BS"D
Jewish and Non-Jewish Interaction in the Greco-Roman Period Introduction An analysis of the historical and literary data available from the Second Temple era can arguably lead to the assertion that Jewish and Gentile encounters, relationships, and attitudes towards each other were extremely complicated. The attitudes and perspectives that Jews and Gentiles maintained toward each other during this period of time will be reviewed in this paper. A brief consideration of Jewish identity will also be considered in light of the relevance to our subject. An evaluation of Jewish attitudes towards non-Jews is significant in understanding the subject of Jewish self-definition during this critical era in Jewish history. To understand these perspectives a review of the Jewish distinctive afforded by the Hebrew Scriptures and the variety of thought extant in the post-Biblical literature will be conducted. In addition, I will review the delineations established by Ezra, the rise of Hellenism, and the concepts of social boundaries existent in the Greco-Roman period as found in Josephus, Philo, and other pertinent sources.
Jewish Self Definition The destruction of the first Temple and their subsequent dispersion throughout the civilized world during the post-exilic period brought Jews into unavoidable contact and activity with the surrounding non-Jewish communities in which they now lived. A large number of Jews settled throughout the various countries of the Mediterranean area and 1 the emergence of the Greco-Roman eras brought Jews into even greater commercial and social intercourse with non-Jews than ever before. They often retained the ability to regulate their own internal affairs and found favor before various rulers, but pagan ritual, idolatry, and Greco-Roman philosophies became almost impossible to avoid.2 As a consequence many Jews eventually found themselves 1 Jews were spread in large numbers throughout the Mediterranean world. Scholars disagree but the figures go into the millions. Harnack (1908:4-9) and Juster (1914:1.209-12) suggested that more Jews lived in the Diaspora than in the Judea or the Galilee, though their proposed figures disagreed. Harnack argued for 4 to 4.5 million; Juster argued for 6 to 7 million. Both of these figures are some to extent dependent upon the data provided by Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, though many scholars argue that the numbers given by them are exaggerated. John M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexandria to Trajan (Berkley: University of California Press, 1996), p4. 2 The first significant influx of Jews westward into Alexandria appears to have taken place in the fourth century CE. Eastward movements into Babylon and beyond stemmed from the 6th BCE. Their occupations were quite varied and it appears that wherever they settled, the were allowed to live in “accordance with their ancestral customs.� In the case of Alexandria, a Greek city, Jews were organized into their own semi-political body in which they exercised limited self-government. Louis Feldman and Meyer Reinhold, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans (Minneapolis:, Fortress, 1996), p22.
www.servantofmessiah.org
erecting a series of boundaries to defend against a growing tide of Hellenistic and Roman influence, while others succumbed to the politics and efficacy of assimilation. Others seemed to maneuver ever so carefully and managed to maintain a delicate balance of participation in both societies apparently receiving the advantages of both. Quite amazingly, despite the loss of national sovereignty, it appears that Jews drew significant numbers of non-Jewish adherents to Judaism during this period of time and this implies a rather complex and multi-faceted approach in how Jews perceived non-Jews. 3 According to Francois Hartog, any discourse about another social entity or being, reflects, in a mirror-like manner, an inherent discourse about oneself. Francois Hartog’s study concentrated on the subject of the Greek historian Herodotus, and his’ review of barbarian identity. Herodotus did so by contrasting barbarian character to that of his own Greek identity. Thus the depiction of an “other” or of a “them” requires the existence of a representative “us.” With regards to Jewish identity, since self implies other, “Jew” implies “non-Jew4” and thus Gentiles were often pictured as the mirror opposites of Israelites.5 Jewish identity was comprised of two key components: ethnic identity and religious practice, and non-Jewish interaction engaged and, at times, challenged both of these.
Judaisms The variety of expression within the ancient Judaism of the Second Temple period is quite evident and has led Jacob Neusner6 to argue that one must speak of “Judaisms” when referring to the post-exilic period of Jewish faith through the destruction of the Second Temple. At the same time, it can be argued scholars would argue that although Judaism was unquestionably diverse as testified to by the number of sects in the later period, there remained several key elements that seem to have been common in most parties. These factors framed how Jews perceived themselves. They also influenced the approaches/or philosophy they adopted in dealing with non-Jews. These overall elements factors were centered on the Temple cult, the Torah and its observance, and a sense of connectedness with the land of the Israel. Non-Jewish authors supply extensive evidence of key elements further defining Jewish identity and that consequently served to distinguish between Jews outsiders. These three points may be expanded more broadly. The first, and perhaps most obvious, is the monotheistic character of Jewish worship. Monotheism in and of itself was a key distinctive in a larger society that was characterized by polytheism. The second is the circumcision of Jewish males7; the third, the observance of the Sabbath8; the fourth, the observance of dietary 3
“The Jewish race, densely interspersed among the native populations of every portion of the world…Moreover, they [the community of Antioch] were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves.” Josephus, Jewish War 7:43-45. 4 Sacha Stern, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings, (Leiden: E.J Brill, 1994), p.1) 5 Gary G. Porton, The Stranger within Your Gates: Converts and Conversion in Rabbinic Literature, (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1994), p2. 6 Jacob Neusner, Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, (New York: Cambridge, 1987), ix. 7 Strabo opinions that “After Moses, from superstition arose…circumcisions and excisions and other observances of the kind. “ (Geography 16.2.37); Tacitus records:” They [the Jews] adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from mother people by this
www.servantofmessiah.org
laws9; the fifth a pattern of assembly; and lastly the dedicated study of the Mosaic law.10 Diaspora Judaism shared these central ideas to a large extent, however, unlike their “Palestinian” counterparts, they could not focus the same degree of attention to the Temple cult. Furthermore, their more intimate contact with Hellenistic culture brought some to modify their observance of the Torah. Though this cannot simply be equated to an attitude of infidelity with respect to Judaism. 11 In some sense, the variability of Jewish identity during this period of time appears to have rivaled that of modern society.
Toraitic Perspectives on Israelite Distinctiveness and the Nations E. P. Sanders would argue that the essence of these points might be summarized in the following manner. The overall distinctive perspective of Second Temple Judaism, according to Sanders, was centered on the concept of covenantal nomism12, that is, the idea that G-d has established a relationship with the people of Israel and that this relationship was embodied through the covenant of Torah.13 This perspective influenced the attitudes of many Jews toward non-Jews and non-Jewish attitudes toward Torah were seen as the proof in some quarters for keeping them at a distance.14 For some, non-Jews were held responsible to observe the commandments of the Torah just as Jews were and their rejection of Torah made them accursed of G-d.
Israel’s Election
difference. (Histories 5.5.2). 8 The idea of a seventh day on which work was prohibited seems to have been restricted to Jews. Meleager of Gadara, a town just east of the Jordan, ridiculed the Jewish prohibition of lighting fires on the Sabbath. The poet Riftilius Namatianus also echoed this criticism. Seneca, the Stoic philosopher held laziness as the reason behind Jewish abstentions from work. The historian Tacitus speculated that the origin of the Sabbath stemmed from the Israelite departure from Egypt or that it was created to honor Saturn. Romans such as Ovid, Seneca, and Tacitus provide evidence of Jewish observance of the Sabbath and paint a picture that portrayed Jews as universally observing the laws of the Sabbath by abstaining form work, lighting lamps, and drinking wine. Louis H. Feldman, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 366. 9
The historian Strabo believed that the dietary laws were not from Moses but were derived from a later period. “After Moses, superstitious men were appointed to the priesthood and then tyrannical people; and from superstition arose abstinence from flesh, from which it is their custom to abstain even today. “ (Strabo, Geography, 16.2.37). The Latin author Petronius recognized the abstention from pork as a key tenet of Jewish life.” Even if a Jew should worship the divinity of pork and invoke the ears of the sky above, if however he did not submit to circumcision and removal of the foreskin skillfully, driven out by his own people he will emigrate from a Greek city and not be able to observe the law of fasting on the Sabbath.” (Satyricon, fragment 37). Epictetus records the differences between Jews and to other regarding swine. “This is the conflict between Jews and Syrians and Egyptians and Romans, not over the question whether holiness should be put before everything else and should be pursued in all circumstances, but whether the particular act of eating swine’s flesh is holy or unholy.” (Epictetus, cited by Arrian, Discourses 1.22.4). 10 11
Steve Fine, Jews, Christians, and Poly-Theists in the Ancient Synagogue,( London: Routledge, 1999), p4.
David T. Runia, Philo In Early Christian Literature, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) , 65. “Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in G-d’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments…” E. P Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), p75. 12
13
E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1977,) pp.75, 180, 236, 422-426-428. “Let many perish who are now living, rather than that the law of G-d which is set before them be disregarded! For G-d strictly commanded those who came into the world, when they came, what they should do to live, and what they should observe to avoid punishment. Nevertheless they were not obedient, and spoke against him; they devised for themselves vain thoughts, and proposed to themselves wicked frauds; they even declared that the Most High does not exist, and they ignored his ways! They scorned his law, and denied his decrees; they have been unfaithful to his statutes, and have not performed his works. “ 4Ezra 7:20-24. 14
www.servantofmessiah.org
The Hebrew Scriptures detailed G-d’s election of Israel and described this special status in contrast with that of the other nations. Consequently, those born to the community of Israel were immediately considered as members of the elect, while those born into other nations were not. Such a privileged position was maintained collectively and individually by upholding the commandments outlined in the Torah. Membership in the covenant was dependent upon a faithful adherence to its statutes. The most important of these ritual observances were, as we noted, found in monotheistic worship, circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, and various purity and dietary laws. The violation of these precepts could render the membership of the individual invalid and render him an apostate. With the end of Israelite sovereignty after the destruction of the first Temple, the ability to observe the defining characteristics of Jewish identity was at the discretion of the ruling governments. Quite amazingly, the governments of this era extended Jews considerable latitude and freedom in observing their ancestral customs. The ruling monarchs often issued decrees guaranteeing Jews the ability to observe Judaism. Such favor was quite pronounced under later Roman rule and Jews maintained a highly privileged position in the empire dating back to the days of Julius Caesar.15 Other Roman emperors, such as Augustus and Claudius continued this trend. Philo of Alexandria spoke of the reverence shown by Augustus for Jewish traditions. Whether his respect was politically motivated or not, Augustus ordered that sacrifices should be carried out daily at his expense at Herod’s temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, whenever monthly distributions of money or food were made in Rome on the Sabbath, Jews were allowed to collect these distributions on the next Sunday. Overall imperial Roman benevolence towards Jews continued even after the failed rebellion against Rome.16
Jewish Interaction with Non-Jews: The Dangers of Social Intercourse The Biblical account in Exodus portrays Israel’s departure from Egypt and its journey toward Sinai as the definitive event in the election of the Israelite nation. Israel’s election, however also implied, Israel’s separation as found in Exodus 19:5: Now then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples. Indeed, all the
15 “I, Julius, Imperator and Ponitfex Maximus, Dictator for the second time, have decided as follows…whereas the Jew Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, both now and in the past, in time of peace as well as in war, has shown loyalty and zeal toward our state, as many commanders have testified on his behalf…surpassed in bravery all those in the ranks, for these reasons it is my wish that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander and his children shall be ethnarchs of the Jews and shall hold the office of high priest of the Jews for all times in accordance with their national customs, and he and his sons shall be our allies and also be numbered among our particular friends; and whatever high priestly rights or other privileges exist in accordance with their laws, these he and his children shall possess by my command. And if, during this period any question shall arise concerning the Jews’ manner of life, it is my pleasure that the decision shall rest with them. Nor do I approve of troops being given winter-quarters among them or of money being demanded of them.” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14.192-195 (47BCE)) 16 (Philo, Embassy to Gaius 23:155-158). The reign of Caligula saw Jewish rights curtailed, but the ascendancy of Claudius saw a recommitment by Rome to Jewish privileges. “ …I desire that none of their rights should be lost to the Jews on account of the madness of Gaius, but that their former privileges also be preserved to them, while they abide by their own customs…” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19:278-285). Alexander Severus, Roman emperor from 222-235 CE was so respectful of Jewish privileges that his opponents knew him as the “Syrian synagogue chief”. (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Alexander Severus, 22.4, 28.7,20.2)
www.servantofmessiah.org
earth is Mine, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Israel’s special role in G-d’s economy is re-affirmed by the oracle of the prophet Balaam found in the book of Numbers 23: 9, “…Gaze upon them from the heights, there is a people that dwell apart, not reckoned among the nations…” Israel’s future conquest of the land of Canaan is repeatedly described as the fulfillment of G-d’s covenant to Abraham. But it is also described as a judgment, in the book of Deuteronomy, upon the Canaanite nations for their sinful ways. Canaanite practices, from the perspective of the author of the Torah were considered abhorrent and the Israelites were warned repeatedly not to adopt their ways. The fear of syncretism was so great that the Deuteronomistic account of Moses’ last words emphasizes the mandate to completely eradicate the inhabitants of the land. No treaties were to be made, lest the continued presence of the indigenousness peoples prove detrimental to Israelite fidelity to G-d. From the accounts preserved in the book of Judges and in the books of Kings and Chronicles, it appears that such fear proved justifiably. Israelite faith, though still observed throughout the various tribes appears to have been frequently embellished and corrupted by Canaanite and foreign elements. Despite such uneasiness with regards to non-Israelites, the Torah anticipated a considerable interaction between Israelites and those it refers to as “aliens.” These aliens, dwelling in the land of Israel, are referred to several times in Toraitic law and in more precisely appear in situations where the rights of “weaker” groups of society are defended and preserved. In this context, aliens appear positively and in certain cases, the laws and expectations of the land were often applicable, equally to both native born and the foreigner residing in the land. The Torah also proposes that Israel’s relationship with the Divine would serve as an example for surrounding nations. The nations would stand amazed at Israel’s laws and praise the wisdom of its peoples. If Israel remained faithful to the covenant, then Israel would exert financial and pedagogic influence over the nations. It would appear, therefore that significant Jewish interaction with non-Jews was a given and not to be seen in a negative light. But the scenarios described all maintain one common theme, that of an Israel in full command of its administration and capable of determining where the delineations between Israel and the nations began and ended. The division of the united monarchy into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah and their subsequent destructions and exiles, altered this arrangement. Jewish interactions with non-Jews were now in the hands of the ruling authorities. Though ruling governments were generally favorable towards Jewish sensitivities, the lure of greater society was of increasing concern and many Jews viewed interaction especially with non-Jewish women as potentially catastrophic. Balaam’s oracle, encapsulates the sense of distinction, which lies at the center of then day Jewish tradition. Philo of Alexandria, in the first century, interpreted Balaam’s oracle in Numbers in 26:9 as reflecting Israel’s particularity of customs, and not geographical location as defining its separation. By Philo’s day, Jews had lived in Alexandria alongside Greeks for centuries. Yet the social interaction existing between Jews and non-Jews was restricted
www.servantofmessiah.org
on some level by retaining or instituting social boundaries that distinguished Israel. Thus, Israel’s customs caused Israel to “live alone” and these regulations maintained a sense of otherness.
Toraitic Perspectives on Intermarriage A disdain for intermarriage appears to have originated quite early from the patriarchal period. Abraham’s insistence that Isaac not marry a Canaanite woman is the first example. Jacob continues this custom by returning to his mother’s household in search of a bride.17 The most striking passage from the patriarchal period is found in the story of Dinah where Jacob’s sons responded to Hamor’s request for Dinah’s hand: “We cannot do such a thing, to give our sister to a man that has a prepuce, for this is a reproach to us.” Circumcision now became a key-determining factor in Jewish self-definition, a view only strengthened by the Torah’s stipulations and the custom of not marrying from the indigenous Canaanite tribes was formalized by the command found in Deuteronomy 7:34: Neither shall you make marriages with them: your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor his daughter shall you take for your son. For he will turn you son from Me, and they will serve other gods; so will the L-rd be kindled against you, and He will destroy you quickly. The text invested the command with the purpose of guarding against idolatry and later Judaism as reflected in the Talmud applied the restriction on inter-marriage to all nations liable to lure Jews into idolatry. The conflict between Jewish/ Gentile interactions in the case of marriage is quite obvious and the perceived threat was considered serious.
Ezra and the Bene Haggolah The early Persian period saw the partial reconstitution of Israel with the return of a small group of Jews during the quarter century following the edict of Cyrus the Great permitting Jews to return to their ancestral land. The returnees saw themselves as a group set apart having alienated themselves from the uncleanness of the peoples of the land and it appears that the legislation erected under the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah formally established a pattern of separation between Jews and non-Jews especially in the case of marriage. 17
Esau married Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite. In addition to her, he also married Basemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite. According to the biblical text, they proved a source of contention and bitterness for both Isaac and Rebecca. In marrying these two women, Esau apparently broke three important customs of his family. The first centers on having broken the tradition of allowing his parents to take the lead in establishing a marital relationship for him. The second lies in fact that he married outside of his family clan. Lastly, and most importantly, he married native Canaanite women who brought with them their worship of foreign gods. Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary – Genesis, (Philadelphia: JPS: 1989), 181.
www.servantofmessiah.org
Ezra’s reforms served to redefine the nature of previous Israelite distinctiveness and to create a sense of Jewish identity and history invariably connected to Toraitic legislation.1 Ezra’s arrival in Judea as an official representative of the Persian government in 458 BCE led to a series of reforms and measures to secure the survival of what some have termed the bene Haggolah, the sons of the holy race. Ezra’s arrival was met with the realization that intermarriage even among the priesthood was widespread and that the subsequent influences of such marriages, which included idolatry, were detrimental to the former exiles. He obliged the entire community to take an oath and enter into a covenant, which would reconstitute the people of Israel and in the process require that foreign wives be put aside upon penalty of excommunication and loss of property. Ezra and Nehemiah renewed the covenant of Torah with the remnant of Israel, establishing qualifications for membership on a number of pragmatic rather than theoretical observances of the Torah: When the seventh month came- the people of Israel being settled in their towns-all the people gathered together into the square before the Water Gate. They told the scribe Ezra to bring the book of the Law of Moses, which the L-rd had given to Israel. Accordingly, the priest Ezra brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding. This was on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from the early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand; and the ears of the people were attentive to the book of the Law. The scribe Ezra stood on a wooden platform that had been made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mitthiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand an Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, and Hashum, Has-baddanah, Zechariah and Meshullam on his left hand. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. Then Ezra blessed the L-rd, the great G-d, and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen” lifting up their hands. Then they bowed their heads and worshipped the L-rd with their faces to the ground. Also Yeshua, Bani Sherbiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozaban, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites helped the people to understand the Law while the people remained in their places. So they read from the book of the Law of G-d, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Nehemiah 8:1-8) Ezra’s arrival in Judea as an official representative of the Persian government in 458 BCE led to a series of reforms and measures to secure the survival of a renewed Israel. Ezra’s arrival was met with the realization that intermarriage even among the priesthood was widespread and that the subsequent influences of such marriages, which included idolatry, were detrimental to the former exiles (Nehemiah 9:1-3). He obliged the entire community to take an oath and enter into a renewed Mosaic covenant, which would
www.servantofmessiah.org
reconstitute the people of Israel and in the process require that foreign wives be put aside upon penalty of excommunication and loss of property.
The Rise of Hellenism: The Initial Encounter Between Greeks and Jews Judaism’s encounter with Hellenism in the ancient world is of critical importance to this subject, since the interaction/influence between Jews and non-Jews and its impact during the Hellenistic period extended far beyond the land of Israel, as opposed to the syncretism that occurred during the first Temple period and was marked by an incorporation of earlier indigenous Canaanite religions and the religious traditions of nearby nations. These two ostensibly different cultures clashed at times as demonstrated in the Maccabean struggle, yet we also know that contact between Jews and the Hellenistic-Roman worlds also proved quite appealing and beneficial for many Jews. The Jewish encounter with Greco-Roman culture was as Lee Levine describes both extensive and intensive even in the land of Israel.18 Greek perceptions about Jews were varied but overall appear to have been quite favorable.19 The earliest Greek records afforded Jews an honored place as philosophers and as an ancient people.20
Alexander the Great Alexander the Great and his conquest throughout Africa and Asia during the fourth century brought about a number of significant consequences for Jews living throughout the known world. His initial encounter with them appears to have been of a favorable nature and Jews in turn afforded Alexander considerable respect and honor.21 According to two parallel accounts preserved in the Talmud22 and in Josephus23, Alexander extended considerable regard to the High Priest and rejected Samaritan claims against Jews. 18
Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), p.xi Josephus refers to a certain story told by Aristotle regarding his encounter with a Jew: “Now this man, was entertained by a large circle of friends and was on his way from the interior to the coast, not only spoke Greek, but had the soul of a Greek. During my stay in Asia, he visited the same places I did, and came to converse with me and some other scholars, to test our learning. But as one who had been intimate with many cultivated persons, it was rather he who imparted to us. something of his own.” Josephus, (Against Apion 1.180-81) 19
20
Megasthenes, a Greek emissary to the Indian king Chandragupta wrote circa 300 BCE as was later quoted by Clement of Alexandria in the late second century CE: Megasthenes, the writer who was a contemporary of Seleucus Nicator, writes in the third book of his Indica: “ All the opinions expressed by the ancients about nature are found also among the philosophers outside Greece, some among the Indian Brahmans and others in Syria among those called Jews.” (Megasthenes, Indica, cited by Clement of Alexandria, Coverings 1.15.72.5) Also Theophrastus, the successor of Aristotle as the head of the Peripatetic school of philosophy noted that the Jews “…being a race of philosophers, they converse about the divinity; and during the night they view the stars, turning their eyes to them and invoking G-d with prayers. (Theophrastus, On Piety, quoted by Porphyry third century CE), On Abstinence 2.26. 21 “When Alexander while still far off saw the multitude in white garments, the priests at their head clothed in linen, and the high priest in a robe of hyacinth-blue and gold, wearing on his head the mitre with the golden plate on it which was inscribed the name of G-d, he approached alone and prostrated himself before the Name and first greeted the high priest. Then all the Jews together greeted Alexander with one voice and surrounded him, but the kings of Syria and the others were struck with amazement at his action and supposed that the king’s mind was deranged…Then he went up to the Temple, where he sacrificed to G-d under the direction of the High Priest…the High priest asked that they might observe country’s laws and in the seventh year be exempt from tribute, he granted all this. “ (Josephus, Antiquities, 11:331-9.) 22 23
Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 69a. (Antiquities 11:331-9)
www.servantofmessiah.org
According to the account given by Josephus, many Jews joined Alexander’s army but were nevertheless permitted to observe Jewish practices. Alexander’s untimely death also left his enormous empire to be ruled by his generals and created a new political reality. The division of Alexander’s empire among his general’s did not proceed without a considerable degree unrest and turmoil. The rise of Ptolemaic power in Egypt and Seleucid power in greater Syria saw the initiation of the battle for the strategic domination of Palestine. Jews were eventually divided between the various political entities, which were present in their geographical areas. Jews, once separated by distance only, now became separated by political increasing cultural distinctives. Jewish fortunes under Seleucid rulers were initially quite favorable and Antiochus III extended special privileges to the Jewish community. According to Josephus24 Antiochus III assisted the Jews of Judea in the restoration of the Temple and even contributed animals for sacrifice. In addition, he insured the religious autonomy of Judaism and remitted the tax burden of Judea. The royal attitude quickly turned and the influence of Hellenism on Judea reached its climax during the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes IV and his policies of forced Hellenization, a policy that might have been taken as a means to achieve greater continuity and cohesiveness in the empire.25 The Hellenization of Judea and greater region of Coele-Syria came about only in successive ways. Early on, the Greeks had followed the example of administration developed by the Persian Empire before them. As a consequence, Jews enjoyed considerable flexibility in their adherence to the Mosaic Law, but the steady influence of Hellenism on Judea and even Jerusalem was not preventable and the higher stratums of society inevitably gave way to the increasing benefits to be won by growing assimilation. The rise of the Maccabean resistance Hellenism was directed with the same if not more passion against the Hellenized Jewish elements and families of Jerusalem.
Hellenistic vs. Palestinian Judaism? The Maccabees, with Judah at their lead strove for power against the assault of the Seleucids and their forced Hellenization.. Yet as much as their struggle sought to return Judea to previous periods of Jewish spiritual and political autonomy, as in the days of King David, the Hasmonean rulers, who followed the victories of the Maccabees, allowed Greek thought, language, lifestyle, and education to invariably influence them. As the Diaspora expanded its boundaries during the late Second Temple period, the inevitability of Greco—Roman influence became apparent and many Jews saw advantages in mastering the ways of the Greeks much like the Hasmoneans rulers did. 24
(Jewish Antiquities 12.138-153), “King Antiochus to Ptolemy, greeting. Inasmuch as the Jews, from the very moment when we entered their country, showed eagerness to serve us and when we came to the city, gave us a splendid reception and met us with their senate…we have seen fit on our part to requite them for these acts and to restore their city…to furnish them for their sacrifices an allowance of sacrificial animals, wine, oil, and frankincense to the value of 20,000 pieces of silver…[they] shall be relieved of the poll tax and the crown tax, and the salt tax which they pay…” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 12:138-153) 25
www.servantofmessiah.org
Jews encountered the Greek mind and often excelled in its world. But Jews were confronted with philosophical perspectives that often ran quite differently from their own Semitic ideals. Philo of Alexandria, who is viewed as the Hellenistic Jew, par excellence, remained in his view staunchly committed to Judaism, albeit an often highly symbolic Judaism that sought to encounter the rational creativity evident in Greek philosophy and worldview apart from an uncompromising fundamentalism often found in other Judaisms of the day.26
Proper Boundaries in Philo’s Alexandria Establishing proper boundaries of separation in light of pagan surroundings was complicated; nevertheless, Philo recognized the benefit of education received through means of the gymnasium and mentions that many Jewish families sent their children to receive such instruction. Philo’s familiarity and perhaps even participation in certain sports was tempered by his insistence that Jews not partake in the various triennial festivals of boxing, wrestling, and other sports whose celebrations were ingrained with pagan practice. Nevertheless, Philo believed that circumstances often compelled Jews to participate in rituals and events that normally would and should avoid. Jews often frequented theatres, which were subsequently the site of various pagan practices, and it appears that Philo himself often attended activities there. Thus we gather that at least for some Jews, the demarcation between participation in greater society and adherence to Judaism was rather vague and their boundaries were drawn in such a way to allow considerable involvement in society at large. Evidence recorded in later rabbinic works display a much more antagonistic attitude towards this involvement. The rabbis viewed this negatively for it might take away from time spent in studying the Torah. However, they also found justification for attending stadia if they might save victims by shouting on their behalves. 27 The conflict between the Greco-Roman worldview, culture and education and the ancient Israelite- Jewish perspective was destined to spawn considerable debate in its day and in future years. Jewish interaction with and at times assimilation into the non-Jewish world remained a concern for Jewish communities in succeeding generations. In any case, Jewish perspectives on the question of the educational makeup of Judaism were altered significantly.
26 (Spec 2:230, Prob. 26, Prov. 58, Agr. 110-21) Two examples of such religious zealotry can be found in the example of the earliest Hasidim during the outbreak of the Antiochian persecution during the Maccabean period. When faced with the choice of violating the Sabbath to defend themselves against the Seleucids, they chose death. The second example can be found in the general character of the Qumranic/Essenic community that viewed much of Judaism as utterly comprised and Hellenized.
27
“ Our Rabbis taught: Those who visit stadiums or a camp an witness there [the performance of sorcerers and enchanters…lo, this is “the seat of the scornful,” and against those [who visit them] Scripture says, “Happy is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked…nor sat in the seat of the scornful, but his delight is in the law of the L-rd. (Psalm 1.1-2). From here you can infer that those things cause one to neglect the Torah. The following was cited as contradicting the foregoing: It is permitted to go to stadiums, because the shouting on e may save [the victim] One is permitted to go to a camp for the purpose of maintaining order in the country, providing he does not conspire [with the Romans]; but for the purpose of conspiring it is forbidden.” (Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 18b)
www.servantofmessiah.org
The views and experiences of the Hellenistic minded Jews of Alexandria with Philo, as their champion did not dissipate at the end of the Second Temple Era. On the contrary, as Jewish fortunes declined, Jewish communities often became more susceptible to the influence and dynamic of non-Jewish sources forming the dominant culture. In Philo’s world, Greek education often opened significant doors of opportunity. Scholars constantly debate the extent to which one may draw the line between the Jewish communities of the Diaspora and those in the land of Israel. In fact some would even go as far as to question the designation of two such distinct entities. Nevertheless, while it is clear that greater Palestine was invariably influenced by both Hellenistic thought and language even after the Maccabean struggle and victory, we should not forget the inherent differences that must have existed between Palestinian and Diaspora Jewish communities. Outside of the higher stratums of society however, it appears that few Jews in Palestine seem to mastered Greek literature. With regard to later Judaism, Elisha ben Abuyah was acquainted with Greek poetry, but he is held up as an example of apostasy. The attitude and familiarity of Palestinian Jews with the Greek language and literature is described by a passage described in Josephus. He notes the negative attitude of Jews toward linguists and philosophers, instead of those who had mastered the law.28 The circumstances and sensitivities surrounding each group must be understood. While we cannot, I believe simply label Diaspora Judaism as Hellenistic, its character was certainly more accustomed to Hellenistic ideas than that of its Palestinian counterpart. Jews in Judea and Galilee could to some extent shield themselves against the pervading arm of Hellenism by sheer numbers and because of the locality of the Temple cult.29 Diaspora Jews could not necessarily, outside of centers like Alexandria, count on the numbers to secure an ideological and theological place of refuge. We should therefore consider that within Diaspora Judaism, there existed something we might term as Hellenistic Judaism. These two groups may be designated as representing two broad orientations of Jewish life than merely factions. The Diaspora saw the creation of rival Temple cults along the Elephantine River in Persia and the Temple at Leontopolis. The perspective of these two groups is manifested in the very nature of their linguistic differences.
Inter-Marriage in the Greco-Roman Period Josephus30 in mentioning the story of Midianite women and their seduction of Jewish youth in Numbers 25:1-16 is regarded as having used this story as a means of reflecting 28
…Our people do not favor those persons who mastered the speech of many nations, or who adorn their style with smoothness of diction, because they consider that not only is such skill common to ordinary freemen but that even slaves who so choose may acquire it. But they give credit for wisdom to those alone who have an exact knowledge of the law and who are capable of interpreting the meaning of the Holy Scriptures… (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.263-5) 29 Despite his liberal attitude toward the study of the Greek language and literature, Josephus appears to have quite strict during his residence in the Galilee against decorative art prohibited by the Romans. “…I told them that I and my associates had been commissioned by the Jerusalem assembly to press the for the demolition of the palace erected by Herod the tetrarch, which contained representations of animals- such a style of architecture being forbidden by the laws [Exodus 20:4]… (Josephus Life 64-65.) 30
Ant. 4:126-158
www.servantofmessiah.org
the various social pressures that Jews felt from the greater society during his day and the subsequent struggle on the question of proper separation and integration.31 Josephus in keeping with Jewish tradition of the time, interpreted Numbers 25:1-16 along the following lines: “Behold, these (the women of Midian) caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the L-rd.” Balaam’s counsel to Balak and the Midianites was to seduce the children of Israel by enticing them with attractive women and subsequently leading astray the young men by making them renounce their worship of G-d and instead embrace polytheism.32 According to Josephus, this rejection of G-d and the acceptance of pagan idolatry led to a revolt against Moses and the Torah led by a certain Zambrias. Zambrias’ chief argument against Moses was formulated in terms of the cherished Greek ideals of selfdetermination and freedom. The laws enacted under Moses were contrasted towards the pleasures of the world and regarded as restrictive and authoritarian. Philo agreed with the views espoused by the Torah regarding inter-marriage and viewed the Jewish member of such a relationship as prone to surrender to the force of opposing pagan customs.33 Such arguments it appears were commonplace in the Second Temple period by Judaism’s detractors. Thus it appears that at least much of Judaism was under siege and under constant vigil against pagan influence.34 Thus the rabbis of later generations considered inter-marriage as tantamount to encouraging idolatry. 35 The son of a non-Jewish father would follow after his father’s worship while the non-Jewish son of a Jewish father would become as all non-Jews, according to one opinion of the Talmud, an enemy of G-d. The prohibition against intermarriage served as a social boundary, which was directly aimed at the protection of Israel’s identity and maintenance of Israel’s dissociation from the rest of the nations. Even passages referring to the forbidden practices of the Canaanites were used quite early in Jewish tradition as further proof for the prohibition against marrying non-Jews. Leviticus 18:21 which reads: “And you shall not give your offspring to be passed on to Molekh” is translated by the Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan as follows: “…And you shall not have intercourse with a non-Jewish woman and give her your seed and make her pregnant for the benefit of some other worship.”
Boundaries in Jewish and Non-Jewish Social Interaction Many Jews did not to share in meals with their Gentile neighbors. The chief concern of the Lukan story in the book of Acts36 records centers around Jewish avoidance of tablefellowship with non-Jews because of purity considerations. While the applicability of 31
Peder Borgen, Early Christian and Hellenistic Judaism, (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1996),18. Antiquities 4:129-130 Philo, The Special Laws 3.5.29 34 Josephus records the words attributed to the Midianite women who seduced the Israelite men: Seeing then… that ye have customs and a mode of life wholly alien to all mankind… it behooves you, if ye would live with us, also revere our G-ds… Nor can any man reproach you for venerating the special G-ds of the country whereto ye are come, above all when our G-ds are common to all mankind, while yours have no other worshipper. They must therefore either fall in with the beliefs of all men or look for another world, where they could live alone in accordance with their peculiar laws… (Antiquities 4:137-138) 35 Yebamoth. Sanhedrin. 9:7. 32 33
36
Acts 10.
www.servantofmessiah.org
purity definitions to Gentiles was debatable in some Jewish communities, the greatest concerns centered on the question of Gentile food and drink. Other Jews were more meticulous in their observance of ritual purity and participation in any activity involving pagan ritual was unacceptable. The question of shared meals became a focus of concern since most pagan ritual involved some form of pagan sacrifice or libation. For many Jews meals with Gentiles were not only unacceptable but were regarded as the first step towards moral and spiritual corruption. The historian Diodorus Siculus records that the Jews: “…Alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies.” Siculus adds that many Jews introduced restrictions on fellowship and maintained laws that forbade sharing tables with any other nation. The same restrictions appear to exist within the pages of the book of Jubilees (22:16) and the book of 3Maccabees (3:4). Nevertheless, there appears to have existed some flexibility with these restrictions. The book of Joseph and Aseneth 7:1 retells the story that Jospeh’s’ meals were separate from that of the Egyptians. The account continues however, by recording Joseph’s meal with Pentephres the priest of Heliopolis. We also learn from the letter of Aristeas that several Jewish delegated ate with King Ptolemy II Philadelphus. This meal, however, was served in accordance with Jewish observance and no pagan acts too place. 37 It appears, at least for some, that such accommodations were an acceptable means of maintaining proper ritual observance and yet maintaining involvement in society as well. Philo also informs us that one means of solving this issue was to entertain guests separately each in accordance with its ancestral traditions. Later rabbinic tradition however looked down upon even this form of accommodation. “If a Gentile held a banquet for his son and invited all the Jews in his town, notwithstanding that they eat their own food and drink their own wine, the scripture charges them, as if they had eaten of the sacrifices of the dead. (Abodah Zarah 8a)” Nevertheless, we may gather that such a harsh position was adopted because of the tendency or at least occurrence towards such circumstances. Even for Philo, whom we have seen adopting a more liberal stance towards this issue, came to regard certain participation in religious meals as a violation of Jewish law on dietary matters as well as on matters of idolatry. Porton, writing on the interrelationship between Jews and Gentiles in the Mishna Tosefta concludes that later Judaism adopted a more middle road position on these issues. The Mishna Tosefta displays a rather practical attitude toward the gentiles as idolaters. On the one hand, Israelites must avoid any direct or indirect contact with Gentile religious rites. The texts support the view that unless its is clear that the gentile is engaging in religious activity, the Jews need not be concerned with inter-acting with non-Jews. Furthermore, the authors of Mishna Tosefta seem to have assumed that the individual Jew could determine when the gentile was an idolater so that much of the 37
Ep. Arist. 181-86.
www.servantofmessiah.org
concern with idolatry was internalized…The goal was to avoid idolatry, while at the same time existing and flourishing in an environment which necessitated daily contact with idols and their worshippers…38 The historian Diodorus Siculus provides us with additional record to the fact that the Jews:” alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies.”39
Conversion in the Greco-Roman Period Judaism struggled amidst the tension of religious observance and participation in society and it appears that many gave way to compromise with polytheism. However, we also learn from Josephus that several Jewish practices, namely the Sabbath, fast days, lighting of lamps to usher in the Sabbath, and several (though not all) dietary laws had spread among Gentiles. Yet despite adopting such practices these individuals did not actually become Jews. Several archeological inscriptions indicate that at least at certain times Jews found themselves in prominent activity with pagan worship without rejecting Judaism. An inscription dating from the year 60 C.E. in Cyrene records a Jew named Eleazar the son of Jason possessing a prominent position as a “guarding of the laws” in the city in conjunction with those of two high priests of Apollon honoring a pagan deity. Peder Borgen infers that Eleazar had not abandoned Judaism since he did not follow of exchanging his Jewish name for a Greek one. 40 On the other hand, Jewish interaction in pagan culture often produced the very result that Josephus described in the review of the Midianite story. Philo of Alexandria indicates that there were Jews who apparently were led to pagan worship through various “prophetic” oracles or through the inducement of friends or family. Although membership was typically secured by birth, outsiders could join and enter the covenant through conversion. Conversion came about through some form of interaction with non-Jews and the subsequent dispersion of Jews throughout the civilized world brought Jews into increasing contact, activity, and influence by and upon the surrounding Gentiles communities in which they lived. Judaism maintained a long tradition of polemic against paganism and the definitive act to mark the initiation of proselytes was to abandon the images of their G-ds and the corresponding honors and rites attributed with them. 41 The cities of the Roman Empire created a difficult situation for Jews and their sympathizers in trying to differentiate worship of the One G-d from that of polytheism. Eventually attitudes concerning how to deal with the Gentile question varied and the question as Peder Borgen puts it became “how far one might go” as far as interaction in daily life between the two. 42 38
39
Peder Borgen, Early Christian and Hellenistic Judaism, (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1996),29-30.
Ep. Arist. 181-86.
40 40
Peder Borgen, Early Christian and Hellenistic Judaism, (Edinb urgh: T& T Clark, 1996),,21.. 41 Paul letter to the Galatians (4:8-9) and the Thessalonians (1:9) points out that these congregations were composed of Gentiles who had abandoned idols and turned to know the one true G-d. 42 Peder Borgen, Early Christian and Hellenistic Judaism, (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1996), 17.
www.servantofmessiah.org
Religious Jews reacted differently toward any Gentiles who had abandoned paganism. There are some scholars who argue that these situations afforded at least some relaxation of these boundaries by at least some Jews. Gentiles who showed interest in Judaism and Jewish lifestyle were examples of such circumstances. While we cannot necessarily define what aspects of Jewish life Gentiles interested in Judaism adopted, we learn that observance of the Sabbath and dietary restrictions became common throughout the known world. The Jewish Diaspora had the effect of “evangelization” among the Gentiles. While it is clear, as we have seen that Jews often found involvement in society difficult, their presence and involvement invariably affected their Gentile neighbors. Many especially amidst the polytheistic environment of the day looked upon the monotheistic elements of Judaism favorably. The depiction of Cornelius as a contributor and sympathizer to the Jewish community can be compared in part to the existence of this practice in subsequent centuries. Archeological finds in Aphrodisias in Asia have provided us with a point of reference for Gentile contributions. The inscriptions convey important economic information, including the occupation of the benefactor.43 Contributions by G-d fearers were not limited to humanitarian areas. G-d fearers as Josephus relates to us even participated in the funding of the Temple in Jerusalem. Josephus distinguishes between those who are Jews and those who, without actually becoming Jews, worshipped the G-d of Israel. But no need wonder that there was so much wealth in our Temple, for all the Jews throughout the habitable world, and those who worshipped G-d even those from Asia and Europe, had been contributing to it for a very long time. 44 Whether or not the religious interaction between G-d-fearers and Jews translated into a greater degree of social intimacy is not clear, though. Josephus informs us of certain Gentiles in Antioch who were incorporated to some extent into the Jewish community. Nevertheless, they remained on the outer fringes of the community and were not fully integrated within it. We should conclude that their acceptance of Jewish ceremonies enabled a greater degree of association with the Jewish community and afforded them higher standing in the eyes of Jews than other Gentiles. However, their participation was apparently limited at certain levels nonetheless. Full assimilation and interaction could be achieved through conversion. Converts and proselytes differed from G-d fearers in as much as they fully embraced Judaism and were consequently accepted into full social intercourse. The key to initiation was circumcision and during the second Temple period there appears to have been a nearly universal recognition of the necessity of this rite in conversion. Nevertheless we do find some 43 “…Below are listed the members of the decany of the disciples of the law, also known as those who fervently praise G-d, who erected, for the relief of suffering for the community, at their personal expense, this memorial building: Jael, president, with son Joshua, magistrate; Samuel leader of the decany, a proselyte; …Emmonios ‘G-d fearer’; Antoninos ‘G-d fearer’” Louis H.Feldman, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 142. 44 (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14.11)
www.servantofmessiah.org
limited examples, which may lend some credence to the belief that among some Jews, circumcision was not the definitive event validating conversion. The typical example presented is that of King Izates. King Izates was taught about Judaism from a Jewish merchant by the name of Ananias. Izates grew favorably inclined towards Judaism but was strongly urged not to undergo circumcision because of unfavorable political consequences. Ananias informed Izates that G-d would accept his devotion and worship and forgive this omission that circumstances demanded it. But others subsequently opposed Ananias’ instruction and King Izates situation centered primarily on political issues. Nonetheless we find our first instance of acceptance into the community of Israel without circumcision as the definitive event. Philo of Alexandria similarly informs us that certain Alexandrian Jews regarded the act of circumcision as unnecessary by adopting an allegorical understanding of this. Furthermore Philo speaks of those who have not actually but only figuratively under gone circumcision. Why does [Scripture] in admonishing, ‘Thou shall not oppress a sojourner, ‘ add, ‘For ye were sojourners in the land of the Egyptians’? [Scripture] first makes it clearly apparent and demonstrable that in reality the sojourner is one who circumcises not his un-circumcision but his desires and sensual pleasures and the other passions of the soul. For in Egypt the Hebrew nation was not circumcised but being mistreated by the inhabitants in their hatred of strangers, it lived with them in self-restraint and endurance, not by necessity but rather of its own free choice, because it took refuge in G-d the Savior, Who sent His beneficent power and delivered from their difficult and hopeless situation those who made supplication [to Him]. Therefore [Scripture] adds, ‘Ye yourselves know the soul of the sojourner.’ But what is the mind of the sojourner if not alienation from belief in many G-ds and familiarity with honoring with one G-d and Father of all?”45 Philo, however, continued to maintain the eventual need for circumcision.
Conclusions Jewish interactions with and perspectives on non-Jews during the Greco-Roman period were tied to the growing complexity of Jewish identity. The growing stabilization of sacred texts and the reconstruction of Jewish life under Ezra and his successors in the Great Assembly added to the sense of “otherness.” The national abandonment of the Torah in previous generations, as reflected in the prophetic tradition, was increasingly recognized as responsible for the series of foreign powers that ruled the land of Israel. As a result, a national religious awakening appears to have taken place and the role of Toraitic legislation in every day life steadily increased. Jewish identity became connected to the idea of covenantal fidelity. Consequently, a genuine fear of falling prey to 45
Louis H. Feldman, Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 139.
www.servantofmessiah.org
assimilation grew. A population ever conscious of its syncretistic past viewed the lifestyles and cultures of the surrounding nations wearily. But contact and interaction was unavoidable, especially in lieu of “Israel’s” political situation. Foreign occupation was a fixed reality, except for the brief period of Hasmonean sovereignty. Even then, political, economic, and social interactions continued on a significant level. The rise of Hellenism only appears to have challenged Jewish views more. Hellenism seems to have reinforced the perception among many that a healthy separation in at least some areas was necessary to insure the survival of Judaism. Toraitic perspectives reflected Israel’s responsibilities to be a model nation, yet the experiences o the past made many Jews cautious and apprehensive about their dealings with non-Jews. But Hellenism, with its culture, philosophy, and forms of government proved quite a appealing to many. The fairly benevolent views that many early Greeks held about Jews may have challenged those insisting on a perspective of self-imposed isolation. As I mentioned before, however, isolation was unavoidable and the pattern of Jewish life maneuvering amidst the challenges of Jewish convictions and the “secular” world forged the difficult path known to this day. Attitudes towards Jews were generally favorable on an official level, though the increasing concern over inter-marriage and the pagan character of so many social institutions created some uneasiness towards Jews. Special privileges from government institutions, while beneficial, often made Jews despised to other groups. Jewish communities reacted differently to their surroundings partly due to their geographical location and social pressures. Yet despite the leeriness that many Jews maintained, many Jews retained a sense of responsibility towards the progression of monotheism among non-Jews. In the midst of pagan environments, Judaism, stood as a beacon for many non-Jews and the doors of Judaism were arguably swelled during this period of time by growing adherents and converts. Jews and non-Jews throughout the known world, supported the Temple in Jerusalem. The synagogue, the small outposts of Jewish life in the Diaspora drew non-Jews as well. Judaism’s later view of non-Jews was delicately shaped by a realization of its “spiritual “ responsibilities and its fragile political and social limitations.
www.servantofmessiah.org