The holiday of Passover was mainly invented during the time of King Hezekiah of Judah - almost 800 years after the events supposedly described in it
We start from the starting point that the Passover holiday, which has accompanied us for thousands of years, was born somewhere in the middle of the 13th century BC, when the people of Israel left Egypt, according to tradition anyway, on their way to the land of Canaan, and since then it has been celebrated among the people throughout The period of the conquests of Joshua, the judge of the judges and the king of kings. We thought and we were wrong. is that so?
Indeed, the holiday of Passover and its instructions find expression, although not too much, in the biblical literature attributed to the era close to the Exodus from Egypt, what is known in our language - the Torah. We find the reference to Passover, embedded in the book of Exodus, such as: "...and you ate it in haste, Passover is for Jehovah" (Exodus 10:5); "In the first month, on the fourteenth of the month, at dusk, Passover to Jehovah. And on the fifteenth day of this month, the feast of unleavened bread to Yahweh, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days" (Leviticus 6:2-XNUMX); "And you shall offer a Passover sacrifice to Jehovah your God of sheep and cattle in the place that Jehovah will choose for his name to dwell there" (Deuteronomy XNUMX:XNUMX).
Well, and we would expect that the Passover holiday would be celebrated in a nearby and later period such as in the days of Joshua (with the exception of one case after another word passed by the Israelites), in the period of the judges and even in the days of the kings - hundreds of years after the exodus from Egypt. We expected, but in vain - not with Joshua, not among the judges, not in the days of David, not in the days of Solomon, not in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam and their successors - they did not celebrate the Passover. Amazing, wonderful, strange... but true.
So since when was it celebrated? From the time of ... King Hezekiah, King of Judah, probably from 725 BC. And why then? This is related to the desire to unite the two kingdoms - Judah and Israel, its pilgrims and the ritual reform introduced by King Hezekiah, and most of all - to initiate a rebellion against the Assyrians.
Before opening this, it is appropriate to say the following things, which may not please every hearing ear and every seeing eye - religion, belief and worship developed on the face of the earth, and in every place where human society operated, with a dominant intention of control. Belief, religion and worship were used among potential leaders as a lever to control their thoughts and thereby the actions of people, with the almost immediate result being political power on the one hand and socio-economic power on the other. And if I put it briefly - in the Bible which in my atheistic version it is written: "In the beginning man created God, in his own image and likeness".
King Hezekiah aspired to unify the two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, and in the process dissolve the morality of Assyrian slavery, when, Hezekiah, wins the job, and what is the tested and good way, almost like a "Guinnessian" invention - to harness religion and worship for the benefit of the operation. Hezekiah therefore embarks on a persistent struggle, although not fully successful, to uproot all the elements of worship outside of Jerusalem, including those where they sacrificed and sacrificed to Jehovah, and to centralize it in the central temple, and let's not forget that the entire priesthood system was subordinated to the king as an executive functionary, and his instructions were in this respect see and sanctify!
Hezekiah introduces a new element to the process, one that seemed, mythologically, to be very ancient and it is not, and it is about the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, to the temple. In other words - Hezekiah will unite the people, take them to war and become the one and only supreme ruler by centralizing the worship and sanctifying it by making a pilgrimage, and on what special occasion? on Passover.
And the Bible is full of graphic descriptions of the aforementioned operation. He convenes the priests and Levites, orders them to consecrate and sanctify the entire special enterprise. And the result: "And they came in to King Hezekiah and said: We have cleansed the whole house of the Lord, and the altar of burnt offering, and all its vessels, and the ceremonial table, and all its vessels" (Deva 18:30). Immediately after that, the king conducts the sacrificial ceremonies, including the musical, instrumental and vocal accompaniment - "And King Hezekiah said to the Levites, sing to the Levites to praise Jehovah in the words of David and the covenant, and they praised until they were happy and bowed and bowed down" (ibid., XNUMX).
And what is the next action? "And Yezekiah sent over all Israel and Judah written charges for Ephraim and Manasseh to come to the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover to Jehovah, the God of Israel" (Ibid. 1:5), and when? Not in the first month, i.e. Nisan, or in its biblical term "Spring", but in Sivan. appropriate? Not suitable? The goal sanctifies the means - "And they set a word to convey a voice throughout Israel from Be'er Sheva to Dan to come and make a Passover to Jehovah the God of Israel in Jerusalem, because they did not for the most part do as it is written" (ibid. XNUMX).
Hezekiah thus seeks to unite and capture the people of the two kingdoms through the centralization of worship in Jerusalem and the celebration of Passover, when Hezekiah wins the work, and when the whole process is thoroughly sanctified by God's holiness.
Whether Hezekiah wishes to preserve an ancient custom of the Passover celebration is unknown, although my feeling is that he is holding the celebration here for the first time. In any case, hundreds of years have passed since Passover was celebrated until its quasi-renewal by the king, and this is certainly an unusual event.
And how is it connected to the rebellion? In the next verse it is said how the king's messengers went out to all the Jewish communities, with the message being: Return to Jehovah and he will redeem you from Assyrian slavery. Hezekiah therefore seeks to capture the people in order to rebel against the Assyrians.
After the Passover sacrifice in Jerusalem, a war is waged in Judah - Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, comes up with his army to fight Hezekiah, as if out of nowhere. A strange event indeed. In order to crack it, we are invited to refer to the book of 7 Kings, which the book of 6B parallels and details. And what was said there, at the same time as Hezekiah's reform movement (which is recounted in detail in the second book)? "And (Hezekiah) clung to Jehovah. He did not turn away from him and keep his commandments, as Yahweh commanded Moses. And the Lord was with him in all that he went out (=doing), he would be wise (=he would succeed), and he would rebel against the king of Assyria and not enslave him (he did not raise the taxes and other duties that symbolized the enslavement of Judah to Assyria" (Mal XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX).
Hezekiah thus establishes for the first time the pilgrimage in connection with the Passover holiday and ties it to the unification of the kingdom and the strengthening of his position.
Hezekiah's successor, Manasseh his son, did evil in the eyes of Jehovah and erased his father's Jewish reform, after him came Amon his son, who also like Manasseh persisted in uprooting the course of the reform, while his son, Hezekiah's great-grandson, that is Josiah (609-630), returned the wheel After and behaved like Hezekiah both in the reformation, both in the celebration of Passover and in the act of rebellion.
And the act that was like this was: King Josiah sought to advance the implementation of the reform of his great-grandfather, Hezekiah, and first of all commanded to conduct a house inspection in the temple. The inspection of the house required expenses, and these were taken from the donation box, from the ceramic "safe", and in the process, a sacred book was revealed in the same box, the "Book of the Covenant" as the Bible says, it is probably the book of Deuteronomy and even additional parts are read. In the light of what is written in the book, Josiah carried out the Jewish reform, in a very similar and even deeper and thorough manner as Hezekiah in his time and... "And the king commanded all the people to say: Make a Passover to the Lord unto you as it is written in this book of the covenant" (Malb 21:22), and the climax in the next verse: " Because it has not been done like this Passover since the days of the judges who judged Israel and all the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Yahweh" (Is. 18). This Passover event is very detailed in Sefer Dahab chapter la. The date of the event was in the 622th year of King Josiah, we were in XNUMX BC.
And what is the next move? A military move, quite similar to Hezekiah's move - Josiah embarks on an excessive and risky military operation to stop the attack trend of a crippled Pharaoh, who went north to strike the Assyrians. Josiah paid with his life for this move and with him the army that was dragged north by his command.
Here is the physical origin of Passover and its connection to political and military moves by the two kings, Hezekiah and Josiah. The symbolism between the spirit of the holiday and the movements of the two is clear - the departure from slavery to freedom, and certainly the two kings saw before their eyes the realization of the idea in their very lives and status, and perhaps more than all Josiah, who, like he sought revenge on another pharaoh, since his military course was completely hopeless. He relied, similarly, on the consecration of the center in Jerusalem and the celebration of Passover on his own initiative and status. Under these circumstances, he was probably inclined to believe that God was on his side and certainly that Pharaoh and his soldiers were going to drown in another "Red Sea".
When will we reveal another celebration of Passover? During the days of Zion's return, when the exiles returned to Judah and were assimilated into the prophecy of Ezekiel, the prophet of the exile, about the Passover celebration. "And the exiles celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth of the first month, because the priests and the Levites alike were purified, they were all pure, and the Passover was slaughtered for all the exiles and their brother priests and for them" (Ezra 20:19-XNUMX). The returned exiles do not share with the people, most of whom remained in Judah, in the Passover celebration and the sacrifice at its center. These saw themselves as carrying on the tradition of Jewish reform, and by leveraging and empowering it, they sought, led by their leaders, to rule over themselves and to completely reject the majority of the population that remained in Judea after the Holocaust. Here is a clear political context for the holiday.
In the Maccabean and Hasmonean periods, there are few mentions of Passover, and so in Josephus, except that we find it difficult to ignore one or two interesting things (and about this I published a list at the time in Hidan), when during the holiday of unleavened bread the Sikri raid Ein Gedi, looting the property of the residents, the Jews of course, And the weak - the women, the children and the old - were slaughtered and beaten mercilessly (The Wars of the Jews in the Romans, IV. 405-402). And in Jerusalem, during the Roman siege and in the midst of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Yohanan asks Gush Halab, one of the leaders of the delusional zealots, to break into the temple and his armed warriors with him (ibid., 102:100-XNUMX). In any case, the holiday of Passover was not used as some sort of apocalypse for a political or military move like at the end of the first temple.
The situation changed after the destruction of the Second Temple, when the Jewish leadership, the President's House, made sure that the control of the public holidays would be completely in its hands, and when it became clear to President Rabbi Gamaliel Divna that the leader of the Jewish community in Rome, Rabbi Matthias, wanted to lead a kind of Passover sacrifice in his community, the President viewed this very severely and threatened to remove him from office immediately. And this is the same Rabbi Gamaliel, whose one of his famous rulings touched on the order of Passover - "Rabbi Gamaliel used to say: Anyone who did not say (= explained to his son) that he would pray these things on Passover, did not neglect his duty, and these are: Passover, Matzah, and Meror" (from Passover XNUMX:XNUMX '), and a number of other central laws designed to regulate the family Passover order.
This is why we locate the beginning of the Passover in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah, and its continuation in the return of Zion and in the period after the destruction, when the holiday serves as a lever on one side and a spectacle on the other for political leadership.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- Exodus - the unbelievable numbers
- Exodus from Egypt - an invented narrative
- The beginning of Israel - about the book by Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silverman, which deals with the period of Josiah, when most of the text of the Tanakh was written
- The first frontal portrait of one of the pharaohs was discovered
- The Bible - there are no finds in the field
- The king's slaves were poisoned and buried in the pyramid
- We were slaves but not in the pyramids
50 תגובות
Lord whistles hello!
I can hear everything and even learn, but I cannot accept one thing: who determined that the story of "the invention of Passover in the days of Hezekiah from political reasons" is the scientific-historical truth? From your words I get the impression that you are presenting the story as a historical truth and that Passover and its stories did not happen at all. but! Honorable gentleman, the fact that Prof. Finkelstein said that this is the truth still does not make it true: there are also archaeological finds that allow us to accept the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt (perhaps not of all its trials and deeds), and in archeology in general there are always two things: the accumulation of the known facts and their interpretation . Everything you say is your way (which is influenced by the Tel Aviv school of archaeology) of interpreting the facts and not the absolute truth. The fact that you do not find a mention of the celebration of Passover in the book of Judges and Kings means only that it is not mentioned there and it does not necessarily mean that it was not. Just to remind you, there are archaeologists who claim to have found Joshua's altar on Mount Ebal (Adam Zertal), there are archaeologists who advance the time of the Exodus from Egypt to the end of the Bronze Age (2200 - 1900) and then there is also evidence from Egyptian papyri about a count similar to the biblical count of this exodus and much more. So I'm not saying that they are right, but they too just developed some kind of theory that in their opinion explains the existing body of facts just as their opponents (i.e. the Tel Aviv school) developed their own theory (or Walhausen's.......) regarding the same body of facts. For some reason, every time someone finds an archaeological find that contradicts this theory that you brought up above, the knights of the "scientific truth" from the Tel Aviv Beit Midrash immediately jump up and claim that it is a lie, a bluff, the influence of the settlers on archeology or any other nonsense, and then all kinds of nonsense come up. that have no dawn (in the beginning they said that there was no King David at all, but then when the inscription "House of David" was found, immediately someone was found who published an article in the scientific press abroad that the address was a forgery - but after another such inscription was found, the "scientific truth" suddenly changed and now suddenly there was a king named David, but he was only a small sheikh of some poor tribe. When Hirbat Caiaphas was found, it was no longer possible to tell the number of the small sheikh, so they came to a new absurdity: this is not a Jewish city at all, and the bones of the kosher animals found there do not indicate Jews, but Philistines who rebelled against the Philistine main stream And their rebellion was to eat kosher animals (who doesn't believe that there is such a serious article in the archaeological literature that will check Nadav Naaman's article). And who hasn't heard that the altar on Mount Ebal is even a guard in the field? And more and more priests who teach one thing: scientific truth is not found in any school of thought And every person who calls himself a scientist or a researcher will be honored and say this: what he has in his hand is a theory that fits the existing body of facts. If tomorrow they find other things that the theory does not explain - we will look for another theory and we will not dedicate anything as a Torah to Moses of Sinai. And for the sake of full disclosure - I am not religious.
The origin of the name Pesach is from the name of a sacrifice that was fought on the eve of Passover in the Temple while the Temple existed, and was eaten on the eve of the day (the night of the Seder), and was called the Passover sacrifice. The sacrifice itself is named after the 'Passover' (skipping) in the firstborn plague, the tenth of which Solomon did not celebrate Passover and David in the tent before the Temple did not celebrate Passover. What are you talking about. You know that Moses and Joshua, David, Solomon would all put on tefillin and you would have a sign by your hand... the continuation I believe you know
Before opening this, it is appropriate to say the following, which may not be pleasing to all religious ears, faith and worship developed on the face of the earth, and wherever human society operated, with a dominant intention of control. Belief, religion and worship were used among potential leaders as a lever to control their thoughts and thereby the actions of people, with the almost immediate result being political power on the one hand and socio-economic power on the other. And if I put it briefly - in the Bible which in my atheistic version it is written: "In the beginning man created God, in his own image and likeness".
With that said (I am neither religious nor a traditionalist) get up in the morning and tell the Creator of the world that man created you. you don't exist And I have no fear of you. And I do not believe that the Torah was given by you. Ben Anush wrote the book and if you exist show me and those who wanted to gain political social economic power did not need religion. The sword was very helpful both then and today
In another thousand years, even less than 50 years, a clown will arise who will say there was no holocaust, where is the proof photos? Can deniers be faked? There is no lack including presidents of countries like Iran so where is the proof the proof that I and my descendants stand still on the day of the holocaust. In order not to forget the exodus from Egypt, there is a mezuzah on every house. Do you know what is in a mezuzah? Every day they place tefillin. What is inside the tefillin? Every Shacharit and every Mincha and every Arabic what do you remember? Every Shabbat when you read the Torah, what do you read? What happened to the sons of Israel (Jacob) in Egypt and don't you forget it is stuck on your door with your hand on your head in a synagogue from the day we left Egypt and received the Torah so as not to forget well in another thousand years we will say there was no holocaust
You made me laugh,
Please, don't 'laugh' too much. One exclamation point is enough…
And besides, Marquis - everything is fine...
Eddie! Eddie! Eddie! Eddie! Eddie! Eddie! Eddie! Eddie!
And Yahyam Habibi, today is the thirteenth day of Omer, and the eve of Holocaust Day.
Read on this site about distinguished "scientists" like you, and about the results of their "research".
Dr. Yehiam Sorek,
You're wrong. The correct order in terms of content is as I mentioned, when the hint comes after the sermon. In the initials Pardes, the location of the sermon and the allusion were changed - just to get a word with a known and relevant meaning (the word Pardes is mentioned in the Song of Songs and is of Persian origin) - as the owners of Malitza used to do in all generations. Go out and learn.
I understand that instead of debating a matter with me, you prefer to disqualify me in advance and avoid a real clarification of your claims against mine just because I am a believing Jew. Really rational on your part! And for your method built on 'feeling' and various biases and speculations you still call it 'empiricism'!
And for this I demand - ten cabins of intellectual fraud [- also self-] come down to the world, and people like you took - eleven!
Go away, I have no interest in arguing with you. Just a waste of time.
to Eddie
You enter Jehovah through a side door, so there is no argument between you and me, such as the parallel lines.
The correct serial conjunction is simple, hint, demand, secret.
The religious truth is drilled into the minds of believers, when the distance between it and empiricism is like between East and West.
selective rebuttal,
Thanks.
But I suggest not putting God in the cauldron. He is not supposed to be an 'investigator' or 'decider' regarding the factual 'truth'. According to my way, I prefer a religiosity of meanings, and God - as a moral, value and normative teacher. In this context, some historical factual 'truth' is not particularly important - what is important is the significance of the following description in the scriptures - simple, preached, hinted and secret.
All my claims that appear to be 'factual' are nothing but the 'methodology' of people who have never understood, and apparently will never understand, that religious truth (apart from being rooted in an ontological or at least regulative truth regarding the existence of a deity that relates to contingent reality -) is an array of truths of meanings, and that these meanings are far above and beyond the historical factual materials. These historical materials - and the polemic surrounding them - become for such people the main phenomenon and the religious truth, and their success in 'proving' the validity/invalidity of the historical factual claim is translated for them, in most of their folly, into a claim about the religious truth in itself, - each according to his ideological inclination.
Indeed, in their eagerness to serve their ideology, such people - all too often (especially in newspapers and recruiting websites) - do not hesitate to distort the facts and cheap demagoguery. In these cases it is nothing less than 'pseudo science in the service of ideology'.
This article is, in my opinion, another case of 'pseudo science in the service of ideology'.
Moshe:
You can't expect a person to present opinions that they think are wrong.
In any subject that has a serious dispute there are also people who can represent all sides of the dispute.
If only one of the parties bothers to write his opinion, then directing the allegations to him is the least logical thing to do. It's similar to a teacher scolding students who arrived to class on time for others being late.
You are welcome to contact someone serious who can present a different serious position and I am sure that his article will be welcomed.
Another thing
Let's leave your political writing for a moment
The problem is less the political side but your credibility, how can I be sure that you are presenting the facts as they are and not biasing them to your way when from your writing I understood your political opinion
If the website here belonged to the political movement in which you believe in fun, write what you want
The point is that on a website that is supposed to be an objective, non-partisan science, it presents your articles instead of presenting articles by the historian who more seriously brings all the methods and interpretations regarding each subject and not one who brings only the one-dimensional side of it
And it's not something personal against your political opinion, even if they brought in a right-wing person who interprets through his glasses, I would be annoyed
I, as the ordinary reader, want to read someone who will objectively present the range of opinions on historical issues and not just your opinion, however respectable it may be
Or it's big on a site that probably turns into 2 chats
No! Any presentation of a person in history through political glasses and it doesn't matter what political current you are from is political appropriation and political use of history for political brainwashing
The claim against you is that as a historian it is your job to bring facts and not to hand out grades
Leave that to ideological movements
It's sad that I as a simple citizen should teach you this
That's why I'm appealing to the owners of the website, maybe you could do a favor, bring someone who will bring articles on the subject of history without involving his personal opinions, someone objective who will bring articles and present things in a less one-dimensional way
Or you have also turned science into a tool for brainwashing
Maybe the religious people are really right and with a little knowledge of science I would learn that all the science you bring here is nothing more than one side of the coin and it is nothing more than religious brainwashing which is not very far from the neighboring site talking about all the scientific knowledge they bring
It is sad that even in a place that is supposed to be serious scientific I should feel that I am on a religious site with ideological political messages
Moses
In your opinion - any presentation of a historical figure in a light that does not flow in the consensual trend is a historical distortion. You were right! I was convinced!
And again you get into trifles and language refinements about the form of my writing and ignore the content of my words
So I'll come back and maybe for the last time, I brought as an example your description of Bar Kochba as a despicable thug and you ignored it
I brought as an example your additions to every fanatic as delusional sleepwalkers and you ignored it
You choose to answer what suits you and not to my verbal abuse
The fact that Zionism as a political or ideological movement covered all kinds of things it believed in has nothing to do with you as a historian who is supposed to present facts and treat historical events in the most objective way as a bystander and not as a political judge and that's what I'm talking about and you ignore
And again I will say that you are using your research and language coins as a political tool to dig into in the sense of brainwashing people and presenting political figures in history in a distorted way that suits your political views today (not in the sense of a role)
Another peace to Moshe
See what you're doing? You complain that I plant political positions, and you yourself seek to drag me into a honey trap along the lines of: "Betzelem... the stories of a thousand nights and nights". You could bring an example for your arguments from another niche, which is not provocative, but you chose such a charged topic. wonder! Also, and without falling into your net, where is the assurance that B'Tselem's testimonies are the stories of a thousand and one nights? And note, despite my political positions, I did not set a position here and there...
Peace to Moshe
First - Flavius and not Fablius.
Second - sikriim and not sikrikin-sikrikim, or sikrikon from the language of the Sages. The Jewish underground at the time also made a historiographical mistake when it called itself Sikrikon, and this because it knew something of the language of the Sages, but not of Josephus Flavius. Cicricon.
Pulled from the Greek and means a financial deal in land matters, and it has nothing and nothing to do with the groups of fanatics back then.
Third - indeed my political views should not interest anyone in the research context, and as I have mentioned many times, the political interpretations swirl in the heads of a number of commenters and nothing else.
Fourth - I am very careful to qualify my conclusions, even if they are based on fairly reliable sources such as Josephus. I never claimed that this is pure truth. Pure truth is always in the eyes of the emotional observer.
Fifth - useful in history as a digging spade. Come on, you expect a factual response from me.
Sixth - in the third paragraph before the end you lament the use of the writings of Joseph ben Mattheyahoo as pure truth on the one hand, and in the very next paragraph you make bene Mattheyahoo someone who is "known for his political positions...". Try not to contradict yourself. And what does "known" mean? whom? On what basis?
And I will listen to you on this matter - the burial of Yosef ben Matthew, or rather his continued hanging, is a function of biased Zionist disgust, who decided, through Zhdanovism and brainwashing in the education system, to separate the heroes from the traitors. If so, this should also have been the fate of Rivaz, between whom and Yosef ben Matatiyo cut tangential and incredibly decisive lines. And this is just one example out of many, as well as the horrible and blatant attitude towards the behavior of the Jews in the Holocaust except... for the ghetto fighters, and by the way what it turns out - only in the Warsaw ghetto did a rebellion break out, but that doesn't bother the establishment system. And so generations grow up on a distorted basis, and when desperate productions like me come to tear open a window to the reality of a certain truth, they are immediately led to a pig hanging.
Dr. Yachiam Ba is not overpowered. Almost every article of yours on the subject of Second Temple must be added to anyone who didn't exactly think like you during Second Temple as a delusional sleepwalking person, and if you could you would add a drooling muzzle with a shaggy old teddy bear.
Your inferiority as a historian is the inability to present the facts as they are without sharing with us the readers your opinions on the subject of your research, this takes away from your credibility as a historian because actually instead of investigating the truth to the depth of things you actually steer the research to present the things that will suit your political positions
Your political opinions do not interest me, for my part, believe that Stalin was the sun of the nations and Arafat was a freedom fighter.
But when you write an article you will spare us the readers your opinions and present things as they are
Your job as a historian, for example, is not to decide who is a delusional thug and who is a national hero, your job is to present the facts and we will judge his actions if he is a hero or a villain
But you are incapable of letting human beings decide, you owe it to your political opinions to decide for us like the last commissars in Russia
And this is what I claim if you use history as a tool to dig into what we will complain about those rabbis
If science has become a servant tool of the researchers in presenting a political opinion then we really have no reason to complain about others
By presenting the words of Josephus Fablius regarding the sikriks as scientific truth, it is historically true like the stories of a thousand and one nights by the people of "Betzelem" about "innocent" Palestinian passers-by who were harmed by brutal IDF soldiers.
Fablius is known for his political positions and to which party he belonged the fact that he used his pen under Roman rule when his brothers were slaughtered in the citadels and sold into slavery in Rome in order to settle political scores and exonerate himself after his betrayal
should have brought you as a historian to present his words with some reservation when it comes to a political context
Eddie:
It is not written what the book was that was "discovered" in the temple, but what is clear from what is written is that before it was found, no one in the nation knew the most basic laws of Judaism.
Therefore it was - in the best case - a book of Deuteronomy and in a worse case - a more basic book that preceded "Deuteronomy"
I liked your comments, Eddie, more interesting than Sorek's article and devoid of provocative sting.
And what is the truth? God knows (-:
Yair,
As for the book of Joshua: the question of the time of its composition and the method of its composition are subject to many disputes. The analytical theories, which assume late additions to the book of Joshua, involve overly speculative loopholes.
On the other hand, an approach like Kuipman's approach not only advances the materials of the book to a very ancient time, close to the days of Joshua and the conquest of the land, but it also leaves the foundation under the assumptions regarding the so-called Deuteronomistic edition of the book and its etiological nature, etc. and regarding various speculations raised in the research .
I do not claim that the research surrounding the book of Joshua gives a complete picture regarding the set of questions involved in it, and there are quite a few of these. In this context, I suggest relying not only on the postmodernists from Tel Aviv (Finkelstein and his ilk) but also on the clear and balanced voices of scholars from other academic institutions (Zartel and others) whose research is of great value in corroborating materials from the book of Joshua.
Beyond the above, and in order to focus attention on the concrete field, I will return to the topic of the article - the ancient originality of the holiday. I of course agree with you that the sweeping claim of the article is wrong. But I do not agree with you about the nullity of the evidence from the book of Joshua. I do not believe that it is possible to state with a pen that the evidence regarding the Passover from the book of Joshua is not evidence. It's not professional, it's not true, it's not fair and it's not responsible.
As for what I said regarding the fact that "a professional and objective basic article is needed": I'm afraid I misunderstood. All in all, I meant that it is impossible to open, in addition to the very concrete discussion of the sweeping claim of this article (that the Passover was supposedly invented in the service of politics at the time of Hezekiah), in an effective discussion of the very broad question of theories about the origins of the Scriptures and the issue of dating theories of the Scriptures - and all within the framework of commentaries only. If the site had offered a proper article that would have provided the body of the material - this would have been possible. That's what I meant, and nothing more.
Happy holiday.
post Scriptum.
I would love to hear from you about new studies (from the last five years) regarding the book of Joshua. Thanks.
Eddie, Dr. Sorek
I agree with Eddy's criticism of Yechiam's conclusion that the beginning of Passover must be traced back to the time of Hezekiah.
Passover consists of several layers, especially an agricultural layer and a historical national layer. In my opinion, the agricultural layer, as well as the primary layer expressed in the full moon celebration, are very ancient, and on top of them was assembled the national historical layer, which may have been founded by Hezekiah.
The fact that Passover is mentioned in the book of Joshua does not matter, because according to the in-depth research, yes Eddy, the in-depth book, the book of Joshua was perhaps written in the same period as the book of Deuteronomy.
Eddie, the claim that "a professional and objective basic article is needed" is ridiculous, since in no field of research does one base all research on such an article. There are tens of thousands of professional articles and books, and to varying degrees also striving for objectivity, that study the Tanakh. The claim that the book in Josiah's possession was Deuteronomy cannot of course be proven, but very good evidence has been brought forward since De Weta's breakthrough that Deuteronomy was written in Josiah's time.
If you think the evidence is not good enough, feel free to refute it.
To Moshe - what is the difference between a bed and a bed linen? What is between my political and socio-economic positions and my research as a historian. Is it convenient to hang Boki-Seriki on me just because it's convenient for you? And a father, who takes the evidence from his friend.
Lali - you are right, because man is nothing but a pattern of the landscape of his homeland, when the homeland, in my opinion, is virtual, meaning immanent. And in the style of I only knew for myself to tell, I will confess that there is no connection between my political and socio-economic views and the fruits of my research. What do you think, that I should look for the roots of communism in the ancient era, or liberalism and the French revolutionary tricolor in the biblical era.
It is convenient for a lot of friends to hang a bookie-sariki on me, because it exempts many and toims from measuring with me on the business level. Moreover, my political and social positions are a minority in Israeli society and I am definitely a non-conformist, and from that the ultra-nationalist trends that are prevalent in Israeli society, and which originate, not least from a diluted version of sub-historiosophical chauvinism, I will not be surprised that they seek to include my positions, as well as those of other researchers , in a certain political and socio-economic relationship. And enough for Hakima to hint.
Dr. Yehiam Shork Shalom,
To claim that my factual and well-qualified claims are 'emotional' claims is a rather irrational way to deal with them.
But this 'method' of dealing with the issue is not new to you. In your article you yourself rely on 'feelings' (you do ask and answer 'does Hezekiah seek to preserve an ancient custom of the Passover celebration, we do not know, although my feeling is that he is holding the celebration here for the first time'). And wonder and wonder - the 'feeling' is both the claim and the conclusion! Nice logic!
Even the praise you gave to Noa in response 20 (a kind of 'consolation beauty' in your own variation) doesn't necessarily show any merit in your whole move. The Hyksos theories were romantic theories that were good enough to be read in the children's homes in the Hashomer Hatzair kibbutzim in the 50s of the last century (they served the ideological goals well). Noa's other arguments are also, how to say, inaccurate and/or irrelevant.
Yair,
In order to discuss in depth the (various) methods of the so-called 'higher biblical criticism', a professional and objective basic article is needed (something that in any subject that touches religion is in no way seen or found on the site of knowledge). The very mention in Alma of the names of scholars such as Di Vita, Lahuizen, etc. and relying on such mentions as if thereby establishing some kind of factual insight - there is nothing noble about them - on the contrary: they point to the poor ability to discuss and argue.
In the absence of a fundamental article as mentioned above, I suggest being non-dogmatic and very concrete - we have no other way of discussion.
Accordingly, I argued to Dr. Yechiam Sorek (in response 13): "You do not know what the nature and the wording of that book that Josiah found were."
I ask you: do you know real information about the nature and the wording of that book that Josiah found?
For the same reason why I am convinced that your answer will be negative, I doubted the correctness of Dr. Sorek's deep conviction on the subject.
I still haven't received a substantive response regarding my claim that the sweeping conclusion of the author of the article that "we locate the beginning of Passover in the days of Hezekiah and Joshua" is baseless.
I don't think there is any scientific research and especially historical research that is free of bias. Because every research is affected by different and diverse factors, such as: personal beliefs and opinions of the research performers, the interests of the research funders, the interests of the educational institution, political and governmental interests. Also, every study is influenced by various factors and will never be free of biases.
Unfortunately, in recent years more and more people are emerging whose views are anti-Jewish and sometimes this even borders on anti-Semitism on the part of the Jews themselves and hatred or rejection of the Jewish religion which is not always rational.
I must also say that recently anti-Judaism has become even quite popular for various reasons.
With all honesty, every good (positive) thing is also accompanied by a negative side, therefore Judaism also has negative sides, but we should not forget the positive sides of Judaism as well.
Have a good night everyone and happy holidays.
to Muti
I have never claimed that the words of Sage Abel are evil. And by the way, the term-concept with the land has undergone profound changes, since in the biblical period it is an aristocratic group that believed in the queen of the heirs of the throne, and in the Mishna period a priest with the land was considered a junior, unlike a fellow priest who was considered a senior.
For selective refutation - religion and faith were not invented out of thin air. For everything there is a reason, and after all "in the beginning man created God", because for his necessity and needs he created him. For this purpose, many good people relied on ancient traditions and mobilized them to their advantage while distorting and sometimes significantly those traditions, and this is what Zionism did with the myth of Bar Kochba - turning him from a delusional bully into a legendary national warrior.
Ladi - I find it difficult to deal with religious attitudes when they flow in a parallel line to my worldview. The emotional will never understand the rational's position or knowingly deny it.
Noa - Naa Drasht
Eddy, Yahyam's deep conviction about the Book of the Testaments being a book of Deuteronomy stems from extensive research for two hundred years, since De Weta published his great study in which he showed that the Book of Deuteronomy was written in the seventh century BC, the days of Josiah.
Moshe:
If you were serious you would write an article against me or confront the arguments raised in this article instead of ranting and blaspheming.
If there are many types like you, it is no wonder that there are those who follow religious rabbis.
From the article it is evident that Dr. Yachiam is a left-wing Zionist historian
who uses his historical knowledge for political obfuscation purposes while misrepresenting half-truths with wishful thinking as pure historical truth
It is sad that a science website that claims to fight ignorance that holds religious phantasms. Uses such a historian to display the history
Then they wonder how religious rabbis sweep secular ones after them
When science is at the service of politics, don't be surprised that it comes back to you like a boomerang
A lie has no legs, and when you turn science into a ploy to dig into it for political purposes, it's no wonder that ordinary people don't understand science as science should be without personal and political bias while presenting the scientific facts without giving superlatives to people from the past while alluding to political opinions today
In my opinion, a professor like Yachiam is a disgrace to the site and lowers his credibility
I hope that at least Bolshevik censorship does not work here
Yahyam*
"Dr" Yahyam Sharkan, if you don't know, ask a rabbi, don't confuse, just specialize.
The monotheistic faith and the recording of the holy books were created only after the Babylonian exile in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah
During the period of the judges and the monarchy there was a night of worshiping local idols together with the supreme god - Yahweh
In the temple itself there was a statue of the copper snake, as it is said in the sources - do what is evil in the eyes of God
Also, in the Egyptian sources there is no mention of the exodus from Egypt and according to the archaeological studies it can be assumed that the Hebrews were part of the Khasos - the Hyksos - rulers of considerable lands, celestial tribes that ruled Egypt for about two hundred years and the center of their rule was in the Delta - the land of Goshen, one of the rulers of the Hyksos was even named Jacob
Finally, the Hyksos were defeated and expelled from Egypt to the land of Canaan and Syria, and it is likely that the tribes of Israel were part of the Arab League that migrated from Egypt to the deserts
Dr. Yehiam Shork Shalom,
There are many disputes regarding the question of the dating of the Torah sources. I don't think, for example, that the differences between Kuipman and Lolhuizen indicate actual agreement. Greater than this, if we accept the research methods prevalent since the 19th century (and in my opinion it is not necessary to accept them as a whole) - then regarding the primary sources, the certificates, which establish the main sources (and necessarily the later ones) - it seems to me that it is impossible to say that they are so late as the eighth century.
I don't know where your deep conviction comes from regarding the book of the covenant. You do not know what was the nature and what was the wording of that book that Josiah found. To the best of my knowledge, there is no verified information on the matter - and what there is is nothing more than a jumble of guesses, wild speculations and loose conjectures. In my opinion, when it comes to clear assertions with truth value - one should be careful of relying on guesses, speculative 'understandings' and loose hypotheses in the alma.
I repeat my position: according to the inventory of written sources, the sweeping claim that "we locate the beginning of the Passover in the days of Hezekiah and Joshua" has no basis.
Now, if all your evidence is from the scriptures - it is right that you take into account all the evidence (even those that do not seem to come up with the claim that requires proof, and not selectively) and in addition, it is right that you give the written references a reasonable and complete interpretation within the relevant limits while highlighting the contexts and implications that arise. Also, it is appropriate that you deal with all the references in a matter-of-fact manner.
If you don't do that (and in my opinion - you didn't do that) - then Shaminya and Bia enters the realm of speculative argument, and from the beginning the relation to your claim has no truth value. The only 'value' that can be attributed to the 'claim' in question is an ideological and political value, - one that is precisely related to the reality that prevails in Israel today, and not to the reality of the people who came out of Egypt and onwards in Beit Rishon.
As for the very 'political' view of the events - I suggest taking this angle of view with a limited guarantee. It may be that the 'secular' life consists of certain portions of politics, and even science or certain sciences can be influenced by politics - but it seems to me to go too far to think that everything is politics; There is a place and weight for general culture, there is real science, there is a place and weight for authentic human experiences both at the level of the individual and at the level of the whole. Not everything is politics - if its place is not absent in the overall social system of life. And the same is true in matters of religion: religion is much more than some kind of politics - it is culture, it is philosophy, it is authentic intuitions, it is authentic beliefs, it is authentic religious emotion and more - yes, politics too, but not 'only politics' and not even 'mainly politics' . The attempt to reduce the entire course of Passover (- especially after reducing its historical scope -) to mere 'politics' seems to me to be clearly not serious. In general, in my opinion, religious phenomena, like most human phenomena in general - cannot be understood through reductionism.
And speaking of 'politics' - in my opinion it is worthwhile to try to see the political moves - to the extent that the moves were also political - in broader contexts such as the two exiles in the Kingdom of Israel and the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel in the eighth century BCE. It seems to me that the broad contexts make it clear that the 'politics' to the extent it was and to the extent it was - is not 'small politics', nor even 'politics', but rather a move of a broad national character, which concerns the fundamental and deepest existential national religious questions, in a historical crossroads like no other on every Sunday. Therefore, these moves are clearly 'religious' moves, in their basis and purpose, much more than purely 'political'.
In this respect, I find fault not only in the article's sweeping claim, but also in its general perception of the religious phenomenon, the religious life and the mechanics of the religious life in the historical perspective - a perception that in my opinion is stereotyped, ideological and too superficial. I find the title of the article obscene, which I also find a great deal of vulgarity and political ideological self-interest.
Quote: Whether Hezekiah wishes to preserve an ancient custom of the Passover celebration, we do not know, although my feeling is that he is holding the celebration here for the first time. In any case, hundreds of years have passed since Passover was celebrated until its quasi-renewal by the king, and this is certainly an unusual event.
======
I suggest you not to rely on your feelings in this matter, but to rely on the "reasonable person test" - even with the most practical ruler, it is unlikely that worship will be invented out of thin air.
It is more likely that it was based on ancient traditions, just as was done here in recent generations when "heroes" who were not really mentioned in the Jewish tradition, such as Bar Kochba and Yehuda the Maccabee, were harnessed to the needs of the renewed Yishuv, and the worship of Hanukkah and XNUMX B'Omer cream skin and sinews. Here, too, this was not done out of nowhere, and it certainly relied on ancient traditions, which were moved from the margins of things to the center of things according to the needs of the ruler (the Zionist establishment) of those days.
Yahyam whistles
You want to tell us that all the words of the Tanaim and the Amorites and the words of all the sages who came after them are a lie.
All of them knowingly lied and were probably stupid and didn't understand what they were doing.
And here you are, the wisest above all of these, today, long after them, you discover the truth and understand how to filter the scriptures.
You don't have to be smart to understand that you are with the country to anger.
It is said about you, the one who mocks the words of the sages, there dwells a serpent and is condemned in a boiling water.
Hello Eddie
The Torah sources are in any case attributed to a very late period, both according to their language, the various terminology incorporated in them, and more. After all, the Book of Deuteronomy which is at the command of Josiah is nothing more than a rewritten work of parts of Deuteronomy and more of this kind.
The Passover Haggadah, the one formulated at the instruction and initiative of Rabbi Gamaliel, also has considerable political significance, and I will try to bring that up in one of the following lists.
I don't have a time machine and I won't be able to go back to those days and check, but to answer some of the things said here you don't need to know what happened. You just need logic.
It is certainly legitimate to rely on what is written in a book that you do not believe in as a whole.
If, for example, there is a history book that began to be written in the time of Josiah and in which the plots of the Israelites and the spaghetti monster are described a long time before it was written, it makes sense to base it on the history described after the days of Josiah (of course, with more than a pinch of salt because you have to take into account that these are not people of our time with The knowledge that today is the property of anyone who wants to know) and not to believe what is described as earlier history.
The point is that it's actually not a parable - with the Bible this is probably the case for confirmation.
For example - everything that is written in the Torah - how can you know that it is true?
In fact, a lot of evidence indicates that this is not true - whether these are nonsense written in the Torah itself, or whether it is the fact that in XNUMX Kings - chapter XNUMX it is written that in the days of Josiah no one at all knew the Torah.
I would like to draw attention to two sources that did not find expression in Dr. Yechiam Sorek's article:
1. According to Med. XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX, the Israelites celebrated the Passover in the second year after their departure from Egypt. Then it became clear that there were some people who could not make the Passover due to impurity laws. The solution to the problem is given by the commandment which states that those who could not do Passover in the first month due to impurity or because they were on a long journey, will do Passover on the fourteenth of the second month.
2. The text in Joshua XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX clearly informs that immediately after they came to the land the Israelites celebrated the Passover at its time, on the plains of Jericho, and that the day after the Passover the Israelites ate unleavened bread and barley from the grain of the land. The scripture seeks to make it known that immediately after the beginning of their normal permanent life in the land of their inheritance, the Israelites celebrated the Passover. Since it is clear to the author of the book that the day after Passover falls on the holiday of unleavened bread, which is forbidden with leaven, he casually comments that the first bread of the Israelites in the land of their inheritance was matzah and kelly.
These sources tell about concrete events that involved the celebration of Passover immediately after the Exodus and in the following generation. These sources add evidence of the actual celebration of Passover, in addition to the legislative sources that the author of the article cites in the body of the article (number of names, Leviticus). In my opinion, it is clear from this that the sweeping claim of the author of the article that "we locate the beginning of the Passover in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah" is baseless, and is refuted from the scriptures themselves.
I will add two additional comments regarding the content of the article, which also have the potential to challenge the sweeping claim of the author of the article:
1. Hezekiah's Passover: It is quite clear from Dhab XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX that the reason for the postponement of the Passover to the second month lay in the fact that, due to the work of purification of the HCMC, foreign worship was defiled and the need for various preparations - they did not have enough time to make the Passover in the first month and instituted it in the second month. Pesach Shani'. It is possible to understand the creative interpretation of Hezekiah and his advisers to the grandmothers justifying holding Pesach not on its first time but on the time of the 'second Pesach' - in light of the very unusual circumstances that surrounded the entire process. Hence it is also possible to justify the deviation from the prevailing law regarding the time of Passover, in 'Hezekiah's Passover'. It is clear that Hezekiah's creative interpretation was not initially seen by wide sections of the people, and his messengers were met with contempt, but in the end Hezekiah gathered a large crowd for Passover. In any case, the fact that large sections of the people 'from Dan to Beer Sheva' saw Hezekiah's initiative as too extreme an innovation, shows how solid the celebration of Passover was in his historical consciousness, in the religious law that he trusted and in the religious practice that he practiced in practice - even from ancient times.
2. Josiah's Passover: This Passover is done in purity (unlike Hezekiah's Passover) and in a central place, it is in the High Court - and therefore the scripture says in the Book of Kings and also in DHAV XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX that it will not be done like this Passover of Josiah before him from the days of the judges. But under no circumstances should it be said that the intention of the scripture is that we did not do Passover at all in the past.
To sum up: In my opinion, the sweeping claim of the author of the article as if "we locate the beginning of the Passover in the days of Hezekiah and Joshua" has no basis, and it is refuted from the scriptures. It is clear that the circle was still celebrated shortly after the Exodus and in the second generation after that.
to shimi
It is possible to read the Bible and learn from the Bible the history of the nation of Israel and at the same time not be religious and not believe in God. All Bible research is done from a secular point of view. This is also the reason that the religious in general, and the ultra-orthodox in particular, oppose archaeological research. They fear factual findings that will spoil their interpretation of Torah writing.
In my opinion, there is no need to be afraid, this is justification. No historical finding can change a belief based on truth. The truth cannot be defeated in the face of historical facts. The problem is that the rabbis, pretend to present themselves as omniscient, (which is obviously not true) and therefore they are afraid of objective information that will present them as wrong. For them, this is true for every piece of information, even the most marginal. They are afraid that their students will start to raise an eyebrow and ask questions.
And so under the guise of protecting graves they oppose any digging. And since, according to the law, archeological documentation excavations must be conducted at every construction site, they are also opposed to the construction of emergency rooms, provided they are not in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem it is already a different story. After all, in Jerusalem there are often ancient cemeteries, but for the sake of the religious and ultra-orthodox public in Jerusalem and its daughters, it is permissible to close one's eyes.
They basically claim that you can't take data that you don't believe in and use it when it suits you, and when it doesn't, strike at the source of things
Yes, they claim………..
To the "Jew", "Motti" and the "Spaghetti Monster" who responded before me.
What and why did you get angry with the author of the article?
Read the Passover Haggadah yourself, see who the rabbis are mentioned in it.
Rabbi Yossi HaGalili, Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yehshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. These are all Tanims (rabbis) who lived in the Land of Israel approximately seventy to one hundred and fifty years after the beginning of the Sefir. This means that the Passover Haggadah was written and signed at least one hundred and fifty years after the counting.
The author of the article provides evidence that King Hezekiah, who lived about 800 years before the Tanaim period, is the one who started the tradition of the holiday.
It seems that your opposition to writing in the article expresses an emotional opposition to any scientific and rational examination of Jewish history.
Do you claim that the Passover Haggadah and the entire Bible were also given to the people of Israel by God through Moses at Mount Sinai?
interesting conspiracy,
How do you choose to present parts of the Bible as invented and still rely on it?
Yahyam whistles
You claim what this job is for you.
It has already been said about you that you like to dull your teeth.
You did not innovate anything because against you the Torah has already spoken to you and not to him.
With the pseudoscientific newspapers of yesterday it was possible to wrap fish. With these articles, this benefit is denied us.
By the way, why is it that with the existence of Hezekiah in reality, the honorable Rabbi is willing to complete, and does not let us understand that this is a late fake rewriting. wonder.