Lines for the character and exploits of Menachem ben Yehuda the Galilean
One of the more prominent signs in rebellions throughout history, and in particular in the ancient era, is the family element, both active and inherited. The activist - because "blood is thicker than water", and it makes more sense to trust the family ties in relation to a rebellious partnership; The inheritor - in terms of "and you told your son on that day to say". We were passing down a tradition from generation to generation, when the years establish more sanctity and mythological legitimacy.
This sign stood out among the Hasmon family, Matthieu and his sons, who carried out the miracle of the rebellion against the Seleucid rule (166/167 BC). This symbol stood out in the Roman period among the descendants of the Hasmonean family - Judah Aristobulus II and his successors, who sought to rebel against the Romans.
This sign stood out among a Galilean family, it was a nickname. Its head and first was Hezekiah the Galilean, who raised the miracle of the rebellion in Galilee against Herod son of Antipater, the governor of Galilee (36/37 BC). His son, Yehuda HaGalili founded in 6 CE a fanatical, extreme ideological framework called the "Fourth Philosophy", which began to mark the beginning of the revolt against the Romans, which ended in 66 CE. This zealous group arose as a response to the command made by the Syrian Roman commissioner Quirionius, whose whole concern was to optimize the collection of taxes. Yehuda ben Hezekiah the Galilean immediately interpreted this as a Roman attempt to deepen control and fortify Jewish enslavement, and therefore leveraged this move to form a nuclear anti-Roman group.
About him, Joseph ben Mattheya tells as follows: "Also in the birds of Galilee, Judah son of the leader of the robbers Hezekiah rebelled, who filled the entire land before him, until he was captured by King Herod. And a large crowd gathered to him and together with him broke into the royal armory located there. Equip his friends with the stolen weapons to fight against all the people who raised their eyes to Herod's kingdom" (Wars XNUMX:XNUMX:XNUMX).
Yehuda's son was Menachem, Menachem ben Yehuda the Galilean, one of the prominent zealots of the days of the Great Revolt. He hastened to reach Jerusalem and implement among himself the fanatical ideology, which, as we know, is murderous by nature.
Menachem crowned himself as the temporary leader of the rebellion and led the siege of Herod's palace, where the soldiers of Agrippa II and his loyalists as well as the Roman garrison were fortified. Menachem allowed Agrippa's loyalists to leave the palace in peace, but not the Romans. Hela gave them his word of honor that he would not harm them, but only laid down their weapons and slaughtered every last one of them.
Menachem reigned terror in Jerusalem and the list of casualties from him and his forces grew longer and longer. Hananiah the former high priest was murdered and along with him his brother Hezekiah.
Eleazar, the son of Hananiah the XNUMXrd challenged the lordship and authority of Menachem ben Yehuda. Eleazar's claim was that they replaced a tyrant (the last Roman commissioner Gesius Florus) with a tyrant (Menachem ben Yehuda).
The two factions - Eleazar's and Menachem's fought against each other and during one of the simulated incidents between them, Menachem was killed, wearing royal clothes.
The wearing of royal robes indicates the desire to connect the subject of the fanatical rebellion with the sacred, messianic element, in terms of the revelation of the "King of the Messiah." The dress of the kingdom presents the desire to be portrayed as the re-enactor of the ancient kingdom of biblical times, both in the marketing-propaganda aspect and in the religious aspect.
It is true that Menachem ben Yehuda's hands were not filled with a large amount of slaughtered and murdered blood like the hands of Shimon bar Giura and Yochanan of Gush Halab, but he had not yet had time to show the strength of his arm and was killed by Eleazar's men.
Yehiam Sorek, the historian, Beit Berel College, an expert on the Great Revolt period
11 תגובות
It is amazing that on a background of first-rate historical importance, someone finds it appropriate, either jokingly or seriously, to be interested in Bil'am.
It's kind of like someone who overfed himself with sweets, and when he got diabetes, he's interested in the color of the excrement.
to Jonathan
You asked an interesting question, and the answer, it seems, is settled in Jehovah's mouth, since only he was able to open the mouth of Athens.
And for general education, animals were given personal names or nicknames only because they were pets, or task animals like dogs or cats, as evidenced by the Greek and Roman sources. About this, by the way, I published an article, and I think even in "Hidan".
Dr. Yachiam Sorek has a question with your permission!
As a trendy and respected historian,
I would like to know what was the name of Balaam's city?
Thank you for your thorough answer
Although sometimes history repeats itself:
But it turns out not always, this is because Judah the Galilean did not take into account that, unlike for example King David, and the sons of Mattathias the Hasmonean - this time: on the one hand, the Romans taught us well; And on the other hand, the people, due to experience, were simply not able, and were not ready to face another royal dynasty; And it is assumed that in this occurrence: the words of Samuel the prophet against the monarchy, were more tangible.
Peace be upon you
I do not know on what basis you are trying to base your claims regarding the political placement in my article. There is no reason for this. You think it from your heart only.
What I'm interested in is the truth, without hesitation and idleness, and even though sometimes I come across some fragment that doesn't fit with my world view, I don't hesitate even for a second and give it an advertising echo.
What is the connection between Beth Shani and the Zionist narrative, and at the research-empirical level, and not why any ideological groups in the population today seek to mobilize a historical source, usually distorted, in order to support their claims.
I do not treat the claims as blasphemy, unless that is their intention and purpose.
Know that the current trend, considered, is posting on Wikipedia. Many scientists and academics are involved in the process of writing it.
To the honorable Gogil,
First I did not pass judgment.
Second - Josephus is considered an objective historian, relatively and with limited guarantee, and in many cases does not fall short of the credibility of Greek, Hellenistic and Roman historians.
Third - the point you brought up is indeed intriguing, as well as billions of assumptions along the lines of "What would happen if...?", or "... if not...?" But we remain in a complex and endless pentosis of scenarios such as: the rebellion was successful. Rome is removed from the region, and then the Parthians (Rome's sworn enemies) wake up and invade Judea, which happened a few years before in the days of Matthias Antigonus, and then we replaced ruler with ruler and more of that kind.
In any case, mind you, the chance of succeeding against Rome back then was about the same as the chance of an elementary school basketball team in the horizons defeating the NBA champion. the american
Dr. Shurk,
Besides the "objective" Josephus Flavius - are there any other sources on which you based your verdict?
A point for thought - I wonder how Josephus Flavius would have sounded if the rebellion had succeeded...
A small note regarding the dynasty of the Hasmoneans who also sought a kingdom - this dynasty ended with Herod the Redeemer's takeover of the kingdom
To the honorable Dr. Sorek
Thank you for your quick and thorough response.
It does seem that your years in the academy produced quite a number of articles, analyzes and scientific publications.
What then about the second part of my response? Don't you feel some degree of lack of objectivity when you come to analyze the exploits of our ancestors and the ancient inhabitants of the region?
When you come to investigate some event from our past, do you approach the craft with the intention of revealing and explaining the secrets of the past, or are you looking for those factors that will confirm and confirm your political leanings?
I have no doubt that many of your letters reflect what happened in our distant past and blindly accepting the existing narratives is childish.
Despite this, I can't help but get the feeling that your writings describe only one side of history, conjectures about the course of events based on your inclinations and for lack of a more appropriate term - the inos of yesterday in order to prove your political opponents of today.
I'm sure I'm not the first to make comments like that towards you and assume you'll treat them as "blasphemies of another captive of the Zionist narrative".
Nevertheless, I would appreciate a response to my comments.
Amit
PS You wouldn't take too much pride in writing Wikipedia entries. And if so, thank you for your precious time that must have been spent writing these entries
To the honorable colleague
You are invited to review the following books written by Peri Ati, and these are only examples: From Slavery to Freedom - History of the People of Israel during the Second Temple Period - two volumes, Amichai Publishing, 1998; The world made history - four volumes, Rechgold Publishing House, 2003-2000
An article in the Galileo Academy on the nihilistic approach in history, and many other articles, most of them in English, published in scientific journals around the world such as JQR, JSS, JRS and more.
You are welcome to browse the twenty entries I wrote for Wikipedia and more
have a fun read
To the honorable colleague
You are invited to read the following books from the pen of Ati, and just for example: From Enslavement to Freedom - two volumes published by Amichai, 1998; The world made history - four volumes published by Rechgold, 2003-2000
have a fun read
Just pathetic.
While the physics researchers at the Technion are developing time machines,
Making history and promoting humanity.
There are those who scribble footnotes on marginal figures
without any apparent purpose
Apart from an abysmal hatred for the Jewish people.
Hatred which is actually self-hatred.
Yahyam may be right. It is logical to think that in ancient times barbarism and bigotry ruled and modern terms like compassion or reason were not very common.
On the other hand, it is difficult for me to accept anything from this Yahyam's articles.
I don't think I've come across such a blatant, belligerent and condescending historical article in which the writer makes absolutely no attempt to hide his distaste for the working souls or to judge them based on standards that will become acceptable (barely) two thousand years after their death.
I would be surprised to come across Yachiam's writings outside of extremist websites and I am surprised that an excellent website like "Hidan" incorporates such blatant political content under the guise of subjective analyzes of history.