The two destroyers of the house therefore caused a dramatic turn in the priesthood, in terms of an interesting reflection of the events of the period after those two traumatic blows
In the series of short articles about the priesthood, I sought to deal with a topic that has not yet been explored both in depth and length/width in the accepted scientific aspects, when I interpret a certain thesis and seek to confirm it and it is - the gradual, continuous transition of the monarchy into the priesthood, from the end of the First Temple to the Second Temple and its events thereafter The destruction of the house.
The two house destroyers therefore caused a dramatic turn in the priesthood, in terms of an interesting reflection of the events of the period after those two traumatic blows.
During the days of the First Temple, the priesthood was nothing more than a secondary function, dependent on the monarchy, a sort of clerical function, and the origin of the move was the planning of the construction of the Temple by King David and its actual establishment during the days of King Solomon. The ritual functions required a complex system and a branched mechanism of officials, i.e. the priests and Levites, just like any other system, economic or military, and this was the priestly system headed by the high priest, or as he was called the head priest, and he, as mentioned, was directly subordinate to the king.
What kind of "madness" or "possession" penetrated the brain cells of David or Shlomo, to establish a temple if it were not for the desire to centralize and centralize their control. Their predecessors, the judges (and even Saul in general) were a kind of kings, except that the scope of their rule was limited and the radius of their kingdom was microscopic. At the end of the period of the judges, a kind of leadership vacuum was created, which Shmuel sought to fill, and this was ironic in the eyes of those who laid the foundations for the monarchy. These saw him, and his ilk, as dangerous competitors, therefore it was decided to establish a ritual center in Jerusalem, after all the City of David, which would be an important political, economic and social infrastructure, as is customary in the neighboring civilizations, and here is the leverage for the establishment of the temple and the mechanisms of the functions within it.
This situation ceased to exist with the destruction of the First Temple, at which time the monarchy and the priesthood disappeared, and since the beginning of the Second Temple, based on the initiative of the capture of Zion and Persian-monarchic pragmatism, the Jewish monarchy gave way to the priesthood, which began then, slowly -Slowly and gradually, to take a kind of royal status.
The revolt of the Maccabees that broke out in 167 BC bravely carried the banner of internal rebellion in the great priestly family, when the House of Zadok had to make way for the Yehoirib guard, the one led by Matthieu of Modiim. His sons were high priests, first from a hereditary motive and then to leverage personal status, until Shimon, the last of the sons, was a high priest and almost a king. His sons and grandsons fulfilled the ritual and royal role at the same time.
With the transition from Hellenistic and Hasmonean to Roman rule, reality returned to its original state - the monarchy disappeared and the priesthood became stronger, but the latter knew a kind of gradual decline, lasting decades, beginning with the reign of King Herod and ending with the atmosphere of the fifty years of commission that preceded the outbreak of the Great Rebellion.
The destruction of the Second Temple shook all the systems well. Although there was no monarchy that disappeared, but under it the presidency of Beit Hillel grew stronger and the thawing of its relations with the Romans gave it considerable power. This reality was expressed in the suppression of the status of the priesthood by the presidency.
A last attempt to return the crown to its former glory, and perhaps even as a certain personal lever, was summed up in the rebellion of Ben Khosva. Hela sought to revive the priestly authority as a basis for the re-establishment of the Temple and the strengthening of his power as a leader.
The suppression of the rebellion and the renewed strengthening of the position of the priesthood dealt a fatal blow to the priesthood, which has not recovered since.
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
- Chapter XNUMX: Ben Khosva's manipulation - II
26 תגובות
On second thought after a careful study of the hour marker:
It may be accepted that the political entity "Duda" is the one referred to in the Bible as "Judah", but Mesha boasts that he returned Aral Doda from the city of Atarat which was built by the king of Israel for the people of Gad who lived, according to the Bible, in the eastern Jordan past.
I still don't understand... how many people lived here during the biblical period (according to the periods)
If you have concrete information about Dr. Yachiam
Yuval, the data system is a system that works very hard (too hard for the server) and there may be such failures from time to time.
Here is an attempt to restore the disappeared comment:
The tombstone of Misha, King of Moab, mentions Israel and Queen Omri, 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 this is the god they 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.
When the biblical stories were written for the ears of King Hinoka Josiah, a Misha tombstone was already standing at a main crossroads and was famous. It mentions the heroic deeds of Misha, king of Moab, which the Bible writers found necessary to anachronistically answer with the heroic deeds of David, king of Israel. On Misha's "Arel Doda" ("And I settled from there Arel Doda", Misha's tombstone, line 12) they replied with "Arel Moab" ("And in his son Yehoida son of a living man many verbs from Kebzal he struck two Aral Moab... XNUMX Samuel XNUMX:XNUMX). From what is written in the book of Samuel, we learn that "Aral" is a title (perhaps a senior military officer) associated with the kingdom. The opposite equivalent of "Moab" in the verse from the book of Samuel is "Duda" from Misha's monument, and therefore "Duda" is, apparently, the name of a kingdom or some other political entity. The most plausible political entity "Duda" is the one referred to in the Bible as "Judah".
Be hard! My comment has been deleted.
After Yair's response 19, I brought my explanation about the "aunt" of Misha's tombstone. The comment was posted here for a few days, but now I can't find it. Was there censorship or just a database failure?
Eran, hello.
Corruption also has a good side.
Don't forget that thanks to the "corrupt" methods of the writers of the Bible, we have a beautiful collection of good commandments preserved in our hands (although bad commandments were also mixed in). Humans, as individuals, live a short time, and each generation has to learn everything from scratch.
The good mitzvahs (along with the bad ones, for our sake) must be anchored to an available base of consciousness. And what is more available to a young person? Is it exhausting academic studies that continue until after the age of 30 or the irrational faith in God that he fully acquires at the beginning of his childhood?
I think from all this story we learn that there used to be corrupt people in our nation just like today
And you should always be careful with such a thing..
In the end corruption is what caused our destruction as a nation it seems
But Dr. Sorek asked me...can you provide numbers from before after after in the sense of how many were before the destruction of the First Temple and how many after it...a second destruction and after it and how many Bar Kochba uprisings...because we constantly hear contradictory numbers...
jubilee,
Regarding the name Saul, I forgot to add earlier, at a site that if I remember correctly is called Selam, in southern Turkey near the Syrian border near the sea, an inscription was discovered in a language close to both Aramaic and Phoenician-Hebrew, the name of the king "Shal". Doesn't have to be related to the underworld.
jubilee,
In particular, I thank you for the possible enlightenment that Shlomo was not a historical figure.
are you writing a book It is not necessary to be a professor for the purpose of analyzing the Tanach. But it is necessary that you clarify hypotheses that you raise more carefully, and also by examining opposing opinions.
In the past I commented that there is a reasonable possibility that -David- does not come from the root of my name and it is possible that the name means commander or general, a meaning that may be reinforced by "aunt" in the Misha monument, meaning his uncle, his commander.
You as you have finished do go far and get carried away in the passionate development of your interpretation.
Shalom Yair,
I sat down and read the first chapter. I didn't like Dr.'s clinginess. Whistles to the biblical source, which in my view is suspicious as a collection of children's fairy tales, which is very far from a true description of reality. I believe that the Bible uses a lot of etiological writing designed to convince its target audience to lean in favor of its authors. The truth is not a candle to their feet and they cling to it only when they have no choice (like, for example, when there are tombstones carved in stone such as the Misha tombstone, the Tel Dan inscription, etc.).
There was a leader (or a group of leaders gathered into one figure) whom the Bible calls by the name "Saul". Saul is the kingdom of the dead, and the priests descended from Avitar had a sharp reckoning with that leader. From the very fact that the Bible tells about the names of his sons that contained, as a prefix or suffix, the names of gods (Ish-Baal, from Baal [assuming that "Baal" is the alternative to "Baal"], Yehu-Nathan) it is likely that his name also contained a prefix or suffix Such - like, for example, Ish-El - and the writers of this chapter in the Bible, when they wanted to give him a name that would not mention "Joshua" (King Hinoka in whose ears the stories were especially written), found him a name that reflected what he symbolized for them.
Jerusalem was a city of a thousand platforms and temples, just as it is today with over a thousand churches. Temples and shrines are a highly profitable business, then as now, and the various kings had many good reasons to cultivate them. Where do I learn that there were a thousand? Well, Josiah's storytellers use a flimsy excuse to explain the existence of so many centers of pagan worship in a city dedicated to one god; They take care of the wives of the Superman King Solomon, and pierce this number. And why did Jerusalem really manage to become such a great pagan center? This is thanks to the topographical conditions that affect the souls of the people who come to it in a way known today as the "Jerusalem Syndrome". In Jerusalem there was a hierarchy of temples, where the little ones pay tithes to the bigger ones and these pay to the central temple from whose coffers the king takes what he needs.
The king and the central temple cooperate: the king guarantees protection and exclusivity to one priestly family and these provide him and his dynasty with support for generations. The name "David" means "beloved" or "lover", and was given to the dynasty of kings that exclusively supported the priestly family of Beit Zadok. Later, when the storytellers defined the dynasty as a glorious founder who reigned not only over little Judah but over all of Israel, they simply gave him the name "David" instead of any nickname for the dynasty. In the same way, the name "Solomon" was given to the one who supposedly built the temple that carried him there. Since the name "David" and the name "Shlomo" are different from each other, the storytellers had no choice but to split the character in two, and they knew how to make additional use of the products of the split.
Unlike many figures who did not exist and were not created, there is conclusive archaeological evidence for the existence of sites and events in the days of Jeremiah. It is very likely that there was a main temple in Jerusalem called the "Temple of Solomon" and priests from the house of Aharon [Arona] the Jebusites were stationed there. Outside of the Bible, we have no evidence of the name of the leader they established, and it is even possible that this was the same leader to whom the priests of Anatot (descendants of Avitar, including Jeremiah) gave him the derogatory name "Saul".
In the city of Anatot, near Jerusalem, there was a large family of priests who were prevented from setting foot in Solomon's temple. These are attributed to the Israeli priest Avitar who lost his place and status in Jerusalem in favor of the Zadok family. Later, when the big sister kingdom of Israel was destroyed, and refugees from it flooded Judah, the king of Judah at that time, Hezekiah, was forced to bring into Solomon's temple the priests of Anat and the Levites who were nothing but Israeli priests whose main religion was the laws of Moses. For this purpose, the myth was also written according to which the origin of the priests of the house of Aaron is from the tribe of Levi and that the founder of this line of priests, Aaron the priest, is the brother, son of his father and mother, of Moses.
(Maybe) I went too far in the model I built here. But due to the fact that the Bible was written by interested parties, I expected to see an academic analysis of the biblical narrative and not a blind adherence to it
Regarding the brief overview of Beit Rishon, at that time there were temples in every locality, while in Jerusalem David almost certainly found an active temple.
It is very doubtful if David really built a temple in Jerusalem, perhaps he only renovated or adapted it to the belief system of the Israelites, without eliminating the previous system.
Certainly David's desire for a large and impressive temple should not be seen as some kind of obsession or madness as the author of the article suggests, but rather the opposite: a completely stereotyped approach of a strong ruler.
It's fun to read the comments, a decisive discussion on a charged topic, written in a simple, hard-hitting and humble way, well done, yes there will be many...
Thank you, Ofer.
I accept it
jubilee,
I'm about to retire, but I'd love to continue the discussion with you.
By the way, in order for this to be factual, it is necessary to maintain a logical response sequence, that is, a direct response to a claim (or a claim that contradicts the previous one), similar to Shekla and Teriya in the Talmud.
There is no point in slamming anyone's ego. Although it is nice, it does not lead in any direction.
If you still agree to the discussion definition in this way, I'll be here.
Good night,
Ofer
Sorry, correction: emphatically*
It's not just semantics. If you like, it's kind of a chicken and egg question.
We have tools that are used by us to draw conclusions. Nowadays they are called "logic" (and the modern Hebrew calls them "logic", and I do not find a connection between biblical logic [Ali Knorr] and logic). The Bible defies logic and raises serious claims regarding the existence of a single force operating on several levels and levels. He is the one who created the world and it is he who prevents a meter from the earth because of a number of men who prefer their own kind. Those who regard the Bible with reverence must expand the system of the laws of logic to justify this power. I, on the other hand, am not ready to accept the Holy Book as a good enough justification for such an expansion.
You can say that I interpret as I interpret because I am an unbeliever in the faith, but I say that the Bible is the one who is an unbeliever in my faith.
A person chooses a belief for himself. A person can choose to accept all the trig (possibility) stipulated by the Torah, but the choice whether to accept the Torah at all or not is his free will. Those who filter out mitzvot establish their own religion, which may be even better than the religion from which they came.
My opinion is that some of the mitzvot were given by corrupt stakeholders, and I will not elaborate on that right now.
jubilee,
semantics?
Let me just comment on your comment.
"He who gives respect to the holy books" = a man of faith.
"Critical person" = heretic.
What do you think about a person who, out of all the mitzvahs, refuses to observe a fun one.
His reason, "I don't understand the essence of the mitzvah".
What do you think is the reason for observing the other mitzvot?
By the way, I wrote firmly, but I won't forgive you, so it's good for me too.
Ofer, ha baha Tlia.
Those who give respect to the holy books will not dare to interpret as those who despise them will interpret. On the other hand, a critical person cannot give full respect to the holy books.
Regarding the "defiance" in the words of Dr. Sirak, there is not only black and white in faith. There are degrees of belief and degrees of disbelief.
And my opinion regarding the books of the prophets does not "vigorously prove" your claim, although it serves as a corroborating example
Yuval, according to your words, I understand that you also find a connection between the literal interpretation of things, and the religious opinion of the interpreter.
By the way, a person of faith will surely see Dr. Sorek's statement as nothing less than defiance. Therefore, your claim about the respect for faith is not so understandable to me.
The way you paint your opinion about the books of the prophets only strongly proves my main point.
The religious opinion is the one that will lead to the nature of the interpretation.
Shalom Ofer,
There is a point in your words. And by the very fact that Sorek unquestionably relies on the Bible, it can be assumed that even if he does not believe, he respects the faith.
I, on the other hand, see the books of the first prophets as a collection of heresies (which contain small kernels of truth) intended to wash the mind of King Yanukoh, whose task was to reconquer the kingdom of Israel and to rule over the religion of the exiled Israelite priests in Anath. It goes without saying that my set of metaphysical beliefs is different from that of those who accept the Bible as a holy book.
Hello Yuval,
Regarding your first comment, I really want to believe that there is no connection (since there are many scientists, with religious opinions).
To sum up your words, I find a connection between the belief in divinity, and the historical interpretation. In other words, a believer will interpret the things presented in one way, while the heretic will interpret the opposite. (as above).
It follows from this that the deviation between the interpretations is religious, and not material.
It's very interesting.
Fix:
… asking about …
Ofer!
Why do you ask of faith in a scientific forum? What connection do you find between the two fields?
Still, if you want a logical and clear answer to a question like "Is there a God?", give a definition to the concept of "God" and ask if this definition is acceptable to the person being asked.
Dr. Yechiam Sorek, do you believe there is a God?
Jonathan!
you are talking to me?
Anyway, I will answer:
I believe that the treatise of the stories of King Solomon is nothing but a myth. More than that, I even believe that they are stories that were told at bedtime to the boy who became king when he was eight years old - Josiah.
On the other hand, I don't believe that the king's son Yishai (David) is a fiction, although the legendary description that the Bible gives in connection with him surpasses the realistic description. The description of Saul's character, as a judge or as a king who was in conflict with the priests, is also accepted in my opinion without too much objection.
The characters of the judges, some are accepted by me and some are not. Jerubbaal, for example, yes; Samson, for example, does not.
Did I help you get out of the confusion?
: )
Now I am completely confused.
After all, according to your mishnat, the judges as well as the kings Saul David and Solomon are fairy tales and nothing more. What happened that you now treat them as if they really existed?
Congratulations to you, Dr. whistles The promise "so what did we have..." also exists.
Below is a partial list of "what we didn't have". Would you agree to bring us another series of articles?
I lack the criticism of the biblical source; The Bible was written, almost certainly, by the priests in order to beautify history and especially their own.
I miss the conflict between the priests of Judah and the house of Zadok in Jerusalem and the priests of Israel and the house of Avitar in Anath, as well as its end and the compromise reached in the days of King Hezekiah.
I miss the status of the Levites as priests in Israel before King David.
I miss the Hanio temple.
I am missing the story of the conflict between Muhammad and the priests of Yatriv.
And so on and so forth.
But, as you said, the issue has not yet been scientifically investigated in any way, and it is likely that more will come.
Well done