52. § 4. From the Death of Nehemiah to the Time of the Maccabees
§ 4. From the Death of Nehemiah to the Time of the Maccabees This period includes a considerable number of years;—the exact length of time we cannot determine, since we do not know the year of Nehemiah’s death. If we reckon from the time when Nehemiah first came to Jerusalem, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, we have 287 years till the first appearance of the Maccabees,—about two and a half centuries, therefore, after the activity of Nehemiah had come to an end. Of this time about a hundred years (from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to one hundred and nineteen) belong to the Persian supremacy, while the rest belong to the Greek supremacy. But in this period our sources are excessively scant and confused, so that, notwithstanding its length, it offers scarcely as much that is noteworthy as one of those that preceded it, which taken all together are far from reaching to the same length. The canonical books of the Old Testament leave us with Nehemiah, from which it appears that this period offered no important gain for sacred history; so that the theologian as such has little to regret in the scantiness of accounts respecting it. The only non-canonical native author who extends over the whole period is Josephus; but with him we are not much concerned. Throughout his history he shows himself incapable, owing to his religious shallowness, of grasping those deeper religious phenomena among his people with which we have specially to do. In addition to this, we have the fact that his work was destined for the heathen, which led him to remain on the surface, without even going as deep as he might have done. Then again we must consider that at this period his sources must have been remarkably meagre. Properly speaking, his work contains no history at all, but only a series of disconnected notices; and even these have an uncertain character. Everywhere we feel that we must be on our guard, that we are on ground where not only ignorance, but intentional dishonesty, has been at work, and false patriotism; we feel that we have entered on that time, so disastrous for historiography, when the national vanity of the peoples who had been subjugated by Macedonian power sought to regain on paper that which they no longer possessed in life. Of the remaining Jewish works composed at this period, or having reference to it, none are of any importance except the book of Jesus Sirach, properly the only literary monument which affords us a deeper insight into the religious tendency of the Jews at this period. The rest are less calculated to give us any knowledge of the time, than to expose the evil Jewish literary activity which characterized the period of their composition,—an activity which finds its only excuse in the fact that the Jews were not the originators of this literary deception, but only participated in what was universal, and had its principal seat in Alexandria. The story of the seventy interpreters of the Pseudo-Aristeas is a miserable fabrication, in which even a basis of historical truth has been looked for in vain. The same may be said of the third book of the Maccabees. This book contains an account of the persecutions which Ptolemy Philopator is said to have inflicted on the Jews in Egypt, and therefore does not mention the times of the Maccabees. Nevertheless it is justly entitled to its name. There can be no doubt that its origin must be explained by the endeavour, which arose after the appearance of the Maccabees, to multiply as much as possible the number of persecutions and deliverances experienced by the people of God: it is an invention copied from what in the time of the Maccabees was reality. The completely fabulous character of the book must be clear to every one who reads it. Authentic history contains no indication whatever that the Ptolemies had any tendency to religious persecution.
Even in heathen authors we find but little information respecting the history of the Jews at this time. Their testimony is important only in so far as they contain the history of the kingdom in whose fate the Jewish nation was implicated. Respecting the Jews themselves they give but little special information; and where this does occur, we are obliged to be extremely cautious, lest we fall into the hands of Jewish deceivers, who, from motives of false patriotism, have palmed their inventions on heathen authors. Among these the most important, and at the same time the most secure from the suspicion of such deceptive supposititiousness, are the fragments of Hecatseus of Abdera, who is said to have written a separate book about the Jews under Ptolemy Lagi. These are given by Josephus, c. Ap. 1. 21, and published in a separate work by Zorn, Altona, 1730. He professes to derive his knowledge of the Jewish nation principally from the accounts of the high priest Hezekiah, who resided with him at the court of Ptolemy. According to the first book of Origen c. Celsum, the fact of his being favourable to the Jews was already brought forward by Herennius Philo as an argument against the composition of the book by the historian Hecataeus. This argument, however, cannot be regarded as decisive, and is outweighed by others in favour of the genuineness, especially this, that a Jew would scarcely relate that many myriads of Jews had been transplanted to Babylon by the Persians;—an argument, however, which is not conclusive, since the Persians may probably mean the Asiatic power in general, the designation being borrowed from the nationality which wielded this power immediately before it passed over to the Greeks, a supposition favoured by the connection. Again, Alexander is said to have given even the territory of the Samaritans to the Jews on account of their loyalty and honesty,—a statement so palpably at variance with historical truth, that it could scarcely have been asserted by any Jew. But neither is this argument conclusive, for liars and boasters often go to extremes, and the masked Jew might fancy that in his heathen garb he could irritate and annoy the Samaritans with impunity. But it cannot fail to arouse actual suspicion, when Hecataeus says of the Jews that they were so devoted to their laws and their religion, that, notwithstanding the opprobrium which they hereby incurred from neighbours and strangers, and even the ill-treatment which it drew down upon them from the kings and satraps of Persia, they refused to depart from their principles, choosing rather to suffer the most cruel martyrdom and death than to renounce the law of their fathers. Here there seems almost to be an allusion to the religious oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes. At the time of Ptolemy no actual religious persecution had yet been inflicted on the Jews. The persecution instigated by Haman cannot exactly be called a religious one. Moreover, the circumstance which Hecataeus relates immediately afterwards is somewhat suspicious, viz. that Alexander wished to rebuild the temple of Belus at Babylon, and commanded his soldiers, the Jews among others, to assist with the work, but when the Jews refused, and the king found that no punishments were of any avail, he gave them a dispensation. In this we seem to see that Jewish imagination which received a powerful impulse by the events of the time of the Maccabees. In other cases the deception is undeniable and lies on the surface. This may be said, for example, of the passage which Josephus, c. Ap. l. § 22, professes to take from the book of Klearch, a well-known pupil of Aristotle. Here Aristotle himself narrates how in his travels he made an acquaintance, which proved of great importance to him, with a man of an extremely regular and wise manner of life. This was a Judaite from Coelesyria, a nation descended from the philosophers in India. Philosophers were there called Calani, but among the Syrians, Judaites. This man entered into friendly relations with him and other students of philosophy, and inquired into their sciences, but gave more than he received. It is scarcely comprehensible how Hess, who thinks that “this foreign monument is to be reckoned among those which are authentic,” and others could have fallen into so great a snare. Evidently the narrative cannot be isolated, but must be regarded as in connection with the many other attempts by which the Jews sought to secure for themselves the honour of priority in philosophy, since the time when they themselves had entered into connection with it, especially in Alexandria. It seemed a disgrace to them that the people of revelation should concede this priority to the unenlightened heathen. They themselves were a priori persuaded that it belonged to them; but this did not satisfy them, their vanity demanded an acknowledgment on the part of the heathen also, and with this object they had recourse to the arts of deception, which, according to the remarkable passage of Galenus in Dähne, Jewish- Alexandrian Philosophy of Religion (1834), i. p. 82, had its first origin and its principal seat in Alexandria, and was so prevalent there, that moral feeling was almost blunted where it was concerned. That alleged passage of Klearch was fabricated in the same forge as the great number of verses which have been attributed to Orpheus, the Sibyl, to Linus, and other honoured names; or as the statement of Aristobulus, that Plato took the most and the best of what he wrote from Moses, as well as much else. Comp. Dähne, l.c. p. 76 ff.
After these introductory remarks, let us now turn to the events themselves. The whole period, comprising about a hundred years, which the Jews still spent under the Persian supremacy, remains unnoticed, with the exception of one single event, which, though unimportant in itself, yet deserves mention on account of a conclusion which may be drawn from it. Under the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, a strife arose between the high priest Jochanan and his brother Jesus. The latter tried, with the help of the Persian general Bagoses, who was friendly towards him, to usurp the high-priestly dignity. Jochanan, being informed of it, slew him in the temple. Bagoses then came to Jerusalem to avenge his friend. In spite of all opposition, he penetrated to the temple, and laid a tribute on the nation as a punishment. This event is remarkable, in so far as it shows us that the position of the high priest was even at that time one of great political importance. It seems that after the death of Nehemiah no more civil governors were appointed by the Persians, but the highest civil dignity devolved upon the high priest, who was at the same time responsible for the payment of the taxes. This change can only be regarded as detrimental. The union of the civil position with the spiritual, which Moses had most carefully avoided, led to a deterioration of the high-priesthood, such as had never taken place in former times. We now very seldom find an able, truly spiritual-minded man among the high priests; the dignity is the object of ambition, and not unfrequently we find crimes committed in order to obtain or preserve it. The great catastrophe under Antiochus Epiphanes, which threatened the Jewish nationality and religion with complete destruction, had its first foundation in this secularization of the high-priesthood, as we shall see in the course of this history.
Leo has already drawn attention to the fact that the condition of the Jews at this period was in many respects analogous to that of the Greeks at the time when they were still quietly subject to the Turks. The nation, he says, had throughout no true political existence, just as little as the Greeks, but, like the Greeks, they had a religious existence. The consequence naturally was, that all common interests found their organ in the priests, that all interests were drawn into the circle of spiritual jurisdiction, and were thus settled independently, without the intervention of the Persians. It was the same with the Greeks before the revolution: the clergy took cognizance of all common interests of the nation, and the nation was represented before the emperor by the patriarch in Constantinople, who was therefore esteemed the head of the nation. Thus the high priest of the Jews became at this time more and more the head of the nation. The two hundred years of the Persian supremacy had on the whole been one of prosperity for the Jews, if we except the oppressed feeling which invariably accompanies the desire for independence, and was peculiarly strong in this people, who, in the first beginnings of their existence, were impressed, under divine authority, with the idea that they were absolutely free, and were subject to no ruler but God, and who therefore necessarily regarded oppression as a heavy punishment, the sign of an angry God. They owed their temple and their walls to the good-will of the Persians, under whom they had enjoyed perfect religious freedom; and several Persian kings had done homage to the God of Israel. The condition of the nation at the end of the Persian rule was essentially different from what it had been at the beginning. The thickly-populated land, the flourishing capital, bore witness to the comparative clemency of the rulers. No wonder, therefore, that the Jews were in no haste to throw themselves into the arms of the rising Greek supremacy. It would have been equally unwise and ungrateful. With respect to the manner in which the Persian supremacy gave way to that of the Greeks, Josephus gives us a full account, Ant. xi. 8. The substance is as follows:—The Tyrians got their grain and their provisions principally from the neighbourhood, especially from Judea and Samaria. When Alexander undertook the siege of Tyre, his attention was directed to the same districts; and by his ambassadors he sent a summons to the Jews to surrender, and to provide his army with the means of subsistence. The Jews, however, refused, appealing to the oath of fidelity which had been made to them by Darius. Alexander was exasperated by this, and determined to punish the Jews most severely for their obstinacy, after the conquest of Tyre. In this danger the nation, with the high priest Jadduah at their head, turned in zealous prayer to God. Jadduah had a vision in the night, in which he was commanded to advance to meet the conqueror in his high-priestly garments, accompanied by the priests in their official vestments, and the nation clothed in white. In obedience to this command, they repaired in procession to a height, viz. Sapha. Alexander was amazed on perceiving the high priest. Full of awe, he advanced to meet him, and bending, greeted him. This unexpected acknowledgment caused universal astonishment; and to Parmenio’s question respecting the cause of it, Alexander answered that at Dion in Macedonia, when he was absorbed in thinking of the war against the Persians, this same man, in the same garb, had appeared to him in a dream, and had told him to have no fear, but only to advance boldly to Asia, for God would be his leader in this campaign, and would give him the kingdom of the Persians. Alexander then manifested a friendly disposition towards the Jews, and presented offerings in the temple. Jadduah showed him the prophecies in Daniel foretelling the destruction of the Persian kingdom by a king of Greece. Alexander then commanded the Jews to ask a favour before his departure. They requested freedom in the exercise of their religion, and exemption from taxation in the seventh year, which was granted. Scarcely had Alexander left Jerusalem, when the Samaritans sent a deputation to him with a request that he would visit their temple at Gerizim also. (Josephus here contradicts himself, for he asserts elsewhere that the temple on Gerizim was built in consequence of the permission given by Alexander at the siege of Tyre, in which case it could not have been ready at this time.) The Samaritans had at once submitted to the demand made on them by Alexander at the siege of Tyre, and had not merely sent him provisions, but also an auxiliary force of 8000 men. Hence they thought they had far greater claims on the favour of the king than the Jews, and confidently entreated him to come to their city also; and when Alexander explained that there was now no time to do so, they begged that they too might have freedom from taxation in the seventh year. Alexander inquired whether they were then Jews. They answered that they were Hebrews, and observed the same law as the Jews. Alexander, however, delayed his examination into the matter and his decision respecting it until his return.
There is nothing to throw suspicion on the perfect historical certainty of this whole narrative, except the fact that it appears in an author such as Josephus, and in a part of his work where suspicion is most natural, having to do with a subject where the disfigurement due to his false patriotism is especially prominent. With this exception, everything is in favour of its credibility and nothing against. In the first place, the event narrated suits the connection. All historians of Alexander mention that after the battle of Issus he besieged Tyre for seven months, and went from it to Gaza. Arrian says that Judea voluntarily surrendered. We cannot maintain that Alexander did not, as Josephus asserts, march from Tyre to Gaza, and from Gaza to Jerusalem, but from Tyre to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Gaza. The strong citadel of Gaza seemed to be of much more consequence. The subjection of Jerusalem was regarded only as a secondary object. Hence the more important was accomplished first. The favour shown by Alexander towards the Jews, to whom, after the founding of Alexandria, he granted the same privileges as to the Macedonians, is confirmed by history, and seems to demand some such cause as that given in the narrative of Josephus. That which has no express historical sanction commends itself by its internal truthfulness. For example, the conduct of Alexander is in striking harmony with his historical character. Everywhere we find in him a tendency to employ religion as a means to serve his ends, and to represent himself as favoured by deity. He knew the power which religion exercised on the oriental spirit, and sought to derive advantage from it, while in secret he scoffed at all religion. It was his aim to be declared the favourite of the gods by the most various voices; and the attainment of this object cost him exertions and sacrifices, compared with which the favours granted to the Jews were as nothing. Thus, in order to procure for himself the same advantages which the Persian kings enjoyed by their divine dignity, he undertook the wearisome, difficult, and dangerous journey to the temple of Jupiter Amnion, in which he almost perished with thirst, together with his whole army. He humbly submitted to the requirements of the priests that none but himself should enter the temple. At a time when his power was already much more firmly established, he restored the temple of Belus at Babylon at an immense cost. But however much may still be said in favour of the narrative of Josephus, yet there remains always this one great objection, the want of a valid external authority, and we must therefore leave uncertain how much it contains of truth and how much of fiction. On the disposition of the provinces after the death of Alexander, Judea was first united with Syria. But only four years afterwards it was conquered by Ptolemy Lagi, the regent of Egypt, and Laomedon was taken. Ptolemy took Jerusalem on the Sabbath, knowing that he was certain to meet with no opposition on this day. Until the time of the Maccabees, the Jews were of opinion that it was not right to do anything, even in defence of life, on the Sabbath. With respect to this conquest, we have the credible witness of a heathen author, Agatharchides of Cnidos, given to us by Josephus, which runs thus: “There is a nation called the Jews. This people looked on while their strong and great city of Jerusalem was occupied by Ptolemy, and, owing to their untimely superstition, they refused to take up arms, preferring rather to be subject to a hard master.”
According to Josephus, Ptolemy took an immense number of captive Jews back to Egypt with him. But it is plain that he here follows no other authority but that of the Pseudo-Aristeas, who only represents Ptolemy Lagi as having carried away 100,000 Jews, in order that Ptolemy Philadelphus might be able to release that number. Moreover, what Josephus says of the distinctions which Ptolemy conferred on the Jews in his army, because he regarded them as people who never broke their oath of fealty, is subject to well-founded suspicion. It is certain, however, that Ptolemy granted the same privileges to the Jews who wished to repair to Egypt, and especially to Alexandria, as had already been bestowed on them by Alexander. Under these circumstances, it was natural that the Jews should settle there in ever increasing numbers. The unity of the government must have tended to increase this very much. To explain the fact, we require neither measures of compulsion on the part of Ptolemy, nor a special predilection for the Jews. The Jews had already left Egypt in great numbers for Cyrene and Libya. In vain does Josephus try to bring in Ptolemy here again, maintaining that he felt the more secure in his possession of this district the more Jewish inhabitants it contained. The Jewish inclination for trade, which had even then shown itself, affords a better explanation. We see, however, how with Alexander the spread of the Jews, which formed the necessary condition for the realization of their world-historical destination, had reached its second stadium. But however much this extension increased, yet the temple at Jerusalem always remained the religious centre of the nation, and Judea, in a certain measure, the fatherland. The Jews in the
It was of great importance for the Jews that Seleucus took possession of Syria, and founded a kingdom which extended to the Indus. By this means Judea fell into the same fatal position which it had formerly occupied when the Egyptian and Assyrian, and afterwards the Chaldee monarchy, had been at variance among themselves. Palestine, with its richly-wooded Lebanon and the sea-coast, was the natural apple of contention between the kingdom of Egypt and the great Asiatic monarchy; yet these collisions did not take place in the immediate future. Palestine still remained for a considerable space of time in undisturbed possession of Egypt; for we cannot maintain, with Usher and Hess, on the most unsatisfactory authority of Sulpicius Severus, that Seleucus added Palestine to his dominions during the lifetime of Ptolemy Lagi. On the contrary, Antiochus the Great was the first who conquered Palestine, after it had remained for more than a hundred years under Egyptian supremacy. But Seleucus held an important position with regard to the Jews, in so far as he granted them the same privileges in the numerous cities which he built as the Macedonians, probably because he regarded them as natural allies against the natives. They were especially numerous at Antioch; comp. Josephus, xii. 3, § 1. But they were scattered everywhere throughout all Syria and Asia Minor. The reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus is only remarkable in so far as it is the scene of the romance of the Pseudo-Aristeas respecting the origin of the Alexandrian version of the Pentateuch. That in this professedly authentic account we have really only a romance, is now universally acknowledged. It is proved by the most palpable arguments: thus, for example, the author, though he represents himself as a Greek, always speaks as a Jew; then, again, the enormous sums given by Ptolemy Philadelphus to obtain a mere translation of the Jewish law-book, etc. In this point, also, theologians agree that the object of the invention is partly the glorification of the Jews, and partly the glorification of the Alexandrian version. Most, however, try to preserve at least some measure of historical truth. Some think they have already done enough when they have struck out thirty-six of the seventy-two translators, and so also in other things (so Parthey on the Alexandrian Museum); others think that the narrative contains at least this basis of fact, that the translation was made and placed in the library at Alexandria under Ptolemy, and at his desire. But we must question even this. The desire of Philadelphus, it is assumed, follows naturally from his zealous endeavours to complete his library. But here the position in which the Greeks stood towards the Jews and their sacred literature is not enough considered. Of all the Greek and Latin authors that have come down to us, not one has thought it worth his while to cast even a glance into the religious book of the Jews, although it existed in the Greek language, and would therefore have been so readily accessible. For the whole literary heathen world the Alexandrian version, a hundred years after its composition, was still as good as non-existent. How then can it be considered probable, even necessary, that a heathen monarch, whose exertions it is plain were only directed to the literature of the world, should have given the first impulse to the composition of this translation % The nature of the translation itself also speaks against this view. Everywhere it bears evidence of having been composed by Jews for Jews,—not for the satisfaction of heathen literary curiosity, but to supply the religious need of Greek-speaking Jews. We cannot even tell the time when the translation was made with any certainty from the writing of Aristeas. In the sphere of literature, Ptolemy Philadelphus has become a sort of mythical personage. His name as the great promoter of learning is interwoven in a multitude of literary fictions. Thus, for instance, the author of an Egyptian history, or rather a historical romance, who wrote under the name of Manetho in the time of the Romish supremacy, represents himself as a distinguished Egyptian priest of the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who wrote his work at the request of the king, and dedicated it to him. The following is undoubtedly the correct view of the origin of the Alexandrian version:—The Jews, who dwelt in Alexandria in great numbers from the time of Alexander, and especially since the reign of Ptolemy Lagi, soon adopted Greek as the prevailing language, just as their forefathers had done with Chaldee in the period of their exile. Thus arose the want of a translation of the sacred books. First the Pentateuch was translated, for which there was a specially urgent demand, because it was generally read aloud in the synagogues. The necessity of the Jews requires that this translation should have been made not later than the time of the first Ptolemies. The other books followed gradually. According to the prologue of Jesus Sirach, the whole must have been completed about the year 130 B.C. at the latest.
We learn from the nature of the translation that it was not composed by Palestinian Jews brought for the purpose, but by Alexandrian Jews. It contains not a few traces of an Alexandrian-Jewish tendency, the result of the existing relationship between the Jewish population and the heathen, who were superior to the former in number and in scientific culture. It already shows that the philosophic mode of thought and instruction, which prevailed among the heathen population in Alexandria, exercised a certain influence upon the Jewish population also. Not unfrequently anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, which did not harmonize with the refined religious mode of thought, are set aside, although in this respect the translators are not altogether consistent. In other respects also a rationalizing tendency makes itself evident in many places. But when Dähne, in his Jewish- Alexandrian Philosophy of Religion, part ii. p. 3 ff., maintains that the authors of the Alexandrian version were already familiar with the maxims of the Philonic philosophy, he asserts far more than he is afterwards able to prove. The more widely the Jews became scattered, the more the importance of the Alexandrian version increased. At last it came into ordinary use even in Palestine, where Greek had already taken very deep root at the time of Christ; but it was through Christianity that it first attained its full dignity. The very fact of its frequent use in the New Testament served to recommend it. All the Grecian churches made use of it; the Latins, until the time of Jerome, had only a Latin translation made from it. Not a few converted nations made it the basis of translations into their own language. But just in proportion as it rose in Christian estimation did it fall in the estimation of the Jews, and it was not long before it fell into complete disuse.
Jadduah was succeeded in the high-priesthood by his son Onias, who was again succeeded by his son Simon surnamed the Just, a designation bestowed on him, according to Josephus, on account of his piety towards God and his benevolence towards his countrymen. There is a brilliant eulogy on him in Jesus Sirach, in Sir 50:1 ff., which, however, gives no true indication of the spirit that characterized him, whether he was a man of true reflective tendency and of a spiritual mind. He is said to have rendered great service by a series of buildings, and again he is lauded on account of the solemn state with which he conducted his office: “How honoured was he 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 moon at the full, as the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High,” etc. In later Jewish tradition he appears in mythic glorification; so also in the Mishna, and still more in the Gemara. But what is told of him is too absurd to be worth quoting. From this time the history offers nothing of any value for our object till Antiochus the Great. Under him Judea threw off the dominion of Egypt, to which it never reverted, and became subject to Syria. In the very beginning of the war against King Ptolemy Philopator, Antiochus was on the point of taking Judea. But the victory which Ptolemy obtained over him at Raphia, not far from Gaza, put a limit to his conquests. To this actual fact of the victory at Raphia, the author of the third book of the Maccabees attaches his romance. Ptolemy is represented as having visited Jerusalem after the victory. Notwithstanding the most active opposition on the part of the whole nation, he persisted in carrying out his determination to penetrate into the interior of the sanctuary, and did actually reach the second court; but there God struck him with sudden fear, so that he had to be carried out half-dead. He left the city thirsting for revenge against the Jews, and first directed his rage against those in Alexandria; but these were saved from the impending destruction by immediate divine intervention. How little this narrative deserves credence, appears from the fact that Josephus in his Antiquities says nothing of all this. In the book against Apion brief mention is made of a similar event, but it is placed under the reign of Ptolemy Physkon, a considerable time later. It is plain that we have to do with an uncertain tradition, which had its origin in the time of the Maccabees, and whose first germ, though certainly found by the author of the third book of the Maccabees, was extended and embellished by his hand. The date of this book cannot be determined. At the time of Josephus it seems not yet to have been in existence. Its position is also in favour of its later origin, after the two first books of the Maccabees, although it describes events which in point of time are earlier than the first book of the Maccabees. The second book of the Maccabees is also of a comparatively later date. The first who mentions the third book is Eusebius in the Chronicon. In the Latin Vulgate it was not received; in consequence of which it has also been rejected by most ecclesiastical translations into modern language since the Reformation.
After the death of Philopator, Antiochus made use of the opportunity which presented itself in the minority of his surviving son, Ptolemy Epiphanes, to invade Coelesyria and Phenicia, and took possession also of Judea. But Scopas, the general of the young king, reconquered Judea. Soon, however, Antiochus again acquired the upper hand. The Jews, as soon as he approached their land, hastened to offer their allegiance. When he came to Jerusalem, the priests and elders went in procession to meet him, received him with the greatest demonstration of joy, and helped him to drive out the Egyptian garrison which Scopas had left in the castle. We do not know whether this conduct on the part of the Jews had its foundation in oppressions experienced in the latter time of the Egyptian supremacy, or whether it was clue only and solely to the great aversion with which the nation always regarded heathen dominion, and which might make the change in so far agreeable, as it gave them an opportunity of revenging themselves on their former oppressors, in so far, also, as the secession to the new ruler was an act of freedom, a sort of prelude to a fuller exercise of it. Respecting the favourable disposition of Antiochus towards the Jews, called forth by this ready advance, Josephus has plenty to say. He communicates several edicts that were made in their favour; among others, one in which all who were not Jews were forbidden to enter the temple, to bring into the city the flesh of animals that were impure according to the Mosaic law, or to keep such animals in the city. Whether these edicts really were published in the form in which we find them in Josephus, is doubtful. One of them at least is somewhat suspicious from internal reasons, viz. the command to Zeuxis, an old general of his, to transplant, with great favour, two thousand Jewish families from Mesopotamia and Babylonia into Lydia and Phrygia, in order that the inhabitants, who were inclined to rebellion, might be the better kept within bounds. The passage in this work, “I have confidence in them, that they will watch faithfully over our rights, on account of their religiousness, and because, as I well know, they inherit the reputation of faithfulness and of willing obedience from olden times,” sounds somewhat Jewish.
All things considered, however, it must à priori seem very probable that Antiochus made every exertion to attach the Jews to his interest, in order by this means to give greater security to his uncertain conquest. This conquest took place in the year 198 B.C.
Antiochus the Great was succeeded first by his elder brother Seleucus Philopater, who showed equal favour towards the Jews, and then by his son Antiochus Epiphanes. The high-priesthood was occupied at that time by Onias III. According to Josephus, l. xii. chap. 4, § 10, this high priest received a writing from Areus, a king of Sparta, to this purport: “Since there was a written monument, according to which Spartans and Jews were descended from the same ancestor Abraham, he offered every act of friendship to the Jewish nation, and expected the same from them in return.” Besides the reference to this event contained in Josephus, it is mentioned not only in the second book of the Maccabees (2Ma 5:9 Macc. 5:9), but also in the first (1Ma 12:7-8), which speaks also of another event which necessarily presupposes the former, viz. the writing which Jonathan sent to the Spartans. Hence there can be no doubt with regard to the accuracy of the fact, if we take into consideration the weight of authority belonging to the first book of the Maccabees. One thing only remains doubtful, viz. the date. Josephus places the event under Onias III. The first book of the Maccabees, on the other hand, calls the high priest Onias without any closer designation; and from the circumstance that in the letter of Jonathan to the Spartans there given, it is stated that a long time has already elapsed since that letter to Onias, Onias III seems to be excluded, for he died only twelve years before Jonathan entered upon his office. Moreover, history proves that at the time of Onias in. the Spartans had no king of the name of Areus, or Darius, as he is called in the first book of the Maccabees, by a confusion of the less common name with the more common. Yet these arguments have but little weight.
Great trouble has been taken to explain how the idea of relationship with the Jews could have originated among the Spartans, and what was the writing upon which they based it. But if we take into consideration the whole mass of Jewish productions which collectively have the one object of making the Jews beloved and respected among the heathen nations, we can scarcely doubt that the Spartans, who were not well versed in literary intelligence, were here the victims of a Jewish literary deception. The fact of their claiming relationship with this nation has its natural foundation in the great fame which the Spartans enjoyed in olden times, even after the fall of their state, and in the honour which it must therefore bring to be recognised by them as brethren. Moreover, the Jewish deception certainly did not emanate from the Jewish nation as such, but only from a single individual, a Jewish Simonides. We cannot, however, exempt the rulers of the Jews from the imputation of having accepted the error of the Spartans utiliter. They must have known from their sacred books that the Spartans were not descendants of Abraham. We have an analogy in the circumstance that not a few of the nationalities of Asia maintain that they are descended from the ten tribes of the Israelites,—an opinion to which they can scarcely have come except through Jewish influence.
There is therefore no difficulty in explaining the fact, nor is there any reason for accepting, with Leo, the assumption of Joh. Dav. Michaelis, that by a misunderstanding a statement was made respecting the Spartans which ought rather to have been understood of the Sepharads, or Jewish exiles who had settled at Sepharad, probably on the Bosphorus, and had there founded an independent kingdom (Mich, on 1 Maccabees 12). The Jew who planned the deception would certainly not thank Michaelis for having thus baffled his intention. Rome and Sparta might well be classed together; but we cannot understand how it could have occurred to Jonathan to send an embassy to Rome and Sepharad at the same time, or how the author of the first book of the Maccabees could have looked upon Rome and Sepharad as in any sense equal. In the year 175 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne. He stands as one branded with a curse, not only in sacred history, but also in profane. Polybius, Livius, Diodorus, all heathen authors, represent him as the incarnation of every crime. The people called him Epiphanes instead of Epiphanes. In order to understand the events which took place under him in Judea, we must premise the following remarks:—By the conquests of Alexander, and the Greek supremacies to which they gave rise, Greek culture, morals, and philosophy were brought into the East, which received impressions with that softness peculiar to the conquered in relation to the conquerors. Even the Jews were unable to withstand Greek influence. The heathenizing party which had always existed among them now became stronger and stronger. They were unwilling to bear the contempt of the heathen any longer, and were anxious to participate in the spirit of the world, ashamed of their antiquated superstition. It was natural that the orthodox, stirred into opposition against this party, who aimed at nothing less than the complete overthrow of Judaism, should be moved to greater and more active zeal for their faith, and should combine the more closely. Matters soon came to such a pitch, that it was necessary for each one to declare himself in favour either of the one party or the other. The orthodox party, however, who took the name of the Chasidim, were decidedly on the decrease; and if matters had gone on progressing quietly as before, the Israelitish principle had everything to fear. But God now intervened. The compulsory measures adopted by the heathen government in connection with the heathenizing party, led many who were already wavering to a decision; the Israelitish-religious interest gained an ally in the Israelitish-national interest; and the issue of the thing was, that the heathen principle, though not entirely thrust out, was obliged to disguise itself in the garb of tame Sadducism.
We can scarcely doubt that the entrance which heathenism found was facilitated by the unspiritual character which had become more and more common to orthodox Judaism during this period. To this time belongs the origin of the so-called oral law. The Pentateuch is not content to lay down the highest moral-religious maxims, and to impress them on the mind by exhortation, but wishes to carry the law into the heart of the national life, and for this purpose gives a number of special directions, which, however, collectively flow from the highest principles, and are continually traced back to them, especially in Deuteronomy, where the command to love God is constantly repeated as the highest and only real command. In this way, however, a good handle was given for an external, mere legal spirit; and we learn how imminent this was, from the solicitude with which the prophets contend against it. Owing to this opposition, the tendency never attained to any firm consistency and dominion. But after the exile, when the prophethood was extinct, and the spirit was gradually disappearing, it gained ground. And now, in directing the glance to the external as such, it soon became evident that the Mosaic law was most incomplete, and by no means contained an adequate rule for all external action. Life presented a number of cases for which there were no regulations; and where such cases did not actually occur, casuistry was indefatigable in inventing them. Not content with representing these supplementary laws in their true character, as mere inferences and applications, the product of scholarly subtlety, the authors thought it necessary to invest them with a higher authority, and thus arose the fiction of an oral law, received by Moses from God along with the written law, and handed down to the present by a succession of safe depositaries. Under cover of this, Rabbinical casuistry now weighed down all life with an intolerable burden of commands, which descended to the very minutest details, and gave Judaism a character of unspirituality which must have been very revolting, especially to the young. Yet Rabbinical sophistry was still far from its height at the end of this period, and was only consolidated in its tendency by the victory which the orthodox party afterwards gained over heathenism, of which the result was the manifestation of developed Pharisaism, which had just as little existence before the time of the Maccabees as Sadducism. The Chasidim, whom we encounter towards the end of this period, possessed the elements not merely of the sect of the Pharisees, but also of that of the Essenes, to whom their name descended.
After these preliminary remarks, we shall consider those events at the close of this period which paved the way to the beginning of the following. We have already shown how the political position which devolved on the high priest in the times after the exile necessarily had the most injurious effect, leading worldly ambition to make this dignity the object of its strivings. This was the case here also. Soon after Antiochus came to the throne, a brother of Onias the high priest, called Jesus, a name which he afterwards changed into Jason, the Greek equivalent, offered him a large sum if he would appoint him to the dignity of his brother. The proposition was accepted, the God-fearing Onias was deposed, and the godless Jason installed in his place. Owing to the character of Jason, and the way in which he obtained his office, he was naturally at variance with all that was in any way attached to the religion of the fathers. In order, therefore, to maintain his position, he made it his object to introduce heathenism more and more among his people. By encouraging heathenism, he hoped at the same time to make himself very popular at the heathen court. He offered the king 150 talents more for permission to establish a gymnasium in Jerusalem, a theatre for combat and other athletic sports for the youth, in accordance with the Greek custom. He also obtained permission from the king to bestow the very valuable freedom of the city of Antioch, and conferred it only on those who joined the Greek faction. These measures led to important results. Even priests left the temple to take part in the games and diversions of the gymnasium. Jason had even the audacity to send ambassadors with presents to the feast of Hercules in Tyre. But he soon lost his dignity in the same way in which he had obtained it. He had sent a certain Menelaus to the king at Antioch, for the purpose of paying him the tribute due, and of treating with him on important matters. According to Josephus, this Menelaus was a brother of Jason, the third son of Simon the high priest. The author of the second book of the Maccabees, on the contrary, says that he was a brother of Simon the Benjamite. This latter view is the more probable. The former probably had its origin in the fact that Jewish authors found it difficult to reconcile themselves to the idea that a man who was not of the high-priestly family should have occupied the position of high priest. But Menelaus may have been of priestly origin, notwithstanding the fact that he is called a Benjamite; for the Levites were counted as belonging to those tribes among whom they dwelt. Menelaus now asked the king for the priesthood, offering a larger sum for it than Jason had paid. His request was granted. But the mere payment did not suffice. He required strong military support in order to dispossess Jason. To obtain this, he and his adherents made a declaration to the king that they renounced the laws of their country, and accepted the religion of the king and the worship of the Greeks. The king now supplied him with troops, and, accompanied by these, he took possession of his office without any opposition. The hope of retaining it could only rest on his zeal in the promotion of heathenism. Only in this way could he remain in favour with the court, or rely on the assistance of the heathenizing party; he could have no hope of winning over the Chasidim, the pious party, and must therefore make it his aim to destroy them. In full confidence he took the way that was opened up to him by circumstances. He publicly renounced the law of Moses and embraced the religion of the Greeks, making every effort to lead others to the same apostasy. In order to pay the sum promised to the king, he sold a great number of the vessels belonging to the temple. The legal (but deposed) high priest Onias was slain by Andronicus, a court officer, bribed by Jason, under circumstances so revolting, that even Antiochus was filled with indignation when he heard of it, and commanded Andronicus to be executed on the spot where the crime was committed. The object which Antiochus followed with the most strenuous zeal was the possession of Egypt. He undertook three great expeditions against this kingdom. On the third, an end was put to all his ambitious projects, for he received a definite command from the Romans to keep within the limits of his kingdom. Josephus has mixed up together the things that Antiochus did on his return from the second expedition and on his return from the third; but the books of the Maccabees discriminate exactly what was done on each occasion. From them we learn that after the second expedition Antiochus himself earned out his measures of persecution, but that after the third he left their accomplishment to Apollonius, his commander-in-chief. Between these two events lies a period of two years. The former took place in the year 170 B.C., the latter in the year 168 B.C. When Antiochus was in Egypt on the second expedition, a false report arose in Palestine that he was dead. Jason thought it necessary to take advantage of this opportunity. He came to Jerusalem with a small military force, and, with the assistance of his party there, drove out Menelaus, who retired to the palace, and perpetrated the greatest cruelties. When Antiochus heard an account of all this, he was greatly enraged, principally because the inhabitants of Jerusalem had received the news of his death with the greatest demonstration of joy. He marched at once to Jerusalem, and took the city by storm,
Antiochus now issued a decree that all the nations of his states should abandon their old religious customs, and embrace the religion of the king. This decree was given with special reference to the Jews, notwithstanding its comprehensive form. Its aim was the complete destruction of their religion and nationality. We best learn the motive which here influenced Antiochus from 1Ma 1:43 Macc. 1:43. He was anxious that all his subjects should be one nation,—the same motive which led Louis XIV to murder the Protestants. He acted less from heathen fanaticism than in the interest of his own despotism. Every observance of a particularity in his kingdom he regarded as an infringement of his rights. The Jewish religion must have been odious to him, in proportion as it placed the will of another higher King in opposition to his will, in proportion to the decision with which the professors of this religion asserted the principle of obedience to God rather than man, a principle which had no footing in heathenism. Doubtless also the Jewish apostates helped to increase the animosity of the king. They continually assured him that no reliance could be placed on the submission of the Jews so long as they retained their own religion, but that they would take the first opportunity of making themselves independent; and there may have been various manifestations of a restless political spirit in the orthodox party to offer a foundation for such accusations. The conduct of the Samaritans on this occasion is highly characteristic, and affords great insight into their whole religious position. We here see that they were self-constituted worshippers of Jehovah, that they had chosen Jehovah without His having chosen them, without His having revealed Himself to them or having taken form among them; so that to them Jehovah was in fact an idol. For it is characteristic of all idolatry (with which rationalism is on a par) that the initiative belongs to man, who worships a God who has not revealed Himself, while all true worship of God can appear only as an answer on the part of the Church. Formerly the Samaritans had taken every opportunity of representing themselves as the followers and descendants of the ten tribes. Now, when the pretended relationship with the Jews seemed likely to prove injurious to them, they came out with the truth. They declared that they were originally heathen, who had only resolved to pay a certain homage to the God of the country in order to avoid certain evils. But they were quite willing to comply with the command of the king, and only begged that they might not be involved in the same punishment with the criminal nation of the Jews. They besought permission to dedicate their temple on Gerizim, which had hitherto been consecrated to a God without a name, to the Greek Jupiter, and because they were strangers in the land, to Jupiter Xenios. In saving that their God had until now been without a name, they spoke the truth, although with the intention of deceiving, for in the biblical sense their God was indeed without a name,—He had done nothing among them from which a name could have arisen in a living way.
Among the Jews also many obeyed the law of the king, not from fear alone, but also from inclination. These apostates then became more violent in persecuting their brethren than the heathen themselves. The king now sent a commission, with Athenseus at their head, to Judea, for the purpose of carrying out his law. With the help of the Syrian soldiery, these men made it their first aim to destroy every trace of the Jewish religion in the capital. Circumcision was forbidden, and the observance of the Sabbath; every copy of the law that could be found was destroyed; the temple was dedicated to Jupiter Olympus, whose statue was erected on the altar of burnt-offering, and to whom sacrifices were presented. A similar course of action was adopted in the other cities. Once in every month, on the birthday of the king, the inhabitants were compelled to sacrifice on the heathen altars, which were erected everywhere, and to eat the flesh of swine and other unclean animals that were presented as offerings. Many, however, gave up their life for their religious convictions. The author of the first book of the Maccabees, 1Ma 1:62-63, only makes this general statement; but the author of the second book gives us a full history of many such martyrdoms, in which, however, we are unable to distinguish how much is historical truth and how much embellishment. What Josephus relates in the book de Maccaboeis is mostly taken from the second book of the Maccabees.
Hence we see how everything was at stake. And the more trying the time was for those who feared God in Israel, the more natural must it appear that God should have given them consolation in the prophecies of Daniel long before the consolation itself appeared; the more natural, since prophecy itself was at this time completely extinct, so that the consolation could not proceed from the midst of themselves. Daniel pointed out that the object of this dispensation was the trial and purification of the nation. We see how necessary this was from what has already been said.
Before turning to the succeeding period, we must speak of a literary production belonging to this time, which serves not a little to throw light on the better tendency of Judaism which prevailed in it. This is the book of Jesus Sirach, which, together with the book of Wisdom, the book of Tobias, Baruch, and the first book of the Maccabees, forms the kernel of the Apocrypha. This book received the name of Ecclesiasticus from the circumstance that, although possessing no canonical authority, it was yet in ecclesiastical use. The (merely) ecclesiastical books are opposed to the canonical; and because Jesus Sirach occupied the first place among these, having the greatest authority, and being the most read in the Church, it was called