Hellenism and Its Discontents

[M. Porcius Cato]

Not too often do we get a nice, balanced story about the ancient conflict between Hellenic culture and local tribalist traditions, but here's a timely one from David Brooks at the New York Times. It's worth thinking about this: What if Hellenism hadn't been slowly absorbed by the Romans but instead had been violently imposed on her, as Antiochus IV seemed to do? In that situation, one can easily imagine the likes of Cato the Elder in the role of Mattathias (though, thankfully, it never came to that) -- and world history would have been dramatically different.

[sylla]

Not too often do we get a nice, balanced story about the ancient conflict between Hellenic culture and local tribalist traditions, but here's a timely one from David Brooks at the New York Times. It's worth thinking about this: What if Hellenism hadn't been slowly absorbed by the Romans but instead had been violently imposed on her, as Antiochus IV seemed to do? In that situation, one can easily imagine the likes of Cato the Elder in the role of Mattathias (though, thankfully, it never came to that) -- and world history would have been dramatically different.

The common claim that the Macedonian & Hellenistic Greeks aspired to "create an advanced universal culture" is hard to justify even for Alexander III, virtually impossible for the II century BC Seleucides; it is essentially unhistorical.

 

Classical & Hebrew theologies had lived together (even in close contact) under the Ptolemies and earlier Seleucids, entirely peacefully most often than not.

 

The origin of the Maccabean revolt was probably far more secular, at least on the Syrian side; the annoying tendency of the late Seleucids to pillage temples (especially after their disastrous defeats against the Roman legions) seems like a far better explanation to me.

 

In any case, the radical decree of Antiochus forcing the Jews to adopt Hellenic customs and make pagan sacrifices is conspicuously absent from non-Jewish sources.

Edited December 29, 2009 by sylla

[M. Porcius Cato]

The common claim that the Macedonian & Hellenistic Greeks aspired to "create an advanced universal culture" is hard to justify even for Alexander III, virtually impossible for the II century BC Seleucides; it is essentially unhistorical.

 

So, if the roads, theatres, libraries, medicinal technologies and other Hellenic advances were not desired for all humanity but just for the Greeks, you'll be able to provide evidence that Jews were not allowed to participate in these advances, right? Given that this wasn't the case in any of the other Greek colonies, my strong suspicion is that the common claim about the Hellenistic Greeks is essentially correct.

 

In any case, the radical decree of Antiochus IV forcing the Jews to adopt Hellenic customs and make pagan sacrifices is conspicuously absent from non-Jewish sources.

 

One of these sources is the "quisling" Josephus. Elsewhere, you've impugned his reliability for being a Jewish 'turncoat'. Are we to disbelieve his account in this context because he's now not a Jewish turncoat? In all seriousness, though, there are a number of non-Jewish sources on Antiochus in Jerusalem, including Jerome (HERE), Johannes Malalas (HERE), the Byzantine Suda (HERE), and the Chronographeion Syntomon (HERE). Of course, the earliest accounts are of Jewish texts, but I'm guessing news of events might have reached the families of slaughtered Jews before it reached any Gentiles.

[Ursus]

What if Hellenism hadn't been slowly absorbed by the Romans but instead had been violently imposed on her, as Antiochus IV seemed to do? In that situation, one can easily imagine the likes of Cato the Elder in the role of Mattathias (though, thankfully, it never came to that)

 

 

And what an impoverished empire that would have been without Hellenic arts and letters. Dull, dirty brick towns and bumpkin Latin writers! The West would have to look at the Celtic bards and smiths for their inspiration, if it looked anywhere at all.

 

On the other hand, I can see two differences that might appeal to some people:

 

1) It's hard to think that Paulist Christianity - or indeed a lot of other Eastern religions - would have spread to Roman masses without a common Greco-Oriental cultural background.

 

2) Would the pseudo-monarchs of the post Caesar era have arisen without using Hellenistic autocrats as their examples, or Hellenistic style arts and letters as their propaganda?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I agree that--without Hellenic culture--Rome would have been a very dreary empire indeed, if it even managed to get out of Italy. But with respect to Hellenism, Christianity, and Hellenistic autocrats (do you look for a cloud in every silver lining, Ursus?), I'm not so sure. With respect to Christianity, the unwashed Picts and Germans had no Greco-Oriental cultural background, yet the Jesus cult spread among these barbarians too. By the same token, Hellenistic-style autocracy (complete with king-worship, propaganda architecture and courtier-artists) existed in ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Persia long before the 'glory of Greece'. I agree that Hellenism was the carrier of these Eastern viruses (or "memes" if you prefer), but the Greeks picked them up from the East.

[sylla]

So, if the roads, theatres, libraries, medicinal technologies and other Hellenic advances were not desired for all humanity but just for the Greeks, you'll be able to provide evidence that Jews were not allowed to participate in these advances, right? Given that this wasn't the case in any of the other Greek colonies, my strong suspicion is that the common claim about the Hellenistic Greeks is essentially correct.

From all people, are you asking me for negative evidence? (i.e., evidence for what the Greek culture was not? ). I would have expected you to give some objective positive evidence on your own.

 

In any case, the public space of the vast majority of human cultures all across History has not been restricted to aliens, so all of them would have been equally "universal" under such wide criterion.

 

One of these sources is the "quisling" Josephus. Elsewhere, you've impugned his reliability for being a Jewish 'turncoat'. Are we to disbelieve his account in this context because he's now not a Jewish turncoat?

Hardly surprisingly, Quisling was a fervent defender of the relevance of the Nordic (Norwegian) mythology for the Nazi paraphernalia.

Any account is as good as its sources, and those of Josephus are excellent... but for the Antiochus' decree, entirely Jewish.

I have impugned the reliability of the traitor "terrorist" Josephus specifically on the analysis of the nature of the national movement that he had so utterly betrayed; how could I not? A really immense intellectual effort would be required to ignore such an evident fact.

Unsurprisingly, our dear treacherous "terrorist" Josephus was a fervent defender of the Jewish tradition (naturally under the most absolute Roman rule) simply because he and his family were Jews (analogous to Quisling, BTW ).

 

In all seriousness, though, there are a number of non-Jewish sources on Antiochus in Jerusalem, including Jerome (HERE), Johannes Malalas (HERE), the Byzantine Suda (HERE), and the Chronographeion Syntomon (HERE). Of course, the earliest accounts are of Jewish texts, but I'm guessing news of events might have reached the families of slaughtered Jews before it reached any Gentiles.

In all seriousness, you can't ignore all early Christian historical traditions were based on the Jewish tradition; mostly Josephus and the Maccabees books in this case.

 

Check out on Attalus.org again and you will verify that the story of the anti-Jewish religious decree issued by Antiochus IV is entirely absent from Hellenic and Latin sources, including his hostile contemporary Polybius.

Edited December 11, 2009 by sylla

[M. Porcius Cato]

Check out on Attalus.org again and you will verify that the story of the anti-Jewish religious decree issued by Antiochus IV is entirely absent from Hellenic and Latin sources, including his hostile contemporary Polybius.

 

You're absolutely right (and thanks for pointing out) that the story of the anti-Jewish religious decree by Antiochus IV is entirely absent from contemporary Hellenic and Latin sources. It's possible that his anti-Jewish actions were fabricated after the fact by anti-Hellenic sympathizers. On the other hand, all accounts of Antiochus report on his activities strictly from the point of view of his enemies -- and his non-Jewish enemies probably wouldn't have cared about Antiochus violating Jewish religious law (which to ancient outsiders--though not later Christians--probably appeared ridiculous anyway) given Antiochus' more important effects on ancient geopolitics.

[sylla]

You're absolutely right (and thanks for pointing out) that the story of the anti-Jewish religious decree by Antiochus IV is entirely absent from contemporary Hellenic and Latin sources. It's possible that his anti-Jewish actions were fabricated after the fact by anti-Hellenic sympathizers. On the other hand, all accounts of Antiochus report on his activities strictly from the point of view of his enemies -- and his non-Jewish enemies probably wouldn't have cared about Antiochus violating Jewish religious law (which to ancient outsiders--though not later Christians--probably appeared ridiculous anyway) given Antiochus' more important effects on ancient geopolitics.

Religious fervor has always been a useful addition to nationalist movements, even from laic (or atheist!) leaders; the modern use of the Jihad concept by Saddam and other Arab leaders is an excellent example.

 

There's plenty of evidence that the long-standing cultural and social opposition of Hellenic and other gentile populations against the Jews was for real; the anti-Jewish activities of Antiochus were in all likelihood simply utterly exaggerated by the Jewish patriotic narrative.

 

The origin of the conflict was probably entirely political at the beginning; the financial problems of the Seleucids and the subsequent sack of the temples (Jewish or not) are my best candidates.

[Ingsoc]

The author neglect to mention an important fact and this is that the revolt had a strong element of class struggle. Hellenism penetrated, very slowly, into the Jewish elite which at the time was compose of a small minority of the families which were responsible to the conduct of worship in the temple. when they made Jerusalem a polis they deprive of the urban masses they rights in the city and reduce the rights of village dwellers.

 

As for the Hashmoneans it's more complicated, while they were Jewish nationalists who had no problems running around Israel and destroying the Greek polis cities they also rule as an Hellenic dynasty in an Hellenic style state.

 

Check out on Attalus.org again and you will verify that the story of the anti-Jewish religious decree issued by Antiochus IV is entirely absent from Hellenic and Latin sources, including his hostile contemporary Polybius.

 

You're absolutely right (and thanks for pointing out) that the story of the anti-Jewish religious decree by Antiochus IV is entirely absent from contemporary Hellenic and Latin sources. It's possible that his anti-Jewish actions were fabricated after the fact by anti-Hellenic sympathizers. On the other hand, all accounts of Antiochus report on his activities strictly from the point of view of his enemies -- and his non-Jewish enemies probably wouldn't have cared about Antiochus violating Jewish religious law (which to ancient outsiders--though not later Christians--probably appeared ridiculous anyway) given Antiochus' more important effects on ancient geopolitics.

 

Judea was just a small part in the Seleucid empire and the Jewish revolt was a minor problem to them as they have to handle the Parthian threat in the east (this was part of the reason they couldn't master enough force to crush the revolt). Any author which deal with the Seleucid would take no notice of little Judea and rightly so.

 

However Antiochus IV decrees against the Jews are mentioned when Latin-Greek authors write about the Jewish people or Judea. Tacitus write that "after the Macedonians gained supremacy, King Antiochus endeavoured to abolish Jewish superstition and to introduce Greek civilization" (Histories, 5.8) .

[sylla]

However Antiochus IV decrees against the Jews are mentioned when Latin-Greek authors write about the Jewish people or Judea. Tacitus write that "after the Macedonians gained supremacy, King Antiochus endeavoured to abolish Jewish superstition and to introduce Greek civilization" (Histories, 5.8) .

Nice spotting; thanks for that quote.

 

Tacitus wrote two and a half centuries after the facts, when the Jews were already considered a nuisance by the Empire.

His ideas on the Jewish "superstition" were extremely confuse and his sources were clearly indirect and hostile to the Jews, probably related to Apion and Lysimachus.

Hardly could any of them have been considered an expert on the Jewish issues; therefore, it is not clear which "superstition" was going to be abolished (even less how).

 

My point is still the same; the conflict between Seleucids and Jews was probably political at the beginning, not theological; and definitively not for the purported obstuction to "create an advanced universal culture", as pretended by Mr. Brooks.

At least from the Syrian side, the purported religious component was presumably reactive and was probably exaggerated by the Jewish tradition.

At least that's the way the things happened under the Roman rule; if Hadrian did really ever interdict circumcision (as pretended by the Historia Augusta), the explanation for that action would have clearly been political, not theological.

 

Besides, that's the way Josephus himself presented the facts:

 

First, the political motivation (BJ:1,31-33):

" At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemaeus about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judaea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judaea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favoured Ptolemaeus, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemaeus, and received a place from him in the nome of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple, concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter".

 

Then, the reactive religious decrees (ibid,34-35):

" Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves".

Edited December 12, 2009 by sylla

[M. Porcius Cato]

The author neglect to mention an important fact and this is that the revolt had a strong element of class struggle. Hellenism penetrated, very slowly, into the Jewish elite which at the time was compose of a small minority of the families which were responsible to the conduct of worship in the temple. when they made Jerusalem a polis they deprive of the urban masses they rights in the city and reduce the rights of village dwellers.

I don't understand this post. The revolt against Hellenism had a strong element of class struggle? How so? What are the classes that you have in mind? In the sources I've read, the only classes mentioned were the Jewish priestly class versus the Seleucids and their Jewish allies. This leaves any other element of class struggle entirely to one's own imagination. Also, who deprived the urban masses of what rights?

 

As for the Hashmoneans it's more complicated, while they were Jewish nationalists who had no problems running around Israel and destroying the Greek polis cities they also rule as an Hellenic dynasty in an Hellenic style state.

In what sense did the Hashmoneans rule as an Hellenic dynasty in an Hellenic style state?

[M. Porcius Cato]

My point is still the same; the conflict between Seleucids and Jews was probably political at the beginning, not theological; and definitively not for the purported obstuction to "create an advanced universal culture", as pretended by Mr. Brooks.

 

You're attacking a straw-man and quoting Brooks out of context. Far from claiming that the conflict was purely theological, Brooks points to political, cultural, and theological elements of the conflict:

It begins with the spread of Greek culture. Alexander

[sylla]

You're attacking a straw-man and quoting Brooks out of context. Far from claiming that the conflict was purely theological, Brooks points to political, cultural, and theological elements of the conflict:

A little more context: "The Jewish civil war raised questions: Who is a Jew? Who gets to define the right level of observance? It also created a spiritual crisis. This was not a battle between tribes. It was a battle between theologies"

 

In any case, Mr. Brooks confessed that he didn't know the reason behind Antiochus' decree (All Emphases are mine).

In 167 B.C., however, the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, issued a series of decrees defiling the temple, confiscating wealth and banning Jewish practice, under penalty of death.

It

Edited December 13, 2009 by sylla

[sylla]

Judea was just a small part in the Seleucid empire and the Jewish revolt was a minor problem to them as they have to handle the Parthian threat in the east (this was part of the reason they couldn't master enough force to crush the revolt). Any author which deal with the Seleucid would take no notice of little Judea and rightly so.

Maybe the repeated defeat of one army after the other from the second most powerful nation of the era in its own backyard was not so unnoticed after all; Polybius mentioned the Maccabean revolt in his book 16 (39, 3-4), as quoted by Josephus; it's unlikely that the decree was recorded in the lost portion of this book, as Josephus didn't report it.

 

Diodorus Siculus gave a more detailed account of the Jewish rebellion (34, 1); he essentially confirmed the factual account of Josephus, but with a far more favorable depiction of Antiochus.

 

The radical decree was absent; the exemplary but mostly symbolic punishment would have been applied only once exclusively to some of the Jewish ruling elite (" Antiochus ... had penetrated into the sanctuary... extinguished the lamp ... perpetually burning in their temple. But again he forced the High Priest and other Jews to eat meat that they were prohibited by their laws").

 

Diodorus specifically stated that against the best opinion of all his officers, who "urged him strongly to exterminate the whole nation, or at least force it to take other customs", the "gentle and human" Antiochus just required from the defeated Jews tribute and hostages.

 

Something like that may very well have been what Tacitus had in mind when he descibed Antiochus as "endeavoured to abolish Jewish superstition and to introduce Greek civilization"; this would be quite far from the draconian decree reported by Jewish sources.

 

So it still seems the political conflict predated the religious punishment...

 

EDIT:

However, I'm not sure how easy it is to separate the religious and political intentions of the Macabees. For a start, if you believe that your state has been divinely decreed, you can be both a religious and a nationalist extremist without any conflict between the two viewpoints. I'd suspect that the Macabees and their supporters included both secular and religious extremists, and which motivation dominated depended on the individuals in each case. Anyhow, Antiochus managed to offend both the religious and secular factions, so arguing which group took umbrage first excludes the possibility that the two were sometimes in fact, one.

An Hellenistic power had occupied Palestine (Judea) since 332 BC; however, the Jews didn't rebel until 167 BC.

Hellenism and Judaism had therefore coexisted peacefully for 165 years; where were the purported

Edited December 30, 2009 by sylla

[Maty]

An interesting and informative discussion this.

 

However, I'm not sure how easy it is to separate the religious and political intentions of the Macabees. For a start, if you believe that your state has been divinely decreed, you can be both a religious and a nationalist extremist without any conflict between the two viewpoints. I'd suspect that the Macabees and their supporters included both secular and religious extremists, and which motivation dominated depended on the individuals in each case. Anyhow, Antiochus managed to offend both the religious and secular factions, so arguing which group took umbrage first excludes the possibility that the two were sometimes in fact, one.

 

Also, as I recall, was not the big revolt of the 60s sparked by Greeks in Judaea ostentatiously celebrating an imperial ruling in their favour about the use of a synagogue? (Which again united nationalists and religious types, insofar as they were ever divided.)