The Age of the Maccabees (Illustrated)

by Annesley Streane

  THE HISTORY FROM THE ACCESSION OF ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT TO THE TIME OF THE MACCABEAN REVOLT (222-108 BC)

  POLYBIUS chose the year 221 BC for the opening of his great history of the civilized world, because in his opinion it marked a curious turning-point in the affairs of men. Several of the greatest monarchs of the world died at that time—Antigonus Doson, Ptolemy Evergetes,Cleomenes. Antiochus III of Syria was only just come to the throne, a mere youth, and other inexperienced youths, Ptolemy Philopator and Philip V ascended the vacant thrones. To those who expected a Roman invasion it must now have seemed inevitable, and at this time the Romans could have conquered the empire of Alexander with no difficulty. But suddenly there arose for them too the cloud in the west; Hannibal was before Saguntum, and crossed the Ebro, and for the next twenty years they were struggling for bare existence against the mighty Carthaginian. So then the interference of Rome was stayed, and Hellenistic life was allowed another generation of development.

  We have already touched upon the position of affairs in Egypt and Judea during the earlier years of the long reign of Antiochus the Great (221-175 BC). As we have seen, he did not establish his power in Jerusalem till twenty-four years later. Although the Hellenizing party in the city was strong enough to assure him of support, things were different elsewhere. The Jews in the country parts were much harassed by the exactions and depredations practiced by the troops of the rival claimants. Owing to the wise administration of Aristomenes, an Acarnanian, virtually governor of Egypt during the infancy of Ptolemy Epiphanes, Antiochus III, after his decisive victory over theEgyptians at Panion, on the upper Jordan, made peace with the king, and undertook to give him his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, and with her Coele-Syria and Palestine as her dowry. In the meanwhile, however, it was arranged that the taxes should be divided between the two kings, thus practically subjecting the people to a double amount of oppression.

  Antiochus at first treated the Jews with much consideration, causing their religious scruples to be respected, and even directing that the city walls and the Temple should be repaired. On the whole, Jewish feeling at this time was decidedly against Egypt; and, in general, it may be said that association with a kingdom like that of the Seleucids, who ruled over such very various nationalities, would naturally present a certain amount of attraction, as against Egypt, the character of whose government would be likely to permit much less of elasticity. Ptolemy Philopator (ob. 204 BC) by the severe imposts which he enforced had alienated the nation, and they sided consequently with the Syrian power. There appear to have been more Jews in Antioch and its neighborhood than were to be found in Alexandria itself. From Babylon two thousand families had been transferred to Phrygia and Lydia; in fact, the Jews were nearly the most numerous nationality within the Syrian kingdom. We are told in the Second Book of Maccabees (8. 20)—and probably the story is true, with some amount of exaggeration in detail—that eight thousand Babylonian Jews had gained a victory for Antiochus over an army of Galatians of fifteen times their own size.

  The seven sons of Joseph, the leader of the Egyptian party, by his first wife, who were named after their paternal grandfather the sons of Tobiah, formed the champions of Hellenism during the time of Antiochus III. Their half-brother, Hyrcanus, on the other hand, inherited his father’s policy, and by his ability and social qualities became, as we have already seen, a persona grata at the Egyptian court. There he acquired much wealth, which, on the death of his patron Philopator, he transferred in part to the Temple treasury for security, while with another portion he erected for himself on the eastern side of Jordan, not far from Heshbon, a costly castle, in which he took up his abode as representative of the Egyptian interest in those quarters. Domestic broils between him and his brethren constantly led on to civil disorder, and the state of the country was deplorable enough during the earlier part of Antiochus the Great’s reign, while desultory attacks from their old enemies the Idumeans, Philistines, and Samaritans, added to the troubles of the nation.

  Antiochus suffered a severe defeat at the hands of the Roman general Lucius Scipio near Magnesia in 190 BC, a blow which involved the loss of much territory and money, as well as of his fleet. We now for the first time hear of his son, Antiochus Epiphanes, whom he was compelled to send to Rome as a hostage, to remain (as it turned out) thus confined for thirteen years.

  In order to pay the excessively heavy impost which the Roman power inflicted, Antiochus betook himself to robbing temples, and the resentment and tumult which was brought about by his attack upon the temple of Bel at Elymais was the cause of his being slain there, 187 BC. His son, Seleucus Philopator, succeeded him and reigned in an uneventful manner for about eleven years. He devoted himself to finding the money which Rome continued to demand, while the Jews remained, in a manner, subjected to both the Egyptian and Syrian kingdoms.

  The chief incident connected with Jerusalem during Seleucus’s reign was the attempt of Heliodorus to seize upon the Temple treasures. An official, described as “steward of the Temple”, named Simon the Benjamite, in order to curry favor with Seleucus, informed Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria, that there was much wealth to be had for the capture. He reported the matter to Seleucus, who, hard pressed for means wherewith to pay the heavy demands of the Romans, sent his chief minister, Heliodorus, to Jerusalem. The Second Book of Maccabees (ch. 3) relates the terror that took possession of the city on the arrival of the Syrian envoy, and the subsequent incidents, at least in the form which the memory of them assumed several generations later. “The priests, prostrating themselves before the altar in their priestly garments, and looking toward heaven, called upon him that gave the law concerning deposits that he should preserve these treasures safe for those that had deposited them. And they that were in the houses rushed flocking out to make a universal supplication, because the place was like to come into contempt. And the women, girt with sackcloth under their breasts, thronged the streets, and the virgins that were kept in ward ran together, some to the gates, others to the walls, and some looked out through the windows”. Thereupon appeared a horse “with a terrible rider” clothed in armour of gold, and two young men who scourged the impious intruder, at length laid prostrate, “speechless and bereft of all hope and deliverance”. The high priest offers a sacrifice of propitiation. Heliodorus too makes vows, offers sacrifice, and returns to the king. “And when the king asked Heliodorus what manner of man was fit to be sent once again to Jerusalem, he said: If thou hast any enemy or conspirator against the state, send him thither, and thou shalt receive him back well scourged, if he even escape with his life; because of a truth there is about the place a power of God”.

  The high priest above-mentioned was Onias III, who succeeded his father Simon II in 198 or 195 BC. He was a prominent member of the Assidean sect, and remarkable for his holiness of life and close observance of the Law. As a ruler, he aimed at strict impartiality between rival factions. He supported Hyrcanus in his use of the Temple as a place of security for the treasures which he had obtained through siding with Egypt, while, although he was viewed with hostility by the Hellenistic party led by his own brother Jason, he seems to have been regarded, for a while at least, with much favor by Seleucus. At length, however, owing to the con¬tinual slanders of Simon the Benjamite, who remained at the Syrian court, Onias, in the interests of his people, proceeded to Antioch, where he abode for some years. Soon after his arrival there Antiochus Epiphanes obtained permission to terminate his thirteen years’ detention at Rome. On his arrival at Antioch he found that his brother was dead, probably murdered by Heliodorus, who had assumed the throne. Epiphanes banished the murderer, and thus unexpectedly obtained the kingdom (175 BC), Demetrius, son of the late king, and thus the rightful heir, being now a hostage at Rome. Thisarrangement met with the favor of the Roman power, which, on the principle Divide et impera,had for its interest to sow dissensions among members of a royal family, and thus gain over kingdoms which still retained more or less of independence.

&n
bsp; Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) reigned 175-104 BC. “He was by nature a genuine despot, eccentric and undependable, sometimes extravagantly liberal and fraternizing with the common people in an affected manner; at other times cruel and tyrannical”. The latter side of his character is made abund¬antly evident by his treatment of the Jews. The former qualities are brought out in detail by Polybius in his history, who there speaks of him as “madman” rather than Epiphanes, (magnificent). He was thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Hellenism, and his great purpose was to introduce Greek worship and practices throughout his dominions, not sparing any amount of violence or religious persecution, should they be needful to attain his ends. The feuds which prevailed in Judea of themselves would have attracted his attention. He received, however, a direct appeal from the Hellenizing party there, who pointed out that Hyrcanus was still collecting taxes in the neighborhood of his castle in the interests of Egypt.

  Hyrcanus committed suicide, and Antiochus seized his property. In his need of money he proceeded to plunder the Temple, a proceeding which would fall in well with his natural dislike of the stricter party among the Jews. Jason, brother of Onias, who had been acting as high priest since the latter had taken up his abode at Antioch, undertook, on condition of his being confirmed in the possession of that office, to provide amply for the king's pecuniary needs, and to encourage Hellenism in every way in Jerusalem. In pursuance of this arrangement, “seeking to overthrow the lawful modes of life, he brought in new customs forbidden by the Law”, the very priests hurrying from their sacrifices to the contests conducted in the Greek manner in a gymnasium below the citadel. Many sought to efface the marks of circumcision. “The Greek cap”, a broad-brimmed hat, such as appeared on the figure of Hermes (Mercury), was ordered to be worn by the noblest of the young men. A festival in honor of Hercules was celebrated every fourth year at Tyre, and to this Jason sent a money contribution. But the courage of his messengers failed them, and when it came to the point, they asked that the money should be applied to the fitting out of additional vessels for Antiochus’s fleet.

  Jason held office for three years (174—171 BC), and his influential position is shown by the fact that when Antiochus in 172 BC paid a short visit to Jerusalem, he was received with acclamations and a torchlight procession.

  Jason’s tenure of power however was, after all, far from secure. Menelaus, brother of Simon the Benjamite, was sent to Antioch with some of the promised money. He took the opportunity of outbidding Jason and thus obtained his office; but his attempts at fulfilling the pecuniary obligations which he had thus incurred, by rifling the Temple-stores and carrying off its sacred vessels, procured him not only the rebuke of the aged Onias, soon afterwards slain (171 BC), but arraignment before the king as being the cause of riots in Jerusalem brought about by his sacrilegious conduct. But the attack upon him proved abortive. “Menelaus, through the covetous dealings of them that were in power, remained still in his office”.

  Antiochus now (170 BC) relying, though without adequate grounds, on immunity from the side of Rome, which was becoming involved in a war with Perseus, king of Macedonia, attacked and defeated Ptolemy Philometor near Pelusium. A report that the king of Syria had been slain brought such encouragement to the enemies of Menelaus, that Jason, who had fled to the Ammonites, returned to the city, and compelled Menelaus to take refuge in the citadel. The report soon proved to be erroneous; Jason's career was at an end; he fled to Sparta and died there unmourned.

  The ferocious side of the king of Syria's nature was now fully revealed. He held a three days’ massacre in Jerusalem, sparing neither age nor sex. Menelaus himself brought the king into the Holy of Holies, where the latter declared afterwards that he had seen the statue of a long-bearded man (Moses), riding an ass, and with a roll in his hand. He carried off everything of value to Antioch, leaving, as rulers in Jerusalem, Menelaus as high priest and Philip, a Phrygian, as governor. Of the latter it is said that he was “in character more barbarous than him that set him there”.

  On Antiochus’s conduct at this time Prof. Mahaffy comments as follows: “I think his savage outbreak at Jerusalem, where he sacrificed swine upon the altar, defiled the Holy of Holies, and forced all the priests to pollute themselves, must have been caused by some more special personal injuries on their part than the mere resistance to his innovations. Our information is so scanty that we can only guess. In some way the nationalist party in Judaea, and their relations in Egypt, must have thwarted his advance and marred his campaign. We hear that his third advance was slow; had he reached Alexandria but a few days sooner, he might have seized the capital, murdered the royal princes, and then made his peace with the Romans when the game was won. It seems likely that the opposition of the patriotic party in Judea hindered his march, and so caused his signal failure at the moment of victory”.

  On the occasion of another expedition against Egypt two years later (168 BC), Antiochus was met by a Roman envoy, Caius Popilius Lenas, who handed him the Senate’s written order to discontinue the war, and on his hesitation to promise acquiescence, drew a circle around him with his stick on the sand, and required his decision before he stepped across that boundary. At the moment that Antiochus yielded to this peremptory demand, the empire of Alexander may be said to have visibly passed over to the Romans. But to a man of the king's ferocity of temper the occasion proved one on which he had to wreak his vengeance in some direction, and now, asbefore, the Jews were the victims. Sending Apollonius, his collector of tribute, with 20,000 men to Jerusalem, he gave command that it should be thoroughly Hellenized. On the first Sabbath after his arrival Apollonius proceeded to carry out his orders. Those who opposed were killed or sold into slavery, and colonists brought in to fill their places. The city walls were demolished, but the citadel was fortified, and the Syrian garrison held it securely through Maccabean times till 142 BC. All distinctively Jewish practices were forbidden, circumcision, the sacrificial system, abstinence from unclean food, even the possession of the sacred Books. On the 15th of Chisleu,i.e. late in December, 168 BC, an altar to the Olympian Zeus was placed on the altar of burnt-offering, and ten days later it was hanselled by the sacrifice of a sow. The Jews were compelled to keep the festival of Dionysus (Bacchus), crowned with ivy. Violence, including death, was the penalty for detection in the infringement of any of these commands, which were rigidly enforced by officers appointed to see to their observance in all parts of the country. To this time belong the well-known stories of the martyrdom of the aged scribe Eleazar, and of the mother and her seven sons. It was emphatically a time of sifting. “Judah was searched, and that which was unworthy cast out. Waverers turned with rekindled fervor to the God of their fathers. In their hiding-places on the outskirts of the land, the faces of the Chasidim (Assideans) grew stern. The soldiers of Jehovah were ready for battle, waiting in prayer for a God-sent man to lead them”.

  THE MACCABEAN REVOLT TO THE DEATH OF JUDAS (168—160 BC).

  IN order to understand the importance of the Maccabean revolt as a specially important epoch in the history of Judaism, we must contemplate it on the one hand in its relation to the establishment of the Law under Ezra and Nehemiah, and on the other hand in its reference to the completion of the literary work which goes by the name of the Mishnah (circ. 200 AD).

  When the Temple-worship at Jerusalem was reestablished, there was placed before the pious Jew in detail the ceremonial, as well as other, duties which that Law entailed. The festival celebrations, the sacrifices and other offerings on stated occasions, the tribute to be paid to the priests, and in general the rites necessary to be performed regularly or on special occasions, on the penalty of forfeiting the favor of the Almighty—all these were set forth with particularity, to be carried out with the utmost punctilio. Further, the study of the Law was given in charge to a body of men, the scribes, whose duty should be to enforce its regulations, explain its meaning, and draw such inferences as might be needed in the complicated circumstances of religious duty. Abso
lute precision was essential in carrying out the requirements of the Law. How should that precision be attained, except by an authorized interpretation? In the course of centuries these guardians of the Law had heaped up a vast number of traditions, more or less directly based on the groundwork of the text which was in their keeping, and intended to provide answers for the variety of questions actually arising, or which might well be expected to arise, touching its requirements. This gradually growing body of decisions, which by the end of the second centuryAD was formed into the Mishnah (the common basis of the Talmuds of Jerusalem and Babylon), had not of course acquired in Maccabean times the fullness which it afterwards exhibits. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Assideans, and all those who with them placed a high value upon the distinctive religious rites of the nation, were even at this date strong supporters of the sanctity of the ceremonial enjoined, or suggested by inference from that which was enjoined, in the five “Books of Moses” (the Torah). A considerable measure of enthusiasm for the Law already doubtless existed among those who were wholly opposed to the encroachments of the Hellenistic spirit, to which we have referred in previous chapters.