The Hasmoneans Chapter 2: Will? I did not know!

Chapter two in the series on the history of the Hasmonean kingdom, the last independent Jewish state that existed in Israel until the modern state of Israel

Everything we wanted to know about the Hasmoneans and were ashamed to ask - first chapter in the series

Yehuda's successor in the position was his brother Jonathan, and with him the rebellion ended. are you done From the point of view of the spiritual biological father, i.e. Matthias, it was indeed not over, since Jonathan was nothing but a Hellenistic vassal. Strange, puzzling? Everything later.

First we will return to Matthew's will and examine whether it existed in reality, in practice. Well, this is how it is quoted in the book of Maccabim 65:64-XNUMX: "And here is Simon your brother, I knew that he was a man of counsel. To him you will hear all the days. He will be your father. And Yehuda the Maccabee, a mighty warrior from his youth, he will be your army minister and fight the people's war." It follows from this, on the assumption that there was indeed a will of this kind and indeed it was worded in such a way, that Shimon is the heir of Matthew and Yehuda is subordinate to him as the army minister. But in reality it was Yehuda who succeeded Matthias, probably quite aggressively and Shimon, the "kicked", had to wait another turn or maybe two, since Jonathan, also a military commander, succeeded Yehuda. Shimon stayed to seal the inheritance of all his brothers. That is, "kicked" by his brother to the side.

And Jonathan, by whom was he chosen as heir, since Yehuda did not leave an heir to continue his path? There is an allusion in the Maccabean literature to a kind of inheritance and the reference to Maccabees 9:31, 28 onwards, which tells of the cry of the Jews of Gilead to Judah the Maccabee for immediate military assistance in view of the harassment of the Hellenistic inhabitants. Yehuda turns, for the first time in his battle campaigns, to Jonathan and Shimon and entrusts them with military tasks. He sends Shimon to Galilee even here to help the Jews, while Jonathan he joins with him on a military expedition to Gilead. There is here, firstly, a kind of unofficial appointment to the inheritance of Judah and the freezing of Shimon's status, and secondly - a kind of allusion to Judah's royal ambition, since Saul at the time was called to Gilead, before his reign, in order to help the Jews of Gilead who were threatened by the people of Yash Gilead, and this was leverage for his kingdom . And if my hypothesis is correct, then it was really due to the sloppiness of Matthieu's will. In any case, based on the above, we should not be surprised that Jonathan is considered the heir of Judah, nor should we be surprised that officially and practically the crown of succession was placed on Jonathan's head, and this by the supporters of Judah, or as the source says - "And all the lovers of Judah confessed, and said to Jonathan: And after Since Judah your brother died and a man like him should not go against the enemies and Cachides and the oppressors of our people, and now we have chosen you today to be our minister and head to fight our war. And Jonathan at that time received the throne and rose under Judah his brother" (XNUMX Maccabim XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX). That is, Jonathan gets a military appointment on the one hand and a political appointment on the other, thereby trampling the will of Matthew, the ideological father of the Maccabean rebellion. It is not Shimon who is considered the heir, but Jonathan, although he did not appear in Matthew's will. This shows, it seems, that the fanatical, militant, aggressive atmosphere is what dictated the lineage of Matthew/Judas. It should be noted that brother Yohanan was killed by the sword of a nomadic desert tribe while fleeing from the Syrian army towards the Jordan to the east, this also continues to indicate the military measures. And from now on, only two brothers remained - Shimon and Jonathan.

In 155 BC, the Seleucid commander in Kakidas realized that he would not be able to carry out his mission - suppressing the rebel nests under the leadership of Jonathan, and therefore sought to reach an agreement with Jonathan. According to the arrangement, Cakides recognized Jonathan as the leader of the Jewish Athos and allowed him to return to Judea, but forbade him to enter Jerusalem. Jonathan therefore settled in Machmas, northeast of Jerusalem and made the place a springboard for expanding the area of ​​his rule.
Is this what the father of the rebellion, Matthieu, was striving for? Not at all, because he declared a war of tyranny against everything that exuded a Greek-Hellenistic flavor, and in his will emphasized that "And now sons are jealous of the Torah and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers...and your inheritance will be great honor and an everlasting name...and do not be afraid of the words of an evil man, for his honor is deceitful... Recompense to the Gentiles..." (66 Maccabees 49:XNUMX-XNUMX).

Jonathan, in his alliance with the Seleucids, although it was a pragmatic move, deviated from the line of Matthew's will, and thus did not end the trampling of the will. is that so? Well, within two or three years of the aforementioned agreement, a severe war broke out in the Syrian-Seleucid kingdom between two claimants to the royal crown - Demetrius and Alexander Balas. Both of them, each in turn and in their own way, courted Jonathan's support, with each of them laying out before Jonathan an accumulation of serious promises. Demetrius promised Jonathan, among other things, to rule Judea, to exempt it from taxes as a symbol of reserved sovereignty, to raise an army and enable the settlement of Jerusalem. A respectable and generous dowry indeed.

Jonathan, for his part, decided to support Balas, and this for three reasons: he was promised to be a high priest, an honorable position was opened for him in the Syrian-Hellenistic royal court, namely to serve officially as one of the king's nobles and his servants, what is known as "the king's evil". The third reason stemmed from Jonathan's belief in the talents and abilities of Alexander Balas over Demetrius. The first taste was the most dominant since the holder of this office is a king-without-a-crown. The third reason involved a risk-dependent consideration and the second reason pointed to Jonathan's distant interests, which involved integration into the Hellenistic royal court. The subject of the high priesthood did not appear in Matthew's will, but Matthew's rebellion was also of an internal-priestly nature - to overthrow the dynasty of the House of Zadok and rule in the temple under it (as I sought to show in my first articles on the priesthood in Judah, as published in "Hidan"). And hence Jonathan apparently followed the ideological line of Matthew, and Judah the Maccabee crowned himself the High Priest immediately after the purification of the temple in 164 BC.
But what, Matthew did not dream, even in the night, that Jonathan would be appointed to the leadership of the priesthood by the Syrians, as an official who does the word of his master. Moreover, Matthieu's main criticism was on Jason and Menelaus, who were appointed high priests by the Syrians, and this move was considered a betrayal of the vision of the people and God in general. And here is the Hasmonean leader, Jonathan, doing it. And this Jonathan was called by the Syrian king by the name "brother". Did this "boy" "pray" for Matthew?
In any case, the desire to integrate into the Hellenistic Syrian kingdom was certainly an unusual step by Jonathan, well away from the will of Matthias.

Moreover, the indignation against Jason in his time, as expressed in both Maccabees XNUMX and Maccabees XNUMX, as well as against Menelaus, who bought the high priesthood from the hands of the Syrian-Hellenistic king, was not voiced, even in a weak and minor tone, by those writers against Jonathan . Indeed, things you see from here are not seen from there. And what is allowed for the dynasty of Matthias, which belonged to the Yehoirib Guard, is absolutely forbidden for the House of Chavanio who served in the High Priesthood, and to which Yeson belonged.

It is interesting to take a look at the writings of Yosef ben Matthieu in order to learn about the priestly appointment. Well, in his composition "The Antiquity of the Jews" Joseph ben Mattathias narrates as follows: "... and when Alexander (Ballas) and his companions decided to send (messengers) to Jonathan, he wrote (to him) this letter: 'King Alexander to his brother Jonathan, peace. We have already heard about your valor and your loyalty, and therefore we sent you (messengers) about a covenant of friendship. For we have chosen you on this day to be a high priest of the Jews (in the style of Baal Maccabim 45 - "And now you have stood today as a high priest for your people" -), and you will be called evil (in the style of Baal Maccabim 44 - "And the king's lover will be called")..." (The Antiquities of the Jews 164 , XNUMX-XNUMX). There is no doubt that Balas did not get to know the meaning of the high priesthood among the Jews, and such that brought Jonathan to support him rather than Demetrius. The move probably began with Jonathan's inquiries that he was not allowed to place the crown of the High Priesthood on his head, since the High Priesthood was an appointment that was already active in the temple, and Judas Maccabeus, his predecessor, in XNUMX BCE, crowned himself High Priest, without being approved by the people or some sacred factor, but in the basis of Judah's leadership, and in the activity of purifying the temple and restoring the sacrificial offering to its traditional routine by him.
Jonathan therefore needed an external, Hellenistic-Syrian appointment, as someone who would have Judah under his rule, and therefore he knew how to "drip" this in Balas' "ear". What's more, and let's not get confused, the luxury of the Syrian appointment was not carried out except according to Yonatan's free choice, and God forbid by Syrian-Hellenistic coercion.

And let's not forget, the status of the high priest was almost like a king, and it is worth noting that this position gave Jonathan direct access to the treasures of the Temple, both to the public funds and to the private coffers of the wealthy and the ruler. No-no, Jonathan will not give up such a juicy cherry.

Yosef ben Mattayyo adds to the story immediately later that "after Jonathan received the letter (from Balas), he put on the high priest's garment when the Sukkot holiday came, four years after the death of his brother Yehuda, because there was no high priest during (all) that time..." (ibid. 46).
Yehuda fell in the battle of Elasha in 161 BC, and four years later we arrive at 4 BC. In other words, since the succession of Jonathan, the leader did not dare to place the crown of the High Priesthood on his head until an opportunity came his way in the form of the struggle for the succession in Syria between Demetrius and Alexander Balas, which he took advantage of under the auspices of Balas to claim the High Priesthood.

In any case, over two years between 157 BC and 155 BC "disappeared" from the chronological ruler, when Balas promised Jonathan the crown of the high priesthood.
Furthermore, Joseph ben Mattheiyahu recounts the case of the establishment of the temple of the honio in Egypt, associating it with the appointment of Alkimus the Greek to the high priesthood in 162 BC. It may be because of the closeness of the events - the appointment of Jonathan as high priest and the establishment of the temple of the honio - that he lived in Talia, and that The late construction of the Hanio temple is after 155 BC.

Also, Jonathan's priesthood on the Sukkot holiday is probably not accidental, since the purification of the temple, what we now call the Hanukkah holiday, was done on the Sukkot holiday, and therefore, by the way, the minyan of eight days.

and we will continue. In the face of Balas's promises, his opponent, Demetrius, does not let go of attracting Jonathan to him with promises such as exemption from taxes, days off on holidays, release of captives who fell during his time, areas of land, gifts to the temple and more. Rather, "And when Jonathan and the people heard these things, they did not believe them (Demetrius and his men) and did not accept them, because they remembered the great evils he had done in Israel and tortured them greatly. And they wanted Alexander because he was the first to speak of peace to them, and they helped him all the days" (Maccabim 47:46, XNUMX-XNUMX). That is, things you see from here you don't see from there.

Two years later, in 148 BC, when the wars of succession in Syria were renewed, Jonathan hurried to provide military aid, in accordance with the agreement with Balas.
Jonathan therefore immediately enlisted the help of Alexander Balas and faced off militarily against his army minister Apollonius when Jonathan mobilized a large number of warriors. During the fighting, the horsemen of Apollonius fled to the temple of Dagon in Ashdod. Jonathan mourns the place and sets the temple on fire on its inhabitants and gatherings.

And here the tables turned and Balas surrendered to his opponent, Demetrius II, and Jonathan the opportunist immediately transferred his support to Demetrius (we learned how eager Jonathan was to leverage and upgrade his personal achievements, just as is customary to characterize any Hellenistic ruler), with the latter confirming all the privileges that Balas granted to Jonathan and further added He has territories. Jonathan, for his part, militarily assists Demetrius when he sends him a force of three thousand Jewish warriors. It should be noted that such a framework was famous in the format of the Hellenistic armies. Did he not spare the lives of his warriors, his loyalists, when he makes them available to the plans of the Syrian ruler, whatever they may be?!
We also learn from this that Hellenistic influences penetrated Judea in various areas, and she, who operated in various areas, eroded Matthew's ideological vision to the last detail in a long historical process. In other words - an uncompromising struggle with the Greeks, the Greeks and the Greeks.

It should be noted that even Shimon, the last of the sons of Mattathias, the one who was pushed into a corner from the days of Judah the Maccabee to Jonathan, benefited from the alliance and agreement with Demetrius. Hela was appointed by Demetrius as commander of the army from the city of Tire in the north to Egypt in the south. It was indeed a divide-and-rule tactic. However, this paved his way further to Jonathan's succession and the close ties with the Syrian-Seleucids.

Jonathan's next step was to renew the alliance with the Romans, and on his behalf, Jonathan ordered the messengers sent to Rome to return, on their way back, to the land of the Spartans, and to present to them his fee. In this letter, which opens with a historical, somewhat "international" note, because Jonathan is the head of the Athos, and is a high priest, it is written that the Spartans, the "brothers" as the text says (6 Maccabees XNUMX:XNUMX) and the Jews are the sons of the same father, the sons of the same kinship Mythological blood. It is true that behind these statements of flattery and conquests is hidden the political diplomacy of tightening the relations between the two ethnic groups, but the statement about the shared blood relationship is nothing more than another step in the process of the gradual Greekization of the Hasmonean House.

This is how Matthieu, the ideological father of the rebellion, prayed?!

It should be noted that Jonathan reminds the king of Sparta that he, the king of Sparta, sent letters to his servants Hania the high priest, he is Yohanan the first son of a well-known son, the father of Shimon the righteous, the first, around the beginning of the fourth century BCE, in which he stated that the Jews and the people of Sparta are brothers the advance of time. And therefore the acceptance of Jonathan's epistle changes both its mythological connections and its status as a high priest.

It is interesting, by the way, to look at the reply of Ares, the Spartan king, to Jonathan, as an island: "Ares, king of the Spartans, to Hania, a high priest, peace. It is written about the Spartans and the Jews that they are brothers and that they are of the seed of Abraham..." (21 Maccabees 20:XNUMX-XNUMX). This epithet confirms, at least as far as the author of the work is concerned, the reliability of Jonathan's epithet to the Spartans.

Jonathan's end was almost predictable. The intrigues in which he was involved, his foreign policy (connections with Rome for example) made him vulnerable to the Seleucids. Cunningly lured Jonathan to his "den", to Acre, the Seleucid Ptolemais, and there led to his imprisonment and finally to his execution.