History of the Jews (Vol. 1-6). Graetz Heinrich
the kings and princes of the land, with a suite of the elders, to do homage and swear allegiance to the conqueror. Alexander was a noble, generous conqueror, who punished cruelly only resistance to his will, but in no way interfered with the peculiar development, the customs, or religious rites of any nation under his sway. He did not force the Grecian faith on any nation, and the favour which he granted to other nations he certainly did not deny to the Judæans. They were only obliged to pay the Macedonian governor the same tax on their lands as the Persian satrap had received.
The first meeting of Greece and Judæa, both of which were, in different ways, to offer civilisation to the world, was of a friendly character, although the one appeared in all her glory and might, the other in her weakness and humility.—Judæa became part of a province, which was bounded on the north by Mount Taurus and Mount Lebanon, and on the south by Egypt, and was called Hollow Syria (Cœlesyria), to distinguish it from the Higher Syria, which lay in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The governor of this extensive province, which had formerly been divided into many independent states, resided in Samaria, from which we may infer that it was a fortified and populous town. Samaria, however, was indebted for this preference or dangerous station to its situation in the centre of the province and in a fertile region. Andromachos was the name of the governor whom Alexander placed over the Cœlesyrians. Why were the Samaritans displeased with this apparent distinction? Did they feel themselves hampered in their movements by the presence of the Governor, or was their anger roused by jealousy at the favour shown by Alexander to the Judæans, whom they hated so bitterly? The violent resentment of the Samaritans, or at least of their leaders, went so far that, heedless of the consequences, they rose up against Andromachos, seized him and consigned him to the flames (331). Alexander's wrath, upon hearing of this act of atrocity which had been committed upon one of his generals, was as great as it was just. Had this small, insignificant people dared defy one who had subdued all Egypt, the proud priests of which country had prostrated themselves before him, proclaiming his pre-eminence and his glory? Upon his return from Egypt, while hastening to conquer Persia, he hurried to Samaria to avenge the murder of Andromachos. The authors of the horrible deed were put to death under cruel tortures, another governor called Memnon was placed over Samaria, and the town was filled with Macedonians. In various other ways, Alexander appears to have mortified and humiliated the Samaritans, and knowing that they were enemies of the Judæans, he favoured the latter in order to mark his displeasure towards the former. Several border lands lying between Samaria and Judæa, which had often occasioned strife between the two peoples, he awarded to the Judæans, and likewise freed the latter from the burden of taxation during the Sabbatical year. This favour, of small importance to him who gave it, was a great boon to those who received it, and inflamed the hatred of the Samaritans against the Judæans; every gust of wind seemed to add new fuel to their enmity, which, however, as long as Alexander lived, they were obliged to conceal. His wonderfully rapid and victorious campaigns—as far as the Indus and the Caucasus—seemed to throw a spell over the world, and to paralyse all independent action. When he was not at war, peace reigned supreme, from Greece to India, and from Ethiopia to the shores of the Caspian sea. Alexander was the first conqueror who deemed it a wise policy to allow the peculiar customs of any conquered nation to be maintained; he insisted that respect should be shown to their various religious forms of worship. In Egypt he honoured Apis and Ammon, and in Babylonia the gods of Chaldæa. Thus he determined upon rebuilding the temple of the Babylonian idol Bel, which had been destroyed by Artaxerxes. To accomplish this, he ordered his soldiers to clear away the ruins which had accumulated over the foundations of the building. All obeyed with the exception of the Judæans who, either voluntarily or by compulsion, were serving in his army. They refused their help towards the reconstruction of the idolatrous temple. Naturally enough, their disobedience received severe chastisement from their superior officers, but they bore their punishment bravely, rather than comply with an order which demanded the transgression of one of the principal injunctions of their faith. When Alexander heard of this case of conscience and of the religious fortitude displayed by the Judæan soldiers, he was generous enough to grant them his pardon. But in that incident we may read an omen of the conflicts which were to take place between Judaism and Greekdom.
In the midst of his vast undertaking—that of uniting the whole world into one monarchy—the young hero died (323), leaving no lawful heir to his throne, no successor to his great mind. Confusion arose in all parts of the world, as well as among the armies of Alexander,—dire as if the laws of Nature had been upset, and the sequence of the morrow after to-day were no longer certain. Fearful battles, which resembled the wars of the Titans, ensued. Alexander's warriors, with the experience gained on a thousand battle-fields, would, had they only been united, have been capable of supporting the structure of the Macedonian kingdom; but, although they were not actually Greeks, and even looked down upon the latter, they resembled them in their spirit of insubordination, their want of discipline, and their passion for self-advancement, which greatly surpassed their zeal for the good of the State. Like the Greeks, they coveted power as a means to obtain luxuries and to enable them to indulge in licentious pleasures; in short, they had become adepts in corrupt practices.
The consequence of this state of things was the dissolution of the Macedonian kingdom and its division among the contending leaders. Ptolemy I. Soter, son of Lagos, reigned in Egypt. By means of a successful war he acquired Cœlesyria, together with Judæa. In 320, he demanded the surrender of Jerusalem, but its inhabitants refused to open their gates. On a Sabbath, however, he contrived to surprise the city, and, as the Judæans would not use weapons of defence on that day, he was able to seize the city and to make numerous prisoners, whom he carried away to Egypt. Many Samaritans shared their fate, probably because they had likewise attempted resistance. Both Judæans and Samaritans could have enjoyed happiness—at least, as much happiness as was possible in those hard, cruel times—had they remained subjects of the Lagidian Ptolemy, who was the gentlest of the warring successors of Alexander. He knew how to recognise and appreciate merit, and when his own interests were not at stake, he was just and merciful; but Ptolemy had no acknowledged right upon Cœlesyria. His acquisition of those lands had not been confirmed by the various regents of the Macedonian kingdom who followed each other in rapid succession, and kept up the semblance of a united government. Ptolemy roused the envy of the confederate captains, and in particular that of one of his former allies and fellow-conspirators, Antigonus. This bold soldier was endowed with inventive genius and a fiery nature, and had resolved upon the subjection of all his associates, in order to seize and hold the whole kingdom of Macedonia in his own strong hand. After many years of warlike preparations, a decisive battle at last took place between Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, and Ptolemy, which ended disastrously for the former. The battle of Gaza, fought in the spring of 312, was a memorable one, for from that event Seleucus, who had come as a fugitive to Ptolemy, dated the beginning of his power by introducing the new era called Seleucidæan, or Greek, which also came into use among the Judæans, and was longest retained by them. In consequence of the defeat at Gaza, Demetrius was obliged to withdraw to the north, leaving the whole country to the conqueror. Only a short time elapsed, however, before Antigonus and his son, having joined their forces, compelled Ptolemy to retreat to Egypt. He caused the fortified sea-coast and inland cities, Acco, Joppa, Gaza, and Jerusalem to be demolished, so that they might not become places of defence to his enemies, and Judæa, with the countries that belonged to Cœlesyria, remained in this unguarded condition until, in the battle at Ipsus, in Asia Minor (301), fought against the united armies of Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Cassander, and Seleucus, Antigonus lost at one blow both his glory and his life. The four generals divided the kingdom among themselves. Ptolemy received Egypt and the adjoining lands, and the greater part of Asia fell to Seleucus. Thus Judæa became a portion of the Ptolemæan or Lagidian kingdom, and its fate for a time was linked to that of the latter. The condition of the Judæans, however, underwent no material change. The tribute they had been obliged formerly to pay to the Persian monarch was now demanded by the Egypto-Macedonian court. The freedom and independence of their movements and actions were not more restricted than they had hitherto been; on the contrary, their situation might be considered rather improved than otherwise.
In Judæa, the high-priest, who was answerable for the payment of taxes, was considered as the political chief, and was looked upon as a sacerdotal prince. Ptolemy I. was endowed with a gentle nature, and inclined to benefit his subjects. He had neither desire nor motive to oppress the Judæans.