Download The Effect of Hellenistic Culture on Jewish Life

Exploring Theology and Culture -J1
The Effect of Hellenistic Culture
on Jewish Life
Walter B. Russell
The Development and Spread
of Hellenistic Culture
is the word that was used beginning in the nineteenth
century to describe the Greek culture of the period from
Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BC to the final collapse of the Greek empire in 30 BC, when Cleopatra’s
Egypt was conquered by Rome.
F
rom Chapter 3 we saw that Israel would now
struggle as a people during the times of the
Gentiles. But little did she know how much she
was going to struggle to maintain her identity as a people.
Implied in the insinuation of her culture and social values,
how could Israel possibly succeed in the face of wave
after wave of Gentile overlords? How could she be a
light among the nations if the very wick of her lamp was
constantly threatened with being snuffed out by those
nations? How could she be a nation of priests, as Yahweh
said to Moses in Exodus 19, if she no longer existed as a
nation? How could Israel survive the most powerful phenomenon ever to hit the Mediterranean world: the rise
of Alexander the Great and Hellenistic culture in 333 to
323 BC? These are some of the questions that we want to
answer in this chapter as we seek to investigate the effect
of the rise of this amazing and overpowering culture of
Hellenism on the little Jewish state of Israel.
While the Greek, or Hellenistic, Empire disappeared
from the map when the Romans gained political and
military supremacy, Hellenistic culture, nonetheless,
was adopted by Rome and continued to be the dominant culture throughout the history of the Roman
Empire. Therefore, the primary culture Christianity
encountered in the first five centuries was essentially
Greek. Hellenism, then, was really not just a factor
during the time between the Old and New Testaments, which we call the intertestamental period, but
it was also a significant factor culturally in the first five
centuries of the church.
The word Hellenization means the historical process
of uniting and conforming the diverse cultures of the
Mediterranean area within Alexander’s empire, including the Middle East, to the basic pattern of what is
Greek culture. Alexander and his successors, and their
fellow Greeks, were very proud of their culture. They
wanted to export it, and they wanted others to conform to it.
Definitions of “Hellenism”
and “Hellenization”
Perhaps we should begin with some definitions of Hellenism and Hellenization. They come from the Greek
verb hellenizo (ελληνιζω) which means to speak Greek or
make Greek, or in a more extended sense to act in a Greek
way. The words do not occur in the New Testament, but
we see a form from this root in some of the intertestamental writings (for example, in 2 Maccabees 4:13). The
term is an ancient one and was used in the Mediterranean world, but was popularized really in the nineteenth
century by German scholars. The term Hellenism itself
The previous period in Greek history is called the great
Classical Age of Greek culture. It extended from about
600 BC to 323 BC, and was really the high point in
Greek thought and Greek culture. In the area of philosophy, for example, this was the period of Socrates, Plato
and Aristotle. In fact, when he was a youth, Alexander
the Great was tutored by none other than the great
philosopher Aristotle. (This shows the impact that a
Used with permission.
Reprinted from Intertestamental and New Testament Periods from a Missiological Perspective, by Walter B. Russell (study resources prepared for classes in biblical studies as taught by Walter Russell, Ph.D., at Talbot Seminary, Biola University), Chapter 4.
469
Exploring Theology and Culture -J2
470 The Effect of Hellenistic Culture on Jewish Life
good teacher can have on a life!) Pride in Greek culture
was, in part, what fueled the conquests of Alexander and
those who followed him, which spread and energized
Hellenism and the Hellenization process.
The Three Major Characteristics of
Hellenistic Culture
There were three major characteristics of Hellenistic
culture, and they have had an impact to this very day,
some twenty-three centuries later. The first was cosmopolitanism. This word comes from the Greek word
kosmos (kosmoV), which means “world” or “order.”
The Hellenistic world that Alexander brought about
through his conquests was, in fact, a world that introduced a new emphasis on one’s being a citizen of a
larger cosmos or world order, not just of his narrower
people group. This new emphasis the people in the
Mediterranean world had never before experienced.
After Alexander’s conquests they were united as one
people as never before, not only by a common government (Rome was going to do that later), but also by
a common law and the common language of Koiné
Greek. So there was increasingly a common culture
from as far as northern Greece and Macedonia, where
Alexander came from, all the way eastward to the Indus
River in western India. People could trade more easily,
travel more widely, converse in a common language, and
exchange ideas as never before. There was a cultivation
of cosmopolitanism; that is, people became citizens of
the world, not just of their narrower people group. This
was a rather remarkable characteristic of that age.
Secondly, the Hellenistic world was characterized by
a growing sense of individualism. This was not new on
the stage of history, but never before was it emphasized
to such degree. With the loss of clear people groups
as political entities, there was less emphasis on the
community to which one belonged, such as his ethnic
group or city-state, as had existed in Greece.
The local groups were emphasized in earlier Greek
writing, such as the political writings of Plato and
Aristotle. They had emphasized the city-state and the
individual’s subordination to it. There was not great
emphasis on patriotism or nationalism because these
were not relevant topics in that setting.
With the growth of cosmopolitan thinking in Hellenistic culture, people thought of themselves increasingly in terms of relating to this larger unit, to a world
order. They thus identified less with their local group,
and instead thought of themselves as Greeks. However,
the massive size of the Greek Empire added impetus to
people’s seeing themselves as individuals. This was because the empire itself was so huge that it became more
and more difficult for them to have the kind of identity
they would have had if they had been only Egyptians,
Syrians, Asians, or Jews. The massive size of the empire
and the cosmopolitan emphasis, then, actually encouraged the focus on individualism, so that people thought
of themselves less as, for instance, Egyptians or Syrians
than ever before. This also led to an individualism in
religion, which was encouraged by the very inclusive
nature of the Greek religions of this period.
This points us to the third characteristic of the Hellenistic world. In addition to being cosmopolitan and
very individualistic in emphasis, there was an enormous emphasis on syncretism. Syncretism means “the
combining or the mixing together of diverse elements.”
The Hellenistic world was called “the age of syncretism par excellence” by J. Gresham Machen, one of
the great scholars of the New Testament earlier in this
century. During this period there were almost endless
combinations of both philosophies and religions. For
example, one of the first Hellenistic rulers, Ptolemy I
of Egypt, brought about a remarkable combination between Greek religion and some of the native Egyptian
religions, particularly those having to do with the sun
god and the mystery religions extant at that time. We
have seen the same thing in parts of Latin America
where Christianity has been introduced, and apparently the same thing is happening in parts of Africa and
Asia right now, a syncretism of the introduced religion
and the indigenous ones.
These three major characteristics of the Hellenistic world,
then, really stand out and separate it from other periods:
cosmopolitanism, individualism, and syncretism.
Tools or Means
of Spreading Hellenistic Culture
The tools or means of spreading Hellenistic culture are
also interesting to observe because Alexander was so
amazingly successful in the short time he had personally
to spread it. The primary means was that of language.
The language was not what we would call Greek in its
classical form but rather “common” or Koiné Greek. The
spreading of this common language became a bridge
into all the various cultures which Alexander and those
Exploring Theology and Culture -J3
who would follow him would encounter. Picture, if
you will, two sides separated by a chasm, and a bridge
between the two masses. The bridge between them is
the common language, Koiné Greek. You now have a
picture of how this language worked in the Hellenistic
world. It was the establishing of a bridge.
The First Wave. On the first wave of Greek thought
crossing the bridge of Koiné Greek were some of the
practical and seemingly innocuous things that would
interest conquered people. For instance, they would
want to learn about Greek military methods, since they
had been conquered by an amazing military machine.
Additionally, since new forms of government were to
be set up, they would want to learn about Greek civic
ideas—particularly about administration within a Greek
setting, and about the social structure within Greek civic
thought. Also crossing the bridge of the Koiné Greek
were Greek socio-economic methods, those concerning
trade, commerce, and particularly taxation.
To the Greeks, taxation became an enormously important part of ancient life. We see this right up to the New
Testament period as we look at the number of Jesus’
stories, parables, and incidents that involve tax collectors or taxation. The Greeks, particularly because of
their strong economic orientation, created “tax farming”
and the office of tax collector: they sold the privilege of
collecting taxes from the local populace to those within
that populace who could bid the highest. This helped
to bring about the significant economic changes which
occurred in the various parts of the Hellenistic world.
It helped to speed up the change from local agrarian
societies to more urban ones. This was the first wave of
Greek thought that crossed the Koiné bridge.
With it came a different view of society. The Greeks
tended to be oriented towards an oligarchy, a word which
comes from oligas (ολιγαs) meaning “small” or “few,”
because there came into being the rule of a few. Normally
it was those who had wealth who ruled over the vast majority of the peoples of the various parts of the empire.
This was a different perspective and a different structure for society from what we find in the Old Testament. There, with the Sabbatical Year—every seventh
year—and then the Year of Jubilee—every fiftieth
year—there was a purposeful and obvious and intentional leveling of Israelite society, so that the rich
would not get richer or the poor, poorer. This was not,
however, a part of Hellenistic thought or of Greek
Walter B. Russell 471
culture, and therefore when Greek ideas arrived, they
displaced many of the Jewish and Old Testament ideas
that were in Israel at the time.
The Second Wave. Following this first wave of Greek
thought there was the second wave that was much
more powerful in its effect. The second wave crossing the bridge of Koiné Greek was that of of Greek
literature, Greek philosophy, and ultimately Greek
religion. For example, through Greek literature and
the handling of Greek literature in particular, the Jews
encountered the technique of allegorizing. Allegories
were developed because Greek scholars—those who
worked in literature and also philosophers—were
embarrassed by some of the earlier legends of Homer,
found in the Iliad and the Odyssey, and by what they
deemed some of the immoral things that happened in
them. So they were allegorized, that is, interpreted at
a spiritual or non-literal level, in order to get around
some of the difficult literal historical type of events
that were said to have occurred. After the introduction
of allegorical interpretation, we find Jews like Philo of
Alexandria embracing this method, and it begins to
appear in other Jewish writings, having to some degree
crossed over from Greek literature.
Some of the earlier philosophies, such as those of Plato
and Aristotle, and even of Socrates to some degree, also
had some influence. Additionally, and more contemporary with the New Testament period, were the Stoics
and the Epicureans. All of them had some impact upon
Jewish people in general and Jewish culture in particular,
but we will deal with those at a later time.
This, then, is in brief form the general sense of the
development and spread of Hellenistic culture.
The Penetration of Jewish Culture
by Hellenism
Let’s turn now to a second major point regarding the
penetration of Jewish culture by Hellenism. What
effect did these waves of Hellenistic ideas have upon
Jewish culture? First let us look at the Jews who lived
in Palestine, remembering that this was a small minority of the Jewish people in the world—probably about
fifteen to twenty percent. In other words, some eighty
to eighty-five percent of the Jewish people in the world
lived outside of the land of Palestine, in what we call
the Diaspora.
Exploring Theology and Culture -J4
472 The Effect of Hellenistic Culture on Jewish Life
Focus on Palestine
Martin Hingle, who studied Judaism of the period
330-150 BC, discovered that it was in fact a period
of significant Hellenizing even within the land of
Palestine. This overturned what earlier scholars posited: that there was an enormous difference culturally between Diaspora Jews and Palestinian Jews. But
Hingle, through studying the ancient sources of the
time, discovered that there was not a large difference at
all between the Jews living within or outside the land,
that in fact both groups had experienced a significant
impact from Hellenization. We see this in studying
the Greek buildings and Greek schools that existed in
Palestine during this period. Even the Temple itself
was strongly marked by effects of Greek architecture,
Greek work and Greek culture. We see there were
gymnasiums—Greek schools—throughout all Palestine at that time. Moreover, the impact of Hellenization could be seen in Greek proper names. Many pious
Jews, including some of Jesus’ disciples, had Greek
names. It is ironic that even the Jewish supreme court,
that is, the highest legislative body in Judaism—the
Sanhedrin—had a Greek name!
There appears also to have been a more widespread
speaking of Greek throughout the land of Palestine
than was first thought. Jesus surely must have included
a significant amount of Greek in his speech, in addition to Aramaic and also probably different aspects
of Hebrew. So the speaking of Greek was relatively
widespread throughout the land of Palestine.
We can see, too, the effect of Hellenization through
Greek education. Even those who did not have access
to formal education would probably have been exposed
to Greek thought to a certain extent. While somewhat debated, it is nonetheless argued by many Jewish scholars that even rabbinical training of this time,
in which people like the Apostle Paul participated,
would have included a significant amount of training
in Greek philosophy and rhetoric, and in the various
schools of thought among the Greeks. The Greek educational model, therefore, had a far-reaching impact.
Even the most pious and circumspect of Jews having
rabbinical training would have been exposed to it.
In saying all of this, there is a bit of a disclaimer that
needs to be made. There was a greater impact in the
cities than in the small towns and rural areas. Hellenization had a deeper, stronger impact in the urban areas.
Moreover, Hellenization had a greater impact upon the
upper, wealthy classes than on the lower classes and
the poor folk. This particularly would have been true in
and around Jerusalem. So there was, even within Palestine 150 years before the time of Christ, a significant
impact from the Hellenization process, from Judaism’s
contact with the culture of Alexander the Great.
Focus on Jews in the Diaspora
What about the Jews outside of the land of Palestine,
the Jews in the Diaspora? Again there was a great
variation among these folk, but it appears that during
this period the greatest impact was on the language the
Diaspora Jews spoke. Almost all of them would have
spoken Greek as their first language. Many of them
probably lost the ability to speak Aramaic, and perhaps
to a large degree lost the ability to read and understand Hebrew. That is why the Apostle Paul, in giving
his Jewish pedigree in Philippians 3, was very proud
that his family was a Hebrew of Hebrews, that even
though he was a Diaspora Jew from Tarsus, apparently
his family spoke Hebrew, or perhaps Aramaic, in their
home, which was uncommon and apparently a sign
of great piety among the Jews. Many of the Diaspora
Jews, however, would also have been educated much
more openly in Greek philosophy, rhetoric and literature. In fact, among the Diaspora Jews of the Hellenistic period there grew up a very lively Jewish literature
in Greek, which followed many of the Greek literary
forms in terms, for instance, of history, tragedy, epic
poetry, and romance.
Philo, whom we have already mentioned, was a
Diaspora Jew. His writings reflect the amazing impact
of Platonic and Stoic philosophy on his thought. He
is well known for seeking to integrate his Jewish faith
with both these philosophies, trying to synthesize Jewish and Greek culture at profound levels. This illustrates
that Jews in the Diaspora were certainly exposed to as
intense an experience—and probably to an even more
intense one—with Hellenism than non-Jews were.
So Jews both within the land and outside of it were
profoundly influenced by Hellenistic culture.
Some Cultural Distinctives Between
Hellenists and Hebraists
In saying that, a third point needs to be made. Can
we make any cultural distinctions between Hellenists
and what are called Hebraists or Palestinian Jews?
Exploring Theology and Culture -J5
When we get to the New Testament, even though
both groups have experienced a significant impact,
there nonetheless seem to be some distinctions that
are made between Jews from within the land and Jews
from outside the land. The particular incident we are
pointing to is in Acts 6:1-6, where there is discrimination against widowed Hellenistic Jewish believers
in Jesus as the Messiah, by their fellow believers who
were Palestinian Jews. The question is, Why the discrimination? What would be the distinction between
the two if they both to some degree had experienced
the impact of Hellenism?
I think we can make two points here. One is that the
Palestinian Jews, because of their interface with Hellenism and attempts made to force-feed Greek culture
upon them, had a heightened, and perhaps even extreme, sensitivity to any threats, whether real or apparent, to any undercutting the authority of the Law—the
Torah—or the authority of the Temple. Because some
Jews spoke Greek as their first language and not Aramaic or Hebrew, perhaps the Palestinian Jews—because
of their extreme sensitivity—might have interpreted this
as a threat or compromise of some kind.
Moreover, the Palestinian Jews, those who spoke
Aramaic and Hebrew—the Hebraists—apparently
had lost their ability to transcend creatively their own
national and political desires. Therefore they could no
longer critique their own perspectives and their own
values within their culture; they were trapped in their
own cultural circle. In this sense they would not have
had eyes to see like the Hellenistic Jews, who were
from a broader cultural experience and therefore would
have had the ability more creatively and perhaps more
pointedly to critique the Jewish culture of Palestine.
Steven, in Acts 7, may be an example of a Hellenistic
Jew who has the courage to critique the Sanhedrin
about their very nationalistic and ethnocentric perspective, in terms of their view of God’s reigning and ruling
primarily in the land of Palestine.
The Development of Key Jewish
Institutions in the Face of Hellenism
The Family
The family is, of course, the very center of Jewish
culture. Jewish family life is the strength of this culture
and always has been. It was in Palestine in particular
that we see, from ancient sources, glimpses of Jewish
Walter B. Russell 473
family life. The average family lived in a small single
room in a windowless house. They would only have one
storeroom that could be locked, and the entire family
normally would sleep in one bed. (We find reference to
this in Luke 11:7.)
In terms of family structure, the father was clearly head
of the family. He was responsible for his family’s honor
and well-being, and in particular for his sons’ instruction in the Law.
In Jewish culture, women were generally regarded as
inferior to men. They could not appear as witnesses
before the court in public, or take an active role in
Temple worship. In fact, they could not go as far as
men into the Temple, being restricted to the Court of
Women. Normally they could only listen in the synagogue. Some of the rabbis tell us that they had only to
keep the Law’s prohibitions and not all of the commandments. And to a large degree they were restricted
from studying the Torah. We see that with the coming of Christianity many of these things are changed.
Christianity brought about a sweeping cultural revolution in the role of women.
The role of children was such that they had to respect
both their father and their mother. Marriage was generally assumed, and from Genesis 1:28 the command to
be fruitful and multiply was taken as the norm. Marriage
contracts were made by the father and the older men in
the family, normally in a child’s youth, and, at least in Palestine, men were married between the ages of 18 and 24,
and women between the very young ages of 12 and 14.
So the Jewish family, a very close-knit group, was the
backbone of Jewish culture.
Jewish Education
Jewish education took part in four different phases,
but many folk just went through the first phase, which
took place in the home. Both the Old and the New
Testaments emphasize that the education in the home
was ultimately under the father’s responsibility, that
he was to “train up the children in the way that they
should go.” Apparently, though, much of this was delegated to the mother or other women in the family. But
the father was ultimately responsible, and if children
were uneducated or unruly, it was a particular disgrace
to the father. Almost all children, then, had some basic
instruction at home, especially learning passages of
Scripture, and taught by their fathers.
Exploring Theology and Culture -J6
474 The Effect of Hellenistic Culture on Jewish Life
The second level of education, in which the male
children would partake, was that of the primary school.
This is where they would be taught by a teacher who
was called a sopher or scribe. Originally this was a
title for leading scholars, but probably by New Testament times scribes had more the function of copying
manuscripts. They would have sufficient education to
teach young boys to read and write. The curriculum in
Jewish schools involved some aspects of Hellenistic
thought, but largely it was still centered in the reading
of the Scriptures, beginning in Genesis. Then there was
the study of the Hebrew language and the memorizing of significant portions of the Scriptures. Students
were called upon to recite to their elders what they
had learned in school that day. They also might at this
second level of primary school begin to memorize
some of the standard translations in Aramaic, called
Targums, as well as parts of the Hebrew Scriptures
The third level of education, secondary school, was
commonly known as the beth midrash. The vast majority of boys did not go on to this level, only a select
few. Here they would not just continue the study of
Scripture, but would begin the study of the Oral Torah,
or Oral Law—the Traditions of the Fathers. This was
divided into two kinds of study: Midrash and Mishnah.
These were in oral form, and were not written down
until the period between AD 200 and AD 400. So in
the intertestamental and the New Testament periods,
these students were strictly taught through very painstaking exercises and significant oral memorization.
The fourth level, then, to which only a very select few
Hebrew boys would ever attain, was the level of the
academy. This was for scribal training. After a boy
learned the Oral Torah in secondary school, and if
he had showed promise, he then might be allowed to
study with some of the rabbis at an academy, where he
would attach himself to some great scholar. We know
from the New Testament that the Apostle Paul sat at
the feet of Gamaliel. Apparently Gamaliel was Paul’s
rabbi, and Paul was Gamaliel’s rabbinical student. The
students studied advanced scriptural interpretation
and the Talmud. This involved advanced techniques of
interpreting and applying the Scripture, using certain
exegetical rules, and it also entailed vast amounts of
memorization of the Oral Law and traditions, and
the interpretations of the rabbis who had gone before.
Apparently, Paul was, as far as we know, the only one
among the early Church leaders to have gone this far
and to have achieved at least some level of rabbinical training. He himself says in Galatians 1 that he
was very successful as a rabbinical student, advancing
beyond his contemporaries.
These, then, are the four levels of Jewish education.
They were a bulwark of sorts against the threat of Hellenization and one of the main means of perpetuation
of Jewish culture.
The Temple
If you had lived in Judea and could have visited the
Temple regularly, or if you had lived in the Diaspora
and only had been able to visit it periodically, it nonetheless would have been a great occasion, because the
Temple was still, to a large degree, at least in terms of a
physical setting, the focal point of the Jewish nation.
The Temple was under the leadership of the “clergy”
of Israel. Among those who were considered clergy,
if you would picture concentric circles, there were the
Levites, of the tribe of Levi, a large group one could
call minor clergy. Within the Levites there were some
from the line of Aaron, who were Levitical priests.
Then within Aaron’s line there was an even smaller
wing, from Zadoc’s family, who were potentially the
High Priests.
So we have: (1) Levites, the minor clergy; (2) the Aaronic priesthood, within the family of Levi; and (3) the
Zadoc family within Aaron’s line of priests, who could
become High Priests.
Starting from the top of the hierarchy and moving
down, the person who oversaw the Temple was the
reigning High Priest. Then there were chief priests
(these are spoken of, for example, in Luke 22:52), and
there could be more than one, perhaps even as many
as three of these, who were considered the captains of
the Temple and who oversaw much of the day-to-day
work. They oversaw the ministry within the Temple, the
custody and protection of the Temple, and the Temple
finances and treasury.
Moving downward from the High Priests and the chief
priests, we find the regular priests, all the priests in
Israel, who were divided into 24 weekly courses. They
were chosen by lot to determine which of the two weeks
each year they would serve in the Temple . It is estimated that in the First Century there were about 7,200
of these priests.
Exploring Theology and Culture -J7
Finally, the lowest level of clergy was that of the Levites and, again, they were divided into 24 units. They
were also chosen by lot to serve yearly two-week periods. Many of them were singers and musicians, some
were Temple servants and guards, and it is estimated in
Jesus’ day there were about 9,600 of them.
It is interesting to see what took place during the history of Israel with those who served as High Priests.
From the Bible we gather that there were only 46
High Priests during the entire period from the beginning of the tabernacle, when the High Priest and the
priestly order were established in the book of Exodus,
up to the time when the Second Temple was rebuilt—
a period of about 1,560 years. Each High Priest averaged about a 34-year reign.
However, as we move into the intertestamental period
during the Maccabean, or Hasmonean, period—when
the Hasmonean rulers were also doubling as the High
Priests—we find that during that 113 year period there
were eight different High Priests. So the average reign
of a High Priest dropped from 34 down to 14 years, a
much more rapid turnover. Then during the third period, that is, the period under Herod and the Romans—
from 37 BC until the destruction of the Temple in AD
70, a 107-year period—there were 28 different High
Priests, which means that now the average reign of a
High Priest dropped to 3.8 years.
Now the turnover is tumultuous, and additionally,
none of these priests was qualified, since none was
from the family of Zadoc. For this reason many of the
pious people of the land—such as perhaps those in the
Qumran community, who may have been Essenes, or
those of the Pharisees, who were a more mainstream
group—would have had difficulty with worship in the
Temple, because it was under the ultimate reign and
rule of High Priests who were not biblically qualified,
and who therefore would bring a sense of defilement
to all of the work of the Temple.
So even though the Temple was one of the focal points
of the culture, it was, to many of the pious in the land,
an onerous thing. In fact, from the time of Herod on,
from 37 BC until its destruction in AD 70, the Temple
under these High Priests was a political volleyball of
sorts, and was simply batted around among the wealthy
and the prominent families in and around Jerusalem.
These High Priests were first appointed by Herod and
then confirmed by the Romans. This shows up on the
Walter B. Russell 475
pages of the New Testament, where High Priests are
primarily politically rather than religiously motivated.
The Synagogue
For those Jews who lived in the Diaspora it was not the
Temple but the synagogue that was the focal point of
their lives. The synagogue had its beginnings during the
intertestamental period. It is not certain exactly when,
but it perhaps arose during the Exile in Babylon. On the
other hand, it might have been in Egypt. It did begin, in
any case, during the early intertestamental period. We
do know that by the first century AD the synagogue was
a well established institution and widespread phenomenon. Additionally, we know that by 100 BC in Judea
and Galilee there was a great network of synagogues.
This was because of the need to enculturate and proselytize the residents of the areas in and around Judea,
Idumea, and Galilee through the forceable teaching of
Judaism to non-Jews under their rule. The synagogue
was one of the main means of doing that within the
land of Palestine proper.
The means of formation of a synagogue is more specifically known, even if we are not sure of its origin.
When at least ten adult males were in a Jewish community, a synagogue could be formed. Seven of these
men were needed to be responsible for the synagogue,
of whom three were officers. They were apparently
chosen on the basis of personal merit, not birth or
wealth. There was a Ruler of the synagogue (we find
this person mentioned in Luke 13:14 and Acts 13:15).
He would be one of the more respected and prominent
men in the Jewish community, and he was responsible
for seeing that qualified persons would read, lead in
prayer, and expound the portion of Scripture to be read
for that day.
Secondly, one of the officers was the Controller of the
Alms. He oversaw the giving of alms to the poor, the
sick and suffering. This was always a large focus and
function of synagogue life.
The third officer was the Attendant (spoken of in Luke
4:20). He looked after the scrolls, that is, the Scriptures. He also kept the building clean and maintained
order. Additionally, he might sometimes have doubled
as a schoolmaster.
The purpose of the synagogue was as a place for the
study of the Torah, that is, the Law, and for teaching
it to ordinary persons, particularly men. It also func-
Exploring Theology and Culture -J8
476 The Effect of Hellenistic Culture on Jewish Life
tioned as a place of prayer, and originally services were
only held on the Sabbath. It is interesting that attendance was not compulsory. Services were later extended to Monday and Thursday, which were the traditional Palestinian market days. Then, gradually, daily prayer
became the norm, and it tended to follow the morning
and the evening pattern of Temple sacrifices. So there
came to be daily morning and evening prayers at the
synagogues. The synagogue included a place where the
male children were schooled in Torah. It also functioned as a place of outreach to the peoples, that is, the
Gentiles, in areas of the Diaspora where Jews lived.
The liturgy of the synagogue is well established from
both biblical and Jewish historical records. It starts
with the Shema—the confession of the one God from
Deuteronomy 6:4-9. Then was added the prayer of 18
benedictions or 18 petitions, each of which were closed
with the people saying “Amen.” Then there were readings from the Torah, that is, the books of Moses, which
followed a definite order throughout the year. We have
discovered lectionaries from this period of time, and
normally a Jewish man would come forward and read.
Perhaps if people did not know Hebrew he might also
read from the Targums —Aramaic paraphrases—or
from Greek paraphrases. Next was a reading from the
prophetic books, also following the Targums if there
was need for translation. Then came a short exposition,
which might be by any adult male of the community or
perhaps by a visiting guest from another community or
synagogue, and then perhaps a closing prayer.
So in the lives of the Diaspora Jews the synagogue
was a far more central and important focus than the
Temple. The Jews who lived in the Dispersion were
in fact most often unable to afford the pilgrimage to
Jerusalem to visit the Temple.
Conclusion
Let us now move to our conclusion. We have been
talking about the effect of Hellenistic culture on Jewish
life. There are three points in concluding this broadranging discussion.
The first point is that Judaism was profoundly affected
by Hellenism. Cultures are entities too dynamic not to
penetrate one another when they are side by side. And
the fact of the matter is, that Judaism as a culture and
as a religion was alongside Hellenistic culture. The two
were not airtight compartments, and there was significant interpenetration. Judaism was strongly affected.
But secondly, Judaism was not profoundly compromised or changed at a deep level by its interface with
Hellenism. This was a costly independence, one which
at times was only gained by much bloodshed. But Judaism and its basic tenets were essentially maintained
uncompromised by their contact with Hellenism.
Judaism was surely contextualized at different points
in order to communicate with those in Hellenistic
culture. Yet as a religion and a cultural entity, it was not
greatly compromised in that contact.
Thirdly, we can safely say that there was not a huge
difference, culturally, between Hellenistic and Hebraic
Jews. We can see that in the Apostle Paul’s life. He
was technically a Hellenistic Jew, having been reared
in the Diaspora. Yet he lived like the Hebraic Jews of
Palestine in terms of having an orthodox home, where
apparently Hebrew or Aramaic was spoken.
There are perhaps many more examples which show
a closer cohesion between those outside the land of
Judea and those within it, than scholars in recent generations have been willing to admit.