The Hanufikkahtion of History

[Angelo_Michael]

1 Maccabees 8:

1: Now Judas had heard of the the Romans, that they were mighty and valiant men, and such as would lovingly accept all that joined themselves unto them, and make a league of amity with all that came unto them;
2: And that they were men of great valour. It was told him also of their wars and noble acts which they had done among the Galatians, and how they had conquered them, and brought them under tribute;
3: And what they had done in the country of Spain, for the winning of the mines of the silver and gold which is there;
4: And that by their policy and patience they had conquered all the place, though it were very far from them; and the kings also that came against them from the uttermost part of the earth, till they had discomfited them, and given them a great overthrow, so that the rest did give them tribute every year:
5: Beside this, how they had discomfited in battle Philip, and Perseus, king of the Citims, with others that lifted up themselves against them, and had overcome them:
6: How also Antiochus the great king of Asia, that came against them in battle, having an hundred and twenty elephants, with horsemen, and chariots, and a very great army, was discomfited by them;
7: And how they took him alive, and covenanted that he and such as reigned after him should pay a great tribute, and give hostages, and that which was agreed upon,
8: And the country of India, and Media and Lydia and of the goodliest countries, which they took of him, and gave to king Eumenes:
9: Moreover how the Grecians had determined to come and destroy them;
10: And that they, having knowledge thereof sent against them a certain captain, and fighting with them slew many of them, and carried away captives their wives and their children, and spoiled them, and took possession of their lands, and pulled down their strong holds, and brought them to be their servants unto this day:
11: It was told him besides, how they destroyed and brought under their dominion all other kingdoms and isles that at any time resisted them;
12: But with their friends and such as relied upon them they kept amity: and that they had conquered kingdoms both far and nigh, insomuch as all that heard of their name were afraid of them:
13: Also that, whom they would help to a kingdom, those reign; and whom again they would, they displace: finally, that they were greatly exalted:
14: Yet for all this none of them wore a crown or was clothed in purple, to be magnified thereby:
15: Moreover how they had made for themselves a senate house, wherein three hundred and twenty men sat in council daily, consulting alway for the people, to the end they might be well ordered:
16: And that they committed their government to one man every year, who ruled over all their country, and that all were obedient to that one, and that there was neither envy nor emmulation among them.
17: In consideration of these things, Judas chose Eupolemus the son of John, the son of Accos, and Jason the son of Eleazar, and sent them to Rome, to make a league of amity and confederacy with them,
18: And to intreat them that they would take the yoke from them; for they saw that the kingdom of the Grecians did oppress Israel with servitude.
19: They went therefore to Rome, which was a very great journey, and came into the senate, where they spake and said.
20: Judas Maccabeus with his brethren, and the people of the Jews, have sent us unto you, to make a confederacy and peace with you, and that we might be registered your confederates and friends.
21: So that matter pleased the Romans well.
22: And this is the copy of the epistle which the senate wrote back again in tables of brass, and sent to Jerusalem, that there they might have by them a memorial of peace and confederacy:
23: Good success be to the Romans, and to the people of the Jews, by sea and by land for ever: the sword also and enemy be far from them,
24: If there come first any war upon the Romans or any of their confederates throughout all their dominion,
25: The people of the Jews shall help them, as the time shall be appointed, with all their heart:
26: Neither shall they give any thing unto them that make war upon them, or aid them with victuals, weapons, money, or ships, as it hath seemed good unto the Romans; but they shall keep their covenants without taking any thing therefore.
27: In the same manner also, if war come first upon the nation of the Jews, the Romans shall help them with all their heart, according as the time shall be appointed them:
28: Neither shall victuals be given to them that take part against them, or weapons, or money, or ships, as it hath seemed good to the Romans; but they shall keep their covenants, and that without deceit.
29: According to these articles did the Romans make a covenant with the people of the Jews.
30: Howbeit if hereafter the one party or the other shall think to meet to add or diminish any thing, they may do it at their pleasures, and whatsoever they shall add or take away shall be ratified.
31: And as touching the evils that Demetrius doeth to the Jews, we have written unto him, saying, Wherefore thou made thy yoke heavy upon our friends and confederates the Jews?
32: If therefore they complain any more against thee, we will do them justice, and fight with thee by sea and by land.

(Continued…)

 

[Angelo_Michael]

(…Continuance: )

Deuteronomy 6:

1: Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:
2: That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.
3: Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.
4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
5: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6: And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8: And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
9: And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
10: And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
11: And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
12: Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
13: Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
14: Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
15: (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
16: Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
17: Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.
18: And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers,
19: To cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as the LORD hath spoken.
20: And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD our God hath commanded you?
21: Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand:
22: And the LORD shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:
23: And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.
24: And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.
25: And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Is the subsequent death of Judas Maccabeus, (related in 1 Maccabees chapter 9), interpretable as Divine correction/intervention for the [aforementioned] reliance/alliance upon/with Rome – which may have angered/insulted God; or does this sort of logic fall [more] into the category of that of the unwarranted accusations made against Job?

 

[Angelo_Michael]

1 Maccabees 8:
9: Moreover how the Grecians had determined to come and destroy the Romans];
10: And that they, having knowledge thereof sent against them a certain captain, and fighting with them slew many of them, and carried away captives their wives and their children, and spoiled them, and took possession of their lands, and pulled down their strong holds, and brought them to be their servants unto this day:

…]
18: And to intreat the [Romans] that they would take the yoke from them; for they saw that the kingdom of the Grecians did oppress Israel with servitude.

…]

**1) Are there any similarities between the fall of Greece to the Romans and Maccabeus’ alliance with Rome to the content of Obadiah – and it’s condemnation of Edom’s assistance of Israel’s enemies – that might be applicable in the event that God favor(s/ed) [weaker] Greece over [stronger] Rome in a similar manner as for Jacob and Esau? Should, then, there be any concern that, in allying with Rome, Maccabeus departed from reflecting God[liness] in/with his own actions?

1. Is there any justification (relative to Rome’s “assistance”) for Greece’s oppression of Israel that can be inferred from:**
   1 Kings 20:
   35: And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
   36: Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him.
   37: Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him.

?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well it seems to me that the Talmud is a direct product of the invention of Socratic methodology.

[slaps forehead] That’s brilliant! I can’t believe that never occurred to me before! Mishnah says “x”. Rabbi 1 says “x means a”; Rabbi 2 says “x means b”, because if “a” then not “c”, and elsewhere the Mishnah has said “c”. It does read lke Plato, except with Plato, there’s no ultimate recourse to any particular authority to settle the matter.

But why did it stop? That is, why is the Gemara “closed?” Is it that the direct line from the Sages is broken and nobody can claim to have learned a particular teaching from his teacher, who learned it from his teacher, and so forth?

 

[Hosh]

But why did it stop? That is, why is the Gemara “closed?” Is it that the direct line from the Sages is broken and nobody can claim to have learned a particular teaching from his teacher, who learned it from his teacher, and so forth?

My guess would be because its a historical document and its long enough. There continues to be new Torah commentaries. The “Etz Hayim” for Conservative, “The Torah: A Modern Commentary” for Reform, and a few for women that I know of. Plus Rabbis write all the time, the last one I read was Face Your Fear: Living with Courage in an Age of Caution By Shmuley “The Sex Rabbi” Boteach. As far as self-help books go its pretty good.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Is the subsequent death of Judas Maccabeus, (related in 1 Maccabees chapter 9), interpretable as Divine correction/intervention for the [aforementioned] reliance/alliance upon/with Rome – which may have angered/insulted God; or does this sort of logic fall [more] into the category of that of the unwarranted accusations made against Job?

There are so many interesting questions here to explore. The more general question is how did the Maccabee rebellion, and the course that it took, fit into God’s plan? I hesitate to ascribe every jot of history to God’s hand as if human’s were mere puppets but certainly Maccabees is a an interesting forshadowing.

1. Are there any similarities between the fall of Greece to the Romans and Maccabeus’ alliance with Rome to the content of Obadiah – and it’s condemnation of Edom’s assistance of Israel’s enemies – that might be applicable in the event that God favor(s/ed) [weaker] Greece over [stronger] Rome in a similar manner as for Jacob and Esau? Should, then, there be any concern that, in allying with Rome, Maccabeus departed from reflecting God[liness] in/with his own actions?

One thing to keep in mind is that Israel was a small-fry on the geopolticial stage except for one period of it’s history: King David. The Jews were looking for a messiah who would restore the Davidic salad days. But what if God had a different plan for them that didn’t involve political power but a priestly role?

1. Is there any justification (relative to Rome’s “assistance”) for Greece’s oppression of Israel that can be inferred from:
   1 Kings 20:
   35: And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
   36: Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him.
   37: Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him.?

Let me suggest a differnet view: If the Jews had not rejected Jesus and made war on Rome then Jerusalem would have been the vatican city. If we look at Maccabees in terms of what the Jews missed out on it seems that what they should have been doing was “turning the other cheek”.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I can’t Imagine that Greek philosophy didn’t influence the creation of the first Jewish philosophy. There influence roughly coincides with the first “sparks” of the talmudic era (according to Max Dimont).

Are you referring here to his book Jews, God and History? It’s rather old, surely others have taken up this hypothesis since.

The Sadducees took the Torah literally, while the Pharisees believed in interpertation, as there are contradictions to deal with. The later would have said the there disobediant son “God would have me stone you, that’s how serious he defines this crime, but there are things for the living which can be just as terrible”. Though I can’t claim to have read the Babylonian Talmud (it’s written like it came from a bunch of different peoples memories, and it did…and its terrible!) to me it represents the beginning of a history scholarship and questioning of the text, which has defined Judaism ever since.

One conclusion that I’ve drawn is that theology is constantly evolving, even (especially) in biblical times. But naturally people will disagree on the direction to take and some directions will lead into cul de sacs. Clearly Rabbinical Judaism was a renewal of some sort.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But why did it stop? That is, why is the Gemara “closed?” Is it that the direct line from the Sages is broken and nobody can claim to have learned a particular teaching from his teacher, who learned it from his teacher, and so forth?

My guess would be because its a historical document and its long enough. There continues to be new Torah commentaries. The “Etz Hayim” for Conservative, “The Torah: A Modern Commentary” for Reform, and a few for women that I know of. Plus Rabbis write all the time, the last one I read was Face Your Fear: Living with Courage in an Age of Caution By Shmuley “The Sex Rabbi” Boteach. As far as self-help books go its pretty good.

There seems to be a tendency in theology to want to create points of closure and boundaries around accepted scriptures. We have the closure of the Torah, the closure of prophecy, the closure of the (Christian) Bible, etc.

Otherwise, everything is always up for revision and reinterpretation.

But I submit that this is an entirely artificial distinction both because not all biblical texts and commentaries are created equal and because nothing is ever really final in our fallen world.

 

[Hosh]

Are you referring here to his book Jews, God and History? It’s rather old, surely others have taken up this hypothesis since.

Yeah, I couldn’t remember when the Talmudic era began. Wikipedia said circa 550 BCE, I find that hard to believe, though that is around when the Torah was redacted. I think Dimont put it at closer to 300 BCE.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Let me suggest a differnet view: If the Jews had not rejected Jesus and made war on Rome then Jerusalem would have been the vatican city. If we look at Maccabees in terms of what the Jews missed out on it seems that what they should have been doing was “turning the other cheek”.

I don’t understand the relevance of your promoted view. The Maccabean battles were fought before the presentation of Christ in Jerusalem. If I were to transpose Christian laws or concepts onto Judas Maccabeus, it would rather be the notion of not engaging in a battle without first considering the potential for defeat; to consider suing for peace. Yet, this is what I meant when I asked of the merit of the alliance with Rome: is it preemptive, or precocious, Christian logic; or an interpretable departure from Judaism?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yeah, I couldn’t remember when the Talmudic era began. Wikipedia said circa 550 BCE, I find that hard to believe, though that is around when the Torah was redacted. I think Dimont put it at closer to 300 BCE.

Well, I think you’ll find some dispute on this at least from Orthodox Jews who claim that the oral torah was handed down by God along with the written torah.

One great book that I would recommend is Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman. Friedman makes a very persuasive case not only for the Documentary Hypothesis (regarding the varied composition of the Torah) but also for placing the writings in specific historical settings (mostly during the First Temple period).

What would be interesting would be to extend his analysis to the Talmud and explore the historical events that led to it.

I’m very curious about your contention that the Pharisees were integrating Greek thinking into their analysis.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t understand the relevance of your promoted view. The Maccabean battles were fought before the presentation of Christ in Jerusalem. If I were to transpose Christian laws or concepts onto Judas Maccabeus, it would rather be the notion of not engaging in a battle without first considering the potential for defeat; to consider suing for peace. Yet, this is what I meant when I asked of the merit of the alliance with Rome: is it preemptive, or precocious, Christian logic; or an interpretable departure from Judaism?

You’re asking the right questions, here but I think you’re discounting the argument in the OP, namely that there were Jewish reformers in the Maccabean era who were what we might term proto-Christian. Judas sought an alliance with Rome because as a means to victory on the battlefield. He was playing great power politics.

Moreover, the eventual Jewish war with Rome was, in large part, an attempt to repeat the Maccabean success. That war led to the destruction of Jerusalem. The later war to the destruction of Israel.

I am fascinated by the timing of Jesus arrival. Jesus could not have arrived much later in history and still lived within any semblance of a biblical Israel.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

There are so many interesting questions here to explore. The more general question is how did the Maccabee rebellion, and the course that it took, fit into God’s plan? I hesitate to ascribe every jot of history to God’s hand as if human’s were mere puppets but certainly Maccabees is a an interesting forshadowing.

**I am not attempting to assert that humans are ‘mere puppets’, but quite the opposite; that God, the living all powerful God, who granted both free will and the Law unto us, would maintain the precepts of that covenant with its subjects.

My concern is that when Judas Maccabeus chose to form an alliance with Rome for the sake of protection – (something that, in the Law, is often referred to as the sole domain of God) – and since that ally, Rome, had a government that, in its unique form and appeal, could have been considered as a substitute for God; that therefore God would have been compelled to bring about the death of Judas Maccabeus for the sake of, not only upholding the Law, but also, perhaps, honoring Moses in a Davidic (i.e. “beat down his foes before his face” [Ps. 89:23]) way, or, yet solely in a, “whom the LORD loveth he correcteth (Proverbs 3:12)” way.

Or whether or not that defeat is meant to reinforce the lesson(s) contained in, **

Numbers 14:

26: And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
27: How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.
28: Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
29: Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,
30: Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
31: But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.
32: But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness.
33: And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
34: After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
35: I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.
36: And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
37: Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD.
38: But Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, which were of the men that went to search the land, lived still.
39: And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly.
40: And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned.
*41: And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper.
42: Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies.
43: For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. *
44: But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp.
45: Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.

?

 

[Angelo_Michael]

*Also, I wonder if Judas Maccabeus was considering the effect of not, "serving the king of Babylon," as recommended under the direction of the prophets many years prior to the alliance with Rome – how it led to the downfall of Jerusalem. Yet, in that instant, when Babylon was swiftly conquering civilization, we have testimony that he was ordained a servant of God, and that the resulting captivity that was being promoted by the prophets was inevitable; and not necessarily for the sake of military alliance, or protection from harm – (outside of that outlined in the impact of rebellion against God’s word depicted by those prophets) – per se.

So, in essence, the alliance (with Rome) could seem like an inappropriate attempt to infuse God’s word into the effort, when, perhaps in fact, there was no such requirement, advice, or commandment made; but rather the situation seems to imply the opposite sentiment – one of disapproval, and not endorsement, of the alliance [on the behalf of God].**

*** Reference**
Jeremiah 27:

1: In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2: Thus saith the LORD to me; Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them upon thy neck,
3: And send them to the king of Edom, and to the king of Moab, and to the king of the Ammonites, and to the king of Tyrus, and to the king of Zidon, by the hand of the messengers which come to Jerusalem unto Zedekiah king of Judah;
4: And command them to say unto their masters, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Thus shall ye say unto your masters;
5: I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me.
6: And now have I given all these lands unto the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.
7: And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him.
8: And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.
9: Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon:
10: For they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land; and that I should drive you out, and ye should perish.
11: But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the LORD; and they shall till it, and dwell therein.
12: I spake also to Zedekiah king of Judah according to all these words, saying, Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live.
13: Why will ye die, thou and thy people, by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, as the LORD hath spoken against the nation that will not serve the king of Babylon?
14: Therefore hearken not unto the words of the prophets that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon: for they prophesy a lie unto you.
15: For I have not sent them, saith the LORD, yet they prophesy a lie in my name; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you.
16: Also I spake to the priests and to all this people, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Hearken not to the words of your prophets that prophesy unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the LORD’s house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylon: for they prophesy a lie unto you.
17: Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon, and live: wherefore should this city be laid waste?
18: But if they be prophets, and if the word of the LORD be with them, let them now make intercession to the LORD of hosts, that the vessels which are left in the house of the LORD, and in the house of the king of Judah, and at Jerusalem, go not to Babylon.
19: For thus saith the LORD of hosts concerning the pillars, and concerning the sea, and concerning the bases, and concerning the residue of the vessels that remain in this city,
20: Which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took not, when he carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah from Jerusalem to Babylon, and all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem;
21: Yea, thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels that remain in the house of the LORD, and in the house of the king of Judah and of Jerusalem;
22: They shall be carried to Babylon, and there shall they be until the day that I visit them, saith the LORD; then will I bring them up, and restore them to this place.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am not attempting to assert that humans are ‘mere puppets’, but quite the opposite; that God, the living all powerful God, who granted both free will and the Law unto us, would maintain the precepts of that covenant with its subjects. My concern is that when Judas Maccabeus chose to form an alliance with Rome for the sake of protection – (something that, in the Law, is often referred to as the sole domain of God) – and since that ally, Rome, had a government that, in its unique form and appeal, could have been considered as a substitute for God; that therefore God would have been compelled to bring about the death of Judas Maccabeus for the sake of, not only upholding the Law, but also, perhaps, honoring Moses in a Davidic (i.e. “beat down his foes before his face” [Ps. 89:23]) way, or, yet solely in a, “whom the LORD loveth he correcteth (Proverbs 3:12)” way. Or whether or not that defeat is meant to reinforce the lesson(s) contained in, Numbers 14:…

I think we’re saying essentially the same thing in different ways. I’m only hesitating to say that God acted in Maccabees (and the later Jewish wars against Rome) and that it was sufficient for God not to act as the Jews expected and let history take it’s brutal course.

We can imagine that God expected the Jews to choose a different path. That certainly seems to have been part of Jesus’ message. (“Render unto Caesar…”, etc.)

Also, I wonder if Judas Maccabeus was considering the effect of not, “serving the king of Babylon*,” as recommended under the direction of the prophets many years prior to the alliance with Rome – how it led to the downfall of Jerusalem. Yet, in that instant, when Babylon was swiftly conquering civilization, we have testimony that he was ordained a servant of God, and that the resulting captivity that was being promoted by the prophets was inevitable; and not necessarily for the sake of military alliance, or protection from harm – (outside of that outlined in the impact of rebellion against God’s word depicted by those prophets) – per se. So, in essence, the alliance (with Rome) could seem like an inappropriate attempt to infuse God’s word into the effort, when, perhaps in fact, there was no such requirement, advice, or commandment made; but rather the situation seems to imply the opposite sentiment – one of disapproval, and not endorsement, of the alliance [on the behalf of God].

The question that comes to my mind is this: what was God expecting of Israel at this juncture in history? Great conquering nations come and go, history is filled with them. One of the key reasons that the Jewish authories rejected Jesus, but annointed Bar Khoba, was because Jesus did not promise political liberation from Israel’s enemies.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

The question that comes to my mind is this: what was God expecting of Israel at this juncture in history?..]

Another question is whether or not there are any similarities between the consequences of the actions of Judas Maccabeus, (if retribution therefor was indeed enacted by God), and the interpretable, and/or inferred (e.g. via correlation), consequences – (again, perhaps for an unwarranted military alliance*) – that may pertain to [the heir of] Shia Islam (PBUH)]; and whether or not these similarities, (if actually existing), can [somehow] help build a more stable relationship between Israel/Judaism and Iran/Islam [today]?

• reference [particularly] the 5th paragraph in the “History” section of link:
  islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

 

[Hosh]

Another question is whether or not there are any similarities between the consequences of the actions of Judas Maccabeus, (if retribution therefor was indeed enacted by God), and the interpretable, and/or inferred (e.g. via correlation), consequences – (again, perhaps for an unwarranted military alliance*) – that may pertain to [the heir of] Shia Islam (PBUH)]; and whether or not these similarities, (if actually existing), can [somehow] help build a more stable relationship between Israel/Judaism and Iran/Islam [today]?

• reference [particularly] the 5th paragraph in the “History” section of link:
  islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

Sounds like a really neat question but you need to rephrase it. I have no idea what your getting at

 

[peary1]

The question I want to pose here is to what extent do we rely on moral lessons that are fabricated from history (often before our very eyes). Is the moral lesson the thing, and history but a source of material, or should we treat history with greater respect accepting the gray nuances of our fallen condition?

And what are we to make of the Macabee period? The the Macabee success encourge the Jews to destroy themselves trying to repeat that success against Rome?

And what are we to make of the Jewish reformers of the Macabee period? Was Jesus a Jewish reformer? Is Christianity a similar reform of Judaism integrating the idea of a One God with Helenistic ideals of reason and universal culture? Is modern, democratic Israel a similar triumph of the marriage of Judaism and Greco-Roman ideals?

Moral lessons, even if fabricated from history, can teach vital truths. For example, one of America’s famous moral lessons involves George Washington, its first president. As a child, Washington was supposed to have chopped down his father’s favorite cherry tree. When the father confronted little George, he is said to have answered, “I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree.” The moral to his story (now known as a ‘fabrication’) was to teach children that to lie is morally wrong.

Maccabees is one of the books thrown out of the protestant bible which means generations passed before anyone even knew anything about Hannukah. Not all Jews celebrate it, even today. Only in some of the Western democracies has Hannukah been propagandized to ‘compete’ with Christmas. The same has happened with Kwaanza (most African-Americans do not honor this because it is a “made up” celebration that dates only back to the 1960s and has no relevence to them), and the latest one now is Ramadan and Id for American Muslims.

Getting back to your questions, I don’t think the success of the Macabee brothers set a standard for the Roman-Jewish Wars later on that resulted in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Jews have always fought repression throughout history no matter where they found themselves.

Jesus could be looked upon as a Jewish reformer in the sense that he believed in social justice, particularly for the poor and outcast. There was so much oppression throughout the Roman empire that Christianity became a revolution of the person’s inner set of values which changed the world, especially when introduced to the Gentiles.

The Church has always soaked up the best of cultures, even in the realm of thoughts and ideas. Israel is an inclusion of the ideas that began in the world and brought back to the Holy Land by Jews, ending the Diaspora. It is still developing its relationship to God as a nation, just as the chosen people are still developing their relationship with God and fulfillment of scripture.

That’s my take on it all.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Sounds like a really neat question but you need to rephrase it. I have no idea what your getting at

The question refers to many concepts I had explained earlier. Perhaps due to some inaccurate punctuation and syntax, I may have been less clear than intended.

The main points I’ve made are about the view God may have about certain military alliances.

I have been attempting to explicate the scriptural basis that allows me to speculate on whether or not God endorsed Judas Maccabeus’ alliance with Rome. It seems plausible that God did not approve of it.

Moreover, it seems there may be a correlation to some events pertaining to Islam. Basically, in the split between Sunni and Shia Islam there were some battles and, according to the referenced source, the Sunni side was oppressive and the Shia became weaker – which could correlate to the conflict between Greece and Israel (which apparently stimulated Judas’ desire to ally with Rome) – and, in a state of oppression, allied with an enemy of Sunnis to help strenghten them; much like as when Israel allied with Rome, Greece’s enemy, to help control their oppression.

So the question is based on the concept that God may not have endorsed either alliance, that is, neither Maccabeus’ with Rome, nor Shia’s support of the [Abassid*] revolters fighting [Umayyad] Sunnis.

And if there exists a similar disapproval, on the part of God, for both acts; and the resulting disciplinary actions, which may have been overseen by God, did both Israel and Ishmael harm – yet [primarily] for the sake of love-inspired correction – then is there a basis for a mutual understanding between Israel and Iran [today] on the importance of refraining from un-endorsed [military] alliances?

• Reference en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate