Page 113 - Biblical Backgrounds

wealth or socio-economic standing but on loyalty. These loyalists surrounded the king, but some were
also appointed as representatives in conquered territories – Palestine was no exception.

Tolerance to non-Hellenist cultures was different from one ruler to another. In some of the cities they
found, other groups (Jews, Syrians, Persians) were welcome to make contributions to economics and
politics, but were mostly excluded. Individuals from these groups could still be lifted to prominence
based on loyalty and commitment to Hellenism.

It is interesting to note that Seleucus Nicator (306–280 BCE) made the Jews citizens of the cities
he built in Asia and Syria and in Antioch itself, and gave them privileges equal to those of the
Macedonians and Greeks. These privileges they continued to enjoy down through the first
Christian century. As citizens, they would have had the protection of local laws and access to the
courts, the right to establish businesses and to trade freely, and the opportunity to serve in local
government agencies. 160

Arguably, the latter Seleucid kings seem to be more power hungry and less tolerant to non-Greco
trends. The later kings propagated Hellenization by way of forcing it on their subjects. The main
motivation for this was to establish unifying trends among the different people groups. Extreme
Hellenization usually birthed two outcomes: First, loyalists trying to outdo each other in their
Hellenization campaigns. Second, a repudiation from the unaccommodating subjects. These results
often gave potential for the rise of revolts and factions. The events of 167 BCE can serve as a primary
example: In his Hellenization campaign, Antiochus IV desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem and
attempted to bring Judaism to an end. Leading up to this, factions and in-fights erupted in Jerusalem
between those who embraced Hellenism to the core and those who resented it, a situation which
infuriated Antiochus. Some have added that his failure to add Egypt to his holdings caused him to vent
his anger on Judah. In any case, his actions attracted a reaction from the Jewish Conservatives in the
form of the Maccabean revolt.

The revolt was pioneered by Mattathias, a lesser priest of the line of Jehoiarib and the family of
Hasmon. Mattathias led the Judeans to rebel against Syrian domination. He died within a year, but his
revolt was continued by his sons, three of whom — Judah Maccabee, Jonathan, and Simon -- ruled
Judea.
Judas Maccabeus (167–161 BCE) and Jonathan (161–143 BCE) ruled their territories predominantly as
generals of an army. They died advancing their father’s work and shaped the road leading to Israel’s
independence.

In 142 B.C, Simon, the last survivor of the Maccabee brothers, was recognized as high priest and political
leader by his own people (1 Maccabees 14:25–49). Rising and growing steadily from the west, Rome
recognized Simon and his new independent state as allies at the time (1 Maccabees 14:16–19, 24;
15:15–24). With this recognition from Syria (the Seleucids), Simon was the first independent Jewish ruler
of Judea since the fall of the Davidic Dynasty in 586 BCE. He administered from Jerusalem while
continuing to cut off allegiance to Syria.

160 Ibid, p. 368.

111