The Oxford History of the Biblical World

by Coogan, Michael D.

  The loss of Egypt in 405 was more serious. Several times the Persians launched campaigns to regain Egypt, but without success until 343. Although coastal Palestinian cities served as staging points for Persian campaigns, it is unclear whether Samaria and Judah were involved. A move by independent Egypt at the turn of the century up the coast and into the Shephelah as far as Gezer came to an end around 380, when the Persians regained the territory.

  Throughout the second half of the 360s the Satraps’ Revolt upset affairs in the Persian empire, but any repercussions for interior regions of Syria-Palestine elude us. Judah is unlikely to have participated in a rebellion of Phoenician cities against the next Persian king, Artaxerxes III (Ochos; 359–338), initiated around 350 by Tennes the king of Sidon. Destruction layers are found at numerous sites, but most of them lie outside Judah, and distinguishing between mid-fourth-century and later Alexandrian destructions has proved impossible. First Tennes (345) and then Egypt (343/2) capitulated to Artaxerxes III.

  But disaster soon fell upon Persia. The short, unhappy reign of the Achaemenid puppet king Arses (338–336) was followed by that of Darius III (Codomanus; 336–331), whose even unhappier fate it was to lose his empire to the Greek forces of Alexander of Macedon. After his victory at Issus (333), Alexander marched south into Phoenicia, where all but Tyre submitted to him. A seven-month siege ended in victory for the Greeks, and slavery or crucifixion for the Tyrians. After Tyre, only Gaza dared resist Alexander, who took it before conquering Egypt. There the people hailed him as their liberator from the hated Persians.

  No reflexes of Alexander’s arrival appear in the Bible, although Josephus tells a transparently legendary tale of Alexander’s visit to the Temple (Antiquities 11.8.5) on his way to Egypt. The first explicit reference to Alexander appears in 1 Maccabees. According to Josephus, after submitting to Alexander in 332 the nobles of Samaria revolted and burned Alexander’s prefect to death. Alexander’s army marched north, and the rebels were delivered up to them. The Samaria papyri belonged to these rebels and were deposited with other valuables in the cave where the unfortunate plotters were found and massacred. Samaria was reorganized and resettled as a Greek colony, while the surviving Samarians rebuilt the city of Shechem as their center. According to Josephus, the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was built in the late fourth century; he attributes to Alexander the commissioning of the temple (Antiquities 11.8.4). Recently, excavators at Tell er-Ras, the temple site, claimed to have found the remains of this fourth-century temple.

  Much of the biblical material suggests that during the Persian period, both in the Diaspora and in the ancient homeland, Jewish communities were more intent on preserving their past than recording their present. A correct interpretation of their past, they felt, would determine their future fate for good or ill. Chronicles taught lessons based on Israel’s past. The same impulses contributed to the final redaction of the Pentateuch. However, other texts and objects suggest a less retrospective mood. For example, large numbers of locally minted fourth-century BCE coins—including coins from Judea and Samaria—have been appearing on the antiquities market. Their small denominations would be useful only for local commerce, not for tribute or international trade. These coins, considered alongside the commercial interests expressed in Ecclesiastes and the buying and selling recorded in the Samaria papyri, suggest a lively local economy.

  Archaeological discoveries combined with new analytical approaches to existing information have improved our understanding of the two centuries of Persian rule and have led to reassessments of long-held assumptions and generated new questions. The Persian period’s elusiveness persists, but scholars in search of the roots of Judaism can no longer dismiss it as a negligible interim between exile and Alexander.

  Select Bibliography

  Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. The classic study.

  Boyce, Mary. A History of Zoroastrianism. 2 vols. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1975, 1982. The definitive study.

  Briant, Pierre. Darius, ksPerses et I’empire. Decouvertes Gallimard, 159. Paris: Gallimard, 1992. A tiny paperback by a renowned French scholar, which contains the best illustrations of any book on the Persian period, almost all in sumptuous color.

  ____________.From Cyrus to Alexander A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998. An impressive new two-volume history.

  Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. New York: Schocken, 1983. Basic and engagingly written history.

  Davies, W. D., and Louis Finkelstein, eds. The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 1, Introduction: The Persian Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. A pioneering work on the period.

  Gershevitch, Ilya, ed. The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 2, The Median and Achaemenian Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Numerous scholars contributed to this comprehensive survey of the Persian empire. Good attention to archaeological evidence.

  Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian: Sources, History, Synthesis. Vol. 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. An extremely helpful survey, with judicious summaries of the primary sources, specific critiques of recent scholarly work, and extensive bibliographies. Little attention to canonical issues.

  Hoglund, Kenneth G. Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Summarizes the historical questions, reassesses textual and archaeological assumptions about the period, and provides some helpful new perspectives.

  Hornblower, Simon. The Greek World 479–323 BC. New York and London: Methuen, 1983. Brief, readable history, which gives more attention than most histories of Greece to the non-Greek world.

  ____________.Mausolus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. A model study that explores in depth a small Persian-period province.

  Kugel, James L., and Rowan A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. The first part of the book, by Kugel, describes the roots of Jewish biblical criticism.

  Olmstead, Albert T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Still the most in-depth study of the Persian period.

  Root, Margaret Cool. “From the Heart: Powerful Persianisms in the Art of the Western Empire.”Achaemenid History 6 (1991): 1–29. Vividly demonstrates the visual component of Persian propaganda.

  Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. A trailblazing analysis of the religious tensions underlying Persian-period Judaism. Although Smith’s theories have been criticized as overly schematized, most scholars have accepted his basic approach.

  Stern, Ephraim. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 BC. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982. Monumental survey of the archaeological evidence.

  Yamauchi, Edwin M. Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1990. Fundamentalist viewpoint, but covers the basic biblical questions in tandem with a good overview of Persian history.

  CHAPTER NINE

  Between Alexandria and Antioch

  Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic Period

  LEONARD J. GREENSPOON

  Alexander the Great’s arrival in the east in 333 BCE—along with hordes of Macedonians and Greeks whose cause he was championing—had a major impact on subsequent developments for the Jews, as for countless other peoples. But it is important not to overemphasize the extent of Alexander’s impact. Greeks and other Westerners had been traveling through the east, primarily as traders and mercenaries, for centuries before the great Macedonian warrior launched his army. The interests of such individuals undoubtedly ran more in the direction of popular rather than high culture, but their cumulative influence was considerable. At the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum, the complex of cultural, economic, philosophical, religious, and social factors called “Hellenism” reached some groups, such as city-dwellers and some artisans, before others,
and it penetrated such geographical areas as the Mediterranean coast and major cities more rapidly than it did other, more rural or remote places. For these reasons we have to nuance statements about the spread of Hellenism.

  Modern interpretations of this era are frequently colored by their authors’ views of Hellenism, especially in comparison with the monotheistic faith of Israel. Those who evaluate Hellenism positively tend to see its encounters with Judaism, at least initially, as a coming together of forces that could have produced a reinvigorated and strengthened faith, better able to face the realities of the new world. Those for whom Hellenistic incursions into Jewish religious life and culture represent a clash of incompatible systems, however, tend to limit the degree of Greek influence among those Jews who represented the best of their inherited tradition. In large part, these judgments by modern historians mirror opinions expressed by ancient writers: in the last few centuries before the Common Era it was difficult to be neutral on the issue of Hellenistic influence within the Jewish community, both in Israel and in the Diaspora.

  As bearers of the only pre-Christian monotheistic tradition, Jews had often faced extinction by more powerful polytheistic peoples. The Bible is filled with accounts of such clashes; some the Israelites overcame, others temporarily overwhelmed them. In that sense the attractions, as well as the perceived dangers, of Hellenism were no different from Israel’s earlier experiences with Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians.

  But in a larger sense Hellenism posed a unique challenge. It incorporated a world-view and way of life that appeared to avoid the excesses and unacceptable features of earlier outsiders’ religions and cultures; at the same time it offered elevated concepts that would join Jews to the rest of the culturally and economically advantaged of the known world. As a result, this period saw unprecedented ruptures that pitted group against group, even among the priestly families. This is easy to chronicle, but more difficult to evaluate. In any case, the world of Judaism in 63 BCE was a very different place than it had been three centuries earlier, when Alexander appeared on the scene.

  Alexander and the Jews

  After the assassination of his father, Philip, in 336 BCE, Alexander quickly solidified his position as Macedonian monarch. Like his father, his vision extended far beyond his kingdom to the Greek city-states to the south. He succeeded in establishing himself as the savior of the Greek-speaking world, whose shame at the hands of the Persians it had never properly avenged. Although almost every aspect of Alexander’s personality, including his motives, have elicited widely varying judgments ever since his own lifetime, there is little debate concerning his military prowess and battlefield leadership. The heartland of Judea, relatively isolated and away from the main routes of transport and troop movement, was not a major concern to Alexander as he marched south from Phoenicia to Egypt. Legendary tales that portray Alexander acknowledging the power of Israel’s deity have little historical value. But the development of such legends among almost all Near Eastern peoples, including Judea’s neighbors and frequent antagonists the Samaritans, testifies to the imprint that Alexander left on the region. Whether by design or not, he was a unifying force through the sheer greatness of his personality as perceived by those he encountered and conquered.

  At the oasis of Siwa, deep in the Egyptian desert, Alexander is said to have received an oracular response that established (or perhaps confirmed) his own sense of divinity. Whatever Alexander himself may have thought, there is no indication that he sought to impose worship of himself or any particular pantheon of deities on his subjects. He seems to have been genuinely open to all sorts of inquiries and willing to entertain non-Greek ideas about the gods, as his experience with the Persians indicates. If he ever heard anything about the monotheistic faith of the Jews, he took no action against them. Nor can we ascertain, beyond the realm of legends, what the Jews thought of Alexander during his lifetime. Since their life under Persian domination was on the whole good, it is not clear that they would have welcomed him as a liberator. To the extent that he championed new ideas and a new way of life, he may have been feared as much as admired. But all this is speculative. If the accounts of a Samaritan revolt against Alexander are credible, we can at least say that the Judeans were wise enough to avoid such disastrous actions.

  The Period of Ptolemaic Dominance

  Alexander’s sudden death in 323 BCE plunged the lands he had conquered into decades of uncertainty, as his generals and would-be successors fought it out for territory and power. In the scale of things, the land of Judea itself was not worth fighting for, but its location was sufficiently close to the major thoroughfares connecting or dividing Egypt and Mesopotamia that Alexander’s close friend Ptolemy experienced satisfaction when Judea and neighboring lands at last fell into his hands.

  Ptolemy and his immediate successors adopted a policy toward their northern possessions that was on the whole mutually rewarding, largely mirroring previous Persian practice. Unless they saw a specific reason to intervene, the Ptolemies allowed the Jews considerable self-rule under the leadership of the high priests and the bureaucracies the latter maintained. Taxes of all sorts were collected in support of the Jerusalem Temple and the vast Ptolemaic government centered in Alexandria. Friction probably arose on occasion, but there is no record of far-ranging attacks on the central institutions that supported Israel’s monotheistic faith. Presumably sacrifices were regularly offered on behalf of the Ptolemaic monarch, as they had been in the past and would be in the future. Throughout most of the third century such sacrifices would most often have been sincere expressions of gratitude for genuinely benign governance rather than simply politically expedient actions.

  Paradoxically, we are better informed about life in Judea for earlier times than for the period of Ptolemaic dominance, the third century BCE. Archaeological remains, including hoards of coins, along with a handful of historical documents and accounts provide scant, if valuable, information. We have, for example, a cache of letters written by and addressed to Zenon, who was the chief aide to Apollonius, finance minister in the court of the first Ptolemy. A powerful figure in his own right, Zenon toured Judea and neighboring areas for several years during the mid-third century on a fact-finding mission for both his immediate master and the king. His reports support the picture of Ptolemaic rule as widely, if not firmly, established throughout this region. Along with coins probably minted in Jerusalem as well as along the Mediterranean coast, these letters demonstrate the extent of Egyptian/Macedonian bureaucratic incursions into all areas and all aspects of life. Still, Hellenistic influence was less prominent in Jerusalem and its immediate environs than elsewhere.

  The Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the first century CE, provides information on this period as well. He is often the major source for many incidents, but modern scholars remain divided on the reliability of Josephus’s work. Moreover, since Josephus himself depended on earlier sources, his accounts are bound to vary considerably in their trustworthiness. Nonetheless, even taking into account the conditions under which he labored and the biases he regularly displays, Josephus’s record remains an invaluable resource to be fully but critically mined.

  Josephus preserves what appears to be a domestic saga, taking in several generations of the Tobiad family. Well-connected to the ruling Jerusalem priesthood, the Tobiads stood equally close to their Egyptian rulers. Their fortune seems to have originated from their lucrative tax farming in Transjordan and perhaps elsewhere. Through the practice of tax farming, individuals or consortia bid for the right to collect government revenue in a certain area. Whatever they gathered above that bid was their profit, which throughout the Greco-Roman world could be considerable. So successful were the Tobiads in this enterprise that they constructed a veritable mini-empire near present-day Amman, Jordan, one that survived the change in power from Egyptian Ptolemies to Syrian Seleucids. At the same time, the Tobiad saga provides interesting as well as entertaining data on the question of assimilation
and maintenance of distinctive Jewish identity.

  Another source for this period is the Letter of Aristeas, which like the more extensive history of Josephus has been both promoted and reviled as a reliable historical source. The Letter of Aristeas is most often cited as a witness to the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Septuagint. It also reports that the second Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, early in his reign freed thousands of Judeans who had been brought to Egypt as slaves by his father. If correct, this contradicts the view that Ptolemaic rule over Egypt’s northern territories was always peaceful and that a considerable number of Jews had voluntarily migrated to Egypt, and in particular to its capital city, Alexandria. But there is good reason to give this report considerable credence. During the several decades after Alexander’s death, when the fate of Syria-Palestine hung in the balance, there were undoubtedly many Judeans who favored Seleucid control, just as many others supported Ptolemaic claims. Ptolemy’s forcible deportation of those who had given aid to his enemy is not surprising, nor would it be difficult to imagine that he actively encouraged some of his supporters to join groups of Jews who had earlier settled in Egypt. Philadelphus’s freeing of members of the former group and their eventual amalgamation into the growing Jewish population of Alexandria is in character with this monarch, who regularly lived up to his epithet (“man of brotherly love”).