SIMON THE JUST AND HIS DESCENDANTS.
Condition of the Judæans under the Ptolemies--Simon
effects Improvements--His Praises are sung by Sirach--His
Doctrines--The Chasidim and the Nazarites--Simon's
Children--Onias II. and the Revolt against Egypt--Joseph,
son of Tobias--His Embassy to Alexandria--He is appointed
Tax-collector--War between Antiochus the Great and
Egypt--Defeat of Antiochus--Spread of Greek Manners in
Judæa--Hyrcanus--The Song of Songs--Simon II.--Scopas despoils
Jerusalem--The Contest between Antiochus and Rome--Continued
Hellenisation of the Judæans--The Chasidim and the
Hellenists--Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan--Onias III.
and Simon--Heliodorus--Sirach's Book of Proverbs against the
Errors of his Time.
300-175 B. C. E.
For more than a century after the death of Nehemiah, the inner life
of the Judæan nation might have been likened to that of a caterpillar
weaving the threads which enshroud it from the juices of its own body,
while the world knew it as a martyr, bearing insult and humiliation
alike in silence. During that period it had not produced any one man,
who, by reason of his own strong individuality, had been able to bring
into play the reserve force of the nation; no one had arisen capable of
pointing the way and arousing enthusiasm. The stimulus for development
and improvement had always come from without, from the principal men
of Persia or Babylonia. But now the people, in consequence of new
political circumstances, were separated from their co-religionists
of those lands. The Judæans of the Euphrates and the Tigris could
no longer carry on active intercourse with their brethren in the
mother-country. For the reigning dynasties, the Seleucidæ and the
Ptolemies, looked upon each other with suspicion, and frequent visits
of the Judæans from the provinces of the Seleucidæ to the Judæans of
Jerusalem, would have been regarded with disfavour in Alexandria.
Had the nation not been able to rally in its own country without
extraneous help, it would have been lost; a people which cannot exist
or improve of itself must sooner or later fall into insignificance. But
the right man arose at the right time. He saved the Judæan community
from its fall. This man was Simon the Just (about 300-270). In an
age deficient in great men, he appears like a lofty and luxuriant
tree in the midst of a barren country. Legendary lore has seized
upon his name, and has added the marvellous to the historical. It is
always a favourable testimony to an historical personage, and to the
influence he wields over a large circle, when romance proclaims his
praise. Authentic history does not tell us much of Simon I., still
the few characteristics preserved to us portray him as a man of great
distinction. He was, moreover, the one high-priest of the house of
Joshua ben Jozedek, of whom there is anything laudatory to be related,
and the one to restore the priesthood to honour. "He cared for his
people to save it from falling." He rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem,
which had been demolished by Ptolemy I., and he repaired the ravages
of two centuries upon the Temple. He also carried out various measures
for the safety and improvement of the capital. The supply of water from
the several springs in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem is insufficient
for ordinary purposes in dry seasons. The Temple, too, required water
in copious quantities. To meet these requirements, Simon caused a
large reservoir to be excavated below the Temple, which was fed by a
subterranean canal, and brought a constant supply of fresh water from
the springs of Etam. Thus there was no fear of drought, even in case of
a siege. The poet, Joshua (Jesus) Sirach, who lived at a later date,
gives us an enthusiastic description of Simon:--
"How was he distinguished in the midst of the people in his
coming out of the Sanctuary! He was as the morning star in the
midst of a cloud, and as the full moon in the vernal season.
"As the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High, and as
the rainbow giving light in the bright clouds.
"When he put on the robe of honour, and was clothed with the
garments of glory ... compassed with his brethren round about,
like palms around a cedar of Lebanon." (ECCLUS. 1. 5-12.)
Not only was Simon the Just recognised in his office of high-priest as
head of the community and of the Supreme Council, but he was also the
chief teacher in the house of learning. He inculcated this maxim upon
his disciples: "The world (_i.e._, the Judæan community) rests on three
things, on the Law, on Divine Service (in the Temple), and on Charity"
(Aboth i. 2). One may also ascribe to this remarkable man some share in
the following saying of one of his most distinguished pupils, Antigonus
of Soho, "Be not like those slaves, who serve their master for their
daily rations, but be rather like the servants who faithfully serve
their master without expectation of reward." Although Simon the Just
attached great importance to the sacrificial rites, still he disliked
the excessive ceremonialism towards which his generation was tending,
nor did he conceal his disapprobation. There were amongst the nation,
some over-pious people who took the vow of the Nazarite to refrain
from wine for a given time; they called themselves, or were called,
the strictly pious, Chasidim. When the term of their vows had expired,
they cut off their hair and went through all the ceremonies. Perhaps
the excesses of the Greeks and their Jewish followers, their numerous
feasts and orgies induced them to impose upon themselves this Nazaritic
abstention with its attendant rites. It is certain that as the number
of pleasure-seeking imitators of Greek habits increased in Judæa, so
did also that of the Chasidim. But Simon the Just was not pleased
with this exaggerated zeal, and took no part in the sacrifices of the
Nazarites.
Posterity has formed so exalted an opinion of Simon's character, that
it designated his death as the end of an historical period of divine
grace. In fact, sad and terrible events, brought about by his own
descendants, and causing fresh trials to the Judæans, followed upon his
death. Simon the Just left two children, a young son named Onias and a
daughter. The latter was married to Tobiah, a somewhat distinguished
man of priestly descent. Onias being too young to officiate as High
Priest, a relative, named Manasseh, represented him during his
minority. The rule of Onias II. became a turning-point in the history
of the Judæans. The constant warfare carried on for years between the
rival houses of the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemies affected the fate of
Judæa.
When at last a treaty of peace was concluded (in 240), Cœlesyria and
Judæa remained with Egypt, but the fourth king of the Seleucidæ,
Antiochus Callinicos, instigated these provinces to revolt, and seems
to have won over Onias II. to side with him. Onias refused to pay
the annual tax of twenty talents to the Ptolemies. Although the sum
was small, the payment was looked upon as a mark of submission, and
its refusal gave great offence at the Egyptian court. Ptolemy II.,
after vainly demanding the tribute money, threatened to divide the
province amongst various foreign colonists. He despatched one of his
own favourites, Athenion, as special envoy to Jerusalem. The Judæans
in alarm and despair entreated Onias to submit, but he resisted their
prayers. When matters had come to this crisis, there suddenly appeared
upon the scene a man, Joseph by name, of extraordinary strength of will
and purpose. He was the nephew of Onias, and son of the Tobiah who had
married the daughter of Simon the Just. Fascinating in his manners,
clever, cunning, and unscrupulous, the son of Tobiah seemed born to
govern. Unfortunately for himself, Onias, the high-priest and ruler of
the State, stood in his path. But now was the moment, as he thought,
to remove the obstacle. As soon as Joseph was told of the arrival of
the Ptolemaic envoy in Jerusalem, and of his threatening message, he
hastened from his birth-place to that city, loaded his uncle Onias
with reproaches for having led his people into danger, and finding the
high-priest determined in his resistance, he offered to go himself to
Alexandria, there to commence negotiations with the king of Egypt. As
soon as Onias had empowered him to do so, Joseph assembled the people
in the court of the Temple, soothed their excited feelings, and made
them understand that they were to place entire confidence in his
ability to avert the danger that threatened them. The whole assembly
offered him their thanks, and made him leader of the people (about
230). From that moment, Joseph displayed so much decision that it was
evident a plan had long been ripening in his brain. He was well aware
of the weakness of the Greeks, and knew that they were not indifferent
to flattery and to the luxuries of the table. So he prepared tempting
banquets for Athenion, fascinating him by his charm of manner, making
him costly presents, and assuring him that he might return to Egypt,
secure of the tribute money, which he promised should be paid to the
king. As soon as the envoy had left Jerusalem, Joseph entered into
negotiations with some Samaritan friends, or money-lenders, to obtain
a loan for his necessary expenses. In order to appear with dignity at
the Egyptian court, he required splendid apparel, brilliant equipages,
and money to defray the cost of his entertainments. Joseph had no means
of his own, and in all Judæa there was no one who could advance him
large sums of money. The people, at that time, supporting themselves by
agriculture, and not being engaged in commerce, had had no opportunity
of amassing wealth.
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.
Simon, the Benjamite, held some kind of an office in the Temple,
whereby he came into conflict with the high-priest. Onias banished
Simon from Jerusalem, and in order to stem the ever-growing anarchy in
the city, he passed a similar sentence of exile upon the Tobiades. But
by doing this he only added fresh fuel to the flames. Simon devised a
diabolical scheme for wreaking vengeance upon his enemy. He repaired
to the military commander of Cœlesyria and Phœnicia, Apollonius, son
of Thraseius, and betrayed to him the fact that great treasures,
not belonging to the Sanctuary, and consequently royal property,
were hidden in the Temple of Jerusalem. Apollonius lost no time in
giving the king, Seleucus II.(187-175), information on this subject.
Seleucus thereupon sent his treasurer Heliodorus to Jerusalem with
orders to confiscate the treasures concealed in the Temple. Onias
naturally resisted this unjust demand. Heliodorus then showed his royal
warrant, and prepared to force his way into the Sanctuary. Great was
the consternation in Jerusalem at the thought of a heathen's entering
the Temple and robbing it of its treasures. However, by some means or
other, this sacrilege was not perpetrated. We are not told what means
were employed for preventing it, but tradition, born of pious reverence
for the Temple of God, has given the colouring of the miraculous to the
whole proceeding.
But Simon could not desist from his attempts to bring about the
downfall of the hated high-priest. He even had recourse to the aid of
hired assassins. Fortunately, he was unsuccessful; but Onias was now
thoroughly alarmed. He determined to lay the real state of affairs
before King Seleucus, with an account of the conflicting parties and
of the motives that induced Simon and the Tobiades to conspire against
him, imploring the king's protection and aid. He appointed his brother
Joshua, or Jason, as his delegate, and repaired to Antioch. During
his absence the Hellenists, eager to obtain the office of high-priest
for one of their own party, redoubled their intrigues. A high-priest
from among their own number would not only be master of the treasures
in the Temple, but leader of the nation. He could assist them in
the introduction of Greek customs, and, by reason of his spiritual
office, add weight to the efforts of the Hellenists, who had become so
demoralised that they held nothing sacred.
These secret devices soon became known, and roused the indignation of
many who clung to the old customs and traditionary teachings. Amongst
these was a poet and writer of proverbs, Jesus Sirach by name, the son
of Eleazar (200-176). He was prompted by the wrongdoing he witnessed
in Jerusalem to write a book of pithy sayings, applicable to the evils
of the age, which might prove salutary to its Judæan readers. He was
a successor of the proverb-writers. He was familiar with the Law, the
prophets, and other instructive and spiritual works, and he was a close
reader of the older Book of Proverbs, imitating the style of that work,
though without reaching its graceful simplicity.
Sirach did not belong to the sterner Chasidim who refrained from all
harmless pleasures, and who denounced others for enjoying them. On the
contrary, he was in favour of the social meal, enlivened by music and
wine. To those who made a point of interfering with innocent pleasures,
and whose dismal talk put an end to all gaiety, he addressed the
following rebuke:--
"Speak, thou elder in council, for it becometh thee, but with
sound judgment, and shew not forth wisdom out of time. As a
signet of an emerald set in a work of gold, so is the melody of
music with pleasant wine." (ECCLUS. xxxii. 3, 4, 6.)
There were some over-pious Judæans who condemned the use of all medical
skill and aid; they insisted that as all maladies were sent from God,
He alone could cure them. Sirach explained in his proverbs that the
skill of the physician and the virtue of medicines were also the gifts
of God, created to serve the purpose of healing.
But all his zeal was kindled at sight of the social and religious
backsliding of his brethren, and their consequent humiliation in
the eyes of the neighbouring peoples. The social depravity of his
co-religionists grieved him more than their political oppression.
Sirach stung with the lash of sarcasm the arrogance, deceit and lust of
the rich Hellenists, who worshipped Mammon. He also denounced lechery,
warned them against the companionship of dancers, singers and painted
women, and he painted in no flattering colours the portraits of the
daughters of Israel.
Sirach declared that the root of all this evil was the indifference
of the Judæans to their sacred Law. His aim was to reinstate it in
the hearts of the people. He touched upon another subject, a burning
question of the day. Many in Jerusalem, particularly among the upper
circles, were anxious to substitute for the high-priest Onias one of
their own party, even though he were not a descendant of Aaron. Was it
necessary to restrict the priestly office to one family? This was the
question propounded by the ambitious. Sirach's proverbs are directed
against the possibility of a revolution in the sacred order.
By various examples, taken from the history of the Judæan people, he
endeavoured to show that obedience to the Law and to established rule
would entail happy consequences, but that disobedience must lead to
fatal results. He gave a short account of illustrious and notorious
personages, dwelling upon their virtuous deeds or nefarious practices,
as the case might be. He described the rise of the family of Korah
against Aaron, their final destruction by fire, and the heightened
glory of the high-priest. This was a hint to his co-religionists that
the zealous Hellenists should not be allowed to provoke a repetition of
Korah's punishment. He also dwelt upon the history of Phineas, Aaron's
grandson, the third in glory, who was permitted to make atonement for
Israel.
He passed rapidly over the division of the two kingdoms and the
depravity of the people, lingering upon the activity and energy
of the prophets. He mentioned with loving recollection the names
of Zerubbabel, the high-priest Joshua, and Nehemiah, in the days
succeeding the Captivity. And at length he closed with a brilliant
description of the high-priest, Simon the Just, of his good deeds and
the majesty of his priesthood, hoping that this example of the ancestor
of the family of the high-priest and of the Tobiades might instruct and
warn the ambitious desecrators of the priestly diadem. But instead of
the unity for which he prayed, at the end of his book, the dissensions
increased, and the plots and wickedness of the Hellenists brought the
Judæan nation to the brink of destruction.