Antiochus' decrees against the Jews were no different from those he issued against the other nations in his kingdom in order to create a unified nation that worships the king, why did the Jews take it harder, and what caused the Hasmoneans to lead the rebellion?
1 - The rebellion as an expression of desperate frustration
If I had gone around among the people and found out the certain, obvious result, required by the landing of the decrees of Antiochus IV, they would all be as one man screaming in chorus: rebellion-rebellion. And here it turns out not as she screamed, literally.
In order to clarify the matter, we will point out that to this day, and certainly since then, one questionable, problematic thought haunts the scholars of the days of the Second Temple: how can we explain that a king who is so tolerant, considerate of his subjects, interested in industrial peace and without a doubt knows first and foremost the expected resistance from the people of Israel if And when he decrees religious-ritual destruction on them.
At first they tried to justify this with a kind of momentary insanity on the part of the king, and mainly against the background of the bitter humiliation he suffered in Egypt from a delegation of dignitaries from Rome, which ordered him to return to his country, despite his series of victories there against the Ptolemaic dynasty (Ptolemaic House). And here, on his way to his home in Syria, he learned of an outbreak of riots in Jerusalem, and as a response he issued the decrees (167 BC). This assumption is too simplistic, and it ignores a clear text that appears in the book of Maccabim 44 (XNUMX:XNUMX): "And the king (Antiochus) wrote to all his kingdom that they should all be one people and that each man should leave his own constitutions. And all the nations will receive as the king said."
The text in question is not at all unique to Judah only, but to all the inhabitants of the Syrian-Seleucid kingdom, which was very heterogeneous, and the king sought to bring about its uniformity and unity under his rule by leading the worship of the king. "The Jews have fulfilled", but what did the other nations "crime" and "sin"? This is not the case if it is an organizational-state move behind which a clear political intention was hidden.
Moreover, the decrees have indeed been imposed, but the concern for their enforcement takes for granted all their thorniness. The lack of enforcement capacity is there to mock and undermine the core of the decrees.
From this we will not be surprised why, in light of the Maccabean text itself, because the majority of the Jewish public accepted the decrees. Some fled to hiding places in order to fulfill their religious duties without interruption (although it is not clear how they carried out procedures that previously, before the decrees, were not known at all, such as public gatherings and the phenomenon of synagogues, which are known to be much later).
On the other hand, events were known under the later title of Kiddush Hashem, such as the story of the old Eleazar who withstood torture and did not desecrate the Holy of Holies, and the likeness of the mother (known in medieval sources as Hannah) and her seven sons. These visual events, whether they took place in reality or whether, for example, the myth had them, naturally fostered clear expectations for a miracle, for a heavenly-divine response, and this, as we know, did not materialize.
It seems that the lifting of the miracle of the rebellion by Matthew and his sons was an expression of the enormous frustration that gripped the guts of delusional fanatics such as this family, and behold, as they said to themselves - we will bring the miracle down from the sky. Here it is confirmed in the literary and mythological contexts of the rebellious family and especially in Matthew's will, which draws a very clear line between the brutal fanaticism of the biblical Pinchas in the desert, through the prophet Elijah, right to the actions of Matthew and his sons. Matthew even emphasizes that the zeal of the two gave them divine-heavenly holiness.
2. The rebellion as a political-dynastic upheaval
Matatiyo belonged to a respected priestly family called Mishmar Yehoirib, and the raising of the miracle of the rebellion in terms of war in the Greeks, Greeks and Greeks, was used by him as a lever to carry out a significant change in the priesthood.
The priesthood during the First Temple period was nothing more than a servant in the hands of the kings, including into the days of the divided kingdom. These were the king's officials who led the worship on his behalf in the temple and also on the platforms.
During the Second Temple period (516/586 BC) when the monarchy in Judah ceased in light of the clear trend of the Persian rule, the priesthood grew and grew as a replacement for the royal house. This became stronger and stronger during the Hellenistic period, from the end of the fourth century BC. This priesthood, for the Beit Zadok family, which has a mythological tradition from the days of the First Temple, became Greek in the Hellenistic era.
About 15 years before the imposition of the decrees, the Honio family led the temple, and a number of families tried to take its place, as it seems, since the high priesthood was considered at that time almost an internal monarchy in Judah. The case of Shimon, a member of the family of priests in Bilga, is famous, who wanted to lead the market in Jerusalem (to be an agronomist), in other words - to pull the strings of the city's economy and row under the serving high priest.
Another, more "successful" attempt was the appointment of Jesus-Jason, the brother of the high priest, to the high priesthood by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV in exchange for a decent share of Solomons. Although "everything stays in the family", this move caused significant revolutions in the dynasty of the great priesthood, the one that deepened the Greekization of Judea, the result of the initiatives of his successors - Menelaus and Lysymchos.
The decrees laid down by Antiochus were used as a lever for the outbreak of Mattathias from Beit Hasmon and the lifting of the miracle of the rebellion.
And what turns out? Behind the rebellious outburst was a move, an open doubt, a hidden doubt, of the transfer of the priestly line from the house of his sons and his heirs to another family, to another guard, the Yehoirib Guard, the one in which Matthew was a prominent figure.
Matthew's sons will serve as high priests and so will his grandsons and even great-grandsons of the Hasmonean royal house, which fortifies and perpetuates Matthew's initial course - to bring about a sharp turn in the line of priestly leadership.
33 תגובות
"Matthew and his five sons" what a joke. A coalition of five gang leaders, each from a different location, lured an eccentric old man into pretending to be a prophet. And when his job was over and the urine got to his head, they killed him
The rebellion was not against Antiochus (he was busy with another war) but against the high priest in Jerusalem who was loosely protected by the Syrian king. Antiochus had no interest in disabling temple work, because there is nothing like temples to raise money. The Hasmoneans thought they knew better what to do with the treasures of the Temple and took advantage of a moment of weakness of the army to carry out their criminal plot. Everything else is character assassination and brainwashing. Woe to the believer
Dr. Ash Ash is a history buff, but he really doesn't know history, not even a little bit. The Palestinians cannot raid the land of the Hebrews. Before they came here - they were not Palestinians but Arabs; the land of the Hebrews stopped being like that hundreds of years ago (if it existed, and see As the book of Joshua is not closed about the territory and so are those that follow it.) This is not a gloss on concepts, it is pure ignorance.
Regarding the condescension towards the inhabitants of the deserts, the history buff should learn about the tremendous and unique contribution of the Arabs between the 8th and 13th centuries to human culture.
If the Palestinians raided the land of the Hebrews - which is an argument devoid of any factual value - what will be said about the Hebrews who came from Egypt after 400 years and conquered it from its inhabitants and destroyed them? It is true that there is no historical basis for this, but that is the story, isn't it?
Aren't the Jews the ones who left the country? Why don't you learn how many Jews lived outside of Israel before the destruction of the Second Temple? Why don't you find out why it was abandoned in the fourth and fifth centuries AD?
"The greatness of Beit Omri and its influence in the region" - this is an illusory statement, even in biblical terms.
The books of the Hasmoneans are a pure expression of the Jewish faith in its most refined form: decrees of destruction, a rebellion of the zealots for God's word, the few against the many, a combination of human heroism and divine help - and success.
And here is the wonder and wonder: precisely a miraculous expression for all of the above was not inserted by a sage into the biblical canon.
The issue of the preserved Jewish people does not even stand the test of the sources. No less than 80% of it disappeared already 2,700 years ago. This is without referring to the disasters he brought upon himself such as the Great Revolt and the Bar Kochba Revolt. Which leads to the issue of the location of the Maccabees: it worked against the Seleucids, it ended in great disaster - twice - against a more successful military power (and twice before, against Assyria and Babylon).
So it could be that Dr. Sorek is many-very-bad-things-at-once, but Judaism actually did not accept the nationalist arrangement; after all, Yohanan ben Zakhai left Jerusalem on the eve of the Holocaust and turned to the enemy who was tormenting her, and only asked for "Yavna and her sages." This is After all, it was treason of the first degree during wartime, but Judaism followed this path, and it is not for nothing that the matter of "the three oaths that Israel swore to God" is brought up.
There is a trend of historical nationalism all over the world!
But Jewish "historians" are actually trying to disparage the glorious history of the people of Israel!
Not long ago I read an article about Shlomo Zand's book which claims that the Jews do not actually exist and that there is actually no such people!
Although it has been proven in many genetic studies about the belonging of the people of Israel to the land of the ancestors, this was excellent material for anti-Semites all over the world!
to mr whistle,
The height was not for you.
The request was for additional writers.
And don't lie - the voice is a communist voice and your writing is perfect.
Your degree doesn't make any impression on me, I also studied and have it
degree, and the number of donkeys I encountered at the university was
Relatively very large.
Friendly teasing (even though you don't deserve it)
Go to counseling
Revealing the truth? Or contempt for the truth? Why don't we hear a little about the dubious origins of your Palestinian friends, the desert dwellers and the Bibbs who raided the land of the Hebrews and made it theirs?
As a history buff, I must point out that it disappoints me again and again to read your articles which are always for some reason led by an ultra-leftist-suicidal-delusional-and disconnected agenda... too bad
It's a shame you didn't find the time to tell about the greatness of Beit Omari - about the Kingdom of Israel and its enormous influence in the region.
Yahyam whistles
Manichaeist probably?
For a simple calculation, hello
Every rebellion that took place in the people of Israel against the Assyrian, Babylonian, Hellenistic and Roman ruler ended not only in discrimination and sacrifices as well as loss of property and partial exile, but in the loss of legal status and other rights that were maintained by the ruling government.
If any rebellious operation is admired by you, whatever its tragic results, we have no basis for argument.
Peace to Shimon Ezer,
The ideology on which I grew up and in which my character was shaped is democratic-liberal and Montesquieu - fighting for the truth, its discovery and publication.
You are, so it seems, a Machiavellist, a Nietzscheist and a Schopenhauerist. Cheers!
dear father,
The shock received by Mr. Sorek as almost the only writer in the historical field is jarring.
I don't know what Mr. Sorek's area of historical expertise is, but I can guess
Certainties about the ideology on which it grew.
His articles are biased and tendentious and their purpose -
Denigration of our history
Denigration of our image as a people
And this is in order to serve the ideology that Mr. Sorek grew up with.
What's new:
Here is the interpretation given by Babylon to the word primitive: "primitive, in a poor degree of development, with ancient methods, old-fashioned, old, ancient, out of date, simple, crude".
I wonder why he doesn't say in relation to what.
Anyway - I mean in relation to what we know today. I have no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past even if they were done in good faith. Capish?
And if we are talking about interpretations of words, then the word "to curse" means to wish someone that something bad will happen to them. It is not possible, therefore, to curse dead people. Of course?
I can describe the mistakes of the past sympathetically and I do so when people try to judge the people who lived in the past based on them, but when people nowadays try to live by the mistakes of the past I feel obliged to present them as they are - these are mistakes that we have no reason to repeat.
Note that we are not talking about the article at all. I don't have enough knowledge about the period to judge the article, but from their responses I responded that it is clear that those who wrote them have even less knowledge than I do.
You conclude, for some reason, that I have a special attitude towards the Jewish religion when nothing in my speech indicates that. I think all religions are superstitions and dangerous but you feel hurt only in the name of Judaism because it is the religion to which you are tamed. This training affects you to such an extent that you do not even understand that I did not write anything that distinguishes Judaism from other religions. My only references to Judaism specifically are responses to yours. How could it be that you didn't notice that? Are all my words written? This is a typical result of brainwashing.
Most of the organized killings happened as a result of an unfounded belief created by brainwashing. True - not all of these beliefs came from what you call "religion", but a large part of them do indeed stem from an institutionalized religion (and for me there is no significant difference between the various parts - an unfounded belief is the mother of all sin and religion is a special case of this phenomenon).
The fact that you do not understand something does not mean that it has no explanation - it simply means that you are short of finding the explanation.
So you have no reason to be upset that you don't understand what I'm looking for here.
I can explain to you but I need you to calm down first.
A response to Avi Blizovsky.
He reproaches them by denigrating the Hasmoneans
And modesty is the principle part of their struggle.
The Macbeths took great personal risk in igniting the rebellion
And this fact was "forgotten" from his heart.
The fact that they succeeded does not make the rebellion a kind of "smelling exercise" like the miserable finale of Survival.
This is by the way only one of the problems with the article
And indeed the central one.
There is almost no connection between religion and war in the context you mentioned!
As the previous speaker pointed out, the most brutal wars did not take place on religious grounds. It's just that he forgot to mention the conquests of the Mongols, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Mao in China, Stalin... ahhhhhh and I forgot to mention the glorious conquests of Julius Caesar in Gaul, during which close to a million Gauls were murdered! And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
All these have nothing to do with monotheistic religions
Michael,
When you call the ancient Jews
"Primitives" in relation to what you mean in relation to the Romans, Greeks or perhaps the barbarians and perhaps you mean in relation to you.
Michael, for my part, you can use curses against the ancient Jews, and it will do you good.
The Romans built their empire while robbing, killing and enslaving many peoples.
For example the destruction of Carthage not on a religious basis, the destruction of Syracuse (Sicily Archimedes) not on a religious basis, the Napoleonic Wars not on a religious basis, the First World War in which 500000 Germans, 200000 French and 400000 British were killed
Not on religious grounds, in World War II 74 million people were killed, six million of whom were Jews.
There were other wars that I didn't remember, not on religious grounds.
Every nation has the right to preserve its cultural framework
It seems to me that a deep hatred for the Jewish religion is bubbling up
("If it weren't for all the troubles created by the religions and Judaism in general there would be many more people here and they would perhaps be writing about happier things.")
So I don't understand what you are looking for in the most barbaric region of the world. Move to Scandinavia where the majority is secular, declare there that you are a citizen of the world and live a quiet and happy life there. ("The idea of preserving Judaism at the expense of its people is a crazy idea")
What's new:
"Primitive" is a word with meaning and I have no intention of giving up using it just because someone decided that there are things about which the truth should not be told.
What, in your opinion, is it permissible to say "primitive"? Have you decided to eliminate words from the dictionary?
The fact that I was not here is a meaningless claim. Even if my parents hadn't met I wouldn't be here and yet I don't see my parents meeting as a defining event in human culture. If it weren't for all the problems created by religions and Judaism in general, there would be many more people here and they would perhaps be writing about happier things.
Even the emphasis on existence here is meaningless. A world in which I could be born anywhere because there is no hatred on religious grounds seems to me a much better world - I wish we had not come to a situation that necessitated my birth and my life right here.
What do you think is the damage caused to the world as a result of the assimilation of the Jews? Do you think their persecution is a good thing because it prevents assimilation?
I repeat - there are things that are primitive and religions are definitely one of them.
The idea of preserving Judaism at the expense of its people is a crazy idea and in the song we sing on Passover we need to add a correction and sing: "But in every generation our brides rise up against us and the Holy One, blessed be He, saves us from their hands plus or minus six million"
תיקון
Line 6
A liberal attitude towards the Jews in the diaspora caused assimilation in the 17th century in Portugal, the Jews disappeared.
In German there was assimilation until the beginning of the twentieth century.
In the US, the process will continue
Michael,
In each generation, a culture is adapted to its niche from a religious, economic, political point of view
Judaism, thanks to its strength and flexibility, lasted in exile for about two thousand years
And if not, you wouldn't be here writing your review!
But external conditions also influence,
For example, the harassment of Christians to Jews and their detention in ghettos.
A liberal attitude towards Jews in the diaspora caused assimilation in the 17th century in Portugal, the Jews disappeared through assimilation in German until the beginning of the 20th century in the USA, the process continued.
Every culture over the generations undergoes evolution, some parts are more and some are less.
Animals are also adapted to their niche
For example, is a crocodile primitive,
If there were not longer legs and coordinated systems then maybe in the dry season there would be an antelope predator in the Savannah and this is not the case.
Even the dinosaurs that existed for about 160 million years were not "primitives" they were adapted to their niche.
Therefore, there is no place for the term "primitive" in the context of past cultures.
Michael,
The term "primitive" is an arrogant concept especially when referring to ancient cultures.
One must objectively investigate the ancient civilizations and try to understand their operation without involving a personal opinion
What's new:
No one tries to give advice to people from those days, partly because everyone (especially those who criticize the actions of people in the past) knows that there is no way to influence the past.
The point is that as soon as someone voices some kind of criticism, people of our time jump in and show how the criticism of the primitives of that time also applies to the primitives of our time.
I see the comments here and wonder about those people living in the 21st century
They know how to give advice to Jews from 70,500,2000 years ago.
They sit with all the vast knowledge and decide decisively
They just forget one thing
The Jews in those times lived by what they knew then and what they believed
You will never understand what the spirit of the times is.
There is no science, there is no modern state (national insurance, employment)
There is faith in God because that is what kept them going.
Peace to Iran
The rebellions did not break out from the Maccabean times. This was preceded by earlier rebellions, but one of them kidnapped the people of Israel as fair. Examples? There is a lot, and perhaps a prophet is only on the tip of the fork: the rebellion of Hezekiah in Assyria, followed by Josiah and Zedekiah. After Zedekiah's rebellion, we hit the exile on the head. And when examining the reasons for these rebellions, there is nothing left but to flash a cynical and pathetic laugh.
Even the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto, which was unique, despite insisting on defining the term "ghetto uprising" (in the plural) in relation to the days of the Holocaust, presented a course of desperation that hindered those who sought to escape the ghetto under the cover of the rush and perhaps even join partisan units.
Moreover - you use the language "Maccabi who are Maccabi, the main thing is that they were Jews". You should know that from one Maccabean-Hasmonean leader to another, the level of Judaism in each Maccabean leader decreased, and the grandsons of Matthias were, lived and behaved like the Hellenistic kings for all intents and purposes.
It is hard for me not to detect a tone of racism in your reference - the main thing is that there were Jews.
I am always amused by this argument about the Jewish people surviving so long.
While the Jewish people survived - the Jews died.
This is exactly an example of an idea (meme - in Dawkins' language) endowed with the ability to utilize the resources of the environment (human minds) in order to survive.
Such are all the monotheistic religions and it is not for nothing that they all command "death for the sanctification of Hashem" (which is why they do indeed survive - Judaism was born first but there is no evidence that it survives better than the others).
Many of those who were not Jews at the time of the revolt have descendants living today. Most of the Jews from that time have no trace today.
Many of the few remaining descendants carry with them the same disease that killed the previous generations and as a result are unable to receive information that does not match the brainwashing they have received.
Eran,
The Chinese have been conquered at least three times in the last 3000 years, and each time they surrendered almost immediately. And yet, they remained Chinese, with the same traditions, the same customs, the same holy books.
Indians don't usually rebel every week or two, and yet they remain Indians with the same religion.
You can remain quiet and proud, and still not assimilate.
Although Petah did so, in my opinion the author of the article completely ignored the most obvious thing here..the big question
Why are we the Jews... after all, not a military empire, who knows what... all the while with typical stubbornness we insisted on rebelling against rebellions that were mostly on the verge of defining suicide (and some really were that way)..?
And people from afar only judge the event itself ..that is..if there was no great rebellion there would be a temple..if there was no Bar Kochba rebellion we would survive in Israel....
The same goes for the new neorealist current that condemns the mass suicide in Masada and what it represents
But the problem is that we forget here..that this is the very reason we have survived as a nation until today...this stubbornness of ours not to surrender..these stories of heroism and unbelievable deeds are the reason we are the only nation that has survived to this day as the same miksha from then until today..these things are what bound us together. .If we had not rebelled ..if we had been quiet ..we would have assimilated and disappeared as a people...and what happened...all the events only caused a stronger bond among the Jews of the Diaspora...a bond that remained for almost 2000 years..
This is something very proud in the eyes of this unique case of ours... and it's a shame that idle professors are running theories from their ivory tower today about what bully Bar Kochba was or what psychopath his name was (sorry I forgot..the leader of the fanatics in Masada)..
Because the Romans remembered it all the time..enough to document such an act that will reach us..
The short Maccabi of Maccabi.. the main thing is Jews 🙂 …
The initials mentioned by the honorable Dr. do not correspond to the name Macbeim. On the other hand, they correspond nicely to the verse
Why did I not accept God?
And probably from the disciples of the evil Balaam
The addition of the initials Dr. is not a guarantee of the seemingly reliable knowledge in the hands of the writer. It seems more likely that the entire article is a finger-sucking. It is based on parts of assumptions and imaginations. The description of the situation that existed so many years ago in such detail as it is in the article seems clearly fabricated. Well, if we try To check what is happening nowadays in the minds of the leaders and what their real actions are in front of the quicksand in everyone's eyes is impossible. Especially in such an early period. Maybe he has a time machine or the summer from a previous incarnation.
What exactly did Dr. Sorek criticize? He simply presented the Hasmoneans as human beings, politicians who were influenced by what happened in the region at the time. No one, not even the ultra-Orthodox, claims that they were gods.
Dr. Yachiam Sorek does not miss an opportunity to slander, slander and scorn the non-heroes of Israel without whom he would probably call himself Dr. Mahmoud al-Sharak an expert on homosexuality law today... I wonder if there is a connection to the latest study that stated that another 80% of Israelis are Zionists Most of Israel's academia is weak and shallow left-wing, moreover mostly Arab-loving and clearly anti-Zionist... Was there a connection?
Dear Friends
The correct spelling is with the letter K, we would say "Maccabim" and not "Maccabim". And where does our security come from? The ancient external literature highlights this explicitly and also - in the ancient Greek version, such as for example XNUMX Maccabees, the transliteration teaches about the inscription in the letter K and not XNUMX.
Later, from the fall of the disruption and the maces were written in the letter XNUMX, clearly and artificially created the initials of "Who is like you in the gods Jehovah".
And this is to know that in the ancient period the system of initials was not used at all.
Avi Weiss:
"Macbems" are actually written with the letter "k".
This is the word "Maccabim" spelled with "K"
: )
King David indeed won the kingship of David "only" they say it did not exist and therefore it is impossible to crush all the myths associated with it.
Since the historians recognize the Maccabees, they can be turned into little politicians like Olmert, Kahane and Lieberman, they were both realized in one person aka Matityahu.
From today we will not celebrate Hanukkah but will wear sackcloth and ashes.
And by the way, there are the Maccabi writers - whose common interpretation is the initials "Who is like you in God's gods."
And there are those who write Macbey - from the word Macbeth as in modern times a hammer or that the Macbeth was the favorite weapon of Judah the Maccabee.
The orientation to details is impressive. Maybe he was there. It is said about him in the Haggadah that if he had been there he would not have been saved.
As far as I know, macabres are written with K.