Joseph ben Matityahu was a key figure during the Great Revolt. In his autobiography, Chai Yosef, he emphasizes being the scion of a family of the most respected priests
This time we will also take a short break and examine the actions and thoughts of Joseph in the Galilee, and this time from his personal, autobiographical work - The Life of Joseph, which he opens with an emotional confession - "I am not a nameless son, but a descendant of an ancient priestly family (in his book "against characterization" XNUMX:XNUMX Yosef ben Matthiyahu highlights the attribution of the priests with this language: "From the beginning of time, our ancestors set their heart that the priestly race should not interfere with others, only to remain in its purity") The origin of the status of the nobles is different in different nations, and among us it is considered noble who who descends from the seed of priests. However, my family does not come from ordinary priests, but from the first guard of the twenty-four priestly guards - which is very important for us and from the most privileged family in this guard (Yehovariv guard). On my mother's side, I am of the race of kings, because she is of the Hasmonean family, who raised great priests and kings for our people for a very long time. My ancestry is this: my ancestor was Shimon known as the stammerer (a Greek nickname - Psilos - which was common in the days of the Second Temple), at the time a priest in the high priesthood, the son of Shimon the high priest, Horcanus, the first of that name among the high priests..." (Life of Joseph XNUMX ).
Yosef ben Matatiyo lists one by one the list of his family's relationship and seals it with the following sentence: "I have offered here my chain of relationship as I found in official certificates and I reject with contempt the people who would like to make false claims about my origin."
Why is it important for Yosef ben Matthiyahu to present his origin and attribution in a very prominent and perhaps even, apparently, exaggerated way? First - priestly families and especially the respectable ones among them jealously guarded the mark of their lineage both because of their honor and to protect their important role; Second - the book in question - "Yosef's Life" - is an autobiographical essay and its beginning is the biography of the author; Thirdly - Yosef ben Mattathieu seeks to prepare his readers for the continuation of the perusal of his composition, which is problematic in terms of the task the author took upon himself from the beginning of the rebellion against the Romans and what became of it; Fourth - and following on from the previous point - for apologetic reasoning - to present his honesty and integrity; Fifth - to reject the claims of his opponents and those seeking his life, in light of his continued leadership of the rebellion.
In the next chapter, the author mentions the honor and honesty of his father Matthew and highlights his skills in the field of studies, memory, intellectual prowess and his thoughts about joining one of the classes in Judea, and finally chose the Pharisees because it was similar to the Stoic school in Athens.
Joseph went to Rome in order to rescue from the prison a large group of priests who were banned by order of the governor Felix (who served in Judea between 61 and 63 AD). His journey was very long and he returned to Judah after succeeding in his mission in 66 CE, right into the riots that accompanied the beginning of the rebellion. Yosef tried to dissuade those wielding the weapons of rebellion, when he wanted to make it clear to them who they dared to rebel against, but in vain, and as he said: "For a spirit of perversity attacked the desperate people who were misled by the lovers of the Madon (Life of Yosef XNUMX).
Joseph's next important mission was to go to the Galilee, immediately after the fall of Castius Glos, when the rebellion began to spread and expand, and together with him two honest representatives from the seed of the priests, to dissuade the Galilee from rebellion. The leadership in Jerusalem noticed that a large part of the inhabitants of the Galilee opposed the rebellion and therefore sent the aforementioned small delegation there. The first urban point was Tzipori and there Joseph's work was easy because the city was Greek and most of its inhabitants supported the Romans.
In Tiberias, Yosef faced a difficult task. The city split into three camps - one led by the aristocrats, and anyway supported the Romans, the second - the popular was led by the zealots and the third was loyal to a leader named Justus who chose to rebel against the Romans and the pro-Roman King Agrippa.
Yosef also failed in his mission in Gush Halab and Gamla, and therefore sent to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and asked for instructions to continue his journey to his destination in the Galilee. The Sanhedrin's answer was short, laconic and subject to interpretation: 'You must take care of the security of the Galilee.' Josephus translated this as a task to see to it that the Galilee would not be upset, or in other words, that it would not cultivate rebellious partisanship against the Romans.
This situation looks puzzling on the face of it and contradicts what Joseph wrote in his own hand in his book "The Jewish Wars", where he was appointed to command the Galilee. This was probably the real picture that reflected the unfolding of Joseph's events in the Galilee.
Immediately afterwards, we become aware of the particular turn that took place in Yosef. He knew how to define the goals of Yohanan of Gush Halab as very dangerous and therefore took upon himself the concern for the peace of the Galilee - "because first and foremost" - declares Yosef - "I gave my heart to rule peace in the Galilee" (Life of Yosef, XNUMX).
Yosef was exposed to the harassment and teasing of the quarrelsome camps in Tiberias, eager to go to war, and during a rather short period of time, Yosef was busy calming the war spirits of those camps. Gamla and various settlement centers in the region such as Seleucia and Sikhni asked Yosef for financial, physical (laborers) and military assistance to arm and fortify themselves. Joseph hesitated and finally sent the requested assistance, more than his belief and feeling that it was about their desire to rebel against Agrippa, the ruler of the Golan, and not the Romans, although Ha Baha Tlia.
So what happens from here? Yosef goes up to the Galilee not to prepare for a rebellion, but to take care of his safety and security. This matter is clear and pales against the background of the lack of experience and tactical and strategic skill. It seems more likely that Yosef was sent to the Galilee in order to calm the spirits and in particular those who merged with the delusional, fanatical, extreme tendencies of Yohanan of Gush Halab.
Indeed, in the next chapter, Yosef opens his confession as follows: "The hatred of Yohanan ben Levi (from Gush Halab) to me grew, because he could not bear my success. He strove with all his might to remove me from his path and built walls around Gush Halab, the city of his birth, and his brother Shimon and Yonatan ben Sisna and with them about a hundred armed men he sent to Jerusalem to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel and at their request - to convince (seduce) the leadership in Jerusalem to take control of the Galilee from Yosef ben Matthiyahu and transfer it to Jerusalem In his hands (of Yohanan of Gush Halab)" (Life of Yosef XNUMX). According to Yosef, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel was positively tempted by this both because of the personal sacrifice between him and Yohanan and because he was a Pharisee, while Yosef, despite his identification as a Pharisee, was more identified, due to his priesthood, with the Sadducees.
To signal the rational intentions of the Jerusalem leadership, it equipped the impeachment mission with a lot of money and military forces.
It seems strange and puzzling against the background of the pre-rebellion atmosphere, but it turns out that in the Galilee there was a confrontation on a fundamental and personal basis between Yosef and Yochanan, with the turning point being explained on a very personal background - the closeness between Yochanan and the president of the Sanhedrin.
Joseph was preparing to leave the Galilee and when this became known to the Galileans, they begged him to return and ask him not to abandon them to the delusional fanatics, the robbers (the listists) as he called them. Waves of residents from the Galilee came to visit Yosef and beg him to reconsider his steps, "and apparently they did this not out of love for me, but because they feared for their souls, because they thought that no harm would come to them as long as I remained on my guard" - Yosef confesses in his autobiographical essay (Life of Yosef MA).
It's amazing how much these matters have disappeared from the pages of history taught in schools and in the academy, and at the very least, from the catalogers, because the things arise from an autobiographical composition, which is, naturally, loaded with emotional reflections. These forget that even his well-known books - The Ancestors of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews were not written except by the mouth of the same author without the possibility of historiographical cross-reference (with reference to the characters and not to the structures). Rather, the autobiographical composition seems much more reliable, something like a personal diary, like Christ the man with himself. This and more Sage literature that is silent like a sphinx regarding the events of the Great Revolt bursts forth in an overflowing blasphemy in the face of the terrible tragedy that the zealots inflicted on Judah in general and Jerusalem in particular, and this trend actually confirms Yosef's autobiographical composition.
And let's get back to our topic - finally Yosef gave in to the pressure of the Galilean crowd that constantly frequented his residence and decided to remain faithful to his watch. The Jerusalem response was not long in coming - Yosef became a persecuted figure by the leadership in Jerusalem, and like a criminal a bounty was placed on his head. Behind these steps stood the President of the Sanhedrin Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel and the High Priest Hanan ben Hanan. Yosef was summoned to a meeting with the Jerusalem delegation with the malicious and insidious intention of capturing and imprisoning him and judging him as an enemy of the people, an offense punishable by death.
Yosef sent a stealthy letter to Jerusalem along the lines of "I will come when I finish my mission here in the Galilee."
Meanwhile, Yohanan of Gush Halab is trying to revolt the Galilee against Yosef ben Matthew. Before us is therefore a kind of tragic "prelude" to the civil war that will soon break out in Jerusalem. Yosef wins the sympathy of the Galileans and even urges Yohanan and his men to let go at this stage of the danger of an outbreak of civil war.
The city of Tzipori, the capital of the Galilee which was known, and even in later times, for its friendship with the Romans, sent a request to the Roman commissioner Castius Glos, to come and take control of the city or to send military aid to protect Israel from the fanatics, and a similar phenomenon took place in Tiberias. Joseph calmed the spirits because he knew that the anger of the people of the Galilee towards these two cities could cause a terrible outbreak of civil war. In the meantime, military aid was sent to Zipori and Yosef was forced to retreat at first but came to his senses and sent in the military reinforcements.
This episode seems puzzling because Joseph finds himself indirectly aiding the rebel forces, both against the commissioner and against King Agrippa. Yosef does not reveal to us, the readers, the reason for this. This appears, while examining his steps from the moment the rebellion broke out, to be in line with the task he took upon himself - to protect the Galilee. On the one hand, fanatical forces are operating in the Galilee, on the other, pro-rebellious camps are rising like in Tiberias, on the other hand, the Romans are considering a moderate level of military intervention, King Agrippa is interested in quelling the buds of rebellion in the Galilee, Tzipori is interested in Roman aid, and the Galileans, as far as they are concerned, are putting their gold on Joseph ben Matthieu. Well, when he examines all these data, Yosef recognizes the importance of fusing the rifts between the various hawks and therefore he does not on the one hand wave his sword and on the other hand he does not put it in his scabbard. He examines each case individually and reacts accordingly.
We would therefore not be surprised if it were said that it was his priestly and public past and his skills that led him to behave this way in the troubled Galilee.
Yosef does not at all skip over the problematic section of the siege of Yodef and how he went from being a warrior and commander to a prisoner in the hands of the Romans, and let's not forget, all this information is known only to him, and he could certainly have made it disappear, "washed" it and presented it in a completely different light, and precisely his lack of ignoring proves His integrity, reliability and courage.
After the fall of Jerusalem and the temple, the Romans agreed due to Joseph's intervention and efforts to release women and children who were imprisoned in the temple, as well as about two hundred people, from his relatives and friends, one of whom was even saved when he was taken down from the cross.
Here it is, thanks to his autobiographical book, we can sketch the character of Joseph, the son of the high priesthood, who was indeed sent to the Galilee, but his mission was different - not to fight the Romans, but on the contrary, to do everything to calm the "Nabrutian" Galilee in part, and to arrive, If possible, to include negotiations with the Romans, but things unfolded a little differently, mainly against the background of the tensions between Yosef and Yohanan of Gush Halab, the aggressive camp in Tiberias and the reversal of the trend on behalf of the Jerusalem leadership.
Beyond the problematic nature of the monochronicle, it is interesting to present a slightly different aspect of the personality and image of Joseph, not as we have come to know, for various reasons.
The series of articles "The Priesthood You Didn't Know" by Dr. Yehiam Sorek
- Part I - the end of the First Temple and the exile in Babylon
- Part II - Return to Zion
- Part III - The Hellenistic period
- Part XNUMX - The priesthood in Marumiya
- Part XNUMX - The priesthood makes muscles
- Part XNUMX - Matthew turns over in his grave
- Part XNUMX - The priesthood begins to lose height
- Part VIII - The reign of Hyrcanus
- Part IX - Herod stirs up the priesthood
- Part XNUMX - The Priesthood and the Christian Jesus
- Part XNUMX - There is life after Herod
- Part XNUMX - The priesthood deals with clothes
- Part XNUMX - Bureau for Exposing Corruption
- Chapter XNUMX - The priesthood in Mim Bemol
- Chapter XNUMX - The priesthood in the worship of the sun and the war cheer
- Chapter XNUMX - Going to fight the Romans
- Chapter XNUMX - The Great Rebellion and the Priesthood
- Chapter XNUMX - A total mess in Jerusalem
- Chapter XNUMX - to the places, the school, get out!
20 תגובות
It's a bit shocking to read all the historical explanations about our people and to think that this is happening even nowadays. All the political intrigues and religious social pressures that led to a thousand-year-old exile.
Even if the chain of events is not accurate in the articles, at its core it probably reflects what happened and the events experienced by the area.
In parallel and comparison, this is exactly what is happening nowadays and there is no difference. That is, the desire of influential groups to control the Kora, a desire that cuts off any connection between belief in God and living according to the Torah and reality, and everything under a frightening and dangerous religious garnet. It turns out that human nature does not change and did not change with everything we went through in exile. We remained as before, Ofek, materialistic, anti-social and exploitative without limits and without shame.
So what myth are we raising and expecting our next generation to grow up with when the comparison is clear to us. It's a myth, lies, waxed by history or people for their own needs.
Suddenly you ask yourself...maybe Jesus (not Christianity that developed as an affiliated religion) was right?
Read these articles and understand the members of the Pale Tracker band who presented a skit at the time
which summarizes all the articles...about the coming of the Messiah!. How the Ashkenazi and Sephardi chief rabbis simply oppose the coming of the Messiah...when they were told about his coming...because he will harm their business and the ruling system they created and the class!
Hello to Noa
It is indeed in the plan, although in reduced dimensions due to the clear absence between the rebellion and the priesthood.
In any case, you are invited to consult Prof. Shimon Appelbaum's book - Jews and Greeks in Ancient Kirini, Bialik Institute, Jerusalem XNUMX and also Prof. Aryeh Kosher's book, Jews of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Tel Aviv University, XNUMX.
I myself reserve a theory-hypothesis regarding the causes of the outbreak of the rebellion and its connection to Judah. wait and see.
to move you are welcome
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-forgoten-rebillion-140503/
Because of the delusional fanatics who incited the people against the Roman Empire without any military chance of success
An act of suicide that caused more than half of the people of Israel to be slaughtered in the war or sold into slavery
The results of the Great Revolt followed by the revolt of the Jews in the Diaspora during the days of Trianus were a terrible holocaust
I would be very happy if an article was published about the rebellion of 115-117 years
Yonatan, Naa Drasht. Willing to sign any gig from your response.
Nahum, I wish the Sages would refer to the rebellion - its background, its reasons, its actions and the personalities that star in it, and this in order to examine the rich and saturated source of Joseph ben Matthiyoh, what's more, the Roman sources are silent, and their reasons, or perhaps no writings on the matter have been revealed yet. At the time, I published two academic articles on the matter dealing with the silence of sage sources. Here and there they refer to the atmosphere of terror and terror in Jerusalem that the fanatics and in particular the sicari, to the results of the rebellion and ... to pointing an accusing finger at God, yes-yes, and this is simply amazing in the thought constellation of those years. Beyond that, Yok, Nada, Gurnish with Gurnish, Abadan...
Indeed, the sage's writing is partly allegorical, but not always, and even though the sages of the Sanhedrin discuss the legends of the destruction, the little that can be gleaned from this, in terms of the events, is, unfortunately, meagre.
beginning
I agree with you that there are many politicians who present themselves as patriots but only in appearance and in fact they are worse than traitors and there are no shortage of such examples in Israeli politics.
Nevertheless, I don't think that the examples you gave are relevant. The analysis of the historical event should be as scientific as possible, and one cannot rely on all kinds of superlatives and catchphrases as proofs and examples.
In general, now I see that it is important for the historian to also have some knowledge of evidence law and logic, especially if he wishes to analyze the findings from a value point of view as you are trying to do.
As I said, the historian is allowed to intersperse his personal views into his work and this is only natural and understandable, but the condition is that he present the factual data in full and do not hide data that is not to his liking, and this is to allow the lay reader to make his own value judgment of the events and arrive at his own truth. In this respect the "judgment" of the historian is not superior to the judgment of anyone else.
to you
First of all I am a vegetarian. You know, as Yitzhak Bashavis Singer was asked at the time about his vegetarianism and he answered that it was about health. in the health of the animals, because slaughter is murder.
Second - the hot dog food is not healthy due to its high cholesterol.
Third - what is the difference between a bed and a bed?
to Jonathan
To illustrate how the fine line between treachery and a kind of patriotism twists and turns and deceives, this can be seen in a comparison between Yosef's betrayal in Yodafat and Ribaz's betrayal in besieged Jerusalem. Yosef's is called betrayal, while Ribaz's is called rescue and redemption. Indeed, things that are seen from here are not seen from there.
Dr. Yachiam
Come on, keep eating sausages
To Nahum, thank you for the Sage's context, and I already published an article at the time comparing the Flavian text with the Sage's. I found no interest in referring to him in the current list dealing with the priesthood issue, and after all, Ribaz is not among the priestly group. I only say this because these are indeed two similar cases in terms of their time (67 CE in Yodafat and 70 in Jerusalem), their connection to the rebellion, the involvement of types of leaders - military versus Pharisee-Sanhedrai, the prophecy of the two individuals to Vespasian and the reward they receive for him. By the way, it could be that Yosef is the source and the Sage - an imitation and a copy, or vice versa, or both are fake and out of hand and intended to clarify an unusual move. and inexplicable on the face of it.
Lasaf - Thank you
To Jonathan - let's start from the premise that treason and patriotism are terms subject to the understanding and assumption of the observer, and perhaps in this context, although somewhat convoluted, I will present the famous statement that "patriotism is the last refuge of the villain" - material for decent and deep thought.
From this it cannot be ruled, even from the distance of time, and certainly not in a decisive and categorical way, that Yosef ben Matatiyo was a traitor, an exclamation mark!
Regarding the disregard of the instructions of the Sanhedrin and/or the government of the rebellion that arose in Jerusalem, it is worth noting that the entire conduct of that government was problematic, also against the background of its reliance on the incriminating and slanderous words of Yochanan of Gush Halab towards Yosef ben Matthiyehu and the attempt of that government to harass Yosef, both emotionally and physically
And why is this similar in the context of a cheater/not a cheater? To adopt rather an opposite approach to the same verdict of the panel of judges in the Kafar Qasim case regarding the clearly illegal order.
Joseph ben Matthew was not at all hated at that time and most of the inhabitants of the Galilee at that time will "testify" to this. Yosef became a slandered figure thanks to the distortion of history in the modern era by those contemporary writers during the awakening of the national-Zionist movement, and the reasons for this are completely clear.
And by the way, Yosef would not have put himself in such a negative light, against the background of the fact that he is the only one telling the story of the problematic event that took place on the top of the Yodfat fortress on the eve of the final surrender of the Galilee in the Great Revolt.
History, or rather historiography and historiosophy are included in the scope of the scientific essay, even the research approaches towards the historical events turn the subject into a scientific object. Of course, history should not be included in the cluster of exact sciences, although even with regard to those sciences, truths that were once perceived as "what-is-truths" have been broken over time.
Indeed, the subjective parameter plays an important role in the writing of history and its research, and more than once we realize that the truth is in the mind of the individual.
Of course, we regret that the evidence of Josephus does not have the option of being cross-referenced with parallel, independent sources, but that's what it is!
I will add more and claim that sages make their voices heard in a clear and clear voice on the subject of the Great Rebellion and are in no way silent like a sphinx. The Talmud is not a history book and rarely describes military maneuvers and "dry" historical facts, which it leaves to historians as the son of Matthew. However, in their characteristic, highly legendary, poetic and allegorical way, they analyze in a profound and thorough manner the great rebellion and its failure in the famous legend of the destruction, which spans about three long pages in the "Damage" chapter of the "Gittin" treatise.
The leftist agenda does not belong to the author of the article, but to a Sage, and it has influenced the excessive pacifism of the ultra-Orthodox public throughout the generations and up to the present day.
In this context, it is interesting to bring up the sages' words about Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai and the incident of his theft outside of Jerusalem and his meeting with the Roman general Vespasianus (who later became emperor), an incident in which there are many legendary motifs and in which there is no small echo of the plots of Yosef ben Matthew as he described it Here the article is written.
It should also be noted that Shimon ben Raban Gamliel the elder is usually not referred to as "Rabbi" in Sage literature, a title reserved for Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai, the two Rabbis Gamliel, and Rabbi Shimon ben Raban Gamliel II (known as Rabbi Gamaliel Dibna), the father of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi.
The article is indeed very interesting, like the other articles in the series. Especially for those who are interested in history but cannot find time to read all these important books.
But you have to read the things very carefully and with the proper criticality. Because the writer is trying to promote a leftist "agenda". To his credit, he never tried to hide it.
Joseph ben Matityahu was considered a traitor and apparently he deserved it honestly. If he receives instructions from the head of the Sanhedrin and ignores them, then there is already a serious problem here. Imagine that the commander of the Northern Command decides to ignore the government's instructions and conducts his own policy in the northern region and attacks Syria for example. The argument that "the residents asked him..." seems puzzling and unverifiable on its face.
How can one trust things written about himself by a man who at the time was so hated and controversial, as if it were absolute truth?
This is similar to the fact that in 200 years a historian will come and rely on the memoirs of the spy Marcus Klinghoffer to prove that he was a great patriot but sought to save the people of Israel from his extremist leadership and if he had given state secrets to the Russians, tremendous damage would have been done to the country.
There should be an in-depth discussion on the question, what is history? Who deserves to be called a historian, what is the difference between a historian and an ordinary journalist, and who can determine what history is, and how things can be verified. Apparently history is a more subjective subject and in the form of beautiful literature than scientific truth.
L.. Fresh
First, it interests me... and many after me,
Second, to your credit is the fact that the site allows "freedom of expression",
Learn and realize that history is a science!
Who cares, the site is supposed to be a scientific site.