There is every reason for accepting the detailed account which Josephus has given of the quarrel between the high priest Johanan and his brother Joshua which resulted in the murder of the latter within the sacred temple precincts. Such an opportunity would naturally be improved by the greedy Persian official to impose an onerous tax upon the Jews. The Elephantine letter establishes the fact that Johanan was high priest in 411 B.C. and that Baghohi (of which Bagoses is the Jewish equivalent) was the Persian satrap. It thus directly confirms the testimony of Josephus. References in late Greek writings (Solinus XXXV, 6; Syncellus I, 486) suggest that the Jews about 350 B.C. were involved with the Phoenicians in the rebellion against Persia. These historians state that at this time Jericho was captured and destroyed and that a part of the Jewish people were transported to the province of Hyrcania at the south of the Caspian Sea. The rebellion was instigated by Tachos, the ruler of Egypt, who about 362 not only shook off the rule of Persia, but invaded Syria and stirred up the Phoenicians to defy the Persian king. Artaxerxes III, popularly known as Ochus, proved, however, the last ruler who was able to revive the waning power of the Persian Empire. At his accession he slew all the members of the royal family, and throughout his reign (358-337 B.C.) he trusted chiefly to the unsheathed sword to maintain his authority. In 346 B.C. he finally succeeded in collecting a huge army with which he invaded Syria and besieged Sidon. Its king betrayed his city into the hands of the Persians, only to be murdered by the treacherous Ochus. The citizens of Sidon, recognizing that they would receive no mercy from the hands of Their conqueror, shut themselves up in their homes and then burned them Over their heads. According to the Greek historians forty thousand Phoenicians perished in this revolt.
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.