Dr. Yehiam Sorek
In our penultimate article, we dealt with the issue of sibling rivalry, as a symbol, as a mantra, as a twisted myth, which comes to explain the failure of the moves against Rome and how the Roman Empire "dare" to enslave Judah after the heyday of the Hasmonean kingdom.
Our previous article was "stuck", due to the date bar on the historical ruler - 63-67 BC, and the continuation in the current article. We learned that Pompey judged the quarrel between the brothers, and after deliberation, chose to support John Hyrcanus against Judas Aristobulus, and Aristobulus chose the path of rebellion against the Romans. And what did he do? He fortified himself in Jerusalem, while the supporters of Hyrcanus wanted to open the city gates to Pompey's army.
betrayal? God forbid! The supporters of Hyrcanus were pragmatic, realistic, and understood very well what would happen to the city if it persevered in its stubbornness, for it was well-known and pallid to every leper and leper in those years, that no fortress or citadel, no matter how fortified and stubborn they were, did not and would not last against the power of Rome . Moreover, a city that did not surrender or that refused to open its doors voluntarily was severely punished.
Jerusalem was therefore divided between the realistic camp, which preferred to enslave Rome from a preferred starting point, and the somnolent, fantasizing camp of Aristobulus, who, as he said to himself: after the flood!
It is about two brothers, sons of the Hasmonean dynasty, which for a certain time brought years of glory and glory to Judah. One of them chose to be realistic (Yohanan) while his brother, somewhat troubled, chose the path of rebellion.
It is interesting that Pompey commanded his soldiers not to take advantage of the Sabbath day and attack the Jews on strike in March. This was a message to the inhabitants, that Rome had no intention of harming religious sanctuaries, as was the practice throughout the established empire. Rome's leaders also assumed that local residents would not rebel if they did not have a good reason for it, and a religious reason is definitely "good" in this regard.
Moreover, when Pompey broke into Jerusalem, he was careful not to touch the treasures of the temple and even ordered his subordinates to clean the temple and to persevere in the work of sacrifices inside it. A pre-occupation tactic? Fear of the revenge of the local deity? Condensation of the routine as a refuge for the locals following the shock of enslavement? … ? A fact remains a fact, and this is how the Romans behaved in their extensive areas of control.
At the end of the mission, Pompey returned to Rome with hostages: Aristobulus and his family. Alexandros, one of the sons, managed to save his soul in an unusual way and planned the continuation of his rebellious steps in Judea.
Is it because his uncle, Hyrcanus, ruled Judea under the protection of the Romans as king, and not his father, Aristobulus? Is it because the Aristobulus family engraved the flag of rebellion on their flag? Or because Hyrcanus was portrayed as a weak ruler lacking personal and political backbone? In any case, it is difficult to point to the reactor from the quarry of the rebellious move.
In the first confrontation with the Romans, Alexander was defeated and suffered heavy losses. He fled to the Citadel of Alexandria and finally surrendered to the Romans and even surrendered two more fortresses to them - Hurkenia and Makhvar.
Gabinius, Pompey's right-hand man, strengthens the position of Hyrcanus and allows him to return to Jerusalem.
The flame of rebellion and rebellion did not go out, and this time it was carried by the captive father, the forbidden, Yehuda Aristobulus himself, who managed to escape from where he lived in Rome and returned to Judea. Those who joined it were divided by their reasons into two groups: those who joined out of lust for rebellion for its own sake, we were delusional militarists, and those who joined it on a personal basis of love and appreciation.
This time too, although the rebels fought bravely and stubbornly, they had no chance against the well-oiled Roman army. His forces collapsed, many died, many were captured and some escaped. Among the exiles was Aristobulus himself. This time the rebel was taken to Rome, forbidden in coppers and under heavy guard.
Gabinius conducts a military campaign against the Parthians, Rome's sworn, traditional enemies, and Alexander son of Aristobulus uses his absence from the arena and seeks to rise once more. He said in his heart - according to Yosef ben Mattathias - "to burn all the Romans from the land". When Gabinius learned of the move, he rushed to Judea and confronted the rebels near Mount Tabor. The results were clear and predictable: the rebels were defeated, suffered severe blows and scattered everywhere.
In the end, both Aristobulus and his son Alexander met their deaths while conducting the first war of Roman succession, the war of the Triumvirate.
Did the rebels achieve their goal, their ambitions? of course not. The opposite is correct. In their revolt, they caused the death of thousands of young people who joined them, much property was damaged, the Romans sent military forces to Judea, the cost of which was borne by the population, the name of the Jews was dishonored in the eyes of the Romans, the revolts attracted political forces who took advantage of the situation in order to extract as many coupons as possible, such as the impeachment of a leader The tribes of the desert and Antipater the Red.
The rebellions made it difficult for the Romans to grant a more upgraded status to Hyrcanus, and as a result the degree of autonomy in Judea was damaged. Over the years, the Romans developed a stubborn reservation against the phenomenon of rebellion and knew how to punish areas that were tainted by rebellion.
There is no doubt that behind the rebellions stood, apart from political, economic and in general personal grievances, also a religious belief, that God would not turn away from the group of opponents, and would support the righteousness of your move. This fictional belief, which will take another form later on in the history of Judah under Roman rule, is an illusory messianic ideology, which will lead to the outbreak of the great rebellion and the destruction of the Second Temple.
A compilation of Dr. Yechiam Sorek's articles on the Hidan site
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~318145111~~~185&SiteName=hayadan
One response
The Great Revolt, which followed, was the greatest disaster that ever befell the Jews. Yes. I heard about the holocaust.
This is the rebellion that resulted in the great destruction of the Jews of the Land of Israel, of their extinction, of the loss of the Jewish entity in the Land as the owners of the land in general and as some kind of political entity. The Jews lost their country not only as a country, but literally physically, and their country lost all its Jews. The state of Judea/Israel no longer exists. Since then its name has been called: Palestine.