We ended the previous chapter with the question: So what was really the connection between Ben Kusva's actions and the priesthood. And that is what I would like to address in the current chapter.
Let us start from a point of assumption (albeit a weak one), that his forces were indeed able to break into Jerusalem, and perhaps-perhaps try and raise the temple from its ruins. And let's not forget that the economic motive behind the restoration of the temple was, without a doubt, against the eyes of the leader of the rebellion. The temple, which, like all the ancient temples, served as a huge center for economic activity and even for a kind of private and public bank, and Ben Khosva, whose real estate character, as it appears from his own fees, was built into him, will not give up such a juicy temptation.
Regarding the question, whether this (the breaking into Jerusalem and the restoration of the temple) is a wish of the heart or one that was tried to come true, we can take a little help from the literature of the Sages. Sage literature in this period, relatively speaking of course, is steeped in reference to the temple. This is particularly evident in the tractate of sacrifices and the tractate of offerings.
It is told about Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael from the High Priesthood family who set out to search for the remains of the Beit Abtins family (from the High Priesthood, the mythological). These were experts in the field of fattening the incense, and the two asked to restore them to their status and their sacred role.
On the other hand, the mishna knows how to slander and consider the members of senior priestly families, such as: "And these are slanderous - Shalbeit caused (because) they did not want to teach about the bread of the face (baking and roasting it); Shelbeit Abtins (because they) didn't want to teach about the act of incense (through fatuma and signs for raising smoke that transforms and doesn't lean to the sides); Hogars ben Levi knew a chapter in the song (sacred musical secrets) and did not want to teach; Ben Kamtzer did not want to teach about the act of writing (miraculous writing)..." (Yoma XNUMX).
This phenomenon of keeping professional secrets was known and accepted in the ancient period in various places, which is why it is puzzling that the following subordinate position condemns these families, despite their occupation, while the temple was standing and its establishment was completely sanctified. This is not because when an atmosphere was created for the restoration of the temple and its renaming, they asked those families to hand over the secrets of the profession, and their refusal led to their slander.
In tractate Shekelim, sages famously discuss temple items such as the veil: its length, width, thickness, weight, and even its baptism by three hundred priests because of its heavy weight (Shekelim XNUMX). And we remember other types of temple issues that arise precisely during this period, such as the number of explosions in the temple.
And we will continue with our matter: somewhere towards the year 131 or 132 AD, after Hadrian passed his decrees regarding the word and the temple, and we will ignore for the moment the problematic nature of these decrees - their cause, timing and essence - bursts out of the fanatical, extremist, messianic groups, a figure, which is highly disputed , he is the son of Kosba (so the inscription on his own bills and coins) and declares a rebellion against the Romans.
There is no doubt that before the eyes of this figure stood another, mythological figure, was he the Hasmonean Matthias, the originator of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid-Syrian Hellenistic rule. The Maccabean rebellion broke out following the wave of decrees that King Antiochus IV "Epiphanes" issued on Judah and the Jews, and this was also the reason for the rebellion led by Ben Kosba. The coins of Ben Kusava also mention not a little the Hasmonean rebellion and its coins and perhaps even the penetration into Jerusalem and the establishment of the ritual work in the temple.
But above all, it is possible to draw a line of connection between Matthew and Ben Kusava, when both seek first and foremost to bring about a court revolution in the Jerusalem leadership: Matthew wanted to uproot the leadership of the House of Zadok in the priesthood and to crown his family - Yehoyrib as the heir to the great priesthood, and thus, to a certain extent, he wanted Ben Kusava to lead. But May? Because Ben Kusava was not among the families of the priesthood, although some believe that he was a priest, and perhaps married into a family of the priesthood. Ben Kosba saw to this, that his course would communicate well with the status of the priesthood. how? We'll see right away.
A priest or not a priest, Ben Khosva turns to an alternative channel and he is connected to the House of David. The approaches in the research differ regarding the very belonging of Ben Khosva to the House of David, but it is "not-so-interesting" to Ben Khosva himself.
And why was this so important to Ben Kusva? First - the connection to the House of David places it in the category of messianism, as suggested by Rabbi Akiva and perhaps even Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. Second - the affinity to the house of David prepares Ben Khosva to crown himself as president, thus completing the internal revolution in front of the mythical presidential house - Beit Gamaliel.
However, it is well known that clinging to the House of David distanced Ben Kusva from any affiliation with the Hasmonean family, on the essential level only.
Sound complicated? Absolutely not: Ben Khosva wanted to create a double rebellion (similar to the Hasmonean one) - in the Roman government on the one hand and in the house of Gamaliel on the other. He took advantage of the interregnum period between the death of Rabbi Gamaliel and the coming of age of his successor, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel Hinoka, the struggles between the camps of the members of the Sanhedrin and, of course, the decrees and the sporadic outbursts of groups of zealots against the Romans.
With or without connection to military successes, Ben Khosba built his "state" (quotes on no anachronism) in central Judea, probably being a "troublemaker", i.e. a conductor (employed in a ground-management position by the Romans), and there, when he was busy, as mentioned above, In the issues of the sale of land and its inheritance, he defines himself as the president, as in his own handwriting, such as "Shimon ben Kusaba Nasya (so with the letter of approval) Israel" (lease contract of Eleazar ben Hashiloni of Wadi Morbe'at - 133 CE), and on one The following inscription appears on his coins: "Shimon bar Kusaba Hansi (so in the authority and without the alphabet) on Israel" from the first year of the rebellion, that is, the year 132 CE.
In the Qumran war chain, the "president of the whole tribe" is mentioned as the one who stands at the head of the dozen tribes, who is unique and supreme in his powers and in the parentage we read: "And what kind of president? This is the king who said..." (Parenting XNUMX). Well, after reading this text we are undoubtedly exposed to the megalomaniacs of Ben Kusva.
Ben Kusaba therefore has a burning desire to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the destroyed temple there and renew the ritual work there. We have no idea whether he did this or not, and there is no solid information about the actual breaking into Jerusalem. In any case, he had a great intention and we draw this not only from the background and atmosphere of the rebellion and its leader, but from implicit moves he made and first of all we turn to the numismatic field. His coins are saturated with symbols similar to those of the Hasmonean coins as well as the use of the Assyrian (ancient Hebrew) script, but it is more important to note that in his coins we find the dvir and the front of the temple as well as a broad harp and a violin (kitara), which are among the central musical instruments that accompanied the worship in the temple and were the responsibility of The Levites The most prominent of all is the coin with a pair of trumpets in the center, which has no equal to symbolize the aspiration of the temple revival, because the trumpets were the musical instruments of the priests and without the blowing of the temple the ritual work would not take place, and there are many testimonies in the Mishnah about the order of the blowing, of the menina, of the tizmona and of those who do the work. We will mention here the relief on the Titus Gate where the trumpets are commemorated as symbolizing, among other things, the activity in the temple.
Moreover, in the Midrash Tanhuma, which is very late to the time of the events of the rebellion, Rabbi Hanina, the deputy priest, is quoted as the one who "used to work in the Temple and performed miracles in the menorah" (Midrash Tanhuma, Tetza, 66), and since it should not be assumed that this is Hanina, the deputy priest, who performed the miracle of the rebellion In the Romans in XNUMX CE by canceling the sacrifice for the emperor's peace, one can perhaps assume that it is a member of the Sanhedrin who was privileged to serve in the temple founded by Ben Kosba. Such a possibility is on the face of it, but it cannot be fooled at all. In any case, the relationship between the two "Hanina deputy priests", this in connection with the Great Rebellion and this in connection with the rebellion of Ben Khosva, is certainly interesting.
An interesting inscription appears on one of Ben Kusava's coins - "Elazar HaKohen". Who is that Eleazar? Whether this is Rabbi Elazar the Modai (that is, from Modi'im, the center of the outbreak of the Maccabean rebellion) whose nephew was none other than Ben Kusva, or Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, we do not know, but what is important is, beyond the ambition of establishing the temple, that Ben Kusva, without a solid and real association with the House of David and certainly Apart from the priesthood, he needed the temple ritual goshpanka in order to carry out fateful moves, such as the break into Jerusalem and the actual outbreak of the rebellion as a whole. The use of the priestly dimension was probably very important to the leader of the rebellion.
It should be noted that Rabbi Elazar Al-Modai related an article in the Talmud that is relevant to our case: "Here is a vine before me, and in the vine there are three vines, and as it blossoms, a cluster of grapes has ripened in its clusters (Genesis 10:9-XNUMX). As follows - a vine is Jerusalem, three vines are a temple, a king and a high priest, and it is like a blossoming rose - these are the flowers of the priesthood. Her bunches of grapes have ripened - these are the ones we will agree to" (Kholin Tzev XNUMX). It therefore turns out that Rabbi Elazar the Modai is-he is, similarly, Elazar who appears on the coins of Ben Kosba, what's more, this Elazar appears in Beit-Ter/Beitar, he is the last stronghold of the leader of the rebellion. Eleazar's prophetic interpretation places Ben Kusaba as the legitimate heir of the Hasmonean house, who will also function as kings (presidents) and high priests.
This case obliges us to examine the presidency according to the book of Ezekiel and at the same time in the light of the scrolls found in Qumran, where in the opinion of the researcher David Godblatt (the title of president and the religious-ideological background of the second revolt, in: Bar Kochba Revolt, new researches, p. 113 ff.) the president appears as a member In a diarchy (dual government) with a priestly figure. And this is exactly what is happening among the leadership of the rebellion, in the light of numismatics - a supreme military and political leader, with eschatological characteristics and with him priestly authority (in this case - Eleazar the priest). This researcher points to the assumption that the theory of the presidency embodied in the person of Ben Khosva is a priestly theory, and from this the conclusion is called for, that the adoption of the title of president by Ben Khosva indicates a priestly influence among the leadership of the rebellion.
Also, in the Ben Kusaba documents, the various leaders call each other by the nicknames "brother", "my brother", and these are the expressions used by the mishna that describes the work of the priests in the temple. These are called brothers.
And we have already shown earlier that the priesthood, which lost much of its prestige after the destruction of the house, and not least because of the reversal of the trend from the priesthood and righteousness to the conditions and the Pharisees, aspired at all costs to return the crown to its former glory, and therefore there is no reason that they sought to join the rebellion and even took a dominant part in it, and on the other hand it is clear why Ben Kusva asked to enlist them in his favor. And perhaps it is not a casual rule that the pair of trumpets appearing on Ben Kusva coins is intended to lubricate the link between the priesthood and Ben Kusva, a kind of "Raba Gelid".
Moreover, the persecution of the Christians by Ben Kusva, also indicates, according to Godblatt, a gesture that Ben Kusva showered on the priesthood. The priesthood, as we know, was behind the anti-Christian moves that took place in Judea after the destruction of the Second Temple, and let's not forget the defiance and acts of provocation by Jesus and his followers in the Temple against the priests and the role of the high priest Caiaphas in handing Jesus over to the Romans.
After the rebellion, we have no information about the priesthood and Ben Khosva's attitude towards it. We are aware that the rebel held the heir to the presidency, the son of Rabbi Gamaliel, who is Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel, as a hostage in his last stronghold, Beit-Ter (Beitar), and there he also kicked Eleazar Al-Mudaei to death due to a false accusation that one of the Samaritans handled him. Finally, Ben Khosva met his death during the Roman invasion of the Beth-Ter fortress. According to a Talmudic legend, the rebel died after being bitten on the leg by a snake, and according to another story, Ben Khosva was executed by the Sanhedrin because it was proven that he was nothing but a false messiah.
As we know, the rebellion ends in total failure. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel serves as president of the Sanhedrin and the center in general moves to the Galilee, to Usha. So what happens to the priests?
Well, ancient Berita lists the places of residence of the XNUMX priestly guards, and this is confirmed by a fragment of an inscription found in Caesarea, on which some of the guards are named and their location, such as a pig in Mimla, the Piszt in Nazareth and Petahia in Arabia. And it is worth remembering that twenty-four priestly shifts (families) functioned along the second temple in the temple for two non-consecutive weeks every year. Of the twenty-four settlement names, twenty are distinct Galilean settlements. The timing of the list stands in the shadow of a dispute among researchers. Some claim that its time reflects the situation after the destruction, others hold the opinion that the list reflects the situation after the Kitos polemic (the end of the rebellion during the days of Emperor Trianus) and some believe that it is the atmosphere after the Ben Kusva rebellion.
Assuming that this is the latest version, reinforced by the phenomenon of the Sanhedrin and presidential center moving to Usha in the Galilee and probably also that a considerable public made its way north, and at least until the anger passes, it is reasonable to assume that the priestly, institutionalized framework also sailed to the Galilee. In any case, the priesthood guards, like after the destruction of the Second Temple, kept the family genealogy scrolls and the marriage ties between them, made sure to benefit from the public donations and to be involved in some kind of influence on the leadership. In any case, the dream of restoring the temple and resuming work on it did not die out, it seems, among the priesthood guards.
Over time, the priesthood went down and lost its status until it was almost completely lost. Evidence of it in the later Sage literature is almost non-existent and the fact that the synagogues in Judea used to commemorate the week's vigil accompanied by poetry and poetry until the Middle Ages only shows that the priestly status was assimilated and immersed in virtual worship only.
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!
- Chapter XNUMX - One righteous man in Sodom
- Chapter XNUMX - What is in the scrolls?
- Chapter XNUMX - So where is the priesthood?
- Chapter XNUMX - Restoring Ataret to its old age
- Chapter XNUMX - A priestly conspiracy?!
- Chapter XNUMX: Ben Khosva's manipulation - I
28 תגובות
Another thing - where does the statement come from that Bar Kochba tried to overthrow the Beit Gamliel dynasty? There is no proof of this. You rely on the assertion that he is from the house of David, to prove your claim.
The problem is that there is no proof that Ber Kochba claimed to be from the House of David. Rabbi Akiva, who demanded of him the verse "The Way of the Star of Jacob", which is attributed to the Messiah - is the one who causes researchers and laymen alike to believe that there may be a connection between Bar Kochva and the House of David.
You have built an entire theory based on unfounded assumptions.
You are quite negative regarding Bar Kochabach and his intentions.
Is it possible that Rabbi Akiva, the greatest of the generation at that time, and perhaps the greatest of the mishna sages of all times, would have testified that he was the messiah just like that? And that Rabbi Akiva was not aware of the Halacha, and the signs of the Messiah?
Only in light of this statement by Rabbi Akiva, one must "suspicious" that Ben Khozba was indeed from the House of David.
By the way, an Arab settlement north of Hebron and west of Halhol, in today's Gush Etzion, bears the name "Kavizba". There are researchers who are sure that the name of the settlement indicates the origin of Bar Kochba, who indeed belonged to the tribe of Yehuda. And also, the sources indicate that his uncle was indeed Elazar the Modai, Bar Kochba's mother's brother. So he is a Jew from his father and a priest from his mother. Hence, there was absolutely no need to appropriate an attribution that was not his, or forcibly attach the high priesthood to his struggle.
It is known that the sons of Zadok were the first in the temple... and it is written that the first lot went to the enemy, if not me
The Sages are wrong, they said that the sons of Zadok will do most of the priestly work in the temple... but the fact that this vigil
was the first to make me assume that they were from Zadok,
Another question…. A high priest's vigil required that this vigil be from his sons? That is, the mother
Yehoirib's shift was nothing descendants of Yehoirib? Or was he simply responsible for that...? If there was at all
Alive when the temple was built?
In addition, I also believe that the Hasmoneans unjustly took the High Priesthood for themselves instead of returning it to the descendants of Shimon the Tzadik who were from the sons of Zadok.
Hello to Cohen residences,
I wonder too, and find an indirect solution.
According to the book of Ezekiel, the House of Zadok are the only worthy ones. According to Chazal, the actions of the sons of Yehoyrib were not proper. Therefore I conclude (indirectly) that Yehoirib were not sons of Zadok.
Hello... I'm from the Yehoirib shift... And I wanted you to tell me whether this shift belongs to Beit Zadok, from which son of Aaron did they come?
I'm just trying to find material online and so far I haven't found it
Dr. Yachiam Sorek whistles. I don't know you personally, but I remember your short article in Haaretz a few years ago about the occupation of the land and Yehoshua ben Nun.
I enjoyed quickly reading some of your recent discussions today, about which I admit I had no idea and that is solely my fault. This is thanks to one of the surfers of the forum on antiques and ancient coins on the Koklet website, who is identified by us as Yohanan Hasendler. He directed the attention of our surfers to the science website and your articles. You are welcome to look at our discussions and dozens of drafts for the announcement article on the important material that will probably be published early next year (note that they are no longer really up to date compared to what was planned after they were presented in the collection). All about a topic quite close to the topic to which you dedicated your last articles here:
Shimon the President of Israel, known from the Dead Sea Epistles as Shimon bar Kuzba or Koziba, and known to us today much better by his name that preceded his becoming the President of Israel: Shimon ben Koziba (that is, from the city/village of Koziba, it is the Palestinian Koziba nowadays, between Ma'on and Herodion on the border of the desert).
I will not be able to extend one comment on your important words, especially because of your reference to the Jewish sources (Sages). In my case, it is the other side of the coin: it is the collection of documents from the war archive of Shimon the President, which fortunately survived in the thick of the elaborate concealment system of his subordinate for the organization and financing of the war, Hillel/Halil ben Gris of Meir Nehushta, who is also known from several land lease contracts kept by wealthy land tenants or their successors, in the refugee caves of the Judean desert (mainly in Wadi Morba'at, Nahal Tzalim and Nahal Heber). He appears in them as Hillel ben Gris from Meir Nachsh in Aramaic = city of copper).
So just a few individual comments about your words here:
The Bar Kochba War (hereafter B.C.), was not a rebellion like the previous one, certainly not a Septuntani one. And this is just one difference compared to his predecessor, who excelled in disputes and bloody rivalries right up to his last moments while the Temple was going up in flames. With B.C. there is absolute and supremely orderly control and a pathological prevention of any possibility of internal disputes and fratricidal war.
Bar Kussaba is one of the versions in the Dead Sea certificates. You mentioned that it also appears on his coins, but I don't remember such a coin in all the publications and in more than 100 series of the war coins that survived in the Gries family minted archive in copper which is being researched by the archival documents at the same time. If it is found in them, it is of course an important innovation, at least for me, and it would be worthwhile to point out its source.
Shimon's occupations were not mainly the leasing of lands that came under his control from the emperor but in his planning, organization, management and fighting in the war: since the preparations for it for two years (130-132 CE), in the liberation of Jerusalem by one of his two divisions at that time first on the eve of Rosh Hashanah In the year 132, and mainly in the completion of his main mission because of it, he was sent by the priests of the Zadok family in his city of Koziva to the Temple Mount. There is much documentation of hundreds of documents about the continuation of the organization in one year (including the construction of the rural armarono in front of the Temple Mount), the battles in the south against the Roman reinforcements of the XXII (?)Lycyon in the beginning of the second year (in which he did not participate himself) and on and on until his untimely death Menchisht ha Nachash on the eve of the 136th of Av of the year 200 in Beitar. He dealt with many personal issues of himself, the Gris family and his other warrior families, most of which were documented in the archives (more than 500), and mentioned in the certificates more than XNUMX names of warriors and family members relevant to the war effort.
The claim that he is one of the harassers of the lessees of the land is based on the random information from those individual lease contracts from the Dead Sea (dozens) and is far from the correct situation. Those who were involved in leasing his lands and their lands were his senior representatives, some of whom are mentioned in the Dead Sea documents, including Hillel ben Gris who was also involved in this in addition to being Shimon's assistant and the owner of the most important mint that produced for him shekels/rocks, zozis and copper coins during all 4 years of the war and after his death (for example series silver and copper commemorative medallions).
The material is vast and abundant. I have been working on it in recent years after a request from the Antiquities Authority. A series of first conclusions from me you can read in our forum in Collect.
Best regards,
Dr. Yitzhak Eshel, archaeologist.
In blood and fire - Joshua the conqueror
"The new historians seek to sever the historical connection of the people of Israel to their country and use the Bible as a sword. What was not found (allegedly) in the excavations - did not exist. In their opinion, the nation of Israel was a small tribe with a bigotry complex" (Yoram Kanyuk: "And everything was created with words", "7 Days" supplement, Yediot, 23.11.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX).
And adds in a similar context the historian Yehiam Sorek from Beit Berel: "Yehoshua waged fierce battles against the local residents according to the Bible: he expelled some of them, destroyed some of them and saved some of them. He waved the flag according to the verse: 'Every place on which you set foot, I have given it to you' (Joshua 2:6). As a matter of fact, he is the father of the ancestors of the settlers ('For you will settle this people', Joshua 40:24.1.06, by God's command). He lamented Jericho, which was destroyed and burned to the ground, and he did the same towards the fortress of Ai. Let there be no misunderstanding here - Yehoshua appears as the conqueror of faith who returns to the people his stolen property, even though historically no Hebrews lived here before, and not even the residents of Ai provoked him. He eliminated the inhabitants and looted their agricultural properties and turned the Gibeonites into hewers of wood and water pumps. On the bloody road of Joshua and his settlers, Makda, Livna, Lachish, Gezer, Dvir, and Hebron were crushed and plundered (there they did not leave a single remnant for medicine, not an old man, not a woman, not a boy, not a baby girl). Finally, "Yoshua smote the whole land, the mountain and the Negev and the lowlands and the valleys and all their kings, he did not leave a remnant" (Yoshua XNUMX:XNUMX, in Maariv, XNUMX).
As mentioned, even the summary of the opinion of Dr. Shurk who searched for the biblical model for the religious concept of the Hebron settlers (who according to him are working according to the model of Joshua) and found it in the conquest of Canaan by Joshua and his warriors about 3000 years ago, did not cause him to doubt the historical foundation Inherent in the stories of Joshua's conquest. Not so the version of archaeologists and historians like Magen Broshi and his friends of the view, who completely disagree on the reliability of the historical foundation in the biblical version of the "genocidal" occupation of the Western Isles by Joshua:
..."Here is the place to warn all the sensitive who felt discomfort from the shameful actions of our ancestors: those shocking stories of the book of Joshua are nothing but a late invention. (Joshua and the Israelites) The conquerors of Canaan did not commit genocide at all, nor did they kill people, women and children with the sword, nor did they destroy the cities. For those cities that were supposed to be destroyed like Jericho, were not inhabited at all (at that time). Today we (the archaeologists) already know that the conquest of Israel was mainly peaceful (because) the mountain region, from the Jezreel Valley to the Negev, was almost uninhabited during the (conquest, at the end of) the Late Bronze Age"...
(Magan Brushi in the book review section, supplement to "Tartu ve Seferot", "Haaretz", November 4.11.2005, XNUMX).
R.H.
Many of my long comments here in "Hidan" are copy-paste from a book that I have been working on writing for some time now.
I do not submit to the strict dictates of the academy, and I do not pretend to prove my words. I'm just trying to convince, and usually only those who are convinced in advance - and that usually with not much success.
The guiding rule in my analyzes of the Holy Scriptures is that the priests had self-interested motives for writing what they wrote, and the sanctity of truth is not included in them. I too sin with self-interested motives, but I do not know all the methods of the priests and I do not manage to be as exemplary as them.
"Aruna" and "Aharon" are agrammatically equivalent words, like "connection" and "lie" in my interpretation of Queen Atalia's last words. In my opinion, the myth of the brotherhood of Moses and Aaron was born when the Levitical priests (through whom is the law of Moses) were invited to join the work in the temple where until then there was exclusivity for members of Aaron's family. That's why I'm looking for Aaron in the history of the temple in Jerusalem and not in the Exodus. Aruna (or Arania or Ernan or Haruna - all these names appear in the Bible in connection with the same person who is also referred to by the title "King") is the closest I have found.
Yuval Chaikin,
Have you put your ideas down? From some comment sections I think they are interesting although some of them are problematic such as the identification of Arona Hibusi as Aharon HaCohen? And it's a bit hard to understand from a comment here a comment there what you mean.
And regarding the third option you brought up, I believe it is more than hinted at in the scriptures. The biblical writer planted clear evidence of this.
R. H., thank you for the important enlightenment.
I tend to agree with Finkelstein that in the period mentioned in the Bible between the time of David and the time of Hezekiah, Jerusalem was not a key military or political city. In fact, it was not like that until the time of Josiah, despite its meteoric rise after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel.
In the incessant military struggles between Egypt and Mesopotamia, Jerusalem was of great importance as a fortified book city. In my opinion, this has something to explain the meaning of the monumental buildings found there, which date to the period that preceded the time of the United Kingdom of Israel, without the need to assume that it was used as an important capital.
A. and Yuval,
You both ignore perhaps the most important piece of evidence, Shalmaneser III's estele describing the Battle of Karkar. In this stela, Ahab is mentioned as one of the strongest in the anti-Assyrian coalition with 2000 war chariots.
Judah is not mentioned at all.
In other words, the existence of Israel and its strength during this period is not up for debate.
The dispute is what was the character of Judah, was she the "descendant" of a united and very rich kingdom from the past - the kingdom of David and Solomon? Or was there a small and neglected mountain kingdom that even Pharaoh Shishak, who mentions all the places he plundered, "forgets" the glorious city of Jerusalem? And even if what is written in the Bible is true that Rehoboam paid a heavy price so that Shishak would not invade, then it must be assumed that Shishak would have mentioned this if it was a significant amount.
A third possibility that may be hinted at in the scriptures is that during the time of Ahab and a little after him, the kingdom was actually united and ruled by one family.
The anonymous user (13) is me
On another Tel Dan inscription is the tombstone of Misha King of Moab which mentions Israel and Queen Amri, the tribe of Gad and more.
"Arel Doda" is mentioned in it and Jehovah's vessels that were taken as loot are mentioned.
On the assumption that Jehovah is the God who was worshiped in the kingdom of Judah, it is not understood why the name of this kingdom is not mentioned on the tombstone of Misha, what is more, the Bible says that Judah joined Israel in the war against Moab.
One possible explanation is that at that time Judah was part of the United Kingdom of Israel, and for that reason it was not mentioned separately.
On the other hand, if Israel and Judah were indeed separate kingdoms, then I hypothesize here that the "cousin" of Misha's tombstone is the kingdom known to us as "Judah". In the Bible (Book of Samuel XNUMX, Chapter XNUMX, Verse XNUMX) "Aral Moab" is mentioned and this proximity strengthens my hypothesis that "Duda" is the name of a kingdom.
In light of the material collected to date, one thing is certainly clear that the House of David existed (Tel Dan address), what is uncertain is how accurate its description in the Bible written by interested parties, i.e. those with interests, is. And it will probably take a long time before we find out.
There are mainly oral traditions about one or another genealogy of the families of the presidents, and many Israeli families rely on this when at the moment all that can be said to this is: nice but not convincing enough.
The existence of an entity called Israel is also known and its developmental origin is related to our region is also clear when it is probably tribes with a western Semitic background who rebelled against the Canaanite rule. Correct me and add to my words and judge me more please.
Hello A'
to distinguish from Yachiam Sorek who uses only or mainly conventional sources, I analyze based on motives that likely guided the priests when they wrote, edited and rewrote the Holy Scriptures. My source is the Bible, which I think is extremely disinformative. On the biblical disinformation, the rules of inference from Sherlock Holmes's sermon should be applied, and for this I am mobilizing as much creative imagination as possible. Unfortunately, my work is not academic and it is unlikely that it will find a place above the pages of "Hidan".
Yuval Chaikin, and Dr. Sorek,
Can you direct me to sources of information and research that could go deeper into the subject, please.
My thesis, in short, is as follows:
The priests of Solomon's temple (the priests of the house of Aaron [Aaron]) had a strong motive to present the line of David as continuous and eternal. The priests of Anat and the Levitical priests merged with them (during Hezekiah's time) and adopted this agenda. The priests of Samaria, even though there was a dialogue between them and the rest, do not accept the House of David (and Jerusalem in general) to this very day.
There are at least two cases in which there is doubt about the continuity of the dynasty (Yhoram "son" Jehoshaphat and Joash "son" Ahaziah). In the first case it was easy to present the king as the continuation of the dynasty. In the second case, a little more effort had to be made, but the priests met the challenge with dignity. The story of Absalom's rebellion also raises questions. But even if David was murdered and did not live to old age and return, there are signs that indicate that Rehoboam is a descendant of Absalom and therefore the dynasty was not severed then.
Not Peace
First - I did not claim that there is no connection between the two. I argued that such a connection has not yet been proven historiographically.
Second - it is not at all clear whether there is a tangible and realized concept of the House of David, and whether there was such a thing at all, and whether it was his name, and whether his descendants ruled-his-kingdom...
It makes more sense that priesthood families kept the genealogy books for themselves, but such, as we know, have not yet been uncovered archaeologically except for a fragmentary allusion here and there.
In honor of Dr. Yechiam Sorek,
According to what you write, the presidential family has no direct connection to the House of David? So the tools to know who was from the house of David were lost? Like who belonged to the families of the priesthood?
Thank you. The series of articles was very interesting. Hope to continue.
Thanks to my responders
First - regarding the collection of articles, I am definitely considering it
Second - the last chapter will deal with a sort of summary along the lines of "So what did we have?!"
Third - further down the road, maybe in two or three months I intend to start a new series, I hope it will be no less interesting than the previous one
Fourth - Gamaliel's presidential family has a connection to the House of David only in the mythological, traditional, sagely phase. And regarding the continuation of her fate, I will try to refer to it later, and if I forget, God forbid, please "Nando". It's fine
To Dr. Yahyam Sorek,
I read your articles about the priesthood with great interest. I am aware of the serious work you have done. It would be interesting if you would consolidate the material and add it in detail to a book. Another matter that fascinates me is what happened to the presidential family of the Gamaliel family and if it has a research and scientific proven connection to the House of David?. waiting for your response.
A - The clock on your computer is not set. I responded after you and it came in before you. Avi Blizovsky - Am I right that the comments are ordered according to the sender's clock?
I also thought that it was appropriate for this series to become a book (and maybe Dr. Sorek is planning this anyway). As a graduate of religious education, this has renewed a lot for me. I remember how I was impressed by the mandatory Bible studies at Bar-Ilan University that they were in an academic format and not in the traditional format that I had been used to for years. I also think that Dr. Sorek is infinitely more knowledgeable about the sources than almost all religious people of their various types.
Leder. Yahyam Sorek, thanks and a question:
Will you bring us more episodes in this fascinating series?