The Hellenistic Age analysis

The Hellenistic Age is said to have ended with the advent of the Romans. As you state in the opening, it runs from the death of Alexander the Great to the rise of the Romans to power, so that the battle of Actium would be the end of this period in Egypt. To clarify, because there are some issues with wording, in the second paragraph, “The contention or confusion on religious matters during the age of Hellenistic manifested between history and religion where many historians during this period did not regard biblical books as historical” — I think you mean that some historians today do not understand the biblical books to be accurate historical records. “the conquest of Canaan by Israelites, which locates in the books of Samuel and Kings” — this would be an example of what was just stated–that is, some scholars do not think that the books of Samuel and Kings accurately reflect how the Israelites actually conquered Canaan. But these events are not related to either the Hellenistic period or to the Maccabean Revolt, as they happened much earlier. The following parts I had some trouble following: ” The revolt begins by noting the activities that transpired during the reign of Alexander the Great through to the installation of Gentile cults. This indicates that in as much as the activities related to religion, they occurred in unrecorded periods, a factor that places such activities under historical considerations. Also contained in the Maccabean revolt is the occupation of Jerusalem, which occurred in different sets of time thereby qualifying for the historical tag” –could you rephrase this for us? Please make this part I of the follow up. For part II of the follow up I will ask you to summarize for us what Grabbe’s take is and then to evaluate it. That is, please briefly describe what he thinks was happening and then consider the plausibility of his interpretation. What sources does he use? What sorts of assumptions does he make about the Hellenistic rulers, about Palestinian Judaism?