Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Judaism After 70; Other Greco-Roman Cults; Bibliography v. 4: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity)

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME TWELVE

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS P A R T FOUR

LEIDEN E. J . BRILL 1975

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS STUDIES FOR MORTON SMITH AT SIXTY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

PART FOUR

JUDAISM AFTER 70 OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS BIBLIOGRAPHY

LEIDEN E. J . BRILL 1975

I S B N 90 04 04215 6 go 04 04219 9 Copyright 1975 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

T A B L E OF CONTENTS J U D A I S M A F T E R 70

Redactional Techniques in the Legal Traditions of Joshua ben Hananiah.

i

W I L L I A M S C O T T G R E E N , University of Rochester

The Artificial Dispute: Ishmael and A q i v a

18

G A R Y G . P O R T O N , University of Illinois

Form-Criticism and Exegesis: T h e Case of Mishnah Ohalot 2:1

30

J A C O B N E U S N E R , Brown University

T w o Traditions of Samuel: Evaluating Alternative Versions B A R U C H M . B O K S E R , University of California, Berkeley

.

R. Abbahu of Caesarea L E E I. L E V I N E , Hebrew University, Jerusalem

56

"Conjecture" and Interpolation in Translating Rabbinic T e x t s Illustrated b y a Chapter from Tanna debe Eliyyahu W I L L I A M G . B R A U D E , Providence, Rhode Island OTHER GRECO-ROMAN

46

77

CULTS

Iconoclasm among the Zoroastrians

93

M A R Y B O Y C E , University of London

Quellenprobleme zum Ursprung und Alter der Mandaer.

. .

112

K U R T R U D O L P H , Karl-Marx-Universitat, Leipzig

The Religion of Maximin Daia

143

R O B E R T M . G R A N T , University of Chicago

Dositheus, Jesus, and a Moses Aretalogy 167 S T A N L E Y ISSER, State University of New York, Binghamton BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Bibliography of the Writings of Morton Smith, to December 3i> 1973

191

A . T H O M A S K R A A B E L , University of Minnesota

Index of Biblical and Talmudic References General Index

201 220

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART O N E

NEW TESTAMENT Foreword New Testament Introduction. A Critique of a Discipline

ix i

HELMUT KOESTER, Harvard University

Good News Is No News: Aretalogy and Gospel

21

JONATHAN Z . SMITH, University of Chicago

A Fresh Approach to Q WILLIAM R . FARMER, Southern Methodist University Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History

39 51

T . A . B u R K i L L , University of Rhodesia

From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4 JAMES A . SANDERS, Union Theological Seminary L u k e 12, 13-14, Tradition and Interpretation TJITZE BAARDA, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam " A m I a J e w ? " — J o h a n n i n e Christianity and Judaism

75 107 163

W A Y N E A . MEEKS, Y a l e University

The Kinship of John and Acts PIERSON PARKER, The General Theological Seminary A Foreword to the Study of the Speeches in Acts MAX WILCOX, University College of North Wales, Bangor L'hymne christologique de Col i, 15-20. Jugement critique sur I'^tat des recherches PIERRE BENOIT, o.p., ficole biblique et arch^ologique fran9aise Jerusalem Paul and his Opponents: Trends in Research E. EARLE ELLIS, New Brunswick Theological Seminary The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews

187 206

226

264 299

GEORGE W E S L E Y BUCHANAN, Wesley Theological Seminary, W a s -

hington

PART

EARLY

Two

CHRISTIANITY

The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement ROBIN SCROGGS, Chicago Theological Seminary Power through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman Palestine

i 24

SHELDON R . ISENBERG, University of Florida

Reflexions sur le Jud6o-Christianisme

53

MARCEL SIMON, University de Strasbourg

Asia Minor and Early Christianity SHERMAN E . JOHNSON, Church Divinity School of the Pacific Peter in Rome. A Review and Position D. W . O'CONNOR, St. Lawrence University Une allusion de I'Asclepius au livre d'H6noch

77 146 161

MARC PHILONENKO, University de Strasbourg

Christ in Verbal and Depicted Imagery; A Problem of Early Christian Iconography S. G . F, BRANDON

164

T A B L E OF CONTENTS

VII

Das Thema "Vertreibung aus dem Paradies" in der Katakombe der V i a LatinaundseinjiidischerHintergrund

173

KURT and URSULA SCHUBERT, Universitat Wien

Vox Populi Voluntas Dei and the Election of the Byzantine Emperor. MILTON V . ANASTOS, University of California, Los Angeles Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Images

.

181 208

STEPHEN GERO, Brown University

Contemporary Ecclesiastical Approaches to Biblical Interpretation: Orthodoxy and Pseudorthodoxy 217 ERNEST S. FRERICHS, Brown University PART THREE

J U D A I S M B E F O R E 70 Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian R o y a l Grants Y o c H A N A N MUFFS, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America On the Origins of the Aramaic Legal Formulary at Elephantine . . . .

i 37

BARUCH A . LEVINE, New Y o r k University

M y t h and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29

55

ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN, McMaster University

The Jewish Historian Demetrios E. J. BICKERMAN, Columbia University The Tales of the Tobiads

72 85

JONATHAN A . GOLDSTEIN, University of Iowa

The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavins Josephus: A Study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiography H o R S T R. M o E H R i N G , Brown University The Archangel Sariel. A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls . .

124 159

GEZA VERMES, University of Oxford

Qumran and Iran: T h e State of Studies

167

RICHARD N . F R Y E , Harvard University

The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity

175

ROBERT A . KRAFT, University of Pennsylvania

A Note on Purification and Proselyte Baptism R. J. Z w i WERBLOWSKY, Hebrew University Jerusalem Sadducees versus Pharisees: T h e Tannaitic Sources

200 206

JACK LIGHTSTONE, Brown University

Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholarship LOUIS H . FELDMAN, Y e s h i v a University

218

R E D A C T I O N A L T E C H N I Q U E S IN T H E L E G A L T R A D I T I O N S O F J O S H U A B. H A N A N I A H WILLIAM SCOTT GREEN University of Rochester Morton Smith's observation that " T h e primary Sitz im Leben of the books of the Old Testament . . . is their role in the life of those who wrote, copied and corrected them. . . " ^ is true as well for the legal traditions of rabbinic Judaism. Those traditions were neither preserved nor handed on by accident. The meaning and importance of specific legal decisions is determined almost wholly by the context in which they appear. The creation of that context, lunvcver, usually is not the work of the sages whose rulings are reported, but that of their students and others who lived after them who shaped and transmitted their opinions. The critical study of rabbinic legal materials, which properly forms the core of research into the foundations of rabbinic Judaism, demands attention not only to the content of individual opinions, but to redactional procedures as well, for, as Professor Smith points out, "in the study of transmitted material a knowledge of the character of the transmission is prerequisite for an evaluation of the data transmitted." ^ Y e t , it is only with recent times that sustained, systematic, and selfconscious inquiry has been made into the redactional procedures reflected in discrete legal pericopae. Since such work is just beyond infancy, its results are still more suggestive than probative, and refinement and sharpening of methodological procedures continues to take place. What follows are several examples taken from the legal traditions of Joshua b. Hananiah, a major figure in firstcentury Palestinian Judaism, which demonstrate ways in which an appreciation of the motives and techniques of redactors may help elucidate some of the issues at stake in the formative period of rabbinic Judaism.

A. [Concerning] the woman [who was of Israelite descent and married to a priest] who was eating of Heave-offering—they came Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York, 1971), pp. 9-10. 2 Ibid., p. 4.

WILLIAM SCOTT G R E E N

and said to her, "Your husband has died," or, "[Your husband has] divorced y o u " — B. And so [concerning] the slave [of a priest] who was eating of Heave-offering, and they came and said to him, "Your master has died," or "[He has] sold you to an Israelite," or "[He has] given you as a gift," or, "[He has]freed y o u " — C. And so [concerning] a priest who was eating of Heave-offering, and it became known (NWD'S) that he is the son of a divorcee or of a halusah— D. R. Eliezer obligates [them] for the Principle and the Added Fifth. E. And R. Joshua exempts [them]. F. He [a priest] was standing and offering sacrifices at the altar, and it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or of a halusah— G. R. Eliezer says, "All the sacrifices he has offered on the altar are invalid." H. And R. Joshua declares [them] valid. I. [If] it became known that he was blemished—his service is unfit. Mishnah Terumoth 8: i ^ J. And in all cases (WKWLM §) in which the Heave-offering was in their mouths— K. R. Eliezer says, "They swallow [it]." L. R. Joshua says, "They spit [it] out (YPLTW)." M. [If] they said to him, ' Y o u have been made unclean," or "The Heave-offering has been made unclean"— N. R. Eliezer says, "He swallows." O. R. Joshua says, "He spits out." P. [If they said,] "You were unclean [at the outset]," or "The Heave-offering was unclean," or [if] it became known that the Heaveoffering was unclean produce, or First Tithe from which Heaveoffering had not been taken, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce which had not been redeemed, or, if he tasted the taste of a bedbug in his mouth—lo, he should spit [it] out. Mishnah Terumoth 8:2^ Q. [If] he was eating of a grapecluster and went from the garden to the courtyard— R. R. Eliezer says, "He finishes." S. And R. Joshua says, "He does not finish." T. [If] it got dark on the Sabbath eve— U. R. Eliezer says, "He finishes." V. And R. Joshua says, "He does not finish." Mishnah Terumoth 8:3^ 3 Also, y. ( = Jerusalem Talmud) Terumoth 7:2; b. ( = Babylonian Talmud). Pesahim 12b, Y e v a m o t 34a, Makkot i i b ; Midrash Tannaim to Deuteronomy 26:3, ed. Hoffmann, p. 171. * Also, y. Terumoth 8:2. ^ Also, y. Terumoth 8:2, Ma'asrot 3:4; b. Besah 35a.

L E G A L T R A D I T I O N S OF JOSHUA B, HANANIAH

3

The issue which justifies the combination of these three pericopae is not a single legal topic, but a single legal problem. A - E , J-P treat the improper consumption of Heave-offering, F-I deals with the validity of the sacrifices and Temple Service of a disqualified priest, and Q-V concerns the consumption of untithed produce. All three pericopae, however, deal with the same situation: a person has done or was doing a certain act under the assumption that he was permitted to do so when it is discovered that he was not so permitted. Biblical law. Lev. 5 : 1 6 and 22:14, as well as Mishnaic law, Mishnah Terumoth 6 : 1 , specify that the accidental consumption of Heave-offering by a non-priest carries the penalty of the Principle and the Added Fifth. That is, the amount of Heave-offering consumed, the Principle, must be replaced, and the offender must pay in addition a fine of one-fifth the value of the Principle. This logically means that if it is clear that the produce consumed is Heaveoffering and that the person who consumed it is a non-priest, the penalty of the Principle and the Added Fifth automatically should be incurred. Disagreement about the application of the penalty would result, however, if the status of either the produce or the consumer was unclear. The dispute between Eliezer and Joshua in D-E evidently applies to the three cases presented in A-C. The wife and the slave of the priest are permitted to consume Heave-offering by virtue of their relationship to the priest. Once that relationship ends they lose their special status. So their status actually changes. They were once allowed to eat Heave-offering; now they may not. But the situation of the hallal-priest ^ is different. In his case what changed was not his actual status, but his and others' awareness of it. His lineage was always defective; at no time was he permitted to eat Heave-offering. So the three cases are not precisely comparable. In the instance of the wife and the slave there has been a change in fact; in the case of the hallal-priest the fact of his status remains unchanged. Ehezer's ruling in D can only mean that the three are regarded as non-priests. Their consumption of the consecrated produce was improper, and they must pay the penalty. But from the context of A - E alone the scope of Joshua's exemption and his consequent view of the status of the woman, slave, and hallal-priest 8 A priest of defective lineage, technically regarded as a non-priest. See Leviticus 2117.

4

WILLIAM SCOTT G R E E N

are unclear. Are they exempt from the entire penalty or merely from the fine of the Added Fifth ? The answer will come from an analysis of F-I. In F the hallal-priest is offering sacrifices at the altar when his true status is revealed. Eliezer's rule, which fully states the issue, is that all his previous sacrifices are retroactively invalid. He was never qualified to serve at the altar. Joshua's position, which responds to Eliezer's in G, but not to F, is that the past sacrifices are valid. This can only mean that he regards the hallal-priest as a legitimate priest, at least until the point that his status is made known. If the hallal-priest is judged fit to offer sacrifices so long as his status is assumed to be proper, he is also fit to consume Heave-offering in the same period. It follows that the exemption of E means that the priest, as well as the slave and the woman, is free from any penalty whatever.'^ What is striking is the implication that self-perception determines actual status. Objectively, the hallal-priest was always disqualified from eating Heave-offering and offering sacrifices, but while he was perceived by himself and others to be a legitimate priest, he is regarded as such in fact. Part I treats the problem of the blemished priest. Although it is difficult to imagine the case of a blemished priest who did not know of his ritual infirmity while others did, the language of I and the context in which it appears suggest that this is the situation envisioned. But here no disagreement is reported. Mishnah Terumoth 8:2 J-L deals with the problem of what to do if the person is in the midst of eating Heave-offering when his status is changed. It seems clear that the ' A n d in all cases" of J is intended to apply to A, B, and C. Eliezer's rule permits the person to swallow what he is eating. Joshua's position is that he must spit out the Heave-offering. The principle behind Joshua's rule seems clear. So long as the woman, slave, and hallal-priest are unaware of their true status, they are regarded as fit to consume Heave-offering, and he may offer sacrifices. Once they become aware of their disquahfication, however, they must stop what they are doing. To continue in hght of the new information would constitute a deliberate transgression. But Eliezer's rule is problematic in this context. For if he regards the hallal-priest's sacrifices as retroactively invalid, on what basis does he permit the defective priest to continue eating? If the sacrifices never should have been offered, '' Cf. Bartinora, Tiferet Yisrael here.

L E G A L T R A D I T I O N S OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH

5

the Heave-offering never should have been eaten. Logic suggests that he should stop eating. A s we shall see, the problem is not with the substance of Eliezer's rule, but with the context provided by the redactor. In 8:2 M-0 the issue is uncleanness of the man or Heave-offering which was not in effect when he began to eat. So the case is like that of A - B ; an actual change in status has taken place. The opinions are the same as those of K-L. But the inconsistency in Eliezer's rule is again evident. In 8: i his rule was that the unwitting offenders of A - B were required to pay a penalty. Here he permits the man to continue eating. P resembles the case of I. The act was incorrect from the outset. Again there is no disagreement. We should observe that the masters' answers in 8:2 K, L, N, O a r e in terse, one-word form: Y B L * vs. Y P L T . It seems likely that Joshua's answer was coined for mnemonic reasons. P L T actually connotes vomiting or discharge; the word for " t o spit" is RQQ.^ In Mishnah Terumoth 8:3 (Q-V) the issue is not Heave-offering, but tithes. B y walking from the garden to the courtyard the man subjects the grapecluster to tithing (See Mishnah Ma^asrot 3:5). The same effect is produced b y the coming of the Sabbath (See Mishnah Ma*asrot 4:2). In each case Eliezer's rule is that the man may continue eating. Joshua is consistent with his earlier rules; once the act is incorrect the man must stop. Again the masters' answers are terse and balanced: Y G M R vs. L ' Y G M R . W e now need to turn to an examination of the entire series to point out formal and substantive differences among the various parts, to see if it is possible to identify the units out of which the whole was composed, and to understand the motives, if any, of the redactor(s). We first note that parts C-I all deal with the same case, namely, that of a priest whose inherent disqualification to perform his duties becomes known as he is doing so. Each example is introduced b y the phrase N W D * §. If C-I appeared alone we could assume that the issue was the effect of different sorts of disqualification on the validity of priestly functions. So the congruity of content and form makes reasonable the suggestion that C-I constitute a unit. Mishnah Terumoth 8:2 J is linguistically and structurally awk^ Marcus J astro w, A Dictionary of Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1926), pp. 1178-9, 1497-8.

6

WILLIAM SCOTT G R E E N

ward. It simultaneously refers to 8: i A-C which precede it and to 8:2 K - P which follow i t — a t best a cumbersome construction. Moreover, " A n d in all cases" could be dispensed with; " t h e Heaveoffering was in their mouths" would have sufficed. Since it is not essential to an understanding of the pericope, " A n d in all cases" can only serve to stress that the positions of K - L refer to the cases of A-C. The need to point out that the three cases are to be considered as examples of a single principle suggests that their combination is the work of a redactor. If C-I is a unit, as we suggested, then A - B has been added. For reasons of form, this interpretation seems likely, for unlike C, in A - B the announcement of disqualification appears in direct discourse: " . . . they said to him/her." Moreover, M, which is a continuation of J-L, has the same form as A - B . W e now recall that the cases of the woman and the slave and that of the disquahfied priest were dissimilar. The status of the woman and the slave had actually changed, but the status of the priest had not. It is clear that the combination of these different cases has made Eliezer's view in K appear inconsistent. If we assume that K - L initially referred only to A - B , Eliezer's rule becomes clear. In cases involving an actual change of status, the person who began with permission may continue what he is doing. That this is his principle is clear from Mishnah Terumoth 8:3, which deals neither with priest nor Heave-offering. It thus appears that two sets of Eliezer-Joshua disputes, each dealing with a different issue, have been combined. Mishnah Terumoth 8: i C-I treats the problem of an unapprehended disqualified priest who has performed priestly duties. There Eliezer holds that the hallal-priest may not serve under any circumstances. W h a t matters is his status. Joshua's rule, if we treat the section in isolation, is that the service of the hallal-priest is valid.^ Mishnah Terumoth 8: i A - B + 8:2 K - P and all of 8:3 constitute the second set of disputes. It deals with non-priests who are performing certain actions when a change in circumstances alters either their actual status or the nature of their act. The combination of the two sets of disputes obscures the differences among the several cases and makes the positions ascribed to Eliezer appear inconsistent. The opinions ascribed to Joshua, however, yield a consistent position. If a person acts under the impression that what ^ See b. Pesahim 72b-73a.

L E G A L TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH

7

he is doing is proper, even if it objectively is not, he has commited no wrong. B u t once he knows that his action is incorrect, he is obligated to stop what he is doing. i° ii A. Date-honey, cider, vinegar from winter grapes, and all other fruit-juices (MY P Y R W T ) of Heave-offering— B. R. Eliezer obligates [a non-priest who erringly drank any of the above for] the Principle and the Added Fifth. C. And R. Joshua exempts. D. And R. Eliezer declares [the above liquids] susceptible to uncleanness because [they come under the law of] liquid[s capable of making produce susceptible to uncleanness] (MSWM MSQH). E. Said R. Joshua, "Sages did not count seven liquids [capable of rendering susceptible to uncleanness] as do those who count up spices [that is, with imprecision], rather, they said, 'Seven [kinds of] liquid render susceptible to uncleanness, and all other liquids are clean [not capable of rendering susceptible to uncleanness].' " Mishnah Terumoth 11:2 The pericope is a composite deahng with two unrelated issues. The issue of A-C is the improper consumption of Heave-offering fruit-juice. D-E deals with the status in terms of purity of the juice itself. We turn first to an examination of A-C. As we noted earlier, the Penalty of the Principle and the Added Fifth applies in cases of accidental consumption of Heave-offering by a non-priest. Since Eliezer obhgates the consumer of the various juices for the penalty, it is clear that he regards the juices as if they were Heave-offering. Joshua's exemption in C implies that the juices are not Heave-offering. The gemara at b. ( = Babylonian Talmud) Hullin i 2 o b - i 2 i a explains the two opinions by analogy to the law of Firstfruits. Eliezer holds that since liquids which exude from Firstfruits are like the fruits themselves, hquids which exude from Heave-offering fruits are like Heave-offering, and just as the law of Firstfruits applies to all kinds of fruits, with regard to Heaveoffering the law should apply to all kinds of fruits. Therefore, all the liquids listed in A are regarded as Heave-offering. Joshua, on the other hand, holds that although Hquids which exude from Heave-offering fruit are regarded as Heave-offering b y analogy to See Jacob Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man, VoL I, (Leiden, 1973), pp. 60-62. (Hereafter, Eliezer I or II).

8

WILLIAM SCOTT G R E E N

the law of Firstfruits, only wine and oil may be consecrated as Heave-offering. Therefore, the only liquids made from Heaveoffering fruit which may be regarded as Heave-offering are wine and oil.^^ We may, however, discern different reasons for the masters' positions from the redaction of the superscription, A. Mishnah Terumoth 1 1 : 3 states in part: 1. They do not make dates [of Heave-offering into] honey, nor a})ples [of Heave-offering into] cider, nor winter grapes [of Heaveoffering into] vinegar. 2. And they do not alter tlie natural condition of any (KL) other fruits of Heave-offering or Second Tithe, except for olives (— oil) and grapes ( = wine) alone. . . . 1 1 : 3 I and 2 are two independent statements of law which have been placed next to one another. 1 1 : 2 A contains both the specific items listed in i of 1 1 : 3 and the language of 2 of 1 1 : 3 ("all other fruits of Heave-offering"), but in 1 1 : 2 A the problematic status of these items is assumed, not explained. The reason for the ambigious status of Heave-offering fruit juice is provided by i and 2 of 1 1 : 3 , and this suggests that A of 1 1 : 2 has been drawn from them. Datehoney, etc. should not be made from Heave-offering fruit. We are not told what happens if this is done, but onl}^ what happens if such produce is consumed by a non-priest. Objectively, the juice has been made from consecrated produce. Eliezer, therefore, regards it as consecrated and requires the full penalty. From the perspective of Joshua's rule, however, although the juice was made from Heaveoffering, it should not have been. So the man who consumed it had no reason to suspect that he had done anything improper and is therefore exempt from the penalty. We observe that B-C of 1 1 : 3 appear verbatim in D-E of Mishnah Terumoth 8:1. There, as we saw, Joshua's exemption meant that although the priest objectively was unfit to offer sacrifices or eat Heave-offering, so long as he assumed he was behaving correctly he had commited no wrong. Here the same tradition m a y be seen as demonstrating the same principle, although in a different case. Although the date-honey, etc. actually come from Heave-offering, the man may assume, for good reason, that it does not. In each case the actual status of the act is determined by the perception See Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, 1955) PP- 455-6.

ZeraHm, Part I (New York,

L E G A L T R A D I T I O N S OF JOSHUA B. H A N A N I A H

Q

of the actor. In each case, also, the point at issue is established by the redaction of the superscription. We turn now to D-E. In D Eliezer rules that the juice of Heaveoffering fruit is susceptible to uncleanness because, in his view, it falls under the category of liquids which can render produce susceptible to uncleanness (See Lev. 1 1 : 3 4 , 38). Joshua's answer is clear: the sages have listed seven kinds of liquid which are capable of rendering produce susceptible to uncleanness. Anything outside that list is clean. It seems likely that Joshua here refers to the list of Mishnah Makshirin 6:4. Although Joshua's lemma refutes the issue raised by Eliezer's rule, its form is inappropriate. We would have expected a simple " R . Joshua declares [them] clean ( M T H R ) . " The inappropriate form leads directly to the observation that Joshua's lemma has nothing whatever to do with the superscription, A. It makes sense here only as a refutation of Eliezer. Indeed, the relationship of Eliezer's rule in D to the superscription is also somewhat problematic, for if the items listed in A are susceptible to uncleanness because they are hquids, then whether or not they are Heave-offering is irrelevant. They will render produce susceptible to uncleanness in any case. Since the "dispute" does not really concern Heave-offering, and since Joshua's lemma responds only to Eliezer, we must look elsewhere for the origin of Eliezer's rule. Tosefta Terumoth (ed. Lieberman, p. 157, Is. 33-55) has: 1. Date-honey— 2. R. Liezer declares [it] susceptible to uncleanness because [it comes under the law of] liquid[s capable of making produce susceptible to uncleanness]. 3. R. Nathan said, "R. Liezer agrees that this does not render uncleanness because [it is a] liquid. 4. "Concerning what did they disagree? 5. "Concerning the [situation] in which he put water in i t — 6. "For R. Liezer declares [it] susceptible to uncleanness because [it comes under the law of] liquid[s capable of making produce susceptible to uncleanness]. 7. "And sages say, 'They follow the majority [of the liquid in the mixture].' " Eliezer's rule about date-honey and its susceptibility to uncleanness is preceded b y one, not shown here, in which he declares datehoney hable to tithes. This suggests that the Toseftan tradition is not exclusively concerned with date-honey from Heave-offering

10

WILLIAM SCOTT G R E E N

dates. 2 of the Toseftan pericope has Ehezer's rule of Mishnah Terumoth 1 1 : 2 D verbatim, but it refers only to date-honey. Joshua appears nowhere in the Toseftan pericope, and since Nathan's revision of Eliezer's tradition does not refer to Joshua as the authority behind the opposing tradition, I assume no Eliezer-Joshua dispute concerning date-honey was known to him. Since the issue in the Toseftan pericope is the status of normal, not Heave-offering, date-honey with respect to purity, Ehezer's rule is more intelligible there than it is in Mishnah. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the tradition represented in Tosefta is the origin of Eliezer's rule in Mishnah Terumoth 1 1 : 2 D. How, then, has the pericope in Mishnah taken shape ? We observed earlier that elements from i and 2 of Mishnah Terumoth 1 1 : 3 had been combined to produce the superscription. A, of 1 1 : 2 . The way in which the elements were combined makes clear that the date-honey, cider, and vinegar are regarded as products of Heaveoffering fruit. It is only in this context that the Eliezer-Joshua dispute in B-C makes sense. My guess is that Eliezer's rule of D, drawn from Tosefta Terumoth 9:8, was attached later on the assumption that what was true for date-honey with reference to purity was true as well for the other items included in the list. Joshua's rule in E, which really is an independent lemma, was then appended to create the "dispute." It is important to note that Eliezer's and Joshua's rules in D-E merely have been juxtaposed and not redacted into a coherent dispute.

iii A. All utensils [of wood, leather, and bone] of householders—their measure (S'WRN) is with (B) pomegranates. [If domestic utensils were broken because of uncleanness, they are clean if the breaks in them are large enough so that a pomegranate can pass though]. B. R. Eliezer says, "In any size (BMH SHN)." C. Baskets of gardeners (QPWT HGNNYM)—their measure is with bundles of vegetables. D. And [baskets] of householders—with [bundles of] straw. E. And [baskets] of bath-keepers (BLNYN)—with [bundles of] shavings. F. R. Joshua says, "All of them—with pomegranates." Mishnah Kelim 17:1 The issue is the size of hole which will render a utensil insusceptible to uncleanness. The pericope is in two parts which relate 12 See Eliezer I, 66-70.

L E G A L TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH

II

to, but do not depend on, each other. A - B is a dispute between Eliezer and the anonymous law of A. A provides the context. All domestic utensils are clean if they suffer a breach the size of a pomegranate. Professor Neusner explains that Eliezer's rule means either "(i) A n y size of hole will suffice; or (2) the size of the hole to render insusceptible depends on the size of the object when whole, as in Mishnah Kelim 2:2." The second interpretation depends on reading the entire pericope as a unit and seeing C-E as continuations of Eliezer's rule. As we shall see, this is probably not the case. C introduces a specific case, the baskets of gardeners. But like A it has a full statement of the problem (". . . their measure is. . . " ) . It therefore provides the context for D-F, all of which are incomprehensible without it. Had A - F been redacted into a unit, C should have appeared in the same form as D-E, that is, the name of the item and the appropriate measure. So C-F should be regarded as independent of A - B . Since C-E are not illustrations of B, Eliezer's rule probably means that any size of breach will make the vessel insusceptible to uncleanness. Joshua's rule, F, glosses and disputes the rules of C-E. C-F are therefore the product of his tradents. The two units, A - B and C-F constitute good evidence for the existence of two independent redactional circles, one Eliezer's, the other Joshua's, both working on the same problem. This contention is supported by the observation that since F agrees with A, a JoshuaEliezer dispute could have been created, but it has not been.

iv A. An ohve's bulk of flesh which separates from the limb of a living being— B. R. Eliezer declares [it] unclean [in a Tent, as if it were from a corpse]. C. And R. Joshua and R. Nehunya declare [it] clean. D. A barleycorn's bulk of bone which separates from the limb of a living being— E. R. Nehunya declares [it] unclean [in contact and carrying, like that from a corpse]. F. And R. Eliezer and R. Joshua declare [it] clean. G. They said to R. Eliezer, "On what basis do you declare unclean an olive's bulk of flesh which separates from the limb of a living being?" Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities: Part II (Leiden, 1974), pp. 87-89.

12

WILLIAM SCOTT

GREEN

H. He said to them, "We find that the hmb from a living being is like a whole corpse. Just as an olive's bulk of flesh which separates from the corpse is unclean, so an olive's bulk of flesh which separates from the limb of a living being should be unclean." I. They said to him, "No! li you have declared unclean an ohve's bulk of flesh which separates from the corpse, since indeed you have declared unclean a barleycorn's bulk of bone which separates from it, will you declare unclean an olive's bulk of flesh which separates from the limb of a living being, when indeed you have declared clean a barleycorn's bulk of bone which separates from i t ? " J. They said to R. Nehunya, "On what basis do you declare unclean the barleycorn's bulk of bone which separates from the limb of a living being?" K. He said to them, "We have found that a limb from a living being is like a whole corpse. Just as a barleycorn's bulk of bone which separates from a corpse is unclean, so the barleycorn's bulk of bone which separates from a living being should be unclean." L. They said to him, "No! If you have declared unclean the barleycorn's bulk of bone which separates from a corpse, you have also declared unclean an olive's bulk of flesh which separates from it. But will you declare unclean a barleycorn's bulk of bone which separates from the limb of a living being, when indeed you have declared clean an olive's bulk of flesh which separates from it ? M. They said to R. Eliezer, "For what reason did you divide your rules ? Either declare unclean in both cases or declare clean in both cases." N. He said to them, "The uncleanness of flesh is more virulent (MRWBH) than the uncleanness of bones, for [the uncleanness of] flesh applies both to carrion and to creeping things, which is not the case with bones." O. Another matter: A limb which has the appropriate amount of flesh renders unclean through carrying, through contact, and in a Tent; if it lacks flesh, it is [still] unclean; if it lacks bones, it is clean. P. They said to R. Nehunya, "Why have you divided your rules ? Either declare unclean in both cases or declare clean in both cases." Q. He said to them, "The uncleanness of bones is more virulent than the uncleanness of flesh, for the flesh which separates from the living being is clean, but a limb which separates from it, which is in its natural state (KBRYTW), is unclean." R. Another matter: An olive's bulk of flesh renders unclean by contact and by carrying and in the Tent, and the greater part of the bones render unclean by touching, by carrying, and in the Tent. If the flesh is lacking, it is clean. If the greater part of the bones is lacking, even though it is clean so far as the Tent is concerned, it renders unclean through contact and carrying. S. Another matter: All flesh of the corpse which is less than an olive's bulk is clean. The greater part of the corpse's bulk and members, although they are not a quarter [qab], are unclean.

L E G A L T R A D I T I O N S OF JOSHUA B. H A N A N I A H

I3

T. They said to R. Joshua, "On what basis did you declare clean in both cases?" U. He said to them, "No! If you have said so concerning the corpse, to which the greater part, quarter [qab], and corpse-matter apply, will you say so concerning the living being, to which the greater part, quarter [qab], and corpse-matter do not apply?" Mishnah 'Eduyyot 6:3 In Mishnah *Eduyyot 6:2 it is agreed that a whole hmb from a living being is unclean. The issue of 6:3 is, What if flesh or bone which has separated from the hmb of a living being does not constitute a complete limb ? Since the barleycorn's bulk of bone and the olive's bulk of flesh would produce uncleanness if separated from a corpse, the larger question underlying the pericope is the comparison of the corpse and the hving being with respect to uncleanness. According to A - F , only Joshua is consistent regarding the flesh and the bone; he holds that both are clean. Ehezer regards the flesh as unclean but the bone clean. Nehunya holds the reverse. The rest of the pericope spells out, in a beautifully balanced fashion, the reasons behind each opinion. In G Eliezer is asked the reason for his rule that the flesh is unclean. His answer (H) is that the whole limb of the living being is equivalent to the whole corpse, so flesh which separates from the limb should be treated like flesh which separates from a corpse. The comparison of the corpse to the limb produces I, which points out the inconsistency in Ehezer's position. If the hmb is hke the corpse, then both the flesh and the bone which separate from it should be unclean. But in Ehezer's view, the bone is clean. J-L are identical to G-I, but " b o n e " has replaced Eliezer's "flesh." In M Ehezer is asked to explain his inconsistency. His answer (N) is that the uncleanness of flesh is more virulent (lit: greater) than that of bones, for it applies to things to which the uncleanness of bones does not apply. O is an intrusion, but is relevant to the context. Its argument is that a limb without the requisite amount of flesh is still unclean, but if it lacks bones, it is clean. The uncleanness of flesh, therfore, is more virulent than that of bones. P repeats M, but is addressed to Nehunya. His answer in Q is the equivalent of Eliezer's in N ; the uncleanness of bones is more virulent than that of flesh. But unlike N, Q brings nothing new

14

WILLIAM SCOTT G R E E N

to the argument, for, as Neusner shows, Q merely repeats the arguments of C and E. This suggests that it has been constructed to match N. R likewise parallels O by focusing on the ways in which less than the requisite amount of bone wih still render unclean. O did the same with respect to flesh. S breaks the perfect balance by giving Nehunya's position a third justification. It does not, however, seem to differ much from the argument of R. In T Joshua is asked to explain his position that both the bone and the flesh are clean. His answer is that the corpse and the living being are not comparable. The greater part ( = majority) of the bones of a corpse will render unclean; a qua.rter-gab of bones from a corpse, even without the greater number, will render unclean, and corpse-matter, or corpse-dust, will render unclean. Since none of these things can be said of living beings, no comparison should be made. It seems to me that this argument is aimed at refuting the analogy between the limb from the living being and the corpse offered by Eliezer and Nehunya in H and K, respectively. If the corpse and the living being cannot be compared with respect to uncleanness, it stands to reason that a limb separated from a living being, although unclean, is not equivalent to a corpse. Therefore, the olive's bulk of flesh and barleycorn's bulk of bone which separate from it are clean. The pericope contains two forms: A-C and D-F are disputes; G-U contain the questions and developed responses characteristic of debates. But A-C and D-E, which form the context for the debate, are unusual because they contain three sages and not the usual two. This suggests that what stands behind this elegant pericope are two independent traditions, one containing Eliezer's position with regard to flesh, the other Nehunya's with regard to bones. It is also likely that the original traditions were disputes, one between Eliezer and Joshua, the other between Nehunya and Joshua. The pericope certainly has been redacted to favor Joshua, since it is his view which is dominant and unrefuted at the end. However, it is not necessarily the inherent correctness of Joshua's position which has caused the pericope to be redacted in his favor. Rather, it is that, of the three masters, only he is consistent. Both the flesh 1* Eliezer I, pp. 340-344. For a definition and discussion of forms, see Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before yo, Vol. I l l (Teiden, 1971), pp. 5-22, 101-63, and Eliezer JI, pp. 18-62.

L E G A L T R A D I T I O N S OF JOSHUA B. H A N A N I A H

I5

and bone are clean. T h a t a criterion for redaction was the consistency of the various opinions is evident from I, L, M, and P, all of which criticize Eliezer and Nehunya for "dividing" their rules. The Toseftan version of the pericope should help us understand what stands behind the Mishnaic one. 1. An olive's bulk of flesh which separates from the limb of a living being— 2. R. Eliezer declares unclean. 3. They answered R. Eliezer [with] three replies. 4. "No! If you have said so concerning a corpse, to which the greater part, quaxter[qab], [and] corpse-matter apply, will you say so concerning the limb from a living being, to which the greater part, qusiYtcr[qab] and corpse-matter do not apply?" 5. Another matter: What depends on what ? Does the hmb depend upon the flesh, or does the flesh depend upon the limb ? The flesh depends upon the limb. Is it possible that the flesh should render unclean through contact, carrying, and the Tent and that the limb should be clean? 6. Said R. Simeon, "I should be surprised if R. Eliezer declared unclean. He declared it unclean only when there is on the limb appropriate flesh, so that this and that should render unclean through contact, carrying, and the Tent." 7. A bone the size of a barley-corn which separates from the limb of a living being— 8. R. Nehunya declares [it] unclean. 9. They answered R. Nehunya [with] three replies. 10. "No! If you have said so concerning the corpse, to which the greater part, quarter[g'a&], [and] corpse-matter apply, will you say so concerning the limb from a living being to which the greater part, qua.vtev[qab], and corpse-matter do not apply?" 11. Another matter: What depends on what? Does the limb depend upon the bone, or does the bone depend upon the limb ? The bone depends upon the limb. Is it possible that the bone should render unclean through contact and carrying and that the limb should be clean ? 12. Said R. Simeon, " I should be surprised if R. Nehunya declared it unclean. He declared it unclean only where there is in the limb a bone the size of a barleycorn, so that this and that should render unclean through contact and carrying." 13. R. Joshua answered the opinions of both of them. 14. "Just as the bone and the flesh which separate from the living being, which has on it two hundred and forty-eight limbs, is clean, [concerning] a limb, on which there are not two hundred and fortyeight limbs, is it not logical that the bone and the flesh which separate from it are clean ?" 15. Rabbi replied to the words of R. Joshua, "No! If you say so

l6

W I L L I A M SCOTT

GREEN

concerning those things which separate from the hving person, for, indeed, they have separated from something which is clean, will you say so concerning those things which separate from the limb, for, indeed, they have separated from something which is unclean ?" Tosefta 'Ahilot 2:7-8 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 599, Is. 9-23) = Tosefta "^Eduyyot 2:10 (ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 458-9, Is. 28-32, i-io) Although the present form of the Toseftan pericope probably does not stand behind the Mishnaic version, it does contain elements out of which the Mishnaic pericope probably has been built, i and 2 of Tosefta are Eliezer's rule about flesh (A-B of Mishnah), and Tosefta's 7 and 8 are Nehunya's view of bone (D-E of Mishnah). But Tosefta has no suggestion that Eliezer ruled about bone or Nehunya about flesh, so it confirms our suggestion that the two traditions originally were unrelated, 4 and 10 are Joshua's reply in the Mishnaic pericope (U), but they are not ascribed to him here, Tosefta's 5 and Mishnah's O are based on the same argument, the uncleanness of the flesh is subordinate to that of the limb itself. B u t in Mishnah the argument is reworked as a proof that the uncleanness of flesh is more virulent than that of bone, A similar relationship exists between 11 of Tosefta and R of Mishnah. Simeon's two statements seem to me not reflected in Mishnah. Tosefta's 13 and 14 present a different version of Joshua's rule. The argument is that if the flesh and the bone which separate from a living being are clean, then so are the flesh and bone which separate from the limb from a living being. The reasoning apparrently is that what is true for the whole living being is also-true for any part of it. So with respect to uncleanness the limb from a living being is more like a living being than a corpse. This seems to me a clearer statement of Joshua's basic position than U of Mishnah ( = 4 and 10 of Tosefta). Rabbi's reply (15) seems beyond the scope of the argument, for it assumes that the uncleanness of the whole limb will convey uncleanness to all parts of it. But as we observed earlier, the premise on which the entire disagreement is based is that this is not the case. In this instance Mishnah and Tosefta represent two redactional traditions which have drawn on the same materials and used them in different ways. Although Tosefta demonstrates a concern for balanced structure (1-6 and 7-12 parallel each other verbatim except for the name of the sage and the part of the limb,), it is not so well

L E G A L T R A D I T I O N S OF J O S H U A B, H A N A N I A H

17

developed as Mishnah, B y combining Nehunya with Joshua in C and Eliezer with him in F, the redactor(s) of the Mishnaic pericope have created a context in which the argument about flesh and bone from the limb of a living being could be debated in terms of consistency. Such a construction is not possible in the Toseftan version. If the ascription of Mishnah's U to Joshua, as oposed to Tosefta's 14, was a matter of choice, then I suspect that U was selected because of its suitabihty to the rest of the pericope. An argument which opposes the modes of uncleanness of the corpse to those of the living being is more consistent with the rest of the pericope, especially N and Q, than is one based on the comparison of the physical characteristics of the hmb and the living being. Finally, it is important to point out that although the tradition has undergone considerable development in Mishnah, the fundamental postions of the masters have not been altered.^*"' ^® Grateful acknowledgement is made for the time and criticism offered by my teacher, Jacob Neusner, in whose graduate seminar at Brown University earlier drafts of this paper were read. The members of that seminar, Dr. Baruch Bokser, Mr. Jack Lightstone, Rabbi Shamai Kanter, Mr. Charles Primus, Mr. Joel Gereboff, and Rabbi Tzvee Zahavy offered many helpful comments. Professor Gary G. Porton, University of Illinois, Professors Robert Holmes and James R. Shaw of the University of Rochester, and Rabbi Zahavy discussed various portions of the paper in detail. The responsibility for errors of judgement and interpretation is mine.

THE ARTHHCIAL DISPUTE: ISHMAEL AND

AQIBA

GARY G. PORTON University of Illinois

I The overwhelming majority of disputed Tannaitic statements are cast in the standard dispute form, Superscription Authority X says (^WMR): " Authority Y says (^WMR):

"

The form is built from two independent lemmas. The use of the present participle, 'WMR, is characteristic of the form.^ In a true dispute, both comments should deal with the problem set forth in the superscription, and the two comments should respond to each other. M. Pe'ah 4:10 offers an example of a classic use of the dispute form. A. Which is the poor-man's share (LQT) ? B. That which falls during the time of harvesting. C. [If while] one was harvesting, he harvested a handful [or] he plucked an armful [and] a thorn pricked him and [some of the produce] fell to the ground—behold it [that which fell] belongs to the master of the house. D. [If some produce fell from] the midst of the hand or (W) [from] the midst of the sickle [during the time of harvesting]—[the fallen produce belongs] to the poor. E. [If some produce fell from] the back ('HR) of the hand or (W) [from] the back of the sickle [during the time of harvesting]—[the fallen produce belongs] to the master of the house. F. [If some produce fell from] the tip (R'S) of the hand or (W) [from] the tip of the sickle [during the time of harvesting], G. R. Ishmael says: "[The fallen produce belongs] to the poor." H. R. 'Aqiba says: "[The fallen produce belongs] to the master of the house." (M. Pe'ah 4:10) Comment: The L Q T is mentioned in Lev. 23:22 and in Lev. 19:9-10. The latter passage states: When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall ^ Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Leiden: 1971), I H , pp. 1-6.

THE

ARTIFICIAL

DISPUTE:

ISHMAEL

AND

'AQIBA

I9

you gather the LQT after your harvest. . . . You shall leave them for the poor and the sojourner. . . . A asks for a clarification of exactly what constitutes the LQT. B is a direct answer: The L Q T is that produce which falls during the harvest. This interpretation is probably based on the phrases when you reap and neither shall you gather the LQT after your harvest. A and B are a unit, and B is dependent upon A. The technical term L Q T does not appear in the rest of the sugya. C-H mention either the poor, * N Y Y M , or the master of the house B*L H B Y T ; they do not refer directly to the L Q T . C is independent of D-H. The latter discuss produce which fell from the hand or the sickle. C deals with produce that fell because a thorn pricked the harvester. Albeck suggests that the fallen produce is not a L Q T because it fell after the harvest was completed.^ This is not supported by the text. Bartinoro explains that such produce is not L Q T because it fell by reason of an accident and not as a result of the acts connected with the harvest.^ D-H are parallel in form and content. They deal with what happens to grain that falls from a specific part of the hand or of the sickle. D-H discuss from where the grain fell and omit any reference to the time during which it fell. In the present context, D-H seem to assume that the grain fell during the harvesting. They appear to represent a refinement of the definition of a L Q T . Since D-H employ the term ' N Y Y M instead of L Q T , it is possible that originally D-H did not belong in their present context. While they treat a problem similar to that raised in A, they need not discuss the L Q T itself; rather, they deal with produce which is similar to the L Q T . Of the three cases mentioned in D-H, Ishmael and A q i b a disagree only concerning the grain which fell from the tip of the hand or of the sickle. Ishmael says that it belongs to the poor; A q i b a rules that it belongs to the master of the house. F-H are cast in the form of a dispute. F is the superscription. G and H respond to the superscription, contain opinions which are matched opposites, poor/master of the house, contain the present participle, ' W M R , and are incomprehensible without the superscription. 2 Hanok Albeck, Sheshah Sidre Mishnah: Seder ZeraHm (Jerusalem-Tel A v i v : 1957). P- 51^ Bartinoro's commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.

20

G A R Y G. PORTON

In his original study of the dispute form, Professor Jacob Neusner notes that this standard dispute form yields several variations: "The dispute form yields three variations. First, a common alternative is to drop the introductory superscription and to insert the "if-clause"—the statement of the issue of law or case—into the lemma of the first named authority; the lemma of the second will then depend upon the diction and content of the first. . . . A second variation is the exclusion of a second authority, leaving the first in dispute with the anonymous statement of law. . . . Third, the second named authority will be given a generalized opinion on the specific antecedent ruling in place of says, e.g.. House of Shammai say. . . . And House of Hillel permit. Here the antecedent lemma is taken for granted, as in the foregoing, but the second lemma {permit) subsumes the anticipated specific opinion. . . ." ^ With reference to the Houses' rulings, Neusner hsts another variation of the dispute: ". . .Houses' rulings are [sometimes] in the form . . . the words of the House. . . (and) the house of . . . say. The words-of form generally substitutes for House of . . . say . . . on account of redactional considerations. . ." ^ M. Pesahim 10:9 illustrates a words-of-dispute and a dispute in which the superscription has been subsumed in the first comment: A. After midnight, the Passover-Offering renders the hands unclean. B. A sacrifice which is unacceptable because of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest (PGWL) and the remaining [portions of a sacrifice] render the hands unclean. C. "[If] one recited the blessing over the Passover-Offering, he has freed himself from the obligation (PTR) [of reciting another blessing over the other] animal offering. [If] he recited the blessing over [the other] animal offering, he has not freed himself from the obligation [of reciting the blessing over] the Passover-Offering" —the words of R. Ishmael. D. R. 'Aqiba says: "Neither the one nor the other free him from the obligation [of reciting the other blessing]." (M. Pesahim 10:9) Comment: A - B discuss a separate issue from C-D. The issue of rendering the hands unclean is not related to the problem of the two blessings with which the dispute deals. For this reason, we need not treat A and B in our comments. ^ Neusner, op. cit., p. 6. Ibid., p. 7.

THP: A R T I F I C I A L

D I S P U T E : ISHMAEL A N D

'AQIBA

21

M. Pesah 6:3 states that a man may bring a freewill FestivalOffering, H G Y G H , when the Passover-Offering is made on a weekday. This Festival-Offering is the other animal offering to which the dispute refers. The sages discuss whether or not one must recite a separate blessing before he eats each of the sacrifices. Implicit in the dispute is the question of the relative importance of the two offerings. Are they of equal importance so that they each require a special blessing when they are eaten ? Ishmael teaches that they are not of equal value. The PassoverOffering is the more important of the two. For this reason, it requires a blessing. If one recites a blessing over the Festival-Offering, he must still recite a blessing over the Passover-Offering. Ishmael considers the Festival-Offering to be of little importance. If one recited a blessing over the Passover-Offering, he need not recite a second blessing over the Festival-Offering. The Passover-Offering is a biblical commandment, and it is a central feature of the holiday; therefore, it requires a special blessing. The Festival-Offering is optional and secondary; therefore, it does not require a special blessing. Ishmael's opinion can be compared with M. Berakhot 6:7: "This is the general rule: where there is a main thing and a secondary thing, the blessing should be said over the main thing, and it need not be said over the secondary thing." A q i b a disagrees with Ishmael. It appears that A q i b a considered both sacrifices to be of equal importance because they both had been offered to the Lord. Since both are of equal importance, both require blessings. C-D are a classic dispute. Ishmael's comment, formulated in the words-of-form, contains the superscription. A q i b a ' s statement is dependent upon that of Ishmael, for the latter contains the antecedents of the pronouns "the one or the other" in the former. The comments deal with the same problem and respond to each other. M. Hallah 4:4 offers an example of the generalized-term-dispute: A. [If] a qah of [dough of] new [flour] and a qab of [dough of] old [flour] adhere to each other. B. R. Ishmael says: "One takes [the Dough-Offering] from the middle." C. But (W) sages forbid [this]. (M. Hallah 4:4) Comment: According to IVI. Hallah 2:8, one cannot make a DoughOffering from one type of dough for another type of dough. That

22

GARY

G.

PORTON

is, one cannot use the dough made from the new flour for the Dough-Offering for that made with the old flour. According to M. Hallah 2:6, five quarter-^a6s or more of dough are liable for the Dough-Offering. Since two qabs of dough are liable for the DoughOffering, the piece of dough made from two pieces each made from different flour is hable for the offering. The problem is how one makes the offering without violating the law of M. Hallah 2:8. Ishmael offers a simple solution. One takes the offering from the middle, from the point where the two types of dough touch. In this way, the offering will contain both types of dough. The sages forbid this practice; however, exactly what they permit is unclear. The siigya is a classic dispute. A is the independent superscription. B employs the present participle. The generalized-term response of the sages depends upon the content and diction of Ishmael's comment. M. Mo'^ed Oatan 3:8 supphes a text in which the second tradent has been omitted so that the first tradent is in dispute with an anonymous statement: A. The women may sing lamentations on the festival, but they may not clap [their hands]. B. R. Ishmael says: "Those who are close to the bier may clap [their hands]." (M. Mo'ed Qatan 3:8) Comment: The clapping of hands violates the sanctity of the festival. The problem is which takes precedent, the respect due for the festival or the respect due for the dead. Ishmael offers a compromise. Since the festival and the dead person must both be honored, only those close to the bier may clap their hands. Again this is a classic dispute. Ishmael's comment is dependent upon A, for A sets forth the essence of the problem. The preceding four examples should illustrate the basic features of a dispute. The use of the present participle and the coherence of the lemmas and the superscription are essential for a proper dispute.

IT We noted above that the dispute is the most common form in which the statements of the Tannaim were arranged and transmitted to us. In the corpora of material for which we have data, HiHel-Shammai, House of Hihel-House of Shammai,^ Ehezer6 Ibid., I and I I .

THE

ARTIFICIAL

DISPUTE:

ISHMAEL

AND

'AQIBA

23

Joshua,'^ all the disputes adhere to the classic patterns or are developments of them.^ In these materials we never or rarely find sayings cast in the form of a dispute which do not belong together. We seldom discover disputes which lack a superscription or which contain a comment which is extraneous to the topic being discussed in the dispute. B y contrast, the collection of the legal sayings attributed to R. Ishmael contain all of these poor disputes. In an earlier study of the legal traditions attributed to R. Ishmael, the present author isolated fifty-six disputes.^ Of these twenty-five percent contain unrelated statements twenty-one percent contain no superscription or some other such flaw;^! eighteen percent contain an independent statement which does not belong in the context of the dispute.12 Our present inquiry will concentrate on some examples of those sugyot which appear as disputes but which contain unrelated comments. This phenomenon underscores that a given form was employed even when the sayings did not naturally fit into the structure demanded by the form. All of the examples are taken from the earliest stratum of our material, MishnahTosefta.

A. [If a Firstling] has no testicles or if he has one testicle, B. R. Ishmael says: "If he has two sacks, he has two testicles. If he has only one sack, he has only one testicle." C. R. 'Aqiba says: "It should be placed on its buttock and squeezed (MWSYBW 'L 'KWZW WMM'K); if there is a testicle, it will eventually come forth." (M. Bekhorot 6:6) ' Jacob Neusner, Eliezer h. Hyrcanus: The Traditions and the Man (Leiden: 1973)^ Neusner notes these developments in Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, II. ' Gary G. Porton, The Legal Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael: A Form-Critical and Literary-Critical Approach (Unpublished dissertation. Brown University in Providence Rhode Island: 1973), pp. 318-346. 1" M. Kilayim 3:3, M. Terumah 4:5, M. Bekhorot 6:6, M. Shabbat 15:3, M. Sukkot 3:4, M. 'Abodah Zarah 1:2, M. Bekhorot 6:12, M. Niddah 3:7, M. Sheqalim 4:3, b. Baba Qama i i 8 b , M. Kelim 2:2, Tos. Ketubot 1 2 : 3 , M. Baba Batra 6:4, M. Shabbat 2:2. ^1 Tos. Kilayim 3:2, M. Kilayim 3:3, y. Kilayim 3:6, M. Miqwaoth 8:3, y. Nedarim 3:6, 11:6, and 11:9, Tos. Kila^nm 3:2, y. Pesah 5:1, b. Baba Qama 33a, M. Niddah 6 : 1 2 , y. Pesah 7:1. 12 M. Shabbat 15:3, M. Zabim i :2, M. Sukkot 3:4, M. Niddah 3 -.j, M. Tohorot 1 : 2 , Tos. Megilah 3:11, b. Baba Qama 33a, b. Sanhcdrin 1 1 2 a , b. Makkot I 3 a - i 3 b , b. 'Abodah Zarah 51b.

24

GARY

G.

PORTON

Comment: At first glance, this appears to be a classic dispute. A is the superscription, and the opinions of the two sages appear with the present participle. Upon examining the content of the various comments, however, we discover that none of the statements belong in the same context or deal with the same issue. A is an element in the hst which begins in M. Bekhorot 6 : i . The list enumerates those animals which are unfit to be considered as Firstlings; see E x . 13:2, 22:29-20, 34:19-20, Num. 18:15-18, and Deut. 15:19-20. In the context of the list, A means that an animal which has one or no testicles cannot be considered as a Firstling. If A were the superscription of a dispute, the sages in B and C should discuss the status of the animals described in A. For example, B might read: R. Ishmael says: " I t is a Firstling." C might respond, R. A q i b a says: " I t is not a Firstling." B and C, however, do not treat the status of the animals mentioned in A. In fact, they deal with different animals from A and with different issues. Ishmael's comment, B, indicates how one can determine whether or not an animal has one or two testicles. While one can infer that an animal with no sack will have no testicles, B contains no specific reference to an animal with no testicles. This is significant, for such an animal is mentioned in A. While B omits a reference to one of the animals mentioned in A, the former treats an animal not found in the latter comment: the animal with two testicles. It appears that B responds to a question of how one determines the number of testicles an animal possesses. C, A q i b a ' s comment, responds neither to A nor to B. Like B, C does not discuss the status of the animals mentioned in A ; that is, it does not treat A as the superscription of a dispute. Unlike B, C seems to recognize the problem of an animal with no testicles. The second clause of C, if there is a testicle , , , , implies that there may not be a testicle. While B refers to an animal with one or two testicles, A and C deal with animals which may not have a testicle. C may respond to a question of how one determines whether or not there is a testicle in the sack. Although the sugya is cast in the form of a dispute, three separate issues are discussed. Each comment responds to a different problem. A deals with the status of an animal with one or no testicles. In its present context the issue is whether or not such an animal can be a Firstling. B and C ignore the problem of the Firstling. B explains the w a y one determines whether an animal has one or two

THE ARTIFICIAL

D I S P U T E : ISHMAEL A N D

'AQIBA

25

testicles. C indicates how one discovers whether or not the sack contains a testicle. The sayings of Ishmael and 'Aqiba do not respond to each other or to the supposed superscription. Dispite the the fact that all three statements deal with the testicles of an animal, they do not belong in the same context. The fact that none of the comments responds to the other sayings in the passage proves that this is not a real dispute. The form has been employed to juxtapose three originally independent lemmas on the same general topic. 2. A. What would they do with the remainder of the surplus [of the money in] the Temple treasury? B. "They [would] buy wines, oils, and fine flours with them [and would sell these products to those who came to make private offerings], and the profit [from these sales would go] to the Temple" —the words of R. Ishmael. C. R. 'Aqiba^ says: "They [would] not engage in a business transaction (MSTKRYM) with what belongs to the Temple or (W) to the poor." (M. Sheqalim 4:3) Comment: M.. Sheqalim 4:2 delineates what was done with the money from the treasury and what was done with the surplus: "The [Red] Heifer, the Scapegoat, and the crimson thread were bought with the terumah from the treasury. The causeway for the [Red] Heifer, the causeway for the Scapegoat, the thread between its horns, [the upkeep of the] water-channel, the city walls and its towers, and the city's needs were provided for from the surplus of the [funds] in the treasury. . . . " Our mishnah discusses for what the money was used which remained after all the needs mentioned in M. Sheqalim 4:2 had been satisfied. Ishmael's answer, B, responds directly to A ; it specifies how the money was used. 'Aqiba's saying, C, is a general observation which indirectly refutes B. Ishmael is incorrect, for " t h e y would not engage in a business transaction with what belonged to the Temple or to the poor." It is significant that 'Aqiba's comment only indirectly refutes B. In a true dispute, 'Aqiba would have listed items which were purchased with the money, or he would have negated Ishmael's comment directly. It is also noteworthy that C does not respond to A, for the former does not explain what they would do with the funds. In fact, C does not directly refer to the funds mentioned in A. 'Aqiba's remark is awkward in this context. First, it is a general

26

GARY

G.

PORTON

comment which could appear in any number of contexts. Second, it does not discuss the funds mentioned in A. Third, it is not a good reponse to B. Fourth, it mentions the belongings of the poor, while the other two sayings deal only with things belonging to the Temple. The problems with A q i b a ' s comment suggest that it is out of place. This dispute between Ishmael and A q i b a was created by the editor of this passage by combining a general comment attributed to A q i b a , which dealt with things belonging to the Temple and the poor, with a statement of Ishmael, which discussed the remainder of the surplus in the Temple treasury. The two comments appear to go together because Ishmael mentions business transactions for which this money w^as used, while A q i b a forbids such transactions. Unfortunately, the original locus and meaning of A q i b a ' s statement is unclear. Albeck suggests that A q i b a permitted the surplus to remain in the treasury until it was required a second time for the needs mentioned in M. Sheqalim 4:2.1^ Maimonides explains that A q i b a meant that money mentioned in our mishnah should be used in the same manner as the remainder of the terumah}'^ According to A q i b a ' s opinion recorded in M. Sheqalim 4:4, this money was used for the altar when it normally lay idle. Both answers, however, are inadequate. Neither takes into account the mention of the belongings of the poor. Since a W connects the reference to possessions of the poor with the statement about the belongings of the Temple, both were part of A q i b a ' s original lemma. This fact alone is sufficient to demonstrate that A q i b a ' s comment does not belong in this context. It is possible that C originally responded to a question such as "with what may they [priests?] engage in a business transaction ?" 3A. [If] one sells a place to his companion [in order for him] to build a house for himself, B. and thus [if] one receives [a place] from his companion [in order for him] to build for himself a house for his recently married son or (W) a house for his widowed daughter, C. "He must build it four cubits by six [cubits]"—the words of R. 'Aqiba. D. R. Ishmael says: "This is a cattle barn." (M. Baba Batra 6:4) Hanok Albeck, Sheshah Sidre Mishnah: Seder Mo'^ed (Jerusalem-Tel A v i v : 1952), p. 196. ^* Maimonides' commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.

T H E A R T I F I C I A L D I S P U T E : ISHMAEL A N D ' A Q I B A

27

Comment: A and B deal with two separate cases. In the former we read about one who sells the property; in the latter the one who receives the property is discussed. A does not make any sense in this context, for it is unclear why the one who sold the property should be responsible for the size of the building. Since the two separate statements are combined by the phrase " a n d thus," we should assume that A q i b a and Ishmael deal with both situations. No matter to which of the two sayings A q i b a responds, A or B, his statement does not really answer the question implied in A or B. A q i b a should discuss the size of the parcel of land, not the dimensions of the building to be erected on the land. Perhaps A q i b a originally responded to a question like, "if he wants to build a house for his recently married son or a house for his widowed daughter. . . ." If this were the superscription, A q i b a ' s comment would make more sense. E v e n if we have correctly reconstructed the superscription to which A q i b a responded, Ishmael's comment is inappropriate. Ishmael should have offered an alternate set of dimensions. His comment that "this is a cattle barn" is inappropriate, and it could fit into a number of different contexts. There is no inherent reason for placing it in this context. Again we have a sugya which is cast in the form of a dispute. In this example, the superscription itself is unclear. Even as it stands, the superscription could not have illicited A q i b a ' s response. We further noted that Ishmael's comment is not what we would expect if this were an example of the proper use of the disputeform. W e have discussed three separate pericopae in which the dispute form has been employed to juxtapose originally unrelated comments. The examples show that all the major variations of the dispute form were utilized for this purpose. The evidence suggests that the use of the form was so important that it was followed even when the comments were not suited for its use.

Ill While the material before us tells us little about Ishmael as a person, they do suggest something about the circle(s) which preserved and transmitted his opinions. First, the forms in which Ishmael's sayings were set were those first employed with the Houses' t r a d i t i o n s . A l l the forms which appear in the Houses' Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions,

III.

28

G A R Y G. PORTON

materials and which are basic to the traditions of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus 1^ occur in our pericopae. All of the variations of the dispute form which have been isolated in the sayings of these earlier sages also appear in our sugyot. Second, we find no new forms or new variations on the old forms. Third, the large percentage of poorly constructed disputes suggests that many of Ishmael's sayings originated outside the circle(s) which edited and transmitted the material. The editor(s) collected the sayings and set them into the forms they commonly employed, even though the comments often did not allow for the proper use of these forms. These facts suggest that the use of a small number of set forms was common and important to the editor(s) of the Ishmaelean pericopae. All of Ishmael's legal sayings, no matter their origin or their original form, were set in the same forms as had been used with the Houses' material and the traditions of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. There seems to be little doubt that Ishmael's sayings were not collected and transmitted by his students. First, the large number of poorly constructed disputes indicates that Ishmael's sayings originated in circles other than the ones which edited the material. Second, we have seen that a limited number of forms were employed. Neusner has demonstrated that the dispute form and its variations are the products of circle(s) which claimed to be A q i b a n , i ' if they were not A q i b a n in fact. Third, the entire corpus of Ishmael's sayings reflect a concerted effort to place him and A q i b a in the same context. In the examples offered above, we find that sayings of Ishmael and A q i b a which were fundamentally unrelated were placed in the same context. Sixty-two percent of the sugyot previously analyzed by the present author contain Ishmael and A q i b a in real or artificial d i s p u t e s . W h i l e A q i b a appears in eighty-four pericopae, the next most common sage is Eliezer who occurs seven times.'-^ Despite the fact that Ishmael's sayings were preserved b y those who claimed descent from A q i b a , our material shows little hostility towards him. He is generally treated fairly. He is represented as 'Aqiba's equal. Both men merely state positions. Value judgments on their various rulings seldom appear. This suggests that Ishmael's Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, II. ^"^ Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, III. Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, Porton, op. cit., 408. " Ibid.

II.

T H E A R T I F I C I A L D I S P U T E I ISHMAEL A N D ' A Q I B A

29

sayings were not preserved in order to degrade him or to invahdate his ruhngs. They were preserved simply because Ishmael's sayings were important to the redactor(s) of the Tannaitic traditions. The fair manner in which Ishmael was treated by the 'Aqiban redactors argues for the reliability of the situation represented in the texts. That is, Ishmael's sayings were joined to those of 'Aqiba because the men actually debated many issues. The fact that in several instances unrelated comments of the two sages were placed in the same context also suggests the authenticity of the implied relationship between the two rabbis. The fact that unrelated comments were placed in the same context and were not changed so that they would appear to be closer together argues for the conservative nature of much of the tradition. Clearly a limited number of forms were employed b y the editors of our material. The forms necessitated that two sages be placed in the same context. While we surely do not have the actual words of these sages, we do have some evidence that once they were fixed, the sayings of the sages were not altered. They were placed in the form of a dispute even when they were inappropriate in this form. The fact that our examples are drawn from the earliest stratum of material suggests that the forms had been selected by the end of the Tannaitic period. The evidence further testifies to the conservative nature of the tradition at a relatively early period. 20 My teacher Professor Jacob Neusner and m y colleagues Professors WiUiam S. Green, Baruch Bokser, David Goldblatt, Robert Goldenberg, Shammai Kanter, and Mr. Jack Lightstone, Joel Gereboff and Charles Primus offered many valuable insights into the matters discussed above; their help is gratefully acknowledged.

FORM-CRITICISM AND

EXEGESIS

The Case of Mishnah Ohalot 2:1 JACOB NEUSNER Brotmi University As the nascent work of form-criticism of the rabbinic hterature proceeds, we find ourselves, unexpectedly, with a new tool for the exegesis of texts. I say 'unexpectedly,' because the earlier results of form-critical study, in Development of a Legend, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before yo, and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man, make no considerable contribution to the interpretation of the legal texts. Yet these investigations do add to our understanding of how rabbinic literature works and contain interesting implications even for the interpretation of its substance, its laws. Once we have established a recurring literary phenomenon, then, when it is to be expected and does not occur, we must ask why. And in proposing an answer, we find ourselves in need of interpreting and understanding not merely the formal traits, but also the legal substance, of the pericope. In the present instance, I have, therefore, to provide an account of how some of the great classical commentaries interpreted a problematic text. In proposing an alternative route toward the solution of the problem, I do not for one minute suggest the alternative is superior to what has gone before. I mean only to offer another w a y — a n d not the royal road—of interpreting texts whose final meaning is not apt ever to be known to us. It is to be stressed, moreover, that the classical commentaries observed many of the literary and even form-critical phenomena explored by us. It is not common, however, for the classical commentators to introduce literary- and form-critical considerations into their interpretation of the legal sense of the pericope (though Tiferet Yisrael Y a k i n does so, for example, at Mishnah Kelim Chapter Twenty-Nine). It was my teacher, Morton Smith, who first taught me the importance of the methods of New Testament scholarship in the study of rabbinic texts. In his Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels, moreover, he originally pointed out the importance of synoptic studies for the relationships of Mishnah-Tosefta, studies which now seem

T H E C A S E OF MISHNAH OHALOT 211

31

to have made good progress. Smith's skepticism in regard to form-history, by contrast, has also been born out in current work. I have shown in A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Vols. I-III (Leiden, 1974), that so far as one may test the suppositions of New Testament form-history (as distinct from form-criticism) against the data of Mishnah-Tosefta, every one of those suppositions proves utterly false. In many ways, therefore, I have sought to make my research into a commentary upon the fundamental texts of Smith's research, upon the central critical and skeptical themes of his historical thought. It is a great pleasure, therefore, to offer for the consideration and criticism of colleagues these earliest results in the introduction, into the legal exegesis of Mishnah-Tosefta, of form-critical perspectives. Our text is Mishnah Ohalot 2:1, with its corresponding Tosefta and related traditions. A. These contaminate in the Tent: (i) the corpse, and (2) an olive's bulk [of flesh] from the corpse, and (3) an olive's bulk of corpse-dregs (NSL), and (4) a ladleful of corpse-mould (RQB); (5) the backbone, and the skull, and (6) a limb from the corpse and (7) a limb from the living person on which is an appropriate amount of flesh; B. (8) a quarter-^a^ of bones from the larger part of the frame [of the skeleton] (RWB 'SMWT MRB HBNYN) or (9) from the larger number [of bones] of the body ('W MRB HMNYN). and (10) the larger part of the frame [of the skeleton] or (11) the larger number [of bones] of the corpse (WRB B N Y N W W R B MNYNW SLMT), even though there is not among them |in total] a quarter-§'a6, are unclean [in the Tent]. C. How much is the "larger number" ? One hundred twenty-five. M. Ohalot 2:1 M. 2 : 1 , 3, 5 form the backbone of the chapter as follows: 2:1: These render unclean in the T e n t ; 2:3: These render unclean through carrying and contact but not in the T e n t ; 2 : 5 : These, if they lack [the requisite quantity], are clean. The laws of Ohalot begin, therefore, with a logical sequence of rules, heavily glossed and with many interpolated pericopae, distinguishing uncleanness conveyed in the Tent from other modes of corpse-contamination. 2:5 probably is superfluous, for it simply goes over the ground of 2:1, 3. Fundamental to the list in 2:1 are the first seven items (in which case 2:5 poses a problem, all the more so because 2:5 also

32

JACOB NEUSNER

duplicates 2:3). M. 2:1 B raises its own difficulties, because of the vast selection of pertinent versions, as we shall see in a moment. As to the items on 2:i's list, the corpse and an olive's bulk of corpse pose no problems. Corpse-dregs are the mouldy flesh; corpsemould is dust or ashes which remain after a time (Maimonides). Tosefta defines matters. The backbone and skuh contaminate by themselves, even without requisite flesh, because the human form is discernible in them (Maimonides). The amputated limbs, covered with flesh from either a corpse or a living person, contaminate in the Tent. B builds on the dual mnemonic, R W B ' , R W B , and M N Y N , B N Y N . The meaning seems straightforward. A quarter-^a6 ( R W B ' ) of bones from the larger part of the bone-structure or frame of the body or a quarter-^a6 of the larger number of bones of the skeleton render unclean, even without flesh. Then, in place of R W B ' we have R B , with the same following words, R B B N Y N / M N Y N , the larger part of the body, the backbone, or the larger part of the number of bones of the body, even lacking the main bones, likewise render unclean in the Tent even though they do not add up to a qua.rter-qab. C glosses this last item, requiring 125 bones of the 248. On B Maimonides {Corpse Uncleanness 2:8-9) rules as follows: The greater part of the skeleton's frame and the greater part of its number of bones convey uncleanness like a corpse (2:8); as for the bones of a corpse among which there is neither the greater part of the number nor the greater part of the frame, yet there is of them as much as a qua.rteT-qab of bones, they convey uncleanness hke a corpse (2:9). A t 3 : 1 he reads, " T h e greater part of the frame of a skeleton; the greater number of its bones; a qusirter-qab of bones from any part, even they do not comprise the greater part of the frame or the greater number of bones. . . ." It seems, therefore, that Maimonides read B l o - i i exactly as we have it; that is, the larger part of the frame and the larger number of bones, even though they do not add up to a quarter-^'a^, are comparable in effect to the corpse. That poses no problem. B u t how does he understand B 8-9 ? He is quite clear: As for "bones among which is neither the greater part of the number nor the greater part of the frame" but which add up to a qab—exactly the opposite of M. 2:1 B 8-9. Clearly, we face a problem. What is the point of R B ' vs. R B ? If we have a majority of the

T H E C A S E O F MISHNAH OHALOT 2'.1

33

small bones (RB), even though not in volume a quarter-^a6, that suffices. But does this not contradict the opening clause, a quarterqab made up of R B N M Y N — t h e larger number of bones? Again, if we are told that the larger part of the body-structure will be susceptible even though it does not add up to a quarter-^a6, then are we not given the opposite in the opening statement, that only a quarter-^-aS made up of the larger part of the body-frame is susceptible ? However we explain B N Y N , the problem remains, li we interpret it, as does Tosefta, to refer to the large bones (shoulders, things), how can we require those bones to add up to a quarter-^'a^ and then say that the larger part of those bones, even if not a quarter-^a6 in volume, produces the same effect ? And if we interpret B N Y N to mean "body-frame," the problem is the same; R B ' requires a quarter-^'a^ of the larger part of the frame, so does R B . The two clauses clearl}^ contradict one another: R B ' 'SMWT MRB HBNYN 'W MRB HMNYN versus RB B N Y N W W R B MNYNW 'L PY S'YNBHN RB^ It is very difficult to see how ' P 'L P Y does not turn the second clause against the first, unless, to be sure, the quarter-^a^ is filled of either, but the less than quartcr-^
34

JACOB

NEUSNER

Sens comments as follows: " A quarter-^aS of bones from the larger number—that is to say, even though there is not the larger number of the larger part of the frame." On the face of it. Sens' interpretation of B 8-g is in direct contradiction to B l o - i i . Possibly he reads the latter as a comment on the former. But that hardly helps, for B 8-9, I must insist, state that the quarter-^a6 is from the larger part, etc., and B l o - i i then claim the larger part etc. "even when not a quarter-^'^^." So the "comment," or phrase in apposition, completely revises the phrase subject to commentary. More likely. Sens simply follows Maimonides. Bertinoro states for " a qu^rter-qah of bones from the larger number or from the larger part of the skeleton": " M y teachers explained that they are fewer than containing the larger part of the number and the larger part of the skeleton, even though not including the larger number and the larger part of the skeleton," and then, for B l o - i i , " T h e larger part of the skeleton or the larger number of the bones, even when they do not add up to the larger part of the skeleton of the body render unclean, and even if they do not contain the quarter-^a6 and the larger part of the skeleton. . ." Assigning the explanation to his teachers, Bert, clearly means to say that this is the best he can do, hinting that he recognizes the problem. For M. explicitly calls for a quartcr-qab of the larger number or part, and Bert, has stated the quarter-^a6 has less than the larger part. So much for the Maimonidean line of exegesis—logical, but contradictory of the text. Melekhet Shelomo, by contrast, insists that we have a quarterqab made up of the larger part of the skeleton: " B u t when this qua.rtev-qab comes from many scattered bones, in which there is not sufficient [material] to produce uncleanness, even the qua,rter-qab does not contain uncleanness." He adds that we require further investigation. Tiferet Yisra'el says that when the larger part of the skeleton or the larger number of bones are whole, they render unclean even when not a quarter-^ai. Let us turn, finally, to The Gaon, R a v Elijah, who explains as follows: " T h e quarter-qab is to be gathered from bones which contain the greater part of the frame of the corpse or the greater number of its bones, which render unclean even though in the quarter-^a6 is neither the larger part of the frame or the larger number of bones. But if the quRrter-qab is not gathered from bones which amount to the larger part of the frame or the larger number

T H E C A S E OF MISHNAH OHALOT 2! I

35

of the bones, it does not render unclean in the T e n t . " G R A then cites Tosefta, given below. G R A therefore is clear that the quarterqah must be made up of the larger part of the frame or number of bones, just as B 8-9 state. How does he understand B l o - i i ? I am not clear. Certainly, therefore, G R A and Maimonides seem to recognize the difficulty of the passage, the one stressing B 8-9, the other B l o - i i . As to solving the problem through T., that is a separate question, to which we shall turn in due course. Goldberg [Ohalot, Jerusalem, 1956, p. 14-15) recognizes the problem forthrightly. He says we cannot explain matters as follows: " T h e quarter-^
36

JACOB

NEUSNER

produce an alternative mode of explaining the text, in addition to the excellent proposals already before us. Justification for this procedure lies in the many hundreds of examples of disciplined formal arrangements of words into disciplined patterns already laid out in earlier work. B u t then the considerations of logic take over, just as they do for the earlier exegetes. Form does not yield substance. Only logic does. A. A quarter-qab of bones from most of the skeleton (GWYH) in volume (BGWDL), and bones from the greater part of the skeleton in number, even though they do not contain a quarter-^'a^, are unclean [ = M. 2 : i B i o - i i ] . B. R. Judah says [the rule] in another language: C. "The House of Shammai say, 'A quarter-qab of bones from the skeleton from the greater part of the frame (BNYYN) or from the greater part of the number (MNYN). D. "The greater part of the frame [of the skeleton] and the greater part of the number [of bones] of a corpse, even though they do not add up to a qwdrter-qab are unclean." E. And what is its frame (BNYYNW) ? The shoulders and the thighs and the ribs and the backbone. F. And what is its number? Even the fingertips and toes, so long as there are in it one hundred twenty-five [bones]. T. 3:4 (p. 96, Is. 8-15) G. Said R. Joshua, "I can make the words of the House of Shammai and the words of the House of Hillel one (YKWL. . . L'SWT 'HD). H. "From the shoulders and from the thighs there are found the greater part of its frame in size. I. "(And) Half of the greater part of its frame and half of the greater part of its number [of bones] do not join together." [T. 3:6 continues: A half olive's bulk of flesh and a half olive's bulk of corpse-matter do join together. And the remainder of all forms of uncleanness in the corpse do not join together, because their requisite quantities are not equivalent [to one another).] T. 3:5 (Text: Walter Windfuhr, Seder VI: Toharot [Stuttgart, i960], p. 96, Is. 16-19) Before we begin the exegesis of this difficult pericope, let us observe its main literary problems. First E-F do not integrally relate to C-D. That is, the explanation of B N Y N and M N Y N is not required solely for the House of Shammai's saying; it equally well explains A. The same is to be said of H, which goes over the same ground as E. A still greater problem is in C-D: What has happened to the House of Hillel's opinion? When we review the

T H E C A S E O F MISHNAH OHALOT 211

37

efforts made to restore that opinion, we shall readily prefer to interpret matters otherwise than through the extant conjectural restorations. We shall follow the alternative of taking the relevant versions of the tradition as they come, one by one, not reading the one into the other. Windfuhr's text has been translated here. B u t his translation (p. 210) is as follows: Die Schule Schammais [ [sagt: Ein Viertel[kab] Knochen von den [gesamten] Knochen oder von zwei oder drei [Gliedern]; die Schule Hillels]] sagt: Ein Viertel[kab] Knochen von der Leiche, [sei es] von der grosseren Halfte des [knochen] geriistes oder von der grSsseren Halfte der Zahl nach." Windfuhr informs us (p. 210, n. 20), that "This other language" is found in b. Naz. 52b: " N a c h dieser Stelle wurde auch die obige Erganzung vorgenommen." However, b. Naz. 52b contains no allusion to Judah at all! It has, for the Shammaites, " A quarter-^a& of bones, be they any of the bones, whether from two [limbs] or from three." That is, b. Naz.'s heraita-ediior cites, for the Shammaites, ]VI. Ed. 1:7 (quoted below). Then b. Naz.'s Hillelites have, " A quarter-^'aS of bones from a [single] corpse [ = IM. Ed. i :7's Hillelites] . . . [and these bones must be derived from] the greater part [of a skeleton], either in frame or in number [ = IM. 2:1 B ] . " The Hillelite opinion of b. Naz. can be read into T.'s version only b y assigning to the House of Hillel the whole of the lemma, C, and supplying the Shammaites of C with something out of M. Ed. Citing Tosefta, G R A gives us the following: " R a b b i Judah gives another version: The House of Shammai say, 'From two or from three, and the House of Hillel say, A quarter-^a& of bones from the corpse, from the greater part of the structure or from the greater number of bones. . .' " Windfuhr has a good precedent. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim I I I , p. 100, interestingly, does not commit himself on the subject. He states, "Epstein. . . assumes that we have here a summary of M. Ed. 1:7." Lieberman's silences are as judicious as his comments. T. poses a major problem, for its version of Judah's saying omits the language to be assigned to the Hihehtes. The solution does not lie in suppl3dng T.'s Judah with the language of IM. Ed. 1:7, let alone imagining that b. Naz., which does not mention Judah at all, in fact gives us his "other version"! I therefore shall attempt to interpret the exact text in front of us, which is confirmed b y Sens

38

JACOB

NEUSNER

and not revised by Lieberman, and cannot be regarded as somehow defective, lacking M. Ed. i 7 . First, let us compare the language of M. to that of T. 3:4 A : M.: K B ' 'SMWT MRB HBNYN MRB HMNYN T.: R B ' 'SMWT MRB HGWYH BGWDL W'SMWT MRB HGWYH BMNYN ('? 'L P Y S'YN BHN RWB') T.'s italicized words do not occur in M. T. looks hke an effort to explain M.'s contradictory clauses and to harmonize them. That is, T. explains B N Y N as H G W Y H B G W D L — " t h e larger part of the frame in size." T. then tells us a quarter-^a6 of bones from the greater part of the body-frame is unclean. It wisely drops ' W M R B H M N Y N . That is replaced by "and bones from the greater part of the body-frame in number, even if they ( = the bones from. . . ) do not add up to a quarter-^a6." We could not ask for a clearer statement of law. T. simply says that we require the body-frame to add up to a quarter-^a6; but the majority of the bones, even if they do not add up to a quarter-^a6, produce the same effect. T.'s clauses do not contradict each other. But in the nature of things, T.'s law does contradict M.'s! That is, T. does not simply clarify M., but gives its own version of the same rule which occurs in M. If T. here serves as a commentary to M., then the person responsible for T. has certainly improved on M.'s peculiarly contradictory rules. So far no major problem. But we now turn to Judah's "other version." Judah, B, gives us a dispute between the Houses. The dispute will clarify the foregoing language by separating its elements, so: House of Shammai:i. R W B ' 'SMWT MN H G W Y H MRB HIBNYN 'W MRB HMNYN 2. R B BNYNW W R B MNYMW SLMT T 'L PY S'WYN BWHN R W B ' TMYN What does Judah give us to this point ? Let us look back at M. 2 :i B : R B ' 'SMWT MRB HBNYN W MRB HMNYN that is, exactly the same as the opening clause of T.'s Shammaites, " a quarter-^-a^ of bones." T. adds, of the corpse, then "from the greater part of the body structure or from the greater number of the bones of the body." M. proceeds.

THE

C A S E OF MISHNAH OHALOT 211

39

W R B B N Y N W W R B MNYNW >P 'L P Y S Y N BHN R W B ' Again, M. is shown to be Judah's version of the Shammaite opinion (and presumably someone else's Hillelites), and T. again has merely supplemented the language of M. with some clarifying words. Thus far, therefore, we find that Judah's Shammaites stand behind M.'s language. Where are the Hillelites? T.'s Joshua will refer to them, but we have no hint of their opinion, nor we yet attempted to reconstruct it. To locate it, we first turn to M. Ed. 1:7, which is as follows: A. The House of Shammai say, "A quarter-g-a^ of bones (SMWT) from the bones (MN H'SMYM), whether from two or from three [corpses]." B. And the House of Hillel say, "A qwdrter-qab of bones—from the body (MN HGWYH)—from the greater part of the bone structure (MN HBYNYN) or from the greater part of the number (^W MN MNYN)." C. Shammai says, "Even from one bone." M. Ed. 1:7 The meaning of A seems to be, a qua,rter-qab of bones of any sort render unclean, even from two or three corpses, so the Shammaites. The Hillelites (B) rule on a quite separate matter. A quartev-qab of bones has to be made up of the greater part of the bone structure or the greater number of bones of the body. Shammai's position also is out of phase. He says a quarter-^-a^ of bones may be made up even of one exceptionally large bone of the body. Where are we now in relationship t o M . 2 : i ? M . 2 : i B 8-9 agrees with the Hillelites, formulating matters in its succinct way, a quarter-^-a^ of bones either from the greater part of the body structure or from the greater number of bones—just as the Hillelites say here. Then our Hillelites say nothing about M. 2:1 B l o - i i , the contamination effected by less than a qua-vter-qab of bones! That makes matters difficult. It also makes it impossible to assign M. 2:1 B to the Hillelites. Where have we heard about the contamination of the R B M N Y N / B N Y N of less than a qu3.rter-qab ? It must be the Shammaites of Judah's opinion—for they make the matter explicit. What about M. Ed's Shammaites ? Here is the most pecuhar fact: Their position is the same as A q i v a ' s in M. 2:1/2:7, for *Aqiva says blood from two corpses joins together to form the requisite quantity (2:2). W h y not bones, therefore?

40

JACOB

NEUSNEK

One thing seems clear: both T.'s Judah's and M. Ed.'s versions falsely claim to have a dispute between the Houses. The dispute has to concern a single issue. M. Ed. therefore is impossible. Hs Shammaites argue about whether the corpse-matter has to come from a single corpse or may come from several. The Hillelites then should rule it has to come from a single corpse—as do the sages of M. 2:2/2:7! M. Ed.'s Hillehtes teU us that we require a qunvter-qab of bones, of one kind or another. What now can be the contrary opinion ? One possibility is this: Even less than a qua.rter-qab of bones may produce the same effect, that is, T.'s Shammaites. But Shammai's opinion alerts us to another possibilit}^ Since he says, "even from a single bone," the issue may concern the contents of the quarterqab. Accordingly, the Hillelites will hold that the quarter-^a^ composed of either the larger part of the bone structure or the greater majority of the number of the bones renders unclean in the Tent. What can the opposite opinion be ? I see two possibilities. Either (i) " a quavter-qab of bones, even not the greater part in frame or number, renders unclean," the words of the House of Shammai. Shammai then rules in a still more extreme w a y than his House: " E v e n a single bone which fills quarter-^a6 produces the same effect." Or (2) less than a quartcr-qab of bones, if constituted by the greater part of the frame or the majority of the bones, renders unclean in the Tent. Shammai now rejects the position of his House and follows the theory of the House of Hillel, but in a still more extreme way. The quarter-^a6 measure is decisive. Even a single bone—without relationship to frame or number of bones—which fills a qab suffices for the contamination of a Tent. So M. 2:1 B combines the opinions of the two Houses, Hillel's, then Shammai's. Since one tendency of Shammai's lonely opinions is to repudiate his House and join the House of Hillel, I am inclined to prefer the second of these two possibilities. Let us now test our theory of the two distinct Houses' disputes again.st Joshua's "reconciliation" of T. 3:5. First, we shall treat the pericope as a unitary saying assigned to Joshua: G. Said R. Joshua, " I can make the words of the House of Shammai and the words of the House of Hillel one: H. "From the shoulders and from the thighs are found the greater part [of the body-frame] in size.

T H E C A S E O F MISHNAH OHALOT 211

4I

I. Half of the greater part of the body-frame and half of the greater number [of bones] do not join together [to form a whole qal)]." How has Joshua helped? The first part of his saying (T. 3:5 H) simply defines the meaning of R B BNYN^—the greater part of the body-frame. G R A therefore explains (as in b. Naz.) that " t w o " refers to " t w o shoulders" and one to " t h i g h , " so "three bones are the greater part of the skeleton," and the fingertips and toes required b y the House of Hillel together convey uncleanness in the Tent. But a second look, not through the eyes of b. Naz.'s beraitaeditor, shows that the tradition—scribal or oral—has given us nothing more than the appended words following Judah's version of the House of Shammai's ruling, T. 3:4 E. That is, the first part of Joshua's reconciliation (H) is senseless. It simply defines the greater part of the body-structure in size. Who has asked about that matter ? Who even mentioned i t ? M. Ed.'s Shammaites rule about whether the corpse-matter of two or three corpses join together. The Hillelites are interested in a quarter-^«& of either the greater part of the body-structure or the greater number. Accordingly, we have to turn to the second clause of Joshua's reconcihation, assuming that I indeed belongs to Joshua and not to the beginning of T. 3:6. B u t that assumption has quite reasonably been called into question. Windfuhr (p. 211) regards I, the concluding phrase of Joshua's saying in T. 3:5 " A n d half of the larger part of the skeleton. . . " as the beginning of T. 3:6, "Half an olive's bulk of flesh and half an ohve's bulk of corpse-rot join together. . . " In support of his view, it is to be noted that b. Naz. knows nothing of this part of Joshua's saying at all. Both Windfuhr's and Zuckermandel's texts, however, print matters as they are treated here. In favor of Windfuhr's view is the form of T. 3:6. Lieberman (TR I I I , p. 100), states, " A n d this is a new subject." In the present instance, however, it seems worth considering what meaning is to be assigned to I if it indeed forms part of Joshua's saying (and in the assumption that T. 3:6 follows because of its formal and thematic appropriateness only). At the outset I repeat: if I is not part of Joshua's saying, all that follows is false. W h a t dispute has to have lain before Joshua, for "half of the greater part of the body structure and half of the greater number of bones do not join together" to constitute a reconcihation?

42

JACOB NEUSNER

Perhaps the dispute has to do with R B B N Y N versus R B M N Y N . The House of Shammai will have required the qah to be made up of the greater part of the body-frame. The House of Hillel will have required the qah to comprise the greater number of bones. Joshua's "reconciliation" then will have been to explain the Houses do not really differ on whether there must be a quarter-^a5 of one or the other. They agree a quarter-^a6 of either will suffice. What is the issue ? Whether half of the quarter-^«& may be composed of the greater part of the bones, (a case in which shoulders, and not thighs, add up to half a quarter-ga6), and the greater number of bones (a case in which the one hundred twenty-five bones do add up to half a quarter-gad). The Houses, Joshua claims, agree that if that is the case, then the quarter-ga6 which they comprise is not going to produce contamination in a Tent: "do not join together." Within this theory of the dispute before Joshua, what is at hand ? It is nothing other than M. 2:2 again: " T h e blood of a minor ah of which has gone forth"-—'Aqiva says any amount suffices, the sages require a full quarter-^'ad. The problem is no different from the one before us. Both of Joshua's Houses agree with the sages against 'Aqiva, just as Judah's theoretical Hillelites agree with the sages against A q i v a . In all, what we seem to have is a series of traditions (pseudonomously) assigned either to both Houses in refutation of A q i v a , or to the Hillelites in refutation of A q i v a . W h a t looks like a supplement to M. 2:1 in fact is a commentary on M. 2:2—a curious result. This theory is based upon the exclusion, from Judah's saying, of the clarification of B N Y N / M N Y N , and, from Joshua's, of B N Y N . But b. Naz. 52b, which follows, gives us another theory of the matter. It will (naturally) explain Joshua's saying wholly in terms of the issues raised in M. Ed. i '.y. Joshua now will reinterpret the Shammaite saying in the light of the HiUelite one. G R A , Rabad to M. Ed. 1:7, and Hasde David, among ah commentators, foUow b. Naz.'s version in explaining T. The issue is not whether the bones come from two or three separate corpses (as with Aqiva/sages in M. 2:2, 2:7). Joshua says the " t w o or three" of the Shammaites' saying refers to bones, that is, to two shoulders and one thigh or two thighs and one shoulder. These constitute the greater part of the body-structure which we must have in the quarter-ga&. Joshua's Hillelites say we may have either the greater part of the bodystructure or the greater part of the number.

T H E CASE OF MISHNAH OHALOT 2 11

43

According to this accepted view, what has Joshua accomplished ? He has not reconciled the Houses' sayings at all. b. Naz.'s baraitaeditor interprets Joshua as having left the dispute to concern whether we require B N Y N or M N Y N . The Shammaites demand only B N Y N , while the Hillelites accept either B N Y N or M N Y N . So when the text says, " I can make the words of the Houses ' H D , " it does not mean "reconcile" at all. It means, " I can make them converge upon a single problem"—just as we observed at the outset to be the dilemma of M. Ed. Joshua has accomplished precisely the purpose of showing the Houses do dispute a single matter. The baraita's formulator, therefore, has solved our problem for us. How ? He has done so by (naturally) reading the sayings of Judah in T. and/or Joshua in T. as unitary sayings, including the language which to us seemed not to pertain to the Houses at all. This means that the text of T. was before the baraita-editor just as it is before us. b.Naz. is as follows: It has been taught: The House of Shammai say, "A quarter [qab] of bones, whether from two [limbs] or from three [is sufficient to cause defilement by overshadowing].'' And the House of Hillel say, "A quarter [qab of bones] from a [single] corpse |is required], and [these bones must be derived] from I those bones which form] the greater part |of a skeleton], either in frame or in number." K. Joshua said, "1 can make the statements of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel one. "For the House of Shammai say, Trom two or from three, [meaning] either from two shoulders and one thigh, or from two thighs and one shoulder, since this is the major part of a man's structure in height.' "And the House of Hillel say,' [The quarter-gad must be taken] from the corpse, from the greater part either in structure or in number, for this [numerical majority] is to be found in the joints of the hands and feet.' "Shammai says, 'Even a single bone from the backbone or from the skull [defiles by overshadowing].' " b. Naz. 52b (trans. B. D. Klien, p. 196) To conclude this discussion, let us now compare the several versions of the several traditions. M. Ed. J . 7 I . House of Shammai say

M. Oh. 2:1 T .—

Tos. Ah. 3:4 i . K. Judah says another language: House of Shammai say

b. Naz. 52b i . T N Y ' : House of Shammai say

JACOB NEUSNER

44 2. R B ' ' S M W T MN H'SMYM, B Y N MSNYM B Y N MSLSH: Quavter-qab of bones, whether of the bones from two or from three (corpses) [conveys uncleanness b y overshadowing]. M . Ed. 2.7 3. And the House of of Hillel say R B ' ' S M W T MN H G W Y H , MRB HBNYN WRMB H M N Y N Quarter-HD. Even [a quarter-qab] from one bone

2.

2. R W B ' ' S M W T M N HGWYH MRWB H B N Y N 'W M R W B HMNYN

2. R W B ' ' S M W T MN H ' SMYM 'W M S H N Y M 'W M S L S H

2'. R W B B N Y Y N W WRWB MNYNW SL M T 'P 'L P Y S ' Y N BHN RWB'

M. Oh. 2:1 3. R B ' 'SMWT MRB HBNYN 'W M R B HMNYN

Tos. Ah. 3:4 3- —

b. Naz. 52b 3. And the House of Hillel say, R W B ' MN HGWYH, MRWB H B N Y N 'W MRWB HMNYN

4.

4- —

[4. See below, no. g.]

IVT. E d . has and (W). Tos. Ah. has Judah assign to the Shammaites the exact words of the Hillehtes in M. Ed., no. 3, except for the inclusion of or (*W) in place of and; 2' contradicts the foregoing ruling; now we are told that even less than a qab will be sufficient [if it is from a single corpse). No. 2 of b. Naz. is nearly e x a c t ; ' W / ' W replaces B Y N / B Y N , not an important change, b. Naz., no. 4 follows ]V[. E d . in specifying from the corpse, which M. Oh. leaves out, but it preserves or (*W) of IVT. Oh. Since that difference is substantive, b. Naz. no. 4 seems closer to M. Oh. than to M. E d . A s to the sayings of Joshua: Tos. Ah. 3:4 5. R. Joshua said, 6. I can make the words of the House of Shammai and the words of the House of Hillel one.

b. Naz. 52b 5. Same as Tos. A h . No. 5 6. Same as Tos. Ah. No. 6

7. M S W Q Y M W M Y R K Y M N M S ' RWB BNYNW BGWDT WHSY RWB MNYNW ' Y N N MSTRPYN.

7. For the House of Shammai say,

From the shoulders and from the thighs are found the greater part of the larger bones in quantity. And half the greater part of the larger bones and half the greater part of the number do not join together.

MSNYM

'W

MSLSH

'W

MSNY

g W Q Y M W Y R K »HD ' W M S N Y Y R K Y Y M WSWQ 'HD, HW^YL W R W B G W B H W § L 'DM M G W B H (From two or three—either from two shoulders and from one thigh or from two thighs and one shoulder since this is the major part of a man's structure in height).

T H E CASE O F MISHNAH OHALOT I\2 8. —

45

8. And the House of Hillel say M N H G W Y H 'W M R W B B N Y N 'W MRWB MNYN HW'YL WYSNN B M R P Q Y Y D Y M W R G L Y M . From

9. —

the corpse, from the greater part either in structure or in number, for this is to be found in the joints of the hands and feet. 9. Shammai says, E v e n a bone from the back bone or from the skull.

The Hillehte lemma of no. 4 has no counterpart in Tos. The b. Naz. no. 3 version of Shammai is scarcely related to Tos. Ah. no. 3, except that both make reference to shoulders and thighs. It is difficult to figure out what has happened. Obviously, Tos. Ah. is a defective text, since it ignores the Hillelites and in no way solves the problem of making the Houses say the same thing, b. Naz. is so slightly related to Tos. Ah. that it looks as though the editor of the baraita has simply worked things out on his own, just as we have done. Obviously, at the foundations of this confusion is the dual mnemonic, B N Y N M N Y N , R B ' R B . That and the names of the Houses are apt to have been the entire 'tradition' before the authorities, probably of the middle of the second century, behind M. and T. M. clearly is the beginning of the matter, but whoever put together B N Y N M N Y N R B ' R B botched the job completely, providing two clauses which contradict one another, and the later efforts to improve the matter, beginning with T.'s excellent version, could never overcome the original disaster, a mnemonic no one really understood. Since Smith has maintained that 70 marked a radical break in the transmission of traditions and that the pre-70 traditions which did come down were thoroughly revised—probably by people with only a dim notion of what had gone on before the destruction—this becomes an appropriate place to conclude.

TWO TRADITIONS OF SAMUEL Evaluating Alternative Versions * BARUCH M. BOKSER University of California, Berkeley The problem of alternative versions of a single statement attributed to a given authority troubled the Tannaim and the Amoraim. A t times they suggest that each formulation of the statement initially constituted a separate tradition designed to teach a distinct lesson. Alternatively, they posit the presence of a single original saying handed down by different tradents, one of whose versions may be original to the authority standing behind it, or both may represent interpretations of a now non-extant statement. Early rabbinic commentators employed both of these methods and, where they knew the Palestinian Talmud, often drew from it to clarify traditions cited in the Babylonian Talmud. Modern literary critics •Abbreviations: b. Ber. BT DS Florence Ms. Gn. R.

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot Babylonian Talmud R. Rabbinovicz, Diqduqe Sofvim, New York, 1960 reprint. BT Codex Florence, Florence National Library II 1 7-9, Makor, Jerusalem, 1972. Genesis Rabbah, cited according to section and page in J. Theodore and C. Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, Jerusalem, T963.2

Leiden Ms. M. Ms. Oxford Ms. P. Ms. Pes. Pesikta Rabbati PT Ratner Rid. SRAG Vatican Ms. y.

PT, Leiden Cod. Seal. 3, Kcdem, Jerusalem, 1971. BT Codex Munich g5, Scfer Pubis. Jerusalem, 1971. Cited in DS. Paris Ms., cited in DS. Pesahim M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, Vienne, 1880, Tel-Aviv, 1963. Palestinian Talmud B. Ratner, Ahawath Zion We-feruscholaim: Traklat Berachot, Vilna, 1901, Jerusalem, n.d. Piskei HaRid: The Rulings of R. Isaiah the Elder, ed., Wortheimer, Jerusalem, 1964. Siddur R. Amram Gaon, ed. L). Goldschmit, Jerusalem, 1971Codex Vatican 133 to PT, Makor, Jerusalem, 1971. Palestinian Talmud

TWO T R A D I T I O N S

OF S A M U E L

47

of the Talmud, including J. N. Epstein, Saul Lieberman, Abraham Weiss, and David Weiss-Halivni, build upon their work ^ and demonstrate the viability and necessity of this endeavor.^ An analysis of sugyot often indicates that they are composed of discrete sources. Such analysis, however, only constitutes the first step. Once the different formulations of a tradition are recognized and presented, they cannot be harmonized. One cannot, a priori, presume that a person normally contradicts himself or repeats, the same thing in slightly different wording; accordingly, we must account for the existence of the different versions. This task is based on an understanding of the role of the transmission of the material and, secondly, on the nature of the formation of the Talmud. Thus, for example, P T and B T may present an Amoraic statement according to the Talmuds' respective understanding of the issue.^ While the problem of the transmission of the Talmudic material has not yet been fully explored,* nevertheless certain things are clear. When a tradent cited the tradition for a particular purpose, he might add words of emphasis.^ The tradition's function thus affected its formulation.® In addition, traditions were cited in certain forms. Accordingly, the study of the form is essential. Then one can consider whether or not the spokesman originally stated his remarks in those forms, and whether or not a tradent shaped 1 See, for example, S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah (New York, 1955), pp. 791-92. 2 J. Neusner's analyses of Tannaitic sources extends this work. See The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before yo (Leiden, 1971), I-III. 1 have learnt much from those named and from Professor Zalman Dimitrovsky, who has yet to publish the results of his work, explored in seminar sessions, in which I participated. For a study of the contributions of, and the differences between, the early researchers and those named, see Neusner, ed. The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud (Leiden, 1970). 3 For the PT's altering a Babylonian anonymous statement see S. Lieberman, The Laws of the Yerushalmi of Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (New York, 1947), p. 22, note 5. For analyses of the Talmud's editors placing later conceptions of a term or of a late terminology into earlier statements, see J. N. Epstein, Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah (Tel-Aviv, 19642), pp. 245-62, csp. 245-46, 248-49, 251, fn. 3, 262, 233, 251, 279-80, 598, fn. 3, and 613. 4 See Weiss-Halivni, Sources and Traditions (Tel-Aviv, 1968), p. 15; and J. Neusner, "The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before A.I). 70: The Problem of Oral Transmission", J JS 22 (1971), pp. 1-18. 5 See Weiss Halivni, op. cit., pp. 55, fn. 6, 569-70. ^ Weiss-Halivni's Sources and Traditions, in particular, presents a systematic analysis of the effects of the use of a tradition on the tradition itself.

48

B A R U C H M. B O K S E R

them into such forms for the sake of transmission.' The foUowing pages present two cases, for which such considerations help explain diverse formulations of traditionso f Samuel. It shows, how, in these cases, the words attributed to Samuel have been changed. II We will present and analyze the version of the tradition in the P T and then turn to its parallel in the B T . A. T N Y Fire and hybrids even though they were not created during the six days of creation, nevertheless were considered ('LW BMHSBH) from the six days of creation. B.' Fire. C. Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Nezira, "The hght that was created on the first day [i.e. the light God created and then stored away for the righteous for the time to come] ^ served thirtysix hours, twelve on Sabbath eve, twelve on Sabbath night, and twelve on the Sabbath. . . . Since the light did not cease, the entire world began to sing, . . . As soon as the Sabbath departed it started to get dark. Man became frightened and said, . . . . D. Said Rabbi Levi, "At that very hour God prepared for him (ZYMN LW) two flints, and he struck them against each other, and from them came out fire, as it is written "And the night [will be] light about me (Ps. 139:11)." And he said over it the blessing "Who has created the light of the fire." E. Samuel said, "Therefore ( L Y P K K ) , we say a blessing over the fire [The Vatican Ms. and several early citations, following SRAG, p. 85—see Ratner, p. 188,—read "over it"] on the end of the Sabbath since it (§HY') was the beginning of its creation." F. R. Hunainthe name [SRAG, p. 85, and Gn. R. # 11, p. 90, add "of Rav"] Rabbi Abbahu in the name of R. Yohanan, "Even ('P) at the end of Yom Kippur one says the blessing over it, since the fire rested that whole day." (y. Ber. 8:5; p. 12b) The pericope consists of several parts. It explains the initial baraita, A. Rabbi Levi presents the remarks of Rabbi Nezira, C, and then adds his own comment, D. Then P T cites the statements of Samuel and Yohanan. Samuel connects the origin of the blessing over fire said Saturday night with this supposed etiology. Yohanan ^ Of course, certain "forms" may be editorial constructions. For an example, see Weiss Halivni, op. cit., pp. 569-70. 8 This is the reading on the margin of the Leiden Ms., in the text of the Vatican Ms., and in the text of R. Sirillio's commentary. The text of the Leiden Ms., on the other hand, has " T h e light for the first Sabbath . . . , " which is crossed out. The reading, however, is discernible.

TWO

T R A D I T I O N S OF S4MUEL

49

claims it should also be said on the night after Y o m Kippur because fire then was not used. He is evidently referring to the practice of some localities not to leave the lights on in the house, on Y o m Kippur; see M. Pes. 4:4. The use of the word " e v e n " in Yohanan's remarks seemingly implies that what he includes, the first view had excluded. Thus the pericope presents a dispute between Samuel and Yohanan, Two problems, however, present themselves. Samuel's remarks are cited as an independent statement that glosses the previous material, D . B u t Samuel cannot have appended his remarks or have referred to L e v i ; (R.) Levi was a sccond-to-third generation Palestinian Amora.^ In addition, Samuel's statement contains two 'purposes' references. The initial "therefore" sufficiently explains the origin of the blessing over fire by referring back to the above material. Y e t he is then represented as repeating himself by spelling it out: "since it was the beginning of its creation." The natural explanation would then be that Samuel- and Yohanan-material was added on later and that the "therefore" represents an editorial, transitional term. It presents Samuel as glossing the earlier statement. The same explanation can be offered for those texts which read, in Samuel's statement, "over i t " instead of "over the fire." The above suggestion finds support from the pericope's parallels in the Palestinian midrashic literature. Some of the material has been altered or adopted to the context. See Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, pp. i i 8 a - b , fns. 51-2. B u t the parallels are so close that they either used a common source or else borrowed from each other. This is particularly true of the Gn. R. and Pesikta Rabbati passages. In Gn, R., # 82, p. 996 and Pesikta Rabbati, # 23, p. i i 8 b , our line E is cited as "This follows Samuel, for Samuel says ( ' T V K S M W ' L D ' M R S M W ' L ) , '. . . over the fire . . . ."' We also find this reading in one of the citations of Gn. R. # 1 1 , p. 89, while the present text and Mss. have "like Samuel, for Samuel says ( K S M W ' L D ' M R § M W ' L ) . " The former one is the normal style of the Palestinian Talmud for citing a view or statement to which a previous one is analogous. None of the Mss. or citations of the pericope b y early rabbinic commentators, however, has this read-

^ See A. M. Hyman, Toldoth Tannaim Ve^Amoraim (Jerusalem, 1964), III, pp. 851 f and 859 f. " R . L e v i " refers to the late Amora and not to Levi bar Sissi. The latter was not called " R . L e v i " but " L e v i " .

50

B A R U C H M. B O K S E R

ing.^° A study of the Gn R . parallels of the P T has shown that the former used an earher recension or edition of the l a t t e r . T h i s conclusion is supported by our passage. Thus, undoubtedly the "therefore" reading is not original to Samuel's remarks. Similarly, the reading "over the fire" should be preferred to "over i t . " Thus the form of the present text is "Samuel said, 'Therefore (SMW'L 'MR L Y P K K ) . ' " But our passage has afforded us the unusual opportunity to see its formulation in a less worked over form. The tradition's form in that earlier formulation was "This follows Samuel, for Samuel says ( ' T Y ' K S M W ' L D ' M R S M W ' L ) . " A. Said R. Judah said Samuel, "One does not say the blessing over the fire except after the end of the Sabbath, since (HW Y L W) it is the beginning of its creation." B. Said to him a certain elder, and some say Rabbah bar bar Hanah [said the following], "Right (YSR), and similarly R. Yohanan said, 'Right.' " C. 'Ulla was riding on an ass. R. 'Abba was walking on his right, and Rabbah bar bar Hanah on his left. D. Said R. 'Abba to'Ulla, "Is it true that you said in the name of R. Yohanan, 'One docs not say the blessing over the fire except after the end of the Sabbath, since it is the beginning of its creation?" E. He'^ looked askance at Rabbah bar bar Hanah. F. He said to him, "I did not speak in reference to that but in reference to the following i^"* It was taught (DTNY) before R. Yohanan, R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, *Yom Kippur that occurs on the Sabbath, even where they said not to light candles, they light [candles] out of respect of the Sabbath.' "R. Yohanan said after him, 'And the Sages forbid.' " G. He said to him, "Verily." H. And they hold i« according to this which said (KY H ' D'MR) R. Benjamin bar Yefet said R. Yohanan, "One says the blessing over the fire whether after the end of the Sabbath or whether after the end of Yom Kippur." (b. Pes. 53b-54a) 1° See Ratner, p. i88. See Albeck, Bereschit Rabba (Jerusalem, 19652), III, "Introduction," pp. 66-75. 12 SeeDS, p. 155, fn. 300. ' 3 See DS, p. 155, fn. 400. I have basically followed Rashi's rendering of D through H ; certain difficulties, though, remain. Their elucidation must await separate study. ^* See DS, p. 155, fn. i. 1^ See DS, p. 155. 1^ See DS, p. 155; Otzar HaGaonim (Jerusalem, 1930), III, p. 73; and SRAG, pp. 85 and 172.

TWO TRADITIONS OF S A M U E L

51

The pericope presents us with a tradition of Samuel with the attributive formula of "said R. Judah said Samuel." Judah presents an exphcit statement that the blessing over the fire is said only Saturday night. On the other hand, we find different and contradictory opinions attributed to Yohanan. According to B, Yohanan agrees with Samuel. According to F, though, Yohanan did not comment at all about a blessing over the fire. Finally, according to H, he requires the blessing over the fire at the conclusion of the Sabbath and of Y o m Kippur. The pericope indicates that Samuel's view circulated autonomously and apart from Y o h a n a n ' s ; indeed, Yohanan's opinion variously circulated—if at all—among different individuals. B T ' s pericope attests to the tradition of Samuel which P T had cited. B T and P T both include the same 'reason': "since it is the beginning of its creation." It thereby supports our contention that Samuel did not originally, as reported in y. Ber. 8 : 5 ; 12b, say his remarks as a gloss of someone else's statement. In addition, the exclusive nature of the tradition of Samuel in P T , only implied by Yohanan's opening word " e v e n , " is confirmed here by the wording of Samuel's own remark. Nevertheless, one must inquire which version represents the closer approximation of Samuel's own words. PT's version—without the "therefore" and reading "over the fire" and not "over i t " — i s a simple statement. It explains why the blessing for fire is said Saturday night. The reason fits in well. It is not presented in a dispute form. B T ' s version, transmitted by Judah, has the added words of emphasis "one does not ... except ('YN . . . ' L ' ) . " This formulation argues that one says the blessing that night and not another night. The emphasis comes to exclude Y o m Kippur. But Samuel's saying, if originally presented independent of other Amoraic views on the matter, probably originated as a discrete statement without being formulated to dispute an alternative position. In addition, the reason, "since it is the beginning of its creation," is more of an explanation for the recitation of the blessing Saturday night than a reason for excluding it another night. Just because the beginning of the creation of fire was Saturda}^ night does not logically prelude that another night might have a different reason for the same blessing.i' Accordingly, the plain sense of the clause supports the authenticity (without the added "therefore") of Yerushalmi's version of Samuel's tradition. Then one 1^ Sec, for example, the commentary of R. Y o m Tov Ashbili to b. Pes. 54a.

52

B A R U C H M. B O K S E R

must assign the added words of emphasis in Babli's version either to Judah or to the arranger of the pericope. There the tradition serves a purpose in the context and was shaped by redactional considerations. Thus both Talmuds attest to Samuel's saying concerning the blessing for fire which is said Saturday night.

Ill For the following tradition of Samuel, we will first present both versions of the saying and then examine them together. One version appears in a pericope commenting upon M. Ber. 5:1. And even if a snake is clinging to his heel, he should not stop (L' YPSYQ) [from saying the Shema% (M. Ber. 5 :i) A. Said R. Isaac the son of Judah,^*^ "If he saw oxen, he stops (PWSQ)." B. hor teaches (DTNY) R. Hoshaia, "One removes oneself to a distance (MRHYQYN) from a tam [— an ox not known to have previously gored three times] ^"^ 50 cubits, and a mu'^ad [a 'warned' ox, i. e., one known to have already gored] as far as one can see (KML' ' Y N Y W ) . " C. Said Samuel, "In these situations (HNY M Y L Y ) : With a black ox and in the days of Nisan, [M. and P. Mss. and Rid. add: when it is coming up from the marsh,] because the devil (HSTN) dances between his horns." D. It was taught (TN') in the name of R. Meir, "A head of an ox in the fodder basket [i.e., eating]—ascend to the roof and throw [down] the ladder from behind you." [The printed text presents D before C ] (b. Ber. 33a) A'.

Four things our holy Rabbi commanded his son, 20. , , "And

1 8 See DS, p. 175, fn. 400. 1^ See Rashi, loc. cit.: " A 'tam' is an oxe which has not injured a person". Cf. the commentary of Abraham Ashbili, printed in M. Herschler, ed. Ginze Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 378—see fn. 91, there. Cp. Sefer Hameorot, ed. M. Y . Blau (Brooklyn, 1964), p. 106. If B supports A, the reference to tam and mu'-ad must encompass all oxen. Accordingly, the definition of "tam" common in cases of torts, 'an ox that has injured one time', is inappropriate. Thus Rashi defines "tam" here as he does. Hoshaia, though, may have meant "tam" in the usual sense. Y e t the one who cited the text undoubtedly uses it to refer to all oxen, not only those suspected to be gorers. Either way, Hoshaia's text clearly refers to oxen all year long and is far closer to a universal principle than a statement applying only to animals when in heat. 20 See DS, p. 345, fn. 20.

TWO TRADITIONS

OF S A M U E L

53

do not stand before an ox when it is coming up from the marsh because the devil dances between his horns." B'. Said Samuel, "With (B) a black ox and in the days of Nisan." C . For teaches [ = M. Ms.; Oxford Ms. = "And teaches"; printed text = "Teaches." R. Hoshaia, "One removes oneself to a distance (MRHYQYN) from a tam 50 cubits, and from a mu'-ad as far as one can see (KML' ' Y N Y W ) . " D'. It was taught in the name of R. Meir, "A head of an ox in the fodder basket—ascend to the roof and throw [down] the ladder [from behind you]." (b. Pes. 112b) M. Ber. 5 : 1 deals with interrupting the recital of the Shema'-. M. emphasizes the importance of the prayer b y ruling that even if a snake is at one's heel one still does not break off. The gemara, though, asserts that when one is confronted b y a danger one does stop. Items B, C, and D have parallels in b. Pes. 112b, B ' , C , and D ' . There, however, they follow a different initial statement, A ' . In addition, the order of the comments varies in each pericope. Furthermore, in the printed editions of b. Ber., D preceeds C and one clause is missing from D. I have printed them according to the sequence in the Mss. and early citations. The point of departure in Ber., A, assumes all oxen always pose a danger, while in Pes., A ' , it is assumed that only certain ones do. B 24 and D remain consistent with the principle of A. C, Samuel's statement, on the other hand, affirms the alternative principle, that is, that only certain oxen are dangerous at certain times. In Pes., only B ' , Samuel's statement, agrees with the opening principle, A ' , while C and D ' teach the opposite one: all oxen are dangerous. The wording of Samuel's remark varies in the two pericopae. In Ber., it includes the introductory "in these situations," which B ' lacks. B ' uses the B-prefix, a set form which means "the text speaks of a case in which." C also adds the purpose clause 21 See DS, p. 345. 22 " F r o m behind y o u " is lacking in the Mss. See DS, p. 346, fn. 90. 23 See DS, p. 175, fn. 2. Florence Ms. has D before C, a point not clear from DS. 24 Seefn. 19. 25 The meaning of the B- prefix is thus tantamount to that of the introductory phrase in Ber., "in these situations." See Baruch M. Bokser, Samuel's Commentary on the Mishnah (Leiden, 1975) and Baruch A. Levine, Jn the Presence of the Lord (Leiden, 1973), p. 119.

54

B A R U C H M. B O K S E R

"because the devil dances between his horns" and, according to M. and P. Mss. and Rid, the extra clause "when it is coming up from the marsh." In both pericopae, Samuel's remarks cannot stand alone in their present form; they lack a verb. But the referens varies in each. In Ber., Isaac's comment. A, uses the same verb at the Mishnah, " s t o p " (PWSO); it thus clearly refers to M. Ber. 5 : 1 . Hoshaia's baraita, B, is introduced b}^ the formula normally used for citing a supporting baraita ("For teaches, D T N Y , " ) . It thus serves to support Isaac's statement. Either Isaac or a later hand cited it. Samuel's remarks ostensibly stand with this baraita. For it cannot refer to the statement of Isaac b. Judah, since the latter was a third generation Pumbeditan Amora. Nor, according to the order of the printed text, where Samuel's statement follows Meir's, can it refer to Meir's, for the two statements propound opposite principles, and reflect different situations; if an ox is eating fodder, it is not coming up from the marsh and under the devil's control. Y e t Samuel's principle undermines the reason for which the baraita was cited, that one stops reciting the Shema^ when one sees an ox, for any ox is dangerous. Pes. presents Samuel's statement in a logical place. It follows Rabbi's statement and serves to explain or modify it: Not only must the ox be coming up from the marsh, but it must be a black ox in the month of Nisan; then it poses a danger. Samuel's statement originally referred to Rabbi's statement, which it glossed. Ber. sugya consisted of Isaac's statement, A, the Hoshaia baraita, B,^' and seemingly Meir's statement, D. All three affirm the same principle. Later Samuel's statement was transferred to the Ber. pericope. The different locations of the statement in the printed text and the Mss. may reflect the fact that the statement was added later. Since the original formulation of Samuel's words, "with a black ox and in the days of Nisan" is meaningless by itself in the Ber. context, the one who transferred it, or a later hand, interpolated into it Rabbi's point which had been Samuel's point of departure: when sexually driven "because the devil dances between his horns." Similarly, the clause "when it is coming up from 28 Following the reading of M. and P. Mss. and Rid. The appropriateness of A and B together is reflected in the postTalmudic rabbinic sources that just cite, for halakhic purposes, these two statements. See Alfasi, loc. cit., and Halakhot Gedolot, Warsaw, 1874 ed., p. 12a; Hildesheimer, Berlin, 1888, ed., p. 52; and Jerusalem, 1971, ed., I, p. 80.

T W O T R A D I T I O N S OF S A M U E L

55

the marsh," according to the readings that include it in C, was added.2^ The introductory "in these situations" was added to provide a smooth transition between Samuel's statement and the statement it was to modify, B. Similarly, a later hand transferred B and D to Pes. The introductory formula of C , according to the Mss. readings, " A n d teaches" and " F o r teaches," represents the language in Ber., which serves to support a previous statement. B u t in Pes. it does not offer a support. Accordingly, the literary tradition reflected in the printed edition dropped the " A n d " or " F o r " and presented the tradition as an independent statement: "Teaches R. Hoshaia." W e have thus isolated the original language of the statement attributed to Samuel. It corresponded to Rabbi's warning concerning oxen. The form of Samuel's statement which modifies a previous view consisting of X — , Y — , is "Said Samuel, 'With (B) .' " This evidently represents a commentary form. The version of the statement in its new setting consists of :"Said Samuel, in these situations, 'With (B) , Y .' " IV W e have examined two separate sets of pericopae, each of which contains varying formulations of a tradition of Samuel. Our analyses have suggested the presence of several factors to account for the variations. The redactional considerations, the use of the traditions, in these cases, clearly have affected the formulation. Furthermore, the editorial process of the Talmud provided connecting hnks between otherwise discrete traditions. It is difficult to say which reading is original to Ber. 33a. The presence of the clause in M. and P. Mss. is significant. In b. Ber., P. Ms. generally has fewer later interpolations than M. Ms. The printed edition may reflect a different literary tradition, perhaps an earlier stage of the text. Alternatively, the fuller text may constitute the "original" reading and someone removed the clause in question due to the lack of smoothness or on the basis of the reading in Pes. 29 I would like to thank Prof. David Weiss-Halivni, who offered critical comments on several points. A ddendum For Fn. 13: As to the different versions of Yohanan's Comment, see Abraham Goldberg, " R . ZeMra and Babylonian Custom in Palestine," Tarbiz 36 (1967): 336-37-

R. A B B A H U

OF

CAESAREA

L E E I. L E V I N E Hebrew University, Jerusalem Halakhic discussions and homiletical discourses dominate rabbinic literature and have engaged the interest of scholars for generations; the personality and activities of individual rabbis have merited little, if any, attention. Rabbinic sages display a wide range of interests, attitudes, habits and beliefs. Some boasted expertise and renown in a particular profession or trade, others barely eeked out a living. Intellectually and religiously, there were those of conservative

and

liberal

proclivities,

some open to the influences

demands of their age, others who studiously avoided any

and such

confrontation.* R. A b b a h u of Caesarea is one of the most fascinating of these rabbinic figures.^ As a leading religious authority, he was conversant with all aspects of Jewish law, and his teachers, colleagues and students comprised the mainstream of Palestinian rabbinism

for

almost a century.^ The unique aspects of R. Abbahu's career lay 1 Cf. S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), pp. i f.; E. E. Urbacli, " T h e Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts", IE J, I X (1959), 149 f., 229 f. 2 The most useful collections of traditions on R. Abbahu remain G. Perlitz, " R a b b i Abbahu", MGWJ, X X X V I (1887), 60-88, 119-126, 269-274, 310-320; W. Bacher, Aggadot Hatannaim v'Amoraim, II, i (Tel-Aviv, 1926), 84-135. Cf. A. Hyman, Sefer Toldot Tannaim v'Amoraim (3 vols.; Jerusalem, 1964), I, 62-71. R. Abbahu was presumably an extraordinarily wealthy man. In preparation for the Sabbath, he would sit on an ivory stool (B Shabbat 119a) and on Saturday night he would have a three year old calf slaughtered, eating only its kidneys, a practice found wasteful by his son, Abimi {ibid., 119b; Midrash Hagadol - ILxodus, ed. Margoliot, p. 331). His rather lavish eating habits are further reflected in an account of his visit to Bostra. One Jose (cf. Bacher, Aggadot, p. 88, n. 7) prepared an assortment of delicacies for him, while lamenting the inadequacy of the meal {Lamentations Rabba 111, 17, ed. Buber, p. 65b). R. Abbahu once undertook to provide a feast for the rabbis of Caesarea when his student, R. Ze'ira, recovered from an illness (B Berakhot 46a), and when teaching, he would hold in his hands a diplomatarion (Si7r>.co[i.aTap(,ov), a box for valuable objects (J Beza I, 7, 60c, ed. Francus, p. 105; B. Ratner, Ahavat Zion ve Yerushalaim, p. 10. Cf. also Deuteronomy Rabba X X V I I , ed. Lieberman, p. 28; J Ta'-anit II, 6, 65d). 'Gothic' attendants are mentioned in connection with R. Abbahu and his visit to the

R. A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A

57

in the extent to which it reflected the interests and concerns of the Caesarean Jewish community, and his direct involvement in its activities. During his lifetime R. Abbahu emerged as spokesman and central figure in Caesarean Jewish life. Intellectually, religiously, socially and politically he dominated the local, and in certain ways even the wider Palestinian, scene.* Active rabbinic participation in Jewish communal life was far from axiomatic during the Talmudic period. There were, of course, rabbis who regarded such involvement as positive and even mandatory. Others appear to have been quite content to restrict their activities to the four walls of the academy. Still others might have preferred the latter, but were amenable to participation when the occasion demanded: so, for example, the statement of R. Nehemiah: It is said about the haverim (rabbis) that as long as one is a haver, he does not care about the community and he is not punished. When one is appointed as the head (?) he dons a talit (toga) and must not sa}^ 'T am doing it for my own good and I do not care about the community", but rather the burdens of the community should be upon him.^ R. Abbahu's involvement in the life of the Caesarean Jewish community is well documented.® Several of his acts, as recorded in rabbinic literature, indicate an official position within the community at large. Some attest to his considerable influence in the Jewish market place. baths ( J Beza, I, 6, 6oc, ed. Francus, pp. 102-103). Whether they were his personal bodyguards or bath-house employees is, however, unclear; cf. Bacher, Aggadot, p. 85, n. i ; H. Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, 1965), p. 242, n. 505. Rabbinic literature, however, is almost completely silent regarding the source of his wealth. A single indication is provided b y a statement that R. Abbahu dealt in women's jewelry ( J Bava Mezia IV, 7, gd). Whether he was a merchant or manufacturer of such articles is unclear. Cf. Bacher, Aggadot, p. 85, n. i . 4 On some of the legends regarding R. Abbahu in life as well as in death; cf. J Berakhot, II, 3, 4c; Song of Songs Rabba, I, 52; J '•Avoda Zara III, T , 42c; Deuteronomy Rabba, 'Ekcv, ed. Lieberman, p. 77; Genesis Rabba L X I I , 2, p. 671 and parallels cited therein. 5 Exodus Rabba X X V I I , 8. 8 R. Abbahu also appears to have taken an active role within rabbinic circles of Caesarea. When the sages once wished to appoint him as their head, he refused, supporting instead R. Abba of Acre who needed the financial benefits accruing from such an office (B Sota 40a).

58

LEE

I.

LEVINE

In Caesarea R. Abbahu estabhshed the practice (man) that the fat parts and nervus ischiadicus

{rWl7\ T'J) belong to the buyer thus

making sure that the butcher will clean it (i.e. the fat) well.''

The term man indicates that the legal decisions of R. Abbahu affected market practices. This is further illustrated b y such a phrase as " R . Abbahu announced in Caesarea" (ncpa inSN " l riDS) regarding importation,^ or his personal inspection of gentile-owned kegs.^ His considerable interest in weights and measures and utilization of mathematics and geometry in such calculations also suggest commercial i n v o l v e m e n t . R . Abbahu's prestige was recognized b y non-Jewish agoranomoi of Caesarea, as reflected in his acquiring a thirteen-year market-tax exemption for R. Safra.** In Caesarea, as elsewhere in the Empire, the synagogue was the central institution of the Jewish community.*^ This fact is already evident in the first century during the Jewish-Greek struggle for control of the city. When the Greeks wished to harass the Jews, they crowded the already narrow passageway to the synagogue with additional buildings, and later mockingly offered a bird sacrifice (prescribed for lepers) in front of the synagogue while the Jews were praying i n s i d e . R . Abbahu is often mentioned in connection with a Caesarean synagogue, in particular one called the Maradata synagogue. There he would study, teach and adjudicate.** In this ^ J Demai II, 5, 23a. B '•Avoda Zara 39a. 9 J Avoda Zara II, 4, 41b. 1" J Terumot V, 34c; J Peak, V, i , i8d. Cf. also, Jewish Encyclopedia I, 36. 11 B '•Avoda Zara 4a. In addition, R. Abbahu may have been acting in an official capacity when he helped pay the debts of a man who was about to hire himself as a gladiator in order to pay off his obligations (J Gittin IV, 9, 46b). 12 Cf. S. Baron, The Jewish Community (3 vols.; Philadelphia, 1942), I, 55-74. Lieberman has suggested a larger Jewish community structure in many non-Palestinian cities called 'louSa'ix'^; cf. " N o t e s " , P'raqim—Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish Research of the Jewish Theological Seminary, I (Jerusalem, 1967-68) (Hebrew), pp. 101-102. 13 Josephus, War, II, 14, 4-5, #285-292. 1* J Berakhot I I I , 6a; J Nazir V I I , 56a; J Sanhedrin I, i 8 a ; Numbers Rabba X I I , 3. Cf. also J Megilla I I I , 74a, which tells of R. Abbahu passing through the colonnaded courtyard (miTlD) of a synagogue. However, the identity and location of this building are not recorded. R. Isaac b y Eliezar, R. Abbahu's younger contemporary, was also to be found in Caesarea's Maradata synagogue (J Bikkurim I I I , 65d; Midrash Samuel V I I , 6, ed. Buber 34b).

R. A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A

last capacity, he might either other rabbis.*® It was in this corporeal p u n i s h m e n t , o r , in guilty party. When the latter successfully obtained a court opinion.*^

59

sit alone or together with several capacity that he once administered another, demanded payment from a decision was protested, R. Abbahu order (l^ n''3 7WV72) to enforce his

Regarding the synagogue ritual itself, R. Abbahu took an active role. On important occasions he was responsible for selecting a prayer-leader for the synagogue services. The story is told of one who worked in a Caesarean theater and was responsible for decorating the hall, hiring entertainers, providing musical accompaniment during performances and generally attending to their various needs. Upon learning that this man had performed an unusually charitable deed, R. Abbahu chose him to lead the congregation in prayers for rain.I^ A t other times, R. Abbahu prescribed rulings dealing with such prayers.2° He himself made numerous comments on the High Holiday liturgy and issued an ordinance, normative to this day, regarding the blowing of the shofar.22 Moreover, he rendered decisions on the blessings to be recited on different o c c a s i o n s , a n d emphasized the need to introduce a new prayer into each daily service.24 He likewise composed a prayer for salvation from the vicissitudes of the time.^^ Finally R. Abbahu excelled in preaching, an activity with which he is often associated in rabbinic traditions.2® A portion of one sermon exemplifying his forensic ability has been preserved: Rabbi Abbahu opened his discourse with the text, "They that sit in the gate talk of me" {Psalms 69:13). This refers to the nations of 15 J Sanhedrin I, i8a. 1^ 13 Beza 38a; B Ketubot 84b; Gittin 29b; 13 Bava Kama I T 7 b ; B Bava Batra I42b-i43a. 1^ J Bikkurim I, 64a. 18 ] Kiddushin 111,2, (,2>^. 19 J Ta'-anit I, 4, 64a and comments of Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, pp. 31-32. 20 B Ta'anifdh; J Ta'anit III, i i , 67a; III, 14, 67a. 21 J Rosh Hashana IV, 6, 59c; B Rosh Hashana i6a, 32b; B Yoma 37a. 22 B Rosh Hashana 34a. 23 J Berakhot V, 2, 9b; V I , i, l o a ; B Berakhot 14b, 51b. 2« J Berakhot IV, 3,8a. 25 Ibid., V, I , 8d. 28 Lamentations Rabba—Prologue X V I I , ed. Buber, p. 7 b ; B Sanhedrin io2a-b; Song of Songs Rabba I, 52; Pesikta Rabbati, Supplement B, ed. Friedman, p. 196b; Lamentations Rabba I, 223-224, ed. Buber, p. 32a.

6o

L E E I. L E V I N E

the world who sit in theaters and circuses. "And I am the song of the drunkards." After they have sat eating and drinking and become intoxicated, they sit and talk of me, scoffing at me saying, "We have no need to eat carobs (food for the poor) as the Jews do!" They ask one another, 'How long do you wish to live?" To which they reply, "As long as the shirt of a Jew which is worn on the Sabbath!" They then bring a camel into their theatres, put their shirts on it, and ask one another, "Why is it in mourning?" They reply, "The Jews observe the law of the Sabbatical year and they have no vegetables; so they eat this camel's thorns, and that is why it is in mourning!" Next they bring a mime with a shaven head into the theater, and ask one another, "Why is his head shaven ?" They reply, "The Jews observe the Sabbath, and whatever they earn during the week they eat on the Sabbath. Since they have no wood to cook with, they break their bedsteads and use them as fuel; consequently they sleep on the ground and get covered with dust, and anoint themselves with oil, which is very expensive for that reason! " (After a while they can no longer afford the oil and have to shave their heads).2' We have here an example of sermonic technique at its best: a current issue (the scorn of gentiles), presented in dramatic fashion, drawn from the immediate experience of his listeners. Undoubtedly this depiction derived from a mime presented in the theater of Caesarea. In what w a y R. Abbahu developed this theme has not been preserved, yet it is not difficult to imagine that the sermon was intended to defend and explain Jewish rituals and practices in the wake of gentile mockery. The very fact that R. Abbahu addressed himself to such an issue reflects his concern for problems besetting the community at large. It is little wonder then that people would flock to hear him speak. Once when travelling with R. H i y y a b . Abba, he delivered a sermon, while R. H i y y a discoursed on a halakhic matter. According to this account, the townspeople came to hear R. Abbahu, leaving his colleague both insulted and humiliated. 27 Lamentations Rabba, Prologue 17, ed. Buber, p. 7b. Poor Jews were also singled out by the satirists of Rome; cf. H. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia, i960), pp. 234-235; J. Levy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, i960), pp. 197-203. In Alexandria, a burlesque of the Jewish king Agrippa was presented at the local theater in 38 C.E. leading eventually to widespread disturbances; cf. Philo, In Flaccum, 33 f. For other examples of the mockery of Jews by Alexandrians in their theaters; cf. V. Tcherikover, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, 1957-64), 1 1 , 9 4 ; III. 28 B Sota 40a. In one instance, an audience laughed at one of R. Abbahu's teachings, upon which he appealed to an older authority {Genesis Rabba, X X X , 9, p. 275).

R. A B B A H U

OF CAESAREA

6l

R. Abbahu's involvement in communal affairs is also reflected in his well-known and much discussed polemical activity. Living as they did in a large cosmopolitan setting with other religiousethnic groups, the Jews of Caesarea were often confronted b y the need to counter the claims of others or parry their attacks on Judaism. R^hristian, Samaritan, gnostic and pagan communities flourished during this period, and exchanges between them were common o c c u r r e n c e s . R . Abbahu emerges as chief spokesman of Jewish beliefs and practices and a not unworthy critic of his opponents' tenets. Much has been written about his polemical statements, primarily in trying to determine against which group he was directing his c o m m e n t s . C h r i s t i a n s and gnostics are the two most oft-referred-to opponents, although many of his remarks are so general as to render pointless any attempt at identification.^* In reviewing R. Abbahu's polemical activity, it is striking to whom he refers and whom he neglects of those living in thirdfourth century Caesarea. It is not surprising that R. Abbahu frequently addresses himself to Christian and gnostic (probably Jewish) claims; both groups emphasized beliefs and ideas that contrasted sharply with those of rabbinic Judaism. Vis-a-vis the Samaritans, whose numbers and positions of power within the city were significant, R. Abbahu does little polemicizing, adopting instead a rather strict and exclusive halakhic stance. He was, in fact, instrumental in further separating the Samaritans from the Jews by declaring their wine f o r b i d d e n . x h e degree of his antagonism for the Sama2 9 In general; cf. the author's Caesarea Under Roman Rule (Leiden, 1975). Indicative of this state of affairs is the exchange between R. Abbahu and Caesarean agoranomoi after the latter had polemically confronted the Babylonian R. Safra with disputed Biblical verses: " H e said to them: ' W h y are you oppressing him ?' They said to him: 'Did you not tell us that he was a great man ? He does not even know how to explain this verse.' He said to them: 'I told you this regarding oral (i.e. rabbinic) traditions, who said anything about Scriptures ?' They said to him: 'How is it that you know ?' He said to them: 'We who are constantly in your company have taken it upon ourselves to learn (these matters), they (i.e. rabbis from Babylonia) have not learned (these matters)" (B 'Avoda Zara 4a). 30 Perlitz, " R a b b i Abbahu", pp. 315 f.; Bacher, Aggadot, pp. 109-111; R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (Reprint; Clifton, 1966), pp. 266-278; S. Mendelsohn, " A b b a h u " , Jewish Encyclopedia, I, 36; G. Scholem. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism^ (New York, 1954), p. 359, n. 24; S. T. Lachs, " R a b b i Abbahu and the Minim", JQR, L X (1970), 197-212. 3 1 Cf., for example, Leviticus Rabba I X , 3, ed. Margoliot, p. 179; Yalkut Shimoni—Parshat Bereshit—end; B Sukka 48b. 3 2 Cf. Caesarea Under Roman Rule, Chap. 6.

62

L E E 1. L E V I N E

ritans is remarkable, although the reasons for this are not entirely clear. Nevertheless, it is significant that he chose to fight them, not on the level of behefs and ideas, but rather on that of ritual practice, an area in which Samaritans most resembled Jews. E v e n more remarkable is the apparently total absence of any polemical activity or other hints of friction as regards the pagan community. In none of R. Abbahu's many comments does he criticize pagan doctrines, ideas or ritual practice. Assuming that our lack of sources indeed reflects actual absence (or at least relative insignificance) of such statements,^^ what can account for such an omission? It has been suggested that the weakened state of paganism at the time may have rendered it less of a threat to Jews and Judaism With little danger that Jews might be attracted to or influenced by pagan ritual, the rabbis were willing to relax certain ritual and economic prohibitions originally aimed at separating Jews from any contact with paganism.^* Thus, by R. Abbahu's time there was httle or no need to challenge it polemically. However, the absence of such references may have been due to other reasons, more closely connected with R. Abbahu himself: the extent of his acculturation and the important political role that he played with respect to the Roman government. Taken together these two aspects of R. Abbahu's career are probably quite unique, and it is to them that we now turn. Of all the rabbis of the Talmudic period, R. Abbahu appears to have been the most acculturated. He was, in fact, known to his contemiporaries as such. When he once reported a tradition in the name of R. Johanan concerning the permissibility of Greek education, he was accused of falsifying the report in order to justify his own predilections: "Because he wants to teach his daughters (Greek), he ascribes it to R. J o h a n a n " . I n fact this claim of R. Simeon b. Abba may indeed have been correct, highlighting even 33 An assumption further warranted b y the existence of such polemics with respect to other leading rabbinic figures; cf. M. D. Herr, " T h e Historical Significance of the Dialogues Between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries", Scripta Hierosolymitana, X X I I , 123-150. 34 S. Lieberman, "Martyrs of Caesarea", Annuaire de I'institut de philologie et d'histoire orientates et slaves, V I I (1939-44), 405; Urbach, "Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry", pp. 149 f., 229 f. Cf. also S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews^ (New York, 1952-), I I , 174-175. 35 J Peah I, 1, 15c and parallels.

R. A B B A H U O F C A E S A R E A

63

more R. Abbahu's prochvities.^® Lieberman has described him as " a man of high Hellenistic culture" and as " t h e cultured man of his time and of his p l a c e " . H i s facihty with the Greek language was considerable, as attested b y his frequent phonetic plays on Greek (as well as Aramaic) w o r d s . M o r e o v e r , his manipulation of Hebrew words, names and Biblical verses m a y

be a carry-over

from practices current in cultured circles of his day.^^ A s noted, R. A b b a h u assured his daughters a Greek education *° and on several occasions remarked how the mathematical sciences aided him in solving various halakhic questions.** A s was common in Greco-Roman society, R. A b b a h u took great pride in his physical a p p e a r a n c e . H e usual strength

apparently possessed un-

and frequented the baths of Caesarea and other

cities.** His handsome features impressed his contemporaries: 3 6 Cf. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, p. 24, n. 56. 3 ' Ibid., pp. 21, 23. That R. Abbahu may have been aware of a Philonic BibUcal interpretation; cf. J. I'^inkel, " T h e Guises and Vicissitudes of a Universal Folk-Belief in Jcwisli and Greek Tradition", H. A. Wolfson Jtdjilee Volume (3 vols.; Jerusalem, 1963), 1, 238. 3*^ Genesis Rabba X I V , 2, p. 127 and parallels: R. Abbahu was asked: " F r o m where does one know that a child borne after seven months of pregnance can live ?" He replied: "From your own (language or alphabet) I will prove it to you, G ( ^ r , T a ) = klZIOL,

7j(^Ta)

=

OXTO).

Cf. also idem, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1962), p. 76, n. 240. On a similar Pythagorean doctrine; cf. F. Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism (New York, 1959), p. 132. 3 9 B 'Eruvin 53a; J Megilla III, 2, 74a; J Bikkurim 111, 3, 65d. 4 0 Cf. above, n. 35. 4 1 J Terumot V, 3, 43c; J Sukka V, 8, 55d. 4 2 J Beza I, 6, 6oc. Compare this statement with that of his teacher, R. Johanan, B Ketubot 62a: From whence might one deduce that the Holy One blessed be He, takes pride in those of tall stature. Because it is written [Amos 2:9), " A n d I will destroy the Amorite before them whose height is like that of the cedars." 4 3 On R. Abbahu's strength; cf. B. Ketubot 62a: R. Abbahu was once standing in a bath while supported by two slaves. The floor of the bath collapsed under him. A pillar was nearby and he climbed it and lifted them (the slaves) too. For an exaggerated account of what m a y be this same incident; cf. B Berakhot 6oa. 4 4 B Shabbat 40b; B Ketubot 62a; B Berakhot 6oa; J Beza I, 6, 6oc. R. Abbahu often made reference to baths, mentioning certain practices connected with them {Genesis Rabba L X I I I , 25, pp. 687-688), the blessing to be said before entering (B 7?emA/io/ 14b), and legislating on clothes to be worn by women in baths (J Kelaim I X , 3, 32a).

64

L E E I. L E V I N E

And Mar said: "The beauty of R. Kahana is hke the beauty of R. Abbahu, the beauty of R. Abbahu is hke the beauty of father Jacob, the beauty of father Jacob is hke the beauty of Adam".*^ The Hellenization of R. Abbahu, however, went far deeper than an acquaintance with Gr^ek culture and practice. It affected in turn his halakhic decisions and personal behavior. It was R. Abbahu, for example, who quoted older authorities to justify writing the Bible in Greek,*® and when necessary, reading the Scroll of Esther in a language other than Hebrew.*' R. Abbahu's liberal tendencies, avoided by some colleagues, are strikingly portrayed in one source. Archeological discoveries have shown that synagogues at this time were often decorated with stone reliefs, mosaics and even paintings. These practices are only occasionally reflected in rabbinic sources.*^ One exception to this almost total silence is preserved by the Palestinian Talmud when discussing the verse, " A n d you shall not place a figured stone in your land, to bow down to i t " [Lev. 26:1). Rav commanded the house of R. Aha and R. Ami commanded his own household not to bow down as is customary when they go (to the synagogue) on a fast day (so as not to appear to be bowing to the images decorating the synagogue). R. Jonah bowed sideways, as did R. Aha. R. Samuel said: " I saw R. Abbahu bow as usual". R. Jose said: "I asked R. Abbahu: 'Is it not written, "And a figured stone (you shall not place in your land to bow down upon it—Leviticus 26: i ) " . ' " It should be solved (by applying this verse to situation) where one has a fixed place (in the synagogue) for bowing (P'nei Moshe—on or near the stone itself).*^ R. Abbahu was thus not troubled by bowing in a decorated synagogue, as were other rabbis. The above passage is illustrative of the tolerance engendered in this Caesarean rabbi by his Hellenistic acculturation. R. Abbahu's acquaintance with mysticism has been treated elsewhere in the general context of Caesarean Jewish mystical specu45 B Bava Mezia 84a; B Bava Batra 58a. 4» B Megilla gh^, 4 ' J Megilla II, i , 73a. 4" Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, IV, 11 f.; Urbach, "Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry", pp. 154 f. 4 9 J 'Avoda Zara IV, i , 43d. It is doubtful whether R. Abbahu offered the concluding explanation for his actions. The term 'it should be solved' (IDSD) is usually used b}^ theeditor of the Palestinian Talmud to resolve an apparent contradiction.

R. A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A

65

lation.^® Suffice it to say that esoteric knowledge and mystical doctrine attracted large segments of the cultured classes under the late Empire. Many rabbis as well were drawn to such speculation.^* Nevertheless, R. Abbahu's famiharity with this branch of religious experience appears to have been exceptional. One tradition reporting on the secret chain of tradition dealing with the mysterious names of God (a•'2'^^^?^ n w ) mentions but two sages living under the later Empire, R. Abbahu and his disciple (perhaps son) R. Ze'ira: I transmitted (them) only to Metatron my servant, who is one of the children on high. And Metatron is from my special storehouse and he transmitted it to Moses and Moses to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly, the Men of the Great Assembly to Ezra the Scribe, Ezra the Scribe to Hillel the Elder, Hillel the Elder to R. Abbahu, R. Abbahu to R. Ze'ira, R. Ze'ira to the Men of Faith.^^ Magic and superstition also played important roles in the Weltanschauung of many rabbis of the period. Since these were widely practiced at all levels of Greco-Roman society, their attribution to R. Abbahu is hardly strange. We find him acknowledging the valid testimony of a doctor claiming the effectiveness of a given magical amulet.^* R. Abbahu also asserted in the name of his teacher, R. Johanan, that an effective magical amulet should not be considered 'superstitious' (maxn •'3"na),^^ and on several occasions rejected an earlier tradition 'because of witchcraft' (D"'DU;Dn •'3DQ).5® Thus the head of the Caesarean academy, eminent halakhist. Biblical scholar, preacher, and enthusiast of Greek culture, was also attuned 5" Cf. Caesarea Under Roman Rule, chap. 5. 51 G. Scholcm, Jewish Gnosticism, Merhabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York, i960), pp. 2-5; S. Lieberman, " H o w Much Greek in Jewish Palestine", Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 135-141; J. Neusner, A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden, 1962), pp. 97-102; E. E. Urbach, "The Traditions about Merkabah Mysticism in the Tannaitic Period" (Hebrew), Studies in Mysticism and Religion: Presented to G. G. Scholem {]erusdi\(im, igGj), pp. 1-28. M. Smith, "Observations on Hekhalot Rabbati", Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 142-160. 52 Midrash Enoch (end) in Bet Hamidrash, ed. A. Jellinek (6 vols, in 2; Reprint; Jerusalem, 1967), II, 117; Midrash of the Letters of R. Akiva in Batei Midrashot^, ed. A. J. Wertheimer (2 vols.; Jerusalem, 1954), 35553 Cf. Blau, Das altjiidische Zauberwesen, pp. 23 f. 54 J Shabbat V I , 8b. 55 Ibid., V I , 8c. 58 J Demai III, 3, 23c; Leviticus Rabba X X X V I I , 3, ed. Margoliot, p. 862.

66

LEE L LEVINE

to the magical and superstitious behefs prevalent in his day. 57 From its foundation and throughout most of the period of its political prominence, Ceasarea contained a large and influential Jewish community. Several factors account for this. Caesarea's commerical and general economic importance was enough to attract large numbers of Jews to the city. Certainly its manifold institutions of culture and entertainment would have been appreciated by many. Of no less significance were certain political considerations. Political centers invariably provide focal points for diverse interests within a given region, both towards obtaining favorable legislation and thwarting adverse decrees. Power begets power: a group might seek strong representation in such centers in order to influence the authorities and, in turn, increase its prestige with the people. Thus, for example, the center of early Christianity gravitated towards Rome, and under medieval Islam, Babylonian Jewish authorities relocated in Baghdad. From the first century onward Caesarea constituted the major political center in Palestine; to the Jews of the province it was the seat of power. Politically and juridically no rival existed, despite both the resentment against Rome in certain quarters stemming from the defeats of 70 and 135, and the political reality of a Y a v n e , Sepphoris or Tiberias. Jewish leaders thus frequented Caesarea, and during the period of rapprochement, Rabbi Judah I encouraged large numbers of Jews to settle there. The Caesarean Jewish community undoubtedly performed important functions in Palestinian Jewish political life under the late Empire, and, as with other aspects of community hfe, this found its fullest expression in the figure of R. Abbahu. Owing perhaps to his many achievements and varied activities, R. Abbahu gained special recognition from the Romans. Evidence of his unique status is to be found throughout rabbinic literature. In one instance he is referred to as 'an important man',^*-* and in another, the phrase 'a man of rank' (•"'ID NIlW—Isaiah 3:3) is applied to him: It is written 'a man of rank'—one whose generation is favored on his account—above (i.e. by Heaven), one such as R. Hanina b. 57 R. Hoshaya is reputed to have studied the Book of Creation (Laws of Creation) every Sabbath eve with R. Hanina. A third-year old calf would miraculously appear, which the sages would then eat (B Shabbat 65b, 57b). Cf. Caesarea Under Roman Rule, chap. 5. 5« J. 'Avoda Zara 28a.

R. A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A

67

Dosa; below (i.e. by earthly powers), one such as R. Abbahu of Caesarea.®*' R. Abbahu's entree into Caesarea's governing circles is reflected in his role as intermediary between certain rabbinic authorities and the Roman government. The three leading Tiberian rabbis of his day, R. Ami, R. Asi and R. Hiyya, once convicted a woman named Tamar, who, refusing to accept their judgement, proceeded to Caesarea to appeal the case with the Roman authorities. The three rabbis understood the gravity of the situation, i.e. such a precedent might lead to other appeals and undermine their authority; thus they asked R. Abbahu to intercede with the governor's officium on their behalf. R. Abbahu failed, not because he was unable to persuade the officials to cooperate, but because Tamar refused to acquiesce.®* A most revealing source in this regard notes the laudes offered by the women of the governor's court in Caesarea whenever R. Abbahu appeared: When R. Abbahu came from the academy to Caesar's (i.e. the Caesarean proconsul) house, the women of Caesar's house would greet him thus: "Leader of his people, spokesman of his nation, a glowing lamp, blessed be your coming in peace". ®2 Such an acclamation, unparalleled in rabbinic literature, is striking evidence of the recognition accorded R. Abbahu by the Roman government as representative and spokesman of his people. Frequently the phrase 'of the house of Caesar' is used in conjunction with R. Abbahu. We have already cited one example in the Talmudic explanation of the Biblical phrase 'a man of rank'. On several occasions, important sages extended themselves to pay him deference " i n honor of (or respect for) the house of Caesar." R. Ami and R. Asi refused open contradiction of a sage, either R, Hiyya or R. Abbahu, and merely turned their backs. The Talmud explains that, if indeed R. Abbahu was meant, the reason for this refusal was obviously due to 'respect for the house of Caesar'.®^ During a discussion between the wife of R. Abbahu and the wife

*" 61 82 83

B J B B

Hagiga 14a. Megilla I I I , 74a and Lieberman, "Martyrs of Caesarea", p. 397. Sanhedrin 14a; B Ketubot 17a. Yevamot 65a; B Yoma 73a.

68

L E E I. L E V I N E

of his Amora,®* the latter bitterly complained that her husband, no less learned than R. Abbahu, had to stand before him and bend down in his presence (in order to hear his words). The only reason for this, she added, was 'respect for the house of Caesar'.®^ Finally, when R. H i y y a travelled with R. Abbahu, he was wont to accompany the latter to his lodgings before retiring to his own, once again, in 'respect for the house of Caesar'.®® Ancient sources contain several parallels to the phrase 'of the house of Caesar'. It is used several centuries earlier in connection with Agrippa I. In narrating the Alexandrian pogroms of 38 C.E., Philo refers to Agrippa as 'a member of the house of Caesar' {•nc, T w v Ix TYjc, KoLiGocpoq otxta^).®' At that time Agrippa, enjoying close ties with the emperor Gains, had been appointed ruler over the territory of Philip and, in fact, was en route to Palestine to assume his post. Again, in the third and fourth centuries, a group of Imperial officials are called caesariani ('those of the house of Caesar'), an exact translation of the title used with respect to R. Abbahu.®^ In these two parallels, Agrippa and the caesariani, we find two rather different meanings of the title. With regard to Agrippa, the title is unofficial: 'House of Caesar' refers to one on intimate terms with the emperor, eating at his table and enjoying his companionship. R. Abbahu's activities in Caesarea bear some resemblance to Agrippa's at Rome. Just as Agrippa had been approached to intercede on behalf of the Jews against the Alexandrians,®^ so eminent rabbinic authorities appealed to R. Abbahu to intervene on their behalf with the Roman government. This is well illustrated in the Tamar incident cited above. The functions of the caesariani were altogether different. Their positions were more defined and they served as lower officials in the Imperial bureaucracy by helping to administer the emperor's lands and collecting revenues.'" We have no w a y of determining 6 4 A functionary of the academies, who stood next to the sage and repeated his words for all to hear; cf. Jeivish Encyclopedia, I, 527-528; Encyclopedia Judaica, II, 863 f. 6 5 B Sota 40a. 6 6 Ibid. 6 ' Philo, Flaccus, #35. 6** Codex Theodosianus, I X , 42, 4; X, i , 5; X, 7, 1-2; X, 8, 2; Codex Justinianus, X, I , 5. On the esteem in which some of these officials were held; cf Eusebius, Ecclestiastical History, V I I I , i , 4; V I I I , 6, 5. 6 » Philo, Gaius, #266 f. 7 0 Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyclopddie, I, 5, 1295-1296; A. H. M. Jones,

R, A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A

69

R. Abbahu's position and status. The sources do not even allow an educated guess, much less a definitive conclusion. Nevertheless, it is clear that R. Abbahu enjoyed a unique status with the Roman government and was considered a representative and spokesman of his people. His social, economic and intellectual stature undoubtedly won him this recognition, as it also ensured him the respect of important segments of the ])opulation: wealthy Jewish merchants, acculturated Jews of the large'coastal cities, rabbis in various locales and the folk loyal to them. The question arises as to whether Roman recognition of a man like R. Abbahu was a fortuitous quirk of history or part of a deliberate governmental plan. If the latter, why was not the Patriarch accorded such recognition ? Throughout the third century, and even in the second, the Patriarch was the acknowledged political leader of Palestinian Jewry in particular, and perhaps of Roman Jewry generally.'* W h y then did the Tiberian sages turn to R. Abbahu instead of the Patriarch, who was then residing in Tiberias ? W h y the recurrent association of the Caesarean rabbi with the proconsul's officium, a relationship commanding a great deal of respect on the part of the rabbis ? The late third century was a time of increased activity in the East b y the Imperial government. Rome strengthened the area politically, militarily and economically to offset the effects of the third century, anarchy raids by desert tribes and the threat of imminent attack by Sassanian Persia. The limes built by Diocletian were intended primarily to counter desert marauders.'^ In response to the tensions with Persia, the emperor adopted a series of measures aimed at strengthening his eastern frontier. Reorganizing the provinces administratively and militarily, he altered boundaries, paved new roads, appointed new officials and perhaps even created a new province, Arabia Augusta Libanensis, centering around Damascus.'^ Troops along the Danube were prepared for the evenThe Later Roman Empire 284-602 (2 vols.; Norman, 1964), index; idem., Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford, i960), pp. 165-166 ( = JRS, X X X I X (1949), 47)71 Cf. Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, pp. 175-253. 72 W. Seston, Diocletian et la tetrarchie (Paris, 1940), pp. 163-164. Cf. also M. Avi-Yonah, " T h e Date of the Limes Palestinae", Eretz Yisrael, V (1958), 135-137; Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, ed. A. Negev (Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 188-190. 73 Seston, DiocUtian, pp. 287-293, as well as the interpretation of A. Alt, "Augusta Libanensis", ZDPV, L X X I (1955), 173 f. Cf. also Y . Aharoni, 'Atiqot, I, 109-114; II, 152-154.

70

L E E I. L E V I N E

tuality of an all-out war in which they would constitute the main body of reserves.'* In the Palestine environs Diocletian is reputed to have founded cities,'^ established a fair in Tyre,'® and constructed some kind of " l a k e " (perhaps a q u e d u c t ) . " Concurrent with such activity, it is not surprising that Diocletian took measures to insure the loyalty of the eastern peoples. This was particularly important regarding the Jews. Many lived in Babylonia, a western sector of the Persian Empire. A t the very least, such a policy would gain Jewish support in the eastern E m pire if war broke out; at best, it would neutralize the Jews of Persia or induce them to give the Sassanian cause only token backing. Several centuries earlier Trajan's invasion of Parthia had been seriously threatened by Jews' revolting throughout the eastern Empire and Mesopotamia.'^ This lesson was not forgotten by Juhan some seventy years later during his Persian campaign,'^ nor, from all indications, by Diocletian. One other consideration may have influenced Diocletian's attitude. His confrontation with Christianity, which resulted in a severe persecution several years later, may have led him to strengthen ties and assure the loyalty of other segments within the Empire, including the Jews. So, for example, when the persecution did in fact erupt, Jews were accorded a significant privilege b y being exempted from the Imperial decrees requiring Christians and Samaritans to offer sacrifices to the gods.^" 7 * Seston, Diocletian, p. 167. 7 5 A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), p. 87. On the founding of Diocletianopohs, cf. Eusebius, Vita, III, i, 9. 7 6 J '•Avoda Zara I, 4, 39d. 7 7 J Kelaim I X , 4, 32c. 7 8 Cf. S. Applebaum, "Notes on the Jewish Revolt Under Trajan", JJS, II (1950-51), 26-30; A. Fuks, "Aspects of the Jewish Revolt in A. D. 1 1 5 - 1 1 7 " , JRS, L I (1961), 98-104; E. M. Smallwood, "Palestine in ca. A . D . 1 1 5 - 1 1 8 " , Historia, II (1962), 500-510; Y . Gutman, " T h e Wars of the Jews Under Trajan", Sefer Assaf, ed. M. Cassuto et al (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1953), pp. 149-184; A. Shalit, "Roman Policy in the Orient From Nero to Trajan" (Hebrew), Tarbiz, V I I (1936), 159-180. 7 9 M. Adler, " T h e Emperor Julian and the Jews", JQR, V (1893), 619, suggests that the building of the Jerusalem Temple was calculated to win over "the numerous Persian Israelites" to Julian's side in his war against Shapur II. Cf. also J. Bidez, La vie de I'empereur Julien (Paris, 1930), pp. 305-309; J. Vogt, Kaiser Julian und das Judentum (Leipzig, 1939), pp. 34 f.; Levy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism, pp. 221 f.; M. Avi-Yonah, In the Days of Rome and Byzantium^ (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 161-177. J 'Avoda Zara V, 4, 44d. A further indication of the Jews increased status under Diocletian may be indicated b y an inscription recently dis-

R. A B B A H U

OF C A E S A R E A

7I

Perhaps ihustrative of the enthusiastic support accorded Diocletian by many Jews is the behavior of no less a sage than R. Hiyya bar Abba. When Diocletian once visited Tyre, R. H i y y a walked through a cemetery—forbidden to a priest like himself-—in order to catch a glimpse of the emperor: When Diocletian the emperor came here (i.e. to Palestine) they saw R. Hiyya bar Abba walking on graves (i.e. in a cemetery) of Tyre in order to see him.^^ Ordinarily the Patriarchate would be expected to reap the political benefits of such good-will towards the Jews. At this particular time, however, the office appears to have been relatively weak vis-a-vis Jew as well as Roman. In 293, a rescript was issued to one Judah b y the Imperial government. Although the language of the text is oblique, the emperor apparently tried to increase the jurisdiction and authority of the Patriarchal office, and the Judah mentioned was in fact R. Judah I I I : Judae privatorum consensus iudicem non facit cum, qui nulli praeest iudico, nec quod is statuit rei iudicatae continet auctoritatem. To Judah. The agreement of individuals does not make anyone a judge who does not stand at the head of a recognized court, nor is there vahdity to the decisions which he renders.'^^ Moreover, it was during this generation that the stature of the Patriarchs in the eyes of the sages decreased, owing to both the former's limited knowledge of Jewish law and the latter's resentment of Patriarchal practices. In Caesarea as well as Tiberias, rabbis were wont to castigate the Patriarch and his appointees publicly: Jacob from the village of Nevoraia interpreted this particular verse in the Maradata synagogue in Caesarea, and the rabbis praised him (for it). "Woe to him who says to wood,' Awake' {Hahb. 2:19)—this refers to an elder appointed because of his money; 'Arise' to a dumb stone, can it teach ? {ibid.)—Is such a person able to teach ? 'Behold it is covered with gold and silver' {ibid.)—because of his money, he is appointed; 'And no breath is within it' {ibid.)—he knows nothing. covered in Sinai. According to A. Negev, the inscription speaks of one Valerius, son of Antigonos, a Jew, who was a strategos in E g y p t in the year 299/300. Cf. his The Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, Sinai, #9, Eretz Yisrael, xii (1975). 81 J Berakhot III, i , 6a; J Nazir V I I , i , 56a. 82 Codex Justinianus III, 13, 3. Cf. B. Z. Dinur, "Diocletian's Rescript to Judah from the Y e a r 293 and the Struggle Between the Patriarchate and Sanhedrin in Palestine" (Hebrew), Klein-Gulak Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1942), pp. 76-93-

72

LEE L LEVINE

If then you wish to ask a question on rehgious matters (ht. from the Torah), there is R. Isaac b. R. Eliezar in the Maradata synagogue in Caesarea. 'And God is in his Holy Temple, be silent before him' {ibid. v. 20), (this refers to R. Isaac) who is like God in his Holy Temple." Even assuming the tendentiousness of our sources, reflecting as they do the attitudes and thoughts of the rabbis, the impression remains that the Patriarchs enjoyed far less religious and intellectual authority at that time than their predecessors. Rabbinic literature has preserved several accounts of Patriarchs turning to various sages for consultation. A ducenarius presented R. Judah (II) Nesiah with a baskctfull of denarii. He took one of them and returned the others. He (R. Judah) then asked Resh Lakish (about the one he retained). The latter said: "Throw it away (lit. take this favor to the Dead Sea). . . R. Abbahu said: "A similar situation happened to me. Rabban Gamaliel (IV), son of Rabbi (Judah Nesiah) asked: 'Is it permissible for me to go to the fair (in Tyre)', and I forbade him". . . . How might one explain the two situations? Rabban Gamaliel was of inferior stature and R. Abbahu attempted to restrict him; R. Judah Nesiah was of great stature and Resh Lakish tried to restrict (the use of) the object.*^* It was not uncommon for the Patriarch of the third and fourth centuries to turn to the sages for advice on ritual m a t t e r s . T h e s e two instances, however, are unique. In each case the sage involved adopted a strict position in replying to the Patriarch. Whereas in the former incident Resh Lakish only restricted use of a particular object, he was nevertheless dealing with a prominent figure. Thus his ability to command the latter's respect is of significance. In the case of Rabban Gamaliel and R. Abbahu, the Patriarch was a less important figure, yet R. Abbahu regulated his personal behavior. This last account leaves no doubt that the Patriarch was asking 83 Midrash Samuel V I I , 6, 34b. Cf. also B Sanhedrin 7b; J Bikkurim III, 3, 65d, as well as comments of S. Lieberman, "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries", JQR, X X X V I (1946), 362; G. Allon, Studies in Jewish History (Hebrew) (2 vols.; Tel-Aviv, 1958), II, 45 f. 84 J 'Avoda Zara I, i , 39b. Cf. also B 'Avoda Zara 6b. 85 R. Mani was queried by R. Judah IV or V, as to whether he was allowed to eat just before the onset of the Passover holiday (J Pesahim X, i , 37b). R. Judah II also asked R. Ami about the possibility of reusing pagan vessels (B 'Avoda Zara 33b), but there is no indication that this was anything but a theoretical question, and on several occasions R. Ami offered advice to the Patriarch on customs of fasting (B Ta'anit 14b, 25b).

R. A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A

73

whether the visit was permitted him, and the Caesarean sage had httle compunction in declaring it prohibited. Both events recorded in the above source occurred in the latter half of the third century. Finahy the weakening of the Patriarchate towards the end of the third century C.E., at least as far as religious affairs were concerned, is further reflected in an important tradition preserved in the Palestinian Talmud: R. Abba said: "At first each (of the sages) would appoint his own students (as judges and religious leaders) . . . . They then bestowed honor on this house (i.e. the Patriarchate) saying, 'If the court makes an appointment without the consent of the Patriarch, then the appointment is of no validity, but if the Patriarch makes an appointment without the consent of the court, then the appointment is valid.' They subsequently decreed that the court can only make an appointment with the consent of the Patriarch, and the Patriarch can only appoint with the consent of the court. R. Abba (late third-early fourth century) thus delineates three distinct periods in the relations between sages and Patriarchate. At first each sage was free to ordain his own students; then the Patriarchate acquired, to all intents and purposes, exclusive rights. Only later was the Patriarch forced to relent and share his jurisdiction with the sages on an equal basis. A crucial question regarding this tradition is one of chronology. When did these changes take place ? The first period included at the very least the early Y a v n e a n era (70-90 C.E.). The assumption of Patriarchal powers took place either under Rabban Gamaliel II of Y a v n e or more, hkely, in the days of R. Judah I (ca. 175-225).^' Even if the former alternative is correct and the Patriarchate had already crystahized by the early second century, it is certain that these prerogatives continued through the period of R. Judah I and probably down to the time of his grandson, R. Judah II (ca. 270). The final stage, therefore, falls clearly within R. Abbahu's lifetime, the last decades of the third century, and is thus further evidence of the temporary decline of the Patriarchate as the all-dominant political-religious institution within Palestinian Jewry. Moreover, despite the rescript cited above, the relationship between the emperor Diocletian and the Patriarchate appears problematic. A rather detailed account has been preserved of the 86 J Sanhedrin I, 19a. Cf. also J Ta'anit IV, 68a; Ecclesiastes Rabba V I I , 16. 87 For another opinion; cf. Mantel, Studies, p. 38.

74

L E E I. L E V I N E

emperor taking offense at the barbs of Jewish students and summoning the Patriarch to appear before him at Caesarea

Paneas

immediately following the Sabbath. These orders were not delivered to the Patriarch until just before the Sabbath, thus forcing the latter to desecrate the holy day in order to reach the emperor in time. When the Patriarch finally did arrive, he was subjected to a series of i n s u l t s . W h i l e this account has clearly been embelhshed and in its present form is more apocryphal than factual, dismissing it entirely as fable would be unwarranted.**^ While assuming historical kernels in such sources can often be risky, some basis in fact seems likely for a tradition which stands in such marked contrast to the otherwise positive reports in rabbinic literature concerning Diocletian.^® 88 J Terumol V I I I , l o , 46b; Genesis Rabba L X I I I , 8, ed. Thcodor-Albcck, pp. 688-689. 89 I t is certainly possible that the rabbis intentially preserved and elaborated on this story which served to discredit the Patriarch by depicting him as a desecrator of the Sabbath and an unworthy candidate to represent the people before the Roman government. It is doubtful, however, whether they would have invented such an account. 90 Several attempts have been made to account for the variant behavior of Diocletian vis-a-vis Jews. Marmorstein, for example, suggests that the decrees against the Jews were not the product o f Diocletian's hand, but were instigated by the Caesar, Galerius ("Diocletian a la lumiere de la litterature rabbinique", REJ, X C V H I (1934), 26). Gractz also emphasizes the generall}^ favorable disposition of the emperor towards the Jews and claims that any antagonistic posture was caused by the prodding of their enemies, presumably among his counselors (Geschichte der Juden (11 vols.; Leipzig, 1897-1911), IV, 277). This problem may be linked to another question concerning Diocletian: when did he visit Palestine ? Frankel, following Mommsen, and more recently Baer, have argued that Diocletian spent some three months in Tiberias in 286 and issued a series of edicts from there (Frankel, Introduction to the Palestinian Talmud (Hebrew) (Reprint; Jerusalem, 1967), pp. i46a-b; T. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften II—Juristische Schriften (Berlin, 1965), pp. 268-269; Baer, "Israel, the Christian Church and the Roman Empire", Scripta Hierosolymitana, V I I , 123-128). Graetz, following Clinton, claims that Diocletian's only visit to Palestine was in 297-298 on his w a y to E g y p t (Grraetz, Geschichte, IV, 277-278; H. F. Clinton, Fasti Romani (Oxford, 1845), I, 339). He passed through some of the coastal cities as evidenced by Eusebius' remark that he had seen both the emperor and young Constantine on that occasion {Vita Constantina, I, 19). These claims are not necessarily contradictory. From what is known of Diocletian's whereabouts during the first years of his reign, he may well have spent time in Tiberias, and it is generally acknowledged that he passed through Palestine several times on his w a y to and from E g y p t , where he quelled the rebellion of Domitius Domitianus in 296-297 (Seston, Diocletian, p. 1 6 1 ; H. Mattingly, " T h e Imperial Recovery", CAH, X I I , 335; Jones, Later Roman Empire, I, 39).

R. A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A

75

One further factor may be of consequence in accounting for R. Abbahu's prominence. On several occasions, Tfra Hormizd, mother of Shapur II (309-379), gave money to a number of Babylonian rabbis for charitable purposes. Once she sent 400 dinars to R. Ami in Tiberias, but the latter refused to accept the gift. When she sent the money to R a b a instead, he accepted it in order not to offend the authorities (mD^^n n^b^ miva).^* Although impossible to date with precision, this event, at the very least, indicates the potential ties between Palestinian rabbinic circles and the Sassanian authorities, a situation which Diocletian, or any other Roman emperor, might wish to forestall. In light of the situation described above, the decision of the Roman government to cultivate ties with someone other than the Patriarch is understandable. Such an historical context would account for the rise of a non-Patriarch to a position of power and authority in Palestine. The Romans hoped to counter overtures by the Sassanians to the Palestinian rabbinate and to secure a popular pro-Roman Jewish leader to oversee the affairs of his coreligionists and represent their interests. A man of considerable wealth and learning, a leader of a large and important Jewish community enjoying good relations with the Patriarchate as well as nonThus, the hostile decrees placing the emperor in the Tiberias—Caesarea Paneas area could have been issued in 286 (on his decree against the people of Paneas, whose Jewish identity has been disputed; cf. J SheviHt I X , 2, 38d; Marmorstein, "Diocletian", p. 28; Lieberman, "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries", pp. 350-351), while his more favorable attitude may date from the 297 visit. Rabbinic sources lend further credence to this suggestion by noting that the incident at Caesarea Paneas involving the emperor took place soon after Diocletian became emperor, while the enthusiasm of R. H i y y a at Tyre is best dated to his later journey. 9 1 B Bava Batra loh. 9 2 The possibility of political overtones to the queen's generosity is strengthened by the fact that several decades earlier a number of Tiberian rabbis, including R. Asi, R. Ami's colleague, had been involved in a conspiracy against Zenobia and the Palmyrenes, then ruling Palestine; cf. J Terumot V I I I , 10, 46b and remarks of S. Lieberman, "vSix Words from Ecclesiastes R a b b a " (Hebrew), Essays in Jewish History and Philology, ed. M. Dorman et al (Tel Aviv, 1970), p. 229. Compare also Lieberman's remarks on the reason for Roman opposition to the practice of intercalation of the calendar and its subsequent publication by Hillel II in 358 ("Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries", p. 331-332). 9 3 R. Abbahu may have carried out at an earlier point in his life certain missions for the Patriarch (B 'Eruvin 53b), as did other leading rabbis (cf. J Hagiga, I, 7, 76c; Mantel, Stttdies, pp. 190 f.). His association with the Patriarchate is futher evidenced by the reaction of a rabbi who had witnessed

76

L E E I. L E V I N E

Jewish communities, a rabbi who was one of the pillars of the Palestinian rabbinate, itself commanding the allegiance and respect of a significant proportion of the Jewish community, R. Abbahu was indeed a logical candidate.^* In the history of the Jews in Palestine following the destruction of the Temple, political power resided traditionally with the Patriarch, a descendant of the house of Hillel. Nevertheless the fortunes and prestige of the Patriarchate were not always constant. For a limited period toward the close of the third century, political recognition was accorded a Caesarean rabbi, a recognition wellreceived among his colleagues as well as among non-Jews. R. Abbahu's political stature in turn affected his intellectualreligious position among other sages. It may not be coincidental that during this period Tiberian sages frequented Caesarea. The rise of the Caesarean academy and its centrality in Palestinian rabbinic life was undoubtedly due to the esteemed position of its head, R. Abbahu. For a brief moment Caesarea became the religious and political center of Palestinian Jewry. the proceedings of a case involving the Patriarch and one of his servants. The case had been heard by a court on which R. Abbahu sat; the rabbi remarked that the legal merits of the decision were questionable, since the judges were obviously prejudiced in favor of the Patriarch (B Ketubot 84b). Finally, R. Abbahu was regularly reappointed by the Patriarch as a judge, a privilege not necessarily enjoyed by other rabbis; cf. J Bikkurim I I I , 3, 65d; Lieberman, "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries", pp. 360-364. 94 R. Abbahu's eminent political position may explain his extensive travels throughout Palestine and the Roman East, as recorded in rabbinic literature. Mentioned several times at Lydda {Leviticus Rabba X X X V , 12, ed. Margoliot, pp. 830-831; J Berakhot V I I I , i, 12a; B 'Eruvin 53b), and Tiberias (J Beza I, 6, 6oc; Pesikta de Rav Kahana IV, ed. Mandelbaum, pp. 68-69 and parallels), a Tiberian village {Pesikta Rabbati—Supplement B, ed. Friedman, p. 196b), Arbella (J SheviHt V I , 3, 36d), and perhaps Usha (B Ketubot 50a). Outside of Palestine he visited Alexandria (J 'Eruvin I I I , 9, 21c), possibly Tarsus {Pesikta Rabbati X V I , ed. Friedman, p. 78b. Cf. 'Arukh Hashalem, ed. Kohut, IV, 88), and Bostra (J Halla IV, 10, 6oa; J Shabbat I I I , i , 5c; Lamentations Rabba I I I , 17, ed. Buber, p. 65b). Other sources speak of his travels, without mentioning specific places (B Sota 40a; Yalkut Shimoni—end of Parshat Bereshit).

"CONJECTURE" AND INTERPOLATION TRANSLATING RABBINIC TEXTS Illustrated by a chapter from Tanna Debe

IN

Eliyyahu

WILLIAM G. B R A U D E Providence, Rhode Island After intense examination of the opening paragraph in Tanna debe Eliyyahu's introductory chapter, Morton Smith made the following observation: "History is like a midrashic text, the ascertainable facts being the words. To record merely the ascertainable facts is like translating a midrash word by word—each word of the text will be correctly recorded, but almost nobody will see the connections, the whole will be incomprehensible. If you want to make sense of the midrash you must produce an interpretive translation which explains how the commentators go from the Biblical words to their conclusions, explains, that is, the connections of the elements. Similarly if you want to produce a comprehensible history you must attempt to explain the connections of the ascertainable facts and make clear how one led to another. But these connections— historic and midrashic a l i k e — are not stated, they have to be inferred, that is, conjectured. And the conjectures may be wrong. So any correct translation or any true history must be conjectured. If conjectural, it may be false, but if not conjectural it must be false." To illustrate the validity of this observation, two passages from Tanna debe Ehyyahu's introductory chapter will be first presented in an Englished version which has no recourse to what Morton Smith calls "conjecture," the version being "hteral" in keeping with what is erroneously touted as "the scientific method" in translation. Passage i , the paragraph which Morton Smith examined: "So He drove out Adam (Gen. 3:24). This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him a bill of divorce as to a woman. And He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim [ibid.). This teaches that the cherubim preceded the work of creation. And the flaming sword which turned every way [ibid.)—that is, Gehenna. To keep the way [ibid.)—the way of right conduct. This teaches that

78

W I L L I A M G. B R A U D E

the way of right conduct precedes (or: 'is more important than') everything (or: 'ah alse'). The tree of life {ibid.). The tree of hfe can only mean Torah, as is said She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her (Prov. 3:18)." The above translated in strict compliance with "scientific" principles makes no sense. To begin with, the verse saying that God drove out A d a m suggests no reason for the commentator's conclusion that He divorced Adam as a man might divorce a woman. Moreover in the context the statement that the cherubim preceded the work of creation appears not to be proved nor to have any significance. Furthermore, why a flaming sword which turned every way should be identified as Gehenna is not at all clear. Nor is it clear how Gehenna is to keep the way to right conduct or the way to Torah. Finally, the so-called "scientific" translation provides no intelligible link with what follows in the rest of the chapter. To suppose that the author of Tanna debe E l i y y a h u — a n d the work has a single author—was rambling or woolgathering is typical modernist arrogance. For the author of Tanna debe Eliyyahu was a master stylist—^his Hebrew lucid and flowing; and there is no reason to assume that at the very opening of his work he would perpetrate what only a polite person might call " a miscellany." The fact that the theme of Adam's being driven out of the Garden of Eden is echoed both at the end of the introductory chapter (p. 6), and at the end of the first part of Tanna debe Eliyyahu (p. 164) proves the theme's importance in the structure of the work. Accordingly, the serious translator who is not content or, even worse, does not intend to expose Rabbinic literature to ridicule must ferret out, and in clear language present the opening paragraph's underlying meaning which Tanna debe Eliyyahu's author chose to couch in riddhng fashion. Passage 2: Toward the end of the chapter a magus asks the author of Tanna debe Eliyyahu, " W h y did God create reptiles and creeping things" ? The author replies by saying—as a literal and unimaginative translation would have i t — " G o d is a judge, but He is also a God who is holy and merciful, loving and truthful for ever and ever and ever," a succession of adjectives which reflect creditably on the author's piety, but neither on his awareness of the thrust of the magus' question, nor of the need for relevance in the reply. Hence we translate: "God is a judge who is indeed holy and just, but He is also loving because He is perceptive [of man's con-

CONJECTURE

A N D I N T E R P O L A T I O N IN R A B B I N I C T E X T S

79

dition] for ever and ever and ever." With these introductory words, the respondent goes on to argue that such an understanding God is wilhng to aUow hfe to the worst of mankind even as He ahows it to the most poisonous of reptiles to whose existence at least portions of mankind thus owe their very hves. In the translation offered below, the reader will notice instances in which clauses or even entire sentences are enclosed within square brackets. Most such interpolations are deemed necessary because the structure of the original is asyndetic, lacking as it does the kind of transitions which Enghsh letters provide in abundance. Lastly, a brief bibliographical note. Tanna debe Eliyyahu, which has been described as "the jewel of haggadic hterature", is almost a unicum among Rabbinic works in that it bears the stamp not of an editor but of an author who may have flourished, so sundry scholars say, during any century—take your choice—between the third to the tenth C.E., in—and again there is a choice—-Palestine, Babylonia, Rome, or southern Italy. Our tentative opinion is in accord with Meir Friedmann and Mordecai Margulies who maintain that Tanna debe Eliyyahu's author was a Babylonian who flourished in the third century. The name Tanna debe E h y y a h u means "Teacher of," or, "Teaching" according to the Academy of Elijah." The principal editions of the work are: Venice, 1598, which reproduced a MS of the year 1186; Prague, 1677; Warsaw, 1880; and Meir Friedmann's Vienna, 1902-04 based on a Vatican MS of the year 1073, the edition used for the translation offered herein. An anonymous abridgment in Yiddish (New York, 5716 [1956], offset) is the only other translation available. SUMMARY

Why God Does Not Make Use of Gehenna The work begins with an account of God's withdrawal from earth to heaven because of Adam's transgression. At the same time He withdrew, He brought Gehenna's fire into existence in order to assure man's obedience to the precepts of Torah. Nevertheless, those whose transgressions make them deserve to be punished in Gehenna are rarely punished therein. For He who knows the beginning and the end of all things, foreseeing that the descendants of Adam would provoke His wrath resolved to put their misdeeds out of m i n d — H e chose to see the god in mankind and not the evil.

80

WILLIAM G. B R A U D E

And as He is merciful to men, so He would have them be merciful to one another as Mordecai, for example, was merciful to Esther. What did God provide for Israel to assure that He would put out of mind their offenses against Him? He provided them with the Sabbath day, a day set aside for the study of Torah and hence a day for men to make their peace with God and with their fellow men. In the study of Torah they tremble in their anxiety to grasp its sense so exactly as never to feel shame or embarrassment when they are told to set forth a text from Scripture or from Mishnah. The day that God provided for Israel may also be taken to refer to the D a y of Atonement, the day on which God rejoices as He pardons Israel's iniquities. Such is the mercy God bestows upon Israel that their iniquities in this world are swept away in order to assure no charges will be made against them in the world-tocome. Thus He removes their names from the book of death and puts them in the book of life. The day that God provided for Israel may also be taken to be the day of Gog, the day when the nations of the world who put forth their hands against Israel wih be sentenced to go down to Gehenna. They will suffer His vengeance because they did not heed the precepts of Torah and because they afflicted Israel. Y e t so great is God's mercy not only towards Israel but toward all mankind that even though Jews and Gentiles alike deserve to be annihilated for their misdeeds. He spares them saying that if He allows life to beasts and even to reptiles and creeping things. He can do no less than allow life to mankind as well. For this reason it may be said that man owes his life on earth to reptiles and creeping things. Despite the evidence of God's mercy, however, there are those who dare to say that God is a devouring fire, quoting from Torah the words fire eternally (Lev. 6: 6) as referring to Him. But these words are to be rightly understood as meaning that like Gehenna fire is an instrument in God's hand which He keeps by Him always as a threat of punishment for those who do not turn away from sin and repent, as is said By fire will the Lord threaten judgment (Isa. 66:i6). CHAPTER I

And He separated Adam ^ (Gen. 3:24), which is to say that the 1 J V : So He drove out the man. But since Scripture has already said The Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, T E regards the meaning "drove o u t " iov grs as a repetition; hence "separated."

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D I N T E R P O L A T I O N IN R A B B I N I C T E X T S

8l

Holy One gave A d a m a bill of separation such as is given to a woman who has been divorced.

Thereupon

God [withdrawing from His

earthly domicile] had His presence dwell [in the first heaven] with the cherubim,^ [whom He had created] prior to [His creation of] the garden of Eden ^ [ibid.), for, as the t e x t imphes, the cherubim were among those angels who had come into being before the entire work of creation.* [Also, at the time of His withdrawal, God made dwell in Gehenna] ^ the heat of the flame

that alternates [with the cold of

ice] ® (ibid.), b y which Gehenna is to assure obedience to the way {ibid.). B y way here is meant the w a y of right conduct, the revelation of whose specific commands,' as the t e x t further implies, had preceded all [others],^ indeed had preceded the revelation of the tree of life {ibid.), the tree of life being Torah, of which Scripture says " S h e is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her" (Prov. 3:18). 2 The cherubim are frequently referred to as part or support of God's scat in heaven (see i Sam. 4:4, 2 Sam. 6:2, 2 Kings 19:13, Isa. 37:16). The firmament, that is the first heaven, is likewise described as set "over the head of the cherubim" (Ezek. 10:1). Consequently, here in the reference to angels known as cherubim, T E sees an allusion to the tradition that upon Adam's sin, God separating Himself from Adam, withdrew to the first heaven. See Tanhuma, Pekude, 6; ibid., Nasu'', 16; Tanhuma B, Naso\ 24; P R 3:7 [YJS, 18, i, 103]; and P R K M i : i , p. 2. 3 J Y : and He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim. B u t mitikedem., " a t the east of", may also mean "prior t o " ; and the particle el, generally sign of the accusative, may also mean "with"—with the cherubim. And since way-yasken, " H e placed", no longer has " t h e cherubim" as the object, the commentator takes sekinah, " t h e Presence" a nominal form of way-yasken, to be the object implied. 4 Apparently T E reads Gen. 1:1 " I n the beginning He created Elohim'.', that is, angelic powers including those known as cherubim (see Midras han-ne'elam as quoted in Torah selemah, i, p. 35; Gen. Rabbah T A , 21:9, p. 203; and The Apocalypse of Baruch 21:6). Angels other than the cherubim were created on the second day, according to R. Johanan; or, according to R. Hanina, on the fifth day (see Tanhuma B, Beresit, i ) . 5 Apparently T E follows the tradition that the place of Gehenna came into being on the second day of creation; the Garden of Eden on the third d a y ; and Gehenna's fire on the sixth day following Adam's offense (see B. Pes 34a). 6 J V : The flaming sword which turned every way. B u t by a slight change of vowels hereb, "sword", may be read horeb, " h e a t " . In Gehenna, heat alternates with cold. See P R K M 10:4; and Tanhuma B, Beresit, 23. 7 Adam was given six commands: to refrain from idolatry, to institute civil courts, to refrain from shedding blood, to refrain from unchastity, and to refrain from seizing what belongs to another. See P R K M 12:1, p. 202. 8 Presumably, commands such as the one given to Noah not to cat flesh cut from a living animal, the one given to Abraham concerning the circumcision of Isaac, the one given Jacob forbidding the eating of the sinew of the thigh-vein, and the one ordained for Judah concerning the obligeition to marry a brother's wife who is widowed and childless. See P R K M 12:1, p. 203.

82

WILLIAM G. B R A U D E

Blessed be He the Preserver of the world, blessed be He! ^ Though He knows both beginning and end, and can tell from the beginning what the end of anything is to be long, long before it has been made; though He knows what has been made and what is yet to be made, still [in whatever is made] He chooses to see the good and chooses not to see the evil.^^ Thus because He is content with His portion, He is rich.^^ In His wisdom and with His understanding He created His world and set it on its f o u n d a t i o n . T h e r e u p o n He created Adam and had him lie prone before Him.^* Then, as He scrutinized him till the end of all the generations that would come from him. He foresaw that his descendants would provoke His wrath. Hence He said: If I hold him to account for his successive misdeeds, the world will not endure. I must therefore have his successive misdeeds pass out of mind. And He had them do so. As for the proof, you can readily see it for yourself. When Israel were in the wilderness they befouled themselves with their misdeeds. Thereupon He resolved to have all that they had done pass out of mind, as is said The Lord passed before him (Exod. 34:6). Do. not read passed, but "had pass," that is, He had all their evil pass away from before Him, so that He was able to proclaim Himself Lord, Lord [of mercy] [ibid.]. Men are likewise to have pass from their minds, as in the story of Mordecai, the offenses of others. When Esther said to him something that she should not have said, he became angry at her. Now what was the thing that she should not have said ? She should not have said But I have not been summoned to visit the king (Esther 4 : 1 1 ) . And what was Mordecai's reply? //thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time [and not go to the king], thou and thy father's house » Cf. Mid 4:5. 10 Cf. Isa. 46:10. " See Gen. Rabbah 8:4. 12 Cf. Ab 4 : 1 ; and " T h e glory of the Lord endures for ever, because the Lord rejoices in His works" (Ps. 104:31). 1-* Cf. Prov. 3 :i9. 1 4 Thus apparently R which reads we-hisliko lefanaw, " H e had him lie prone before Him", the implication being that Adam containing within his person all of mankind lay stretched from end to end of the world (PR 23:1 I Y J S , 18, I , 472]). Apparently, conflating the letters kaf and waw at the end of we-hisliko into one letter, the letter tet, Friedmann read the word we-hislit, "made him master over that which is before him". E. E. Urbach in Lesonenu, 21 ( T 9 5 7 ) , 186, calls attention to Friedmann's probable misreading. 1 5 A slight variation in vowels changes wa-ya'abor, " H e passed", into wa-ya'aber, " H e had pass".

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D I N T E R P O L A T I O N IN R A B B I N I C T E X T S

83

will perish (Esther 4:14). Thereupon she turned and spoke to him in the way she should have first spoken so that he praised her words ungrudgingly. And, under the circumstances, what were the words she should have spoken? At once she should have said: Go, gather together all the Jews, and fast ye for me'^^ (Esther 4:16). Thereat he had pass out of his mind the thing she had first said, as is said And Mordecai caused to pass out of mind (Esther 4:17). [In short he acted forgivingly as God would have men act], for of Him it is said Who is a God like tmto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and has the transgression of the remnant of His heritage pass altogether out of mind (Micah 7:18). [Indeed, at the very beginning of time], Adam, according to the Psalmist, proclaimed [that God would have the offenses of mankind pass out of mind]: Though Thine eyes did see [the offenses in] mine unformed substance, in Thy book only those acts which are unblemished have been written down^^ (Ps. 139:16). How are we to understand these words ? That when the Holy One is seated in His court of inquiry with the righteous of the world seated in His presence. He will say to them: My children, such-and-such a generation observed the Torah, and I bestowed upon them what they merited; and such-and-such a man observed the Torah, and I bestowed upon him what he merited. But the iniquities of Israel, I cannot remember; they do not even come to mind, as is said Dwell not on former [offenses] (Isa. 43:18), and also [Offenses] gone by shall not be remembered, nor even come to mind (Isa. 65:17). [What did God provide for Israel in order to have them act in such a w a y as to cause Him to put out of mind their offenses against Him] ? He provided Israel with the Sabbath: Among the days that i&ere to be fashioned, one of those days was to he wholly His (Ps. 139:16). In what sense is it to be wholly His ? Say, a man who labors for six days, rests on the seventh, and so finds himself at peace with his children and the other members of his household. Likewise, a man may labor in the presence of people who are hostile to him, but 1 6 " T o call upon God in trouble is to rely on Him and hence 'proper' or right—in other words, in accordance with Derek ^eres" (OT, 122). 1 7 A slight variation in vowels changes way-ya'abor, "went his way", to way-ya'aber, "caused to pass [out of mind]." 1 8 J V : but in Thy book they were all written down. B u t apparently T E takes kullam, "all of them", to mean "those acts which are whole". 1 9 So also understood by Samuel Taniado in his commentary Keli paz, Venice, 1657.

84

W I L L I A M G. B R A U D E

then as he rests on the Sabbath, he forgets all the vexation he had previously had. Such is the nature of m a n — t h e day of rest brings about his forgetting of evil, and a day of trouble brings about his forgetting of good. The nature of man being what it is, the Holy One said to Israel: My children have I not written for you in My Torah This book of Guidance shall not depart out of thy mouth (Josh. 1:8)? Although you must labor all six days of the week, the Sabbath is to be given over completely to Torah.2® Accordingly it is said that a man should rise earl}/ to study on the Sabbath and then go to the synagogue or to the academy where he is to read Scripture and meditate upon the Prophets. Afterwards, he is to go home and eat and drink to fulfill the command Eat thy bread with joy,, and drink thy wine with a merry heart (Eccles. 9:7). [Thus the man who avails himself of the Sabbath to make his peace with his fellows, at the same time is making his peace with God]. For the contentment of the Holy One comes only from those who are busy with Torah, as is said For the sake of all these things—[the ordinances and laws of Torah]—hath My hand made [the world] (Isa. 66:2). From this very verse in Isaiah [which goes on to say. The man I have regard for . . . trembles in his anxiety [to grasp the exact meaning of My word], the following is inferred: When a man reads [a text] he should have so good a grasp of it that no shame or embarrassment will overcome him when he is told "Stand up and set forth in proper fashion the Scripture you read," or when he is told, "Stand up and set forth in proper fashion the Mishnah you recited." The point is made plain by David, king of Israel, in post-Mosaic Scripture: 0 Lord, in the morning may est Thou be pleased to hear my voice; in the morning I am at once ready to set forth in proper fashion the words which are Thine—indeed I look forward [to having men ask me questions about Thy words] (Ps. 5:4).^^ In another interpretation, the verse Among the days that were to be fashioned, one of those days was to be wholly His (Ps. 139:16) is taken to mean that God provided Israel with the Day of Atonement,

2" And if given over, God will regard the precept in Josh, i :8 as kept. Thus study one day puts out of mind the work done on the other six. See P R 23:9 [YJS, 18, 1,490-91]. 21 The preceding verse—Isa. 66:1—asks Where is the place that may give Me contentment ? 22 So Landau. J V : O Lord, in the m.orning shalt Thou hear my voice, in the morning will I order my prayer unto Thee, and will look forward.

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D INTERPOLATION IN R A B B I N I C T E X T S

85

a day of great joy for Him at whose word the world came into being, He having given it to Israel with abounding love. A parable will explain how God regards the day. There was a mortal king whose servants and members of his household, [after cleaning up the palace], used to take the refuse and throw it out before the king's own doorway. When the king went forth and saw the refuse, great was his rejoicing, [for he knew that the palace was clean]. Thus we are to understand the D a y of Atonement which the Holy One bestowed with abounding love. N a y more! A s God pardons the iniquities of Israel, great is His rejoicing: He has no misgivings. To the mountains and to the hills, to the streams and to the valleys,2* He says. Come and join Me in My great rejoicing for I am about to pardon Israel's iniquities. Hence in the spirit of the verse Remember these things, 0 Jacob (Isa. 44:21), a man should remember all the favors and mercies which God has bestowed upon Israel continually from the day He chose Abraham until the present hour. He having assured Israel I blot out [mahiti], as a thick cloud, thy transgressions (Isa. 44:22). Even as clouds are swept away b y wind, so the iniquities of Israel are swept away in this world and have no power to stand up [and make charges against Israel] in the world-to-come, for the previously cited verse is now to be read / have swept away (mahiti), as a thick cloud, thy transgressions. What is meant b y the words For I have redeemed thee [ibid.) which conclude this verse? They mean. In redeeming you I have removed your name from the book of death and put it in the book of life.^^ Hence it is said For I have redeemed thee. And what follows? Sing, 0 ye heavens (Isa. 22:23), [and join in My rejoicing].2® In still another interpretation, the verse Because among the days that were to be fashioned, one of those days was to be wholly His (Ps. 139:16) is taken to mean that in the time-to come God will have set aside the day of Gog.^' In the eyes of Him at whose word the world came into being, the present time is to be compared with a house23 "There were no more joyous days for Israel than the 15th day of Ab and the D a y of Atonement" (R. Simeon ben Gamaliel in T a 4:8). ** See Ezek 36:4, 25 and R. 'Akiba's comment on Ezek. 36:25 in Y o m a 8:19; Ezek. 36:29, and 8. These verses taken together account for God's bidding the mountains and the valleys to rejoice in the pardon extended to Israel on the D a y of Atonement. So Urbach, ihid., p. 9. 25 See B. R H i6b, and A r l o b . 26 For if mankind were not pardoned, heaven and earth would be destroyed. 27 See Ezek. 38.

86

WILLIAM

G. B R A U D E

holder who hired workmen and kept his eye on them to see which of them did their work faithfully, as is said The eyes of the Lord . . . rtm to and fro through the whole earth (Zech. 4:10). The one who did his work faithfully and the one who did not do his work faithfully—what each one has coming to him wiU be ready at "the feast." 2^ [On the day of Gog], accordingly, the nations of the world, because they put forth their hand against Israel and Jerusalem and against the Temple, will be sentenced to be swept away, to perish from the world, and go down to Gehenna. And the proof ? Y o u can see it for yourself. When Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came and encompassed Jerusalem, the nations of the world spoke up, saying with one voice: W h y should we have ever considered that we would have to reckon with Him whose city and Temple we are about to capture so easily ? Thereupon the holy spirit responded, saying to them: " Y o u cocksure fools, until this hour you had not been condemned to go down into Gehenna. Now, it is of this very hour that Scripture speaks, saying to you Yoiir mother shall be sore ashamed, she that bore you shall be confounded" (Jer. 50:12). Even as the Chaldeans and other nations gathered into many armies who came to help themselves to the possessions of Israel, so the Holy One will gather Gog and his allies upon the mountains of Israel to wreak harsh vengeance upon them, because they did not hearken to Torah's commands, and afflicted Israel. Thus God is quoted as saying / am very sore displeased (Zech. 1:15); and so / will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the nations, because they hearkened not (Micah 5:14); then,-when The day of the Lord Cometh (Zech. 1 4 : 1 ) , / will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle (Zech. 14:2); and at once I, The Lord, shall go forth and fight against those nations (Zech. 14:3). [But why does God put off the day of vengeance against Gog and his allies ? Listen]: One day as I was walking through a great city of the w o r l d , t h e r e was a roundup and I was roughly seized and brought into the king's house where I saw divans lavishly 2 8 Cf. A b 3 : i 6 . 2 9 Sec MTeh 79:2 [YJS, 13, 2, 44). 3<* In tlie two preceding verses it is said Chaldea shall be a spoil . . . because you. rejoiced, O ye that plundered My heritage. 3 1 Instaed of 'olam, "the world", Chanoch Albeck suggests the reading of 'eylam, " E l a m " (Zunz, had-Derasot, 56). Hence "the greatest city in E l a m " , probably Ctesiphon, capital of the Sassanids. See Jacob Mann, " D a t e and Place of Redaction of Seder Eliyyahu Rabba and Zutta", H U C A , 4, 302-10.

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D I N T E R P O L A T I O N IN R A B B I N I C T E X T S

87

spread and silver vessels and gold vessels set out in great number. So, [in resentment of having been seized], I said: The power of vengeance, the power of vengeance, 0 Lord, shine forth (Ps. 94:1). Presently a magus came to me and asked me, "Are you a scholar" ? I replied: " A bit of a one." He said: "li you can answer the particular question I am about to ask, you may go in peace." I replied: " A s k . " He then asked: < " W h y did God create reptiles and creeping things"? I r e p l i e d > : " G o d is a judge who is indeed holy and just, but He is also loving because He is perceptive [of man's condition] for ever and ever and ever. He knows both beginning and end, and can tell from the beginning what the end of anything is to be long, long before it has been made; though He knows what has been made and what is yet to be made, stiU [in whatever is made] He chooses to see the good and chooses not to see the evil. Thus because He is content with His portion, He is rich. In His wisdom and with His understanding He created His world and set it on its foundation. Then He created Adam and brought him into the world. And He created him for no purpose other than that he serve Him with a whole heart and thus find contentment in him and in his descendants after him until the end of all generations. B u t then after Adam was fruitful and multiplied, one [descendant] worshiped the sun and the moon, another worshiped wood and stone, and thus every day Adam's descendants came to be deemed b y Him as deserving annihilation. Nevertheless, upon considering all the work of His hands in the world of His creation, He said: "These—[human beings]—have life, and those—[other creatures]-—have life. These have breath and those have breath; these have desire for food and drink, and those have desire for food and drink. Human beings 32 J V : O Lord, Thou God to whom vengeance helongeth, Thou God to whom vengeance belongeth, shine forth. B u t ^el, " G o d " , may also mean "power". Psalm 94 is the Psalm for the fourth day in the week, the day the sun and the moon were created (Gen. 1:14-19). Even symbolic worship of these luminaries, as practiced by Zoroastrians, was to be punished ( B . R H 31a). Hence here the words The power of vengeance, the power of vengeance, O Lord, shine forth may have a dual thrust. They are directed, to begin with, at the authorities who seized and restrained the author. But they may also be directed at the Manicheism of Zoroastrians for whom Ormazd is light and life, the creator of all that is pure and good in the world; and for whom the antithesis, Ahriman—darkness, filth, and death—produces all that is evil in the world. See Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed. 23, 988, column i . For T E , for the Jew, however, both realms, light and arkness, are one, since the one God "forms light and creates darkness". See Hertz, A P B , 108. 33 In Zoroastrian teaching such creatures are the work of Ahriman, the god of darkness and evil. B u t for T E , as will become evident, such creatures serve an admirable purpose.

88

WILLIAM G. B R A U D E

ought to be. deemed as important as cattle, as beasts, at least as important as the variety of reptiles and creeping things which I created upon the earth." At once He feels some measure of contentment and resolves not to annihilate mankind. And so you see that reptiles and creeping things were created in the world as a means of mankind's preservation. Then the magus brought up another matter saying: Y o u assert that fire is not God. Y e t is it not written in your Torah fire eternally 34 (Lev. 6:6) ? I rephed: My son, when our forebears stood at Mount Sinai to accept the Torah for themselves, they saw no form resembling a human being, nor resembling the form of any creature, nor resembling the form of anything that has breath which the Holy One created on the face of the earth, as is said Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves—for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb (Deut. 4:15): they saw but one G o d — H e is God of gods and Lord of lords (Deut. 10:17)—whose kingdom endures in heaven and on earth as well as in the highest heavens of heavens. And yet you say that God is fire! Fire is no more than a rod to be used upon men on earth. Its use is be to understood by the parable of a king who took a lash and hung it in his house, and then said to his children, to his servants, and to the members of his household: " W i t h this lash I m a y strike you, may smite you, may even kill you"—threatening them, so that in penitence they would turn away from sin. If they do not repent, do not turn back, then God says, " I may have to strike them with the lash, m a y have to smite them, may even have to kill t h e m . " This is what Scripture means by fire eternally and b y the words For by fire imll the Lord threaten judgment (Isa. 66:16), Of course you might attempt to refute me b y quoting the words The Lord thy God is a devouring fire (Deut. 4:24). B u t a parable will explain the intent of these words. The children, servants, and members of the household of a mortal king did not behave properly. So he said to his children, to his servants, and to the members of his household: Because of your ways I will growl at you like a bear, roar at you like a lion,^^] seem! to be coming at you like the angel of death. Such is the intent of The Lord thy God is a devouring fire. 34 According to one Tradition, the fire seemed to rise from the very altar, as though the altar itself were aflame. See Lev. R a b b a h 7:5 (ed. Mordecai Margulies, Jeursalem, 5713 [1953], 159. 35 Cf. Lam. 3:10.

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D I N T E R P O L A T I O N IN R A B B I N I C T E X T S

89

ABBREVIATIONS Gen. Rabbah T A HUCA Landau MTeh

OT PR

I'KKM

R Tanhuma B TE Torah selemah

YJ S Zunz, had-Derasot

[ <

] >

Genesis Rabbah, ed. JuHus 'I'heodor [1849-1923] and Chanoch Albeck [1890-1972], Berlin, 1912-31 Hebrew Union College Anmial Isaac Elijah Landau (1801-76), Ma'aneli Eliyyahu, commentary on Tanna debe Eliyyahu, Wilno, 1839 Midrash Tehillim, ed. Solomon Buber, Wilno, 1891; translated by William G. Braude [1907], New Haven, 1959 (YJS, 13) Max Kadushin, Organic Thinking, New York, 1938 Pesikta Rabbati, ed. Meir Friedmann [1831-1908], Vienna, 1880; translated by William G. Braude, New Haven, 1968 (YJS, 18) I'esikta de-Rab Kahana, ed. Bernard Mandelbaum [1922], 2 vols.. New York, 1962; translated by William G. Braude, Philadelphia, 1975 Vatican MS of the year 1073 upon which T E is based ed. Solomon Buber, Wilno, 1885 Tanna debe Eliyyahu, ed. Meir Friedmann, Vienna, 1902 Menahem Kasher [1895], Compilation of Rabbinic comments on the Pentateuch and commentary thereon, Jerusalem, 1927-69 Yale Judaica Scries Y o m Tob Lippmann Zunz [1794-1886], had-Derasot beYisra^el, translated by Chanoch Albeck, Jerusalem, 5707/1947 Interpolation made for the sake of clarity or based on a parallel reading in another source Insertion made by Meir Friedmann in his edition of Tanna debe Eliyyahu

OTHER

GRECO-ROMAN

CULTS

ICONOCLASM A M O N G T H E

ZOROASTRIANS

MARY B O Y C E University of London The iconoclastic movement in Christianity has been carefully studied, as has Islamic iconomachy, but the origins of both still present problems; and in investigating these consideration should certainly be given to the fact that Zoroastrianism, ancient and until the 9th century A . D . immensely influential, had an iconoclastic movement which preceded both, and which may well have played a part in inspiring them. Zoroastrian iconoclasm has been ignored for various reasons. The history of the faith is poorly documented for all periods before the 17th century A . D . , and has to be pieced together (as far as this is at all possible) from sparse and diverse sources. It is easy, therefore, to overlook whole strands in its composition. Moreover, the assumption that the cult of temple fires was original to it, and remained its sole form of public worship, has obscured this particular issue. That such an assumption has been generally made is in itself a tribute to the success of the Zoroastrian iconoclasts, who triumphed so completely that in the end fire was the sole icon in the temples of their faith, and they and their coreligionists became known to the world at large simply as 'fireworshippers'. The fact is that, though veneration of fire is very ancient among the Iranians, and was of supreme importance in Zoroaster's teachings, the cult of temple fires appears to have been unknown in early Zoroastrianism.1 Indo-Iranian religion had taken shape during mil1 This was argued forcefully by S. Wikander, Feuerpriesler in Kleinasien und Iran, Tund 1946, 56 ff.; but he obscured a sound case by postulating that a temple cult of ever-burning fire had existed independently of Zoroastrianism and before that faith arose (a supposition unsupported by evidence) ; and that this cult was adopted into Zoroastrianism in the 4th century B.C. as a part of the worship of Aradvi Sura Anahita. Since this divinity is a yazatd of water, the unlikelihood of such a supposition was apparent. [Note: the Avestan term yazata, fern, yazatd. Middle Iranian yazatjyazad, 'being worthy of worship' is kept throughout this article rather than being rendered by some imperfect equivalent which would obscure the characteristic Zoroastrian doctrine that all beneficent divine beings were created by Ahura Mazda (who in the beginning alone was), in order to help and serve him in his task of redeeming the world. Having been created, they are to be worshipped in their

94

MARY

BOYCE

lennia of nomadic wanderings on the Central Asian steppes, and its cult was therefore materially very simple, without temples, altars or statues. The Iranians, like the Vedic Indians, held tenaciously to this tradition. The essence of Zoroastrian devotional life was worship of Ahura Mazda, the Creator, in the presence of his own creations, namely the sky, water, earth, plants, animals, man and fire. The last, held to be the all-pervading element which gave life and warmth to the rest, was represented visibly both by the sun on high and by fire on the domestic hearth, which from time immemorial was tended with reverent care and never allowed to go out. In Zoroaster's teachings fire was linked with Asa, the yazata of righteousness and good order; and his followers were enjoined to pray either at their hearths or in the open, turned towards the sun, so that they had fire always before them to help fix their thoughts on righteousness. This tradition of worship under the sky or in the home was continued evidently during the early Achaemenian period. The great sanctuary at Zela in Asia Minor, founded, it is said, in thanksgiving in the 6th century B.C., consisted of an artificial mound raised on the plain so that men could go up to offer their veneration there; ^ and at Pasargadae two massive phnths still stand in the open, one with steps leading up it; and it has been suggested that these were built so that the king, mounting upon the one, could fix his eyes on fire set on the other and thus pray in fitting manner before a great assembly.^ Still in the mid-5th century B.C. Herodotus records that 'as to the usages of the Persians . . . it is not their custom to make and set up statues and temples and altars'.* Instead they chmbed high into the mountains to offer sacrifice there. The Western Iranians were exposed, however, to strong influences from their alien subjects and neighbours—Elamites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Mannai and others—all of whom used statues and altars in their worship. Near Hamadan, in Medean territory, a curious tower-like structure has been excavated, thought to belong to the 8th century own right, although always as subordinate to him. The Zoroastrian yazata is thus both more than an angel, and different in his station from the independent god of a pagan pantheon.] 2 See Strabo, XI.8.4.512. 3 See D. Stronach, 'Urartian and Achaemenian tower temples', JNES 26, 1967, 287; for a detailed account of the plinths see Stronach, Iran III, 1965, 24-27 with PI. V I I . '

I.I3I.

ICONOCLASM A M O N G T H E Z O R O A S T R I A N S

95

B.C., and in it was found an altar, about waist-high, with broad, stepped top and shallow bowl, in which fire was evidently sometimes kindled, for traces of burning remain.^ Moreover, in the carvvings set above the tombs of Darius the Great and his descendants each king is represented as standing on a three-stepped dais, facing fire burning on a three-stepped 'altar'.® In the light both of Herodotus' report, and the absence of temple ruins at Pasargadae and Persepolis,' it is possible that these 'altars' bore occasional fires only (like, perhaps, the second plinth at Pasargadae), placed upon them for the public performance of royal acts of devotion. (Such 'altars', called simply 'fire-holders',^ are still to be found in the outer rooms of all old fire temples in the Yazdi area.) Later usage suggests that such fires were either kindled when needed, or created from embers brought from the nearest hearth fire. Another possibility is that each fire upon a funerary monument was the king's personal fire, that is, his hearth fire, elevated thus to burn in a manner fitting to royal dignity, and dying when he died. The oldest temple ruin as yet to be found in Zoroastrian Persia is one excavated at the Achaemenian capital of Susa.^ This has been attributed, on the evidence of architectural detail, to the reign of Artaxerxes II Memnon (404-359)—the very monarch who is reported to have imposed an image-cult generally upon his subjects.1® He was much attached, we are told, to Anaitis, an alien fertility goddess whose cult had already been adopted by Western Iranians 5 See M. Roaf and D. Stronach, 'Tepe Nush-i Jan, 1970: second interim report', Iran X I , 1973, 132-38 with PI. V I - V I I l . The shallowness of the bowl in the altar top makes it impossible that ever-burning fire should have been maintained there, for this requires a deep bowl of hot ashes to sustain it. The excavators, although acknowledging this fact, nevertheless call the altar a 'fire altar', and the building containing it a 'fire temple'. 8 These carvings are superbly reproduced by E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis III, Chicago 1970. 7 The so-called *Fratadara temple b}^ Persepolis, attributed by G. Widengren {Die Religionen Irans, Stuttgart 1965, 131, 358) to the Achaemenian period, is in fact later. See, with full bibliography, K. Schippmann, Die iranischen Feuerheiligtiimer, Berlin 1971, 177-85. 8 Either ahokhs (the old Zoroastrian term), or kalak, a common Persian word for 'brazier'. 9 See M. Dieulafoy, L'acropole de Suse, Paris 1893, 411 ff.; K. Erdmann, Das iranische Feuerheiligtum, Leipzig 1941, 15-16; Schippmann, op. cit., 266-74.—The term 'Persia' is used throughout the present article in its restricted meaning of Pars (the present Iranian province of Fars). 10 Berossus, fragment apud Agathias II.24, Dindorf, Historici graeci minores, II.221; Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus, V. 65.3. On the form of the goddess' name there see Wikander, Feuerpriester, 61 n. 2.

96

MARY

BOYCE

at the time when Herodotus wrote. She had become assimilated, it seems, to the Iranian river-goddess *Harahvati Aradvi Sura/^ who came to be known thereafter as Aradvi Silra Anahita; and at some point in his long reign Artaxerxes is said to have given orders that statues to her should be erected in many of the chief places of his empire, including Medean Ecbatana (Hamadan), at or near Persepolis itself,^^ and in Bactria in the remote north-east, a noted Zoroastrian stronghold. The cult thus dictatorially established was fostered evidently with the utmost lavishness. Verses in the hymn to Aradvi Siira Anahita are held to describe one such statue, and they present the goddess as wearing golden shoes and earrings, a precious necklace and jewel-encrusted mantle, with a radiate crown upon her head.^'*^ Splendid temples were evidently built to house these costly images, and later that at Ecbatana (tiled, it is said, with silver and with gold-plated columns) was ruthlessly plundered for its wealth by Macedonian soldiery.1* T h e king's power was absolute in Achaemenian Persia; and it is natural that there should have been men, both priest and lay, who were ready to bow to Artaxerxes' will and do their utmost to please him. The verses incorporated in Arodvi's hymn illustrate this conformity ; and possibly the Per.sian word for image, *uzdaesa (Middle Persian uzdes) was coined at this time to justify the new cult. It seems to mean, like Greek s i x c o v , a 'showing forth, representation' ;i^ 11 See H. Lommel, 'Anahita-Sarasvati' Asiatica, Festschrift F. Welter, Leipzig 1954, 405-4^312 On the force of the phrase ev Trepoati; (in the citations from Berossus) see G. Hoffmann, Auszuge aus syrischen Akten persischer Mdrtyrer, Leipzig 1880, repr. Liechtenstein 1966, 137; Wikander, op. cit., 65. If a statue to the goddess were in fact erected at Persepolis itself, this would again pose a problem with the lack of identifiable temple ruins there; but perhaps it was the famous temple to Anahita at Istakhr nearby (a site still unexcavated) which was founded by Artaxerxes. On this temple see further below. 1 3 Vast 5.126-8. It has been suggested that it was 'Anahita' with her eightrayed crown who was represented on the coins of Demetrius I of Bactria, see P. Gardner, Catalogue of coins in the British Museum.: Greek and Scythic kings of Bactria and India, 1886, PI. III. i ; W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, 115, cf. 135. 1* Polybius X.27. On this incident see E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, London 1902, repr. 1969, II 18. 15 From the root 'show', Skt. dis-, Av. daes-, which occurs with the same preverb in Khotanese uysdlss- 'expound, declare', see R. Emmerick, Saka Grammatical Studies, London 1968, 16. Since the existence of a Zoroastrian image-cult was not formerly recognized, it used to be held that Persian uzdes meant 'heathen idol', and the word was accordingly understood to derive from the base daes- 'form, shape', and was interpreted as 'out-form', i.e.

ICONOCLASM AMONG T H E Z O R O A S T R I A N S

97

and perhaps in evolving it Zoroastrian iconophils sought to characterize their new images as a semblance of the divine only, in whose presence men should pray in order to direct their thoughts to what lay beyond, rather than idols, to be worshipped for themselves. Y e t however scholar-priests of the royal party may have argued the matter, the introduction of an image cult must have shocked the orthodox profoundly; for by it a man-made statue was substituted for the living icon of fire, the creation of Ahura Mazda, which had been enjoined as qibla by the prophet himself.i® There was, moreover, a serious doctrinal consideration involved. Zoroastrian theologians taught that originally Ahura Mazda had made his creation in spirit-form only, menogihd as it was expressed in Middle Persian.^' His Adversary, Anra Mainyu, countered with an evil creation, also intangible; and thereafter Ahura Mazda by a mighty exertion of power enabled his w^;«o^ creation to 'put on appearances', that is, to take physical [getig) f o r m s . T h i s second stage was beyond Anra Mainyu's capacity, and so the powers of evil have no material bodies of their own, but steal shapes to inhabit in the furtherance of wickedness. To the orthodox, therefore, an image maker was guilty both of impiety, in seeking to perform the act of creation himself (the prerogative of God the Creator), and also of rash folly, since he had fashioned an empty form which a daeva or evil being could enter to misappropriate the worship intended for the divinity, and grow stronger thereby. Hence in surviving Zoroastrian works temples with statues in them are referred to as the 'abode of devs [nisemag i dewdn),^^ and the term 'image worship' 'monstrous thing'. See P. Horn, Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie, Strassburg 1893, 295; W. B. Henning, Zll, I X , 1933, 225.15; H. S. Nyberg, Hilfsbuch des Pehlevi, Uppsala 1931, II, 230. 1 8 Cf. his words in one of his own hymns, Yasna 43.9; 'Then indeed at the gift of veneration to thy fire truly shall I think of righteousness {asa-) to the utmost of my power'. 1 7 Zoroastrian theological utterances survive only in works compiled in the Sasanian period; but these clearly had a long tradition behind them, going back in essentials to the teachings of the prophet himself, see H. Lommel, Die Religion Zarathustras nach dem Awesta dargestellt, Tiibingen 1930, passim; H. S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des alien Iran, deutsch von H. H. Schaeder, Leipzig 1938, Ch. 8. 1 8 Dddestdn I dlnlg (ed. T. D. Anklesaria) Purs. X X X . 5; text with transl. by H. W. Bailey, Zoroastrian problems in the ninth-century books, Oxford 1943, 112. On menog/getig see most recently S. Shaked, 'The notions menog and getig in the Pahlavi texts and their relation to eschatology'. Acta Orientalia X X X I I I . 1971. 59-107.

gS

MARY

BOYCE

{uzdes-parastagih) has for a synonym 'demon worship' {dewizagih) .^^ In these circumstances one can safely assume that an impulse towards iconoclasm sprang into being among Zoroastrians with the setting up of the first statues to Aradvi Siira Anahita in the 4th century B.C.; and there may well have been unsung martyrs then in this cause. Royal patronage brought it about, however, that the image cult was firmly implanted; and the energies of the orthodox seem to have been turned therefore into another channel, that of instituting the veneration of fire, the true Zoroastrian icon, as a rival temple cult. The origin of the movement cannot be closely dated; but since temple fires were still unknown, it seems, in the mid-5th century, but were widely attested after the downfall of the Achaemenians—all across their former dominions from Parthia to Asia Minor (then no longer an Iranian possession), it is a reasonable assumption that the cult was instituted in late Achaemenian times, probably very soon after that of i m a g e s . I t appears, therefore, that whereas at the beginning of the Achaemenian period the Zoroastrians had no sacred buildings for pubhc worship, by the end of it they had temples of two kinds, the one sheltering images, the other sacred fires. This state of affairs evidently continued all through the Parthian period. Strabo records that in his day the Persians in Cappadocia maintained both 'holy places of the Persian gods', and also firesanctuaries, pyraithoi.^^ In the latter, he says, stood altars bearing a great heap of ashes, on which the fire was kept ever alight; and in connection with one of the former he speaks of a wooden image, which on occasion was carried in procession. It appears, not surprisingly, that the Iranians had different names for these two kinds of shrines. The Partliians themselves seem to have called firetemples ^dtarosan, a word meaning perhaps 'place of burning fire',^^ 1 9 SecZandi V0human Yast {cd. and transl. b}' B. T. Anklesaria) V I I . 37 (where the text has the late form uzdestcdr for 'image shrine'). On similar beliefs among neo-Platonists and Christians see E. Bevan, Holy Images, London 1940, 91-3. They are strongly held also by Muslims. 2 9 Contrast Pahl. Vd. I 9 with Iranian Bundahisn (ed. T. D. Anklesaria), 206.15. 21 The dating is that suggested by Wikander, op. cit., although his interpretation of the development is different. 22 XV.3.14. T h a t Strabo made this distinction has been stressed by O. Reuther, A survey of Persian art (ed. A. IJ. Pope), I, 1938, 559; A. Godard, Athdr-d Iran III, 1938, 19. 2 3 See Wikander, op. cit., 98, 219; E. Benveniste, JA, 1964, 57.

ICONOCLASM AMONG T H E Z O R O A S T R I A N S

QQ

and known from Armenian atrusan (for Armenia was steeped in the Zoroastrian culture of the Arsacids). A shrine to a yazata or divinity was called a *bagin, a term derived from older *bagina, and meaning '(a place) belonging to the gods'.2* This term occurs in Sogdian as fayn 'temple'; and as a Parthian loanword in Armenian it was used in the singular for an altar set before an image (as in the phrase 'to the altar of Anahit's image' bagnin anahatakan patkerin ^^), and in the plural for a t e m p l e . B a g n a p e t (another Parthian loanword in Armenian) was the title of the chief priest of such a temple, and has its equivalents in other Middle Iranian languages (MPersian basnbed, Sogdian faynpat)^'^ and is attested at Mathura as bakanaPati."^^ Wherever details occur, they show this group of words to have been associated with the cult of images, not fires. Thus in a Manichaean Middle Persian fragment there is a reference to uzdesdn, basnbeddn 'images (and) masters of i m a g e - t e m p l e s ' , a n d a Sogdian text contains a description of golden images, jewel-adorned, within a fa^n.^^ The words bagin, bagnapet, or their equivalents, are not attested in later Zoroastrian usage, and presumably they ceased to be current when the iconoclastic movement finally triumphed during the Sasanian epoch. In Seleucid and early Parthian times, strong Hellenic influences in Iran must have encouraged an increased use of statues by the Zoroastrians. For these periods, as for the Achaemenian epoch, there is pitifully little internal evidence, and most data derive from lands on the borders of the Parthian Empire. In Zoroastrian Armenia, for instance, we learn that there were temples 'where is sculptured . . . Aramazd' and in others stood Anahit's i m a g e . T h e r e was a famous golden statue of this yazat at Erez, which was carried off by one of Mark Antony's soldiers in 36 B.C. and there 2 4 See W. B. Henning, BSOS, V I I I , 1936, 583-5; BSOAS, X X V I I I , 1965, 250 f. 2 5 See apud M.-L. Chaumont, J A, 1965, 174. 2 6 See H. Hiibschmann, Armenische Grammatik, I 114.85. 2 ' See Henning, BSOAS, X I I , 1948, 602 n. 3. 2 8 See H. W. Bailey, BSOAS, X I V , 1952, 420 f. 2 9 See F. C. Andreas-W. Henning, Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan II [SPAW, Phil.-hist. Klass, V I I , 1933), 311 (M 219 R 17-18). 3 0 See Henning, BSOS, V I I I , 1936, 584-5 (M 5731 = T II D 117b V 11 ff.). 3 1 See S. der Nersessian, 'Une apologie des images du septieme siecle', Byzantion, X V I I , 1944-5, 63, and cf. Agathangelos, CIX.133 (V. Langlois, I 167). 3 2 Nersessian, art. cit., 64. 3 3 Pliny, Natural History, XXIII.4.24.

100

MARY B O Y C E

are references to offerings made to her there.^* Strabo writes of statues to Anahit in Cappadocia also, and possibly to Vohu Manah.^s The temple in Ecbatana, built, it seems, to house one of the Anahita statues set up by Artaxerxes I I , was pillaged by the Seleucid Antiochus I I I in 209 B.C.;^® but thereafter it was restored once more, for Isidore of Charax records that sacrifices were continually offered there in his own day (sometime, that is, between 27 B.C. and A . D . 77).^' In Armenia statues are further recorded to Mihr (Mithra),^^ Tir and Vahaghn (Vorathraghna, yazata of Victory).*® The Greeks equated the last-named with their own Herakles, whose cult-name, Kallinikos, 'Victorious' must have helped the identification.*^ The Iranian Vahaghn/Varahran was patron-divinity of travellers; and beside the ancient highway which passes by Bisutun, near Hamadan, there is a little shrine to Herakles Kallinikos, with a carving in high relief of the god, and an inscription in both Greek and Aramaic, showing the meeting of the two cultures, Hellenic and Iranian.*^ The inscription tells that the shrine was made in the year 164 of the Seleucid era. A number of other Herakles shrines and statues are known from Parthian Iran,*^ and the god is generally shown naked in the Greek 34 See the passages brougiit together by M.-L. Chaumont, J A, 1965, 167-81. XV.3.15. 36 Polybius X.27 (see above, n. 14). 3' Parthian Stations, 6. 38 Agathangelos, CX.134 (Langlois, I 168). 39 See most recently W. Eilers, Semiramis {Sb. OsterreicJiische Ak. der Wissenschaften, 274 Bd., 2 Abh.), Vienna 1971, 43-4. 40 See G. Dumdzil, RHR, C X V I I , 1938, 152-69; J. de Menasce, RHR, C X X X I I I , 1948, 1-18; E. Benveniste, The Persian religion according to the chief Greek texts, Paris 1929, 64-6. The identity of the Iranian divinity of whom a wooden statue existed at a Cappadocian shrine, and to whom Strabo (XV. 3.14) refers as'Omanos', remains doubtful. He is widely taken to be Vohu Manah, but this is by no means certain. 4 1 There are a number of traces of the worship of this popular Greek god in Iranian territory, and small terracotta figurines of him have been found in abundance in the ruins of Seleucia on the Tigris, see W. von Ingen, Figurines from Seleucia on the Tigris, Ann Arbor 1939, 106-8 with pi. X V I I I . 42 For the Greek inscription see L. Robert, Gnomon, X X X V , 1963, 76. For knowledge of the (unfinished) Aramaic version I am indebted to the kindness of my colleague, Dr. A. D. H. Bivar. The Iranians still at this time used Aramaic for written records and documents, as under the Achaemenians. 43 For the statues see R. N. Frye, The heritage of Persia, London 1962, 156, with PI. 68-71, and 87 (from Commagene). For the shrine at Masjed-i Suleiman in Khuzistan see R. Ghirshman, Comptes rendus de I'Academic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1969, 493, Schippmann, Feuerheiligtiimer, 249;

ICONOCLASM

AMONG

THE

ZOROASTRIANS

lOI

style. The Iranians, with their long tradition of worship without images, had not even b y this time, it is evident, created an iconography of their own. The first Anaitis/Anahita statues of the Achaemenian period were presumably Semitic in inspiration; and subsequently the Armenians declared that all their icons were made b y Greeks, 'for no one in Armenia knew how to make statues'.** A fine bronze head of a goddess has been found near Erzinjan, which is thought to be from a statue, larger than life-size, of Anahit,*^ and this is certainly indistinguishable from a Greek Aphrodite. The work subsequently of zealous Christians in Armenia, and ardent iconoclasts in Iran itself has insured that very little of such statuary survives. The evidence of the Parthian coins, and those of the Kushans in the east, as well as of the sculptures of Nimrud Dagh in Armenia, combines to show, however, that in the post-Hellenic period the Iranians grew accustomed to having the yazatas of their faith identified with gods of the Greek pantheon, and represented plastically in the same w a y ; and the archaeological and literary evidence attests that there were shrines where these representations took the form of cult-images, within the framework of Zoroastrian worship. The use of images seems to have become widespread during the Parthian period in the home also. Thus Josephus tells how the widow of a Parthian nobleman, having been made captive, 'took along the ancestral images of the gods belonging to her husband and herself—for it is the custom among all the people in that country to have objects of worship in their houses and to take them along when going abroad . . .'.*® A t first, he says, she performed the due rites before these secretly, so they were evidently small objects, which could be honoured unobtrusively. How rehable Josephus is in his statement that possession of such household images was general there is no means of testing; but there is archaeological and literary evidence to show that, under Hellenistic influence, images came to be used in the universally popular cult of the

and for that on Mt. Karafto in East Kurdistan Aurel Stein, Old Routes of Western Iran, London 1940, 324-46. Herakles is ecjuated with Varahran in the monument on Nimrud Dagh. 44 See Nersessian, Byzantion X V I I , 75. 45 See M. H. Ananikian, Armenian Mythology, Boston 1925, PI. I l l opp. p. 26. 4« Antiquities, XVIII.344.

102

MARY

BOYCE

dead. Excavations in Old Nisa,*' the ancestral capital of the Arsacids, have uncovered two halls in which were many statues of men and women in Parthian dress, some larger than life-size, others small. These were made of clay, painted, and realistically modelled; and it is suggested that the halls in which they stood were shrines where rituals for the souls of the dead were performed, the statues being fashioned in honour of individuals to receive the offerings. Greek influence is apparent in the craftsmanship, and was presumably responsible for inspiring the practice. The use of images in the cult of the dead is recorded also in Zoroastrian Armenia;*^ and it appears to be attested in the remains of a shrine at Shami, a village of Khuzistan in south-western Iran.*^ Here there came to hght in the 1930's a damaged but still splendid statue in bronze, life-sized, of a nobleman wearing Parthian dress.*® Excavation of the mound where it had lain uncovered a brick platform which had apparently been partly roofed over to protect cult images—for the remains of other statues were found there, in bronze and marble, some big, some small, as at Nisa.^^ There was also a square imagebase, and before it a small, elegant altar of Hellenic type.^^ All the statues had been broken into pieces, and the shrine itself burnt over them. Whether this was the work of iconoclasts, or simply the result of local feuding, there is no means of knowing; but the fact that the custom of making images of the dead was wholly unknown in later times shows that this too must have roused the wrath of those opposed to icons, and so in course of time have been suppressed. The practice was possibly considered a little less wicked than that of making images for the divine beings, since such statues were no more than reproductions of the physical forms which men had once possessed. Nevertheless the departed soul belongs wholly to the menog state, and to fashion anew a physical form for it, 47 Sec the reports by V. Masson, G. A. Pugachenkova and G. A. Koshelenko, detailed references apud G. Frumkin, Archaeology in Soviet Central Asia {Handbuch der Orientalistik V H , ed. J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw), Leiden 1970, 144-6. Sec, e.g., Moses Khorcnaci, IL40 (Langlois II l o i ) . 49 On this site, with references to earlier literature, see Schippmann, Feiierheiligtimier, 227 ff. As it is unique in character among known Iranian sanctuaries, there are naturally divergent opinions about the cult to which it was devoted. 5 9 See Aurel Stein, Old routes of Western Iran, 130-2. 5 1 See A. Godard, "Les statues parthes de Shami', Alhdr-e Iran II, 1937, 285-303. 5 2 See Stein, op. cit., 154.

ICONOCLASM

AMONG

THE

ZOROASTRIANS

IO3

before the Last Judgment and the resurrection of the body, ma}' weU have been held by the orthodox to be both impious and rash (again as creating an empty abode for devs). There was also the potentially corrupting power of all icons to attract worship to themselves, as is indicated by the epithet by which Agathangelos stigmatised the Zoroastrians of Armenia, urvapast 'soul-worshippers'.*^ St. Gregory alludes moreover to their habit of prostrating themselves before the images of the dead.** If the cult of images increased during the Parthian period, so too, evidently, did the rival one of sacred fires; so much so that when Ardasir Papakan overthrew the Arsacids and established the Sasanian Empire, in about A . D . 224, one of his first acts was to suppress the many fires which had been founded by local rulers,** since these evidently provided a cultic focus for dynastic claims. Subsequent developments show, however, that this was a purely political measure, for Ardasir and his successors distinguished themselves both by founding many new sacred fires, and by giving full support to the iconoclastic movement, which now became triumphant. It seems likely that this movement had already begun to gather strength in the latter part of the Arsacid period, though the indications are necessarily slight. Valakhs (Vologeses) I (c. A . D . 51-80) replaced representations of yazads on the reverse of his coins with a burning fire; and if he was also the Valakhs who commanded his subjects to gather up and preserve the Zoroastrian holy works, he m a y well have been moved to do this through well-instructed orthodoxy.*® The Parthian Empire was, however, a loosely-knit confederacy rather than a firmly controlled state, and whatever position the later Arsacids themselves took up in this controversial matter, there is no evidence that they sought to impose a uniformity of observance on their Zoroastrian subjects throughout the land. This, however, is what their successors, the Sasanians, did. It is probable that the Persian priests, favoured naturally by the new 53 See Ananikian, Arm. Mythology, 94. 5 4 See Nersessian, Byzantion X V I I , 61. 55 See the Tansar Name [Letter of Tansar), ed. M. Minovi, Tehran 1932, 22, transl. M. Boyce, Rome 1968, 47. 5 6 The absurd but often repeated statement that there was no such thing as Zoroastrian orthodoxy before the Sasanians is a tribute to the propaganda of the Sasanian priesthood, who to increase their own authority attributed confusion and ignorance to their predecessors. See in more detail Boyce, A history of Zoroastrianism {Handbuch der Orientalistik, I, ed. B. Spuler), Leiden, Vol. II, Ch. 3 (in the press).

104

MARY

BOYCE

Persian dynasty, were burning to show that they were superior in zeal and orthodoxy to the Parthian priesthood which had so long had the chief voice in the community. They attacked heresy, set up an inquisition to deal with nonconformists and apostates, and (it seems) took stern measures to root out the cult of images, replacing this wherever possible with that of fires. Greek influence had been as strong, however, in Persia as in Parthia, and the rockcarvings of the Sasanians show that these monarchs made no objection to representation as such of the yazads of their faith.*' Thus in the investiture-scenes of Ardasir I Ohrmazd is portrayed as a noble bearded figure in Persian dress, with turreted crown and harsom-rods in his left hand i"*^ and Varahran appears, as in Parthian days, as a naked Herakles with club.*^ In the rock-carvings of later kings are shown Mihr with radiate crown,®® and Anahid holding a tilted jug from which the waters flow.®^ Such representations were set even on the walls of fire temples, in painting, or stucco in high relief;®^ for portrayals of this kind evidently did not offend Zoroastrian iconoclasts as did free-standing images. Presumably, not being fully-fashioned forms or objects of cult, they were not regarded as potential homes for devs, nor yet as presumptuous imitations of the works of God.®^ The indications are, however, that, with regard to free-standing images, the Sasanians were active iconoclasts before ever they rose to imperial power. The family had the hereditary care of a great 5 7 See W. Hinz, Altiranische l-'unde und Forschungen, l^erlin 1969, for admirable photographs of these carvings. 5 8 See ibid., p. 123 ff. with plates 57, 60. 5 9 Sec ibid., p. 123 with Plates 57, 59. 6 9 See, e.g., E. Herzfeld, Am Tor von Asien, Berlin 1920, PI. X X I X ; A. U. Pope (ed.). Survey of Persian art, PI. i6ob. 6 1 See Herzfeld, op. cit., 92-3, with PI. X L I V ; l\)pe, Sitrvey, PI. 160 a. Anahid is also represented in the investiture scene of Narseh at Naqs-i Rustam, see Pope, Survey, PI. 157b. 6 2 Sec the description of wall-carvings in the ruins of the great fire temple at Istakhr given by Mas'udT, Les Prairies d'Or § T403 (ed. Ch. Pellat, Vol. H, Paris 1965). The walls of the 'palace' besides the fire temple on the Kiih-i Khwaja in Seistan were richly decorated with paintings, which included representations, in Hellenistic style, of divine beings; for descriptions and bibliography see Schippmann, 7"'>Mer/;gz7i^'^//»OTer, 57-70. Even more strikingly, fragments of human figures, life-size or a little larger, and in very high relief, belonging, it seems, to a stucco frieze, were found within what was probably the fire-sanctuary itself (room PD) at Takht-i Suleiman, see D . Huff, Iran I X , 1971, 181-182, and further Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism, II. Ch. 4. 6 3 On the apparent anomaly of the setting up of royal cult-statues by the Sasanians themselves see Boyce, op. cit., II, Ch. 3.

ICONOCLASM AMONG T H E ZOROASTRIANS

IO5

temple to Anahid at Istakhr (a town lying between Achaemenian Pasargadae and Persepolis, which was to become their dynastic capital). This temple was probably an ancient foundation, and evidently it housed originally a statue to the yazad, for the Muslim historian MasTidi learnt in the gth century A . D . that it had once been an 'idol temple', but that the idols had been removed and fire installed in their place.®* Tabari (who drew on Sasanian sources) calls the Istakhr temple 'the temple of the fire of Anahid';®* and the destruction of the statue there probably took place before Ardasir seized power, or at the latest during the first decades of his dynasty's rule, for his grand-daughter, the Queen of queens of his son Sabuhr I, bore the name Adur-Anahid 'Anahid of the Inre',®® being named evidently for the patron yazad of the family. It is quite possible that the Istakhr image was the first of Anahid's statues to be overthrown; and thereafter, it seems, the divinity as she was venerated at this shrine was known by the distinctive appellation 'Anahid of the Fire'. (Other shrines to her were naturally made by springs and streams, and the name Ab-Nahid, '(A)nahid of the Water' is still commonly given to girls by Zoroastrians of the Y a z d i area, in the north of Pars.®') It is unlikely that it will ever be possible to date at all closely the establishment of the Istakhr fire; but the probabihty seems that in general the active phase of Zoroastrian iconoclasm had its beginnings in the first century A . D . , at a time when Hellenic influences were waning and there appears to have been a stirring of orthodox zeal in Parthian overlord and Persian vassal alike. That Ardasir's forbears were already convinced iconoclasts is suggested also by the fact that this king is known to have begun the destruction of images during his campaigns of conquest— 64 Loc. cit. He states that 'the (jueen Hum ay, daughter of Bahman, son of Isfandiyar' was responsible for removing the images and transforming the shrine into a fire temple; but this transposing of the event into the legendary past is naturally not to be taken seriously, for the Zoroastrians (who have no historical tradition) tend to connect anything remote in time with the Kayanian dynasty who helped the prophet establish the faith. 65 This is rendered by ^6\de\\e [Tabari, 17) a little freely as 'the fire temple of Anahid'. 66 See Sabuhr's Parthian inscription on the Ka'ba-yi Zardust, 1. 18. (His marriage with his daughter was a highly meritorious one according to the ancient Zoroastrian law of xvaetvadatha.) 67 See J. S. Sorushian, Farhang-e Behdindn, Tehran 1956, 201 (under AbNaMr).

I06

MARY

BOYCE

although again we are dependent for evidence on the border-land of Armenia. Here he is said, on mastering the country, to have shattered statues of the dead, and to have set a sacred fire in the temple of Ohrmazd at Pakaran (presumably in place of the image there). Even at this relatively late period only scraps of evidence survive for tracing developments within Iran itself; and in the main we hear more about the positive encouragement given by the kings and their chief priests to the founding of sacred fires than we do of the overthrow of images. Throughout the Sasanian period, it seems, the propaganda was broadcast that 'the Varahran fire represents goodness, and images are its adversary' {dtakhs i warahfdn wehih, ud uzdes pitydrag) ;®^ and whereas, as we have seen, the image shrine was characterized as 'the abode of devs', the 'house of fire' was called 'the abode of yazads', and it was said that the divine beings gathered there thrice daily (at the times when the devout should say their prayers in the presence of sun or fire), leaving gifts of 'virtue and righteousness'.'® One of the most active founders of sacred fires during the early years of the dyna.sty was the priest Kirder, who held office during five reigns, and rose to great power and wealth. In his inscriptions he lays proud claim to founding many Varahran fires, a work, he says, of benefit to Ohrmazd and the yazads, whereby water, fire and cattle were also deeply satisfied; '^ and he further states that he had brought it about that 'images were destroyed and the haunts of demons laid waste, and the place and abode of the yazads [i.e. fire sanctuaries] were established' (uzdes gugdnih ud gilistag i dew an wisobih iid yazddn gdh ud nisem dglriy) .'^ 6 8 Moses Khorenaci, II.77 (Langlois II 119). 6 9 Dlnkard, ed. D. M. Madan, Bombay 1911, 551.13-15. The term pitydrag is a theological one, meaning something evil brought into being by Ahriman in deliberate opposition to something good created by Ohrmazd.—A number of Pahlavi passages concerning uzdes were collected by A. V. W. Jackson, 'Allusions in Pahlavi literature to the abomination of idol-worship'. Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Madressa Jubilee Vol., ed. J. J. Modi, Bombay 1914, 274-857 9 Gayest ne-sayest (ed. F. M. Kotwal, Copenhagen 1969) X X . i . 7 1 Ka'ba-yi Zardust 11. 9, 10 (facsimile ed. by W. B. Henning, Corpus Inscriptionum- Tranicarum, Part III, Vol. II, Portfolio III (London 1963), PI. L X X I I - L X X V ; transcription and translation by Ph. Gignoux, J A, 1968, 394-57 2 K K Z l . T O ; facsimile, PI. L X X I I , L X X I I I ; translation, Gignoux, loc. cit. On the verbal construction (with imperfect passives) see W. B. Henning, Handbuch der Orientalistik I (ed. B. Spuler), I V . i , 102.

ICONOCLASM AMONG T H E ZOROASTRIANS

IO7

Despite the strength of the Sasanian monarchy, and the zeal from the outset of the Persian priests, many generations evidently lived and died before the long-established use of images was wholly suppressed. Thus of the two relevant cases recorded in the Sasanian law-book (the Mddigdn % Hazdr Dddestdn) one took place as late as the 6th century A , D . , during the reign of Khosrau Anosirvan (531-579).^^ The two men concerned in it, named K a k a and Adurtohm, owned a piece of land in common on which they had 'a house as an image-shrine' {khdnag pad uzdescdr). The priests ordered the image to be removed from it, and set in its place an Adurog. This was a sacred fire of a minor grade, which could be tended by a layman with the same rites and respect as a household fire.'* After this fire had burnt for a while in the former uzdescdr (evidently to drive out the devs and purify the place) the Divan i Kerdagdn or Ministry of (Religious) Works was prepared to take it back into its own keeping-—for plainly the maintenance of even the humblest fire, with its need for fuel and regular tending, was more costly than that of a statue, and could not safely be imposed on the unwilling. However, the two men petitioned to be allowed to keep the fire, undertaking to endow it with the land on which the image-.shrine had stood; and they built it a fitting sanctuary, in which it was installed with due ceremony. In the other recorded case (which has no indication of date) a judge had had an image removed from an image-shrine [uzdes kadag), and later a man other than the original owner of the shrine installed an Adurog there.'* These cases show that a law must have been passed under the Sasanians forbidding the veneration of images, although there is no suggestion that those involved were punished except by the removal of the statue. When it was not possible (for expense or other reasons) to replace it by a sacred fire there must have been a grave sense of loss for the worshippers, and a danger to faith; but the priestly iconoclasts stated firmly that 'when the worship of images is ended, 73 Mddigdn I Hazdr Dddestdn, Part II (ed. T. D. Anklesaria) Bombay 1912, 37. 2-8; transl. J . de Menasce, Feux et fondations pieuses dans le droit sassanide, Paris 1966, 25; Boyce, BSOAS, X X X I , 1968, 63-4 (both then assuming that the case involved infidel idol-worshippers). 74 See Boyce, 'On the sacred fires of the Zoroastrians', BSOAS XXXI, 1968, 52-68; 'On the Zoroastrian temple cult of fire', J AOS, (in the press). 75 MHD, Part II, ed. J . J . Modi, Poona 1901, 94.3-6; transl. Menasce, op. cit., 31; Boyce, BSOAS, X X X I , 64. The Middle Persian term uzdes kadag, lit. 'image house', corresponds exactly to MP. dtakhs kadag (Pers. dies kade) 'fire house', one of the standard names for a fire temple.

I08

MARY

BOYCE

little departs with it of belief in the spiritual beings' {[ka] uzdes parastisnih he ahslhed, menog warrawisnlh andak ahdg be sawed) The resulting patterns of public worship can still be seen today in Y a z d and its surrounding villages. There each place has its fire temple or temples, and also shrines to individual yazads, notably Mihr, Bahram (Varathraghna), Tir, Astad and Sros. These shrines are regularl}/ visited by the devout, who go there to pray, to take solemn vows, or to make acts of contrition or thanksgiving to the divinity concerned; and on the feast day of the yazad a communal act of worship is performed. But these shrines are empty, except for a pillar on which fire is kindled on each separate occasion. Incense is burnt, candles are lit, and other offerings are made; but there is no icon now at whose feet to lay them, the yazad being once more present only as an invisible spirit, as in the early days of the faith—though the alien practice of building a shrine for him, a *bagin or *basn, has thus persisted." Although there is the law-case to show that the image cult had not been entirely eradicated everywhere even b y the 6th century, nevertheless iconoclasm must have won its main victories long before then. Ardasir I is known to have imposed a number of new measures on the Zoroastrians who had come under his rule, and to have waded through blood to enforce them; and the hkelihood is that the law against images was one of these, for the iconoclastic campaign must have been begun early in the Sasanian period for the image cult to be so thoroughly obliterated that hardly any reference to it was made b y Muslim historians (several of whom were themselves Persians of Zoroastrian stock). When one of them does mention that once there were images in Zoroastrian shrines, it is only to speak of this as something very remote and far-off.'^ 7 6 Dlnkard, cd. Madan, 553.16-17; cf. ibid., 551.17-19. 7 7 Partly, probably, to secure a measure of immunity for them from violation, the Zoroastrians have come to call these shrines by Muslim terms, i.e. PTr-i Mihrized etc., or generally, ma'bad. Although the fire temples have all been rebuilt, some very pleasingly, since the second half of the 19th century, as have certain much-loved mountain shrines (places of general pilgrimage), the village sanctuaries mostly remain as they were during the years of oppression, humble mud-brick buildings given their aura of sanctity only through the devotions of centuries which have been paid there. Their inconspicuousness has meant that their existence has hitherto been largely overlooked b y non-Zoroastrians. 7 8 See Tansar Name, text 14, transl. 39. 7 9 E.g. Mas'udI, loc. cit. (nn. 62, 64, above).

ICONOCLASM AMONG T H E ZOROASTRIANS

IO9

A faint survival of the old icon cult seems to have persisted, however, in the Y a z d i region, in connection with the worship of the much-loved Mihr; for in some Mushm villages there the face of the sun-god with radiate crown is still embroidered in traditional designs.^" Since, however, the Arabs know the sun as female, the moon as male, this portrait is called that of Khorshid Khanom, the ' L a d y Sun'. Such pictures would not, it is clear, have offended the Zoroastrian iconoclasts; but they are wholly in breach of later Muslim edicts on the subject, and thus illustrate the stubbornness of the devotion to icons, once their use had become thoroughly established in Persia. Although the Zoroastrian iconoclasts were victorious in the end, their battle had evidently been hard-fought and prolonged, lasting over 800 years and probably indeed longer, for it is likely that much controversy preceded the edict by which Artaxerxes II imposed an image cult on the whole community. The iconophils had the initial advantage of support from the all-powerful throne; and the cult had a strong stimulus subsequently from the inspiration provided by Greek craftsmen, who created works of noble beauty. Y e t fire is itself one of the most beautiful of icons, and to pray in its presence was to follow the example of the prophet, as well as to maintain an age-old tradition of Iranian worship—considerations which gave orthodoxy the strength to triumph in the end. During the long struggle which it had to wage, however, its theological weapons must have become well sharpened and its doctrines ever more clearly defined. Throughout the period of controversy Zoroastrianism was temporally immensely powerful, as the state religion of three successive empires; and it had moreover the authority conferred by lofty ethical teachings and a clearly defined dogmatic s y s t e m . I t s influence is already acknowledged in the transmission to other faiths of fundamental doctrines concerning the existence of God and the Evil One, the individual and last judgments, resurrection of the body, and life everlasting; and it 8 " For knowledge of this I am indebted to the kindness of Khanom Ferangis Shahrokh, who has a striking collection of such old embroideries. 8 1 The writer finds it impossible to agree with those scholars who interpret this great faith as the product of compromise emd confusion. On the contrary, the fundamental doctrines taught by Zoroaster appear to have been maintained with admirable strictness by his followers down to the 19th century, when the sudden impact of European ideas and modern science had a cataclysmic effect on their theology.

no

MARY

BOYCE

would be strange if it had not contributed also to the debate on the propriety of making representations of the divine, which was a problem that exercised the minds of Greek philosophers and Jewish prophets, the early Buddhists, Christian priests and Muslim theologians. Controversy raged about this matter, in fact, over the whole area at whose centre lies Iran; and it is only the existence of so many blank pages in Zoroastrian history that has prevented the realisation that it was a burning issue for the Zoroastrians also. The question of direct influence is naturally one which can only be approached with great caution; but it seems probable that it was exerted on at least two faiths, Christianit}^ and Islam. In the case of the former, Armenia provided a channel for the transmission of Zoroastrian ideas. Under the Parthians, and governed by a cadet branch of the royal Arsacid family, this country had been predominantly Zoroastrian by profession, and the fact that the image cult was well established there means that the iconoclasts had abundant occasion to raise their voices, even if in vain. In A . D . 301, not long after the overthrow of the Arsacids, the Armenian king Tiridatcs III embraced Christianity (partly, it is thought, out of hostility to the Sasanian regime); and there ensued a general overthrowing of Zoroastrian images and a setting up of Christian ones instead. The Armenian Christian church never officially opposed the veneration of images; but it is very likely that earlier controversy on this matter (stimulated by Ardasir's ruthless iconoclasm) continued among the Christians of the land,^^ whose links were now westward with Byzantium, where Christian iconoclasm was subsequently to spring into being.^* Meantime Islam had been born, whose followers in its early years showed no aversion to representational art.^* It was only in the 9th century A . D . , when 8 2 Sec S. der Nersessian, Byzantion X V I I , 67, with n. 37. 8 3 Later in the 4th century there was some return to Zoroastrianism, and Faustus of Byzantium (transl. Langlois I 295) relates that 'a number of statues . . . were erected which were openly venerated'. 8 4 For some recent studies in this field see G. B. Ladner, 'The concept of the image in the Greek fathers and the Byzantine iconoclastic controversy', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, V I I , 1953, 1-33; E. Kitzinger, 'The cult of images before iconoclasm', ibid., V I I I , 1954, 85-150; M. V. Anastos, 'The ethical theory of images formulated by the iconoclasts', ibid., 155-160; A. Grabar, L'iconoclasme byzantin, dossier archeologique, Paris 1957. (I grateful to Miss Helen Potamianos for kindly drawing my attention to these.) 8 5 See E. C. Dodd, 'The image of the word; notes on the religious iconography of Islam', Berytus X V I I I , 1969, 35-61.

ICONOCLASM

AMONG

THE

ZOROASTRIANS

I I I

through massive conversions, Iran had come to play a leading part in the Muslim community, that Islamic doctrines took shape in this respect; and their bases—usurpation of the prerogative of the Creator, the wickedness of making shapes to be inhabited by evil powers—are precisely those which appear to have been established centuries earlier by Zoroastrian divines. The Mushm theologians carried their own laws to a logical extreme in forbidding any representations whatsoever. For the Zoroastrian, however, moderation is a virtue, and the Persians evidently kept their own iconoclasm, though strictly enforced, within well-defined bounds.^® This limitation was also no doubt due to the fact that they, like the Christian iconoclasts, had a long tradition of the use of images to contend against, and could only win their war by fighting it intensively on a narrower front. Within the Iranian community it seems to have been the Persians who both instituted the image cult and finally brought it to an end; but during the intervening centuries it evidently affected the Zoroastrians far and wide. 8 6 In general it was sculpture in the round which roused the wrath of iconoclasts; but whereas the Zoroastrians showed toleration for religious carvings in high relief, Christians after them were opposed to these also (see Bevan, Holy Images, 148).

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R D E R MANDÄER K U R T RUDOLPH Karl-Marx- Universität, Leipzig Die in de 20er und 30er Jahren hohe Wellen schlagende Diskussion um Alter und Herkunft der Mandäer und ihrer Literatur hat inzwischen einer ruhigen — fast zu ruhigen —- Betrachtung Platz gemacht, allerdings ohne alle Fragen, die damals aufgeworfen wurden, klären zu können. In meinem i . Mandäcrbuch habe ich den Stand der Diskussion bis etwa 1958 zusammenfefaßt ^ und seitdem wiederholt dazu Stellung genommen 2. Eine kürzere Darstellung der mandäischen Religion auf Grund des heutigen Forschungsstandes legte ich 1970 in der Reihe "Die Religionen der Menschheit" (hrsg. von C. M. Schröder, Bd. 10/2) vor, die auch einen knappen Bericht über meine "Feldforschungen" von 1969 enthält.^ Wenn nun zu Ehren des Jubilars erneut das sog. Mandäerproblem zur Sprache kommen soll, so nicht nur deshalb, weil der ihm gewidmete Band die Forschungssituation auf verschiedenen Gebieten der vorderorientahschen und spätantiken Religionsgeschichte vor Augen führen soll, sondern auch um des immer wieder nötigen Rcflektierens über die Problematik auf diesem dornigen Arbeitsfeld: denn nur auf diese Weise der wiederholten Rechenschaftslegung läßt sich — unter gleichzeitiger Arbeit an den 1 Die Mandäer I. Prolegomena: Das Mandäerproblem. Göttingen 1960. 2 Probleme einer Entwicklungsgeschichte der mandäischen Religion, in: T.c Origini dello Gnosticismo. Colloquio di Messina 13-18 Aprile 1966, Leiden 1967, S. 583-596; J'roblems of a History of the Development of the Mandaean Religion, in: Hist. of Rel. 8, Febr. 1969, 210-235; Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der mandäischen Religionsgcschichte, in: K.-VV. Tröger (Hrsg.), Gnosis und Neues Testament, Berlin 1973, vS. 124-148. Vgl. auch R. Macuch, Der gegenwärtige Stand der Mandäerforschung und ihre Aufgaben, in: OLZ 63, 1968, 5-14-

3 Die Rehgion der Mandäer, in H. Gese-M. Höfner-K. Rudolph, Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer, Stuttgart 1970, S. 405-462. Vgl. auch meine kleineren Überblicke: T Mandei, in: P. Tacchi Venturi, Storia delle Religioni, 6. Ed., Vol. IV, Torino 1971, 751-771; La religion mand6enne, in: PL-Ch. Puech (Hrsg.), Histoire des religions. Vol. II, Paris 1972, 498-522; die Einleitung zu: Mandäische Quellen, in: Die Gnosis. hrsg. von W. Foerster, 2. Bd., Zürich 1971 (Die Bibl. der Alten Welt),

s. 173-197.

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R DER M A N D Ä E R

II3

Sachen selbst — eine fruchtbare Forschung mit einigermaßen sicheren Ergebnissen erreichen. Daß diese im wesentHchen vom jeweiUgen Quellenstand bestimmt und begrenzt werden, ist eine selbstverständliche Tatsache. Aus diesem Grunde werde ich mich in erster Linie diesen Grundlagen widmen und einen Überblick über den derzeitigen Stand der Quellenforschung geben. I. Zur Erforschung der mandäischen Religionsgeschichte haben sich im Laufe der Zeit folgende Mittel und Methoden als wesentlich und hilfreich herausgestellt; sie werden auch in Zukunft maßgebend bleiben: 1. Die eigentlichen Quellen 1 . 1 . Die eigene (mandäische) Überlieferung in ihren Schriften (Literatur, Denkmäler, wie Zaubertexte) 1.2. Die externen Quellen und Denkmäler (häresiologische Berichte, Zeugnisse der mandäischen Schrift und ihrer Entwicklung) 1 . 3 . Sprachgeschichte (hnguistisch-philologische Untersuchungen) 2. Die Quellen- oder Textanalysen, sei es literarkritischer, traditionsgeschichtlicher, motiv- oder stilgeschichtlicher Art und deren Kombination in einem Arbeitsvorgang 2.1. Die Untersuchung der mythologisch-theologischen Tradition 2.2. Die Untersuchung der liturgischen Texte und der Rituale 2 . 3 . Die Herausarbeitung von sog. 'T.eitwörtern" und die Bestimmung ihrer Herkunft und ihres Alters 3. Die vergleichend-historischen Untersuchungen, d.h. die Arbeit mit Parallelen oder analogem Material, resp. von diesem tradierten Vorstellungen. Dazu dienen in erster Linie: 3.1. Frühjüdische Literatur 3.2. Frühchristliche Literatur (Joh. Ev., christhch-syrische Literatur) 3.3. Gnostische und manichäische Texte 3.4. Iranische Quellen 3.5. Babylonisch-akkadische Texte. Auf allen diesen Bereichen ist im Laufe der Forschung mit mehr oder weniger Erfolg gearbeitet worden, meist in einer komplexen Art und Anwendung, wie ich es selbst (bes. im 2. Mandäerband) durchgeführt habe. D a es in diesem Beitrag nicht möglich ist, alle Arbeiten, die in letzter Zeit auf diesem Gebiet vorgelegt wurden,

114

KURT

RUDOLPH

ZU diskutieren, möchte ich, bevor die gegenwärtige Quellensituation (also Punkt i) zu beschreiben ist, wenigstens die wichtigsten kurz nennen. Die historisch-kritische Untersuchung der mandäischen Texte (Punkt 2) hat erst in jüngerer Zeit wieder eingesetzt, nachdem sie zwar mit Brandts bahnbrechenden Arbeiten begann und von R. Reitzenstein und Lidzbarski fortgeführt wurde, aber sonst nur gelegentlich von einigen Theologen (NT-lern), vor allem aus der Schule R. Bultmanns, geübt wurde; im übrigen war die mand. Literatur e.A. Steinbruch für verschiedene Zwecke und Interessenten.^ Wenig beachtet wurde die dänische Dissertation von V. Schou Pedersen, der sich mit Hilfe literarkritischer und traditionsgeschichtlichcr Analysen einiger Texte vor allem dem Verhältnis von Mandäismus zu Juden- und Christentum widmete.^ In größerem Umfang habe ich dann die theogonischen, kosmogonischen und anthropogonischen Überlieferungen untersucht und erstmalig an Hand der heterogenen Lehrgehalte (Traditionen) und literarkritischer Gesichtspunkte eine interne "Schichtenanalyse" vorgenommen.^ Auf dem kultgeschichtlichen Gebiet sind die von E. Segelberg ^ und mir ^ fast gleichzeitig unternommenen Untersuchungen zur mandäischen Taufe zu nennen, die der Theorie von einer späten Entstehung dieser zentralen mand. Kulthandlung — etwa gar als Nachahmung nestorianischer Taufpraxis — restlos Vgl. meinen Überblick in Mandäer I, S. 17 ff. und Zum gegenwärtigen Stand, pass. ^ Bidrag til en analj^se af de Mandaeiske skrifter, Aarhus 1940. Vgl. dazu meine Mandäer I, S. 96 ff., 110 ff., 116 f.; Zum gegenwärtigen Stand, S. 119 ff. (Zusammenfassung). Erwähnen möchte ich hier noch eine ältere dän. Arbeit: S. A. Pallis, Mandaeiske Studier I, Norregade-Kebenhavn 1919, engl. Neubearbeitung: Mandaean Studies, London-Copenhagen 1926, die leider auf Grund ihrer veralteten analytischen Methode, die nicht viel über Brandt hinausgeht, nicht zu großem Ansehen gelangte. Vgl. die Rezensionen von Nyberg, MO 23, 1929, S. 225-38 und Lidzbarski, ZDMG NF 6, 1927, 298-301. Trotzdem finden sich darin einige gute Beobachtungen, z.B. über den schwachen, nur auf Details beschränkten babylonischen Einfluß und die gnostischen Gedanken (für P. ist die Satornilsche Gnosis von Einfluß gewesen). ^ Theogonie, Kosmogonie und Anthropogonie in den mandäischen Schriften, Göttingen 1965 (als Habil.-schrift der Philos. Fak. Univ. Leipzig 1961 vorgelegt). Eine Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse findet sich hier S. 338-348 und in der ZDMG 112, 1962, S. 269-274. '' Masbütä. Studios in the Ritual of the Mandaean Baptism, Uppsala 1958. Vgl. auch unt. Anm. 64. Die Mandäer II. Der Kult, Göttingen 1961; vgl. auch Die Religion der Mandäer S. 434 ff.

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R D E R M A N D Ä E R

115

den Boden entzog. In gleicher Weise sind von mir auch die übrigen Kulthandlungen, vor allem der 2. Hauptritus ,die "Seelenaufstiegsmesse" (Masiqta) analysiert und in ihrem Entstehen und Werden beschrieben worden. Der zentrale Kultbestand (Taufe, Totenmesse) gehört zur ältesten Schicht, die sich durch vergleichende Untersuchung einerseits in die jüdische Tauf sektenweit, andererseits in die syrisch-iranische Welt des Gnostizismus zurückverfolgen läßt (s. u. S. i 4 o f . ) . Zu den ältesten Verfahrensweisen, das Alter mand. Vorstellungen festzustellen, gehörte die Untersuchung bestimmter zentraler Begriffe, die ich "Leitwörter" nennen möchte und zu denen vor allem die Wörter manda, nasuraia, jardna, kusta, laiija, gufna, bhire zidqa, haije, sb^ gehören. Einige von ihnen {manda, nasoraia, jardna, kusta) sind von Eidzbarski als sog. westaramäische Reste zum ältesten Bestand der mand. Überlieferung gezählt worden.^ Die daran geübte Kritik (u.a. von F. Rosenthal) hat jetzt Macuch zum größten Teil entkräften können, so daß an den Erkenntnissen Lidzbarskis nach wie vor festgehalten werden kann.^^ Andere dieser Begriffe lassen sich z.B. im Qumranschrifttum nachweisen [bhira zidqa, mara drabuta, raza, rba) und der zentrale baptistische term.techn. sö', tb^ (masbuta) gehört ebenfalls in das "westhche" Taufsektenmilieu.^1 Ein großer Teil der vergleichend-historischen Untersuchungen (Punkt 3) findet sich in den genannten Arbeiten als ein wichtiges Mittel der Forschung, da ohne sie keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse erreicht werden können. Eine große Rolle haben hier vor allem die Vergleiche zwischen den "Bilderreden" des johanneischen und mandäischen Korpus gespielt, wie sie von W. Bauer und R. Bultmann bahnbrechend durchgeführt wurden. In letzter Zeit ist es ^ Vgl. Mandäer I, S. 60 ff. (im einzelnen ergänzungsbedürftig). Zu Hauran, Hauraran, ein mand. Wesen, vgl. den syr. Gott Horon (< haurau), der als e.A. Heilgott in der Magie und Beschwörung auftritt und vielleicht im Haurängebirge zu Hause ist (H. Gese, Die Rehgionen Altsyriens, S. 145 ff.). 10 Anfänge der Mandäer (in: F. Altheim u. R. Stiehl, die Araber in Der Alten Welt, 2. Bd., Berlin 1965, S. 82 ff., 105 ff.; Ders., Gnostische Ethik und die Anfänge der Mandäer (in: F. Altheim u. R. Stiehl, Christentum am Roten Meer, 2. Bd., Berhn 1973, 254-273), S. 255 ff. Die älteste noch in Palästina entstandene mand. Literatur müßte Reichsaramäisch abgefaßt gewesen sein, da eine Ablösung durch das "Westaramäische" als Schriftsprache erst im 2. Jh. n. Chr. einsetzt, doch ist das Westaramäische schon im i. Jh. v. Chr. als Umgangssprache vorauszusetzen (s. K. Beyer, ZDMG 116, 1966, S. 251 A. 20). ^1 Mandäer I, 61, 236 f.; Mandäer H, 380; Revue de Qumran 4, 1964, 541 ff.

Il6

KURT

RUDOLPH

zwar sehr still darum geworden — vor allem weil sich die theologisch-nt-liche Wissenschaft immer stärker der religionsgeschichtlichen Forschung entzog — , aber von mandäistischer Seite ist dazu noch nicht das letzte Wort g e s p r o c h e n . D i e mandäischen Texte — bes. die Hymnenliteratur — bieten nach wie vor einen nicht zu unterschätzenden orientalisch-gnostischen " K o m m e n t a r " zu diesem nt-lichen Korpus, das in letzter Zeit auch von theologischer Seite immer stärker als eines der frühesten Dokumente christlich-gnostischer Literatur erkannt worden ist.^^ Weniger umstritten, dafür umso durchschlagender ist die von T. Säve-Söderbergh 1949 vorgelegte Studie zur vergleichenden Stil- und Motivanalyse manichäischer und mandäischer Poesie,^* die zu dem grundlegenden Ergebnis führte, daß vor allem Teile der mand. liturgischen Hymnenliteratur dem Verfasser der manichäischen Thomaspsalmen (3.Jh.) bekannt gewesen sein müssen, also ein vormanichäisches Stadium beanspruchen können (s.u. S. 126), Weitere Untersuchungen zu diesem Teilkomplex haben diese Feststellungen noch präzisieren können, vor allem auch in inhaltlichlicher H i n s i c h t . S o stellte sich heraus, daß der i . Thomaspsalm eine "Bearbeitung mandäischer Mythologie" ist; erst durch den Vergleich mit mand. Parallelen läßt sich der Inhalt voll verständlich machen, nämlich daß es sich hier um einen "DescensusM y t h u s " handelt, den ich auch aus der mand. Mythologie herausschälen konnte, und dessen Frühstufe also ebenfalls in eine vormanichäische Zeit g e h ö r t . A u c h an anderen Stellen lassen sich zwischen Mandaica und Manichaica gewisse Übereinstimmungen 12 Vgl. Macuch, Anfänge 99, 103 ff.; 150 ff. 1 3 Vgl. meinen Forschungsbericht in der ThR 37, 1972, S. 303 ff. ^'^ Studies in the Coptic Manichaean Psalmbook, Uppsala 1949. Vgl. dazu meine Mandäer 1, S. 185 ff. 1^ Vgl. meinen Bericht: ThR 37, 1972, S. 354 ff. (betr. A. Adam u. C. Colpe). Ergänzend hierzu sei verweisen auf E. Kamiah, Die Form der Katalogischen Paränese im NT, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964 (WUNT 7), S. 88 ff. und bes. E. Bergmeier. Quellen vorchristlicher Gnosis?. In: Tradition und Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe f. K. G. Kuhn z. 65. Geb. Hrsg. von G. Jeremias, H.-W. Kuhn u. H. Stegemann, Göttingen 1971, S. 200-220, spez. S. 208 ff. (auf S. 218 A. 113 kommt B. zur gleichen Kritik an Colpe, wie ich sie a.a.O. äußerte). Eine weitere Untersuchung der ThPs wird von meinem Schüler W.-B. Oerter durchgeführt (Abschluß 1975). 1* Vgl. Bergmeier, a.a.O. S. 217 f.; meine Theogonie S. 213 ff., 235. Die ThPs stellen zwar einen Sonderfall in der manich. Dichtung dar, gehören aber was mitunter vergessen wird, zu ihrem Kernbestand und sind daher zunächst, soweit möglich, von der manichäisehen Mythologie her zu interpretieren (dazu die eben angeführte Arbeit von W.-B. Oerter).

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R DER M A N D Ä E R

II7

feststellen, die entweder auf ein gemeinsames Ausgangsmilieu zurückzuführen sind oder durch spätere Beeinflussungen erklärt werden m ü s s e n . E r s t e r e s ließ sich bisher sehr einfach aus dem Aufwachsen Manis in der mand. Taufsekte erklären, worüber ja die arabischen Quellen b e r i c h t e n . D u r c h das Auftauchen einer neuen (griechischen) Quelle, des sog. "Kölner Mani-Codex", ist jedoch diese Auskunft insofern unsicher geworden, als hier eindeutig die Taufsekte, in der Mani groß wurde, als elchasaitisch beschrieben wird,^^ Damit wird einerseits das Problem der Beziehungen zwischen der mand. und manich. Überlieferung, die nicht geleugnet werden können, neu zu formulieren sein, andererseits das Verhältnis von Eichasaismus, Mandäismus und Manichäismus ganz neu zur Diskussion gestellt, ein Problem, das man lange Zeit als gelöst oder nicht aktuell a n s a h . A n der vormanichäischen Existenz mand. Literatur ist damit allerdings nicht gerührt, ebenso läßt sich bezweifeln, daß es einen Kontakt zwischen beiden Rehgionen schon im 3.Jh. gegeben hat (sichtbar in den Auseinandersetzungen Manis und seiner Gemeinde mit Baptisten und Nasoräern; vgl. z.B. Kephalaia K a p . 8 9 ) . Auch was die Heranziehung des gnostischen Materials anbelangt, sind durch die Nag Hammadi-Codices neue Möghchkeiten vergleichender Untersuchungen gegeben, die allerdings bisher erst in den Anfängen stehen. So hat sich an Hand eines dieser Texte, der sog. Adamapokalypse (NHC V 5 ) , zeigen lassen, daß hier jüdisch-gnostische Überlieferungen greifbar sind, die auch im Mandäischen (Ginza rect. X I ) eine Rolle spielen (betr. Adamitenlegende und bibl. U r g e s c h i c h t e ) . D e r gleiche T e x t , sowie eine 1^ VgL Mandäer 1, S. 176 ff. (z.T. revisionsbedürftig, s.o.); Mandäer II, S. 415 f.; Theogonie, S. 76 f., 83, 92 ff., 208 f., 245 ff. Vgl. Mandäer I, S. 41 ff., 190 ff.; Widengren, Mani und der Manichäismus, Stuttgart 1961, S. 22 ff., 31 f., 77 (Schrift); Die Religionen Irans, Stuttgart 1965, S. 330 f. W. nennt die erst Periode von Manis religiöser Entwicklung die "mandäische" (Mani S. 34). Vorläufiger Bericht: A. Henrichs-L. Koenen, Ein griech. Mani Codex, in: Ztschr. f. Pap. u. Epigr. 5, 1970, 97-216; Ergänzungen dazu ebd. 8, 1971, 243-250; I I , 1973, 240 f.

2 " Vgl. dazu bereits A. Henrichs, Mani and the Babylonian Baptists: A Historical Confrontation, in: Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. 77, 1973, S. 23-59; K. Rudolph, Zum gegenwärtigen Stand, S. 138 f. Anm..99; Die Bedeutung des Kölner Mani-Kodex für die Manichäismusforschung, in: M^langes H.-Ch. Puech, Paris 1974, S. + -|- -f +• Zum Verhältnis Mandäer-Elchasaiten s. meine Mandäer I, S. 33 ff. 21 A. Böhlig, Mysterion und Wahrheit, Leiden 1968, S. 151 ff.; Rudolph, ThLZ 90, 1965, 362; ThR 34, 1969, S. 160 ff.

Il8

KURT

RUDOLPH

Reihe andere dieser gnostischen BibHothek, weisen Züge baptistischer Terminologie auf (betr. DialSot; Ä g E v ; Zostr.; ParSem).22 Weitere Studien, die Hand in Hand mit der in Gang gekommenen vollständigen Edition dieser Texte unternommen werden müssen, werden auch für die Mandäistik von Gewicht sein. Damit eröffnet sich sicherlich ein Weg, T y p , Stellung und Ursprung der mand. Gnosis noch besser zu lokalisieren und zu umreißen. Aus diesen Beispielen ergibt sich, daß auch auf dem "komparativen S e k t o r " allerlei in Bewegung gekommen ist, die die traditionellen Domänen, wie jüdische, babylonische und iranische Parallelen in den Hintergrund treten lassen, obwohl auch hier noch weitere Arbeit nötig ist.^^ H. Wenden wir uns aber den eigentlichen Ouellengrundlagen

zur

älteren mand. Geschichte zu. Diese sind in letzter Zeit zwar nicht grundlegend

verändert

worden,

aber es sind eine

Reihe

neuer

Zugänge eröffnet worden, die uns weitergebracht haben. Wir folgen dabei der oben S. 113 angegebenen Gliederung (1.1.-3). 2 2 Vgl. Rudolph, Nag Hammadi und die neuere Gnosisforschung, in: P. Nagel, Von Nag Hammadi bis Zypern, Berlin 1972, S. 4 f. Einiges Material werde ich in meinem Beitrag zur Festschrift für Pahor Pabib (Leiden: Brill) vorlegen. Von wenig Verständnis für dieses Forschungsgebiet zeugen die Bemerkungen von E. M. Yamauchi, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, Cambridge-Eondon 1970 (Harv. Theol. Stud. X X I V ) , S. 18-23. 2 3 Was die genannte Arbeit von Yamauchi anbelangt (s. Anm. 22), so verweise ich auf die ausführlichen Rezensionen von R. Macuch, Gnostische Ethik und die Anfänge der Mandäer (s.o. Anm. 10), und mir: T h E Z 97, 1972, 733-737. Beide zeigen, daß diese Arbeit keinen Fortschritt bedeutet und sowohl im Ansatz als auch in der Durchführung als verfehlt betrachtet werden muß. Als kleinen Nachtrag zu meinen Ausführungen sei darauf verwiesen, daß auch den griech. gnostischen Texten eine positive Stellung zur Ehe nicht ganz fremd ist, wie Exc. ex. Theod. 67, 2 (s. Foerstcr, Gnosis I, S. 296) zeigt. Die im überwiegenden Maße ehefeinliche Stellung des Gnostizismus beschränkt sich m.E. wesentlich auf die Ideologie der Elite (Pneumatiker), nicht auf die tragenden Gemeindekreisc (vgl. bes. den Manichäismus in dieser Beziehung). Die Mandäer haben zwar in ihrer alten Ideologie vies Kritisches über Vrau und Welt zu sagen, ohne die Praxis von Ehe und Fortpflanzung als altes jüdisches Erbe aufgegeben zu haben, dies trennt sie aber keinesfalls von der gnostischen Welt, die es Yamauchi uns glauben machen will. 2* E t w a im Hinblick auf die Wasserriten die Heranziehung akkadischen Materials, wie es in den Texten zum Bit rimki-Ritual (ed. J. L3ess0e) oder der Beschwörungsserie "Surpu" (ed. E. Reiner) vorliegt, die ich beide noch nicht in Mandäer II, S. 358 ff. heranziehen konnte. Einiges bei Yamauchi, a.a.O. S. 83 ff., der allerdings daraus falsche Schlußfolgerungen zieht.

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R DER M A N D Ä E R

II9

I , Was die eigene interne Überlieferung anbelangt, so stehen nach wie vor die bekannten großen und kleineren Texte der mand. Literatur zur Verfügung, über deren Umfang und Editionsstand kürzlich von mir an anderer Stelle des Näheren berichtet wurde. i . i . Als " n e u e " Quelle trat vor allem die von L a d y Drower entdeckte sog. "Haran-Gawaita-Rolle" ins Blickfeld der Forschung.^6 Es ist der derzeit einzige Text, der sich mit der Herkunft und späteren Geschichte der Sekte beschäftigt, leider in stark legendärer, teilweise sogar mythologischer F o r m ; außerdem ist er schlecht überliefert worden (der Eingang fehlt, häufige Lücken verursachen stellenweise Zusammenhanglosigkeit und Verständnisschwierigkeit). In Stil und Sprache ist diese Quelle stark von der jüngeren Literatur beeinflußt. Trotzdem können wir aus ihr unter Heranziehung einiger anderer Texte, gewisse Nachrichten gewinnen, die für die Ursprungsfrage wichtig sind.^^ Hatte L a d y Drower daraus zunächst Beweise für den iranischen Ursprung der Mandäer entnommen,^^ so hat sie später ihre Auffassung revidiert ^9 und sich der Macuchs und meiner eigenen angeschlossen, nach der uns hier ein Beleg für die sog. "westliche" d.h. palästinensisch-syrische 2^ VgL Rudolph, Die mandäische Literatur. Bemerkungen zum Stand ihrer Textausgaben und zur Vorbereitung einer Ginzä-Edition, in: Griechischchristliche Schriftsteller. . . Historie, Gegenwart, Zukunft, Berhn 1975 (Texte u. Unters, zur altchristl. Lit.); auch in: Studia Mandaica I, Berlin 1974. S. + + + . 2^ E. S. Drower, The Haran Gawaita and the Baptism of Hibil-Ziwa, Cittä dcl Vaticano 1953 (Studi e Testi 176). Die Rolle existiert in Europa in 2 Exemplaren (Oxford Bodl. D. C. 9 und 26). Teilübcrsetzung von mir in: Mandäische Quellen (s.o. Anm. 3), S. 397-400. Als Folklore findet sich diese Legende bei Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran, Leiden ^1962, S. 309325. Auch H. Petermann, Reisen im Orient, Leipzig ^1865, Bd. 2, S. 454 f. scheint diese Erzählung gehört zu haben (vgl. jedoch dazu R. Macuch, ThLZ 90, 1965, 654 f.). 2 7 Vgl. R. Macuch, Alter und Heimat des Mandäismus nach neuerschlosscnen Quellen, in: ThLZ 82, 1957, 401-408; Rez. Rudolph, Mandäer I, in: ebd. 87, T962, 741; Zur Frühgeschichte der Mandäer, ebd. 90, 1965, 649-660; Anfänge der Mandäer (s.o. Anm. 10), S. 110-139; Gnostische Ethik und die Anfänge der Mandäer (s.o. Anm. 10), S. 258 f., 263 ff.; E. Bammel, Zur Frühgeschichte der Mandäer, in: Orientaha 32, 1963, S. 220-225; Rudolph, Mandäer I, S. 55 f., 99 ff., 133 ff.; Problems S. 22ff.; Zum gegenwärtigen Stand S. 131 ff. Die wichtigsten anderen Texte findet man in meiner angef. Quellenauswahl S. 377-397 ("Geschichte und Legende"). 2 8 The Mandaeans S. 5-10. 2 9 In der Edition (s.o. Anm. 5), S. VIII ff.; The Secret Adam, Oxford iQ6n S. XI, XIII ff. (in dieser Darstellung findet sich ein Widerspruch, insofern Dr. einersets vom Exodus der mand. Gruppe vor der Zerstörung Jerusalems, andererseits nach diesen Ereignis spricht).

120

KURT

RUDOLPH

Abstammung, zur Verfügung steht. Auch andere Forscher (Widengren, Segelberg) haben dieser Ansicht zugestimmt. In der Interpretation gibt es allerdings eine Reihe Divergenzen, vor allem, was die Identifizierung des mysteriösen " K ö n i g s Ardban" (= Artabanus) anbelangt, unter dessen Regierung die Nasoräer vor den Juden in das medische Gebirge [iura dmadai) oder "innere H a r a n " {haran gawaita) flohen. Bekanntlich trugen fünf parthische Könige diesen Namen, drei davon sind bisher mit unserem Ardban gleichgesetzt worden (III., IV., V.). Eine Entscheidung ist insofern schwierig, weil es keinen weiteren Anhalt in der mandäischen Überlieferung gibt, die uns weiterhelfen könnte. In der dürftigen arsakidischen Königsliste, die sich im i S . B u c h des rechten Ginzä findet (411, 25-28 Lidzb.) wird nur ein " K ö n i g A r d b a n " angeführt, unter dem sicher der letzte König dieses Geschlechts, Artaban V. zu verstehen ist, dessen Regierungszeit nicht genau fixiert werden kann (wahrscheinlich, wenn man unserer Quelle glauben kann, die ihm 14 Regierungsjahre zuschreibt, ist seine offizielle Herrschaft mit 213-227/8 a n z u s e t z e n ) . N a c h ihm setzt die ausführlichere Liste der "persischen ( = sasanidischen) K ö n i g e " ein. Offensichthch ist diese mandäische Herrscherliste von der sassanidischen Historiographie abhängig, die bekanntlich nur den letzten Arsakiden Artaban V. nennt, da er von Ardasir besiegt w u r d e . I n s o f e r n ist es durchaus möglich, daß auch die Haran-Gawaita-Legende davon abhängig ist und ihre lückenhafte Kenntnis von den geschilderten Vorgängen mit diesem Artabanus in Zusammenhang brachte. Erinnert sei daran, daß auch in der talmudischen Überlieferung eine Legende von R. J^huda Hanasi und einem Ardban {^rdnb, "rtbn), den man gleichfalls mit Artaban V. identifiziert hat, enthalten ist.^^ j^jg lange Regierungszeit Artabanus III. (ca. 12/3-38 n.Chr.), die von Macuch als Zeit dieser Ereignisse angesehen wird, ist zwar nicht ganz auszuschließen, da Johannes der Täufer, von dem die Legende erzählt, in dieser Zeit gelebt hat (etwa um 32 n.Chr. hingerichtet) und der Exodus vor der Zerstörung Jerusalems angesetzt werden könnte, aber einmal war Artabanus ein der starken babylonischen Judenschaft wohlgesonnener Herr3 " Vgl. zum Problem auch R. N. PYye, Persien, Zürich 1963, S. 413 ff., 551 (Stammtafel); Ders. in: Fischer Weltgeschichte Bd. 8 (1966), S. 258 f. 3 1 Vgl. K. Barr, in: J . P. Asmussen/J. Laessee (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2, Göttingen 1972, S. 299. 3 2 Pal. (Jer.) Talmud Pea i.i. Dazu J . Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia I, Leiden^ 1969, S. 88 ff.

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R DER M A N D Ä E R

121

scher,^^ zum anderen ist eine so frühe direkte Einwanderung mandäischer Gruppen in das persische Reichsgebiet schwer mit anderen Beobachtungen in der mandäischen Literatur (z.B. die Beziehungen zum johanneischen Korpus und zu gnostischen Texten) in Einklang zu bringen (s. u. S. 139).^* Die dritte Möglichkeit, nämlich Artabanus IV. (ca 80-81 n.Chr.) ist von E. Bammel vorgetragen w o r d e n , a b e r die von ihm angegebenen Gründe sind nicht stichhaltig.^^ So bleibt diese Frage nach wie vor noch offen. Sicher scheint aus dem T e x t hervorzugehen, daß sich hier eine im Laufe der Zeit verdunkelte Tradition von der Einwanderung der Nasoräer in die östlichen Gebiete in der späteren Partherzeit erhalten hat. Aus dem ersten Teil des Textes ergibt sich, sofern man ihm überhaupt logisch richtig verstehen kann, daß die Schilderungen über die Ereignisse in Palästina bzw. Judäa ("Jerusalem") vom späteren östlichen (mesopotamischen) Wohnsitz aus nicht nur wiedergegeben, sondern auch tiefgreifend verändert worden sind. Der Schauplatz ist teilweise überhaupt in das Zweistromland verlegt worden! Dies wird anschaulich bestätigt durch den " D i w a n der Flüsse" [Diwan dnahrawata), den ich demnächst zu veröffentlichen gedenke (es handelt sich um Oxf. Bodl.D.C.7). Er enthält mehr eine religiösmythologische als real-geographische Darstellung des Fluß- und Kanalsystems im Euphrat-Tigrisgebiet mit der Angabe von Gebirgen und Ortschaften. Unter den letzteren taucht nicht nur der Tura dMadai auf, sondern auch das "Jerusalem der J u d e n " {'^uruslam d jahud), gelegen zwischen dem "kleinen Tigris" [diglat zuta) und dem "Glanz-Euphrat" (fras-ziwa). Daneben als größter Kreis, den "Glanz-Euphrat" überschneidend, ist das " H a u s des Tempels" [baita d bit mqadsiä) eingezeichnet. Dieser bemerkenswerte kurze Diwan, der uns einen Einblick in die geographische Vorstellungswelt der im Irak und Iran ansässigen Mandäer gibt, scheint auch vom sprachhch-stilistischen Gewände her, der HaranGawaita-Rolle verwandt zu sein, d.h. zur gleichen Literaturstufe zu gehören. Wir müssen damit rechnen — nähere Untersuchungen dazu sind noch nicht gemacht worden —•, daß die alte Überlieferung VgL dazu ausführlich J . Neusner, op. cit. S. 55 ff., 30. In die Zeit von 20-35 fällt ja auch die jüd. Selbstregierung im Zweistromland unter Anileus und Asineus (ebd. 54 f.). ^* Vgl. Rudolph, Zum gegenwärtigen Stand, S. 133 f. 3 5 A.a.O. (Anm. 6), S. 225 A. 2. 3 6 Vgl. Macuch, ThLZ 90, 1965, 649 ff.; Anfänge S. 130.

122

KURT

RUDOLPH

der Sekte über ihre Herkunft stärkere Bearbeitungen erhtten haben die für die heutige verworrene Darstellung mitverantwortlich sind. Der Ablauf der in Haran Gawaita geschilderten Vorgänge läuft jetzt so a b : Trennung von 60 000 Nasoräern unter König Ardban von den "Zeichen der Sieben" (auf Grund von Verfolgungen) und Zuflucht im medischen Gebirge ( = Haran Gawaita); ihre Liebe zum Herrn Adönai hört mit Geburt und Auftreten Christi auf; Geburt (auf dem mythischen Berg Parwän!) und Leben Johannes des Täufers als "Prophet der K u s t ä " , Gesandter [sliha) und mandäischer Priester [tarmida] in Jerusalem; er schafft sich eine Jüngerschar und lebt 42 Jahre; 60 Jahre später erfolgt eine (weitere ?) Verfolgung durch die übermütigen Juden unter Mose (!), die zur Vernichtung aller Priester [tarmide) und Nasoräer führte; daraufhin werden die Juden durch die Rühä zerstreut und mit Hilfe eines Wunders von Adönai durch den Süf-Zähä ("Schilf-Fluß" oder " F l u ß des Endes") geführt, eine Reminiszenz an die at-liche Schilf meerlegende, hier auf den Satt al-'Arab bezogen; jenseits dieses Flusses baute Rühä dann für sie Tempel und Jerusalem; die " S t a d t Jerusalem" und die "Kinder Israel" zusammen mit ihren "Pfaffen" [kahne] werden überall im Lande (auch in Bagdad!) von Hibil-Ziwä vernichtet; damit endet die 80-jährige Königsherrschaft der Juden in Bagdad; es folgt die Einsetzung von sieben mandäischen Statthaltern in Babylonien durch Anös-Uthra, der nun auch — so muß man den T e x t verstehen — zur Verstärkung der dezimierten mandäischen Gemeinde aus dem Tura dMadai bzw. Haran Gawaita einen Nachkommen des genannten Ardban, namens Bhirä bar Sitil, zusammen mit 60 (!) Nasoräern holt und ihr Königtum in Bagdad errichtet; daran anschließend wird eine (oder mehrere?) Spaltungen der Gemeinde auf die unterschiedliche Art der " J ü n g e r " oder "Priester" [tarmide] Johannes des Täufers und die verwirrende Tätigkeit der Rühä zurückgeführt; schließlich wird noch die Teilung der Völker und die Vervielfältigung der Sprachen (auch der Nasoräer!) und das Ende der Nachkommen des Königs Ardban, d.h. der Partherherrschaft, erwähnt; die Sasaniden (hier als "Hard[a\ hau") bezeichnet, treten die Herrschaft an, was offenbar auch eine Verminderung der mandäischen Kultstätten zur Folge hatte. Danach existieren also zwei mandäische Zentren: im medischen Gebirge und in Mesopotamien ( " B a g d a d " ) ; beiden wird zunächst

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R DER M A N D Ä E R

123

eine jüdische Vergangenheit zugeschrieben, die durch zwei jüdische Verfolgungen beendet wird. Christus und Johannes der Täufer werden genannt, letzterer als Begründer einer mandäischen Gemeinde in Jerusalem, ersterer als Feind derselben und Anlaß zur Trennung von Judentum. Als Strafe für die Verfolgung der (jerusalemischen) Mandäer bzw. Johannesjünger werden die Juden zerstreut und kommen nach Babylonien, wo sie Jerusalem (!) erbauen und ihre Herrschaft errichten, die nach 800 Jahren von Hibil zerstört wird. Erst jetzt greift der Bericht wieder auf den Anfang zurück und bringt die Gemeinde im medischen Gebirge ins Spiel. Den Mandäern ist eine glanzvolle Zeit in Babylonien beschieden (es wird von 280 Jahren gesprochen). Deutlich ist hier die Verschachtelung von mehreren Ereignissen, die einerseits auf eigener Überlieferung zu beruhen scheinen, andererseits auf den Einfluß außermandäischer Quellen (bibhscher und iranischer) zurückgehen. Weiterhin ist das Bemühen sichtbar, eine Verbindung der "westlichen" und "östlichen" Vorgänge in der Weise herzustellen, daß erstere in die babylonischen Gebiete verlegt und transponiert werden: So kommt es zu den zwei Jerusalems, von denen der T e x t erzählt: dem eigentlich historischen, in dem Christus und Johannes der Täufer auftreten, in dem auch die Verfolgung der Johannesjünger g e s c h i e h t . D i e anschließende Zerstreuung und der Fall Jerusalems ist sicherlich eine Kontamination biblischer Tradition (Auszugs- und Schilfmeerlegende!) mit der mandäischen Vorstellungswelt im Osten, wie sie der Diwan d Nahrawata belegt. Immerhin ist daraus zu entnehmen, daß man die Zerstörung Jerusalems und die Verbannung der Juden als Strafe für ihre mandäerfeindliche Haltung ansah, wie es auch in anderen Texten 3 ^ Joh. dem Täufer werden hier und auch GR 51, 10 (Lidzb.) 42 Lebensjahre zugeschrieben (woher und wie verbürgt diese Nachricht ist, läßt sich z. Zt. noch nicht feststellen), 60 Jahre nach seinem Tode kam die Verfolgung über seine Jünger. Ist Johannes etwa um 32 n. Chr. umgekommen (die Umstände sind legendär sehr ausgewuchert), so wäre das besagte Pogrom gegen 92 anzusetzen, also nach der Zerstörung Jerusalems im Jahre 70 (die Juden hatten dazu sicherlich bis 132 noch genügend Mittel, eine kleine Gruppe Dissidenten loszuwerden). Die Zahl 60 ist allerdings durch wiederholtes Vorkommen (60 000 und 60 Nasoräer) nicht sehr zuverlässig. Die Zerstörung Jerusalems wird in HG auf das "östliche" Jerusalem bezogen. Macuch zieht neuerdings auf Vorschlag von F. Altheim (Bibl. Or. 1966, 325 b) die Johannesjünger in Ephesus (nach Act. 18, 24-19, 3) zur weiteren Begründung seiner These heran (Gnost. Ethik S. 265), was ich für sehr kühn halte (s. bereits meine Mandäer I, S. 77 u. E. Haenchens Komm. z.St.).

124

KURT

RUDOLPH

g e s c h i e h t . A l l e r d i n g s ist auffällig, daß in den sorgfältiger überlieferten "Weltgeschichten", wie sie einerseits die beiden Parallelversionen im I . und 2.Buch, andererseits im 18.Buch des rechten Ginza (GR) bringen, keine Verfolgung durch die Juden in diesem Zusammenhang erwähnen (s. Anm. 17). In diesen Texten ist auch eine korrektere, der historischen Wahrheit mehr folgende Darstellung der jüdischen Geschichte verzeichnet, natürlich auch in mandäische Farben getaucht (Rühä baut auch hiernach Jerusalem und Adönai ist ein schlechter Gott) der Auszug aus Ägypten, die Schilfmeerlegende, die Mosezeit, der Bau Jerusalems, das Auftreten Johannes des Täufers und Christi sind chronologisch und der biblischen Überlieferung entsprechend annähernd wiedergegeben. Daraus ergibt sich sehr klar, daß wir in HG eine spätere Bearbeitung oder besser gesagt eine Klitterung vor uns haben, die mit der sicher älteren Tradition in Widerspruch steht, da sie die historischen und geographischen Nachrichten vöüig durcheinanderbringt. Was sie aber als eigenständiges und neues Gut bringt, ist demgegenüber I. die Einwanderung der Nasoräer unter König Ardban in das medische Bergland und 2. die dürren Nachrichten über das Schicksal der Gemeinde unter Parthern und Sasaniden (Z. 74ff.)- Mit der ersteren Nachricht wurde offenbar auch die Johanneslegende verbunden; bekanntlich wächst Johannes auch nach dem Joh.-buch auf dem mythischen Berg Parwan auf.*'' Der Topos vom "Berge Madai" und "Haran Gawaita" ist von mir schon früher als ein Beleg für den Aufenthalt der (oder nur einer) mandäischen Gemeinde in den nördhchen Gebieten bezeichnet worden.*I Es muß sich um 3 8 GR 15. Buch, I I . Stück (S. 336 ff. Lidzb.); meine Qucllenauswahl S. 384 ff.; vgl. auch GR i. Buch § 202 (S. 30, Q - 1 4 Lidzb.); 2. Buch, i. Stück (S. 48, 15-18 Lidzb.); die GedächtnisHtanci Can. Prayerbook 154, 3-6 (Kol. 199 b, 12-17) nennt Johannes (nach §um bar Nu!) und die 365 Jünger {tarmide), die sich von der Stadt Jerusalem trennten (auf eine Parallele dazu aus der Damaskusschrift IV 2 f. weist Macuch, Gnost. Ethik S. 264 f.). Die Mirjai-Legende setzt diesen Zusammenhang ebenfalls voraus: vgl. Joh.buch Kap. 35 (137, 12 ff. Lidzb.; meine Quellenauswahl S. 396 f.). Diese Legende ist übrigens ganz in das östliche Milieu getaucht und lokalisiert Jerusalem an den Euphrat, wie bes. auch aus der Version im Joh.-buch hervorgeht (vgl. ebd. 394 ff.). 3 8 Vgl. meine Quellenauswahl S. 377 ff.; Ginzä ed. Lidzb. S. 410 f. Kap. 32 (S. 116, 10-19 Lidzb.). Hier wird Jerusalem deutlich in Judäa [jahud) lokalisiert (117, i). Zur mand. Joh.-gestalt s. meine Mandäer I, S. 66ff. u. unten S. 140). tjhev Parwän (= Tarwän; s. anch Macuch, Anfänge S. 135) denke ich heute immer noch so, wie ebd. S. 134 Anm. 6, trotz der Kritik von Widengren, Die Religionen Irans, Stuttgart 19, S. 297 Anm. 9a. *i Ebd. S. 134 ff. (hier alle diesbezüglichen Belege).

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R D E R M A N D Ä E R

125

eine Sondertradition handeln, da sie uns bisher in keiner anderen mandäischen Quelle begegnet. Sie als im Kern unhistorisch hinzustellen, ginge allerdings zu weit, da sie einmal mit anderen Nachrichten übereinstimmt, die die Mandäer mit Nordmesopotamien (Theodor bar Könai: Adiabene!) zusammenbringen, andererseits " H a r r ä n " durchaus eine Station auf der Wanderung vom Westen gewesen sein kann.*^ Ihre Verknüpfung mit einem Partherrherscher, der sogar ad majorem gloriam Mandaeorum als Ahn eines nicht näher identifizierbaren mandäischen (?) Herrschers (Bhirä bar Sitil ist offensichtlich nur der Malwäse-Name) gemacht wurde, bewahrt wohl einerseits Erinnerungen an eine relativ gute Zeit unter dieser Dynastie, andererseits ein wichtiges Datum der so dunklen mandäischen Frühgeschichte. So kann man zusammenfassend feststellen, daß die HG-Rolle eine recht ungeschickte Kompilation verschiedener älterer Überlieferungen darstellt, welche jede für sich einen gewissen und unterschiedlichen historischen Wert haben, insgesamt aber ein Dokument der in den östlichen Wohnsitzen beheimateten Gemeinde und ihres dort ausgebildeten geographischen Horizontes und Weltbildes ist.*^ 1.2. Als eine weitere wichtige Quelle haben sich in letzter Zeit die Kolophone (Abschreiberlisten) des mandäischen Handschriften erwiesen, nachdem man sie bisher kaum beachtete (Lidzbarski übersetzte sie nicht und war ihnen gegenüber — z.T. mit Recht — mißtrauisch). Es ist das Verdienst R. Macuchs hier Bahn gebrochen zu haben.** Durch Untersuchung des Kolophons zum Qolastä, dem I.Teil des "Kanonischen Gebetbuches",*^ läßt sich als ältester Kopist Zäzai d Gawaztä bar Natar aus Tib, ein wichtiges Zentrum mandäischer Schriftstellerei, eruieren, der wenn man den Zeitangaben trauen kann, offenbar in der 2. Hälfte des 3.Jhs. gelebt hat. Als nächster wichtiger Abschreiber tritt uns der Ethnarch ( m ama) Asgandä entgegen, ebenfalls in Tib tätig und im 6.Jh. lebend, also noch in vorislamischer Zeit. Der dritte namentlich bekannte Überlieferer ist der fast in allen Kolophonen erwähnte *2 VgL meine "Religion der Mandäer" (s.o. Anm. 3), S. 449. ^3 Eine nähere kritische Analyse von HG behalte ich mir an anderer Stelle vor. Anfänge S. 158 ff.; Gnost. Ethik S. 260, 271 f. Vgl. dazu Rudolph, Zum gegenwärtigen Stand S. 134 ff. Schop Lady Drower schenkte den Kolophoncn große Aufmerksamkeit und übersetzte sie regelmäßig in ihren Textausgaben. * 5 E. S. Drower, The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans, Leiden 1959, S. 59 ff. (mand. Text Kol. 92-99), 148 ff. (Kol. 196-199).

126

KURT

RUDOLPH

Rämowi aus der Mitte des 7.Jhs., d.h. kurz nach der islamischen Eroberung des Irak, als der Ethnarch Anös bar Danqä wirkte, der sich um die Weiterexistenz der mandäischen Gemeinde unter den Arabern große Verdienste erworben hat.*^ Auch wenn uns die mandäische Zeitrechnung — bes. der Ausdruck snia bdaria im Canonical Prayerbook Kol 9 9 . 4 ! . — noch unklar ist, so bleibt doch festzuhalten, daß die sowohl aus stilistischen Untersuchungen als auch aus religionsphänomenologischen Gründen gewonnene Erkenntnis vom hohen Alter der kultisch-liturgischen Literatur durch Abschreiberlisten bestätigt werden kann (s.u.). In diesem Zusammenhang ist es auch erwähnenswert, daß der früher leichthin behauptete Vorgang der Sammlung zu größeren Werken, wenn nicht überhaupt die schriftliche Redaktion, nicht erst durch den Einbruch des Islams und seiner Forderung nach heiligen Büchern erfolgt ist, sondern, wie Macuch nachweisen konnte, schon in vorislamischer Zeit einsetzte.*^ Ein vornehmlicher Grund dafür scheint der gewesen zu sein, die ursprünglich auf Rollen geschriebenen Texte vor Verlust zu retten und in die haltbareren und leichter zu handhabenden Kodices umzuschreiben. Die Rollenform ist zwar durchaus nicht verschwunden, beschränkt sich aber heutzutage nur auf die kürzeren Texte (die handliche Buchform ist z.B. für das vielbenutzte Gebetbuch bis heute üblich). Sicherlich hat der Islam die Tendenz zur Sammlung und Kodifizierung weiterhin bestärkt und in Gang gehalten (wie bes. für Ginzä und Joh.-buch vorauszusetzen), keinesfalls aber allein in Gang gebracht. Es ist sicherlich nicht abwegig, daran zu erinnern, daß vom 3 . - 5 . Jh. zahlreiche vorderorientalische Religionen ihre heiligen Schriften und Kommentare sammelten, wie auch ihre Organisation zu dauerhaften Formen ausbauten (Manichäismus, bab. Judentum, östl. Christentum, Zoroastrismus). In dieser Bewegung sollte auch die Konsolidierung der mandäischen Gemeinde gesehen werden. Aus diesen Feststellungen ergibt sich, daß das übliche Mißtrauen gegenüber der vorislamischen mandäischen Überlieferung nicht gerechtfertigt ist, was eine historisch-kritische Betrachtung natürlich nicht ausschheßt, wie sie auch anderen Werken dieser Art zuteil wird. 1 . 3 . Für die Datierung mandäischer Überlieferungen spielen die "6 Macuch, Anfänge S. 177 ff.; Hauptquelle ist HG Z. 142 ff. Ebd. S. 179 ff.

47

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R D E R M A N D Ä E R

127

erhaltenen Zaubertexte eine nicht zu unterschätzende Rolle.*^ Von den drei dafür verwendeten Arten — Bleitafeln, Tonschalen und Papier- oder Lederrollen — sind die ersteren die wichtigsten, da sie, wie schon Lidzbarski feststellte, die ältesten mandäischen Denkmäler sind. Zu der bereits 1909 erstmalig veröffentlichten Bleitafel aus Londoner Besitz ("Tafel Lyon") durch Lidzbarski treten jetzt fünf weitere, die R. Macuch und A. Caquot publizierten.*^ Während Lidzbarski diese Tafeln in das 4.Jh. n.Chr. setzte,^" befürwortet Macuch eine Datierung in das 2. oder 3.Jh.^^ Die älteste der von ihm edierten Bleitafeln (I) ist vor der mutmaßlichen Redaktion des Qolastä anzusetzen, also vor der ersten Hälfte des S.Jh.s, die zweite (H) am Ende der vorislamischen Zeit (6.Jh. ?), da sie abweichende Zitate aus dem Liturgientext e n t h ä l t . D i e anderen beiden lassen sich nicht näher datieren, als daß die eine (HI) "ziemlich a l t " ist, die andere (IV) aus islamischer Zeit stammt. Sicherheit läßt sich auf diesem Sektor verständlicherweise nicht restlos erreichen. Meine Bedenken richten sich vor allem gegen die Datierung der Tafel I. Einmal ist der Bezug auf die Redaktion der Liturgien in diesem Zusammenhang keinesfalls entscheidend, da diese Redaktion selbst einen gewissen hypothetischen Charakter Eine Übersicht mit Bibhographie darüber gebe ich in: Die mandäische Literatur (s.o. Anm. 4), S. ''^ Altmandäische Bleirollen, in: F. Altheim u. K. Stiehl, Die Araber in der Alten Welt, Bd. 4, Berlin 1967, S. 91-203; Bd. 5, Berlin 1968, S. 34-72, 454-468 (Abb.). Die ersten drei entstammen iranischem Privatbesitz (aus Ahwäz; jetzt im Besitz Macuchs), die vierte gehört zu den von S. Westphal-Hellbusch 1955 im Irak erworbenen Bleitafeln. A. Caquot, Un phylactere mandeen en plomb, in: Semitica XXII, 1972, S. 67-87 (stammt aus dem Besitz von J . Leroy, der sie 1954 l^rak erwarb, nach Angaben aus der Umgebung von Kerkuk). — Die Sitte auf Blei zu schreiben, ist schon den Griechen bekannt (wir besitzen attische Bleilamellen aus dem 5. Jh. v. Chr.), bes. auch im Zauberwesen, was sich in nachchristlicher Zeit forsetzt (vg. dazu RAC 8, i ff.; 2, 380 ff.). 5 0 Ginzä S. XII; ZNW 27, 1928, S. 325. In der Edition (Florilegium d^die ä M. Vogü6, Paris 1909, S. 349 ff.) spricht er zunächst nur davon, "daß sie um etwa 2 Jahrhunderte älter sein dürften als die Tonschalen" (350). Letztere wurden von Pognon, Montgomery und Driver in das 5. und 6. Jh. gesetzt (Mandäer I, S. 28 A. 6). 5^ Anfänge S. 138; Gnost. Ethik S. 268, beläßt es Macuch bei der von Lidzbarski angenommenen Datierung um 400. Caquot gibt für seine Bleitafel kein näheres Datum an als daß sie "sicherlich älter" ist als die Zauberrolle D.C. 43 (Sir sahria), die eine Parallelversion bietet. Vorislamischer Ursprung ist jedenfalls anzunehmen. Sonst unterscheidet sich diese Tafel von den übrigen (s. Anm. 53, 57). 5 2 Altmand. Bleitafeln I, S. 97, 169; II, S. 51 f.; Gnost. Ethik 272 (Mitte des 3. Jh. s).

128

KURT

RUDOLPH

hat (s.o.), andererseits läßt die Serie der Engel [mlaka) mit griechischer Namensform (I c, Z. 27ff., 4off., 58ff.) zwar auf ein Stück alten hellenistischen Volksglaubens schließen — bei magischen Texten keine Seltenheit — , aber kann darum noch nicht ein höheres Alter als die liturgischen Texte beanspruchen; es können ebensogut Paralleltraditionen aus den sehr unterschiedlichen Stufen der Hoch- und internationalen magischen Literatur sein.^^ Noch entscheidender scheint mir aber zu sein, daß im Kontext ein neupersisches Zitat (Reimphrase) auftritt (I a, Z. I74f; auch Z. 72 ist Süf-Süda offenbar neupers. Einfluß). Macuch, der diese Stelle sprachlich näher kommentiert,^* gibt leider keine Erklärung dafür, wie sich das mit dem hohen Alter dieser Bleitafel reimt. Handelt es sich um einen sekundären Einschub (auf der Abb. ist davon nichts zu erkennen) ? Daß eine weitere Stelle verdächtig ist, das arab. dammah zu zeigen (I b, Z. 32f.), nähst offenbar von der Ungeschicklichkeit des Schreibers her, der das mand. u nachtragen wollte. Nun hat Macuch tatsächlich sprachUche Altertümlichkeiten in unserem T e x t nachweisen k ö n n e n , d i e darauf schließen lassen, daß es sich hier nur um die jüngere Fassung bzw. Bearbeitung einer alten Vorlage handeln kann, nicht aber um ein ganzes Stück altmandäischer Literatur. Inhaltlich bringen natürlich alle Tafeln sowohl aus der übrigen mand. Literatur bekannte als auch unbekannte Züge. "Jede alte Bleirolle enthält mehrere mythische Erzählungen, die in der nasoräischen Literatur unbekannt sind und deshalb als wichtige Beiträge zur altmand. Mythologie betrachtet werden müssen".^'' Da ich hier diesen Aspekt — neben dem sprachlich-philologischen ^3 Macuch gibt selbst I, S. i6o zu, daß Namen mit griech. Endungen sich nicht nur aus dem Griechischen erklären lassen, sondern es sich auch um alliterierende und paronomastische Nachahmungen handeln kann, "die auch später noch im Mand. beliebt waren". Übrigens ist auch Einfluß der Zauberliteratur auf die Eiturgien o.w. gegeben, wie die Beschwörungsgebete zeigen! Vgl. jetzt auch Caquot, a.a.O., S. 75 mit Anm. 2. Die Tafel Eeroy lehrt, daß gleiche Zaubertexte sowohl auf Rollen als auch auf Blei geschrieben werden konnten und so eine unterschiedliche Überlieferung besaßen. 5' I, S. 178 f. 55 I, S. 183 f. 5 6 Ich verweise auf S. 145, 149, 150, 162, 169 (Beleg für die alte Aussprache des finalen -h als Spirans!), 187, 193. 5'' Macuch, ebd. S. 95. Dies betrifft vor allem die an mythologischen Reminiszenzen reiche Tafel Leroy, die eine recht volkstümliche Kosmogonie mit Ptahil, dem "Heiligen", der die Pforten von Himmel und Erde versiegelte (B, verso), enthält.

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R D E R M A N D Ä E R

I29

der wichtigste — nicht weiter behandeln kann, sei nur auf das Bruchstück einer unbekannten antichristlichen "Christus-Legende" in der (leider fragmentarischen) dritten von Macuch edierten Tafel (III a) verwiesen, die durch einige Anklänge an das N T a u f f ä l l t . M a c u c h ist sich dabei im Zweifel, ob es sich überhaupt um einen magischen T e x t handelt und warum diese Legende in einem Phylakterium enthalten ist. Dazu ist zu bemerken, daß viele magische Texte aus alter und neuerer Zeit eine sog. "epische Einleitung" enthalten, die die Zauberhandlung begründen, als auch ihre Wirksamkeit garantieren s o l l e n . I n unserem Falle ist I l l a als Vorspann für I l l b zu betrachten. A n Zauberschalen, die durchweg ein jüngeres Datum aufweisen (s,Anm.29), sind in letzter Zeit fast gleichzeitig einige weitere publiziert worden, doch tragen diese für unser Thema nichts unmittelbar bei.^^ Abgesehen von ihrer Bedeutung für die mand. Sprachgeschichte (repräsentieren sie doch weithin einen Vulgärdialekt, der erst durch Macuch näher untersucht worden ist), haben die Zaubertexte vor allem wegen des Fortlebens altmesopotamischen Gutes Aufmerksamkeit erregt, nicht nur in der Form 5 8 Ebd. S. 36 f., 57 ff. (Kommentar), Z. 17 f. würde ich im Hinbhck auf Z. 27 als eine Bitte Christi um das Wasser des Lebens ( = Barmherzigkeit) verstehen. Auch die Tafel Leroy erwähnt in einer Aufzählung böser Mächte den Namen Jesus {'•su: B recto, Z. 5; fehlt in D. C. 43). 5 9 Vgl. z.B. Fr. Pfister, Zur Weltanschauung des Zauberspruchs, in: "Völkerkunde", Jhg. 1926, H. 1-3, S. 38-45, bes. S. 42 ff. *° E. M. Yamauchi, Mandaic Incantation Texts, New Häven (Conn. 1967, S. 269-305. 404-415 (Faks. Yale Bab. Sekt. 2364) = Berytus XVH, 1967/68, S. 49-63; W. S. McCuUough, Jewish and Mandaean Incantation Bowls in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto 1967, S. 11-57 ("^it Abb.). Beide Arbeiten sind nicht fehlerfrei, bes. die von Yamauchi; vgl. deshalb die Rez. von M. Smith, in: AJA 73, 1969, 95-97; 74, 1970, 219 f.; A. De Halleux, Le Mus6on 8, 1968, 271-3; G. Widengren, ThLZ 97, 1972, 175-178; Rudolph, OLZ 56, 1970, 265-269; M. Sokoloff, Notes on some Mandaic Magical Texts, in: Orient. 40, 1971, 448-58 (umfangreichste Liste der Errata). Von Wichtigkeit auch für die mand. Zauberschalen sind die Ausführungen von J . Neusner und B. A. Levine, in: J . Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, Vol. V, Leiden 1970, S. 216-243; 342-375. Sie zeigen die "Internationalität" dieser Art von Literatur auf, ohne daß ihre jeweilige Prägung durch das Herkunftsmiiieu verleugnet werden kann. Wie die mand. Schalen ihren Tenor haben, der sie mit der mand. Mythologie und Literatur verbindet, so die jüdischen auf ihre Weise (Beziehung zu Talmud und esoterischer Literatur). Das Sefer ha-Razim ed. Margalioth ist e.A. "Ritualanweisung" für die Zauberschalenpraxis. Wir finden mand. Genien wiederholt auch in anderen aram. Texten (vgl. die Belege bei Yamauchi S. 40 f.). Nicht verfügbar ist mir J . Jeruzalmi, Les coupes magiques aram6ennes de M^sopotamie. Diss. Facult6 des lettres et Sciences humaines, Paris 1963.

130

KURT RUDOLPH

der Zauberpraktiken und ihrer Anweisungen, sondern auch inhaltHch durch die Aufbewahrung babylonischer G ö t t e r n a m e n , D i e teilweise positive Fortführung solcher Züge unterscheidet diesen Bereich von der offiziell geübten Ablehnung der "Chaldäer" und sollte davor warnen, von der Zauberliteratur bzw. Magie aus die mandäischen Riten (bes. die Wasserrituale) zu erklären, wie es kürzlich wieder erfolgt ist.^^ Auf eine vermuthche Verbindung spätantiker magischer Zeichnungen mit der auff äUigen "kubistischen'' Malerei in den mandäischen Diwanen habe ich anderen Orts aufmerksam gemacht.®^ 1.4. Weniger für die Ursprungsfrage als vielmehr für die Erweiterung unseres Bildes des mandäischen Kultes werden eine Reihe Texte, in erster Linie Rollen kultischen Inhalts sein, die in absehbarer Zeit von R. Macuch und mir unter Verwendung des handschriftlichen Nachlasses von L a d y Drower in den neugeschaffenen "Studia Mandaica" (W. de Gruyter-Berlin) veröffentlicht werden. Zunächst wird Macuch den umfangreichen Sarh dParwanäje, d.i. das Ritual für das Fest der fünf Epagomenaetage (auch Pausa, npers. "fünf" genannt), herausgeben (mit Übersetzung). D a es sich dabei um das mandäische Hauptfest handelt, das heute noch von der ganzen Gemeinde gefeiert wird, und eine Vielzahl von Zeremonien und Riten umfaßt (Taufen, Seelenmessen und Totengedächtnismahle, Schlachtungen, Weihe der Kulthütte usw.), darf dieses Ritual besondere Aufmerksamkeit beanspruchen; seine Analyse wird für die mandäische Kult- und Religionsgeschichte von einigem Wert sein. Als nächstes wird dann der Diwan dNahrawata folgen (s.o. S. 121). Welche Bedeutung in der Analyse der Rituale mit gleichzeitiger vergleichender-liturgiegeschichtlicher Zielstellung liegt, lehren nicht nur die Studien zum Tauf- und Masiqtaritual, sondern auch die Untersuchung des Priesterweiherituals (Trasa dTaga dSislam Rba), wie sie kürzHch E. Segelberg vorgelegt hat; er kann auch hier eine jüdische Grundschicht (Inthronisierung, Handauflegung, Kuß) eruieren.®* 6^ Vgl. meine Mandäer I, S. 209 ff. (teilweise nach W. v. Soden, WZKM 57, 1961, S. 173 f., zu korrigieren). 62 E. M. Yamauchi, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, Cambridge 1970 (Harvard. Theol. Stud. XXIV, S. 81 ff. Zu dem sehr oberflächlichen Buch s.o. S. 118 Anm. 23. 63 Mandaeism, Leiden 1975 (= Th. P. van Baaren, Iconography of Religions XXI), S. 00, Tafeln III u. IV. 6* Trasa d taga dSislam Rba. Das Mskr. liegt mir seit 1964 vor und wird im I. Band der "Studia Mandaica" erscheinen (R^sume in den vStudia Patristica

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM URSPRUNG UND A L T E R DER MANDÄER

13I

2. Der eigenen schmalen Überlieferung über die ältere mandäische Geschichte stehen einige wenige externe Quellen zur Seite, die es noch kurz zu betrachten gilt. 2.1. D a ist zunächst die bekannte Nachricht von Theodor bar Könai, eines ostsyrischen Häresiologen des S.Jhs., der in seinem "Scholien-Buch" die bisher einzigen Zitate aus der mandäischen Literatur (Ginzä) überUefert hat.^^ Danach sei die Sekte der Dostäer, die in Mesene "Mandäer" oder "Maskenäer" (d.i. "Templer"), in Beth-Aramaje "Nasoräer" oder "Dostäer" heiße, die Gründung eines Bettlers namens Ado ( = Adam), der aus Adiabene stamme und sich am Kärünfluß [ülai) als Händler niedergelassen habe. Die vorangehende Sekte der Kantäer führe sich auf Abel (mand. Hibil) zurück, sei aber von einem Sklaven namens Battai im 5. Jh. (z.Zt. Jezdegerd H.) mit neuen (manichäischen und iranischen) Vorstellungen verändert worden. Im Lehrabschnitt dazu führt Theodor bar Könai ein Zitat aus dem linken Ginzä an. Diese dubiosen Erzählungen sind zwar als Beleg für die Existenz dieser Sekte (die Famihe des Ado trägt mandäische Namen!) und ihre Beziehung nach Adiabene, also Nordmesopotamien, wichtig, atmen sonst aber zu sehr den Geist häresiologischer Verunglimpfung,^'* als daß man daraus viel über den Ursprung der Mandäer entnehmen kann. Ein klares Wissen darüber hat Theodor nicht gehabt; woher seine Literaturkenntnis stammt, ist noch unsicher. Die Verbindung der beiden Sekten beruht auf einer älteren Konstruktion, die die Namen Kantäer ( < K u t ä e r ) und Dostäer ( < D o s i theaner) aus der antisamaritanischen jüdischen Polemik verwendet.^' Diese Verknüpfung findet sich noch später bei Michael I. X, Berlin 1970, S. 420-25). Vgl. bereits meine Mandäer II, S. 300 ff. (die persische Herleitung ist damit aufzugeben). ^5 Mandäer I, S. 31 ff.; 255ff. (Übersetzung der betr. Passagen nach der Edition von H. Pognon, Inscr. mand. des Coupes de Khouabir, 2, Paris 1899, 151-155); vgl. auch meine Theogonie, Kosmogonie und Anthropogonie in den mandäischen Schriften, Göttingen 1965, S. 127 u. 245. Eine neue Edition des I I . Scholienbuches wird in Groningen vorbereitet. Dank des freundlichen Entgegenkommens von H. J . W. Drijvers und A. C. Klugkist konnte ich Kopien von vier Handschriften für die Abschnitte über die Kantäer und Dostäer benutzen. Drei derselben (UB Tübinger MS. Or. Quart. 871. 1143; Univ. Libr. Cambridge Add. 2017) haben einen unvollständigen Dostäerbcricht, d. h. es fehlt die Darstellung der Lehre mit den Ginzäzitaten (Pognon 154, 20-155, 31). Sonst finden sich keine grundlegenden Abweichungen. So widerspricht z.B. das Cymbelnschlagen der mand. Abneigung zur Musik und geht wohl auf einen antiken Topos (vgl. die Gallen der Dea Syria nach Lukians Bericht) zurück. Vgl. dazu bes. H. H. Schaeder, Die Kantäer, in: Welt des Orients 4,

132

KURT

RUDOLPH

(12.Jh.) in seiner Kirchengeschichte ®^ und bereits früher im Ketzerkatalog im Martyrium des Simeon bar Sabbä'e (5,Jh.), wo " K u t ä e r " und "Maidäer" ( < Mandäer) zusammen aufgeführt werden.®^ A u c h hinter diesen Angaben scheinen unsere Mandäer zu stecken, deren Existenz damit zumindest für das 4./5.Jh. (Macuch: 3.Jh.) bezeugt ist. Es ist zugleich das älteste Zeugnis für eine der Selbstbezeichnungen der Sekte. Weitere Möglichkeiten solcher Identifizierungen mit anderen Sektennamen aus der relevanten Literaturüberlieferung bieten sich an und wurden von mir früher des Näheren diskutiert.'^ E s handelt sich einmal um die Säbier, insbes. die "Säbier der Marschen" oder Mugtasila ("die sich Waschenden"), zum anderen um die in manichäisch-koptischen Texten genannten " K a t h a r e r " , " B a p tisten" und "Nazoräer" (Nasoräer). In die gleiche Zeit (3.Jh.) führt uns die bekannte Karterinschrift, von der sog. K a ' a b a i Zardust, in der neben Juden, Buddhisten, Brahmanen, Manichäern und Christen auch Nas(o)räer als Verfolgte auftreten, unter denen man mit gutem Grund die Mandäer gesehen hat.'^ Auch diese 1949, 288 ff. = Studien zur orientalischen Religionsgeschichte, hrsg. von C. Colpe, Darmstadt 1968, S. 242 ff. 6** Mandäer 8. 34 f. 6 9 Ebd. S. 35 mit Anm. 5; Macuch, Anfänge S. 92 f. Der Tod des Simon wird neuerdings auf den 14.9.344 gelegt (M. I. Higgins, Date of Martyrdom of Simeon bar Sabbä'e, in Traditio XI, 1955, S. 1-17). Vgl. zum Ketzerkatalog jetzt auch G. Wießner, Untersuchungen zur syr. Literaturgeschichte L Zur Märtyrerliteratur aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs IL, Göttingen 1967, S. 62 mit Anm. 4 (betr. die unterschiedliche handschriftliche Überlieferung; eine andere Aufzählung und Reihenfolge findet sich im Ketzerkatalog des Märijtä v. Maiperkat). 7 " Vgl. dazu Macuch, Anfänge 87-93. Über die ältere Selbstbezeichnung Nasoräer s. ib. 93 ff. (s.o. S. 115). "Mandäer" [mandaia) ist in jüngerer Zeit ein Name für "Laie" gegenüber "Priester" (tarmida) oder "Eingeweihter" [nasovaia) geworden. Vgl. Mandäer I S. 113 f.; Religion der Mandäer S. 408. •'i Mandäer I, S. 36-45. Die hier S. 41 vertretene Meinung, daß die im Eihrist vorhandene Verbindung der Mugtasila mit Elchasai sekundär sei, ist auf Grund des neuen Kölner Mani-Kodex heute nicht mehr aufrecht zu halten (s.o. S. 117). Ebd. S. 57, 1 1 5 ; G. Widengren, Mani, S. 23 f.; Die Rehgionen Irans, S. 277 (Anm. 13 Text in Umschrift); Iranische Geisteswelt, Baden-Baden 1961, S. 249. Anders R. N. Frye, der mktky zu mntky "Mandäer" emendiert, hinter den n^cr^y die einheimischen Christen, unter den krstydan die griech. Christen genannt sieht (Fischer-Weltgeschichte Bd. 8, S. 260 mit Anm. 21). Beachtung verdient in diesem Zusammenhang, daß nach der Haran GawaitaRolle tatsächlich unter den Sasaniden die Zahl der Kultstätten rapid zurückgegangen ist (von 400 auf 140!). Die in der Inschrift bezeugte Eorm nasraje (n^cry) ist das aus dem aram. Partizip näsar, näsrä entwickelte Gentiliz, zum

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R D E R M A N D Ä E R

I33

Namen nehmen offenbar Bezug auf unsere Täufer, die den Berichterstattern unter verschiedenen Namen, die ihnen im Laufe der Zeit von Außenstehenden gegeben worden waren und sich in den Ketzerkatalogen niederschlugen, bekannt sind. Hinzu treten dann die Nachrichten über häretische Taufsekten oder -brauche, die es uns erlauben, den Wurzelboden der zentralen mandäischen Wasserriten zu eruieren.'^ Es läßt sich also auch auf Grund einiger äußerer Indizien die Geschichte der Sekte bis in die ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte (mindestens bis in das 3.Jh.) verfolgen. Wir werden sehen, daß auch die vergleichende Literaturanalyse zu ähnlichen Ergebnissen gelangt. 2.2. Eine in jüngster Zeit etwas reichlicher sprudelnde Quelle sind die archäologischen Zeugnisse für die Entwicklung der mandäischen Schrift. Während Lidzbarski nur einige "mandäische" Legenden auf charakenischen Münzen aus der 2. Hälfte des 2. und dem Anfang des 3. Jh.s heranziehen k o n n t e , h a b e n unsere Inschriftenfunde in den abgelegenen Tälern Huzistans (Tang-i Sarvak; Tang-i Butan) und Luristans (Pust-i K u h : War Kabud, Mihr) aus Unterschied von dem aus dem Nomen agentis näsör, näsörä entstandene näsöräje, (griech. Na^topaToi), wie es in der mand. Überlieferung durchweg zu finden ist (s.o. S. 115). " Vgl. Mandäer 1, S. 228 ff.; unten S. 00. ''^ Ztschr. f. Numismatik 33, 1922, 83 ff.; vgl. Mandäer I, S. 30 f. Die neuere Forschung hat heute ein genaueres Bild über die Geschichte des kleinen Königsreichs Charakene, worüber S. A. Nodelman, A Preliminary HistoryofCharacene, in: Berytus 13, i960, S. 83-121, ausgezeichnet orientiert. Danach setzt der Beginn der aram. Münz\egem\en unter Abinergaos H. (Tbignai cf. dazu Lidzbarski, a.a.O. S. 86: mand. Parallelbildungen, wie Silmai, Nidbai, Mirjai usw.) ein, der von ca. 165-ca. 180 regierte; es handelt sich offenbar um eine Reaktion auf den griech. Einfluß und die Besinnung auf die eigene Tradition. Von seinem Nachfolger Attambelos IV. (ca. 180-195) sind Münzen nur unsicher nachweisbar, möglicherweise gehören hierher einige der von Lidzb. als " 2 . Gruppe" bezeichneten Münzen (88 ff.; Hill: "Gruppe B"), die das Heraklesbild zugunsten eines ungekrönten, bärtigen und gelockten Kopfes aufgeben. Die Mehrzahl dieser Münzen (und überhaupt die meisten) gehören aber in die Zeit des Magha (ca. 195-210), der Charakene noch einmal zu neuer Blüte brachte (Nodelmann S. 118, setzt das "Perlenlied" aus den Act. Thomae in diese Zeit). Da von seinem Nachfolger und letzten charaken. König Abinergoas III. (ca. 210-222) bisher keine Münzen aufgetaucht sind, ist die von Lidzbarski vorgeschlagene Lesung "Mani" und seine Abbildung (in dem bärtigen, ungekrönten Kopf) auf einigen der Münzen der "B Gruppe" natürlich schwer aufrecht zu erhalten (was auch von anderer Seite schon früher festgestellt wurde; vgl. Lidzb. selbst S. 96; G. F. Hill, British Museum Catalogue. Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia, London 1922, S. CCVII ff., 304 ff.). Jedenfalls gehören die aram.-mand. Münzlegenden in die Zeit von ca. 180-210. Sowohl Charakene als Elymäis wurden von Ardasir I. 221/2 erobert.

134

KURT

RUDOLPH

der gleichen Zeit das Vergleichsmaterial wesentlich bereichert.'^ Sie sind Zeugnisse des kleinen, aber bedeutenden Königreiches von Elymäis, dessen genaue Geschichte und Ausdehnung noch vielfach unbekannt ist. Die bisher entdeckten Inschriften stammen aus der Endphase dieses Reiches, das, ebenso wie Charakene, eine wichtige Schlüsselstellung in Politik und Kultur seiner Zeit innehatte. Dies zeigt sich vor allem an den hinterlassenen eindrucksvollen Kunstdenkmälern. Für unser Thema sind die erwähnten Inschriften durch ihre frappante Ähnlichkeit mit der mandäischen Buchschrift, aber auch in der Sprache, von großem Wert. Schon W. B. Henning hat darauf aufmerksam gemacht, aber erst R. Macuch hat sich dieser Zusammenhänge gründlich angenommen.'® Auf Grund neuer Lesungen (mit Hilfe des Mandäischen!) und schriftgeschichtlicher Vergleiche vertritt er die Auffassung, daß die Schrift der elymäischen (und charakenischen) Denkmäler nicht nur "klare Prototypen mandäischer Schrift" s i n d , " sondern von der letzteren abhängig ist.'^ Da andererseits eine schon früher festgestellte Berührung zwischen nabatäischem (auch palmyrenischem übrigens) und mandäischem Alphabet, bes. bei den typischen mand. Buchstaben, existiert,'^ ist nach Macuch die mand. Schrift als "Zwischenstufe" zwischen der nabatäischen und der elymäischen zu betrachten.^'' Überhaupt sei das Mandäische sichtlich ein wichtiger Faktor bei der aramäischen Infiltrierung Huzistäns und der benachbarten Gebiete gewesen. Vgl. W. B. Henning, The Monuments and Inscriptionsof Tang-i Sarvak, in: Asia Mayor N.S. II, 1952, S. 151-178; (Abb. der FelsreUefs in situ finden sich bei D. Schlumberger, Der Hellenisierte Orient, Baden-Baden 1969, S. 159, 160, 165; auch bei R. Ghirshman, Iran, Parthcr und Sasaniden, München 1962, S. 5 4 ! . ) ; A. D. H. Bivar/S. Shaked, The Inscriptions of Shimbar, in: BSOAS XXVIII, 1964, S. 265-290; M. Snycer, Les inscriptions arameennes de Tang-i Butan, in: JA 253, 1965, S. 1-9; L. van den Berghe, Belgische Opgravingen in Luristan. Archeologische navorsingen in de Pusht-i Küh, in: Phoenix 16/2, 1970, S. 351 ff., spez. S. 363-365 (es handelt sich um Bronzebehälter mit schmalen beschriebenen Edelmetallstreifen). 76 Alter und Heimat (s.o. A. 6). 406 f.; Zur Frühgeschichte (ebd.), S. 655660; Anfänge 8. 139-154; vgl. auch F. Althcim-R. Stiehl, Die Araber in der Alten Welt III, Berlin 1966, S. 66-73. 77 So Anfänge 8. 141 unt. 78 Ebd. S. 146 f. 79 Vgl. Mandäer I, S. 29. Diese Beziehungen hatte schon Nöldeke, Gött. Gelehrt. Anz. 1869, 8. 497 f., festgestellt. 8 " Anfänge 8. 146. 8^ Ebd. S. 157. Dies betrifft auch die mitteliran. Ideogrammschreibung (ebd. 167 f.).

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM URSPRUNG UND A L T E R DER M A N D Ä E R

I35

An diese Ausführungen hat sich in letzter Zeit ein heftiger Meinungsstreit angeschlossen. So hat J. Naveh in einem Artikel einerseits jeden Zusammenhang zwischen nabatäischer und mandäischer Schrift bestritten, andererseits die mand. Ligatur in der sehr konstanten Buchschrift als Weiterentwicklung der elymäischen Kursive hingestellt. "Though there is no conclusive evidence, it seems likely that the Mandaeans adapted a ligatured formal Script and stabilized it. At any rate palaeographic criteria support neither the theory of a western origin of the Mandaeans nor the existence of the sect in Khuzistan in the second Century A.D.".^^ Zu einer ähnlichen Einschätzung kam P. Coxon,^* nur daß er die offensichtlichen Beziehungen zum nabatäisch-palmyrenischen Alphabet nicht bestreitet. Seiner Meinung nach haben die Mandäer ihre Schrift mindestens l o o Jahre nach den genannten Inschriftenfunden übernommen und weitergebildet, d. h. also im 3./4. Jh. Beiden Äußerungen gegenüber hat Macuch seine Position sehr temperamentvoll zu verteidigen g e w u ß t . D i e Lapidarform der elymäischen Inschriften ist für ihn nach wie vor jünger als die mandäische Kursive und muß aus dem Material der Unterlage (Fels!) erklärt werden. Die Entstehung der mand. Schrift ist in das 2. Jh. zu setzen und bildete sich im Laufe des 3. Jh.s voll heraus, wie vor allem die alten Bleitafeln lehren; sie diente in erster Linie der Aufzeichnung und Sicherung der eigenen Überlieferung. Einen gravierenden Unterschied zwischen elymäischen, nabatäischen und mandäischen Schriftzeichen gebe es nicht, da man jeweils das Aufzeichnungsmaterial in Rechnung stellen müsse. Macuch gibt allerdings zu, daß es eine paläographische Evidenz weder für seine Ansicht noch für die seiner Gegner gibt; man könne nur bei einem non liquet stehen bleiben: "the answer to this question can only be given theoretically and tentatively for the moment".^^ "Die Frage, ob die mandäischen ^2 The Origin of the Mandaic Script, in: BASOR 198, 1970, S. 32-37. VgL auch Ders., The Development of the Aramaic Script, Jerusalem 1970 ( = The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Proceedings V, i) und The North-Mesopotamia Aramaic Script-type in the Late Parthian Period, in: Israel Oriental Studies II, Leiden 1972, S. 293-304 (typologisch steht die nordmesopotam. aram. Schrift der südmesopotam. am nächsten. "Apparently both Scripts developed from a formal prototype which did not distinguish between medial and final letter-forms", 304). 8 3 A.a.O. S. 37. 8 * Script Analysis and Mandaean Origins, in: JSS 15, 1950, S. 16-30. 8^ Origins of the Mandaeans and their Script, in: JSS 16, 1971, S. 174-192; vgl. auch Gnostische Ethik, S. 270 f. 8 « Origins S. 190.

136

KURT

RUDOLPH

Nasoräer diese Schrift mitgebracht oder erst an Ort und Stelle übernommen haben, können wir allerdings nicht endgültig lösen", Meiner Meinung nach ist es vorläufig bis zum Auftauchen neuen weiteren Materials am besten, davon auszugehen, daß die elymäischcharakenischc (aramäische) und die mandäische Schrift eine gemeinsame Tradition repräsentieren, von denen die letztere eine selbständige Ausbildung unter Anknüpfung an das nabatäische Alphabet d a r s t e l l t . V o n daher ist auch die Frage nach dem Vorhandensein einer schriftlichen Tradition der Mandäer vor ihrem Eindringen nach Südbabylonien positiv zu beantworten. Wir können auf Grund der bloßen Schriftgeschichte einen Beweis für die Existenz der Sekte nicht führen, sondern nur in Kombination mit anderen Argumenten, die sich auf die eigene Überlieferung (Eindringen in der späteren Partherzeit), die ältesten Denkmäler (Bleitafeln mit voll ausgebildeter Schrift und Mythologie) und die Analyse der theologischen Literatur selbst stützt. Die ziemhch konstante mand. Kursivschrift mit ihren ausgewogenen Ligaturen, die bereits in den ältesten Zeugnissen vorhanden ist und zu den eindrucksvollsten und konsequentensten aramäischen Schriften gehört, ist m.E. auf keine lange Entwicklung zurückzuführen, sondern die Schöpfung eines Einzelnen oder eines Kreises von mand. "Schriftgelehrten" für die speziellen Zwecke der Erhaltung der Überlieferung auf leicht beschreibbarem Material (Papier, Leder u.a.). 2.3. Leider besitzen wir neben den bisher angeführten Quellen z.Zt. keine weiteren archäologischen Zeugnisse, die uns über die ältere Geschichte der Mandäer Auskunft geben könnten. Es kann sein, daß uns die in Angriff genommene archäologische und histori87 Gnostische Ethik, S. 270. 88 Zum Verhältnis der mandäischen und nabatäischen Schrift vgl. bereits meine Mandäer I, S. 29 mit A. 5 u. 6! Die Bekanntschaft mit dem Nabatäischen konnte selbst im Zweistromland erfolgen, da es vielfältige Beziehungen (bes. kommerzielle) zwischen Nabatäa und Palmyra in Charakene gab; es existierte sogar eine palmyren. Kaufmannskolonie in Charax, auch nabat. Münzen fanden sich in diesem Gebiet. Vg.. die Nachwei.se bei Nodelman, A Preliminary History (s.o. A. 52), S. 93 f., 99 f., loi f., 112, 113, 114 ff. Noch für die späteren arabischen und syrischen Schriftsteller gehören die Mandäer zu den "Nabatäern des Irak" (auf Grund ihrer Sprache). Die zu beobachtenden Abweichungen der einzelnen Inschriften im Tang-i Sarvak, Tang-i Butan oder auf den charaken. Münzen machen es m.E. schwer möglich, einen einheitlichen Schrifttyp als bloße Vorlage für das mandäische Alphabet zu rekonstruieren. Wie das Elymäische oder Charakenische auf Papier geschrieben wurde, wissen wir leider bis jetzt noch nicht!

Q U E L L E N P K O B L E M E ZUM U R S P R U N G U N D A L T E R D E R M A N D Ä E R

I37

sehe Untersuchung Südbabyloniens in der parthischen und sasanidischen Zeit eines Tages auch dafür etwas beschert.^^ Bekannt ist dieser Landesteil schon seit altbabylonischer Zeit als Rückzugsgebiet verdrängter Gruppen und damit als ein Ort, der viel des alten Kulturerbes bewahrte,®° was auch für die Geschichte der Mandäer

von Bedeutung gewesen ist (s.u. S. isSf.). 2.4. Obwohl eigentlich nicht zu den externen Quellen gehörig, ist an dieser Stelle noch kurz auf Sprache und Wortschatz einzugehen, da von dieser "Quelle" her in jüngerer Zeit ebenfalls zur Frage des Ursprungs und Alters der Mandäer argumentiert worden ist.^^ M. Dietrich hat anläßhch einer Rezension des "Mandaic Dictionary" von Drower/Macuch einen Beitrag " Z u m mandäischen Wortschatz" geliefert,^2 dem er vor allem dem akkadischen Lehnwortbestand seine Aufmerksamkeit schenkte. In diesem Zusammenhang bemerkt er, daß die im Mandäischen zu beobachtende Indifferenz gegenüber der Trennung der velaren Verschlußlaute und der Sibilanten darauf schließen lasse, daß "die Mandäer im nordwest-syrischen Raum um looo v.Chr. (oder auch schon früher) 8 9 VgL H. J . Nissen, Südbabylonien in parthischer und sasanidischer Zeit, in: ZDMG Suppl. I/3, 1963, S. 1036 f. (ausführlicher in: Baghdader Mitt. 6, 1973. S. 79-86). Diese Oberflächenuntersuchungen wurden Winter 1966/67 unternommen und förderten vor allem für die parth. Zeit eine reiche Ausbeute. Bemerkenswert ist der Rückgang des Siedlung-sstandes in sasanid. Zeit (153 parth. gegenüber 78 sasanid. Siedlungen). Festgestellt werden konnte außerdem eine Änderung des Bewässerungs- und Siedlungsgebietes in der sasanid. Periode, sowie eine Verlagerung der Euphratarme, bes. des Hiraarmes (seit dem 4. Jh.). Zur Geschichte der Charakene s. die angeführte Arbeit von Nodelman (s.o. Anm. 74). Eine ältere Periode behandelt M. Dietrich, Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700-648), 1970. (AOAT7).

9 ° Vgl. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, Chicago/London 1964^,

1968, S. 157.

9 1 Über die ältere Diskussion s. Mandäer L S. 30 f. R. Macuch hat in seinem großen "Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic", Berlin 1965, ein unentbehrliches Arbeitsmittel für den Mandäisten geschaffen, das den heutigen Stand der Forschung seit Nöldeke mustergültig aufgearbeitet hat (vgl. meine Rez. in: OLZ 64, 1969, 39-44, und die Abwehr unsachgemäßei Kritik in WZKM 63/64, 1972/73, S. 306-311). Eine kurze Zusammenfassung über das Verhältnis von Schrift- und Volkssprache im Mandäischen gibt Macuch in: Altheim-Stiehl, Christentum am Roten Meer I, Berhn 1971, S. 554 ff9 2 In: Bibl. Or. 24, 1967, S. 290-305. Damit hatte sich D. schon in seiner ungedruckten phil. diss. "Untersuchungen zum mand. Wortschatz", Tübingen 1958, beschäftigt, die allerdings kaum über das bei Nöldeke und Lidzbarski vorhandene Material hinausging. Daß seine Ausstellungen am Mandaic Dictionary vielfach unbegründet und stellenweise sogar falsch sind, weist R. Macuch in seiner Entgegnung nach (Studia Mandaica I, Berlin 1974).

138

KURT

RUDOLPH

lebten, da in der zweiten Hälfte des 2. Jht.s. v.Chr. dieselbe Indifferenz auch im Akkadischen dieser Gegend und gelegentHch auch im Ugaritischen auftritt". Aus dem Schwund der Laryngale auch im Schriftbild schließt D. auf eine diesbezügliche Anlehnung an das Babylonische, "das die Mandäer ab etwa der Mitte des i , Jh.s v.Chr. als Nachbarsprache hatten". Diese kühnen Folgerungen ruhen auf schwachen Füßen, da sie nicht nur allein auf linguistisch-phonetischen Argumenten beruhen, sondern auch eine Reihe anderer Tatsachen dieser Art unberücksichtigt lassen. So sind die angegebenen Eigenheiten des Mandäischen nicht nur diesem eigen, sondern auch anderen aramäischen Dialekten, wie der Laryngalschwund dem Talmudischen (trotz graphischer Erhaltung,^* bekanntlich der dem Mandäischen am nächsten stehenden Sprache. Gerade diese Erscheinung ist zwar charakteristisch für die "phonetische" Landschaft Mesopotamiens, und ihr sind daher vor allem die beiden dort ausgebildeten ostaramäischen Dialekte erlegen, aber noch in nachchristlicher Zeit gibt es Belege dafür, daß dieser Phonemverlust noch nicht durchweg erfolgt war.^^ Auf einer anderen Ebene stehen die schon früher festgestellten "altaramäischen Relikte", die sich im Mandäischen erhalten haben (Nebeneinander oder Wechsel von * und q, d und z).^^ Sie beweisen aber nicht die Existenz der Mandäer in altaramäischer Zeit, sondern höchstens die Bewahrung älterer Sprachstufen in ihrer Sprache, die in die Zeit vor der Differenzierung der aramäischen Dialekte (etwa vom i . Jh. n.Chr. an) reicht. Wir sind dem Problem schon einmal bei der Behandlung einiger "Leitwörter" begegnet (s.o. S. 115). Ebenso auf einem anderen Gleis stehen die akkad.-babylon. 9 3 A.a.O. 291 a. 9 * VgL Nöldeke, Mand. Grammatik (18752, 1964), S. 57 ff.; Macuch, Handbook, S. 79 ff. (bes. S. 79, Z. 13 ff.). Zur Indifferenz der Sibilanten und Velaren Plosivae s. ebd. S. 69 ff. und 73 ff.; auch diese Erscheinung ist im Mand. noch im Werden zu beobachten {q wird klar von Mandäern als velares Explosiv noch heute gesprochen) und ist z.T. auf Lehnworte beschränkt. 9 5 Die sog. alphabetischen Psalmen Ginzä rect. XII 2-4 (271 ff. Lidzb. 274 ff. Pet.) und Can. Prayerbook St. T79 (S. 161 f.); Dazu Macuch, Handbook S. 89. Weitere Belege jetzt in der Bleirolle Macuch la, 9 1 ; I c 54; (dazu Kommentar S. 105 u. 169). Überhaupt bieten die Zaubertexte als Repräsentanten des Vulgärdialekts für die Phonetik mehr interessantes Material als die Hochliteratur (vgl. ebd. S. 102 ff.). In Lidzbarskis Bleitafel findet sich der einzige Beleg für mnd'-a = manda "Gnosis" (Flor. Vogue 352, 16.18). 9 « Nöldeke, a.a.O. S. 43 f., 72 f., 406; Macuch, Handbook, S. 66 ff., 95 f.; Altmand. Bleirollen I, S, 106 f. (zu F. Rosenthal, JAOS 86, 1966, 57 a).

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM URSPRUNG U N D A L T E R D E R M A N D Ä E R

I39

Lehnwörter, die z.T. aus einer Zeit stammen, "in der die babylonische Kultur noch blühte und ihre Bedeutung im eigenen Raum noch nicht total eingebüßt hatte".^"^ Einer " B l ü t e " der babylonischen Kultur bedurfte es für diese Übernahme m.E. nicht, sondern nur der Weiterexistenz kultisch-religiöser Terminologie in der Umgangssprache. Zu diesem Problem habe ich bereits früher Stellung genommen.

in. Mit den geschilderten Tatbeständen lassen sich gut die bereits oben S. i i 4 f . erwähnten Ergebnisse der literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Untersuchungen der mandäischen Literatur in Übereinstimmung bringen, da mit deren Ausbildung in einem längeren Zeitraum gerechnet werden muß. Die Anfänge reichen auf jeden Fall in vorchristliche Zeit zurück und gehören einem Substrat jüdischer oder judaisiercnder Gnosis an, die ihr Dasein am Rande des offiziellen Judentums f ü h r t e . A u f diese Weise liefern die alten mandäischen Texte einen weiteren Beitrag für das komplexe Bild des hellenistisch-spätantiken Judentums im Orient. Wer die tatsächlichen Träger dieser Bewegung waren, läßt sich nur vermuten: offenbar Kreise des unteren Priestertums (vgl. den Begriff tarmide) und vor allem Weisheitslehrer, da in den Weisheitsschulen vor allem mit fremdem Religions- und Kulturgut gearbeitet worden ist und die in ihnen geborene Skepsis auch zum Bruch mit der herkömmlichen Theologie und Gotteserfahrung führen konnte.^^ 97 Dietrich, a.a.O. S. 292 a. Hierzu rechnet er auch die Aufgabe der Laryngale, was sehr wahrscheinlich ist (s.o.). 9 8 Mandäer I, S. 28, 195-222. Zum Fortleben vgl. u.a. A. Sachs/D. Wiseman, A Babylonian Kinglist of the Hellenistic Period, in: Iraq 16, 1954, 202-T2; E. Sollberger, Graeco-Babylonia, ebd. 24, 1962, 63-72; Rudolph, Zum Problem: Mesopotamien (Babylonien) und Gnostizismus, in: Le Origini dello Gnosticismo ed. U. Bianchi, Leiden 1967 (Studies in the History of Religions. Suppl. to NUMEN XII), S. 302-306. Die Frage nach dem "Lebensbaum" in den Keilschriftkulturen erörtert sehr kritisch H. Genge, Acta Orient. 33, 1971, S. 321-334, was meine Vorsicht (a.a.O. S. 215 Anm. 2; 217 Anm. 1.2) nur bestätigt. In der zentralen Kultterminologie (Taufe, Messe) läßt sich kein akkadisches Lehnwort feststellen! Vgl. auch ob. S. 115. 9 9 Vgl. Rudolph, Zum gegenwärtigen Stand S. 139 ff. Die Frage, ob es sich dabei um blutsmäßige Juden (etwa gar im faschistischen Sinne als "RasseJuden"!) handelt, wie sie Yamauchi unnötigerweise aufwirft {op. cit. S. 64 ff.), trägt m.E. nichts zur Klärung bei. Der Begriff "Judentum" ist allein als religions- und kulturhistorischer wissenschaftlich anwendbar. Vgl. dazu auch meine Bemerkungen in der ThLZ 97, 1972, 735! 100 Vgl. meine diesbezüglichen Nachweise in Kairos 9, 1967, S. 109 ff.; ThR 36, 1971, S. 108 ff.; Zum gegenwärtigen Stand S, 141.

140

KURT

RUDOLPH

Sozial gesehen stehen sie weithin im Gegensatz zur offiziellen Lehre und Herrschaft (vgl. die Verfolgung der " J ü n g e r " in Jerusalem, ob. S. 122), was sich in der mandäischen Geschichte bis heute erhalten hat. Die älteste Form des Mandäertums, die wir (nach der alten Selbstbezeichnung) Näsöräismus nennen können, ist ideologisch gesehen das Produkt eines synkretistischen Judentums und gehört in die Anfänge der gnostischen Bewegung, wie vor allem der in das Adamgeschehen eingebaute Anthroposmythos, die Verjenseitigung des Gottesbegriffs ("Leben"), die abgewertete Schöpfung im Chaos ("schwarzes Wasser") durch einen Demiurgen (der u.a. biblische Namen trägt), die "Uroffenbarung" der "Gnosis des Lebens" an Adam und sein Geschlecht, das von ihr oder anderen "Erlösern" (wozu die biblischen Gestalten Abel, Seth und Enos gehören) durch die Fährnisse der bösen Welt immer wieder gerettet wird, und die Seelenlehre mit der individuellen Eschatologie (Seelenaufstieg), der sich Reste universal-eschatologischer Vorstellungen beigesellen, lehren. Auch in Moral und Ethik lassen sich jüdische Züge unschwer a u f s p ü r e n , w o z u auch das Festhalten an Ehe und Kindererzeugung gehört, trotz Abwertung des Weiblichen in der Mythologie und der Beibehaltung antikosmischer Äußerung e n . W e s e n t l i c h e n handelt es sich dabei um den schon von Schou Pedersen eruierten gemeinsamen Bestand des i . und 2. Traktates des rechten Ginzä und der alten Masiqtä-Lieder des linken Ginzä.^''^ Auch die kultgeschichtliche Forschung hat, wie wir schon anführten, zeigen können, daß die wiederholte "Untertauchung" im allein gültigen "lebenden ( = fließenden) Wasser" oder " J o r d a n " {jardna), über deren Ritual und Wachstum wir an dieser Stelle nicht weiter handeln können, in ihrem Kernbestand auf die im Jordangebiet zu lokalisierenden Taufsekten zurückführt, über die wir leider nur sehr ungenügende Nachrichten h a b e n . D i e Theorie, daß es sich bei der mand. Taufe um eine bloße Nachahmung der nestorianischen Taufzeremonie handele, ist als restlos unhaltbar Mandäer I, S. 86 mit Anm. 3. i*'^ Ebd. S. 85 mit Anm. 2; Theogonie S. 281 ff.; Kehgion d. Mandäer, S 403 f. Die wichtigsten Texte in meiner Quellenauswahl (s.o. Anm. 3), S. 369 ff. op. cit. S. 107-145, 146-182, 217 f. (Zusammenfassung).

Vgl. Mandäer I, S. 222 ff.; II, S. 367 ff.; Segelberg, Masbütä, S. 165 ff. Eine kurze Darstellung der jüdischen Taufsekten werde ich in der Cambridge History of Judaism Vol. 2 geben.

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E ZUM URSPRUNG U N D ALTER D E R MANDÄER

I4I

aufzugeben. Wir müssen gerade in diesem für die Mandäer so typischen K u l t a k t eines ihrer ältesten Fundamente sehen, um die sich auch der Kernbestand der alten liturgischen Texte rankt. Dies wird nicht nur durch die Parallelen aus der jüdischen Waschungs- und Tauchbadpraxis bestätigt, sondern auch durch das nachweislich hohe Alter gerade dieser liturgischen Literatur, wie es die komparative Forschung gelehrt hat (s. o. S. i i 6 f . ) . Nach wie vor offen bleibt allerdings das Problem der Beziehung zu Johannes dem Täufer und seiner Jüngerschar. Meine Kritik an den älteren Versuchen, hier mehr zu sehen, als die dunklen Nachrichten uns nahelegen, ist bisher nicht durchschlagend widerlegt worden.i"^ Die mandäischen Überlieferungen über Joh. sind zu widersprüchlich und zu jung (im kultischen Bereich gar nicht vorhanden), um als historische Beweisstücke zu dienen, daß die Mandäer ursprünglich aus der Gemeinde dieses Propheten entstanden seien. E s liegt allerdings nahe, daß die alten Näsöräer eine Erinnerung an diese Gestalt vor allem wegen seiner Taufe (die bei ihm einen anderen Sinn hat als bei ihnen) aus ihren einstigen Siedlungsgebieten im Westen bewahrt haben, ohne seine Anhänger gewesen zu sein. Diese Erinnerung wurde später durch weiteres Material aus uns derzeit noch nicht greifbaren Quellen (christlichhäretischer oder täuferischer Kreise) aufgefüllt und in der Auseinandersetzung mit Christentum und Islam ausgestaltet.^"' Für die zukünftige Forschung bleibt noch viel zu tun. Ich möchte 1 0 5 Vgl. Mandäer I, S. 66-80. Zustimmend: E. Segelberg in: S. Hartman (Hrsg.), Syncretism, Stockholm 1969 (Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis IH), S. 236. Neuere Arbeiten über den Täufer gehen, wenn überhaupt, nicht mehr auf dieses Problem ein. Sehr unkritisch nur R. Schütz, Johannes der Täufer, Zürich 1967, S. 127 ff. Einen Teil der Quellen in meinei Auswahl (s. o. Anm. 3), S. 389 ff. 1 0 6 Vgl. H. Thyen, Baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartion, in: Zeit und

Geschichte. Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag, Tübingen 1964, S. 97-125; J . Becker, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972, S. 38 ff. u.o. Daß Joh. einem sekticrischen täuferischen Judentum entstammt, scheint mir dagegen gewiß (vgl. dazu C. H. H. Scopie, John the Baptist, London 1964). Mandäer (bzw. Nasoräer) und Joh. mit seiner Gemeinde haben also jedenfalls einen gemeinsamen Wurzelboden gehabt. Den Versuch die Joh.-geschichten auf den Einfluß eines armenischen Bischofs, der im 16. Jh. unter den Mandäern in Basra missioniert habe, zurückzuführen, hat J . H. Crehan, JThS XIX, 1968, S. 623-26, mit wenig Erfolg unternommen. Dafür sind die mand. Erzählungen nun wieder zu alt (sie finden sich im Ginzä und Joh.-buch) und die angeführte portugiesische Quelle für diese Vorgänge ist zu dubios.

142

KURT

RUDOLPH

ihre Schwerpunkte in folgenden drei Aufgaben sehen, wobei ich von der notwendigen Neuausgabe schon veröffentlichten Quellen, wie etwa des Ginzä, einmal absehe: 1 . Die Fortsetzung der literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Analysen an Hand spezieller Themata aus Mythologie resp. Theologie, wie z.B. die Erlöser- und Erlösungsvorstellung, deren Untersuchung ein dringendes Desiderat ist. 2. Die Weiterführung der komparativen Forschung, vor allem auf Grund der gnostischen und manichäischen Quellen, mit dem Ziel gemeinsame Traditionskomplexe herauszuschälen, die für Herkunft und Alter der mand. Literatur von Gewicht sind. 3. Die sog. Feldforschung, d.h. die Untersuchung des "lebenden Objektes", also der heute existierenden mandäischen Gemeinden in Irak und Iran. Meine eigenen Erfahrungen lehrten mich, daß hier sowohl in soziologischer und sprachlicher, als auch in ethnologischer und folkloristischer Hinsicht noch vielerlei aufzuholen ist. Auch die Aufnahme und Sicherung der wertvollen privaten (meist Priester-) Bibliotheken mandäischer Handschriften ist eine dringende Aufgabe. Von diesen Bemühungen wird sicherlich eine Befruchtung der beiden anderen Aufgaben erwartet werden können, vor allem, wenn es gelingt, Mitarbeiter aus der jüngeren Mandäergeneration dafür zu interessieren und heranzubilden, wozu gute Aussichten bestehen. 108 Ygi 2u diesem Projekt meine Ausführungen in: Die mandäische Literatur (s.o. Anm. 25), S. 000 ff. Über das wachsende Selbstverständnis, vor allem der gebildeten Laienkreise (es handelt sich dabei in erster Linie um Lehrer), orientiert die Einleitung zur arabischen Übersetzung von Lady Drowers The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran, as-Säbi^a al-MandäHjün, Bagdan 1969, die die beiden mand. Übersetzer, Na'^Im Badawi und Gadbän Rüml, verfaßten, ferner der für die mand. Gemeinde von dem letzteren verfaßte kleine Katechismus TaHim dimja al-binä^ as-Säbi^a, Bagdad 1972 (40 S.), der sich dank des Autors in meinem Besitz befindet. Erwähnenswert ist auch, daß die irakische Dichterin Lami'a 'Abbäs 'Amära mandäischer Herkunft ist. Es sind gerade diese Kreise, die an einem Studium ihrer Überlieferung großes Interesse haben und sie zu fördern suchen. Ein Iraker mandäischen Glaubens (Sabih Alsohairy) bereitet eine Dissertation über "Die Mandäer in der Gegenwart" bei Prof. B. Spuler in Hamburg vor, für die er 1972/73 mehrmonatige Spezialuntersuchungen im Irak vorgenommen hat.

THE RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D M A R O B E R T M. GRANT University of Chicago The rehgious revival undertaken b y the pagan emperor Maximin Daia (305-313) has often been overshadowed by two other revivals, both probably more important. One was the revival held under the auspices of Diocletian (284-305) and Galerius (293-311); the most important phase of this, known as "the great persecution," took place between 303 and 3 1 1 . The other was the revival inaugurated and carried out by Julian between 361 and 363. The work of Maximin is significant, however, not only in itself but because he viewed it as a continuation of the efforts of Diocletian and Galerius; in addition, it must have served as a precedent for the activities of Julian. Though in his extant writings Julian never mentions the name of Maximin, it is at least poetically significant that "not by divine providence but by chance" the tomb of Juhan at Tarsus was very close to that of Maximin.^ I . The Short Unhappy Life of Maximin

Daia

W e know very little about Maximin's life before his uncle Galerius succeeded in forcing Diocletian to make him a Caesar on May 1,305. Only Lactantiusinforms us that he was an adulescens semibarbarus, whom Galerius had just instructed to take the name Maximinus in honor of himself (Maximianus). He was also to assume the name Galerius and, in addition, Valerianus in honor of both Diocletian and Galerius; he would thus become the adopted son of Galerius and grandson of Diocletian.^ (Previously he had been known just as " D a i a , " a man from Dacia.) Near Nicomedia Diocletian took off his own purple in order to invest Daia; thus this young man, sublatus nuper a pecoribus et silvis, statim scutarius, continue protector, mox tribunus, postridie Caesar, accepit Orientem. . . Lactantius' account of Maximin's rapid advancement is open to some suspicion, for he is eager to insist upon the barbaries of both 1 Philostorgius, i/. £. VIII i (104, 8-11 Bidez). 2 De mort. persec. 18, 13. ^ Ibid., 19, 5-6.

144

R O B E R T M. GRANT

Galerius and Maximin, and his description of Maximin is rather too close to what Herodian tells us about the earlier Maximin Thrax, a barbarian whose character was naturally barbaric, who when a shepherd in the mountains of Thrace enlisted in a local auxiliary cohort because of his huge size and great strength and b y luck became the emperor of the Romans.* On the other hand, it m a y be that in this case as in some others history has actually repeated itself. Certainly the emperors of the early fourth century were not indigenous Romans. W e have no idea who Maximin's wife was. He had not married her in one of the dynastic marriages of which the tetrarchs were fond; we do not know what her name was; we learn only that it was said he would have been glad to divorce her in favor of his adoptive mother Valeria, that she took part in his criminal debauches, and that she was finally drowned in the Orontes. W e also hear that b y him she had a son and a daughter, both born about 306.* W e venture to suppose that in 311, after Valeria fled to him from the court of Licinius, he made Caesars of both his son Maximus ® and Galerius' son Candidianus, betrothing his daughter to the latter.' These actions reflect his dynastic-imperial insecurity; the plans of Galerius had not provided alliances for him. Maximin's religious activities first appear in Eusebius' treatise on The Martyrs of Palestine, where we find that at the end of March 306 Maximin published orders to the magistrates of every city requiring a universal sacrifice to the gods (4, 8). "Throughout the whole city of Caesarea b y order of the governor heralds summoned men, women, and children to the temples of the idols; in addition, the military tribunes were summoning each individual b y name from the census list." The census had just been taken, beginning soon after the senior Augusti abdicated; indeed, the attempt to carry it through in Rome was to lead to the acclamation of Maxentius as 4 Herodian VH, i 2. 5 Lactantius, De mort. per sec. 39, 3; 50, 7. * Reading the text of Lact. 30, 7 thus: ipsius quoque Maximini filium suum Maximum.... 7 E. H. Kase, Jr. {A Papyrus Roll in the Princeton Collection, Baltimore,

1933, II, i - i i ) prints a tax record dated by imperial years 8-6-4-2 (June 17, 312). He takes the " 2 " to be an error; we suggest that it refers to a Caesar or to Caesars created in Egypt before August 29, 311. Note that Eusebius [H. E. I X I I , 7) says that Maximin had caused his children to "share imperial honor".

T H E RELIGION

O F MAXIMIN

DAIA

I45

emperor.^ B u t the idea of using it as an instrument in a universal persecution m a y have been Maximin's own; at any rate, Lactantius tells us nothing about such a practice in Bithynia. Conceivably— though this is mere supposition—Maximin was endeavoring to revive the old Roman custom of having the censors (or censitores) take the census in connection with a lustrum or purificatory ceremony. He m a y even have had in mind the suovetarilia, the sacrifice of a pig, a sheep, and a bull, offered when the census was concluded. The more immediate precedent he would have considered was the universal sacrifice required in the reign of Decius. Another aspect of his religious attitude was made plain on November 20, 306, when he was at Caesarea for shows "in honor of his birthday, as it is called" {Mart. Pal. 6, I ) . His birthday m a y or may not have fallen on November 20. It is definitely the case that this day was the anniversary of his adoptive grandfather Diocletian,^ from whom he had inherited not only the name Valerius but also the title lovius which he proudly bore.^^ On this occasion a slave who had murdered his master was given amnesty (after being exposed to the wild beasts), and a Christian was also offered freedom if he would change his mind. He rejected the offcr.^I B y the beginning of April, 308, the intensity of the persecution had diminished. The emperor himself was preoccupied with the reorganization of E g y p t , including the establishment of the new office of praepositus pagi;^^ Maxentius and/or Maximian had killed Severus in Italy; Maximian had broken with his son and had married his daughter Fausta to Constantine. There was something of uneasy calm as the various emperors waited to see what Galierius, in conjunction with Diocletian (whom he had announced as consul with himself for 308), would do about the divided state of the empire. E v e n Maxentius was waiting; he did not announce himself and his son as consuls at Rome until April 20. Under these circumstances Maximin's praeses in Palestine executed only one ** Cf. Lactantius, De mort. persec. 23; J . Moreau [Lactante De la mort des

pevsecuteurs, Paris, 1954, 333), follows W. Ensslin and wrongly dates in 307. ^ T. C. Skeat, Papyri from Panopolis 162-63.

(Dublin, 1964), 82 = Papyrus 2,

E.g., Eusebius, H. E. IX 9a, i ; Syll.^ 900. 23-25. Maximin's concern for anniversaries: Lactantius, De mort. persec. 46, 9. 11 Mart. Pal. 6, 4-7. ^2 Cf. A. E. R. I3oak in Memoires de I'Institute Frangais d'Archeologie du Caire 67 (1934/1937), 125-29 (P Cair Isid 125).

146

R O B E R T M. GRANT

Christian, sending others to the copper mines at Phaeno {Mart. Pal. 7, 2).^^ Christians were being treated better. Indeed, Maximin not only deposed the praeses of Palestine, for reasons not stated b y Eusebius (perhaps related to the rank of Pamphilus, whom he had tortured), but also infhcted the death penalty upon him {Mart Pal. 7, 7-8).1* It is at this point that we should place the imperial constitution which Eusebius paraphrases in H. E. V I I I 12, 8-9. The Christians are to be treated with mercy and humanity, and no harm is to be done them. It is not fitting for the cities to be polluted with the blood of their own people, or for the supreme government of the rulers, well-disposed and benevolent toward all, to be involved in a charge of cruelty. The beneficence of the humane and imperial authority is to be extended to all, and the death penalty is no longer to be inflicted, because of the humanity of the rulers. To be sure, as Eusebius also points out, the " h u m a n e " action substituted for the death penalty required the gouging out of eyes (one eye) and the maiming of one leg.^* Conceivably this punishment was intended to allow the easy identification of escaped miners; in any case, it was contrary to the general Roman practice and rightly aroused the indignation of C h r i s t i a n s . I n 316 Constantine explicitly forbade the branding on the face of criminals condemned either to the arena or to the mines.I' Though this measure of mildness, such as it was, did ensue, it appears that in the autumn of 309, perhaps in preparation for another census, Maximin decided to require one last universal sacrifice [Mart. Pal. 9, 2).^^ This time dilapidated temples were to be rebuilt " w i t h all speed;" men, women, and infants were to offer sacrifices and libations and taste of what had been offered (as in the time of Decius); and articles for sale in the market place were 1 3 On the economic problems cf. my article in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, ed. D. E.

Aune (Suppl. to Novum Testamentum, X X X I I I , Leiden, 1972), 215-25. " Cf. the longer version of Mart. Pal. 11, i (932, 16-17 Schwartz). 15 H. E. VIII 12, 10; cf. Lactantius, De mort persec. 36, 7. 1 6 Cf. T. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899; repr. Graz, 1955), 981-82. " Cod. Theod. IX 40, 2. 1 3 R. Laqueur {Eusebius als Historiker seiner Zeit, Berlin-Leipzig, 1929, 87)

notes that Mart. Pal. 3, i = 4, 8 = 9, 2. But how different could the events have been ?

T H E R E L I G I O N O F MAXIMIN D A I A

I47

to be consecrated b y libations from the sacrifices. E v e n those entering the public baths were to be "defiled" b y the sacrifices. This account is not unlike what Lactantius tells about what apparently happened in 312 (no meat served at the imperial table unless first consecrated)/^ and it m a y be that Eusebius' chronology is wrong. On the other hand, the Christian authors m a y simply be describing what happened intermittently between 309 and 312. Toward the end of what Eusebius calls the seventh year of the persecution (apparently Nov, 20, 309—^Nov. 19, 310) a period of relative tranquility began, and it continued into the eighth year [Mart. Pal. 13, i ) , Maximin was busy with trying to ensure his own promotion to Augustus, which finally was granted him on May i , 310,2" According to Eusebius, his anti-Christian activities lacked popular support (9, 3), Whether now or later, Maximin himself was coming to realize how little he was accomplishing. He seems to have revised his memories of what he had been doing. In a letter to his praetorian prefect, written in 312, he says that "when under happy auspices I came to the East for the first time, and learned that in certain places very many persons who could serve the public good [i.e., honestiores] were being banished b y the judges. . . , I gave orders to each of the judges that in the future none of them was to deal harshly with the provincials, but rather b y persuasion and exhortations to recall them to the worship of the gods." When the judges observed his orders, "no one in the East was either banished or insulted, but rather was recalled to the worship of the gods. , ." ( I X 9a, 2-3). This statement is not true. Perhaps Maximin means that the honestiores were beheaded rather than banished or insulted; he says nothing about the tortures inflicted upon the humiliores. Maximin's notion that Christians (of high rank) were not insulted when his orders were obeyed is not fully confirmed by other evidence, Phileas of Thmuis, himself to be a martyr, describes other confessors as threatened and insulted (VIII 10, 3-4), and Eusebius says that both Philoromus and Phileas were subjected to "threats and insults" b y their judge, even though he "exhorted them to take pity on themselves and spare their children and wives" (VIII 9, 8), The Greek Apology of Phileas, perhaps Eusebius' 18 De mort. persec. 37, 2. 2 " For the date cf. C. H. V. Sutherland, The Roman Imperial Coinage VI (London, 1967), 15-16.

148

R O B E R T M. GRANT

source, tells us that Phileas suffered " m a n y insults" from the (local?) governor at Thmuis and later was "insulted" and beaten at Alexandria.21 The narrative goes on to describe the eagerness of the prefect of E g y p t , Clodius Culcianus,^^ to persuade Phileas to recant. Special emphasis is laid on the Christian's rank. "If you were a man like the peasants who because of poverty ignorantly^^ give themselves up, I should not put up with you. B u t since you possess wealth sufficient to maintain not only yourself but an entire city, spare yourself and offer sacrifice." 2* There is an odd mixture of insults and governmental concern, and it may reflect Maximin's actual policy. If Aedesius, of noble birth at Berytus, actually encountered another prefect of E g y p t , Sossianus Hierocles (as we read in the longer version of Mart. Pal. 5, 3 ) , his execution is not surprising, for he struck the prefect on the face, threw him to the ground, and kept beating him. Hierocles could hardly have avoided putting him to death.25 Maximin's policies actually seem to have been carried out in rather different ways by different governors. Thus a certain Marcus Julius Eugenius, bishop of Laodicea Combusta in Phrygia, states that "when an order was issued by Maximin commanding the Christians to sacrifice and not be discharged from military service," he "underwent many tortures under the governor Diogenes."^^ In view of the high rank on which Eugenius insists, A. Wilhelm suggested that the "tortures" (PDCAAVOT.) were not to be taken Hterally;27 but it is hard to tell to what lengths a governor could go when he could make dedications both to d. n. Gal. Valeriae, sacratissimae ac piissimae Aug., matrique castrorum,^^ and to d. n. 21 C. Martin (ed.), Papyrus Bodmer XX (Coligny, 1964), 24, 6; 26, 4. 22 Prefect probably as early as Nov. 7, 302 (P Oxy XVIII 2187); last mentioned on May 29, 306 (P Oxy VIII 1104); Phileas' martyrdom probably in 307. 2 3 The Greek has St sveav; Martin proposes 81 evSeiav avotqc because of the Latin si scirem te indigere et si

in hanc amentiam venisse.

2* Martin, op. cit., p. 48, 9-50, i. 2 5 Hierocles was praeses of Bithynia under Diocletian and Galerius (Lactantius, De mort. persec, 16. 4), prefect of Egypt around 310 (P Cair Isid 69,

as read by H. C. Youtie, Chronique d'Egypte 27, 1952, 247-53). 2 6 W. M. Calder, ed., Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua I (Manchester, 1928), 170, 5-7. 2 ' Sitzungsberichte d. preussischen Akademie der Wiss. zu Berlin, Philol.hist. Kl., 1922, 837. 2 8 CILIII I3661 - TLS8932.

T H E RELIGION

O F MAXIMIN

DAIA

I49

\C]onstan[tino in\victo, etc.^^ Obviously his own survival was his primary concern. On the other hand, the devout hermit Antony, who insisted upon coming to Alexandria, was conspicuously neglected b y the governor;^® and Eusebius describes a Christian who had been discharged from the army toward the beginning of the persecution, zealously did works of Christian charity, and was put to death only in 310 when he bore a message to the confessor Pamphilus, about to be m a r t y r e d . T h e conduct of the persecution was rather capricious. On May 4, 3 1 1 , according to the longer version of the Martyrs of Palestine, there came the mass execution of forty ex-miners near Phaeno (13, 9 ) . Eusebius says it was due to the order of Maximin himself, and he m a y be right. Presumably Maximin was aware that Galerius, now dying or dead, was about to issue an edict of toleration, and he wanted to act before it took effect. The edict of Galerius was published at Nicomedia on April 30, 311.^^ 2. The Edict of Toleration and Sabinus'

Letter

In H. E. V I I I 17, 3-10, Eusebius reproduces a Greek version of an edict which he obviously supposes was issued b y Galerius. The studies of imperial chronology b y J. Lafauric imply, however, that in its Eusebian form it was published not b y Galerius but b y Maximin and that, in fact, it appeared in its present form between December 10 and 24, 311.^^ This is to say that Eusebius is right in indicating that an interval of about six months ( I X 2) separated two actions b y Maximin; he is wrong in his description of what the actions were. He tells how Maximin set aside Galerius' edict of toleration (though his praetorian prefect Sabinus issued an epistula to provincial governors providing for such toleration, I X i , 2-6) and then, after less than six months, began persecuting the Christians again. First he forbade them to meet in the cemeteries; then he "sent embassies to himself" (see section 3). 29 CIL III 6806; cf. A. H. M. Jones et al, Prosopography of the Later Roman

Empire I (Cambridge, 1971), 257 (Valerius Diogenes, 8). 39 Athanasius, Vita S. Antonii 46 (PG 26, 909). 31 Mart. Pal. 1 1 , 20-22.

32 Date and Latin text: Lactantius, De mort. persec. 34-35, i . 33 "Remarques sur les dates de quelques inscriptions du debut du IV« s i e c l e " , Comptes-rendus de I'Acadimie des Inscriptions (Paris, 1965), 192-210; "Dies imperii Constantini Augusti: 25 d^cembre 307", Mdlanges Andri Piganiol II (Paris, 1966), 795-806.

150

ROBERT M. GRANT

Eusebius' chronological scheme is wrong, but it does reflect a situation marked b y some confusion. W e venture to suppose that he rightly states that " t h e recantation of the previously published imperial decree was published everywhere in Asia and in the neighboring provinces" ( I X i , i ) . This would mean that the decree of Galerius himself was published in Asia and Bithynia, not so certainly in Syria and Egypt. Eusebius does not mention Maximin's occupation of Asia and Bithynia or his conference with Licinius in the summer of 3 1 1 , and therefore he maintains silence about administrative difficulties in these provinces at the time. The edict he quotes, however, .shows that Maximin did not reach a definite decision about the Christians until the end of the year. Meanwhile in E g y p t Peter of Alexandria was put to death, on November 26.^* As R. Laqueur pointed out, the epistula of Sabinus is the enabling administrative order that put the edict of toleration into effect. It must therefore have been issued fairly soon after the edict—of Maximin—itself. Since Lucian of Antioch was put to death at Nicomedia on January 7, 312,^*' it is to be assumed that Sabinus' letter had not yet been issued at that time, but in all likelihood it was promulgated a few days later. The edict withdrew the charges against Christians as a group, "provided that they do nothing contrary to public order" (VIII 17, 9); the letter removed the penalties fo;E^heir religious adherence (IX i , 5-6). This is not to say that Maximin was fully convinced of the rightness of a policy of religious toleration. Whereas the original edict of Galerius speaks of "worship due to the gods" and of " t h e god of Christians," Maximin's edict refers to the former as "the celestial gods" (VIII 17, 9) and Sabinus' letter insists upon "the worship due to the immortal gods" ( I X i , 3). Indeed, Sabinus twice refers to " t h e Deity of our masters," who are called " t h e most divine emperors" or " t h e most mighty emperors," as well as to "their most divine purpose" (IX i , 3. 5). After Maximin occupied Asia Minor, he re-established Diocletian's old capital at Nicomedia in Bithynia. He remained in residence there until some point in the year 312, as we learn from his F. H. Kettler, "Petrus", RE X I X (1938), 1283. '^^ Laqueur, op. cit., 65-76. ^ 6 G. Bardy, Recherches sur saint Lucien 1936), 713^ Lactantius, De mort. persec. 34, 4.

d'Antioche

et son icole (Paris,

T H E R E L I G I O N O F MAXIMIN D A I A

I5I

own statement ( I X ga, 4) and from Eusebius' remarks about his presence when Lucian was a martyr (VIII 13, 2; I X 6, 3). His own statement shows that not everyone was pleased with the edict of toleration. " W h e n last year [ = 312] I had gone to Nicomedia under happy auspices and was staying there, citizens of the same city came to me with images of the gods, urgently requesting that such a nation should b y no means be permitted to dwell in their city." Upon investigation, perhaps related to the martyrdom of Lucian, he found that " v e r y many of the same religion dwelt in that region," and he therefore rejected their petition (with thanks) because it "did not come from a l l . " He explicitly permitted Christians to persevere in their superstition, while he encouraged them to " a c knowledge the worship of the gods" ( I X 9a, 5). Within a few months his desire to encourage the worship of the gods outweighed his willingness to tolerate Christianity. Perhaps his alliance with Maxentius had something to do with his attitude, for it was as Constantine began to invade Maxentius' realm that he decided to reverse his previous judgment. He now accepted fresh petitions from cities and provinces. The judgment of A. H. M. Jones, that "the official petitions of Nicomedia and other cities were clearly stimulated by Maximin himself," is in harmony with what both Lactantius and Eusebius say, but we doubt his furthei inference, that emperors like Maximin " d o not seem . . . to have had much popular support." In our view there was a good deal of popular support, primarily among the upper classes, and Maximin's attempt to revive paganism was terminated primarily because Licinius won at the battle of Campus Ergenus. W e shall later return to this topic. 3. The Petitions

of Cities and Provinces

We are fortunate enough to possess copies of (i) the petition addressed to Maximin b y the Lycians and Pamphyhans (OGI 569; reedited in C I L I I I 12132, lines 9-27; not, as in O G I , lines 8-26); (2) the official Greek version of Maximin's rescript to the Tyrians (Eusebius, H. E. I X 7, 3-9.10-14), official because of the parallel title to an epistula of Hadrian: " c o p y of a letter of the Lord, translated. . . " (Mitteis, Chr est. 373 = B G U I 140); and (3) the end 3 8 The Later Roman Empire 283-602 (Oxford, 1964), 73-74. In any event,

how would one prove the existence or non-existence or popular support, given the fragmentary nature of the historical sources ?

152

ROBERT

M. G R A N T

of the Latin rescript itself (OGI 569 = C I L I I I 12132, the first six lines, equivalent to Eusebius, H. E. I X 7, 14 [820, 1-8 Schwartz]). As for the first item and the third, Mommsen drastically revised his reconstruction of 1893 when he came to print the inscription, with a reproduced squeeze, in the Supplement to C I L I I I . Originally he had supposed that the extant letters of the end of the Latin rescript should be supplemented with a total of 132 letters to the left and 79 to the right; when he changed his mind about the position of what survives he added only 86 letters to the left and 88 to the right, producing a Latin original still in harmony with Eusebius' Greek but less florid. He then went on to reconsider the length of the lines contained in the Greek petition, and instead of supplying 268 letters to the left (the Greek clearly terminates at the right of the inscription), he added only 168. J . Geffcken drew attention to the comment of O. Weinrcich * i on this point, but it seems to have been neglected b y later writers. The upshot is that C I L I I I 12132 contains a reconstruction of the inscription more convincing than OGI 569. W e shall follow the former in most of our discussion. W e venture to disagree with Mommsen's later opinion only in regard to the first two lines of the Greek petition. He read line 9 thus: [TOIC,

cr6)T7Jp(T!,v]

TUXVToq avOpcoTTOV edvouq x a l yivouQ.

W e should prefer simply zolq Bz(j7z6x(x.i<; at the beginning of the line, in view of the parallels provided b y papyri dating from 317 to the late fifth century.'*^ These parallels, as well as consistent imperial usage, suggest that line 10 cannot be read thus: [Zz^oiGTolq Kaijcrapcrtv plus the names of the emperors. The title " A u g u s t u s " ' has to come after an emperor's name, not before it. Moreover, in line 10 the letters are considerably closer ^8 "Zweisprachige Inschrift aus Arykanda",

Archaeologisch-epigraphische

Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn XVI (1893), 93-102; "Nachtrag", 108. ^° Der Ausgang des griechisch-rdmischen Heidentums (Heidelberg, 1920), 28, 90. "Lykische Zwolfgotler-Reliefs," Sitzungsberichte d. Heidelherger Akademie der Wiss., Philos.-liist. Kl., 1913, No. 5, 90 and n. 39.

42 p Ryl IV 617 (anno 317, probably); also 618; P. Lips 34, 35 (c. 375); P Leid Z = Wilcken, Chrest. 6; cf. U. Wilcken, "Heidnisches und Christliches

aus Agypten", Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung

i (1901), 399.

T H E RELIGION

OF MAXIMIN

DAIA

153

together than in hne 9; the preserved portion of this line contains 29 letters in the space given to 23 in line 9. Therefore it is possible that at the beginning of line 10 there could have been 16 letters rather than Mommsen's 12. W e read, in the light of the papyri already mentioned, [AuToxparopaiv K a i ] , with special reference to P R y l I V 617, 2. It is true that the emperors should have been addressed as HsPacjToi, but in defense of our restoration we refer to P Oxy I V 705, a petition addressed to Severus and his son Antoninus; there too this title is lacking. More important is the fact that at the end of line 10, after the names of Maximin, there is a space left blank; it could have held 6-8 letters. The extant part of line 11 begins thus: xal OuaXsp. Aixivviavw Aixivvicp; before this there was a space for 12-15 letters. In 1893 Mommsen suggested that the author(s) of the petition did not know Constantine's name; later he thought that the "spatium relictum est vacuum aut temere aut propterea quod qui epistulam dictavit de nomine Caesaris alterius dubitabat." The intentional character of the omission has been emphasized by J. Moreau, following J. Maurice and H. Gregoire: "C'est qu'on ne salt, a I'epoque, si Maxence ne sera pas reconnu dans I'empire d'Orient."*^ At this point (June 312) Constantine had already invaded Italy, whose ruler was bound to Maximin at least b y a secret treaty of societas and amicitia^'^ Maxentius, unlike Constantine but like Maximin himself, had issued memorial coins in honor of Galerius after his death in 311.*^ And the inhabitants of Lycia and Pamphylia may already have had some reason to suppose that Constantine would not favor measures against the Christians. If Eusebius and Lactantius are right in stating that the petitions were officially inspired,*® Maximin's chancery may have believed it would not be suitable to mention the name of Constantine. W h a t the Lycians and Pamphyhans wrote was approximately as 43 Moreau, op. cit., 424. A good parallel occurs on a milestone from Podere Polvento near Fabro in Etruria: IMPP DD NN CONS[T]ANTINI (blank space) PERPETVI SEMPER AVG (W. Harris in Papers of the British School at Rome 33, 1965, 123; cf. L'annee epigraphiqite 1969/1970, 185c, with the

proposed date of 315-316). 4 * Lactantius, De mort, persec. 43, 2-4. Was the alliance secret, or only the mission to create it? Both Lactantius (44, 10) and Eusebius {H. E. VHI 14, 7) treat it as a secret alliance, but the former is clearly influenced by Constantinian sources. 4 5 Sutherland, op. cit., 246-47. 4 6 Eusebius, H. E. IX 2; Lactantius, De mort. persec. 36, 3.

154

R O B E R T M. G R A N T

follows. " T o the masters of every nation and people, the emperors and Caesars Galerius Valerius Maximinus and—and Valerius Licinianus Licinius, from the nation of the Lycians and Pamphylians, a petition and supplication. Since the gods your kinsmen have demonstrated to all their love of mankind, O most divine kings, who are concerned with worship of them on behalf of the eternal security of yourselves, the ever-victorious masters, we considered it would be well to take refuge with your eternal majesty and make petition that the Christians, long suffering from madness (?) and even now maintaining the same disease, should at length be made to cease and not give offence by some ill-omened new cult to the worship due to the gods. This result would be achieved if b y your divine and eternal will it should be established that the privileges of the abominable practise of the godless have been denied and forbidden, and that all take part in the worship of the gods your kinsmen on behalf of your eternal and imperishable majesty. Such an action wil be greatly beneficial to all your subjects, as is obvious." The petition was not identical with the one submitted b y the Tyrians, for in replying to the latter Maximin stated that if the Christians "persist in their damnable folly" (the emperor's own expression)*' they are to be "banished and driven away from your city and its environs, as you requested" (IX 7, 12). The Lycians and Pamphylians did not make precisely this request. As for the imperial rescripts in response to the petitions, Maximin presumably echoes their language in later describing the grounds for his decision. He says that he was influenced b y (i) the traditional practise followed b y "all the ancient emperors" and (2) what pleased the gods, to whom aU mankind, as well as the Roman state, owes its continued existence. The gods' care for mankind and for the empire is mentioned in the Lycian-Pamphylian petition, their care for mankind in the Tyrian rescript. Presumably their care for the state was mentioned in all the rescripts and was related to the "ancient emperors' " concern for them; in the Tyrian rescript such a notice can have been expressed in the passage which Eusebius omitted [H. E. I X 7, 9) In its Tyrian form, the emperor's rescript begins with rejoicing over the triumph of faith and piety over error and ignorance. This triumph has been expressed in the city's petition addressed to the " 'ETrapaxo?

{xaTatdngq:

IX 7, 6 (814, 20), 12 (818, 13).

T H E RELIGION

O F MAXIMIN

DAIA

I55

emperor, a petition inspired b y the gods themselves and especially b y Zeus, who "presides over your most famous c i t y " ( I X 7, 7 ) . Mention of Zeus was of course especially appropriate not only because the Tyrians identified one or more of their ancestral deities with him but also because the emperor as lovius was especially under his protection. Maximin goes on to speak of how the wordings of divine providence, impeded b y the Christians' failure to worship the gods, have recently become more effective.*^ The present propitious circumstances are due to his own piety, and he now orders the banishment of recalcitrant Christians so that the city, now purified, can again worship the gods. Its citizens (like the Lycians and Pamphylians) should ask the emperor for a special benefit (fxeyaXoScopsa), which he will immediately supply. W h a t could this benefit be ? For a possible answer to this question we turn to Codex Theodosianus X I I I 10, 2, where we find a letter or rescript addressed to Eusebius, praeses of Lycia and Pamphylia, providing for exemption of the urban populace from the poll t a x , sicut in Orientalihiis quoque provinciis ohservatur. This populace is to have immunity, sicuti etiam sub domino et parente nostro Diocletiano seniore A (ugusto) eadem piebs urbana immunis fuerat. The last words of the document give a date: Dat. Kal. lun., Constantino A. Ill et Licinio III conss., or June i , 313. Against this date, Seeck, followed b y Castritius,*^ pointed out that (i) the Oriental provinces cited as analogies belonged to Maximin in 313, and earlier; (2) the appeal to Diocletian was characteristic of Maximin, not Licinius (cf. H. E. I X 9a, i ; 10, 8); and (3) Lactantius claims that upon entering Bithynia in the summer of 3 1 1 Maximin quo sibi ad praesens favorem conciliaret, cum magna omnium laetitia sustulit censum^^ Seeck also added the words plebis urbanae to Lactantius' text in order to make the two situations coincide. He concluded that the consuls were originally nam/ed as ipsis Augg. conss., and that this meant Maximiano A. VIlI et Maximino I I . The date would thus be June i , 3 1 1 . On the other hand, Gregoire, followed b y Moreau,^^ rejected Seeck's arguments and maintained that the 48 A close parallel is provided in Nov. Theod. 3, i , 8 of 439. 49 O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Pdpste fiir die Jahre 311 bis 4y6 n. Chr.

(Stuttgart, 1919; repr. Frankfurt, 1964), 53; H. Castritius, Studien zu Maximinus Daia (Frankfurter Althistorische Studien, 2, 1969), 9-13. 18-23. 5° De mort. persec. 36, I. 51 Byzantion 13 (1938), 551-60; Moreau, op. cit., 398-99.

156

ROBERT M. GRANT

document was issued on June i , 313. Relying on Lawlor's analysis of Maximin's probable rate of march, Gregoire insisted that since Galerius died early in May, 3 1 1 , and the news of his death cannot have reached Antioch or even Tarsus much before June i (why not?), Maximin cannot have reached Nicomedia before August, 3 1 1 ; therefore he cannot have issued this document on June i . In addition, Lactantius must be mistaken in saying that he completely suppressed the census in a province; perhaps his measure applied only to Nicomedia. Against Gregoire's claim in regard to troop movements, we m a y appeal to the study b y C. Neumann, who has shown that troops could march 40-50 miles a day for short periods, and that forced marches went at nearly double the usual rate of fifteen miles a day.^^ It still seems impossible for Maximin to have addressed praeses on June i , 311. Y e t while Licinius could have done so in 313, the mention of Oriental precedents and the reverence for Diocletian suggest that the author was Maximin. W e therefore propose that (i) the date should be read as Kal. lun., Constantino A. II et Licinio II conss., thus altering only I I I to I I , and (2) the occasion was Maximin's reception of the petition from the Lycians and Pamphyhans. The date would be June i , 312. Another inscription (CIG I I 2883^) is far more fragmentary. Since it comes from D i d y m a and therefore is related to the oracle encouraged and consulted b y Diocletian, 5* it contains obscure references to Christians, the god (Apollo), renewal or restoration, emperors, and perhaps a p r i e s t e s s . T h e oracle shrine had a chequered career: visited and honored b y Hadrian, it flourished in the second century but declined during the third until a miraculous spring, discovered in 262, led to its restoration under Diocletian. The chief prophet was accused of fraud after the death of Maximin and apparently was put to d e a t h . G r e g o i r e imaginatively restored the present inscription so that it referred to Diocletian's consult a t i o n . R e h m rejected the reconstruction but accepted the 5 2 Historia 20 (1971), 196-98.

5 3 Inscriptions of Ti. Flavins Festus, proconsul for Diocletian and Maximian (T. Wiegand-A. Rehm-R. Harder, Didyma, 11, Berlin, 1958, nos. 89, 90, 159)5 * Lactantius, De mort. persec. 11, 7.

5 5 Wiegand-Rehm-Harder, op. cit., no. 306,

5« Ibid., pp. 322-23.

5'' Eusebius, Praep. ev. IV 2, 1 1 . Melanges Holleaux (Paris, 1913), 81-91; cf. also Moreau, op. cit., 272.

THE

R E L I G I O N OF MAXIMIN D A I A

157

occasion.^^ Relying on what little is clearly legible, we venture to compare Xp!,(7T(,avco inauaoL [with T c s T i a u o - O a i , in the Lycian-Pamphylian petition and dvsvscocjaTO with dvavsoucjOai. tcpocttocttcov in Eusebius, H. E. V I I I 14, 9, very tentatively referring the inscription to Maximin's religious revival. W e should expect that the priests at Didyma viewed Maximin as a prophet; they had so regarded Hadrian and were to "ordain" Julian. 4. The Pagan

Priesthoods

Both Lactantius [De mort. persec. 36, 4-5) and Eusebius [H. E. V I I I 14, 9; I X 4, 2) describe Maximin's appointment of local priests and provincial high priests, while the Martyrium S. Theodoti, apocryphal but lifelike, tells how Theotecnus, supposedly praeses of Galatia, offers to make Theodotus "high priest of Apollo", with the right to appoint subordinate priests and to enjoy wealth and civic honors.^1 Several inscriptions from Outarak in southwest Phrygia, one dated in the local year 398 (which began in the autumn of 313, hence after Maximin's death), refer to members of a highpriestly family, one of whom had been honored b y "Manos Daos, solar courier of Zeus." Gregoire suggested that Manos Daos was an invented national god analogous to Maximin Daia,^^ but it m a y even be that he is Maximin Daia (lovius) himself, named Manos Daos because he is dead and divine and his enemy Licinius is now in power. Another inscription, from Panamara in Caria, does not speak of the new priests and high priests, but two priestly benefactors speak of their own descent from "priests and high priests and Asiarchs of the temples at Ephesus" while indicating their gratitude to " t h e deity of our master the Invictus Augustus lovius Maximinus." ^* Because of Maximin's title as Augustus, the inscription is to be dated between 310 and 313. G. Mickwitz set it in 311 because of Maximin's presence in Asia Minor from the summer 59 Wiegand-Rehm-Harder, op. cit., pp. 202-3. Hadrian: Didyma, no. 494; Julian: Ep. 88, 451B, p. 122, 17 BidezCumont. 6 1 Edited by P. Franchi de' Cavalieri in Studi e Testi 6 (1901), 75, 23-31; cf. H. Delehaye in Analecta Bollandiana 22 (1903), 320-28; H. Gr6goire-P. Orgels in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951), 168-69. 6 2 W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phyrgia I 2 (Osxford, 1897), 566-67 (nos. 467-69); cf. also A. Souter in Classical Review 11 (1879), 136-37

(No. VI).

6 3 Byzantion 8 (1933), 49-56. 6 4 Syll.^ goo, 1-7.23-25.

158

R O B E R T M. G R A N T

of that year through the following winter but it could come from 312 as well, or even from early 313. The precise date of Maximin's religious reorganization is hard to determine. Lactantius places it after Maximin's conference with Licinius in the summer of 3 1 1 and, indeed, after his receipt of the petitions from cities and provinces. Eusebius seems to place it after Maximin's alliance with Maxentius, hence probably late in 311 (VIII 14, 7-9), but this section of his Church History is not arranged entirely in accordance with chronology. In Book I X he places the appointments after the rescripts from cities and provinces (4, 1-2), but here too his chronology leaves much to be desired. In spite of these difficulties we venture to guess that the priests and the high priests were appointed early in 312. Another problem arises when we look at Lactantius' account more closely. "Giving assent to the petitions, in a new fashion (novo more) he appointed nobles, one in each city, as high priests to offer sacrifices daily to all their gods and, with the support of the earlier established priests, to prevent the Christians from building churches and from holding public or private meetings; they had authority to arrest Christians and either compel them to sacrifice or bring them before the judges. Futhermore, he placed men of the highest rank over each province as pontifices, instructing both classes of priests to wear white cloaks in public." What was new ? Moreau suggests that " l a nouveaute consiste dans I'etablissement d'une hierarchic rehgieuse locale qui se caique plus etroitement sur la hierarchic civile." Evidently the words "plus etroitement" must be emphasized, for there was nothing new about an organization of this kind. In E g y p t , just as there was a "prefect of Alexandria and all E g y p t , " so for religious affairs there was a "high priest of Alexandria and all E g y p t , " and from Ptolemaic times there had been other "high priests and prophets . - . and other priests." The functions of the supreme high priest overlapped 6 5 "Geld und Wirtschaft im romischen Reich des vierten Jahrhunderts n. Chr.," Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1932), 85 n. 22.

Comment. Human.

Litt. (Helsinglors,

** Moreau, op. cit., 402. 6 7 ILS 8995; l^hilo, In Flacc. 2; Josephus, Bell, IV 616; Eusebius, //. E. VI 2, 2. 6 8 OGI 679, 1-2; cf. the list in W. Otto, Pviester und Tempel in hellenisti-

schen Agypten II (Leipzig-Berlin, 1908), 338 (ct. 322). Otto wrongly included Idioi Logoi in his list. 69 OGI 56, 3-5 (238 B. C).

T H E RELIGION

O F MAXIMIN D A I A

I59

those of the Idios Logos or finance minister and even those of the prefect.'0 Other high priests were in charge of the imperial cult in various cities.'^ Naturally the high priest of Alexandria and all E g y p t was closely related to the Roman administration. Under Hadrian the high priest L. Julius Vestinus was almost certainly a descendant of L. Juhus Vestinus, prefect of E g y p t under Nero.'^ Such imperial high priests were not, of course, confined to E g y p t . Among the many examples we cite only t w o : the high priest of the Augusti of the league of the Galatians and the high priest of Cyprus of the god Augustus Caesar.'* B u t the white cloaks of Maximin's priests point toward an Egyptian model, and there are other intimations of such a precedent.'^ Eusebius (not Lactantius) tells how a certain Theotecnus provided Maximin with an oracle-producing statue of Zeus Philius, which gave orders for the banishment of Christians ( I X 3 ) . He also tells how after his defeat the emperor " p u t to death many priests and prophets of the gods . . . whose oracles had incited him to begin the w a r " ( I X 1 0 , 6 ) . Finally, when Licinius came to Antioch he "tortured the prophets and priests of the new-made idol, to find out by what contrivance they were practising their deceit." He then executed Theotecnus and the others ( I X 1 1 , 6 ) . Eusebius' account does not permit us to say that Maximin definitely appointed prophets as well as priests and high priests. If he did so, a papyrus allows us to see what kind of organization they might have had, for it refers to an dpxt.7rpo
7 0 Cf. P. R. Swarney, The Ptolemaic

and Roman Idios Logos (American

Studies in Papyrology VIII, Toronto, 1971). 7 1 Examples cited in F. Preisigke-E. Kiessling, Worterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden III (Berlin, 1929), 370-71. 7 2 OGI 679; cf. O. Reinmuth in Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 4 (1967), 82. 73 OGI 540, 7; 541, 4. 74 OGI 582, 4. 7 5 J . Maurice in Byzantion 12 (1973), 71-103; H. Gr6goire in Chronique d'Egypte 29 (i94o)> 119-23-

7 6 P Tebt II 313 = Wilcken, Chrest. 86 (A. D. 210/211).

l6o

ROBERT M. GRANT

Christian church.'^^ In the case of Juhan (and presumably that of Maximin), he himself was naturally the ap^tspeu^; [lijiGTot; = pontifex maximus; below him there were provincial high priests, who in turn appointed local priests.'^ What m a y have differentiated Julian's revival from that of his predecessor was his insistence upon the character and benevolence of his appointees ^ ' ^ though of course we have only hostile testimony about the requirements for Maximin's priesthoods; and Gregoire suggested that the official high priestess Ispatale "delivered many from evil tortures" b y her kind treatment of Christians.^" This m a y be so; a parallel would be provided b y Juhan's high priest of Lydia, who treated Christians well. 81 One thing more might be said about the revival of the pagan priesthoods. E. Stein makes the point that in the course of Maximin's administrative reforms in Egypt, " l a constitution municipale de I'Egypte se trouva assimilee a celle du reste de I'Empire." In the case of the rehgious constitution, it might be said that the rest of the empire was made like Egypt. In either case, the emperor's object was obviously to ensure unity, and indeed a measure of uniformity, throughout his domains. He wrongly assumed that he could coerce the Christian minority. 5. The Toleration

of

Christians

B y the end of the year 312 things were going badly for Maximin, Constantine had vanquished Maxentius and had discovered the existence of Maximin's treaty with him. The Roman senate, grateful for liberation, had voted to deprive Maximin of his rank as first Augustus and to name Constantine in the first place. Licinius was about to marry Constantine's half-sister Constantia and thus cement an alliance against Maximin. Isolated in the East, Maximin decided to attack first, thus setting in motion the chain of events that was to end in his defeat and death. It is certain that at Rome Constantine continued the policy of

' 7 This view is advocated by Moreau {op. cit., 403) and others. Julian, Ep. 88 (121, 24-122, 1. 16-17 Bidez-Cumont); Ep. 89b (p. 138). ' 9 Notably in Ep. 84a (pp. 112-16), to the high priest of Galatia. 8 " Ramsay, op. cit., 566 (No. 467). 8 1 Eunapius, Vit. soph. p. 501 Boissonnade ( = 546 W. C. Wright). 8 2 E. Stein-J.-R.

German text, 137).

Palanquc, Histoire du Bas-Empire

I (1939),

89 {•==

T H E R E L I G I O N O F MAXIMIN D A I A

l6l

religious toleration begun under Maxentius or even earlier. This had been his father's policy in Gaul, as well as his own. In addition, it is likely that at the end of 312 or early in 313 he sent out new directives to insist upon the application of this policy throughout his realm. Seeck and his successors certainly proved that no " e d i c t " was issued at Milan in 313 when the emperors met for the wedding of Licinius and C o n s t a n t i a . T h e y did not prove that the policy of religious toleration was not reiterated.^* A n d at a time when communications between Italy and the East had not been interrupted news of the apphcation of the policy surely reached Maximin.85 When he decided to strike at Licinius he must have considered the problem of unity within the eastern empire. E v e n though he was encouraged b y oracles to begin his campaign ( I X 10, 6) he cannot have considered it possible to continue the persecution of Christians. W e should therefore place the letter he wrote to his praetorian prefect Sabinus fairly early in the year 313. Eusebius m a y be right in placing it before his attack on Licinius. March m a y be the best month. Like the edict of Galerius and Maximin's reissue of it, the letter to Sabinus ( I X 9 a , 1-9) begins with a sketch of earlier history as viewed b y the emperor. Such sketches were obviously necessary when emperors reversed earlier policies. In 303 and afterwards, writes Maximin, " o u r masters Diocletian and Maximian [ = Galerius], our fathers, when they perceived that almost all men ®^ had abandoned the worship of the gods and associated themselves with the nation of the Christians, rightly gave orders that all men who deserted the worship of the same immortal gods should be recalled to the worship of the gods b y public correction and punishment" ( I X 9 a , i ) . W h a t went wrong was that the provincial governors carried out the orders too severely; Maximin himself

8 3 O. Seeck in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 12 (1891), 381-96. 8* Cf. N. H. Baynes, Constantine and the Christian Church (London, 1931; repr. 1972), 68-74; R. Klein in Romische Quartalschrift 67 (1972), 1-28.

8 5 Communications: Lactantius, De mort. persec. 44, 11-12; Eusebius,

H. E.

1X9,

12.

8* We find it hard to believe that Maximin supposed that in 303 c/^iBo^ a-KOLvxeq avOptoTTot had abandoned the worship of the gods (834, 8 Schwartz). It seems more likely that since the Greek translators of official documents were rendering multi as TrXeiaToi, (Lactantius, De mort. persec. 34, ^ = H. E. VIII 17, 8: 794, 8) they were at a loss when they came to plurimi (in VIII 17, 9'- 794. 9 translated as ol •KoXkoi) and used axeSov a T r a v x e t ; for it.

l62

R O B E R T M. GRANT

corrected this when he came to power. He then passes over the events of 305 to 312, rightly recognizing that an account of them would do him no credit, and speaks about the petitions from the Nicomedians and others in 312, attempting to justify his reactions to them (IX 9 a , 4 - 6 ) . This narrative was especially necessary because early in 312 he had provided the toleration which he had withdrawn later in the year. Indeed the whole sketch is needed in order for Maximin's policy to seem in any way consistent. Now he is insisting that the judges are not to apply harsh measures; this is what he had urged (at least momentarily) in 305. Now he is tolerating the Christian religion; this is what he had urged (at least momentarily) in 312. A t this point Maximin is trying to achieve two inconsistent goals. He still wants to "recall men to the worship of the gods," and he has found it necessary to return to Galerius' final edict of toleration. His letter ends with instructions to Sabinus not to permit insults and extortions but to "recall our provincials to the worship of the gods by exhortations and persuasive words." In order to provide publicity for the imperial orders, Sabinus is to make their content known in a decree published by himself (IX 9 a , 9 ) . In view of the divergences between the letter and Sabinus' edict, we m a y perhaps assume that because of the chaotic situation in Maximin's realm as Licinius invaded it there was some lapse of time between letter and edict, accompanied by a rapid transformation of the political and military situation. In this regard the edict shows significant alterations, (IX 10, 7-11), A t the beginning of the letter, Maximin had styled himself " l o v i u s Maximinus A u g u s t u s " ; the edict begins with more normal imperial titles. Throughout the letter, Maximin had spoken of "the worship of the g o d s " ; this is not even mentioned in the edict. In the letter Maximin had tried to justify his policy in regard to the Christians; nothing at all is made of this in the edict. What happened "last y e a r " according to the letter was a wavering in policy; the edict says only that "last y e a r " there was a letter to the provincial governors insisting upon toleration, though this, of course, was misinterpreted b y some of the judges. Now absolute toleration is clearly set forth. Just as in writing to the provincials in 312 Maximin added a special benefaction in gratitude for the petitions, so now Sabinus adds that houses or lands confiscated by the imperial treasury are

THE RELIGION

O F MAXIMIN

DAIA

163

to be restored to the Christians; indeed, permission is granted them to build churches.^' Laqueur thought that perhaps Sabinus favored the Christians, even though of course he was bound by the emperor's state intentions. This hypothesis is not fully convincing, for it appears that altered political circumstances explain the differences between the letter and the edict. It should be point out, however, that at the very end of the edict the special benefaction is justified as ordered "so that in this also all m a y perceive our piety (suCTspsoa) and solicitude {npovoia)." The meaning of " p i e t y " in this sentence is completely different from what it was to Maximin as the champion of pagan religion. The basic purpose of the edict issued by Sabinus is clear: it provides for complete religious toleration. It is basically an authentic document; no Christian author would have wanted to invent it. The emperor's titulature is correct, for in 313 both Constantine and Licinius also sharply reduced the number of their titles, based on ancestral victories, and were content with Germanicus and Sarmaticus.^^ The preliminary statements about constant concern for the good of provincials are characteristic of all the imperial chanceries. Questions arise, however, over words like ^ ^ p - ^ a L f x o v and Xyjaiizkic,, since they occur no fewer than three times toward the beginning of the edict, without any significant variation in meaning. Edicts of this period are often repetitious, but not to this extent. W e suggest that here three slightly different translations of the same Latin phrases have been conflated.^" The original text m a y have read somewhat as follows: Omnimodo et semper provincialibus nostris nos consulere, et eis disponere quae utilitati et commodis eorum spectant quaeque animis cundorum iucunda sunt, neminem nescire credimus. 87 This sentence (IX 10, 10: 844, 12-13) presents two difficulties. First, xuptaxa is not likely to have appeared in an imperial document, even one composed by Sabinus. Rufinus translates ovationum domus, id est dominica sua (845, l o - i i ) , and we therefore venture to read euxr-j^pia (cf. Vit. Const., I l l 65, 3: 112, 29 Heikel), viewing x u p i a x a as a gloss known to Rufinus. Second, the edict itself permits Christians to build (so IX 10, 12) and we must therefore read (juyxop^Tai with AT^ (cf. Rufinus: permittimus) against the overwhelming majority of the manuscripts. 88 Cf. 1 X 7 , 6 (816, 1-2). I I (818, 6). 14 (820, 5; wo5^minCIL III 12132, 4). 89 CIL VIII 22017 = 10064; 22119; 22246 = 10155; 22259; IX 6061 = X 6966.

9 0 IX 10, 7 (842, 8-15 Schwartz, where the emperor's name should be ra<X£^>ioq). Another double translation may occur in IX 10, 8 (842, 26-27).

164

R O B E R T M. G R A N T

In this form (influenced by our reading of Rufinus' translation) the preamble is visibly similar to that of Galerius' edict of toleration, which we suppose the prefect had in mind.^^ Eusebius cannot have understood what this document was, for he separated it from Maximin's letter which brought it into existence. He related the letter to a " l a w " supposedly sent to Maximin b y Constantine and Licinius,^^ q^j^^ the edict to Maximin's deathbed confession of Christ (see section 6 ) . Actually, as Laqueur pointed out, the two documents belong together, for the edict was published b y Sabinus in response to Maximin's order.^^ It did not appear when Maximin was dying, if we can rely on Eusebius' statement that it was published "not a whole y e a r " after the rescript of M a y 312.^* Maximin almost certainly died in A u g u s t . H i s religious revival lay in ruins. A t any rate, it lay in ruins as far as it was his. The inscriptions from Outarak show that the local high priests remained loyal to the gods, a n d — t o cite no other examples—a Syrian inscription of 320 reveals priests hard at work on building programs for " t h e master Zeus, the unconquered Sun, the god A u m o s " (OGI 619). 6, The Religion of Maximin

Daia

Maximin, says Eusebius, was exceedingly superstitious. He promoted charlatans and magicians; he was afraid of loud noises, and "without divinations and oracles he would not venture to move even a nail's breadth" (VIII 14, 8 ) . A s he entered upon his last campaign against Licinius, "his soul was uplifted b y the hopes he placed in demons, whom he supposed to be g o d s " ( I X 10, 2). In addition, of course, he was deeply concerned with the revival of " t h e worship of the gods," to which he incessantly referred in his letter to Sabinus. W h a t proof do we have that he was more superstitious than the other emperors ? His coinage reflects no more religious devotion than Lactantius, De mort. persec. 34, i , itself containing "chancery language"; cf. Moreau, op. cit., 388. 9 2 IX 9, 12. For Eusebius' idea as to what the law contained cf. Vit. Const. I 41, 3 (27, 10-14 Heikel). 9 3 Laqueur, op. cit., 163-79. I X 10, 12. 9 5 The date is based on the papyri: Maximin and Constantine are called consuls on July 28 (PSI IX 1038); the regnal years are 9 (Maximin)-7 (Constantine)-5 (Licinius) on August 7 (PPR IV 10); and the consuls are Constantine and Licinius on September 13 (P Cair Isid 103). 94

T H E RELIGION

O F MAXIMIN

DAIA

165

do the coins of either Licinius or Constantine. He had sacrifices offered daily in his palace, says Lactantius b u t this makes him little different from the mother of G a l e r i u s . T h e main proof of his superstition must lie in his zeal to build and rebuild temples,^^ and in his revival of the pagan priesthoods. Beyond this, of course, lies the concern for paganism which he shared with Diocletian and Galerius and, for that matter, with Maxentius. He seems to have taken very seriously the title lovius which he had inherited from Diocletian and Galerius. A t Antioch, according to Eusebius, he was especially influenced b y an oracle of Zeus Philius ( I X 3 ) . His rescript to the Tyrians includes a brief homily on the greatness of Zeus ( I X 7, 7 ) . A n d before engaging in battle with Licinius he vowed to Jupiter that if he won he would eradicate the Christians' very name.^^ After his defeat at Campus Ergenus,i^" he took to flight and finally reached Tarsus. Eusebius provides several accounts of his last days, which we shall not analyze here. I t is enough to say that in one of them we hear that " h e gave glory to the Christians' god and drew up a law on behalf of their liberty in the most complete and full manner; then immediately, given no respite, he ended his life b y a miserable death" ( I X 10, 6 ) . Eusebius then quotes Maximin's final edict (not, apparently, observing its relation to the letter to Sabinus), and describes his death as due to a blow struck b y God. Suffering from pain, and hunger, he became virtually a skeleton and his eyes dropped out. He then confessed to the Lord, acknowledging that his sufferings were due to his "violence against Christ," and gave up his soul ( I X 10, 14-15). Lactantius has an account like Eusebius' second version, though he ascribes Maximin's sufferings to the poison he had taken and tells how God appeared to him in judgment, accompanied b y ministers clad in white. Maximin insisted that others were to blame for the persecution and then "confessed Christ" and asked for mercy.^^^ A s Moreau points out, these legends, parallel to accounts of the death of Galerius, reflect classical ideas about the fates of enemies of God 9* De mort. persec. 37, i . " Ibid., I I , I .

9 8 Eusebius. H. E. VIII 14, 9; Mart. Pal. 9, 2. 9 9 Lactantius, De mort. persec. 46, 2; on such vota cf. H. Le Bonniec in

J.-P. Brisson, ed., ProbUmes de la guerre d, Rome (Paris-La Haye, 1969), 109. 100 Yor the location cf. H. Gregoire in Byzantion 13 (1938), 584-86. De mort. persec. 49.

l66

R O B E R T M. G R A N T

or the g o d s . L a t e r pagan annahsts, perhaps relying on better sources, state that Maximin's death at Tarsus was fortuita or simIf the emperor's ideas remained consistent, he m a y well have supposed that he was dying because " t h e baneful error and vain folly of those unhallowed men . . . was oppressing the whole world everywhere with its shameful deeds" ( I X 7, 9 ) . ! " * 102 Moreau, op. cit., 60-64, with a reference to W. Nestle in Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft

33 (1936), 246-69.

Eutropius X 4, 4; Epit. 40, 8 ; cf. Victor, Cues. 41, i ; Zosimus II 17, 3. i " * In general, cf. J . Vogt, "Zur Religiositat der Christenverfolger im

romischen Reich", Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akad. der Wiss., hist. Kl., 1962, No. I .

Philos.-

D O S I T H E U S . J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y i S T A N L E Y ISSER State University of New York, Binghamton Among the problems which arise in connection with the Samaritan heresiarch, Dositheus, is the reconstruction of the beliefs of his followers concerning him. The problem is all the more difficult because all the sources we possess, both patristic and Samaritan, are openly hostile to the Dosithean sect and its founder. Before I proceed with m y discussion, let me present the reader with excerpts from the relevant sources.^ 1 This essay is adapted from two chapters of my dissertation, The Samaritan Dositheans (Columbia University, 1973). When I began research on the Dositheans, neither I nor my sponsor, Morton Smith, knew that the material would have anything to do with the literary genre called "aretalogy", a subject about which Professor Smith has recently written. But since aretalogies eventually did play a major role in my findings, I think it most appropriate to include this article in a collection of essays in honor of Morton Smith. 2 Origen texts: GCS, Origen IX (In Lk.), ed. M. Rauer, Berlin, 1959, p. 150; XI (Mt. Commentary), ed. E. Klostermann, Leipzig, 1933, p. 59 f.; IV (Jn. Commentary), ed. E. Preuschen, Leipzig, 1903; I and II (C. Celsum), ed. P. Koetschau, Leipzig, 1899, I, p. 108 f., II, p. 81 f. For C. Celsum I found available H. Chadwick's translation, Origen: Contra Celsum, CUP, 1953. The Eusebius text is from GCS XI, 2 Eusebius III Band, 2 Halfte: Theophany Fragments, ed. E. Gressman, Leipzig, 1904, p. 33, Fragment 15. Epiphanius is translated from text in GCS Epiphanius, Panarion I, ed. K. HoU, I.eipzig, 1915, p. 205f. The text of Abu'l Fath is translated with the help of Professor Leon Nemoy of Dropsie University and Mr. Lee Scanlon of New York City from E. Vilmar's edition, Annales samaritani quos adfidem codicum manuscriptorum Berolinensium, Bodlejani, Parisini, Gotha, 1865, pp. 151 ff.

Among the texts I have not quoted which can give "historical" information about Dositheus and the Dositheans are Pseudo-Clementine Homilies II. 23 f. and (parallel) Recognitions II. 8 - T I , where Dositheus is seen as the predecessor of Simon Magus. I have argued in my diss, (see note i, above) that the Pseudo-Clementine account is largely fictional. Photius, in his Bibliotheca Cod. 230, fol. 285a ff., reports the confrontation between Dositheans in Alexandria and the Patriarch Eulogius, and describes the latter's anti-Dosithean polemic. Although this text is good evidence only for a late Dosithean group in Alexandria, Dositheus is referred to as the predicted prophet. A short (earlier than Abu'l Fath) reference is made to "Dustis ben Falfuli" in the Samaritan chronicle called the "Tolida", or Chronicle Neubauer, and Abu'l Path's text was abridged in the late Samaritan Chronicle Adler (in Hebrew).

168

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

STANLEY

ISSER

Origen, Homily on Luke 25 (middle): (Paul feared lest men should say of him what some had said of the Baptist, viz., "He is the Messiah."), which some, indeed, said even of Dositheus the heresiarch of the Samaritans, others, indeed, even of Judah the Galilean. Origen, Commentary on Matthew, series 33 (on Mt. 24.4f.): There were not many men in the time of the Apostles who said that they were messiahs, except perhaps Dositheus the Samaritan, by whose (name) the Dositheans are called; and Simon—about whom the Acts of the Apostles tell—who pronounced himself to be the Great Power of God. Origen, Commentary on John xiii. 2y (on Jn. 4.25): From the Samaritans one Dositheus arose and asserted that he was the prophesied messiah; there are Dositheans to this day who originate from him; they both preserve books by Dositheus and certain myths about him to the effect that he did not taste death, but is still alive somewhere. Origen, Contra Celsum L^y: (The discussion deals with others, who like Jesus, called themselves "Son of God". These include Theudas, Judah the Galilean, and Simon Magus, who called himself "the Great Power of God".) After the time of Jesus Dositheus the Samaritan also wanted to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ prophesied by Moses, and he appeared to have won over some folk to his teaching. Origen, Contra Celsum FJ. 11: (Again the discussion deals with saviors or sons of God; this passage, too, mentions Theudas and Judah the Galilean.) Those who like Celsus supposed that Jesus performed incredible frauds and on this account wanted to do the same as he, as if they too might have similar powers over men, were proved to be of no significance. They were Simon the Samaritan magician, and Dositheus who came from the same country as the former; the one said that he was the so-called Great Power of God, while the other said that he himself was Son of God. It would appear that a fragment from Eusebius, Theophany IV.35 belongs to the same literary tradition. Eusebius was an admirer and reader of Origen, who is in all probability (cf. Contra Celsum I. 57) his source for this passage: . . .For example, the Samaritans were persuaded that Dositheus, who arose after the times of the Savior, was the very prophet whom Moses predicted; they were deceived by him, so that they said he was the Christ. Others at the time of the Apostles called Simon the magician the Great Power of God, thinking he was the Christ. Epiphanius, Panarion 13: (Sections gff. describe the Samaritans and their sects.) Against the Dositheans The Dositheans differ from them (the other Samaritan sects) in many ways: for they admit resurrection, and they have (their own) communities; they abstain from (eating) animate things;

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

8.

169

more over, some of them abstain from marriage after living. . . (? Text unclear), while others remain virgins. As much as they observe circumcision and the Sabbath, they equally observe not touching anyone on account of detesting every man. Their doctrine leads them to observe and practice the same fasts (as the Jews). And the reason that Dositheus thought up these rules is as follows: He, originally from the Jews, mixed with the clans of the Samaritans. Having advanced in learning of the law and in (the study of) their (the Jews') traditions, he sought to be among the foremost, but failed and was not thought worthy of any esteem among the Jews. (Consequently) he went over to the Samaritan people and founded this sect. Then withdrawing to some cave, on account of excessive desire for wisdom, foolishly and dramatically persisting in a fast, as the story has it, he died in lack of food and water— deliberately, forsooth. After a few days those who came to visit him found the body smelling, worms creeping out and a cloud of flies settled on it. Thus foolishly having taken his own life, this fellow accordingly became responsible for the sect among them, and from him his imitators are called Dositheoi or Dosithenoi. Abu'l Fath, the medieval Samaritan chronicler, has a lengthy account similar to that of Epiphanius. The passage, too long to quote, is here summarized: Dusis ibn Fufily, who stemmed from the mixed multitude that left Egypt with the Jews, was sentenced to death by the Jews for the crime of adultery. He was spared on his promise to go among the Samaritans and create dissension among them by founding a new sect. In Samaria he contrived a false accusation of adultery against a Samaritan sage named Yahdu, but when his plot was discovered, he fled from punishment at the hands of the Samaritan high priest, Aqibun. He stayed at the house of a widow in Shuwaykah (Socho), where he did extensive writing. After a while he left for Anbata and hid in a mountain cave. There he died of hunger and the dogs devoured his corpse. A party of seven men led by the high priest's nephew Levi was sent to find Dusis and bring him to justice. When they traced him to the widow's house she told them that Dusis had gone, but she had received instructions from him that they might see his manuscripts if they first immersed themselves in a certain pool. Each one emerged from the water proclaiming his faith in Yahweh and in Dusis his Prophet. The manuscripts were found to contain what were apparently emendations to the text of the Pentateuch. On the feast of Passover, Levi was called to read from the Pentateuch, and when he insisted upon using one of Dusis' emendations and then castigated the people for their unbelief in the new Prophet, he was stoned to death. Subsequently several other sects arose from the writings of Dusis.

A. Messianic

Forms

In the understanding of Origen, Eusebius, and Abu'l Fath, Dositheus was a messianic claimant, or, more accurately in terms of

170

S T A N L E Y ISSER

Samaritan belief, a claimant of the office of eschatological prophet. He saw himself, or at least his followers saw him, as the promised prophet of Deuteronomy i 8 . i 5 f f . , the successor of Moses, the "servant of G o d " . The patristic sources added Dositheus to the several messianic and prophetic pretenders mentioned b y Josephus and A c t s ; he was a rival of Jesus and the Apostles. The nefarious deeds of Dositheus were done among the Samaritans, whom he led away from belief in Christ, or as the Samaritan chronicles have it, away from "orthodox" Samaritanism. Accordingly, most scholars writing on Dositheus have at one time or another vaguely associated him with Samaritan messianic beliefs and with the Samaritan Taheh. It is due to the recent work of H. G. Kippenberg that we may examine this question further. In his Garizim und Synagoge ^ Kippenberg attempted a task long ignored b y Samaritan scholars, a critical analysis of the earliest Samaritan literary sources (excluding the Pentateuch), viz., the Aramaic Memar Marqah * and the oldest portions of the Aramaic Samaritan liturgy ascribed to Marqah and Amram Darah. This material comes from the fourth century A . D . and is assumed to be based on earlier traditions. Kippenberg's work on Marqah is especially interesting: the Memar was not merely a long midrash on the Pentateuch, but a collection of all sorts of traditions, many of which were liturgical rather than midrashic in origin, and which derived from different and distinct groups among the Samaritans. The title of Kippenberg's book indicates the two major sources of this material: the priestly faction whose emphasis was on the shrine at Gerizim, and the lay group of Pentateuchal scholars who were based in the synagogues.^ Kippenberg is undoubtedly correct in his effort to lay to rest the notion of an orthodox Samaritan eschatology in an early period. A n y such "normative" behef can be seen only in the fourteenth 3 Berlin, 1971. 4 References cited in this essay are from J . Macdonald's edition, Memar Marqah, 2 vols., Berlin, 1963. 5 Kippenberg, especially his Chap. VI, "Die Stande des Volkes", pp. 175 ff. The classes are Priester, Schriftgelehrte, Stammenfiirsten, and Richter. The class of judges was not important during the Roman period. The lay heads of districts appear to have been supervisors whose roles included opposition to the spread of Dositheanism. Their hero was Joshua the son of Nun. While the priests were concerned with the cult, the scholars occupied themselves with the study of Scripture and the development of the synagogue liturgy. Dositheus (p. 187) came from the class of scholars.

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

171

century and later, when the Samaritans seem to have consolidated their ideology and practices.^ In brief, Kippenberg sees four distinct early forms of eschatological figures: the restorer of the Tabernacle, Joseph "the K i n g " , the Taheh, and the Prophet like Moses. 1. The expectation of one who will restore the pristine Mishkan ' is the basic eschatology of the priestly class.^ It sees that restoration as the return of the Era of Divine Favor [rehutah), gone since the days of the old Tabernacle and replaced b y the Era of Disfavor (panutah).^ The figure connected with this restoration is a Moses redivivus — n o t a prophet like Moses. Kippenberg dates this tradition back to the fourth century B.C.^^ 2. The "Joseph Malkah", or " K i n g Joseph" tradition represents the early,!^ anti-priestly,^* claim of the Samaritan laymen (Josephides) to G e r i z i m , b a s e d on the previous possession (for malkah translate "owner" rather than "king") of the land b y the descendants of Joseph. This claim is marked by emphasis on the grave of Joseph near G e r i z i m . W h i l e the preeminence of Moses in the field of law is recognized, Joseph is the prototypical secular leader.!' It was this laic Joseph-messianism that underlay the doomed Samaritan revolts of the fifth and sixth centuries A . D . in Palestine. 1^ 3. The Taheh is an apocalyptic figure associated with the escha* P. 327. 7 Pp. 234 ff. 8 P. 249. 9 Pp. 238 ff. 1" P. 250. 11 P. 253. Although Kippenberg's separation of traditions is interesting, I am not convinced that these traditions can be so easily attributed to specific social classes. Jewish rabbinic literature, mostly from the synagogue-based Pharisees, has many references to the Temple and the restoration of the cult. References and hopes concerning the cult need not necessarily be limited to priests. 1 2 Pp. 255 ff. 13 P. 262. Kippenberg's argument is that since the Joseph tradition is not found in later Samaritan texts, it must already have been obsolete by the Middle Ages. 14 P. 265. 15 P. 271. i « P. 263 f. "

Ibid.

18 P. 273. Kippenberg thinks the later Messiah ben Joseph tradition in Judaism goes back to the Samaritan model.

172

S T A N L E Y ISSER

tological day of judgment, resurrection of the dead, and the return of the Era of Divine F a v o r . T h e great goal of this type of eschatology is repentance, not cultic restoration.20 It is therefore to be seen as a tradition originating in the synagogue, not in priestly circles. The Taheh is a vague figure, at times similar to the preexistent Son of Man;22 he is not a human prophet at f i r s t . I t was Marqah, in the fourth century, who began to hint at the identification of the Taheh with Moses.2* 4. The Prophet like Moses predicted in D t . 18 was an important figure in Samaritan eschatology; a passage referring to him was added in the Samaritan text of the Decalogue of E x o d u s . T h i s prophet served as model for Theudas and the pretender from E g y p t described b y Josephus, and for D o s i t h e u s . I n reaction to the adoption of the prophet theme b y the Dositheans, the other Samaritans abandoned it; it is, for example, notably absent from Marqah.2' Though the prophet is not Moses redivivus, he is like Moses, a wonder-worker and lawgiver. Kippenberg argues that the Joshua tradition was never an eschatological one. Joshua is emphasized as the successor of Moses to counter the claims of the Dositheans for their leader.^^ Similarly the great emphasis on the uniqueness of Moses, especially visible in Marqah, and on the association of Moses with the Taheh, was primarily anti-Dosithean in n a t u r e . I n fact, b y the time of Marqah, 19 See especially pp. 289, 291, 299. For an older summary of opinions on the Samaritan Taheb beliefs see, J . A. Montgomery, The Samaritans, Philadelphia, 1907, pp. 244 ff. and A. Merx, Der Messias oder Ta^eb der Samaritaner, Giessen. 1909 (Beiheft ZA W XVII). 20 P. 303. 21 P. 296. 22 P. 290. 23 P. 281. 24 P. 296. 25 See Kippenberg, p. 310. 26 P. 309, referring to Josephus Ant. xx. 97 and 169, and War ii. 261. 27 Pp. 304, 323. 28 Pp. 306, 308. Kippenberg suggests no social class from which the "prophet like Moses" tradition arose. Pretenders to the title probably got support from the same type of people who supported Jesus, i.e., the lower (non-literature-producing) classes, 29 Pp. 321 ff. P. 270, n. 92 cites the theory of A, D. Crown, "Some Traces of Heterodox Theology in the Samaritan Book of Joshua", BJRylL 50 (1967 f.) 178-198, that the Joshua tradition was Dosithean. Kippenberg argues that it was intentionally anti-Dosithean. 30 P. 275.

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

I73

the vague Taheb, identical with Moses or not, had replaced the prophet of Dt. i 8 as the major Samaritan eschatological theme, in order to undermine the position of Dositheus. If our sources on Dositheus, both patristic and Samaritan, contain any historicaUy authentic facts, the one clear piece of information is that Dositheus' followers considered him to be the predicted prophet of Dt, i 8 . It would be fruitless to speculate on what Dositheus himself would have meant b y this identification. Simon Magus, according to the patristic literature, openly claimed divine quahties, but Dositheus' self-understanding remains as cloudy as that of Jesus. E v e n in the Samaritan chronicles it is not Dositheus himself who claims to be the prophet or servant of God, but Levi and his party make this declaration. W e note that three out of Kippenberg's four eschatological types were closely associated with the figure of Moses. It is with the Samaritan Moses tradition, then, that out inquiry must continue. B . The Moses

Tradition

There is no need for us to prove the significance of the Moses tradition in Judaism, Christianity, and Samaritanism. It has been amply documented and extensively discussed by H. M. Teeple (The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet, 1957) and W. A. Meeks (The Prophet King, 1967; chap. V on the Samaritan material). In the following pages we shall examine those parts of the tradition which m a y shed some hght on Dositheus. I . Miracles It is implied b y Origen, Contra Celsum V I . 11 (see text above) that Simon and Dositheus attempted to imitate Jesus in performing miracles and exorcisms ("incredible frauds"—teterateusthai, "powers over men"—kratesontes). Simon was certainly a wonderworker, or magician, and Dositheus, according to Origen, was apparently something similar. It is clear, a priori, that a Samaritan who 3 1 P. 276 f. Note that in Marqah the Joshua tradition was never based on the Dt. 18 "prophet like Moses" reference (p. 323). But this passage seems taken for granted in the dispute before Eulogius cited by Photius: a group of non-Dosithean Samaritans insist Joshua was the predicted prophet, contrary to the claims of the Dositheans. The Jewish commentator Ibn Ezra on Dt. 18. 14 f. also sees the reference as pointing to Joshua, without any messianic implications.

174

STANLEY ISSER

claimed to be the eschatological prophet like Moses had to be a miracle-worker. This quahfication (implicitly) and warnings against false claimants (explicitly) were added to the Samaritan Decalogue from passages elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Ex. 2o.2ia (MT verse i8) And the people stood far off, and Moses approached the darkness {arafel) where God was. And the Lord said to Moses: (Now an addition from Dt. 3.2^b-26) I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; they have spoken well in all that they said. Would that they might have a heart such as this to fear me and observe my commandments all the days, so that it might go well with them and their children forever. (Dt. 18.18-22) I shall raise up a prophet like you from among their brothers for them, and I shall put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And it shall be, that whoever does not listen to his words which he shall speak in my name, I shall hold that person responsible. But the prophet who shall presume to speak in my name that which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that, prophet shall die. And if you will say to yourself, "How will we recognize the word which the Lord has not spoken ?", when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken to him; the prophet has spoken it presumtuously. You shall not be afraid of him. {Dt. 5.27-28) Go say to them, "Go back to your tents." And as for you (Moses), stand here by me, and I shall tell you all the commandment, the statutes, and the laws which you shall teach them, and they shall observe them in the land which I give them to possess it.^^ The verses in Dt. 18 preceding the reference to the prophet condemn all types of magic and sorcery. Verses 14 and 15 imply that while other nations listen to such sorcerers, the Israelites should listen to the true prophet whom God will send. The other classical reference to the false prophet is D t . I 3 . 2 f f . Here the test of a true prophet is not the performance of a sign or wonder (Hebrew mofet, Samaritan Targum ply, L X X teras), but whether the prophet leads one after Y a h w e h or after foreign gods. 3 2 Von Gall, ed., Der Hebrdische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, Giessen, 1918.

See also Kippenberg, p. 310 f. 3 3 Kahlfs, Septuaginta, Stuttgart, 1935; Briill, Das Samaritanische Targum zum Pentateuch, Frankfurt, 1873-76. Meeks, op. cit., pp. 55 ff., discusses the rabbinic passages on Jesus as the false prophet, sorcerer, and seducer of Dt. 13 and 18.

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

175

It is interesting that no hostile Samaritan source accused Dositheus of practicing magic, unless the patronymic " i b n Fufily" or " b e n Falfuh" is a corruption of some form of the root ply, " t o perform miracles". This is, however unlikely. Otherwise, the only thing that smacks of magic in the Samaritan material is the conversion of Levi and his party following their immersion in the pool designated b y Dositheus. There is one more possibihty. In the Pseudo-Clementine story of the struggle between Dositheus and Simon Magus for control of their sect, Dositheus strikes Simon with his staff; but the staff passes through Simon's body, whereupon Dositheus recognizes Simon as " T h e Standing O n e " (Clementine Homilies 11,24, -^^cognitions I L i i ) . Now the magical staff of Moses figures prominently in the Samaritan tradition. In the Memar Marqah (IL2) one of the proofs of Moses' prophecy is the mo/el, i.e., the miracle.^* Turning his staff into a serpent, Moses showed that Pharaoh was in his power (11.3).^^ This staff is part of an extensive tradition. In Marqah 1.2, Moses, at the burning bush, receives it from the fire. He is told to take it, " t h e staff of G o d " {atar elahuta), to E g y p t with him; he will perform signs with it. In a later Samaritan text, the Asatir,^^ the staff that Moses receives at the burning bush is identified with the staff of Adam, also called the staff of God {Asatir III.25 and IX.22). Asatir X I I I . 2 4 reads: " A prince will arise who will write the L a w in truth, the rod of miracles in his hand. There will be light and no darkness." Thus the staff will appear in the eschatological future, in the hand of someone who will write the L a w in t r u t h — a Moses figure.^' 34 The three things revealed in Moses' prophecy or prophethood are the Name of Yahweh, mo jet, and kohen (priesthood ?). 35 The text of Marqah II.2-3 is in Hebrew, not Aramaic. Is it a vestige from an early period or an addition to the text from the post-Aramaic period ? 3 * M. Gaster, The Asatir:

The Samaritan Booh of the "Secrets of Moses",

London, 1927. Gaster (see esp. p. 60) saw the Asatir as a Hellenistic work, no later than the second half of the third century B.C. (followed by Macdonald,. introduction to Memar Marqah, p. XXI). Z. Ben-Hayyim also published the text: TheBook of Asatir m Tarbiz 14 (1943) 104-125, 174-190; 15 (1944) 71-87.

While admitting that some of its material may go far back into history, Ben-Hayyim felt that the language and contents pointed to the tenth century A.D. or thereabouts. See also his comments in his review of Macdonald's Memar Marqah in Bibliotheca

Orientalis 23 (1966) 185-191, esp. p

190, and Kippenberg's discussion of the problem, op. cit., p. 10 f. 37 There is extensive material on the staff, or rod, of Moses. Mishnah Abot 5.6, for example, includes the staff of Moses as one of the ten things created on the Sabbath eve at the end of the six days of creation, along with other

176

STANLEY ISSER

One can only guess that Dositheus' staff in the Clementina was such a staff—not any magician's staff, but one which a Samaritan prophetic claimant would have to have, i.e., the staff of Moses. Of course, the Clementine episode is presumably romance, but even if the association of Dositheus with Simon is only a literary fiction, miraculous entities such as the manna, the Shamir, Miriam's well, the mouth of Balaam's ass, and even the sepulcher of Moses. M. Gaster, p. 220, commenting on Asatir III.25, describes later Samaritan traditions about the staff of Moses: On it were written the true calculation of the calendar, the Book of Wars, the Book of Signs, and the Book of astronomy. Noah took these books from the rod after the death of Adam and passed them down through a holy chain that ended with Jethro, from whom the Messenger took them. The rod was placed in the Tent where it will remain until the Taheb comes; one of the signs of his identity will be that he will bring it. In Asatir IX.22 not only the rod of Adam but also his clothes are given to Moses at the burning bush. It is interesting to note that an alternate list of the ten things created on the Sabbath eve in TB Pes. 54a includes the raiment of Adam. The theme of Moses' victory over the magicians of Egypt- is also an important one. It is based on the episode in Ex. 7 in which the staff of Moses turns into a serpent and devours the similarly-made serpents of his adversaries (see Marqah 1.5). Marqah II.5 contrasts the Egyptian magicians {ksmih) with the men of truth {qshtih) through whom Egypt was destroyed. Some evil Egyptian sorcerers are given names in early traditions: the Palestinian Targum on Ex. 1.15 makes Jannes and Jambres, sons of Balaam, the one who advised Pharaoh to kill Israelite male infants. Cf. II Timothy 3.8, where Jannes and Jambres are the opponents of Moses. Josephus, Ant. ii. 205 f. does not name the wizard who advised Pharaoh, but makes mention of such a figure. Asatir VII.24 ff. calls him Plti. Meeks, p. 162 f., cites Numenius the Pythagorean (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.8), who knew of Moses' miraculous powers and the names of his opponents, Jannes and Jambres. The tradition is much older than these references. The Hellenistic Jewish writer Artapanus [Praep. ev. 9.27) placed special emphasis on the miracles of Moses and on his staff. The tragic playwright Ezekiel [ibid., 9.29) noted the rod of Moses by which he worked wonders. "In Pseudo-Philo {Bib. Antt. xix.ii), God places Moses' rod in the sky at his death, where, like the bow of Noah, it will remind God to spare the Israelites when they sin, thus in effect continuing Moses' own intercessory office". (Meeks, p. 163). For additional rabbinic parallels on the staff of Adam (or wood from the Garden of Eden) passed down to Moses see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, 1910 ff., Vol. II, pp. 291 ff., 293; Vol. 4, p. 105, n. 96; Vol. VI, p. 66, n. 344. The staff appears also in later Samaritan material, e.g., the Molad Mosheh of Jacob Ha-Rabban (d. 1348) of Damascus (published by T. H. Gaster, "A Samaritan Poem About Moses", The Joshua Bloch Memorial Volume, New York, i960, pp. 1x5-139; see p. 120, lines 31 ff.). In the Syriac Book of the Bee (ed. E. A. W. Budge, Oxford, 1886) by Shelemdn or Solomon of Armenia, bishop of Basra c. 1222, the staff is hidden by Phineas, the son of Aaron, and is subsequently given to Joseph, the husband of Mary; it is later stolen by Judas Iscariot from Jesus' brother James, and is used as part of the cross. The idea gets into the legend of the holy rood; cf. E. C. Quinn, The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life, Chicago, 1962, esp. pp. 71 ff.

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

177

it is noteworthy that their struggle m a y have been put into the form of a contest of magic. Simon, with his talent, defeated Dositheus and his staff. 2. Narrative Motifs Moses began his adult career with the killing of the Egyptian taskmaster and his subsequent flight from E g y p t . The high point in his hfe was the ascent on Mt. Sinai. His association with the Pentateuch made him the legal authority among the Israehtes. His death and burial place remained cloaked in mystery. Some paraUels with the Gospels' account of Jesus are apparent: the fhght of Jesus' family to E g y p t ; the transfiguration as a variation of the Sinai ascent the authority with which Jesus spoke the empty tomb. Of course, hke Moses, Jesus also performed miracles. Similar paraUels can be seen in the Old Testament account of another "prophet-figure" who became associated with eschatology, Ehjah (and/or Ehsha): the flight from A h a b and Jezebel; the "stiU small voice" episode in the mountains; the ad hoc author ity of the prophet who has spoken with God; the ascent to heaven in a fiery chariot; the miracles of heahng and multiplication of food (note the role of Elisha's s t a f f ) A n additional parallel in the stories of Moses, Jesus, and Elijah is the formal conferring of authority on their respective successors, Joshua, Elisha, and the Apostles. Dositheus also fits the basic Moses-pattern. He wrote books dealing with the Pentateuch, in which he made alterations of the t e x t ; i.e., he possessed the authority to do so. His career had begun with a fhght from prosecution and it ended with a mysterious disappearance (which his enemies explained by saying his body had been devoured by dogs, or worms and flies), according to our sources. His followers revered his writings, and (according to Origen) believed that he did not die. This behef m a y have been connected with the fact that his body was not discovered. Presumably the

3 8 See Teeple, p. 84; H. D. Betz, "Jesus as Divine Man", in Jesus and the Historian (Colwell Fs.), Philadelphia, 1968, p. 118. 3 9 I.e.,

exousia.

Elijah/Elisha and Jesus raise the dead. They and Moses cure cases of leprosy (Moses cures Miriam, Elisha Naaman, Jesus an unnamed leper). Moses, Elijah, and Jesus all either split bodies of water or walk on them. The pretender Theudas, of Josephus' account, was going to split the Jordan.

178

S T A N L E Y ISSER

" m y t h s " which Origen says his followers told dealt with miracleworking deeds of Dositheus. One theme in particular, that of Moses' ascent, deserves further examination. The ascent on Sinai interpreted as translation to heaven is a common midrashic motif found also among the Samaritans. Of importance also is Moses' final ascent and death on Mt. Nebo.*^ Each of Moses' two ascents on Sinai (Ex. 24 and 33-34) lasted forty days. The second ascent, after the episode of the golden calf, involved Moses' role as intercessor on behalf of the Israelites, and was marked b y his forty-day fast (Ex. 34.28), his standing with God (33.21; 34.5), and God's passing before him. Several midrashic and apocryphal works used imagery from the Jewish tradition of Merkabah mysticism to describe Moses' experience as an ascent through the heavens, the result of which was his magnification b y the heavenly powers and his learning of divine secrets.*^ T h e same tradition is found in Samaritan Uterature, where Moses is even a greater figure than in the Jewish texts. The Memar Marqah has the largest number of passages in which the Sinai ascent appears with what looks like the picture of a preexistent Moses in heaven. Already at the burning bush God taught Moses mysteries and revelations, the secrets of the past and future *^ See Meeks, p. 244 f. on Marqah. 4 2 See Teeple, pp. 34 ff., on Philo, Cain and Abel 8-10; the phrase "Stand by me" imphes translation to heaven; and pp. 40 ff. on midrashic references. Meeks has a fuller discussion of the ascent material: pp. 110 ff. on Philo (see 122 ff. on the allegory of the philosopher's ascent to the world of Truth); pp. 157 ff. on Pseudo-Philo and Syrian Baruch; 205 ff. on rabbinic midrashim. Also interesting are the references brought by Teeple (p. 45) and Meeks (141, 205 ff.) in Josephus, Ant. iv.326, and rabbinic material, e.g., Mekilta Ex. 1920, which show opposition to beliefs in Moses' immortality, deification, or ascent. As Meeks remarks (p. 141), the polemics presupposee the practice. On Merkabah mysticism see G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, New York, i960. Meeks, 241 ff., discusses

it in relation to Samaritan sources. One of the great figures in the tradition is the biblical Enoch, who ascended to heaven and became the angel Metatron, a frequent guide in the texts for others who make the ascent. Dositheus spent some time in the Samaritan town of Askar, in the account of Abu'l Fath. Is it a coincidence that in the Asatir (II. 38 f.) Enoch was buried (!) near Gerizim in a place called Y S K R (Yaskar ?) ? Enoch's burial would not rule out an ascent; after going up he came down. So did Jesus, whose grave in Jerusalem is still shown. On Moses' knowledge of cosmic secrets compare the Philonic prophet ( = Platonic philosopher) and the True Prophet of the Clementina. These references are close to the preexistent logos doctrine (see Meeks, p. 125 f.). 4 3 See also Meeks' Chap. V on the Samaritan material.

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

179

(I. i ) . Moses is invested with the Divine Name and prophetic status (ibid.). He is clothed with the N a m e ; he dwelt in mysteries; he is crowned with h g h t ; he drank from seven fountains on high and three below ( H . i a ) . The forces of the unseen world magnify him ( I V . i ) ; he dwelt in the garden; the cloud enveloped him; the angels praised him; he stood at the foundations of creation and knew its mystery (IV.3), On Sinai Moses saw wonders which were obedient to his command [ihid.). He fasted and prayed so that men might be forgiven («W.). Moses knew the beginning and the day of vengeance ( I V . 5 ) ; he dwelt among the angels (or beings?) in the unseen sanctuary; he was crowned sevenfold in his fast ( I V . 6 ) . On Sinai Moses pierced the veil, approached the darkness {arafel),^^ was told b y God, " S t a n d by me now" (Ex. 33.21), fasted for forty days and nights, and was addressed mouth to mouth (IV.12). Book V deals with the death of Moses. Many entities plead with God not to aUow the prophet to die: the powers on Sinai with whom he dwelt, the Five Books, the Name, the letters, the sea, the fire, and the cloud (V.i). Moses, standing before God, pleads for Israel, sad that they will be left without a supplicator; he leaves final instructions with Joshua at the gate of the veil (V.2). Moses ascends Mt, N e b o ; at the summit he enters the cloud and is met b y the angels, powers, and glory {kahod); water, heaven, earth, fire, and the cloud praise him (V.3), The kahod leads Moses to a view of Mt. Gerizim and the Cave; he dies facing Gerizim [ihid.). The cave where Moses is buried is sealed by God, not to be opened or known until the day of vengeance (V.4). The traditions about Dositheus include a period of fasting (Epiphanius: "foolishly and dramatically persisting in a fast, as the story has i t " ) , the mysterious death in a cave, and his body's never being found. It is most hkely that the Dositheans, who considered Dositheus the eschatological prophet like Moses, also apphed details from the ascent and death motifs to their founder in their narrative or hturgical scriptures,*^ *4 These are terms known from the merkabah hterature. The veil may be the wilon, or first of the seven heavens in the system of R. Meir (Ab. R. Natan 37.9) or Resh Lakish (TB hag. 12b). in the Visions of Ezekiel (Hebrew, in S. Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot 2 (1953) 127-134; see p. 130) the fourth heaven is arafel. 45 We have no direct information that anyone awaited the eschatological return of Dositheus. Kippenberg feels that the combination of the "prophet like Moses" motif with the Taheb tradition began only in the time of Marqah

l80

STANLEY

ISSER

If m y argument is correct, i.e., that Dosithean traditions were based on the model of Moses as the eschatological prophet, then much of the Samaritan material which emphasizes Moses must have been prior to the Dosithean tradition, and not, as Kippenberg maintains, the result of late anti-Dosithean polemic. It m a y well be, however, that m a n y of the details in Marqah are late and could be for the purpose Kippenberg suggests, especially those midrashic elaborations which we do not find applied to Dositheus. Furthermore, the text of Marqah seems to contain many secondary passages, some even showing Islamic influence.*^ B u t these points do not negate the probabiUty that the basic framework of the Memar, in which Moses appears as the main figure, goes back to earlier Samaritan tradition. C . Literary

Form

Of the Uterary sources on the Dositheans, only Epiphanius, the Clementina, and the Samaritan chronicles offer what purports to be a historical narrative. Other sources, such as those in the PseudoTertullianic tradition and the Karaite and MusUm writers, give only a brief account of Dosithean behefs, barely enough to place Dositheus in their heresiological catalogues.*'' Origen is not dependent on these sources, but his material offers little tangible on the career among the Samaritans. One of the Dusis-derived sects in Abu'l Fath claimed that people are resurrected because Dusis died. The Dositheans who appeared before Eulogius said Dositheus was the predicted prophet, without any reference to a future return. Can it be that here we have a variation of "realized" eschatology, i.e., that salvation has already been made available through the life (or death) of a man ? Moses is a savior on several levels. He delivered the Israelites from Egypt; he interceded on their behalf and brought them forgiveness (Marqah II.5); the forgiveness is in the form of the Law (IV.12), a sort of gnosis. A connection with Sinai and Moses' fast (cf. Dositheus' suicidal fast) is in Marqah II.5: as Adam ate (the fruit of the tree of life) for future death, so Moses fasted for future life; his supplicatory fast won forgiveness for Israel. 46 See D. Rettig, Memar Marqa, Stuttgart, 1934 and Z. Ben Hayyim, rev. of Macdonald's Memar Marqah in Bibliotheca Orientalis 23 (1966) 185-191 on

problems of dates and manuscripts; T. Gaster, IDB, sv. "Samaritans" argues that the Memar underwent an Islamized redaction. 4^ Hegesippus in Eusebius, H.E. iv.22; Pseudo-TertuUian, Adversus omnes haereses, beginning; Philaster, De haeresibus 4; an interpolation in Clementine Rec. 1.54; Baladhuri, The Origins of the Islamic State (ed. Hitti, 1916) chap, xiv, p. 244; Qirqisani, Book of Lights and Watch-Towers (transl. Nemoy in HUCA 7 (1930), 362); Masudi, Les prairies d'or (transl. Barbier de Meynard and Courteille, 1861, Vol. i, p. 115); Shahrastani, Religionspartheien und Philosophen-Schulen (transl. Haarbriicker, 1850, Vol. I, p. 258).

DOSITHEUS,

J E S U S , A N D A MOSES

ARETALOGY

l8l

of the historical Dositheus. The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions assign Dositheus a historical role in connection with their main narrative about Simon Magus, but it can be argued that this association of the two men is fictional, and it is certainly unsupported b y other literary evidence, Epiphanius and the Samaritan chronicles, on the other hand, appear to be based on Samaritan traditions on the Hfe of Dositheus. Here, at least, we have information from people to whom Dositheus was more than a name in a list of heretics, I do not suggest that Epiphanius and the Samaritan chronicles describe accurately the historical Dositheus, T h e y do, however, acquaint us with the tradition about his life that could even go back to his own time or shortly after his death. This tradition, as we have it, has already been through the medium of literature; our first step is to identify its literary form or genre. Teeple and Meeks (cited above), basing their remarks on the work of L. Bieler, applied the category of theios aner, or "divine m a n " , to Moses.*^ Bieler's contribution is concisely summed up b y Morton Smith: . , .two volumes of L. Bieler's Theios aner, the fullest analysis of a large selection of material: Lucian's Peregrinus, Alexander, and Demonax, selected lives of philosophers, sophists, legendary poets and monks, the Gospels and Acts, Pseudo-Callisthenes' Alexander, Suetonius and Nicholas of Damascus on Augustus, and Heliodorus' Aethiopica. From these Bieler collected the evidence about the divine man's life-history, appearance, character, supernatural knowledge, powers, mission, teaching, followers, relation to the surrounding world, and relation to the gods. He showed that on each of these points the bulk of the material fell into a pattern.*^ The pattern as applied to Moses was noted in the works of Philo, and Teeple cited a reference in Josephus where Moses is called theios aner.^^ H. D. B e t z later showed that much of the material about Jesus in the Gospels reflected the pattern of the Hellenistic theios aner.^^ * 8 L. Bieler, Theios Aner, 2 vols., Vienna, 1935-36. Teeple, p. 32, citing Bieler II, pp. 5-8; Meeks, pp. 138 ff., citing Bieler I, 18 ff., II, 30 ff., I, 24 ff., 34 ff., 84 ff. (mostly on Josephus), and Meeks, p. 104, citing Bieler II, 35 ff. (on Philo). 4 9 "Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels and Jesus", JBL 90 (1971) 174-199; p. 191 f.

^o See above, n. 48. 51 Betz, "Jesus as Divine Man", in Colwell Fs. ., Philadelphia, 1968, pp.

114-133-

l82

STANLEY

ISSER

This question has been dealt with recently in an article significantly entitled "Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels and Jesus" b y Morton Smith, who as co-author with Moses Hadas of Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity, had given Jewish, Christian, and pagan examples of such "aretalogies", as accounts of "divine m e n " were commonly called. Hadas traced the genre to the rhetorical uses of history b y Hellenistic w r i t e r s . A l t h o u g h few complete examples of aretalogies have come down to us, "vestiges and adaptations of such works are recognizable in certain biographical and other writings that have in fact survived." The original sense of the word is shown by the usage of the Septuagint, where "to speak the wonders of God" is regularly rendered by aretas legein, literally, "to speak the virtues." Aretalogus, then, is "one who (professionally) speaks the wondrous deeds of a deity or a divinely gifted human," and aretalogia is the discourse he composes. The details of the aretalogy vary with the career of the subject and the degree of sophistication of the audience. Thus the protagonist can be either a rationalistic hero like Socrates, the paradigm of the earthly teacher, or a mystic or miracle worker who claimed divine powers. Let us end this introduction and begin to apply this genre to the case of Dositheus with Smith's summary statement: Each [aretalogy] begins with legends of his birth and youth (to represent him as a Wunderkind) then turns to his work. Of this work the record included a collection of unrelated stories and sayings. These the authors tried to adapt to the requirements of GrecoRoman literary form by imposing on them a chronological and geographical framework. But the authors were not successful. Each one had left over a lot of miscellaneous material not attached to his frame, and he had to dispose of it as best he could . . . All of them, finally, concluded with a developed account of the hero's death and/or ascension to heaven. The predominantly religious *2 Smith, "Prolegomena. . .", see above, n. 49; M. Hadas and M. Smith, Heroes and Gods, London, 1965. Hadas wrote the first half on the genre of aretalogy; Smith gave examples and texts in the second half: lives of Pythagoras by Porphyry, Moses by Philo, Jesus by the Gospel of Luke, Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus. 53 Hadas, ibid., p. 58 f. 54 Ibid., p. 60. 55 Ibid., p. 61. 56 Ibid., p. 62.

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

183

rather then biographical interest and the dependence at least in part upon oral and anecdotal ("haggadic)" tradition are clear in all instances. Equally clear are the differences between the works, reflecting the basic differences of historical fact and social background in the traditions which confronted the authors. That from material so clearly diverse the four authors [whose texts Smith reproduces as examples of aretalogy] should have produced works so clearly similar shows the strength of the common Greco-Roman culture, and especially of the common aretalogical tradition, which produced the similarity.^' There is no need to be overly repetitive. W e have already outlined the many narrative motifs which connect Dositheus with the Moses tradition, and the many parallels with the career of Jesus; these include miracle-working, authority, and ascension motifs. W h a t remains to be done is to assume that this material derives from a work of the literary type called aretalogy, and on that basis to examine the Dositheus story more carefully. The parallels with the Samaritan Moses material are truly remarkable. Smith suggested that " A collection of miracle stories which began with Jesus' becoming the Son of God at his baptism and ended with the revelation of his true title and nature at his transfiguration would make a comprehensible unit" was the basis for the first half of the Gospel of Mark, It m a y even have arisen during the lifetime of J e s u s , T h e Memar Marqah is no midrash on the entire Pentateuch. Basically, it begins with the inauguration of Moses as a prophet at the burning bush and ends with his death on Mt, Nebo, although the " c l i m a x " of the narrative is clearly the ascent on Sinai, A t the bush Moses is taught secrets and revelations, is made a prophet, and taught the divine name (Marqah I . i ) , and is made God's second in the lower world (1.2), In connection with his death (V.4) the titles of Moses are listed, among which are ish haelohim, or "Man of G o d " [theios aner}), and moshia, or " S a v i o r " . " A n d the present first half of Mark would be understood as an expansion and Judaizing reinterpretation of this primary aretalogy." T o B e t z it also seemed clear that Mark reinterpreted the divine man motif. He added that Matthew combined the motif 5 ' Smith, ihid., p. 103 f. 58 Smith, "Prolegomena...", p. 197. 59 See Meeks, p. 220 on titles, and p. 255. Smith, "Prolegomena. . .", p. 197. *i Betz, p. 122 and passim.

184

S T A N L E Y ISSER

with the messianic Son of David theme; that Luke presented a Jesus who, although not God, was divine in nature, and placed him in a chronological scheme where the L a w and the Prophets were succeeded, after John the Baptist, b y the Kingdom of God; John associated the divine man with the preexistent Logos, and Paul (and Q) rejected completely the divine man christology.^^ W e can see similar reinterpretations of the Moses tradition in the Samaritan sourses. The Moses tradition was combined with the restoration of the Tabernacle in the "priestly" sources; it was combined with the apocalyptic Taheh material and the ushering in of a new regime, the Era of Divine Favor, in synagogal sources; it was elaborated b y the ascent traditions in which Moses has the knowledge and preexistence of the Logos; and it appears to be reworked into the legend of Dositheus b y his followers. A s the Gospels make the crucifixion central, and reinterpret the miracles accordingly,^3 so the Samaritan (and Jewish) traditions jaake the giving of the Torah on Sinai central, and reinterpret Moses' role as savior in connection with it. Smith knows of " n o Jewish account prior to the time of Jesus of any messianic figure which at all closely resembles h i m , " He argues that although Elijah and Elisha were miracle workers, they were not messianic figures.®* B u t certainly Malachi had connected Elijah with some kind of eschatological activity: Mai. 3.22-24 Remember the Law of Moses my servant which I commanded him on Horeb, laws and statutes for all Israel. Behold I am sending to you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible Day of Yahweh. And he shall restore (LXX apokatastesei) the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children'to their fathers, lest I came and smite the land with destruction. A n d Ben S i r a 4 8 . i - i i is really a little aretalogy of Elijah the prophet, miracle worker and restorer: Then the prophet Elijah arose like fire, and his word burned like a torch; He brought a famine upon them, and made them few by his zeal. B y the word of the Lord he shut up heaven; in the same way, he brought down fire three times. *2 Ihid., pp. 124-127. * 3 Ihid., p. 130.

64 Smith, "Prolegomena. . .", p. 196.

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

185

How glorified you were, Elijah, in your wonderful acts, and who can glory like you ? You who raised one who was dead, from death, and from Hades, by the word of the Most High; Who brought kings down to destruction, and distinguished men from their beds. Who heard rebukes at Sinai, and judgments of vengeance at Horeb; Who anointed knigs to exact retribution, and prophets to succeed him; Who were taken up in a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot with fiery horses; Who, it is written, is to come in rebuke at the appointed time, to quiet anger before it becomes wrath, to turn the heart of the father to his son, and to reform (i.e., "restore", katastesai) the tribes of Jacob. Happy are those who saw you, and those who fell asleep in love; for we will surely live.^^ It is this tradition which is taken for granted in the New Testament: Mark g.iif. (after the transfiguration) And they (Peter, James, and John) asked him (Jesus), "Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore (apokathistanei) all things. . ." Acts 3.ig-22 (Peter's speech) Repent, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring [apokatastaseos] all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old. Moses said, "The Lord will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you." Smith notes also the cases of messianic claimants cited b y Josephus, eschatological prophets, to be more accurate.®^ All these fit the "prophet like Moses" pattern; if so, there must have been a pattern to fit, i.e., a Moses aretalogy must have been in circulation prior to the appearance of these pretenders. Furthermore, the details of the transfiguration of Jesus are instructive. Greeting Jesus are Moses and Elijah, earher prophets who shared ascent legends and who became messianic prototypes. Jesus, in a sense, becomes one of them; they are his predecessors and models.^' 65 Goodspeed translation '6 Smith, "Prolegomena. . .", p. 180. " See Betz, p. 123; Teeple, pp. 45 ff. on midrashim dealing with Moses

l86

STANLEY

ISSER

Since the Samaritans rejected the prophetic canon, we are not surprised to find no Ehjah material among their writings. B u t the Moses tradition was certainly one of their most important teachings. We do not, of course, see the Moses material in the form of a literary aretalogy until the time of Marqah, but the "true prophet" or "prophet like Moses" theme was current among them at least in the first century A . D . , if not earlier.^^ It would have been quite matural for the Samaritans, who rejected all biblical heroes after Joshua, to elevate Moses by retelling his story in aretalogical form. Greeks and Macedonians had made up a large portion of the .population of Samaria since the days of Alexander the Great there would have been extensive contact between Samaritans and the literary forms of Hellenism. If our analysis is thus far correct, we suggest that the Jesus aretalogy of the Gospels was not a Judaized reinterpretation of a Hellenistic genre, applied to Jesus. Rather, the creators of the Jesus aretalogy used as their model the already existing and already Judaized Moses aretalogy; i.e., Jesus became the miracle-working, authority-bearing, divine m a n : the prophet like Moses. While it is true that the figure of the divine man and many of the narrative details connected with him are somewhat universal, the fact that one m a y find them in the literature of other peoples and well into the medieval period does not explain the origin of the motifs which are used in specific cases. A particular writer, especially one forming a religious tradition, would not draw his themes from "universal" models, but from models supplied b y those traditions with which he has been in contact, regardless of whether or not these models are also universal. A Jew or Samaritan would find his models in Jewish and Samaritan traditions. The Marcan transfiguration passage, and Peter's speech in Acts, for example, clearly associate Jesus with the models of Moses and Ehjah and with the "prophet like Moses" reference from Dt. i 8 . W e have also seen that the Dositheus material fits not only the

and Elijah and their eschatological return; Meeks, p. 216, on the assimilation of Elijah to Moses. 68 Cf. the True Prophet in the Clementine Homilies II. The Samaritan additions to the text of the Pentateuch, esp. to Ex. 20, indicate that the theme early became important in Samaria. 6 9 See Kippenberg, Chaps. II-IV passim on the question of the Greek syncretists in Samaria.

DOSITHEUS,

JESUS,

A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

187

"prophet hke Moses" theme, but also the narrative requirements for the Moses (and Ehjah and Jesus) aretalogy: fhght from persecution, teaching authority, and death with no body found (implying translation to heaven?). W e have also discussed possible references to his wonder-working power. All our sources on Dositheus are hostile to him. Nevertheless, it is plain that even these hostile accounts fit the aretalogy pattern. Hadas saw Lucian's Alexander, or, the False Seer as a "reverse aretalogy", a parody ridiculing its subject, a reversal of a positive aretalogy: the miracle-worker becomes a liar and a trickster.'° More to the point is the Jewish tradition which sought to ridicule the Gospels' view of Jesus. Much of it was embodied in the medieval Toldot Yeshu, but the material itself goes back to rabbinic times. Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called " P a n t h e r a " or "Pandera''.'^ He learned magic in E g y p t . B a c k in Palestine he was expelled from the circle of scholars, whereupon he returned secretly from Gahlee to Jerusalem, stole a parchment bearing the divine name from the Temple, inserted it into his skin, and performed miracles through it. I t was taken from him b y Judah the Gardener (Judas Iscariot) in an aerial battle (cf. Peter and Simon Magus in the Clementina), and Jesus fled.'* Eventually he was hanged on a cabbage stalk, for he had conjured all the trees. His disciples could not find his body, so they proclaimed his ascent to heaven. Actually Judah the Gardener had taken the corpse to be used as a dam for his garden.'^ The most interesting account comes from the Talmud ( T B San. 107b, Sotah 47a, T J Hag. 77d). Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah fled from Palestine to Alexandria with his disciple Jesus to escape the wrath of K i n g Yannai. On their return, at an inn, Jesus made a lascivious remark about the beauty of their hostess, whereupon Rabbi Joshua excommunicated him, Jesus, for spite, set up a brick as a god and led many astray, Dositheus' enemies tell us that he was originally a Jew, not a

7 " Hadas, op. cit., p. 64. ' 1 See S. Krauss in JE, sv. "Jesus", and Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach Jiidische Quellen, Berlin, 1902 on the Toldot Yeshu tradition.

'2 TB Shab. 104b, San. 67a; cf. Origen, C. Celsum 1.28, 32, " TB Shab. 104b, Tosefta Shab. 11.4, TJ Shab. 13d.

'* Toldot Yeshu, see Krauss, Das Leben Jesu. « Ibid.

l88

STANLEY

ISSER

Samaritan, and an immoral Jew at t h a t — s o the Samaritan chronicles. Epiphanius saw his departure from Judea as the result of his frustration at not being recognized as a first-rate scholar; Abu'l F a t h saw it as part of a deal made to avoid criminal prosecution. In either case, Dositheus founded a sect among the Samaritans which the leaders of the latter regarded as heretical. Abu'l Fath adds details of his immoral behavior while in Samaritan territory. He wrote books, but kept them secret; they were found after his death. He died foolishly b y starving himself in a cave, and his body was devoured b y insects or beasts. If the above account is a parody like the Toldot Yeshu and the Joshua ben Perachiah story, we might turn the details around to see what Dositheus' supporters were saying about him. This favorable account might have gone as follows: Dositheus, (a native Samaritan ?) unjustly accused or persecuted b y tyranny, taught as a prophet like Moses, He performed miracles and refuted the Samaritan scholars (like the sage Y a h d u whom Dositheus falsely accused in the hostile account). His death, like that of Moses, was in a cave; his body was never found, perhaps an indication that he had ascended to heaven. Either he never died or he rose immediately from the dead—hence, as one of the sects derived from his writings maintained (in Abu'l Fath), people rise from the dead because of the death of Dositheus. W h a t this amounts to is material for a Dositheus aretalogy reconstructed from a reverse aretalogy. Perhaps this material was never embodied in a single literary work, but at least there was an oral tradition of aretalogical type. When could it have arisen ? Epiphanius knew it in the fourth century (in its "reverse" form). Origen's references to myths told about Dositheus, including one that he did not die, are evidence for its existence early in the third century. That is as far back as our sources go. B u t given the parallel Moses and Jesus aretalogies that were current in the first century, it is not implausible—though unproven—that a Dositheus aretalogy was current among his followers as early as the first century. This conclusion brings us not very much closer to the historical Dositheus, as recognition of the aretalogical character of the Gospels does not much help the quest for the historical Jesus. But, as is the case with the Gospels, the Dositheus aretalogy tells us at least what the early followers of Dositheus thought of their leader. The question of Dositheus' self-understanding, however, hke that of

D O S I T H E U S , J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y

189

Jesus, must remain unanswered. Our sources are clearly literary documents which forced historical details into a previouslyestablished pattern, or invented facts to fit the pattern. They provide no certain evidence with which to reconstruct history.

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF T H E WRITINGS OF MORTON T O D E C E M B E R 31, 1973

SMITH

A. THOMAS K R A A B E L University of Minnesota The order of entries for each year is as follows: 1. Books 2. Articles or chapters in books: a. books of essays b. reference works c. Festschriften d. conference proceedings 3. Articles in periodicals 4. Reviews Books and articles are alphabetical by title, reviews alphabetical by author. This is the second time I have compiled a bibliography for a volume edited b y Jacob Neusner. Both of us concern ourselves with ancient religions, I from the Greco-Roman side, he within the context of Jewish Studies. B u t the men the volumes honor gave themselves a larger area: Greece, Rome and the ancient Near East as a unity. The other scholar was, of course, E. R. Goodenough, cf. J. Neusner (ed.). Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (1968). Most students still today preserve the artificial division of an earlier age and assume that "religion in antiquity" falls neatly into "semitic" and "GrecoR o m a n " halves. As they contest this too neat dichotomy. Smith and Goodenough attract supporters and " f a n s " from a diversity of disciplines; they also have detractors, at least some of whom are discomforted b y this wider ranging scholarship and perhaps unconsciously would prefer to retain the earlier, more tidy but essentially artificial division. Smith and Goodenough took on a difficult task; Goodenough began earlier, worked differently and with less sophistication. Smith's productivity continues and increases yearly — t h e bibliography below was out of date when compiled. We m a y

B I B L I O G R A P H Y OF T H E W R I T I N G S OF MORTON SMITH

191

anticipate much more from him; it wih be essential reading, not only because of the specifics produced, but also because he shows us how the larger field must be viewed, and how it is carefully to be examined. For assistance in assembling this bibliography, I am indebted to John Tomhave of the University of Minnesota.

AHR AJA AJP AmClasRev ATR BJRL CBQ CNI CW G[R]BS GOTR HR HTR HUCA JAAR JAOS JBL JBR JNES J PC JRT NTS RIL

ABBREVIATIONS American Historical ReviewAmerican Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Philology American Classical Review Anglican Theological Review Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Catholic Biblical Quarterly Christian News from Israel Classical World Greek[, Roman] and Byzantine Studies Greek Orthodox Theological Review History of Religions Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Pastoral Care Journal of Religious Thought New Testament Studies Religion in Life

1945 Notes on Goodspeed's Problems of New Testament

Translation,

J B L 64, 501-5141948 Maqbilot ben habbesorot lesiprut hattanna'im, dissertation, Hebrew University).

Jerusalem

(Ph.D.

1949 Psychiatric Practice and Christian Dogma, J P C 3, 12-20. 1951 Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (JBL Monograph Series, V I ) , pp. xii + 215. (a revision and translation of the 1948 P h . D . dissertation) .

192

A . THOMAS

KRAABEL

The So-Called "Biography of D a v i d " in the Books of Samuel and Kings, H T R 44, 167-169. 1952 Catalogue of microfilmed selections from Greek manuscripts of the tenth to nineteenth centuries found mainly in monastic libraries (deposited in the Brown University Library, Providence) . The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East, J B L 7 1 , 135-147. Mt. 5 : 4 3 : " H a t e Thine E n e m y " , H T R 45, 71-73. 1953 Minor Collections of Manuscripts in Greece, J B L 72, xii ( = Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, 1952). rev. W . D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age andjor the Age to Come (1952): J B L 72, 192-194. rev. V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (1952): J R T 1 1 , 64f. 1954 The Manuscript Tradition of Isidore of Pelusium, H T R 47, 205-210. rev. E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, I-III (1953): A T R 36, 218-220. 1955 Comments on Taylor's Commentary on Mark, H T R 48, 21-64. The Religious History of Classical Antiquity, J R T 12, 90-99. rev. E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, I V (1954): A T R 37, 81-84. 1956 Palestinian Judaism in the First Century, in M. Davis (ed.), Israel: Its Role in Civilization, 67-81. The Jewish Elements in the Gospels, J B R 24, 90-96. Symmeikta: Notes on Collections of Manuscripts in Greece, Epiteris Hetaireias Byzantinon Spoudon 27, 380-393. rev. S. Lieberman, The Tosefta, according to the Codex Vienna, I (1955) and Tosefta ki-fshutah, I-II (1955), J B L 75, 243-245.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF T H E W R I T I N G S OF MORTON SMITH

I93

1957 Judaism in Palestine I: To the Maccabean Revolt, Cambridge (Th. D. dissertation, Harvard Divinity School) Pauline Problems. Apropos of J. Munck, Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte, H T R 50, 107-131. rev. W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus (1956): A T R 39, 259-261. rev. E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, V - V I (1956): A T R 39, 261-264. rev. C. H. Kraeling, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report VIII, Part I, The Synagogue (1956): J B L 76, 324-327. rev. H.-J. Schoeps, Urgemeinde, Judeitchristentum, Gnosis (1956): A T R 39, 179-181. 1958 Manuscript Material from the Monastery of Mar Saba, discovered, transcribed and translated by Morton Smith. New Y o r k : Privately published, pp. i -|- 10. A n Unpublished Life of St. Isodore of Pelusium, edited from Manuscripts in Athens and Mt, Athos, in G. Konidaris (ed.), Eucharisterion. Timetikos Tomos . . . A. S. Alivisatou, 429-438. Aramaic Studies and the Study of the New Testament, J B R 26, 304-313The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena H U C A 29, 273-313. H e b r e w — W h y Not Greek?, Ho Orthodoxos Parateretes 24, I 9 7 f . The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols, B J R L 40, 473-512. rev. K. Stendahl (ed.). The Scrolls and the New Testament (1957): A T R 40, 323-326. 1959 A Byzantine Panegyric Collection, with an Unknown Homily for the Annunciation, G B S 2, 137-155. Further Notes on " A Jewish-Gnostic Amulet of the Roman Period" [by E. R. Goodenough], G B S 2, 79-81. "God's Begetting the Messiah" in IQSa, N T S 5, 218-224. Greek Monasteries and their Manuscripts, A J A 63, 1901. (resume of

194

A . THOMAS K R A A B E L

contents of article published in Archaeology 13 [i960], see below) On the New Inscription from Serra Orlando, A J A 63, i83f. W h a t is Implied b y the Variety of Messianic Figures ?, J B L 78, 6672. rev. C. Rabin, Qumran Studies (1957): J N E S 18, 282f. rev. M. Simon, 5^. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (1958): R I L 28, 628f. i960 The Ancient Greeks, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, pp. xiv + 144. Monasteries and Their Manuscripts, Archaeology 13, 172-177. Hellenika Cheirographa en tei Monei tou Hagiou Sabba, Nea Sion 52, 110-126, 245-255. New Fragments of Scholia on Sophocles' Ajax, G B S 3, 40-42. The Report about Peter in I Clement V.4, N T S 7, 86-88. rev. Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, the Formative Years, 970-1100 (1958): G O T R 6, 87f. rev. W . Braude (trans.), The Midrash on Psalms (1959): R I L 2 9 , 1 6 1 . rev. N. Lewis (ed.), Samothrace I. The Ancient Literary Sources (1958): A J A 64, 387f. rev. C. B. Welles, R. O. Fink and J. F. Gilliam, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report V, Part I (1959): C W 53, 264. 1961 The Dead Sea Sect in Relation to Ancient Judaism, N T S 7, 347-360. rev. B. V. Bothmer, et al., Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period, 700 BC to AD 100 (i960): CW 54, 294. rev. G. Downey, History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (1961): J B L 80, Z77-?>79rev. L. M. Positano, D. Holwerda and W . J. W . Roster (edd.), Jo. Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem, Pars IV, Fasc. I (i960): C W 54, 158; Fasc. II (i960): CW 54, 189. rev. G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (i960): J B L 80, igof. rev. J. A. Sint, Pseudonymitdt im Altertum (i960): J B L 80, i88f. 1962 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The, Interpreter s Dictionary of the Bible IV, 575-579.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

O F T H E W R I T I N G S OF MORTON SMITH

I95

Hebrew Studies within the Study of History, Judaism i i , 333-344. The Rehgious Conflict in Central Europe, G O T R 8, 21-52. rev. T. J. J. Altizer, Oriental Mysticism and Biblical Eschatology (1961): R I L 31, 650. rev. G. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (1961): CW 55, 139rev. E. Nash. A Pictorial

History of Ancient Rome, I (1961): CW

55. 144rev. R. C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (1961): A T R 44, 231-234 1963 Observations on Hekalot Rabbati, in A. Altmann (ed.). Biblical and Other Studies (P. W. Loen Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis University), 142-160. A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition, J B L 82, 169-176 (review article on B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript [1961]). II Isaiah and the Persians, J A O S 83, 415-421. rev. M. A. Beek, Atlas of Mesopotamia (1962): R I L 32, 4831. rev. H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte'^ (i960): A J P 84, 103-106. rev. W. Hartke, Vier urchristliche Parteien und ihre Vereinigung zur apostolischen Kirche (1961): J B L 82, 363. rev. K. Kerenyi, Die Mysterien von Eleusis (1962): CW 56, I 3 7 f . rev. E. Nash, A Pictorial history of Ancient Rome, II (1962): CW 56, i4if. rev. L. M. Positano, D. Holwerda and W. J. W. Roster (edd.), Jo. Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem, Pars IV, Fasc. Ill (1962): CW 56, 182. rev. D. Rounds, Articles on Antiquity in Festschriften: The Ancient Near East, Old Testament, Greece, Rome, Roman Law, Byzantium (1962): CW 56, 216. 1964 rev. R. Merkelbach, Roman und Mysterium

in der Antike

(1962):

CW 57,3781965 Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity [in collaboration with Moses Hadas]. Religious Perspectives, X I I I . New Y o r k : Harper and Row, pp. xiv + 266.

196

A. THOMAS

KRAABEL

Das Judentum in Palastina wahrend der Perserzeit, in H. Bengtson (ed.), Fischer Weltgeschichte, V : Griechen und Perser, 356-370. (Enghsh trans., American edition: Delacorte World History [British edition: Universal History], V: The Greeks and the Persians from the Sixth to the Fourth Centuries, tr. J. Conway [1968]; translated also into French, Italian and Spanish). Das Judentum in Palastina in der hellenistischen Zeit, in P. Grimal (ed.), Fischer Weltgeschichte, VI: Der Hellenismus und der Aufstieg Roms, 254-269. (English trans., American edition: Delacorte World History [British edition: Universal History], V I : Hellenism and the Rise of Rome, tr. A. M. Sheridan Smith and C. Wartenburg [1968]; translated also into French, Italian and Spanish). The Account of Simon Magus in Acts 8, in H. A. Wolf son Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 735-749Memorial Minute [for E. R. Goodenough], Numen

12, 233-235.

( = H R 5 [1966] 35if-) rev. E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, IX-XI (1964): C W 58, 13. rev. A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (1964): CW 58, 177. rev. D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 BC—AD 100 (1964): Theology Today 22, 132-134. rev. H.-J. Schoeps, Das Judenchristentum (1964): J B L 84, 176-178. rev. G. Scholem, Ursprung und Anfange der Kabhala (1962): CNI 16, 40-43rev. E. B. Thomas, Romische Villen in Pannonien (1964): CW 58, 22. rev. Y . Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (1963): A H R 70, i 2 i f . 1966 Religions in the Hellenistic Age, in J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity, 158-173. (Dartmouth College publication) Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (1893-1965), H R 5, 35if. ( = Numen 12 [1965] 233-235). 1967 The Reason for the Persecution of Paul and the Obscurity of Acts, in E. E. Urbach, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and C. Wirszubski

B I B L I O G R A P H Y OF T H E W R I T I N G S OF MORTON SMITH

ig7

(edd.), Studies in Mysticism and Religion Preseitted to G. G. Scholem on his Seventieth Birthday, 261-268. Jesus' Attitude Towards the Law, in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies [1965], Papers, I, 241-244. Goodenough's Jewish Symbols in Retrospect, J B L 86, 53-68. The Work of George Foot Moore, Harvard Library Bulletin 15, 169179. rev. B. Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law, a Comparative St^tdy, (1966): J B L 86, 238-241. rev. A. Delatte and P. Derchain, Les intailles magiques greco-egyptiennes (1964): A J A 7 1 , 417-419. rev. H. Mattingly, Christianity in the Roman Empire (1967): CW 61, 161. rev. J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, I (1965): J A A R 35, 180-182. rev. W . Peek (ed.), Griechische Grabgedichte (i960): Helikon 7, 6i9f. 1968 In Memoriam, and On the Shape of God and the Humanity of Gentiles, in J. Neusner (ed.). Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Supplements to Numen, X I V ) , if., 315326. Historical Method in the Study of Religion, History and Theory, Beiheft V I I I , 8-16. rev. E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther (1967): J A A R 36, 2461. rev. S. Pines, The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source (1966): J A O S 88, 55if. 1969 The Origin and Development of Cynicism, Minutes of the Columbia University Seminar on the Nature of Man, October 17, 1-12. The Present State of Old Testament Studies, J B L 88, 19-35. rev. E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther (1967): A T R 51, 70. rev. G. Buccellati, Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria (1967) : A H R 74, 12531. rev. U. Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Uberlieferung und Geschichte (1967): A T R 51, 68f. rev. E. Yamauchi, Mandaic Incantation Texts (1967): A J A 73, 95-97.

198

A. THOMAS

KRAABEL

1970 Classification of Parallels, Report of the Corpus Hellenisticum Colloquium, (separately paginated) 1-4. (Claremont, California) rev. U. Bianchi (ed.), Le origini dello gnosticismo. Colloquio di Messina 13-18 aprile ig66 (1967): J B L 89, 82-84. rev. A. B. Ehrlich, Mikra Ki-Pheshuto: The Bible according to its Literal Meaning (1969 [1899-1901]): C B Q 32, i i 5 f . rev. W . S. McCullough, Jewish and Mandaean Incantation Bowls in the Royal Ontario Museum (1967): A J A 74, 2i9f. rev. J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia III (1968), IV (1969), V (1970): J B L 89, 49if. rev. O, Pettersson, Mother Earth (1967): C W 6 4 , 25. rev. E. des Places, La religion grecque (1969): C W 64, 88f. 1971 Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New York, Columbia University Press (Lectures on the History of Religions, sponsored b y the A.C.L.S., New Series, I X ) , pp. viii -f- 348. (an extensively revised version of the 1957 T h . D . dissertation) Bickerman, Elias, Encyclopaedia Judaica IV, 978. Goodenough, Erwin, Encyclopaedia Judaica V I I , 778f. Moore, George F., Encyclopaedia Judaica X I I , 293f. Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels and Jesus, J B L 90, 174-199. Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relation, H T R 6 4 , 1-19. rev. W. F. Jackson Knight, Elysion: On Ancient Greek and Roman Beliefs concerning a Life after Death (1970): AmClassRev i , 244f. rev. E. Lovestam, Spiritus Blasphemia (1968): J B L 90, 246f. rev. F. M. Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity (1970): A H R 7 6 , I 3 9 f . rev. L. Vidman, Sylloge Inscriptionum Religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae (1969): AmClassRev 1 , 141. rev. R. L. Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis and Theology (1971): Judaism 20, 37of. rev. ]. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (1969): A H R 76, 4891. 1972 Classical Antiquity: Jews and Greeks, and Classical Antiquity: Rome [both in collaboration with Elias Bicker-

B I B L I O G R A P H Y O F T H E W R I T I N G S OF MORTON SMITH

I99

man], J. A. Garraty and P. G a y (edd.). The Columbia History of the World, 136-189, 190-249. Ezra, in J. Bergman, K. Drynjeff and H. Ringgren (edd.). Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo. Widengren Oblata I, 141-143. Forms, Motives and Omissions in Mark's Account of the Teaching of Jesus, in J. Reumann (ed.), Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew Bible and Christian Beginnings, 153-164. V I . Pseudepigraphy in the Israehte Literary Tradition, in Pseudepigrapha I (Entretiens sur I'antiquite classique, X V I I I ) , 191-215 -1- discussion thereon, 216-227. rev. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, (edd.). The Cambridge History of the Bible, I: From the Beginnings to Jerome (1970): A H R 77, 94-100. rev. M. Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology (1971 [1928]): J B L 91, 130-132. rev. T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament (1969): Biblica 53, 583-586. rev. R. du Mesnil du Buisson, Etudes sur les dieux pheniciens herites par I'empire romain (1970): J B L 91, 585. rev. S. Mittmann, Beitrage zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte • des ndrdlichen Ostjordanlandes (1970): J B L 91, 548-550. rev. J. Neusner, Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (1970): Conservative Judaism 26, y6i. rev. S. Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (1971): J B L 91, 44if. rev. H. S. Versnel, Triumphus (1970): A J A 76, 243f. 1973 Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, pp. x - f 454, The Secret Gospel, New York, Harper and Row, pp. ix - j - 148 [London: Victor GoUancz, 1974]. The Aretology used by Mark, in W. M^uehner (ed.), Protocol of the Sixth Colloquy for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1-25. Mark's "Secret Gospel" ?, America, August 4, pp 64f. (reply to J. A. Fitzmyer, How to Exploit a Secret Gospel, America June 23, 1973).

200

A. THOMAS

KRAABEL

On the Problem of Method in the Study of Rabbinic Literature, J B L 9 2 , i i 2 f . (reply to B. Z. Wacholder's review of J. Neusner, Development of a legend, J B L 9 1 [ 1 9 7 2 ] I 2 3 f . , cf. B, Z. Wachol-

der, A Reply, J B L 9 2 [ 1 9 7 3 ] ii4f.) rev. G. Bussmann, Themen der paulinischen Missionspredigt auf dem Hintergrund der- spatjiidisch-hellenistischen Missionsliteratur (1971): C B Q 35, 5i8f. rev. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary^ (1971) • J B L 92, 626f. rev. F. KHngender, Animals in Art and Thought to the End of the Middle Ages (1971): A J A 77, i i 5 f . rev. A. D. Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z. Stewart (1972): CW 67, 41. rev. R. Van den Broek, The Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and Early Christian Traditions (1972): A J A 77, 462. rev. J. W e vers and D. Redford (edd.). Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World, Presented to Professor F. V. Winnett (1972): A H R 78, 4iof,

INDEX T O BIBLICAL A N D TALMUDIC

REFERENCES

Each entry is followed by a Roman numeral indicating the volume and an Arabic numeral indicating the page. BIBLE cts I I I

I I

I I

2-13 3 5 6-11 8

I II

12 13 I 14 I 15 I 15-26 I 17-19 I 2lf 2-8 2 Iff 2:2-4 2:6 2 I2f 2 15 2:17 2 :22 2:33 2:24-32 3 I 2:42 2 -.46 3 3 1-26 3:9f 3:11 3:i3f 3 14 3 16 3 19-22 3 :22 4 4:5-17 4:6 4 12 4 13 4 i6f 5 I I

I

I 186 I 190 I 190 I 192 I 190 I 188, 192, 196, 199 I 193 I 199 I 188 I 190 I 218 I 222 I 222 I 188 I 196 I 223 1 192 I 192 I 192 I 223 I 193 I 189 I 192 I 190 I 218 I 200 I 200 I 197, 212, 216 I 190 I 197 I 188 I 189 I 200 I 189 IV 185 I 194 I 212 I 197 I 189 I 61 I 196 I 197 I 218

5:12 5 :3i 5:34ff 6:x 6:3 6:S 6:8 6:15 7 7 :2-6o 7:8 7:9 7:13 7:14 7:16 7:18 7:37 7:40 7:48-50 7:55 7:56 8 8:1 8:2 8:4 8:5-25 8:8 8:14-25 8:20 8:32 9:20 9 :22 9:25 9:31 10 :io-i6 10 :i4 10:24f 10:34-4iff 10:36 10:37 10:38 io:4of 10:41 10:42

I

I

I I I

I

I 188 I 194 I 197 218, 289 I 192 I 188 I 192 I 192 112, 216 II 129 I 195 I 195 I 195 I 195 I 195 I 195 I 194 I 192 I 202 I 192 191, 193 188, 268 I 218 196, 219 I 219 I 188 I 195 I 188 I 192 I 194 I 193 I 193 I 193 I 199 I 201 I 201 I 202 I 190 I 194 I 199 I 189 190, 200 I 189 I 193

)2 10:45 I I :2 I I :5-io 11:14 12:3 12:2o 13 13:1-14 13 :22 13 :23 13 •25 13 :26 13:28 13 :3o£ 13 ••31 13:32 13:34 13:48 14 14:11 15 15:1 15 :5 15:6 15:23-27 15:29 15 :3S-2i i6:i4£ 16:31 I7:2f 17:5-8 17:7 17:27 17:31 18:5 18:15 18:18 19:19 19:26 20:6 20:7-11 20 :i9 20:29

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC

I 195 I 195, 268

I

I I

I

20:3s

20:38 21:8 21 :25 21 :27 22:6-11 23 :2-5 23:11 26:13 26:18

I

201 197 202 195 215 219 220, 223 194 186 194 219 190 190, 199 190, 193 190 194 II 133 192 I 56 268 295 219 II 107 201 219 197 197 193 198 198 199 190 193 198 193 268 192 202 200 202 192, 268 191 194 188 201 195, 268 193 198 192 193 193

REFERENCES

26:23 27 :33-38 28 28:2 28:27

I I II I I

193 200 133 197 189

II III III III

147 183 183 183

Baruch I

I,

4

4 15 9 14 13:4

I Chronicles 16:22

I 86

II Chronicles 8:11

Colossians

III 78

I 234, 249, 252, 256 2-9 I 258 7 I 9 I 230, 232, 296 I 9-12 I 232 I 12 I 230 I 12-14 I 232, 259-60 I 13 I 231, 259-60 I 13-14 I 227, 230-33, 259 I 14 I 227, 231-32, 239, 258-59 I 14-15 I 258 I 15 I 227-29, 231-35, 237-39, 24243, 248, 256, 258 I 15-16 I 233, 237-39 I 15-17 I 227, 242-44, 248, 255 I 15-20 I 226-63 I 16 I 227-29, 231, 233-34, 236-41, 247-48, 257-59, 269 16-17 I 233, 238-40 I 17 I 227-29, 231, 233-34, 236-39, 244, 248, 258-59 I :i7-i8 I 228, 236 I 18 I 227-29, 231, 22,3-3S, 237-39, 241-45, 247-48, 251, 256 I 18-20 I 227, 233, 237, 248 I 19 I 229, 231, 233-3S, 237-38, 240, 248, 252 I 19-20 I 227, 238-39, 242 I :20 I 227, 229, 231, 233-35, 237I :2i I 259 I 21-22 I 257 I 21-23 I 232 I -.22 I 249, 256 I :24 I 244, 249, 254 2:2ff I 296 I

I

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 2:3 I 269 2:4-23 I 231 2:8 I 265, 267, 278, 294, 296; II 102 2:9-15 I 260 2:10 I 251 2:11 II 103 2 -.11-21 I 271 2 :i2f I 281 I 245 2:13-15 2:14-15 I 251 2:16 1238, 278, 282, 296: II 102 2:18 I 266-67, 269, 296 2:18-19 I 252 2:20 I 238, 294 2:23 I 296 I 281 3:1 I 281 3:9f 3 :9-io I-260 3:11 II 18 3:19 I 238 4:11 I 297 4:18 I 238 5:20 I 238

Corinthians I :2 1:6 I:ioff I

:ii

:i2 I :i7 I :i8 1:23£ 2:5 2:18 3:3 3:12-13 3:i6f 3:18 3:20 3:2i-23 4:6ff 4:8 4:8-20 4 :io 4:18 5:11 6 6:1 6:9 6:12-20 6:14-22 6:20 I

I 269 I 282 I 159

I 16, I 270-71, 274, 277, I I

281 279 274 279 I 54-55 I 281 I 281, 296 I 281 I 240 I 280 I 279 I 296 I 240 I 280 I 274, 296 I 282 I 296 I 274, 296 I 281 I 264, 268, 296 I 281 I 280, 28 I 251, 281 I 281 I 280

7:1 7:23

8:if

8:5 8:6 8:10 10:17 12:12-27 12:13 14:37 15 15 :i2 15:20 15:20-3 16 :22

203

I 16 I 279

I 264, 274 I 241, 249 I 255 I 272 I 251 I 251 II 18 I 282 I 268, 270

I 266-67, 274, 280 I 256 I 249 I 264

II Corinthians :g :i2 2:4 2:12 2:17 3:1 4:2 4:3 4:6 4:7 4:9 4:10 4:15 4:i8f 5:1 5:2 5:11 5:12 5:12-16 5:18-21 5:19 5:21 6:14 6:14-7:1 7:1 8:23 9:3 10 10-12 10-13 10:2 10:5 10:7 10:11 10:18 I I :3 I

I

I I I I

286 286 293 293 I 268, 286, 290 I 286, 291 I 290-91 I 286, 294 I 287 I 287 I 294 I 287 I 286 I 287 I 251 I 287 I 279, 298 I 286 I 279, 286 I 257 I 258 I 258 I 287 I 279, 286 I 279, 286-87 I 288 I 286 I 286 I 279, 286 I 271, 285-86 I 286 I 268, 288 I 270, 279, 287, 291 I 274 I 286, 291 I 271, 279, 288, 291-92

204

INDEX

TO B I B L I C A L A N D T A L M U D I C R E F E R E N C E S

I I :4 :5 11 :6 II 7 I I :i3 I I :i5 I I :i8 I I :20 I I :22 I I :23 11 :55 12:1 12:11 12:16 i2:2o£ 12 :2i 14:29 14 :36 14:37

I 264, 279-80, 28s, 293, 297 18:18-22 I 271, 286 25:19 29:9 I 268, 279 I 286 I 270-71, 285, 291 Ecclesiastes I 287, 292 9:7 I 286, 293, 297 25 -.2 I 293, II 113 I 27, 291 Enoch I 285 6-8 I 271 8:1 I 287 19:1 I 272, 279, 286-87 25:5 I 286 I 287 Ephesians I 287 I :io I 286 I :i9 I 287 I :22 I 286 I :23 2:13 Daniel 2:13-17 5:9f II 92 2:15 6:i5f II 92 2:16 7:i3f II 92 3:15 7:27 II 92 3:i8f I I :i5 II 92 4:5 I I :i7 II 92 4:13 II:20 III 119 4:15s 12:10 II 92 5 :3-6 9:if II 92 5:18-20 20:6 II 92 5:23 22:5 II 92 5:29 6 :i2 Deuteronomy II

3 :20 4-5 4:15 4:15-16 4:19 4:24 5:25b-26 5 :27-28 9:19 10:17 12 :g 12:10-11 12 :io-ii i3:2ff 15 15:2 15:i9-20 18 i8:i5ff

I 326 I 328 IV 88 II 215 II 213-15 IV 88 IV 174 IV 174 I 328 IV 88 I 326 I 326 I 326 IV 174 I 91. 97 I 90 IV 24 IV 172-73, 187 IV 179

IV 174 1326 1326

IV 84 I 162

HI 55 II 163 II 163 II 176

I 257,259 I 249 I 244, 249, 251 I 253 I 249 I 258 I 249 I 249 I 249, 259 I 269 II 211 I 269 I 252 1-265 II 141 I 244, 249, 251 I 244, 249 I 290

II Esdras 3-14 Esther 4:11 4:14 4:16 4:17 Exodus 2:14 4:13 4:14 4:27 8:15 12:44 13:2 19-20

III 182

IV IV IV IV

82 83 83 83

I II2-II3, 118, 121, 147 i n 31 III 29-31 III 30-31 II 46 III 210 IV 24 1328

INDEX TO BIBLICAL A N D TALMUDIC 20:21 22:29-20 24 33-34 33 -21 34:5 34:6 34:19-20 34:28 Ezekiel I :2i 6:S 17:13 40-48 43 -4 43 :6-7 43 -Q

I 87, IV 174 IV 24 IV 178 IV 178 IV 178-79 IV 178 IV 82 IV 24 IV 178

187 1328 185 1328 1328 1328 1328

4 Ezra 2:47

III 184

5 Ezra 1-2

III 184

Galatians I 293 I 264, 279-80, 293 I 293 :ii£ II 48 :i6£ II 48 :i8 I 290 2 I 293 2:2 I 290 2:9 I 271 2:12 I 294 2:2o I 281-82 3:2 I 279 3:16 I 192 3:19 I 266 3:23-25 II SO 3:26-28 I 240 3:28 II 18, 211 3:28-29 II 50 4 II 50 4:6-11 II 102 4:9 I 267, 269, 278, 282, II 102 I 293 4:10 I 293 4:17 I 327 4:24-26 I 282 4:29 I 267, 282, 293 5:2 I 282, 293 5:4 :6 :6-8

5:11 5:12 5:13 5:15 S:i9f 5:21 5 ••25 6:12 6:13

REFERENCES

205

I 282 I 293 I 269, 273, 278, 293 I 265, 281 I 269 I 281 I 282 I 282, 293 I 281

Genesis I :ii III 63 I :26s I 255 I :28 I 51 2:9 I 288 3 -2 II 174 3:14 I SI 3:23 II 174, 179-80 3:24 II 174-76, 178-80; IV 77, 80 III 62 4:i7ff III 62 5:29 6:1-4 III 55 6:3 III 34 6:6 HI 34 6:17 HI 28, 34 9:20-29 HI 55-71 III 65 9:22 III 63 9:23 III, 63, 67 9:24 III 60 I I :2 I 324 14:18 III 20 14:22 I 327 15:18 II 162 16 I 195 17:10-13 III 210 17 :i2 HI 77 22 III 20 23 :11 III 164 28:12 I 327 28:17 III 77, 161 32 III 161 32:25-32 I 195 33:19 III 67 34:2 I 222 44:18 III 78 46:34 Habakkuk 1:5 2 :i9

II 34 IV 71

Hebrews I

-.2

I 31S-16

2o6

INDEX

:3 :5 1:5-2:18 I :6 I :7 I :8 1 :i3 I :i4 2:1-4 2 :2 2:3 2:3-4 2:6 2:7-9 2 :io I

I

2:16 2:17

3:1 3:1-2 3:1-4:16 3:1-5:10 3:6 3:13 3:14 4:1 4:1-9 4:2 4:7 4:14 4:14-15 4:15 4:16 5:1-10 5:8 5:10 5:11-6 :20 5:11-10:39 6:4 6:10 6:10-20 6:ii-i2 6:12 6:15

6:17

6 :i9 6:I9-20 6:20 7:1-28

7:11

7:15 7:17 7:21 7:24

TO BIBLICAL

AND TALMUDIC

I 316, 322

I 314

I 312 I 314 I 314 I 314 I 314, 322, 324 I 314 I 314 I 314 I 310 I 314 I 319-20 I 324 I 322-23

I 192 I 316 I 322-23, 327 I 316 I 312 I 312 I 316 I 315 I 316 I 315-16 I 326 I 326 I 318 I 313, 315-16, 322 I 316 I 322 I 313, 316 I 312 I 322 I 322 I 312 I 312 I 315, 327 I 309 I 322 I 316 I 315 I 316 I 315-16 I 309 I 316 I 316 I 312 I 314 I 314 I 314 I 315 I 315

9:10-23 9:11 9:11-12 9:15 9:24-28 9:25-26 9:26 9:28 10:1-39 10 -.2 10:12

10:16 10:19 10:2i 10 -.22 10:23 10:36 ir :i-i2:i3 II :3 II :9 II : j o

11:13 II :i6 II :i7 II :i9 II :24-25 11:30 12 12:2 12:3-13 12:14-13 :2i 12:18-2 12:22 12 :22-23 12 :26 12:28 13 13:22-25

REFERENCES

I 315 I 316 I 322 I 315-16 I 315 I 323 I 315 I 31S I 312 I 315 I 322 I 318 I 315-16 I 315 I 316 I 315-16 I 316 I 312 I 316 I 316 I 328 I 316, 327 I 327-28 I 316 I 327 I 322 I 316 I 302, 306 I 322 I 312 I 312 I 328 I 309, 327-2%

I 329 I 315 I 303 I 302, 304, 306 I 312

Hosea 12:4-5 12:5 Isaiah 6 :io II

22:23 32:14 42:43 42:1 42:3 42 :6 42:7

III 164 III 161 I 189-90 I 102 IV 85 I 88 I 83 I 104 I 80 I 193 I 80-82

INDEX TO BIBLICAL A N D TALMUDIC 7:26 I 316 I 322 7:26-27 7:28 I 315 8:1 I 316, 322 8:6 I 316 8:10 I 318 8:1-9 I 312 8:28 I 312 9:7 I 315 42:18 I 82 42:22 I 82 I 82 43:8 IV 83 43:18 IV 85 44:21 IV 85 44:22 44:28 I 220 49:6 I 193 52:7 I 90, 97 53:7 I 194 56-66 I 80 57:18 I 258 58:6 I 93, 97, 102 60:22 I 88 61:1 I 81, 83-85, 87-91, 97, 104 61 :i-3 I 75, 79-80, 87-91, 93, 97, loi 61 :i-6 I 326 61 :i-ii I 80 61 :2 I 83, 86, 90-91, 97-98 61:3 I 83-84, 86-87 61:12a I 92 61 :22 I 93 61:23-27 I 93 61 :29 I 93 65:17 IV 83 66:2 I 87, IV 84 66:16 IV 80, 88 James 2:20

I 149

Jeremiah II

25:11 25 :i2 29:10 31 -33 46 :25 50:12

I 93 HI 83 III 82 III 83 I 318 HI 74 IV 86

Joel 3:1

I 193

John I

:3

I 189, 191

:5 :7 I :io I :ii I :i4 i:i6f I :2o I :2i 1:25 I :27 1:29 I :3i I:34-43ff 1:36 1:47 I :49 1:51 2:6 2:i3ff 2:23 2:23 3:2 3:3 3:5 3:8 3:10 3:iif 3:12 3:3 3:15 3:17 3:19 3:21 3 :22ff 3:28 4 4:5 4:9 4 :io 4:20-22 4:2iff 4:25 4:29 4:31-38 4:32 4:35-38 4:44 4:46 4:49 4:53 5 5:1 5:12-14 I I

REFERENCES

207

I 191 I 189 I 189 I 194 I 194 I 194 I 186 I 194, 199 I 199 I 186 I 194 I 181 I 188 I 194 I 181 I 181 I 191 I 181 I 196 I 196 I 183 I 189 I 191 I 191 I 192-92 I 281 I 192 I 281 I 191 I 281 I 135-36, 189 I 281 I 281 I 196 I 186 I 192 I 195 I 181 I 192 I 181 I 202 I 178, 193, IV 168 I 193 I 178 I 194 I 188 I 98 I 195 I 195 I 197 I 184 I 192 I 281

208

I N D E X T O BIBLICAL A N D T A L M U D I C

5:22 5:25 5:27 5:36b 6 6:14 6:35 6:39f 6:44 6:54 6:62 7:1 7:15 7 :22£ 7:26 7:31 7:34 7:3Sf 7:39 7:40 7 :40-52 7:41 7:5o£ 7:52 7:53-8:11 8:12 8:15 8:16 8:30 8:31-59 8:48 Q 9:6 9:8 9:16 9:35-37 9:39 10:12 10 :i6 10:34f 10:37 10:53 II :4 II :7 11 :40 11 :45-54 II :46-5i II:47f II :54 12:2-8 12 :ii 12 :20

I

I

I I

I

136 281 193 281 135 I 181 194 I 67 190 190 190 191 182 196 195 193 172 I 35 135 196 192 194 181 193 197 181 201 191 136 191 136 183 183 181 184, 197 191 191, 197 189 193 193 192 202 159 192 135 188 192 182 192 183 197 197 182 200 183 196

12 :34 12 :40 12:42 12:43 12:47 13 :2-3off 13:27 13:33 13 •37 13 •47 13 •52 14 •3 14 •.ig, 22 14 -.22 15 :26f 15 •.27 16 •7 16 :i4 16 :2if 16 :33 17 :i8 18 :i3 18 :i7 18 :i8 18 : 19-24 18 :22f 18 :24 18 :25 18 :25-27 18 :28-i9:i5 18 :3i 18 :36 18 :39f 19 :i2 19 :iS 19 :i8 19 20 19 •.27 20 :i7 20 :i9-2i 20 :23 20 :25 20 •3o£ 20 :3i 21 :ii-22 21 :22£ 28 :23 28 •25 28 :3i

REFERENCES I I I I I I IV

193 189 183 192 136 200 168 I 35 I 189 I 193 I 191 I 193 I 190 I 188, 191 I 192 I 188 I 192 I 192 I 202 I 192 I 135 I 189 I 189 I 197 I 189 I 197 I 189 I 150 I 189 I 198 I 198 II 92 I 200 I 198 I 198 I 200 I 195 I 190 I 190 I 190 I 191 I 191 I 32 I 193 I 189 I 193 I 191 I 191 I 191

I John 2:18 2:22

I 265, 280 II I I S

INDEX TO BIBLICAL A N D TALMUDIC

II 115 II 115 I 280

3:8 4:2f 4:3 II John

II

7

115

III John

II ns

2 Joshua

IV 84 I 326 I 326 I 326 I 326 I 326 I 195

:8 1:15 21 -.43 21 .-44 21 :45 22 -.4 24:32 I

Jude

I 268

16 I Kings

III 9 I 220

:40 13:14 I

II Kings

III 81 I 88 I 85

18:9-13 22:20-23 24:15 Lamentations 3:49 Leviticus 5:16 6:6 I I :34 I I :38 15:24 16:8 17 :i2 17:13 18 19:9-10 22 :i4 23:22 25 25:10 25:13 26:1

IV 3 80, 88 IV 9 IV 9 III 214 III 247 III 212 212, 213 II 56 IV 18 IV 3 IV 18 I 91, 97 I 81, 97 I 90 IV 24

IV

III

Luke I :i-4 1-2 1 :2 1:5-13 I :i7 1:26-33 I :47 2:8 2:11 2:14 2:32 2:49 3:2 3:15 3:16 3 :20 3:2iff 3:2I-22 4 4:14 4:14-9:50 4:18 4:21 4:24 4:24-27 4:38f 4:43 5:5 5:10 6:13 5:20 6:4 6:r6 6:2o-26 6:40 7:13 7 :22-23 7 :24-25 7:40 8:1 8:10 8:20 8:24 8:45 9-18 9:iff 9 :22 9:28-36 9:33 9:49 9:49 9:51

REFERENCES

209

I 208-09 212 188 322 199 322 194

I

143 194 I 98 193 154 189 186 186, 199 188 188 104 188 191 198 I 82 I 96 I 98 103 188 191 145 188 290 149 150 188 n 17 [I 19 145 100 100 145 290 190 190 145 145 I 99 198 200 199 145 145 145 190 14

2IO

INDEX TO BIBLICAL A N D TALMUDIC REFERENCES

9:57 10:2i£ 10:22 I I :i9f I I :20 I I : 37-52 II

:4s

II:47-5i 12-18 I2:8f 12:32 12:33 12:51 12:53 I3:i2f I3:23f 14:16-24 14:26 15 ••4-7 15:11-32 16:19-31 18:15 18:19 18:33 19:9 9:12-27 19:39 19:42 20:28 20:36 20:39 21:7 21 :8 22:57 22:58 22:60 23:19 23:32 23 :44f 23:45 24 24:7 24:26f 24:32 24:51b 25 Maccabees I : 11-64 8:23££ 8:23-32 II

13:43

I 145 II 17 I 154 I 290 II 46 II 16 I 145 I 48-49 I 191 II 19 II 20 I 118 I 118 I 153 I 61 I 41 II 14 I 41 II 19 II 17 I 49 I 115 I 200 I 197 I 41 I 145 I 189 I 145 I 226 I 145 I 145 I 202 I 189 I 150 I 150 I 200 I 200 I 200 I 200 I 189-90 I 200 I 190, 200 I 200 I 190 IV 168

III 105 III 147 III 144-45 III I I I I 324

14:41 II Maccabees 2:16-17 2 :2i 3 3:1 3:1-3 3:11 4:7-17 4:8-9 4:24 4:26 4:34 4:45 5:7 5:18 6:i2-i6 13:3-8 14:37-46 Malachi 2:7 3:1 3 :22-24 3:23

I 324

III 118 III 118 III 112 III 112 III 121 III 92, 100, 106, 112 III 105 III 105 III 105 III 92 III 105 III 105 III 92 III l O I III 105 III 105 III 241

I 323 I 88, 323 IV 184 I 323

Mark :i :7 :8 I :io I :ii I :14-20 1:14-9:50 1:26 2:i£f 2 :i-i2 2:3f£ 2:5 2:7 2 :32f£ 3:8 3:iif 3:22 3:23f£ 3 :28-29 3:29 3:31 3:34 3:35 4:ii£ 4:12 I I I

I 29 I 186 I 199 I 63 I 63 I 188 I 198 I 62 I 57 I 56 II 167 I 57, 149 I 53, 57, 201 I 198 I 189 I 64 I 57, II 14 I 63 I S3 I 63, 72 II 14 II 15 I 61 I 64 I 190

INDEX TO BIBLICAL A N D TALMUDIC 4:38 I 145 I 64-65 4:4of 5:iff I 57 I 63 5 7 I 62 5:13 5:31 I 145 6:i£f I 63 I 54, 56, II 14 6:1-6 6:3 I 54-55, 57, 70-71, 190, 198 6:5 I 54, 56 6:6 I 54-55, 70, 198 6 :6b-13 I 54 6:7 I 56 6 :i4 I 189 6:30 I 54 6:50 I 65 7:1-23 I 201 II 46 7:15 7:19 I 201 7 :22 I 53 7:28f I 201 8 I 26 8:ii£ I 189 8:14-21 I 67 8:29 I 64, 69 I 57, 65, II 21 8:31 8:32 I 192 I 69 8:33 I 70 8:35 8:36 I 59 8:38 I 61, 69-70, 72 8:38-9:1 I 59 I 145 8:49 9:2£f I 64 9:2-9 I 199 I 71, 145 9:5 9:6 I 64-65 9:9 I 64 9:ii£ IV i8s I 199 9:12 9 :2o I 62 I 62 9:26 9:30ff I 65 9:32 I 65 I 71 9:33 9:38 I 145 • 10 :2-l2 I 201 10:17 I 151 10:18 I 115 10:21 I 61 10:23-27 II 17 10:23 I 145 10:28-30 n IS

10 :28-3i 10:31 10:32 io:32££ 10:42 10:43f II

II:12-25 I I :i4 I I :2i 12 12:1-9 12:9 12 :i9 i2:3ib-34 13:1 13:4 13:5 13:6 13:9 13:13 13:20 13:22 13:27 13:28 13:33 14:1-11 14 :iof 14:21 14 :27£ 14:28 14:30 14:37 14:38 14:50 14 :53b 14:54 14 :S5-65 14:62 I4:63f 14:64 14:66-72 14:71 14:72 15:7 i5:io£ 15:i6-20 15:27 15:29 15 -33 15:58 15:62 16:1-8

REFERENCES

211

I 59 I 59 I 65 I 65 I 61 II 18 II 16 I 60 I 64 I 61 II 16 II 17 I 61 I 145 I 201 I 145 I 189 I 61, 202 I 202 I 61, 65. II 15 I 61 I 6i I 61, 189 I 61 I 202 I 61 I 68 I 66

I 60, 65-66, 68, II 21 I 70-71, 190 I 72 I 72 I 61, 71 I 61, 71

6s,

70-71 I 63 I 68, 71 I 58-59, 68 I S8, 64 I 63 I 53-54, 56-57, 60 I 68 I 69-72, 150, 189 I 72 I 69, 200 I 61 I

I 52 I 200 I S3 I 200 I 200 I S8 I 189

212

I N D E X T O BIBLICAL A N D T A L M U D I C

i6:6f 16:7 16:8 i8:i3f 18:18 20:21 20:28 22 :ii 27:51 Matthew 2 :2 3:1 3:11 4:12-18:35 4:12-22 5:1-7:29 5:3 5:3-5 5 :? 5:17-20 5:2i-45 6:25-34 6:40 8:19 9:2 10:5 10:5-42

10:7 :i2 10:13 10 :25 10 :29f 11 :i4 I I :22 I I :24 I I :27 12:50 13:3-50 I3:i4f 13:55 13:56 15:10-20 15:32 16 :g i6:i3ff 17:1-8 17 :io-i2 18 18:1-35 18:i2-i4 19:16 20 :i-i6 10

I 190 I 65, 68-69, 72 1 64-65 I 71 I 145 I 145 I 145 I 145 I 200

I 180 I 199 T 186 I 198 I 188 I 45 I 191 I 89 I 281 II 129 II 129 II 19 I 145 I 145 I 149 I 188 198 I 45 I 191 I 191 I 189 II 14 II 19 I 199 II 15 II 15 I 154 I 198 I 45 I 190 I 190 I 198 I 201 I 189 I 26 I 145 I 199 I 199 II 18 I 45 I 41 I 153 II 19

22 :i-io 22 :24 23 23 •1-39 23 :8-ii 23 :29-3i 23 :34-36 24 :iff 24 •4 24 •4-25 :46 24 :5 24 :24 25 :14-30 26 : 72-74 26 :74 27 :3-io 27 •9 27 •29-31 27 :38 27 :42 27 :45 27 :5i-54 28 28 :9-2o

REFERENCES

I 41 I 145 II 129 I 45 II 18 II 129 II 129 II 171 I 202, IV 168 I 45 I 202 I 202 I 41 I 150 I 189 I 222 I 190 II 169 I 200 I 189 I 200 I 200 I 189 I 190

Micah 7: 8 8:14

IV 83 IV 86

Nehemiah 2 :2 Numbers 10 •33 12 •3 14 •23 14 •29-30 16 •13 17 .18 18 18 :8 18 :i5-i8 18 18 18 21 25 12 27 8 I Peter 2:t) - I 0 2:9 3:15 4:14 5:1

III 10

I 326 I 87 I 325 I 325 III 165 III 18 III 28-29 III 28 IV 24 III 20 III 24-25 I 88 III 211

II II II II II

117 211 117 116 117

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC 5:13

II 116, 147

II Peter 3:3f

II 119

Philippians :21s 2:10 3 3:if 3:2 3:3 3:5 3 :io 3:12-19 3:12-21 3 ••17-20 3:i8f 3:19 I

Proverbs 2:7 3:18 8:22

112 122:1-7 139:11 139:16

REFERENCES

213 III 28 I 328 IV 48 IV 83-85

Revelation I 251 I 242 I 280, 291 I 277 1 271, 274, 281, 291 I 291 290-91 I 281 I 274 I 281 I 274 I 265, 271, 297 I 291-92, 297

I 316 IV 78, 81 I 255

1:5 I :6 1:8 I :i6 2:6 2:9 2:i4f 2:15 2:24 2:26-28 3:9 3:13 3:14-22 4:4^ 6:2 6:6 7:9f 9:3, 14 II

Psalms 2 I 320 2:7 I 104, 158 IV 84 5:4 7 ••8-9 191 8 I 319-20, III 34 III 28 19 37 II 33 37:11 I 89 37 :23-24 II 33 42:4 I 328 I 321 45 45 :4-5 I 321 45 :6 I 321 45 :8 I 321 51 :r4 I 87 I 328 68:35 69:13 IV 59 82:1-2 I 91 82:6 I 192 84:1-7 I 328 88-89:2i I 220 94:1 IV 87 95:11 I 32s 105:15 I 86 no I 307, 315, 320, 322, 324-25 110:1 I 321 110:4 I 103

:3-i3 :8 12:6 13:3 13:12 14:8 14:8-12 16 .2 16 :i2 16 :i9 17:5, 6 17:18 18:11-13 19:9 19:16 II II

Romans I :i6 2 2:1-3 3:3 3:25 5:9 5:10 5:io-ii 6:1-23 6:11 6:13

II 92 II 92 II 92 II107 I 274 I 195 I 274 I 274, II 107 I 274 II 92 I 195, II I I I II 144 II 108 II 99 II 93 II 93 II 99 II 93 II 107 II 147 II 108 II 108 II 93 II 93 II 147 II 93 II 93 II 93 II 93, 147 II 147 II 93 II 93 II 133 II 92

I 329 I 281 I 149 I 54 I 249 I 249 I 258 I 257 I 274 I 281 I 281

214

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC

6:14 7:1 7:4 7:6 8:9 8:29 9:20 9:33 10:4 I I :2o I I :36 12:4-5 14:1-15:6 14:14 15:16 16:17-19 16:17-20 16:18 16:22

II 49 II 49 II 49 II 49 I 282 I 249 I 149 I 54 II 49, 129 I 54 I 255 I 251 I 274 I 201 II 126 I 274, 292 I 271 I 268 I 253

I Samuel 13:14

I 220, 222

II Samuel I :i4-i6 7:6-16 7:14

I 86 I 222 I 321

I Thessalonians 1:6 2:5

I 62 I 268

II Thessalonians 1:2 1:8 2 2:7 I Timothy i:3f 1:4 1:4-7 1:4-8 1:6 1:7 1:8-11 1:17 2:if 2:4 2:7 2 :i2 3:1 3:3

I 251, 253 I 61 I 269 I 264

I 265, 280, 297 I 267, 276, 297 I 268 II 113 I 280 I 267, 297 I 280 I 276 I 280 I 280 I 280 II 113 II 114 II 113

3:8 3:16 4:1 4:1-3 4:3 4:7 4:8 4:14 5:23 6:4 6:i5f 6:20

REFERENCES II 113 I 280 I 269, 276 I 280, 297, II 141 I 264, 267, 276, 297, II 113 I 297 II 113 II 114 II 113 I 297 I 280 I 17, 265-66, 268, 280

II Timothy i:i5f 2:3 2:8 2:14 2:14-18 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:23 3:1 3:2-7 3:5 3:6 3:7f 3:13 4:10

I I 274,

I I

I 297 I 267 I 280 I 297 I 268 I 265 266, 297 276, 280 I 297 I 280 I 274 I 280 I 276 II 113 276, 297 280, 297

Titus 1:5-7 i:9f I :io I :ii 1:14 1:15 1:16 2:11-14 3:1 3:5-7 3:9£ Zechariah I :i2 I :i5 4:10 7:5 14:1 14:2 14:3 14:9-11

II 114 I 292 I 297, II 113 I 268, 297 I 264, 267, 280, 297, II 113 I 276, 280 I 276 II 114 I 280 II 113 I 268, 297

III 82-83 IV 86 IV 86 III 82 IV 86 IV 86 IV 86 I 328

INDEX TO BIBLICAL A N D TALMUDIC REFERENCES JOSEPHUS Antiquities I :io8 HI 59 I :iio III 60 III 60 1:117 I :ii9 HI 59 12 III i35, 91, I I I , 120 HI 109 12 -.2-163 12:2-1-15, 11-118 HI 95 12:4-1-154 HI 86, 93 III 86 12:4-1-155 12:4-1-156 III 86, 93 12:4-1-158 III 87, 106, 108-109, 158-159 12:4-1-159 III 118 III 120 12:4-1-2, 154-60 III 86 12:4-1-11, 158-236 12:4-2-163 in 87, 95 HI 95 12:4-3-i67 12:4-4-175 III 102 HI 95 12:3-3, 130-31 HI 90 12:4-6-i86 12:4-7-196 III 95-96 12:4-10-223-24 III 89 12:4-10-223-225 III 120 12 :4-10-224 III 103 12:4-10-224-27 III 93 12:4-11-229 III 93 12:4-11-234 III 90 III 100 12:4-11-234 12:4-11-234-35 III l O I III 106 12:5-1-239-42 12 :5-i-240-4i III 93 III 100 12:5-3-247 HI 95 12:8-2o6 III 86 12:9:1-358 12:10-224 III 90 I2:4i7£ III 145, 147 12:4i7-4i8 III 144 III I I I 13:3-1-2, 66-68, 70-71 III I I I 13:3-1-3. 62-73 III 91 13 :4-i-8o III I I I 13:4-5-9, 103-20 13:26o-264 III 143 13 :288-297 I 325 13 :288-98 II 39 I 324 13 •.372-37(> III 146 14 14:143-48 III 134. 137 III 143 14:145-148 14:149-155 III 134, 136-37 III 134, 137 14:190-195 14:190-212 III 134

14:196-198 14:199 14 :200-20I 14 :202-2I0 14:211-212 14:213-216 14:213-246 14:219-222 14:225-227 14:288-230 14:231-232 14:233 14:234 14:235 14:236-237 14:238-240 14:241-243 14:244-246 14:247-255 12:247-264 14:256-2s8 14:259-26i 14:262-264 14 -.429-430 16 16:163 18:4 18 :9-io 18:19 18:23 18:23-25 20:264 20:265 28:1-3 28:20-9

134, 137 134, 137 135, 137 135, 138 III 135 III 135, 138 III 134 III 135, 139, 144 i n 135 III 135, 139 III 135 III 135, 139, 146-47 in 135, 139 III 135 III 135, 139 in 135 III 135,139 ni 135 III 135, 139 III 134 III 135, 140 in 135 III 13s, 140 III 241 III 146 1324 III 230-31, 244 III 230 III 246 III 231 III 226 III 238 III 238 III 86 III 86 III III III III

Contra Apionem 1:50 i:S3

III 236, 239 III 236

Life 361-362 424

III 237 in 237

War 1:3i-32 I:3i2-3i3 2:ii9ff 2:433 2:447 3:369-377 3:390

III 91, 100, 106 III 241 III 231 III 228 III 228 III 244 III 241

2l6

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES

4 79-81 4:82 4:400 4:402

4:56o-s63 5:362-374 5:376-4i9 6:260-266 6:280 6:312 7 7:153-154 7:252-4o6 7:253 7:256 2:259-274

III III III III III III III III III III III III III

241 241 228 246 230 238 238

241 332 236 242 225 III 226, 228, 231 III 237 III 230

7:262-274 7:291 7 •323-33(> 7:341-388 7:387 7:395 7:397 7:399 7:399-400 7:404 7:405 7 :405-4o6 7:406 7:410 7:418-419 7:450

III III III III III III III III III HI

in

III III III

III 226, III

231 223 238 238 234 235 247 245 228 234 237 244 244 245 237 242

MISHNAH Baba Batra 6:4 8:2

Bekhorot 6:1 6:6

Berakhot

15:24

IV 26-27 III 211

IV 24 IV 23

5:1 67

IV 52-54 IV 21

I :7 6:2 6:3

IV 37-39, 42, 44 IV 13 IV 13

3:8

III 207

2:6 2:8 4:4

IV 22 IV 21-22 IV 21

^Eduyyot

Hagigah Hallah

Kelim 2:2 17:1

IV I I IV 10 IV 30

3:5 4:2

IV 5 V 5

Ch. 29 Ma<^aserot Makshiriii :6 5:9 6:4

III 228 III 209 IV 9

3:8

IV 22

2 :2

III 214

I

Mo^ed Qatan Niddah

III 214

Ohalot 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:7

Pe^ah 4 :io Pesahim 4:4 6:3 10 -.g

Semahot 2:12

Sheqalim

IV 30-45

IV 39, 42 IV 31 IV 31 IV 39-40, 42

IV 181 IV 49 IV 21 IV 20 III 242

4:2 4:3 ^4:4

IV 25-26 IV 25 IV 26

6:1 8:1 8:2 8:3

IV 3 IV 2, 6, 8 IV 2, 4-6 IV 2, 5-6 IV 7-10 IV 8, 10

Terumot

II

-.2

II

:3

Tohorot I

:4

Yadaim 4:6 4:7a 4:7b

Yoma 5:1

III 208 III 208 III 209, 215 III 210-11, 215-16

III 212

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC

REFERENCES

217

TOSEFTA Ahilot 2:7-8 3:4

'^Eduyyot 2 :io Hagigah

IV 16 IV 43-45

IV 16

3:33 3:35

III 215 III 207

5:3

III 215

Niddah Ohalot

I

:2

3:4 3:5 3:6

Terumot 9:8

Yadaim I :i9 2:9 2:2o

Yoma I

:8

SIFRfi DEUTERONOMY 26 :io I 326

IV 36, 38, 41 IV 36, 40-41 IV 36-41 IV 9-10 III 209 III 209

III 211, 216 III 212-213

III 28

PALESTINIAN TALMUD Berakhot 8:5 8:12

Hagigah 77d

Megillah Bava^' Batra^' 115b

Berakhot 5a

Gittin 55bff 56a 56b-57a

Hullin

i2ob-i2ia

Ketubot

IV 48, 51 IV 51 IV 187

3:1

III 225

6:5

HI 33

:5

III 213

Sanhedrin Yoma I

BABYLONIAN TALMUD Pesahim III 211 53b-54a III 27 III 228

III 227, 243 III 227 IV 7

112a

IV 50 IV 53

66a

II 41

Qiddushin Rosh Hashanah 5a 18b

Sanhedrin 70a 74a 107b

III 227 I 324 III 66 HI 239 IV 187

losa

III 22s I 328

Sotah

64b

III 238

47a 49b

IV 187 III 238

19b 37a

III 212-15 III 247

iiia-b Menahot Nazir 52b

Niddah 33b

IV 37, 42-44

Yoma

III 214-15

OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES Abraham, Apocalypse of 8:23 I I :9 III 183 29 Aramaic Papyri, 5th Century 14 15 :i6 6 III 42 8 III 42 Asatir

III III III III

42 47 42 42

2l8

I N D E X TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES

III.25 IX.22 XIII.24 Assumption of Moses 6:1 Avot de R. Nathan III 7 Barnabas 3:1-6 Ben Sira 48:1-11 Clement Strom. 7:17 Homilies 2.22 2:24 Letter to the Corinthians 5 Recognitions 2:ir Contra Celsum 1:57 3:16 4:23 4:73 5:14 6:11 IV 7:9 8:48 Dio Cassius Epitome 66.6.3 History 65:15 Diognetus, Epistle to 7:6 7:7 Eusebius HE 2:23 3:23 3 -3 •32 3:5:3 3:37:1! 4:3:2 4:26:13 5:24.2, 5 7 :i8.i2-i4 Theophany IV:35 , Enoch, Similitudes of I Enoch 6:8

III 160 8:3 III 160 9:1 10:1 III 160, 165 17:9 III 160 20:108 III 160 I 325 20:6 III 160 40:9 III 160 228, 230 III 160 54 :6 III 160 III 186 71:8 Epictetus i.22.4 II 91 IV 184 n.i2 II 91 iv.7.6 II 91 I 26s 9.19-21 II 91 xli.3 II 142 I 268 Epiphanius IV 175 Haer. 21:27 I 266 Panarion 13 IV 168 II147 28 I 267-68 Hellanicus IV 174 I Reg. 9:24 III 78 IV 168 Ignatius 161 Philadelphia 161 II 114 3:2£ 161 II 115 4:2-6:3 161 II 114 4:3 168, 173 II 112 5:2 161 II 114 5:3 161 6:1 II I I I , 115 7:2 II 115 II I I I 8:2 III 241 II 112 9:1 Ignatius Magnesia II 95 II I I I 9:1 II 118 12:1 II 112 II 118 Irenaeus Against Heresies Ill.iiii, 3 II 247 III.iii.3-4 II 115 I 275 I 265 Joseph and Asenath Saga I 265 8 III 183 II 108 15 HI 183 II 117 16 i n 183 II 117 19 III 183 Jubilees II 137 II 136 5 III 55 II 141 7:1-12 III 65 32:1 • I 324 IV 168 Justin L Apol. 26 I 268 Memar Marqah 1:1 IV 179, 183 III 160 IV 175 IV 175 IV 175

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC I :2 2 2 -.2 2:3 2:12 4:1 4 ••3 4:5 4:6 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:4

Midrash Rabbah Exodus

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

175 183 175 175 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 IV 179, 183

32:2

I 329

Genesis #11 #82 36:7 96:5 97 99:2

Leviticus

IV 48-49 IV 49

III 66

I 328-29 I 325 I 325

I 88

10:2

Numbers 2 :io Pesikta Rabbati #23 46:3

Midrash, Ekah to 3:50

III 160 IV 49 III 160 I 88, 102

Neofiti Targum to Genesis 32 :25-32

III 242

5:23.1

Phaedo 61

III 242

C-62 E

301 f 395f

Book of Biblical Antiquities 18:6

De Som. II (250) Pliny the Elder Historia Naturalis

iQS IX II Q Melch. 14 4QP Ps. 37

I 266 I 266

III 163-64 I 328

III 223 51773 I 89 iQH xviii 14-15 IQI I 84, 86, 91-93, 97, 100 LLI 159 iQB 9:12-15 iQP VII, 1-5 II 34

219 I 325 I 325 I 325 I 325 I 325 II 43 I 84 I 89-90

Sibylline Oracles II 88, 92, 94, 97, 134 III 60 3:97ff II 94 3:350-55 3:356-62, 363-80 II 94 4:24-26 II 92 II 92 4:27-30 II 94 4:137-39 II 94 4:145-49 4:162-70 II 92 Smyrn. 5 :i II 112 Solinus, Collectanea 35:12 III 225 Suetonius Vespasian 4 III 232 Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2:30 III 244 Tacitus Histories 5 :i3 III 232 Tert. de Praes. I 265 7 29f I 26s Thomas, Gospel o f 6:1.7

III 161-63

Paulus Sententiae

Philo

iQS 1:18-21 iQS 2:2 iQS 2:5 iQS 2:11 iQS 2:20-21

REFERENCES

6:2.i

6 :2.2 6:2.3 6:2.4 6:2.5 6:2.6 6:2.7 6:2.8 6:3.1 6:3.2 6:3.3 6:3.4 6:3.5 6 :4.i 6:4.2 6:4.3 6:4.4 6:5.1

Trail. 8:2

I 136-37, 164 I 143 I 137 I 137 I 143 I 143 I 146 I 137 I 137, 139 I 141, 149 I 137 I 141, 149 I 137, 149 I 141, 149 I 137, 151 I 150 I 137, 146, 150, 153 I 136-37, 150 I 153 II 112

GENERAL

Aaron, I 322, 325; III 18-19, 30-31 Abaris, I 32-35 Abba, R., IV 50, 73 Abbahu, R., IV 48; "R. Abbahu of Caesarea", IV 56-76 Ab-Nahld, IV 105 Abbott, I 237

INDEX

Alon, Azariah, III 218, 222 Alter, Robert, III 218, 244, 248 Altmann, A., Ill 226 Amantius, II 187-88 Amastris, II 90 American Academy of Religion, III 124

Ami, R, IV 64, 67, 75 Ammia, II n o Abraham, III 73, 75; Testament of, II Amos, I 99 Anaitis, IV 95 171; III 182 Ananias, III 228 Abu' Fath, IV 168-69, 188 Anastasius I, II 184, 195-96 Acmonia, II 100 Acts, II 146-47; "A Foreword To The Anastos, Milton V., "Vox Populi Voluntas Dei And The Election Of The Study Of The Speeches In Acts", Byzantine Emperior", II 181-207 I 206-25; "The Kinship Of John Anathoth, I 93 And Acts", I 186-205 Acts of Apostles, II 8, 96, 106-07, 113, Anatolia, Asia Minor and Early Christianity, II 77-78, 80, 86, 93, 96, 98Acts of Luke, I 40, 48-49 '^Ahd al-Gabbar, I 128, 130-38, 141-44, 149-55

117, 120, 123, 126-27, 133

Abad-ibni, III 17 Adam, III 75-76; "Conjecture" And Interpolation In Translating Rabbinic Texts: Illustrated by a chapter from Tanna Dehe Eliyyahu", IV 77-89

10, 103-04, 112, 114, 139, 143-44

Anatolius, II 189, 192 Ancyra, II loi Andrew, 1 11, 13, 15 Andriessen, Dom P., II 118 Andron, II 85 Anicetus, Pope, II 153 Annas, 1 189, 198 Anra Mainyu, IV 97 Antinomianism, I 273-74, 280 Antioch, I 273 Antiochus, III 139 Antiochus I, II 86 Antiochus III, II 97; III 86, 88, 90-91, 94, 98, 102; IV 100 Antiochus IV, II 100; III 85, 90-91,

Adur-Anahid, Iv 105 Adurtohm, IV 107 Aedesius, IV 148 Aegean Islands, II 77 Aelian, I 32 Aeneas, 111 74 Africanus, HI 76, 79, 82 Agrippa I, III 147; IV 68 Aha, R., IV 64 Aharoni, Yohanan, III 218-219, 223 93, 100-03, 105-06, 108, 121-23 Aher, III 177 Antiochus VII, III 115-16 Antiochus of Commagene, II 144 Ahura Mazda, IV 94, 97 Antiochus Epiphanes, II 39, 94 Aland, Kurt, II 140, 142 Albeck, Hanok, IV 19; Toharot, III Antiochus Hierax, III 98 Antiquities, "The Acta Pro Judaeis 210, IV 46 In The Antiquities Of Flavins JoseAlexamenos, II 168 phus: A Study in Hellenistic and Alexander of Abonuteichus, II 90 Modern Apologetic HistoriograAlexander, III 83 phy", III 124-58 Alexander, or the False Seer, IV 187 Alexander Balas, III i n Antitheses, II 126 Alexandra Salome, II 37 Antoninus, IV 153 Alcxandriim, III 177 Antoninus Pius, II 96 Allmen, D. von, I 236, 263 Antony (Hermit) IV 149

GENERAL

INDEX

221

Alexander the Great, III 74, 80; III Ariadne, II 195-96 Aristeas, III 104, 181 167, 171 Alexander Janneus, II 37-41; III 112, Aristion, II 108 Aristobulus, III 238 136, 224; I\' 187 Aristobulus of Alexandra, III 188 Alexander, P. J., II 208, 210 Aristode, I 31, 33; III 75 Alexander Polyhistor, III 77, 79 Arsameia, II 86 Alexander Zazinas, III 116 Arsinoe, 1, III 95 Apameia, II 99 Arsinoe II, III 95 Aphrahat, II 131, 147-48 Arsinoe III, III 95, 99, 109 Aphrodisias, II 84 Artaban V, IV 120 Aphrodite, II 85 Artabanus III, IV 120 Apion, III 73 Artabanus IV, IV 121 Apocalypse, II 92-93, 99, 106-07, H O ; Artaxerxes, I 219 Enoch, III 178, 181, 195 Artaxerxes II Memmon, IV 95-96, Apocalypse of John, II 165, 171 100, 109 Apollinarius of Hierapolis, II 139 Artemis II 81, 83 Apollo, I 29-31, 33-35, 82, 84 Asa, IV 94 Apollo Karneios, II 82 Asaf, S., Ill 22 Apollonius, III 91 Apollonius of Tyana, I 21-22, 25-30, 32, Asi, R, IV 67 Asia Minor, "Asia Minor and Early 35-36, 95 Christianity", II 77-145 Apollos, I 270, 272, 300, 306, 308 Asclepius, "Unc Allusion de L'AscleApology, II 137 pius au Livre D'Henoch", II 161-63 Apostolic Constitutions, III 186-87 Applebaum, Shimon, III 218, 229-30, Asklepieion, II 81 Asklepios, II 8r, 90, 108, 116 241-42 Asmdai, III 170 Apuleius, I 24; III 196 Asmodaios, III 170 Aqibun, IV 169 =Aqiba, R., IV 39, 42; "Artificial Dis- A spar, II 184, 193-96 pute: Ishmael and ^^Aqiba", IV 18-29 Asreclyor, III 160 Astad, IV 108 Aquila, II 128; III 65-66, 165 '^Atahiyah, ^'Abu'l, I 143 Arabs, III 218 Athanasius, II 214 Aramazd^, IV 99 Athenaeus, III 79 Archaeology, Asia Minor and Early Athenians, III 136 Christianity, II 77-87 Archangels, "The Archangel Sariel: Atrahasis, III 58-60 Attis cult, II 138 A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Augusta, Faustina, II 151 Sea Scrolls", III 159-66 Augustine, I 40, 155-62; II 106 Archimedes, III 73 Augustus, IV 181 Ardaburius, II 194 Augustus, Leo: II 187, 189-202 Ardasir, IV 120 Avesta, III 170-73 Ardasir I Ohrmazd, IV 104 Avigad, N., Ill 219 Ardasir Papakan, IV 103, 105-06, 108, Avircius Marcellus, II 88, 142 110 Avi-Shmuel, III 218, 248 Ardban, Konig, IV 120, 122 Aradvi Sura Anahita, IV 96, 98-101, Avi-Yiftah, S, III 218, 222 Avi-Yonah, Michael, III 218, 222-23 104-05 Aretalogy, "Dositheus, Jesus, And A Moses Aretology", IV 167-89; "Good News Is No News: Aretology And Gospel", I 21-38 Areus I, III 89-90, 119-20

Areus II, III 90

Baarda, Tjitze, "Luke 12, 13-14", I T07-62

Babli, IV 52 Babylonian royal grants, III 14-18, 35 Bacon, Benjamin, I 178

GENERAL

222

Bagatti, B., II 72 Bahram, IV 108 Balbus, III 135 Ballance, Michael, II 80 Bammel, E., I 235, 242, 261; IV 121 Bandstra, A. J., I 294 Baptism, II 51; "A Note On Purification and Proselyte Baptism", III 200-205

INDEX

Bethar, III 225 Betti, Emilio, II 226 Betz, Hans Dieter, I 21; IV 181, 183 Bible interpretation, "Contemporary Ecclesiastical Approaches To Biblical Interpretation", II 217-27 Bibliotheque Nationale, II 205-06 Bickerman, Elias J , III 126-28; "The Jewish Historian Demetrios", III

72-84 Bardy, G., II 132-33, I39 Bar Kochba, I 167, 181; III 226, 240Bieler, L, IV 181 Bilhah, III 63 Barnabas, I 300, 302-03, 306-07; II 64, 129; III 186-88; Epistle of, II 137 Bin Tepe, II 83 Bithynia, II 90, 96, 116 Barnes, T. D., II 139 Barrett, C. K., I 165, 173, 244. 262, Black, M., I 165, 317, 319 Blackman, E. C, II 125-26 285-86, 310 Blasphemy, "blasphemy: St Mark's Barth, Karl, II 226 Baruch, I 93; II 109-10; III 181, 183 Gospel As Damnation History", I Basil I, II 199, 204-05, 211 51-74 Bathsheba, III 104 Bleek, Friedrich, I 300 Bauer, Walter, II 55, 77, 79, 104-05; Bloch, Renee, I 80 Boaz, II 100 IV 115 Bodmer Papyrus, I 1 1 ; II 135 Bauernfeind, Otto, III 238-39 Boehringer, E., II 81 Baumbach, Gunther, III 219, 231-32 Baumgarten, Albert I., "Myth and Boethusians, "Sadducees Versus Pharisees : The Tannaitic Sources", III Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29", III 55-71 206-17 Baur, Ferdinand Christian, I, 2-4, 6, 8, 44, 169; Paul and Enemies, I 270-73, Bokser, Baruch M., "Two Traditions of Samuel: Evaluating Alternative 277-79, 283 Versions", IV 46-55 Bayle, III 127 Bonner, Campbell, II 89, 135 Baynes, N. H., II 208, 210 Borchardt, Jiirgen, II 85 Bean, G. E., II 80 Borgen, I 175 Beatty, Chester, I 11 Behm, Johannes, I 4 Bornkamm, G, I 232, 244-45, 260; II Belial, I 91, 96-97 103 Belkin, III 32 Bousset, Wilhelm, I 168-69 Ben-Haim, Z., I 177 Bowen, C. R., I 259-60 Benjamin bar Yefet, R., IV 50 Bowker, J . W., I 222 Benoit, Pierre O. P., I 295; "L'Hymne Bowman, John, I 176-77 Christologique De Col i, 15-20", I Boyce, Mary, "Iconoclasm among The 226-63 Zoroastrians", IV 93-1 n Ben-Sira, III 7, 10; III 90, 103, 108, Brandon, S. G. F., "Christ in Verbal and Depicted Imagery, A Problem 111-12, 117 of Early Christian Iconography", Berachiah, R., Ill 66, 68-69 II 164-72 Berenice I, III 95 Brandt, IV 114 Berenice II, III 95, 98, 109-10, 115-16 Braude, William G., " 'Conjecture' and Berger, Peter L., II 24 Interpolation in Translating Rabbinic Bergmann, J., Ill 226 Texts: Illustrated by a chapter Bernice, II 95 from Tanna Debe Eliyyahu", IV Bernini, Giovanni Lorenzo, II 151 Berossus, III 60; III 72-73, 76-80, 8284

Bertinoro, IV 19, 34

77-89

Briessmann, Adalbert, III 235 Bright, John, I 95

GENERAL

Brown, Peter, I 23-24 Brown, Raymond E., I 170 Bruce, F. F., I 292 Brutus, III 140 Buber, III 28 Buchanan, George Wesley, "Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews", I 299-330

Biichsel, F., I 283 Bultmann, Rudolf, I 36-37, 44, 284, 286, 320; II 222, 226; IV 114-15; Christianity and Judaism, I 165-66, 16970, 179, 182

Burkill, T. A., "Blasphemy : St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History", I 51-74

Burney, C. F., I 164, 167 Burnt Laodicea, II 99 Burridge, Kenelm, II 26, 45, 52 Burstein, William, III 219, 230-31 Burton, Edward, I 267, 269, 271 Busalgas, II 190 Byzantine, "Vox Populi Voluntas Dei and the Election of the Byzantine Emperor", II 181-207 Cabalism, I 266, 268 Cadbury, H. J . , I 206-08, 211, 215, 22324

Caiaphas, I 197-98 Cairo Geniza, I 174; collections, II 197 Caligula, II 95 Callistus, Nicephorus, II 192 Calvin, John, I 264 Cambyses, III 83 Campenhausen, H. von, II 114, 126-27 Canaan, I 302, 305, 326-27; III 77, 5859, 61, 63-69

Candidianus, IV 144 Cappadocia, II 80, 116 Caria, R. P., II 134-35 Casey, R. P., II 134-35 Cassuto, U. D., Ill 56-57 Castor, III 82 Castration, "Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29", III 55-71 Castritius, H., IV 155 Catacombs, "Christ in Verbal and Depicted Imagery, A Problem of Early Christian Iconography", II

INDEX

223

125-26, 218; HI 126-27; "Peter in

Rome", II 146-60 Cato, III 133 Caunus, II 102 Cecrops, III 74, 76 Cedrenus, II 197 Celer, II 184-85, 189 Celsus, I 61; IV 168; Library of, II 82 Cephas, I 270 Ceremonial Law, I 267, 271 Cerinthus, I 268; II 104-05, 109-11, 132-34 Chaereas and Callirhoe, II 89

Chariton of Aphrodisias, II 89 Charles, R. H., Ill 160 Chartres, Cathedral of, II 166 Christianity, " 'Am I A Jew ?' Johannine Christianity and Judaism", I 163-86; "Asia Minor and Early Christianity", II 77-145; Christian communities as secretarian movement", II 1-23; "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4", I 75-106; "Iconoclasm among the Zoroastrians", IV 93I I I ; Millenarism, II 24-52; "The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity", III 174-99; "New Testament Introduction: A Critique of a Discipline", I 1-20; "Reflexions Sur le Judeo-Christianisme", II 53-76 Christian liturgy. III 7 Christian Zionism, I 309-10 Chronocles, III 7 Chrysippus, III 244 Chrysostom, Dio, II 87, 143; III 190 Chrysostom, John, II 72, 206 Cicero, I 16; III 132-33, 152 Cilicia, Asia Minor and Early Christianity, II 77-78, 80, 100, 107, 161 Cilicia Traecheia, II 80 Circumcision, I 270-71, 275, 278, 289, 293, 295; II 113; III 210 Clapping of hands, IV 22 Clark, J., II 4, 7 Claros, II 82 Claudius, I 268; 307; III 195 Clement, I 300-04; II 213-14; Epistle of Clement to James, II 148

I Clement, I 215; II 114, 120, 122, 129; III 185, 188 II Clement, 128 164-72 Catholic Church, I i, 2, 215; II 121, Clement of Alexandria, I 40, 128, 266;

GENERAL

224

INDEX

Cowley, A. E., Ill 41 Coxon, P., IV 135 Crete, II 77 Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, Crocket, Larrimore Clyde, I 100 II 147 Cromwell, Oliver, HI 242 Cleopatra, III 74 Cleopatra I, III 86-88, 90, 93, 95, 98- Crown of Thorns, II 169-70 II 117, 147; HI 77, 83 Clement of Rome, II 147

99, 103, 113, 118, 121 Cleopatra II, III 106, 108-11, 113-16, 120

Cleopatra III, III 106, 109-110, 113, 115-16

Clio, II 81 Cnidus, II 82, 85 Codex Alexandrinus, I 310

Codex Bezae, I 112, 116, 128-29, 150

Codex Colbertinus, I 114 Codex Fuldensis, I 147 Codex Neofyti, I 148, 174 College of Architects of St. Peter's II 149

Colophon, II 80 Colossae, II 101-04, 108-09, ii3, 132;

"L'Hymne Christologique De Col i,

15-20", I 226-63; Paul and his

opponents, I 267, 271, 273-7%, 29596

Colson, F. H., Ill 30 Colwell, E.C., I 165 Comes, Marcellinus, II 187, 192 Commagene, II 80, 82, 90 Commentary on I Peter, IT 147

Community Rule, II 43 Constantia, IV 160-61 Constantina, Empress, II 148 Constantine, II 149, 151, 157-59; HI

176, 187; IV 145-46, 151, 153, 160, 163-65

Constantine VII, II 184, 189, 191-92, 194,

199-200, 205

Constantine VIII, II 197 Constantine (IX) Monomachus, II 197-98

Constantinople, Archbishop of, II 185 Contamination, I\' 31-45 Conzelmann, Hans, I 215, 232, 235, 245, 262

Corinth, II 103, 107; Paul and his opponents, I 264, 268, 273, 276-82, 286-87, 290-93, 295-97

Cornelius, II 148 Corpse uncleanless, IV 31-45 Correnti, Venerando, II 153, 156 Corsini, II 136

Crucifixion, The, I 200

Crucifixion of Jesus, II 168-70 Ctesias, III 77, 82 Cullmann, Oscar, I 178, 289, 320; II 68 Cuneiform, "Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expression of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures : Divine linvestitutes in the Midrash in the Light of NeoBabylonian Royal Grants", III 1-36

Cursing, "Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History", I 51-74 Cybelc, II 86, 138 Cynicism, II 91, 95-96, 113, 144 Cyprus, II 77; III 82-84, 172 Damascus Document, II 33 Damascus Rule, II 43 Damasus, Pope, II 148 Damis, I 26-27 IDamnation, "Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History", I 51-74

Daniel, I 320-21; II 94, 167; III 85,

119, 168-69, 181 Danielou, J., I 308; II 53-55, 62-67, 71-73; 109, 121-22, 133

Danielou, R. P., II 61 Danker, F. W., I 56-57 Darah, IV 170 13arius, I 219; III 82-83 Darius the Great, IV 95 David, King, III 104, 243 Dayyenu, II 136

Dead Sea Scrolls, II 103; III 72, 195, 197; "The Archangel Sariel: A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea Sc-roUs", III 159-66; "Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholarship", III 218-48; "Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews", I 299330; "Qumran and Iran: The State of Studies", III 167-73 Debe Eliyyahu, " 'Conjecture' and Interpolation in Translating Rabbinic Texts:

Illustrated

by a chapter

GENERAL

from Tanna Dehe Eliyyahu", IV 77-89

Decius, IV 145-46

De Divina Revelationc, II 218 Deichgraber, R., I 232, 235, 241-42, 245, 262

Delitzsch, F., I 299-301, 327 Delos, II 94, 102 Delphi, Oracle at, I 29-30 Demargne, P., II 85 Demeter, II 81-82 Demetrios, "The Jewish Historian Demetrios". III 72-84 Demetrius, II 95; III 139 Demetrius II, III 116 Demetrius of Syria, III 147 Dcrbe, II 80 Derchain, Philippe, II 161 Detweiler, A. Henry, II 83 Deukalion, III 61 Devri Sehri, II 80 Dibelius, Martin, I 44, 206-07, 210, 213, 224;

23s, 237, 261

Dicacarchus, III 75 Didache, III 186 Didascalia, II 147

INDEX

225

Doorner, F. K., II 86 Dositheus, "Dositheus, Jesus, and a Moses Aretalogy", IV 167-89 Dough-Offering, IV 21-22 Douglas, Mary, I 38 Driver, Godfrey R., I 165; III 219, 230

Drower, Lady, IV 117 Drusius, Johannes, III 126 Duhm, Bernhard, I 80 Dumont, III 136 Dunayevsky, I., Ill 219 Dupont, Jacques, I 211 Dura-Europos, II 166-67 Dura Synagogue, IT 99 Durkheim, E., I 23 Dur-Yakin, I 8r Dusis ibn Fufily, IV 169 Dvir, J., Ill 219 Ebed Yaweh, I 80, 85 Ebeling, Gerhard, II 227 Ebionites, I 127-28, 265, 268, 271; II S3, 61, 69-71; III 176

Ecclesiasticus, HI 178 Eck, Werner, III 219, 247 Eckart, K. G., I 235, 240-41, 24s, 261 Eden, " 'Conjecture' and Interpolation in Translating Rabbinic Texts: II-

Didyma, II 82 Diekamp, Franz, II 208-10 Dietrich, M., IV 137 Dimitrovsky, Zalman, III 219, 226-27 Imtratcd by a chapter From Tanna Dindorf, III 136 Debe Eliyyahu", IV 77-89 Dinkier, Erich, II 221 Egypt, II 108, 123, 144; "The Religion Dio Cassius, III 241 of Maximin Daia", IV 143-66 Diocletian, III 224; Caesarea, IV 69- P^hrhardt, Arnold, II 77, 104-03, 142 71, 73-75; Maximim Daia, IV 143, Ehrich, R. W , II 77-78 145, 150, 155-56, 161, 165 Eichler, Barry, III 47-48 Diodorus, III 82-83 Eichhorn, J . G., I 206, 270 Diodorus, Zonas, II 87, 92 Eighteen ordinances. III 202 Diogenes, II 85, 95; IV 48 Elchasaites, II 102 Diognetus, Epistle to, II 118, 137 Elchcsai, II 110 Dionysios bar Salibi, I 108 Eleazar, II 38-39; III 86, 90, 95-96, Dionysius, II 211-213 no, 196 Dionysius of Corinth, II 147 Eleazar ben Jair, III 225-26, 228, 231Dioscorides of Anazarbus, II 88 35, 238-39, 243, 247 Diotrophes, II 115 Eleazar B. Poirah, II 40 Dius, III 76 Elect Lady, II 115 Divino afflante Spirit a, II 218 Elephantine, "On the Origins of the Doeve, J . W., 1 222 Aramaic Legal Formulary at EleDolabella, III 135 phantine", III 37-54 Elhanan, III 228 Domitian, I 303; II 85, 92-93, 95-96, Eliezer, R., IV 22; "Redactional Tech116 niques in the Legal Traditions of Donahue, John, II 22 Joshua b. Hananiah", IV 1-17 Donatists, I 156-160 15

226

GENERAL I N D E X

Eudoxus, I 29 Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, IV 28 Elijah, I 88, 92, 97-100, 102, 115, 172, Euphemius, Archbishop, II 195 Eupolemus, III 72 199, 204; IV 34, 177, 184-87 Eusebius, I 7-8, 265, 271, 275; II 58, Elisha, I 96-98, 102; IV 177, 184 108, 117, 134-36, 139-40, 148; III Elisha ben Abuya, III 177 Elkesaites, III 176 187; IV 146-47. 149-51, 153-55, Elliger, Karl, I 94 157-59. 161, 164-65, 168-69; The Ellis, E. Earle, "Paul and His OppoMartyrs of Palestine, IV 144-49 nents", I 264-98 Eusebius of Caesarea, III 77, 79, 82Emerton, J . A., I 220-21 83 Empedocles, I 32 Evans, C. F., I 213 Encratites, I 264 Exorcism, "A Note on Purification Enoch, I 320-21; II 102-03; Apocaand Proselyte Baptism", III 200-05 lypse of, III 178, 181, 19s; Book of, Explanation of the Logia of the Lord, III 160-66; "Une Allusion de II 108 L'Asclepius au Livre D'Henoch", Exultet, II 136 II 161-63 Eyonymus, III 140 Epaphroditus, II 96 Ezra, I 219; III 182, 202 Ephesus, II 81, 90, 96, 101-02, 104-07, Ezra the Scribe, IV 65 112-15, 120; III 135; "Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Images", Fairweather, E. R., IJ 18 II 208-16; Paul and his Opponents, Farmer, William R., "A Fresh ApI 264, 268, 277, 290 proach To Q", I 38-50 Ephorus, III 79 Fascher, Erich, I 4 Ephraem, I 115 Fausta, IV 145 Ephraim, III 188 ! Peine, Paul, I 4 , Epictetus, I 150; II 91-92, 96 Feldman, Louis H., "Masada: A CriEpicureans, III 226 tique of Recent Scholarship", III Epidaurus, II 81 218-48 Epimenedes, I 29, 32 Ferrar-family, I 109 Epiphanius, I 267; II 140; IV 169, 179- Festival-Offering, IV 20-21 81, 188 Festugiere, R. P., II 162 Epstein, J . N., IV 37, 47 Feuillet, A., I 232, 235, 261 Eratosthenes, III 75, 80, 82 Fiery Furnace, II 167 Erim, Kenan T., II 84 Finkel, Asher, I 99 Esarhaddon, III 17 ' Finkelstein, Louis, III 26, 28 I Esdras, III 181-82 i Fire, IV 48-52; "Iconoclasm Among II Esdras, II 147 i the Zoroastrians", IV 93-111 Essenes, I 89, 95-97. 100-01; II 32, Firstlings, IV 23-25 103-04, 144; III 86, 178, 189-90, 197Fitzmyer, J . A., I l l 50 98, 204, 224, 226, 230-32, 245-46; Flavians, III 233, 235-36, III 233 Hebrews, Scholarship of, I 308-09, Flavins Josephus: see Josephus 322, 329; Millenarism, II 25, 32-36, Flavius Silva, III 234, 236, 244, 247 41-45, 48-49; Paul, Enemies of, Flesh and limbs, IV 11-17 I 266-68, 274-78, 294-97 Flood, III 75-76, 79-80; "Myth and Establishment, "The Earliest Christian Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29", III 55Communities as a Secretarian Move71 ment", II 1-23 Flora, II 130 Esther, III 181; IV 80, 82-83; Scroll Flusser, David, I 89, 308 of, IV 64 Foods, II 113 Euchaita, John, II 199 I Ford, Josephine Massingberd, II 141 Euclid, III 73 Fortna, R. T., I 183-84 Eudocia, Empress, II 205 Fourth Philosophy, III 226, 228, 230-31

GENERAL

Frcrichs, Ernest S., "Contemporary Ecclesiastical Approaches to Biblical Interpretation", II 217-27 Freudenthal, J., I l l 80-81 Friedmann, Meir, IV 46, 49, 79 Frimer, Dov I., Ill 219, 240, 243 Froehlich, Erasmus, III 127 Frye, Richard N., "Qumran and Iran: The State of Studies", III 167-73

INDEX

227

Goldberg, IV 35 Goldschmidt, D., (ed.) Siddur R. Amram Gaon, IV 46, 48

Goldstein, Jonathan A., "The Tales of the Tobiads", III 85-123 Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell, IV 190 Goodspecd, E. J., II 116, 118, 125 Cordis, Robert, III 219, 226, 242, 247 Goren, Shlomo, III 219, 240 Goshen-Gottstein, M., I l l 204 Gabathuler, H. J., I 230, 232, 235-42, Gospel, "Good News Is No News: Aretalogy and Gospel", I 21-38 245, 262 Gottlieb, Gerald, III 33, 222, 224 Gadamcr, Hans-Georg, II 226 Gouillard, J., II 208-09 Gagniers, Jean des, II 84 Gains, II 84, 115, 133-34, 147; IV 68 Graetz, H., i l l 81 Grant, F. C, II 11 Gains Caligula, III 191 Grant, Robert M., II 61, 122, 126, 139, Gains Fannius, III 135, 139, 146-47 "The Religion of Maximin Daia", Gains Rabirius, III 135 IV 143-66 Gaius the Roman, II 148, 153 Crasser, E., I 53-54 Gains Sempronius, III 143, 146 Great Feast, I 41 Galaistes, III 114 Galatia, II 80, 86, 100-09, 116, 125; Green, William Scott, "Redactional Techniques in the Legal Traditions Jewish-Christianity, II 54, 57; Paul of Joshua b. Hananiah", IV 1-17 and his opponents, I 264, 268-70, Greece, II 77 273, 277-7%, 280-82, 293-95 Greek Culture, II 74-145 Galba, III 135, 139 Green, R. B., II 178 Galen, II 81, 92 Gregoire, H., IV 153, 155-57, 160 Galerius, IV 143-45, i49-50, 153-54, Gregory, St., IV 103 156, 161-62, 164-65 Gregory X, II 59 Gallio, I 198 Gregory of Nazianus, II 204 Gamaliel, R., I 197; HI 227, 238 Gregory the Great, II 148, 211 Gamaliel II, R., IV 73 Griesbach, "A Fresh Approach to Q", Gamaliel IV, R, IV 72 I 38-50 Gawaita, Haran, IV 122 Gronovius, Johann Friedrich, III 126, Geffcken, J., IV 152 Gehenna, " 'Conjecture' and Interpola139 tion in Translating Rabbinic Texts: Grotius, I 270 Illustrated by a chapter from TanGrotius, Hugo, HI 126 na Debe Eliyyahu", IV 77-89 Guarducci, Margherita, II 156-59 Genesis, "Myth and Midrash: Genesis Gulak, A., Ill 5 9:20-29", III 55-71 Gutman, Leo, III 219, 222-23, 227 Gentiles, Salvation, II 49 Gutman, Shmaryahu, HI 219 Georgi, Dieter, I 21, 286 Gyges, II 83 Gerasene, I 63 Gero, Stephen, "Hypatius of Ephesus Haarense, Diatessaron, I 146 Hadas, Moses, IV 182, 187 on the Cult of Images", II 208-16 Hadrian I 265; II 85-86, 113, I 3 7 ; HI Gershenson, S., I 137, 139 Ginsberg, H. L., Ill 49 240; IV 151, 156-57, 159 Haenchcn, I 210 Ginzberg, L., Ill 170 Gnostics, .1 305; III 199; Gnosticism, Hagia Sophia, Church of, II 197 II 131-35, 144 J "Paul and His Op- Haimi-Cohen, Avinoam, III 219, 224 Halicarnassus, II 82; III 135 ponents", I 265-69, 271-73, 275-88 Hallal-Priest, IV 2-6, 8 Goell, Theresa, II 86 IS"

228

GENERAL

Ham, HI 58-59, 61, 63-69

Hamburg Papyrus, I 12 Hammond, Henry, I 264-66, 269 Hanfmann, George M. A., H 83 Hanin ben Matron, HI 228 Hanina b. Dosa, IV 66-67 HarahvatI Arodvi Sura, IV 96, 98-101,

INDEX

Hestiaios, III 59-60 Hezekiah of Judah, III 81 Hierapolis, II 147; Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 82, 84, 91, 96, 103-03, 108-09, 138, 142

Hieronymus, HI 59 Higgins, A. J . B., I 320 Hilgenfeld, I 277 104-05 Harder, G, I 237, 239, 242, 245, 260 Hillel, II 12, 36; III 228; IV 22, 36-37, 39-45, 65, 76 Harnack, A. von, II 124-27, 130 Hippolytus, I 275; II 102, 132, 134-35; Harris, J . R., I i79 III 82, 187, 200, 230 Harrison, P. N., II 115 Hiyya, R., IV 67-68 Harvest, share of, IV 18-20 Hiyya b. Abba, R., IV 60, 71 Hasde David, IV 42 Hasmoneans, III 226; Judaism, II 37- Hoenig, Sidney B., Ill 219, 227, 229, 242-43, 247

41

Heave-offering, IV 2-7 Hebrews, Book Of, "Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews", I 299-330; Epistles to, II 67-68, 119, 122, 129, 165

Hecataeus of Miletus, III 74,- 80 Hegel, I 203, 270 Hegermann, H., I 232, 235, 239-41, 245, 261

Hegesippus, I 265, 271; III 190 Heidelberg Papyrus, I 12 Heimann, Aaron Mordechai, I 87 Heinemann, I., Ill 28, 32 Heitmuller, Wilhelm, I 169 Helen, III 77 Heliodorus, III 92, 94, 101-02, 117-18; IV 181

Hellanicus, III 77-78 Hellenism, I 6 Hellenistic Culture, Asia Minor and Early Christianity, II 77-145 Heller, Bernard, III 219, 225-26 Hennecke-Schneemelcher, II 96 Henning, W. B., IV 134 Heraclea, II 186 Heracles, III 74 Heraclius, III 225 Herakles, IV 100, 104 Heras, II 95 Herder, I 44 Hermas, II n o Herod, I 67; III 105, 222, 225, 228, 236, 241

Hoennicke, G., II 53 Hoens, D. J . , I 132 Holl, Karl, I 5 Holmes, T. Rice, III 137 Holtzmann, I 42 Holy Spirit, II 124 Homer, III 74, 80 Homily on the Passover, II 89, 135-37

Homolle, III 136 Hormisdas, Pope, II 188 Horner, G, I 121 Horowitz, H. S., I l l 24-25 Hort, F. J . A., I 109, 276; II 53 Hoshaia, R., IV 52-55 Howard, G., I 317 Huna, R, III 66, 68; IV 48 Huteau-Dubois, Lucette, III 220, 225 Hypatius, "Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Images", II 208-16 Hyperborean Apollo, I 29-31, 33-35 Hyrcanus, III 134, 136-37, I43, I55, 238 Hyrcanus II, III 136 lamblichus. Vita Phythagorae, I 22, 24, 28-33, 35-36

Ibn Bakudah, I 87 Ibn Ezra, I 86 Iconoclasm, "Iconoclasm Among the Zorastrians", IV 93-1 n Iconography, "Christ in Verbal and Depicted Imagery, A Problem of Early Christian Iconography", II 164-72

Herodian, IV 144 Idumaens, III 228 Herodotus, II 97; III 74-75, 77, 236; Ifra Ormuzd, IV 75 Ignatius, I 215, 276; Asia Minor and IV 94-96 early Christianity, II 87-88, 93, 96, Hesiod, III 58, 71

GENERAL

INDEX

229

Jehuda Hanasi, R., IV 120 Jeppesen, K., II 82 Jeremiah, I 93, 95, 99, 190; III 82; Letter of. III 181, 183; Life of 7, Ignatius of Antioch, I 13, 15, 18-19 10, 111 184 I Ian, Zvi, III 220, 225 Imagery, "Christ in Verbal and De- Jeremias, J., I 92, 96-97, 101, 320; II picted Imagery, A Problem of Early 12 Christian Iconography", II 164-72; Jerome, I 84, 102; II 58, 71, 142, 148; III 188 "Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult Jervell, J., I 235, 249-50, 261 Of Images", II 208-16 Immersion, III 207; "A Note on Puri- Jesus, I 5, 9, 19, 26-27, 30, 34-36; II fication and Proselyte Baptism", III 45; III 175, 177-79, 182-84; Asia 200-05 Minor and early Christianity, II Incest, III 203 91, 93, 115, 117, 119-24, 128-36; Inheritance, III 210-11; "Luke 12, 13"Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel 14", I 107-162 As Damnation History", I 51-74; Intercourse, II 84, 98 "Christ in Verbal And Depicted Iran, "Qumran and Iran: The State of Imagery, A Problem of Early Christian Iconography", II 164-72; Studies", III 167-73 crucifixion, II 168-70; "Dositheus, Irenaeus, I 7; II 108, 147; III 188 Jesus, and a Moses Aretalogy", Isaac b. Eliezer, R., IV 72 IV 167-89; "Early Church", II Isaac b. Judah, IV 52, 54 1-23; "A Foreword To The Study Isaiah, I 309; III 168; ascension of, of the Speeches in Acts", I 206III 184; "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4", 25; "A Fresh Approach to Q", I I 75-106 38-50; "From Isaiah 61 to Luke Isenbcrg, Sheldon R., "Power Through 4", I 75-106; and Hebrews, I 304Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman 05, 310, 313-16, 319-25; "L'Hymne Palestine", II 24-52 Christologique De Col. i : 15-20", Ishmael, R., Ill 20, 22, 24, 28, 32-34, I 226-63; Icons II 204-06; In240; "Artificial Dispute: Ishmael heritance, "Luke 12, 13-14", I 107and =Aqiba", IV 18-29 162; Jewish-Christianity, II 55, Isho^dad of Merw, I 107 59-60, 68, 7 1 ; "The Kinship Of Isidore of Charax, IV 100 John and Acts", I 186-205; Last Ispatale, IV 160 Judgment, II 168, 170-71; 'MilIsrael, State of , III 218 lenarism', II 25, 45-52; "Paul and Isser, Stanley, "Dositheus, Jesus, and his Opponents", I 264-98; Jesus' a Moses Aretalogy", IV 167-89 trial, I 200; Jesus and Pilate, "Am Istakhr, IV 105 I A Jew? Johannine Christianity and Judaism", I 163-86 Jachin, II 100 Jewett, Robert, II 102 Jackson, Foakes, I 213 Jewish-Christianity, "Reflexions Sur Jacob, III 77-78, 161-64 Le Judeo-Christianisme", II 53-76 Jacob of Nevoraia, IV 71 Jewish Heritage, "The Multiform James, I 271 Jewish Heritage Of Early ChristianJames, The Apostle, II 13, 15 ity", III 174-99 James, St., II 56, 60-61, 71 Jewish liturgy. III 7 Jamnia, II n o Jewish Relations, "Qumran And Iran : Jannaeus; See Alexander Jannaeus The State of Studies", III 167-73 Taphet, III 63 Jason of Cyrene, III 85, 91-93, 102, Jewish Revolt, II 104, 118-20, 128; III 105-06, I I I - I 2 , 114-16, 120, 122-23, T29, 140; Epistle to the Romans, II 147

105-06, 108-09, 112-13, 117-19, 122-22,

Jason the Oniad, III 120-22 Javan, III 80

183, 195

Jews—taxes and privileges, III 135 Jezebel, II 107-08, no, 113; IV 177

230

GENERAL

Job, III 182 Job Targum, I 174 Johanan, R., IV 62, 65 Johanan ben Zakkai: see Yohanan ben Zakkai John, I 5, 10, 36, 40-41, 62, 271, 306; II 147; "'Am I A Jew?' Johannine Christianity And Judaism", I 16386; baptism of, III 204; "The Kinship of John and Acts", I 186-205 John the Apocalyptist, Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 93, 96, 106-08, 111-12, 115-16, 118, 120-22, 124, 129-30, 132, 134-35, 139-40, 145

John the Apostle, 11 13, 15 John, Archbishop of Constantinople, II 186-87

John the Baptist, I 27, 36, 41, 100, 11516, 172; IV 120, 123; John and Acts, I 188, 199, 204 John of Damascus, II 213 John the Essene, III 232 John of Gischala, III 228, 232, 246 John Hyrcanus, I 324; II 37-41; III 85, 88-91, 93, 96-97, 99-102, 104-07, 112-16, 121, 123

John the Prophet, II, 93 John (tribune), II 186-87 Johnson, Sherman E., "Asia Minor and Early Christianity", II 77-145 Jonah, II 167 Jonah, R., IV 64 Jonas, Hans, II 94 Jonathan, R., II 39; III 24-25, 29, 163, 165; Targum, I 85 Jonathan the Hasmonaean, III 85, 11920

Jonathan the Priest, III 224 Jonathan the Weaver, III 242 Jones, A. H. M., IV 151 Jonge, Marius de, I 172-73

Jose, R, IV 64 Joseph, R., Ill 66, 68, 78 Joseph Malkah, IV 171 Joseph the Tobiad, III 85, 87-93, 95-

INDEX

sephus : A Study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiography", III 124-58; "Antiquities", II

11; "Masada: A Critique Of Recent Scholarship", III 218-48; "The Tales Of The Tobiads", III 85-123

Joshiah, R., Ill 25 Josephus b. Dalaeus, III 241 Joshua, R., Ill 175, 177; I\^ 23, 36, 39-44, 188

Joshua ben Hananiah, R., Ill 277; "Redactional Techniques In the Legal Traditions Of Joshua b. Hananiah", IV 1-17 Joshua ben Levi, I 87 Joshua ben Perahiah, IV 188 Joshua ben Sira, III 178 Joshua tradition, IV 172 Jossa, G., II 134 Joy, "Joy and Love as Metapliorical Expression of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants", III 1-36

Jubilees, II 102; III 79, 181, 195

Judah, R., I 326; IV 36-40, 42-44, 50-52

Judah I, R., IV 66, 73 Judah II, R., IV 72-73 Judah III, R, IV 71 Judah the Galilean, IV 168 Judah b. Gedidiah, II 40 Judah the Gardener, IV 187 Judah the Maccabee, I 321 Judaism, I 6; "'Am I A Jew?' Johannine Christianity and Judaism", 1 163-86; Asia Minor and Early

Christianity, II 83-84 91, 97-100, 102-03, 105, iio-i2, 116, 118, 12022, 128-29, 131, 136-37, 139, 1 4 T ,

144; "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4",

I 75-106; and Hebrews, I 302, 304,

310, 329; 'Millenarism' II 24-52; "The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity", III 174Josephus, I 266, 301, 311, 324; II 3799; "Redactional Techniques in 38, 40-42; III 59, 60, 65, 73-74, 79the Legal Traditions of Joshua b. 80, 83, 164, 178, 181-82, 189-91, Hananiah", IV 1-17 193-94, 196, 198; IV loi, 170, 172, 181, 185; "The Acta Pro Judaeis Judas, I 188, 190; II 109 in The Antiquities Of Flavius JoJudas the Galilean, III 226, 228, 231 98, 100, 102, 104, 106-07, 118-19, 121, 123

GENERAL

Judas Iscariot, IV 187; blaspliemy, I 60, 65-68, 71

Jude, I 159; II 91-92 Judicial judgment, "Luke 12, 13-14", I 107-62

Judith, III 181

Julian, II 211; IV 70, 143, I57, 159"

INDEX

231

Kolenkow, Anitra, II 22 Kolitz, Zvi, III 220, 240, 244 Konya plain, II 80 Korah, III 18-19 Kore, II 82 Koshi, Bei K., II 180 Kosmala, H., I 308-09, 322-25

Kossoff, David, III 220, 248 Kouretes, II 82 Jiilicher, Adolf, I 4 Kraabel, A. Thomas, II 97-99, 103, Juster, Jean, III 134, 152 137, 141-142; "A Bibliography of the Justin, I 128, 215 Writings, December 31, 1973, of Justin I, II 184-89 Morton Smith", IV 190-200 Justin II, II 198 Justin Martyr, I 13; II 109, 128, 130- Kraeling, E.G., HI 49 Kraft, Heinz, II 140 31, 213; III 188, 190 Kraft, Robert A., II 63-64; "A Multifoi-m Jewish Heritage Of Early Kaas, Msgr., II 156 Christianity", III 174-99 Kabbalism, III 179, 201 Krause, Martin, II 161 Kadushin, III 28, 33 Kretschmar, Georg, II 105, 114 Kahana, R., IV 64; Pesikta de Rav, Kumarbi, III 58 I 316 Kutscher, E. Y., Ill 37 Kahle, Paul, I 174 Kybele, II 83 Kahler, Martin, I 206, 216-17 Kaka, IV 107 Kallinikos, II 86, 92, 94; IV 100, 104 Labranda, II 85 Labriolle, P. de, II 138-40 Kaminka, A., Ill 226 Lachmann, C, I 109 Kapera, Z. J., Ill 220 Lactantius, III 188; IV 143, 145, 147, Kappah, III 33 Karaites, III 179, 189 151, 153, 155-59, 165 Kasemann, Ernst, I 232, 235, 244-45, Lafaurie, J., IV 149 247, 260, 304-05; II 221 ; Paul, I 270, Lahnemann, J., I 232, 242, 249-50, 263 286, 288 Lake, Kirsopp, I 282-83; II 101; III Kashcr, HI 30-32, 34 229 Kaufmann, III 209 Lake-family, I 109 Keck, L., I 24 Lamarche, P., I 232, 262 Kehl, N., I 232, 262 Lambrechts, Pieter, II 86 Kerti Hiiyiik, II 80 Lamdan, Yitzchak, III 247 Kerygmata Pctrou, II 110, 131 Landsberger, Benno, III 8 KhorshTd Khanom, Iv 109 Lange, G., II 208 Khosrau Andsirvan, IV 107 Laodiceans, I 11-12, 15, 19; II 84, 103, Kippenberg, PI. G., I 177-78; IV 170108, 183; Council of, II 142 Laqueur, Richard, III 128, 149, 151; 73, 180 IV 150, 163-64 Kirder, IV 106 Lardner, Nathaniel, I 267 Kitzinger, E., II 208, 211 Larsson, E., I 232, 237, 262 Klausner, Joseph, III 220, 230-31 Lost Supper, I 199 Klicn, B. D., IV 43 Lateran Museum, II 170 Knopf, Rudolf, II 77, 79, 104 Knox, John, II 125-26 Lauterbach, III 212 Koch, Hugo, II 212 Laval University, II 84 Koester, Helmut, I 21; II 77, 104-06, LaVcrdiere, E. A., Ill 220, 225 122; "New Testament Introduction: Lazarus, II 167, 169 A Critique of a Discipline", I 1-20 Leah, III 78 Koine, I 149 Lee, I 147-48 60

232

GENERAL

Legal traditions, "Redactional Techniques in the Legal Traditions of Joshua b. Hananiah", IV 1-17 Legge, F., II 134 Lentulus, III 135 Leo, II 187 Leo I, II 187, 189-202 Leo HI, II 198 Leo VI, II 199

Leodiense, Diatessaron, I 146 Leonidas, III 233, 239 Letter to the Romans, II 147

Levi, IV 169, 173, 175 Levi, R., IV 48-49 Levi, the Apostle, II 13, 15 Levi, Doro, II 82 Levi, Eliphas, I 21 Levi, T., I 323 Leviathan, III 56-57 Levine, Baruch A., "On the Origins of the Aramaic Legal Formulary at Elephantine", III 37-54 Levine, Lee I., "R. Abbahu Of Caesarea", IV 56-76

Levitical laws, II 56 Liher Pontificalis, II 148-49 Libri Carolini, II 211 Licinius, IV 144, 150-51, 155-65

INDEX

brew, and Related Literatures : Divine Investitutes in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants", III 1-36

Love, Iris, II 82 Lowe, III 209 Lucian, IV 181, 187 Lucian of Antioch, IV 150-51 Lucian of Samosata, II 89-91, 96 Lucius, III 143 Lucius Antonius, III 135 Lucius Caponius, III 143 Lucius Mellius, III 143 Lucius Valerius, III 143 Lucius Verus, II 83, 137 Luckmann, Thomas, II 24 Luke, I 186, 268, 290, 300, 306; Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 10507, 114, 117, 120, 122-27, 130, 141;

"A Foreword to the Study of the Speeches in Acts", I 206-25; " A Fresh Approach to Q", I 38-50; "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4", I 75106; "Luke 12, 13-14", I 107-62;

"New Testament Introduction: A Critique of a Discipline", I 10, 13, 16, 18-19

Luria, Solomon, R., I l l 240 Lidzbarski, Wahrend, IV 114-15, 127, Lutgert, Wilhelm, I 273, 278-84, 291 Luther, Martin, I 9 133 Lieberman, Saul, III 5, 8, 28-29, 33, 36, Lycaonia, II 80, 99-100 Lycia, II 80, 85 207, 213, 226, 228; IV 9, 37-38, 41, 47, 63; Tosefet Rishonim, III 215

Liebing, Heinz, I 3 Lietzmann, Hans, I 5 Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, I 4, 237; II loi, 103, 138; Paul and Enemies, I 270, 274-78, 282, 284, 294-95

Lightstone, Jack, "Sadducees Versus Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources", III 206-17

Limyra, II 85 Lindar, Barnabas, I 184-85 Liquids unclean, IV 7-10 Lives of the Prophets, HI 183 Livneh, Micah, III 220, 224 Lohmeyer, E., I 231, 233, 237, 260 Lohse, E., I 235, 245, 261 Longenecker, R. L., II 67-69 Lost Sheep, I 41 Love, "Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expression of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient He-

Lydia, II 82-84, 97-98, 102

Lystra, II 90

Ma<^aserot, gift of. III 24-26 Maccabees, II 94; III 126-27, 181 Macdonald, John, I 177 Machalet, C, I 283 Macho, A. Diez, III 161 Macuch, R., I 177; IV 115, 117, 125, 127, 134, 137

Maeander, II 87 Magas, III 97 Magic, "Good News Is No News: Aretalogy and Gospel", I 21-38; " A Note on Purification and Proselyte Baptism", III 200-05 Magic bowls, lY 129 Magnesia, II 87, i n Maimonides, III 33; IV 32-35 MalachI, IV 184 Malalas, John, II 187, 192

GENERAL

INDEX

Mauropus, John, II 199 Manasseh, Prayer of, III 181 Manasses, III 86 Mausolus, II 85 Mandaism, II 112 Maxentius, IV 144-45, 151, 158, 160-61, Mandeans, "Quellenprobleme zum Ur165 sprung und Alter der Mandaer", IV Maximian, IV 145 112-42 Maximilla, II 138 Manetho, III 72-']2„ 76-77, 79-80 Maximin Daia, "The Religion of MaManichaeism, II 140 ximin Daia", IV 143-66 Mansel, A. M., II 85-86 Maximin Thrax, IV 144 Manson, T. W., I 151 Maximus, IV 144 Manson, W., I 306-07 Mazar, B., Ill 92 Marcian, II 189, 193 Meeks, Wayne A., I 36; IV 173, 181; Marcion, I 7, 13, 19; II 115, 141, 147; "'Am I A Jew?' Johannine ChrisIII 175; "Luke 12, 13-14", I 107-62 tianity and Judaism", I 163-86 Marcus, II 135 Megasthenes, III 77 Marcus Aurelius, II 93, 151 Meir, R., IV 52-54 Marcus lunius Brutus, III 140 Meir, Golda, III 248 Marcus lunius Pompeius, III 140 Meirus b. Belgas, III 241 Marcus Julius Eugenius, IV 148 Melchizedeq, I 91, 93, 97, 100, 103; Marcus, Ralph, III 136-37, 139 Hebrews, Scholarship Of, I 305, 309, Mar Ephraem, I 115-16, 135, 147 314, 316, 324 Margalioth, D., Ill 197 Melito Of Sardis, II 89, 93, 97, 135-38, Margulies, Mordecai, IV 79 143 Mariamne, III 223 Melkiresha', I 91 Mark, I 18-19, 24, 26-27, 35-36, 180, Mellaart, James, II 80 186, 210-12; II 22, 106, 109, 120, 124,

127; IV 183; "Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History", I 51-74; "A Fresh Approach to Q", I 40-44, 49; Isaiah and

Luke, I 92-93, 98-99

Mark Antony, IV 99 Marmardji, I 126 Marqah, I 177 Marriage, I 275; II 56, 113 Marrou, H. I., II 118 Marshall, I. H., I 320 Marsilius of Padua, II 146 Martial, II 189 Martyn, J . Louis, I 183-85 Martyr: see Justin Martyr Mary, Empress, II 206 Masada, "Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholarship", III 218-48 Masson, C, I 232-34, 243, 260 Mas'^iidi, IV 106

Memar Marqah, IV 170, 172, 178-80, 183, 186

Memnon, HI 140 Menahem, III 228, 232 Menander, II I33;III 76 Mendelssohn, Ludwig, III 138-39 Menelaus, III 91, 105-06, 122 Menollus, HI 140

Menorah, immersion. III 207-08

Menstruation, III 214-15 Merx, Adalbert, I 119, 139 Meshel, Z., Ill 220 Messiah, "The Kinship Of John And Acts", I 186-205; "Reflexions sur le Judeo-Christianisme" II 53-76 Metatron, IV 65 Methodius of Olympus, II 109 Metzger, H., II 85 Meyer, Eduard, III 153 Mezudat Zion, I 86 Michael IV, II 197 Matthew I 92-93, 98-99, 186, 188, 210, Michael VI, II 198-99 212; II 16, 67; IV 183, Asia Minor Michael VII Parapinakes, II 206 and early Christianity, II 106, 109, Michael, D., I 80, 85 Michel, Otto, I 304-05, 308, 311, 315, 112, 114, 120, 122, 124, 127; "A 319-20; III 238-39 Fresh Approach to Q", I 38-50 Mickwitz, G., IV 157 Maurer, C, I 236-37, 261 Midas, King, I 32 Maurice, J., IV 153

GENERAL

234

Midrash, "Joy And Love as Metaphorical Expression of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Litera-

INDEX

Related Literatures: Divine In-

vestitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants", III 1-36

tures : Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of NeoBabylonian Royal Grants", III i-

Muhammad, I 130-31 Munck, J , II 57-58 Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome, II 104 Mushezib-Marduk, III 17

9:20-29", III 55-71

Muslim, I 130-31; III 189-90

36; "Myth and Midrash" Genesis Mihr, IV 100, 1704, 108-09 Milik, I 84, 91 Millenarism, II 25, 32, 37-52, 109 Miller, Merrill, I 90 Mine, Rachel, III 220, 225 Ministry, "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4", I 75-106; "The Kinship of John and Acts", I 186-205 Miracles, "Good News Is No News: Aretalogy And Gospel", I 21-38 Mithra, IV 100 Mitteis, IV 151 Mnesarchus, I 30 Moehring, Horst R., "The Acta Pro Judaeis In The Antiquities Of Flavius Josephus: A Study in Hel-

Myra, II 85 Myth, "Dositheus, Jesus and a Moses Aretalogy", IV 167-89; "Good News Is No News: Aretalogy And Gospel", I 21-38; "Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29", III 55-71

Naassenes, II 134-135 Nabij-nadin-shum, III 16 Nag Hammadi, I 122, 175, 179; II 67, 161; IV 117 Naples, III 209 Nathan, R., Ill 29; IV 9 Naveh, J., IV 134 Nazarenes, I 127, 268; HI 189 Nazoreans, III 177 lenistic and Modern Apologetic Neander Augustus, I 270, 272-74, 283 Historiography", III 124-58 Neanthes of Cyzlcus, I 27 Moffatt, J., I 302-03, 311 Nebuchadnezzar, III 84; IV 86 Mossaic, II 166 Nehemiah, R., I 219; III 10; IV 57 Momlgllano, Arnaldo, III 137 Nehunya, IV 11-17 Mommsen, Theodor, III 129, 141, 144; Nemrud Dagh, II 86 Neofiti Targum to Genesis, III 161-66 IV 152-53 Neon, III 140 Monoimus, II 135 Nero, II 93, 95-96, 118; 147-48, 157, Montanists, I 264 160; IV 159 Montanus and Montanism, II 124, 134Neumann, C, IV 156 35, 138-44 Neusner, Jacob, II 11, 36-38, 131; III Montgomery, I 165 56-57, 167, 209; IV 14, 20, 28, 190; Mordecai, IV 82-83 "Form-Criticism and Exegesis: Moreau, J., IV 153, 155, 158 The Case of Mishnah Ohalot 2:1, Morel, W , III 238 IV 30-45 Moscow State Museum of Fine Arts, Newman, Louis I., Ill 220, 248 II 205 Moses, Apocalypse of, III 184; As- New Testament, "New Testament Introduction : A Critique of a Discisumption of, 182; "Dositheus, Jesus, pline", I 1-20 and a Moses Aretalogy", IV 167New York University, II 84 89 Nezira, R., IV 48 Moshelm, J . . von, I 265-69, 284 Moule, C. F. D., I 216, 237, 261 Nicaea, Second Council of, II 204 Moulton, J . H, III 31 Nicephorus III Botanelates, II 206 Muffs, Yochanan, III 37-47; "Joy and Nicetas, II 209 Love As Metaphorical Expressions Nicholas, St, II 85 of Willingness and Spontaneity in Nichomachus, I 34 Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Nicodemus, I 36, 191-92, 197

GENERAL I N D E X

Pandera, IV 187 Nicolaitans, II 107, 132 Panthera, IV 187 Nicolas of Antioch, II 107 Nicolaus of Damascus, III 106, 147; Papias, I 43; TI 106, 108-10, 122, 134, IV 181 147 Nicolo, San, III 39 Papirius, Til 143 Niese, B., Ill 138-39, 146-47, 152 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus I 6, 98-99 Nimrud Dagh, IV loi Parium, II 90, 96; III 135 Nineham, D. E., II 227 Parker, Pierson, "The Kinship of John Ninus, III, 74, 82 and Acts", I 186-205 Noah, III 57-58, 60-71; coin, II 99 Parma, ITT 209 Nock, A. D., I 284 Parthenis, I 30 Norden, E., I 230, 232, 235, 237, 240- Parthia, II 92 41, 260; II 88 Passover, TIT 210; Passover-Offering, Noth, Martin, I 219 IV 2 3 - 2 1 Notzrim, III 177 Pastoral Epistles, Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 93, 113-14, 117, Oanncs, III 73 121-23, 125, 144; "New Testament O'Connor, D. W., "Peter in Rome", II Introduction: A Critique of a Discipline", I 1-20 146-60 Patricius, Peter, II 184 Odeion, II 85 Patroclus, IT 96 Ohalot, "Form-Criticism and Exegesis : The Case of Mishnah Ohalot 2:1", Paul, I 4, 62, 131, 159, 210, 215, 224; IV 30-45

Olympius, II 190 Onesimus, II 96, 137

Onias II, III 86-87, 89, 93, 96-98, loi, 118-20

Onias III, III 89, 92-93, 96, 100, 102, 108-09, 112-14, 117-20 Onias IV, III 108-13, 115-23

Onkelos, III 164-65 ' Ophites, II 134 Oracle du Potier, II 162 Orelli, J . C, III 55 Origen, I 7; II 58, 148, 213-14; IV 168-69, 173, 177, 180

Origen of Alexandria, III 188 Orlan, Hayyim, III 220, 242-43 Orphanotrophos, John, II 197 Orpheus, III 72 Oxen gored, IV 52-55 Oxford, II 219 Pacht, Otto, II 177-78 Pacorella, P. E., II 82 Palestine, IT 143; Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 105, 108-09, 112, 118, 136-37, 143; "Power Through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman Palestine", II 24-52 Pallia, TI 156 Pamphilus, IV 149 PanayTr Dag, II 81

II 8, 19, 147-48, 165, 168; III 7, 66,

178, 193; IV 184; Asia Minor and early Christianity, IT 87-90, 93, 96, iGO-07, II1-23, 126, 128, 130-31, 142, 144; Epistle to the Philippians,

IT 165; and Hebrews, I 300-01, 303, 306-07, 322, 329; "L'Hymne Christologique De Col. i , 15-20", I 226-63; Jewish-Christianity, II 54, 57, 60, 62, 65, 68-71; John and Acts, I 192-99, 195, 198; Millenarism, TI 25, 47-52; "New Testament Introduction: A Critique of a Discipline", I 1-20; „PauI and His Opponents", I 264-98 Paul, Shalom, I 81 I^earlman, Moshe, III 220, 224 Pedersen, Schou, IV 114 Pella, IT 108 Pentecost, I 191-92, 205 Pepuza, TI 142 Pcregrinus, TI 81, 93, 107, 132, 143-44; TIT 135 Pcrge, IT 86

Pericope Adultcrae, II 109

Perkins, John W., II 149, 153, 155 Perseus, ITT 74 Persia, "Qumran and Iran: The State of Studies", III 167-73 Pessinus, II 80, 86 Petavius, ITT 79

236

GENERAL

INDEX

Peter, I lo-ii, 26-27, 132, 145-46, 268, Pdhlmann, W , I 236, 241-42, 245, 263 271, 306; II 13, 15, 60, 67, 93, 108, Polybius, III 86, 93, 236 116-19, 122, 171; IV 185, 187; Polycarp, Asia Minor and early ChrisActs, speeches in, I 215-17, 222-23; tianity, II 88, 90, 93, 96, 104, 113-17, Blasphemy, I 64, 68-72, I 64; John 121-22, 135, 140; Epistle of, I 274 and Acts, I 188-89, 192, 201, 204; Polycrates, II 84, 136, 141 "Peter in Rome", II 146-60 Pompey, II 94; III 83 Pontius, III 140 Peter of Alexandria, IV 150 Pontus, II 116, 124, 128 Phanuel, III 160-64 Pharisees, III 86, 189, 231, 244; and Porten, B, III 37, 50 early Christian Communities, II 10- Porton, Gary G, "The Artificial Dis12, 15-16; "Sadducees Versus Phapute: Ishmael and <:Aqiba", IV 18-29 risees : The Tannaitic Sources", Praetextatus, Catacomb of, II 169 III 206-17; Millenarism, II 25, 32, Prandi, Adriano, II 153 37-46, 52 Priamus, III 74 Priscilla, II 138 Philadelphia, II iio-ii Proclus, II 212 Phileas of Thmuis, IV 147-48 Property, building size, IV 26-27 Philemon, II 96, 101-02 Philip, I 188, 204, 305; II 84, 135; IV Proselyte, "A Note on Purification and Proselyte Baptism", III 200-05 68; Acts of, III 188, 197; daughters, Protest, "Secretarian Characteristics", II 109-10, 113, 141 II 3-4, 9-10, 15-18 Philippi, II 103, 107, 165; Paul and his opponents, I 264, 271, 274, 280- Proteus, I 27 Prusa, II 87 81, 291-92 Psellus, Michael, II 183, 197-98 Philo, I 301-03, 310-11, 318-19, 328-29; Ptolemaeus, II 130 II 112; III 7, 30-32, III 178, 181-82, Ptolemy I, III 95-96, l O i , 113, 116 188-96, 226; IV 68, 181 Ptolemy II, III 90-91 Philo of Byblos, III 58, 65, 71-73 Philonenko, Marc, "Une Allusion de Ptolemy III Euergetes, III 81, 87, 9399, 105-06, no, 115-18 L'Asclepius au Livre D'Henoch", II 161-63

Philoromus, IV 147 Philostratus, II 96; Life, II 95-96; Vita Apollonii, I 22, 26-28, 35-36 Phineas, I 323 Phrygia, Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 84, 97-100, 102, 108-09, 134, 138-39, 141-42, 144

Pilate, I 198, 200; II 22, 93, 170; "Am I A Jew? Johannine Christianity and Judaism", I 163-86 Pines, Shlomo, I 130-36, 144 Pinhas ben Ya^'ir, I 87 Piper, O, I 236, 261 Pisidia, II 80, 99-100 Pius, X, II 149 Pius XI, II 149 Pius, XII, II 149, 155 Plato, I 244; II 212; III 75, 238, 242 Pliny, II 96, 116; III 142 Pliny the Elder, III 190, 196 Plutarch, III 133, 152 Plutonium, II 84

Ptolemy IV, III 77-78, 81-82, 87, 93, 95-97, 99, loi, no, 118

Ptolemy V Epiphanes, III 86-90, 93-95, 98-101, 103, 118, 120-21

Ptolemy VI Philometor, III 91, 98-99, 106, 110-11, 114-16

Ptolemy VIII, III 106, 109-11, 113-16 Purity, II 16; "A Note on Purification and Proselyte Baptism", III 200-05; Purity rules and Jesus, II 45-46 Pyrrha, III 61 Pythagoras, I 25, 27-36 Pythais, I 30 Pythias, I 29 Q, IV 184; "A Fresh Approach to Q", I 38-50

Qimhi, I 84, 86 Quadratus, II no, 117-18 Quartodecimans, II 135-36, 141 Quintus Cornelius, III 144 Quintus Rutilius, III 144 Quispel, G, I 126, 128, 132-34, 136-37,

GENERAL

139-40, 144, 146, 154-56 Qumran, I 308-10; II 35-36, 44, 67;

INDEX

Robert, Mrs. Louis, II 82 Roberts, B. J., I 94, 95 Robinson, J . A. T., I 216

III 195-98, 204; "The Archangel Sariel: A Targumic Parallel to the Robinson, J . M., I 234-35, 240-41, 245, 248, 261 Dead Sea Scrolls", III 159-66; Christianity, II 102-04, 106, 112, Romanos IT, II 205 121, 141; Isaiah and Luke, I 76, Romanos III Argyros, II 197 Romanos IV, II 205 85-91, 93-98, 100, 102-03; "The Jewish Historian Demetrios", III Romans, II 146; Asia Minor and Early Christianity, II 77-145; J^etter to 72-84; "Masada: A Critique of the Romans, IT 147 Recent Scholarship", III 218-48; "Quellenprobleme zum Ursprung Rome, "Asia Minor and Early Chrisund Alter der Mandaer, IV 112tianity", II 77-145; "Peter in Rome", 42; "Qumran and Iran: The State II 145-60 of Studies", III 167-173 Ropes, J . H., I 283 Rose, I 31 Rosenthal, F., IV 115 Rab, HI 66-69 Rosenthal, Judah, TIT 220, 242, 247 Raba, IV 75 Rossi, Azaria de. III 32 Rabad, IV 42 Roth, Cecil, TIT 221, 224, 229, 231 Rabbah bar bar Hanah, IV 50 Rothenberg, Beno, ITT 221, 223 Rabbinovicz, R., IV 46 Rudolph, Kurt, "Quellenprobleme zum Rabellius, III 139 Ursprung und Alter der Mandaer", Rabinowitz, Louis I., Ill 220, 240 TV 112-42 Rabirius, HI 139 Rufinus, IV 164 Rachel, III 78 Rule Annex, II 44 Rainolds, John, III 127 Ruth, book of. III 204 Ramsay, W. M., II 79, 100-01 Ruysschaert, Jose, IT 158 Rappelons, II 61 Rydbcck, L., II 88 Rashi, I 84, 86; III 20, 34 Ryle, 1 37 Ratner, B., IV 46, 48 Rav, IV 64 Sabazios inscription, II 98 Razis, III 241 Redemption, "Power Through Temple Sabellianism, II 140 and Torah in Greco-Roman Palesti- Sabinus, IV 149-50, 161-65 Sabuhr I, IV 105 ne", II 24-52 Saddok the Pharisee, III 230-31 Red Heifer, IV 25-26 Sadducecs, III 177-78, 189-90, 198, 231; Rehm, A., IV 156 Millenarism, IT 25, 39, 41, 52; "SadReinach, Theodore, III 136-37 ducees Versus Pharisees: The Reincsius, Th, III 81 Tannaitic Sources", III 206-17 Reitzenstein, R., II 161; IV 114 Safra, R., IV 58 Resh Lakish, IV 72 Resurrection, The, I 200 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, HI Reuben, III 63 242 Saltman, Ellen, IT 98-99 Revelation, I 8; II 67; III 185; ApoSamaritans, TIT 189, 198 calypse of John, II 165, 171; Book Samos, I 29; II 94 of, II 67, 88, 106-08, I I I , 116 Samosata, II 90 Richardson, Alan, II 223 Samuel, R., Ill 66-69; IV 64; "Two Richmond, I. A., HI 220, 223 Traditions of Samuel: Evaluating Riesenfeld, H., I 65 Alternative Versions", IV 46-55 Riggenbach, E., I 30102 Ritual purity, II ir, 37, 45 Sanders, James A., "From Isaiah 61 Rivkin, E., Ill 216 to Luke 4", I 75-106 Robert, Louis, IT 82 Sanders, J . T., I 235, 263

238

GENERAL INDEX

Sanhedrin, I 58-60, 64 San Sebastiano Catacomb, "Peter in Rome", II 146-60 Sant' ApolHnare, II 171 Sardanapa!, Ill 82 Sardis, III 135; Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 83, 87, 92, 97-100, 135-38, 143

Sargon, I 81 Sariel, "The Archangel Sariel: A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls", III 159-66 Satornilus, II 133 Saul, King, III 240-4T, 243 Save-Soderbergh, T , IV 116 Schalit, Abraham, III 221, 223 Scheitzer, Wolfgang, II 223 Schenke, H. M, I 241, 245, 262 Schenkel, Daniel, I 272-73, 179 Schepelern, II 140 Schille, G, I 232, 235, 261 Schlatter, Adolf, I 164, 166; Paul, I 283, 286, 290

Schleicrmacher, F, I 43-44, 235, 260 Schlier, H, I 294; II 102 Schmidt, J . E. C, I 270 Schmithals, W , I 282, 285-86 Schnackenburg, R, I 242, 245, 263 Schoeps, H. J , II 53, 59, 69 Scholastikia, Thermae Of, II 81 Schreckenbcrg, Heinz, III 125 Schroder, C. M, IV 112 Schroger, F, I 310, 319 Schubart, HI 153 Schubert, Paul, I 207, 209 Schiirmann, H, I 123 Schwartz, IV 152 Schwcizer, Eduard, I 215, 236, 240-42, 244-45, 261

Scroggs, Robin, "The Earliest Christian Communities as a Sectarian Movement", II 1-23 Second Jewish Commonwealth, "Masada: A Critique Of Recent Scholarship", III 218-48 Second Vatican Council, II 218 Secrets, Book if. III 197 Sectarianism, "The Earliest Christian Communities as a Sectarian Movement", II 1-23 Seder ^Qlam Rabbah, III 75-76, 79 Seeck, O, IV 155, 161 Seeligmann, I. L, I 83

Sefer HaRazim, III 197 Segelberg, E, IV 114, 130 Segoni, Giovanni, II 156 Seidl, E, III 40 Seleucus II 96, 98, 120 Seleucus III, III 98, 120 Seleucus IV, III 89-93, 100-02, 117-20

Seleucus Nicator, II 97 Semiramis, III 79 Semler, Johann Salomo, I 1-2 Seneca, I 11, 16, 19; II 95 Sennacherib, III 81 Sens, IV 34 Sexual relations, II 56 Sesostris, III 75 Sevcnster, J . N, III 238 Severus, IV 145, 153 Shaked, Saul, III 172.-72, Shamash-shum-ukin, III 17 Shammai, IV 22 36-45 Shapur II, IV 75 Shazar, Zalman, III 248 Shelomo, Melekhet, IV 34 Shem, III 63 Shema':, IV 52-55 Shcpard, Massey, II i n , 118 Sherk, Robert K, III 131, 141-42, 151, 154

Sibinga, Smit, II 89 SibyHinc Oracles, II 88, 92; III 184-85 Sicarii, II 25; III 224, 226-35, 237, 240, 242-46

Sicarin, 111 177 Side, II 85, 100, 102 Sieffert, 1 43 Sifre to Numbers, III 24 Sifre Zutta, HI 24-25, 28 Silias, St, II 60 Simeon, R, IV 15-16 Simeon b. Abba, R, IV 62 Simeon b. Eleazar, R, IV 50 Simon, I 325; II 133; IV 168 Simon I, III 90, 113-14, 117 Simon 11, III 86, 89-90, 93, 100, 10203, 108, 112, 117-18

Simon Simon Simon Simon

of Cyrene, II 170 ben Gamaliel, R, III 232, 242 bar Giora, III 228, 232 Magus, I 266, 268-69, 271; IV

168, 173, 175-77, 181, 187

Simon, Marcel, "Reflexions Sur Le Judeo-Christianisme", II 53-76 Simon Peter, I 67

GENERAL

Simon, Ricliard, I 1-2, 9 Simon tiie Samaritan, IV 168 Sinope, II 95, 124, 127 Sirach, HI 178, 181 Sl
INDEX

Stoics, I 28; II 96; III 242-44 Strabo, IT 92-93; III 196, 225; TV 98, 100

Strecker, G., II 53, n o Strecter, B. H., T 42, 49 Strugnell, M., I 300 Stuttgartcnsis, Diatessaron, I 146 Suetonius, TIT 130, 150, 232; IV 181 Suicide, "Masada: A Critique of Re21-38 Smith, Morton, I 21, 23-24, 76, 164, cent Scholarship", HI 218-48 176, 185; II I , I I , 77, 217, 222, 225, Symmachus, TIT 65-66, 165 227; TIT 78, 85, 124, 166-67, 200, 221, 229-30; TV 17, 30-31, 45, 77,

181-85; "A Bibliography of the Writings December 31, 1973 of Morton Smith", TV 190-200; Blasphemy, I 61-62, 74 Smyrna, II 82, 94, i n , 115-16 Sociology, "The Earliest Christian Communities as a Sectarian Movement", II 1-23 Socrates, II 82; III 242; IV 182 Soden, Hermann von, I 109, 239, 260 Sodom, II 108 Solomon, II 100, 129; TIT 78, 196; Odes of, I 170; II 112, HI 32, 37,

39, 185-86; Porch, I 188; Wisdom of, III 181 Sophia-Hochma, I 179 Sossianus Hierocles, IV 148 Sowers, S. G., I 310 Sozomen, IT 141 Speiser, E. A., Ill 5 Speyer, Wolfgang, III 148, 155 Spicq, C, I 306, 308, 310-11 Spiegel, S., TIT 56 Spiro, Shubert, HI 221, 227, 243 Sros, IV 108 Staehlin, O, ITT 80 Stanley, D. M., I 232, 261 Stark, Freya, 11 80 Stark, Werner, IT 304, 6, 12 Stegemann, H., I 89 Stein, E, III 32; TV 160 Stein, Jacob, TIT 221 Steinbruch, A., IV 114 Stephen, T 112, 213, 290, 306-07; IT 129, 131

Stephanus of Byzantium, TIT 59 Stern, M., Ill 96, 107 Stern, Menahem, III 221, 229-30, 232, 241

Stern, S. M., I 134

Syria, TI 89-90, 105-10, 112, 124, 13435> 143

Syrkin, Marie, III 221, 248

Tabari, IV 105 Table Fellowship, II 11 Tacitus, II 168; III 232, 235, 244 Taheb, IV 171-73, 184

Taltens, I 41 Tarmar, HI 104; IV 67 Tannaim, "Sadducees Versus Pharisees : The Tannaitic Sources", ITT 206-17

Tarsians, II 87, 100 Tatian, IT 127; Diatessaron of, I 11520, 129, 135, 148

Taubler, Eugen III 134, 147 Taxation, II 9, 12; III 135 Tax-collectors, II 45 Taylor, Vincent, I 49 Tcherikover, Victor, HI 94, 96 Teeple, H. M., TV 173, 181 Temple cult, Jesus, II 45, 47; "Power Through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman Palestine", IT 24-52 Temple Fire, "Iconoclasm Among the Zoroastrians", IV 93-111 Temple Rites, TIT 212; IV 2-8 Temple treasury, IV 25-26 Tent, contamination in, IV 31-45 Teos, II 80 TertuUian, I n , 117; TIT 175, 188; Marcion, II 147 Terumot, gift of, III 18-24, 26

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, III 183, 195 Thackeray, H. St. J., TIT 147, 152, Thecla, I 12; II 113 Theocritus, IT 187 Theodiscum, Diatessaron, I 146 Theodora, II 197-98

240

GENERAL

Theodore, J , IV 46 Theodore of Mopsuestia, I 108 Theodore the Studite, II 209-n, 213 Theodotion, III 65-66 Theodotus, IV 157 Theophanes, II 192 Theophilus of Antioch, III 66 Theophrastus, II 89 Theotecnus, IV 157, 159 Therapeutae, I 275; III 189, 192, 195-

INDEX

Tiibingen School, I 3 Turner, S. H, I 300

t^Ulla, IV SO Unbelief and blasphemy, I 53-56 Union Seminary, I 90 University of Ghent, II 86 University of Heidelberg, II 221 University of Leeds, I 177 Universite de Strasbourg, II 53 Urbach, E. E, II 9-10 96, 98 Urbicius, II 195 Theseus, III 77 Urbina, I. Ortiz de, I 147 Thessalonia, I 264 Uriel, III 160 Thessalonica, II 103 Ussher, James, I 265 Theudas, IV 168, 172 Thomas, St, II 75; Gospel of I 114, Utensils unclean, IV lo-n 121-30, 133, 138-56; II no, 119, 123, Utnapisthim, III 58, 60 <^Uthman, '^Abd al-Karim, I 130, 132, 127 144, 153-54 Thucydides, I 206-07, 213; III 236 Thyatira, II 107, 132 Vaganay, L, I 312, 315 Tiberius II, II 198 Valakhs (Vologeses) I, IV 103 Tiberius Alexander, III 191 Tiflis, Museum of Fine Arts, II 206 Valentinus, II 127, 131-32, 134-35; HI 175 Tigellinus, II 95 Valeria, IV 144 Tikkanen, J . J , II 177 Valerianus, IV 143, 155 Timothy, I 16 Valerius, IV 145, 154 Tir, IV 100, 108 Vanhoye, A , I 312-13, 315, 329 Tiridates III, IV n o Varahran, IV 100, 104, 106 Tischendorf, C, I 109 Vatias, III 139 Tithing, II 16; IV 2-3, 5 Vatican, "Peter in Rome", II 146-60 Tittmann, C. C, I 266-69, 271, 274 Titus, I 16, 292; II 95; III 227, 237, Vaughan, C. J , I 301 Vawter, B, I 232, 245, 263 242, 244 Venetum, Diatessaron, I 146, 149 Titus, Emperor, III 191 Tobiads, "The Tales of the Tobiads", Varathraghna, IV 100, 10, 106, 108 Vermes, Geza, "The Archangel Sariel: III 85-123 A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Tobit, III 178, 181; Book of, III 170 Sea Scrolls", III 159-66 Tddt, H. E, I 320 Verweijs, P. G, II 127-28 Tomhave, John, IV 191 Torah, God's gift to Israel, III 26; Verzone, Paolo, II 84 "Power Through Temple and Torah Vespasian, II 95; III 130-31, 150-51, 196, III 233, 237, 241-42 in Greco-Roman Palestine", II 24Vestinus, L. Julius, IV 159 52 Vielhauer, Philipp, I 215, 219, 320 Torrcy, I 165, 217 Viereck, Paul, III 137, 139, 141, 154 Toynbee, Jocelyn, II 59, 149, 153; III Vilet, Bruno, I 96 236 Virgin birth, I 30, 36 Trajan, II 81; IV 70 Vita Pythagorae, I 22 Tralles, II n i Vohu Manah, IV 100 Tregelles, P , I 109 Troas, II n i Wadham College, II 219, 221, 115 Troeltsch, Ernest, II 2 Wagner, Robert-Leon, I 22-23 Tsoref, Ephraim, III 221, 224 Walker, W. O, J r , I 320 Tublas, III 92, n o

GENERAL I N D E X

War Rule, III 159 Weber, Max, II 3-4 Weber, Wilhelm, III 235 Weeden, T. J , I 24 Weinfeld, M., I l l 35 Weinreich, O., IV 152 Weiss, Abraham, IV 47 Weiss, Bernhard, I 42 Weiss, John, I 230 Weiss-Halivni, David, IV 47 Weiss-Rosmarin, Trude, III 221, 23235, 244 Welles, C. Bradford, II 100-01 Wendland, Paul, I 206-07 Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi, "A Note on Purification And Proselyte Baptism", III 200-05 Werner, Eric, II 136 Westcott, B. F., I 109, 301 Westermann, I 80 Wetstein, J. J., I 299-300 Wette W. M. L. de, I 272, 281 Wetter, G., I 62 Wifstrand, A , II 89 Wilchens, Ulrich, I 218-19, 244, 261 Wilcox, Max, "A Foreword To The Study Of the Speeches In Acts", I 206-25 Wilhelm, A., IV 148 WiUiamson, R., I 311, 318, 329 Wilson, B. R., II 7 Wilson, Edmund, III 221, 225 Wilson, R. McLean, II 134 VVindfuhr, Walter, IV 36-37, 41 Windisch, H., I 303 Winston, D., I l l 168 Wirgin, Wolf, III 221, 245-46 Wolf son. III 32 Women, church officers, I 14 World Council Of Churches, "Contemporary Ecclesiastical Approaches To Biblical Interpretation", II 217-27 Wortheimer, IV 46 Woude, Adam S. van der, I 90

241

Wright, G. Ernest, II 220 Xanthos, II 85 Xenocrates, I 29 Xenophon, III 236 Xisouthros, III 58, 60-61 Yadin, Yigacl, I 308-09, 322-25, 239; HI 159; 221-25, 227, 229, 231-32, 2ZA-Z7, 239, 245-47 Yahdu, IV 169, 188 Yahuda, A. S , I 81 Yakin, Tiferet Israel, IV 30, 34 Yalqut Mechiri, I 87-88 Yalqut Shim^^oni, I 87 Yannai: See Alexander Janneus Yaron, R., I l l 37, 40-42 Yehoshua, A. B., I l l 248 Yisra^el, Tiferet, IV 34 Yitzchak, Levi, III 220 Yohanan, IV 48-51 Yohanan ben Zakkai, R., II iio, 118 Yoni Kippur, lights, I V 48-52 Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili, R., I l l 240 Yose, R., I l l 214-15 Zadok, I 325; II 41 Zahn, Theodore, I 2 Zealots, II 25; III 189, 224, 229-32 Zechariah, I 190, 328 Ze<:ira, R., IV 65 Zeno, II 195-96 Zenon, III 91-92, 96 Zeus, II 81, 85 Zeus Lydios, II 83 Zimmerli, Walther, I 80, 83 Zionism, Christian Zionism, I 309-10 Zoe, II 197, 199 Zonaras, II 197 Zoroastrianism, III 168, 171-73, 196; "Iconoclasm Among The Zoroastrians", I V 93-111 Zuckermandel, III 209, 211, 215; IV 16, 41

The index was prepared by Mr. Arthur Woodman, Canaan, New Hampshire.