Jewish History : Qumran SectEssay Preview: Jewish History : Qumran SectReport this essayThere are three central periods that need to be analysed in order to evaluate the influence of Hellenisation on Jewish history, up until the period of the Roman invasion: the Ptolemaic period, the Seleucid period and the Maccabean revolts, and the Hasmonean state. Each of these historical events shaped Jewish society and had a profound influence over the religious beliefs of many Jews. But it was the conquests of Alexander the great that were the main catalyst that brought about the process of Hellenisation, a process that was embraced by many Jews and rejected by others. All in all, it was a process that contributed greatly to Jewish history up until the Romans took matters into their own hands.
[…]
When the first Jews are taken to captivity, it is only through the humiliation of captivity that they learn the values of freedom, personal responsibility and honor. It is also the reason why Jewish men, especially the founders of the faith, saw their religious freedom, which provided protection from the tyranny of the Romans, as the greatest good. It is also the reason why some Jews (who considered themselves under the Roman faith) took in money to cover their expenses, and those who refused, sought protection from public authorities to fight for them on the battlefield or go on raids, sometimes to fight for peace and the right to life. But these Jews were not simply afraid to die for their faith, they wanted to live to express their religion.
It is natural to question the morality of being an Arab, or the righteousness of fighting for a Muslim, or, at the very least, the morality that has been imposed on the “unbelievers” that led millions to flee the Roman Empire, and whose ideology, which was to defend Jewish life and liberty, was a product of the Roman Empire. But what had been the greatest contribution of the Arabs at the turn of the 2nd century, is to have brought about the eventual downfall of the faith. The Jews fought alongside other Muslims because they wanted to have rights, which led to freedom and democracy, and for their faith they were, in turn, the first to achieve that freedom. In the end, they were forced into accepting a certain orthodoxy and morality, and the resulting chaos of the world ended their lives for good.
There is, however, a critical issue with this discussion, and it is not about the Romans. But rather about the fact that the Romans were able to bring around their culture, but were not able to overcome the culture they used to create, or the culture that they had inherited from their predecessors. This was their most crucial cultural contribution, for most Jews, the first to realise this. The Romans had to realise that they wanted to be, as they say… “beyond” Jews. This idea of “being without difference and without prejudice is Jewish fundamentalism”. Hence, this “beyond-Jews” idea of “being beyond-the-line”, and this is why they are allowed to take out a whole range of rights, including the right to life of women. This is not just Judaism, as many Jews say, but all religions and all cultures. And the most Jewish cultures which have a history, including Judaism, are actually part of Western Europe.
Now let me just briefly address the issues of cultural identity. Many, if not most Jews, assume that the Jews are somehow somehow related to other cultures. Perhaps this is so because this is the cultural experience that Jews are always forced into, and that Jews have always had cultural significance. Yet there is a major problem with this that Jewish culture and Jewish history can produce and do produce. For example, Jewish history has been based on a religious tradition and is never based on a particular religious tradition. Yet Jewish culture is based on a social
The Ptolemic period begins with Alexander the Great, who before his death in (323 BCE) had established a vast empire reaching from Macedonia to Persia. He then captured Egypt and Palestine southward. As W Albright states, these conquests were the catalyst, which led to the phenomenon known as Hellenisation .
Alexander wanted to export and impose Hellenistic culture on the rest of his empire. In (98 1 Macc. 1 20-4) we discover that once Alexander died his empire was divided among his generals. Judea, the ancestral land of the Israelites, fell under the rule of the Egyptian based Ptolemaic ruler, Ptolemy, under whose rule the Hellenisation of Judea commenced. Jews who were living in Egypt were allowed to return to Palestine (Josephus Antiquities Chapter 2) and the Pentateuch was translated into Greek. (1 Macc. 1 5-15) Greek became the language used by officials, Greek money began circulating, Greek art was exported and inter ethnic marriage was encouraged, if not imposed. The taxation system was based on that of the Greeks.
Some members of the upper class were in favour of the process of Hellenisation since it benefited them in terms of power and money. Josephus explains this in the Antiquities of the Jews Book 12 Chapter IV, with the example of Joseph the tax collector who betrayed his people because he was attracted to Hellenistic ways . In biblical literature there is also evidence of a Hellenistic influence with the apparition of Greek words in the Old Testament. The book of Wisdom is another good example that shows how the Hellenistic influence changed the life of many Jews. The book of Wisdom was also an answer for a growing number of Israelites who were attracted to Hellenistic customs. In the book God is opposed to the concept of Reason, which stems from Greek philosophy (Levine). The Hellenist influence is also evident in certain writings in the Old Testament, such as the Song of Solomon, where in Chapters 4 and 5, the Hellenist fascination with sensuality is clearly apparent.
A Study of the Context of Hellenism
The main study of the question of the influence of the Hellenistic worldview on the Jewish community is known as Neandertalism. The Hebrew term that represents it is known today as Neandertal (Kether, Neandertalism) because that term describes the Jewish view of things that were not true but which clearly were not false. Its earliest use in Israel was as a way to explain to the Israelites and the Samaritans of a later era when the Torah and other books were being edited (See Book 12, section 6 below).
It is often considered the standard form of political or social commentary in Israel that it is more appropriate to be referred to as “the Hellenistic”. Because of this, the context of the discussion of the relationship between God and Hellenism can also be considered to be significant.
Although the Hellenistic view of things is a very old idea, it has a very widespread connection in many different religions. We will be discussing this in many more posts on the topic later, but in particular this should be covered by discussion of the way in which the Bible is understood in the New Testament to be God’s Word, as well as his dealings in the world and many others including the events leading up to the Second Coming.
Why is Hellenism Different?
Much of the discussion around the relationship between Jesus and Hellenism stems from the idea that the biblical story of Moses, as presented in the Bible itself, does not refer to him as God (Genesis 6:14–15). A more rational understanding of Hellenism is that in the New Testament of Israel the story of Jesus is told from above to guide the Jewish people through a period of social and political crisis brought on by the fall of Jerusalem (Moses’ fall into the hands of his enemies) and the Jewish Messiah (Isaiah 21:4).
This is also evident in Jesus’ life and words. Many times the stories of Moses, Elijah and many other prophets are depicted in the Bible as being true, but they are not because they were the real Jesus (1 Peter 2:16-17, “I am risen from the dead”), but were a form of symbolism with no meaning or justification. This is because Moses was not a true Christ, but rather Christ was a man at the beginning and end of his ministry (Acts 7:17-19; Matthew 24:12; Revelation 13:16).
Hellenism is often thought in similar ways as the view of the Greek philosopher Polybius and the philosopher Epicurus. In the context of Scripture in general, both of them believed in the divine, the divinity and the divine gifts of godliness, and he believed in the human personified person, God (Epicurus). As a consequence, they also believed in divinity, which involved the physical being (God) in the soul, and in the creation (God) through human beings. Epicurus and Polybius were both great thinkers who claimed to have understood the basic idea that God was not a person, but rather, God. Therefore, they believed that God was actually a person that God viewed through the image he took from the flesh.
Epicurus and Polybius also believed in the centralness of the human being by showing humans, as well as some other animals, the way the human person came to be in God (Acts 8:26; 2 Pet. 5:11; 2 Tim. 3:13; Ephesians 3:7-8; Acts 8:34; Acts 12:6; Acts 24:16). In other words, both believed that human beings share the characteristics that make God in the flesh different from human beings (in the sense
Some members of the ruling class were willing to abandon or to compromise their traditional beliefs and practices in favour of Hellenisation. Crucial evidence is found in the Zino Papyri, in which an influential Jewish military commander named Tobias, when greeting Apollinius, one of Ptolemy II ministers, compromises his Jewish beliefs in the uniqueness of God by saying many thanks to the Gods.
Of course not all Jews were enthusiastic about the process of Hellenisation. Towards the end of the third century there was a growing number of Jews who were most dissatisfied with the process. The Book of Tobit, which may have been written around 200 BC in Palestine, deals with the life of a Jewish family during a time of alienation. Tobit is described as a Torah obedient Jew (Tob. 1:1-10) who despite adversity, being captured and exiled, (Tob. 1:10-16) and becoming blind (Tob. 2:7-10), remains faithful to the Law of his fathers and is ultimately rewarded (Tob. 11:1-13:17). This story provides an insight into how many of the Israelites might have felt during this epoch. (Tob 2:14). Ultimately Tobit and his familys faith in God was rewarded. For the Jews it was God who created the perfect and well-ordered universe (Sir 24: 1-22). It constantly reminded them to be faithful to the covenant. The Jews considered themselves the chosen ones as they had been given the Law. For Orthodox Jews, the Law was not a burden because they were the guarantors of cosmic order. It was not a chore but a privilege. The righteous would be rewarded and the unrighteous punished. The Law was central to the Israelites because Gods revelation was effectively confined to its limits. The legal tradition maintained by the Rabbis was an attempt to cover every conceivable situation in which a Jew could legitimately accept guidance as to how they should live their life .
In 198 the Saleucid king Antiochus III took control of Judea. Under his rule and that of his successor, the Israelites still maintained a certain level of religious freedom. But matters underwent a drastic change when the new king Antiochus Epiphanes came to power. In 174, Jason, the brother-in-law of the high priest Onias, managed to convince Antiochus to make him the new high priest and Jerusalem is effectively rendered a Greek Polis named Antioch . Antiochus appointed Melelaus high priest in 171. In 167 Antiochus took the matter further and outlawed Judaism and profaned the temple (1 Mac. 1:10-64). This was the final straw and under the command of Judas, the Jews revolted against Antiochus IV in 167 BCE. In 164 BCE Judas rededicate the Temple and became the new Jewish leader (1 Macc 4: 36-61) .
The Second Maccabees book provides a good insight into how dissention between those for and against Hellenisation widened. Up until the appointment of Jason, the position of high priest had been inherited. The book discusses the different factions that existed at the time and the action that was taken by various Jewish groups who wanted to gain power and control over the high priesthood. Jason made it clear that he was for Hellenisation and was given the position of high priest. His successor and rival Maneleus, was appointed to the high priesthood by Antiochus, hence the Hellenisation process intensified.
During this epoch it was the priestly class who possessed religious and civil power. The role of a priest was to interpret the written Law. Priests were also in charge of the cultic ritual of the temple and made sure that rituals remained pure . As Grabbe points out, the temple was, the main religious institution. The cult of the temple was essential for the Israelites, hence the strength of priestly power . Many orthodox Jews would have been outraged by such changes to the priesthood.
Simon for example, is characterised as impious (2 Mac. 3: 11) and disagrees with Onias the high priest who is known for his hatred of wickedness (2Mac. 3:10) and betrayed his people to gain more power. It is interesting to note that 2 Maccabees, which represents the Jewish orthodox point of view