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

Furnished with the means of making a great display at court, Joseph hurried to Alexandria, where the envoy Athenion had already prepared a favourable reception for him. Ptolemy Euergetes was anxiously expecting him, and was not disappointed when he arrived. He was enchanted with Joseph's bearing and address, and invited him to be his guest at the royal table. The envoys from the Palestinean and Phœnician cities, who formerly had derided his simple appearance, now remarked with envy upon his presence at court. He soon gave them occasion not only to envy but also to hate him. For by a crafty stroke, he managed to obtain a position of great trust, that of head tax-gatherer of Cœlesyria and Phœnicia. The king gave him a force of two thousand soldiers, who were, if necessary, to lend their aid in the fulfilment of his duties, and Joseph became in reality the governor of all the districts that went by the name of Palestine. He was respected and feared as a favourite of the king, and he therefore did not hesitate to use extreme severity in levying taxes. In the cities of Gaza and Beth-Shean (Scythopolis), the Greek inhabitants ventured to load him with insults, and to offer resistance. In return he beheaded the noblest and richest of the citizens, and confiscated their possessions for the Egyptian crown. For twenty-two years, Joseph held the post of satrap, and spent that time in amassing extraordinary wealth and attaining great power.

After the death of Euergetes (223), his successor, Ptolemy VI., Philopator (222–206), retained him in office. He continued to act in the same heartless way, causing the following remark to be made in the presence of Philopator: – "Joseph is stripping the flesh from Syria, and is leaving only the bones."

At one time, his lucky star seemed to wane; for the Seleucidæan king, Antiochus, called by his flatterers The Great (223–187), attempted to wrest the province of Cœlesyria from Egypt (218). The commencement of the attack augured success. The Egyptian commanders were treacherous, they went over to the enemy, and betrayed the garrisons into their hands. Judæa and Jerusalem, under the control of Joseph, remained true to Egypt. But how long would they be able to resist an attack of the Seleucidæan army? And, if such an attack was made, which side should Joseph take? He must have lived through that time in the most painful anxiety. At last the decisive hour struck. In the spring of 217, Antiochus appeared on the sea-coast near Gaza. He was at the head of a large army, composed of various nationalities. His route lay to the south, towards Egypt. Meanwhile, Philopator had roused himself from his life of ease and self-indulgence, and was advancing to Raphia to meet his enemy. Antiochus, over-confident of success, sustained a severe defeat, and was obliged to return to Antioch, and give up the possession of Cœlesyria. All the cities and communities that had been under his rule outbade one another in flattery and adulation of the conqueror, Philopator. Joseph remained in his position of trust, and continued to be the favourite of the Egyptian king. Through him, and through his connection with the court life of Philopator, a complete change had taken place in the Judæan nation, hardly visible indeed in the provinces, but most striking in the capital.

By means of the immense riches that Joseph had accumulated, a veritable shower of gold fell upon the country; "he raised the people out of poverty and needy circumstances into ease and comfort." In order to collect the taxes of so many different towns, he was obliged to have responsible agents, and he preferred choosing them from amongst his own people. These agents enriched themselves in their own way, and bore themselves proudly. The consideration which Joseph enjoyed at the Egyptian court, his quickly-gained wealth, and the troop of soldiers always at his command, by whose help he held in check the people of various nationalities in Palestine, the remnant of the Philistines, the Phœnicians, Idumæans, and even the Greco-Macedonian colonists – all this had the effect not only of lending him and his surroundings a certain air of self-importance, but also of raising the people in general from the abject, submissive position they had occupied towards the neighbouring nations. The horizon of the Judæans, particularly of those who lived in Jerusalem, widened as they came into contact with the Greeks. Their taste became more refined, their dwellings more beautiful, and they began to introduce the art of painting. The Judæans of Alexandria, who had been for a century under Greek influence, and had, to a certain extent, become Hellenised, now brought their influence to bear upon their fellow-countrymen, but the simplicity of the Judæan habits and customs suffered in consequence.

A shower of gold not only fails to have a fructifying effect, it often causes desolation and ruin; and so it was in this case. The rich upstarts lost their balance; they attached undue importance to the possession of riches, and preferred money-making to every other occupation, but the most unfortunate feature was that they became blind admirers of the Greeks, whose extravagant habits and frivolous customs they soon acquired, to the deterioration of their own national virtues. The Greeks loved conviviality, gave public banquets, and indulged in most unruly merrymaking at their repasts. The Judæans imported the custom of dining in company, reclining on couches whilst they ate and drank, and indulging in wine, music, and song at their entertainments. All this was innocent enough; but unfortunately it led to more than merely making life brighter. Greek frivolity and extravagance drew their imitators rapidly into a vortex of dissipation.

Joseph was constantly at the court of Ptolemy Philopator, when business took him to Alexandria. This court was a hot-bed of depravity. The days were spent in revelry, and the nights in shameless debauchery; the prevailing depravity led astray both the people and the army.

Philopator entertained the absurd belief that his ancestors were descended from the God of Wine, Dionysus (Bacchus); and he considered himself obliged to introduce bacchanalian revelries into his kingdom. Any one wishing to ingratiate himself with the king and his boon companions was forced to belong to the fraternity of Dionysus. Whenever Joseph was called to Alexandria, he enjoyed the doubtful honour of being invited to the king's orgies, and of being received by the followers of the God of Wine. It was at such a feast that he contracted a violent passion for one of those dissolute dancing-women who never failed to be present upon these occasions.

Jerusalem did not long remain untainted by this social impurity. Joseph, from friendship, let us suppose, for his royal patron, introduced Dionysian festivals into Judæa. At the turning-point of the year, when winter makes way for spring, when the vine bursts into blossom, and the wine in the barrels ferments a second time, then the Greeks held their great festival in honour of Dionysus: "the festival of the barrel-openings." Two days were devoted to intoxicating orgies, when friends interchanged pitchers of wine as presents. He who drank most was most honoured. This festival of the "barrel-opening" was now to be celebrated in much the same way in Judæa. But, in order to clothe this festival in a Judæan garb, the rich made it an occasion for dispensing alms to the poor. Revelry is always the attendant of excessive indulgence in wine. The rich Judæans soon copied the Greek customs, and, callous to the promptings of shame and honour, they introduced singers, dancers, and dissolute women at these festivals. A poetical writer raises a warning voice against the growing unchastity of the age: —

"Meet not with an harlot, lest thou fall into her snares. Use not much the company of the songstress, lest thou be taken with her attempts… Give not thy soul unto harlots, that thou lose not thine inheritance." (Ecclus. ix. 3, seq.)

The love of art and beauty which Joseph introduced into Judæa did not compensate for this loss of chastity and morality. Even earnest men, under Greek influence, began to cast doubts upon their old traditional belief. They questioned whether the teachings of Judaism were correct and true throughout, whether God really demanded from man the denial of all self-gratification, and whether the Deity in any way concerned itself about the great universe and the small world of mankind.

The teachings of Epicurus, inculcating the impotence of the gods, and recommending self-indulgence to man, were well received by the degenerate Græco-Macedonians, and particularly by the upper circles of the Alexandrians. It was from that city that the poison spread to Judæa. In Jerusalem also doubters arose, who disregarded the teachings of Judaism. These doubts might have led to increased mental activity, had not discord been added to the corruption of manners. Feelings of jealousy sprang up between the seven sons of Joseph by his first marriage, and the youngest, Hyrcanus, the son of his second wife. The latter was distinguished in youth by his quick intellect, his ability, and his craftiness, characteristics that endeared him to his father. In the year 210, a son was born to the king Philopator. The different representatives of the cities of Cœlesyria were anxious to express, by presents and congratulations, their devotion to the Egyptian king. Joseph felt that he ought not to absent himself upon such an occasion. But his growing infirmities not allowing him to undertake such a journey, he asked one of his sons to represent him. Hyrcanus was the only one who felt equal to the task, and his brothers unanimously requested their father to accept his services. At the same time they suggested to their friends in Alexandria to put him out of the way. But Joseph's young son instantly gained favour at court. His extravagant gifts upon the great day of public congratulation – one hundred handsome slaves to the king, and one hundred beautiful female slaves to the queen, in the hands of each a gift of a talent – threw the presents of all others into the shade. His ready wit and adroit tongue soon made him a favoured guest at Philopator's table. He returned to Jerusalem filled with pride. But his perfidious brothers were lying in wait for him on the road, and determined to accomplish what the Alexandrians had failed to do. Hyrcanus and his companions defended themselves, and in the combat which ensued killed two of his brothers. His father received him sternly on account of his extravagance in Egypt, being perhaps also jealous of his extraordinary popularity. Hyrcanus dared not remain in Jerusalem, and probably returned to Alexandria.

Thus far, this discord was confined only to the family of Joseph, and seemed not to affect the people at large or the inhabitants of Jerusalem. No one could have imagined that the violent dissensions among the members of that house, and its Greek proclivities, would end by bringing misery upon the whole nation. The present seemed bright and sunny; prosperity was widespread in the land, and offered the means for beautifying life. The neighbouring peoples acknowledged the supremacy of the Judæan governor, and none ventured to attack the nation, or to treat it with contempt. Judæa had not known so peaceful a state of things since the age of Nehemiah.

It was, therefore, not unnatural that a poem in the form of a love song should have appeared at that time, shedding a rosy flush over the age, and reflecting happy and joyous days.

A cloudless sky, green meadows, fragrant flowers, and, above all things, careless light-heartedness are mirrored in it, as though there were no more serious occupation in life than to wander over hills of myrrh, to repose among lilies, to whisper words of love, and to revel in the ecstasy of the moment. In this period of calm which preceded the storm, the "Song of Songs" (Shir-ha-shirim) was written. It was the offspring of untroubled, joyous days. In it the Hebrew language proved its capability of expressing tenderness and depth of sentiment, exquisite dialogue and picturesque poetry of nature. The author of this poem had seen the life of Greece, had felt the charm of its literature, and learned the cunning of its art. But beneath the veil of poetry he reprovingly pointed out the evils of the time.

In contrast to the impure and unchaste love of the Greek world, our poet's ideal is a shepherdess, Shulamit, the beautiful daughter of Aminadab. She bears in her heart a deep, ardent, unquenchable love for a shepherd who pastures his flock among the lilies, and with and through this love, she remains pure and innocent. Her beauty is enhanced by her grace of movement, by her soft voice and gentle speech. As her eyes are like the dove's, so is her heart full of dove-like innocence. In the flowery language of the most exquisite poetry, the author of the Song of Songs denounces the debauchery of the times, the lewdness of the public dancers and singers, the voluptuousness of town life, and the enervating effects of riotous living.

Joseph, the grandson of Simon the Just, died in the year 208, leaving his family torn by dissension. His office was to be transferred to one of his sons; but Hyrcanus, the youngest, being the only one known at the Egyptian court, and a favourite of the king, the preference was no doubt given to him. This fired the hatred of his brothers. They assumed a hostile position towards him upon his arrival in Jerusalem, and as Hyrcanus had a large number of followers, civil war seemed imminent. The action of the high-priest, Simon II., who sided with the elder brothers, turned the scale, and Hyrcanus was again compelled to flee the city. If he intended pleading his cause in Alexandria, as he probably did, he was disappointed, for he could obtain no hearing at the Egyptian court, as his patron Philopator had just died (206), and Egypt was a prey to disorder.

Two ambitious kings, tempted by the weakness of the house of Ptolemy, seized upon Egypt and her provinces, and divided them. These were Antiochus the Great, of Syria, and Philip of Macedon.

Joseph's elder sons, or, as they were generally called, the Tobiades, out of hatred to their younger brother, Hyrcanus, determined to side with Antiochus against Egypt. They raised a Seleucidæan party. They are described as scoffers and reprobates, and, as matters went on, they showed themselves to be unprincipled men, who sacrificed their country's weal to their thirst for revenge and the gratification of their lusts. They opened the gates of Jerusalem to the Syrian king, and did homage to him. The adherents of the Ptolemies and of Hyrcanus yielded or were crushed.

Thus Judæa came under the rule of the Seleucidæan kings (203–202). But an Ætolian commander of hired troops, Scopas, undertook to oppose the Syrian conqueror. He soon overran the Jordanic and trans-Jordanic territories, causing terror amongst the Tobiades and their followers. Desperately but in vain they struggled against their impending doom. Scopas took Jerusalem by storm, laid waste the city and the Temple, and put to the sword those who were pointed out as hostile to him. Numbers sought safety in flight.

In order to secure the allegiance of the conquered people, Scopas left a contingent in the fortress of Baris or Acra. But the re-conquest of Judæa and Cœlesyria for the son of Ptolemy, the child Epiphanes, was not to be lasting. The Syrians now re-appeared on the scene. In the beautiful valley at the foot of Mount Hermon, near the mountain city of Panion, at the source of the Jordan, a terrible battle was fought, in which Scopas and his troops were entirely routed. Judæa once again became a prey to the horrors of war and internal dissensions; she resembled a storm-tossed ship, flung violently from side to side. Both parties inflicted unsparing blows on her.

Antiochus succeeded in re-conquering the greater part of the land, and then marched upon Jerusalem. The people, headed by the Synhedrin and the priests, came out to meet him, bringing provisions for his troops and elephants. But the Ætolian contingent still held the fortress of Acra. Antiochus or one of his commanders, with the help of the Judæans, undertook the siege of the fortress. The Seleucidæan king, it appears, greatly valued the friendship of the Judæans, for he gave orders to rebuild their ruined city and repair their Temple. They were treated with much consideration, and were allowed to govern themselves according to their own laws. None but Judæans had the right of entering the Temple; no impurities were suffered to pollute it, and no unclean animals were to be bred in Jerusalem.

Antiochus remained in undisputed possession of Cœlesyria, and therefore also of Judæa. But he cast a greedy eye upon Egypt and her neighbouring provinces, of whose conquest, since they were under the rule of a boy-king, he felt assured. But the Romans, free for action since the downfall of Carthage, formed a stumbling-block to his progress. Compelled to abandon his plans on Egypt, Antiochus conceived the idea of making war upon the Romans, and after having conquered them, of seizing upon Asia Minor and Greece and also Egypt But his foolhardiness and over-confidence led to his humiliation. He suffered so crushing a defeat at the hands of the Romans (190), that he was obliged to give up his conquests in Greece and in a part of Asia Minor, surrender the whole of his fleet, and pay 15,000 talents annually, for twelve years, to the victor. He was constrained to send to Rome as hostage his son, Antiochus Epiphanes, who was destined to leave a bloody mark upon the annals of Judæan history. Severe was the penalty that Antiochus paid for having over-estimated the strength of the Seleucidæans. In order to be able to pay the heavy indemnity, the Syrian kings robbed temples; this sacrilege made them odious, and stirred up the hatred of the most patient nationalities. Antiochus, surnamed the Great, met his death through one of these acts of rapine (187).

The sacrileges continued by his son became the cause of the rise to new strength of the Judæan nation, as well as of the humiliation and decadence of the Seleucidæan kingdom.

The disintegration of the Judæan community, which began under Joseph's administration, increased rapidly during the constant struggle between the Seleucidæans and the Ptolemies for the possession of Cœlesyria. The leaders of the two parties were not particular as to the means they employed to forward their own cause, or to injure that of their antagonists. The friends of the Seleucidæans were above all things determined to find allies amongst the foreign nationalities in and around Judæa. The Greeks living in Palestinean places, as well as the native Gentiles, hated the Judæans, on account of the humiliations they had suffered at the hands of the tax-collector Joseph. There were other antagonistic races besides; the old names of the enemies of the Judæans still existed, recalling the warlike days of the Judges and of David's reign. The Idumæans and the Philistines were in possession of Judæan territory, and the former occupied even the ancient city of Hebron. Both hated the Judæans, and made them feel this hatred upon every occasion, whilst in the north the Samaritans did the same.

The Judæan settlers in the provinces of the Seleucidæan kingdom looked up to the Græco-Macedonian rulers, commanders and officers for protection from their numerous foes. But in order to curry favour with the Greeks, it was necessary to endeavour to become like them in manners, customs and observances. As to Jerusalem, those who had Hellenised themselves in outward appearance, determined upon educating the Judæan youth according to the Greek model. Thus they established races and contests in wrestling. The richest and most distinguished among the Judæans belonged to this Greek faction, amongst others, Jesus (Joshua), the son of the high-priest, who called himself Jason, and who was followed by many Aaronides. The party was led by the Tobiades, or sons and grandsons of Joseph the tax-collector. But as Jewish law and custom were sternly opposed to such innovations, and held in especial abhorrence Greek shamelessness, these factions determined to abolish the faith of the fathers, that the people might be Hellenised without let or hindrance.

Complete incorporation with the pagan Greeks was their aim. Of what use was the fence erected by Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Synhedrin round Judaism? The Hellenists pulled down the fence, and showed a desire to fell the primeval trees of the forest too.

As has repeatedly occurred in the history of thinking nations, lack of moderation on the one side brought forth exaggeration on the other. Those Judæans who saw with pain and rage the attempts of the Hellenists grouped themselves into a party which clung desperately to the Law and the customs of their fathers, and cherished them as the apple of their eye. They were "the community of the pious," or Chasidim, a development of the Nazarites. Every religious custom was to them of inviolable sanctity. A more complete contrast than was presented by these two parties can hardly be imagined. They understood each other as little as if they had not been sons of the same tribe, people of the same nation. That which was the dearest wish of the Hellenists, the Chasidim condemned as a fearful sin; they called its authors "breakers of the Law," "trespassers of the Covenant." Again, what was dear and sacred to the Chasidim, the Hellenists looked upon as folly, and denounced as a hindrance to the welfare and stability of the community. Amongst the Chasidim there were two noted teachers of the Law, Josê, the son of Joëzer, of the town of Zereda, and Josê, the son of Johanan of Jerusalem, each of them the founder of a school. The one laid more stress upon the theoretical study of the Law, the other, upon the execution of its commands. Josê of Zereda taught his disciples: "Let your house be a place of assembly for the wise men; allow yourself to be covered with the dust of their feet; drink in their words greedily." Josê of Jerusalem, on the other hand, taught, "Let the door of your house be opened wide; let the poor be your guests, and do not converse with women."

Between the two widely opposed parties, the Hellenists and the Chasidim or Assidæans, the people took a middle course. They certainly took delight in the luxuries and refinements of life introduced by the Greeks, and did not care to have their pleasures narrowed by the severe Chasidim; at the same time they disapproved of the excesses of the Hellenists; they refused to break their connection with the past, or to have it obliterated through innovations. But the passionate warfare that existed between Hellenists and Chasidim, menacing with extinction one of the two parties, obliged the moderates to take sides with one or the other of them.

The pious, or patriots, were still supreme in their position of command in the community. At their head was Onias III., high-priest, son of Simon II. He is described as a man of excellent character. Though gentle by nature, he was an enemy to wrongdoing, zealous for the Law, a strong advocate of piety, and uncompromisingly opposed to Hellenistic practices. The Hellenists accordingly hated him fiercely. His principal enemies, besides the Tobiades, were three brothers, of a distinguished Benjamite family, who vied with each other in insolence – Simon, Onias called Menelaus, and Lysimachus. They hated the high-priest not only on account of his constant opposition to their innovations, but also on account of his alliance with Hyrcanus, who was still suffering from the persecutions of his brothers and their followers.

Hyrcanus was in great favour at the Egyptian court, and Ptolemy V. had given him the control over some trans-Jordanic territory. Armed troops were probably at his disposal to help him in the discharge of his duties. The Judæans who colonised the province were probably loyal to him, or were employed by him. By their aid he was able to levy contributions from the Arabs, or Nabatæans, of the provinces of Hesbon and Medaba, as ruthlessly as his father Joseph had once done in Cœlesyria. In this way he accumulated vast wealth. He erected a wonderful citadel of white marble, upon a rock near Hesbon, to all intents and purposes a fortress, but of surpassing beauty. He called this magnificent palace Tyrus; he surrounded it with a wide moat of great depth, and constructed the gates of the outer wall of such narrow dimensions that they admitted only one person at a time. Hyrcanus spent several years, probably from 181 to 175, in this mountain retreat. The surplus of the wealth accumulated by Hyrcanus was sent from time to time, for safe-keeping, to the Temple in Jerusalem, which enjoyed the privilege of inviolability.