� 8. John Hyrcanus I., B.C. 135-105

§ 8. JOHN HYRCANUS I., B.C. 135-[268]
[268] On the chronology of the Asmoneans the following statement may be made once for all. Josephus gives as the period of the reigns of the princes from John Hyrcanus I. to Alexandra inclusive the following dates:—
John Hyrcanus,
|31 years (Antiq. xiii. 10. 7).
|
Aristobulus,
|1 years (Antiq. xiii. 11. 3).
|
Alexander Jannäus,
|27 years (Antiq. xiii. 15. 5).
|
Alexandra,
|9 years (Antiq. xiii. 16. 6).
|
These dates are also given by Josephus in two other places: Antiq. xx. 10, and Wars of the Jews, i. 2-5. Only in regard to Hyrcanus do these accounts vary. In Antiq. xx. 10 he is assigned thirty years, and in Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 8, it is given as thirty-three. The latter is probably erroneous, and like much else in the Wars of the Jews is corrected in the later production of the Antiquities. The discrepancy in the Antiquities itself, however, is only apparent, for Hyrcanus reigned between thirty and thirty-one years.
The following points are well established: 1. The death of Simon in the month Shebat of the Seleucid year 177, or in February B.C. 135 (1Ma_16:14); and 2. The beginning of the war between the brothers Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II., immediately after the death of Alexandra, according to Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 2, in the third year of the 177th Olympiad, that is, in the summer B.C. 70-69, and during the consulate of Q. Hortensius and Q. Metellus Creticus. These were consuls in B.C. 69. The beginning of that war of the brothers, and consequently also the death of Alexandra, occurred therefore in the first half of B.C. 69. This is confirmed by Antiq. xiii. 16. 4, Wars of the Jews i. 5. 3, according to which Alexandra survived the attack of Lucullus on the Armenian empire, which took placc in B.C. 69.—From the death of Simon to the death of Alexandra, B.C. 135-B.C. 69, is thus a period of sixty-six years, while by adding the numbers given by Josephus we obtain sixty-eight. Josephus has therefore also reckoned the current year as if it were complete. If we take this into consideration, the two statements will be found thoroughly to agree, and we obtain the following dates:—
John Hyrcanus,
|B.C. 135-105.
|
Aristobulus,
|B.C. 105-104.
|
Alexander Jannäus,
|B.C. 104-78.
|
Alexandra,
|B.C. 78-69.
|
It is an error on the part of Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 2, to fix the first year of John Hyrcanus in the 162nd Olympiad, that is, in a summer during the period B.C. 132-128.
SOURCES
The History of John Hyrcanus, referred to in 1Ma_16:23-24, is not extant.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8-10; Wars of the Jews, i. 2. Zonaras, Annal. v. 1-2 (a summary from Josephus).
Mishna, Maaser scheni v. 15; Sota ix. 10. Other rabbinical traditions in Derenbourg, pp. 70-82.
The most complete account of the coins is given by Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 74-81.
LITERATURE
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.[269] 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.[270]
[269] Eusebius and others explain the surname Hyrcanus by saying that John had conquered the Hyrcanians (Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 130 sq.; in Greek, in Syncellus, i. 548: Ὑρκανοὺς νικήσας Ὑρκανὸς ὠνομάσθη; in Latin, in Jerome: adversum Hyrcanoe bellum gerens Hyrcani nomen accepit; and also Sulpicius Severus, ii. 26: qui cum adversum Hyrcanos, gentem validissimam, egregie pugnasset, Hyrcani cognomen accepit). In favour of his explanation the fact may be adduced that John actually did take part in the campaign of Antiochus VII. Sidetes against the Parthians. But it falls to pieces over the fact that the name Hyrcanus had been in use in Jewish circles long before the time of John Hyrcanus (Josephus, Antiq. xii. 4. 6-11; 2Ma_3:11). It may conceivably be explained according to the analogy of יַדּוּעַ הַבַּבְלִי Baba mezia vii. 7; נָחוּם הַמָּדִי, Schabbath ii. 1; Nasir v. 4; Baba bathra v. 2. The Jews were transported by Artaxerxes Ochus to Hyrcania (see Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 223). A Jew belonging to a family settled there, who had gone back again to Palestine, would at first be distinguished by the personal designation ὁ Ὑρκανός. And thus the name would come to be a distinctive designation of the family.
[270] Macc. 16:19-22. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 4.
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.[271]
[271] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 3-4.—In regard to the Sabbatical year, see above, pp. 41-43.
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.[272] 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.[273]
[272] In regard to the date, the statements of the various sources do not agree. According to Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 2, the invasion of Antiochus occurred τετάρτῳ μὲν ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας αὑτοῦ, πρώτῳ δὲ τῆς Ὑρκανοῦ ἀρχῆς, ὀλυμπιάδι ἑκατοστῇ καὶ ἑξηκοστῇ δευτέρᾳ. The fourth year of Antiochus and the first year of Hyrcanus are both B.C. 135-134, whereas the 162nd Olympiad corresponds to B.C. 132-128. In the latter period, in Olympiad 162, 3, or B.C. 130-129, Porphyry puts the attack upon Jerusalem by Antiochus (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255: Judaeosque hic subegit, per obsidionem muros urbis evertebat, atque electissimos ipsorum trucidabat anno tertio CLXII. olympiadis). A reconciliation of these statements is possible only on the assumption that the war had lasted for four years. At least more than one year must have been occupied with it, since the siege of Jerusalem alone seems to have lasted over a year. Josephus epeaks of the setting of the Pleiades as occurring at its beginning (Antiq. xiii. 8. 2), which took placc in November (Pliny, Hist. Nat. ii. 47. 125: post id, aequinoctium diebus fere quattuor et quadraginta vergiliarum occasus hiemem inchoat, quod tempus in III. iduus Novembres in incidere consuevit). And the siege had not been raised when the next Feast of Tabernacles came round in October (compare Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 333).—Owing to the discrepancy of the sources, it would be exceedingly risky to fix a particular year for the siege (Clinton, l.c., gives B.C. 134-133).—Sieges lasting for a year were by no means uncommon in the history of that time, as in the case of Samaria (Antiq. xiii. 10. 3), and of Gaza (Antiq. xiii. 13. 3), and of Gadara, lasting ten months (Antiq. xiii. 13. 3).
[273] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 2-3. Diodorus, xxxiv. 1, ed. Müller. Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255. Justin, xxxvi. 1: Judaeos quoque, qui in Macedonico imperio sub Demetrio patre armis se in libertatem vindicaverant, subegit.—The words of Josephus, καθεῖλε δὲ καὶ τὴν στεφάνην τῆς πόλεως are understood by many (e.g. Winer, RWB. i. 65, Anm.; Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. p. 76 f.), not of the destruction of the whole wall, but only that of the coping, in which case the description of Josephus is divergent from that of Diodorus and Porphyry. But such an interpretation is not necessary. At least, according to Diodorus and Porphyry, the wall itself was thrown down. Among the later services performed by John Hyrcanus, 1Ma_16:23 gives prominence to his rebuilding of the walls.—Hyrcanus is said to have obtained the sum demanded by Antiochus by extracting three thousand talents from the sepulchre of David. So says Josephus, Antiq. vii. 15. 3, whereas in Antiq. xiii. 8. 4 he merely says that Hyrcanus applied the money thus taken to the payment of his soldiers. Compare on the sepulchre of David, Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 7. 1; Acts 2:29. According to Nehemiah 3:15-16, it lay in the south of the city, not far from Siloah.
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.[274]—If these combinations are correct, we must assume that the war continued for more than a year.
[274] In the above the results are related which Mendelssohn has reached in his investigations (Ritschl’s Acta societatis philologae Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 123-158. It was previously published separately: Mendelssohn, De senati consultis Komanorum ab Josepho Antiq. xiii. 9. 2, xiv. 10. 22, relatis commentatio, Leipzig 1874). Compare in addition the recension by Gutschmid in the Literatur Centralblatt, 1874, No. 38, and the criticism in the Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1876, 392 f.—Gutschniid understands by “Antiochus, son of Antiochus,” Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, son of Antiochua VII., although in other respects he agrees with Mendelssohn, that the conquest of Joppa and Gazara was accomplished by Antiochus VII. But this combination falls through for this, besides other reasons, that in the second Senatsconsult it is distinctly presupposed that the conqueror and he who was to restore to them what he had taken (Antiq. xiv. 10. 22: καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ἀφείλετο αὐτῶν), was one and the same person. Owing to the carelessness with which these documents, and especially the names in them, have been drawn up, the appearance of a clerical error, such as Ἀντιόχου for Δημητρίου would present very little difficulty, indeed much less than others that have actually been found. Compare against Gutschmid, Mendelssohn in Rhein. Museum, 1875, p. 118 f.—For proposed emendation of the names in Antiq. xiii. 9. 2, compare also Mommsen’s Bemerkungen zum Senatsconsult von Adramyttium, Ephemeris epigr. iv. 217.
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.[275]
[275] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4, with reference to Nicolaus Damascenus.
The death of Antiochus in the Parthian campaign, in B.C. 128, was for Hyrcanus a favourable occurrence.[276] His place upon the Syrian throne was taken by the weak Demetrius II., who had previously been released from imprisonment by the Parthians.[277] He was immediately involved in a civil war, which obliged him to seek to win the favour of the Jews.
[276] On the campaign and death of Antiochus, compare Justin, xxxviii. 10, xxxix. 1; Diodorus, xxxiv. 15-17, ed. Müller; Livy, Epit. 59; Appian, Syr. 68; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4; Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255. In regard to the chronology, see above, pp. 177-178.
[277] On Demetrius II. compare Justin, xxxvi. 1: Demetrius, et ipse rerum successu corruptus, vitiis adulescentiae in segnitiam labitur tantumque contemptum apud omnes inertiae, quantum odium ex superbia pater habuerat, contraxit.—On the other hand, Justin, xxxix. 1, speaks also of a superbia regis, quae conversatione Parthicae crudelitatis intolerabilis facta, erat.—On the doings and fortunes of Demetrius during his imprisonment, as well as his final liberation, see Justin, xxxvi. 1, xxxviii. 9-10; Appian, Syr. 67, 68; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4; Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255.
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.[278] 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.[279] 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.[280]
[278] Medaba is a well-known town on the east side of the Jordan, south of Heshbon, and its name and ruins are preserved to this day. It is the Old Testament מֵידְבָא Numbers 21:30; Joshua 13:9; Joshua 13:16; Isaiah 15:2; 1 Chronicles 19:7. Compare 1Ma_9:36; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 2, xiii. 15. 4, xiv. 1. 4; Ptolemy, v. 17. 6, viii. 20. 20; Stephen of Byzantium on the name; Mishna, Mikwaoth vii. 1; Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 279.—Reland, Palestina, p. 893. Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, i. 407 f., iv. 223. Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 2. 1181-1185 (Engl. transl, iii. 73). Winer, RWB. sub voce. Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, p. 318.
[279] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 9. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 6; compare Antiq. xv. 7. 9.—Adora is the modern Dura, west of Hebron, see Robinson, Bibl. Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 2-5; Guérin, Judée, iii. 353 sqq. On Marissa, see above, page 221 (on 1Ma_5:66).—In consequence of the Judaizing by John Hyrcanus, the Idumeans came by and by to regard themselves as Jews (Wars of the Jews, iv. 4. 4). The Jewish aristocracy would only have them treated as ἡμιιουδαῖοι, and so considered even the Idumean Herod as not equal to them in birth (Antiq. xiv. 15. 2: Ἡρώδῃ … ἰδιώτῃ τε ὄντι καὶ Ἰδουμαίῳ τουτέστιν ἡμιιουδαίῳ).
[280] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4.
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.[281] This pretender was named Alexander, and was surnamed by the Syrians Zabinas, i.e. “the purchased.”[282] 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.[283]
[281] The former according to Justin, xxxix. 1; the latter according to Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 257 sq.
[282] Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 258, correctly explains the surname Zabinas (זְבִינָא in Ezra 10:48) by ἀγοραστός—The orthography vacillates between Ζεβινᾶς (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 9. 3), Ζαβινᾶς (Diodorus, ed. Müller, xxxiv. 22; Porphyry in Eusebius, l.c.; inscription in Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Egypte, ii. 61); Zabbinaeus in Justin, Prolog. xxxix.
[283] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 9. 3; Justin, xxxix. 1; Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 257 sq.—On his death especially, Justin: Cum Tyrum religione se templi defensurus petisset, navi egrediens praefecti jussu interficitur.—According to Appian, Syr. 68, his wife Cleopatra was the instigator of the murder. Compare Livy, Epit. 60: Motus quoque Syriae referuntur, in quibus Cleopatra Demetrium virum suum—interemit.
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.[284]
[284] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 9. 3: φιλίαν ποιεῖται πρὸς Ὑρκανὸν τὸν ἀρχιερέα.
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.[285] 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.[286]
[285] Justin, xxxix. 2. 9: Parta igitur regni securitate Grypus octo annis quietem et ipse habuit et regno praestitit.—In accordance with this, the description in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1, is to be corrected.
[286] Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 260; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1; Justin, xzziz. 2-3; Appian, Syr. 69.
Of Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, who ruled in Coele-Syria from B.C. 113 to B.C. 95, Diodorus gives the following description:[287] “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.”
[287] Diodorus, xxxiv. 34, ed. Müller: Ὁ Ἀντίοχος ὁ Κυζικηνὸς ἀρτίως παρειληφὼς τὴν βασιλείαν, ἐξέπεσεν εἰς μέθας καὶ τρυφὴν ἀγεννῆ καὶ ζηλώματα βασιλείας ἀλλοτριώτατα. Ἔχαιρε γὰρ μίμοις καὶ προδείκταις καὶ καθόλου πᾶσι τοῖς θαυματοποιοῖς, καὶ τὰ τούτων ἐπιτηδεύματα μανθάνειν ἐφιλοτιμεῖτο. Ἐπετήδευσε δὲ καὶ νευροσπαστεῖν καὶ διʼ αὑτοῦ κινεῖν ζῷα πενταπήχη κατάργυρα καὶ κατάχρυσα καὶ ἕτερα πλείονα τοιαῦτα μηχανήματα. Οὐκ εἷχε δὲ ἑλεπόλεων οὐδὲ ὀργάνων πολιορκητικῶν κατασκευάς, ἃ καὶ δόξαν μεγάλην καὶ χρείας ἀξιολόγους ἂν παρέσχετο. Ἐνεθουσία δὲ καὶ πρὸς κυνηγεσίας ἀκαίρους, καὶ πολλάκις νύκτωρ λάθρᾳ τῶν φίλων μετὰ δυοῖν ἢ τριῶν οἰκετῶν ἐξιὼν ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν, ἐκυνήγει λέοντας καὶ παρδάλεις καὶ ὗς ἀγρίους. Παραβόλως δὲ συμπλεκόμενος ἀλόγοις θηρίοις, πολλάκις ἦλθεν εἰς τοὺς ἐσχάτους κινδύνους.
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.”[288]
[288] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1: οὔτε ὡς ὑπήκοος οὔτε ὡς φίλος αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν ἔτι παρεῖχεν.
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.[289]—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.[290]
[289] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 2-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 7. According to the statement of the Wars of the Jews, Scythopolis was not surrendered to the Jews by treachery, but was conquered by them. Compare on this important city, Div. ii. vol. i. p. 110.—The day of the conquest of Samaria was, according to Megillath Taanith, the 25th Marcheschwan, or November. See Grätz, iii., 4 Aufl. p. 566; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 72 sq. The year may be approximately fixed from this, that, on the one hand, Antiochus Cyzicenos was already in undisturbed possession of Coele-Syria, which began with B.C. 111; and, on the other hand, Ptolemy Lathurus was still co-regent with his mother Cleopatra, which lasted till B.C. 107. The conquest of Samaria therefore falls between B.C. 111 and B.C. 107, probably not long before B.C. 107, for Cleopatra was so enraged at Ptolemy for affording assistance to Antiochus, that she had “almost already” driven him out of the government. So Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 2: ὅσον οὔτω τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτὸν ἐκβεβληκυίας.
[290] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 3. The rabbinical passages in Derenbourg, p. 74.
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.[291] These, in common with the coins of the immediate successors of Hyrcanus, bear the inscription—
[291] On the coins: De Saulcy, Recherches, 1854, pp. 95-102. Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 13-18. Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, pp. 46-53. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 1864, pp. 51-61. Reichardt in the Wiener Numismat. Monatsheften, Bd. iii. 1867, pp. 103-108. De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, p. 236 sq. De Saulcy, Revue archéologique, nouv. série, xxiii. 1872, pp. 8-13. Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, iii. 1876, pp. 190-195. Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 74-81 (there the material is most fully given).
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.[292] 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.”
[292] The conjectures which have been made as to the meaning of חבר are in some cases of the most remarkable kind. Madden in Coins of the Jews, p. 77, gives a summary of them. One renders חָבֵר, “doctor, scholar” (Reichardt), another makes it “friend” (de Saulcy, Recherches, p. 84; Revue Num. 1864, p. 382, subsequently abandoned by him); others, חֹבִר, “general” (Ewald, Gött. gel. Anz. 1855, p. 643). Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. iv. 766, speaks of the word as having its signification first discovered by Ewald. On the coins with ראש חבר, Ewald reads ראש וחבר, and translates “commander-in-chief” (Gött. gel. Anz. 1862, p. 844).—The inscription ראש חבר היהודים shows that חבר is necessarily a corporation, as Hyrcanus is described as its head. It is therefore to be read (as Hosea 6:9; Proverbs 21:9) חֶבֶר, and it is extremely questionable whether an assembly in the more exact sense, therefore the Jewish senate, is meant (so Geiger, Urschrift, p. 121 f.; Levy, Jüdische Münzen, p. 50; Madden, History, pp. 54-56; Coins of the Jews, p. 78; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 83; Wellhausen, Pharisäer, p. 28 f.; De Saulcy, Melanges des Numismatique, ii. 1877, p. 86), or the Jewish people as a whole (so Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 14; Hitzig, Geschichte, p. 473; Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schr. A. T.’s, § 503; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, iii. 1876, pp. 190, 196 f.). The expression “congregation of the Jews,” and their usage of the language, are decidedly in favour of the latter meaning. See Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 55.
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.[293] 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.[294]
[293] Josephus tells the story first of all in connection with the times of Jonathan, Antiq. xiii. 5. 9.
[294] See further details of the nature and origin of the Pharisees and Sadducees in § 26, Div. ii. vol. ii. pp. 1-46.
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.[295]
[295] Josephus says in regard thereto, Antiq. xiii. 10. 5: μαθητὴς δʼ αὐτῶν καὶ Ὑρκανὸς ἐγεγόνει καὶ σφόδρα ὑπʼ αὐτῶν ἠγαπᾶτα.
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.[296]
[296] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 5-6. The rabbinical tradition is given in Grätz, iii., 4 Aufl. 684 ff. (note 11); Derenbourg, pp. 79, 80; Montet, Le premier conflit entre Pharisiens et Saducéens d’après trois documents orientaux [Josephus, Talmud, and Samaritan Chronicler Abulfath], in the Journal asiatique, VIIIme série, t. ix. 1887, pp. 415-423.—On the fact itself, see Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und Sadducäer (1874), pp. 89-95.
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.[297] 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.[298]
[297] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 2.
[298] Maaser scheni v. 15=Sota ix. 10: “Jochanan the high priest abolished the confession for the time of tithing. He also abolished the singing of the verse ‘Awake’ (Psalms 44:23), and the inflicting a wound on the sacrificial victim. Also down to his time on the days between the festival seasons was the hammer in use in Jerusalem. Finally, in his days men were not wont to ask about Demai, i.e. not to ask whether tithes had been paid on bought corn.”—On the meaning of this passage, which in part is very obscure, see the commentaries in Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 287 f., iii. 295 ff.; Herzfeld, Geschichte, iii. 249 ff.; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 71. The translation here given follows that of Jost in his edition of the Mishna, and agrees with the explanations given in the Talmud; but its correctness is very questionable. See especially Herzfeld.—For the confession at the tithing, see Deuteronomy 26:12-15; Josephus, Antiq. iv. 8. 22; Mishna, Maaser scheni v. 6-15; Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum (1713), pp. 204-227. It may also be mentioned that in Para iii. 5, Jochanan is named as one of those high priests in whose time a red heifer was burnt, according to the law of Numbers 19.
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.[299] 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.
[299] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 7.
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.[300]
[300] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 6. 2, 7. 3, 9. 2, 11. 4; vi. 2. 10.