[ p. 34 ]
After the violent death of Simon, his son John Hyrcanus who had been governor of Gazara was nominated his successor. Ptolemy who had murdered John’s father and the two brothers attempted to seize John also. But Hyrcanus had been informed of this intention and had proceeded at once to Jerusalem and fortified himself there. Ptolemy shut himself up in the fortress of Dok near Jericho. His only safeguard against the vengeance of Hyrcanus was the fact that he held the mother of Hyrcanus as prisoner and threatened to kill her if Hyrcanus made any attack. Ptolemy eventually made his escape to Egypt.
Hyrcanus was left in possession of Judea, but was forced to meet a Syrian invasion at the very outset. Antiochus VII laid siege to Jerusalem. A Jewish embassy had gone to Rome to ask for the restoration of the towns which Syria had taken from Judea. It was probably due to fear of Rome that Antiochus was persuaded to make a treaty with Hyrcanus. The terms of the agreement were that the Jews should be subject to regular tribute, should give hostages and pay an indemnity of five hundred talents. The walls of Jerusalem were overthrown and Antiochus withdrew.
All the early years of the reign of Hyrcanus are additional testimony to the fact that Judea could hold its independence only when Roman interference or Syrian civil war relieved the immediate pressure upon the Jews. The little Jewish state surely suffered the pangs of Tantalus who, according to an old legend, was condemned to stand in water up to his chin and [ p. 35 ] yet to continually parch and waste away because of a consuming thirst.
Hyrcanus’ subjection to the rule of Antiochus is revealed by the fact that he was required to take part in the Syrian expedition against the Parthians (129 B.C.). He seems, however, to have escaped the disaster which came upon Antiochus in that campaign. The death of Antiochus (128 B.C.) gave a new turn to the strife between the claimants for the Syrian throne. Demetrius II, now released by the Parthians, looked to Hyrcanus for aid.
Plyrcanus improved the opportunity to extend his power in the districts round about Judea. It required six months to subdue Madaba. Then he turned his attention to Samaria, capturing Shechem and Mount Gerizim and destroying the temple. Then he marched against Idumea in the south. There, he enforced the Jewish law, including circumcision, and the Idumeans were henceforth regarded as at least half Jews. Herod the Great, who later became king of Judea and who was ruling at the time of Jesus’ birth, was an Idumean.
A discussion of the complexities of the civil war in Syria is not germane to our purpose. The attention of Syria, however, was so taken up with its own troubles that the Jews were given a respite and the reign of Hyrcanus was regarded by Josephus, the historian, as a very prosperous one. The taxes levied upon Judea were not paid after the death of Antiochus in 128 B.C. The city of Samaria, which held out long after Shechem had surrendered, appealed to Syria for assistance, but it did not avail much. Samaria fell after a siege of one year.
It is to be regretted that Josephus has not given us a more detailed record of the time of Hyrcanus. It was a period of rapid growth of power. Hyrcanus called himself high priest, as we learn from his coins. He was the first Jewish ruler who placed his own name upon his coins. The inscription reads as follows: “John the high priest, head of the congregation of the Jews.” Politically the principal significance of his reign is the [ p. 36 ] extension of Jewish rule to the east and north and south, as well as the freedom from tribute to Syria.
The increasing gap between the Maccabean house and the party of the Pharisees is noteworthy. Pharisees were loyal observers of the Mosaic law. The uprising of Mattathias and his sons was in line with this reverence for the law. The Maccabees were at one with the Pharisees until the Maccabean leaders began to have political aspirations. Then mutual suspicion and hostility arose. The attitude which at first brought the Maccabees and the religiously-minded Pharisees together gradually changed. The gossip which questioned the paternity of Hyrcanus (Josephus, Antiquities XIII: x: 5-6) had its real historical background in the strained relationship growing up between the Pharisees and Hyrcanus. The political ambitions of the latter were drawing him slowly into league with the more politically-minded and aristocratic Sadducees. For the next forty years this strife between Pharisee and Sadducee was destined to become more and more acute.
In his will Hyrcanus bequeathed the high-priesthood to his oldest son, Aristobulus. The other affairs of the government he left to his wife. The high-priesthood could not be held by a woman. Aristobulus did not see the justice of this arrangement. He proceeded to imprison his mother and three brothers. Only Antigonus was left at liberty. To him he gave a part in the government. This provided an opportunity for ambitious schemers to breed suspicion between the brothers. Aristobulus sent a message to Antigonus to come to him unarmed. The enemies of Antigonus changed the message to read that he should appear clad in his best armor. Aristobulus gave orders that if Antigonus should come armed he should be slain. Antigonus put on his armor and as he approached the palace was put to death by the guards.
Josephus tells us that the shortness of the reign of Aristobulus [ p. 37 ] was due in large measure to a broken heart and to discouragement over his family relations. Probably the cruel stories about him had their source in inventions of the Pharisees, who became more and more estranged from him.
Aristobulus favored Greek culture. He was called a friend of the Greeks. His relations with the Sadducees were consequently very close and sympathetic. It is very probable, too, that Josephus is correct in saying that he assumed the title of king (Josephus, Antiquities XIII: n: i), although Strabo ( Geography XVI: 40) says that Alexander, his successor, was the first king. It is probable that Strabo overlooks the reign of Aristobulus because of its shortness. Aristobulus was the first to assume the purely political position which Alexander, his successor, adopted.
After the death of Aristobulus, his widow, Alexandra, came into power. The brothers of Aristobulus were liberated from their imprisonment. The oldest one, Alexander Jannjeus, married Alexandra and became king and high priest. His reign, although a stormy one, brought prosperous times to political Judaism. By continuous conquests he extended the boundaries of Judea until they almost reached those of King David’s empire.
He proceeded first against Ptolemais. He would have taken the city had not the inhabitants called Ptolemy the Egyptian to their aid. Ptolemy had been driven out of Egypt by his mother, Cleopatra, and was glad of an opportunity to increase his power. At his approach Alexander abandoned his attempt to take Ptolemais and made a treaty. The treaty was for a short time observed on both sides, but soon Alexander secretly called Cleopatra to his aid. Before Cleopatra could come Ptolemy learned of the treachery and launched an active campaign of destruction. The army of Ptolemy and the army of Alexander met at the Jordan River at “Asophon.” The Egyptian army, by a concentrated attack on a part of Alexander’s army, threw [ p. 38 ] the Jews into confusion. The Egyptians were merciless in following up their advantage. Josephus says that thirty thousand were slain.
“After this victory Ptolemy overran all the country” (Josephus, Antiquities XIII: 12: 6). Cleopatra finally arrived and drove him out. She planned to reduce the Jews to subjection, but her Jewish general advised her to make peace with Alexander.
Alexander then made expeditions into the countries surrounding Judea to extend and strengthen his domain. He crossed the Jordan and captured Gadara (Cf. Lk. 8: 26) and Amathus north of the Jabbok. Next he invaded the Philistine plain. He took Raphia, Anthedan, and Gaza; the last-named city he subdued in the year 96 B.C., after a siege of at least a year.
Alexander’s troubles at home then occupied his whole attention. Civil war broke out which lasted for six years and claimed at least fifty thousand Jews as victims. The origin of this civil strife lay in the antagonism between the king and the Pharisees. A military hero was hardly temperamentally fitted for the sacerdotal routine which was involved in discharging the office of high priest. On one occasion Alexander was so crude in the performance of his sacred duties that the Jews in anger threw at him the citrons or lemons which they were carrying as festal emblems. This so angered Alexander that he ordered his hired troops to massacre the Jews. Six thousand of them were slain. It is difficult to measure the revulsion which such a display of wanton cruelty aroused in the minds of the Jewish people. Massacre had its horrors, but when pious Jews, insisting on exact observations of their religious convictions, were hewn down by hired foreigners, the effect upon national and religious pride was acute and lasting. In spite of Alexander’s strenuous endeavors to suppress the rebellion for six years, the bloodshed and revolt went on. At one time during the bloody struggle, when Alexander offered to make a treaty with the people on their own terms, they answered, “Our only condition of peace is that you kill yourself.”
[ p. 39 ]
The people appealed to Syria, and in 88 B.C. Demetrius brought his army into Palestine. The popular national party, with the aid of Demetrius, defeated Alexander and slew all his hired troops. Such a victory was more than the people expected. It took them by surprise. It soon dawned upon them that the defeat of the Maccabean leader meant subjection to Syria again. Six thousand Jews deserted the army of Demetrius and joined the army of Alexander. These reinforcements enabled Alexander to drive Demetrius from the land. The revolting Jews made their last stand at Bethome (an unidentified city). Alexander took the city and brought the leaders of the rebellion to Jerusalem. There he publicly crucified eight hundred of these Pharisee leaders. Other opponents of Alexander, horrified by the swift and terrible revenge of the Maccabean, fled from the city. During the rest of his reign civil war was unknown.
These events brought to its flood tide the antagonism between the Maccabees and the Pharisees. The Maccabean House, once the champion of religious observances, had now come to a place where its leader could order the wholesale crucifixion of those who desired only to defend the law and the temple sanctity. During the last years of his reign Alexander carried on with even greater ardor his military exploitations. He was continually engaged in war. When Antiochus XII marched through Palestine to attack the king of the Arabians, who was aiding Philip in his attempt to gain the Syrian throne, Alexander Jannseus tried to stop his progress by building a great wall across his path near Joppa. Antiochus marched through, nevertheless, burning and slaying as he went. But the Arabian king, Aretas, succeeded in slaying Antiochus, and as a result of the victory extended his domain as far as Damascus. From then on, it was not Syria, but Arabia, which was Judea’s most dangerous neighbor. Aretas soon attacked Alexander and forced him to retreat, but by making concessions Alexander induced him to withdraw again.
During the next three years (84-81 B.C.) Alexander was successful in his campaigns. He took Pella, Dium, Gerasa, and [ p. 40 ] many other fortresses. In 81, during his triumphal reception in Jerusalem, he was taken ill. Nevertheless, he carried on his military operations until 78. He died during the siege of Ragaba after pledging his wife to keep his death a secret until the city had fallen.
Alexander’s reign was the most martial and the least religious of all the Maccabean princes. He can hardly be called a Hellenist, although the growing Hellenism of the time is indicated by the coins which were inscribed not only in Hebrew, but also in Greek. While he opposed the Pharisees, nevertheless, he forced the countries which he conquered to accept Judaism.
Alexandra (Hebrew, Salome), left a widow by two successive monarchs, followed Alexander on the Maccabean throne. At his death he advised her to ally herself with the Pharisees. He came in the course of his long reign to realize their great power. So Alexandra named her oldest son, Hyrcanus, high priest. She was a very able woman and her reign marks the rise of the Pharisees to prominence and influence.
The counselors of King Alexander, at whose instigation the eight hundred Pharisees had been crucified, were put to death. This frightened all of the Sadducees, the enemies of the Pharisees, and at once they fled from Jerusalem. Save for the bloodshed involved, the days of Alexandra were indeed prosperous days for the Pharisees. They grew in power and in turn the temple with its worship grew in respect. The “half shekel” was levied upon all adult Jews throughout the world for the support of their national worship.
The Sadducees who had been driven out of Jerusalem took refuge in the outlying fortresses. They knew Alexandra could not live many years, so they waited their opportunity. After their taste of power under Alexander Jannaus they could not be content to see their Pharisaic opponents in possession of [ p. 41 ] national affairs. During her lifetime Alexandra preserved peace both within and without the borders of her kingdom. At the age of seventy-three she fell ill and it was clear that her death was near. The Sadducees immediately laid their plans to regain their lost authority.
After the death of Alexandra, her son, Hyrcanus II, became king as well as high priest. The Sadducean leaders soon had an opportunity to again come into power. Aristobulus, a younger son, aspired to the throne of Hyrcanus. He called the Sadducees to his aid, thus easily displaced Hyrcanus and induced him to retire shortly after the beginning of his reign. Aristobulus gained control of both civil and religious administrations. As the last of the Maccabean House, he ruled until the independence of Judea terminated with the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.c.
The remarkable rise of the house of Antipater is of interest at this juncture. Antipater, a man of great power and political insight, was governor of the Idumeans. Idumea had been conquered and judaized some fifty years earlier. Antipater now took up the cause of Hyrcanus. His motive may have been to gain the political control of Judea by expelling both the brothers. In any case, he realized that by taking the part of the retired Hyrcanus he could secure a place of influence in the government. He could use the weak-willed Hyrcanus for this purpose better than he could the strong-minded Aristobulus.
Thus Antipater persuaded Hyrcanus that his brother had seriously wronged him. He advised Hyrcanus to appeal to the Arabian king, Aretas, at Petra. He then convinced the Jews that it was illegal for the younger brother to rule over the older brother. Finally he persuaded Aretas that it would be of great advantage to him to aid Hyrcanus. The military genius and political scheming which were characteristic of the House [ p. 42 ] of Antipater and was specially prominent in his son, Herod the Great, is obvious in this threefold strategy.
Hyrcanus promised to give back to Aretas the Arabian territory which Alexander Jannaeus had taken. In return, Aretas made an alliance with Hyrcanus and furnished fifty thousand Arab leaders. With this help Hyrcanus was able to defeat Aristobulus and force him to take refuge in Jerusalem.
The interference of Rome kept Hyrcanus from consolidating his victory. The time had come at last when the treaties with Rome were to bear fruit. It was to be bitter fruit, for while the two brothers were’fighting over Jerusalem, Pompey was carrying on a campaign in Pontus and Armenia. He sent his deputy Scaurus to take possession of Syria (66 B.C.). Arriving in Syria and hearing of the civil strife in Judea, Scaurus marched at once against Jerusalem. Each of the brothers sent an embassy to him offering him large reward for aid against the other. Rome’s policy was always to help the weaker side. So Aristobulus and Scaurus formed an alliance and routed Hyrcanus and the Arab army. As a result, the supremacy of Rome in Judea, although not formally recognized, became an immediate fact.
In 63 B.C. Pompey himself came to Damascus. There he was met by three embassies. Hyrcanus asked that he be restored to the throne. Aristobulus requested recognition of his position as occupant of that throne. The third embassy was from the common people of Judea. It is instructive to hear from time to time of the “people” of the Jews. They were weary of political intrigue and of fighting kings. They wished to have peace and the opportunity for the observance of the rites of their religion. It was the same “people” who had followed the sons of Mattathias in their effort to gain peace and prosperity. They were the people who sought not earthly power, who strove not after political offices or great wealth, who had no desire to be clothed in purple as Jonathan had been clothed at Ptolemais. They were of the people who make the life of any [ p. 43 ] country, who bear the burden of the heat of the day. It was such people of the Jews that heard Jesus preach his message of a kingdom of brotherly love and promise peace and joy in the holy spirit.
The people asked Pompey to restore the old theocracy. They told him that they wished to be subject not to political and military fighters, but to God and to his priests. Pompey, however, postponed his decision until he could first complete his campaign against the Nabateans in which he was then engaged.
Pompey had kept Hyrcanus and Aristobulus with him. Aristobulus succeeded in escaping and in fortifying himself in Jerusalem against an attack. Pompey, finding that a real opposition had arisen, turned his attention seriously to Jerusalem. The people opened the gates to Pompey. Aristobulus personally surrendered, but the party of Aristobulus prepared for a long resistance, fortifying the temple and taking refuge there. Pompey was obliged to continue the siege for three months.
In the days of Mattathias, his followers had been slain because they would not defend themselves on the Sabbath. The Maccabees had decided that they would fight if attacked on the holy day. Now a new but similar situation arose. Pompey cleverly conceived the idea of using the Sabbath for throwing up earthworks against the wall of the temple and citadel. The Jews would not fight on the offensive on the Sabbath day. Pompey employed Sabbath after Sabbath through these months in bringing his mound and his engines of war closer and closer to the wall. He was not attacked on the Sabbath. At the end of three months the ground which he had piled against the wall was sufficiently high to enable him to make a charge and storm the citadel.
Josephus’ description of the spirit of the priests during this siege is a great tribute to the religious loyalty of the Jews. It is akin to the loyalty of the early Christians in the face of death.
[ p. 44 ]
When the Romans understood this thing, on those days which we call Sabbaths they threw nothing at the Jews, nor came to any pitched battle with them, but raised up their earthen banks, and brought their engines into such forwardness, that they might do execution the next days. And any one may hence learn how very great piety we exercise towards God, and the observance of His laws, since the priests were not at all hindered from their sacred ministrations, by their fear during this siege, but did still twice a day, in the morning, and about the ninth hour, offer their sacrifices on the altar; nor did they omit those sacrifices, if any melancholy accident happened, by the stones that were thrown among them; for although the city was taken in the third month, on the day of the feast, upon the hundred and seventy-ninth Olympiad, when Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero were consuls, and the enemy then fell upon them and cut the throats of those that were in the temple, yet could not those that offered the sacrifices be compelled to run away, neither by the fear that they were in of their own lives, nor by the number that were already slain, as thinking it better to suffer whatever came upon them, at their very altars, than to omit anything that their laws required of them. And that this is not a mere brag, or an encomium to manifest a degree of our piety that was false, but is the real truth, I appeal to those that have written the acts of Pompey; and among them to Strabo and Nicolaus (of Damascus); and besides these two, Titus Livius, the writer of the Roman history, who will bear witness to this thing” (Josephus, Antiquities XIV: 4: 3).
Pompey revealed his Roman nature in the severity with which he meted out his punishment. When he took the temple the slaughter of the Jews eclipsed any Syrian slaughter. Josephus says that twelve thousand were slain. When Pompey entered the temple and the Holy of Holies, however, he did not disturb the vast treasure collected there. He quickly made peace on the following conditions: Judea was to be subject to Rome. Hyrcanus was to have the title of ethnarch and high priest. [ p. 45 ] The territories which Alexander Jannseus had annexed to Judea were to be surrendered and Rome was to place over them her own local governors. Finally a Roman garrison was to remain in Jerusalem.
Pompey then withdrew from Palestine, taking with him Aristobulus and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus. Alexander escaped and later instituted a revolt in Judea. The others marched in Pompey’s triumphal procession in Rome.
From the conquest of Judea (63 B.C.) to the accession of Herod the Great (40 B.C.) Judea was in a continual state of revolt. The first rebellion against Roman rule was headed by the escaped Alexander, who raised an army of ten thousand. Gabinius, who had been left in charge by Pompey, easily put down the rebellion. The tremendous power of Roman military operations was overwhelming and impressive. The greatness of Roman military genius overcame with ease insurrections similar to those which had taxed the powers of Syria to the utmost. Gabinius then fortified the cities around Jerusalem and made his position as secure as possible.
No sooner had he done this than Aristobulus II, with his son Antigonus, arrived in Judea after escaping from Rome and set up a second revolt. This was again easily subdued. Aristobulus was recaptured and sent back to Rome. His son Antigonus was left at large.
While Gabinius was busy with a campaign in Egypt a third revolt started under Alexander, who proclaimed himself king of the Jews and declared Judea independent. Antipater won the favor of Rome by helping to quell the disturbance. He met Alexander at Mount Tabor and defeated him. Antipater soon was the trusted lieutenant of Gabinius. Gabinius came more and more to rely upon him and to use him in the government of Palestine.
In Rome, the triumvirate was formed: Caesar, Pompey, Crassus. [ p. 46 ] In the division of the empire among these three, Syria was assigned to Crassus. He came at once to the east on an expedition against Parthia. On his way he stopped at Jerusalem and took possession of the treasure in the temple. It is hard to say which angered the Jews the more, the entrance of Pompey into the Holy of Holies or the sacking of the treasure to the extent of 10,000 talents by Crassus. While Crassus was in Parthia he suffered defeat and was killed.
Meanwhile another revolt broke out in Judea. It was put down by Cassius, who defeated the Jews, executed their leader, and sold thirty thousand as slaves. Antipater’s influence is again noticeable. It was he who instigated the selling of so many Jews into slavery. Among these were many whom he considered dangerous to his own ambitions.
In the year 48 B.C. Caesar defeated Pompey at the battle of Pharsalia. Pompey fled to Egypt, where he was murdered. Antipater, who had supported Pompey, then made a quick shift in loyalty, assuring Caesar that he was his friend and would aid him. He made an expedition into Egypt and assisted Caesar materially in his war there. Caesar in return made him a Roman citizen, freed him from tribute, and recognized him as administrator under Hyrcanus the high priest. Many of the restrictions which had been placed upon the Jews were eased and made more bearable. This was the beginning of the favor which the Jews enjoyed under the Roman Empire. Caesar exempted them from military service. He allowed them to build the walls of Jerusalem and other cities. It is easy to understand why the Jews always thought of Caesar as a benefactor of their nation.
The most significant contemporary fact for the later history of Judea was the growing power of Antipater as the representative of Roman power in Judea. Antipater later made his son Phasaelus governor of Jerusalem, and Herod, his other son, governor of Galilee.
In 44 B.C. Caesar was assassinated. Antipater gave his allegiance at once to Cassius. In 43 B.C. Antipater was poisoned [ p. 47 ] and his son Herod succeeded him. About the same time Cassius was defeated by Antony. Then Herod started out to win the favor of Antony in true Idumean fashion.
At this point the Parthians, who were as yet unconquered by Roman armies, took advantage of the civil war in the Roman Empire to march westward to the Mediterranean. They overran Palestine, putting Phasaelus and Hyrcanus in prison and placing Antigonus the son of Aristobulus on the throne. Herod was compelled to flee and take refuge in the small impregnable rock fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea. But Herod, even against great odds, slowly gained favor with Rome and in Judea until he became finally one of the greatest figures of Jewish history.
Fairweather, Background of the Gospels , pp. 137-176.
Hastings, Bible Dictionary , Art. “Pharisees.”
Herford, The Pharisees (2nd ed.).
Kent, Biblical Geography and History , pp. 225-232.
Mathews, History of New Testament Times , pp. 59-107.
Moore, Judaism .
Riddle, Jesus and the Pharisees , pp. 1-13*
Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, Div. I, Vol. 1, pp. 272-325.