The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated)

by Annesley Streane

  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.

  FROM THE DEATH OF ALEXANDRA TO HEROD’S CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM (69—37 BC)

  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 Pas
sover 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 Arist
obulus, 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.