Lester L. Grabbe

University of Hull

England

The question of the Jews and Hellenization seems to be

one of perennial interest. Because of the influence of Martin

Hengel's various books on the subject, he serves as a useful

focus to address the question. Most of the issues have been dis-

cussed by him, and those who have taken a different position in

recent years have usually done so with explicit reference to him.

The purpose of the paper is to give a "once over lightly" to the

subject but to introduce the main issues and questions, as well

as giving my own conclusions.<1> The focus of this paper is on the

Ptolemaic period, though no discussion can be confined exclu-

sively to that time.

Martin Hengel's opus magnum which appeared in English

in 1974 is probably the most significant work to deal with the

question of Judaism in its relationship to Hellenism, though

certainly building on and influenced by earlier authors, espe-

cially Bickerman. While limiting himself formally to the period

from Alexander to the Maccabean revolt, he discussed the later

period in passing at many points. Further, his monographs of

1980 and 1989 filled in certain aspects of the post-Maccabean

period. Hengel's major work is a highly concentrated book which

cannot be easily summarized. His main thesis relates to the

cause of the suppression of Judaism as a religion under Antiochus

IV, and in this he comes out forcefully on the side of the

proposal already advanced by E. J. Bickerman.<2> But in reaching

that conclusion he takes a thorough look at the whole process of

Hellenization and concludes, among other things, that Judaism and

Hellenism were not mutually exclusive entities<3> and that from

"about the middle of the third century BC all Judaism must really

be designated `Hellenistic Judaism' in the strict sense," so that

one cannot separate Palestinian Judaism from Hellenistic

Judaism.<4>

In order to demonstrate this thesis, Hengel does not

just advance a series of arguments or proofs. Rather, by a

thorough description of Judaism during this period and by setting

out its context in the Hellenistic world of the time, the conclu-

sion forces itself forward that the Jews of Palestine were not

successful in--indeed, did not particularly attempt--holding

themselves aloof from the dominant culture. Judea under the

Ptolemies and Seleucids was a part of the wider Hellenistic

world, and the Jews of Palestine were as much a part of this

world as the other peoples of the ancient Near East. Thus, in

order to disprove Hengel, one would have to give positive evi-

dence that the Jews wanted to resist all aspects of the Hel-

lenistic culture, that they were able to distinguish between

"Hellenistic" and "native" elements, and that they prevailed in

their resistance. Hengel has successfully put the onus of proof

on any who would challenge the view that Palestinian Judaism was

a part of Hellenistic Judaism of the time. Although a summary

cannot do justice to the detailed study, Hengel's major points

and arguments are essentially the following:

1. The Jews of Palestine, far from being isolated,

were thoroughly caught up in the events of their time, particu-

larly the rivalry between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms.

Palestine itself was a disputed territory, claimed by the

Seleucids with a certain legality on their side but nevertheless

under Ptolemaic rule for the century before 200 BCE.

2. Ptolemaic (and later Seleucid) administration

reached to the lowest levels of Jewish society. Every village

was supervised by the Greek administration and had its officials

seeing that the various sorts of taxes were paid. Although

natives were often delegated as supervisors at the lower levels,

Greeks and Greek-speaking natives were very much in evidence,

especially at the higher levels.

3. International trade was a feature of the Hel-

lenistic world; indeed, trade with the Aegean had already brought

many Greek influences to the Phoenician and Palestinian coasts

long before the time of Alexander. Palestine itself was an

important crossroads in the trade between north and south and

between Egypt and Arabia.

4. The language of trade and administration was Greek.

The use of Greek for official purposes is well illustrated

already by the mid-3rd century and its direct influence on the

Jews can be deduced from a variety of sources.

5. Greek education also had its influence on Jews and

Jewish education.

6. Greek influence on Jewish literature is already

documented as early as Alexander's conquest and can be

illustrated from literature in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as

those works composed directly in Greek. Evidence of the

influence of Greek philosophy occurs in such quintessentially

Jewish circles as Qumran and writings such as 1 Enoch.

7. The "anti-Greek" forces which followed on the Mac-

cabean crisis did not succeed in erasing the pervasive Greek

influence of the previous century and a half, and Jewish

Palestine even as it gained basic independence under the Has-

moneans still remained a part of the Hellenistic world.

In his later writings, Hengel's position overall has

seemed to remain the same. However, he has nuanced it somewhat

to meet some of the criticisms made (see next section): He

recognizes that in the period before 175 BCE, "we only have very

fragmentary and sporadic information about the Jews in Palestine

and in the Diaspora.?"<5> He also accepts that Hellenization was

perhaps a lengthier process than originally allowed for.<6>

Criticisms of Hengel

Of the many reviews which have appeared--including

those by such well-known specialists in the Hellenistic period as

Fergus Millar,<7> Arnaldo Momigliano,<8> and Louis Feldman<9>--the

majority have been impressed by Hengel's breadth of learning and

by his basic arguments about the Hellenizing of Judaism. Feldman

has been the main one to reject Hengel's thesis completely. The

major areas where Hengel is weakest or most controversial are the

following:<10>

1. While Greek influence on Jewish literature in Greek

is easy to demonstrate, such is much more difficult with litera-

ture in the Semitic languages. For example, Hengel takes the

view that Qohelet shows knowledge and terminology of Greek popu-

lar philosophy, a thesis by no means universally accepted, as

Feldman among others has noted.<11> In other examples, one can

show Greek parallels and make a cogent case for Greek influence

yet without demonstrating that other potential sources are not

equally possible. Thus, Hengel's arguments, which are generally

quite strong with regard to Jewish literature in Greek, become

much less certain and more likely to be disputed in the area of

Hebrew and Aramaic literature.

2. Many of the examples which Hengel uses actually

belong to the post-Maccabean period, partly because our knowledge

of the Ptolemaic period is so problematic.<12> Of course, in many

cases it seems legitimate to extrapolate to the earlier period

(e.g., the evidence of the Qumran scrolls); also, it shows that

the crisis which arose in Jerusalem was not primarily one of Hel-

lenizing but of religious suppression. Yet Hengel was not always

careful in his original study to make clear that some develop-

ments in Hellenization may have come about only in post-Maccabean

times, while the exact path of Hellenization in Judea during the

Ptolemaic period may not be so clear as he first implied. One of

the most valuable of Feldman's criticisms is to cast doubt on the

speed with which Judaism was Hellenized. Other contributors have

also noted this (cf. also Hengel's response noted above).

3. In the way that examples are selected and pre-

sented, Hengel appears to exaggerate the place of Greek education

and language in Palestine. The examples used go only so far;

that is, they demonstrate that some Jews had a reasonable knowl-

edge of Greek and many more had a smattering, but the actual num-

ber of Jews who could be considered monolingual or bilingual in

Greek in Palestine was probably rather less than Hengel seems to

conclude. In any case, the evidence is certainly not conclusive

for a pervasive use of Greek throughout Jewish society in

Palestine. As for the question of education, we simply have

almost no information about education at all in Judea at this

time, much less education in Greek.

One of the major problems in the debate is that of

terminology. All do not necessarily mean the same thing when

they use the terms "Hellenize/Hellenization," which has resulted

in confusion and much dispute over simple misunderstandings. In

discussing the question of terminology, it is unavoidable that I

anticipate some of the points made below. Nevertheless, it seems

best to take up the question here rather than later.

There seem to be several legitimate ways in which the

"Hellenization" can be used. First is in reference to the gen-

eral situation in the Orient after Alexander. Much remained the

same, at least for the time being, but there was a qualitative

change overall. Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Mesopotamia now

all fell under the rubric "Hellenistic" in that they made up the

Hellenistic world. All Eastern peoples, the Jews included, were

a part of this world.

Second is the cultural phenomenon, with its complex set

of cultural elements derived from both Greek and Near Eastern

sources. It was neither "Greek" nor "Oriental," but neither was

it homogenized. There were some loci (regions, social and eco-

nomic classes, institutions) which were almost purely Greek and

others which remained unadulteratedly native, and there were mix-

tures of various sorts (though this element--that of Verschmel-

zung--should not be exaggerated, as will become clear). However,

the balance of the different elements and their relationships

were not static but constantly changing and developing. Thus,

Hellenistic culture can be adequately described only as a

process. The Jews were fully a part of this process. There is

no indication that they differed from the other peoples within

this world in both adopting certain Greek elements and practices

and yet also preserving their own cultural heritage.

Thirdly, there is the question of the individual, the

extent to which specific Greek practices were adopted or con-

formed to. The Hellenistic world included far more than just the

culture of classical Greece. But one could be said to be "Hel-

lenized" if an effort was made to adher to Greek ideals and

customs. From this point of view, individual Orientals--

including individual Jews--might be more Hellenized than others.

This last point seems to be the one often in mind (perhaps even

unconsciously) when Hellenization of the Jews is discussed. A

further complication concerns the extent to which the adoption of

some Greek cultural elements implies a religious apostacy.

In the post-Alexandrian centuries "Greek" came less and

less to be an ethnic designation and more and more one of educa-

tion, especially in good Greek style. There is clear evidence

that many educated and upper-class Orientals were knowledgable in

the Greek language. The question is how far this knowledge pene-

trated. Although it is often asserted that Greek became the

official language of the conquered territories, this seems mis-

taken:<13> the Seleucid empire was multilingual, with local lan-

guages continuing to be used in official documents (with perhaps

a few exceptions.<14>

A similar situation pertained in Egypt.<15> Although

Egypt is famous for its finds of papyri in Greek, the accumulat-

ing evidence suggests that at least as much material was produced

in Demotic during the same period of time. There was clearly a

flourishing native literary tradition in all sorts of genres, not

just temple literature, during this time. More significant,

though, is the amount of Demotic papyri relating to the adminis-

tration. The native Egyptian legal system was still administered

alongside the Greek, but the Demotic documents cover far more

than the legal sphere, encompassing bureaucratic activity up to a

fairly high level. Contrary to a frequent assumption, Egyptians

could and did rise to high positions in the administration, and

much of the work of the bureaucracy was done in bilingual mode.

In short, a great deal of business and everyday life was still

carried on in the Egyptian language by Egyptians at all levels of

society.

A major question is one of interpretation. One can

point to such examples as the Armenian king Artavasdes who

cultivated Greek learning and even wrote Greek literature; at a

birthday celebration, the Bacchides of Euripides was performed

for his court (Plutarch, Crassus 33). Or the Buddhist king Asoka

who erected inscriptions in good Greek (as well as Aramaic) in

the remote area of Kandahar.<16> But what conclusion should be

drawn from this? How far can such examples be taken as typical?

For instance, Hengel states, "Galilee, completely encircled by

the territories of the Hellenized cities . . ., will similarly

have been largely bilingual."<17> Martin Goodman gives a more

nuanced and somewhat less categorical view. While recognizing

that Greek had its place in Galilee, he notes that it was not

dominant, with Aramaic--not Greek--being the lingua franca: "In

Upper Galilee there is almost no evidence of Greek at all . . . .

But in Upper Galilee and probably in the area around Lake

Tiberias, Greek was only a thin strand in the linguistic cloth

. . .".<18> Was Galilee bilingual? Evidently not, if one means

that Greek was widely used everywhere. The mere presence of some

Greek usage does not necessarily deserve the term "largely

bilingual."

Greek certainly did function as a lingua franca in many

parts of the Hellenistic East, as Aramaic had done under the

Assyrian, neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid empires. Royal inscrip-

tions and many other sorts of documents were issued in Greek, yet

there was no attempt to impose it as the sole language of admin-

istration. Traders no doubt found some acquaintance with Greek

useful, not only in dealing with officialdom but also for getting

around in areas with a multitude of local languages. If the

buyer or seller one was dealing with knew a second language,

however, in many parts of the Seleucid empire it was more likely

to be Aramaic than Greek.

The complexity of the penetration of the language is

illustrated by two examples. An ostracon in Aramaic from about

the middle of the 3rd century BCE already contains two Greek

words.<19> Another ostracon from Khirbet el-Kom in the Idumean

area, dated about 275 BCE, is a bilingual in both Greek and

Aramaic.<20> On the other hand, there is only one formal bilingual

inscription so far known in the entirety of Syria, that from Tel

Dan about 200 BCE.<21> Thus, Hengel's demonstration of the

widespread use of Greek in his various writings cannot be

doubted, yet the significance of this fact is not so easily

assessed. For one thing, this use of Greek seems to have been

confined to a certain segment of the population, especially the

educated upper-class. To what extent it penetrated into the

lives of the bulk of the population is more difficult to

determine; however, the number of Jews outside the Greek cities

who were fluent in Greek seems small.

Hellenization Elsewhere in the Ancient Near East

An older view emphasized the Greek influence on the

original civilizations of the ancient Near East and the dominance

of Greek institutions. Such an attitude can be found in the

classic work by Tarn<22> and is also the prevalent view in the

first edition of volume 7 of the Cambridge Ancient History

(though Rostovtzeff gives a more nuanced approach in his articles

in that volume). The most recent work has recognized not only

the Greco-centric view of so much older scholarship but has found

evidence in new discoveries as well as old that the earlier cul-

tures were far from obliterated under Greek rule.<23>

The spread of Greek institutions and culture to the

remotest parts of the Greek empire can be seen in the Greek

remains in such unlikely places as Ai Khanum,<24> and the island of

Failaka (ancient Icarus) in the Persian gulf.<25> The presence of

Greek communities, as indicated by inscriptions, architecture,

and literary remains shows that no region could escape some

influence. The question is to what extent the Greek presence

produced merging, adoption, or change in the indigenous cultures.

A "mixed culture" (Verschmelzung) was slow in coming in most

cases, if it ever occurred as such.

The cities of Babylon and Uruk provide useful evidence

about Hellenization in Mesopotamia. Alexander originally made

Babylon the capital of his empire. It has often been assumed

that, with the founding of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, Babylon

declined to the point of desolation. The foundation of Seleucia

was probably done deliberately to provide a new Hellenistic cen-

ter, but Babylon itself continued not only to survive but to

thrive as well.<26> The native tradition of kingship, in which the

Seleucid ruler acted in the same capacity as the old native

Babylonian kings, is attested as continuing and seriously sup-

ported by at least some of the Seleucids.<27>

Neither Babylon nor Uruk are certainly known to have

been poleis in the early Greek period, though evidently some

Greeks were there.<28> The Greek names found in cuneiform sources

fall into four periods which seem to correspond well with the

history of the city under Greek rule:<29> First stage: Greek

residents but no involvement with the native inhabitants (Greek

names practically absent); second stage (223-187 BCE): Greeks

begin to take part in civic life, with some intermarriage

(limited Greek names among the Babylonians); third stage (middle

of 2nd century): influx of more Greeks, probably because of the

policy of Antiochus IV (Greek names more frequent); fourth stage

(after 140): the Arsacid conquest halts the Hellenization process

(Greek names continue sporadically for a time but gradually die

out).

Syria and Phoenicia<30>

The question of Hellenization in Syria generally is

very important since it formed Judea's immediate environment.

Hengel has also emphasized the part played by Phoenicia and

Philistia as the intermediaries of Greek culture to Judea.<31>

Millar has produced two seminal essays which address the question

directly. One of his major points is that, perhaps apart from

Phoenicia, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about Hel-

lenization for the Syrian area simply because of the paucity of

evidence.<32> After extensive discussion, Millar concludes on a

rather negative note, "The enigma of hellenistic Syria--of the

wider Syrian region in the hellenistic period--remains."<33> It is

not just a question of the paucity of data for the Hellenistic

period but also for the Achaemenid period: you cannot talk about

changes after Alexander if you do not know what it was like

before him.

This lack of remains can lead to widely differing

interpretations of what little there is. To take one example,

Hengel places a good deal of emphasis on the writers and

philosophers who came from the Syrian region, including such

individuals as Meleager of Gadara.<34> Millar, on the other hand,

comments with regard to Meleager, "But there is nothing in the

quite extensive corpus of his poetry to show that he had deeply

absorbed any non-Greek culture in his native city . . .".<35>

This does not mean that only a negative conclusion can

be drawn from Millar's study. As the editors note in their

introduction, "his careful examination of a scattered body of

material is susceptible to a more positive interpretation than he

himself allows . . .".<36> One of the points which does emerge is

the strong continuation of the native culture in that area, which

was clearly not generally submerged by the Greek or absorbed into

it. Millar has also produced evidence of changes under Hellenism

which included the spread of Greek culture in certain ways.

Phoenicia is a useful example of how Hellenization

could penetrate the culture yet not displace the native tradi-

tions. The influence of Greek culture actually began well before

Alexander.<37> Although the precise course of Hellenization is

difficult to document,<38> the cities of the region gradually

evolved into Greek poleis.<39> Nevertheless, it is also clear that

Phoenician culture continued at all levels, both in Phoenicia

itself and in its colonies overseas. We find Phoenician names

alongside Greek, some individuals having both sorts. Coins have

both Greek and Phoenician writing. Philo of Byblos wrote a work

(supposedly based on the work of the ancient author San-

chuniathon) which preserves many details of Canaanite religion

from antiquity, yet Philo's work is itself thoroughly Greek in

form.<40> One would have to say that the major Phoenician cities

were Hellenized in some sense, yet they also remain Phoenician

with a strong continuation from their past.

The reactions against Hellenization were complex and

diverse, but the Jews were by no means the only people to fight

it. Although much of the evidence has no doubt disappeared,

enough survives to show that there were anti-Hellenistic moves of

various sorts among a wide range of the Near Eastern peoples.

The most obvious form of resistance was armed rebellion against

Greek political domination and the attempt to restore native

rule. The Jewish state stands out in this because it success-

fully gained independence whereas most other rebels met with

failure; yet the Jews of Palestine were certainly not the only

ones to aspire to independence or to attempt to gain it by force

of arms. Among the Egyptians in particular, there were a number

of uprisings, though none successful.<41>

Even gaining independence from Greek rule did not

necessarily mean the overthrow of Hellenistic culture or the

rooting out of all Greek elements or influences, as is made clear

by the example of the Hasmonean state which threw off the

Seleucid yoke but made no attempt to eliminate the overt Greek

elements in Jewish culture. On the contrary, Judea under Has-

monean rule was typical of Hellenistic kingdoms of that general

period. In this one may compare modern "nativistic movments."

They often react against some cultural elements of colonial

powers simply because they are symbolic of oppression,<42> yet many

elements taken over from the colonizers will be accepted, either

because they have become so well integrated that they are no

longer recognized as foreign<43> or because they are useful or sym-

bolically neutral to the movement.

Another sort of anti-Greek reaction was the production

of anti-Greek propaganda, generally of a literary type. We find

a whole genre of such from the Hellenistic period produced by a

variety of peoples, often taking the form of oracles or ex eventu

prophecies. In Egypt there were prophecies predicting the over-

throw of Greek rule, including the Oracle of Bocchoris or the

Lamb, the Potter's Oracle, and the Demotic Chronicle.<44> From

Persia came the Oracle of Hystaspes.<45> The Jews produced fake

Sibylline Oracles.<46> This literature itself was a way of kin-

dling hope and venting frustration. What effect it had from a

practical point of view is uncertain; probably little in most

cases, though there may have been times when it served to inspire

the native peoples to active resistance and revolt.

Hellenization was a long and complex phenomenon. It

cannot be summarized in a word or a sentence. It was not just

the adoption of Greek ways by the inhabitants of the ancient Near

East or of Oriental ways by Greeks who settled in the East. Hel-

lenistic civilization was sui generis and must be considered from

a variety of points of view, for it concerned many different

areas of life: language, custom, religion, commerce, architec-

ture, dress, government, literary and philosophical ideals.

Hellenization represented a process as well as a des-

cription of a type of culture. Whatever Alexander's ideals may

have been, his successors were highly Greco-chauvinist. Pride of

place in society was to go to Greeks alone, with the natives

usually at the bottom of the pyramid. Greek ideals were

preserved in the Greek foundations, with citizenship and member-

ship of the gymnasium jealously guarded for the exclusive

privilege of the Greek settlers. Orientals might live in the

Greek cities but they were not citizens and were mostly barred

from becoming so. There was no interest in cultural imperialism

as such by the Greek rulers.

However, over a period of a century or so after

Alexander's death, things gradually began to change. Local

nobles and chieftains were often of use in the Ptolemaic and

Seleucid administrations, and they employed Greek secretaries. A

good example of this is the Jewish noble Tobias for whom we have

a number of letters in Greek from the Zenon archive.<47> These

individuals were also likely to see the need to have their sons

given a Greek education. Thus, it is that already early in the

Greek period, we find educated Orientals who have some knowledge

of Greek. Individuals such as Manetho in Egypt and Berossus in

Babylon were already writing treatises in Greek in the early part

of the 3rd century. In the Tobiad romance, Joseph and later his

son Hyrcanus (second half of the 3rd century) deal with the

Ptolemaic court on an equal footing (Josephus, Ant. 12.4.2-11

sec. 160-236); there is no indication that they have to communicate

by translator or that their educational background is considered

inferior.

The life of the average person was not strikingly

affected. The poor peasant continued to work the land, only

noting that he had a new landlord or had to pay taxes to a new

regime. Yet in stating this, one must not forget that the day-

to-day life of the bulk of the population in the Near East proba-

bly changed little between the 3rd millennium BCE and the l8th

century CE. The coming of the Greeks did not radically change

their lives--but neither did the coming of the Assyrians, the

Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Turks, or the British. On

the other hand, there were constant reminders of the new culture,

most obviously in the language of administration and commerce.

Certainly, anyone who wished to engage in trade would probably

find it to advantage to gain some acquaintance with Greek, and

those who could afford it would be under pressure to provide some

sort of Greek education for their offspring. Yet the native lan-

guages continued to be used in administration, and most people

could get by quite well without any knowledge of Greek. As an

analogy, one might consider the Anglicization of India in the

l9th century or the Westernization of Japan in the post-World War

II era.

This means that, on the one hand, Hellenization was a

centuries-long process in which all were engaged and from which

no one escaped; therefore, all peoples of the Near East, the Jews

included, were part of the Hellenistic world, were included in

this process, and were from this point of view Hellenized. On

the other hand, one could also speak of degrees of Hellenization

in the sense of how far one went in consciously imitating and

adopting Greek ways. From such a perspective it would be legiti-

mate to talk of a particular individual as being "more Hel-

lenized" or "less Hellenized" than another and Hellenization in

this sense represents a spectrum encompassing many shades of

Greek influence from the limited to the intense. This means that

it is important to make clear what is being referred to in each

context, though many writers on the subject fail to make such

distinctions and talk as if it were all or nothing, as if someone

were Hellenized or not.

Although there are many points to be debated in current

study, Hengel's dictum is becoming more and more accepted: one

can no longer talk of Judaism versus Hellenism nor of Palestinian

versus Hellenistic Judaism. To do so is to create an artificial

binary opposition and to reduce an enormously complex picture to

stark, unshaded black and white. It is also to treat a lengthy

process as if it were a single undifferented event--as if concep-

tion, pregnancy, birth, childhood, and adulthood could be

simultaneous. At the risk of repeating points made in the

previous section, the following points relate to the Jews specif-

ically:

First, Hellenism was a culture whereas Judaism was a

religion. Some aspects of Hellenistic culture were irrelevant to

Jewish religious views. Other aspects were viewed as irrelevant

by some Jews but highly subversive by others. And from any point

of view, certain aspects of Hellenistic culture, especially those

in the religious sphere, had the potential to bring about major

transformations of Judaism. The stark dichotomy of "Hellenizers"

and "Judaizers" of 1 Maccabees has been used too simplistically

and thus has caused gross distortion.<48> It assumes a narrow,

prejudicial definition of what it means to be a loyal Jew with no

allowance made for those of a different opinion. It is as if, to

take a modern analogy, the only form of Judaism allowed to be

"Jewish" were Orthodox Judaism. This may indeed be the view of

some Orthodox Jews, but it is hardly the perspective of Conserva-

tive, Reform, Liberal, Karaite, Falasha, and other forms of

Judaism. It is not the job of the historian to take sides or

adopt the denominational prejudice of the sources.

Secondly, those called "Judaizers" (or, misleadingly,

"orthodox" in some modern works) were not totally opposed to all

aspects of Hellenistic culture. What they opposed were certain

things affecting their religion, though this opposition sometimes

used--or reacted to--cultural symbols as a means of expressing

their loyalty to a particular form of Judaism. (One might com-

pare a common reaction among "nativistic movements" in which

overt elements of the colonial culture are attacked even though

much has been absorbed without even recognizing it.)

Thirdly, the attitudes of those called "Judaizers" seem

to have covered a wide spectrum, including the Hasidim, the Mac-

cabees, those who refused to defend themselves against their

enemies, the partisans of Onias, and those who wrote Daniel 7-12;

the same is true of the so-called "Hellenizers." As far as we

know, none of them rejected the label "Jew," even Menelaus and

his followers whom many would regard as the most extreme of the

Hellenizers. Nevertheless, to be "Hellenized" did not mean to

cease to be a Jew. Take for example Philo of Alexandria. Here

was a man with a good Greek education, who wrote and thought in

the Greek language (probably knowing no Hebrew), and lived a life

which in many daily habits did not differ from the Greek citizens

of Alexandria, yet who considered himself nothing less than a

loyal and pious Jew.<49> Or we might consider the message of the

Letter of Aristeas which is that Jews can be a part of the Hel-

lenistic world without necessarily compromising their Judaism. A

final example is the Jason who became high priest (2 Macc 4:7-

22); he evidently considered himself a full and faithful Jew, yet

he was the one who obtained permission for Jerusalem to become a

Greek foundation. The fact that some Jews may have judged him an

apostate is irrelevant to the question of his own self-

designation or Jewish identity.<50>

Fourthly, the native cultures continued to thrive to a

greater or lesser extent all over the Near East, not just in

Judea. Greek remained a minority language and did not displace

the many local languages nor the old lingua franca of Aramaic.

Hellenization as a process--not just a static culture--continued

with the coming of the Romans and the growth of their empire.

Fifthly, it is indeed true that Jews were unique and

did not lose their identity--a fact with which some writers on

the subject seem obsessed--but one could also make the same

statement about many of the native peoples. Each ethnic group

was unique in its own way and was just as attached to its own

identity, culture, native language, and traditions as the Jews.

This also in many cases included particular religious cults which

were as important to them as Yahwism was to the Jews. One can

readily accept the Hellenization of the Jews without denying

their uniqueness, loyalty to religion, careful maintenance of

tradition and custom, or continual contribution to Hebrew and

Aramaic literature.

Sixthly, in accommodating to Hellenistic culture the

Jews always maintained one area which could not be compromised

without affecting their Judaism, that of religion. The Jews

alone in the Greco-Roman world refused honor to gods, shrines,

and cults other than their own. Thus, even those Jews who were

most at home in the Hellenistic world, such as Philo or the

author of Pseudo-Aristeas, still found themselves marked out--and

marked off--by this fact. For the vast majority, this was the

final barrier which could not be crossed; we know of only a hand-

ful of examples from antiquity in which Jews abandoned their

Judaism as such. Thus, however Hellenized they might be, obser-

vant Jews could never be fully at home in the Greek world.

<<1>>Further information on the subject in general and a more

detailed study of many points in particular is found in chapter 3

of my book, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Fortress,

in press). The following are abbreviations used throughout:

<<2>>E. J. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees (SJLA 32; Leiden:

Brill, 1979).

<<3>>Hengel 1974: 1.2-3.

<<4>>Hengel 1974: 1.103-6.

<<5>>Hengel 1980: 51.

<<6>>Hengel 1980: 53: "A more thorough `Hellenization', which also

included the lower classes, only became a complete reality in

Syria and Palestine under the protection of Rome . . . . It was

Rome which first helped `Hellenism' to its real victory in the

East . . ."

<<7>>F. Millar, "The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflec-

tions on Martin Hengel's `Judaism and Hellenism,'" JJS 29 (1978)

1-21. The review by Fergus Millar appears primarily directed

against the thesis that the persecutions were initiated by the

"Hellenizing party" of the Jews, a thesis which is beyond the

scope of this paper (see the discussion in ch. 5 of my book cited

in note 1 above). However, his attitude to the question of the

Hellenizing process in Palestine is not completely clear. On the

one hand, Millar states, "only new evidence could improve

Hengel's portrayal of Hellenism in Judaea itself" (p. 3). On the

other hand, he concludes that "the evidence shows how un-Greek in

structure, customs, observance, literary culture, language and

historical outlook the Jewish community had remained down to the

earlier second century, and how basic to it the rules reimposed

by Ezra and Nehemiah had remained" (p. 20). For other discus-

sions by Millar which relate to the problem, see the articles

listed in notes 21 and 30 below.

<<8>>A. Momigliano, review of Hengel's Judentum und Hellenismus, JTS

21 (1970) 149-53.

<<9>>L. H. Feldman, "Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect,"

JBL 96 (1977) 371-82; "How Much Hellenism in Jewish Palestine?"

HUCA 57 (1986) 83-111. In the earlier review he summarized

Hengel's work in 22 points and then proceeded to attack each of

them as invalid or not supporting Hengel's thesis in a sig-

nificant way. His 1986 article covers some of the same ground

but in a more diffuse way.

There is no doubt that Feldman has some important

criticisms and has drawn attention to areas where Hengel is weak

or where the data do not give strong support to his argument.

Unfortunately, he vitiates the impact of his arguments with two

major flaws: First, there seems to be a strong, underlying

assumption that being Hellenized means ceasing to be a proper Jew

(e.g., 1986: 85). Secondly, his arguments against Hengel often

depend on interpretations which would not be accepted by the

majority of specialists. For example, in his 1977 contribution

he dates 1 Enoch 12-36 much later than is generally done (his

point #21) and doubts the identity of the Qumranites as Essenes

(point #22). In the 1986 article, e.g., he assumes that only

Gentiles attended the various amphitheaters and sports stadia

erected by Herod and others (p. 104) and that the ossuary

inscriptions in Greek were only to prevent non-Jews from molest-

ing the graves (p. 88). Overall, his complete rejection of

Hengel's thesis seems unjustified.

<<10>>This is aside from his main thesis which relates to the cause

of the suppression of Judaism as a religion under Antiochus IV.

See notes 2 and 7 above.

<<11>>Contrast H. Braun (Koheleth und die fruhhellenistische Popular-

philosophie [BZAW 130; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1973]), who

develops the thesis at length, with O. Loretz (Qohelet und der

alte Orient [Freiburg: 1964]) who argues strongly that there is

nothing in Qohelet which cannot be explained from pre-Hellenistic

Near Eastern tradition.

<<12>>See A. Momigliano's review of Hengel's Judentum und Hellenismus

in JTS 21 (1970) 149-53.

<<13>>Kuhrt/Sherwin-White: 5-6, 23-25.

<<14>>E.g., slave-sale documents after 275 BCE were issued only in

Greek, according to L. T. Doty ("The Archive of the Nana-Iddin

Family from Uruk," JCF 30 [1980] 65-90, esp. 85) and M.

Rostovtzeff ("Seleucid Babylonia: Bullae and Seals of Clay with

Greek Inscriptions," Yale Classical Studies 3 [1932] 1-114, esp.

65-69).

<<15>>A. E. Samuel, From Athens to Alexandria: Hellenism and Social

Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt (Studia Hellenistica 26; Louvain:

Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1983), especially pp. 105-17 on the

linguistic situation.

<<16>>G. Pugliese Carratelli and G. Garbini, A Bilingual Graeco-

Aramaic Edict by Asoka: The First Greek Inscription Discovered in

Afghanistan (Serie Orientale Roma 29; Rome: Istituto Italiano per

il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1964).

<<17>>Hengel 1989: 14-15.

<<18>>M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212

(Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies; Totowa, NJ: Row-

man & Allanheld, 1983) 64-68, specifically 67-68.

<<19>>F. M. Cross, "An Aramaic Ostracon of the Third Century B.C.E.

from Excavations in Jerusalem," EI 15 (1981) *67-*69.

<<20>>L. T. Geraty, "The Khirbet el-Kom Bilingual Ostracon," BASOR

220 (Dec. 1975) 55-61.

<<21>>A. Biran, "Tel Dan," RB 84 (1977) 256-63; G. H. R. Horsley, New

Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek

Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1976 (Ancient History

Documentary Research Centre; Sydney: Macquarie University, 1981);

cf. Millar, "The Problem of Hellenistic Syria," in Kuhrt/Sherwin-

White: 110-33, especially 132.

<<22>>W. W. Tarn and G. T. Griffith, Hellenistic Civilisation (3rd

ed.; London: Arnold, 1952).

<<23>>See especially especially Kuhrt/Sherwin-White.

<<24>>Bernard, P. "Ai Khanum on the Oxus: A Hellenistic City in Cen-

tral Asia," Proceedings of the British Academy 53 (1967) 71-95.

<<25>>C. Roueche and S. M. Sherwin-White, "Some Aspects of the

Seleucid Empire: the Greek Inscriptions from Failaka, in the

Arabian Gulf," Chiron 15 (1985) 1-39.

<<26>>S. Sherwin-White, "Seleucid Babylonia: a Case Study for the

Installation and Development of Greek Rule," in Kuhrt/Sherwin-

White: 18-20; R. J. van der Spek, "The Babylonian City," in

Kuhrt/Sherwin-White: 65-66.

<<27>>S. Sherwin-White, "Ritual for a Seleucid King at Babylon?" JHS

103 (1983) 156-59; "Seleucid Babylonia," 8-9, 28-29; A. Kuhrt,

"Berossus' Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia," in

Kuhrt/Sherwin-White: 51-52, 55-56.

<<28>>S. Sherwin-White, "A Greek Ostrakon from Babylon of the Early

Third Century B.C.," ZPE 47 (1982) 51-70; "Seleucid Babylonia,"

20-21; van der Spek, "The Babylonian City," 66-70, 72-74.

<<29>>G. K. Sarkisian, "Greek Personal Names in Uruk and the Graeco-

Babyloniaca Problem," Acta Antiqua 22 (1974) 495-503; van der

Spek, "The Babylonian City," 60-74.

<<30>>Millar, F. "The Phoenician Cities: A Case-Study of Hellenisa-

tion," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association 209

(1983) 55-71; "The Problem of Hellenistic Syria," 110-33.

<<31>>Hengel 1974: 1.32-35; 1980: 28.

<<32>>Millar, "Problem of Hellenistic Syria," especially 111-13, 129-

31.

<<33>>Ibid., 129.

<<34>>Hengel 1974: 1.84-86; 1980: 118.

<<35>>Millar, "Problem of Hellenistic Syria," 130.

<<36>>Kuhrt/Sherwin-White: x.

<<37>>Millar, "The Phoenician Cities," 67; Hengel 1974: 1.32-35.

<<38>>Millar, "The Phoenician Cities," 60.

<<39>>Millar, "Problem of Hellenistic Syria," 123-24.

<<40>>J. Barr, "Philo of Byblos and his `Phoenician History,'" BJRL

57 (1974-75) 17-68.

<<41>>Cf. W. Peremans, "Les revolutions egyptiennes sous les

Lagides," Das ptolemaische Agypten: Akten des Internationalen

Symposions 27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin (ed. H. Maehler and

V. M. Strocka; Mainz: Zabern, 1978) 39-50; A. B. Lloyd, "Nation-

alist Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt," Historia 31 (1982) 33-55.

<<42>>W. La Barre, "Materials for a History of Studies of Crisis

Cults: A Bibliographic Essay," Current Anthropology 12 (1971) 3-

44, esp. 20-22.

<<43>>Cf. P. Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of "Cargo"

cults in Melanesia (London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1957) 23.

<<44>>S. K. Eddy, The King Is Dead (Lincoln: University of Nebraska,

1961); J. J. Collins (ed.) Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre

(Semeia 14; Atlanta: Scholars, 1979) 168-70.

<<45>>Eddy, ibid.; Collins, ibid., 210.

<<46>>Collins, ibid., 46-47.

<<47>>A convenient edition of these letters is found in V. A.

Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and M. Stern, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum

(3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957-64)

1.115-30.

<<48>>See further my chapter on the Maccabean revolt in Judaism from

Cyrus to Hadrian.

<<49>>See especially A. Mendelson, Philo's Jewish Identity (BJS 161;

Atlanta: Scholars, 1988).

<<50>>See further the discussion in chapter 5 of Judaism from Cyrus

to Hadrian.

---------------------------end of article---------------------------