It is indeed possible to associate the actions of the brothers and their activities with the nature of the aforementioned nicknames, and perhaps we are talking about any coded nicknames in connection with the Maccabean-Hasmonean revolution?
A few years ago I put forward a certain theory regarding the cause of the Maccabean/Hashmonean rebellion, and after this was based on ancient sources and their analysis such as the external literature including the books of the Maccabees, the Proverbs of Shimon ben Sira, the book of Daniel and the literature of the Sages, their analysis brought me to an interesting and instructive conclusion in itself, which - A physical transformation, somewhat violent, during the High Priesthood, when Matthew and his family, the Hasmon family from the Yehoirib Guard, deposes the House of Zadok and rules under it the House of the High Priesthood, a control that gave beyond reputation a political, legal, social and above all economic status. All this move was made during the outbreak of the rebellion, the purpose of which is a persistent struggle against Greeks and Greeks (published in Haidan 13.9.2008).
While I was poking around, Mania-Via, in the external literature, came across an option to confirm the above and from a completely different direction, from the Midrash Hashemot, from the nomenclature. But before I bring the possibility to a general review, as brief as possible, I will emphasize again the persistent struggle for the crown of the great priesthood among the two first heirs of Matthias - Yehuda and Jonathan.
Well, did the above-mentioned struggle of Matthias in the Greeks and the Greeks bear fruit in the priestly sense? indeed-indeed. In 164 BC, Judah the Maccabee inaugurated the Temple, purified it and renewed the work of sacrifices in it and three years later he was killed in the battle against the Syrians (Battle of Elasha). Yosef ben Matthiyahu testifies in his book Kadmoniot Ha-Jewids that "and he (Judas the Maccabee) died after having held the high priesthood for three years" (Kadmoniot Ha-Jewidis 434, XNUMX). That is, a simple mathematical calculation indicates that Judas Maccabeus inaugurated the Temple and purified it while being crowned with the title of high priest. This was the supreme, cardinal mission of Matthew and Yehuda fulfilled it in the dedication ceremonies of the house.
Indeed, it is not for nothing that the author of Maccabees 43 (XNUMX:XNUMX ff.) tells us that for the purpose of purification and renewal of the sacrificial work "And (Judas) will choose innocent priests, Torah objects and purify the temple..." Yehuda therefore chooses priests on his behalf, probably from Yehoyrib's guard, and probably based on his self-ascension to the high priesthood, considering priests on behalf of, doers of his word and plans, and this is certainly the continuation and realization of the revolution that Matthew began.
Let's go back a little, the purification of the mash and the crowning of Judah as a high priest took place in 164 BC and in one of the previous military engagements one year earlier, in front of Nicanor and Gorgias, when the Syrian army was drawn up at Emmaus and the Jewish army at Mitzvah, Judah performs a very impressive ritual-public ceremony, with the participation of his warriors, and bringing The clothes of the priesthood in order to instill courage and fighting spirit among the warriors.
We therefore have evidence of a historical process from Matthew through Judah to the conquest of the High Priesthood.
Yehuda's successor was Jonathan (the brothers simply skipped Shimon's place and right and rejected his appointment, completely contrary to Matthew's will). Jonathan, a warrior, army commander, leader and above all a statesman and politician, who won the courtship of two Syrian-Hellenistic rulers, Alexander Balas and Demetrius, and was good at manipulating them. Demetrius offered Jonathan outrageous proposals, including the right to raise an army and manufacture weapons, to rule over Judah, to exempt Judah from taxes as a symbol of a kind of independence and to allow Jonathan to live in Jerusalem, as well as to release Jewish hostages held in "Hekra".
To most of the wonder, and perhaps not, Jonathan "actually" chose Balas's promises, which included the following: receiving the office of high priest (meaning giving permission for Jonathan to serve as high priest) and Jonathan's appointment as the "evil king" i.e. having an important and senior position in the court of the Syrian Seleucid kingdom. This event took place in 152 BC.
Jonathan's reason may be cracked in the face of the following assumptions: the approval of his appointment as high priest (and so, incidentally, will happen with his successors) was carried out by an external, foreign party, who thereby tied Jonathan's fate to the policies and intentions of the Seleucid king in terms of Marionette. Moreover, a similar move, such as that carried out by Yason in his time, in 175 BC and Alkimus after him against Antiochus IV of the Seleucids, did not condone the zealots of the Jewish religion, such as Matthias the father of Jonathan, and defined it as a grave betrayal and as such that over time the Greekization increased and the causes for the outbreak of the Maccabean rebellion were cooked up. It is true that Yoson bought his position with money, but this move was not at all different from the "tuition fee" that Jonathan promised to the Seleucids.
It turns out that things from here are no different from things from there, or that pornography is a question of geography.
It is surprising then that Jonathan chose to be crowned as high priest by the Syrians, since the leadership of the high priest is less than that promised by Demetrius to Jonathan, beyond additional privileges.
It is not, and this is worthy of the importance of the subject of our discussion, because the ideological inheritance of Matthieu was burned in Jonathan, as well as among his successors, to appropriate the status of the high priesthood. And let's not forget that in general the call for rebellion initiated by Matthieu as an ideological, anti-Greek shell, was actually the core of the revolution - priests, in terms of the transfer of the high priesthood to the Hasmon family, the family of Matthieu. And that was actually the essence of the revolution. Also, let's not forget the economic power that the great priesthood carried with it, which was probably also in front of Jonathan's eyes.
And these are names
And now about the names. Let us therefore open the essay from Maccabim 166 and read it as follows: "In those days (referring to the outbreak of the Maccabean rebellion of 167/1 BCE) Mattiyahu ben Yochanan ben Shimon arose as a priest from the sons of Yehoyrib (the house of Yehoyrib was an honorable guard who would in the Matthiyahu revolution claim the crown for himself the high priesthood) from Jerusalem and lived in Modi'im (east of the city of Lod)" (XNUMX. XNUMX). The switch to informers was not for nothing. A double intention was hidden behind it: to act against Hellenism from a rural, somewhat strategic area on the one hand and to turn Modim into a rebellious symbol and anti-thesis, temporarily of course, to Jerusalem washed by the waves of Greekness on the other.
We will therefore continue and read: "Even (Matthew had five sons: Yochanan called Gadi, Shimon called Tarsi, Yehuda called Maccabi, Eleazar called Horan (and) Jonathan called Hafosh" (Ibid. 5-2). The names are probably not casual, and they symbolize, so similar , Matthias's intentions even in his youth. Judah and Simeon were among the great tribes, the sons of Jacob, and Jonathan is associated with the kingdom of Saul. The remaining two - Yohanan and Lazarus were senior and famous priests in the biblical period.
The mention of the priestly side is clear - to confirm Matthias' will-intention, as it would indeed be realized in his Maccabean revolution (rebellion), while the royal side was also significant, since it was the monarchy that controlled the high priesthood and even appointed and dismissed priests who did not follow its path.
The nicknames of the sons of Matityahu are also not casual, and were given in a similar way later in the course of the sons. Yohanan was/was called by the name "Gadi", perhaps in a biblical connection to the tribe of Gad, which indicates strength and military. As is well known, the tribe of Gad pledged to be the head of the tribes and lead their wars until the conquest of Canaan. Moreover, the symbol of the tribe of Gad is the breastplate, which has no equal to imply the pursuit of the great priesthood.
further. Shimon went by the name "Tersi". A connection to the city of Tarsus, Tarsus in southern Cilicia and then Asia Minor? Of course not. Perhaps due to the fact that "Tharsi" was a nickname for a merchant because of the commercial centrality of Tarsus, and perhaps the nickname pointed to cunning on the one hand and pragmatism on the other, which characterized the conduct of Shimon ben Matthiyahu. And perhaps this is what Matthew meant in his will, that although he bequeathed the military leadership (for the time being) to Yehuda, who was younger than Shimon, he emphasized that the supreme leader after his death would be Shimon, and as it was said in his will: "Here is Shimon your brother (son of Matthew), I knew that he was a man of counsel. To him you will hear all the days. He will be your father" (64 Maccabees XNUMX:XNUMX). The fact that Matthew's will did not materialize in Shimon's case is no longer relevant to the topic of our discussion.
The third brother Yehuda was called "Macbey". Is it related to somewhere? doubt it. It is assumed that the origin of his name comes from the ax/hammer of war - "Macbeth". Is this a tool of his war? In his military strength? Or simply due to his physical resemblance to Macbeth? There is no telling. The likelihood is that the nickname "Macbeth" hints at his closeness, and indeed according to Matthias' will Judah is supposed to lead the forces of the rebellion.
The fourth son Elazar was named "Horan". Whether it was named after any northern region, whose Jews Judah the Maccabee sought to save in the campaign of 164 BC, we don't know, and perhaps according to the Greek inscription, his name is close to a swift wind and a loan to a fiery response.
Yonatan took the name "Hafosh" (Heshen Kishen), lest even here he used the Greek - "Ephos" which means the glorified one, the savior, the one who succeeds in battles.
In other words, the names of the sons, similarly given by Matthias, hint at the intentions of his rebellions, both in relation to the High Priesthood and in connection with the restoration of the Kingdom of Judah, although Matthias did not include a scion in the mythological royal family nor in the traditional High Priesthood family and here is the crux of the matter , something megalomaniac.
And as for pronouns. First, it should be noted, at least in the historiographical aspect, that we are dealing with an extremely unusual phenomenon, although it is possible that others also had one or the other nicknames, but we have no parallel for this in terms of documentation.
Second, it is indeed possible to associate the actions of the brothers and their activities with the nature of the aforementioned nicknames, and perhaps we are talking about some coded nicknames in relation to the Maccabean-Hasmonean revolution?
13 תגובות
Jonathan also agreed to Demetrius' proposal and formed an army, right?
Is it true that it is clear to anyone who is familiar with the Bible and the Jewish way of life from the inside that this entire article is not even sucked from the finger but from some drug cigarette? Right?
How much nonsense can you make???? You have distanced yourself so much from Judaism that you bring alien opinions and conclusions about the events of Judaism and Judaism in general.
It's a shame that events like October 7th are needed to awaken Jewish consciousness.
It doesn't make sense that the nicknames were given on a Greek basis because it defeats the whole purpose of the rebellion, i.e. fighting in Hellenism. It is likely that this is a local slang that was understood by everyone at the time and we still don't know, except maybe the Macbey, which is quite clear that this is a man of war.
A novel with a very weak historical base and certainly not history. It is hard to know what the nicknames meant back then, but the equivalents point to a profession or a common tool in a profession or the name of a place. The Gerdi was a Maccabean tailor who worked in Maccabeta, possibly a blacksmith and Hori an embroiderer or Horani from the north. Tarsi, like Saul, Tarsi is a place name. It is not necessary because the name of the place where the person spent most of his years is always associated with that person, sometimes the opposite is true. A merchant who came from a distant and magical city could read "Tarsi" or some story about the place of birth or the father's invention at birth, it is difficult to know.
Regarding Jonathan's political choice, it is better to ride a winning horse and bet on less and really get, quite simply.
'Yohanan and Lazarus were high and famous priests in the biblical period'
Indeed Eleazar ben Aharon
He was a high priest
But Yohanan Cohen in the Bible
There was no
And not created.
Thanks to Yahyam for an interesting post and we are waiting, in my opinion, there is no special meaning to the nicknames of the sons of Matathiu, the offer of names that was available to the children of the priests was not large and the names were repeated, so they used two methods at the same time, one to add the village or city of his residence to the name. For example, Pinchas is a man from Kfar Habta. And the second is to add a nickname such as the Pisach or Caiaphas, so it is no wonder that the sons of Matthias whose names are taken from the limited list of honorable names were also honored with a nickname in addition to their name.
Want to comment.. easy correction: we are among.. always 'we are among'.. not on — not between. only with
In addition: it would have been desirable to punctuate the names of the nicknames and the names of the places. Sounds like spoken and unintelligible Kurdish
Syrians?? come on. Go out and learn.
And besides - what a dig, which means nothing. Pretty shabby, but with a bombastic title
There are many glaring inaccuracies. For example, the symbol of Gad is tents (of a military camp) and not Hoshan (what is the connection between Gad and Hoshan?) Hoshan is a symbol of Levi. And also to write about Samson who is one of the largest and most important tribes is ridiculous. In the census before entering Israel, it is the smallest (almost half the size of the next largest tribe), not only that, the tribe is hardly mentioned further on and no one who belongs to the tribe is mentioned. He probably died out and merged with the other tribes, mainly Judah.
Priests were the privileged stratum of the people and throughout the generations they used to give the names of priests from the past to their sons. It cannot be seen as a rebellious intention. The name Judah repeats itself so often during the Second Temple period that it was probably very common and nothing can be attributed to it. (It's like having someone from the Soviet Union in Israel named Alex. Let's say there will be a prime minister, and a historian will say that according to the name, his parents pushed him from childhood to be a leader because he is named after Alexander the Great. Without considering the fact that the name is so common that it is more likely that it was named after a grandfather His.) Shimon was also a very common name, perhaps even second only to the name Judah.
In general there is a feeling that the writer first shot the arrow and then drew a target around it. The only thing that can be said about the names of Matthew's sons is that they are routine banals that correspond to the period.
In the coming years, the banking system in the USA will collapse resoundingly! In Israel, the purchase of Kernit Flug's dollars will turn out to be the worst Ponzi scam against the citizens of Israel! The country needs to be strong - because many Jews from America will want to immigrate to Israel, and there is a chance that this will happen - because a prime minister who really cares about the citizens of Israel will rule. And not Bibi the thief and liar! Because the ruble crisis or the collapse of Argentina are small compared to what you are waiting for!
For the sake of accuracy, it is said that there are no legal rulings according to the rabbis of the great Kabbalist who writes the book of Zohar, that the feast on Mount Meron is held in his honor, and not according to his student Rabbi Meir, mainly because they were very bad with themselves and expected others to behave like them.
The practical rabbis recognized that what is true for Rabbi Meir Baal Hans is not true for ordinary people. Rabbi Yossi ben Halfta is suitable for these who knows how to give a practical interpretation. It is told in the Gemara of Rashbi that twice he came out of the cave where he stayed for 13 years. One time he and his son went out and everything they looked at went up in flames. They expected through the parable that all people would be at the spiritual level they achieved and this is not practical. At this it is said that Bat Kol came out and told him to return to the cave. Only after Rashbi repented and cried and realized that not everyone is like him, Bat Kol came out and allowed him to leave. Rabbi Yossi, the commentator and arbiter of practical law, was said to be righteous when he wanted to be. He also wanted to enter the cave, in the metaphorical sense. It is said that Bat Kol came out and said (I am interpreting in a metaphorical sense) Rabbi Yossi came out. Your role in life is to give an interpretation that will make life possible.
Even if they are not religious, there is great beauty and wisdom in the sources. Professor Israel Oman develops game theory under conditions of uncertainty, interprets the tractates in Gemara according to game theory. The students of the strict Gor Yeshiva who were released by the late Rabbi Shalom Eliashiv, to serve in the Air Force, won Israel Defense Awards, people who did not study at a university in their days. And in South Korea, Gemara is taught at the university as a way to sharpen the mind. And in Iran, Gemara is taught as a way to train halachic judges and commentators as part of Islamic studies. Today religion has become a source of evil and the cancellation of all progress and shame. It wasn't always like that.
The price paid by Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes was that Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, for example, forbade his students from entering institutional yeshiva (equivalent to universities these days) and called them nags. And in addition, the Halacha is stated not as Rabbi Meir Baal Hans or Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, but as Rabbi Yossi ben Chalfata. It was said about one of the first - we did not get to the bottom of his mind. This is an example of rabbinic practicality that existed in the days of the Second Temple and does not exist today. People needed practical laws. For example, after the Holocaust, a million people were killed and a million and a half were sold into slavery and 40000 cities and towns were destroyed. This is what is said in the Gemara. The practical rabbis rule that it is possible to buy Roman ground flour and bake bread by Jews. There was not a single Jewish miller left. Either starve or buy flour from the Romans. For example, significant reductions are made in Shemita. There is nothing to eat and the farmers cannot stop growing food. Practices that today are not seen in the rulings of the rabbis.
The most annoying thing and I guess you won't dare to introduce it is the topics covered in the Gemara. For example, Rabbi Akiva, whose contribution to the preservation of the people in exile - a phenomenon that has no equal in the world, by strengthening the Jewish way of life and setting the order of prayer, and strengthening study in the beit midrash, for example - was married a second time to a beautiful and wealthy Roman matronita, who was married for him and may have divorced Rachel. The one who was waiting for him 40 years. It is possible that she was among the ten royal deaths, because that Roman woman was married to Tyranus Rufus, the Roman representative who was deposed after his failure to suppress the Bar Kochba rebellion, and less because of his support for Bar Kochba.
There is human behavior here. Rachel ignited the flame of learning in him, but she followed the path of asceticism and he followed the path of learning and a broad-minded woman like that Roman matron charmed him with her gait and probably with her beauty. For example, six of Jesus' disciples and Jesus himself were Jewish rabbis and appear in the Gemara. The most prominent of them is Peter, the founder of Christianity. Petros in Greek is a rock. Christians call him Simon Peter. The Jews call him Rabbi Shimon Kifa (in Aramaic Kifa is a rock). There are Jews in our sources (Sefer Chasidim) who suggest that he wrote the prayer for the soul of every living being, which is a regular part of the prayer book. For example, there was a religious woman who used to put on tefillin and pass laws during the days of the Second Temple after the Holocaust. She was called Boria and was the wife of Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes. In my opinion, most religious women today do not know who Boria was. They don't teach it. For example, great rabbis dared to go against the mainstream, paid a price for it, but changed the view in their time. For example, Rabbi Meir Bael Hanes, who insisted on not canceling the mishnah of Rabbi Elisha ben Abuya, who is known as the other in the Gemara, because he was a profaner of Shabbat and Yom Kippur and, at the same time, great in the Torah. It is said about him that he is like a pomegranate - the fruit should be removed and the shell thrown away, and he should be treated as someone who repented at the end of his days. If it weren't for the struggle of Meir Bael Hanes, the ruling school - Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, Rabbi Yossi ben Chalfata, Rabbi Ishmael - Elisha ben Abuya, he and his descendants are not allowed to come to Kehal Yisrael.