STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY

E D I T E D B Y

J A C O B N E U S N E R

V O L U M E T W E L V E

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND

OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS

PART FOUR

LEIDEN E. J . BRILL

1975

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND

OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS STUDIES FOR MORTON SMITH AT SIXTY

E D I T E D B Y

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies

Brown University

P A R T F O U R

JUDAISM AFTER 70 OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LEIDEN E. J . BRILL

1975

ISBN 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 C O N T E N T S

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: The Case of Mishnah Ohalot

2:1 30 J A C O B N E U S N E R , Brown University

Two Traditions of Samuel: Evaluating Alternative Versions . 46

B A R U C H M . B O K S E R , University of California, Berkeley

R. Abbahu of Caesarea 56

L E E I. L E V I N E , Hebrew University, Jerusalem

"Conjecture" and Interpolation in Translating Rabbinic Texts

Illustrated by a Chapter from Tanna debe Eliyyahu 77

W I L L I A M G . B R A U D E , Providence, Rhode Island

O T H E R G R E C O - R O M A N C U L T S

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

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

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 201

General Index 220

VI T A B L E O F CONTENTS

PART T w o

E A R L Y C H R I S T I A N I T Y

The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement i ROBIN SCROGGS, Chicago Theological Seminary

Power through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman Palestine 24 SHELDON R. ISENBERG, University of Florida

Reflexions sur le Jud6o-Christianisme 53 MARCEL SIMON, University de Strasbourg

Asia Minor and Early Christianity 77 SHERMAN E . JOHNSON, Church Divinity School of the Pacific

Peter in Rome. A Review and Position 146 D. W. O'CONNOR, St. Lawrence University

Une allusion de I'Asclepius au livre d'H6noch 161 MARC PHILONENKO, University de Strasbourg

Christ in Verbal and Depicted Imagery; A Problem of Early Christian Iconography 164

S. G. F, BRANDON

PART ONE

N E W T E S T A M E N T

Foreword i x New Testament Introduction. A Critique of a Discipline 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 39 WILLIAM R. FARMER, Southern Methodist University

Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History 51 T. A. B u R K i L L , University of Rhodesia

From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4 75 JAMES A. SANDERS, Union Theological Seminary

Luke 12, 13-14, Tradition and Interpretation 107 TJITZE BAARDA, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

" A m I a Jew?"—Johannine Christianity and Judaism 163 WAYNE A. MEEKS , Yale University

The Kinship of John and Acts 187 PIERSON PARKER, The General Theological Seminary

A Foreword to the Study of the Speeches in Acts 206 MAX WILCOX , University College of North Wales, Bangor

L'hymne christologique de Col i, 15-20. Jugement critique sur I'^tat des recherches 226

PIERRE BENOIT, o.p., ficole biblique et arch^ologique fran9aise Jerusalem

Paul and his Opponents: Trends in Research 264 E. EARLE ELLIS , New Brunswick Theological Seminary

The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews 299 GEORGE WESLEY BUCHANAN, Wesley Theological Seminary, Was­

hington

T A B L E OF CONTENTS V I I

Das Thema "Vertreibung aus dem Paradies" in der Katakombe der Via LatinaundseinjiidischerHintergrund 173

KURT and URSULA SCHUBERT, Universitat Wien

Vox Populi Voluntas Dei and the Election of the Byzantine Emperor. . 181 MILTON V. ANASTOS, University of California, Los Angeles

Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Images 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 Royal Grants i

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 . . . . 37

BARUCH A . LEVINE , New York University

Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29 55 ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN, McMaster University

The Jewish Historian Demetrios 72 E. J. BICKERMAN, Columbia University

The Tales of the Tobiads 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 124

H o R S T R. MoEHRiNG, Brown University The Archangel Sariel. A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls . . 159

GEZA VERMES, University of Oxford

Qumran and Iran: The State of Studies 167 RICHARD N . FRYE , Harvard University

The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity 175 ROBERT A. KRAFT , University of Pennsylvania

A Note on Purification and Proselyte Baptism 200 R. J. Zwi WERBLOWSKY, Hebrew University Jerusalem

Sadducees versus Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources 206 JACK LIGHTSTONE, Brown University

Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholarship 218 LOUIS H . FELDMAN, Yeshiva University

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 OF JOSHUA B. H A N A N I A H

WILLIAM SCOTT GREEN

University of Rochester

Morton Smith's observation that "The 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 con­

text 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 foun­

dations 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 trans­

mitted material a knowledge of the character of the transmission

is prerequisite for an evaluation of the data transmitted." ^ Yet ,

it is only with recent times that sustained, systematic, and self-

conscious 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 first-

century 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

3 Also, y. ( = Jerusalem Talmud) Terumoth 7:2; b. ( = Babylonian Talmud). Pesahim 12b, Yevamot 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.

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 Heave-offering was unclean produce, or First Tithe from which Heave-offering 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^

LEGAL TRADITIONS 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 :16 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 con­

sumed, the Principle, must be replaced, and the offender must pay

in addition a fine of one-fifth the value of the Principle. This logi­

cally means that if it is clear that the produce consumed is Heave-

offering 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 pro­

duce was improper, and they must pay the penalty. But from the

context of A - E alone the scope of Joshua's exemption and his con­

sequent 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 GREEN

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 re­

sponds 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 im­

plication 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 retroac­

tively 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.

LEGAL TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH 5

^ 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.

the Heave-offering never should have been eaten. Logic suggests

that he should stop eating. As 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 un­

witting 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, Oare

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 " to 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 by 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 .

We 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 by the phrase NWD* §. If C-I appeared alone we

could assume that the issue was the effect of different sorts of dis­

qualification 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-

6 WILLIAM SCOTT G R E E N

^ See b. Pesahim 72b-73a.

ward. It simultaneously refers to 8: i A-C which precede it and to

8:2 K-P which follow i t—at best a cumbersome construction. More­

over, "And in all cases" could be dispensed with; "the Heave-

offering 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 con­

sidered as examples of a single principle suggests that their com­

bination 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 disqualifi­

cation 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 . We 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 dif­

ferent 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 dis­

qualified priest who has performed priestly duties. There Eliezer

holds that the hallal-priest may not serve under any circumstances.

What 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 cer­

tain 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 incon­

sistent. The opinions ascribed to Joshua, however, yield a con­

sistent position. If a person acts under the impression that what

LEGAL TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH 7

See Jacob Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man, VoL I, (Leiden, 1973), pp. 60-62. (Hereafter, Eliezer I or II).

he is doing is proper, even if it objectively is not, he has commited

no wrong. But 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 PYRWT) 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 un­

cleanness 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 Heave-

offering 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 by analogy to

8 WILLIAM SCOTT GREEN

the law of Firstfruits, only wine and oil may be consecrated as

Heave-offering. Therefore, the only liquids made from Heave-

offering 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 Heave-offering 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 11 :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. Date-

honey, 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 Heave-

offering, 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 may 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, ZeraHm, Part I (New York, 1955) PP- 455-6.

LEGAL TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH 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 Heave-

offering fruit is susceptible to uncleanness because, in his view, it

falls under the category of liquids which can render produce sus­

ceptible to uncleanness (See Lev. 11:34, 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 (MTHR)." 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 else­

where 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 unclean­

ness is preceded by one, not shown here, in which he declares date-

honey hable to tithes. This suggests that the Toseftan tradition is

not exclusively concerned with date-honey from Heave-offering

10 WILLIAM SCOTT GREEN

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 re­

vision of Eliezer's tradition does not refer to Joshua as the au­

thority 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 ob­

served 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 Heave-

offering fruit. It is only in this context that the Eliezer-Joshua dis­

pute 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 as­

sumption 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 insus­

ceptible to uncleanness. The pericope is in two parts which relate

12 See Eliezer I, 66-70.

LEGAL TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH I I

Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities: Part II (Lei­

den, 1974), pp. 87-89.

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) Any 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 incom­

prehensible 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 Joshua-

Eliezer 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?"

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.

LEGAL TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH I 3

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 con­

stitute 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 "bone" 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 un­

cleanness 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 GREEN

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.

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 un­

clean. 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 be­

tween 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

LEGAL TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B. HANANIAH I 5

and bone are clean. That a criterion for redaction was the con­

sistency 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 forty-eight 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

l 6 WILLIAM SCOTT G R E E N

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.

But in Mishnah the argument is reworked as a proof that the un­

cleanness 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 appar-

rently 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

LEGAL TRADITIONS OF JOSHUA B, HANANIAH 17

® 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.

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 con­

sistency. 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 under­

gone considerable development in Mishnah, the fundamental

postions of the masters have not been altered.^*"'

T H E A R T H H C I A L D I S P U T E : I S H M A E L A N D A Q I B A

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), IH, pp. 1-6.

T H E A R T I F I C I A L D I S P U T E : I S H M A E L A N D ' A Q I B A I 9

2 Hanok Albeck, Sheshah Sidre Mishnah: Seder ZeraHm (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv: 1957). P- 51-

^ Bartinoro's commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.

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 LQT does not appear in the rest of the sugya. C-H

mention either the poor, *NYYM, or the master of the house B*L

H B Y T ; they do not refer directly to the LQT.

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 pro­

duce is not a LQT 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 hap­

pens 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 re­

ference 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 LQT. Since

D-H employ the term ' N Y Y M instead of LQT, 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 LQT.

Of the three cases mentioned in D-H, Ishmael and A q i b a dis­

agree 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, 'WMR, and are incomprehensible without the super­

scription.

20 GARY G. PORTON

^ Neusner, op. cit., p. 6. Ibid., p. 7.

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 varia­

tion 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.

THP: ARTIFICIAL D I S P U T E : ISHMAEL AND 'AQIBA 21

M. Pesah 6:3 states that a man may bring a freewill Festival-

Offering, H G Y G H , when the Passover-Offering is made on a week­

day. 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 Passover-

Offering is the more important of the two. For this reason, it re­

quires 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 second­

ary 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 ante­

cedents 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 Dough-

Offering from one type of dough for another type of dough. That

22 G A R Y G . P O R T O N

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 Dough-

Offering, 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 com­

promise. 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 trans­

mitted to us. In the corpora of material for which we have data,

HiHel-Shammai, House of Hihel-House of Shammai,^ Ehezer-

6 Ibid., I and I I .

T H E A R T I F I C I A L D I S P U T E : I S H M A E L A N D ' A Q I B A 23

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 i8b , M. Kelim 2:2, Tos. Ketubot 12:3, 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 6:12, y. Pesah 7:1.

12 M. Shabbat 15:3, M. Zabim i :2, M. Sukkot 3:4, M. Niddah 3 -.j, M. Toho-rot 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.

Joshua,'^ all the disputes adhere to the classic patterns or are devel­

opments 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 con­

tain a comment which is extraneous to the topic being discussed

in the dispute. B y contrast, the collection of the legal sayings at­

tributed 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 per­

cent contain unrelated statements twenty-one percent contain

no superscription or some other such flaw;^! eighteen percent con­

tain an independent statement which does not belong in the con­

text of the dispute.12 Our present inquiry will concentrate on some

examples of those sugyot which appear as disputes but which con­

tain 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, Mishnah-

Tosefta.

24 G A R Y G . P O R T O N

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 Ex. 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 spe­

cific 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 ex­

plains the way one determines whether an animal has one or two

THE ARTIFICIAL D I S P U T E : ISHMAEL AND 'AQIBA 25

testicles. C indicates how one discovers whether or not the sack

contains a testicle. The sayings of Ishmael and 'Aqiba do not re­

spond 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 "they would not en­

gage in a business transaction with what belonged to the Temple

or to the poor." It is significant that 'Aqiba's comment only in­

directly 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 G A R Y G . P O R T O N

Hanok Albeck, Sheshah Sidre Mishnah: Seder Mo'^ed (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv: 1952), p. 196.

* Maimonides' commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.

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 state­

ment 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 ans­

wers, 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 re­

sponded to a question such as "with what may they [priests?]

engage in a business transaction ?"

3-

A. [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)

THE ARTIFICIAL D I S P U T E : ISHMAEL AND 'AQIBA 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 "and 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.

Even 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.

We 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 pre­

served 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, I I I .

28 GARY G. PORTON

Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, II. " Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, III. Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, II .

Porton, op. cit., 408. " Ibid.

materials and which are basic to the traditions of Eliezer b. Hyr­

canus 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 origi­

nated outside the circle(s) which edited and transmitted the mate­

rial. 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 pre­

viously 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 by 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

T H E ARTIFICIAL DISPUTE I ISHMAEL A N D 'AQIBA 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 relation­

ship 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 by the editors of our material. The forms necessi­

tated 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 ex­

amples 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 my 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 A N D E X E G E S I S

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 prob­

lematic text. In proposing an alternative route toward the solu­

tion 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 Yakin

does so, for example, at Mishnah Kelim Chapter Twenty-Nine).

It was my teacher, Morton Smith, who first taught me the im­

portance of the methods of New Testament scholarship in the study

of rabbinic texts. In his Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels, more­

over, he originally pointed out the importance of synoptic studies

for the relationships of Mishnah-Tosefta, studies which now seem

THE CASE 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, there­

fore, 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 BNYNW WRB 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 Tent; 2:3: These render unclean

through carrying and contact but not in the Tent; 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 N E U S N E R

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; corpse-

mould 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 (RWB')

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 BNYN/MNYN, the larger part of the body, the back­

bone, 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). At 3:1 he reads, "The 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, there­

fore, 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. But how does he under­

stand 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 CASE OF 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 quarter-

qab 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 sus­

ceptible ? 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 inter­

pret 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 BNYNW W RB 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-^<a:6 is constituted by both, B N Y N

and M N Y N .

Let us return to Maimonides, tliis time the Mishnah-commentary.

He distinguishes these several clauses as follows: We have three

measures of bones lacking in flesh which will cause uncleanness in

the Tent. First are the bones which contain the larger part of the

backbone, even though they do not fill a quarter-^'a^; second is the

larger number of bones, also not a quarter-^aJ; and third is a

quarter-^afi or more of bones, even though these do not include

either the larger part of the backbone or the larger number of bones.

This is a fine solution, but not to the problem of B, because Mishnah

explicitly requires the quarter-^a6 to consist of the larger part of

the frame or the larger number of bones. Maimonides reads B io­

n ' s "even though" correctly—then revises the opening clause, B

8-9, in accord with the requirements of logic. He therefore gives

us a text contrary to the explicit statement of M. and proves that

he understands B 8-9 to contradict B l o - i i .

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 num­

ber or from the larger part of the skeleton": "My 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 , "The 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 contra­

dictory of the text.

Melekhet Shelomo, by contrast, insists that we have a quarter-

qab 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 in­

vestigation. Tiferet Yisra'el says that when the larger part of the

skeleton or the larger number of bones are whole, they render un­

clean even when not a quarter-^ai.

Let us turn, finally, to The Gaon, Rav Elijah, who explains as

follows: "The quarter-qab is to be gathered from bones which con­

tain 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

THE CASE OF MISHNAH OHALOT 2! I 35

of the bones, it does not render unclean in the Tent ." GRA then

cites Tosefta, given below. GRA therefore is clear that the quarter-

qah 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, GRA and Maimonides seem to rec­

ognize 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 prob­

lem forthrightly. He says we cannot explain matters as follows:

"The quarter-^<a;6 of bones. . . must contain the greater part of the

skeleton or the greater number of the bones." For the concluding

part of the sentence, he points out, states cxphcitly that the greater

part of the skeleton or the greater number of the bones, does render

unclean even less than in the measure of a quarter-^a6. Therefore

he proposes the following exegesis: The quarter-^a/; of bones ren­

ders unclean even when it is not the larger part of the bod3''-skeleton

or the number of bones, under the following conditions: (i) The

bones themselves must be of a single sort, that is, of the skeleton

or of the number of the bones, but not made up of bones of the

body structure and of the number together; and (2) the quarter-

qah must be gathered from a group of bones which are made up,

at one time, either of the larger part of the skeleton of the bones

or the larger number of the bones of the corpses. The quarter-^ai

cannot be made up of the bones of the skeleton or the number if

they are scattered.

Before introducing T.'s supplement to M. 2:1 B, I had best ex­

plain the methodological innovation herein proposed. Here we shall

face the problem of working out a possible exegesis for exceedingly

difficult, garbled texts. The main problem is that we shall find dis­

putes, the component opinions of which do not seem to relate to,

let alone to address, one another. Following the results of earlier

inquiries, in which I have shown that the disputes between the

Houses normally are very carefully balanced according to disci­

plined mnemonics, I shall ask. If A contains one pattern of words,

and B an utterly unrelated pattern, then what is the pattern which,

following the form of A, should balance A, in place of B ? What

pattern of words should balance B, in place of the present A ?

Thus we shall now attempt to make use of the results of form-

criticism for the exegesis of the law itself. In so doing, I simply

36 JACOB N E U S N E R

produce an alternative mode of explaining the text, in addition to

the excellent proposals already before us. Justification for this pro­

cedure lies in the many hundreds of examples of disciplined formal

arrangements of words into disciplined patterns already laid out in

earlier work. But 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

THE C A S E OF MISHNAH OHALOT 211 37

efforts made to restore that opinion, we shall readily prefer to inter­

pret matters otherwise than through the extant conjectural resto­

rations. 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. But 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: "Nach dieser Stelle wurde auch die obige

Erganzung vorgenommen." However, b. Naz. 52b contains no allu­

sion 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 Hille­

lites] . . . [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 by 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: "Rabbi 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 II , 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 by Sens

38 J A C O B N E U S N E R

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 PY 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 respon­

sible 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 HGWYH MRB HIBNYN 'W MRB HMNYN

2. RB BNYNW WRB MNYMW SLMT T 'L PY S'WYN BWHN R W B '

T M Y N

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 CASE OF MISHNAH OHALOT 211 39

WRB BNYNW W R B MNYNW >P 'L PY 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 struc­

ture or the greater number of bones of the body.

Shammai's position also is out of phase. He says a quarter-^-a^ of bo­

nes 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 struc­

ture 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 contami­

nation 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 pecu-

har 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 quarter-

qab. Accordingly, the Hillelites will hold that the quarter-^a^ com­

posed 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 way 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 CASE OF MISHNAH OHALOT 211 4 I

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. GRA therefore explains (as in b. Naz.) that " t w o "

refers to " two shoulders" and one to "thigh," so "three bones are

the greater part of the skeleton," and the fingertips and toes re­

quired by the House of Hillel together convey uncleanness in the

Tent.

But a second look, not through the eyes of b. Naz.'s beraita-

editor, 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 Hillel­

ites 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. But that assumption has quite reason­

ably 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 III , p. 100), states, "And 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.

What 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 com­

posed 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 num­

ber 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: "The 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 tradi­

tions (pseudonomously) assigned either to both Houses in refuta­

tion of A q i v a , or to the Hillelites in refutation of A q i v a . What

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 BNYN/MNYN, 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. GRA, 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 "two 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 body-

structure or the greater part of the number.

THE 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 baraita-

editor 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 be­

fore 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 M. Oh. 2:1 Tos. Ah. 3:4 b. Naz. 52b I . House of Shammai T . — i . K. Judah says i . T N Y ' : House say another language: of Shammai say

House of Shammai say

44 JACOB NEUSNER

2. R B ' 'SMWT MN 2. H'SMYM, B Y N M S N Y M B Y N M S L S H : Quavter-qab of bones, whether of the bones from two or from three (corpses) [conveys un­cleanness by overshad­owing]. M . Ed. 2.7 3. And the House of of Hillel say R B ' 'SMWT MN H G W Y H , M R B H B N Y N W R M B H M N Y N Quarter-<?a6 of bones form a [single] corpse], [from bones] which are the greater part in bulk and in number.

4. Shammai says, 4. ' P Y L W M'SM >HD. Even [a quarter-qab] from one bone

M. Oh. 2:1 3. R B ' 'SMWT M R B H B N Y N 'W M R B H M N Y N

2. R W B ' ' S M W T M N

H G W Y H M R W B

H B N Y N ' W M R W B

H M N Y N

2'. R W B B N Y Y N W

W R W B M N Y N W

S L M T ' P ' L P Y S ' Y N

B H N R W B '

Tos. Ah. 3:4

3- —

2. R W B ' ' S M W T

M N H ' S M Y M

' W M S H N Y M

' W M S L S H

4- —

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

[4. See below, no. g.]

IVT. Ed. 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 exact;

'W/'W replaces B Y N / B Y N , not an important change, b. Naz., no.

4 follows ]V[. Ed. in specifying from the corpse, which M. Oh. leaves

out, but it preserves or (*W) of IVT. Oh. Since that difference is sub­

stantive, b. Naz. no. 4 seems closer to M. Oh. than to M. Ed. As

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. 7. M S W Q Y M W M Y R K Y M N M S '

R W B B N Y N W B G W D T W H S Y

R W B M N Y N W ' Y N N M S T R P Y N .

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.

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

7. For the House of Shammai say, M S N Y M ' W M S L S H ' W M S N Y

g W Q Y M W Y R K »HD 'W M S N Y Y R K Y Y M W S W Q '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).

THE CASE OF MISHNAH OHALOT I\2 45

8. — 8. And the House of Hillel say M N H G W Y H ' W M R W B B N Y N ' W

M R W B M N Y N H W ' Y L W Y S N N

B M R P Q Y Y D Y M W R G L Y M . From

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. — 9. Shammai says, Even 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, ex­

cept 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 prob­

lem 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 au­

thorities, 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, pro­

viding 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.

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

Evaluating Alternative Versions *

BARUCH M. BOKSER

University of California, Berkeley

The problem of alternative versions of a single statement attri­

buted to a given authority troubled the Tannaim and the Amoraim.

At times they suggest that each formulation of the statement ini­

tially 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. B T 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. PT, Leiden Cod. Seal. 3, Kcdem, Jerusalem, 1971. M. Ms. BT Codex Munich g5, Scfer Pubis. Jerusalem, 1971. Oxford Ms. Cited in DS. P. Ms. Paris Ms., cited in DS. Pes. Pesahim Pesikta Rabbati M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, Vienne, 1880, Tel-Aviv,

1963. P T Palestinian Talmud Ratner B. Ratner, Ahawath Zion We-feruscholaim: Traklat Bera-

chot, Vilna, 1901, Jerusalem, n.d. Rid. Piskei HaRid: The Rulings of R. Isaiah the Elder, ed.,

Wortheimer, Jerusalem, 1964. SRAG Siddur R. Amram Gaon, ed. L). Goldschmit, Jerusalem,

1971-Vatican Ms. Codex Vatican 133 to PT, Makor, Jerusalem, 1971. y. Palestinian Talmud

TWO TRADITIONS OF SAMUEL 47

of the Talmud, including J. N. Epstein, Saul Lieberman, Abraham

Weiss, and David Weiss-Halivni, build upon their work ^ and dem­

onstrate 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, PT 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 cer­

tain 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 Dimitrov-sky, 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 BARUCH 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 BT.

A. TNY 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 thirty-six 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 (LYPKK), 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 "The light for the first Sabbath . . . , " which is crossed out. The reading, however, is discernible.

TWO TRADITIONS OF S4MUEL 49

^ 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 " .

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 "even" 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 . But Samuel cannot have appended his remarks or

have referred to Levi; (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 spel­

ling 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 state­

ment. 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 i8a-b, fns. 51-2. But 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 pas­

sages. 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 by early rabbinic commentators, however, has this read-

50 BARUCH M. B O K S E R

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.

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 ( 'TY' 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)

TWO TRADITIONS OF SAMUEL 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 contra­

dictory 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 Yom Kippur. The pericope indicates that Samuel's

view circulated autonomously and apart from Yohanan's; indeed,

Yohanan's opinion variously circulated—if at all—among different

individuals.

BT '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 PT, only implied by

Yohanan's opening word "even," 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. BT'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 independ­

ent of other Amoraic views on the matter, probably originated as

a discrete statement without being formulated to dispute an alter­

native 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 "there­

fore") of Yerushalmi's version of Samuel's tradition. Then one

1 Sec, for example, the commentary of R. Yom Tov Ashbili to b. Pes. 54a.

52 BARUCH 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' 'YNYW)."

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

18 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 SAMUEL 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' 'YNYW)."

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 by 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 by 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 prin­

ciple, 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 "From 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 introduc­

tory 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 BARUCH M. BOKSER

28 Following the reading of M. and P. Mss. and Rid. The appropriateness of A and B together is reflected in the post-

Talmudic 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.

"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 top" (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 prin­

ciples, and reflect different situations; if an ox is eating fodder, it

is not coming up from the marsh and under the devil's control.

Yet 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 be­

tween his horns." Similarly, the clause "when it is coming up from

TWO TRADITIONS OF SAMUEL 55

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-

the marsh," according to the readings that include it in C, was

added.2^ The introductory "in these situations" was added to pro­

vide a smooth transition between Samuel's statement and the state­

ment 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 "For teaches," represents the

language in Ber., which serves to support a previous statement.

But 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."

We have thus isolated the original language of the statement

attributed to Samuel. It corresponded to Rabbi's warning concern­

ing oxen. The form of Samuel's statement which modifies a pre­

vious 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

We have examined two separate sets of pericopae, each of which

contains varying formulations of a tradition of Samuel. Our anal­

yses have suggested the presence of several factors to account for

the variations. The redactional considerations, the use of the tradi­

tions, in these cases, clearly have affected the formulation. Further­

more, the editorial process of the Talmud provided connecting hnks

between otherwise discrete traditions.

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

LEE I. LEVINE

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 conserv­

ative and liberal proclivities, some open to the influences and

demands of their age, others who studiously avoided any such

confrontation.*

R. Abbahu of Caesarea is one of the most fascinating of these

rabbinic figures.^ As a leading religious authority, he was conver­

sant 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, "The 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, "Rabbi 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 diplomata-rion (Si7r>.co[i.aTap(,ov), a box for valuable objects (J Beza I, 7, 60c, ed. Fran-cus, 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 CAESAREA 57

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 by 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).

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, reli­

giously, socially and politically he dominated the local, and in cer­

tain 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 man­

datory. 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 com­

munity is well documented.® Several of his acts, as recorded in

rabbinic literature, indicate an official position within the com­

munity at large. Some attest to his considerable influence in the

Jewish market place.

58 L E E I . L E V I N E

^ 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. "Notes", 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 III , 6a; J Nazir VII , 56a; J Sanhedrin I, i8a; Numbers

Rabba X I I , 3. Cf. also J Megilla III , 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 by Eliezar, R. Abbahu's younger contemporary, was also to be found in Caesarea's Maradata synagogue (J Bikkurim III , 65d; Midrash Samuel V I I , 6, ed. Buber 34b).

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 by 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 utili­

zation of mathematics and geometry in such calculations also sug­

gest commercial i n v o l v e m e n t . R . Abbahu's prestige was recog­

nized by 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 sacri­

fice (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

R. A B B A H U OF CAESAREA 59

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 Pale­

stine, 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 , loa ; 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. 7b; 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.

last capacity, he might either sit alone or together with several

other rabbis.*® It was in this capacity that he once administered

corporeal p u n i s h m e n t , o r , in another, demanded payment from a

guilty party. When the latter decision was protested, R. Abbahu

successfully obtained a court order (l^ n''3 7WV72) to enforce his

opinion.*^

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 deco­

rating 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 chari­

table deed, R. Abbahu chose him to lead the congregation in prayers

for rain.I^ At 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

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 way 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. Hiyya b .

Abba, he delivered a sermon, while R. Hiyya 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 C A E S A R E A 6 l

2 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: "He said to them: 'Why 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, "Rabbi 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, "Abbahu", Jewish Encyclopedia, I, 36; G. Scho-lem. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism^ (New York, 1954), p. 359, n. 24; S. T. Lachs, "Rabbi Abbahu and the Minim", JQR, L X (1970), 197-212.

3 1 Cf., for example, Leviticus Rabba IX , 3, ed. Margoliot, p. 179; Yalkut Shimoni—Parshat Bereshit—end; B Sukka 48b.

3 2 Cf. Caesarea Under Roman Rule, Chap. 6.

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 religious-ethnic groups, the Jews of Caesarea were often confronted by 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 third-fourth 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 Sama-

62 L E E 1. L E V I N E

33 An assumption further warranted by the existence of such polemics with respect to other leading rabbinic figures; cf. M. D. Herr, "The 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.

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.

Even 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 cri­

ticize 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 pa­

ganism 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 cer­

tain 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. How­

ever, 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 educa­

tion, 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

R. A B B A H U OF CAESAREA 63

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, "The 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 XIV, 2, p. 127 and parallels: R. Abbahu was asked: "From 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, 7 j ( ^ T a ) = O X T O ) .

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), "And 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 may 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 IX, 3, 32a).

more R. Abbahu's prochvities.^® Lieberman has described him as

" a man of high Hellenistic culture" and as "the 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 by 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 may be a carry-over

from practices current in cultured circles of his day.^^ As noted, R.

Abbahu assured his daughters a Greek education *° and on several

occasions remarked how the mathematical sciences aided him in

solving various halakhic questions.**

As was common in Greco-Roman society, R. Abbahu took great

pride in his physical a p p e a r a n c e . H e apparently possessed un­

usual strength and frequented the baths of Caesarea and other

cities.** His handsome features impressed his contemporaries:

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 occa­

sionally reflected in rabbinic sources.*^ One exception to this almost

total silence is preserved by the Palestinian Talmud when discus­

sing 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 syna­

gogue, 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 else­

where in the general context of Caesarean Jewish mystical specu-

45 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

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, "How 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), 355-

53 Cf. Blau, Das altjiidische Zauberwesen, pp. 23 f. 54 J Shabbat V I , 8b. 55 Ibid., VI , 8c. 58 J Demai III, 3, 23c; Leviticus Rabba X X X V I I , 3, ed. Margoliot, p. 862.

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 Welt­

anschauung 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

57

66 L E E L L E V I N E

to the magical and superstitious behefs prevalent in his day.

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 institu­

tions 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 cer­

tain quarters stemming from the defeats of 70 and 135, and the

political reality of a Yavne, 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 impor­

tant 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 CAESAREA 67

*" B Hagiga 14a. 61 J Megilla I I I , 74a and Lieberman, "Martyrs of Caesarea", p. 397. 82 B Sanhedrin 14a; B Ketubot 17a. 83 B Yevamot 65a; B Yoma 73a.

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 per­

suade 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 con­

junction 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 " in 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

68 L E E I. L E V I N E

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, IX, 42, 4; X, i , 5; X, 7, 1-2; X, 8, 2; Codex Justinia-

nus, X, I , 5. On the esteem in which some of these officials were held; cf Eusebius, Ecclestiastical History, VIII , i , 4; VIII , 6, 5.

6 » Philo, Gaius, #266 f. 7 0 Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyclopddie, I, 5, 1295-1296; A. H. M. Jones,

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. Hiyya travelled with R. Abbahu, he was wont to accom­

pany 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 Im­

perial 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 companion­

ship. R. Abbahu's activities in Caesarea bear some resemblance to

Agrippa's at Rome. Just as Agrippa had been approached to inter­

cede 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 way of determining

R, A B B A H U OF CAESAREA 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 un­

doubtedly 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 delib­

erate 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 ? Why

the recurrent association of the Caesarean rabbi with the pro­

consul'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 by 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 meas­

ures 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 Da­

mascus.'^ Troops along the Danube were prepared for the even-

The 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, "The 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 " lake" (perhaps aqueduct) ."

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. At the very

least, such a policy would gain Jewish support in the eastern Em­

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 atti­

tude. 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 by 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 IX , 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. 115-117", JRS, LI (1961), 98-104; E. M. Smallwood, "Palestine in ca. A.D. 115-118", Historia, II (1962), 500-510; Y . Gutman, "The 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, VII (1936), 159-180.

7 9 M. Adler, "The 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 by an inscription recently dis-

R. A B B A H U OF CAESAREA 7 I

covered in Sinai. According to A. Negev, the inscription speaks of one Valerius, son of Antigonos, a Jew, who was a strategos in Egypt 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 VII , i , 56a. 82 Codex Justinianus III, 13, 3. Cf. B. Z. Dinur, "Diocletian's Rescript to

Judah from the Year 293 and the Struggle Between the Patriarchate and Sanhedrin in Palestine" (Hebrew), Klein-Gulak Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1942), pp. 76-93-

Perhaps ihustrative of the enthusiastic support accorded Diocle­

tian by many Jews is the behavior of no less a sage than R. Hiyya

bar Abba. When Diocletian once visited Tyre, R. Hiyya 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 politi­

cal 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 by 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 resent­

ment 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.

72 L E E L L E V I N E

83 Midrash Samuel VII , 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).

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 intellec­

tual 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

R. A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A 73

86 J Sanhedrin I, 19a. Cf. also J Ta'anit IV, 68a; Ecclesiastes Rabba VII , 16.

87 For another opinion; cf. Mantel, Studies, p. 38.

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 con­

cerned, 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 juris­

diction with the sages on an equal basis. A crucial question regard­

ing this tradition is one of chronology. When did these changes

take place ? The first period included at the very least the early

Yavnean era (70-90 C.E.). The assumption of Patriarchal powers

took place either under Rabban Gamaliel II of Yavne 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 be­

tween the emperor Diocletian and the Patriarchate appears prob­

lematic. A rather detailed account has been preserved of the

74 L E E I. L E V I N E

88 J Terumol VIII , l o , 46b; Genesis Rabba L X I I I , 8, ed. Thcodor-Albcck, pp. 688-689.

8 9 It 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, VII , 123-128). Graetz, following Clinton, claims that Diocletian's only visit to Palestine was in 297-298 on his way to Egypt (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 way to and from Egypt, where he quelled the rebellion of Domitius Domitianus in 296-297 (Seston, Diocletian, p. 161; H. Mattingly, "The Imperial Recovery", CAH, X I I , 335; Jones, Later Roman Empire, I, 39).

emperor taking offense at the barbs of Jewish students and sum­

moning 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 his­

torical 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.^®

R. A B B A H U OF C A E S A R E A 75

Thus, 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 IX, 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. Hiyya 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 strength­

ened 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 Rabba" (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

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 Raba 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 ac­

count 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 non-

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 Patri­

arch, 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 rec­

ognition was accorded a Caesarean rabbi, a recognition well-

received among his colleagues as well as among non-Jews.

R. Abbahu's political stature in turn affected his intellectual-

religious 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 III , 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 VIII , 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 VI , 3, 36d), and perhaps Usha (B Ketubot 50a). Outside of Palestine he visited Alexandria (J 'Eruvin III , 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 III , i , 5c; Lamentations Rabba III , 17, ed. Buber, p. 65b). Other sources speak of his travels, without mentioning specific places (B Sota 40a; Yalkut Shimoni—end of Parshat Bereshit).

" 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

T R A N S L A T I N G R A B B I N I C T E X T S

Illustrated by a chapter from Tanna Debe Eliyyahu

WILLIAM G. BRAUDE

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 trans­

lating 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 ex­

plains 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 ike— are not stated, they have to be in­

ferred, 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 WILLIAM 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" prin­

ciples makes no sense. To begin with, the verse saying that God

drove out Adam suggests no reason for the commentator's con­

clusion 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 El iyyahu—and 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. Ac­

cordingly, 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 under­

lying 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 cred­

itably 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 AND INTERPOLATION IN RABBINIC 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 flour­

ished in the third century.

The name Tanna debe Ehyyahu means "Teacher of," or, "Teach­

ing" 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 be­

ginning and the end of all things, foreseeing that the descendants

of Adam would provoke His wrath resolved to put their misdeeds

out of mind—He chose to see the god in mankind and not the evil.

80 WILLIAM G. B R A U D E

1 JV: 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 out" iov grs as a repetition; hence "separated."

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 Day 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-to-

come. 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. Yet 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

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D INTERPOLATION IN RABBINIC T E X T S 8l

Holy One gave Adam 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 text 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.), by which Gehenna is to assure obedience to the way {ibid.).

B y way here is meant the way of right conduct, the revelation of

whose specific commands,' as the text 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 "She

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; PR 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. But mitikedem., "at 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, "He placed", no longer has "the cherubim" as the object, the commentator takes sekinah, "the Presence" a nominal form of way-yasken, to be the object implied.

4 Apparently T E reads Gen. 1:1 "In 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 TA, 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 day; 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. But by a slight change of vowels hereb, "sword", may be read horeb, "heat" . 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.

8 2 WILLIAM G. B R A U D E

» Cf. Mid 4:5. 10 Cf. Isa. 46:10. " See Gen. Rabbah 8:4. 12 Cf. Ab 4:1; and "The 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, "He 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 (T957), 186, calls attention to Friedmann's probable misreading.

1 5 A slight variation in vowels changes wa-ya'abor, "He passed", into wa-ya'aber, "He had pass".

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 fore­

saw 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 some­

thing 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

4:11) . 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

" C O N J E C T U R E " AND INTERPOLATION IN RABBINIC 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 al­

together 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 man­

kind pass out of mind]: Though Thine eyes did see [the offenses in]

mine unformed substance, in Thy book only those acts which are un­

blemished 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 pre­

sence. 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 remem­

ber; 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 remem­

bered, nor even come to mind (Isa. 65:17).

[What did God provide for Israel in order to have them act in such

a way 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 "To 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 JV: but in Thy book they were all written down. But 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 WILLIAM G. B R A U D E

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. JV: 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.

then as he rests on the Sabbath, he forgets all the vexation he had

previously had. Such is the nature of man—the 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 content­

ment 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 embarrass­

ment 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,

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D INTERPOLATION IN RABBINIC 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 Day of Atonement which the Holy

One bestowed with abounding love. Nay more! As 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 val-

leys,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 by 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 pre­

viously cited verse is now to be read / have swept away (mahiti),

as a thick cloud, thy transgressions. What is meant by 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 house-

23 "There were no more joyous days for Israel than the 15th day of Ab and the Day of Atonement" (R. Simeon ben Gamaliel in Ta 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 Day of Atonement. So Urbach, ihid., p. 9.

25 See B. R H i6b, and Ar lob. 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

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 Elam", probably Ctesiphon, capital of the Sassanids. See Jacob Mann, "Date and Place of Redaction of Seder Eliyyahu Rabba and Zutta", HUCA, 4, 302-10.

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 faith­

fully—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 ? You 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: Why 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. 14:1) , / 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

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D INTERPOLATION IN RABBINIC 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 partic­

ular 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 creep­

ing things"? I r e p l i e d > : "God 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. But 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 by Him as deser­

ving 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 JV: O Lord, Thou God to whom vengeance helongeth, Thou God to whom vengeance belongeth, shine forth. But ^el, "God", 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.RH 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. But 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 con­

tentment 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: You assert

that fire is not God. Yet 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 resem­

bling 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 God—He 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: "With this lash I may 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, may have to smite them, may even have to kill them."

This is what Scripture means by fire eternally and by the words

For by fire imll the Lord threaten judgment (Isa. 66:16),

Of course you might attempt to refute me by quoting the words

The Lord thy God is a devouring fire (Deut. 4:24). But a parable

will explain the intent of these words. The children, servants, and

members of the household of a mortal king did not behave prop­

erly. So he said to his children, to his servants, and to the mem­

bers 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. Rabbah 7:5 (ed. Mordecai Margulies, Jeursalem, 5713 [1953], 159.

3 5 Cf. Lam. 3:10.

" C O N J E C T U R E " A N D INTERPOLATION IN RABBINIC T E X T S 89

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

Gen. Rabbah TA Genesis Rabbah, ed. JuHus 'I'heodor [1849-1923] and Chanoch Albeck [1890-1972], Berlin, 1912-31

HUCA Hebrew Union College Anmial Landau Isaac Elijah Landau (1801-76), Ma'aneli Eliyyahu,

commentary on Tanna debe Eliyyahu, Wilno, 1839 MTeh Midrash Tehillim, ed. Solomon Buber, Wilno, 1891;

translated by William G. Braude [1907- ], New Haven, 1959 (YJS, 13)

OT Max Kadushin, Organic Thinking, New York, 1938 P R Pesikta Rabbati, ed. Meir Friedmann [1831-1908],

Vienna, 1880; translated by William G. Braude, New Haven, 1968 (YJS, 18)

I 'KKM I'esikta de-Rab Kahana, ed. Bernard Mandelbaum [1922- ], 2 vols.. New York, 1962; translated by William G. Braude, Philadelphia, 1975

R Vatican MS of the year 1073 upon which T E is based Tanhuma B ed. Solomon Buber, Wilno, 1885 T E Tanna debe Eliyyahu, ed. Meir Friedmann, Vienna, 1902 Torah selemah Menahem Kasher [1895- ], Compilation of Rabbinic

comments on the Pentateuch and commentary thereon, Jerusalem, 1927-69

YJ S Yale Judaica Scries Zunz, had-Derasot Yom Tob Lippmann Zunz [1794-1886], had-Derasot be-

Yisra^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

O T H E R G R E C O - R O M A N C U L T S

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

MARY BOYCE

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 com­

position. 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 co­

religionists became known to the world at large simply as 'fire-

worshippers'.

The fact is that, though veneration of fire is very ancient among

the Iranians, and was of supreme importance in Zoroaster's teach­

ings, the cult of temple fires appears to have been unknown in early

Zoroastrianism.1 Indo-Iranian religion had taken shape during mil-

1 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 B O Y C E

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. VII .

' I . I 3 I .

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 im­

memorial 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 con­

tinued 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

ICONOCLASM AMONG THE ZOROASTRIANS 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 some­

times kindled, for traces of burning remain.^ Moreover, in the carv-

vings 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 Hero­

dotus' 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 possi­

bility 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 re­

ported 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. Widen-gren {Die Religionen Irans, Stuttgart 1965, 131, 358) to the Achaemenian period, is in fact later. See, with full bibliography, K. Schippmann, Die irani-schen 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 B O Y C E

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 con­

formity ; 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 sixcov, a 'showing forth, representation' ;i^

11 See H. Lommel, 'Anahita-Sarasvati' Asiatica, Festschrift F. Welter, Leipzig 1954, 405-4^3-

12 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 eight-rayed 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 ZOROASTRIANS 97

'monstrous thing'. See P. Horn, Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie, Strassburg 1893, 295; W. B. Henning, Zll, IX, 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.

and perhaps in evolving it Zoroastrian iconophils sought to charac­

terize 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.

Yet 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 sub­

stituted 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. Zoroas­

trian 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 be­

yond 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'

gS MARY B O Y C E

1 9 SecZandi V0human Yast {cd. and transl. b}' B. T. Anklesaria) VII . 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. That 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.

{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 fire-

sanctuaries, 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 sur­

prisingly, that the Iranians had different names for these two kinds

of shrines. The Partliians themselves seem to have called fire-

temples ^dtarosan, a word meaning perhaps 'place of burning fire',^^

ICONOCLASM AMONG THE ZOROASTRIANS 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 bakana-

Pati."^^ 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 Arme­

nia, for instance, we learn that there were temples 'where is sculp­

tured . . . 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, VIII , 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, XIV, 1952, 420 f. 2 9 See F. C. Andreas-W. Henning, Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chine-

sisch-Turkestan II [SPAW, Phil.-hist. Klass, VII , 1933), 311 (M 219 R 17-18). 3 0 See Henning, BSOS, VIII , 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

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;

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 II , was pillaged by the Seleucid

Antiochus III 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 identifi­

cation.*^ 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

I C O N O C L A S M A M O N G T H E Z O R O A S T R I A N S lOI

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.

style. The Iranians, with their long tradition of worship without

images, had not even by this time, it is evident, created an icono­

graphy 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

by 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 way; 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 . . .'.*® At 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 archaeo­

logical and literary evidence to show that, under Hellenistic influ­

ence, images came to be used in the universally popular cult of the

102 MARY B O Y C E

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 pre­

sumably 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 image-

base, 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 sup­

pressed. 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. Koshelen-ko, 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 lo 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.

I C O N O C L A S M A M O N G T H E Z O R O A S T R I A N S I O 3

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 them­

selves, as is indicated by the epithet by which Agathangelos stig­

matised the Zoroastrians of Armenia, urvapast 'soul-worshippers'.*^

St. Gregory alludes moreover to their habit of prostrating them­

selves 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 Sasa­

nian 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. Sub­

sequent developments show, however, that this was a purely politi­

cal 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 indi­

cations 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

may well have been moved to do this through well-instructed

orthodoxy.*® The Parthian Empire was, however, a loosely-knit con­

federacy 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

5 3 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 B O Y C E

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, re­

placing this wherever possible with that of fires. Greek influence

had been as strong, however, in Persia as in Parthia, and the rock-

carvings of the Sasanians show that these monarchs made no ob­

jection 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 Zoroa­

strian iconoclasts as did free-standing images. Presumably, not

being fully-fashioned forms or objects of cult, they were not re­

garded as potential homes for devs, nor yet as presumptuous imita­

tions 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 I O 5

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 Ab-NaMr).

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 evi­

dently 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 Yazdi 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—

I06 MARY B O Y C E

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, 274-85-

7 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, 394-5-

7 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.

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 evi­

dence 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) .'^

ICONOCLASM AMONG THE ZOROASTRIANS I O 7

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 Kaka

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,

7 3 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 X X X I , 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 B O Y C E

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 by non-Zoroastrians.

7 8 See Tansar Name, text 14, transl. 39. 7 9 E.g. Mas'udI, loc. cit. (nn. 62, 64, above).

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

Yazd 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 by 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 by 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.'^

ICONOCLASM AMONG T H E ZOROASTRIANS I O 9

8 " For knowledge of this I am indebted to the kindness of Khanom Feran-gis 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.

A faint survival of the old icon cult seems to have persisted, how­

ever, in the Yazdi 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 'Lady 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.

Yet 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 Zoro­

astrianism 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

n o MARY B O Y C E

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, VII , 1953, 1-33; E. Kitzinger, 'The cult of images before iconoclasm', ibid., VIII , 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.

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 icono­

clasm 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

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

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).

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.

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

KURT RUDOLPH

Karl-Marx- Universität, Leipzig

Die in de 20er und 30er Jahren hohe Wellen schlagende Dis­

kussion 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. Mandäer-

problem zur Sprache kommen soll, so nicht nur deshalb, weil

der ihm gewidmete Band die Forschungssituation auf verschiedenen

Gebieten der vorderorientahschen und spätantiken Religions­

geschichte 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 Z U M 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 I I 3

Sachen selbst — eine fruchtbare Forschung mit einigermaßen siche­

ren Ergebnissen erreichen. Daß diese im wesentHchen vom je-

weiUgen 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, tra­

ditionsgeschichtlicher, 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 Bestim­

mung 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 Lite­

ratur)

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. Da es in diesem Beitrag nicht möglich ist, alle

Arbeiten, die in letzter Zeit auf diesem Gebiet vorgelegt wurden,

114 K U R T R U D O L P H

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.

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 Interes­

senten.^ Wenig beachtet wurde die dänische Dissertation von V.

Schou Pedersen, der sich mit Hilfe literarkritischer und traditions-

geschichtlichcr 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 literar­

kritischer Gesichtspunkte eine interne "Schichtenanalyse" vor­

genommen.^ Auf dem kultgeschichtlichen Gebiet sind die von E.

Segelberg ^ und mir ^ fast gleichzeitig unternommenen Unter­

suchungen zur mandäischen Taufe zu nennen, die der Theorie von

einer späten Entstehung dieser zentralen mand. Kulthandlung —

etwa gar als Nachahmung nestorianischer Taufpraxis — restlos

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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 "Seelenauf­

stiegsmesse" (Masiqta) analysiert und in ihrem Entstehen und

Werden beschrieben worden. Der zentrale Kultbestand (Taufe,

Totenmesse) gehört zur ältesten Schicht, die sich durch verglei­

chende Untersuchung einerseits in die jüdische Tauf sektenweit,

andererseits in die syrisch-iranische Welt des Gnostizismus zurück­

verfolgen 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. Bult­

mann 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.

I l 6 K U R T R U D O L P H

zwar sehr still darum geworden — vor allem weil sich die theolo-

gisch-nt-liche Wissenschaft immer stärker der religionsgeschicht­

lichen 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 "Kommentar"

zu diesem nt-lichen Korpus, das in letzter Zeit auch von theo­

logischer 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 mani-

chäischen 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 inhalt-

lichlicher 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 verständ­

lich machen, nämlich daß es sich hier um einen "Descensus-

Mythus" handelt, den ich auch aus der mand. Mythologie heraus­

schälen konnte, und dessen Frühstufe also ebenfalls in eine vor-

manichäische 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 Z U M 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 I I 7

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 Kap. 89) . Auch was die Heranziehung des gnostischen Materials anbelangt,

sind durch die Nag Hammadi-Codices neue Möghchkeiten ver­

gleichender 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. XI) eine Rolle spielen (betr. Adamiten-

legende und bibl. U r g e s c h i c h t e ) . D e r gleiche Text, 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.

I l 8 K U R T R U D O L P H

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: ThEZ 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 Gnosti-zismus 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* Etwa 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.

Reihe andere dieser gnostischen BibHothek, weisen Züge baptis­

tischer 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, Typ, Stellung und Ursprung der mand.

Gnosis noch besser zu lokalisieren und zu umreißen.

Aus diesen Beispielen ergibt sich, daß auch auf dem "kompara­

tiven Sektor" allerlei in Bewegung gekommen ist, die die traditio­

nellen 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).

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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 I I 9

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. 309-325. 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 neuerschlossc-nen 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).

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 "neue" Quelle trat vor allem die von Lady 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 Form; außerdem ist er schlecht

überliefert worden (der Eingang fehlt, häufige Lücken verursachen

stellenweise Zusammenhanglosigkeit und Verständnisschwierig­

keit). In Stil und Sprache ist diese Quelle stark von der jüngeren

Literatur beeinflußt. Trotzdem können wir aus ihr unter Heranzieh­

ung einiger anderer Texte, gewisse Nachrichten gewinnen, die

für die Ursprungsfrage wichtig sind.^^ Hatte Lady 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

120 K U R T R U D O L P H

Abstammung, zur Verfügung steht. Auch andere Forscher (Widen-

gren, Segelberg) haben dieser Ansicht zugestimmt. In der Inter­

pretation gibt es allerdings eine Reihe Divergenzen, vor allem,

was die Identifizierung des mysteriösen "Königs Ardban" (=

Artabanus) anbelangt, unter dessen Regierung die Nasoräer vor

den Juden in das medische Gebirge [iura dmadai) oder "innere

Haran" {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 iS.Buch

des rechten Ginzä findet (411, 25-28 Lidzb.) wird nur ein "König

Ardban" 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)

Könige" 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 Herr-

3 " 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 Z U M 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 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 Möglich­

keit, 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 Text 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 über­

haupt 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 "Diwan der Flüsse" [Diwan

dnahrawata), den ich demnächst zu veröffentlichen gedenke (es

handelt sich um Oxf. Bodl.D.C .7) . Er enthält mehr eine religiös­

mythologische 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 Juden"

{'^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 "Haus des

Tempels" [baita d bit mqadsiä) eingezeichnet. Dieser bemerkens­

werte 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 Haran-

Gawaita-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 K U R T R U D O L P H

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 ab:

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 Kustä", 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 "Fluß 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 "Stadt Jerusalem"

und die "Kinder Israel" zusammen mit ihren "Pfaffen" [kahne]

werden überall im Lande (auch in Bagdad!) von Hibil-Ziwä ver­

nichtet; damit endet die 80-jährige Königsherrschaft der Juden in

Bagdad; es folgt die Einsetzung von sieben mandäischen Statt­

haltern in Babylonien durch Anös-Uthra, der nun auch — so muß

man den Text 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 "Jünger"

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 ("Bagdad"); beiden wird zunächst

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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 123

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.).

eine jüdische Vergangenheit zugeschrieben, die durch zwei jüdische

Verfolgungen beendet wird. Christus und Johannes der Täufer

werden genannt, letzterer als Begründer einer mandäischen Ge­

meinde in Jerusalem, ersterer als Feind derselben und Anlaß zur

Trennung von Judentum. Als Strafe für die Verfolgung der (jerusa­

lemischen) 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 herzustel­

len, daß erstere in die babylonischen Gebiete verlegt und trans­

poniert werden: So kommt es zu den zwei Jerusalems, von denen

der Text 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

124 K U R T R U D O L P H

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).

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 über­

lieferten "Weltgeschichten", wie sie einerseits die beiden Parallel­

versionen 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 Dar­

stellung 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 Schick­

sal 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

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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

*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).

eine Sondertradition handeln, da sie uns bisher in keiner anderen

mandäischen Quelle begegnet. Sie als im Kern unhistorisch hinzu­

stellen, ginge allerdings zu weit, da sie einmal mit anderen Nach­

richten übereinstimmt, die die Mandäer mit Nordmesopotamien

(Theodor bar Könai: Adiabene!) zusammenbringen, andererseits

"Harrän" 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 zusammen­

fassend 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 Zeit­

angaben 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

126 K U R T R U D O L P H

" 6 Macuch, Anfänge S. 177 ff.; Hauptquelle ist HG Z. 142 ff. 47 Ebd. S. 179 ff.

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 Ein­

bruch 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 hand­

habenden Kodices umzuschreiben. Die Rollenform ist zwar durch­

aus nicht verschwunden, beschränkt sich aber heutzutage nur auf

die kürzeren Texte (die handliche Buchform ist z.B. für das viel­

benutzte 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 vorder­

orientalische 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 Konsoli­

dierung 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 natür­

lich nicht ausschheßt, wie sie auch anderen Werken dieser Art zuteil

wird.

1 . 3 . Für die Datierung mandäischer Überlieferungen spielen die

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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,^" befür­

wortet 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 ab­

weichende 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 al 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 K U R T R U D O L P H

^ 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. 5 5 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.

hat (s.o.), andererseits läßt die Serie der Engel [mlaka) mit grie­

chischer 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 Ungeschick­

lichkeit des Schreibers her, der das mand. u nachtragen wollte.

Nun hat Macuch tatsächlich sprachUche Altertümlichkeiten in un­

serem Text 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 altman-

däischer 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

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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 I 2 9

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.

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 Text 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.

An 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 un­

mittelbar bei.^^ Abgesehen von ihrer Bedeutung für die mand.

Sprachgeschichte (repräsentieren sie doch weithin einen Vulgär­

dialekt, der erst durch Macuch näher untersucht worden ist),

haben die Zaubertexte vor allem wegen des Fortlebens altmesopo-

tamischen Gutes Aufmerksamkeit erregt, nicht nur in der Form

130 KURT RUDOLPH

der Zauberpraktiken und ihrer Anweisungen, sondern auch inhalt-

Hch 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 auf f äUigen "kubistischen''

Malerei in den mandäischen Diwanen habe ich anderen Orts

aufmerksam gemacht.®^

1 . 4 . Weniger für die Ursprungsfrage als vielmehr für die Erwei­

terung unseres Bildes des mandäischen Kultes werden eine Reihe

Texte, in erster Linie Rollen kultischen Inhalts sein, die in abseh­

barer Zeit von R. Macuch und mir unter Verwendung des hand­

schriftlichen Nachlasses von Lady 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). Da 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 Toten-

gedächtnismahle, 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 dNahra-

wata 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 Priesterweihe­

rituals (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 Reli-gions 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 Z U M 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 1 3 I

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. Da 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 Verunglimp-

fung,^'* 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 Kon­

struktion, die die Namen Kantäer (<Kutäer) und Dostäer (<Dosi-

theaner) aus der antisamaritanischen jüdischen Polemik verwen­

det.^' 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 Dostäerbc-richt, 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 K U R T R U D O L P H

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, 115; 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 Gawaita-Rolle 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

(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.®^ Auch 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.'^ Es

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 "Katharer" , " 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

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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 Be­

richterstattern 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 nach­

christlichen 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 man­

däischen 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 In­

schriftenfunde 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. (Tbig-nai 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.

1 3 4 K U R T R U D O L P H

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. 54! . ) ; 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. 655-660; 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.).

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 Kunst­

denkmälern. 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 Le­

sungen (mit Hilfe des Mandäischen!) und schriftgeschichtlicher

Vergleiche vertritt er die Auffassung, daß die Schrift der elymäi-

schen (und charakenischen) Denkmäler nicht nur "klare Prototypen

mandäischer Schrift" s ind," sondern von der letzteren abhängig

ist.'^ Da andererseits eine schon früher festgestellte Berührung

zwischen nabatäischem (auch palmyrenischem übrigens) und man-

däischem 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.

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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 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 man­

däischer 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 offensicht­

lichen Beziehungen zum nabatäisch-palmyrenischen Alphabet nicht

bestreitet. Seiner Meinung nach haben die Mandäer ihre Schrift

mindestens loo Jahre nach den genannten Inschriftenfunden

übernommen und weitergebildet, d. h. also im 3./4. Jh. Beiden

Äußerungen gegenüber hat Macuch seine Position sehr tempera­

mentvoll 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 Aufzeichnungs-

material 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 K U R T R U D O L P H

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 elymäisch-

charakenischc (aramäische) und die mandäische Schrift eine ge­

meinsame 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 Vor­

handensein 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 histori-

87 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 sasani­

dischen Zeit eines Tages auch dafür etwas beschert.^^ Bekannt ist

dieser Landesteil schon seit altbabylonischer Zeit als Rückzugs­

gebiet 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 "Zum mandäischen Wort­

schatz" geliefert,^2 dem er vor allem dem akkadischen Lehn­

wortbestand seine Aufmerksamkeit schenkte. In diesem Zusam­

menhang 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 nord-

west-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 Hira-armes (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 ff-

9 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 K U R T R U D O L P H

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, 91; 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).

lebten, da in der zweiten Hälfte des 2. Jht.s. v.Chr. dieselbe In­

differenz 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 unberück­

sichtigt lassen. So sind die angegebenen Eigenheiten des Mandäi­

schen 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 ostara­

mäischen 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 aramäi­

schen 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.

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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 I 3 9

Lehnwörter, die z.T. aus einer Zeit stammen, "in der die babylo­

nische Kultur noch blühte und ihre Bedeutung im eigenen Raum

noch nicht total eingebüßt hatte".^"^ Einer " B l ü t e " der babyloni­

schen 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.

i n .

Mit den geschilderten Tatbeständen lassen sich gut die bereits

oben S. i i 4 f . erwähnten Ergebnisse der literarkritischen und tra­

ditionsgeschichtlichen 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 tatsäch­

lichen 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. Wise-man, 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 "Rasse-Juden"!) 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 K U R T R U D O L P H

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.

Sozial gesehen stehen sie weithin im Gegensatz zur offiziellen Lehre

und Herrschaft (vgl. die Verfolgung der "Jünger" in Jerusalem,

ob. S. 122), was sich in der mandäischen Geschichte bis heute er­

halten hat. Die älteste Form des Mandäertums, die wir (nach der

alten Selbstbezeichnung) Näsöräismus nennen können, ist ideolo­

gisch gesehen das Produkt eines synkretistischen Judentums und

gehört in die Anfänge der gnostischen Bewegung, wie vor allem der

in das Adamgeschehen eingebaute Anthroposmythos, die Verjensei-

tigung 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 (Seelen­

aufstieg), 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 Äußerun­

g 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 an­

führten, zeigen können, daß die wiederholte "Untertauchung" im

allein gültigen "lebenden ( = fließenden) Wasser" oder "Jordan"

{jardna), über deren Ritual und Wachstum wir an dieser Stelle nicht

weiter handeln können, in ihrem Kernbestand auf die im Jordan­

gebiet 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

Q U E L L E N P R O B L E M E Z U M 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 I4I

aufzugeben. Wir müssen gerade in diesem für die Mandäer so typi­

schen Kultakt 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 kompara­

tive 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 Nach­

richten 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 vor­

handen), um als historische Beweisstücke zu dienen, daß die Man­

däer ursprünglich aus der Gemeinde dieses Propheten entstanden

seien. Es liegt allerdings nahe, daß die alten Näsöräer eine Er­

innerung 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 (christlich­

häretischer oder täuferischer Kreise) aufgefüllt und in der Aus­

einandersetzung 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 K U R T R U D O L P H

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 Also-hairy) 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.

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 traditionsgeschichtli­

chen 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 Her­

kunft 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 ethno­

logischer 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 sicher­

lich eine Befruchtung der beiden anderen Aufgaben erwartet

werden können, vor allem, wenn es gelingt, Mitarbeiter aus der

jüngeren Mandäergeneration dafür zu interessieren und her­

anzubilden, wozu gute Aussichten bestehen.

THE RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D M A

ROBERT M. GRANT

University of Chicago

The rehgious revival undertaken by 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 311. The other was the revival inaugurated

and carried out by Julian between 361 and 363. The work of Maxi­

min 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

We know very little about Maximin's life before his uncle Ga­

lerius succeeded in forcing Diocletian to make him a Caesar on May

1,305. Only Lactantiusinforms us that he was an adulescens semibar-

barus, whom Galerius had just instructed to take the name Maxi-

minus in honor of himself (Maximianus). He was also to assume the

name Galerius and, in addition, Valerianus in honor of both Diocle­

tian 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 ROBERT M. GRANT

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. IX I I , 7) says that Maximin had caused his children to "share imperial honor".

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 by luck

became the emperor of the Romans.* On the other hand, it may

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.

We 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. We also hear that by

him she had a son and a daughter, both born about 306.* We ven­

ture 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 Ga­

lerius 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 by order of the governor heralds summoned men, wom­

en, and children to the temples of the idols; in addition, the mili­

tary tribunes were summoning each individual by 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

T H E RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D A I A I45

** 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 (Dublin, 1964), 82 = Papyrus 2, 162-63.

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).

emperor.^ But the idea of using it as an instrument in a universal

persecution may 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 cere­

mony. He may 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 No­

vember 20, 306, when he was at Caesarea for shows "in honor of his

birthday, as it is called" {Mart. Pal. 6, I ) . His birthday may or

may not have fallen on November 20. It is definitely the case that

this day was the anniversary of his adoptive grandfather Diocle­

tian,^ 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 Egypt, 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 mar­

ried 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 em­

pire. Even Maxentius was waiting; he did not announce himself

and his son as consuls at Rome until April 20. Under these cir­

cumstances Maximin's praeses in Palestine executed only one

146 ROBERT M. GRANT

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, XXXIII, 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 per sec. 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 ?

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 by 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 "humane" action sub­

stituted 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 ex­

plicitly 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 an­

other census, Maximin decided to require one last universal sacrifice

[Mart. Pal. 9, 2). ^ This time dilapidated temples were to be re­

built "with 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

THE RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D A I A I47

18 De mort. persec. 37, 2. 2 " For the date cf. C. H. V. Sutherland, The Roman Imperial Coinage VI

(London, 1967), 15-16.

to be consecrated by libations from the sacrifices. Even those en­

tering the public baths were to be "defiled" by the sacrifices.

This account is not unlike what Lactantius tells about what ap­

parently happened in 312 (no meat served at the imperial table

unless first consecrated)/^ and it may be that Eusebius' chronology

is wrong. On the other hand, the Christian authors may 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 by 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 by 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 ban­

ished or insulted, but rather was recalled to the worship of the

gods. , ." (IX 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 in­

sulted 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" by 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'

148 ROBERT M. GRANT

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<c> in hanc amentiam venisse.

2* Martin, op. cit., p. 48, 9-50, i. 2 5 Hierocles was praeses of Bithynia under Diocletian and Galerius (Lac­

tantius, 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.

source, tells us that Phileas suffered "many 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 Egypt , 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. But 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 Egypt, 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, sa-

cratissimae ac piissimae Aug., matrique castrorum,^^ and to d. n.

THE RELIGION OF 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 by 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, 311, 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 may be right. Presumably Maximin was aware that

Galerius, now dying or dead, was about to issue an edict of tolera­

tion, 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 by Galerius. The

studies of imperial chronology by J. Lafauric imply, however, that

in its Eusebian form it was published not by Galerius but by Maxi­

min 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 (IX 2) separated

two actions by 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 Chris­

tians 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. 11, 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

F. H. Kettler, "Petrus", RE XIX (1938), 1283. '^ Laqueur, op. cit., 65-76. ^ 6 G. Bardy, Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son icole (Paris,

1936), 71-3 ^ Lactantius, De mort. persec. 34, 4.

Eusebius' chronological scheme is wrong, but it does reflect a

situation marked by some confusion. We venture to suppose that

he rightly states that "the recantation of the previously published

imperial decree was published everywhere in Asia and in the neigh­

boring provinces" (IX i , i ) . This would mean that the decree of

Galerius himself was published in Asia and Bithynia, not so cer­

tainly in Syria and Egypt. Eusebius does not mention Maximin's

occupation of Asia and Bithynia or his conference with Licinius

in the summer of 311, 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 Egypt 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 con­

trary 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 "the

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" (IX i , 3). Indeed, Sabinus

twice refers to "the Deity of our masters," who are called "the

most divine emperors" or "the most mighty emperors," as well as

to "their most divine purpose" (IX i , 3. 5).

After Maximin occupied Asia Minor, he re-established Diocle­

tian's old capital at Nicomedia in Bithynia. He remained in re­

sidence there until some point in the year 312, as we learn from his

T H E RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D A I A I 5 I

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 ?

own statement (IX 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. "When 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 by no means be permitted to dwell in their city."

Upon investigation, perhaps related to the martyrdom of Lucian,

he found that "very many of the same religion dwelt in that region,"

and he therefore rejected their petition (with thanks) because it

"did not come from all ." He explicitly permitted Christians to

persevere in their superstition, while he encouraged them to "ac­

knowledge the worship of the gods" (IX 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 infer­

ence, that emperors like Maximin "do 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. We 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 by the Lycians and Pamphyhans (OGI 569;

reedited in CIL III 12132, lines 9-27; not, as in OGI, 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: "copy of a letter of the Lord,

translated. . ." (Mitteis, Chr est. 373 = B G U I 140); and (3) the end

152 ROBERT M. GRANT

^ 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.

of the Latin rescript itself (OGI 569 = CIL III 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 CIL III . 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 posi­

tion of what survives he added only 86 letters to the left and 88 to

the right, producing a Latin original still in harmony with Euse­

bius' Greek but less florid. He then went on to reconsider the length

of the lines contained in the Greek petition, and instead of sup­

plying 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 by later writers. The upshot is that

CIL III 12132 contains a reconstruction of the inscription more

convincing than OGI 569. We shall follow the former in most of our

discussion.

We 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.

We should prefer simply zolq Bz(j7z6x(x.i<; at the beginning of the

line, in view of the parallels provided by 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 "Augustus" ' has to come after an emperor's name, not

before it. Moreover, in line 10 the letters are considerably closer

THE RELIGION OF MAXIMIN DAIA 153

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 Constan-tinian sources.

4 5 Sutherland, op. cit., 246-47. 4 6 Eusebius, H. E. IX 2 ; Lactantius, De mort. persec. 36, 3.

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. We read, in the light of the papyri already

mentioned, [AuToxparopaiv Kai] , with special reference to P Ryl

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

IV 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 let­

ters. 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 by 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 Pamphy-

lia 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.

What the Lycians and Pamphyhans wrote was approximately as

154 ROBERT M. GRANT

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 Pamphy-

lians, 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 se­

curity 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 by 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 ob­

vious."

The petition was not identical with the one submitted by 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 by (i) the traditional

practise followed by "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? { x a T a t d n g q : IX 7, 6 (814, 20), 12 (818, 13).

T H E RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D A I A I55

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 Maxi-minus 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.

emperor, a petition inspired by the gods themselves and especially

by Zeus, who "presides over your most famous city" (IX 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 by 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.

What 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 tax,

sicut in Orientalihiis quoque provinciis ohservatur. This populace is

to have immunity, sicuti etiam sub domino et parente nostro Diocle-

tiano 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 by 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 311 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 II . The date

would thus be June i , 311. On the other hand, Gregoire, followed

by Moreau,^^ rejected Seeck's arguments and maintained that the

156 ROBERT M. GRANT

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, 11.

Melanges Holleaux (Paris, 1913), 81-91; cf. also Moreau, op. cit., 272.

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, 311, 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 may appeal to the study by 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. We therefore

propose that (i) the date should be read as Kal. lun., Constantino A.

II et Licinio II conss., thus altering only III to II , 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 II 2883^) is far more fragmentary.

Since it comes from Didyma and therefore is related to the oracle

encouraged and consulted by 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 cheq­

uered career: visited and honored by 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 consul­

t a t i o n . R e h m rejected the reconstruction but accepted the

THE RELIGION OF MAXIMIN DAIA 157

59 Wiegand-Rehm-Harder, op. cit., pp. 202-3. Hadrian: Didyma, no. 494; Julian: Ep. 88, 451B, p. 122, 17 Bidez-

Cumont. 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.

occasion.^^ Relying on what little is clearly legible, we venture to

compare Xp!,(7T(,avco<v> inauaoL [with TcsTiauo - O a i , in the Lycian-Pam-

phylian petition and dvsvscocjaTO with dvavsoucjOai. tcpocttocttcov in

Eusebius, H. E. V I I I 14, 9, very tentatively referring the in­

scription to Maximin's religious revival. We 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 high-

priestly family, one of whom had been honored by "Manos Daos,

solar courier of Zeus." Gregoire suggested that Manos Daos was

an invented national god analogous to Maximin Daia,^^ but it may

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 bene­

factors speak of their own descent from "priests and high priests

and Asiarchs of the temples at Ephesus" while indicating their

gratitude to "the deity of our master the Invictus Augustus lovius

Maximinus." * Because of Maximin's title as Augustus, the in­

scription 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

158 ROBERT M. GRANT

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 311 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 pro­

vinces (4, 1-2), but here too his chronology leaves much to be de­

sired. 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 "la 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 organi­

zation of this kind. In Egypt, just as there was a "prefect of Alexan­

dria 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, Comment. Human. Litt. (Helsinglors, 1932), 85 n. 22.

** 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.

6 9 OGI 56, 3-5 (238 B. C).

T H E RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D A I A I 5 9

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 Papyrolo-gists 4 (1967), 82.

7 3 OGI 540, 7; 541, 4. 7 4 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).

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 Egypt under Nero.'^

Such imperial high priests were not, of course, confined to Egypt .

Among the many examples we cite only two: the high priest of the

Augusti of the league of the Galatians and the high priest of

Cyprus of the god Augustus Caesar.'* But 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 pro­

vided Maximin with an oracle-producing statue of Zeus Philius, which

gave orders for the banishment of Christians (IX 3 ) . He also tells

how after his defeat the emperor "put to death many priests and

prophets of the gods . . . whose oracles had incited him to begin the

war" (IX 10, 6 ) . Finally, when Licinius came to Antioch he "tor­

tured 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 (IX 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<p'y]T7](; "of the

Lords Emperors Augusti and in charge of the temples in Heliou-

polis and Aphroditopolis." '^

What we find, then, in Maximin's religious activities is a resto­

ration or revival, not an innovation. It is difficult to prove that

either he or, later on, Julian imitated the organization of the

l 6 o ROBERT M. GRANT

' 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. Palanquc, Histoire du Bas-Empire I (1939), 89 {•==

German text, 137).

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 may 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 Maxi­

min's priesthoods; and Gregoire suggested that the official high

priestess Ispatale "delivered many from evil tortures" by her kind

treatment of Christians.^" This may be so; a parallel would be

provided by 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 Maxi­

min's administrative reforms in Egypt, "la 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

T H E RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D A I A l 6 l

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. 1 X 9 , 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 aTravxet; for it.

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 "edict"

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.^* And at a time when

communications between Italy and the East had not been inter­

rupted news of the apphcation of the policy surely reached Ma-

ximin.85 When he decided to strike at Licinius he must have

considered the problem of unity within the eastern empire. Even

though he was encouraged by oracles to begin his campaign (IX

10, 6) he cannot have considered it possible to continue the perse­

cution of Christians. We should therefore place the letter he wrote

to his praetorian prefect Sabinus fairly early in the year 313.

Eusebius may be right in placing it before his attack on Licinius.

March may be the best month.

Like the edict of Galerius and Maximin's reissue of it, the letter

to Sabinus (IX 9 a , 1-9) begins with a sketch of earlier history as

viewed by the emperor. Such sketches were obviously necessary

when emperors reversed earlier policies. In 303 and afterwards,

writes Maximin, "our masters Diocletian and Maximian [ = Ga­

lerius], 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 by public correction and pun­

ishment" (IX 9 a , i ) . What went wrong was that the provincial

governors carried out the orders too severely; Maximin himself

l62 ROBERT 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 be­

cause 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.

At 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

may 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), At the beginning of the letter, Maximin had styled himself

" lovius Maximinus Augustus"; the edict begins with more normal

imperial titles. Throughout the letter, Maximin had spoken of "the

worship of the gods"; 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 hap­

pened "last year" according to the letter was a wavering in policy;

the edict says only that "last year" there was a letter to the pro­

vincial governors insisting upon toleration, though this, of course,

was misinterpreted by 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

T H E RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D A I A 163

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, lo- 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).

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 inten­

tions. 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 may perceive our piety (suCTspsoa) and

solicitude {npovoia)." The meaning of "piety" in this sentence

is completely different from what it was to Maximin as the cham­

pion of pagan religion.

The basic purpose of the edict issued by Sabinus is clear: it

provides for complete religious toleration. It is basically an authen­

tic 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 Sar-

maticus.^^ The preliminary statements about constant concern for

the good of provincials are characteristic of all the imperial chan­

ceries. 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. We

suggest that here three slightly different translations of the same

Latin phrases have been conflated.^" The original text may 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.

164 ROBERT M. GRANT

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 " law" supposedly sent to Maximin by

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

by 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 year" after the rescript of May 312.^*

Maximin almost certainly died in A u g u s t . H i s religious revival

lay in ruins. At 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, and—to cite no other examples—a Syrian in­

scription of 320 reveals priests hard at work on building programs

for "the master Zeus, the unconquered Sun, the god Aumos"

(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 ) . As he entered upon his last

campaign against Licinius, "his soul was uplifted by the hopes

he placed in demons, whom he supposed to be gods" (IX 10, 2). In

addition, of course, he was deeply concerned with the revival of

"the worship of the gods," to which he incessantly referred in his

letter to Sabinus.

What 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. 9 4 IX 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).

T H E RELIGION OF MAXIMIN D A I A 165

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.

do the coins of either Licinius or Constantine. He had sacrifices

offered daily in his palace, says Lactantius but 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 by an oracle

of Zeus Philius (IX 3 ) . His rescript to the Tyrians includes a

brief homily on the greatness of Zeus (IX 7, 7 ) . And before en­

gaging 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 final­

ly reached Tarsus. Eusebius provides several accounts of his last

days, which we shall not analyze here. It is enough to say that in

one of them we hear that "he 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" (IX 10, 6 ) . Eusebius then quotes Ma­

ximin's final edict (not, apparently, observing its relation to the

letter to Sabinus), and describes his death as due to a blow struck

by 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 (IX 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.^^^ As Moreau

points out, these legends, parallel to accounts of the death of

Galerius, reflect classical ideas about the fates of enemies of God

l 6 6 ROBERT M. GRANT

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 sim-

If the emperor's ideas remained consistent, he may well have

supposed that he was dying because "the baneful error and vain

folly of those unhallowed men . . . was oppressing the whole world

everywhere with its shameful deeds" (IX 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., Philos.-hist. Kl., 1962, No. I .

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

STANLEY 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 my 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 aretalo-gies 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 manuscrip-torum 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 Neu-bauer, and Abu'l Path's text was abridged in the late Samaritan Chronicle Adler (in Hebrew).

168 S T A N L E Y ISSER

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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;

DOSITHEUS, J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y 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.

8. 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, Do­

sitheus was a messianic claimant, or, more accurately in terms of

170 S T A N L E Y ISSER

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.

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 God". The patristic sources added Dositheus to the

several messianic and prophetic pretenders mentioned by Josephus

and Acts; 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 by 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

DOSITHEUS, JESUS, AND A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y 171

* P. 327. 7 Pp. 234 ff. 8 P. 249. 9 Pp. 238 ff. 1 " P. 250. 1 1 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.

1 4 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.

century and later, when the Samaritans seem to have consolidated

their ideology and practices.^ In brief, Kippenberg sees four dis­

tinct early forms of eschatological figures: the restorer of the

Tabernacle, Joseph "the King" , 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 by 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 repre­

sents 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 by 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-

172 S T A N L E Y ISSER

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. 2 1 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.

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 escha-

tology 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 Dt. 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 Egypt

described by Josephus, and for D o s i t h e u s . I n reaction to the

adoption of the prophet theme by the Dositheans, the other Sa­

maritans 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, by the time of Marqah,

DOSITHEUS, J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y I 7 3

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.

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 by this identification.

Simon Magus, according to the patristic literature, openly claimed

divine quahties, but Dositheus' self-understanding remains as

cloudy as that of Jesus. Even 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.

We 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 con­

tinue.

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 may shed

some hght on Dositheus.

I . Miracles

It is implied by 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, "pow­

ers 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

174 S T A N L E Y ISSER

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.

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 Dt. 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 Yahweh or after foreign gods.

DOSITHEUS, 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 Do­

sitheus of practicing magic, unless the patronymic "ibn Fufily"

or "ben Falfuh" is a corruption of some form of the root ply, " to

perform miracles". This is, however unlikely. Otherwise, the only

thing that smacks of magic in the Samaritan material is the con­

version of Levi and his party following their immersion in the pool

designated by 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 "The Standing One" (Clementine Homilies 11,24, - ^c-

ognitions 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, "the staff of

God" {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 XIII .24

reads: " A prince will arise who will write the Law 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 Law in truth—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 S T A N L E Y ISSER

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.i i) , 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.

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,

DOSITHEUS, J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y 177

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.

it is noteworthy that their struggle may have been put into the

form of a contest of magic. Simon, with his talent, defeated Do­

sitheus and his staff.

2. Narrative Motifs

Moses began his adult career with the killing of the Egyptian

taskmaster and his subsequent flight from Egypt . 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 var­

iation of the Sinai ascent the authority with which Jesus spoke

the empty tomb. Of course, hke Moses, Jesus also performed mir­

acles. Similar paraUels can be seen in the Old Testament account

of another "prophet-figure" who became associated with eschatol­

ogy, Ehjah (and/or Ehsha): the flight from Ahab 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 deal­

ing with the Pentateuch, in which he made alterations of the

text ; 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 may have been connected

with the fact that his body was not discovered. Presumably the

178 S T A N L E Y ISSER

" m y t h s " which Origen says his followers told dealt with miracle-

working 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 by 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 by

the heavenly powers and his learning of divine secrets.*^ The 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 pre­

existent 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 YSKR (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.

DOSITHEUS, J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y 179

*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

(I. i ) . Moses is invested with the Divine Name and prophetic status

(ibid.). He is clothed with the Name; he dwelt in mysteries; he is

crowned with hght; he drank from seven fountains on high and

three below (H.ia) . The forces of the unseen world magnify him

(IV. 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 venge­

ance ( I V . 5 ) ; he dwelt among the angels (or beings?) in the unseen

sanctuary; he was crowned sevenfold in his fast (IV .6) . On Sinai

Moses pierced the veil, approached the darkness {arafel),^^ was told

by God, "Stand 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, Nebo; at the summit he enters the cloud and is met by 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,*^

l80 S T A N L E Y ISSER

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).

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 may well be,

however, that many 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. Further­

more, the text of Marqah seems to contain many secondary pas­

sages, some even showing Islamic influence.*^ But 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 Pseudo-

Tertullianic tradition and the Karaite and MusUm writers, give only a

brief account of Dosithean behefs, barely enough to place Dosi­

theus in their heresiological catalogues.*'' Origen is not dependent

on these sources, but his material offers little tangible on the career

DOSITHEUS, J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y l 8 l

of the historical Dositheus. The Clementine Homilies and Recog­

nitions 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 unsup­

ported by 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 infor­

mation 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, They 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

man", to Moses.*^ Bieler's contribution is concisely summed up

by 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. Betz 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 S T A N L E Y ISSER

* 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.

This question has been dealt with recently in an article significantly

entitled "Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men,

the Gospels and Jesus" by 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 "areta­

logies", as accounts of "divine men" were commonly called.

Hadas traced the genre to the rhetorical uses of history by

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 Septua-gint, 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 Greco-Roman 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

DOSITHEUS, JESUS, AND A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y 183

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.

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. We 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. What

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 re­

markable. 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 may 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 imax" of the narrative is clearly the

ascent on Sinai, At 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 haelo-

him, or "Man of God" [theios aner}), and moshia, or "Savior" .

" A n d the present first half of Mark would be understood as an

expansion and Judaizing reinterpretation of this primary areta­

logy." To Betz it also seemed clear that Mark reinterpreted the

divine man motif. He added that Matthew combined the motif

184 S T A N L E Y ISSER

*2 Ihid., pp. 124-127. * 3 Ihid., p. 130. 64 Smith, "Prolegomena. . .", p. 196.

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 Law and the Prophets

were succeeded, after John the Baptist, by the Kingdom of God;

John associated the divine man with the preexistent Logos, and

Paul (and Q) rejected completely the divine man christology.^^

We 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 by 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 by his followers. As the Gos­

pels 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 "no Jewish account prior to the time of Jesus

of any messianic figure which at all closely resembles him," He

argues that although Elijah and Elisha were miracle workers, they

were not messianic figures.®* But 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.

And 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. By the word of the Lord he shut up heaven; in the same way, he

brought down fire three times.

DOSITHEUS, J E S U S , A N D A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y 185

65 Goodspeed translation ' 6 Smith, "Prolegomena. . .", p. 180. " See Betz, p. 123; Teeple, pp. 45 ff. on midrashim dealing with Moses

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 by 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.^'

l 8 6 S T A N L E Y ISSER

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.

Since the Samaritans rejected the prophetic canon, we are not

surprised to find no Ehjah material among their writings. But 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 .pop­

ulation 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 man: 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 may 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 by 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

DOSITHEUS, JESUS, AND A MOSES A R E T A L O G Y 187

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.

"prophet hke Moses" theme, but also the narrative requirements

for the Moses (and Ehjah and Jesus) aretalogy: fhght from per­

secution, teaching authority, and death with no body found (im­

plying translation to heaven?). We have also discussed possible

references to his wonder-working power. All our sources on Dosi­

theus 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 "Panthera"

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 per­

formed miracles through it. It was taken from him by 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 (TB 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 King 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

l 8 8 S T A N L E Y ISSER

Samaritan, and an immoral Jew at that—so the Samaritan chroni­

cles. Epiphanius saw his departure from Judea as the result of his

frustration at not being recognized as a first-rate scholar; Abu'l

Fath 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 by starving himself in a cave, and his body was

devoured by 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 by tyranny, taught as a

prophet like Moses, He performed miracles and refuted the Samari­

tan scholars (like the sage Yahdu 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.

What 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. But 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

DOSITHEUS, 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 previously-

established pattern, or invented facts to fit the pattern. They

provide no certain evidence with which to reconstruct history.

A 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 M O R T O N SMITH

T O D E C E M B E R 31, 1973

A. THOMAS KRAABEL

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 by Jacob Neusner. Both of us concern ourselves

with ancient religions, I from the Greco-Roman side, he within

the context of Jewish Studies. But 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. Good-

enough, 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 "Greco-

Roman" halves. As they contest this too neat dichotomy. Smith

and Goodenough attract supporters and " fans" from a diversity

of disciplines; they also have detractors, at least some of whom are

discomforted by this wider ranging scholarship and perhaps un­

consciously would prefer to retain the earlier, more tidy but essen­

tially 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 may

B I B L I O G R A P H Y OF T H E WRITINGS 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.

ABBREVIATIONS AHR American Historical Review-AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJP American Journal of Philology AmClasRev American Classical Review ATR Anglican Theological Review BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CNI Christian News from Israel CW Classical World G[R]BS Greek[, Roman] and Byzantine Studies GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological Review HR History of Religions HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBR Journal of Bible and Religion JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies J PC Journal of Pastoral Care JRT Journal of Religious Thought NTS New Testament Studies RIL Religion in Life

1945

Notes on Goodspeed's Problems of New Testament Translation,

J B L 64, 501-514-

1948

Maqbilot ben habbesorot lesiprut hattanna'im, Jerusalem (Ph.D.

dissertation, Hebrew University).

1949

Psychiatric Practice and Christian Dogma, JPC 3, 12-20.

1951

Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (JBL Monograph Series, VI) , pp.

xii + 215. (a revision and translation of the 1948 Ph.D. disser­

tation) .

192 A . THOMAS K R A A B E L

The So-Called "Biography of David" 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 li­

braries (deposited in the Brown University Library, Provi­

dence) .

The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East, J B L 71, 135-147.

Mt. 5 :43: "Hate Thine Enemy", H T R 45, 71-73.

1953

Minor Collections of Manuscripts in Greece, J B L 72, xii ( = Pro­

ceedings 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 11 , 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,

IV (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.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y OF T H E WRITINGS OF MORTON SMITH I 9 3

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 Heils-

geschichte, 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-VI (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 : Private­

ly published, pp. i -|- 10.

An Unpublished Life of St. Isodore of Pelusium, edited from Man­

uscripts 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,

304-313-

The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena

HUCA 29, 273-313.

Hebrew—Why 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, GBS 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.

What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures ?, J B L 78, 66-

72.

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, GBS 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 29,161.

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): CW 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-?>79-

rev. L. M. Positano, D. Holwerda and W. J. W. Roster (edd.), Jo.

Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem, Pars IV, Fasc. I (i960):

CW 54, 158; Fasc. II (i960): CW 54, 189.

rev. G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Tal­

mudic 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.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y OF T H E WRITINGS OF MORTON SMITH I 9 5

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, 139-

rev. E. Nash. A Pictorial History of Ancient Rome, I (1961): CW

55. 144-

rev. 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, JAOS 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,

i4i f .

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 57,378-

1965

Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity [in collaboration

with Moses Hadas]. Religious Perspectives, X I I I . New York:

Harper and Row, pp. xiv + 266.

196 A. THOMAS K R A A B E L

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,

735-749-Memorial 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): CW 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,

40-43-rev. 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, i2if .

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 WRITINGS 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, 169-

179.

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-egyp-

tiennes (1964): A J A 71 , 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., 315-

326.

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 Chris­

tianity 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) :AHR

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 K R A A B E L

1970

Classification of Parallels, Report of the Corpus Hellenisticum Collo­

quium, (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]): CBQ 32, i i5f .

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): CW 6 4 , 25.

rev. E. des Places, La religion grecque (1969): CW 64, 88f.

1971

Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New

York, Columbia University Press (Lectures on the History of

Religions, sponsored by the A.C.L.S., New Series, IX) , pp.

viii -f- 348. (an extensively revised version of the 1957 Th.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 Gos­

pels 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 Sara-

piacae (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 OF T H E WRITINGS OF MORTON SMITH I 9 9

man], J. A. Garraty and P. Gay (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 Pseud-

epigrapha 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).

2 0 0 A. THOMAS K R A A B E L

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 ] i i4f .)

rev. G. Bussmann, Themen der paulinischen Missionspredigt auf

dem Hintergrund der- spatjiidisch-hellenistischen Missions-

literatur (1971): CBQ 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 i5 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. We vers and D. Redford (edd.). Studies on the Ancient Palesti­

nian World, Presented to Professor F. V. Winnett (1972): A H R

78, 4iof,

I N D E X T O 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

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

BIBLE

cts 5:12 I 188 I I I 186 5 :3i I 194 I 2-13 I 190 5:34ff I 197 I 3 I 190 6:x I 218, 289 I 5 I 192 6:3 I 192 I 6-11 I 190 6:S I 188 I 8 I 188, 192, 196, 199 6:8 I 192 I II I 193 6:15 I 192 I 12 I 199 7 I 112, 216 I 13 I 188 7 :2-6o II 129 I 14 I 190 7:8 I 195 I 15 I 218 7:9 I 195 I 15-26 I 222 7:13 I 195 I 17-19 I 222 7:14 I 195 I 2lf I 188 7:16 I 195 2-8 I 196 7:18 I 195 2 I f f I 223 7:37 I 194 2:2-4 1 192 7:40 I 192 2:6 I 192 7:48-50 I 202 2 I 2 f I 192 7:55 I 192 2 15 I 223 7:56 I 191, 193 2:17 I 193 8 I 188, 268 2 :22 I 189 8:1 I 218 2:33 I 192 8:2 I 196, 219 2:24-32 I 190 8:4 I 219 3 I I 218 8:5-25 I 188 2:42 I 200 8:8 I 195 2 -.46 I 200 8:14-25 I 188 3 I 197, 212, 216 8:20 I 192 3 1-26 I 190 8:32 I 194 3:9f I 197 9:20 I 193 3:11 I 188 9 :22 I 193 3:i3f I 189 9:25 I 193 3 14 I 200 9:31 I 199 3 16 I 189 10 :io-i6 I 201 3 19-22 IV 185 10 :i4 I 201 3 :22 I 194 10:24f I 202 4 I 212 10:34-4iff I 190 4:5-17 I 197 10:36 I 194 4:6 I 189 10:37 I 199 4 12 I 61 10:38 I 189 4 13 I 196 io:4of I 190, 200 4 i6f I 197 10:41 I 189 5 I I 218 10:42 I 193

)2 INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES

10:45 I 195 26:23 I 193 I I :2 I 195, 268 27 :33-38 I 200 I I :5-io 201 28 II 133 11:14 197 28:2 I 197 12:3 202 28:27 I 189 12:2o 195 13 215 Baruch 13:1-14 219 I I , 4 II 147 13 :22 I 220, 223 4 15 III 183 13 :23 194 9 14 III 183 13 •25 186 13:4 III 183 13 :26 194 13:28 219 I Chronicles 13 :3o£ 190 16:22 I 86

13 ••31 I 190, 199 13:32 I 190, 193 II Chronicles 13:34 190 8:11 III 78 13:48 194 14 II 133 Colossians 14:11 192 I 2-9 I 234, 249, 252, 256 15 I 56 I 7 I 258 15:1 268 I 9 I 230, 232, 296 15 :5 295 I 9-12 I 232 15:6 219 I 12 I 230 15:23-27 II 107 I 12-14 I 232, 259-60 15:29 201 I 13 I 231, 259-60 15 :3S-2i 219 I 13-14 I 227, 230-33, 259 i6:i4£ 197 I 14 I 227, 231-32, 239, 258-59 16:31 197 I 14-15 I 258 I7:2f 193 I 15 I 227-29, 231-35, 237-39, 242-17:5-8 198 43, 248, 256, 258 17:7 198 I 15-16 I 233, 237-39 17:27 199 I 15-17 I 227, 242-44, 248, 255 17:31 190 I 15-20 I 226-63 18:5 193 I 16 I 227-29, 231, 233-34, 236-41, 18:15 18:18

198

193

247-16-17

48, 257-59, 269 I 233, 238-40

19:19 268 I 17 I 227-29, 231, 233-34, 236-39, 19:26 192 244, 248, 258-59 20:6 202 I :i7-i8 I 228, 236 20:7-11 200 I 18 I 227-29, 231, 22,3-3S, 237-39, 20 :i9 202 241-45, 247-48, 251, 256 20:29 I 192, 268 I 18-20 I 227, 233, 237, 248

20:3s 191 I 19 I 229, 231, 233-3S, 237-38, 20:38 194 240, 248, 252 21:8 188 I 19-20 I 227, 238-39, 242 21 :25 201 I :20 I 227, 229, 231, 233-35, 237-21 :27 I 195, 268 I :2i I 259 22:6-11 193 I 21-22 I 257 23 :2-5 198 I 21-23 I 232 23:11 192 I -.22 I 249, 256 26:13 193 I :24 I 244, 249, 254 26:18 193 2:2ff I 296

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 203

2:3 I 269 7:1 I 16 2:4-23 I 231 7:23 I 279 2:8 I 265, 267, 278, 294, 296; II 102 8:if I 264, 274 2:9-15 I 260 8:5 I 241, 249 2:10 I 251 8:6 I 255 2:11 II 103 8:10 I 272 2 -.11-21 I 271 10:17 I 251 2 :i2f I 281 12:12-27 I 251 2:13-15 I 245 12:13 II 18 2:14-15 I 251 14:37 I 282 2:16 1238, 278, 282, 296: II 102 15 I 268, 270 2:18 I 266-67, 269, 296 15 :i2 I 266-67, 274, 280 2:18-19 I 252 15:20 I 256 2:20 I 238, 294 15:20-3 I 249 2:23 I 296 16 :22 I 264 3:1 I 281 3:9f I 281 II Corinthians 3 :9-io I-260 I :g I 286 3:11 II 18 I :i2 I 286 3:19 I 238 2:4 I 293 4:11 I 297 2:12 I 293 4:18 I 238 2:17 I 268, 286, 290 5:20 I 238 3:1 I 286, 291

4:2 I 290-91 Corinthians 4:3 I 286, 294 I :2 I 269 4:6 I 287 1:6 I 282 4:7 I 287 I:ioff I 159 4:9 I 294 I :ii I 16, 281 4:10 I 287 I :i2 I 270-71, 274, 277, 279 4:15 I 286 I :i7 I 274 4:i8f I 287 I :i8 I 279 5:1 I 251 1:23£ I 54-55 5:2 I 287 2:5 I 281 5:11 I 279, 298 2:18 I 281, 296 5:12 I 286 3:3 I 281 5:12-16 I 279, 286 3:12-13 I 240 5:18-21 I 257 3:i6f I 280 5:19 I 258 3:18 I 279 5:21 I 258 3:20 I 296 6:14 I 287 3:2i-23 I 240 6:14-7:1 I 279, 286 4:6ff I 280 7:1 I 279, 286-87 4:8 I 274, 296 8:23 I 288 4:8-20 I 282 9:3 I 286 4 :io I 296 10 I 286 4:18 I 274, 296 10-12 I 279, 286

5:11 I 281 10-13 I 271, 285-86 6 I 264, 268, 296 10:2 I 286 6:1 I 281 10:5 I 268, 288 6:9 I 280, 28 10:7 I 270, 279, 287, 291 6:12-20 I 251, 281 10:11 I 274 6:14-22 I 281 10:18 I 286, 291 6:20 I 280 I I :3 I 271, 279, 288, 291-92

204 I N D E X 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 I 264, 279-80, 28s, 293, 297 I I :5 I 271, 286 11 :6 I 268, 279 I I 7 I 286 I I :i3 I 270-71, 285, 291 I I :i5 I 287, 292 I I :i8 I 286, 293, 297 I I :20 I 293, II 113 I I :22 I 27, 291 I I :23 I 285 11 :55 I 271 12:1 I 287 12:11 I 272, 279, 286-87 12:16 I 286 i2:2o£ I 287 12 :2i I 287 14:29 I 286 14 :36 I 287 14:37 I 286

Daniel 5:9f II 92 6:i5f II 92 7:i3f II 92 7:27 II 92 I I :i5 II 92 I I :i7 II 92 I I :20 III 119

12:10 II 92 9 : i f II 92 20:6 II 92 22:5 II 92

Deuteronomy 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

18:18-22 25:19 29:9

IV 174 1326 1326

Ecclesiastes 9:7 IV 84 25 -.2 I 162

Enoch 6-8 HI 55 8:1 II 163 19:1 II 163 25:5 II 176

Ephesians I :io I 257,259 I :i9 I 249 I :22 I 244, 249, 251 I :23 I 253 2:13 I 249 2:13-17 I 258 2:15 I 249 2:16 I 249 3:15 I 249, 259 3:i8f I 269 4:5 II 211 4:13 I 269 4:15s I 252 5 :3-6 1-265 5:18-20 II 141 5:23 I 244, 249, 251 5:29 I 244, 249 6 :i2 I 290

II Esdras 3-14 III 182

Esther 4:11 IV 82 4:14 IV 83 4:16 IV 83 4:17 IV 83

Exodus 2:14 I II2-II3, 118, 121, 147

4:13 i n 31 4:14 III 29-31 4:27 III 30-31 8:15 II 46 12:44 III 210 13:2 IV 24 19-20 1328

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 2 0 5

20:21 I 87, IV 174 5:11 I 282 22:29-20 IV 24 5:12 I 293 24 IV 178 5:13 I 269, 273, 278, 293 33-34 IV 178 5:15 I 265, 281 33 -21 IV 178-79 S:i9f I 269 34:5 IV 178 5:21 I 281 34:6 IV 82 5 ••25 I 282 34:19-20 IV 24 6:12 I 282, 293 34:28 IV 178 6:13 I 281

Ezekiel Genesis I :2i 1 8 7 I :ii III 63 6:S 1328 I :26s I 255 17:13 1 8 5 I :28 I 51 40-48 1328 2:9 I 288 43 -4 1328 3 -2 II 174 43 :6-7 1328 3:14 I SI

43 -Q 1328 3:23 II 174, 179-80 3:24 II 174-76, 178-80; IV 77, 80

4 Ezra 4:i7ff III 62 2:47 III 184 5:29 III 62 2:47

6:1-4 III 55 5 Ezra 6:3 III 34

1-2 III 184 6:6 HI 34 6:17 HI 28, 34

Galatians 9:20-29 HI 55-71

:6 :6-8

:ii£ :i6£ :i8

2 2:2 2:9 2:12 2:2o 3:2 3:16 3:19 3:23-25 3:26-28 3:28 3:28-29 4 4:6-11 4:9 4:10 4:17 4:24-26 4:29 5:2 5:4

I 293 I 264, 279-80, 293

I 293 II 48 II 48 I 290 I 293 I 290 I 271 I 294

I 281-82 I 279 I 192 I 266 II SO

I 240 II 18, 211

II 50 II 50

II 102 I 267, 269, 278, 282, II 102

I 293 I 293 I 327 I 282

I 267, 282, 293 I 282, 293

9:22 9:23 9:24 I I :2 14:18 14:22 15:18 16 17:10-13 17 :i2 22 23 :11 28:12 28:17 32 32:25-32 33:19 34:2 44:18 46:34

Habakkuk

1:5 2 :i9

Hebrews I -.2

III 65 III 63

III, 63, 67 III 60 I 324

III 20 I 327

II 162

I 195 III 210 HI 77 III 20

III 164 I 327

III 77, 161 III 161

I 195 III 67 I 222

III 78

II 34 IV 71

I 31S-16

2o6 I N D E X 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 :3 I 316, 322 9:10-23 I 315 I :5 I 314 9:11 I 316 1:5-2:18 I 312 9:11-12 I 322 I :6 I 314 9:15 I 315-16 I :7 I 314 9:24-28 I 315 I :8 I 314 9:25-26 I 323 1 :i3 I 314, 322, 324 9:26 I 315 I :i4 I 314 9:28 I 31S 2:1-4 I 314 10:1-39 I 312 2 :2 I 314 10 -.2 I 315 2:3 I 310 10:12 I 322 2:3-4 I 314 10:16 I 318 2:6 I 319-20 10:19 I 315-16 2:7-9 I 324 10:2i I 315 2 :io I 322-23 10 -.22 I 316 2:16 I 192 10:23 I 315-16 2:17 I 316 10:36 I 316 3:1 I 322-23, 327 ir :i-i2:i3 I 312 3:1-2 I 316 II :3 I 316 3:1-4:16 I 312 II :9 I 316 3:1-5:10 I 312 II :jo I 328 3:6 I 316 11:13 I 316, 327 3:13 I 315 II :i6 I 327-28 3:14 I 316 II :i7 I 316 4:1 I 315-16 II :i9 I 327 4:1-9 I 326 II :24-25 I 322 4:2 I 326 11:30 I 316 4:7 I 318 12 I 302, 306 4:14 I 313, 315-16, 322 12:2 I 322 4:14-15 I 316 12:3-13 I 312 4:15 I 322 12:14-13 :2i I 312 4:16 I 313, 316 12:18-2 I 328 5:1-10 I 312 12:22 I 309, 327-2% 5:8 I 322 12 :22-23 I 329 5:10 I 322 12 :26 I 315 5:11-6 :20 I 312 12:28 I 303 5:11-10:39 I 312 13 I 302, 304, 306 6:4 I 315, 327 13:22-25 I 312 6:10 I 309 6:10-20 I 322 Hosea 6:ii-i2 I 316 6:12 I 315 12:4-5 III 164 6:15 I 316 12:5 III 161

6:17 I 315-16 Isaiah 6 :i9 I 309 6 :io I 189-90 6:I9-20 I 316 II I 102 6:20 I 316 22:23 IV 85 7:1-28 I 312 32:14 I 88 7:11 I 314 42:43 I 83 7:15 I 314 42:1 I 104 7:17 I 314 42:3 I 80 7:21 I 315 42 :6 I 193 7:24 I 315 42:7 I 80-82

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 207

7:26 7:26-27 7:28 8:1 8:6 8:10 8:1-9 8:28 9:7 42:18 42:22 43:8 43:18 44:21 44:22 44:28 49:6

52:7 53:7 56-66 57:18 58:6 60:22 61:1 I 61 :i-3 I 75, 61 :i-6 61 :i-ii 61 :2 61:3 61:12a 61 :22 61:23-27 61 :29 65:17 66:2 66:16

James 2:20

Jeremiah I I

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

Joel

3:1

John I :3

I 316 I 322

I 315 I 316, 322

I 316 I 318 I 312 I 312

I 315 I 82 I 82 I 82

IV 83 IV 85 IV 85 I 220

I 193 I 90, 97

I 194 I 80

I 258 I 93, 97, 102

I 88 81, 83-85, 87-91, 97, 104 79-80, 87-91, 93, 97, loi

I 326 I 80

I 83, 86, 90-91, 97-98 I 83-84, 86-87

I 92 I 93 I 93 I 93

IV 83 I 87, IV 84

IV 80, 88

I 149

I 93 HI 83 III 82 III 83 I 318

HI 74 IV 86

I 193

I 189, 191

I :5 I 191 I :7 I 189 I :io I 189 I :ii I 194 I :i4 I 194 i:i6f I 194 I :2o I 186 I :2i I 194, 199 1:25 I 199 I :27 I 186 1:29 I 194 I :3i I 181 I:34-43ff I 188 1:36 I 194 1:47 I 181 I :49 I 181 1:51 I 191 2:6 I 181 2:i3ff I 196 2:23 I 196 2:23 I 183 3:2 I 189 3:3 I 191 3:5 I 191 3:8 I 192-92 3:10 I 281 3 : i i f I 192 3:12 I 281 3:3 I 191 3:15 I 281

3:17 I 135-36, 189 3:19 I 281 3:21 I 281 3 :22ff I 196 3:28 I 186

4 I 192 4:5 I 195 4:9 I 181 4 :io I 192 4:20-22 I 181 4:2iff I 202

4:25 I 178, 193, IV 168 4:29 I 193 4:31-38 I 178 4:32 I 194 4:35-38 I 188 4:44 I 98 4:46 I 195 4:49 I 195 4:53 I 197 5 I 184 5:1 I 192 5:12-14 I 281

208 I N D E X T O BIBLICAL A N D T A L M U D I C R E F E R E N C E S

5:22 136 12 :34 I 193 5:25 281 12 :40 I 189 5:27 193 12:42 I 183

281 12:43 I 192 5:36b 135 12:47 I 136 6 I 181 13 :2-3off I 200 6:14 194 13:27 IV 168

6:35 I 67 13:33 I 35 6:39f 190 13 •37 I 189

6:44 190 13 •47 I 193 6:54 190 13 •52 I 191 6:62 191 14 •3 I 193 7:1 182 14 •.ig, 22 I 190 7:15 196 14 -.22 I 188, 191 7 :22£ 195 15 :26f I 192 7:26 193 15 •.27 I 188

7:31 172 16 •7 I 192 7:34 I 35 16 :i4 I 192 7:3Sf I 135 196 16 :2if I 202

7:39 192 16 :33 I 192 7:40 194 17 :i8 I 135 7 :40-52 181 18 :i3 I 189 7:41 193 18 :i7 I 189 7:5o£ 197 18 :i8 I 197 7:52 181 18 : 19-24 I 189 7:53-8:11 201 18 :22f I 197 8:12 191 18 :24 I 189 8:15 I 136 191 18 :25 I 150 8:16 136 18 :25-27 I 189 8:30 183 18 :28-i9:i5 I 198

8:31-59 183 18 :3i I 198 8:48 181 18 :36 II 92 Q I 184, 197 18 :39f I 200 9:6 191 19 :i2 I 198 9:8 I 191, 197 19 :iS I 198 9:16 189 19 :i8 I 200 9:35-37 193 19 20 I 195 9:39 193 19 •.27 I 190 10:12 I 192 202 20 :i7 I 190 10 :i6 159 20 :i9-2i I 190 10:34f 192 20 :23 I 191

10:37 135 20 :25 I 191

10:53 188 20 •3o£ I 32 II :4 192 20 :3i I 193 II :7 182 21 :ii-22 I 189 11 :40 192 21 :22£ I 193

11 :45-54 183 28 :23 I 191 II :46-5i 197 28 •25 I 191 II:47f 197 28 :3i I 191

II :54 182 12:2-8 200 I John 12 :ii 183 2:18 I 265, 280 12 :20 196 2:22 II IIS

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 209

3:8 4:2f 4:3

II John 7

III John 2

Joshua I :8

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

Jude 16

I Kings I :40

13:14

II Kings 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

II 115 II 115 I 280

II 115

II ns

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

I 268

III 9 I 220

III 81 I 88 I 85

IV 3 IV 80, 88

IV 9 IV 9

III 214 III 247 III 212

III 212, 213 II 56

IV 18 IV 3

IV 18 I 91, 97 I 81, 97

I 90 IV 24

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

I 186,

I 208-09 212 188 322 199 322 194

143 194

I 98 193 154 189 186 199 188 188 104 188 191 198

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

2 I O INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES

9:57 I 145 14:41 I 324 10:2i£ II 17 10:22 I 154 II Maccabees I I :i9f I 290 2:16-17 III 118 I I :20 II 46 2 :2i III 118 I I : 37-52 II 16 3 III 112

I I :4s I 145 3:1 III 112 II:47-5i 3:1-3 III 121 12-18 I 48-49 3:11 III 92, 100, 106, 112 I 2 : 8 f I 191 4:7-17 III 105 12:32 II 19 4:8-9 III 105 12:33 II 20 4:24 III 105 12:51 I 118 4:26 III 92 12:53 I 118 4:34 III 105 I3 : i 2 f I 153 4:45 III 105 I3:23f I 61 5:7 III 92 14:16-24 I 41 5:18 III lOI 14:26 II 14 6:i2-i6 III 105 15 ••4-7 I 41 13:3-8 III 105 15:11-32 II 19 14:37-46 III 241 16:19-31 II 17 18:15 I 49 Malachi 18:19 I 115 2:7 I 323 18:33 I 200 3:1 I 88, 323 19:9 I 197 3 :22-24 IV 184 9:12-27 I 41 3:23 I 323 19:39 I 145 19:42 I 189 Mark 20:28 I 145 I :i I 29 20:36 I 226 I :7 I 186 20:39 I 145 I :8 I 199 21:7 I 145 I :io I 63 21 :8 I 202 I :ii I 63 22:57 I 189 I :14-20 I 188 22:58 I 150 1:14-9:50 I 198 22:60 I 150 1:26 I 62 23:19 I 200 2:i£f I 57 23:32 I 200 2 :i-i2 I 56 23 :44f I 200 2:3f£ II 167 23:45 I 200 2:5 I 57, 149 24 I 189-90 2:7 I 53, 57, 201 24:7 I 200 2 :32f£ I 198 24:26f I 190, 200 3:8 I 189 24:32 I 200 3 : i i f I 64 24:51b I 190 3:22 I 57, II 14 25 IV 168 3:23f£ I 63

3 :28-29 I S3 Maccabees 3:29 I 63, 72 I : 11-64 III 105 3:31 II 14 8:23££ III 147 3:34 II 15 8:23-32 III 144-45 3:35 I 61 I I III I I I 4:ii£ I 64 13:43 I 324 4:12 I 190

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 2 1 1

4:38 I 145 10 :28-3i I 59 4:4of I 64-65 10:31 I 59 5:iff I 57 10:32 I 65 5 7 I 63 io:32££ I 65 5:13 I 62 10:42 I 61 5:31 I 145 10:43f II 18 6:i£f I 63 I I II 16 6:1-6 I 54, 56, II 14 II:12-25 I 60 6:3 I 54-55, 57, 70-71, 190, 198 I I :i4 I 64 6:5 I 54, 56 I I :2i I 61 6:6 I 54-55, 70, 198 12 II 16 6 :6b-13 I 54 12:1-9 II 17 6:7 I 56 12:9 I 61 6 :i4 I 189 12 :i9 I 145 6:30 I 54 i2:3ib-34 I 201 6:50 I 65 13:1 I 145 7:1-23 I 201 13:4 I 189 7:15 II 46 13:5 I 61, 202 7:19 I 201 13:6 I 202 7 :22 I 53 13:9 I 61, 65. II 15 7:28f I 201 13:13 I 61 8 I 26 13:20 I 6i 8:ii£ I 189 13:22 I 61, 189 8:14-21 I 67 13:27 I 61 8:29 I 64, 69 13:28 I 202

8:31 I 57, 65, II 21 13:33 I 61 8:32 I 192 14:1-11 I 68 8:33 I 69 14 :iof I 66

8:35 I 70 14:21 I 60, 65-66, 68, II 21 8:36 I 59 14 :27£ I 70-71, 190 8:38 I 61, 69-70, 72 14:28 I 72 8:38-9:1 I 59 14:30 I 72 8:49 I 145 14:37 I 61, 71 9:2£f I 64 14:38 I 61, 71 9:2-9 I 199 14:50 I 6s, 70-71 9:5 I 71, 145 14 :53b I 63 9:6 I 64-65 14:54 I 68, 71 9:9 I 64 14 :S5-65 I 58-59, 68 9:ii£ IV i8s 14:62 I S8, 64 9:12 I 199 I4:63f I 63 9 :2o I 62 14:64 I 53-54, 56-57, 60 9:26 I 62 14:66-72 I 68 9:30ff I 65 14:71 I 69-72, 150, 189 9:32 I 65 14:72 I 72

9:33 I 71 15:7 I 69, 200 9:38 I 145 • i5:io£ I 61 10 :2-l2 I 201 15:i6-20 I 52 10:17 I 151 15:27 I 200 10:18 I 115 15:29 I S3 10:21 I 61 15 -33 I 200 10:23-27 II 17 15:58 I 200 10:23 I 145 15:62 I S8 10:28-30 n IS 16:1-8 I 189

2 1 2 I N D E X T O BIBLICAL A N D T A L M U D I C R E F E R E N C E S

i6:6f I 190 22 :i-io I 41 16:7 I 65, 68-69, 72 22 :24 I 145 16:8 1 64-65 23 II 129 i8:i3f I 71 23 •1-39 I 45 18:18 I 145 23 :8-ii II 18 20:21 I 145 23 :29-3i II 129 20:28 I 145 23 :34-36 II 129 22 :ii I 145 24 :iff II 171 27:51 I 200 24 •4 I 202, IV 168

24 •4-25 :46 I 45 Matthew 24 :5 I 202

2 :2 I 180 24 :24 I 202

3:1 I 199 25 :14-30 I 41 3:11 T 186 26 : 72-74 I 150 4:12-18:35 I 198 26 :74 I 189 4:12-22 I 188 27 :3-io I 222 5:1-7:29 I 45 27 •9 I 190

5:3 I 191 27 •29-31 II 169

5:3-5 I 89 27 :38 I 200

5 :? I 281 27 :42 I 189 5:17-20 II 129 27 :45 I 2 0 0

5:2i-45 II 129 27 :5i-54 I 200

6:25-34 II 19 28 I 189 6:40 I 145 28 :9-2o I 190 8:19 I 145 Micah 9:2 I 149 1 0 : 5 I 188 198 7: 8 IV 83

10:5-42 I 45 8:14 IV 86 10:7 I 191 Nehemiah 1 0 :i2 I 191 III 10 10:13 I 189 2 :2 III 10

10 :25 II 14 10 :29f II 19 Numbers

I 326 11 :i4 I 199 10 •33 I 326 I I :22 II 15 12 •3 I 87 I I :24 II 15 14 •23 I 325 I I :27 I 154 14 •29-30 I 325 12:50 I 198 16 •13 III 165 13:3-50 I 45 17 .18 III 18 I3:i4f I 190 18 III 28-29 13:55 I 190 18 :8 III 28 13:56 I 198 18 :i5-i8 IV 24 15:10-20 I 201 18 18 III 20 15:32 I 189 18 21 III 24-25 16 :g I 26 25 12 I 88 i6:i3ff I 145 27 8 III 211 17:1-8 I 199 17 :io-i2 I 199 I Peter 18 II 18 2:t ) - I 0 II 117 18:1-35 I 45 2:9 II 211 18:i2-i4 I 41 3:15 II 117 19:16 I 153 4:14 II 116 20 :i-i6 II 19 5:1 II 117

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 213

5:13 II 116, 147 112 III 28 122:1-7 I 328

II Peter 139:11 IV 48 3:3f II 119 139:16 IV 83-85

Philippians Revelation I :21s I 251 1:5 II 92 2:10 I 242 I :6 II 92 3 I 280, 291 1:8 II 92 3:if I 277 I :i6 II107 3:2 1 271, 274, 281, 291 2:6 I 274 3:3 I 291 2:9 I 195 3:5 290-91 2:i4f I 274 3 :io I 281 2:15 I 274, II 107 3:12-19 I 274 2:24 I 274 3:12-21 I 281 2:26-28 II 92 3 ••17-20 I 274 3:9 I 195, II I I I 3:i8f I 265, 271, 297 3:13 II 144 3:19 I 291-92, 297 3:14-22 II 108

4:4^ II 99 Proverbs 6:2 II 93

2:7 I 316 6:6 II 93 3:18 IV 78, 81 7:9f II 99 8:22 I 255 9:3, 14 II 93

I I II 107 Psalms I I :3-i3 II 147

2 I 320 I I :8 II 108 2:7 I 104, 158 12:6 II 108 5:4 IV 84 13:3 II 93 7 ••8-9 1 9 1 13:12 II 93 8 I 319-20, III 34 14:8 II 147 19 III 28 14:8-12 II 93 37 II 33 16 .2 II 93 37:11 I 89 16 :i2 II 93 37 :23-24 II 33 16 :i9 II 93, 147 42:4 I 328 17:5, 6 II 147 45 I 321 17:18 II 93 45 :4-5 I 321 18:11-13 II 93 45 :6 I 321 19:9 II 133 45 :8 I 321 19:16 II 92 51 :r4 I 87 68:35 I 328 Romans 69:13 IV 59 I :i6 I 329 82:1-2 I 91 2 I 281 82:6 I 192 2:1-3 I 149 84:1-7 I 328 3:3 I 54 88-89:2i I 220 3:25 I 249 94:1 IV 87 5:9 I 249 95:11 I 32s 5:10 I 258 105:15 I 86 5:io-ii I 257 no I 307, 315, 320, 322, 324-25 6:1-23 I 274 110:1 I 321 6:11 I 281 110:4 I 103 6:13 I 281

214 INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES

6:14 II 49 3:8 II 113 7:1 II 49 3:16 I 280 7:4 II 49 4:1 I 269, 276 7:6 II 49 4:1-3 I 280, 297, II 141 8:9 I 282 4:3 I 264, 267, 276, 297, II 113 8:29 I 249 4:7 I 297 9:20 I 149 4:8 II 113 9:33 I 54 4:14 II 114 10:4 II 49, 129 5:23 II 113 I I :2o I 54 6:4 I 297 I I :36 I 255 6:i5f I 280 12:4-5 I 251 6:20 I 17, 265-66, 268, 280 14:1-15:6 I 274 14:14 I 201 II Timothy 15:16 II 126 i: i5f I 297 16:17-19 I 274, 292 2:3 I 267 16:17-20 I 271 2:8 I 280 16:18 I 268 2:14 I 297 16:22 I 253 2:14-18 I 268

2:16 I 265 I Samuel 2:17 I 266, 297

13:14 I 220, 222 2:18 I 274, 276, 280 2:23 I 297

II Samuel 3:1 I 280 I :i4-i6 I 86 3:2-7 I 274 7:6-16 I 222 3:5 I 280 7:14 I 321 3:6 I 276

3:7f II 113 I Thessalonians 3:13 I 276, 297

1:6 I 62 4:10 I 280, 297 2:5 I 268

Titus II Thessalonians 1:5-7 II 114

1:2 I 251, 253 i:9f I 292 1:8 I 61 I :io I 297, II 113 2 I 269 I :ii I 268, 297 2:7 I 264 1:14 I 264, 267, 280, 297, II 113

1:15 I 276, 280 I Timothy 1:16 I 276

i:3f I 265, 280, 297 2:11-14 II 114 1:4 I 267, 276, 297 3:1 I 280 1:4-7 I 268 3:5-7 II 113 1:4-8 II 113 3:9£ I 268, 297 1:6 I 280 1:7 I 267, 297 Zechariah 1:8-11 I 280 I :i2 III 82-83 1:17 I 276 I :i5 IV 86 2:if I 280 4:10 IV 86 2:4 I 280 7:5 III 82 2:7 I 280 14:1 IV 86 2 :i2 II 113 14:2 IV 86 3:1 II 114 14:3 IV 86 3:3 II 113 14:9-11 I 328

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES

JOSEPHUS Antiquities 14:196-198 III 134, 137

I :io8 HI 59 14:199 III 134, 137 I :iio III 60 14 :200-20I III 135, 137 1:117 III 60 14 :202-2I0 III 135, 138 I :ii9 HI 59 14:211-212 III 135 12 III i 35, 91, I I I , 120 14:213-216 III 135, 138 12 -.2-163 HI 109 14:213-246 III 134 12:2-1-15, 11-118 HI 95 14:219-222 III 135, 139, 144 12:4-1-154 HI 86, 93 14:225-227 in 135 12:4-1-155 III 86 14:288-230 III 135, 139 12:4-1-156 III 86, 93 14:231-232 III 135 12:4-1-158 III 87, 106, 108-109, 14:233 III 135, 139, 146-47

158-159 14:234 in 135, 139 12:4-1-159 III 118 14:235 III 135 12:4-1-2, 154-60 III 120 14:236-237 III 135, 139 12:4-1-11, 158-236 III 86 14:238-240 in 135 12:4-2-163 in 87, 95 14:241-243 III 135,139 12:4-3-i67 HI 95 14:244-246 ni 135 12:4-4-175 III 102 14:247-255 III 135, 139 12:3-3, 130-31 HI 95 12:247-264 III 134 12:4-6-i86 HI 90 14:256-2s8 III 135, 140 12:4-7-196 III 95-96 14:259-26i in 135 12:4-10-223-24 III 89 14:262-264 III 13s, 140 12:4-10-223-225 III 120 14 -.429-430 III 241 12 :4-10-224 III 103 16 III 146 12:4-10-224-27 III 93 16:163 1324 12:4-11-229 III 93 18:4 III 230-31, 244 12:4-11-234 III 90 18 :9-io III 230 12:4-11-234 III 100 18:19 III 246 12:4-11-234-35 III lOI 18:23 III 231 12:5-1-239-42 III 106 18:23-25 III 226 12 :5-i-240-4i III 93 20:264 III 238 12:5-3-247 III 100 20:265 III 238 12:8-2o6 HI 95 28:1-3 III 86 12:9:1-358 III 86 28:20-9 III 86 12:10-224 III 90

Contra Apionem I2:4i7£ III 145, 147 Contra Apionem 12:4i7-4i8 III 144 1:50 III 236, 239 13:3-1-2, 66-68, 70-71 III I I I i:S3 III 236 13:3-1-3. 62-73 III I I I

Life 13 :4-i-8o III 91 Life 13:4-5-9, 103-20 III I I I 361-362 III 237 13:26o-264 III 143 424 in 237 13 :288-297 I 325

War 13 :288-98 II 39 War III 91, 100, 106 13 •.372-37(> I 324 1:3i-32 III 91, 100, 106

14 III 146 I:3i2-3i3 III 241 14:143-48 III 134. 137 2:ii9ff III 231 14:145-148 III 143 2:433 III 228 14:149-155 III 134, 136-37 2:447 III 228 14:190-195 III 134, 137 3:369-377 III 244 14:190-212 III 134 3:390 III 241

2 l 6 INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES

4 79-81 III 241 7:262-274 III 231 4:82 III 241 7:291 III 223 4:400 III 228 7 •323-33(> III 238 4:402 III 246 7:341-388 III 238

4:56o-s63 III 230 7:387 III 234 5:362-374 III 238 7:395 III 235

5:376-4i9 III 238 7:397 III 247 6:260-266 III 7:399 III 245 6:280 III 241 7:399-400 III 228 6:312 III 332 7:404 HI 234

7 III 236 7:405 in 237 7:153-154 III 242 7 :405-4o6 III 244 7:252-4o6 III 225 7:406 III 244

7:253 III 226, 228, 231 7:410 III 245 7:256 III 237 7:418-419 III 226, 237 2:259-274 III 230 7:450 III 242

MISHNAH Baba Batra 15:24 III 214

6:4 IV 26-27 Ohalot 8:2 III 211 2:1 IV 30-45

Bekhorot 2:2 IV 39, 42 6:1 IV 24 2:3 IV 31 6:6 IV 23 2:5 IV 31

Berakhot 2:7 IV 39-40, 42

5:1 IV 52-54 Pe^ah 6 7 IV 21 4 :io IV 181

^Eduyyot Pesahim I :7 IV 37-39, 42, 44 4:4 IV 49 6:2 IV 13 6:3 IV 21

6:3 IV 13 10 -.g IV 20 Hagigah Semahot

3:8 III 207 2:12 III 242 Hallah Sheqalim

2:6 IV 22 4:2 IV 25-26 2:8 IV 21-22 4:3 IV 25

4:4 IV 21 ^4:4 IV 26 Kelim Terumot

2:2 IV I I 6:1 IV 3

17:1 IV 10 8:1 IV 2, 6, 8 Ch. 29 IV 30 8:2 IV 2, 4-6

Ma< aserot 8:3 IV 2, 5-6

3:5 IV 5 I I -.2 IV 7-10 4:2 V 5 I I :3 IV 8, 10

Makshiriii Tohorot I :6 III 228 I :4 III 208

5:9 III 209 Yadaim 6:4 IV 9 4:6 III 208

Mo ed Qatan 4:7a III 209, 215 3:8 IV 22 4:7b III 210-11, 215-16

Niddah Yoma 2 :2 III 214 5 :1 III 212

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 217

TOSEFTA Ahilot 3:4 IV 36, 38, 41

2:7-8 IV 16 3:5 IV 36, 40-41

3:4 IV 43-45 3:6 IV 36-41 ' Eduyyot Terumot

2 :io IV 16 9:8 IV 9-10 Hagigah Yadaim

3:33 III 215 I :i9 III 209 3:35 III 207 2:9 III 209

Niddah 2:2o III 211, 216

5:3 III 215 Yoma Ohalot I :8 III 212-213

SIFRfi DEUTERONOMY I :2 I 326 26 :io III 28

PALESTINIAN TALMUD Berakhot 3:1 III 225

8:5 IV 48, 51 Sanhedrin 8:12 IV 51 6:5 HI 33

Hagigah Yoma 77d IV 187 I :5 III 213

Megillah

BABYLONIAN TALMUD Bava ' Batra ' Pesahim

115b III 211 53b-54a IV 50 Berakhot 112a IV 53

5a III 27 Qiddushin Gittin 66a II 41

55bff III 228 Rosh Hashanah 56a III 227, 243 5a III 227 56b-57a III 227 18b I 324

Hullin Sanhedrin i2ob-i2ia IV 7 70a III 66

Ketubot 74a HI 239 losa III 22s 107b IV 187 iiia-b I 328 Sotah

Menahot 47a IV 187 64b III 238 49b III 238

Nazir Yoma 52b IV 37, 42-44 19b III 212-15

Niddah 37a III 247 33b III 214-15

OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES Abraham, Apocalypse of 8:23 III 42

29 III 183 I I :9 III 47 Aramaic Papyri, 5th Century 14 III 42

6 III 42 15 :i6 III 42 8 III 42 Asatir

2 l 8 INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES

III.25 IV 175 8:3 III 160 IX.22 IV 175 9:1 III 160 XIII.24 IV 175 10:1 III 160, 165

Assumption of Moses 17:9 III 160 6:1 I 325 20:108 III 160

Avot de R. Nathan 20:6 III 160 7 III 228, 230 40:9 III 160

Barnabas 54 :6 III 160 3:1-6 III 186 71:8 III 160

Ben Sira Epictetus 48:1-11 IV 184 i.22.4 II 91

Clement n . i 2 II 91 Strom. 7:17 I 26s iv.7.6 II 91 Homilies 9.19-21 II 91

2.22 I 268 xli.3 II 142 2:24 IV 175 Epiphanius

Letter to the Corinthians Haer. 21:27 I 266 5 II147 Panarion 13 IV 168

Recognitions 28 I 267-68 2 : ir IV 174 Hellanicus

Contra Celsum I Reg. 9:24 III 78 1:57 IV 168 Ignatius 3:16 1 6 1 Philadelphia 4:23 1 6 1 3:2£ II 114 4:73 1 6 1 4:2-6:3 II 115 5:14 1 6 1 4:3 II 114 6:11 IV 168, 173 5:2 II 112 7:9 1 6 1 5:3 II 114 8:48 1 6 1 6:1 II I I I , 115

Dio Cassius 7:2 II 115 Epitome 8:2 II I I I

66.6.3 III 241 9:1 II 112 History Ignatius

65:15 II 95 Magnesia Diognetus, Epistle to 9:1 II I I I

7:6 II 118 12:1 II 112 7:7 II 118 Irenaeus

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

I 275 I 265 I 265

II 108 II 117 II 117 II 137 II 136 II 141

IV 168

III 160

Against Heresies Ill.iiii, 3 II 247 III.iii.3-4 II 115

Joseph and Asenath Saga 8 III 183 15 HI 183 16 i n 183 19 III 183

Jubilees 5 III 55 7:1-12 III 65 32:1 • I 324

Justin L Apol. 26 I 268

Memar Marqah 1:1 IV 179, 183

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 219

I :2 IV 175 iQS 1:18-21 I 325 2 IV 183 iQS 2:2 I 325 2 -.2 IV 175 iQS 2:5 I 325 2:3 IV 175 iQS 2:11 I 325 2:12 IV 179 iQS 2:20-21 I 325 4:1 IV 179 iQS IX II 43

4 ••3 IV 179 II Q Melch. 14 I 84

4:5 IV 179 4QP Ps. 37 I 89-90 4:6 IV 179

5:1 IV 179 Sibylline Oracles II 88, 92, 94, 97, 134 5:2 IV 179 3:97ff III 60

5:3 IV 179 3:350-55 II 94

5:4 IV 179, 183 3:356-62, 363-80 II 94 Midrash Rabbah 4:24-26 II 92

Exodus 4:27-30 II 92 32:2 I 329 4:137-39 II 94

Genesis 4:145-49 II 94

# 1 1 IV 48-49 4:162-70 II 92 # 8 2 IV 49 Smyrn. 5 :i II 112 36:7 III 66 Solinus, Collectanea 96:5 I 328-29 35:12 III 225 97 I 325 Suetonius 99:2 I 325 Vespasian 4 III 232

Leviticus Sulpicius Severus 10:2 I 88 Chronica 2:30 III 244

Numbers Tacitus 2 :io III 160 Histories 5 :i3 III 232

Pesikta Rabbati Tert. # 2 3 IV 49 de Praes. 46:3 III 160 7 I 265

Midrash, Ekah to 29f I 26s 3:50 I 88, 102 Thomas, Gospel o f

Neofiti Targum to Genesis 6:1.7 I 136-37, 164 32 :25-32 III 161-63 6:2.i I 143

Paulus 6 :2.2 I 137 Sententiae 6:2.3 I 137

5:23.1 III 242 6:2.4 I 143 Phaedo 6:2.5 I 143

61 C-62 E III 242 6:2.6 I 146 Philo 6:2.7 I 137

301 f I 266 6:2.8 I 137, 139

395f I 266 6:3.1 I 141, 149 Book of Biblical Antiquities 6:3.2 I 137

18:6 III 163-64 6:3.3 I 141, 149 De Som. II (250) I 328 6:3.4 I 137, 149

Pliny the Elder 6:3.5 I 141, 149 Historia Naturalis 6 :4.i I 137, 151

51773 III 223 6:4.2 I 150 iQH xviii 14-15 I 89 6:4.3 I 137, 146, 150, 153

IQI I 84, 86, 91-93, 97, 100 6:4.4 I 136-37, 150 iQB 9:12-15 LLI 159 6:5.1 I 153 iQP VII, 1-5 II 34 Trail. 8:2 II 112

G E N E R A L I N D E X

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 '^Ahd al-Gabbar, I 128, 130-38, 141-44,

149-55 Abraham, III 73, 75; Testament of, II

171; III 182 Abu' Fath, IV 168-69, 188 Acmonia, II 100 Acts, II 146-47; "A Foreword To The

Study Of The Speeches In Acts", I 206-25; "The Kinship Of John And Acts", I 186-205

Acts of Apostles, II 8, 96, 106-07, 113, Acts of Luke, I 40, 48-49

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 Eliyya-hu", IV 77-89

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 Aher, III 177 Ahura Mazda, IV 94, 97 Aland, Kurt, II 140, 142 Albeck, Hanok, IV 19; Toharot, III

210, IV 46 Alexamenos, II 168 Alexander of Abonuteichus, II 90 Alexander, III 83 Alexander, or the False Seer, IV 187 Alexander Balas, III i n Alexandra Salome, II 37 Alcxandriim, III 177 Allmen, D. von, I 236, 263

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 no Amos, I 99 Anaitis, IV 95 Ananias, III 228 Anastasius I, II 184, 195-96 Anastos, Milton V., "Vox Populi Vo­

luntas Dei And The Election Of The Byzantine Emperior", II 181-207

Anathoth, I 93 Anatolia, Asia Minor and Early Chris­

tianity, II 77-78, 80, 86, 93, 96, 98-10, 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,

93, 100-03, 105-06, 108, 121-23 Antiochus VII, III 115-16 Antiochus of Commagene, II 144 Antiochus Epiphanes, II 39, 94 Antiochus Hierax, III 98 Antiquities, "The Acta Pro Judaeis

In The Antiquities Of Flavins Jose­phus: A Study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiogra­phy", III 124-58

Antitheses, II 126 Antoninus, IV 153 Antoninus Pius, II 96 Antony (Hermit) IV 149

G E N E R A L I N D E X 2 2 1

Alexander the Great, III 74, 80; III 167, 171

Alexander Janneus, II 37-41; III 112, 136, 224; I\' 187

Alexander, P. J., II 208, 210 Alexander Polyhistor, III 77, 79 Alexander Zazinas, III 116 Apameia, II 99 Aphrahat, II 131, 147-48 Aphrodisias, II 84 Aphrodite, II 85 Apion, III 73 Apocalypse, II 92-93, 99, 106-07, H O ;

Enoch, III 178, 181, 195 Apocalypse of John, II 165, 171 Apollinarius of Hierapolis, II 139 Apollo, I 29-31, 33-35, 82, 84 Apollo Karneios, II 82 Apollonius, III 91 Apollonius of Tyana, I 21-22, 25-30, 32,

35-36, 95 Apollos, I 270, 272, 300, 306, 308 Apology, II 137 Apostolic Constitutions, III 186-87 Applebaum, Shimon, III 218, 229-30,

241-42 Apuleius, I 24; III 196 Aqibun, IV 169 =Aqiba, R., IV 39, 42; "Artificial Dis­

pute: Ishmael and Aqiba", IV 18-29 Aquila, II 128; III 65-66, 165 Arabs, III 218 Aramazd^, IV 99 Archaeology, Asia Minor and Early

Christianity, II 77-87 Archangels, "The Archangel Sariel:

A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls", III 159-66

Archimedes, III 73 Ardaburius, II 194 Ardasir, IV 120 Ardasir I Ohrmazd, IV 104 Ardasir Papakan, IV 103, 105-06, 108,

110 Ardban, Konig, IV 120, 122 Aradvi Sura Anahita, IV 96, 98-101,

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

Ariadne, II 195-96 Aristeas, III 104, 181 Aristion, II 108 Aristobulus, III 238 Aristobulus of Alexandra, III 188 Aristode, I 31, 33; III 75 Arsameia, II 86 Arsinoe, 1, III 95 Arsinoe II, III 95 Arsinoe III, III 95, 99, 109 Artaban V, IV 120 Artabanus III, IV 120 Artabanus IV, IV 121 Artaxerxes, I 219 Artaxerxes II Memmon, IV 95-96,

100, 109 Artemis II 81, 83 Asa, IV 94 Asaf, S., Ill 22 Asi, R, IV 67 Asia Minor, "Asia Minor and Early

Christianity", II 77-145 Asclepius, "Unc Allusion de L'Ascle-

pius au Livre D'Henoch", II 161-63 Asklepieion, II 81 Asklepios, II 8r, 90, 108, 116 Asmdai, III 170 Asmodaios, III 170 A spar, II 184, 193-96 Asreclyor, III 160 Astad, IV 108 ' Atahiyah, 'Abu'l, I 143 Athanasius, II 214 Athenaeus, III 79 Athenians, III 136 Atrahasis, III 58-60 Attis cult, II 138 Augusta, Faustina, II 151 Augustine, I 40, 155-62; II 106 Augustus, IV 181 Augustus, Leo: II 187, 189-202 Avesta, III 170-73 Avigad, N., Il l 219 Avircius Marcellus, II 88, 142 Avi-Shmuel, III 218, 248 Avi-Yiftah, S, III 218, 222 Avi-Yonah, Michael, III 218, 222-23

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

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

222 GENERAL INDEX

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 Purifica­

tion and Proselyte Baptism", III 200-205

Bardy, G., II 132-33, I39 Bar Kochba, I 167, 181; III 226, 240 Barnabas, I 300, 302-03, 306-07; II 64,

129; III 186-88; Epistle of, II 137 Barnes, T. D., II 139 Barrett, C. K., I 165, 173, 244. 262,

285-86, 310 Barth, Karl, II 226 Baruch, I 93; II 109-10; III 181, 183 Basil I, II 199, 204-05, 211 Bathsheba, III 104 Bauer, Walter, II 55, 77, 79, 104-05;

IV 115 Bauernfeind, Otto, III 238-39 Baumbach, Gunther, III 219, 231-32 Baumgarten, Albert I., "Myth and

Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29", III 55-71 Baur, Ferdinand Christian, I, 2-4, 6, 8,

44, 169; Paul and Enemies, I 270-73, 277-79, 283

Bayle, III 127 Baynes, N. H., II 208, 210 Bean, G. E., II 80 Beatty, Chester, I 11 Behm, Johannes, I 4 Belial, I 91, 96-97 Belkin, III 32 Ben-Haim, Z., I 177 Benjamin bar Yefet, R., IV 50 Benoit, Pierre O. P., I 295; "L'Hymne

Christologique De Col i, 15-20", I 226-63

Ben-Sira, III 7, 10; III 90, 103, 108, 111-12, 117

Berachiah, R., Ill 66, 68-69 Berenice I, III 95 Berenice II, III 95, 98, 109-10, 115-16 Berger, Peter L., II 24 Bergmann, J., Ill 226 Bernice, II 95 Bernini, Giovanni Lorenzo, II 151 Berossus, III 60; III 72-73, 76-80, 82-

84 Bertinoro, IV 19, 34

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

Bieler, L, IV 181 Bilhah, III 63 Bin Tepe, II 83 Bithynia, II 90, 96, 116 Black, M., I 165, 317, 319 Blackman, E. C, II 125-26 Blasphemy, "blasphemy: St Mark's

Gospel As Damnation History", I 51-74

Bleek, Friedrich, I 300 Bloch, Renee, I 80 Boaz, II 100 Bodmer Papyrus, I 11; II 135 Boehringer, E., II 81 Boethusians, "Sadducees Versus Pha­

risees : The Tannaitic Sources", III 206-17

Bokser, Baruch M., "Two Traditions of Samuel: Evaluating Alternative

Versions", IV 46-55 Bonner, Campbell, II 89, 135 Borchardt, Jiirgen, II 85 Borgen, I 175 Bornkamm, G, I 232, 244-45, 260; II

103 Bousset, Wilhelm, I 168-69 Bowen, C. R., I 259-60 Bowker, J . W., I 222 Bowman, John, I 176-77 Boyce, Mary, "Iconoclasm among The

Zoroastrians", IV 93-1 n Brandon, S. G. F., "Christ in Verbal

and Depicted Imagery, A Problem of Early Christian Iconography", II 164-72

Brandt, IV 114 Braude, William G., " 'Conjecture' and

Interpolation in Translating Rabbinic Texts: Illustrated by a chapter from Tanna Debe Eliyyahu", IV 77-89

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

GENERAL INDEX 223

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, 169-70, 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, 223-

24 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, 58-

59, 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 164-72

Catholic Church, I i, 2, 215; II 121,

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 ?' Johan-

nine 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 93-I 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-Chris-tianisme", 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 Chris­

tianity, 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 Clement of Alexandria, I 40, 128, 266;

224 G E N E R A L I N D E X

II 117, 147; HI 77, 83 Clement of Rome, II 147 Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,

II 147 Cleopatra, III 74 Cleopatra I, III 86-88, 90, 93, 95, 98-

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%, 295-96

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

Cowley, A. E., Il l 41 Coxon, P., IV 135 Crete, II 77 Crocket, Larrimore Clyde, I 100 Cromwell, Oliver, HI 242 Crown of Thorns, II 169-70 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 Meta­

phorical Expression of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, An­cient Hebrew, and Related Litera­tures : Divine linvestitutes in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian 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 299-330; "Qumran and Iran: The State of Studies", III 167-73

Debe Eliyyahu, " 'Conjecture' and In­terpolation in Translating Rabbinic

Texts: Illustrated by a chapter

GENERAL INDEX 225

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 De-

metrios". 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 Didyma, II 82 Diekamp, Franz, II 208-10 Dietrich, M., IV 137 Dimitrovsky, Zalman, III 219, 226-27 Dindorf, III 136 Dinkier, Erich, II 221 Dio Cassius, III 241 Diocletian, III 224; Caesarea, IV 69-

71, 73-75; Maximim Daia, IV 143, 145, 150, 155-56, 161, 165

Diodorus, III 82-83 Diodorus, Zonas, II 87, 92 Diogenes, II 85, 95; IV 48 Diognetus, Epistle to, II 118, 137 Dionysios bar Salibi, I 108 Dionysius, II 211-213 Dionysius of Corinth, II 147 Dioscorides of Anazarbus, II 88 Diotrophes, II 115 Dius, III 76 Divino afflante Spirit a, II 218 Doeve, J . W., 1 222 Dolabella, III 135 Domitian, I 303; II 85, 92-93, 95-96,

116 Donahue, John, II 22 Donatists, I 156-160

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-Imtratcd by a chapter From Tanna Debe Eliyyahu", IV 77-89

Egypt, II 108, 123, 144; "The Religion of Maximin Daia", IV 143-66

P^hrhardt, Arnold, II 77, 104-03, 142 Ehrich, R. W, II 77-78 Eichler, Barry, III 47-48 Eichhorn, J . G., I 206, 270 Eighteen ordinances. III 202 Elchasaites, II 102 Elchcsai, II 110 Eleazar, II 38-39; III 86, 90, 95-96,

no, 196 Eleazar ben Jair, III 225-26, 228, 231-

35, 238-39, 243, 247 Eleazar B. Poirah, II 40 Elect Lady, II 115 Elephantine, "On the Origins of the

Aramaic Legal Formulary at Ele­phantine", III 37-54

Elhanan, III 228 Eliezer, R., IV 22; "Redactional Tech­

niques in the Legal Traditions of Joshua b. Hananiah", IV 1-17

15

226 GENERAL INDEX

Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, IV 28 Elijah, I 88, 92, 97-100, 102, 115, 172,

199, 204; IV 34, 177, 184-87 Elisha, I 96-98, 102; IV 177, 184 Elisha ben Abuya, III 177 Elkesaites, III 176 Elliger, Karl, I 94 Ellis, E. Earle, "Paul and His Oppo­

nents", I 264-98 Emerton, J . A., I 220-21 Empedocles, I 32 Encratites, I 264 Enoch, I 320-21; II 102-03; Apoca­

lypse of, III 178, 181, 19s; Book of, III 160-66; "Une Allusion de L'Asclepius au Livre D'Henoch", II 161-63

Epaphroditus, II 96 Ephesus, II 81, 90, 96, 101-02, 104-07,

112-15, 120; III 135; "Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Images", II 208-16; Paul and his Opponents, I 264, 268, 277, 290

Ephorus, III 79 Ephraem, I 115 Ephraim, III 188 Epictetus, I 150; II 91-92, 96 Epicureans, III 226 Epidaurus, II 81 Epimenedes, I 29, 32 Epiphanius, I 267; II 140; IV 169, 179-

81, 188 Epstein, J . N., IV 37, 47 Eratosthenes, III 75, 80, 82 Erim, Kenan T., II 84 Esarhaddon, III 17 I Esdras, III 181-82 II Esdras, II 147 Essenes, I 89, 95-97. 100-01; II 32,

103-04, 144; III 86, 178, 189-90, 197-98, 204, 224, 226, 230-32, 245-46; Hebrews, Scholarship of, I 308-09, 322, 329; Millenarism, II 25, 32-36, 41-45, 48-49; Paul, Enemies of, I 266-68, 274-78, 294-97

Establishment, "The Earliest Christian Communities as a Secretarian Move­

ment", II 1-23 Esther, III 181; IV 80, 82-83; Scroll

of, IV 64 Euchaita, John, II 199 Euclid, III 73 Eudocia, Empress, II 205

Eudoxus, I 29 Euphemius, Archbishop, II 195 Eupolemus, III 72 Eusebius, I 7-8, 265, 271, 275; II 58,

108, 117, 134-36, 139-40, 148; III 187; IV 146-47. 149-51, 153-55, 157-59. 161, 164-65, 168-69; The Martyrs of Palestine, IV 144-49

Eusebius of Caesarea, III 77, 79, 82-83

Evans, C. F., I 213 Exorcism, "A Note on Purification

and Proselyte Baptism", III 200-05 Explanation of the Logia of the Lord,

II 108 Exultet, II 136 Eyonymus, III 140 Ezra, I 219; III 182, 202 Ezra the Scribe, IV 65

Fairweather, E. R., IJ 18 Farmer, William R., "A Fresh Ap­

proach To Q", I 38-50 Fascher, Erich, I 4 Fausta, IV 145

! Peine, Paul, I 4 , Feldman, Louis H., "Masada: A Cri­

tique of Recent Scholarship", III 218-48

Ferrar-family, I 109 Festival-Offering, IV 20-21 Festugiere, R. P., II 162 Feuillet, A., I 232, 235, 261 Fiery Furnace, II 167 Finkel, Asher, I 99

' Finkelstein, Louis, III 26, 28 i Fire, IV 48-52; "Iconoclasm Among i the Zoroastrians", IV 93-111

Firstlings, IV 23-25 Fitzmyer, J . A., I l l 50 Flavians, III 233, 235-36, III 233 Flavins Josephus: see Josephus Flavius Silva, III 234, 236, 244, 247 Flesh and limbs, IV 11-17 Flood, III 75-76, 79-80; "Myth and

Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29", III 55-71

Flora, II 130 Flusser, David, I 89, 308 Foods, II 113

I Ford, Josephine Massingberd, II 141 Fortna, R. T., I 183-84 Fourth Philosophy, III 226, 228, 230-31

GENERAL INDEX 227

Frcrichs, Ernest S., "Contemporary Ecclesiastical Approaches to Biblical

Interpretation", II 217-27 Freudenthal, J., Il 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

Gabathuler, H. J., I 230, 232, 235-42, 245, 262

Gadamcr, Hans-Georg, II 226 Gagniers, Jean des, II 84 Gains, II 84, 115, 133-34, 147; IV 68 Gains Caligula, III 191 Gains Fannius, III 135, 139, 146-47 Gains Rabirius, III 135 Gaius the Roman, II 148, 153 Gains Sempronius, III 143, 146 Galaistes, III 114 Galatia, II 80, 86, 100-09, 116, 125;

Jewish-Christianity, II 54, 57; Paul and his opponents, I 264, 268-70, 273, 277-7%, 280-82, 293-95

Galba, III 135, 139 Galen, II 81, 92 Galerius, IV 143-45, i49-50, 153-54,

156, 161-62, 164-65 Gallio, I 198 Gamaliel, R., I 197; HI 227, 238 Gamaliel II, R., IV 73 Gamaliel IV, R, IV 72 Gawaita, Haran, IV 122 Geffcken, J., IV 152 Gehenna, " 'Conjecture' and Interpola­

tion in Translating Rabbinic Texts: Illustrated by a chapter from Tan­na Debe Eliyyahu", IV 77-89

Genesis, "Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29", III 55-71

Gentiles, Salvation, II 49 Georgi, Dieter, I 21, 286 Gerasene, I 63 Gero, Stephen, "Hypatius of Ephesus

on the Cult of Images", II 208-16 Gershenson, S., I 137, 139 Ginsberg, H. L., Ill 49 Ginzberg, L., Ill 170 Gnostics, .1 305; III 199; Gnosticism,

II 131-35, 144 J "Paul and His Op­ponents", I 265-69, 271-73, 275-88

Goell, Theresa, II 86

Goldberg, IV 35 Goldschmidt, D., (ed.) Siddur R. Am-

ram 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., Il l 204 Gospel, "Good News Is No News:

Aretalogy and Gospel", I 21-38 Gottlieb, Gerald, III 33, 222, 224 Gouillard, J., II 208-09 Graetz, H., i l l 81 Grant, F. C, II 11 Grant, Robert M., II 61, 122, 126, 139,

"The Religion of Maximin Daia", IV 143-66

Crasser, E., I 53-54 Great Feast, I 41 Green, William Scott, "Redactional

Techniques in the Legal Traditions of Joshua b. Hananiah", IV 1-17

Greece, II 77 Greek Culture, II 74-145 Green, R. B., II 178 Gregoire, H., IV 153, 155-57, 160 Gregory, St., IV 103 Gregory X, II 59 Gregory of Nazianus, II 204 Gregory the Great, II 148, 211 Griesbach, "A Fresh Approach to Q",

I 38-50

Gronovius, Johann Friedrich, III 126, 139

Grotius, I 270 Grotius, Hugo, HI 126 Guarducci, Margherita, II 156-59 Gulak, A., Ill 5 Gutman, Leo, III 219, 222-23, 227 Gutman, Shmaryahu, HI 219 Gyges, II 83

Haarense, Diatessaron, I 146 Hadas, Moses, IV 182, 187 Hadrian I 265; II 85-86, 113, I 3 7 ; HI

240; IV 151, 156-57, 159 Haenchcn, I 210 Hagia Sophia, Church of, II 197 Haimi-Cohen, Avinoam, III 219, 224 Halicarnassus, II 82; III 135 Hallal-Priest, IV 2-6, 8

I S "

228 GENERAL INDEX

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,

104-05 Harder, G, I 237, 239, 242, 245, 260 Harnack, A. von, II 124-27, 130 Harris, J . R., I i79 Harrison, P. N., II 115 Harvest, share of, IV 18-20 Hasde David, IV 42 Hasmoneans, III 226; Judaism, II 37-

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 no Herod, I 67; III 105, 222, 225, 228,

236, 241 Herodian, IV 144 Herodotus, II 97; III 74-75, 77, 236;

IV 94-96 Hesiod, III 58, 71

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 Hillel, II 12, 36; III 228; IV 22, 36-37,

39-45, 65, 76 Hippolytus, I 275; II 102, 132, 134-35;

III 82, 187, 200, 230 Hiyya, R., IV 67-68 Hiyya b. Abba, R., IV 60, 71 Hoenig, Sidney B., Ill 219, 227, 229,

242-43, 247 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., Il 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

Idumaens, III 228 Ifra Ormuzd, IV 75 Ignatius, I 215, 276; Asia Minor and

early Christianity, II 87-88, 93, 96,

GENERAL INDEX 229

105-06, I I I - I 2 , 114-16, 120, 122-23, T29, 140; Epistle to the Romans, II 147

Ignatius of Antioch, I 13, 15, 18-19 I Ian, Zvi, III 220, 225 Imagery, "Christ in Verbal and De­

picted Imagery, A Problem of Early Christian Iconography", II 164-72; "Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult Of Images", II 208-16

Immersion, III 207; "A Note on Puri­fication and Proselyte Baptism", III

200-05 Incest, III 203 Inheritance, III 210-11; "Luke 12, 13-

14", I 107-162 Intercourse, II 84, 98 Iran, "Qumran and Iran: The State of

Studies", III 167-73 Irenaeus, I 7; II 108, 147; III 188 Isaac b. Eliezer, R., IV 72 Isaac b. Judah, IV 52, 54 Isaiah, I 309; III 168; ascension of,

III 184; "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4", I 75-106

Isenbcrg, Sheldon R., "Power Through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman

Palestine", II 24-52 Ishmael, R., Ill 20, 22, 24, 28, 32-34,

240; "Artificial Dispute: Ishmael and =Aqiba", IV 18-29

Isho^dad of Merw, I 107 Isidore of Charax, IV 100 Ispatale, IV 160 Israel, State of , III 218 Isser, Stanley, "Dositheus, Jesus, and

a Moses Aretalogy", IV 167-89 Istakhr, IV 105

Jachin, II 100 Jackson, Foakes, I 213 Jacob, III 77-78, 161-64 Jacob of Nevoraia, IV 71 James, I 271 James, The Apostle, II 13, 15 James, St., II 56, 60-61, 71 Jamnia, II no Jannaeus; See Alexander Jannaeus Taphet, III 63 Jason of Cyrene, III 85, 91-93, 102,

105-06, 108-09, 112-13, 117-19, 122-22, Jason the Oniad, III 120-22 Javan, III 80

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, 10, 111 184

Jeremias, J., I 92, 96-97, 101, 320; II 12

Jerome, I 84, 102; II 58, 71, 142, 148; III 188

Jervell, J., I 235, 249-50, 261 Jesus, I 5, 9, 19, 26-27, 30, 34-36; II

45; III 175, 177-79, 182-84; Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 91, 93, 115, 117, 119-24, 128-36; "Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel As Damnation History", I 51-74; "Christ in Verbal And Depicted Imagery, A Problem of Early Christian Iconography", II 164-72; crucifixion, II 168-70; "Dositheus, Jesus, and a Moses Aretalogy", IV 167-89; "Early Church", II 1-23; "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 75-106; and Hebrews, I 304-05, 310, 313-16, 319-25; "L'Hymne Christologique De Col. i : 15-20", I 226-63; Icons II 204-06; In­heritance, "Luke 12, 13-14", I 107-162; Jewish-Christianity, II 55, 59-60, 68, 71 ; "The Kinship Of John and Acts", I 186-205; Last Judgment, II 168, 170-71; 'Mil­lenarism', II 25, 45-52; "Paul and his Opponents", I 264-98; Jesus' trial, I 200; Jesus and Pilate, "Am I A Jew? Johannine Christianity and Judaism", I 163-86

Jewett, Robert, II 102 Jewish-Christianity, "Reflexions Sur

Le Judeo-Christianisme", II 53-76 Jewish Heritage, "The Multiform

Jewish Heritage Of Early Christian­ity", III 174-99

Jewish liturgy. III 7 Jewish Relations, "Qumran And Iran :

The State of Studies", III 167-73 Jewish Revolt, II 104, 118-20, 128; III

183, 195 Jews—taxes and privileges, III 135 Jezebel, II 107-08, no, 113; IV 177

230 G E N E R A L I N D E X

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 163-86; 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, 115-

16, 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, 119-

20 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-

98, 100, 102, 104, 106-07, 118-19, 121, 123

Josephus, I 266, 301, 311, 324; II 37-38, 40-42; III 59, 60, 65, 73-74, 79-

80, 83, 164, 178, 181-82, 189-91, 193-94, 196, 198; IV loi, 170, 172, 181, 185; "The Acta Pro Judaeis in The Antiquities Of Flavius Jo­

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; "Re­

dactional 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?' Johan­

nine Christianity and Judaism", 1 163-86; Asia Minor and Early Christianity, II 83-84 91, 97-100, 102-03, 105, iio-i2, 116, 118, 120-22, 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 174-99; "Redactional Techniques in the Legal Traditions of Joshua b. Hananiah", IV 1-17

Judas, I 188, 190; II 109 Judas the Galilean, III 226, 228, 231

GENERAL INDEX 2 3 1

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"

60 Jiilicher, Adolf, I 4 Juster, Jean, III 134, 152 Justin, I 128, 215 Justin I, II 184-89 Justin II, II 198 Justin Martyr, I 13; II 109, 128, 130-

31, 213; III 188, 190

Kaas, Msgr., II 156 Kabbalism, III 179, 201 Kadushin, III 28, 33 Kahana, R., IV 64; Pesikta de Rav,

I 316 Kahle, Paul, I 174 Kahler, Martin, I 206, 216-17 Kaka, IV 107 Kallinikos, II 86, 92, 94; IV 100, 104 Kaminka, A., Ill 226 Kapera, Z. J., Ill 220 Kappah, III 33 Karaites, III 179, 189 Kasemann, Ernst, I 232, 235, 244-45,

247, 260, 304-05; II 221 ; Paul, I 270, 286, 288

Kashcr, HI 30-32, 34 Kaufmann, III 209 Keck, L., I 24 Kehl, N., I 232, 262 Kerti Hiiyiik, II 80 Kerygmata Pctrou, II 110, 131 KhorshTd Khanom, Iv 109 Khosrau Andsirvan, IV 107 Kippenberg, PI. G., I 177-78; IV 170-

73, 180 Kirder, IV 106 Kitzinger, E., II 208, 211 Klausner, Joseph, III 220, 230-31 Klicn, B. D., IV 43 Knopf, Rudolf, II 77, 79, 104 Knox, John, II 125-26 Koch, Hugo, II 212 Koester, Helmut, I 21 ; II 77, 104-06,

122; "New Testament Introduction: A Critique of a Discipline", I 1-20

Koine, I 149

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 Kraabel, A. Thomas, II 97-99, 103,

137, 141-142; "A Bibliography of the Writings, December 31, 1973, of Morton Smith", IV 190-200

Kraeling, E.G., HI 49 Kraft, Heinz, II 140 Kraft, Robert A., II 63-64; "A Multi-

foi-m Jewish Heritage Of Early Christianity", III 174-99

Krause, Martin, II 161 Kretschmar, Georg, II 105, 114 Kumarbi, III 58 Kutscher, E. Y., Ill 37 Kybele, II 83

Labranda, II 85 Labriolle, P. de, II 138-40 Lachmann, C, I 109 Lactantius, III 188; IV 143, 145, 147,

151, 153, 155-59, 165 Lafaurie, J . , IV 149 Lahnemann, J., I 232, 242, 249-50, 263 Lake, Kirsopp, I 282-83; II 101; III

229 Lake-family, I 109 Lamarche, P., I 232, 262 Lambrechts, Pieter, II 86 Lamdan, Yitzchak, III 247 Landsberger, Benno, III 8 Lange, G., II 208 Laodiceans, I 11-12, 15, 19; II 84, 103,

108, 183; Council of, II 142 Laqueur, Richard, III 128, 149, 151;

IV 150, 163-64 Lardner, Nathaniel, I 267 Larsson, E., I 232, 237, 262 Lost Supper, I 199 Lateran Museum, II 170 Lauterbach, III 212 Laval University, II 84 LaVcrdiere, E. A., Ill 220, 225 Lazarus, II 167, 169 Leah, III 78 Lee, I 147-48

232 GENERAL INDEX

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 Lidzbarski, Wahrend, IV 114-15, 127,

133 Lieberman, Saul, III 5, 8, 28-29, 33, 36,

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

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 105-07, 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 75-106; "Luke 12, 13-14", I 107-62; "New Testament Introduction: A Critique of a Discipline", I 10, 13, 16, 18-19

Luria, Solomon, R., Il l 240 Lutgert, Wilhelm, I 273, 278-84, 291 Luther, Martin, I 9 Lycaonia, II 80, 99-100 Lycia, II 80, 85 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: Are­

talogy 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

Manasseh, Prayer of, III 181 Manasses, III 86 Mandaism, II 112 Mandeans, "Quellenprobleme zum Ur­

sprung und Alter der Mandaer", IV 112-42

Manetho, III 72-']2„ 76-77, 79-80 Manichaeism, II 140 Mansel, A. M., II 85-86 Manson, T. W., I 151 Manson, W., I 306-07 Marcian, II 189, 193 Marcion, I 7, 13, 19; II 115, 141, 147;

III 175; "Luke 12, 13-14", I 107-62 Marcus, II 135 Marcus Aurelius, II 93, 151 Marcus lunius Brutus, III 140 Marcus lunius Pompeius, III 140 Marcus Julius Eugenius, IV 148 Marcus, Ralph, III 136-37, 139 Mar Ephraem, I 115-16, 135, 147 Margalioth, D., Ill 197 Margulies, Mordecai, IV 79 Mariamne, III 223 Mark, I 18-19, 24, 26-27, 35-36, 180,

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 Matthew I 92-93, 98-99, 186, 188, 210,

212; II 16, 67; IV 183, Asia Minor and early Christianity, II 106, 109, 112, 114, 120, 122, 124, 127; "A Fresh Approach to Q", I 38-50

Maurer, C, I 236-37, 261 Maurice, J., IV 153

Mauropus, John, II 199 Mausolus, II 85 Maxentius, IV 144-45, 151, 158, 160-61,

165 Maximian, IV 145 Maximilla, II 138 Maximin Daia, "The Religion of Ma­

ximin Daia", IV 143-66 Maximin Thrax, IV 144 Maximus, IV 144 Mazar, B., Ill 92 Meeks, Wayne A., I 36; IV 173, 181;

"'Am I A Jew?' Johannine Chris­tianity and Judaism", I 163-86

Megasthenes, III 77 Meir, R., IV 52-54 Meir, Golda, III 248 Meirus b. Belgas, III 241 Melchizedeq, I 91, 93, 97, 100, 103;

Hebrews, Scholarship Of, I 305, 309, 314, 316, 324

Melito Of Sardis, II 89, 93, 97, 135-38, 143

Melkiresha', I 91 Mellaart, James, II 80 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 Michael VI, II 198-99 Michael VII Parapinakes, II 206 Michael, D., I 80, 85 Michel, Otto, I 304-05, 308, 311, 315,

319-20; III 238-39 Mickwitz, G., IV 157 Midas, King, I 32

234 G E N E R A L I N D E X

Midrash, "Joy And Love as Meta­phorical 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 i-36; "Myth and Midrash" Genesis 9:20-29", III 55-71

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 Hel­lenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiography", III 124-58

Moffatt, J., I 302-03, 311 Mossaic, II 166 Momlgllano, Arnaldo, III 137 Mommsen, Theodor, III 129, 141, 144;

IV 152-53 Monoimus, II 135 Montanists, I 264 Montanus and Montanism, II 124, 134-

35, 138-44 Montgomery, I 165 Mordecai, IV 82-83 Moreau, J., IV 153, 155, 158 Morel, W, III 238 Moscow State Museum of Fine Arts,

II 205 Moses, Apocalypse of, III 184; As­

sumption of, 182; "Dositheus, Jesus, and a Moses Aretalogy", IV 167-89

Moshelm, J . . von, I 265-69, 284 Moule, C. F. D., I 216, 237, 261 Moulton, J . H, III 31 Muffs, Yochanan, III 37-47; "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 Royal Grants", III 1-36

Muhammad, I 130-31 Munck, J , II 57-58 Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome, II 104 Mushezib-Marduk, III 17 Muslim, I 130-31; III 189-90 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 Neander Augustus, I 270, 272-74, 283 Neanthes of Cyzlcus, I 27 Nebuchadnezzar, III 84; IV 86 Nehemiah, R., I 219; III 10; IV 57 Nehunya, IV 11-17 Nemrud Dagh, II 86 Neofiti Targum to Genesis, III 161-66 Neon, III 140 Nero, II 93, 95-96, 118; 147-48, 157,

160; IV 159 Neumann, C, IV 156 Neusner, Jacob, II 11, 36-38, 131; III

56-57, 167, 209; IV 14, 20, 28, 190; "Form-Criticism and Exegesis: The Case of Mishnah Ohalot 2:1, IV 30-45

Newman, Louis I., Ill 220, 248 New Testament, "New Testament In­

troduction : A Critique of a Disci­pline", I 1-20

New York University, II 84 Nezira, R., IV 48 Nicaea, Second Council of, II 204 Nicephorus III Botanelates, II 206 Nicetas, II 209 Nicholas, St, II 85 Nichomachus, I 34 Nicodemus, I 36, 191-92, 197

GENERAL INDEX

Nicolaitans, II 107, 132 Nicolas of Antioch, II 107 Nicolaus of Damascus, III 106, 147;

IV 181 Nicolo, San, III 39 Niese, B., Ill 138-39, 146-47, 152 Nimrud Dagh, IV loi Nineham, D. E., II 227 Ninus, III, 74, 82 Noah, III 57-58, 60-71; coin, II 99 Nock, A. D., I 284 Norden, E., I 230, 232, 235, 237, 240-

41, 260; II 88 Noth, Martin, I 219 Notzrim, III 177

Oanncs, III 73 O'Connor, D. W., "Peter in Rome", II

146-60 Odeion, II 85 Ohalot, "Form-Criticism and Exegesis :

The Case of Mishnah Ohalot 2:1", 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

Pandera, IV 187 Panthera, IV 187 Papias, I 43; TI 106, 108-10, 122, 134,

147 Papirius, Til 143 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus I 6, 98-99 Parium, II 90, 96; III 135 Parker, Pierson, "The Kinship of John

and Acts", I 186-205 Parma, ITT 209 Parthenis, I 30 Parthia, II 92 Passover, TIT 210; Passover-Offering,

IV 23-21 Pastoral Epistles, Asia Minor and

early Christianity, II 93, 113-14, 117, 121-23, 125, 144; "New Testament Introduction: A Critique of a Dis­cipline", I 1-20

Patricius, Peter, II 184 Patroclus, IT 96 Paul, I 4, 62, 131, 159, 210, 215, 224;

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, 271, 306; II 13, 15, 60, 67, 93, 108,

116-19, 122, 171; IV 185, 187; Acts, speeches in, I 215-17, 222-23; Blasphemy, I 64, 68-72, I 64; John and Acts, I 188-89, 192, 201, 204; "Peter in Rome", II 146-60

Peter of Alexandria, IV 150 Phanuel, III 160-64 Pharisees, III 86, 189, 231, 244; and

early Christian Communities, II 10-12, 15-16; "Sadducees Versus Pha­risees : The Tannaitic Sources", III 206-17; Millenarism, II 25, 32, 37-46, 52

Philadelphia, II iio-ii Phileas of Thmuis, IV 147-48 Philemon, II 96, 101-02 Philip, I 188, 204, 305; II 84, 135; IV

68; Acts of, III 188, 197; daughters, II 109-10, 113, 141

Philippi, II 103, 107, 165; Paul and his opponents, I 264, 271, 274, 280-

81, 291-92 Philo, I 301-03, 310-11, 318-19, 328-29;

II 112; III 7, 30-32, III 178, 181-82, 188-96, 226; IV 68, 181

Philo of Byblos, III 58, 65, 71-73 Philonenko, Marc, "Une Allusion de

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 Chris­

tianity, 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

Pdhlmann, W , I 236, 241-42, 245, 263 Polybius, III 86, 93, 236 Polycarp, Asia Minor and early Chris­

tianity, II 88, 90, 93, 96, 104, 113-17, 121-22, 135, 140; Epistle of, I 274

Polycrates, II 84, 136, 141 Pompey, II 94; III 83 Pontius, III 140 Pontus, II 116, 124, 128 Porten, B, III 37, 50 Porton, Gary G, "The Artificial Dis­

pute: Ishmael and <:Aqiba", IV 18-29 Praetextatus, Catacomb of, II 169 Prandi, Adriano, II 153 Priamus, III 74 Priscilla, II 138 Proclus, II 212 Property, building size, IV 26-27 Proselyte, "A Note on Purification

and Proselyte Baptism", III 200-05 Protest, "Secretarian Characteristics",

II 3-4, 9-10, 15-18 Proteus, I 27 Prusa, II 87 Psellus, Michael, II 183, 197-98 Ptolemaeus, II 130 Ptolemy I, III 95-96, l O i , 113, 116 Ptolemy II, III 90-91 Ptolemy III Euergetes, III 81, 87, 93-

99, 105-06, no, 115-18 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 INDEX

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

III 195-98, 204; "The Archangel Sariel: A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls", III 159-66; Christianity, II 102-04, 106, 112, 121, 141; Isaiah and Luke, I 76, 85-91, 93-98, 100, 102-03; "The Jewish Historian Demetrios", III 72-84; "Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholarship", III 218-48; "Quellenprobleme zum Ursprung und Alter der Mandaer, IV 112-42; "Qumran and Iran: The State of Studies", III 167-173

Rab, HI 66-69 Raba, IV 75 Rabad, IV 42 Rabbah bar bar Hanah, IV 50 Rabbinovicz, R., IV 46 Rabellius, III 139 Rabinowitz, Louis I., Ill 220, 240 Rabirius, HI 139 Rachel, III 78 Rainolds, John, III 127 Ramsay, W. M., II 79, 100-01 Rappelons, II 61 Rashi, I 84, 86; III 20, 34 Ratner, B., IV 46, 48 Rav, IV 64 Razis, III 241 Redemption, "Power Through Temple

and Torah in Greco-Roman Palesti­ne", II 24-52

Red Heifer, IV 25-26 Rehm, A., IV 156 Reinach, Theodore, III 136-37 Reincsius, Th, III 81 Reitzenstein, R., II 161; IV 114 Resh Lakish, IV 72 Resurrection, The, I 200 Reuben, III 63 Revelation, I 8; II 67; III 185; Apo­

calypse of John, II 165, 171; Book of, II 67, 88, 106-08, I I I , 116

Richardson, Alan, II 223 Richmond, I. A., HI 220, 223 Riesenfeld, H., I 65 Riggenbach, E., I 30102 Ritual purity, II ir, 37, 45 Rivkin, E., Ill 216 Robert, Louis, IT 82

Robert, Mrs. Louis, II 82 Roberts, B. J., I 94, 95 Robinson, J . A. T., I 216 Robinson, J . M., I 234-35, 240-41, 245,

248, 261 Romanos IT, II 205 Romanos III Argyros, II 197 Romanos IV, II 205 Romans, II 146; Asia Minor and Early

Christianity, II 77-145; J^etter to the Romans, IT 147

Rome, "Asia Minor and Early Chris­tianity", II 77-145; "Peter in Rome",

II 145-60 Ropes, J . H., I 283 Rose, I 31 Rosenthal, F., IV 115 Rosenthal, Judah, TIT 220, 242, 247 Rossi, Azaria de. III 32 Roth, Cecil, TIT 221, 224, 229, 231 Rothenberg, Beno, ITT 221, 223 Rudolph, Kurt, "Quellenprobleme zum

Ursprung und Alter der Mandaer", TV 112-42

Rufinus, IV 164 Rule Annex, II 44 Ruth, book of. III 204 Ruysschaert, Jose, IT 158 Rydbcck, L., II 88 Ryle, 1 37

Sabazios inscription, II 98 Sabellianism, II 140 Sabinus, IV 149-50, 161-65 Sabuhr I, IV 105 Saddok the Pharisee, III 230-31 Sadducecs, III 177-78, 189-90, 198, 231;

Millenarism, IT 25, 39, 41, 52; "Sad-ducees Versus Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources", III 206-17

Safra, R., IV 58 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, HI

242 Saltman, Ellen, IT 98-99 Samaritans, TIT 189, 198 Samos, I 29; II 94 Samosata, II 90 Samuel, R., Ill 66-69; IV 64; "Two

Traditions of Samuel: Evaluating Alternative Versions", IV 46-55

Sanders, James A., "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4", I 75-106

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 Tar­

gumic 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 Mo­

vement", II 1-23 Second Jewish Commonwealth, "Masa­

da: 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, 102-

03, 108, 112, 117-18 Simon of Cyrene, II 170 Simon ben Gamaliel, R, III 232, 242 Simon bar Giora, III 228, 232 Simon 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 INDEX

Simon, Ricliard, I 1-2, 9 Simon tiie Samaritan, IV 168 Sinope, II 95, 124, 127 Sirach, HI 178, 181 Sl<optsy, IT 3 Slaves And Slavery, T 14; TI 9, 93, 102 Smith, Jonathan Z., "Good News Is

No News: Aretalogy and Gospel", I 21-38

Smith, Morton, I 21, 23-24, 76, 164, 176, 185; II I , I I , 77, 217, 222, 225,

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

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

100 Strecker, G., II 53, no 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 Re­

cent Scholarship", HI 218-48 Symmachus, TIT 65-66, 165 Syria, TI 89-90, 105-10, 112, 124, 134-

35> 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 Phari­

sees : The Tannaitic Sources", ITT 206-17

Tarsians, II 87, 100 Tatian, IT 127; Diatessaron of, I 115-

20, 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 INDEX

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-

96, 98 Theseus, III 77 Thessalonia, I 264 Thessalonica, II 103 Theudas, IV 168, 172 Thomas, St, II 75; Gospel of I 114,

121-30, 133, 138-56; II no, 119, 123, 127

Thucydides, I 206-07, 213; III 236 Thyatira, II 107, 132 Tiberius II, II 198 Tiberius Alexander, III 191 Tiflis, Museum of Fine Arts, II 206 Tigellinus, II 95 Tikkanen, J . J , II 177 Timothy, I 16 Tir, IV 100, 108 Tiridates III, IV no Tischendorf, C, I 109 Tithing, II 16; IV 2-3, 5 Tittmann, C. C, I 266-69, 271, 274 Titus, I 16, 292; II 95; III 227, 237,

242, 244 Titus, Emperor, III 191 Tobiads, "The Tales of the Tobiads",

III 85-123 Tobit, III 178, 181; Book of, III 170 Tddt, H. E, I 320 Tomhave, John, IV 191 Torah, God's gift to Israel, III 26;

"Power Through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman Palestine", II 24-52

Torrcy, I 165, 217 Toynbee, Jocelyn, II 59, 149, 153; III

236 Trajan, II 81; IV 70 Tralles, II n i Tregelles, P , I 109 Troas, II n i Troeltsch, Ernest, II 2 Tsoref, Ephraim, III 221, 224 Tublas, III 92, no

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 Urbicius, II 195 Urbina, I. Ortiz de, I 147 Uriel, III 160 Ussher, James, I 265 Utensils unclean, IV lo-n Utnapisthim, III 58, 60 < Uthman, ' Abd al-Karim, I 130, 132,

144, 153-54

Vaganay, L, I 312, 315 Valakhs (Vologeses) I, IV 103 Valentinus, II 127, 131-32, 134-35; HI

175 Valeria, IV 144 Valerianus, IV 143, 155 Valerius, IV 145, 154 Vanhoye, A , I 312-13, 315, 329 Varahran, IV 100, 104, 106 Vatias, III 139 Vatican, "Peter in Rome", II 146-60 Vaughan, C. J , I 301 Vawter, B, I 232, 245, 263 Venetum, Diatessaron, I 146, 149 Varathraghna, IV 100, 10, 106, 108 Vermes, Geza, "The Archangel Sariel:

A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls", III 159-66

Verweijs, P. G, II 127-28 Verzone, Paolo, II 84 Vespasian, II 95; III 130-31, 150-51,

196, III 233, 237, 241-42 Vestinus, L. Julius, IV 159 Vielhauer, Philipp, I 215, 219, 320 Viereck, Paul, III 137, 139, 141, 154 Vilet, Bruno, I 96 Virgin birth, I 30, 36 Vita Pythagorae, I 22 Vohu Manah, IV 100

Wadham College, II 219, 221, 115 Wagner, Robert-Leon, I 22-23 Walker, W. O, J r , I 320

GENERAL INDEX 241

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, 232-

35, 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, "Contem­

porary Ecclesiastical Approaches To Biblical Interpretation", II 217-27

Wortheimer, IV 46 Woude, Adam S. van der, I 90

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, IV 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", IV 93-111

Zuckermandel, III 209, 211, 215; IV 16, 41

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