Sorry, but it's personal!

Another point of view, another point of view for the Maccabean revolt * This article was presented at a scientific conference abroad, July, 2005

Dr. Yehiam Sorek

Yehuda the Maccabee - Gustav Dorah Any study of the research, disciplinary literature, on the broad subject of the Maccabean Revolt, will immediately bring up the following fact: The Maccabean Revolt, under the leadership of Mattathias of Modi'im, was intended to bring about a significant turning point in Jewish society of the Second Temple period: first - to remove the foreign governing body, That is, the Hellenistic monarchy, and in this case the Syrian-Seleucid one, from the control of Judah; Second - to uproot the Greekness in Judea, and together with it remove from the tracks all the treacherous collaborators, that is, the collaborators with the foreign government; Thirdly, and as derived from the two above - to establish a society based on the laws of the Torah, freed from the foreign, Hellenistic rule.

In my current list, I would like to examine the issue from a different, additional, personal-principled point of view, and in essence: Matthieu's struggle was also conducted on the personal-family level. Matthew asked to return the crown to its former glory - to return the crown of the leading priesthood to the members of his family, the Yehoirib family. Matthew's moves were also, similarly, due to (political) power struggles between the members of the High Priesthood. From my many pursuits in the fields of historical research I have learned one thing, there is nothing like personal motivation, which serves as a lever for significant, and sometimes very significant, turns in history. This motive is wrapped, of course, in reasons that are more weighty, such as the Gothic and ideological ones. Worth a thought. And if I have more to add a comment floating above the bar of time and place - this statement (the weight of the personal dimension wrapped in ideological cellophane packaging and essential in the historical turns) is revealed before our eyes to this very day.
In any case, it should not be easy for the reader, when Matthew challenges the existing priestly leadership. A move along these lines asserts within it very interesting and complex foundations. In order to understand them and get to the bottom of them, let us go back a few years, to the eight years before the outbreak of the rebellion. Yeshua, or in his Greek name - Jason, sought to crown himself with the tiara of the great priesthood, while his brother bears this honorable title, and he, the brother, "Mercifully, is still alive, breathing and kicking." Yason approached the Syrian-Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, (175 BC) and offered him huge sums in exchange for receiving approval for the priesthood (along with a number of other benefits). odd? Absolutely not! Due to the special legal status of Judah under the foreign, Hellenistic rule, the high priest became the dominant figure, leading, as a sort of king, Judah from within. More than that, the control over the temple "also" included the control over the revenues of the temple, and by virtue of this the pockets of the high priesthood were greatly enriched and filled with gold dinars. As a result, this position became an eyesore in the eyes of those who could/wanted to inherit it. In any case, the story discussed in Yason's case points to an important element in the internal political struggle in Judea. If you want to make an impact, look for the high priest position. Therefore, it would not be too far from assuming that Matthew's call for rebellion was also tied to a desire for political leverage, and this in order to carry out his moves and goals.
The High Priesthood, against which Tethyahu asked to rebel and fight, was undoubtedly Greek (although the expressions of its Greekness were external and cosmetic), like Ison mentioned above and his successor-competitor - Menelaus. Matthew understood correctly, that the announcement of the rebellion and even its initial outbreak, which is somewhat overwhelming, will not be enough, but the moment of initial success must be taken advantage of and the plans, the personalities, and this by aspiring to inherit the status of the high priesthood.
Of course, one should not be satisfied with such a premise. We must examine the behavior of Matthew and his sons, and then come to the necessary conclusion.

First - the owner of the literary source, Maccabim 1, takes pains to emphasize Matthew's family affiliation, and his words - "In those days Matthew son of Yochanan son of Shimon arose as a priest of the sons of Yehoyrib from Jerusalem and dwelt in Modi'im" (Maccabi 10:10). The sons of Yehoirib were privileged and numbered among the emigrants of Babylon (Nehemiah 7:XNUMX; Devaha XNUMX:XNUMX) and their watch was the first of the XNUMX priestly shifts (Devaha XNUMX:XNUMX). Matthew's settlement in Modi'im may be explained against the background of the following possibilities, some of them, or even most of them: the rejection of the house of Yehoirib by the Greek priesthood, struggles between Matthew and other claimants to the crown of the priesthood, tactical and pragmatic motives: to start the rebellion in a supportive environment far from the Kartanian center of Greek Jerusalem

Second - according to 26 Maccabees (verse 27) it is told about Matthew who was angry with the king's man, the one who encouraged the residents of Modiim to sacrifice to the gods and the king: "And he was jealous of the Torah, when Pinchas did to Zmari son of Salua", and immediately afterwards (verse 8): "And Matthew called out in the city with a loud voice, saying, Everyone who is jealous of the Torah, who stands in the covenant, will follow me." The story of Phinehas appears in the book of Deuteronomy 7-53: "And Phinehas ben Eleazar ben Aaron the priest saw and stood up from the congregation and took a spear in his hand. And he will come after the man of Israel to the grave and stab both of them - the man of Israel and the (political) woman in her grave, and the plague will stop from the children of Israel." This is about the Israelites who asked to sacrifice to Baal Peor and were cruelly punished by Pinchas, who bears the dubious title of the patriarch of fanaticism in the Israeli tradition. Matthew saw himself as the successor of Pinchas, and from this he may gain full legitimacy to carry out every act and policy "with the help of Hashem" (the name of Pinchas, and Pinchas in the name of God). This fanatical whim is prominent in Matthew's testament (MK50 57), a section of which is worded as follows: "Remember the deeds of the fathers which they did in their generations and inherit great honor and eternal name" (verse XNUMX) - and with emphasis - "Phinehas our father in his jealousy received a covenant of eternal priesthood" . In his will, Matthew emphasizes another zealot, that is Eliyahu, whose "jealousy of the Torah was raised to heaven" (ibid., XNUMX).
Before us, therefore, is a kind of message of idealization in the transfer of the priesthood from the house of Zadok, the house that served in the temple until the reform of Jason, back to the house of Aaron. In his will, Matthew strengthens one of the engines of ignition of the rebellion: a change of men in the Jerusalem leadership - strengthening of the Yehoyrib guard and perhaps establishing a relationship between Hasmon (who is Matthew's family) and Aaron.

Thirdly - in Matthew's will it is stated that although Shimon deserves to bear the crown of inheritance, due to his being the eldest, this procedure will not be realized, on the face of it, due to the frequent events of the time of the conduct of the beginning of the rebellion (166 BC), and therefore the inheritance will be divided into the following functions: The command of the army will be taken by Ben Yehuda the Maccabee, while Shimon will be the adviser, "because he is a man of counsel" (ibid., 64). Whether the will is reliable (if at all it was written and in this style), and perhaps even fabricated by Judah, or simply in the style of the book's author, who is one of the principle supporters of the rebellion and its leadership, it points to the personal dimension of Matthias: to rebel and destroy, to carry the banner of obsessive fanaticism And the powerful one, because the chapter in the life of Shimon, the last Hasmonean leader of the sons of Matthieu, excels precisely in moderation, a pragmatic view and even a kind of realpolitik, and with a squint towards Greekization.

Fourthly - according to MCA 49:54 - when the army of Judah was gathered to the watchtower in front of Jerusalem, on the eve of the battle against Gorgias, part of the ritual included more than hinting at Judah's political-institutional-personal intentions: "And they brought the garments of the priesthood and the firstborn and the tithes and put them the monks who filled the days". In verse XNUMX appears the box "And they will sound the trumpets". It seems seemingly innocent, except that the right to blow the trumpets was reserved for priests only, and in connection with respectable positions in the Temple. The ceremony did not take place in the temple, as mentioned, but in the watchtower, and it symbolized a kind of preparatory act for the purification of the temple, with Judas the Maccabee winning the job. Judah the Maccabee, although not explicitly, signaled his political-leadership intentions, to control the temple.

Fifth - Judah the Maccabee breaks into Jerusalem, purifies the temple and renews the work of sacrifices in it in 164. Before the purification of the temple, after the rites of mourning for its destruction - "And they will sound the trumpets of rejoicing" (Macca 40:41) and "Then Judah told the people to fight what in the citadel until he cleanses the temple. And innocent priests will choose Torah objects" (ibid. 42-43). "And they cleansed the temple" (ibid. 54), then built an altar, brought new holy vessels, burned incense on the altar and offered a sacrifice. And the highlight was the inauguration of the house: "At the time and on the day that the Gentiles defiled it, on that very day it was inaugurated with songs and harps and violins and cymbals" (ibid. XNUMX). The fact that Judah chooses/appoints new priests also shows his desire to institutionalize his involvement in the Temple. That is, to push the incumbent high priesthood family and grow under it the new priesthood from the seed of his family.

Sixth - in the book of Maccabim 16, the enigma of priesthood (priesthood or not) is resolved as follows: "And being ready to celebrate the festival of purification, we write to you and you will make the days beautiful." And the God who saved all his people and who gave his inheritance to all of us and the kingdom and the priesthood and the temple (a significant statement that includes the transformation of Matthew and Judah) when he promised in the Torah and we hoped in God that he would soon have mercy on us and gather us from all the earth under heaven to the holy place..." (18 Maccabees II XNUMX-XNUMX). This official proclamation by Judah the Maccabee, in which it is explicitly stated that God entrusted the kingdom, the priesthood and the temple to the Matthias family, clearly shows that the goals of the rebellion were both political-personal (accepting the kingship, although this would only begin in the days of the grandsons) and political-religious -Personality (transferring the crown of the priesthood from house to house). For those who are not in the thick of the sources and certificates of the Second Temple days, this act will be seen as a ritualistic manifesto, and not it: handing over the keys of the priesthood to another family like hers as a significant rebellion in the tradition of ancestors and even in sanctity itself.
The tireless pursuit of Matthew and his sons for the title of priestly position seems puzzling on the face of it. But the examiner of the history of the Second Temple will have no difficulty in understanding the motives of the pursuit of the cloak. the robe of the great priesthood.
The page is short here to describe the special status of the High Priest in the Temple in the days of the Second Temple, however, exemption for nothing is impossible. Well, there is no ancient literary source that does not glorify and praise the character and status of this official. And it must be understood that since the destruction of the First Temple, the kingdom of Judah has been abolished (from Israel it was abolished decades earlier, at the end of the eighth century BCE, when the kingdom of Israel-Samaria was destroyed by the Assyrians), and its place, both for pragmatic Jewish reasons, and for political reasons of the rulers (Persians, Hellenists and then Romans), filled the high priesthood.
It is true that Josephus' dramatic story about the mythological meeting between Alexander the Great and the High Priest (Jews' Antiquities 306, XNUMX ff.) is full of fertile imagination ("Misha's Doll"), but it has something to show, from the writer's point of view The honorable position of the high priest: when Alexander noticed the high priest (known as Shimon the righteous) he fell on his face and said that he had seen him in his dream and that thanks to him he was promised victory. Was it or not? The "tape" of the event has not been preserved to this day. But it doesn't matter at all. The importance of the text is actually the message that emerges from it: the sublime dignity of the high priesthood. And see "this is the wonder", following the dramatic meeting, Alexander the Great confirms the rights of the priests of Jerusalem as before. The "miracle" recorded another "proof". After all, in the end, whether such a meeting took place or not. Was the format of the meeting as described, or not. The result of the meeting proved to be reliable or not. It is not a sub rule. What is "important" is how the meeting was perceived by the writers of the generation, who came to praise and exalt the praises of the great priesthood.
And this is to know, because from then on the high priesthood was entrusted with the right of "protesia", that is, the representation of the people against the Hellenistic government. And it certainly indicates a very respectable status.
The well-known poet and government official Shimon Ben Sira devotes entire chapters to the description of the High Priest in his book, and describes with complete admiration especially when he stood before the people at the High Court on Yom Kippur. To Aaron and Moses he dedicates only a few verses, while to the great priesthood he dedicates about six whole chapters. In his composition, the political and economic power of the subject in the service of the High Priesthood stands out.

During the Second Temple period, the family of Bnei Hunio was known for its importance, as the High Priestess had an ancestral inheritance and wealth and lineage. The name "Honio" is nothing but a renewed name, and refers to the line of priests from the days of the first Honio. The official name for this dynasty was Zadok.
And here, in politics as in politics: the honorable status of the high priesthood attracted a number of claimants, who asked, in every way and counsel, to transfer the keys of the priesthood to them. Indeed, we hear of attempts at rebellion within the family, against the Egyptian ruler, in order to gain more and more power and rule.
Moreover, on the eve of the change of Hellenistic power, from Egyptian to Syrian, the conflicts in Judea intensified, when the high priestly family, and in this case the family of Shimon the righteous, showed a pro-Syrian (Seleucid) and anti-Egyptian (Ptolemaic-Ptolemaic) tendency. The struggles within the priestly family intensify with the change of Hellenistic power, almost reaching a civil war. The intensity of the struggle stems from the many honors that the office of the priesthood gives to all who hold it, economic and political.

The transfer of the crown of the priesthood to the brother of the high priest, while manipulating the leadership of the Syrian-Seleucid government, symbolized a significant station in the history of the high priesthood. The heir to the crown, Jesus, or Jason as he called himself appropriately and hated a Greek factor (although only external), seemingly delegitimized the entire move he initiated, as did his successor in office, Menelaus, who was not at all part of the priestly family. However, the new heir - Alkimus - who was the candidate on behalf of the Syrian-Seleucid ruler, belonged precisely to the family of the priesthood, and not just any priesthood, but from the seed of Aaron.
Between the reign of Menelaus and the reign of Alcimus, the rebellion led by Matthias breaks out.
Matthew's goals were, as mentioned, principled on the one hand and personal on the other. He strove, in principle, with his excess of zeal to uproot the phenomenon of Greekization along with the suppression of Hellenistic rule from Judea, and personally - to take control of the institution of the High Priesthood and exhaust everything that this institution benefits those holding its tassels.
Judah the Maccabee should have accepted, apparently, the appointment of Alkimus, from the seed of the great priesthood, from the seed of the House of Aaron and from the family of Zadok, but he did not. Judah has other plans, ones that merge with the purification of the temple and the renewal of work in it, and within the framework of these plans Alkimos has nothing to look for at all.

Next: Yehuda the Maccabee does not crown himself, due to the circumstances of the time and matter, that is - the management of the military systems - to the rank of the high priesthood. This move will be carried out by his brother, Jonathan, in 150 BC. Jonathan, who wore two hats on his head: general and politician, conducted a manipulative policy, playing and maneuvering between rival forces in ruling Syria. The two claimants to the Syrian royal crown, Demetrius and Balas, sought Jonathan's support, and the latter transferred his support to the one of the two who promised him the crown of the great priesthood.
Here, during this, Jonathan realized the whim and the intensity of his father Matthieu's desire - to transfer the crown of the priesthood to the family of Hasmon, the family of Matthieu. The title of the priesthood evolved and intensified until his brother, Shimon, was almost king, and Matthew's grandson, Yohanan Hyrcanus, would unite the titles of the priesthood and the kingship together.
Let's not forget that the title of priesthood was given to Jonathan by a Hellenistic factor, and it was confirmed from time to time, with the rise of a new leader in Judah, by the Seleucid government. This really didn't bother the pragmatic and purposeful Hasmonean house, what's more, this move contradicted every sacred tradition regarding the great priesthood dynasties since the days of Zadok. The main thing is to lead the people as kings and to enjoy the power and its pleasures.
In addition. The Hasmonean kings wanted to see themselves as the successors of the ancient royal line of David and Solomon, when at that time, the kings were the ones who controlled the priesthood, they were the ones who appointed it and they were the ones who used it for their political and personal motives. So why do we complain about Matthew and his sons: fathers ate "unripe" and their sons followed them.
In one of the texts of the Middle Ages, an early Hebrew list of the high priests during the Second Temple period stands out (this was published by Prof. David Flosser in the book "Second Temple Judaism, Its Wisdom and Literature, Yad Ben-Zvi Publishing House, Jerusalem, 338, p. 9 note XNUMX), as follows: "And these are the high priests who sat in the second house when they came up from Babylon. Ezra began, followed by Yehoshua son of Yehozedek, Yehoiakim, Elishov, Yehoideh, Kemone, Hananiah, then the priest took Manasseh and his brothers, followed by the priest Honahe the priest and Shimon his son, Jesus his brother and Hananiah his son, and then Shimon the priest, followed by Yatov from Galilee, a Hasmonean, Matthia ben Hasmonean, And after him Jonathan his son, Shimon the second, Yehuda the third...".
Pay attention to the wording of the text - "Then they took the priesthood" - to teach us about the beginning of a transformation.
By the way, in another version of the list, the text appears in slightly different language: "And Judah of Maccabi arose to be a high priest and anointed for war", while in the previous version, and what is appropriate in light of the Maccabean texts in the external literature, the coronation to a high priesthood is skipped over Judah, from Matthew to Jonathan.