Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/439

 ISRAEL 423 iiathan comes ? I. friend of the king &quot; ; in gratitude for which Jonathan went over to his side (152). He remained loyal, although Demetrius now made larger offers ; he was justified by the event, for Demetrius I. had the worst of it and was slain (150). The victorious Balas heaped honours upon Jonathan, who maintained his fidelity, and fought success fully in his interests when in 147 Demetrius II., the son of Demetrius I., challenged a conflict. The high priest was unable indeed to prevent the downfall of Alexander in 1 45 ; but Demetrius II., won by presents, far from showing any hostility, confirmed htm in his position in consideration of a tribute of 300 talents. Jonathan was grateful to the king, as he showed by going with 3000 men to his aid against the insurgent Antiochenes. But when the latter drew back from his promise to withdraw the garrison from Acra, he went over to the side of Trypho, who had set up a son of Alexander Balas (Antiochus) as a rival. In the war which he now waged as Seleucid strategus against Demetrius he succeeded in subduing almost the whole of Palestine. Meanwhile his brother Simon remained behind in Jud-ea, mastered the fortress of Bethsur, and resumed with great energy ,the siege of Acra. All this was done in the names of Antiochus and Trypho, but really of course in the interests of the Jews themselves. There were concluded also treaties with the Romans and Lacedaemonians, certainly not to the advantage of the Syrians. Trypho sought now to get rid of the man whom he him self had made so powerful. He treacherously seized and imprisoned Jonathan in Ptolemais, and meditated an attack upon the leaderless country. But on the frontier Simon, the last remaining son of Mattathias, met him in force. All Trypho s efforts to break through proved futile : after skirting all Judaea from west to south, without being able to get clear of Simon, hs at last withdrew to Penea with out having accomplished anything. On the person of Jonathan, whom he caused to be executed, he vented the spleen he felt on the discovery that the cause for which that prince had fought was able to gain the victory even when deprived of his help. Simon in point of fact was Jonathan s equal as a soldier and his superior as a ruler. He secured his frontier by means of fortresses, made him self master of Acra (141), and understood how to enable the people in time of peace to reap the advantages that result from successful war; agriculture, industry, and commerce (from the haven of Joppa) began to flourish vigorously. In grateful recognition of his services the high-priesthood and the ethnarchy were bestowed upon him as hereditary possessions by a solemn assembly of the people, &quot; until a trustworthy prophet should arise.&quot; 13. Nominally the Seleucidae still continued to possess the suzerainty. Simon naturally had detached himself from Trypho and turned to Demetrius IL, who confirmed him in his position, remitted all arrears of tribute, and waived his rights for the future (142). The friendship of Demetrius II. and of his successor Antiochus Sidetes with Simon, however, lasted only as long as Trypho still remained in the way. But, he once removed, Sidetes altered his policy. He demanded of Simon the surrender of Joppa, Gazara, and other towns, besides the citadel of Jerusalem, as well as payment of all tribute resting due. The refusal of these demands led to war, which in its earlier stages was carried on with success, but the scales were tamed after the murder of Simon when Sidetes in person took the field against John Hyrcanus, Simon s son and successor. Jerusalem capitulated ; in the negotiations for peace the surrender of all the external possessions of the Jews was insisted upon ; the suzerainty of the Syrians became once more a reality (135). But in 130 the power ful Antiochus Sidetes fell in an expedition against the Parthians, and the complications anew arising in reference to the succession to the Syrian throne placed Hyrcanus in a position to recover what he had lost and to make new acquisitions. He subjugated Samaria and Idumaea, com pelling the inhabitants of the latter to accept circumcision. Like his predecessors he too sought to secure the favour of the Romans, but derived no greater benefit from the effort than they had done. After a prosperous reign of thirty years he died in 105. By Josephus he is represented as a pattern of all that a pious prince ought to be ; by the rabbins as representing a splendid high-priesthood. The darkness of the succeeding age lent a brighter colour to his image. The external splendour of the Hasmonsean kingdom did not at once die away, the downfall of the Seleucidse, which was its negative condition, being also a slow affair. Judah Aristobulus, the son of Hyrcanus, who reigned for only one year, was the first to assume the Greek title of royalty ; Ituraea was subdued by him, and circumcision forced upon the inhabitants. His brother Jonathan (Jannasus) Alexander Alexander (104-79), in a series of continual wars, which Jannoeus. were never very prosperous, nevertheless succeeded in adding the whole coast of Philistia (Gaza) as well as a great portion of Perasa to his hereditary dominions. 1 But the external enlargement of the structure was secured at the cost of its internal consistency. From the time when Jonathan, the son of Mattathias, Pharisee^ began to carry on the struggle, no longer for the cause of an(i Sad- God but for his own interests, the scribes and the Asidaaans, ducee;3&amp;gt; as we have seen, had withdrawn themselves from the party of the Maccabees. There can be no doubt that from their legal standpoint they were perfectly right in contenting themselves, as they did, with the attainment of religious liberty, and in accepting Alcimus. The Hasmonaoans had no hereditary right to the high-priesthood, and their politics, which aimed at the establishment of a national monarchy, were contrary to the whole spirit and essence of the second theocracy. The presupposition of that theocracy was foreign domination ; in no other way could its sacred i.e., clerical character be maintained. God and the law could not but be forced into the background if a war like kingdom, retaining indeed the forms of a hierocracy, but really violating its spirit at every point, should ever grow out of a mere pious community. Above all, how could the scribes hope to retain their importance if temple and synagogue were cast into the shade by politics and clash of arms 1 But under the first great Hasmonaeans the zealots for the law were unable to force their way to the front ; the enthusiasm of the people was too strong for them ; they had nothing for it but to keep themselves out of the current and refuse to be swept along by it. Even under Hyrcanus, however, they gained more prominence, and under Jannaeus their influence upon popular opinion was paramount. For under the last-named the secularization of the hierocracy no longer presented any attractive aspects; it was wholly repellent. It was looked upon as a revolting anomaly that the king, who was usually in the field with his army, should once and again assume the sacred mantle in order to perform the sacrifice on some high festival, and that Jiis officers, profane persons as they were, should at the same time be holders of the highest spiritual offices. The danger which in all this threatened &quot; the idea of Judaism &quot; could not in these circumstances escape the observation of even the common people ; for this idea was God and the law, not any earthly fatherland. The masses accordingly ranged themselves with ever-growing unanimity on the side of the 1 A number of half-independent towns and communes lay as tempt ing subjects of dispute between the Seleucidse, the Nabathaeans or Arabs of Petra, and the Jews. The background was occupied by the Parthians and the Romans.