justly make to the aims set forth by Ezra. One of the immediate consequences, therefore, was that the old believers, partly because they already saw the evil effects of such perverted freedom, partly from an obscure fear of the further development of these opinions, finally took up an attitude of more abrupt and determined opposition, and closed up their own ranks within narrower and more rigid bounds. They banded themselves together under the name of Chasîdîm,' i.e. the godly (or pious), which they certainly borrowed from the Psalter, and seem also to have called themselves the Faithful; "2 for in the last centuries of the earlier history of Jerusalem the more conscientious had often been obliged to separate themselves strictly from the influx of heathenism, and had adopted a position apart under similar names.3 The free-thinkers, however, were not yet called Sadducees, but simply the lawless,' or 'ungodly,' and sometimes in stronger language, 'sinners.' That the opinions of the schools on either side were in equally rude opposition followed as a matter of course. 3. The Greek Rulers. While the entry of Greco-Egyptian light-mindedness, and the rise of a philosophical school favourable to it in Jerusalem itself, inevitably produced by degrees embarrassment enough, the still greater immorality of the struggle between the GrecoSyrian and the Greco-Egyptian powers was involved more and more deeply in the coil. In this way a vehement fire was kindled which necessarily caused all the hidden impulses and powers of the day, both evil and good, to rush forth and assail one another with the utmost impetuosity. The incessant wars between the Syrian and Egyptian Greeks, with the equally endless lying negotiations that intervened, which followed one upon another with increasing violence after the death of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and the object of which was the pos According to the Greek spelling, 'Aridaîol, 1 Macc. ii. 42 (where the Vat. and most other MSS. erroneously read 'lovdalwv), vii. 13; 2 Macc. xiv. 6. That in their most flourishing time they formed an exclusive association is clear from the designation avvaywyń, 1 Macc. ii. 42, as well as from vii. 13. The name is derived from Pss. xii. 2 [1], xvi. 10, iv. 4 [3], xxxii. 6, and many other passages in the Psalter; nowhere else is it found so frequently and with so much significance. 21 Macc. iii. 13, after Pss. xii. 2 [1], xxxi. 24 [23], &c. Vol. iv. p. 209 sqq. 1 Macc. i. 11-15, ii. 42-44, vi. 21, vii. 5, 9, ix. 23, 58, 69, 73; cf. x. 14, 61, xi. 21, 25, xiv. 14. The expression auapтwλoí is certainly chiefly from the Psalter. In the same way the Son of Sirach draws a sharp distinction between the bσio and avoμot, xxxix. 13, 24, xl. 10; cf. xxxi. 18. In the second and third books of Maccabees there are many violent expressions about degenerate Judeans. session of Palestine, with the whole Phoenician coast, inevitably stifled among its inhabitants all respect for such ruling houses, and produced extreme uncertainty in the administration of justice. Among the first events which could never be forgotten in the lurid glare of this infernal fire was the frightful murder of Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B.C. 246.1 For the sake of concluding peace, she had been given in marriage to Antiochus Theos. Her death, which was coincident with her father's, was followed by the great expedition of Ptolemy Euergetes, already mentioned, against the Syrian kingdom; and the shameful flight of Seleucus Callinicus after he had just recommenced the war against victorious Egypt, B.C. 226, was a fitting end to the first act of the horrible tragedy which lasted more than a century.3 His sons, Seleucus Ceraunus, and, after his early death, Antiochus the Great, made immediate preparations for further wars, and the latter soon overran all southern Syria, at length wrested Seleucia on the Orontes from the Egyptians, and stood on the borders of Egypt, when the indolent Ptolemy Philopator bestirred himself, and by his victory at Raphia compelled him again to give up Palestine, B.C. 217.4-It must have been upon this that Ptolemy Philopator, when he was not allowed to penetrate into the sanctuary at Jerusalem, resolved to give the rein to that frightful fury against the Egyptian Judeans which the third book of Maccabees recounts, if, indeed, its contents deserve any historic credit. 5 Under a Ptolemy Philopator (B.C. 221-204), however, there could be little prosperity for Palestine. When, therefore, Antiochus the Great, in the year 203 B.C., overran it in conjunc 1 Hence it is with this that the celebrated description of all these circumstances in the book of Daniel begins, xi. 5-8. 2 P. 271. Dan. xi. 9. The last clause in ver. 8 alludes to the armistice of ten years mentioned by Justin, Hist. xxvii. 2, 9, to which Euergetes had to agree. Hence these words, Dan. xi. 9, cannot refer to the flight narrated by Justin, xxvii. 2, 5, but must allude to an earlier inroad into the Egyptian territory; but of the twenty years' reign of Seleucus Callinicus we do not possess any further particulars. ▲ Dan. xi. 10–12. The passage in 3 Macc. i. 1-7 may be borrowed from an older source. But the fortress mentioned in Dan. xi. 10 is (according to ver. 7) the city of Seleuceia, finally reconquered after twenty-seven years. 5 The words in Dan. xi. 11 sq. contain no allusion to the events narrated in 3 Macc., near as these may have been. According to an expression in Jos. Contr. Ap. ii. 7, a king surnamed Theos once made his way by violence into the temple, as conqueror of Jerusalem. The statement there, however, is too cursory, and the name Theos too little distinctive: nor have we the passage in the original Greek. The name would suggest Antiochus (II.) Theos, and the story brings to mind his rupture with Egypt in the year 247; but of his having then seized Palestine we know nothing from any other sources, although from the extracts in Jerome, Comm. ad Dan. xi. 6, about his wars with Ptolemy Philadelphus, it would not be impossible, and would agree with the observations already made, p. 274 note 1. 4 tion with Philip, King of Macedon, he nowhere encountered any serious resistance. On the other hand, there are several traces that many powerful persons in Jerusalem anticipated him in the revolt against Egypt,' a proceeding which the author of the book of Daniel severely blames. The Syrian king, who was ready everywhere to play the part of magnanimity, in the meantime rewarded this opportune anticipation of his further plans with large concessions to the sanctuary, and strict orders for the extension and defence of the outward dignity of the holy city. The Egyptian general Scopas,3 on reconquering Palestine in the year 200 B.C. for Ptolemy Epiphanes, who was too young to conduct the campaign himself, seems to have taken severe revenge upon Jerusalem. Antiochus the Great, however, soon marched again to meet him, defeated him at Paneas, by the sources of the Jordan, and in the year 198 shut him up within the fortifications of Sidon. When this had been reduced, he retook Jerusalem, on which occasion the inhabitants voluntarily assisted him to expel the garrison left in the citadel by Scopas.5 After he had completely established himself, however, in Palestine, he thought it undesirable, considering his projects and cares in other quarters, to proceed at once to attack Egypt itself. He therefore attempted to make as advantageous an agreement as was possible for the time being with the young Ptolemy. He promised him his daughter Cleopatra, in the hope that if she really got to Egypt, she would embarrass the country and play into his hands. As her dowry, he undertook to restore Palestine again, but he arranged According to the representation in Jos. Ant. xii. 3, 3, this did not take place till after the victory over Scopas, that is, several years later. But the order introduced in Dan. xi. 13-15 seems to be the more correct. Moreover, the two gracious decrees of Antiochus inserted by Josephus do not allude to Scopas and his times. 2 These two decrees, Jos. Ant. xii. 3, 3 sq., were certainly not in any case fabricated by Josephus himself. He does not say, however, that he derived them from Polybius, whom he here otherwise follows, and whose narrative, cited from the sixteenth book, has not been preserved in full. He must, therefore, have drawn it from some older Judean work; nor is there any reason why its contents should not be genuine, especially when the statement in 2 Macc. iii. sq. about Seleucus Philopator is compared with it. These kings were ready enough with such decrees when they expected any advantage to provisionally that the taxes should be divided between the two kings. Even the garrisons of the country seem to have been half Syrian, half Egyptian. Jerusalem was certainly occupied by Syrians, while the Egyptians were posted on the east and perhaps also on the western coast.2 Thus there was now the amplest opportunity for the interior disruption and the spread of hostile feelings among all conditions and classes in the country. In the last place, also, the position of the Babylonian Judeans seems to have been not without influence on the favourable disposition entertained by their fellow countrymen in Judea towards the Syrian kingdom. According to a narrative which in its present form is extremely abrupt, and by no means clear, but is certainly not without foundation,3 eight thousand Babylonian Judeans fought with lofty courage and wonderful success against a far superior number of Gallians (Galatians), whose valour as mercenaries made them much dreaded in Asia, and gained the victory, while three thousand Macedonian troops (Syrian Greeks), who were engaged with them, were already giving way. From this triumph, moreover, they derived great advantage. This event, thus clearly distinguished by the names of the Gallians and Macedonians, must have fallen in the first years of Antiochus the Great, during his campaign against his faithless governor Molon in Babylonia; and as there is no appropriateness in referring to any Judeans but those who were resident there, the statement affords us an insight into the otherwise obscure history of their fortunes during this period. If, during the calamitous season about 220 B.C., they remained faithful to the Syrian king, and assisted him to gain a victory, an explanation is afforded of the special privileges which he conceded to them. They were probably of the same nature as those which the Judeans in those countries subsequently continued to enjoy under the Parthian government also until the first century of the Christian era. The gain of these advantages (privilegia) must have been all the more welcome, as they appear, from certain indications not altogether obscure, to have 1 Jos. Ant. xii. 4, 1. The two first sentences of cap. ought to be added to cap. 3, as the present introduction to the chapter is extremely confusing. 2 That Egyptian troops were at any rate posted on the east (for without soldiers there was no power) is clear from the history of Hyrcanus, p. 272 sq. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that Jerusalem continued to be occupied by 32 Macc. viii. 20 sq. The narrative of the event which the author of this book had before him, was evidently already highly coloured. The exaggeration of it is clear from the fact that it makes troops numbering 8,000 and 3,000 fight against 120,000. suffered from neglect since the time of Alexander. In fact we have already seen that Antiochus the Great was glad to avail himself at that time in other quarters also of the help and good-will of Babylonian-Judean troops. The fame of the good fortune of their compatriots in Babylon may have been loud enough to reach Jerusalem, and have rendered the feelings of many all the more inclined to the new Syrian power in proportion to the promise of prosperity which would of necessity seem to result from a closer alliance with their numerous brethren in the east. B. THE SUPREMACY OF THE SELEUCIDÆ; THE MACCABEES; AND THE ASMONEANS, B.C. 200-106. I. GENERAL POSITION OF THE JUDEANS UNDER THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT. With their gaze directed towards the grandeur and magnificence of Antioch, the hagiocracy in Jerusalem had in fact only substituted unawares one Greek supremacy for another; but it cannot be denied that this change was by no means unwelcome to the larger number and the most important of the inhabitants. The last decades of Ptolemaic rule had very much cooled down their partiality for it. For subject nations which, like the Judeans, were aspiring to fresh power, a change of government had many attractions. The kingdom of the Seleucidæ like that of the Ptolemies was imbued with Greek civilisation; but, for the moment, the former appeared to promise a considerable balance of advantages. As the true successor of the Persian empire, the government of the Seleucidae was from the beginning more inclined to tolerate side by side the very different nationalities beneath its sway, and thus, like the power which preceded it,3 allowed far more internal freedom to the separate nations and great cities; while the Egyptian kingdom was founded on a much more rigid unity, and consisted of but one dominant country. At the time when Antiochus III. first subdued Palestine, the Syrian kingdom appeared to be established sufficiently firmly to be able to keep all its promises. According to Arrian, Hist. vii. 17, and Strabo, Geogr. xvi. 1, 5, the Babylonians drew down upon themselves the anger of Alexander in reference to the temple of Belus, which he purposed restoring; but, according to p. 240, they seem to have thrown the blame of it with some justice chiefly on the resident Judeans. Such a conjunction seems a very natural one. 2 P. 238. |