Introduction

During the years immediately following the deaths of Plato (348/7 BC) and Aristotle (322/1 BC) Athenian philosophical life was dominated by four large schools: the Academy, the Peripatos, the Stoa and the Garden (Kēpos) of Epicurus. Alongside these were the Pyrrhonian sceptics, named after their founder Pyrrho of Elis, and certain representatives of the so-called minor Socratic schools – in particular the Cyrenaics, the Dialecticians and the Cynics.

The reconstruction of the chronology of the members of all these schools up to about 100 BC presents a series of difficulties, which often make dating proposals necessarily vague or at least subject to possible changes as studies develop. In the following pages I do not intend simply to reproduce the lists of scholarchs who succeeded each other as heads of individual schools, but rather to give a concise bird's-eye sketch of the principal events in the lives of the more important personalities in correlation with the more secure dates in the chronology.

The Academy

On Plato's death (348/7) he was succeeded as head of the Academy by his nephew Speusippus, who held the post until 339/8 (Lysimachides' archonship), when Xenocrates of Chalcedon was chosen by the younger members of the Academy as his successor. The third scholarch was Polemo of Athens, chosen in 314/3, the year of Xenocrates' death. Young, rich and dissolute, Polemo was converted to philosophy after listening to a lecture by Xenocrates on temperance (sōphrosunē). His chronology should be examined alongside those of Crantor of Soli in Cilicia and of Crates of Athens, both important members of the Academy, connected with Polemo by their school ties and by friendship.

Linguistics

The study of language

In the classical period, the Greek language was studied by philosophers, sophists and rhetoricians, and the contributions of Aristotle and Theophrastus in particular are very valuable. But only in the Hellenistic era does grammar show significant development and almost becomes a discipline in its own right. Although their origin as students of poetry is never forgotten, grammarians now start to be acknowledged as teachers and scholars in the fields of phonology and morphology. To some extent they also study syntax and pragmatics, while semantics provides, as it were, their basic approach. This development is the result of the concurrence of three kinds of linguistic analysis: in philosophy, rhetoric and scholarship. Students of each of these disciplines look at language from their own specific point of view and in a different context. Thus, philosophers, especially Stoics, are interested in the nature of language and its relationships to reality and knowledge, and analyse speech in the context of their study of logic, which analysis has its consequences for their physics and ethics. Rhetoricians are more concerned with ways of manipulating people by means of language; and scholars develop tools for language analysis in order to edit and explain the texts of Homer and other poets. These different concerns greatly advance the study of language although the complete emancipation of grammar as a discipline to be studied for its own sake, like mathematics, is not achieved in this period.

The widely held hypothesis that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the views of Essene sectarians who had hidden them away for safe keeping c.ce 68 was first formulated in the infancy of Qumran studies, when only seven scrolls had been discovered. The identification of the site known as Khirbet (Kh) Qumran as a desert monastery or headquarters of the sect, proposed in the wake of the excavation of the site in the early 1950s, similarly met with widespread scholarly agreement. These two hypotheses have served as basic axioms for most Qumran researchers in their quest for a historical explanation of the manuscripts.

The case in favour of these hypotheses, and consequent historical conclusions, have been put forward in many publications since 1948 (see chapters 15 and 24). The accumulated evidence now pointing, on the contrary, to the Jerusalem origin of the scrolls and their composition by various sects, parties and individuals in pre-Tannaitic Judaism is presented here and the bearing of the scrolls on Judaism in this period is accordingly reconsidered.

THE STATE OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

The term generally applied to Hebrew scripts (square or cursive) employed by copyists of literary texts is ‘Hebrew book hand’, while that given to scripts used to write legal instruments, letters and other autographs is ‘Hebrew documentary hand’. These terms apply not only to the Qumran scrolls, but also to the texts comprising the two other important Hebrew manuscript discoveries of modern times: those of the Bar Kokhba period discovered in Wadi Murabba'at and Nahal geber (second century ce) and those of mediaeval times found in the Synagogue of the Palestinians of Fustat-Misr, known collectively as the Cairo Genizah (primarily ninth to thirteenth centuries).

Introduction

On a goblet found in Boscoreale two philosophers are depicted as skeletons: Zeno the Stoic, and Epicurus. According to the inscription on the goblet they are engaged in discussion as to whether pleasure is the goal of all actions (telos). It is clear from Zeno's attitude that he is eagerly trying to persuade Epicurus. Epicurus is depicted in a rather more casual pose. His attention is concentrated less on the person opposite him than on a piece of cake lying on a table in front of him. This scene encapsulates the popular image of the two schools in a mixture of true insight and false understanding. The contrasting attitudes of the two philosophers in fact symbolize a fundamental distinction between Stoa and Garden: Zeno's tense bearing is appropriate as a representation of the Stoic school, whilst the casual pose suited the Epicureans. The Epicureans believed it was folly to dwell in the mind on evils which might possibly occur or have already occurred. In their view this leads to aggravation of our distress. Alleviation will result if as well as taking our minds off what troubles us (avocatio a cogitanda molestia) we give our attention to what brings pleasure (revocatio ad contemplandas voluptates) (Cic. Tusculanae disputationes III.32–3). But it is equally interesting to consider the misconception of Epicurean ethics which is suggested by the scene on the goblet. Epicurus allows himself to be distracted by a piece of cake; he is thus presented as honouring physical pleasures. As if to confirm this interpretation, at his feet a piglet is depicted, reminiscent of Horace's ironic description of himself as ‘a true hog of Epicurus’ herd’ (Hor. Ep. I.4.16).

Let us begin with a frank avowal not only of the incompleteness of our evidence from the Jewish side, but also of its one-sidedness. Tannaitic sources reflect the pietistic leadership of the scribes and sages, successors of the pharisees. It should not be assumed that the rabbinic views were enthusiastically endorsed by the entire community; indeed, as regards their minutiae, at the periphery of the community perhaps no more than lip service was given. Alternative religious groupings (e.g. Qumran, the Jewish Christians), occasionally disapprobated in the Mishnah, were either disappearing fast, or were in process of disassociating themselves from (or being extruded by) the main Jewish community. The ‘Am ha-’ares – scholastically unreachable common folk – were regarded by the rabbis with a barely tolerant contempt, reminiscent of fifth-century Greek attitudes to ‘the masses’ as contrasted to ‘gentlefolk’. One need not doubt that emotional ties and an inarticulate sense of ethnic identity linked them with more obviously practising Jewish circles, but their ethnicity was without self-consciousness, and they probably described themselves in Palestine – as in the Diaspora all Jews were described – as ‘Judaeans’ (yehudim, Aramaic yehuda'e): a term not thus used in rabbinic literature, where an individual Jew is called (an) Israel (ite). The great suffering of Jews in Palestine, Egypt and Cyrenaica, in the wars and revolts against Rome will have made it difficult or impossible for Jews to ignore the reality of Jewish–Gentile distinctions, even when, as individuals, they may have wished to play them down or attempt to overcome them by assimilative integration in the gentile world.

The Essenes formed a third religious group among the Jews of Palestine, after the Pharisees and Sadducees. They existed from the middle of the second century bce up to the time of the first Jewish uprising against the Romans. Until recently our knowledge of them was derived entirely from Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder, all of whom wrote as outsiders. Now, however, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered from 1947 onwards (the Qumran manuscripts) have provided us with what might be regarded as authentic Essene documents – though the name itself never occurs in them (for discussion see chapters 24–5, below). Both sources complement each other: the classical authors are particularly important for factual information such as dates, places and the way of life of the Essenes, while the Qumran texts also reveal the theological foundations of their singular faith.

FACTUAL INFORMATION

SOURCES

The Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo (15/10 bce–ce 45) in his treatise ‘Every good man is free’ and in a subsequent ‘Apology for the Jews’ depicts the Essenes as an example of a truly free and righteous existence. These two accounts bear a close resemblance to one another linguistically and also in context, not least because the author saw his own Platonic and Stoic ideals realized in the life of the Essenes. Flavius Josephus (ce 37–100), who claimed to have belonged to all the different Jewish religious factions in his youth, including the Essenes, offers us a more detailed account of this latter sect than any other author, in his work on The Jewish War. He also mentions them frequently in brief remarks and anecdotes in his main work Antiquities of the Jews.

Introduction

From the perspective of 100 BC the history of ethics in the Hellenistic period is dominated by Stoicism and Epicureanism. The sceptical Academy had also made a significant contribution by criticizing the Stoics and by classifying alternative theories of the summum bonum, but in the Peripatos social philosophy, though it remained alive, was scarcely vigorous. When Epicurus and Zeno first established their schools at Athens, these developments could not have been foreseen. At that time the Academy was still the centre of doctrinal Platonism, and Theophrastus at the Peripatos included ethics among the numerous subjects on which he wrote and lectured. Many other philosophers were also stimulating reflection on the foundations of happiness and attracting followers – Cynics, Cyrenaics, Menedemus, Stilpo, Pyrrho. Ethics was a hotly debated subject around the year 300 BC.

That fact helps to explain why Epicurus and Zeno were rapidly able to acquire an audience. Yet there was no reason to predict that the schools they founded would soon become the main ethical options. Why did those schools achieve such a dominating position? With hindsight it can be seen that they offered an informed choice between two radically different ways for persons to orient themselves. Antithetical though they are in cosmology, theology, attitude to politics and evaluation of virtue relative to pleasure, Stoicism and Epicureanism closely resemble one another in being comprehensive philosophies of life. Both their mutual exclusiveness and their comprehensiveness are factors that help to explain the remarkable success both philosophies achieved. These, of course, are also retrospective judgements.

The synagogue has been and is one of the most important Jewish institutions, the spiritual, cultural and religious centre of any Jewish community. It fulfilled a multitude of functions in antiquity, of which the most important, besides those of prayer and worship, was the teaching of the Law. It was where the Jews assembled to pray and to hear on the Sabbath the weekly reading and interpretation of the Torah; it was where their children gathered to receive instruction from their teachers; it was where they could get advice on everyday questions concerning the observance of the commandments; it was where problems of the Halakah were discussed and resolved, and so on.

In addition to these religious functions, the synagogue also had an entirely secular role. It was where announcements were made that concerned the community; it acted as a kind of ‘lost property office’; it was the place where legal witnesses could be found. In other words, the synagogue fulfilled the functions of a secular as well as a religious centre, and of a civil administration. In addition, there was its role of providing accommodation for visitors, especially in the synagogues of minority Jewish communities (Landsmannschaften), and in the Diaspora.

We find numerous references to synagogues and their functions in Philo, Josephus, the New Testament and rabbinic literature. Archaeological finds have also substantially enriched our knowledge of synagogues. Above all, in the last eighty years a wide-ranging literature has dealt with the different aspects of synagogues, from the explanation of individual words in synagogue inscriptions to monographs treating their origin and all the problems related to their study.

The period under discussion coincides roughly with what is usually called the Early Roman or Herodian period. While the former term is quite accurate and somewhat neutral, the latter is rather more appropriate. Our period bears the sharp imprint of Herod and his dynastic successors, who ruled the country from 37 bce onward. Unlike many periods bearing the names of a monarch, but actually owing very little to him (e.g. ‘Edwardian’), many of the features of the Herodian period were indeed shaped by Herod himself – the greatest builder in the history of Palestine and one of the outstanding builders of all antiquity. Herod introduced new styles and building methods into the country and built on a monumental scale and to an unparalleled extent: cities, fortresses, palaces, a large harbour and the most magnificent building ever to be built in Palestine, the Jerusalem temple complex. Many of these monuments which were preserved because of their size or sacred character (e.g. the Temple Mount, the Cave of Machpelah) or because of their location in desert areas, where the remoteness and climate ensured their survival (e.g. Masada) have given us a better knowledge of the Herodian period than of any other period in the history of the country.

The beginning of modern research into this period was ushered in by the explorations of the American scholar Edward Robinson who, as early as 1838, noted in Jerusalem the skewback of an Herodian arch, now bearing his name, and correctly identified remains of the ‘Third Wall’ as well as the sites of Masada, Herodion and others. The Frenchman F. de Saulcy was the first to excavate in Jerusalem, clearing the so-called Tombs of the Kings in 1854, and in 1864 the British Charles Wilson began his series of soundings around the Temple Mount, thus initiating the modern scientific approach. Archaeological activity has hardly stopped ever since.

THE EVIDENCE

Two things of great historical importance certainly happened in Palestine during the first century ce. A Galilean miracle-man formed a group of followers which survived his crucifixion and became Christianity. A Jewish revolt led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and so put an end to most powers of the priests and determined the development of Judaism as a religion without influential priesthood or public sacrifices.

While we are reasonably certain that these events occurred, their backgrounds and details are uncertain because of the inadequacy of sources and the ingenuity of scholars. For Jesus we are almost entirely dependent on the devotional utterances of Paul (c. 50) and the hagiographic accounts of the gospels (c. 75–100). Both Paul and the gospels preserve earlier material, but in such ways that the original elements and their dates, forms, and contents are uncertain. For the history of the country, the revolt and its immediate consequences we are similarly dependent on Josephus whose sources for most of this century were chiefly hearsay, his notes, and his memories – none of these reliable. Besides, he distorted them all to serve various motives (some of them discussed below) and his War was thoroughly edited (and many passages, especially the speeches, were written) by secretaries assigned to him by Titus. Josephus claims that Titus also signed the War and ordered it published (Vita 363, written after Titus was dead).

Titus', and perhaps Vespasian's, initial sponsorship of the War is commonly thought a consequence of the desire to prevent the big Jewish populations of Mesopotamia and Adiabene from trying to intervene in Palestine or using their influence to secure a Parthian invasion.

The importance of archaeological finds in enhancing our knowledge of the past is never more clearly demonstrated than in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. The information from literary sources relating to this period is limited, and while the archaeological material is likewise far from abundant, it nevertheless contributes significantly to our understanding of specific Jewish communities.

The archaeological data from this period are diverse and include synagogue and funerary remains, as well as inscriptions, artistic representations, and small finds (glass, pottery, lamps, coins, medallions and amulets). The geography of these finds is equally diverse; material has been uncovered from the eastern frontiers of the Empire (Dura Europos) to the Bosporan kingdom, Delos, Asia Minor, Italy, North Africa and Egypt. Most remains from this period relate to the synagogue or proseuche (lit., house of prayer). A number of ancient Diaspora communities, particularly those of Alexandria and Egypt, have provided us with a significant amount of material regarding this Hellenistic and early Roman institution. Epigraphical evidence hails from as early as the third century bce, papyrological and archaeological data from the second century bce on-ward, and literary sources from the first century ce. Together they afford an intriguing, if only partial, picture of the role and status of this institution throughout the Hellenistic–Roman Diaspora.

The external appearance and internal organization of the synagogue bore some significant differences in various regions. The names by which communities referred to the synagogue may well reflect diverse perceptions of the institution and its place in society.