1

Moses the Dreamer:

Understanding the Vision of Moses within

the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian

A thesis presented for the degree of PhD in Divinity

at the University of Aberdeen.

By Amber Shadle, MLitt, MTh (University of Aberdeen)

Presented in 2014

2

Salient points

This thesis is on the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian, a second-century BCE text written in

Greek. The thesis has five main chapters: 1. The Cultural Context, 2. Moses in Biblical

literature, 3. The Exagoge as Tragedy, 4. Exegesis of the Exagoge, 5. Moses Dream and

Early Jewish mysticism. The first chapter surveys Hellenism and Hellenization and the

formation of Hellenistic-Jewish identity. The second chapter looks at the development of

Moses character in the biblical literature. The third chapter asks how the Exagoge might be

considered a tragedy, and how it compares to fifth-century tragedies. The fourth chapter

includes a translation of the text from Greek, followed by a line-by-line exegesis of the text.

The fifth chapter looks at the dream sequence in the Exagoge and its similarities to 1 Enoch,

discussing its relationship to early Jewish mysticism.

3

Confirmation

I confirm that this thesis has been composed by Amber Shadle, the candidate. It has not been

accepted in any previous application for a degree, the work has been done by the candidate,

and all quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks and the sources of information

specifically acknowledged.

Signature:____________________________________________

Date:______________________________________________

4

Table of Contents

Introduction 7

Chapter 1: The Cultural Context 10

1. Introduction 10

2. Alexander, Egypt, and the city of Alexandria 11

3. Definitions of Hellenism 17

3.1 Jewish Identity 22

4. Hellenistic-Jewish Literature 27

4.1 The Septuagint 28

Chapter 2: Moses in Biblical Literature 32

1. Introduction 32

2. The Moses of the Pentateuch 33

2.1 Infancy to Exile 35

2.2 Moses in Midian 39

2.3 The Plagues and Exodus 42

2.4 The Wilderness Wanderings 46

2.4.1 The Visit of Jethro 46

2.4.2 The Rebellion of Korah 47

2.4.3 The Sinai Theophany 49

2.4.4 The Death of Moses 51

2.5 Conclusions 58

5

Chapter 3: The Exagoge as Tragedy 59

1. Introduction 59

2. Sources for the text of the Exagoge 65

3. Ezekiel the Author 68

4. Exagoge and Tragedy 70

5. Moses as a Tragic Figure 83

Chapter 4: Exegesis of the Exagoge 86

1. The Greek Text 86

2. Translation 98

3. Introduction 111

4. Lines 1-67: Setting the Scene 112

4.1 Lines 1-31: Moses Introduction 113

4.2 Lines 32-58: Moses kill the Egyptian 128

4.3 Lines 59-65: Sepphoras Introduction 134

4.4 Lines 66-67: Sepphora and Chum 136

5. Lines 68-82: Moses Dream and Raguels Interpretation 138

5.1 Lines 83-89: Raguels Interpretation of the Dream 148

6. Lines 90-131: The Burning Bush 149

6.1 Lines 120-131: Moses Staff 155

7. Lines 132-174: The Plagues 156

7.1 Lines 175-192: Passover Regulations 161

8. Lines 193-242: The Red Sea 162

9. Lines 243-253: The Scouts Report 164

9.1 Lines 254-269: The Phoenix 167

6

Chapter 5: Moses Dream and Early Jewish Mysticism 173

1. Introduction 173

2. The Cosmic Mountain 175

2.1 The Cosmic Mountain: In the Hebrew Scriptures 176

3. Hellenistic-Jewish Literature and Later Jewish Tradition 179

4. Enoch and Moses 181

5. Conclusion 197

Bibliography 198

7

Introduction

In the centuries following Eusebius inclusion of excerpts from the Exagoge in his

Praeparatio Evangelica, Ezekiel the Tragedians text was effectively forgotten, buried

beneath the dust of nearly two millennia. The reason behind this was possibly that his play

did not compare favourably to those of the fifth-century tragedians. His creation was not

enough like the beautifully polished works of Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides, and was

written too late to be of much interest to scholars of the classical period. We find that when

the Exagoge is mentioned, it is in relation to the misunderstanding that it was written by the

biblical Ezekiel,1 or the authors mistaken Greek identity. From the latter part of the

nineteenth century, however, Ezekiels text has resurfaced within scholarship as something

worth studying in its own right. Partially driving the interest in the text is that Ezekiel does

what no other author of Hellenistic Jewish literature has done: he takes the life of Moses, and

therefore the story of the Exodus, one of the seminal moments for Jewish religion and self-

definition, and turns it into a tragedy.

Since Kuiper, Wieneke, and Kappelmacher revived awareness of Ezekiels text in the

early 20th-century, there has been a small explosion of interest in the work, with articles

appearing in various journals, and Jacobson and Lanfranchis seminal monographs appearing

in the past thirty years. Jacobson and Lanfranchi tend to focus on the linguistic aspects of the

text, Ezekiels reliance upon Aeschylus and Euripides, and the texts connection to early

Midrash and retellings of the biblical narratives. Some scholars, like Gruenwald and van der

Horst, have focused their attention on the potential mystical aspects of the text, in particular

the dream sequence towards the middle of the Exagoge. In this study we will not attempt to

go over ground which has already been well-trod. Instead, we will discuss the linguistic

features of the text when they are vital for properly understanding what the author meant, or

when we disagree with a commonly held opinion. The text will be divided into five chapters,

with the following structure:

Chapter 1 will discuss the cultural and social context of second-century BCE

Alexandria. It will begin with a survey of the Alexandrian conquests, before moving on to

1 Bayle, Pierre. Dictionnaire historique et critique, Nouvelle edition augmente de notes extradites de Caufepi,

Joly, La Monnoie, Leduchat, L.-J. Leclerc, Prosper Marchand, etc., Tome VI. (Paris: Desoer, 1820). Eschiel (F), p. 274.

8

discuss the spread of Hellenism within the Jewish community. We discuss in detail what it

meant to be Hellenised, and the ways in which Hellenised Jews created their self-identity. We

will close the chapter with a brief discussion of the translation of the Septuagint, since this

was most likely the source Ezekiel used for his text of the Exodus. The aim of this chapter is

to provide a firm understanding of the context in which the Exagoge was created, and perhaps

give us some insight into Ezekiels life as a Hellenised Jew.

Chapter 2 will focus on the development of Moses character the Pentateuch. We will

look at how his character changes and diverges over the course of the narrative, and how this

had an effect on later re-interpreters of the Hebrew scriptures, including those of Philo,

Josephus, and of course, Ezekiel. In contrast to the over-simplified depictions of Moses as a

flawlessly humble and meek man, we will find that the Moses of the Hebrew Scriptures was

imperfect, and sometimes rash. We will examine certain episodes from his life to try to

discover why he was condemned to die outside of the Promised Land, and how his death

might help us to understand why Ezekiel decided to re-write the Exodus as a tragedy.

Chapter 3 will discuss tragedy as a genre, its origins, its later interpretations, and its

constituent parts. We will examine a variety of Greek tragedies to discover what which traits

are generally found in a tragic hero, and how to interpret the often misunderstood concept of

hamartia. We will then turn our attention to Moses as a character and the ways that he might

be considered to be a tragic hero. Only once we have understood Moses tragic potential can

we then correctly interpret Ezekiels play.

Chapter 4 will begin with the Greek text of the Exagoge, collected from the extant

fragments, followed by a translation of the text into English.. We will move through the text,

line by line, and try to come to a better understanding of its nuances. As stated above, this is

not a purely linguistic study, but rather a treatment of the play as a piece of literature, which

seeks to follow its narrative logic. In this section we will examine the dream of Moses in-

depth, comparing it to dreams in the classical tragedies to see which features they share and

how Ezekiel differs. Moses dream is perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the text,

especially as it relates to the question of the development of early Jewish mysticism.

Chapter 5 will focus on the dream in particular, and its potential relationship to 1

Enoch. In both the Exagoge and 1 Enoch a figure from the Jewish scriptural tradition ascends

to heaven, encounters the deity on his throne, and is shown the mysteries of the cosmos,

before being sent back to earth. In the Exagoge Moses vision is presented as just a dream,

9

and we will discuss how this interpretation possibly acts as a safeguard for the author, since

his text effectively divinises Moses. Even though Jewish religious practice was flexible in

Ezekiels era, he still had to obscure his exaltation of Moses behind a smoke-screen.

It is our goal to approach this text as both a literary critic and a biblical scholar. It is

necessary to read the play as literature in order to fully recognize its narrative flow and

devices. It is hoped that the discussions on what makes the biblical character of Moses tragic,

the ways in which the Exagoge fits into the mould of classical tragedies, the identity of the

figure on the throne (and the result of his interaction with Moses), and the potential

relationship to 1 Enoch will bring something new to the scholarship surrounding the

Exagoge. Even though there are only 269 extant lines from the text, we have only just begun

to understand its nuances. The relationship of the play to the development of early Jewish

mysticism in particular is an area in which much work can be done.

During the writing of this thesis I am indebted to many people who have read, re-read,

and offered constructive criticism to my fledgling arguments. I am grateful for the support of

my supervisor, Professor Joachim Schaper, who patiently read early drafts of my thesis, and

guided and encouraged me along the way. I also wish to thank my family who have

supported me throughout this long process of living and studying abroad. Finally, I would

like to thank my husband, Simon, who was always there to encourage and support me

throughout the process of the PhD.

10

Chapter 1

The Cultural Context

1. Introduction

In this chapter we will undertake the necessary task of establishing the cultural and social

context in which the Exagoge was written. The author of the play, Ezekiel the Tragedian as he come

to be known, most likely lived in Alexandria, Egypt,2 around the mid-second century BCE.3 Ezekiel

was Jewish and, as we may conclude from his choice of subject matter, was well versed in the

traditions and texts of his people. He was also more than familiar with Greek culture, as demonstrated

by his decision to rewrite the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt as a Greek tragedy, his familiarity

with and reliance upon the fifth century playwrights,4 and his knowledge and use of the Greek

language. What this means for our text is that the author inhabited a world which was shaped by both

the prevailing forces of Hellenism and also by the traditions and texts of Second Temple Judaism. In

order to interpret his text correctly, it is essential that we are familiar with the world of the author,

including the historical events which created that world. For the Exagoge, this means that we need to

understand Hellenism, Hellenization, and the Jewish response to the powerful influence of Greek

culture, religion, and politics. The Exagoge is a product of the synthesis of these two cultures, and in

order to comprehend fully the balancing act which Ezekiel undertakes, we must first understand

exactly what it is that he is balancing between.

2 On the Alexandrian provenance of the play see Howard Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1983), 13-17; Pieter van der Horst, Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel, Mnemosyne 37 (1984): 357. R. G. Robertson, Ezekiel the Tragedian, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 804. Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972),

707. Kuiper, on the other hand, suggests that Ezekiel was writing from Samaria. K. Kuiper, Le pote juif Ezchiel, Revue des tudes juives 46 (1903): 48-73, 161-177. See also Moses Gaster, The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1925), 143. However, scholars generally

agree that the play was most likely composed in Alexandria. 3 See Jacobson, Exagoge, 5-13. Roughly speaking, the Exagoge is usually dated to sometime between the

completion of the Septuagint, (with which Ezekiel was familiar) in the second century BCE, and the lifetime of

Alexander Polyhistor (first half of the first century BCE), who is our ultimate source for the surviving fragments

of the play (Jacobson, Exagoge, 6). Jacobson presents various arguments to support his case for dating the text

to sometime in the second century BCE, and specifically to the latter part of the century, but most convincing is

his point that the play was likely meant to be performed before an audience of both Jews and Greeks, which

suggests that the Jewish-Greek relationship was still positive--a date in the first century would be too late as the

relationship had deteriorated by that point (Jacobson, Exagoge, 8). Even though he considers it a small point, Jacobsons observation that the second century was a significant time for Jewish literature written in Greek (citing Sirach, the Jewish Sibyl, the Septuagint Daniel and others as examples of the literary output of the

period) is an important note to keep in mind (Jacobson, Exagoge, 11). A text such as the Exagoge, which is

perhaps one of the most unique products of Hellenistic Jewish literature, would only have been possible in a

literary environment which encouraged retelling and expansion on the biblical materials. 4 See Jacobson, Exagoge, 23-28

11

The following pages give an account of the history and nature of Hellenism and Hellenization

encountered both by the Jews living in Alexandria, and also those in the wider Hellenized world. This

chapter will begin with a general survey of the events precipitated by Alexanders wars, continue with

a discussion of the Jewish communities in Palestine and the Diaspora, before moving on to a

consideration of Hellenization and its impact on Jewish self-identification. We will close the chapter

with a brief discussion of the Septuagint as an example of Hellenistic-Jewish literature. While there

are many texts which we could discuss here,5 the Septuagint arguably has had the largest impact on

Jewish writing following its completion, and it is very likely the source for the biblical account of the

Exodus which Ezekiel used. A survey of the literature produced on the subject of the Septuagint could

be a book in its own right, and our concern here is not to discuss every nuance of its composition and

reception. We will, however, examine it as an example of a literary work which undertakes the same

sort of balancing act between cultures as Ezekiels text.

2. Alexander, Egypt, and the City of Alexandria

From the Classical to the Hellenistic period, Greek civilization underwent significant changes.

Morton Smith notes that Classical Greece was centered around small holdings, the ordinary citizen,

local customs and city cults, and direct political involvement by the citizenship; however, in

Hellenistic Greece the small holdings were replaced by large estates, the ordinary citizen politicians

were replaced by trained bureaucrats, local customs gave way to explicit laws, and in everything a

professional approach prevailed.6 While the traditional narrative of the Hellenistic era begins with

Alexander the Great and his military conquestsspecifically his subjugation of the Persian Empire

5For Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica. See: Die Praeparatio evangelica, trans. Karl Mras (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954-1956). Eusebius. Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Vol. 15, trans. E. H.

Gifford (Oxford: Typographea Academico/ H. Frowde, 1903). There are far too many examples of Hellenistic

Jewish literature to cite here, but a few notable examples are: Demetrius the historian: Fragments were

preserved by Alexander Polyhistor, then quoted in Eusebius PE book IX. See: E. J. Bickerman, The Jewish Historian Demetrios, in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 72-84; Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 27-30;

P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 690-94. Artapanus: fragments

preserved by Alexander Polyhistor, then quoted in Eusebius PE book IX. See: Yehoshua, Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish Hellenistic Literature, Vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1966), 109-35; Carl Holladay, Theios

Aner in Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 199-232. The Letter of Aristeas: Translation:

Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (letter of Aristeas) (New York: Harper, 1974); See: John R. Bartlett, Jews

in the Hellenistic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 11-32; D. W. Gooding, Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 13, Fasc. 4 (1963): 357-379; Victor Tcherikover, Victor, The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 51, No. 2 (1958): 59-85; Sylvie Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (London: Routledge,

2003). Ben Sira: See Michael Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha: New Revised Standard

Version (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the

Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1981), 55; Yigael Yadin, The ben Sira Scroll from Masada.

(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965). There are many other texts which could be cited in this footnote,

but the texts above were chosen because of the way they demonstrate the interaction between Greek and Jewish

thought and culture. For a complete collection of the Hellenistic-Jewish literature available, see Carl Holladay,

Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vols 1-3. (Chico: Scholars Press, c1983-c1996). 6 Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia

University Press, 1971), 77, 78.

12

Smith suggests that the domination of Greek culture began long before Alexander claimed large

swaths of the Mediterranean world for his empire.7 As early as 420 BCE the Persian army had begun

to employ Greek mercenaries and, although they were not aware of it, these mercenaries did more

than simply assist the Persian military effort.8 Smith writes: Along with this military penetration by

Greek forces went economic and cultural penetration by Greek traders, Greek merchandise, and Greek

ways.9 At this early period, the reach of Greek culture was beginning to assert itself, although those

conquered by the Persian army, and the Persian rulers themselves, would hardly have suspected that

an even more pervasive subjugation had taken place that would prove more influential over time than

a mere change of rulers.

This would seem to suggest that Hellenism was an unstoppable force, with an unavoidable

cultural impact on those who were conquered during the course of the various wars waged by Persians

and Greeks. In a way it was, since those who wanted to advance in society at all would have had to

adopt the ways of the conquerors. Victor Tcherikover, however, offers a slightly different account of

the interaction between Greeks and the conquered peoples, focusing particularly on those living in

Egypt. In his account, the Greek settlers in Egyptian towns were the ones who went through the

process of assimilation, not the local population. Mixed marriages, combined with the pressures of

local religious customs and language, ensured that a new mixed stock, derived from both nations,

replaced the first Greeks who had settled in Egypt in the third century.10 Tcherikover writes that it

was the oriental village which possessed the power of fusing the strangers with itself and of

obliterating their intellectual and national character.11 This process was perhaps encouraged by the

propensity of the conquering Greeks to build cities either next to or on top of existing towns. Since the

peoples were intermixing, Tcherikover suggests, the traditional distinction between who was a Greek

became less attached to ethnicity and more associated with a common culture.12

While the cultural exchange certainly went both ways, it would be a mistake to conclude, like

many conventional narratives do, that Alexander was the great bringer of concord, a symbol of the

universal obligation to strive for homonoia, the concert of nations.13 While the Greek conquerors

were not as concerned with bringing a universal and benevolent culture to the barbarians as they

were with expanding their power, even some of the earliest sources promote the idea of a golden age

7 For a discussion of this narrative, see Harald Hegermann, The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 2, ed. W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1989), 115. 8 Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia

University Press, 1971), 60. 9 Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 60. 10 Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Applebaum (Philadelphia: The Jewish

Publication Society of America, 1961), 21. 11 Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 21. 12 Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 30. 13 Hegermann, The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age, 125.

13

of concord.14 After the conquest of Egypt, for example, Alexander tried to present his army as

freedom-bringers, with some success.15 The Persians were not the most popular in Egypt, and

Alexander took pains to ensure that the local population did not have reason to resent the new

government.16 Malcolm Errington notes that, [t]he problems of adaptation to the Egyptian

sociopolitical environment were, however, much greater for Ptolemy than they had been for

Alexander, who after his initial immediate demonstration of sympathy for things Egyptian had

quickly moved on.17 Alexander the conqueror was politically savvy, and it was only a matter of time

before the Egyptians grew unhappy with their new rulers.18

The cultural exchange between the Greeks and the conquered peoples did have its limits.

Tcherikover notes that the local inhabitants who mingled with the citizens altered the human material

of which the Greek polis was composed, but the political and juridical form remained unmodified by

them.19 In other words, while ordinary individuals living in Greek cities might have interacted with

and been influenced by people from a diverse set of backgrounds, the power overwhelmingly rested in

Greek hands. A common Hellenic lineage, along with Greek education, was emphasized by those

wishing to bar non-Greeks from Greek citizenship.20 Martin Hengel notes that the Greeks considered

so-called barbarians to be bestial, hostile to strangers, despotic or enslaved, superstitious, cruel,

cowardly and faithless.21 Naturally, Hengel points out, we can understand how individual

barbarian cities and peoples were very concerned either to reconstruct some original relationship

14 See for example Plutarch, who writes that [t]hose who were subdued by Alexander are more fortunate than those who escaped him, for the latter had no one to rescue them from their wretched life, while the victorious

Alexander compelled the former to enjoy a better existence. De Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute, I 138c-329D, quoted in M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1981), 36. Austin notes that such speeches given by Plutarch demonstrate that

modern theories of Alexander the champion of the fusion of races or of the brotherhood of mankind have their starting point in ancient sources. Austin, The Hellenistic World, 35. 15 Errington writes that in stark contrast with the Persians Alexander treated Egyptian traditions and the

Egyptian governing classes, especially the administrators and the priests, with respect, leaving the regional

administration largely untouched in detail when he marched on in 311. R. Malcolm Errington, A History of the

Hellenistic World: 323-30 BC (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 145. 16 Ian Shaw notes: It is most appropriate to begin the study of Ptolemaic Egypt with the arrival of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, thus bringing to an end the Second Persian Period, the passing of which was lamented by

no one. Ian Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 388. 17 Errington, A History of the Hellenistic World, 145. 18 Shaw notes the limits of the initial positive reception of the Greek conquerors: The relationship between the Graeco-Macedonian elite and their Egyptian subjects in the earlier phase of Ptolemaic rule is not always clear

and, where it is, it shows some inconsistency. Shaw, Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, 405. However, the situation changes from the third century BCE: In Egypt outside Alexandria the political situation rapidly deteriorated from the late third century BC onwards, as the country seethed with internal discord. Shaw, Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, 411. This discord included strikes, flightbrigandage, attacks by desperados on villages, despoliation of temples, and frequent recourse to the temples right of asylum. These are indisputably the reactions of people pushed beyond the limits of endurance by famine, rampant inflation, and an oppressive

and vicious administrative system. Shaw, Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, 411-412. This made for an extremely tense political environment, and ultimately contributed to the downfall of the Ptolemaic Kingdom in

30 BCE. 19 Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 36. 20 Martin Hengel, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1980), 58. 21 Hengel, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians, 55.

14

with the Greeks or at least to regard themselves as an early Hellenic colony.22 The struggle for

recognition by the Greeks was a constant process, for both Jewish and non-Jewish barbarians,

especially for those who wanted to advance economically or politically.

Let us now move on from the general situation of life for non-Greeks, to the specific

provenance of Ezekiels text. During his campaign of (known-)world domination, Alexander the

Great founded many cities, but Alexandria on the Nile Delta is by far the most celebrated.23 Fraser

divides the population of the city into rough categories composed of native Egyptians, Greeks of

various social status, foreigners who were neither ethnically Egyptian nor Greek, and slaves.24 During

the initial conquest, the Egyptian attitudes towards the Macedonian-Greek army was positive;

however, once the charismatic head of the empire was dead and the warring factions had taken over

the Egyptians began to resent their non-citizen status.25 The ruling class consisted entirely of foreign

leaders, a fact which grated on those who had traditionally led the country.26 Once Alexander was

gone, the land which he had conquered was divided up among the warring factions of his successors,

and Ptolemy I Soter was appointed satrap of Egypt in 323 BCE. The Egypt in which Ezekiel lived was

ruled by the descendants of Ptolemy Soter: Ptolemy V Epiphanes, Ptolemy VI Philometor, or Ptolemy

VIII Euergetes II, depending on when in the second century we place the composition of the text.27

There was a sizeable Jewish population in the city of Alexandria, and scholars have created

various accounts of the situation of this community within Egypt. Some, like Arnaldo Momigliano,

have painted a fairly positive picture of the status of those Jews who lived in Alexandria. According

to Momigliano, [a]s long as the Jews got on reasonably well with the Greek population of Alexandria

and had the support of the Ptolemies, Egyptian hostility was not of decisive importance.28 In his

Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes about the supposed favor shown by Alexander himself to the

Jewish community in Egypt. According to Josephus, Alexander was so impressed with the way the

Jews observed their oaths and covenants that he granted them equal rights as citizens within

22 Hengel, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians, 57. 23 For a collection of primary sources which relate to Alexanders reign and his successors, see Austin, The Hellenistic World.) See in particular the comparison of the accounts given by Arrian and Plutarch about the

founding of the city (page 17). 24 P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Vol. I (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1972), 38. 25 Shaw, Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, 411-412. 26 F. W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World (Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., 1981), 115. There were,

however, some Egyptians who interacted closely with the ruling Greeks. See A. B. Lloyd, The Egyptian Elite

in the Early Ptolemaic Period: Some Hieroglyphic Evidence, In The Hellenistic World: New Perspective,. Ed.

Daniel Ogden (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales and Duckworth, 2002), 117-36. 27 For an extended discussion of the rule of the Ptolemies in Egypt, see J. G. Manning, The Last Pharaohs:

Egypt under the Ptolemies, 305-30 BC (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2009). While this thesis focuses

on the interaction between Jewish and Greek culture and society, Susan Stephens has written an illuminating

monograph on the interaction between Greek and Egyptian cultures, specifically during the reign of the

Ptolemies, and how this interaction is expressed through the poetic output of the period. See Susan Stephens,

Seeing Double: Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). 28 Arnaldo Momigliano, Greek Culture and the Jews, in The Legacy of Greece: A New Appraisal, ed. Moses.

I. Finley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 334.

15

Alexandria, rights on par with the privileges given to the Macedonians.29 Josephus account was most

likely a product of apologetic imagination: According to Hegermann, during the later Roman period

the Jews were in fact trying to defend themselves against a recent deterioration in their civic status

which itself went back to the very origins of the city.30 By claiming that the Conqueror himself had

bestowed certain privileges upon his people, Josephus was attempting to appeal to tradition in order to

help bolster the position of the Jews living in Palestine in his own time.

While Josephus account does not accurately represent the relationship between Alexander

and the Jews in Egypt, we do know that the Jewish community in Alexandria was given a certain

amount of autonomy. However, the extent of the privileges enjoyed by the Jewish community is

difficult to determine. Bickerman suggests that since Alexandria was a Greek polis, there was, early

on, the possibility that a foreigner, by adopting Greek culture (and probably spending a fair amount of

money) could become a citizen.31 However, Bickerman agrees with Fraser that even though a Jew

may have been born in Alexandria, he still could not enjoy the full rights of a citizen.32 The

Alexandrian Jews were therefore perpetually locked in the middle position, unable to gain the status

of full citizens, and yet not considered one with the local Egyptian population.33

Fraser notes that although Jews occur frequently in Ptolemaic Alexandria, and in Ptolemaic

Egypt as a whole, we possess no contemporary statement of principle regarding their status from this

period.34 We are left looking to accounts from authors who lived hundreds of years later. While

Fraser does not judge Josephus account of Alexanders bestowal of citizenship to the Jews in

Alexandria to be accurate, he does consider Strabos account of a separate Jewish community within

Alexandria to be a far more reliable witness.35 Strabo describes a community which was ruled by an

ethnarch and was semi-autonomous; this community, Fraser suggests, was inhabited by Jews who

were on a higher cultural level than the Egyptians, and, as the surviving works of Jewish-Greek

literature of the third and second centuries show, the Greek culture which they acquired was of a

superior quality.36 While we reserve judgment about the quality of the Greek culture absorbed by

the various groups in Alexandria, we may agree that the Hellenistic-Jewish literature of the third and

second centuries BCE does demonstrate a significant interaction with and absorption of Greek culture.

29 Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews, 12.1 30 Hegermann, The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age, 121. 31 Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988),

87, 88. 32 Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, 88. 33 See Hengel on the Jews as a third class. Martin Hengel, The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in

the Pre-Maccabean Period, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume Two, ed. W. D. Davies and Louis

Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 173. 34 Fraser, PA, 54. 35 Fraser, PA, 54. 36 Fraser, PA, 57.

16

Joseph Mlze-Modrzejewski notes that Jews in Alexandria were able to maintain their

religious observances while interacting regularly with the surrounding Greek culture, a feat which was

not possible in other, less cosmopolitan cities.37 Momigliano goes so far as to suggest that the Jews

of Egypt maintained prestige, gained prosperity, and developed an intellectual physiognomy of their

own at least until A.D. 50.38 Overall, though, we do not know very much about the actual lives and

social position of Jews who lived in Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE.39 It is clear from the literary

testimony that there was interaction with the wider Greek cultural forces, while at the same time the

Jews were able to maintain their own religious traditions.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the positive relationship which Jews within the Diaspora

maintained with the Jewish community in Palestine. Egypt increasingly grew in importance for the

Diaspora community, however, Momigliano writes, Jerusalem, not Alexandria, was the place where

the future of Judaism was played out.40 While the community in Egypt thrived, there was a constant

link to Palestine, especially in the form of the Temple and the land. With the coming of the Persians,

as we saw above, the Greek influence on the Palestinian district grew, and Greek pressure through

economic and military connections expanded to include cultural infiltration as well.41 The military

occupation also shifted the focus of the Jewish leadership away from kingship to an aristocratic

priesthood.42 Even as Jews in the Diaspora sent regular donations to the Jerusalem Temple and shared

in an exchange of ideas and writings, the daily life of those outside of Palestine began to revolve

around more local institutions.43 The history surrounding the development of early synagogues is

often unclear. However, by the mid-second century BCE something like a synagogue was beginning

to develop, and it was these cultural centers which sustained their community, acting as a social and

religious space.44 These early synagogues, Feldman notes, were much more than houses of prayer

37 Joseph Mlze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, trans. Robert Cornman (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995),

82. 38Momigliano, Greek Culture and the Jews, 334. 39 Fraser notes: we know very little regarding the organization of the Persians and other foreigners, apart from those in military settlements. We have little information regarding foreign racial groups, except the Jews and the

Romans, and no indication survives as to how they were organized in Alexandria. Fraser, PA, 59. 40 Momigliano, Greek Culture and the Jews, 335. 41 See Hengels discussion of the infiltration of Hellenism into Jewish culture in Palestine, Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, Vol. 1 (London: SCM Press, 1974), 58-103. 42 Peter Green, Alexander to Actium: The Hellenistic Age (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1990), 501. 43 Ibid. See also Lee Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (Yale University Press: New

Haven, 2000), 74-89. Levine discusses the importance of the synagogue with the Alexandrian Jewish

community in particular, and its reliance on royal recognition and support for its communal institutions. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 77. The dedication of a synagogue to a ruler was partially due to customs

regarding building dedication within Egypt, and partially because such dedications declare the synagogue inviolate, and hence, protected. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 77. 44 Levine has argued extensively that the origins of the synagogue can be traced back to the role and importance

of city gates in ancient Israel. See Levine, The Ancient Synagogue,19-41. See L. Lw, Der synagogale Ritus, in MGWJ 33 (1884): 97-114 for an extensive discussion of the function of the city gate in both social and

religions contexts. Other scholars, locate the origins of the synagogue in the Babylonian exile: H. Rowley,

Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meaning. (London: S.P.C.K., 1967), 224; G. F. Moore, Judaism in the

First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

17

and study, they served as the centers of Jewish social, cultural, and even political life.45 When we

discuss the text of the Exagoge, we will return to the synagogue, and the possibility that Ezekiels

play was meant to be performed in one of these Alexandrian meeting houses.

3. Definitions of Hellenism

The preceding survey of the Hellenistic society in Alexandria, although brief, will help us to

understand the historical context of the Exagoge, and the society in which the author lived. We will

now turn our attention to Hellenism, and discuss in a more detailed way what it meant for an

Alexandrian Jew, such as Ezekiel, to be Hellenized. In this section we will survey various

discussions of Hellenism offered by scholars, and present a working definition which will be used

throughout the remainder of this thesis.

According to Ralph Marcus, [t]he Greek noun hellenistes commonly meant a non-Greek

speaker of Greek or imitator of Greek fashion.46 He goes on to conclude that the Hellenistic age is

especially interesting to us because it saw the birth and early nurturing of a world-consciousness in

philosophy, law, religion and politicsthese forms of universalism or cosmopolitanism were

sufficiently developed in the Hellenistic age to provide thought and impulse to action for many

centuries.47 Gabriele Boccaccini, however, points out that the word Hellenic was not originally used

to denote a utopian exchange of cultures: the verb hellniz and the noun hellnismos were never

used in ancient sources to denote the mixing of cultures, but rather the contribution given by Hellenic

culture to the new civilization.48 Martin Hengel also rejects the idea that Alexander was interested in

spreading a universal, humanitarian world culture as a later trend projected back on to Alexander and

his successors: Alexander, Hengel writes, began his expedition as a war of vengeance, and thus had

little interest in fostering the mixing of cultures49 Within the groups conquered by Alexanders army,

1927), 283. See Anders Runessons extensive discussion of the multitude of theories about the origins of the synagogue: Anders Runesson, The Origins of the Synagogue: A Social-Historical Study (Stockholm: Almquist

& Wiksell International, 2001), 67-168. As for the synagogue in Egypt, Runesson writes that no uniform picture existed as late as the second century BCE, buta general development away from animal sacrifices, though retaining vegetable and incense offerings, had taken place at this time. It was also around this period that

public torah (sic) readings were incorporated into these institutions. Runesson, Origins, 481. This sort of loosely organised meeting place is possibly the most natural location for Ezekiels play to have been performed. 45 Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 63. 46 Ralph Marcus, Hellenistic Jewish Literature, in The Jews: Their Religion and Culture, ed. Louis Finkelstein (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), 43. 47 Ralph Marcus, Hellenistic Jewish Literature, 43. 48 Gabriele Boccaccini, Hellenistic Judaism: Myth or Reality? in Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Context and Intertext, ed. Anita Norich and Yaron Z. Eliav (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 56. See in

contrast Ralph Marcus, Hellenistic Jewish Literature, in The Jews, ed. Louis Finkelstein (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), 43. 49 Martin Hengel, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1980), 52. It

must be noted, however, that the idea that Alexanders campaign was actually a positive change for the newly conquered people can be found in early sources. Austin cites a speech given by Plutarch in which the benefits

bestowed by Alexander upon the conquered peoples are discussed. Austin, The Hellenistic World, 35. He notes

that the speeches may only be rhetorical exercises, however [t]hey are important nonetheless in showing how

18

the upper class did make an effort to become a part of the Hellenized world; however, expansive

Hellenization did not stretch into all levels of society until the Romans, with their drive towards

Hellenization of barbarians.50 The literary and philosophical elements of Hellenism came second to

the political and social prerogatives.

When we come to the response of the Jewish communities within Palestine and the Diaspora,

Hengel argues that Hellenism gained ground as an intellectual power in Jewish Palestine early and

tenaciously.51 From the middle of the third century BCE, all Judaism must really be designated

Hellenistic Judaism, which makes the traditional differentiation between Palestinian and

Hellenistic Judaism obsolete.52 This Hellenism embraced every sphere of life, not just the military,

civic, and socio-economic areas.53 Hengels definition radically challenged the assumption that

Hellenism was somehow limited in its scope to the upper-classes or to the Jews in the Diaspora only.

This means that escape from the influence of Hellenization was impossible, even for those who

attempted to resist its cultural and religious forms. And even if an individual did attempt to resist

Hellenization, Peter Green reminds us that Hellenism was not necessarily spread by conscious

choice, but rather by unconscious, or incidental, processes: Borrowings and adaptations, then, we

would expect to find in those areas that, first, required no linguistic skill and, second, were commonly

accessible without conscious intellectual effort: that is, the visual arts, architecture, and music.54

Even religious borrowings were adapted so much that they were no longer recognized as the

contribution of an outside culture.55

While Hengels position is largely accepted today, Louis Feldman offers an alternative theory

to Hengels dictum of early and tenaciously. Feldmans counter-position is neatly summarized in

his statement that the question to ask is not how thoroughly Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel

were Hellenized, but how strongly they resisted Hellenization.56 Even in the Diaspora, the

persistence of local traditions indicates that there was no more than a superficial Hellenization in

much of Asia Minor, the Near East, and Egypt.57 Feldman supports his argument by pointing to the

Alexanders aims and achievements lend themselves to rhetorical amplification: modern theories of Aleander the cchampion of the fusion of races or of the brotherhood of mankind have their starting point in ancient sources. Ibid. To cite Plutarch directly: Those who were subdued by Alexander are more fortunate than those who escaped him, for the latter had no one to rescue them from their wretched life, while the victorious

Alexander compelled the former to enjoy a better existence. From Plutarch, De Aleandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute, I 328 C329 D. Cited in Austin, The Hellenistic World, 36. 50 Hengel, Jews, 54. 51 Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism, Vol I (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1974), 104. 52 Hengel, Judaism, 105. 53 Hengel, Judaism, 56, 57. 54 Green, Alexander to Actium, 315. 55 Green, Alexander to Actium, 316. 56Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 44. See also Feldmans criticism of Hengels arguments about the extent of Hellenization within the various Jewish communities: Louis Feldman, Hengels Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 96 (1977), 371-82. 57 Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 42.

19

war with the Romans, which he interprets as an indication that the Jews were in opposition to

Hellenistic culture, and by claiming that the Greek elements of the Diaspora Judaisms were only a

thin Greek veneer.58 A few of the upper-class Jews might have taken it upon themselves to attempt

to join Greek society, but they did not represent the masses of the people. Taking Feldmans

arguments to their logical conclusion, for Jews in the Hellenistic world, cultural engagement with the

Greeks was dangerous and could potentially lead to the denial of the Jewish God and the apostasy of

the people.

Lester Grabbe recognizes Feldmans contribution to the discussion by cast(ing) doubt on the

speed with which Judaism was Hellenizedhowever, he ultimately finds Feldmans arguments

lacking.59 For all his assertions about Jewish immunity to Greek influence, Feldman does not provide

positive proof that the Jews maintained consistent countermeasures to Hellenization.60 Most

problematically, Grabbe writes, Feldman seems to make a strong, underlying assumption that being

Hellenized means ceasing to be a proper Jew.61 There is no indication that this is the case, and the

examples of Ezekiel and Philo, among others, would seem to contradict the argument completely.

Tessa Rajak, while agreeing with Hengels main points, offers a slightly differentiated

understanding of Hellenization. According to Rajak, there are three main categories that ancient

Hellenizing tendencies fell into: The first is Hellenization as the suppression of a native culture and

language and its replacement with a fully or mainly Greek style.62 The second is a mixed, hybrid

form of Hellenism; and the third is the addition of Greek elements to a persisting culture whose

leading features remained visible and relatively constant, which is the category into which Rajak

would place the Jews.63 Lester Grabbe argues along the same lines, but makes more of a

differentiation between different types of Hellenization, which for his work, represents a spectrum

encompassing many shades of Greek influence, from the limited to the intense.64 The distinction

which some scholars make between Judaism and Hellenism is, in fact, an artificial binary.65

However, Grabbe points out that while the Jews may have become culturally Hellenized, they refused

to compromise in the area of religion, with very few exceptions.66 It seems that however much the

Diaspora community wanted to be involved with the surrounding culture, the worship of foreign gods

was never widely spread.

58 Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 43, 51. 59 Lester Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, Vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992),

152. 60 Grabbe, Judaism, 152. 61 Grabbe, Judaism, 151. 62 Tessa Rajak, The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. Philip R. Davis and Richard T. White (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1990), 265. 63 Rajak, The Hasmoneans, 265. 64 Grabbe, Judaism, 168. 65 Grabbe, Judaism, 169. 66 Grabbe, Judaism, 170.

20

Another scholar who provides an extremely thorough discussion of what exactly is meant by

the term Hellenism is John Barclay.67 According to Barclay, by Hellenism we mean the common

urban culture in the eastern Mediterranean, founded on the Greek languagetypically expressed in

certain political and educational institutions and largely maintained by the social lite.68

Hellenization, therefore, was the cultural engagement with Hellenism.69 This cultural

engagement spread from the Diaspora to Palestine, with varying degrees of what may be considered a

successful adaptation of the various Greek forms, largely dependent on whether it was found in the

city or the countryside.

This is not to suggest that the Jewish communities were isolated enclaves which completely

rejected the surrounding Greek culture (cf. Feldman). Much of the early scholarship in this field

encouraged such a view, unfortunately, and portrayed Hellenism as the great confronting culture

which arose in the fourth century BCE.70 However, many scholars have questioned the Judaism

versus Hellenism myth, and Anita Norichs statement that Jewish culture has always developed

alongside and inside a wider, non-Jewish world can be taken as a fair summary of much scholarship

today.71 This development within and alongside the Greek world does not mean that the Jewish

communities did not maintain some sort of key Jewish identity. In Fredrik Barths book on the

boundaries between ethnic groups, he points out that:

it is clear that boundaries persist despite a flow of personnel across them. In other words,

categorical ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact and

information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby discrete

categories are maintained despite changin4g participation and membership in the course of

individual life histories.72

The question is now what this identity consisted of and whether it is fruitful to search for a certain

essence of Judaism which could have been agreed upon by all Jews of the time and used as a base

from which to build the various Judaisms. As Norich points out, the more one studies the complexities

of family, self, assimilation, and identity the more complex the meaning of Jewish culture

becomes.73 Philip Alexander has suggested that rather than thinking of a Jewish culture which is set

67 John Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (Edinburgh: T & T Clark

Ltd.,1996), 82-102. 68 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 88. 69 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 88. 70 Jonathan Goldstein, Jewish Acceptance and Rejection of Hellenism, in Jewish and Christian Self-

Definition: Volume Two, Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, ed. E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten

and Alan Mendelson (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1981), 64-87. 71 Anita Norich, Introduction, in Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Context and Intertext, ed. Anita Norich and Yaron Z. Eliav (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 1. 72 Fredrik Barth, Introduction, in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, dd. Fredrik Barth (Bergon-Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969), 9-10. 73 Barth, Introduction, 3-4.

21

in opposition to a Greek culture, rather we should think of a broadly uniform culture pervading the

whole region, within which various groups adapted the dominant cultural patterns and structures in

order to create subcultures and establish ethnic identities.74

With this in mind, it may be useful to consider the different aspects of Hellenism that scholars

have identified. John Barclay lists seven key areas of Hellenism (political, social, linguistic,

educational, ideological, religious, and material) with which the Jew in the ancient world was

expected to engage.75 In each of these areas the main question is how much a Jew accepted or

participated in them. Barclay points out that it is helpful to distinguish between different kinds and

between different degrees of Hellenization, and goes on to discuss how these kinds and degrees may

be grouped according to the processes of assimilation, acculturation, and accommodation.76 To put it

briefly, assimilation is social integration (becoming similar to ones neighbours); acculturation

involves the application of the linguistic, educational and ideological aspects of a given cultural

matrix; and accommodation is the use to which acculturation is put, in particular the degree to

which Jewish and Hellenistic cultural traditions are merged, or alternatively, polarized.77 Barclay

uses a series of graphs based on each of these three aspects of Hellenization to demonstrate that in

each of these areas it was possible for a Jew in the Hellenistic world to be anywhere on the spectrum,

from fully embracing Hellenization to utterly rejecting it. The case of the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt,

for example, is thus much more complicated than a simply us versus them mentality. A Jew could

conceivably use the Greek language, give his children a Greek education, and conduct trade with

Greek citizens all while keeping the Sabbath and being an active part of the Jewish community.

During this brief survey of the scholarship on Hellenism we have considered the extremes of

potential interaction between the Jews in both the Diaspora and Palestine and the dominant Greek

culture. Of the secondary literature surveyed, the definition of Hellenism used in this thesis will stick

closest to that given by Hengel and Barclay. Without making use of Barclays three As or Hengels

paradigmatic early and tenaciously, Hellenization here will be used in the sense of the Greek

influence on the non-Greek peoples, who adopted certain practices and ways of living, consciously or

unconsciously, and combined them with their own traditions. This process did start very early, with

the Persians, and affected a large proportion of the society, and the extent of Hellenization could

cover a wide spectrum.

74 Aleander, Philip, Hellenism and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographical Categories, in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Lousiville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001),

70. 75 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 89-90. 76 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 90. Italics included by Barclay. Goldstein postulates a similar

list of characteristics, including interaction with Greeks, use of the Greek language, the spread of rational

philosophies, epic and dramatic poetry, an emphasis on athletics and education, and the enduring legacy of

gymnasia and other typically Greek architectural achievements. Goldstein, Jewish Acceptance and Rejection of Hellenism, 67. 77 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 92-96. Italics included by Barclay.

22

3.1 Jewish Identity

Within the wider discussion of the extent of Hellenization is the question of Jewish identity.

There were several distinguishing features of belief and practice which marked those who followed

the God of the Hebrew Scriptures from those who did not, but what were they exactly?78 A set of

recognized texts had been, Collins summarizes, providing a common basis for postexilic Judaism

since the time of Ezra.79 However, the scriptures were open then, as they were later, to differing

literal and allegorical interpretations.80 Some of the physical markers, such as circumcision and the

abstention from certain foods, were well known. Besides these basic elements of belief and practice,

however, there was room for various interpretations and forms. As Collins says, [t]he Torah was the

basic component in the tradition and those who would remain within Judaism had to relate themselves

to it in some way.81 Differing understandings could be influenced by social class and political

allegiance, as well as by personal preferences and aspirations.

In the fourth century BCE, initial Greek contact with the Jews left the discoverers with the

impression that the Jews were a nation of philosophers.82 At the time the Greeks were interested in

ethnographies, and so, as Momigliano puts it, the Jews were asked to perpetuate their own myth in

the terms in which the Greeks had invented it. Some Jews obliged.83 In one of the late accounts

produced in this way, Moses is the teacher of Orpheus and creator of the Egyptian animal cults; in

another, Ptolemy II Philadelphus himself recognizes the worth of the Hebrew scriptures and

commissions a Greek copy for the library in Alexandria.84 However, by the time these accounts were

written, the relationship between the Jews and the surrounding cultures was beginning to decline

(hence the possibility that these texts were created with apologetic purposes in mind). Eventually,

relations between Jews and non-Jews deteriorated and, unsurprisingly, counter-claims began to

emerge. The writings of Manetho contradict the Jewish stories of divine deliverance from Egypt with

claims that the Jews were not only to be associated with the invading Hyksos from Egyptian legend,

78 Collins suggests that the most striking thing about the Jewish encounter with Hellenism, both in the Diaspora and in the land of Israel, was the persistence of Jewish separatism in matters of worship and cult. There was a

limit to Hellenization, which is best expressed in the distinction between cult and culture. John J. Collins, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 43. 79 John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York:

Crossroad Publishing Company, 1983), 12. 80 See the allegorical interpretations of Philo, for example his interpretation of the Genesis creation account in

De opificio mundi. Philo of Alexandria. On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, trans. David Runia

(Leiden: Brill, 2001). 81 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 15. 82 Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1975), 86. This idea originally comes from Theophrastus, in his work On Piety, who was one of Aristotles pupils. We do not have the original work attributed to Theophrastus, but fragments appear in Porphyrys On Abstinence. See Walter Ptscher, Theophrastos, ( Leiden: Brill, 1964). 83 Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, 92. 84 Artapanus and the Letter of Aristeas, respectively, both from the second century BCE. For a discussion of

Greek authors who wrote about the Jews, and the dates at which these authors wrote, see M Stern and Oswyn

Murray, Hecataeus of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews and Egyptians, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 59 (1973), 159-168.

23

but were also driven out of Egypt for being a colony of lepers.85 Eventually, accusations of ritual

murder, temple worship of a donkeys head, and accusations of an anti-Greek attitude began to

circulate.86

While scholars, such as Aleander above, have argued that there was a common culture across

the region, others have argued that there was still a certain amount of cultural dissonance encounter by

Hellenized Jews. According to Collins, this dissonance expressed itself in two areas in particular: first,

the negative assessment of Jewish origins and traditions given by Hellenized authors which did not

match the dominant Jewish tradition; second, the Jewish tradition which discouraged mingling with

the nations, which for Hellenized Jews was not just desirable, but necessary.87 There were various

ways to address the confusion and uncertainty raised by contradictions to Jewish traditions, but

Collins focuses on two in particular: the Jews could either refute the Hellenistic view of Judaism

(apologetics), or highlight the aspects of Judaism which Greeks would be most friendly towards

(philosophical aspects).88 Hellenized Jews occupied a space somewhere in the middle of the Jewish-

Hellenistic spectrum. They still wished to express themselves as religious Jews and they wanted to

continue to interact with and live in the Greek world. As Collins points out, [t]he expression of

traditional Jewish material in Hellenistic forms, such as tragedy and epic, again blurs the differences

between the two traditions and serves to show that Judaism is not an alien body in the Hellenistic

world.89 The Exagoge is not an apologetic text, but it does serve as an example of what can be done

by a Jew who is immersed in the Greek literary and cultural tradition.

The concern to discover a normative Judaism against which to compare all of the various

Diaspora and Palestinian communities has proved troublesome over the years.90 Older scholarship

used words like normative, classical, and native JudaismAs Barclay points out, this implies

that the purest Judaism was what was dominant in Palestine, and this was equated with later

Pharisaic and Rabbinic Judaisms.91 These words all assumed that the norm was understood in

exactly the same way, from Jerusalem to Alexandria, and conformity to this norm was somehow

enforced by the Jewish leadership. However, there is little evidence that such a universally accepted

Judaism was prevalent during the time of the Second Temple.92 While there were some commonalities

85 Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, 93. 86 Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, 93. 87 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 8. 88 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 9. 89 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 9. 90 See Gabriele Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 8-14 for a history of the discussion. 91 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 83. 92 Philip Davies discusses the implications of using the word Judaism when discussing the early Jewish religion. He distinguishes between Juda-ism, which is the culture of Judea as an object of definition, and Judaism(s), in which Juda-ism develops into something more than (but also different from) the culture of Judea. Philip R. Davies, Scenes from the Early History of Judaism, in The Triumph of Elohim: From

24

shared by the Jews of the time, we must adjust for standards of measurement that were local,

contemporary, and commonly accepted.93 While it would be much easier to label every text which

seems slightly surprising or difficult as deviant, we are not in the position to make such judgments.

In this vein, Lee Levine writes that:

when speaking of a common Judaism one must admit that, with few exceptions, it is very

difficult both to quantify this perception (how many Jews or what percentage of Jews

observed a given practice), or to assess to what extent the observance of a specific practice

(e.g., Sabbath laws) was identical or even similar among all Jews.94

There were certain commonalities, but it is extremely difficult to measure their reach and

enforcement. The main question is whether the literature which has come down to us reflects the

practice of the masses of ordinary Jews in the Hellenistic world. As noted above, Collins has

emphasized the importance of the canon in constructing Jewish identity. However, he is swift to

clarify that the Hebrew Scriptures did not provide a definite norm in the sense of prescribing a single

orthodox way of being Jewish.95 However, as we have seen, there was no monolithic set of customs,

untouched by any foreign influence.96 When dealing with a remote period in the development of the

Jewish religion, it is easy to fall prey to the assumption that what passed for orthodox or

normative in a later period could be applied to the entire history of Judaism. During the Hellenistic

era we catch a glimpse of the development of several different Judaisms, and can see how certain

trends, which will be important later on, begin and are either ignored or adopted by the different

groups. This study will follow Boccacinis general claim that it is most appropriate to describe

Judaism historically as the set of monotheistic belief systems associated with the diety named

YHWH.97

In a discussion of the various kinds of Second Temple Judaisms, we inevitably encounter the

question of whether it was possible for a Jew to become completely cut off from his communityto

become apostate. Lack of observance might have been a larger problem for the Jewish community,

because to actually cut oneself off completely from the community was in itself a difficult task.98 It

required that the individual withdraw from the Jewish community, abandon the outward signs of

religious observance, and actively worship other gods. The most likely motivating factor behind such

Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. Diana Vikander Edelman (Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995), 153. It is

only once we look at Judaism within its cultural development that we can begin properly to understand it. 93 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 85. 94 Lee Levine, Jewish Identities in Antiquity: An Introductory Essay, in Jewish Identities in Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 29. 95 Levine, Jewish Identities in Antiquity, 12. 96 Boccaccini, Hellenistic Judaism, 57. 97 Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 35-36. 98 Louis Feldman and Meyer Reinhold, eds, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary

Readings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 56.

25

behavior would be professional aspirations, and we know of at least one Jew, Philo of Alexandrias

nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander, who supposedly did just that.99 However, caution must be

exercised when declaring this or that individual apostate. Jason the High Priest is another example of

a Jew who was said to be Hellenized to the point of apostasy, however, as Grabbe so rightly points

out, [t]hat some Jews may have judged him an apostate is irrelevant to his self-designation or his

own Jewish identity.100 In most cases we do not have enough information or are relying upon

secondary accounts about what the author considers to be behavior which would place an individual

outside of the Jewish community.

There were, of course, groups which resisted Greek domination, the most famous perhaps the

armed revolt led by the Maccabees from 167-160 BCE against the Seleucid Empire (which had

control of Palestine at the time).101 Military resistance was not unique to the JewsGrabbe points out

that such resistance regularly occurred to subjugated people, as the most obvious form of resistance

was armed rebellion against Greek political domination and the attempt to restore native rule.102 In

the case of the Maccabean revolt, the conflict started when the Greek ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes,

took drastic measures to prevent the Jews from practicing their religion. He prohibited the observance

of the Sabbath and the food laws, the practice of circumcision, and even offering sacrifices to the

Jewish God in the Jerusalem temple. According to 1 Maccabees 1.41-43, [t]he King wrote to his

whole kingdom that all should be one people, and that all should give up their particular customs. All

the Gentiles accepted the command of the king, however, compliance was no so readily forthcoming

from all of Israel.103 Antiochus decree that all Jews offer sacrifices to Greek gods was the final

straw: The priest Mattathias, after killing a Jew who attempted to comply with the kings demands for

sacrifice, began an armed rebellion against the Greek rulers. With the cry [l]et every one who is

zealous for the law and supports the covenant come with me! the group that later became known as

the Maccabees began their military resistance.104 According to the traditional narrative, after a

successful campaign, the Jewish nation enjoyed a brief period of political autonomy, although the

fight for political power was ongoing. Eventually the Roman army forced the Jewish people to

surrender the self-rule secured by the guerrilla resistance movement, although the drive for freedom

was to assert itself (in much less successful forms) several more times in the course of the next few

99 For a sympathetic analysis of Tiberius Julius Alexander, see Mlze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 185-

190. 100 Grabbe, Judaism, 170. 101 This conflict is described in I Maccabees. See 1 Maccabees, trans. John Bartlett (Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1998). See also Jan Willem van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish

People (Leiden: Brill, 1997). The chapter Dying for the Jewish People in particular is relevant as it discusses the relationship between the revolt and the concern to maintain a Jewish way of life: van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 187-269. 102 Grabbe, Judaism, 163. 103 1 Maccabees 1.41-43 in The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1989) 204-205. 104 1 Maccabees 1.41-43 in The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 204-205.

26

hundred years. While the conflict began because of ostensibly religious reasons, Menachem Mor

notes that it continued as a national battle against a foreign oppressor, and ended as a war againt the

different elements living in Eretz-Israel.105

Philip Aleander notes that [i]n antiquity Jewish opposition to things Greek manifested itself

on a comparatively narrow front, mainly in opposition to Greek political domination, the idolatry

of Greek popular religion, and certain Greek mores.106 Beyond that, however, Jews generally

interacted and embraced the common Hellenistic culture of which they were a part. However, as we

have seen, even though Hellenism was an all-pervasive force in the ancient world, it could be resisted,

to a certain extent. Although this resistance did not take the traditionally understood

Jerusalem/Diaspora, or Jewish/Hellenistic forms, it was largely religious in motivation and content.

The Maccabees took a more physical approach to resistance and achieved more spectacular results,

but these ultimately their efforts did not achieve permanent change. Among the groups which resisted

Hellenism, the ones which were able to address ideological and religious concerns had the most

success. Momigliano considers apocalypticism, which spawned isolated communities completely cut

off from the Greek world, and Pharisaism the two main forces countering Hellenization.107 As he

writes, Whether one turned to apocalyptic seers or to human rabbis (two groups which, we

emphasize again, were not easily separable), it was a different world from that of the neighbouring

Gentiles.108 Hellenization then, for all its influence, could be successfully resisted. However, such

resistance must not be confused with faithful religious observance. A Jew in the Hellenistic world

could actively engage with and participate in the surrounding culture without compromising his

faithfulness to the Jewish God or his Jewish identity.

4. Hellenistic-Jewish Literature

Before moving on to the discussion of the translation of the Septuagint, we will note a few

points about Hellenistic-Jewish literature in general. When we discuss the literary output of

Hellenistic Jews, we must keep in mind that what has survived to our own time does not represent the

extent of the various understandings of Jewish identity during the period in which these texts were

written.109 E. P. Sanders points out that,

A collection of literary remains represents one of the special interests of an individual or a

group; but we should not suppose that each collection corresponds to an isolated group of

105 Mor, Menachem, The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period, in The Samaritans, ed. Alan Dr. Crown (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 15. 106 Alexander, Hellenism and Hellenization, 66. 107 Momigliano, Greek Culture and the Jews, 338-340. 108 Momigliano, Greek Culture and the Jews, 340. 109 See E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief. 63 BCE 66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992), 9.

27

people who had no other ideas and who would have denounced other literary collections as

belonging to a different Judaism, or would have found them incomprehensible.110

Although different groups may have organized themselves around a certain body of literature (like the

Essenes), the ideas in apologetic, apocalyptic, and romantic literature, to name just a few examples,

would have circulated beyond their original audience. As we will discuss later, the boundaries

between certain schools of thought, like the boundaries between literary genres, can be at times

extremely flexible.111

Hellenistic-Jewish literature was flourishing in the centuries surrounding the composition of

the Exagoge. Fraser divides the surviving Hellenistic-Jewish literature into various categories

including apocryphal and semi-canonical, secular historical writing, and apologetic.112 At this

juncture, a valid objection may be raised about the seemingly overly-ambitious grouping of such

disparate texts together under the heading of Hellenistic Jewish Literature. Such a category could be

used to smooth over the differences between a text such as Ben Siras, for example, which is generally

classified as wisdom literature, and the Letter of Aristeas, which is traditionally labeled as an

apologetic text. It is indeed important that the distinctiveness of each text be preserved and not be

erased for the sake of presenting a united (and thus easily grouped) front of texts. However, it is

imperative that we not confuse genres and conflate time periods, while recognizing that the divisions

between genres and time periods are often the result of years of interpretation, and often oversimplify

the complex interaction between texts. While certain factors may vary, one remains the same: the

Hellenistic milieu in which the Jews in Jerusalem and the Diaspora created their work. The meaning

and degree of interrelatedness of each of these texts can be explored in light of this overarching

context.

4.1 The Septuagint

For a text that has had such lasting significance in both the Jewish and Christian traditions,

there is a frustrating dearth of concrete evidence about when, why, and who first translated the

Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. There are, of course, many theories that seek to answer these

questions, building on what can be gleaned from the Letter of Aristeas and other ancient sources. We

will explore a few of these theories in this section, including what scholars have to say about the

purpose of the translation, the techniques used to make it, and the Hebrew character of the finished

product.

110 Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 9. 111 Sanders gives an example of this as it relates to apocalyptic texts: Thus in dealing with religious practice, I think that I am also dealing with apocalyptists, who, in my view, did not form separate conventicles and spend all their time contemplating the heavenly secrets. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 9. As we deal with the text of the Exagoge as potentially informed by mystical influences, we must not assume that this category is one that is absolutely contained within itself. 112 Fraser. PA, 687.

28

The Letter of Aristeas is still our main source of information about the translation of the

Hebrew scriptures into Greek. Many scholars writing on the subject have concluded, along with

Benjamin Wright, that the Letter is a foundational myth of origins for the Septuagints transformed

position/function as an independent, scriptural authority.113 Although the version of events given in

the text were accepted by its original Jewish audience, and later by the Church Fathers, the letter fell

out of favor once biblical scholars began to consider not just the books of the Bible, but the extra-

canonical writings as well, in a textual critical manner. The claim in the Letter that Ptolemy

Philadelphus was somehow responsible for the work of translation was dismissed as false, and the

texts was relegated to the category of propaganda, more romance than history, as Gooding

describes the situation.114 However, Sylvie Honigman has pointed to a new trend in scholarship

towards accepting what the Book of Aristeas (the name which she prefers to use) has to say about

Ptolemaic involvement in the translation of the Septuagint.115 Interpreters accept that the project was

initiated by Ptolemy, but deny that it was for the royal library in Alexandria, while others accept the

entire account.116 Tessa Rajak is another scholar who argues that [e]choes of history reverberate in

the myth.117 She notes in particular that [s]ide-stepping the fact-fiction dichotomy and approaching

the story as historical myth, open to comparison with other reflections of the same period, will also

expose some less-noticed elements embedded in the narrative.118 As the account is all that we have at

the moment, it would be better to not entirely ignore the letter when discussing the origins of the

Septuagint.119

The term Septuagint will be used in this section to refer to the original translation of the

Pentateuch. In the Letter of Aristeas, it seems likely that the project undertaken by the Seventy was

the translation of the first five books of the later Hebrew canon. The rest of the translation work was

undertaken by private hand, as Bickerman puts it, or scribes unrelated to the original project.120 Of

course, the prologue to Ben Sira mentions that [m]any great teachings have been given to us through

113 Benjamin G. Wright III, Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo, in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scripture, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn

Wooden (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 54. 114 D. W. Gooding, Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies, in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 13, Fasc. 4 (1963), 357. 115 Sylvie Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (London: Routledge, 2003).

Honigman makes the point that the Letter of Aristeas is not actually a letter, but a diegesisthe author actually uses the term in his writing, and it simply indicates a prose account. Honigman, The Septuagint, 1. 116 Honigman, The Septuagint, 4. 117 Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2009), 28. 118 Rajak, Translation and Survival, 28. 119 Nina Collins argues extensively for the historicity of the letter, especially its claim that the translation was

originally commissioned by the Greeks and supervised by Demetrius. Nina Collins, The Library in Aleandria

and the Bible in Greek (Leiden: Brill, 2000). 120 Elias J. Bickerman, The Septuagint as a Translation, in Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 28 (1959), 6.

29

the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them, which could be taken to mean that by

that time most of the texts recognized as authoritative had been translated into Greek.121

Benjamin Wright argues that [i]n its beginnings the Septuagint was intended to serve as a

point of entry to the Hebrew, a way of bringing the original to the readerthe Hebrew version of the

texts is still the focus for the translators, but they recognize that their audience is no longer familiar

with their ancestral language.122 However, over the course of the centuries this Greek translation came

to replace the Hebrew as authoritative for the Jewish community in Alexandria. Wright concludes that

from the very inception of the project, the Septuagint was meant to be an independent authority

(bolstered by Aristeas myth of origins) which was never intended to relate to the Hebrew in the first

place.123 He finds support for this claim in the tradition contained in the Letter of Aristeas that the

Ptolemaic ruler was behind the project.124 If Ptolemy was interested in the project, the reasoning goes,

he would be invested in the final Greek translation, and not the Hebrew originals.

However, when we look at the text of the Septuagint, we can easily see the marks of Hebrew

grammar and language on the text. In the words of Henry Gehman, while the Septuagint strives to be

good Greek, it has a heavily Hebraic character.125 Gehman notes the influence of Hebrew

throughout the Septuagint, but concludes that it is more prevalent in the latter books of the LXX.126

However, Gehman writes, A Semitic psychology permeates the Greek of Genesis, and Greek

prepositions, pronouns and syntax have received a Hebrew connotation.127 This Hebrew connotation

does not mean that there was a Jewish-Greek jargon, but that there was a Jewish-Greek used in

synagogues and religious circles.128 Bickerman notes that the language found in the Septuagint would

not have been limited to use in the synagogue and the wider Jewish community, but also within the

wider Greek-speaking world.129 The translators of the Septuagint were using certain grammatical

forms and turns of phrase which might not have been absolutely perfect Greek, but they did reflect the

vernacular of the time.

Of course, Hebrew does have a certain amount of influence on the words and sentence

structure of the Septuagint. Marcos prefers to speak of it as translation Greek, since although not

all the writings included are strictly translations, they arose conditioned by the bilingualism of their

121 Ben Sira, prologue. The New Oxford Anootated Apocrypha, 58. 122 Wright, Translation as Scripture, 54. 123 Wright, Translation as Scripture, 54. 124 Wright, Translation as Scripture, 54. 125 Henry S. Gehman, Hebraisms of the Old Greek Version of Genesis, in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 3, Fasc. 2 (1953), 141. 126 Gehman, Hebraisms, 141. 127 Gehman, Hebraisms, 148. 128 Henry S. Gehman, The Hebraic Character of Septuagint Greek, in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 1, Fasc. 2 (1951), 81. 129 Bickerman, The Septuagint as a Translation, 12.

30

authors or are influenced to a different extent by a translation language, the language of the LXX.130

This bilingualism is responsible both for the syntactic peculiarities of the Greek of the Old and New

Testaments, and of the pap