Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/436

 420 ISRAEL reality of this relation felt that it became the foundation upon which the hope of immortality was first based, although belief in the doctrine of retribution was what chiefly made it popular. This inner religiosity exercised a modifying influence upon worship even; the channel through which it was possible to import into it the expression of all kinds of feeling which were individual in their origin was the temple service of song, which was elaborated at this period, and soon reached an importance much higher than that of the sacri6ces and other opera operanda. Universal As religion grew more individualistic, it also became religion, more universal ; for developed monotheism in any case its restriction to one particular nation was only casual and provisional. It is very noteworthy that in the book of Job, to which it is impossible to assign a date previous to the exile, 1 a religious problem is discussed between men of Uz, Aram, and Edom precisely as if they had been Jews. In the Hokmah, which flourished at that time in Judah as well as in Edom, religion almost entirely abandoned the ground of nationality, and became a kind of philosophy. Through the Hokmah doubt also began to assert a place for itself even within the sphere of religion. The influence of Parsism upon Judaism was not so great as is usually assumed. It can hardly have affected the doctrine of the resurrection, although it may have influenced the development of angelology. Satan has some relation to old Hebrew conceptions (1 Kings xxii.), but neverthe less is essentially the product of Zoroastrian dualism. 11. Palestine fell into Alexander s possession in 332; after his death it had an ample share of the troubles arising out of the partition of his inheritance. In 320 it was seized The by Ptolemy I, who on a sabbath day took Jerusalem ; but Ptolemies. j n 3^5 h e ^ a( j j gj ve way before Antigonus. Even before the battle of Ipsus, however, he recovered possession once more, and for a century thereafter southern Syria continued to belong to the Egyptian crown, although the Seleucidae more than once sought to wrench it away. In the priestly dynasty during the period of the Ptolemies, Onias I. ben Jaddua was succeeded by his son Simon I., after whom again came first his brothers Eleazar and Manasseh, and next his son Onias II. ; the last-named was in his turn followed by his son Simon II., whose praises are sung by the son of Sirach (xlix. 14-16). At the side of the high priest stood the gerusia of the town of Jerusalem, as a council of state, including the higher ranks of the priesthood. The new sovereign power was at once stronger and juster than the Persian, at least unde_r the earlier Ptolemies ; the power of the national government increased ; to it was entrusted the business of raising the tribute. As a consequence of the revolutionary changes which had taken place in the conditions of the whole East, the The Jewish dispersion (diaspora) began vigorously to spread, disper- jt dated its beginning indeed from an earlier period,: from the time when the Jews had lost their land and kingdom, but yet, thanks to their religion, could not part with their nationality. They did not by any means all return from Babylon ; perhaps the majority perma nently settled abroad. The successors of Alexander (diadochi) fully appreciated this international element, and used it as a link between their barbarian and Hellenic populations. Everywhere they encouraged the settlement 1 The arguments against so early a date are such as these: the occurrence of Satan ; the occurrence of such words as ?2p D&quot;lp. D&quot;K*X, JO* ( = affliction), NO ( = Aram. NB) ; the relation between chap. iii. and Jer. xx. 14 sqq. For that Jeremiah in that cry of despair should have declaimed in imitation of a poetic model is hard to believe. Job iii. is a product of art; Jer. xx. is nature. For the age of the Hokmah the book of Ecclesiasticus is decisive ; it failed to become canonical because its author continued to be known. of Jews, in Asia Minor, in Syria, and especially in Egypt. Alongside of the Palestinian there arose a Hellenistic Juda ism which had its metropolis in Alexandria. Here, under Ptolemy I. and II., the To rah had already been translated into Greek, and around this sprung up a Jewish-Greek literature which soon became very extensive. At the court and in the army of the Ptolemies many Jews rose to prominent positions ; everywhere they received the pre ference over, and everywhere they in consequence earned the hatred of, the indigenous population. After the death of Ptolemy IV. (205) Antiochus III. attained the object towards which he and his predecessors had long been vainly striving ; after a war protracted with varying success through several years, he succeeded at last in incorporating Palestine with the kingdom of the Seleucicbe. The Jews took his side, less perhaps because TheS they had become disgusted with the really sadly degenerate c lf ^ x - Egyptian rule, than because they had foreseen the issue of the contest, and preferred to attach themselves voluntarily to the winning side. In grateful acknowledgment, Antiochus confirmed and enlarged certain privileges of the &quot;holy camp,&quot; i.e., of Jerusalem (Joseph,, Ant., xii. 3, 3). It soon, however, became manifest that the Jews had made but a poor bargain in this exchange. Three years after his defeat at Magnesia, Antiochus III. died (187), leaving to his son Seleucus IV. an immense burden of debt, which he had incurred by his unprosperous Roman war. Seleucus, in his straits, could not afford to be over scrupulous in appropriating money where it was to be found ; he did not need to be twice told that the wealth of the temple at Jerusalem was out of all proportion to the expenses of the sacrificial service. The sacred treasure accordingly made the narrowest possible escape from being plundered ; Heliodorus, who had been charged by the king to seize it, was deterred at the last moment by a heavenly vision. But the Jews derived no permanent advantage from this. It was a priest of rank, Simon by name, who had called The ths attention of the king to the temple treasure ; his motive P ries t had been spite against the high priest Onias III., the son ans and successor of Simon II. The circumstance is one indi cation of a melancholy process of disintegration that was at that time going on within the hierocracy. The high- priesthood, although there were exceptional cases, such as that of Simon II. , was regarded less as a sacred office than as a profitable princedom ; within the ranks of the priestly nobility arose envious and jealous factions; personal advancement was sought by means of the favour of the overlord, who had something to say in the making of appointments. A collateral branch of the ruling family, that of the children of Tobias, had by means of the ill- gotten wealth of Joseph bsn Tobias attained to a position of ascendency, and competed in point of power with the high priest himself. It appears that the above-mentioned Simon, and his still more scandalous brother Menelaus, also belonged to the Tobiadte, and, relying upon the support of their powerful party (Jos., Ant., xii. 5, I), cherished the purpose of securing the high-priesthood by the aid of the Syrian king. The failure of the mission of Heliodorus was attributed by Simon to a piece of trickery on the part of Onias the high priest, who accordingly found himself called upon to make his own justification at court and to expose the intrigues of his adversary. Meanwhile Seleucus IV. died of poison (175), and Antiochus IV. Epiphanes did not confirm Onias in his dignity, but detained him in Antioch while he made over the office to his brother Jason, who had offered a higher rent. Possibly the Tobiadse also had something to do with this arrangement ; at all events Menelaus was at the outset the right hand of the new high