Lecture 8—Jews and Greek Rule: The Heliodorus Affair
AIexander the Great’s death in 323 B.C. was followed by a 20-year
civil war over succession. Eventually, the empire was divided up
among various generals. Seleucus took the area to the north,
and Ptolemy took Egypt, to the south. ln this lecture, we discuss the
establishment of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms, explore the
consequences of the “Heliodorus affair,” and examine the efforts of the
high priest Jason to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis called Antioch.
Judea under the Ptolemies and Seleucids
1. Flavius Josephus reports that Ptolemy I took Jerusalem through
deception in the year 301 B.C. He entered the city under the
pretense of offering a sacrifice in the temple, knowing that the
unsuspecting Jews would not fight on the Sabbath. Jerusalem
and Judea remained under the rule of the Ptolemies until 198
B.C., when the Seleucid king Antiochus lll took Jerusalem after
a long siege. Antiochus lll’s victory is described in Daniel 11:14-
15, which mentions Jerusalem as a “well-fortified city.”
2. Under both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, administrative
and political changes were made throughout the territories.
Jerusalem and Judea now belonged to a province called
Syria. The provinces, including Syria, were headed by a civil
and military administrator called, in Greek, a strategos. Each
province was subdivided into smaller units; the toparchy was a
territory that centered on a city.
3. Jerusalem and Judea were administered differently from the
rest of the province of Syria. Under Greek rule, the Jews of
Judea constituted a self-governing people. The Ptolemies
and Seleucids followed the precedent set by the Persians and
Alexander the Great and allowed the Jews to govern themselves
autonomously and to live according to the laws in the five books
of Moses.
4. Judea was governed by a council of prominent priests and
elders, which was called the gerusia, headed by the high priest.
ln other words, the government in Judea was a theocracy. Under
the Seleucids, the Jews of Judea were classified as an ethnos.
Therefore, a Jew-or, in Greek, loudaios-was notjust a person
of the Jewish religion but a person of Judean parentage whose
place of origin was legally Judea.
5. Such an individual was obliged to worship the God of Israel
because the laws of the Torah were the laws of the land. ln
fact, in his charter, Antiochus lll proclaimed, “All members of
this ethnos shall be governed in accordance with their ancestral
laws,” meaning the five books of Moses.
6. ln other words, following the tradition established by the
Persians, the Torah had the status of royal law in Judea. This
key fact sets us up for understanding the series of events known
as the Heliodorus affair.
The Heliodorus Affair
1. The historical episode known as the Heliodorus affair was a key
turning point in the history of the Jews in Judea. lt is an episode
that reflects internal struggles for power and factional conflicts
between the powerful, elite families of Jerusalem.
2. The Heliodorus affair began when the authority of the high priest
Onias lll was challenged by a certain man named Simon, who
had been appointed captain of the temple by the Seleucid king.
Simon accused Onias lll of hoarding large sums of money in
the Jerusalem Temple, meaning that the high priest was not
declaring this money to the king.
3. King Seleucus IV then sent his finance minister, Heliodorus, to
Jerusalem. But when Heliodorus arrived in Jerusalem, Onias lll
told him that the money in the temple was the savings of widows
and orphans and, therefore, could not be confiscated. Heliodorus
then left Jerusalem. Onias Ill departed for Antioch to meet with
Seleucus IV and clear his name.
4. But Onias Ill never got the chance to argue his case before
Seleucus IV because the king was assassinated by Heliodorus;
then, Heliodorus was driven out by Seleucus’s brother, Antiochus
IV. Antiochus IV ruled the Seleucid kingdom from 175 to 164 B.C.
Jerusalem as a Polis
1. While Onias Ill was in Antioch, seeking a hearing with the
Seleucid king, his brother Jason ser\/ed for him as high priest in
the Jerusalem Temple. When Antiochus IV became king, Jason
moved to secure the high priesthood for himself, offering the
king 360 talents of silver and, from another source of revenue,
80 talents. And then Jason made another request-specifically,
to turn Jerusalem into a Greek city.
2. The most significant consequence of Jason’s action was
that Jerusalem became a polis, which meant that Greek law
replaced Jewish law as the law of the land. The author of 2
Maccabees describes the actions of Jason: “He set aside the
royal ordinances especially favoring the Jews and abrogating
the lawful ways of living. He introduced new customs contrary
to the law, for he willingly established a gymnasium right under
the citadel, and he made the finest of the young men wear the
Greek hat.”
3. Jerusalem now possessed all the characteristic features of
a Greek city, with Greek law as the law of the land and Greek
institutions established in the city. The author of 2 Maccabees
describes this transformation, noting that “the cultivation of
Greek fashions and the coming in of foreign customs” rose to
such a pitch that the priests “were no longer earnest about the
services of the altar.”
4. It is important to note here that the initiatives for the
transformation of Jerusalem into a Greek polis came from within
the Jewish community itself. This was not imposed on the Jews
by the Greek king.
5. Furthermore, there is no reference in 2 Maccabees to any
Jewish opposition to Jason’s actions. None of the texts we have
accuse Jason of altering the cult in the Jerusalem Temple or
prohibiting the normal practices of Judaism. Thus, even though
Jewish law was no longer the law of the land, the Jews were still
free to worship the God of Israel in the Jerusalem Temple and to
live according to the Torah. Jason’s high priesthood lasted from
175 to 172 B.C.-a defining moment in the history of the Jews
in Judea.
Tax Farming
1. Under the Ptolemies, taxes were collected through a system
of tax farming. Just like the office of the priest, the office of tax
collector could be bought and sold. Thus, the system of tax
farming led to cooperation between the kings and the wealthiest
families, because only the wealthiest families could bid on the
office. But the most significant consequence of tax farming was
that it created an enormous burden on the people-especially
on the poor.
2. Of course, the point of being a tax collector was to enrich oneself.
Tax collectors-or tax farmers-lined their pockets by collecting
more and more taxes, above and beyond the amount that they
were permitted. ln fact, the phrase “tax collectors and sinners”
occurs nine times in the New Testament.
3. lt was not just the Greek successors of Alexander the Great
who used a system of tax farming; in fact, from the time of the
republic, the Romans did so, as well. Taxes were collected by
men called publicani-public contractors who supplied the
Roman army, collected port duties, and oversaw public building
projects. By the 2"" and 1S‘ centuries B.C., most of Rome’s taxes
came from the provinces.
4. In the Roman world, the right to collect taxes in different
provinces or regions was auctioned to the highest bidder, just as
it had been in the Greek world. Individual publicani were usually
members of the elite equestrian class; they frequently formed
companies in order to bid on a large scale. Membership in a
company of publicani was open only to Roman citizens.
5. In order to collect the taxes in the provinces, the publicani
employed local representatives. Luke 19:2 probably refers to one
of these representatives: “A man was there named Zacchaeus.
He was a chief tax collector and was rich.”
6. Augustus replaced tax farming with direct taxation by requiring
each province to pay a wealth tax of about 1 percent and a
flat poll tax on each adult. This reform required regular census
taking to evaluate the taxable number of people and their
income or wealth status. Nevertheless, the custom of tax farming
continued, together with the abuses associated with it, because
provincial governors under the Romans continued to employ
private tax farmers to collect revenues.
7. Provincial governors and tax collectors enriched themselves
by collecting more than the official rate. Authors of the New
Testament protested; in Luke 3:12-13, we read: “Even tax
collectors came to be baptized. And they asked him ‘Master,
what should we do?’ He said to them, ‘Collect no more than the
amount prescribed for you.”’
8. In addition, provincial governors and tax collectors bought up
grain at a low rate at harvest time, which they sold at inflated
rates in times of shortage. They also lent money to desperate
provincials at usurious rates of 4 percent or more per month.
The tax collectors mentioned in the Gospel accounts-in Mark,
Matthew, and Luke-generally were the local provincial agents
who actually collected the taxes, including Matthew the apostle.
Suggested Reading
Goldenberg, The Origins of Judaism, chapter 4, “Crisis and a New
Beginning.”
Schiffman, Texts and Traditions, chapter 4, “The Hellenistic Age,” pp. 147-150.
Questions to Consider
1. What was the Heliodorus affair, and what were its consequences?
2. Who were the tax collectors mentioned in the Gospel accounts?
