Sometimes we indulge in "the old days". "So", many are convinced, "he was good, moral, considerate and nice". wrong. Even in ancient times everything was politics
Dr. Yehiam Sorek
Sometimes we indulge in "the old days". "So", 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 public has the shocking saying along the lines of: "Oh well, but what can be expected From the politicians?!?", or alternatively - "Politics, this is a dirty business". I don't intend to reinvent the wheel by saying that since time immemorial, "from the Bible to the Palmachh", 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 "in our 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 annihilation 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, "produced" 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, which was inaugurated in 516 BC). This phenomenon took place with the blessing and indirect initiative of the Persian government, for obvious political reasons, and with the supportive consent of the Jewish people in Judah. Two phenomena: the priesthood inherits, to a certain extent, the royal house (at the leadership level Autonomous) on the one hand and the traditional home of the great priesthood - the legendary Beit 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 it was instigated by Mattathias the Elder and his sons in Modiim/Modiin. And here comes the "surprise" - Mattathias belonged to the Yehoirib family, an old and reputable priestly family, and apparently there is no need for a friend Between this fact and the outbreak of the rebellion and its conduct, however, quite a few clues are scattered in the literature the external, the Maccabees, which 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 attacks the altar in Modi'im the Greek who wants to sacrifice to the Greek gods and slaughters him on the spot, the author mentions the ancient historical source, the mythological, of the act, when in biblical times, when the people were in the desert, Pinchas the priest slaughtered The couple, the Hebrew and the Midianite, when they came to sacrifice to Baal Pa'or, emphasizes in his will that thanks to Pinchas' act he won the eternal priesthood. Plunging the fanatical dagger into a world ministry, and receiving an additional, interesting, innovative dimension to the rebellion the maces
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 that was carried out under the auspices and blessing (even for political and economic reasons) of the Syrian-Hellenistic leadership, and as a result of the appointment Ben Horin was appointed (Yeshua, Yeson) 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. That is: things you see from here you don't see from there, or "pornography It's a question of geography": Yason's appointment was invalid and illegal 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 Matatiahu has a priesthood New - the house of Yehoirib (remember? Matthew's internal rebellion.) This tenure, from Jonathan onwards, throughout the period The Hasmonean (excluding 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
