Pilgrims. To whom and why? Or: Let the boys get up and play in front of us
It was not for nothing that I decorated the title with this inscription, because all the working souls understood that the period of Hasmonean rule was over, and from now on there is a new boss according to which the highest Roman representative in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in this case - Pompey, will be directed.
We ended the previous list with the murder of the circle guards, the indignation of the Hyrcanus people in Aristobulus and his faction and the punishment inflicted on the people of Judah by God (according to Josephus) in the form of collective punishment.
Scauros, Pompey's senior emissary, who arrived in Judea, was visited by a pair of people - Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, in order to present their requests to him. Aristobulus received the blessing of Skaurus after he promised to pocket 300 (or 400 according to another source) silver coins, and to Hyrcanus and Haret (the king of the Arabs, aka the Nabataeans) Skaurus sent a clear threat, that if the siege of Jerusalem was not lifted, Pompey would be expelled from them once and for all.
It should be noted that Scauros trusted Aristobulus more, both because of his large assets, because he was generous and because his demands were moderate, while Hyrcanus was lacking in capital, miserly and one whose demands were excessive.
It gave the impression that the Romans leaned more towards Aristobulus, who was not allied, unlike Hyrcanus with elements such as Antipater and Hareta, who together could have harmed the Roman rule in the region.
In the end, the siege was lifted, Herath returned with his army to his possessions (after being threatened by the Romans, who if he did not do so he would be declared an enemy of Rome) and even Antipater folded back to his previous dimensions.
Aristobulus took advantage of the situation and went to fight Hyrcanus and Antipater. He won the battles leaving behind him 6000 martyrs found by the enemy, including Antipater's brother. In his book "The Wars of the Jews in the Romans" Joseph ben Mattheya appears in a strange box, a decipherment, along the lines of "But the opinion of Aristobulus was not comfortable with the fact that (Hela) was not captured" (First Book, Chapter 6, 130).
Who is this "Hela"? Whether this is Scaurus, Pompey's distinguished emissary, or Charetes, or Antipater, we do not know. mystery!
The pilgrimage to the Romans continued, and this time to the top of the pyramid, to Pompey who was sitting in Damascus. Hyrcanus and Antipater made a kind of 180 degree reversal. They abandoned Haretat - the enemy of Rome and begged that Rome would put an end to the rampage of Aristobulus and enthrone Hyrcanus over Judah, who, according to them, deserves this title "both according to his measurements and according to his age" (Wars of the Jews in the Romans book 6, chapter 131, XNUMX ). It should be noted that the two did not bring gifts to Pompey and this was probably a mistake. Their step was tactical, that is, to divert attention from the previous attack on Hareth and to try and humiliate as much as possible the smell of Aristobulus in front of the Romans.
Aristobulus asked to appear before Pompey when he was dressed in royal clothes to determine facts in the field and even sent him a vine made entirely of gold equal in value to 500 pieces of silver. And in the end Aristobulus chose not to come, perhaps due to his arrogance and refusal to bow before the supreme Roman ruler.
It should be noted that the aforementioned group was not the only one that came to greet Pompey. Delegations also arrived from the various Syrian cities as well as from Egypt and brought gifts to the Roman ruler. None of the delegations could imagine the future scenario that might/might take place in Rome. And for them, Pompey had temporal priority over any other leader.
What they failed to know is that these meetings were not intended to change the policy of Roman takeover of the east of the Mediterranean basin.
Pompey demanded that all present and absent meet him again in Damascus this spring.
And again the apostles make a pilgrimage to Damascus, and once again explain to Pompey the main points of their claims. Hyrcanus claimed that he deserved the kingship because he was the eldest, while his brother Aristobulus, the one-armed and troublemaker, harassed him. He also added that the majority of the people were with him (and as proof he brought, perhaps, supporting testimony from a thousand Jewish dignitaries, such as were prepared - according to Josephus - by Antipater) and that Aristobulus took over parts of Judea by force of arms. And in order to put the final nail in the coffin of Aristobulus, Hyrcanus emphasized that Hela was engaged in sea robbery. This vile accusation was supposed to arouse Pompey's anger because the highlight of his long and tiring military journey towards the eastern Mediterranean basin was the exhausting campaign against the pirates from the coasts of Hispania (later Spain) through North Africa and Southern Gaul to Syria.
Aristobulus, for his part, emphasized to Pompey that Hyrcanus is not at all worthy of control and leadership due to his laxity accompanied by a lack of ability and initiative, which, according to him, evoke a feeling of zero respect for the man. Also, Aristobulus did not deny his quasi-rebellious behavior at the time towards Hyrcanus for fear that the power would pass into the hands of others, and in this way he directed his hints towards Charetes and Antipater. He also claimed regarding the title of kingship Chantal, because that is what his father Alexander Yanai was also called at the time.
This time, unlike the previous meetings, a delegation arrived in Damascus on behalf of "the people" (according to Yosef ben Matthew). Who is the same people? The same thousand dignitaries? A delegation from the Sanhedrin? Random group? In any case, this case does not appear in his composition "The Wars of the Jews in the Romans".
In the mouth of that delegation was a sharp statement towards the two "candidates" - Hyrcanus and Aristobulus - and in essence a complete refusal of royal rule in Judea, "saying (the people) that I received at his hands from my ancestors to obey the priests of the God that they worship, and these (the two), even though they The descendants of the priests seek to transfer the people to another government (perhaps Roman and perhaps to themselves) so that (the people) will be slaves (to them)" (Yosef ben Matatiyo, Ancestors of the Jews, hand 41).
A problematic passage subject to quite a few interpretations. In any case, it seems as if the same claim that was hurled at Yohanan Hyrcanus I (the first Hasmonean king, the grandson of Mattathias and the grandfather of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus II) is being repeated by the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin in the form of a demand: "Put down the (crown) of the high priesthood and be content with the fact that you are a governor (and not a king) The people" (Jewish Antiquities 291, XNUMX).
First - this time the claim is heard in the presence of the Roman ruler and therefore has a more solid validity; Second - there is an allusion here in the Koreti, the instrument of Hellenistic rule that crowned the Hasmoneans to be high priests; Thirdly - a visit is voiced here against the Hasmonean monarchy itself on the part of the Pharisees, and not implicitly as in the last section, against a monarchy and not rulers, but actually against the monarchy, as if their souls were torn from the Hasmonean monarchy; Fourth - it is possible that those members of the delegation assumed that Rome's takeover of Judah was very close, and therefore it would be worthwhile to go along with it and make a lukewarm, somewhat realistic proposal, whose chances of being accepted seem reasonable, at least in her eyes; Fifth - lest it be a pro-Roman group and perhaps even one that was founded by the Romans.
Pompey listened very attentively to the arguments of the parties, and after condemning the aggressive actions of Aristobulus (thus perhaps hinting at his inclination towards Hyrcanus and/or the people) instructed them to return to Judea and wait for his decision, after discussing and considering his policy towards the Nabateans. It should be noted that Rome requested to take over the Nabatean kingdom, a kingdom whose economic wealth was enormous. It controlled the trade line between Damascus and Petra and between Jericho and Gaza. After all, Rome had strategic objectives to take control of the entire Mediterranean basin and those that remained unconquered were Judea (which the very domination of Rome over Syria brought Judea under its bosom, at least potentially), the Nabataean desert and Egypt.
It follows from this that the forced pause that Pompey imposed on the parties was intended to leave him enough time to settle relations with the Nabateans (we can recall the election of the king of the Nabateans, who almost became an enemy of Rome).
Pompey appealed to Aristobulus and warned him not to dare to block the movement of the Roman army from Syria and not to carry out any rebellious activity. Pompey knew who he was "dealing with", and therefore sought to advance a cure for the plague, but Aristobulus had other plans.
As well as Hyrcanus, Antipater and the representatives of the people, respected Pompey's instruction, but not Aristobulus, who in his actions seemed to declare his rebellion in Rome. Pompey's reaction was not long in coming and mainly against the background of suspicions that Aristobulus cast towards Scaurus and Gabinius as if they had taken bribes. Pompey broke out at the head of a large army (one that was prepared to strike at the Nabateans or accept their surrender) to pursue Aristobulus through the Jordan Valley. Aristobulus fled to the fortress of Alexandria (this is Sartaba, a Hasmonean fortress on the top of a mountain in the Jordan Valley) and Pompey followed him. Aristobulus was ordered to come down from the fortress and appear before Pompey. Aristobulus contemplated suicide in his mind, but he gave up on this thought following the intervention of his friends, who showed him how vast and irresistible the Roman power was. He met with Pompey and there he explained to him in detail his right to rule. At the end of the meeting, Aristobulus went up to the mountain again, and went down to Pompey and went up again, and this was to buy time to organize weapons and equipment for the continuation of the rebellion against the Romans. Finally, Pompey ordered him to entrust to him all the dozen Hasmonean fortresses that Aristobulus took over after the death of Shlomzion between 67 and 66 BC. and demanded that Aristobulus write to each of the commanders of the forts, that he must vacate the place. The demand was met with precision, but Aristobulus was willing to face the Romans, and therefore hurriedly made his way to Jerusalem.
For Pompey the road was accelerated because he learned that Mithridates VI King of Pontus committed suicide after his son rebelled against him and he feared a geopolitical earthquake in the region, with both hands busy with Aristobulus. Therefore, Pompey rushed and blocked Aristobulus' path before they reached Jerusalem. And this time, too, Aristobulus managed to gain time by promising Pompey a considerable sum of money and allowing him to enter Jerusalem, handing over the city into his hands and even handing himself in. The Romans accepted him, but when Gabinius, Pompey's legate, was sent to him, Aristobulus did not fulfill even one of his promises, when his soldiers were the ones who prevented Gabinius from entering the city and receiving the promised money. In response, Pompey imprisoned Aristobulus and imposed a heavy siege on Jerusalem. Josephus specifically emphasizes that the reaction of Aristobulus and his men greatly increased the anger of Pompey, who felt how Aristobulus and his men tried to deceive him. Vomid examined the entire area in order to advance the management of the siege and the break into Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, inside the besieged city, a great chasm opened between two camps: the people of Aristobulus demanded to leave the city, fight the Romans and save their leader, their king, while the supporters of Hyrcanus demanded to open the city gates to the Romans. It is not known what the reasons of both sides were: did Aristobulus' warriors want to perform a heroic, somewhat Spartan move, when God was with them, and perhaps the event would end in a severe bloodbath? And the people of Hyrcanus, lest they sought to save the city, looked with fear at the ranks of the Roman warriors (so according to Josephus) and their leader was confident that the Romans would make him leader.
The supporters, the sympathizers, according to the words of Josephus, in the position of Hyrcanus grew stronger, and on the other hand, the warriors of Aristobulus were filled with fear and now at the sight of the strength of the Roman army. These retreated to the Temple Mount, uprooted the bridge that connected it to the upper city and prepared to fight a kind of suicide battle against the Romans, when the temple, where they hung their religious gold, was near them.
Pompey prepared for the Battle of Tyre, the Battle of the Valley, and not because he wanted to take revenge on Aristobulus' men, but simply because his plan was to take control of Judea in advance, and in fact to cover it following the transformation of Syria into a Roman province, with Judea annexed to it. Apparently, Jerusalem is not a strategic target, unlike the sea route and the desert route, but according to the well-known, traditional Roman doctrine, unsubdued cities should not be left in the occupied, annexed area, and also because the capture of Jerusalem was important as a strategic stronghold, albeit secondary, for controlling the back of the mountain and the Negev the central
Pompey asked to negotiate with the rebels before breaching the city walls, but was answered with a complete denial, and on the other hand "Horcanus and his men helped him with will, advice and actions" (Joseph ben Mattathias, The Wars of the Jews in Romans 144:XNUMX XNUMX).
In the end, Jerusalem fell into the hands of the Romans, many of the rebels were killed and the rest were severely punished. Pompey ordered the temple to be purified as was customary at the end of Rome's systems in general. He returned the title of High Priest to Hyrcanus "because of his devoted help during the siege of the city, and especially because he prevented the inhabitants of the villages who decided to fight alongside Aristobulus from joining him in the war. And so, by acting like a good soldier, he bought the people's sympathy with the generosity of his heart and not by instilling fear" (ibid., 153). Then he returned to Rome with Aristobulus and his family.
Hyrcanus thus won the crown that his mother intended for him, and from the point of view of the Jewish public it was like a monarchy without a crown and the strengthening of the historical status of the Hasmonean family. In another place, Joseph ben Matthiyahu writes the following: "... and the rule of the monarchy, which was previously given to a family of high priests (Hasmonean house), became a servant of honor to people from among the people" (Kedomoniot Ha-Jewidis 77, XNUMX). That is, in other words - an insignificant symbolic title.
Let's return to the question of the article: Was it the feud between brothers that led to the Roman takeover of Judah?
And the answer is short and decisive - neither a share nor a part of it.
First - Rome's plans were to take over the entire extent of the Mediterranean basin anyway.
Second - it was only natural that Judea would be appropriated by Rome following the conquest of Syria.
Third - Aristobulus' rebellion against Rome, in terms of an aggressive inheritance of the Hasmonean kingdom, received a severe Roman reaction, and was not the one that caused the Roman takeover.
Fourth - the attempt to hang the fall of Judah on the issue of fraternal strife is a basic mistake, because no force in the world could stop the Romans and face them.
Fifth - the conquest of Judah was an integral part of Rome's desire to realize the "Mare Nostrum" dream, that is, "the sea - (the high school) - ours".
For the sake of proper disclosure, the documentary blurb of Josephus in his other book - The Ancestors of the Jews in this language - "This disaster (the fall of Jerusalem and the other severe consequences in Judea and in all the former Janai kingdom) caused Jerusalem to be destroyed by Hyrcanus and Aristobulus in their quarrel with each other. For we deprived our liberties and became subjects of the Romans and were forced to return to the Syrians the land we had acquired with our weapons after we had taken it from them" (Antecedents of the Jews 77, XNUMX).
It should be noted that this "flushing of a pen" does not appear in his book The Wars of the Jews, and not without reason, because in this book Joseph ben Mattathias comes to terms with the two main laggards - Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, each of which, in their time and behavior, brought about not the Roman occupation but the collapse of Jewish society afterwards The days of Alexander Yanai and Shlomotzion. Joseph ben Matthieu secretly hoped in his heart that his pragmatic attitude towards the Romans and the situation in the region in general would prevent the destruction of the Second Temple in the future, as he personally did during the Great Rebellion.
In any case, his documentary blurb has no way of derailing even one of the factors I mentioned above regarding the Roman policy, be it the policy of the leadership in the occupied, appropriated region, whatever it may be.
And we will just add that the entire passage for obvious reasons does not appear in the Sage literature.
