syrians were vanquished, and Simon was left in peace by Sidetes during the few remaining months of the Jewish prince’s life. He and his sons, Mattathias and Judas, were treacherously slain at Jericho by his son-in-law Ptolemy, son of Abubus, who had been appointed by Simon civil and military governor of that district. Ptolemy's ambitious designs, which had prompted him to this deed of violence, were unsuccessful. John, the sole remaining son, was forewarned that Ptolemy's agents were approaching in order to complete the murderous designs of their master. He hastened to Jerusalem, where he received the support of the people, and succeeded to his father's position (135 BC).

  THE REIGN OF JOHN HYRCANUS (135—106 BC)

  THE reign of John Hyrcanus, who now succeeded to the priestly and princely dignities of his father, has been compared to that of Solomon. They both began under troublous circumstances. Both extended the bounds of their country's dominion and its influence over neighboring states, and both, after a period of much prosperity, declined in glory and at length ended with gloom and party strife.

  Hyrcanus’s first duty he considered to be to avenge the deaths of his father and brothers. Ptolemy took refuge in Dok, near Jericho, where his main defence against capture by siege seems to have been his possession of the person of the mother of Hyrcanus, whom he threatened to hurl from the walls, if extreme measures were resorted to by the besiegers. After a considerable time the approach of the Sabbatical year compelled Hyrcanus to withdraw his forces, whereupon Ptolemy slew his mother-in-law, and fled to the wilderness east of Jordan. We hear of him no more. That Hyrcanus took no further measures against him is sufficiently explained by the need which befell that he should himself sustain a siege from Antiochus III (Sidetes), who approached Jerusalem, laying waste the neighboring country. After carefully investing the city for more than a year, without much progress being made, and both sides apparently suffering from lack of food while the besieged were still sufficiently supplied with water, Hyrcanus turned out all who were incapable of bearing arms, and as they were refused succor from the outside forces many of them perished. At length Hyrcanus asked for seven days’ cessation of hostilities in order to keep the feast of Tabernacles. Antiochus’s favorable response was accompanied by a present, including offerings of animals prepared for sacrifice. Negotiations for peace commenced, and it was concluded, the Jews agreeing “to deliver up their arms, to demolish the fortifications of Jerusalem, to pay tribute for the towns they had seized outside the narrower limits of Judea, and to give hostages for their good behavior!”

  That the towns here referred to (Joppa, Gazara, and others) were not taken from the Jews at this time, when Syria was able to reassert her supremacy, is doubtless to be ascribed to the interference of the Romans, with whom Hyrcanus was in communication, and who, from motives of self-interest, sided, as heretofore, and as usual, with the weaker state.

  Hyrcanus soon rebuilt the walls, and we are told that he proceeded also to hire mercenary troops, a novel step which, however little approved by the straiter sect of his countrymen, would at least afford a welcome relief from military service to many of the nation. The money needed for their pay or for the tribute to Antiochus, is said to have been obtained from the tomb of David.

  Hyrcanus now accompanied his late foe in the expedition of the latter to Parthia to rescue his brother Demetrius Nicator, who had been forcibly detained there for the last ten years. The Parthian general was defeated, and the king set Nicator free, that Sidetes might be drawn homewards by the need of protecting himself against his rival. Antiochus was soon afterwards slain in an attack of the enemy on his camp. Hyrcanus, who had been treated with much consideration by Antiochus, now escaped, and on reaching Jerusalem proceeded to take advantage of the strife which followed among claimants for the crown of the Seleucids, to render his country once more independent and to extend its limits.

  Nicator, who had designs upon Egypt, was soon defeated, captured, and put to death (circ. 125 BC) by Alexander, nick¬named by the Syrians Zabinas, “the purchased”, who was said by some to be the son of Alexander Balas, by others an adopted son of Sidetes. Antiochus VIII (Grvphus), son of Demetrius Nicator, soon asserted his supremacy over Zabinas (122 BC), and for eight years reigned in peace over a kingdom reduced in size. At the end of this period there followed three years (114—111 BC) of civil war between him and his half-brother, Antiochus IX (Cyzicenus), remarkable mainly for his love of pleasure and sensuality, and apparent desire to pose as a second Antiochus Epiphanes in point of character. Cyzicenus, unlike his two immediate predecessors, ventured to meddle with Hyrcanus, who, however, on the one occasion on which their forces met, inflicted on him a decisive defeat.

  Hyrcanus, taking advantage of the helplessness of Syria to check his schemes of extension, obtained forcible possession of considerable districts east of Jordan, as well as of Idumean and Samaritan territory. The Idumeans, who seem to have reaped much advantage from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (580 BC) in the way of extension of territorynorthward, now weakened in all probability by the rising power of the Nabateans, who had spread from the south in their wake, were unable to resist the Jewish attack. To them he gave the alternative of exile or the embracing of Judaism. Many of them accepted the latter, and thenceforward such were considered as Jews, but, as we see from Josephus, they were liable to be looked on with some contempt by the Jewish aristocracy, who considered Herod, for example, as only a “half Jew”. “For the first time the Judeans under their leader, John Hyrcanus, practiced intolerance against other faiths; but they soon found out, to their painful cost, how dangerous it is to allow religious zeal to degenerate into the spirit of arbitrary conversion. The enforced union of the sons of Edom with the sons of Jacob was fraught with disaster to the latter. It was through the Idumeans and the Romans that the Hasmonean dynasty was overthrown and the Judean nation destroyed!”.

  In the Samaritan territory, Shechem and the temple on Mount Gerizim had been already destroyed by Hyrcanus. He now proceeded to plant Idumean settlers in the neighborhood of Samaria. The colonists there received sorry handling. Hyrcanus besieged Samaria, Cyzicenus, with some support from Egypt, vainly endeavoring to divert his attention by ravaging the country around (An ineffective support only. It came from Ptolemy Soter II (Lathyrus), who contributed a force of (6,000 men, but did so in opposition to the policy of the powerful queen-mother, Cleopatra, who had two distinguished Jews, Chelkias and Ananias, the sons of Onias of Heliopolis, for her generals in Palestine, and these were doubtless acting in the interest of the Jews against the Samaritans). After a year’s siege Samaria fell (108 BC) and was completely demolished, the ground on which it stood being cut up into ditches and canals. “When the sons of Hyrcanus [Aristobulus and Antigonus] returned to Jerusalem, the boundary between their father’s kingdom and that of the Syrians was substantially a line running from Mount Carmel on the west to Scythopolis on the Jordan. The authority of the holy city extended over a larger area than in any previous period since the Exile; and the country was so administered that the people prospered, and the nations outside were either jealous or respectful”.

  A stage of advance in the way of personal claims on the part of Hyrcanus was marked by the occurrence of his own name on coins of this time: “Jochanan, high priest, and the commonwealth of the Judeans”; in some even “Jochanan, high priest, and head of the commonwealth of the Judeans”. Thus, while still claiming the priestly character of the government of which he appeared as ecclesiastical head, a distinct step forward was taken in the prominence given to his civil prerogatives.

  We now come face to face with two parties destined to take an important position in Judaism. Neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees are wholly out of relationship to views which we have already noticed as held by important factors of the community. But wh
ile they may thus remind us respectively of the Assideans and the Hellenists of the earlier period, the distinctions are also obvious. Those who from their natural bent of mind or from training took the narrowestview as to the duty of exclusiveness, were henceforward known as Essenes. Practicing strict asceticism, and in some cases at least forbidding marriage, these exercised a comparatively slight influence upon the community, with which they generally renounced all connection. The Pharisees, on the other hand, although their rise is not clearly marked, had evidently in Hyrcanus’s day acquired the position of the popular party. They were, however, a religions rather than a political body. To the close study of the Law they added that of the superim¬posed and elaborated traditions as to its meaning and extent of application. Thus while inheriting the essential ideas of the Assideans, they gave a much more unqualified support to the policy of exclusiveness and national self-assertion which arose naturally out of the success of the Maccabean movement, and they had a real interest in their country’s welfare and prestige. Although closely connected with the scribes, the two were not, at least in later times, coincident. The relation between the scribes and Pharisees “was practically the same as that which exists between teachers and taught. The Pharisees were the men who endeavored to reduce the teachings and theories of the scribes to practice, and all those scribes, who in addition to the written Law also believed in the binding authority of tradition, were Pharisees as well as scribes”.

  The Sadducees, on the other hand, may be considered as akin to, or even a branch of the Hellenistic party. They were distinguished, however, by accepting with the utmost loyalty the Pentateuch, although declining to be bound by the traditions which had grown up around it. It may well be, as Ewald says, that the disappearance of the early literature of this school is to be attributed to the disrepute into which it fell politically in Maccabean times. For as the Pharisees were primarily a religious, so the Sadducees were rather a political, party. They included the aristocratic families, the generals and others who were disposed to take a laxer view on the subject of exclusiveness, as having mixed more with the outer world, and acquired a knowledge of, and respect for, customs outside those proper to the Jewish race. “The main principle of the Sadducees was that ... good and evil, human weal or woe, depended solely on man’s own choice, and on his knowledge or ignorance. This almost Stoic-sounding principle, which they could easily set themselves to prove by detached passages of the Pentateuch, involved the sharpest contrast with the rigid system which had prevailed from the time of Ezra; but not less so with all true religion. At the same time, it quickens the impulse of human freedom and activity, places the whole world of sense within its reach, and, while it flatters able minds, seems free from danger so long as the conception of God derived from ancient faith remains unimpaired, and the hereditary morality of the mass of the people is but little shaken. From this point it was but one step further to the denial of the immortality of the soul and eternal retribution, and therefore of the actual existence of angels and spirits; so that in this the Sadducees consciously repudiated what was by no means disclaimed in the Book of the Law, even if it was not sufficiently clearly asserted; and fell into the very doubts from which Koheleth had with difficulty escaped. Moreover, though they accepted the authority of the Law, yet they would only maintain a very independent position with respect to it, and they rejected all the further extensions and statutes of which the dominant school was so fond. This was the natural result of placing their fundamental principle in the merely human resolve to allow no power to determine or hinder their conduct save the civil laws”.