Ismachiah (continued) – Ismachiah (continued)

Ismachiah (continued)

One would suppose that the Northern Kingdom had now received such a chastisement that further revolt would not be thought of, and apparently it was not, so long as Tiglath-pileser lived. That monarch passed away, however, in 727; and soon afterwards Hoshea, encouraged by the king of a country to the south, withheld his tribute. The Biblical text calls this king ‘So, king of Egypt’ (2 Kings 17:4), has been customary to identify him with Shabaka, the first king of the 25th dynasty. It now appears, however, that either he was a king of the Musri to the south of Palestine, or was some petty ruler of the Egyptian Delta, otherwise unknown, for Shabaka did not gain the throne of Egypt till b.c. 712 (cf. Breasted, Hist, of Egypt, 549 and 601). The folly of Hoshea’s course was soon apparent. Shalmaneser IV., who had succeeded Tiglath-pileser, sent an army which overran all the territory left to Hoshea, cut off his supplies, and then shut him up in Samaria in a memorable siege. The military genius of Omri had selected the site wisely, but with the country In ruins it is a marvel that Samaria resisted for three years. While the siege dragged on its weary length, Shalmaneser died, and Sargon ii. gained the Assyrian throne. Perhaps the generals who were prosecuting the siege did not know of the change till Samaria had fallen, but Sargon counts the reduction of Samaria as one of the achievements of his first year. When Samaria fell, Sargon deported 27,290 (cf. KIB ii. 55) of the inhabitants of the region, including no doubt the more wealthy and influential citizens, princes, priests, etc., to cities which he had recently captured in the far East, and brought to Samaria people from Cuthah and Sippar in Babylonia, and from Hamath in Syria, to mingle with the mass of Hebrew population which he had left behind (2 Kings 17:24). The Israelitish monarchy he abolished.

The foreigners who were introduced into Samaria at this time worshipped at first their own gods, but when lions attacked them, they petitioned to have a priest of Jabweh to teach them the worship of the God of the land. Sargon granted their request, and sent back a captive priest. In due time these foreigners intermarried with the Israelites who had been left, the cults of their gods were merged in the Jahweh cult, and they became the Samaritans. Those who seek for the " ten lost tribes ‘should remember that they were never lost by captivity. Only the merest percentage of them were wrenched from their land. They were lost by becoming the substratum of later populations, and a handful still survives in the Samaritans (wh. see).

19. Hezekiah and Isaiah. — The fall of Samaria made doleful reverberations in Jerusalem. The date of the accession of Hezekiah is not quite certain, but it probably occurred before the (all of Samaria. Throughout his reign the prophet Isaiah was one of his chief advisers, and for the most part he ruled in accord with the prophetic ideals. About the time of his accession, and apparently before the fall of Samaiia, another prophet, Micah, began to prophesy in the town of Moresheth (Maresha) in the Shephelah on the Philistine border. His burden weis consonant with that of the three great literary prophets who had preceded him.

Judah escaped when Samaria fell, because she maintained that submissive attitude to Assyria which she had assumed when Uzziah paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser. This attitude secured her peace for some years to come, though it was not an easy attitude to maintain. On Judah’s western border the petty kingdoms of FhiUstia were always plotting to throw off the Assyrian yoke, and endeavouring to secure the co-operation of Hezekiah. Such co-operation, however, Isaiah steadily opposed. In the year 711 Ashdod succeeded in heading a coalition which she hoped would gain her freedom, but Sargon sent an arnu? which soon brought her to terms (Isaiah 20:1). The course of political events went on smoothly therefore until after the death of Sargon in 705; then, as so often happened in Oriental countries, many subject lands endeavoured to gain their independence before the new monarch could consolidate his power. Hezekiah was tempted now, not by the Philistines only, but also by Merodach-baladan (Marduk-apal-iddin), a Babylonian king whom Sargon had early in his reign driven from Babylon and who now sought the opportunity to return (2 Kings 20: Isaiah 39:1 ff.). In this new coalition the Eg3T)tians also, now under the stronger control of the 25th dynasty, had a part. Although Isaiah still consistently opposed the move, Hezekiah nevertheless yielded. In the city of Ekron there was one i)etty king faithful to Sennacherib. Him his subjects deposed, threw into fetters, and delivered to Hezekiah, who cast him into a dungeon (cf. KIB ii. 93). This was a direct act of rebellion, which Sennacherib was sure to avenge. Affairs in the East delayed the blow, but in 701 it finally feil. Sennacherib marched into the West, defeated the allies at Eltekeh, besieged and took Ekron, impaled many of the rebellious inhabitants, and invaded Judah. Forty-six of the smaller towns were captured, and Jerusalem itself was invested. Its inhabitants were of course panicstricken, but Isaiah came forward, declaring Jerusalem to be the home of Jahweh, and, as such, inviolable in His eyes (Isaiah 31:4). Hezekiah, meantime recognizing that his rebellion had been a grievous error, sent to Lachish, Sennacherib’s headquarters, and offered to pay indemnity and tribute. Meantime Sennacherib had sent his main army on to inflict punishment upoi^ Egypt, the strongest member of the alliance against him" On the border of Egypt his army was attacked with bubonic plague (such seems to be the meaning of 2 K 19 combined with Herod, ii. 141), which rendered further operations impossible; he accordingly accepted Hezekiah’s terms, raised the siege of Jerusalem, and withdrew to Assyria.

This event had a profound influence on Israel’s religious history. In the time of David and Solomon Jerusalem was a new town to the Israelites, and a town without religious associations. The real home of Jahweh was on Mount Sinai, but the land contained scores of shrines more dear to Him than Jerusalem, because He had longer dwelt in them. Solomon’s innovations had tended to increase this feeling, and although the lapse of three hundred years had given Jerusalem an important place among the shrines, especially as the capital of the kingdom of Judah, nothing had occurred until now to make men think that it was the home of Jahweh par excellence. Now He had palpably abandoned the shrines of the Northern Kingdom, and by this victory, vindicating as it did the word of His prophet, He had shown that He had chosen Jerusalem as His permanent abode. Thus this event introduced Jerusalem to that place in the reverence and affection of the Hebrews which has made it the Holy City of three great religions.

According to 2 Kings 18:4 iW>), Hezekiah attempted to abolish the country shrines and centralize the worship in Jerusalem. Some have doubted this statement, and others have thought that it is confirmed by an older document quoted in 2 Kings 18:22. It seems in accord with historical probability that, prompted by Isaiah, Hezekiah should in his closing years have made such an effort. Hosea had seen, a generation before, that the worship of Jahweh could never be socially pure till separated from the elements which he believed had been introduced from the cult of Baal, and now that Isaiah had become convinced that Jerusalem had been Divinely proved to be Jahweh’s special abode, it is certainly within the realm of probabihty that he prompted the king to do away with all other demoralizing shrines. If Jahweh could have only one temple and that under prophetic control. His cult would be for everdiflerentiated from that of the Baals. What time could be more opportune for such a movement than the beginning of the 7th cent., when first the captivity of the Northern Kingdom, and then the reduction of the territory of Judah to narrow limits by Sennacherib, left at a minimum the number of shrines to be destroyed?

20. Manasseh and Amon. — From the time of Amos to the accession of Manasseh the prophetic vision had made steady progress, and the elevation of the religion of Jahweh and of the recognized standard of morals had gone steadily forward, but in the long reign of Manasseh (696-641) a strong reaction occurred. It is difficult to account for this reaction unless some attempt to destroy the village shrines had been made by Hezekiah, but if this be presupposed, all that occurred is natural. The superstitious prejudices of the village people had been outraged. They clamoured for liberty to worship at the village shrines consecrated by the usage of unknown antiquity, and the king, when Isaiah was gone, had no real motive for resisting them. Then, too, the period seems to have been a time of distress, Manasseh seems to have quietly remained in vassalage to Assyria, so that the armies of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, which four times marched along the coast and accomplished the reduction of Egypt during his reign, did not disturb Judah, though she may have been compelled to contribute to their support. Perhaps there was civil war in Jerusalem, for we are told that Manasseh shed much innocent blood (2 Kings 21:16). At all events, whether on account of war, or famine, or unjust rule, his reign was a time of distress, and Judah sought escape from her trouble, not through prophetic reform, but by the revival of half -heathenish, outworn forms of worship. Jahweh was worshipped as Melek, or king, and to Him in this capacity child sacrifice, which had been prevalent among the Semites in early days, was revived. The Ammonites called their god Melek (Molech [wh. seel), and human sacrifice was still practised at times by Judah’s heathen neighbours, especially by the Phoenicians. The prophets accordingly combated this form of worship as displeasing to Jahweh, and tried to persuade their countrymen that it was a foreign cult.

This turn of affairs drove those who cherished the ideals of Isaiah into retirement, where, being able to do nothing else tor the cause they loved, one of them, about 650, drew up the legal code of Deuteronomy as the expression of the conditions which the prophetic experience had found to be necessary to the reahzation of their ideal.

The brief reign of Amon was but a continuation of the reign of his father.

21. Josiah and the Deuteronomic Beform. — Of the early part of the reign of Josiah, who ascended the throne as a boy of eight, we know little. Probably the customs which the previous reign had established were continued. In his thirteenth year, Jeremiah, a young priest from Anathoth, came forward as a prophet. In the next year the great Assyrian king Ashurbanipal died, and Assyria, whose power had been shattered by a great rebellion twenty years before, rapidly sank to her end. In Josiah’s eighteenth year repairs on the Temple were undertaken at the king’s command. During the progress of these, it was reported to him that in making the repairs they had found the copy of a code purporting to be the Law of Moses. When this was read to the king he was filled with consternation, since the current cult violated it in almost every particular. To test the genuineness of the Law it was submitted to an old prophetess, Huldah, who, since it agreed with her conceptions o£ the ideal religion of Jahweh, declared it to be the genuine Law of Moses (2 Kings 22). Upon this Josiah set himself to adjust the rehgious worship andinstitutions of his kingdom to this standard, and to a great reform, which swept away from Judah all shrines except the Temple in Jerusalem, all pillars as representatives of deity, and all ashSrahs, together with all immorahty practised under the guise of religion (2 Kings 23). Modern criticism has clearly demonstrated that the Law which came into operation at this time was the Law of Deuteronomy.

This reform cost a long struggle. People who had all their lives regarded certain spots as places where Jahweh revealed Himself, and who knew that their ancestors for centuries had done the same, did not tamely yield to the new order. All the authority of the king and all the strength of the prophetic order were needed to carry it through, and the struggle continued for a generation. It was this reform, however, that began the creation of the Jew. But for it, he would not still be a distinct figure in the world.

This struggle for a better religion went on successfully for some years, when the little Judsean State was overtaken by a sad misfortune.

Assyria was tottering to its fall. Babylon, which had regained its independence upon the death of Ashurbanipal, in 625, was rapidly growing in power. Egypt, which under the 26th dynasty now possessed once more a line of native kings, had a monarch, Necho ii., ambitious to re-establish for her an Asiatic empire. In 609 or 608 Necho marched an army into Asia and moved northward along the Maritime Plain. Josiah, probably because he determined to claim sovereignty over all the territory formerly occupied by Israel, marched northward with an army, fought Necho at the ancient battlefield of Megiddo, and met with defeat and death (2 Kings 23:29 ff.). A greater calamity could scarcely have befallen the party of rehgious reform. Not only was their king fallen, but their hope of a prosperous Jud«an kingdom, faithful to Jahweh’s new Law, was rudely dashed to the ground.

22. Last Days of the Kingdom. — When the news of the defeat at Megiddo reached Jerusalem, the leaders of the people there placed Jehoahaz, a son of Josiah, on the throne. Necho meantime proceeded northward, taking possession of the country, and established his headquarters at Riblah in the territory of Hamath. Thither he summoned Jehoahaz, threw him into bonds. sent him to Egpyt as a prisoner, and made his brother Eliakim king, imposing aheavy tribute upon the country (2 Kings 23:31–34). Eliakim upon his accession took the name of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). Judah thus became tributary to Egypt. Jehoiakim proved to be a man of quite different religious interests from his father, as the Book of Jeremiah makes clear.

Events in Western Asia were changing rapidly, and within a few years they gave Jehoiakim a new master. The new Babylonian power was pushing westward to secure as much of the Euphrates valley and of the West as possible. Assyria had fallen at the hands of Indo-European hordes in the year 606. Necho was ambitious to follow up his previous success and to check the growth of the Babylonian power. Accordingly in 604 he entered Asia again and marched to the Euphrates. Here he was met by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian crown prince, and so crushingly defeated that he fled rapidly homeward, Nebuchadnezzar following closely upon his heels (Jeremiah 46). Thus perished Necho’s dreams of Asiatic empire, and thus Judah passed into vassalage to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar, on the border of Egypt, ready to invade and conquer it, was informed of the death of his father in Babylon, and hastened home to secure his crown.

So important in the history of his people did Jeremiah consider this crisis, that at this time he first began to put the substance of his prophecies in writing, that they might have wider and more permanent influence (Jeremiah 36). Nebuchadnezzar appears not to have been able to establish order in Western Asia all at once, so distracted was the country. He established his headquarters at Riblah, and for several years sent out bands of soldiers whither they were most needed. Jehoialdm, thinldng to take advantage of the unsettled state, withheld his tribute, and some of these bands, composed of men of neighbouring tribes, were sent against him (2 Kings 24:1 ff.). Jehoiakim continued obstinate, however, and Nebuchadnezzar finally, in 598, sent a large army. Before it arrived Jehoiakim was no more, and his young son Jehoiachin was occupying his throne. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, which after three months was compelled to capitulate, whereupon the Babylonian took ten thousand of the most prominent men, princes, warriors, priests, and craftsmen, and transported them to Babylonia. Another son of Josiah, who now took the name of Zedekiah, was placed upon the throne, subject of course to a heavy Babylonian tribute. Jehoiachin, a youth of twenty, was taken prisoner to Babylon, to languish in prison for many years.

It was now to be seen whether Judah would repeat the history of the Northern Kingdom or whether her king would have wisdom to remain faithful to Babylon. Jeremiah, as he had done for years, steadily proclaimed that Judah’s sole safety lay in fidelity to Babylon; such was the will of Jahweh. There was in Jerusalem, however, a strong party who advocated an alliance with Egypt as a means of securing freedom from Babylon. The king himself was weak and unwise. Finally, in 588, when Hophra, filled with ambitions for an Asiatic empire, ascended the Egyptian throne, he made such promises of aid to Judah that the standard of revolt was raised. Jeremiah, one of the greatest rehgious teachers that ever lived, did not, like Isaiah a century before, proclaim Jerusalem inviolate. He had seen further Into the heart of religion, and now declared Jhat Jahweh would abandon Jerusalem, and establish %n inner covenant of the heart with all who were faithful. His younger contemporary, Ezekiel, a young priest who had been carried to Babylonia in 598, and had in 693 become a prophet there, was also teaching a similarly high conception of religion, and, with Jeremiah, preparing the faith of the people to survive the approaching shock. In 587 the Babylonian army appeared and the siege of Jerusalem began. The tedious suffering of its weary months may be traced in the Book of Jeremiah. Early in 586, Hophra marched an army into Palestine, and Nebuchadnezzar was obliged to raise the siege to send his full force against the Egyptian. Jerusalem was then wild with joy, thinking deliverance had come. Jeremiah and his party were laughed to scorn. But Hophra was soon defeated, the siege of Jerusalem renewed and pressed to completion. In August the city surrendered, its wall was broken down, its glorious Temple destroyed, another large body of captives transported to Babylonia, and Zedekiah after being blinded was taken there too (2 Kings 25). Thus Jerusalem suffered the fate of Samaria. Providentially, however, before Jerusalem fell, the work of the prophets had so taken root, and such reforms had been instituted, that the future of spiritual religion was assured. Those who had been deported were again the more prominent citizens. The poorer people and the peasantry were not disturbed. Gedaliah was made governor of Judsea, and, because Jerusalem was desolate, Mizpeh, five miles to the north-west, was made the capital. Gedaliah had been in oflice but two months when he was assassinated, and this event so terrified some friends of Jeremiah, who had been permitted with the prophet to remain in Palestine, that they took Jeremiah, contrary to his advice, and fled to Egypt (2 Kings 25:25 ff. and Jer 41-43).

23. The Exile. — Counting women and children, perhaps fifty thousand Jews had been transported to Babylonia in the two deportations of Nebuchadnezzar. These, with the exception of a few political leaders, were settled in colonies, in which they were permitted to have houses of their own, visit one another freely, and engage in business (Jeremiah 29:5 ff.). Ezekiel gives us the.picture of one of these at Tel-abib (Ezekiel 3:15 8:1 20:1 ff. 24:18 etc.), by the river Chebar (a canal near Nippur; ct. Bab. Ex. of Univ. of Pa., Cun. Texts, ix. 28), in wtifch the Fajestinian organization of ‘elders’ was perpetuated. In such communities the Jews settled down in Babylonia. The poorer ones in Palestine kept up as best they could the old religion, in an ignorant and superstitious way (cf. Jeremiah 41:5 ff.), while the priests and the more intelligent of the religious devotees transported to Babylon cherished the laws of the past, and fondly framed ideals for a future which they were confident would come. Such an one was Ezekiel, who lived and wrote among the captives till about B.C. 570. After the destruction of the city he elaborated a new religious polity for the nation, hoping that it would form the basis of Israel’s organization when the time for the re-construction of the State came. Some years later another writer (P) wrote the ‘Holiness Code’ gathering up the traditions of the past, and shaping them with a view to a future religious ideal. Meantime many of the practically minded Jews had engaged in business in Babylonia and were acquiring wealth.

Thus time passed on, Nebuchadnezzar died, and Ills weak successors were rapidly follovring one another, when in the East a new political figure appeared. Cyrus, a petty king of Anshan, a small district of Elam, had conquered Persia, then Media and the Indo-Europffian hordes called in the inscriptions ‘Manda,’ and was pushing his arms westward to the subjugation of Croesus of Lydia. At this juncture one of the world’s great poets and prophets appeared among the captives, and in most eloquent and poetic strain taught them that Cyrus was the instrument of Jahweh, the God of heaven, that he was conquering for Jahweh and for them, and that it was Jahweh’s will that they should return to rebuild Jerusalem and the desolations of* Judah. The name of this prophet is lost, but his work now forms chs. 40-45 of the Book of Isaiah. The hope of this poet in Cyrus was justified, for in 538 Cyrus captured Babylon, overturning the Chaldaean empire, and reversed the policy of transportation which Assyrians and Babylonians alike had pursued from the time of Tiglath-pileser iii. Cyrus himself tells in a cuneiform inscription (KIB uV. 121’‘0 that he permitted captive peop les to return to their lands and rebuild their temples. This gave the Jews the opportunity for which the Second Isaiah (so-called) had hoped. The prophet’s faith in his own people was not so well justified. It was years before any considerable number of the captives made use of their newly acquired liberty (see § 24). They were interested in their religion, but they had learned to practise it outside of Palestine without sa,crificial ritual, and the opportunities in Babylonia for wealth and trade were too good to be abandoned for the sterile soil of the land of their fathers. Here, accordingly, they continued to live for fifteen hundred years. They frequently sent money contributions to their brethren in Jerusalem; and occasionally a few of them returned thither. After a time they chose Exiliarchs, or’ Princes of the Captivity.’ Schools of Jewish learning developed here. In due time the Babylonian Talmud % was compiled in these schools. These communities thus survived the vicissitudes of Persian, Macedonian, Parthian, Sassanian, and Arabian rule, continuing to have their Exiliarchs till the llth cent, a.d., when the oppressions to which they were subjected led them gradually to migrate (cf. JE v. 288-291).

24. Beconstructionof the JewishState.— Wehavebeen accustomed to suppose, on the authority of the Book of Ezra, that when Cyrus issued his permission to exiled peoples to return and rehabilitate their shrines and their States, a large number at once went back. Recent investigation has, however, discredited this view. Haggai and Zechariah twenty years later know of no such return, and probably it did not take place. Twenty years later we find Zerubbabel, a grandson of the unfortunate king Jehoiachin, present in Jerusalem as governor, and a high priest named Joshua in charge of the worship. The altar of Jahweh had been rebuilt on the old site, but Jerusalem and the Temple were still in ruins. The tolerance of the Persians is shown in allowing the Jews a governor of their own royal family. He, with a small retinue, had no doubt returned from Babylonia, but we have no evidence that others had come back.

The Jewish population which had been left behind in Palestine, equally with those in Babylonia, expected at some time the re-construction of the Jewish institutions. A prolonged famine led Haggai in the second year of Darius i. (b.c. 519) to persuade the people that Jahweh withheld rain because He was displeased that the Temple was not yet rebuilt. Another prophet, Zechariah, took up the same burden, and under their leadership and inspiration the Temple was rebuilt by B.C. 516 on the lines of the old wall. Contributions to aid this enterprise had been received from their brethren in Babylonia. The first six years of the reign of Darius were troublous times. The reign of the false Bardlya had made nations suspect that the government of Persia was weak, and it became necessary for Darius to reconquer his empire, as many of the subject nations took the opportunity to rebel. It is probable that Zerubbabel represents such a movement. Scholars now have no doubt that Zechariah regarded Zerubbabel as the Messiah, and expected him to be crowned and to reign jointly with the high priest Joshua. Such is the meaning which underlies the text of Zee 3 (cf. H. P. Smith, OT Hist. 357 fl.). How these expectations were thwarted we can only guess. We know with what a strong arm the great Darius put down revolutions elsewhere, and certain it is that Jewish hopes for independence were not at this time realized.

Our knowledge of the next eighty years, till the arrival of Nehemiah, is derived from Is 56-66, large parts of which appear to come from this period, and from the anonymous prophet called Malachi, who, perhaps, wrote shortly before Nehemiah’s return. The tone of these writings is one of depression and anarchy, both in civil and in religious affairs. Zerubbabel had been succeeded by a foreign governor (Mai 1:8). who probably had little sympathy with Jewish ideals. The Nabataeans had pushed the Edomites out of their old territory, and the latter had occupied southern Judaea almost as far as Hebron. These migrations caused unrest and suffering in Judab. The Samaritans, who had apparently spread to the valley of Aijalon, held many of the approaches to the city. The Jewish colony occupied but a small territory about Jerusalem, and in their distress some, as in the days of Manasseh, were seeking relief in the revival of long-discarded superstitious rites (Isaiah 65:11). There were nevertheless some souls of noble faith whose utterances we still cherish among the treasures of our Scriptures. Thus passed the reigns of Darius and Xerxes. Somewhere, whether in Babylonia or Palestine we cannot tell, the priestly Grundschrift — the main body of the Priestly document — was compiled by P2 during this period, about b.c. 450.

Such was the state of affairs when in b.c. 444, Nehemiah, the noble young Jewish cup-bearer of Artaxerxes i., arrived in Jerusalem with a commission from the king to rebuild the walls. The energy with which Nehemiah devoted himself to the erection of the walls, the opposition which he encountered from the surrounding tribes, especially from the Samaritans, who wished to share in the religious privileges of the Temple, but whom his narrow conceptions excluded, and the success which attended his labours, are forcibly depicted in Neh 1-7. Before the summer of 444 was over, Jerusalem had a wall as well as a Temple. Nehemiah remained for some years as governor, and then returned to Persia. He came back a second time to the governorship in b.c. 432, and continued in the office for a length of time which we cannot now trace. Perhaps it was until his death, but we do not know when this occurred. During Nehemiah’s administration he persuaded the Jews to do away with all foreign marriages; with, it is stated, the aid of Ezra the scribe, he introduced the Pentateuch, so constructed that the Levitical law was its heart and core, and bound the people to observe its provisions (Nehemiah 8. 9); and he completely separated the true Jews from the Samaritans (Nehemiah 13:28 ff.), thus thoroughly organizing the Jewish community in civil and religious affairs. Nehemiah completed what Ezekiel had begun. The whole Levitical ritual was at this time established. The menial offices of the Temple were assigned to Levites, to whom also was committed the singing. This organization a hundred years later was so thoroughly fixed that the Chronicler could attribute it to David. Probably it was at the time of Nehemiah that the first book of the Psalter (Pss 3-41) was compiled. When Nehemiah died, the Jewish State was not only reconstructed, but was transformed into the Jewish Church.

25 . Late Persian and Early Greek Periods. — After the time of Nehemiah our sources fail us for a considerable period. Only one other glimpse of the Jewish colony do they afford us before the fall of the Persian empire, and this glimpse is a somewhat confused one. Josephus (Ant. XI. vii. 1) tells us that the Persian general Bagoas, whom he calls Bagoses, entered the Temple, and oppressed the Jews seven years, because the high priest John murdered his brother Joshua, a friend of Bagoas, for whom the latter had promised to obtain the high priesthood. Perhaps there was more underlying this than appears upon the surface. Many have supposed, at least, that the action of Bagoas was the result of an attempt on the part of the Jews to regain their independence.

Josephus {Ant. xi. viii. 3 f.) also tells a tale of the fidelity of the nigh priest Jaddua to Darius in., while Alexander the Great was besieging Tyre. Alexander summoned the Jews to aid him, so the story runs, but on the groimd of loyalty they refused. Alexander, after the surrender of Gaza, marched peisonally to Jerusalem to take vengeance upon it. At his ^proach the Jews, clad in white, marched out to Scopus. The high priest, wearing his glonous robes of office, led the assemblage, and Alexander seeing them forgot his wrath and saluted the high priest graciously. This story is no doubt mere legend. Arrian, for example, declares that the rest of Palestine had submitted before the siege of Gaza. Jerusalem was to Alexander simpl y one Syrian town. It was out of his route, and probably was never visited by him. The one element or truth in the tale is that the mgh priest was the head of the Jewish community.

During the wars that followed the death of Alexander, Judaea must often have suffered. In the struggles between the generals, the armies of Antigonus and Demetrius were at various times in this region. In 312 a great battle was fought near Gaza, and the Jews must have had their share of the hardship and uncertainty which in the shock of empires during those years tried men’s souls. Palestine finally fell; however, to the lot of Ptolemy Lagi, who had secured Egypt, and for a century was subject to the Ptolemaic line. Seleucus regarded it as rightfully his, but on account of the help Ptolemy had given him when his fortunes were at a low ebb, he did nothing more than enter a verbal protest, though Sulpicius Severus says {,Sacr. Hist. II. 17) that he exacted 300 talents in tribute from him. The age was a period of migration, and the Jews felt the impulse along with others. During this century large settlements were made by them in Egypt, and probably elsewhere (see Dispersion). In 220 Antiochus the Great gained Palestine for Syria, but in 219 it reverted to Egypt again. Finally, in b.c. 199, he permanently attached it to Syria, and its fortunes were never subject to the Ptolemys again.

The chief connexion with the suzerain power during this period was through the payment of taxes. At one period the Egyptian king became dissatisfied with the high priest’s management of the finances and committed them to the care of one Joseph, son of Tobias, who with his sons led for a generation or two spectacular careers (cf. Ant. XII. iv.). At times tribute had to be paid both to Syria and to Egypt.

During this period the head of the Jewish community was the high priest, assisted by a Sanhedrin or council. The religious life of the community can only be inferred from the literature. An intense devotion to the Law was begotten in the minds of the Jewish people, as is shown by such psalms as the 119th. But the hfe of the community was a varied one. The ‘Wisdom’ literature was cultivated, and many a passionate psalm attests that a deep religious life superior to all forraaUsm was springing up (cf. e.g. Psalms 51).

26. The Maccabaean Revolt.— For many years the Hellenic civilization, radiating from the many cities founded by the Macedonians, found no welcome among the little Jewish community in Jerusalem. Gradually, however, it penetrated even there, and under the Syrians certain high priests adopted Greek names, and, to court the favour of the Syrian kings, cultivated Hellenic practices. In Jerusalem, where there was a Syrian garrison, Greek culture became popular, gymnasia were established, and men went so far as to attempt to remove artificially the signs of circumcision. The country towns were more conservative, but possibly even here the movement would have made its way had not Antiochus IV. determined to force upon the Jews both Greek culture and religion. One curious feature of this period consists in the fact that a high priest, Onias III., deposed by Syrian intervention, went to Egypt and established at LeontopoUs in the nome of HeUopoUs a temple to Jahweh, which existed there for a hundred •years.

In B.C. 168, Antiochus commanded altars to Zeus to be erected throughout the land, and especially in the Temple at Jerusalem. He also directed swine to be offered in sacrifice upon them. The fear of Syrian arms secured wide-spread obedience to this decree. In the little town of Modin, however, an old priest. Mattathias, struck down the officiating priest and raised the standard of revolt. The faithful soon ralUed to his standard, and he made his son Judas captain over them. Unexpected victories speedily followed, and the successful Judas was surnamed Makkab, ‘the hammer.’ Mattathias died before the end of the first year, but the struggle was continued by his sons. At the end of three years the Syrians had been driven from the Temple, though they still held the fortress which overlooked it. Accordingly, in December 165, three years after the Temple had been defiled, a great feast was held for its dedication. Up to this time Judas had been aided by the Chmldlm, or pious — a set of religious devotees whose ideal was ceremonial puritanism. This party would have been satisfied to rest in what had already been achieved, but Judas and his brethren aimed at political independence. Although it estranged the ChaMdim, Judas, with varying fortunes, maintained the struggle till b.c. 161. Antiochus iv. died, the forces of the young Antiochus v. were defeated, a great victory was won over Nicanor, whom Demetrius i., the next king of Syria, sent to Judsea. This victory was long celebrated in a yearly festival. Judas himself fell before the end of the year 161 In a battle with the force which Demetrius sent to avenge the death of Nicanor.

The direction of the Jewish cause then fell to Jonathan, one of the brothers of Judas, who for nearly twenty years was the leader (161-143). At the beginning of this period the Maccabsan fortunes were at their lowest ebb. At first Jonathan thought of taking refuge with the Nabataeans, but here he was treacherously treated and his brother John was slain. He himself, with a considerable force, was caught near the Jordan by the Syrians, and escaped only by swimming the river to the western side. Here Jonathan maintained himself for some years as an outlaw in the wilderness of Judaea. After many unsuccessful efforts to capture him, the Syrians finally (b.c. 153) entered into a treaty with him whereby he was permitted to live at Michmash as a kind of licensed free-booter. Here, like David in his outlaw days, he ruled over such as came to him. A little later Alesander Balas appeared in the field as a contestant for the Syrian crown. This proved a great help to the Maccabaean cause, as both parties were willing to bid high for the support of Jonathan. Jonathan for a time adhered to the cause of Alexander, who killed Demetrius I. and secured the crown. But although Alexander had driven Demetrius i. from the field, he was left but a short time in undisputed possession of the Syrian throne. Demetrius ii. appeared, and bid high for Jewish favour. He recognized Jonathan as high priest, and exempted the Jews from various taxes. This angered the adherents of Alexander, one of whom lured Jonathan to Ptolemais for a conference and treacherously put him to death. Another brother, Simon (143-135), then assumed the leadership. The star of Alexander Balas went down, and Demetrius ii. made a treaty which once more recognized the Independence of the Jews. This event created the wildest joy. Never since Uzziah had paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser in. in b.c. 737, unless it was for a few years in the reign of Josiah, had the Jews been politically free. It seemed like a new birth of the nation, and it stimulated the national genius and devotion in all directions. Many psalms were written at this period, and the whole civil and religious polity of the nation were reorganized. Simon was made both political head of the nation and high priest, and it was ordained that these ofiices should continue in his house for ever, or until a faithful prophet should arise (1 Maccabees 14:41 ff.). Simon spent his energies in the following years in organizing his government and consolidating his territory. He was successful in taking possession of Gezer, where he built a large castle, recently excavated; also Joppa, which he made his port, and on the other side of the country, Jericho. At the latter place he was assassinated in b.c. 135 by his son-in-law, who hoped to seize the government.

27. The Hasmonsean Dynasty. — The chronology follows : —

John Hyrcanus i 135-105

Aristobulus 1 105-104

Alexander Jannaeus 104-79

Alexandra 79-69

John Hyrcanus ii 1 ao b-i

Aristobulus n / ™-63

During the early years of Hyrcanus i. the vigorous Antiochus vii. (Sidetes), who had gained the Syrian crown, pressed him so hard that the struggle for independence not only had to be renewed, but seemed for a time to waver in the balance. Weaker hands, however, soon came into possession of the Syrian sceptre; and Hyrcanus, his independence secure, set about consolidating the power of Judaea. He conquered the Edomites, who had centuries before been pushed up into southern Judah, and compelled them to accept Judaism. Later he conquered Samaria and lower Galilee, treating the latter country as he had treated Idumaea (cf. Jos. Ant. xm. x. 2). During the reign of Hyrcanus the Pharisees and Sadducees began to emerge into well-defined and opposing parties. The former were developed out of the Chasidim of the earlier time. They desired separation and exclusion from foreigners in order that they might devote themselves to the keeping of the Law. The Sadducees, on the other hand, consisted largely of the old priestly families, whose wealth and position prevented them from either the narrowness or the devotion of the Pharisees. Hyrcanus threw in his lot with the latter.