The Hellenization of Syria and Palestine

Hellenization in Syria-Palestine: The Case of Judea in the Third Century BCEAuthor(s): Robert HarrisonSource: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 98-108Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210387Accessed: 31/08/2010 06:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210387?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

Hellenization in Syria- Palestine: The Case of Judea in the Third Century BCE

Rv Roherf Uarrison

I.

4Gas

2,

41

4J

4 * 4S 4

4 fLA

442

4

1 i.3

4 0-

4 IF

Hellenization

is usually under- stood as the process through which post-classical Greek civili-

zation promoted itself and assimilated

peoples with an eye toward the unifica- tion of the known world into a single nation sharing a common culture. Accord-

ingly, discussion has usually focused on how Greek cultural institutions-

language, religious beliefs, and social mores-were disseminated from Mace- donia across the ancient Near East and served as the crucible in which indigenous peoples were assimilated into Greek culture.

But assimilation is a multifaceted process that progresses heterogeneously, both in terms of its geographical scope and its impact on various expressions of culture. Given this multilayered definition of Hellenization, it is fair to say that the entire Levant was Hellenized (to some degree) in the third century BCE, insofar as all of Syria-Palestine lay within the

political domain of Alexander and his successors. With regard to the territories which eventually fell to the Ptolemies, economic Hellenization quickly followed military conquest. The speed with which Jewish lands were incorporated into the

. . . . . . . . . . xN,

....... .....

Hellenistic economy is dramatically illustrated by archaeological finds and by official documents that have survived from that era.

These general degrees of Helleniza- tion seem to have been uniformly present in Ptolemaic lands, including the

province of Judea, during the early-mid third century iCE. Such an extent of Hel- lenistic influence was not without its con-

sequences in Judean society. But could it have afforded any real opportunity for early Hellenistic Jews in Palestine to

undergo a quiet cultural revolution in which their language, social mores, and intellectual traditions were irrevocably altered (or at least unavoidably influenced)? These potential alterations, which lie at the heart of what is usually defined as Hellenization, presuppose a degree of cultural receptivity that was not always present among the peoples who met the Greeks. Moreover, these changes occurred at such fundamental levels of culture that not just years but generations were

necessary to accomplish them. In reality, the aggressive pan-cultural

Hellenization that could have purpose- fully accomplished such a revolution was never really a concern of Alexander's successors. Accordingly, Hellenism took a variety of paths and met with various degrees of "success," depending on its own inherent strengths and weakness-

98 Biblical Archaeologist 57:2 (1994)

L4344 . . .

' • .

~W " L

, ,

L462

42i. 144453 Ip

0 5M o15 es. Having found Hellenized life and thought to be materially and spiritually attractive, some regions of Palestine were

revolutionized-particularly those in

geographical and economic proximity of newly-founded Hellenistic cities. Jews who lived beyond the borders of the land of Israel (especially in Alexandria) were affected more quickly and to a greater extent than their Judean compatriots. In the course of the late third to mid-second century, even the Jewish heartland faced a limited cultural crisis and ulti-

mately incorporated some aspects of Hellenistic civilization into its largely traditional beliefs and practices. Each socio-national configuration made

peace-or war-with the Hellenes at its own pace, on its own terms, with its own internal variations.

The process of Hellenization was a

complex, regionalized phenomenon which demands cautious interpretation. The compelling attraction of Hellenistic culture must be balanced against the power and unique configurations of native tradition. It is possible that some aspects of a particular culture were

quickly and significantly altered, while other aspects remained essentially un-

changed. Accordingly, a carefully balanced, circumspect approach is more

likely to produce an accurate picture of Hellenism in the ancient Near East, especially in the unique setting of third cen-

tury BCE Judea. How and to what degree was Judea

Hellenized during the third century BCE?

Scholarship has offered many diver- gent answers to this innocent-sounding question, ranging from "completely in

every way" to "not at all." On the whole, the only common ground between the

opposing sides of this debate is the fact that nearly every study of Judean Hel- lenization relies almost exclusively on

literary material to build its case.1 What makes this issue so difficult is the fact that relevant documents admit several

equally plausible interpretations. What is required is a close consideration of

archaeological data from the period, data that has been slowly amassing in scat- tered excavation reports, monographs, and articles.

The witness of archaeology helps to show that the Hellenization of the Lev- ant during the era of Ptolemaic domination was a process even more complex than it is possible to infer from the his-

Third-century fortifications at Tel Dor uti- lized compartment building, the first Greek building technique to be copied in Palestine. However, Phoenician ashlar construction continued to dominate both public and private Palestinian monumental architecture until the second century BCE. (From Stem 1988:12.)

torical Jewish documents of the follow- ing century

To be sure, the number of third century BCE sites unambiguously attested and scientifically excavated is somewhat limited, and the evidence which does exist is far from unambiguous. However, when the available data are collected and synthesized, it becomes possible provisionally to identify a number of key trends. Those trends can then be extrap- olated to provide some control on the

conflicting literary traditions which pur- port to recount the traumatic events in which the sodcio-cultural developments of the early Hellenistic period culminated. Toward that end, this article reviews the archaeological remains from Judea and its environs during the third centuryBCE. It proceeds from the assumption that the Hellenization of social institutions and

Biblical Archaeologist 57:2 (1994) 99

belief systems will find some reflection in the archaeological record.2

The accessible archaeological data fall into three broad categories: numismatics; monumental remains at principal Hel- lenistic sites; and miscellaneous material artifacts. Throughout the discussion, data will be applied to the issue of Hel- lenization's progress in Judea. A final

summary will outline the contribution of archaeological materials to the debate.

Yehud coins like these were probably struck in the third century BCE under Ptolemy II Phila- delphus. They are all inscribed with Aramaic or paleo-Hebrew legends. Ranging in value from

1/8 to 1/96 of a tetradrachm, their iconography is manifestly Hellenistic; some also bear Greek letters. (From Meshorer 1982:184.)

Numismatics Historians of third century Judea are for- tunate to have at their disposal a good deal of numismatic evidence. Coins first

appeared in Palestine at least as early as the mid-sixth century BCE, and they were in wide use by the end of the Hel- lenistic period. During the early Ptole- maic era, the coins found in Judea and its neighboring territories could be di- vided into two essentially different, yet related, types.

The existence in Palestine of coins

produced in major Ptolemaic mints has been well-documented for the better part of a century. A different series of coins, apparently minted in Judea, has come under increasing scrutiny only in the last decade. These so-called Yehud coins deserve close attention because their in-

terpretation bears heavily on questions surrounding Judea's Hellenization, social structure, and political relations

during the third century.

At least thirty very early coins inscribed with Aramaic or Hebrew letters have been published. They comprise nineteen distinct types. Of that number, nine coins representing five types are datable to the Ptolemaic era (Meshorer 1982). These early Judeo-Hellenistic coins stand in what appears to have been a continuous series that begins in the mid-fourth century BCE. This series was itself probably a continuation of

the old Philisto-Arabian coins. After a

strange drachm inscribed in Aramaic, the series of tiny coins continues with a

group of Athenian "owl" imitations. It then develops through several variations of art and inscription during the late Persian period, and culminates in a number of coins which bear the impres- sion of Ptolemy I, (301-283 BCE), his con- sort Bernice, and the Ptolemaic eagle.

The exact order and date for the series remain a matter of debate (Mildenberg 1978). Technical discussions aside, what

appears sure is the existence of Judean coinage in the

early-mid third

century BCE

bearing the clear

stamp of Hel- lenistic influence. The problems in

establishing the series' continuity and order pale beside three even more difficult questions. From what mint were they issued?

By whose authority were they struck? How did they

wp

Coins-like this silver drachm-are notoriously ambivalent witnesses to cultural change. This probable Y(H)D coin, likely issued in Judea during the Persian period, may imitate other coins or utilize borrowed motifs. While the symbols may be pagan, they might have received an alternative interpretation by Jewish authorities. On the reverse, the archaic Aramaic letters Y (a possible Y-H mono- gram) D surmount a roaring, winged lion standing on an unknown composite design. (From Meshorer 1982:28.)

function in the Judean and Ptolemaic economies?

The Yehud coins were probably struck in Jerusalem. Two coins have been found in stratigraphic excavations in the Judean capital; one was unearthed at Beth Zur; a fourth came from Ramat Rahel; and a few more specimens surfaced at Tell Jemmeh. The other coins, now in private collections, were from an area south of Jerusalem, east and west of the road to

Hebron. With no evidence to the con-

trary, it seems reasonable to assume that this limited distribution

points to the existence of

a mint in Jer- usalem. But who

minted the Yehud coins, and why? The local minting au-

thority for the Persian segment of the series seems to have lain with the governor

(pe.ih) of the Achaemenid

satrapy, Yehud. But the governor's name and title disappear from the coins of the Yehud series in the Hellenistic period. Thus the third century probably saw a shift in monetary authority from the re-

gional Ptolemaic strategos to the Jewish high priesthood. In the light of the

growing secularization and politiciza- tion of that office during the early Hel-

oll?

VF

44 lin,


Scholars still debate the exact sequence of the third century Yehud coins. The reverse of this coin depicts a bird looking over its shoul- der, surrounded by the (unusual) full spelling

of the name of Judea.

6%

q~~f

The coin has been argued to be both the earliest and the latest in the Ptolemaic

Yehud series. (From Meshorer 1982:15.)

lenistic period, it is likely that the chief temple officers became increasingly involved in state economic policy and

power politics. The late Ptolemaic Yehud coins were

dearly issued at the behest of the central

Egyptian government in Alexandria. Their

regularity and standard design point to their character as Ptolemaic coins. These coins represent provincial issues: while direct responsibility of administering them lay with local authorities, this rela-

tively insignificant coinage was certainly minted under license from the central

government for use in a quite circum- scribed local market In that sense, they are

imperial coins whose Hebrew inscriptions were, from the perspective of the Ptolemies, merely a secondary detail.

Whoever minted the Yehud coins, and at whatever location, the economic

purpose of the coins is clear. The Hel- lenistic Yehud series comprises coins of

very small denominations. The largest are two (very rare) hemidrachms, whose value was only 1/8 of the standard Ptole- maic imperial currency minted in silver tetradrachms. Far more numerous are hemiobols (1/48 of a tetradrachm) and tetartmoiron (1/96 of a tetradrachm). These

tiny silver coins were the small change of their day, local issues to serve the ex-

change needs of a constituency limited both in number and in wealth.

The very existence of the Hellenistic Yehud coins bears eloquent testimony to the extent and speed with which the Ptolemies assumed control over the fledgling monetary economy of their Palestinian territories. Within a very few decades of establishing clear title to southern Coele-Syria, the Ptolemies had incorporated even the insignificant

Judean mint into their monetary system. The standard Ptolemaic character of the later Yehud coins demonstrates dearly the rulers' immediate interest in even the smallest details of the province's economic life. The coins stand in a continuous series that began quite haphazardly (in terms of numismatic conventions and quality) and became quite uniform, a fact which illustrates the Ptolemies' ability to incorporate native traditions, standardize them, and use the results to further their own economic interests.

The fact that Judea was granted coin- ing privileges at all may itself be an im-

portant clue to the social history of the third century BCE. Striking coins is a political act, and some have argued that the Yehud coins bear witness to Judea's administrative autonomy and political independence under the Ptolemies.

However, that explanation is suspect for several reasons. First, no other evidence exists which suggests the Ptole- mies favored Judea with greater freedom. Second, the Ptolemaic Yehud coins stand in a closely-related series which ends under Ptolemy 11 (282-246 BCE). Thus, the coins may have continued to be struck more by force of inertia than because of

any special status or revised political structure. Third, the denominations of these coins are so small that the privilege of minting them was really quite insignificant in the context of the Ptolemies'

complex monetary policy. That they exist at all testifies to the Ptolemies' thorough exploitation of any native resource to enrich their own coffers.

How do these coins impact the debate over the cultural progress of Hellenism in Judea during the third century BcE? A few numismatists have found the Ptole-

maic Yehud coins to be clear evidence for the rapid Hellenization of Judea (Rap- paport 1984). To be sure, the Greek symbols struck on these coins are quite foreign to the Hebraic cultural tradition. But

they are not foreign to the established (albeit short) tradition of Judean coins; dearly they continue numismatic conventions established in the Persian period. Moreover, the Hebrew inscriptions on these coins--in a context where a Greek legend is always otherwise employed---

'~:;~j ~?

Finds of Jewish coins and pottery impressions from the third century BCE are clustered around Jerusalem. These sites in the Judean highlands represent an enclave which seems not to have been as easily or quickly Hellenized as other segments of Palestine.

may itself be concession to local linguis- tic ability.

In summary, the Ptolemaic Yehud coins suggest that Judea in the third century was completely shaped in the economic sphere by the demands of the new Hellenistic overlords in Egypt. But the coins do not in themselves indicate the encroachment of Hellenistic cultural influence in realms of social interaction beyond some level of privileged com- merce. If anything, the Yehud coins are witness to the vitality of Judean traditions that "Judaized" Attic and Hellenistic numismatic conventions with appropri- ate symbolism and inscriptions.

In terms of social structure, these coins may point to the high priest's growing role as international financier, but they also indicate that in many respects there existed substantial continuity between the Achaemenid and Ptolemaic regimes. In general, the Ptolemaic Yehud coins begin to paint a picture of an era in which


Iw

The loc.ations of early Greek cities and sites where Ptolemaic coins have been discovered demonstrate how pervasive was Hellenistic influence in the third century BCE. This distribution notably excludes the area which represents the

probable extent of the province of Judea.

third century Judeans were propelled (especially in the economic sphere) toward a brave new world. It was a world with which they had not yet come to terms, but could no longer ignore.

The distribution of Ptolemaic coins in their Levantine provinces can be plotted only provisionally, since so few sites are

represented. Yet the emerging picture shows concentrations of Ptolemaic economic activity centered in sites with dear financial advantage (like ports and commercial installations, e.g. Tel Michal, Acco, Sidon, Ein Gedi), with military im-

port (along the effective northern fron- tier of Egypt at Lachish, Beth Zur, and Ramat Rahel, Shechem), or with Hellen- istic foundation (Ammon and Scythopo-

lis). Missing are any hoards that can be attributed to the Judean mainland-an area that was arguably so remote, so

economically unimportant, and so mili-

tarily irrelevant that it was of little interest to the Ptolemies and their agents.

Once again, it seems likely that third

century Judea was surrounded by the

powerful economy and provocative culture of Alexander's successors. But numismatic evidence suggests that Judea proper had not yet come face-to-face with its conquerors on any large-scale economic, social, or cultural level. A review of Palestinian monumental remains from the third century BCE suggests much the same.

Monumental Remains Most previous archaeological surveys of Judea in the third century BCE have focused on the monumental architecture of a very few major sites. In general, they have all characterized this period as the definitive century of the Hellenization of Palestine (Albright 1949; Kuhnen 1990). But the archaeological realities of the early Hellenistic period in the Levant are too complex to admit such a broad

generalization. At the very least, such conclusions must be heavily qualified; in some cases, they must be dis- missed.

The complications of this period are perhaps best illustrated by the excavations at Tel Dor (Khirbet el-Burj). Biblical Dor, the capital of a major Phoenician settlement on the Levantine coast, com- manded a sizeable terri- E tory throughout the Assyrian, Babylon- ian, and Persian pe- '

riods. After being *

destroyed late in the mid-fourth century BCE, the city again began to prosper in the Hel- lenistic Age. Beginning in 1980, excavations at Dor unearthed an important Greek city whose

mnlhiflflT

remains make an important contribution to the debate about the Hellenization of Palestine (Stem 1985).

Extensive Hellenistic remains have come to light in almost every area at the site. Dor was apparently occupied as an unfortified city early in the Hellenis- tic period. Some time toward the end of Ptolemy II's reign, a large fortification

system was built. A considerable resi- dential district was in use throughout the Hellenistic period, an area marked

by a strict Greek (Hippodamic) city plan, ruler-straight streets, and multiple shops/living quarters. A large gate area, in use through several Persian and Hel- lenistic phases, divulged a good quan- tity of material remains from the third and second centuries. A commercial dye installation was uncovered in 1986. As-

The Hellenistic city of Marisa was laid out in a grid of parallel streets intersecting at

right angles. It seems likely that the primary promoters of such features of Hellenistic culture were not indigenous; rather, Greek

influence probably emerged from Phoeni- cian colonists. (From Horowitz 1980:104.)


sociated with it was a well-to-do private residence or public building whose phases also spanned the Persian period and reached into the era of Hellenistic occu-

pation (Stem and Sharon 1987). Two finds at Dor possess special rel-

evance to the question of the Helleniza- tion of Palestine during the third century. The first is the city wall erected as part of a new fortification system during the mid to late third century BCE.3 Stem (1988:11) identified the wall as being built in a "totally Greek style," and drew from it some important condclusions about the cultural history of Palestine: Stem inferred that the manifest Hellenization at Dor would have by third century BCE

filtered throughout Syria-Palestine. A closer typological study of construc-

tion techniques at Dor, however, shows Stem's conclusions to have been stated too dramatically. For example, Sharon (1987) demonstrated that Greek monumental architecture came to dominate even the Hellenistic city states of Pales- tine only during the second century BlCE.

A second crucial find buttnesses this conclusion. An important group of jar handles from Dor-the first sure exam-

ples of indigenous Palestinian pottery stamped with Greek

Sletters•-also date from

N the second century BCE (Ariel et al. 1985).

Dor's importance for assess-

ing the progress of Greek culture across Palestine is dear, as is the fact that Hellenism's cultural influence had begun to establish aitself on the coast by the mid-

third century BCE. But Dor Temple 1 was an independent

Phoenician city state

whose geographic set-

, ting made cultural

Gate exchange easy, if not inevitable. In

this context, it seems un- likely that the inner Judean highlands-with their limited strategic and economic importance--- would have known such

extensive Hellenistic influence before the mid-second century BCE.

The situation at Dor holds important

The Zenon Papyri

erhaps the most striking raw material for reconstructing Judean soci-

ety in the third century BCE is a collection of Greek papyri found in the

Fayumn of Egypt in the late nineteenth century. These papyri represent the

correspondence archive and depository of business records of a Greek im-

migrant named Zenon who functioned as the chief administrative officer for Apollonius, the minister of finance (Dioketes) for Ptolemy UI Philadel-

phus. Altogether, the Zenon papyri comprise some 4,000 documents which span a thirty-year period (261-229 BcE). The archive includes letters from Apollonius and his staff to Zenon, copies of letters from Zenon to

Apollonius, letters from Apollonius and Zenon to their agents, contracts of sale, records of expenditure, and billets of port dues (Pestmann 1981).

Zenon served Apollonius in several capacities; he was a useful and trusted manager and agent. Zenon toured extensively for Apollonius in both

otficial and private capacities, though his primary appointment was as the chief operating officer of one of Apollonius' gift estates (doreai, gifts from

Ptolemy II) near Philadephia on newly reclaimed land near Lake Moeris. Zenon managed the day-to-day affairs of an estate whose area exceeded 100 times the normal parcel allotted to military settlers favored by the

king (klerouchoi). His daily agenda covered the entire range of concerns:

agriculture, viticulture, husbandry, resource management, fiscal planning, business strategy. Zenon served Apollonious in the same capacity as Apol- lonius served the king.

The Zenon papyri are invaluable for understanding the economic orga- nization and social history of Ptolemaic Egypt. The detailed picture they draw of life under the Ptolemies at Apollonius' estate is very important, for

Philadelphia is easily conceived as Egypt in miniature. The administration was headed by Zenon who stood at the head of a small army of officials, business agents, and soldiers with large households (oikoi) who formed the non-peasant classes.

While much of what historians learn from the Zenon papyri must be ex-

trapolated from Egypt to Palestine in order for it to be useful in recon-

structing the progress of Hellenization in Judea, Zenon's archive also has some direct implications for the study of third century society in Palestine. In 260 CE Apollonius sent Zenon on a fourteen-month fact-finding tour of crown and personal lands in Syria, Coele Syria, Phoenicia, Idumea, and Judea. By one count, the Zenon archive contains fifty-two documents related to this journey.

implications for the rest of Syria-Palestine in terms of the progress of Hellenization. In general, the history of Greek occupation in these lands does not begin in

any significant way until the second cen-

tury BCE. This temporal frame of refer- ence is dear from finds at Samaria (Crow- foot et al. 1957 [1]:117ff.), Straton's Tower (Roller 1983) and several sites in the northern Plain of Sharon (e.g.,Tel Mevor- akh, Krokodeilonpolis, and Tel Zeror; see Stem 1978; Roller 1982; Ohata 1966-70).

These data cast doubt on the easy as-

sumption that the Hellenization of the Levant was accomplished in the third

century CE in a smooth sweep from the coast eastward. As a whole, the process moved much more haphazardly and at a somewhat slower pace.

The cultural and architectural history of Dor also illustrates how the Helleni- zation of the Levant proceeded accord-

ing to economic and military strategy, not cultural self-awareness. Dor was


overrun with Hellenes because it was a

key coastal entry point to the provinces for an aggressive Ptolemaic economy. Like wise, early Greek inland settlements were established or revamped to meet the need of production (e.g. Tel Anafa, Beersheba, and Ein Gedi; see Weinberg 1971; Derfler 1981; Kasher 1982) or protec- tion (e.g. Beth Zur and Samaria; see Sell- ars et al. 1968; Toombs and Wright 1961).

Finally, the diversity of the archaeo-

logical record at Dor points toward the fact that Hellenistic Syria-Palestine was marked by a variety of cultures which lived together (with various degrees of interaction) in very close geographical proximity. Outside the confines of "Hel- lenistic Dor" lay civilizations essentially unaffected by Hellenism in the third

century. This fact has important implications for understanding the progress

Zenon's journey through Palestine in the mid-third century BCE preserved a wealth of information about the economy and society of the early Hellenistic era. The extent of his trav- els shows how quickly the Ptolemies took advantage of the economic potential of their possessions.

These storage jar handles from Hellenistic Dor are the earliest known examples of Palestinian pottery stamped with Greek letters. Stratigraphic evidence dates these finds to ca. 130 BCE, a full

century after many have argued for a thorough going Hell- enization of the Levant. (From Ariel et al. 1985:137f.)

of Hellenization in Judea during the third century BCE.

To cite just one example, the town of Marisa (Tell Sandabannah)-with its Greek layout and Alexandrian tomb

paintings-lay just some 40 kilometers southwest of Jerusalem. But in the early Hellenistic period, Jerusalem and Marisa

may have stood-culturally speaking- worlds apart. Marisa was, after all, a Sidonian colony established by the Ptol- emies. It lay in territory firmly controlled

by the Idumeans-no real friends of the Jews (2 Macc 12:35). Moreover, recent

study has shown the Greek features of Marisa to have been limited in number and "poorly executed and obvious-

ly very provincial work" (Horo- witz 1980:111).F

In summary, the evidence pro- vided by monumental architecture points toward the conclusion that the Judean heartland was

largely unaffected by the early Hel- lenistic influences which had begun to change the face of the Levant in the third century BCE. Truly significant Greek influence is discernible only where Ptolemaic military and economic interests are clearly manifest.

Miscellaneous material artifacts Two individual finds (or groups of finds) from third century BCE Palestine are especially significant for understanding the

process of Hellenization in Syria-Pales- tine. The first is a bilingual ostracon

C ourt

=

a s

Marisa (Tell Sandabannah) is often cited as evidence for the rapid Hellenization of Pales- tine. Marisa's town-planning and architecture show some Greek influence. Yet on the whole, the city had few Hellenistic elements. For example, house plans from Hellenistic Marisa (above) and Bronze Age Meggido illustrate the continuity of eastern traditions and lack of Hellenis- tic innovation. Neither are many of the typical Greek public buildings to be found at Marisa. (From Horowitz 1980:108.)


p w 95b t')

o1 / rl kAi Y Xf1

1' Hrr~woC~

The earliest known Greek inscription in Palestine was found in 1971 at Khirbet el-K6m, a Greek military installation south of Judea. Dated to the year 277 BCE, it records a commercial transaction between an Idumean banker and a Greek businessman. (From Geraty 1975:56.)

found in 1971 during a salvage excavation at Khirbet el-Q6m, a small site between Hebron and Lachish about 50 kilometers southwest of Jerusalem. The ostracon, recording a loan between an Idumean commercial figure (kos-yada') and his Greek business partner (Niker- atos), dates specifically to year 6 of the

reign of Ptolemy II (277 BCE). Its text includes a Semitic transliteration of the Greek technical term kapelos (probably "moneylender" in this context). This find thus represents "the earliest attested Palestinian Greek inscription...and perhaps the first bilingual ostracon from Palestine in any language" (Geraty 1975:57).

From this ostracon, some scholars have inferred that the Hellenization of Palestine was far advanced by the third

century BCE. But that conclusion is valid

only insofar as it really means that dur-

ing the early third century BCE, some socioeconomic components of the various ethnic groups making their home in Palestine were capable of such financial intercourse with the Greek world. From such limited evidence it is unwise to make broad generalizations about the whole of Judean society. Khirbet el- Q6m was a Greek military installation established just after the Hellenistic con-

quest of the Levant, not an indigenous

settlement. And the Khirbet el-Q6m in-

scriptions are dearly written in a dialect which identifies their author as an Edomite/Idumean.

The second important artifact in this discussion is two groups of stamped jar handles from Judea which Paul Lapp (1963) dated to the mid-third century 1BCE. The first group of handles were stamped with the paleo-Hebrew inscription YHD and inscribed with various symbols that seem to indicate an official government seal. Most of the handles were found in the Jerusalem area (twenty-two from Ophel with three others from the

Tyropoean Valley), though examples are also known from Gezer, Bethany, and Ramat Rahel.

The second group of handles were

impressed with a circular seal which

consisted of a five-pointed star (the traditional symbol of the high priest) between whose axes were inscribed the letters YRSLM (Jerusalem). Of this type, forty-four examples are known. Lapp postulated that these jar handles are a remnant of a dual system of tax collection: the "YHD plus symbol" handles indi-

cating government ownership of collected taxes in kind, and the YRSLM handles indicating temple taxes for the

high priest.4 The jar handles which Lapp discussed

are without a doubt some of the most

important evidence available for recon-

structing the social and political timbre of early Hellenistic Judea. They certainly seem to bear the stamp of official use, and Lapp's general explanation of their character (as part of a centralized tax

Religion in Third Century BCE Judea

Derhaps the most important institutions of Ptolemaic Judea were the temple and its priesthood. The Jerusalem temple was noted as the preemi-

nent feature of early Hellenistic Judaism by the Greek writer Hecataeus of Abdera. Hecataeus traced the key elements of Jewish religion and society back to Moses, among whose accomplishments Hecataeus listed first the

founding of the Temple ("which [the Jews] hold in highest honor") and the introduction of '"honors and rituals paid to [the Jewish] god." Hecataeus also

recognized Moses as having been responsible for founding the priesthood. Although Hecataeus' report was no doubt influenced by Greek expec-

tations and his own literary agenda, his basic ethnography emphasizing the importance of the priestly establishment can be corroborated. The

Temple and Jerusalemite priesthood are central both to the roughly con-

temporary fragments of PseudoHecataeus On the Jews preserved by Jose- phus (C. AP. 2,42-43) and to the Seleucid Charter of Jerusalem (Josephus Ant. 12,140ff.; 145f.).

The most important politico-religious figure of early Hellenistic Judean society was undoubtedly the high priest According to Hecataeus,

...the Jews have never had a king, but the leadership of the mass of the

people is always vested in the priest who appears to excel in wisdom and virtue. They call him the High Priest, and believe him to be the mediator of God's commands to them.... [lit is he who in their assemblies and their other meetings proclaims what is to be ordained, and the Jews are so obedient in such matters that they immediately fall to the ground and do obeisance to the High Priest who expounds these commands to them.

Hecataeus has interpreted many aspects of what he saw in Jerusalem in a way which suited his own preconceptions and fuirthered his own lit-

erary and political purposes. But, in general, Hecataeus faithfully presents the social reality of the wealthy and powerful institution which continued to play a key role in Jewish life through the Second Temple period.


Storage jars which Judean authorities probably used to collect taxes were stamped with impressions like these in the third century BCE. The impressions represent a kind of official seal which indicated ownership. Significantly, the symbols and letters are thoroughly grounded in Hebrew-not Greek-traditions. (From Lapp 1963:25.)

collection system) is probably on target. Even though Lapp went too far in some aspects of his theorizing, these handles point dearly to the very traditional character of official symbols in what many have supposed to be a rampantly Hel- lenistic era.

Summary and conclusions The overwhelming pattern of evidence which emerges from this review indicates that there is really very little archae-

ological support for the contention that Judea was thoroughly Hellenized before the middle of the second century BcE. Neither monumental architecture nor material culture has been uncovered to suggest that Greek culture was an important part of Judean society during the third century BCE.

While this aspect of the case against early Hellenization is largely an argument from silence, such an analysis is strength- ened by the fact that Hellenistic construction techntiques do not seem to have been widely disseminated in Palestine before the second century BCE. It was not for a hundred years that the most important phases of Greek occupation occurred at almost every Palestinian site.

This conclusion is not to imply, however, that a third century Judean would have been completely ignorant of the Hellenistic presence in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. On the contrary, the emerging picture of this era's broader world shows it to have been surrounded on all sides by the first wave of Ptolemaic settlements. Judea was practically en- circled by the strong military and social presence of Hellenism that was becoming entrenched in the coastal plain to the west, in Idumea to the south, in Sam- aria to the north, and in the Transjordan to the east. In the early Hellenistic period, Judea was certainly a recognized administrative entity whose self-identity was clear-even if its real political autonomy was sharply limited. It is not unreason- able to suggest that Judea encountered Hellenism on a different timetable than its neighboring cultures. One of the few historical witnesses of the Jews in the early Hellenistic period characterized their way of life as being "unsociable and hostile to foreigners" (Hecataeus of Abdera, as cited by Diodorus xl, 3).

Thus, third century Judeans stood on the cusp of a process of Hellenization which was eventually consummated in the events surrounding the Hasmonean

revolt. Almost the entire third century would pass before the cultural climate in Judea would support any sustained em- brace of Greek ideas. Certainly there would have been some astute observers who would not have been insensitive to the new wind that was blowing all around. It is possible, for example, that a hundred years before the Maccabees, the biblical writer Qoheleth anticipated an impending crisis of faith engendered by the Hellenistic culture that was en-

compassing Judea. Yet third century Judeans were al-

ready becoming quite familiar with the Hellenistic world in two areas: government and economics. The archaeological record of third century BCE Palestine indicates that Judea had been integrated into the Ptolemaic economy quite early in the Hellenistic period. That integra- tion is unquestionably reflected in the period's tax collection system as well a! its official and provincial coinage. Jeru- salem, owing perhaps to its relative mili-

tary unimportance, escaped the fate of

being settled as a Ptolemaic deruchy. Bul in terms of economic domination, the Judean capital was no less ruled by Alex- andria than if it had been under the com- mand of a local military governor.

Economy and Society in Third Century BCE Judea

••he socio-economic analogy between Egypt and Palestine is quite strong

Sin the early Hellenistic period. The Ptolemies quickly and skillfully in-

corporated their Levantine territories into their empire, establishing an iden- tical system of land tenure and administrative apparatus. The Hellenistic Egyptians took thorough control of the region's economy and imposed ex- haustive regulations which did not differ substantially from those in place along the Nile. Within decades of their conquest, the Ptolemies overran Syria- Palestine with their mercenaries-both military and commercial.

To be sure, there were significant differences between Palestine and Egypt. Nevertheless, a good case can be built for the view that, at least in economic terms, Judea was "a little Egypt." The Greek commercial and administrative spirit seems to have been alive and well throughout Palestine, adapt- ing itself to local conditions where necessary. Again, the Zenon papyri are primary evidence which shows the degree to which the Egyptian Hel- lenists had established mercantile relations in their Levantine possessions. Third century Judea was a part of the Ptolemies' royal estate, and as such its administration did not differ significantly from the Egyptians' home territories. Zenon himself may have held a quasi-official position as comp- troller of Palestinian lands.


Still, foreign economic domination and imposed political superstructures are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the emergence of social structures and cultural ideas. While the archaeological record validates the Ptolemies' inroads into third century Judea in some

important aspects of social existence, the witness of coins, structures, and artifacts from "Early Hellenistic Judea" shows that Hellenization was an un- even process which had not begun significantly to affect the basic composi- tion of Judean society.

In the third century BCE Judea was indeed threatened by the ever-advancing tide of Hellenism that flooded the Near East in Alexander's wake. But Hellen- ism's advance was not a uniform tidal wave that swept the whole of the Ori- ent before it in a clearly-defined pro- gression from west to east. Rather, Hel- lenistic influence swirled in pools and collected in eddies that flowed around much of the territory whose only substantial link with the real Greek world was the economic relationship between

indigenous leaders, merchants, and peas- ants and their foreign overlords. The

archaeological record depicts third cen-

tury BCE Judea as relatively dry ground; its inundation lay almost a century in the future.

Hellenistic Semites in the Zenon Papyri

etly what did it mean for a Jew to be Heilenized in the early Ptole- cperiod? One answer comes from a letter sent from Syria in 256/

255 wCE to Zenon by an unknown non-reek (perhaps an Arab named [ ]Nab) (P. Col. Z. 66). In this document, a former subordinate of Zenon's complains about the short shrift he had been given by the functionaries to whose service Zenon had recommended him. The man charges that the base treatment he has received from various officials is attributable to the fact that he is "barbarian" who does not know how to hellenizein.

Although some controversy has attached itself to the interpretation of this key term, its most straightforward meaning is that the maltreated author of the letter was unable to speak Greek (Austin 1981:418). Thus P. Col. Z. 66 depicts a native Semite who had been intimately involved in the economic affairs of a highly placed Ptolemaic official, and yet he remained excluded from the cultural and social life of Hellenism at its most fundamental level because he had not mastered its language.

This anonymous correspondent provides a model of what it meant to be "hellenized" in third century BCE Palestine. Like him, Judeans of the third century B•E had learned to deal with the Greek economic infrastnucture of their age. Some of them, eager for social and financial advancement, may even have been bilingual to the degree that they could converse minimally and conduct business with the authorities. But they were Hellenists in quite a limited sense that focused only on their essential need to interact with the Greeks in official and economic circumstances. It would take another three generations before Hellenism moved beyond these basic spheres of activity to influence significantly sophisticated cultural understandings and key social institutions which are usually listed as the defining characteristics of Hellenistic Judaism.

Notes 1 Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism is something of an exception, since he did include a variety of archaeological material. However, Hengel's data suffered in the end from a number of shortcomings, the most important of which was his uncritical levelling of Hellenized Palestine into a single homogenous geographical and social entity. 2 In archaeological terms, Hellenization con- sists of Greek influence which is demonstrable in (1) records of the official (coins) and popu- lar (inscriptions, bilingual texts, etc.) uses of language; (2) monumental remains and civil engineering; (3) artistic works; (4) the detritus of everyday life (pottery, weights, etc.). Where Hellenism has made inroads in material culture, Hellenistic influence in social and intellectual life can be assumed as a logical corol- lary If anything, the physical accoutrements of Hellenistic life generally preceded its advance in the world of ideas. 3 The wall was constructed of sandstone blocks laid headers out. This two meter thick wall ran in a straight line around the previous fourth

century structures and fortifications. Square towers, set at 30-45 meter intervals, projected around the wall. Its date was established by a coin of Ptolemy II over which it was set; literary evidence corroborates the fort's comple- tion by 219 BCE (Polybius History 5:66; Jose- phus, Ant. 12, 2, 23). 4 On the basis of these two handle groups, along with other literary evidence, Lapp argued that Ptolemaic Palestine was not a semi- autonomous temple state in which the high priest functioned as an overseer for the Egypt- ian monarch; rather, he saw the two separate tax collection systems as indications of what he described as a division of power between civil and religious authorities, a pattern of Judean political life that went back to the early Persian period when the dyarchy was first created. He went on to postulate that Judea was administered in the Ptolemaic era by a Jewish governor-whose primary responsibility in the centralized Ptolemaic bureaucracy was the collection of taxes. Other materials indicate that his suppositions about the nature of Judea's political administration are mistak- en. In the early Hellenistic period there is no

evidence that Judea was an autonomous province with its own indigenous governor.

Bibliography Albright, WF.

1949 The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Ariel, D.T. et al. 1985 A Group of Stamped Hellenistic Stor-

age Jar Handles from Dor. Israel Ex- ploration Journal 35:135-52.

Austin, M.M. 1981 The Hellenistic World from Alexander to

the Roman Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braun, R. 1979 Qoheleth und die frzihhellenistische Pop-

ular-philosophie. BZAW 130. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Crenshaw, J.L. 1987 Ecclesiastes. Old Testament Library.

Philadephia: Westminster Press.

Crowfoot, J.W. et al. 1957 Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Expedi-


Dr[ Robert Harrison is adjunct faculty at Virginian Theological Seminary in Alex- andria, Virginia, where he teaches biblical languages and New Testament. Har- rison holds a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Judaic Studies from Duke University. A Priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Wash- ington, DC, he currently serves as Assis- tant Rector of St. John's Episcopal Church, Chevy Chase, Maryland.

tion in 1931-33 and of the British Expe- dition in 1935. 3 Vols. London: Pales- tine Exploration Fund.

Crusemann, E 1984 The Unchangeable World: The 'Crisis

of Wisdom' in Koheleth. Pp. 57-77 in The God of the Lowly. Edited by W. Schottroff and W. Stegemann. Trans- lated by M.J. O'Connell. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Geraty, L.W. 1975 The Khirbet el-Q6m Bilingual Ostra-

con. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 220:56-61.

Harrison, C.R. 1991 Qoheleth in Social-Historical Perspec-

tive. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke Univer- sity.

Hengel, M. 1974 Hellenism and Judaism. 2 Vols. Trans-

lated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Horowitz, G. 1980 Town Planning of Hellenistic Marisa:

A Reappraisal of the Excavations After Eighty Years. Palestine Explo- ration Quarterly 112:93-111.

Kasher, A. 1982 Gaza During the Graeco-Roman Era.

Jerusalem Cathedra 2:68-70.

Kuhnen, H.-P 1990 Palatina in grieche-romischen Zeit.

Berlin: C.H. Beck.

Lapp, P.W. 1963 Ptolemaic Stamped Handles from

Judah. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 172:22-35.

Lohfink, N. 1980 Koheleth. Die Neue Echter Bibel.

Stuttgart: Echter Verlag. Loretz, O.

1964 Qohelet und der alte Orient: Unter- suchung zur Stil und theologischer The- matik des Buches Qohelet. Frieburg, Basel, Wein: Herder.

Meshorer, Y 1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 Vols. Dix

Hills, New York: Amphora Books.

Mildenberg, L. 1978 Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Pro-

vincial Coinage of Judea. Pp. 183-96 in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, Edited by O. Morkholm and N.M. Waggoner. Wettem: Cultura Press.

Ohata, K. 1966-70 Tel Zeror. Tokyo: Society for Near

Eastemrn Studies in Japan. Pestmann, PW.

1981 A Guide to the Zenon Papyri. Papyro- logica Lugundo-Batava 21 AB. Lei- den: E.J. Brill.

Peters, J.P. and Thiersch, H. 1905 Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of

Marisa. London: Palestine Explo- ration Fund.

Rappaport, U. 1984 The First Judean Coinage. Journal for

Jewish Studies 32:1-17.

Roller, D.W 1982 The Nothem Plains of Sharon in the

Hellenistic Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 247:43-52.

Sellars, O.R. et al. 1968 The 1957 Excavations at Beth Zur. An-

nual of the American Schools of Ori- ental Research 38. Cambridge: Amer- ican Schools of Oriental Research.

Sharon, I. 1987 Phoenician and Greek Ashlar Con-

struction Techniques at Tel Dor, Is- rael. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 267:21-42.

Stem, E. 1978 Excavations at Tel Mevorakh. Qedem 9.

Jerusalem: Hebrew University Insti- tute of Archaeology.

1985 The Excavations at Tel Dor. Pp. 169- 92 in The Land of Israel: Crossroads of Civilizations., Edited by E. Lipinski. Orientalia Louvaniensia Analectica 19. Leuven: Vitgeveris Peeters.

1988 The Walls of Dor. Israel Exploration Journal 37:201-11.

Toombs, L.E. and Wright, G.E. 1961 The Third Campaign at Balatah (Shech-

em). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 161:1144.

Weinberg, S.S. 1971 Tel Anafa: The Hellenistic Town. Is-

rael Exploration Journal 21:86-101. 1981 A Terracotta Figurine from the Hel-

lenistic Temple at Tel Beer-sheba. Is- rael Exploration Journal 31:97-99.

Hellenism and Biblical Texts: The Problem of Qoheleth

Very early in the history of biblical criticism scholars identified similar- ities between Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) and a variety of Greek writers

(Zirkel 1792). Modem critics have continued to develop the idea that Qohel- eth's world view and literary artistry were largely dependent on Greek antecedents (Braun 1973; Lohfink 1980). Other scholars contend that Qohel- eth betrays little if any Hellenistic influence (Zimmerli 1962; Loretz 1964). Since the consensus date for Qoheleth's work lies firmlny in the third century BCE (Crenshaw 1987), this debate is of some consequence to the question of the extent of Hellenization in early Ptolemaic Judea.

This venerable discussion of Hellenistic influence in Qoheleth has been carried on solely in literary categories. More recently, scholars have begun to examine how the social, political, and economic changes wrought by the Ptolemaic conquest of Syria-Palestine may have influenced Qoheleth's understanding of the world and his forms of expression (Crusemann 1984). It now may be possible to find important connections between the changing social circumstances of third century Judea and Qoheleth's pes- simistic outlook and epicurean philosophy (Harrison 1991).


Documents

The Hellenization of Syria and Palestine