MASSACRES, DEPORTATION AND SALE OF PRISONERS-OF-WAR INTO SLAVERY

(Please refer to note No. 4 for references)

Hellenist treatment of conquered nations was cruel and included massacring the population and the sale of captured survivors into slavery. The purpose of this policy was to reduce the size of the local population, while colonising the Land of Israel and transforming it into a Greek-Macedonian colony. This policy destroyed the Jewish demographic majority in the Israel.

Kasher quotes evidence from both Greek and Jewish sources for this policy. In 302 BCE, Ptolemy I took 100,000 Jewish prisoners to Egypt. He conscripted 30,000 of their young men for his garrisons and sold the rest – women, children, and the elderly – into slavery.

During the Syrian Wars between the Ptolemies and the Seleucid (begun in 301 BCE) the capturing of prisoners and their sale in the region’s slave markets was a routine policy. In the 4th and 5th Syrian wars, prisoners were taken from Jerusalem. The decrees of Antioch Epiphanes and the unrest the followed them also included the sale of Jewish prisoners, as, for example, in the large slave market that was held after the battle of Emmaus.

In 103-102 BCE, the Galilean city of Shihin was conquered by Ptolemy IX, and 10,000 of its inhabitants were sold into slavery. During the battles that took place in the Trans-Jordan, which had a large Jewish population, 5,000 Jews were massacred and those captured alive were sold as slaves.

While the data available is not precise, it still illustrates the Hellenist policy of deportation of Jews by selling them as slaves abroad. This is one factor that contributed to the Jewish diaspora.

DEPORTATION AND FLIGHT OF JEWS DUE TO POLITICAL CAUSES

(Please refer to note No. 5 for references)

Following the wars among Alexander’s successors, the Jews who had supported the losing Seleucid were forced to emigrate to Egypt and Phoenicia (which were under Prolemaic rule), but the exact numbers are unknown. [do you mean they were exiled by the Ptolemies? Why didn’t they flee to Seleucid-controlled Syria?]

During the reign of Antioch Epiphanes, from 175 BCE, growing numbers of Jewish dissidents fled the country, mostly to Egypt. Their numbers increased even more after Epiphanes’ decrees [in what year?]

Hellenised Jews fled from the poleis following the Hasmonaean victory over the Hellenists.

EMIGRATION DUE TO ECONOMIC CAUSES

(Please refer to note No. 6 for references)

The wars among Alexander’s successors (the Syrian Wars) for control over the Land of Israel lasted 100 years, turning the country into a battle ground , damaging the economy severely and causing great hardship to the people. The population had to feed the military forces even as the battles interfered in the farming cycles; many farmers were conscripted into forced labour; a new tax was levied on an already tax-burdened population; and the armies moved entire villages and towns as their battle tactics required.

All this impoverished the land and its occupants, widening social disparities in addition. The result was forced emigration, which ceased only with the Hasmonaean victory.

One of the ways Jewish emigrants secured their economic conditions abroad was by joining the military colonies in Egypt during the Ptolemaic reign. Scholars are divided over whether this started when Alexander was still alive, but, based on archaeological findings, they agree it was a common practice from the first half of the 2nd century BCE, during the reign of the first two Ptolemaic rulers.

Service conditions were good: military settlers were given land and enjoyed religious-national autonomy.Thirty Jewish military colonies were established in the district of Fayum, south-west of the Nile delta. A colony called The Land of Hunyo was established on the eastern side of the delta, and several more were established in Cyrene.

A Jewish military colony, The Land of Tuvia, was established in the Trans-Jordan as a measure against local banditry. This colony was dismantled in 200 BCE by the Seleucid.

This practice [of joining military colonies?] ceased following the Hasmonaen victory.

THE POLITICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF JERUSALEM BECOMING A POLIS IN 175 BCE

(Please refer to note No. 7 for references)

POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES

1. Excluding the lower classes from the Polis

Studying in the Ephybium and the Gymnasium, where the future members of the polis were educated, was a condition for becoming a member of the polis. Only the upper classes could afford the fees of these institutions, and so only they could become members of the polis. It is estimated that only 3000 of Jerusalem’s inhabitants became members of the polis.

2. Elimination of autonomy

When the Seleucid Antioch III conquered the country from the Ptolemies, he granted Judea a bulla of rights. Judea’s autonomy was restored and the right of the Jews to live according to their faith was recognised.

A constitutional reform accompanied the transformation of Jerusalem into a polis, the consequence of which was the elimination of Jewish autonomy, i.e., the laws of the Torah were no longer accepted as the basis for daily life, although Jews were not forbidden to worship their God and obey the Jewish religion. The power of government was transferred from the Council of Elders to the Polis Assembly.

The socio-economic consequences of rejecting the Torah laws as the basis for administering daily life were far-reaching, resulting in the elimination of the social welfare policies financed by the Temple treasury. The Temple raised funds from donations and the tithe paid by every Jew in Israel and abroad. One of the important functions of the Temple treasury was the funding of the social welfare policy based on Torah laws, including support for widows, orphans, and others in need; writing-off debts during fallow years; and [payment for crops collected in the fields and along their boundaries]. [I’m struggling with translating this bit – how exactly was the money used for לקט פאה ושכחה ?]

These social welfare policies were eliminated by Hellenised priests who used Temple funds for bribing Antioch Epiphanes to appoint them as High Priests, thereby ensuring their control of future Temple funds. The cuts in welfare policies increased the socio-economic gap between rich and poor in the Jewish population. Farmers who lost the economic support during fallow years were caught in a debt spiral as the money they borrowed carried interest, against the Torah laws, and enabled the Hellenised upper classes to foreclose on their lands, turning the farmers into tenants. In Jerusalem, the lower classes, excluded from polis membership and losing their welfare payments, sank into poverty.

Many among the lower classes earned their income by lodging pilgrims and providing them with food and animals for sacrifice. When the Torah laws were abolished and pilgrimage to Jerusalem ceased, these people lost their livelihood.

3. Annexation of Judea (or parts thereof) to the polis

Contrary to the bulla of rights granted by Antioch III, which recognised Judean farmers’ ownership of their land, the annexation of lands to the polis of Jerusalem involved their dispossession, with farmers becoming tenants on what used to be their own property.

The transformation of Jerusalem into a polis was in line with the interests of the Hellenised upper classes to take over farmland and increase trade with the Hellenist world.

Independent farmers comprised most of Judea’s Jewish population. At the time of Nehemiah, farmers fought the upper classes for their own personal freedom and ownership of their land. Supported by Nehemiah [it may be good to add here that he was appointed as sort of governor by the Persians] they won this struggle and throughout the time the Persians ruled the country, the majority of Judea remained in the hands of its Jewish farmers.

Little change occurred under Ptolemaic rule. The Ptolemies did not establish Hellenist cities populated by Greeks and Hellenised locals, in Judea. Although Ptolemy Auergates threatened to confiscate the Jewish-owned land in Judea and divide it among his military personnel, Joseph ben Tuvia [who was he to intervene?] moderated between the Ptolemaic government and the Jews and thwarted this threat. The imposed land taxes, however, were a heavy burden on the farmers.

The cancellation of Antioch III’s Judea bulla of rights removed the protection on farmers’ lands.

Turning Jerusalem into a polis in 175 BCE changed the status-quo in Judea. Unfortunately, the size of Judean land annexed to the polis is not known, nor is the fate of farmers’ land.

According to Jones, Hellenist rulers used to apportion land among the citizens’ body of the polis, but scholars debate the fate of Judean lands after 175 BCE.

Cherikover (p. 155) and Stern (p. 151) supported Jones’ suggestion that turning Jerusalem to a polis in 175 BCE was accompanied by the annexation of Judean land and the change of status of farmers into tenants on the estates that were handed to members of the citizens’ body. Cherikover determined that villagers and the urban poor had a common enemy in the large estate owners who lived in the city and drew their living from Judean villages.

A royal estate was established in the district of Ekron-Gezer and the Jews living in that district came under the estate’s jurisdiction. Gezer and Beit-Zur were fortified cities which were most likely populated with Seleucid soldiers who were given blocks of land as well.

The fate of farmers and their lands in the years 169/168 BCE and 167 BCE is under debate: In his study, Bickermann (p. 110, note 6) concludes that most of the land in Judea was confiscated and, in punishment for the riots of those years, were charged the land tax. In effect, they became property of the Crown.

Rostovtzeff (pp. 466-468) concluded that the land tax was already charged by the Ptolemies. The new development was that the Seleucid collected the tax directly [from the farmers?] along with the collective tax.

Mittwoch rejected the notion that the lands of Judea were confiscated from the farmers. In his opinion, the elimination of autonomy during Appolonius’ punitive tour in 168/7 BCE resulted in transferring ownership of the lands to the Crown with a tax charged on agricultural produce.

Stern (p. 159) is of the opinion that following Appolonius’ punitive journey in 168/7 BCE, wide-spread confiscation of land for the Crown took place, with the majority of Judea’s farmers becoming tenants on their own lands, required to pay heavy taxes: one-third of ground crops and half the fruit crops.

Cherikover believes that land confiscation began in 175 BCE as a result of turning Jerusalem into a polis.

Another topic for scholarly debate is whether or not a military colony was set up in Jerusalem, whose soldiers were given land confiscated from farmers who became tenants.

Cherikover referred to the Book of Daniel in determining that the polis became a military colony (p. 153). In 168 BCE, when Jerusalem became a military colony and soldiers were settled there, Antioch Epiphanes handed land to them as well.

Bezalel Bar-Kokhva studied the militarisation of Jerusalem by analysing Jewish sources, concluding that following his campaign in Egypt in 169-168 BCE, and contrary to his custom in the past, Antioch IV established a military colony in Jerusalem.

Thedispossessed Jewish farmers and the inhabitants of Jerusalem who had been excluded from the Citizens’ Body, were emotionally prepared for active anti-government resistance.

The Hasmonaean revolt of 167 BCE, which broke out in response to the decrees against the Jewish faith, was preceded in 168 BCE by a revolt of Jerusalem’s commoners who rose against the Hellenised upper classes. In fact, what began as a civil war became a revolt against the Seleucid rule because of the support it gave to the Hellenised upper classes. These commoners were joined by the farmers of Judea who were protesting against the confiscation of their lands, the change in their status from free farmers to tenants, and the heavy taxes imposed on them.

The commoners and farmers’ revolt brought about the decrees against the Jewish faith, as Epiphanes decided that the strong opposition to his policies was driven by the nature of the Jewish faith, and concluded therefore that the Jews must be forced to abandon their religion. Jews who resisted were punished by enslavement or execution.

The decrees covered all Jews in the Land of Israel, not just in Judea, but Jews living in other parts of the Seleucid Empire were exempted.

In summary: it is probable that the confiscation of the lands of Judea’s farmers took place in three stages.

The first stage began in 175 BCE, after Jerusalem became a polis. The Seleucid Crown annexed parts of Judea to the polis of Jerusalem-Antioch and the Hellenised upper classes were given estates that were in fact lands confiscated from Jewish farmers.

The second stage came after Appolonius’ punitive campaign in 168/7 BCE, when more Judean lands were confiscated by the Crown and farmers became the Crown’s tenants.

In the third stage more land was confiscated and given to foreign soldiers stationed in the military colony established in Jerusalem in 167 BCE.

The rural population living in areas that were annexed to Hellenised cities grew ever more resentful of their deteriorating status from free farmers to tenants. In effect, a conflict of status was created between the citizens of the polis and the farmers under their jurisdiction (Rapaport, pp. 266-267). In his study (pp. 160-162), Jones determined that “the major enemy of this arrangement was the Oriental population that was beginning to come out of the shock of conquest and was trying to undermine this arrangement” [if I’m translating back to English what you translated into Hebrew, perhaps it would be better to insert here the original text]. Jones was referring to the Jewish farmers of Judea who took arms against their estate owners and the Seleucid ruler, Antioch Epiphanes.

Thus, the Hasmonaean revolt broke out not only for religious and national reasons but, in equal measure, due to socio-economic ones. Rapaport (p. 268) too believes that the Hasmonaeans were guided by not only religious and national concerns but economic ones as well.

It is probable that most of Judea’s lands were confiscated during the time of Antioch Epiphanes, making its farmers Crown tenants and tenants on lands held by Hellenised upper classes and Seleucid soldiers.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE SETTLEMENT OF JEWISH SURPLUS POPULATION

(Please refer to note No. 8 for references)

In addition to land confiscation and dispossessing Jews, the Hellenist conquerors restricted the settlement of Jews in sparsely populated areas. Judea was the most densely populated area, and the Jewish natural population growth rate was among the highest in the region. The land confiscation policy restricted Jewish settlement in the more sparsely populated areas around Judea.

TAXES

(Please refer to note No. 9 for references)

Taxes paid by the Jews under Ptolemaic rule included the poll tax, the inclusion tax, and the salt tax. The heavy inclusion tax was in the form of gifts which the subjects were required to offer the rulers and their family members on special occasions. The ruler had a monopoly on the sale of salt, and each subject was required to buy a certain amount. The sale of persimmons and asphalt was also a royal monopoly.

Under the Seleucid rule, Jews were taxed the Temple tax, the land tax, and a tithe to the Temple.

The Temple Tax

Autonomous Judea was governed by the High Priest who also collected the collective tax levied on Judea in the edict of Antioch III (granting autonomy to Judea). Defeated by Rome and required to pay compensation, Seleucid IV and his heir Antioch Epiphanes were straining financially. Jason (and later on Menelaos), who contended the position of High Priest in Jerusalem, offered to increase the amount of the collective tax in return for the ruler’s support for his claim. The lower classes ended up shouldering most of the increased tax burden.

The Land Tax

Mittwoch believes that the Jews did not pay a land tax prior to Applonius’ punitive campaign. Appolonius tore down the walls surrounding Jerusalem, thereby reducing its status and including the city in the province of Samaria. The collective tax was replaced with a tax on farm produce. This was a heavy tax that was collected directly from Jews in Judea. Mittwoch rejects the idea that farmers’ land was confiscated. Instead, he believes that with the abolition of Judea’s autonomy, the King became the owner of the land, making Judea’s lands Crown property.

Bickermann and Rostovtzeff were of the opinion that the land tax was charged in addition to the collective tax. Bickermann believed that most of the land in Judea was confiscated and that the land tax was levied as punishment for the riots. Rostovtzeff believed the land tax had already been charged by the Ptolemies. The difference between the Ptolemies and the Seleucid was that the Seleucid collected the tax directly [from individuals?], in addition to the collective tax.

In addition to taxes paid to foreign rulers, the Jews also paid a tithe to the Temple.

The greater part of the tax burden was shouldered by the farmers, and they were collapsing under it.

Mittwoch’s analysis indicates that the land tax was levied prior to the outbreak in 167 BCE of the Hasmonaean revolt, as punishment for the riots in Jerusalem in 169/8 BCE. These riots began among Jerusalem’s commoners, who were joined by Judean farmers and the Hellenised upper classes [?].

According to Mittwoch, economic abuse was a means for suppressing population unrest. The Hasmonaeans fought against this economic abuse.

RELATIONS AMONG THE JEWS AND HELLENIST CITIES, AND THE HASMONAEAN REVOLT

(Please refer to note No. 10 for references)

Some information about the relations between Jews and Hellenists under Hellenist rule can be gleaned from the Books of the Maccabees, Josephus Flavius’ Antiquities of the Jews, Greek sources, and archaeological findings.

During the wars among Alexander’s successors:

The Jewish population was divided in its support for the two camps. When the Seleucid gained the upper hand, Jewish supporters of the Ptolemies were forced to flee south, to Egypt; and when the Ptolemies were winning, Jewish supporters of the Seleucid fled north, to Phoenicia.

Conflicts of interests and social and cultural differences contributed to hostility between Jews and foreigners. Jewish farmers resented the confiscation of their lands by the poleis and the lowering of their status to tenants deprived of citizens’ rights, while the poleis ruled their lives administratively, judicially, and economically. The ethnic-cultural element in this growing tension was amplified by their perception of poleis citizens as collaborators with the foreign conqueror.

The Jewish and Semitic populations of oppressed farmers was stirred by the Hasmonaean revolt and identified with it.

The conflicts between Jews and the Hellenist poleis increased following the religious decrees of Antioch Epiphanes as the poleis joined the efforts to impose the decrees on the Jews.

In the Western Galilee: The possibility that the Jews would take over their cities worried the citizens of Tyre, Sidon, and Acre – cities which controlled the Western Galilee. This concern drove them to collaborate with the Seleucid rule, causing increased hostilities toward Galilean Jews. These actions drove the Jews to call for the aid of the Hasmonaeans, who sent a force of 3000 Jewish warriors under the command of Simon [the Maccabee]. They won over the aggressors in 163 BCE. Sources claim that Simon transferred the Galilean Jews to Judea [all of them? How many Jews would that be? And why would he do that if he won over their aggressors?]

The citizens of Acre helped Triphon to kidnap and murder Jonathan [the Maccabee] in 145 BCE.

In Samaria: Jewish sources report that Simon also came to the aid of the Jews of Narbatta in the Dotan Valley (which may have been part of the territory of the military colony of Samaria) and transferred them to Judea.

Samaria, the first Macedonian [do you mean Hellenist?] city established by Alexander the Great, was taken by the Hasmonaeans and razed to the ground, and its inhabitants, who had been harassing the Jews, were sold as slaves.

In the coastal plains: Following the defeat of the Seleucid army [defeat by whom? The Hasmonaeans?] the citizens of the coastal plain cities, whose militias fought along the Seleucid army, sought revenge for their casualtie among their cities’ Jewish population. In turn, following the drowning of 200 Jews in Jaffa, Judas Maccabaeus took over the city and set its harbour on fire, including ships and citizens attempting to flee the city. In further action against Jaffa, Simon Maccabaeus deported its foreign inhabitants.

The Jews of Yavne were rescued by Judas Maccabaeus.

The city of Ashkelon treated its Jewish population better. After Jonathan Maccabaeus won a battle near Ashdod, the citizens of Ashkelon went out to greet him. Economic factors seem to have contributed to their decision, as the port of Ashkelon thrived on exporting goods from Judea and Idumea.

In the Trans-Jordan: At the same time that Simon Maccabaeus was on his way to assist the Jews in the Galilee, his brother Judas was on his way to the Trans-Jordan to aid the Jews in the Gilead, who were being harassed by the 10 Hellenist cities there. Judas attacked and set these cities on fire, killing many of their inhabitants.

In Beth-Sean (Skithopolis): Beth-Sean (Skithopolis) was the only city whose Jewish population was not attacked (G. Fuchs, p. 95). Thus, when Judas Maccabaeus passed by on his way back from the Gilead (163 BCE), he complied with the request of Beth-Seam’s Jews to spare the city’s foreign population. In 107 BCE Beth-Sean was taken over and its foreign population who refused to convert were deported.

Conquering the Hellenist Cities

From the time of Jonathan Maccabaeus’ rule, the Hasmonaeans began conquering the Hellenist cities as part of a campaign to take over the land within the boundaries of the Divine Promise [to Abraham]; to end foreign colonisation of the country; and to deport or kill the foreign population in revenge for its treatment of the Jews.

The process of conquering the Hellenist cities and replacing their foreign population with Jews lasted from 142 to 83 BCE, when the land was finally completely in Jewish hands. However, the Roman conquest in 63 BCE eroded the Hasmonaean achievements in removing foreign presence from the country (G. Fuchs, p. 100).

In summary: The Hellenist rulers adopted and carried out policies for transforming Judea into a Greek-Macedonian country, ethnically, and Hellenistic, culturally. A combination of socio-economic, demographic, and national-religious factors contributed to the outbreak of Jewish rebellions against the Hellenists. The fighting was in opposition to land confiscation, the transformation of free farmers into tenant farmers, and heavy taxation. Added to these was the struggle against the demographic consequences of colonisation, such as the restrictions on Jewish settlement in less densely populated areas outside Judea. The Hasmonaeans joined the rebellion in response to the anti-Jewish religious decrees but were aware of the other factors driving the uprising.

NOTES

NOTE 1: POPULATION COMPOSITION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL DURING THE HELLENIST PERIOD

Aviam, Mordechai. 1995. “The House of Hasmonai in the Galilee”, in Amit, D., & Eshel, H. (Eds.), The Hasmonaean Period, pp. 232-260.

Aviram, Oshri, & Gal, Zvi. [year?]“The Lower Galilee from Tiglat Pilesser III to the Early Persian Period”. Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Dar, Shimon. 1991.“The Geographic Boundaries for the Meeting of the Hasmonaeans and the Itureans”. Cathedra 59, pp. [??]

Kasher, Arye. 1988. Canaan, Pleshet, Greece, and Israel, pp. 17-24.

Kasher, Arye. 1988. Idumea, Arabia, and Israel: Jews and the Frontier People during the Hellenist and Roman Periods, 332BCE – 70CE.

Klein, Shmuel. 1967. Land of the Galilee, between the Return from Babylon and the Sealing of the Talmud, pp. 1-25.

Rapaport, Uriel. 1980. “Hellenist Cities and the Conversion of the Land of Israel to Judaism during the Hasmonaean Period”, in Ba- Kokhva, B. (Ed.), The Seleucid Period in the Land of Israel, pp. 263, 266, 270-271.

Rapaport, Uriel. 1993. “The Galilee from the Hasmonaean Revolt to the Roman Conquest”, in Oppenheimer, A., et al. (Eds.), Jews and Judaism in the time of the Second Temple, the Mishna, and the Talmud, pp. 16-30.

Stern, Ephraim. 1990. “The Galilee”, in New Encyclopaedia of Excavations in the Land of Israel.

Stern, Menachem. 1981. “The Land of Israel during the Hellenist Period (330-162BCE)”, in Stern, M. (Ed.), History of the Land of Israel – the Hellenist Period and the Hasmonaean State (332 BCE-37 BCE), pp. 109-132.

Zartal, Adam. 1969. “The District of Shamrin During the Persian and Hellenist Periods”, in Avishur, I. & Deutsch, R., Studies in History, Epigraphy, and the Old Testament, pp. 75-98.

NOTE 2: PHASES IN THE FOREIGN COLONISATION OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL

Applebaum, Shimon. 1980. “Hellenist Cities in the Land of Israel – New Perspectives”, in Bar-Kokhva, B. (Ed.), The Seleucid Period in the Land of Israel, p. 277.

Avi Yona, Michael. 1963. Historic Geography of the Land of Israel, pp. 23-35, 41.

Cherikover, Avigdor. 1973. The Jews and the Greeks in the Hellenist Period, pp. 71-94.

Fuchs, Gideon. 1995. “The Hellenist Cities in the Land of Israel in the Time of the Hasmonaeans”, in Amit, D. & Eshel, H. (Eds.), The Hasmonaean Period, pp. 93-95.

Jones, A.H.M. 1937. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. [publisher?]

Jones, A.H.M. 1940. The Greek City, from Alexander to Justinian. [publisher?]

Jones, A.H.M. (year?) The Cities of The Eastern Roman Province, pp.243 – 249. [publisher?]

Naveh, Joseph. 1952. "The Excavations at Mesad Hashaviahu – A Preliminary Report", Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 89-99.

Rapaport, Uriel. 1980. “Hellenist Cities and the Conversion of the Land of Israel to Judaism during the Hasmonaean Period”, in Ba- Kokhva, B. (Ed.), The Seleucid Period in the Land of Israel, p. 266, 268.

Safrai, Zeev. 1990. “The Urbanisation Process in the Land of Israel in the Hellenist, Roman, and Byzantine Periods”, in Safrai. Z. (Ed.), Studies in the History of the People and the Land of Israel, pp. 106 – 123.

Stern, Menachem. 1996. “Judaism and Hellenism in the Land of Israel in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BCE”, in Stern, D. (Ed.), Studies in the History of Israel During the Second Temple Period, pp. 61-62, 67.

NOTE 3: CONFISCATION OF LAND FOR ESTABLISHING ROYAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ESTATES

Appelebaum, Shimon. 1976."Economic Life in Palestine," in Safrai, S. and Stern, M. (Eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, Vol 2, pp.632- 638.

Safrai, Shmuel & Safrai, Zeev. 1976. “Beit Anat”, in Sinai, Vol 78, pp. 18-34.

Schatzmann, Israel. 2003[? In an earlier reference the year is 1993]. “Jews’ and Foreigners’ Relations during the early Hasmonaean generations by contemporary sources”, in Oppenheimer, A., et al. (Eds.), Jews and Judaism in the time of the Second Temple, the Mishna, and the Talmud, pp. 142-158.

NOTE 4: MASSACRES, DEPORTATION AND SALE OF PRISONERS-OF-WAR INTO SLAVERY

Kasher, Arye. 1992. “Jewish immigration and settlement in the diaspora during the Hellenist and Roman periods”, in Shenan, A. (Ed.), Immigration and Settlement in Israel and Among the Nations, pp. 65-68.

Stern, Menachem. [year?] The Land of Israel during the Hellenist Period, p. 98; 101.

NOTE 5: DEPORTATION AND FLIGHT OF JEWS DUE TO POLITICAL CAUSES

Kasher, Arye. 1992. “Jewish immigration and settlement in the diaspora during the Hellenist and Roman periods”, in Shenan, A. (Ed.), Immigration and Settlement in Israel and Among the Nations, pp. 65-68.

NOTE 6: EMIGRATION DUE TO ECONOMIC CAUSES

Kasher, Arye. 1992. “Jewish IMmigration and settlement in the diaspora during the Hellenist and Roman periods”, in Shenan, A. (Ed.), Immigration and Settlement in Israel and Among the Nations, pp. 65-68.

NOTE 7: THE POLITICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF JERUSALEM BECOMING A POLIS IN 175 BCE

Bar – Kochva, Bezalel. 1989. "Was There a Seleucid Military Settlement in Jerusalem?", in Bar- Kochva, B. (Ed.), Judeas Maccabaus, pp. 438 – 444.

.

Bickermann, Elias J. 1938. Institutions des Seleucids, p.110, note 6.

Jones, A.H.M. 1940. The Greek City.

Mittwoch, A. 1955. "Tribute and Land –Tax in Seleucid Judea," Biblica, Vol.35, pp.352- 361.

Rostovtzeff, Michael. 1941. Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, pp. 466 – 467.

Avi Yona, Michael.1963. Historic Geography of the Land of Israel, p. 41.

Rapaport, Uriel. [year?] The Hellenist Cities, p. 266, note 25.

Cherikover, Avigdor. 1973. The Jews and the Greeks in the Hellenist Period, pp. 71-94.

Stern, Menachem. 1981. “The Land of Israel during the Hellenist Period (330 BCE - 162 BCE)”, in Stern, M. (Ed.), History of the Land of Israel – the Hellenist Period and the Hasmonaean State, pp. 21-23, 51-54, 65, 67, 73, 102-104, 130-164.

NOTE 8: RESTRICTIONS ON THE SETTLEMENT OF JEWISH SURPLUS POPULATION

Rapaport, Uriel. 1986. “The Land Issue as a Factor in the Inter-Ethnic Relations in the Land of Israel during the Second Temple Period”, in Oppenheimer, A. , et al. (Eds.), Man and Land in the Ancient Land of Israel, pp. 80-84.

NOTE 9: TAXES

Mittwoch, A. 1955. "Tribute and Land –Tax in Seleucid Judea", Biblica, Vol.35, pp.352- 361.

Stern, Menachem. [year?] The Land of Israel during the Hellenist Period, pp. 102-103, 122-123.

NOTE 10: RELATIONS AMONG THE JEWS AND HELLENIST CITIES, AND THE HASMONAEAN REVOLT

Appelebaum, S. 1976. "Economic Life in Palestine," in Safrai, S., and Stern, M. (Eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, Vol. 2, pp. 631 – 638.

Fuchs, Gideon. 1980. “Skithopolis”, in Cathedra, vol 17, pp. 24-39.

Fuchs, Gideon. 2003. “Ashkelon and the Jews”, in Oppenheimer, A., et al. (Eds.), Jews and Foreigners in the Land of Israel in the Time of the Second Temple, the Mishna, and the Talmud, pp. 95; 102-122.

Kasher, Arye. 1988. Canaan, Pleshet, Greece, and Israel, pp. 28-30.

Rapaport, Uriel. [year?]. “Acre-Prolemais and the Jews in the Hellenist Period”, in Cathedra, Vol. 19, pp. 31-48.

Schatzmann, Israel. 2003[? In an earlier reference the year is 1993]. “Jews and Foreigners’ Relations during the early Hasmonaean generations by contemporary sources”, in Oppenheimer, A., et al. (Eds.), Jews and Judaism in the time of the Second Temple, the Mishna, and the Talmud, pp. 142-158.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4084 - Release Date: 12/16/11 07:34:00