Judea under Seleucid Rule

Disclaimer: Recall the disclaimer for "Postexilic Judean Politics from Persian to Ptolemaic Rule," for it is much the same. On a couple of other points, I have little doubt that I made at least a few egregious errors, which will be fixed when I find out about them. Also, there is a Part II to this assignment, but it is on a different topic, and I do not think it is very good at all. Do not think that this alone warranted the loss of sleep that I suffered. Also also, my methods of citation and bibliography are somewhat apathetic because precision of format was not a requirement for them. Now enjoy, or something like that. Next time I will grace you with a paper on evil, unless of course I despise it when it is done or if I write something else between now and then.

In 198 BC Judea, part of the larger region known as Coele-Syria, fell into the hands of the Seleucid emperor, Antiochus III Epiphanes, following the defeat of the Ptolemaic general Scopas at the Battle of Panion. Since the 301 Battle of Ipsus, it had been ruled by Ptolemaic Egypt, though the latter was not represented in the battle; rather, Ptolemy exploited the situation to take hold of Judea. The next century, then, would be marked by numerous wars as the two empires clashed over this border region. In the end, though, it was indeed the Seleucids that achieved victory, and from 198 until the Maccabean Revolt of the 160’s they held Judea. Now, during this time, there are three distinct phases through which the Judeans passed: the initial conquest, the Hellenization, and the Maccabean Revolt. Each of these, in turn, might fairly be considered in terms of both politics and culture.

At the very outset, the coming of the Seleucids seemed a rather welcome prospect for the Judeans and not without reason. Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities, cites a letter which he claims to have been sent by Antiochus III to Ptolemy, evidently the governor of Coele-Syria, which is here assumed to be a basically accurate account of Antiochus’ treatment of the Judeans. Therein it is recorded that Antiochus shall, first of all, provide the necessary resources for the completion of the temple sacrifices, as well as cover the costs for the restoration of the temple, which had presumably been significantly damaged over the preceding century (Antiquities XII, 138-141), in all very reminiscent of the Persian support of several centuries earlier. Indeed, the practice of supporting local cults was widely practiced by Antiochus, again much like the Persians, as it served his interests well not to interfere too much with his subjects. According to the letter, though, Antiochus’ basis for doing this is the friendliness with which the Judeans welcomed his conquest, offering him military aid in driving out Scopas’ army. In all probability, this was an instance of a people siding with the clear winner in the struggle over their territory, knowing that such support warrants good treatment, and opposition does not. Surely also, the Judeans would have known at least to a point of Antiochus’ dealings with other conquests.

Aid with the temple was not the only benefit that Josephus’ citation offers the Judeans. In addition to temple funding, Antiochus grants several tax immunities to “the senate, the priests, the scribes of the temple, and the temple singers,” as well as to any new immigrants in the near future “for three years,” and in addition to that, it reduces the annual tribute and restores any Judeans enslaved in the preceding conflict to their previous stati (Antiquities XII, 142-144). Clearly, then, the interest here is not merely the appeasement of a conquered territory; rather, it is the appeasement and strengthening of a conquered territory on a historically contested border. By exempting the leading local officials, Antiochus courts their continued favor, which in turn has a significant effect on the loyalty of the people as a whole. By exempting immigrants and restoring would-be slaves, Antiochus boosts the population and, resultantly, prosperity. It is one thing, after all, to hold such a territory on one’s own, but the task grows much simpler when the local population offers its support, and it is sufficiently potent to do so significantly. So not only did the Judeans play the situation well by favoring the Seleucid conquest, but they also found themselves in a natural position, geographically even, to obtain considerable favor.

At the time of the Seleucid conquest Simon Son of Onias, later called Simon the Just, was high priest, and he being high priest was the administrative head of Jerusalem. When Antiochus, then, began to support the activities of the temple, the apparent prosperity reflected very well on Simon. This is likely the cause of his almost grotesque veneration by the hand of Ben Sira, given at the end of a chronological praise of the great heroes of the Hebrew Scriptures, containing such eulogies as “Like the morning star among the clouds, like the full moon at the festal season” (Sirach 50:6). It is believed that such passages were composed not long after Simon’s death, Ben Sira being his contemporary. Of course, before this, Ben Sira attributes to Simon the restoration of Jerusalem as warrant for the praises that proceed, saying that he “in his life repaired the house, and in his time fortified the temple. He laid the foundations for the high double walls…In his days a water cistern was dug…He considered how to save his people from ruin and fortified the city…” (Sirach 50:1-4). Simon, by Ben Sira’s interpretation, was the fulfillment of the latter’s ideal of a wise and virtuous, priestly ruler for the Judean people, Ben Sira himself being something of a philosopher-teacher and an obvious devotee of the canonical Book of Proverbs. It is significant, then, that he makes no mention of any earthly authority besides Simon, as such would be contrary to his purpose in venerating him. It would be far preferable to see this turn of events as a show of Judean autonomy and strength, according to the ideal, but it still winds up with an unwitting thankfulness toward the Seleucids, if extrapolated beyond the author’s intent.

A full denunciation of these circumstances occurs in the Book of Daniel, recorded as prophesy:

In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. (Daniel 11:14-16)

Not only does this immediately denounce any Jew supporting Antiochus, evidently referring specifically to those living in Egypt, but it also paints a rather unpleasant picture of the nature of Antiochus’ rule over Judea, the Beautiful Land. Explicitly stating the power to destroy would seem to imply that such a power might feasibly be employed, after all. Where Ben Sira praises Simon and ignores the Seleucids, then, the Book of Daniel strikes against both the Seleucids and those cooperating with the Seleucids, which would certainly include Simon, if indeed he utilized Seleucid support in restoring Jerusalem, which is without question.

As it turned out, though, mistrust of the Seleucids was not ill-placed, for in 190 BC Antiochus would be defeated at Magnesia by the Roman commander Lucius Cornelius Scipio, as the Book of Daniel records notes, “Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him” (Daniel 11:18). This was crushing for the Seleucids, who were all of a sudden bearing a colossal debt to Rome. As far as the matter at hand goes, this meant that there would be no more Seleucid funding for the operations in Jerusalem, and certainly there would be no more tax breaks or the like. In fact, it set in motion quite the opposite throughout the empire, Judea being no exception, and thus began the decline of the Seleucid Empire.

The first major sign of trouble arose when, under Seleucus IV, the official Heliodoros was sent to remove the wealth from the temple in Jerusalem (II Maccabees 3:7). The text then proceeds to lament the abhorrent depravity entailed in such an act, both as thievery and a violation of the temple’s sanctity (II Maccabees 3:12). The event is also mentioned rather matter-of-factly in the Book of Daniel: “His [Antiochus III’s] successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor…” (Daniel 11:20). Obviously, there are two distinct facts; that the Seleucids were in need of money, and that they were not necessarily interested in obtaining it in a respectable manner. In fact, the looting of temples would become commonplace at this time, Antiochus III being killed in the midst of just such an endeavor. What is more, the attempt as given in II Maccabees is thwarted not by any resistance on the part of the Jews, but rather by direct intervention from the Deity: “For there appeared…a magnificently caparisoned horse, with a rider of frightening mien; it rushed furiously at Heliodorus and struck him with his front hoofs. Its rider was seen to have armor and weapons of gold” (II Maccabees 3:25). After this, two presumably angelic beings proceeded to beat upon Heliodorus. Interestingly, as it shall be seen, II Maccabees very clearly marks this as the beginning of the takeover of the Hellenists, who it recalls as being above all corrupt and unscrupulous individuals, certainly creatures formed from the dire straits of the Seleucids. When God himself strikes against this trend from its very beginning, how could Hellenistic practice be anything but a moral abomination, the very antithesis of all things Jewish? So it is in II Maccabees.

Jason was the first of these Hellenizers, who under Antiochus IV “obtained the high priesthood by corruption, promising the king at an interview three hundred sixty talents of silver, and from another source of revenue eighty talents” (II Maccbees 4:7-8). Far more importantly, though, it was under Jason that those in power began to consciously impose Greek culture upon the Jerusalemites. Famously, Jason “took delight in establishing a gymnasium right under the citadel, and he introduced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat” (II Maccabees 4:12). This had to be a true abomination in the eyes of II Maccabees’ author, one with a vested interest in Judean autonomy and one who is clearly willing to paint those advancing “Judaism” against “Hellenism,” words whose first known occurrence is in the text of II Maccabees, as heroically as possible. The gymnasium, after all, was a true symbol of Greek culture, and an excellent vehicle for the dissemination thereof, especially among the elite population that would actually put it to use. Moreover, all the while Jason maintained the procedure of a truly Hellenistic ruler, as opposed to a high priesthood, welcoming Antiochus IV to Jerusalem with great pomp (II Maccabees 4:22) while the priests were “despising the sanctuary and neglecting the sacrifices” (II Maccabees 4:14). In II Maccabees, Jason is as much, if not more, an anti-Judaizer as he is a Hellenizer, emphasizing that Hellenism as the negation of Judaism.

Menelaus followed Jason as high priest, obtaining the office by “outbidding Jason by three hundred talents of silver” (II Maccabees 4:24), and he is by all accounts portrayed as being even worse than his predecessor. Immorality and Hellenization do go together, after all. Having been placed in the high priestly office, he proceeded then not to actually pay out the promised bribe (II Maccabees 4:28), which could not have won him any favor with Antiochus. That, however, was far from enough villainy for Menelaus, for further caused universal agitation with the murder of the former high priest, Onias, an act carried out only by Menelaus’ urging, II Maccabees says. Onias, it is written, discovered that Menelaus had been selling “gold vessels of the temple” and offering others to Andronicus, Antiochus’ deputy (II Maccabees 4:31-32). The text notes that “for this reason not only Jews, but many also of other nations, were grieved and displeased at the unjust murder of the man” (II Maccabees 4:35), so he was loathed not only by Jews but also by many Greeks. Of course, it could also be that he was a more moderate character, failing to fulfill the hopes of both extremes. II Maccabees shows that he certainly was not working in any way to advance the goals of the Judaizers, but any real advancement of a Hellenistic program is also conspicuously absent, where such acts as the construction of the gymnasium were so prominent under Jason.

All the same, it is to this universal hatred that II Maccabees attributes Antiochus IV’s action against Menelaus’ Jerusalem, and then against Jerusalem in general, in the form of the very important anti-Jewish decrees. Having established his villainy, though, the text quickly places Menelaus in league with Antiochus in opposition of Judaism in relation to the pillage of the temple in 169 BC, “…guided by Menelaus, who had become a traitor to both the laws and his country” (II Maccabees 5:15), the earlier attempt at which by Heliodorus marking the beginning of the active Hellenization of the Jews, to which the text compares the former event. It is noted that II Maccabees places this event after Antiochus’ second campaign in Egypt in 168 BC, but I Maccabees and Daniel 11:28 place it after the first in 169 BC. The latter is assumed, making negligible analytical difference. Now, Antiochus came to Jerusalem while returning from his first campaign in Egypt, so he had an army behind him (I Maccabees 1:20). Recalling then that Menelaus had not paid the promised price for the high priesthood, it is no wonder that he would be completely willing to give Antiochus payment in the form of plunder at this time. Thus once again it was not that Menelaus was in conscious collaboration with the Hellenistic powers, it was just that they were the source of his power, and he could not very well defy them. After all, if Hellenistic principles outweighed Menelaus’ mere desire for power, why oust Jason?

II Maccabees concludes its treatment of the time before Antiochus’ decrees with Jason’s attempt at regaining the high priesthood by military force, to which it attributes the decrees. “When a false rumor arose,” II Maccabees says, “that Antiochus was dead, Jason took no fewer than a thousand men and suddenly made an assault on the city,” shedding much blood in the process, and failing in the end (II Maccabees 5:5-7). It is this eruption of violence that provoked Antiochus to take military action against the Jews, partly perhaps because his campaigning in Egypt had been stopped by the coercion of the Romans: “At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant” (Daniel 11:29-30). It was this act of Jason the Hellenizer that brought the wrath of the Hellenistic emperor upon Jerusalem. Judaism was in no way faulted in this fate; rather, the Jews’ allowance of Hellenistic influence allowed the inherent evils of Hellenism to play freely upon them. On this II Maccabees and Daniel are in agreement.

So began the first known persecution of a people organized by the hands of a government, here summarized in the Book of Daniel:

He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him. (Daniel 11:30-31)

It began when the mercenary captain Apollonius was sent to Jerusalem with orders to slaughter the men and collect the women and children to be sold as slaves, feigning peaceful intent until the Sabbath day, at which point he struck (II Maccabees 24-26). Following this, they allied themselves with “renegades,” Hellenized Jews of apparent significance, and fortified themselves within the “citadel,” whose precise location is now uncertain (I Maccabees 1:33-34). Having secured this military occupation, the subjugation of Jewish identity was initiated by dedicating the temple to Zeus (II Maccabees 6:2), forbidding traditional offerings at the temple, outlawing the Sabbath and festivals, “defil[ing] the sanctuary and the priests,” erecting shrines and altars to idols, “sacrific[ing] swine and other unclean animals,” and banning the continued practice of circumcision (I Maccabees 1:45-48). Furthermore, according to I Maccabees 1:54, the Seleucids “erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering,” after aforementioned the allusion in Daniel. Most importantly of all, though, these decrees were enforced by pain of death (I Maccabees 1:50).

This led both to the martyrdoms, something not much seen in preceding Jewish history or indeed in history in general. In the course of the persecution, many fled into the wilderness. One particular group is noted to have been approached and attacked on the Sabbath day, offering no resistance (I Maccabees 2:29-38). This is particular affront to Jewish culture, for it is the very exploitation of tradition against the continuation thereof. The same applies to the women whose sons were circumcised according to the Law, but contrary to Antiochus’ decrees. These were “publically paraded…around the city, with their babies hanging at their breasts, and then hurled…down headlong from the wall” (II Maccabees 6:10). The martyrdom accounts of Eleazar and of the mother and her seven sons echo the same chord of dying for the preservation of tradition, that is, for the sake of the survival of Judaism itself. In the case of Eleazar, he is recorded to have said that by dying he would “leave to the young a noble example of how to die a good death willingly and nobly for the revered and holy laws” (II Maccabees 6:28). It is also notable that the mother of the seven brothers “encouraged each of them in the language of their ancestors” (II Maccabees 7:21) as they faced torture and death. Notably, these events also brought the theological point of resurrection into far greater prominence than ever before. That said, the attitudes of these martyrs in fight for Judaism set up the principles of the Maccabean Revolt that would soon follow, and indeed this ought to be taken as a significant narrative point in II Maccabees, and certainly not one removed from reality, either.

The Maccabean Revolt itself arose in 167 BC when Mattathias, a patriarchal figure whose sons would lead the revolt, not least among them Judas Maccabeus, refused to endorse the pagan practices commanded by Antiochus and with narrative dramatics slew a Jew who meant to offer an impure sacrifice on the alter in the town of Modein (I Maccabees 2:17-24). Thus the revolt began with zeal for the law and for the Judaism founded in it. Perhaps best representative of the aims of the revolt would be Judas’ supposed speech before the battle at Emmaus, invoking “how our ancestors were saved at the Red Sea, when Pharaoh with his forces pursued them,” and “the covenant with our ancestors” (I Maccabees 4:9-10). Against Lysias at Beth-zur, he does much the same, this time recalling the military prowess of David and Jonathan (I Maccabees 4:30). By these allusions, the purpose of the revolt, the defense of traditional Judaism and the covenant on which it stands, is plainly evident. Thus the Maccabean Revolt, in fact one of many local revolts that periodically took place throughout the Seleucid Empire, is important not just because it ended in success, but because of the deeply rooted traditions of its supporters. If Antiochus had intended in his decrees to undermine Judaism, thereby assimilating Judea, it was a sore underestimation of Judaism’s strength.

In 164 BC, the temple was restored. Demonstrative of the fulfilled aims of the revolt, as the author of I Maccabees should surely take delight in pointing out, is the institution of a new festival, for which “the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth month of Chislev” (I Maccabees 4:59), and this, of course, is Hanukkah. Traditionally, the state of the temple had been and still is highly definitive in the periodization of the Jews’ history, so this restoration should have struck a significant chord with the Jews, whose sound would be echoed each year upon the festival. The Hasmoneans, as these rulers would be called, led the revolt on the basis of tradition, and they secured their position by the same means, evidently fairly well, as they would last until Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem a century later. The irony, of course, is that the Hasmonean dynasty was not the least bit traditional as far as a Judean government goes, though it seems they were enough aware of this to play upon tradition with great skill. Though the fighting was far from over and the revolt’s darkest day not yet come, certainly they were right about the beginning of a new, independent era for the Jews, even if it would end as it did.

In review, Judea came under Seleucid rule after a century of Ptolemaic hegemony, and they seem to have been quite accepting of the new circumstances, especially in light of the benefits the Seleucids offered them in no unusual practice. Of course, none of this lasted, and the bad fortunes of the Seleucid Empire against the Romans began their decline, and Judea felt this considerably. In the meanwhile, pushes for Hellenistic reform both from within and without Judea began to make progress, especially under the high priesthood of Jason, a man given away by his very name. As strife rose within Judea, the Seleucids seem to have thought it best to impose control upon these unruly subjects, and thus the infamous decrees, and thus both the nonviolent and violent resistance of the martyrs and the Maccabean Revolt. These clashes and syntheses of Hellenism and Judaism, terms truly forged from this Seleucid period were the great forces in Judea at the time. Just as Judea’s sights expanded to the wider Hellenistic world, the Hellenistic world caught a glimpse of the wider Mediterranean world, and of the Romans who would make it their dominion. And thus it might also be said, that in a perfectly general fashion, this period could be well interpreted as a duel between interiority and exteriority, and in Judea we see just how strongly interiority can retain its grasp.

Bibliography

Apocrypha: I Maccabees, II Maccabees, Sirach. New Revised Standard Version. HarperCollins, San Fransisco: 2006.
Bible: Daniel. New International Version. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1984.
Josephus, Ralph Marcus tr. Jewish Antiquities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1987.