Hellenistic and Popular Judaism

In a quite different realm, the Hasmoneans established a pattern of behavior that deeply affected the cultural and social ambiance of Jewish society; they introduced into Hasmonean Judea a particular synthesis between Jewish and Hellenistic elements. The Hasmoneans were keen to adapt Hellenistic forms to Judaism—rather than altering Judaism to conform to the dictates of Hellenism, as the extreme Hellenizers among the Jews had advocated. Perhaps there is no better indication of the Hasmonean desire to integrate the two worlds than the coins they minted. On these tiny bronze issues, intended as small change and used for propagandistic purposes, we find symbols and inscriptions that convey a clear-cut message: The Jewish and Greek worlds are not irreconcilable. The language is either Greek or Hebrew; only a few issues are in Aramaic, the Semitic language in everyday use at the time. The Greek inscription uses the Hellenistic title of the Jewish ruler (king) and his Greek name (Alexander [Jannaeus]); the Hebrew coins use his Jewish title (high priest) and his Hebrew name (Yehonatan). Moreover, the Hebrew script is not the later Aramaic “square” form, but an older style in vogue during First Temple times, but until now not used in Second Temple times.

A similar contrast and synthesis is found at the magnificent Hasmonean winter palace excavated near Jericho. Some of the finest amenities of the Hellenistic world were found there—a large swimming pool, baths, a grand pavilion, frescoed walls with geometric designs, carefully hewn Doric columns and friezes. Between the pool and palace, however, were a number of Jewish ritual baths (miqva’ot). These were used by the Hasmoneans who, in their role as priests, were required to be ritually pure before partaking of the free will offerings (terumah) given by the people. Miqva’ot were unknown in earlier periods; no archaeological remains of such installations have been uncovered at sites of pre-Hasmonean date, nor are they ever mentioned in biblical sources. The Hasmoneans not only adopted Hellenistic architectural styles and associated social-recreational amenities, they also maintained uniquely Jewish institutions such as the ritual bath. Jewish society at large reflected this basic openness to Hellenistic influence, albeit with a significant amount of selectivity and adaptation in the process, which usually meant the rejection of overtly pagan forms.

Let us consider several examples. The funerary remains from the Jerusalem area, which reflect a great degree of outside influence, invariably imitate well-known Hellenistic models. The tomb of Jason, a wealthy Jerusalem aristocrat from the first century BCE, had a pyramidal form; the tomb of the sons of Hezir (Bnei Hezir) in the Kidron Valley east of the Old City followed another Egyptian tradition with its columned facade and adjacent funerary monument. The deceased were regularly buried in kokhim (loculi), small cavities, about the length and width of a human body, cut into the walls of caves. This form of burial was derived from Hellenistic models originating in fourth-century Alexandria. No less Hellenistic in origin were the tomb facades and series of outer courtyards (as at Jason’s tomb). Columns, capitals, friezes and moldings of various Greek orders are always found in these tombs, and inscriptions are recorded in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. What is uniquely Jewish about these tombs, however, is their artistic expression; here we find a major break with the pagan world. Whereas figural representation is common on pagan tombs in Palestine (for example, at Marissa we find figures in a musical procession) and throughout the Hellenistic world, it is practically nonexistent on Jewish tombs.

This absence of figural representation reflects a significant religious and cultural development in the Hasmonean era. Throughout the previous 1,000 years of Jewish history, figural representations had been common. The cherubs over the Holy Ark, the lions of Solomon’s throne, the oxen supporting the huge basin in the Temple courtyard, the bronze serpent for healing used from the days of Moses until King Hezekiah’s time, as well as the calves at the sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel all attest to the use of figural art in the biblical period. The innumerable figurines excavated at Israelite sites, not to speak of coins with human and animal depictions minted in Jerusalem in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods, provide additional evidence of Israelite use of figural art. Commencing with the Hasmoneans, however, and continuing for about 300 years—through the time of Bar-Kokhba (died c. 135 CE)—the Jews manifested an almost total aversion to figural art. Josephus’s writings and rabbinic literature, as well as archaeological remains from the late Second Temple period, all confirm a widespread adherence to this strict prohibition. Why this happened is not entirely clear. Perhaps it was a traumatic reaction to the decrees of Antiochus IV, who, to the horror of the Jews, introduced idols into the sacred Temple precincts; after all, the Second Commandment’s proscription of images was essentially directed against idolatry. Or perhaps it was due to the dominance under the Hasmoneans of a more conservative (Sadducean?) interpretation of the Torah generally and of the Second Commandment of the Decalogue in particular. Instead of banning only figural art for idolatrous purposes (the more lenient position taken earlier in the biblical period and, later, in the talmudic period), the Hasmoneans prohibited all figural depictions. In this reaction against regnant Hellenistic practice, the Jews clearly distinguished themselves from the surrounding culture.

Another illustration of the synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic cultures—but with a heavy emphasis on Jewish focusing —is preserved in a small apocryphal work known as the Greek Additions to the biblical Book of Esther. These Additions attempt to give the Book of Esther a more pious, Jewish-oriented character. The biblical account as it stands raises some thorny issues. Why is God never mentioned? Why are no expressions of traditional Jewish piety, such as prayer, included? Why does a respectable Jewish girl like Esther marry a gentile king? And sleep with him? And eat from his table? The Additions deal with these issues by supplementing the biblical text with a particularistic religious tone advocating a pro-Jewish and anti-pagan outlook. What is especially fascinating—and indeed ironic—is that the Additions were written in fine Greek literary style, and in Jerusalem; moreover, they were written by a Jewish priest named Lysimachus and were brought to Alexandria by a Levite named Ptolemy. For this reason, some highly educated and acculturated Jews (notice their names!) had made a clear bifurcation between their Hellenistic education and their strong Jewish loyalties.

People’s names often indicate cultural proclivities. For this reason, in addition to the Hasmonean rulers who bore Greek names (Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, Antigonus, Alexander), many members of the leading political and diplomatic families of the Hasmonean kingdom also bore Greek names.

The symbols on these coins are also an important indication of the Hasmonean attitude to the surrounding culture. None of the symbols is uniquely Jewish. The palm branch, anchor, cornucopia, wheel/star, etc., are found on Ptolemaic coins, Seleucid coins and the coins minted by various cities of the region (such as Gaza, Tyre and Ascalon). The only exceptions to this rule are two issues minted by Alexander Jannaeus’s grandson and the last of the Hasmonean rulers, Mattathias Antigonus (40–37 BCE); on these two issues we find the menorah and the table of the shew-bread from the Temple. For the most part, however, these Hasmonean coins display symbols of pagan origin, albeit carefully selected. Only the most neutral symbols, those that bore no blatantly pagan overtones, were copied. Thus, a policy of compromise was adopted; Hellenistic symbolism was accepted as long as it was not offensive to Jewish concepts and practices then in vogue.

Hellenistic influence was not restricted only to material culture (art and architecture) or to Greek names and language. It penetrated deeper, even affecting the religious institutions and religious beliefs of Hasmonean society. We have already discussed funerary practices. Rabbinic sources shed light on developments regarding marriage laws. According to tradition, Simeon ben Shatah, a leading Pharisaic figure who flourished during the first half of the first century BCE, made a major alteration in the Jewish wedding ceremony: the introduction of the ketubah, the wedding document specifying the obligation of the groom toward his bride. Previously, the groom had been required to set aside a sum of money or property for the bride’s family, with whom he made the contract. This arrangement had its roots in earlier Mesopotamian practice. According to one rabbinic tradition, this arrangement made divorce too easy; the husband had little to lose, for whatever he owed the bride in the case of divorce had already been set aside. In the fourth or third century BCE another arrangement, emanating from Egypt, was introduced into non-Jewish marriage contracts. The contract, negotiated directly between husband and wife, stipulated that in the case of divorce the groom was to pay the settlement from his own property; nothing was set aside at the time of marriage. This was intended to make divorce more difficult. Clearly inspired by Hellenistic models, Simeon ben Shatah seems to have introduced this Egyptian practice into the Jewish marriage ceremony some time in the early first century BCE

The impact of Hellenism on Pharisaic tradition was certainly not limited to the ketubah. In most cases, however, it is more difficult to trace. For example, as an institution of higher learning the Pharisaic academy (beth Midrash) had much in common with the Greek philosophical school. The parallels are not so much in the material learned (although in the area of ethics, the overlap may have been quite recognizable), but rather in the nature and organization of this institution. The beth midrash was a school of higher learning open to all, with rules governing its operation similar to those of the Greek philosophical schools. The relationship between master and pupil in the beth midrash and the principles of exegesis applied there also resembled those of its Greek counterpart. Since no similar institution existed in Palestine before Hellenistic times, and as influences from the Greek academy permeated Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition later on as well, it seems quite probable that the creation of this Jewish institution was inspired by the Greek model.  Several other Pharisaic concepts, such as afterlife in the form of carnal resurrection and the concept of a dual law (written and oral), may also have originated outside of Jewish tradition. Neither has clear-cut biblical roots, and both can be found, in one form or another, in non-Jewish (Greek and Babylonian) traditions.

No discussion of foreign influences on forms of Judaism during the Hasmonean period can ignore the evidence from the Dead Sea caves at Qumran. Time and again it has been demonstrated that the ideology of the Qumran sect was replete with concepts and practices quite different from biblical formulations and remarkably similar to concepts of the surrounding, especially eastern, Hellenistic world. Ideas such as dualism, predestination, astrology, angelology and demonology, the particular notion of wisdom and the spirit, as well as the use of a solar calendar, can all be traced to Hellenistic, especially eastern Hellenistic, models. Other institutions at Qumran—communal living, the concept of “community” (yahad), initiation rites, the penal code, celibacy and asceticism—although new to Judaism, have striking parallels elsewhere.

Explaining how such an array of outside influences reached a Jewish sect like the Essenes at Qumran is a formidable challenge. When one considers the fact that, of all groups, the Essene community at Qumran was the most self-consciously isolationist, having physically divorced itself from the rest of society, such massive foreign influence becomes even more perplexing. Several explanations have been offered, yet none seems entirely satisfactory. They all suppose that such influences were early and that the Qumran community for which we have evidence, was probably unaware of the origins of these traditions. One explanation, for example, assumes that the sect originated in the eastern Diaspora (Babylonia) and that by the time it reached Judea it had already absorbed and internalized these concepts. Another suggests that these foreign ideas were current in Judean society of the Hellenistic period and that the forerunners of Qumran adopted them quite early on as an integral part of the legitimate religious and cultural baggage of their environment. Whatever the explanation, the fact remains that such extensive influence on a major Jewish sect of the period is indeed astounding.

In surveying Hasmonean society as a whole, therefore, it becomes evident that no area of society and no sector of the population remained entirely unaffected by Hellenistic culture. The question is only a matter of degree—how much, in what areas, with what intensity, and which parts of the population?

The Hasmonean state has often been portrayed as a reaction against Hellenism, a reassertion of Jewish nationalist and religious will in the face of the demands, temptations and outright coercion of the larger world. This view, however, is only partly true and, as such, a distortion. In a more profound sense, the Hasmonean state must be viewed, at least in part, as a product of Hellenism, as an affirmation of the surrounding culture no less than a rejection of it, an expression of national sovereignty nourished and shaped by its international context. Thus, the Hasmonean state embodied a new Jewish disposition that incorporated a resurgent Jewish identity with varying expressions of Hellenism. Most Jews were prepared to adopt into their lifestyle many forms of Hellenism, albeit in varying degrees and with certain adjustments and changes.

The major literary product of the contact of Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint, as well as the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphic apocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.) dating to the period. Important sources are Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Some scholars  consider Paul of Tarsus (St. Paul)  a Hellenist as well.

Philo of Alexandria was an important apologete of Judaism, presenting it as a tradition of venerable antiquity that, far from being a barbarian cult of an oriental nomadic tribe, with its doctrine of monotheism had anticipated tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. Philo could draw on Jewish tradition to make metaphors of customs that Greeks thought primitive or exotic, such as “circumcision of the heart” in the pursuit of virtue. Consequently, Hellenistic Judaism emphasized monotheistic doctrine (heis theos), and represented reason (logos) and wisdom (sophia) as emanations from God.

The decline of Hellenistic Judaism is obscure. It may be that it was marginalized by, absorbed into or became Early Christianity (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews). The Acts of the Apostles at least report how Paul of Tarsus preferredly evangelized communities of proselytes and Godfearers, or circles sympathetic to Judaism: the Apostolic Decree allowing converts to forgo circumcision made Christianity a more attractive option for interested pagans than Rabbinic Judaism which instituted a more stringent circumcision procedure in response. The attractiveness of Christianity may, however, have suffered a setback with its being explicitly outlawed in the 80s CE by Domitian as a “Jewish superstition”, while Judaism retained its privileges as long as members paid the Fiscus Judaicus. However, from a historical perspective, persecution of Christians seemed only to increase the number of Christian converts, leading eventually to the adoption of Christianity by the Roman emperor Constantine and the subsequent development of the Byzantine Empire.

On the other hand, mainstream Judaism began to reject Hellenistic currents, outlawing use of the Septuagint (Council of Jamnia). Remaining currents of Hellenistic Judaism may have merged into Gnostic movements in the early centuries CE.

Popular Judaism

Only a small proportion of Jerusalem’s population belonged to organized sects in the Hasmonean period. Many Jews were indeed influenced in one way or another by these sects, yet only a few became full-fledged members, undertaking the full rigors of sectarian life. Most of the populace in this period belonged to that vague group referred to as ‘am ha-aretz (the country’s people), a term used in rabbinic literature to refer to all those who are not Pharisees. According to some scholars, rabbinic tradition as expressed in the sources following the destruction of the Second Temple reflects the way of life practiced by the majority of the people even in the pre-70 CE era. However, this perception is romanticized; a Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition became the norm among the people only hundreds of years later, and the process did not peak until the Middle Ages. What was the brand of Judaism that most of the populace followed in the Hasmonean period?

What religious concepts and beliefs did they ascribe to at the time? Little is known about the religious life of the masses in this period. Our sources focus almost entirely on the various sects, whose influence on the majority fluctuated with the changing political and social circumstances. Nevertheless, we shall try to sketch out a number of basic guidelines of Jewish life in Jerusalem in the Hasmonean period. The most important feature was the belief in one God who chose his people Israel and gave them the Torah. This revelation had a profound effect on the Jew as an individual and as part of a people. Accompanying the Sinaitic revelation was a covenant made between God and his people in which the former swore that Israel would be his chosen nation forever, and the Jews promised to do and to listen to all his precepts. Jews believed that observance of the Torah would bring reward while transgression would be punished. In addition, if the covenant was ever broken, it could be renewed through repentance (teshuvah). Based on a monotheistic tenet, Judaism accorded the highest significance to the sanctity of the Torah, the people and the Land, at the center of which stood the Temple and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Jewish observance focused primarily on three areas: (1) Torah commandments, such as laws about forbidden foods and Sabbath observance; (2) agricultural laws, such as first fruits, tithes, etc.; and (3) Temple worship. There can be little doubt that many people set aside offerings of terumah, tithes and first fruits (perhaps even observing the sabbatical year laws) and also observed the Sabbath and holidays, in whatever manner; all these stood at the very center of Jewish observance for the masses. Many of these commandments were observed within the confines of the Temple, entrance to which was restricted to those who hadpurified themselves. In addition, Jews were obligated to donate a half-shekel to the Temple and to make a pilgrimage to the Temple on the three festivals. Many Jews visited the Temple for other reasons, such as offering sacrifices to expiate sin, after giving birth and to fulfill Nazirite vows. Other norms observed by Jewish society at the time included the avoidance of any figural representation as well as the total prohibition of any form of idolatry.

Archaeological finds—especially from the last 30 years—point to other types of behavior that were also widespread in Jerusalem at this time. For example, the Rhodian amphora handles discussed above disappeared in the course of the Hasmonean period. As will be recalled, about a thousand such handles were discovered in Jerusalem primarily from the third and second centuries BCE But it appears that under the Hasmoneans, the prohibition of imported foreign wine was more strictly observed, and this development is reflected in the significant decline in the quantity of Rhodian handles from the late second and early first centuries BCE.

As already mentioned, ritual baths made their appearance in this period in Jerusalem as well as Judea. These baths were meant to help the public observe the purity laws. In biblical times, immersion was generally restricted to priests, as prescribed by the Torah. In the second century BCE, however, “purity (concerns) burst forth in Israel,” as an early rabbinic text tells us, and thus interest in purity struck root among the populace. As a consequence, ritual installations were in demand throughout the country. Evidence for the punctilious observance of these matters in the Hasmonean period may be found in many sources. The earliest  Pharisees who flourished in this period discussed purity matters, and 1 Maccabees emphasizes the importance of purifying the land by eradicating idolatry (see the description of the purification of Gezer and the Akra [1 Maccabees 13:43–54]). Moreover, the Letter of Aristeas (305–306) mentions the custom of ablutions,  and Jubilees traces the obligation of purification for a woman who has given birth to the days of Eve (Jubilees 3:9–11). However, the clearest evidence for the importance of purity in this period is the building of ritual baths beside agricultural installations (wine and olive presses) in both cities and villages. More than 300 such baths have been discovered throughout Judea, half of which were found in the Jerusalem area.

Although most of  these installations are dated to the Herodian and post-Herodian periods, this custom had already begun in Hasmonean times and spread gradually over the following generations, to the time of the destruction of the Temple. Hasmonean ritual baths have been discovered in Jericho, Qumran and Gezer, and, although we have no evidence, some of the Herodian ritual baths were undoubtedly in use earlier as well. There is much common ground among the various sectors of society regarding these customs. Nevertheless, there was often a lack of unanimity on how observances should be carried out, and not all precepts were observed by everyone. This is evident in the severe measures taken by John Hyrcanus in ensuring the giving of tithes. Moreover, the prozbol enacted by Hillel the Elder later on, in Herod’s day, was a measure taken to change the situation wherein many ignored the commandment to lend money to the poor close to a sabbatical year (when debts were considered canceled). This practice was thus an example of laws, even some derived from the Torah, that were changed over time. Changes were introduced in other areas as well; fighting a defensive war on the Sabbath was permissible, and, later, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai suspended the laws of the suspected adulteress (Numbers 5) and of the broken neck of the heifer (Deuteronomy 21). All these resulted from momentous social changes. Finally, in many cases customs differed from region to region within the country, as between the Galilee and Judea.

Despite all these differences, the Jews of the Hasmonean period were undoubtedly a unique and distinct people. What unified them was far greater than what divided them, especially when compared to the surrounding pagan cultures.