8. JewishPerspectivesonGreek Culture and Ethnicity
Τhe encounter of Jewand Greek in antiquity continues to exercise ahold on scholarlyattention and public imagination. The conquests of Alexander the Great spread Greek languageand institutions all over the lands of the Near East,from Asia Minor to Iran whereJews weresettled—includingPalestine itself. The convergence of cultures was inescapable. Not onlydoes it represent ahistor- ical confrontation of highsignificance,but the very terms “Hellenism” and “Ju- daism” have served as metaphors for atension between reason and religion, be- tween rationalityand spirituality, through the ages. The subject has,ofcourse, attracted extensive scholarlytreatment,with in- creased interest in recent years. But inquiry has proceeded largely on three fronts:(1) the influenceofHellenic language, literature, philosophy, historiogra- phy, and even religion upon the Jewish experience,¹ (2)the attitude of Greeks (or pagans more generally) toward Jews,² (3) the changingself-imageofthe Jews in the circumstances of aHellenic world.³ By contrast, little scrutinyhas been ap- plied to arelated but quite distinct issue: the Jewishperception of Greeks.⁴ Did the Jews have aclear and consistent sense of Greeks as an ethnicentity? The very notion of “the Jews” carries its own perils. It would be illusory to imagine amonolithic group with aunitary viewpoint. The analysis here centers
The most detailed and comprehensive studyisstill that of M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism ( vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, ). His conclusions on the extensive and earlyspread of Hellenism amongthe Jews,however,are challengedbyL.Feldman, Jewand Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton:Princeton University Press, ), especially –, –,and bibliographical references. Enormous literatureexists on this subject. The relevanttexts areconvenientlycollectedby M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism ( vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academyof Sciences, ). Amongrecentworks, with references to earlier scholarship, see especially J. G. Gager, TheOrigins of Anti-Semitism (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, ); Z. Yavetz, “Ju- deophobia in Classical Antiquity,” JJS () –;P.Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes to- ward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, ). The classic studyisthat of Y. Gutman, TheBeginnings of Jewish-HellenisticLiterature ( vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik, , [Hebrew]). Cf. also J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: JewishIdentity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, ;revised ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, ). Agood general discussion maybefound in D. Mendels, TheRise and Fall of JewishNationalism (New York: Doubleday, ). And see now E. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism (Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, ), with further bibliography. The treatment by C. Sirat, “The Jews,” in K. Dover,ed., Perceptions of the Ancient Greeks (Ox- ford: Blackwell, ) –,istoo broadand selective. 170 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity upon that segment of the Jews (no small one) for whom comingtogrips with Hel- lenism was amatter of critical importance. As is well known, manyJews were thoroughly familiar with the Greek language, with Hellenic myths, traditions, re- ligion, and institutions.They engaged in aprotracted effort to redefine them- selveswithin the terms of an ascendant Mediterranean culturethat was largely Greek. How did they conceive of Greeks as apeople, nation, or society and what relation did their concept or conceptshaveonthe shapingofthe Jews’ own self- perception? Daunting questions. Relevant texts do not exist in abundance. Asubstantial number of Greek authors concernedthemselveswith Jewish customs,traits, and practices,their works cited by later authors or occasionallyextant in fragments. But nothing comparable issued from the pens of Jewish authorsabout Greeks. Perspectivesneed to be pieced togetherfrom stray remarks,inferences, and im- plications. Andthey add up to no neat and tidypicture. Theresults, however, offer some intriguing insights into the mentality of Hellenistic Jews and their sense of interconnectedness with the dominant ethnos of the Mediterranean cul- tural world. The Jews, on the face of it,might provide auseful “external” view of Hellen- ismos. In fact,however,they are, in an important sense, both “external” and “in- ternal” witnesses. They represent adifferent culture, background, tradition, and history.Yet in the Hellenistic era, and indeedinthe Greek East of the Romanpe- riod, the Jews were part and parcel of aGreek cultural community.That very fact, of course, wascentral to their grapplingwith anew sense of identitywhich they soughttoarticulate through the genres and the media familiar to Greeks while expressingthe distinctiveness of their own character and achievement.Hence, Jews needed both to establish their own secureplace within aHellenistic frame- work and also to make it clear that they werenot swallowed up by that prevail- ing cultural environment.The construct of Jewishidentity in the Hellenistic world, therefore, an ongoing,complex, and shifting process, was tightlybound up with the construct of Greek ethnicity,i.e., the character,values, and beliefs of the Greek ethnos in Jewish eyes. That these wereconstructs is inescapable. Although Jewishintellectuals could draw distinctions among Greek peoples, communities,and conventions, they frequentlylapsed into broad characterizations and stereotypes. Forobvious reasons.They had adefinite agenda. In some form or other,Jews had to confront —or to formulate—thoseHellenic traits from which they wishedtodisassociate themselvesand,atthe sametime, to account for thosecharacteristics which they had themselvesembraced. The texts discussed here, for the most part,weredirected inward. Jews spoke largely to their own compatriots,striving to fashion aself-consciousness that 8. JewishPerspectivesonGreek Cultureand Ethnicity 171 could negotiate acultural realm of alien origin. If Greeks read these works, so much the better.But few werelikelyto. The textscontributed to the articulation of Jewish identitybyand for Jews. Greeks regularlyreckoned other ethnē as barbaroi, afamiliar cliché of this subject. Jews suffered that disability,inHellenic eyes, likeeveryone else. But they could also turn the tables.Astriking text serves as suitable entrance into the inquiry.The author of the Second Book of Maccabees was aHellenized Jewofthe late second century B.C.E. who composed his work in Greek, awriter thoroughly steeped in the traditions of Greek historiography.⁵ His topic, however, was the background, circumstances,and consequences of the brutal persecution of Jews by the Hellenistic monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The Jews resisted and retaliated under Judas Maccabeus. Accordingto2Maccabees, they fought noblyonbehalf of Judaism and, though few in number,ravagedthe entire land and droveout the “barbarian hordes.”⁶ So the composer of this work, well-versed in the conventionsofthe genre, employed the standard Hellenic des- ignation for the alien—but applied it to the Hellenes themselves. And it was not the onlysuch occasion.⁷ Thepejorative contexts in which the term appears in 2Maccabees make it clear that it signifies agood deal more than mere “speakers of aforeign tongue.” Biblical precedents, to be sure, could be drawnupon. The Canaanites carried acomparable stigma of barbaric backwardness, anecessary construct in order to justify their dispossession by the Hebrews. And the Philistines, fiercest of the Is- raelite foes, receivedasimilar portrayal as savage idolators,thus to legitimize the triumph of Yahweh.⁸ But the dire circumstances of the Maccabean era brought the Greeks sharplyinto focus. The cultivated author of 2Maccabees ex- propriated the Hellenic characterization of “the Other” to his own purposes. The Greek ethnos itself could now be cast in thatrole.
The work is itself an epitomeofthe now lost five-volume history of the Maccabees by Jason of Cyrene, plainlyalso aHellenized Jew; Macc :–.For aregister of scholarship on Mac- cabees, see E. Schürer, The Historyofthe JewishPeople in the AgeofJesus Christ . (rev. and ed. G. Vermes,F.Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: Clark, ) –. Macc :: τοῖς ὑπὲρτοῦἸουδαϊσμοῦ φιλοτίμως ἀνδραγαθήσασιν, ὥστε τὴν ὅλην χώραν ὀλιγους ὄντας λεηλατεῖνκαὶτὰβάρβαρα πλήθη διώκειν. Cf. Macc :; :; :. See the discussions of T. Dothan and R. Cohn, “The Philistine as Other:Biblical Rhetoric and Archaeological Reality,” in TheOther in JewishThought and History (ed. L. Silberstein and R. Cohn; New York: New York University Press, ) –;and Cohn, “BeforeIsrael: The Canaanites as Other in Biblical Tradition,” in ibid., –. 172 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity
Arangeoftexts underscores the drive of Hellenistic Jews to brand the Greeks as villainous or ignorant aliens—or both. This would, of course, distinguish all the more conspicuouslythe advantages of being aJew. Apocalyptic literatureserved this purpose. The visions of Danielreceived their current shape in the very eraofthe persecutions. And they speak in cryptic but unmistakable tones of the catastrophic evils brought by the rule of the Hel- lenic kingdom. The terrifyingdream that paraded four huge beasts in succession represented the sequence of empires,the fourth most fearsome of all, adreadful monster with iron teeth and bronze claws that devoured and trampled all in its path. That portent signified the comingofthe Greeks,toculminate in the tenth and most horrific prince, plainlythe figureofAntiochus Epiphanes, responsible for the abomination of desolation. The forecasts vouchsafed for Daniel, however, would end in triumph over the wicked, adivineintervention to sweep aside the brutal Hellenic Empire and bring about an eternal kingdom under the sovereign- ty of the Most High.⁹ The Greeks here emblematize the mightiest of empires—and the one targeted for the mightiest fall. That theme is picked up in the prophecies of the Third Sibylline Oracle. The Sibyl had venerable roots in pagan antiquity,but the surviving collection of pro- nouncements stems from Jewish and Christian compilers who recast them for their own ends. The contents of the Third Sibyl represent the earliest portion, al- most entirelythe productofJewishinvention, and some parts at least dating to the eraofthe Maccabees.¹⁰ One group of verses echoes Daniel directly, employ- ing some of the sameimagery,with reference to the Macedonian kingdoms which imposeanevil yoke and delivermuch affliction upon Asia but whose race (genos)willbedestroyed by the very race it seeks to destroy.¹¹ Thetext also re- peats in different form the sequence of empires,includingthe Greeks as arrogant and impiousand the Macedonians as bearing afearful cloud of war upon mor- tals. Internal rotwill follow,extendingfrom impiety to homosexualityand afflict- ing manylands—but none so much as Macedon.¹² Elsewherethe Sibyl condemns Greeks for overbearing behavior,the fosteringoftyrannies, and moral failings.
Daniel :–; :–; .–; :–; :–.This,ofcourse, is not the placeto explorethese visions and their interpretations in detail. Amongcommentaries, see L. Hartman and A. Di Lella, TheBook of Daniel (Garden City,N.Y.: Doubleday, ); J. J. Collins, Daniel (Her- meneia; Minneapolis:Fortress, ). The chronologyiscomplex and contested. Avaluable treatment maybefound in J. Barclay, TheJews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (Edinburgh:Clark, ) –.The matter is taken up afresh in Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, –. Sib.Or. : –. Sib.Or. : –. 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity 173
She predicts that theircities in Asia Minorand the Near East willbecrushed by a terrible divinewrath; Greece itself will be ravagedand its inhabitants dissolved in strifefor gain.¹³ In this bitter and wrathful composition, the Jewish author brands the people of Hellas as insolent,sacrilegious, and brutal, doomed to suf- fer the vengeance of the Lord. The portrait is hardlyless severe in the First Book of Maccabees. That work appeared first in Hebrew,the product of astrongsupporter of the Hasmonean dynasty,composedprobablylate in the second century B.C.E.¹⁴ The book opens with aharsh assessment of Alexander the Great,anarrogant conqueror whose campaigns broughtslaughter and devastation in their wake. And his suc- cessors over the years delivered multiple miseries upon the earth.¹⁵ The wicked- ness reached its peak, of course, with the arrivalofAntiochus IV,symbol not onlyofevil but of the alien. The author of 1Maccabees stigmatizeshis measures as introducingthe practices of the foreigner to the land of Judea.¹⁶ The stark contrastbetween Jewand Greek receivesdramatic elaboration in the martyrologies recorded in 2Maccabees. The elderlysageEleazer resisted to the death anycompromise of Jewishpractice by spurning the cruel edictsofAn- tiochus Epiphanes, calmly acceptinghis agonizing torture. The samecourage was exhibited by the devout mother who witnessed proudlythe savage slaying of her seven steadfast sons and joined them herself in death, memorable testi- monytoJewish faith and Hellenic barbarity.¹⁷ Thestories were retold manygen- erations later,atatime when the fierce emotions of the Maccabean erawerea distantmemory.The torments inflicted upon Eleazer and the mother with her seven sons wereelaborated in exquisitedetail in atext preserved in some manu- scripts of the Septuagint under the title of 4Maccabees. The work was composed in Greek, probablyinthe first century C.E. by aJew trained not in history but in Greek philosophy. He employed the martyrologies to illustrate Stoic doctrines of the command of reason over the passions. The author,therefore, ironicallyap- propriated the Hellenic mediumtoconveyJewishcommitment to the Torahby contrast with the irrationality and atrocities of the Greeks themselves.¹⁸
Sib.Or. : –, –, –, –. On the date, see F.-M. Abel, Les livres des Maccabées (Paris:Lecoffre, )xxviii–xxix; J. Goldstein, Maccabees (Garden City,N.Y.: Doubleday, ) –;Schürer, TheHistory, .:;J.Sievers, TheHasmoneans and their Supporters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) . Macc :: ἔτη πολλὰ καὶἐπλήθυναν κακὰ τῇ γῇ. Macc :–: πορευθῆναι ὀπίσω νομίμων ἀλλοτρίων τῆςγῆς. Macc :–:. Macc –.For discussions of the text,with bibliography, see H. Anderson, “ Macca- bees,” in TheOld Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Garden City,N.Y.: Double- 174 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity
The abhorrence of philosophicallyminded Jews for the excesses of the Greeks surfaces almost inadvertentlyinanother treatise roughlycontemporary with 4Maccabees. The so-called Wisdom of Solomon falls within the tradition of Jewishwisdomliteraturebut comes from the hand of aHellenized Jewthor- oughlyfamiliar with Greek philosophy.¹⁹ Although the setting itself is strictlybib- lical, an interesting remark of the author bears notice for our purposes. He as- cribes to the unspeakable Canaanites every form of loathsome practice, includingorgiastic mystery rites,human sacrifice, and cannibalism. Andhede- scribes them in terms characteristic of participants in aDionysiac thiasos.²⁰ The notorious Hellenic ritual thereby serves to epitomize barbaric behavior. Jewishimagination went further still on this score. Afull-scale story,almost entirelyfictitious, depicted the lunatic crusade of aHellenistic king against the nation of the Jews. Andthis time the villain was not Antiochus Epiphanes. The text appears in some of the manuscriptsofthe Septuagint,misleadingly entitled 3Maccabees for it has nothing whatever to do with the history or legend of the Maccabees.²¹ It depicts the mad monarch, PtolemyIV, determined to eradicate the Jews of Egypt because their compatriots had denied him accesstothe HolyofHolies in the temple at Jerusalem.Afrenzy of hatred drovePtolemyto his scheme of genocide. He ordered subordinates to round up all the Jews in the land,confine them in the hippodrome outside Alexandria, and have them trampled en masse by aherd of crazed elephants drugged with huge quantities of frankincense and unmixed wine. But ahappy ending concluded the tale. Ptolemy’sdastardlyplot was thrice thwarted, the final time when God’smessen- gers turned around the great beasts to crushthe minions of the king.The Jews ended in honor and triumph. But they had suffered afearsome travail. The nar-
day, ) .–;Schürer, TheHistory, .: –;J.W.van Henten, TheMaccabean Mar- tyrsasSaviours of the JewishPeople: AStudy of and Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, ) –; D. deSilva, Maccabees (Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, ) –. See the excellent treatment by D. Winston, TheWisdom of Solomon (Garden City,N.Y.: Dou- bleday, ). Wisdom of Solomon :–: καὶ σπλαγχνοφάγον ἀνθρωπίνων σαρκῶνθοῖναν καὶ αἵματος ἐκμέσου μύστας θιάσου.Cf. Winston, TheWisdom of Solomon, –,with references. Avaluable summary of scholarship on this textmay be found in F. Parente, “The ThirdBook of Maccabees as IdeologicalDocumentand Historical Source,” Henoch () –.See also J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, TheJews of Egypt (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, ) –;Barclay, TheJews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, –;and the excellent dissertation of S. Johnson “Mirror-Mirror: ThirdMaccabees, Historical Fictions and Jewish Self- Fashioninginthe Hellenistic Period,” Ph.D.diss., University of California,Berkeley, later revised and published see Historical Fictions and Hellenistic JewishIdentity:Third Macca- bees in Its Cultural Context (Berkeley,CA. ) 8. JewishPerspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 175 row escape onlyhighlighted the hostility of those committed to the elimination of the Jews. Ptolemy’senmity did not stand alone. Agroup of friends, advisers, and soldiers urgedthe destruction of that genos which refused to conform to the ways of other nations.²² And afar wider populace rejoicedatthe prospect of Jew- ish demise, their festeringhatrednow givenfreerein in open exultation.²³ More significant,the Hellenized Jewish author of this work designates the Greeks themselvesas“the aliens”: ἀλλόϕυλοι.And the exaltation of the Jews in the end elevates them to aposition of authority,esteem, and respect among their “enemies.”²⁴ An incidental notice regardingone of the Jews’ most notorious fictional an- tagonists warrants mention here. Haman, the grand vizier of the Persianking in the Book of Esther,endeavored to institute apolicy of genocide against the Jew- ish nation. In the Greek additions to the Hebrew original, composedinthe Hel- lenistic era, the wicked Haman, notablyand significantly, is transformed into a Macedonian!²⁵ The schema that pits Jews against Greeks,theiropponents who stand outside the bounds of morality and humane behavior,persists in all these texts. Acomparable contrast appears in afar more unexpected place. The Letter of Aristeas narrates the celebrated legend of the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. The job was done, so the story has it,atthe directive of the cultivated King PtolemyII, in collaboration with the Jewish high priest,and through the efforts of Jewish sages, experts in bothlanguages—and in Greek philosophybesides— who werewarmlywelcomed and lavishlyhosted by the Hellenistic monarch. No text seems better calculated to conveyharmonyand common objectivesbe- tween the ethnē.²⁶ Yetall is not sweetness and light even here. In the warm glow of cultural cooperation that bathesmost of the text,itiseasy to forgetthe point- ed words of Eleazer,the high priest,when he responded to queries by Greeks about the peculiarhabits of the Jews. He affirmed in no uncertain terms that
Macc :; :–; :; :–; :. Macc :: δημοτελὴςσυνίστατο τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐωχίαμετὰἀλαλαγμῶνκαὶχαρᾶς ὡς ἂντῆς προκατεσκιρωμένης αὐτοῖςπάλαι κατὰ διάνοιαν μετὰ παρρησίας νῦν ἐκφαινομένης ἀπεχθείας. This attitude did not prevail, however,amongall the Greeks in Alexandria itself; Macc :–. Macc :–; :. Esther,Addition E, –. This work, of course, has generated alengtheningstream of publications. Amongthe servi- cable commentaries,see R. Tramontano, La letteradiAristea aFilocrate (Naples:Ufficio succur- sale della civiltà cattolica, ); M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (New York: Harper, ); A. Pelletier, Lettred’Aristée àPhilocrate (Paris:Cerf, ); N. Meisner, “Aristeasbrief,” JSHRZ . () –.Additional works cited in Schürer, The History, .: –. 176 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity
Jews alone held to monotheistic beliefs and thatthose who worship manygods engageinfoolishness and self-deception. Idolators who revere images of wood and stone, he observed, are more powerful than the very gods to whom they payhomage, since they werethemselvesresponsible for their creation. And he became quiteexplicit about thosewho manufactured myths and concocted sto- ries: they wereadjudgedthe wisest of the Greeks!²⁷ It is hard to miss the irony there. Eleazer proceeded to declare that Moses, in his wisdom, fenced the Jews off with unbreakable barriers and iron walls to prevent anymingling with other ethnē, to keep them pure in bodyand soul, and to rid them of empty beliefs.²⁸ So, even the veritable document of intercultural concord, the Let- ter of Aristeas, contains apivotalpronouncement by the chief spokesman for Ju- daism, who sets his creed decisively apart from the ignorant and misguided be- liefs of the Greek ethnos.²⁹ The contrast is elaborated at some length by Josephus. The historian distin- guishesunequivocallybetween the virtues of the Jews and the deficiencies of the Greeks,aharsh critique of Hellenic behavior and institutions. The fact merits special notice. ForJosephus notes at one junctureinthe Antiquities that he ad- dresses his work to Greeks,inthe hope of persuading them that Jewishcustoms had been held in high esteem, protected by aseries of Roman decrees.³⁰ But he records repeated interference by Greeks with the ancestral practices of the Jews and outright atrocities in Cyrenaica, Asia Minor,Alexandria, Damascus, Caesar- ea, and other cities of Palestine.³¹ Josephus pulls no punches: the disposition of the Greeks is labeled as “inhumanity.”³² In the Contra Apionem he developed the contrast at greater extent and on a different level. Josephus took aim even at Greek achievements in philosophyand
Let. Aris. : καὶ νομίζουσιν οἱ ταῦτα διαπλάσαντες καὶ μυθοποιήσαντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων οἱ σοφώτατοι καθεστάναι. Let. Aris. : ὁ νομοθέτης, ὑπὸ θεοῦ κατεσκευασμένος εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῶν ἁπάντων, περιέφραξεν ἡμᾶς ἀδιασκόποις χάραξι καὶ σιδηροῖςτείχεσιν, ὄπως μηθενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν ἐπιμισγώμεθα κατὰ μηδέν, ἁγνοὶ καθεστῶτες κατὰ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ ψυχήν ἀπολελυμένοι ματαίων δοξῶν. The same point about the follyofthose whose objectsofworship were fashionedbytheir own hands is made by Wisdom of Solomon –,and Philo, De Decalogo . Jos. A. J. .–.Cf. C. Stanley, “‘Neither Jewnor Greek’:Ethnic Conflict in Graeco- Roman Society,” JSOT () –. See, e.g., Jos. A. J. .–, .–, .–, .–.For additional refer- ences and discussion, especiallyonthe outbursts against Jews by Greeksduringthe Great Re- volt,see A. Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ) –;Feldman, Jewand Gentile, –. Jos. A. J. .: τῆςτῶνἙλλήνων ἀπανθρωπίας. 8. JewishPerspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 177 law. He singles out Moses as most venerable of lawgivers, and speaks with scorn of Greeks who take prideinsuch figures as Lycurgus, Solon,and Zaleucus. They wereMoses’ juniors by several centuries. Indeed, Homer himself had no concept of law, an idea incomprehensible to the Greeks of his day.³³ Josephus proceeds later in the treatise to disparageHellenic philosophyand education. The philos- ophers, he maintains, directed their precepts onlytothe elite, withholding them from the masses, whereby Moses’ teachingencompassed all. Moses did not list piety as simplyone among several virtuesbut subsumedall the virtuesunder piety,thus renderingthem accessible to everyone. Whereas some Greek educa- tional systems rest on verbal articulation of principles and others on practical training in morals, the Hebrew lawgiver alone blended both. Jews thereforees- caped the imperfectionsand one-sidedness of both the Spartan and Athenian systems.³⁴ Josephus subsequentlyprovides an extended excursus thatbrings the superiority of Jewishcharacter,morality,and nationalqualities over the Greek into sharper focus. He places particularweight upon the Jews’ faithful and consistent adherencetotheir own laws. To the Greeks such unswerving fi- delity can hardlybeimagined. Their history is riddled with inversions and devi- ations. Platomight have constructed aUtopian scheme to which readers could aspire, but those engaged in Greek public affairs themselvesfound his model laughablyunrealistic. And it was not nearlyasdemanding as that which the Jews actuallyabide by!³⁵ Formost Greeks,infact,the semilegendarySpartan lawgiver Lycurgusand the sociopolitical structure that he installed in Sparta represented the exemplar to be imitated. Thelongevity of its system drew high praise throughout the Hel- lenic world. That record, however,prompted onlyscorn from Josephus. The en- durance of the Lacedaemonian system was amere trifle, not comparable to the two thousand years that had elapsed since the time of Moses—whose laws were still in operation. The Spartans themselvesonlyheld to their constitution while fortune smiled upon them, abandoning it when matters turned for the worse, whereas Jews remained steadfast throughout their vicissitudes and calamities.³⁶ The historian adverts to the record of martyrdom for the faith and the heroic re- sistance of the Jews to anyeffort to forcethem into betraying their traditions, even in the face of torture and execution. His rhetoric here spins out of control,
Jos. C. Ap. .–. Jos. C. Ap. .–. Jos. C. Ap. .–. Jos. C. Ap. .–, .. 178 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity denying that asingle Jewhad ever turned his back on the laws.³⁷ Thesubject evi- dentlyencouraged hyperbole. Josephus exploited Hellenic writingsthemselvestodrive homehis point. Plato and other authors who censured their own poetsand statesmen served his purposesnicely. They had alreadycastigated the makers of public opinion for spreadingpreposterous conceptions of the gods. The myths multiplied deities without number,portrayed them in avariety of human forms, and had them en- gage in every type of licentiousness, misdemeanor,folly, and internecine warfare with one another.And, as if that werenot enough, the Greeks grew weary of their traditionaldivinitiesand importedforeign gods by the score, stimulating poets and painterstoinvent new and even more bizarre images of worship.³⁸ No won- der Plato declaredthe precincts of his ideal state as off limits to all poets!³⁹ Jo- sephus reiteratesonce again the coreofhis thesis: Jews hold tenaciouslytotheir laws and traditions, allowing neither fear of the powerful nor envy of the prac- tices honored by others to shake their constancy.⁴⁰ There could be no stronger contrast with the inconstancyofthe Greek character. The celebrated lines of the apostle Paul allude directlytothe antithesis be- tween the ethnē: “There is neither Jewnor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for youare all one in Jesus Christ.”⁴¹ The string of contraries makes it clear that the two ethnē represented conventionallyopposite poles.The same phraseology appears in another Pauline text: “We have all been baptized into one bodyand in one spirit,whether Jews or Greeks, slavesorfree.”⁴² The distinctions held firm in Jewish circles.Paulhad an uphill battle to surmount them. So far the evidence seems clear and consistent.Jewishcompositions con- structed the Hellenes as foils, as aliens, as the “Other,” thereby the better to set off the virtuesand qualities of their own ethnos. One maynote that this char- acterization crosses genre boundaries, appearinginapocalyptic texts,histories,
Jos. C. Ap. .–, ἆρ᾽ οὖνκαὶπαρ᾽ἡμῖν,οὐλέγω τοσούτους, ἀλλὰ δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἔγνω τις προδότας γενομένους τῶννόμων ἢ θάνατον φοβηθέντας. Jos. C. Ap. .–. Jos. C. Ap. .. Jos. C. Ap. .: καὶ τούτων ἡμᾶςτῶννόμων ἀπαγαγεῖνοὔτεφόβος ἴσχυσε τῶνκρατησάν- των οὔτε ζῆλος τῶνπαρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις τετιμημένων. Gal :: οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲἜλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖςεῖςἐστε ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ.See the expanded and morecomplex version in Col :. Cor :: καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖςπάντες εἰς ἓνσῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἒλεύθεροι.Cf. also Cor :;Rom :; :–; :; :; Acts :; :; :;Stanley, “‘Neither Jewnor Greek,’” .The Greeks arethemselves made equivalenttoτὰἔθνη; Cor :–. 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 179 apologetic treatises, and imaginative fiction. The diverse formulations range from the relatively mild strictures in the Letter of Aristeas, castigatingGreeks for foolish and delusive idolatry,and Josephus’ derisive blast at their irresolu- tion, instability,and ludicrous concoctions of the divine, to the fierceportrayals of Hellenic character in texts like 1Maccabees, in the apocalypic visions of Dan- iel and the Third Sibyl, in the martyrologies contained in 2and 4Maccabees, and in the fictive tale of 3Maccabees, branding Greeks as barbaric, irrational, and murderous. All seems relatively straightforward and aggressively hostile. But those constructs do not tell the whole story.Jewish perceptions (or at least expressed perceptions) of the Greeks weremorecomplex, varied, and sub- tle. One might note, for instance, thatJewish writers did not frequentlyresort to the term barbaroi in referringtogentiles. The most commonlyused phrase is a less offensive one: ta ethnē—“the nations.” Thisoccurs with regularity in 1and 2Maccabees, aphrase thatcan encompass Greeks but is by no means con- fined to them.⁴³ It can, of course, be employed pejoratively depending on con- text,asitfrequentlyisinthe Books of the Maccabees. But even there the term carries no inherentlynegative connotation. Indeed 1Maccabees employs to eth- nos repeatedlytorefer to the Jewish nation itself,usually in circumstances of diplomatic correspondence between Jews and Hellenistic dynasts or Romans.⁴⁴ And, as is well known, Paul uses the phrase ta ethnē again and again, sometimes synonymouslywith “Greeks,” usuallywith abroader denotation. But the term signifies no more than “those who are not Jews.”⁴⁵ The construct is plainlymalle- able, not necessarilyavehicle of opprobrium. Furthermore, in various Jewish authors and texts,Greek character and cul- ture acquire anotablymorepositive aspect.But they do so because they are con- ceivedasowing those qualities to the Jews themselves. The approach can be illustratedthrough diverse examples. Afragment of the Hellenistic—Jewish historian Eupolemus has relevance here. His date and prov- enance are not quitesecure—unless he is identical, as most assume, with the Eu- polemus who was amemberofJudas Maccabeus’ entourage. That would place
See, e.g., Macc :; :; :; :; :; :; :; Macc :; :; :–. See, e.g., Macc :; :; :; :; :; :; :–;also Macc :.Note further the letter of Antiochus III, recorded or recast by Josephus,inwhich Judaea is an ethnos amongother ethnē; Jos. A. J. .–: τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶἐκτῶνἀλλῶν ἐθνῶν. So, e.g., Rom :: ἢἸουδαίων ὁ θεὸςμόνον οὐχὶ καὶἐθνῶν;similarly, Rom :; :– ; :; Cor :;Gal :–.Cf. also Acts :; :–; :; :.For the iden- tification of Greeks with ta ethnē, see Cor :–;Acts :–. 180 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity him in Palestine in the mid-second century B.C.E.⁴⁶ Whether the identification be accepted or not,Eupolemus’ work certainlybelongsinthe circles of cultivated Jews writing in Greek in the Hellenistic period. Ancients accorded it the title of On the Kings in Judaea. But the coveragewas wider.The pertinent fragment, in anycase, concerns Moses. Eupolemus has him hand down the knowledge of the alphabet first to the Jews, from whom the Phoenicians acquired it,and they, in turn,passed it on to the Greeks.⁴⁷ The brevity of thatpassagedoes not justify lengthyexegesis. Forour purposes, suffice it to saythat it makes the Greeks in- direct beneficiariesofthe Hebrews rather than their antagonists. And this theme has resonanceelsewhere. The imaginative writerArtapanus, aHellenized Jewfrom Egypt in the second or first century B.C.E., offers an interesting parallel.⁴⁸ Hisinventive re-creation of biblical stories includes an elaborate account of Moses’ exploits thatgoes well beyond anyscriptural basis. Apart from ascribingtoMosesthe inception of a host of Egyptian institutions and technologies, he also adds aGreek connection. The name Moses, Artapanus claims, induced Greeks to identify him with Mu- saeus, the legendary poet and prophet from Attica, son or pupil of Orpheus who stands at the dawn of Hellenic song and wisdom. Artapanus,however, gave aslight but significant twist to the legend. He has Musaeus as mentor of Orpheus, rather thanthe other wayround.⁴⁹ Moses thereforebecomes the father of Greek poetic and prophetic traditions. In striking contrasttothe messagede-
The fragments maybeconvenientlyconsulted in C. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jew- ishAuthors. Volume : The Historians (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, ) –,with notes and commentary.Amongthe important treatments of Eupolemus, see especiallyJ.Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau: Skutsch, ) –;Gutman, TheBeginnings, – (He- brew); B. Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus,AStudy of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, ); D. Mendels, TheLand of Israel as aPolitical Concept in Hasmonean Liter- ature (Tübingen: Mohr, ) –;G.Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill, ) –,with valuable bibliogra- phy. Some doubts on Eupolemus’ origins and date areexpressed by Gruen, Heritage and Hellen- ism, –. Eupolemus apud Eus. PE .: γράμματα παραδοῦναι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις πρῶτον, παρὰ δὲἸου- δαίων Φοινίκας παραλαβεῖν, Ἕλληνας δὲ παρὰ Φοινίκων. Fragments collectedand commented upon by Holladay, Fragments, . –.See the discussions of Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, –;Gutman, TheBeginnings, – (Hebrew); C. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula: Scholars Press, ) –;Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, –;Barclay, Jews in the Mediterra- nean Diaspora, –. Artapanus apud Eus. PE ..–: ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων αὐτὸν ἀνδρωθέντα Μουσαῖον προ- σαγορευθῆναι. γενέσθαι δὲ τὸνΜωϋσον τοῦτον Ὀρφέως διδάσκαλον.Cf. Holladay, Theios Aner, . 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 181 livered in Josephus’ Contra Apionem, Artapanus does not disparageorreject those traditions but counts them as part of aHebrew heritage. Amore obscure allusion in Artapanus has Moses receive the designation of Hermes by the Egyptian priests who honored him as interpreter of hieroglyphics.⁵⁰ The Hellenic aspect is not here in the forefront.Artapanus makes reference to the Egyptian version of Hermes,anequivalent to Thot,the mythical progenitor of much of Egyptian culture.⁵¹ But his creative reconstruc- tion clearly amalgamates the cultural strands. Artapanus writes ostensibly about Pharaonic Egypt but looks, in fact,tocontemporary Ptolemaic Egypt. His Moses absorbsbothMusaeus and Hermes and becomes the fount of Greek cultureinthe Hellenistic era. Further fragments from another Jewishintellectual expand the perspective. Aristobulus, aman of wide philosophical and literary interests (though the depth of his mastery might be questioned), wrote an extensive work, evidently aform of commentary on the Torah, at an uncertain dateinthe Hellenistic period.⁵² Onlyameager portion of thatwork now survives, but enough to indi- cate adirection and objective:Aristobulus, among other things, sought to estab- lish the Bible as foundation for much of the Greek intellectual and artistic ach- ievement.Moses, for Aristobulus as for Eupolemus and Artapanus,emergesasa culturehero, precursor and inspiration for Hellenic philosophicaland poetic tra- ditions. But Aristobulus’ Moses, unlike the figure concocted by Eupolemus and Artapanus,does not transmit the alphabet,interpret hieroglyphics, or invent technology.His accomplishment is the Torah, the Israelite lawcode. Andfrom that creation, so Aristobulus imagines,ahost of Hellenic attainments drew their impetus. Foremostamong Greek philosophers, Plato was adevoted reader of the Scriptures, poring over every detail, and faithfullyfollowed its precepts.⁵³
Artapanus apud Eus. PE ..: ὑπὸ τῶν ἱερέων… προσαγορευθῆναι Ἑρμῆν, διὰ τὴντῶν ἱερῶνγραμμάτων ἑρμενείαν. On Artapanus’ manipulation of the Hermes/Thot characteristics, see Gutman, The Begin- nings, – (Hebrew); G. Mussies, “The Interpretatio Judaica of Thoth-Hermes,” in Studies in Egyptian Religion (ed. M. Voss;Leiden: Brill, ) –. The fullest treatment of Aristobulusmay be found in N. Walter, Der ThoraauslegerAristobulus (Berlin: Akademie, ). Amongother worthycontributions,see Gutman, The Beginnings, – (Hebrew); Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, .–; .–;N.Walter, “Aristo- bulos,” JSHRZ .: –;Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, –.The whole subject has now been placed on afirmer footingbythe excellent new edition of the fragments, with translation, notes, and bibliography by C. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic JewishAu- thors. Volume : Aristobulus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, ). Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ..: φανερὸν ὅτι κατηκολούθησεν ὁ Πλάτωνν τῇ καθ`ἡμᾶς νομοθεσίᾳ καὶ φανερός ἐστι περιειργασμένος ἕκαστα τῶν ἐναὐτῇ. 182 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity
And not onlyhe. Acenturyand ahalf earlier,Pythagoras borrowed much from the books of Moses and inserted it into his own teachings.⁵⁴ Never mind that the Torahhad not yetbeen translated into Greek by the time of Plato—let alone that of Pythagoras. Aristobulus had away around thatproblem. He simply proposed that prior translations of the Bible circulated long before the commissioned en- terprise of PtolemyII, before the comingofAlexander,evenbefore Persianrule in Palestine.⁵⁵ That,ofcourse, is transparent fiction, compoundinghis concoc- tion in order to save the thesis. But it was all in agood cause. It made Moses re- sponsiblefor the best in Greek philosophy. Other philosophers, too, came under the swayofthe Torah. So at least Aris- tobulus surmised. The “divine voice” to which Socrates paidhomageowed its origin to the words of Moses.⁵⁶ AndAristobulus made astillbroader generaliza- tion. He found concurrence among all philosophersinthe need to maintain rev- erent attitudes towardGod, adoctrine best expressed, of course, in the Hebrew Scriptures which preceded (and presumablydetermined) the Greek precepts. In- deed, all of Jewishlaw was constructed so as to underscorepiety,justice, self- control and the other qualities that represent true virtues—i.e., the very qualities subsequentlyembraced and propagated by the Greeks.⁵⁷ Aristobulus thereby brought the whole tradition of Greek philosophizing under the Jewish umbrella. That was just apart of the project.Aristobulus not onlytraced philosophic precepts to the Torah. He found its echoes in Greek poetry from earliest times to his own day. The Sabbath, for instance,avital part of Jewish tradition stemming from Genesis, was reckoned by Aristobulus as apreeminent principle widely adopted and signaled by the mysticalquality ascribed to the number seven.⁵⁸ And he discovered proof in the verses of Homer and Hesiod.This required some fancy footwork. Aristobulus cavalierlyinterpreted aHesiodic reference to the seventh dayofthe month as the seventh dayofthe week. And he (or his source) emended aline of Homer from the “fourth day” to the “seventh day.” He quoted other lines of thosepoets to similar effect—lines that do not corre-
Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ..: καθὼςκαὶΠυθαγόρας πολλὰ τῶνπαρ᾽ἡμῖνμετενέγκας εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δογματοποιίαν κατεχώρισεν. Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ... Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ..–. Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ...See Gutman, TheBeginnings, – (Hebrew). Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ...See, on this, Gutman, TheBeginnings, – (He- brew); Walter, Der Thoraausleger, –;Holladay, Fragments, Volume , –. 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity 183 spond to anything in our extant textsofHomer and Hesiod. It would not be too bold to suspect manipulationorfabrication.⁵⁹ The creative Aristobulus alsoenlistedinhis cause poets who worked in the distantmists of antiquity,namely the mythicalsingers Linus and Orpheus. Linus, an elusive figure variouslyidentified as the son of Apollo or the music master of Heracles, convenientlyleft verses that celebratedthe number seven as representing perfection itself, associatingitwith the heavenlybodies, with an auspiciousday of birth, and as the daywhenall is made complete.⁶⁰ The con- nection with the biblical origin of the Sabbath is strikingly close—and too good to be true. Aristobulus summoned up still greater inventiveness in adaptingor improvisingawholesale monotheistic poem assigned to Orpheus himself. The composition delivers sage advice from the mythical singer to his son or pupil Mu- saeus (here in proper sequence of generations), counselinghim to adhere to the divinewordand describingGod as completeinhimself while completingall things, the sole divinity with no rivals,hiddentothe human eyebut accessible to the mind, asourceofgood and not evil, seated on agolden throne in heaven, commandingthe earth,its oceans and mountains, and in control of all.⁶¹ The poem, whether or not it derivesfrom Aristobulus’ pen, belongstothe realm of Hellenistic Judaism. It represents aJewishcommandeering of Orpheus, emblem- atic of Greek poetic art,into the ranks of those proclaimingthe messageofbib- lical monotheism. Aristobulus did not confine himself to legendary or distant poets. He made bold to interpret contemporaryverses in ways suitable to his ends. Onesample survives. Aristobulus quoted from the astronomical poem, the Phaenomena, of the Hellenistic writer Aratus of Soli. Itsopening lines proved serviceable. By sub- stituting “God” for “Zeus,” Aristobulus turned Aratus’ invocation into ahymn for the Jewish deity.⁶² Brazenness and ingenuitymark the enterprise of Aristobulus.
Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ..–;Clement, Strom. ...–.See the careful dis- cussion of Walter, Der Thoraausleger, : –,with referencetothe relevantHomeric and Hesiodic lines;cf. Gutman, The Beginnings, – (Hebrew); Holladay, Fragments, Volume , –. Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ..: ἐβδομάτῃ δ᾽ἠοῖ τετελεσμένα πάντα τέτυκται.See Walter, Der Thoraausleger, –;Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, .–;Holladay, Fragments, Volume , –. Aristobulus apud Eus. PE ..–.Various versions of the poem arepreserved by Chris- tian authors in addition to Eusebius,and scholarlydisputes over its transmission and over what counts as authentic Aristobulusremainunsettled. The subject now claims awhole new volume to itself: C. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic JewishAuthors. Volume : Orphica (Atlanta: Scholars Press, ). Aristobulus apud Eus. PE .–;cf. Clement, Strom. ...b. 184 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity
One can onlyimagine what inventive creations existed in those portions of his work that no longer survive.The campaign to convert Hellenic writingsinto foot- notes on the Torahwas in full swing. In thatendeavorAristobulus had much company. Resourceful Jewish writers searched through the scripts of Attic dramatists, both tragic and comic, for pas- sages whose content suggested acquaintance with Hebrew texts or ideas. And wherethey did not exist,alterations or fabrications could readilybeinserted. Verses with astrikingly Jewish flavorwereascribed to Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and others to the comic playwrights Menander,Diphilus,and Philemon,again acombination of classicaland Hellenistic authors. The frag- ments are preserved onlyinChurch Fathers and the names of transmitters are lost to us. But the milieu of Jewish-Hellenistic intellectuals is unmistakable.⁶³ Verses from Aeschylusemphasized the majesty of God, his omnipotenceand om- nipresence, the terror he can wreak, and his resistance to representation or un- derstandinginhuman terms.⁶⁴ Sophocles insistedupon the oneness of the Lord who fashioned heavenand earth, the waters and the winds; he railedagainst idolatry;hesupplied an eschatological vision to encouragethe justand frighten the wicked; and he spokeofZeus’ disguises and philandering—doubtless to con- trast delusive myths with authentic divinity.⁶⁵ Euripides, too, could servethe pur- pose. Researchers found lines affirming that God’spresencecannot be contained within structures created by mortals and that he sees all, but is himself invisible.⁶⁶ Attribution of comparable verses to comic poets is more confused in the tradition, as Christian sources provide conflictingnotices on which dram- atist said what.But the recorded writers,Menander,Philemon, and Diphilus, supplied usefullymanipulable material. One or another spoke of an all-seeing divinity who willdelivervengeance upon the unjust and wicked, who livesfor- ever as Lordofall, who apportions justiceaccordingtodeserts, who scorns offer- ingsand votivesbut exalts the righteous at heart.⁶⁷ All of this attests to feverish activity on the part of Hellenistic Jews. Which of these texts are authentic but taken out of context and which weremanufactured
The fragments arecollectedbyA.-M. Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum graeca (Leiden: Brill, ) –.See the valuable discussion by Goodman in Schürer, TheHistory, .: –,with bibliographies. Pseudo Justin, De Monarchia ;Clement, Strom. ...–;Eus. PE ... Pseudo Justin, De Monarchia –;Clement, Strom. ...–, ..., ...– .;Eus. PE .., .., ... Clement, Strom. ...; Protrepticus ...The second passageisattributed by Pseudo Justin, De Monarchia ,tothe comic poet Philemon. Clement, Strom. ..., ...–, ...;Eus. PE ..–, ..; Pseudo Justin, De Monarchia – 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 185 for the occasion can no longer be determined with confidence. No matter.The energy directed itself to discernible goals. Jewishwriters appropriated, manipu- lated, reinterpreted, and fabricated the words of classicaland contemporary Greek authorstodemonstrate dependency on the doctrines of the Torah. These comfortingfancies, of course, promoted the priority and superiority of the Jewish tradition. But,more interesting,they implythatthe Hellenic achieve- ment,far from alien to the Hebraic, simply restated its principles. The finest of Greek philosophers from Pythagoras to Plato, poets from Homer to Aratus, and even the legendary singers Orpheus and Linus wereswept into the wake of the Jews. Afamiliar story,but not one usuallycited in this connection, underscores the point.Paul’scelebratedvisit to Athens can exemplifythis genre of appropri- ation. The tale is told in the Acts of the Apostles.⁶⁸ Paul proselytized among the Jews and “God-fearers” in the synagogue—and with anyperson who happened to pass by in the agora. This upset certain Stoicsand Epicureans who hauled him before the hightribunalofthe Areopagus and questioned him about the new doctrine he waspeddling.⁶⁹ Paul was quick to turn the situation to his own advantage—and in amost interesting way. He remarked to the Athenians that they were an uncommonlyreligious people. He had wandered through manyoftheir shrines and had found one altar inscribed to an “unknown god.”⁷⁰ Of course, he was there to tell them preciselywho that “unknown god” happened to be. Paul proceeded to speak of the sole divinity,creator of the world and all thatisinit, agod who dwells in no temples and can be cap- tured in no images.⁷¹ The description plainlyapplies to the godofthe Hebrew Bible, with no Christian admixture. Paul, like other inventive Jews, quoted Greek poetry to underpin his claims. So, he remarked to the Athenians, “as some of your own poets have said, ‘We too are his [God’s] children.’”⁷² The poet in question happened to be Aratus of Soli, no Athenian. But that detail can be comfortably ignored. The parallels with othertexts citedaboveare unmis- takable. Paul deployed Greek poetic utterances as certification for Jewishpre- cepts.And he citedaGreek dedicatory inscription as evidence for Hellenic wor- ship of the right deity—even if the Athenians themselvesdid not know who he was.
Acts :–. The author of Acts adds the snide remark that Athenians have nothingbettertodowith their time than to talk or hear about the latest fad; Acts :. Acts :: ᾿Aγνώστῳ θεῷ. Acts :–. Acts :: ὡςκαίτινες τῶνκαθ᾽ὑμας ποιητῶνεἰρηκασιν: τοῦ γὰρκαὶγένος ἐσμεν. 186 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity
This heartening construct of Hellenic dependence on Jewish precedents took hold over the generations. It did not await the Church Fathers for resurrection. Notably, and perhaps surprisingly,itappears in the work of Josephus. The Jewish historian, as we have seen, took pains to underscoredifferences between Jews and Greeks,tostress the stability of Jewishinstitutions and the durability of faith as against the multiple inadequacies of Hellenic practices. YetJosephus also follows the line thatmanyGreeks have embraced Jewishlaws—though some have been more consistent in maintaining them than others. Indeed, he ac- knowledges, Jews are more divided from Greeks by geographythan by institutions.⁷³ LikeAristobulus and others, he findsGreek philosophers hewing closelytothe concept of God which they obtainedfrom acquaintancewith the Books of Moses—noting in particularPythagoras,Anaxagoras,Plato, and the Stoics.⁷⁴ The prescriptions in Plato’s Republic obligingcitizens to studyclosely all the laws of theirstate and prohibiting social intercourse with foreignersin order to keep the polity pure for those who abide by its regulations came, accord- ing to Josephus, in direct imitation of Moses.⁷⁵ Toward the end of his treatise, Contra Apionem, Josephus makes even largerclaims. Greek philosophers were onlythe first of thosedrawn to the laws of the Torah, adopting similar views about God,teachingabstinence from extravaganceand harmonywith one anoth- er.The massesfollowed suit.Their zeal for Jewish religious piety has now spread around the world so that there is hardlyasingle polis or ethnos, whether Greek or barbarian, unaffected by observanceofthe Sabbath, various Jewish practices, and even dietaryrestrictions. Indeed, they labor to emulate the concord, philan- thropy,industry,and undeviatingsteadfastness characteristic of the Jews.⁷⁶ One mayset aside the hyperbole. But Josephus’ insistenceonthe Greek quest to du- plicate Jewish ethics, religion, institutions, and customs is quite notable. And it seems poles apart from his drive elsewheretounderscorethe distinctions be- tween the ethnē. At the very least,atension, if not an inner contradiction, exists in Jewish perspectivesonthe people of Hellas.Astrongstrain emphasized the differences in cultureand behavior between the peoples, categorizedthe Greeks as aliens, inferiors, barbarians,evensavage antagonists. Other voices,however,embraced and absorbed Hellenic teachings, reinterpreting them as shaped by acquaintance with the Hebraic tradition and as offshoots of the Torah. From thatvantage
Jos. C. Ap..: τῶν Ἑλλήνων δὲ πλέον τοῖςτόποις ἢ τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἀφεστήκαμεν. Jos. C. Ap. .;cf. .. Jos. C. Ap. .: μάλιστα δὲ Πλάτων μεμίμηται τὸν ἡμέτερον νομοθέτην. Jos. C. Ap. .–. 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 187 point,the Hellenic character becomes, through emulation and imitation, molded to the model. Forsome Jewishintellectuals that was not enough. They postulated astill closer attachment,one that would give acommon basis to the ethnē—akinship connection. The postulate was imaginary but imaginative.Among Greeks, such a construct was standard fare. Hellenic cities and nations frequentlycemented re- lationsbytracing origins to alegendary ancestor from whom each derived.⁷⁷ A nice idea—and one the Jews werehappy to pick up. Here, as elsewhere, they took aleaf from the Greek book. This extraordinary link crops up more than once in the testimony. The most striking instance involves some unlikelypartners: Spartans and Jews. Both peo- ples claimed Abraham as their forefather—so, at least,one tradition affirms. The claim appears in 1Maccabees, asserted by King Areus of Sparta, evidentlyinthe earlythird century B.C.E. He corresponded with the Jewish highpriest and an- nounced the happy discovery of adocument that showed their people’scommon descent from the Hebrew patriarch. Areus conveyedhis warmest wishesand em- ployed languagewith biblical resonance: “Your cattle and possessions are ours, and ours are yours.”⁷⁸ Acentury later, we are told, the Hasmonean Jonathan, who succeeded his brother JudasMaccabeus as leader of the Jews, renewed contact with the Spartans, sending them acopy of Areus’ letter.Jonathan called atten- tion to the long-standing alliance between the two peoples, an alliance unneed- ed from amilitary point of view (for the Jews relyonthe support of heavento help them humble their foes) but emblematicofthe kinship bondsbetween them. The messagesimply reasserted those bondsand noted that Jews never fail to remember the Spartans in their sacrifices and prayers. Jonathan asked nothing in return except resumption of contact and renewal of their brotherhood.⁷⁹ The Spartans graciouslyobliged with amissive thatreached Jer- usalem after Jonathan had been succeeded by his brother Simon c. 142B.C.E. The letter hailedthe Jews as brothers,sent warm greetings,expressed great pleasure at the revival of relations,and announced that the alliance and even the speeches by Jewishenvoys had been inscribed on bronze tablets and deposited in the Lacedaemonian archives.⁸⁰
An extensive collection of the epigraphic evidenceonfictitious kinship connections between Greek states is now available in O. Curty, Les parentés legéndaires entre cités grecques (Geneva: Droz, ). Macc :: τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶνκαὶἡὕπαρξις ὑμῶν ἡμῖν ἐστιν καὶ τὰἡμῶνὑμῖνἐστιν. Macc :–. Macc :–.One other referencetothe kinship exists,anallusion to the former high priest Jason, later an exile, whosoughtrefuge in Sparta in reliance on the suggeneia between the 188 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity
What does it all mean?The subject has been treated at some length else- whereand requires onlyasummary of the main issues.⁸¹ Debate continues on the authenticity of Jonathan’scorrespondence. That matter can be set aside. Fewwill now denythe invention of Areus’ letter—let alone the kinship ties be- tween Jews and Spartans.The invention is plainlyaJewish one. The postulate of Abraham as ultimateforebear of both nations makes that clear enough. A Spartan might have opted for Heracles. Nor is Areus likelytohaveadopted bib- lical languageinexpressingthe reciprocity of the relationship. AndJonathan, in transmitting acopy of Areus’ letter,reestablishes contact by patronizingthe Spartans: he assures them thatthe Jews have consistentlysacrificed and prayed on their behalf—as is appropriate for brothers.⁸² The Jews have the upper hand in this association, the benefactors rather thanthe beneficiaries. An undeniable fact emerges. Jewish intellectuals conceivedakinship bond with Sparta. Ethnic differentiation evaporated. Abraham had sired both peoples. The traditions of Sparta—or,moreproperly, the imageofSparta—had obvious appeal in Judaea. The Lacedaemonians stood for martial virtue, voluntary sacri- fice, order,stability,and the rule of law.⁸³ AGreek historian, Hecataeus of Ab- dera, had alreadydescribed the measures of Moses in terms that his readers would recognize as resembling the acts of Lycurgusand the statutes of Sparta.⁸⁴ Josephus, in turn, acknowledgesthat Lycurgusaslawgiverand Lacedaemon as a model polity draw universal praise—although he is at pains to show,aswehave
nations; Macc :.Areus’ letter and the exchange with Jonathan is givenalso by Josephus, following Maccabees,with some additions and changesofwording; Ant. .–, .–. See Gruen, “The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation,” in Transitions to Empire: Essaysin Greco-Roman History, – bc in Honor of E. Badian (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, ) –,with references to earlier literature. This article is available in this volume. Previous bibliographical summaries maybefound in B. Cardauns, “Juden und Spartaner,” Hermes () –,n.;R.Katzoff, “Jonathan and LateSparta,” American Journal of Philology () ,n.;C.Orrieux, “la ‘parenté’ entre Juifs et Spartiates,” in L’étranger dans le monde grec (ed. R. Lonis; Nancy: PressesUniversitaires de Nancy, ) ,n.. Macc :: ἡμεῖςοὖνἐνπαντὶ καίρῷἀδιαλείπτως ἔντεταῖςἑορταῖςκαὶταῖςλοιπαῖς καθηκούσαις ἡμέραις μιμνῃσκόμεθα ὑμῶν ἐφ᾽ὦνπροσφέρομεν θυσιῶνκαὶἐνταῖςπροσευχαῖς ὡςδέον ἐστὶνκαὶπρέπον μνημονεύειν ἀδέλφων. On the Spartan image,see F. Oilier, La mirage spartiate ( vols.; Paris:deBoccard, – ); E. Tigerstedt, The Legend of Sparta in ClassicalAntiquity ( vols.; Stockholm:Almqvist &Wiksell, , , ); E. Rawson, TheSpartan Tradition in European Thought (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, ); N. Kennell, TheGymnasium of Virtue (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ). Hecataeus in Diodorus Siculus ..–.Cf. Gruen, “The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affilia- tion,” . 8. JewishPerspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 189 seen, thatJewish stability and endurance have outstripped that model.⁸⁵ Those who invented the purportedkinship affiliation plainlyhad the Spartan mystique in mind. Jews could now partake of it.Indeed, better than partake of it,they could take credit for it.Abraham was ultimatelyresponsible. Such aconstruct,ofcourse, elided ethnic distinctions and denied discord between Hellenic and Hebrew cultures. The virtuesascribed to Spartan society reflected principles enshrinedinthe Bible. Andthe Hebrew patriarch symbolized the blending of the peoples from their origins. Another tradition utilizesthe figureofAbraham as progenitor to fusethe ethnē and the cultures on astill broader level. AGreek legend furnished the basis for it.Among the adventures of Heracles was one in which he grappled with the Libyan giant Antaeus and overcame him, avictory that emblematized the bringing of Hellenic civilization to barbarous Africa. An elaboration of the tale has Heracles wed the wife of Antaeus, aunion from which descended alin- eagethrough Sophax and Diodorustothe rulers of North Africa.⁸⁶ Jewishwriters later fiddled with the story and transformed it—in an intriguing and illuminating way. Thebook of Genesis supplies abrief genealogystemmingfrom Abraham’s marriagetoKeturah. In the Hellenistic period that record was exploited and amalgamated with the legend of Heracles and Antaeus. In the new version, two of Abraham’ssons by Keturah, Apher and Aphran, fought side by side with Heracles in subduingAntaeus. Heracles then married Aphran’sdaughter, producing ason, Diodorus, who later provided agrandson, Sophon, whencede- rivedthe name of abarbarian people, the Sophanes. The exploits of Apher and Aphran had stillgreater ramifications. The city of Aphrawas namedafter the one, the whole continent of Africa after the other.And athird brother,Assouri, became the namesake of Assyria. This wonderfullyimaginative construct is ascri- bed to an otherwise unknown writerCleodemus Malchus.⁸⁷ The identity of Cleodemus has generatedsubstantial discussion which can be happilypassed by here.⁸⁸ Onlythe text matters.Hereagain the tale has re-
Jos. C. Ap. .–. On the various versions of the Greek tale, see Diodorus Siculus .., .., ..; Plutarch, Sertorius .Cf. N. Walter, “Kleodemos Malchas,” JSHRZ . () ;R.Doran, “Cleodemus Malchus,” in OTP . –.The best analysis,exploringboth classical and Jewish texts on North Africa, is that of Gutman, TheBeginnings () – (Hebrew). The text is preserved in Jos. A.J. .– and Eus. PE ..–,with some variations in the names.The biblical genealogy occurs in Gen .–. Amongthe moreimportanttreatments,see Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, : – ;Gutman, TheBeginnings, .– (Hebrew); Walter, “Kleodemos Malchas,” –;Hol- laday, Fragments, .–;Doran, “Cleodemus Malchus,” –;Goodman, in Schürer, TheHistory, .: –. 190 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity ceivedaninterpretatio Judaica, not an interpretatio Graeca. The line begins with Abraham,his son has the honor of acontinent named after him, and Heracles’ victory over the giantwas made possiblebythe collaboration of Hebrew figures. The inventioninthis case is especiallynotable. Not onlydoes the Greek legend of Heracles bringing civilization to abarbarous land metamorphose into one in which Abraham’sprogeny took part in the endeavorand bestowed theirnames upon national entities, but also the manipulatednarrative now impliesakinship affiliation between Hebrews and Hellenes at the dawn of history.The greatest of Greek heroes marries into the patriarch’sfamily.And together they are responsi- ble for the ruling dynasty of North Africa—barbaroi though they be. Hereiseth- nic mixture indeed. The Jewish version absorbs the Heracles legend, links the na- tions, and even encompasses the barbaroi. This seems at the farthest remove from those texts in which the distinctions are vital and the Hellene as alien serves to highlight the superior values of the Jew. Aquite different variety of tale but one with comparable import warrantsno- tice here: speculationonJewishorigins.Two versions supplyadirect connection with the Greek world, one with the island of Crete, the other with apeople of Asia Minor.Both survive amidst alist of hypotheses recorded by Tacitus— who, however,supplies neither sources nor significance. In the view of some, says the Romanhistorian, the Jews wererefugees from Cretewho settledindistant parts of Libya at the time when Saturn had been driv- en from his realm by Jupiter. Tacitus notes the grounds for this conjecture, essen- tiallyetymological. Mt.Ida in Cretegavethe name “Idaei” to its inhabitants,a name laterbarbarized into “Iudaei.”⁸⁹ Whence derivedthis notion and how widespread it was we cannot know.Itmay well have stemmed from speculation by Greeks, atypicaltendencytoassociate foreign peoples with Hellenic origins.⁹⁰ Jewish researchers maynot have embraced the identification but would welcome the inferences that theirpeople date to the earliest eraof Greek mythology, thatthey share aheritagewith the Hellenes,and even that they had an ancient foothold in Africa.⁹¹
Tacitus, Histories ..: IudaeosCretainsula profugos novissima Libyae insedisse memorant, qua tempestate Saturnus vi Iovis pulsus cesserit regnis. Argumentum enomine petitur:inclutum in CretaIdam montem, accolas Idaeos aucto in barbarum cognomento Iudaeos vocitari. Cf. E. Bickerman, “Origenes Gentium,” ClassicalPhilology () –. The learned might also recall that tradition had Zeus himself born in Crete; Hesiod, Theog- ony –.And the ageofSaturn would have the resonanceofagolden eraofstability.Cf. L. Feldman, “Pro-Jewish Intimations in Tacitus’ Account of Jewish Origins,” Revuedes Études Juives () –. 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 191
The other tale was still more agreeable. It ascribed especiallyillustrious be- ginningstothe Jews: they wereidentified with the Solymoi, aLycian people cele- brated in the epics of Homer,whose name is reflected in the city they founded, Hierosolyma (Jerusalem).⁹² The etymological assumption again accounts for the conclusion. Apagan sourcehere, too, probablyconceivedthe coincidence, stan- dard fare for finding links between contemporary folk and Greek legend. It is un- likelythataJewinvented the idea that his ancestors’ roots wereinAsia Minor. But association with aHomeric people, particularlyone described in the Iliad as “glorious” and as having giventhe Greek hero Bellerophon his toughestfight, would be congenialtothe Jews—at least to those who regarded an ethnic amal- gamation with nations honored in classical myths as an enhancement of their own culturalidentity.⁹³ Do we here reach an impasse? The texts seem to suggest inconsistency and ambivalence, if not outright self-contradiction, in Jewish perspectivesonthe people of Hellas.Astrongstrain in Jewish literature emphasized the differences in cultureand behaviorbetween the two peoples, categorizing the Greeks as ali- ens, inferiors, even savage antagonists and barbarians. Other voices,however, embraced and absorbed Hellenic institutions, finding them entirelycompatible with Hebraic teachings.And still other traditions, invented or propagated by Jewishwriters,far from stressingthe contrast, brought the nations together with ablending of the races and the fiction of acommon ancestor. Is thereanexplanation for these discordant voices?Shouldone postulate a changeovertime in Jewishattitudes towardthe Hellenes and Hellenic culture? Or was there perhaps adivision within Jewish communities between those com- mitted to the purity of the tradition, thus drawing afirm distinction between the
Tacitus, Histories ..: Claraalii Iudaeorum initia:Solymos, carminibusHomeri celebratam gentem, conditae urbi Hierosolyma nomen esuo fecisse. The relevantHomeric passage is Iliad .–.InOdyssey .,the bard mentionsthe “Solymian hills.” The referenceispicked up by the fifth century bce poet Choerilus,who in- cludes those dwellinginthe Solymian hills amongthe Asian nations whomarched with Xerxes against Greece.That passage is preserved by Josephus,anoteworthypoint,for he interprets it (whatever Choerilus mayhaveintended) as an allusion to the Jews and employsitasevidence for earlyHellenic acquaintancewith his people; Jos. C. Ap. .–.The process neatlyillus- trates the adaptation of aGreek text for Jewish purposes.And it suggests that the tale of Jews as Solymoi could wellhavefound its wayintoJewish texts. The claim that aJewish exegete made the initial identification is improbable;soI.Lévy, “Taciteetl’origine du peuple juif,” Latomus () –;M.Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism ( vols.; Jerusalem: Is- rael AcademyofSciences, ) . –.See Feldman, “Pro-Jewish Intimations,” –; : , –,who, however,goes toofar in implyingthat Jews would have found the story unacceptable. 192 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity cultures, and those inclined toward assimilation and accommodation?Neither explanation will do. In fact,supposedlydifferent voices coexist in the same texts.So, the Letter of Aristeas proclaims aharmonious relationship between cul- tivated Greeks and learned Jews, afruitful collaboration in the translation of the Pentateuch into koine Greek, but also presents aforceful reminder that idolatry still grips the Hellenes and that their childish beliefs distance them immeasura- blyfrom the genuine piety of the Jews.⁹⁴ Similarly, the dire forecasts of the Third Sibylline Oracle predict vengeance to be wreaked upon the aggressive and brutal Hellenic conquerors, repayment for their inner malevolence as well as their ex- ternal aggrandizement.But the same work contains lines thatindicate areach- ing out by Jews to those Greeks who will repent and reform, apromise of divine favorinreturn for righteousness and piety,the expectation thatGreeks willshare with Jews in the glories of the eschaton.⁹⁵ And Josephus himself, as we have seen, not onlydraws the sharpestcontrast between Hellenic deficiencies and Jewishvirtues but alsoembraces the view thatthe noblest expressions of Greek philosophycoherewith the teachings of Moses.⁹⁶ The matter is plainlymore complex and more involved. The discrepancies and inconsistencies that we discern (or construct) maynot have been so per- ceivedbythe ancients who viewed them with multiple visions. Could they both associate and contrast Jews and Greeks?Why not?The textsthat betoken culturalconjunction in no waynegateorcompromise Jewish distinctiveness. On the contrary.They servetounderscore, rather than to undermine, Jewish su- periority. In various formulations, the Greek alphabet arrivedthrough aJewish intermediary;poetic inspiration came from aHebrew bard; the most sublime Greek thought derivedfrom the teachings of the Pentateuch; Hellenic philoso- phers, dramatists, and poets who recognized the sole divinity,expressed lofty ethical precepts, and honored the Sabbath took theircue from the Torah; and even the Athenians unwittingly paid homagetothe godofthe Scriptures. These fictive inventions hardlydissolvedthe distinctions between Hebrews and Hellenes.Instead, they elevated the best in Hellenismbyprovidingitwith Hebrew precedents. The rest,bydefinition, fell short. All of this, and more, re- flects energetic and ofteningenious effortstocommandeer Hellenic achieve- ments for Jewish purposes. Nor is thereany dilution of ethnicsingularity in the tales that made kinsmen of Jews and Spartans or linked Heracles with biblical figures.Inventive Jewish
See abovepp. –. Sib.Or. :–, –, –. See abovepp. –. 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity 193 writers exploitedthe Hellenic practice of signalingconsanguinityamong the na- tions by positing acommon ancestor.But the Jews did it their ownway:the mythical forefather was to be the Hebrew patriarch. That established the proper priority.The admirable qualities and the storied exploits of the Hellenes were en- listed to demonstrate the special eminence that attached to the ethnos of the Jews. This was no blendofthe cultures. It wasJewishappropriation. The strategyisneatlyexemplified by an anecdotederivedfrom the Mishnah. As the tale has it,Rabbi Gamaliel went to Acco,alargely gentile city on the coast of Palestine. There he took abath in the bathhouse dedicated to Aphroditeand adorned by astatue of the goddess—no doubt in her most provocative pose. The rabbi was then asked by an astonished witness whether he was violating Jewish lawbyenteringthe sacred space of apagan shrine and one marked by astatue of Aphrodite. Gamaliel had an answer: “The bathhouse wasnot built as an orna- ment for the statue, but the statue for the bathhouse; hence Idid not come into Aphrodite’sdomain, she came into mine!”⁹⁷ The rabbi’sreasoning maybeabit sophistical, but it was quite characteristic. Jews engaged in clever culturalag- grandizement. The process, however,was not all one-sided. Greek writers did some appro- priating of their own. As is well known, Greeks frequentlytraced the origins of some of theirinstitutions and practices to peoples of the Near East,most partic- ularlythe Egyptians.Herodotus, of course, spoke with great respect of Egypt’s ancient traditions and institutions to which Hellas owes alarge debt.⁹⁸ Tales cir- culated later of Homer’sbirth in Egypt,ofvisits to Egyptian priests by Orpheus and Musaeus, by Lycurgusand Solon, by Pythagoras and Plato, all to take intel- lectualnourishment from thatancientland.⁹⁹ Would the Greeks be willing to articulate acomparable debt to the Jews?A harder proposition. FewGreeks had anyfamiliarity with Jewishhistory,litera- ture, and traditions. Yetstereotypes and impressions existed. And, in fact, there are traces of areciprocal recognition and of Hellenic concession to Jewish characteristics that could resonatewith their own.HecataeusofAbdera, writing in the late fourth centuryB.C.E., has an excursus on the Jews. Among other things, he makes some admiring remarks about Moses as law-giver, agricultural reformer,and initiator of amilitary system.¹⁰⁰ Hecataeus, to be sure, makes no
M. Avodah Zarah, ..See discussion by S. Schwartz, in P. Schäfer, The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ), –. Cf. Herodotus ., ., .–, ., ., .. See, e.g., Isocrates, Busiris –;Diodorus Siculus ..–, ..–, .–, .–;Plutarch, Solon .. Hecataeus, apud Diodorus Siculus ..–. 194 8. Jewish Perspectives on GreekCultureand Ethnicity claim that the Greeks learned anything from him. Nevertheless, the description of Moses as aproto-Lycurgusisstriking.Ofcourse,the version is an interpretatio Graeca,but it suggests at least awillingness to express an indirect affiliation. In the perspective of several earlyHellenistic authors, the Jews were anation of philosophers.¹⁰¹ That perception emergesmost memorably in astory told of Aristotle by one of his pupils,Clearchus of Soli. Accordingtothe anecdote, Ar- istotle, while in Asia Minor,ran into aJew from Coele-Syria whom he much ad- mired for his learning and his impeccable character.Jews in general are known as philosophers, he said. And this particularone was especiallynotable. Forhe was Hellenikos not onlyinhis speech, but in his very soul.¹⁰² So the Jewishcon- cept that the best in Greek philosophyderivesfrom biblical roots is here mirrored by aGreek tale that has the Jewasquintessential philosopher.But the anecdote is givenaHellenic spin:the Jewhas the soul of aGreek. Atwo-way process existed, amutualmanipulation of cross-culturalinter- change, adouble mirror.Hence it comes as no surprise to find in other Greek writers reverberations of, or parallels to, the thesis expressedbyAristobulus and Josephus. The late third century B.C.E. historian and biographer of philoso- phers Hermippus of Smyrna remarked thatPythagoras imitated and made use of Jewishand Thraciandoctrines and thatheintroducedmanyprinciples from the Jews into his philosophy.¹⁰³ By the second centuryC.E., Numenius of Apamea, aNeo-Pythagorean phi- losopher,could declare quite baldly: “What is Platobut Moses speaking in Attic Greek?”¹⁰⁴ While Greeks acknowledgedMoses’ influenceonHellenic philosophy, how- ever,the Jewishphilosopher Philo turned that idea on its head. He has Moses himself not onlylearn arithmetic, geometry,music, and hieroglyphicsfrom eru- dite Egyptians,but progress through the rest of his curriculum, presumablyrhet-
Cf. Theophrastus, apud Porphyry, De Abstinentia .;Megasthenes, apud Clement, Stro- mateis ...;Clearchus, apud Jos. C. Ap. .–.The texts maybereadilyconsulted in Stern, Greek and Latin Authors,vol. ,numbers , , . Clearchus, apud Jos. C. Ap. .–: Ἑλληνικὸς ἦνοὐτῇδιαλέκτῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ. Hermippus, apud Jos. C. Ap. .: λέγεται γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁἀνὴρἐκεῖνος πολλὰ τῶνπαρὰ Ἰουδαίοις νομίμων εἰςτὴναὐτου μετενεγκεῖνφιλοσοφίαν.Cf. Origen, ContraCelsum, ... See H. Jacobson, “Hermippus,Pythagoras, and the Jews,” Revuedes Études Juives () –,who suggests,somewhat speculatively, that Hermippus or his source gotthe informa- tion from aJewish text in Greek that citedbiblicalpassages. Cf. also Feldman, Jewand Gentile, –. Numenius, apud Clement, Stromateis ...: τί γὰρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἤ Μωυσῆς ἀττικίζων. The line is quoted in several other texts;see Stern, Greek and Latin Authors ,no. a-e. 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Cultureand Ethnicity 195 oric, literature, and philosophy, with Greek teachers.¹⁰⁵ What itinerant Greek schoolmasters there might have been in Egypt in the late Bronze Agecan be left to the imagination. In anyevent,there was alivelytraffic in stories,whether filtered through interpretationes Graecae or interpretationes Judaicae, whereby the two ethnē reflectedthemselvesinone another’sculture. Comparable inversions occur with respect to the slipperyterm barbaros. The Jewishauthor of 2Maccabees, as we have seen, writing in Greek and in the genre of Hellenistic historiography, turned the tables on conventional practice and la- beled the Greeks themselvesasbarbaroi.¹⁰⁶ That was ironic and pointed—but it did not become adominant mode. Other Jewishwriters embraced the long-estab- lished Hellenic antithesis that divided the world into Greeks and barbarians.It can be found, for instance, in Philo of Alexandria, who boastsofthe widespread attraction of Jewishcustoms,appliedinvarious parts of the world by both Greeks and barbarians—who reject the institutions of others within their own category.¹⁰⁷ Josephus employs the contrastregularlyasameans of categorizing the non-Jewishworld.¹⁰⁸ It appears also in Paul, who proclaims his messageto “Greeks and Barbarians, the wise and the ignorant”—no pagan could have said it better.¹⁰⁹ Philo, in fact,can even adopt the Hellenic perspective wholesale and count the Jews among the barbaroi!¹¹⁰ And while the Jewish philosopher in Egypt brackets Jews with barbarians, the Greek tax collector in Ptolemaic Egypt places Jews in the category of Hellenes.¹¹¹ Hereisinversion upon inversion.And we have noticed alreadythe unusual variant in Cleodemus Malchus’ story about intermarriagebetween the houses of Abraham and Heracles: one of the descend- ants of that union gave his name to the “barbarian” Sophanes of Africa.¹¹² That is ethnic mixture indeed: not onlylinkage of Greek and Jew, but even ajointem- brace of barbaroi. The counterpoint and transposition complicatematters considerably. But they also show with accuracy just how entangled was the reciprocity of the cul- tures.Jewish intellectuals,itappears,negotiated an intricate balance in their de- piction of Greek ethnicity and culture. They simultaneouslydifferentiated their
Philo, Mos. .. See abovep.. Philo, Mos. .–: τῶνκατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα καὶ βάρβαρον. See, e.g.,Jos. B. J. .: Ἕλλησι πᾶσι καὶ βαρβάροις;Jos. A. J. .: οὔτε παρ’ Ἕλλησιν οὐτε παρὰ βαρβάροις; Jos. C. Ap. .: οὐ πόλις Ἑλλήνων … ουδὲ βάρβαρος. Rom. :: Ἕλλησίντεκαὶβαρβάροις σοφοῖςτεκαὶἀνοήτοις ὀφειλέτης εἰμί. Philo, Mos. .;Philo, Prob. –. Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, XIII, .–. Cleodemus Malchus apud Eus., PE ... 196 8. Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity nation from that of the Greeks and justified their own immersion in aworld of Hellenic civilization. The differentiation, sharp though it might be, did not pre- clude imaginary kinship associations. And, on the other side of the coin, the thorough engagement with Greek culture did not mean compromise with the principles and practices of Judaism. Jewishperspectivespredominateinthe texts here examined.But their dis- course was not altogether lost on the Greeks themselves. The latter,who sought to enhance their staturebyproclaiming alink with the venerable teachings of Egypt,alsogaveanod in the direction of the Jews. It added yetanother dimen- sion to Hellenic self-perception to have Pythagoras and Plato acquainted with the Pentateuch, as they were with Egyptian learning.And even Aristotle could comfortablybenefit from the erudition of acultivated Jew—so long as he pos- sessed the soul of aGreek. The double mirror captured the ethnē.