Sometimes we indulge in "the old days". "Then", many are convinced, "he was good, moral, considerate and nice". Not true. Even in ancient times everything was politics
Dr. Yehiam Sorek
Sometimes we indulge in "the old days". "Then", many are convinced, "he was good, moral, considerate and nice". Mainly the words are said in connection with all kinds of manipulations, papers, spins, denials, hypocrisy, malice and more, which characterize contemporary politics in all its aspects and characteristics, to such an extent that the shocking saying is common in the public's mouth along the lines of: "Oh well, but what can be expected From the politicians?!?", or alternatively - "Politics, this is a dirty business". I do not intend to reinvent the wheel by saying that since time immemorial, "from the Bible to the Palmyh," from the days of the caves to the tunnels, political struggles, minor and noisy, mini-cosmos and macrocosms, some of which were wrapped in refined cellophane papers, some of which were forgotten / were forgotten over the years and some of them became sacred myths in the life of the people and the nation, considering "with us everything was fine", "with us the struggles were ideological and not instinctive or political". I would like to present here a research theory, which took shape on my desk, and which I intend to present at one of the upcoming scientific conferences, when it is reasoned and detailed.
The core of the thesis states as follows: The Maccabean rebellion operated on two levels: the ideological-zealous level - against the Hellenistic rule and against the phenomenon of Greekization, when the trigger that was squeezed and actually led to the outbreak of the rebellion was the totality of the extermination decrees of Antiochus IV, the Syrian-Hellenistic king (which is known and accepted in research from this and in tradition from this ); The second level was political - to abolish the Oriental priesthood and place under it a new priesthood, "made" by the Hasmoneans. The rebellion was therefore twofold: against the foreign government, its representatives and influencers and against the incumbent political leadership.
In the temple, as is known, priests and Levites served, whose role and status grew and strengthened over time. During the First Temple period, from the days of David and especially from the days of Solomon, from the founding of the temple, until the destruction of the temple, the royal rule in the temple and the priesthood was nothing more than, to a certain extent, an official layer of royal officialdom. It is worth noting that control over the temple meant both political, economic (over all the treasures of the temple), social (since the temple gathered the people around it) and certainly religious-religious (and I will not detail here Karl Marx's famous statement that religion is the opium of the masses) .
A certain, but significant, change occurred after the destruction of Beth Rishon by the Babylonians, and following the return of Zion from Babylon-Persia (about fifty years later). This is about the end of the monarchy in Judah and an interesting strengthening of the priesthood (with the construction of the Second Temple, inaugurated in 516 BC). This phenomenon took place with the blessing and indirect initiative of the Persian government, for clear political reasons, and with the supportive consent of the Jewish people in Judea. Two phenomena are therefore taking place before our eyes: the priesthood inherits, to a certain extent, the royal house (at the level of autonomous leadership) on the one hand, and the traditional house of the great priesthood - the legendary House of Zadok - gives way to other priesthood families.
For various reasons, which there is neither the time nor the place to go into here, conflicts are taking place, with an internal political, external political and of course personal tone between the houses of the priesthood, and very close to the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt (175 BC) the Syrian-Hellenistic government is even involved in the appointment of a high priest (a missing act a precedent in priestly history), who was known as an orientalist and as someone who wanted to bring about a Hellenistic reform in Jerusalem and Judea.
The revolt of the Maccabees, as we know, broke out following the decrees of Antiochus IV (167 BC), when the instigator was Matthias the Elder and his sons in Modiim/Modiin. And here comes the "surprise" - Matityahu belonged to the Yehoyrib family, an old and reputable priestly family, and apparently there is no need to connect this fact with the outbreak of the rebellion and its conduct. However, quite a few hints are scattered in the external literature, the Maccabees, which can shed light on that Hasmonean rebellion, which also has political elements of the transfer of the priesthood to the house of Yehoirib. For example, when Matthew focuses on the altar in Modiim the Greek who wants to sacrifice to the Greek gods and slaughters him on the spot, the author mentions the ancient, mythological historical origin of the act, when in biblical times, when the people were in the desert, Pinchas slaughtered the priestly couple, the Hebrew and the Midianite, when they came to sacrifice to Baal wide open. Later on, Matthias emphasizes in his will to his sons, that thanks to Pinchas' act he won eternal priesthood. Please combine the biblical event (the legitimizer) of Matthew's action in Modiim (as a symbol of the outbreak of the rebellion) and the connection between the stabbing of the fanatical dagger and the eternal priesthood, and you get another, interesting, innovative dimension to the Maccabean rebellion.
And we will continue with your permission: one of the noble acts, rejected, and perhaps even in terms of the "last straw" before the rebellion, was the appointment to the High Priesthood which was carried out under the patronage and blessing (even for political and economic reasons) of the Syrian-Hellenistic leadership, and as a result of the appointment Ben Hurin was appointed (Yeshua, Yason) to lead a Hellenistic reform in Jerusalem. This reform, as we know, was frowned upon in the eyes of the Hasmoneans, who raised, among other things, the miracle of the rebellion against it. And here, "wonder-and-wonder", only 16 years have passed since the outbreak of the fanatical rebellion in Modiim, and one of the heir brothers-sons, Jonathan, agrees to court one of the claimants to the royal crown in Syria, and receives from him the appointment to the high priesthood (150 BC). From then on, the Hasmonean leaders serve as high priests. In other words: things you see from here you don't see from there, or "pornography is a question of geography": the appointment of Yason was improper and unusual in the opinion of the Hasmoneans, but this did not prevent them from winning the same appointment from the Hellenistic-Syrian kings. And how will the Hasmoneans justify their appointments in the eyes of the people? In "Kali-Klut" - Meni Matatiyo there is a new priestly house - Beit Yehoirib (remember? Matatiyo's internal rebellion). This tenure, from Jonathan onwards, throughout the Hasmonean period (with the exception of Queen Shlomzion, due to her being a woman), gave the Hasmonean rule political, economic, social and of course personal power.
So what, politics is only dirty from today?
Dr. Yehiam Sorek, Historian, Beit Berel College
