With Persia ‘s licking at Alexander the Greats custodies at Gaugamela in the fourth century BC – the frontier between East & A ; West was abolished opening the East to a Hellenic influence. In Judea, Hellenism came face to face with the deeply rooted Judaic traditions necessarily making a clang of civilizations with long histories and strong traditions.
The coming of Hellenism towards the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean and the winning runs sped up a moving ridge of assimilation particularly by the Jews of the Greek linguistic communication which became the “ lingua franca ” on the outskirts of nearer Asia and with it came civilization, art and Greek idea and towards the Greeks, monotheistic traditions which played good particularly in the heads of the philosophers and the moral codification. This “ merger of individualities ” every bit good as several antithesis that came with it, produced alterations non merely on a political degree, but on a religious and cultural one.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
In order to understand this antithesis one must understand the cardinal difference between Hellenistic and the Judeo beliefs and thought, the Hellenistic head as opposed to the Hebrew head – “ Knowing V Making ” – in which the Hebrew is anointed with pattern and right behavior whereas the Hellene with cognition and right thought. The contrast is between the pattern and the theory between the moral virtuousnesss as the substance and the significance of life as opposed that of the theoretical or rational which would turn out to be a clang of two universes and the beginning of a uninterrupted and counter at times relationship between the two schools of idea.
This besides ties into the statement of whether Alexander envisaged a new imperium made up of a multicultural province, where Greeks and other cultural groups would be melted into one society or whether this whole program was merely a “ mechanism for beef uping the trueness of his Eastern topics ” and a “ manner of monopolising the genteelness stock, therefore preventing a new coevals of discontented elite ” .
As with all imperiums, we see that care of power becomes paramount ( this is particularly true after the decease of Alexander ) when competing to command huge countries of land and legion people ‘s and although every bit is apparent in the instance of the Hellenic imperium where this interaction of civilizations can take to a reasonably tolerant and pluralist government due chiefly to the drawing of a wider assortment of cultural traditions and values and what from a Grecian point of position would be seen as battling oppressive patterns – or at least perceived to be so by their ain criterions – this finally has negative intensions as good.
With this in head it becomes easy to understand the hostility and animus that developed between the 3 Ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean and was at its strongest in the metropolis of Alexandria. On the one manus we have the colonising power, the Greeks and their domination of the linguistic and cultural facets of the whole part. Second is, the two native civilizations of the country – the Egyptians ( people of the Pharaohs ) and the Jews, scriptural enemies of old and now co-inhabitants of what is considered to be the most of import metropolis of the known universe.
We have therefore the imposed merger of 3 civilizations and traditions and the old biass every bit good s new competition all led to a systematic cultural onslaught on each other, associating largely to historical and cultural traditions but all stemming from the differences in mentality and beliefs even more so than to colonial conquering and subjugation.
This bombardment of onslaughts revolved around the perceptual experience of these differences by the other and the usage of them as a agency of onslaught on the individuality and legitimacy of the other, for this becomes the primary agencies of edifice and or keeping both high quality and defense mechanism against what is seen as a menace.
In the instance of the Jews we see that there are 3 major facets of their traditions that come under onslaught from chiefly Grecian beginnings, their usage of Circumcision, Sabbath and their diet. All imposts intended to distinguish the Jews signifier others ( non-Jews ) . These differences are viewed as being foreign to educate pattern and obnoxious to what was seen as the norm of the clip.
The pattern of Circumcision chiefly comes under onslaught and even comes with the rigorous edict of justifying a “ charge of misanthropy ” because of the apparent belief that this was used as a agency of distinguishing people from one another, therefore is dissentious. Whether this is true, in the nature of the statement is irrelevant, as we can see the justification in the agencies of its usage in placing Jew from heathen by the Jews themselves for the same intent as it was used to distinguish the Jews organize the Pagans. The eventual usage of it as a tool of segregation comes as a reaction to this denial of equality of all.
The Sabbath is an interesting one and revolves around the differences in calendar and the alliance of that twenty-four hours to Saturn which in bend was seen as evil and a failing for on that twenty-four hours they were believed non to contend, doing them “ less than work forces ” particularly when seen from the eyes of the traditional Hellenic belief system of honor and the warrior/hero codification, this was unheard of. The 3rd major difference is the dietetic issue, which lies chiefly in one difference the abstinence from eating porc and the profound comprehension of this particularly when this is seen as a daintiness by the Greeks unable to warrant it.
There is besides a difference sing faith, the onslaught on which becomes necessary ( I footings of imperium edifice ) if one is to interrupt down a hostile society that is non conforming to govern, as the instance of the Jews, add to this the stronger ties between Greek thought and its Egyptian predecessor and the wholly “ unlogical ” thought of the Jews harmonizing to major minds of the clip and we get a thaw pot of anti-semitic raillery that seems to be tied into the narrative of beginning and the differences in its originality – the spiritual differences are less stressed as a job particularly for the Greeks of Alexanders clip who were unfastened to new faiths as where the major minds of the clip who agreed with the thought of a individual diety.
Understanding the development of this difference in sentiment and belief and in which in certain instances led to a hate of the ‘other ‘ can easy be seen as being deeper rooted and more complex than that of merely the relationship between the conquered and the vanquisher, its is chiefly an antithesis sing the very foundations of the two societies and the manner of life and their very patterns. At times this relationship could be harmonic as we can see in the good advantage of trade but at times can besides be counter and junior-grade as we can see in the care of ill will towards the Jews throughout this clip and into the hereafter. This nevertheless has likely more to make with the reaction of the Jews to the Hellenic “ masters ” ( opposition and rebellion ) and their subsequent reaction to them and how it was perceived by the Greeks themselves in the class of seeking to keep their imperium.
