Читать книгу A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ - Emil Schürer - Страница 58

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 342–384.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. 1888, pp. 64–117.

HITZIG, Geschichte der Volkes Israel, ii. 459–472.

WERNER, Johann Hyrkan, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Judäas im zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert. Wernigerode 1877.

HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. pp. 421–426.

WELLHAUSEN, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (1874), pp. 89–95.

Seeing that the high-priestly and princely offices had been declared hereditary in the family of Simon, his third son still surviving, John Hyrcanus, who had held the post of governor of Gazara, was nominated his successor. Against him, therefore, were first directed the attacks of the pretender Ptolemy, who had murdered his father and his two brothers. Immediately after the bloody deed the assassin Ptolemy sent to Gazara in order to do away also with John. That prince, however, had meanwhile been warned by friendly messengers, and so he had the murderers apprehended immediately upon their arrival. Then he hasted to Jerusalem, which he was fortunate enough to reach before Ptolemy. When the latter arrived, he found that the city was already in the power of Hyrcanus.

Ptolemy then retired to the fortress of Dagon, identical probably with that of Dok, near Jericho. There he was besieged by Hyrcanus; and undoubtedly the city would soon have been conquered, and the murderer given over to his welldeserved doom, had not Hyrcanus been restrained by affection for his mother. She had fallen into the power of Ptolemy. And so often as Hyrcanus threatened to storm the fortress, Ptolemy had her led out upon the walls, and threatened to hurl her down unless Hyrcanus would abandon his project. This caused him to hesitate in his proceedings. And so the siege was protracted, until at length the return of the Sabbatical year necessitated its abandonment. Ptolemy was thus set free; but nevertheless he had the mother of Hyrcanus murdered, and then fled.

Thus through Ptolemy had Hyrcanus lost both his parents and his two brothers, without having been able to take vengeance upon him.

An evil fate, however, overtook the murderer. Antiochus VII. Sidetes had hitherto made no further attempt upon Judea. We know not the reason of this, but it was perhaps because the home affairs of Syria were occupying all his attention. He was, however, by no means disposed to forget the demands which he previously made of Simon. In the first year of John Hyrcauus, B.C. 135–134, he invaded Judea, devastated the whole country, and finally laid siege to Hyrcanus in his capital, Jerusalem. He surrounded the whole city with a rampart and a trench. and cut off the besieged from all egress from the city. Hyrcanus on his part sought to harass the besiegers by sallies. In order to make the victuals last longer, he sent the non-combatants out of the city. But Antiochus would not let them pass, and drove them back again, so that they were obliged to roam about between the circle of the besiegers and the city, and many of them perished of hunger. It was not till the Feast of Tabernacles that Hyrcanus received them again into the city. For the celebration of this feast he had begged of Antiochus an armistice for seven days. Antiochus granted not only this, but sent also gifts for sacrifice into the city, which they were to present in the temple. This generous act raised the spirits of Hyrcanus, and he now hoped, by timely capitulation, to obtain favourable terms. He sent therefore an embassy to Antiochus to treat for conditions of peace. After protracted negotiations an understanding was at last come to. The terms of the arrangement were that the Jews should deliver up their arms, pay tribute for Joppa and the other towns lying outside of Judea which they had conquered, give hostages, and besides pay 500 talents. The conditions were indeed by no means satisfactory. Yet in the circumstances Hyrcanus was indeed very glad even at this price to obtain the raising of the siege and the withdrawal of the Syrian army. The walls of the city too were thrown down.

The remarkable moderation of Antiochus had perhaps other reasons than those assigned for it by the historians. In a decree of the Roman senate, which Josephus communicates in Antiq. xiii. 9. 2, it is assumed that a King Autiochus had taken from the Jews in war, Joppa, Gazara, and other towns (πολεμῶν ἔλαβεν Ἀντίοχος), on account of which a Jewish embassy had gone to Rome with the prayer that the senate should order Antiochus to restore these towns. This Antiochus can have been no other than Antiochus VII. Sidetes, for under no earlier Antiochus were the Jews in possession of the towns of Joppa and Gazara, and of the later kings there was none able to usurp any authority worth mentioning over the Jews. Evidently Antiochus, as is indeed in itself most probable, had in that war, before advancing to the siege of the capital, seized upon and taken from the Jews Joppa, Gazara, and the other towns that had been conquered by them. But then it is hardly credible that of his own accord, by a peaceful treaty, he would have left the Jews in possession of these cities, and only have imposed on them a tribute for the holding of them. The mild conditions are to be accounted for rather by the interference of the Romans. The senate certainly did not at first, in the decree referred to, formally accede to the prayer of the Jews, but rather put off any final decision. It appears, however, that very soon afterwards a second Jewish embassy went to Rorne, which did secure the result desired. In a subsequent passage, Antiq. xiv. 10. 22, a decree of the Roman senate is given by Josephus, erroneously inserted in a decree of the Pergamenes, which evidently refers to the matters now under discussion. In consequence of an embassy sent by Hyrcanus, a command is issued to King Antiochus that he must restore all the cities taken by him from the Jews, and in particular that he must withdraw the garrison from Joppa (τὴν ἐν Ἰόπῃ δὲ φρουρὰν ἐκβαλεῖν). The king is there indeed called “Antiochus, son of Antiochus,” instead of “son of Demetrius,” but he can scarcely be any other than Antiochus Sidetes. For if the Jews, since the conclusion of peace with him, obtained possession again of Joppa by the payment of tribute, it can scarcely be supposed that any of the weak successors of Sidetes could have again placcd a garrison there. In any case, the Jews would have had no occasion to call in the help of the Romans against such an adversary. It may therefore be conjectured that the decree of senate in question preceded the conclusion of peace with Antiochus Sidetes, and was pre-eminently the means of securing for the Jews such mild and favourable conditions.—If these combinations are correct, we must assume that the war continued for more than a year.

The conflicts which took placc during those first years of Hyrcanus, gave new proofs that the small Jewish state could maintain its freedom from Syrian suzerainty only so long as the Syrian empire was internally weak. Before the first vigorous onslaught of Antiochus, the freedom that had previously been won by Simon was again lost. Hyrcanus’ dependence on Antiochus VII. also obliged him to take the field with the Syrian monarch against the Parthians in B.C. 129. But he was not involved in the disaster that overtook Antiochus.

The death of Antiochus in the Parthian campaign, in B.C. 128, was for Hyrcanus a favourable occurrence. His place upon the Syrian throne was taken by the weak Demetrius II., who had previously been released from imprisonment by the Parthians. He was immediately involved in a civil war, which obliged him to seek to win the favour of the Jews.

Hyrcauus as soon as possible turned to account the altered circumstances. Without troubling himself about Demetrius, he began to seize upon considerable districts in the neighbourhood of Judea, to the east, to the north, and to the south. First of all he marched into the laud east of the Jordan, and conquered Medaba after a six months’ siege. Then he turned to the north, took Shechem and Mount Gerizim, subdued dued the Samaritans, and destroyed their temple, Finally, he went south, took the Idumean cities Adora and Marissa, and compelled the Idumeans to submit to circumcision, and to receive the Jewish law. The policy of conquest, which had been already inaugurated by Jonathan and Simon, was carried out vigorously by Hyrcanus. The purely worldly character of his policy, however, is shown conspicuously in this, that first among the Jewish princes he no longer conducted the war by means of Jewish soldiers, but called in the aid of foreign mercenaries.

This independent procedure on the part of Hyrcanus was possible only on account of the internal weakness of the Syrian empire. Demetrius II, after his restoration to the throne, was again guilty of the folly of waging war with Ptolemy VII. Physcon, king of Egypt The Egyptian monarch therefore set up over against Demetrius a pretender to the throne, in the person of a young Egyptian, whom he gave out to be an adopted son of Antiochus Sidetes, who was, however, according to others, a son of Alexander Balas. This pretender was named Alexander, and was surnamed by the Syrians Zabinas, i.e. “the purchased.” Conquered by this Alexander at Damascus, Demetrius was obliged to retire to Ptolemais, and to take ship from thence to Tyre, where as soon as he landed he was murdered, in B.C. 125 or 124.

Alexander Zabinas, however, had on his part to contest the sovereignty with the son of Demetrius, Antiochus VIII. Grypos. So he was not forced by necessity to live in peace and friendship with Hyrcanus.

After some years, somewhere about B.C. 122, Alexander Zabinas was subdued by his opponent. Antiochus VIII. Grypos conquered him, and had him executed; while, according to others, he brought his own life to an end by poison.—There now followed a long period of quiet. For eight years Antiochus VIII. Grypos held undisputed sway in Syria. Nevertheless even he made no attempt against Hyrcanus. He had no longer the ambition to restore to Syria its ancient dimensions. In B.C. 113 he was driven out by his cousin and step-brother, Antiochus IX. Cyziceuos, who ruled Syria for two years, and then, when Antiochus Grypos again secured possession of the greater part of Syria in B.C. 111, he took up his residence in Coele-Syria, the part adjoining Palestine, and made it his headquarters.

Of Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, who ruled in Coele-Syria from B.C. 113 to B.C. 95, Diodorus gives the following description: “So soon as he attained the throne, Antiochus Cyzicenos gave way to drunkenness and shameful sensuality, and to habits most unbecoming in a king. He took great delight in theatrical displays and the performance of comedies, and generally in all sorts of showmen, and tried to learn their art. He also zealously promoted the exhibition of marionettes, and sought to fabricate in silver and gold animals five ells long that would move of themselves, and other such arts. On the other hand, battering-rams and engines of war, which would have brought him great advantage and renown, he did not make. He also was passionately fond of adventurous expeditions; and often through the night, without the knowledge of his friends, accompanied only by two or three servants, he would go out into the country to hunt lions, panthers, and boars. In such escapades he often engaged to the extreme peril of his life in foolhardy encounters with wild beasts.”

We see here traditions of an earlier Antiochus IV. imitated again after a baser fashion. From such a ruler, who was taken up with such pursuits, Hyrcanus had nought to fear. And so it came about that from the death of Antiochus Sidetes, in B.C. 128, Judea had been able to keep itself absolutely independent of Syria. The taxes laid upon Judea by Antiochus Sidetes were not paid to any of the following kings. “Neither as their subject nor as their friend did he longer pay them any regard.”

In the last years of his reign Hyrcanus undertook an expedition for the conquest of the neighbouring districts. After having previously subdued the borders of Shechem and Mount Gerizim, he now directed his attack against the city of Samaria, whose inhabitants had given him occasion to complain. He had them enclosed by a wall and a trench, and then transferred the conduct of the siege to his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus. The Samaritans in their straits called in the aid of Antiochus Cyzicenos, who went indeed very willingly, but was driven back by the Jews. So then a second time Antiochus sought to bring them help by means of Egyptian auxiliary troops, which Ptolemy Lathurus supplied, and by their help devastated the Jewish territory, without, however, securing any decided advantage. After sustaining great loss, Antiochus withdrew from the scene of conflict, leaving his generals, Callimander and Epicrates, to carry on the campaign to its close. Of these the one was defeated by the Jews and lost his life, while the other, Epicrates, also achieved nothing, but treacherously gave over Scythopolis to the Jews. Thus Samaria, after a year’s siege, fell into the hands of the Jews, and was utterly razed to the ground.—The Jewish legends relate that on the day of the decisive victory of Antigonus and Aristobulus over Antiochus Cyzicenos, the occurrence was made known to Hyrcanus by a voice from heaven, while he was presenting a burnt-offering in the temple.

What has now been told is all that is known to us as to the external events of what seems to have been the truly brilliant reign of Hyrcanus. The record is scanty enough. But even still more fragmentary is the reports which have come down to us regarding the internal affairs of that government. Something may first of all be gained from the inscriptions on the coins. These, in common with the coins of the immediate successors of Hyrcanus, bear the inscription—

יהוחנן הכהן הגדל וחבר היהודים

or: יהוחנן הכהן הגדל ראש חבר היהודים

The reading of this last word is doubtful. Probably it is to be read: cheber hajjehudim; and by cheber, which literally means fellowship, association, is to be understood, not the γερουσία, but rather the assembly of the whole body of the people. The inscription would therefore run thus: “Jochanan the high priest and the congregation of the Jews,” or “Jochanan the high priest, head of the congregation of the Jews.” This official title shows us that John Hyrcanus regarded himself as in the full sense still high priest. As in the pre-Maccabean age, so also still the Jewish commonwealth was a government of priests, and the chief priest standing at its head was not an autocrat, but simply the chief of the congregation. The coins, at least those of the first order, were not only stamped in his name, but also in that of the congregation, On the other hand, it is a proof of the increasing prominence given to the possession of princely prerogatives, that John has had his name engraven on the coins. He is the first of the Jewish princes who did so. Then from the coins of the second order the name of “the congregation” disappears altogether, and instead thereof he is himself designated under his twofold title of rank as “High Priest,” and as “Chief of the Congregation of the Jews.”

In reference to the internal policy of Hyrcanus, daring his thirty years’ reign, one fact at least is well established, and that one of the greatest importance: his breaking away from the Pharisees, and attaching himself to the Sadducees. These two parties now appear for the first time under those names upon the arena of history. Their beginnings lay far back; their consolidation under those names seems to have been a consequence of the Maccabean movement. The Pharisees are nothing else but the party of strict zealots for the law: essentially the same circles as we meet with in the beginning of the Maccabean movement under the name of the Pious or Chasidim. Diametrically opposed to them were those who in the most extreme fashion favoured everything Greek, who even went beyond the Hellenizing movement of Antiochus Epiphanes by opening the door to Hellenism, not only in the domain of social life, but also in that of religious worship. These extreme Grecianizers, who were found specially in the ranks of the higher priesthood, had been swept away before the blast of the Maccabean revolution. Ideas of this sort could no longer be allowed to find expression in the league of the Jewish commonwealth. But the foundations on which that type of thought had grown up had still continued to exist there. It was the essentially worldly spirit of the higher priesthood, opposed to any kind of religious enthusiasm. They wished to maintain their position on the basis of the Mosaic law. But whatever therein transcended the mere letter, they rejected with a lofty assumption of superiority. They had far heartier interest in the affairs of this life than in those of the time to come. The spirit which among the higher priests was represented pre-eminently by “the sons of Zadoc,” was now called that of the Zadocites or Sadducees.

The Maccabees belonged properly neither to the Pharasaic nor to the Sadducean party. The zeal for the law, which had led them to take the sword in their hand, associated them indeed with the Chasidim, who also at the outset took part in the war of independence. But soon the two went their several ways, and as time advanced they parted farther and farther from one another. The Chasidim had no interest in political supremacy and political freedom. With the Maccabees this was the point of most vital importance. They did not indeed at a later period abandon their original aim, the preservation of the religion of their fathers. But as time wore on they became more and more deeply involved in other political schemes. In this way they were brought into closer relations with the Sadducees. As political up-starts, the Maccabees could not venture to ignore the influential Sadducean nobility. And it may be taken for granted that in the γερουσία of the Maccabean age, the Sadducean party was represented.—But in spite of all this, in religious sympathies the Maccabees originally stood far nearer to the Pharisees than to the Sadducees. They were the conservers of their fathers’ faith and their fathers’ law. It may be unhesitatingly stated, even in regard to Hyrcanus, that in the earlier years of his reign, in regard to the observance of the law, he held the doctrines of the Pharisees. For it was his abandonment of the traditions of the Pharisees which formed the chief accusation brought against him by the stricter Jews.

The interests and activities of the Maccabees were thus going forth in two different directions, the religious and the political, and this explains to us the change of front which took place during the course of Hyrcanus’ reign. The more the political interests were brought into the foreground by him, the more were the religious interests put in abeyance. And just in proportion as this policy was carried out, Hyrcanus was obliged to withdraw from the Pharisees and associate himself with the Sadducees. Any close and hearty relationship with the Pharisees could not possibly continue while he wrought out the devices of his purely worldly policy. Hence it was just what might have been expected, that he should openly break with the Pharisees and cast in his lot with the Sadducean party.

The ostensible occasion of the breach between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees is described by Josephus and the Talmud in a similar manner as follows. Hyrcanus once made the request, when many Pharisees were with him at dinner, that if they observed him doing anything not according to the law, they should call attention to it, and point out to him the right way. But all present were full of his praise. Only one, Eleasar, rose up and said: “Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in earnest, lay down the high-priesthood and content thyself with the civil government of the people.” And when Hyrcanus wished to know for what cause he should do so, Eleasar answered: “We have heard it from old men that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.” But this statement was incorrect. On account of it Hyrcanus was incensed against him in the highest degree. When then Hyrcanus laid before the Pharisees the question as to the punishment which Eleasar deserved, they made answer, “stripes and bonds.” Hyrcanus, who believed for such an offence nothing less than death was due, became now still more angry, and thought that Eleasar had given expression to a sentiment that was approved of by his party. Forthwith he separated himself entirely from the Pharisees, forbade under penalties the observance of the laws ordained by them, and attached himself to the Sadducees.

The story indeed, in its anecdotal form, bears on it the imprint of a thoroughly legendary character, and is even by Josephus given only as a tale derived from oral tradition. Nevertheless it may be accepted as a fact that Hyrcanus did turn away decidedly from the party of the Pharisees and abolished the Pharisaic ordinances. For it was a conscious reaction against the policy pursued from the time of Hyrcanus, when Alexandra returned again to the observance of the Pharisaic institutions. Two of the particular ordinances set aside by Hyrcanus are mentioned in the Mishna. But in view of the thoroughgoing opposition of Hyrcanus to every sort of Pharisaic ordinance, the cases referred to in the Mishna are spoken of as being only unimportant matters of detail.

On a review of Hyrcanus’ government Josephus passes a favourable verdict upon him, saying that “he was esteemed of God worthy of the three privileges—the government of his nation, the dignity of the high-priesthood, and prophecy.” Upon the whole, the reign of Hyrcanus seems to the Jewish historian a pre-eminently happy one. He is quite right, if political power is regarded as the measure of prosperity and success. After Hyrcanus’ predecessors had already enlarged the Jewish territory to the sea-coast by the addition of Joppa and Gazara and other conquests in the west, Hyrcanus, by new conquests in the east, south, and north, and by making still more secure his independence of Syria, built up a Jewish state such as had not been from the time of the overthrow of the ten tribes, perhaps not even since the partition of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.

Among the great sepulchral monuments in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, that of “the high priest John” is frequently referred to by Josephus in his Wars of the Jews.