Matthew's sons became high priests. Did the successors of the dynasty after Judah the Maccabee also continue the spirit of rebellion? Not sure
The previous list, the fifth in number, was signed with an interesting testimony about the ministry of Judah the Maccabee, the one intended to commemorate his status and achievements.
In relation to the above, a problematic and unusual situation has arisen - on the one hand, Judah the Maccabee serves as high priest, and on the other hand, the modern priesthood continues to function and even strengthens its position as a result of its connections with the Syrian-Seleucid royal house and from the tactical motives of the aforementioned royal house to neutralize the power of the rebels. The confusion undoubtedly gripped the Jewish public, especially the Jerusalem public, and made it difficult for the Temple to function.
In 161 BC Judah falls in the battle of Elasha against the Hellenistic army and all the "lovers of Judah" - according to the Maccabean text - agreed together and transferred the leadership to his brother, Jonathan - "And now we have chosen you today to be our leader and leader to fight our war, and Jonathan will accept At that time he reigned and rose under Judah his brother" (Maccabim XNUMX:XNUMX). This move seemed to reflect Judah's sovereignty, but things were different. Beyond the fact that Shimon, the older brother, was supposed to inherit the throne of Judah's leadership, as stated in Matthew's will, but was "kicked" aside due to the "state of emergency", Jonathan had to accept the Syrian backing for his leadership.
At the same time, a mini-revolution took place in the Syrian kingdom between two claimants to the crown - Demetrius and Alexander Balas - and Jonathan found himself somewhat wooed by each of the aforementioned contenders. Demetrius promised Jonathan mountains and hills, from all the good of the land, to him, to Jerusalem and Judea, but Jonathan actually chose to support Alexander Balas in particular because it guaranteed him the high priesthood. The High Priesthood, as mentioned, was equated to a kind of monarchy, and especially when the Maccabean rebellion broke out and Judah the Maccabee would function as its leader. Status and continuity were therefore important to Jonathan and because of this he responded to the courtship of Balas and rejected his gifts to Demetrius.
When Jonathan is appointed high priest, he perpetuates the legacy of his brother and father and fulfills the wish of Matthew's heart. But there was a thorn in it: the appointment, and at least his approval, was foreign, Hellenistic, and did not encounter any rebellious opposition. amazing? After all, one of the motives of the Maccabean/Hasmonean rebellion was the reluctance to appoint the Hellenistic government, such as in view of the appointment of Yeshua (Jason), from the ruling priesthood family, to the high priesthood by Antiochus IV. So what was the difference between ... and ...?!
Yosef ben Matthiyahu in his compilation The Antiquities of the Jews dates Jonathan's appointment to 157 BC, "four years after the death of his brother Judah" (The Antiquities of the Jews 46, XNUMX), while he takes pains to point out that there was no high priest who functioned until then.
In the book of Maccabim 21 it is said: "And Jonathan put on the holy coat (the high priest's coat) in the seventh month in the sixty-hundredth year on the Feast of Tabernacles" (Maccabim 160:312:151). The year 152 dates from the Battle of Gaza (XNUMX BC), that is, it is about the year XNUMX/XNUMX BC, which is completely different from the time indicated by Joseph ben Mattathias. A mystery, which may perhaps be clarified against the background of the time that passed between the Hellenistic appointment and the popular approval, if at all. Or was it not convenient for Jonathan to accept the external appointment and gradually accustom the public to the change in his personal status. And maybe Yosef ben Matthew made a mistake in the timeline he presented?
Following Jonathan's appointment, a real ideological revolution took place in Judea, the subject of which was the phenomenon of classism. Another event derived from the appointment was the abandonment of the true scion to the house of the High Priesthood, that is his son, the son of his son the high priest. His emissary went down to Egypt and made contact with the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy Philometor and his wife Cleopatra and convinced them of the need to build a temple in Egypt that was similar in appearance and essence to the Jerusalem temple and its location in Leontopolis. Honio presented the factory as a move that would contribute to the Egyptian royal house in various respects and thereby won the royal approval for its establishment.
This is without a doubt an unprecedented revolutionary move, and it may point to the despair and bitterness of soul that befell the Honio family when the Maccabean rebellion broke out and the priesthood passed, first during the rebellious period and then by official appointment from the Syrian state, like all Kitzin and therefore it is appropriate to "start from Genesis"- To build a temple outside the influence of the Hasmonean family.
From this period onwards Jonathan is called, unlike his brother Judah, his predecessor, "Jonathan the great priest", to teach about his new and upgraded status. This is how the letter sent from Jonathan to the kings of the famous city of Sparta opens: "Jonathan the high priest, the council of the elders of the people and the priests and the rest of the Jewish people to the brothers of Sparta, peace" (6 Maccabees 23:XNUMX). All the above titles are supposed to present one united front of the people, led and led by Jonathan. The letter is about strengthening the myth that the people of Sparta and the people of Israel are brothers, sons of a common father. This relationship had political and even economic consequences. In reply to the letter, the king of Sparta, Arius, admits and confesses before Jonathan, the addressee, that "the people of Sparta and the Jews are brothers and that they are of the seed of Abraham" (ibid., XNUMX). It goes without saying that the Spartan king names Jonathan at the top of his letter as a high priest.
The identification of the Jews and the Spartans as brothers seems quite symbolic, and it may have had economic and slightly political consequences, but it opens up for the first time the issue of Hellenization-Greekization among the Hasmonean House, in terms of an ever-evolving phenomenon.
The relationship between Jonathan and Hellenization, which appears on the face of it to be very puzzling, is shaped and strengthened somewhat, so similar is Jonathan's commitment to Alexander Ballas, who was ready to crown him as high priest. The "candy" that Jonathan receives in the form of belonging to the group of rulers that surrounds the Seleucid king and its name: "the king's servants", undoubtedly exposed Jonathan to Hellenization and his frequent and sometimes prolonged stay in the king's court only intensified the degree of his Greekization.
Indeed, things you see from there you don't see from here - the drumbeat of the anti-Hellenistic rebellion gradually dissolved, evaporated, and transformed itself in the second generation of rebels, just a few years after the outbreak of the rebellion, in a clear anti-rebellious process.
Jonathan does not end his term in his bed, but with a murderous sword, which, right after the above, is the result of personal and political entanglements in Syrian-state struggles. His tragic death also reflects the dimensions of Hellenization in his court.
At his death, the rule of Judah passed to his brother Shimon, the last of the sons, although not the youngest among them. In 142 B.C., Shimon, just like his brother Jonathan, received a Syrian-royal appointment - to serve in the crown of the High Priesthood, and in the words of the scripture: "In the seventy-hundredth year the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel, and the people of Israel began to write in books and bills: in one year for Shimon the High Priest, and Minister of the Army and President the Jews" (42 Maccabees, 41:XNUMX-XNUMX). This is an upgraded status, unprecedented since the outbreak of the rebellion, of a combination of military, political and religious-ritual leadership. The appointment, let's not forget, was Syrian-Hellenistic, and the fact that it did not cause any problems or reservations, shows that the atmosphere was ripe for treating the political appointments from Syria as a move that has no religious and ritual implications, but a purely political one.
After the state appointment, Shimon receives a special appointment, albeit a symbolic one, in a national assembly, which approves the Syrian appointment. Shimon receives the title of high priest but with a certain limit - "until a true prophet arises", as they say - until the coming of the Messiah, when a high priest from the traditional family will be appointed, and there is no more transparent allusion than this regarding the certain usurpation, the rebellion of Matthew in the family of the incumbent priesthood. Shimon's status is upgraded by the assertion that not one of the priests or the people has the right and authority to cancel his words, in terms of a kind of monarchy. The right to wear a scarlet mantle and to be decorated with gold were also among the signs of royalty that Shimon was honored with.
The stories of Shimon's leadership are told in the Maccabean literature, and since his murder, in 134 BC, the chronicles of the Hasmoneans have been recorded in the book of Joseph ben Mattathias - The Ancestors of the Jews. And this is how Joseph ben Matthew reports after the tragic event of Shimon's murder - "And Hyrcanus assumed the great priesthood of his fathers" (Ancients of the Jews 230 XNUMX). In other words, Hyrcanus ben Shimon, grandson of Matthew appropriates the priesthood to himself by virtue of inheritance. This is how Matthieu's priestly rebellion is established.
Hyrcanus continues with greater intensity the process of his personal Greekization and even that of his court and associates: unlike his grandfather, father and uncles, he is known by a Hebrew name and a Hellenistic name, maintains an army of mercenaries, adopts Hellenistic court customs and as an arrogant king despises his ancestors and loots David's tomb.
Hyrcanus' actions and customs, along with the wars he waged, aroused condemnation and anger towards him, and one of the Pharisee leaders named Eleazar slammed him with harsh words along the lines of: "Since you wanted to know the truth and your desire to be righteous, lay down the high priesthood and be content with being the governor of the people!" (The Antiquities of the Jews 291, XNUMX). Beyond the conflict between the Pharisee camp and Hyrcanus who sided with the Sadducees camp, there is hidden here a very poignant statement towards Matthieu's rebellious usurpation - to return the priesthood to the traditional, mythological family. Eleazar doesn't skimp on the means and criticizes the purity of Yohanan Hyrcanus' attribution. He makes the claim that his mother was a captive of the Parthians and as a result the birth of Hyrcanus is tainted with sin and he must give it up.
There is no information about the ministry of Yehuda Aristobulus, the eldest son of Hyrcanus, and it seems that the fact that he crowned himself king shows that the great priesthood was also treasured. The cruelty of Aristobulus, his Greek name, his royalty and his nickname - "Philhellenus" (lover of the Greeks), fairly distances him from his vision and the wishes of the heart of the father of the dynasty and the initiator of the rebellion Matthias.
The successor of Yehuda Aristobulus was his brother Alexandros Janai (an affectionate nickname for Jonathan), who is considered the pinnacle of Hasmonean achievements. Alexandros functioned as the Hellenistic king for all intents and purposes. The coins he issued were divided into two categories - those intended to be addressed to the Jewish people bore the inscription: "Yonathan Cohen Gadol and Friend of the Jews", while the coins intended for the Greek and Greek society bore the inscription in Greek "Alexander Basilios", i.e. King Alexander.
Yanai found himself in an embarrassing and humiliating situation, when the people of the people worshiped him on the altar square during the Sukkot holiday, when he used to disdain them in view of the customary holiday customs. In response Yanai executed six thousand people and erected a wooden fence around the altar and the temple up to the grate, a place where only priests were allowed to enter, thus blocking the entrance to the crowd. For all of Yanai's cruelty, he was given the nickname "Tarkida".
Indeed, "not to this boy did he pray" from Matthew. Neither to him nor to his predecessors.
The series of articles "The Priesthood You Didn't Know" by Dr. Yehiam Sorek
15 תגובות
To this day, the Jewish leadership is quick to adopt pagan customs. Amulets, graves of the righteous, exile clothing and what not. So researchers should not be surprised that in earlier periods, even from the time of the Bible, the Jews adopted foreign names and tunes. The beauty of Judaism is the infinite hypocrisy of its believers or some would say its ability to adapt itself to the spirit of the place and time...whatever you choose.
All that mattered to the priests back then was their economic status, all that matters to the rabbis today is their economic status, and this is why it was written in one of the ancient books, "What has been will be, and there is nothing new under the sun."
The successors of the Hasmonean dynasty, not only did they not continue the values that instilled hope in the people, they preferred to confront endlessly with the aim of seizing the leadership of the priesthood and converting to the monarchy, the serious acts reached such a level, such as the incident in which Aristobulus I murdered his brother Antigonus who returned after the conquest of the Galilee and his mother, Imprisoned in the prison until starving to death;
Or the case of Alexander Yanai, who suppressed a rebellion against him, using a mercenary force, and about fifty thousand people were slaughtered, and as an additional punishment he killed several hundred rebels by crucifixion.
Also, most of the rulers of the Hasmonean house, starting from Hyrcanus I, adopted the names of the Hellenes, which indicates their insensitivity towards their people.