The Hasmoneans - part XNUMX and last: Agrippa II - finished and not finished

The last Hasmonean king was actually a representative of the Roman Empire. He pleaded with the Jews to prevent the revolt, but failed. I wonder what would have happened if the Hasmoneans had not rebelled first against the Greeks and then against the Romans

In this episode, The last in our current series about the Hasmoneans, we will see again and again how some of the descendants of the Hasmoneans want to rebel against the Romans, whatever the cost. Beside them, directly and indirectly, stood the sectarian, obsessive, murderous fanaticism movement (as it would later manifest itself in its lethality in Jerusalem and in Masada in the presence of the residents of Ein Gedi), which drew encouragement from Maccabean-Hasmonean mythology. In front of this drift stood Agrippa II, like that legendary boy who wanted to stop the terrible flow of water in the dam, and wanted to dissuade them from their rebellion, and not only to show them that the price they would pay would be too heavy, completely irreversible, but that the rebellion was not in the spirit and opinion of God himself. Tried and almost succeeded. almost.

Agrippa I died in 44/43 CE. He left behind one son and three daughters from his wife Cyprus. There his son, the only one, was Agrippa, who was 17 years old when his father died, and he was the one who succeeded him.
In close proximity to the genealogical family tree, Josephus tells that the descendants of Alexander son of Herod were, no less and no more than the kings of Greater Armenia - an area north of Syria and east of the Euphrates River, with most of it now in eastern Turkey. Tigranis, the son of Alexander, was appointed by Augustus, the Roman emperor to be the king of Armenia, and his grandson, Tigranis V, the son of Alexander II, was appointed by the Roman emperor Nero as the king of Armenia, when his descendants came very close to the customs of Hellenism to the point of just a touch of conversion.

In 48 CE, Agrippa II was appointed by the Roman emperor Claudius to rule over his uncle's estate, namely Chalkis in Lebanon. At that time, Judea was ruled by the Roman commissioner Ventidius Comanus (52-48 AD), and during his time tensions increased in Jerusalem between the official Roman delegation, mainly the military, and Jewish zealot groups, with the fire of the dispute being fueled by both sides. The Roman punishment was cruel and thirty thousand people (the number is certainly exaggerated, but indicates the magnitude of the punishment and its severity) lost their lives at the hands of the weapons of the Roman legionaries.
Conflict followed conflict, when behind them stood Jewish extremists such as Elazar ben Dinai and another named Alexander who did not hesitate to slaughter their Samaritan neighbors and did not spare women, old men and children and set their villages on fire. Price tag then!

The ritual of the delegations to the emperor was repeated again and again - a delegation on behalf of Komanus, on behalf of the Jewish priests, on behalf of the Samaritan dignitaries and even Agrippa himself who spent the same time in Rome and taught justice to the Jews.
In the end, Claudius ruled in favor of the Jews, and let them abuse the military tribune in Jerusalem, drag him around the city and finally behead him.
Later, in 56 CE, the emperor converted the territory of Agrippa II's rule from the estate of Chalkis in the following areas: Golan, Bashan, Hvaran, Trachon and Caesarion.

Nero, the successor of the emperor Claudius, in 61 AD, granted the kingdom of Lesser Armenia (the one that stretched between the southeastern coast of the Black Sea and the Euphrates River) to Aristobulus son of Herod, King of Chalcis (a cousin of Agrippa II) and Agrippa II Camel with the addition of the following cities : Abla and Julias in Paraia (the Jewish Transjordan to the east), Tarikai (a tower) on the shore of the Sea of ​​Galilee and Tiberias (the capital of the Galilee). All this to teach us to what extent he believed in Agrippa's loyalty and his ability to calm the Jewish public.

In the days and during the tenure of the Roman Commissioner Felix (62-60 AD), the actions of the Jewish extremists and especially the murderous sicari increased as well as groups of eccentric Jewish prophets and intellectuals. All of these stirred up the anti-Roman atmosphere and only expected a rebellion to break out, considering "after the flood!". The sicari and their ilk massacred many Jews, whom they accused of collaborating with the Romans, mostly unjustly, and confiscated their property. In the province of Judah, the fanatical groups of Shimon bar Giura, Yohanan of Gush Halab, Eleazar ben Yair and others were active, as they expected, as mentioned, the outbreak of a great rebellion, and they acted, in spite of themselves, on God's behalf.

During the tenure of the Commissioner Gesius Florus (66-64 CE) the tensions increased and intensified, with Florus often massacring the Jews. At the same time, Agrippa II made his way from Rome to Alexandria and his sister Bernice, who was staying in Jerusalem, begged Commissioner Florus to put an end to the killing, but in vain. The atmosphere of the eve of rebellion prevailed in the air.

Agrippa arrived by sailing from Alexandria Livna (to the port of the city: Yavne-Yam) and there he was met by the Syrian commissioner Castius Gallus. And this according to the request of Commissioner Floros, after he reported to Gallos about the situation in Jerusalem, of course in light of his interests. The High Priests, Franciscans of Jerusalem and members of the Council of Elders also came to Livna, which explains that the summit meeting was planned properly. And by the way, this place, Livna, has an interesting connection to the story of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai's departure from Jerusalem Livna, who sits on a direct line between Caesarea and Jerusalem. The citizens of Jerusalem also went out to meet Agrippa so that he would do something in order to restore order and bring before the commissioner the truth of their intention for calm and peace.

Agrippa summoned the public to Jerusalem in order to hear his words before him. And there, with his sister Berniki by his side, on the towering Hasmonean palace, Agrippa delivered a fiery speech in the presence of the Jerusalem public thirsting for the mouth of the king. And his speech was impressive and exciting. The speech was well prepared, rational and well anchored in the painful reality.
The purpose of the speech was to dissuade the public from raising the miracle of the rebellion. And so, in a completely logical way, when he uses as a peppered and shrewd lawyer the method of elimination - to present an assumption and immediately negate it, so that the public will reach, almost on its own, the terrible result that is expected if a rebellion breaks out in Judea against the Romans. For example - denying the ability of Diaspora Jews to come to the aid of the Jews; The display of the unshaken power of the Roman army, all nations and even the largest and most powerful among them surrendered to it; An almost heretical statement, that the God of Israel probably supports the Romans, and finally the cry of rebuke, as if the public itself would bring about a terrible blow on the Jewish settlement and the destruction of a temple, which the Jewish public itself comes to defend.
This speech is remarkably similar to the speech of Rabashka, one of the representatives of the Assyrian monarchy, whose army led by Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem at the time. Both in Rabashka and in Agrippa there is a provocative and rhetorical defiance in the form of: "Accept" from me hundreds of war horses, do you have a similar number of cavalry to ride them and more of this kind.
It is not known whether the aforementioned Assyrian psychological speech stood before Agrippa's eyes, but in any case the affinity between the two is interesting.
Agrippa concludes his speech with the following sentence: "For my part, I bear witness to all that is holy to you, my Archangels and our common city, that I have not hidden from you anything that is in it to save you. Whereas you will always enjoy peace if you make the right decisions. But if you get carried away with your passion - you will face the dangers without me!" (Yosef ben Mattathieu, History of the Jewish War in the Romans, II 401, 272. The translation according to Lisa Ullman, p. XNUMX).

Amazing and moving was Agrippa's speech, at the end of which his eyes and his sister's eyes shed tears, which calmed the public's storm of spirits. Agrippa simply put before them a mirror that proves how the rebellion was lost before it broke out, even if its reasons were good and worthy, and presented them with a realistic and pragmatic option - to reach negotiations with the Romans not out of defeatism and laxity but out of a possible defense of the existing.

The majority of the public was convinced and was ready to carry out Agrippa's pleas - to pay the taxes to Rome and reconnect the bridge between the Temple Mount and the Citadel of Antonia - in practice. Agrippa even managed to convince the Romans to send under the harsh and cruel commissioner Florus, but the public, incited by the fanatics, was not ready to wait for the arrival of a new commissioner. The fanatical feeling under the moderate mind tipped the scales and Judah was drawn into a terrible and disastrous rebellion, one that would change the face of the history of Judah and Judea.

King Agrippa was seriously hurt by the reaction of the agitated public and returned to his kingdom. And when the moderates in Jerusalem realized that they would not be able to stop the violent drift, they organized two delegations of reconciliation and pragmatism and sent one to Commissioner Florus in Caesarea and the other to Agrippa. The delegations had a request to send military forces to Jerusalem to prevent the outbreak of the rebellion and its intensification. Florus did not reply to the delegation at all because he wanted to settle accounts with the rebels and not to face a Roman tribunal at the end of his term. Agrippa, as someone who understood the magnitude of the impending disaster, sent two thousand skilled horsemen to Jerusalem.
The rebels increased their steps, and as one of the symbols of the Hasmonean rule - the palace of Agrippa and his sister Bernice - were set on fire. Was it a personal move against Agrippa? Was this a step against the Greekness of the Hasmonean kings? Was this a step designed to increase the mass enthusiasm at all, as happened immediately when the fanatics set fire to the archive of debt notes and in general to the food treasures in Jerusalem? It is impossible to know - some or all of them - in any case these are irreversible steps, practical on the one hand and symbolic on the other.

Later, Agrippa sent foot soldiers and even cavalry, as did Roman allies to help the thickened forces commanded by Castius Gallus, the Roman commissioner in Syria. Agrippa himself, still imbued with his belief that he would succeed in rooting out the rebellion, accompanied the Roman commissioner on his way to Judea.

On their way to Jerusalem, Agrippa tried again to speak to the hearts of the rebels, but they firmly refused and even murdered the two messengers who were sent on Agrippa's behalf, and whose mouths were the paths of reconciliation and their hands were clean. In another event, intentional or accidental, young Jews from the Mount Tabor area robbed the dignitary of the farm manager of Agrippa II and Bernice.
A short time later, at the height of the rebellion, the city of Tiberias revolted against Joseph ben Mattathias, the commander of the rebellion in the Galilee sector, and its residents summoned King Agrippa, whose control Tiberias was under. In the end Joseph ben Matthieu won and subjugated Tiberias again to his power.

After most of the Galilee fell to the Romans, the Roman commander Vespasian was freed to visit Agrippa's estate, and Josephus notes how much Agrippa was valued and his policies were valued by the Romans. Thanks to this, Vespasian took pity on the city of Tiberias and refrained from severely punishing it as a rebellious city.
At the time when he had rebelled against the Romans, Agrippa, he and his retinue, stood before the city walls and tried to bring about the surrender of the city before it fell as a rebel by the Romans and was severely punished. The defenders' reaction was to shoot sling stones at Agrippa and his entourage, and one of them hit the king's elbow.

The following photo is taken in Jerusalem. And thanks to the Roman historian Tacitus, it became known that by the side of Titus, the son of Vespasianus, who continued to manage the Roman siege around Jerusalem, and towards the breaching of its walls, a number of kings mobilized and sent military forces to the area, among them Agrippa. On the face of it, this action of Agrippa II can be seen as treason, as a despicable and despicable pro-Roman collaboration, but when you review all of Agrippa's actions and attitudes for the benefit of the Jews and for the benefit of Judah, it can be assumed, so it seems, that all his intentions were sincere and proper and not only because He expected that this would be the case, considering the slippery and greasy slope, but he expected to help as much as he could to minimize the damage, as he did with regard to the fate of the residents of Tiberias during the suppression of the anti-Roman rebellion in the Galilee. And even earlier, on the eve of the outbreak of the Great Rebellion, Agrippa II took care to strengthen and fortify the walls of Jerusalem.

It should be noted that, after the fall of the last stronghold in the Galilee, that is Jodephat, when he was allowed to go free and accompanied Vespasian and then Titus into the siege of Jerusalem, he delivered a fiery speech to the besieged residents of Jerusalem, in which he asked the rebels to lay down their arms and surrender to the Romans. Here too it is easy and convenient, and so many of us do to this day, to stick the label of traitor on Joseph's forehead, and even more so after a few months earlier he was the commander of the anti-Roman rebellion in the Galilee. The matter of betrayal is not at all historically obscured and at some point I will write an article on this subject in the field of science. And to our point - in Joseph's speech quite similar points are raised that Agrippa II presented "seconds" before the great rebellion broke out. Was Joseph ben Mattathieu present among the public in Jerusalem and exposed to Agrippa's speech? Did Yosef ben Matthias cite Agrippa's speech? Did they both take the central motifs from the same speech of Rabshakeh that appears in the Bible? Did Yosef ben Matthiahu's conscience bother him? There is no telling. In any case, it can be assumed that Joseph ben Matthieu did not appear here as a string playing on the Roman violin. He simply wanted to save the city on the eve of its destruction.

This is how, at least in terms of documentation, the Hasmonean dynasty came to be, and no trace of it was known. Unfortunately, we do not have the possibility to trace the origins of the Agrippa dynasty. Sage sources fill their mouths with water and do not allow us to take a peek, even by a narrow slit, at what happened to her.

This is the end of the series on the Hasmoneans, which I wanted to present to the readers, tirelessly and combing through its various sides and characteristics for the bright spots and the highlights, with the latter pushing and repressing the former. True, and in the sign of national-nationalist Zhdanovism and the tribe's bonfire, a character from one was immortalized and characters from another were banished. Zionism made sure to highlight the heroism of the first Maccabees, because in doing so it met its national expectations - and to delete/eliminate/dwarf what did not fit its ideas and sail away with what did. Therefore, the plots of the first Maccabees were raised as flags and the flags of the Hasmoneans - the collaborators with the authorities and moderates on behalf - were lowered.
And on this the biblical poet says - the best of the poem - lie!

The main message from the series is that the Maccabees/Hasmoneans did well, had they not provoked the Hellenistic kingdom, when these provocations did nothing but harm to Judah, never and will never bring religious fanaticism, obsessive fanaticism, favor and blessing to its believers. This does not mean that things should be examined without proportionalism. On the contrary. If you examine the situation and status of Judah throughout the Persian period and the Hellenistic period until the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes compared to the one that followed, the choice of the flag of rebellion proved his madness and error and did more harm than good, and this is good throughout all the rebellious attempts of some of the descendants of the Hasmonean house in the first Roman period and on to the rebellion The great one, for the Diaspora revolt during the reign of Emperor Trianus and for the revolt of Ben Khosva. We will recall how the majority of the public in Judea contained the Hellenistic decrees, and if a rebellion had not arisen, the successors of Antichus IV would certainly have upgraded the situation and status of the public in Judea. It was enough to have a weak and vague knowledge of the events of the Bible to understand that at that time it would be nonsense of the first order to try and confront the Hellenistic power and then the Roman one.

And whoever does not believe should ask the prophet Isaiah about the rebellion against Assyria and Jeremiah about the rebellion in Babylon.