Biblical studies is currently seeing resurgent interest in comparing the Hebrew Bible and ancient Greek literature. However, classical philosophy has been underrepresented in this work. This article argues that this underrepresentation stems from historical-critical scholars’ suspicion of “Athens and Jerusalem,” the essentialization of classical philosophy and the Hebrew Bible as, respectively, “reason” and “revelation”—the “twin pillars of Western civilization.” Such essentialism violates the historical-critical principle of cultural continuity. Wariness of it is therefore justified. However, avoiding classical philosophy only exacerbates the problem. If Greek literature is a legitimate historical-critical comparandum for the Hebrew Bible, then classical philosophy should be as well. Through case studies in the biblical prophets and Plato, this article shows how this comparison may contribute on two levels: first-order comparison, in which classical philosophy provides new data for understanding the Hebrew Bible in its ancient context; and second-order comparison, in which scholarship on classical philosophy raises metacritical questions about biblical studies itself.