1.4.1 Archaeology

Archaeology provides one of the most reliable and potent tools for discerning actual human behaviors in the past. There are, however, several severe limitations on the quantity and quality of the archaeological data available which might be sought to shed light on Judean cult and culture in the Early Hellenistic period.

Outside of Judea, it is practically impossible to identify archaeological material from the Early Hellenistic period as having been associated with Judeans – unless this material bears an inscription attesting to such a relation. Scholarship has yet to identify any uniquely Judean types of pottery, small finds, architecture, or iconography from this period of time. Outside of Judea proper, there are almost no Early Hellenistic levels at archaeological sites that have been compellingly identified as having been settled or otherwise used specifically by Judeans.

This leaves the immediate province of Judea as the only region where we can expect the uninscribed material remains to manifest specifically Judean cultural traits. But here as well, we encounter significant hurdles in identifying archaeological remains as having been associated with Judeans living in the Early Hellenistic period. The two primary challenges involve defining the geographical borders of Judea and overcoming critical stratigraphic problems that hinder our ability to date archaeological levels precisely to the Early Hellenistic period.

Precious little information about the boundaries of the province of Judea during the Early Hellenistic period is available from contemporary historical sources or material remains. Instead, scholars extrapolate about the borders of the province at the end of the Early Hellenistic period from clues found in 1 Maccabees, which identify locations along what seems to have served as a military frontier of sorts between the Maccabean rebels and the Seleucid forces sent to quell the rebellion (Lipschits Reference Lipschits2005: 146–49; Finkelstein Reference Finkelstein2018: 60–65). While this approach allows us to sketch a compelling map of the borders of the province around the end of the Early Hellenistic period (Figure 2), the boundaries of Judea at the beginning of the period are harder to establish and remain a matter of debate. Although some scholars believe that the borders remained essentially unchanged from the end of the Persian period until the end of the Early Hellenistic period (Lipschits Reference Lipschits2005: 146–49), others believe that the province at the start of the Early Hellenistic period was much smaller in area, and that settlement in Judea expanded after the end of the Persian period and before the rise of the Hasmonean state (Finkelstein Reference Finkelstein2018: 60–65).

Figure 2 Map of the borders of Judea at the end of the Early Hellenistic period.

(after Shalom et al. Reference Shalom, Gadot, Bocher, Machline and Shalev2021: 64, figure 5.1)

Figure 2Long description

The primary regions highlighted are Galilee in the north, Samaria in the central area, Judea to the south of Samaria, Idumea further south, and Transjordan to the east of the Jordan River. Several key cities and landmarks are marked with black dots. In Galilee, Akko slash Ptolemais and Beth She'an slash Scythopolis are shown, along with the Sea of Galilee. In the Samaria region, Mount Gerizim is indicated. Judea, outlined by a dashed line, features prominent cities such as Jerusalem (bolded as a major center), Bethel, Jericho, Ramat Rahel, Beth Zur, Azekah, Maresha, and Lachish. To the south of Judea, in Idumea, Arad is marked. East of the Dead Sea, in Transjordan, Irâq al-Amir is located, and En Gedi is shown near the western shore of the Dead Sea. A compass rose in the bottom left indicates North, and a scale bar below it shows 25 kilometers.

A more serious challenge is posed by the stratigraphic character of layers dating to the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods in the immediate region. The Southern Levant in general, and Judea in particular, lack significant destruction layers dating to the entire period between the early sixth century and the middle of the second century BCE (Shalom et al. Reference Shalom, Gadot, Bocher, Machline and Shalev2021: 63). Without such destruction layers, it is incredibly difficult to define and date stratigraphic phases within and across sites. This has resulted in an unfortunate situation where archaeologists have usually been forced to relate to the entire period following the Babylonian destruction of 586 BCE until the rise of the Hasmoneans in the mid second century BCE in an imprecise, generalized manner. Fortunately, excavations in recent years at sites such as Ramat Raḥel, Tel Azekah, Khirbet Qeiyafa, and Ramat Bet Shemesh, along with the recent publication of excavations at Lachish and Khirbet er-Rasm, have allowed archaeologists to begin to address this stratigraphic challenge and to assign higher-resolution subphases to the long “Persian/Early Hellenistic period” (Kreimerman and Sandhaus Reference Kreimerman, Sandhaus, Honigman, Nihan and Lipschits2021; Shalom et al. Reference Shalom, Gadot, Bocher, Machline and Shalev2021).

1.4.2 Numismatics

From the middle of the fourth century BCE until perhaps as late as 242 or 241 BCE, the province of Judea minted its own silver coins with unique Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions in paleo-Hebrew script, and with oftentimes unique graphic images and designs (Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille Reference Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille2023). Most of these coins bear a legend on one side with the name of the province: “Judea” (yəhūd). Some of the inscriptions also include the personal name and sometimes also title of Judean authorities – information critical for understanding the way the province was administered in the late Persian era and throughout much of the Early Hellenistic period. And the iconography chosen to stamp on these coins, presumably by Judeans but certainly for Judeans, is crucial for understanding important aspects of Judean cult and culture at this time. The main methodological hurdle involves the dating of these coins to more precise timeframes within the late Persian or Early Hellenistic era, although recent years have seen important advances on this front (see various studies collected in Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille Reference Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille2023).

1.4.3 Papyrology

Documents written on papyrus that mention Judeans provide significant information about important aspects of the Judean way of life during the Early Hellenistic period (Tcherikover Reference Tcherikover1957; Hacham and Ilan Reference Hacham and Ilan2020). One drawback of these documents is their extraordinarily limited distribution; because papyrus is an organic material (made from the pithy stalks of the papyrus plant), it is only in arid environments like Egypt and the Judean Desert where such documents have survived. Almost all the Early Hellenistic papyri written by or about Judeans were found in Egypt (Figure 3), and therefore their relevance for understanding Judean life outside of Egypt is somewhat limited. Another challenge with the use of the papyrological evidence is the problem of determining whether the document in fact mentions Judeans. Unless a person is explicitly identified as a “Judean” within the document, deciding that a document relates to one or more Judeans usually comes down to a decision that a personal name mentioned is a specifically Judean name. Names are usually identified as “Judean” either because they contain a Yahwistic theophoric element, or else because historical sources suggest that the name was used primarily by Judeans (Tcherikover Reference Tcherikover1957: xvii–xix). Such identifications may be problematic, however, as they often fail to consider that YHWH was revered among certain non-Judean groups (Samaritans being a prime, but not exclusive, example) and that nontheophoric names popular among Judeans may sometimes have been adopted also by non-Judeans.Footnote ³

Figure 3 Map of Egypt during the Early Ptolemaic period, indicating locations of Judean communities discussed in this Element.

(after Hacham and Ilan Reference Hacham and Ilan2020: 29)

Figure 3Long description

The map outlines ancient Egypt, highlighting the Nile River flowing north to the Mediterranean Sea. Lower Egypt features the Nile Delta with cities like Alexandria, Schedia, Tanis, Leontopolis, Fayum, Krokodilopolis or Arsinoe, Tebtynis, Trikosmia, and Herakleopolis. East of the Delta is the Sinai Peninsula, bordered by the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba, leading to the Red Sea. Upper Egypt includes Nile River cities such as Latopolis, Edfu, and Elephantine, plus El-Kanais. A compass and a 100-kilometre scale are provided.

1.4.4 Epigraphy

Like papyri, texts written on nonperishable materials often provide valuable information about Judeans and their culture during the Early Hellenistic period. This includes inscriptions carved into stone, writing with ink on pottery shards (called ostraca; singular: ostracon), and inscriptions carved into seals or stamped as seal impressions. Because these materials can survive outside of arid environments, epigraphic evidence is available from more of the regions where Judeans were living during the period under study: Judea (Cotton et al. Reference Cotton, Segni and Eck2010–12; Ameling et al. Reference Ameling, Cotton and Eck2018), Egypt (Tcherikover Reference Tcherikover1957; Horbury and Noy Reference Horbury and Noy1992; Hacham and Ilan Reference Hacham and Ilan2020), and to a limited degree in Greece and surrounding areas (Noy, Panayotov, and Bloedhorn Reference Noy, Panayotov and Bloedhorn2004). However, like papyri, it is often difficult to be sure whether an epigraphic inscription indeed mentions one or more Judeans unless the gentilic “Judean” is explicitly found.

1.4.5 Literary Sources

Another important source of information about Judean culture and cult during the Early Hellenistic period is literary texts penned by Judeans living at the time (Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 65–102). The following texts have been dated, with varying degrees of certainty, to the Early Hellenistic period: Tobit, Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), early sections of the so-called Enochic literature, the book of Giants, the Aramaic Levi Document, various compositions known only from Qumran, along with scattered texts (or textual strata) within the Hebrew Bible (see Lange Reference Lange2006; Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 81–84, 94–96, 98–100; Schmid Reference Schmid, Honigman, Nihan and Lipschits2021). The third century BCE is thought to mark the start of when Judean scribes began to produce Greek translations of biblical texts (the Septuagint), which may also be regarded as primary sources for the period (Lee Reference Lee1983; Dorival Reference Dorival, Dorival, Harl and Munnich1988: 55–58). Also often assigned to this time are fragments from the writings of Demetrius the Chronographer (commonly thought to date to the late third century BCE) and fragments from the writings of Ezekiel the Tragedian and of Artapanus, authors that some scholars also assign to around this time (see Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 85–86, 89–92). While these surviving texts almost certainly represent only a small fraction of the entirety of Judean literary output at this time (most of which has since been lost), they are valuable in providing indications about what at least some Judean literati were thinking and writing about during this period.

By definition, all the ancient literary texts mentioned here were the product of intellectuals capable of producing highly sophisticated literature. They are excellent sources for the historian engaged in investigating the history of ideas, but they present significant challenges for the scholar who seeks to explore sociocultural history on the level of a population at large. The fact that our ancient writers were not only literate but also eminently skilled in composing literature already sets them apart from the Judean masses, most of whom are commonly assumed to have been illiterate. While some of these authors may have been influential elites whose ideas and voices affected the societies within which they were embedded, for the most part we simply do not know if this was the case. It seems just as likely that in many if not most cases, the authors of these ancient texts were little more than fringe figures with limited influence on their surroundings, esoteric intellectuals moving along the outer edges of the societies within which they lived and penned their works. Not only were these ancient texts written by literati who were not of the masses, but they were also never written with the intention of providing empirical accounts about the behaviors of the masses. The authors of all these texts clearly had other goals in mind, and in fact their writings are for the most part indifferent to what the masses were or were not doing. Where a text does refer to behaviors of ordinary Judeans, great care must be exercised to distinguish between the real and the ideal. For the most part, the authors of most of these texts were ideologues harboring quite specific agendas, and their writings must be assessed with this basic fact in mind.

Non-Judean authors who mention Judeans (or who are alleged to have done so) include Theophrastus, Hecataeus of Abdera, Megasthenes, Clearchus of Soli, and Manetho (Stern Reference Stern1974). In all these cases, these mentions are found in textual fragments preserved only in later literary texts—which often raises questions as to their authenticity and accuracy. And like texts penned by Judeans, literary texts written by non-Judeans are never impartial reports of some objective reality. These are frequently polemical, and the degree to which the authors had genuine familiarity with Judeans of their time is often in question.

The copious writings of Flavius Josephus include narratives set in the Early Hellenistic period, along with citations from documents said to date from this time. As Josephus wrote his works at the end of the first century CE, however, this material can hardly be regarded as primary evidence for the period. Nevertheless, some useful information may still be gleaned from this material when analyzed carefully using critical historical methods (Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 74–75).

2.1.1 Governor

During the Persian period, the province of Judea (like Samaria and other neighboring provinces) was governed by a local governor called a “peḥâ” or “paḥwāʾ” in Aramaic. A letter on papyrus sent from the Judean community on Elephantine, dated to 407 BCE and preserved in two copies, was addressed directly to one such governor, named Bagohi (TAD, A4.7:1, A4.8:1). In this letter, the Elephantine Judeans requested that the governor of Judea intercede on behalf of the rebuilding of the Judean temple on Elephantine, which had been destroyed three years previously by Egyptian troops and priests. The letter concludes with a note claiming that a similar request had been sent also to “Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria” (TAD, A4.7:29, A4.8:28). Fortuitously, an undated memorandum recording the joint reply of Bagohi and Delaiah in support of the rebuilding of the temple has also survived (TAD, A4.9). Together, these documents provide valuable information about the power the Judean governor wielded well beyond the borders of the province itself, and the relationship this governor had fostered with at least one Judean community in the diaspora.

Probably from around the same time (the late sixth through early fourth centuries BCE), the title “governor” appears also on stamped jar handles found in Judea itself – some of which also bear the name of the province (“yǝhûd”) (Lipschits and Vanderhooft Reference Lipschits and Vanderhooft2011: 77–106, 192–201, 235–52). The stamped jars were likely used to collect taxes in the form of produce (wine and oil) for delivery to the provincial authorities, headed by the provincial governor (Lipschits and Vanderhooft Reference Lipschits and Vanderhooft2011: 758–64). It seems likely that at least some of these governors were themselves Judean, since at least two of the personal names bearing this title on these stamps are Hebrew – “ʾăḥîāv” and “yəhôʿezer” (YSI, types 1 and 7) – and the latter is clearly Yahwistic. Possibly also from around this time are two bullae (unprovenanced) with seal impressions mentioning “ʾelnātān the governor,” likely another Judean name (Avigad Reference Avigad1976: 5–7, 11–13). The sum of this epigraphic evidence suggests that there was likely some historical accuracy to the way that Hebrew Bible narratives set in Persian-era Judea depict a province largely governed on the local level by a Judean governor (“peḥâ”) appointed by Achaemenid royal authority (e.g., Hag 1–2; Neh 5:14; 12:26) (see Grabbe Reference Grabbe2004: 148–149).

One of the silver coin types bearing the name of the province of Judea also bears the name of its governor: “yǝḥizqiyyâ the governor” (happeḥâ) (YC, type 24) – clearly a Hebrew, Yahwistic name (Figure 4). Although originally dated to the late Persian period (Meshorer Reference Meshorer2001: 15–16), this coin is now thought to date to the period following the conquests of Alexander the Great, but before the start of Ptolemaic rule over Judea (Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille Reference Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille2023: 115–18). If this new dating is correct, it would suggest that the office of governor – still filled by a Judean – continued to hold authority over Judea for some time after the Macedonian conquests.

Figure 4 Silver coin bearing the Paleo-Hebrew legend “yǝḥizqiyyâ the governor (happeḥâ)” (YC, type 24); pre-Ptolemaic Macedonian period.

(Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem)

The legend on this coin appears to be the latest surviving evidence for the existence of any sort of provincial governor holding executive authority locally over Judea. The title (or one like it) does not appear on coins, stamped handles, in documentary papyri, or in literary texts written during or about the Ptolemaic period. Once we reach the Seleucid period, we encounter a certain Ptolemy son of Thraseas who served under Antiochus III as the “military governor (stratagòs [sic]) and high priest of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia” following the Seleucid king’s conquest of this region at the turn of the second century BCE (OGIS, no. 230). The province of “Coele-Syria and Phoenicia” encompassed a large area of the Levant that included the smaller region of Judea. A stone stele containing a dossier of ten correspondences between this Ptolemy and Antiochus was found near Kibbutz Heftziba, west of Beth Sheʾan (Heinrichs Reference Heinrichs2018). And Josephus quoted in full a letter he alleges was sent by Antiochus to this Ptolemy, commanding him with detailed instructions about the administration of Judea and the city of Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 12.138–44). None of these documents mention anything about a provincial governor of Judea who would have been subordinate to Ptolemy, which may suggest that no such office existed by this time.

Regardless of the ultimate fate of the governor’s office itself, it is important to point out that the practice of stamping jar handles for administrative purposes continued uninterrupted throughout the Early Hellenistic period and even into the beginning of the Late Hellenistic period (Lipschits and Vanderhooft Reference Lipschits and Vanderhooft2011). This phenomenon, whose roots may be traced as far back as the late eighth century BCE, reflects a strikingly conservative feature of Judean administrative traditions over the course of some six centuries that Judea was subjugated under the great empires of Assyria, Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia, followed by the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Kingdoms. It was only after the Hasmoneans reestablished Judean sovereignty that the system disappeared, signalling a stark break in the structures which administered Judea (Lipschits Reference Lipschits2021).

2.1.2 High Priest

In the Elephantine letter from 407 BCE cited previously, the writers mention that they had previously sent a petition on the same matter to both the governor of Judea and to “yəhôḥānān the high priest and his colleagues, the priests who are in Jerusalem” (TAD, A4.7:18; see also A4.8:17). As the high priest of Jerusalem was being petitioned to assist in the restoration of the Yahwistic temple at Elephantine, clearly the high priest at the end of the fifth century BCE was regarded as an authority who wielded some amount of power even beyond the province of Judea—at least with regard to matters of cult. And the fact that the earlier letter is said to have been addressed not only to the high priest but also to “his colleagues, the priests who are in Jerusalem” suggests that the high priest of the time was situated at the top of a hierarchy of priests, which as a body appears to have held an important position of authority. Further references to the high priesthood during the Persian period may be found in literary sources, primarily the Hebrew Bible and the works of Josephus, but it is difficult to extract historically accurate information from any of these texts (see Grabbe Reference Grabbe2004: 147–48, 230–34).

Among the silver coins minted in Judea is a type bearing the legend “yôḥānyâ the priest” (hakkôhēn) (YC, type 25), likely meaning the high priest (Figure 5). Although originally dated to the late Persian period (and the personal name misread as “yôḥānān”: Meshorer Reference Meshorer2001: 14), this coin is now thought to date to the period following the conquests of Alexander the Great, but before the beginning of Ptolemaic rule over Judea (Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille Reference Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille2023: 117). If this new dating is correct, it would suggest that the office of high priest continued to hold a position of authority for some time after the Macedonian conquests. And the fact that at this time coins were being minted under the auspices not only of the governor but also of the high priest suggests that the office entailed some amount of authority beyond the immediate sphere of the temple and its cult.

Figure 5 Silver coin bearing the Paleo-Hebrew legend “yôḥānyâ the priest (hakkôhēn)” (YC, type 25); pre-Ptolemaic Macedonian period.

(Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem)

No inscriptional evidence mentioning a high priest in Jerusalem has survived from the time of Ptolemaic or Seleucid rule over Judea, whether in documentary papyri, on coins, or on epigraphic remains. After a gap in the inscriptional record of around two hundred years, we once again find mention of a “high priest” on the coins of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 BCE) (TJC, Groups A–J). The only evidence we have for the high priesthood during the Ptolemaic and early Seleucid periods comes from literary sources, most of which were written many years after the time they purport to describe.Footnote ⁴ The account presented in the Letter of Aristeas, for example, is set during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 285–246 BCE) and features a high priest named Eleazar. Although presented as an eyewitness report, the story is almost unanimously regarded by scholars as a fiction written at least a century after the events it purports to describe (White, Keddie, and Flexsenhar Reference White, Keddie, Flexsenhar III, White and Keddie2018: 34–38). And in the writings of Josephus, especially in book 12 of his Antiquities, we find names and stories about several high priests who are said to have held office during the course of the Early Hellenistic era. But as Josephus wrote toward the end of the first century CE, this material too is highly problematic for extracting accurate historical information (see Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 225–29). The only text with an extensive depiction of a high priest and his responsibilities which may be dated with any degree of confidence to the period under discussion is Ben Sira 50:1–21, probably from the first quarter of the second century BCE. Here, the author gives praise to the high priest Simon, son of Onias, who is said to have engaged in repairing and fortifying the temple, constructing a reservoir, and fortifying the city of Jerusalem against siege. This text suggests that by the end of the Early Hellenistic period, it made sense for an author to depict the high priest holding significant authority outside the direct sphere of the temple cult, such as overseeing massive construction projects.

The basic autonomy of the Judean high priest from the oversight of the Seleucid authorities in the early second century BCE may be inferred from a royal inscription unearthed at Maresha and dated 178 BCE (CIIP, no. 3511) (Figure 6). In it is preserved an order sent by Seleucus IV to his chief official, Heliodorus, instructing him regarding the administration of the temples in the region of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia – which included Judea.Footnote ⁵ After noting the current state of affairs in which the region’s temples lacked direct oversight by the Seleucid authorities, Seleucus directs Heliodorus to appoint a certain Olympiodorus to fill this role: “as the affairs in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia are lacking someone in charge for their (i.e., the sanctuaries’) care, we observed that Olympiodorus will preside prudently over their orderly conduct” (CIIP, no. 3511:23–27). It seems reasonable to infer from here that the until this time, the priestly officials governing the region’s temples – including the high priest of the Jerusalem temple – would have enjoyed a substantial degree of independence from any meddling of Seleucid bureaucrats.Footnote ⁶ It seems plausible that such a state of affairs might have been in place already in the third century BCE, under the previous Ptolemaic regime.

Figure 6 Limestone stele from Maresha (in Idumea) containing order in Greek from Seleucus IV Philopator concerning Olympiodorus (CIIP, no. 3511); 178 BCE.

(Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Elie Posner)

In summary, while it does seem likely that the high priesthood remained an important office throughout the Early Hellenistic period, it remains difficult to characterize precisely what kind of authority a high priest during this time might have held. Whatever his powers were, ultimately the Judean high priest would have been subordinate to more powerful authorities within the Hellenistic imperial courts.

2.1.3 Governing Council

In the previously discussed papyrus from Elephantine, the writers mention a group of “Judean nobles” (“ḥōrê yəhûdāyēʾ) as the addressees of an earlier-sent petition alongside the governor of Judea, the high priest and his priestly colleagues – all of whom are appealed to as holders of power (TAD, A4.7:19; see also A4.8:18). Precisely how these noblemen might have played a role in the administration of Judea, and whether they served on some sort of formally convoked council, remains essentially unknown (Grabbe Reference Grabbe2004: 154–55; 234–35).

Meager but tantalizing evidence has survived for the possible existence of a council of elders governing in Judea during the Early Hellenistic period. As mentioned earlier, Josephus cited a letter allegedly sent by Antiochus III to his military governor, Ptolemy, following the Seleucid conquest of Judea. The letter opens with a description of the warm welcome the king and his army received upon his arrival in Jerusalem, including a formal reception by the city’s “council of elders” (tē̃s gerousías) (Josephus, Ant. 12:138). In return for this honor, the king granted this council exemptions from certain taxes (Josephus, Ant. 12:142). If scholarly consensus is correct in accepting Josephus’ text as an authentic and accurately cited document from the turn of the second century BCE (e.g., Bickerman Reference Bickerman and Tropper2007a; Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 324–26), we would have evidence for the existence of some sort of Judean council of elders governing locally in Jerusalem during late Ptolemaic and early Seleucid rule (Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 230–31).Footnote ⁷ How such a body might have been convened and what their powers would have included, however, remain essentially unknown (Bickerman Reference Bickerman and Tropper2007a: 319).

2.1.4 Native Legal System

In Ezra 7:12–26, we encounter an Aramaic text presented as an official letter given to Ezra the Scribe by a Persian king Artaxerxes, in which Ezra is instructed to appoint local “magistrates and judges” in Judea to enforce the laws of the Judean god upon all denizens of the province. As no primary evidence dating to the Persian period that might corroborate the biblical claims on the matter has survived, we cannot know whether at this time the province was truly governed according to native Judean laws adjudicated by local judges.

In a letter which Josephus alleges was sent by Antiochus III to Ptolemy his governor circa 200 BCE, the Seleucid king instructs: “All who belong to the people are to be governed in accordance with their ancestral laws [politeuésthōsan dè pántes hoi ek toũ éthnous katà toùs patríous nómous]” (Josephus, Ant. 12:142). E. Bickerman, who regarded this letter as authentic, described this document as the “Seleucid charter for Jerusalem” – an ordinance which reestablished the municipal statutes which had previously been in place under Ptolemaic rule, immediately prior to his conquest (Bickerman Reference Bickerman and Tropper2007a). If so, this would suggest that Judea was governed by its own system of laws by the late Ptolemaic period, and that this arrangement was continued under early Seleucid rule. (See Section 3.2.3, where we will explore whether the “ancestral laws” here should be identified with the Torah.)

3.1.1 Judea

An abundance of material evidence pointing to widespread observance of the Torah has survived from Hasmonean and Herodian period Judea. This includes over a thousand ritual immersion pools unearthed throughout the Southern Levant which were used to fulfill the bathing requirements mandated by the ritual purity rules of the Torah (Adler Reference Adler2022: 61–66, 82–83). Also attesting to widespread observance of the Torah’s purity laws is the widespread distribution of tableware and storage vessels fashioned from chalk, as stone came to be regarded as a raw material impervious to ritual impurity (Adler Reference Adler2022: 66–71, 83–84). Figural art depicting humans or animals was almost entirely absent from the artistic repertoire of Judea at the time, clearly in deference to a strict understanding of the “second commandment,” which proscribed the making of graven images (Adler Reference Adler2022: 92–101, 102–6). This is particularly striking in the coinage of these periods, as figural art – and especially portraits of the ruling authority – were ubiquitous on coins practically everywhere else throughout the Greco-Roman world. Widespread observance of the Torah’s dietary restrictions is supported by a lack of pig and scaleless fish bones in zooarchaeological assemblages from Judean settlement sites (Adler Reference Adler2022: 31–37, 43, 46). Among the discoveries in the Judean Desert caves from these periods are dozens of tefillin and mezuzot, ritual artifacts used to fulfill a literalist interpretation of verses in Exodus (13:9, 16) and Deuteronomy (6:8–9, 11:18, 20) (Adler Reference Adler2022: 118–26, 129–30). The ritual of taking four species on the festival of Sukkot (Lev 23:40) is depicted on coins (Adler Reference Adler2022: 159). And the Pentateuchal commandment to ceremonially light a seven-branched candelabrum in the sanctum is depicted in Judean art and on coins from this time (Adler Reference Adler2022: 164–65).

The entirety of this substantial body of evidence dates to the middle of the second century BCE and onward. Strikingly, no archaeological or inscriptional remains indicative of Torah observance are known from the Early Hellenistic period. While this lack of evidence is quite unambiguous, it should not be interpreted necessarily as evidence of absence. One might easily hypothesize that at this time, Judeans were observing the Torah in ways that left no imprint on the material record. Perhaps the ritual bathing mandated by the Torah took place without artificially constructed immersion pools, and perhaps the ritual purity regulations surrounding food were observed without depending on the convenience of stone vessels. It is easy to imagine that prior to the Hasmonean period, the “second commandment” was observed not through wholesale avoidance of figural art, but by avoiding the fashioning of cultic images worshiped as deities. As only a small quantity of zooarchaeological remains from Judea is dated with any precision to the Early Hellenistic period, we cannot draw any substantial conclusions from these finds about Judeans’ adherence to the dietary laws at this time. One can easily hypothesize that it was only in the Hasmonean period that literalist interpretations gave rise to the tefillin and mezuzot rituals, whereas in earlier periods, the relevant Pentateuchal instructions were observed in ways which left no material remains. And perhaps the ritual of the four species on Sukkot was observed and the seven-branched menorah was lit in the temple, without anyone feeling the need to depict these observances in coins or on other forms of artwork. Finally, a lack of finds indicative of Torah observance in the Early Hellenistic period may simply be a result of the general difficulty in dating archaeological levels to this timeframe, as noted in the introductory section (Section 1.4.1).

Having registered these important reservations about drawing undue conclusions on the basis of an absence of evidence, we will note here certain limited indications of negative evidence – data which suggests that certain Torah regulations were not being adhered to. In the following section (Section 4.2), we will examine evidence that suggests that at least some Judeans at this time paid reverence to deities other than YHWH – a phenomenon which is quite difficult to square with any reasonable interpretation of Torah observance. As we shall see there, intimations of this are found on circulating coins minted by a Judean governor and a Judean high priest, which suggests that the phenomenon was less than fringe. We might also mention here that the only published fish remains from an Early Hellenistic level in Judea includes some bones from scaleless fish. As the size of this assemblage (sixteen identified specimens, of which three are catfish) is very small, however, no significant conclusions should be drawn from these finds (Adler and Lernau Reference Adler and Lernau2021: 16n14).

3.1.2 Egypt

A somewhat enigmatic reference to the Sabbath appears among the Egyptian papyri, in a document thought to date to around the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the middle of the third century BCE (CPJ 1, no. 10). The papyrus contains an account of bricks received by the unnamed writer of the document, which were delivered to him by a certain Phileas, a certain Demetrios, and unknown persons from Tanis. The account provides the number of bricks delivered from the fifth to the eleventh of the Egyptian month of Epeiph (no year is cited), but on the seventh of the month – instead of writing a sum of bricks – the author of the account wrote only “Sábbata” (Sabbath). It seems that either the one who delivered the bricks, the one who received the bricks, or else the bricklayers for whom the bricks were intended took vacation from work on “Sabbaths.” Whether or not those involved (presumably Judeans) would have regarded work on the Sabbath to have been forbidden by dint of something like Torah law is difficult to know from this singular document. Several scholars have posited that originally – prior to the promulgation of the Pentateuch as Torah – the “Sabbath” was a monthly festival celebrated on the full moon, and not characterized by any specific prohibitions against work (Meinhold Reference Meinhold1909; Robinson Reference Robinson1988). It seems possible that the term “Sábbata” in our papyrus refers to just such a traditional Judean holiday, when Judean workers would have taken a break from their normal labors as others would have on their customary holidays. If so, this text should not be taken as an indication that Judeans necessarily knew and observed the Torah as early as the third century BCE.

Documentary papyri provide evidence that at least some Judeans at this time were not adhering to the Pentateuchal prohibition against charging of interest on a loan (Exod 22:24; Lev 25:35–37; Deut 23:20–21). A loan deed from Tebtynis (in the Fayum), dated to 228–221 BCE, records a loan between two individuals identified as Judeans, which bore interest at a rate of approximately 2 percent per month (CPJ 1, no. 20). Another loan contract, from Trikomia (also in the Fayum) and dated to 174 BCE, records a loan between two Judeans that also bore a 2 percent interest rate per month (CPJ 1, no. 24) (Figure 7). And from slightly later, a petition to the Judean árkhontes of Herakleopolis dated to 133 BCE tells of a loan between Judeans that bore an identical interest rate of 2 percent per month (CPJ 4, no. 564). This latter document is significant in that it suggests that the Judean petitioner had no qualms about bringing his petition before the official Judean body for adjudication, despite its wanton disregard for the Torah prohibition against interest (Hacham and Ilan Reference Hacham and Ilan2020: 111).Footnote ⁸

Figure 7 Papyrus from Trikomia (in the Fayum, Egypt) with loan contract in Greek recording an interest-bearing loan between two Judeans (CPJ 1, no. 24); 174 BCE.

(=P.Tebt. III.1 818. Photo: Courtesy of the Center for the Tebtunis Papyri, University of California, Berkeley)

3.2.1 Hecataeus of Abdera

Some scholars have argued that an alleged citation from Hecataeus of Abdera demonstrates that the Torah had come to be widely known and observed among ordinary Judeans by the turn of the third century BCE (e.g., Albertz Reference Albertz and Grabbe2001: 40–45; Grabbe Reference Grabbe and Watts2001b: 98–99). I will argue here that the text in question dates to a time significantly later than 300 BCE, and accordingly contributes nothing toward answering the question of widespread Torah observance at this early date.Footnote ⁹

Photius, the ninth-century CE Byzantine Patriarch of Constantinople, cited in his Bibliotheca (Cod. 244) a text we are told derives from a now lost book of the mid-first-century BCE author Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica 40.3). In this citation, Diodorus prefaces his report about Pompey’s war against the Judeans in the 60s BCE with a brief historical overview of “both the foundation of this nation from the beginning, and the customs [nómima] among them.”Footnote ¹⁰ Diodorus goes on to tell about how the Judeans originated as aliens living in Egypt, and after having been driven out of the country, went on to establish a colony in Judea and a city in Jerusalem under the leadership of Moses. This Moses is said to have “established the offices and rites for the divinity, codified and arranged the things relating to the constitution [tà katà tḕn politeían enomothétēsé te kaì diétaxe].… He established sacrifices and modes of conduct for everyday life [tàs katà tòn bíon agōgás] differing from those of other nations.” The priests, headed by a high priest, are said to have been entrusted with guardianship over this “constitution,” while the Judean masses are said to show complete obedience to the priestly interpretations of these laws. Diodorus concludes with the following remark: “But during the [foreign] rules that happened later, out of mingling with men of other nations—both under the hegemony of the Persians and of the Macedonians who overthrew this [hegemony]—many of the traditional customs of the Judeans [tō̃n patríōn toĩs Ioudaíois nomímōn] were distorted.”

Photius himself rejected this account presented by Diodorus as a distortion, adding that Diodorus falsely claimed that his knowledge about the Judeans was indebted to the work of Hecataeus of Miletus: “Using a cunning device as a refuge for himself, he attributes to another [author] the above said things, which are contrary to history. For he [i.e., Diodorus] adds: ‘As concerns the Judeans, this is what Hecataeus of Miletus relates about the Judeans.’” Today, most scholars reject Photius’s skepticism regarding Diodorus’s assertion that he had gleaned his knowledge about the Judeans from an earlier Hecataeus (e.g., Bar-Kochva Reference Bar-Kochva1996: 18–43; Reference Bar-Kochva2010: 90–135; Grabbe Reference Grabbe, Kottsieper, Schmitt and Wöhrle2008b; Collins Reference Collins, Brody, Hacham, Piotrkowski and Van Henten2024). However, not only do these scholars believe that Diodorus truly was informed by this earlier work – they have gone one step further in asserting that almost the entire citation from the work of Diodorus presented to us by Photius is actually a direct citation from Hecataeus! Additionally, most scholars have emended the word “Milḗsios” with “Abdērítēs,” arguing that Diodorus would have most likely meant Hecataeus of Abdera (ca. 300 BCE) rather than the earlier Hecataeus of Miletus (ca. 500 BCE) (Bar-Kochva Reference Bar-Kochva2010: 105–6n43).

Even if we were to assume that Diodorus had an authentic work of Hecataeus of Abdera from which he learned his information about the Judeans, there seems to be little reason to think that Diodorus’s account represents a direct citation from Hecataeus (Kratz Reference Kratz, Honigman, Nihan and Lipschits2021: 270–74; Adler Reference Adler2022: 209–11). Indeed, from what Photius tells us, Diodorus does not seem to have ever made any such claim. According to Photius, Diodorus simply informed his readers from whence he had gleaned his knowledge about Judeans. There seems to be little reason to assume that Diodorus would have been informed only from the alleged work of Hecataeus and not from any later sources of information. And certainly, there seems to be little reason to assume that Diodorus’ words comprise anything resembling a direct citation from Hecataeus. To the contrary, Diodorus is known to have regularly drawn from several sources, which he then mingled to produce his own historical constructions (Burton Reference Burton1972: 34; Berthelot Reference Berthelot2008: 5n19). Accordingly, we should regard what appears to be a description of widespread Torah observance among ordinary Judeans in Photius’ citation from Diodorus not as an account from the time of Hecataeus, but rather as a reflection of much later realities in the first century BCE.Footnote ¹¹

3.2.2 The Septuagint

The Letter of Aristeas tells a tale of how Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE) recruited a group of seventy-two Judean elders from Jerusalem, bringing them to Alexandria in order to translate the Judean law into Greek. While scholars today almost unanimously agree that this story is largely fictional, many regard an Alexandrian provenance and a third century BCE date as likely for the initial production of what we know of as the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch (Lee Reference Lee1983; Dorival Reference Dorival, Dorival, Harl and Munnich1988: 55–58).

Several speculative explanations have been proposed for why the initiative was taken to translate the Pentateuch into Greek in third-century BCE Alexandria (Dorival Reference Dorival, Dorival, Harl and Munnich1988: 66–78). Most scholars have rejected the explanation given in the Letter of Aristeas, according to which the initiative came from Ptolemy’s chief librarian, Demetrius of Phalerum, in order to help complete the royal library in Alexandria (Let. Aris. 9–11). Instead, some have argued that the initiative came from the Judean community of Alexandria, out of liturgical or educational needs of a community that was no longer proficient in Hebrew (Dorival Reference Dorival, Dorival, Harl and Munnich1988: 67–71). Others have argued that it was a state initiative, intended to provide a legal framework for the Judean communities living within the Ptolemaic realm (Dorival Reference Dorival, Dorival, Harl and Munnich1988: 72–73; Mélèze-Modrzejewski Reference Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Hecht, Jackson, Passamaneck, Piattelli and Rabello1996, Reference Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Cairns and Robinson2001).Footnote ¹²

All these explanations rest on the assumption that by the third century BCE, the Pentateuch was already regarded by the Judean community in Alexandria as in some way authoritative, and perhaps even served as the basis for structuring the community’s legal system. It is precisely this assumption, however, that we seek to interrogate here. Certainly, one might imagine an initiative to translate the Pentateuch for entirely scholastic reasons, without the text having already attained widespread acceptance as authoritative Torah. As noted previously, the Letter of Aristeas portrays just such a scenario, where the non-Judean librarian of the royal library in Alexandria initiated and commissioned the translation. Alternatively, one might imagine the initiative coming from Judean intellectuals. Regardless, the very fact that the Pentateuch had been translated into Greek cannot be taken as a necessary indication that by this time ordinary Judeans had already adopted the Pentateuch as the foundational text of a prescriptive and authoritative Torah law.

3.2.3 The Letters and Proclamation of Antiochus III

In the previous section (Section 2.1.3), I cited a letter Josephus alleges was sent by Antiochus III circa 200 BCE to his military governor, Ptolemy, commanding him with detailed instructions about the administration of Judea (Josephus, Ant. 12.138–144). In this letter, the Seleucid king is said to have instructed: “All who belong to the people are to be governed in accordance with their ancestral laws [politeuésthōsan dè pántes hoi ek toũ éthnous katà toùs patríous nómous]” (Josephus, Ant. 12:142). Although many scholars regard this letter as authentic (e.g., Bickerman Reference Bickerman and Tropper2007a; Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 324–26), and several assume that the “ancestral laws” here refer to the laws of the Torah specifically (e.g., Tcherikover Reference Tcherikover1957: 7, Reference Tcherikover1959: 83–84; Bickerman Reference Bickerman and Tropper2007a: 355), the text itself provides no details about the actual content of these laws. Judeans would have been in no way unique in having their own set of “ancestral laws,” and, as Elias Bickerman has noted, it was quite common in the Hellenistic world at this time for a conqueror to confirm a conquered city’s “ancestral laws” just as Antiochus is said to have done for the Judeans (Bickerman Reference Bickerman and Tropper2007a: 341; Kratz Reference Kratz2024: 60–72).

Also in the previous section (Section 2.2), I cited a separate document Josephus alleges was sent by Antiochus III to the governor of Lydia, in which the king ordered that two thousand Judean families transported from Babylonia to Phrygia are to be allowed to “use their own laws [nómois autoùs khrē̃sthai toĩs idíois]” (Josephus Ant. 12:150). Again, even if we were to accept this text as authentic, we would still not know if the laws of the Torah are necessarily what is referenced here.

A third document quoted by Josephus, a “proclamation” (prógramma) said to have been issued by Antiochus III, does provide some details about the Judean laws associated with the Jerusalem temple:

While scholars often read the ordinances cited here through the lens of later interpretations of Torah law (e.g., Bickerman Reference Bickerman and Tropper2007b; Orian Reference Orian2020; Rhyder Reference Rhyder2024), such readings are by no means obvious or even necessary. The Pentateuch itself does not preclude the entrance of non-Israelites into the sanctuary enclosure, nor does it prohibit bringing the flesh or skins of forbidden animals into the city (or surrounding camp) where the sanctum is located. It does not forbid breeding any such animals in the city (or surrounding camp), nor does it forbid the use of nonsacrificial animals or species deemed unacceptable for sacrifices. And while it is true that the species listed here would have been prohibited as food according to the criteria for quadrupeds in Lev 11:1–8 and Deut 14:3–8, the horse, mule, ass, leopard, and fox are hardly obvious choices to specify for one who had in mind these Pentateuchal rules. If not the Torah, then what might the author of this alleged “proclamation” have had in view when listing specifically these regulations? It would not be surprising if the Jerusalem temple had its own unique, traditional set of sacred ordinances regulating who and what was allowed into the central Judean sanctuary and its sacred city. Indeed, several scholars have pointed to parallels between the rules specified in this document and temple ordinances found elsewhere throughout the Hellenistic world (e.g., Bickerman Reference Bickerman and Tropper2007b; Rhyder Reference Rhyder2024). None of this would necessitate a widely recognized Mosaic Torah that had already come to govern the cult in and around the Jerusalem temple (Kratz Reference Kratz2024: 67).

3.2.4 The Wisdom of Joshua Ben Sira

The work known as the Wisdom of Joshua Ben Sira frequently refers to the concept of divine instruction or law, “tôrâ” (Greek: “nόmos”), and divine commandment, “miṣwâ” (Greek: “entolḗ”) (see Schnabel Reference Schnabel1985: 40–41). The original Hebrew version of the work is commonly dated sometime around the first quarter of the second century BCE, while its Greek translation – purportedly by the author’s own grandson – is thought to have been completed toward the end of the same century (Williams Reference Williams1994).

There has been some debate within scholarship over precisely what Ben Sira meant when he used these terms, as he provided very little details about the content of this “instruction,” “law,” or “commandment.” Although some scholars assume these terms to mean Mosaic legislation as found in the Pentateuch, others have argued that the author intended a more universal kind of natural law (see Wright Reference Wright, Schipper and Teeter2013: 157–59, n3–6).

Even if Pentateuchal law is meant, we must remember that Ben Sira was a highly educated intellectual, and accordingly was not representative of the broader Judean populace. The extent to which ordinary Judeans might have already been observing Torah law, if at all, is impossible to determine from the writings of Ben Sira on their own.

4.1.1 The Temple in Jerusalem

Precious little information has survived from the Early Hellenistic period that informs us about the Jerusalem temple and the cultic activities which took place there. As noted in Section 2.1.2, a letter sent from the Judean community in Elephantine in 407 BCE refers to a petition which had been sent to “yǝhôḥānān” the high priest and his colleagues, the priests who are in Jerusalem” (TAD, A4.7:18; see also A4.8:17), which suggests that at this time the high priest was situated at the apex of a hierarchy of priests, all of whom likely served as cultic officiants in a Jerusalem temple. There we also noted that a late-fourth-century BCE coin minted in Judea and which bears the legend “yôḥānyâ the priest” (hakkôhēn) (YC, type 25), likely refers to a high priest who served in what may have been a similar role at the start of the Early Hellenistic period (Figure 5). No other inscriptional or archaeological evidence relating directly to the Jerusalem temple, its cult or its priesthood, has survived from the Early Hellenistic period. Any surviving material remains of this temple are likely buried beneath the late-first-century BCE Temple Mount enclosure constructed by Herod the Great, and hence are currently inaccessible to archaeological examination.

Most of the literary sources which refer to the Jerusalem temple and its cult during the Ptolemaic and early Seleucid periods were written many years after the time they claim to portray (e.g., the alleged citation from Hecataeus of Abdera, discussed in Section 3.2.1, the Letter of Aristeas, and the writings of Flavius Josephus). Portrayals of the temple and its priestly cult in Ben Sira, probably from the first quarter of the second century BCE, provide mostly generic descriptions of a temple cult. In Sir 50:11–21, the author poetically describes the officiation of the high priest, Simon son of Onias, upon an altar situated in the courtyard of the temple (Hebrew: ʿezrat mīqdāš). Clothed in priestly attire, and standing by the multiple arrays of firewood on the altar, Simon is described as receiving sacrificial portions (nətāḥîm) from the hands of his priestly brethren, “the sons of Aaron.” These sacrificial rites are said to take place “before all the assembly of Israel.”Footnote ¹⁴ After the altar service is completed, the priests sound metal trumpets, and all the people bow to the ground to the sound of song and with prayer “before the merciful one.” The high priest then descends from the altar, raises his hands, and blesses the people with “the blessing of YHWH,” in response to which the assembled people bow down a second time.

While it seems likely that the priests of the Jerusalem temple would have followed a cultic system that, as in other cults, would have included both communal and private offerings (animal sacrifices, meal offerings, libations, and incense burning) along with other assorted rites conducted according to a specific cultic calendar, the precise details of this system remain essentially unknown. The Pentateuch prescribes a detailed scheme of sacrifices and other cultic rites to be followed in the desert Tabernacle and later in “the place YHWH will choose” (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, ff.), and this system was eventually adopted as Torah law. However, as we have seen in Section 3 with regard to Pentateuchal legislation as a whole, it is essentially unknown whether the cultic system outlined in the Pentateuch was regarded as authoritative already during the Early Hellenistic period, and whether it was put into practice by the Jerusalem priesthood any time prior to the Hasmonean ascent to power in the middle of the second century BCE.

4.1.2 Yahwistic Cultic Sites Elsewhere in the Southern Levant

The instruction that all cultic offerings be made exclusively in “the place that YHWH will choose” is repeated several times throughout Deuteronomy (12:5, 11, 14; 14:23–25; 15:20; 16:2, 6–7, 11; 17:8–10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11). Although it appears that these prescriptions were meant to centralize the cult at a single temple in Jerusalem, there is some evidence for the existence of YHWH temples located outside of Jerusalem during the Early Hellenistic period. As we shall presently see, such temples would have been located outside the boundaries of Judea itself, and accordingly may well have been established by Yahwists who themselves did not identify as Judeans. Nevertheless, we should not discount the possibility that self-identifying Judeans may have sometimes visited these sacred sites to offer sacrifices or to perform other cultic rites.

Excavations conducted by Yitzhak Magen between 1983 and 2003 on the summit of Mount Gerizim uncovered the remains of a large compound identified as a sacred precinct (Magen Reference Magen, Lipschits, Knoppers and Albertz2007). Magen identified at the site two stratigraphic phases: an early phase, which he dated to the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods (mid fifth century to early second century BCE), and a late phase, dated from the time of Antiochus III to around 110 BCE when the site was destroyed by John Hyrcanus I (Magen Reference Magen, Lipschits, Knoppers and Albertz2007: 158–60).Footnote ¹⁵ Several hundred inscriptions in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek on stones memorialize the names of worshipers and priests who offered sacrifices at the site (Magen, Misgav and Tsfania Reference Magen, Misgav and Tsfania2004). The excavators dated most of these inscriptions, on paleographic grounds, to the third and second centuries BCE, but noted that “some may belong to the earliest period of the sacred precinct (fifth–fourth centuries BCE)” (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania Reference Magen, Misgav and Tsfania2004: 14). The fact that many of the personal names contain Yahwistic theophoric elements, that one Hebrew inscription mentions YHWH (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania Reference Magen, Misgav and Tsfania2004: 254 [no. 383]), that another Hebrew inscription on a silver ring reads “YHWH ʾeḥād” (“the one YHWH”) (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania Reference Magen, Misgav and Tsfania2004: 260–61 [no. 391]), and that a Greek inscription reads “to the God Most High” (Theō̃i Hupsístōi) (Magen Reference Magen2008: 156) all point to YHWH as the divinity worshiped at this sanctuary. As the site is located deep within the territory of Samaria, it seems likely that the temple’s priests and worshipers would have come primarily from the region and therefore probably would not have identified as Judeans. Nevertheless, we should not discount the possibility that Judean pilgrims might have also been attracted to a YHWH temple in neighboring Samaria (Barnea Reference Barnea2024: 12). Indeed, Gad Barnea has suggested that a fragmentary inscription which preserves the word “[y]hwd” (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania Reference Magen, Misgav and Tsfania2004: 81 [no. 43]) may represent just such a person from Judea (yǝhûd) who brought an offering at Gerizim.Footnote ¹⁶

Among the corpus of Aramaic ostraca acquired on the antiquity market is one which mentions a YHWH shrine, which may have been functioning in Idumea during the late Persian or Early Hellenistic period (Yardeni Reference Yardeni2016: 114). Although unprovenanced, the ostraca in this corpus are thought to derive from Khirbet el-Kom (ca. thirteen kilometers west of Hebron) and are dated to the fourth century BCE. In describing a parcel of land, the ostracon mentions a “ḥyb°lʾ zî bêt YHW,” which has been interpreted variously as “the ruin/precinct/region of the house of YHW” (Yardeni Reference Yardeni2016: 114; Zadok Reference Zadok, Maeir, Berlejung, Eshel and Oshima2021: 180). If “precinct” or “region” is accepted rather than “ruin,” it would suggest the existence of a functioning Yahwistic temple or shrine during the fourth century BCE, perhaps at Khirbet el-Kom itself (Becking Reference Becking2008). Although such a temple would most likely have been used by local Idumeans, as at Gerizim we should not discount the prospect of Judeans visiting and offering sacrifices at the site.Footnote ¹⁷

At Lachish, located in what was likely Idumean territory, excavations unearthed a cultic structure containing an altar which, although originally dated to the Persian period, was later dated by Yohanan Aharoni to the Hellenistic period (Aharoni Reference Aharoni1968; Reference Aharoni1975; see also Tal Reference Tal2006: 69). Because of the similarity of its plan to the Iron Age temple in Arad, Aharoni suggested that the structure was built by Judeans as a “traditional Israelite shrine” dedicated to the worship of YHWH (Aharoni Reference Aharoni1968: 161–64, Reference Aharoni1975: 11).Footnote ¹⁸ Considering that the Lachish shrine was built several centuries after the Arad temple was destroyed, however, the ostensible resemblance of the two structures fails to provide sufficient grounds to extrapolate that this was a YHWH shrine or that it was used by Judeans.Footnote ¹⁹

4.1.3 Yahwistic Cultic Sites in Egypt

As noted on several occasions previously, a Judean temple at Elephantine dedicated to the cult of YHWH (locally known as YHW) was in existence until its destruction in 410 BCE. While we know that the local community sought to rebuild this temple soon after it had been razed, it is unclear if they succeeded in their efforts. The last documents from the Judeans of Elephantine date to around 399 BCE, and it remains unknown what happened to the community after this time. The fact that a Judean YHWH temple existed at Elephantine until as late as 410 BCE raises the question if similar temples might have existed elsewhere in Egypt in the subsequent centuries.

Sylvie Honigman has argued that in fact a Judean YHWH temple like the one at Elephantine likely existed in Edfu during the Early Hellenistic period, as a third century BCE Aramaic papyrus from this community (TAD, C3.28 [=CPJ 4, no. 525]) mentions two or three Judean priests (Honigman Reference Honigman, Levine and Schwartz2009: 121–23). According to Honigman, the term “priest” (kāhănāʾ) appended to the personal names of these individuals appears to represent their occupation – rather than simply an abstract title signifying priestly lineage – and therefore we may presume that they conducted ritual service in a temple. Building on this hypothesis, Barnea has speculated that the Judean community of Edfu may have originated from a migration of the Elephantine community itself after it became clear that their temple would not be rebuilt (Barnea Reference Barnea2021: 182–83).

While the notion of a third-century BCE YHWH temple at Edfu remains somewhat speculative, dedicatory inscriptions on limestone plaques from this same period testify to the existence of a Judean institution called a “(place of) prayer” (proseukhḗ). The two earliest of these inscriptions (JIGRE, nos. 22 and 117) state that the dedication was accomplished “on behalf of” (hupèr) a King Ptolemy and Queen Berenice, commonly identified as Ptolemy III Euergetes and Berenice II Euergetis, coregents from 246 to 221 BCE (Figure 8).Footnote ²⁰ Very similar inscriptions, with the identical loyalty formula of dedication “on behalf of” the king or royal family, were common in contemporary temples in both Egypt and other Hellenistic kingdoms (Fraser Reference Fraser1972: 116). Other, somewhat later Ptolemaic-era inscriptions suggest that Judean “(places of) prayer” were located in purpose-built structures, which at least sometimes had a “gateway” (pulṓn) and an adjacent “exedra” (JIGRE, nos. 24 and 28). One inscription of unknown origin purports to replace an earlier plaque upon which a “King Ptolemy Euergetes” (i.e., either Ptolemy III, who reigned 246–221 BCE, or Ptolemy VIII, who reigned 145–116 BCE) is said to have granted to the proseukhḗ the right of asylum (ásulon) – a privilege usually granted to temples (JIGRE, nos. 125).Footnote ²¹ And finally, a papyrus dated on paleographic grounds to the third century BCE mentions contributions to a “proseu[khḗ]” by a list of named individuals presumed to be Judeans (CPJ 4, no. 619). Unfortunately, these and other such inscriptions provide precious little information to help otherwise understand the form or function of this institution, and no buildings associated with any of these inscriptions have been identified to date. While the name of the institution suggests that its central purpose was to serve as a communal site for offering prayers, we should probably not discount the possibility that proseukhḗ compounds may have also served as sites for the performance of other cultic activities, like burning incense and offering vegetable and animal sacrifices. Indeed, Anders Runesson has argued that the Early Hellenistic proseukhaí in Egypt were for all intents and purposes Judean temples dedicated to the cult of YHWH (Runesson 2001: 429–36).

Figure 8 Stone plaque from Schedia (near Alexandria, Egypt) with Greek inscription dedicating a Judean “(place of) prayer” (proseukhḗ) (JIGRE, no. 22); 246–221 BCE.

(Drawing: Yuliya Shmidov; after JIGRE, plate IX)

4.2.1 Athena Motifs on Judean Coins

Coins minted by the Judean authorities in Jerusalem during the late Persian period and into the Early Hellenistic period include motifs clearly linked to Athena. From the Persian period are at least six coin types (YC, types 3–8) that display on the obverse the helmeted head of Athena and on the reverse the owl famously associated with the Greek goddess.Footnote ²² As these coin types are visibly imitations of already widely circulating Athenian prototypes, however, many scholars have downplayed the significance of these images as having lost any “religious” meaning among those who minted and used the coins (Meshorer Reference Meshorer2001: 7; Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille Reference Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille2023: 161).

Five coin types dated to the first three decades following the conquests of Alexander the Great (YC, types 24–28) display on the obverse a facing head framed by a dotted border and on the reverse the owl of Athena. Haim Gitler, Catharine Lorber, and Jean-Philippe Fontanille (Reference Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille2023: 178) have provided the most recent and compelling interpretation of the image on the obverse, explaining that it depicts an oval shield ornamented with a gorgoneion. According to these scholars, the pairing of the shield with the gorgoneion device on the obverse and the owl on the reverse suggests that the gorgoneion represents the aegis of Athena and symbolizes her protective power as a war goddess. These scholars rightly note that, unlike the Persian-era coins, which simply imitate prototypes from Athens, these Early Hellenistic coins represent a novel composition of Athena motifs completely unique to these Judean coins (Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille Reference Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille2023: 178–79). With this in mind, it is quite remarkable that on the reverses of two of these types, directly next to the owl of Athena, appear the names and titles of two Judean authorities: “yǝḥizqiyyâ the governor” (happeḥâ) (on YC, type 24) (Figure 4) and “yôḥānyâ the priest” (hakkôhēn) (on YC, type 25) (Figure 5). Not only are both names Yahwistic, the latter almost certainly held the office of high priest in the Jerusalem temple of YHWH. How are we to reconcile the employment of motifs associated with a deity other than YHWH by Judean authorities, one of whom was the high priest of Jerusalem?

A simplistic answer would be to assume that any association with Athena symbolism was either unknown to the Judean minting authorities, or else ignored by them as unimportant. There are good reasons, however, to consider the very real possibility that use of these images was not an oversight, but rather reflects a common Judean acknowledgement – if not outright veneration – of the warrior goddess. The Greek Athena was identified among easterners with the West Semitic goddess Anat (Louden Reference Louden2006: 240–85; Bianco and Bonnet Reference Bianco and Bonnet2016). At Elephantine, one undated document tells of an oath taken by one Judean to another in the name of “Ḥ[erem?] the [god] in/by the place of prostration [bəmisgādāʾ] and by Anathyahu [ûvaʿănātYHW]” (TAD, B7.3:3). While the precise meaning of the name Anathyahu is not at all self-evident, a plausible interpretation is that it means “Anat of YHW” and refers to the Semitic goddess Anat as the female consort of YHW (Granerød Reference Granerød2016: 250–52). Another document, usually dated to either 419 or 400 BCE, contains a lengthy accounting of the names of individual members of “the garrison of the Judeans” who “gave silver to YHW the god [zî yəhav kəsaf ləYHW ʾĕlāhāʾ],” after which it is noted that the entire sum was divided among three deities: YHW, Eshembethel, and Anathbethel (TAD, C3.15). Again, while the meaning of Anathbethel is not obvious, a likely explanation is that it refers to Anat as the female consort of the deity Bethel (Granerød Reference Granerød2016: 256). These documents clearly demonstrate that toward the end of the fifth century BCE, Yahwist Judeans at Elephantine regarded Anat as a deity by whom one might swear an oath and to whom one might donate silver. Is it at all farfetched, then, to interpret the images of Athena on the mid to late fourth-century BCE coins minted in Jerusalem as a reflection of Judean Yahwists’ view of Anat/Athena as a deity to be recognized, if not revered, alongside the primary cult of YHWH?Footnote ²³ If this interpretation is correct, it is significant that these were circulating coins minted by both a Judean governor and a Judean high priest, which suggests that the phenomenon was less than fringe.

4.2.2 Inscriptions in Temples of Greek Deities

An inscription unearthed at Oropos (in East Attica, Greece) in the Amphiareion, a sanctuary dedicated to the cultic worship of the divine hero Amphiaraus, presents what is perhaps the most direct indication of a person self-identifying as a “Judean” who paid homage to deities other than YHWH (Figure 9). Dated on paleographic grounds to the first half of the third century BCE, the inscription is a manumission stele which declares the freedom of a certain Judean named Moschus, son of Moschion. Following a statement on the terms of the manumission and the names of five witnesses to the act, the inscription proceeds to inform its readers that Moschus erected the stele himself following a divine vision: “Moschus (son) of Moschion, a Judean (Ioudaĩos), (set this up), having seen a dream with the god Amphiaraus and Hygeia commanding (him), in accordance with what Amphiaraus and Hygeia ordered, to write it on a stele and set it up by the altar” (IJO 1, Ach45:11–15). Immediately after self-identifying as a Judean, Moschus proceeds without pause to describe his obedience to the instructions of “the god” Amphiaraus and the goddess Hygeia, as he claims to have received in a dream, in writing the stele and setting it up by the altar of the Amphiareion. The editors of IJO have suggested that perhaps Moschus regarded Amphiaraus and Hygeia “as angelic or magical powers rather than deities” (Noy, Panayotov, and Bloedhorn Reference Noy, Panayotov and Bloedhorn2004: 179), but this seems to be little more than a case of special pleading.

Figure 9 Stone stele from Oropos (in East Attica, Greece) with Greek inscription describing how a Judean named Moschus son of Moschion paid homage to the Greek deities Amphiaraus and Hygeia (IJO 1, Ach45); first half of the third century BCE.

(Photo: Mitsos Reference Mitsos1952: 195)

Two votive inscriptions presented by individuals directly identifying as “Judeans,” along with another two inscriptions by individuals with names thought to be Judean, were found at the temple of Pan at El-Kanais (in the desert east of Edfu, Egypt) (JIGRE, nos. 121–24). Here, too, apologetic explanations have been offered to explain the presence of Judeans in a temple to a Greek deity (see Horbury and Noy Reference Horbury and Noy1992: 207–9), but these remain unconvincing. All four inscriptions were hesitantly dated, on the basis of paleography, to the second or first centuries BCE. If this dating is correct, it would suggest that at least some Judeans may have continued to venerate deities other than YHWH well into the Hellenistic period.

4.2.3 Letter Sent by Toubias

A letter sent by a certain Toubias, who appears to have been a Judean aristocrat living east of the Jordan, to a Ptolemaic official in Egypt and dated 257 BCE, opens with the following greeting: “If you and all your affairs are flourishing, and everything else is as you wish it, many thanks to the gods (pollḕ kháris toĩs theoĩs)!” (CPJ 1, no. 4) (Figure 10). While the reference to a plurality of “gods” here is striking, the fact that Toubias held a unique socio-economic position prevents us from assuming that such an attitude might have been especially prevalent within Judean society at large.

Figure 10 Fragment of papyrus letter sent by Toubias to a Ptolemaic official, opening with the Greek formula “many thanks to the gods” (CPJ 1, no. 4); 257 BCE.

(Photo: From the British Library Collection: Papyrus 2684)

4.2.4 The Judean Onomasticon

Judeans with personal names bearing theophoric elements associated with deities other than YHWH are well documented within the Early Hellenistic epigraphic record. A search for such names within the Judean onomasticon in the western diaspora collected by Tal Ilan (Reference Ilan2008) produces the following names from the third century BCE – all from Egypt: Apollodorus and Apollonius (referring to the Greek god Apollo); Artemidorus (referring to the Greek goddess Artemis); Aphroditus (referring to the Greek goddess Aphrodite); Demetrius (referring to the Greek goddess Demeter); Diodotus, Diocles, and Diophantus (referring to the Greek god Zeus); Dionysius (referring to the Greek god Dionysus); Eutychas (referring to the Greek goddess Tyche); Hermias (referring to the Greek god Hermes); Heracleia and Heracleides (referring to the Greek divine hero Heracles); Isidorus (referring to the Egyptian goddess Isis); and Zenodora and Zenon (referring, again, to Zeus). A similar search within the Judean onomasticon in the Southern Levant also collected by Ilan (Reference Ilan2002) produces no such names from the Early Hellenistic period (although many names of this sort do appear there in later periods; see Ilan Reference Ilan2002: 10–11).Footnote ²⁴

While these observations may be suggestive of a certain willingness among Judean parents in Egypt, but not in Judea, to memorialize non-Yahwistic deities in the names of their children, some qualifications are in order. On the one hand, several of the names listed above belong to individuals whose identification as Judeans is uncertain. On the other hand, it seems quite likely that the epigraphic record includes an untold number of Judeans with names bearing theophoric elements of deities other than YHWH, but who have never been identified as Judeans because indications of their Judean identity have not survived. Considering these caveats, we should exercise caution before attempting to reach conclusions about the prevalence of such naming patterns in either Judea or the diaspora.

Even if we were to assume that our list of names was largely representative, we ought exercise caution in interpreting this data. Although it does seem quite possible that all these names continued to maintain their divine associations, it is hard to be sure of this. Many Judeans may have simply shared in the naming trends of the larger cultural milieus within which they were embedded without paying too much attention to the original “religious” meanings of the names (Tcherikover Reference Tcherikover1957: 29).

4.2.5 The Ptolemaic Royal Family in Egyptian Proseukhḗ Inscriptions

Above, we saw in that in two inscriptions from Egypt dated to the second half of the third century BCE, the local Judean community dedicated a “(place of) prayer” (proseukhḗ) in honor of the Ptolemaic king and queen (JIGRE, nos. 22 and 117) (Figure 8). More precisely, the dedications were said to have been made “on behalf of” (hupèr) the royal couple, which, as we have seen, was a formula of loyalty common in dedicatory inscriptions from contemporary temples (Fraser Reference Fraser1972: 116). Unlike temple inscriptions, however, the Judean proseukhḗ inscriptions omit the term “god (theós)” when describing the Ptolemaic monarchs. It seems likely that this was a deliberate omission, meant to avoid ascribing divinity to the royal figures (Fraser Reference Fraser1972: 282–83). Accordingly, it may suggest a more general avoidance of recognizing deities other than YHWH among members of the Judean communities represented by these inscriptions, at least within the context of the proseukhḗ itself.

5.1.1 Judea

Although some earlier studies have argued that the Greek language made significant inroads in Judea as early as the third century BCE (Hengel Reference Hengel1974: 1.58–65; Barr Reference Barr, Davies and Finkelstein1989: 102), the current state of the evidence does not appear to bear this assessment. To the contrary, the albeit patchy numismatic and epigraphic record from Early Hellenistic Judea suggests the continued use of Aramaic and Hebrew, with hardly any employment of Greek.

Twenty-seven coin types are identified as having been minted in Judea during the early years of Macedonian rule and under the first Ptolemaic kings (YC, types 18–44). On almost all these types, the legend (either the personal name and title of the minting authority or the name of the province) is written exclusively in Hebrew, in Paleo-Hebrew script (YC, types 18–19, 24–26, 30–37, 39, 41, 43–44). The few exceptions include one apparently pre-Ptolemaic type displaying a blundered Greek legend that appears to include fragments from the word “basiléōs” (“of the king”) and “hiereús” (“priest”) (YC, type 27). Another pre-Ptolemaic type displays various unintelligible pseudo-Greek inscriptions (YC, type 28). The blundered Greek on these two early types suggests that the Judean die engravers who designed them were essentially illiterate in Greek (Fontanille and Lorber Reference Fontanille and Lorber2008: 48). On only one exceptionally rare Ptolemaic type (only two examples are known), a clear Greek inscription featuring the letters “BA” – probably an abbreviation of the Greek royal title “basileús” (“king”) – appears directly adjacent to the Paleo-Hebrew legend “yǝhūdâ” (“Judea”) (YC, type 42) (Figure 11). This is among the latest of the Judean coins with Paleo-Hebrew legends, thought to have been minted around the middle of the third century BCE, perhaps even as late as 242/1 BCE; after this, the Judean mint went out of service (Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille Reference Gitler, Lorber and Fontanille2023: 121–24). The continued minting of coins with Hebrew legends until almost a century after the conquests of Alexander the Great suggests that by this time Greek had yet to make any significant inroads among the general populace of Judea.

Figure 11 Silver coin from Judea; obverse: image of Ptolemy II Philadelphus; reverse: eagle with Paleo-Hebrew legend “yǝhūdâ” (“Judea”) and the Greek letters “BA” (“basileús”; “king”) (YC, type 42); after 261/0 BCE.

(Photo: from the collection of Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn, Zurich, Switzerland)

Similar conclusions may be drawn from the hundreds of stamp impressions found on Judean storage jar handles during this time (see above, Section 2.1.1), all of which are in Aramaic or Hebrew. Stamping jar handles appears to have been a well-established bureaucratic means to control the local system of collecting, distributing, and taxing oil and wine produced in Judea (Lipschits and Vanderhooft Reference Lipschits and Vanderhooft2011). During the fourth and third centuries BCE, the stamps displayed the name of the province “yǝhūd” in Paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic script, either as the three letters “y-h-d” or else in abbreviated form as “y-h” (Lipschits and Vanderhooft Reference Lipschits and Vanderhooft2011: 253–592). Greek legends never appear on any of these administrative stamps, suggesting a lack of Greek proficiency among Judeans involved in this aspect of the local bureaucracy.

Relatively few ostraca unearthed in Judea proper have been dated to the Early Hellenistic period, but those which have are written in either Aramaic or Hebrew (e.g., Rosenbaum and Seger Reference Rosenbaum and Seger1986; CIIP, nos. 613–15, 625, 629–30), even if these can sometimes include Greek loanwords (Cross Reference Cross1981) (Figure 12).Footnote ²⁵ A papyrus from a cave near Jericho (Jericho papList of Loans ar [Jer 1]) with a list of Judean names and tentatively assigned a late-fourth-century BCE date is similarly written in Aramaic (Eshel and Misgav Reference Eshel, Misgav, Charlesworth, Cohen, Cotton, VanderKam and Brady2000). To date, no Greek inscriptions dating to the Early Hellenistic period have a clear provenance in Judea.Footnote ²⁶

Figure 12 Ostracon from Jerusalem (ca. fifty meters south of the western Hulda gate of the Temple Mount) in Aramaic but with Greek loanwords (CIIP, no. 615); late fourth or early third century BCE.

(Photo: courtesy of the IAA, by Miki Koren)

It seems likely that members of the Judean elite who were heavily invested in the bureaucracy of the Hellenistic kingdoms ruling Judea would have had to have learned at least some Greek in order to facilitate communication. Such a phenomenon may be reflected in two Greek papyri dated 257 BCE and sent to Ptolemaic authorities in Egypt by a certain Toubias, who appears to have been a Judean aristocrat living east of the Jordan, just outside of Judea proper (CPJ 1, nos. 4–5). Of course, we do not know to what degree such elite Judeans might have gained proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing Greek themselves, and to what extent they may have relied on personal translators and secretaries.

5.1.2 Egypt

Aramaic was the primary language used by Judeans living in Egypt during the Persian period, as is evidenced by the large assemblage of papyri and ostraca from Elephantine and elsewhere. Greek eventually replaced Aramaic as the written and spoken language of Egypt’s Judeans, but it remains to be seen when and how quickly this linguistic shift occurred. Whereas earlier studies assumed a rather rapid rejection of Aramaic in favor of Greek beginning as early as the third century BCE (e.g., Hengel Reference Hengel1974: 1.58–65; Barr Reference Barr, Davies and Finkelstein1989: 102), the data provided by the epigraphic record available today paint a more complex picture.

Several Aramaic texts from Egypt which include the names of Judeans have been assigned dates in the Early Hellenistic period (third century or sometimes even early second century BCE), usually on the basis of paleography and/or the additional presence of Greek names (written in Aramaic script). These include sixteen ostraca, four of which were uncovered in excavations at Edfu (TAD, D8.6 [=CPJ 4, no. 533]; D8.13 [=CPJ 4, no. 522]; D9.15 [=CPJ 4, no. 539]; D11.26 [=CPJ 4, no. 540]) and the remainder of which were acquired on the antiquities market but are also thought to have derived from Edfu (TAD, D7.55–57 [=CPJ 4, nos. 527–529]; D8.3–5 [=CPJ 4, nos. 530–532]; D8.7–11 [=CPJ 4, nos. 534–538]; CPJ 4, no. 523). Two of these ostraca include exact dates, corresponding to 253 BCE (CPJ 4, no. 523) and 252 BCE (TAD, D8.13 [=CPJ 4, no. 522]). Three Aramaic epitaphs with Judean names unearthed in the El-Ibrahimiya necropolis of Alexandria have been dated to the “early Ptolemaic” period on the basis of paleography, as well as archaeological remains from elsewhere in the cemetery (JIGRE, nos. 3–5 [=TAD, D.21.4–6]). Nine Aramaic epitaphs containing Judean names from the old cemetery at Edfu have been dated paleographically to the late third or early second centuries BCE (TAD, D21.7–15 [=CPJ 4, “JIGRE,” nos. 157–65]), as has one from Hagir Esna (Latopolis) (TAD, D21.16 [=CPJ 4, “JIGRE,” no. 166]). Two Aramaic papyri containing the names of Judeans are thought to derive from Edfu, and have been dated paleographically to the third century BCE (TAD, C3.28 [=CPJ 4, no. 525]; D1.17 [=CPJ 4, no. 526]). Whether or not any of these documents or inscriptions were written by Judeans themselves (as seems likely), at the very least they suggest that various communities of Judeans in Egypt continued to live in Aramaic milieus well into the third century BCE, and perhaps even later.Footnote ²⁷

A significant number of Greek epigraphic and papyrological finds from Early Hellenistic Egypt mention Judeans and/or include names that have been identified as uniquely Judean. These include seven ostraca (CPJ 1, nos. 96–97; 112–13; 119; CPJ 4, nos. 524; 553), unprovenanced but mostly thought to derive from Upper Egypt. Three Greek epitaphs unearthed in the El-Ibrahimiya necropolis of Alexandria near the clearly Judean ones mentioned above contain names that may be Judean (JIGRE, nos. 6–8). Another Greek epitaph unearthed in the Hadra necropolis of Alexandria also displays a name that may be Judean (JIGRE no. 10). As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the Greek inscriptions on stone with the clearest association to Judeans are two dedicatory inscriptions which refer to a Judean “(place of) prayer” (proseukhḗ); one is from Schedia and the other is from Krokodilopolis-Arsinoe, and both are dated 246–221 BCE (JIGRE, nos. 22; 117). The largest group of Early Hellenistic-period Greek texts which refer to Judeans and/or that contain Judean names consists of seventy-two papyri from various sites throughout Egypt (CPJ 1, nos. 1–23; 33–40; 125–31; CPJ 4, nos. 554; 578; 585–95; 597–602; 607; 619). While only a small number of these texts are likely to have been written by Judeans themselves, the sum of this evidence suggests that by the third century BCE, several Judean communities in Egypt were already interacting directly, to one degree or another, with a Greek-speaking environment.

It is no simple task to interpret these epigraphic and papyrological data to draw general conclusions about the spread of Greek among Judean communities in Early Hellenistic Egypt. Whereas Aramaic is represented somewhat more frequently on the ostraca and stone inscriptions associated with Judeans, Greek dominates as the primary language used in the papyri. This may suggest, as Victor Tcherikover has argued, that Aramaic remained the spoken language of Judeans at the same time that Greek supplanted Aramaic as the language of commerce used in drawing up transactional documents (Tcherikover Reference Tcherikover1957: 30). It seems reasonable to conjecture that Greek proficiency would have been more important for the Judean elites involved with the Ptolemaic administration and with commercial interactions outside of the Judean community, and less for the remainder of the Judean masses who could probably continue to get by without learning much Greek. Another important variable is the findspots of the different inscriptions; whereas most of the Aramaic texts were (or appear to have been) unearthed in Edfu, the Greek texts derive from sites throughout Egypt. Sylvie Honigman has argued that regional differences play an important role in explaining the diverse cultural responses of various Judean communities throughout Hellenistic Egypt, including language (Honigman Reference Honigman, Levine and Schwartz2009). It seems likely that the shift from Aramaic to Greek did not occur among all the Judean communities of Egypt at the same time or at the same rate, with some retaining Aramaic significantly later than others.Footnote ²⁸

5.1.3 Elsewhere in the Hellenistic World

A dearth of Early Hellenistic epigraphic remains associated with Judeans from anywhere outside of Judea and Egypt precludes any substantive discussion about the spread of Greek among Judean communities elsewhere in the Hellenistic world. Susan Sherwin-White (Reference Sherwin-White, Kuhrt and Sherwin-White1987: 24) has described how Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Achaemenid Empire, continued to be used for public inscriptions, administrative and legal records, and official communications in Babylonia and elsewhere in the Hellenistic east under the Seleucids. It is not unreasonable to conjecture that Aramaic continued to be used by most Judean communities in the east as well, even if some of their more elite members may have learned a certain amount of Greek to enable interactions with the Seleucid administration and perhaps also to facilitate interregional trade.

5.2.1 Judea

The Judean onomasticon from the Southern Levant compiled by Tal Ilan (Reference Ilan2002) contains the names of forty-eight individuals recorded in Early Hellenistic inscriptions on papyri, ostraca and coins. All of these names are either Hebrew or Aramaic, with the exception of two Greek names borne by slaves: Eudomus and Ocimon (Ilan Reference Ilan2002: 278, 313; both are recorded in CPJ 1, no. 4). The only reason these two are identified as possibly Judean, however, is due to the fact that the slaves are said to be circumcised, and, as Tcherikover has already noted, male circumcision was practiced at this time by many of the peoples in the region (Tcherikover Reference Tcherikover1957: 127). Removing these names from the list leads to the conclusion that no inscriptional evidence has survived which might indicate the use of Greek personal names in Judea anytime during the century and a half after the conquests of Alexander the Great.

5.2.2 Egypt

In stark contrast to the situation in Judea, in Egypt Greek names appear to have proliferated among Judeans as early as the third century BCE. The Judean onomasticon from the western diaspora compiled by Ilan (Reference Ilan2008) contains 355 male names identified as belonging to Judeans in Early Hellenistic Egypt: 58 percent are Hebrew (or otherwise Semitic), 35 percent are Greek, and the remainder mostly Egyptian.Footnote ²⁹ Of the 41 female names identified as belonging to Judeans, 63 percent are Hebrew (or otherwise Semitic), 27 percent are Greek, and the remainder mostly Egyptian. As Tcherikover (Reference Tcherikover1957: 28) and Ilan (Reference Ilan2008: 3) have noted, however, Hebrew names are probably overrepresented in this onomasticon because often they are the sole marker of an individual’s Judean identity – whereas other indicators are necessary to identify as Judean an individual bearing a Greek name. It seems likely, therefore, that Greek names were even more popular than the statistics above would imply. It is important to note, however, that Hebrew and Greek names continued to live side by side within families, such that a father might have a Hebrew name and his son a Greek name, or vice versa, and one spouse might have a Hebrew name and the other a Greek.

Honigman has noted that the adoption of Greek names among Judeans was more pronounced in some regions of Egypt than in others (Honigman Reference Honigman, Levine and Schwartz2009). Specifically, she noted a tendency within communities in Upper Egypt to continue to use Hebrew and Aramaic names that had been prevalent during the Persian period, well into the third and even second centuries BCE. As with the adoption of the Greek language, it seems likely that the adoption of Greek names did not occur among all the Judean communities of Egypt at the same time or at the same rate.

5.2.3 Elsewhere in the Hellenistic World

Outside of Judea and Egypt, the number of individuals identified as Judeans in inscriptions is far too small to draw any conclusions about naming conventions.

5.3.1 Pottery

In antiquity, pottery represented one of the most ubiquitous components of any given social group’s material culture. Choices between different ceramic forms reflect not only aesthetic preferences, but also the varying ways that food was prepared, served, and consumed. The appearance of new ceramic forms, therefore, often reveals the adoption of novel cuisines and modes of dining.

Beginning in the Persian period and well into the Early Hellenistic period, trading ties with Athens led to the importation of Attic pottery at sites throughout the Southern Levant. The distribution pattern of these Hellenic imports into the region was uneven, however, as they are far more common at urban centers such as ʿAkko/Ptolemais, Dor, Samaria, and Maresha, and rare in rural areas like Judea (Rosenthal-Heginbottom Reference Rosenthal-Heginbottom and Gitin2015: 673).

Soon after the Macedonian conquests, potters in the north and along the coast began to produce local forms of dining, drinking, serving, and cooking vessels closely resembling Attic imports (Figure 13). In the central highlands, however, potters continued throughout the third century BCE to produce forms which largely resembled the local, Persian-era ceramic repertoire. It was only in the early second century BCE that Greek-styled pottery began to be produced in the region of Samaria, and it was not until the end of this century or the beginning of the next that these forms began to be produced in Judea (Berlin Reference Berlin and Gitin2015: 629).

Figure 13 Ceramic bowls (1–10, 13–18), fish plates (11–12), skyphoi (19–20), kantharoi (21–22), and an open vessel/lid (23) from ʿAkko/Ptolemais; third century BCE.

(from: Smithline Reference Smithline2013: 75, Fig. 5. Courtesy of the IAA)

Worthy of particular attention is the casserole, a vessel with a wide mouth and body, and with a rounded bottom designed for stewing meat, fish, and vegetables (Figure 14). Andrea Berlin has argued compellingly that the novel appearance of casseroles at Levantine sites represents the adoption of a new, particularly Greek-styled cuisine centered on stewed dishes (Berlin Reference Berlin1993: 41–42). Elsewhere, she has noted that casseroles began to appear in the late third century BCE “everywhere” throughout the Southern Levant except for in Judea, where the form begins to appear only in the early first century BCE (Berlin Reference Berlin and Gitin2015: 636). This differential distribution of casseroles may suggest that Judeans were quite late in adopting Greek-styled cooking practices compared with other Levantine groups.

Figure 14 Ceramic casserole from Tel Anafa, used for preparation of Greek-styled cuisine; Late Hellenistic but typical from the late third century BCE.

(Photo: courtesy of Sharon Herbert, Kedesh excavations)

5.3.2 Architectural Decorative Elements

Ancient Greek architecture famously emphasized decorative elements classified according to the three classical architectural orders: Doric, Ionian, and Corinthian. While these decorative elements were widely incorporated in the design of temples, gateways, colonnades (stoas), and other public buildings and monuments, their vocabulary also influenced the architecture and interior designs of more private structures like high-status homes and tombs. Archaeological remains of these elements primarily consist of bases, shafts, and capitals of columns and antae, various components of entablatures (architraves, friezes, and cornices), as well as pediment and roof decorations. Usually, even quite fragmentary remains can be identified as belonging to Greek-styled architectural decorations, and these can oftentimes be dated stylistically (even when found outside a stratigraphic context).

One of the earliest sites in the Southern Levant to boast Greek-style architectural decoration (albeit mixed with eastern elements) is at ʿIrāq al-Amīr in the Transjordan, in the early-to-mid-second century BCE Qasr al-ʿAbd structure commonly identified as belonging to the Judean Tobiad family (Dentzer-Feydy Reference Dentzer-Feydy, Will and Larché1991) (Figure 15). In a detailed survey of architectural decoration in Cisjordan during the Hellenistic period, Moshe Fischer and Oren Tal argued that the middle of the second century BCE marks the beginning of when such elements begin to appear in the region (Fischer and Tal Reference Fischer and Tal2003). They found this to be true not only of Judea, but also of non-Judean sites like Beth Sheʾan/Scythopolis, Samaria, Gerizim, and Maresha. A more recent assessment by Orit Peleg-Barkat added meager new finds from Dor and Maresha dating to the third century BCE, but still nothing in Judea (Peleg-Barkat Reference Peleg-Barkat, Lichtenberger and Raja2017). It seems that the absorption of Greek-styled architectural decoration into South Levantine architectural conventions was a slow process which only began to take root in earnest in the second and first centuries BCE.

Figure 15 Reconstructed west side of the Qasr al-ʿAbd structure (at ʿIrāq al-Amīr in the Transjordan) showing cornice decorated with Greek-style dentils, surmounted by an eastern-style lion sculpture; early to mid second century BCE.

(Photo: Yonatan Adler)

6.1.1 Citation by Early Hellenistic Authors

Familiarity with heroes of the Hebrew Bible and with some of the stories associated with them is evident in several Judean literary texts whose composition many scholars date to the Early Hellenistic period. The most well-dated of these is the Wisdom of Joshua Ben Sira, which was probably first composed sometime around the first quarter of the second century BCE (Williams Reference Williams1994). Its author referred to such Biblical figures as Adam (Sir 49:16), Seth (Sir 49:16), Enosh (Sir 49:16), Enoch (Sir 44:16; 49:14), Noah (Sir 44:17–18), Shem (Sir 49:16), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Sir 44:19–23), Joseph (49:15), Moses (Sir 24:23; 44:23–45:1–6, 15; 46:1, 7), Aaron (Sir 36:17; 45:6–22, 25), Phinehas (Sir 45:23–26), Joshua (Sir 46:1–6), Caleb (Sir 46:7–10), Samuel (Sir 46:13–20), Nathan (Sir 47:1), David (Sir 45:25; 47:1–11, 22; 48:15, 22; 49:4), Solomon (Sir 47:12–23), Rehoboam and Jeroboam (Sir 47:23–25), Elijah (Sir 48:1–12), Elisha (Sir 48:12–14), Hezekiah (Sir 48:17–22; 49:4), Isaiah (Sir 48:20–25), Josiah (Sir 49:1–4), Jeremiah (Sir 49:6–7), Ezekiel (Sir 49:8), Job (Sir 49:9), “the Twelve Prophets” (Sir 49:10), Zerubbabel and Jeshua, son of Jozadak (Sir 49:11–12), and Nehemiah (Sir 49:13).

Among other Judean works that many scholars date to the Early Hellenistic period and that betray a certain familiarity with biblical texts, we may mention Tobit, early sections of the so-called Enochic literature, the book of Giants, and the Aramaic Levi Document (see Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 81–84, 94–96, 98–100) along with several works found at Qumran (Lange Reference Lange2006). Acquaintance with biblical figures and stories is also apparent in surviving fragments from the Greek writings of Demetrius the Chronographer, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Artapanus (see Grabbe Reference Grabbe2008a: 84–86, 89–92). In this category, we should also consider texts (or textual strata) in the Hebrew Bible itself which some scholars date to the Early Hellenistic period and that reflect knowledge of earlier material from elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see Schmid Reference Schmid, Honigman, Nihan and Lipschits2021). Finally, if we accept that the initial production of the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch took place during the third century BCE as is commonly thought (Lee Reference Lee1983; Dorival Reference Dorival, Dorival, Harl and Munnich1988: 55–58), it goes without saying that its translators were in possession of this biblical compilation, at the very least.

To what extent can such textual references teach us about widespread familiarity with the biblical texts themselves or with oral traditions associated with material incorporated in the Hebrew Bible? We must recall that producers of literature like the Early Hellenistic sources cited above were hardly representative of the general population within which these authors lived and worked. These were clearly highly literate individuals, capable of creating sophisticated literary works. The fact that they sometimes made use of biblical texts or traditions is certainly important for understanding what occupied the interests of Judean literati of the age. But it remains an open question how relevant such literary uses might be for understanding how much the Judean masses knew about these biblical texts or traditions.

6.1.2 Early Hellenistic Period Biblical Manuscripts

The earliest surviving manuscripts of texts which later came to be incorporated into the Hebrew Bible were discovered in the caves surrounding Qumran. The official publications of these texts usually included a paleographic analysis that assigned a date range for each manuscript (for bibliographic references, see Webster Reference Webster and Tov2002: 371, 378–79).Footnote ³⁰ The earliest paleographic dates, ranging from the middle of the third century until the first quarter of the second century BCE, were assigned to fragments from five scrolls representing the following biblical books: Exodus (4Q15), Exodus-Leviticus (4Q417), Deuteronomy (4Q46), Samuel (4Q52), and Jeremiah (4Q70). Another three scrolls were assigned paleographic dates between the late third century until 150 BCE: manuscripts of Genesis (6Q1), Leviticus (6Q2), and Job (4Q101). Five more scrolls were assigned a paleographic date range between 200 and 150 BCE: manuscripts of Leviticus (4Q249 j), of Deuteronomy in Hebrew (5Q1) and Greek (4Q122), and of Jeremiah (4Q71 and 4Q72a). None of these dates should be regarded as certain, however, as Frank Moore Cross has noted with regard to the paleographic dating of scripts thought to predate the Hasmonean era: “The dating of documents in the Archaic or proto-Jewish period (ca. 250–150 BC) is less precise, still being largely based on typological sequence” (Cross Reference Cross and Wright1961: 135).

Approximately thirty of the Dead Sea Scrolls were subjected to radiocarbon dating in the 1990s. Among the few biblical texts in this small group, none provided results suggesting that they were likely to have been produced during the Early Hellenistic period (for an overview and updated calibration dates, see Doudna Reference Doudna, Flint and VanderKam1998).

A more recent study subjected an additional thirty Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts to radiocarbon dating, and then used these texts to train an artificial intelligence-based data-prediction model to paleographically date similar scripts found on other Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts (Popović et al. Reference Popović, Dhali, Schomaker, van der Plicht, Rasmussen, Nasa, Degano, Colombini and Tigchelaar2024). Among the Biblical scrolls assigned radiocarbon dates, manuscripts of Samuel (4Q52) and Jeremiah (4Q70) were found with a high degree of confidence (95 percent) to date to the third or perhaps even fourth century BCE (as noted above, both of these scrolls had been assigned Early Hellenistic-period paleographic dates as well). A Deuteronomy manuscript (4Q30) was radiocarbon dated to the mid fourth to early second century BCE with the same likelihood.Footnote ³¹ The study’s artificial intelligence model predicted a 300 to 240 BCE date for an Ecclesiastes manuscript (4Q109).

Assuming that some of the biblical manuscripts from the Qumran caves were indeed penned during the Early Hellenistic period, the question remains what the existence of such manuscripts at Qumran has to teach us about the likelihood that these compositions were widely known among the general populace. The Qumran assemblage appears to have been owned and used by a unique group of pietist sectarians who flourished during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. If members of this group were not representative of their own contemporaries, the same may have been true of those who bequeathed to them these early manuscripts.

6.1.3 Names of Biblical Heroes in the Judean Onomasticon

A survey of Judean names preserved in the rather extensive epigraphic record from the Early Hellenistic period in both Judea and the diaspora indicates that very few names used by Judeans at the time coincided with names of heroes from the biblical tradition (Ilan Reference Ilan2002, Reference Ilan2008).Footnote ³² Within a surviving set of 412 male names, only one individual bears the name Abraham (in Hebrew as ʾavrām), another individual is named Jacob (in Greek as Iakkóbios), two are named Judah, and one is named Aaron, (in Greek as Árōn). Names of central figures like Isaac, Moses, Joshua, and David are not represented at all. Figures who are far less central to the biblical tradition, like Simon, Joseph, and Jonathan, do appear somewhat more frequently within this Judean onomasticon – especially in Egypt – but this fact hardly necessitates that the Biblical tradition was already circulating widely at this time.Footnote ³³ Within a surviving set of forty-three female names, central female characters from the Hebrew Bible are represented only by Sarah (twice) and Miriam (three times).

It is important to note here that even in subsequent centuries, during the Late Hellenistic period and well into the Roman era, names of biblical heroes remain uncommon in the Judean onomasticon (Ilan Reference Ilan2002: 5–6). Although it seems quite likely that during these later periods the central protagonists of the biblical tradition were already well known among Judeans at large, even then the convention of naming children after these figures had apparently yet to take root. With this in mind, we should probably not read too much into the dearth of names of biblical heroes among Judeans in the Early Hellenistic period either.