|
Updated: 2023.01.05 
With the Mediterranean shores on the west and a great desert on the east, the land of YᵊhūdꞋãh occupies the strategic chokepoint—Disputed War Zone—controlling the north-south land passage between greedy warring Mediterranean Basin empires. This is where their wars were fought. The primary tipping point "Kill Zone": MᵊgidꞋō!
 |
 Map Eastern Hemisphere Achaemenid, Seleucid & Ptolemaic Empires c BCE 200 |
 |
 Roman Republic & Hellenist Empires c. BCE 200 |
The death of [Hellenist] Alexander the Great of [Hellenist] Greece in 323 BCE led to the breakup of the [Hellenist] Greek empire as three of his [Hellenist] generals fought for supremacy and divided the Middle East among themselves.
[Hellenist] Seleucus seized [thereupon Hellenist] Syria and Asia Minor [modern Turkey],
[Hellenist] Ptolemy secured control of [thereupon Hellenist] Egypt and [thereupon Hellenist] YᵊhūdꞋãh].
became the "Disputed War Zone" between the Hellenist Πτολεμαῖος (Afro-Egyptian & YᵊhūdꞋãh) Empire and the Hellenist Σελευκιδῶν (Eurasian) Empire.
qq
qq
 bust Carthaginian (221-202) Seleukid (198-188) 150x250.png "Phoenician (Punic) GOAT General to that time, 𐤇𐤍𐤁𐤏𐤋 (modern Hebrew: חַנִּבַּ֔עַל, Hannibal) ''Carthaginian'' (221-202) allied with Seleukid Empire (BCE 198-188)") |
| Phoenician (Punic) GOAT General to that time, 𐤇𐤍𐤁𐤏𐤋 (BCE 247–c182). |
Phoenician (Punic) GOAT General to that time, 𐤇𐤍𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤁𐤓𐤒 ברק (BCE 247–c182); one of the greatest generals in history, like Alexander the Great , Julius Caesar, and Napoleon Bonaparte—but he was defeated at Zama by his superior: GOAT Sipio!
Senator, 2-Time Consul Perpetuo ) Military Strategist & Commander: |
| Publius Cornelius Scipio "Africanus" |
 |
 BCE 202: Hannibal had reduced Roman Republic to Rome's city walls. Scipio expands Roman Republic to control over the entire Mediterranean Basin; most coastlands became Roman Republic allies or client states. Lone adversary standing: Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd. YᵊhūdꞋãh, clash-zone in-between. Diplomatic conundrum. |
A counter-invasion of North Africa, led by Roman General Scipio Africanus, forced him (Hannibal) to return to Carthage. Hannibal was eventually defeated at the Battle of Zama, ending the war in a Roman victory.
Scipio is primarily noted—& honorifically titled "Africanus"—for his world-defining defeat of Hannibal in BCE 202 at Zama (now in Tunisia), outside Carthage in northwest Africa 150 km (80 NM) southwest of Sicily.
When Scipio assumed command of the Roman Republic Army cBCE 215, the Roman Republic had been pared down to the city walls of Rome. Scipio conquered nearly the entire rim of the Mediterranean, contolling maritime trade and subjecting nearly all of the coastal regions as client states. In BCE 202, the Roman Republic faced 2 eastern threats: the Eurasian Seleukid Empire in the north and the Ptolemaic Afro-Egyptian Empire on the south. Elimating the southern threat by defeating Hannibal in BCE 202 (2nd Phoenician War), Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd then faced a Roman Republic Superpower—alone.
Scipio's world-changing victory at Zama elevated the Roman Republic, which had been reduced to the city walls of Rome, to the world stage as a superpower-in-ascension that would eventually metamorphose into the Roman Empire—and determine much of our world today!!! Scipio's victory elevated the Hellenist Roman Republic from splitting its forces to face two (both Hellenist) adversaries (SëꞋlë•ūk•ös ) to focus its military might singularly on the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Empire—Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd!
 |
| Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd |
|
| Map Eastern Hemisphere Achaemenid, Seleucid & Ptolemaic Empires c BCE 200 |
Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd (son of Hellenist Σέλευκος Jr.) spent his early reign dedicated to revanchism (reconquering lands lost prior to his reign), proving himself a formidable and widely feared military commander: expanding the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Empire significantly beyond any previous boundaries—further conquering Babylon and India!
qq
Thus, which Hellenist superpower would emerge to determine the near-term fate of Hellenist YᵊhūdꞋãh hinged upon Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd vs Senator Scipio "Africanus" as the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Empire and Roman Republic faced-off against each other for control over Mediterranean maritime and coastal caravan trade (including YᵊhūdꞋãh)—and their ensuing tax revenues.
Reports of Scipio's military genius, and the corresponding growing threat from the expansionary Roman Republic, caused increasingly conspicuous and consuming alarm for Ἀντίοχος 3rd
Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd over the Hellenist Σελευκιδῶν Empire, "defeated the Egyptians and incorporated [YᵊhūdꞋãh] into his [Hellenist Σελευκιδῶν] empire as a (Σελευκιδῶν) Satrapy. Initially, he simply perpetuated the Hellenist SãꞋtrap•y that had been ruling YᵊhūdꞋãh, merely changing the address for taxes and directives to his Hellenist Satrapy.
The rapid ascension of the Roman Republic from the west into Greece now became a direct threaten to the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Empire. Ἀντίοχος 3rd faced-off against Scipio Africanus' little brother, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes!
 |
| Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes |
At the Battle of Magnesia, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, son of Sipius "Africanus", pruned-back the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Empire. The Roman Republic defeated Ἀντίοχος 3rd in BCE 190-189, taking Ἀντίοχος 3rd hostage to control the Hellenist Seleukid Empire. The Hellenist Roman Republic allowed Ἀντίοχος 3rd however, his son, Hellenist Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής to proxy as hostage in place of his father (BCE 189–175), who swapped with other family members. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antiochus-IV-Epiphanes
During this period of uncertainty in Hellenist Syria, the army of Hellenist Ptolemy VI Philometor, the Hellenist Par•ōhꞋ of Egypt, laid claim to Hellenist Syrian-Pūlossia, the Satrapy of YᵊhūdꞋãh, and Phoenicia, which Ἀντίοχος 3rd had conquered. Treaty of Apamea required the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Empire to all terms of the Romans—as a Province of the Hellenist Roman Republic. after a stinging defeat at the hands of the Roman Republiic (BCE 190-89) Ἀντίοχος 3rd began a program of Hellenization that threatened to force the [Yᵊhūd•imꞋ ] to abandon their monotheism for the Greeks' [Hellenism].
Ἀντίοχος 3rd was killed looting a temple.
Both Hellenist Roman Provinces (SëꞋlë•ūk•ös and Πτολεμαῖος) appealed to the Roman Republic for help, but the Roman Senate refused to take sides. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antiochus-IV-Epiphanes
 |
| Antiokhos 4 Epiphanes |
Unlike Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd however, his son, Hellenist Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής , who inherited the throne in [BCE 176] resumed his father's original policy—but without excepting the [Yᵊhūd•imꞋ ]! A brief [Yᵊhūd•imꞋ ] rebellion only hardened his views and led him[, in concert with his symbiont, Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ,] to outlaw central tenets of ["Ιουδαϊσμός"] such as [Sha•bãtꞋ] and [Bᵊrit Mil•ãhꞋ]."
Even before Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd, many Yᵊhūd•imꞋ had already synthesized some principles of Hellenism that were shared and compatible with the core Principles of Tōr•ãhꞋ. However, many more Yᵊhūd•imꞋ, particularly the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, had even abandoned "Hellenistically unacceptable" aspects of Tōr•ãhꞋ to become more-fully assimilated into Hellenist culture and integrated—"accepted"—in the cosmopolitan Hellenist culture and palatial-society world of the international wealthy, famous and powerful set.
4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής & Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, the Hellenist Kō•heinꞋ ha-RëshꞋaΠτολεμαῖος Par•ōhꞋ, Πτολεμαῖος 6th Φιλομήτωρ, thinking the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Empire was divided (after Supreme Shãh Ἀντίοχος 3rd assassinated his infant co-Shãh nephew, Ἀντίοχος son of SëꞋlë•ūk•ös 4th, in BCE 170.
"Antiochus forestalled an Egyptian expedition to Palestine by invading Egypt. He defeated the Egyptians between Pelusium and Mount Kasion, conquered Pelusium, and in 169 occupied Egypt with the exception of Alexandria, the capital. Ptolemy VI was Antiochus’ nephew—Antiochus’ sister, Cleopatra I, had married Ptolemy V—and Antiochus contented himself with ruling Egypt as Ptolemy’s guardian, giving Rome no excuse for intervention.. The citizens of Alexandria, however, appealed to Ptolemy VIII, the brother of Ptolemy VI, and to his sister Cleopatra II to form a rival government. Disturbances in Palestine forced Antiochus to return to Syria, but he safeguarded his access to Egypt with a strong garrison in Pelusium. In the winter of 169/168 Perseus of Macedonia in vain begged Antiochus to join forces with him against the danger that Rome presented to all of the Hellenistic monarchs. In Egypt, Ptolemy VI made common cause with his brother and sister and sent a renewed request to Rome for aid, and Antiochus prepared for battle. The fleet of Antiochus won a victory at Cyprus, whose governor surrendered the island to him. Antiochus invaded Egypt again in 168, demanded that Cyprus and Pelusium be ceded to him, occupied Lower Egypt, and camped outside Alexandria. The cause of the Ptolemaeans seemed lost. But on June 22, 168, the Romans defeated Perseus and his Macedonians at Pydna, [Macedonian Greece] and there deprived Antiochus of the benefits of his victory. In Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, the Roman ambassador [Senior Senator], Gaius Popillius Laenas, presented Antiochus with the ultimatum that he evacuate Egypt and Cyprus immediately. Antiochus, taken by surprise, asked for time to consider. Popillius [Circle Drawer], however, drew a circle in the earth around the king with his walking stick and demanded an unequivocal answer before Antiochus left the circle. Dismayed by this public humiliation, the king quickly agreed to comply. Roman intervention had reestablished the status quo. By being allowed to retain southern Syria, to which Egypt had laid claim, Antiochus was able to preserve the territorial integrity of his realm."
BCE 168 — Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes launched a massive campaign of repression against the Jewish religion in 168 BCE. The reason he did so is not entirely clear, but it seems to have been related to the King mistaking an internal conflict among the Jewish priesthood as a full-scale rebellion. Jewish practices were banned, Jerusalem was placed under direct Seleucid control, and the Second Temple in Jerusalem was made the site of a syncretic Pagan-Jewish cult. This repression triggered exactly the revolt that Antiochus IV had feared, with a group of Jewish fighters led by Judas Maccabeus (Judah Maccabee) and his family rebelling in 167 BCE and seeking independence. The rebels as a whole would come to be known as the Maccabees, The rebellion started as a guerrilla movement in the Judean countryside, raiding towns and terrorizing Greek officials far from direct Seleucid control, but it eventually developed a proper army capable of attacking the fortified Seleucid cities.In 168 BC, Antiochus led a second attack on Egypt and also sent a fleet to capture Cyprus. Before he reached Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single elderly Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas who [served him a him with a Senatus consultum ordering him to cease and desist] delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus or consider himself in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around Antiochus and said: "Before you leave this circle, give me a reply that I can take back to the Roman Senate." This implied Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.[11] Ancient sources and traditional historiography describe this "Day of Elesius" as a great humiliation for Antiochus IV that unhinged him for a time. Some more modern historians conjecture that Antiochus may have been more reconciled to this than ancient sources indicate, as the Roman intervention meant that Antiochus had been given an excuse to not undertake a potentially long and costly siege of Alexandria. He could instead return with treasure and loot having weakened the Egyptian state at little risk and cost compared to a larger-scale invasion.[10][12]
Persecution of Jews
The Seleucids, like the Ptolemies before them, held a [satrapy] suzerainty over Judea: they respected Jewish culture and protected Jewish institutions. This policy was drastically reversed by Antiochus IV, seemingly after what was either a dispute over leadership of the Temple in Jerusalem and the office of High Priest, or possibly a revolt whose nature was lost to time after being crushed. Antiochus issued decrees forbidding many traditional Jewish practices and began a campaign of persecution against devout Jews. Swine were strictly unclean to Jews, but Diodorus wrote, Antiochus "sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses, and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the books, by which they were taught to hate all other nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the swine's flesh. And he put out the lamp (called by them immortal) which burns continually in the temple. Lastly he forced the high priest and the other Jews to eat swine's flesh." (Diodorus 34:1(4)). Such steps triggered a revolt against his rule, the Maccabean Revolt.[13] Scholars of Second Temple Judaism therefore sometimes refer to Antiochus' reign as the 'Antiochene crises' for the Jews.[14] These decrees were a departure from typical Seleucid practice, which did not attempt to suppress local religions in their empire.[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes
The main phase of the revolt lasted from 167–160 BCE and ended with the Seleucids in control of Judea, but conflict between the Maccabees, Hellenized Jews, and the Seleucids continued until 134 BCE, with the Maccabees eventually attaining independence.
In 164 BCE, the Maccabees captured Jerusalem, a significant early victory. The subsequent cleansing of the temple and rededication of the altar on 25 Kislev is the source of the festival of Hanukkah. The Seleucids eventually relented and unbanned Judaism, but the more radical Maccabees, not content with merely reestablishing Jewish practices under Seleucid rule, continued to fight, pushing for a more direct break with the Seleucids. Judas Maccabeus died in 160 BCE at the Battle of Elasa against the Greek general Bacchides, and the Seleucids reestablished direct control for a time, but remnants of the Maccabees under Judas's brother Jonathan Apphus continued to resist from the countryside. Eventually, internal division among the Seleucids and problems elsewhere in their empire would give the Maccabees their chance for proper independence. In 141 BCE, Simon Thassi succeeded in expelling the Greeks from their citadel in Jerusalem. An alliance with the Roman Republic helped guarantee their independence. Simon would go on to establish an independent Hasmonean kingdom. The revolt had a great impact on Jewish nationalism, as an example of a successful campaign to establish political independence and resist governmental anti-Jewish suppression.
 |
 Sica, Persian influence (photo: Mark Wessels, Ironside Edge Works) |
txt
Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής Outweighing the cosmopolitan Hellenist eclecticism, and addiction—like a moth to the flame—for international wealth, fame and social acceptance, however, the "extreme measures" introduced cBCE 165 by Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής served to unite the Yᵊhūd•imꞋ in revolt.
In the post-BCE 175 Hellenist Σελευκιδῶν-directed "Temple", the Hellenist-kō•han•imꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ were required to erect an altar dedicated to the Hellenist god Ζεύς. An emissary of the Hellenist Satrap was commissioned to oversee the commencement of the fully-Hellenized, previous [Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ZᵊrūꞋ-Bã•vëlꞋ,] as a "Temple" of Ζεύς. The ceremony culminated in a required physicomophic sacrifice of a pig to Ζεύς, opening the Hellenized "Temple" to non-Jews."
However, the officiating Hellenist-kō•han•imꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, מַתִּתְיָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן בֶּן־יוֹחָנָן (grandson of Shi•mᵊōnꞋ the Kha•shᵊmōn•iꞋ, descendant of Pi•nᵊkhãsꞋ—suggesting a long line of Qa•nãyꞋ tradition), heroically Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bin-Nūn 21.15, refused to comply.
When Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū refuse to comply, another kō•heinꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ stepped forward to sacrifice the pig to Ζεύς. Drawing his חֶ֔רֶב (Latin sica), Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū fatally stabbed the Hellenist kō•heinꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ and Σελευκιδῶν official.
Having killed the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös official, Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū and his family hid in the +mi•dᵊbãrꞋ around Mō•diy•iynꞋ, conducting Qa•nãyꞋim guerrilla raids against the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös. Thus, Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū sparked the rebellion against the SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Satrap, founding the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ).
It's not clear whether Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū died from natural causes or fell in battle, but he disappeared from the record in the lunar year beginning in the Spring of BCE 166. He was succeeded as the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ Qa•nãyꞋ by his son, YᵊhūdꞋãh "הַמַכַּבִּי" (BCE 166–160).
Thus, Ἰωνάθαν Ἀπφοῦς, the last Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ Qa•nãyꞋim warlord, was succeeded by his son, Shi•mᵊōnꞋ Bën Ma•titᵊyãhꞋū, garbled to the Hellenist Greek [Ματτα]θίας, who was appointed by Satrap as ἐθνάρχης. And he was succeeded as ἐθνάρχης by his son, Ἰωνάθαν, the last Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ ἐθνάρχης.
Being governed by an administrator appointed from one's own ethnicity (an ἐθνάρχης) is preferable to being ruled by a foreign administrator (like Ἡρῴδης the forced-convert Ë•dōm•iꞋ or a Roman Satrap)—which was the alternative.
Prince of Salome Aristobulus was the younger son of Alexander Jannaeus, King and High Priest, and Salome Alexandra. After the death of Alexander in 76 BCE, his widow succeeded to the rule of Judea and installed her elder son Hyrcanus II as High Priest in 73 BCE.[1] When Salome died in 67 BCE, Hyrcanus succeeded to the kingship as well. Hyrcanus seemed to be sympathetic to the Sadducees just like his father Alexander Jannaeus. Aristobulus rebelled against his elder brother. Because of this conflict, the Pharisees seemed to be in a vulnerable position at this time.[3] Aristobulus shared his late father's views on religion and politics. He entertained designs upon the throne, even during the life of his mother. He courted the nobles and military party by constituting himself the patron of the Sadducees and bringing their cause before the queen. The many fortresses which the queen placed at the disposal of the Sadducees, ostensibly for their defense against the Pharisees, constituted in reality one of the preparatory moves of Aristobulus for the usurpation of the government. The queen sought to direct his military zeal outside Judea, and sent him (70-69) against Ptolemy Mennaeus; but when the undertaking failed, Aristobulus resumed his political intrigues. He left Jerusalem secretly and betook himself to his friends, who controlled the largest number of fortified places, with the intention of making war against his aged mother. But the queen died at the critical moment, and he immediately turned his weapons against his brother Hyrcanus, the legitimate heir to the throne.[2]
During this civil war, the Roman general Pompey defeated the Kingdoms of Pontus and the Seleucids. He sent his deputy Marcus Aemilius Scaurus to take possession of Seleucid Syria. As the Hasmoneans were allies of the Romans, both brothers appealed to Scaurus, each endeavoring by gifts and promises to win him over to his side. Scaurus, moved by a gift of 400 talents, decided in favor of Aristobulus and ordered Aretas to withdraw his army. During his retreat, the Nabateans suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Aristobulus.
BCE 63 When Pompey arrived in Syria in 63 BCE, both brothers and a third party that desired the removal of the entire dynasty, sent their delegates to Pompey, who however delayed the decision. He favoured Hyrcanus II over Aristobulus II, deeming the elder, weaker brother a more reliable ally of the Roman Empire. Pompey defeated the Jewish armies in multiple battles, and took the fortresses of Judea. Aristobulus and his sons Alexander and Antigonus were captured in 63 BCE— placing the region in the Roman Republic sphere of influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristobulus_II & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
Between cBCE 104–103,
qqM2-JudahAlthough the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ obtained a brief autonomy (lasting less than a century, cBCE 167 – BCE 63) from the Σελευκιδῶν, who had ruled YᵊhūdꞋãh since BCE 175, the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ's own account was originally written in (Hellenist) "very ornate Greek"!
 350x365.jpg "ccc") |
  575x600.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Traditional Janbiya, the universal Arab mark of passage to manhood; silver Assib from Tiaham, Yemen (oriental-arms.com) 2. Traditional Janbiya as worn under robe in Arab attire. |
The founding family of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ emerged from the ranks of the successors of Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, the "religious Satrap" agent of Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής, who Hellenized the "Temple".
Thus, only 8 years later (cBCE 167) the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ, while being incommutably Tōr•ãhꞋ-centric and rebelling against the rabid impositions of the most extreme Hellenist prohibitions against Tōr•ãhꞋ practice, were themselves Hellenists—Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ (in contrast to the royal Beit-Dã•widꞋ oriented Pᵊrush•imꞋ)! Thus, the subsequent internal civil war only fits the facts when understood as between the core Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ, determined to promulgate their Hellenist kō•han•imꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ and Hellenized "Temple", but refusing the forcible imposition, by a foreign SëꞋlë•ūk•ös ruler, of a rabidly miso-Judaic "purity" of extreme Hellenism—beyond tolerant Hellenism as had always been practiced everywhere else in the world.
At first, when the nation's future was in doubt, a "survivalist mode" melded the cosmopolitan-tolerant but non-Hellenist Beit-Dã•widꞋ-centric Pᵊrush•imꞋ,
despite their rival being "Temple"-centric Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ
despite being abrogators of the throne of Beit-Dã•widꞋ (appointing their own "kings" not from Beit-Dã•widꞋ),
despite being perpetuators of Hellenism descended from Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, the Hellenist Kō•heinꞋ ha-RëshꞋa who betrayed his own brother (Khōn•iꞋ•yō Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ—the Mōr•æhꞋ ha-TzëdꞋëq), then conspired with Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής to Hellenize the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ZᵊrūꞋ-Bã•vëlꞋ and make himself the "religious Satrap" agent of Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής.
When autonomy had been secured, however, the disagreement became a gaping rip. Increasingly, the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ grew into arrogant, supercilious and cavalier qa•nãyꞋim, forcibly converting the Ëd•ōm•imꞋ into "Idumæan "Ιουδαϊσμός" converts" (e.g., Herod the Great and his Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "Temple"); believing they could conquer all of the surrounding empires and, similarly, forcibly convert them to their Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ "Ιουδαϊσμός"—coining a new denomination: Judaism; displacing DërꞋëkh יְהוָׂה. "Ιουδαϊσμός" argued the shared merits of reason, sound logic and education; but then contradicted their premise by proclaiming their Hellenist Greek ideology: "ἡ τοῦ νόμου". However, this was straying: Tōr•ãhꞋ means "Instruction", not νόμος!
“[T]his [Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ] education allows us to act according to what [Hellenist] Greek moralists regarded as the four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, courage, and temperance…
“Once the mind is equipped in this way, it can master the [παθή] – a complex term meaning all the emotions, passions, and senses that the [Hellenist] Greeks regarded as innate in human beings, and which they thought had to be controlled in order to live a virtuous life.
“So we have a very [Hellenist] Greek idea at the center here, but ironically, at the same time the author is stating that only the [νόμος-] and the [Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ]-Ιουδαϊσμός-"Jewish" way of life can give us the training in “devout reason” [an oxymoron
] that will enable us to control all these wild and unreliable emotions…
“Ironically, even though the preservation and justification of ["Ιουδαϊσμός"] is the central theme of the book, the entire argument and the rhetorical methods used are purely [Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ] Greek. The book was heavily influenced by Stoic and Platonic philosophy, both of which were widely known in the Hellenistic world…
“4 Maccabees also develops the notion of substitutionary atonement: The martyrs suffer in order to arouse God to forgive the sins of the rest of the people and to pardon them.”
Compare & contrast these Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ Greek principles with that of Tōr•ãhꞋ: MikhꞋãh 6.8 & Hō•shæꞋa 6.6.
R. BCE 67–66: Ὑρκανός Jr.
R. BCE 66–63: Ἀριστόβουλος Jr.
Ὑρκανός inherited the (illegitimate, not Beit-Dã•widꞋ) throne but was quickly vanquished by his younger brother, Ἀριστόβουλος.
While no previous dealings are known between Ἀριστόβουλος and an obscure—but very ambitious, particularly insightful, shrewd conniver and provocateur—forced-convert Ë•dōm•iꞋ official named Ἀντίπατρος; for whatever reason, the ascent of the former was perceived by the latter as a threat. Fearing that Ἀριστόβουλος was about to get him fired (or terminated) by the Roman overlords and his ambitions ruined, Ἀντίπατρος offered his considerable influence among his own Ëd•ōm•imꞋ people to Ἀριστόβουλος' rival brother, Ὑρκανός; laying out a convincing scheme for Ὑρκανός to regain the throne! Ἀντίπατρος offered to muster an Ë•dōm•iꞋ army to attack the army of Ἀριστόβουλος from the rear, in a pincer movement pinning his forces between the Ë•dōm•iꞋ army and the Ὑρκανός (later Antonio) Fortress; and regain the (illegitimate, not Pᵊrush•imꞋ Beit-Dã•widꞋ) Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ throne.
The time of this internal feud between the two Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ brothers for the illegitimate (not Beit-Dã•widꞋ Pᵊrush•imꞋ) throne was particularly misfortunate: early in Rome's Civil War between Pompey & Caesar. YᵊhūdꞋãh was located strategically between the Hellenist Πτολεμαῖος Empire (Egypt & North African rim of the Mediterranean Basin) pitted against the Hellenist SëꞋlë•ūk•ös Empire (Syria and Turkey ).
Ἀντίπατρος, commanding his Ë•dōm•iꞋ army (ostensibly in the name of Ὑρκανός), took control of Har ha-BaꞋyit and, in the name of Ὑρκανός, built and/or dedicated and occupied, the Ὑρκανός Fortress overlooking—and commanding—the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ZᵊrūꞋ-Bã•vëlꞋ that had been Hellenized by the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ since BCE 175.
Although Ἀντίπατρος placed Ὑρκανός on the "throne", he retained the real power behind the throne. Thus, Ἀντίπατρος became the power to reckon with. And Rome recognized that reality.
Thus, Ἀριστόβουλος controlled outside "temple" while Ὑρκανός (in reality, Ἀντίπατρος) controlled Har ha-BaꞋyit.
But both agreed that the daily Mi•nᵊkh•ãhꞋ must not be interrupted. So they reached an arrangement in which Ἀριστόβουλος would send in the necessary sëh, enabling their fellow kō•han•imꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ inside—nonaligned kō•han•imꞋ Executors?—to conduct the rituals.
“The siege lasted months and showed no sign of ending. One day, an advisor convinced [Ὑρκανός] to send up a pig instead of a [sëh].
Ζεύς] and now their descendants were killing each other and sending up a pig to [their Hellenized Temple]!“This led the entrance of Rome… In the year [BCE 64], Pompey appeared in Damascus. The Jews sent three delegations: first [Ὑρκανός] and then [Ἀριστόβουλος]. Each argued why Rome should side with them. A third group was sent by the [Συνέδριον], who told Pompey to ignore both groups; let the [Συνέδριον], the [ Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nã•siꞋ predominating over the Pᵊrush•imꞋ Av Beit Din], run the country. All three groups apparently agreed that some type of [Hellenist] Roman intervention would be welcomed.
“Pompey took his time responding. In the year [BCE 63], he arrived in Yᵊrū•shã•laꞋyim. [Ὑρκανός] and his army promptly withdrew. [Ἀριστόβουλος] surrendered and was sent along with his family to Rome where they were degraded in the Roman processional triumph. Nevertheless, his forces fought on against Pompey and [Ὑρκανός]. However, after two months the Romans broke through [the Fortress of Antonius
qqIn YᵊhūdꞋãh, the pro-Italian YᵊhūdꞋãh forces of Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "high priest" Ιωάννης Υρκανός" (r. BCE 47-40), allied with Ë•dōm•iꞋ (Ἡρῴδης' older brother) < !-- "By 198 B.C.E. the Seleucids were solidly in control, and would remain so up to the Maccabean Revolt (168–164 B.C.E.)." Excerpted from Lawrence H. Schiffman, From Text to Tradition- A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism, Ktav Publishing House, Hoboken, NJ, 1991. Under Ptolemies and Seleucids. Center For Online Judaic Studies. http://cojs.org/under_ptolemies_and_seleucids/ i.e. SatrapyRom = SatrapySel-- > Roman Satrap Φασάηλος and Ë•dōm•iꞋ Roman-Satrap (called "king", but he was not a king of Jews ) Ἡρῴδης the Great, were defeated by the Parthian-Iranians and their Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ predecessors of Beit Sha•maiꞋ< !-- שַׁמַּאי assessor -- >) ally Hellenist "Ἀντίγονος Jr. Ματταθίας (r. BCE 40–37); the latter was made Roman-Satrap (not "king") of YᵊhūdꞋãh while Ἡρῴδης fled to his fort at מְצָדָה. 
. succeeded by last Hasmonean: Aristobulus III, 36 BCE (only as High Priest, not "king").qq
In defeat, the insatiable hunger of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ to rule attracted the most militant anti-Roman elements to the radical "Fourth Philosophy" Qa•nãyꞋim-Sicarii; co-founded by Tzã•dōqꞋ "the Pᵊrūsh•iꞋ" —of Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Beit Sha•maiꞋ, and YᵊhūdꞋãh "הַגְּלִילִי" "the Qa•nãyꞋim" (Sicarii) Bën-Khi•zᵊq•i•yãhꞋū "the Qa•nãyꞋim" into its revenge-driven circle of Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ. Thus, the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ Ma•kab•imꞋ, who had then become viciously anti-Roman "cloak & dagger" Qa•nãyꞋim. The against both: first against Jews they deemed to be "traitorous enemy sycophants" (to Rome), and the contemporary (Roman) "antisemitic" superpower. Their implacable terrorism inevitably led both to the condemnation of the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Beit Sha•maiꞋ at YaꞋvᵊn•ëh and the destructions of 70 CE; relentlessly ripening into the Bar-KōkhꞋvã Rebellion 231 years later (132 CE) resulting in yet an apocalyptic destruction and exile, almost 3 centuries later (135 CE)—condemning Jews to be homeless foreigners, regarded as "enemies of god", wherever they turned, for millennia!
The Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ failed and ceased to exist, its remnant, Hellenist Beit Sha•maiꞋ, merging into the Pᵊrush•imꞋ. The (sole) remaining, declined, eclectic, cosmopolitan and tolerant Beit Hi•leilꞋ Pᵊrush•imꞋ understanding of Tōr•ãhꞋ was thereby proven, a priori, to be the only possible (remaining) set of authentic interpretations of Tōr•ãhꞋ from which to build: the Ë•mëtꞋ and TzëdꞋëq of Existant (Hebrew: יְהוָׂה) alone—of and for all creation and humankind!
While (primarily) the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ frequently attempted to draw Riyby into antagonizing the Romans, his most relevant comment on this topic was
“Knowing their evil conspiracy, Riyby said, ‘Why do you test me you hypocrites? Show me a coin for paying taxes!’ So they offered him a denarius. He said to them, ‘After whom is this icon struck, and whose is the likeness on this coin?’ They said, ‘For Caesar.’ Then he said to them, ‘So return to Caesar things that are for Caesar… and to ël•ōh•imꞋ things that are for ël•ōh•imꞋ.’ ”
This same movie is eerily playing-out yet again in Israel today. While the extreme Religious Right call themselves Pᵊrush•imꞋ (rabbis & ceremonial-only kō•han•imꞋ lacking yō•khas•inꞋ legitimacy), the bellicose and warlike Israeli religious Far Right of today clearly reflect the "Temple"-oriented, kō•han•imꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ heirs of Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ and Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής , culminating in Beit Sha•maiꞋ, clashing with today's more reality-grounded, education-friendly, tolerant, eclectic and cosmopolitan Beit Hi•leilꞋ Pᵊrush•imꞋ (rabbis & ceremonial-kō•han•imꞋ).
Pay it forward! Quote & Cite:
| Yirmeyahu Ben-David. PageName (update). Netzarim Jews Worldwide (Ra'anana, Israel). https://www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/Glossary/cccc.htm (Access date). |
 |
|
 |