History of the Jews (Vol. 1-6). Graetz Heinrich
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