The involvement of Rome in Greek affairs toward the end of the third century, the victory over Macedon and then the Roman annexation of Macedon, Greece and Asia produced conditions that transformed the intellectual, social and political nature of the Roman ruling class. So important was this transformation that special attention must be given to it, and it was felt that a separate volume would be necessary to illustrate the many political and diplomatic actions that were so much a part of it. Like the other volumes of the series this one will supply translations of materials not readily available in English, but references to important passages in authors like Polybius or Livy will be given at the appropriate places. The basic intent of the translations has been to express the exact meaning of the original Latin or Greek and to preserve the ‘feel’ of the original documents and facilitate the checking of references by a conscious effort to maintain line-by-line precision. At times the nature of the Latin or Greek languages has made it impossible, or at least exceedingly difficult, to preserve such line-by-line translation, and therefore a certain amount of manipulation of English grammar or style has been necessary. The result is often contrary to natural English idiom. It is hoped that students of ancient history who use this book will be stimulated to that more intensive study of the original languages so vital to advanced research.

Greek and Roman history has always been in an ambivalent position in American higher education, having to find a home either in a Department of History or in a Department of Classics, and in both it is usually regarded as marginal. Moreover, in a History Department the subject tends to be taught without regard to the fact that the nature of the evidence is, on the whole, very different from that for American, English, or French history, while in a Classics Department it tends to be viewed as a ‘philological’ subject and taught by methods appropriate to Greek and Latin authors. Even on the undergraduate level the difference may be important, but on the graduate level, where future teachers and scholars, who are to engage in original research, are trained, it becomes quite clear that neither of these solutions is adequate.

One problem is the standard of proficiency that should be required in Greek and Latin – both difficult languages, necessitating years of study; and few students start the study, even of Latin, let alone Greek, before they come to college. The editors recognize that for the student aiming at a Ph.D. in the subject and at advancing present knowledge of it there can be no substitute for a thorough training in the two languages. Nevertheless, they believe that it is possible to extend serious instruction at a high level to graduate students aiming at reaching the M.A. level and to make them into competent teachers.

The ‘Persian period’ – roughly, the two centuries from Cyrus ‘capture of Babylon in 539 to Alexander’s capture of Tyre in 332 b.c.e. – presents us with such variety in what may loosely be called ‘Jewish religious life’ that it raises the question, what is meant by ‘Jewish’? The adjective derives from the noun ‘Jews’, Yehudim in Hebrew, Yehudin in Aramaic. For these terms there is on the one hand the territorial definition, ‘residents of Judea’, implied, for example, by the reference to the Persian ‘governor of Judea’ as ‘governor of the Jews’ (Ezra 6: 7, purportedly quoting a letter of Darius I); on the other hand, the ethnic ‘descendants of Judeans’, the members of the Persian garrison in Elephantine, settled there for well over a century, still called themselves Yehudin although they had intermarried with Egyptians and worshipped a number of deities besides Yahweh. A third definition is implied by the uses in Ezra 4: 12; 5: 4–5, which equate ‘the Jews’ with the exiles returned from Babylonia, excluding the population left in Palestine. These Jews worship only ‘the God of heaven and earth’ (that is, Yahweh), and explain their history in terms reminiscent of Deuteronomy (Ezra 5:11). Other documents suggest other definitions – for example, Nehemiah's apology (notably 5: 1, 17) refers to ‘the Jews’ as if they were a privileged class in Jerusalem. If more texts were preserved we should probably have yet more variety.

OUTLINE OF HISTORY

When in 539 b.c.e. Babylon fell to Cyrus, the Achemenid king of Persia (559–530 b.c.e.), Persia was raised to the position of a world empire, which encompassed the whole Near East. In contrast to the Assyrians and Babylonians, however, who had based their rule on large-scale deportations of peoples and a reign of fear, Cyrus from the outset adopted a much more lenient policy, which included resettling exiles in their homelands, reconstructing their temples, and in general presenting himself to the conquered as a liberator. This policy gained him the goodwill of almost the entire ancient world.

Within the framework of this policy, Cyrus issued a proclamation to the Jewish exiles in Babylon, urging them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple there. The first Jews to return from Babylon, headed by Sheshbazzar ‘the prince ofJudah’ (apparently Shenazzar, the son of Jehoiachin, the former king of Judah), encountered numerous difficulties in their attempt to re-establish the national and religious centre of the Jewish people. On their arrival, they found on the outskirts of the destroyed city a small community of the Am ha-Ares, the descendants of the poor, who after the destruction of the first Temple, had continued to dwell in the almost desolate land. This remnant and their neighbours, the Samaritans, Ashdodites, Edomites and Arabs, did not view the repatriates with favour, and used all means in their power to obstruct them, until they finally succeeded in putting an end to the building activities in Jerusalem.

Since the eighteenth century the careful, scientific study of ancient Palestinian coinage struck by both Jewish and non-Jewish authorities has been recognized as an important adjunct to the study of classical Jewish history. The careful recording of coins, the exact cataloguing of the numismatic evidence in archeological excavations (neglected until well into this century), the systematic and detailed description of coin hoards and the methodology relevant to their study, the comparison of dies and the sequence of coins, have all shed new light on classical Jewish history. In addition, the application of related studies in epigraphy, religion, art and architecture, chronology, prosopography, metallurgy and economics have all contributed to our understanding of ancient coinage and, conversely, have increased the light that the study of numismatics can shed on these other disciplines as well as on the study of history in general.

THE PERSIAN PERIOD

Coinage was first introduced into the economic life of Palestine during the sixth and fifth centuries b.c.e. as part of the extended growth of coinage in the Mediterranean world. The two oldest coins which have so far been found in Palestine were minted in Greece in the sixth century, one from Thasos, found at Shechem, and the second from Athens, found in Jerusalem. But as isolated finds they do not allow any definite conclusions. Later on, in the fifth and mainly in the fourth centuries, Phoenician coins as well as local coins came into circulation, though Greek coins continued to be in use.

Hebrew and Aramaic were the two main languages in use among the Jews during the Persian period. They are both north-west Semitic languages but while Hebrew belongs, together with Phoenician, Moabite and Ammonite, to the Canaanite branch, Aramaic forms a branch apart. Hebrew was the native tongue of both Judah and Israel during the monarchic period, although there were dialect distinctions between the north and the south. Among the Canaanite dialects, Moabite seems to be particularly close to Hebrew, but our documentation for these dialects is relatively meagre. After the dissolution of the northern kingdom, speakers of other languages were introduced into various parts of the country to replace exiled Israelites.

Aramaic was the language solely of the Arameans gathered at first in tribal units and then in city-states and petty kingdoms in Syria and Mesopotamia. In the eighth century it became the lingua franca of the Assyrian empire, especially in the provinces ‘Beyond the River’(Euphrates). The complicated cuneiform writing system of the Assyrians was replaced by the relatively simpler alphabetic Aramaic script, at first in those provinces where alphabetic writing was already in use and then in Assyria proper. Aramaic was introduced for commercial and administrative purposes and Aramaic scribes were employed alongside Assyrian ones, since expansion to the west brought about the absorption of many Aramaic speakers into Assyria proper. Aramaic was used for diplomatic purposes in lands outside the Assyrian empire (see, for example, 2 Kings 18: 26, Isa. 36: 11) and subsequently also for communication within the Assyro-Babylonian area (KAI 233).

The Babylonian conquest changed both the civil calendar and the reckoning of years in Judea. 2 Kings 25 illustrates this transformation: first there are two datings after the regnal years of Zedekiah, the last Davidic king. But, after the capture of Jerusalem in 587 b.c.e., the events, even the burning of the Temple, are dated after the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar. From 586 on, the Jewish computation of years consistently followed the succession of gentile overlords of the chosen people: ‘In the second year of Darius the king’ (Hag. 1: 1), ‘in the second year of Nero Caesar’. A Mishnah explicitly stated that a bill of divorcement (and, certainly, other documents) with an irregular dating would lack legal force. Accordingly, the documents from the desert of Judea, drafted under the Roman rule, just as the documents of the same kind written in the province of Arabia, were dated after the regnal years of the Roman emperors. ‘The name of the ruler is in the beginning (of a bill of divorcement).’

Under the Hasmoneans, from 134–132 b.c.e. on, and under the Herodians, Jerusalem dated by the year of her own kings, as for instance the coins of Alexander Janneus show. During the two rebellions, that of 66–72 c.e. and that of Bar Kochba, coins and documents bore the dates of the respective freedom eras: ‘Freedom of Jerusalem’ and similar slogans in the first rebellion (years 1 to 6), and ‘Redemption of Israel’ vel simile under Bar Kochba (years 1 to 3).

Geography has been defined as the study of space relationships, and it is in this sense that the geography of Palestine must be considered, for upon these relationships very much of its history depends. They are threefold in nature and involve the relation of each region within the country with the other internal regions, of Palestine with the Levant coast of which it is a part, and finally the relation of the Levant with the larger outside world. This world was enormous indeed, for it was in York in England that Constantine was first proclaimed emperor, an event which was to alter the face of Palestine and bring much grief upon the Jewish people, and it was the rich Asian trade, ranging as far as the East Indies and China, which made the Romans so determined to maintain the Provincia Arabia.

In this context two facts are of fundamental importance: the centrality and the extraordinary smallness of Palestine. The entire Middle East is dominated by three great barriers to settlement and easy movement: the towering mountain chains of central Europe and Asia, the dry, forbidding deserts, and the penetrating fingers of the seas, which hold the whole area in their grip. This constriction has determined both the main concentrations of population and the course of the major routes, followed for century after century by both merchants and warriors. Although the notable trading cities of Tyre, Damascus, Palmyra and Petra lay just beyond the Palestinian borders, the routes they served crossed its territory; for here at the south-western end of the Fertile Crescent the desert, closing in upon the Mediterranean, brings cultivation to an end, and all the roads from Asia to Egypt came together at Gaza, where also the opulent caravans from southern Arabia, bringing the riches of the East to Rome, finally reached the sea.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL

Between the years 545 and 538 b.c.e. the whole of the Middle East – including Palestine – was conquered by the Achemenid kings of Persia. At that time the Persian empire, the largest of the empires of the ancient world, extended from North Africa to southern Russia and from Asia Minor to India. In the days of Darius I (522–486 b.c.e.) its borders were consolidated and its interior division was determined. According to this division some twenty satrapies were established, each of which was divided into numerous sub-provinces (see the description in the book of Esther 1: 1 ‘from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces’).

The whole of Palestine constituted only a tiny part of one of these satrapies, namely the country ‘Beyond the River’(Ezra 4: 10–11), a term which was borrowed from the former Assyrian administration and perhaps from an even earlier period (see 1 Kings 4: 24). The province of Beyond the River included, in addition to Palestine, Syria, Phoenicia and Cyprus. According to Herodotus (111.5) its northern border was in Poseideion (now al-Mina at the mouth of the Orontes) and its southern border was at lake Sirbonis (Bardawil lake).

The sub-division of Palestine appears to have been based on the older divisions of the Assyrian and Babylonian administration, probably related to the territorial boundaries of the various peoples living in the country during that period. The best known of these provinces were Megiddo, Dor, Samaria, Judea, Ashdod and Gaza. At the head of each province was a Persian governor or a local representative who was responsible to the satrap of Beyond the River for its efficient administration, payment of taxes and the like. This state of affairs lasted for some two hundred years in Palestine, from 538 to 332 B.C.E., in which year the entire Middle East was conquered by Alexander the Great.