|
Appendix 3 | Table
of Contents | Appendix 5
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Appendix 4
AN ABSTRACT OF JEWISH HISTORY FROM THE REIGN
OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT TO THE ASCENSION OF HEROD
(See Book I. ch. 8.)
The political connection of Israel with the the Grecian world, and, with it,
the conflict with Hellenism, may be said to have connected with the victorious
progress of Alexander the Great through the then known world (333 b.c.).1
It was not only that his destruction of the Persian empire put an end to the
easy and peaceful allegiance which Judĉa had owned to it for about two
centuries, but that the establishment of such a vast Hellenic empire. as was
the aim of Alexander, introduced a new element into the world of Asia.
Everywhere the old civilisation gave way before the new. So early as the
commencement of the second century before Christ, Palestine was already
surrounded, north, east, and west, with a girdle of Hellenic cities, while in
the interior of the land itself Grecianism had its foothold in Galilee and was
dominant in Samaria. But this is not all. After continuing the frequent object
of contention between the rulers of Egypt and Syria, Palestine ultimately
passed from Egyptian to Syrian domination during the reign of Seleucus IV.
(187-175 b.c.). His successor was
that Antiochus IV., Epiphanes (175-164), whose reckless determination to
exterminate Judaism, and in its place to substitute Hellenism, led to the
Maccabean rising. Mad as this attempt seems, it could scarcely have been made
had there not been in Palestine itself a party to favour his plans. In truth,
Grecianism, in its worst form, had long before made its way, slowly but surely,
into the highest quarters. For the proper understanding of this history its
progress must be briefly indicated.
1. We
do not here discuss the question, whether or not Alexander really entered
Jerusalem. Jewish legend has much to tell of him, and reports many supposed
inquiries on his part or discussions between him and the Rabbis, that prove at
least the deep impression which his appearance had made, and the permanent
results which followed from it.
After the death of Alexander, Palestine passed first under
Egyptian domination. Although the Ptolemies were generally favourable to the
Jews (at least of their own country), those of Palestine at times felt the
heavy hand of the conqueror (Jos. Ant. xii. 1. 1). Then followed the
contests between Syria and Egypt for its possession, in which the county must
have severely suffered. As Josephus aptly remarks (Ant. xii. 3. 3),
whichever partly gained, Palestine was 'like a ship in a storm which is tossed
by the waves on both sides.' Otherwise it was a happy time, because one of the
comparative independence. The secular and spiritual power was vested in the
hereditary High-Priests, who paid for their appointment (probably annually) the
sum of twenty (presumably Syrian) talents, amounting to five ordinary talents,
or rather less than 1,200l.2
Besides this personal, the country paid a general tribute, its revenues being
let to the highest bidder. The sum levied on Judĉa itself has computed at
81,900l. (350 ordinary talents). Although this tribute appears by no
means excessive, bearing in mind that in later times the dues from the
balsam-district around Jericho were reckoned at upwards of 46,800l. (200
talents), the hardship lay in the mode of levying it by strangers, often
unjustly, and always harshly, and in the charges connected with its collection.
This cause of complaint was indeed, removed in the course of time, but only by
that which led to far more serious evils.
2. Comp.
Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr, vol. ii. passim, but specially
pp. 181 and 211.
The succession of the High-Priests, as given in Nehem. xii. 10,
11, 22, furnishes the following names: Jeshua, Joiakin, Eliashib, Joiada,
Johanan,3 Jonathan,
and Jaddua, who was the contemporary of Alexander the Great. After the death of
Jaddua, we have the following list:4
Onias I. (Jos. Ant. xi, 8. 7), Simon I. the Just5
(Ant. xii. 2. 5), Eleazar, Manasseh (Ant. xii. 4. 1), Onias
II., Simon II. (Ant. xii. 4. 10), Onias III., Jason
(Ant. xii. 5. 1), Menelaus, and Alcimus (Ant. xii. 9. 7), with
whom the series of the Pontiffs is brought down to the Maccabees. Internal
peace and happiness ceased after the death of Simon the Just (in the beginning
of the third century b.c.), one of
the last links in that somewhat mysterious chain of personages, to which
tradition has given the name of 'the Great Assemblage,' or 'Great Synagogue.'6
3. I
have placed Johanan (Neh. xii. 22) before Jonathan, in accordance with
the ingenious reasoning of Herzfeld, ii. p. 372. The chronology of their
Pontificates is almost inextricably involved. In other respects also there are
not a few difficulties. See Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. p. 27, and the
elaborate discussions of Herzfeld, whose work, however, is very faulty
in arrangement.
4. Happily
no divergence exists as to their succession.
5. Some
Christian and all Jewish writers assign the designation of 'The Just' to Simon
II. This is directly contrary to the express statement of Josephus. Herzfeld
(i. 377) appeals to Abhoth i. 2, 3, Men. 109 b, and Jer. Yoma vi. 3, but
immediately relinquishes the two latter references as otherwise historically
untenable. But surely no historical inference - for such it is - from
Ab. i. 2, 3 is worth setting against the express statement of Josephus.
Besides, Zunz has rightly shown that the expression Qibbel must
not be to closely pressed, as indeed its use throughout the Perek seems to
indicate (Gottesd. Vortr. p. 37, Note).
6. Of
this more in the sequel. He is called hlwdgh tsnk yry#m which however does not seem
necessary to imply that he was actually a member of it.
Jewish legend has much that is miraculous to tell of Simon the
Just, and connects him alike with events both long anterior and long posterior
to his Pontificate. Many of these traditions read like the outcome of loving,
longing remembrance of a happy past which was never to return. Such a venerable
form would never again be seen in the Sanctuary (Ecclus. 1. 1-4), nor would
such miraculous attestation be given to any other ministrations7
(Yoma 39 a and b; Jer. Yoma v. 2; vi. 3). All this seems to point
to the close of a period when the High-Priesthood was purely Jewish in spirit,
just as the hints about dissensions among his sons (Jer. Yoma 43 d, at
top) sound like faint reminiscences of the family - and public troubles which
followed. In point of fact he was succeeded not by his Onias8
who was under age, but by his brother Eleazar, and he, after a Ponficate of
twenty years, by his brother Manasseh. It was only twenty-seven years later,
after the death of Manasseh, that Onias II. became High-Priest. If Eleazar, and
especially Manasseh, owned their position, or at least strengthened it, by
courting the favour of the ruler of Egypt, it was almost natural that Onias
should have taken the opposite or Syrian part. His refusal to pay the
High-Priestly tribute to Egypt could scarcely have been wholly due to avarice,
as Josephus suggests. The anger and threats of the king were appeased by
the High-Priest's nephew Joseph, who claimed descent from the line of David. He
knew how to ingratiate himself at the court of Alexandria, and obtained the
lease of the taxes of Cœle-Syria (which included Judĉa), by offering for it
double sum previously paid. The removal of the foreign tax-gatherer was very
grateful to the Jews, but the authority obtained by Joseph became a new source
of danger, especially in the hands of his ambitious son, Hyrcanus. Thus we
already mark the existence of three parties: the Egyptian, the Syrian, and that
of the 'sons of Tobias' (Ant. xii. 5. 1), as the adherents of Joseph were
called, after his father. If the Egyptian party ceased when Palestine passed
under Syrian rule in the reign of Antiochus III. the Great (223-187 b.c.), and ultimately became wholly
subject to it under Seleucus IV. (187-173), the Syrian, and especially the
Tobias-party, had already become Grecianised. In truth, the contest now became
one for power and wealth in which each sought to outbid the other by bribery
and subserviency to the foreigner. As the submission of the people could only
be secured by the virtual extinction of Judaism, this aim was steadily kept in
view by the degenerate priesthood.
7. It
deserves notice that in these same Talmudic passages reference is also made to
the later entire cessation of the same miracles, as indicating the coming
destruction of the Temple.
8. Or
as he is designated in the Talmud; Chonyi, Nechunyah, and even Nechunyon. Onias
is a Grecianised form - itself a significant fact.
The storm did not, indeed, break under the Pontificate of Simon
II., the son and successor of Onias II., but the times were becoming more and
more troublous. Although the Syrian rulers occasionally showed favour to the
Jews, Palestine was now covered with a network of Syrian officials, into whose
hands the temporal power mainly passed. The taxation also sensibly increased,
and, besides crown-money, consisted of a poll-tax, the third of the
field-crops, the half of the produce of trees, a royal monopoly of salt and of
the forests, and even a tax on the Levitical tithes and on all revenues of the
Temple.9 Matters
became much more worse under the Pontificate of Onias II., the son and
successor of Simon II. A dispute between him and one Simon, a priest, and
captain of the temple-guard,10
apparently provoked by the unprincipled covetousness of the latter, induced
Simon to appeal to the cupidity of the Syrians by referring to the untold
treasures which he described as deposited in the Temple. His motive may have
been partly a desire for revenge, partly the hope of attaining the office of
Onias. It was ascribed to a super-natural apparition, but probably it was only
superstition which arrested the Syrian general at that time. But a dangerous
lesson had been learned alike by Jew and Gentile.
9. In
1 Macc. x. 29-33; Jos. And. xii;3. 3; xiii, 2. 3. In view of these
express testimonies the statement of Ewald (Gesch. d. V. Isr. vol. iv.
p. 373), to the effect that Palestine, or at least Jerusalem, enjoyed
immunity from taxation, seems strange indeed. Schürer (u.s.p. 71) passes
rather lightly over the troubles in Judĉa before Antiochus Epiphanes.
10. Herzfeld
rightly corrects 'Benjamin' in 2 Macc. iii. 4. Comp. u. s. p. 218.
Seleucus IV. was succeeded by his brother Antiochus IV.,
Epiphanes (175-164). Whatever psychological explanation may be offered of his
bearing - whether his conduct was that of a madman, or of a despot intoxicated
to absolute forgetfulness of every consideration beyond his own caprice by the
fancied possession of power uncontrolled and unlimited - cruelty and
recklessness of tyranny were as prominently his characteristics as
revengefulness and unbounded devotion to superstition. Under such a reign the
precedent which Simon, the Captain of the Temple, had set, was successfully
followed up by no less a person than the brother of the High-Priest himself.
The promise of a yearly increase of 360 talents in the taxes of the country,
besides a payment of 80 talents from another revenue (2 Macc. iv. 8, 9),
purchased the deposition of Onias III. - the first event of that kind recorded
in Jewish history - and the substitution of his brother Joshua, Jesus, or Jason
(as he loved to Grecianise his name), in the Pontificate.11
But this was not all. The necessities, if not the inclinations, of the new
High-Priest, and his relations to the Syrian king, prescribed a Grecian policy
at home. It seems almost incredible, and yet it is quite in accordance with the
circumstances, that Jason should have actually paid to Antiochus a sum of 150
talents for permission to erect a Gymnasium in Jerusalem, that he entered
citizens of Antioch on the registers of Jerusalem, and that on one occasion he
went so far as to send a deputation to attend the games at Tyre, with money for
purchasing offerings to Heracles! And in Jerusalem, and throughout the land,
there was a strong and increasing party to support Jason in his plans, and to
follow his lead (2 Macc. iv. 9, 19). Thus far had Grecianism already swept over
the country, as not only to threaten the introduction of views, manners, and
institutions wholly incompatible with the religion of the Old Testament, but
even the abolition of the bodily mark which distinguished its professors (1
Macc. i. 15; Jos. Ant. xii.5. 1).
11. The
notice in Jos. Ant. xii. 5. 1 must be corrected by the account in 2
Macc. Comp. Herzfeld, u. s.
But the favor which Antiochus showed Jason was not of long
duration. One even more unscrupulous than he, Menelaus (or, according to his
Jewish name, Onias), the brother of that Simon who had first excited the Syrian
cupidity about the Temple treasure, outbade Jason with Antiochus by a promise of
300 talents in addition to the tribute which Jason had paid. Accordingly,
Menelaus was appointed High-Priest. In the expressive language of the time: 'he
came, bringing nothing worthy of the High-Priesthood, but having the fury of a
cruel tyrant and the rage of a savage beast' (2 Macc. iv. 25). In the conflict
for the Pontificate, which now ensued, Menelaus conquered by the help of the
Syrians. A terrible period of internal misrule and external troubles followed.
Menelaus and his associates cast off every restraint, and even plundered the
Temple of some of its precious vessels. Antiochus, who had regarded the
resistance to his nominee as rebellion against himself, took fearful vengeance
by slaughter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and pillage of the Temple. But
this was not all. When checked in his advance against Egypt, by the peremptory
mandate of Rome, Antiochus made up for his disappointment by an expedition
against Judĉa, of which the avowed object was to crush the people and to sweep
away Judaism. The horrors which now ensued are equally recorded in the Books of
the Maccabees, by Josephus, and in Jewish tradition.12
All sacrifices, the service of the Temple, and the observance of the Sabbath
and of feast-days were prohibited; the Temple at Jerusalem was dedicated to
Jupiter Olympius; the Holy Scriptures were searched for and destroyed; the Jews
forced to take part in heathen rites; a small heathen altar was reared on the
great altar of burnt-offering - in short, every insult was heaped on the
religion of the Jews, and its every trace was to be swept away. The date of the
final profanation of the Temple was the 25th Chislev (corresponding to
our December) - the same on which, after its purification by Judas Maccabee,13
its services were restored, the same on which the Christian Church celebrates
the dedication of a better Temple, that of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation of
Jesus Christ.
12. Besides
Talmudic and Midrashic notices, we here refer to that most interesting and
ancient Megillath Taanith, or 'Rolls of Fasts,' of which a translation
is given in Appendix V. The passages bearing on this period are collected in Derenbourg,
Hist. de la Palestine, pp. 59-63, although his reference to that on the 28th of
Adar is at least open to controversy.
13. The
designation 'Maccabee' was originally given to Judas (1 Macc. ii. 4, 66;
iii. 1; v. 24, 34). The name was, like that of Charles Martel, probably
derived from bqm, or in Chaldee )bqm, a hammer. Comp. Josippon ben
Gorion, iii, 9. 7 (ed. Breithaupt, p. 200) - only that he writes the
name with a k, and not a q.
But the relentless persecution, which searched for its victims
in every part of the land, also called forth a deliverer in the person of Mattathias.
The story of the glorious rising and final deliverance of the country under the
Maccabees or Asmonĉans, as they are always called in
Jewish writings,14
is sufficiently known. Only the briefest outline of it can here be attempted.
Mattathias died before it came to any actual engagement with the Syrians, but
victory after victory attended the arms of his son, Judas the Maccabee,
till at last the Temple could be purified and its services restored, exactly
three years after its desecration (25 Chislev, 165 b.c.). The rule of the Jewish hero lasted other five years,
which can scarcely be described as equally successful with the beginning of his
administration. The first two years were occupied in fortifying strong
positions and chastising those hostile heathen border-tribes which harassed
Judĉa. Towards the close of the year 164 Antiochus Epiphanes died. But his
successor, or rather Lysias, who administered the kingdom during his minority,
was not content to surrender Palestine without a further contest. No deeds of
heroism, however great, could compensate for the inferiority of the forces
under Judas' command.15
The prospect was becoming hopeless, when troubles at home recalled the Syrian
army, and led to a treaty of peace in which the Jews acknowledged Syrian
supremacy, but were secured liberty of conscience and worship.
14. My)nm#x.
Josephus (Ant. xii. 6. 1) derives the word from Asmonœus, the
great grandfather of Mattathias. Others derive it from the word Mynm#h
('princes' in A.V. Ps. ixviii. 31).
15. The
Syrian force is said to have amounted to 100,000 footmen, 20,000 horsemen, and 32
war-elephants (1 Macc. vi. 30).
But the truce was of short duration. As we have seen there were
already in Palestine two parties - that which, from its character and aims, may
generally be designated as the Grecian, and the Chasidim
(Assideans). There can be little doubt that the latter name originally in the
designation Chasidim, applied to the pious in Israel in such passages as
Ps. xxx. 5 (4 in our A.V.); xxxi. 23 (A.V.24; xxxvii. 28). Jewish tradition
distinguishes between the 'earlier' and the 'later' Chasidim (Ber. v. 1 and 32 b;
Men. 40 b). The descriptions of the former are of so late a date, that
the characteristics of the party are given in accordance with views and
practices which belong to a much further development of Rabbinical piety. Their
fundamental views may, however, be gathered from the four opening sentences of
the Mishnic Tractate 'Abhoth,'16
of which the last are ascribed to Jose the son of Joezer, and Jose the son of
Jochanan, who, as we know, still belonged to the 'earlier Chasidim.' These
flourished about 140 b.c., and
later. This date throws considerable light upon the relation between the
'earlier' and 'later' Chasidim, and the origin of the sects of the Pharisees
and Saducees. Comparing the sentences of the earlier Chasidim (Ab. i. 2-4) with
those which follow, we notice a marked simplicity about them, while the others
either indicate a rapid development of Rabbinism, or are echoes of the
political relations subsisting, or else seems to allude to present difficulties
or controversies. We infer that the 'earlier' Chasidim represented the 'pious'
in Israel - of course, according to the then standpoint - who, in opposition to
the Grecian party, rallied around Judas Maccabee and his successor, Jonathan.
The assumption of the High-Priestly dignity by Jonathan the Maccabee, on the
nomination of the Syrian king (about 152), was a step which the ultraorthodox
party never forgave the Asmonĉans. From that period, therefore, we date the
alienation of the Chasidim - or rather the cessation of the 'earlier' Chasidim.
Henceforth, the party, as such, degenerated, or, to speak more correctly, ran
into extreme religious views, which made them the most advanced section of the
Pharisees.17 The
latter and the Saducees henceforth represented the people in its twofold
religious direction. With this view agrees the statement of Josephus
(Ant. xiii.5. 9), who first mentions the existence of Pharisees and Saducees in
the time of Jonathan, and even the confused notice in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 5,
which ascribes the origin of the Saducees to the first or second generation of
Zadok's disciples, himself a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, which would bring
the date to nearly the same time as Josephus.
16. We
regard the opening sentence of Abhoth as marking out the general principles and
aims of the so-called 'Great Assembly.'
17. A
somewhat analogous change, at least of theological opinions, distinguishes the
later from the earlier 'Puritans.' Theological schools which are partly
political in their early history often degenerate either into political
partisans or else into extreme sectaries, as either one or the other of their rationes
vivendi ceases.
From this digression, necessary for the proper understanding of
the internal relations in Judĉa, we return to the political history. There was
another change on the throne of Syria. Demetrius, the new king readily listened
to the complaints of a Jewish deputation, and appointed their leader, Alcimus
(Jakim or Eljakim) High-Priest. At first the Chasidin were disposed to support
him, as having formerly filled a high post in the priesthood, and as the nephew
of José the son of Jazer, one of their leaders. But they suffered terribly for
their rashness. Aided by the Syrians, Alcimus seized the Pontificate. But Judas
once more raised the national standard against the intruder and the allies. At
first victory seemed to incline to the national side, and the day of the final
defeat and slaughter of the Syrian army and of Nicanor their general was
enrolled in the Jewish Calendar as one on which fasting and mourning were prohibited
(the 13th Adar, or March). Still, the prospect was far from reassuring, the
more so as division had already appeared in the ranks of the Jews. In these
circumstances Judas directed his eyes towards the new Western power which was
beginning to overshadow the East. It was a fatal step - the beginning of all
future troubles - and, even politically, a grave mistake, to enter into a
defensive and offensive alliance with Rome. But before even more temporary
advantage could be derived from this measure, Judas the Maccabee had already
succumbed to superior numbers, and heroically fallen in battle against the
Syrians.
The war of liberation had lasted seven years, and yet when the
small remnant of the Asmonĉan party chose Jonathan, the youngest brother of
Judas, as his successor, their cause seemed more hopeless than almost at any
previous period. The Grecian party were dominant in Judĉa, the Syrian host
occupied the land and Jonathan and his adherents were obliged to retire to the
other side Jordan. The only hope, if such it may be called, lay in the
circumstances that after the death of Alcimus the Pontificate was not filled by
another Syrian nominee, but remained vacant for two years. During this time the
nationalists must have gained strength, since the Grecian party now once more
sought and obtained Syrian help against them. But the almost passive resistance
which Jonathan successfully offered wearied out the Syrian general and led to a
treaty of peace (1 Macc. ix. 58-73).In the period which followed, the Asmonĉan
party steadily increased, so that when a rival king claimed the Syrian crown,
both pretenders bade for the support of Jonathan. He took the side of the new
monarch, Alexander Balas, who sent him a crown of gold and a purple mantle, and
appointed him High-Priest, a dignity which Jonathan at once accepted.18
The Jewish Pontiff was faithful to his patron even against a new claimant to
the crown of Syria.19
And such was his influence, that the latter, on gaining possession of the
throne, not only forgave the resistance of Jonathan, but confirmed him in the
Pontificate, and even remitted the taxation of Palestine on a tribute (probably
annual) of 300 talents. But the faithlessness and ingratitude of the Syrian
king led Jonathan soon afterwards to take the side of another Syrian pretender,
an infant, whose claims were ostensibly defended by his general Trypho. In the
end, however, Jonathan's resistance to Trypho's schemes for obtaining the crown
for himself led to the murder of the Jewish High-Priest by treachery.
18. The
Pharisees never forgave this. It is quite true that this plea for their
opposition to the Asmonĉans is for the first time reported during a later reign
- that of John Hyrcanus I. - and that it was then ostensibly based on the
ground of Hyrcanus' mother having been a captive of war. But see our remarks on
this point further on.
19. The
story, however, differently told by Josephus (Ant. Xiii. 4. 3). I have
followed the account in 1 Macc., which is generally regarded as the more
trustworthy, though I am not without misgivings, since Josephus
evidently had the Book of Maccabees before him.
The government of Judĉa could not, in these difficult times,
have developed upon one more fitted for it than Simon, an elder brother of
Judas Maccabee. His father had, when making his dying disposition, already
designated him 'as the man of counsel' among his sons (1 Macc. ii. 65). Simon's
policy lay chiefly in turning to good account the disputes in Syria, and in
consolidating such rule as he had acquired (143-135 b.c.). After the murder of his brother by Trypho, he took
part of the Syrian claimant (Demetrius) to whom Trypho was opposed. Demetrius
was glad to purchase his support by a remission of all taxation for all time to
come. This was the first great success, and the Jews perpetuated its memory by
enrolling its anniversary (the 27th Iyar, or May) in their Calendar. An even
more important date, alike in the 'Calendar' (Meg. Taan. Per. 2) and in Jewish
history (1 Macc. xiii. 51), was the 23rd Iyar, when the work of clearing the
country of the foreigner was completed by the Syrian party. The next measures
of Simon were directed to the suppression of the Grecian party in Judĉa, and
the establishments of peace and security to his own adherents. To the popular
mind this 'Golden Age' described in glowing language in 1 Macc. xiv. 8-14,
seemed to culminate in an event by which the national vanity was gratified and
the future safety of their country apparently ensured. This was the arrival of
a Roman embassy in Judĉa to renew the league which had already been made both
by Judas Maccabee and by Jonathan. Simon replied by sending a Jewish embassy to
Rome, which brought a valuable shield of gold in token of gratitude. In their
intoxication the Jews passed a decree, and engraved it on tables of brass,
making Simon 'their High-Priest and a Governor forever, until there should
arise a faithful prophet;' in other words, appointing him to the twofold office
of spiritual and secular chief, and declaring it hereditary (1 Macc. xiv.
41-45). The fact that he should have been appointed to dignities which both he
and his predecessor had already held, and that offices which in themselves were
hereditary should now be declared such in the family of Simon, as well as the
significant limitation: 'until there should arise a faithful prophet,'
sufficiently indicate that there were dissensions among the people and
opposition to the Asmonĉans. In truth, as the Chasidim had already had been
alienated, so there was a growing party among the Pharisees, their successors,
whose hostility to the Asmonĉans increased till it developed into positive
hatred. This antagonism was, however, not grounded on their possession of the
secular power, but on their occupancy of the Pontificate, perhaps on their
combination of the two offices. How far their enmity went, will appear in the
sequel. For a time it was repressed by the critical state of affairs. For, the
contest with the Syrians had to be once more renewed, and although Simon, or
rather his sons, obtained the victory, the aged High-Priest and two of his
sons, Mattathias and Judas, fell by the treachery of Ptolomĉus, Simon's
son-in-law.
The Pontificate and the government now developed upon the only
one of Simon's sons still left, known as John Hyranus I. (Jochanan Horkenos,20
Jannai21), 135-105
b.c. His first desire naturally
was to set free his mother, who was still in the power of Ptolomĉus, and to
chastise him for his crimes. But in this he failed. Ptolemy purchased immunity
by threatening to kill his captive, and afterwards treacherously slew her. Soon
after this a Syrian army besieged Jerusalem. The City was reduced to great
straits. But when at the Feast of Tabernacles the Syrian king not only granted
a truce to the besieged, but actually provided them with what was needed for
the services of the Temple, Hyrcanus sought and obtained peace, although the
Syrian councillors urged their king to use the opportunity for exterminating
Jerusalem. The conditions, though hard, were not unreasonable in the
circumstances. But fresh troubles in Syria gave a more favourable turn to
affairs in Judĉa. First, Hyrcanus subjected Samaria, and then conquered Idumĉa,
whose inhabitants he made proselytes by giving them the alternative of
circumcision or exile. Next, the treaty with the Romans was renewed, and
finally Hyrcanus availed himself of the rapid decay of the Syrian monarchy to
throw off his allegiance to the foreigner. Jewish exclusiveness was further
gratified by the utter destruction of Samaria, of which the memorial-day (the
25th Marcheshvan, November) was inserted in the festive 'Calendar' (Meg. Taan.
Per. 8).22 Nor was
this the only date which his successors added to the calendar of national
feasts.23
20. The
derivation of the name Hyrcanus, or in Rabbinical writings Horqenos,
proposed by Grätz (Geesch. d. Juden. vol. ii. p. 55), and supported by Hamburger
(Real. Encycl. für Bibel u. Talmud, sect ii. p. 421, note 15) is untenable, in
view of the fact, that not a few Rabbinical authorities bore the same name
(comp. Ab. ii. 8; Sanh. 68 a). It could not, therefore, the victory of
Hyrcanus 'over Cendebœus, the Hyrcanian.'
21. The
name Jannai is supposed to have been an abbreviation of Jochanan. Many
Rabbinic teachers of that name are mentioned. Derenbourg (Hist. de la
Palest. p. 95) regards it as an abbreviation of Jonathan, but his reasoning is
not convincing.
22. According
to Jer. Soath ix. 13, and Sot. 33 a, a 'Bath Qol,' or Heavenly
Voice, issuing from the Most Holy Place, had announced to Hyrcanus, while
officiating in the Temple, the victory of his sons at Samaria. Josephus
(Ant. xiii. 10. 7), assigns on this ground to Hyrcanus the prophetic, as well
as the priestly and royal, title.
23. These
are the 15th and 16th Sivan, the 16th Adar, and the 7th Iyar. Comp. the Meg.
Taan.
But his reign is of the deepest importance in our history as
marking the first public contest between the great parties, the Pharisees and
the Saducees, and also as the turning-point in the history of the Maccabees.
Even the coins of that period are instructive. They bear the inscription:
'Jochanan, the High-Priest, and the Chebher of the Jews; 'or else,
'Jochanan the High-Priest, Chief, and the Chebher of the Jews.'24
The term Chebher, which on the coins occurs only in connection with
'High-Priest,' unquestionably refers, not to the Jewish people generally, but
to them in their ecclesiastical organisation, and points therefore to
the acknowledgment of an 'Eldership,' or representative body, which presided
over affairs along with and under the 'High-Priest' as 'Chief.'25
In this respect the presence or absence of the word 'Chebher,' or even
mention of the Jews, might afford hints as to the relationship of a Maccabee chief
to the ecclesiastical leaders of the people. It has already been explained that
the Chasidim, viewed as the National party, had ceased, and that the leaders
were now divided into Pharisees and Sadducees. By tradition and necessity
Hyrcanus belonged to the former, by tendency and. probably, inclination to the
later. His interference in religious affairs was by no means to the liking of
the Pharisees, still less to that of their extreme sectaries, the Chasidim.
Tradition ascribes to Hyrcanus no less than nine innovations, of which
only five were afterwards continued as legal ordinances. First,
the payment of tithes (both of the Levitical and the so-called 'poor's tithe')
was declared no longer obligatory on a seller, if he were one of the Am
ha-Arets, or country people, but on the buyer.26
Complaints had long been made that this heavy impost was not paid by the
majority of the common people, and it was deemed better to devote the
responsibility on the buyer, unless the seller were what was called 'neeman,'
trusted; i.e., one who had solemnly bound himself to pay tithes. In connection
with this, secondly, the declaration ordered in Deut. xxvi.3-10 was
abrogated as no longer applicable. Thirdly, all work that caused noise
was forbidden during the days intermediate between the first and the last great
festive days of the Passover and of the Feast of Tabernacles. Fourthly,
the formula: 'Awake, why sleepest Thou, O Lord' (Ps. xliv. 23), with which,
since the Syrian persecution, the morning service in the Temple had commenced,
was abolished. Fifthly, the cruel custom of wounding the sacrificial
animals on the head was prohibited and rings fastened in the pavement to which
the animals were attached (Jer. Maas. Sh. v. 9; Jer. Sot. ix. 11; Tos. Sot. 13;
Sotah 48 a). The four ordinances of Hyrcanus which were abolished
referred to the introduction in official documents, after the title of the
High-Priest, of the expression 'El Elyon' - the Most High God; to the attempt
to declare the Syrian and Samaritan towns liable to tithes (implying their
virtual incorporation) while according to an old principle, this obligation
only applied when a place could be reached from Judea without passing over
heathen soil; to the abrogation by Hyrcanus of a former enactment by Jose ben
Joezer, which discouraged emigration by declaring all heathen soil defiled, and
which rendered social intercourse with Gentiles impossible by declaring vessels
of glass capable of contracting Levitical defilement (Jer. Shabb. 1. 4;
Shabb.14 b) - and which was re-enacted; and, lastly, to the easy terms
on which the King had admitted the Idumĉans into the Jewish community.
24. Schürer
(Neutest. Zeitg. p. 113) does not give this inscription correctly. Comp. Levy,
Gesch. d. Jud. Munzen, pp. 52, 53. See especially Madden. 'Coins of the
Jews,' pp. 74-81, where all the varieties of inscription are given.
25. We
dismiss the fanciful readings and explanations of the word rbx by De
Saulcy and Ewald. But I cannot agree with Schürer in applying
it to the people as a whole. Even the passage which he quotes (Ber, iv. 7, with
which the corresponding Gemara should be compared), proves that the word
is not used loosely for the people, but with reference to their ecclesiastical nexus.
Comp, also Meg. 27 b.
26. Comp.
'Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Time of Christ,' pp. 233, 234.
From all this it is not difficult to from an idea of the
relations between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees. If Hyrcanus had not otherwise
known of the growing aversion of the Pharisees, a Sadducean friend and
councillor kept him informed, and turned it to account for his party. The story
of the public breach between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees is told by Josephus
(Ant. xiii. 10. 5, 6), and in the Talmud (Kidd. 66 a), with only
variations of names and details. Whether from a challenge thrown out to the
Pharisees (according to the Talmud), or in answer to a somewhat strange request
by Hyrcanus, to point out any part of his conduct which was not in accordance
with the law (so Josephus), one of the extreme section of the Pharisees,27
at a feast given to the party, called upon Hyrcanus to be content with secular
power, and to resign the Pontificate, on the ground that he was disqualified
for it, because his mother had been a captive of war. Even the Talmud admits
that this report was calumnious, while it offered a gratuitous insult to the
memory of a really noble heroic woman, all the more unwarrantable that the
Pontificate had, by public decree, been made the case if the charge now brought
had been other than a pretext to cover the hostility of the Chasidim. The rash
avowal was avenged on the whole party. In the opinion of Hyrcanus they all
proved themselves accomplishes, when, on being questioned, they declared the
offender only guilty of 'stripes and bonds.' Hyrcanus now joined the Sadducees,
and although the statement of the Talmud about the slaughter of the leading
Pharisees is incorrect, there can be no doubt that they were removed from power
and exposed to persecution. The Talmud adds this, which, although
chronologically incorrect, is significant, 'Jochanan the High-Priest served in
the Pontificate eighty years, and at the end of them he became a Sadducee.' But
this was only the beginning of troubles to the Pharisaic party, which revenged
itself by most bitter hatred - the beginning, also of the decline of the
Maccabbes.
27. Josephus
calls him Eleazar, but the Talmud (Kidd. 66 a) Jehudah ben Gedidim, for
which Hamburger would read Nedidim, the sect of 'the solitaries,'
which he regards as another designation for the extreme Chasidim.
Hyrcranus left five sons. To the oldest of them, Aristobulus (in Hebrew Jehudah) ,he
bequeathed the Pontificate, but appointed his own widow to
succeed him in the secular government. But Aristobulus cast his mother into
prison, where she soon afterwards perished - as the story went, by hunger. The
only one of his brothers whom he had left at large, and who, indeed, was his
favourite, soon fell also a victim to his jealous suspicions. Happily his reign
lasted only one year (105-104 b.c.).
He is described as openly favouring the Grecian party, although, on conquering
Iturĉa, a district east of Lake of Galilee,28
he obliged its inhabitants to submit to circumcision.
28. By
a curious mistake, Schürer locates Iturĉa north instead of east of the
Lake of Galilee, and speaks of 'Jewish tradition' as drawing such a dark
picture of Aristobulus. Dr. S. must refer to Josephus, since Jewish
tradition never named Aristobulus (Neuest. Zeitg. p. 118).
On the death of Aristobulus. I., his widow, Alexandra Salome,
released his brothers from prison, and apparently married the eldest of them,
Alexander Jannĉus (or in Hebrew Jonathan), who succeeded both to the
Pontificate and the secular government. The three periods of his reign (104-78 b.c.) seem indicated in the varying
inscriptions on his coins.29
The first period, which lasted eight or ten years, was that in which Jannai was
engaged in those wars of conquest, which added the cities on the maritime coast
to his possessions.30
During the time Salome seems to have managed internal affairs. As she was
devoted to the Pharisaic party - indeed one of their leaders, Simeon ben
Shetach, is said to have been her brother (Ber.18 a) - this was the time
of their ascendency. Accordingly, the coins of that period bear the
inscription, 'Jonathan the High-Priest and the Chebher of the Jews.' But
on his return to Jerusalem he found the arrogance of the Pharisaic party ill
accordant with his own views and tastes. The king now joined the Sadducees, and
Simeon ben Shetach had to seek safety in flight (Jer. Ber. vii. 2 p. 11 b).
But others of his party met a worse fate. A terrible tragedy was enacted in the
Temple itself. At the Feast of Tabernacles Jannai, officiating as High-Priest,
set the Pharisaic custom at open defiance by pouring the water out of the
sacred vessel on the ground instead of upon the altar. Such a high-handed
breach of what was regarded as most sacred, excited the feelings of the
worshippers to the highest pitch of frenzy. They pelted him with the festive Ethrogs
(citrons), which they carried in their hands, and loudly reproached him with
his descent from 'a captive.' The king called in his foreign mercenaries, and
no fewer than 6,000 of the people fell under their swords. This was an injury
which could neither be forgiven nor atoned for by conquests. One insurrection
followed after the other, and 5,000 of the people are said to have fallen in
these contests. Weary of the strife, Jannai asked the Pharisaic party to name
their conditions of peace, to which they caustically replied, 'Thy death' (Jos.
Ant. xiii. 13. 5). Indeed, such was the embitterment that they actually called
in, and joined the Syrians against him. But the success of the foreigner
produced a popular revulsion in his favour, of which Jannai profited to take
terrible vengeance of his opponents. No fewer than 800 of them were nailed to
the cross, their sufferings being intensified by seeing their wives and
children butchered before their eyes, while the degenerate Pontiff lay feasting
with abandoned women. A general flight of the Pharisees ensued. This closes the
second period of his reign, marked on the coin by the significant absence of
the words 'Chebher of the Jews.' the words being on one side in Hebrew,
'Jonathan the king,' and on the other in Greek, 'Alexander the King.'
29. For
the coins of that reign comp. Madden, u. s. pp. 83-93. I have however
arranged them somewhat differently.
30. According,
on the second series of coins, which date from his return to Jerusalem, and
breach with the Pharisees, we have on the reverse the device of an anchor with
two cross-bars.
The third period is marked by coins which bear the inscription
'Jehonathan the High-Priest and the Jews.' It was a period of outward military
success, and of reconciliation with the Pharisees, or at least of their recall
- notable of Simeon ben Shetach, and then of his friends - probably at the
instigation of the queen (Ber. 48 a; Jer. vii. 2). Jannai died in his
fiftieth year, after a reign of twenty-seven years, bequeathing the government
to his wife Salome. On his death-bed he is said to have advised her to promote
the Pharisees, or rather such of them as made not their religiousness a mere
pretext intrigue: 'Be not afraid of the Pharisees, nor of those of Zimri, and
seek the reward of Phinehas' (Sot. 22 b). But of chief interest to us
is, that this period of the recall of the Pharisees marks a great internal
change, indicated even in the coins. For the first time we now meet the
designation 'Sanhedrin.' The Chebher, or eldership, had ceased as
a ruling power, and become transformed into a Sanhedrin, or
ecclesiastical authority although the latter endeavoured, with more or less
success, to arrogate to itself civil jurisdiction, at least in ecclesiastical
matters.31
31. Jewish
tradition, of course, vindicates a much earlier origin for the Sanhedrin, and
assumes its existence not only in the time of Moses, David, and Solomon, but
even in that of Mordecai! (Comp. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. Talmud col. 1514.)
The nine years of Queen Alexandra's (in Hebrew Salome) reign
were the Golden Age of the Pharisees, when heaven itself smiled on a land that
was wholly subject to their religious sway. In the extravagant language of the
Talmud (Tann. 23 a, second line from top): 'In the days of Simeon ben
Shetach, the rains came down in the nights of fourth days,32
and on those of the Sabbaths, so that the grains of corn became like kidneys,
those of barley the stones of olives, and lentils like gold dinars, and they
preserved a specimen (dogma) of them for future generations to show them
what disastrous result may follow upon sin.' That period of miraculous blessing
was compared to the equally miraculous dispensation of heaven during the time
that the Temple of Herod was building, when rain only fell at night, while the
morning wind and heat dried all, so that the builders could continue their work
without delay.33
Queen Salome had appointed her eldest son, Hyrcanus II., a weak prince, to the Pontificate. But, as Josephus puts it (Am. xiii. 16. 2), although Salome
had the title, the Pharisees held the real rule of the country, and they
administered it with the harshness, insolence, and recklessness of a fanatical
religious party which suddenly obtains unlimited power. The lead was, of
course, taken by Simeon ben Shetach, whom even the Talmud characterises as
having 'hot hands' (Jer. Sanh. vi. 5,34
p. 23 b). First, all who were suspected of Sadducean leaning were
removed by intrigue or violence form the Sanhedrin. Next, previous ordinances
differing from Pharisaical views were abrogated, and others breathing their
spirit substituted. So sweeping and thorough was the change wrought, that the
Sadducees never recovered the blow, and whatever they might teach, yet those in
office were obligated in all time coming to conform to Pharisaic practice (Jos.
Ant. xviii. 1.4; Tos Yoma i. 8).
32. In
quoting this passage, Derenbourg (u. s. p 111) and Schürer leave
out these words. [They are omitted in the corresponding account of this story
in Vayy. R. 35, ed. Warsh. p. 54 a; in Siphré, ed. Friedmann,
p. 80 a; also in Siphra, ed. Weiss, p. 110 d, where the
whole connected is very much as in Vavy. R.] Yet the words are, in one sense,
most significant, since these fertilising rains, descending on these two nights
when it was specially forbidden to go out, since on them innumerable demons
haunted on the air (Pes. 112 b, line 10 from the bottom), indicated an
exceptional blessing. The reason why these two nights are singled out as
dangerous is, that Chanina b. Dosa, of whom Rabbinic tradition has so many
miracles to relate, conceded them to the hurtful sway of Agrath bath
Machlath and her 18 myriads of Angels. See App. xiii. In view of this, M. Derenbourg's
explanatory note would seem to require to be modified. But, in general, rain
even on the night before the Sabbath was regarded as a curse (Vayy. R. 35), and
it has been ingeniously suggested that the twy(ykr in the Midrash must be
taken in the sense in which that word is explained in Taan. 6 a, viz. as
the ordinary time of rain. Why the night before Wednesday and Friday night are
represented as left in the power of hurtful demons might open an interesting
field for speculation.
33. This
notice is followed by the somewhat blasphemous story of the achievements of Choni
(Onias) hammeaggel, to which reference will be made in the
sequel.
34. Chammumoth.
But the Pharisaic party were not content with dogmatical
victories, even though they celebrated each of them by the insertion in the
Calendar of a commemorative feast-day. Partly, 'to discourage the Sadducees,'
partly from the supposed 'necessities of the time, and to teach others' (to
make an example; Siphré on Deut.), they carried their principles even beyond
their utmost inferences, and were guilty of such injustice and cruelty, that,
according to tradition, Simeon even condemned his own innocent son to death,
for the sake of logical consistency.35
On the other hand, the Pharisaic party knew how to flatter the queen, by
introducing a series of ordinances which protected the rights of married women
and rendered divorce more difficult.36
The only ordinance of Simeon ben Shetach, which deserves permanent record, is
that which enjoined regular school attendance by all children, although it may
have been primarily intended to place the education of the country in the hands
of the Pharisees. The general discontent caused by the tyranny of the Pharisees
must have rallied most of the higher classes to the party of the Sadducees. It
led at last to remonstrance with the queen, and was probably the first occasion
of that revolt of Aristobulus, the younger son of Salome, which darkened the
last days of her reign.
35.
Comp. also Sanh. 46 a.
36. Comp.
Derenbourg, pp. 108, 109.
Salome died (in the beginning of 69 b.c.) before the measures proposed against Aristobulus could
be carried out. Although Hyrcanus II. now united the royal office with the
Pontificate, his claims were disputed by his brother Aristobulus II., who
conquered, and obliged his brother to abdicate in his favour his twofold
dignity. To cement their reconciliation, Alexander the son of Aristobulus married Alexandra the daughter of Hycranus. They little thought how ill-fated
that union would prove. For already another power was intriguing to interpose
in Jewish affairs, with which it was henceforth to be identified. Alexander
Hannai had appointed one Antipas, or Antipater - of whose origin the most
divergent accounts are given37
- to the governorship of Idumĉa. He was succeeded by a son of the same name.
The dissension between the two Asmonĉans seemed to offer the opportunity for
realising his ambitious schemes. Of course, he took the part of the weak
Hyrcanus as against the warlike Aristobulus, and persuaded the former that he
was in danger of his life. Ultimately he prevailed on him to fly to Aretas,
King of Arabia, who, in consideration of liberal promises, undertook to
reinstate Hycranus in the government. The Arab army proved successful, and was
joined by a large proportion of the troops of Aristobulus, who was not shut up
within the fortified Temple-buildings. To add to the horrors of war, a long
famine desolated the land. It was during its prevalence that Onias, reputed for
his omnipotence in prayer, achieved what procured for him the designation 'hammeaggel'
- the 'circle drawer.'38
When his prayer for rain remained unanswered, he drew a circle around him,
declaring his determination not to leave it till the Almighty had granted rain,
and that not in drops, nor yet in desolating floods (which successively
happened), but in copious, refreshing showers. It could serve no good purpose
to reproduce the realistic manner in which this supposed power of the Rabbi
with God is described (Taan. 23 a). But it were difficult to say whether
this is more repugnant to feelings of reverence, or the reported reproof of
Simeon ben Shetach, who forbore to pronounce the ban upon him because he was
like a spoilt child who might ask anything of his father, and would obtain it.
But this supposed power ultimately proved fatal to Onias during the siege of
Jerusalem by Hyrcanus and Aretas.39
Refusing to intercede either for one or the other of the rival brothers, he was
stoned to death (Ant. xiv. 2. 1).
37. According
to some (Ant. xiv. 1. 3), he was of noble Jewish, according to others, or
heathen and slave descent. The truth lies probably between these extremes.
38. It
almost seems as if this repugnant story were a sort of Jewish Imitation of the
circle which Popilius Lĉnas drew around Antiochus Epiphanes, bidding him
decide, ere he left it, whether or not he would comply with the demand of the
Romans.
39. Both
Josephus and the Talmud (Sotah 49 b) give an account, though in
different version, of the manner in which the besieged sought a supply of
sacrifices from the besiegers.
But already another power had appeared on the scene. Pompey was
on his victorious march through Asia when both parties appeal to him for help.
Scaurus, whom Pompey detached to Syria, was, indeed, bought by Aristobulus, and
Aretas was ordered to raise the siege of Jerusalem. But Pompey quickly
discovered that Hycranus might, under the tutelage of the cunning Idumĉan,
Antipater, prove an instrument more likely to serve his ulterior purposes than
Aristobulus. Three deputations appeared before Pompey at Damascus - those of
the two brothers, and one independent of both, which craved the abolition of
the Asmonĉan rule and the restoration of the former mode of government, as we
understand it, by the 'Chebher' or Eldership under the presidency of the
High-Priest. It need scarcely be said that such a demand would find no
response. The consideration of the rival claims of the Asmonĉans Pompey
postponed. The conduct of Aristobulus not only confirmed the unfavourable
impression which the insolent bearing of his deputies had made on Pompey, but
sealed his own fate and that of the Jewish people. Pompey laid siege to
Jerusalem. The adherents of Hyrcanus surrendered the City, but those of
Aristobulus retired into the Temple. At last the sacred precincts were taken by
storm amidst fearful carnage. The priests, who were engaged in their sacred
functions,40 and who
continued them during this terrible scene, were cut down at the altar. No fewer
than 12,000 Jews are said to have perished.
40. According
to Josephus, it was on the Day of Atonement; according to Dio Cassius,
apparently on a Sabbath. Comp. the remarks of Derenbourg on these
conflicting statements (u. s. p. 117, note).
With the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey (63 b.c.) the history of the Maccabees as a
reigning family, and, indeed, that of the real independence of Palestine, came
to an end. So truly did Jewish tradition realise this, that it has left us not
a single notice either of this capture of Jerusalem or of all the subsequent
sad events to the time of Herod. It is as if their silence meant that for them
Judĉa, in its then state, had no further history. Still, the Roman conquerer
had as yet dealt gently with his prostrate victim. Pompey had, indeed,
penetrated into the most Holy Place in contemptuous outrage of the most sacred
feelings of Israel; but he left the treasure of the Temple untouched, and even
made provision for the continuance of its services. Those who had caused the
resistance of Jerusalem were executed, and the country made tributary to Rome.
But Judĉa not only became subject to the Roman Governor of Syria, its
boundaries were also narrowed. All the Grecian cities had their independence
restored; Samaria was freed from Jewish supremacy; and the districts comprised
within the so-called Decapolis (or 'ten cities') again obtained
self-government. It was a sadly curtailed land over which Hyrcanus II., as
High-Priest, was left Governor, without being allowed to wear the diadem (Ant.
xx. 10). Aristobulus II. had to adorn as captive the triumphal entry of the
conquerer into Rome.41
41. The
captives then brought to Rome and sold as slaves became the nucleus of the
Jewish community in the imperial city.
The civil rule of Hycranus as Ethnarch must from the first have
been very limited. It was still more contracted when, during the Proconsulate
of Ganinius (57-55 b.c.),42
Alexander, a son of Aristobulus, who had escaped from captivity, tried to
possess himself of the government of Judĉa (Ant. xiv. 5. 2-4). The office of
Hyrcanus was now limited to the Temple, and the Jewish territory, divided into
five districts, was apportioned among five principal cities, ruled by a council
of local notables (aristoi).
Thus, for a short time, monarchical gave place to aristocratic government in
Palestine. The renewed attempts of Aristobulus or of his family to recover
power only led to fresh troubles, which were sadly diversified by the rapacity
and severity of the Romans. The Triumvir Crassus, who succeeded Gabinius (55-53
b.c.), plundered the Temple not
only of its treasures but of its precious vessels. A new but not much happier
era began with Julius Cĉsar. If Aristobulus and his son Alexander had not
fallen victims to the party of Pompey, the prospects of Hyrcanus and Antipater
might now have been very unpromising. But their death and that of Pompey (whom
they had supported) changed the aspect of matters. Antipater not only espoused
the cause of the victor of Pharsalus, but made himself eminently useful to
Cĉsar. In reward, Hyrcanus was confirmed as Pontiff and Ethnarch of Judĉa,
while Antipater was made a Roman citizen and nominated Epitrophos, or
(Roman) administrator of the country. Of course, the real power was in the
hands of the Idumĉan, who continued to hold it, despite the attempts of Antigonus,
the only surviving son of Aristobulus. And from henceforth Cĉsar made it part
of his policy to favour the Jews (comp. the decrees in their favour, Ant. xiv.
10).
42. Comp.
the masterly survey of the state of matters in Syria and Judĉa in Marquardt,
Handb. d. Rom. Alterth., vol. iv. pp. 247-260.
Meantime Antipater had, in pursuance of his ambitious plans,
appointed his son Phasael Governor of Jerusalem, and Herod Governor of Galilee.
The latter, although only twenty-five years of age, soon displayed the vigour
and sternness which characterised his after-career. He quelled what probably
was a 'nationalist' rising in Galilee, in the blood of Ezekias, its leader, and
of his chief associates. This indeed secured him the favour of Sextus Cĉsar,
the Governor of Syria, a relative of the great Imperator. But in
Jerusalem, and among the extreme Pharisaic party, it excited the utmost indignation.
They foresaw the advent of a foe most dangerous to their interests and liberty,
and vainly sought to rid themselves of him. It was argued that the government
of the country was in the hands of the High-Priest, and that Herod, as Governor
of Galilee, appointed by a foreign administrator, had no right to pronounce
capital punishment without a sentence of the Sanhedrin. Hycranus yielded to the
clamour; but Herod appeared before the Sanhedrin, not as a criminal, but
arrayed in purple, surrounded by a body-guard, and supported by the express
command of Sextus Cĉsar to acquit him. The story which is related, though in
different version, and with different names, in the Talmud (Sanh. 19 a),
and by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 9. 3-5), presents a vivid picture of what
passed in the Sanhedrin. The appearance of Herod had so terrified that learned
body that none ventured to speak, till their president, Shemajah (Sameas), by
his bold speech, rallied their courage. Most truly did he foretell the fate
which overtook them ten years later, when Herod ruled in the Holy City. But
Hyrcanus adjourned the meeting of the Sanhedrin, and persuaded Herod to
withdraw from Jerusalem. His was, however, only a temporary humiliation. Sextus
Cĉsar named Herod Governor of Cœle-Syria, and he soon appeared with an army
before Jerusalem, to take vengeance on Hycranus and the Sanhedrin. The
entreaties of his father and brother induced him, indeed, to desist for the
time, but ten years later alike Hyrcanus and the members of the Sanhedrin fell
victims to his revenge.
Another turn of affairs seemed imminent when Cĉsar fell under
the daggers of the conspirators (15 March, 44), and Cassius occupied Syria. But
Antipater and Herod proved as willing and able to serve him as formerly Cĉsar.
Antipater, indeed, perished through a court - or perhaps a 'Nationalist' plot,
but his murderers soon experienced the same fate at the hands of those whom
Herod had hired for the purpose. And still the star of Herod seemed in the
ascendant. Not only did he repel attempted inroads by Antigonus, but when
Antonius and Octavianus (in 42 b.c.)
took the place of Brutus and Cassius, he succeeded once more in ingratiating
himself with the former, on whom the government of Asis devolved. The
accusations made by Jewish deputation had no influence on Antony. Indeed, he
went beyond his predecessors in appointing Phasael and Herod tetrarchs of
Judĉa. Thus the civil power was now nominally as well as really in their hands.
But the restless Antigonus was determined not to forego his claim. When the
power of Antony was fast waning, in consequence of his reckless indulgences,
Antigonus seized the opportunity of the incursion of the Parthians into Asia
Minor to attend the great object of his ambition. In Jerusalem the adherents of
the two parties were engaged in daily conflicts, when a Parthian division
appeared. By treachery Phasael and Hycranus were lured into the Parthian camp,
and finally handed over to Antigonus. Herod, warned in time, had escaped from
Jerusalem with his family and armed adherents. Of his other opponents Antigonus
made sure. To unfit Hyrcanus for the Pontificate his ears were cut off, while
Phasael destroyed himself in prison. Antigonus was now undisputed High-Priest
and king. His brief reign of three years (40-37 b.c.)
is marked by coins which bear in Hebrew the device: Matthatjah the High-Priest,
and in Greek: King Antigonus.
The only hope of Herod lay in Roman help. He found Antony in
Rome. What difficulties there were, were removed by gold, and when Octavian
gave his consent, a decree of the Senate declared Antigonus the enemy of Rome,
and at the same time appointed Herod King of Judĉa (40 b.c.). Early in the year 39 b.c.
Herod was in Palestine to conquer his new kingdom by help of the Romans. But
their aid was at first tardy and reluctant, and it was 38, or more probably 37,
before Herod could gain possession of Jerusalem itself. Before that he had
wedded the beautiful and unhappy Mariamme, the daughter of Alexander and
granddaughter of Hyrcanus, to whom he had been betrothed five years before. His
conquered capital was desolate indeed, and its people impoverished by
exactions. But Herod had reached the goal of his ambition. All opposition was
put down, all rivalry rendered impossible. Antigonus was beheaded, as Herod had
wished; the feeble and aged Hyrcanus was permanently disqualified for the
Pontificate; and any youthful descendants of the Maccabees left were absolutely
in the conqueror's power. The long struggle for power had ended, and the
Asmonĉan family was virtually destroyed. Their sway had lasted about 130 years.
Looking back on the rapid rise and decline of the Maccabees, on
their speedy degeneration, on the deeds of cruelty with which their history
soon became stained, on the selfishness and reckless ambition which
characterized them, and especially on the profoundly anti-nationalist and
anti-Pharisaic, we had almost said anti-Jewish, tendency which marked their
sway, we can understand the bitter hatred with which Jewish tradition had
followed their memory. The mention of them is of the scantiest. No universal
acclamation glorifies even the deeds of Judas the Maccabee; no Talmudic
tractate is devoted to that 'feast of the dedication' which celebrated the
purging of the Temple and the restoration of Jewish worship. In fact such was
the feeling, that the priestly course of Joiarib - to which the Asmonĉans
belonged - is said to have been on service when the first and the second Temple
were destroyed, because 'guilt was to be punished on the guilty.' More than
that, 'R. Levi saith: Yehoyaribh ["Jehovah will contend"], the man [the
name of the man or family]; Meron ["rebellion," evidently a play upon
Modin, the birthplace of the Maccabees], the town; Mesarbey ["the
rebels," evidently a play upon Makkabey] - (masar beitha) He hath given
up the Temple to the enemies.' Rabbi Berachjah saith: 'Yah heribh
[Jehoiarib], God contended with His children, because they revolted and
rebelled against Him' (Jer. Taan. iv. 8, p. 68 d, line 35 from bottom).43
Indeed, the opprobrious designation of rebellion, and Sarbaney El,
rebels against God, became in course of time so identified with the Maccabees.
that it was used when its meaning was no longer understood. Thus Origen
(Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25) speaks of the (Apocryphal) books of the Maccabees
as 'inscribed Sarbeth Sarbane El' (=tbrs l) ynbrs), the disobedience, or rebellion
(resistance) of the disobedient, or rebels, against God.44
So thoroughly had these terms become identified in popular parlance,
that even the tyranny and cruelty of a Herod could not procure a milder
judgment on the sway of the Asmonĉans.
43. Comp.
Geiger, Urschrift, p. 204; Derenbourg, p. 119, note.
44. Comp.
Geiger, u. s. p. 205, Note, Hamburger, u. s. p. 367. Various
strange and most unsatisfactory explanations have been proposed of these
mysterious words, which yet, on consideration, seem so easy of understanding.
Comp. the curious explanations of Grimm, Ewald, and others, in Grimm's
Exeget. hand. zu d. Apokryphen, 3te Lief. p. xvii. Derenbourg (Hist. de
la Palest. pp. 450-452) regards sarbhd
as a corruption for safarbhd,
and would render the whole by 'Book of the family of the Chief (r#) of
the people of God.'
Appendix 3 | Table
of Contents | Appendix 5
research-bpr@philologos.org
|
