(avg. read time: 8–17 mins.)
Hellenistic Period
Timeline (332/1 BCE–167 or 163 BCE)
This period and the next illustrate vividly the potential issues in dividing these timelines into discrete eras. One could end this era at the beginning of the Maccabean War, the end of the Maccabean War, or potentially even the time at which the Hasmonean-led Jews were recognized as politically independent from Greek rule (142 BCE).
Biblical Texts of This Period
Daniel (according to many)
Ecclesiastes (possibly)
LXX
Other Sources for This Period
Psalms 151–153
Tobit
Judith
Sirach
1 Maccabees (though written later)
2 Maccabees (though written later)
1 Esdras (possibly)
Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36)
Book of Astronomical Writings (1 En. 72–82)
Most of Sibylline Oracles 3
Letter of Aristeas
Fragmentary sources (mostly listed in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, Book 9, but more fully presented in the closing pages of vol. 2 of James Charlesworth’s collection The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha):
o Philo the Epic Poet
o Theodotus, On the Jews
o Orphica
o Ezekiel the Tragedian
o Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets
o Aristobulus
o Demetrius the Chronographer
o Aristeas the Exegete (possibly)
o Artapanus
o Pseudo-Hecataeus
Josephus, Ant. 11.313–12.419
Zenon Papyri
Nash Papyrus
Elephantine Papyri
Decree of Ptolemy II
Major Figures
Alexander the Great
One of the most successful military commanders ever and one of the most influential personas of Western history.
Conquered the territories of the Achaemenid Empire.
Founder of the city of Alexandria in Egypt, which would become one of the major cultural hubs of the ancient world.
Maintained the general policies of the Persians in order to ensure continuity between empires and curb the impulse to rebellion.
Ironically, most of the rebellions experienced in his rule came from Greece (with the singular campaign by Spartan king Agis III that ended at the Battle of Megalopolis in 331 BCE) and from his Greek comrades (due to his temporary acceptance of proskynesis and his desire to continue conquest into India).
The Greeks initially objected to Alexander’s acceptance of proskynesis because it seemed to encroach on reverence that should be reserved for the gods, but this practice opened the door for ruler cults in the later divided Greek Empire. See here for more.
Alexander’s most lasting legacy is his program of Hellenism, as Greek language, culture (material, practical, and conceptual), and religion were spread throughout the lands he conquered to an extent the Greeks had never achieved before.
His death left the massive Macedonian Empire without a clear successor, which led to the Wars of the Diadochoi between Alexander’s generals and companions.
Ptolemy I Soter
One of Alexander’s bodyguards, renowned particularly for his role in the conquests east of Babylon.
Given Egypt in the Partition of Babylon, but his territory would expand in the subsequent wars to include virtually the entire Levant, Libya, Cyprus, and parts of southern Asia Minor.
Founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty that ruled over Eretz Israel for a century.
Made Alexandria the capital of his empire.
Seleucus I Nicator
Initially served under Perdiccas, the regent of Alexander’s empire, but assassinated him and later became an ally of Ptolemy.
Although he received no land in the initial Partition of Babylon, the Wars of the Diadochoi would end with Seleucus in possession of the greatest share of land, as his empire extended from Syria and central Asia Minor in the west to the Indus River in the east.
Founder of the Seleucid dynasty, as well as the cities of Antioch and Selecuia on the Tigris.
Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Letter of Aristeas)
Ruled over the Ptolemaic Empire at its height.
Engaged in the first two Syrian Wars against the Seleucids.
Attempted to secure peace with Antiochus II by giving him his daughter Berenice in marriage.
In Jewish tradition, he is best known through the Letter of Aristeas as the one who commissioned the translation of the OT into Greek.
Ptolemy III Euergetes
After Antiochus II’s death, he left two wives—the aforementioned Berenice as well as Laodice—each with a son who had a claim on the throne, leading Berenice to call on her brother Ptolemy III to support her son’s claim.
Seleucus II, Laodice’s son, took the throne after Berenice and her son were assassinated; this intrigue led to the Third Syrian War.
Ptolemy IV Philopator
Lost Eretz Israel to Antiochus III early in his reign.
Antiochus III the Great
Conqueror of Eretz Israel and much of the territory of Seleucus I that had been lost in the meantime.
Received favorably by the majority of Jews in the region because he promised to continue the policy of religious toleration that had generally been in place for centuries, and he even lowered the tax burden on the region.
He went even further in establishing rules in line with what seems to have been prevailing values at the time: foreigners should not enter the temple and no unclean animal should be allowed in Jerusalem.
Although he was considered to be the restorer of Seleucid glory, his ambition hit against the wall of the rising world power from Rome when he suffered a decisive defeat against them at Magnesia in 190 BCE.
His defeat forced him to sign the Treaty of Apamea, one result of which was that his son Mithridates (later Antiochus IV) became a political hostage of Rome.
The loss also resulted in a heavy financial cost of 15,000 talents—3,000 paid by the time treaty was ratified, 12,000 to be paid in 12 years—which led to two consequences.
o One, Antiochus began exacting funds from the holy places of his empire, which led to his death in Susa, where he was attempting to take money from a temple.
o Two, the relaxed tax burden for Judea that had come with the change in government was now much heavier, and the strain this put on relations with the Seleucids would lead to the events of the Maccabean War.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes
“Brilliant but inconsistent, methodical yet brash, generous and cruel, Antiochus was a complex individual living in dangerous times. History would have been very different had he followed his loftier instincts” (Greenspoon, 439).
Waged the last Syrian War after his return from Rome.
Supported the building of a gymnasium in Jerusalem at the request of Jesus/Jason the high priest.
Later gave the high priesthood to Menelaus after being bribed more than Jason had first bribed him to receive this office.
o Menelaus promised increased tribute equivalent to three years’ worth of taxes.
As a result of this intrigue, he came to Jerusalem after his first successful campaign against Egypt and took 1,800 talents from the temple, which was slightly less than what Menelaus had originally promised him as part of the bribe.
While he was away on his second campaign against Egypt, a rumor spread that Antiochus had died and Jason came to Jerusalem with a small army to slaughter his enemies.
The Romans forced Antiochus to cease his campaign against Egypt and he returned to Jerusalem, which he subjected to more slaughter and plunder.
As a response to a rebellious populace, Antiochus erected altars to other gods—including an altar in the temple—sacrificed pigs, and forbade Jewish distinctives, such as circumcision and the Sabbath (Nongbri, 97–98).
Maccabees/Hasmoneans
A once lowly priestly family (1 Macc 2:1; 1 Chron 24:7; Neh 11:10; 12:6, 19) led by the patriarch Mattathias, and including his sons John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Jonathan.
o Notice that these names would become six of the nine most popular male names in the subsequent history of the area (Bauckham, 71–78, 85–92).
According to 1 Maccabees, Mattathias began the revolt when he violently resisted one of the sacrifices according to Antiochus’s decree.
In accord with Mattathias’s rhetoric, his sons claimed they were making a stand for the covenant and inheritance of their ancestors over against the gentiles (1 Macc 2:19–20, 27, 50–51, 54; 4:9–10; 10:52, 55; 15:33–34).
Highlights of Historical Context
Hellenization: Greek is the lingua franca of the Macedonian empire and its successor subdivisions, Greek education spreads throughout the provinces, Greek culture (history, practices, material, literature, art/entertainment, athletics, and so on) is propagated in other nations to an unprecedented extent, non-Greek cultures receive a new level of exposure to Greek ideas and philosophy, Greek religion assimilates or otherwise combines with many local religions, and, as with the Persians, the Greeks establish a singular coinage for the empire (which then diverged as the empire split up).
The emergence of the LXX signified a new linguistic era in Judaism, as Hebrew tended to be preserved among the elites while Aramaic and now Greek were popular languages.
o There seem to be multiple translation philosophies operating in the LXX (not to mention the subsequent versions); at times providing literalistic renderings and at times making us question if there was a different Hebrew text from what we have available or if a translator was operating more freely.
o Many later Jewish and Christian writers only knew the OT in Greek.
In return for Sanballat III giving Alexander military aid during his campaign in the region, the latter granted the former the favor of being able to build a temple at Mt. Gerizim as part of a building program at Shechem.
The general tenor of religion in Palestine in this era was the same as it was in the Persian era: “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” (Greenspoon, 424).
The Ptolemies and the Seleucids fought a series of six Syrian Wars between 274 and 168 BCE in which Palestine served as a buffer between the power centers of Alexandria and Antioch for whichever kingdom had control of the region.
From the later years of the Ptolemaic reign to the end of the Seleucid reign, the most common source of conflict was internal, especially in the intrigue among the related noble families of the Tobiads and the Oniads (the latter of which were usually the high priestly family), beginning with Joseph and Onias II, which sets the stage for the intrigue that would lead to the Maccabean War (Derfler, 17–33).
o One of the Oniads established the temple at Leontopolis (Josephus, War 7.423–426; Ant. 12.237–238, 387; 13.62–73).
Antiochus III lost a war to Rome in Asia Minor and the fallout placed a heavy tax burden on Palestine, in contrast to the lighter taxation he placed on them a decade earlier.
The heavier tax burden led to Heliodorus, the minister of Seleucus IV, attempting to plunder the temple (2 Macc 3:13–28) and, indirectly, to Antiochus IV actually doing so.
Although questions remain about what exactly was part of Antiochus’s decree (as opposed to what the Maccabean rhetoric said) and what exactly his motivation was, his actions were received as striking at the heart of Jewish identity.
Theological Developments
The translation of the OT into Greek led to numerous new readings and to theologies derived from them, as will become especially apparent in Philo.
While earlier biblical texts hinted at means of divine agency, such as angels and personified attributes like Wisdom, the theology of this agency developed in earnest beginning in this era of the Second Temple Period, arguably setting the stage for early Christian Christology and Trinitarian theology.
“Language about supernatural agencies other than the one god has to do, rather, with the theological problem of how to hold together providence (with covenant as a special case of providence) and a belief in a transcendent god…. Thus it is that language about angels, about the Shekinah or ‘presence’ of Israel’s god, about Torah, about Wisdom, about the Logos—all of these make their appearance, not as mere fantasy or speculative metaphysics, but as varied (and not always equally successful) attempts to perform a necessary theological task” (Wright, NTPG, 259).
“The personification of divine attributes was intended to focus attention upon particular aspects of God’s nature and … occasionally to magnify God by emphasizing that he is greater than any of his works indicate” (Hurtado, 49).
One medium of divine action and revelation that was especially emphasized in this period was wisdom (personified or otherwise).
On the one hand, wisdom traditions were often the sources of greatest continuity between Israel and her neighbors, and so some appealed to wisdom traditions to join the conversations of Greek philosophy and give Judaism a more universalizing appeal (e.g., Letter of Aristeas); on the other hand, Jews could also tie Wisdom specifically to Torah and the fear of the one they called YHWH (e.g., Sirach and 1 Baruch; on this link, see Boccaccini, 81–99).
While boundary markers of Jewish identity had already been emphasized (such as circumcision, Sabbath, diet, going to the temple, and keeping the Torah), this period seems to suggest that most took some form of an additive approach to these boundary markers (i.e., more or less full participation in Hellenistic society in addition to having these boundaries in place), until they were threatened by Antiochus.
Although critiques of idolatry can be traced back to the OT, this era saw the proliferation of such critiques, including of rulers who accept divine honors.
As Jews sought to stake out their identity in another multicultural empire that also more actively promoted a dominant culture, one argument that emerged from this period was that Moses or Abraham was the source of Greek education and philosophy (Aristobulus and Artapanus; later eras witnessed this argument in Eupolemus, Philo, and Josephus, along with some early Christians).
At the confluence of multiple concerns, problems, and traditions, this era also witnessed growth in interest about the afterlife and the eschaton, especially the prospect of final judgment (particularly revolving around the vindication of the righteous).
To summarize briefly, some Jews were committed to a view equivalent to Homer and ancient Mesopotamian culture, that all have a common destination; others believed in an ultimate fate of a disembodied afterlife; still others believed (whether or not a temporary disembodied afterlife was involved) in an eschatological resurrection of the dead, as we reviewed earlier this month.
Areas for Further Research
One area that will seemingly always require further research is the actual influence of Hellenization. When we speak of Greek influence on Judea and Judaism, what precisely are we talking about? Does influence in one sphere of culture and daily life entail influence in another? Was the prevalence of this influence distributed differently across different places and different classes? This last question illustrates a basic problem that accompanies many accounts of Greek and Roman influence on other cultures: the Greco-Roman influence is assumed to be dominant and local culture is subsumed under it, simply because the Greeks and Romans conquered the local population. This is not only the case for Judea, but the debate about Hellenization in Judea puts the problem in stark relief. This is also an area where postcolonial studies and subaltern history may shed some helpful light on the debate.
There are many accounts for the motivation and content of Antiochus Epiphanes’s decree that instigated the Maccabean Revolt. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various accounts? Is there another option that has not been sufficiently explored yet? One particular aspect of this issue that I would like to explore more is why Antiochus broke with a long tradition of policy regarding the Jewish religion extending through both Persian and Greek Empires and why he did so in such a radical fashion.
There has been much good work done on the relationship of developing notions of divine agency in Second Temple Judaism and the Christology (or even proto-Trinitarianism) of the NT. This work always rewards further exploration as we seek to account for how the NT authors expressed their theology of God and Christ, even as we understand that they introduced innovations.
Although one can rightly argue that some of the noted theological developments of this period have precedents in the OT, the renewed emphases on certain points—such as Jewish identity markers, critiques of idolatry, and post-mortem fate—illustrates how reactive the work of theology often is and how it emerges from conflicts in culture, ideology, and overall worldview. An old professor of mine wrote a book titled The Gospel According to Heretics to demonstrate that point. What might one learn from doing a similar study on the Hellenistic period? What internal dynamics of Judaism encountered the external realities of the gentile world to produce the theological developments that we see?
Bibliography
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Boccaccini, Gabriele. Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
Bright, John. History of Israel, 4th ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000.
Derfler, Steven L. The Hasmonean Revolt: Rebellion or Revolution. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 5. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.
Feldman, Louis H. Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered. JSJSup 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Grabbe, Lester L. The Coming of the Greeks: The Hellenistic Period. Vol. 2 of A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2008.
_____. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Vol. 1: The Persian and Greek Periods. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Greenspoon, Leonard. “Between Alexander and Antioch.” Pages 421–465 in The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Edited by Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 2nd ed. London: T&T Clark, 1998.
Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.
Nongbri, Brent. “The Motivations of the Maccabees and Judean Rhetoric of Ancestral Traditions.” Pages 85–111 in Ancient Judaism in Its Hellenistic Context. Edited by Carol Bakhos. JSJSup 95. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and theQuestion of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.