[noemon]

The Greeks, for cultural reasons, had a visceral dislike of the Jewish religion, which was exacerbated by the fact that Judaism stubbornly refused to be integrated into the Greek polity, unlike the religions of all their other subject peoples.

In retrospect this appears to be the case, but during my readings of classical sources in the past, I remember that I had arrived to the conclusion that:

a) The Greco-Jewish rivalry is greatly exaggerated in later sources due to christian polemics.
b) Greeks did not really care that much about Jews back then, this is something iterated by Josephus who complained that Greek literature has not dedicated enough 'ink' on Judea.
c) The Jewish people ever since Alexander had been divided into liberal Hellenistic Jews and religious zealots. This is quite important, because people often confuse the Hellenistic Jews with Greeks because they are termed as such by the zealots.
d) Judea was a bone of contention between Seleucus and Ptolemy, again often people confuse Jewish proxy victories against Seleucus as victories of Jews against Greeks, when in fact they were victories of Ptolemy against Seleucus using Jewish cannon fodder and cannot really be seen as revolts against the "Greeks"(or Hellenism) because Ptolemy who supported them and officially controlled them was a Greek too.
e) The polemic literature developed by Jewish zealots against Hellenism needs to be viewed on the backdrop of the factional rivalry within the Jewish communities because it was actually confined within it. The lack of Greek polemics against Judaism or Hebraism denotes that Greeks were largely oblivious to these issues and as such I believe that such statements(as yours) can be deconstructed.

Of course classical Greeks were probably disgusted by the practice of circumcision, but on their list of most important issues I am guessing it was quite far down and besides it's not like the Jews were the weirdest of people in the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

[Igor Antunov]

There were many uprisings all over the Empire, Romans put those down brutally, as was their custom. The Hebrew revolt is nothing special. The Gauls bore the brunt of Romes iron boot many times.

[starman2003]

There were many uprisings all over the Empire, Romans put those down brutally, as was their custom. The Hebrew revolt is nothing special. The Gauls bore the brunt of Romes iron boot many times.

There weren't many revolts outside of Judaea, unless you count usurpations and bagaudae, especially of the late Empire. I don't think there was any revolt in Gaul, in the sense of a quest for celt independence, after the reign of Tiberius.

[layman]

I always thought of Britania as being one of the more peaceful provinces.

I read however that they held two legions here, rather than the customary one. Noone is quite sure why this is but it seems to be down to our rebellious and backwards tribes (at the start of the occupation mainly) and maybe our natural resources. At the time we had very good crop yields, tin deposits and other things.

[Igor Antunov]

Referring to a long-dead culture and people as 'we' is curious. I'm sure today's Romans don't speak of we when they talk of ancient Rome. The Germanic tribes cleansed the isles/western France fairly comprehensively. Some snippets of the old genetic stock left over in parts of Ireland/Scotland, but that's about it.

[Potemkin]

There weren't many revolts outside of Judaea, unless you count usurpations and bagaudae, especially of the late Empire. I don't think there was any revolt in Gaul, in the sense of a quest for celt independence, after the reign of Tiberius.

You are mistaken, starman. The Gallic Empire

[noemon]

I'm sure today's Romans don't speak of we when they talk of ancient Rome.

Unfortunately we do not, but in our organic folk songs we actually do. There is an explanation for the negation of our true Roman identity and it has to do with the formation of the Greek state in the 18th and 19th centuries and the destruction and imprisonment of all the true Roman revolutionaries(Rigas Ferraios, Alexander Ypsilantis) by Napoleon, the Austro-Hungarians, the Ottomans and the British, simply put a Roman state could not have been digested by anybody back then so the true Romans went for the next best thing, which was Greece since there was the obvious lingual & reduced territorial link as well. However all Greeks who remained outside of modern Greece call themselves Romans to the present day as they were not subjected to the national narrative.

[Igor Antunov]

From what I understand (and you touched on it) the formation of modern Italy, Greece etc necessitated the destruction of former traditions and mindsets. Christianity played a role in furthering the divide as well with the schism. Greeks essentially were romanized centuries prior and carried the roman beacon right up until ottoman conquest of their territories. We call them Byzantines, but they always referred to themselves as Romans. Greek and Latin were used interchangeably throughout the empire long before the east-west political split.

[starman2003]

I always thought of Britania as being one of the more peaceful provinces.

It was relatively unaffected by third and fourth century calamities and actually peaked around then.

The Gallic Empire

Assuming you mean the third century breakaway state that was a mini Roman state with its own emperor rather than a celtic quest to eliminate Roman rule and influence altogether.

[Potemkin]

Assuming you mean the third century breakaway state that was a mini Roman state with its own emperor rather than a celtic quest to eliminate Roman rule and influence altogether.

It was certainly a rebellion, and a rather successful one. And it certainly led to the independence of the Celtic provinces of the late Roman Empire - Gaul, Britannia and Hispania. The fault line which fractured was the line separating the Celts from the rest of the Empire. And why would they want to eliminate Roman influence and culture from their society? China is independent of Western colonialism, yet they are making no effort to eliminate the influence of Western culture from their society; quite the reverse in fact.

[starman2003]

It was certainly a rebellion, and a rather successful one. And it certainly led to the independence of the Celtic provinces of the late Roman Empire - Gaul, Britannia and Hispania.

Not for long.

The fault line which fractured was the line separating the Celts from the rest of the Empire.

Just about all of Roman Europe west of the Rhine was originally celtic but the area had become Romanized. Essentially it was just a breakaway Roman State, stemming from personal ambition and desperation--lack of an emperor and his army in threatened areas led locals to take matters into their own hands. It shouldn't be compared to say, Alesia, the revolt of 22 CE or the Judaean revolts. The latter were real attempts to repudiate Rome and revive truly native rule. Note the jews rebelled repeatedly but Gaul was quiet for well over two centuries after 22 CE, and it didn't try to break away after 274 CE either.

[Potemkin]

Note the jews rebelled repeatedly but Gaul was quiet for well over two centuries after 22 CE

The Batavians revolted during the Year of Four Emperors (69 AD), and it threatened to spread to the whole of Gaul. Vespasian even felt the need to station several legions throughout Gaul, to forestall any such revolt, at a time when he needed those troops to defeat the Batavians. To say that Gaul was "quiet" between 22 AD and the third century is an overstatement, to put it mildly. The threat of a revolt was always there, though I agree that Gaul became increasingly Romanised during this period, until by the third century the concept of an 'independent' Gaul no longer meant very much in cultural terms.

[starman2003]

To say that Gaul was "quiet" between 22 AD and the third century is an overstatement, to put it mildly.

It was rather quiet from about 71 CE to c 260 or so, including the reign of Aurelius. Of course Severus and Albinus fought it out there in 197 but that's a different issue.

[noemon]

From what I understand (and you touched on it) the formation of modern Italy, Greece etc necessitated the destruction of former traditions and mindsets.

Somehow I feel the need to tell you this:

Βουλγάροι κι Αρβανίτες, Αρμένιοι και Ρωμιοί,
Bulgars, Arvanites, Armenians & Romans
Αράπηδες και άσπροι, με μια κοινήν ορμή,
Blacks & whites with a common force
Για την ελευθερίαν, να ζωσωμεν σπαθί,
For freedom buckle your swords
πως είμαστ’ αντρειωμένοι, παντού να ξακουσθεί."...
our bravery shall make the world tremble

Βούλγαροι κι Αρβανίτες και Σέρβοι και Ρωμιοί
Bulgars, Arvanites, Serbs & Romans
Νησιώτες κι Ηπειρώτες με μια κοινή ορμή
Islanders & Epirotans with a common force
Για την ελευθερίαν, να ζωσωμεν σπαθί,
For freedom buckle your swords
πως είμαστ’ αντρειωμένοι, παντού να ξακουσθεί."...
our bravery shall make the world tremble

...."Να σφάξουμε τους λύκους, που στον ζυγόν βαστούν,
to slaughter the wolves...that keep in slavery
και Χριστιανούς και Τούρκους, σκληρά τους τυραννούν.
both Christians & Turks and violently tyrannise them
Στεργιάς και του πελάγου, να λάμψει ο σταυρός,
In land and sea, the cross will shine
και στην δικαιοσύνην, να σκύψει ο εχθρό
And in justice the enemy shall bend the knee.

[ImperialSun]

I am mostly interested in Roman history, and throughout my readings I have come across a number of events showing enormous animosity between Greek populations and Jews throughout the Roman Empire (and before). As we all know, the Greeks after Alexander, spread across the known world and established colonies outside Greece, in Egypt, Judea, Italy, etc.
FYI, here is a map of Greek city states, the Greeks expanded enormously!:

The Greeks prospered everywhere they went. But it seems one of the people they never got along with were the Jews. The Romans frequently had to calm the situation down, with outright war happening between the two communities. In Alexandria, pogroms happened, and in Greek city-states in the levant, tensions were high.

It is also important I think to note, that the levant (including Judea), was historically part of the Greek Empire formed from the conquests of Alexander, the so-called "Seleucid Empire", which ruled for nearly 400 years the region, aggressively "Hellenizing" it.

Thus comes my question: On a philosophical level, what caused tensions between the Jews and the Greeks? The Greeks often come across as an "enlightened" people, spreading civilisation (the "craddle of Western civilisation"), so why did these civilised people descend in barbarism when it came to the Jews?

[starman2003]

I think it was the same basic issue which has recurred in history--the jews were effectively a state within a state. They refused to assimilate into the broader culture and did not support any state save their own, when they had it.

[ThirdTerm]

The Greeks prospered everywhere they went. But it seems one of the people they never got along with were the Jews. The Romans frequently had to calm the situation down, with outright war happening between the two communities. In Alexandria, pogroms happened, and in Greek city-states in the levant, tensions were high.

It was not the ancient Greeks who were responsible for massacring the Jews in 38 CE in Alexandria, which was the first anti-Jewish pogrom in history. The pogrom took place when the Alexandrines had a public assembly and a large number of Jews also came to the amphitheater. The Alexandrines attacked them for no apparent reason and killed the majority of the Jews. The blood feud between the Arabs and the Jews already existed in the era of Greek colonisation of Egypt and the Levant. The Greeks were a tiny minority in Alexandria and those who were responsible for the pogrom were the Egyptians.

“As far as we know Alexandria in Egypt was the birthplace of anti-Semitism’s ideology. There also the first pogrom in history-as we now would call it-took place. In Asia Minor, which is now Turkey, there also were large Jewish communities from the fourth or third century BCE onward. One finds there no endemic hatred of the Jews as in Alexandria.

“The initial indication of a negative attitude toward Jews is found at the beginning of the third century BCE in the writings of an Egyptian priest called Manetho. This Greek-speaking Egyptian devotes a large section of his main work, which deals with the history of Egypt, to the Exodus of the Israelites.”

Prof. Pieter van der Horst studied classical philology and literature. In 1978 he received his PhD in theology from Utrecht University. After his studies he taught there, among other things as professor of Jewish studies. Van der Horst is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

“Manetho turns the story of the Exodus upside down. In the Bible it is an act of liberation of the Jewish people by God from Egyptian bondage. In Manetho’s antibiblical history it is an expulsion of the Jews from Egypt at the command of the Egyptian gods, because their country has to be purified of unclean people.

“Manetho tells that when the Egyptians take measures to expel these unclean people, the Jews organize themselves around a priest whose name later turns out to be Moses. They start a regime of terror in which the Egyptian population becomes the victim of brutal violence. Indeed, these people display large-scale sacrilegious behavior by killing, roasting, and eating the Egyptian gods-that is, the sacred animals. Finally the Pharaoh succeeds in expelling them, whereupon they found their own rogue state in and around Jerusalem where they build their temple

http://jcpa.org/article/the-egyptian-be ... g-history/

[noemon]

ImperialSun, I notice several errors in your post:

As we all know, the Greeks after Alexander, spread across the known world and established colonies outside Greece, in Egypt, Judea, Italy, etc.
FYI, here is a map of Greek city states, the Greeks expanded enormously!:

This map you got here is Greek expansion before Alexander the Great, not after him. After Alexander the Great expansion was taken on a whole new level. These are Greek cities established between the 8th-6th BCE. Alexander lived in 330 BCE.

so why did these civilised people descend in barbarism when it came to the Jews?

Greeks and Romans were very cruel people, not only to foreigners but also among themselves, for example Alexander razed Thebes(a Greek city) to the ground, he razed several Persian cities to the ground, however they were generally not very cruel to the Jews compared to others(did any Greek general ever raze a Jewish city to the ground?) and the majority of the time Jews were loyal subjects of the Greek Kingdoms for example they did not even put up a fight and allowed Alexander to annex them bloodlessly, they were very open to Hellenism and the Greek way of life and within 2 centuries Hebrew had been replaced by Greek in Judea and Jews had immigrated in the Greek lands of Greece, Asia Minor and Alexandria as well as the rest of the massive Greek domain stretching to India but mainly they preferred to settle in the Greek heartlands. As mentioned earlier the Greco-Jewish historian Josephus complains that the Greeks have always been very indifferent with the Jews and that they have not really bothered with Judea. Jewish religious animosity against the Greeks started under the Hasmoneans when the Judean Zealots started attacking Hellenised Jews and then Greeks themselves, for them it was a way of saving Judaism as an identity, the fights that broke off between Jewish extremists and Hellenised Jews should also be seen within the context of the wars between the Seleucid Kingdom and the Ptolemaic Kingdom who used the 2 factions as proxies, Seleucid used the Hellenistic Jews and Ptolemy used the Judaistic Jews(Zealots). In the grand scheme of things that was just another day in the East and not a very important event unsettling anybody in Greece, even though for the Jews that was a major religious event immortalised in the Hanukkah.

Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism

'Ḥoni' became 'Menelaus'; 'Joshua' became 'Jason' or 'Jesus.' The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, and even in the very strongholds of Judaism it modified the organization of the state, the laws, and public affairs, art, science, and industry, affecting even the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the people […] The inscription forbidding strangers to advance beyond a certain point in the Temple was in Greek; and was probably made necessary by the presence of numerous Jews from Greek-speaking countries at the time of the festivals (comp. the "murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews," Acts vi. 1). The coffers in the Temple which contained the shekel contributions were marked with Greek letters (Sheḳ. iii. 2). It is therefore no wonder that there were synagogues of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics in the Holy City itself (Acts vi. 9).[11]

It was not the ancient Greeks who were responsible for massacring the Jews in 38 CE in Alexandria

Indeed, the problem was between 2 second-class citizens in Alexandria, the Egyptians and the Jews, both enjoying restricted rights compared to the Greeks & Romans and both subject to the poll-tax. Assemblies were then sent by both communities to Rome to argue for the increase of their civil rights and bring them more in line with Greco-Roman civil rights as well as mainly to argue why each of them should not pay the poll-tax. The cause of the riots was that the Egyptians accused the Jews of evading the poll-tax and not worshipping the Emperor.

The Roman poll tax fell principally on Roman subjects in the provinces, but not on Roman citizens. Towns in the provinces who possessed the Jus Italicum (enjoying the "privileges of Italy") were exempted from the poll tax. The 212 edict of Emperor Caracalla which formally conferred Roman citizenship on all residents of Roman provinces, did not however exempt them from the poll tax.

[The Immortal Goon]

There's truth to what Noemon says. If nothing else, a lot of Jewish documents (like the Gospels) are written in Greek.

I think throughout antiquity, too, monotheists like the Jews were problematic for a lot of other people. Typically, you'd go into another town, tribe, country, and after you took over you'd go through the gods and say, "Oh, Zeus? We call him Jupiter. That city has another god we haven't heard of? Well, he's probably the step son of Mercury, let's work this out and pretty soon we can get to our leader as deified by our new mutual gods..."

And so since Cyrus the Great, you'd have a certain kind of cohesiveness built into these conquests that would allow the vanquished to live inside of the new society with relative ease.

Then you get into monotheists and that all falls apart.

"Oh, Yaweh? We call him Jupiter...What do you mean I can't say His name? Alright, maybe He's Apollo? Stop throwing those rocks at me! Look, let's just work this out so we can figure out how our leader will be deified and put into your temple. Holy of holies? What the fuck is that?"

It was the same with the Christians and the Muslims. It's simply a lot harder for integration in the ancient world to work between monotheists and polytheists.

[ImperialSun]

Many thanks for your insights.
Regarding Alexandria, it was my original belief that the Egyptians & Greeks actually got along fine, with the Greeks having some admiration for the Egyptian civilisation (otherwise I cannot imagine why the Greek dynasties could rule for so long there).
I must have been mistaken regarding this.