Hellenization in the Near East | Alex Smith

By Alex Smith

When scholars of the ancient world traditionally described the process of Hellenization, or ‘becoming Greek’, it was typically seen as a top-down process. The spread of Greek culture, government and religion was portrayed as being imposed by Greek overlords on captive states. In reality, Hellenization was far more complicated. The way places were Hellenized varied depending on where the area was, the time period in which it took place, and who was in charge. Levine defined Hellenization as the adoption and adaption of Greek culture. This article will compare the different ways the populations of Palestine and Egypt were Hellenized between the fourth and first centuries BCE.

Alexander the Great had conquered the regions of Palestine and Egypt in 333-332 BCE. After Alexander’s death, his generals vied for succession in what became known as the Wars of the Diadochi. By the end, Ptolemy I Soter had gained control of Egypt and Palestine. His family would rule Palestine until 198 BCE and Egypt until 30 BCE. As a result of his rule, Jews and Egyptians had been brought into the Greek speaking world, but Hellenization would take place differently in the two different regions.

The level of Hellenization in Palestine before Alexander is hard to identify. Martin Hengel used an account of a meeting in Asia Minor between Aristotle and a Jewish man who could speak Greek and understood Greek culture as evidence for Hellenization in Judaea. However, this Jewish man had reportedly spent a lot of time in the Greek states of Asia Minor so, if the story is true, it is the account of a single Jewish man in an area who had been Hellenized for a long time and is not reflective of Jewish culture in Palestine. Whilst a few Greek coins have been found in Palestine that date from before the fourth century BCE, these are rare and do not reflect a significant level of Hellenization. Hellenization in Egypt was different. The Greeks had been aware of Egypt for a long time and had supported some elite Egyptian families in their revolt against the Persians. But this was as far as Greek influence had gone in Egypt and there was very little Hellenization in the region before Alexander’s conquest.

Both Hengel and Millar have argued that the Greeks never had the intention to fuse local cultures with their own and change the ordinary people to become more Greek. They simply wanted to stay in power. This was true in both Palestine in the fourth and third centuries BCE, and in Egypt up until the Roman conquest. Where Hellenization took place, it was often the work of individuals and groups within the local populations to gain status and influence. Locals would sometimes learn Greek and give themselves Greek names, as language was at the heart of the Hellenistic world. As a result, it was sometimes difficult to determine whether a person was Jewish, Egyptian, or Greek. Greek was the language of the administration and only those who could speak it could hold official positions. It was also often needed in society. Whilst not going out of their way to see their culture as superior, and not attempting to directly Hellenize the Egyptians, the Greeks did take advantage of the local populations to implement their rule. When they could, the Ptolemies favoured Greeks in their administration. Whilst there was not a ‘racial policy’, there were discriminatory boundaries in play. This can be seen in Zenon Papyri no.66, where the writer complains that he is not being paid fairly because he is a ‘barbarian’ and cannot speak Greek.

By the first century BCE, some Egyptians had risen to positions of authority by adapting to Greek culture. An example of this Hellenization in Egypt after Alexander’s conquest was the cult that Ptolemy I formed, called the cult of Serapis and Isis. It contained both Greek and Egyptian religious elements, with Serapis reflecting both Osiris as well as Zeus and Hades. It helped solidify his power over the Egyptians and reflected Alexander the Great’s relationship with Zeus-Ammon. The cult may have had links to the worship of the Apis bull, which was already associated with both Egyptian and Greek religion.

Another way in which many Jews encountered Hellenization in the third century BCE was through the army. Many served as mercenaries to the Ptolemies and were settled on estates in Egypt. This number was increased after Ptolemy I Soter captured Jerusalem circa 302 BCE and brought 30,000 Jews back to Egypt for his army. They would have been Hellenized quickly as they were spread amongst other troops. This is evidenced by the fact that only twenty-five percent of the names of the settlers that we have in manuscripts are Semitic, the others being Greek, and with a few being both.

There was already a large Jewish diaspora community in Egypt before Alexander’s conquest, and this increased during the time of the Ptolemies. There was

a particularly large community in Alexandria which affected the Jewish population throughout Egypt. The Alexandrian Jews were strongly Hellenized. This can be seen through the creation of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures, and the Jews’ subsequent abandonment of Hebrew. There is evidence that by the second century BCE there were Jews in the highest levels of society. In 2 Maccabees, a Jew called Aristobulus reportedly taught Pharoah Ptolemy VI Philometor and had a role in his court. Similar knowledge on the innerworkings of royal life was held by the author of The Letter to Aristeas. It is impossible to know how many Jews rose through the social ranks, but it was possible to do so.

Hellenization in Palestine started off as reflective of that in Egypt. Like the Egyptians, the Jewish population had to learn Greek if they did not want to remain at the bottom of the social ladder. The Yehud coins demonstrate Jewish leaders becoming more Hellenized in the third century BCE in order to gain power from their Greek overlords. They were likely struck in Jerusalem and suggest the existence of a mint there. The Hellenistic coins no longer bore the name of the governor, meaning that it is likely that the mints were instead controlled by the Jewish high priests. This is supported by the fact that whilst bearing Hellenistic iconography, the coins were also inscribed with paleo-Hebrew myths.

The Maccabean revolt complicated the Hellenization of Judaea and Palestine. There were rebellions in Egypt, but these did not have the same effect on Hellenization as the Maccabean revolt. The first of the Hasmonean kings, Aristobulus was known as a philhellēn, a friend of the Greeks who was willing to engage with their culture. However, he also destroyed many Hellenistic cities and forced some Gentiles to convert to Judaism. He is representative of the Hasmonean paradox, in which the dynasty rose to power on the back of an anti-Greek revolt yet did more to Hellenize Judaea than any had before. For example, the Hasmonean Palaces in Jericho contain many Hellenistic elements and examples of Greek art, such as Doric capitals and colonnades, tricliniums, and hot baths; yet, they also included Jewish ritual baths and local pottery because of purity concerns. The Hasmoneans consciously accepted Hellenistic influences whilst maintaining their Jewish distinctiveness. 1 Maccabees emphasises how the Hasmoneans regularly got involved in Seleucid politics and Jonathan received valuable gifts after he successfully supported Demetrius I’s bid for the throne. He was given a purple robe and golden crown, representing his friendship with the Seleucids and a Hellenistic priestly role.

After the Hasmoneans, Herod the Great reigned over Judea and Palestine. He initiated a large building plan, both to consolidate his position at home and to fill the eastern power vacuum filled by the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra. His magnum opus was his rebuilding of the Second Temple. However, he also built many Greco-Roman buildings, including an amphitheatre, theatre, and hippodrome in Jerusalem, and a building that was both a theatre and a hippodrome in Jericho. Herod’s rule is perhaps the clearest example of a top-down cultural exchange. After spending time in Rome and the rest of the Empire, he imposed his Hellenistic vision on Judaea.

As can be seen throughout Egypt and Palestine, Hellenization varied depending on who was in charge and how they related to those around them. If the Greeks were in charge, then Hellenization was often the result of the local people wanting their favour and culture organically changed. However, if members of the local population were in charge, they often forced those around them to Hellenize.