Part 15

VI. The Date of the Samaritan Schism. Josephus has given an unusually full and detailed account of the final schism between the Jews and Samaritans. He dates it under the high priesthood of Jaddua, who died shortly after the close of the Persian period. He implies, therefore, that the schism took place not long before 332 B.C., when Alexander the Great conquered Palestine. This is also in keeping with the fact that the Elephantine letter written in 411 B.C. knows nothing of a division between Jew and Gentile. The fact that at the time of the division the defecting priests took from Jerusalem the Pentateuch in its final form strongly confirms the conclusion (as Professor Torrey has pointed out in his _Ezra Studies_, pp. 324-330) that the Sanballat who ruled over the Samaritan community was not the contemporary of Nehemiah, but his grandson, who as an old man was ruling in Samaria at the time when Alexander conquered the East.

VII. The Nature and Consequences of the Schism. The schism between Jew and Samaritan was but a revival of the ancient rivalry which dated from the days when the Israelites had first settled in Canaan. The destruction of Samaria in 722 and the strong policy of Josiah had apparently led the Samaritans to look to the temple at Jerusalem as the chief sanctuary of the land. Shechem, however, and Mount Gerizim, which rises abruptly on the south, enjoyed traditions which dated from the earliest days of Israel's history. The sacred oak and altar at Shechem figured even in the patriarchal period. At the temple of Baal-berith in Shechem apparently both Canaanites and Israelites worshipped during the days of the settlement. According to the Samaritan version of Deuteronomy 24:4, Mount Gerizim, not Ebal or Jerusalem, was the place where the Israelites, after entering Canaan, were first commanded to rear an altar to Jehovah, and to inscribe upon it the laws given to Moses. Even in the Jewish version of Deuteronomy 11:29 and 27:12 Mount Gerizim is the mountain of blessing. In the light of these passages such commands as, for example, that in Deuteronomy 12:4, 5 would naturally be interpreted by the Samaritans as a reference to Gerizim rather than to Jerusalem. The destruction of the Judean capital and temple gave a great incentive to the revival of these Ancient traditions and a new prestige to the northern sanctuary. Until the close of the Persian period, however, the Samaritans evidently regarded Jerusalem as an important shrine and worshipped there side by side with the Jews. The ultimate schism appears to have come as a result of the growing jealousy with which certain of the Jews regarded foreign marriages. The marriage of Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua the high priest, to Nicaso, the daughter of Sanballat II, and his ultimate expulsion by the Jews blew into a flame the smouldering jealousy and opposition that had long existed between the two communities. As Josephus recounts, Sanballat, in order to satisfy his son-in-law, ceded lands and special rights to him and to the other Jerusalem priests, who were attracted by these offers, and ultimately built the famous temple on Mount Gerizim over which Manasseh and his descendants presided. In many ways the temple and service on Mount Gerizim appear to have been duplicates of those at Jerusalem. The same law was recognized by both communities; they shared together the same traditions and the same ideals; and yet their subsequent history illustrates the psychological truth that of all forms of hatred that between brothers is the most venomous and lasting. The bitter rivalry and growing hatred that resulted from this act are reflected even in the wisdom teachings of Ben Sira (B. Sir. 47:21, 24, 25). They also fundamentally color the writings of the Chronicler. The strenuous efforts that he made to discountenance the claims of the Samaritans reveals the intensity of the feud even in the Greek period (cf. II Chron. 11:13-16). His zeal in trying to prove that the rebuilders of the Jerusalem temple were of Jewish extraction was doubtless inspired by the Samaritan charge that during the Babylonian and Persian periods they had freely intermarried with the heathen population of the land. He was compelled to admit that even the high priestly families had been guilty of this sin, but asserted that the foreign wives were later divorced or else the offenders were expelled from Jerusalem. In the light of the oldest records it appears that the Samaritans were able to establish almost as pure a lineage as the Jews. Naturally during the succeeding years the ancient breach continued to widen until it was beyond all healing.

* * * * *

THE GREEK AND MACCABEAN AGE

Section CIV. THE JEWS UNDER THEIR GREEK RULERS

[Sidenote: 1 Mac. 1:1-4] Now after Alexander the Macedonian, the son of Philip, who came from the land of the Greeks, had smitten Darius king of the Persians and Medes, he reigned in his place as the first ruler of the Syrian kingdom.

He fought many battles, And won many strongholds, And slew the kings of the earth; He went on to the ends of the earth; And took spoils from a multitude of nations. And when the earth was at peace before him, He was exalted and his heart was lifted up; He gathered an exceedingly great army, And ruled over countries and peoples and principalities; And they became tributary to him.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XI, 8:7a, c] Now when Alexander was dead, the government was divided among his successors. It was about this time that Jaddua the high priest died and Onias, his son, took the high priesthood.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XII, 1:1b-d] Alexander's empire was divided among many: Antigonus gained possession of the province of Asia; Seleucus of Babylon and the surrounding nations; Lysimachus governed the Hellespont, and Cassander held Macedonia; Ptolemy, The son of Lagus, got Egypt. While these princes ambitiously contended with one another, each for his own kingdom, there were continual and protracted wars. And the cities suffered and lost many of their inhabitants in these days of distress, so that all Syria experienced at the hands of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, the opposite of what is implied by his title of saviour. He also captured Jerusalem by means of deceit and treachery; for, coming into the city on a sabbath day, as if to offer sacrifices, he without difficulty gained possession of the city, since the Jews did not oppose him, for they did not suspect him to be their enemy, and that day they always spent in rest and quietness. And when he had gained possession of it, he ruled over it in a cruel manner.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XII, 1:1g-j] And when Ptolemy had taken many captives both from the mountainous parts of Judea and the places about Jerusalem and Samaria and Mount Gerizim, he led them all into Egypt and settled them there. And since he knew that the people of Jerusalem were most faithful in keeping their oaths and covenants, he distributed many of them among garrisons. At Alexandria he gave them equal privileges as citizens with the Macedonians themselves. He also required them to take oath that they would be faithful to his descendants. And not a few other Jews went into Egypt of their own accord, attracted both by the goodness of the soil and Ptolemy's generosity. However, there were disorders between their descendants and the Samaritans because of their resolve to preserve that manner of life which was transmitted to them by their forefathers. They accordingly contended with each other; those from Jerusalem said that their temple was holy and they resolved to send their sacrifices there, but the Samaritans were determined that they should be sent to Mount Gerizim.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XII, 2:1a] When Alexander had reigned twelve years and after him Ptolemy Soter forty years, Ptolemy Philadelphus next had the kingdom of Egypt and held it thirty-nine years.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XII, 2:5d, e, 4:1d-f] Now when Onias I. the high priest died, his son Simon succeeded him. When he died and left only a young son called Onias, Simon's brother Eleazer took the high priesthood. After Eleazar's death, his uncle Manasseh assumed the priesthood, and after he died, Onias II. received that honor. This Onia was lacking in sense and was a great lover of money; for that reason he did not pay the tax of twenty talents of silver for the people, which his forefathers had paid out of their own estates to the kings of Egypt. Thus he aroused the anger of King Ptolemy Euergetes, the father of Philopator. Euergetes sent an ambassador to Jerusalem and complained that Onias did not pay the taxes and threatened that if he did not receive them, he would parcel out their land and send soldiers to live upon it. When the Jews heard this message of the king they were filled with dismay, but Onias was so avaricious that nothing of this kind made him ashamed.

[Sidenote Jos. Ant. XII, 4:2a-f] There was a certain Joseph, young in years, but of great reputation among the people of Jerusalem for dignity and exact foresight. His father's name was Tobias and his mother was the sister of Onias the high priest. She informed him of the coming of Ptolemy's ambassador. Thereupon Joseph came to Jerusalem and reproved Onias for not taking thought for the security of his countrymen and for bringing the nation into dangers by not paying this money. Onias's answer was that he did not care for his authority, that he was ready, if it were possible, to lay down his high priesthood, and that he would not go to the king, for he cared nothing at all about these matters. Joseph then asked him if he would give him leave to go as ambassador on behalf of the nation. He replied that he would. So Joseph went down from the temple and treated Ptolemy's ambassador in a Hospitable manner. He also presented him with rich gifts and feasted him magnificently for many days and then sent him to the king before him and told him that he would soon follow him.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XII, 4:3b, 4a-c] Now it happened that at this time all the principal men and rulers of the cities of Syria and Phoenicia went up to bid for the taxes; for every year the king sold them to the most powerful men of each city. And when the day came on which the king was to let the farming of the taxes of the cities, the taxes of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Judea and Samaria amounted altogether to eight thousand talents. Thereupon Joseph accused the bidders of having agreed together to estimate the value of the taxes at too low a rate and he promised that he would give twice as much for them, and for those who did not pay he would send the king their entire possessions, for this privilege was sold together with the taxes. The king was pleased to hear this offer, and because it increased his revenues he said he would confirm the sale of the taxes to him.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XII, 4:5a-c, 3, 6a] And Joseph took with him two thousand soldiers from the king, for he desired to have assistance in order to compel those who refused in the city to pay. And when the people of Askelon refused to pay anything, he seized about twenty of their principal men and slew them, and gathered what they had and sent it all to the king and informed him what he had done. Ptolemy admired the spirit of the man, commended him for what he had done and gave him permission to do as he pleased. By these means he amassed great wealth and made vast profits by this farming of taxes. And he made use of the wealth he had thus secured in order to support his authority. This good fortune he enjoyed for twenty-two years; and he became the father of seven sons by one wife. He had also another son whose name was Hyrcanus.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XII, 3:3a, b] Now in the reign of Antiochus the Great, who ruled over all Asia, the Jews, as well as the inhabitants of Coele-Syria, suffered greatly, and their land was sorely harassed, for while Antiochus was at war with Ptolemy Philopator and his son Ptolemy, who was called Epiphanes, these nations suffered equally both when he was defeated and when he was victorious. So they were like a ship in the storm which is tossed by the waves on both sides.

[Sidenote: Jos. Ant. XII, 3:3c-e] But at length when Antiochus had beaten Ptolemy he seized Judea. And when Philopator was dead, his son sent out against the inhabitants of Coele-Syria a great army under Scopas, general of his forces, and took many of their cities and especially our people, who, when he attacked them, went over to him. But soon afterwards Antiochus overcame Scopas in a battle fought at the fountains of the Jordan and destroyed a great part of his army. And afterwards, when Antiochus subdued those cities of Coele-Syria which Scopas had captured, and Samaria among them, the Jews of their own accord went over to him and received him into Jerusalem and gave plentiful provisions to all his army and readily assisted him when he besieged the garrison which was in the citadel at Jerusalem.

I. Josephus's Histories. The Greek period began with Alexander's conquest of Palestine in 332 and extended to the Maccabean uprising in 168 B.C. For the external history of this period the writings of the historian Josephus are the chief sources. This famous Jewish writer was born in 37 A.D., and apparently lived till about the close of the reign of Domitian in 96. According to his own testimony he was the son of a priest named Mattathiah. Until he was sixteen he studied under the Jewish rabbis. He then spent three years with the Jewish sect known as the Essenes. At the age of nineteen he joined the party of the Pharisees. His point of view in general is that of this dominant popular party. He was able to read Latin, but wrote his histories in Greek. At the age of twenty-six he went to Rome where he spent three years. Returning to Palestine at the beginning of the great rebellion against Rome, he was appointed revolutionary governor of the important province of Galilee. The appointment was unfortunate, for he proved both incompetent and unreliable. In 67 A.D. he and his followers were shut up by Vespasian in the Galilean city, Jotapata. During the siege he vainly tried to desert to the enemy. At the fall of the city he was captured, but his life was spared by Vespasian. In time he ingratiated himself with Titus and also incurred the hostility of his countrymen by trying to persuade them to lay down their arms. He spent the latter part of his life in Rome, devoting himself to study and writing. As a result of his long residence at Rome under the patronage of the Roman emperors, he was powerfully influenced by the Greek and Roman philosophical schools.

Josephus was the great apologist of his race. His chief aims in writing his histories were: (1) to excuse his own acts in connection with the great rebellion; (2) to show why the overwhelming calamity had overtaken his race; and (3) to answer the attack of their Gentile foes by tracing the remarkable history of his people, and by presenting in attractive form their beliefs, institutions, and laws. Of his two great historical works the one entitled _The Jewish War_ was issued probably between 75 and 79 A.D. It opens with the beginnings of the Maccabean struggle, and traces the history, with increasing detail, to the destruction of Jerusalem and the suppression of the Jewish revolt at Gyrene, two or three years before the book was written. His second great work was issued in 93 A.D. under the title of _The Antiquities of the Jews_. In twenty books it traces Israel's history from the earliest beginnings to the opening years of the Jewish war (68 A.D.). The first half of this extensive history is based on the author's free paraphrase of the Greek version of the Old Testament. For the latter half he draws largely from the apocryphal book of I Maccabees and from the writings of contemporary Greek and Jewish historians. Chief among these are Polybius, Nicolaus of Damascus, and Strabo. At certain points, where earlier sources fail him, he employs popular romances and late traditions. The result is that the different parts of his history are of widely varying values. All must be carefully tested by the canons of historical criticism. After due allowance has been made for his apologetic purpose and his well-known tendencies, a large and valuable body of historical facts remain with which it is possible at many otherwise obscure points to reconstruct the course of Israel's history.

II. Alexander's Conquests. In many ways Alexander's conquest was the most significant and far-reaching event in the history of Asia. The causes of this great movement were, first, the fact that the limited territory of Greece and Macedonia gave to the powerful Hellenic civilization little opportunity for local expansion. Compelled, therefore, to break these narrow bonds, it naturally spread in the direction of least resistance. In the second place the decadent Persian Empire, with its fabulous riches and almost limitless plains, was a loadstone that lured on Greek adventurers to attempt feats that seemed incredible. The third reason was Alexander's inherited lust for conquest. His father, Philip of Macedon, had long been accumulating the resources which made it possible for his son to realize his ambitious dreams. The fourth reason was Alexander's desire to make the world more glorious by the diffusion of Hellenic culture, ideas, and institutions and by binding all races together into one great, harmonious family. His brilliant conquests are a familiar chapter in the world's history. At Issus, at the northeastern end of the Mediterranean, he won, in 333 B.C., the decisive battle which left him in possession of the western part of the huge Persian Empire. By 332 he was master of Palestine. Tyre, the commercial mistress of the eastern Mediterranean, and Gaza, the key to Egypt, alone offered resistance. The Persian kings by their onerous taxation and cruel policy had completely destroyed the loyalty of their western subjects. In the symbolic pictures of the book of Daniel Alexander is regarded as the "fourth beast, terrible and fearful and exceedingly strong. And it had great iron teeth. It devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the rest with its feet" (7:17,23, 8:5-8). Josephus has preserved a popular tradition regarding the meeting between Alexander and the white-robed Jerusalem priests and the homage paid by the conqueror to the God of the Jews. It bears on its face evidence of its unhistorical character. As a matter of fact, the first goal of Alexander's conquest was the rich land of Egypt. Not being possessed of a navy, he entered it through its one vulnerable point, the Wady Tumilat, that ran from the Isthmus of Suez to the Nile Delta. By 331 B.C. he was master of the Nile Valley, and thence turned eastward, conquering in succession the different provinces of the great empire, until before his death in 323 B.C. his empire extended from the Mediterranean to the Indus, and in the northeast far up toward central Asia.

Alexander's conquests were significant because they represented the victory of Greek ideas and culture as well as of arms. In each country conquered he usually succeeded in Hellenizing the native peoples. Greek cities, settled by his veterans and the horde of migratory Greeks that followed in his wake, were founded at strategic points throughout the vast empire. As recent excavations have shown, Greek art and ideas continued even after the death of Alexander to sweep eastward across Asia, until they profoundly influenced the culture and ideas in such distant nations as China and Japan.

III. The Jews in Egypt and Alexandria. The crown of Alexander's constructive work was the building of Alexandria in Egypt. Selecting a narrow strip of coast, protected on the south by the low-lying lake Mareotis and on the north by the Mediterranean, he built there a magnificent Greek city. On the south it was connected by canal with the Canopic arm of the Nile. Alexander thus diverted to this new metropolis the rich trade of the Red Sea and the Nile. A mile distant was the island of Pharos, which was connected with the mainland by a great moll. On either side, protected from the storms, were the eastern and western harbors, large enough to accommodate the merchant-men and navies of the ancient world. On the west was the native Egyptian quarter. In the centre, opposite the island of Pharos, was the Greek and official quarter. In the northeastern part of the city was the Jewish quarter. Here the Jews lived together under the rule of their law; they were also represented in the civic council by their own leaders. When Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, became governor of Egypt and, after the death of Alexander, subjected Palestine, he carried back to Alexandria many Jewish captives, and attracted others by the special privileges which he granted them. In them he recognized valuable allies in developing the commercial resources of Alexandria and in maintaining his rule over the native Egyptians. Here in time the Jews became wealthy and powerful and developed a unique civilization. From the beginning of the Greek period the number of the Jews in Egypt equalled, if it did not surpass, that of the Jews in Palestine. While they maintained close connection with the Jews in Palestine and remained true to their Scriptures, they were profoundly influenced by their close contact with the civilization and ideas of the Greek world.

IV. The Rule of the Ptolemies. The long-continued rule of the Ptolemies in Egypt is one of the most astonishing phenomena in this remarkable period in human history. Far outnumbered by the native population, involved in almost constant war with their fellow-Greeks, they succeeded by sheer audacity and vigilance in maintaining their authority during the many crises through which they passed. Egypt's natural defences also made its conquest by outside powers exceedingly difficult. Alexandria with its fleet commanded Egypt's one entrance by the sea. In order to protect its eastern gateway, the Isthmus of Suez, it was essential that the Ptolemies should control Palestine. Southern Palestine also commanded the great commercial highway that led southward and eastward to Arabia and Babylonia. Alexandria's ancient rivals, Tyre and Sidon, also lay on the borders of Palestine, and it was essential that they be under the control of Egypt, if Alexandria was to remain the mistress of the eastern Mediterranean. Furthermore, Palestine and the Lebanons (known to Josephus as Coele-Syria, that is, Hollow Syria), alone of the countries adjacent to Egypt, possessed the timber required for the building of Alexandria's navies and merchant-men. Hence Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, and his successors spared no effort to maintain their control over the lands lying along the eastern Mediterranean.

In the division of the empire which followed the death of Alexander three rivals struggled in turn for this coveted territory: Ptolemy, in the south; Antigonus, who soon became master of Asia Minor and northern Syria; and Seleucus, to whom fell the Tigris-Euphrates Valley and the more distant eastern provinces. In the decisive battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C. the overshadowing power of Antigonus was broken and the control of southwestern Asia was divided between Seleucus and Ptolemy. By the treaty that was made after the battle, Coele-Syria was given to Ptolemy; but Seleucus and his descendants, who were known as the Seleucids or the Seleucidae, soon attempted to wrest it from Egypt, and during the following century frequently, with varying success, renewed the attempt. In 295 and again in 219 they were for a brief period masters of Palestine, but during most of this period it was held by the Ptolemies.