[Avodah] Anshei Knesset Hagedolah

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:05:11AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: This brings up something that I've long wondered about.  Was the
: "Anshei Knesset Hagedolah" some sort of standing body in that generation,
: a sort of super-sanhedrin that didn't survive as an institution for lack
: of people suitable to sit on it? ...

Recall R Shimon Schwab's (retracted) notion that AKhG removed 168 years
from their own duration in setting out the current dating system. This
was his means of explaining Persian and Greek histories (which also cite
astronomical events we can accurately date) in comparison to Seder Olam.
Regardless of the merits of the idea itself, RSS takes it as a given
that AKhG was multi-generational.

It spanned from seifer Nechemiah to Shim'on haTzadiq (who met Alxander
the Great), so I think that's at least two generations.

But nothing during that period can be dated without a question mark.
Including Purim.

I think beis din hagadol got this major title with the return form Bavel
when it had to restore Judaism. And it lost the title when the last of the
nevi'im died, thus making it impossible to pass divrei soferim anymore.
But that's just personal guesswork.

BTW, "Sanhedrin" is from the Greek "synedrion" (transliteration mine)
which means "sitting together". IOW, "kenesses".



Getting back to the original topic, I would set Purim as a side-battle
in Persia's general internal strife between the polytheists and the
rise of Zoroastrianism. Many of the early "Zoroastrian" rulers accepted
Zoroaster's teachings except for the bit about rejecting the old gods.
Xerxes among them.

Achashveirosh, being a throwback to paganism, raises a pagan priest to
center stage. He had to, he was a commoner who needed to build a support
base for his ascendency to the throne. Haman has a thing for monotheists,
so he attacks the Jews -- but from the Persian historical perspective,
it's part of his attack on Zoroastrianism.

Herodotus refers to the Zoroastrians as a sixth tribe of Medes, so the
struggle would seem to figure into the unification of Paras uMadai.
Thus explaining the shift from Daniel's "Madei uParas" to Esther's
"Paras uMadai". Under Achashveirosh, Persian thought was ascendent.

Koreish is clearly Zoroastrian, of the two-gods variety, thus
necessitating Yeshaiah's nevu'ah that light and dark (very Zoroastrian)
and peace and evil all come from One HQBH.

When I posted this on Avodah two years ago, Lisa Liel quoted me and
replied:
>> ..., I see that Lisa [Liel] carries an article on her web site ...
>> explaining the idea besheim Dr Chaim S Heifetz in more solid terms,
>> as a battle between Mithrism and Zoroastranism....

> Actually, Dr. Heifetz's source for this is a book by Jacob Hoschander,
> published in 1923, entitled _The Book of Esther in the Light of History_.
> Hoschander's thesis was that the events of Esther took place during the
> reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon, and happened in the context of a conflict
> between monotheistic Zoroastrians and polytheistic Mithra worshippers.
> As a bible critic, Hoschander simply labeled our version of the Megillah
> inaccurate with regards to the king having been named Ahasuerus (Xerxes),
> but he brings a huge amount of source material to support the historical
> basis for the religious conflict in the Megillah.

> Dr. Heifetz used this as an important building block in his revision
> of Persian history....

Which means I could well be on the right track, if you think any
revisionism should be given credance.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha at aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507