A rebellion that somewhat "divided" our mythology
How many of us have really heard about the existence of a Jewish rebellion against the Romans that took place "somewhere" between the Great Revolt (66-73 CE) and the Ben Kusaba Rebellion (132-135 CE). This is a rebellion known as the "Diaspora Rebellion" that took place between 115 and 118 CE. The essence of this was manifested in sharp clashes between Jews and local Greeks throughout the Roman Empire: in Egypt (especially Alexandria), Cyrene, Libya, Cyprus and Mesopotamia. The background to the clashes was the question of Jewish citizenship in the cities of the polis and their involvement in the life of the city as well as conflicts on a religious basis. These clashes turned into a rebellion against the Romans when the Romans sided with the local population, the Hellenists, and at that time the front of the rebellion was expanded to anti-Roman dimensions as well. From this moment, as expected, the trend reversed and the rebellion began to be gradually eliminated until its complete, tragic and dramatic suppression.
Well-known researchers, renowned in the field of historiosophical thought, dealt with the discussed rebellion - with its background, causes, causes, moves, leaders, trends and results - but they overlooked the existence of some continuous line, an examination of the thread that weaves most of the rebellions of the "people" (it will be explained later Why in quotation marks) in the kingdoms that ruled over him.
During the First Temple period, the rebellion of the Kingdom of Israel against the Assyrians (towards the end of the eighth century BC) was known, which resulted from a pseudo-megalomaniac political entanglement with the Syrians and Egyptians against the Assyrians. On the other hand, the rebellions of the kingdom of Judah against the Assyrian and Babylonian rule had a more religious-faith character: both King Hezekiah (late eighth century BC) and King Josiah (late seventh century BC) led rebellions against the conquerors when they were imbued with a spirit of religious fanaticism and even Quasi-messianic, when the results of their rebellious actions sensed the end of the Kingdom of Judah. Did the people rebel? No-and no: pretentious whims of royal houses, which consisted of a combination of geopolitical blindness, mixed with religious-ritual factors are the ones that entangled Judah in la-la systems and shook it to a tragic end. So, it seems, the first destructive seed of the religious-ritual factor was buried in the soil of rebellion.
Even the Maccabean/Hashmonean rebellion was completely unnecessary and stemmed from messianic-zealous whimsy, and similarly the Great Revolt and Ben Kusaba's rebellion. That is, against all military odds, the illusory, messianic considerations finally decided. And in the three cases the people did not rebel. Rebellious, extremist groups are the ones who carried out the miracle of resistance and annexed supporting groups to them, they are also drunk with a sense of victory and captives of unrestrained motivation. Two important elements can be added to this system of motives and supports: appropriate and convenient utilization of time when the ruling forces - Hellenistic battalions on the one hand and Roman legions on the other - were "stuck" in solving burning problems from their point of view and a disparaging attitude towards the strength of the rebels. This is what explains the initial victories of the rebels and the joining of other elements. But when the enemy army took the resistance in Judea seriously, the disasters began to knock on the gate and in their wake the defeats and the suppression of the rebellion.
The characteristic line, therefore, of the chain of rebellions against the rulers in Judah was the religious-messianic fanatic, one that pushed aside any rational anti-rebellious reasoning.
And to our point - the rebellion of the Jews against the Romans during the reign of the Roman emperor Trianus is also characterized by the same illusory messianic line and in a higher dose than its predecessors. What were the rebels looking for, when their chances of success were below zero. Down from the Ephesians because they wanted to create a pan-Jewish rebellion against pan-Hellenism and, as the rebellion grew, also against pan-Romanism. The belief in the success of their operations can be nailed to the board of delusional, messianic, blind fanaticism to everything that is happening around them.
These are groups of extreme fanatics, such as the Sicris, who escaped from the hands of the Romans during the suppression of the Great Rebellion and found refuge in Egypt (also a Roman province), mostly desert, and what is more important: Egypt is associated in the biblical tradition as the beginning of redemption (Pharaoh-Moses- Exodus from Egypt - Mount Sinai...). They join, so it seems, with rebellious groups in Egypt and Kyrenia (a Roman province located west of Egypt, now Libya), taking advantage of the long-standing rivalry between the Jews, the residents of the Hellenistic cities, the cities of the polis, such as Alexandria and Kyrenia, and the local population against the background of a claim for political-legal rights -Urbanism, and develop the rebellion into a broad front of a religious war. After all, a religious war is ultimate and absolute and full of legitimacy to do everything, "with the help of God" of course. Literary sources, archeologists-written and archeologists-blood indicate a tremendous, unprecedented and even senseless destruction committed by the rebels mainly in Egypt and mainly towards local temples. Some of them even testify to the brutal, horrific behavior of the rebels towards the local population and the Roman army. For example, one of the writers, a Greco-Roman historian named Dion Cassius, who is considered a reliable writer, narrates the following story: "And they (the Jewish rebels) ate and consumed the Romans and Greeks: they ate their flesh, they girded their intestines as sashes, they anointed themselves with their blood, they wrapped themselves in their skin And many broke in half from their heads and down." Even if we soften the terrible information we will find a terrible and difficult conduct of rebellious activity, there is no doubt that religious fanaticism was like poison in her veins. A well-known passage in Sage literature describing the destruction of the Jewish synagogue in Alexandria following the revolt, and together with the collapse of the Jewish diaspora in that place, presents the emperor Trianus as one of the main culprits in the situation that occurred, including the destruction of the synagogue. Such a position, which is contrary to all logic and information about the emperor, his personality and policies, points to a pro-zealous and pro-Messianic direction that ran in that Talmudic passage. The owner of the Talmudic passage further claims that one of the reasons for the collapse of the building and the community is the descent into Egypt, contrary to the Halachic order. It may be that things are implicitly aimed at the brewing of rebellion by the fanatical movement from the land of Judah. The prevalent, anti-zealous Sage position after the destruction of the house, may well confirm this assumption.
At the same time, a rebellious, pro-zealous and messianic spark of a delusional group that dreamed of building the Third Temple, and perhaps even of the Babylon-Jerusalem line, was ignited in Judah. It is headed by two brothers (the family connection is very prominent throughout the rebel leadership from the days of the Great Revolt) and their names, Pappus and Lulianus, are somewhat similar to those of the rebel leaders from Egypt and Mycarini, such as Lokoas, Andreas, Artemion and Lumpsoas. These managed a system of stations from the northwest of the Syrian province (from Antioch) to Acre in order to facilitate the expected immigration to the Land of Israel, and this against the background, it should be known, of planning to establish the third Temple on its hill. Even their quasi-rebellious activity involves reviving the historical myth of Zion's return from Babylon and strengthens the fanatical activity of the Judean rebels from Egypt.
Chazal literature tries, just like its reference to the great rebellion in the Romans, 50 years earlier, to impose silence on itself. In vain we will look for a proper portion of the testimonies of the Sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud about the rebellion in question. The sages from a range of considerations: pragmatism, fear of fueling the rebellious fire, total despair of taking up arms as a solution to Judah's main problems, dulls the information about the rebellion. Moreover, while the Talmudic literature releases pieces of information about the rebellion, it sometimes uses contradictory language: on the one hand - it presents the intensity of the destruction following the rebellion and on the other hand - its reservation and sometimes its indifference to the movements of the rebellion.
In the revolt in question, therefore, once again it repeats itself, literally as a constant ritual (literally), the almost suicidal situation: against all the physical and military odds and against the prevailing position in the public and especially in the top of the Jewish leadership, the skies of history are divided by a rebellious-zealous group, a kind of horsemen of the apocalypse, which leaves Behind her is loss, destruction, bereavement and despair - a price that is paid by the people that this strange, delusional group supposedly sought to save.
Dr. Yehiam Sorek, Historian, Beit Berel College
For the article about the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 115 AD on the History site in English
20 תגובות
In all the rebellions - the initiative was taken by zealots who did not listen to the voice of the sages of Israel. The descriptions of the horror of eating Romans and using their flesh and blood - radically contradict Jewish law! Even a dead enemy must be buried - his body parts must not be used under any circumstances - beyond the fact that this is the most severe impurity.
I agree with the authors that the article is biased, the expressions in the article smell of hatred and not of research/academic article. Also, only those who are infected with fellow Gazan hatred will take the nonsense of Dio Cassius as a fait accompli!
I read the article and the comments
In my opinion, the article raises one basic point (the others are less important) and that is the criminal Christianity in the nation. According to other researchers, Christianity is also the main reason for the destruction of the First and Second Temples, and the Bar Kochba rebellion. Therefore it should not be surprising that even in the exile there were those who followed the "light of salvation" and not common sense.
Good article and worthy of publication.
I started reading after I was directed to an article in a related article on Wikipedia. I read the article. There are true facts, but the analysis is unreliable and biased. This is not an academic article but a political manifesto. I don't know the procedure, but it should be challenged on the wikipedia.
I started reading after I was directed to an article in a related article on Wikipedia. I read the article. There are true facts, but the analysis is unreliable and biased. This is not an academic article but a political manifesto. I don't know the procedure, but its credibility should be challenged in the wikipedia.
Too bad. I was referred to Wiki to learn more about the Diaspora Rebellion. I learned nothing…
My conclusion:
1. I will start to develop suspicion towards the science website. A site that I thought was objective and here it is...
2. I will work to remove the link from Wiki to Idan in this case.
And a short message to the writer:
If your conclusion so far is that the words of the sages are extreme messianic - forgive me, you are simply wrong. I generally consider myself "center-right" in my political views, and a not too complex analysis of sage texts reveals a picture of a "center-left" political tendency, and one should even say "left." Sometimes I find myself uncomfortable in the face of the left-wing compromise of sages and their condemnation of the men of courage and heroism who lived at that time.
Do not believe? Go back again to the legends of the destruction in No. Gitin, continue from there to wherever you want to go. Sages were no less "leftist" than Yosef ben Matityahu after the political change that took place.
In short - a fantastic article...
The doctor, as usual in the sand, writes not like a scientific researcher but like an extreme publicist with the banter of the people of the second aliya, without trying at all to hide his politicization, which shows the level of the humanities in our country. He condemns all the Jewish rebellions, including the Hasmoneans who, as we know, were successful and brought us Hanukkah. It is difficult to know what was the reason for the rebellions at that time, messianic zeal or a basic human desire for freedom or a Hellenistic attempt to eliminate Judaism in the Land of Israel as Antiochus and Hadrian tried to do. Is it really possible to believe Dio Cassius in the matter of the cannibalism of the Jews, something that is known to be strictly forbidden, or did his words reflect the fear of the "barbarians" and in them is a continuation of a blood plot that had already begun with the Hellenists who preceded him, like the plot of the Jewish human sacrifice. Accepting Dio Cassius' statement on the matter without having any evidence is not a prudent act from a research point of view.
This tendency to condemn any Jewish rebellion against a domineering nation, has a wretched Diaspora Jewish concept. In fact, almost all the countries that were under their authority rebelled against the Romans at one point or another, and they were willing to pay a heavy price to gain their freedom. So did the Phoenicians, the Numidians, the Cimbars, the Teutones, the Nomentians, the Britons, the Gauls, the Germans, the Dacians and the Parthians, the slaves, and who else. The Germans made the leader of their rebellion who wiped out three Roman legions in the Teutoburg forest a national hero, although they were justifiably beaten for it, but only in Israel will there be some Jews who, instead of seeing Bar Kochba as a national hero, who dared to ask for national freedom, and mobilize the entire people to stand for three and a half years against Called the rapacious Roman, they will turn it into an oppressor of Israel and protect it from everything.
All that the doctor investigates in his studies is the instinct of hatred in him.
These studies are worthy of the field of psychology. They have no connection with reality.
in her
After a thorough reading of the article, three main conclusions can be reached:
1. A trending article worthy of a March advertisement (the writer is probably related...)
2. According to the article, the writer should currently be in the next world (not necessarily heaven...) because there was no chance
to the Jewish army of 1948, led by a group of "zealots" headed by Ben Gurion, to win the War of Independence,
And the country could not stand up!
3. You are Dr. Sorek who lives on the land of the motherland, you are the lifeblood of the entire article...
And it's enough to be wise in Ramiza…
A publicist, superficial and delusional article, in which hatred for the "right" - i.e. for Jewish sovereignty oozes from it and puts the disreputable author on his mind.
Shame on the website that published a catenary political article in the guise of an "academic article".
I wanted to ask/offer a point for thought - I was very impressed by Shlomo Zand's historical description of "the invention of the Jewish people" (despite my reservations about his political conclusions).
The difference nowadays between Judaism and Christianity and Islam is that Judaism is a closed ethnic group and not a universal religion, but in the first century AD, the impact of monotheism on Hellenic culture was enormous. There is documentation of a huge amount of conversions during this period.
It is possible that the Diaspora rebellion was not an ethnic Jewish rebellion but a religious Jewish one based on the desire of the masses of local converts that their new religion would have an impact at least equal to the Hellenic birth/culture.
After all, it is a bit hard to believe that foreign people will start a rebellion in the countries that host them... It takes a lot of "audacity" for such an act.
The rebellion seems to me like a struggle for equality and ritual religious freedom between the growing Jewish religion and the old religion.
It seems that this rebellion happened too soon, maybe if they had waited a few decades patiently the Jewish religion would have taken over the Roman Empire…..
Reminds me of the great Arab revolt in 1936 in which the entire avenue of command and Arab fighting experience in Israel was destroyed so that in 1948 they had no one left to fight... (by Benny Morris)
If within two days I receive complaints about extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing, it means that the situation is good.
I asked to learn about the Diaspora uprising, and here I learned more about the political view of Dr. Yechiam Sorek. I'll have to learn about the diaspora rebellion somewhere else apparently.
Skirt's response is appropriate, and I would like to add a few aspects to it:
A. The article is completely ahistorical regarding the early rebellions during the First Temple. He assumes that because the Jews were defeated, the rebellions had no chance in the first place, and that your motivation was not rational. There is no reasonable way to reach this conclusion based on the information we have. All the rebellions at that time were of a broad coalition, and especially with the help of the Egyptians. It is hard to think that an Egyptian (or Armenian) would have been convinced only due to a religious lecture by a Jewish priest. Therefore, they probably had some rational motivation for the rebellion, and probably those other nations did think that the rebellion had a military chance. Why would we prefer the judgment of a person living today and without much idea of the power relations of the time over the judgment of people who lived then?
B. In the same way, the article invents a religious motivation for the rebellions of the Kingdom of Judah. The Tanakh tells us about the prophets who opposed the rebellion. It is possible that there was a larger religious party that did support him, but we have no evidence of this.
third. The author claims that all the rebellions were of the leadership and not of the people. This statement is very strange. How could a guerrilla war like that of Judah the Maccabi operate without the support of the people? How could there have been repeated rebellions in the Romans without popular support? It is clear that there was broad popular support for the rebellions, and it is a fact that the decrees of the Greeks and the Romans harmed the people as a whole and not just the leadership. For example, after the revolt in the diaspora, the Romans forbade Jews to live in Cyprus, and decided that even a Jewish survivor of a shipwreck must be killed. Someone who thinks that the problem is only the leadership would not act like this...
Conclusion: This article indicates much more about the writer than about the history. After all, this is about the "man" who thought in response to the bloodshed on us Jews that "there is no smoke without fire" (the link in the name).
A serious and worthy response of a skirt. Indeed a biased and distorted article. We are proud to be part of that delusional group that still longingly sings "to be a free people in our country"...
I loved the skirt!
Is this supposed to be an academic paper? What a disgrace. How many points:
1. The writer contradicts himself. First, he says regarding the Hasmonean rebellion, the Great Revolt, and the Bar Kochba Rebellion: "Against all military odds, the delusional, messianic considerations finally prevailed." And later states that one of the considerations in these rebellions was that the occupying army was busy solving other problems. This is definitely a proper military consideration.
2. In the same paragraph, the writer ties together the Hasmonean rebellion with the great rebellion and the Bar Kochba rebellion. And they seal: "At a time when the enemy's army took the resistance in Judah seriously, the riots began to knock on the gate and as a result the defeats and the suppression of the rebellion." This sentence is simply factually incorrect regarding the Hasmonean rebellion.
3. The writer mixes in his words his feelings and ideas about motives for the rebellion. What are worthy motives in his eyes? The option to win only? What is the rationale in this context? He completely ignores the need of a people to be free in their country. I allow myself to guess that when it comes to the political ambitions of the Palestinians, the writer will not write "illusory", "messianic", but he accepts them as legitimate. In the ancient Jewish world, national ambition and the desire to see the temple in its buildings were perceived as such.
4. Anachronism is a fatal trait for a historian. To define those who aspire to rebuild the Third Temple in the second century AD as the "delusions" is complete nonsense. This is a period when there were quite a few people who remembered the Second Temple and had a hard time imagining the world without a temple. The mainstream knew Judaism with a temple and nothing else, it took a very big vision to think differently. The post-modern writer, post-enlightenment, introduces his secular worldview and judges them as "delusional", between this and the understanding of history there is nothing and a half. Just vanity and bad temper, complete bullshit.
5. Can the writer provide evidence for the claim that the leaders of the revolt in the diaspora are remnants of the fanatics from the great revolt?
6. To the writer's attention: political and military moves are always made by leaders and not by the people. Yes, the French Revolution was also led by leaders (some of them corrupt and with very different interests than "the people"). Revolts, from the Hasmonean Revolt to the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt, were always carried out by motivated individuals who assumed the right to determine the fate of the rest of the people. In any rebellion there are quite a few, if not most, of the people who oppose it. The Hasmoneans had fierce opponents, as did the Sikris and thugs, as well as Bar Kochba (who was actually considered a very popular leader). The people of the Yishuv in Israel came out against the people of Nili because they allowed themselves to determine political facts on the ground, and voices were also heard against the rebellions in the ghettos. By the way, even Zionism did not have a majority among the Jewish people until decades after it established facts on the ground. Usually what will determine whether the leaders were good or bad is the results of the rebellion. But the very fact that it was led by leaders is prosaic. It amazes me that the writer has a PhD and still does not understand this simple fact.
7. The writer does not know how to read the literature of Sages, I suggest that he repeat the first and second degrees in order to learn what this literature is, what its trend is, for whom it was written, by whom, etc. Sages are not historians. They don't pretend and it doesn't really interest them. They deal with the Jewish history they know in spiritual and social terms. It's true, they hardly talk about the Diaspora rebellion, but we also find almost nothing about the Hasmonean rebellion. That in itself means nothing. And of course you have to remember that Sage literature spans a period of hundreds of years. When the writer wants to find references to the Diaspora revolt, from which sources exactly does he want to draw? From the Mishna and Tosefta signed at the end of the second century AD? From the earlier legend schools that don't deal with these topics at all? Or from the Babylonian Talmud that was written hundreds of years after the Diaspora revolt and in a different geographical area? And what would such a testimony give us? Very little, because of the data I mentioned.
This article shames the subject, the writer and the hostel. The science site - it is better that you download it from the web until it undergoes appropriate editing and reaches a reasonable standard of academic writing.
An excellent article that reminds us that most of what is learned in high school history classes is biased, unscientific and incorrect.
The last paragraph in the article can also be applied to the establishment of our country that will live. Berl flips over.
Things may or may not be true
Certainly the rebellion was hopeless but there are other variables in the consciousness of a people such as freedom and standing
In any case, the foam dripping from the doctor's mouth and the non-academic and understated style make this article just as bigoted and crazy