Download - Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

Transcript
  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    1/22

    Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    Jerry L. Daniel

     Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 98, No. 1. (Mar., 1979), pp. 45-65.

    Stable URL:

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28197903%2998%3A1%3C45%3AAITHP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

     Journal of Biblical Literature  is currently published by The Society of Biblical Literature.

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

    Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sbl.html.

    Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

    The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    http://www.jstor.orgFri Aug 17 08:49:43 2007

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28197903%2998%3A1%3C45%3AAITHP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sbl.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sbl.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28197903%2998%3A1%3C45%3AAITHP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    2/22

    J B L

    98 1979) 45 65

    A N TI-S EMI TI SM IN TH E H E LLEN I S TIC- RO MA N

    P E R I O D

    J E R R Y L . D A N I E L

    41 9 S P R I h G F I E L D A \ E Y L E U E S T F I E L D

    41

    07092

    T

    H E complexities of the Graeco -Rom an w orld coupled with the nature of

    Judaism itself produce a situation which is difficult to analyze. Anti-

    Semitism certainly existed and was a phe nom eno n of som e im portan ce in the

    Hellenistic world as well as in the Roman Empire, but its extent, nature,

    causes an d results are con troversial and have inspired a n imm ense literature.1

    Even the term is controversial. An ti-Sem itism is a relatively m od ern term ,

    apparently coined by

    W .

    M arr in the latter part of the nineteenth century an d

    used "to designate antipathy to Jews on racial, pseudo-scientific, and often

    polit ical grounds."* There are problems with the term, and i t is not fully

    adequate to describe the phen om enon for which it is normally used. Fo r one

    thing, it suggests a racial distinction which cannot be maintained, since the

    theory of pure Aryan and Semitic races has l i tt le mod ern support .3 Fo r

    ano ther, the word Semite is broader th an the word Jew, since there are other

    peoples (e.g., Arab s) who are just as S emitic as are the Jews.

    Since this term is open to such objections, various attem pts have been

    made to find a better one, with many modern authors preferring anti-

    ' I n addition t o the discussions of anti-Semitism in standard Jewish histories, some of the more

    im port ant specialized treatm ents are: J . Leipoldt, Antisemitismu s in der alten Welt (Leipzig: Von

    Dorss ling und Grante , 1933); M. Rad in, The Jews Amo ng the Greeks an d Rom ans (Philadelphia:

    Jewish Publication Society, 1915); A. N. Sherwin-White , Racial Prejudice in Imper ia l Ro m e

    (Cam bridge: C am brid ge University, 1967) 86-101; J . S . Raisin, Gentile Reactions to Jewish

    Ideals (New York : Philosophical Library, 1953); J . N . Sevenster, The Ro ot s of Pag an Anti-

    Semitism in the Ancient W orld (N ovT Sup 41; Leiden: Brill, 1975); N. W . Goldstein, "Cultivated

    Pagans and Ancient Anti-Semitism," J R 19 (1939) 346-64; J . G . Gager, Mosesin Greco-R oman

    Paganism (Nashville: Ab ingdon, 1972);

    G .

    La P iana , "Fore ign Grou ps in Rom e During the F irst

    Centuries of the E mpire," H TR 20(1927) 183-403; S. Zeitlin, "Anti-Sem itism," Crozer Quarterly

    22 (1945) 134-49; and two articles by I. H einem ann : "Antisem itismus," P W Su p 5 (1929) 3-43;

    and "The A ttitu de of the Ancient W orld Tow ard Jud aism ," R R 4 (1940) 385-400. Collections of

    pagan com ments abo ut Jews a re available in an old w ork by T . Reinach (Textes d 'auteurs grecs et

    rom ains relatijs au Judaism e[Hildesheim : Ge org Olms, 18951); an d in a recent work edited by

    M .

    Stern (Greek a nd Latin Auth ors o n Jews an d Judaism [2 vols. ; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of

    Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1).

    *E. H. F lannery , "Ant i -Semitism," N C E 1 (1967) 633. Cf . J . He inemann and J . Gu tman n ,

    "Anti-Semitism: In Antiquity," E nc Jud 3 (1971) 87; and S evenster, Roots , I .

    'Flannery, "Anti-Semitism," 633.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    3/22

      6

    J O U R N A L O F B I BL IC A L L I T E R A T U R E

    Judaism.4 This avo ids the q uest ionable racial dis t inct ion and seems at f irs t

    mor e precise, bu t in fact i t to o is highly questiona ble. Jud aism usua llyden otes

    a certain way of life, thought a nd belief. S It is not s yn on ym ou s with Jewry ; it

    can be used without referring personally to Jews, and it is possible to be

    Jewish w ithout representing J ud ais m as the lat ter term is usual ly un derstood.

    Anti-Ju daism implies th en a rejection of certain kin ds of thinking an d living

    within Jew ry, a nd seems even less adeq uate as a general term for the various

    kinds of oppo sition to Jews.6 O th er terms have also been propo sed; e.g.,

    hatred of the Jews. ' This, however, is also open to objections. Hostil i ty

    tow ard Jews did n ot always am ou nt t o hatred in the usual sense, thus such a

    term is less than adeq uate. I have seen no w ord o r phrase suggested which is

    entirely satisfactory, thus I have decided t o use the familiar expressio n, anti-

    Semitism, which, d espite i ts weaknesses, is idioma tic an d is in general use fo r

    all opposi t ion to Jews.

    A survey of the co mm ents abo ut Jew s in the Hellenist ic-Roman l iterature

    shows tha t they were alm ost universally disliked, o r at least viewed w ith an

    amused co ntempt . So me mod ern scholars have a t tempted to minimize the

    dislike,8 an d relatively few hav e recognized just how de ep a nd widespread the

    anti-Semitic feelings were. The great majority of the comments in the

    literature ar e negative. This is true of serious historia ns (e.g., Ta citus) an d also

    of satirists a nd oth er lesser writers (e.g. , Juven al, M artial). N. W. Goldstein

    speaks of an imp assable chasm between the Jews an d their neig hbo rs.

    , 9

    a view which summarizes quite well the impression given by the li terature.

    This is not to say that anti-Semitism was universal in Hellenistic and

    R om an t imes, no r is it t o imply tha t th e various peoples were negat ive towa rd

    Jews in the same ways or to the same degree. Despi te the differences in

    particulars,lO there was a pervasive anti-Semitic feeling, not uniqu e t o any

    given segment of the Graeco-Roman world.

    jsevenster ,

    Roots,

    1-4.

    5lbid.

    T f . F . L o vs ky , Antisemitisme et mystere d lsrael (Paris: Albin Michel. 1955) 13-17.

    'Sevenster,

    Roots,

    1-2.

    EE.g., ibid. , 180; Ra din , Jews Among Greek and Romans, 174, 195-96; and Sherwin-White,

    Racial Prejudice,

    10 1.

    y Cultivated Paga ns, 346.

    10Anti-Semitism was m ore mil i tant in the Greek cit ies of the eastern provinces: cf. Sherwin-

    White, Racial Prejudice,86 ; and Rad in , Jews Among Greeks and Romans, 201. T he si tuat ion in

    Alex andria is especially well docu men ted bo th by literary sourc es (esp. Philo,

    Legatio ad Gaium

    and In Flaccum; and Josephus J. W. 2.18.7-8 5487-99; Ant. 19.5.2-3 5278-85) a nd by the papyri

    (see V. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and M. Stern [eds.] ,

    Corpus Papyrorum Judaicum [

    vols.;

    Camb ridge: H arva rd Universi ty, 1957164). Leo F uch s (Die Juden Aegyptens inptolemaischer

    und romischer Zeit [Vienna: Rath , 19241 22), says: Der Has s zwischen den Jud en und Griechen

    Alexandreias zieht s ich wie eine chronische K rankheit durc h die ganze Geschichte der romischen

    Kaiserzeit . Of the many treatments of Alexandrian J ewr y, see esp. Heinemann,

    Antisemitismus, 6-12; H I Bell, Anti-Semitism in Alex andria , JRS 31 (1941) 1-18; H. S.

    Jones , Claudius and the Jewish Quest ion a t Alexandr ia , JRS 16 (1926) 17-35: an d A . SegrC,

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    4/22

    D A N I E L : A N T I -S E M I T IS M I N H E L L E N I S T I C - R O M A N P E R I O D

    It is eviden t tha t m any of the citations given in this pape r reflect a benign

    dislike rath er th an an active hatred of the sort that leads to persecu tion. In the

    period under consideration, as in the modern world, not all anti-Semitic

    feeling took the form of overt action. Nevertheless, even the apparently

    harmless barbs of the satirists both reflected and contributed to the

    widespread distrust which prohibited any real cohesion of the races.

    Josephus, in his apologetic writ ings, was concerned to counter both anti-

    Semitic actions and anti-Semitic feelings.

    The com plaints against Jews and Juda ism are, in this study, divided into

    five somewhat arbitrary categories: origins, strangeness, religion and ritual,

    exclusiveness an d proselytizing.12 Th ere is som e overlap . F or exa m ple, the

    Jews' sense of exclusiveness grew at least in part out of their religion, and

    contributed to their feeling of estrangem ent from their ne ighbo rs; but despite

    this inevitable blurring of the lines, the categories a re helpful and ar e therefore

    maintained.

    There are, of course, occasional positive comments made by Hellenistic

    and Roman authors regarding Jews and their customs. August ine quotes

    Varro as app roving the Jews'm ethod of imageless worship

    D e civ . D. 4.31);

    S tra bo credits the forefathers of the Jews with acting righteously an d being

    truly pious toward God dikaiopragountes kai theosebeis h6s alethos onte s,

    16.2.37). The Pseudo-Longinus pays tribute to Moses' wisdom Su bl . 9 .9) ,

    and Dio do rus of Sicily also speak s of Moses an d his institutions with respect

    40.3.3).

    Dio Cassius admits the courage of the Jews

    65.6.3) ,

    and even

    Tacitus, intensely negative regarding Jews, can app lau d their determ ination

    Hi st. 5.10-13). According t o Porphyry Ab s t . 2 .26 ) ,Theophras tus , though

    charging the Jews with hu ma n sacrifice, calls them philosophers

    b h i l o s o p h o i ) and seems favorably disposed toward them.l3 Josephus A g .

    A p . 1.22 176-83) provides a quotation from the D e S o m n o of C learc hu s of

    Soli which represents Aristotle as h aving m et a very Hellenized Jew w ho is

    spoken of with app roval and w ho not only spoke Greek, but ha d the soul of a

    The Status of the Jews in Ptolemaic and Rom an Egypt, Jewish SocialStudies 6 (1944) 375-400.

    There is also mu ch evidence for anti-Sem itic actions in the Gree k cities of Asia M inor . and these

    actions are often seen to stem from local governments. See the decrees noted by Josep hus Ant.

    14.10.8-26 $213-67). Cf. Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice, 88-89. Christ ian anti-Semitism also

    existed, and Jews were aware of Christian as well as of pagan contempt. See Leipoldt,

    Antisemitismus, 16.

    I1Contras this arg um ent for the antiquity of the Jewish race Ag.Ap. 1.1-23 $1-218), used as

    an a ntidote for the pagan feeling that the Jews were not an ancient people, with his description of

    the maltreatment of the Jews at the hands of Gessius Florus Ant. 20.11.1 $252-58).

    J. Juster Les Juijs duns ~h r n ~ i r eomain [2 vols.; New York: Burt Fra nkli n. 19141 1. 45-

    48) provides a m or e com plete list of specific charges against the Jews. S om e twenty-tw o sepa rate

    charges are l isted, with ci tat ions from b oth pagan and Christ ian sources.

    For discussion of Theoph rastus' possible sources and related questions see: W . Jae ger ,

    Diokles \,on Karystos: Die griechische Medizin und die Schule des Aristoteles

    (Berlin: Walter de

    Gr uyte r, 1938) 134-53; idem, Greeks and Jews, JR 18 (1938) 127-43, esp. pp . 132-35.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    5/22

    48

    J O U R N A L O F B I BL IC A L L I T E R A T U R E

    Greek.14 Po rp hy ry speaks well of th e E ssenes

    Abst

    4.11-13), an d, according

    t o J e r o m e

    Com mentary on Dan

    2:40), Eusebius

    Pr aep . Evang.

    9.10), an d

    August ine

    D e civ. D.

    19.23), of the Jews in general.15 Numenius speaks

    appreciatively of the early p art of Genesis,l6 an d it is interesting to note that

    Galen w as strongly influenced in his scholarship by a Palestinian Jew. 17Th ere

    is, th ou gh , despite these occasion al glimpses of under stan ding an d go od will ,

    a general trend of disparagement.

    It is often stressed th at Jews in the Em pire enjoyed certain legal privileges

    and poli tical protections, such as the well-known R om an respect for the parts

    of the temple where gentiles were prohibited;Ig their h on or ing of the Jewish

    ban on images;Ig the i r exempting the Jews f rom cou r t on the Sabb ath;20 and

    fro m serving in the army.21 This is true-in fact Ro me generally tolerated an d

    protected Jewish religion alon g with other cul ts, oppressing them only when

    disorderly o r when they in some specific way threate ned the peace or auth ority

    of Rome.22 I t is also t rue tha t C aesar was unusual ly favorab le to the Jews, so

    mu ch so tha t he can be called, "dem Begriinder der judenfreund lichen Politik,

    ."23 Augustus also proved fr- ien dl ~.2 ~ut legal protec tion, an d even special

    1JThis meeting is generally recognized as a fiction (Jaeg er, "Greeks and Jews," 130-31; H .

    Lewy. "Aris totle and the J ew ~s h age According t o Clearchus of Soli ." H T R 31 [1938] 205-35,

    esp. p. 222. But cf. E. Silberschlag, "The Earliest Record of Jews in Asia Minor," JBL 52 [I9331

    66-77, esp. p . 77). The account probablygives a true ins ight into C learchus 'a t t i tude tow ard Jews.

    See also 0 . Stein, "Klearchos von S oloi ," Philologus 86 (1931) 258-59.

    I5Cf. Juster, Les Juifs, 1. 37, n. 1.

    IhR. W alzer, Galen o n Jeu ,s an d C hristians (Oxf ord : Ox ford University, 1949) 22-23.

    l'lbid.. 8-9.

    InE. J. Bickerm an, "The Warn ing In scriptions of Herod's T em ple," JQ R 37 (1947) 404; La

    Pian a. "Foreign Gro ups. " 375; and E. R . Goo den oug h, The Politics of Philo Judaeu s

    (Hildesheim : Georg O lms , 1967) 35, 38.

    1YThough Pilate and Caligula violated this facet of Jewish culture the Romans normally

    honored i t , even to omitt ing from their coins s truck in Jud ea "any s ign or symbol that might be

    offensive to the religious feelings of the Jews, . F. W. M adden. His tor), ofJewish Coinage

    (Lo ndo n: Bernard Q uartich. 1864) 135.

    '"Heinemann, "Antisemitismus," 13.

    :1Ibid., 39.

    2:s.

    L.

    Guterm an, Religious Toleration a n d Persecution in Ancient R ome (Lon don: Aiglon,

    1951) 11; H. H . Scullard. Fro m the G racchi to N ero (L on do n: Methu en. 1970) 374-75; H. R .

    Moehring, "The Persecution of the Jews and the Adherents of the lsis Cult at Rome

    A D

    19,"

    l l h v T 3 (1959) 295-98; Juste r, Les Juifs, 1. 213-42. See also D . Askowith(The Toleration ofthe

    Jebcs U nder Juliu s C aesar an d Augustus [New York: Col um bia University, 19151 esp. pp. 5-6),

    whose entire thesis is that, though the Jews were despised by Roman citizens, they were legally

    tolerated. It should be rem embered , thou gh, th at very often legal privileges were curtailed by the

    actions of ind ividual officials and soldiers such as C assius and G essius Florus. See Heinem ann,

    "Antisemitismus," 14. In addit ion there were a t t imes legal reprisals against the J e ~ s ;lso the

    fiscus Juda icus, levied against all Jews following the rebellion of 66-73. See M . S. Ginsburg,

    "Fiscus Judaicus ," JQ R 21 (1931) 281-91; a nd E. M . Smallw ood, "Domitian 's A tti tude Toward

    the Jews and Judaism," Classical Philologj. 51 (1956) 4.

    ? 'Heinem ann, "Antisemitismus," 14. Cf. Sueton ius Iul . 84.

    ? j H . J . Leon, The Jeu 'sofAncient Rom e(Philade1 phia:Jew ish Public ation Society. 1960) 10-

    11. 16; S . Zeitlin, "The Edict of Augustus Caes ar in Relation to the Jud eans of Asia," JQ R 55

    (1964) 163. Th e Jews, especially duri ng the latter part of the first century B.C. and the early years of

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    6/22

      9

    A N I E L : A N T I - S E M I T I S M I N H E L L E N I S T I C - R O M A N P E R I O D

    privileges, d o no t negate th e fact of anti-Semitism. P op ula r feeling rem ained

    anti-Jewish, even thou gh it was rare t ha t legal reprisals occur red.

    Since the Jews were widespread throu gho ut the Graeco-R oman world an d

    form ed a significant part of the tot al population,25 there was, of course, m uch

    cultural interchange, leading to a degree of Hellenization (or Rom anization ).

    Of the more than 500 inscriptions foun d in Jewish catacombs in R om e mo re

    th an three-fourths a re in Greek, twenty-three per cent are in Latin, an d only

    on e per cent a re Sem itic or bilingual.26 Th er e ar e num ero us o th er evidences of

    Hellenization, and it is safe to say that, though not all Jews were equally

    Hellenized, th ere w as a tendency in that di rect ion , even in Palestine.2' Yet

    despite these conscious and subconscious compromises with their

    contemporaries, Jews remained Jews, sufficiently different to attract

    attention, most of which was unpleasant.

    Jews were, then, similar in some ways to their neighbors, but, jud gin gfr om

    Greek a nd R om an literature, the similarities were seldom perceived while the

    differences were quite consistently held up to ridicule. The specific areas of

    attack will now be considered.

    I

    Origins

    One area comm only assailed by Greek a nd Latin a uth or s is that of the

    origin and early history of the Jewish race. So m e pagan writers simply try to

    demonstra te that the race is neither ancient nor noble while others a t tempt t o

    conne ct Jewish origins with Hellenic history. Th e first is malicious, but the

    second no t necessarily so, since a Hellenic conne ction was a complim ent for

    most of the authors who wrote about Jews.28

    the first century A. D. were often friendly toward Rome, and the Herods typically described

    themselves as philordmaidn or philokaisaros. W Dittenberger (ed.) , Orienris Graeci

    Inscriptiones Selectae

    2 vol s.; Lips iae: Hirzel, 1903-05) 1. 414, 419-20, 424.

    25For Jewish claims regarding their numb ers in the Grae co-R oma n world see, e.g . , Josephus

    A n t . 14.7.2 $1 15; 17.1 1.1 $300; Sib. Or. 3:271; Acts 2:9-1 1. Cf. A ugus tine De c.i\,. D. 7.11. There

    may be some exaggeration but the claims are largely confirmed by epigraphic evidence. V.

    Tcherikover (Hellenisric Civilizarion and the Jews [Philadelphia: Jeaish Publication Society ,

    19591 504-05, n. 86), lists f our es timates of the total Jew ish pop ulat ion in the Empire. ranging

    from four to eight mill ion. The interesting thing is that eac h estimate al lots more for the Diasp ora

    than for Palestine.

    jhJ. Frey, CII , 1. 22.

    ? 'For Hellenization in the Diaspora see. F. Cu m ont,

    The Orienral Religions in Roman

    Paganisrn (N ea York: Dov er, 191 1)62-63; Frey. CII. 1 .24 : Jus ter , Les Jugs . 2.239-41: La Piana,

    Foreign Groups, 381; and Leon,

    Jebrs of An cienr R om e,

    76-77, 121. Fo r Hellenization ai th in

    Palestine see. M . Sm ith. Palestinian Ju dais m in the First Century. Israel: Irs Role in

    Civilizarion (ed. M oshe Davis; New York: Seminary Insti tu te of the Jea is h Theological Society

    of America. 1956) 70- 71: E. J . Bickerman, The Historical Fou nda tions of Post-biblical

    Judaism,

    The Jews: Their H istorj~, Culture, and Re l~gi on   2

    vols.: ed. Louis Finkelstein;

    Philadelphia: Jew ish P ublication Society, 1949) 1. 82 ,94 ; and M . Hengel.

    Judaism and Hellenist??

    (2 vols.: P hilad elph ia: F ortre ss. 1973) 1. 58-106. es p. pp . 103-06.

    ' a P ia na . F or eig n G r ou ps , 382, n . 18.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    7/22

    50

    J O U R N A L O F B I BL IC A L L I T E R A T U R E

    Tac itus men tions several possible origins of the Jews, su pp ort ing them by

    mere rum or, an d in one case by a fanciful etymology (Hist. 5.2-3). O ne of his

    suggested origins involves the exp elling of the Jew s fro m Egy pt d ue to hatred

    of the gods

    (invisum deis),

    being led by M oses to a co untry which they seized,

    and whose inhabitants they expelled. Another of his theories describes the

    Jews as superfluous popu lation of Egypt (exundantem per Aegyptum

    multitudinem), led from Egypt by Hierosolymus and Iuda. Plutarch also

    refers to this theo ry, bu t with a m or e critical attitud e th an t ha t of Tacitus.29

    Whether acquainted with the OT or not , most gent i le authors who

    speculate re gard ing Jewish origins connect the m with Egypt,30 a n d usually in

    a n uncom plimentary way. O ne of the most persistent views is that the Jews

    were lepers wh o were expelled by the Egyptians. Po mp eius Trogus , quo ted by

    Justin, says of Moses:

    But the Egyptians, being troubled with scabies and leprosy a nd wa rned by a n oracle, expelled

    (pel lunt) him, with those wh o h ad the disease, out of Egypt , that the distemper(pest is) might

    not spread am on g a greater num ber. B ecoming leader , accordingly, of the exiles , he carr ied

    off by ste alth the sacred utensils of the Egy ptians, wh o, trying to recover them by force of

    arms, were compelled by tempests to return home (Epit . 36.2) .

    Th at this tale, or so me varia nt of it, had had a long history is evident from the

    fact that M anetho ( third century B.c. is quoted by Josephus

    (Ag. Ap. 1.26

    229)

    and by The ophilus of Antioch

    (adAutol. 3.2

    1

    to the effect that th e Jews

    were forced to leave Egypt due to leprosy. Diodorus Siculus adds that the

    Jews' leprosy caused the Egyptians to drive them out as men who were

    impious and detested by the gods (asebeis kai misoumenous hypo ton

    theGn).3I

    Many other hosti le comments were made concerning Jewish origins.

    Celsus, e.g., is reporte d to hav e said tha t the Jew s were fugitives fr om Egypt,

    who never performed any thing worthy of note , and never were held in an y

    reputat ion or account (up' Aigyptou drapetas gegonenai, mgden pdpote

    axiologon praxantas, out 'en logQ out 'en arithmQ autous pote gegengmenous,

    Origen c.

    Cels. 4.31),

    an d also th at they were guilty of rebelling against the

    state of Egypt (stasiasantas pros to koinon ton Aigyptidn, ibid., 3.5).Thus

    the anc estors of th e Jews were, in the pagan mind , worthless an d diseased

    rebels who were rejected both by gods and by men.

    ? .Mar. De Is. et 0 s . 363D . Yet he recognized the E gyptia n elements in the Jewish past. . lilor.

    Quaesr . ( ,on\ , . 70E. A. M . A. Hospers -Jansen(Tac i rus o \ ,e rde oden[Groningen: J . B. Wolters.

    19491 192) speculates that Plutar ch m ay have obta ined his informatio n o n the Jews from

    Josephus .

    'Cf. Str ab o 16.2.35; Dio doru s Siculus 1.28.3; Eusebius Praep. Evang. 9.19: an d Nume nius

    3.23.

    34.1. Th e charge that the Jews were driven out because of leprosy becomes important a h e n

    a e remem ber t ha t bodily defects , and part icular ly leprosy, were often seen as signs of divine

    disapproval . Rad in, Jews Am ong Greeks a n d Rom ans, 102-03. Jose phu s (Ag. Ap. 1.32-34 $288-

    31 1: 2.2 $20-27) reports th at Cha erem on, Lysimachus a nd Apion al l perpetrated this rumor in

    one form or another .

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    8/22

    D A N I E L : A N T I -S E M I T IS M I N H E L L E N I S T IC - R O M A N P E R I O D

    5

     

    Mo ses, in his po sition as the great lawgiver of the Jews , is belit t led by the

    anti-Semitic authors, though he is spoken of with respect by a few of the

    moderates.32

    The basic s tructure of the story, including the central role of Mo ses, remains the same in bo th

    cam ps, but a mo ng the ant i-J esi sh wri ters M oses ' vir tues have turne d into vices. No longer

    does M oses appear a s a leader of superior theological s is d o m . He is pictured r ather as a

    rebell ious an d polluted Egyptian priest , expelled together with a m ob of imp ure people, who

    later insti tuted a rel igious and social system motivated by an undying ha tred of everything

    non-Jewish.

    Josephus repor ts tha t Apol lonius Mo lon, Lys imachus a nd o thers charged

    Mose s with teaching vice rathe r tha n virtue (Ag. Ap . 2.14 §145), an d law-

    lessness is a freque nt charge levied against Moses a nd the Jews.j4

    11. Strangeness

    Jews were often seen as a loathsome people, s t range and unwil l ing to

    ada pt their pecul iar customs t o the norm of contem por ary society.35 Di o

    speaks of their most peculiar (idia itata) observance s (37.17.2-3), an d

    stresses the fact tha t they are distinguished fro m the rest of m an kin d

    (kechor ida ta i de ap o ton lo ipon an throp6 n, ib id . ). Taci tus assert s tha t the

    Jews fortified Jerus alem well, expecting wa rs, due to differences in customs

    (ex diversitate m or um , Hist. 5.12). It has even been a rgue d tha t this sense of

    strang enes s is the m os t basic reason of all for pag an anti-Semitism.36 Gen tiles

    continually fel t that Jews were od d a nd t ha t they had n o intent ion of trying to

    fit gent ile customs, a nd this led inevi tably to a s t r ong aversion for Jud aism .

    This repugnan ce must have been very widespread, to judge fr om

    numerous inc identa l ment ions in contemporary l i te ra ture . Ammianus

    Marcel l inus (fourth century) speaks of the m alo dor ou s an d rebel lious Jews

    (Iudaeoru m faetentium et tumultua nt ium, 22.5.5); Quint i lian classes the Jews

    as

    a race which is destructive (pern icios am ) to others (Inst. 3.7.21);

    Petronius has Habinn as com plain of the two faul ts of his s lave: He is

    circumcised a n d he snores (recutitus est et stertit);37 M artial m entio ns the

    See the first cha pte r in Gag er,

    Moses,

    in sh i ch he summar izes the pro-Moses com ments of

    such authors as S t ra bo and Hecataeus of Abdera .

    lbid., 132.

    34E.g., uvenal 14.100; Diodorus Siculus 34.1.2.

    'Weinemann, Antisemit ismus,

    20.

    ' 5evens ter , Roots, 89. Leipoldt (Aniiser~liiismus,0) says: Die religiose Besonderheit des

    Jud en er regte unangenehmes Aufsehen, und z s a r um so mehr , a l s der Jude auf d iese

    Besonderheiten stolz sa r . Tho ugh not al l mo dern scho lars agree that this sense of s trangeness

    was on e of the most imp ortan t factors in ant i-Semit ism, i t is generally agreed that t he Jew s of this

    period s e r e seen as i l l-adapted an d different . Cf. Raisin,

    Gentile Reactions,

    164: an d R adin ,

    J e ~ , s

    Among Greeks and Romans,

    209.

    -Sat.

    68. It is usually a ssum ed tha t the circumcision here implies Jud ais m , since in

    Sat.

    102,

    Petronius m entions circumcision as a distinguishing ma rk of Je s s . Cf. Stern , Greek and Latin

    Authors, 1. 443.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    9/22

    5

     

    J O U R N A L O F B IB L IC A L L I T E R A T U R E

    lecheries of circumcised Jews (recuti torum inguina Iuda eoru m, 7 .30);

    August ine quotes Seneca t o the effect tha t the Jews are an accursed race

    (sceleratiss imae gentis);38 an d Juvena l thinks of them as gloomy of mien,

    severe in face an d ga rb (triste habitu vultuq ue et veste s ever um, 14.1 10).T h e

    f if th century au tho r , Rut il ius N amat ianus , cont inues the same note when he

    spe aks of the Jews as filthy (obscaenae)an d calls th em a roo t of silliness

    (r ad ix stultitiae, 1.387-89). A n early first centu ry B.C. papyrus spe aks of some

    unn ame d persons loathing the Jews (bd ely s[s ] ntai Ioudaious).39 Since the

    papy rus is badly mutilate d it is impossible t o recon struct the situation , bu t it

    seems ob vious th at th e Jews app ear repulsive t o so me gro up in Hellenistic

    Egypt, a very typical reaction for several centuries to follow.

    On e possible reason for this severe dispar agem ent was th e prevalence of

    pover ty among Diaspora Jews. The papyr i have shown tha t , a t leas t in

    Alexandria a nd the surrou nding terr i tory, Jewish people had not yet at tained

    prowess in t rade an d money-matters , th oug h som e of them ha d, of course,

    become weal thy and involved in economic and pol i t ica l ac t i~ i t ies .~oh e

    si tuat ion is s imilar regarding Jews in Rom e. M ost were s laves an d freedmen,

    often t radesm en an d ar t isans, thou gh perhap s m ore often ord inary laborer^ .^ '

    T ha t they were not norm ally criticized for exploita tion is further evidence that

    they did not usually hold posi t ions w hich opened th e do or to exploi tat ion.

    M ax Ra din concludes tha t of the Jews in Ro me , the major i ty must have

    formed par t of the pauper ized c i ty mob , turbulent a nd ignorant ,

    . 42

    Poverty and involvement in low-class occupat ions provided Roman

    authors with material for sat i re . Juvenal twice describes Jews in terms

    suggestive of

    1-iffraff,~3nd Mar t ia l ment ions the Jew taught by h is mother to

    beg ( a matr e doctu s rogare Iudaeus, 12.57.13). Such strong terms of

    con temp t ar e used tha t i t seems certain that Jewish poverty was, if no t adirect

    W e C I V . 6.11.

    S W .

    Baron

    A

    Social and Religious History o f t h e Jervs [2 vols.: 2d ed.;

    Ne- York: Columbia Universi ty . 19521 I 191) com men ts r egard ing the significance of Seneca's

    statem ent in view of his typical reticence an d in view of the con tra st between his att itud e to-ard

    the Je-s an d the captive Greeks.

    Tcherikover, Fu ks an d Stern (eds.) ,

    C o r p u ~ .

    1.256.

    < E.g. .Tiberius Jul iu s Alexander and Dem etrius, both of whom held the office of Control ler

    of Customs in Alexandria: see. Jone s, Claudius an d the Jewish Quest ion. 22, and A. Segre,

    An t~se mit is m in Hellenistic Alexandria,

    Jewish Soc,ial StLidieJ

    8 (1946) 135. The Jews'

    occasional econom ic successes caused resentment; e .g. , the o ther tax collectors resented those

    Je-s who entered that vocation. See Heineman n, Antisemit ismus. 39.

    Cf. La Piana. Foreign Groups, 370; Leon,

    Jew3 ofAncien r R om e,

    258: Juster.

    Les Juifs,

    2.

    309: Radin,

    Jew.s Anlong Greeks and Romans,

    255.

    < 'Radin, Jeivs Anlong Greeks and R on la n~ ,55-56. Juster (L-esJuifs, 2.319)con curs wi th the

    \ iew presented by Ra din , but C. Guignebert

    ( T h e J e ~ v i shWo rld in the Titne o f Je.\us

    [London :

    Kegan Paul , T renc h, Trub ner and Co. . 19391 220) seeks to modify the picture sl ightly. It seems.

    though, to be universal ly admit ted that Jews in Rome were predominantly poor.

    3.13-21; 6.542-47. Cf. S. Ap ple ba um , The So cial an d Econ omic Sta tus of the Jews in the

    Diaspora.

    The Jeicish People in the First Cenrur~,

    (2 \o l s . ; ed . S . Saf ra i and

    M .

    Stern;

    Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1974-76) 2. 721.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    10/22

    53

    A N I E L : A N T I -S E M I T IS M I N H E L L E N IS T I C- R O M A N P E R I O D

    cause of anti-Sem itism, at least an occasion for the free expression of anti-

    Sem itic feelings.

    Roman Jews were largely illiterate, or nearly so, as is evidenced by the

    poor qual i ty of the in~cript ions.4~oth Apion and M olon make derogatory

    remarks about Jewish intellectual ability, and charge them with lacking

    inventors an d sages, an assertion which Josephus counters by arguing that the

    excellence of the Hebrew law makes o utstan ding m en unnecessary (Ag. Ap .

    2.12, 1 4, 20 135, 148, 182-83). T he same kind of com pla int occurs in Egypt,45

    and a number of papyri preserve evidence of Jews who could not sign their

    own n a m e ~ . ~ 6his does not prove th at Je ws were less literate tha n gentiles of

    like social sta nd ing , but it is certain that they were perceived t o be low o n the

    intellectual ladder, and that this fueled the fires of anti-Semitism.

    Paradoxically, though the Jews revered the Torah and much of their

    literature is built o n the presup position th at law is essential to hu m an society,

    they were often seen by their neighbo rs as lawless an d rebellious, a fact which

    contributed to the sense of strangeness. Glimpses of this can be seen

    frequently in Greek and Roman writings. Appian comments that Jews in

    Hadrian's time were forced to pay a higher poll-tax than the surrounding

    peoples du e to their many rebelli0ns.4~Dio describes the race as most bitter

    (pikro taton , 49.22.3). Cicero calls Israel a state given to suspicion an d

    calum ny (suspiciosa ac maledica civitate, Flac. 68). Silius Italicus sees Jews

    as a fierce people (feragentis, Pu n. 3.605), an d Philo stratus asserts tha t they

    have long been in revolt no t only against the R om an s, but against all men

    @alai aphestasin ou monon Hrdmaidn, a l la kaip ant dn anthrd pdn, VA 5.33).

    Juvenal accuses them of a tendency to flout the laws of Rom e (R om an as

    autem soliti contem nere leges), while a dm itting tha t they a re law-abiding in

    terms of their own law (14.100-02).

    kindred slander is that the Jews were guilty of hatred of all hum anity.

    This is a frequ ent charge, an d one of exceptional im porta nce, but it is treated

    later, in the section on Jewish exclusiveness.

    In view of the above considerations it is not surprising that the Jewish

    people were classed as barbarian s and , alon g with the Syrians, as nations

    bo rn to be slaves (nationibus

    natis servituti, Cicero Prov . Cons. 10). Th e

    Greek and R om an atti tude toward them was more one of contempt tha n of

    hatred. There were pogroms and persecutions, and occasionally adverse

    H. J . Leon. New Mater ia l abo ut the Je-s of Ancient Ro me , J Q R 20 (1930) 31 1 F o r

    photo graph s of the inscriptions see vol. of Frey, CII .

    45

    The Boule-papyrus, e .g. , seeks to prevent the Alexandrian ci t izens from being corrupted by

    men who are uncultured a nd uneducated (athreproi kai anagdgoi) (Tcher ikover , Fuks and

    Stern [eds.], C orpus , 2. 28); an d the e ditors (ibid., 2 5 ) believe this papyrus t o refer to Jew s thoug h

    they are not mentioned by name.

    j61bid., 1. 190-91. 222.

    '-S r. 50. From the Roman viewpoint this was a reasonable view of the Jewish people,

    considering th eir s truggles against Pom pey, H erod , Vespasian, and Had rian, plus the rebel l ions

    in the Diaspora and the many struggles among themselves.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    11/22

    5

    J O U R N A L O F B I BL IC A L L I T E R A T U R E

    legislation, but these were not the usual form s of anti-Semitism. M or e often it

    was a simple but very deeply felt disdain. I n spite of centuries of H ellenization,

    Jews rem ained different from others and this mad e it certain tha t they would

    be scorned by many.

    111.

    Religion and Ritual

    The strangeness described ab ove was particularly evident in the specifics

    of Jew ish religion an d worship, providing material fo r satire an d add ing to the

    overall picture of anti-Semitism. Again, instances of oppression, either

    legislative or unofficial, are rare . Religious anti-S em itism is mo re often seen in

    an attitude of condescension than in overt repressive action.

    The most obvious difference between Jewish and contemporary pagan

    religions is the belief in one Go d. The corolla ry view th at this God is the G od

    of the Jews, and the subsequent contempt for pagan gods, has far-reaching

    implications for the study of anti-Semitism, an d is treated later; but the mere

    fact of monotheism is important and virtually unique in the ancient world.

    Tacitus

    His t . 5.5)

    and Dio

    37.17.2)

    both men tion the Jews'view of G od, and

    both consider it important, though Dio stops short of saying that they

    believed in only one God.

    That most Jews were thorough-going monotheists, though, is evident

    from their own literature.48 This concept was obviously repellent to many

    contemporaries, but must have attracted many others, and may well have

    been the main thing which made it possible for the Jews to proselytize

    successfully, in spite of the contempt in which they were usually held.49

    It was a continual source of amazement t o Greeks and R om ans that Jews

    could worsh ip their God without the aid of images,50 and tha t they, in fact,

    would fight to prevent the bringing of images in to Jerusalem.51 Not only were

    images of the deity tab oo , but m an y Jews of this period inte rpreted the second

    com ma ndm ent so literally that they would n ot permit likenesses of anim al or

    human life, including that of the emperor.52

    After noting th at the Jews have no statue of their Go d, even in Jerusalem

    itself, D io adds : But believing him to be unna ma ble and formless, they

    worship him in the most extravagant fashion on earth

    arr2ton de d2 ka i

    E.g., Be1 1:5; Sib. Or frgs. 1:l-35; 3:3-48; Sib.

    Or

    3:11 16.

    lVH eine ma nn, Att i tude, 397-98.

    'Leipoldt,

    Antiretnitirmus,

    26.

    l J o s e p h u s J. W. 2.9.2-3 $169-74; A n t . 18.3.1 $55-59. Josep hus ' accounts are ad mit tedly

    h~ gh ly olored; e .g. , his s tatement that the Jews surrou nde d Pilate 's house and remained

    motionless fo r five da ys an d nights

    J U

    2.9.2 $171); but there is no questio n th at the Jews of his

    tlme often reacted strongly against any intrusion of images; see esp. Philo Leg. 299-305. It is

    appa rent , however, that n ot al l Je-s were equally opposed to ima ges, because even in synagogue

    art this tabo o is sometimes violated. Cf. Sm ith, Palest inian Judaism , 68-69. Th e r igidly

    orthodox, though, both in the homeland and in the Diaspora, maintained this prohibi t ion.

    52Josephus

    Ag.

    Ap. 2.6 $73. Cf. a lso the image r iots un der Pon tius Pi late , mentioned above

    ( Josephus

    J

    W

    2.9.2-3 9169-74).

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    12/22

    D A N I E L : A N T I -S E M I T IS M I N H E L L E N I S T I C - R O M A N P E R I O D

    55

    aeid? au to n nom izontes ein ai pe risso tata anthrcipcin thrc?skeuousi, 37.1 7.2).

    Lucan notes that Jews are given to the worship of an unknow n god (dedi ta

    sacris incerti dei, 2.592-93), an d Juve nal thinks tha t they worship

    nothing but the clouds, and the divinity of the he av en sW (nilp rae ter ubes et

    caeli num en adorant).53 The strangeness of this type of worship is the thing

    which impressed pagan au thors, thou gh we have occasional hints th at so me

    Romans approved of i t .54

    Particular customs of Hebrew religion elicited pag an disap prov al an d

    called fo rth both satire an d direct calumny-especially the Sa bb ath ,

    circumcision and the abstent ion from pork . The comm ents of pagan auth ors

    show that they had only a superficial understanding of these matters. The

    younger Seneca sup poses th at Jewish worship consists primarily in lighting

    lamps on th e Sabbath;55 M artial (4.4) an d Petron ius (P oe m s 24) incorrectly

    assume that the Jews fast on the Sa bba th; an d Plutarch equates Sab bath-

    keeping with the wo rship of Sabaz ios-Dion ysus, arguing tha t the Jewish use

    of win e o n th e Sa b b a t h f ur th e r c on firm s th e c ~ n n e c t i o n . ~ ~

    Meleager can speak of cold (psychrois) Sa bb ath s (Greek An tholog y

    5.160), an epi thet which Radin takes as a synonym for d~ 11. 5~ha t the holy

    day must be observed by the cessation of usual activities must have seemed

    absu rd, an d the idea tha t a people would stand by and allow themselves to be

    defeated militarily simply to avoid profaning a rest day was a startling

    indication of fanaticism.58 The m ere fact tha t o ne idle day per week is a great

    waste of time annoyed at least one Roman author.59

    Circumcision was an obscenity to the G raeco-R om an writers. P etronius

    clearly sees it in this way (Poem s 24) an d M artial uses circumcised (verpe) as

    a term of disdain fo ur times in one epig ram (94, cf.

    82).

    There is conside rable

    controversy as to the legal status of the rite in the Empire, and particularly

    regarding the ban by Hadrian and the revocation of the ban by Antoninus

    Pius.60 But whether or not Hadrian directly attacked Judaism, the normal

    5'14.97-98. Th e Jews are seen as &or ship ping the nunlen of the sky. not a con crete deity.

    S4Strabo speak s approv ingly of the Jews' practice: 16.2.35. Cicero's friend. V arro , is reported

    as sanctioning the imageless w orship of the Jews, &hile expressing a wish that his o& n people had

    retained that kind of worship. See Augustine De civ. D. 4.31.

    55Ep. 95.47. Cf. Pe rsius 'com me nts on the lighting of lamps. 5.180-81.

    5bM or. Quaest. conv. 671E-72A. Cf. Valerius M axim us 1.3.3. See furt her; Ster n, Greek a n d

    Latin Au thor s, 1. 358; and

    E.

    Sch urer , A History of the Jewish P eople in the Tinle ofJe sus Christ

    (2 parts, 5 vols.; rev. ed.; New York: Scribner's. n.d.) 2. 2. 233-34.

    5'Jews An long Greeks an d Rotnans, 177. Rutilius N am atian us (1.389) uses similar

    terminology,,frigida Sabbata .

    5XStrabo (16.2.40) and Dio C assius (37.15.3) agree that Pom pey was able to cap ture Jeru salem

    due t o the enforced idleness of the Jews on the Sa bb ath . This could no t have been a consistent

    Jewish policy, but there seems no reason to do ubt that it did happ en on this occasion. See Radin ,

    Jews Anlong Greeks and Rotnans, 179-80.

    5'Seneca, as quot ed by Au gustin e (D e civ. D. 6.1 1). Cf. L eipold t, Antise tnitisn lus, 12, 28.

    60Cf.,e.g., Sherwin-W hite, Ra cial Prejudice, 100; an d tw o articles by

    E .

    M. Smallwood: The

    Legislation of H adria n and Antoninus Pius against Circumcision, Lato nlus 18 (1959) 334-47

    and The Legis la tion of Hadrian and An toninus Pius against Circumcis ion: Adde ndum , ibid. ,

    20 (1961) 93-96. Fo r the original sources see, Justinian Dig. 48.8.4.11; Paul us Sen t. 5.22.3-4.

    http:///reader/full/16.2.35http:///reader/full/16.2.35

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    13/22

    56

    J O U R N A L O F B IB LI CA L L I T E R A T U R E

    attitud e toward circumcision was no t suppres sion. Th e Rom ans usually felt it

    to be a n em barrassm ent, unw orthy of civilized people, but they were usually

    willing to allow the Jew s to practice the rite. The Jew s were not, of course, the

    only ancient people to practice circumcision.61

    Abstention from pork was in itself of no importance in the view of the

    gentile authors,62 bu t i t, like circumcision and the S ab ba th , provided a vehicle

    for satire. Philo reports that the Em peror Gaius asked the Jewish embassy

    why they refused to eat pork, provoking outbursts of laughter among his

    attendants.63 Jose phu s lists this as one of the denunc iations pronoun ced by

    Apion (Ag. A p. 2.13 $137). Pluta rch tells us th at Cicero referred in jest to the

    Jewish attitude toward pork (Vit. Cic. 7.5). Juve nal mock s a long-standing

    clemency [which] allows pigs to attain old age (vetus indulger senibus

    dem entia porcis, 6.160); and comments further that Jew s see no difference

    [between eating] swine's flesh, from which their fathe r abstained, a nd tha t of

    man (distare

    pu ta nt hum ana carne suillam, qua pare r abstinuit , 14.98-99).

    M acro bius rep orts the bitter jest of Augu stus th at it is better to be Herod's

    hog th an his son (melius est He rodis por cum esse quam filium, Sa t. 2.4.1 l) ,

    apparently reflecting a Greek p un on the w ords for hog (hys) and fo r son

    (huios). Finally, both Plutarch ( M or , Quaest. conv. 669F) and Tacitus (Hist.

    5.4) repeat fanciful origins of the custom, again betraying a lack of

    understanding of Jewish religion.64

    In addition to being derided for such realities as circumcision and

    abstinence from pork the Jews were accused of several absurdities, e.g.,

    hum an sacrifice an d the worship of an ass in the temple. The form er charge

    was made by Apion (Josephus Ag. Ap . 2.8 $93-96) an d by Da mo critus (Su da

    Damokritos). The latter is mentioned frequently (e.g., Tacitus Hist. 5.4;

    Plutarch M or, Quaest. conv. 670E; Diod orus Siculus 34.1; Joseph us Ag. Ap.

    2.9 $1 12-20; Sud a Da mok ritos), and is an attem pt t o m ake Jewish worship

    appear ridiculous.

    'Accor d ing to Hero dotus (2 .104) severa l anc i en t peoples , i nc lud ing the Egypt i ans ,

    Colch ians . Phoenic ians . E th iopians , and the Syr i ans of Pa l es t ine =Je ws ) , p rac t iced the ri te o f

    ci rcumc ision. Cf. Josep hus Ag. Ap . 1.22 $169; 2.13 $142.

    'Seneca (Ep. 108.22) does, ho-ever. indicate tha t dur ing the early years of Tiberius ' reign it

    ma y have been unwise to abs t a in f rom meat . fo r fear of be ing th ought i n te rest ed inUfore ign r it es

    ( a l i e n i ~ e n a

     

    sac ra) . He ment ion s nei ther Je-s no r pork in this connec t ion, but it is usual ly

    assume d t hat the reference i s to the events of A D 19, when T iber ius persecuted Jewish r i tes . Cf.

    Josep hus Anr . 18 .3 .4$65; 18.3.5 $81-84; Tac i tus Ann . 2.85; Dio Cassius 57.18: Sue ton ius Tib. 36.

    For modern d i scuss ions , i n addi t i on to s t andard Jewish and Roman h i s tor i es . see ; E . M.

    Smal l -nod . Some S o te s on the Jews UnderTiber ius . La tonlus 15 (1956) 3 1 4 1 9 : E . T . Merr il l.

    T he E x p u l s~ o n f J e w s f ro m R o m e U n d e r T i b er i u s, C la s si ca l

    phi lo log^

    14(191 9) 365-72; H. R .

    Moeh ring. Sovel is t ic Elements in the Wri t ings of Flavius Josephu s. unpubl ishe d Ph .D .

    d i sser t a tion . Univers i ty of Chicago , 1957; an d S te rn . Greek a n d Lat in A urh or . ~ . . 434 .

    'L.eg. 361. C f . J . P . V . D. Bal sdon , Notes Conc ern ing the Pr inc ipa t e of Gaius .

    J R S

    24

    1934) 13-24.

    - 'For ag oo d d i scuss ion of t he h i s tor ica l reasons for t he cus to m a s oppo sed to the commen t s of

    Taci tus and Plutarch, see, Hospe rs-Jansen , Taci rus. 197-98. Th e swine was often honor ed in the

    Greek wor ld (e .g . . a t E leus i s) , t hus the Greeks were unders t and ably confused by the Hebrew

    a t t i tu d e t h a t t h e a n i m a l w a s u n cl ea n . S e e L e i p o ld t , A n t i s e n ~ i r i sn ~ u s .7.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    14/22

    D A N I E L : A N T I -S E M I T IS M I N H E L L E N I S T IC - R O M A N P E R I O D

    57

    Implicit in m uch of the above is the feeling th at Ju dais m w as a barbaric

    sup erstitio n, but this was voiced explicitly in ma ny instances, so many in fact

    tha t it can be said that the Jews were singled out by the educ ated to be

    pilloried as the very emb odim ent of superstition. 65 T o the mod ern m ind this

    seems strange. R om an religion with its flamen s, not to m ention its haruspices,

    certainly appears more superstitious than the most mystical forms of

    Judaism ; yet to the R om ans (as well as to other co ntem poraries) the imageless

    worship of the Jews, along with circumcision, the refusal of pork, and such

    rituals as characterized the Sa bb ath , seemed as stran ge an d enigmatic as if

    they had originated o n some unk now n an d my sterious planet.1966Add to these

    considerations the fact that some Jews, in R om e and elsewhere, dabbled in

    magic of vario us forms,67 and the cry of barb aric supe rstition becomes

    understandable.

    Barbaric superstition (ba rba rae superstitioni) is precisely the

    terminology used by C icero as he seeks to defend F laccus by dispar agin g the

    Jews (F lac. 67). Tacitus (Ann . 2.85; Hist. 2.4; 5.8, 13), Dio (37.16.3), Fr on to

    (Ep. A d M . Cues. 2.7), Quintilian (Inst. 3.7.21), Apuleius (Flor. 6), and even

    St rab o (16.2.37) agree with this assessment. Ho race m entions acl aim which is

    incredible to him , then add s: Apella, th e Jew, may believe it, not I (credat

    Iud aeus A pella, n on ego, Sa t. 1.5.100), referring evidently to the Jew ish

    reputation for gullibility and superstition. Plutarch attributes the Jews'

    unwillingness t o fight on the Sa bba th to sup erstition (deisidaimonia, M or . D e

    superst. 169C). Juvena l remarks that a Jew will sell you dream s of any kind

    you please fo r the minutest of coins (aere m inu to qualiacum que voles Iud aei

    som nia vendu nt, 6.547). Lucian complains that other fools fall fo r the spells

    of the Jews (Ioudaios heteron m dro n exqdei labdn, Trag. 173). Pliny ( H N

    30.1 1), Ju sti n (E pit. 36.1) an d Celsus (Origen c. Cels. 4.33; cf. Florus Ep itom e

    1.40.30) assert t ha t the anc esto rs of the Jewish race were prac titione rs of

    magic. It should be remembered too that Jose phu s cites an am biguou s

    oracle (chrPsmos am phibolos ) which he claims induced the Jews to rebel

    since it indicated t ha t o ne from their coun try would become ruler of the world

    J

    W

    6.5.4 5312-13). He applied th e oracle to Vespasian, and o n this basis

    made his fam ou s prediction that Vespasian would become emp eror . Th us

    even Joseph us, who wants t o provide as rational a basis as possible for Jewish

    actions, admits t o a certain am ou nt of superstition.

    Jewish estrangement from the G raeco-Roman world was, then, furthered

    by their monotheism, by details of their ritual, and by elements which the

    pagans viewed as superstition. When confronted with Judaism, either in

    Palestine or in the Diaspora, contemporary peoples were so blinded by the

    oddities of that faith that they were unable to appreciate the wisdom o r the

    beauty of it.

    h'Goldstein. Cultivated Paga ns, 362.

    hhlb id .

    h'E. R . Bevan, The Jews. C H (1932) 422. Rabbinical wri tings forb ade m agic, witchcraft

    and sorcery (e.g. ,

    b . Sanh .

    67a-b) but this did not, of course. curtail all such practice.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    15/22

    J O U R N A L O F B I BL I CA L L I T E R A T U R E

    IV Exclusiveness

    As we have seen, Jewish religion was one reason for anti-Semitism, but

    perhaps a more basic cause was their exclusiveness, encouraged by their law

    and grou nded in their mo notheism. T o the degree tha t Jews in a polytheistic

    culture tried to maintain a strong monotheism and a unique law based on

    mono theism, it was inevitable tha t they should have trou ble dealing with their

    neighbors. Werner Forster observes:

    As the whole of civil life was closely bound up at that time with (Gentile) religion, this

    attitu de meant that a Jew in the Diasp ora could hardly or only to a limited extent participate

    in the civil life of his city. But it meant even more that all commercial traffic between Jews

    and Gentiles was grievously hindered.6

    This situation n o do ubt varied from one city to ano ther; e.g., one would not

    necessarily expect it t o be the sam e in a R om an co lony as in a Greek city;69 yet

    the limitations were very real. The importance of this fact could hardly be

    overstated. Jewish faith bred an anti-social clannishness which in turn cast

    suspicion on them

    as citizens

    They were perceived as sno bbish , an d in a

    particularly dan gero us way. Since they could n ot a nd would n ot p articipate

    fully in Grae co-R om an political an d econom ic life, an d since they tended to

    ma intain a stron g unity amo ng themselves, they were a force to be taken into

    account by all concerned.70 Many characteristics mentioned above caused

    Jew s to be disliked; their m ono theistic exclusiveness add ed the dimensio n of

    fear, which helped crystallize dislike into hatred. Exclusiveness added an

    element of mystery w hich aroused interest, but a t the sam e time strengthened

    6V alestin ian Jud ais nl in ,Ve\4. Testament Tirnes (L on do n: Oliver an d Boyd, 1964) 145-46. Cf.

    T J . H . Shu tt , Studies in Josephus(Lo ndon: SP CK , 1961) 51. Reinach (Texres, xi) says this of the

    J e u s : Leu r loi religieuse enveloppe tou te leur vie da ns un reseau d'obse rvan ces singulikres

    qui non seulement les differencient des autres peuples, mais encore les en siparent presque

    absolumen t dan s I'existence quotidienne. M any other scholars concur that exclusiveness was

    one of the most im por tant causes of anti-Semitism an d that it was a primary hindrance t o civil and

    social life: He ine m ann , Antisemitismus, 42-43; Go ldstein , Cultivated Paga ns, 352; G.

    S tahl in, Xenos, TD N T 5 (1967) 12; W. Gutb rod , Ioudaios, T D N T 3 (1965) 370, n. 84; J. B.

    Agus, Pola rity in Jewi sh History, Judais tn 6 (1957) 162-63.

    hvlt is evident in the N T (Acts 14:l-2 ; 17:4, 12; 18:4) ha t at least in some cities there was easy

    contact between Gre eks and Jews, and appar ently even Greeks in atten dan ce at the synagogues;

    though in many cases the Hel ane s may be sebom enoi ton theon ( worshippers of Go d oru Go d-

    fearers ), i.e., gentiles wh o have accepted s om e aspects of Juda ism . Josephus ( J. W. 7.3.3 945),

    however, clearly indicates that gentiles in large numbers attended Jewish religious ceremonies.

    Cf. H. Windisch, HelRn , TD'V T2 (1964) 509-16.

    ' Despite much diversity there remained a stron g religious unity running thro ugh the bulk of

    Judaism, even after the Diaspora and Palestine severed political relations. Fuchs, Die Juden

    Aem prens , 24; S. K Edd y, The King Is Dead(Linc o1n: University of Nebraska, 1961) 237. This

    unity u a s perhaps one reason that Rom e did not underestimate the Jews ' power. Th e Jud aea

    c,apta coins show that R om e considered the w ars of 66-73 and 135 to be major events. Cf. J . G .

    Gager, The Dialogue of Paganism with Judaism : Bar Cochb a to Julian, HUC A 44(1973) 91.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    16/22

    59

    A N IE L : AN T I -S E M I T IS M I N H E L L E N I S T I C - R O M A N P E R I O D

    oppo sition. The results of this fear and hatred are easily seen in Alexand ria

    and elsewhere.

    That many Jews saw themselves as the people specially chosen by God,

    and therefore a better and purer race, h ardly needs to be dem onstrated . In

    Jewish thoug ht of the Hellenistic-Roman period the gentile nations w ould be

    at some unspecified time in the fu ture reduced to serving the Jewish God (Pss.

    Sol. 17.32), and would receive punishm ent from the sam e qua rter (Pss. So l.

    7.27). Jews were often, in their literature, forbidden to m arry gentiles (Ju b.

    30:7-17; T o b 4:12), tho ug h such injun ction s did no t, of course, prevent all

    intermarriage.'* Some Jewish literature made it possible for gentiles to be

    saved, but salvation could come only thro ugh Israel T Benj. 9:2-5), an d very

    often t hr ou gh a m essianic figure who is himself a Jew (e.g., 1En och 48:2-10;

    T

    Levi 14:4). The Messiah concept is of extrem e importance in unde rstanding

    Jud aism an d the pag an reaction t o it, since it occurs so frequently in Jewish

    literature.73 Th e M essiah will in m any cases punish th e gentiles (e.g.,

    2

    Apoc.

    Bar. 70:8-9; 4 Ezra 12:32),and very often when the Messiah appea rs in Jewish

    writings he is mentioned in connection with Jewish-gentile relations.'4

    Jewish au tho rs, bo th of Palestine an d of the Diaspora, often voice severe

    contem pt fo r gentiles, even to the p oint of claiming th at the world was created

    on behalf of th e Jews (As. M os. 1: 12; 4 E zra 6:55), and tha t the pagan n ations

    are like spittle (4 Ezra 6:56-57). Jews did no t claim mo ral perfection fo r

    themselves, but they considered gentiles as sinners in a special sense (cf. Ga l

    2:15). This dichotom y in Jewish tho ug ht between the chosen race and the

    gentile sinners was bitterly resented by gentiles; Origen, e.g., indicates th at

    this was on e of Celsus' prim ary c om plain ts, and reiterates it several times (c.

    Cels. 5.41-42, 50).

    Th e list of anti-gentile passages in Jewish lite rature co uld be mad e m uch

    longer, though it should be noted that not all Jewish writers felt equally

    sup erior to their gentile neighb ors. Th e Letter of Ar isteas is a notab le

    exception to the general trend of bitterness, going to the point of saying that

    Jews a nd gentiles worship the sam e G od , tho ug h by different names.'5 By no

    means did all Jews share the attitu de of superiority, bu t a sufficiently large

    num ber d id so that it occasions no surprise fo r gentiles to respond in kind.76

    AS, e.g., the Alexandrian riots in A D 38 (P hi lo In Flacc. 6-8 541-57; Leg. 132-38). Cf. Bell,

    Anti-Semitism in Alexandria, 6-8). Also the persecutions in Rom e under Tiberius (above, n.

    62), and Claudius (Acts 18:2; Dio Cassius 60.6.6; Suetonius Claud. 25.4).

    '?Cf. Ezra 10:2-17; Neh 13:23-37; Acts 16:l.

    71Heineman n, Antisemitismus, 14; Schiirer, Jewish Peo ple, 2. 2. 1 2 6 37.

    14Cf. A. S . van der W oude, Chrid,

    TDNT

    9 (1974) 521-27.

    '5Ep . Arist. 15-16. This letter is generally accepted as a Jewish writing th ou gh the au th or

    claims to be Greek (3-16).

    7h Fo r urther information on Jewish expressions of superiority, both in Palestine an d in the

    Diaspora, see; W. E. Oester ley, The Jews an d Judaism During the Greek Period (Londo n:

    Ken nikat, 1941) 115-18; W. S. Mc Cullou gh, T he History an d Literature of the Palestinian Jews

    from Cyrus to He rod (T oro nt0 : University of To ron to, 1975) 180; H. A. W olfson, Philo (2 vols.;

    rev. ed.; Cam bridg e: Harvard University, 1947) 2.406 ; N. Bentwich, The Grae co-R om an View

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    17/22

    60 J O U R N A L O F B IB LIC A L L I T E R A T U R E

    No attempt can be made here to assess the degree to which the Jewish

    attitude merely reflected similar gentile expressions. Regardless of one's

    conclusions as to the ultimate fault, it is evident that Jewish exclusiveness

    became a major factor in the poor relations between the races.

    The imp ortant thing is that this att i tude was an integral part of the H ebrew

    religion, not m ere social snob bery.77The Jews'feeling tha t they and they alone

    possessed truth, that they alone worshipped the true God and were

    partic ularly beloved by him, is the r oo t of their exclusiveness. Th ere were

    dou btless othe r con tribu ting factors, bu t one of the most telling is to be found

    in the very essence of their faith.

    Jewish monotheism led inevitably to a conflict regarding emperor

    worship, following the de velopm ent of the im perial cult. Jos eph us was forced

    to answer the charge that Jews refused to erect statues to the em peror, which

    he does by p ointing o ut th at they offer daily sacrifices to him Ag .Ap . 2.6 873-

    77). It was the ces sation of these sacrifices which beca me the imm ediate cause

    of the war with Rome in

    A D

    66 (Josephus

    J .

    W . 2.17.2 $409). No do ub t the

    Jews m ade a ca reful distinction between offering sacrifices to G od on behalf

    of the emperor and offering sacrifices to the emperor as God, but Augustus

    an d T iberius, at least, allowed their p ractice as satisfactory. Caligula, tho ug h,

    u tilized fo rce t o ensure tha t he was ~ o r s h i p p e d . ~ *e eliminated the am biguity

    when he demanded that his statue be erected in the temple and sacrifices

    offered to it,'9 an d this the Palestinian Jews could not do . The y had show n a

    willingness to com prom ise, com plying with the un objectiona ble p arts of the

    law, even to the point of dedicating synagogues to the emperor;gOwhen,

    however, the issue was clarified and Jews w ere required to offer direct worship

    of Je u s and Ju daism in the Second Century, J Q R 23 (1933) 341-42; Bickerman . Historical

    Foundat ions . 90 ; and Stahl in ,

    Xenos,

    12-14. S om e scholars (e .g. , S . W. B aron. Second and

    Third Commonwealth: Paral lels and Differences.

    Israel: Irs Role in Cii~ilization

    ed. Moshe

    Davis: S e w Y ork: Sem inary Institute of the Jewish Theological Society of Am erica. 19561 63-64)

    h a ~ eminimized J eu is h dislike of gentiles, and it is tru e that both Rab binic an d Hellenistic Jews

    held certain gentiles in high esteem (cf, S , Lieb erma n, Greek in Jewish Palesline [Sew York:

    Je ui sh T heological S emin ary of Am erica, 19421 75), necertheless. the Jewish attitude was

    primari ly a patronizing one.

    Reinach.

    Te.rtes.

    xi ; Gutbrod .

    loudaios,

    370. n. 84.

    - einemann. Antise rnitismu s. 13.

    - For Caligula's a t tem pt t o habe his s tatue placed in thetem ple, see F, -M . Abel .

    H ~ s t o i r e d e l a

    Pale~r ine epuis la conqusre d ' i l le san dre jusq ua l i'n \~as ionarabe

    (EBib; 2 L OIS .: ar is: Gabalda.

    1952) 1.446-47: J . W. Su ai n. Gamaliel 's Speech an d Caligula 's Statue. H T R 3 7 (1944) 341-49:

    and E . q Smallwoo d. The Chronologq of Gaius ' Attem pt to Desecrate the Temple.

    Larotnus

    16 1957) 3-17. Fo r a detailed argume nt that much of the inform ation ab ou t Caligula recorded by

    Philo an d Jos ephu s is spurious. see S. Zei tl in. Did Agrippa W rite a Let ter to Gaius Caligula?

    J Q R 56 (1965) 22-31

    'Cf. La Pian a, Foreign Groups. 376-79. Juste r Le.5Juifs . I. 342-44) gibes an interesting list

    of t it les uh ich the Jews ue re wil ling to apply to the e mp eror and those uh ich they would not use;

    e .g. . they norm ally would not use

    despotes,

    but did not hesitate to use

    k.rrios,

    Though perhaps

    somew hat arb i trarq , such usage sh ou s that they were will ing to com promise by applqing to the

    emperor some terms usual ly applied to God

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    18/22

    D A N I E L : A N T I -S E M I T IS M I N H E L L E N IS T I C -R O M A N P E R I O D

    they united in opp osition, nearly precip itating the w ar three decades before it

    actually occurred.

    It can be argued that oppo sition to em peror worship really am oun ted to

    treason, since it was a crime n ot only against the em peror as a man , but as a

    god . As such it was clearly an insoluble problem between Jew an d Ro m an . Yet

    in view of the fact that Caligula and Nero were recognized aberrations, and

    that most of the early emperors seemingly cared little for deification,*' it

    would be easy to exaggerate the part this matter actually played in the

    problem.g2

    There was, from the Ro m an viewpoint, so me ustification fo r the charge of

    despising the god s (con tem nere deos),83 regardless of one's view of Ju da is m

    in relation to the im perial cult . Jews could n ot enter into real worship of pagan

    gods, and their monotheism prevented a full entry into the social life which

    surrou nded them , forcing them to ma intain a n exclusive identity which could

    no t help a nn oy ing their neighb ors. This easily led to the cha rge of atheism.X4

    Judaism stood out as an intolerant religion in a society which was generally

    tolerant toward divergent beliefs.

    Intolerance an d exclusiveness led t o a charge th at Jews ha ted all the rest of

    man kind. Phi lostratus V 5.33), Tacitus (H ist. 5.5), Dio do rus Siculus (34.1;

    40.3-4) and Juvenal (14.102-04) all concur in this accusation. Anti-Semitic

    writers tended to interpret even those laws which were no t peculiar to Jud aism

    in the light of a su ppo sed enm ity of the Jews tow ard o ther men; e.g., Tacitus

    (Hist. 5.5) felt th at the purpo se of circumcision was to distinguish Jews fro m

    oth er people, whereas this is not at all the u sual Jew ish inte rpre tation of the

    rite.85Pag ans were so certain tha t Jews hated m ank ind tha t they were quick to

    see such evidence in virtually all Jew ish attem pts to m ain tain their pu rity; e.g.,

    their att i tude toward foreign women, their unwill ingness to visit pagan

    temples, and their strict dietary laws.86

    See esp . Sue to n~ us ' emarks about Tiber ius' a t t i tude ; Tib. 26.

    '?F or mo dern scholars who tend to minimize the impo rtanc e of emp eror worship. see A .

    D .

    So ck . Religious Developments from the Close of the Republic to the Dea th of Nero. CA H 10

    (1934) 481 503; an d G. W . Bowersock. Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second

    Century A.D., Le culte des souverains dun s I E mpireronzain (Entre tiens sur I 'Antiquite classique

    19; Vandoeu vres-Gentve: Fon datio n Har dt , 1973) 179-212.

    Tacitus Hisr. 5.5. The elder Pliny (H.V 13.9.46) calls the Jews a race rem arkab le fo r their

    contempt for the divine powers

    ( g m s conrurnelia nutnin utn insigrzis).

    Taci tus

    (Hisr.

    5.4)

    overstates the case: They regard as profan e all tha t we hold sacred: on the othe r hand they permit

    a l l tha t u e d ishonor

    (Prq fana il lic o~ n n ia uae apu d nos sac,ra, rurhutn concessa apu d rllos qua e

    nohis incesra).

    Reinach. Te.ures. x. Domitian 's execution of Flavius Clemens and Flavia Do mati l la was on a

    charge of atheism . I t is controversial , hou ever , as to whether they ue re converted to Jud aism or

    to Christ iani ty. See Sm all uo od , Domitian 's Att i tude, 7-8.

    XSDespite osep hus ( A n t . 1.10.5 §192), Jewish autho rs normall) ignore this motivat ion for

    circumcision. See Hein ema nn, Attitude, 397.

    XhHeinemann, Antisemitismus, 42-43. H e says: Die verbreitetere ist, dass dieser Abschluss

    aus Hass, unbandigem, blutrunst igem Hass gegen al les Nichtjudische entspringt , der in dem

    feierlichen Eid beim Ritu alm ord seinen Au sdr uck findet (ibid., 43).

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    19/22

    62 J O U R N A L O F B IB LI CA L L I T E R A T U R E

    The Rabbis were well aware of the pagan attitude toward Jewish

    exclusiveness (e.g., Lev Rub. 13:5). They tried at times to counter such

    charges by insisting that Jews aid gentiles in variou s ways, including caring for

    their sick and burying their dead (b. Git. 61a, 62a); by forbidding Jews to

    deceive gentiles (b . H ul. 94a), o r to mistreat the m in an y o ther w ay (e.g., b. B.

    Qam . 113b); by urging respect fo r gentile wisdom (b. Meg. 16a; b. Ber. 58a);

    by expressly sanctioning partnerships between Jews and gentiles (b. Hul.

    133a-b; 135a-b; b. Bec. 2a-b); a nd som etimes by direct argu me nt (e.g., Esth.

    Rub. Pro em 3; Qoh. Rub. 2: 17). It is clear from rabbinical writings that

    Judaism was not wholly guilty of the extreme exclusiveness charged by

    pagans; yet the fact th at Jews were frequently w arned not t o mistreat gentiles

    or to hold themselves com pletely aloof from the m indicates tha t there was a

    strong tendency in that direction.

    At least in some sectors of the Diaspora many Jews lived, by choice,

    separate from the rest of the people. Philo

    (In

    Flacc. 8 555) indicates th at most

    Alexan drian Jews lived in two q uart ers of the city though they w ere allowed t o

    live elsewhere, and som e chose to d o so.*' Living, in the m ain , segregated into

    ethnic comm unities c ontributed to th e general sense of aloofness and mad e it

    even more difficult for them to interact with others.

    It was inevitable that the Jews should be pictured by their neighbors as

    fanatics,88 since they were unwilling to acquiesce to G rae co -R om an views on

    the religious front. Both in the homeland and in the Diaspora they saw

    themselves as having compromised sufficiently with pagan culture, but the

    gentiles were blinded to the compromises by the many important areas in

    which Jews insisted o n m aintain ing their uniqueness. Above all, they were

    blinded by Jewish exclusiveness with all its implications.

    V .

    Proselytizing

    Par ado xica l as it is, it is often true tha t a widely unpop ular religion is quite

    successful at proselytizing. Such was certainly the case with Judaism of the

    Hellenistic-Roman period and it was one source of anti-Semitism. Horace

    X7Severalpapyri sh ow that a definite Jewish section existed in Alexandria ; Tcherikov er, Fuks

    and Stern (eds.),

    Corpus

    2. 210; 3. 10-12, 29-30. T he qu estio n of t he legal basis for Jewish

    comm unities has received a great de al of attention. E ach com munity, at least in Egypt, was

    organized along the lines of a Hellenistic politeuma defined (W. Ruppel, Politeum a,

    Philologus

    82 [I9271 309) as eine mit bestim mten politischen Vorrec hten ausge stattete

    Gem einde auf ethnischer Grundla ge. Cf. Segri., Status of the Jews in Pto lem aic an d Ro m an

    Egypt, 388-91.

    Wee , e .g . , P l iny

    HN

    12.54.113. Cf. E.

    M .

    Smal lwood , Jeus a nd Rom ans in the Early

    Empire , Part I ,

    History Today

    15 (1965) 239. Jewish fanaticism was apparently a fact or in the

    controversial ma tter of Claud ius'relations with the Jews, reflected primarily in the edict and letter

    to A lexandria , and the much-debated question of the expuls ion of the Je u s from Rom e(a bov e, n .

    71). Fo r the text of C laudius ' le t ter, a long with a transla t ion, discussion and bibliography see

    Tcherikover, Fuks an d Stern (eds .) ,

    Corpus

    2. 36-55. See als o

    M .

    Engers, Der Brief des Kaisers

    Claudius an die Alexandriner, KIio 20 (1925) 168-78; Juster, Les Jufs 1. 171; an d La Pian a,

    Foreign Gro ups, 378-79, 388.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    20/22

    63

    A N I E L : A N T I - S E M I T I S M I N H E L L E N I S T I C - R O M A N P E R I O D

    lampoons them for their forceful, a nd appa rently successful, efforts to ma ke

    conv erts (S at. 1.4.143), an d D io gives this as Tiberius'm otive for expelling the

    Jews from R0me.8~ acitus complains about Jewish proselytizing and feels

    that those wh o accept the Jewish faith despise the fatherlan d (exue re

    patriam, Hist. 5.5). Plutarch expresses equally negative feelings toward

    proselytes (Vit. Cic. 7.5), and Rutilius Namatianus, the most savage of the

    anti-Semitic writers, witnesses to the effectiveness of Jewish proselytizing

    (1.397-98).

    Jews were apparently more successful at making converts during the

    Hellenistic-Roman period tha n at any other p oint in history,90 thou gh not all

    proselytes accepted every facet of the religion. Th e complex question of the

    different classes of proselytes is irrelevant here. Proselytizing was one of the

    factors contributing to anti-Semitism, and this regardless of the degree to

    which most converts accepted the strictures of the Jewish faith.91

    It is dou btfu l tha t Jew s ever sent o ut m issionaries in the C hristian sense of

    the term,92 tho ug h there is N T evidence as to their proselytizing It has

    been argued tha t far more gentiles were influenced by Jewish superstition th an

    by the true religious elements.94 One way or another, though, numerous

    persons were affected by Judaism, and it made inroads into all classes of

    society, including the very highest.95

    It is not surprising, then, that Greeks and Ro m an s took notice of Jews an d

    that they resented Jewish success in attracting converts. For a race and

    religion, alread y despised for its exclusiveness and real or alleged hatred of

    human ity, to attract a significant num ber of converts and sympathizers was a

    sure formu la fo r resentment, and especially so since the G raeco-R om an world

    looked do wn o n Jews as supersti t ious, credulous, od d, and lowly both in class

    an d in o rigin. F or a grou p of this type to pro pagan dize successfully offered a

    real threat to religion, country and family.96

    89Dio Cassius 57.18.5. Sma llwood ( Some Note s, 322 ) accep ts this view an d reasons tha t the

    Rom ans were unconcerned so long as onlyhumiliores were being converted, bu t that when the

    wealthy began to accept Juda ism, they saw it as a dange r. This, coupled with the famou s fraud

    (Josephus A n t . 18.3.5 $81-84), led to Tiberius' b anishm ent of the Jews.

    goHeinemann, Attitude, 385. Fo r Jewish claims regard ing proselytizing success, see, e.g.,

    Josephus

    J.

    W 2.20.2 $560; 7.3.3 $45. Cf. Dio Cassius 37.17.2.

    YILeipoldt,Antisemitismus, 14; Heine man n, Antise mitism us, 14-15; Guig nebe rt, Jewish

    W o r l d , 234.

    92K. H. Rengstorf,

    Apostel ld ,

    T NT 1 (1964) 418; Hein eman n, Attitude, 390.

    93Matt 23:15. But cf. D. Flusser, Pagan ism in Palestine , The Jewish People in the First

    Century

    2. 1095.

    94E. M ey er , Ursprung und Anfange de s Christenturns (3 vols.; Stut tga rt: Cotta'sche, 1923-35)

    2. 354.

    YSAugustine De c iv . D . 6.1 1. Popp aea Sabin a provides o ne example of a highly-placed Ro m an

    who was probably a Jewish semi-proselyte. Cf. Tacitus Hist. 1.22; Ann. 14.6. See Leipoldt,

    Antisemitismus, 14; S . Dill, Rom an Soc ietyfrom Nero to Marcus Aurelius (London : M acmillan,

    1904) 83.

    9hBaron, Social and Religious History, 1. 191.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    21/22

    64

    J O U R N A L O F B IB LIC AL L I T E R A T U R E

    R om an law d id n ot at m ost periods expressly forbid proselytizing, thou gh

    the pract ice was often at tended by a certain degree of danger, and the

    Hadrianic b an on circumcision was obviously an at te mp t a t curtai l ing i t . Th e

    proselyte was often in dang er of the charge of atheism , yet it would seem tha t

    the Ro ma ns were wil ling to com promise, al lowing all the freedom possible,

    while t ry ing to l imit the prac tice due t o pol it ical ~o ns ide ra t io ns .9~

    Modern studies sometimes provide hypotheses to explain the success of

    Jewish prop agan da in the face of general disparagement . Som e theories are

    tha t Jud ais m addre ssed the sense of s in, offering a rea l release;98 th at i ts claim

    of a divinely revealed religion provided the only safe anch orage for a world

    which had largely lost its ethical values;99 an d th at it offered a hop e of futu re

    glory.100 Interm arri age , a s alway s, played a par t in proselytizing , a n d it shou ld

    be no ted tha t t he Jew s ha d a definite set of scriptures, a resource lacking in

    con temp orary rel igions.

    VI Conclusion

    A caution must be observed in evaluating some of the evidence of anti-

    Semitism given above. Some of i t may be mere rhetoric, and thus less

    trustworthy as evidence. Co mm entin g on Cicero 's protest against the Jews in

    the

    Pro Flacco

    Radin says:

    These phrases show no special anim us. Just as Greeks are l iars ~f hey are on the other s ide.

    an d m en of ho no r on his o u n , as exhibi ted almost in successive paragraphs of this

    speech, so we may be sure if Cicer o ue re prosecuting Flaccus, a few eloqu ent periods

    would extol the character of those ancient allies and firm friends of Rome, the Jews. 'O1

    This is a valid ca ut ion an d i t may well app ly to auth ors o ther than Cicero, but

    in view of oth er considerations-the extrem e bitterness of ma ny references to

    Jews, the rar i ty of posi tive co mm ents, an d the fact that ent ire book s were

    written against the Jews lo2-it seems fair to con clu de th at anti-Sem itism

    was the norm. The frequency (and intensi ty) of the disparaging remarks

    justi fies the conclusion th at ant i -Semit ism was m or e deeply ingrained an d

    more widespread than many modern scholars al low. Anti-Semit ic remarks

    q7TheScriptores H istoriae Augustae (An tonin us Caracal la 1.6: Se\ , . 17.2) an d D io Cassius

    (67.14.1-2) provide evidence regarding the danger incurred by a proselyte in the later Empire.

    qX A. ausr ath, A H is ro rj of Vew Testament Times (4 vols .; Londo n: Will iams and Norgate,

    1895) 2. 153-54.

    YY . Kap lan, The Co ntribu tion of Jud ais m to Wo rld Ethics, The Jert,s: Their Histor?,

    Culture, a n d Religion (2 vols .; ed. Louis Finkelstein; Philadelphia: Jewish Publicat ion Society,

    1949)

    1

    687.

    l( ]Heinema nn, Att i tude, 388.

    Jert ,s Am on g G reeks a n d Rom ans, 232. Cf. Sevenster , R oots . 16.

    E.g. , Apollonius Mo lon, according to E usebius (Pra ep. Evang. 9.19): Damo cri tus,

    according to S ud a (Danzokri tos); an d possibly Apion, according t o Clement of Alexandria

    (Stro tn. 138.94-96). Clement 's claim that A pion compose d a w ork against the Jews is chal lenged

    by some, based o n the fact that Josephus mentions, instead of that w ork, a history of Egy pt (Ag.

    Ap. 2.2 89-10). See, Stern, Greek an d Latin Au thors ,

    1

    389.

  • 8/9/2019 Daniel - Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period

    22/22

    D A N I EL : A N T I- S EM I T IS M I N H E L L E N I S T I C - R O M A N P E R I O D

    range all the way from incidental mentions in the papyri to carefully

    composed statements in serious histories. It was not necessarily a virulent

    anti-Sem itism; certainly not except o n occasion) persecution, but rathe r an

    enduring contem pt, coupled with distrust.

    It was bolstered by a feeling th at Je ws were strange an d inferior. It was a

    protest against religious customs w hich seemed primitive and superstitious. It

    was a reaction against the apparent snobbery of a race which insisted on

    ma intaining its exclusiveness, especially in regard to the one G od . It was also a

    reaction against Jew ish success in converting othe rs to their strange religion.

    If it is true th at anti-Semitism was m ore severe th an usually realized, this is

    important for students of any phase of Hellenistic-Roman history. In

    particular, it provides a clearer background fo r the m any N T comments a bout

    Jew-gentile relations e.g., Acts 10:l-48; 11:l-26) a nd perhaps enables us to

    see more clearly why Pa ul interpreted the great mystery of Christ in terms of

    the bringing together of Jews and gentiles Ep h 3:4-6; cf. 2:ll-22 ). Anti-

    Semitism was a strong sentiment when Christianity began as a movement

    within Judaism , an d as such has im portant implications for the study of the

    early church.