As a result of Cyrus's declaration, the status of the priesthood rises and soars, which gradually replaces the state leadership that characterized Judah until the Babylonian occupation and the destruction of the house
"The old is destroyed before the new!" (from the international)
"So what did we have" in part one? Highlighting the power of religion and worship, the leadership's attention to this phenomenon, harnessing the sacred tools for the benefit of the state and turning the priesthood into a royal officialdom.
In this part we will observe the beginning of the transformation - the priesthood makes a muscle.
Between the years 597 and 586 BC, the waves of exile from Judah (Israel/Samaria no longer exists but as an Assyrian vassal) towards the Babylonian kingdom (the days of Nebuchadnezzar/Nebuchadnezzar). The dimensions of the exile were limited, specific and filtered-selective both from the economic, political-royal and personal point of view. The information about the conduct of the exiles to Babylon, their daily life, their economic pursuits, the communal and ritual and leadership life is shrouded in fog from one and fragments of information from another.
More solid information, although not purely historical about any of its biblical character, flows to us through the returned exiles following the publication of the declaration of Cyrus - 538 BC. Whether the statement is reliable or not, it is possible to extract its essence, which is the right to return to Judea and establish a kind of religious-ritual autonomy there, with the highlight of this "sweet" being the right to establish the ritual center, i.e. the temple. Moreover, the Persian kingdom under the leadership of Cyrus chose to treat Judea from its point of origin as a "Dihad state" - an area in the center of which sits a city with religious autonomy and Cyrus in general espoused a tolerant attitude towards the religions of the conquered. As a result, the status of the priesthood soars and soars, which gradually replaces the state leadership that characterized Judah until the Babylonian occupation and the destruction of the house. It is interesting to examine the beginning of the process, right at the beginning of the first wave of immigration, which was led by two representatives of the royal family - Zerubbabel ben Sheltiel and Shebzer and alongside them, in a minority - a member of the high priestly family - Yehoshua ben Yehozedek.
The Jewish priestly leadership was more suited to the Persian, real-political policy than the historical-state one and therefore gradually upgraded its power, and from 516 BC, similarly, with the establishment of the (second) temple, the status of the priesthood in Judah becomes a leader, a kind of miniature monarchy without crown And the first hint of this is found in the location of the working souls: "And Yeshua the son of Yotzedek and his brothers the priests and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brothers arose and built the altar of the God of Israel..." (Ezra 2:XNUMX). In vain we will later look for the representatives of the nostalgic-mythological monarchy of Judah. It "evaporates". In this context it is worth noting that the leadership of the minority that returned from Babylon/Persia "simply" imposes its religious views on the painting that it did not discover (with Persian support, so it seems) and the expression "Jew" begins since then, and not before during the First Temple period, to settle-to become naturalized in the terminology of the public in Judea And me from then on. And don't make it easy for the reader. This is not some kind of technical, ceremonial and marginal move, but the ethnic essence and the core of the people. It was, "if we didn't pay attention", the ascension-return of a minority from Babylon-Persia, and it imposed its opinion and will on the public in the Judean region, the one that did not convert, and it is a relatively large and numerous public. This public was immediately stigmatized as invalid, as someone who is not a "pure Jew" but of the people of the land, and is not allowed to participate in the building of the temple and in other communal positions.
We are therefore facing a real transformation, which many and good people do not pay attention to - the leadership group of the returned immigrants, and is priestly by origin, has in fact created a new people guided and directed by the priests, and those who will determine the laws of the new community from then on.
No wonder then that the concept of "cities of Levites and priests" probably begins to be realized in this period, and has nothing to do with the instructions of several Deuteronomy, from the time of the Bible.
The second wave of the return - 457 BC - was led by Ezra the scribe, who according to his genealogy is one of the descendants of "Phinehas ben Elazar ben Aaron the High Priest". That is, not only was he one of the top priestly families, but his ancestors were the first zealots (those who slaughter their opponents in the name of God), and this will have a serious impact in the future, during the days of the rebellious Matthias, and in the meantime, Ezra's projects are characterized by quite a bit of extremism. The rise of Ezra and his actions in Jerusalem undoubtedly strengthened the status of the priesthood and eroded the descendants of the royal family that returned from the Babylonian exile.
In order to strengthen his personal status and the status of the priesthood, Ezra manages a number of projects, the most important of which was the gathering of the people and the heads of the families. In this public and ceremonial setting passages from the Torah were read, interpreted and interpreted and the public received Ezra's blessing, when he responded to him with a double reading of Amen and raising his hands in a moel movement. Such a status did not exist during the Israeli/Samaritan or Jewish monarchy and its transformation into a very strong routine of the priesthood status.
In 445 BC, the special figure of Nehemiah - the Persian minister of agriculture, who served as the ruler of Judah and together with Ezra, introduced several reforms. The most important of them was the status of the treaty. On this occasion, the people swore to fulfill a number of commitments - to raise a third of the shekel to the temple, to bring the firstfruits of their land, fields and orchards, to raise tithes to the Levites, and more. This status of commitment forged the strength of the temple including its servants and especially the high priest who stands at its head.
After the battle of Issus between Alexander the Macedonian and Darius the Persian (333 BC), Sanblat Pahat of Samaria went over to his side and even transferred a large force of 8000 soldiers to his disposal. From Tyre, which is in Syria, a letter signed by Alexander himself was sent to Ido, the high priest in Jerusalem, in which Alexander asked Ido for light military assistance and mainly food for his army as well as a friendship tax. The fact that the recipient was the High Priest speaks for itself and supports our conclusions thus far. He is known to politely and politely refuse on the grounds that his loyalty is given to the Dervish based on an oath he swore to him, but since Alexander's forces were moving towards Jerusalem, the high priest relented and even welcomed Alexander with great ceremony.
The story of Yosef ben Matthiyehu about the meeting between Alexander and the famous high priest Idoh is steeped in thick and sticky legend, but the important point is the very meeting between the two leaders, which led to the granting of wider autonomy to the Jews, and in the words of the scripture: "to keep the laws of their fathers" (Yosef ben Matthiyehu, Kedmoniot The Jews, 335, XNUMX). Moreover, the meeting between Alexander and a well-known person and not another person, one who is not a priest, indicates the strengthening of the status of the priesthood, and a few lines later Joseph ben Mattathieu testifies that when a well-known person inherited his throne, title and status, his son Hanio. To teach us about the formation of an inheritance, like a kingdom.
Here we have before us a political-economic-social and fundamental-ideological transformation based on the circumstances of the time (the destruction of the temple and the collapse of the royal house), on the Persian policy of strengthening the status of the priesthood and on the personal basis - the growth of a priesthood (as someone who took advantage of the above, in terms of filling a vacuum) established (thanks to Ezra's works), and this situation will accompany all the days of the Second Temple on its ups and downs, as I will describe in the following lists.
27 תגובות
Dr. Yachiam Shalom,
I would like to point out that I enjoyed reading your summaries about the position of the priesthood in the different periods. It seems that the status of the priesthood is getting stronger from period to period, and at a certain point and naturally, as happens to many in high status, the priests abuse their authority. I'm trying to project their abuse of power into today's white collar crime. From the many sources I have looked at, it is not clear to me whether the priests were tried for crimes they committed in the name of religion, for example stealing the gifts of the priesthood from the ordinary priests, and more. It seems that during the Second Temple period the Sanhedrin was established as a judicial institution, but I did not find any mention of punishment. In your investigation of the matter, did you come across the issue of their punishment or was it because of the fact that their performance was high that it was not possible to challenge their performance?
Priesthood and priesthood:
When dealing with events from the historical past, at the same time as accuracy (as much as possible) in the study of historical events, the development of an overall vision is also required, which must also explain why fateful events such as the destruction of the Temple, for this first matter, and the exile that followed. This is with the aim of trying to understand historical legality.
In an attempt to focus on the period before the Babylonian exile, when on the one hand we read in the Bible about difficult events such as a case of murder for the purpose of kingship (a type of priesthood), between the kings of Israel, as well as the wars between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel;
And on the other hand: in the kingdom of Assyria, Paul takes over the reign (Teglat III), whose goal is more justice in relation to the previous kingdom, than what the Assyrians knew before;
And the result: the kingdom of Assyria wrote a policy to the kings of Judah and Israel.
For those who have doubts: let him learn what King David achieved in the first acts of justice, and what happened after that when, back in the time of his son Solomon, fateful future events were decreed for the united kingdom of Israel.
By the way: we tend to forget the loss of ten tribes (something approaching ninety percent, if you take into account that a considerable percentage of the remaining two were also lost).
I didn't ask you to respond, and I really didn't chase you. I responded because I reasoned with Tomi that an article on such a site should be equipped with several features: adherence to the facts (Samuel not crowning Solomon); Recognition of basic historical principles such as time gaps, existing or non-existent connection between things and more; Historical connection to the time in question and a few more.
And last: "Really take it in a good spirit - sentences that seem obscure to you, maybe it's better to try and understand them against the background of the context + an intelligent approach."
A somewhat arrogant offer in light of the problematic level of writing and poor drafting. I have already responded before and I say this for the last time: even before the essential problems in historical writing, the level of writing requires an in-depth rewrite.
And regarding eye acuity and intelligence: a. Check out what I quoted; B. Check the meaning of the sentence I wrote. If you fail here in front of such a text, all the more...
And last: my reference was to the point. It's a shame you moved into the body of a writer. Also for the essential reason, but as you saw - not only
Yoel Shalom
I was happy for your responses, but, you know, it seems to me that I am forced to use the tragic cry from the pages of the New Testament - "Shaul-Shaul, why will you persecute me?"
and why? You are probably not clear-eyed and I used the word "further" and not "until", but you probably have the attitude of "why should the facts confuse me". Sachten Ya-Habibi!
Next: really take it in a good spirit - sentences that seem obscure to you, maybe it's better to try and understand them against the background of the context + an intelligent approach.
Is it true? I'm tired of responding.
"The same goes for the French Revolution, which sought to bring about a fundamental change in the history of monarchical France since the days of Charlemagne - hundreds of years earlier." I am blinded by this sentence; how can the Revolution (1789) bring about a change (not even a fundamental one) in the history of France until Charlemagne ( 800)? The arrow of time as far as I know is one-way. By the way, Charlemagne and monarchical France don't really belong (but that's a matter for another discussion)
A desire to rule and hold it is present in every establishment from that day until today. The essay in such a time span (2500 years) is good for polemic matters, not really history.
That is: if you want to attack today's rabbinic establishment, Halacha or any other aspect of Judaism - legitimate. If you want to claim that their problems come from one transition or another - also.
But this connection seems forced and certainly ahistorical (in my opinion, at least). To take a critical look at a time - this must be done based on the tools that the people of that time had.
"Not the religious essence but in the ritual one and certainly in the projection to its servants". I am blinded by this sentence.
Hello to Yoel
First - I mentioned that I will expand on this in one of my next lists, and I will indeed do so, but an exemption for nothing is impossible: until the days of Matthias, one senior priesthood ruled - the greatest priesthood from one family in terms of dynasties, and since then this has changed. The same is true of the French Revolution, which sought to bring about a fundamental change in the history of monarchical France since the days of Charlemagne - hundreds of years earlier. In Matthew's will, and it doesn't matter whether it was such in the Maccabean text, but the same historical thread from the days of the zealous Pinchas is explicitly stated there, go to Elijah and that's it. in Matthew
Second - the connection is the rabbinical extremism to control the flock from its pasture.
Thirdly - in the ancient era there was indeed an option, not in the religious essence but in the ritual one and certainly in throwing it to its servants. It was and how it was.
Still, I will not check according to your sentence in the article what the connection is to itself, not to mention a gap of 200 years plus. As if you created a direct connection between an official in the days of Napoleon and today.
The fact that the High Priesthood did what it did hundreds of years later shows that there is really no point in connecting things that happened in such a time gap. It is true that everything was "from long ago" but even then hundreds of years were hundreds of years.
The last part is really unclear. What is the connection between the fundamentalist content of the fifth century BC in Judea-under-Persia and the state?
In ancient times there is no alternative option to religion, any religion, and the place of man and his rights are completely different in relation to the principles of the 19th century.
Skipping over 2,500 years with everything implied by the gaps seems somewhat problematic to me. It may be intended to serve something, history it is not.
Hello to Yoel
First - Matthias, who belonged to the Hasmonean family, from the guard of Yahoirib - a respected priestly family such as Alma Leo Peligi, will carry out a revolution (and I will refer to this in one of the following lists), when he deposes his house, the Sadducees, and serves in his place, and at least from his son after him, as a high priest (on Thus, as stated below).
Secondly - I did not come to claim that the struggle between the priesthood and the monarchy is about reinventing the wheel, but rather that this struggle is an important element in shaping the status of the priesthood, especially in the era of the transition between the First and Second Temples.
Third - it was precisely the high priestess who led the process of Greekization in the third and second centuries BC.
Fourth - the fundamentalist actions, if at all, spoke more to the moral, basic aspect of the Jewish society, and the echo can be found to this day, through the Steitel in Eastern Europe and even in Islamic countries. The rulings of today's rabbis only strike such a wrong line.
"Between the years 597 and 586 BC, waves of emigration from Judea (Israel/Samaria no longer exists but as an Assyrian vassal) towards the Babylonian kingdom (the days of Nebuchadnezzar/Nebuchadnezzar)".
- What is Ashur's business here? It also no longer exists (from 609 BC).
According to his genealogy, he is one of the descendants of Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aaron the High Priest. That is, not only was he one of the top priestly families, but his ancestors were the first zealots (those who slaughter their opponents in the name of God, and this will have a serious impact in the future, in the days of the rebellious Matthew).
- What is Matthew doing here (167 BC, 200 years later) who, as we know, was not from the family of the great priesthood? And what serious implication for the future is the author alluding to?
***
Tension between servants in the sanctuary who represent the supreme power and between leaders is a story as old as the days of institutionalized regimes - starting with the days of the pharaohs, go through Samuel's words about the monarchy through going to the finery to Napoleon's self-crowned as emperor (and there is much more). On the other hand, it is natural for an empire to give power to those whose affairs are internal and who have no political status and thus the potential for rebellion or any political activity.
The main thing in this period is the beginning of the creation of Judaism as we know it today, based on a strict monotheistic religion, including worship, which does not want foreigners in it and is ready to live with a large diaspora.
The process began then, with the giving of leading status to the clergy - definitely not only priests, but religious scholars as well - and ended with the transition after the Holocaust to a halachic religion based on Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and the abolition of the connection to sacrifices and the temple ("Yavna and the Sages").
Without the aforementioned priesthood and its fundamentalist activities at the beginning the Jewish people would have assimilated, and were probably deep in this process when the exiles arrived from Babylon.
Only they, whom the exile brought together - in a shared experience and in religious development - could bear the miracle of Jewish uniqueness, refine it and make it one of the essentials of Judaism in practice.
That is: according to the method of the Jewish people, their belief, their self-perception against the background of the situation in the environment - this was the only way.