Jewish Literacy and Languages in First-Century Roman Palestine

Catherine Hezser

SOAS, University of London

The question of Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine in the late Second Temple period is very

complex and linked to various other aspects of ancient Jewish life: differences between urban areas

and the countryside; social differences and professional activities; language proficiency and bi- or

tri-lingualism; and, most importantly, the contexts in which reading and writing were used. These

criteria are interlinked. For example, people with a higher social status would have been more

likely to live in a city than in the countryside They also had more opportunities to learn to read and

to use writing. Greek would have been much more prevalent in cities than in villages. At the same

time, one has to reckon with exceptions and individual cases, such as the (fictional) village potter

who brings his products to a larger town or city, speaks Greek with some of his customers and is

able to keep a record of his sales in Aramaic; the Aramaic-speaking farmer with Greek-speaking

relatives in Syria; the wife who is able to write sales receipts for her husband’s trading partners;

the wealthy businessman who relies on a servile secretary to manage his records and is unable to

sign a document himself.

Variations in the social and ethnic composition and administrative status of specific locales
are particularly relevant in connection with literacy and language use. Was Jerusalem the only

“real” city with a larger administrative apparatus in the Land of Israel in Hellenistic and early

Roman times? What distinguished large villages from towns regarding their populations and

professional activities? What was the reach of urban Greek-speakers and their professional and

social activities? For what purposes were the abilities of reading and writing in the respective

languages useful in urban and rural environments?

In this paper, I shall investigate some of these aspects more closely based on literary and

epigraphic evidence from early Roman Palestine. I shall focus on the geographical, social, and
institutional contexts in which the written word would have been used and on possible differences

1
between literacy in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Obviously, literacy itself is a multi-faceted

phenomenon with various forms and levels of expertise.1

1. Jerusalem as the Center of Greek Literacy

To properly understand literacy and the use of languages in Jerusalem in late Second Temple times

one needs to take the political, economic, and cultural development of the city since Alexander’s

conquest into account. Under Seleucid rule, that is, at the time of Antiochus IV, Jerusalem seems

to have become the most Hellenized city in Palestine, probably surpassed only by the coastal cities

of Gaza and Ashqelon. Seth Schwartz has already pointed to Jerusalem (and Shechem) as the “loci

classici for the Hellenization of native cities”. 2 Although 1 and 2 Maccabees cannot be taken

literally as historical evidence of the so-called Hellenizers and their cooperation with Antiochus

IV, these works nevertheless point to the existence of wealthy urban grandees, who usurped the

high priesthood and collaborated with the Seleucid rulers to turn Jerusalem into a Hellenistic city

with its typical institutions (a gymnasium and an ephebate, cf. 2 Macc. 4:7-20).

After the successful conclusion of the Maccabean revolt, the Hasmonean leadership did

not try to suppress Hellenization but rather continued it. 3 Schwartz talks about a “notional”

Hellenization: “Jerusalem was not precisely Greek”. 4 Jews still constituted the majority of its

inhabitants and their religion remained Judaism. Yet the Jerusalem aristocracy and all those who
aspired to leadership positions would have been conversant in the Greek language and presented

themselves as aficionados of Greek culture, even if this did not avert anti-Jewish stereotypes in the

Hellenistic world at large.5 In fact, it is probably not appropriate to even distinguish between

Jewish provincial elites and Hellenism, because Hellenism is always a merger of Greek and

————————————
1
On literacy in Graeco-Roman society see Harris 1989 and Watson, ed. 2001. On ancient Jewish literacy see Hezser
2001.
2
S. Schwartz 2002, 37.
3
See Levine 1998, 40.
4
S. Schwartz 2002, 40.
5
On these see Kasher 1990, 5.

2
indigenous cultures.6 Like other provincial rulers, the Hasmoneans would have created and lived

their very own Jewish version of Hellenism. The Hellenistic outlook of Jerusalem seems to have

intensified in the early Roman period, that is, in Herodian times.7 Martin Hengel has already dealt

with various aspects of this development in his book, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First

Century After Christ.8

By the first century C.E., Greek was well established as the administrative language of

Roman Palestine.9 Already in the preceding Hellenistic period all official correspondence would

have been conducted in Greek. Fictional references to such correspondence between the

Hellenistic and Roman rulers and the leaders of the Jewish population in Jerusalem can be found

in 1 Maccabees. In 1 Macc. 8:22 a letter “in tables of brass” is mentioned, which the Roman senate

allegedly “sent to Jerusalem” to confirm a peace treaty between Rome and the Maccabean leaders.

Elsewhere in the same book, letters by Seleucid rulers to later Hasmonean leaders are mentioned

(e.g., Demetrius to Jonathan in 1 Macc. 10:3). For the early Roman period Josephus provides ample

evidence of the exchange of Greek letters between Roman officials and the local Jewish

aristocracy. 10 Perhaps the Herodian rulers and the priestly aristocracy also communicated in

Greek with each other, at least as far as public matters were concerned.

What are the implications of this development for literacy amongst Jews in Jerusalem in

Hellenistic and early Roman times? Firstly, we may assume that literacy rates were higher in
Jerusalem than anywhere else in Palestine at that time. Both writing itself and the public exposure

to the written word in form of documents and inscriptions would have been greatest in Jerusalem

and its surrounding areas. Secondly, as far as general public literacy is concerned, Greek literacy

rates may have been higher than literacy in Hebrew and Aramaic. At least as far as writing is

————————————
6
Gustav Droysen already viewed Hellenism as a merger of Greek culture and the various Near Eastern local traditions.
On the various definitions and views on Hellenism see Cartledge 1997, 3.
7
See also Schwartz 2002, 41.
8
Hengel and Markschies 1989.
9
On the distribution and use of the Greek language in Palestinian Judaism see Hengel 1981, 58-61; Schwartz 1995,
21-31; Smelik 2010, 128-31.
10
See Hezser 2001, 259-67, for examples.

3
concerned, Hebrew writing skills would have been limited to scribes who wrote Torah scrolls. Yet

many more scribes who could write in Greek were needed for the local administration, and even

some Temple-based scribes may have been bi- or tri-lingual. Members of the Jerusalem elite,

including the priestly aristocracy, would have been fluent in spoken Greek, learned in Greek

literature, and able to compose texts in Greek with the help of Greek-language scribes.

Furthermore, the majority of public inscriptions were written in Greek and archives seem to have

accepted Greek documents only.

Wealthy Jerusalemites of the Herodian period identified their deceased in ossuary

inscriptions. These brief and informal inscriptions appear in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Some

are bilingual. Rahmani writes: “From these inscriptions, it can be concluded that in and around

Jerusalem and Jericho even the lower classes of the Jewish population knew some Greek”. 11

Although ossuary inscriptions can hardly be used as evidence for the language knowledge and

literacy of the “lower classes” of the Jewish population -- the ossuaries would have been expensive,

after all -- they do indicate the coexistence and use of the three languages, a phenomenon that is

also evident from Bet She’arim in the third and fourth centuries. Those who initiated these crude

graffito-style inscriptions must have assumed that later generations of relatives and visitors would

be able to use them as guides to find and identify their deceased.

Inscriptions were also used in public areas. For example, a Greek inscription on the Temple
Mount was meant to prevent non-Jews from venturing further than the outer precincts of the

sanctuary.12 It was probably primarily meant to be read by non-Jewish tourists, but Jews such as

Paul, who might have been accompanied by non-Jews, were also warned against bringing their

companions with them (Acts 21:26-36). What is interesting about the report in the book of Acts is

that Paul is said to have initially disregarded the sign and allowed the non-Jewish Christians to

————————————
11
Rahmani 1994, 13. 143 out of 233 inscriptions (=62%) are in Hebrew square script, 73 (=31%) are in Greek, and
14-15 (=6-7%) are bilingual.
12
Cf. Josephus, Bell. 5.193-194; 6.124f; Ant. 15.417; CIJ 2.1400. For further sources see Seland 1995, 289; Porter
1998, 144, n. 87. Porter notes (ibid.) that a Latin version of the inscription, mentioned by Josephus, has not been found.

4
enter with him (Acts 21:26). The assumption may be that he assumed that their purification, that

is, their distancing themselves from things sacrificed to idols (cf. 21:25), might make them

acceptable. Jews from Asia, that is, Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, allegedly alerted other Jews

to the presence of Greeks in the Jewish religious enclosure (21:27-28). Neither their

communication with Paul in Greek nor their clothes would have identified Paul’s companions as

“others”. Only the fact that these Asian Jews knew Trophimus, one of Paul’s companions, alerted

them to the trespassing act (ibid. 21:29). This episode suggests that Greek signs could easily be

ignored by the local Jewish population, especially if they assumed that they were not meant for

them. Those who set up the inscription probably tried to prevent turmoil. The irony is that in this

case, the Diaspora Jews’ reference to the prohibition seems to have created chaos to break out:

people allegedly grabbed Paul and dragged him out of the Temple compound (21:30).

Another well-known Greek inscription that may stem from pre-70 Jerusalem is the

Theodotus inscription that identified a synagogue and its founders.13 This dedication inscription

was set up in honor of Theodotus and his family, who financed the building. In all likelihood, the

family originated from the Diaspora. The reference to the synagogue’s partial function as a “hostel

... for lodging needy strangers” seems to indicate that it served not only a settled but also a mobile

Greek-speaking Jewish clientele, probably composed of Jerusalem-based Jewish immigrants from

the Diaspora, travelling merchants, and pilgrims who visited Jerusalem on pilgrimage festivals.
Some of them would have been wealthy merchant families from Alexandria, who came to

Jerusalem occasionally and eventually decided to stay. A synagogue of the Alexandrians is also

mentioned in Acts 6:9 alongside other synagogues associated with specific Greek-speaking

immigrant communities.14

————————————
13
The Greek text together with a transcription and translation is available at
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/theodotus.html, accessed on 27 March 2018. For a transcription,
translation, and discussion see also Evans 2003, 38-40.
14
Flesher 1998, 33, also points to Acts 6, but he assumes that the main function of the Theodotus synagogue was to
provide lodging to travellers, a function that he identifies with the charitable tasks alluded to in Acts. The inscription
mentions Torah reading and teaching first, however, and a hostel is not mentioned in Acts 6.

5
 While Samuel Rocca acknowledges the presence of Greek-speaking Jews in Jerusalem in

Herodian times, he alleges that “these Greek-speaking groups were a negligible element of the

kingdom’s population”.15 Although, numerically, Greek-speaking Jews may have constituted a

minority within the Jewish population, they seem to have been more wealthy, educated, well-

connected, and influential than the majority of Jews whose native tongue was Aramaic. The

increasing prominence of wealthy Greek-speaking Jews with Diaspora origins and connections is

a development that probably started in Herodian times and continued in late antiquity, as the Bet

She’arim funeral inscriptions with their frequent references to Diaspora origins suggest. 16

The main religious activities mentioned in the Theodotus inscription are “the reading of

the Law and the teaching of the commandments”, that is, text-centered activities. We do not know

whether the Torah was read in Hebrew and/or whether a Greek translation was used. For a Greek-

speaking community the latter seems more likely. At least the leaders and some members of this

community would have been able to read the text aloud in public. It is noteworthy that no Aramaic

or Hebrew synagogue inscriptions exist for this time-period. Buildings in Massada, Gamla, and

Herodion, which were identified as synagogues in the past, are nowadays seen as multifunctional

buildings that served a variety of purposes. The Theodotus inscription is the only evidence of a

purpose-built Jewish community center in first-century Jerusalem. 17 That this community was

Greek-speaking and mainly interested in educational pursuits may indicate the role that literacy
and study played in these circles.

Only one large Hebrew inscription from the Temple Mount has survived. It refers “to the

place of trumpeting”, where the trumpet was blown to indicate the start and end of the Sabbath.18

Montebello writes: “Though brief and fragmentary, the inscription illustrates one of the means of

————————————
15
Rocca 2008, 245.
16
See Hezser 2001, 384-95.
17
Pilch 2008, 8-9, notes that the inscription does not mention any regular daily prayer services and suggests that they
become part of post-70 synagogue activities only.
18
On this inscription see Montebello, ed., 211 no. 104.

6
communication between the priests in the Temple and the people in the city”.19 For whom was the

inscription meant and who would read it? Was it meant to help visitors find the place of trumpeting

so that they could watch the ceremony? Or was it meant for the trumpeters themselves, to indicate

where they should stand in theTemple enclosure? As in the case of the Greek inscription that

warned non-Jews against trespassing holy precincts, local Jerusalemites were probably familiar

with the meaning of these signs, even if they could not read them themselves.

Scribal activities would likewise be centered on Jerusalem. The Temple would not only

have needed scribes who could write Torah scrolls but also scribes who wrote documents related

to the Temple’s sacrificial and pilgrimage-related business activities. At least some of these scribes

would have been able to to write in Greek. As I have already argued elsewhere, writing was a

professional activity in antiquity, based on technical skills that were learned in scribal guilds.20

Scribes could be employed on a more or less permanent basis by the Temple, court, and

government or be paid on an individual basis for the services they rendered to lay people. Both

the gospels and Josephus associate scribes with Jerusalem. Saldarini has already pointed to the

phenomenon that even scribes whom the gospels place in Galilee “are identified a couple of times

as coming from Jerusalem”.21 Josephus associates scribes with the Temple and the government

administration.22

Therefore, John Kloppenborg’s theory of Galilean village scribes as the writers and editors
of Q, a theory further developed and propagated by William E. Arnal and Giovanni Bazzana, is

not persuasive.23 Scribes, especially those who wrote in Greek, would not have found much work

in villages and are unlikely to have lived there. On the rare occasions when village people needed

a document or letter to be written for them, something that only the reasonably well-off would

————————————
19
Ibid.
20
See Hezser 2001, 118-26.
21
Saldarini 1988, 250.
22
See Hezser 2001, 119, and ibid. n. 48 for references.
23
Kloppenborg 1991, 245-7; Arnal 2001; Bazzana 2014. For a criticism of this theory see Joseph 2012, 76-7. He
writes: “There does not seem to be much evidence for a literate scribal tradition nor much evidence for the use of
Greek in first-century Galilee” (77).

7
have been able to afford anyway, they could go to larger market towns and cities where scribes

offered their services. In the first century C.E., scribes who were able to write literary texts in

Greek were probably found in Jerusalem only.

The evidence of individual literacy points into the same direction. Although our knowledge

of Jewish writers in the late Second Temple period is sparse, those who are known to us lived in

Jerusalem and wrote in Greek. The most prominent example in Flavius Josephus. It is obvious

from his writings that he was familiar with Greek historiography. At the beginning of the Jewish

War he states that he originally composed his account of the Jewish revolt “in the language of our

country” (i.e. Aramaic?) and then translated it into Greek (Bell. 1.1.1). He would have had a

secretary available, whose native language was Greek. In Antiquities Josephus refers to “Burrhus,

who was Nero's tutor, and secretary for his Greek epistles” (Ant. 20.8.9). All members of the upper

strata of society would have had such assistants who were usually well educated Greek slaves. At

the very end of Antiquities Josephus provides some details about his own Greek learning:

“I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand

the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak

our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation

does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their

discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of
accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants

as please to learn them” (Ant. 20.11.2).24

This statement is interesting in several regards. Firstly, Josephus maintains that he has studied the

Greek language intensively and obtained Greek paideia, a knowledge that would have enabled

him to read Greek literature. 25 As we all know, it is easier to read and understand a foreign

————————————
24
Translation:Whiston 1859.
25
On Josephus’ knowledge of Greek literature see Cohen 2002, 31: “Josephus stands squarely in the Greek tradition.
The excerpts from Dius, Menander, and Berossus which appear in CA and AJ in substantially the same language show
that Josephus can quote verbatim if he wishes, but citation and utilization are two different matters”. Verbatim quotes
may also have been inserted by his assistants, however. See below.

8
language, that is, to possess a passive knowledge, than to speak or write it actively, using correct

idiomatic expressions. Therefore, Josephus’s claim that his spoken Greek is imperfect is not

astonishing, although this may be an understatement.

Secondly, it is interesting that Josephus associates expertise in the Greek language with

slaves. From an upper-class Jewish perspective, educated slave secretaries would have been the

assistants one could rely on for Greek writing, translating, copyediting, and corrections. A Jewish

intellectual such as Josephus, who wanted to write in Greek, could rely on his secretaries for

finding the right expressions and polishing the text. He would express his thoughts orally, dictate

a rough version, and leave the rest of the literary process to his secretaries. As Sevenster has

already pointed out, differences in the Greek style of his writings suggest that he used several

assistants of different abilities.26 This also means that we cannot be certain that any of the quotes

and formulations originated with Josephus himself.27 The same reservation applies to all ancient

authors who used literary assistants.

. Thirdly, Josephus stresses his fellow-Jews’ disregard for fluency in “foreign” languages.

He may have Pharisees in mind here, who would have propagated Torah study and emphasized

the superiority of Hebrew wisdom. From the perspective of Jewish religious scholars, fluency in

the Greek language would have been considered “common” among free men and slaves because

it was part of their daily reality and the local administration. It was considered secular and profane
in contrast to engagement with the Hebrew of the holy scriptures. A distinctly religious attitude is

contrasted with social reality here. Knowledge of Greek is looked down upon but considered a

“common” practice. That other members of the Jerusalem Jewish elite were as familiar with Greek

as Josephus was and similarly keen on reading Greek literary texts is indicated by Josephus in

Contra Apionem, where he refers to “many of our own men who understood the Greek philosophy;

————————————
26
Sevenster 1968, 74-5.
27
Similar scepticism is expressed by S. Schwartz 1990, 36.

9
among whom were Julius Archelaus, Herod [king of Chalcis], a person of great gravity, and king

Agrippa himself” (C.Ap. 11.9).

At least concerning the dissemination of Greek Jewish literary texts, the end of the first

century seems to have constituted a turning point. This change would have partly been the result

of Pharisaic and rabbinic emphasis on Torah study and lack of interest in preserving Greek Jewish

texts. At the same time, Christians “appropriated” Greek to disseminate their message. Although

the dating of some Greek Jewish writings is uncertain and our documentary record incomplete,

Josephus’s writings constitute the last certain evidence of ancient Jewish writing in Greek.28 They

stand at the end of a long period of Greek Jewish literary activity not only in the Diaspora but also

in the Land of Israel.

This literary activity included biblical translations from Hebrew into Greek. According to

the Letter of Aristeas, dozens of bi-lingual experts from Jerusalem were brought to Alexandria to

translate the Torah into Greek. They are described as “men who have lived the noblest life and are

most skilled in their law” (Aristeas 26). Obviously, their main skill would have been exactness in

translation. Fragments of Greek translations of some biblical books were also found at Qumran

(especially in caves 4 and 7, e.g., 4QtgLev, 4QLXXNum, 4QtgJob, 7QpapEpJer).29 As Emanuel

Tov has pointed out, “... the Greek texts are by no means negligible, since in several sites their

number equals that of the Hebrew/Aramaic texts, and in one site they even constitute the
majority”.30 They were probably written by scribes outside of the community and deposited there

for safekeeping at some time.31

In addition, Greek translations of other compositions that did not become part of the

Hebrew biblical canon were made. The books of Jubilees and Sirach were translated from Hebrew

————————————
28
On this issue see also Choi 2013, 16.
29
On Greek biblical texts found at Qumran see Greenspoon 1998; Tov 2008, who lists and introduces the individual
fragments. See also Nodet 2007, 113.
30
Tov 2008, 339.
31
See ibid. 342.

10
into Greek.32 The translator of the book of Sirach notes in his preface that “what was originally

expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language”,

despite “our diligent labour in translating” (Sir. 15-26), expressing the notion that every translation

is a recreation. Some scholars assume that 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch were also translated into Greek

from a Hebrew original after the destruction of the Temple.33 Other literary works were originally

written in Greek by Palestinian Jewish authors. Although many Greek Jewish writings seem to

have been composed in Alexandria in Egypt, at least some works such as 2 Maccabees and

Eupolemus seem to have been written in Greek in Judaea before 70 C.E. 34 About Eupolemus

Bartlett writes: “Eupolemus was clearly an educated man, fluent in Greek but also loyal to the

Jerusalem Temple and all it represented ... We hear of other men of similar abilities in Jerusalem

in the third and second centuries BC”.35

The Greek translations of scriptural texts and other Jewish religious writings such as

Jubilees, Sirach, and 4 Ezra suggest that there was a relatively large number of Jews in Jerusalem

and Judaea who understood Greek better than Hebrew and required a Greek translation. The

fragments of Greek translations that survived include books of the Pentateuch as well as the

Prophets and Writings. They were probably not used for private reading only but also read out

aloud, perhaps alongside the Hebrew originals, in Greek-speaking synagogues such as the one

established by Theodotus and his family. Greek-language prayers may also have been used in such
contexts.36

While one would think of Greek-speaking Jewish immigrants from the Diaspora, especially

Egypt, as the main readers and audience of such texts, there may also have been local Jerusalemites

from the upper strata of society whose knowledge of Greek was better than their knowledge of

Hebrew. As we know from later rabbinic literature, where Aramaic meturgemanim (i.e., ad hoc

————————————
32
Jubilees: Scott 1997, 295-6. Sirach: Aitken 2017, 122-3.
33
4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Najman 2014, 9-10.
34
Eupolemus: Bartlett 1985, 57-59. 2 Maccabees: D. Schwartz 2008.
35
Bartlett, Jews, 59.
36
See the collection of Greek Jewish prayers from different origins and times by van der Horst and Newman 2008.

11
translators of scriptural readings from Hebrew into Aramaic) are mentioned, many people whose

colloquial language was Aramaic did not understand Hebrew sufficiently to be able to comprehend

scriptural readings in their original language. Upper-class Jerusalemites who had business and

social relations with Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews and non-Jews would have communicated with

them in this international language, which had the flair of worldliness and sophistication. Like

Josephus, they would have been keen on exhibiting Greek paideia, a marker of upper-class status

in the Hellenistic cultural context of late Second Temple period Jerusalem. Greek paideia

connected men of the upper strata of society: “anyone who lacked the appropriate paideia was

considered inferior by the senatorial elite”.37

2. Pockets of Hebrew Religious Literacy

Since Jerusalem was the religious center of the Land of Israel in Second Temple times, it would

also have been the center of religious literacy in Hebrew. Torah scrolls would have been copied

and Pharisees, who were experts in Torah interpretation, would have been active there. As Seth

Schwartz has already pointed out, the knowledge and use of Hebrew seems to have been limited

to religious circles and religious purposes in Hellenistic and Roman times. Hebrew was no longer

a spoken language and most first-century Jews may not even have understood it. As a written

language it seems to have been reserved for the copying of Torah scrolls. With regard to post-70
works in Hebrew such as the Mishnah and Tosefta, Schwartz writes: “The language of the later

Hebrew literature is artificial -- the result of efforts by native speakers of Aramaic and/or Greek to

write in a dead classical language”.38 Hebrew was associated with the Torah and Temple and its

use signified Jewish national identity during the Bar Kokhba revolt.

The scant evidence of Hebrew in the documentary and epigraphic material from the late

Second Temple period suggests that Hebrew was not used for daily life purposes, that is, for the

————————————
37
Mennen2011, 9. See also Brown 1992, 4.
38
S. Schwartz 1995, 14.

12
writing of contracts and marking of graves or jars. “In the great corpora of non-literary writing

from pre-70 C.E. Judaea”, namely the already mentioned ossuaries from the Jerusalem area and

ostraca found at Massada, “Aramaic and Greek are used almost to the exclusion of Hebrew”. 39

The inscribed ostraca were left by the rebels who hid in the Massada fortress. 40 The ossuary

inscriptions served the identification of family burial sides. Both purposes were private, practical,

and informal. They lacked any of the publicity and prestige of the Greek public inscriptions and

literary works. The use of the Aramaic vernacular for occasional writing purposes is fully

understandable. When families decided to deposit their documents in an archive, however, a Greek

version was required, as the Greek Babatha papyri suggest. 41 Josephus mentions such an archive

in Jerusalem. 42 Only documents deposited in public archives could be used in Roman court

proceedings.43 A Roman court “would prefer or even insist on, the use of the Greek language” for

all legal proceedings in the Eastern provinces.44

Since Hebrew was the language of the Torah, specially trained scribes, probably mainly or

even exclusively located in Jerusalem, were experts in writing Torah scrolls. Since the texts were

considered holy, special regulations had to be followed and precautions taken. Josephus mentions

“scribes of the Temple” (Ant. 12.142) for Seleucid times already. 45 Some Temple scribes would

have been responsible for record-keeping and business-related activities. All of these scribes would

have been professionals with a long work experience.

Besides the Temple in Jerusalem, the Qumran community seems to have been a center of

Hebrew scribal activity. Emanuel Tov has pointed out that the majority of texts discovered at

Qumran are written in Hebrew, including Paleo-Hebrew.46 Some of these texts may have been

————————————
39
See ibid. 15.
40
On these see also Magness 2011, 19-20, who associates them with purity observance among the rebels who lived
there during the revolt against Rome.
41
See Cotton, 1998, 169.
42
See Bell. 2.17.6, 426-428 and 7.3.4, 61.
43
For Roman Egypt see Cockle 1984.
44
Wasserstein 1995, 118. Although this seems self-evident, it is disputed by Oudshoorn 2007, 70-1.
45
See Schams 1998, 89-90.
46
Tov 2008, 339.

13
written by scribes in the so-called scriptorium at Qumran, whereas others may have been brought

from outside and deposited there. 47 The writing, collecting, and storing of biblical and other

religious texts seems fitting for a community that emphasized study. Steven Fraade has called the

Qumran community a “studying community”.48 The existence of the group’s own writings in the

form of community rules and legal midrash seems to stand at odds with their apocalyptic

eschatology. Why leave records of one’s own world-view, if one reckons with the immediate end

of the world? The texts may have served the purposes of internal study and practice. Perhaps the

community was able to attract members who were more religiously literate than the rest of the

ancient Jewish population. Or a small literate leadership taught and read and recited texts to

illiterate members.

The many texts from the Qumran community that have survived stand in contrast to the

total lack of any written material from Pharisees. No direct Pharisaic traditions have come down

to us, although Pharisees are presented as a scholastic group by both the gospels and Josephus.

Since they interpreted the Torah and disputed its meaning with others and among themselves, we

must assume that they were able to read and understand Hebrew. Like Graeco-Roman

philosophers, they would have conducted their discussions orally and probably did not see a need

for writing. According to Albert Baumgarten, Pharisees were an intellectual elite of literate

urbanites who stemmed from the upper strata of society.49 As such, they were probably able to
afford the services of scribes if they required them.

The gospels may be correct in, on the one hand, associating Pharisees with scribes but also

distinguishing between the two groups. What scribes and Pharisees would have shared was Torah

knowledge, but Torah knowledge of different kinds. Pharisees’ expertise would have been based

on reading and discussing Torah law; scribes expertise consisted in copying the text. On closer

————————————
47
The question whether room 30 served as a scriptorium is debated amongst archaeologists, see Pedley 1959-60;
Goranson 1994; Reich 1995; Magness 2002, 60-1 and ibid. Fig. 13 (bench and table) and 14 (inkwells).
48
Fraade 1993.
49
Baumgarten 1997, 137-9.

14
inspection, these were different skills. Whereas scribes’ goal was to create a perfect copy of the

text they had in front of them, a task that required painstaking attention to the forms of letters, the

sequence of words, and the avoidance of errors, Pharisees’ focus was on a memorized text’s

meaning and application to new circumstances. In their minds, Pharisees would create connections

between words and phrases from different parts of the Bible, associating them with each other and

juxtaposing them. Whereas scribes would copy a written text that they imagined visually, Pharisees

applied remembered legal rules to new circumstances and innovated them in the course of that

practice. Their alleged disputes with Jesus and Sadducees are based on the phenomenon that

biblical words and phrase have multiple meanings and could be interpreted in various ways.

What scribes and Pharisees would have shared was the high regard in which they held

Hebrew as a religious language. Josephus’s already mentioned claim that some of his fellow-Jews

consider the Greek language common may reflect the view of Pharisees and Torah scribes. He

writes in the continuation of this passage: “But they give him the testimony of being a wise man

who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning” (Ant. 20.11.2),

something Pharisees would have excelled in. Seth Schwartz is therefore correct in stressing the

significance of ideological factors in the use of languages in general and the acquisition of Hebrew

in particular.50 Hebrew was the Jewish ancestral language associated with the Torah and Temple,

symbolizing Jewish identity. Its preservation as an indigenous “classical” language of ancestral

traditions gained significance under foreign Hellenistic and Roman rule. Pharisees and scribes --

probably together with Temple priests, about whose literacy we know very little51 -- seem to have

represented small pockets of professional and elite Hebrew users whose reading and writing skills

focused on the religious text of the Hebrew Bible. At the same time, these same groups would have

spoken Aramaic -- and to some extent also Greek -- in daily life, like the rest of their

contemporaries.

————————————
50
S.
Schwartz 1995, 18.
51
Magness 2011, 19-20, points to a few ostraca found at Massada that seem to relate to priestly purity issues and tithes.
They are Hebrew inscriptions on storage jars. One ostracon mentions “A[nani]as the High Priest, ‘Aqavia his son”.

15
3. Widespread Rural Illiteracy

Until 70 C.E. Roman Palestine was centralized, with Jerusalem constituting the political,

economic, and religious center. Although the urbanization process began in Herodian times

already, when Tiberias and Sepphoris received city status, real changes can be seen in post-

destruction times only. Martin Goodman has noted that “Josephus and the Gospels give the

impression that in the first century there was no great difference in the importance of the cities and

the larger villages” of Galilee.52 Jerusalem’s political, economic, and religious significance was

so strong that the rest of the land of Israel remained a hinterland as far as urban development was

concerned. Furthermore, the Herodians seem to have favored Caesarea over the Galilee due to its

significance for sea trade. In Caesarea a harbor, hippodrome, and royal palace were built. In fact,

the location was turned into the miniature version of a Roman city. 53 By contrast, rabbinic

literature and archaeological remains give the impression that Tiberias and Sepphoris became

urban cultural centers after 70 C.E. and especially in late antiquity only.54

Tiberias received city status in 54 C.E., that is, less than a generation before the destruction

of the Temple. It was ruled by Roman procurators and from 61 onwards by Agrippa II. Whereas

Josephus often mentions Tiberias, he rarely refers to Sepphoris. Weiss has suggested that the two

Galilean towns underwent different developments. While Herod Antipas already designated
Tiberias as the capital of Galilee and invested in some monumental buildings, Sepphoris was not

further developed until after 70 C.E. He writes: “None of the Roman-style public buildings

unearthed at the site so far is dated to the early first century C.E.; they seem to have been

constructed when the city was expanded and completely remodelled as a Roman polis at the end

of the first or early second century C.E, when the city’s infrastructure in Lower Galilee was well

————————————
52
Goodman,1983, 27. On the early history of Tiberias from an archaeological perspective see Hirschfeld and Galor
2007, 209-10.
53
On Caesarea in Herodian times see Patrich 2011, 5-40: “Herodian Caesarea: The Urban Space”. On the building of
the harbor and various other aspects of urban planning see also the articles in Raban and Holum, eds, 1996.
54
On the development of Galilee in the first two centuries see Bonnie 2017.

16
established”. 55
Thus, before 70 C.E, Tiberias seems to have been the only rudimentary developed

larger town or “city” in Galilee. Yet even Tiberias did not have jurisdiction over the surrounding

areas then.

What does this relative lack of urban development before 70 C.E. mean in regard to scribal

activity and the use of writing? In Tiberias, a few clerks would have been needed who knew both

Aramaic and Greek. The administrative structure cannot have been large, however, and little

archaeological evidence from the first century C.E. besides “upper class residential ... architecture”

remains.56 Mark Chancey has made a list of the non-numismatic Galilean inscriptions from the

Hellenistic period and the first century C.E.57 What is striking is not only the extreme sparseness

of the material compared to epigraphic remains from the late third and fourth centuries but also

the very limited pragmatic purposes for which writing was used. For a period of approximately

three hundred years, from around 200 B.C.E. onwards, only twelve pieces are listed. Of these

twelve, nine are in Greek, one in Aramaic, and two in a “Semitic” language. From the six pieces

attributed to the first century C.E. (including the thirty years after 70 C.E.), only one ostracon from

Jotapata has a unidentified “Semitic” inscription,58 the rest are in Greek. The Greek pieces are

mainly market weights (3), besides an “imperial edict on tomb robbery”.59

The written remains from Galilee confirm the impression gained from the discussion of

Jerusalem. Greek was the main public written language in late Hellenistic and early Roman
Palestine. Aramaic, on the other hand, was rarely used in writing, except for the informal and

private marking of ossuaries and clay vessels. Therefore Eshel’s and Edwards’ statement that the

few finds “suggest the importance of Aramaic (or Hebrew) in Galilee” is only partly correct as far

————————————
55
Weiss 2007, 397.
56
Hirschfeld and Galor 2007, 214.
57
Chancey 2007, 94-5.
58
On this ostracon see Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam 1997; Eshel and Edwards 2004, 53.
59
Ibid. 95.

17
as writing is concerned.60 Aramaic was the spoken language of Galilean Jews, but its use in writing

is almost non-existent before 70 C.E. The reason for this situation is probably the lack of any need

for writing (and reading) among rural Aramaic-speaking Jews of the late Second Temple period.

When discussing literacy in Galilee, we need to consider the largely rural occupation of the

population. Except for a minority of artisans, the large majority of Galilean Jews would have

worked in agriculture, as small-holders, tenant farmers, or rural laborers. As such, they would not

have had much need for learning to read and write. Agreements of sales would have been oral

agreements, made binding by oaths, and attested by witnesses. One may assume that landed

property would have been registered and tax receipts given to the local population by the Roman

officials. But this would have concerned landowners only. Large freeholders would have

purchased and sold land and paid large amounts in taxes, activities for which they would have

wanted documentation. The small holder, who worked on his own plot throughout his lifetime and

bequeathed it to his eldest son when he died, may never have needed any written documents. The

effort and costs may have simply been too high for something that was deemed unnecessary.

Similar considerations apply to wills and marriage contracts. Only those who had valuable

property to safeguard and transfer would have commissioned scribes to write documents for them.

The ordinary person would have bequeathed the little property he owned orally, perhaps in the

presence of witnesses. He acquired a wife through a symbolic action (intercourse or the handing
over of a coin). The later Babatha and Salome Komaise papyri from the Judaean Desert suggest

that the use of written documents was a prerogative of wealthy land-owning families, who had

them written by scribes, mostly in Greek.61 Among the Babatha papyri only 3 out of 36 documents

are in Aramaic, among the Salome Komaise papyri only 1 out of 7. Despite our lack of evidence

from the Galilee, wealthy Galilean landowners, who would have lived in Tiberias or Jerusalem,

————————————
60
Eshel and Douglas 2004, 54. The evidence they refer to includes an abecedary ostracon written in a Semitic language
from Khirbet Kana. It remains uncertain whether it stems from the first or second century C.E., see Chancey 2007,
95.
61
See my discussion of these documents in Hezser 2001, 309-26.

18
are likely to have followed this trend. As already mentioned above, considerations about the

documents’ possible use in Greek-speaking courts may have motivated the choice of the Greek

language.

As far as Hebrew literacy in the Galilee is concerned, it is important to note that the

emergence of a rabbinic movement and the building of synagogues are all post-70 developments

that flourished in late antiquity only. We do not know whether and to what extent the pre-70 rural

population would have been motivated to study Torah. They would probably have lacked the

leisure time, education, and literacy to engage in such intellectual pursuits. Some of the Jerusalem-

based members of the Pharisaic elite may have tried to persuade them to learn Torah to know

which commandments they should observe. But there is no evidence of Pharisaic missionary

activities or local Pharisaic study houses. It is most likely that rural families mainly followed local

customs and family traditions as far as religious practices are concerned. They would not have felt

the need to learn to read and write Hebrew and to engage in scholastic disputes, activities which

are associated only with professional scribes and the Pharisaic intellectual elite.

4. Conclusions

The epigraphic, papyrological, and literary evidence of Jewish literacy in the land of Israel at the

end of the Second Temple period reveals certain patterns that need to be understood within the
wider geographical, political, socio-economic, and religious contexts of the period. These criteria

converge. Since members of the upper strata of Jewish society, most of whom would have lived

in Jerusalem before 70 C.E., can be considered most likely to have had reading skills and to employ

scribes, and since the official administrative language in Herodian times was Greek, there would

have been a strong cluster of Greek literacy among wealthy Jerusalemite Greek- speaking Jews.

Some of them may have been immigrants and visitors from the Greek-speaking Diaspora, but

others would have been natives who belonged to the royal family, the administrative apparatus,

and the priestly aristocracy. The use of Greek was common among these circles since Hellenistic
times. It connected them with an empire-wide aristocracy. It was also linked to power and the

19
reputation of possessing paideia. Evidence of these circles’ use of Greek writing can be found in

public inscriptions (linked to the Temple and a synagogue), graffiti inscriptions on ossuaries,

papyrus documents (almost all of them from post-70 times, though), and Jewish literary writings

in Greek.

The second major cluster is literacy in Hebrew for religious purposes, found among

religious circles, again concentrated in Jerusalem. Scribes employed by Temple priests seem to

have marked jars with Hebrew letters to indicate the ritual purity of the produce they contained.

Other scribes were trained to write Torah scrolls. Pharisees who interpreted Hebrew Scriptures

would have been able to read the Torah in its original language. Unless they were scribes

themselves, they may not have been able to write in Hebrew, nor were they interested in

transmitting their traditions in writing. At least no written Pharisaic traditions have come down to

us. The gospels’ clear distinction between Pharisees and scribes by, at the same time, associating

them with each other, seems to be a good reflection of the different skills and shared interests of

these groups.

There is limited evidence of the use of Aramaic for business and public purposes. Aramaic

was occasionally used on ostraca and a few papyrus documents seems to have been written in that

language. At least this is the impression that the later Babatha and Salome Komaise documents

provide. The preferred use of Greek for business matters may have been due to concerns about the
enforceability of the contracts in Greek-speaking courts.

It seems that until 70 C.E. the development of Galilean urban centers was rather limited.

From the second half of the first century, Tiberias seems to have been the only proper city, but

evidence of its cultural significance stems from late antiquity. Throughout the Second Temple

period Jerusalem would have remained the political, economic, and religious center. The owners

of large land-holdings would have lived in Jerusalem while their rural estates were administered

by servile supervisors. They would therefore have participated in the Greek literacy of their urban

peers. The majority of the Galilean population would have worked in agriculture as small holders,
tenant farmers, and rural laborers. They would have lacked the spare time to learn to read and

20
could not afford to hire scribes. Since the property they owned would usually stay within the

family, they had little incentive for the use of sales or inheritance documents. Transactions could

be accomplished through symbolic action confirmed by witnesses.

The Galilee developed into a Jewish religious center after the two revolts only. Once the

Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem had lost its centrality, a shift towards new urban centers

outside of Judaea and a decentralized form of religious leadership gradually emerged. In the third

and fourth centuries Tiberias and Sepphoris became focal points of rabbinic activity. Between the

fourth and sixth centuries lavish basilica-style synagogues were built. The presence of rabbis as

role models may have increased the desire to learn to read Hebrew. An additional incentive would

have been the need for Torah readers in local synagogues. Yet throughout antiquity, Jewish literacy

levels would have remained small. The preference for Greek inscriptions continued among the

upper strata of society, as both synagogue donors and funerary inscriptions from that period

indicate.

Bibliography

Adan-Bayewitz, D. and Aviam, M. 1997. “Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary

Report on the 1992-1994 Season”. Journal of Roman Archaeology 10: 131-65.

Aitken, J.K. 2017. “The Literary and Linguistic Subtlety of the Greek Version of Sirach”, in: Texts
and Contexts of the Book of Sirach. Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches , ed. G. Karner

et al. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press. 115-40.

Arnal, W.E. 2001. Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Bartlett, J.R. 1985. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibylline Oracles,

Eupolemus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baumgarten, A.I. 1997. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation.

Leiden: Brill.

21
Bazzana, G. 2014. Kingdom and Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Galilean Village Scribes.

Leuven: Peeters.

Bonnie, R. 2017. Being Jewish in Galilee, 100-200 CE: An Archaeological Study. Turnhout:

Brepols Publishers.

Brown, P. 1992. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Cartledge, P. 1997. “Introduction”, in: Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and

Historiography, ed. Paul Cartledge et al. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1-

19.

Chancey, M.A. 2007. “The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee”, in: Religion,

Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, ed. J. Zangenberg et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

83-98.

Choi, J. 2013. Jewish Leadership in Roman Palestine from 70 C.E. to 135 C.E. Leiden: Brill.

Cockle, W.E.H. 1984. “State Archives in Graeco-Roman Egypt from 30 BC to the Reign of

Septimus Severus”. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70: 100-22.

Cohen, S.J.D. 2002. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian.

Leiden: Brill.

Cotton, H. 1998. “The Rabbis and the Documents”, in: Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. M.
Goodman. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 167-79.

Eshel, E. and Edwards, D.R. 2004. “Language and Writing, Early Roman Galilee”, in: Religion

and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D.R. Edwards. New

York and London: Routledge. 49-55.

Evans, C.A. 2003. Jesus and the Ossuaries. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Flesher, P.V. McCracken. 1998. “Palestinian Synagogues Before 70 C.E.: A Review of the

Evidence”, in: Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, ed.

D. Urman and P.V. McCracken Flesher. Leiden: Brill. 27-39.

22
Fraade, S. 1993. “Interpretive Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran”. Journal of

Jewish Studies 44: 46-69.

Goodman, M. 1993. State and Society in Roman Galilee, AD 132-212. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and

Allanheld.

Goranson, S. 1994. “Qumran: A Hub of Scribal Activity?” Biblical Archaeology Review 20:5, 36-

9.

Greenspoon, L. 1998. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Bible”, in: The Dead Sea Scrolls

After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 1, ed. P.W. Flint and J.C.

VanderKam. Leiden: Brill. 101-27

Harris, W.V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hengel, M. 1981. Judaism and Hellenism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1981.

Hengel, M. and Markschies, C. 1989. The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century After

Christ. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.

Hezser, C. 2001. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Hirschfeld, Y. and Galor, K. 2007. “New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic

Tiberias”, in: Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, ed. J. Zangenberg et al.

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 207-29.

Horst, P.W. van der and Newman, J.H. 2008. Early Jewish Prayers in Greek. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.

Joseph, S. 2012. Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Judaic Approach to Q. Tübingen: Mohr

Siebeck.

Kasher, A. 1990. Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz Israel: Relations of the Jews in Eretz Israel

with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE - 70 CE). Tübingen:

Mohr Siebeck.

Kloppenborg, J.S. 1991. “Literary Conventions, Self-Evidence, and the Social History of the Q

People”, in: idem, Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 237-
65.

23
Levine, L.I. 1998. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle, WA:

University of Washington Press.

Magness, J. 2002. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans.

Magness, J. 2011. Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus. Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Mennen, I. 2011. Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD 193-284. Leiden: Brill.

Montebello, P. de, ed. 1986. Treasures of the Holy Land: Ancient Art from the Israel Museum.

New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Naiman, H. 2014. Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future. An Analysis of 4 Ezra.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nodet, E. 2007. “Josephus’ Attempt to Reorganize Judaism From Rome”, in: Making History:

Josephus and Historical Method, ed. Zuleika Rodgers. Leiden: Brill. 103-22.

Oudshoorn, J.G. 2007. The Relationship between Roman and Local Law in the Babatha and

Salome Komaise Archives. General Analysis and Three Case Studies on Law of Succession,

Guardianship and Marriage. Leiden: Brill.

Patrich, J. 2011. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae,

Metropolis Palaestinae. Leiden: Brill.

Pedley, Katherine Greenleaf. 1959-60. “The Library at Qumran”. Revue de Qumran 2: 21-41.

Pilch, J.J. 2008. Stephen: Paul and the Hellenist Israelites. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Porter, S.E. 1998. “Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee”, in: Studying the Historical Jesus:

Evaluations of the Current State of Research, ed. B.D. Chilten and C.A. Evans. 2nd ed.

Leiden: Brill. 123-54.

Raban, A. and Holum, K., eds. 1996. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia.

Leiden: Brill.

Rahmani, L.Y.1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. The
Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem, 1994.

24
Reich, R. 1995. “A Note on the Function of Room 30 (the ‘Scriptorium’) at Khirbet Qumran”.

Journal of Jewish Studies 46: 157-60.

Rocca, S. 2008. Herod’s Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World. Tübingen: Mohr

Siebeck.

Saldarini, A.J. 1988. Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological

Approach. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier.

Schams, C. 1998. Jewish Scribes in the Second Temple Period. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press.

Schwartz, D.R. 2008. 2 Maccabees. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Schwartz, S. 1990. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill.

Schwartz, S. 1995. “Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine”. Past and Present 148:

3-47.

Schwartz, S. 2002. “The Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem”, in: Jews in a Graeco-Roman

World, ed. Martin Goodman. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 37-46.

Scott, J.M. 1997. “The Division of the Earth in Jubilees 8:11-9:15 and Early Christian

Chronography”, in: Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. M. Albani et al. Tübingen: Mohr

Siebeck. 295-323.

Seland, T. 1995. Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of Non-Conformity to the
Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions. Leiden: Brill.

Sevenster, J.N. 1968. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians

Have Known? Leiden: Brill.

Smelik, W. 2010. “The Languages of Roman Palestine”, in: The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily

Life in Roman Palestine, ed. C. Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 122-41.

Tov, E. 2008. “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert”, in idem, Hebrew Bible, Greek

Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 339-64.

Wasserstein, A. 1995. “Non-Hellenized Jews in the Semi-Hellenized East”. Scripta Classica

Israelica 14: 111-37.

25
Watson, J., ed. 2001. Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the Greek and Roman World.

Leiden: Brill.

Weiss, Z. 2007. “Josephus and Archaeology on the Cities of the Galilee”, in: Making History:

Josephus And Historical Method, ed. Z. Rodgers. Leiden: Brill. 385-414,

William W. 1859. The Whole Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, Translated from the Original

Greek. Glasgow and London: Blackie & Son.

26