Josephus ( Antiquities 12) cites this intriguing decree ( programma ) from Antiochus III: “It shall be lawful for no foreigner to come within the limits of the temple round about; which thing is forbidden also to the Jews, unless to those who, according to their own custom, have purified themselves. Nor let any flesh of horses, or of mules, or of asses, he brought into the city, whether they be wild or tame; nor that of leopards, or foxes, or hares; and, in general, that of any animal which is forbidden for the Jews to eat. Nor let their skins be brought into it; nor let any such animal be bred up in the city. Let them only be permitted to use the sacrifices derived from their forefathers, with which they have been obliged to make acceptable atonements to God. And he that transgresseth any of these orders, let him pay to the priests three thousand drachmae of silver.”

Two comments on this. First, though alternative interpretations have been suggested, Anathea Portier-Young ( Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism ) argues that the decree implies an innovative extension of holiness from the immediate temple precincts to the entire city.

The decree not only links the presence of animals to their cultic uses, but “goes a step further to view the city itself - and even the commercial transactions that take place within it - from this same point of view, asserting its identity as a ‘Jewish’ city, a holy city, dedicated to the worship of the god of the Jews. Although foreign individuals could be prevented from entering the temple, in the imperial situation, they could not be prevented from entering the city. But the document protects the city’s purity through its symbolic claims: forbidden foods will not pass through the boundaries of the city, just as they may not pass through the boundaries of the body, and just as they may not be offered in sacrifice to the God of the Jews. Not even the skins of impure animals may be brought in, whether for clothing and furnishings that would touch the human body, or for any other purpose - they would render the city impure.” The prohibition of raising unclean animals in the holy city “makes similar symbolic claims. Within the holy city, the food of Jerusalem should not pass into the bodies of impure animals.” This is a striking confirmation of the notion that during the intertestamental period, the holiness of the temple spread out to encompass the city.

Second, at the same time, we see the tightening of temple access in the prohibition of foreigners in the temple. That goes beyond the biblical requirements, since the Bible (Numbers 15; cf. Milgrom’s discussion of this) permits Gentiles into the temple. (Perhaps Herod’s unbiblical “court of the Gentiles” was actually an improvement!) In the programma , worked out by Antiochus and by Jewish leaders, we see the hardening of national/racial boundaries in Israel.