Previous: I. Political Developments From Alexander To Antiochus IV

< BACK / 1 / 2

III. Judaea's Relationship to Antiochus
Against the Backdrop of the Egyptian Campaigns

Antiochus IV desired to enlarge his frontier, and he sought the opportunity by a military campaign against Egypt. This quest for more power (and perhaps financial gain) made the matter of Judaea's loyalty a serious consideration, for Judaea was the buffer state between these two powers. The political situation of Antiochus IV's realm cannot be ignored. McCullough comments,

... Antiochus's primary interest in Judea was its location on the southwest border of his kingdom. It was important to him that there be peace and security in this area. To ensure such peace he looked for the cooperation of the Jewish high priest, who, as the recognized head of the Palestinian Jews, was to all intents and purposes a political figure. (23)

During the years 169-67 BC, Antiochus IV carried out his military campaigns against Egypt. This was during the time when Menelaus served as the High Priest, and tensions with Antioch were at their highest. The religious persecution of Antiochus IV that came in 167 BC must be seen in light of the events attending the Egyptian campaigns. Scholars have proposed numerous reasons to explain the actions of Antiochus IV, including his character, attempts at unification of the empire by establishment of one religion, political motives of reconstituting the decaying power of his kingdom, his devotion to the Hellenic spirit and culture, and even the idea that Antiochus was not the real perpetrator but rather men from within the Jewish ranks (as well as a combination of the above). (24) Tcherikover, however, advances the theory that the real reason for the religious persecution of Antiochus IV is to be found in the developments that paralleled his military campaigns against Egypt, most notably the rebellion that began surfacing in Jerusalem.

A discussion of the military campaigns is difficult due to the fact that the number and date of the campaigns is unclear and a subject of debate among scholars. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear how many times Antiochus IV actually visited Jerusalem in connection with these military expeditions. There does seem to be some consensus, however, that Antiochus IV carried out two primary campaigns against Egypt. Tcherikover alerts us that "... the studies of Otto and Bichermann make it virtually certain that Antiochus' first expedition to Egypt fell in the year 169, and the second in 168." (25) But the number and time of visitations by Antiochus IV to Jerusalem is a much more problematic issue. There are three reports of a plundering of the temple by or on the orders of Antiochus IV: I Macc. 1.20-24, I1 Macc. 5.15ff., and Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 5:2-4. However, the information is unclear on whether or not the temple was plundered on two different occasions. Jagersma notes that the account in II Macc. 5

... mentions a plundering of the temple, in which Menelaus accompanied Antiochus IV as a guide. This plundering is said to have taken place after Antiochus' second expedition to Egypt and Jason's revolt. The king is supposed to have interpreted the revolt as a rebellion by Judaea (II Macc. 5.11) and to have occupied Jerusalem at that time by force. Thousands of inhabitants are said to have been killed, with others being carried away as slaves. The plundering of the temple in 168 is supposed to be set against this background. (26)

Tcherikover (186) defends the theory that there were two visitations, upon return from each of the Egyptian campaigns. The work of Emil Schurer, however, argues the view that Antiochus visited Jerusalem only once in the 160s, viz. in the autumn of 169 BC. (27)

A complete and scholarly resolution of this issue is beyond the scope of this paper, but the position of Tcherikover seems a bit more plausible. Despite the fact that scholars are quite critical of Josephus on many points (including Tcherikover himself), he does specifically record two visitations by Antiochus and the other source material does not contradict this. Furthermore, it is quite reasonable to believe that Antiochus IV would have visited Jerusalem during each of the Egyptian campaigns. He would have had to travel very near Jerusalem upon his return to Antioch, and he had a high interest in the affairs of Jerusalem since this was his buffer zone with Egypt. There had been several previous dealings with Jerusalem and with each of the High Priests (particularly Menelaus) that would have caused him to keep his guard up in regard so Jerusalem affairs, not to mention his vital interest in the financial potential of the Temple treasury.

The first Egyptian campaign was successful for Antiochus IV in that he dealt a defeat to Egypt. He appointed two rulers over the country in different locations to prevent the centralization of power, and then returned to Antioch by way of Jerusalem. He probably reached Jerusalem at the end of 169 BC. Although relations with Jerusalem had previously been generally friendly,

... on this visit Antiochus laid hands on the Temple treasures and looted them. I Maccabees (1.20ff.) also gives a detailed account of the spoilation of the Temple vessels and speaks of the way the place was desecrated. Naturally this left a feeling of violent hatred for Antiochus among the people, and as it was a time of war, this inevitably assumed a political coloring. (28)

The increased financial demands of the recent military campaign may have prompted this action against the Temple treasury. In 168 BC, Antiochus IV carried out another military campaign against Egypt, which resulted in bitter disappointment for him. On the previous campaign, Ptolemy VI had been forced into a treaty, but quickly broke it, so that as early as 168 BC Antiochus had begun a new campaign against Egypt. (29) Once again he was prevailing, only to be thwarted by the arrival of ships from Rome (note Dan. 11:29-30). Waltke notes,

... the Roman legate C. Popilius Laenas handed Antiochus an ultimatum from the senate, arrogantly drew a circle around Antiochus, and demanded his answer before he stepped outside the circle. Antiochus was forced to retreat to Syria within a specified time. (30)

As a bitter and disappointed Antiochus IV marched back to Syria, he did so with the thought that the securing of Judaea was now more necessary than ever... not only for fear of the now independent Egypt but also the threat of Rome from the south. No doubt, he hoped to find Jerusalem in good order!

IV. The Religious Persecution of Antiochus Against Judaea

Finding Jerusalem in good order was the very thing that Antiochus IV did not find! A revolt had occurred during the time that Antiochus was carrying out his second military campaign in Egypt. Jason, the former High Priest of the line of Zadok, had been living in Transjordan since he had been deposed by Antiochus in favor of Menelaus. But during the second Egyptian campaign of 168 BC, Jason made an attempt to regain control of Jerusalem. This bold endeavor may have been due to a false report that Antiochus was now dead (note II Macc. 5:5), and there was certainly a great deal of sentiment toward Egypt in light of Menelaus' cooperation with Antiochus after the first Egyptian campaign.

This revolt led by Jason resulted in a great many people being killed, and with Menelaus having to seek refuge in the citadel (II Macc. 5:5-6). Nevertheless, Jason was not able to retain control and had to flee Jerusalem back to Transjordan. Tcherikover argues that control of the city passed to the opponents of the king─the enemies of the Hellenizers─and that it was these before whom Jason fled. (31) These would be the Hasidim, a sect that had arisen within Judaism who were intensely loyal to the Mosaic Covenant and against Hellenization and foreign influence.

Despite the fact that Jason's revolt had not succeeded, the news of the events was not favorably received by Antiochus. McCullough comments,

Antiochus was not amused by such insurrectionary activities, and on his return journey form Egypt, doubtless deeply chagrined by his failure there and interpreting events in Judea as a revolt against himself, he went to Jerusalem to discipline its people in an extremely ruthless way (2 Mac 5:11-14; cf Dan 11:29-30). (32)

No doubt, in light of the recent events with Egypt and Rome, Antiochus felt compelled to communicate a message that insurrection would not be tolerated. Such opposition to Hellenization and Seleucid authority could only be interpreted as sympathy for Egypt, for only from Egypt could the rebels hope to receive support for the liberation movement. Therefore, upon reaching Jerusalem, he had the walls of the city torn down, slaughtered thousands of Jews, and sold many more into slavery (II Macc. 5:llff). In addition, he himself entered the Holy of Holies, with Menelaus as his guide. Upon departing the city, he left Philip, the commander of the Phrygian mercenaries, in charge (II Macc. 5.22).

Apparently the spirit of rebellion continued so that Apollonius, head of the Moesian mercenaries captured the city on a Sabbath (when the religious faithful would not fight). "Apollonius had received from Antiochus the assignment of putting an end once and for all to the danger threatening the peace of the kingdom from the rebellious Jews." (33) The focus of action now shifted to the events connected with the "Akra":

Among the measures taken by Appollonius to secure the city's loyalty to the Seleucid king, were two which totally changed the status of Jerusalem: the erection of the citadel known by its Greek designation, akra, which was made into the center of the new polis, and the dispatching of a katoikia, i.e., a colony of foreign soldiers, inside Jerusalem. The introduction of the katoikia was a particularly bitter blow. It marked the beginning of mass opposition which very soon turned into a general rebellion. Many examples in Greek and Roman history bear witness that the establishment of a katoikia, or cleruchy, of soldiers in a quiet town meant its total ruin.

These soldiers certainly had no intention of slighting what they considered to be the cult of a local god, yet, on the other hand, they did not want to give up their own religious customs and their traditional deities. Since their residence was the akra, which was also the new center of the polis of Antioch-at-Jerusalem, they were obviously regarded as permanent citizens of the polis, whether they had obtained full citizenship or were annexed to it as foreigners accorded the status of permanent residents. These new inhabitants of Antioch-at-Jerusalem desired to worship in the Temple the deities who were familiar to them as well: first and foremost the supreme Syrian god Basal Shamin and the Syrian goddess known under different names such as Anath, Allat, etc. The worship of the god of wine, Dushara, identified by the Greeks with Dionysus, may also have been set up in the Temple. Concurrently with Syrian gods, Syrian customs were also introduced into the Temple. The author of II Maccabees (6:4) attests that the Temple filled with prostitutes in religious rites is not typical of the Greek religion whereas it was a permanent feature in the cult of the Syrian goddess. It follows, therefore, that this custom was introduced into the Temple not as a result of Antiochus' persecutions but some time earlier, just after the establishment of the Syrian katoikia. (34)

These actions connected with the Akra, as carried out by Apollonius, only served to incite the more conservative elements of the Jewish society to further rebellion. The pollution of the Temple of the Lord by Gentiles worshiping other deities and using sacred prostitutes was too extreme. Consequently, there was a flight among the Jews out of Jerusalem following the actions of Apollonius in 168-67 BC.

But the abandonment of the Temple by the Jewish populace was not favorably looked upon by Antiochus IV. Up until this point, his persecutions upon Judaea had been mostly political in nature, and no action was taken to declare illegal the Mosaic Law or religion of the Jews. Now, however, it was becoming more and more obvious that the Jewish religion itself was detrimental to the unification of the realm. McCullough adds an interesting thought:

As had been noted earlier, this was a departure from Seleucid religious policy, and it has to be interpreted in light of conditions in Judea. As Antiochus presumably had limited knowledge of Jewish religious customs, he must have been advised by some person or persons that the religious peculiarities of the Jews lay behind the recent troubles in Jerusalem, and that, by banning such practices, there was a good chance that tranquility could be established in Judea. (35)

Thus, about a year after Apollonius' political measures of establishing the Akra, Antiochus IV issued down orders for religious persecution (i.e., in December of 167 BC). This time of the persecutory decrees is known as the period of the Gezerot.

According to II Macc. 6:1, Antiochus sent a special emissary to Judaea to carry out the decree "in order to force the Jews to transgress the laws of their fathers and not to live according to God's commandments." McCullough notes,

Here the Jewish ritual was prohibited (1 Mac 1:45-6), and the sacred precincts were formally given over, on the fifteenth of Chislev, 167 BC, to the worship of Zeus Olympios (1 Mac 1:54; 2 Mac 6:2), whose Aramaic designation may have been 'Lord of heaven' (b'l šmyn.). The main structure of the temple seems to have been left intact, as well as the altar of burnt offering, although upon the latter a small pagan altar was erected (1 Mac 1:59; 4:44). It is generally assumed that this pagan object is the 'desolating sacrilege' of 1 Mac 1:54 (cf Dan 11:31). In addition to this altar we might have expected that either a statue of Zeus or some acceptable symbol of Zeus was erected, but this is nowhere specifically mentioned (cf M Taanith 4.6). (36)

The persecution not only involved a complete abomination of the Temple and the altar, but copies of Torah were burned, and Sabbath keeping and circumcision were forbidden. Furthermore, the Jews were forced to celebrate the king's birthday every month and to participate in the festal procession in honor of Dionysus. High places and altars on which swine and other animals were to be sacrificed were erected throughout Judaea, and inspectors were appointed by the king to made sure these measures were carried out.

As a result, the famous Maccabean revolt ensued. Three years later, the Temple could be rededicated at an opportune moment. McCullough explains:

Seleucid armies had now been defeated three times, and doubtless Judas knew that most of the state's remaining military resources were involved, like Antiochus himself, in Syria's eastern campaign, it was a propitious time to recover the temple, and Judas acted accordingly (1 Mac 4:36-61; 2 Mac 10:1-8; Ant XII, 316-26). Some of the soldiers were derailed to block any effort on the part of the Seleucid garrison in the Acra to interfere with the Jewish plan, which, in fact, seems to have proceeded without let or hindrance. Priests were chosen to cleanse the sanctuary, in which connection Menelaus is nowhere mentioned. The pagan altar was removed, and a completely new altar erected. Necessary repairs to the structures in the temple area were made and new vessels for the service fabricated. On the twenty-fifth of Chislev 164 BC the renovated temple was formally dedicated to the service of Israel's God, three years after it had been taken over by Antiochus in 167 BC. (37)

The victory of rededicating the Temple was well-timed, for Antiochus IV was to die shortly thereafter, having been engaged in campaigns in Parthia and Armenia.

He retired to Babylon and then to Tabae (Isfahan) in Persia. Here, having heard of the successes of the Maccabees in restoring the temple worship at Jerusalem, he died insane in 164 B.C. (38)

CONCLUSION

The period from 200 BC to 164 BC was one of the most turbulent periods of Jewish history, and certainly Antiochus IV Epiphanes played a key role in this era. The tensions connected with international politics and the growth of Hellenization came to a climax under his reign. That he was an evil man, no one can doubt. The difficulties and persecutions that he brought down upon the Jewish people will mark him forever as a despicable person. Nevertheless, one important matter needs to be clarified and expounded in the conclusion to this paper, which revolves around a simple question. What happened during that final year (167 BC) to change things from political measures carried out by Apollinius to the religious actions instigated by Antiochus IV?

Tacitus had made a remark that Antiochus IV strove to do away with Jewish belief and introduce Greek customs (Hist. V.7.4), but he may have relied on some anti-Jewish sources for this opinion, which tends to discredit his remark. A better explanation lies in the events that transpired within the Akra, a political move but one which had important ramifications because of the changes that this led to in the sphere of the cult. Tcherikover sees the Hasidim as the key to understanding the persecution, and insists that they inspired the mounting intoleration by the Jews. He remarks,

Apollonius' acts had created a rebellion, and the introduction of the Syrian cults onto the Temple mount had lent a religious odor to the rising. The Jewish faith was faced, not after Antiochus' decree, but before it, with the alternative of renouncing its existence or of fighting for its life. The Jewish rising, which had first broken out in natural resistance to Apollonius acts, during the year 168/7 took on the form of a religious movement. (39)

He finds some support for this in the sources (e.g., I Macc. 7.12; cf. 2.29). The fact that they were organized as a fighting community after the Maccabean revolt (except for the Sabbath, in which they would not bear arms), suggests that they were activists before the persecutions as well. Hence, the Hasidim were the main factor behind what Antiochus IV did:

If the revolt was led by the Hasidim, for whom the commandments of the Torah were of the utmost sanctity, and if devotion to the Mosaic Law was the watchword of the uprising, then that Law had to be extirpated if the rebellion was to be put down. (40)

The religious persecutions of Antiochus IV in 167 BC can be attributed to many factors, but a reasonable theory can be built around the mounting antagonism of the Jews as inspired by the Hasidim. In light of the political tensions with Egypt and Rome to the south, Antiochus IV could not afford to be easy-going in his policies toward Judaea. The conservative religious community of Jerusalem posed too great a threat to his hand on Jerusalem, and he resorted to measures he felt would put an end to this threat... he would try to eliminate their faith. Although God allowed Antiochus to persecute Judaea of that day, He did not allow him to fully carry out his diabolical plans.

J. Paul Tanner is currently a traveling teacher and curriculum writer for BEE World Ministries, and lives near Tyler, Texas. He and his wife (Linda) lived for five years in the Middle East, while Paul was the Academic Dean and Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Studies at the Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary. Originally from Abilene, Texas in the United States, Paul graduated from Texas Tech University in 1972 with a B.S. in Industrial Engineering. During his senior year as an engineering student, he received Jesus Christ as his personal savior. Upon graduation from Texas Tech, Paul served for three years as a chaplain's assistant in the U. S. Army and grew in his love and understanding of the Word of God.

Upon completion of his military duties, he went on to earn the ThM (Master of Theology) degree with honors from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1981, majoring in Hebrew and Old Testament studies. In the summer of 1984, he did further studies at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem. In 1990 he was awarded the PhD degree in Middle Eastern Studies with a concentration in Hebrew literature and culture from the University of Texas. His doctoral dissertation was entitled "Textual Patterning in Biblical Hebrew Narrative; A Case Study in Judges 6-8." As a doctoral student, he was chosen to receive the Foreign Language Area Studies Fellowship (FLAS Fellowship) awarded by the United States Dept. of Education.

Prior to coming to Jordan in July of 2000, Paul previously taught on the faculty of the International School of Theology at the headquarters of Campus Crusade for Christ in California (1982, 1985-86), as well as being one of the initial faculty members for ISOT-Asia in the Philippines from 1983-1985. From 1991 through 1995, he served as Dean of Academic Development at the East Asia School of Theology in Singapore. From 1995 through 1999, he was Lecturer of Hebrew and Old Testament Studies at Singapore Bible College. From 2000-2005, he was a professor at JETS, and served for over three years as the Academic Dean of the school. In addition to his formal training and teaching experience in the field of Hebrew studies, he has had several professional papers published in journals such as Bibliotheca Sacra, The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin, The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, and Trinity Journal. Paul is the author of the "Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews" in The Grace New Testament Commentary. He has also written a book entitled A Walk in the Psalms, which was published in Arabic in 2004. To see more of his writings, visit his website PaulTanner.org.