History of the Jews, Vol. 1 (of 6)

The people paid the expiatory money for seven years, when, for some reason, they were freed from their burden. The disfavour into which the Judæan nation had fallen with the last Persian king was turned to account by their malevolent neighbours, the Samaritans, in order to injure them to their utmost power. They appear to have regained by force or cunning the border districts of Ramathaim, Apherema and Lydda, which they had formerly been obliged to quit. The Judæans were now reduced to a struggle for mere existence. Few and brief had been the glimpses of light which had brightened the annals of the Judæan community during the last two hundred years! This light had illumined the first enthusiastic days of the return from captivity during the reign of Darius, who showered favours upon them, and during the time of Nehemiah's presence and zealous activity at Jerusalem. With these exceptions, their lot had been oppression, poverty and pitiable helplessness. They appear to us in their sadness and misery to be ever asking with tearful, uplifted eyes, "Whence shall help come to us?" and traces of this helplessness and misery are visible in the writings that have come down from that period. While the exile lasted, the grief and the longing, which kept the captives in constant and breathless expectation, had brought forth the fairest blossoms of prophecy and poetry; but as soon as the excitement ceased, and hope became a reality, the mental and poetical activity began to sink. The later prophetical utterances, if beauty of form be considered, cannot bear comparison with those of the Captivity. The poetry of the Psalms became weak and full of repetitions, or else borrowed the bloom of older productions. The graceful idyl of the book of Ruth forms an exception in the literature of this period. Historical writings were, from causes easy to explain, completely neglected. Ezra and Nehemiah had given only a short and unpolished account of the occurrences they had witnessed. Quite at the end of this epoch, towards the close of the Persian dominion, it appears that a Levite compiled an historical work (Chronicles), narrating the events from the Creation down to his own time.

But during the life of the author of the annals, or shortly after he had finished his history, a new period dawned, which gave rise to fresh mental exertions among the Judæans, and brought forth proofs of their capacity and worth. This new period was ushered in by the Greeks. They wrought a thorough change in the manners, customs and thoughts of other nations, and materially raised the degree of civilisation among the various peoples then known in the world. However, the diffusion of this civilisation, which was the consequence of the acquisition of political power and widespread conquest, was owing, not to a purely Greek race, but to a mixed people of Greeks and Barbarians, namely, the Macedonians. The grace and charm of the Greeks have caused their faults to be leniently regarded by mankind, but they were not overlooked by the Ruler of the world, and their sins brought retributive punishment upon them. Advantage was easily taken of their mutual jealousies, their many foibles, their restless, unruly disposition, and Greece was apt to fall a prey to any ambitious leader who was an adept in the art of intoxicating flattery, lavish with his gold, and supported by martial force. Such was the case with Philip, king of Macedonia, who dazzled all with his cunning and his wealth, his valour and his army. All Greece lay at his feet. But even now when the king proposed, as a satisfaction to their national pride, that a war should be undertaken against Persia, in which they might at once punish the latter for inroads upon their country, and win fame and booty for themselves, petty feelings of jealousy continued to exist among the people, and to prevent common action. Some of the States could not be influenced, and refused to send delegates to the assembly; whilst other States, or their representatives, had to be bribed to give their consent to the proposed plan. Philip's project of war against Persia was cut short by the hand of an assassin. Then appeared his son, the great Alexander, who was destined to remodel entirely the relations of the various countries, and to draw the peaceful inhabitants of Judæa into the vortex of the great world conflicts. New troubles and new trials were brought upon the Judæan people by the convulsions felt from one end of the known world to the other. A Judæan seer compared Alexander to a leopard endowed with the wings of an eagle. In two battles he gave to the rotten Persian monarchy its deathblow; Asia Minor, Syria, and Phœnicia lay at his feet, and kings and princes, attired in all their pomp, did homage to the conqueror. Tyre and Gaza, the one after a seven months', the other after a two months' siege, were both taken (August and November, 332), and met with a cruel fate.

How did the insignificant dominion of Judæa fare with the invincible hero before whom Egypt, the proud land of the Pharaohs, had fallen humbly prostrate? The historical records of those times have come down to us only in the form of legends, and consequently give us no authentic account of the passing events. It is scarcely credible that the Judæans were prevented from doing homage to Alexander through fear of incurring any guilt by breaking their oath to their Persian rulers. They had never taken such an oath of fealty, but even if they had, after their treatment by the last Persian kings, they would not have felt much remorse in breaking it. There is no doubt that the story of Alexander's approach to Jerusalem, and the favours which he heaped upon the Judæans in consequence of a peculiar vision, rests upon a legend. The High Priest, so it is related, dressed in his holy garments, followed by a troop of priests and Levites, went forth to meet the youthful warrior, and produced so great and extraordinary an effect upon him, that his anger was at once changed into kindness and good will. The explanation given by Alexander to his followers was that the High Priest thus attired had appeared to him in a dream which he had had in Macedonia, and had promised him victory. According to one legend, it was the High Priest Jaddua, according to another, his grandson Simon, who produced this effect upon the Macedonian hero. In reality, the meeting between Alexander and the envoys of the Judæan community no doubt passed simply and naturally enough. The High Priest, perhaps Onias I., Jaddua's son and Simon's father, went forward, like the kings and princes of the land, with a suite of the elders, to do homage and swear allegiance to the conqueror. Alexander was a noble, generous conqueror, who punished cruelly only resistance to his will, but in no way interfered with the peculiar development, the customs, or religious rites of any nation under his sway. He did not force the Grecian faith on any nation, and the favour which he granted to other nations he certainly did not deny to the Judæans. They were only obliged to pay the Macedonian governor the same tax on their lands as the Persian satrap had received.

The first meeting of Greece and Judæa, both of which were, in different ways, to offer civilisation to the world, was of a friendly character, although the one appeared in all her glory and might, the other in her weakness and humility. – Judæa became part of a province, which was bounded on the north by Mount Taurus and Mount Lebanon, and on the south by Egypt, and was called Hollow Syria (Cœlesyria), to distinguish it from the Higher Syria, which lay in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The governor of this extensive province, which had formerly been divided into many independent states, resided in Samaria, from which we may infer that it was a fortified and populous town. Samaria, however, was indebted for this preference or dangerous station to its situation in the centre of the province and in a fertile region. Andromachos was the name of the governor whom Alexander placed over the Cœlesyrians. Why were the Samaritans displeased with this apparent distinction? Did they feel themselves hampered in their movements by the presence of the Governor, or was their anger roused by jealousy at the favour shown by Alexander to the Judæans, whom they hated so bitterly? The violent resentment of the Samaritans, or at least of their leaders, went so far that, heedless of the consequences, they rose up against Andromachos, seized him and consigned him to the flames (331). Alexander's wrath, upon hearing of this act of atrocity which had been committed upon one of his generals, was as great as it was just. Had this small, insignificant people dared defy one who had subdued all Egypt, the proud priests of which country had prostrated themselves before him, proclaiming his pre-eminence and his glory? Upon his return from Egypt, while hastening to conquer Persia, he hurried to Samaria to avenge the murder of Andromachos. The authors of the horrible deed were put to death under cruel tortures, another governor called Memnon was placed over Samaria, and the town was filled with Macedonians. In various other ways, Alexander appears to have mortified and humiliated the Samaritans, and knowing that they were enemies of the Judæans, he favoured the latter in order to mark his displeasure towards the former. Several border lands lying between Samaria and Judæa, which had often occasioned strife between the two peoples, he awarded to the Judæans, and likewise freed the latter from the burden of taxation during the Sabbatical year. This favour, of small importance to him who gave it, was a great boon to those who received it, and inflamed the hatred of the Samaritans against the Judæans; every gust of wind seemed to add new fuel to their enmity, which, however, as long as Alexander lived, they were obliged to conceal. His wonderfully rapid and victorious campaigns – as far as the Indus and the Caucasus – seemed to throw a spell over the world, and to paralyse all independent action. When he was not at war, peace reigned supreme, from Greece to India, and from Ethiopia to the shores of the Caspian sea. Alexander was the first conqueror who deemed it a wise policy to allow the peculiar customs of any conquered nation to be maintained; he insisted that respect should be shown to their various religious forms of worship. In Egypt he honoured Apis and Ammon, and in Babylonia the gods of Chaldæa. Thus he determined upon rebuilding the temple of the Babylonian idol Bel, which had been destroyed by Artaxerxes. To accomplish this, he ordered his soldiers to clear away the ruins which had accumulated over the foundations of the building. All obeyed with the exception of the Judæans who, either voluntarily or by compulsion, were serving in his army. They refused their help towards the reconstruction of the idolatrous temple. Naturally enough, their disobedience received severe chastisement from their superior officers, but they bore their punishment bravely, rather than comply with an order which demanded the transgression of one of the principal injunctions of their faith. When Alexander heard of this case of conscience and of the religious fortitude displayed by the Judæan soldiers, he was generous enough to grant them his pardon. But in that incident we may read an omen of the conflicts which were to take place between Judaism and Greekdom.

In the midst of his vast undertaking – that of uniting the whole world into one monarchy – the young hero died (323), leaving no lawful heir to his throne, no successor to his great mind. Confusion arose in all parts of the world, as well as among the armies of Alexander, – dire as if the laws of Nature had been upset, and the sequence of the morrow after to-day were no longer certain. Fearful battles, which resembled the wars of the Titans, ensued. Alexander's warriors, with the experience gained on a thousand battle-fields, would, had they only been united, have been capable of supporting the structure of the Macedonian kingdom; but, although they were not actually Greeks, and even looked down upon the latter, they resembled them in their spirit of insubordination, their want of discipline, and their passion for self-advancement, which greatly surpassed their zeal for the good of the State. Like the Greeks, they coveted power as a means to obtain luxuries and to enable them to indulge in licentious pleasures; in short, they had become adepts in corrupt practices.

The consequence of this state of things was the dissolution of the Macedonian kingdom and its division among the contending leaders. Ptolemy I. Soter, son of Lagos, reigned in Egypt. By means of a successful war he acquired Cœlesyria, together with Judæa. In 320, he demanded the surrender of Jerusalem, but its inhabitants refused to open their gates. On a Sabbath, however, he contrived to surprise the city, and, as the Judæans would not use weapons of defence on that day, he was able to seize the city and to make numerous prisoners, whom he carried away to Egypt. Many Samaritans shared their fate, probably because they had likewise attempted resistance. Both Judæans and Samaritans could have enjoyed happiness – at least, as much happiness as was possible in those hard, cruel times – had they remained subjects of the Lagidian Ptolemy, who was the gentlest of the warring successors of Alexander. He knew how to recognise and appreciate merit, and when his own interests were not at stake, he was just and merciful; but Ptolemy had no acknowledged right upon Cœlesyria. His acquisition of those lands had not been confirmed by the various regents of the Macedonian kingdom who followed each other in rapid succession, and kept up the semblance of a united government. Ptolemy roused the envy of the confederate captains, and in particular that of one of his former allies and fellow-conspirators, Antigonus. This bold soldier was endowed with inventive genius and a fiery nature, and had resolved upon the subjection of all his associates, in order to seize and hold the whole kingdom of Macedonia in his own strong hand. After many years of warlike preparations, a decisive battle at last took place between Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, and Ptolemy, which ended disastrously for the former. The battle of Gaza, fought in the spring of 312, was a memorable one, for from that event Seleucus, who had come as a fugitive to Ptolemy, dated the beginning of his power by introducing the new era called Seleucidæan, or Greek, which also came into use among the Judæans, and was longest retained by them. In consequence of the defeat at Gaza, Demetrius was obliged to withdraw to the north, leaving the whole country to the conqueror. Only a short time elapsed, however, before Antigonus and his son, having joined their forces, compelled Ptolemy to retreat to Egypt. He caused the fortified sea-coast and inland cities, Acco, Joppa, Gaza, and Jerusalem to be demolished, so that they might not become places of defence to his enemies, and Judæa, with the countries that belonged to Cœlesyria, remained in this unguarded condition until, in the battle at Ipsus, in Asia Minor (301), fought against the united armies of Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Cassander, and Seleucus, Antigonus lost at one blow both his glory and his life. The four generals divided the kingdom among themselves. Ptolemy received Egypt and the adjoining lands, and the greater part of Asia fell to Seleucus. Thus Judæa became a portion of the Ptolemæan or Lagidian kingdom, and its fate for a time was linked to that of the latter. The condition of the Judæans, however, underwent no material change. The tribute they had been obliged formerly to pay to the Persian monarch was now demanded by the Egypto-Macedonian court. The freedom and independence of their movements and actions were not more restricted than they had hitherto been; on the contrary, their situation might be considered rather improved than otherwise.

In Judæa, the high-priest, who was answerable for the payment of taxes, was considered as the political chief, and was looked upon as a sacerdotal prince. Ptolemy I. was endowed with a gentle nature, and inclined to benefit his subjects. He had neither desire nor motive to oppress the Judæans. Alexandria, the seaport city founded by Alexander, and considered as the capital of his kingdom by the first Egypto-Macedonian monarch, acquired a large population, and it could only be a source of satisfaction to him to see Judæans from the neighbouring country establishing themselves there. Under Alexander, many Judæans had settled in that city, and, as this far-seeing hero had given equal rights of Macedonian citizenship to all comers, the first Judæan colony in Alexandria enjoyed perfect equality with the other inhabitants, and led a peaceful existence in the new land. A great number of Judæans took up their abode there during the disturbed state of their country, caused by the wars of Antigonus; they also received from Ptolemy protection and the enjoyment of equal laws and rights. And thus arose an Egypto-Judæan community, which was destined to fulfil a peculiar mission. In other places also Judæan colonies were formed. Assured of the good will of the Judæans, Ptolemy distributed them in various Egyptian cities and in Cyrene.

Seleucus, the founder of the Seleucidæan kingdom, the centre of which was situated in Persia, had in addition become possessed of the northern part of Syria, where he founded a new city, Antioch, which became his capital. In order to people this city, as well as other newly-built towns, he was obliged to bring inhabitants into them, and among these partly forced and partly willing settlers were many Judæans, to whom Seleucus gave the full rights of Macedonian citizenship. And, as Judæan colonies arose in the Græco-Macedonian countries, so also Greek colonies were formed upon Judæan ground. Along the Mediterranean coast new seaports were built, or old ones enlarged and embellished, and to these Grecian names were given.

CHAPTER XXI.

SIMON THE JUST AND HIS DESCENDANTS

Condition of the Judæans under the Ptolemies – Simon effects Improvements – His Praises are sung by Sirach – His Doctrines – The Chasidim and the Nazarites – Simon's Children – Onias II. and the Revolt against Egypt – Joseph, son of Tobias – His Embassy to Alexandria – He is appointed Tax-collector – War between Antiochus the Great and Egypt – Defeat of Antiochus – Spread of Greek Manners in Judæa – Hyrcanus – The Song of Songs – Simon II. – Scopas despoils Jerusalem – The Contest between Antiochus and Rome – Continued Hellenisation of the Judæans – The Chasidim and the Hellenists – Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan – Onias III. and Simon – Heliodorus – Sirach's Book of Proverbs against the Errors of his Time.

300–175 B. C. E

For more than a century after the death of Nehemiah, the inner life of the Judæan nation might have been likened to that of a caterpillar weaving the threads which enshroud it from the juices of its own body, while the world knew it as a martyr, bearing insult and humiliation alike in silence. During that period it had not produced any one man, who, by reason of his own strong individuality, had been able to bring into play the reserve force of the nation; no one had arisen capable of pointing the way and arousing enthusiasm. The stimulus for development and improvement had always come from without, from the principal men of Persia or Babylonia. But now the people, in consequence of new political circumstances, were separated from their co-religionists of those lands. The Judæans of the Euphrates and the Tigris could no longer carry on active intercourse with their brethren in the mother-country. For the reigning dynasties, the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemies, looked upon each other with suspicion, and frequent visits of the Judæans from the provinces of the Seleucidæ to the Judæans of Jerusalem, would have been regarded with disfavour in Alexandria. Had the nation not been able to rally in its own country without extraneous help, it would have been lost; a people which cannot exist or improve of itself must sooner or later fall into insignificance. But the right man arose at the right time. He saved the Judæan community from its fall. This man was Simon the Just (about 300–270). In an age deficient in great men, he appears like a lofty and luxuriant tree in the midst of a barren country. Legendary lore has seized upon his name, and has added the marvellous to the historical. It is always a favourable testimony to an historical personage, and to the influence he wields over a large circle, when romance proclaims his praise. Authentic history does not tell us much of Simon I., still the few characteristics preserved to us portray him as a man of great distinction. He was, moreover, the one high-priest of the house of Joshua ben Jozedek, of whom there is anything laudatory to be related, and the one to restore the priesthood to honour. "He cared for his people to save it from falling." He rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, which had been demolished by Ptolemy I., and he repaired the ravages of two centuries upon the Temple. He also carried out various measures for the safety and improvement of the capital. The supply of water from the several springs in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem is insufficient for ordinary purposes in dry seasons. The Temple, too, required water in copious quantities. To meet these requirements, Simon caused a large reservoir to be excavated below the Temple, which was fed by a subterranean canal, and brought a constant supply of fresh water from the springs of Etam. Thus there was no fear of drought, even in case of a siege. The poet, Joshua (Jesus) Sirach, who lived at a later date, gives us an enthusiastic description of Simon: —

"How was he distinguished in the midst of the people in his coming out of the Sanctuary! He was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the full moon in the vernal season.

"As the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High, and as the rainbow giving light in the bright clouds.

"When he put on the robe of honour, and was clothed with the garments of glory … compassed with his brethren round about, like palms around a cedar of Lebanon." (Ecclus. 1. 5–12.)

Not only was Simon the Just recognised in his office of high-priest as head of the community and of the Supreme Council, but he was also the chief teacher in the house of learning. He inculcated this maxim upon his disciples: "The world (i. e., the Judæan community) rests on three things, on the Law, on Divine Service (in the Temple), and on Charity" (Aboth i. 2). One may also ascribe to this remarkable man some share in the following saying of one of his most distinguished pupils, Antigonus of Soho, "Be not like those slaves, who serve their master for their daily rations, but be rather like the servants who faithfully serve their master without expectation of reward." Although Simon the Just attached great importance to the sacrificial rites, still he disliked the excessive ceremonialism towards which his generation was tending, nor did he conceal his disapprobation. There were amongst the nation, some over-pious people who took the vow of the Nazarite to refrain from wine for a given time; they called themselves, or were called, the strictly pious, Chasidim. When the term of their vows had expired, they cut off their hair and went through all the ceremonies. Perhaps the excesses of the Greeks and their Jewish followers, their numerous feasts and orgies induced them to impose upon themselves this Nazaritic abstention with its attendant rites. It is certain that as the number of pleasure-seeking imitators of Greek habits increased in Judæa, so did also that of the Chasidim. But Simon the Just was not pleased with this exaggerated zeal, and took no part in the sacrifices of the Nazarites.

Posterity has formed so exalted an opinion of Simon's character, that it designated his death as the end of an historical period of divine grace. In fact, sad and terrible events, brought about by his own descendants, and causing fresh trials to the Judæans, followed upon his death. Simon the Just left two children, a young son named Onias and a daughter. The latter was married to Tobiah, a somewhat distinguished man of priestly descent. Onias being too young to officiate as High Priest, a relative, named Manasseh, represented him during his minority. The rule of Onias II. became a turning-point in the history of the Judæans. The constant warfare carried on for years between the rival houses of the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemies affected the fate of Judæa.

When at last a treaty of peace was concluded (in 240), Cœlesyria and Judæa remained with Egypt, but the fourth king of the Seleucidæ, Antiochus Callinicos, instigated these provinces to revolt, and seems to have won over Onias II. to side with him. Onias refused to pay the annual tax of twenty talents to the Ptolemies. Although the sum was small, the payment was looked upon as a mark of submission, and its refusal gave great offence at the Egyptian court. Ptolemy II., after vainly demanding the tribute money, threatened to divide the province amongst various foreign colonists. He despatched one of his own favourites, Athenion, as special envoy to Jerusalem. The Judæans in alarm and despair entreated Onias to submit, but he resisted their prayers. When matters had come to this crisis, there suddenly appeared upon the scene a man, Joseph by name, of extraordinary strength of will and purpose. He was the nephew of Onias, and son of the Tobiah who had married the daughter of Simon the Just. Fascinating in his manners, clever, cunning, and unscrupulous, the son of Tobiah seemed born to govern. Unfortunately for himself, Onias, the high-priest and ruler of the State, stood in his path. But now was the moment, as he thought, to remove the obstacle. As soon as Joseph was told of the arrival of the Ptolemaic envoy in Jerusalem, and of his threatening message, he hastened from his birth-place to that city, loaded his uncle Onias with reproaches for having led his people into danger, and finding the high-priest determined in his resistance, he offered to go himself to Alexandria, there to commence negotiations with the king of Egypt. As soon as Onias had empowered him to do so, Joseph assembled the people in the court of the Temple, soothed their excited feelings, and made them understand that they were to place entire confidence in his ability to avert the danger that threatened them. The whole assembly offered him their thanks, and made him leader of the people (about 230). From that moment, Joseph displayed so much decision that it was evident a plan had long been ripening in his brain. He was well aware of the weakness of the Greeks, and knew that they were not indifferent to flattery and to the luxuries of the table. So he prepared tempting banquets for Athenion, fascinating him by his charm of manner, making him costly presents, and assuring him that he might return to Egypt, secure of the tribute money, which he promised should be paid to the king. As soon as the envoy had left Jerusalem, Joseph entered into negotiations with some Samaritan friends, or money-lenders, to obtain a loan for his necessary expenses. In order to appear with dignity at the Egyptian court, he required splendid apparel, brilliant equipages, and money to defray the cost of his entertainments. Joseph had no means of his own, and in all Judæa there was no one who could advance him large sums of money. The people, at that time, supporting themselves by agriculture, and not being engaged in commerce, had had no opportunity of amassing wealth.