The Jews of Italy Brill’S Series in Jewish Studies

The Jews of Italy Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies

Series Editor

David S. Katz

VOLUME 52

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bsjs

Jews of Italy in Antiquity The Jews of Italy

Antiquity

Shlomo Simonsohn

LEIDEN | BOSTON Cover illustration: Arch of Titus

Simonsohn, Shlomo, 1923– author. The Jews of Italy : antiquity / by Shlomo Simonsohn. pages cm — (Brill’s series in Jewish studies ; volume 52) “The history of the Jews in Italy is the longest continuous one of European Jewry and lasted for more than two millennia. It started in the days of the Roman Republic and continued through the Middle Ages to Modern Times. Jewish Italy served as melting pot throughout its history, first for migrants from East to West and eventually from all over the Mediterranean littoral and beyond. Some of them moved on from Italy to other countries, while the majority stayed on in the country for generations. This volume of their history covers the first seven centuries of Jewish presence on the peninsula from the days of the Maccabees to Pope Gregory the Great. It is based on archaeological finds in Rome and elsewhere in Italy, on relevant literary and legal sources and on other records”—Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-90-04-28235-3 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-28236-0 (e-book) 1. Jews—Rome— History. 2. Jews—Italy—History. 3. Italy—History—To 476 4. Rome—Ethnic relations. 5. Italy— Ethnic relations. I. Title.

DS135.I8S56 2014 937’.004924—dc23 2014027752

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0926-2261 isbn 978-90-04-28235-3 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-28236-0 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

List of Plates xi

Introduction: Sources and Methodology 1

1 Historical Background 13 First Contacts 13 Under the Julio-Claudian Caesars 20 The Flavian Period 31 The Nervan-Antonine Dynasty 43 The Severi and the Last Pagan Emperors to Constantine 53 The Christian Empire until the Division 59 The Divided Empire and the Decline of the West 69

2 Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 78 Rome 78 The Islands: Sicily, Lipari, Malta and Sardinia 85 Southern Mainland Italy 94 The Mainland North of Rome 102 Demography 107 Excursus 113 Proselytism 113

3 The Jews and the Law 118 Civil Status 118 Roman Jewry Law, Privileges, Charters and Decrees 125 The Christian Empire 131 Civil Service 136 Slaves and Circumcision 141 Other Roman Civil Laws on Jews 145 Jewish Law and Jurisdiction 154

4 The Socio-Economic Setting 157 The Economy of Italian Jewry under Roman Rule (1) 157 The Economy of Italian Jewry under Roman Rule (2) 164 Taxes and Imposts 172 viii contents

5 Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 177 The Significance of the Texts and Their Impact 177 The Beginnings 181 From Pompey’s Conquest to the Principate 188 The Age of Augustus 196 The Flavians and the Severi 204 Tacitus, Juvenal and Sueton 208 In Rome and in the Provinces 214 Cassius Dio and the Last Pagan Authors 220

6 Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 231 First Contacts 231 The Pagan Emperors 236 Rome and Romans 245 More on Rome and Romans and Some Dire Predictions 252

7 Judaism and Christianity 263 The Birth of Christianity and Its Diffusion 263 The Early Fathers of the Church and Judaism 270 The Fathers of the Church after the Victory of Christianity 281 Augustine and His Age 289 Jews on Jesus and Christianity 293 Min, Minim, Minuth 298 The Church Fathers and Rabbinic Views on Christianity 301

8 The Culture of Italian Jewry 307 Hellenism 307 The ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ 311 Assimilation and Acculturation 314 Links of the Judaean Centre with Italy 322 Scholars and Their Writings: From Caecilius of Calacte to Josephus 330 The Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum and Beyond 340

9 The Jewish Community 350 The Roots 350 The Ritual in the Synagogue 359 Some Archaeological Evidence: Inscriptions 362 The Officers 367 Instruction and Schools 376 Other Communal Institutions 380 contents ix

Conclusion 385

Bibliography 393 Index of Persons 452 Geographical Index 460 Subject Index 464 Plates 471

List of Plates

Plate Caption

1 Arch of Titus 472 2 Marcus Tullius Cicero 473 3 Julius Caesar 474 4 Philo of Alexandria 475 5 Josephus Flavius 476 6 Jewish Rome: Quarters and Catacombs 477 7 Ceiling of Cubicle, Villa Torlonia Catacomb, Rome 478 8 Sarcophagus, Vigna Randanini Catacomb, Rome 479 9 Jewish Lamp, Roman Catacomb 480 10 Jewish Gold Glass (Fragment), Vigna Randanini Catacomb, Rome 480 11 Mosaic Showing Solomon’s Knot, Bova Marina Synagogue 481 12 Ruins of Ostia Synagogue 482 13 Epitaph of Aurelius-Samohil and his wife Lasia Irene, Catania 482 14 Mausoleum of Theodoric the Great, Ravenna 483 15 Justinian 484 16 Codex Justinianus 485

Introduction: Sources and Methodology

More than half a century has passed since the appearance of the two comprehensive monographs on the History of the Jews of Italy by Cecil Roth and Attilio Milano respectively.1 Since then more than 10,000 books and articles on the Jews of the Apennine Peninsula in the Middle Ages and Modern Times have been published, and another several thousand publications on these Jews in Antiquity have issued from the printers’ presses. It is therefore probably about time that a new analysis and assessment of that history is attempted. The results of the research as portrayed in these publications have made it possible to investigate new aspects and concepts, as well as fresh approaches and insights. Whether in the end this will change our view of Italian Jews throughout the ages or not remains to be seen. The reader shall judge and decide.2 The present volume is the first of several on the history of the Jews of Italy, from Antiquity to the present. Considering my advanced years, I may not be able to bring my effort to a successful conclusion, but that shall not be for want of trying. I shall exploit to the full a life-long involvement in the research of this section of the Jewish people in the Diaspora, one of the few enjoying an uninter- rupted history spanning over 2,000 years. Evidently, the sources for Antiquity, the first period in sequence, differ in many ways from those of subsequent ages. Hence also their use and exploitation for illuminating the period to which they refer are at variance with the rest. The sources are archaeological, literary,

1 Roth, Jews in Italy; Milano, Storia degli ebrei in Italia. Roth’s volume is based chiefly on Gabrieli, which contains some 300 publications, and on those of the 20 years or so until the middle of the forties of the past century; and Milano’s book on most of the publications listed in his Biblioteca; in all some 1,500 items or so. As for the history of Rome and the Roman Empire, the reader is referred to the overwhelmingly abundant literature which has accumulated over recent centuries. No attempt has been made to summarize it or even to quote from it unless it bears directly on the history of the Jews in Italy in Antiquity. 2 There have also been attempts at publishing comprehensive histories of the Jews in Italy by more than one author, e.g., Vivanti, Storia d’Italia, Annali 11, Gli ebrei in Italia. The six volumes of bibliography on Italian Jews are by Milano, Carpi, Moldavi, Consonni and the present writer. On Philo of Alexandria alone some 8,000 publications have appeared in some 50 years. See Radice and Runia, Philo of Alexandria. However, it should be borne in mind that not all the publications listed by them have anything to do with the Jews in Italy. This monograph does not pretend to portray an exhaustive presentation of all these thousands of publications, but rather to summarize as many as possible, particularly the more recent and innovative among them. Roth and Milano (the former in particular) use footnotes and references sparingly, so that often one can only guess at their sources.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004282360_�02 2 Introduction legal and assorted lesser ones which do not fit into one of the larger groups. They are Jewish and non-Jewish, pagan and Christian, Roman and Greek and again a few others. The archaeological ones range from a few buildings, chiefly synagogues, or rather their remnants, including some of their inscriptions, to cemeteries, mainly catacombs and their epitaphs and inscriptions; the literary output of Greeks, Romans and Jews, in their several languages; as well as the legislation and other legal texts formulated by the Roman authorities and by the rabbis, the latter mostly in Judaea and Babylonia, although a few Italian ones too have survived. Standing out by their absence are archival documents, which are an essential cornerstone for the reconstruction of the past in the Middle Ages and Modern Times and which hitherto served me in my research into the history of the Jews in Italy. So that being the case new sources for Antiquity shine by their absence while the reliability of those still available is often blighted by their dubious nature. Like all historians, past and present, I cannot escape myself and my times, nor do I wish to. However, thereby I do not mean that I am slavishly bound to an agenda, political, social, religious and otherwise. I seek the truth, elusive as it may be, and if it escapes me it is not for want of trying. I rather prefer to walk in the footsteps of Thucydides as well as those of Herodotus, since fables also have their use. In short, outmoded as many of my contemporaries make him, my model is Leopold v. Ranke; and if Ranke will not do, another is Benedetto Croce. Hence it will not come as a surprise that I am no kin to post-modernists and other “progressives” and “revisionists”. The widening of the scope of historiography from “preoccupation with the elites” to a “total history” does not affect this principle. At the same time I am not blind to the fact that many years have passed since the days of these luminaries, and that new aspects and insights have come to the fore. Some have come to stay, at least for a while, while others are temporary and will vanish sooner or later.3 The value of these sources for the Jews of Italy in Antiquity as historical evidence is uneven. There is not a single detail beyond dispute. This is partly due to the large degree of their unreliability, and partly to an untrammelled passion

3 Ranke: “Man hat der Historie das Amt die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu bekehren, beigemessen: so hoher Aemter unterwindet sich gegen- wärtiger Versuch nicht: er will blos zeigen wie es eigentlich gewesen”. This passage is being misinterpreted more often than not [roughly translated: . . . History has been attributed the function of judging the past, to convert the world to the advantage of the future: to such high offices this work does not aspire: It wants only to show what really was] (Sämmtliche Werke, vol. 33/34, p. 7). And see his The Theory and Practice of History, passim. His chief critique was Carr, What is History? passim. Others followed suit. Not surprisingly these views were rejected in turn. Croce on history: “Every history is contemporary history” (Teoria e storia della historiografia, passim [Engl. Ed.: History: Its Theory and Practice, passim]). Introduction 3 for innovation and originality by some of the scholars researching the subject. In the past 30 years or so there have appeared hundreds of books and papers on the Jews in Antiquity and manifold more in which this topic was treated en passant and/or mentioned. I am unable to say what brought about this flurry of research. Much is repetitious, though all told it has contributed considerably to our insight into that period of Jewish history. I doubt whether I should have added my mite to the accumulated literature, were it not for the fact that one cannot very well try to present a comprehensive history of the Jews in Italy and exclude this chapter in their past simply because of the plethora of what appears to be an overproduction of research literature. Since the present opus attempts to sum up the history of that Jewish community to the present, its primary purpose is not the location of new sources, hardly available at this point in time, but rather a balance sheet as it were of past achievements. Needless to say I shall not refrain from presenting my own views on the divergent and often contradictory judgments of my predecessors. However, I shall abstain from trying to solve the conundrums, which for want of new documentary discoveries will remain such. Many of these are in dispute and perhaps are best described as begging the question. Let us start with archaeological sources. The most abundant and detailed ones are the epitaphs and other inscriptions of the Jews in Rome discovered in the catacombs. They span a period of some two to three centuries, starting in the first or second century CE. They are not really representative even of the Jews who lived in the town during the centuries under review, since they represent no more than a fraction of them. While the number of Jews there during the Empire is controversial, ranging from a figure of up to 100,000, few scholars will dispute that they numbered no less than say 10,000. So taking the absolute minimum as a basis and assuming that a generation, based on the life expectancy figures of those days, would be the equivalent of 25–30 years that would make the number of the Jews in Rome at least some 30,000 to 40,000 in a century. The total would come to some 100,000 at least for the entire period of the catacombs. The epitaphs and inscriptions discovered so far number a little over 600, accounting for less than one percent. Most of them are of little use. All graves, including loculi and kokhim, but without inscriptions whatsoever, probably come to 10,000 or so, totalling 10 percent. So conclusions based on them, or rather on a few hundred inscriptions, are problematical, to say the least, particularly since our population estimate is highly conservative.4

4 Recently (1997) 3828 loculi were counted in the Villa Torlonia alone. See Cappelletti, Rome, p. 164. She mentions a map of the loculi promised by the Roman soprintendenza. Rutgers, Reflections, pp. 345f. counted a fractionally smaller figure. Since no other counts of graves/ loculi have been made and since most catacombs do not enable us to do so, the figure quoted 4 Introduction

Then there are the synagogues. No ruins of the 11 or so Roman synagogues that are mentioned in the catacombs of Rome have been uncovered. The few synagogues, or rather their remnants, found hitherto in Italy were discovered outside Rome, at Ostia, Bova Marina, etc. Even of the ones unearthed only remnants have survived, and the interpretation of these is often problematical. What do the rooms, other than the main hall, signify? Were they situated near the sea to facilitate ablutions of one sort or another? Did they contain a schoolroom, an inn, ancillary rooms and structures, and so forth? Were they constructed as synagogues or did they make use of existing buildings? What structural changes did they undergo, if any? Was there a women’s gallery, a kitchen, and most importantly what did the Aron Qodeṣ (Holy Ark) look like? Linked to these problems are the other functions of the building, the ritual, and the languages employed in the synagogue and the like. On these questions precise answers are still outstanding, though some scholars think they have solutions, at least partial ones.5 The literary references to Italian Jews are manifold. There are the Greek and Roman writers, historians, philosophers, authors of belles-lettres, from poets to satirists, rhetors, geographers, and so forth. Some were Romans, born and bred, others came from the provinces outside Italy, somewhere in the Empire, from Spain and Gaul, Greece and Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, but many spent some or most of their lives in Italy, chiefly in Rome. They wrote on Jewish history, customs and ritual, habits and shortcomings, to mention only a few aspects dealt with. Many are unreliable and more often than not prejudiced one way or another. You do not have to wait until modern scholarship uncovered their defects; their own contemporaries criticized and condemned them. Mantras are often their stock in trade. Roman authors who lived next door to the Jews of the capital insisted time and again that Jews celebrated the Sabbath fasting. Yet all they had to do was walk a street or two to realize that they were wrong. So evidently, they had an axe to grind, or were lazy, repeated stereotypes, and what will you. Take for instance Josephus’ criticism of the writers on Nero:

is no more than approximate, even if reasonably so. On life expectancy in the Roman Empire, see Burn, Study of the Expectation of Life, pp. 2f.; Clauss, Probleme der Lebensalter Statistiken, p. 395; Rutgers, l.c. has 22.5–25. He also proposes figures for the graves in the remaining catacombs. For the problem of drawing conclusions from a small percentage of graves compared to the size of an estimated population, see Bodel, From Columbarium to Catacomb, passim. And see below, next chapt. 5 See infra, the chapter on the Jewish community and the synagogue. Introduction 5

But I omit any further discourse about these affairs; for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero; some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favour, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bore him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned. Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero, since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time, even when the actors could have no way incurred their hatred, since those writers lived a long time after them.

There are few exceptions. One of them was Tacitus, who, therefore, was considered one of the few really true historians among them all. He made use of Roman official sources, such as the minutes of the senate, the acts of government, and the speeches of emperors and other written evidence, including contemporary letters, for the most part now lost. His Annales and Historia testify to this effect.6

6 JA, 20.8.3. Josephus too was a partisan writer. See for instance: Safrai, S. et al., The Jewish People in the First Century: Sources; Smith, The Troublemakers, 501f.; Willrich, Urkundenfälschung. See also below. Suetonius researched the imperial archives for eyewitness accounts and other evidence to produce his book; but his critics claim that it is founded on gossip and other unreliable information rather than primary sources. Or take Eusebius. From the fifth century Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus through Gibbon in the 18th century, Burckhardt in the 19th century, MacMullen and Momigliano in the 20th century, Eusebius was incessantly attacked. The miracles and other hagiographic stories attributed to the saints of Antiquity, linked to Jews, particularly their conversion to Christianity, have little if anything to do with Jews and their history. The hagiographic stories recounted in them are stereotype mantras, at best portraying the writers’ and/or the saints’ view on Jews and Judaism. Therefore I have refrained from attributing to the details recounted of their alleged contacts with Jews anything more than just that and where applicable some background details. See my Between Scylla and Charybdis, p. 9., note 1 and Blumenkranz, Juden und jüdisches, pp. 417f.; Toch, Jews in Europe 500–1050, pp. 547f.: “However, in the light of recent studies into hagiography and religious polemics, many of these sources should be handled with great cir- cumspection . . . not every metaphorical reference . . . speaks of actually living Jews.” See also Calderone, Comunità ebraiche, pp. 41f. The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, or Historia Augusta, is a collection of biographies of Roman emperors, their heirs, and claimants from Hadrian to Numerianus. Present opinion holds that the whole is the work of a single author and contains much that is plagiarism and even downright forgery. See Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2, p. 612f.; Momigliano, Unsolved Problem of Historical Forgery, pp. 22f.; Syme, Historia Augusta, passim; Id., Emperors and Biography, passim. Livy was the most powerful critic of himself. At the beginning of his Ab urbe condita he states his inability to write proper history on remote 6 Introduction

We fare no better with Jewish literary sources. In some respects they are even less reliable as historical sources. These are mostly Hebrew and Aramaic and a minority is Greek. There are very few Jewish Latin sources worth mentioning, at least those that have survived. First and foremost there are the rabbinic writings: the Miṣnah and its additions (Tosefta and Baraita), the two Talmudim, i.e., the Talmud of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud. Then there are the Midraṣim, the Midreṣe Halakha and Aggada. Many passages in the Midraṣim occur also in the Talmudim, while others are reported in one of them only. The Miṣnah, considered the oldest written text, based on the oral traditions, which until the days of the sages were not supposed to be put on paper, was codified in or about 200 CE. The Jerusalemite Talmud contains the transactions of the Palestinian academies in relation to the Miṣnah until its codification at the end of the fourth century and early fifth century in Judaea. The Babylonian Talmud presents the learned discussions and interpretations of the Miṣnah in the academies of Babylonia and Judaea until its codification at the end of the sixth century and beginning of the seventh. The Midraṣim are numerous and most if not all were linked to the homilies and sermons delivered as part of the synagogal service. Their final versions were put on paper from the days of the Miṣnah right through the Middle Ages. This literature is often anonymous, but individual sayings, quotations, and legal decisions, are mostly (albeit not all) attributed to single scholars or groups of rabbis. Whenever possible the names of the authors are given and so is their time. The composition dates of the texts in which their sayings appear would seem to be of less relevance than the period in which they lived. The two major Greek opera were the writings of Philo and Josephus. They were largely polemical and had an avowed agenda. Most other Greek writings, including the literature of Hellenistic Jewry, known to have existed, have not come down to us. The translations of the Bible, starting with the Septuagint, and the Jewish Apocrypha provide relatively little information for our purpose, though they were often cited in one context or another. Included in these are the mystical writings assigned by some scholars to Antiquity. None of these works were written in Italy, at least as far as we know, but a few Midraṣic passages and legal decisions have been attributed to Roman rabbis.

times for which no evidence exists, and relegates it to poets. Suda, who wrote his Lexicon in or about the year 1000, is the only source for the Jewishness of Caecilius of Calacte, a contemporary of Augustus. Not really much to go by. Furthermore, the writings of many authors (or parts of them) have been lost and their texts are known only from later quotations. Hence, there is no telling what posterity has done to the texts. Introduction 7

Many passages in rabbinic literature, mostly aggadic, decrease in reliability the further they are removed in place and in time from the events and happenings to which they refer. Their use is more often than not of doubtful value and their accuracy hangs in the balance, particularly if several hundred years divide between the dates of the text and the events they describe, but not only then. Take, for instance, the stories about Rabbi and the Emperor Antoninus. While Rabbi is probably identical with Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi, the codifier of the Miṣnah, the emperor has never really been identified. Over half a dozen emperors were called by that name, and the most likely candidates selected by scholars were Antoninus Pius, Marc Aurel, and Caracalla. Some of the stories told of Rabbi’s relations with them are manifestly figments of the imagination, and no supportive evidence from non-rabbinic sources on this relationship has been forthcoming. At most the stories testify to the relationship if any of the patriarch with the rulers of Rome, or perhaps only as the rabbis would have liked to view it. However, they are still an important historical source in the sense that what had started out as a fable or myth often became an ethos, or the other way around: an ethos created a myth. The sequence and timetable of the two are often shrouded in mystery, since many texts do not supply identifiable dates. Briefly: the attitude of scholars to rabbinic sources range from complete credence to total rejection. That hinges largely, perhaps totally, on their personal beliefs and convictions and is relevant to both Jews and non-Jews, and has been described as “theological bias”, but is not solely theological.7

7 The literature on the literary and legal output of Tannaim and Amoraim is legion. Standard encyclopedias contain most of the basic information on it. Editions and reprints of the texts also abound. For an up-to-date listing and description of Midraṣim, their dating, and so forth, see Reizel, Introduction to the Midraṣim. Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom 1, p. 90, for instance, consider most Aggadoth figments of the imagination, with little or no relevance to the historical events that they describe. That is evidently true of stories such as the so-called conversion of Nero to Judaism (B. Gittin, 56a). Another anecdote reported in the same chain of Aggadoth is that of the escape of R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai from besieged Jerusalem and the concessions he allegedly obtained from Titus for his sect, or, in other words: the survival of rabbinic Judaism when all other Jewish sects began to disappear, except Pharisaism and Christianity. But while it is highly unlikely that Nero embraced Judaism, the legend about his conversion serves only to illustrate the way the rabbis regarded the emperor, in this case Nero. At the same time the rabbinic Judaism adopted and propagated by Yoḥanan b. Zakkai and his disciples won out among Jews in the long run and became dominant. The Midraṣim have attracted the attention of scholars since the days of Leopold Zunz, in his Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, nearly two centuries ago. Since then the value of such rabbinic sources as documentary evidence has been summarily denied by some scholars, but not nearly by all. See for instance Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, passim; Goodman, Mediterranean Diaspora, pp. 208f.; Kraabel, Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue, pp. 178f. Cf. Boyarin, Historical Research, 8 Introduction

Then there are the legal sources. They are thought to be the most reliable evidence of all. Some early legislation, or what is considered such, has been transmitted in non-legal writings, but most laws are contained in the two codices, that of Theodosius II completed in 438, and that of Justinian, plus the Digest, Institutes and Novels, codified in 533–565. Both codices contain special chapters on Jews, and mention Jews also elsewhere in their collections. Corruptions of certain laws are thought to have taken place, through mistakes made by the codifiers, clerks and the like, or for other reasons, but most appear to be true to the original texts. These were the laws, but only on few and far occasions have we evidence of their application. In fact, in some instances we think to have proof that they were not applied.8 I have ventured to deal also with subjects for which documentary evidence is scarce and often indirect. That is true in particular with regard to the demography of Italian Jews, their economy, and related subjects. While sometimes I have permitted myself to draw conclusions by inference from conditions prevailing elsewhere, even if the relevancy of events and conditions in countries other than Italy and their validity for Italy is tenuous, I have refrained from doing so with regard to those that do not allow the drawing of parallels in Italy at all. Thus the involvement of Jews in agriculture in countries such as Judaea, have no bearing on Italy, even if some of the immigrants who settled in Italy were peasants in their homeland, or did at some stage or another engage in agriculture. On the other hand I have drawn conclusions from say rabbinic writings originating in Judaea, though to a much lesser degree if written in Babylonia, on the assumption that the Jews of Italy were Hellenistic in language but mostly rabbinic in the observance of Judaism and in constant touch with the Patriarchs and the rabbis.9 Furthermore, there is the literature of Judaeo-Christian relations. Many, albeit not all, Christian writings containing references to Jews and Judaism have survived, chiefly in the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers. They all contain an anti-Jewish bias and some were part of the Adversus Judaeos branch of literature. On the other hand, Jewish views on Christians and Christianity, with a similar but opposite bias, have been destroyed by the

pp. 105f.; Neusner, Formation of Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 3f. (including an extensive critique of Urbach); Schäfer, Jews and Gentiles in Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah, pp. 335f.; Schremer, Midrash and History, pp. 5f.; Urbach, Sages, b.m., passim. References to Aggada by the Fathers of the Church have been dealt with among others by Graetz, Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvätern, pp. 311f. 8 The Roman laws regarding Jews are presented and commentated by Linder, Jews in Imperial Roman Legislation. 9 See below. Introduction 9

Church, or by the Jews themselves out of fear of the punishment meted out by Christian rulers to those found in possession of them. Quotations from Jewish polemics and the gist of their arguments are to be gleaned from the writings of the adversaries of the Jews. References to Jesus and to Christianity in ancient rabbinic literature, particularly the Talmudim and Midraṣim, which were obliterated by latter-day censorship, have been identified and many are now printed in modern editions of these texts. While one or two surviving Jewish polemical texts are thought by some scholars to have been written in Antiquity, all others of that period have perished, if they ever existed. Both sides were prejudiced, and for good reason by their lights, and the “facts” reported in that literature have to be evaluated accordingly.10 So here we have an impressive array of sources for the history of Italian Jews in Antiquity. Many of them do not mention Italy, or the Jews of Italy as such, but it may assumed, for instance, with a high degree of probability that an imperial law published in Rome or elsewhere in the Empire was as valid in Rome and the rest of Italy as in the provinces. There are a few exceptions, such as when the variance from the norm was stated in so many words. The same applies to other texts. Rabbinic literature was written chiefly in Judaea and in Babylonia and only to a small degree in Rome. But it was known there, though perhaps not to everybody. If no-one else saw to it, then the emissaries of the Patriarch did. The works and views of the writers of Antiquity were read, at least by those who normally perused such literature, in Italy as in Syria or in Asia Minor. So if they had any meaning in the context of forming the public opinion of their times, at least among the educated readership or audience, that was as valid in Italy at least as much as in other lands of the Empire. From the intelligentsia they eventually filtered down to the masses. What the preachers of sermons in the synagogue did for Judaism their peers in the churches did for Christianity. Many more similar parallels may be drawn with regard to other sources. Of course, often that is inference rather than direct evidence. Furthermore, many books of Antiquity did not survive their times, the most blatant events of this kind being the conflagration that consumed the library in Alexandria, as well as the destruction of nearly all urban settlements along the Mediterranean littoral. These are immutable facts or shortcomings that every investigation of Antiquity has to contend with. So there are relatively few “incontrovertible hard facts” to be culled from surviving sources, and we have to make the best of those we have. In the end this is also valid for other periods, more abundantly documented, though that is sometimes resulting in embarasse de richesses.

10 See infra. The Texts of the Church Fathers were published in PL, PG, and CC and innumerable other editions and translations. The dating of the N.T. has generated an enormous literature, to which we shall refer only on a few occasions. 10 Introduction

Assembling the jigsaw puzzle called “History of Italian Jews in Antiquity” I felt more and more as if I was skating on thin ice, broken in places, mostly insecure.11 Naturally, I was aware of all the doubts surrounding this or that piece of evidence and drew my conclusions accordingly. One has to keep in mind that the Aggada, or most of it, has its origin in the sermon delivered in the synagogue after the service, readings of Scripture, prayers and the like. They were intended to liven up the synagogal service and not report to the public the results of scholarly investigation into historical events. So the more entertaining they were—the better. At the same time, they often contain a grain of truth and portray the state of mind of preacher and audience. Some have viewed them in this light, others have searched them for the elusive grain, and yet others have rejected them altogether and out-of-hand. The attitude to them of later generations varied. However, I refrained from the tedious repetition of my hesitations and misgivings for the umpteenth time whenever I referred to a dubious quotation or narrative each time it occurred. So let me state here once and for all that I have serious misgivings regardig the veracity and reliability of many of the things narrated in this volume, but they are all I have, at least at the present stage of investigation, and they are to be viewed and evaluated accordingly. Aggada is as unreliable an historical source as hagiography, and so are many other “documents”. The extension of the legal term quod non est in actis non est al mundo to the research into the history of Italian Jewry in Antiquity would leave us with little reliable evidence to go by and hence with very little substance, a fecund breeding ground for far-fetched theories. Only in the Middle Ages, particularly during their second half, historical research has at its disposal archival documentation, and these pose their own problems of interpretation. Hardly any such source material is available for research into the history of the Jews in Italy in Antiquity. At the same time I have striven to adhere to the rules out- lined at the beginning of this introduction. There remains the problem of periodization. Generally speaking the rough division into Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Modern Times is still accepted by many. However, there is much disagreement regarding the subdivisions of these three major periods, in the matter of terminology and contents. For instance, sometimes Antiquity is divided into two: Antiquity proper and Late

11 Many scholars have expressed similar doubts. See for instance Levine, Status of the Patriarch, pp. 1f. His observations on the Patriarchate and its sources are valid also for most other subjects in Jewish Antiquity. It suffices for our purpose to cite one of his phrases: “Limited information is, of course, part and parcel of any study of antiquity”. Introduction 11

Antiquity. That has become fashionable but not necessarily lasting. The same applies to the Middle Ages. They are divided into the Early Middle Ages and the Late Middle Ages (also High and Low Middle Ages), followed by the French or most of them. At other times they are divided into three: High Middle Ages, Middle Ages (proper or classic) and Low Middle Ages, followed by many English and German. Evidently that is not only a matter of terminology, but also of convenience. As to the history of the Jews in Italy, which does not necessarily follow that of the periodization of the surrounding population, one is tempted to draw a dividing line between their history during pagan Rome until Constantine and from then on under the rule of Christian emperors. But that also has its draw- backs. I have decided to contain the history of the Jews in Italy in Antiquity in six to seven centuries, from their first appearance during the last two centuries of the Roman Republic to the days of Pope Gregory I (not inclusive). I am aware that this is open to argument at least as much as any other division. Thus the emergence of the Christian Empire was a water-shed for the Jews in Italy, albeit more gradual than sudden, while a period named “Late Antiquity”, wedged between Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and stretching as far the seventh century, recently adopted by some scholars, has relatively little significance for the Jews in the West, especially those in Italy. As for later ages, I shall deal with them in due course.12 This is a comprehensive history of the Jews in Italy. It does not single out an aspect or detail of that history to the exclusion of others. It deals with the political, military, social, economic, legal, religious, and cultural sides of that history. Evidently I had to make do with the source material at my disposal, so that many questions had to remain unanswered. Until modern times religion was omnipresent. Pagans believed in their gods, Jews in Jehovah, and Christians in the Trinity. There were no end sects and factions, but everybody believed

12 Berliner, op. cit., adopted the division of to and from Constantine very much at the expense of the later period. So did Milano, Italia, pp. 37f. There is much disagreement on this issue. Curiously, the last volume of the CAH and the first volume of the NCMH (the first edition of 1911 is even more hesitant) overlap, but are far from identical. That did not escape the notice of the editors. According to one of them the volumes of the CAH portray Mediterranean history, whereas the NCMH is focused on European history; or one looks toward the Roman Empire along the Mediterranean littoral in Antiquity, while the other is medievally orientated, and looks mainly at Europe during the following millennium. Pirenne tried to tackle the problem nearly a century ago. See his Mohammed and Charlemagne, esp. chapt. 1. The current project “Transformation of the Roman World”, which started publication in 1997, and of which some 14 volumes have hitherto appeared, also attempts to solve the problem. The jury is still out. 12 Introduction in one deity or another, or claimed they did. The term atheus covered a lot of territory and “atheism” was punishable by all religions in one way or another. But religion and ideas did not govern all human life. There was also material history, and neither existed to the exclusion of the other. So, to separate one aspect of life from the rest and concentrate on it at the expense of others will not do and I tried to avoid it. History to me means a story, an all-embracing narrative, incomplete, beset with the writer’s human frailties and with other shortcomings, striving for truth, the complete truth, although aware that this is unattainable, since it is a story relying on evidence of varying fragility. Finally, a word on presentation. I have tried to style my text narrative in the descriptive rather than the investigatory fashion. To quote Leone da Modena in his Introduction to his Responsa: “I have not been among the clever and sharp- witted in casuistry (pilpul) who proclaim loudly to be turning an elephant (pil) into a bean (pol)”. Those interested in analysis and dispute will find plenty to attract them in the footnotes; and hence I have avoided in the text most polemics better suited to footnotes or research papers in learned journals. The fact that I attach credence to one version as against the other means that I weighed the evidence and found all or most other judgments wanting, at least relatively speaking. Only on rare occasions have I joined verbal battle with my opposite numbers, and then only for what appeared to me a pressing reason. I have shunned unproven dicta and judgments based on an agenda. Hence I have tried to emulate those of my predecessors who thought likewise and to make my style readable also to those who are not initiated into my profession.13

13 Therefore I distance myself from Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, and his criticism of Schürer for “the descriptive nature of his exposé” (According to the OED the opposite of descriptive is: emotive, prescriptive, evaluative); or his disqualification of Leon, Rome (evidently his bête noire) for being “thematic”, while his own opus is “problem-oriented”. According to Rutgers, op. cit., what Leon should have done was to compare the Jews of Rome with the peoples surrounding them. Well, he did not—finding other aspects more attractive, important or interesting. See also his Interaction and Its Limits, pp. 245f.; and his Archaeological Evidence, pp. 101f. And see Levine et al., Jewish Identities in Antiquity, passim, esp. p. 32. Similarly I cannot agree with Barclay, Judaean Historiography, pp. 29f., and The Empire Writes Back, p. 35, who among other things identified Josephus “as a classic manifestation of the postcolonial phenomenon of ‘auto history’, an enterprise designed to outline the history of a people in the idiom of the majority culture but with primary reference to its own institutions and on its own terms” (as summarized by a comrade in arms Curran, Flavius Josephus in Rome, pp. 83f.). Evidently, I cannot take issue with all the divergent and often contradictory claims made by students of the Diaspora in Antiquity, including the Italian one, as regards the many problems that beset the real or imaginary events supposed to have taken place in Antiquity and/or Late Antiquity. Mostly I limit myself to references in the footnotes, preceded by “cf.” and the like. For Leone da Modena’s wordplay, see his Responsa Ziqne Yehuda, p. 3. chapter 1 Historical Background

First Contacts

The antecedents of Italian Jewry are shrouded in darkness, as are those of most other Jewish communities in the Diaspora. In Italy too later generations interwove fact with fiction and attempted to trace their ancestry as far back as possible. Some did so to underline their antiquity, some to show proof that their forbears had no part and parcel in the death of Jesus, while others simply attempted to romanticize the circumstances of their coming into existence. All these fables need not concern us here. Not that the surviving historical records stand on rock bottom evidence either, but relatively speaking their credibil- ity is much higher than the legendary traditions of say the four or five Jewish Roman families, which claimed centuries after the alleged event that their ancestors had been brought to Rome by Titus. They stood on no firmer ground than the tale of Remus and Romulus and of the year in which Rome was supposedly founded (ab urbe condita, i.e., 753 BCE). Jewish folklore concocted its own account of the founding of Rome. R. Levi, a Palestinian amora of the third century, told the following tale:

On the day on which (King) Solomon married Pharaoh Neco’s daughter, Michael (the archangel), the great prince, descended from heaven and stuck a large reed into the sea, which gathered moisture around it, and they made it a place like a wood; and that became Rome. On the day on which Jeroboam, son of Nebat set up two golden calves they built two huts in Rome. As soon as they built them they collapsed; they rebuilt them and they collapsed again. An old man there, named Abba Qolon, said to them: ‘If you do not bring water from the Euphrates, mix it with clay, and build (the huts) with it, they will not endure’. Said they: ‘Who will do it?’ Said he: ‘I will’ . . . When he got there, he went and took water from the Euphrates. They mixed it with the clay, built the (huts), and they endured. From then on it became customary to say: ‘A town without Abba Qolon is not a proper town’. And they called (the place) ‘Rome-Babylon’.

From the nebulous past to the relatively firmer ground of historical records. The first contact between Jews and Rome is said to have occurred in the days of the Hasmoneans. They, the rulers of a tiny principality in a turbulent Near East,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004282360_�03 14 chapter 1 sought support and alliance with the slowly up and coming military and political power of their day, the Roman Republic. They had successfully defended themselves against one of the major players on their contemporary political and military field, but knew all too well that in the long run they would not be able to resist the potent Seleucid state bordering on their territory. So they fended for whatever support they could muster from a powerful state, at that juncture still too far away to represent an immediate threat to their country. That in the end it was Rome and not Antioch which put an end to Judaean independence was not on the books at this stage. The Maccabaeans were concerned with marshalling support within the context of their times, and were not beset with visions of the distant future. That was left to mystics and diviners.1 At this point in history the Roman Republic sought to increase their influence wherever they could. Before they had their legions set foot in the Near East, invade country after country and annex them to their Empire, they intervened in local conflicts, made treaties with the powers that be, and sent out emissaries to pave the way for their penetration. According to Maccabees 1 and 2, the first written in Hebrew in the second half of the second century BCE, and the other written in Greek a little later, two such emissaries, Quintus Mummius

1 Canticles Rabba, 1.6. Its redaction has been ascribed to the sixth century, based on earlier Palestinian sources, such as J. Avoda Zara, 1.2.; B. Ṣabbath, 56b, B. Sanhedrin, 21b. See below, next chapt. See also Feldman, Abba Kolon, pp. 449f. (who opts for Qolon=colony); Krauss, Persia and Rome, 14f.; Rieger, Foundation of Rome in the Talmud, pp. 227f. (who suggests Tyre instead of Rome); and see there for other references to the founding of Rome and the seemingly endless suggestions for the identification of Abba Qolon. Cf. J. Avoda Zara, 1.2, B. Ṣabbath, 56b (see below), B. Sanhedrin, 21b, Sifre Deuteronomy, 52, Esther Rabbati, 1.9, Midraṣ Ṣoḥer Tov, 10.6. Herszberg, The Great Conversion Movement, p. 210 cites this story in support of his theory of a linkage between intermarriage (starting with King Solomon) and the rise of Rome, the enemy of the Jews. That appears rather far-fetched. For the origin of the tale of the Jewish families brought to Rome by Titus, see my Jewish Italy: The Melting Pot of Mediterranean Jewry (forthcoming). On the alliance with Rome, see Pompeius Trogus, who lived over a century later, quoted by Justinus, Historiae Philippicae, Epitoma, 36.3.9. He gave a rather pessimistic estimate of the alliance: “On revolting from Demetrius, and soliciting the favour of the Romans, they [the Jews] were the first of all the eastern people that regained their liberty, the Romans readily affecting to bestow what it was not in their power to give.” That view is shared also by some modern writers. See, for instance, Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World, pp. 44f. Indeed, the treaty did not stop Demetrius Soter from killing Judah in battle (160). For another early (first century BCE) Roman writer who records the treaties, see Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 40.2. There is no substance to the theory that Naevius, a third-century BCE author of a comedy, Apella, cited by the grammarian Priscianus, referred to Jews in Italy. See Stern, op. cit., 3, pp. 13f. Historical Background 15 and Titus Manlius, started meddling in Near Eastern politics in or about 164 BCE. On their way to Antioch they wrote to the Hasmoneans inviting them to negotiate with them. As a result, directly or indirectly, Judas Maccabeus, who is said to have heard of the Romans, their military prowess and their conquests, decided to ally himself to them. He sent Eupolemus, son of John and Jason, son of Eleazar, son of Qotz on an embassy to Rome. The ambassadors obtained the senate’s approval of a mutual defense treaty.2 The treaty was renewed in or about 143 BCE, following the mission of another delegation sent to Rome by Jonathan, brother of Judas and his successor. The Roman senate assented to the Hasmonean wish and renewed the treaty, At this juncture Rome still did

2 Maccabees, 1.8.1f.; 2.11.34; JA, 12.10.6; JBJ, 1.1.4. The first two Books of Maccabees are classified as Apocrypha and are part of the Septuagint. The Hebrew (or Aramaic) original of Maccabees 1 has been lost, probably because of the books’ exclusion from the Hebrew canon of the Bible, but has been preserved in Greek by Christians. On the composition of Maccabees 1 and 2, especially the dates, see recently Bar Kochva, The Battles of the Hasmoneans, pp. 139f.; Id., Judas Maccabeus, passim. According to Maccabees 2.2.23 the book was based on the five volumes of a history by Jason of Cyrene, a North African Jew in or about 100 BCE. It has been suggested that the ambassador was a Hellenistic Jewish historian, contemporary of the first Hasmoneans, quoted by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9.17f., from Alexander Polyhistor and Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.21. Eupolemus the historian is said to have written a book on biblical history and other Jewish histories (which have not survived. See below, chapt. 5. There is no decisive evidence for this identification. Cf. Gutman, Jewish Hellenistic Literature, 1, pp. 75f.; Wacholder, Eupolemus, passim and the references there; Willrich, Judaica, pp. 62f. Wacholder rather downplays the “status” of the treaty. As usual the story has produced an extensive literature, including Josephus’ assertion that the text of the resolution (senatus consultum) was engraved on brass. See Stern, Treaty Between Judaea and Rome, pp. 1f., who shows that a senatus consultum was of lesser political weight than a resolution by popular vote (citations ad loc.); and Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, pp. 304f. Cf. also Willrich, Urkundenfälschung, pp. 44f. He cites the extensive literature that accumulated up to his time and denies the reliability and hence the usefulness of Maccabees and the information contained therein. See op. cit., pp. 91f. on Jason of Cyrene and his alleged forgeries, the product of Judaeo-Hellenistic Alexandrian apologetics, of whom he disapproved. His thesis is diametrically opposed to that of Niese, Bemerkungen, pp. 466f.; Id., Kritik, pp. 268f.; and others. Curiously Jason has been accused by some of being pro-Hasmonean and by others as being anti-Hasmonean. The literature on all this was further expanded in the 90 years after Willrich and has assumed astounding dimensions. See, for instance, Baltrusch, Die Juden und das römische Reich, passim, esp. pp. 85f.; Grant, Jews in the Roman World, passim; Momigliano, Romans and the Maccabees, pp. 231f.; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, pp. 5f.; Wirgin, Judah Maccabee’s Embassy to Rome, pp. 15f.; Yavetz, Judenfeindschaft in der Antike, pp. 90f. For Roman envoys and agents in those days, see Polybius, Histories 31; and for the political weight of the treaty, see Sordi, Valore politico del trattato, pp. 509f. 16 chapter 1 not have a foothold in the East, but the military threat of the Roman legions was often sufficient to deter potential aggressors.3 The third Hasmonean mission to Rome, however, was sent by Simon, successor to his brother Jonathan. This followed a Roman offer to Simon to renew the treaty between the two countries. The ambassadors brought the Romans a present: A golden shield worth a thousand gold pieces. This event was said to have coincided, more or less, with an occurrence reported by Valerius Maximus, a Latin writer of the first half of the first century CE, author of nine Books of Memorable Deeds and Sayings, written for use in Roman schools of rhetoric. The “Books” have survived in two versions, were popular in the Middle Ages, but modern scholars have cast serious doubts on their reliability as an historical source. In the two versions of the report, tallying in substance but not in detail, the praetor of foreigners in Rome is alleged to have expelled the Jews from the city in or about 139 BCE. According to one version: “the Jews had tried to corrupt Roman values with their cult of Jupiter Sabazius, so the praetor forced them to go back to their homes”, whereas the other version runs: “the Jews had tried to pass their religion on to Romans, so Hispanus [the praetor] expelled them from the city and demolished their private altars in all public places”. Some have linked these events to alleged missionary activities by Simon’s delegation or some of its members. While this link is more than dubious, there is no cogent reason for doubting the expulsion, which fitted Roman policy at this time to rid the country of foreign cults.4

3 Maccabees, 1.12.1f.; JA, 13.5.8; JBJ, 1.2.1. Josephus’ circumstantial description of the proceedings and other details cited by him show that he had access to the minutes of the senate. While the reliability of Josephus’ account is often impugned due to prejudice, personal agenda, and other reasons, there are no grounds for doubting the substance of the Hasmonean missions. Cf., Willrich, Urkundenfälschung, cit., pp. 568f., who rejects Maccabees and Josephus as forgeries. And see below. 4 Maccabees, cit., 1.14.14f., 24f.; 1.15.16; JA, 13.7.3, 14.8.5 (= 145f.); Valerius Maximus, Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium (Dicta et Mirabilia), 1.3.3. The two versions are attributed to Julius Paris (ca. 300) and Nepotianus (ca. 400), respectively. See Wirgin, op. cit., pp. 141f.; Id., Simon Maccabaeus’ Embassy to Rome, pp. 141f. The story has been rejected by Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, pp. 2f. because Valerius Maximus lived nearly two centuries after the event; Alessandri, Presunta cacciata, pp. 187f.; Willrich, Urkundenfälschung, cit., p. 69 and others. It was accepted by Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom 1, pp. 2f., 84. Cf. Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, p. 206. Apparently accepted also by Stern, Jewish Diaspora, pp. 160f.; Id., Greek and Latin Authors 1, pp. 357f.; Cf. Smallwood, Tiberius, 321 and an additional list of scholars who dealt with the question of Valerius’ reliability and of this passage in particular. See also Gruen, Diaspora, pp. 18f.; Hedner-Zetterholm, Jewish Communities of Ancient Rome, pp. 131f.; Juster, Juifs dans l’empire Romain, 1, pp. 258f.; Lewy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism, pp. 166f.; Rabello, Legal Condition, p. 698, note. 149; Simon, Verus Israel, pp. 126f.; Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 39f. Historical Background 17

Finally, in 134 BCE, Ptolemy b. Ḥabubu, the son-in-law of Simon, assassinated the latter and two of his own brothers-in-law. John Hyrcan, the surviving son of Simon and his successor at the helm of Judaea, revenged himself on Ptolemy and after a while sought to defend himself against his enemies in Syria by renewing the treaty with Rome. The ambassadors brought about a ses- sion of the Roman senate convened to deliberate on John’s request. They again brought the Romans a golden present. The senate “graciously” accepted the present, and confirmed the treaty, but evaded the request to have the Romans see to the restitution by the Seleucids of the territories they had conquered from the Hasmoneans and to have them pay compensation for the damage sustained by the latter. To make up for their (partly) evasive response they promised to pay for the mission’s trip home. These four delegations left no evidence of having engaged in Rome in anything but their official business, or of having started a permanent Jewish settlement there. The expulsion recounted by Valerius Maximus may or may not have taken place, but if it did it apparently occurred independently of the Judaean missions to Rome. The expelled must have been peregrini, subject to the jurisdiction of the praetor peregri- nus, and not former prisoners of war, who became members of the libertini class on manumission, and therefore were not subject to the jurisdiction of this official.5

See there also on attempts to link the mention of Sabazius to Jewish syncretism. The story is repeated ca. 400 by Servius, in his commentary on Virgil (Commentarii in Vergilii Aneida 8.187). See Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, p. 653. See Ibid., 3, p. 60 on Sabazius as god of the Thracians. Cappelletti, Jewish Community of Rome, pp. 33f. sums up most of the conflicting views. Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, pp. 313f. have doubts about the alleged fear of missionary activities by the Hasmonean delegation. Stern, Relations between Judaea and Rome, cit., p. 3 opted for 142 because he identified the consul Lucius mentioned in Maccabees, cit., with Lucius Caecilius Metellus Calvus who officiated in that year. Sabazius was a nomadic horseman and father god of the Phrygians. In the end he became identified with Dionysus. See also Plutarch, Symposiacs, 4.6. Consequently some Roman writers identified Yehova with Dyonisus. For other such identifications, see below. Cf. also Lane, Sabazius. Alessandri, op. cit., cites some earlier publications on Sabazius, see pp. 193f., and suggests that the reference in the text is not by Valerius but by Paris, the epitomizer (Nepotianus does not mention it). See also Johnson, The Present State of Sabazius Research, pp. 1538f. Anyway, the word may have nothing to do with a Phrygian god, and perhaps was a corruption of a Hebrew term, the “[god of] hosts”. As far as I could establish this view was first ,)צבאות( such as Sabaoth tabled by Schürer, Gemeindeverfassung, p. 5. 5 JA, 14.8.5 (= 145f.) The estimate of the value of the shield, 50 thousand gold pieces, would appear exaggerated. I shall not concern myself here with the confusion created by Josephus, who apparently mixed up some of the events and identities of the persons involved in his reports on the missions of the Hasmoneans to Rome. Stern, Relations between Judaea and 18 chapter 1

The next event in Judaea is thought to have had an impact on the settlement of the Jews in Rome. It was the conquest of Judaea by Pompey in 63 BCE, which brought Judaean independence to an end, though a reduced Judaea remained semi-independent until the Great Revolt of 70 CE. In the fighting Pompey is said to have taken prisoners, some of whom probably were sold on the slave market in Rome and eventually emancipated. The Jewish libertini swelled the ranks of the Jews in Rome and probably also elsewhere in Italy. By then the Jews in the Diaspora had been described by the geographer and historian Strabo as having settled everywhere:

This people (the Jews) has already made its way into every town and it is not easy to find any place in the habitable world which has not received this nation and in which it has not made its power felt. . . .

In the days of Augustus these prisoners taken by Pompey had been settled in Trastevere.6

Rome, cit., invested much labour in trying to sort out the contradictions and the conflicting and at times verbose views of scholars on them and I subscribe to his analysis and conclusions. He suggested that John Hyrcan may have sent more than one delegation to Rome. That too is very likely. See JA, 14.247f. on Pergamon. Here the Romans are reported to have given their approval to the restitution of territories: “And that the fortresses, and the havens, and the country, and whatsoever else he had taken from them, should be restored to them”. Some of the many scholars who have dealt with these problems, to name only a few, are: Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 37f.; Momigliano, Prime Linee, pp. 159f.; Schürer, History of Jewish People (Engl. ed.), 2/1, pp. 172f.; Sordi, Valore del trattato, pp. 509f.; Willrich, Judaica, cit., pp. 62f. Id., Urkundenfälschung, cit., pp. 44f. Willrich and others contest the reliability of Maccabees and of Josephus (see supra), while some of their peers think that they are authentic and trustworthy. 6 Strabo, Historica Hypomnemata in JCA, 14.114f. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 1, pp. 277f.; Id., Strabo on Jews, pp. 169f. On the eve of the Great Revolt Agrippa made a similar statement ( JBJ, 2.16.4). According to Leon, Rome, p. 1 this had been valid for 150 years, i.e., since the first half of the first century BCE. See also Oracula Sibyllina, 3.271. For the Jewish quarter in Trastevere, see Philo, Legatio, 23.154, and see below. The almost automatic ransom of Jewish prisoners/slaves is linked to the great importance and merit that Judaism attributes to the “redemption of captives” from biblical times on. These Jewish tendencies comple- mented other motives for the emancipation of Jewish slaves and perhaps were predominant. Apparently that was the main reason for the fast manumission of Jewish slaves, a process which was facilitated by conditions in Rome. See Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 61f. It is not likely that the Roman owners of Jewish slaves manumitted them gratis because of the awkward- ness created by their insistence on observing Judaism. However, they may have been inclined to get rid of them even at a loss because of that obstacle. Historical Background 19

Sometime before this Jews settled in Rome, though no evidence has been forthcoming to show when exactly they did and in what numbers. Some two generations passed since the visit of the last Hasmonean mission before substantial records show that Jews had come to live in the capital. Cicero, the great Roman attorney and orator, a contemporary of Pompey, assumed the defense of Lucius Valerius Flaccus who had served as propraetor of the province Asia, charged with misappropriation of funds, namely the alleged confiscation of the gold donated by the Jews of the province for the upkeep of the Temple in Jerusalem. In his speech delivered in 59 BCE in front of a jury in defense of the accused, Cicero claimed that he was lowering his voice in order that the “large group” of Jews present among the crowd attending the trial would not be stirred up against him.

The hatefulness of the Jewish gold now follows. Surely this is the reason that this case is being tried not far from the Aurelian steps. For the sake of the crime, this place and this crowd Laelius was sought by you. You know how large this band is and how close and how powerful they are in assemblies. So, I will proceed with a quiet voice, so that (only) judges may hear. Indeed, there is no lack of those who would incite them against me and anyone respectable. I will not help those men to do this more easily. When it was accustomed that gold was sent to Jerusalem each year from Italy and from all the other provinces by the authority of the Jews, Flaccus forbade by edict for this gold to be exported from Asia. Who, judges, is there who would not truly praise this deed? . . . The export of gold has been forbidden by the senate on many previous occasions, and most strictly of all during my consulship . . . .

To what extent this statement was an empty piece of rhetoric or a true portrayal of the situation has been a bone of contention among scholars.7

7 Cicero, Pro Flacco, 28.66f. Nearly all writers who have dealt with the history of the Jews in Rome have discussed this passage. For a detailed analysis of the speech, see Lewy, op. cit., pp. 79f. (= Lewy, Cicero, pp. 109f.); See also Bruce, Nerva and the Fiscus Iudaicus, pp. 34f. (who suggests that gold, i.e., the half ṣeqel, was never allowed to be shipped from Italy, nor from the western Empire); Gruen, Diaspora, pp. 19f.; Leon, Rome, cit., p. 5; Schäfer, op. cit., pp. 180f.; Stern, Jewish Diaspora, cit., pp. 160f.; Id., Greek and Roman Authors, cit., 1, pp. 193f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, p. 85; Wardy, Jewish Religion in Pagan Literature, pp. 596f. Also Cicero’s stance vis-à-vis Judaism is in dispute, see below. The Aurelian steps (Gradus Aurelii, or Tribunali Aurelii, said to have been constructed by Marcus Aurelius Cotta, consul in 74 BCE) were the location of rallies of the lower classes in Rome. They had no formal standing, but politicians spoke at them of their policies. 20 chapter 1

Be that as it may, an undisputed detail emerging from Cicero’s harangue is that by his time the Jews in Italy contributed to the gold for the upkeep of the Temple in Jerusalem. Another is that they attended “assemblies” (= contiones), though Cicero does not say what their status was. Obviously some must have been citizens, since they were among those Roman Jews who redeemed Jewish slaves and emancipated them. It has been suggested that Cicero was particularly sensitive to the Jewish activities in the “assemblies”, the informal political meetings of Romans in the days of the Republic. The Jews belonged to the populares, whereas Cicero was among the leaders of the optimates, the opposing and ruling political faction at that time. So the antagonism of Cicero towards Jews was not only fomented by his natural partisanship for his client in the matter of the funds raised for the upkeep of the Temple, but also by political considerations in Rome.8

Under the Julio-Claudian Caesars

Soon after Rome underwent a change of regime and the Republic was replaced by the dictatorship of Julius Caesar followed by the principate founded by Augustus. The political and military upheavals in the middle of the first century BCE which paved the way for this revolution saw a grouping that put the Jews of Rome on the side of Caesar and their enemies, among them Pompey and Cicero, his opponents. Apparently this division also coincided with the ideolo- gies of the two contending factions, the populares and optimates, respectively. Therefore, the links of the Jews with Julius Caesar were a natural sequence to this situation. In that context Julius Caesar and the senate (senatus consultum) issued a number of rescripts and resolutions, reported by Josephus in some confusion. The first were a group of privileges granted by Caesar and by the Roman senate, some in response to embassies from Hyrcan. They included requests for the confirmation and renewal of the treaty of alliance between

8 The sons of libertini were ingenui, so if the father, a former slave, was not a full-fledged Roman citizen, the son, an ingenuus, was. Notwithstanding the possibility of Jewish involvement in Roman politics at this point in time through the contiones and perhaps otherwise, there are no grounds for far-fetched theories such as the one about Jews taking sides in the conspiracy of Catiline. See Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 44f.; Pucci Ben Zeev, Were They Seditious?, pp. 9f. The prohibition on exporting gold allegedly issued to the Jews in Puteoli, attributed to Cicero, is one more unfounded speculation, since Jews are not even hinted at in the relevant text (Cicero, In Vatinium 12). In fact, even Cicero’s political characterization of the Jews as being opponents of the ruling class (the optimates) in Rome has been questioned and has been described as a defense lawyer’s stratagem. Historical Background 21

Rome and Judaea, confirmation of Hyrcan’s position and other privileges. One such rescript was in response to a complaint by the Jews of Delos in the Cyclades that the local authorities were interfering with the exercise of their customs and worship. Caesar replied and wrote the local authorities that:

Now it does not please me that such decrees should be made against our friends and confederates, whereby they are forbidden to live according to their own customs, or to bring in contributions for common suppers and holy festivals, while they are not forbidden so to do even at Rome itself. For even Caius Caesar, our imperator and consul, in that decree wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city [of Rome], did yet permit these Jews, and these only, both to bring in their contributions, and to make their common suppers. Accordingly, when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters, I permit these Jews to gather themselves together, according to the customs and laws of their forefathers, and to persist therein. It will be therefore good for you, that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates, to abrogate the same, by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us.

Caesar sent copies to the authorities in the provinces, in which the Roman commitment to Hyrcan was reiterated, including the confirmation in perpetuity of Hyrcan’s position and that of his successors as high-priests and ethn- archs, permission to Jews to live by their law, to collect taxes for the upkeep of Jerusalem, to form collegia, and so forth. This group is dated 47 BCE.9 The second group, dated 44 BCE or thereabouts, consists of a string of fragments which are the confirmation by the senate of the privileges granted the Jews by Caesar. That followed the request of yet another Jewish embassy after Caesar’s murder. The consuls who dealt with the confirmation were Mark Antony and Lucius Dolabella. The latter, when in Asia, was addressed by another embassy from Hyrcan and responded by the issue of similar orders to Asian towns. Finally there is a group of resolutions of Greek towns, confirming

9 JA, 14.213f. The analysis of this rather confused string of documents is based on Pucci Ben Zeev, A Problem of Authenticity, pp. 193f., with which I concur. A lengthy list of “believers” and “sceptics” is cited by Pucci Ben Zeev, Ibid. She dates the first group to September of 47 BCE and places it in Rome, and the second to 44 BCE. See also Id., Caesar and Jewish Law, pp. 28f.; Id., Jewish Rights in the Roman World, pp. 38f.; Cf. Bernard, Transferts historiographiques, pp. 13f.; Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 5f.; Rabello, Legal Condition, p. 682; Rajak, Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities, pp. 23f.; Saulnier, Lois romaines, pp. 161f.; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, p. 135; Stern, Jewish Diaspora, cit., p. 163. 22 chapter 1

Roman orders, exempting the Jews from military service and allowing them to observe the customs of their fathers and to send money for the upkeep of the Temple. There is mention that some of the Jews in Ephesus and elsewhere were Roman citizens. In one of them, of Sardis, Jewish internal jurisdiction was recognized. Another, issued in Pergamon, referred to a decree granted to John Hyrcan. Doubts as to the authenticity of these documents, or of some of them, have been expressed by scholars, but not really convincingly so.10 While some of the details reported by Josephus on Caesar’s favourable treatment of the Jews throughout the Roman Empire, including of course Italy, may be garbled, the Jews obviously were aware of his friendship. It was his legislation which formed the basis of Jewish rights for centuries to come. This is borne out by their political and military support of Caesar in his struggle against Pompey, and by the demonstrations of grief which the Jews of Rome performed at his grave. In the words of Suetonius:

When the funeral was announced, a pyre was erected in the Campus Martius near the tomb of Julia, and on the rostra a gilded shrine was placed . . . At the height of the public grief a throng of foreigners went about lamenting each after the fashion of his country, above all the Jews, who even flocked to the place for several successive nights.11

Caesar’s Jewry policy was maintained and continued by Octavian/Augustus, his adopted son, who became the first Roman emperor and transformed the Roman republic into an empire. He issued a special edict confirming Caesar’s concessions “and had the text inscribed upon a pillar in the temple of Caesar”. The general Marcus Agrippa, son-in-law of Augustus, victor at Actium (31 BCE), issued letters confirming the privileges of the Jews in the provinces, in places

10 JA, l.c. Pucci Ben Zeev, op. cit., and Id., Marcus Antonius, pp. 31f.; Rajak, Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities, cit., pp. 19f. Cf., however, Moehring, Acta Pro Judaeis, pp. 293f.; see also Willrich, Urkundenfälschung, cit., passim. For more references, see below, Ch. 3, note 3. The Delos document includes the following passage with reference to the Jews of Rome: “Now it does not please me that such decrees should be made against our friends and confederates, whereby they are forbidden to live according to their own customs, or to bring in contributions for common suppers and holy festivals, while they are not forbidden so to do even at Rome itself” ( JA, l.c. 214). 11 Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum, Julius, 84.5. See Berliner, Rom, p. 19; Hidal, The Jews as the Roman Authors Saw Them, pp. 141f.; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 9f.; Stern, Jewish Diaspora, cit., p. 163; Id., Jews in Greek and Latin Literature, cit., 2, p. 1109; Slingerland, Claudian Policymakers, cit., pp. 46f. (who insists that Caesar, along with the rest of Roman rulers and upper-classes, viewed Judaism negatively. See below). Historical Background 23 such as Ephesus and Cyrene. These ratifications were essentially the letters and decrees issued by Julius Caesar. There was, however, an additional detail in Augustus’ text, as reported by Josephus, whereby a thief of holy books or of sacred money, stolen out of the Holy Ark in the synagogue, should be deemed a sacrilegious person, and was to forfeit his property. Philo added that Augustus also ordered that if the free distribution of grain and other victuals happened to take place on a Sabbath, Jews could collect their ration on weekdays.12 During the reign of Augustus there appeared in Italy an impostor, who pretended to be Alexander, one of the sons of Herod and Mariamme the Hasmonean. Alexander had been put to death with his brother Aristobulus, on orders of his father. Herod suspected them, as he did other members of his family and entourage, of plotting against him. Another victim of Herod’s paranoia had been Mariamme, Herod’s wife and mother of the two brothers. According to Josephus:

. . . there was a man, who was by birth a Jew, but brought up at Sidon with one of the Roman freed-men, who falsely pretended, on account of the resemblance of their countenances, that he was that Alexander who was slain by Herod. This man came to Rome, in hopes of not being detected. He had one who was his assistant, of his own nation, and who knew all the affairs of the kingdom, and instructed him to say how those that were sent to kill him and Aristobulus had pity upon them, and stole them away, by putting bodies that were like theirs in their places. This man deceived the Jews that were at Crete, and got a great deal of money of them for travelling in splendour; and thence sailed to Melos, where he was thought so certainly genuine, that he got a great deal more money,

12 JA, 16.162f. Zeitlin, Edict of Augustus, pp. 160f. The term used by Josephus ἀνδρῶνος. The passage containing it about the theft of books has been a bone of contention among scholars. Zeitlin translated the passage as “if anyone is caught stealing their sacred books or their sacred moneys from the sabbation” and that ἀνδρῶνος was intended to explain sabbation. He suggests that ἀνδρῶνος means a place “where men lived and assembled” and that the editor/translator of JA in the LCL, who has “Ark of the Law” erred, because according to him these arks did not make an appearance before the Middle Ages. That, of course, is debatable. The editor of LCL apparently thought that ἀνδρῶνος is a Greek transcription i.e., the Hebrew for chest or ark. Torah shrines/arks (in Latin aedicula) had ,ארונות of a place in the synagogue in Antiquity, including Italy (Ostia, Bova Marina). See Levine, Ancient Synagogue, pp. 351f. They are also mentioned in tannaitic literature. See below for more details. Holy books are evidently the scrolls of the law and perhaps other books. On the distribution of grain, see Philo, Legatio, 158. He also stressed that the emperor did not interfere with the Jews of Rome. See also Slingerland, Modern Historiography, pp. 35f. 24 chapter 1

and prevailed with those that had treated him to sail along with him to Rome. So he landed at Dicearchia, [Puteoli,] and got very large presents from the Jews who dwelt there, and was conducted by his father’s friends as if he were a king; nay, the resemblance in his countenance procured him so much credit, that those who had seen Alexander, and had known him very well, would take their oaths that he was the very same person. Accordingly, the whole body of the Jews that were at Rome ran out in crowds to see him, and an innumerable multitude there was which stood in the narrow places through which he was carried; for those of Melos were so far distracted, that they carried him in a sedan, and maintained a royal attendance for him at their own proper charges.

Augustus had the impostor brought before him and immediately recognized him for what he was. The sons of Herod had spent years in Rome and the emperor had known them well. Augustus persuaded the pretender to divulge the identity of the man who had put him up to the scheme in return for a free pardon and he had the instigator of the plot put to death. Evidently, the Jews of Puteoli and Rome took a keen interest in the fate of a scion of the Hasmonean royal family. It also throws some light on the involvement of Italian Jews in the affairs of the Jewish people, particularly in Judaea, although our sources hardly ever mention it.13 This was not the only instance of Italian Jews being involved in these affairs in the days of Augustus. On the death of Herod in 4 CE his son Archelaus succeeded him as ethnarch of Judaea, Augustus having refused to confirm him as king. He was exceedingly unpopular with the population, and managed to survive only thanks to the military intervention of Varus, the Roman governor of Syria. The Jews sent a delegation to Augustus, 50 men strong, to have Archelaus deposed, but to no avail. Josephus reports that the delegation was supported by over 8,000 Roman Jews. This round figure was probably an exaggeration, but it did show that a substantial number of local Jews showed their concern for the events in Judaea. There is no record of similar support by Roman Jews for subsequent Jewish delegations, including the one that led to the deposition of Archelaus and the total integration of Judaea into the Roman Empire.14

13 JA, 17.324f.; JBJ, 2.104f. Leon, Rome, cit., p. 14; Stern, Jewish Diaspora, cit., pp. 160, 168. 14 JA, 17.11.1 (= 300f.); 17.13.2 (= 342f.) JBJ, 2.6.1f. (= 80f.); 2.7.3 (= 111). Leon, Rome, cit., p. 15; Stern, Jewish Diaspora, cit., p. 119; Id., Jews in Roman Historiography, pp. 465f. Varus put down the rebellion in Judaea against Archelaus in a blood bath. Varus later proceeded to lose the battle of the Teuteburg Forest along with three Roman legions, and to take his Historical Background 25

Augustus was succeeded (14 CE) by his stepson, Tiberius. Under this emperor the Jews of Rome fared worse, probably while Tiberius had retired from government to Capri (26 CE) and Sejanus held the reins of government as prefect of the Praetorian Guard, until his execution in 31 CE. During Tiberius’ reign some scandals were discovered, one involving Roman Jews. As a probable result 4,000 young Jews were conscripted into the army and sent to Sardinia to subdue brigands, other Jews were expelled from Rome, and according to at least one source also from the rest of Italy, along with worshippers of the Egyptian cult of Isis. The latter had even worse meted out to them, or so it would appear. Several sources refer to them: Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Seneca, as well as Josephus and Philo. It is likely, though not certain, that the Roman lady involved in these affairs was the selfsame person, though this is not absolutely proven and scholars are divided on the issue. Josephus has the following stories:

There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the Temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.15

place in Roman annals as the man whom Augustus recalled in: “Quinctilius Varus, give me back my Legions”. 15 JA, 18.3.5 (= 81–4); Tacitus, Annales, 2.85.4; Philo, Legatio, 159; Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 49f.; Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, cit., pp. 316f.; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 17f.; Momigliano, Review of Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, pp. 178f. (who underlines the differences between Tacitus and Josephus); Radin, Jews among the Greeks and Romans, pp. 304f.; Smallwood, 26 chapter 1

The other scandal was that linked to Paulina. According to Josephus, Decius Mundus, a Roman knight, was consumed with passion for Paulina, wife of Saturninus, but was repudiated by her. With the help of the priests of Isis, he contrived to inveigle himself into her favours, and pretending to be a god, he had her spend a night in his arms. The amorous knight foolishly prided himself on his conquest, and the offended husband complained to Tiberius. He had the affair investigated and when found to be true, had the temple demolished, the priests crucified, and the sect expelled from Rome. An epitaph might indicate that Fulvia was in fact Paulina. Tacitus too links the expulsions of the two cults. The entire event appears to be part of the measures adopted by the authorities against foreign cults endangering the official Roman religion, as well as measures taken at this time against temple prostitution. Other chroniclers refer to one or more details of the story, which only Josephus reports in its entirety, while only Tacitus affords a date for the expulsion, namely 19 CE. That view is shared by many scholars, though not by all. It has also been suggested that Sejanus was at the bottom of the measure, though if 19 is the correct date, he had not yet reached the apex of his power. The sources and their interpreters also disagree on the identity of those affected by the ban. Some excluded Jews by birth; others included all Jews, by birth or proselytes. If only proselytes were affected then the drafting of as many as 4,000 into the army would seem to be a wild exaggeration. Another interpretation has led to the theory that there was more than one expulsion in the days of Tiberius. Yet there is no certainty that a single ban was put into effect on the ground, and if so, for how long, supposing that Juvenal’s remark on the Jewish exodus to Ariccia is a remote echo of such an event. Nor is there consensus on the identity of the banished. In the last analysis it would appear then that there was at least one expulsion from Rome, perhaps also from all of Italy, at some time under Tiberius; that the background was Jewish proselytization among pagan Romans whose religious beliefs were threatened by foreign cults, notwithstanding Josephus’ account; that it does not follow that conversion to Judaism was a widespread movement, or that there took place a large Jewish effort at proselytization; that the identity of those affected is debatable; and that if it was carried out it did not last long.16

Tiberius, cit., pp. 314; Stern, Jewish Diaspora, cit., p. 164; Id., Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 365f.; Williams, Expulsion, pp. 765f. 16 J.A., cit. 18.3.1f. (= 65). For the epitaph “Baebia Fulvia Claudia Paulina Grattia Maximilla”, see CIL 6, No. 1361. The senatus consultum (if it was that) or at least the ban ordaining the expulsions are mentioned briefly also by Suetonius, Tiberius, 36; Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 57.18; Seneca, Epistulae Morales, 108.22; Scholia in Iuvenalem, 4.117. Cf. Abel, Were the Jews Banished from Rome, pp. 383f.; Boterman, Massnahmen gegen dis stattrö- Historical Background 27

It is apparently true that Sejanus was inimical to the Jews in Italy, whether he had been at the bottom of the expulsion or not. Philo has this to say on Sejanus and on the change of policy following his death:

. . . and in the reign of Tiberius things went on in the same manner, although at that time things in Italy were thrown into a great deal of confusion when Sejanus was preparing to make his attempt against our nation; for he knew immediately after his death that the accusations which had been brought against the Jews who were dwelling in Rome were false calumnies, inventions of Sejanus, who was desirous to destroy our nation, which he knew alone, or above all others, was likely to oppose his unholy counsels and actions in defense of the emperor, who was in great danger of being attacked, in violation of all treaties and of all hon- esty. And he sent commands to all the governors of provinces in every country to comfort those of our nation in their respective cities, as the punishment intended to be inflicted was not meant to be inflicted upon all, but only on the guilty; and they were but few. And he ordered them to change none of the existing customs, but to look upon them as pledges, since the men were peaceful in their dispositions and natural characters, and their laws trained them and disposed them to quiet and stability . . . .

mischen Juden, pp. 410f.; Cappelletti, op. cit., pp. 57 (who has a lengthy discourse on the status of the expellees); Castelli, Gli ebrei di Roma inviati in Sardegna da Tiberio, pp. 67f.; Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, cit., p. 317; Heidel, Why were the Jews Banished from Italy, pp. 38f.; Isaac, Roman Attitudes, pp. 50f.; Merrill, Expulsion from Jews from Rome, pp. 365f.; Moehring, Persecution of the Jews, pp. 293f.; Mommsen, Religionsfrevel, pp. 408f. (who suggested that the only way to banish those Jews who by Tiberius’ time had become libertini was to draft them into the army); Perani, Ebrei in Sardegna, pp. 305f.; Rogers, Fulvia Paulina, pp. 252f.; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 176f.; Id., Roman Policy towards the Jews, pp. 56f.; Scramuzza, The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors, pp. 277f.; Schürer, History of the Jewish People (Engl. ed.), cit., 3, pp. 75f.; Stern, Expulsions of the Jews from Rome, pp. 1f.; Thackeray, Josephus the Man and the Historian, pp. 110f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, pp. 15f.; Williams, Expulsion, cit., 765f.; and see supra, note 15. According to a version of the ban, those who abjured Judaism were not affected by it. If that was the case then professing Jews leaving Rome for nearby Ariccia made little sense. However, the silence of our sources on what really happened in Rome and elsewhere in Italy of course is not proof enough that nothing did. As to Josephus and the background of the ban: though he does not blame Jewish proselytization for the ban, he does mention Fulvia’s conversion, but fails to explain why a swindle perpetrated on her by four scoundrels was weighty enough a reason for expelling thousands. As to his style in relating this and other stories, defined by some as that of a novel and hence fictional, we shall come back to below. 28 chapter 1

The rescript by Tiberius has not survived.17 Tiberius was succeeded (37 CE) by his great-nephew Gaius Caligula. He was an eccentric, to put it mildly, if not worse. He insisted on being considered divine and of having his statue placed in all temples, including the one in Jerusalem. Consequently, serious trouble in Judaea was averted, first by the efforts of Agrippa I, who was an intimate of Caligula, and then by those of the Roman governor of Syria, Petronius. Caligula also appointed Agrippa ruler over some territories in the East, including Galilee. During Caligula’s short reign Philo came to Rome at the head of an embassy to complain of the persecution of Alexandrian Jews at the hands of their Greek compatriots and to obtain justice and protection. Philo describes vividly the song and dance which the emperor led him and the Jewish delegation in the royal gardens of Maecenas, to the jeers of their Greek adversaries. Repercussions among the Jews of Italy of the emperor’s erratic conduct have not been recorded.18 Gaius Caligula was assassinated in 41 CE in a conspiracy, the members of which were recruited mainly from among the ranks of the Praetorian Guard and the Roman senate. He was the first emperor in a long line to meet this fate. His successor was his uncle, Claudius, a schoolmate and close friend of Agrippa I, whom he appointed ruler of his grandfather’s (Herod’s) extended kingdom, including Judaea. He also confirmed the privileges of the Jews in the Roman Empire. The situation in Alexandria boiled over once again and Jewish and Greek delegations came to Rome to present their respective cases. This time

17 Philo, Legatio, 159f. This is based on LCL, but see Stein’s Hebrew translation of Philo. According to Smallwood, Tiberius, cit., pp. 322f. Sejanus died before he could put his anti- Jewish policies into effect. She also rejects the views of Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 1, p. 492, note 147 and others that Philo was referring to an expulsion in 19 CE. See also Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 2.5.6–7 (who quotes Philo). Tiberius is credited with having rescinded the ban, but that is not spelled out in so many words in Philo’s account. See below on the question of the attitude of Tiberius and his fellow Romans to Judaism, particularly on whether it was essentially inimical or benevolent. Cf. Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, cit., pp. 7f., 50f., who dwells at length and in great detail on the views of the participants in the debate. He attributes to the dislike of Judaism, rampant among the Roman intelligentsia and ruling classes, the function of the main motive for the expulsions, but that is not borne out by our sources, and see below. 18 Philo, Legatio, 35f. (= 261f.); 44f. (= 349f.); JA, 18.6.10 (= 237); 18.8.7f. (= 297f.). See Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, pp. 209f.; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 20f.; Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, cit., p. 24; Smallwood, Chronology, pp. 3f.; Id., Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, passim, who discusses at length the attempt of Caligula to have his statue set up in the Temple in 40, shortly before the emperor’s death, and quotes most of the literature published on this topic until the middle of the 20th century. Historical Background 29 it seems that the aggressors were the Jews. Claudius admonished both sides, particularly the Jews, to keep the peace. In his letter to the Greek Alexandrians he had some harsh warnings for the Jews. The Alexandrian Jew-baiters for their part called Claudius “the cast-off son of the Jewess Salome”. Evidently, Claudius was not anti-Jewish, at least not in the eyes of some of his contemporaries.19 Whether the events in Alexandria and their repercussions had anything to do, directly or indirectly, with the expulsion of the Jews from Rome on orders of Claudius is a legitimate conjecture, though a remote one, not supported by evidence. As so often before and after, reports are contradictory and at least partly unreliable. The expulsion is mentioned twice in the annals of Rome. Suetonius, in his biography of Claudius, has this to say on the expulsion:

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.20

19 On Agrippa: JA, 19.5.1 (= 274f.); JBJ, 2.11.5 (= 216); Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 60.8.2f.; Leon, Rome, cit., p. 22. On the confirmation of privileges: AJ, 19.5.2f (= 279f.). New riots in Alexandria and delegations to Rome: AJ, 19.5.2 (= 278). Claudius’ letter to the authorities in Alexandria in LBL, Select Papyri, 2, No. 212 and CPJ, 2, No. 156d, including the section dealing with Jews. Josephus’s version of his decree in JA, 91.5.2. Evidently preference is to be given to the papyrus. That would make at least part of Josephus’ account unreliable. A whole literature has grown up around the papyrus and the passage in Josephus, see a partial listing in Cappelletti, Rome, cit., p. 83, note 52 and Leon, l.c., note 2. See also Kasher, Circonstances de la promulgation de l’édit de l’empereur Claude, pp. 9f.; Id., Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, pp. 316f.; Tcherikower, Jews and Greeks, pp. 247f.; Id., Jews in Egypt, pp. 137f.: Translation of the emperor’s threat in the letter: “. . . otherwise I shall impose on them all sorts of punishments, as (on people) who wish to do evil to the entire world . . .”. My translation of the emperor’s admonition is similar: “. . . otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of a general plague infecting the entire world”. This has been misinterpreted by some to mean that by plague Judaism itself was meant and allegedly showed up the emperor’s animus. 20 Suetonius, Vita Caesarum, Claudius, 25.4. Benko, Edict of Claudius, pp. 406f.; Berliner, Rom, cit., 1, pp. 25f.; Botermann, Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius, passim; Janne, “Impulsore Chresto”, pp. 531f.; Hermann, Chrestos, passim; Mitternacht, Current Views, p. 524; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 23f.; Momigliano, L’opera dell’imperatore Claudio, passim; Id., Claudius, passim; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 181f.; Reinach, L’empereur Claude, pp. 113f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 3, pp. 62f. (see there the references to the literature of the 19th century); Slingerland, Suetonius, Claudius 25.4, pp. 305f.; Id., Suetonius 25.4, Acts 18, pp. 127f.; Id., Claudian Policymaking, cit., pp. 127f.; Sordi, L’espulsione degli ebrei da Roma, cit., pp. 259f.; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 113f.; Id., Jewish Diaspora, cit., pp. 165f., 180f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, pp. 19f. The brief passage in Suetonius has generated an enormous literature, largely repetitious, a brief excerpt of which is cited above. The discussion has become particularly intense over the question of whether Chrestus 30 chapter 1

Suetonius lived shortly after the alleged expulsion and he could have inquired about it from older eyewitnesses. Not so our other informant, Dio Cassius, who lived many years after the event (160–230), and seemingly reported the exact opposite:

As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.

These two passages have aroused the curiosity of scholars and generated more questions than answers, not commensurate with the brevity of the sources. The possibility that we have in Suetonius the first mention of Christians in Rome has caused the historians of Christianity to join the fray and create a surfeit of literature. The main problems are: how many expulsions were there: none, one or two? When did the expulsion, or expulsions (if any) take place, in 41 CE, in 49 CE, or at some other date? Whom did Suetonius mean by “Chrestus”, an individual so named, or Christ, that is early Christians moved by Jesus, at that time mostly Judaeo-Christians? Who were expelled—all Roman Judaeo- Christians, or only those who took part in the disturbances? The records do not provide clear-cut answers to all these questions. However, what does seem to me to emerge from them is that there was at least one expulsion, probably in or around 41 CE, or at some other date thereafter during the reign of Claudius; that it affected the troublemakers, instigated by the followers of Christ (impulsore Chrestus), Judaeo-Christians locked in strife and struggle with other Jews;

meant followers of Jesus, or not. Eusebius, in the second half of the third century and the first half of the fourth, in his Historia Ecclesiastica, 2.18.9, briefly mentions an expulsion and the arrival of Aquila and Priscilla, two of the exiles, in Greece. The exile of Aquila and Priscilla, described as Judaeo-Christians, is mentioned also in Acts, 18.2. Paul Orosius, who lived around the year 400, a pupil and collaborator of St. Augustine, quoted (Adversus Paganos, 7.6.15) Suetonius and added nothing to the earlier report, except the date. According to him the expulsion took place in 49 CE (anno eiusdem nono). Some claim that the couple embraced Christianity officially only after they left Rome. But that need not have prevented them from taking part in the disturbances in Rome. Orosius quotes Josephus as his source, but in our versions of Josephus’ works no such reference exists. However, it has been suggested that Orosius saw a text now lost. Orosius is known to be unreliable and has been accused of being an apologist. See also Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, cit., pp. 123f., and the references there. He proposes yet another solution to the conundrum and identifies a linkage between the expulsions under Tiberius and Claudius as part of a continuous anti-Jewish policy of Roman emperors. Historical Background 31 and that the authorities issued a ban on gatherings at which such disputes took place, yet without interfering with Jewish religious practices, including prayer meetings at synagogues. In other words: Suetonius and Dio Cassius refer to the same continuing situation, of disturbances in the Jewish community caused by missionizing Judaeo-Christians who clashed with Orthodox Jews. Later, when Claudius realized that he could not rid Rome of them all, he expelled the Judaeo-Christians and left Orthodox Jews to carry on as before. That situation may have gone on for years, starting in 41 CE. At least some of the expellees eventually returned to Rome. Dio Cassius points out that no expulsion of Jews, i.e., Orthodox ones, ever took place. That does not contradict Suetonius who refers only to the expulsion of Judaeo-Christians.21

The Flavian Period

Following the death of Claudius by suicide (54), the controversial Nero succeeded to the throne. Most of his contemporaries describe him as tyrannical, bloodthirsty and extravagant. Josephus was among the exceptions, though

21 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 60.6. See prec. note and Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 69f.; Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, cit., p. 332; Mommsen, Religionsfrevel, cit., p. 408; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 367f.; Id., Studies in Jewish History, cit., pp. 496f. The above is the standard LCL translation. The term used by Dio Cassius is συναθροίζεσται, which means to meet, gather and the like. The interpretation of this word in the sense that prayer in synagogues was forbidden would contradict that part of the phrase, by which Jews were allowed to continue their traditional way of life. Banning attendance at synagogues could not be reconciled with observance of Judaism. So the meaning of the passage is that the emperor banned gatherings, attended by Jews, at which Judaeo- Christians carried on their sectarian propaganda, not necessarily in the synagogue. They met with stiff resistance on the part of traditional Jews, very much as described a few years later by Paul when he came to Rome. Paul, himself a Judaeo-Christian, got involved in debates with the Jews of Rome in his lodgings, i.e., not in the synagogue, though he or others may have done just that. He, at any rate, did his missionary work at meetings of the kind mentioned by Dio Cassius. See Acts, 28.17f. and below. Aquila and Priscilla were the only expellees known by name, but it is generally assumed that they were not the only ones banished. If they officially became Christians before or after they left Rome is imma- terial in this context, as long as they belonged to the troublemakers. It has been pointed out, rightly so in my view, that at this juncture the Roman authorities did not differentiate between Jews and Judaeo-Christians and considered the disputes between them an internal Jewish affair, involving a minority in the Jewish community. The return of Aquila and his wife to Rome is recorded by Romans, 16.3f. They set up a church in their Roman house. 32 chapter 1 apparently himself no great champion of the emperor, whom he described as a tyrant. His disagreement with his fellow historians he phrased as follows:

. . . for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero; some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favour, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bore him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero, since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time . . . .

The most notorious slander levelled against him was that he “fiddled while Rome burned”, which has become a sort of proverb. Alas poor Nero! The fiddle had not yet been invented in his days. The great fire of 64 CE destroyed large parts of Rome and damaged the rest. What happened in Trastevere, the district that is thought to have harboured the largest Jewish settlement in Rome, we do not know, but a fire in so densely populated a quarter could have been nothing less than disastrous. The Tiber may have served as a barrier to the fire spreading to the opposite bank, but that did not prevent Jews who lived elsewhere in Rome from coming to grief. Otherwise no information on the Jews of Italy during the 14 years of Nero’s reign has come down to us. While the Great War started in Judaea towards the end of his reign, his mention in rabbinic sources is benevolent. He is even reported to have converted to Judaism. If there is any truth in the rabbinic lore about Nero’s favourable attitude toward Judaism it may be linked to the inclination to Judaism professed by some female members of his family. Nero’s second wife, Poppaea, is said to have had some links to Judaism. She was a Θεοσεβής, a convert or a “sympathizer”/“God- fearer”. She is reported to have intervened twice on behalf of Judaean Jews. Josephus, who is responsible for this piece of information, had a different view of her and of Nero than many of the great Roman historians, who had an axe to grind regarding him and his family. Whether Nero brought about Poppaea’s death by kicking her in the belly heavy with child, or whether it was her pregnancy which proved fatal, will probably remain a mystery forever. Nor will we know whether his show of extreme grief at her death is proof for either view.22

22 JA, 20.8.3 (= 155f.). Suetonius (Nero, 38 [= 121]) is at the bottom of the fiddle story. He blamed Nero for having set fire to Rome and accused him of having played some musi- cal instrument or another while the town burned, but, of course, not a violin. Also Dio Cassius accused Nero of arson. See Historia Romana, 62.16 [= 229]. According to Tacitus, Historical Background 33

Nero too came to a sticky end and was succeeded by a year and a half of political chaos. In 69 CE Vespasian emerged from it as emperor. By then the Great War in Judaea was nearing its end at the hand of Vespasian’s son, Titus. If there were Jews in Italy who sided with their compatriots in Judaea, notice of their supportive voices and deeds, if any, has not survived. The only mention of Roman Jews in the aftermath of the Jewish War is provided by Josephus himself. At the end of his narrative of the war, he tells the story of one Jonathan, described by him as one of the sicarii, who fled to Cyrene and tried to engineer an uprising of the local Jews. When that failed and he got caught, Catullus, the Roman governor, joined forces with him to persecute the rich among the local Jews and confiscate their property.

Nay, indeed, lest any Jews that lived elsewhere should convict him [= Catullus] of his villainy, he extended his false accusations further, and persuaded Jonathan, and certain others that were caught with him, to bring an accusation of attempts for innovation against the Jews that

Annales 15.40 (= 117): “. . . Rome, indeed, is divided into fourteen districts, four of which remained uninjured; three were levelled to the ground, while in the other seven were left only a few shattered, half-burnt relics of houses”. B. Gittin, 56a reports the following fable: When Nero came to Judaea he shot arrows in all four directions of the compass and all four landed in Jerusalem. He then stopped a child and asked him what biblical verse he had learned that day. To which the child responded: “I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel” (Ezekiel, 25.14). Nero believed that God wanted him to destroy the Temple and would blame him for it. To avoid divine punishment he converted to Judaism. The Talmud then adds another fable according to which R. Meir, a second century fourth generation tanna, was a descendant of Nero. For some praise from Josephus of Poppaea, see JA, 20.8.11 (= 195): “And when Nero had heard what they [the ambassadors from Judaea] had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall [in the Temple to obstruct Agrippa II’s view of the priests] they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppaea, Nero’s wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favours of Nero . . .”. The exact meaning of “religious woman” remains an enigma. See Smallwood, Poppaea Sabina, pp. 329f.; Williams, ‘Θεοσεβής γὰρ ᾖν’, The Jewish Tendencies of Poppaea Sabina, pp. 97f. Josephus himself had been on a visit to Rome in 64 to intervene on behalf of some priests who were being prosecuted by the governor Antonius Felix. In his autobiography, JV, 3.16, he relates that “he became acquainted with Aliturius, an actor of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew by birth; and through his interest became known to Poppaea, Caesar’s wife, and took care, as soon as possible, to entreat her to procure that the priests might be set free. And when, besides this favour, I had obtained many presents from Poppaea, I returned home again”. There also was Pomponia Graecina, another member of the family, who may have been a Jewish “sympathizer”. See Tacitus, Annales, 13.32. 34 chapter 1

were of the best character both at Alexandria and at Rome. One of these, against whom this treacherous accusation was laid, was Josephus, the writer of these books. However, this plot, thus contrived by Catullus, did not succeed according to his hopes; for though he came himself to Rome, and brought Jonathan and his companions along with him in bonds, and thought he should have had no further inquisition made as to those lies that were forged under his government, or by his means; yet did Vespasian suspect the matter, and made an inquiry how far it was true. And when he understood that the accusation laid against the Jews was an unjust one, he cleared them of the crimes charged upon them, and this on account of Titus’s concern about the matter, and brought a deserved punishment upon Jonathan; for he was first tormented, and then burnt alive.23

Nor do we know whether Josephus, who by then had crossed the lines, had become a turncoat, and had joined forces with the enemies of his people, was the only Jew in Rome to attend the triumphal procession of the victors Vespasian and Titus. He himself described the triumph of mighty Rome over tiny Judaea, as the most magnificent show he had ever witnessed:

Now it is impossible to describe the multitude of the shows as they deserve, and the magnificence of them all; such indeed as a man could not easily think of as performed, either by the labour of workmen, or the variety of riches, or the rarities of nature; for almost all such curiosities as the most happy men ever get by piecemeal were here one heaped on another, and those both admirable and costly in their nature; and all brought together on that day demonstrated the vastness of the domin- ions of the Roman; for there was here to be seen a mighty quantity of silver, and gold, and ivory, contrived into all sorts of things, and did not appear as carried along in pompous show only, but, as a man may say,

23 JBJ, 7.447f. Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 91f. Josephus himself wavers in the definition of sicarii. Some describe them as a faction or party in their own right, others as part of the zealots. And see below on the parties at the time of the Jewish War. Diaspora Jews had supported the Jewish uprising in Judaea, and Jews from abroad had flocked to Jerusalem. According to Dio Cassius, Historia Romana 66.4: “. . . The Jews also were assisted by many of their countrymen from the region about, and by many who professed the same religion, not only from the Roman Empire but also from beyond the Euphrates . . .”. See also JBJ, 3.3. There is no telling whether that included also Jews from Italy. Much has been written on the “Great War”. See, for instance, Kasher, The Great Revolt, passim. Historical Background 35

running along like a river. Some parts were composed of the rarest purple hangings, and so carried along; and others accurately represented to the life what was embroidered by the arts of the Babylonians. There were also precious stones that were transparent, some set in crowns of gold, and some in other ouches, as the workmen pleased; and of these such a vast number were brought, that we could not but thence learn how vainly we imagined any of them to be rarities. The images of the gods were also carried, being as well wonderful for their largeness, as made very artifi- cially and with great skill of the workmen; nor were any of these images of any other than very costly materials; and many species of animals were brought, everyone in their own natural ornaments. The men also who brought every one of these shows were great multitudes, and adorned with purple garments, all over interwoven with gold; those that were chosen for carrying these pompous shows having also about them such magnificent ornaments as were both extraordinary and surprising. Besides these, one might see that even the great number of the captives was not unadorned, while the variety that was in their garments, and their fine texture, concealed from the sight the deformity of their bodies. But what afforded the greatest surprise of all was the structure of the pageants that were borne along; for indeed he that met them could not but be afraid that the bearers would not be able firmly enough to support them, such was their magnitude; for many of them were so made, that they were on three or even four stories, one above another. The magnificence also of their structure afforded one both pleasure and surprise; for upon many of them were laid carpets of gold. There was also wrought gold and ivory fastened about them all; and many resemblances of the war, and those in several ways, and variety of contrivances, affording a most lively portraiture of itself . . . But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews. After these spoils passed by a great many men, carrying the images of Victory, whose structure was entirely either of ivory or of gold. After which Vespasian marched in the 36 chapter 1

first place, and Titus followed him; Domitian also rode along with them, and made a glorious appearance, and rode on a horse that was worthy of admiration. Now the last part of this pompous show was at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, whither when they were come, they stood still; for it was the Romans’ ancient custom to stay till somebody brought the news that the general of the enemy was slain. This general was Simon, the son of Gioras, who had then been led in this triumph among the captives; a rope had also been put upon his head, and he had been drawn into a proper place in the forum, and had withal been tormented by those that drew him along; and the law of the Romans required that malefactors condemned to die should be slain there. Accordingly, when it was related that there was an end of him, and all the people had sent up a shout for joy, they then began to offer those sacrifices which they had consecrated, in the prayers used in such solemnities; which when they had finished, they went away to the palace. And as for some of the spectators, the emperors entertained them at their own feast; and for all the rest there were noble preparations made for their feasting at home; for this was a festival day to the city of Rome, as celebrated for the victory obtained by their army over their enemies, for the end that was now put to their civil miseries, and for the commencement of their hopes of future prosperity and happiness.

The arch of Titus, erected in or about 82 CE by Domitian after his brother’s death, portrays in bas-relief the central portion of the triumphal procession.24

24 JBJ, 7.32f. (= 142f.). The arches were inscribed: Senatus popuplusque Romanus imperatori Tito Caesari divi Vespasiani f. Vespasiano Augusto pontifici maximo tribunicia potestate X imperatori XVII consuli VIII patri patriae principi suo quod praecetis patris consilisque et auspiciis gentium Iudaeorum domuit et urbem Hierosolymam omnibus ante se ducibus regibus gentibus aut frustra petitam aut omnino intemptatam delevit” (CIL, 6.944); and: Senatus Populusque Romanus divo Tito divi Vespasiani filio Vespasiano Augusto (in situ); and see Leon, Rome cit., pp. 29f. The existing but restored arch is a major attraction of present-day tourist Rome. The original triumphal arch of Titus, constructed in or about 71 CE has not survived, except for the inscription. The Temple treasures, or some of them, were kept in Rome until the days of Alaric, who took them to North Africa. From there Belisar took them to Constantinople. A Jew warned Justinian that they brought bad luck and the superstitious emperor had them sent to the Christians in Jerusalem. There they got lost. See Procopius, De Bello Gothico 1.12; Id., De Bello Vandalico, 2.9; 9.9; Id., History of the Wars, 4.9.9; Landolfus ad Pauli Historia Romana. MGH Script. Antiq. 6, 363,372 = Landolfi Sagacis Historia romana, Fonti per la Storia d’Italia dell’Istituto storico italiano, 1, pp. 49f.; Lewy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism, pp. 255f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, p. 127. Historical Background 37

By then Josephus had become a client of the Flavians, a Roman citizen and a sycophant of his patrons. While still a prisoner of Vespasian, he foretold his ascendancy to the throne:

Now portents and dreams had come to Vespasian pointing to the sover- eignty long beforehand. . . . And Nero himself in his dreams once thought that he had brought the car of Jupiter to Vespasian’s house. These portents needed interpretation, but not so the saying of a Jew named Josephus. He, having earlier been captured by Vespasian, laughed and said: You may imprison me now, but a year from now, when you have become emperor, you will release me.

His defection, support of his people’s enemies and his biased defense of himself did not endear him to his fellow Jews.25 Nothing has survived on the reaction of Italian Jews to these events. Even if they were largely Hellenistic Jews, and that too is open to debate, they could not have remained indifferent to the events in Judaea. At least one measure enforced by the Roman authorities in the aftermath of the war also affected them: the creation of the fiscus Judaicus.26 The question of whether after the national debacle in Judaea large numbers of Jewish prisoners of war were brought to Rome and manumitted, thus substantially increasing the Jewish population in the capital, has been answered in the affirmative at least as often as in the negative. Probably we shall never really know the true facts, though it sounds reasonable that at least some increase did take place. The same applies to the rest of Italy. Among the Jews who lived in Rome at this time were Agrippa II and his sister Berenice. They were the scions of King Herod and led ignominious lives in Rome and elsewhere. Agrippa’s friend, Josephus Flavius, settled in Rome and spent the rest of his life there. Agrippa is said to have assisted Josephus in writing his histories.27

See also Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 5, p. 37, who reports a version whereby the treasures were lost at sea. 25 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 66.4; Suetonius, Vespasianus, 5.6 (= 313). Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 372f., 376. JBJ, 3.8.9. rabbinic sources attribute the prophecy to R. Joḥanan b. Zakkai (B. Gittin, 56b). 26 See below, chapt. 4: taxes. 27 See Leon, l.c. and below. Jewish prisoners of war are said to have been employed in the construction of the Colosseum, but there is no documentary evidence for this assertion. Berenice was the mistress of Titus, and many years his senior. Her hopes of becoming Titus’ wife and empress were dashed. See Suetonius, Titus, 7; Dio Cassius, op. cit., 66.15.3f., 18.1; Stern, Greek and Roman Authors, cit., 1, p. 514; 2, pp. 378f. She also assisted the Romans 38 chapter 1

Titus reigned for only two years (69–71) and was succeeded by his younger brother, Domitian, often described as a tyrant, especially by his sworn enemies, the senators of his times and their supporters. The 15 years of his rule were punctuated by a series of acts and measures that have left a negative mark in the annals of Italian Jewry. In this context he is chiefly remembered for his hardened policy regarding the collection of the fiscus Judaicus. Suetonius, no great lover of either emperor or Jews, has this to say on the emperor’s enforcement of the tax:

Besides other taxes which were levied on the Jews with utmost vigour, and those were prosecuted who without publicly acknowledging that faith yet lived as Jews, as well as those who concealed their origin and did not pay the tribute levied upon their people. I recall being present in my youth when the person of a man ninety years old was examined before the procurator and a very crowded court to see whether he was circumcised.

Since the fiscus Judaicus was probably a poll tax and payable by all Jews, male and female, by birth or by conversion, from the age of three until old age, there were no exceptions. Although it has been claimed that Jews who were not professing their religion were exempt, that does not seem to have been the case, as is borne out by Suetonius. Some tried to hide their Jewishness, especially its most apparent sign, circumcision. These questions had to be settled by the official in charge of that section of the exchequer (procurator). To catch tax dodg- ers, the authorities put into motion a net of informers (delatores), evidently not the most popular members of society.28

in the war against Judaea. She was put on trial, perhaps by Domitian, and defended by Quintilian (De Institutione Oratoria, 4.1.19). We do not know what became of her. See on her Crook, Titus and Berenice, pp. 162f. Agrippa II was educated in Rome and became ruler of several Roman principalities in the East, including such territories as the Galilee, Golan and Bashan with a substantial Jewish population. He actively supported the Roman legions in their war against his countrymen. He and his sister preceded Josephus in crossing the lines to the Romans. See on him JA and JV, passim. As to Josephus, according to Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.9.2: “He [scil. Josephus] was the most noted of all the Jews of that day, not only among his own people, but also among the Romans, so that he was honoured by the erection of a statue in Rome, and his works were deemed worthy of a place in the library.” On Agrippa’s supply of information to Josephus, see JV, 364f.: “. . . king Agrippa, he wrote me sixty-two letters, and attested to the truth of what I had therein delivered . . .”. 28 On the fanciful Aggada describing the painful death of the destroyer of the Temple, see B. Gittin 56b: “. . . he (scil. Titus) landed, when a gnat came and entered his nose and pecked Historical Background 39

Domitian’s bouts of paranoia had serious consequences for his compatriots, including some of his near relatives. The best known victims of his persecutions were the couple Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domitilla. According to Dio Cassius the bare facts were the following:

And the same year [= 95 CE] Domitian slew along with many others Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria, but Glabrio, who had been Trajan’s colleague in the consulship, was put to death, having been accused of the same crimes as most of the others, and in particular of fighting as gladiator with wild beasts.

The couple had been accused of Judaizing, although Suetonius did not specify the extent of their sympathy for Judaism. The sons of the couple had been des- ignated heirs to Domitian, and after the suicide of the father, were entrusted to the tutelage of Quintilian.29

at his brain for seven years . . .”. See below, chapt. 4. As well as Spiegel, Titus und Hadrian, p. 21. For the report of Suetonius, see his Domitianus, 12.2. As usual, the passage has generated comments and counter arguments. On Domitian and the Jews, especially the tax, see Baron, Social and Religious History, 2, p. 104; Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 123f.; Carlebach, Rabbinic References to Fiscus Judaicus, pp. 57f.; Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, cit., pp. 345f.; Ginsburg, Fiscus Judaicus, pp. 288f.; Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., l.c.; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 33f.; Mommsen, Religionsfrevel, cit., pp. 118, 425; Smallwood, Domitian’s Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism, pp. 1f. (who points out that rabbinic sources never mention Domitian by name, but that the inference is plausible); Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 128f.; Thompson, Domitian and the Jewish Tax., pp. 329f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, pp. 26f.; Williams, Domitian, pp. 196f.; and further references cited there. Vogelstein- Rieger, op. cit., p. 28, link this to a saying attributed to R. Gamli’el whereby by their action the informers brought about the execution or confiscation of property of those found guilty. See Midraṣ Rabba Ester, P’tiḥa (Introduction) 9. For attempts on the part of Jews to hide circumcision not necessarily in connection with taxes, see Martial, Epigrammatica 11.94, on the Jewish comic actor Menophilus. Some tried to restore the foreskin. See Epiphanius of Costancia (Salamis), De mensuris et ponderibus, 16f.: “. . . by a certain operation of the medical art, by means of a knife called the spathistaros, the inner skin of the organ having been cut loose and sewed together and bound in place by adhesive medica- ments, they again complete foreskins . . .”. 29 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 67.14.1–3. See Cappelletti, op. cit., pp. 130f.; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, pp. 102f., 109, note 12, who links Clemens’ conversion to the story in Avoda 40 chapter 1

The story reported by Suetonius has been linked to that of Qeti’ah bar Ṣalom, as reported in rabbinic sources in several versions. One of them runs as follows:

Once upon a time our rabbis, R. Elie’zer [b. Azariah], R. Joṣu’a [b. Ḥanania], and R. Gamli’el [II, Nasi], [and R. ‘Aqiva] were in Rome and the king’s senate decreed that within thirty days no Jew was to be left in the world. There was present a God-fearing senator (σίνκλητος). He came to R. Gamli’el and revealed this to him, and our rabbis were terribly pained. Said the God-fearer to them: ‘Do not be sorry. Within thirty days the God of the Jews will come to their aid’. After twenty-five days he revealed it to his wife. Said she: ‘Twenty-five days have gone by’. Responded he: ‘There are five days [left]’. His wife was more righteous than he. She said to him: ‘Don’t you have a [poison] ring? Suck it and die, the senate will adjourn in mourning for you for another thirty days, and the decree will become

Zara, cit., about the conversion of Onqelos, son of Qalonymos, because of the equivalency of the two names and the aggadic fable that Qalonymos was a nephew of Titus, which more or less fits Clemens; Leon, op. cit., pp. 33f.; Mommsen, op. cit., pp. 408f.; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 182f.; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 379f., esp. 384; Williams, Domitian, cit., pp. 196f.; and there on Acilius Glabrio, who was also murdered. Some church authorities make a Christian of him. That happened also to the couple, in line with the “christianization” of Judaism by the Church, which even canonized them. An extensive literature has grown up around them. See Smallwood, op. cit., pp. 7f. Eusebius contributed further to the ambiguity, supposedly giving rise to the theory that there were several individuals by the name of Flavia Domitilla involved in the story. See his Historia Ecclesiastica, 3.18.4–5; Id., Chronicon, Olympiad, 218. Nor is there reason to believe that she was buried in the cemetery carrying her name, since the graves are of a much later date. The accusation of atheism was levelled against all those who did not believe in the Roman gods and refused to observe their cult; and in this particular instance in replacing it with Judaism. The term atheism has also aroused much curiosity. All the scholars reported above and some others have dealt with the issue. See, for instance, Charlesworth, Some Observations, pp. 32f.; Williams, l.c.; Harnack, Atheismus, pp. 1f. Cappelletti, l.c. cites some additional instances of the term being employed. See esp. pp. 132f. and note 50. Linked to atheism was the term maiestas. See below on Nerva’s measures. The terms atheist and atheism have been used and misused to describe a religious adversary and his views. See for instance, Appolonius Molon, quoted by JCA, 2.14: ἄθεοι μισάντροποι. Christians were called pagans atheists, and so forth. That Flavius Clemens was more than a sympathizer of Judaism before things came to a head is contradicted by his having been a consul and as such having exercised perforce the pagan functions of this office. His circumcision, that is his becoming a proselyte, took place shortly before his death. Pandataria is modern Pentetone, an island of the Pontine group. It was the place to which the emperors of the first century exiled “unwanted” women folk, their relatives, and the like. See New Pauly Wissowa, s.v. On the tutelage, see Quintilian, Institutio Oratario, 4.1.2. Historical Background 41

obsolete’. He obeyed her, sucked the ring and died. Our rabbis heard of it and paid a visit to his wife to comfort her. Said our rabbis: ‘A pity that the ship went on its way without paying duty, namely this righteous one was not circumcised’. Said his wife to them: ‘I know what you mean. By your life, the ship did not pass on before paying duty’. She went at once into the bedroom and brought them a box which contained the foreskin and some bloody cloth . . . .

According to another version it was the emperor (Domitian) who adopted the resolution, whereas Qeti’ah was executed. In this version Qeti’ah left all his possessions to R. ‘Aqiva. Domitian’s planned persecution of the Jews is also reported in a Christian source. According to the latter some Jews made him target Christians instead of Jews. Much has been made over the question whether Domitian was anti-Jewish, which he may or may not have been. If he was not, his attitude was prompted by other motives, such as the oppression of foreign cults, and dislike of Judaism as such. The sources at our disposal, even if unreliable at least in part, paint a varied picture of the background to the hardening of his attitude toward the Jews, or at least contain more than a single motive. It appears that one was the attempt to stem the financial erosion of the Roman treasury and stabilize it. Therefore, Domitian rigorously enforced the collection of the fiscus Judaicus, as he did with other revenue. In the political arena he used extreme tyrannical methods to subdue opposition and to rid himself of enemies, real or imaginary. That brought about the elimination of Flavius Clemens and his wife, near relatives but evidently not dear, whatever the charges of atheism/Judaizing and their veracity. In essence that too was the view of the Roman chroniclers Suetonius and Dio Cassius. While some of the details are probably doubtful, the fact that the core of the story is told similarly by both Roman historians and in rabbinic fables, blurred or not, makes it plausible. It has also been pointed out that the consistent anti-Jewish stance adopted by his court jester (Martial) and his orator (Quintilian) may reflect on the state of mind of the emperor, upon whom they fawned. Master and courtier often show up each other for what they really are.30

30 Deuteronomy Rabba, 2 (24); Parallels: Yalqut to Psalms, 47; B. Avoda Zara, 10b (Qeti’ah named); B. Nedarim, 50b. As usual, the identification is controversial. See Alon, History of the Jews in Israel, 1, pp. 53f., 79f. and there p. 76 citation of further sources; Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten (MGWJ), p. 251; Baer, Israel, the Christian Church, pp. 7, 24; Cappelletti, op. cit., pp. 134f.; Derenbourg, Essai, p. 334; Graetz, op. cit., p. 403; Id., Jüdisch-geschichtliche Studien, pp. 192f.; Id., Die jüdischen Proselyten, pp. 5f., 28f.; Hoffmann, Antoninus Agadot, pp. 33f.; Kobak, Adarkhan and Qeti’ah, pp. 161f. (contra Graetz); Krauss, op. cit., pp. 75, 138; 42 chapter 1

Domitian’s fears fulfilled themselves in the end, and like many an emperor before and after him he was assassinated (96). Of course, there is no telling which was the cause and which the effect. Curiously, the assassin was Stephanus, who had been a steward of Domitilla, aided by the emperor’s attendants. In fact, it has been suggested that the elimination of Clemens and his wife sparked the decision to rid Rome of Domitian because the rest of the imperial family and their friends feared lest they too might become victims of Domitian’s folly. It is reported that the initiator of the plot was Domitia, the emperor’s wife, in association with the praetorian prefect, Petronius Secundus (murdered in 97, a year after the assassination, by the same praetorian guard). Domitian was succeeded by Nerva, the first emperor to be elected by the Roman senate.31

Safrai, Visits of the Sages of Yavneh in Rome, p. 155; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 104, 384; Urbach, Sages b.m., p. 480, note 58; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit. 1, p. 74. A Christian source is Acta Apocrypha S. Johannis, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha 2/1, pp. 151f. For further Christian references, see Smallwood, op. cit., note 2. For the trip or trips of the rabbis to Rome, see also below. Scholars have been unable to agree on whether there was one event in 95 and another in 96, or only one in 95; and whether Flavius Clemens was identical with Qeti’ah or not. The name Qeti’ah has also prompted weird explanations. To add one more to those already proposed: the Midraṣ in Avoda Zara, l.c., tries to explain the meaning of qeti’ah (which is the Hebrew for amputated, amputation) and links the story to an individual called Qeti’ah. It then goes on to warn the emperor against becoming the ruler That is a typical wordplay often met with .)מלכותא קטיעה( ”of an “amputated kingdom in aggadic tales. Thus it would appear that the author of the Aggada simply invented a name for the man in the story. Similarly, according to Graetz. l.c., the name was allegorical. He cites rabbinic parallels to this sort of pun. As to Domitian’s attitude towards Jews and Judaism, the only Jewish source that takes a favourable view of him is the anonymous Jewish Alexandrian author of the Oracula Sibyllina, cit., book 12. The Oracula originally was a pseudepigraphic opus probably intended to spread the ideas of Judaism as a prophecy of the Sibyls. See Smallwood, op. cit., p. 11; Williams, op. cit. pp. 201f. On the Roman finances under Domitian, see Syme, Imperial Finances, pp. 55f. He describes (p. 67) the collection of the fiscus Judaicus under Domitian as “rather something very much like persecution”. See Williams, Jews in a Graeco-Roman Environment, p. 107; Thompson, Domitian and the Jewish Tax, cit., pp. 329f. It is unlikely that the tale attributed by Eusebius to Hegesippus about Domitian’s persecution of the descendants of King David is relevant to his attitude toward Jews. The same is true in regard to Vespasian and Trajan. See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 3.19f. and Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 26. But cf. Smallwood, Palestine, p. 509. Nor is there any substance to the report that Josephus was among the victims of Domitian’s paranoia. 31 Suetonius, Domitianus, 17.1–3. Applebaum, Domitian’s Assassination, pp. 116f.; Stern, Sympathy, pp. 155f. (who enumerates the Petronii among the Jewish sympathizers of that period). Historical Background 43

The Nervan-Antonine Dynasty

The short reign of Nerva (just over a year) is best known in the Jewish context through some coins that he had minted, and carried the imprint: Fisci Iudaici Calumnia Sublata. While the exact meaning of this phrase has led to disagreement among scholars, its linkage to the application of the tax by his predecessor Domitian has met with general agreement. Dio Cassius describes Nerva’s reaction to Domitian’s policy as:

Nerva also released all who were on trial for maiestas (ὰσέβεια) and restored the exiles . . . and no persons were permitted to accuse anybody of maiestas or of adopting the Jewish mode of life.

This is probably then the reason for the minting of these coins. It also shows that Domitian was prompted by more than one motive. Here too the “Jewish mode of life” may mean anything between God-fearing, sympathy, and conversion to Judaism.32 Nerva’s adopted son and successor, Trajan, is thought to have been one of the most able Roman emperors. However, in his days the strained relations between Rome and the Jews in Judaea and in the Diaspora boiled over once again, if they had ever really calmed down. The tension between Jews and Greeks had been simmering since the days of the Hasmoneans, and turned once again into open warfare in Trajan’s days. The uprisings and those that followed have been linked to the prophesies and messianic hopes contained in the Sibylline Oracles, the pseudepigraphic literature of the first and second centuries, and to the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and others. According to the historian Arrianus, a younger contemporary of the emperor:

32 Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 68.1 in Xiphilinus, Epitome. For further references, see Pucci Ben Zeev, Qualche osservazione, pp. 61f.; Id., La rivolta ebraica al tempo di Traiano, passim; Id., Revolt in the Days of Trajan, pp. 185f., 378f. The relationship, if any, between the crimen maiestas and atheism or between high treason and Judaizing is yet another topic discussed at length by scholars. To Dio Cassius they were two distinct offences. Calumnia has several meanings. In the present context it would seem to mean malicious accusation or unjust information, probably linked to the informers under Domitian. It refers only to the tax, although some scholars think otherwise. Cf. Goodman, Nerva, Fiscus Judaicus, pp. 40f. It is unlikely that Nerva’s reformation of the Jewish fiscus was valid only in Italy, as proposed by Bruce, Nerva and the Fiscus Iudaicus, cit., pp. 34f. Indeed, Josephus insisted that the tax was collected throughout the Roman Empire. On the coins, see Mattingly et al., The Roman Imperial Coinage, 2, pp. 227f.; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 1, pp. 384f.; Williams, Domitian, cit., p. 202. 44 chapter 1

Trajan was determined above all, if it were possible, to destroy the nation utterly, but if not, at least to crush it and stop its presumptuous wickedness.

There were Jewish uprisings in Egypt, Cyrene, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia, and probably also in Judaea. However, the latter are disputed by many scholars. Roman accounts of the atrocities allegedly committed by some of the rebels are hair raising, but are probably due, at least in part, to the anti-Jewish bias of the Byzantine epitomizer of Dio Cassius, or were an excuse for the blood baths whereby the Roman army decimated large numbers of Jews in those countries—or both. Details of events and names of some of those involved vary, or at times even contradict each other, but do not change the overall picture of the revolt and its quelling. The revolts were put down by Trajan’s generals, chiefly by Marcius Turbo and Lusius Quietus, after whom the entire event is These sources .)פולמוס קיטוס( ”called in rabbinic sources the “Quietus affair report a fable attributed to Plotina, Trajan’s wife, which illustrates the prevalent anti-Jewish sentiment at the imperial court at this point in time. She is said to have written to her husband in the field: “Instead of waging war against the Barbarians, fight the Jews”. However, in an Egyptian papyrus Plotina is described as supportive of the Jews at Trajan’s court on the occasion of yet another visit of Jewish and Greek delegations at Rome, each petitioning the emperor to intervene in their favour. The Roman senate is estimated in the same papyrus as being favourably disposed toward Jews. At the same time a tannaitic tale attributes to Trajan or his successor an abortive attempt to have the Temple in Jerusalem rebuilt. The contradictions emerging from the tales on Trajan’s and Plotina’s attitude to the Jews are probably linked, at least in part, to the alleged timing of the respective events. Generally speaking, at first, following his accession to the throne, Trajan continued the Jewry policies of his predecessor, Nerva. Then, in the wake of the Jewish uprisings, his attitude and that of his wife hardened and became inimical.33

33 On the uprisings, see among others: Arrian, Parthica in Suda, Lexicon, s.v. ἀτάσθαλα; Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 68.32f., in Xiphilinus, Epitome; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 4.1f.; Orosius, Contra Paganos, 7.12; and several later versions based on the former. See the detailed list reported by Pucci Ben Zeev, below. Scriptores Historiae Augusti, Hadrian, 5.2, the only Roman chronicle to mention Judaea. The chapter is attributed to Spartianus, and most scholars consider the information unreliable; M. Sota, 9.14; Seder Olam, 30 (for Titus read: Quietus). See Applebaum, Rebellion of the Jews of Cyrenaica, pp. 23f.; Id., Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene; Barnes, Trajan and the Jews, pp. 145f. (revision of dates and Historical Background 45

Trajan was succeeded by his adopted son Hadrian (117). It was Plotina who engineered Hadrian’s rise to power, some say deviously. The rule of Hadrian marks a watershed in the history of the Roman Empire. Trajan still attempted to extend the rule of Rome in the East, to conquer Mesopotamia and to annex parts of Parthia. That came to naught. Hadrian realized that he had to be satisfied with the territories already conquered by Rome and he and his successors did their best to fortify and defend them. They realized that they did not have the military strength to subdue additional nations, nor did they have at their disposal the economic means to support such a war effort. Hadrian was a

sequence of events); Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 102f.; Bietenhard, Die Freiheitskriege, pp. 57f., 81f., 161f.; Finkelstein, Akiba, passim (who has Trajan planning the Temple project in about 110–112. This is rejected convincingly by Bietenhard, op. cit., pp. 102f.); Goodman, Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kokhba War, pp. 23f.; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, pp. 405f., note 14 (incl. his interpretation and timing of Judith [the story of Judith and Holophernes]); Gutman, War of the Jews, pp. 149f. (who terms the uprisings a Messianic movement); Huteau-Dubois, Les sursauts du nationalism juif, pp. 133f.; Motta, La tradizione sulla rivolta ebraica, pp. 485f.; Pucci Ben Zeev, Qualche osservazione, cit., pp. 61f.; Id., Rivolta ebraica al tempo di Traiano, cit., passim; Id., Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, passim; Id., Uprisings in the Jewish Diaspora, pp. 93f.; Rokeah, Jewish Uprisings under Trajan (incl. Quietus, pp. 172f. who suggests the reading of Turbo for Quietus); Id., War of Kitos, pp. 79f.; Smallwood, Palestine, cit., pp. 500f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 1, pp. 647, 666f.; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 152f., 385f.; Tcherikower, Jews in Egypt, cit., pp. 102f. Quietus, of Berber origin, was appointed governor of Judaea by Trajan and executed by Hadrian (Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 69.2). Plotina’s advice to her husband is said to have been caused by an imaginary Jewish slight in connection with the birth of her daughter and the death of her son on the ninth of Av (Jewish mourning) and on Ḥanukkah (rejoicing) respectively. See J. Sukkah, 5.1; Threni Rabba, 1.13, 4.19; and see there on the destruction of the famous great synagogue in Alexandria by Trajan’s general Turbo; Threni Rabba, cit., 1.16, 4.22; Midraṣ Esther, beginning. See Krauss, op. cit., p. 87; Spiegel, Kaiser Titus und Hadrian, cit., p. 26. J. Sukkah, ad l. adds that following the “Titus (= Quietus) affair it was ordained . . . that one should not teach Greek to ones sons . . .”. See below. On the depiction of Plotina as supportive of the Jews at the imperial court in Rome, see Papyrus Oxyrincus [Oxyrhynchus] 10.1242, CPJ, 2, pp. 82f.; Brit. Mus. Inv. 2436; and Tcherikower, op. cit., pp. 163f.; Werner, Eine Gerichtsverhandlung, pp. 47f., who underlines the passage in the papyrus that mentions the sympathy for the Jews in the Roman senate. See below, chapt. 8, note 12. The rabbinic fable and the partisan report in the papyrus are both unreliable. The reports on the Temple project and the couple Julianus and Pappus are confused and in all likelihood cannot be sustained. See Masekhet Evel Rabbati (Semaḥoth), 47b; J. Ta’anith, 2.12; J. Sanhedrin, 3.6; Genesis Rabba, 64.10; Sifra, Emor, 9.5; B. Ta’anith, 18b; Alon, History of the Jews in Israel, cit., 1, pp. 260f., 271f., including further references and a discussion of some of the discrepancies. Alon ascribes the event to Hadrian. And see the lengthy excursus of Graetz, l.c., and below. 46 chapter 1 strong believer in Graeco-Roman civilization in all its ramifications, theologically, culturally, socially, and so forth. His Weltanschauung was diametrically opposed to that of Judaism, and conversely that of the Jews to his. The relationship between pagan Rome and the Jews differed from that between Rome and many of the peoples subjugated by it. Hadrian was no longer intent on conquering Mesopotamia, and hence the Jews there did not concern him anymore; but he did his utmost to subdue uprisings, particularly Jewish ones, in the Roman provinces bordering on the Mediterranean. These he meant to keep, subdue and pacify. It is against this larger background that one has to view the Judaeo-Roman conflict in the days of Trajan and Hadrian. The latter, perhaps more than any other Roman emperor, has assumed in Jewish history the position of the most hated Roman ruler, competing for that position with Vespasian and Titus. That did not stop the rabbis from inventing fictions and fables about his alleged admiration for Judaism.34 Not all rabbinic references to Hadrian were negative. The project for the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem probably was his rather than Trajan’s, if indeed it ever was. The rabbis mention the project in favourable terms and blame the Samaritans for its coming to naught, but, as usual, the reliability of the aggadic source is doubtful. A Church Father of the fourth century, Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, mentions a similar project, which he ascribes to Hadrian, but speaks of rebuilding Jerusalem and not the Temple. Other Christian sources more or less corroborate the tale in one form or another. Though the project is probably unhistoric, one cannot totally exclude the possibility that it was tabled by the emperor or suggested to him during the first years of his reign, at a time at which he (like his predecessor) was still favourably inclined toward the Jews, whereas the other plan belongs to the period after the Bar Kokhva uprising, when Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and erected a temple dedicated to Jupiter on Temple Mount as part of the reprisals in the wake of the uprising. Those first years of Hadrian’s rule also witnessed his visit to Iudaea (in or about 129) and his amicable encounters with the leader of contemporary Judaean Jewry, R. Joṣua b. Ḥanania.35

34 This policy resulted in the construction of Hadrian’s wall in Britain, the so-called Limes Britannicus, and the one in the East, the Limes Arabicus, and so forth, though that did not put an end to armed conflict. The border with Parthia was re-established along the river Euphrates. The literature on Trajan and Hadrian is vast, particularly on the latter. 35 See supra and Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus, 14. That is the view of Alon, op. cit., p. 277. He quotes in support the Syrian Chronicon ad annum Domini b 846 pertinens (CSCO, Scriptores Syri, Chronica Minora). The chronicle was written in the eighth to ninth century. According to the author of the chronicle the initiators of the project to rebuild the Historical Background 47

By far the principal event in Jewish history during Hadrian’s reign was the Bar-Kokhva revolt. It was the last major effort by the Jewish nation to put up a fight against the Roman invader and destroyer of the Jewish homeland. The futility of the armed struggle, in the face of overwhelming odds, with the stron- gest world power of that age in the Mediterranean and beyond, wrought a fundamental change in the Jewish nation. In the end most, or nearly all factions, parties, and movements lost out against the “Sages of Yavne” and their agenda, religious and political. Hellenistic Jews eventually, albeit much later, disappeared too and rabbinic Judaism became the mainstream in Judaism until Modern Times. Scholars are still divided over the cause and effect of events in Hadrian’s days. What preceded what?: the prohibition of circumcision, the outbreak of the rebellion, the Aelia Capitolina project, and other details? Did the prohibition cause the war, or was it the other way round? Nearly every scholar who dealt with the revolt, with the history of the Jews in the Roman Empire, or with that of Judaea has contributed his mite to the problem. Sources, rabbinic and Roman, are often contradictory, but that has not prevented some scholars from expressing decisive views on doubtful issues. So, in conclusion, Hadrian’s attitude to Jews and Judaism is perhaps best described by the same formula that appears to be appropriate to Trajan. Starting with a period of tolerance and perhaps even more than that, in the end it became totally negative and ended in a war of annihilation, which was expressed in rabbinic sources by the habitual addition to his name of “rot his bones”.36

town and the Temple were the Jews themselves, but in the twelfth year of Hadrian, i.e., in 129 CE, before the revolt. Hadrian is said to have entrusted the execution of the project to Aquilas, a Greek “interpreter”, and his relative by marriage. To confuse the issue even further, Aquilas has been identified with the Bible translator by that name and with Onqelos, the Bible translator into Aramaic. According to Christian sources Aquilas became a convert to Christianity, in line with the Christian effort to appropriate to itself Jewish traditions and opera. For more on the confusion and citations from additional Christian authors in subsequent centuries and by modern scholars, see Alon, l.c.; Bietenhard, op. cit. (who cites also Byzantine and modern literature on the project); and see Graetz, l.c.; Herr, Persecutions and Martyrdom, p. 91. On the Bible translators and translations, see below. On the emperor’s alleged encounters with R. Joṣua, see B. Berakhoth, 56a; B. Ḥagiga, 5b; and below. 36 Roman and rabbinic sources are abundant. The principal Roman ones are: Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, 69.12f. in Xiphilinus, Epitome; Scriptores Historiae Augustae 14.2 (consid- ers the building of Aelia Capitolina and the prohibition on circumcision the causes of the rebellion); Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 4.6.1f. The rabbinic ones are more plentiful. The main ones are: M. Ṣabbath, 19.1; T. Ṣabbath, 16.6; B. Yevamoth, 72a; B. Baba Batra, 60b (perhaps before the revolt, but Stern doubts this); B. Sanhedrin, 68a. Probably after the revolt: B. Berakhoth, 61b; B. Ṣabbath, 49a; B. Avoda Zara, 18b (sister-in-law of R. Me’ir 48 chapter 1

The momentous events in Judaea hardly left traces among the Jews in Italy, though it is unlikely that they went unnoticed there. There must have been some immigration from Judaea, including rabbis, such as R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ. Those notices that have survived are a few references in aggadic texts, rather in the nature of anecdotes, though perhaps some with an historical core. The harsh policies adopted by the Romans in Judaea included the placing of Jewish women in brothels, for instance in Rome. One is the tale told about the sister- in-law of R. Meir:

. . . Beruria was the wife of R. Meier, and the daughter of R. Ḥanina b. Tradion. Said [Beruria] to him [her husband]: ‘It is despicable for my sister to be in a brothel’. So he took a tarqava [= half a sa’a = just over four litres] of denari and went. Said he: ‘If nothing untoward happened to her a miracle will occur’. So he went and dressed up as a knight. He said to her: ‘Come and sleep with me’. Said she: ‘I have my period’. Said he: ‘I shall wait for you’. Replied she: ‘There are many [women] in this place, and many are prettier than me’. Said he: ‘That means that she did not sin; that is what she says to all comers’. So he went to her guard and said to him: ‘Give her to me’. He replied: ‘I am afraid of the authorities’. Said he: ‘Take a tarqava of denari, half for the authorities and half for you’. Said he: ‘What

and daughter of R. Ḥanina b. Tradion, one of the “Ten Martyrs”); B. Me’ila, 17a; Genesis Rabbati, 17.1 (Quintus Tineius Rufus, during the revolt. The Midraṣ is mediaeval). See also Abusch, Genital Mutilation, pp. 71f.; Id., Circumcision and Castration, pp. 71 f.; Alon, History of the Jews in Israel, cit., 2, pp. 1f.; Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 107f., 374; Cordier, Romains et la circoncision, pp. 337f.; Geiger, Prohibition of Circumcision, pp. 139f.; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, passim; Harris, Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion, pp. 199f.; Herr, Bar Kokhba Revolt, pp. 1f.; Lieberman, Martyrs of Caesarea, p. 423; Id., Persecution, pp. 215f.; Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, pp. 99f. (between 132 and 135); Mor, Bar Kokhba Revolt, pp. 173f. (who rejects both Aelia Capitolina and the ban on circumcision as causes, and suggests Messianic hopes instead); Oppenheimer, Ban on Circumcision, pp. 55f.; Id. Bar-Kokhba Revolt, passim; Rabello, Problema della ‘circumcisio’, pp. 187f.; Id., Ban on Circumcision, pp. 189f.; Rappaport, Judah and Rome, passim; Rokeah, Jewish Uprisings under Trajan, cit., passim; Id., Remarks, pp. 122f.; Schäfer, Bar Kochba Aufstand, passim; Id., Bar Kochba Revolt and Circumcision, pp. 119f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 1, pp. 677f., 682f.; Simon, op. cit., p. 127; Smallwood, Legislation of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, pp. 334f.; Spiegel, Kaiser Titus und Hadrian, cit. (contains most references to both caesars in rabbinic sources); Stemberger, Beurteilung Roms, pp. 364f.; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 391f., 619f. Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit, pp. 251f. (who attributes this reference to the Maccabean period). And see below, chapt. 6. On circumcision, its significance in Judaism and its reaction to the prohibition of castration, see also below. The .שחיק עצמות Hebrew “formula” attached to Hadrian’s name was Historical Background 49

do I do once they (the denari) are finished?’ Said he: ‘Say R. Meir’s God answer me and you will be saved’. Said he: ‘Who says that this will happen?’ Answered he: ‘You will see’. There were those man-eating dogs. He (Meir) took a clod of earth and threw it at them. So they came at him to devour him. So he said: ‘Meir’s God answer me’. So they left him in peace. Then they let her go and gave her to him (= Meir). In the end this became known to the authorities; so they took him (the guard) to be hanged. Then he (the guard) said: ‘Meir’s God answer me’. So they took him down (off the gallows). Then they asked him: ‘What is this?’ Replied he: ‘This is what happened’. So they went and displayed the image of R. Meir by the gate of Rome and said: ‘Whoever saw his image have him bring the man’. One day they saw him and pursued him. So he ran off . . . .37

Another tale linked to events in Rome following the Bar Kokhva revolt is said to have taken place at the beginning of Antoninus Pius’ reign or thereabouts:

Once upon a time the authorities decreed that they [the Jews] should not keep the Sabbath, that they should not circumcise their sons, and that they should have intercourse with menstruating women. So R. Re’uven Istrabuli [Aristobulus] went, cut his hair their [Roman] fashion, and sat with them [in Rome]. Said he to them: ‘He who has an enemy will grow rich or poor’? Said they: ‘He will grow poor’. Said he to them: ‘Let them be idle on the Sabbath, so they will become poor’. Said they: ‘He argued well for the abolition’. So they abolished it [the prohibition]. Then he said unto them: ‘He who has an enemy will grow thinner or fatter’? Said they: ‘He will grow thinner’. Said he: ‘If so, let them circumcise their sons within a week [after birth] and they will grow thinner’. Said they: ‘Well said.’. So they rescinded it [the prohibition]. Then he said unto them; ‘He who has an enemy will multiply or diminish?’ Said they: ‘He will diminish’. If so, let them not have intercourse with menstruating women’. Said they: ‘Well said’. And they repealed it. Then they found out that he was a Jew. So they restored it [the decree] . . . .38

37 B. Avoda Zara, 17a–b. Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 80. R. Meir was a tanna of the fourth generation and flourished after the Bar Kokhba rebellion. He was a disciple of R. ‘Aqiva and a teacher of Judah Ha-Nasi (the Patriarch). Midraṣic literature contains numerous tales and fables about R. Meir, his wife Beruria, his father in-law, Ḥanina b. Tradion, and their age. And see for instance, Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, note 19. 38 B. Me’ila, 17a–b. R. Re’uven b. Istrabuli is mentioned also in other fables. In one he is reported to have volunteered to be killed instead of R. ‘Aqiva. See also, Hyman, Toldoth 50 chapter 1

An Aggada relating the story of the abolition of Hadrian’s anti-Jewish decrees was included in the list of memorable events in Jewish history. On those days Jews were not supposed to fast:

On the 28th (of Adar) good news came for the Jews, that they might not deviate from the Tora, since the authorities had decreed that they refrain from studying the Tora, stop circumcising their sons and desecrate the Sabbath. So what did Judah b. Ṣamo’a and his friends do? They went and consulted a lady who was frequented by all the great of Rome [for advise]. Said she to them: ‘Go and demonstrate at night’. Said they: ‘By Heaven, are we not your brethren? Are we not the sons of the same mother? And why are we different from other nations, that you pursue us with draconian measures?’ So they repealed them. That day was made a holiday . . . .

However, there is nothing to show that Judah b. Ṣamo’a and his friends did in fact demonstrate in Rome, or that their action brought about the desired end. If they did, they may have been joined by some of the Jews in Rome.39

Tannaim Ve’Amoraim, 3, p. 1038. And see Klein, Tannaiten-Familie in Rom, pp. 442f. According to Graetz, op. cit., pp. 190f. (who has Strobilos) the mummery of R. Re’uven may have taken place in Antioch and the emperor involved Verus (who is not mentioned by name). Efforts to have Hadrian’s decrees repealed have been attributed also to R. Ṣimon b. Yoḥai. See B. l.c. According to Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., pp. 99f. and Alon, History of the Jews in Israel, cit., pp. 60f. the visit to Rome did not take place in 138 as Smallwood suggested because the members were too young at the time. The anecdote is followed by the fable about the exorcising of the demon Ben Tamlion who had possessed the emperor’s daughter. See Levi, Légend chretiénne de Bartholomée, pp. 200f., who identifies this tale with a similar one reported in Pseudepigraphic literature. Some scholars think otherwise. Hadrian’s ban on circumcision was not directed against Jews alone, but was included in that on castration. And see below. That all these events were said to have taken place in Rome, fable or no fable, is supported by the preceding passage in B. Me’ila, l.c. There the Roman R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ asked a ritual question of R. Simon b. Yoḥai, when the latter visited Rome. The date, however, is controversial, and is probably later than 138. It is doubtful whether one can dissect fables that minutely, especially when one has to take also into consideration the tale about R. Yoḥai’s hiding in a cave for 13 years during those crucial years. So some scholars have postponed the visit to Rome to the days of Marc Aurel. 39 Judah b. Ṣamo’a: B. Roṣ Haṣanah, 19a; B. Ta’anith, 18a; Megillath Ta’anith, 35. Alon, op. cit., 2, pp. 58f.; Berliner, Rom, cit., 1, pp. 35f.; Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 159f.; Geiger, Prohibition of Circumcision, cit., p. 144; Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 156f.; Smallwood, Legislation of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, esp. p. 343; Stern, Greek Historical Background 51

Hadrian was succeeded by Antoninus Pius, his adopted son. Antoninus’ rule, which lasted some 23 years, was benign and mostly uneventful, at least as far as the Jews were concerned. He abrogated the legislation of Hadrian directed against Jews and Judaism, chiefly that directed against circumcision. According to the jurist Modestinus, Antoninus Pius allowed Jews to circumcise their sons, but theirs only. Those who circumcised children “not of their nation” and slaves were to suffer the penalties reserved for castration. Despite the allegedly cordial relations between the emperor and some of the rabbis of his age, particularly the Patriarch Judah, one Roman chronicler reported that the Jewish cauldron continued to simmer and that Antoninus “crushed the Germans and Dacians and many other tribes, and also the Jews who were in revolt”.40 Antoninus’ successor and adopted son, Marc Aurel, was a stoic philosopher, and ruled the Empire from 161 to 180. His co-ruler until 169, Verus, was invested with slightly lesser official powers. Roman chronicles and other literary sources contain hardly a reference at all to the Jews in Marc Aurels’ times. The Jews, in Rome and elsewhere throughout the Empire must have suffered, along with the rest of the population, from the “Antonine plague”, raging at the time, and thought to have killed Verus, commonly identified as smallpox, which

and Latin Literature, cit., 2, p. 622. Judah b. Ṣamo’a was also a fourth generation tanna, but little else is known of him. 40 Regulae VI, Digesta, 48.8.11.1; Linder, l.c.; Rabello, Legal Condition, cit., pp. 700f., who tries to unravel the problem whether Antoninus Pius meant to allow Jews to circumcise only their sons, or gave that permission only to Jews. He opts for both interpretations, i.e., that license was given only to Jews and they were allowed to circumcise only their sons, following thus Solazzi, Fra norme romane anti-semite, pp. 369f. Herennius Modestinus, a Roman jurist, pupil of Ulpian, lived in the middle of the third century. He is considered reliable. See also Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, passim. However, the exact timetable of the Dialogue is controversial. See Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 107f.; Bietenhard, op. cit., pp. 182f.; Cappelletti, Jewish Community of Rome, cit., p. 136; Colorni, Sistema, pp. 3f.; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, pp. 135f. and note 17; Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., 2, pp. 263f.; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 38f.; Mark, The Covenant of Circumcision, passim; Smallwood, Legislation of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, cit., pp. 334f., and Addendum, pp. 93f. (and there on other legislation prohibiting castration and punishment to transgressors); Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, p. 620; 3, p. 64; Vogelstein- Rieger, op. cit., pp. 38f. For the Jews “in revolt” in the days of Antoninus, see Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Antoninus Pius, 5.4; Alon, op. cit., p. 63; Graetz, op. cit., 4, note 20; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 622f. The author, or authors of these chronicles is/are notoriously unreliable, so that many scholars do not give much credence to this evidence if unsupported from other sources. Graetz, however, accepts the notice as true, seconded by citations from rabbinic sources which may or may not be relevant. 52 chapter 1 considerably thinned the ranks of the Roman population along with floods and other disasters at this time. Some, exaggeratedly, have described the disasters, especially the plague, as the major event in Roman history in the second half of the second century CE. This is now considered an overstatement, albeit perhaps belittling its importance too much. The emperor’s view of the Jews has been described negatively by Ammianus Marcellinus of Antioch, a fourth century pagan historian and no philo-Semite to put it mildly. He had this to say about the emperor’s reaction on passing through Israel:

. . . For Marcus (Aurelius), as he was passing through Israel on his way to Egypt, being often disgusted with the malodorous and rebellious Jews, is reported to have cried with sorrow: ‘O Marcomanni, O Quadi, O Sarmatians, at last I have found a people more unruly than you’.

While this is the only surviving pagan anecdote describing Marc Aurel’s alleged attitude to the Jews, rabbinic sources abound with anecdotes and fables about the amicable relations between the tannaim, especially Judah Ha-Nasi, and “Antoninus”. Except that “Antoninus” may mean anyone of the emperors of the dynasties of the Antonini and Severi, and even Judah’s identity is in dispute. Thus the following phantastic tale is said to be linked to Marc Aurel:

. . . Antoninus made a lamp for the synagogue. Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi] heard of it and said: ‘blessed be the Lord who had him [the emperor] make a lamp for the synagogue’. R. Ṣemu’el b. R. Itsḥaq asked: ‘what did Rabbi say? Blessed be the Lord, or blessed be our Lord? If he said blessed be the Lord it means that Antoninus did not convert [to Judaism], but if he said blessed be our Lord, that means that Antoninus converted’. Some say that Antoninus converted, and some say that Antoninus did not . . . .

The conversations between the emperor and the sage and all stories linked to them in all likelihood are imaginary, yet they contain a grain of historical truth.41

41 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, 22.5, Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2. pp. 600f. The pestilence is also known as the plague of Galen because he described it. See Littman, Galen and the Antonine Plague, pp. 243f. For the passage on Antoninus (many parallels in Midraṣim), see J. Megillah, 3.2. Cf. Avi-Yonah, In the Days of Rome and Byzantium, cit., pp. 51f.; Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, cit., pp. 140f.; Hoffmann, Antoninus Agadot, cit., pp. 33f. (contains a list of over 30 references to “Antoninus” and “Rabbi” in rabbinic, literature); Klein, Aus den Lehrhäusern Erez Israels, p. 169 (suggests Antoninus Pius); Krauss, Antoninus und Rabbi, passim; [Rappaport], Letter 24, pp. 204f., esp. 221; Stern, Greek and Historical Background 53

The last of the Antonini, Commodus, son of Marc Aurel, belittled by most historians as an epigone and a capricious ruler, has left no trace in Jewish history, unless he is to be identified with one of the Antonini in rabbinic literature. To his times belongs the tale of Hippolytus of Rome, the sworn enemy of Pope Calixtus I, chiefly on theological grounds. He relates an incident in Calixtus’ early life, when the latter was still a layman. According to Hippolytus Calixtus embezzled the funds entrusted to his master and invested by him in Calixtus’ banking business. On being found out, Calixtus escaped, was captured, and was released following the intervention of fellow Christians. The desperate Calixtus, bent on a suicidal escapade, broke into a Roman synagogue on the Sabbath and created a disturbance. The Jews brought Calixtus before a magis- trate who sentenced him to forced labour in the mines in Sardinia. Eventually he was liberated, allegedly thanks to the intervention of Marcia, mistress of Commodus and subsequently the assassin of her lover. In due course Calixtus became bishop of Rome, that is the first pope by that name, while Hippolytus is considered by some the first anti-pope.42

The Severi and the Last Pagan Emperors to Constantine

After the interregnum of the so-called “five emperors” Septimius Severus became ruler of the Roman Empire (193). He too was concerned with the

Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 104; Zlotnik, Identity of Antoninus, pp. 136f. On the lamp, see below, chapt. 6, esp. note 13. Half a dozen emperors have been identified as “Antoninus”, some on the basis of ingenious calculations. As Baron, op. cit., p. 400, note 19 pointed out: “The identity of ‘Antoninus’ in the Talmudic anecdotes has been inconclusively debated. The existence of such historical relations is not controverted by the indubitable fact that form and substance of the dialogues as such are a work of fiction”. That is true of most midraṣic anecdotes and is as valid today as it was 60 years ago. Baron cites some of the conflicting views aired until the middle of the last century, to which should be added those that have appeared since, e.g., Levine, Status of the Patriarch, pp. 4f. They are all begging the question. 42 Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (= Philosophumena), 9.7. The story is followed by a theological attack on Calixtus. On the eruption into the Roman synagogue, see Baer, Israel, the Christian Church, cit., p. 6; Berliner, Rom, cit., 1, p. 46; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 42f.; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 173f. Calixtus had another arch-enemy in Tertullian. No doubt Hippolytus had an axe to grind and his diatribe against Calixtus is to be ascribed to his animus. However, the eruption into the synagogue and the reaction of the Jews may well have a grain of truth in them, particularly in view of the strained relations between Jews and Christians. 54 chapter 1 survival of paganism, particularly vis-à-vis Judaism and Christianity, and continued the traditional policy of his predecessors. According to Spartianus, thought by some to be the author of this section of the often cited fourth to fifth century Histories of Roman Emperors, Septimius Severus is reported as:

. . . having first raised his soldiers’ pay, he turned his steps toward Alexandria, and while on his way thither he conferred numerous rights upon the communities of Israel. He forbade conversion to Judaism under heavy penalties and enacted a similar law in regard to Christians.

It has been suggested that this applied also to Italy. One of the synagogues in Rome is said to have been named after the Severi, though on rather tenuous evidence. This may be linked to a mediaeval tradition that a Roman synagogue was named after the Severi.43 Septimius was succeeded by his eldest son best known as Caracalla, who is famous for his having granted Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire in the so-called Constitutio Antoniana de civitate (212), belittled by Dio Cassius:

. . . he made all the people in his empire Roman citizens; nominally he was honouring them, but his real purpose was to increase his revenues by this means, inasmuch as aliens did not have to pay most of these taxes.

There is probably more than a grain of truth in Dio Cassius’ prejudiced assertion, what with the ever growing expenses of the central government to keep happy the human masses of the capital and to maintain intact the far-flung

43 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Severus, 17.1. See Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 109f., 374f.; Colorni, Sistema cit., pp. 4f.; Epstein, Ein von Titus nach Rom, pp. 337f.; Frey, CII, 1. pp. LXXIXf. and No. 501; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 43, 163f.; Liebermann, Greek and Hellenism, p. 166; Momigliano, I nomi delle prime sinagoghe romane, pp. 283f.; Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 2, No. 568; Tov, Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible, pp. 237f. (who mentions on p. 251 R. Meir’s Torah used in Rome in the third century); Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, pp. 32f., and see below. Another statement there, Severus, 16.7, is considered spurious. According to this passage the emperor is alleged to have allowed his son to celebrate a triumph “for the senate had decreed to him a triumph over Judaea because of the successes achieved by Severus in Syria”. This has generated an endless and futile discussion. See, Berliner, op. cit., p. 45; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, pp. 206f.; Mommsen, Religionsfrevel, cit., p. 408; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 623f. For Septimius’ law allowing Jews to serve on municipal councils, see also below, and Milano, Le sinagoghe del vecchio ghetto di Roma, pp. 138f. Historical Background 55 borders of the Empire and its ever restless subject peoples. A passage by the unreliable Spartianus has remained an enigma and will probably remain one:

Once, when [Caracalla was] a child of seven, hearing that a certain play- mate of his had been severely scourged for adopting the religion of the Jews, he long refused to look at either his own father or the boy’s father, because he regarded them as responsible for the scourging.

Did he dislike the scourging, the reason given for the scourging, or whatever? Nor has it been ascertained whether he was an “Antoninus” figuring in rabbinic legend, chiefly on the strength of his middle name. Yet another enigmatic reference, this time by Jerome, around 400 CE, stating that Severus and Caracalla, or perhaps Julian, “liked the Jews”, is unsupported insofar as the Severi are concerned. Jerome himself was not sure. So he probably meant Julian. Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla are also quoted together in a law that admitted Jews to public office, but exempted them from duties that ran contrary to the observation of Judaism and its precepts.44 The short-lived pretenders and would-be caesars who followed Caracalla left hardly a trace in the annals of Judaism. One of them, who ruled for three years (218–222) before meeting the fate of many of his fellow emperors, was the Syrian boy-emperor Elagabalus (named after the sun-god he worshipped). Lampridius, who is said to be one of the six Scriptores of the untrustworthy Augustan History, has this to say on Elagabalus:

. . . As soon as he [the emperor] entered the city . . . he established Elagabalus as a god on the Palatine Hill close to the imperial palace; and he built him a temple . . . He declared, furthermore, that the religions of the Jews and the Samaritans and the rites of the Christians must also be transferred to this place, in order that the priesthood of Elagabalus might include the mysteries of every form of worship.

The same Lampridius also related that Elagabalus had himself circumcised and that he aped Jewish eating habits. That is borne out by Dio Cassius. Evidently

44 Dio Cassius, op. cit., 78.9. Cf. Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, pp. 62f.; Stern, op. cit. 2, pp. 626f., and see the references above, note 41. Jerome, Commentarii in Danielem 11.34–35. Cf. Stern, op. cit., 2, p. 424; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 33. On the Constitutio, see below, and Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2. pp. 109f. For the admission to public office, see Ulpian, De Officio Proconsulis, 3, in Digesta 50, 2.3.3 de Decurionibus and below. Ulpian was a contemporary of the emperors, and is generally considered reliable. 56 chapter 1 these things were not linked to Judaism, but to the emperor’s creed. He too was assassinated.45 Elagabalus was succeeded by his cousin Alexander, the last of the Severi (222). Unlike Elagabalus he wanted to be Roman and to be regarded as such. Lampridius had this to say about Alexander:

He (= Alexander) wished it to be thought that he derived his descent from the race of the Romans, for he felt shame at being called a Syrian, especially because, on the occasion of a certain festival, the people of Antioch and of Egypt and Alexandria had annoyed him with jibes, as is their custom, calling him a Syrian archisynagogus and an archiereum.

That did not stop him from confirming the rights of Jews and, and of worshipping in the mornings in his lararium the effigies of Abraham, alongside those of Jesus and Orpheus. Jewish influence led him to introduce into the administration of the Empire a procedure that allowed for more openness in public appointments. His biographer thus describes the new practice of conduct:

. . . Whenever Alexander desired to name any man governor of a province, or make him an officer in the army, or appoint him a procurator, that is to say, a revenue-officer, he always announced his name publicly and charged the people, in case anyone wished to bring an accusation against him, to prove it by irrefutable evidence, declaring that anyone who failed to prove his charge should suffer capital punishment. For, he used to say, it was unjust that, when Christians and Jews observed this custom in announcing the names of those who were to be ordained priests, it should not be similarly observed in the case of governors of provinces, to whose keeping were committed the fortunes and lives of men . . . .

He is also quoted as saying often: “What you do not wish that a man should do to you, do not do to him”, and claimed to have heard this from a Jew or a Christian. He is thought to be the emperor after whom a Roman synagogue was alleged to have been named. This is linked to the mediaeval references to a Tora scroll, said to have been among the loot that Titus brought with him from Jerusalem to Rome, and given by Alexander to a Roman synagogue. It is plausible, though not proven, that Alexander and the Patriarch Judah the

45 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Elagabalus, 3.4–5; 7.2; 28,4; Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, cit., 79.1. Leon, op. cit., p. 43; Stern, op. cit., pp. 627f. Some scholars have expressed doubts regarding the story about the circumcision of Elagabalus. Historical Background 57 second had close relations. The emperor is said to have granted the patriarch privileges, including agricultural land, and judicial and other powers.46

During the rest of the third century no fewer than nearly a hundred emperors, caesars, co-regents, pretenders and assorted rulers governed the Roman Empire or parts of it. Some, as was their wont, came to a sticky end, others resigned, and most did not last in office for more than a year or two. The unrav- elling of central governance, the political and military confusion, the insecurity and economic decay that accompanied all this must have affected the Jewish population, particularly that in Rome and in the rest of Italy; however next to nothing has emerged to illustrate this aspect of the situation with regard to Jews. The period has been described justly as the age of anarchy. With Diocletian stability was temporarily re-established, but at the same time fundamental changes took place in the Empire. The last vestiges of republican rule disappeared along with the stripping of the senate of all political power, and the establishment of what has been described as a mon- archy. Diocletian no longer ruled from Rome. While he retained overall lord- ship, he had a co-regent and two caesars to share government with him. That pattern was retained for another century or so, throughout the fourth century CE. Christians suffered persecutions during the third century, but Jews and Judaism are not known to have been exposed to the same perils. We do not know whether the Jews of Italy were affected by all the events in the East, including Israel, in these years of turmoil. The Jews of Israel were involved in recurring clashes with the Roman authorities. These in turn, resulted in Jewish

46 Scriptores, cit., Alexander Severus, 28.7; 29.2; 45.6–7. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, pp. 221, esp. note 23; Leon, l.c.; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, cit., p. 382; Stern, Greek and דעלך סני Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 632f. The rule is attributed to Hillel, see B. Ṣabbath, 31a Elsewhere it is ascribed to R. ‘Aqiva, see Avoth de-Rabbi Nathan B 26 .לחברך לא תעביד (ed. Schechter, p. 53). The report on the scroll is by David Qimḥi in his Commentary to Genesis 1.31. A reference to a scroll, probably the same, is contained in Bereṣith Rabbati (ed. Theodor/Albeck), p. 209 and notes 12–13. This Midraṣ is based on the opus of the 11th century R. Mose Ha-Darṣan. As usual, scholars have been unable to agree on the interpretation of this passage, on the identity of the emperor, and so forth. See Baron, Jewish Community, cit., 1, pp. 82, 96, 109; 3, pp. 17, 20; Id., Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 187, 400 (“a somewhat dubious mediaeval source”); Collon, Remarques sur les quartiers juifs de la Rome, p. 85; Epstein, Pentateuch Codex, pp. 337f.; Hoffmann, Antoninus Agadot, cit., pp. 59f.; Leon, op. cit., pp. 162f.; Siegel, The Severus Scroll, passim; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 34. The linkage of Alexander Severus with CIJ 501 is also controversial. Cf. Leon, op. cit., pp. 163f.; Momigliano, Severo Alessandro Archisynagogus, pp. 151f.; Id., Review of Leon, Rome, cit., p. 180; Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, cit., 2, pp. 163f. 58 chapter 1 messianic dreams, or perhaps the other way round. Interwoven with these were the wars between Romans and Persians. Because of worsening economic conditions and ever increasing taxes, the Jews of Tiberias, at that time the centre of Jewish life in the country, were forced to abandon the town, at least temporarily. R. Yoḥanan b. Naphḥa, a Palestinian amora of the second generation, was the spiritual leader of Palestinian Jewry in those days, and is considered the author of much of the codification of the Jerusalemite Talmud. He attempted to adjust himself and Jewish law to prevailing conditions. Thus he allowed Jewish peasants to ignore the law of ṣmita, the seventh year in which land must lie fallow according to biblical precept because the Roman authorities abolished the exemption of Jews from taxes during that year. That may have had significance in southern Italy and Sicily where Jews were said to have engaged in agriculture.47 Diocletian (284–305) tried to stem the inflation ravaging the Empire by reor- ganizing the monetary and fiscal systems, the governance of the Empire and the army. He was responsible for the last large-scale persecution of Christians, but tolerated Jews and Judaism. Rabbinic sources report that when Diocletian visited Judaea “he issued orders that all peoples should offer libations, except Jews”. In other words, he reaffirmed the exemption of Jews from venerating the Roman deities implicit in the recognition of the Jewish cult. Also the special Jewish tax, the fiscus Judaicus, introduced by Vespasian after 70, fell into disuse in or about that time, long before it was officially abolished. It had become a negligible quantity in view of the devaluation of the nominal sum on which it was based. On the other hand, the fable about the maltreatment of Diocletian at the hand of some disciples of the Palestinian patriarch, when Diocletian was still a swineherd, and the emperor’s revenge, has been interpreted as hinting at the persecution of Jews also by Diocletian. That would appear to be rather far-fetched. On the contrary, he is said to have sided with the patriarch against the sages. They were locked in conflict over jurisdiction, and Diocletian ruled in favour of the Patriarch Iudah III (Judah Nesiah II). That, at any rate, is the

47 For more details of that period, see the standard histories of the Roman Empire, such as Charanis, Observations, pp. 551. As for the Jews of Italy under the last pagan emperors the adage “no news is good news” is probably true. For the situation in Israel during the “anarchy” of the third century, see Alon, l.c.; Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 177, 263, 397. The latter cites Marmorstein’s papers, e.g., Age of R. Yoḥanan, pp. 161f.; Id., Persécutions religieuses a l’époque de R. Yohanan b. Nappacha, pp. 166f. Cf. however, Lieberman, Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries, pp. 112f. Jewish agriculture in Italy surfaces in documentation at a later date but may have existed already in the third century. And see below. Historical Background 59 interpretation offered by some to a law of Diocletian addressed to one Judah. Considering the advantage the patriarch had over the sages in the relations with the Jewish communities in the Diaspora, including those in Italy, and assuming that Judah was indeed the patriarch, that must have had a decisive impact on the Italian peninsula. A Christian polemicist, Commodian, claims in one of his poems that the Jews of Rome still carried influence with the Roman senate (which, however, had become of little consequence by then). The emperor in whose reign this was supposed to have happened has been identified as either Decius or Diocletian. So, there is little substance to the claim that Diocletian’s reign was a “period of persecution” in the Roman Empire.48

The Christian Empire until the Division

Diocletian was succeeded by Constantine I (306), who had to contend with several rivals. His victory over one of them, Maxentius (312), is supposed to be linked to the toleration of Christianity in the Roman Empire (ἐν τούτῳ νίκα = in this sign you will conquer) and the publication of the so-called “edict of Milan”

48 J. Avoda Zara, 5.4; Terumoth, 8 (end); Genesis Rabba, 63.8. See, for instance, Baer, Israel, the Christian Church, cit., pp. 127f.; Baron, op. cit., 2, pp. 178, 397 (on the abolition of the tax, see p. 186: not mentioned after 236); Krauss, op. cit., p. 78; Marmorstein, Dioclétien a la lumière, pp. 19f.; Rabello, Sui rapporti tra Diocleziano e gli ebrei, pp. 157f. (Contra Baer. And see there the exhaustive literature on this emperor and on his persecution of Christians); Id., Legal Condition, pp. 733f. See there also on the date of the emperor’s edict and the Samaritans mentioned therein, and the debate raging on these and cognate topics, such as martyrdom, supremacy of the Patriarchate vis-à-vis the rabbis. etc. To cite only a few examples: Lieberman, Roman Legal Institutions, pp. 1f.; Id., The Martyrs of Caesarea, cit., pp. 329f. contra Marmorstein, The Age of R. Yoḥanan, cit., pp. 161. The law is CJ, 3.13.3 (293). See Albeck, Semikha, pp. 85f.; Dinaburg, The Rescript of Diocletian to Juda, pp. 76f.; Levine, Status of the Patriarch, pp. 18f.; Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., pp. 114f.; and Rabello, op. cit., pp. 182f., Id., Tribute to Jean Juster, p. 228, think so, while Alon, Studies, cit., 2, pp. 55f.; Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., 2, pp. 104, note 4 think otherwise. That is only a partial list of the “combatants”. Some of the scholars involved inject into this dispute the issue of whether after 70 the status of the Jews was that of a natio and/ or a religio. If they were only the latter they could not exercise jurisdiction. And see below. On the poem, see Commodianus, Carmen Apologeticum, 849. The linkage to either emperor is based on the proximity to the reference of the persecution of Christians by these emperors (respectively). See also, Alon, l.c.; Graetz, op. cit., 4, pp. 276f. (who suggests that the persecutions of Christians were those mentioned by Eusebius, De Martyribus Palestina, passim). 60 chapter 1

(313). However, the story itself has been relegated to the realm of fable. The edict brought to a conclusion the persecution of Christianity in the Empire and sealed the triumph of the apostle Paul and his followers over all religious contenders for supremacy in the Empire, particularly Paganism, Manichaeism and Judaism. In other respects too Constantine’s reign constituted a watershed in Roman history. The principal seat of government was transferred to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople. The entire Empire was divided into four prefectures, one of them being Italy. That created the problem whether a law promulgated in one part of the Empire would be valid in the other. In 438 Theodosius II decreed that hence- forth laws published in one part of the Empire would not be valid elsewhere unless they were published also in the others. That meant that if the West was simultaneously ruled by the emperor of the East, eastern laws were also valid in the West, i.e., in Italy, but if not they had to say so explicitly. Very few laws stated this in so many words. From that it follows that during the first century of Christian dominance all legislation applied also to the Jews of Italy and during the remaining century or so of Late Antiquity—at least intermittently so. The hardening of imperial policy toward the Jews was gradual. For most of the fourth century, only relatively few changes were introduced into imperial legislation. From then on Church policy on Jews and Judaism predominated, and late imperial legislation on the Jews, dictated by the Church, largely aimed at the degradation of the rival religion and its followers merged into mediaeval legal discrimination against Jews and Judaism.49 The “edict of Milan”, which has come down to us in two slightly divergent versions, granted religious liberty to all. Whereas as regards Christianity this

49 See Novella 1 of Theodosius II. A listing of relevant legislation is reported by Salzman, Evidence, pp. 362f. Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380. See CTh 16.1.2. Only rarely did a law published in one part of the Empire state specifically that it was valid also in another. See Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., 26f., 55f., and see the contradiction there. 24 laws concerning Jews were enacted in the East and 17 in the West, “but (so Linder) the slight difference does not warrant any real distinction between the policies adopted by the two Imperial administrations on the subject of the Jews. The legal unity of the Empire, professed in principle and generally maintained in practice, was confirmed by the relevance of these laws for the empire as a whole”. See also Id., Roman Imperial Government, pp. 95f.; Id., Ecclesia and Synagoga, pp. 1019f.; Braun, Jews in the Late Roman Empire, pp. 142f.; Cohen, Roman Imperial Policy, pp. 1f.; Gaudemet, Partage législatif, pp. 319f.; Kalmin, Schwarz, Jewish Culture and Society, passim; Lucas, Zur Geschichte der Juden im vierten Jahrhundert, passim; Lotter, Zwangsbekehrung, pp. 291f.; Id., Entwicklung des Judenrechts, pp. 41f.; Palanque, Collégialité et partage, pp. 47f., 280f.; Seaver, Persecutions of the Jews, cit., passim; Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste, pp. 80f. Historical Background 61 was an innovation, allowing Christians to practise their hitherto outlawed faith, Jews simply had their traditional religious liberty reiterated. That, however, was soon followed by the first Christian inspired law of Constantine:

We wish to make it known to the Jews and their elders and their patriarchs that if, after the enactment of this law, any one of them dares to attack with stones or some other manifestation of anger another who has fled their dangerous sect and attached himself to the worship of God [= Christianity], he must speedily be given to the flames and burn together with all his accomplices. Moreover, if any one of the population should join their abominable sect and attend their meetings, he will bear with them the deserved penalties.

Other similar laws addressed to Jews soon followed, some confirming those prevailing in pagan days, others inspired by the victorious Church. A few were decreed by Constantine, others by his successors. Constantine’s legislation and that of his sons obviously also affected the Jews of Italy, although no details have survived. Constantine is alleged by Eusebius to have supported the separation of the date for the Christian Easter from that for the Jewish Passover. Having presided over the council of Nicaea, the emperor wrote:

It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews . . . For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages by a truer order . . . For their boast is absurd indeed, that it is not in our power without instruction from them to observe these things . . . Being altogether ignorant of the true adjustment of this question, they sometimes celebrate Passover twice in the same year . . .”.

Constantine tried to deal with the controversy inside the Church over the fixing of the date of Easter in accordance with the Jewish calendar (the so- called quartodecimanism, i.e., dependence on the Jewish 14th of Nissan) or by independent computation, instructing the Council of Nicaea to resolve the issue. The Council fixed the date of Easter on the first Sunday following the first full-moon of Spring. All the same, the date varied in accordance with the calendar, adopted by various churches, and remained so. A mediaeval chronicle, written in Egypt by Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria in the 10th century, reports that Constantine renewed the imperial prohibition on Jews of entering Jerusalem, except on the ninth of Av. If true, 62 chapter 1 this would have affected also the Jews of Italy on a visit to the Holy Land. In that event it may be linked to the activities of his mother Helen in Jerusalem. He also mentions yet another Jewish uprising, subdued by Constantine and said to have been punished with the amputation of the rebels’ ears. That story is said to have been related also by John Chrysostom, but is considered by most historians “unlikely”. The victory of Christianity in the days of Constantine led some Church Fathers to revel in the conversion of many Jews to the now dominant religion, whereas the rabbis exalted those who steadfastly shunned the material benefits of such conversions.50

50 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 10.5.7; Lactantius, De Morte Persecutorum, 48 = a decree by Galerius (Omnia libera potestas sequendi religionem), and see also Ibid., 34. Both were contemporaries of Constantine and his advisors. See Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, pp. 305f., who termed it “eine Art von Toleranzedikt”. The law is CTh 16.8.1 + 16.8.1.1 = CJ 1.9.3 (without the last phrase), dated 315, corrected by Linder, op. cit., pp. 124f. to 329. And cf. pagan prohibition of circumcision. For further Jewish legislation, see below: chapt. 3. Eusebius quoted from Constantine’s letter in De Vita Constantini, 3.18. Lieberman, Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries, cit., pp. 334f., suggests that following the resolutions of the council the Romans tried to meddle in the fixing of the Jewish calendar,. A similar claim is made by Procopius, in his highly colourful but prejudiced Historia Arcana, 8.16, against Justinian in the sixth century. For all this there exists no unequivocal supporting evidence, unless B. Sanhedrin, 21a is made to mean just that. Hillel II is supposed to have solved the problem in 358 (based on a mediaeval report). See Levine, Status of the Patriarch, cit., p. 10, Mahler, Handbuch der jüdischen Chronologie, pp. 455f. See also Ehrhardt, Constantine Rome and the Rabbis, pp. 307f.; Huber, Passa und Ostern, passim; Jacobs, Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen, p. 347; Linder, Ecclesia and Synagoga, cit., pp. 1019f.; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, p. 563; Stern (S.), Calendar and Community, pp. 85f.; Id., Jewish Calendar Reckoning, pp. 107f., who underlines the difference between the Jewish lunar calendar and that of the rest of the population in the Roman Empire whose calendar was solar. He quotes Mekhilta (R. Iṣma’el), Bo, 1 and T. Sukka, 2.6, see also Werner, Melito of Sardes, pp. 199f. For the renewal of Hadrian’s prohibition, see Eutychius, Annales, 1, p. 466; Chrysostom, Oratio contra Iudaeos, 2 (lost section), p. 42; and Id., Adversus Judaeos, 5.11 (PG 48, col. 900). See Pradels et al., Das bisher vermisste Textstück in Johannes Chrysostomus, pp. 23f.; Id., Sequence and Dating, pp. 103f. Graetz, l.c., cites Chrysostom, and Eutychius, op. cit., 2, p. 469, as sources for an alleged uprising and punishment of the Jews in Israel. See also Avi-Yonah, In the Days of Rome and Byzantium, cit., pp. 142f.; Seaver, Persecutions of the Jews e, cit., p. 12. Cf., Lieberman, op. cit., pp. 335f. Lieberman doubts whether the much vaunted uprisings in Israel in the third and fourth centuries ever took place on the ground, and underlines the patriarchs’ and rabbis’ warnings against such rebellions. Be that as it may, given the latters’ links with Diaspora Jewry, their views apparently prevailed among the Jews of the Diaspora including Italy. For the conversions to Christianity or the resistance to them, see the quotations from the writings of the Church Fathers, supra, and those mentioned in rabbinic texts such as Pesiqta Historical Background 63

We next hear of the Jews, particularly those in Israel, in the days of Emperor Constantius II (337–361), son of Constantine I. His brothers, Constantine II and Constans, ruled the western part of the Empire until 340 and 350 respectively, and from then on Constantius also governed the West. Constantius issued a number of laws, some by himself and some in conjunction with others, all draconian and detrimental to Jewish interests, but not yet restricting Judaism and its practice as such. However, the language of these laws is much more offensive than that of his predecessors, including his father. In Israel the measures adopted by the rulers are said to have resulted in the emigration of some amoraim to Babylonia and to have contributed to the decline of the Jewish centre in Israel, particularly in Tiberias. The echoes of these events have evinced contradictory interpretations. Most scholars describe events in Israel as yet another link in the chain of Roman persecutions, followed by an uprising, led by Isaac and/or Patricius, which in turn was put down by the overwhelming force of the Roman legions. A minority suggests that in the days of Gallus, Constantius’ caesar in the East, the latter’s general, Ursicinus, put down a local revolt of relatively small dimensions. They argue that no persecutions took place, but government chicanery, rising taxes and increasing inflation were the plight of all inhabitants, Jews and non-Jews alike. They also claim that the uprising was a local affair in Sepphoris (Diocaesarea) in 352, and did not affect the Jewish population of Israel as a whole. However, the numerous references to these events do not allow their belittling. The Jews of Italy were affected by the events in Israel at least to the extent that the Jewish leadership there, the patriarchate, in constant touch with the communities of the Diaspora, changed the rules for fixing the Jewish lunar calendar. As we have seen, this had become a problem after the victory of Christianity. The patriarchs could no longer rely on their ability to inform in time the Diaspora communities of the calendar, the celebration of the New Moon, the Jewish holidays, and so forth. So in the end the reigning patriarch, Hillel II, left the fixing of the Jewish calendar to the discretion of the local communities in the Diaspora. Nevertheless the “second holiday” celebrated in the Diaspora to compensate for a difficulty encountered previously in transmitting the dates to distant destinations was retained.51

Rabbati, c. 21. For Roman history from Constantine on, see Giardina, Società romana e impero tardoantico, passim. 51 On Constantius and his brothers in Jewish history, see Graetz, op. cit., pp. 311f., 455f. He suggests that with Constantius Christianity became paramount in the Empire. See also Avi-Yonah, In the Days of Rome and Byzantium, cit., pp. 151f.; Schäfer, History of the Jews in 64 chapter 1

The interlude of Julian’ reign, which lasted less than two years (361–363), was accompanied by a temporary setback for Christianity (which stigmatized him an apostate), accompanied by a reinstatement of paganism and a soft- ening of imperial attitude towards Jews and Judaism. These elements in the emperor’s religious and political motivation are interwoven. Julian was a member of Constantine’s family, the brother of Gallus, caesar in the East, while he himself was caesar of the West from 355. He fell out with Constantius II, who had killed most other members of the family, but was nominated by him successor to the throne, shortly before they faced each other in battle. He tried to stem the disintegration of the Empire by restoring Roman traditions, including the old gods. He has been labelled a Neoplatonist-syncretist, and was a man of letters, a prolific writer and at the same time a successful military commander (while it lasted). His opus Contra Galilaeos, a polemical attack on Christianity, has survived only in quotations. On his coming to power Julian issued an edict of toleration, allowing all religions and sects, including the persecuted Christian ones, freedom of religion. He also abrogated anti-Jewish legislation and officially abolished the fiscus Iudaicus, which by then had fallen into disuse (as we have seen).

the Greco-Roman World, pp. 180f. On imperial legislation, see below. The chief exponent of the trend that belittles the events of 352 is Lieberman, op. cit., pp. 127f. Admittedly, the events are reported mainly by Fathers of the Church, such as Aurelius Victor (fourth century CE), Liber de Caesaribus 42.11; Jerome, Chronicon, ad. a. 352 (“Gallus crushed the Jews, who after killing the soldiers by night had taken possession of arms in order to rebel, with the slaughter of many thousands of men, even up to those of innocent years, and turned over to fire their cities, Diocaesaria, Tiberias and Diospolis [= Lydda], and very many towns”); Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica (a continuation of Eusebius’ opus), 23 and others, probably dependent on each other. Pesiqta Rabbati, 8 (ed. Friedman, 29b) has been cited in connection with all this, but that is not borne out by the text. Graetz, l.c., however, thinks that it does and links also B. Sanhedrin, 12a and other talmudical references to the above. These links, however, are rather tenuous. The same applies to Targum Jeruṣalmi of Numeri, 24.18–19, containing messianic hopes for the destruction of Constantinople and Caesarea. The Aramaic Targum is a mediaeval opus of uncertain date (wrongly) attributed to Jonathan b. Uziel, a tanna of the first generation. Patricius has been described as a Roman pretender to the throne, supported by Jewish partisans of his cause. Sources available at the present time do not allow for a more precise description of events. See, however, Avi-Yonah, op. cit., pp. 153f., 243f.; Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 179f., 398, note 11 (who thinks that Lieberman “has gone too far” in his total denial of the uprising). Geiger, Last Jewish Revolt, pp. 250f. Also the destruction of Beth-Ṣe’arim at about this time was probably linked to the rebellion. So while the revolt took place, its dimensions are controversial. On the patriarch’s directions for the fixing of the calendar, see Graetz, op. cit., note 31, who cites R. Hai Gaon for the date. Historical Background 65

Julianus found more affinity between paganism and Judaism than either with Christianity, but all the same was ambivalent towards Judaism as a religion, though we have his version only through the pro-Christian interpretation of the patriarch Cyril and other fathers of the Church. He had some harsh things to say about Christians and their beliefs, which his Christian successors and the leaders of the Church repaid in kind. Their antagonism to Julian was comprehensive, but they objected in particular to his project of rebuilding the Temple because it was diametrically opposed to their perception of Verus Israel. So, while he condemned theologically those parts of Judaism which he considered divergent from his views on paganism, he favoured Jews and Judaism on the practical-political level, particularly as a counter-balance to his conflict with Christianity and Christians. It has been suggested that his plans for a military confrontation with Persia also had something to do with this, in consideration of the vast Jewish population in Babylonia. Julian’s main claim to fame in Jewish history is his alleged attempt to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. There are nearly no references to the project in Jewish sources and none to its being put into effect. According to the Fathers of the Church Julian met with Jews in Antioch, informed them that he had abolished the fiscus Iudaicus and that he was planning to rebuild the Temple. He commissioned Alypius to carry out the plan and met with enthusiastic response by the Jews, some of whom flocked to Jerusalem from the Diaspora. Work was begun, but a natural disaster or Christian sabotage stopped it for good. The main report on the meeting contains the following passage:

In times past, by far the most burdensome thing in the yoke of your slavery has been the fact that you were subjected to unauthorized ordinances and had to contribute an untold amount of money to the accounts of the treasury. Of this I used to see many instances with my own eyes, and I have learned of more, by finding the records which are preserved against you. Moreover, when a tax was about to be levied on you again I prevented it, and compelled the impiety of such obloquy to cease here; and I threw into the fire the records against you that were stored in my desks; so that it is no longer possible for anyone to aim at you such a reproach of impiety. My brother Constantius of honoured memory was not so much responsible for these wrongs of yours as were the men who used to frequent his table, barbarians in mind, godless in soul. These I seized with my own hands and put them to death by thrusting them into the pit that not even any memory of their destruction might still linger amongst us. And since I wish that you should prosper yet more, I have admonished my brother Julos, your most venerable patriarch, that the levy which is said 66 chapter 1

to exist among you should be prohibited, and that no one is any longer to have the power to oppress the masses of your people by such exactions; so that everywhere, during my reign, you may have security of mind, and in the enjoyment of peace may offer more fervid prayers for my reign to the Most High God, the Creator, who has deigned to crown me with his own immaculate right hand. For it is natural that men who are distracted by any anxiety should be hampered, and they would not have so much confidence in raising their hands to pray; but that those who are in all respects free from care should rejoice with their whole hearts and offer their suppliant prayers on behalf of my imperial office to mighty God, even to him who is able to direct my reign to the noblest ends, according to my purpose. This you ought to do, in order that when I have successfully concluded the war with Persia, I may rebuild with my own efforts the sacred city of Jerusalem, which for so many years you have longed to see inhabited, and may bring settlers there, and together with you, may glorify the most high God therein.

When Julian was killed in battle on the Persian front the Temple project came to naught. The only rabbinic voice in this practically total Jewish silence on the project is the interpretation of a saying attributed to R. Aḥa, a Palestinian amora and contemporary of Julian, as a rabbinic approval of the project. When it failed the rabbis are said to have distanced themselves from it. A few years later Bishop Ambrose reported that the Jews in Milan set fire to churches in the days of Julian.52

52 The literature on Julian is vast. On his attitude to Judaism, his planned rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, and so forth, see for instance Adler, Emperor Julian and the Jews, pp. 591f.; Avi-Yonah, op. cit., pp. 161f.; Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, passim; Hack, Julianus, pp. 118f. (and there further references up to 1940); Lewy, Julianus, pp. 7f.; Id., Studies in Jewish Hellenism, pp. 221f.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 219f.; Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus Judaeos Texte, pp. 276f., 616f.; Simon, op. cit., pp. 139f.; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 502f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, pp. 120f.; Vogt, Kaiser Julian und das Judentum, passim (published in 1939!). Contra Galileos has been lost and is known chiefly from Cyril of Alexandria’s refutation Contra Julianum, written a century later, before Julian’s essay was proscribed by the Christian authorities (Theodosius II). See Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, 23.1.2–3 = Stern, op. cit., pp. 607f. Julian’s abolition of the fiscus Iudaicus is contained in his Epistolae 51 (LCL 3, pp. 176f.). He had the tax lists destroyed, so the tax collection effectively ceased. The letter he wrote to the Patriarch Hillel II (son of Judah III) about the abrogation of the aurum coronarium paid to the patriarchs, either had no effect, or was reintroduced after Julian’s death. See CTh, 16.8.14 and 19. Julian letter was in line with CTh, 12.13.1; and see Dessau, Un nouvel Historical Background 67

The emperors who succeeded Julian, Jovian and Valentinian I (in the West) and Valens (an Arian, in the East) are reported to have left untouched Julian’s directive of religious freedom, enjoyed also by Jews. They and their immediate successors: Gratian, and Theodosius I (367–395), issued laws for and against Jews, including one on the exemption of synagogues from billetting. Most of them were Church inspired, some seriously interfered with Jewish freedom, including that of religion, and one or two were issued to protect the Jewish cult, especially the synagogues, from Christian harassment and violence. From the Church’s point of view Julian’s reign was only a brief interlude, interrupting its missionary efforts and suppression of other religions, but not causing it to deviate from its victorious course. At this time in Italy, in the second half of the fourth century, Philaster, who ended his days as bishop of Brescia (as related by his successor Gaudentius), travelled far and wide all over Italy, preached the Gospel, and recruited pagans, heretics and Jews to the Catholic Church. The mob translated the incessant incitement of the clergy against Jews and Judaism into action. They tore down and set fire to synagogues all over the Empire. The emperors disapproved of this sort of violence and public disorder, but met with condemnation on the part of the clergy. One of the most outspoken critics of imperial policies on this topic was Ambrose, the famous bishop of Milan. When in 388 the rabble, led by the local bishop, destroyed the synagogue in Callinicum in Mesopotamia

édit de l’empereur Julien, pp. 258f. The meeting between Julian and Jewish representatives in Antioch is reported by, among others, Chrysostomos, Adversus Iudaeos, 5.11; Id., Contra Iudaeos et Gentiles, 16; Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, 10.38f.; Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, 3.20; Sozomenus, Historia Ecclesiastica, 5.22 and several other fathers of the Church. Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., pp. 221f. gives the texts credence, and so do others. For additional references by Julian himself, see his Fragmentum Epistolae, addressed to a priest. See Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 506f. (an extensive list of references to the Temple project), 552f. and in Lydus, De Mensibus, 4.53; Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oratio, 5.3. Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. l.c. and 569f. The latter may contain a reference to a third letter of the emperor to the Jews. The passages in rabbinic literature are J. Ma’aser Ṣeni, 5.2 and Midraṣ Ecclesiast Rabba, 9.10. There is no substance to the assertion that the rabbis disapproved of the rebuilding of the Temple other than by divine act. Cyrus’ example should have silenced any such objection. In all probability they were sceptical of the outcome, as well as they might have been, and so they kept mum. See Bacher, Emperor Julian, pp. 168f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, p. 511. On Verus Israel in Christianity, see below. If Julian ever published a formal law containing his resolutions the editors of CTh excluded it from their collection. See Rabello, Legal Condition, pp. 685f. On the alleged setting on fire of churches in Milan by the Jews there, see Ambrosius, Epistolae 40.18; Cracco Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, p. 206. In his letter Ambrose interfered with the due process of law with regard to the destruction of the synagogue in Callinicum, see below. 68 chapter 1

(identified as modern ar-Raqqa), Emperor Theodosius I ordered the rioters to recompense the Jews and to finance the rebuilding of the Jewish place of worship. Bishop Ambrose protested to the emperor:

. . . A report was made by the military Count of the East that a synagogue had been burnt, and that this was done at the instigation of the bishop. You gave command that the others should be punished, and the synagogue be rebuilt by the bishop himself . . . Have you not heard. O Emperor, how, when Julian had commanded that the temple of Jerusalem should be restored, those who were clearing the rubbish were consumed by fire? Will you beware that this will now happen again? For you ought not to have commanded what Julian commanded . . . There is, then, no ade- quate cause for such a commotion, that the people should be so severely punished for the burning of a building, and much less since it is the burning of a synagogue, a home of unbelief, a house of impiety, a receptable of folly, which God himself has condemned . . . Will you give this triumph over the Church to the Jews? This trophy over Christ’s people, this exulta- tion, O Emperor, to the unbelievers? This rejoicing to the Synagogue, this sorrow to the Church? . . . .

But the emperor refused to budge. Only after a personal meeting between the two the following year in Milan the emperor gave in to the importunities of the bishop. Notwithstanding Theodosius’ surrender to the bishop over the synagogue in Callinicum, he reiterated the religious freedom of Jews throughout the Empire and forbade Christians to destroy and plunder synagogues (393):

It is certain that the sect of the Jews is not prohibited by law. Therefore, we are much disturbed by the prohibition in some places of their assemblies. On receipt of this order your supreme magnitude shall repress with suitable severity the excess of those who in the name of Christianity presume to destroy and despoil synagogues.

Callinicum was not the only instance of the gutting of synagogues in the Empire. Similar events occurred elsewhere, including Rome. Here Maxentius had the Christians who destroyed the synagogue rebuild it. Ambrose explains that this action on the part of Maxentius cost him his popularity with the Christians of Rome. Further north, in Tortona, Innocent the local bishop, in the surviving fragments of his hagiographic Vita, is said to have torn down the local synagogue and replaced it with a church. If true, the act elicited no known reaction on the part of the authorities. However, the evidence is suspect and Historical Background 69 has been rejected by most scholars. Theodosius followed in the footsteps of his predecessors and upheld the office of the patriarch. He had Hesychius vir consularem put to death because he had incurred the enmity of the Patriarch Gamli’el.53

The Divided Empire and the Decline of the West

On the death of Theodosius I the Empire was divided between Honorius (West) (until he died in 423) and Arcadius (East) (died 408). As we have seen, there is some ambiguity over what new legislation issued in one part of the Empire applied also in the other, but generally speaking the Jews, including those under “barbarian” rule remained Roman citizens. “Barbarian” versions of Roman law, if and when applied to Jews, underwent relatively few changes and Church policy as well as its attitude towards Jews and Judaism stayed the same and, if anything, hardened with the passage of time. Theodosius II in the East had some Roman law codified until his times, as did Justinian with

53 Themistius, Oratio, 5. Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., p. 121. See also Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, 3.26. Themistius was a pagan philosopher and statesman in the second half of the fourth century. CTh, 7.8.2, 16.8.13 (mention in a decree of 397). See Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, p. 346; Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., p. 201. On the laws from Valens to Theodosius, see CTh, 3.1.5; 3.7.2; 7.8.2; 12.1.99–100; 13.5.18; 16.7.3; 16.8.8; 16.8.9; CJ 1.7.2; 1.9.5; 1.9.6; 1.9.7; 10.40.8. See Linder, op. cit., pp. 161f. and below. On Philaster’s preaching and missionizing, see PL 20, cols. 997f.: De vita et obitu S. Philastri episcopi predecessoris sui. On Theodosius and the Jews, see Demougeot, Politique antijuive de Théodose, pp. 95f. On the synagogue of Callinicum and Ambrose, see Ambrose, Epistolae, cit., 40–41; [Cracco] Ruggini, op. cit., pp. 192f.; Id., Note sugli ebrei in Italia, p. 939; Id., Cromazio, pp. 365f. Additional references are cited by Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, p. 401, note 24; Langmuir, From Ambrose of Milan to Emicho of Leiningen, pp. 313f.; Lotter, Zwangsbekehrung, cit., pp. 293f. The directive was addressed to the comes of the Orient, but was valid also in the West. For the text, see CTh, 16.8.9, cit.; Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., 1, pp. 461f.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 186f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 42f.; Seeck, Regesten, cit., p. 282. For Rome, Ambrose, l.c., 40.23 (PL 16, cols. 1155f.). On Tortona, see the surviving fragments of Innocent’s Vita, penned by Celsus, the saint’s deacon, in AASS, 2 April, p. 483. On Hesyachus, see Jerome, Epistolae, 5.3 (Ad Pammachium). Migne, ad loc., tentatively identifies him with the proconsul Hesychius Achaiae. See Baron, op. cit., 2, pp. 192f. He suggests that the patriarch was Gamli’el III. It is doubtful whether at this point in time the construction (or alteration) of synagogues was forbidden. See Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., 1. p. 469; Parkes, Conflict of Church and Synagogue. p. 182, interpreting a passage in Zeno, bishop of Verona, to this effect (Tractatus, 14.1, PL 11, cols. 354f.). 70 chapter 1 some legislation until his days in the sixth century. So, unless stated otherwise, we must assume that all laws contained in the two codices applied to Jews throughout the Empire, unless there is tangible reason to believe otherwise. Evidently, laws adopted by Ostrogoth or Byzantine authorities in the areas of Italy conquered by Belisar and Narses, applied first and foremost in the West. By then legislation regarding Jews was becoming more and more restrictive, while hardly any new liberties were conferred on Jews. The main architect of this anti-Jewish legislation which left the Jews with very few civil liberties was the Church. At about that time the last vestige of Jewish autonomy, the patriarchate, ceased to function. Before that, in 399, Honorius prohibited the collection of the aurum coronarium for the patriarchs in Israel. He described his decision as a favour to the Jews of Italy aimed at liberating them from despoliation. But a few years later, in 404, he repealed the prohibition. That was followed in 415 by the demotion of the last patriarch, Gamli’el VI, from his position as honorary Praefectus Praetorio. The demotion by Theodosius II (408–450) was accompanied by prohibitions to construct new synagogues and abandoned ones were to be destroyed; the patriarchs were deprived of the authority to judge Christians; conversion to Judaism was threatened with punishment; and Christian slaves owned by Jews were to be handed over to the Church. Finally, in 429 the aurum coronarium was converted to the treasury. The cessation of the office was described in the law of 429 as excessum of the patriarch. That in turn has been interpreted as an unspecified offense on the part of the patriarch, or as the result of the absence of a male successor to the incumbent. But these interpretations are not supported by evidence. Therefore the term probably means “death”, following which no new patriarch is known to have taken the deceased’s place whatever the reason. Consequently the Roman authorities converted the aurum coronarium to their own use. The decline of Jewish Israel, which resulted (among other things) in the “codification” of the Talmud of Jerusalem (completed in or about 425), the closing of the principal academies, Tiberias in particular, and the Roman policy of Christianization of Israel, are the environment in which the Patriarchate came to an end. Here and there Honorius and his successors sounded more reasonable in their dealings with Jews, even at the expense of encountering the opposition of the Church. In one law dated 397 directed to Egypt, but probably valid also in the West, Honorius and Theodosius forbade the granting of asylum in churches to Jews who wished to convert if their motive was to escape creditors or court proceedings. A few years later (416) such converts were even allowed to return to Judaism in blatant contravention of Church regulations. In yet another law (412) Honorius prohibited the interference with Jews on Historical Background 71 their days of rest and ordered due respect to synagogues. Legislation in the East was even more Church inspired and hence harsher, though here and there also protective. To the extent that it was applied also in the West, at least intermittently, it concerns the Jews in Italy too. In his Novella 3 of 438 Theodosius II summed up the principal elements of anti-Jewish legislation, which at some time or another was also applicable in the West:

Among the other duties . . . Experienced by a long life and piously resolved, we have decreed . . . that no Jew, no Samaritan . . . should accede to honours and dignities, to none of them shall be opened an administration with public obedience, neither shall serve as defensor. For we consider it impious that the enemies of the supreme majesty and of Roman laws shall be considered avengers also of our laws by seizing stolen jurisdiction, and armed with the authority of an ill-gotten dignity shall have the power to judge and pronounce sentence against Christians, very often even against priests of the sacred religion, to the insult of our faith. This too we prohibit on a similar consideration, that no synagogue shall be erected in a new building, granting leave to prop up the old ones which threaten immediate ruin. We add to these that whoever shall transfer a slave or a freeborn against his will or with a punishment-meriting persuasion from the cult of the Christian religion to an abominable sect and rite shall be punished by death and confiscation of property, and he who shall take the office insignia shall not maintain the ill-gotten dignities, and he who shall construct a synagogue shall know that he has laboured for the benefit of the Catholic Church. Indeed, he who shall steal into offices of honour shall be considered, as before, of the lowest condition, even though he had obtained an honourary dignity. And he who began building a synagogue not in order to repair it, shall be deprived of his work and fined fifty gold pounds. Furthermore, let him who overcame another man’s faith with a perverse doctrine know that he shall be sentenced to confiscation of his property and to the death penalty . . . given etc.

These laws were not new, so they may indicate that although they had been enacted in the past they (or at least some) had not been applied. Significantly, some of the Western laws were issued in Ravenna. Rome had been abandoned as the capital of the West, which had been transferred to Milan (395) and eventually to Ravenna (402).54

54 CTh, 16.8.14; 16.8.17; 16.8.22 = CJ, 1.9.15 (partly); 16.8.29; 9.45.2 = CJ, 1.12.1; 16.8.23; 2.8.26, 8.8.8, 16.8.20 = CJ, 1.9.13; Theodosius II, Novella 3 = CJ, 1.5.7, 1.7.5, 1.9.18 (partly). Avi-Yonah, 72 chapter 1

All the Jewish eschatological prophesies on the downfall of Edom=Rome seem to have been fulfilled with the sack of Rome by Alaric the Visigoth (410). Even before that Rome had started to decline, and along with it, no doubt, also its Jewish community. The imperial capital, with a population of nearly a million in its heyday, was slowly being reduced to the dimensions of a provincial town, now owing its claim to fame to its having become the seat of the “bishops of Rome”, i.e., the popes, the spiritual leaders of the western Church. The destruction of Rome by Alaric was followed by a similar event in 455 when Genseric (Geiseric), king of the Vandals, conquered the former imperial capital and sacked it once again. The Barbarian golem which the Romans had called in to serve it “rose against its maker”. Many have defined the deposition of Romulus Augustulus by Odoacre and his own elevation to ruler of Italy as the end of the Roman Empire (476). Formally he was still subject to the emperor in the East. Overlordship of the eastern emperor in Italy continued even after Theodoric the Ostrogoth, in conjunction with Emperor Zeno, defeated Odoacre (493). Then Belisar and Narses, Emperor Justinian’s generals, reconquered Italy, so that on the face of it Italy remained an integral part of the Empire. That changed, following the invasion of Italy by the Lombards, who established an independent kingdom in the centre and north of Italy and a few principalities in the south. Byzantium retained a few towns in the North, such as Venice, Ravenna, and the South, from Naples downwards. The popes governed Rome, but as yet under Byzantine suzerainty (though they claimed superiority to the Byzantine exarch), and wielded considerable influence also elsewhere, such as in Sicily. But they could not prevent the destruction of the former capital city and its decline. So politically speaking, and hence in other respects, much if not most of Italy ceased to be part of the Roman Empire. These military and political events were accompanied by economic depression, depopulation and decline, in the towns and in the country. That was gradual, unevenly distributed and has to be examined case by case, subject by subject, and locality by locality. But by the second half of the sixth century, semi-permanent frontiers had been established. The Jews of Italy, relatively few even in the heyday of the Empire, and decreasing in numbers along with the rest of the population, must have suffered the same as non-Jews from

Geschichte der Juden, p. 231; Cohen, Roman Imperial Policy, cit., pp. 1f.; Jacobs, Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen, cit., passim; Levine, Status of the Patriarch, cit., pp. 1f.; Linder, op. cit., passim (the citation is from pp. 329f.); Lotter, Zwangsbekehrung, cit., pp. 293f. Standard dictionary translation of excessus is “a departure from life” (i.e., death), but it may be used here in a wider sense, i.e., cessation. Historical Background 73 the murder and mayhem, the economic decline and inflation, as well as all the other vicissitudes which accompanied the disintegration of the Roman Empire in Italy.55 Some 11 emperors ruled between the death of Theodosius II in 450 and the deposition of Romulus Augustulus. None left a mark on the history of the Jews in Italy, and none of their legislation regarding Jews and Judaism, if any, has come down to us. Then Justinian replaced the Codex Theodosianus (529) with his own code which included most legislation in the earlier code and some new laws, and was finally promulgated in 534. To that were added Novellae, the Digest and the Extravagances. New errors and corruptions crept in, but the laws regarding Jews underwent little change. In Italy the Codex Theodosianus was never formally abrogated, but Theodoric promulgated his own legislation, known as edictum Theodorici. The only reference to Jews in this “edict” is that the privileges of the Jews should be observed in accordance with the existing law, and that they be judged by their own competent judges. Generally speaking, Jews were considered Roman citizens and as such subject to Roman law. The Ostrogoths were Arians and less vehement in their attitude to Jews than Catholics. When he was asked by the Jews of Genoa for permission to roof a synagogue and repair it, Theodoric, through Cassiodorus, his chief admin- istrative officer, replied that Jews were permitted to roof in the old walls of their synagogue, but they were not to enlarge it, nor to add any kind of orna- ment, under pain of the king’s sharp displeasure; and this leave was granted on the understanding that it did not conflict with the 30 years’ prescription. Yet he added:

55 Not all aggadoth welcomed the barbarians. Midraṣ Ṣoher Tov, 25, 14 and 109.3 has the barbarians take revenge on Rome, but at the same time accuses them of persecuting Jews. Cf. Graetz, op. cit., 5, p. 39, who reads “Goths” in the first passage. The latter part of my résumé is a delineation of Jewish history in Italy during the last one to two centuries of the Roman Empire in the West, its disintegration and final dissolution a lengthy and intricate historical process. Others have offered different definitions and periodizations of the fifth and sixth centuries of the Roman Empire in the West. The partisans of “Late Antiquity” as a distinct major period, especially in the eastern Mediterranean, have put it on an equal footing with the “Roman Republic” and the “Roman Empire”. Some have extended it to last from Constantine to just before the Arab conquest, others have made do with fewer years. All that is open to argument—not only in my view. As set out in the Introduction, I have elected to follow the conservative periodization, which seems to me as good as any. So the date ad quem, i.e., 568, the year in which the Lombards set up their totally independent state in Italy, seems to me a fair one. On the economic disintegration, including inflation, see, for instance, CAH, V, passim. 74 chapter 1

Why do ye desire what ye ought to shun? We give the permission which you craved, but we suitably blame the desire of your wandering minds. We cannot order a religion, because no one is forced to believe against his will.

So at least in the days of the Ostrogoths the limitations on the construction of synagogues seems to have been applied, otherwise Jews would not have felt the need to ask for official permission. At the same time Jew baiting expressing itself in the burning of synagogues apparently continued under Theodoric. One case appears to have occurred in Genoa (if that was the reason for the Jews’ request). Theodoric came to the aid of the Jews there, and wrote to them:

The true mark of civilitas is the observance of law . . . It is this which makes life in communities possible, and which separates man from the brutes . . . We therefore gladly accede to your request that all the privileges which the foresight of antiquity conferred upon the Jewish customs shall be renewed to you, for in truth it is our great desire that the laws of the ancients shall be kept in force to secure the reverence due to us. Everything which has been found to conduce to civilitas . . . should be held fast with enduring devotion.

Another similar incident took place in Rome. Here too Theodoric supported the Jews, albeit with a reservation. He wrote that he had been informed by Count Arigern, governor of Rome, a Goth, that the populace of Rome, enraged at the punishment inflicted on some Christian servants who had murdered their Jewish masters, had risen in fury and burned the local synagogue to the ground, “idly venting on innocent buildings their anger against the men who used them . . .’. He instructed the governor to enquire into this matter, and severely punish the authors of the tumult. At the same time he was to enquire into the complaints that had been brought against the Jews, and if he found that there was any foundation for them, he was to punish the Jews accordingly. A third burning of synagogues occurred in Ravenna, following trouble over the baptism of Jews, forcible or otherwise:

After this, while Theodoric was remaining at Verona through fear of the neighbouring peoples, strife arose between the Christians and the Jews of the city of Ravenna; accordingly the Jews, being unwilling to be baptized, often in sport threw the holy water (var.: the oblations) offered into the river. Because of this the people were fired with anger and without respect for the king, for Eutharicus (Theodoric’s son-in-law and heir pre- Historical Background 75

sumptive), or for Peter, who was bishop at the time, they rose against the synagogues and presently set them on fire. And this same thing happened in a similar affair (in Rome). Presently the Jews hastened to Verona, where the king was, and there the head-chamberlain Triwane acted on their behalf; he, too, as a heretic favoured the Jews, and cajoled the king into taking action against the Christians. Accordingly Theodoric, on the presumption that they had resorted to arson, presently gave orders that the whole Roman population should furnish money for the rebuilding of the synagogues of Ravenna which had been burned; and that those who did not have anything from which they could give should be whipped through the streets of the city while a herald made proclamation of their offence. This was in substance the order given to Eutharicus Cilliga and the Bishop Peter, and thus it was carried out.

Theodoric also came to the aid of the Jews in Milan. They had complained to the king that the clergy were interfering with their synagogue and rights. Here too the king added: “. . . but why, O Jew, do you seek and supplicate for temporal repose when you are unable to find eternal peace”. Under Theodoric Italy recovered temporarily at least a little from the centuries long (and at least partial) decline. So when Justinian had Belisar invade Italy and reconquer the country from the Ostrogoths, the Jews sided with the latter. Procopius, described as the last classical historian, was an eyewitness to most of the events mentioned by him, and is generally regarded as reliable. He accompanied Belisar on his campaigns, and was present at the siege and conquest of Naples (536). On the Jewish involvement in the military operations there, he had this to say:

. . . When they had finished speaking, Pastor and Asclepiodotus brought forward the Jews, who promised that the city should be in want of none of the necessities, and the Goths on their part promised that they would guard the circuit-wall safely. And the Neapolitans, moved by these arguments, bade Belisarius depart thence with all speed . . . But on the side of the circuit-wall which faces the sea, where the forces on guard were not barbarians, but Jews, the soldiers were unable either to use the ladders or to scale the wall. For the Jews had already given offence to their enemy by having opposed their efforts to capture the city without a fight, and for this reason they had no hope if they should fall into their hands; so they kept fighting stubbornly, although they could see that the city had already been captured, and held out beyond all expectation against the assaults of their opponents. But when day came and some of those who 76 chapter 1

had mounted the wall marched against them, then at last they also, now that they were being shot at from behind, took to flight, and Naples was captured by storm.

Procopius accurately estimated his master’s character and attitude to Jews:

. . . As if it were not enough to do away with the laws of the Romans daily, the Emperor also exerted himself to destroy the traditions of the Jews. For whenever in their calendar Passover came before the Christian Easter, he forbade the Jews to celebrate it on their proper day, to make then any sacrifices to God or perform any of their customs. Many of them were heavily fined by the magistrates for eating lamb at such times, as if this were against the laws of the State.

So all of Italy reverted to Roman jurisdiction toward the end of the period with which we are dealing. The country became an exarchate of the Byzantine Empire and Justinian’s legislation was applied anew throughout the country, at least awhile, if indeed it had ever been abrogated anywhere on the peninsula. Justinian’s code, replacing that of Theodosius II, included most of the latter’s laws, omitted some, and corrupted some, intentionally or by mistake. Justinian also published five Novellae on the Jews, one of which (146), on the languages used in the synagogue, was the only real innovation. However, Justinian’s legislation is generally evaluated as marking a deterioration in the status of the Jews, including those of Italy.56

56 Parkes, Conflict of Church and Synagogue, cit., p. 207 aptly described these rulers as “shadow emperors”. On the codices, see Linder, op. cit., pp. 33f., 46f. For the text of the edict, see Edictum Theodorici Regis, MGH Leges, 5, pp. 145f.; Linder, Legal Sources, pp. 200f. Some have attributed the edictum to Theodoric II, Visigothic king, but this is not justified. Theodoric’s reply to the Jewish petitions and reaction to the burning of the synagogues in Cassiodorus, Variae, 2.27; 4.33; 4.43; 5.37; Excerpta Valesiana, Pars Posterior, 14.80 and 16.94; MGH, Auct. Ant., 9, p. 328, on Symmachus, scholarius, a Jewish advisor of Theodoric ordered to carry out his decree to eject Catholics from their churches. Theodoric is said to have died before the decree could be put into effect. See Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 3, pp. 25f., 240f. (and the references there); Berliner, Rom, cit., 2/1, p. 5; Blumenkranz, Juifs et chrétiens, pp. 140, 155, 208f.; Id., Les auteurs chrétiens latins, pp. 61f.; Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., p. 190; Id., Legal Sources, cit., pp. 205f. Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., p. 40; Parkes, l.c. (who attempted to put order into the confused text); Picotti, Politica religiosa di Teodorico, pp. 200f. (quotes earlier attempts, some ludicrous, at interpreting the Excerpta); Schreckenberg, Adversus Judaeos Texte, cit., pp. 395f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, pp. 130f., 145. The text on the converts in Ravenna is corrupt. Historical Background 77

That concludes the historical background and chronological survey of the Jews in Italy in Antiquity, from their first appearance on the Apennine peninsula toward the end of the Roman Republic to the second half of the sixth century. The period is easily divided into two: the first part under pagan rule, until the days of Constantine, and the latter under the rule of Christianity to the foundation of the Lombard kingdom (568). Jews lived in Italy during the heyday of Ancient Rome and witnessed the decline of the Empire until its fall. These events had far-reaching consequences for the Jews of Italy and fash- ioned their history—as we shall see.

I have reported one version only, while others abound. In Ravenna apparently there was more than one synagogue. The phrase “this same thing happened in a similar affair was amended by Mommsen to “at Rome”. It refers to an incident in Rome not elsewhere recorded, or the arson of the synagogue there in the wake of the punishment meted out to the murderers of the local Jews. The text is corrupt and interpretations vary. Cassiodorus attempted to convert Jews, see his interpretation of Psalms: Conclusiones ad Psalmorum 49, 81. For his description of the Jewish dispersion, see op. cit., 58. His references to Jews were usually derogatory, op. cit., passim. See also Graetz, op. cit., 5, pp. 41f. On Naples, see Procopius, History of the Wars (against the Goths) 5.8.41; 5.10.24–26. See also Noethlichs, op. cit., p. 46; Savino, Ebrei a Napoli nel VI secolo, pp. 299f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 127. Cf., however, Cracco Ruggini, Note sugli ebrei in Italia, cit., p. 932, who belittles Jewish participation in the defense of Naples. Jews are not mentioned in connection with the massacre which the Byzantines perpetrated in Naples, though some scholars think they were involved. See, for instance, Colafemmina, Insediamenti e condizioni, p. 224. For the emperor’s attitude to the celebration of Passover, see Procopius, Anecdota, 28. Evidently, Justinian carried the calendar conflict one step further, see supra. The new laws, enacted by Justinian, were CJ, 1.5.12, 1.5.13, 1.5.21, 1.9.2f., and 1.10.2. The Novellae were 37 (to Africa), 45, 131, 139, 146; and see below, chapt. 3. They did change the legal conditions of the Jews, though perhaps not as fundamentally as some would have it, except, of course, Nov. 146. chapter 2 Jewish Settlements and Their Demography

Rome

The principal Jewish settlement in Italy in Antiquity was Rome. Whether it was also the first is in dispute, but not that it was the largest. As we have seen, its antecedents are shrouded in legend. If Maccabees is anything to go by as an historical source, and that is more than likely, the first information on Jewish appearance on Roman soil goes back to the middle of the second century BCE. By the days of Cicero there had settled in Rome a sufficient number of Jews to justify his rhetorical stratagem in defense of the propraetor Flaccus hinting at a large presence of Jews, perhaps a figure of speech by the rhetor, but not entirely a figment of the imagination. Contemporary sources attribute most if not all Roman Jews in the first century BCE and the two first centuries CE to emancipated Jewish prisoners of war, starting with those taken by Pompey, through those taken by Vespasian and Titus in 70 CE, through those of the uprisings of the second century CE, chiefly the one of Bar-Kokhva. However, the epitaphs of the Roman catacombs show that also Jews from elsewhere in the Diaspora came to live in Rome. There is no telling what proportion of Roman Jews they made up, considering the fragmentary nature of the epitaphs, the only really dependable source for the composition of the community. Hence there is no telling what proportion of Italian Jews settled in Rome and elsewhere in Italy voluntarily, perhaps attracted by economic opportunities offered them by the centre of the Empire during these centuries. In describing Augustus and the Jews of Rome at the beginning of the first century CE, Philo of Alexandria placed the chief concen- tration of Roman Jews in the Transtiberine/Trastevere neighbourhood, on the right/west side of the Tiber. According to Philo they were freedmen, i.e., former slaves/prisoners of war taken by Pompey.

. . . And there is most undeniable proof that he was never influenced or puffed up by the excessive honours paid to him, in the fact that he did not approve of any one’s addressing him as master or god, but if any one used such expressions he was angry; and we may see it too in his approbation of the Jews, who he well knew most religiously avoided all such language. How then did he look upon the great division of Rome which is on the other side of the river Tiber, which he was well aware, was occupied and

inhabited by the Jews? And they were mostly Roman citizens, having been emancipated; for, having been brought as captives into Italy, they were manumitted by those who had bought them for slaves, without ever having been compelled to alter any of their hereditary or national observances. Therefore, he knew that they had synagogues, and that they were in the habit of visiting them, and most especially on the sacred Sabbath days, when they publicly cultivate their national philosophy. He knew also that they were in the habit of contributing sacred sums of money from their first fruits and sending them to Jerusalem by the hands of those who were to conduct the sacrifices. But he never removed them from Rome, nor did he ever deprive them of their rights as Roman citizens, because he had a regard for Judaea, nor did he ever meditate any new steps of innovation or rigour with respect to their synagogues, nor did he forbid their assembling for the interpretation of the law, nor did he make any opposition to their offerings of first fruits; but he behaved with such piety towards our countrymen, and with respect to all our customs, that he, I may almost say, with all his house, adorned our temple with many costly and magnificent offerings, commanding that continued sacrifices of whole burnt offerings should be offered up for ever and ever every day from his own revenues, as a first fruit of his own to the most high God, which sacrifices are performed to this very day, and will be performed for ever, as a proof and specimen of a truly imperial disposition . . . .

So here we have a description of a contemporary of the events he describes, in or around 41 CE, of the Jewish settlement in Rome, its origins, habitat, observances, ties to Jerusalem and toleration by the emperor. However, it has been contested.1 Trastevere was the quarter to which many foreigners flocked on arrival in Rome. It has been described as a crowded slum. It was situated near the harbour and inhabited by the people who worked there or processed the mer- chandise linked to import and export. There were shopkeepers and small

1 Philo of Alexandria, Legatio, 23. If Philo had a bias it did not concern the Jews of Rome, so his description may be taken at face value. See Stern, Jewish Diaspora, pp. 117f., who suggests that Jews may have been “a large and influential community” in Rome even before Pompey. Voluntary emigration from the homeland is nowadays more frequently mentioned, but so far no quantitative assessment of the phenomenon has been forthcoming, if indeed that is feasible. See, for instance, Freyne’s Introduction to Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (Bartlett), pp. 1f. However, his equation galuth-diaspora is untenable, since διασπορά means dispersion, voluntary or forcible, and not exile. 80 chapter 2 businessmen, craftsmen and labourers. Martial singled out the tanners for his aversion. According to him the whole neighbourhood stank because of them and their trade, and if the methods described by him really were employed by the poor devils—as well as it might. But not all of Trastevere was as squalid as all that. The area was surrounded by gardens and on the hills nearby there were parks and villas of the rich. No information has come down to us whether Jews who had grown affluent had moved “uphill” or elsewhere. Indeed, not all Roman Jews lived in Trastevere. Other Roman quarters that had Jewish inhabitants were the Subura, a neighbourhood of shops between the southern end of the Viminal and the western end of the Esquiline, and the Campus Martius, on the left bank of the Tiber, and perhaps others, not recorded. That possibility is supported by the location of the cemeteries/catacombs and their proximity to quarters known to have been inhabited by Jews. These are the catacomb of Monteverde and the quarter of Trastevere; the catacomb of Villa Torlonia and the quarter of Subura; while the catacombs in Vigna Randanini, Vigna Cimarra, and Via Labicana do not seem to have a quarter “attached” to them. However, all locations are not very distant from each other. They are all located outside the town limits of ancient Rome, within which burial was not allowed. There is much confusion over all this since some catacombs have disappeared, while others (or part of them) are inaccessible. In fact, only Villa Torlonia and Vigna Randanini are now accessible. In Trastevere, the most populated Jewish quarter in Rome, most of the 11 synagogues/communities are thought to have had their headquarters. Trastevere was traversed by a road named later after the Jews living there, and so was the bridge across the river Tiber leading east to the left bank.2

2 For the location of the quarters and catacombs, see Plate 6. Descriptions of Trastevere abound. For a recent one, see Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, pp. 49f. For Martial, see his Epigrammatica, 6.93, 12.59. The “absence” of further identifiable Jewish quarters has led some scholars to speculate on their existence, but without supporting evidence. Most scholars seem to agree that the term synagogue was usually, albeit not always, used for the congregation and proseuche for the building. The Roman Jewish inscriptions in Antiquity all use the term synagogue—never proseuche. So that would make them all congregations. See below. But that does not exclude the existence of buildings. From the days of Philo, that is from the first half of the first century CE, buildings are mentioned, by Jews and non-Jews, in literary and legal sources. In the Christian era, from the fourth century on, Roman legislation occupied itself with the construction of new synagogue buildings and with repairs to them. The mention of the burning of synagogues in Rome, Ravenna and Genoa in the sixth century evidently also has buildings in mind. The suggestion that Philo described the situation in his native Alexandria and not in Rome has been rejected. See for instance, Levine, First Century C.E. Synagogue, p. 18; Id. Ancient Synagogue, cit., pp. 1f. For a summary of the history of the Jews in Italy, particularly those in Rome, see Stern, Jews of Italy, pp. 134f. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 81

Not one building or remnant of a building of Roman houses of prayer and/ or communal centres have been discovered, at least so far. All we know about synagogues/congregations in the capital is culled from the inscriptions in the catacombs. The following 11 are mentioned in the epitaphs, but probably there were more, in view of the fragmentary nature of the tombs and inscriptions:

1. Synagogue of the Agrippesians: is thought to have been named after Mark Agrippa, son-in-law of Augustus. All sorts of hypotheses have been linked to this identification, mostly unsupported by tangible evidence. However, Agrippa appears to have been positively disposed toward Jews in Rome and in Jerusalem, and that may account for the synagogue being named after him. Scholars have placed it in the Trastevere quarter, largely because the epitaphs mentioning it were found in the nearby Monteverde catacomb. Some scholars tend to identify the founder/patron of this synagogue with King Agrippa I, who lived in Rome in the days of Tiberius and was on friendly terms with Caligula and Claudius (who was his schoolmate). Berenice, his mother, who accompanied him, was an intimate of Antonia, Tiberius’ sister-in-law. Agrippa was on particularly good terms with Emperor Claudius and signed a treaty with Rome, the text of which was enshrined in Jupiter’s temple on the Capitol.3 2. Synagogue of the Augustesians. It has been suggested with a fair chance of accuracy that this synagogue was named after Emperor Augustus, who may have been its patron. If so, it was set up at the beginning of the first century CE, and hence was one of the oldest synagogues in Rome. The suggestion that this was a synagogue of emancipated slaves has been convincingly refuted.4

3 See below for the terminology of synagogue/proseuche and their meaning. Cf. Leon, Rome, cit., 135f., who rightly warns of facile identifications, based on sporadic finds of movable small stones, or of jumping to conclusions on insufficient evidence. I fully subscribe to his conclusion. And see there for attempts to pinpoint the exact location of the Jewish quarter in Trastevere. I have also followed Leon, op. cit., pp. 140f.; and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, cit., 2, passim, and the listing on pp. 539f. I have refrained from reporting the numerous citations, which are available in Stern and Noy. See also Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, pp. 122f. Momigliano’s hypothesis that this synagogue, along with three others, was among the first to be set up in Rome has been rightly challenged. Cf. Momigliano, I nomi delle prime sinagoghe romane, pp. 283f. Collon, Quartiers juifs, pp. 72, collocates it near Ponte Sisto, a conjecture refuted by Leon. On Agrippa and his relations with successive emperors, see supra, chapt. 1. Three funerary inscriptions referring to this synagogue have survived. See Frey, op. cit., Nos. 365, 425, 503, 733a; Noy, op. cit., 2, Nos. 130 (some more suggestions of name’s origin), 170, 549, 562. 4 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 284, 301, 338, 368, 416, 496; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 96, 169, 189, 194, 542, 547. See Leon, op. cit., p. 142, who justly denied the freedmen proposition. 82 chapter 2

3. Synagogue of the Calcaresians. The name, its source and meaning have been the object of much speculation. Literally the terms means kiln workers employed in calcining lime. Since Jews are not known to have been that numerous in working the lime kilns in ancient Rome to justify their having a synagogue of their own, all sorts of other explanations for the name have been offered. Among them the possibility that the synagogue was situated in a street or quarter called by that name; that it was located in another quarter altogether, a long distance from the catacomb in which most epitaphs of this group were found; and one or two even more fantastic. However, even if there were not enough Jewish kiln workers to justify a synagogue of their own in the long run, it is quite reasonable to suppose that kiln workers were the founders of the synagogue, to be joined later by others pursuing different trades.5 4. Synagogue of the Campesians, i.e., those of the Campus, identified as Campus Martius. That is an extensive area on the left/east side of the Tiber, which had been open country in the days of the Republic and was developed in the days of the Principate. Since only two or three inscriptions mention this synagogue, and they do not give further details, the identity of the catacomb from which these inscriptions are alleged to have originated are in dispute. Consequently the location of the synagogue has not been established. One of the members of this congregation was also a member of the synagogue of the Volumnesians.6 5. Synagogue of Elea. The enigmatic name of this synagogue has lent itself to more than one interpretation. The majority translate Elea = olive. But among the explanations of the word there are also the prophet Elijah; the Velian Ridge, a saddle of the Palatine Hill; more than half a dozen towns named Elaea, and some more.7 6. Synagogue of the Hebrews. Members buried their dead in the Monteverde cemetery, and their meeting place may have been in nearby Trastevere. The interpretation of the synagogue’s name is controversial. It has been

5 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 304, 316, 384, 504, 537; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 69, 98, 165, 558, 584. See Collon, Quartiers juifs, cit., p. 89; La Piana, Foreign Groups, pp. 352f.; Leon, op. cit., pp. 142f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 3, p. 84. 6 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 88, 319, 523 (see below, note 13); Noy, op. cit., Nos. 288, 560, 577 (see below, note 13). Cf. Collon, op. cit., p. 87. 7 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 281, 509; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 406, 576. See, Leon, op. cit., pp. 145f., who cites numerous references. Frey, Communautés juives à Rome, pp. 290f. has six candidates among Mediterranean towns. Evidently, the denser the obscurity, the more numerous are the theories on the name’s derivation. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 83

suggested that the members spoke Hebrew, or that it was their sacral language. However, only one of the inscriptions of this synagogue contain two words in Hebrew/Aramaic. Other opinions have the members of this congregation come directly from Israel, while the rest came from countries along the Mediterranean littoral; that they came from Egypt; and that they were the first to set up a synagogue in Rome. All these proposals have met with counter proposals.8 7. Synagogue (?) of the Secenians. Only one epitaph mentions it, and it may not stand for synagogue at all. In fact it has not been scertained what Seceni stands for. Numerous suggestions have been made to identify the name: an area in Rome near the church of S. Maria Maggiore; a place in Galilee; another in North Africa; and so forth.9 8. Synagogue of the Siburesians. Epitaphs referring to this synagogue are more numerous than those mentioning other synagogues. Most of the inscriptions are from the catacomb in Villa Torlonia, so that it has been assumed that the congregation buried its dead there. However, at least one member was buried elsewhere. Most scholars agree that the synagogue derived its name from Subura, a quarter very similar to the slums of Trastevere in its social composition and living conditions. Some scholars have tried their hand at pinpointing the exact location of the synagogue within the limits of Subura, but all that is mere conjecture unsupported by substantive evidence, and has been justly rejected.10 9. Synagogue of the Tripolitans. The congregation is thought to have had its location in Trastevere and it buried its dead in the Monteverde catacombs. The congregation was founded by settlers from Tripolis. Scholars have been unable to agree on the identification of that town, and opinions have swung between a coastal town in Lebanon and one of North Africa.11

8 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 291, 317, 510, 535 (543); Noy, op. cit., 2, 33, 578, 579. La Piana, op. cit., p. 356, note 26 contains some of the suggestions. See also Leon, op. cit., pp. 147f. La Piana and Leon between them listed a dozen or so interpretations. 9 Frey, op. cit., No. 7; Noy, op. cit., No. 436. For most of the interpretations, see Leon, op. cit., pp. 149f. 10 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 18, 22, [35a = Leon, Unpublished Jewish Inscriptions, pp. 413f.] 67, 140, 380; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 338, 428, 451, 452, 527, 557. See Leon, op. cit., pp. 151f. 11 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 390, 408; Noy, op. cit., Nos. [113], 166. Frey identifies No. 408 as a member of the Tripolitan synagogue, whereas Noy has him originate in Tripolis, since no synagogue is mentioned in the epitaph. Some scholars go along with Frey, others with Noy, who lists some of the contending parties. 84 chapter 2

10. Synagogue of the Vernaclesians. It too had its seat in Trastevere and its cemetery in Monteverde. Much has been made of the meaning of the word. Some have interpreted it as freedmen, home-born slaves, and so forth, but the true interpretation is probably native, i.e., that the synagogue’s members (or at least its founders) were indigenous Romans.12 11. Synagogue of the Volumnesians, in Trastevere, with Monteverde as burial place. Probably named after one Volumnius. He has been identified as the procurator of Syria mentioned by Josephus in the days of Herod. Josephus also quotes him as member of the council which condemned Herod’s sons, Alexander and Aristobolus, to death. However, this has been described as conjecture, since the name was common in Rome.13

Several additional synagogues mentioned by some scholars have been revealed as spurious identifications for one reason or another. Among them were the synagogues attributed to the Herodians, Severi, Calabrians, etc. Also some of the place names that did appear in the inscriptions have been grossly misinterpreted, such as Elea. On the other hand, given the unrepresentative character of the inscriptions that have come down to us, the names of some synagogues, communities or houses of prayer, or those of Roman quarters inhabited by Jews, most likely have failed to survive. After all, only 37 mentions of identifiable synagogues in Roman inscriptions have come down to us, out of a total of 600 or so discovered texts (or partial texts). That shrinks into a negligible quantity if one takes into consideration also the thousands of graves which contain no written texts. Admittedly nearly all of the 37 mentions also refer to some office or another in the synagogue, so that ordinary members of a synagogue have no such attribute added to their names. But again, so tiny a cross-section does not permit us to draw conclusions. Furthermore, it has been pointed out with considerable justification that not all synagogues existed at the same time during the three centuries or so covered by the catacombs. The same is true also for the catacombs themselves, some of which may have been in use for most if not all these centuries, while others served for shorter periods only. The absence of dates and archaeological evidence uncovered during the excavations prevent the drawing of definite conclusions. Statistics show that more than a third of the Jewish dead in Rome during that period

12 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 318, 383, 398, 494; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 106, 114, 117, 540. See Leon, op. cit., pp. 154f. 13 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 343, 402, 417, 523 (see supra, note 6); Noy, op. cit., Nos. 100, 163, 167, 577 (see supra, note 6). AJ 16.9.1f. (280); 16.11.3 (369); BJ 1.27.2 (538). See Leon, op. cit., pp. 157f. Since Leon some more supporters of the procurator identification have come forward. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 85 were buried in the Monteverde catacomb, and a similar number was laid to rest in the catacomb of Vigna Randanini. The remainder was divided among the “lesser” catacombs, with Villa Torlonia the most prominent. What that meant in terms of the location of synagogues may remain a mystery forever.14

The Islands: Sicily, Lipari, Malta and Sardinia

The appearance of the first Jews in southern Italy including Sicily is shrouded in the same obscurity as that of other Jewish settlements in Italy and elsewhere in Europe. It is thought that Jews settled there not later than the first century CE, if not before, mostly in those areas defined as Magna Graecia. Another version of the fable on the foundation in Rome is linked to the arrival of the Jews in Magna Graecia. This version has R. Samuel in the name of R. Judah tell it as follows:

When Solomon married Pharao’s daughter, Gabriel (the archangel) descended from heaven and stuck a reed in the sea which created a reef, and on that the big city of Rome was built. The Miṣnah tells that when Jeroboam introduced two golden calves, one in Beth-El and one in Dan, a hut was built, and that is Italy of Greece (i.e., Magna Graecia).

In Sicily, Greek colonization covered almost the entire coastal strip. Available evidence of a Jewish presence in Sicily in Antiquity almost exclusively concerns towns along this littoral. It is supported by sporadic documentation only, often conjectural, and at times unreliable for one reason or another. At times it is a single document, artifact or inscription, which is the only proof of a Jewish presence in a given locality at a given time, and therefore continuity of Jewish

14 Leon, op. cit., 159f. on the so-called synagogue of the Herodians, the existence of which was accepted by Frey, Momigliano and others, but rejected (justly in our view) by Ferrua, Vogelstein-Rieger, Leon and others. See the extensive literature cited there. Leon and others rejected also the alleged existence of a synagogue named after one of the Severi, often identified as Alexander Severus. See supra, chapt. 1, note 43. The identification of the Hebrew epitaph in Frey, op. cit., No. 290; Noy, op. cit., No. 58 has even less to go by. Whatever the meaning of the enigmatic inscription, Calabria (if that is the correct reading) does not stand for synagogue. At most it is the designation of a person from Calabria, the same as Justus in Noy, op. cit., No. 515 was of Catania. The same applies, of course, to the epitaph of Ionius, described as of Sepphoris (Noy, op. cit., No. 6); and of Alypius, described as of Tiberias (Ibid., No. 561). See also Klein, Bar-Yohannis of Sepphoris at Rome, pp. 47f. 86 chapter 2 presence there is often doubtful. These large gaps in documentation make a continuous history of the Jews on the island in Antiquity unsupported guesswork. Some of these localities ceased to exist, while for others nothing further was heard of Jews living there. Throughout this period Sicily was part of the Roman Empire, first of the West and then of the East, interrupted only by Odoacre’s hold on the island for nearly 16 years (477–493). The scarcity of historical records for Sicily in Roman times is probably due to the absence of major events on the island, except the revolt of the slaves toward the end of Republic. Sicily was never an independent state, and was not involved in wars or foreign policy. Agriculture was the mainstay of its economy, managed by the great landowners on their estates (latifundia). Two major historical sources illustrate the history of the Jews on the island, though they too are scarce: archaeological evidence, consisting of inscriptions, chiefly epitaphs, mostly excavated (unfortunately) with antiquated methods, and therefore vague in relation to dating and other data; and literary sources, mostly hagiographic tales, that may or may not have a grain of truth in them, but chiefly testify to the prevalent attitude of the Church and its members toward Jews and Judaism. The upheavals that shook and changed the ancient world also affected Sicily and its Jews. Among them were the victory of Christianity and the transfer of power from Rome to Constantinople. But life in Sicily has been described throughout as mostly peaceful and tranquil. Greek remained the language of its inhabitants, even when Latin was the official one. The first Jew, if indeed he was one, linked to Sicily, was Caecilius of Calacte. According to the chief source for his Jewishness, he was a freedman, formerly Archagactus, who moved to Rome from Calacte (Calatta), the Greek Kalè Aktè, a town no longer in existence, in the region of Coronia on the north-eastern coast of Sicily. In Rome he lived in the last half of the first century BCE and the first half of the first century CE, more or less at the time of Augustus, and made a name for himself as rhetor, historian, and literary critic. That would make the first appearance of a Jew in the annals of Sicily to have taken place at about the time of Caecilius. While this is the only reference to a possible Jewish presence in Calacte, information on other settlements is more plentiful, relatively speaking, though scarce by all standards. The lifetime of Caecilius (if at all relevant) and the year mentioned on one epitaph are the only dates ascertainable for the history of the Jews in Sicily in Roman times. The dating of all other archaeological finds is approximate and based (when applicable) on the assumption that catacombs were in use only for three centuries or so, at the beginning of the first millennium.15

15 Sicily was part of Magna Graecia, and doubts expressed over that are unfounded. See for the other version B. Ṣabbath, 56b; B. Sanhedrin, 21b, and cf. supra. See my The Jews in Sicily, 1, Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 87

It is generally assumed that the first Jews to land in Sicily set foot on the island somewhere on the eastern coast. Therefore it is significant, though no more than a conclusion based on an argument ex silentio, that when the apostle Paul was shipwrecked near Malta, saved himself and his men from drown- ing and made it to Syracuse in Sicily (on his way to Rome), he did not meet there with Jews. On his travels abroad he usually met with local Jews and tried to convert them, as he did, for instance, in Rome. So apparently at this point in time no Jews lived in Syracuse. The first hagiographic story (written centuries after the alleged event it describes) about the Jews in Syracuse is linked to Saint Marcian, the legendary first bishop of the town. It is thought that he was born in the third century CE in Antioch, some say of Jewish parents. He travelled to Syracuse and tried to convert the local Jews. He succeeded in baptizing some, so the others killed him. In another version he has the upper hand and manages to defeat the Jews. The story is devoid of supporting documentary evidence. Marcian and the legendary first bishop of Taormina, Pancras, described in a 10th-century manuscript as a contemporary of the apostles, are reported to have been sent by the apostle Peter to Sicily to convert the people of Syracuse and Taormina respectively to Christianity. Pancras is said to have converted the Jewish children there without the consent of their parents. This is followed by a confrontation between the Jews and Pancras, and their defeat at his hands and the miserable end of the “Montanists”. Whatever the documentary value of the story is for Christianity in southern Italy in the 10th century or thereabouts, it has no bearing on that of the Jews in Taormina in the first half of the first century CE; and next to nothing on that of the 10th, since at this juncture Moslems ruled Taormina, who would not have tolerated an outrage perpetrated against the Jews by a bishop, provided, of course, that the dating of the hagiographic manuscripts is anything to go by. One manuscript was copied in 964 and the tales it contains were perhaps written shortly before that date. A

pp. 1f.; Between Scylla and Charybdis, pp. 1f.; Epigrafia ebraica in Sicilia, pp. 509f.; Cracco- Ruggini, Sicilia fra Roma e Bisanzio, pp. 3f. On Caecilius, see, Suda, Lexicon, s.v., and below. Fiore, Il cippo di Quinto Cecilio Calactense, pp. 50f. raises the possibility that the stone fragment of Quinto Cecilio Calactense (now in the Museo Nazionale of Palermo), refers to Caecilius. The wording on the stone (now no longer legible) is (according to Fiore) Quintus Caecilius Calactensis Ateneo Romano Vixit (in the margin, perhaps by another hand: Pulcriter). Mommsen recorded the stone in CIL, X/2, No. 7469. Fiore added another paper on the stone, which contained nothing new: Fiore, Ancora sul cippo, pp. 75f. The identification is more than dubious. For the archaeological sources in Sicily, see Frey, op. cit., pp. 466f.; Noy, op. cit., 1, pp. 184f. And see also Colafemmina, Archeologia ed epigrafica ebraica, pp. 207f.; Gebbia, Comunità ebraiche nella Sicilia imperiale, pp. 241f.; Id., Presenze giudaiche nella Sicilia antica, passim. 88 chapter 2 major and unsolved bone of contention is the question of whether the events and the background portrayed there reflect contemporary conditions or are attempts at rewriting earlier history, often anachronistically. Thus the first-century apostle Peter could not have sent the miracle-working bishops to fight Montanism early in that century (as stated in the hagiographic text), since that heretical sect was not founded until the second half of the second. Similarly he could not have dispatched Marcian to Sicily, since the bishop lived two centuries after him. In fact, one of the few tangible pieces of historical evidence contained in these stories is the agenda of the authors propagating the edification of Christianity and its saints, linked by some to the iconoclastic controversy. As for the description of the contemporary Jewish Sicilian community allegedly contained in the legends, placed variously in one of the last three centuries of the first millennium, that is no more than stereotype and its depiction is not specifically Sicilian. In fact, hagiographic legends mentioning Jews often refer to the conversion of Jews to Christianity, miracu- lously or by coercion.16

16 Acts, 28.12. For S. Marcian, see AASS, Junii, p. 789; Caietanus, Vitae Sanctorum Siculorum, 1, pp. 4f.; Di Giovanni, L’Ebraismo della Sicilia, pp. 5f., 167, 278, and my Ebrei a Siracusa ed il loro cimitero, pp. 8f. Some scholars take the hagiographic tales at face value. Cf. Stallman, The Past in Hagiographic Texts: S. Marcian, pp. 347f. On all this and related topics, see Acconcio Longo, Siracusa e Taormina, pp. 33f.; Falkenhausen (von), Jews in Byzantine Southern Italy, pp. 271f.; Id., L’Ebraismo dell’Italia meridionale, pp. 25f.; Gerbino, Appunti per una edizione dell’agiografia di Lentini, pp. 34f.; Kislinger, Juden im byzantinischen Sizilien, p. 62 (with whose evaluation of the hagiographic tales and their interpretation I agree). As we pointed out, hagiographic legends are as problematical at least for the reconstruction of Jewish history as rabbinic Aggadoth, and some would assert that they were that even more so. In addition to everything else, many were written long after the time when the events related in them are said to have taken place and were embellished by later generations. In the words of Acconcio Longo, op. cit., p. 35: “. . . poiché questo particolare genere letterario, il cui fine è la propaganda, nasconde trappole e inganni”. I subscribe to this definition and that part of her conclusions to be drawn from it. And cf. Messina, Codice Vat. Gr. 1591, pp. 194f.; Rotman, Christians, Jews and Muslims, passim; Id., Converts in Byzantine Italy, pp. 893f. and the vast literature that has been generated on the topic. Most texts have been included in BHG. One thing led to another. Thus there is no documentary evidence for the existence of a Jewish community in San Fratello in the Nebrodi, the alleged resting place of the three martyrs of Lentini. Cf. also Strazzeri, Giudei di San Fratello, pp. 647f. The title of her paper is a misnomer and the only link to San Fratello is the legend about the transfer there of the martyrs’ relics. In fact, the hagiographic tale about Lentini constitutes the overwhelming portion of her presentation. On Lentini, see below. Nor can folkloristic traditions serve as documentary evidence for the history of the Jews in Sicily. See my Between Scylla and Charybdis, cit., p. 222, note 1. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 89

The largest Sicilian town, Palermo, probably was home to a sizable Jewish community, if the description of the synagogue complex which existed immediately following the upper time limit of our survey is anything to go by. At the turn of the sixth century to the seventh there was this large complex in Palermo, which did not spring up overnight and must have developed in the earlier period. However, so far, nothing has come to light in Palermo, either by way of epitaphs or any other remains, including documentary ones. The Sicilian localities for which there exists some evidence, though often tenuous, for a Jewish presence in Roman times are the following (from west to east anti- clockwise along the coast): Agrigento, on the south coast of Sicily, inhabited since prehistoric times. Three fragments from a Jewish epitaph were discovered there at the entrance leading to the town’s main ancient cemetery Grotto di Fragapane. The area has been identified as a Jewish cemetery. We have to wait until the days of Pope Gregory I for documentary evidence of a Jewish settlement in the town. The Jewish presence there may have endured from then until Moslem times, but there is no evidence to prove it.17 Sofiana, the ancient Philosofiana, a Roman-Byzantine settlement on the main Roman road leading from Catania to Agrigento, near Mazzarino, north of Gela. Several Jewish items were found there, including two stone slabs with very brief inscriptions, and an amulet of unknown provenance. The slabs have been attributed to the fourth and fifth centuries and the amulet to the third to fifth centuries. The Greek text invokes angels with Jewish names and other details which appear to make it Jewish. That may well be the case. If so, Jewish mystical elements have also been identified in the text, largely incomprehen- sible. These amulets were usually metal sheets, gold, bronze, copper and the like, were rolled up, put into a container and suspended from the neck. That custom was not limited to Jews and was practised by members of other

The Jew mentioned in my Jews in Sicily, cit., No. 253 is not identified as an inhabitant of that locality. Cf. the unfounded assertion by Chillemi, Testimonianze ebraiche a Messina, p. 132. For San Fratello, formerly San Filadelfio, and the church with the relics, see Amico, Dizionario topografico, 1, s.v. Filadelfio (S.). Nor can documentary links be established between the alleged persecution of the Jews by the saints in Sicily and those ordained by Byzantine rulers such as Heraclius, Leo III, or Basil I. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry, pp. 65f., goes even further afield in making the Montanists a Jewish sect. This was repeated by others; see for instance Messina, op. cit., p. 196. 17 Colafemmina, Ipogei ebraici in Sicilia, cit., pp. 305f.; Id., Catacombe ebraiche, pp. 130f.; Noy, op. cit., 1, No. 160, and my Scylla and Charybdis, cit., p. 47. See the references cited there. The inscription listed by Frey, op. cit. No. 654, apparently belongs to Catania. On the synagogue in the days of Pope Gregory I, see below, next vol. 90 chapter 2 religions, sometimes with Jewish influence in the text, but of course not always so.18 Chiaramonte Gulfi (Acrilla), a locality on the hills above Ragusa. An epitaph of a Jewish child written in Greek has been found there and dated fourth century “or later”.19 Cómiso, a few kilometres east of Ragusa, a Roman town. An amulet found there was written in Hebrew characters. Valiant efforts have been made to interpret the text—to little avail. The copyist probably did not comprehend what he was writing, so the text will remain an enigma. Similar amulets have been found in the Middle East, but they are less obscure. Other similar amulets found in this region are undoubtedly Christian, though they mention Moses and the like.20 Noto, in the south-eastern corner of Sicily, between Syracuse and Modica, inhabited since the Bronze Age, a Greek and Roman town, known as Netum. Modern Noto is a few kilometres distant near the sea-shore, since the old town was destroyed in the earthquake of 1693 and not rebuilt on its original site. A cemetery variously dated “fifth century or later” contains the incisions on rock of several seven-branched candelabra. Also one of the objects discovered there has been identified as a Jewish or Christian phylactery.21 Syracuse, situated on the eastern coast of Sicily, was a Greek settlement, and subsequently a Roman and Byzantine town. The centre of Syracuse was Ortigia, the peninsula jutting out into the sea. Later Jewish life revolved round

18 Noy, op. cit., 1, Nos. 157–159, and my Scylla and Charybdis, cit., pp. 11, 51; Colafemmina, Archeologia ed epigrafia ebraica, p. 208 (s.v. Mazzarino); Lacerenza, Magia Giudaica, pp. 293f.; Id., Amuleti giudaici, pp. 53f.; and the literature cited there, as well for other amulets found in Palazzolo Acreide (Akrai) and elsewhere, some were lost since discovery, and a few others have corroded. Scholars are divided over the interpretation of the Jewish element found in some of them, i.e., whether that made them Jewish or showed only Jewish influence, or perhaps made them syncretist. 19 Lifshitz, Prolegomenon, No. 653a; Noy, op. cit., 1, No. 155; and my Jews in Sicily, 1, No. 2; Id., Between Scylla and Charybdis, pp. 47f.; Messina, Comunità ebraiche, p. 209. The date is uncertain. 20 Noy, op. cit., No. 156; Calderone, Storia dell’elemento ebraico, pp. 489f.; Lacerenza, Magia giudaica, cit., pp. 300f.; Id. Amuleti giudaici, cit., p. 54. 21 Noy, op. cit., No. 154; Colafemmina, Ipogei ebraici, cit., pp. 312f. Id., Catacombe ebraiche, cit., pp. 135f. Colafemmina’s visit in situ dispersed Orsi’s doubts regarding to the Jewishness of the cemetery. Cf. Orsi, Noto Vecchio, pp. 69f. Colafemmina reports the recent find of a double arcosolium decorated with a seven-branched candelabrum in nearby Rosolini. Probably this is not the only Jewish settlement in Antiquity that has escaped our attention for lack of evidence. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 91 the quarter, and possibly also in Antiquity. Syracuse is thought to have been the first Jewish foothold on the island. But there is no historical proof forthcoming that the first settlers arrived there before the fourth or fifth century. Some epitaphs seem to support this view with a fair degree of certainty. Among the artifacts recovered from the cemetery and the adjacent ones are some lamps with Jewish symbols. It has been suggested that the proximity of one epitaph to Christian graves in Syracuse is to be explained by the Jewish origins of the Christian community there. The local synagogue is said to have been destroyed by the Vandals, when they invaded Sicily. A synagogue was mentioned also in connection with Bishop Marcian, perhaps the only grain of historical truth contained in the legend.22 Lentini, a Greek town south of Catania and a few kilometres west of Augusta. Lentini was destroyed several times by earthquakes and rebuilt. In addition to its mention in hagiographic literature on Saint Pancras and the story of the conversion of the Jews there, having allegedly taken place in the third century or so, an hypogeum is said to have been found at Lentini in the middle of the 19th century. According to a contemporary description, children discovered it by chance. On the entrance were engraved two seven-branched candela- bras. This led to a burial place that contained several graves. All this has since disappeared. The last local memory, a place called Giudecca, vanished in the 19th century.23 Catania, not far from Syracuse on the eastern coast of Sicily, competes with Syracuse for the first place for a Jewish settlement in Sicily. The town was founded at the beginning of Greek colonization (Magna Graecia), in or

22 For the epitaphs of Syracuse, see Frey, op. cit., Nos. 651, 652; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 151, 152; Colafemmina, Archeologia e epigrafia, pp. 207f.; Id., Catacombe ebraiche, pp. 131f.; Id., Ipogei ebraici in Sicilia, pp. 308f.; Orsi, Nuovi ipogei, pp. 190f.; Id., Siracusa, pp. 207f. There is no substance to the assertion that an inscription found in the local amphitheatre has anything to do with Jews. Cf. Noy, op. cit., p. 200; Manganaro, G., Giudei grecanaci nella Sicilia imperiale, p. 35; Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome, p. 264. 23 See supra. The hypogeum is reported by Colafemmina, Ipogei ebraici in Sicilia, cit., pp. 306f., based on a description published by Falcia, in Pisano Baudo, Storia della chiesa e dei martiri di Lentini, pp. 50f. No inscriptions were mentioned. Colafemmina dated it to Late Antiquity. I have not reported it in my Between Scylla and Charybdis, cit., p. 48, owing to its dubious nature, but, following further investigation, I have since changed my mind. Pisano Baudo’s book deals with the martyrdom of Alphius, Philadelphus, Cyrinus, whose relics were reportedly transferred to San Fratello. They were said to have been the victims of the persecution of Christians by Emperor Decius. Their martyrdom is described in rather lurid terms. The giudecca probably was the mediaeval Jewish quarter, but it may have been also the earlier Jewish street. See my Between Scylla and Charybdis, cit., p. 241. 92 chapter 2 around 728 BCE. Catania too was said to have given refuge to exiles from Israel. The most important archaeological find there, which boasts the earliest dated Jewish epitaph hitherto discovered in Roman Sicily, is:

[Hebrew:] “Peace on Israel, Amen, Amen, Peace Ṣemuel [= Samuel]”. [Latin:] “I, Aurelius Samohil bought (for) myself and my wife Lasie Irene, who completed her destiny (on) 12 Calends of November the day of Friday (of) the eighth month, [when] Merobaudes for the second time and Saturninus were consuls, who lived 23 years in peace. I adjure you with the victories of those who govern, similarly I adjure you by the honour of the patriarchs, similarly I adjure you by the law which the Lord gave the Jews, that no one is to open the memorial and put another’s body on top of our bones. He who nevertheless should open it is to give the fisc ten pounds of silver”.

The patriarchs called upon by Samuel in the epitaph to protect the grave from trespassers were the leaders of the Jews in the homeland and in the Diaspora. The epitaph is worded in Latin, while all other Catanian inscriptions of this age, numbering at least five, are written in Greek. The other epitaphs discovered in Catania, are shorter than the one of Samuel and his wife. To judge by the expensive tombstone, he was probably well-off, at least compared to the other Jews whose graves have been discovered there. Samuel’s even contains one (standard) line of Hebrew and the date is indisputable. Since it is the only of its kind in Sicily, it does not allow generalizations as to language, wording and other details. But given the paucity of documentary evidence for Roman times it is significant.24 Acireale, an important Roman town on the east coast of Sicily, destroyed by an earthquake and rebuilt inland. A seal, probably dating to Antiquity, was found there. It is decorated with Jewish symbols and a name in Greek.25 Lipari, the inhabited centre of the island known by the same name, which is the major island of the Aeolian archipelago. A hypogeum dated to Antiquity,

24 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 650, 650a–d, 654; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 145–150; Id., Addenda et Corrigenda, p. 131; Stern, S., Calendar and Community, cit., pp. 132f.; Wasserstein, Calendaric Implications, pp. 162f.; and my Jews in Sicily, 1, Nos. 1–6; Id., Between Scylla and Charybdis, cit., p. 47 and the references cited there. It has also been suggested that the patriarchs appearing on the stone were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but that would appear to be far-fetched. And see Colafemmina, Archeologia ed epigrafica, cit., p. 207. 25 Frey, op. cit., No. 650e; Noy, op. cit., 1, No. 144; and my Epigrafica ebraica, cit., pp. 442f. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 93 containing Jewish symbols, is thought to have been a Jewish cemetery, tentatively attributed to the fourth/fifth century. Here too the Jewish burial place was part of a larger Christian cemetery.26 Malta, was the main island of the archipelago, which also contains smaller islands, later inhabited by Jews. Malta was united with Sicily since Antiquity and harboured a Jewish community in Roman times, which may have survived continuously throughout the Middle Ages. Some five epitaphs have been discovered at Rabat, the capital, one attesting the existence of an organized Jewish community in the fourth/fifth century.27 Sardinia may have had a Jewish population as early as the beginning of the first century CE, following the conscription of 4,000 Jews dispatched to the island to subdue brigands in the days of Tiberius. The figure is probably an exaggeration and the contingent sent to the island may have been made up of other ethnic elements. Nor do we know whether the men ever got to Sardinia and how long they stayed there, if at all. A bronze ring was found in Capoterra, south-west of Cagliari, attributed to the fourth/fifth century, and evidently Jewish. However, from that it does not necessarily follow that Jews lived in that locality in Antiquity. The main Jewish archaeological finds of Sardinia are situated in the south west of the island, in Sulcis, modern Sant’Antioco. These include two hypogea, epitaphs and various artifacts, such as rings and bracelets, all said to be dated to the fourth/fifth century, and written in Latin and with some basic Hebrew formulas. A fragment of an epitaph and some artifacts have been found in Sa Idda Beccia, later Isili, north of Cagliari. Other bits and pieces found elsewhere on Sardinia may or may not indicate that Jews had lived where those were found. Among these places is Macomer, near Nuoro, and perhaps one or two other localities. Two more inscriptions and some artifacts were found in Porto Torres (Roman Turris Libisonis) near Sassari in the north of Sardinia. The gravestones were not in situ, and had been reused in the construction of the local baths. The texts are in Latin with a single word in standard Hebrew, and the dates are controversial. Nothing shows whether the Jews buried in the south and the north of Sardinia were the descendants of the deportees under

26 Noy, op. cit., 1, No. 162. Fragments of an inscription may have belonged to a Jewish tomb. Colafemmina, Ipogei ebraici, pp. 315f.; Id., Catacombe ebraiche, pp. 137f. 27 Noy, op. cit., Nos. 163–168; my Between Scylla and Charybdis, pp. 48f.; and Jews in Sicily, No. 10; Buhagiar, Late Roman and Byzantine Catacombs, passim; Colafemmina, Ipogei ebraici in Sicilia, pp. 316f.; Id., Catacombe ebraiche, pp. 316f. 94 chapter 2

Tiberius, though by late Antiquity there were apparently at least two Jewish settlements on Sardinia.28 In addition, there exist on the islands, particularly in Sicily, some artifacts, symbols, short inscriptions, a few perhaps Jewish, others probably not, some attributed to Jews, others to Samaritans. The places where they were found are not necessarily evidence of their provenance, though that cannot be excluded. The places which thus may enlarge the number of Jewish settlements include: Caucania (near Ragusa, no longer in existence), Cittadella Maccari (Pachino), Erice, Lilibeo (a promontory near Marsala), Mozia, Taormina and Termini Imerese, Valle dell’Ipari (near modern Vittoria), and perhaps one or two other places.29

Southern Mainland Italy

We are no better off with regard to information on the first settlement of Jews in Southern Mainland Italy. By the end of the fourth century Emperor Honorius, ruler of the western part of the Roman Empire, repealed (also in the name of Arcadius) for his domains the law promulgated by his peer in the East, whereby Jewish religious officials were exempt from munera. He singled out the Jewish officials (decuriones) in Apulia and Calabria, probably because they were affected by Arcadius’ law more than Italian Jews elsewhere. If the wording of the law is anything to go by many municipal curiae and other offices were manned by Jews. In all probability this was due to their being more numerous than further north, and hence contained a larger number of affluent members who were rated by law members of the governing class. Another element to be taken into consideration is the location of many (albeit not all) Jewish settle-

28 See supra, chapt. 1 and Colafemmina, Rilettura delle epigrafi ebraiche della Sardegna, pp. 81f.; Id., Archeologia ed epigrafia ebraica, cit., p. 210; Colorni, L’uso del greco, p. 18; Corda, Epigrafia da territorio di Isili, pp. 1f.; Id., Considerazioni sulle epigrafi giudaiche della Sardegna romana, pp. 281f.; Frey, op. cit., Nos. 526, 657–660b; Maetzke, Porto Torres, pp. 323f.; Noy, op. cit., 1, Nos. 169–176; Perani, Ebrei in Sardegna, cit., pp. 305f. (detailed photo- copies); Id., Testimonianze archeologiche, cit., pp. 147f.; Spano, Ebrei in Sardegna, pp. 23f.; Taramelli, S. Antioco, pp. 150f.; Id., Ipogeo con sepoltura giudaica, pp. 335f.; Williams, Jewish Inscriptions of the Graeco-Roman Period, pp. 44f. Noy’s No. 174 (= Frey, op. cit., No. 526) is controversial. 29 See my Scylla and Charybdis, cit., p. 11; Noy, op. cit., passim; and the references cited there. The most recent addition to the list is Valle dell’Ippari. See Cuteri, Ipogeo ebraico in Valle dell’Ippari, pp. 45f. Whether there is more to it than the find of a candelabrum incised on a rock remains to be seen. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 95 ments. They were situated along the main Roman arterial roads, such as the Via Appia, in harbour towns and the like. Economic considerations may have had a hand in this, but they were not necessarily the only ones of significance in the choice of residence by Jewish settlers.30 Only few archaeological finds attest to the Jewish presence in the south of Italy. In addition to graves, inscriptions and the like discovered there, some artifacts and other objects have been found, but the location of the finds are not proof of the sites of Jewish residence. These places include Lazzàro (clay lamp), Scolacium=Roccelletta (handles of amphora), Vibo Valentia (handles of amphora and a tile with an epitaph), all attributed to the fifth century or so. It has been pointed out that many Jewish presences have been recorded in places defined as stationes, along the main Roman roads mentioned. The following are the localities for which a Jewish presence in Antiquity has been recorded with a fair degree of certainty (roughly from south to north).31 Bova Marina. Remains of a building discovered in 1985 close to Bova Marina, some 50 kilometres south of Reggio Calabria, have been identified as those of a synagogue. This is based on a mosaic floor there, depicting a candelabrum and a Solomon’s knot. The latter is a decorative design or symbol met with in Antiquity, also in Jewish and Christian buildings, such as the synagogue in Ostia. If the ruins are really those of a synagogue the only room identifiable is the main hall, the hub of activity in the synagogue. The alleged function of other rooms, or rather their remnants, is unsupported guesswork. A few graves nearby may be linked to the Jewish community. Coins found in situ make it likely that the building was in use in the course of the fourth to fifth century. After that it was apparently abandoned.32

30 CTh, 12.1.158 (see also ibid. 157), repeal of CTh, 16.8.13; Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., p. 212; Juster, op. cit., 1, p. 164, note 1; 2, p. 260, note 2 suggested that the present law did not repeal 16.8.13, but another which has not survived. See also Cappelletti, Note sulla presenza ebraica, pp. 23f.; Colafemmina, Insediamenti e condizione, cit., pp. 197f.; Id., Catacombe ebraiche, cit., pp. 119f.; Lacerenza, Le iscrizione giudaiche in Italia dal I al VI secolo, pp. 71f.; Neubauer, The Early Settlement of the Jews in Southern Italy, pp. 606f.; Noethlichs. Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 38, 123; Roth, History, cit., p. 36 (rejected by Linder because it lacks proof). And see below. 31 Colafemmina, Jews in Calabria, Nos. 2, 4, 5; Cuteri, Ebrei e Samaritani a Vibo Valentia, cit., pp. 17f. 32 Noy, op. cit., No. 140 and the references cited there; Id., Addenda et Corrigenda, p. 130. See also Costamagna, Sinagoga di Bova Marina, pp. 611f.; Id., Sinagoga di Bova Marina, pp. 93f. (extensive bibliography on pp. 94, note 5, and 113f.); Rubinich, Materiale ceramico di Bova Marina, pp. 631f. 96 chapter 2

Reggio Calabria. A fragment of an inscription mentioning (perhaps) a Jewish synagogue or congregation was found there a century ago. Other indi- cations are thought to show a Jewish presence in Reggio in Antiquity, but none rest on firm evidence. The inscription, such as it is, has been assigned to the fourth century. Jews continued to live in Reggio in the Middle Ages.33 Otranto, originally the Greek town of Hydrus, on the Adriatic coast, on the Salento peninsula. According to Sefer Yosifon, a 10th century south Italian adaptation of Josephus, Titus exiled 5,000 Jews to Apulia, including Otranto. Later the Jewish community there became famous as a centre of learning.34 Taranto, a coastal town on the “instep” of the Italian “boot”, founded by the Spartans in 706 BCE, which later became a Roman town. According to Sefer Yosifon, Jews arrived in Taranto following the events of 70 CE. Two epitaphs, one in Greek and Hebrew, dated to between the third and sixth century, and the other in Greek, tentatively dated to the fourth century, were found near Taranto. Other inscriptions were found nearby, but have since disappeared. Some artifacts were also found in the area of Taranto. There is reason to believe that a Jewish community existed in Taranto throughout the Middle Ages.35 Oria, ancient Hyria, on the Via Appia, halfway between Taranto and Brindisi. According to Aḥima’az b. Paltiel, his ancestors came to Oria with the Jews exiled by Titus. A single epitaph in Latin and Hebrew has been discovered there, attributed to the fifth to seventh century. Later Oria became the seat of an important Jewish community.36 Venosa, formerly Venusia in Basilicata, said to have been founded by the Greeks following the Troian war, became a Roman colony in or around 291 BCE. After the division of the Empire Venosa was ruled by Ostrogoths, Lombards and Byzantines. The decree of Honorius about Jewish service on municipal

33 Frey, op. cit., No. 635b; Noy, op. cit., No. 139 (and the references there); Colafemmina, Archeologia e epigrafica ebraica nell’Italia meridionale, cit., pp. 199f.; Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., p. 231. 34 Frey, op. cit., No. 632; Noy, op. cit., No. 134; Colafemmina, Iscrizione Greco-ebraica di Otranto, pp. 131f.; Id., Insediamenti e condizione degli ebrei nell’Italia meridionale, cit., pp. 197f.; Sefer Yosifon, p. 432. A 10th-century opus is not a reliable source for events that are said to have occurred nearly a millennium before, but that is all we have. 35 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 627, 628; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 118, 119; Adler, Jews in Southern Italy, pp. 111f.; Colafemmina, Ebrei a Taranto, pp. 109f.; Id., Insediamenti e condizione, cit., pp. 197f.; Id., Archeologia e epigrafica, cit., pp. 199f. Noy, The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa, pp. 162f. According to Noy the use of Greek in Taranto, a Roman town, was unusual. See Sefer Yosifon, l.c., for the legend. 36 Frey, op. cit., No. 635; Noy, op. cit., No. 137; Colafemmina, Insediamenti e condizione, cit., pp. 216f.; Id., Note su di una iscrizione ebraico-latina di Oria, pp. 641f.; Aḥima’az b. Paltiel, Chronicle, p. 12. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 97 councils was applied in Venosa at least until the sixth century. The Jewish community was one of the largest in southern Italy in Roman times, perhaps second only to Rome in all of Italy, if the number of the burial places and epitaphs discovered there is anything to go by. Unfortunately the catacombs and hypogea of Venosa have suffered considerably before and after their discovery in the 19th century, what with landslides, earthquakes, deterioration and human ineptitude and negligence. As usual, the number of Venusian epitaphs is only a small portion of the graves identified. In addition, only the relatively well-off were buried there, so that the Jewish community during the period under review, i.e., the fourth to the sixth century, must have been a sizable one, estimated to have been at least several hundred most of the time. The wars of the sixth century probably had a negative impact on the Jewish population in Venosa and in all likelihood made inroads on the numbers of the Jews there. To date some 75 inscriptions have been discovered, many of which are no longer visible or accessible. To these must be added a much larger number of graves unadorned by a single letter. All three languages: Greek, Latin and Hebrew, are represented in the epitaphs. Chronologically Greek was succeeded by Latin, some Hebrew was present throughout, but Hebrew became dominant only in The Middle Ages. The most informative inscription is that of Faustina in the sixth century. Her ancestors were described as leaders of the town, i.e., decuriones. Faustina was lamented by two apostoli and two rabbis. The appearance of the apostoli and of the rabbis in Venosa was the result of the renewed activity in the Diaspora of the rabbinic centre in Israel.37

37 Frey, op. cit., nos. 572f.; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 42f.; SEG, 44, Nos. 845–6. Ascoli, Iscrizione inedite, pp. 5f.; Bognetti, Inscriptions juives de Venosa, pp. 193f.; Colafemmina, Nuove scoperte nella catacomba ebraica di Venosa, pp. 369f.; Id., Insediamenti e condizione, cit., pp. 203f.; Id., Archeologia ed epigrafia, cit., pp. 202f.; Id., Catacombe ebraiche, cit., pp. 120f. (incl. the only definitive date, 521, found in Venosa); Id., Saggio di scavo, pp. 443f.; Colorni, L’uso del greco, cit., pp. 18f.; Cracco-Ruggini, Note sulle ebrei in Italia, cit., pp. 934f.; Ferorelli, Gli ebrei nell’Italia meridionale, pp. 10f.; Lacerenza, Antichità giudaiche di Venosa, pp. 293f.; Leon, The Jews of Venusia, pp. 267f.; Levi, Iscrizione della catacomba nuova di Venosa, pp. 367f.; Lifshitz, Les juifs à Venosa, pp. 368f.; Meyers, Report on the Excavations at the Venosa Catacomb, pp. 445f.; Noy, Addenda et Corrigenda, cit., p. 129; Patroni-Griffi, Campania e Lazio, pp. 249f.; Williams, Jews of Early Byzantine Venusia, pp. 38f.; and my Hebrew Revival among Early Medieval European Jews, pp. 831f. Since my writing this paper nearly 40 years ago, the view on the term rebbites has changed. See Cohen, Epigraphical Rabbis, pp. 1f. A careful rereading of the sources and of the literature based on them would seem to confirm my analysis of the cultural developments in southern Italy in the sixth century and beyond, which led me to propose in my paper on the Hebrew Revival, cit., that the Hebrew renaissance on the threshold of the Middle Ages has its roots in the sixth century, then 98 chapter 2

Potenza, originally Potentia, a Roman town, at first located some 10 kilometres from its present site. In the sixth century Potenza became part of the Lombard Duchy of Benevento. To date there is only one archaeological find attesting the presence of Jews in Potenza in the fifth to sixth century. It is a re-used stone-slab with a candelabrum and a single letter. Little can therefore be learned from it other than that it probably shows the existence of a Jewish settlement there in Late Antiquity.38 Bari, capital of Apulia, an ancient town, ruled by Greeks and Romans. A Jewish Hypogeum was found nearby a century ago, identified by a candelabrum found there. It is generally attributed to the sixth-seventh century. In the early Middle Ages Bari became an important Jewish centre.39 Nuceria Alfaterna, an ancient town (formerly) between Nocera Inferiore and Superiore, near Salerno. A necropolis was discovered in 1988 near the walls of the ancient town, containing two Jewish inscriptions on reused material, in Greek, with the emblem of the Jewish candelabrum. Both mention Jewish communal functionaries: a grammateus and a presbytera.40 Pompeii, town destroyed in the eruption of Vesuvius. Founded in or about the seventh/sixth century BCE, Pompeii became a Roman town in the first century BCE. The disaster of 79 CE buried the town and its inhabitants in ashes, to be rediscovered only in Modern Times. The excavations unearthed a Roman town of the first century CE as it really was, fixed in the moment of death. A graffito scratched on a building aptly read Sodom and Gomorrah, and is thought to have been written by a Jew, but doubts have been cast on this view. It has been suggested that another graffito contained the Hebrew word for “doomed”. That is possible but not proven. The finds also include an amphora, linked to a Jew or to Judaea.41

and there. That would exclude such views as dating the Faustina inscription to before the abolition of the patriarchate in the fifth century, and other similar theories, or that the apostoli were local functionaries. And see below. 38 Noy, op. cit., No. 117; Colafemmina, Tre iscrizione ebraiche, pp. 443f.; Id., Ebrei in Basilicata, pp. 9f.; Id., Basilicata, pp. 311f. 39 Noy, op. cit., No. 135; Calafemmina, L’Insediamento ebraico (Bari), pp. 513f.; Id., Ebrei a Bari, pp. 5f.; Noy, Addenda et Corrigenda, cit., p. 130. 40 Colafemmina, Ebrei nel Salernitano, cit., pp. 167f.; Conticello de’ Spagnolis, Una testimonianza ebraica a Nuceria Alfaterna, pp. 243f.; Lacerenza e Pagano, A proposito delle testimonianze giudaiche, pp. 64f.; Noy, Addenda et Corrigenda, cit., p. 128 (discussion on whether this is an epigraph or dedicatory inscription); SEG, 44, Nos. 818–819. 41 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 562–567; Id., Les juifs à Pompei, pp. 365f.; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 38–40. And the extensive literature cited there. Baldi, Pompei giudaico-cristiana, passim; Id., L’anatema e la croce, passim; Della Corte, Fabius Eupor, pp. 347f.; Giordano-Kahn, Jews in Pompeii, pp. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 99

Herculaneum, a Roman town also covered in ashes in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE. Because of its proximity to the volcano the accumulated debris on top of it is deeper and preserved even the upper storeys of buildings. A single Hebrew name found there may be linked to a Jewish presence in Herculaneum.42 Brusciano, a small township near Naples and Nola. An epitaph on a slab was found in the neighbourhood in 1957, mostly Greek and a word in Hebrew, attributed to the fourth-fifth century. It was the tombstone of a rabbi.43 Naples, inhabited since the Bronze Age, the centre of Magna Graecia, where Jews lived since the first century CE at least. The number of Jews in Naples was considerable. They promised to supply the town with its necessities during the resistance of the Ostrogoths to Belisar and defended a section of the walls. The Jews of Naples are reported to have had good relations with the Christian authorities there. Thus they are reported to have attended the funeral (431) of Paulinus, bishop of Nola. An Jewish epitaph, styled in Greek, has been assigned to the fourth/fifth century. Another dozen or so Jewish epitaphs and inscriptions found in Naples are attributed to the fifth and fifth/sixth century, written in Latin and some Hebrew, mostly stereotype expressions. The Jewish cemetery in Naples was located in the east of the town, near the modern Corso Malta. Later Naples had a sizable Jewish community.44

41f.; Lacerenza, Riesame della presenza ebraica a Pompeii, p. 99f.; Miranda, Due iscrizione greco-giudaiche della Campagna, pp. 337f.; Shanks, The Destruction of Pompeii, pp. 60f. And see the severe (and justified) critique of Giordano-Kahn, by Noy, Review, pp. 1f. The suggested linkage between the omen in the Sibylline Oracula Sibyllina, cit. (Book 4) in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and the eruption of Vesuvius is tenuous. In any event, it could not have been a prediction, because apparently it was written after the eruption. For the garum (in the amphora), see below. 42 Noy, op. cit., No. 41; Colafemmina, Archeologia e epigrafica, cit., p. 201; Giordano-Kahn, op. cit., pp. 29f. 43 Noy, op. cit., No. 22; Colafemmina, Archeologia e epigrafica, cit., p. 201; Miranda, op. cit., pp. 337f.; Schürer, History (Engl.), cit., 3/1, pp. 83f.; SEG, 29, 1979, No. 968. Cited also as of Nola and Cimitele. Noy pointed out that the Greek spelling of “rabbi” followed the Latin “rebbi”. Cf. Cohen, Epigraphical Rabbis, cit., pp. 1f.; Korol, Primo oggetto sicuramente giudaico a Cimitele, pp. 94f.; SEG, 44, No. 818. 44 See supra and Procopius, History of the Wars, 5.8.41, 5.10.24–26. PL, 53, col. 863. For the interpretation of Procopio’s text by Cracco-Ruggini, see supra. On the inscriptions, see Frey, op. cit., Nos. 555f.; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 25f.; Colafemmina, Archeologia e epigrafica, cit., pp. 200f.; Ferorelli, op. cit., pp. 1f.; Giordano-Kahn, op. cit., pp. 34f.; Lacerenza, Frustula iudaica neapolitana, pp. 334f.; Miranda, op. cit., pp. 340f.; Savino, Ebrei a Napoli nel VI secolo, cit., pp. 299f. (who lists all finds); SEG, 44, No. 817bis; Serrao, Nuove iscrizione di 100 chapter 2

Pozzuoli, was a Greek colony named Dicaearchia succeeded by the Roman Puteoli, near Naples. Josephus reports on the warm welcome with which the impostor Alexander, allegedly Herod’s son, was greeted by the Jews of Puteoli (Pozzuoli). There the apostle Paul encountered Judaeo-Christians at the beginning of the first century CE. An epitaph attributed to the first century CE found there is thought to be that of a local Jewess, though doubts have been cast on her Jewishness. She is described as a “Jerusalem captive” which makes her Jewishness more than probable. All the same it has been suggested that the Jews of Pozzuoli may have buried their dead in the territory of nearby Marano.45 Marano, a town close to Pozzuoli, near Naples. An inscription commemo- rating the building of a wall by a Jewish gerusiarch was found in its territory two centuries ago. That is said to show that Jews lived there in Antiquity, or that Jews from nearby settlements such as Pozzuoli buried their dead there.46 Capua, an Etruscan town (Capeva), which became Roman in due course, 25 kilometres north of Naples. An epitaph, no longer in situ, was discovered there in the 18th century and is now in the Vatican.47 Telese (Telesia), an ancient town near Benevento. In or about 492/6, Pope Gelasius I recommended to a fellow bishop one Antonius, relative of a man from Telese, “apparently a Jew”.48 Fondi, Roman Fundi, a town on the Via Appia, halfway between Naples and Rome. Part of an inscription, most of it shrouded in mystery, was allegedly

un sepolcreto giudaico di Napoli, pp. 103f. One epitaph (Noy, No. 36, by some attributed to Salerno and/or Pozzuoli) commemorates yet another “rebbi”. 45 JA, 17.12.1; JBJ, 2.7.1; Acts, 28.13–14; Colafemmina, Archeologia e epigrafica, cit., p. 201; Ferorelli, op. cit., p. 3; Giordano-Kahn, op. cit., pp. 21f.; Leon, Rome, cit., p. 2; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., p. 67. The epitaph of the freedwoman Claudia Aster was at first assigned to Naples. See, Frey, op. cit., No. 556; Noy, op. cit., No. 26. However, following the realization that Fuorigrotta, the locality in which the inscription was found, was transferred from the jurisdiction of Naples to that of Pozzuoli in the days of Vespasian, it is now classified as belonging to the latter locality. See Lacerenza, L’Iscrizione di Claudia Aster Hierosolymitana, pp. 303f.; Noy, Addenda et Corrigenda, cit., p. 126. That being the case, the suggestion of Marano as the burial place of the Jews of Pozzuoli would seem to have become redundant. If, however, the burial place where the epitaph was discovered was a general cemetery the suggestion would stand. 46 Frey, op. cit., No. 561; Noy, op. cit., No. 23; Giordano-Kahn, op. cit., pp. 26f. During the years since the discovery of the inscription a lengthy bibliography has accumulated, much of which has been reported by Noy. 47 Frey, op. cit., No. 553; Noy, op. cit., No. 20. Colafemmina, Archeologia e epigrafica, cit., p. 200; Giordano-Kahn, op. cit., pp. 27f. 48 See my Apostolic See, No. 1, and the references cited there. Tamassia, Stranieri ed ebrei, p. 50, raises the possibility that Bishop Quinigesius was himself from Telese. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 101 found there. It is apparently partly in Latin and a word or two in Hebrew. It has been attributed to the fifth/sixth century, but that is uncertain.49 Venafro, at the southern end of Molise at the foot of Mount Santa Croce. A Jew of Venafro was buried in Naples in the fifth/sixth century. At the end of the fifth century Pope Gelasius ordered three bishops to investigate the complaint of a slave in Venafro. The slave claimed that although a Christian from childhood he had been circumcised by Judas, his former Jewish master.50 Porto, the Roman Portus Augusti or Traiani, was an artificial harbour on the right (northern) bank of the Tiber’s mouth, founded by Claudius and enlarged by Trajan. It superseded Ostia, which had been silted up, as the main harbour of Rome, though Ostia survived in second place. At least two local epitaphs have been identified as originating from Porto, one lost and the other in a Roman museum, attributed to the third- to fourth century.51 Ostia, the ancient harbour town of Rome, near modern Ostia and some 30 kilometres from Rome. In the first centuries CE Ostia was largely replaced by Porto, but never entirely so. Ostia started out as a naval base in the fourth century BCE and by the middle of the second century BCE grew into a town of between 75,000 to 100,000 inhabitants. Traders and merchants of Porto lived there, and that applies also to Jews. Eventually Porto outgrew Ostia and became civitas Constantiniana. While Ostia declined, its quarter outside the Porta Marina (location of the synagogue) did not follow suit. A century later Ostia fell into rapid decline. The synagogue building of Ostia was discovered in 1961. It is one of the few synagogue buildings of Italian Antiquity to be unearthed to date (none has been located in Rome, which had at least 11 communities, some at least owners of buildings). Scholars have been unable to agree whether the building was an existing structure or a synagogue at the outset, and most of them agree that it dates from the first century. At a later date it was rebuilt and enlarged. Three inscriptions, one an epitaph another a commemorative plaque, and a third an honorific one have so far come to light. The languages used in them are Greek and (mainly) Latin and have been attributed to the first and second centuries.52

49 Frey, op. cit., No. 552; Noy, op. cit., No. 19; Colafemmina, l.c.; Id., Ebrei a Fondi, pp. 307f. 50 Frey, op. cit., No. 558; Noy, op. cit., No. 27; Colafemmina, Ebrei nel Lazio meridionale, pp. 105f. On the slave, see my Apostolic See, cit., No. 2. 51 Noy, op. cit., Nos. 16, 17; Frey, op. cit., Nos. 535f., who listed numerous inscriptions which he identified as of Porto. His identifications have been rejected by scholars. See Leon, Jewish Community of Ancient Porto, pp. 165f.; Id., Daughters of Gadias, pp. 67f. and the ample bibliography discussed there. 52 Frey, op. cit., No, 534a; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 13–15; SEG, 44, No. 819bis. Floriani Squarciapino, La sinagoga di Ostia, pp. 326f.; Id., Sinagoga recentemente scoperta ad Ostia, pp. 119f.; and another group of publications (listed in the bibliography); Mitternacht, Current Views on 102 chapter 2

Castel Porziano, a small commune just south-west of Rome, which is today part of the capital. This place or one like it not far from Rome was the locality in which the Aggada has R. Elie’zer, R. Joshua and Raban Gamli’el, on their way to the capital, encountered some small children who were making mounds and were saying: “that is how the Israelites were doing [it]; this is for truma (voluntary contribution) and this for ma’aser (tithe)”. So they said: “It makes sense that Jews live here”. They went there and were welcomed. In the second century CE the gerusiarch Gaius Julius Justus obtained some land in Castel Porziano from the Jews of Ostia, and permission to set up there a monument for the burial of his extended family.53 There are several localities in Italy south of Rome for which at some time or another claims were made for the existence of information or archaeological finds linking them to Jews, Jewish burial places, and the like, such as Benevento, Frattapiccola, Grumento, and so forth. In addition there are some inscriptions and fragments of inscriptions found in Italy of unknown provenance.54

The Mainland North of Rome

Jewish settlements in Italy from Rome northward were fewer than those in the south, and the population smaller. This situation endured for 1,500 years, until the end of the Middle Ages. The choice of Jewish residence in the North appears to be linked to some extent to the location of seats of government, such as Milan, Ravenna and Aquileia. The other places in the north with a Jewish presence number no more than half a dozen or so. It has been suggested that because of their numerical exiguity the Church did not regard the Jews

the Synagogue of Ostia, pp. 521f.; Olsson, B. et al., The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia, passim; White, Synagogue and Society, pp. 23f.; as well as the lengthy debate between Runesson and White (details in the bibliography). See also the references cited by Noy, op. cit., p. 22. On Ostia in Antiquity, see Pavolini, La vita quotidiana a Ostia, passim. For a comparison with a synagogue in Judaea, see Ilan-Damati, Synagogue and Beth Midrash of Meroth, pp. 20f.; Id., Meroth, passim. 53 J. Sanhedrin, 7.13; B. Yoma, 86a. But it might have been as easily Fondi, or another locality on the road from Pozzuoli or Naples to Rome. Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, p. 31; Frey, op. cit., No. 533; Noy, op. cit., No. 18; Id., Addenda et Corrigenda, cit., p. 125; Ghislanzoni, Castel Porziano, pp. 410f.; White, Synagogue and Society, cit., pp. 23f. The fact that this was in the country does not mean that Gaius Julius Justus or the Jews of Castel Porziano were peasants. 54 Colafemmina, Archeologia e epigrafia, cit., p. 203; Frey, op. cit., No. 557; Noy, op. cit., No. 24 and pp. 182f. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 103 as a threat to the same extent as further south, and hence paid less attention to them and was more lenient in dealing with them. That is debatable. There are a few localities to which a Jewish presence in Antiquity has been linked on the strength of insufficient or invalid evidence. They include Ariccia, Ferrara, Verona, Tortona, and some more. The towns for which there exists sufficient evidence of a Jewish presence in Antiquity are: Civitavecchia, a Roman harbour town (Centumcellae), developed by Trajan. At the beginning of the last century a marble monument put up by a husband for his wife, dated to the second- to fourth century was found in the vicinity. The necropolis in which it was located was not Jewish, and it has since disappeared. The existence or not of a Jewish settlement in the neighbourhood remains an open question.55 From Civitavecchia to Ravenna there is an archaeological gap as far as Jews are concerned. That is due either to the absence of Jews in this part of Italy in Antiquity or to the fact that archaeological finds, such as inscriptions, concerning Jews, have not surfaced there to date. A tantalizing piece of evidence that some Jews at least lived in the area of what amounts to a large section of the Italian peninsula has come to light in the writings of Rutilius Namatianus, in the first half of the fifth century. He was a pagan opponent of Christianity and Judaism, and a poet, who vented his religious and ethnic views in his elegiac poem De reditu suo. In 416/7, he travelled along the Tyrrhenian coast on his way to pay a visit to his native Gaul and stopped at Falesia. There he had this to say:

The neighbouring Falesia checks our weary course, though Phoebus scarce had reached his mid-career. That day it happened merry village bands along the country cross roads soothed their jaded hearts with festal observances; it was in truth the day when, after long time restored, Osiris makes the happy seeds to yield fresh produce. Landing, we seek lodging, and stroll within a wood; we like the ponds which charm with their shal- low enclosed basin. The spacious waters of the imprisoned flood permit the playful fish to sport inside these preserves. But we were made to pay dear for the repose of the delightful halting place by a lessee who was harsher than Antiphates as host! For a crabbed Jew was in charge of the spot—a creature that quarrels with sound human food. He charges in our bill for damaging his bushes and hitting the sea weed, and bawls about his enormous loss in water we had sipped. We pay the abuse due to the filthy race that infamously practises circumcision; a roof of silliness they

55 Frey, op. cit., No. 6636; Noy, op. cit., No. 11. 104 chapter 2

are: chill Sabbaths are after their own heart, yet their heart is chillier than their creed. Each seventh day is condemned to ignoble sloth, as ‘twere an effeminate picture of the god fatigued. The other wild ravings from their lying bazaar methinks not even a child in his sleep could believe. And would that Judaea had never been subdued by Pompey’s wars and Titus’ military power! The infection of this plague, though excised, still creeps abroad the more: and ‘tis their own conquerors that a conquered race keeps down.

So while he was about it, Namatianus vented his views on Jews and Judaism. The poor devil of a park-keeper may have been a lone Jew who ended up in the parks facing Elba, or he may have been a member of a Jewish settlement in the vicinity.56 Bologna, an urban centre since Etruscan times in central Italy. At the end of the fourth century Archbishop Ambrose related the legend of two Christian martyrs who were buried in the Jewish cemetery of Bologna. No trace of the cemetery or its epitaphs has surfaced, at least so far.57 Genoa, founded by the Ligures, became their town until the Romans made it their own. The first notices about the Jews of Genoa date to Late Antiquity. In 507 the Jews of Genoa asked King Theodoric for permission to restore their synagogue and he assented, provided they did not enlarge its dimensions.

56 Namatianus, De reditu suo (Itinerarium), 1.371f.; Falesia-Faleria, between Follonica and Piombino, and about a mile from the latter, is the Porto de’ Faliesi. The neighbouring lagoon, which Namatianus speaks of, is now much silted up. It is the (former) harbour of Piombino. On the passage, see Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, p. 400 and the references there; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 224f. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 660f. (ample bibl. on Namatianus and his opera). The Jewish park- keeper is a single mention of a Jew’s presence in Tuscia engaged in agriculture/tourism in Antiquity, and therefore, does not allow one to base on it the sort of generalization that (for instance) Cracco-Ruggini, op. cit., pp. 932f. made. The event took place in 417. On Namatianus’ anti-Judaism and anti-Christianity, see Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, p. 156. For the views of other pagan writers, see below. St. Augustine (a contemporary of Namatianus) quotes Seneca as having expressed similar regrets at the Roman conquest of Judaea. See his De Civitate Dei. 6.11, and see below, chapt. 5. Perhaps Namatianus depended eventually on Seneca. 57 Ambrosius, Exhortatio Virginitatis, 7–8. Cracco-Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 211, 224, who suggests that the cemetery in Bologna was in use at least from the days of Diocletian until the days of Ambrose. See also Seaver, Persecutions of the Jews, cit., pp. 11f. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 105

Shortly afterwards (511) he confirmed their privileges. More news on the Jews of Genoa surfaces only later in the Middle Ages.58 Ravenna, an Etruscan town which eventually became Roman. In Late Antiquity Ravenna became the capital of the western Empire (402–476), and subsequently that of the Ostrogoth kingdom. That in turn was followed by the Byzantine Exarchate after the conquest of Belisarius. Jews were attracted to Ravenna due to its being the seat of government. The Jewish community in Ravenna must have been a fairly sizable one, since it reported to have possessed at least two synagogues. These were burned by the rabble, following trouble over the baptism of local Jews. The only physical remnant of a Jewish presence in Ravenna in Antiquity is the find of the upper part of an amphora with a Hebrew word, which may or may not be linked to local Jews.59 Aquileia, a Roman colony at the upper end of the Adriatic coast, the principal port of northern Italy with links to the Balkans and the Middle East in Roman times. The local synagogue may have been the victim of arson at the end of the fourth century. The name of the local saint and bishop Cromazio is said to have been linked to this affair, directly or indirectly. A Jewish inscription on a plaque at Aquileia has been attributed to the first century BCE. Significantly the man was a workman at the local customs. If the date is correct that would make the inscription (and with it Jewish presence in Aquileia) one of the oldest in Italy. Ursacius from Aquileia is mentioned as father of Ursacia in the catacombs of Rome. He is described as a gerusiarch in Aquileia or the capital. Some Jewish artifacts were found in the town. Hence it is plausible that a Jewish settlement existed in Aquileia in Antiquity.60

58 See supra and the citations reported there, as well as Urbani-Zazzu, Jews in Genoa, 1, Nos. 1–2 and the references reported there. 59 See supra, prec. chapter. As I pointed out there, the wording of the source (Excerpta Valesiana) is too obscure to allow for a verisimilar reconstruction of events. Cracco- Ruggini, Note sugli ebrei in Italia, cit., pp. 938f.; Id., Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 204f.; Noy, op. cit., 1, No. 10; SEG, 44, No. 824. 60 Frey, op. cit., No. 643; Noy, op. cit., No. 7; Cracco-Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 192f. and index s.v.; Id., Cromazio, cit., pp. 363f. She rightly casts doubts on the story of arson in the days of Emperor Theodosius I as reported in early modern opera, and cites the relevant sources. She traces the writers’ confusion to the fact that Ambrose of Milan was in Aquileia when the Callinicum affair broke, but all the same she does not exclude the possibility of a fire. See also Avneri, Lucerne giudaiche trovate in Aquileia, pp. 466f.; Kurinsky, The Jews of Aquileia, passim; Luzzatto, Ebrei in Aquileia, pp. 140f.; Solin, Juden und Syrer, p. 739; Vattioni, I nome giudaici delle epigrafi di Monastero di Aquileia, pp. 125f.; White, Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia, cit., pp. 30f. On Ursacius, see Noy, op. cit., 106 chapter 2

Milan, founded by the Celts, became Roman Mediolanum and for a while was the capital of the Western Empire. The first more or less definite date for a Jewish presence in Milan goes back to the fourth century, at least to the days of Emperor Julian, when the Jews there were said to have burnt down churches. Bishop Ambrose who made this claim and expressed the wish to have burnt down the synagogue with his own hands was accused by the Jews of Milan of having interfered with their affairs. King Theodoric intervened on their behalf. That, however, is said not to have prevented the Jews of Milan from mourning the bishop at his death. At any rate this is what his secretary claimed. Three archaeological finds have been made in Milan, epitaphs of the fifth century or later and of uncertain date.61 Brescia, the Roman Brixia, was home to a Jewish community in or about the fourth century CE. The remnants of two epitaphs found there testify to this. The local saints and bishops at the end of the fourth century were Philaster and Gaudentius, the former a belligerent preacher of the Gospel and the latter a staunch supporter of the Jews’ scourge John Chrysostom. They had only contempt for the Jews.62 Concordia, in northern Italy, founded by Rome in 42 BCE as Julia Concordia, and subsequently renamed Concordia Sagittaria. There is little evidence to support the claim for a Jewish presence in Concordia. It consists of the epitaph on a sarcophagus of a Jewess, wife (or daughter) of a Jewish soldier from Emesa (Ḥoms).63 Grado, on the Adriatic coast near Aquileia, called Ad Aquae Gradatae in Roman times. A single epitaph attributed to the fifth century was discovered in Grado in the middle of the 20th century, bearing the name of a converted Jew,

No. 238. Cracco-Ruggini, Cromazio l.c. suggests that this shows that a synagogue existed in Aquileia by 388. There is some debate over the question of whether the sacked Aquileian synagogue became the basilica in Monastero, a suburb of Aquileia. The issue remains unsettled. 61 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 644, 646, 649; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 1–3. On Ambrose and the Jews, see supra, prec. chapter. Cracco-Ruggini’s defence of the saint is remarkable but unsustainable. On Milan and surroundings, see my Jews in the Duchy of Milan, pp. XIIIf. On Jewish mourners for St. Ambrose, see Paulinus Mediolanensis, Vita S. Ambrosii, p. 48. On the numerous references to Jews by Ambrose, see Cracco-Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., p. 218, note 80. 62 Frey, op. cit., Nos. 638, 639; Noy, op. cit., Nos. 4, 5; Cracco-Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 210f. and index, s.v. 63 Frey, op. cit., No. 640; Noy, op. cit., No. 6; Id., Addenda et Corrigenda, cit., pp. 123f.; Bertolini, Iulia Concordia, pp. 276f.; Cracco-Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 215f. and index, s.v.; Id., Note sugli ebrei in Italia, cit., p. 932. The cemetery in which the inscription was found was not Jewish, therefore there is no evidence of a Jewish community in Concordia. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 107 son of a faithful one. Again, that is hardly sufficient evidence to support the view that a Jewish settlement existed in Grado.64 Pula (Pola), on the southern tip of the Istrian peninsula. Its history goes back to prehistoric times. In Roman times, the town was destroyed and rebuilt, undergoing all the vicissitudes of the Western Empire, including Ostrogoth rule and Byzantine domination. An inscription recording a woman described as a Jewess, or a Jewish God-fearer, was found there, but has since been lost, It has been variously dated to the third to fifth century. So the Jewish presence in Pula in Antiquity too is questionable.65 This review confirms that in Antiquity, early and late, there existed several dozen Jewish settlements in Italy, some organized in communities, if and when the numbers justified that. Throughout those 700 years or so Rome was the main Jewish community. But while Jewish settlements south of Rome and on the islands were relatively numerous, those north of Rome were few and far between. Even of the latter only very few can vaunt more than an epitaph here and a literary reference there, so that one can speak in very few instances only of Jewish communities north of Rome the existence of which is supported by dependable evidence.

Demography

Much has been written about population, its size, distribution, statistics and other factors relating to it, for periods which either never carried out counts, such as censuses, or if they did the results have not been preserved, while the reliability of some of the few surviving ones has been impugned. They remain obscure as to their meaning: did they include only adult males, or also females, children, and if so,—from what age? They obviously did not include slaves and their families, who made up a sizable portion of the population, yet we do not really know the dimensions of this segment. Although the fallacy of basing demography on insufficient data, questionable sources and the like has been pointed out by scholars time and again, that has not stopped others (and

64 Frey, op. cit., No. 643a; Noy, op. cit., No. 8; Cracco-Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 215f.; Id., Pietro di Grado, cit., pp. 139f. On p. 159 she speaks outright of the “comunità ebraica di Grado”. There is nothing to show that the Jewish father of the convert ever set foot in Grado, nor that the convert himself was baptized there, and less (if that were possible) that a Jewish community existed there. 65 Frey, op. cit., No. 642; Noy, op. cit., No. 9; Cracco-Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 215f., and index. s.v.; Feldman, Jewish ‘Sympathizers’, pp. 200f. 108 chapter 2 sometimes even the selfsame ones) from either repeating some of the theories of their predecessors, or from producing new ones, only to be confounded time and again. We do not mean to solve the conundrum for lack of data and shall limit ourselves to trying to collect the little we know about the Jewish population of Italy in Antiquity, such as it is, refraining at the same time from far reaching conclusions or unsupported statements. Furthermore, even known causes which led to fluctuations in population, such as wars, epidemics, famines, soil depletion, erosion, desertification and similar events cannot be quantified in absolute terms. Nor can we trace the population movements, the so-called mobility of the Jews, with any degree of precision. While recognition of such causes may or may not be helpful in describing a situation in general terms, all attempts at translating them into figures even approaching a limited degree of precision must fail due to the same paucity of reliable data.66 This applies to population figures for the Jews in Antiquity, including those in Italy. One example or two shall suffice. An authoritative historian of the 20th century made the following statement:

. . . If estimates, derived by the present author from scattered and not altogether reliable sources, are correct, Palestine before the destruction of the Temple had a population of 2,500,000, including some 500,000 Samaritans, ‘Greeks’ and Nabbataeans . . . the statement of Bar- Hebraeus . . . concerning Claudius’ census of all his Jewish subjects represents a fair historical reminiscence. Nor is the figure of 6,944,000 given by him for the total Jewish population, impossible or even improbable. On this basis we must assume that over 4,000,000 Jews lived within the boundaries of the Roman Empire outside Palestine. There must have

66 Parkin, Demography and Roman Society, esp. pp. 58f., is one of the more recent presentations and examinations of the problem, yet only one of many. He categorically rejects any attempt to arrive at plausible figures on the basis of present day information. In his words: “Yet all too often modern scholars assemble such disparate tidbits of information [such as the one he cites as an example] in order to arrive at some ingenious but highly dubious conclusions”. I cannot but second him; and see below. Beloch, Bevölkerungsgeschichte Italiens, and Id., Die Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt are, of course, classical. He settled (more or less) on six million Jews at the beginning of the CE, or some eight to 10 percent of the population in the Empire. Others come to similar or near similar conclusions, based on the same flimsy documentary evidence. Many cite the figures for the surviving censuses of the first century BCE and try to make head or tail of contradictions and absurdities reported in them. For recent overviews, see Holleran et al., Demography and the Graeco-Roman World, passim; Lo Cascio, The Size of the Roman Population, 1, pp. 23f. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 109

been at least 1,000,000 more in Babylonia and other countries of dispersion not subject to Roman rule. A Jewish world population of 8,000,000 is, therefore, fully within the range of probability . . . Under these circumstances, we are bound to assume that Diaspora Jewry by far outnumbered that of Palestine even before the destruction of the second Temple . . . as a result of this stupendous expansion, every tenth Roman was a Jew . . . The reasons for this unusual phenomenon have continued to arouse the curiousity of scholars. By the time of Josephus there already existed a whole literature devoted to explanations. All of these can, now and then, be reduced in principle to two: the natural increase of a highly prolific race, and gains through proselytism, while losses through apostasy were com- paratively slight.

While this is an excellent definition of the problem, at least as good as that of others, yet the conclusions drawn from such sources as the 13th century “historical reminiscence” by Bar-Hebraeus are more than dubious; nor can the jus- tifications for the fluctuations be reduced to the two reasons given. The same applies, mutatis mutandis to population estimates of the Roman Empire in its heyday. The figures of between 50 and 120 million are sheer guesswork and are begging the question.67

67 Publications and references are numerous. Some, until 1960, are listed in Schmelz, Jewish Demography and Statistics; see also Id. et al., Jewish Population Studies, 1961–1968; Id. et al., Jewish Population Studies. Papers in Jewish Demography. See also the bibliography in the six volumes of the Biblioteca Italo-Ebraica, as well the references in Della Pergola, La popolazione ebraica in Italia, pp. 897f. The latter deal also with the wider issues of Italian Jewish demography, political, social, and so forth, from which we abstain. See on this Gruen, Diaspora, cit., pp. 15f.; Kasher, Jewish Migration and Settlement in the Diaspora, pp. 65f.; Solin, Juden und Syrer, cit., passim. The quotation is from Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 1, pp. 165f. I agree with his caveats but not with his conclusions. In his note 7, pp. 370f., further on, Baron is even more cautious: “Of course, none of the figures here given, whether absolute or relative, are certain . . . they are based upon scattered documentary evidence, often very dubious in itself”. This is followed by yet further calls for caution, repeated in his article in E.J. (Population). See also his Reflections on Jewish Historical Demography, pp. 31f. Scholars like Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3, pp. 1135f. refused to commit themselves, while Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, pp. 1f. accepted slightly lower figures. Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 179f. went to the other extreme; McGing, Population and Proselytism, pp. 88f. (“. . . It is high time that the evidence of Bar Hebraeus was given decent burial . . .”.) See also Blumenkranz, Quelques notations démographiques, pp. 341f.; Claussen, Meeting, Community, Synagogue, pp. 144f. (misinterprets Y. Megillah, 3.1); Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 199f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 3, pp. 1f. (also on proselytes); 110 chapter 2

There exist numerous references to Jewish population data in Antiquity, most if not all have been exploited to investigate the demography of the Jews in Italy. Curiously it is mainly in the Middle Ages, many centuries after the event, that definite numerical estimates of Jewish population figures are reported. There is one by the 10th century anonymous author of Sepher Yosifon. According to him:

. . . Titus appointed officials over the survivors (of the war) and took them with him into exile, some 90,000 . . . and those which he settled in Rome, under his father, numbered 1,500, and those which he settled in Taranto and Otranto and in other towns in Puglia some 5,000 . . . and in Carthage 30,000, except those which he put elsewhere . . . .

Then there is the 13th-century reference in Bar Hebraeus to the census of the Jews under Claudius which never was. Claudius did have a census of all Romans in the Empire carried out in 48 CE and the resulting number was exactly that which Bar Hebraeus reported as that of the Jews. He simply confused Jews with Romans. Evidently, the figures are not defined and there is no telling how many persons they were supposed to represent. Since they do not refer to Jews, they need not concern us here. Nor do the reports of Philo and Josephus bring us any further forward. Josephus makes numerous references to Jewish population, either in general terms, using terms such as “many”, “innumerable” and the like, or with figures, at times contradictory; and he evidently had a predilection for certain numbers, such as “3,000”. Some 50 instances of this number being quoted by him in his books have been counted. Obviously, such statements have little if any value for demographic purposes, except to indicate numerous against few, or vice versa, and the like. Most other references, direct or indirect to the number of Jews in Italy, especially in Rome, were general, bare statements, referring to quality, rather than

Stern, The Jewish Diaspora, cit., pp. 117f. And so on and on. Bar Hebraeus cites the Claudian census in the Historia compendiosa dynastiarum, pp. 73f. The extent of the reliability of his quotations has been the subject of much discussion, but a distance of some 1,200 years from the date of the alleged census speaks for itself, not to mention the uncertainty of his sources and of the event itself. See the discussion by Baron, op. cit., p. 372; and see the negative views of Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, pp. 92f.; Rosenthal, Bar- Hebraeus, pp. 267f.; Scheidel, Debating Roman Demography, pp. 62f.; Wasserstein, Number and Provenance, pp. 307f.; Id., Legend of the Septuagint, pp. 309f.; and others, as well as the reference to Eusebius as reported by Jerome (Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Eusebius Werke, 7, p. 180). Strangely enough recently Rabello, Legal Condition, pp. 690f., reiterated his acceptance of the report by Bar Hebraeus. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 111 to figures, and therefore of little use for population counts. As early as the middle of the first century BCE Cicero spoke of “numerous” Jews in Rome, without going into details. Similarly Suetonius refers to “many” Jews who mourned Julius Caesar. The only other time when a figure of Roman Jews was mentioned in so many words, in addition to the alleged expellees under Tiberius, was when Josephus reported on the support on the part of Roman Jews for the delegation sent by Judaean Jews to the emperor against Archelaus, Herod’s son and successor. The figure given by Josephus for the Roman Jewish supporters of the delegation is 8,000, which would entail a total Jewish population in the capital of at least several tens of thousands in or about the year 4 CE, has been rejected by most scholars, and with good reason. Round and greatly inflated numbers were often mentioned in Antiquity to indicate their relative size rather than a verifiable count. In addition to the few mentions of figures, mostly unreliable, there are a few general observations on trends and developments. These include conversions of Jews to Christianity. There seems to be a consensus that the first Christians, or most of them, were recruited from among Jews, also in Italy. The New Testament offers ample instances of that. Again, no figures emerge. Finally, the figures quoted in hagiographic tales for Jewish converts are as valueless for demographic purposes as are the tales themselves.68 Modern calculations, most of them unproven conjectures, give figures which oscillate between four and eight million Jews in the area from Babylonia to the Western Roman Empire, and between some 100,000 and a fraction of that figure in Italy. As to Rome the figures arrived at start at 6,000 with manifold more at the top. Very nearly every scholar who has researched the history of the Jews in the Roman Empire or even only some aspects of it, has added his or her views on the issue. The fewer the reliable documentary evidence the more the attempts at offering a solution. In view of this situation far-reaching proposals have been made, such as the impracticable suggestion of setting up a data-bank on the Jews in Italy which

68 Sefer Yosifon, cit., 12, p. 432 (appendixes). On Bar Hebraeus, see prec. note. On the expulsions and the numbers allegedly involved in that under Tiberius, the settlement of former prisoners of war in Rome from the days of Pompey on, according to Philo and Josephus, see supra, prec. chapter. On Josephus, see esp. his JA and JBJ. McGing, Population and Proselytism, cit., p. 95, did the counting. Josephus’ figure of 4,000 able bodied men sent to Sardinia (see supra, prec. chapt., esp. note 15) is borne out by historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius, but they included in the figure Jews and Egyptians, without differentiating between them. For hagiographic tales, see for instance the follow up on the disputation between Christians and 12 rabbis in front of Constantine and Helen ending in the conversion of the Jews by Pope Silvester, or the stories about Lentini. On Silvester, see Acta S. Silvestri and Schreckenberg, Adversus Judaeos Texte, cit., pp. 255f. 112 chapter 2 should enable us to arrive at a more dependable figure estimate for both Rome and Italy as a whole. As for trends and the like, it has been suggested that there was a population explosion of Jews worldwide at some stage between the days of the Maccabees and the following centuries. Some attributed it to Jewish missionizing and the attraction of uncounted numbers of converts to Judaism. Others mention Jewish prolificacy in this context, or other highly hypothetical reasons for demographic increase.69 In order not to leave the problem completely open-ended, I shall add (with some trepidation) my impression and hesitant guess—no more than that—of the population figures for Rome and Italy during Antiquity. During the first three centuries of CE the total for all Jews in Italy perhaps arrived at around 50,000. Of these some 20 percent, or up to 10,000 lived in Rome. In the following three centuries of Antiquity (also termed Late Antiquity) the population of Italy was on the decrease, chiefly as a result of economic depression, famine, pestilence and warfare, and the Jewish population decreased apace with that of the rest. It is most unlikely that the Jews alone were immune from all the vicissitudes that beset the population of Italy in those centuries.

69 JA, 1.22.183f. Including a quotation of Hecataeus of Abdera to the effect that there was a tremendous population increase of Jews in his days. Opposing views on the value and date of this statement are: Lewy, Hekataios of Abdera περὶ Iουδαίον, pp. 117f. (against); Stein, Pseudo-Hecataeus, pp. 1f. (for). Starting with the 19th century, the references are legion. Vogelstein-Rieger, Schürer, Juster, Milano, Roth, Leon and innumerable others (including the present writer) have, regretfully, added to the confusion. Yet many have rejected these estimates. There is no documentary evidence for the size and numbers of pagan conversions to Judaism, or of the conversions of Jews to Christianity, sometimes cited as balanc- ing the former. While such conversions of either type did take place, there is nothing to show in the references to them that they were mass conversions. See below, Excursus. To quote Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 32f.: “. . . some scholars go so far as to posit an explosive increase in the total number of Jews as a result of conversion; but they do so on the basis of purely hypothetical demographic data.” His criticism is directed mainly against Feldman. He traces Feldman’s thesis to its roots: mainly Baron and Harnack (see supra). But he himself is victim to the same pitfalls. In his Reflections on the Demography of the Jewish Community of Rome, pp. 345f.; and his Nuovi dati sulla demografia della comu- nità giudaica di Roma, pp. 237f. he arrives by rather tortuous ways at a figure of 600 at least and 6,000 at most. While this is reasonable in itself the method by which he arrives at these figures is questionable. He himself has doubts, such as “One may well wonder, then, whether this model really has any useful heuristic value at all”. Furthermore, see Cappelletti, La presa di Gerusalemme, pp. 269f. What is true in regard to conversions to Judaism and to Christianity is at least as valid with reference to conversions to paganism or one of the many sects of Antiquity, probably coming under the heading of Minim (see below). Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 113

The population of the city of Rome dropped from an estimated three quarters of a million at its peak to a few tens of thousands in the days of Pope Gregory the First. Probably, so did the Jews—in proportion. The majority lived south of Rome, while a small minority lived north of Rome. That would include everybody, men, women and children, though not toddlers or slaves, who anyway did not remain in their masters’ possession as non-Jews for more than a limited period. As a rule, “sympathizers”, “God-fearers” and other sects or individuals, who were not full-fledged Jews, are not included. Therefore, the Jews of Italy were far from being 10 percent of the population. Instead of being set out in percentage points they should be rated in per mille units. Until such time that more tangible documentation, such as a census, a membership list of the communities, say for the collection of the fiscus Judaicus, or a similar record emerges (and the chances of this happening are slim at this point in time), all figures, even approximate ones, are mere conjecture, though some perhaps are based on common sense.70

Excursus

Proselytism The demography of the Jews in Antiquity is closely linked to the alleged expansion of Judaism through conversion. Again there is no unanimity by scholars on this topic, and opinions range from an almost complete denial of proselytization in the Diaspora as more than a small trickle to its evaluation as a mass movement. Evidently that is crucial to population figures in Antiquity throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Apparently there is a consensus that emi- grants from Judaea formed the backbone of the communities in the Diaspora, including the Italian one. To what extent their numbers were augmented by proselytes, fully or partially converted to Judaism, is an essential element of the

70 Della Pergola, Popolazione, cit., pp. 903f., presents the following chart for all of Italy, nearest to my impression: 0–45,000; 100–60,000; 200–58,000; 300–50,000; 400–34,000; 500– 20,000; 600–16,000. He emphasized that these figures were by way of a proposition only, variable upon discovery of new data, and often consist of conjecture rather than proven fact. See also his Histoire démographique du people juif, pp. 573f. See also Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 209f., repeated several times by Feldman, e.g., his Asinius Polio, pp. 54f. We shall refrain from participating in the debate over the demography of the Jews in Judaea, and in the whole Diaspora in Antiquity. The figures of millions thrown about freely, here and there, about numbers in Judaea and abroad, in the Roman Empire and outside its limits, such as in Babylonia, are so discrepant, so unproven and so unreliable, that they met with the incredulity of many scholars, time and time again, but they tend to crop up all the same. 114 chapter 2 approximate estimate of Jewish population figures. Scholars appear to agree that conversions to Judaism are well attested for Judaea, including conversions by force, particularly under the Hasmoneans. Rabbinic sources deal extensively with proselytes or near-proselytes, as delineated in the Bible and expanded by Oral Law. That in itself is evidence that the phenomenon existed, though it does not allow for a more precise definition of facts and figures. But what about the Diaspora? Was proselytization as widespread as some would have it and thus greatly enhanced overall population estimates, including those of the Jews in Italy? Was the aspect of Jewish identity and identification included in these calculations? And what about conversions to Christianity, wars, epidemics, and so forth?71 dozens of times, as a rule in a (גרים( The Old Testament refers to proselytes friendly manner. Rabbinic sources or Oral Law too deal with them, and a summary of Jewish law with regard to proselytes is contained for instance in the comprehensive Code of Jewish Law known as the Ṣulḥan ‘Arukh. Jewish pros-

71 See supra, esp. note 69. Among the numerous scholars who have dealt with this issue, see Bamberger, Proselytism, pp. 134f.; Bellen, Συναγωγή τῶν Ἰουδαίον καὶ Θεοσεβῶν. Die Aussage einer Bosporanischen Freilassungsinschrift, pp. 171f.; Blumenkranz, Die jüdisch-christliche Missionskonkurrenz, pp. 227f.; Carleton Paget, Jewish Proselytism, pp. 65f.; Cohen, Was Judaism in Antiquity a Missionary Religion?, pp. 14f.; Feldman, Jew and Gentile, cit., passim (who insists that what he terms the frequency of prohibitions under Christianity, allegedly proves the continued proselytizing activity of the Jews also in the Christian empire); Id., Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, pp. 183f., 205f.; Id., Jewish Proselytism, pp. 372f.; Id., Proselytism by Jews, pp. 1f.; Gager, Dialogue of Paganism with Judaism, pp. 89f.; Id., Origins of Anti-Semitism, passim; Goodman, Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 52f.; 175f.; Id., Jewish Proselytizing, pp. 53f.; Id., Mission and Conversion; passim; Graetz, Proselyten im Römerreich, pp. 13f.; Herszberg, The Great Conversion Movement, pp. 129f., 189f.; Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism, cit., pp. 52f.; McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles, passim; Millar, Gentiles and Judaism, in Schürer, History of the Jewish People, cit. (Engl. ed.), 3.1, pp. 150f.; Noy, Foreigners, p. 258; Porton, The Stranger Within Your Gates, passim, esp. p. 395; Raisin, Gentile Reactions to Jewish Ideals, passim; Roth-Gerson, God Fearers, pp. 88f.; Schäfer, Judaeophobia, pp. 106f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 60f.; Simon, op. cit., passim; Wasserstein, Number and Provenance, cit., who lists some of the references preceding his essay; Will-Orrieux, “Proselitisme juif?”, histoire d’une erreur, passim, who totally denies the very existence of Jewish proselytization and labels it a modern invention. The quotation from the poet Commodian, Instructiones, 1.24, 37 (PL, 5, cols. 219, 229) and other Christian writers are not of much use in this context. Sympathizers, whether men or women, were not converts, though some sympathizers were buried in Jewish cemeteries. This is only a sample of the vast literature on the relations between Jews and Judaism and Romans, pagan and Christian, in Antiquity, particularly on the tension between the religions and civilizations, conversion and cognate subjects. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 115

גר תושב elytes were divided into two categories: resident (or alien) converts The first ones were not applicable in the .גר צדק and just (sincere) converts Diaspora and are thought to have ceased to occur after the destruction of the Temple. They did not have to be circumcised and were obliged to observe only the seven Noahide commandments. A fully fledged convert had to undergo circumcision, immersion and a ritual. Anything short of that classified the convert as belonging to an additional category which can only be described as that of a partial convert, such as sympathizers and God- (or heaven) fearers In the final analysis Judaism was not a missionary religion, though .(יראי שמים( some scholars claim that it was. Potential converts were interrogated as to their motives and if the reply was unsatisfactory were not encouraged to proceed. Probably that had its roots in the opposition of the Pharisees, the authors of rabbinic law, to the political and military policies of the Hasmoneans. R. Ḥelbo, a third-century Babylonian/Palestinian amora, is credited with having coined the saying that “converts were as hard for Israel as an affliction”.72

72 Ṣulḥan ‘Arukh, Yore De’ah, § 368, 369. All great codes of Jewish law deal with the topic. On proselytes in the Babylonian Talmud, see esp. B. Yevamoth, 46a–b, and see there also for R. Ḥelbo’s dictum, repeated in B. Qidduṣin, 70b. R. Ḥelbo was a Babylonian amora who emigrated to Israel. Whether he had in mind King Herod, of Idumaean stock, whose ancestors had been forcibly converted by the Hasmoneans, is a moot point. See Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 3, p. 174, note 70; Lifshitz, Du nouveau sur les “sympathisants”, pp. 77f. For some of other rabbinic references to converts and conversion, see; B. Baba Meẓiah, 59b; B. Sanhedrin, 107b; B. Sota, 47a; B. Avoda Zara, 3b; B. Yevamoth, 24b; B. Niddah, 13b; Mekhilta, Amaleq, 3; Genesis Rabba, 84.4; Sifra to Leviticus, 19.34; Numeri Rabba, 8; Tanḥuma, Lech Lecha, 6; Midraṣ Ṣoḥer Tov (Psalms), 22.29, 146.8; Ruth Rabba and Zuta to 1–2.12. The metuentes of the epitaphs, of Josephus, and so forth, are the sympa- according to Schürer, and Stern appears to agree. But ’יראי ה ,thizers, σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν Leon, op. cit., p. 253 denies that, while La Piana, Foreign Groups, cit., seems to go along with Schürer. Cf. also Siegert, Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten, pp. 109f. Metuentes come under the same heading as God-fearers, sympathizers, and their like. See Stern, op. cit., 2, p. 103; Id., Sympathy, pp. 155f. What exactly distinguished them from each other does not appear from the sources, though Cohen, Crossing the Boundary, pp. 13f., attempted to classify them. See also his Conversion to Judaism, pp. 31f.; and Lieberman, l.c. In all probability the differences vary from place to place and are not uniform. Juvenal, Saturae, 14, 96–106 has a vivid description of metuentes. It remains an open question whether the .יראי שמים caelicoli mentioned in the legislation of the Christian Empire were metuentes Perhaps the ones mentioned in the pagan period were, while those in the Christian era were not. See for instance the mention by Juvenal, Saturae, 13.42, translated as “heavenly hosts”. Too little is known about them to allow them to be called Christians, at least from Constantine on, though that cannot be excluded. See CTh, 16.8.19; CJ, 1.9.12 and Constitutio Sirmondiana, 12. However, the God-fearers of pagan times were not all made of the same 116 chapter 2

As often before, Philo of Alexandria and Josephus are the principal sources cited on conversion to Judaism in pagan times, followed by literary and legal sources, imperial rescripts and sundry others. Inscriptions in Italy are not much to go by, since converts are mentioned in them just over half a dozen times, about one percent of the total, though the mentions are more numerous outside Italy. The views of Roman authors on Jews and Judaism, favourable and unfavourable, more or less balance each other out. The number of punishments meted out to the Jews of Rome and Italy for spreading Judaism in pagan times is few. This is by far outweighed by the toleration of Judaism by the pagan Roman Empire. But all that is not proof of Jewish missionary zeal. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. The few times that Jews were penalized for spreading Judaism, no more than two or three times in the course of several centuries, should go a long way to show up the relative rarity of Jewish missionary efforts. That includes even those that were intended to nip the Jewish mission in the bud. Philo praises converts to Judaism, but does not encourage conversion or call for a missionary drive. Josephus, in his pervasive motif of apologetic defense of Judaism does the same, and is particularly eager to show

cloth. Some observed certain Jewish rites and commandments, others different ones. What they appear to have had in common, in addition to their leanings to Judaism, was that they did not practise circumcision. Once they did that, they automatically became proselytes. The term appears also in New Testament sources, see Acts, 10.1.f., 35; 13.26, 50; 16.14; 17.4, 17; 18.7. See also Braude, Jewish Proselytizing, passim (and Alon’s review in Kiryat Sepher, 23 [1948], pp. 37f.); Feldman, Proselytism by Jews, pp. 1f.; Id., Jewish ‘Sympathizers’, pp. 200f.; Id., Jew and Gentile, cit., pp. 288f.; Id., The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers, pp. 58f.; Id., Proselytes and “Sympathizers”, pp. 265f.; MacLellan-Kraabel, The God-Fearers—A Literary and Theological Invention, pp. 46f. (contra nearly everybody else); Reynolds- Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias, passim; Smallwood, Poppaea Sabina, pp. 329f.; Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite, pp. 54f.; Wander, Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten, passim. One should add to the list those non-Jews which tally with ,שבע מצוות בני נח who observed the seven Noahide Commandments one or more of the others. According to Maimonides, Miṣneh Tora, Laws of Kings, 9, based on rabbinic sources, they are: the prohibition of idolatry, cursing god, murder, incest, rob- bery, and consumption of meat from a live animal; as well as the enforcement of law and order. There are also other listings. Cf. Acts, 15.20, 15.29. And see Novak, Image of the Non- Jew in Judaism, passim; Schreckenberg, op. cit., p. 159; Slingerland, “The Jews” in the Pauline Portion of Acts, pp. 305f. Actual conversions identifiable by name and circumstance are relatively rare. In addition to the Roman ladies in the first and second centuries there is the case of Isaac, a converted Jew who reverted to Judaism in the second half of the fourth century. The anecdotal story about him and Pope Damasus may have some historical roots. Jewish Settlements and Their Demography 117 that high-ranking Romans were attracted to Judaism, but no more than that. Under Christianity conversion to Judaism became a capital offense. So, in the end one tends to subscribe to the view that while some conversions did take place, especially in pagan times, they were not a mass movement, and hence did not affect Jewish population figures in Antiquity more than marginally, depriving inflated Jewish population figure estimates of one of their mainstays.73

73 See the quotations and references above and below, esp. Horace, Tacitus, Juvenal, Seneca and Namatianus. For Philo, see his De Specialibus Legibus, 1.51f., 309; 4.178; De Virtutibus, 102f., 179f.; De Vita Mosis, 2.17f. For Josephus, see his JCA, 2.123, 281f.; JBJ, 2.209f., 261, 463, 559f.; 7.45. JCA, 281f. may refer to converts, but that is contested by some scholars. For the identification, see Schürer, op. cit., 3, p. 166; against it, see Munck, Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte, p. 264. Sevenster, op. cit., p. 192 thinks it possible. In addition to the references cited supra, see Cohen, Conversion to Judaism, pp. 31f.; Goodman, Jewish Proselytizing, pp. 53f.; Id., Mission and Conversion, passim. chapter 3 The Jews and the Law

Civil Status

As a rule, the pagan Roman state did not discriminate against minority groups, religious or otherwise, on Roman territory. Once they had become Roman resident aliens or citizens they fitted into the legal and social structure of Roman law and society. That applied to Jews as to the rest of the population. As aliens they were peregrini and as citizens (cives). So when some people were cives, aliens or slaves, Roman legislation covering such groups was applied to Jews as to others. Only when men tried to undermine what Rome considered law and order did the authorities react and impose sanctions on transgressors. This situation was reinforced by the law of Caracalla (Constitutio Antoniana 212), by which all residents of the Roman state were granted citizens’ rights, without discrimination whatsoever. The situation changed, albeit gradually, at the beginning of the fourth century, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman state, and enforced a series of discriminatory laws against unbelievers, including Jews. As we shall see, the latter occupied a special position in Christian theology, and therefore also in Christian legislation as applied by the Christian Roman state. While the Jews in pagan Rome were the equals of their co-citizens before the law, they asked for and obtained a series of extra privileges, which all stemmed directly or indirectly from the religious liberties granted them as far back as the days of Julius Caesar, or perhaps even before. At the same time they were subject to a special tax, starting in 70 CE, not exacted from their non-Jewish peers. Before that date the tax levied on Jews had been voluntary and was meant to support the upkeep of the Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, they were allowed a sort of allegiance to the patriarch in Israel, including a special monetary contribution paid him by all Jews in the Diaspora, including the Italian ones. When the office of the patriarch ceased, the tax was converted to the Roman treasury. The exact status of Jews in the Roman state before and after the debacle of 70 CE has been controversial. Some scholars singled out the treaty signed between Judaea and Rome at the time of the Maccabees as the basis for the status of Jews in the Empire, including, of course, in Italy. They postulated that Rome considered the Jews a nation, that they were Roman residents when living on Roman territory, and that chiefly on religious grounds. Others argued

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004282360_�05 The Jews and the Law 119 that this did not apply to Jews on Roman territory outside Judaea. Instead they opted for the status of peregrini, enjoying special privileges, and hence were an ethnic group rather than a nation, at least in the Diaspora. The apostle Paul is cited as an example of a double status: Roman citizen of Tarsus as well as member of the Jewish nation. The jury is still out on this issue, as well as to the exact meaning of the term gens appearing in contemporary texts.1

1 The literature on Roman law is endless. Practically all relevant texts were published and studied by Mommsen. See his Römisches Staatsrecht, 3 vols. and other publications. On Jews and Roman law, see Cohen et al., Collected Studies in Roman Law, passim; Colorni, Legge ebraica e leggi locali, passim; Id., Gli ebrei nel sistema del diritto comune, cit., passim; Fuks, Where Have All the Freedmen Gone? pp. 25f.; Herr, Roman Rule In Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 45f.; Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., passim; Linder, Jews in Imperial Roman Legislation, passim; Id., Status of the Jews in the Roman Empire, pp. 128f.; Id., Legal Status of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire, passim; Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht, esp. p. 34, note 5; Rabello, Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire, cit., passim (= an English résumé of Juster); Id., Ebraismo e diritto, passim; Id., Tribute to Jean Juster, pp. 216f.; Id., Situazione giuridica, pp. 125f.; Id., The Jews in the Roman Empire, passim; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 174f. The controversy over the status of Jews in the Roman Empire has been going on for a long time. One version was that of Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, 3, pp. 416f., Id., Religionsfrevel, cit., pp. 424f., who defined all Jews after 70 as deditici (surrendered enemies) This was doubted (perhaps except- ing a small group in Judaea), by Colorni, Legge ebraica, cit., pp. 13f., and also by Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., 1, pp. 220f. Others chose the nation version, the ethnic group definition, the religious identity, and so forth. See for instance, Applebaum, Legal Status, pp. 455f. and the references there; Bruce, Nerva and the Fiscus Judaicus, cit., pp. 39f.; Goodman, Nerva, Fiscus Judaicus, cit., pp. 40f.; Guterman, Religious Toleration and Persecution, chs. 3–5, who suggests that the privileges granted the Jews in the East were those of a nation whereas those in the West were those of a religio licita; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., p. 395. Much confusion has been created by the translation into modern languages of classical texts. Terms such as nation, race, and so forth are employed indiscriminately. On Jewish rights in ancient cities, see Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, 2, pp. 960f.; Rajak, Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities, pp. 19f. Probably that would apply also to Hellenistic towns in Italy—for instance in Magna Graecia. For other references to citizenship, see JCA, 2.48f.; 56f. Mommsen suggested that before 70 all Jews in the Empire were resident aliens, while after that date they became deditici. He also proposed (Religionsfrevel, pp. 418f.) that the Romans saw in Christianity a greater threat than in Judaism, since Judaism retained a measure of national identity, whereas Christianity was not identified with any particular national notion and hence did not constitute a danger to Roman national identity. This, according to Mommsen, was at the bottom of the better treatment of Judaism at the time of the principate until Diocletian. Therefore the Roman antagonism to the universal god of Christianity was sharper than toward the Jewish God. On Paul, see Acts, 21, 39; 22.28; Corinthians, 11.22; and Philippians, 3.5. On dual citizenship, see Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 15f. 120 chapter 3

After 70 CE Judaism was loosely described a religio licita by Tertullian. Also a pagan writer who lived in the second half of the third century and the first half of the third, Cassius Dio, expressed a similar view: ωστε και ες παρρησίαν της νομίσεως εκνικησαι. That situation endured under Christian domination as stated in a similar wording by Theodosius I: Iudaeorum sectam nulla lege prohibitam satis constat. For this reason the Emperor protected Jewish places of worship from attack by Christians. However, this is a formulation in the negative, because no comprehensive Jewry law had ever been promulgated in the Roman Empire before Theodosius. Since Christianity tolerated Judaism (unlike all other religions of “unbelievers”) in accordance with the Augustinian formula and that of the majority of Augustine’s fellow theologians, albeit with the restrictions placed on Jews by the Church, the status of the Jews in the Empire did not change in principle, except in detail, unless the number of restrictions did eventually affect also the principle. During the pagan era Jews were allowed to practise their religion without hindrance and their civic status after 212 called for complete equality with their pagan neighbours, whatever the status they had enjoyed previously. Then, as stated, during the Christian era the principle was upheld, but voided of some of its components. That situation applied also to the Jews of Italy. Religious freedom entailed exemption from worshipping pagan deities such as the divus emperor and the local deities, especially in the Hellenistic towns, or military service (though seldom officially stated), being summoned to court on the Sabbath, in short everything conflicting with Judaism and the observance of its precepts and commandments. On the ground Jews serving in the Roman army are hardly ever mentioned in the first two centuries of the CE. Later the mentions become more frequent especially in the provinces. There were a few instances of violation of religious freedom, such as in the matter of circumcision, missionizing and the like, namely short-lived attempts to limit them, such as the prohibitions by Tiberius and Claudius. However, the considerations, political and others, for the enduring validity of the civic status, and hence of the Jews’ religious freedom, in the case of circumcision overrode the enforcement of the law against self-mutilation, as long as it was practised on Jews by birth only (and in reality not only then); and in the case of missionizing/conversion to Judaism, when there were additional grounds for non- enforcement, such as practicability, as in the days of Claudius.2

2 Tertullianus, Apologeticum, 21.1. This is not a legal term (as pointed out by Juster) as some would have it. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 37.17.1. “. . . the right of freedom of its observances [of Judaism] . . .”. See on all this Baer, Israel, the Christian Church, cit., p. 6; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 21f., 24, 64; Mommsen, Religionsfrevel, cit., p. 425; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 3, The Jews and the Law 121

The essence of Caesar’s so-called Jewish “charter”, the text of which (if it ever existed) has not survived, was confirmed by successive emperors, such as Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian/Titus and Alexander Severus, and in principle also by Theodoric. Even the imposition of the fiscus Iudaicus after 70 contained a passage to this effect. While before 70 these concessions could be thought to have been anchored in a contract, that is in the treaties between the Judaean state and Rome, and hence Jews were regarded first and foremost a nation, the situation after that date is more ambiguous. Therefore scholars are divided over the status of Jews in the Roman Empire after Judaea ceased to be an independent state and its inhabitants a nation. That was the case to some extent even in the years before 70 when Judaea was stripped by the Romans of some of the attributes of that position. What probably mattered to the Jews of Rome and elsewhere in the Empire in Antiquity was what happened on the ground. They were concerned with the inviolability of their rights in the years after 70, and to a much lesser degree what the legal definition of their status was. Even as late as the end of the fourth century the Roman legislator could not

p. 63. And see Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, p. 103; Strabo, Historia Hypomnemata in JA, 14.117. Mommsen, l.c. states that the privileged Jewish nation status was replaced by that of the privileged Jewish religion. He calls Josephus’ statement that the destruction of the Jewish state hardly affected the Jews in the Diaspora, “one of his customary blurring of the issue”. According to Mommsen the fiscus Iudaicus was the payment for this privilege, and “was simply a license to frequent the synagogue”. Cf. Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, p. 23 and Leon, Rome, cit., p. 31. See for the phrase used by Theodosius I (393), CTh, 16.8.9. See Linder, Jews in Imperial Roman Legislation, cit., p. 189; Applebaum, Legal Status, cit., p. 457. I am not dealing here with the alleged status of “defeated former enemies” attributed to the Jews in Judaea, since whatever the merits of this assertion, that status is not known to have applied to the Jews of Italy. On the theological position of Christianity and its relevance to secular legislation, from Antiquity on, see my Apostolic See and the Jews, cit., passim; Colorni, Ebrei nel sistema del diritto comune, cit., pp. 4f. and the references cited there. See also below. For the bans in the Empire, see supra chapt. 1. The ban on circumcision by Hadrian, alleged by some to have brought about the rebellion in Judaea in his days, probably did not affect the Diaspora. Nothing has transpired from Italy to that effect. See, among others, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrianus, 14.2. And see supra chapt. 1, esp. note 36, on the question of which preceded the other, the ban or the revolt, and the references cited there. For a discussion of the problem of military service, see Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., 2, pp. 265f.; Applebaum, Legal Status, cit., p. 461. Non-attendance at court proceedings on Jewish holidays was sanctioned by law: CTh, 2.8.26, 8.8.8, 16.8.20 = CJ, 1.9.2, 1.9.13. The exemption from military service granted Jews, who were Roman citizens, in Rome and in the provinces is spelled out in the decrees addressed to the provinces and cited by Josephus from official documents; see next note. 122 chapter 3 lay his hands on any such legislation. As long as their religious freedom was guaranteed they apparently cared little, if at all, what the lawgiver’s motives were and how he defined them. On the other hand, the apologists of Jews and Judaism, such as Philo and Josephus and their peers, were very much concerned with this issue.3 In consequence of the possession of Roman citizenship by some Italian Jews and by all after 212, they were Roman citizens in every sense of the term and as such enjoyed political rights and all the honours attached to public office. At the same time (as we have pointed out) they were exempt from taking pagan oaths of office because these were incompatible with the observance of Judaism, but had to carry out all the duties of public office (liturgies), with a few exceptions. The offices were probably mostly those of decurions.

Those who follow the Jewish superstition the divine [Septimius] Severus and Antoninus [Caracalla] permitted to obtain offices, but imposed on them liturgies such as did not infringe on their superstition.

So after the victory of Christianity and not later than the end of the fourth century, the status of Roman Jews, including Italian Jewry, deteriorated, but their civic status and religious liberty were not touched, at least not technically and

3 On Caesar’s “charter”, see JA, 14.190f.; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 220f. On subsequent confirma- tions, see JA, 16.152f.; 19.287f. In all some 30 letters and decrees dealing with Jews are said by Josephus to have been issued by Caesar. Only one mentions the Jews in Italy, i.e., Rome; Edictum Theodorici, 143. Askowith, Toleration of the Jews, passim. And see further references, supra chapt. 1, esp. note 10f., including the dispute over the reliability of Josephus, on which see also below. Moehring, Acta pro Judaeis, cit., pp. 124f. denies Josephus’ account all reliability, as do others before and after him. Cf., however, Bickermann, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 2, pp. 24f.; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 154f. (who lists all quotations and references by Josephus), 217; Pucci Ben Zeev, Caesar and Jewish Law, cit., pp. 28f.; Id., Jewish Rights in the Roman World, cit., pp. 39f. (another listing of Jewish rights mentioned by Josephus), 46f.; Rabello, Situazione giuridica, cit., pp. 127f.; Rajak, Was there a Roman Charter of the Jews?, cit., pp. 107f.; Id., Jewish Rights in Greek Cities, cit., pp. 19f.; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 160f.; Saulnier, Lois romaines, cit., pp. 161f.; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, cit., passim; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 227f. (detailed listing of quotations from Nicholas of Damascus in Josephus). They include citations of many participants in the controversy from the 18th century on. See also Applebaum, Legal Status, cit., p. 461, who rightly rejects Mommsen’s thesis that Jews who were Roman citizens had no right to Jewish privileges. After all, Roman citizens in Hellenistic towns enjoyed additional rights, so why could not Jews? Also the confirmation of Augustus and facts on the ground contradict Mommsen’s assertion. See also Philo, Legatio, 156. Cf. op. cit., 194 and Id., In Flaccum, 172; as well as Stern, op. cit., pp. 397f. How this affected the Jews in Alexandria (and elsewhere), became the subject of heated argument. The Jews and the Law 123 in principle. Legislation starting in the nineties of the fourth century greatly reduced their rights as members of the Jewish group (national, ethnic, or religious), but never cast doubts on their status as cives romani. In fact, in a way legislation appears more compatible with their status as citizens, although it diminished their special status as Jews, but the Church inspired laws obviously did not have this in mind. One such law forbade levirate marriages and polygamy (393) and the other restricted Jewish jurisdiction to religious issues and made litigation between Jews on civil matters a matter for arbitration, dependent on mutual agreement. Otherwise Roman civil law and its courts applied. Under the Ostrogoths the Jews in Italy were citizens alongside Goths and former Romans. Their being Arians may have had something to do with the restitution of Jewish jurisdiction. Once the Byzantines regained possession of large tracts of Italy, evidently Roman Law applied there again.4 To sum up the situation during seven centuries of Antiquity:

1. Before 212 there were differences between localities and between groups of Jews and individuals. Conditions in Rome, for instance, were

4 Digesta, 50.2.3.3 (Ulpian) (196–211); 27.1.15.6 (Modestinus) (early third century). Berliner, Rom, cit., 1, p. 44; Colorni, Legge ebraica e leggi locali, cit., pp. 13f.; Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., 2, pp. 24, 243f., 258f.; Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., pp. 103f.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., p. 63; Stern, op. cit., 3, p. 63; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, p. 33; and cf. Jerome, Commentarii in Danielem, 11.34–35. There exists some ambiguity over the question of whether Jews could obtain public office in the period between Hadrian and Septimius Severus. On the exemption from fonctionem naviculariam of the Jewish community in Alexandria and the imposition of these munera on the affluent only, see CTh, 13.5.18. Italy is not mentioned. See below, chapt. 4. The term “superstition” eventually assumed derogatory connotations, but probably not yet at this stage in Roman history. Scholars are divided over the question of whether at least some former enemies of Rome in Judaea became dediticii. If they did, that situation did not endure, and was not likely to have affected the Jews in Italy. See Colorni, op. cit., pp. 17f., and the relevant literature cited there. On the two laws, see CJ, 1.9.7; Linder, op. cit., pp. 191f., who suggests that the law was never implemented; and CTh, 2.1.10 = CJ, 1.9.8, see Linder, op. cit., pp. 204f., who tried to put order into the conflicting versions of the law and the views on it. Evidently also the cessation of the patriarchate had something to do with the variants and interpolations of the text. Cf. also Östersetzer, Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, pp. 91f.; Rabello, Problema dei matrimoni, pp. 213f.; Vogler, Juifs dans le Code Théodosien, pp. 55f. On Ostrogoth legislation, see Edictum Theoderici 143, in MGH, LL 5; Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 3, pp. 25f.; Colorni, op. cit., pp. 135f.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 40, 145; Schreckenberg, Adversus Judaeos Texte, cit., pp. 395f. See there on the interpretations of “legibus”, which according to some means that Theodoric abrogated CTh, 2.1.10 = CJ, 1.9.8. That might be the correct, meaning of the Ostrogothic law. 124 chapter 3

not the same as in the towns of Magna Graecia, with their special laws and constitutions, inherited from days gone by, or those in Egypt, Asia Minor, and other provinces. Newcomers to Italy had to undergo several stages before they became full-fledged citizens. Some came as prisoners of war/slaves, followed by emancipation and the status of freedmen and became cives only in the end. That changed in the days of Caracalla, when all free inhabitants in the Roman Empire became citizens, whatever their status. 2. Jews enjoyed religious freedom, namely the liberty to practise Judaism. If their civic duties ran contrary to their religion, the observance of the latter usually took precedence. Thereby they became exempt from worshipping Roman deities and taking part in the cult of the Emperor, or from serving in the army, and so forth, which involved just that. Infringements of this rule were relatively rare and temporary. 3. There existed no comprehensive “charter” of Jewish privileges, but Judaism “was never forbidden”. Their religious freedom was an accomplished fact, probably starting in the republican era, reaffirmed by Julius Caesar and his successors right down to the days of the Christian Empire and beyond. 4. When Christianity became the Roman state religion, Jewish privileges were curtailed. That process started slowly at the beginning of the fourth century CE, and became more pronounced toward the end of the century. It made serious inroads on Jewish liberties in many areas, including their civic status, though the principle of religious freedom was upheld forever, their status of Roman citizens was never in doubt, and lasted throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. The prime mover behind this deterioration was the Church. The rules were formulated by some of the Fathers of the Church and by Canon Law. That led to the discrimination and degradation of the Jews, at times degenerating into persecution and forced conversions. This regime was the rule in Christian Europe until the emancipation. 5. Most of the time Judaism was a religion in Roman eyes. However, at times it also had national and/or ethnic connotations. That also expressed itself in the terms used by Romans in describing Jews, such as Iudaei and Hebraei and their derivatives. Literary and legal texts contain a large number of expressions, such as religio and superstitio, the first favourable to Judaism the other pejorative. Occasionally, there appear also the terms natio, lex, secta, gens, and populus. Other negative and pejorative epithets also abound and none of them express sympathy for Jews and Judaism. That, of course, is more pronounced in the Christian period than in the The Jews and the Law 125

pagan, although in the pagan era too no great love for them was expressed by the legislator.5

Roman Jewry Law, Privileges, Charters and Decrees

There exist two main sources for Roman Jewry law as applied by the authorities to the Jews in the Roman Empire, and specifically in Italy: so-called literary ones, including pagan and Christian literature, which contain or mention decrees issued by the Roman senate and the rulers, or form the basis for legislation, and formal laws in one of the legal codices and their “appendages”. The influence of Christianity as expressed in Christian literature on legislation in particular, such as polemics, hagiography, and the like, was considerable and manifest. These sources are supplemented by archaeological finds, particularly inscriptions and artifacts. While the reliability of many literary references has been questioned for one reason or another, particularly in view of the motives of their authors, one should have thought that the legal codes and the laws cited in them were accurate documentary evidence. That turns out not to be the case. Though thought to be a minority, some legal documents are suspect in contents, dating, and so forth. Among those blamed for the inaccuracies are editors and copyists, as well as others. Furthermore, for many laws there exists no proof that they were applied on the ground. Indeed, some have been shown to have been pure theory, while for others no information is forthcoming. Furthermore, these decrees and laws were only part of legal conditions under which Roman Jews lived, including those of Italy. The other part was Jewish law; that included religious law, which by Jewish definition went far beyond the limits of the term, and included much of civil and criminal law. Again, we possess little information as to the application of Jewish Law in Italy. It is generally assumed that it was rabbinic law, but the extent of even that does not emerge from our records.

5 There existed no law which exempted Jews from worshipping the emperor, and in practice the authorities apparently were satisfied with Jewish prayers and sacrifices in the Temple while it existed. See Juster, op. cit., pp. 339f.; Rabello, Ebraismo e diritto cit., pp. 703f. Other terms applied to Jews include: sacrilegus, incredulitas, impietas, impiissimi, nefarius, turpi- tudo, deformitas, perversitas, contagium, foedare, inquinare, execrandus, caeno confundere, flagitium, sensibus excaecatus, amentia, vecordia, stultitia, alieni romano imperio, romanis legibus inimici. Most of these terms were animated by religious sentiments. On Roman law and the Jews in the Middle Ages, see Grayzel, Jews and Roman Law, pp. 93f. 126 chapter 3

In addition, there was a difference between the era of the patriarchate and that following its cessation. As long as that institution endured there were Jewish courts of law which Jews could turn to, also in the Italian Diaspora. Whether they did is often questionable. However, the apostolate is thought to have done that locally by delegation of authority by the patriarch to his emissaries. There is a gap of more than a century between the cessation of the patriarchate and the re-appearance in Italy of emissaries from Israel. What happened in those years is unknown, at least at the present time. It has been suggested that there existed “regional patriarchs” in the Diaspora. If they did, none have been traced in Italy. The curtailment of Jewish rights after the victory of Christianity changed the legal scene also in the matter of Jewish law. That too happened gradually but surely. Then there was criminal law, which was administered to Jews as Roman citizens under the terms of Roman law and by the administrators of Roman law enforcement. Lastly, some of the towns that had a Jewish population had their own laws, regulations and law enforcement apparatus. If and when they applied those to their Jewish citizens is obscure. While some information on these towns, especially Alexandria, is forthcoming, none has so far surfaced in Italian towns. Inference in this situation does not appear to be good enough. There remained many “grey” areas where the law of these legal systems overlapped. We are practically in the dark as to the solutions offered in Italy under contemporary conditions, but one may perhaps hazard the guess that sometimes each side tried to arrogate to itself as many powers as it could, while at others one party or another did not care much either way. Again, there is too little evidence, if any at all, to support even that assumption, and for all we know, conditions of time and place, as well as circumstances—in short: life—set the changing scene. Therefore all attempts to paint a uniform regular and consistent legal situation governing the lives of Italian Jews during these seven centuries would be hanging by a thread.6

6 The following pages are based on the publications cited supra, note 1, on the legal collections, chiefly CTh and CJ and their Novella, Digesta, etc., as well as the references to “literary” texts. As for the application of many laws on the ground, see Linder’s observation, op. cit., p. 325. See also Claussen, Meeting, Community, Synagogue, pp. 144f. Whether this included all legislation or only some of it, such as, for instance, the construction of new synagogues, is debatable. Even the building of synagogues required an official license, at least at times. See supra, chapt. 1. On Jewish law and courts in Italy, see below. On the situation in Alexandria and some other Hellenistic and Roman towns, see Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, cit., passim; Rajak, Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews, pp. 107f.; Tcherikower, Jews in Egypt, cit., passim. As usual, they agree on some issues and disagree on others. On the The Jews and the Law 127

As we have seen, the main source for Jewry laws up to the times of Josephus has been the laws collected by him, chiefly in his Antiquities. Whatever we make of them, they are nearly all we have. Then, during the following two centuries, almost total silence descends on this aspect of Roman-Jewish relations. It has been suggested that this resulted from the loss of records, rather than by their absence. The first collection of laws which contains two whole sections dealing with Jews, as well as additional references to Jews are scattered throughout is the Codex Theodosianus issued in 437 by Emperor Theodosius II, later augmented by additions such as the Novella. Two years earlier the emperor had issued orders to collect all the laws issued by his predecessors starting with Constantine. The sections dealing with Jews are Book 16, sections 8 and 9. The first lists 28 laws and is entitled: “On Jews, Caelicolae and Samaritans”; and the second lists four laws. Section 8 lived on in the Middle Ages as the title and part of Canon Law. The scattered laws on Jews number 16; and there are also references to laws that have not survived. The Constitutiones Sirmondianae, contain three laws on Jews, and the Novellae contain—one. Then there is another gap in the transmission of laws referring to Jews until the days of Justinian, although it is assumed that in the course of that century there was at least some legislation involving Jews. Then Justinian gave orders for the compilation of his code of which the first appeared in 529, superseded by a second edition in 534. It is the latter version which has become the “official” one. The Codex Iustiniani contains most of the Jewry laws listed in the Codex Theodosiani, with a few changes and additions. They were assembled in the first book, chapters one and two and elsewhere in the same book. Five Novella of Justinian also deal with Jews.7

“regional patriarchs”, see Juster, op. cit., pp. 402f.; Rabello, op. cit., p. 717, esp. note 230; and the numerous references there for and against their existence; and see below. 7 Linder, op. cit., Nos. 1–6; Rabello, op. cit., pp. 686f. They mention one surviving law issued by Caracalla (213), quoted in CJ, 1.9.1.; another law thought to have been addressed by Diocletian to the Patriarch Juda in 293, quoted in CJ, 3.13.3. There are also a few quotes from the writings of jurists who lived in those centuries and which were lost for the most part. The surviving laws ones are one mentioned by Modestinus (middle of the third century CE), referred to in Digesta, 48.8.11; another also mentioned by Modestinus, issued by Emperors Marc Aurel and Commodius at the beginning of the third century, quoted in Digesta, 27.1.15.6; yet another by Ulpian (end of the second and beginning of the third century CE), quoted in Digesta, 50.2.3.3; and a law given by Diocletian and attributed to Paul (a contemporary of Ulpian. See below. The orders of Theodosius II are spelled out in CTh, 1.1.6. On the classification of the laws included in the codex and their validity, see Linder, op. cit., pp. 18f. Rabello, op. cit., p. 688, notes 116 and 117 lists the scattered references to laws relating to Jews and those which have not survived. For Justinian, see Rabello, op. cit., pp. 689f. and supra. chapt. 1, note 56. 128 chapter 3

All these laws and decrees emerging from one of the sources listed have been organized by jurists in a variety of configurations. For convenience’s sake, we follow in the footsteps of Juster and his emulators. Included will be only those laws that deal with Italy, or were thought to have had universal validity in the Roman Empire, including Italy, even though Italy is not specifically mentioned. The first category is the “privileges” or “charter” granted by Rome to the Jews. First and foremost is the component of religious freedom, embedded, as we have seen, in the treaties and “virtual charters” doing back to republican times. Although throughout all these centuries of Roman rule no single record has emerged that can be defined a “charter”, the emperors whose decrees have survived renewed the “virtual charter”. It has been suggested that this conformed to the pagan Roman custom of tolerance of all religions and that these so-called privileges had to be renewed by each successive emperor. Because no real “charter” existed, a ruler could (and did) exclude this or that item from the list of rights, stemming from religious freedom. This situation in pagan Rome has been interpreted as Roman recognition of the national character of Judaism. On the face of it that policy continued under Christian rule. The motive, as we have seen, was not tolerance, but theology, and was accompanied by discriminatory conditions and reservations not attached to the pagan “privileges”. Furthermore, it was limited to Jews by birth, alongside severe penalization of conversion to Judaism. In the end only Judaism was singled out as the one and only tolerated heterogeneous religion. All other non-conforming religions and even so-called heretical Christian sects were rigorously exterminated. That policy was translated into legislation and the terminology employed in this context for Jews and Judaism was derogatory.8 One of the unsolved problems of Jewish history in Antiquity is Jewish proselytism and conversion to Judaism on the ground. Without treating here again of the alleged dimensions of the phenomenon and other aspects of it, there is no doubt that conversions took place. The rabbis themselves were divided

Both codices do not mention all Jewry legislation issued during the periods they allegedly cover, for example Julian’s abrogation, and that for obvious reasons. After all Julian was anathema to the Christian rulers of the Empire. See supra, chapt. 1. For a listing of Jewry laws quoted by Josephus, see Claussen, Meeting, Community, Synagogue, pp. 144f. 8 See supra, notes 1 and 6, and esp. Juster, Rabello and Linder. Other systems, such as arrangement in chronological order, also have been adopted, see esp. Linder. For religious freedom, see supra. For want of a better definition we have termed the (probably) non-existent “charter” virtual (in the sense of seemingly). Emperors confirmed it, although no one admitted having seen it. The Jews and the Law 129 over the issue of proselytism, and probably with good reason. The Roman authorities were concerned with the issue, perhaps more intensely than with any other aspect of Roman-Jewish relations, particularly during the Christian era. As we have seen, there is no substance to the assertion that members of the Maccabean delegations engaged in proselytism. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that the expulsions of Jews in 139 BCE and subsequently in the days of Tiberius and Claudius were linked to Jewish proselytism. These have been interpreted as Roman reaction to the corruption of their socio-religious beliefs, under the heading of “atheism”, or simply as dislike of foreign cults. An extreme example apparently was the case of Flavius Clemens in the days of Domitian. This was followed by the blanket prohibition of conversion to Judaism, issued by Septimius Severus. He, like his predecessors, was concerned with the survival of paganism, which was thought to have been the backbone of Roman society and military power. Interwoven with proselytism was circumcision. Hadrian’s prohibition, irrespective of whether it was published before or after the Bar-Kokhva revolt, of course, was no more than just that, but it effectively undercut Jewish proselytism. By the end of the third century circumcision became a capital offence for the lower classes (humiliores) and the physicians who performed the operation, and was punished by exile and confiscation of property for the upper classes (honestiores). With the advent of Christianity as the official religion the emperors issued a comprehensive ban on conversion to Judaism, whether of pagans or of Christians. In the end it became the crime of apostasy from Christianity, at least inasmuch as Christian converts were concerned, though the prohibition included conversion of pagans, as long as there lived any in Christian society. Of course, pagan slaves were in fact converted to Judaism, even in the Middle Ages, though frowned upon and often formally prohibited. Four such laws were included in the Codex Theodosianus, and one in the Theodosian Novellae. The laws were adopted by Justinian and incorporated in his Codex. A law issued by the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II at Ravenna in 409, addresses the problem of Caelicoli, i.e., Heaven-Fearers, described by the leg- islators as an “unheard of Christian sect”. Some were said to have “adopted the abominable and vile name of the Jews”. It is thought that despite the phrase “unheard of” they were the Christian version of pagan sympathizers and Heaven- (or God-) Fearers. Trangressors who did not repent within a year were threatened with dire punishment.9

9 For more on proselytism, see supra, prec. chapt. (excursus). See supra chapt. 1 on the expulsions under Tiberius and his successors and on “atheism”. The Church-inspired laws against 130 chapter 3

While the Roman authorities in the first four and a half centuries of Jewish presence in Italy do not seem to have been interested in the conversion of Jews to paganism, the policy on Jewish conversions changed when Christianity became the state religion. Even so baptism of Jews affected Christian legislation only relatively infrequently. This has been attributed to the small volume of Jewish conversions, although the Church obviously encouraged them. Only five laws dealing with this topic were issued during the three centuries of Late Antiquity. These laws addressed the protection of converts from attacks by professing Jews; the assurance to converts of their portion in the estate of their Jewish parents, including converts who were murderers of their parents; and a prohibition to baptize Jews who wished thereby to escape the payment of debts or punishment for offences and crimes.10

proselytism are (in chronological order) CTh, 16.8.1; 16.8.7; 16.7.3; 16.8.19; Novellae Theodosiani, 3.4; CJ, 1.7.1f.; 1.9.12; CJ, 1.7.1f.; 1.9.3; 1.9.12. On conversion to Judaism, see also Rabello, L’atteggiamento di Roma verso le conversioni, pp. 133f. On circumcision, see supra. By the end of the third century the jurist Julius Paul is quoted as having defined the offense and the punishment. It was according to him that the physicians carrying out the operation became liable to the death penalty. That happened in Egypt, where circumcision was practised not only by Jews. See Linder, op. cit., pp. 117f. who quotes Paulus, Sententiae, 5.22.3f., 5.23.13; Stern, op. cit., p. 64; and were endorsed by Constantine in 328: CTh, 1.4.2f. See also Colorni, Gli ebrei nel sistema del diritto comune, cit., pp. 3f.; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 263f.; Rabello, Ebraismo e diritto, cit., pp. 699f., who suggests that circumcision was permissible until Hadrian. However, if the ban on “mutilation” was in force before then, on the face of it that would have included also circumcision. Of course, the Roman authorities may have been closing an eye to Jews infringing the lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, generally attributed to 81 BCE and thought to have included such a prohibition. See the detailed references reported by Rabello, op. cit., p. 702. The linkage of this law to siqariqon in rabbinic literature is spurious. See Rokeah, Remarks, 122f. When Antoninus Pius lifted the ban on circumcision he did so only with regard to born Jews, so that by inference the prohibition on proselytism remained in force. As reported by Modestinus, those who circumcised non-Jews became liable to the punishment meted out to self- mutilators. On the whole issue, see supra, chapt. 1, note 36. On slaves owned by Jews, see below. Under Jewish law a slave-owner had to see to the circumcision of his slave (Genesis, 17.12f.), but that did not set the slave free automatically. The sources are contradictory and the whole issue of conversion to Judaism in Antiquity is controversial. On the Caelicoli, see CTh, 2.8.25; 16.8.19; CJ, 1.9.12 (who continues to call the sect “unheard of”!). See Linder, op. cit., pp. 256f., who quite rightly rejects the wild theories regarding the identity of the sect. On the vanishing of the God-fearers, see Kraabel, Disappearance of the ‘God-Fearers’, pp. 113f. 10 The laws mentioning conversions of Jews to Christianity are CTh, 16.8.1 (CJ, 1.9.3); CTh, 16.9.11+16.8.5; CTh, 16.8.28; CTh, 9.45.2; CTh, 16.8.23. See also supra, chapt. 1. The Jews and the Law 131

The Christian Empire

In addition to the status of the Jews in Italy and their religious freedom, Roman legislation, pagan and Christian, as laid down by the rulers and mentioned in literary references and very few surviving laws passed before the fourth century, and the Jewry legislation mainly codified by the Emperors Theodosius II and Justinian, both Christians, dealt with a variety of topics. However, it should be borne in mind that we possess next to no evidence of the actual administration of justice to Jews, whether by Jewish courts, Roman courts, or any other judicial system. Evidently, Roman legislation on Jews dealt only with those aspects of the law that did not conform to that of other components of the population. Among other things, we know that arbitration was practised by Jews, but we do not know to what extent. Nor do we know what law and venue Jews preferred: Roman or Jewish. All we have to go by are the laws of the two codices for Roman law and rabbinic law for Jewish law, both very extensive in themselves. Obviously, the emphasis of Roman law is on Romans, while that of Jewish law is on Jews. The two codes and their additions contain some 66 laws on Jews. Those in the code of Justinian are often identical with those in the code of Theodosius. The former lists most of the laws reported in the latter, and the major innovations are contained in the five Novellae, published after 534.11 Legislation from the days of Constantine on mirrors the need and the increasing efforts of the emperors to steer a middle course between the demands of the Church to apply its policies toward the Jews and allowing them a modicum of tolerable conditions to survive in Christian society. It is the beginning of a millennial meandering path that Christian rulers picked in

11 See supra. The figure 66 is the count of Linder, op. cit. It includes a few laws that are not contained in the codes, such as Julian’s rescript. The method of counting varies and hence the total, but not the contents of the laws. Most, though not all laws, were inspired by the Church which turned the tables on Judaism after the so-called edict of Milan. The emperors of the west, catholic Christians themselves (the Ostrogoths were an exception) went along with this trend, though at times they had to curb anti-Jewish excesses. Laws contained in CTh, but excluded from CJ are, for instance 16.8.8 and 16.8.13. We will not report again many of the laws and references already discussed, such as those on the cult of the emperor, circumcision, conversion, and so forth, unless they contain elements related to other matters, e.g., legislation on slaves and economy, and the like. That applies also to the legislation reported by Josephus and other literary references. Furthermore, we shall cite laws that at the time they were issued applied to a local situation that arose outside Italy, as universally adopted by the Roman Empire, and therefore valid also in Italy if and when suitable circumstances obtained, unless specifically excluded (see supra). For an overview, see Noethlichs, Die Gesetzgeberischen Massnahmen, passim. 132 chapter 3 their relations with the Jewish minorities in the midst of their nations. In fact, even the Church itself was divided over the interpretation of the Augustinian formula and its translation into practical politics. Having allowed the Jews to dwell in Christian society, to practise Judaism, to enjoy the status of Roman citizens, and all the derivatives of this situation, they tried to steer a middle course between oppression, discrimination, legality and relative equality. Undoubtedly this impinged on the principle of religious freedom, and was in line with the overall negative attitude to Jews and Judaism that was expressed in Theodosius’ Novella 3 of 438, the culmination of his Jewry legislation during his 42 year long reign. His first law (408) issued in his name (since he was still a minor) and by his co-ruler Honorius, and addressed to Anthemius, praetorian prefect, is an example of the contradiction inherent in the situation. This is also the first time that the phrase “what has been permitted them hitherto”, or “in the past” is used in this context and repeatedly employed subsequently also by the popes:

The governors of provinces shall prohibit the Jews to burn Haman in memory of his punishment, in a certain ceremony of their festival, sacri- legiously resembling the Holy Cross, in contempt of the Christian faith, lest they mingle the symbol of our faith with their jests. They are to retain their rites without ridiculing Christian law, since they will undoubtedly lose what has been permitted them hitherto unless they refrain from unlawful acts.

The law was adopted by Justinian.12 That was not the only Roman law intended to protect Christianity from real or imaginary Jewish harassment or injury. Another was issued by the two emperors in the same year as the law on Haman, given in Italy and addressed to

12 On the Novella, 3, see supra, chapt. 1. For other legislation, see CTh, 16.8.18; CJ, 1.9.11. Linder, op. cit., pp. 236f.; Rabello, The First Law of Theodosius II, pp. 159f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, pp. 413f.). The Jewish custom of “executing” Haman on Purim antedates the Christian Empire and possibly also Christianity itself. See Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 207f. Also Jewish sources link Haman’s death to crucifixion. See Genesis Rabba, 30.8 and Leviticus Rabba, 28.6. Both are posterior to the Roman law, particularly the second. The law of 408, apparently, did not stop the Jews from celebrating Purim in this fashion. Shortly afterwards such a Jewish celebration of Purim (though neither Purim nor Haman are mentioned in the text) is said by Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, cit., 7.16 to have occurred in Inmestar in Syria. Scholars seem to accept Socrates’ story as trustworthy, though doubts have also been expressed. See Juster, op. cit., pp. 204f.; Parkes, Conflict of Church and Synagogue, cit., p. 234; Seaver, Persecutions of the Jews, cit., p. 61. The Jews and the Law 133

Donatus, proconsul in Africa, dealing with alleged offences of Jews against the Christian faith, though primarily intended to curb the activities of Donatist, a North African, chiefly Berber Christian sect, who were said to have made common cause with North African Jews against Catholics. At this point in time it had little significance for the Jews in Italy, though it may have become relevant by the time when the Arian Ostrogoths ruled the country:

The audacity of the heretical Donatists and of the Jews revealed new and unusual deeds, for they want to disturb the sacraments of the Catholic faith. Beware lest the contagion of this pest spread and diffuse widely. Therefore, we order that those who attempt to do anything against and contrary to the Catholic sect shall have capital punishment inflicted on them.

Apparently this did not settle the affair and further legislation was needed to protect the Catholic clergy in Africa from Donatists, Jews and pagans. Several decrees were issued by the two emperors to reinforce their original orders. While the Donatists were losing ground and eventually disappeared, the emperors were faced with the non-compliance of the orders given them by the local administration in Africa and with the opposition to it of the Germanic elements in the Roman army, which was their mainstay militarily. All these laws were given in 409–410, and some mention Jews in so many words. Justinian adopted the law as such, although conditions in Africa had changed. By then Donatists had become a negligible force in Christianity, while pagans and Jews were in no position to persecute Catholics.13 The Christian Roman legislator also enforced laws aimed at the protection of Christian sensibilities from what was conceived as unsuitable behaviour on the part of the Jewish minority in Christian society. A decree published in 425 by the Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III, addressed to the prefectus praetorio of the East, Christians, Jews and pagans were enjoined to refrain on Sundays and Christian holidays from public entertainments in circuses, theatres or those celebrated in honour of the emperor. By the days of Justinian it

13 CTh, 16.2.31; 16.5.44; 16.5.46 Constitutio Sirmondiana, 14; CJ, 1.3.10. Linder, op. cit., pp. 239f., tried to put order into the fragments and the erroneous dating of some of the documents. And see the reference cited there on Donatists, and so forth. Also see Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 283f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, p. 126. 134 chapter 3 was forbidden to Jews and other non-Christians to acquire churches, or even lease them temporarily or in perpetuity (emphyteusis).14 While the protection of Christianity, its ritual, places of worship, and so forth were never in doubt under Christian emperors, the treatment of synagogues by these emperors was ambivalent. The dilemma of Christians, starting with the Fathers of the Church, of how to deal with the “witnesses” of the birth of Christianity, included also the attitude toward Jewish worship, i.e., the synagogue. The compromise arrived at by the legislator was that the construction of new synagogues was prohibited, that repairs to existing structures was permitted, and that while the clergy, the representatives of the Church, incited the mob to violence, which resulted (among other things) in the destruction of synagogues, the emperor allowed the reconstruction of such synagogues, either under the heading of repairs, or by special license. Senior clergy, such as Ambrosius of Milan, disagreed. They objected in particular to the reconstruction of destroyed synagogues at the expense of those who had demolished them, and on occasion the emperor had to bend to the importunities of the clergy. However, in 393 the emperors issued a decree which forbade the interference with the worship of Jews, and attempts to “destroy and despoil synagogues”. Apparently the decree of 393 was insufficient, and the emperors had to reiterate their orders, in particular in those areas of the Empire where their hold was seen as lax for one reason or another. As early as 397 the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius ordered the praetorian prefect of Illyricum (covering parts of modern Balkans) to see to it that the governors of the province prevent assaults on Jews and their synagogues.15 The repetition of orders and decrees has been interpreted as an indication that they had not been implemented. In the case of the protection of Jews and of synagogues that appears to have been the case. Thus both, the attacks on Jews and on synagogues and the repeated imperial decrees to combat such occurrences, are evidence that the situation did not improve. In fact, there is reason to believe that the decrees attempting to curb the phenomenon

14 CTh, 15.5.5; CJ, 3.12.6; Linder, op. cit., pp. 301f. See also Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 240f.; Rabello, op. cit., p. 707; Seaver, Persecution of the Jews, cit., p. 77. For the alienation of churches to Jews, see Novella Justiniani, 131; Linder, op. cit., pp. 398f. and the references cited there. 15 On the law of 393, see CTh, 16.8.9; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 461f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 189f.; Rabello, op. cit., p. 720; and supra, chapt. 1. The order to Illyricum is CTh, 16.8.12; Juster, op. cit., 1, p. 464; Linder, op. cit., pp. 197f. A law issued by Justinian in 535 (Novella Justiniani, 37) decreed that the synagogues in North Africa (Carthage) be converted into churches. That has been interpreted as a temporary measure, linked rather to the effort to combat Arianism, and soon repealed. See Juster, op. cit., 1, p. 251. The Jews and the Law 135 were only the tip of the iceberg. So it does not come as a surprise that in 412, only a few years after the earlier edict, but this time in Italy, Honorius and Theodosius II, intimated to Johannes, praetorian prefect of Italy, that:

No one may violate or occupy what are called synagogues, which the Jews frequent for their assemblies, for all must retain what is theirs with unmolested right and without harm to religion and cult.

This was part of a law that also dealt with the summoning of Jews to court on the Sabbath. The section of the law on synagogues was not included in the version issued by Justinian, but that does not appear to be proof of the progressive hardening of Roman imperial policy toward the Jews, but rather to ineffective editing of existing legislation. In fact, Justinian included in his code another law, issued by Theodosius II and Honorius and again addressed (420) to the prefectus praetorio of Illyricum, protecting Jews and synagogues from attack, and threatening transgressors with punishment. The emperors added that:

. . . this warning too should be given lest the Jews grow perchance inso- lent, and elated by their security commit something rash against the respect of the Christian religion.

The addition was probably a sop to Christian sensitivities, particularly of the clergy such as Ambrosius, rather than a true portrayal of Jewish “insolence” as late as the fifth century.16 The ongoing conflict between militant Christians and Jews came to a head in the following years, when the Jews obtained another imperial confirmation of their rights in the matter of worship and synagogues. This probably happened against the background of the destruction of synagogues in the East. Yet another two decrees issued by the same emperors in 423, reiterated imperial policy on this subject: They forbade the occupation of synagogues and their destruction; they allowed Jews to reconstruct destroyed synagogues and ordered the payment of compensation for the seizure of votive offerings to the synagogues and their consecration to Christian use. For the sake of a show

16 CTh, 16.8.20; CJ, 1.9.13; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 164, 464; 2, pp. 122f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 262f.; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 47, 69. However, Justinian did include the following law on the same topic in his code. CTh, 16.8.21; CJ, 1.9.14; Demougeot, L’empereur Honorius, cit., p. 285; Id., Politique antijuive de Theodose II, cit., pp. 95f.; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 464; Linder, op. cit., pp. 263f., who untangled some confusion over the date of the decree; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 70f. 136 chapter 3 of even-handedness, they forbade the construction of new synagogues. The decree was addressed to Asclepiodotus, praetorian prefect of the East. The first law at once resulted in Christian pressure, spearheaded by a local saint, and brought to bear on the imperial court, to have the decree rescinded. The Jews are said to have applied counter pressure successfully, which resulted in the issuance of the second law. This time Christian sensitivities were allayed (or so the emperors hoped) by the addition of a passage which forbade Jews to circumcise Christian slaves, on pain of confiscation of property and perpetual exile. When all this proved insufficient, the emperors issued a third law protecting Jews and their property from Christian violence, and confirmed the two previous laws. Justinian did not include the first law in his code; approved only the passage prohibiting the circumcision of slaves in the second; and included the third. Justinian’s choice may be the result of editorial action.17 Only a few years passed and yet another law was promulgated by Theodo- sius II in company with Valentinian III (438). This has been interpreted as a sign of the probable inefficacy of previous legislation. This time it was addressed to the East and West, and it summed up previous laws. Later the emperor felt called upon to repeat the prohibition on the construction of new synagogues; again probably because of non-compliance with earlier laws. It was addressed to the East, but embraced also the West, including Italy. As regards synagogues, yet another law was included in both codices aimed at protecting Jewish places of worship from harassment. It was issued by Valentinian I and Valens in Trier between 368 and 373 and was addressed to Remigius, Master of the Offices, to remove from synagogues all those entitled to the provision of quartering by the authorities. This aligned synagogues with other places of worship, which also enjoyed exemption from that duty.18

Civil Service

The difficulty of steering a middle course between the contradictory Christian attitudes toward Jews and Judaism affected also other areas of Roman- Christian legislation in Late Antiquity. Some concerned the economy, others public office, some civil law, others jurisdiction. Pure and simple logic will

17 CTh, 16.5.59, 16.5.60; 16.8.25; 16.8.26; 16.8.27; 16.9.5; 16.10.22, 16.10.23, 16.10.24; CJ, 1.9.16; 1.11.6.; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 465f.; 2, pp. 74f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 287f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 73f. 18 See supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 54. The prohibition is included in Justinian’s Novella, 131. See supra, note 14. The law of Valentinian is CTh, 7.8.2; CJ, 1.9.4; Linder, op. cit., pp. 161f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 34; Vogler, op. cit., p. 47. The Jews and the Law 137 not do in this context. The difficulty of reconciling two incompatibles, i.e., the intolerance by Christianity of all unbelievers in Jesus and his message and the theological need to maintain in Christian society professing Jews at least until Doomsday, became evident time and again also in legislation. A law published by the Emperors Honorius and Arcadius in 404, and addressed to Romuliano, praetorian prefect in the West, made a comprehensive exclusion of Jews from public office mandatory:

We ordain that Jews and Samaritans, who delude themselves with the privilege of Executive Agents, shall be deprived of any civil office.19

Before long this law collided with Jewish service in some public offices such as local councils. At first the legislator thought that he could separate the various civil service offices and published a law to that effect. In 418 the emperors Theodosius II and Honorius addressed a law given in Ravenna to Palladius, praetorian prefect in Italy, which excluded Jews from service in three branches of the public service: executive agents, palatines and military personnel. The last named were to be discharged at once while serving ones in the other two could complete their statutory term of office. However, Jews were allowed to practise as lawyers and to serve on municipal councils. The emperors added fatuously that Jews should not consider the prohibition a “mark of infamy”:

From now on the entry into the civil service of those who live by the Jewish superstition will be closed. Therefore we allow all those who have taken the oath to serve as agentes in rebus and palatini to terminate their service on its statutory term, enduring the deed rather than favouring it. However, in future it shall not be permissible what we wish to relax at present to a few. But those who are subject to the perversity of this people and have entered the military service, we decree that their military belt shall be released without much ado, and they shall not enjoy

19 CTh, 16.8.16; Colorni, Gli ebrei nel sistema del diritto comune, cit., p. 24; Juster, op. cit., 2, p. 251; Linder, op. cit., pp. 222f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 58; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 57, 67. The executive agents (agentes in rebus), were imperial officials with a variety of duties dealing chiefly with imperial communications, including postal services, manpower, supervision of the execution of orders, and so forth. Linder translates militia as “state office”; Colorni, “military service”. Linder, op. cit., p. 280, interprets this law as dealing with a specific case of delinquency, rather than a general interdiction. But there is no indication of that in the wording of the law. The fact that the law of 418 (see next item) seems to imply that no exclusion of Jews from the civil service existed until the later date is not conclusive. 138 chapter 3

the protection of past merits. All the same we do not deprive Jews who have pursued liberal studies of the liberty to practise as advocates; and we allow them to enjoy the honour of curial liturgies, which they possess by dint of their birthright and their family’s splendour. Since they should be satisfied with this, they should not consider the prohibition to serve in the civil service a mark of infamy.20

But that was only a step in the progress of Imperial Catholic policy on the road leading to the attachment of such a “mark of infamy” to the Jews in the Empire, including those in Italy. Placidia, mother of Valentinian III, acting for her minor son, issued in Aquileia (425) a law aimed at repealing the legislation of the usurper Johannes, who survived for less than two years in the interregnum between the death of Honorius and the accession of Valentinian III to the imperial throne. Johannes had abolished the privileges of the Catholic Church, had favoured Christian sects other than Catholics, and had apparently restored some of the privileges of the Jews. The section of Placida’s law dealing with the Jews in the West, including Italy, reaffirmed the exclusion of Jews from the civil service and went one step further in the discrimination of Jews in the Empire. Jews were again excluded from serving in the ranks of the imperial civil service, with the addition that from now on they were denied the right to practise law. What Johannes had legislated with regard to Jews has not survived. The law of 425 was repeated less than 10 years later by Theodosius II and Valentinian III, perhaps because earlier laws to this effect had not been observed. A century later Justinian and Justin took discriminatory legislation another step further. They complained in so many words that earlier legislation had not been applied on the ground, and that notwithstanding the prohibition the ranks of the civil service had been “infiltrated” by unwelcome elements.21 The service of Jews on municipal councils—i.e., the urban senate (curia)— as decuriones, brought together conflicting trends with regard to the position of Jews in the Roman Empire, particularly in the Christian era. Decuriones were members of the wealthy middle class, the curiales, and they are mentioned as early as the second century BCE. Among their duties was local tax collection.

20 CTh, 16.8.24; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 254f., 277f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 280f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 58. According to Linder the palatini were officials of the financial department in the imperial court. But see, Noy, op. cit., 1, No. 6. However, the soldier was from Emesa (Ḥoms) and was only stationed in northern Italy. See supra. 21 CTh, 16.2.46–7; 16.5.62–4; Constitutio Sirmondiana, 6.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 305f.; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 243f. Rabello, op. cit., pp. 742f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 63f. On the law of 438, see supra, chapt. 1. For the law of 527, see CJ, 1.5.12. The Jews and the Law 139

The position of decuriones conferred social prestige and many became honestiores. Following the economic crisis in the third century the position became a burden, since they were personally responsible for taxation, having to pay shortfalls out of their own pocket. They shirked that duty on pain of severe punishment. It is possible that during the first two centuries of the pagan Empire Jews were not admitted into the ranks of the civil service, particularly if linked to prestigious positions such as decuriones. Their socio-economic position did not allow that. If Jews were excluded then this was not by law, or at any rate no law to that effect has survived. In a law of 321, by which year the office of decurion had become burdensome rather than prestigious, Constantine stated that the admission of Jews to that position was a departure from ancient custom. However, this does not appear to tally with reality, unless he referred to the period before the Severi. As we have seen, Ulpian and Modestin attribute a change of policy toward the turn of the second century CE to the Severi, Septimius Severus or Caracalla. Constantine stated that:

We grant [permission to] all curiae by general law to appoint Jews to the curia. To leave them something as solace of the former custom, we allow two or three of them by perpetual privilege not to hold such nominations.22

This was followed by series of laws aimed at the regularization of the exemption from liturgies granted to all clerics, pagan, Christian and Jewish. The first such law was issued by Constantine in 330 and addressed to Flavius Ablavius, the praetorian prefect, stated that:

Those who devote themselves completely to the synagogues of the Jews, to the patriarchs, or to the presbyters (= members of the Sanhedrin/ gerusia), and while living in the said sect preside over the law, shall continue to be exempt from all liturgies, personal and civil, so that those who are decurions already shall not be destined to transportations of all kinds, because it would be appropriate that such men shall not be compelled for whatever reason to depart from the places in which they are. Those who are not decurions, shall enjoy perpetual exemption from the decurionate.

22 See supra in this chapt. CTh, 16.8.3; Krakauer, Rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Stellung, pp. 49f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 120f.; Id., Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., pp. 103f.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 34f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 29; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 43, 66. 140 chapter 3

So the emperor exempted Jewish clergy already serving as decurions from liturgies, and those not yet serving from service in the decurionate in the future. A few days later the Emperor repeated the law in a different wording and addressed it directly to the office holders in the Jewish communities.23 Toward the end of the fourth century the crisis of the decurionate came to a head, and everybody, Christians and Jews alike, tried to shirk the burdensome and expensive duty. The emperors tried to reform the situation by abro- gating earlier privileges and exemptions granted clerics, Christian and Jewish. In 383 Gratian with Valentinian III and Theodosius I, abrogated these privileges, pointing out that having rescinded those of the Christian clergy, they could not fail to do the same with regard to Jewish clergy. The law was issued in Milan and addressed to Hypatius, praetorian prefect. Therefore Jewish clergy were enjoined to provide another person with his property to take their place. Justinian included the law in his Code. But only a few years later Roman Imperial policy veered in the opposite direction (as so often before and after). In 397 the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius addressed to Caesarius, praetorian prefect in the East, a decree again freeing Jewish men of religion from curial liturgies. Yet the ink had hardly dried on this law, when a year later the same emperors abolished the law given in the East. The annulment was issued in Milan and addressed to Theodorus, praetorian prefect in the West. The reason given by the legislator for this measure was that conditions in the West differed from those in the East. The councils in southern Italy were described as “tottering”, probably financially, and wanted propping up. All these decrees seem to have been ineffective, at least up to a point. In 399 the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius ordered Eutychiano, praetorian prefect in the East, to see to it that Jews who should serve on the curiae, did so. This law was also adopted by Justinian. The issue continued to agitate the parties concerned. In 404 the same emperors confirmed “the privileges granted . . . to the excellent patriarchs and to those set by them over others, shall remain in force”. That, of course, meant that past privileges and exemptions were to be observed. Finally, the summary of Imperial policy in 438 contained also the following clause:

23 CTh, 16.8.2; 16.8.4; the second law enumerates the Jewish office holders in the Diaspora exempted from liturgies such as: hiereis, archsynagogues and fathers of the synagogue. Linder, op. cit., pp. 132f.; Noethlichs, op. cit., pp. 35f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 30f.; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 42f., 63f. Linder identifies presbyters as members of the Sanhedrin in Israel and as members of the gerusia in the Diaspora. The law was addressed to the whole Empire. See Frank et al., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, 4, p. 243, note 80; Lieberman, Palestine in the Third and Fourth Century, p. 143. The Jews and the Law 141

. . . we order that the curials of all the towns as well as the cohortalini, indeed those obligated by property and personal liturgies to the onerous and diverse duties of the state’s service, shall adhere to their curiae, no matter to whatever sect they belong. . . .

So in the end the Jews were excluded from honours and offices which gave them authority, even the slightest, over Catholics, but were made to retain the duties which some entailed. In the sixth century Justinian confirmed the discriminatory measures of his predecessors and in some instances stiffened them. Only rarely did he come to the aid of the Jews in this context, such as when he issued orders that Jews were not to be harassed by personal liturgies on Jewish holidays.24

Slaves and Circumcision

Christian doctrine on Jews and Judaism also made itself felt progressively in other spheres, such as the economic one. The most frequent reference by the Roman legislature to the economic discrimination practised against Jews was to slaves. The repetition of legislation on slaves was probably due to the fact that life was stronger than law, which led to laws on slaves not being respected. Slaves were an important economic factor in the Roman economy, in agriculture, in artisanship, and in the home. Jews owned slaves, employed them and traded in them. Pagan Rome was no doubt aware of the Jewish precept that all slaves must be circumcised by their Jewish masters. Since, as we have seen, pagan Rome forbade circumcision for one reason or another, it

24 For the law of 383, see CTh, 12.1.99; CJ, 1.9.5; Juster, op. cit., 2, p. 259; Linder, op. cit., pp. 164f.; Noethlichs, op. cit., pp. 116f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 46; Vogler, op. cit., p. 43. For the decree of 397, see CTh, 16.8.13; Juster, op. cit., 1, p. 164; 2, p. 259; Linder, op. cit., pp. 201f. (who draws attention to the fact that the text is corrupt); Seaver, op. cit., p. 67; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 41f., 66f. For the annulment of 398, see CTh, 12.1.157–8; CJ, 10.32.49; Linder, op. cit., pp. 212f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 57. But cf. Juster, op. cit., 1, p. 164; 2, p. 260; Roth, History, cit., p. 36. And see supra, chapt. 1, note 4. On the Jews in local councils in southern Italy, see also below. The law of 399 is CTh, 12.1.165; 1.9.10; Gaudemet, Partage legislative, cit., pp. 328f.; Juster, op. cit., 2, p. 67; Linder, op. cit., pp. 218f. The law of 404 is CTh, 16.8.15; Juster, op. cit., p. 386; Linder, op. cit., pp. 220f.; Vogler, op. cit., pp, 58f. Novella Theodosiani, 3, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 54. The cohortalins were low ranking functionaries, serving provincial governors. Justinian’s confirmation is in Novella Justiniani, 45; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 123f. Linder, op. cit., pp. 393f. The order attributed to Justinian is not dated. See CJ, 1.9.2; Juster, op. cit., 2, p. 288; Linder, op. cit., pp. 367f. 142 chapter 3 effectively obstructed Jewish ownership of slaves, that is, if the relevant laws were carried out. The Church objected in particular to Jewish ownership of Christian slaves, but also disliked Jewish possession of pagan slaves. As for Christian slaves, Christianity applied to them the principle that Jews, children of the “maidservant”, must not rule over those of the “free”. The linkage between slavery and circumcision was a major component of Roman pagan legislation on Jews and slaves, while during the Christian era also the theological element came to the fore. By the end of the third century, when Rome was still pagan, the circumcision of slaves had become punishable by law. How far back this prohibition goes is not known. To judge by literary sources, it appears to have been imposed before the days of Paulus. Evidently, the Roman legislator thought that by circumcising the slave, the latter had been converted, although by Jewish law circumcised slaves were not full-fledged converts. So when the Roman authorities felt called upon to stop conversion to Judaism they also forbade the circumcision of slaves. The first Christian inspired law given by Rome on the circumcision of non-Jewish slaves was issued in 335 by Constantine, and addressed to Felix, praetorian prefect of Africa, but is thought to have been a general law, valid throughout the Empire:

A long time ago we published a salutary decree in our legislation, which we renew by the veneration of our repeated law, and we want that if a Jew shall not be deterred from buying and circumcising a Christian slave or of any other sect, the circumcised slave shall be emancipated by this law and acquire the (relevant) privileges. It shall not be lawful for a Jew who has circumcised a slave in this fashion to keep him in the servility of slavery. . . .

The Emperor refers to a law formerly given on this subject, which has not survived. This law was repeated by Constantine II in 339 and addressed to Evagrius, praetorian prefect in Italy. Unlike the earlier law, it did not say what became of the slave, emancipation or devolvement to the fisc. This was followed half a century later by yet another law on this subject, probably due to non-observance of earlier legislation. Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I addressed it to Cynegius, praetorian prefect in the East. However, the surviving copy was sent to Reggio (Calabria) in Italy. The contradictory wording of this law is either due to inept editing, or to the inability of the Roman legislator to reconcile the demands of the Church with reality. The law, published in 384, stated that Jews must not acquire a Christian slave and convert him. Transgressors were to be punished as decreed in the past, i.e., by Constantine The Jews and the Law 143 in 339. The legislator then added that Christian slaves found in the possession of Jews were to be redeemed by Christians “for the right price”. Evidently the two parts of the law do not tally.25 All the same, Roman legislation which linked the ownership of pagan slaves to circumcision and hence to conversion, apparently contributed to the soften- ing of the attitude of some sages, who appear to have tolerated the possession of such slaves although they had not been circumcised which had not been permissible hitherto. Roman legislation too seemed to take the same turn, at least for a while. The Jews of Italy, particularly those in the south of the country, seemingly appealed to Honorius, ruler of the West, to have the legislation of Constantinus adapted to their needs. So in 415 Honorius and Theodosius II decreed in Ravenna that:

We order that Jews may have Christian slaves without (being exposed to) informers, provided they permit them to practise their religion. Therefore the judges of the provinces should know that once the trustworthiness of the confiscation is inspected, they must repress the insolence of those who caused it by illegal imprecations, and we order that all that which has

25 See supra, esp. note 9. For the history of slavery, see Verlinden, L’Esclavage dans l’Europe medieval, passim; and on Jewish slavery, Rubin, Das talmudische Recht, passim. According to Maimonides, Miṣneh Torah, Hilkhot Isure Bi’ah, 12.11, pagan slaves who had been circumcised and taken a ritual bath were no longer Gentiles, but had not become Jews. In other words, there existed a sort of grey area (= definition of Prof. Mordechai M. Friedman, to whom I am indebted for his advice) for such slaves. They were supposed to observe most Jewish precepts, positive and negative. See also Jacob b. Aṣer, Tur Yore De’ah, 267. It is doubtful whether the Roman authorities were aware of this subtle nicety in Jewish law. See also Id., Hilkhot ‘Avadim. Urbach, Laws on Slavery, pp. 141f. reports detailed references, ancient and modern, on this topic. He terms the circumcision and ritual bath of the gentile slave: “quasi conversion”. The law of 335 is Constitutio Sirmondiana, 4; CTh, 16.9.1; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 72, 268f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 138f.; Noethlichs, op. cit., pp. 36f.; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 283f.; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 53f. The law of 339 is CTh, 16.9.2; CJ, 1.10.1; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, pp. 311f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 144f.; Noethlichs, op. cit., pp. 46f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 32f.; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 52f., 64f. There is some unclarity over the identity of the emperor, and hence the date of issue. I am inclined to follow Linder’s interpretation. Linder also links this law to another decree: CTh, 16.8.6; CJ, 1.10.1 which deals with the marriage of Jews to women formerly occupied in the weaving establishments of the government. This is based on the disputable assumption that these women were slaves. However, this may be simply another prohibition imposed on mixed marriages. See below. The law of 384 is CTh, 3.1.5; Linder, op. cit., pp. 174f.; Noethlichs, op. cit., pp. 182f. 144 chapter 3

been surreptitiously obtained or will be obtained, shall be null and void. If someone acts contrary to this, he shall be punished as for sacrilege.

The law was addressed to Annatus, didascalus of the Jews, and their leaders, who were probably the individuals who petitioned the emperor. That was a far cry from Constantine’s law. Significantly it was dropped by Justinian. Two years later this law was followed by yet another on slaves. The new law, given in the East, did away with a principal concession contained in its predecessor. Addressed by the same emperors to Monaxius, praetorian prefect in the East, it forbade Jews to purchase a Christian slave or accept him as a gift. Those who did forfeited the slave, while the slave gained his freedom. Only Jews who had acquired a Christian slave in the past, or had inherited one, were allowed to keep the slave, provided the Jew did not attempt to convert the slave. Transgressors were threatened with capital punishment. The law is styled in abusive language, such as “nefarious superstition” and the “filth” of Judaism, leaving little doubt as to the identity of its initiators. Part of the law was adopted by Justinian.26 Evidently that too was not good enough. A few years later, in 423, the same emperors repeated the prohibition on the acquisition of Christian slaves by Jews. Transgressors were to have the “statutory” punishment meted out to them. Although this law, as well as its predecessor was issued to the praetorian prefect of the East, both were valid also in the West. However, the Jews of Italy may have claimed the application of the concession made to their leaders in 415, if it ever came to that in real life. Justinian had the abbreviated version of this law included in his code. By the time of Justinian Christian policy toward Jews had hardened further. A law attributed to this emperor stated flatly that Jews and other non-Catholics were forbidden to possess Christian slaves. Such slaves were to be emancipated and their masters were to be fined. This was stated in so many words by a law issued in 534 to Johannes, praetorian prefect of the East. That the law was not applied on the ground emerges from a case

26 See the halakhic references quoted by Urbach, op. cit., pp. 167f.; and Rubin, op. cit., passim. The change began after 70 and was primarily due to the new political and religious circumstances obtaining from then on. Needless to say, that the time was not yet for either Jews or Romans to speak of the immorality of slavery. For the law of 415, see CTh, 16.9.3; Linder, op. cit., pp. 272f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 62; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 42f. The term calumnia has probably the meaning of that used on the coins of Nerva (see supra, chapt. 1). Informers, including common informers, were a social menace which bedevilled not only Roman society. On didascalus, see also below. Vogler makes Annatus a sort of chief rabbi of the Jews in Italy, but that is not borne out by the text or other evidence. The law of 417 is CTh, 16.9.4 and CJ, 1.10.1; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 74f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 277f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 73. The Jews and the Law 145 brought to the attention of Pope Gelasius I at the end of the fifth century. In Venafro a Christian slave had sought refuge in a church, claiming that although a Christian from childhood he had been bought by a Jew and had been circumcised by him. Pope Gelasius ordered three bishops to investigate the claim and to act in accordance with their findings.27

Other Roman Civil Laws on Jews

Jews in Italy, as elsewhere in the Roman Empire, were subject to the laws of the land and to the Roman administration of justice. Unlike most other elements of the population they lived also by their own law and were subject to a law which often differed decidedly from the former. As we pointed out, the two legal systems overlapped, although a dividing line was supposedly drawn between Jewish law in the stricter sense of the word, that is chiefly religious law, and Roman law, that covered as far as the Jews were concerned civil and criminal law and left religious law to the Jews, a natural outcrop, as it were, of the religious freedom the Jews enjoyed. Except that Jewish law considered many areas, or in a wider sense all laws, religious ones. Furthermore, Judaism was not only a religion. In fact, there was hardly an area for which Jews could not claim the sanctity of their faith. How the Jews of the Diaspora and their rulers there solved this problem in real life, we can no more than theorize on. Little if any information is available on what the Roman authorities did when the Jews insisted (as they were bound to) that parts of civil law came under the heading of religion. The rabbinic rule “the law of the kingdom is the law” was of little use when it came to these sections of civil law. In other words: The rule that “the law of the land takes precedence over Jewish law” was not applicable when it involved a serious transgression of the precepts of Judaism. Furthermore, the Roman legislator, particularly the Christian one, apparently rode roughshod over Jewish sensitivities when it came down to brass-tacks, apparently though to little effect. An example of this is the law issued in 393

27 CTh, 16.9.5; CJ, 1.9.16; Linder, op. cit., pp. 289f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 73f. The law attributed to Justinian was dated between 527 and 534 and is CJ, 1.10.2; Colorni, Gli ebrei nel sistema del diritto comune, cit., p. 36; Linder, op. cit., pp. 370f. That of 534 is CJ, 1.3.54; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 71f.; In that form it was legislated by later generations throughout the Middle Ages. Only the punishment varied. On the slave in Venafro, see my Apostolic See, cit., No. 1. The pope kept an open mind as to the claims of the slave. See Synan, Popes and Jews, pp. 34f. The unfriendly Good Friday prayer Pro Judaeis has been attributed to Pope Gelasius (Reformed by Pope John XXIII in 1955). 146 chapter 3 by the Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius and addressed to Infantius, comes in the East, forbidding polygamy and marriage between relatives of various grades of kinship, permissible under Jewish law and forbidden under Catholic law. It is generally assumed that this law remained a dead letter, except perhaps as regards polygamy in the West. It is doubtful whether an attempt by Justinian to enforce the law in 537 fared any better. Under Jewish law the rule of the “law of the land” (or its Palestinian equivalent) considered Roman law valid and hence binding. How far exactly that went also for Jewish law under Roman law, even if Jews considered it covered by Judaism and the freedom to practise it is debatable.28 On the other hand, the Jews obviously had no quarrel with Roman legislation which forbade mixed marriages not permissible under Jewish law either. The church looked askance at such marriages and adopted prohibitions to that effect in canons of synods and councils. In 388 the Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius issued a similar interdiction and addressed it to Cynegius, praetorian prefect in the East, thereby making it a crime considered equal to adultery. Augustus had outlawed adultery and had made it punishable by pecuniary penalties. These were increased in the time of Constantine to capital punishment. The law was adopted by Justinian in his code. Roman legislation of civil laws with special reference to Jews numbered only a few. During the Christian era it was Justinian in particular who enforced by law the theological degradation of the Jews. In 531 he addressed a law to Johannes, praetorian prefect in the East, which effectively disqualified Jews from giving evidence against Catholics:

Since many judges in settling litigation asked for our decree to reveal to them what is to be decided about heretic witnesses, if their testimony is to be accepted or rejected, we ordain that no heretic or those who cherish the Jewish superstition shall have participation in testimonies

28 CJ, 1.9.7 (the text has survived only in Justinian’s code); Colorni, Legge ebraica e leggi locali, cit., p. 110; Id., L’uso del greco, cit., pp. 13f.; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 50f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 191f.; Noethlichs, op. cit., pp. 187f.; Rabello, Sui rapport fra Diocleziano, cit., pp. 172f.; Id., Diocletian and the Jews, cit., pp. 147f. On the law of 537, see Justinian’s Novella 139; Linder, op. cit., pp. 389f. The purpose of the law was the alleviation of punishment for transgressors in Tyre and vicinity. The rule of the “the law of the land” was Babylonian, but Palestinian rabbis also grappled with the problem. On Jewish courts of law in Italy, see also below, chapt. 9. It should be borne in mind that even Palestinian rulings did not necessarily affect the situation in the Diaspora, including Italy. On this issue too scholars are divided. See Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law, passim; Colorni, Legge ebraica e leggi locali, cit., passim; Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 45f. The Jews and the Law 147

against litigants of which either side is orthodox. However, we grant to heretics and Jews that whenever they deem fit to litigate between themselves, they may have mixed agreement and suitable witnesses, except those held by the Manichaean madness (and it is absolutely clear that they form part of the Borborits), or the pagan superstition, also the Samaritans and those who are not much different from them, i.e., the Montanists, Tascodrogits and the Orphyts; all evidence and other legal action is forbidden to them, because of the similarity of their guilt. We decree that to them, that is Manichaeans, Borborits and pagans, as well as Samaritans, Montanists, Tascodrogits and Ophites, all testimony and other legal action is forbidden. However, we want that to other heretics only the testimony against the orthodox be forbidden, as has been decreed. Furthermore, we allow their testamentary evidence and those contained in last wills and contracts without distinction, because of the benefit of this necessary usage, lest the power of proof be reduced.

This law was followed by another issued by Justinian in the same vein in 537, addressed to the same Johannes. It confirms the decree of 531, but at the same time contradicts it by allowing the testimony of Jews and heretics against Catholics when the plaintiff was the state.29 As to jurisdiction there existed an overlap of Jewish and non-Jewish law and courts of law from pagan times right through the Christian era. Even before the law of Caracalla which made all Jews in the Empire citizens, the Jews of Italy had been subject to the jurisdiction, and hence to the law of the Roman state, the towns in which they lived, and to Jewish law. That allowed Jews a certain freedom in choosing the preferred legal venue, particularly for litigation when both sides were Jewish. When one side was Gentile, the latter probably refused to submit to Jewish jurisdiction and to be judged by Jewish law. Such cases no doubt occurred in Israel, particularly in localities with a Jewish majority, but none have surfaced in the Italian Diaspora. However, when it came to criminal law, the authorities, state or urban, brooked no interference with their compe- tence to judge all citizens living in their territory.

29 CTh, 3.7.2; 9.7.5 (repetition); CJ, 1.9.6; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 47f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 178f.; Noethlichs, op. cit., p. 184; Rabello, Legal Conditions, cit., pp. 730f.; Id., Problema dei matrimoni, cit., pp. 213f.; Seaver, op. cit., p. 48; Solazzi, Le unioni di cristiani ed ebrei, pp. 49f.; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 52f. On Justinian’s decree, see CJ, 1.5.21; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 123f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 371f. For the law of 537, see Novella Justiniani, 45; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 85f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 393f.; Rabello, loc. cit. 148 chapter 3

Apparently, they were less rigid when it came to civil law, particularly when confronted by the Jewish claim that the disputed area of law was religious in nature, and hence covered by the principle of religious freedom which they enjoyed. Also the status of the Jewish community as a collegium and its privileges had to be taken into account in this context. Furthermore, if the accepted form of civil litigation between Jews even before 392 was arbitration then the possibility of overlap and friction between the two systems diminished considerably. Alongside the Roman state and the town it was the patriarch who was invested with jurisdiction over Jews. As we shall see, he is thought to have exercised that power on local Jewish tribunals in the Diaspora, including the Italian one, through, his emissaries, the apostoli, who, in addition to their other duties, dealt also with the administration of law in the Jewish communities. Also the function of the Sanhedrin is mentioned in this context. That remained in force until the beginning of the fifth century, when the patriarchate lapsed. When in the sixth century apostoli from Israel again visited communities in the Italian Diaspora, it is likely that the former arrangements (or similar ones) were re-established. What happened during the intervening period of more than a century we do not know. To what extent Jewish courts kept to the limits of the authority vested in them or overstepped them, is, of course, a matter for no more than conjecture, since no minutes or similar records of Jewish court proceedings in Italy have survived. Nor do we know whether the emissaries acted as judges, legal advisors to local judges, or judges of appeal, one or more of these functions, either before the cessation of the patriarchate or later. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the situation was not uniform in all Diasporas, or even everywhere in a single Diaspora, such as Italy. However, if not uniform, the administration of justice in the Jewish communities, even in a country with far-flung communities such as Italy probably was similar, if not identical. The first known reference in Roman law to Jewish jurisdiction (or so it would seem) is as enigmatic and problem-ridden as the whole issue. It was addressed in 293 by Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius and Constantius to Juda. The latter has been identified by some scholars as the Patriarch Juda III, while others denied all Jewish linkage to the addressee and therefore also to the law itself:

The agreement of private individuals does not make a judge one who is not in charge of any jurisdiction, nor has his decision the force of a legal verdict.30

30 See CJ, 3.13.3, which has only the condensed version cited above. Therefore we do not know the circumstances that brought about the issuance of the law. The most likely The Jews and the Law 149

Then in 392 Theodosius I, Arcadius and Honorius issued a law addressed to Tatianus, praetorian prefect in the East, which indubitably dealt with Jewish jurisdiction. Following Jewish representations, the emperors granted exclusive authority to the Jewish leadership in Israel and in the Diaspora to impose the ban and revoke it. That went hand in hand with the religious freedom of the Jews everywhere in the Empire:

It was stated in complaints of the Jews that some persons had been received into their sect on the authority of judges, in opposition to the primates of their law, who had cast them out on the strength of their judgment and free will. We decree that this injury be removed, so that a persistent group of their superstition shall not obtain support for their readmission (into the fold) by a verdict of judges or devious rescript, against the will of their primates, who are manifestly authorized to judge matters concerning their religion, by authority of the most distinguished and illustrious patriarch.

This law clearly defined the supreme judicial authority of the patriarch in Israel and in the Diaspora, the dependence on and from that luminary of the entire judicial system of the Jews, and the importance attached to the main disciplinary weapon wielded by the Jewish magistrature. The circumstances which led to the issue of the law have not been revealed.31

interpretation of this law is its linkage to the law of 398. Even so, it is probably a fragment out of context. Juda is usually a Jewish appellative, but cases, though relatively rare ones are known of non-Jews being called by this name. See Albeck, Semikha, cit., pp. 85f.; Alon, Those Appointed for Money, pp. 15f.; Dinaburg, Rescript of Diocletian to Juda, cit., pp. 76f.; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 104f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 114f.; Rabello, Rapporti fra Diocleziano e gli ebrei, cit., pp. 157f. Some of those who opt for the identification of Juda with the patriarch also suggest that the law was issued against the background of the dispute between the patriarch and the sages over the appointment of judges. Be that as it may, in all probability that would apply only to Israel, since normally it was the patriarch who dealt with the administration of justice in the Diaspora and not the sages, unless they were members of the Sanhedrin. On Diocletian and the Jews, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. n. 48 and the references cited there. 31 CTh, 16.8.8, 29; Juster, op. cit., 2., pp. 159f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 186f.; Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, p. 192; Seaver, op. cit., p. 49; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 41f. The Jewish ban or excommunication (ḥerem) has been discussed in numerous publications. Practically all works on Jewish law deal with it. I second Linder’s identification of primates with the officers of the Jewish communities, rather than with local patriarchs. The existence of the latter is sheer conjecture, although some scholars insist on their existence. On the organization of the Jewish community, see below. The apostle Paul narrates that 150 chapter 3

Yet it was only in 398 that the Roman authorities issued a law which defined for the first time the limits of the two legal systems. The law was given by Arcadius and Honorius and addressed to Eutychianus, praetorian prefect in the East, clearly setting out the two systems and their terms of reference. The Jews, being Roman citizens, were subject to Roman law as administered by its courts. Only matters belonging to Jewish religious law were excluded from Roman jurisdiction and were left to the Jewish authorities to deal with. The legislator then proceeded to define Jewish jurisdiction even further, which he may or may not have done in the past. Jewish court proceedings dealing with civil cases not of a religious nature, that unless otherwise stated were judged in Roman courts of law, came under the heading of arbitration and had to be conducted in Jewish courts of law in accordance with the rules and procedures pertaining to it. The verdict given in such cases had the weight of that given by arbitrators appointed by a Roman judge and had to be enforced by the Roman authorities. The law was incorporated by Justinian into his code with some changes and an error or two. On the face of it he did away with the distinction between religious and non-religious matters and between courts, perhaps in view of the fact that the patriarchate had ceased to exist and hence also its administration of justice. The result was that from the point of view of the Roman authorities Jewish jurisdiction in religious matters ceased to exist; and civil litigation, if the litigants so chose, was adjudged by arbitrators. However, it is most unlikely that Roman courts got entangled in judging Jewish religious matters either by applying Roman law to Jewish religious matters, or judging the latter by Jewish law of which they knew next to nothing. What exactly Justinian (or his men) had in mind we shall probably never know. It is a fair assumption that even if the surviving version of Justinian’s law is taken at face value, Jews on the ground dealt with their problems of religious matters, which by Jewish law were much wider than the mere term normally allows, under whatever heading the Roman legislator imposed on them, that is under arbitration. The Theodosian version of the law is the following:

The Jews who live under Roman and common law, in those cases which do not concern so much their superstition but the court, laws and rights, shall turn to the courts in the customary way, and all shall bring action and defend themselves under our laws. Yet, if some prefer to litigate before Jews or patriarchs by compromise similar to arbitration, on agreement

he was punished by Jewish judges, so evidently he submitted to their jurisdiction. See Corinthians, 11.24–25. Whether these judges sat in the Diaspora does not transpire. The Jews and the Law 151

between the parties, however in civil matters only, they shall not be prevented under public law from accepting their verdict. The provincial governors shall carry out their verdicts as if they had been appointed arbiters judicially.

Justinian’s version is similar but garbled As we have seen, the Jewish judicial hierarchy was presided over by the patriarch. That lasted while the office remained in operation, i.e., until the beginning of the fifth century. The patriarch was the supreme judicial authority, wielded the powers of lawgiver and interpreter, appointed local judges, and probably served as the last court of appeal. What happened in the Diaspora, including the Italian one, once the office fell into disuse we do not know. While communications between East and West remained intact, the Jewish centre in the East probably continued to wield influence also in Italy, though even that is mere conjecture. If and when they were cut or temporarily interrupted, due to war and political upheavals, the Italian Diaspora, like the rest, had to fend for itself. Local law experts probably came to the fore, but we know nothing about their activities, except such rare glimpses at their identity and activities in the first centuries of the Empire.32 One of the last legislative acts of the Christian Roman Empire under Justinian was his Novella 146. It is perhaps the most outspoken missionary attempt of the Roman Christian legislator in support of his Church. However, the immediate cause was internal strife among the Jews. It was decreed by Justinian in 553 and addressed to Areobindus, praetorian prefect in the East and runs as follows:

Preamble: It was necessary that the Jews when listening to the sacred books should not adhere only to the literal [text], but should look for the prophesies concealed in them, whereby they announce the coming of

32 CTh, 2.1.10; CJ, 1.9.8. In all probability that would lead to the correct interpretation of the law of 392. Because of the vague wording of the law of 398 in its rewording by Justinian the interpretations are diverse and manifold. The following are some of the scholars who have dealt with the problem: Colorni, Legge ebraica e leggi locali, cit., pp. 103f.; Kisch, Aufhebung jüdisch-religiöser Jurisdiktion durch Justinian, pp. 395f., 548f; Linder, op. cit., 204f.; Östersetzer, La Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, cit., pp. 91f.; Rabello, Sui rapport fra Diocleziano, pp. 180f.; Id., Divorzio degli ebrei nell’impero romano, pp. 30f. (on the possibility that personal law, in this case divorce, came under the heading of religious law); Seaver, op. cit., pp. 67f.; Solazzi, Fra norme romane anti-semite, pp. 405f.; Vogler, op. cit., pp. 55f. 152 chapter 3

Jesus Christ the mighty God and saviour of the human race. However, though they have erred from the right doctrine to the present as they tend to senseless interpretations, when we have learned that they quarrel we could not abandon them without a ruling. We have learned from their request presented to us that some have only Hebrew and wish to use it in the reading of the sacred books, and not Greek; and they have been quarrelling about this for a long time. Having studied the matter, we considered it the better case of those who want to use also Greek in reading the sacred books and in a language more suitable and known to the local audience.

Chapter 1: Therefore, we decree to allow Jews who wish to read the sacred books in their synagogues and wherever there are Jews in Greek in front of the assembled and comprehending, or possibly in our home language, or in all other languages in accordance with the place; so that by that reading the matters read shall be clear and comprehensible to the assembled, and that they live and act accordingly. No trust is to be given to their exegetes that falsify it with the help of Hebrew and cover up their bad faith by the ignorance of the multitude. Furthermore, those who read in Greek shall use the Septuagint tradition, which is more accurate than the others, and is preferable to them by dint of the translation; although they separated in pairs and translated in different localities, they came up with one version. They shall not be surprised about these men, who lived long before the mighty God and saviour Jesus Christ, yet translated the sacred books as if they foresaw that this revelation was to come about in future, as if illuminated by the grace of prophecy. So all should use this translation. But lest we appear to forbid them all other translations, we allow them to use also the translation of Aquila, although he was of another nation and differs not a little in some readings from the Septuagint. We prohibit that which they call the Miṣnah, for it is not included among the sacred books, nor was it handed down by the prophets, but is a human invention and speaks only of earthly matters and there is nothing divine in it. Therefore, let them read the sacred words themselves and disclose these without hiding what is said in them, and without extraneous and unwritten novelties they themselves have written to the perdition of the simple minded. Following this our permission, no punishment is to be incurred by those who use Greek or any other language, nor shall they be hindered by any other person, nor shall those called by them archiphere citae, or perhaps presbyters or masters have permission to forbid them this by deceits or bans, on pain of corporal punishment and loss of property, The Jews and the Law 153

and those who wish to command better things and more pleasing to God obey us nolens volens.

Chapter 2: If there are among them people who shall presume to introduce vain impious things, denying either the resurrection or Doomsday, or saying that the angels were the handiwork of God and his creation, we want these people expelled from all places, and that no word of blas- phemy of this kind and erring from God be spoken. We impose the death penalty on those who dare utter such things, thus purging the Jewish nation from this error.

Chapter 3: We pray that when they listen to the sacred books in this or that language they shall avoid the depravity of the exegetes and not consider the sole words but understand the reality and divine sense, so that they shall rather study the better what is more beautiful and cease from erring and sinning, we mean the hope in God. Therefore we opened to them all languages for the lecture of the sacred books, so that in future when all shall be knowledgeable they became readier to learn better thing; for it is acknowledged that he who is nourished on the sacred books and has no need for direction, is much better suited to recognize the truth and choose the better path, than he who understands nothing by clings to his faith alone, is held by it as by a sacred anchor, and believes that heresy is divine teaching.

Epilogue: This is our sacred will and pleasure. Your Excellency and your colleague and staff shall see to its application and shall not permit the Jews to contravene it. Those who resist or obstruct it shall suffer corporal punishment and then exile, forfeiting their property, so that they do not flaunt their impudence against God and the Empire. You shall distrib- ute our law to the provincial governors, so that learning its contents they apply it in their towns, to be applied on pain of our displeasure.

This law touches upon several of the major issues and events of the Jews in Late Antiquity. Among them are the divisions within the Jewish community over the closing of the ranks, religiously, culturally and nationally, and hence the survival of a minority in an often hostile environment; the Kulturkampf raging within Jewry; the emergence of a Hebrew literature, especially poetry and Jewish law; and some fundamental changes in Israel, following the redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud, the cessation of the patriarchate, and so forth. Other motives involved are the continuous effort of Christianity to bring Jews 154 chapter 3 wherever and whenever possible into the fold of the dominant religion. While the interpretations of the law vary, it is evident that the emperor attempted to interfere seriously with Jewish freedom of religion and by extension with Jewish internal jurisdiction. By prohibiting the Miṣnah Justinian effectively curtailed rabbinic jurisdiction even in purely religious affairs, such as say dietary law.33

Jewish Law and Jurisdiction

Jewish law consists of Biblical Law and Oral Law. Biblical Law contains 613 commandments, of which 248 are positive and 365 are negative. Oral Law is the exposition of Biblical Law, which eventually was written down and canonized in the Miṣnah and later opera such as the Talmudim. Attempts at classification and codification were made during the Middle Ages, first by the Gaonim in Babylonia and then by scholars elsewhere, the most prominent among them being Isaac Alfassi, Maimonides, Jacob b. Aṣer, and Joseph Caro. Biblical Law was universally accepted by Jews everywhere, while Oral Law was rejected by some sections in Judaism at various times. Judaism being bereft at least since Antiquity of a central authority and a hierarchical order, since then never benefited from universally accepted legislation and unanimous interpretation of the Law, Biblical or otherwise. The overruling trend, however, throughout the centuries was a gradual hardening of the severity of laws, particularly those of a purely religious character, because of an alleged need to provide the law of the Torah with a “fence”, in great measure because Judaism rightly or wrongly felt threatened from within and from without. For want of relevant information, chiefly the lack of documentation, we do not know what exactly the apostoli of the patriarchs and after the cessation of that office, their successors, did, ordered, judged, arbitrated or ruled in the

33 Novella, 146; Browe, Judengesetzgebung Justinians, pp. 109f.; Colorni, L’uso del greco, cit., pp. 19f.; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 369f.; Levine, Between Rome and Byzantium, pp. 7f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 402f.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 158f.; Parkes, op. cit., pp. 251f., 392f.; Rabello, op. cit., pp. 710f.; Rutgers, Justinian’s Novella 146, pp. 385f. The Greek and Latin versions disagree on some details. Thus the law in its Greek version seems to indicate that the partisans of Hebrew insisted that Hebrew be used as an exclusive language, while the Latin version admits that languages other than Hebrew were in use. The archipherecitae read in (פירקא were preachers who interpreted the “chapter” (= Pirqa ריש פירקא synagogue, not to be confused with high ranking officials in the academies mentioned in other contexts. On Pirqa, see Epstein, Introduction to Text of Miṣnah, 2, p. 898; Albeck, Introduction to Talmuds, p. 15. The Jews and the Law 155

Jewish communities in Italy to which they were sent on orders of the patriarchs and of those who dispatched emissaries in later generations; what language they used in the administration of justice or the delegation of authority, or what texts they employed. Nor do we know anything else about their judicial activities, though it does not appear to be in dispute that they were involved with them. The classification of Roman and Jewish law is incompatible, though there is no shortage of attempts to find a common denominator. There is only one aspect that they have in common: the nebulous situation regarding application and enforcement. No minutes of Italian court proceedings involving Jews of either Roman or Jewish courts have survived. That is the crux of the problem. It is, therefore, only to be expected that the question of what in fact constituted religious freedom and its derivatives is in dispute. Could the Jewish communities in Italy enforce more than purely religious commandments, such as dietary laws or those linked to Jewish festivals, prayers and the like, and did they in fact? How far did the interpretation of that freedom go? Did it include personal law, such as marriage and divorce, which according to Judaism were religious acts? If there existed an arrangement between the Jews of Italy and the Roman authorities on these and similar matters that agreement has not surfaced, though it may have been implicit. The law of 398 is sometimes cited as a milestone whereby Jewish jurisdiction was restricted to arbitration and Jews were subjected to Roman law and Roman courts only. Before that date did Jews simply do as they pleased while the Roman authorities closed an eye to their doings? Perhaps this is a true portrayal of the situation, but it seems shaky and based on sheer surmise. The Christian Empire appears to have been less tolerant in this respect than the pagan one. It tried to interfere with Jewish personal law and Jewish jurisdiction, and forbade Oral Law, without which the Jewish administration of justice along rabbinic lines was voided of much of its contents. As to the law applied by Jewish tribunals in Italy before 398 and after, by mutual consent or not, that would be rabbinic law, since the apostoli were sent out by the patriarchs, who hardly were anything but rabbinic. When apostoli reappear on the Italian scene in the sixth century they were accompanied by rebbites, i.e., rabbis. So to what extent Hellenistic means Sadducean, at least in some respects, how long even remnants of Hellenism lingered on among Italian Jews for sacral, legal and cultural ends, and what variations if any were practised by them is sheer guesswork.34

34 If by the time of Justinian there were left in Italy any Hellenistic Jews who were Sadducees at least to a degree, Justinian’s prohibition of Oral Law should not have presented a 156 chapter 3

In conclusion, Jews in Italy enjoyed the status of citizens, were subject to Roman law, and to Jewish law in religious matters at least, and that included personal law until Justinian. Their position, including their relative freedom of jurisdiction deteriorated in the Christian empire, but that freedom was never totally abolished. What that entailed in the sphere of jurisdiction on the ground can only be guessed at. That refers in particular to the application and enforcement of the law, Jewish or Roman, to the Jews of Italy in Antiquity.

problem to them. But it is more than doubtful that by the middle of the sixth century Italian Jews were rejecting Oral Law or parts of it in line with Sadducean principles. Cf. Colorni, op. cit., pp. 13f.; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 1, pp. 8f; 2, pp. 123f. The literature on Jewish Law, like that on Roman Law, is vast. By 1931 some 4,500 bibliographical items were listed by Eisenstadt, Repertorium Bibliographicum. Since then the number has doubled and trebled. See Rakover, Bibliography of Jewish Law, passim. There are also several periodicals on Jewish law. Many scholars have dealt with the application of Jewish Law in the Roman Empire and in particular in Italy. See Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 93f.; Colorni, Legge ebraica, cit., passim; Hezser, Rabbinic Law, passim; Rabello, op. cit., pp. 731f.; Id., Situazione giuridica, cit., pp. 139f.; Id., Divorzio degli ebrei nell’impero romano, cit., pp. 11f. Members of upper classes in pagan Rome could divorce by mutual consent, or by the husband or spouse leaving the other. In Christian Rome the Church looked askance at divorce, but only gradually managed to enforce its opposition. By Jewish law, based on biblical rules, only the husband could divorce, but the act had to be reinforced by a legal document, the get. For the interference of the Christian Roman government in Jewish jurisdiction, see esp. the law of 398 and Novella Justiniani, 146 of 553. For a comparison of the two legal systems, see Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law, cit., passim. For the classifiers and codifiers of Jewish Law, see Alfassi, Sepher Halakhot; Maimonides, Sepher Ha-Miẓvoth; Jacob ben Aṣer, Arba’ah Turim; and Joseph Caro, Ṣulḥan ‘Arukh. chapter 4 The Socio-Economic Setting

The Economy of Italian Jewry under Roman Rule (1)

The social and economic scene of Italy underwent many upheavals during the centuries of the Jewish presence there. The political regime changed from a republic to a dictatorship, often called with many titles other than that, but always autocratic and absolutist. From a small and relatively tiny republic on the Italian mainland it became a world power, in fact the major world power in Western Europe, in contemporary terms, and incorporated into its Empire the entire Mediterranean littoral, large parts of the Middle East, the Balkans, Gaul, Britain and southern Germany. It was pagan until early in the fourth century; then it became Christian but no less dictatorial than before. That was followed by a division of the Empire into East and West, the transfer of the main seat of power to Constantinople, and the barbarian invasions which cul- minated in the total collapse of the western section of the Empire. Byzantium, the eastern section of the Empire, managed to regain control of part of the western Empire, particularly parts of Italy, but its rule there was limited to certain areas and often tenuous. Jews rarely participated in these political and military events, though the participation of the local Jews in the defense of Naples (536) against the Byzantine general Belisar belies this generalization with regard to the alleged total pacific attitude of the Jewish population.1 The circumstances of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and the explanations of these events have fascinated scholars for ages and the research into them is largely coloured by the views held by the authors involved. It was the bad fortune of the Jewish state that it lay in the path of the imperialist expansion of the Roman state and it was conquered and swallowed up by it after a series of wars that destroyed Jewish independence and speeded up the exodus of the inhabitants of Judaea into exile. What may or may not have become of the Jewish state if it had not fallen prey to Roman imperial appetite is, of course, idle speculation. From the days of Pompey on, if not before, the fate of at least half the Jewish people, in Judaea and in the Diaspora, is closely linked to the

1 See supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 56. Though an extensive literature has grown around the subject matter of this chapt., much of the relevant sources have been cited by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., passim and Krakauer, Rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Stellung der Juden, pp. 49f. See also, Applebaum, Social and Economic Status, pp. 701f.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004282360_�06 158 chapter 4 policies and governance of Rome and subsequently of Constantinople. That is particularly true of the Jews in Italy, who became immersed and absorbed into the fabric of the Roman political and legal system, its economy, and so forth, although they managed to survive as a distinct religious, ethnic, cultural and national entity.2 As we have seen, the date on which the first Jews arrived in Italy is uncertain. The identity of the first immigrants is unknown, nor has anything else tangible transpired about them, including their occupations, social standing, and so forth. By the time Pompey took prisoners in Judaea and sold them on the slave markets of Italy—and that too is a possibility rather than proven fact—the immigrants who preceded them in Rome and elsewhere in Italy must have been able financially to redeem them. When Philo of Alexandria came to Rome at the beginning of the first century CE he described the Jews there as former prisoners of war, most of whom had settled in Trastevere:

How then did he [Augustus] look upon the great division of Rome which is on the other side of the river Tiber, which he was well aware of being occupied and inhabited by the Jews? And they were mostly Roman citizens, having been emancipated; for, having been brought as captives into Italy, they were manumitted by those who had bought them for slaves, without ever having been compelled to alter any of their hereditary or national observances.

Evidently the manumitters were Roman Jews and could afford the expenditure inherent in their act.3 However, not all prisoners brought to Rome as slaves were emancipated. There are at least two mentions of Jewish slaves in the first century CE. One was a slave of Livia Drusilla (Julia Augusta after her husband’s death), consort of Augustus. The other was mentioned by the poet Martial. It is impossible to say whether these were exceptions to the rule or not. It has been suggested that one or more Roman synagogues were founded in the days of Augustus and Agrippa by former slaves of the latter. But they would have been freedmen.

2 One more bone of contention is the identity of the Jews in the Diaspora before and after 70. That is the case regarding both self-perception and their legal and political position in the Roman state. After the victory of Christianity this problem appears to have undergone another twist. 3 Philo, Legacy, 23–24. See the references supra, chapt. 1, note 6, and Stern, Jewish Diaspora, cit., p. 163. Leon, Rome, cit., p. 4 is stating the obvious, namely that not all Roman Jews in Philo’s time were former prisoners of war. The Socio-Economic Setting 159

It has been estimated that the number of slaves and freedmen was very considerable in Rome at this time. The government adopted restrictive policies in their regard. On manumission they became libertini and their offspring were subjected to limitations of their civil status. At the same time difficulties were placed on the very act of manumission.4 If credence is to be given to Philo’s statement and if the same process took place after the war in Judaea in 70 CE then most Roman Jews were first slaves, then freedmen and only subsequently, particularly after the law of Caracalla, full-fledged Roman citizens without reference to their former servile status. That in the days of Tiberius most Roman Jews were former slaves is seemingly borne out by Tacitus. Therefore it may be assumed with a high degree of probability that most Italian Jews were of the lower classes if not the lowest. Among the few exceptions were Josephus and other favourites who enjoyed special privileges and amenities. As we have seen, most of Trastevere was a district of the poor and the majority of Roman Jews lived there. The proximity of Trastevere to the Roman docks and such Jewish settlements as coastal Ostia and Porto, the harbour towns of Rome, which sent the cargoes landed there up the river Tiber to the docks in Rome, makes it likely that Jews worked as stevedores and other dock workers, as well as in other menial occupations in the ports, though no details of such employment have been forthcoming. The spread of Jews to quarters other than Trastevere shows that their economic and social standing improved. That this was the case is shown by the elaborate and expensive graves of some of them. Also outside Rome some Jews seem to have made good, climbed the social ladder and became decurions in some places, particularly in the south of the country. To qualify they had to be well-off. Before that eventually came about, some Roman literary sources describe the Jews as paupers and beggars, soothsayers and diviners. What part of these descriptions are the result of the onlookers’ prejudices and what a true portrayal of facts on the ground can only be guessed at. The Christian Empire gradually stripped the Jews of

4 JA, 17.5.7; JBJ, 1.644. However, Acme, the slave, mentioned by Josephus, may have been a servant and not a slave. Leon, op. cit., p. 237. Martial, Epigrammatica 7.35.2, see Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 1, p. 525. Cf. Roth, Jews of Italy, cit., pp. 1f. on the synagogues and the early history of the Jews in Italy. Merrill, Expulsion of Jews from Rome under Tiberius, cit., pp. 366f. on slaves and freedmen. On Jews and slavery in Antiquity, see Hezser, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, passim; Verlinden, L’Esclavage dans l’Europe medieval, cit., passim. 160 chapter 4 their eligibility to “honours”, but that does not seem to have affected the Jews of Italy, particularly those in the south of the country.5 Martial, the poet, who lived in the second half of the first century, was not a philo-Semite. So he had this to say on Jewish beggars:

You ask why I so often go to my small domain at arid Momentum . . . the fanatic rabble of Bellona cease from its clamour, nor the gabbling sailor with his piece of wreck hung over his shoulder; nor the Jew boy, brought up to begging by his mother. . . .

Also his fellow poet, his contemporary Juvenal, went on in the same vein:

No sooner has that fellow departed than a palsied Jewess, leaving her basket and her truss of hay, comes begging to her secret ear. She is an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem, a high priestess of the tree, a trusted go-between of highest heaven. She, too, fills her palm, but more sparingly, for a Jew will tell you dreams of any kind you please for the minutest of coins.

They were followed by Artemidorus, himself a diviner, who lived in the second half of the second century CE. He penned this graphic account:

. . . A synagogue and beggars and all people who ask for gifts and such as arouse pity, and mendicants, foretell grief and anxiety and heartache to

5 See supra, chapt. 2. For Tacitus’ assertion, see his Annales, 2.85.4. For the graves of Roman Jews, see below and Leon, Rome, passim; Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 1, passim, and esp. pp. 235f. Jews as decurions appear in Roman legislation as a long established fact. See CTh, 16.8.3. Ulpian, De Officio Proconsulis, 3, in Digesta, 50, 2.3.3 de Decurionibus, cites Septimius Severus and Caracalla as having permitted Jews to be nominated to honores, and exempted them from those which might be incompatible with their faith. That released them from the duty to take a pagan oath. See supra, chapt. 3, note 4. Later the membership in the curia became rather a financial burden (if not worse) than a civic honour. When a Jew first served in a curia in Italy in actual fact cannot be ascertained. For Christian restrictions, see supra, chapt. 3; and on the gradual loss of social position under Christianity Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae (variously and wrongly attributed to St. Augustine or Potamius, bishop of Naples), as well as Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 246f. The latter lists a number of functions and positions in the pagan Empire, which he thought the Jews lost due to Christian legislation. On the Altercatio, see Schreckenberg, op. cit., p. 354. On the social classes in the Roman Empire, see (among others) Gagé, Les classes sociales dans l’empire romain, passim; Giardina, Società romana e impero tardoantico, passim. The Socio-Economic Setting 161

both men and women. For on the one hand, no one departs for a synagogue without a care, and on the other, beggars who are very odious looking and without resources and have nothing wholesome about them are an obstacle to every plan.6

Naturally, not all Italian Jews were beggars and/or soothsayers. There is no knowing if any, and if so how many attained the social status of honestiores, the upper class, as against the humiliores, the lower class, which probably were the majority. Another generalization, unsupported by relevant documentation, is that early Jewish settlers were traders and businessmen. While this is possible, again there exists no documentary evidence to support this statement. Such evidence is forthcoming at the end of the period under review, in the sixth century, when Procopius reported that the Jews of Naples were largely possessores negotiatores. On the other hand, at an earlier age, it is likely that they were among the tanners who plied their smelly trade in Trastevere. Martial vividly described their odoriferous activities. Nero, followed by Vespasian, even imposed a tax on urine used by tanners. In fact, many a theory unsupported by dependable evidence about Jewish occupations has surfaced over the years. A Midraṣ reports that R. Abba b. Zabina or Zamina, a Palestinian amora of the fourth generation, when in Rome, is said to have worked there as a tailor. Another Jewish tailor is also mentioned there a little later. That Roman Jews were poor is supported by another rabbinic source. Rabbi Joṣua b. Levi, a Palestinian amora at the beginning of the third century, on a visit to Rome, criticized the treatment of the Jewish poor in Rome.7

6 Martial, Epigrammatica, 12.57; Juvenal, Saturae, 6.542; Artemidorus, Onirocritica, 4.53; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, pp. 329f. See also Cleomedes, who lived in the first or second century, De Motu Circulari, 2.1.91. On Jewish poor and beggars in Rome, see Lewy, op. cit., pp. 197f.; Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 29f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 62. 7 See Smallwood, Tiberius, cit., p. 322. There was also another, a social division: nobiles, liberti and plebs ingenua. See Milano, Storia degli ebrei in Itala, cit., pp. 24f., who posits that the Roman social system did not favour the transfer from one class to another, particularly upwards. Here again we are in the dark as regards numbers and the like, though in all likelihood few if any Jews attained the status of nobiles, at least as far as we know. The trader theory was rejected by Friedländer, Sittengeschichte, 3, p. 571; Sevenster, Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism, cit., pp. 57f. But see Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, pp. 3f. On p. 61 they state: “Die Reicheren unter ihnen trieben Geldgeschäfte”. As proof they quote Hippolytus, Philosophumena=Refutatio Omnium Haeresium, 9.7. That is manifestly false. Hippolytus tells the story of Callistus (Calixt), a Christian, who ran a bank, went bankrupt, and was pursued by his creditors. See supra chapt. 1, note 42. See also Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, passim (contra Vogelstein- Rieger, op. cit., p. 61). Callistus (Calixt) is said to have founded a Christian sect and to have 162 chapter 4

While some Roman literary references to Jews were malicious, there existed also a considerable measure of ignorance and misunderstanding on the part of pagan contemporaries of the Jews, which expressed itself among other things in wrong assessments of Jewish precepts and customs. One of these was the Jewish day of rest, the Sabbath. The pagan Romans, who worked round the clock, and to whom resting on the seventh day was unthinkable, accused the Jews of laziness. One of them was Seneca, quoted by St. Augustine, and another was Juvenal. With the advent of Christianity Sunday became the weekly day of rest and the accusation lost its point.8 One might have thought that the epitaphs found in Rome and elsewhere in Italy contained substantial information on the occupations of the Jews buried in the cemeteries in which they were found. That, regrettably, is not the case. Not only do the epitaphs deal with no more than a fraction of Italian Jews in Antiquity, but the occupational references contained in them are few and far between. That is the case universally and everywhere. Thus medicine and physicians, said to have been a preferred profession of Jews, is mentioned only twice: once in Rome on the sarcophagus of Aulus Vedius Collega, “chief” doctor (ἀρχίατρος) in the third-fourth century, found in the catacomb of Vigna Randanini; the other is of Faustinus, also a “chief” doctor in the fifth century, in the catacomb of Venosa. Both inscriptions were written in Greek, the Venusian one containing two words in Hebrew. Also other references to Jews and medicine in Italy are rare. Cornelius Celsus (if that was his name), who is said to have lived in Rome at the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE, quotes recipes of a Jewish doctor, named Judah:

become bishop of Rome at the beginning of the third century. See Baer, Israel, the Christian Church, cit., p. 6, n. 21; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., p. 173. Hippolytus is controversial. He is called by some the first schismatic pope (i.e., anti-pope). His and Tertullian’s enmity to Callistus was profound, and hence everything said about Callistus is to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, all three are venerated as saints. On Martial’s description, see supra chapt. 2, note 2. For R. Joṣu’a’s statement, see Genesis Rabba, 33; Tanḥuma, Emor, 8; Leviticus Rabba, 27; Pesiqta de Rav Cahana, 9. The rabbis looked down on tanners. See B. Qidduṣin, 82a. For the Jews of Naples, see Procopius, History of the Wars 5.8.41; Savino, Ebrei a Napoli, cit., p. 302. On R. Abba, a tailor in Rome, see J. Kilaim, 9.4; J. Ṣevi’ith, 4.2; J. Sanhedrin, 3.5. Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 171, made him a cobbler and a native of Rome. On the other Jewish tailor, see Genesis Rabba, 11; See also Berliner, Rom, cit., 1, p. 98; Levi, Ebrei a Roma, cit., p. 85; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., pp. 120f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, p. 437. 8 Seneca, De Superstitione, in Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 6, 11; Juvenal, Saturae, 14.115. See Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 431f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 82. The Socio-Economic Setting 163

. . . among those suitable for broken heads, some include the one which is ascribed to Iudaeus. It is composed of salt 16 grms, red copper scales and calcined copper, 48 grms each, ammoniacum for fumigation, frankin- sence soot and dried resin, 64 grms each, colophon resin, wax, and prepared calf’s suet, 80 grms each, vinegar 65 c. cm, less than 40 c. cm of oil.

And:

The compound of Iudaeus contains lime two parts; the reddest soda one part, mixed with the urine of a young boy to the consistency of strigil scrapings. But the place on which it is smeared should from time to time be moistened.

Also R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ, a tanna who settled in Rome in or around the year 100 CE, was a doctor, some of whose prescriptions have survived.9 Another profession that Jews are said to have practised in the Roman Empire in Antiquity was law. However, this is attested chiefly only by legislation. In 418 the emperors Theodosius II and Honorius addressed a law given in Ravenna, whereby Jews were allowed to practise as lawyers. Shortly afterwards Placidia, mother of Valentinian III, acting for her minor son, issued in Aquileia (425) a law aimed at repealing the legislation of the usurper Johannes, and (as we have seen) added to a law issued in 425 and directed to the West, which presumably included Italy, the exclusion of Jews from the practice of law. The legislation indicates that Jews did practise law in Italy, though little evidence to that effect on the ground has been forthcoming. One case is that of Caecilius of Calacte, described as rhetor. That has been interpreted to mean orator in court of law or advocate. Caecilius lived during the age of Augustus

9 Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 2, No. 341; Id., op. cit., 1, No. 76, and the copious references there. Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 254f., reports many a reference to Jewish doctors in Antiquity, but hardly one in Italy. See also there the references to “chief” doctors. He suggests that Novella 3 of Theodosius, which excluded Jews from public office, implicitly barred Jews from the position of “chief” doctor. The quotations are from Celsus, De Medicina, 5.19.11; 5.22.4. See Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 368f. Jerome’s reference to a taberna medicorum frequented by Jewish physicians does not state where it was situated. See PL, 25, col. 820. The (former) Jewish doctors mentioned by Damascius in the first half of the sixth century lived in the East. See below, chapt. 5, esp. note 48. On R. Mathia and his medical advice, see below, chapt. 8, esp. note 23. The epitaph reported by Noy, op. cit., 2, No. 502 is that of a “psalm singer”. Whether that means that this was the man’s profession, or that he sang psalms as part of the synagogal service is uncertain. And see Reynolds-Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias, cit., pp. 5f., who mention another individual with the same title. 164 chapter 4 and his Jewishness is disputable. The other is Symmachus, a Jewish advisor of Theodoric, the Ostrogoth and an Arian. Whether these are exceptions or sparse remnants of a wider phenomenon is debatable. In theory, during the Christian Empire Jews were excluded from the professions and the civil service. The only functions allowed to them were those of low ranking officials (cohortalini and apparitori). Christian legislation slowly excluded Jews from the liberal professions. But whether this legislation meant that they concentrated on trade is not borne out by documentary evidence.10

The Economy of Italian Jewry under Roman Rule (2)

It may be assumed with a high degree of certainty that the Jews of Italy participated in the economic reshuffle and changes that affected Italy from the fourth century on. Manufacture moved to the provinces and the trade in victuals, particularly grain, became monopolized by the Roman State. This is thought to have been brought about largely by the financial crisis of the state, accompanied by inflation (= debasement of currency), causing the retrenchment of the Roman Empire militarily and politically, and resulting, among others, in the imposition of the annona tax by Septimius Severus, succeeded by the iugatio- capitatio tax under Diocletian, who combined the two taxes. The annona, paid in kind, was calculated as the cost of maintaining a single soldier for a year, whereas the caput meant a man and his family, as well as his land and produce. He also inaugurated a comprehensive socio-economic reform of the Roman Empire, which went a long way toward chaining the population to their occupation: peasants to land, artisans to their profession, and so forth. It has been suggested that these taxes were instrumental in creating a state monopoly in most areas of production and trade and to have caused them to be transferred to the provinces, so that some have concluded that this left the trade in luxury articles the only free one, and furthermore, that this trade was predominantly Jewish. That, however, has been shown to be far-fetched and anachronistic.11 The paucity of direct references to Italian Jews in the economy makes the description and analysis of the function of the Jews in Italy in Antiquity in that

10 See supra, chapt. 3, esp. notes 20, 21. On Caecilius, see below and on Symmachus, supra, chapt. 1, note 56. See Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 313f. 11 Cracco Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 187f. and the extensive literature cited there; Krakauer, op. cit., pp. 49f.; Rostovtzeff, Economic and Social History, passim; CEGRW, passim. Toch, Economic History of European Jews, passim. On the Syrian merchants equated with Jews and on the refutation of this fallacy, see Cracco Ruggini, l.c. The Socio-Economic Setting 165 area of human activity as hazy as those of many other aspects of Italian Jewish history. The involvement of Italian Jews in maritime trade and shipping is a case in point, though the presence of Jews in harbour towns makes it highly probable. However, in the first century CE Josephus belittles Jewish participation in maritime activities, though mainly in Judaea. A tanna in Tyre too denigrated sailors. Much later a Jewish ship-owner in Sicily is mentioned around 598. He and other Palermitan Jews probably engaged in maritime trade before that. So we learn from a law issued in 390 by the Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius, and sent to Alexander, the prefect of Egypt, which exempted the Jewish and Samaritan communities of Alexandria from func- tionem naviculariam. The emperors decreed that the tax should be imposed on affluent members of the communities. It was valid in the whole Empire, wherever applicable, and reflected not only conditions in Egypt. The tax was intended to defray the cost of transportation to Rome and Constantinople of the requirements of the Roman state. More precise evidence is lacking.12 An entertaining story is related by Synesius of Cyrene, who lived at the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, and became bishop in Cyrenaica towards the end of his life. To judge by his outburst he was no Jew- lover. On his return from Constantinople to his native North Africa he travelled by sea, and this is what befell him:

Hear my story then, that you may have no further leisure for your mock- ing wit, and I will tell you first of all how our crew was made up. Our skipper was fain of death owing to his bankrupt condition; then besides him we had twelve sailors, thirteen in all! More than half of them, including the skipper, were Jews—a graceless race and fully convinced of the piety of sending to Hades as many Greeks as possible. The remainder were a collection of peasants who even as late as last year had never gripped an oar . . . Well, we were perforce satisfied with his explanation so long as daylight lasted and dangers were not imminent, but these failed not to return with the approach of night, for as the hours passed, the seas

12 JCA, 1.12, but cf. JBJ, 3.9.1; 3.10.1.9; M. Qidduṣin, 4.14. In 598 Nostamnus, a Jew in Palermo, sold his ship to settle a debt. See my Apostolic See, cit., p. 17, No. 21. The law of 390 is CTh, 13.5.18; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 264f.; Linder, op. cit., pp. 182f.; Stern, op. cit., 3, p. 49. See also Grünwald, Juden als Rheder und Seefahrer; Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, cit., 2, pp. 338f.; Sperber, Nautica Talmudica; Id., Nautica in Talmudic Palestine, pp. 29f. He cites Josephus and the rabbinic utterance playing down Jewish involvement in seafaring, but suggests that they may not have portrayed reality, at least not in the Diaspora. On navicularia in Egypt and a Jewish guild, see Tcherikower, Jews in Egypt, cit., pp. 64f. 166 chapter 4

increased continually in volume. Now it so happened that this was the day on which the Jews make what they term the ‘Preparation’, and they reckon the night, together with the day following this, as a time during which it is not lawful to work with one’s hands. They keep this day holy and apart from the others, and they pass it in rest from labour of all kinds. Our skipper accordingly let go the rudder from his hands the moment he guessed that the sun’s rays had left the earth and throwing himself prostrate . . . I have every need of my store of flaming language, so that in recounting such immense dangers I may not fall into the trivial. To people who are at sea in such a crisis, life may be said to hang by a thread only, for if our skipper proved at such a moment to be an orthodox observer of the Mosaic law, what was life worth in the future? Indeed, we soon understood why he had abandoned the helm, for when we begged him to do his best to save the ship, he stolidly continued reading his roll. Despairing of persuasion, we finally attempted force, and one staunch soldier—for many Arabs of the cavalry were of our company—one staunch soldier, I say, drew his sword and threatened to behead the fellow on the spot if he did not resume control of the vessel. But the Maccabean in very deed was determined to persist in his observances. However, in the middle of the night he voluntarily returned to the helm. ‘For now,’ he said, ‘We are clearly in danger of death and the law commands . . .’.

So here we have a vivid report of an eye-witness who recorded the strict observance of Jewish law by a captain of a boat, most of its sailors also being Jews. It is likely that similar conditions prevailed elsewhere in the Roman Empire, including Italy, by there is no tangible evidence available to support this assumption.13 The same applies to Jews and their participation in Italian agriculture, before, during and after that branch of the economy flourished and declined on the Italian mainland. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea at the beginning of the fourth century, reports that the Emperor Domitian summoned before him two descendants of King David to find out whether they plotted against him, being relatives of Jesus. They turned out to be simple peasants. Admittedly Eusebius and his reliability as an historian has been sharply criticized by succeeding generations, so his following quote of Hegesippus is to be evaluated in this context:

13 Synesius, Epistolae, 4; Casson, Ships and Seamenship, pp. 268f.; Juster, l.c.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 222f.; Parker, Ancient Shipwrecks in the Mediterranean, passim; Stern, op. cit., 3, pp. 48f. The Socio-Economic Setting 167

But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude, said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh, on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labour. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labour.

Eusebius does not say whether Hegesippus had Palestinian Jews in mind, for whom there exists plenty of evidence of having been engaged in agriculture in the first century CE, or Jews of another Mediterranean country, including Italy.14 It has also been suggested that at least some of the Jewish decurions mentioned in Roman legislation were linked in one form or another to agriculture, and that this in turn involved the colonate. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the spread of Christianity must have discouraged new Jewish entries into farming. According to this view urban Jewry could better resist persecution, “whereas scattered settlements were much more exposed”. Be that as it may, all this is mere conjecture. There is a rare notice going back to Late Antiquity, which shows a Jew in an unexpected locality tending a park and raising fish. Rutilius Namatianus, a pagan opponent of Christianity and Judaism, and a

14 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 5.19f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, pp. 26f. Hegesippus, who lived in the second century and is said to have visited also Rome, wrote Memoranda now lost and known only from quotations in the Historia of Eusebius. He is not to be confused with the Hegesippus made use of by the anonymous author of Sefer Yosifon. On Jews in agriculture in Antiquity, see Juster, op. cit., pp. 294f. On Italy, see p. 296. On wheat, see Evans, Wheat Production, pp. 428f. 168 chapter 4 poet, in his elegiac poem De reditu suo, described (416/7) his encounter with an irascible Jewish park-keeper in Falesia, on the Italian mainland opposite Elba. Whether the Jew was the lessee of the park or farm or something else does not transpire. However, as we have seen, the Jews of Naples were described by Procopius as landowners. Again, we know nothing of the involvement of Neapolitan Jews in agriculture then or before, since the land owned by the possessores was not necessarily agricultural and could have been other real estate. As already pointed out, the situation in the times of Gregory the Great immediately following upon the close of Late Antiquity may reflect on the situation before his days. That was the case in Sicily and Luni in 594, shortly after the end of Late Antiquity, when Pope Gregory allowed the Jews of Luni to employ Christian slaves on their land, provided they did so as colons. In the same year he offered the Jews in Sicily a reduction on their land taxes if they were willing to accept baptism.15 Jews in the Empire were usually exempted from service in the Roman army, since it conflicted with the practice of Judaism. Nevertheless in the East Jews often served in the army, the Roman one or one allied with Rome. In Italy some Jewish soldiers are mentioned here and there, though rarely. The dispatch of thousands of Jews to Sardinia by Tiberius in 19 CE, even if carried out, can hardly be described as regular military service. With the advent of Christianity the Roman government began to exclude Jews from the army and all that the service entailed, such as honours, and so forth. In 404 that exclusion was worded

15 CTh, 12.1.99, 12.1.158, 16.8.3, 16.8 24, and see supra preced. chapt. Cracco Ruggini, Ebrei e orientali, cit., pp. 231f. posits that an analysis of surviving documents shows that Jews “appaiono piuttosto in prevalenza distribuiti fra i grandi e medi proprietari agricoli, i coltivatori, ecc. . . .”, and quotes in support imperial legislation dealing with Jewish decurions. Even if membership in the curia presupposes an elevated financial and social position, it does not necessarily follow that riches were derived particularly from the land. Very likely some Italian Jews were farmers, but even that is not supported by the records. That apparently is the view of Baron, op. cit., 3, pp. 25f. As for the colonate in the Roman Empire, scholars have poured out considerable ink over the problem, and identical documents have served to underpin conflicting views. If the Jews of Italy in Antiquity were involved in the colonate, this has not emerged from the documentation. On the alleged influence of the spread of Christianity, see Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, p. 244. On Namatianus and Falesia, see supra chapt. 2, and the references there. On the quotation from Procopius, see supra in this chapt. That possessores could be owners of houses rather than farms, see Acts, 4.34. In the sixth century, possessores were a class alongside the curiales, or even synonymous with curiales. See Cassiodor, Epistolae, passim. On Luni and Sicily, see my Apostolic See, cit., Nos. 12, 14. The former Roman Luni is now a suburb of Ortonovo in the province of La Spezia. The Socio-Economic Setting 169 in general terms and in 418 the law stated in so many words that Jews had their military belts released without much ado, and forewent the protection of past merits. Some have expressed doubts as to the implementation of these laws on the ground, especially as regards the enrolment of Jews in defense of the towns they lived in. A very rare reference to Jewish soldiers in Italy is the inscription on a sarcophagus in Concordia of the wife (or daughter) of a Jewish soldier from Emesa (Ḥoms), a Syrian Jew stationed in northern Italy.16 The catacombs in Rome and elsewhere in Italy, going back to the pagan period and continuing into the Christian, supply us with relatively little information on the occupations of the Jews buried there. Only just over a dozen or so out of the 700 or 800 inscriptions hitherto uncovered in these cemeteries contain references to the professions of the deceased. These meagre details reveal that the dead included two chief doctors. One was Aulus Vedius Collega, in Rome, and the other was Faustinus son of Isa, a gerusiarch in Venosa whose Greek epitaph is adorned with the Jewish symbols of a ram’s horn, a candelabrum and a palm-branch. Another was the epitaph of Alexander butularus, a sausage maker in Rome. The reading of the word signifying Alexander’s occupation has engendered much controversy and hence also its meaning. The Venusian inscriptions mention a relatively large number of socially elevated individuals. One epitaph is that of Faustina, a 14-year-old girl, whose grandparents were Vitus and Asellus, maiures civitatis, interpreted as leaders of the town. Then there was the grave of Augusta, the wife of Bonus vir laudabilis, who died in 521. The inscription is Latin and several words are in Hebrew, evidently at the beginning of the period in which Greek had given way to Latin and Latin began to cede its place to Hebrew as the language of the epitaphs. The title of Bonus was honorific and was evidence of his social standing. Another leader of the town of Venosa was Marcellus, described as

16 On the exemption, see supra, chapt. 2. And see Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 265f., who cites an extensive number of documents showing Jews serving in the army also in the Diaspora in Antiquity. Thus, whether Jews fought on the Sabbath, and if so under what circumstances, has been a topic of controversy by the Jews themselves and by those reporting on the battles Jews fought. Egyptian Jews in particular were soldiers. The soldier Faustinus mentioned in an epitaph was not Jewish. The text was published by Müller, Le catacombe degli ebrei, p. 55. The identification of the catacomb as Jewish is tenuous. See also Leon, op. cit., pp. 52f., esp. note 3. As to the Christian period, it appears that little substance is to be attributed to the reading of a text written by Sulpicius Severus, a Father of the Church at the beginning of the fifth century, allegedly complaining of the presence of Jews in the ranks of the Roman army. But other contemporary Christian authors also refer to the exclusion. Juster, op. cit., pp. 277f., note 4. On the laws of 404 and 418, see supra, prec. chapt. 170 chapter 4

πατὴρ πατέρων καὶ πάτρων τῆς πόλεως, or in other words a pater of Venosa. Also Auxanius, another Venusian buried there in the fourth-fifth century alongside his wife, held the same social position.17 A few more inscriptions allow us no more than tantalizing glimpses into the professions of Italian Jews. One is that of Publius Catilius Hermias, a trader, buried in the catacomb of Vigna Randanini in Rome, who, it has been suggested, came from Asia Minor. Another is that of Lucius Aiacius Dama, a freedman and customs employee in Aquileia in the first century CE. Then there is the epitaph of Marcus Aurelius Pylades, from Scythopolis (Bet Ṣe’an) described as the foremost pantomime of his time, buried in Ostia in the middle of the third century, formerly a decurion of Ascalon and Damascus. Finally, in the catacomb of Vigna Randanini there was found the sarcophage of Eudoxius, a painter, an unusual occupation for a Jew. Other Jewish actors are also mentioned in contemporary records. In the first century CE, Josephus mentions Alitirus, a comic actor, a favourite of Nero, who introduced him to Poppaea, the empress. As a result he succeeded in his mission to Rome, the purpose of which had been to free some priests. His contemporary Martial, ridicules a Jewish comic actor, one Menophilus:

Menophilus’ person a sheath covers so enormous that it alone would be sufficient for the whole tribe of comic actors. This fellow I had imagined [for we often bathe together] was solicitous to spare his voice, Flaccus. But while he was exercising himself in the view of the people in the middle of the exercise-ground the sheath unluckily fell off: lo, he was circumcised.

17 On the doctors, see supra, note 9. For the sausage-maker, see Noy, op. cit., 2, No. 343. Other readings are bucularus and the like, and interpretations are butchers, and so forth. See Weingarten, Ancient Jewish Sausages (offprint); Williams, Alexander ‘bubularus de macello’, pp. 122f. On Faustina’s grave, see Noy, op. cit., 1, No. 86. Other interpretations of the title include: leaders of the Jewish community. For the remainder, see Noy, l.c., Nos. 107, 114–116. Patron of the town was an honorific title conferred in consideration of services rendered, say as a decurion. At this time, often referred to as Late Antiquity, vir laudabilis belonged to the same category. Marcellus may not have been Jewish but a Mithraist. Then there is the Roman synagogue of the Calcaresians, identified by some as kiln workers. However, it is more than doubtful that there were that many Jewish kiln workers in Rome to justify the creation of a separate community by them. It is possible, though, that a small group of kiln workers founded the synagogue, and later were joined by others not of the same profession. Therefore other interpretations for the term were offered, none really acceptable. On the synagogue, see supra, chapt. 2. The Socio-Economic Setting 171

The great poet is not kinder to another Jewish acquaintance, a poet. He had this to say about him:

Your overflowing malice and your detraction everywhere of my books I pardon: circumcised poet, you are wise. This too I disregard that when you carp at my poems you plunder them, so too circumcised poet you are wise. What tortures me is this, that you circumcised poet, although born in the very midst of Solyma, outrage my boy. There! You deny it and swear to me by the Thunderer’s temple. I don’t believe you: swear circumcised one by Anchialus.

Others have been identified as Jewish poets, actors and the like, often on flimsy evidence. Even Horace himself has been thought by some to have been Jewish.18 Some of the officers in the Jewish communities in Italy were professionals, and many of them were paid. These probably included rabbis, teachers, scribes, sacrists and sundry other employees. There are a few random references to Jews engaged in one of the professions, but they do not amount to much. There was the couple Aquila and Priscilla, with whom the apostle Paul stayed in Corinth. They had been among those exiled from Italy by Emperor Claudius in or around 41 CE. Aquila’s profession (like that of the apostle) was tent making. It has also been suggested that some of the many bits and pieces of glass found in the Jewish catacombs in Rome were manufactured by Jews as wine glasses, or that the gold ornaments painted on the glass were the handiwork of Jewish artists. This is plausible but not proven. The Jewish glass industry flourished in Judaea and probably crossed the Mediterranean into Italy, or at least its products did. Now and then we obtain a glimpse as it were of other professions practised by Jews. One such shimmer (no more) is afforded by

18 Noy, op. cit., 1, Nos. 7, 15; Id., op. cit., 2, Nos. 277, 360. The Jewishness of the actor is not certain. See JV, 3.16f. on Alitirus; and Smallwood, Poppaea Sabina, cit., pp. 329f; Williams, Jewish Tendencies, cit., pp. 97f. See Martial, Epigrammatica, 7.82 on Menophilus; and Berliner, Rom, cit., 1, p. 98 (who has singer); Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 233f.; Linder, Roman Imperial Legislation, cit., p. 101; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 1, p. 526; Vogelstein- Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 21. And on the poet, see there 11.94; Hidal, The Jews as the Roman Authors Saw Them, pp. 141f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 527f., 2, p. 40; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 64. The identity of Anchialus is controversial. And see below, next chapt. on Roman views of Jews and Judaism. Faustina, who was buried in Rome, was not an actress. See, Noy, op. cit., 2, No. 535. On Aristias, see Horace, Saturae, 1.9.60 and below. Leon, op. cit., pp. 12f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 324f. 172 chapter 4

Ambrose of Milan, but it may not have been more than an anti-Jewish observation. According to the saint, Jewish publicans mixed wine with water.19 Finally there is the fable about the punishment meted out to Titus for having destroyed the Temple. Naturally, the story is a phantasy and the product of the fertile imagination of Aggada, but the Jewish smith in Rome may have been taken from real life:

When he (Titus) landed a gnat came, entered his nose, and picked at his brain for seven years. One day as he was passing a blacksmith’s it heard the noise of the hammer and stopped. He said; ‘I see there is a remedy’. So every day they brought a blacksmith who hammered before him. If he was a non-Jew they gave him four zuz, if he was a Jew they said, it is enough that you see the suffering of your enemy. This went on for thirty days, but then the creature got used to it. It has been taught that R. Pinḥas b. ‘Aruba said: ‘I was in company with the notables of Rome, and when he died they split open his skull and found there something like a sparrow two sela in weight . . .’.20

Taxes and Imposts

Taxation in the Roman Empire has been described as relatively high and as embracing everything available, and if it were possible the very air. There was a poll tax, a land tax, a tax on each and every item and product, including even urine, as we have seen, export and import duties, in short innumerable imposts, called by a variety of names, such as annona (arnunia in rabbinic sources), and so forth. These revenues, which appear to have been enormous, were spent unsparingly by ambitious emperors and their underlings. First, the conquests

19 See below on the Jewish community, and above, chapt. 1 on Aquila and his wife. See Acts, 18.3. It does not transpire whether Aquila had been a tent maker in Italy, but it is likely. On glass, see Ba”rag, A Jewish Glass Medallion from Rome, pp. 74f.; Juster, op. cit., 2, p. 308; Leon, op. cit., pp. 218f.; Id., Sulphur for Broken Glass, pp. 233f.; Kurinsky, The Jews of Aquileia, cit., passim; Neuburg, Glass in Antiquity, passim; Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 81f.; St. Clair, God’s House of Peace in Paradise, pp. 6f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 61. On the remark of Ambrose, see his De Fide ad Gratianum Augustum, 16.3.10: “. . . velut Iudaici caupones miscant aqua cum vino . . .”. Whether he had in mind a “real” vintner, or a “hated Jew” does not emerge from the text. (A similar statement was made by Athanasius of Alexandria, in his Third Oration against the Arians, 3.35. Ambrose probably copied the statement from him). 20 B. Gittin, 56b; Berliner, op. cit., 1, p. 98; Cappelletti, Jewish Community of Rome, cit., p. 134. Pinḥas b. ‘Aruba was a tanna, mentioned only in the Tosefta. The Socio-Economic Setting 173 and the territorial expansion milked dry the homeland followed by the provinces, and when the exhausted economy inhibited further offensive wars, the needs of defending the borders of the far-flung Empire against all comers were instrumental in bringing down the fisc, public and private finances and all branches of the economy. Significantly, the decurionate which had been a highly coveted civic honour became a financial burden as membership and the duties it entailed had to be enforced by law. These duties included first and foremost the personal responsibility of the decurion for the collection of taxes. In the end the economy collapsed and with it the Empire, at least in the West. Inflation, shrinking production and all the other evils of recession befell Italy, further aggravated by war, epidemic and famine—or as some would have it: the other way round. All that in turn greatly reduced the population, which shrank by more than half at the end of the period under review and further reduced taxable income. By the end of that period the population of Italy had contracted to early mediaeval figures and in many respects so as if the Roman Empire had never been. It is a fairly safe assumption that the Jews of Italy suffered with the rest of the population, their numbers were also cut in half or less, and though we know little of their doings and occupations, their financial and economic situation apparently deteriorated. The manifold taxes imposed on Roman citizens in Italy encompassed also the Jews, particularly after Caracalla had granted everybody Roman citizenship. Indeed, the emperor has been accused of granting this privilege to all and sundry not so much as to bestow a favour on the population, but rather in order to increase tax revenues. Be that as it may, from the beginning of the third century the Jews of Italy shared in the tax burden of the rest of Roman citizenry, not that before then they had gone scot-free.21

21 On the economy of the Roman Empire, see CEGRW and CMH. The literature on the economy of the Roman Empire including taxes and taxation is vast and it would be futile to list it here. Taxing the air is a saying attributed to Pescennius Niger, the short lived usurper of the imperial throne, defeated by Septimius Severus (194), on a visit to Judaea. See Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Pescennius Niger, 7.5.8. However, conditions in Judaea cannot serve as a yardstick for those obtaining in Italy. For a partial listing of these taxes, see Schäfer, History of the Jews in the Greco Roman World, cit., p. 171. Taxes in Palestine, but also elsewhere, included: tributum soli—on land; tributum capitis—poll tax; customs duties and the tax on state-owned land and from the second century on the annona militaris. See also Bartlett, How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome, pp. 287f., who attributes the fall of the western Empire to economic rather than political and military causes; and Hopkins, Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire, pp. 101f., who presents some interesting new approaches, though the author freely admits that his “case is unproven”. The paper deals with some 600 years, from 200 BCE to 400 CE. 174 chapter 4

Jews paid additional taxes: first and foremost the fiscus Judaicus. Whether it was a poll tax or not is not unanimously agreed, but it appears that it was. It was a tax imposed on all Jews, including proselytes, though this too is in dispute. Most interpreters make the tax a continuation of the half-ṣeqel contribution by Jews for the upkeep of the Temple, going back to biblical times (Exodus, 30.13), and mentioned frequently in later sources. Whether the tax was collected continuously throughout the times of the first and second Temples we do not know. All Jews were liable to the tax, while the age limit apparently varied, as did the liability of women, who did not pay the Temple tax, but were subject to the fiscus. In the early days of the fiscus Judaicus the beneficiary of the income was the fund for the rebuilding of the gutted temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, at least until its reconstruction was completed. The income may also have served the rebuilding of the temple after another fire destroyed it again in 80 CE. Then the tax became a regular department in the Roman exchequer. On what date exactly it began to be collected turned out to be another bone of contention between scholars. Some link its collection to the religious identity of the Jews, and some to their ethnicity, or both. Only the amount appears not to be in dispute: two Attic drachmae (didrachmon = double drachma) or denarii. At times it was rigorously collected, while at other times collection was lax. Even the date of its abolition or falling into disuse is controversial, though it was Julian who formally abrogated it by destroying the tax lists. That the tax was no mere idle talk emerges from inscriptions found in Egypt shortly after the imposition of the tax, demonstrating its regular collection at least initially. However, there exists no proof that the tax was collected uniformly and regularly throughout the Roman Empire. This applies also to Italy. The tax added to the burden imposed on the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, including Jews, consisting of poll and property taxes, forced labour, and an assortment of other imposts. On top of all that there was the volun- ,The Jews .(מגבת חכמים or מס הכלילא) tary Jewish tax, the aurum coronarium on their part, like everybody else, tried to dodge taxes, while the authorities attempted to enforce collection. The tax they paid until 70 CE was a special tax for the upkeep of the Temple, largely voluntary, when it was converted by Vespasian to the use of the Roman treasury. The tax collected by the patriarchs until the cessation of that office, was also converted to the fisc’s use at the beginning of the fifth century. All that time Jews must have paid a tax for the upkeep of the community, including the synagogue, the communal staff, social and educational services, and so forth. Some taxes in the Roman Empire were paid in money, others in kind or by services, such as munera (liturgies). No Jewish tax lists from Italy have survived, so we cannot even guess at the The Socio-Economic Setting 175 size, distribution, collection and (possibly) evasion of taxes by Jews. The only details emerge from documentation in Egypt, but that has little if any bearing on conditions in Italy. Even oblique references to the “Jewish poll-tax” shed little light on the taxes paid by Jews.22

22 On the Fiscus Iudaicus, see supra, chapt. 1 and Dio Cassius, op. cit., 66.7.2; Suetonius, Domitianus, 12.2; Martial, Epigrammatica, 7.55.7; BJ, 7.6.6 (= 218). Avi-Yonah, In the Days of Rome and Byzantium, cit., pp. 80f.; Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 186f.; Bruce, Nerva and the Fiscus Iudaicus, cit., pp. 34f. (who proposed that from the days of Cicero the Temple tax was not allowed to be sent out of Italy) and that the fiscus was not imposed in the West, including Italy); Cappelletti, Rome, cit., pp. 100f.; Carlebach, Rabbinic References to Fiscus Judaicus, cit., pp. 57f.; Ginsburg, Fiscus Judaicus, cit., pp. 281f.; Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit., 2, pp. 282f. (and the early modern references up to the 20th century); Mommsen, Religionsfrevel, cit., pp. 118, 425; Stern, Greek and Roman Authors, cit., 1, p. 526; 2, pp. 371f., 375; Thompson, Domitian and the Jewish Tax, cit., pp. 329f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit. 1, p. 27. See above on the half-ṣeqel and Flaccus (Cicero). See also JA, 18.312; Matthew, 17.24. There is no substance to the assertion that Exodus, 30.13 is an interpolation. See also Neḥemia, 10.33 (third of a ṣeqel). On the aurum coronarium collected by the patriarch after 70, see J. Horayoth, 3.4; Genesis Rabba, 5.5; Deuteronomium Rabba, 5.8; B. Pesaḥim, 57b. On Aurum Coronarium collected by various institutions and local rulers, see Lacombrade, Notes sur l’aurum coronarium, pp. 53f. On the collection of the tax in Egypt, shortly after its introduction, see the ostraka and papyri cited in ICP, 2, passim, as well as Tcherikower’s notes there. It does not follow automatically that the rules and methods applied to the collection in Egypt were valid also elsewhere in the Roman Empire, such as in Italy. The only inscription found in Italy, which is thought to refer to the tax is that of a freedman T. Flavius Euschemon, described as procurator ad capitularia Judaeorum. It is possible, albeit not proven that the poll tax (capitularia) of which he acted as collector/revenue officer was the fiscus Judaicus. The provenance and date of the inscription do not transpire. See CIL, 6.8604 (= ILS, 1519) and Leon, op. cit., p. 31. Needless to say, even this tiny scrap of information has engendered controversy among scholars. See a listing of references in Cappelletti, op. cit., pp. 119f. No tax list of the fiscus for Italy has survived. While the Temple tax was collected by the communities, based no doubt on some sort of members’ lists (M. Ṣeqalim, 1.1f.; JA, 18.9.1 [= 312]), no information is available on this aspect from the time when the tax was transformed into the fiscus. The Egyptian assessments have no equals elsewhere. The former system may have remained in force, the procurator may have taken over, or the two may have cooperated. See supra on the procurator mentioned by Suetonius; the abrogation by Julian; and the aurum coronarium, the successor of the half-ṣeqel tribute as Jewish internal tax. See also Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 377f., 424f.; 2, pp. 279f. On the Jewish community, see below. See, for instance Josephus, JA, 14.10.8, 14.10.12, who attributes to Caesar the grant of permission to the Jewish communities to raise money for their internal institutions. Evasion of the fiscus Iudaicus was possible by denying one’s identity as a Jew. The authorities attempted to combat such evasions. See supra, chapt. 1, note 26, and Baron, Social and Religious History, cit., 2, pp. 105f. On Egypt, see Tcherikower, Jews in Egypt, cit., pp. 86f, esp. 102f. There the 176 chapter 4

All our information on the economy and even more so, on the social conditions of the Jews in Italy in the course of the seven centuries or so of their presence on the peninsula and the adjacent islands during the rule of Rome is scarce and at the same time unevenly distributed. It allows for no overall conclusions, estimates, or even approximate facts and figures. For some topics such as taxes we draw an almost complete blank and have little by way of documentation to go by. In the words of one of the foremost Jewish historians of the 20th century:

The general problem of the Jews as imperial taxpayers awaits elucida- tion . . . we are still in the dark on the most fundamental social and economic aspects. Not even the administration of the ‘Jewish fiscal tax’ from the second century on can be understood . . . as long as it is treated apart from the Roman tax system as a whole. We do not even know at what time it was suspended. . . .

That has not changed in the 60 years or so when this was written. It should also be pointed out that the social position of Jews measured by general standards, such as the comparison of the well-off with those of a poorer social station, was not necessarily linked to the social position of Jews in the community, though there may have been instances when the two may have overlapped. Being an am-ha’areẓ had little if anything to do with an individual’s position as a decurion.23

tax is said to have amounted to eight million drachmas annually. Since the individual tax was two drachmas, that would have meant a Jewish population in Egypt of four million, obviously an absurdity. The calculation is based on Philo’s estimate in In Flaccum 43 that the number of Jews in Egypt was one million (but not four!). See also Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, cit., passim (see index). I shall refrain from embarking on a futile evaluation in modern terms of the drachma in Antiquity during the centuries of its circulation as legal currency. One such reference is by Appian of Alexandria, Syriacus, 50.251–3. He lived in the second century CE, a slightly older contemporary of Ambrose, and mentions a poll-tax paid by the Jews, which was heavier than that paid by the rest of the population. What this garbled account meant to convey is not clear. See Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 178f. 23 Baron, op. cit., pp. 373f. It is not so much that it has not changed, but rather that no new evidence has been forthcoming since these words were written. On the Am-ha’areẓ, see below, chapt. 8, esp. note 5. chapter 5 Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them

The Significance of the Texts and Their Impact

The attitude of pagan Rome and Romans to Jews and Judaism expressed itself in many ways, in literature, policy, legislation, public opinion, and so forth. Most sources are relatively plentiful, others, such as public opinion, are scarce or nearly non-existent, and we may deduce their nature only by inference. Thus we must assume that pagan Roman writers had some readership, but we do not know its dimensions, and in particular that of individual writers. There are also other imponderabilia, such as what impact theatre performances made, and what texts, if any, left their mark on the non-reading public, the illiterates or semi-illiterates, as well as the extent of that impact if any. There were also other ways of communicating with the public, such as by the recitations of orators and other lecturers. Nor do we know how decision making was arrived at in relation to government rulings, legislation and political and other measures with regard to Jews, though in some instances we think that we have an inkling.1

1 We have dealt with government decrees and decisions as well as with legislation in prec. chapts. See supra, esp. chapt. 2–3 and the Excursus of chapt. 2. Further to the references cited below, see also Cracco-Ruggini, Pagani, ebrei e cristiani, pp. 13f.; Id., Intolerance, pp. 187f.; Funkenstein, Anti-Jewish Propaganda, cit., pp. 56f.; Gabba, The Growth of Anti-Judaism, cit., pp. 614f.; Gager, Dialogue of Paganism with Judaism, cit., passim; Id., Origins of Antisemitism, cit., passim; Grant, Greek and Roman Historians, passim; Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, passim; Heinemann, Attitude of the Ancients, pp. 269f.; Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 29f.; Hidal, The Jews as Roman Authors Saw Them, cit., pp. 141f.; Hild, Les juifs à Rome, pp. 1f., 18f., 161f.; Isaac, Roman Attitudes, pp. 41f.; Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, passim; Lewy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism, cit., passim (and the literature cited there); Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians, passim; Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, passim; Id., Judaea und die Juden, passim (from the former); Neusner and Frerichs, To See Ourselves as Others See Us, passim; Pucci Ben Zeev, Cosa pensavano i romani degli ebrei, pp. 335f.; Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome, passim; Reinhold, Diaspora: The Jews among the Greeks and Romans, passim; Schäfer, Judaeophobia, cit., passim, including (pp. 197f.) a severe critique of Langmuir; Sevenster, op. cit., passim; Stern, Hatred of Jews, pp. 27f.; Id., Jews in Roman Historiography, pp. 79f.; Tcherikower, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, pp. 358f.; Yavetz, Judaeophobia, cit., pp. 1f.; Id., Judenfeindschaft, cit., passim. These are only some of the papers and books dealing with the issue. We have not labelled hostile references as anti-Semitism, which is a modern term, Judaeophobia, which covers only

The Greek and Latin literary texts of Antiquity referring to Jews and Judaism are one of the chief sources for the attitude of the intelligentsia to them. It is, of course, an open question what we are to make of them. As with most historical sources, these references, small and large, do not stand by themselves and have to undergo due analysis, evaluation and interpretation in order to derive at least some conclusions on their authors’ attitudes, methods, views, and so forth. Another open question is the extent to which we may attribute to these literary references the status of public opinion, or at least the formation of one in pagan times. After all, we are dealing with a period during which there were no media and most people were illiterate. Some scholars think that we are dealing with a tiny fraction of the population. So we have no information on what most Roman pagans thought of Jews in Italy next to whom they lived, on their habits and doings, or their religion and beliefs at least during the centuries of that co-existence. It is assumed that there was no belligerent antagonism to Jews and Judaism in Italy in pagan times, at least as far as we know, except by some intellectuals and members of the literate upper classes, while some of the same members of the these social classes had pronounced Jewish leanings. In the Christian era religious antagonism became more and more intense following incessant incitement by the Church, so that in the last two centuries of Jewish presence in Italy during Antiquity co-existence between Jews and Christians became a serious problem. Whether that had some of its roots in pagan times is of course debatable. Dislike of the foreigner, of the so-called “other”, also known as xeno- phobia, particularly if the stranger is at the same time “exclusive”, is evidently present in all societies, but we have found no explicit evidence of its existence among the masses in pagan times, though there is no proof of the opposite. With the victory of Christianity that probably became gradually the rule rather than the exception.2

part of the relationship, or employed other inadequate terminology, and left things as they were, i.e., a relationship affected by the attitude of the person or persons involved. For Jewish sources of derogatory remarks employed in theatre performances in Judaea in the third and fourth centuries, see for instance Threni Rabba, Petiḥa, 17. As with other classical texts, many of the books dealing specifically with Jews have been lost. At least seven such authors are listed by Stern, Greek and Roman Authors, cit., passim. As for less extensive mentions of Jews and Judaism in classical literature, one can only guess at their dimensions. Hence scholars have been able to label them varying from few and hence of little significance to the exact opposite. See, for instance, Feldman, Pro-Jewish Intimations in Anti-Jewish Remarks, pp. 187f.; Id., Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, cit., pp. 157f. 2 Therefore by and large we have kept to a chronological presentation rather than one arranged by subject, showing, were possible the date of an Aggada and its author. After all, views of Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 179

The main issue was religious. We are dealing with an age during which religion was all-embracing and paramount. Everything was linked one way or another to religion. The head of state was divine, the army attacked invok- ing the gods, and public officials took their oath of office in the name of the same gods, and so on and on. Present-day conditions have little if any bearing on those obtaining in the days of Augustus and Antoninus Pius, and labelling the latter with the terminology of the former is anachronistic and misleading. Things considered objectionable or even detestable by our age were agreeable and pleasant to the men of Antiquity. The very usage of terms and their significance changed. Atheists in modern times are usually thought to be opponents of the belief in a deity, whereas in Rome of the Principate they were people who rejected the Roman gods from Jupiter down and preferred another religion, such as Isis of the Egyptians. Jews who refused to eat with Roman pagans did so because they observed Jewish dietary laws and not because they were anti-social as such, though that was also given as a reason. Some Romans did not like this, but mainly on religious grounds rather than on social ones. In short, religion was government, politics, social behaviour and all other human activities, including of course religious practices themselves. There were, however, a few topics among them not really linked to religion, though they probably had their roots in it. One instance often cited is the Maccabean policy, its expansionist efforts and collision with Greeks and their culture. Obviously the Jews were not the only minority singled out for the abhorrence by Rome and Romans. However, there were “degrees” of dislike. Thus Greeks were not really popular with Romans, but not as much as other nations, such as Jews.3 All sources at our disposal were written in either Greek or Latin. Many Greek literary texts were not written in Rome for perusal by the Roman public, limited or wide, but eventually were read in Rome and by Romans. Greek texts written in the provinces of the Empire found their way to Italy, where the language

the first century BCE do not necessarily tally with those of the third CE. However, others like Schäfer, op. cit., arranged their survey by subject. See also Garnsey-Saller, The Roman Empire, p. 108; Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, cit., pp. 16f. 3 Of course, I cannot escape my environment, though I must endeavour, where possible, to interpret things in their true historical setting. Concepts and terms taken from another age do not fit ours and vice versa. Imagine for a moment that a modern state adopted the democracy of what is considered the mother of all democracies: Athens. Any comparison with the rule of a small minority (less than 10 percent of the total population) in ancient Athens with the current popular democratic regimes the world over would show up by modern standards to the disadvantage of Athens. Democracy is not the only ancient term which changed significance from Antiquity to our days. Imperialism is another example. 180 chapter 5 was in widespread use and not only in the capital. Some of the Greek authors in the provinces came to Rome and lived there at least for a while. Latin texts of course, whether written in Rome or elsewhere, were available to the reading public in Italy. Texts rendering themselves to public performance probably enjoyed greater diffusion in the great urban centres than in the countryside. But, again that is sheer surmise unsupported by documentation. Hence, as we pointed out, not surprisingly scholars are diametrically opposed to each other over the question whether Italian Jews, and not only they, lived an isolated life, more or less by themselves, and had little if anything in common with their co-citizens, or whether on the contrary they lived in harmony with their neighbours and assimilated into their society at least relatively speaking—or, for that matter, somewhere in between. Then there exists the problem of Jewish identity. What did others think of them: were they a nation, a religion or ethnic group? How did they regard themselves? Parallels to conditions in other periods, especially in modern times, are elusive, though some scholars draw on them. It has been suggested that identification and self-perception were a matter of individual choice and hence were the only common denominator for all Jews. In recent years “new historians” in particular have made much of the integration of Jews into the Roman society surrounding them, but have shown little to support their thesis other than their personal convictions. We feel more at home with the older thesis that in many ways Italian Jews lived a relatively isolated life in their Roman environment, albeit not totally so. In some ways, they did acculturate and even assimilate into their surrounding environment. However, we have discerned no pattern, no uniformity valid everywhere and at all times. Thus among the six inscriptions which have survived in Catania dating to the fourth and fifth century, five were written in Greek and one in Latin, with a little Hebrew for good measure. All those buried in the five “Greek” tombs had Greek names, while the only Latin one commemorated a Jewish woman with a Greek name, whereas her husband had a Jewish and Latin one. Of course, this does not prove a thing, since six epitaphs out of a much larger number which have not survived are not representative of anything. In some places in Italy Jews intermingled in death with their non-Jewish neighbours, while in others they did not. So on and on: no uniform picture emerges from the inscriptional evidence unearthed so far.4

4 The suggestion was made by Goodman, Nerva, Fiscus Judaicus, cit., pp. 208f. On Catania, see my Jews in Sicily, cit., 1, Nos. 1, 3–7; and my Between Scylla and Charybdis, cit., pp. 9f., 47. Momigliano in his review of Leon, Rome, cit., wrote: “Was aus den Inschriften deutlich hervorgeht ist die isolierte Lage der Juden innerhalb ihrer römischen Umgebung . . . aber Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 181

Graeco-Roman writers dealt with Jews and Judaism from many an aspect. They attempted, first and foremost, to comprehend Judaism, its cult and rites, practices and precepts. They tried to unravel the origins of the Jewish people and their history up to their times. Some descriptions are figments of the imagination, in part or totally so. Some contradict the biblical and archaeological data at our disposal, while others are assuming the biblical ones to be true. Usually there is no supporting evidence for the views of Graeco-Roman writers. Some of these writers had an axe to grind and coloured their accounts with derogatory terms and remarks, partly abusive and others less so. There were the stories of what King Antiochus Epiphanes allegedly found in the Temple in Jerusalem, the rites and customs of the Jews which never were, and the like. Others attempted to be objective, or at least refrained from abuse and negative attitudes. Again others were simply ignorant, relying on hearsay and conjecture and at times adding the figments of their own imagination. There was no shortage of pre-conceived ideas, and the propagation of weird notions about the Jewish cult. Some details were transmitted from generation to generation, either directly or indirectly, while others were the one-time property of their inventors. There is no yardstick by which we are able evaluate the attitudes of these writers into “bad, good or indifferent”, or to draw up a statistical list of views which would allow us to attach to them an overall label one way or another. So wherever possible we should view each on its merits, taking into consideration the man who penned them, the circumstances of time and place accompanying their creation and other relevant factors.5

The Beginnings

The first Greek “classical” writers, such as Herodot of the fifth century BCE, who are said to have mentioned Jews, do so only obliquely; while Aristotle, of the fourth century is quoted as having referred to the Dead Sea. Probably Judaea was a remote place to them and they knew little if anything about the land and its people. More specific mention is made by Theophrastus, a disciple of Aristotle. His attitude to Judaism is described as “favourable”, though in fact it is no more than neutral. In his description of animal sacrifices he suggested

offenbar gab es nur wenig Berührungspunkte zwischen jüdischer und heidnischer Kultur in Rom . . .”. That of course refers to pagan times and is contrary to the views expressed by Rutgers, Barclay and others. See also, Feldman, Jew and Gentile, cit., pp. 167f. 5 See Stern, op. cit., passim, and below. 182 chapter 5 that the Jews were the first to include them in their ritual, but did so more agreeably than the Greeks. As reported by Josephus, he also cited the Hebrew word for sacrifice (qorban), and was the first to mention the date-palms of the Jordan valley as well as the aromatic plants of Syria, i.e., Judaea. Hieronymus of Cardia, a general and historian, a contemporary of Alexander the Great, lived in Palestine for a while in or about 312 BCE. All the same he knew nothing of the Jews, or preferred to ignore them, and placed the Dead Sea in the country of the Nabataeans. Josephus was the first to deplore this omission. However, this may be due to the fact that the Jews played only a minor rôle in the events described by him. It has been suggested that Greeks disliked Jewish observances and rituals, although at first they knew of them vaguely only at a distance. It is thought that some Greek views were influenced by Egyptian texts, which on the whole were not sympathetic to Jews and Judaism. Almost at the same time there appeared the first Greek description of the origins of the Jewish people, a subject with which the writers of Antiquity dealt extensively. There are several such descriptions by Hecataeus of Abdera, who is thought to have lived about 300 BCE, or attributed to him, including at least one said to have been derived from direct contact with Jews. Josephus quotes from Hecataeus’ De Iudaeis, a separate book attributed to him, dealing with the Jewish people. He was a younger contemporary of Hieronymus and his references to Jews are known only from quotations which have survived in the works of others. He is the first Greek writer to dwell on the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, a subject that appears to have fascinated ancient writers. In one text, Hecataeus describes the exodus as an expulsion which left its imprint on the Jewish people. However, in another quotation he is cited as describing the exodus as voluntary. He expressed admiration for Moses, who according to him founded Jerusalem and its Temple. He calls Moses the Jewish law-giver and organizer of Judaea in peacetime and at war and describes with admiration Jewish monotheism. Hecataeus’ attitude to Jews is usually neutral and not inimical to things Jewish as later generations would have him. He is cited by several younger authors, and is thought to have wielded some influence on the interpretation of Jewish history and Judaism by ancient writers.6

6 Herodotus, Historiae, 2.104.1–3; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 2f.; Aristotle, Meteorologica, 2, p. 359a; Olympiodorus, In Aristotelis Meteoria Commentaria; Stern, op. cit., 1, p. 7; Theophrastus, De Pietate, cited by Porphyry, De Abstinentia, 2.26; Id., Historia Plantarum, 2.6.2,5,8; 4.4.14; 9.1.6; 9.1.6; 9.6.1–4; Id., De Legibus, cited by JCA, 1.166f.; quoted by Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 8f. See Bar Kochva, Image of the Jews in Greek Literature, pp. 15f.; Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 183

This is what Hecataeus had to say on the exodus and the early history of the Jewish people:

When in ancient times a pestilence arose in Egypt, the common people ascribed their troubles to the workings of a divine agency. For indeed with many strangers of all sorts dwelling in their midst and practising different rites of religion and sacrifice, their own traditional observances in honour of the gods had fallen into disuse. Hence the natives of the land surmised that unless they removed the foreigners, their troubles would never be resolved. At once, therefore, the aliens were driven from the country, and the most outstanding and active among them banded together and, as some say, were cast ashore in Greece and certain other regions. Their leaders were notable men, chief among them being Danaus and Cadmus. But the greater number was driven into what is now called Judaea, which is not far distant from Egypt and was at that time utterly uninhabited. The colony was headed by a man called Moses, outstanding both for his wisdom and for his courage. On taking possession of the land he founded, besides other towns, one that is now the most renowned of all, called Jerusalem. In addition, he established the temple that they hold in chief veneration, instituted their form of worship and ritual, drew up their laws and ordered their political institutions. He also divided them into twelve tribes, since this is regarded as the most perfect number and corresponds to the number of months that make up a year. But he had no images whatsoever of the gods made; being of the opinion that God is not in human form. Rather the heaven that surrounds the earth is alone divine and rules the universe. The sacrifices that he established differ from those of other nations, as does their way of living, for as a result of their own expulsion from Egypt he introduced an unsocial and intolerant mode of life. He picked out the men of most refinement and with the greatest ability to head the entire nation, and appointed them

cit., pp. 309f. Lewy, op. cit., pp. 5f., 44f.; Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, pp. 84f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 3, pp. 603f. Hieronymus of Cardia, Historia Diadocorum, reported by Paradoxographus Florentinus, De Aquis Mirabilibus, 33; JCA, 1.214; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 18f.; Hecataeus, Aegyptica, cited by Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 11.3 (the authenticity of some of which is suspect); Id., De Iudaeis, cited by JCA, 1.183f.; 2.43; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 20f. See also Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.5. quoting Herennius Philo of Byblus on Hecataeus. See also Bar Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, passim; Schäfer, op. cit., pp. 15f., 93f. On the dislike of the Jewish cult and observances expressed by some Greek authors, see Feldman, Jew and Gentile, cit., pp. 233f. and passim; Gruen, Diaspora Jews, cit., pp. 48, 52; Slingerland, op. cit., pp. 28f. 184 chapter 5

priests; and he ordained that they should occupy themselves with the temple and the honours and sacrifices offered to their god. These same men he appointed to be judges in all major disputes, and entrusted to them the guardianship of the laws and customs. For this reason the Jews never have a king, and authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They will call this man the high priest, and believe that he acts as a messenger to them of God’s commandments. It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained, and the Jews are so docile in such matters that straightway they fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest when he expounds the commandments to them. And at the end of their laws there is even appended the statement: “These are the words that Moses heard from God and declares unto the Jews”. Their lawgiver was careful also to make provision for warfare, and required the young men to cultivate manliness, steadfastness, and generally the endurance of every hardship. He led out military expeditions against the neighbouring tribes, and after annexing much land apportioned it out, assigning equal allotments to private citizens and greater ones to the priests, in order that they, by virtue of receiving more ample revenues, might be undistracted and apply themselves continually to the worship of God. The common citizens were forbidden to sell their individual plots, lest there be some who for their own advantage should buy them up and by oppressing the poorer classes bring on a scarcity of manpower. He required those who dwelt in the land to rear their children, and since offspring could be cared for at little cost, the Jews were from the start a populous nation. As to marriage and the burial of the dead, he saw to it that their customs should differ widely from those of other men. But later, when they became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with other nations, many of their traditional practices were disturbed. . . .

That is the gist of the first reports and descriptions of Greek authors on Jews and Judaism, their history, religious beliefs, country, and so forth, in the fourth century BCE. Some of the successors of these authors limited themselves to brief mentions of this or that detail, whereas others wrote more elaborate accounts, some coloured by personal inclinations, ethnic notions, religious beliefs, political predilections, and so forth. Some of them appear to have been familiar with the biblical account of Jewish history, or at least some details of it, while in the case of others that does not transpire. Many cannot be classified Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 185 as positive or negative, pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish, their otherwise unsupported narrative going a long way to shape the views of subsequent Graeco-Roman generations on the antecedents of the Jewish people.7 Among the brief references to Jews made by these successors much is phantasy. Thus Clearchus of Soli (Cyprus), thought to have been a disciple of Aristotle, is quoted by Josephus as having described a meeting (that never was) between the great Greek philosopher and a Hellenistic Jew. The rather far-fetched issue said to have been discussed by the two was the alleged Indian roots of Jewish wisdom. Of greater importance, because of his influence on later generations, was Manetho the Egyptian. He has been described as “the first literary exponent of the anti-Jewish trend in Graeco-Roman Egypt and as the man who was instrumental in creating or at least in popularizing some of the oft-recurring anti-Semitic motifs”. His Aegyptica was quoted at length by Josephus, but some scholars attribute the quotations to an opus by a pseudo-Manetho. Since the opera of neither have survived, this remains an open question. Manetho is said to have been the originator of the story of the identification of the Hyksos with the Jews in Egypt. The Hyksos were said by Manetho to have been a despicable people, who were expelled by the Egyptians for their misdeeds and settled in Syria, i.e., Judaea. The second version of the origins of the Jewish people by Manetho, also cited by Josephus, identifies Moses with one Osarsiph, leader of a group of lepers and other undesirables confined by the Egyptians to the quar- ries along the Nile. Moses introduced monotheism and Jewish exclusiveness. He then proceeded to conquer Jerusalem in partnership with the people living there, who themselves had been expelled from Egypt at an earlier date. This phantastic version’s authorship by Manetho or his “pseudo”, has further fun- nelled the skepticism of scholars. So most scholars appear to attribute it to other Egyptian sources and to the anti-Jewish atmosphere rampant then and later in Egypt.8

7 Hecataeus of Abdera, Aegyptica, cited by Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 40.3; Stern, l.c. We cannot ascertain what elements were original observations of Hecataeus and which were later additions by Diodorus. Josephus’s quotation is much more elaborate and fanciful. See Hecataeus of Abdera, De Iudaeis, cited by JCA, 1.183f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 35f. And see Bar Kochva, Image of the Jews in Greek Literature, cit., pp. 90f.; Id., Pseudo-Hecataeus, cit., passim; Stein, Pseudo-Hecataeus, pp. 1f. As to the outline of Jewish history presented by these first Greek writers dealing with the issue, it was not negative as such, but became that by some of the additions and interpretations of a later age. 8 Clearchus of Soli, De Somno, cited by JCA, 1.176f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 49f. See also Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.15.70.2. Josephus also mentions some other Greek writers whom he cites as having written about Jews. See JCA, 1.215f., 2.84. Josephus quoted extensively from 186 chapter 5

Some Jewish and non-Jewish writers in Antiquity began the age-long process of trying to complement Greek and Jewish “wisdom”: philosophy, theology, science, and so forth. There were those who made the Greeks derive their knowledge from the ancient Hebrews. The Jewish apologists, chief among them Josephus, identified some Greek writers to whom they ascribe the tracing of that alleged linkage. One of the first in time cited by Josephus was Hermippus of Smyrna, whom he quoted as having traced the dependence of Pythagorans on the Hebrews. Josephus added that Pythagoras assimilated Jewish concepts and incorporated them into his teachings. Also Origen cited Hermippus in this sense. It has been suggested that this appears to have been the view of Jewish Hellenistic thinkers. While this can hardly be described as hostile to Jews and Judaism, in fact rather as the opposite, there appeared shortly after for the first time the story about the golden ass head in the Jewish sanctuary in Jerusalem. This was supposed to have been the deity which the Jews worshipped. The story, embellished and detailed, has found a place in anti-Jewish literature in Antiquity and was put about for ages. The man who has the doubtful honour of having been the first to have told the story was Mnaseas of Patara, who included it in his tales and stories, as quoted once again by Josephus. It was created during the long struggle between Jews and Idumaeans, was taken up by later generations, and finally made use of also against Christians:

. . . The latter [Mnaseas], according to Apion, relates that in the course of a long war between the Jews and the Idumaeans, an inhabitant of an Idumaean town called Dorii, who worshipped Apollo and bore so we are told the name of Zabidus, came out to the Jews and promised to deliver into their hands Apollo, the god of the town, who would visit our temple if they all took departure. The Jews all believed him. Whereupon Zabidus constructed an apparatus of wood’ inserted in it three rows of lamps, and put it over his person. Thus arrayed he walked about, presenting

the Babylonian Berossus, a contemporary of Antiochus I Soter and his protégé, chiefly on the involvement of the Babylonians in the affairs of the Middle East including Judaea. See l.c., 1.130f. and JA, 10.220f. See, Bar Kochva, Image of the Jews in Greek Literature, cit., pp. 40f.; Lewy, op. cit., pp. 15f. Manetho, Aegyptica, quoted by JCA, 1.73f., 93f., 228f.; Sevenster, op. cit., pp. 184f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 66f. It has been suggested that this version of the antecedents of the Jews may be older than Manetho, but it became popular and diffused from Manetho’s time on. Other authors who have similar stories include Chaeramon, Lysimachus, Pompeius Trogus, and Tacitus. On the Hyksos story which has aroused great interest, see Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, cit., pp. 351f. See also Stern, Egyptian-Greek Prophecy, pp. 227f. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 187

the appearance to distant onlookers of stars perambulating the earth. Astounded at that amazing spectacle, the Jews kept their distance in perfect silence. Meanwhile Zabidus stealthily passed into the sanctuary, snatched up the golden head of the pack-ass and made off post-haste to Dora. . . .9

While Alexandrian enmity to Jews was based on politics mixed with religion rather than on anything else, it was an important centre for the creation and diffusion of much literature on Jews and Judaism, written by Jews and non-Jews. So while it is probably not out of place to describe Egypt as the source of much anti-Jewish tales and views, there probably is an element of exaggeration in conveniently bundling together most if not all authors who have been linked to Alexandria as Jew-baiters. This is true also of Agatharchides of Cnidus, a Greek historian of the second century BCE, who spent much time in Alexandria. He was the author of two lengthy histories of Asia and Europe respectively only known from quotations. Again we owe to Josephus Agatharchides’ views on Jews. The historian was the first Greek writer to mention the Sabbath, and described it correctly as a day of rest, unlike some of his successors who made it a fast-day. At the same time he described Jewish religion as a “superstition”. One of the quotations cited by Josephus runs as follows:

This account is attested by Agatharchides of Cnidus, the historian of the Diadochi, who reproaches us for our superstition, on account of which we lost our liberty, in these words: ‘There is a nation called Jews, who have a strong and great town called Jerusalem, which they allowed to fall into the hands of Ptolemy by refusing to take up arms and instead through their untimely superstition submitted to having a hard master.

9 Hermippus of Smyrna, De Phytagora, quoted by JCA, 1.162f.; Id., De Legislatoribus, quoted by Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.15.334; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 93f., who cites similar views held by the second-century BCE Jewish peripatetic philosopher Aristobulus of Banias (Paneas) in Alexandria; and see below on Numenius of Apamea. See also Bar Kochva, An Ass in the Jerusalem Temple, pp. 310f.; Id., Image of the Jews in Greek Literature, cit., pp. 164f. On the ass- head, see Mnaseus of Patara, quoted by JCA, 2.212f.; Stern op. cit., 1, pp. 99f., who cites a long list of references and subsequent repetitions; Schäfer, op. cit., pp. 55f. On the accusation levelled against Christians, see for instance Tertullianus, Apologeticus, 16.1–3; Id., Ad Nationes, 1.14; and Bar-Kochva, Image of the Jews, cit., passim; Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, cit., p. 367. See also below. 188 chapter 5

The other citation tells a similar story. The employment of the term “superstition” does not necessarily imply anti-Judaism. After all, most religions regarded that of the “other” a superstition, if not worse.10 We owe a detailed description of Jerusalem and its importance to the foremost historian of the Diadochan period, Polybius. Active in Greek politics, he lived for many years in Rome. Polybius described the plunder of the treasures of the sanctuary in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes as motivated by avarice caused by his financial straits, and presents a negative profile of the king. Polybius has been noted for his influence on later writers, such as Livius and perhaps Strabo. This is Polybius’ description of the Temple’s despoliation by Antiochus as reported by Josephus:

That the raid of Antiochus on the temple was iniquitous, that it was impecuniosity which drove him to invade it when he was not an open enemy, that he attacked us, his allies and friends, and that he found there nothing to deserve ridicule; these facts are attested by many sober historians: Polybius of Megalopolis, Strabo the Cappadocian, Nicolaus of Damascus, Timagenes, Castor the Chronicler, and Appolodorus, who all assert that it was impecuniosity which induced Antiochus, in violation of his treaties with the Jews, to plunder the temple with its stores of gold and silver.

Other writers embellished the story of Antiochus’ depredation of the Temple and his discoveries there with such details as finding there the golden head of an ass, the Gentile fattened to be sacrificed and consumed by the Jews, and so on.11

From Pompey’s Conquest to the Principate

Josephus reported an assorted number of other Graeco-Roman writers who mentioned this or that detail of Jewish history, real or imaginary, often as part

10 Agatharchides of Cnidus, quoted by JA, 12.5.f.; JCA, 1.205f.; Bar Kochva, op. cit., pp. 208f., 280f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 82f., 104f. On the capture of Jerusalem by Ptolemy I Soter, see Tcherikower, Jews and Greeks, cit., pp. 57f. For additional negative terms employed by Graeco-Roman writers to describe Judaism and its cult, see below. On “superstitio”, see Calderone, “Superstitio”, pp. 372f. 11 Polybius, Historiae, 5.71.11f.; Id., op. cit., reported by JA, 12.135f.; JCA, 2.83f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 110f., who cites further sources of the pillage by Antiochus; Bar Kochva, The Hellenistic Blood Libel, pp. 347f.; Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 2, pp. 225f.; Grodzynski, Superstitio, pp. 36f.; Schäfer, op. cit., pp. 62f., 197f. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 189 of their histories. While he did so to underpin his apologetic thesis of the “antiquity” of the Jews and of their religion, he throws considerable light on what some Graeco-Roman writers, especially historians, thought of the Jewish people and their antecedents. In addition to the ones mentioned in his listing of those who followed in the footsteps of Polybius, there was Menander of Ephesus. Josephus quotes a piece describing the relations between King Solomon and Hiram king of Tyre. His contemporary Dius is said to have repeated the story about Hiram and Solomon and mentioned the wedding of Solomon to Hiram’s daughter. That wedding is recorded also by yet another of their contemporaries, Laetus, an historian of Phoenicia. The relations between the two kings apparently caught the imagination of contemporary Graeco- Roman writers. Theophilus, whose exact identity is uncertain, also dwelt on it.12 The complete story about the findings in the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes is attributed by Josephus to Posidonius of Apamea, a philosopher and scientist, and Apollonius Molon, a rhetor, described by him as sources for the calumnies of Apion. The relevant passage goes as follows:

However, I cannot but admire those other authors who furnished this man with such of his materials; I mean Posidonius and Apollonius [the son of] Molon, who while they accuse us for not worshipping the same gods whom others worship, they think themselves not guilty of impiety when they tell lies of us, and frame absurd and reproachful stories about our temple; whereas it is a most shameful thing for freemen to forge lies on any occasion, and much more so to forge them about our temple, which was so famous over all the world, and was preserved so sacred by us; for Apion hath the impudence to pretend, that the Jews placed an ass’s head in their holy place; and he affirms that this was discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes despoiled our temple, and found that ass’s head there made of gold, and worth a great deal of money . . . He adds another Grecian fable, in order to reproach us . . . and says, that Antiochus found in our temple a bed and a man lying upon it, with a small table before him, full of dainties, from the [fishes of the] sea, and the fowls of the dry land; that this man was amazed at these dainties thus set before him; that he immediately adored the king, upon his coming in, as hoping that he

12 The quotation from Menander is JCA, 1.116f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 119f. Josephus’ mention of Dius (who is not known from other sources) is JCA, 1.112f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 123f. On the quotation from Theophilus (whom Stern tentatively identified with an homonymous writer cited by Josephus), see Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 9.34.19; Stern op. cit., 1, pp. 126f. Laetus is quoted by Tatianus, Orationes ad Graecos, 37; and see Clemens of Alexandria, Stromata, 1.21.113.2; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 128f. 190 chapter 5

would afford him all possible assistance; that he fell down upon his knees, and stretched out to him his right hand, and begged to be released: and that when the king bade him sit down, and tell him who he was, and why he dwelt there, and what was the meaning of those various sorts of food that were set before him, the man made a lamentable complaint, and with sighs and tears in his eyes, gave him this account of the distress he was in: and said that he was a Greek, and that as he went over this province, in order to get his living, he was seized upon by foreigners, on a sudden, and brought to this temple, and shut up therein, and was seen by nobody, but was fattened by these curious provisions thus set before him: and that truly at the first such unexpected advantages seemed to him matter of great joy; that, after a while they brought a suspicion upon him, and at length astonishment, what their meaning should be; that at last he inquired of the servants that came to him, and was by them informed that it was in order to the fulfilling a law of the Jews, which they must not tell him, that he was thus fed; and that they did the same at a set time every year: that they used to catch a Greek foreigner, and fat him thus up every year, and then lead him to a certain wood, and kill him, and sacrifice with their accustomed solemnities, and taste of his entrails, and take an oath upon this sacrificing a Greek, that they would ever be at enmity with the Greeks; and that then they threw the remaining parts of the miserable wretch into a certain pit. Apion adds farther, that the man said there were but a few days to come ere he was to be slain, and implored Antiochus that, out of the reverence he bore to the Grecian gods, he would disap- point the snares the Jews laid for his blood, and would deliver him from the miseries with which he was encompassed.

Molon is considered by Josephus an arch-enemy of Jews and Judaism. He is reported to have written a book about the Jews, De Iudaeis, mentioned also by Alexander Polyhistor and Eusebius. He wielded considerable influence on his contemporaries and on later generations. Among his pupils in Rhodes were Cicero and Julius Caesar. The surviving fragments of his book on the Jews contain also additional notices on the Jews. In one he traces the antecedents of Abraham to a man who survived the Flood, was expelled by his neighbours and settled in Syria. He makes Moses a grandson of Joseph, an error repeated by Pompeius Trogus, called him a charlatan, and applied a string of derogatory terms to Jews and Judaism.13

13 Posidonius and Apollonius Molon, De Iudaeis, cited by JCA, 2.16, 79f., 145f.; 236f.; Eusebius, op. cit., 9.19.1f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 141f. And see also: Bar Kochva, Jewish Ethnography of Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 191

Alexander Polyhistor, a slave from Miletus in Rome and Greek writer, is the author of yet another book on the Jews. He lived during the upsurge of public interest in Jews and Judaism engendered by the conquest of Judaea by Pompey. Eusebius was instrumental in preserving a few fragments of Alexander’s opus, and some later writers briefly refer to his otherwise lost works. They mention Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and some more biblical stories, such as the ones about Moses, the prophesies of Jeremiah, the tower of Babel, and so forth, more or less in line with the parallel biblical versions, but with some of the usual additions and omissions. That means that Alexander must have been familiar with the Bible directly or indirectly. Alexander mentions more than a dozen Jewish-Hellenistic writers, whom he consulted and quoted. Among them was Eupolemus, a Jewish historian in Judaea in the second century BCE. Some identify him as an ambassador sent by Judah Maccabeus to Rome in 161 BCE.14 A contemporary of Alexander Polyhistor, the Sicilian Diodorus, was the first identifiable Italian writer who wrote on Jews and their history, albeit still in Greek. Probably he too was prompted by the conquest of Pompey and penned his description of Jews and Judaism in his account of that event. He has been described as “the least original of all known ancient historians”, but it is precisely for that reason that he is an important source for the views of those he copied, whose opera were lost and survived only in the references and quotations by Diodorus. Even so, some of his sources remain obscure, whereas others were Hecataeus, Hieronymus of Cardia and apparently Posidonius. His accounts deal with the founding of the Jewish nation and Judaea, circumcision as practised by Jews and others, Moses and the Jewish God called by him Iao, the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus and Pompey, and various descriptions of the geography of Judaea.15

Strabo, pp. 297f.; Id., Apollonius Molon, pp. 1f.; Id., Image of the Jews in Greek Literature, cit., pp. 355f.; Id., The Hellenistic Blood Libel, cit., pp. 347f. He posits that Josephus quoted directly from De Iudaeis of Molon. And see Lewy, op. cit., pp.13f. 14 Alexander Polyhistor, De Iudaeis, cited by Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 9.17f.; Id., Chronica, 1, p. 7; Alexander Polyhistor, Roma, quoted by Suda, Lexicon, s.v. Ảλέξανδρος ο Μιλήσιος; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.21.131; Cleodemus, reported by JA, 1.240f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 157f.; 3, pp. 16f. And see Barclay, Apologetics, p. 143; Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, passim; Jacoby, Fragmenta, IIIa, pp. 248f.; Müller, Fragmenta, III, p. 211; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, p. 85. As to Eupolemus, JCA, 1.218 does not mention his Jewishness, whereas Eusebius, op. cit., 9.34.4 does. And see supra, chapt. 1, note 2. Alexander Polyhistor also quotes Artapanus, a Jewish historian, probably of Alexandria, who lived in or around the second century BCE, along with several other Jewish writers. 15 See supra Hecataeus and Hieronymus. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 1.28.1f., 31.2, 55.5, 94.1f.; 2.48.6f.; 19.59.1f., 93.7, 98–99; 34.1.1f.; 40.2f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 167f. The name of 192 chapter 5

The middle of the first century BCE witnessed the first direct verbal invective of a Roman writer against the Jews of Italy, though its vehemence has been much overrated in the past; and his position as a defense lawyer is thought to have contributed to the force of his invective. The doubtful distinction belongs to Cicero, the great Roman rhetor. In addition to his attack on the Jews contained in his defense of Flaccus, on trial, among other things, for mis- appropriating funds collected for the upkeep of the Temple in Jerusalem, he defended Aulus Gabinius, accused before the Roman senate of “extortion” during his proconsulship (governorship) of Syria. That included interference in the politics of Judaea, resulting, among other things, in the suppression of the publicani, the tax farmers, and their being handed over as slaves to Jews and Syrians, “themselves peoples born to be slaves”. No doubt the Jews of Judaea benefited from the suppression of the extortionist tax-farmers and from the friendly attitude of Gabinius. In the context of the tortuous political situation of his day, Cicero was accused of contributing to the conviction of Gabinius by his half-hearted defense of the former governor, a friend and ally of Pompey, whom Cicero had to befriend at this point in time. Political expediency made uncomfortable bedfellows of the three. In addition to Cicero’s fame in his day, his impact on later generations far beyond Antiquity right down to our days is borne out by innumerable quotations.16 His contemporary, Varro, described as the greatest Roman scholar of his age, was a prolific writer and is said to have written more than 70 works in several hundred volumes, of which only very few have survived. He is reported to have lived for more than a hundred years, and his accomplishments as writer, administrator, scientific farmer, and so forth are impressive. He was the first Roman writer to express his admiration for the Jewish invisible God and identifies him with Iao-Jupiter. Like many other writers of Antiquity, most of Varro’s books were lost, and we learn of his views on the God of the Jews from quotations by St. Augustine and others. One of these is the following:

the Jewish God has been identified by some writers with Zeus-Jupiter, with the Egyptian term for ass, and so on forth. Scholars have been unable to agree on the identity of the writer who first coined it. 16 On Cicero’s defence of Flaccus, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 7. The extract from his defence of Gabinius is from his de Provinciis Consularibus, 5.10f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 202f. As usual the interpretation of every word is in dispute. Thus it has been claimed that Cicero meant only the Syrians when speaking of “themselves peoples born to be slaves”. However, this does not make sense, since the Latin original has “nationibus natis servituti”, referring no doubt to more than one nation. On Gabinius in Judaea, see Kanael, The Partition of Judaea by Gabinius, pp. 98f. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 193

. . . He (Varro) also says that for more than 170 years the Romans of old worshipped the gods without an image. If this practice had remained down to the present day the gods would have been worshipped with greater purity. In support of his opinion he adduces, among other things, the testimony of the Jews. . . .17

While Cicero and Varro were among the first Roman writers who dealt with Jews and Judaism, the activities of their peers in the East who wrote Greek continued unabated. One of them was Nicolaus of Damascus, a Hellenistic pagan, native of the Syrian town, counsellor and close associate of King Herod, and active for many years in his service. He was largely instrumental in obtaining from Augustus the confirmation of Archelaus in his father’s post, against the opposition of the Jews in Judaea and those in Rome. While most of his Historiae, written at the behest of Herod in no fewer than 144 books has been lost, much of its content regarding Jews has been preserved thanks to Josephus, who leaned on Nicolaus extensively, particularly on his descriptions of the history of the Hasmoneans and of Herod. His autobiography suffered the same fate and is known only from a few citations. Nicolaus’ bias has been identified as being (naturally) influenced by his lord and master as well as by his ethnic identity. As far as his references to Jewish antecedents are concerned, he more or less follows the biblical story, albeit with a few variations. He is best described as “neutral”, at least insofar as Jews and their history are concerned. The influence of his opera in Rome appears to have been negligible and it was mainly Josephus who took serious notice of him and of his writings.18 A contemporary of Nicolaus and like him a Greek writer in the provinces was Strabo of Amaseia (Pontus), an historian, geographer and philosopher, whose Historica Hypomnemata has been lost, but his Geographica has survived. Again it is thanks to Josephus that we learn of Strabo’s references to Jews and Judaism in his History. Strabo relied on some of his predecessors, whom he quoted verbatim, and is thought to have addressed his opera to businessmen

17 Quoted by Augustinus, De Civitate Dei, 4.31; Id., De Consensu Evangistelarum, 1.22.30, 23.31, 27.42; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 207f.; see Philo of Byblos, quoted by Lydus, De Mensibus, 4.53; Stern, op. cit., 2, p. 141. And see Strabo, Geographica, 16.2.35 (below). Varro was not the first to identify the Jewish God with Iao. According to him that was the Jewish God’s name in Chaldaean. See supra. See also Berliner, Rom, cit., 1, p. 13; Cardauns, Marcus Terentius Varro, passim; Momigliano, Review of Leon, Rome, cit., p. 182; Schäfer, op. cit., pp. 36f.; Simon, Jupiter-Jahvé, pp. 40f.; Van Kooten, Pagan and Jewish Monotheism, pp. 641f. 18 Nicolaus of Damascus, Historiae, cited in JA, 1.159f.; 14.66f.; 16.179f.; JCA, 2.83f.; Id., De Vita Sua, cited in Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, Excerpta de Virtutibus; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 227f.; Id., Nicolaus of Damascus, cit., pp. 445f. 194 chapter 5 and politicians. If that had any effect on the ground is of course a matter for no more than speculation. Though Strabo and Nicolaus had much in common, they wrote independently of each other. Strabo was not affected by the bias of Nicolaus and his narrative was not coloured by the prejudices of the latter. The relationship of Strabo to Posidonius appears more complicated and scholars are divided over the question of whether Strabo relied on Posidonius, at all or in part. The question of Strabo’s sources has bedevilled research for quite some time and led to some weird conclusions. This is what Strabo had to say:

. . . Moses, namely, was one of the Egyptian priests, and held a part of Lower Egypt, as it is called, but he went away from there to Judaea, since he was displeased with the state of affairs there, and was accompanied by many people who worshipped the Divine Being. For he says and taught that the Egyptians were mistaken in representing the Divine Being by the images of beasts and cattle, as were also the Libyans; and that the Greeks were also wrong in modelling gods in human form; for, according to him, God is this one thing alone that encompasses us all and encompasses land and sea—the thing which we call heaven, or universe, or the nature of all that exists. What man, then, if he has sense, could be bold enough to fabricate an image of God resembling any creature amongst us? Nay, people should leave off all image-carving, and, setting apart a sacred precinct and a worthy sanctuary, should worship God without an image; and people who have good dreams should sleep in the sanctuary, not only themselves on their own behalf, but also others for the rest of the people; and those who live self-restrained and righteous lives should always expect some blessing or gift or sign from God, but no other should expect them. Now Moses, saying things of this kind, persuaded not a few thoughtful men and led them away to this place where the settlement of Jerusalem now is; and he easily took possession of the place, since it was not a place that would be looked on with envy, nor yet one for which anyone would make a serious fight; for it is rocky, and, although it itself is well supplied with water, its surrounding territory is barren and waterless, and the part of the territory within a radius of sixty stadia is also rocky beneath the surface. At the same time Moses, instead of using arms, put forward as defense his sacrifices and his Divine Being, being resolved to seek a seat of worship for Him and promising to deliver to the people a kind of worship and a kind of ritual which would not oppress those who adopted them either with expenses or with divine obsessions or with other absurd troubles. Now Moses enjoyed fair repute with these people, and organized no ordinary kind of government, since the peoples all round, one and all came over to him, because of his dealings Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 195

with them and of the prospects he held out to them. His successors for some time abided by the same course, acting righteously and being truly pious towards God; but afterwards, in the first place, superstitious men were appointed to the priesthood, and then tyrannical people; and from superstition arose abstinence from flesh, from which it is their custom to abstain even to‑day, and circumcisions and excisions and other observances of the kind. And from the tyrannies arose the bands of robbers; for some revolted and harassed the country, both their own country and that of their neighbours, whereas others, co-operating with the rulers, seized the property of others and subdued much of Syria and Phoenicia. But still they had respect for their acropolis, since they did not loathe it as the seat of tyranny, but honoured and revered it as a holy place . . . Now Pompey clipped off some of the territory that had been forcibly appropriated by the Judaeans, and appointed Herod to the priesthood; but later a certain Herod, a descendant of his and a native of the country, who slinked into the priesthood, was so superior to his predecessors, particularly in his intercourse with the Romans and in his administration of affairs of state, that he received the title of king, being given that authority first by Antony and later by Augustus Caesar. As for his sons, he himself put some of them to death, on the ground that they had plotted against him; and at his death left others as his successors, having assigned to them portions of his kingdom. Caesar also honoured the sons of Herod and his sister Salome and her daughter Berenice. However, his sons were not successful, but became involved in accusations; and one of them spent the rest of his life in exile, having taken up his abode among the Allobrogian Gauls, whereas the others, by much obsequiousness, but with difficulty, found leave to return home, with a tetrarchy assigned to each. . . .

Strabo’s reports about Judaism are nearly correct, though inaccurate in some of the details. Thus he relates that the Jews practised excision, though that is manifestly wrong. His definition of rabbinic law and lore (if that is what he had in mind) is not far off the mark; while his definition of Hasmonean conquests is of course debatable. Josephus counts him among the writers who accused Antiochus of being motivated by avarice. Notwithstanding his defects, and one or two passages, such as the one about the Jewish robbers of Jaffa, Strabo has been described as sympathetic to Judaism by most scholars, though not by all, and some of his geographical descriptions are instructive.19

19 Strabo, Geographica, 16.2.35–37, 46; other references in Geographica are 1.2.35; 16.1.1, 2.2, 2.16, 2.21, 2.27f., 2.34, 2.38f., 3.1, 4.2, 4/9, 4.21, 4,23; 17.1.15, 1.21, 1.51, 2.5. Josephus’ citations 196 chapter 5

Of Strabo’s contemporary Latin poets only Horace dwells on Jews and Judaism beyond incidental and indirect references. Their awareness of their Jewish fellow citizens has been adduced to demonstrate the awakening interest of Roman society of Jews and Judaism. As we have seen, Horace, a native of Venosa, has been identified by some scholars as a Jew, but no real evidence supports this conjecture. In one of his poems he cites the Jews who will use their numbers “to make one of our throng”. That has been explained to mean that Horace referred to the missionary activity of Roman Jews; but others have interpreted Horace’s remark to mean that Jews acted as a pressure group, political and otherwise. That appears to be the more likely meaning of the passage. Other utterances by Horace on Jews and their habits include the observation that Jews were credulous, that they were circumcised and that they observed the Sabbath. To judge by these utterances, it would seem that Horace’s attitude to Jews was critical and ambivalent.20

The Age of Augustus

Yet another prose writer who lived at the turn of the first century BCE was Pompeius Trogus, whose Historicae Philippicae has been lost, except for brief citations, while the Prologus and an Epitome by Justinus are available. He relied mainly on Greek historians, so that in dealing with Jewish history he relates the biblical story alongside Egyptian and other versions. Pompeius included in his opus the antecedents of the Jewish people; their post-biblical history; and the geography of Judaea. One typical passage is the following:

The origin of the Jews was from Damascus, a most famous city of Syria . . . The name of the town was given it from King Damascus . . . After Damascus, Azelus, and then Adores, Abraham, and Israhel were their kings. But a prosperous family of ten sons made Israhel more famous than any of his ancestors. Having divided his kingdom in consequence into ten governments, he committed them to his sons, and called the whole people Jews from Judas, who died soon after the division, and

from Historica Hypomnemata are JA, 13.284f., 319, 345f.; 14.34f., 66f., 104, 111f., 114f., 138f.; 15.8f. Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 261f.; Id., Strabo on Jews, pp. 169f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., p. 84. 20 Horace, Sermones, 1.4.139f., 5.96f., 9.60f. and Epistulae, 2.2.183f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 321f. See also Isaac, Roman Attitudes, p. 50; Leon, Rome, cit., pp. 12f.; Rabello, L’atteggiamento di Roma verso le conversioni, cit., p. 140; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., p. 207; Schäfer, op. cit., pp. 107f.; Stern, Jewish Diaspora, cit., p. 163. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 197

ordered his memory to be held in veneration by them all, as his portion was shared among them. The youngest of the brothers was Joseph, whom the others, fearing his extraordinary abilities, secretly made prisoner, and sold to some foreign merchants. Being carried by them into Egypt, and having there, by his great powers of mind, made himself master of the arts of magic, he found in a short time great favour with the king; for he was eminently skilled in prodigies, and was the first to establish the science of interpreting dreams; and nothing, indeed, of divine or human law seems to have been unknown to him; so that he foretold a dearth in the land some years before it happened, and all Egypt would have perished by famine, had not the king, by his advice, ordered the corn to be laid up for several years; such being the proofs of his knowledge, that his admonitions seemed to proceed, not from a mortal, but a God. His son was Moses, whom, besides the inheritance of his father’s knowledge, the comeliness of his person also recommended. But the Egyptians, being troubled with scabies and leprosy, and moved by some oracular prediction, expelled him, with those who had the disease, out of Egypt, that the distemper might not spread among a greater number. Becoming leader, accordingly, of the exiles, he carried off by stealth the sacred utensils of the Egyptians, who, endeavouring to recover them by force of arms, were obliged by tempests to return home; and Moses, having reached Damascus, the birth-place of his forefathers, took possession of Mount Sinai, on his arrival at which, after having suffered, together with his followers, from a seven days’ fast in the deserts of Arabia, he consecrated every seventh day (according to the present custom of the nation) for a fast-day, and to be perpetually called a sabbath, because that day had ended at once their hunger and their wanderings. And as they remembered that they had been driven from Egypt for fear of spreading infection, they took care, in order that they might not become odious, from the same cause, to the inhabitants of the country, to have no communi- cation with strangers; a rule which, from having been adopted on that particular occasion, gradually became a custom and part of their religion. After the death of Moses, his son Aruas was made priest for celebrating the rites which they brought from Egypt, and soon after created king; and ever afterwards it was a custom among the Jews to have the same chiefs both for kings and priests; and, by uniting religion with the administration of justice, it is almost incredible how powerful they became. . . .

This combination of divergent stories consists of various elements, and was instrumental, among others, for spreading among the Romans the tale about 198 chapter 5 the Sabbath being a fast-day. Pompeius’ story is very similar to that of Tacitus and probably served as a model for him. Sabbath as a fast day is also mentioned by Augustus. The same garbled account, at least if compared to the biblical narrative and other sources, characterizes Pompeius’ descriptions of Jews and Judaism.21 The first direct quotation from the Bible is attributed to an anonymous Greek writer who is said to have lived in the days of Augustus, the author of “On the Sublime” which is a compendium of literary exempla, with about 50 authors spanning some 1,000 years mentioned or quoted. Scholars disagree on his identity. Their views vary from his being a Jew, or a proselyte, to being one of several contemporary writers. However, no real proof of his identity has been forthcoming hitherto. He criticized Caecilius of Calacte and a passage from Genesis was copied by the Anonymous from him. The quotation is from Genesis, but different from the Hebrew or the Septuagint. That was blamed on Caecilius.

. . . A similar effect was achieved by the lawgiver of the Jews, no mean genius, for he both understood and gave expression to the power of the divinity as it deserved when he wrote at the very beginning of his laws, and I quote his words: ‘God said’, what was it? ‘Let there be light.’ And there was. ‘Let there be earth.’ And there was.22

The identity and hence the date of Lysimachus, author of Aegyptiaca quoted by Josephus from a lost text are not known. It has been suggested that he lived in the second century BCE. He is one of the most anti-Jewish Graeco- Egyptian writers. His version of the Jewish antecedents in Egypt differs in detail from that of similar stories, but not really in substance. There may be links of one sort or another with Apion, but that is not proven. His version of

21 Pompeius Trogus, reported by Iustinus, Historiae Philippicae, Epitoma,1.9f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 332f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., pp. 81f. For Augustus, see his letter to Tiberius, quoted by Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum, Augustus, 76.2. That is the stranger, since his wife, Livia, had a Jewish maid ( JA, 17.5.7 (= 141); JBJ, 1.32.6 (= 641). For the Sabbath, see McKay, Sabbath and the Synagogue, passim. There is a brief reference in rabbinic sources on fasting on the Sabbath, but it is unlikely that Romans knew about it. 22 Anonymous, De Sublimitate, 9.9; Goold, A Greek Professorial Circle at Rome, pp. 169f.; Norden, Das Genesiszitat in der Schrift vom Erhabenen, passim; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 361f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., p. 98. The references are abundant. Scholars could not agree even on the syntactical construction of the quote, and hence on the translation of the brief passage. On Caecilius, see below. Some, such as Norden, even went so far as to identify the anonymous with Philo. For that too there is no substantial proof. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 199 the antecedents of the Jewish people is even more acrimonious than that of Manetho and his kin. According to Josephus he had this to say about the birth of the Jews in Egypt and subsequent events:

. . . I shall now add to these accounts about Manetho and Chaeremon, somewhat about Lysimachus, who hath taken the same topic of false- hood with those fore mentioned, but hath gone far beyond them in the incredible nature of his forgeries; which plainly demonstrates that he contrived them out of his virulent hatred of our nation. His words are these: ‘The people of the Jews being leprous and scabby, and subject to certain other kinds of distempers, in the days of Bocchoris, king of Egypt, they fled to the temples, and got their food there by begging; and as the numbers were very great that were fallen under these dis- eases, there arose a scarcity in Egypt. Hereupon Bocchoris, the king of Egypt, sent some to consult the oracle of Hammon about this scarcity. The god’s answer was this, that he must purge his temples of impure and impious men, by expelling them out of those temples into desert places; but as to the scabby and leprous people, he must drown them, and purge his temples, the sun having an indignation at these men being suffered to live; and by this means the land will bring forth its fruits. Upon Bocchoris’s having received these oracles, he called for their priests, and the attendants upon their altars, and ordered them to make a collection of the impure people, and to deliver them to the soldiers, to carry them away into the desert; but to take the leprous people, and wrap them in sheets of lead, and let them down into the sea. Hereupon the scabby and leprous people were drowned, and the rest were gotten together, and sent into desert places, in order to be exposed to destruction. In this case they assembled themselves together, and took counsel what they should do; and determined that, as the night was coming on, they should kindle fires and lamps, and keep watch; that they also should fast the next night, and propitiate the gods, in order to obtain deliverance from them. That on the next day, there was one Moses, who advised them that they should venture upon a journey, and go along one road till they should come to places fit for habitation: that he charged them to have no kind regards for any man, nor give good counsel to any, but always to advise them for the worst; and to overturn all those temples and altars of the gods they should meet with: that the rest commended what he had said with one consent, and did what they had resolved on, and so travelled over the desert. But that the difficulties of the journey being over, they came to a country inhabited, and that there they abused the men, and plundered 200 chapter 5

and burnt their temples, and then came into that land which is called Judea, and there they built a city, and dwelt therein, and that their city was named Hierosyla, from this their robbing of the temples; but that still, upon the success they had afterwards, they through course of time changed its denomination, that it might not be a reproach to them, and called the city Hierosolyma, and themselves Hierosolymites. . . .

Lysimachus, whoever he was, held the views of the most rabid Jew-baiters in Alexandria and the latter are thought to represent the current stories put about by the extreme anti-Jewish section in Alexandria. He has been compared to Chaeremon and has not been found wanting. Chaeremon was his fellow Alexandrian, a contemporary of Apion. He is put in the same category by Josephus, and there is little to choose between the two. He was probably a teacher of Nero and is thought to have been Chaeremon the son of Leonidas, a member of the delegation which represented the Greeks in Alexandria before Emperor Claudius. His account is similar to that of Manetho, though some details differ.23 Apion figures large in the history of the Jews in the Roman Empire. His claim to fame is due, at least in part, to his extensive treatment of Jews and Judaism and to his activities in support of the Greeks in Alexandria in their struggle with the Jews in that town. Apion was a Greek scholar who obtained Alexandrian citizenship, and came to live in Rome during the days of the emperors Tiberius and Claudius. As we have seen, in Rome he collided frontally with Philo, in their confrontation over the rights and wrongs of the parties in the attack of the Greeks in Alexandria on the Jews in that town. Josephus, who wrote his piece against Apion half a century after these events, made Apion his main target in his apology of Jews and Judaism. Apion is thought to have been rather influential in his day. His Aegyptiaca appears to have become the main source on Egyptian history for the educated classes in Rome and elsewhere in the Empire. His description of the Jewish past apparently formed part of that history, though some would like us to believe that he wrote a separate opus on the Jews. Josephus introduced his critique of Apion and citations from his Aegyptiaca with general remarks about his method and went on to cite Posidonius, Apollonius Molon, Mnaseas and all the writers who served as sources for Apion. There are the narratives about

23 Lysimachus, Aegyptiaca, cited by JCA, 1.304f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 382f. Josephus makes further brief references to Lysimachus, see JCA, 2.16, 20, 145, 236; Bar Kochva, op. cit., pp. 306f. For Chaeremon, see his Aegyptiaca Historia, reported in JCA, 1.288f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 417f. And see Stern, Egyptian-Greek Prophesy, cit., pp. 227f. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 201 the Israelites in Egypt, Judaism and its beliefs and practices, and last but not least the conflict between the Jews and the Greeks in Alexandria. In addition Josephus quotes Apion’s derogatory statements about Jews, such as:

However, Apion deserves to be admired for his great prudence, as to what I am going to say, which is this: ‘That there is a plain mark among us, that we neither have just laws, nor worship God as we ought to do, because we are not governors, but are rather in subjection to Gentiles, sometimes to one nation, and sometimes to another, and that our city hath been liable to several calamities, while their city [Alexandria] hath been of old time an imperial city, and not used to be in subjection to the Romans’.

Or:

. . . But, says Apion: ‘We Jews have not had any wonderful men amongst us, not any inventors of arts, nor any eminent for wisdom.’ He then enumerates Socrates, and Zeno, and Cleanthes, and some others of the same sort; and, after all, he adds himself to them, which is the most wonderful thing of all that he says, and pronounces Alexandria to be happy, because it hath such a citizen as he is in it. . . .

And then:

. . . He denounces us for sacrificing domestic animals and for not eating pork, and he derides the practice of circumcision. . . .

As for Josephus, his Contra Apionem deals with his polemics directed against the attorney for the Alexandrians. He quotes the authorities mentioned before and their utterances on this or that aspect of Jews and Judaism and proceeds to refute their arguments.24 While Apion and his Hellenistic contemporaries drew their negative attitude to Jews and Judaism from their environment and in the case of Apion also from his collision with the Jews of Alexandria, a few Latin authors in Rome too continued to be critical of Jews and their cult. Seneca the philosopher was a

24 The question of whether Apion wrote a book about the Jews, or whether his essay on the Jews was part of his Aegyptiaca has been in dispute since Antiquity. See for instance Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 21.101.3f.; Eusebius, Preparatio Evengelica, 10.10.16. The citation of Josephus from Apion, is JCA, 2.125, 135, 137. On the conflict in Alexandria, see supra, chapt. 1, and on Philo, below. 202 chapter 5 case in point. He has been described as the first Latin writer who did so, but that hinges on the interpretation of Cicero’s remarks on Jews. He was a Stoic, teacher of Nero and subsequently his advisor. He committed suicide, following the accusation that he was involved in the plot to assassinate Nero. Seneca was a Spaniard, one of a group of Roman literati such as Quintilian and Martial, strongly prejudiced against Jews and Judaism. Seneca relates that in his youth he was influenced by oriental cults, those that resulted in the persecution of Jews and Egyptians under Tiberius. His father made him stop the practice:

. . . I was imbued with this teaching and began to abstain from animal food. At the end of a year the habit was as pleasant as it was easy. I was beginning to feel that my mind was more active; though I would not today positively state whether it really was or not. Do you ask how I came to abandon the practice? It was this way: The days of my youth coincided with the early part of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Some foreign rites were at that time being inaugurated, and abstinence from certain kinds of animal food was set down as a proof of interest in the strange cult. So at the request of my father, who did not fear prosecution, but who detested philosophy, I returned to my previous habits; and it was no very hard matter to induce me to dine more comfortably.

Seneca did not only stop his culinary habits adopted under the influence of Judaism, said to have become noticeable in his day in Rome, but actively opposed Jewish observances and ridiculed them. St. Augustine reported these views at length:

Seneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology, also found fault with the sacred things of the Jews, and especially the Sabbaths, affirm- ing that they act uselessly in keeping those seventh days, whereby they lose through idleness about the seventh part of their life, and also many things which demand immediate attention are damaged. The Christians, however, who were already most hostile to the Jews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame, lest, if he praised them, he should do so against the ancient custom of his country, or, perhaps, if he should blame them, he should do so against his own will. When he was speaking concerning those Jews, he said: ‘When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors’. By these words he expresses his astonishment; and, not knowing what the providence of God was leading him to say, subjoins in plain words Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 203

an opinion by which he showed what he thought about the meaning of those sacred institutions: For, he says, those, however, know the cause of their rites, while the greater part of the people know not why they perform theirs.

Seneca gibed at the ceremony of lighting the Sabbath lamp, since according to him the gods did not need the illumination, and men would object to the smoke. So here we have the main point of Roman denigration of the Sabbath and its ritual and one more negative utterance, this time describing Jews as an “accursed nation”. Seneca’s influence on the intelligentsia and ruling class in the first century and after is thought to have been considerable.25 A contemporary of Seneca, also a Stoic, Persius, in one of his Satires, gives a vivid description of what the intellectuals of Rome thought of the Sabbath in those days:

. . . But when the day of Herod comes round, when the lamps wreathed with violets and ranged round the greasy window-sills have spat forth their thick clouds of smoke, when the floppy tunnies’ tails are curled round the dishes of red ware, and the white jars are swollen out with wine, you silently twitch your lips, turning silent at the Sabbath of the circumcised. . . .

In this context, “the day of Herod” is obviously the Sabbath. Another contemporary of the two, or so most scholars claim, was Petronius Arbiter, thought to have been the author of a satirical novel Satyricon. A fragment ascribed to him

25 For Seneca on his vegetarianism, see his Epistulae Morales, 108.22; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 433f., and supra, chapt. 1, esp. the references in note 16; and see Hild, Les juifs à Rome, cit., pp. 55f. For Seneca’s view on Judaism, see Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 6.2, who quoted from Seneca’s De Superstitione (now lost). See Cappelletti, op. cit., p. 67; Leon, op. cit., pp. 39, 250; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 431f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., pp. 72, 82; Williams, Jewish Tendencies, cit., p. 109; Id., Domitian, cit., p. 201. Augustine apparently was not aware of the fact that when Seneca wrote this, Romans did not yet differentiate between Jews and Christians. For the statement that the vanquished Jews had given laws to the victors, see supra, chapt. 2, esp. note 56. On the Sabbath lamp, see Seneca, Epistolæ, 95. Curiously, R. Judah Briel (Mantua 18th century) translated the letters of Seneca into Hebrew, See my The Jews in the Duchy of Mantua, p. 642. Another famous Roman, a Stoic, who lived a generation or two after Seneca, was Epictetus. His attitude to Jews has been described as neutral. He dealt mainly with the eating habits of the Jews, conversion to Judaism and the like. See Stern, op. cit., p. 541. 204 chapter 5 contains in a few words most of the fables on Jews believed by contemporary Roman intellectuals and appear as their stock in trade when mentioning Jews:

The Jew may worship his pig-god and clamour in the ears of high heaven, but unless he also cuts back his foreskin with the knife, he shall go forth from the people and emigrate to Greek cities, and shall not tremble at the fast of Sabbath imposed by the law.26

The Flavians and the Severi

Not all Greek and Latin writers of the first and second centuries CE who mentioned Jews dealt with Judaism. Some repeated for the umpteenth time various episodes of the history of Judaea, of geographical details of that country, of Greek and Roman activities related to Judaea, and so forth. Among them are several writers whose identities have not been established. High on the list are the eight writers whom Josephus mentioned in his Contra Apionem; some anonymous authors on the war between the Jews and the Romans, reported by the same Josephus in his Bellum Judaicum; the chronicle of Memnon of Heraclea, whose times have not been ascertained, but he has been tentatively ascribed to the second half of the first century CE or the second. Much more detailed and vivid are the references of Pliny the Elder, the Roman naturalist of the first century CE. As is only to be expected, he dwells extensively on the natural aspects of Judaea and the produce of the country. But he does not stop there. He goes on to report a fable that in Judaea there is a stream which dries up every Sabbath. Like many writers before and after him he was fascinated by the Dead Sea and its bitumen and other features, by the vegetation of Judaea, particularly its palm trees and he is said to have obtained first-hand knowledge of the country,

26 Persius, Saturae, 180f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 435f. I am inclined to agree with Stern’s identification of Herod’s day as the Sabbath. No other interpretation makes sense. It has been suggested that eating fish at the Sabbath meal on Friday night was a Jewish custom. See also Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, cit., 5, p. 42; Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, cit. 1, pp. 110f.; McKay, Sabbath and the Synagogue, passim; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., p. 81. On Petronius’ fragment No. 37, see Castelli, Gratia migrabit ab urbe, pp. 315f., who thinks that urbe should be identified with Rome. See also Hidal, op. cit., pp. 141f.; Leon, op. cit., pp. 141f.; Leon, op. cit., pp. 39f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 441f. and the abundant references quoted by him. The identity of Petronius has been the subject of a heated scholarly dispute, but the identification of Petronius Arbiter with the author of Satyricon is plausible, to say the least. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 205 but that is more than doubtful. Be that as it may, Pliny’s account contains erroneous details, which one would not expect of one who had visited the country. Moses he numbers among the magicians. A passage from Pliny often quoted and discussed by scholars deals with the Essenes.27 Sycophants of the Flavians among Roman writers—not only Josephus— often glorified their main military achievement: the defeat of Judaea and the capture of Jerusalem. One such opus was the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus, an epic poet, their contemporary. In a lengthy poem dealing with the voyage of the ship Argo, he glorifies his Flavian heroes and says:

. . . As I hymn the wondrous deeds of old time heroes. Thy son shall tell of the overthrow of Idume (= Iudaea)—for well he can—of his brother foul with the dust of Solyma (= Jerusalem), as he hurls the brands and spreads havoc in every tower. In thy honour shall we ordain sacred rites and shall raise temples to his house, what time thou, Sire, shinest all over the sky. . . .

Silius Italicus, who wrote the Punica, a description of the Punic wars, expresses himself in a similar vein. The defeat of Judaea has little if anything to do with the Punic wars, but the poet had to get in his flattery of Vespasian and Titus sideways if at all. So the poet has Venus worried about the future of Rome in the light of Hannibal’s victory over the Romans. In response Jupiter prophesies the greatness of Rome and the Flavian victories. Yet another writer in this group was Frontinus, a high-ranking official in the Roman administration during the second half of the first century CE. He mentions the victory of Vespasian over the Jews and attributed it to his attack on the Sabbath. In addition to his having confused Titus with Vespasian, he blamed the defeat of the Jews on their refusal to make war on the Sabbath. The refusal goes back to the Maccabees, but does not seem to have been upheld during the war of 70. The last in this group was Statius, a Neapolitan poet, who mentions the palm trees and balsam of Judaea and dwells on the victory of his idols.28

27 See supra and JCA, 1.215f.; JBJ, 1.1f, 7f.; Memnon of Heraclea, Excerpta by Photius, Cod. 224, p. 229; Stern, op. cit., 1, passim and pp. 452f., 455f., 462f. The references in Pliny’s Naturalis Historia are the following: 2.226; 5.66f., 128; 6.213; 7.65, 98; 9.11; 12.64, 100, 109, 111f.; 13.26f.; 14.122; 19.101; 24.85; 26.60; 27.15; 28.80; 30.2; 31.24, 95; 33.136; 35.178. See Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 465f. 28 Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 1.11f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 502f. The exact date of Valerius Flaccus’ opus is controversial. For Silius Italicus, see his Punica, 3.597f.; Stern, op. cit., pp. 506f. Frontinus makes his statement in his lesser known Strategemata, 2.1.17; Stern, 206 chapter 5

Much more outspoken in their detestation of Jews and Judaism were some more writers of Spanish origin. In addition to Seneca the philosopher there was Quintilian, a native of latter day Calahorra. He was a rhetor and wrote a 12-volume opus on the training of a future member of his profession and on rhetoric. In Rome he opened a school of rhetoric. Among his pupils were Pliny the younger and perhaps Tacitus. He is said to have been a protégée of Flavius Clemens who became a Jewish martyr. It has been suggested that Martial made his anti-Jewish pronouncement after the death of this patron. He pleaded for Queen Berenice in her own court. In his hint at Moses he wrote:

. . . Of the vicious, also, we hate even the parents. To founders of cities, it is opprobrium to have drawn together a people noxious to those around them, as was the case with the original author of the Jewish superstition, so the laws of the Gracchi brought odium on their name.29

His compatriot, the poet Martial, a native of latter day Calatayud, spent many years in Rome. His “concern” with Judaism was chiefly circumcision, which he mentions some four times, and to a lesser degree the Jewish Sabbath. To round up his poetic fervour he does not omit to flatter the Flavians for their conquest of Jerusalem. He stopped fawning upon them on the death of Domitian, the last of the Flavians. One of his references to circumcision dealt with the Roman whore, Caelia. According to Martial she granted her favours to the members of all nations, including Jews, except Romans:

. . . You grant your favours to Parthians, you grant them to Germans, you grant them, Caelia, to Dacians . . . nor do you shun the lecheries of circumcised Jews . . . What is your reason that although you are a Roman girl, no Roman lewdness has attraction for you?

Some more Greek language writers dealt with Jews and Judaism, but often little if anything of their literary produce has survived. Such is the case with Damocritus, said to have been the author of a book on tactics. Suda reported

op. cit., 1, pp. 509f. and his lengthy footnote on Jewish fighting on the Sabbath. And see Goren, Fighting on the Sabbath, See also below, Plutarch, De Superstitione, 8. For Statius, see his Sylvae, 3.3.138f.; 5.1.208f.; 5.2.132; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 515f. 29 Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 3.5.21 and the reference to his pleading in the queen’s court: 4.1.19. Berenice was the daughter of King Agrippa I and eventually became the mistress of Titus (see supra); Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 512f.; Hidal, op. cit., pp. 141f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., p. 85. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 207 that he had written a book about the Jews, which, however, has not survived. Suda’s reference states:

Damocritus, an historian. He wrote a work about tactics in two volumes and a work on Jews. In the latter he states that they used to worship an asinine golden head and that every seventh year they caught a foreigner and sacrificed him. They used to kill him by carving his flesh into small pieces.

Another Greek writer, also thought to have lived in the first century CE, is Nicarchus. He too owes the memory of his existence to a Byzantine writer, Photius, a patriarch of Constantinople during the second half of the ninth century. Photius, in his lexicon, of which only fragments have been preserved, attributes to Nicarchus, son of Ammonius the identification of Moses’ affliction. The vilification of Moses, especially his alleged leprosy as well as that of the Israelites in Egypt is a recurring anti-Jewish motif in Graeco-Roman literature. Photius, incidentally, rejects the identification as “nonsense”.30 Plutarch, a Greek priest at Delphi, historian, biographer and high-ranking administrator in the second half of the first century CE and beginning of the second, addressed Judaism in relation to Jewish dietary laws and Jewish superstitions, such as the Sabbath, and condemned them along with those of other religions. His influence on fellow writers, then and later, is thought to have been considerable. The veracity of a considerable number of his accounts has been impugned for inaccuracy. Plutarch, like other Graeco-Roman writers was obsessed with the Jewish Sabbath. He refers to it on two occasions:

. . . ‘Greeks from barbarians finding evil ways’ [= Euripides], because of superstition, such as smearing with mud, wallowing in filth, keeping of the Sabbath, casting oneself down with face to the ground, disgraceful besieging of the gods, and uncouth prostrations . . . But the Jews, because

30 Martial, Egrammatica, 7.30; Hild, op. cit., pp. 169f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 521f. And see supra for additional quotations from Martial, esp. chapt. 3. Damocritus, De Judaeis, reported by Suda, Lexicon, s.v. Δαμόκριτος; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 530f. Suda is the only source for Damocritus, and therefore the information provided by him has to be treated with caution. The time of Damocritus too is debatable. He appears to have relied on sources that differ from those of Apion. Some modern scholars dated him to the first century CE. Nicarchus, De Iudaeis, reported by Photius, Lexicon, s.v. Aλφα; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 532f. And see Gager, Moses and Alpha, pp. 245f., who suggests that Nicarchus and the other two writers may have derived their stories from Diodorus Siculus (see supra). He describes them as “nothing more than a rhetorical exercise, a clever witticism”. 208 chapter 5

it was the Sabbath, sat in their places immovable, while the enemy was planting ladders against the walls and capturing the defenses, and they did not get up, but remained there, fast bound in the toils of superstitions as in one great net. . . .

Plutarch “reports” a discussion among his friends on the Jewish abstention from pork. That led to an argument over the identity of the Jewish God and related subjects. He also created the confusion over Verres, the propraetor of Sicily, and Caecilius of Calacte. In his description of the life of Cicero Plutarch made this additional remark:

. . . Nevertheless many witty sayings of his in connection with this trial are on record. For instance verres is the Roman word for a castrated porker. When, accordingly, a freedman named Caecilius, who was suspected of Jewish practices, wanted to thrust aside the Sicilian accusers and wanted to denounce Verres himself, Cicero said: ‘What has a Jew to do with Verres’? . . .

That, of course, is apocryphal. Other references to Jews and Jewish history are dispersed among Plutarch’s books. He dwelt in particular on Antony’s deeds in the East, on Cleopatra and the like.31

Tacitus, Juvenal and Sueton

The most detailed and inimical account of the history of the Jewish people by a classical writer is that of Tacitus, who is thought to have been the greatest of Roman historians. There are references to Jews dispersed throughout his surviving opera. The main narrative describing the antecedents of the Jews up to his times, that is until the beginning of the second century CE, is contained at the beginning of the fifth book of his Historiae. Tacitus has six explanations for the origins of the Jewish people, including the Cretan one, exclusive to

31 Plutarch, De supersticione, 3 (p. 166A); 8 (p. 169C); Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 545f. And see supra, esp. note 28. Plutarch, Vita Ciceronis, 7.6.; Reinach, Quid Judaeo cum Verre?, pp. 36f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, p. 566. Other references in Plutarch’s opera are: Plutarch, De Osiris et Osiride, 31; Regum et Imperatorum Apophtegmata, 39.3, 45.1.f.; Vita Antonii, 3.1f., 27.4., 36.3f., 61.1f., 71.1, 72.3; Vita Galbae, 13.4; Vita Othonis, 4.3, 15.6. On the issue of dietary laws and Jewish exclusiveness, see also Feldman, Jew and Gentile, cit., pp. 46f.; and for the entire issue, op. cit., pp. 529f. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 209

Tacitus; the Assyrian one, followed by the Egyptian episode and the settlement of Judaea, which follows the biblical account; and the Egyptian anti-Jewish one, based on the leprosy tale as formulated by Trogus and Lysimachus:

As I am about to relate the last days of a famous city, it seems appropriate to throw some light on its origin. Some say that the Jews were fugi- tives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous moun- tain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries. Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbours to seek a new dwelling-place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation celebrated in the poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded Hierosolyma after their own name.

Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which hor- ribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods. The people, who had been collected after diligent search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both, but to trust to themselves, taking for their heaven-sent leader that man who should first help them to be quit of their present misery. They agreed, and in utter ignorance began to advance at random. Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from 210 chapter 5

which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple.

Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practised by other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found deliverance from their long and thirsty wanderings. They slay the ram, seemingly in deri- sion of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. They abstain from swine’s flesh, in consideration of what they suffered when they were infected by the leprosy to which this animal is liable. By their frequent fasts they still bear witness to the long hunger of former days, and the Jewish bread, made without leaven, is retained as a memorial of their hurried seizure of corn. We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguiled them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction. But others say that it is an observance in honour of Saturn, either from the primitive elements of their faith having been transmitted from the Idaei, who are said to have shared the flight of that God, and to have founded the race, or from the circumstance that of the seven stars which rule the destinies of men Saturn moves in the highest orbit and with the mightiest power, and that many of the heavenly bodies complete their revolutions and courses in multiples of seven. This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgust- ing, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren. Still they provide for the increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them to kill any newly-born infant. They hold that the souls of all who perish in battle Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 211

or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence a passion for propagating their race and a contempt for death. They are wont to bury rather than to burn their dead, following in this the Egyptian custom; they bestow the same care on the dead, and they hold the same belief about the lower world. Quite different is their faith about things divine. The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form; the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials. They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay. They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors. From the fact, however, that their priests used to chant to the music of flutes and cymbals, and to wear garlands of ivy, and that a golden vine was found in the temple, some have thought that they worshipped father Liber, the conqueror of the East, though their institutions do not by any means harmonize with the theory; for Liber established a festive and cheerful worship, while the Jewish religion is tasteless and mean. . . .

So here, in Tacitus, we have in a nutshell the main elements of the stories cir- culating in Antiquity on the antecedents of Jews and Judaism as well as their beliefs and cult, rooted in the profound dislike of many Roman writers. The presentation of Tacitus obviously underlines the author’s preference for the “Egyptian” version of the antecedents of the Jewish people. His inaccuracies are plenty, in his detailed account and in his random references. The Historiae preceded the Annales in time of composition and there are some discrepancies between the two. Generally speaking, Tacitus’ attitude to Judaism is negative, as it is to other foreign “superstitions”, and in line with that of most famous Roman writers, such as Seneca, Juvenal and Quintilian. They all consider Judaism a danger to Roman society. There are some passages in Tacitus’ opera which show that he was acquainted with the Bible, or at least with certain passages, such as the consumption of unleavened bread on Passover, the number of 600,000 Jews at the time of the Exodus, and the sabbatical year. He too attaches importance to the antiquity of Jewish law—as does Josephus. In his account, he mentions other qualities and practices ascribed to Jews, i.e., a strong sexual drive, no intermarriage, circumcision, and prohibition of infanticide, immortality of the soul, also in conjunction with death in battle and as martyrs; Jewish monotheism; and inhumation rather than cremation. Proselytes to Judaism, whom Tacitus disliked at least as much as Jews born and bred, were accused by him of the same defects. 212 chapter 5

This is followed by a description of events in Judaea. Tacitus blamed the Roman procurators in Judaea for the outbreak of the Jewish War. He also refers to messianic expectations involved in the war. Among the lesser references of Tacitus to Jewish history and Judaea, there figure the geography of the country and various historical episodes, such as the revolts after 70. His influence on his contemporaries was considerable, because of his social standing, his fame as an historian and other factors. His mixing fact and fancy, giving weight to personal antipathy while attempting to present a serious historical narrative, do not diminish his impact on public opinion in Rome, at least among his educated and socially elevated readership.32 Juvenal the satirist, perhaps the greatest among his Roman peers, who lived in the second half of the first century and the beginning of the second, was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Rome by Greek and Oriental “superstitions” and their cultures. That, of course included Jews and Judaism. Three hallmarks of Judaism were singled out by Juvenal as targets of his opprobrium: circumcision, abstention from the consumption of pork and the Sabbath. Other Jewish “defects” underlined by Juvenal included their alleged inclination to begging and soothsaying:

. . . But while all his goods and chattels were being packed upon a single wagon, my friend [Umbricius] halted at the dripping archway of the old Porta Capena. Here Numa held his nightly assignations with his mistress. But now the holy fount and grove and shrine are let out to Jews, who possess a basket and a truss of hay for all their furnishings. For as every tree nowadays has to pay toll to the people, the Muses have been ejected and the wood has to go a-begging . . . No sooner has that fellow departed than a palsied Jewess, leaving her basket and her truss of hay, comes begging to her secret ear. She is an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem, a high priestess of the tree, a trusted go-between of highest heaven. She, too, fills her

32 Tacitus, Historiae, 1.10.3, 11.1; 1.76.2; 2.1.1., 2.1; 2.4.3f., 5.2, 6.1f., 2.73, 74.1, 76.1. 78.2f., 79, 81f.; 4.3.3, 51.2; 5.1f.; Id., Annales, 2.42.5, 85.4; 6.40.2; 12.13.1, 14.1, 23.1, 54; 13.7.1, 32; 14.26; 15.1.2f., 2.4, 4.1f., 14.3, 28.3; 15.44. See also Blumenkranz, Tacite antisémite ou xenophobe?, pp. 187f.; Bruce, Tacitus on Jewish History, pp. 43f.; Charles, Doctrine of Future Life, passim; Collins, A Symbol of Otherness, pp. 184f.; Feldman, Pro-Jewish Intimations in Tacitus’ Account of Jewish Origins, pp. 331f.; Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, cit., passim; Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, cit., 3, pp. 63f.; Lewy, op. cit., pp. 9f., 115f.; Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 2, pp. 279f.; Sevenster, op. cit., pp. 10f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 1f.; Syme, Tacitus, passim. It has been observed that the author of the Targum Ṣeni, 3.8 must have been familiar with the excursus of Tacitus, perhaps indirectly. See Herr, op. cit., pp. 42f. Targum Ṣeni is a collection of Midraṣin in a sort of Aramaic translation of Esther. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 213

palm, but more sparingly, for a Jew will tell you dreams of any kind you please for the minutest of coins. . . .

As to the Sabbath and metuentes, the satirist had this to say:

. . . Some who have had a father who reveres [metuentem] the Sabbath, worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity of the heavens, and see no difference between swine’s flesh, from which their father abstained, and that of man, and in time they take to circumcision. Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practise and revere the Jewish law and all that Moses handed down in his secret tome, forbidding to point out the way to any not worshipping the same rites and conducting none but he circumcised to the desired fountain. For all that the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness, keeping it apart from all the concerns of life. . . .33

Sueton, a contemporary of Juvenal, was a Roman historian best known for his History of the Twelve Caesars, covering the reigns of Roman rulers from Julius Caesar to Domitian. His other numerous works have been lost except for brief quotations here and there. Some of the references of Sueton to Jews are the only surviving source for their occurrence, while others have been cor- roborated by parallel sources. The reliability of Sueton is a bone of contention between scholars. Some consider his assertions gospel-truth, while others accuse him of having produced a collection of gossipy reports. Sueton reports on Jews and events related to them without evident bias. Those unsupported from other sources include the story of the mourning of the Jews for Caesar; and that about the undressing in court of an old man suspected of hiding his Jewishness to avoid paying the Jewish tax. Otherwise he retells the narratives

33 Juvenal, Saturae, 3.10f.; 6.542f. The Porta Capena was the gate of Rome leading to the via Appia in the direction of Capua. See Berliner, op. cit., 1, p. 99; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 94f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., pp. 233f. According to Mommsen, Religionsfrevel, cit., p. 425 the above means that the grove was let to Jews to use as a synagogue. Stern thinks that the meaning of the passage was that the place was “only a settlement of vagrant beggars”. La Piana, op. cit., p. 221 suggests that there was the largest Jewish quarter. Juvenal, op. cit., 14.96f. See, Feldman, Jewish Sympathizers, cit., p. 201; Isaac, Roman Attitudes, cit., p. 48; Leon, op. cit., p. 42; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., p. 206; Smallwood, Legislation of Hadrian, p. 335; Id., Poppaea Sabina, p. 330; (on God-Fearers); and see supra on sympathizers, God- fearers and proselytes. 214 chapter 5 known also from other sources. The question who borrowed from whom is, of course, controversial.34

In Rome and in the Provinces

Other Roman writers of this age, some of whom wrote Greek and some Latin, made brief references to Jews, Judaea and the like, without revealing new facts or providing new insights. Among them was Florus, author of an Epitome on Roman history, who described the Jews as an “impious nation”; Apollodorus of Damascus, author of a treatise on siege engines, thought to have been written at the request of the Emperor Hadrian to be used in Judaea during the Bar-Kochva war; and Herennius Philo of Byblus, a Phoenician historian, who translated the ancient history of his country written many years previously by Sanchuniathon. He made several references to Jews, none of them too sympathetic. Lydus quoted Philo’s explanation of Varro’s use of the term Iao for the Jewish God as “intelligible light” in Phoenician. Slightly different spellings of the name of the Jewish deity were also attributed to Philo. He is quoted as repeating the identification of Moses with Alpha, because of his alleged leprosy, condemned as “nonsense”. Others among their contemporary writers, whose opera are known only from citations, mostly in Byzantine mediaeval works, include Phlegon of Tralles, a Greek historian; Ptolemy Chennus, an Alexandrian grammaticus, who repeated the scurrilous tale about Moses and Alpha; and Arrian, a Greek historian and military commander, author of Parthica in 17 books, also known only from citations, whose description of Hadrian’s intentions towards the Jews we have had occasion to cite before.35

34 Sueton, De Vita Caesarum, Julius, 84.5; Augustus, 76.2, 93; Tiberius, 32.2, 36; Claudius, 25.4, 28; Nero, 40.2; Galba, 23; Vitellius, 15.1; Vespasianus, 4.5f., 5.6, 6.3, 8.1; Titus, 4.3, 5.2, 7.1f.; Domitianus, 2.1, 12.2. Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 108f. And see supra on the mourning for Caesar and the prosecution of the old man. 35 Florus, Epitoma, 1.0.29f. It has been suggested that Apollodorus wrote Hadrian on the siege engines for use in the Bar Kochva war. Others dispute it. See Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 14f. There exists also some ambiguity over the sequence of events, since it was the same Emperor Hadrian who had Apollodorus executed for some criticism he had voiced. See Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 69.4. See also Achille, Testimonianze di Floro e Frontone, pp. 279f. On the quotation of Lydus, see his De Mensibus, 4.53; For other quotes, see Id., De Magistratibus, 1.12; Helladius, Chrestomathia, quoted by Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 279, p. 529b; Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 1.9.20f., 1.10.42f.; Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.15; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 134f., 491. On Phlegon, see Suda, s.v.; on Ptolemy Chennus, Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 190; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 148f.; and on Arrian, see supra, chapt. 1, note 33. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 215

Another group of Roman authors, contemporaries of those just reported, or slightly younger, include Cleomedes, a Stoic who wrote on astronomy. His main opus On the Circular Motion of the Celestial Bodies throws some light on the Greek dialect spoken by the Jews, which may have included those in Italy. In his criticism of the Greek style of Epicurus he traces its derivation from various corrupt dialects, including the one emanating from “the midst of the synagogue and the beggars of its courtyards”. Since little if anything is known about him, including the dating of his life, the exact time and place to which he refers are uncertain. There was also Sextus Empiricus, a philosopher and physician whose abode and period are controversial. His mention of the Jews deals with their abhorrence of pork, a piece of information often repeated. Others mentioning this are Diodorus Siculus, Petronius, Tacitus, Plutarch, and Juvenal. Still in the first half of the second century CE there lived in Alexandria Claudius Ptolemy, mathematician, astronomer/astrologer and geographer, of great renown in the Middle Ages. He presented a confused description of Judaea and surrounding countries. His inaccuracies left a lasting mark on succeeding generations, although he furnished his geographical survey with detailed measurements. He described the characteristics of some Jews as treacherous and despicable cowards, contradicted by another definition whereby others were bold and godless. Since all this is based on the stars, that is on astrology, not much weight may be attached to his evaluation. Vettius Valens, also an astrologer, limited himself to ascribing to Abraham great importance as an astrologer.36 On returning briefly to Rome and to a Latin writer, there was Fronto. Though born in North Africa, he spent most of his life in Rome. He was famous in his day as a rhetor and as teacher of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. In a letter to the latter, he apparently alluded to Jews when speaking of the sighting of a star as a sign to break one’s fast:

The consul to his own Caesar. Lucky brother of mine to have seen you those two days. But I stick fast in Rome bound with golden fetters, looking forward to the first of September as the superstitious to the stars, at

36 Cleomedes, de Motu Circolari, 2.1.91; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 157f. And see Lewy, op. cit., pp. 197f.; Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, cit., pp. 29f.; Id., Greek and Hellenism, cit., pp. 22f. Some think that he lived in the third century CE in Rome. If so, his description might be applicable to the Jews in Rome. Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyposes, 3.222f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 159f. On the others, see supra. Claudius Ptolemy mentions Jews and Judaea in his Apotelesmatica, 2.3.65f.; 4.73; and Geographica, 5.15.1f., 16; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 162f. On Vettius Valens, see his Anthologiae, 2.28f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 173f. 216 chapter 5

sight of which to break their fast. Farewell, Caesar, glory of your country and the Roman name. My lord, farewell.

The next Graeco-Roman writer who mentions the Jews is again a Greek of the provinces. He is Appian of Alexandria, an historian and a staunch supporter of the Roman regime. He was a friend of Fronto who had him appointed to government office. His garbled account, though not inimical to Jews, in the surviving passages of his writings, repeats for the umpteenth time the events surrounding the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey, the revolt under Trajan, and so forth. He must have been an eyewitness to some of these events, but adds little to what his predecessors had to say. His contemporary was Pausanias, a geographer of Asia Minor, who wrote a detailed description of Ancient Greece. He travelled over large tracts of the Roman Empire, including Judaea and Jerusalem. He mentions Jews on several occasions in his opus Graecia Descriptio, including the Jewish Sybil, whom he calls Sabbe.37 Perhaps the most famous and perhaps notorious writer of the second century CE was Apuleius, a North African Berber, known for his Metamo rophosis=Golden Ass. He hardly mentions Jews, but when he does he described them as superstitious. He also termed Moses a magician, as did for instance Pliny. His contemporary, Numenius of Apamea, has been described as “standing in glaring contrast to some of the writers nearer to his time, who though fervent admirers of oriental wisdom, despised Judaism”, such as Apuleius. Numenius was a Platonist philosopher and an admirer of Moses, his admiration only paralleled by the anonymous author of On the Sublime. He called Plato an “atticizing Moses”. He was familiar with the Old Testament and quoted

37 Fronto, Epistulae ad M. Caesarem et Invicem, 2.9; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 176. In another text of his Fronto mentions the military losses suffered by the Romans in the days of Hadrian. Appian of Alexandria, Historia Romana, Syriacus, 50.251f.; Id., op. cit., Mithridaticus, 106.498f.; 114.556; 115.562; 117.571f., 576f.; Id., op. cit., Arabicus, F19; Id., op. cit., Bella Civilia, 2.71.294, 90.380, 5.75.318f.; Achille, op. cit., pp. 279f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 178f. For Pausanias, see his Graeciae Descriptio, 1.5.5; 4.35.9; 5.5.2, 7.4f.; 6.24.8; 8.16.4f.; 9.19.8; 10.12.9; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 191f., and on the Jewish Sybil pp. 198f., 3, pp. 61f.; Aelianus, a Roman Sophist, also mentions the Jewish Sybil. And see Wardy, Jewish Religion in Pagan Literature, cit., pp. 592f. Apuleius, Apologia (on magic), 90; Id., Florida, 6; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 201f. On Pliny, see supra. Numenius, quoted by Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.22.150.4; Id., quoted by Eusebius, Preparation Evangelica, 9.6.9; 11.10.14; Id., quoted by Theodoretus, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, 2.114; Id., reported in Suda, s.v.; Id. De Bono, reported by Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 9.7.1, 8.1f.; Id., op. cit., reported by Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.15; 4.51; Id., quoted by Lydus, De Mensibus, 4.53; Id., reported by Porphyry, De Anno Nympharum, 10; Stern, op. cit., pp. 206f. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 217 from it frequently. His influence is thought to have balanced some of the anti-Jewish views of other Graeco-Roman writers. Scholars have constructed far-fetched theories about Numenius, i.e., that he was himself a Jew, that the quotations from his lost works are all by Christian writers with a Christologi- cal agenda, and so forth. Undoubtedly, however, Numenius obviously wielded considerable influence on some of them. An adamant advocate of paganism and all it stood for was Lucian of Samosata, who lived in the second century. His numerous books, including a popular novel, hardly mention Jews. Once he apparently referred to Jews as exorcists.38 Celsus the philosopher belonged to this group of ardent pagans, who attacked Christianity and were in turn attacked by the Fathers of the Church. His biography is shrouded in mystery and his True Doctrine is known only from the quotations of his arch-enemy, Origen, in his Contra Celsum. Celsus attacked Judaism because he saw in it the roots of Christianity. His attitude to the history of Jews and Judaism is a mixture of the views held by his predecessors, steering a sort of middle course between the extremists, such as Lysimachus and Apion, and the more moderate, such as Strabo. In the last analysis, however, Celsus is decidedly critical of Judaism, its beliefs and cult. That, of course, resulted in a vehement defense of Judaism by Origen, but in its Christological version. The main arguments of Celsus against Jews and Judaism are the following: the contribution of Jews to human civilization is negligible and they failed as a nation. He describes Jewish beliefs in the Messiah and in resurrection as an absurdity and rejects Jewish anthropocentricism. By the same token he thinks little of the legislation of Moses, the biblical version of the Creation and the universe, the Jewish concept of the deity and of heaven (the angels). He belittles the Jewish people and their origin. At the same time he thinks even less of Christianity, since according to him Judaism is at least a national religion, whereas Christianity is not. Finally Celsus has a Jew attack Christianity, and

38 Apuleius, Apologia (on magic), 90; Id., Florida, 6; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 201f. On Pliny, see supra. Numenius, quoted by Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.22.150.4; Id., quoted by Eusebius, Preparation Evangelica, 9.6.9; 11.10.14; Id., quoted by Theodoretus, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, 2.114; Id., reported in Suda, s.v.; Id. De Bono, reported by Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 9.7.1, 8.1f.; Id., op. cit., reported by Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.15; 4.51; Id., quoted by Lydus, De Mensibus, 4.53; Id., reported by Porphyry, De Anno Nympharum, 10; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 206f. Lucian, Philopseudeis, 16; Id., Alexander Pseudopropheta, 13; Id., Tragodopodagra, 171f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 221f.; and see Feldman-Reinhold, Jewish Life, cit., pp. 380f. 218 chapter 5 some of the arguments allegedly voiced by the latter appear to be Jewish; and he has been described as belonging to the Hellenistic variety.39 The greatest physician of Antiquity, Galen, was also a Platonian philosopher, scientist, and so forth. He was a native of Pergamum and a contemporary of Celsus and the other writers of the second century we have mentioned. He refers to Jews mainly to demonstrate his disagreement with Jewish cosmogony, particularly the acceptance by Moses and his followers of the divine dictum irrespective of its fitting physical and material conditions. He visited Judaea and mentions some of its geographical sights, such as the Dead Sea. No anti- Jewish animus has been detected in Galen’s writings, at least not in those that have survived. He voices his critique of Moses in connection with his excursus on the length of the eyelashes, and states:

. . . Did our demiurge simply enjoin this hair to preserve its length always equal, and does it strictly observe this order either from fear of its master’s command, or from reverence for the god who gave this order, or is it because believes it better to do this? Is not this Moses’ way of treating Nature and is it not superior to that of Epicurus? The best way, of course, is to follow neither of these but to maintain like Moses the principle of the demiurge as the origin of every created thing, while adding the material principle to it. For our demiurge created it to preserve a constant length, because this was better. When he had determined to make it so, he set under part of it a hard body as a kind of cartilage and under another part a hard skin attached to the cartilage through the eyebrows. For it was certainly not sufficient merely to will their becoming such: it would not have been possible to make a man out of a stone in an instant by simply wishing so. It is precisely this point in which our own opinion and that of Plato and of the other Greeks who follow the right method in natural science differs from the position taken by Moses. For the latter it seems enough to say that God simply willed the arrangement of matter and it was presently arranged in due order; for he believes everything to be possible with God, even if he wished to make a bull or a horse out of ashes. We however do not hold this. We say that certain things are impossible by nature and that God does not even attempt such things at all, but that he chooses the best out of the possibilities of becoming. We say

39 Celsus, The True Doctrine, quoted by Origen, Contra Celsum; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 224f. See Lange (de), Origen and the Jews, passim; Feldman, Origen’s Contra Celsum, pp. 105f.; Lods, Étude sur les sources juives, pp. 1f.; Rokeah, Jewish People, cit., pp. 462f.; Schäfer, op. cit., pp. 42f.; and see below. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 219

therefore that since it was better that the eyelashes should always be equal in length and number; it was not that he just willed and they were instantly there. For even if he should just will numberless times, they would never come into being in this manner out of soft skin; and in particular, it was altogether impossible for them to stand erect unless fixed on something hard. We say thus that God is the cause both of the choice of the best in the products of creation themselves and of the selection of the matter. For since it was required, first that the eyelashes should stand erect and secondly that they should be kept equal in length and number, he planted them firmly in a cartilaginous body. If he had planted them in a soft and fleshy substance he would have suffered a worse failure not only than Moses but also than a bad general who plants a wall or a camp in a marshy ground. . . .

Galen prefers the Mosaic cosmogony to that of Epicurus and his own to that of either.40 Artemidorus, a diviner of the second century CE, repeated the denigration of the synagogue and its attraction for beggars by now well-known in Rome and elsewhere. In line with Artemidorus’ profession, he numbers them as ill- omens, particularly on their appearance in one’s dreams:

. . . A synagogue and beggars and all people who ask for gifts and such as arouse pity, and mendicants, foretell grief and anxiety and heartache to both men and women. For on the one hand, no one departs for a synagogue without a care, and on the other, beggars who are very odious looking and without resources and have nothing wholesome about them are an obstacle to every plan. . . .

Still in the second century some writers made brief references to the geography of Judaea without adding anything to the observations made by their predecessors. A more significant contribution, if that is what we can call it, to the attitude to Jews of the writers belonging to that period, was made by Philostratus, described as a Sophist, in his Life of Apollonius, a Pythagorean, a Syrian or Egyptian, cherished by the Severi. Philostratus was an admirer of Hellenic culture and disdained “oriental wisdom”. Philostratus puts his worst criticism of the Jews in the mouth of an opponent of Apollonius in their speeches in front of Vespasian:

40 Galen, De Usu Partium, 11.14; Stern, op. cit., 1, pp. 306f. See supra, chapt. 1 and below. 220 chapter 5

. . . As for the count of ill luck, I may dismiss it; but as for that of cow- ardice, how can you avoid it? How escape the reproach of having been afraid of Nero, the most cowardly and supine of rulers? Look at the revolt against him planned by Vindex, you surely were the man of the hour, its natural leader, not he! For you had an army at your back, and the forces you were leading against the Jews, would they not have been more suitably employed in chastising Nero? For the Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against humanity; and a race that has made its own a life apart and irreconcilable, that cannot share with the rest of mankind in the pleasures of the table nor join in their libations or prayers or sacrifices, are separated from ourselves by a greater gulf than divides us from Susa or Bactra or the more distant Indies. What sense then or reason was there in chastising them for revolting from us, whom we had better have never annexed? As for Nero, who would not have prayed with his own hand to slay a man well-nigh drunk with human blood, singing as he sat amidst the hecatombs of his victims? I confess that I ever pricked up my ears when any messenger from yonder brought tidings of yourself, and told us how in one hand battle you had slain thirty thousand Jews and in the next fifty thousand. In such cases I would take the courier aside and ask him: ‘But what of the great man? Will he not rise to higher things than this?’ Since then you have discovered in Vitellius an image and ape of Nero, and are turning your arms against him, persist in the policy you have embraced, for it too is a noble one, only let its sequel be noble too. . . .41

Cassius Dio and the Last Pagan Authors

A younger contemporary of the foregoing was Cassius Dio, a native of Nicaea, Roman senator, consul and author of a Roman History in 80 books in Greek, only part of which has survived. Although much coloured by personal views, Cassius’ opus is an important source of the history of Rome and contains many references to Jews, particularly when they were in contact in one form or another with the Roman authorities. In his description of the capture of

41 Artemidorus, Onirocritica, 3.53; Stern, op. cit., pp. 329f. The author uses the term proseuche, i.e., the building of the synagogue, see below. Another passage, op. cit., 4.24, by the same author refers to the Jewish uprising in Cyrenaica. See Applebaum, Rebellion of the Jews of Cyrenaica, cit., pp. 23f. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, 5.33f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 339f. These accusations against the Jews had been voiced by Hecataeus of Abdera (see supra). Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 221

Jerusalem by Pompey, Cassius makes an excursus on Jewish religion and customs, but without animosity, as follows:

. . . Pompey accordingly marched against him [Aretas] and his neighbours, and, overcoming them without effort, left them in charge of a garrison. Thence he proceeded against Syria Palaestina, because its inhabitants had ravaged Phoenicia. Their rulers were two brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, who were quarrelling themselves, as it chanced, and were creating factions in the cities on account of the priesthood (for so they called their kingdom) of their god, whoever he is. Pompey immediately won over Hyrcanus without a battle, since the latter had no force worthy of note; and by shutting up Aristobulus in a certain place he compelled him to come to terms, and when he would surrender neither the money nor the garrison, he threw him into chains. After this he more easily overcame the rest, but had trouble in besieging Jerusalem. Most of the city, to be sure, he took without any trouble, as he was received by the party of Hyrcanus; but the Temple itself, which the other party had occupied, he captured only with difficulty. For it was on high ground and was fortified by a wall of its own, and if they had continued defending it on all days alike, he could not have got possession of it. As it was, they made an excavation of what are called the days of Saturn, and by doing no work at all on those days afforded the Romans an opportunity in this interval to batter down the wall. The latter, on learning of this superstitious awe of theirs, made no serious attempts the rest of the time, but on those days, when they came round in succession, assaulted most vigorously. Thus the defenders were captured on the day of Saturn, without making any defense, and all the wealth was plundered. The kingdom was given to Hyrcanus, and Aristobulus was carried away. This was the course of events at that time in Palestine; for this is the name that has been given from of old to the whole country extending from Phoenicia to Egypt along the inner sea. They have also another name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be given to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances. They are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life, and especially by the fact that they do not honour any of the usual gods, but show extreme reverence for one particular divinity. They never had any statue of him even in Jerusalem 222 chapter 5

itself, but believing him to be unnamable and invisible; they worship him in the most extravagant fashion on earth. They built to him a temple that was extremely large and beautiful, except in so far as it was open and roofless, and likewise dedicated to him the day called the day of Saturn, on which, among many other most peculiar observances, they undertake no serious occupation. Now as for him, who he is and why he has been so honoured, and how they got their superstitious awe of him, accounts have been given by many, and moreover these matters have naught to do with this history.

Cassius largely complements the account of Josephus. By the beginning of the third century, when Cassius penned his account, the enmity of Romans to Jews is said to have diminished and the narratives of their history and customs had become less lurid and inimical. Jews no longer were supposed to fast on the Sabbath (the day of Saturn), their religion was no longer ostracized or inhibited, and Cassius refrains from condemning it as a “superstition”. But he too was not free of mistakes, such as his assertion that the Jews did not fight on the day of rest.42 Censorinus was a Roman grammarian and miscellaneous writer in the first half of the third century. His surviving book De Due Natali is a miscellany dealing with a large variety of subjects, from history to science and nearly everything in between. In his excursus on pregnancy he dwells on the number seven and its importance in Greek philosophy and in Judaism:

. . . However, the other pregnancy, which is longer, is counted by a greater number’ namely the number seven, which rules the whole of human life, as Solon writes, and this the Jews follow in their general division of days and so also the Etruscan books dealing with religious ceremonies seem to declare. . . .

He is thought to have relied largely on Varro and Sueton, especially their lost books. His contemporary, Solinus, a grammarian and compiler, authored a description of curiosities, based largely on Pliny. His opus, Collection of

42 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 37.15.2f., 38.4; 39.56.5f.; 41.18.1; 47.28.3, 30.1; 48.26.2, 41.4f.; 49.22.3f., 32.4f.; 54.9.3; 55.23.2f., 27.6; 57.18.5; 59.8.2, 24.1; 60.6.6, 8.2f.; 62.20.2f., 23.4; 63.1.2, 22.1; 65.8.1, 3, 9.2; 66.1.1f., 4f., 9.2, 12, 15.3f., 18.1; 67.14.1f.; 68.1.2, 32.1f., 32.5; 69.11.1, 12.1f.; 71.25.1; 75.2.4; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 347f. Some of the texts survived only in abbreviated form in the Epitome of Xiphilinus. On some of Cassius’ passages, in particular on Flavius Clemens, the events in Judaea and the wars the Romans waged against the Jews, see supra, esp. chapt. 1. Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 223

Memorable Things, contains a description of Judaea, particularly of the Dead Sea, Jaffa, Jericho, and so forth.43 Porphyry of Tyre was a Neoplatonic philosopher, a pupil of Plotinus and editor of his main opus. He was opposed to Christianity and was a fervent defender of paganism (Adversus Christianos). He was interested in Judaism both as an old religion and as the foundation of Christianity. He quotes at length from Josephus, particularly his Jewish War. Most of his references to Jews are sympathetic. He criticizes the persecutions by Antiochus and Romans. In his opus, On Abstinence, he stresses the Jewish abstention from pork and other animal food. Among other things he has Pythagoras studying with Jews. He knew the Bible and quoted from it, at least from Genesis. It has been suggested that Porphyry drew on Jewish anti-Christian polemics. If that is the case, we have here an additional source for the Jewish arguments in the disputation with Christianity. He is energetic in his criticism of Paul, points out his misquota- tions from the Old Testament, and particularly underlines that Moses never mentioned Jesus or his divinity; that the Jews had good reason to crucify Jesus; and that the writings of Moses perished along with the first Temple. According to Porphyry the views attributed to Moses were written by Ezra and his successors, 1,180 years after his death. Porphyry attacked the allegorical method adopted by Christianity in the interpretation of the Old Testament. It has been suggested that his methods and conclusions are reminiscent of modern Bible criticism. Eusebius of Caesarea quotes Porphyry as saying that:

. . . introducing his own god as himself bearing witness to the wisdom of the Hebrew race as well as of other nations renowned for intelligence. It is his Apollo who speaks as follows in an oracle which he is uttering; and while still explaining the subject of sacrifices, he adds words which are well worthy of attention, for being full of all divine knowledge:

‘Steep is the road and rough that leads to heaven, Entered at first through portals bound with brass Within are found innumerable paths, Which for the endless good of all mankind

43 Consorinus, In Die Natali, 11.6; Stern, op. cit., 1, p. 415. The number seven is said to have great significance in Judaism, especially its mystical connotation. On Solinus, see his Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium, 1.56; 34f. He claims that Jericho became a Jewish centre after the destruction of Jerusalem. But that appears to be a confused statement, mixing chronologically distant events with each other. 224 chapter 5

They first revealed who Nile’s sweet waters drink. From them the heavenward paths Phoenicia learned, Assyria, Lydia and the Hebrew race . . .’.

Another quotation, dated to the sixth century, refers to the “second god” the demiurge, the intellect, or Jewish God. As to Jewish abstinence from pork, Porphyry had this to say:

. . . Though we wage war against wild beasts on justified grounds, still we abstain from many animals that live in association with men. This is the reason why the Greeks do not eat dogs, or horses, or asses but eat pigs, the tame ones being of the same species as the wild, and this holds true about the birds. For the pig is of no use but for food. But the Phoenicians and Jews abstained from it, because in their places pigs were not to be found at all. For it is said that even now this animal is not to be seen in Ethiopia. . . .

Porphyry then goes on to describe the “philosophies” of the Jews: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, writing mostly on the latter, based largely on Josephus. He reports several authorities on Jewish beliefs, events in the Middle East, some more criticism of Christianity, particularly some invective against the Apostle Paul. As might be expected, Porphyry’s attack on Christianity aroused violent reaction by Christian writers. Yet only their quotations from Porphyry allow us a glimpse of his lost works. On the other hand, Porphyry’s disciple, Iamblichus, had very little to say on Jews and their beliefs. He lived in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth. The only view on this topic attributed to him is that he too believed that the god of the Jews was a demiurge.44

44 Porphyry, De Philosophia ex Oraculis Haurienda, quoted by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evan- gelica, 9.10.1f.; Baer, Israel, the Church, cit., pp. 30f.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 218f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 423f. Porphyry, op. cit., quoted by Augustinus, De Civitate Dei, 19.23; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 430f. Porphyry, Oracula Chaldaica, reported by Lydus, De Mensi- bus, 4.53 (the reference is disputed); Stern, op. cit., 2, p. 433; Porphyry, De Abstinentia, 1.14; 2.61; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 433f.; Porphyry, op. cit., 4.11f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 435f. Cf. JA, 18.18f.; JBJ, 2.144f. Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae, 11; Id., De Antro Nympharum, 10; Id., Chron- ica, reported by Eusebius, Chronica, 1, pp. 165, 255; Id., Adversus Christianos, reported by Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 1.2.1f.; and reported by Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo, 77, 81; also reported by Jerome, Commentarii in Danielem 1f., and further quotations, some lengthy, by Christian writers, chiefly Jerome, but also Macarius Magnes and others to confute Porphyry. See Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 450f. Several deal with Jerome’s interpretation of Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 225

This brings us to the fourth century. The first Latin author in that century to treat of Jews was Firmicus Maternus, an astrologer and contemporary of Constantine. He mentions Abraham four times, listing him among the astrologers and citing some of the calculations allegedly carried out by him. But by far the most detailed account of Jews and Judaism was given by Julian, the last pagan emperor of Rome, whose short rule was no more than an interlude in the ascent to power of Christianity. Julian’s most powerful internal enemy was the new religion, which had become that of the Roman state in the wake of Constantine’s conversion. Julian’s opus Contra Galilaeos, like that of other pagan defenders of their religion and way of life, contains much about the roots of Christianity. In that it resembles Porphyry’s Adversus Christianos, though it differs from it in detail. The book has been lost, and most of our information on it is gleaned from the critique of Cyril of Alexandria in defense of Christianity. Julian’s book contains much of what Roman pagans thought on the subject, both sympathetic to Judaism and hostile to it. Julian’s book deals with a variety of subjects. It includes a discussion of the conception of god. It compares Greek, Jewish and Christian beliefs and asks why Christians had adopted and at the same time abandoned them. He states that Christians accepted only the lesser and negative elements of both Greeks and Jews: “atheism from the Jewish levity, and a sordid and slovenly way of living from our indolence and vulgarity”. He calls miracles and the like of both Greeks and Jews incredible fables, points out their absurdity, and cites from the Greek legends and from the Bible. He then goes on to criticize other tenets and beliefs, especially in the Bible. He compares these to the views of Plato, particularly with regard to the universe. Being a Neo-Platonist, he opts for the latter. There follow some more descriptions and definitions of God according to the three religions and their cosmogonies. He rejects such stories as the building of the tower of Babel as being fables and incredible. This is followed by more criticism of the biblical commandments, particularly those of Moses. He belittles the Jews for not having produced scholars and scientist, such as philosophers and the like. By comparison he lists the Greek philosophers and physicians. All the same, he finds positive sides to Judaism and to Jews. He censures Christianity for having abandoned these positive aspects of Judaism.

Daniel’s visions and prophesy as opposed to those of Porphyry. Numerous legends have been woven about Porphyry. Thus his wife, Marcella, is reported to have been a Jewess; and according to another tradition: a Christian. Porphyry himself has been described as a former Christian. These stories were put into circulation by Christian circles, his sworn enemies. Iamblichus, quoted by Lydus, De Mensibus, 4.53; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 484f. 226 chapter 5

Julian goes on to criticize Christian claims, such as the one about Moses foretelling the coming of Jesus, and censures Christians for the abandonment of monotheism. He then proceeds to deal with sacrifices, purity, dietary laws, and so forth. Julian declares that although he does not keep the Jewish festivals, he is full of admiration for the patriarchs, their skills, sacrifices, divination, circumcision, and other customs and rites. Elsewhere in his writings Julian expresses similar views and rebuts some of the views held by less friendly writers, such as the one about the abundance of Jewish beggars. All that found its practical expression in Julian’s project for the restoration of the temple. An example of his criticism of Christianity is the following:

. . . Moses after fasting forty days received the law, and Elijah after fasting for the same period was granted to see God face to face. But what did Jesus receive after a fast of the same length? . . . .

Similar attacks on Jesus and Christianity abound in Julian’s writings.45 A friend of Julian and a Neo-Platonist like him (as his name indicates), was Sallustius Neoplatonicus, who dealt, among other things, with Providence. However, his only mention of Jews is that they practise circumcision. Other Graeco-Roman writers of the second half of the fourth century mention historical events in Judaea, the geography of the country, contemporary conditions there, including the patriarchate, and Julian’s project for the restoration of the Temple. Some observations on the Jews are neutral, while others lean to this or that side of the pendulum. They were pagans and their main concern was Christianity and its growing intolerance of unbelievers. They include Eutropius, author of a short history of Rome; Festus, a contemporary of Valens; Libanius, the last great pagan rhetor, in conflict with some of his Jewish tenants in Antioch, but on friendly terms with one of the patriarchs; and Ammianus Marcellinus, described as the last of the great pagan historians, the only non- Christian writer to mention Julian’s project.46

45 Firmicus Maternus Mathesis 4, Proemium 5, 4.17.2, 5,18.1; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 492f. Julian, Contra Galilaeos, passim; Id., Epistolaeno Ad Arsacium; Id., Orationes, 9, p. 192; quotations by Christian writers: Lydus, De Mensibus, 4.53; Gregorius Nazianzenus, Orationes, 5.3; Stephanus Byzantius, Ad Tiberiopolitas, s.v. Τιβεριάς; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 502f.; and see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 52. 46 Sallustius Neoplatonicus, De Deis et Mundo, 9.5; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 573f.; on these four writers, see Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 575f. Except for Libanius, they copied from their predecessors and added nothing new to Graeco-Roman literature on the Jews. See also Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 227

The dating, authorship and reliability of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae has been described as “an enigma”, and so it has remained to the present day. Not surprisingly this has invited a vast number of scholars to vent their views and theories on the problem. Even the question of whether the opus was written by a single person or by several individuals has never been settled. It would appear that the problem is insoluble at this juncture. As to the dating of the opus, that varies between the beginning of the fourth century and its end. One or two scholars even go so far as to ascribe it to the beginning of the fifth. Admittedly, some events and names mentioned in the Historiae serve as evidence for a date around 400. But the earlier date may be sustainable if we accept the view that the details mentioned in the Historiae posterior to the beginning of the fourth century were the result of a later revision. The Historiae mention Jews some 20 times and report events not known from other sources. It has been suggested that such details should not be given credence if unsupported from other sources. The descriptions of most events linked to Jews by the author or authors of the Historiae span a period starting with Hadrian in the middle of the second century up to end of the third. His (or their) favourite appears to have been Alexander Severus, depicted as an exem- plary ruler, tolerant, wise and respectful of other religions, including Judaism. In view of the avowed pagan tendencies of the author or authors the impact of the Historiae on Roman public opinion, particularly if the book was written around 400, was probably negligible, what with paganism being on the wane. The more so, since by then the policies of Christian emperors under the influence of the Church rather than pagan writers dictated the attitude towards Jews and Judaism. Some of the deeds of Alexander Severus were described as follows:

. . . He respected the privileges of the Jews and allowed the Christians to exist unmolested . . . His manner of living was as follows: First of all, if it were permissible, that is to say, if he had not lain with his wife, in the early morning hours he would worship in the sanctuary of his Lares, in which he kept statues of the deified emperors, of whom, however, only the best had been selected, and also of certain holy souls, among them Apollonius, and according to a temporary writer, Christ, Abraham,

Schwabe, Letters of Libanius, pp. 85f. For the citation from Ammianus Marcellinus, see supra chapt. 1, note 41. On Ammianus, see Momigliamo, Review of: Syme, R., Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, pp. 566f. 228 chapter 5

Orpheus and others of the same character, and besides the portraits of his ancestors. . . .47

One of the last pagan Graeco-Roman writers of Antiquity who wrote on Jews and Judaism was Rutilius Namatianus, who lived at the beginning of the fifth century. Apparently he hated Jews as did some of the most virulent Jew-baiters of by-gone generations such as Seneca. His personal chagrin at his meeting with a Jewish park-keeper may have contributed to his vehemence. The remaining pagan writers of the fifth and early sixth centuries are few in number and add little if anything to the views and beliefs of Romans on Jews and Judaism. Among them were Macrobius, who is credited with the famous saying: “I had rather be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son”, made against the background of the alleged murders of King Herod. Other writers, such as Syrianus and Proclus, Neo-Platonists, joined the ranks of those who identified the Jewish God with a demiurge. Slightly younger was their fellow Neo-Platonist, Damascius. When Justinian shut down the academy of Athens, the deaths knell of pagan philosophy in the Roman Empire, Damascius left the Roman Empire for Persia. In the surviving fragments of his Life of Isidorus he mentions converts from Judaism. The conversions took place in Egypt, thus probably being a factor which contributed to the progressive disappearance of Jews from this country, although a more decisive cause for that probably was the conflict of the Jews with the locals, this time Christians, and the general population decline. The Jews mentioned by Damascius were intellectuals, such as physicians and philosophers. In addition Damascius mentions Jewish magic and abhorrence of pork.48 …

47 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Divus Claudius, 2.4f.; Hadrianus, 5.2, 8; 14.1f.; Antoninus Pius, 5.4; Septimius Severus, 14.6; 16.7; 17.1; Perennius Niger, 7.9; Antoninus Caracallus, 1.6; Antoninus Heliogabalus, 3.4f.; 28.1f.; Alexander Severus, 22.4; 28.7; 29.2; 45.6f.; 51.6f.; Gordiani Tres, 34.2f.; Quadrigae Tyrannorum, 7.4f.; 12.3.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 612f. And see supra, chapt. 1, esp. notes 36f. and some of the bibliographical references cited there. See also Golan, Judaei in the Scriptores Historiae Augusti, pp. 318f.; Hoffmann, Antoninus Agadot, cit., p. 250. 48 Rutilius Namatianus, De Reditu Suo, 1.371f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 660f. And see supra, chapt. 2, esp. note 56. Macrobius, Saturnalia, 2.4.11; and cf. Matthew, 2.16. Macrobius and Proclus, quoted by Lydus, De Mensibus, 4.53. Damascius, Vita Isidori, reported by Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 242, pp. 339a, 345b; Suda, Lexicon, s.v. Δομνι̃νος, Ζήνων, Γέσιως; Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 665f. On the Jewish demiurge, see Lactantius Placidus, a scholiast of the sixth century. Also on one or two other pagan opponents of Christianity in the sixth century deal with biblical issues in their opera, see Stern, Jews and Judaism as the Roman Pagans Saw Them 229

These are most Graeco-Roman references to Jews and Judaism in Antiquity. There exist some more, chiefly brief ones, which add nothing new to the views of their predecessors, and some at least simply copied older texts. As we pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, we have not been able to discern a common denominator of their attitude: some of these writers were indifferent; others were pro- or anti-Jewish to a degree or another. Sometimes the reason for their attitude is obvious, while at other times their motives are hidden. The texts of some of the greatest historians and thinkers of classical Antiquity are rightly described as inimical, other less so, and yet others as neutral or even positive. We cannot subscribe to such statements as: “On the whole [Roman authors] show indifference to Jews”; or that the quotations from their writings have been overemphasized. We have no means of gauging the extent to which this impacted on public opinion of all Romans, the intelligentsia only, the rulers or some of them, at times, or in particular instances only. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the echo of some of the Roman views on Jews and Judaism recorded in rabbinic literature rebounded on Roman public opinion in Italy. We tend to discount the stories about mass conversions to Judaism in Antiquity, or the great popularity of Judaism among some sections of the population. There simply exists no hard evidence to support this notion. We are also in the dark about the sources which served most Graeco-Roman writers and coloured their accounts. In a few instances Hellenistic circles in Egypt such as Apion have been blamed for some of the misconceptions emanating from that country. But what made an inhabitant of Rome, who lived in close proximity to Jews, spread the story about Jews fasting on the Sabbath? If he had wanted he could have found out the truth from a Jew living not too far from him. Laziness is not much of an excuse; so he must have had an axe to grind. However, this is sheer conjecture. The writer may have had other things in mind. Or take the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. The historicity of the biblical story is debatable. The belief in it is largely dependent on one’s religion, even if some details are supported by archaeology, or so it is claimed. But the tales of the leprosy of Moses, or of his followers, the linkage to the Hyksos, and the like, do not have even biblical saga, whatever its value, to support them. Nor are the fables about the head of an ass, or a Greek being fattened and eventually consumed allegedly found in the Jewish sanctuary, of much practical use. If we have to single out one major moving element in this kaleidoscope of manifold factors, we can only repeat what we stated at the outset, namely that it was the real or imaginary threat by which pagan

op. cit., 2, pp. 682f. It is unlikely that the echo of some of the Roman views on Jews and Judaism in rabbinic literature rebounded on Roman public opinion in Italy. 230 chapter 5 religion in its widest sense felt itself endangered, which made these writers come to the rescue of their faith and their social, military and political order— or so they imagined.49

49 In the main we have relied on Stern, op. cit., passim, who has superseded Reinach, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains, cit., passim. For a recent instance of evaluating the attitude of Roman authors to Jews and Judaism as indifferent, see Gruen, Diaspora Jews amidst Greeks and Romans, passim, cit.; Id., Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, cit., passim. chapter 6 Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them

First Contacts

The view of the Jews in Antiquity on Rome and Romans was not uniform. The Hasmoneans’ attempts to obtain Roman support for their struggle with Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors were strategic decisions and not demonstrations of love. The language of the treaties between Judaea and Rome and that of some of the negotiations leading to them demonstrate this. Hence the Jewish attitude to Rome has been described as positive for political reasons. That changed with the conquest of Pompey. At least some Judaeans must have viewed Roman military intervention in their internal affairs with diffidence if not with stronger emotions. The events following on Pompey’s seizure of Jerusalem, culminating in the war of 70, the destruction of the Jewish capital and of the Temple, as well as the revolts, large and small which ensued in the subsequent 200 to 300 years or so, further bedevilled relations between Romans and Jews. Though many details of these wars have come to light, we are still in the dark as to the proportions of the war party compared to the peace party in all these armed struggles. There exists no distinct line of division between the political parties in Judaea on the issue of war and peace with Rome. The surviving non-rabbinical accounts, chiefly that of Flavius Josephus, who started out as commander in chief in Galilee, and became a fervent supporter of the Flavians after crossing the lines, the destroyers of his nation and homeland, are coloured by the political stance they assumed. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai, the head of the “dove” movement, chose his position based on politico-military considerations of the uselessness of a war between tiny Judaea with the world power of the day, and his desire to salvage Judaism out of the carnage. That, as far as we can make out, did not turn him into a philo-Roman. Furthermore, in the Bar-Kokhva uprising, R. ‘Aqiva, a tanna and Pharisee, and some Pharisees sided with the war party, while others sat on the fence or opposed the uprising for one reason or another. The most outspoken opponent of the war was a tanna of the third generation, R. Yoḥanan b. Torta, who is cited as having responded to R. Aqiva’s declaration that Bar-Kokhva was the Messiah: “Aqiva, grass will grow on your cheeks and Ben-David will not have come”. Some Diaspora Jewish communities also rebelled, but not so much against Rome as against their Gentile neighbours. As for the Jews of Italy, not a single

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004282360_�08 232 chapter 6 notice has survived to indicate that they took an active part in the political and military conflict with Rome, before, during and after the destruction of the Temple. That they were at least emotionally involved, since they had family ties with the combatants in Judaea, religious links with the centre there, and came face to face with prisoners of war brought by the victors to the slave markets of Italy, has left hardly a written imprint. But it would appear reasonable that the Jews of Italy, as their brethren elsewhere, felt the same emotions. The fusion between religious and political elements in Judaism makes that inevitable. Once the mourning for Zion and the Temple became part of the ritual, it is almost unthinkable that the Jews of Italy excluded these prayers from theirs. Furthermore, it has been our thesis throughout that the Jews of Italy were similar to those in the rest of the Diaspora, so that we may infer from our knowledge about many things known from the latter for the former, though there exists no documentary evidence for Italy. That is why we think that the Jews of Italy shared in the views and sentiments known from other Jewish communities in Judaea and in the Diaspora, and hence they are relevant to our narrative. That is true, among other things, in regard to the religious abhorrence of paganism.1 The expansion of the Roman Empire which resulted in the conquest of Judaea by Pompey and the gradual absorption of the country into the Roman Empire created a measure of enmity between the Jewish state and the Empire. Whether the conquest and the immediate events that followed were echoed

1 The Roman Jewish community was a tiny component of the overall population of the Roman capital, yet they could raise enough manpower for a demonstration or two, see supra. From that to an armed uprising in a capital town of nearly a million would appear ludicrous. And see chapt. 1 for a more detailed history of Italian Jews in particular those of Rome, including the treaties with Rome. See Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, passim; Id., Reaction of the Sages, pp. 41f.; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., pp. 5f., who cite most of the relevant references to our topic, including all the standard publications from early modern times to the present. Mention should be made of Juster, Juifs dans l’empire romain, cit.; Radin, Jews among the Greeks and Romans, passim. Some later works are mentioned in the footnotes, below. The mourning ritual became universal after the Bar Kochvah revolt. And see M. Ta’anith, passim. The mourning for the destruction of the first Temple while the second Temple stood is controversial. On R. Aqivah, see Finkelstein, Akiba: Scholar, Saint, and Martyr, passim. For R. Aqiva and R. Yoḥanan b. Torta, see J. Ta’anith, 4.5; Threni Rabba, 2.4. For an analysis of the political position of the Pharisees, see Alon, Attitude of the Pharisees, pp. 53f.; Herr, Roman Rule, cit., pp. 202f.; Rivkin, Defining the Pharisees, pp. 205f.; Urbach, Sages b.m., cit., pp. 604f. Some rabbis explained the uselessness of opposition to Rome, e.g., R. Yosse b. Qisma, by argu- ing that “the rule of Rome had been ordained in Heaven”. See below. Significantly he lived in Caesarea, though others have him living in Galilee. The same Aggada claims that when he died “the great of Rome” came to his funeral. No explanation is given for that assertion. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 233 in contemporary Jewish literature, other than Miṣnaic and Talmudical literature is controversial. Thus the pseudepigraphic Songs of Solomon are thought to refer to Pompey’s conquest, but this assumption has been contested and remains unproven by hard facts. Also other writings, such as those classified as apocalyptic, have been cited as containing hints and echoes of historical events. But these identifications are primarily a matter of taste and inclination, so their meaning is disputed. There are those that mention Rome and Romans specifically and are mostly later additions subsequent to the war of 70 CE. That is true in particular with regard to the so-called Jewish Sibylline Oracles, texts that contain various elements, including a first century BCE component and later additions:

. . . Woe unto you, the city of Latins, of unclean name in the land, daughter of pride, lonely you will sit on the beach. The river Tiber shall bewail you as for the wife of his youth . . . treacherous one sit alone, you will host the centre of fire, hell will be your temple and the pit will be your home. . . .

The Jewish original thought to have existed, now lost, and to have originated in Egypt, was later extended and had various elements added to it, including Christian ones. Significantly the text was preserved by Christians who left their imprint on the final version. The prophesy was repeated in a Midraṣ.2

2 The Psalms of Solomon are sometimes cited to this effect. Others suggest that they are Christian. See Efron, The Psalms of Solomon, pp. 1f. The literature of revelation, messianism, eschatology, and so forth, starting with some of the prophesies in the Old Testament, has been used to underpin and embellish descriptions of events in Jewish history in Antiquity. In some cases the mention in the text of personalities and happenings make that a relatively safe guess, in others, containing only vague allusions, this is mere conjecture. A case in hand are the interpretations of 4 Esra (contained in the Vulgate and attributed to about 100 CE), which are said to have portrayed the events of 70 and thereafter. That, incidentally, if indeed the source is Jewish, would portray a negative Jewish attitude to Rome in the days of the Republic. Other writings of this genre have been cited to the same effect. Even Kittim has been identified with Rome (based on the Septuagint) and hence the Old Testament has been cited in this context. Also the so-called Jewish Sybil, identified as a Jewish-Hellenistic opus, belongs to this group. It mentions Italy by name, apparently referring to events during the Republic and the Principate, but is said to have been revised much later. Also other parts of the opus are said to refer to the Jewish attitude to Rome in the first and second centuries CE. The most virulent Jewish attack on Rome and Romans is recorded in Book 5.162f., 386f. (see also Book 3.182f.). The citation is 5.168f., 177f. These passages prophesy the destruction of Rome in retribution for the havoc wrought by Vespasian and Titus in Judaea. There are numerous virulent descriptions of Rome and Romans. Some are similar to those found also in rabbinical writings, but there exist no proven mutual influences. See the divergent and 234 chapter 6

While the Jewish readership of the Sibylline Oracles may have been limited to the Judaeo-Hellenistic educated classes of Alexandria, as some would have it, the references to Rome in rabbinical literature had a wider impact, including on Italian Jewry, influenced by the diffusion of rabbinical lore, the existence of branches of rabbinical institutions and the close ties to the spiritual centre in Judaea. Even in Alexandria there existed no unanimity among the Jews over the relationship to Rome and there is no telling which view was paramount. Philo the philosopher, who was also active on the political scene, and who spent time enough in Rome to air his views there, was definitely pro-Roman, and some consider him a representative of the majority among Alexandrian Jews. He was followed a generation or so later by Josephus, whose accolades bestowed on the Flavian Empire were the result of his personal inclinations The superlatives employed by him probably were not shared by most Italian Jews. He is said to have lived a fairly secluded life in Rome, far removed from the habitats of his coreligionists.3 The views on Rome and Romans expressed by the rabbis over a period of half a millennium vary, are often the result of changing political conditions and personal experiences; and since many are midraṣic, are aggadic and rather fanciful. However, they express the attitude to Rome of that element in Judaism which precisely in these formative years became the ruling factor and replaced all others, whatever they were. Since these views varied and often contradicted each other, they must have suited the Jews of those times also in the Diaspora, who could pick and choose what best met their beliefs and inclinations. There is, of course, no telling what a given Jewish individual or group of individuals thought about these issues at any given point in time for the simple reason that no written expression of these thoughts has survived, even if it ever existed. Be that as it may, that restricts our narrative to a limited number of sources, variegated as they are. The antecedents of that relationship go back

often opposing views on origins, dates, and interpretations by Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles, passim; Collins, The Sybilline Oracles, passim; Hadas-Lebel, Jacob et Esaü ou Israël et Rome, pp. 369f.; Id., L’Image de Rome après des juifs, pp. 715f.; Herszberg, The Great Conversion Movement, p. 210; Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sibylle, passim; Schürer, op. cit., passim; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, pp. 38f.; Id., Die Beurteilung Roms, cit., pp. 338f.; Wardy, Jewish Religion in Pagan Literature, cit., pp. 592f. And see supra, chapt. 1, notes 3 and 30. On the midraṣic repetition by R. Tanḥuma, see below, esp. note 17. 3 Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, p. 11; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., pp. 43f. There does not appear to exist any justification for the accusation levelled against Philo that the views on Rome and its rulers expressed in the Legatio and Contra Flaccum were insincere and were fawning upon Rome to suit the political situation; Josephus, Opera, cit., passim. On his life in Rome, see below. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 235 to Hasmonean times. Rabbinic tradition has linked the birth of the Roman Empire to the treaties between the independent Jewish state and Rome until the early history of the Empire:

Kratesis, etc. What is κράτησις? Said R. Judah, said Samuel: ‘The day on which Rome took over the government’. But have we learned in the Baraita/Tosefta: ‘κράτησις and the day on which Rome took over the government?’. Said R, Joseph: ‘Rome took over two times, once in the days of Queen Cleopatra and once in the days of the Greek’. When R. Dimi came he said: ‘The Romans fought 32 battles with the Greeks and were unable to defeat them, until they went into partnership with Israel, and so they agreed: If we provide kings you provide eparchs, if you provide kings we provide eparchs’ . . . 26 years they kept faith with Israel, then they subdued them. . . .

Needless to say this passage contains more fancy than fact, but it shows what the rabbis thought of the alliance between Judaea and Rome in the days of the Hasmoneans.4 That changed at least partly after the events of 63 BCE. According to rabbinical tradition these events caused the Jews of Judaea to close ranks. The dispute between Aristobolus and Hyrcan, which was the excuse for Pompey’s intervention in Judaea, the conquest of Jerusalem and the desecration of the Temple, is used by the rabbis to explain why Greek was singled out as the culture which Jews were not supposed to teach their children and why Jews were not supposed to raise swine. Though it survived only in the Babylonian Talmud, it is quoted from tannaitic sources:

. . . The sages say: ‘When the Hasmoneans besieged each other Hyrcan was inside [the Temple] and Aristobolus outside. Each day they [on the inside] lowered money to them in a basket and they [on the outside] lifted to them the daily sacrifices. There was an old man who was familiar with Greek wisdom. Said he to them: >As long as they [on the inside] perform the ritual they will not surrender<. The following day they lowered money in the basket and they [on the outside] lifted to them a pig.

4 Rabbinical views on idolatry as such are sometimes linked to Roman paganism, but in the main are outside the scope of the present volume. These views, of course, are negative throughout. The quote is from B. Avoda Zara, 8b; a shorter parallel is in J. op. cit. 1.2. See Krauss, Griechen und Römer, cit., pp. 35f., who reads κράτησις and suggests the Greek equivalent of imperium. And see, Id., Persia and Rome in the Talmud and Midraṣim, cit., p. 71. 236 chapter 6

When it was halfway up the wall it stuck its claws in the wall and the Land of Israel shook four hundred Parsa on four hundred Parsa. So they said: Damn the man who raises pigs; and damn the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom . . .’.

These events then served as an excuse for the intervention of Pompey in Judaea and brought to an end the independence of the country.5

The Pagan Emperors

Hardly any mention is made in rabbinical literature of specific events during the first years of the Principate. Caligula’s unsuccessful attempt at having his effigy put up in the Temple is briefly mentioned. Even the fable linked to the outbreak of the Great War, a pure figment of the imagination, has nothing to do with real events on the ground. The story runs as follows:

. . . Qamẓa and Bar Qamẓa brought about the destruction of Jerusalem [there follows the story of the enmity between the two] . . . he informed on them to Imperator Nero. He said to him: ‘The Jews have mutinied’. Said he: ‘Who says so?’ Said he: ‘Send them a sacrifice, and see whether they offer it’ . . . [which they did not] . . . So he reported to the Imperator Nero. When [the messenger] arrived he [Nero] shot an arrow eastwards and it landed in Jerusalem; westwards—and it landed in Jerusalem; in all four directions—and they landed in Jerusalem. So he said to a child: ‘Say your verse and chapter’. He [the child] said: ‘I entrust my vengeance on Edom [= Rome] to my people Israel’ (Ezeqiel, 25.14). So he thought: ‘The Holy one, may he be praised, wants to destroy his residence and to use me to wash his hands off it. So he ran away and converted to Judaism. R. Meir was his descendant’ . . . So he sent against them the Imperator Vespasian. He came and besieged them for three years. . . .

The Aggada has it all wrong, perhaps for reasons best known to its authors: the war broke out for other reasons, Vespasian was not yet imperator, and it was Titus who defeated the Jews. The conversion of the imperator, of course,

5 The quotation is from B. Baba Qama, 82b = B. Sota, 49b = Menaḥoth, 64b. See Krauss, op. cit., pp. 41f. Burr, Rom und Judäa im 1 Jahrhundert, pp. 875f. Parsa is the Persian mile, the parasang, approximately six chilometres each. Cf., however, Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., p. 26, who asserts that only the language was outlawed. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 237 is a fable. A very similar story is told about Nebuchadnezzar. When Vespasian appeared on the scene he was promised the throne by R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai, which perhaps paved the way to the famous meeting at which the rabbi is alleged to have asked for ‘Yavne and its sages’ and was promised their safety provided they took no part in hostilities. Some scholars also described him as enjoying a significant following in the Jewish population and hence as wield- ing some political clout.6 This episode is described several times in rabbinic literature. Thought to be the oldest tannaitic version, though reported by a late Avoth de R. Nathan, dated itself to the Gaonic period. It is the following:

. . . He sent against them the Imperator Vespasian. He came and besieged [the city] three years. [there follows the story about the three men who undertook to supply Jerusalem for 21 years] . . . Among them were some zealots. The sages said to them: ‘Let us go and make peace with them’. They would not let them and said to them: ‘We will issue forth and fight them’. So our sages said to them; ‘You will not succeed’. So they [the zealots] went and burnt the supplies of wheat and barley, and a famine ensued . . . Abba Siqra, the leader of the zealots in Jerusalem and a nephew of R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai, sent him a message: ‘Come to me secretly’. When he came he [Yoḥanan b. Z.] said to him: ‘How long will you continue and kill the world with hunger?’ He answered: ‘I cannot help it. If I say to them such things they will kill me’. Then he [Y. b. Z] said to him: ‘Find me a pretext which will allow me to leave; perhaps there is a chance of salvation’. He answered: ‘Pretend to be sick and have everybody come and visit you to inquire into your wellbeing. Then have something that stinks brought to you, put it next to you so that you appear to have died. Have only your disciples come into your room, so that no-one will notice that you are light; because they know that a living body is lighter than a dead one’. That is what he did. R. Elie’zer came to one side and R. Joṣu’a to the other. When they came to the city gate they wanted to pierce his body, but he [one of the party] said to them: ‘People will say they pierced their teacher’. So they wanted to push him, but he said to them: ‘People will say that they pushed their teacher’. In the end they opened the gate and let him pass.

6 B. Gittin, 55b–56a. For the parallels on Nebuchadnezzar, see Midraṣ Ṣoḥer Tov (Midraṣ Psalms), 79.27 and other Midraṣim. See Krauss, op. cit., pp. 65f.; Stemberger, op. cit., pp. 64f. 238 chapter 6

When he came to the camp, he said: ‘Peace unto you, king, peace unto you, king’. So he (Vespasian) said to him: ‘You have earned the death penalty twice over. Once because you have called me king and I am no such thing; and secondly because if I am king, why have you not come before?’ So he answered; ‘Indeed, you are king. If you were not king Jerusalem would not fall to you . . . As to why I did not come before now—the zealots among us prevented me’ . . . In the meantime there arrived a messenger from Rome and said to him: ‘Get up. The emperor has died, and the great of Rome have agreed to appoint you head of state’ . . . Then he said to him: ‘I am leaving and I am sending here another. You may ask something of me and I shall grant it to you’. He answered: ‘Give me Yavne, its sages, the dynasty of R. Gamli’el and doctors to heal R. Ẓadoq . . .’.

The other versions differ but not in the essential facts. They are mostly mediaeval, though they contain earlier elements. The whole story is anecdotal and some details are even more fantastic than mere anecdote. However, Jewry accepted the rabbinical version and made it one of the main traditions of Judaism, perhaps one of its main foundations, soon following on the war of 70 CE. So the importance of the Aggada is not the fable it relates, but the fact that it became one of the mainstays of rabbinical Judaism. That included, of course, Italy. However, the amicable treatment of Vespasian in rabbinical writings was limited to the Yoḥanan b. Zakkai episode. He too earned himself the malediction “rot his bones”. This opprobrious remark was attached to his name for having sent Jewish prisoners to Rome to prostitute themselves there.7

7 The versions are: B. Gittin, 56a–b; Avoth de R. Nathan, version 1.4 and version 2.6; Midraṣ Rabba Threni, 1.31. As we stated, though Avoth de R. Nathan is an eighth t0 ninth century compilation, it is thought to contain much earlier material. That, of course, is being debated. The report in B. Gittin is not later than the sixth to seventh century, but probably centuries earlier, since it mentions the tannaim R. Abba Ḥanan, R. Iṣma’el and R. Aqiva, all of the second century CE. There are also other versions, see next note. They too go back to the second century. See for instance Mekhilta, Baḥodeṣ, 1; B. Ketuboth, 66b. See Alon, Studies, 1, cit., pp. 219f.; Herr, Historical Significance, cit., pp. 127f.; Kister, Studies in Avoth de R. Nathan, passim; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 68f.; Neusner, Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, passim; Id., Formation of Rabbinic Judaism, cit., pp. 3f.; Saldarini, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, passim; Id., Scholastic Rabbinism, passim; Id., Yohanan b. Zakkai’s Escape from Jerusalem, pp. 189f.; Spiegel, Die Kaiser Titus und Hadrian, passim; Stemberger, op. cit., pp. 67f.; Schäfer, Flucht Yoḥanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem, pp. 43f. On the medical treatment of R. Ẓadoq, see B. Gittin, l.c. He is the tanna who is linked to the anecdote about his failed seduction, said to have taken place in Rome. See Avoth de R. Nathan, version 1.16 and below. The fable of the three ships on their way to Rome Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 239

As might be expected, the rabbis vented their anger for the destruction of Judaea and the Temple mainly on Titus. The fable is introduced by the anecdote about Vespasian and the swine’s head catapulted on the Temple’s altar. This is followed by a description of Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem and his desecration of the Temple reported by the same midraṣic sources:

. . . They destroyed all Jerusalem until they arrived at the temple. Once they reached the Temple they said to one another: ‘Who shall be the first to enter?’ And there was an evil man, [Titus] the son of Vespasian’s wife; he entered insolently to fulfil the verse: ‘A wicked man puts on a bold face’ [Proverbs, 21.29]. He not only did that but took a sword and pierced the curtain to fulfil the verse: ‘running stubbornly against him with a thickly bossed shield’ [Job, 15.26]. Not only that, but he dragged in a harlot and introduced her into the holy of holies, and began to curse, abuse, vilify, and revile God, and said: ‘You claim that he killed Sisra and Sanherib. Look, I am in his house and on his territory. If he has the power let him come up and confront me, to fulfil the verse: >And he shall say where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices?<’ [Deuteronomy, 32.37–38]. Abba Ḥanan said: ‘O Lord God of hosts, who is a mighty one, like unto thee, o Lord?’ [Psalms, 89.9]. You are mighty because you listen to the curses, vilifications and abuse of this evil man and you keep silent. To-morrow when his measure shall be full you will punish him, to fulfil the verse: >In the midst of his plenty, distress will overtake him<’ [ Job, 20.22]. He made a sort of container and put there the lamps, collected the implements of the temple, and filled three ships with men, women and children.

This in turn is followed by the anecdote of the sticky end to which Titus is said to have come, as fantastic a tale as any; and by the alleged conversion to Judaism of Onqelos, son of Calonimos called here a nephew of Titus.8

with prisoners is quoted in Threni Rabba, 1.48 and B. Gittin, 57b and ascribed to Titus in Avoth de R. Nathan, version 2.7. Also other emperors were awarded this doubtful “honour”. 8 B. Gittin, 56b; Avoth de R. Nathan, version 2.7. There are numerous parallels, some short and some long. The oldest is thought to be Sifre Deuteronomy, 328. Later ones include Genesis Rabba, 10.7; Leviticus Rabba, 20.5, 22.3; Numeri Rabba, 18.22; Deuteronomy Rabba, 21; Ecclesiastes Rabba, 5.8; Midraṣ Ṣoḥer Tov, 121.3; Tanḥuma, Ḥuqat 1, Aḥare 4. See Herr, Persecutions and Martyrdom, cit., pp. 85f. who suggests that instead of Titus one should read Hadrian, and that the whole story came into being following the Bar-Kokhva revolt; Schremer, Brothers Estranged, pp. 28f.; Stemberger, l.c. and see prec. note. On the end of Titus, see supra, chapt. 4, esp. note 20. The story about Onqelos, which is Babylonian, is said to be 240 chapter 6

The next Roman emperor singled out for treatment by the Aggada is Trajan. As we have seen, while first favourably inclined toward the Jews he fought them vigorously when Jewish uprisings broke out in the Diaspora in 115–7. The tale about Plotina, the emperor’s wife, and the death of their children may be linked to the change of heart toward the Jews at the imperial court:

. . . In the days of the evil Trajan a son was born to him on the ninth of Av, and they fasted. His daughter died on Ḥanukkah and they lit candles. So his wife sent him a message and said: ‘Instead of conquering the Barbarians, conquer the Jews who have risen against you’. He thought he would get there in ten days, but arrived in five. When he came he found them busy with Scripture, with the verse: ‘The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from afar’ from the end of the earth, etc.’ [Deuteronomy 28.49]. Said he to them: ‘What have you been doing?’ Said they: ‘So and so’. Said he to them: ‘This is the man who thought he would come in ten days and he came in five.’ So he surrounded them with legions and killed them. Said he to their women: ‘If you obey my legions I shall nor kill you’. Said they to him: ‘What you did to those who lay on the ground do to those who are upright’. And their blood got mixed with the blood of the others; and the blood flowed into the sea as far as Cyprus. . . .

The Jews are supposed to have had doubts about the wisdom of mourning on the ninth of Av which happened to coincide with the death of Trajan’s son, and of feasting on Ḥanukkah when Trajan’s daughter allegedly died. Of course, the real reasons for Trajan’s war against the Jews were the uprisings and not the observance of Jewish rites which may or may not have happened to occur at the wrong moments in the emperor’s private life. So once again the Aggada embellished events which did or did not occur in real life to underline the change of Trajan’s attitude to Jews.9

rooted in the Judaean one with reference to Aquila, where instead of Titus the emperor is said to have been Hadrian. See Tanḥuma, Miṣpatim, 3. Both are fiction and simply express the rabbinical tendency to “convert” their persecutors on the emperor’s throne or at least members of their family. This is supposed to be borne out of the rabbinical inclination to try and issue victorious from the struggle with Rome at least on paper. 9 J. Sukka, 5.1; Threni Rabba, 1.13, 4.19; Ester Rabba, 1.2. See Krauss, op. cit., p. 87; Stemberger, Beurteilung Roms, cit., pp. 358f. This passage is often compared to Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrian, 20.1. Other rabbinical references to Trajan (their number hinges of some problematical identifications) are negative. Similar stories to that of the girl are related in other Midraṣim, e.g., Leviticus Rabba, 25.5, about an old man planting trees. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 241

Hadrian too perhaps even more than his father Trajan is said by the rabbis to have given rise to Jewish expressions of both sympathy and antipathy. He was the emperor who subdued the uprising of Bar-Kokhva and one of the emperors said to have had close relations with the rabbis, particularly with R. Joṣu’a b. Ḥanania, a tanna of the second generation and teacher of R. ‘Aqiva. The rabbis relate several anecdotes about Hadrian. One of them is a story about the meeting with a little girl near Ḥamat Gader, a hot springs resort in the south of the Golan on the bank of the Yarmukh:

. . . When Hadrian climbed the slope leading to Ḥamat Gader, he met on the top of the hill a little Jewish girl. He asked her: ‘Who are you?’ She answered: ‘I am a Jewess’. At once he descended from his carriage and curtsied deeply. That upset the great of the kingdom and they said to him: ‘Why did you bow and debase yourself in front of this despicable, dirty and filthy girl?’ He answered them: ‘Fools. Will not all nations bow to them, since it is written: [Isaiah 49.7]. . . .

Some of the anecdotes about the trips of rabbis to Rome and the meetings they allegedly had with Hadrian (naturally before Bar-Kokhva) and with local savants, belong to this period in Hadrian’s reign. Such trips to the nerve centre of the Roman Empire were not made by Jews alone, so anecdotal they may be, but they reflect a prevailing real situation.10

10 The Jewish Sibylline Oracles, cit., 5.48 are sometimes cited in support of the esteem to Hadrian shown by the rabbis. Also some Midraṣim are quoted to this effect, such as Midraṣ Tannaim (to Deuteronomy), Additions and Omissions, 26.19 (p. 262), from which the citation is taken. Midraṣ Tannaim is a compilation of texts relating to Deuteronomy. The latter is a 14th-century Yemenite compilation of ancient Midraṣim containing citations from old texts since lost. See also Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 206f.; Id., Historical Significance, cit., pp. 123f. (an abbreviated version of a chapter in the former); Id., Persecutions and Martyrdom, cit., p. 91. On the visits of the sages to Rome at this time, see below, chapt. 8. On the plan to rebuild the Temple, ascribed by some to Trajan and by others to Hadrian, see supra chapt. 1, esp. note 35. Apparently, the plan did not meet with the approval of the rabbis. See Genesis Rabba, 64.10 and parallel sources: “. . . in the days of R. Joṣu’a b. Ḥanania the government decreed that the temple be built . . .”. The accompanying tale about the brothers Pappos and Lulianus is presented as an embellishment of the alleged event. According to another Aggada the brothers were executed by Trajan in Laodicea. See J. Ta’anith 2.12; B. Ta’anith, 18b, Sifra, Emor, 9.5; Megillat Ta’anith 12. And see Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 178f.; Spiegel, Titus und Hadrian, cit., p. 31. That, of course, is relevant if the project was planned in 242 chapter 6

The event in Hadrian’s days that overshadowed all others in Jewish history was the Bar-Kokhva revolt. The Aggada saw in the Bar-Kokhva war a parallel to the destruction of the Temple by Titus and practically of the same import, so much so that the rabbis accused Hadrian of having put the finishing touches to the former event. That was mixed up with some of the tales about the siege and conquest of Betar, the linkage to earlier tales such as that of Ḥannah and her seven sons, originally told with reference to Hasmonean times, and so forth. Thus one of the tales about Betar speaks of 800,000 Jewish dead there. That fantastic figure has been interpreted as “symbolic”, though that is rather a lot even for a symbol. The unhistoric nature of these tales is obvious, but they expressed the rabbinic hatred of Hadrian after he had put down the uprising and the weight they attached to the uprising and its consequences. Many a tale was concocted to illustrate the Jewish hatred for Hadrian. In one such anecdote the imperator is accused of blind hatred for Jews:

. . . Hadrian rot his bones issued a proclamation saying: ‘He who does not salute the king shall be killed’. A Jew passed and saluted. Said he: ‘You, a Jew, passed in front of the king and saluted him?’ Said he to them: ‘Go, kill him’. Another passed and did not salute him. Said he to them: ‘Go, kill him’. Said his senators: ‘We do not understand your manner. One who does not salute you, you kill him; and one who salutes, you kill him’. Said he to them: ‘leave me alone. I know how to kill mine enemies . . .’.

Fantastic as this and similar stories seem, the conflicting Jewish views of Hadrian can best be explained by their following one upon the other and not occurring simultaneously, similar to the case of Trajan. But then, one should not try and to find historicity in folkloristic hermeneutics presented in the synagogue to entertain and (at the same time) to educate Jewish congregations and imbue them with the ideas of the rabbis. At the same time it should be pointed out that the anecdotes were not bereft of all historical value, even if many were made years after the events which they describe. They often contain more than a grain of truth. That is true, for instance, with regard to the tales of the martyrs and their vicissitudes during and following the Bar-Kokhva uprising, not so much the details as the very fact of their sacrifice. They represent a link

Trajan’s days. On further discussions between R. Joṣu’a and Hadrian and the topics that supposedly agitated the minds of Romans in relation to Judaism, see below. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 243 in the age-old chain of stories of Qidduṣ ha-Ṣem (“sanctification of the name”), or Jewish martyrdom spanning some two and a half millennia.11 Rabbinic Judaism is said to have viewed Hadrian’s victory as that of the pagan emperor over Judaism. An Aggada depicts this as follows:

. . . Hadrian, king of Edom, when he had conquered the whole world, went to Rome. Said he to the men of his palace: ‘Make me divine, since I have conquered the whole world’. Said they: ‘You have not yet ruled over his city and temple’. He came away and succeeded, destroyed the temple, exiled Israel and returned to Rome. He said; ‘I have destroyed his house, burnt his sanctuary and exiled his people, now make me divine. . . .

It has been suggested that Todos of Rome, of whom more anon, dealt with Jewish martyrdom against the background of the martyrdom of the sages in the wake of the uprising. After the failure of the uprising most rabbis, perhaps all, were opposed to any more armed conflict with Rome, probably in view of the disparity between the great Empire and tiny Israel. R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai policies had become the rule and R. ‘Aqiva an exception. The tendency to close ranks which had its roots in the days of the Hasmoneans and was reinforced following the destruction of the Temple, were further strengthened in the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhva revolt. The legend about the prohibition on Greek culture and on raising pigs was elaborated to include the use of a Greek hair style.12 Hadrian was succeeded in 138 by his adopted son, Antoninus Pius. As we have seen, he abolished the punitive measures of his predecessor in the wake of the revolt. Aggadic tales, one on an alleged demonstration of the Jews in

11 See supra, chapt. 1, and the references in notes 35, 36. See also J. Ta’anith, 4.4; B. Gittin, 57a–58a; Exodus Rabba, 51.5; Deuteronomy Rabba, 3.13; Threni Rabba, 2.2, 3.58. Exaggerated figures abound in these tales intended to underline the dimensions of the disaster. See Krauss, op. cit., pp. 136f.; Spiegel, Titus und Hadrian, cit., p. 46; Stemberger, op. cit., pp. 365f.; Id., Römische Herrschaft, cit., pp. 82f. 12 Tanḥuma, Bereṣit 7. See Herr, Persecutions and Martyrdom, cit., pp. 116, who presents this as portraying the end of the mass conversions to Judaism, which never were. He also discerned a change in the meaning of Jewish martyrdom following the Bar-Kokhva uprising, which had become “the enduring of martyrdom for the sake of god”, while until then had been the Jewish reaction to the refusal to practise idolatry. Cf., however, Urbach, .And see, op .”)קידוש השם( Sages b.m., cit., pp. 313f. on the “sanctification of the name cit., pp. 70f. For Todos, see infra, chapt. 8. On the prohibitions, see supra in this chapt. and B. Baba Qama, 83a. For the exemption granted men such as the Patriarch Simon b. Gamli’el (the second), see below, chapter 8. 244 chapter 6

Rome and another on the exorcism of a demon from the daughter of the emperor, contained claims of their having been instrumental in bringing this about. “Antoninus” is often cited in the midraṣic literature without specifying which member of the Antonine or Severi dynasties is meant by the rabbis. Most of them are said to refer to Antoninus Pius and to Marcus Aurelius or to Caracalla, while their Jewish interlocutor is generally identified as Judah Ha-Nasi. In addition to the abolition of the repressive decrees of Hadrian, there is the Antonine law on circumcision, and a series of exchanges on theosophical questions, physical phenomena and the like. They are said to have entertained each other, to have had economic ties, to have given advice to each other and to have conversed on numerous occasions. While the general attitude of the rabbis to these emperors in on the whole positive, occasional criticism of them is not always absent. Here is an example of the alleged political advice “Rabbi” gave “Antoninus”:

. . . Antoninus said to Rabbi: ‘I would like my son Severus to rule after me and have Tiberias become a colony. If I ask of them one, they will grant it; if I ask for both, they will refuse’. He put a man on the shoulders of his companion, gave a dove to the one on top and said to the one below: ‘tell the one on top to let the dove fly’. He understood that he meant: ‘To ask them to let my son Severus rule after me, And to tell Severus to make Tiberias a colony . . . Said he to him: ‘The notables of Rome vex me’. Rabbi led him to the garden and every day pulled out a radish from the row in front of him. Said he:’ From this follows that he means that I kill them one by one and do not fight all of them at once. . . .

According to the rabbis the relations between the two was so close that they invented a subterranean tunnel connecting the homes of the emperor and the rabbi. The Jews donated a lamp for a synagogue in Judaea in honour of Septimius Severus and the members of his family, while “Antoninus” made a lamp for a synagogue. “Antoninus” was one of the emperors who allegedly converted to Judaism. The former is based on an inscription, the second and third are aggadic fables. While there can be little doubt about the authenticity of the donation of the first lamp, the second lamp and the conversion signify only that the rabbis thought that “Antoninus” greatly befriended Jews and Judaism. The conversion of a friendly emperor contrasts with the usual attitude of the sages who reserved that for the persecutors of the Jews.13

13 Even if some of the draconian decrees predated the uprising and were its cause (and that has been doubted), probably most were the result of the revolt. On the punitive measures Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 245

Rome and Romans

The turbulent years which followed on the reign of Caracalla and the short lived emperors who ruled most of the third century, described as the years of anarchy in Roman history, left few traces in rabbinic literature. Once stability had returned in the days of Diocletian the rabbis might have taken up their pens and dwelt again on their Roman rulers, but they did not as they had in the course of the first two centuries CE. One of the last emperors mentioned in the Aggada was Diocletian. He was so singled out only on two or three occasions, such as in relation to his early life as swineherd and the revenge he took on the rabbis for his alleged mistreatment at their hands. However, other Aggadoth on Rome and Romans abound. They reflect the mostly negative ideas Jews had about their overlords in Antiquity. It is well-nigh impossible to ascertain the exact chronological order of the Midraṣim, since their date of composition is often shrouded in mystery; and even when that is known, the origins of the individual Aggada is not revealed. One of many examples reflects on the Roman tax and social providence systems:

. . . When the evil kingdom says to Israel: ‘Pay your poll-tax’. And they reply: ‘I have to feed orphans’. And it replies: ‘Have you heard that I feed your orphans? Go to the God of Jacob, about whom it says: >The father of orphans and the judge of widows< (Psalms, 68.6.), he will feed your orphans. He will provide you with a Remus and Romulus, those who were raised by their mother; and he summoned a she-wolf to suckle them and she did so. And they built two huts in Rome. So you helped the orphans . . .’.

This passage possibly refers to the Fiscus Iudaicus, so in theory it is prior to the fourth century.14

and their abolition, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. notes 38, 39 and the ample references cited there. The citation is from B. Avoda Zara, 10a–b. See Feldman, Some Observations on Rabbinic Reaction to Roman Rule, pp. 39f.; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., pp. 88f.; Id., Beurteilung Roms, cit., pp. 370f. See also Cohen, Conversion of Antoninus, pp. 141f.; Wallach, Colloquy of M. Aurelius, cit., pp. 359f. Of course, Septimius Severus, or one of his dynasty was not a son of Antoninus, but one of his successors. On the lamp, see J. Megillah, 1.13; 3.2 and Frey, op. cit. 2, pp. 157f. On the alleged conversion, see J. Megillah, 1.12; 3.2; J. Sanhedrin, 10.6; Midraṣ Rabba Leviticus, 3.2. 14 See supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 48. For the quote, see Midraṣ Ṣoher Tov (Psalms), 10.6; 17.12.; Midraṣ Esther Rabba, 3.5. Krauss, Griechen und Römer, cit., p. 10. The huts refer to the anecdote cited supra, chapt. 1, note 1. Stemberger, Beurteilung Roms, cit., p. 383 suggests 246 chapter 6

The history and geography of Rome and of the Roman Empire naturally attracted the attention of the Jews in Antiquity and probably in particular that of the Jews who lived there, first and foremost among them the Jews of Italy. Ulla, an amora of the third century born in Judaea, who immigrated to Babylonia, is reported to have made the following statement:

. . . Graeca Magna, that is the city of Rome, measuring 300 by 300 para- sange, contains 365 markets like the days of the sun. The smallest among them is the fowl market, 16 miles by 16, and every day the king dines in one of them. He who lives there, even if he was not born there, and he who was born there, though he does not live there, receives a portion from the king. There are 3,000 baths, of which 500 send their smoke outside the walls. One side is bordered by the sea, another by mountains and hills, the third by an iron fence, and the fourth by sand and the bottom of the sea. . . .

This description originated in distant Babylonia and portrays the immense impression made on Jews everywhere by what was perhaps the largest urban conglomeration in the West in Antiquity. Another description, nearer home, and attributed to R. Iṣma’el b. Yose, a tanna of the fifth generation, an older contemporary of R. Juda Ha-Nasi, when sick in bed, quoted some sayings of his father. One of them was the fantasy that in Rome there were 365 markets, in each there were 365 palaces, 365 steps led to each palace; and each step contained enough food to feed the whole world. That of course was a gross exaggeration, and was reported to illustrate a prophesy in Isaiah and not the size of Rome.15 According to the rabbis the Roman Empire was one of the four kingdoms to be followed by the kingdom of the Messiah. Messianic hopes permeated the sayings of this kind, though not all spelled that out in so many words:

. . . R. Abin [a third generation Palestinian amora] said: ‘He began with four kingdoms and he concluded with four kingdoms: Khedorla’omer,

that the fiscus was not mentioned in rabbinical literature in the second century. That is debatable. 15 B. Megillah, 6b. See for another description of Rome: B. Pesaḥim, 118b. The Hebrew term ,Italy of Greece”. See Krauss, op. cit., p. 11; Stemberger“ = איטליה של יון for Graeca Magna is op. cit., p. 392, who suggests that the description contains an element of social criticism, which it well may have been. R. Yose’s saying is: B. Pesaḥim, l.c. For more realistic descriptions of Rome and its buildings in the fourth century, see Krauss, l.c., n. 5. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 247

king of ‘Elam, Thid’al, king of Goyim, Amraphel, king of Ṣin’ar and Aryon, king of Elasar. So he concludes with four kingdoms: the kingdom of Babylonia, the kingdom of Medai, the kingdom of Greece and the kingdom of Edom. . . .

Esau, Edom and Amaleq are rabbinic soubriquets for Romans and Rome, having their roots in the Bible. They increase with the passage of time, from tannaitic to amoraic pronouncements. In this context also the messianic hope is expressed by several anecdotes, one of which is:

. . . R. Simon b. Laqiṣ interpreted the Bible to mean kingdoms. ‘. . . And the earth was without form’ (Genesis, 1.2) that is Babylonia, and ‘I beheld the earth and it was without form’ ( Jeremiah, 5.23); and ‘void’, that is Media; and ‘hasted to bring Haman’ (Esther, 6.14); and darkness, that is Greece, which darkened the eyes of Israel by its edicts, by saying to Israel: write on the oxen’s horn that they do not share in the God of Israel; ‘upon the face of the deep’, this is the present evil kingdom. The deep has no measure, and so the evil kingdom has no measure; and ‘the spirit of God moved’ that is the spirit of the Messiah. . . .

The audiences in the synagogue, whether in the East or the West, could have been left in no doubt as to the views of their preachers on the great empires of their age, including the Roman one.16 A particularly vicious parable is recounted in more than one version in a fifth century Midraṣ. One is based on some animals mentioned in the Bible and another of the same genre was attributed to Moses:

. . . the camel (Leviticus, 11.4), that is Babylonia; since it chews the cud and praises God . . . The pig, that is Edom; it does not chew the cud, and does not praise, but vilifies, curses and says: ‘Whom have I in heaven?’ (Psalms, 73.25) . . . another version . . . Edom, which does not chew the cud, does

16 The first quote is from Genesis Rabba, 42.2 and the second from op. cit., 2.4; Pesiqta Rabbati, 33. Krauss, op. cit., pp. 16f. Other parallels are Genesis Rabba, cit., 16.4; Leviticus Rabba, 13.5. There the parable consists of the four biblical rivers mentioned in Genesis, 2.10f., 3.14; whereas in Genesis Rabba, cit., 44.9, the symbols are animals. For yet other Midraṣim on this topic, see Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 115f. (and see there a large number of references); Krauss, op. cit., pp. 18f. The story about the Messiah sitting among the poor at the gate of Rome is related in B. Sanhedrin, 98a. Lewy, op. cit., p. 203 interprets the passage to mean that the poor were Jewish. That is not borne out by the text. 248 chapter 6

not raise the just, on the contrary, it kills them . . . it is not succeeded by another kingdom. Why is it called pig? Because it returns the crown to its owners . . .”. Moses saw the Empires . . . Babylonia . . . Media . . . Greece . . . a nd the pig—that is Edom. . . .

Or:

. . . R. El’azar b. Pedat says: ‘As the Lord bless him inflicted much on the Egyptians, so he will do to this nation [= Rome], because it is said: >When the report cometh to Egypt, they shall be sorely pained at the report of Tyre< (Isaiah, 23.5)’. Said R. El’azar: ‘Each time Tyre is spelled in the Bible defectu it refers to this evil nation. As the Egyptians were plagued with blood, so will this evil nation’. ‘And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch’ (Isaiah, 34.9). Said R. Tanḥuma: ‘That is the Tiber and the Ticino, which are on the borders of Rome . . . and why so? ‘Because they caused Israel to neglect the Torah . . . because they burnt my house . . .’.

R. Ele’azar was a Palestinian amora of the second-third generation. Tyre stands here for Rome. The same or similar motifs recur in a whole series of Midraṣim, some mediaeval, but based on older texts, which have little if anything positive to say on Rome and its Empire. Some mention the wrongs suffered by the Jewish nation at the hands of emperors such as Vespasian and Hadrian, others contain general condemnations and foresee a bitter end for Rome, its Empire, its army, and so forth. Some are linked to Daniel’s vision and certain biblical prophesies, whereas others stand by themselves. If they were preached in the synagogues in Italy the audience must have come away with mixed feelings.17 Some rabbis thought little of Roman culture, at least compared to that of Greece; and in particular some did not value Latin as a language. In this context too fantasy is paramount and probably goes back to hatred rather than anything else. In Babylonia, where Latin was rarely in use if at all, the rabbis went so far as to declare that:

17 Leviticus Rabba, 13 (begin.). The Hebrew for “return” is a pun on the Hebrew for pig .Cf. R. Meir’s interpretation of the Hebrew for pig, reported by Ecclesiast, 1.28 .(חזר-חזיר) The second quote is Tanḥuma, Va-Era 15 and many parallels. See Krauss, op. cit., p. 48; and supra, esp. note 2. For an instance of Daniel’s vision, see Genesis Rabba, 65.1; Leviticus Rabba, 13.5 and similar ones in Midraṣ Ṣoher Tov, 80.6 and elsewhere. For additional midraṣic quotations for Tyre=Rome, see Herr, op. cit., pp. 130f. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 249

. . . What does an ‘unworthy nation’ mean? The Roman kingdom. And why is it called an unworthy nation? Because it has neither writings nor language [of its own]. . . .

That, of course, is sheer fantasy and can only be explained by the profound hatred felt by the Babylonian rabbis for Rome. Many of these rabbis were immigrants who had left their homeland in consequence of the Roman conquests and the destruction wrought by its armies. Whether that left its mark on Italian Jewry is open to doubt.18 The rabbis were divided over some aspects of the Roman regime. Some praised Rome for promoting the rule of law, while others condemned it for allegedly doing exactly the opposite. R. Ṣime’on b. Laqiṣ, a Palestinian amora of the second generation, expressed a positive view on Roman rule of law; whereas R. Pinḥas and R. Ḥilqiya, slightly younger contemporaries of R. Ṣime’on, reported in the name of their teacher R. Simon, this view:

. . . Said R. Ṣime’on b. Laqiṣ: ‘>and behold it was very good< (Genesis, 1.31), that is the kingdom of heaven; >and behold it was very good< (ibid.), that is the kingdom of the Romans. Was the kingdom of the Romans so very good? I am surprised. That is so because they demand justice for humans, since it is written: >I have made the earth and created man upon it< (Isaiah, 45.12). . . .’.

And on the other hand:

. . . R. Pinḥas and R. Ḥilqiya, in the name of R. Simon: ‘Of all the prophets they advertised only two, Asaf and Moses; Asaf because he said: >The boar out of the wood doth waste it< (Psalms, 18.14); Moses said: >And the swine, though he divide the hoof< (Leviticus, 11.7). Why has she been compared to a pig? To tell you, as the pig, when it lies down stretches forth its trotters and says behold I am clean, so the kingdom of Edom prides itself that while it robs and oppresses it boasts that it is setting up the judge’s seat. It happened that a ruler, who had condemned to death thieves, adulterers and sorcerers, murmured to his senator: ‘I did all that this past night . . .’.

18 B. Gittin, 80a. That is Raṣi’s interpretation of the rather obscure Miṣnaic text. Similar statements are recorded in B. Avoda Zara, 10a. In another passage Latin is described as the language of war. See J. Megillah, 1.11; J. Sotah, 7.2, see Krauss, op. cit., p. 58; Stemberger, op. cit., p. 394. 250 chapter 6

So here we have diametrically opposed views of Palestinian rabbis of almost the same generation. Which of their sermons and anecdotes found favour with Italian synagogue audiences is anybody’s guess.19 The same is true of other third-century Palestinian rabbis’ views on Rome. R. Joṣu’a b. Levi, a first generation Palestinian amora, took R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai’s position a step further when he proclaimed:

. . . Said R. Joṣu’a b. Levi: ‘If somebody were to ask you where your God is? Tell him in the great city in Edom (= Rome)’. Why so? >He calleth to me out of Se’ir<’ (Isaiah, 21.11). R. Ṣim’on b. Yoḥai taught: ‘Wherever Israel was exiled the divine presence went along into exile. When they were exiled in Egypt the divine presence went there into exile. Why so? >Did I plainly appear into the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house< (Samuel 1.2.27). When they were exiled to Babylonia the divine presence went into exile with them. Why? > For your sake I have sent to Babylon< (Isaiah, 43.14). They were exiled to Media and the divine presence went into exile with them. Why? >I will set my throne in Elam< (Jeremiah, 49.38); and there is no Elam other than Media. As you said: >I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam< (Daniel, 8.2). They were exiled to Greece and the divine presence went with them. Why? > And raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece< (Zechariah 9.13). They were exiled to Rome, and the divine presence was exiled with them . . .’.20

At the same time R. Ḥanina b. Papa, his student and disciple, a Palestinian amora of the third generation, evidently held views which differed from those of his mentor:

. . . R. Ḥanina b. Papa, and if you like R. Simlai: ‘The Almighty will bring with him a scroll of the Torah and say: He who occupied himself with it shall come and be rewarded. At once the nations will flock to him in a medley, since it is said: >Let all the nations be gathered together< (Isaiah,

19 Genesis Rabba, 9 (end); Leviticus Rabba, 13.5. See also Genesis Rabba, 65.1. See Herr, op. cit., pp. 45f.; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 44f.; Stemberger, Beurteilung Roms, cit., pp. 390f. 20 J. Ta’anith, 1.1. See Berliner, Rom cit., 1, p. 95, who interprets the passage: “God is now in Italy”. This (so B.) coincides with JBJ, 5.9.3f. in Josephus’ address to the defenders of Jerusalem: “. . . And evident it is that fortune is on all hands gone over to them (the Romans); and that God, when he had gone round the nations with this dominion, is now settled in Italy”. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 251

43.9). Said the Lord to them: >Do not come to me in a medley<. Instead every nation shall enter accompanied with its scribes, since it is said: >Let the people be assembled< (l.c.), and a nation is but a kingdom, since it is said: >One people shall be stronger than the other< (Genesis, 25.23) . . . So first came the kingdom of Edom. Why? Because it is the most important. How do we know that it was the most important? > . . .[it] shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down and break it in pieces<‘. Said R. Yoḥanan: ‘This is Rome, whose fame has spread all over the world . . .’. Said the Lord to them: ‘What did you do?’ Said they: ‘Oh Lord, we built many markets, we made many baths, we greatly increased silver and gold, and we did all that for Israel, so that they might busy themselves with the Torah’. Said the Lord to them: ‘Fools, what you did you did for yourselves. You built the markets to put prostitutes in them; baths—to treat yourselves; silver and gold is mine’ . . . so they left dejected. . . .

In this anecdote, the Romans themselves heap praise on their nation and God contradicts them. In another the praise is said to have been uttered by R. Judah b. Ila’i. The motif of “theatres and circuses” as places of abomination recurs frequently in midraṣic literature. According to the rabbis they were said to be converted into Jewish houses of learning in messianic days. There is also the opposition to wearing Roman clothing, such as the toga, or cutting one’s hair Roman fashion. This probably has its roots in the confrontation between Judaism and Hellenism in Hasmonean days and after, and to the close link between the theatre and paganism.21 Also, other rabbis of the first and second centuries adopted a view similar to that of R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai, of R. Joṣu’a b. Ḥanania and of their contemporaries. One of them was R. Ḥanina b. Tradion, a tanna of the third generation and one of the “ten martyrs”, executed by the Romans after the Bar-Kokhva uprising. When on a sick-bed visit to R. Yose b. Qisma, the following exchange is said have taken place between them:

. . . The sages say: ‘When R. Yose b. Qisma fell ill R. Ḥanina b. Tradion went to visit him’. Said he to him: ‘Ḥanina my brother, don’t you know that

21 B. Avoda Zara, 2a–b; Tanḥuma, Judges 9. Krauss, op. cit., pp. 46f., who lists additional similar midraṣic texts. And see there on the negative attitude of the rabbis to the theatre and the circus, albeit with exceptions. See, for instance, T. Avoda Zara, 2.5f. Sifre Deuteronomy, 1; J. Ṣabbath, 6(7).1; J. Avoda Zara, 1.7; B. Sotah, 49b; Avoth de R. Nathan, version 1, 21. A list was drawn up also by Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 91f. And cf. below, esp. note 23. 252 chapter 6

this nation was crowned by heaven? It destroyed his house, burnt his sanctuary, killed his devotees, annihilated his best men, and yet it continues to exist. I heard of you that you sit and are busy with the Torah, you assemble congregations publicly, and you hold the book to your bosom’. Answered he: ‘Heaven have mercy on us’. Said he: ‘I am telling you sen- sible things and you answer me Heaven have mercy on us? I wonder if they will not burn you with the Torah’ . . . It was said that hardly a few days passed. . . . and they covered him with the Torah . . . and he gave up his soul. . . .

A rather lurid description of R. Ḥanina’s death is related by the Midraṣ. His execution was part of the Roman campaign against the belligerent rabbis, such as R. ‘Aqiva. R. Ḥanina, unlike R. Yose b. Qisma, was an adherent of the belligerent faction among the rabbis. However, men such as R. Yose were not paci- fists. Their opposition to the armed struggle against Rome was tactical. They thought that in their days this was futile and left the punishment of Rome to divine intervention. R. Yose expressed his hope for that to occur obliquely. When, on his deathbed, R.Yose asked his disciples to bury him deep in the earth, since there was no coffin in Judaea which would not serve as manger to a Parthian horse. The Parthians were the archenemies of Rome, who stopped Roman expansion eastwards.22

More on Rome and Romans and Some Dire Predictions

This hope for divine revenge at the hands of the Parthians was expressed also by other rabbis, such as R. Simon b. Yoḥai, who was quoted as saying that the Messiah’s coming would be near if one saw a Parthian horse tethered to Jewish graves. Another Midraṣ has R. Simon sit with R. Judah b. ‘Ila’i and R. Yose b. Ḥalafta in Uṣa and discuss Rome. R. Judah admired the Romans for their material achievements; R. Yose refrained from commenting on that statement; while R. Simon criticized the Roman deeds and called them selfish. The main topic was diphtheria:

22 B. op. cit., 18a, and see supra. note 1. Krauss, op. cit., pp. 54f.; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., p. 111; Id., Beurteilung Roms, cit., p. 386. For the deathbed scene of R. Yose, see B. Sanhedrin, 98a–b. The apocryphic Book of Barukh, excluded from the Hebrew canon but included in the Vulgate, is said to have been written in the first century, and has been linked to the debacle of 70 CE, decidedly leant toward the anti-war party of Yoḥanan b. Zakkai and subsequently toward R. Yose and other rabbinical authorities. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 253

. . . The sages say: ‘Diphtheria is caused by the tithe’. R. Yose says: By slander . . .’. Come and listen, when our rabbis convened in the ‘vineyard’ of Yavne there were present R. Judah, R. Yose and R. Simon. The following question was put to them: ‘this plague, why does it start in the bowels and finishes in the mouth?’ Answered R. Judah b. Ila’i, the foremost speaker everywhere, and said: ‘Although kidneys counsel, the heart understands and the tongue cuts, the mouth concludes’ . . . And why was he called the foremost speaker everywhere? When R. Judah, R. Yose and R. Simon sat together, there was Judah b. Gerim with them. R. Judah started and said: ‘How nice are the deeds of this nation. They set up markets, built bridges, and made baths’. R. Yose remained silent. R. Simon b. Yoḥai retorted and said: ‘All they built they built for themselves. They set up markets to put there prostitutes, baths to treat themselves, and bridges to collect tolls’. R. Judah b. Gerim went and informed on them to the government. Said they: ‘Judah who praised shall be elevated, Yose who kept silent will be exiled to Sepphoris and Simon who condemned will be killed . . .’.

So here we have the three mainstreams among the rabbis of that age: those who surrendered to the power of Rome; those who kept silent, in the sense that “the better part of valour is discretion”; and those who rebelled against Rome. There was present an informer who told on the rabbis to the Roman authorities. As a result R. Judah was rewarded, R. Yose was exiled; and R. Simon had to go into hiding in the famous cave from which he is said to have emerged only years later. It has been suggested that R. Judah b. Ila’i’s influence at the court of the patriarch Simon b. Gamli’el resulted in a pro-Roman attitude of the Jewish leadership, which became more pronounced in the days of the Severi. That in turn may have had some impact on Italian Jews. The historical background of the Midraṣ (if not all its anecdotal details) has been accepted as authentic by modern scholarship, and that is probably true.23

23 On the saying of R. Simon, see Threni Rabba, 1.13. On the Persians/Parthians and Rome, see Krauss, op. cit., pp. 50f. On the discussion in Uṣa, see B. Ṣabbath, 33b. Cf. also Ben Shalom, R. Iudah b. Ilai’s Attitude toward Rome, pp. 9f. (and further references, esp. notes 2, 13); Graetz, op. cit., 4, pp. 178f., esp. p. 190; Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, cit., pp. 5, 114; Stemberger, Beurteilung Roms, cit., pp. 387f. The praising of Rome by R. Judah b. Ila’i contradicts another report about him, which has him hope for the defeat of Rome at the hands of the Parthians. See B. Yoma, 10a. However, his “pro-Roman” pronouncements outnumber his antagonistic ones. See for instance Sifre, Deuteronomy, 37, where he states that anyone who counts builds himself a palace in Rome. There are also other contradictory statements attributed to the participants of the meeting in Uṣa, such as those reported in B. Pesaḥim, 54b., 118b; Sifre, Deuteronomy, 327. See Id., Römische Herrschaft, cit., pp. 112f. 254 chapter 6

Some Jews advocated restraint and some sort of mutual tolerance. This found its expression in the Aggadoth such as the one about the demonstration by the Jews in Rome to have the anti-Jewish measures of Hadrian abrogated. The rabbis had Romans utter similar views; for instance the one about the Roman who was said to have accused the Jews of not keeping the divine law: “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother” (Deuteronomy, 23.8). But the underlying attitude of the Jews toward Rome was apparently negative, particularly when later the specifically Jewish grievances were augmented by the general one, the result of the deterioration of economic conditions in the wake of the third century interregnum. This, at any event was what emerges from the Midraṣim of the period. The change in R. Simon b. Laqiṣ’ statements in the second half of the century was an exception. It has been suggested that the Jews did not favour the administration of Roman law, such as the Roman procedure of the so-called hypothesis. That was described as illogical and for good reason. The growing tax burden imposed on all Roman citizens, weighed heavily also on the Jews throughout the Empire, including Italy. The treasury was bankrupt and the forays into the pockets of the population, including, of course, Jews stirred up much ill-will among the population. The Patriarchs’ tax, collected by their apostoli throughout the Empire until the fifth century, was no exception.24 There is no shortage of rabbinical declarations of these sentiments. R. El’azar b. Yose is quoted several times to this effect. Once he is alleged to have interpreted the verse in Genesis (27.38): “And Esau hated Jacob” to mean that Roman

That, of course, is not the only riddle in aggadic literature over which scholars have been racking their brains. After all aggadic tales are not mathematical equations. Furthermore, people have been known to change their minds. The informer was said to be Judah b. Gerim (proselytes), also known as R. Judan b. Giori. He is said to have come to a sticky end. According to the Midraṣ quoted, R. Simon went to the market and met there the informer. He expressed his surprise that the informer was still up and about and “turned his eyes on him. So he became a heap of bones”. To do R. Judah justice, elsewhere in rabbinic literature he is spoken of well. The description of the rabbis’ convening in a “vineyard” is thought to have been due to their sitting in rows like vines in a vineyard. 24 On the abrogation of the Hadrianic legislation, see supra in this chapt. and in chapt. 1, esp. note 39. See also Deuteronomy Rabba, 22. The Roman accusation is mentioned in Ecclesiast Rabba, 11.1–2. This Midraṣ is a mediaeval collection of Aggadoth from Antiquity. The story comes at the end of a tale about a Jew saving a shipwrecked Roman, also cited in support of cordial relations between Jews and Romans, but in our view not necessarily so. Cf. Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., pp. 114f. On R. Simon b. Laqiṣ, see supra. On the Jewish opposition to the “hypothesis” practised by Roman courts, see Genesis Rabba, 18; Stemberger, Beurteilung Roms, cit., pp. 391f. The procedure is said to have allowed judges to prejudice the rights of defendants. This procedure is inadmissible in the modern administration of law. On the Patriarchs’ taxes, see supra, chapt. 1. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 255 senators hated Jews. His “proof” was that senator in Hebrew could be abbreviated into the Hebrew acronym of “hater, avenger, and begrudger”. Among neutral or favourable statements by the rabbis there is that of R. Nathan, also known as Nathan the Babylonian because he immigrated to Judaea from Babylonia, who was a fourth generation tanna. He is reported to have said that there is no richness like that of Rome, and that out of 10parts of richness in the world Rome obtained nine. The statement of the Patriarch R. Simon b. Gamli’el about the riches of Rome has been linked to Rome’s military prowess:

. . . R. Simon b. Gamli’el said: ‘Come and look at the richness and grandeur of this guilty nation [= Rome]; not a single soldier is idle. They all make haste, day and night, unlike the Egyptians who are idle . . .’.

Another, but later Midraṣ, one of many dealing with the coming of the Messiah, also dwells on the Roman army and its recruitment of foreigners, such as Barbarians. It is attributed to R. Judan, a fourth generation Palestinian amora:

. . . R. Judan in the name of R. Elie’zer b. R. Yose the Galilean . . . said: ‘>Hark! my beloved! behold, he cometh< (Canticles, 2.8), that is the king Messiah, when he says to Israel: >This month you will be redeemed<‘. Say they: ‘How are we redeemed? Has not the Lord sworn that he is subject- ing us to seventy nations?’ He makes two answers and says to them: ‘One of you will be exiled to Barbary, another to Sarmatia. It appears that all of you were exiled there. Furthermore, since this kingdom [= Rome] enlists recruits from all over the world, from every nation; a Goth or Barbarian comes and enslaves you; and you are enslaved to their entire nation as if you were enslaved to seventy nations. This month you will be redeemed, as it says: >This month shall be unto you the beginning of months< (Exodus, 12.2) . . .’.

This linkage between the Roman army and the coming of the Messiah sounds a bit far-fetched, but apparently met with the approval of preachers and their audiences. All these tales fit into the overall attitude of many Jews in the Roman Empire, particularly rabbinic Jews, who attended synagogue services and lis- tened to their preachers in the years following the debacle of Bar-Kokhva. They hated Rome, were resigned to the fact that the Romans held the upper hand, and left revenge to the days of the Messiah.25

25 Genesis Rabba, 67.8; Mekhilta (R. Iṣma’el), Beṣalaḥ 1; Mekhilta (Simon b. Yoḥai), 14.7, see also Mekhilta (R. Iṣma’el), l.c.; Mekhilta (Simon b. Yoḥai), 17.12; J. Avoda Zara, 1.2. The verse so interpreted is Genesis, 27.21. See Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, p. 112. On the 256 chapter 6

The socio-economic changes in the Roman Empire often linked to the political developments of the third century and after, also replaced some of the symbols which had prevailed hitherto. While during the tannaitic period Esau and Edom were reserved for Romans, during amoraic times this was extended to include Teutons. They were described as a menace to Rome and part of divine retribution in days to come:

. . . R. Yose b. Ḥanina said: ‘What is the meaning of the verse >I will take away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth, but he that remaineth even he shall be for our god< (Zechariah, 9.7)? I will take away his blood out of his mouth, these are his altars; and his abominations between his teeth, these are his palaces; so that he too shall be for our god, these are the synagogues and schools that are in Edom, in which the princes of Judah will teach the Torah publicly’. R. Isaac said: ‘Leṣem that is Baneas; >Eqron shall be rooted up< (Zaphaniah, 2.4), that is Caesarea, the daughter of Edom, which was a metropolis of kings . . .’. R. Isaac also said: ‘What is the meaning of the verse: >Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness< (Isaiah, 26.10) ? Isaac (the patriarch) spoke before the Lord: ‘Master of the world: Will Esau be pardoned?’. Said he: ‘He is a rascal?’. Replied he: ‘Has he not learned justice?’. Retorted he: ‘In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly’ (l.c.) . . . And R. Isaac said: ‘What is the meaning of the verse: >Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked, further not his wicked device; lest they exalt themselves< (Psalms, 140.8)? Grant not the rascal Esau his desire; further not his wicked device—that is the Edomite Germany. If they were to issue forth they would destroy the whole world. Said R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina: ‘There are 300 crowned men in Germany and 365 prefects in Rome, and every day they fight each other and kill one of them, and they are busy creating a new king . . .’.

This Midraṣ is a true portrayal of the political and military situation in third- century Rome. The Germans are at the gates, the prefects try to stem the tide of the Barbarians, and a new ruler is chosen one after another. In another version

quote of R. Nathan, see Avoth de R. Nathan, version 1.28; Esther Rabba, 1.15; B. Qidduṣin, 49b. See Krauss, op. cit., p. 57; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., p. 113. Incidentally, when R. Nathan came to measure poverty he selected Lydda as the poorest place on earth. Krauss suggests amending Lydda to Lybia! The second quote is from Canticles Rabba, 2.19; Yalqut, 2.986; Pesiqta Rabbati, 15. Krauss, op. cit., pp. 6f. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 257

R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina says similar things about the Germans in the rôle of check- ing Roman conceit:

. . . Another thing: ‘Jacob sent messengers’ (Genesis, 32.4). ‘Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked, further not his wicked device; lest they exalt themselves’ (l.c.). Said he (Jacob): ‘Do not grant Esau the evil the desires of his heart. What is the meaning of do not grant him his wicked desire?’ Said he: ‘O Lord, make to Esau a barrier so that he may not be satisfied completely’. And what barrier did the Lord make to Esau? Said R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina: ‘Those are the peoples of Barbary and Germany, whom the Edomites fear’.

Here Esau and Edom both stand for Rome, whereas in the former Aggada these soubriquets were bestowed on the Germans.26 Also the eastern border of the Roman Empire attracted the attention of the rabbis in Judaea and naturally also in Babylonia. That happened as early as the beginning of the second century CE. In addition to the references cited, there are additional ones such as:

. . . The emperor said to R. Joṣu’a b. Ḥanania: ‘You claim to be ever so clever. So tell me what it is that I see in my dream?’ Replied he: ‘You see that the Persians compel you to do forced labour, rob you and ill-treat you’. So he pushed him away with a golden rod. But he thought about it all day long and at night he had the vision. King Ṣapur said to Samuel: ‘You claim that you are rather clever. So tell me, what is it that I see in my dream?’ He answered: ‘You see that the Romans are coming, are taking you prisoner and are having you mill date kernels with a golden millstone’. He mulled over it all day long and at night he had the vision. . . .

The identity of the emperor is uncertain. It has been suggested that he may have been Hadrian, a rather unlikely choice. Samuel was a Babylonian amora of the first generation, who is said to have died in 257. He was a contemporary of King Ṣapur I. who fought several wars against the Romans and took Valerian prisoner in 259 CE. However the dates do not tally either. So here we have echoes of the political and military strife between the Roman and the Persian empires, but the details are vague. Also other Aggadoth and apocalyptic texts

26 For the first quote, see B. Megillah, 6a–b; and for the second Genesis Rabba, 75.9; Yalqut to Psalms 140. Krauss, op. cit., pp. 49f. Ḥama b. Ḥanina was a Palestinian amora of the second generation, i.e., the third century CE. Cf. Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., p. 118. 258 chapter 6 deal with the wars between Rome and Parthia/Persia and the downfall of both. In this are mixed up many of the motives of this branch of Jewish literature, such as that the messianic one, that of the four kingdoms, and so forth. The Palestinian Aggada probably reached Italy, but it is to be doubted whether the Babylonian did, at least not at this stage of the Babylonian centre’s relations with the rest of the Diaspora.27 The rabbis’ general attitude to Rome, particularly of those who for one reason or another counselled their contemporaries to give up the armed struggle against Rome, attempted to explain their position in manifold ways. One such Aggada goes as follows:

. . . An heretic said to R. Judah, the patriarch: ‘We are better than you. About you it is written: >For Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom< (Kings, 1.11.16). We, on the other hand, have had you with us many years and we have not done a thing to you’. He retorted: ‘If you do not mind, I shall have a student deal with you’. R. Oṣaya did so and said: ‘This is so because you do not know what to do. Do you want to kill them all? Yet you do not rule over all of them; do you want to kill all those you rule over? If so, they will call you a defective nation’. Said he to him: ‘By the temple of Rome, by which we rise and fall . . .’.28

While the rabbis continued to denounce Rome’s deficiencies, wrongdoings and particularly its idolatry, they hid their anti-Roman feelings behind a smoke- screen of parables, biblical exegesis and edifying anecdotes, and left vengeance and the ultimate redemption of Israel to the uncertain and anything but immediate future. That must have met with the approval of Italian Jewry who were exposed to rabbinical sermons on the one hand and the realities of life in their new homeland on the other. Here are one or two additional illustrations:

27 B. Berakhot, 56a; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 50f. Yoṣua was a tanna of the second generation. Krauss, op. cit., pp. 50f. This is followed by additional Aggadic references to the Roman Empire and the Persians, the armed conflict between them, and the final downfall of both empires. See ibid. and B. Yoma, 10a. Krauss, l.c., note 18, lists the armed conflicts between the two powers since the Sassanides came to power in 224 CE. 28 B. Pesaḥim, 87b. Krauss, op. cit., p. 54 (wrong reference and interpretation). R. Oṣaya was a first generation Palestinian Amora. The heretic may be anybody—from Gnostic on. The “temple” stands for the temple to Jupiter; and see Raṣi ad loc. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 259

. . . ‘For, lo, the winter is past’ (Canticles, 2.11)—that is the wicked kingdom, which incites the world and misleads it with its lies . . . ‘the rain is over and gone’ (l.c.)—that is the enslavement. ‘The flowers appear on the earth’ (Ibid. 12)—the victors appear on the earth. ‘The time of the singing of birds is come’ (l.c.)—the time of Israel’s redemption has come; it is time that the foreskin is removed and the wicked kingdom comes to an end; it is the time when the kingdom of heaven will reveal itself . . .’.

At the same time the rabbis issued a warning against assimilation, which is implied in the following anecdote, ascribed to the second half of the fourth century:

. . . Said the emperor to R. Tanḥum: ‘Come let us become one nation’. Replied he: ‘by my life, we who are circumcised cannot become like you; you circumcise yourselves and you will become like us’. Said he: ‘You have spoken well, but he who overcomes the king is thrown into the arena’. So they threw him into the arena, but they did not devour him. An heretic said: ‘They did not devour him because they are not hungry’. So they threw him in and they ate him. . . .

R. Tanḥuma was a Palestinian amora of the sixth generation, often cited in the Midraṣ named after him. Hence he lived after the Roman Empire had become Christian. If anything, the Jewish aversion to paganism took only second place to that to Christianity. It has been suggested that a passage in the Miṣnah, thought to have been a later addition, echoes the change to Christianity:

. . . When the traces of the Messiah appear insolence will increase, prices will rise, the vine will bear fruit but the wine will be expensive, the kingdom will be heretic without anyone reproaching it, the house of assem- bly will become a brothel and Galilee will be destroyed. . . .

So Minuth in the text probably means Christianity.29 When Constantinople became one of the two capitals of the Empire and eventually its sole one, Aggada transferred its hatred of Edom to that city and

29 The first quote is Canticles Rabba, 11.11–12. Krauss, op. cit., p. 55. The second quote is B. Sanhedrin, 39a. Krauss, op. cit., p. 56. On the Jewish attitude to Christianity, see infra, chapt. 7. The third passage is printed in M. Sotah, 9.15, thought to have been a later addition. See Epstein, Introduction to Text of Miṣnah, cit., pp. 976f. B. Sanhedrin, 97a has the same story embellished with many more details. 260 chapter 6 prophesied its destruction by God. God chose the Persians as the people to bring this about; although no such thing took place until 1453. Then it was not the Persians to act as God’s executioners, but the Ottoman Turks:

. . . Be happy and joyous Constantinople, city of the wicked Edom, built in Romania (= Byzantium) with numerous troops by the sinful Edomite people. You too will suffer calamity and the Parthians will lay you waste; you will suffer the cup of damnation and be emptied. Thereafter your guilt, Oh community of Zion, will be expiated; you will be redeemed at the hand of the messianic king and at that of Elia the high priest. God will not exile you again. At this time you, wicked Rome, will be punished for your guilt, built in Italy and filled with troops of Edom’s sons. The Persians will come and will assail and lay you waste, since it has been decreed before the Lord because of your sins. . . .

Here too the destruction of Constantinople is left to the Messiah, aided by Elia, his forerunner.30 Finally there are the piyyutim (= poesies), the lyrical compositions, many of which became part of the synagogal liturgy; most if not all were said to have been written in Judaea. The biography of their authors, particularly the timing of their career, starting with poets such as Yose b. Yose, Yannai and Ela’zar Ha-Qalir, is a fecund battleground for scholars of Hebrew literature and others. Some of these poets may have lived as early as the fifth century, but that is sheer conjecture. Their references to Rome and Romans tally with the motives of aggadic literature on Rome and Romans, especially in their qinoth (= odes) on the destruction of the Temple, incorporated into the synagogue service on the ninth of Av. Divine vengeance on Edom and Se’ir is a major motif of these poesies. One of the first Paitanim, Yannai, said by some to have lived in the days of Justinian, expressed this simile several times:

. . . He liked blood, hence his name is Edom, and he is Esau and Edom. Remember, God, to the sons of Edom the destruction which the daughter of Edom has wrought. A great massacre in Edom, a great fire in the field of Edom . . . Drop from heaven the ruler of Edom and throw your shoe at Edom. Bring your revenge on Edom . . . Put it to turmoil like Sodom, your drawn sword satiate on Edom. . . .

30 Targum, Threni, 4.21–22. See Krauss, op. cit., p. 52. Rome and Romans as the Jews Saw Them 261

It is doubtful whether the Jews in Italy had enough Hebrew in Antiquity to comprehend them, and hence employ them in their synagogue ritual. That underwent a change only in the Middle Ages.31 … These are most, albeit not all, references of the rabbis, in Aggada and Midraṣ, to Rome, the Roman Empire and related subjects. Apocalyptic and messianic literature is too vague to allow us to draw conclusions from them. No great love was lost between the two peoples for religious and for political reasons. Pagan Romans did not like Judaism and its practices, and Christian Rome tried to drag its Jews to the baptismal font. Jews replied in kind, starting with the days of Pompey and particularly after 70 CE as well as following the revolt of Bar-Kokhva. While the Jews in Judaea rose several times against the Romans, in futile attempts to defeat the military world power in the West, and the Jews in many of the provinces, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Syria, and so forth fought their local neighbours, the Jews of Italy are not known to have risked or even con- templated any such military ventures. They were exposed to the sermons of their own rabbis and of the emissaries from Judaea throughout Antiquity and beyond, and probably chose to keep silent like R. Yose b. Qisma. That at least appears a permissible conclusion by inference. Even after the cessation of the patriarchate at the beginning of the fifth century emissaries from the Holy Land continued to frequent Jewish communities in Italy. No doubt they continued to hold forth in the synagogues and spread (among other things) the views of the rabbis on the relationship to Rome and Romans. We can only guess at what they chose to present to their Jewish audiences from Sicily to the far north of Italy, but it is a fair assumption that they dwelt also on this relationship. Unfortunately no tangible documentation on the sermons has survived. That the Jews of Italy took up arms if hard pressed and circumstances permitted it is shown by their taking part in the defense of Naples in the days of Justinian, but that isolated instance for which evidence has survived cannot serve as proof for anything more widespread either way. For the rest of the time they appear to have lived peacefully alongside their Roman pagan neighbours. That idyllic situation, or so it would appear, came to an end in the fifth century, when the mob, incited by ecclesiastical preachers, took to violence against

31 Rabinovitz, The Liturgical Poems of R. Yannai, 1, p. 198; Stemberger, Römische Herrschaft, cit., pp. 124f. sums up the state of the art on this topic. Cf., however, on Italian Jews and Hebrew, below, chapt. 8. 262 chapter 6

Jews and their places of cult in Italy, fomenting hatred between the Jewish minority and the Christian majority toward the end of Antiquity. The nature of Aggadic sources, our inability to fix the historical background of many with any degree of security, and our ignorance on whether any Aggada in particular was presented to a Judaeo-Italian audience, leave us in the dark as to what exactly took place on the ground. chapter 7 Judaism and Christianity

The Birth of Christianity and Its Diffusion

The advent of Christianity and its victory over paganism at the beginning of the fourth century were accompanied by a fundamental change in the position of Jews and Judaism in the Roman Empire. That change did not occur overnight, but was a gradual process very much in step with the taking hold of the new religion in the Empire. To judge by the evolvement of legislation, this intermediate period lasted for about a century, until the end of the fourth century. But the change was not uniform or simultaneous and depended very much on the progress Christianity made in a given locality at a given point in time. In the end Jews in the Empire, in the East and in the West, became second-class citizens, though they were considered Roman citizens right throughout the Middle Ages, even in Rome, the seat of the papacy. They were the only infidel element tolerated in Christian society, albeit with serious restrictions on their religious freedom, their civil liberties, their economic and social life, and so forth. All other religions were outlawed and their adherents annihilated. This peculiar and exceptional situation of the Jews in Christian society was grounded in the theological reasoning of the Fathers of the Church, best defined by St. Augustine, and shared by most, though not all Christian thinkers in Antiquity and beyond. Its application too was not uniform and unchanging, depending on time and place.1

1 For the legal position of the Jews and the changes following the victory of Christianity, see supra, chapt. 3. On the Church and the Jews, particularly the papacy, its central power in the West, including Italy, see my Apostolic See and the Jews, cit., passim, and the references cited there. For a history of Christianity and its relationship with Judaism, see Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles as an Apologetic Text, pp. 13f.; Blumenkranz, Juifs et chrétiens, cit., passim; Id., Les auteurs chrétiens latins, cit., passim; Edwards et al., Apologetics in the Roman Empire, passim; Freimann, Wie verhielt sich das Judentum zu Jesus, pp. 696f.; Id., Wortführer des Judentums, pp. 555f.; Harnack, Mission and Expansion, cit., passim; Horbury, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy, passim; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 53f.; Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, passim; Moore, Christian Writers on Judaism, pp. 197f.; Munck, op. cit., passim; Parkes, op. cit., passim; Schürer, op. cit., passim; Simon, op. cit., passim; Williams, Adversus Judaeos, passim; and see a few more views and publications: Amersfoort (van) et al., Juden und Christen in der Antike, passim; Barclay, Apologetics in The Jewish Diaspora, pp. 129f.; Becker et al., The Ways that Never Parted, passim; Bergmann, Geschichte der jüdischen

The rift between Judaism and Christianity became evident almost from the beginning. According to the New Testament, Jesus himself never mentioned a separation of his sect from Judaism. He considered himself a Jew, albeit with special religious and social connotations. He claimed to be able to work miracles. He is also reported as having defined his mission as directed toward the Jews and not toward anyone else. He is said to have believed in the Jewish God without reservation. Seen against the background of contemporary conditions in Jewish Judaea, he was the founder of a Jewish sect, one of many in existence in those days, with a pronounced social programme. The main sects were the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, followed by numerous smaller factions, some of which are known only by their names. Some, such as the Zealots, advocated an armed struggle against the Roman invader. Others relied on messianic hopes, or chose asceticism as a way of life, such as the Essenes and the Qumran sect. All disappeared after 70 CE, except for the Pharisees and the Christians. According to Paul he had been a Pharisee and was commissioned by the High Priest in Jerusalem to seek out Christians in Damascus and bring them in fetters to Jerusalem. On his way there he had a revelation, which made him convert to a belief in Jesus as the son of God and divine, who had been appointed by his father to redeem the Jews. The Jews rejected him and his message and had him put to death as a revolutionary and heretic who sought to upset the existing social and religious order. While the invitation to the Jews to join the new religious movement stood, Paul himself preferred to preach the gospel to Gentiles. He left the mission to the Jews to some of his fellow apostles, while he undertook to try to convert Gentiles. Paul told the story as follows: when he and his company came to Antioch they paid a visit to the local synagogue on the Sabbath and “after the

Apologetik, passim; Blumenkranz, Die jüdischen Beweisgründe, pp. 119f.; Boyarin, Border Lines, passim; Cameron, Jews and Heretics, pp. 345f.; Donfried et al., Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, passim; Dunn, Jews and Christians, passim; Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, passim; Foakes-Jackson et al., Beginnings of Christianity, passim; Fredriksen- Irshai, Christianity and Anti-Judaism in Late Antiquity Polemics and Policies, pp. 977f.; Hruby, Juden und Judentum bei den Kirchenvätern, passim; Krauss, Jewish-Christian Controversy, passim (who deals with the Judaeo-Christian conflict by subject); Lifshitz, Fonctions et titres honorifiques, pp. 62f.; Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung, passim; Millar, Jews of the Graeco- Roman Diaspora, pp. 97f.; Nir, Early Christianity, passim; Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict, passim; Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, passim; Sandmel, The First Christian Century, passim; Schirmann, Hebrew Liturgical Poetry, pp. 123f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., passim; Stranton-Stroumsa, Tolerance and Intolerance, passim; Vallée, Shaping of Christianity, passim; Wasserstein, Pagans, Jews and Christians, pp. 166f.; Werner, Sacred Bridge, passim. Some of these were not devoid of religious prejudices, and treated the subject matter they discussed accordingly. judaism and christianity 265 reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue invited Paul to deliver a sermon”. Paul’s sermon included a summary of the Christian version of Jesus’ end: how the Jews in Jerusalem condemned him to death and handed him to Pontius Pilate for execution and how he rose from the dead. The Jews in Antioch didn’t like Paul’s sermon, so he turned to the Gentiles, who did.

. . . Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said: it was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. . . .

Here we have an important element of the apostle’s policy: The Jews were the first to be offered the new faith. Having rejected it, the apostle turns to the Gentiles. The Jews then had the authorities expel Paul and company. That repeated itself also elsewhere in other Jewish communities when Paul visited them. But Paul himself continued to identify himself as a Jew, holding Pharisee views on Resurrection and the angels, and not a Sadducee. He is reported to have spoken Hebrew (probably Aramaic) to the Jews in Jerusalem and not Greek.2

2 Nascent Christianity and all its ramifications probably produced one of the largest literatures ever linked to an historical event. See, for instance the literature on Jews and Christians cited by Nir, op. cit., pp. 447f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 579f.; and my Apostolic See, cit., 8, pp. 20f. Hardly a day passes without an addition to the list. Part of it deals with criticism of the New Testament, which like that of the Old Testament, brought on a flurry of publications. Some of the gospels contain passages which have been interpreted as intentional distancing of Jesus from the Jewish people and from Judaism. See also the Letters to the Hebrews, 8.5f.; 9.10, 15; 12.1f, 24 and to the Galatians, 3.7f., 29. On Paul’s revelation, see Acts, 9 and 21. At first Paul still meant to convert also Jews and preached: “before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel”. He went to synagogues in Syria, Asia Minor and Greece, but his visits were crowned by little success. The same happened on his visit to Rome. There he avoided the synagogues (perhaps because officially he was under arrest) and tried to preach the gospel from his home. In Rome, too, most Jews seem to have responded negatively to his entreaties. On the Jews in Rome at this time, see Penna, Les juifs à Rome au temps de l’apôtre Paul, pp. 321f. Elsewhere he was repeatedly chased away from the synagogues by the local Jews and had to seek refuge abroad. He is not supposed to be the narrator of these events, but they have been accepted as credible, at least their main elements. For his declaration of identity, see Acts, 22.1f.; Boyarin, A Radical Jew, passim. Justyn mentions some seven sects, some of which cannot be identified. See Dialogue, 80.4. Others speak of more, even as many as two dozen. See Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus, passim. For a second/third century Christian writer’s view of Jewish sects, see Hippolytus of Rome, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (= Philosophumena), 13f. He was a sworn enemy of Pope Calixtus I (as was Tertullian), see supra chapt. 1, esp. note 42. 266 chapter 7

Paul’s continuous missionizing, in particular that addressed to Gentiles, caused active opposition to him on the part of the Jewish authorities in Judaea and abroad. His conviction that Gentiles were true Jews in the spirit made him introduce Gentiles into the Temple, from which they had been barred in the past. As a result the Jews in Jerusalem “demanded his blood”. Paul was arraigned before the Roman governor, Felix, and accused of sedition, namely of preaching his creed in the synagogue and “being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes”. The trial went on and on and the governor kept Paul in Caesarea for some two years. His successor, Festus, continued to try Paul. At this stage Paul declared that he was a Roman citizen and demanded to be tried by the Emperor. Following this, Festus granted Paul a hearing by King Agrippa. The Jews (so Festus):

. . . had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. . . .

Agrippa held a hearing, found nothing objectionable in Paul’s views, and declared that if Paul had not appealed to the Emperor, he (Agrippa) would have set him free. So Paul set out for Rome. En route he suffered shipwreck near Malta and landed in Syracuse in Sicily. Apparently no Jews had a yet arrived there, since Paul does not mention having encountered any, as was his wont whenever he came to a new place. Further north, he landed at Pozzuoli, where he met fellow Christians, probably Judaeo-Christians. From there he proceeded to Rome to await trial. While in Rome he got entangled again in arguments with local Jews, but failed to make headway. He stayed in Rome for two years and while there made his concluding statement about Gentiles. He denigrated the circumcised who did not observe the Law as he understood it. Those who did were to be considered circumcised even if they were not so in the flesh. According to Paul: “Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter . . .”. He is thought to have died in Rome as a martyr in the days of Nero.3

3 See Acts, 24f., quoted in one form or another by later Christians, such as, for instance, Epiphanius of Costancia (Salamis), De mensuris et ponderibus, 16f., in the fourth century. Paul’s trial has been described often. See, for instance, Munck, op. cit., pp. 303f. There is nothing by way of evidence to show that the upheavals in Rome caused by Chrestus as reported by Sueton were linked to Paul’s activities in Rome. See supra, chapt. 1. Paul’s end is not really documented. Later generations describe him as a martyr, perhaps based on the reference in Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesans, 12, written early in the second century CE. A few generations later Eusebius reports that Nero had him beheaded, see his Historia Ecclesiastica, 2.25.5. judaism and christianity 267

Paul is the central figure in the New Testament, with the exception of Jesus in the gospels. But for the gospels and the book of Revelation most other parts of the New Testament are Paul’s letters to various communities and individuals. In fact, one gains the impression that it was mainly, though not solely, Paul who bestowed on the Jewish sectarian movement its definition and character as a new and separate religion, seeing in Gentiles the target population to be addressed, at least by him, rather than the Jews in Judaea and abroad. Though influenced by Hellenistic theological imagery, his creed was essentially based on Judaism. To what extent Judaeo-Christians were for a time the most numerous element in the incipient Christian communities which the apostles founded outside Judaea, including Italy (Pozzuoli and Rome) is debatable, since no dependable population figures have survived. If they were, they ceased to be predominant, if ever, by the second century CE. By then the Gentile element apparently outnumbered the Judaeo-Christian one, irrespective of whether the two movements were at loggerheads (as some would have it) or not. Be that as it may, in due course the Gentile factor became the more numerous and influential among the converts to Christianity. At the same time the enmity toward Judaism, nourished by the alleged Jewish rejection of Jesus’ message and responsibility for his death, took over, and was fed also by other causes, some rooted in the old pagan notion of Judaism as atheism, though this involved a contradiction in terms and some subtle theological reasoning to settle it. The avowed missionary character of Christianity and its declared intention of changing the political regime brought on repeated persecutions of the new religion on the part of the Roman authorities. In that the Roman attitude to Christianity differed from that to Judaism, which was only mildly missionizing if at all, and even if it was more than that, the Jewish mission did not entail a revolutionary change of the Roman political system. Pagan Roman tolerance allowed Jews to circumcise their own children but not those of others, but it refused to have the Emperor replaced by Jesus, or at least placed over him. By then the compromise eventually agreed on by the competing forces was not yet in sight.4

4 The Acts are thought to be a continuation of the Gospel of Luke. Luke was a doctor and Paul’s companion on his travels. The historicity of Acts, the date of their composition, the purpose of their author, and so on, are debatable. The value of Acts as a reliable historical source is no greater than that of most of our other sources. Be that as it may, Acts portray an early stage of Christianity as later generations viewed it. The fact that some details in Acts contradict some of those reported in Paul’s letters has produced no end controversy. Very likely these contradictions are due to a difference of authorship. There are no figures available for the dimensions of conversion to Judaism in the pagan Roman Empire. The issue is controversial 268 chapter 7

A question often asked but hardly ever satisfactorily answered is: what was the appeal of Christianity and the apostles and what did they represent and preach, which eventually made the new faith the absolute ruler in the Roman Empire? For Christian believers the answer should be simple: the truth of the Christian creed. For those who are not Christians the problem is much more complex. It would appear that Paul and his fellow apostles were very able pro- pagandists and organizers. At first they appealed to the messianic tensions and agitation rampant in contemporary Judaea. Only then did they move on to the Gentile population in the Roman Empire. Their main thesis was as follows: God sent his son Jesus, himself divine, to the Jews to redeem them. His views were essentially those of a Pharisee and he promised his followers eternal life. He believed he could work miracles and preached a social and religious revolution. His avowed enemy was the existing regime in Judaea, presided over by the Sadducees in the priesthood and the scribes of the Temple. When the Jews rejected him and brought about his crucifixion, his disciples, in particular Paul, after having addressed at first their missionary effort also to Jews, concentrated them on Gentiles. Eventually Christians were declared the “true Israel” (Verus Israel). They usurped the Old Testament and all it stood for, and dispossessed the Jews “‘in the flesh” from its promises and prophesies, except those which foretold dire consequences to the Jews if they disobeyed the Lord. Finally, they abolished the validity of the Jewish Oral Law, i.e., rabbinic law, denying the “second” ascent of Moses to Mount Sinai. In practical terms that meant that you could be a good Jew, albeit as a Christian, without reference to circumcision, forbidden food such as pork, and similar precepts and commandments, which probably had contributed to the pagan abstention from conversion to Judaism. At the same time Christianity promised the believer God’s grace, eternal life, resurrection, and all that went with these concepts. A contributing factor was no doubt that the Christian Gentile could and did disassociate himself from the Jewish national disaster. Not all Gentiles welcomed the new religion with open arms. Paul relates how on a visit to Athens the philosophers, Epicureans and Stoics, rejected his

and the competing parties have not been able to marshal more than tenuous data. The fact that some high ranking men and women became Jews or sympathizers of Judaism over a period of several centuries does not support the theory of those who claim that conversion to Judaism was a mass movement. See also elsewhere in this monograph esp. the Excursus in ch. 2. It was Paul who blamed the Jews in Thessalonica for having voiced the accusation that Christianity acted “contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, one Jesus”. See Acts, 17. judaism and christianity 269 message. The apostles and their successors did not have an easy task. It took three centuries, manifold bloody persecutions and much heart searching to win over the Imperial government in the person of Constantine to embrace Christianity; and several more centuries to enforce Christianity throughout the Empire. What portion of the Roman population had become Christian in the days of Constantine and how many Romans still clung to their pagan traditions is an enigma for want of dependable figures. The rejection of paganism by the masses took centuries and there is no agreement between scholars as to what really brought it about, though there is no shortage of plausible and implausible theories. Jews never competed with the Christian mission and hence there were no mass conversions to Judaism in Antiquity either before or after Constantine.5 It would seem that the abolition of Jewish Oral Law was no negligible element in making the Christian interpretation of Judaism more appetizing to pagans, though unpalatable to Judaeo-Christians. Circumcision, especially of adults, was a painful operation and no mean personal sacrifice by a potential adult convert. Doing away with it without barring the road to salvation and Paradise, not to mention the promise of eternal life, resurrection, and so forth, was an offer which many pagans who had despaired of the help of the gods in a disintegrating Empire could not refuse. It is open to doubt whether the illiterate masses who embraced Christianity in those centuries chose Christianity over paganism as a result of philosophical or theological reasoning. Rather,

5 See supra, note 2. The roots of the belief that Christianity replaced Judaism are to be found in the New Testament. The decision of the apostles to abolish circumcision for Gentiles join- ing the church is reported in Acts, 15 and in Romans and Galatians. However, Romans does not reject the Old Testament altogether, irrespective of the outcome of the debate over the authorship of the Letter. For a discussion of Romans and Paul’s views, see Gager, op. cit., pp. 223f., 230f. The eschatological literature expressed some of the current messianic notions of the adherents of the two religions. It has been suggested that Christianity fed on the Jewish apocalyptic literature, adopted it and eventually produced some of its own. Nietzsche formulated the usurpation of the Old Testament by Christianity in his Morgenröthe (Daybreak), 84: “. . . All considered, however, what more can be expected of a religion which in its formative centuries perpetrated an unprecedented philological farce concerning the Old Testament? I refer to that attempt to tear the Old Testament from the hands of the Jews under the pretext that it contained only Christian doctrines and belonged to the Christians as the true people of Israel while the Jews had merely taken it for their own without authority. This was followed by a fury of so-called interpretation and falsification which could not under any circumstances have been done with a good conscience . . .”. A less vituperative terminology was suggested by Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, cit., pp. 36f. He called the usurpation “counter-history”. And see Biale, Counter History and Jewish Polemics, pp. 130f. See also MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, passim. 270 chapter 7 they found a consoling and hopeful alternative in watered down Judaism and embraced Christianity at least in part as a solution to their mundane problems. Some, no doubt, preferred monotheism to polytheism for one reason or another, but that would be valid for few out of many. The rulers, with the exception of Julian, joined the trend, or led it, depending on whom you ask. That all intentionally or by default joined the vox populi is debatable and depended largely on the individual ruler. All that time the missionary zeal of the apostles and those who came in their wake never diminished. They were the major recruiting force to the ranks of the new religion, probably the only one with a clear cut plan: theological, political, social, etc. Not all preached the same gospel. The divisions in the Church, including the early one, were manifold, and persist to our day. But many differences were ironed out, while others were suppressed. That affected also the attitude of some churches toward the Jews and Judaism, such as those of the Arian conviction, but not substantially so.6

The Early Fathers of the Church and Judaism

While the rejection of Judaism by pagan Rome was largely, though not solely, a matter of “atheism”, albeit heinous a crime as it may have been, it was suppressed only if and when it became a danger to the Roman way of life and its civilization; while that same rejection by Christian Rome was fundamental and all-embracing. Judaism and Christianity denied their members the right to adhere to more than one faith. Both considered it a mortal sin to abandon one for the other. After the beginning of the fourth century it was Christianity which had the upper hand. So if there were conversions to Judaism in pagan Rome these ceased under Christianity. At the same time the acrimonious dispute between the representatives of the two religions intensified. Much of the Christian polemical literature has survived, whereas most Jewish parallel writings have been lost, or have been suppressed. While the Church did its utmost to root out Jewish polemics, Jews themselves were careful not to have any found in their possession in view of the inherent danger in such ownership. Therefore many Jewish arguments in the debate with Christianity have survived only in their rebuttal by Christian theologians, who

6 See supra, esp. chapt. 1. Churchmen, such as Eusebius, noted this progress with satisfaction without giving for it rhyme or reason. See his Historia Ecclesiastica, 4.1: “. . . The teaching and the Church of our Saviour flourished greatly and made progress from day to day . . .”, noting that at the same time “the calamities of the Jews increased”. judaism and christianity 271 in Antiquity were mostly Fathers of the Church. Nearly all these early writings, Christian and Jewish, were written outside Italy, but probably were read also in that country. The Jews of Italy were part of Diaspora Jewry. Though there were local variations, Italian Jews were not substantially different from the Jews in other countries in the Empire. Unlike the views of many pagan writers whose opera may or may not have been instrumental in forming public opinion, at least of the literate intelligentsia, the writings of the Fathers of the Church were brought to the attention of the masses by preachers and missionaries, inciting their listeners against Jews and Judaism. That these sermons did not remain a dead letter is borne out by the numerous attacks of Christians on Jews throughout the Empire, Italy included, as manifested by the burning of synagogues, murder and mayhem.7 The writings of the Fathers of the Church were not all Adversus Judaeos texts, in fact most of them were not. To what extent some of these polemical and non-polemical writings of the Fathers were no more than apologies of Christianity and not attacks on Judaism is debatable, particularly after the fourth century. Furthermore, the majority of these texts were not the Christian side’s response to Jewish arguments, but were part and parcel of a wider Christian literary effort. Some of the most virulent Christian attacks on Jews and Judaism were not part at all of the Adversus Judaeos literature. At the same time, when combating pagans and their views, Christian writers were confronted by a dilemma. They had to defend Judaism, the mother religion of Christianity, against pagan arguments, which if left unanswered exposed Christianity to the selfsame doubts. So it has been pointed out, rightly in my view, that the Adversus Judaeos texts must be viewed in the context of the other writings of their authors. These often contain arguments against Judaism at least as explicitly as the works so labelled. They were decidedly anti-Jewish and not just theologically.8

7 L.c., esp. note 56. Even a relatively “benevolent” ruler such as Theodoric, when decrying the arson of the synagogue in Genoa, admonished the Jews there to convert to Christianity. See supra, chapt. 1. That, at any event, is what Cassiodorus reported. Cassiodorus too attempted to convert Jews by his interpretation of Psalms. See his Conclusiones ad Psalmorum 49. For the culture of Italian Jews in Antiquity, see below. 8 Schreckenberg, op. cit., Introduction, who lists some of the recent literature on the subject. An example is Origen’s Adversus Celsum, passim. Others abound. See for instance Ruether, The Adversus Judaeos Tradition, pp. 27f. The modern Christian effort to abjure the past by changing liturgy, asking forgiveness for excesses perpetrated and the like are commendable, but at times impress one as no more than the payment of lip-service. Hatred of Jews and Judaism assumed many forms. Once religion ceased to be paramount the antagonism lost most of its theological colouring, but it remained the same ugly old lady. In my view there 272 chapter 7

The Christian opera, or what has survived of them, contemporaneous or slightly younger than the New Testament and those that followed them all mention in one form or another that Christianity had superseded Judaism. They included the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache), Ignatius of Antioch, and Pseudo-Barnabas. The latter went a step further than the others. According to the anonymous author the Jews never were the Chosen People and the Old Testament treats only of Christians. Among the earlier Christian writings it was the most anti-Jewish in style and in contents and is said to have been directed mainly against Judaeo-Christians. It had this to say about the death of Jesus, based on quotations from the Old Testament:

. . . What then does the Prophet say again? ‘The synagogue of the sinners compassed me around, they surrounded me as bees round the honey- comb’ and, ‘they cast lots for my clothing.’ Since therefore he was destined to be manifest and to suffer in the flesh his Passion was foretold. For the Prophet says concerning Israel, ‘Woe unto their soul, for they have plotted an evil plot against themselves’, saying, ‘Let us bind the Just one, for he is unprofitable to us.’ What does the other Prophet, Moses, say to them? ‘Lo, thus saith the Lord God, enter into the good land which the Lord sware that he would give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit it, a land flowing with milk and honey . . .’.

The Pseudo-Barnabas applies similar exegetical methods to other Christian beliefs. He had serious consequences and influenced later generations, especially Clemens of Alexandria.9 One of the first Fathers of the Church to dispute with a Jew, real or imaginary was Justyn Martyr, like many of his peers a martyr and a saint, who lived in the second century CE. His Jewish opposite number was one Tryphon. In his

is also no substance in drawing an artificial dividing line between theological anti-Judaism and social, political, and economic enmity and discrimination, ripening into persecution of Jews throughout the ages. The wording of Canon Law and Church inspired legislation demonstrates this in no unmistakable terms. To put it in a nutshell: outcasts in the eyes of god are the same in the eyes of men. Many atheists cling tenaciously to this part of their former religious beliefs which they otherwise reject. 9 Didache, passim; Ignatius, Letters, passim; Pseudo-Barnabas, Epistle, 6.6f.; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, passim. See also Marmorstein, L’Épitre de Barnabé, cit., pp. 213f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 171f., 602f.; Williams, op. cit., pp. 14f. These texts were followed by some more, the most important one being that of Marcion of Sinope (near Pontus), excommunicated by the Catholic mainstream. His works have not survived except in quotations by his adversaries, chiefly Tertullian. judaism and christianity 273

Dialogue Justyn brought up, perhaps for the first time, the Christian accusation that the Jews altered Scripture to suit Judaism. If we are to believe Justyn, Trypho answered:

. . . Whether [or not] the scribes or archons have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible. . . .

This was a fundamental bone of contention between the two religions. The existence of several versions of the Old Testament, starting with the Hebrew one, through the Septuagint and later translations into Aramaic, Greek and Latin, led to different readings of the text and its interpretation. As a rule, Christians preferred the Septuagint and the versions based on it to all others, because they thought that they were nearest to their conception of the text. If their version deviated from that of the others, they accused the opposite side of falsification and misinterpretation. The hermeneutics of the Old Testament were a fundamental element in the debate between Judaism and Christianity. As we have seen, that came on top of the Christian claim that after the rejection of Jesus and of his message the Jews had forfeited the position of God’s true children. That status had devolved on Christians, and anything indicating a different interpretation was ostensibly the result of forgery and falsification, intransigence and obduracy. Justyn posited that from the advent of Jesus on nearly all references to the children of Israel in Scripture applied to Christians and not to Jews. He also attributed to the Jews that after prayers in the synagogue they taught the congregants to “scoff” at Jesus. Early texts, including the New Testament, contain most Christian arguments against the Jews, such as their collective guilt for the death of Jesus, the rejection of the Jews by God as demonstrated by their military and political defeat, various parables and tales, and so forth. On the commandments, such as Sabbath and circumcision he had this to say:

. . . Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselytes, the divine message which I heard from that man. Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths? Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham. For when Abraham himself was in un-circumcision, he was justified and blessed by reason of the faith which he reposed in God, as the Scripture tells. Moreover, the Scriptures and the 274 chapter 7

facts themselves compel us to admit that he received circumcision for a sign, and not for righteousness. So that it was justly recorded concerning the people, that the soul which shall not be circumcised on the eighth day shall be cut off from his family. And, furthermore, the inability of the female sex to receive fleshly circumcision proves that this circumcision has been given for a sign, and not for a work of righteousness. For God has given likewise to women the ability to observe all things which are righteous and virtuous; but we see that the bodily form of the male has been made different from the bodily form of the female; yet we know that neither of them is righteous or unrighteous merely for this cause, but by reason of piety and righteousness . . . Now, sirs . . . understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. . . .

Incidentally, Justyn also “Christianized” Socrates and other philosophers of Antiquity, along with Abraham and other biblical figures. According to Justyn Jews were the enemies of Christians. So only Judaeo-Christians, inasmuch as they still existed in his day, may be allowed to continue adhering to their Jewish customs and beliefs as long as they did not mislead Gentiles to do likewise. The usurpation of the Old Testament and the deprivation of the Jewish people of it are fundamental in his exegesis and by now are cited by him as an accomplished fact. His influence on later generations was notable.10

10 Justyn Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, passim. The citation is from 23–24. Many polemics, in Antiquity and later, never took place in real life, but were a normal literary genre in which the author clothed his text. See on this, for instance, Moore, Christian Writers on Judaism, cit., p. 198. See also Harnack, Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho, passim; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 182f., 605f.; Attempts at identifying Tryphon with a Jewish contemporary of Justyn lack supporting evidence. In fact, the dialogue, like many similar subsequent works, probably was no more than a sham debate that never was. See also Williams, op. cit., pp. 31f. On the correct translation of the titles of the Jewish functionaries, see below. For the “scoffing” at Jesus in the synagogue, see op. cit., 16.4; 96.2 .ברכת המינים ”and elsewhere. Justyn may have been referring to the “prayer of heretics But that was part of the main section of prayers and did not follow them. Later Fathers of the Church also referred to Jews cursing Christians in their prayers. These included Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome. On the prayer, which was the 19th of the so-called “18 or Amidah added to the existing 18 in the days of R. Gamli’el of ,שמונה עשרה ”Benedictions Yavne, in the second half of the first century, see Teppler, Birkat Haminim, passim and the literature cited there. See also Cohen, Nature of Shim’on Hapequli’s Act, pp. 547f.; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, pp. 201f.; Fleischer, Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer, pp. 397f.; Heinemann, Prayer in the Period of the Tanna’im, pp. 13f., 138; Horbury, Benediction of the Minim, pp. 19f.; Langer, Cursing the Christians, passim; Id., The Earliest Texts of the judaism and christianity 275

The Christian writers who followed on Justyn added little if anything to his arguments. Most of their writings have not survived. Among them was Melito, bishop of Sardis in Lydia in the second century CE. Sardis had an important Jewish community and its synagogue has been uncovered. The Jewish epitaphs found there are among our main sources for “God-fearers” in Antiquity. Melito was a proponent of the celebration of Easter on the Jewish date for Passover, also known as quartodecimans, which did not prevent him from being viru- lently anti-Jewish, or perhaps the two were cause and effect. He dwelt at length on the alleged deicide by the Jews and consequently accused them of collective guilt for it:

. . . Let not the Jew say we did not kill Christ. For they submitted him to Pilate as judge, so that they seemed almost absolved from his death. For when Pilate said to them: You kill him, they replied: we are not permitted to kill anybody. They wanted to shift the infamy of their foul deed to a human judge. But did they deceive God, the divine judge? Whatever Pilate did, and wherein he was committed, he was to a degree an accom- plice, yet in comparison with them, he was much less culpable. . . .

In this Melito followed his predecessors, especially Justyn Martyr, but expanded on them. Other early writers of the Church who mentioned Jews in the course of their presentations, and in what by now had become stereotype, included Eirenaius, bishop of Lyon, Minucius Felix, author of a “dialogue” with a pagan and one of the first who wrote Latin, and Clemens of Alexandria, all on or about the turn of the second century CE. Clemens quotes extensively from Philo and Josephus, and is not outspokenly anti-Jewish.11

Birkat Haminim, pp. 63f.; Kimelman, Birkat Ha-Minim, pp. 226f.; Rokeah, Church Fathers and Jews, pp. 9f.; Id., Justyn Martyr and the Jews, passim; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 155f.; Stemberger, Birkat Ha-Minim, pp. 75f.; Will-Orrieux, “Proselytism juif”?, cit., pp. 219, 326f.; Zeitlin, The Tefillah, the Shemoneh Esreh, pp. 208f. The author of the prayer was “Small” Samuel at Yavne. See B. Berakhot 28b–29a, B. Meghilla, 17b. On Samuel, see Hirschman, Shmuel ha-Katan, pp. 165f. Christians are said to have been specifically mentioned in the early version preserved in the Genizah, later probably suppressed by the censors of the Church. However, whether this was the original version is controversial. The passus from the Genizah was published by Schechter, Genizah Specimens, p. 657. Instead later, chiefly mediaeval versions mention informers and other heterodox sects. There is no telling what version or versions the Jews of Italy made use of in Antiquity. 11 Melito, Improperia; Id. Peri Pascha. See Botermann, Die Synagoge von Sardis, pp. 103f.; Hanfmann, Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times, passim; Id., Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue, op. cit., pp. 178f.; Kraabel, Melito the Bishop and the Synagogue at Sardis, pp. 77f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 201f., 607; Werner, Melito of Sardeis, cit., 276 chapter 7

That can also be said of Tertullian, one of the most influential among the Fathers of the Church particularly on later Christianity. He was a North African Montanist and therefore was never canonized. He was a prolific writer and his opera includes a tractate entitled Adversus Judaeos, the writing of which was occasioned by the disputation allegedly having taken place between a Jew and a Christian that perhaps never took place. The gist of Tertullian’s arguments was not new. They dealt with Christians having replaced the Jews as the people of God, and resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Dispersion; the revelation of God’s law in the Old Testament; the New Covenant having replaced circumcision, observance of the Sabbath and the Temple sacrifices; and finally that Jesus was the Messiah.

. . . Therefore, since the Jews still contend that the Christ is not yet come, whom we have in so many ways approved to be come, let the Jews recognize their own fate, a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew him . . . For ‘the Lord of Sabaoth hath taken away, among the Jews from Jerusalem,’ among the other things named, ‘the wise architect’ too, who builds the church, God’s temple, and the holy city, and the house of the Lord. For thenceforth God’s grace desisted among them. And ‘the clouds were commanded not to rain a shower upon the vineyard of Sorek’; the clouds being celestial benefits, which were commanded not to be forthcoming to the house of Israel; for it ‘had borne thorns’; whereof that house of Israel had wrought a crown for Christ, and not ‘righteousness, but a clamour,’ the clamour whereby it had extorted his surrender to the cross. And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, ‘the law and the prophets were until John’, and the fish- pool of Bethsaida until the advent of Christ: thereafter it ceased cura- tively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them blasphemed, as it is written: ‘On your account the name of God is blas-

pp. 191f. Werner compares the Improperia to the similar Dayenu in the Jewish Passover ritual and identifies it as an old parody of that text. He also shows that this recurs in other early Christian writings of the second century CE. He states that the Improperia were not included in the Christian ritual before the seventh century, particularly in that of Good Friday (reformed by Pope John 23). He traces its origins to Melito’s Peri Pascha, or Homily on the Passion (for Easter). For the quartodecimans, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 50. On Clemens, see also Krauss, Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers, pp. 122f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 211f., 609. judaism and christianity 277

phemed among the Gentiles’: for it is from them that the infamy began, and (was propagated during) the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian. And because they had committed these crimes, and had failed to understand that Christ was to be found in ‘the time of their visitation’, their land has been made ‘desert, and their cities utterly burnt with fire, while strangers devour their region in their sight: the daughter of Sion is derelict, as a watch-tower in a vineyard, or as a shed in a cucumber garden’, ever since the time, to wit, when ‘Israel knew not’ the Lord, and ‘the people understood him not’; but rather ‘quite forsook, and provoked unto indignation, the Holy One of Israel’ . . . Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ’s account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times. Or else, if Christ is not yet come, on whose account they were predicted as destined thus to suffer, when he shall have come it follows that they will thus suffer. And where will then be a daughter of Zion to be derelict, who now has no existence? where the cities to be exust, which are already exust and in heaps? where the dispersion of a race which is now in exile? Restore to Judea the condition which Christ is to find; and contend that some other is coming. . . .

His Adversus Judaeos shows the influence of his predecessors, particularly of Justyn. It was allegedly written in response to a disputation between a convert to Judaism and a Christian. Being the first Latin opus of its genre, it became a sort of prototype.12 Roman contemporaries of Tertullian or slightly younger were Hyppolitus of Rome and Novatianus, both anti-popes. They too relied largely on their predecessors and added little if anything to Christian anti-Jewish literature. Hippolytus’ view of Judaism is a mixture of fact and fiction:

12 His often cited description of Judaism as a religio licita has nothing to do with a defense of Judaism, but rather as an attempt to cite the tolerance of Judaism in support of a similar treatment of Christianity. See supra. And see Aziza, Tertullien e le judaïsme, passim; Blumenkranz, Judenpredikt Augustins, pp. 9f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 216f., 609f.; Williams, op. cit., pp. 43f. His attitude to Judaism is portrayed in his Adversus Judaeos, passim. The citation is from Adversus Judaeos, 13.24f. and the quotations from the Old and New Testaments and their compositions. 278 chapter 7

. . . Since, therefore, we have explained even the diversities among the Jews, it seems expedient likewise not to pass over in silence the system of their religion. The doctrine, therefore, among all Jews on the subject of religion is fourfold—theological, natural, moral, and ceremonial. And they affirm that there is one God, and that He is creator and lord of the universe . . . And that there are angels, and that these have been brought into being for ministering unto the creation; but also that there is a sover- eign spirit that always continues beside God, for glory and praise . . . they earnestly aim at serious habits and a temperate life, as one may ascertain from their laws. Now these matters have long ago been strictly defined by those who in ancient times have received the divinely-appointed law, so that the reader will find himself astonished at the amount of temperance, and of diligence, lavished on customs legally enacted in reference to man. The ceremonial service, however, which has been adapted to divine worship in a manner befitting the dignity of religion, has been practised among them with the highest degree of elaboration. The superiority of their ritualism it is easy for those who wish it to ascertain, provided they read the book which furnishes information on these points. They will thus perceive how that with solemnity and sanctity the Jewish priests offer unto God the first-fruits of the gifts bestowed by him for the rise and enjoyment of men; how they fulfil their ministrations with regularity and steadfastness, in obedience to his commandments. There are, however, some [liturgical usages adopted] by these, which the Sadducees refuse to recognize, for they are not disposed to acquiesce in the existence of angels or spirits. Still all parties alike expect Messiah, inasmuch as the Law certainly, and the prophets, preached beforehand that he was about to be present on earth. Inasmuch, however, as the Jews were not cogni- zant of the period of his advent, there remains the supposition that the declarations concerning his coming have not been fulfilled. And so it is, that up to this day they continue in anticipation of the future coming of the Christ, from the fact of their not discerning him when he was present in the world. And that, on beholding the signs of the times of his having been already among us, the Jews are troubled; and that they are ashamed to confess that he has come, since they have with their own hands put him to death, because they were stung with indignation in being convicted by himself of not having obeyed the laws. And they affirm that he who was thus sent forth by God is not this Christ; but they confess that another Messiah will come, who as yet has no existence; and that he will usher in some of the signs which the law and the prophets have shown beforehand, whereas, regarding the rest, they suppose that they have judaism and christianity 279

fallen into error. For they say that his generation will be from the stock of David, but not from a virgin and the Holy Spirit, but from a woman and a man, according as it is a rule for all to be procreated from seed. And they allege that this Messiah will be king over them, a warlike and powerful individual, who, after having gathered together the entire people of the Jews, and having done battle with all the nations, will restore for them Jerusalem the royal city. And into this city he will collect together the entire Hebrew race, and bring it back once more into the ancient customs, that it may fulfil the regal and sacerdotal functions, and dwell in confidence for periods of time of sufficient duration. After this repose, it is their opinion that war would next be waged against them after being thus congregated; that in this conflict Christ would fall by the edge of the sword; and that, after no long time, would next succeed the termination and conflagration of the universe; and that in this way their opinions concerning the resurrection would receive completion, and a recompense be rendered to each man according to his works. . . .

Hippolytus relates the tale of Calixt and moneylending before he became pope. He and Tertullian were Calixt’s arch-enemies, so the details may be due to prejudice.13 To this period belongs Origen, one of the great scholars of early Christianity. His version of Jesus being subordinate to God the Father was rejected by the Church and he was excommunicated. He is said to have castrated himself to live an ascetic life. Notwithstanding his controversial theological posture, he wielded considerable influence on Christianity. He is said to have had at least some Hebrew. He dealt extensively with the text of the Old Testament, particularly the Septuagint, but also with other versions and translations. He imbued every passage and event in the Old Testament with Christian significance and meaning, and carried this christological interpretation to an extreme. Of special Jewish interest is his diatribe against Celsus. Most of his writings have been lost, partly at least because of the official Church’s attitude toward him. He mentions several times that he took part in disputations with Jews, but if they were put on paper they too did not survive.

13 On Hippolytus, see Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 227f., 610; Wilde, Treatment of the Jews, passim; Williams, op. cit., pp. 53f. There lived more than one Hippolytus at this time and scholars are divided over their identification. The quotation is from Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (= Philosophumena), 9.25. On Novatianus, see Blumenkranz, op. cit., pp. 17f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 240f., 612. See also Marmorstein, Judaism and Christianity, pp. 225f. 280 chapter 7

Overall he was vehemently anti-Jewish, and derogatory expressions abound in his writings. He too cited the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish state as punishment meted out by God to the Jews for the rejection of Jesus and the responsibility for his death. He repeated this numerous times in his writings. In support of his political thesis he quoted from Flavius Josephus, particularly from his description of the destruction of Jerusalem. As with his treatment of biblical quotations he twisted the text of Josephus to suit his purpose. He dwelt at length on the alleged hatred of Christians by Jews and on their cursing of Christianity in the synagogue. For this and similar “sins” he condemned Jews to hell. His effort to demonize Jews and their religion became a topos in Christian polemical literature. He was especially incensed by potential converts to Judaism who observed Jewish rites and commandments and were sympathetic to Judaism. Though his invective against the Jews was part of his apology of Christianity, one gains the impression that his dislike of Jews and Judaism has its roots, at least partly, in similar Alexandrian pagan sentiments.14 Another contemporary writer was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, author of Testimoniorum libri adversus Iudaeos, a systematic collection of Bible citations aimed at showing the validity of Christianity compared to Judaism, as for example:

. . . That by this alone the Jews can receive pardon of their sins, if they wash away the blood of Christ slain, in his baptism, and, passing over into his church, obey his precepts. In Isaiah the Lord says: ‘Now I will not release your sins. When ye stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my face from you; and if ye multiply prayers, I will not hear you: for your hands are full of blood’ (Isaia, 1.15). . . .

Yet another opus on the calendar computation for fixing the date of Easter was put into circulation under his name; and one more Adversus Judaeos sermon was wrongly ascribed to him. He was one of the first Christian writers who described the Jews as perfidi. That term too became a stereotype. Otherwise there is nothing new in Cyprian’s writings and his opus is no more than a link in the chain of anti-Jewish apologetic literature of the Fathers of the Church. Also Lactantius, who lived a generation later, whose works include De Morte

14 The literature on Origen is ample. For his Contra Celsum, see supra, chapt. 5, esp. note 39, and below. See also Krauss, op. cit., pp. 122f.; Lange (de), Origen and the Jews, passim; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 228f., 610f.; Sgherri, Chiesa e sinagoga nelle opera di Origine, passim; Wilde, op. cit., pp. 181f.; Williams, op. cit., pp. 79f. Whether his reference to potential Jewish converts was proof of large-scale conversions is doubtful. judaism and christianity 281

Persecutorum, a history of the persecutions of Christians in pagan Rome, had nothing new to say on Christian-Jewish relations. He only mentions Jews to condemn them for refusing to convert, for having put to death Jesus, and so forth. In his old age he became advisor to Emperor Constantine and may have contributed to his formation as a Christian.15

The Fathers of the Church after the Victory of Christianity

Being on the way to becoming the official religion in the Roman Empire, one should have thought that Christianity would have called it a day and would have left well alone. However, that was not the case. The Christian Empire was far more intolerant than the pagan one. It dealt rigorously, though step by step, with all those who deviated from strict orthodoxy, outlawed pagans and did its utmost to bring Jews to the baptismal font. Those Jews who adamantly refused to give in to the pressure exerted on them by the triumphant Church and the Roman government, by now subservient to its commands, were relegated to the position of second class citizens. By the end of the fourth century CE they were hedged in by regulations and restrictions and incessantly exposed to missionary efforts, which at times degenerated into persecution and conversion by force. The rationale behind the special treatment of Jews, oscillating between toleration, albeit limited, pressure to convert, and unveiled persecution, was anchored in Christian theology, on which more anon. So the verbal attacks by the Fathers of the Church on Jews and Judaism continued unabated even after the conversion of Constantine. Most of the time they added little of substance to the Adversus Judaeos literature and to other similar works except occasionally in detail and in vehemence.16 The first Christian writer of the new era was Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, an admirer and close associate of Constantine, who influenced the Emperor as did Lactantius, and may have been instrumental in causing him to allow

15 On Cyprian, see Blumenkranz, op. cit., pp. 11f.; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 57f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 235f., 612; Williams, op. cit., pp. 56f. The citation is from Ad Quirinum (Liber Testimoniorum), 1.24. On perfidia, see Blumenkranz, Perfidia, pp. 157f. Perfidus means disbeliever, but in a pejorative sense. It soon acquired further negative connotations, such as treacherous, dishonest, and so forth, and became a standard Christian term employed in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages to describe Jews. On Lactantius and the Jews, see Id., Judenpredikt, cit., pp. 26f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 249f., 613. 16 See supra, note 1. 282 chapter 7

Christianity in the Empire. He wrote Chronica, a history, the purpose of which was to demonstrate the antiquity of Judaism as compared to the pagan deities and hence of Christianity; Historia Ecclesiastica, a history of the Church; Praeparatio Evangelica, aimed at pagans; Demonstration Evangelica, addressed mainly to Jews; Theophanie, which deals with the incarnation of Jesus; and other writings. All four opera contain the usual arguments of Christianity against paganism and Judaism. Biblical history as reported in the Old Testament is interpreted by Eusebius as a forerunner of Christianity and according to him was no longer relevant to the Jews in the flesh. Eusebius’ histories became the basis for mediaeval Christian chronicles, and were cited innumerable times. Eusebius’s books are the source of many now lost opera of pagan writers such as Alexander Polyhistor, Apion, Molon, Numenius of Apamea and Porphyry. He even quoted from Philo’s lost Hypothetica. His preoccupation with Porphyry parallels Origen’s obsession with Celsus. Like Origen, Eusebius is so enthusiastic in confuting his opponent that at times one almost wonders at the degree of his defense of Judaism to make his point. Of course, in the end he dispelled any suspicion that he had become enamoured with the Judaism of his day. Eusebius introduced a twist into the Christian view regarding the continued existence of the Jewish people, an idea which Augustine made into a lasting syndrome. According to Eusebius the Jews of his day survived so that they might preserve Scripture. A motif which recurred many a time in his writings was the punishment of the Jews for having killed Jesus. In support of his thesis he relishes to quote Philo and Josephus regarding the disasters that befell the Jewish nation:

. . . Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities which came about the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor [Caligula], are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he gave the title On the Virtues. With him agrees also Josephus, who likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the saviour . . . Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty for the exclamation which they uttered under the same Pilate, when they cried that they had no other king than Caesar . . . In addition to these the same author records many other tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and judaism and christianity 283

in all Judaea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ. . . .17

A link in the chain of Christian exegetes of the Bible in the fourth century was Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, who avoided contact with Jews and heretics, whom he described as “enemies of the Christian religion”. When Hilary came to the passage in Genesis on Cain and Abel, he paralleled Cain to the Jewish people and condemned them to wander about the face of the earth in eternity. He continued his exegesis of the Old Testament in the same vein and repeated the condemnation of the Jews for their alleged responsibility for the death of Jesus, their other “crimes”, their having lost their position as God’s children to the Christians, and their “perfidy”. He hardly omits a single offence mentioned in the Bible, from the golden calf to the persecution of the prophets, for which he does not blame the Jews in the flesh, whereas, according to him, all the rest either speak of Jesus or of Christianity. His obsessions were the Arians and their protector, Emperor Constantius II, against whom he directed several of his books. Yet another fourth century Christian author was Zeno, bishop of Verona, who wrote tractates, chiefly sermons, and some 90 in number, not all of which have survived. He relied largely on his predecessors, including Tertullian and Cyprian and used strong language against Arians, pagans and Jews. His anti- Jewish diatribe became fiercer and more violent:

. . . What does the Pharisee pride himself on in his vanity? . . . he exults because he grew up in Egypt, but in his own land he diminished. Perhaps he was freed from the bonds of servitude, but to this very day he is shack- led to the habits of raging barbarism. God is supposed to have been his leader, but subsequently the same God cast him out. He is said to have attained a kingdom; yet the greater is the disgrace if following royal nobility he serves the Roman kingdom. Do you want to know how holy he is? When he was united the sea bore him, but now land is no longer able to, though he is dispersed all over it. . . .

17 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 2.6.3f. See Attridge et al., Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, passim; Avi-Yonah, Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmuds, pp. 152f. 169f. Parkes, op. cit., pp. 160f.; Posnanski, Schiloh, pp. 75f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 262f., 614f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 23f.; Simon, op. cit., passim; Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden, passim. 284 chapter 7

His writings are said not to have evoked great interest in later generations.18 When the fourth century drove to a close Christian writers had more or less exhausted their armoury against the Jews. Only now and then a new argument, a forgotten biblical interpretation, or a novel idea was tabled. Among the innovators was Athanasios, patriarch of Alexandria, who had attributed to him a disputation with a fictitious Jewish rabbi, named Zacchaeus. High on the list of Athanasius’ theological reasoning was the evaluation of the destruction of the Jewish sanctuary. The dialogue, whoever the author, is in reality largely a repetition of Justyn’s arguments. As usual, the Jew is defeated and baptized. Also his apology, entitled Oratio de incarnatione Verbi (Oration on the Incarnation of the Word), directed against pagans and Jews, contains several chapters on Jews and Judaism and belongs to the same genre. His active antagonism to the Arian creed brought him into conflict with some of the emperors of his time, and he was exiled on several occasions. Athanasius belonged to those fathers of the Church who had given up hope for the Jews. According to him the Jews alone engineered the death of Jesus and the Roman soldiers were at most bystanders. The punishment deserved by the Jews did not allow for forgiveness. Therefore Athanasius despaired of their salvation and he ended up demonizing them. The contemporaries of Athanasius wrote in the same vein, particularly in the East. Some scholars think that the warnings of writers in Syria and elsewhere in the Orient to beware of the attraction of Judaism showed that this was still a potent force there. Such a trend has been detected in the writings of Ephrem the Syrian, but it is doubtful that it portrays reality, though there may have been individuals who adopted Judaism as sympathizers or full-fledged converts. The same applies to the Didascalia, which have been variously attributed to the third or fourth centuries.19 A contemporary of these writers in Italy was Philaster of Brescia, who preached the Gospel to pagans, heretics and Jews. He cited a large list of Jewish heresies, most of which are not known from other sources and probably never existed. He did even better for Christian heresies, which according to him

18 On Hilary, see Parkes, l.c.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 278f., 617. Hilary’s avoidance of Jews was recorded by Venantius Fortunatus, a Latin poet, native of Northern Italy, active at the Merovingian court in Gaul. The passage cited is from MGH, AA, 4/2, p. 2. Some consider this biography of Hilary unreliable. For Zeno, see his Sermons (Tractates), 22.1.52. And see Blumenkranz, Judenpredikt Augustins, cit., pp. 28f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 281f., 617. 19 Athanasius, Opera, passim; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 283f., 617f.; Williams, op. cit., pp. 117f. On Ephrem and the Didascalia, see Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 286f., 294f., 618f.; Williams, op. cit., pp. 103f. judaism and christianity 285 come to over a hundred, also a gross exaggeration. The grouping together of Christians and Jews in regard to heresies is linked to the increasing inclination of the Fathers of the Church to lump Jews and Christian heretics together. Christianity more and more regarded Judaism as a heresy and all that this implied. Philaster was succeeded in the bishopric of Brescia by Gaudentius, who was persuaded by Ambrose of Milan to accept the see and was consecrated by him in or about 387. As we have seen, Ambrose was a sworn enemy of Jews and Judaism and supported violence wreaked by the incited mob upon the Jews all over Christendom, in the East and the West. He too equated Christian heretics and Jews and shunned all contact with Jews. Some 90 of his epistles have survived, including those which dealt with the arson of the synagogue in Callinicum. The synagogue there was a continent away from Milan, but to make his point Ambrose claimed to have been the arsonist as it were who set the synagogue there on fire. His other surviving opera include commentaries on Scripture and numerous other books, such as on the Holy Ghost, on the Sacraments, as well as Homilies, and so forth. Ambrose took an active part in the incipient conflict between the Church and the temporal power, confronting Emperor Theodosius I in writing and in person and evidently had his way. On the Callinicum affair he wrote Theodosius and then challenged him in person. As we have seen, in the end the emperor bent to the bishop’s wishes. Among other things Ambrose attributed the defeat of Emperor Magnus Maximus to his decision to punish the arsonists of the synagogue in Rome. Otherwise Ambrosius did not add anything new to the Christian anti-Jewish polemic, but his invective is probably more outspoken than that of most of his predecessors. His influence is thought to have been considerable.20 Other Christian writers who lived around 400 and mention Judaism, but without dedicating a separate Adversus Judaeos treatise to it, include Epiphanius, a Cypriote bishop, who is said to have been popular among later writers and is quoted extensively. His main literary contribution is his tractate on heresies. He too listed seven Jewish sects, condemned Judaeo-Christians, the followers of some Jewish rites, whom he called Nazarenes, and pilloried Hellenism as the

20 Philastrius, Opera, passim, including his Diversarum haeresum liber; Juster, op. cit., 1, p. 65; Opelt, Polemik in der christlich lateinischen Literatur, pp. 111f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 302f., 620. On the memorial sermon of Gaudentius for Philaster, see supra, esp. note 53. For Ambrose, see Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 303f., 620f. and on the destruction of the synagogue in Callinicum, supra, l.c.; as well as Blumenkranz, op. cit., pp. 37f.; Id., Kirche und Synagoge, pp. 91f.; Juster, op. cit., 1, passim; Parkes, op. cit., pp. 166f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 41f.; Simon, op. cit., pp. 265f. 286 chapter 7 source of all heresies. He was particularly upset by the Jewish prayer condemning Christians, i.e., the Birkat ha-Minim, and dwelt on the enmity between the adherents of the two religions. He wrote all that, in addition to the usual Christian exegesis and interpretation of the Old Testament and their derivatives. A contemporary was Sulpicius Severus, a native of Aquitania, author of a chronicle, in which he reports on the decision of Titus to destroy the Temple in order to eradicate Judaism, as well as Christianity which fed on it.21 Of far greater weight and influence was John Chrysostom of Antioch, bishop of Constantinople, the new capital of the eastern Roman Empire. His main anti-Jewish opus consisted of eight homilies Adversus Judaeos, delivered in the eighties of the fourth century. John Chrysostom did not stop there. He also wrote Contra Judaeos et Gentiles and some more treatises in the same vein in his Homily on the Epistle to the Romans. Two more books of the Contra Judaeos variety have been ascribed to him, but that attribution has been rejected by scholars. Chrysostom’s style has been described as aggressive, but that is an under- statement. It is not so much what he says, which is no more than an argument by now almost entirely exhausted by the Fathers of the Church, but the abrasive style and language he employs in presenting his case. He left no leaf unturned in the age-old dispute between the two religions, and was one of the hitherto very few Christians writers who would not tolerate Jews at all in Christian society. Chrysostom waxed repeatedly against the visits Christians paid to synagogues and their attendance at Jewish feasts and ceremonies, and the consultation of Jewish doctors for treatment. His abilities as a preacher are said to have earned him great popularity with his audiences and hence great influence on public opinion in Antioch and elsewhere. Examples of his anti-Judaism abound, especially in his Contra Judaeos, but also elsewhere in his writings. An example must suffice:

. . . Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the father is ignored, here the son is out- raged, here the grace of the spirit is rejected. Does not greater harm come

21 Epiphanius, Opera, passim; Parkes, op. cit., pp. 168f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 314f., 621f.; Simon, op. cit., passim. And see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 35. Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.30.6. Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 64f. This is thought to be a quotation from Tacitus, though some contest that. See Alon, Studies in Jewish History, cit., 1, pp. 206f.; Lewy, op. cit., pp. 190f.; The account differs in some details from Josephus. Stern (and others) thinks that Josephus, making up to his protector Titus, played down the latter’s role in the destruction of the Temple. Severus’ account is Christological. judaism and christianity 287

from this place since the Jews themselves are demons? In the pagan temple the impiety is naked and obvious; it would not be easy to deceive a man of sound and prudent mind or entice him to go there. But in the synagogue there are men who say they worship God and abhor idols, men who say they have prophets and pay them honour. But by their words they make ready an abundance of bait to catch in their nets the simpler souls who are so foolish as to be caught off guard. So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practise a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men. Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ. But I am talking about the ungodliness and present madness of the Jews. Certainly it is the time for me to show that demons dwell in the synagogue, not only in the place itself but also in the souls of the Jews . . . Do you see that demons dwell in their souls and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable. In the old days the Jews acted impi- ously toward the prophets; now they outrage the master of the prophets. Tell me this. Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed, who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed? Must you share a greeting with them and exchange a bare word? Must you not turn away from them since they are the common disgrace and infection of the whole world? Have they not come to every form of wickedness? Have not all the prophets spent themselves making many and long speeches of accusation against them? What tragedy, what manner of lawlessness have they not eclipsed by their blood-guiltiness? They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast . . . What else do you wish me to tell you? Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? . . . .

Chrysostom’s invective against the Jews has been excused by his concern for the attraction of Christians in Antioch to Judaism. Be that as it may, the tone of his diatribe shows that he utterly disliked Jews and Judaism and not 288 chapter 7 only because he simply tried to prevent Christians from sympathizing with Judaism. From such sermons delivered ex cathedra it was only a small step to the burning of synagogues and other physical violence. Chrysostom, like some other Fathers of the Church, such as Ambrose of Milan and Jerome, was fascinated by the issue of virginity and wrote a treatise on the subject. The presoccupation with this intimate detail of a woman’s body was not only the alleged virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus, before, during and after his birth, but also celibacy as such, linked to asceticism. According to Chrysostom celibacy was morally superior to marriage. The latter was essentially a sin—so wrote Chrysostom—caused by the fall in Eden. According to him only so-called Jewish lasciviousness was worse.22 No less in stature and influence on Christianity was Jerome, a native of Stridon, who spent much time all over the Roman Empire, including Rome, but lived for the last 30 years or so of his life in a monastery in Bethlehem. He is said to have chosen that locality as most suitable for his literary work, particularly his translations, which he did from the original Hebrew. His chief achievement was a New Latin translation of the Old Testament, which in due course became the Vulgate, or official Bible text of the Church, thus eventually super- seding the versions based on the Septuagint. He rejected Judaism, interpreted the Bible christologically, and repeated most of what had by now become commonplace Christian exegesis and history rewritten from a Christian point of view, but refrained from some of the more extreme anti-Jewish outbursts of men such as John Chrysostom. His was perhaps less anti-Judaism, but only to a degree. By the beginning of the fifth century if not before, the dislike of Jews and Christians had become mutually intense. So when he came to describe the nocturnal visits of his Hebrew teacher Bar Ḥanina Jerome wrote:

. . . How much labour and effort is required to have Bar Ḥanina teach me at night. Because he is afraid of the Jews he proved to be a second Nicodemus . . . if it makes at all sense to hate people and to detest some humans, then I feel antipathy toward the circumcised, because to this day they persecute our Lord Jesus Christ in the synagogues of Satan. . . .

22 That is why later generations called him Χρυσόστομος = gold-mouthed. The quotations are from Adversus Judaeos, 1.6. Chrysostom’s treatise on Virginity is De Virginitate. See also his Opera, passim; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 62f.; 2, pp. 114f.; Avi-Yonah, op. cit., pp. 176f., 225f.; Parkes, op. cit., pp. 163f.; Pradels et al., Das bisher vermisste Textstück in Johannes Chrysostomus, pp. 23f.; Id., Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom’s Eight Discourses Adversus Judaeos, pp. 90f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 322f., 622f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 39f.; Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, passim; Williams, op. cit., pp. 132f.; Wilmart, Homélies latines de Saint Jean Chrysostome, pp. 305f. judaism and christianity 289

His Jewish or formerly Jewish teachers also introduced him to some Jewish lore. He continued the History of Eusebius, wrote a history of Christian literature, which included paragraphs on Philo and on Josephus, as well as commentaries to Scripture. Like many Christian writers Jerome misquoted and misinterpreted the Jewish authors. His prolific literary output survived for the most part due to his popularity with his generation and successive ones. He too was obsessed with Christian sympathizers of Judaism. His antagonism to the observation of Jewish rites by Christians, such as Judaeo-Christians and sympathizers, appear in many of his writings, including utter negation of Jewish messianism, which was diametrically opposed to the belief in Jesus. Jerome noted with special satisfaction the destruction of Jerusalem, the Roman prohibition imposed on Jews to pay even a visit to Aelia Capitolina, except on the ninth of Ab, and the demolition of the Jewish state. He was among the Christian writers who attacked Jewish Oral Law. He described Jews as greedy and avaricious; the synagogue as a harlot; and Jewish prayers as the grunting of swine and braying of asses. He too mentions the Birkat ha-Minim.23

Augustine and His Age

Augustine of Numidia (North Africa), bishop of Hippo, is considered the foremost Father of the Church. He was baptized in 386 by Ambrose of Milan and later returned to Africa. His works, particularly The City of God (De Civitate Dei) had considerable influence throughout the Middle Ages and early Modern Times, but also his other opera had a large readership and impacted on Christian thought, particularly of the Roman Catholic Church. The beginnings of the disintegration of the Roman Empire, especially in the West, prompted Augustine to propose his ideal City of God that is the Catholic Church, which was to replace the declining Roman state. His theosophy placed him among the foremost thinkers of the Church. He investigated the relationship between the two religions, Christianity and Judaism, and attempted to put some order into the definition of Christianity’s relationship to Judaism. Some of his observations and rules in this area have been repeated so often that some scholars consider them not only repetitive

23 The quotation is from Epistola, 84.3, and see Graves, Jerome’s Hebrew Philology, esp. p. 89. His collected works are in PL, 22–30 and in other standard publications, e.g., CC, 72–78. The letter (149) on sympathizers is considered spurious. On Jerome and the Jews see Blumenkranz, op. cit., pp. 45f.; Hasselhoff, Revising the Vulgate, pp. 209f.; Krauss, op. cit., pp. 225f.; Opelt, op. cit., pp.111f.; Posnanski, op. cit., pp. 60f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 50f.; Simon, op. cit., passim: Stemberger, Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit, pp. 347f. 290 chapter 7 and as having lost some of their efficacy. They also were challenged by some prominent theologians of the Church, though these remained a minority. He usually abstained from rude anti-Jewish expressions such as those of Chrysostom and Jerome, though not consistently so, and tried to steer a middle course between condemnation of Judaism and the tolerance of Jews, albeit with reservations and limitations. That has prompted some scholars to consider him more unprejudiced against Judaism than other Church Fathers, though a closer examination of his writings does not bear out such an assessment. He used terms such as blindness, obstinacy and the like to describe Jewish refusal to believe in Jesus and Christianity; and made use of the political situation of the Jews to bolster up his arguments against them. Augustine’s main work dealing with the two religions is his Tractatus Adversus Judaeos, a sermon said to have been written in or about 425 CE. Other pronouncements on Jews and Judaism are dispersed all over Augustine’s copious writings. He accused the Jews of the murder of Jesus and made them collectively responsible for it; was a staunch defender of the Verus Israel theory; and adduces as proof for God’s rejection of Judaism and its replacement by Christianity the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. He also dwells on the dispersion of the Jews and their wandering about the face of the earth as part of God’s punishment for their alleged sins, as Cain for his. According to Augustine the Jews were doomed to permanent servitude, and they were subservient of the “younger brother”, i.e., to Christians and Christianity. These and other similar considerations have the Bishop of Hippo reiterate the main dicta of the Church Fathers. Augustine’s chief innovation on this subject is that after all and in the last analysis he does not propose the physical annihilation of present day Jewry— those of his times and of later generations. Instead he thinks there is reason to believe that Christianity has need of the continued existence of Jews to bear witness to its origins, vouch for its truth and act as custodians of the Old Testament, though according to him Jews fail to comprehend it and the meaning of its messages. He holds out hope for the surviving Jews and their ultimate salvation through conversion to Christianity. At the same time there is some ambiguity in his writings over the manner of bringing Jews to the baptismal font and the use of force toward that end. That contradiction was fraught with great danger for Jews under Christians rule. Here is an example of Augustine’s reasoning:

. . . But the Jews who slew him, and would not believe in him, because it behooved him to die and rise again, were yet more miserably wasted by judaism and christianity 291

the Romans, and utterly rooted out from their kingdom, where aliens had already ruled over them, and were dispersed through the lands (so that indeed there is no place where they are not), and are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ. And very many of them, considering this, even before his passion, but chiefly after his resurrection, believed in him, of whom it was predicted: ‘Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved’ (Isaiah, 10.22). But the rest are blinded, of whom it was predicted: ‘Let their table be made before them a trap, and a retribution, and a stumbling-block. Let their eyes be darkened lest they see, and bow down their back always’ (Psalms, 69.23). Therefore, when they do not believe our Scriptures, their own, which they blindly read, are fulfilled in them, lest perchance any one should say that the Christians have forged these prophecies about Christ which are quoted under the name of the Sibyl, or of others, if such there be, who do not belong to the Jewish people. For us, indeed, those suffice which are quoted from the books of our enemies, to whom we make our acknowledgment, on account of this testimony which, in spite of themselves, they contribute by their possession of these books, while they themselves are dispersed among all nations, wherever the church of Christ is spread abroad. For a prophesy about this thing was sent before in the Psalms, which they also read, where it is written: ‘My God, his mercy shall prevent me. My God has shown me concerning mine enemies, that you shall not slay them, lest they should at last forget your law: disperse them in your might’ (Psalms, 59.11f.). . . .24

24 Augustine’s writings are PL, 32–47; and see also the other standard editions: CC, 72–78, etc. The Tractatus, PL, 42, cols. 51f., is not to be confused with the pseudo-Augustinian Contra Judaeos paganos et Arianos, PL 42, cols. 1117f. The quotations are from Civitas Dei, 18.46. In support he cited the New Testament’s misquote of Isaiah, 10.22: “The remnant shall return” as “the remnant shall be saved” in Romans 9.27. Similar pronouncements appear in Augustine’s De Fide Rerum Invisibilium, 9 and Tractatus, 7.9. Blumenkranz, op. cit., passim, contains a German translation of the Tractatus, and a detailed description and analysis of the book. See also, Cohen, “Slay Them Not”, pp. 78f. (incl. an evaluation of recent literature on Augustine’s attitude to Jews and Judaism); Id., Living Letters of the Law, pp. 19f.; Folliet, Iudaei tamquam capsari nostrii sunt, pp. 443f.; Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews, passim; Opelt, op. cit., pp. 111f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 352f., 625f.; Seaver, op. cit., pp. 52f.; Simon, op. cit., passim, esp. pp. 119f.; my Jews and the Apostolic See, cit., History, esp. pp. 4f., 290f. and passim; Williams, op. cit., pp. 312f. Blumenkranz lists the numerous references to Jews in the writings of Augustine. 292 chapter 7

The following Fathers of the Church repeated in one form or another tales and arguments of their predecessors. In Italy that was true of a contemporary of Augustine, Paulinus, bishop of Nola at the beginning of the fifth century. He was a Latin poet and mentioned Jews and Judaism, but introduced no new elements into Christian views on this topic. That applies also to other Fathers of the Church in the first half of the fifth century, such as Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who engineered the first large-scale Christian persecution of Jews in Antiquity. He is also said to have been the author of the lost De Synagogae Defectu. In his surviving works Cyril uses abusive language to befit his actions, closely following in the footsteps of John Chrysostom. Hence he describes Jews as mad deicides, demonic, perfidious and so on. His writings are said to have been popular in the fifth century, although his personality was controversial. Another contemporary Christian author was Peter Chrysologus, a native of Imola and bishop of Ravenna, a town which had a relatively large Jewish community and boasted several synagogues. He too added little if anything to Christian arguments against Judaism. The same applies to Sedulius, said by some to have been an Italian, who lived in the second half of the fifth century. The remaining decades of the fifth century and the first half of the sixth did not produce anything new in this field, particularly not in Italy.25 So the first half a millennium or so of Christianity witnessed the formulation of the fundamental views of Christianity on Jews and Judaism. They were first expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament, elaborated by the Fathers of the Church in succeeding centuries and were given their finishing touches by Augustine and the followers of his doctrine. According to the Fathers of the Church the advent of Jesus put an end to the Old Testament, which revealed itself to them as a forerunner of the New Testament. Christians thus became the “True Children of Israel”, who replaced those of pre-Christian days and those in the flesh in contemporary times. The individuals, events and prophesies mentioned in the Old Testament were appropriated for Christians and Christianity. Only the prophesies which threatened the Israelites with dire punishment remained theirs and theirs alone. Eventually the Jews were

25 For the poems and letters of Paulinus, see PL, 61, cols. 15–431. There exist several recent editions of Paulinus’ poems and letters. See also Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 432f., 627. For Cyril’s works, see PG, 68–77 and other editions. And see Schreckenberg, op, cit., pp. 372f., 628. Cyril wrote Emperor Theodosius II in 430 and exhorted him to support Christianity against all comers. See PG, 76, cols. 1133f. For the sermons of Peter Chrysologus, see PL, 52, cols. 13–450. And see Blumenkranz, Les auteurs chrétiens, cit., pp. 24f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 377f., 629. On Sedulius, see the editions of his Opera (chiefly Paschale Carmen) PL, 19, cols. 533f.; and Opelt, op. cit., pp. 190f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 379f., 629. judaism and christianity 293 dispossessed of the history of the Bible and its figures so that Abraham and David; the prophets and their disciples, their fellows and descendants all became Christians. That followed on the appearance of Jesus who had been sent to redeem the Jews and had been rejected by them; and to add insult to injury—had caused his death. While some Church Fathers despaired of contemporary Jews, paragoned them with pagans, and once they gained the upper hand in the Roman Empire proposed their elimination from Christian society by whatever means at their disposal, others consented to their continued presence in Christian society, albeit with conditions attached. With Augustine at their head, they thought that Christianity required the Jewish presence in their midst because physical Jews were bearing witness to Christianity and its origins, and because Jews were the custodians of Scripture, thus vouching for its veracity. As for the redemption of the Jews, that would occur by their conversion to Christianity in the distant future. The dichotomy of Christianity’s attitude to Jews and Judaism endured throughout Antiquity and later generations. The Fathers of the Church accompanied their arguments with pejorative expressions about Jews and Judaism that sometimes degenerated into abusive language. Several Fathers wrote special treatises that dealt with the subject, some of which were dialogues that probably never took place on the ground. Commentaries to the Old Testament were a preferred means of expressing their opinion on the subject, but other works also served as a platform for such views. The incessant harping on God’s rejection of the Jews, their perfidy, depravity and hate of Christians, bore fruit in anti-Jewish legislation, bloody persecutions and burning of synagogues. Surprisingly even as late as the fifth century some Christians, especially women found certain Jewish rites and ceremonies attractive enough to have their spiritual leaders wax against their attendance at them. Compared to the pagan period Jews in Italy and elsewhere in the Roman Empire often found their social environment less congenial than before.

Jews on Jesus and Christianity

The Jewish reaction to Christianity was probably as vehement as that of Christianity to Judaism, except that when Christianity eventually won the day Judaism perforce had to go more and more on the defensive, and when attacking Christianity became too dangerous had to go into hiding. That is why most Jewish anti-Christian pronouncements in Antiquity have been lost, were destroyed by the Jews themselves or by their adversaries, and many 294 chapter 7 have become known only from quotations in Christian writings. Even statements made by Jews outside the Roman Empire, such as those made by the Babylonian amoraim, were eventually censored by the Church in Europe. Many of these references, deleted while Christian censorship was the order of the day, were restored to standard editions of rabbinic writings, unless they were lost for good. It is more than doubtful whether the Jewish leadership in Palestine at the time Christianity was born foresaw the dimensions which the new religion was to assume in due course and that it attached greater weight to it than to one more of the Jewish sects which proliferated in Judaea in the latter years of the Second Commonwealth. This problem is linked to semantic difficulties, such as the meaning of the word min (pl. minim). When did minim simply mean heretics, dissenters or sectarians and when did the term include Christians? Or what credence is to be given to the versions of the Jewish attitude to Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament and in later Christian sources? As with most other issues of Jewish history in Antiquity this is shrouded in obscurity and as a result answers vary.26 The references in rabbinic literature to Jesus, Christians, Christianity, and so forth are difficult to interpret for several reasons. First, the rabbis do not make use of an agreed and common terminology, so the same term may refer to heterodox beliefs and believers other than Christians and Christianity. Second, many were penned years after the events described in them are alleged to have taken place, and in locations far removed from them. Third, Christian censorship deleted most if not all such references and the restoration of the deleted passages is apparently incomplete. Fourth, some are said to be the result of later interpolations and other corruptions of the text. These are only a few of the difficulties we encounter in examining rabbinic literature on these topics. But to discard them all as irrelevant would also be wrong, since many portray Jewish views, if not correct in detail and timing, depicting the situation during the first centuries of the Christian era. The terms and expressions often, though not always referring to persona and things Christian are mainly: Yeṣu (Jesus); heretic(s) and heresy (min[im], minuth),

26 Literature on this subject abounds and some is quoted below. See esp. Baum, The Jews and the Gospel, passim; Klausner, Jesus and His Times, passim; Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, passim; Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung, passim; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 155f.; Schremer, op. cit., pp. 49f., who links minuth to the political situation in Judaea in the first two centuries CE.; Id., Wayward Jews, pp. 242f.; Tcherikower, Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered, pp. 169f.; Visotzky, Anti-Christian Polemic in Leviticus Rabbah, pp. 89f. Acts, 5.34f. state that the apostles who came before the Sanhedrin were let go unscathed because they were considered just one more such sect. judaism and christianity 295

“that man”, Noẓrim (Christians), and their derivatives. Some have derogatory expressions attached to them, others not; and the meaning of many is controversial.27 One of the most quoted passages referring to Yeṣu, show up most if not all the difficulties attached to these texts. The Babylonian Talmud tells the following story:

. . . Our rabbis teach: ‘Ever let the left hand repel and the right hand invite, not like Eliṣa’ who repulsed Geḥazi with both hands, and not like R. Yehoṣu’a b. Peraḥia’ who repulsed Yeṣu (the Nazarane) with both hands . . . What of b. Peraḥia’? When Yannai the king killed our rabbis, R. Yehoṣu’a b. Peraḥia’ [and Yeṣu] fled to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace, Ṣimon b. Ṣetaḥ sent to him: ’. He [R. Yehoṣu’a] came and found himself at a certain inn; they showed him great respect. He [R. Yehoṣu’a] said: ‘How beautiful is this inn [innkeeper!]’ [Yeṣu] said to him: ‘Rabbi, she is cross-eyed’. He [R. Yehoṣu’a] said: ‘Wretch, doest thou employ thyself thus?’. He sent out four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He [Yeṣu] came before him many times and said to him: ‘Receive me’. But he would not notice him. One day when he [R. Yehoṣu’a] was recit- ing the Ṣema’, he came before him. He was minded to receive him and made a sign to him. He [Yeṣu] thought that he repelled him. He went and hung up a brick and worshipped it. He [R. Yehoṣu’a] said to him: ‘Return’. He replied: ‘Thus I have received from thee that everyone who sins and caused the multitude to sin are not given a chance to repent’. And a teacher said: ‘Yeṣu the Nazarene practised magic and led astray and deceived Israel . . .’.

The story is all wrong historically. Yehoṣu’a b. Peraḥia’ was not a contemporary of Jesus, but lived a century or so before him. He was one of a second generation “pair” (his fellow was Nitai of Arbel) and the Hasmonean king did indeed

27 The best collection of the relevant passages in rabbinic literature is still Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrashim, which appeared a century ago, but has since been reissued. See also the listings in Omissions of the Talmud, pp. 27f., 50; Schreckenberg, l.c. The latest summary of Catholic censorship of Hebrew literature is Raz-Krakotzkin, Censorship, passim. And see my Jews in the Duchy of Mantua, cit., pp. 685f. and passim. The instructions to the Christian censors, often Jewish converts, were thorough; and internal Jewish censorship at times even more so for fear of repercussions. 296 chapter 7 persecute the Pharisees, but not in the days of Jesus. So it has been suggested that the story was a later addition or interpolation to the Talmudic text, either in Babylonia, or at some time in the Middle Ages; notwithstanding the technical fact that the quotation is introduced by the standard opening for a citation from a Baraita or the Tosefta, thus giving it an ancient Palestinian colouring. That has led to the suggestion that the first part of the passage was tannaitic and the latter a Babylonian addition. The interpolators, if indeed they were such, did not know their history and confused the issue. Others have suggested that the individual, a pupil of R. Yehoṣu’a, was not Jesus, but someone else. The “brick” in particular has aroused the imagination of scholars and some have given it weird interpretations. The gist of the matter is that on the face of it the passage is an expression of Jewish antagonism to Jesus, and the “brick” means simply something in the character of an inanimate thing such as a stone. If the tale contains an historical grain of truth then it portrays a Jewish attitude to Jesus which crys- tallized centuries after the event and was penned in the early Middle Ages. So here again we have a source which contains elements which are historically wrong, but mirrors the view of rabbinic Judaism to Jesus at the time it was written if not before. That, of course, is controversial.28 Other talmudical passages deal with the birth of Yeṣu, his parentage, and so forth. One of these goes as follows:

. . . He who tattoos his flesh. A Baraita has it that R. Eliezer said to the sages: ‘did not Ben Stada bring magic from Egypt in a tattoo on his flesh?’ They answered him: ‘He was a fool and one does not bring proof from a fool’. Ben Stada is Ben Pandera. R. Ḥisda said: ‘Stada was the husband, Pandera was the lover’. The husband was Pappos b. Juda, the mother was Stada.

28 B. Sanhedrin, 107b. An almost identical parallel is B. Sota, 47a. See Herford, op. cit., pp. 50f. I have followed his translations throughout, with only minor deviations. In J. Ḥagiga, 2.2 and J. Sanhedrin, 6.9 the reading is Yehoṣu’a b. Tabai and Jesus is not mentioned. So one is inclined to prefer the direct quote from a Palestinian source to one reported in a Babylonian text. And cf. Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, passim; Klausner, op. cit., passim; Maier, Jesus von Nazareth, pp. 104f.; Murcia, Jésus adorateur d’une brique?, pp. 369f., who cites more than 30 references to books and articles that have dealt with this passage, e.g., Zimmels, Jesus and “Putting up a Brick”, pp. 225f., who suggests “fish” for the Aramaic word instead of “brick”; Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, pp. 34f.; Id., Jesus’ Origin Birth and Childhood, pp. 139f. And see there for more attempts at explaining the worship of the “brick” or whatever. Even the trumpets have given rise to some far-fetched theories, and Cabbalists too have added their mite to the tale. Indeed, the Bible already looked askance at worshippers of stone, see for instance Jeremiah, 2.27. So did later generations. judaism and christianity 297

The mother was Miriam a women’s plaiter, as we say in Pumbeditha: ‘she betrayed her husband . . . ’.

This passage too has produced controversy and divergent interpretations. The conventional one sees in it a reference to Jesus’ parentage, while other scholarship denies all connection to the family of Jesus. Celsus has been cited in support of the Jesus theory. Be that as it may, ever since their first mention in rabbinic literature these two stories about the parentage of Jesus continue to appear in Jewish polemics against Christianity. It is, of course, difficult if not impossible to establish when exactly they were first formulated and by whom—the sages of Yavne, or later generations. So the interpretation of these texts hinges very much on their dating and on the identification of the persons mentioned in them. These range between complete credence given to these texts and their total rejection, and, of course, something in between. As usual, the jury is still out on this and related questions.29 One thing is not in dispute. Whatever the dating of this or that passage is, if they refer to Jesus and his circle, and there are many scholars who beg to differ in detail or even totally so, they represent a negative Jewish attitude to Christianity, its beliefs and personalities if taken at face value. Jesus (or his namesake) is described as a bastard, as the son of a whore or of a menstruating woman, a sorcerer, a Bala’am, and so forth. Even his death would seem to have been in dispute between the two religions. While the New Testament blames the Sanhedrin for having condemned Jesus to death and the Roman authorities under Pilate for having crucified him, later Christian generations omit the Roman rôle in the proceedings and place the responsibility for his death squarely and exclusively on the shoulders of the Jews. Rabbinic tradition apparently has yet another version. It goes along with the later Christian version but with a difference:

29 B. Ṣabbat, 104b (parallel: B. Sanhedrin, 67a). Herford, op. cit., pp. 35f., 401. Celsus, in Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.28, 32: “. . . when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera . . .”. See Klausner, op. cit., 1, pp. 28f.; Maier, op. cit., pp. 207f., 237f.; Rokeah, Ben Satra, pp. 9f. and the references cited there. No significance is to be attached to the variable readings Ben Stada, Satra, or Panthera, Pandera, and so forth. See also T. Ḥulin, 2.22; Qoheleth Rabba, 1.1.8; B. Avoda Zara, 27b for an example of Yeṣu b. Pandera; B. Sanhedrin, 43a, has “on Passover eve they hung Yeṣu”; and op. cit., 67a, T. Sanhedrin, 10.11 run: “So they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, they hung him on Passover eve. Ben Stada is Ben Pandera . . .”. Massey, The Historical Jesus, claims that Ben Pandera lived in Egypt and was a contemporary of R. Yehoṣu’a. 298 chapter 7

. . . and we have learned: On Passover eve they hung Yeṣu [the Nazarene]. The crier preceded him by forty days: ‘[Yeṣu the Nazarene] goes forth to be stoned, because he has practised magic and has deceived, mislead and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows aught in his favour let him come and say so. They discovered nothing in his favour, so they hanged him on Passover eve. Ulla says: ‘Would one suppose that [Yeṣu the Nazarene] had aught in his favour?’. He was a leader into error and the merciful said; ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither should you conceal him’ (Deuteronomy, 13.8). But with Yeṣu it was different, because he was a royal favourite. . . .

This passage is also introduced by the standard citing from a Baraita or from the Tosefta, so theoretically it belongs to the tannaitic period. There are contradictions in detail but not in substance. Evidently they cannot be resolved and are due to divergent traditions and their interpretation is disputable. Again, there are those who deny all relevance of the passage to Jesus and those who do not.30

Min, Minim, Minuth

The most puzzling rabbinic reference in this context in Antiquity is that to min-minim-minut, i.e heretic and heresy, “Epicurean” (epiqoros), “other” (aḥer), kofer (heretic), mumar and meṣumad (apostate). First there is the case of R. Eliezer b. Horqenos, who lived in the middle of the first century and its second half. He was a pupil of R. Yoḥanan b. Zackai and a second generation tanna. The Tosefta relates the following story:

. . . It happened to R. El’azar b. Dama, who was bitten by a snake. There came Jacob of Khephar Sama (or Sakhnin) to heal him on behalf of Yeṣu b. Pandera and R. Ismael would not let him. He said: ‘You are not

30 M. Jevamoth, 4.18; M. Sanhedrin, 10.2; M. Avoth, 5.19; T. Ṣabbat, 11.15; B. Sanhedrin, 43a, 103a; Pesiqta Rabbati, 21; etc. See Brandon, Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, passim; Herford, op. cit., pp. 83f., 406; Instone-Brewer, Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial, pp. 297f.; Klausner, op. cit., 1, pp. 36f., 41f.; 2, pp. 155f.; Maier, op. cit., pp. 219f.; and see prec. note, linked to the present story. The contradictions include the choice of Lydda as the place of execution and its manner. By Jewish law one condemned to death by stoning was first stoned and then hanged, but there is no mention of the cross. Other passages have been adduced to show that the rabbis were aware of the crucifixion, but the linkage of these passages to Jesus is tenuous, probably because Jewish law does not include crucifixion as a form of execution. For one or two other passages of this kind, see Herford, op. cit., passim. judaism and christianity 299

permitted’. He said: “I shall prove to you that he may cure me’. He had not finished bringing a proof when he died. R. Ismael said: ‘Thou art happy, b. Dama, for you have departed in peace and you have not broken the commands of the sages, for anyone who does will be punished, since it is written: ‘Whoso breaketh a fence a serpent shall bite him’ (Ecclesiast, 10.8). . . .

Rabbinic literature contains a few more stories about healers described as minim who appear to be Christians, very similar to the miraculous healings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels.31 R. Eli’ezer b. Horqenos, a Tanna who lived at the turn of the first century CE, was himself accused of minut, thought to have been Christianity and was put on trial by the Roman authorities. He got away from having too close an inquiry made into the accusation by an equivoque. He also had another encounter with an alleged Christian, Jacob of Sakhnin. All the same his fellow tannaites did not suspect him of minut:

. . . It happened to R. Eli’ezer who was arrested for minuth, and he was taken to court to be tried. The ruler said to him: ‘Does an old man like you occupy himself with such things?’ Said he: ‘I trust the judge’. The ruler thought that he had meant him, but he meant his father in heaven. He [the ruler] said: ‘Since you trust me, so will I’. Perhaps the [. . .] erred. Dismissed. You are free’. When he had been released he was troubled that he had been arrested for minuth. His disciples came to comfort him, but he would not be consoled. R. ‘Aqiva came and said to him: ‘Rabbi, shall I tell you why perhaps you are grieving’. Said he: ‘Say so’. He [R. ‘Aqiva] said: ‘Perhaps minuth came your way and you enjoyed it?’ Said he: ‘By heaven, you reminded me. Once I was walking along the street in Sepphoris and I met Jacob of Kefar Sakhnin, and he said to me something of minuth on behalf of Yeṣu b. Pantera and I enjoyed it. I was arrested for minuth because I transgressed the Tora (Ibid., 7.26)’. R. Eli’eser said: Let a man flee from ugliness and the like. . . .

31 T. Ḥulin, 2.22f.; J. Ṣabbat, 14.4; J. Avoda Zara, 2.2; Qohelet Rabba, 1.1.8; B. Avoda Zarah, 16b.; Herford, op. cit., pp. 103f.; Maier, op. cit., pp. 182f. For the story about the grandson of R. Yehoṣu’a b. Levi cured by an individual who whispered something to him in the name of Yeṣu Pandera, see J. Ṣabbath, l.c.; J. Avoda Zara, l.c. See Herford, op. cit., pp. 108f., 409; Maier, op. cit., 193f. And the tale about R. Abahu and his leg. See B. Avoda Zara, 28a; Herford, op. cit., pp. 109f., 409. 300 chapter 7

Jacob, not to be confused with the apostle James, at least because of the time element, was the man who allegedly attempted to cure R. El’azar b. Dama. Apparently, by that time even a hint at minuth was looked at askance by the rabbis and by the Roman authorities in Judaea. While most scholars detected at least a grain of truth in these stories and linked them to Christianity, particularly Judaeo-Christianity, a minority classified them as anecdotes, figments of phantasy meant to entertain an audience and no more. The latter view the mention of Yeṣu in the texts as a mediaeval interpolation. The debate is still in full swing.32 A Tosefta, going back to tannaitic times, attempts to bring some order into the terminology employed in rabbinic literature to describe heretics, apostates, and so forth:

. . . The bodies of Israelite sinners and those among Gentiles descend to hell and are judged there for twelve months. After twelve months their soul perishes and their body is burnt and hell casts them out and they become ashes and the wind disperses them and scatters them under the soles of the righteous, as it is said: ‘And ye shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be dust under the soles of the righteous, in the day that I do make, says the Lord of Hosts’ (Mal’akhi, 3.21). But the minim, the apostates, the informers and the Epicureans, and those who deny the Tora, deviate from the path of the community, deny the resurrection, and all those who have sinned and caused the multitude to sin, such as Jerobam and Aḥab, and those who have set their fear in the land of the living, and have raised their hand against the temple, hell is shut in their face and they are condemned there for generations. . . .

The mention of the Temple would seem to date the text as pre-70, though not necessarily so. Here we have an almost complete list of those whom the rabbis considered outcasts and enemies, probably including Christians, whether Judaeo-Christians or Gentiles, yet we do not know which is which. Thus Eliṣa b. Abuya, was an Epicurean, perhaps a Gnostic, but not a Christian. He was the proverbial “other”. The similarity of this list to that in Birkhat ha-Minim speaks for itself. As we have seen, the prayer was formulated towards the end of the first century CE. The list was cited in the Tosefta, so it belongs roughly to

32 T. Ḥulin, 2.22f.; and the parallels, see prec. note; Herford, op. cit., pp. 137f.; and see Gilat, R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, passim; Maier, op. cit., pp. 144f. and the extensive literature cited there; Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, pp. 400f.; Rokeah, Ben Satra, cit., pp. 9f. judaism and christianity 301 the same period. By then the Jews in Judaea and in the Diaspora had become familiar with Christianity and its teachings. While the formulators of the list and of the prayer mention all unorthodox deviations from rabbinic Judaism, they may not have realized as yet the greatest danger to Judaism by Christianity which was to reveal itself as such in due course. So they did not single it out as they would later. To suggest that the only heterodox group not mentioned in either or in both was Christianity appears far-fetched.33

The Church Fathers and Rabbinic Views on Christianity

The views of rabbinic Judaism and the section of the prayer which it directed against Christians was known to the Fathers of the Church as early as the days of Justyn Martyr in the second century CE, and, of course, to his successors. In his Dialogue with Tryphon, a dialogue which probably never was, Justyn accuses the emissaries sent out from Judaea to the Jewish communities in the Diaspora of warning the communities:

. . . that a godless and lawless heresy was created by a certain Jesus, a swindler from Galilee, whom, after we had crucified him, his disciples stole from the grave in which they had put him after he had been taken down from the cross; and they tell people falsely that he had risen from the dead and went up to heaven. . . .

Similarly, so Justyn, the Jews accuse Jesus of leading people astray and call him a sorcerer. He was followed by other Church Fathers, such as Tertullian and Eusebius. They have the Jews call Jesus sorcerer, impugn his legitimacy, in short report all rabbinic stories about Jesus and Christianity, and call them libel and slander.34 Particularly informative are Celsus the philosopher as reported by Origen, and Porphyry as quoted by Eusebius. Celsus and Porphyry were pagans who

33 T. Sanhedrin, 13.4–5; B. Roṣ HaṢana, 17a; Seder Olam, 3; Herford, op. cit., pp. 118f., 410. Cf. Schremer, op. cit., pp. 59f., who suggests that this text underpins his contention that these minim are to be understood as “various groups of separatists and Jews who joined the enemy’s camp”. See also Boyarin, op. cit., p. 250. 34 See supra, note 10, and there on the “scoffing at Jesus in Jewish prayers”. The citation is from the Dialogue, 108. See Bokser, Justyn Martyr and the Jews, pp. 97f.; Strack, Jesus die Häretiker und die Christen, pp. 8f. 302 chapter 7 attacked Christianity, and while they were about it, used Jewish arguments against the new religion in support of their arguments. Although these are third party reports, yet they fit well into the overall picture, and probably are more or less correct. Celsus claims to have heard some of these things from a Jew, but there is no certainty that this man ever existed. Whoever he was, he held Sadducee views, according to Celsus as reported by Origen. By the same token the informant is quoted as having made use of Christian sources. Origen also relates that he disputed with Jews on religious affairs. Among other things he has Jesus judged under Jewish law. Furthermore Celsus had this to say:

. . . And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses him of having invented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a god. . . .

Celsus repeats this more or less in the same words elsewhere and adds that the father of Jesus was a Roman soldier named Panthera, which perhaps would go to show that Celsus’s informant was versed in Jewish lore.35

35 Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.28. The references to Panthera and Jesus’ father are op. cit., 1.32. On the informant’s Sadducee views and the judgment of Jesus, see op. cit., 2.5. On the Christian sources of the Jewish informant, see op. cit., 2.74. Feldman, Origen’s Contra Celsum, cit., pp. 105f.; Lange (de), Origen and the Jews, cit., passim; Lods, Étude sur les sources juives, cit., pp. 1f.; Maier, op. cit., pp. 251f., 264f.; Schreckenberg, op. cit., pp. 228f. And see supra, chapt. 5, note 39. The relationship to rabbinic sources is controversial. It has been pointed out that the Jews portrayed by Celsus, and for that matter by Justyn judaism and christianity 303

Similar though not identical is Eusebius’ defense of Christianity against the attacks of Porphyry. Both may have had contact with Jews. Eusebius quotes Porphyry at length in his main opus, the Preparatio Evengelica, and refers to Jewish views on Christianity also elsewhere in his writings. Thus he combats the Jewish casting of aspersions upon Jesus, his family and other similar details. He reports the identification of Panthera as Jesus’ father and attempts to explain how that came about. According to Eusebius the Jews called Jesus a magician, sorcerer and charlatan, and his disciples liars and swindlers. Panthera figures also in other works of the Church Fathers, such as those of Epiphanius. Jerome reported that he had heard similar views on the ancestry of Jesus from the Jews of Rome.36 It appears likely that rabbinic sources in Antiquity, or some of them, dealt with Jesus, Christianity, and so forth, on condition that we accept at least some of the identifications offered by scholars over the years. They hinge on the likelihood of the equations: Yeṣu = Jesus, Minim = Christians, Noẓri/Noẓrim = Christians. If these equations are totally rejected that would result in the conclusion that rabbinic Judaism completely ignored the rise of Christianity in Antiquity—an absurdity. The quotations of Jewish arguments by Justyn Martyr, Origen, Eusebius, to name only a few, prove the opposite. To this one should add the reference in the writings of Josephus, not the reworded or interpolated section about the last days of Jesus, of which the original version is shrouded in mystery, but the one about James, the brother of Jesus. They do not make all passages in rabbinic writings supposedly dealing with the issue

Martyr, were Hellenistic Diaspora Jews whose views need not have been identical with those of the rabbis in Judaea. However, it does not follow that holding Sadducee views on resurrection excludes familiarity with rabbinic sayings. On afterlife, see M. Sanhedrin, 10.1; Monnickendam, I Will Put to Death, pp. 329f.; Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, p. 295 (who thinks that Diaspora Jews believed in immortality, i.e., in the separation of souls and body after death, differing from the rabbinic view of resurrection, i.e., the unity of soul and body). Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 57f., points out that epitaphs in Italy and elsewhere referring to afterlife and resurrection in so many words are few and far between. 36 See supra, chapt. 5, esp. the quotations and note 44. Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, Book 9 (consisting of 42 chapters bearing on Jews, quoting many anti-Jewish authors); Id., Theophanie, Book 5; Id. Eclogae Propheticae, 3.10. On Epiphanius and Panthera see, his Panarion (Adversus Haereses), 78.7.5. For Jerome, see his Commentarii in Epistulas Pauli Apostoli ad Titum et Philemonem, 3.9: “Audivi ego quemdam de Hebreis qui se Romae in Christum credidisse simulabat de genealogiis domini nostri Iesu Christi quae scripta sunt”. See also Urbach, Rabbinic Exegesis and Origen’s Commentaries, pp. 257f. 304 chapter 7 dependable historical documents, but they do not allow us to consign them to the dustbin wholesale as anecdotes, completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even if the rabbis took their time in recognizing the danger of Christianity to Judaism, in the end, particularly after Constantine and the subsequent imperial legislation the rabbis could have been in no doubt as to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. Long before that, in the middle of the first century CE, the apostle Paul is reported to have had a rough time discussing Christianity with the Jews of various Diaspora communities, including that in Rome. He brought up most Christian arguments in support of his mission that Christianity arrayed for convincing Jews to abandon Judaism and embrace Christianity. If the Jews of Rome did not have all Jewish counter-arguments at their fingertips they must have been keen on having the Judaean centre provide them with the ammunition for their debates with the apostle and his successors. It is most unlikely that their arguments differed from those of the Jewish mainstream, which after 70 CE became gradually Pharisee, in the garb of the sages of Yavne. To that is linked the dating of Toldot Yeṣu, not so much to one of the “finished” versions, but the views expressed in them. If this summary of Jewish anti-Christian views goes back to Antiquity in one form or another, say orally, that would support the historicity of many things contained in the passages that we have quoted. It has been suggested that the Jews of Rome had a hand in its formulation. At the present time it would appear that some rabbinic sayings, particularly those contained in writings of early Palestinian origin, that is the Miṣnah, Baraita, Tosefta, the Talmud of Jerusalem and some of the early Midraṣim of Judaean origin, refer to Jesus and Christianity, while later opera, such as the Babylonian Talmud, written outside the Roman Empire, may have added passages that are not relevant to them for one reason or another such as distance in time and place. Yet they are more outspoken, since the Jews outside the Christian Roman Empire could permit themselves forays into “enemy territory” which the Jews under Christian rule had to beware of. Which passages refer to Jesus and Christianity and which do not, will probably remain an unre- solved problem and in dispute among scholars.37

37 There is no telling whence exactly the Church fathers gleaned their information on Jewish views on Christianity, in addition to the informants which they themselves mention. When it became dangerous for Jews to possess and disseminate anti-Christian literature it went underground. That may have started in some places in Late Antiquity or in others in the Middle Ages, and did not take place everywhere at once. For the Fathers of the Church, see supra. The interpolation or rewording of the passage by Josephus is judaism and christianity 305 … Last but not least. Much has been made of the so-called influence of Judaism on Christianity and lately vice versa, or of the alleged competition between the two religions over the respective attraction of converts. Some scholars have been accused (among other things) of having given preference to the Christian notion of Judaism, while others have been blamed for their Jewish outlook in the opposite direction. However, it would appear that there was no uniform or all pervasive “system” in the relations between the two religions. While at the very beginning Christianity tried to win over Jews, that became secondary within a generation and with men like Paul almost immediately. This does not mean that all Christians renounced missionizing among Jews. That continues to the present day; but it became secondary to the mission to Gentiles, even if one takes into account the Augustinian syndrome of the “salvation of the remnant”. There were mutual influences right from the beginnings of Christianity, but both religions made great efforts to combat them, or at least to hide them. Judaizing, sympathizing, attending synagogue services, to name only a few became anathema to the Fathers of the Church. The “customs” or “ways” of the non-Jew were viewed in the same light by rabbinic Judaism; while the Birkhat ha-Minim and the Alenu prayer became a Jewish anti-Christian manifestation, or was seen so by Catholicism. The victory of rabbinic Judaism, which developed into the Jewish mainstream for nearly 2,000 years of Diaspora Judaism, was the result of the traumatic events of 70 CE and those of the years immediately following on them. The fable about R. Joḥanan b. Zakkai and the sages of Yavne may or may not have taken place on the ground in some form or another. The fact remains that most Jews believed that it did somehow, so that se non è vero è ben trovato. The closing of the ranks and Jewish exclusiveness began many years before these events. It won out after the national disaster of 70 CE; and as a result of

Antiquities, cit., 18.3.3, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum is suspect. Less suspect is his other reference to Christians. That deals with the trial and execution of James, Jesus’ brother, op. cit., 20.9.1. See Baras, The Testimonium Flavianum, pp. 338f.; Feldman, Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, pp. 13f.; Id. et al., Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, passim; Gerlach, Weissagungen des alten Testaments, passim; Schürer, op. cit. (Engl.), 1, pp. 428f. The publications on this topic are numerous. Princeton University is currently engaged in a Toldot Yeṣu project which should throw some light on whether the antecedents of Toldot Yeṣu go back to Antiquity or not. On the surviving versions of Toldot Yeṣu, see Deutsch, New Evidence, pp. 177f.; Di Segni, La tradizione testuale delle Toledoth Yeshu, pp. 83f.; Krauss, Neuere Ansichten über “Toldoth Jeschu”, pp. 586f. The text itself was published several times, see Krauss, Toledot Yeshu, passim. 306 chapter 7 that event and not because of the rise of Christianity. It was as pronounced in non-Christian lands such as Babylonia as it was in Christian Italy, so one cannot link it to Christianity as such. However, it was gradual; and dissenting voices were audible after that date. As far as Antiquity is concerned, we are dealing with a period that spans many centuries and many lands, resulting in a plethora of shades and variations. Some appear to emerge from the sources cited, though many of them are the outcome of conjecture to say the least; others were obliterated by time and disappeared into oblivion. chapter 8 The Culture of Italian Jewry

Hellenism

The Jews of Italy in Antiquity are often described as Hellenistic. The term is comprehensive and extends over language, literature, ritual in the synagogue and the cemetery, and some instances of its application may have caused Greeks born and bred to turn in their graves. Without additional qualification the term simply means acculturation, especially of Greek language, culture and civilization as practised by the successor populations in the countries conquered by Alexander the Great. How far Hellenization penetrated into various Graeco-Roman societies is disputable. What exactly is meant by the term over a period of many centuries in diverse societies has been the subject of scholarly tussles for years and will probably remain so for years to come. It varies from place to place and from time to time and consists of many components. Thus Josephus has been called a Hellenistic Jew, while by his own description he was a Jewish Pharisee, wrote his books in Hebrew/Aramaic, and had to get help to improve his Greek and to shape the texts into acceptable Greek, for he was writing for a Greek speaking readership. According to Theodoret, a Syrian bishop of the first half of the fifth century, Jewish children spoke the language of the people in whose country they were born. Only after they were older they learned to read Hebrew and “through the written word gained knowledge of holy scripture which is written in Hebrew”. That would indicate that the children’s Hebrew often was passive rather than active. It may apply to Italy, since Theodoret lists Italy among the countries and peoples were children first learn the vernacular. While this is a general observation, even if it was the rule also in Italy, it probably was not evenly distributed all over the Italian peninsula. Thus to the Jews of the South, particularly those in Magna Graeca, Greek may have been the vernacular, whereas in Rome and further north Latin was the language spoken by the inhabitants. As for Latin, there are said to have existed numerous local dialects of the language. However, these are no more than assumptions, often not supported by documentary evidence. Local variations, the influx of a new wave of immigrants and other events and circumstances must have left their imprint on local conditions. In short, there was no discernable universal pattern of Greek influence on the Jews in Italy and on their practices, and for that matter elsewhere in Antiquity, such as in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, the Balkans, and so forth.

The rabbis are said to have had little Greek, yet admired Greek and its culture, but at various times issued strictures and prohibitions on Greek “wisdom” and its study, while at the same time making allowances for members of the Patriarch’s family and court, in view of their links to government circles. As many as 2,500 Greek terms and expressions are said to have been introduced into Hebrew and Aramaic in Antiquity, as against only 300 or so of Latin, although the latter was the official language of the imperial government. So a fitting definition of “Hellenistic” Jews would appear elusive, and each group of Jews, such as the one in Italy, has to be evaluated based on the information available; that being exiguous more often than not.1 Greek influence made itself felt in Judaea long before Alexander set foot in the Middle East. Thus Greek symbols began to appear on coins minted in Judaea as early as the middle of the fifth century BCE, although the designers of the coins may not have been aware of the origins of the symbols. Pottery found in Judaea has been identified as Greek. Other contacts between Greeks and Jews are said to be traceable back to even earlier times. By the time of the conflict between the Hasmoneans, Hellenistic Jews and their Diadochian masters, the assimilation of Hellenism by Jews had assumed much wider propor-

1 For Josephus, see JCA, 1.9; Id., JA, 20.11.2. Theodoretus, Quaestiones, PG, 80, col. 165; Colorni, L’uso del greco, cit., p. 30. Theodoret describes the situation in the Syrian Diaspora, particularly in Antioch, which may or may not reflect on Italy. Some scholars deny all knowledge of Hebrew to the Jews in ancient Rome. They even jump to the conclusion that “the opinion of the rabbis were probably quite unknown to them”. See Leon, op. cit., pp. 226f., who bases his contention on the almost complete absence of Hebrew among the epitaphs of Roman graveyards. See also below. The literature on Jewish Hellenism is vast and we mean to no more than highlight the main views presented by scholars on that topic. On Jews and their relationship to Greek and Hellenism, see Lewy, op. cit., passim. If many Jews in Antiquity (anachronistically quoting Ben Jonson on the bard of Stratford) “had small Greek and less Latin”, they were supposed to have been Hellenistic Jews all the same. Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism, pp. 161f. suggests that the rabbis in Judaea had no Latin at all and belittles the efforts to find Latinisms in rabbinic texts. That of course has no bearing on Italy. See also, Ibid., pp. 225f. There Lieberman argues that the strictures on “Greek wisdom” in rabbinic sources were limited to the instruction of children in that wisdom and did not include learning or reading it by adults. As usual, that is controversial. On the use or the three languages in inscriptions, see Noy, Writing in Tongues, pp. 300f. The influence of Greek dialectics on rabbinic reasoning is also controversial. On the diffusion of Greek in ancient Rome, see Goold, Greek Professorial Circle at Rome, cit., pp. 196f. For an overall portrayal of Hellenism, see CAH, 7, passim; and for the relationship with Judaism and Christianity, see Hengel, ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea, passim; Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity, passim; Levine, The Hellenistic Roman Diaspora, pp. 991f., and below. the culture of italian jewry 309 tions than Greek pottery or symbols on coinage. Jewish Hellenism had become religious, cultural, social, political, to name only some aspects of the issue. Some Jews in Judaea and in the Diaspora continued to adhere for centuries to Hellenism to a smaller or larger degree. Even the most conservative among the rabbis did not reject everything Greek. Such intimate personal texts as are the epitaphs of a totally Jewish town like Beth Ṣe’arim were largely written in Greek; and only a minority was written in Hebrew/Aramaic. An epitaph or two were written in what has been described as a Homeric style, demonstrating Jewish familiarity with more than Greek just as a language. The town was the seat of R. Judah Ha-Nasi and its catacombs included the burial place of members of his family. Jews from neighbouring countries were buried there for a century or so until the destruction of Beth Ṣe’arim in the middle of the fourth century. Once the immediate traumas of successive military debacles had diminished, Greek, at least as a language, ceased for a while to be objectionable to the rabbis. The Jews of Italy also gave Greek precedence in their funerary inscriptions in Antiquity. By the sixth century the situation again began to change. As part of the closing of the ranks, this time chiefly directed against Christian missionary efforts, the rabbis shut out everything non-Jewish, including Hellenism, even Greek as a language, particularly in the context of divine worship. The Christian Roman authorities went counter to the measures of the rabbis, primarily for the same reasons. That change in rabbinic policy began filtering down to the Italian Diaspora toward the end of the sixth century until it became dominant from the following century or two on. It is well-nigh impossible to delineate the exact limits between the permissible and forbidden and between the possible and the proven in the relationship of what became the paramount trend in Jewish culture in the widest sense of the word and Jewish Hellenism, which apparently underwent many a change in the eight centuries, between the age of the Hasmoneans and that of the fall of the Roman Empire of Antiquity. Practically everything in that period is controversial and scholars have been debating Jewish Hellenism and cognate subjects for many years. Furthermore the Hellenization of non-Jews has been described as “superficial”.2

2 Reifenberg, Jewish Coins, pp. 7f. On the entire issue, see Alon, Review of Lieberman, pp. 76f.; Lewy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism, cit., passim, esp. 209f.; Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism, cit., passim; Id., Dementi, pp. 173f.; Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, cit., pp. 74f. The most recent and detailed treatments of the issue are Feldman, Jew and Gentile, cit., passim (for references to the earlier publication of some chapters, see pp. XIf.); Id., Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, passim; Id., Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, passim. See also Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean 310 chapter 8

Greek as a language was not the only Hellenistic element among the Jews in Antiquity, in Judaea and in the Diaspora, whether Greek meant the so- called koine (κοινή), or common/popular Greek, which differed from the pure Athenian Greek, or in some places perhaps the latter, or both. It has been suggested that that there was a distinct Jewish dialect of Greek, but that is rather far-fetched. Koine Greek was the lingua franca spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity. It has been described as vernacular or vulgar Greek. The synagogal sermon itself, the base and source of Midraṣ and Aggada, was styled Greek fashion. Its structure has been described as Greek, at least partly, and it contains references to things and terms Greek, which only those familiar with the language and its popular and literary connotations could understand. That has been suggested for Jewish sermons held in Judaea. It is unlikely that in the Diaspora, say in Italy, the Jews had less Greek than in Judaea, particularly if they lived in Greek speaking areas such as Sicily and the South. The other part of Jewish Hellenism has been described as “Greek wisdom”. The Aggada about the school at the Patriarch’s seat in Judaea, does not say what exactly the aggadist meant by Greek wisdom. The tale follows immediately on the story about the pig hauled up to the defenders of the Temple during the conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus:

. . . and who forbade Greek wisdom? Have we not learned that Rabbi said: ‘Why Sursi in Ereẓ Israel? Or Hebrew, or Greek’. R. Yose said: ‘Why Aramaic in Babylonia? Or Hebrew or Persian’. Said they: ‘Greek is one thing, Greek wisdom is another’. And who forbade Greek wisdom? Has not R. Juda, and R. Samuel in the name of R. Simon b. Gamli’el said: ‘Mine eye affected my soul, because of all the daughters of my city’ (Threni, 3.51). A thousand children were in my father’s house; five hundred studied the Tora and five hundred Greek wisdom . . . Said they: ‘The house of Rabban Gamli’el is different, because they had dealings with the authorities; and as we have learned: he who cuts his hair in a certain fashion is following the customs of the Emorites’. Ptolemy b. Ruben was allowed to cut his hair in a certain

Diaspora, passim; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, passim; Juster, op. cit., pp. 365f.; Leon, The Language of the Greek Inscriptions, pp. 210f.; Id., Rome, cit., pp. 75f.; Stern, Philosophers and Scientists, pp. 85f. On Beth Ṣe’arim and its necropolis (Ṣeikh Abreq), see the standard reference works, such as Avigad, Beth She’arim, III, passim. See also Rajak, Rabbinic Dead and Diaspora Dead, pp. 349f. On the Jewish uprising in the days of Gallus, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 51. Familiarity with “Homeric style” probably was not widely diffused among the Jews buried in Bet Ṣe’arim, but it existed undoubtedly, at least in one case. On the so-called super- ficiality of Hellenization in general, see Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity, cit., passim. He also pointed out that towards the end of Antiquity Hellenism at times signified Greeks and at other times pagans. See also Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, passim. the culture of italian jewry 311

fashion because he had dealings with the government. Those of Rabban Gamli’el were allowed Greek wisdom because they had dealings with the authorities. . . .

So here we have side by side Greek, Greek wisdom and Roman style haircut, or in other words Hellenistic language, culture and civilization. If this sort of Hellenism was that comprehensive everywhere and at all times is, of course, questionable.3 The extent to which Greek was cherished by the rabbis is borne out by the tale about the translation of the Bible by Aquila:

. . . We have learned that R. Simon b. Gamli’el says: ‘Books too were not allowed to be written except in Greek’. They checked and found that the Tora cannot be translated adequately except into Greek. A guard/soldier created for them Aramaic (Latin) out of Greek. R. Jeremia, in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. (Ab)ba [said]: ‘Aquila the convert translated the Tora in front of R. Eli’ezer and R. Joṣu’a. They praised him and said: ‘Thou art fairer than the children of men’ (Psalms, 45.3). . . .

It had been suggested that R. Elie’zer and R. Joṣu’a were well enough versed in Greek to be able to check Aquila’s Greek rendering of Hebrew Scripture. They belonged to that class among the Jews of Antiquity whose education allowed them to. They were said to have been members of the upper class, or at least the middle class, since the lower class knew only the koine. That was thought to have been true everywhere, in Judaea and in the Diaspora, including Italy.4

The ‘Am Ha’Areẓ

Greek as a language was not the only difference between the Jewish classes in Antiquity. The rabbis considered themselves an élite, looked down on the

3 See supra, chapt. 5, note 36. On the Jewish dialect of Greek, see Walser, Greek of the Ancient Synagogue, pp. 260f.; The quote is from B. Sota, 49b; B. Baba Qama, 82b–83a. According to Raṣi, Sursi was a vulgar language; others suggest that it was Syrian Aramaic. The hair-style is the Greek κόμη. See also Herr, op. cit., p. 26; Rutgers, Hidden Heritage, cit., p. 92. Ptolemy קומי is sometimes identified with a tanna of the third generation called by that name, teacher of R. Yose b. Ḥalafta. Klein, Tannaiten-Familie in Rom, cit., pp. 442f. made him a brother of Reuben (Rubin) b. Aristoble (Aristobulus), a philosopher/scholar, who figures in the tale related in B. Me’ila, 17a-b. See also Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, pp. 31, 82. 4 J. Megillah, 1.9; Esther Rabba, 7 (end). Herr, op. cit., pp. 23f; Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism, cit., pp. 13f. 312 chapter 8 lower classes and called them contemptuously ‘Am Ha’Areẓ. That term, starting in biblical times, originally meant all sorts of things including “the common people”, but in due course assumed derogatory connotations and became to stand for “ignorant”, with particular emphasis on the practice of Judaism and its observance. In this context it makes no difference whether the deficiencies in the observance of the precepts were the laws of purity or one or more other aspects of contemporary Orthodox Judaism:

. . . We have learned: ‘Who is an ‘Am Ha’Areẓ, he who does not read the Ṣema’ evenings and mornings’. This is what R. Eli’ezer said. R. Joṣu’a says: ‘He who does not put on phylacteries’. Ben ‘Azai says: ‘He who does not have ẓiẓith on his garment’. R. Nathan says: ‘He who does not have a mezu- zah on his entrance’. R. Nathan b. Joseph says: ‘He who has sons and does not bring them up to study the Tora’. Others say: ‘Even if he studies but did not serve scholars he is an ‘Am Ha’Areẓ. . . .

The term has its roots in the Bible, was in use in Hasmonean times and came to the fore in the days of the Miṣnah and the Talmud, when there emerged a barrier of what appears as enmity dividing the Jewish classes. Evidently, it was only the educated class of the rabbis which left its views in writing. What the other side may or may not have thought of their adversaries we can only guess at and judge by what the rabbis put in their mouths. As a result, like all one- sided statements and descriptions, what we get is a lop-sided portrayal, not improved by the problems linked to all prejudiced rabbinic statements in the literature of the sages not supported from other sources. To what extent that distorted the resulting narrative is very much in dispute. As with many other topics in Antiquity these have been interpreted in more than one manner; and it appears that they are likely to remain controversial. To put it mildly: apparently no great love was lost on either side: the rabbis and the ‘Ame Ha’Areẓ. It is only fair to assume that the majority numerically speaking were the ‘Ame Ha’Areẓ; and that held true for the Diaspora, including Italy. It is doubtful whether the emissaries from Judaea propagated in Italy also the views of the rabbis on the Am ‘Ha’Areẓ, but they could not have remained a secret. If the apostoli were ever asked embarrassing questions by the “common people” in Italy, or for that matter anywhere else, those have not come to light.5

5 Büchler, Der Galileische ‘Am-ha’Areṣ, passim; Furstenberg, Am Ha-Aretz, pp. 287f.; Lieberman, op. cit., pp, 69f.; Oppenheimer, op. cit., passim; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 2, pp. 454f., 468f.; Urbach, Sages b.m., cit., pp. 520f.; Zeitlin, Am-Haarez, cit., pp. 45f. These are only a few of the publications on the subject. We shall refrain from dealing with the the culture of italian jewry 313

One of the worst pronouncement against the ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ is attributed to R. Me’ir, the foremost tanna of the fourth generation, a pupil of R. ‘Aqiva and teacher of R. Judah Ha-Nasi. He is quoted as having said:

. . . He who marries his daughter to an ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ, is like one who shackles his daughter and puts her in front of a lion. As the lion kills and devours his prey impudently, so the ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ beats and has sex shamelessly. . . .

No less vehement was Simon b. Yoḥai, who is quoted as having defined an ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ as “accursed by the Lord”. Another tannaitic text expresses similar unfriendly sentiments toward the ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ:

. . . One should always sell all one’s possessions and marry the daughter so that if one dies or is exiled, one’s offspring ,)תלמיד חכם( of a scholar will be scholars. We have learned that . . . if he did not find a scholar’s daughter, he should marry the daughter of one of the great, if he did not find a daughter of the great, he should marry the daughter of one of the archisynagogoi, if he did not find a daughter of the archisynagogoi, he should marry the daughter of an alms collector, if he did not find a daughter of an alms collector he should marry the daughter of a teacher. He should not marry the daughter of an ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ, because they are an abomination and their womenfolk are vermin, and on their daughter it is said: ‘Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast’ (Deuteronomy, 27.21). . . .

One could not be more outspoken than that. This is followed by further damn- ing remarks and condemnations of ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ. So evidently there was no

seemingly inexhaustible variety of views expressed by scholars on this issue. They are still in full swing, and some sound rather unreal. One aspect may be worthwhile looking into: to what extent were there similar social divisions in other civilizations? The quotation is from tannaitic definitions of ‘Am Ha’Areẓ portrayed as an individual who does not observe the commandments. See B. Berakhot, 47b; B. Gittin, 61a. The rabbis quoted are all tannaim. The entire issue was in dispute right from the beginning. Cf. T. Ṣabbath, 2.10; B. Ṣabbath, 32a–b. Not everything the rabbis had to say on ‘Am Ha’Areẓ was negative, and the extreme views expressed by some were not shared by others. For more views on ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ, see for instance M. Demai, 2.2–3; 6.9, 12; M. Ṣevi’it, 5.9; M. Gittin, 5.9; M. Tehoroth, 7.4; 8.5; T. Demai, 2.2–5f.; T. Avoda Zara, 3.10. For further mentions of ‘Am-ha’Areṣ see the references supra. 314 chapter 8 limit to the hatred the rabbis bore the ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ. What they did about it in effect is disputable.6 While the Jews of Italy may or may not have been impressed with the social reservations which some of the rabbis had on ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ, they could not have implemented the discrimination which the same rabbis were beginning to impose on them in relation to the administration of Jewish law. The was being )הדיוטות( principle of jurisdiction in civil matters by three laymen upheld by the rabbis; but from the first century CE on that was slowly limited to those who were students of the Tora. Of course, it may have been impracticable in the Italian Diaspora, which usually did not dispose of men who answered the criteria of a Talmid Ḥakham (= scholar, sage), yet did not wish to give up their right to Jewish internal jurisdiction under the guise of arbitration or otherwise, if indeed Italian Jews practised that jurisdiction. We do not know either whether some of the patriarch’s emissaries and those who succeeded them, who are said to have been instrumental in spreading rabbinic Judaism in the Diaspora, were members of that élite and acted as judges in the Jewish communities which they visited.7

Assimilation and Acculturation

It has been suggested that Hellenism was more pronounced and widespread among the ‘Ame-Ha’Areẓ than among the Talmide Ḥakhamim and that the latter tried to combat the assimilation of Hellenism by the masses. Of course, if that was true, it applied in particular in Judaea. One would tend to define the Jews of the Italian Diaspora as more prone to assimilation than the Jews of Judaea, since their relative isolation from the focal points of rabbinic influence was more pronounced than in the homeland, but there is no documentary proof for this. Be that as it may, there were two or three areas which have been singled out as particularly involved in the assimilating process: physical

6 B. Pesaḥim, 49a–b. See Oppenheimer, op. cit., pp. 112f. for earlier expressions of these sentiments. For R. Simon b. Yoḥai, see Pirqa de Rabenu Ha-Qadoṣ, 21a. Curiously, two millennia ago some rabbis did not think much of teachers and placed them near the bottom of the social ladder, though this view was not shared by all. See below, next chapt. 7 Mekhilta of R. Iṣma’el, Exodus, 18.22. For a listing of some more rabbinic derogatory references to ‘Am-Ha’Areẓ, see Oppenheimer, op. cit., pp. 179f. On the jurisdiction of the Jews under pagan and Christian rule, see supra, chapt. 3, and below chapt. 9. Cf. Colorni, Legge ebraica e leggi locali, cit., passim; Id., L’uso del greco, cit., pp. 15f., who insists that the Jews in the Roman Diaspora practised Roman law throughout Antiquity and that Hellenism persisted among the Jews of the Diaspora until the 10th century CE. the culture of italian jewry 315 grooming, including sport, the theatre and the belief in astrology, magic and other superstitions. The rabbis were not opposed to sport as such but to its excessive practice and to some of its accompanying ceremonies, identified as pagan. That became evident in the days of the Hasmoneans and continued thereafter. As for magic, sorcery, astrology and the like, the rabbis were opposed to those which ran counter to Judaism and its tenets. They tried to adapt a few to Judaism, while they forbade others. Even so, some of the beliefs of the same rabbis in esoteric and magical fan- tasies are also irrational to say the least. Arguments considered rational cannot explain away this fact. Which of all these customs and beliefs was adopted by the Jews of Italy is sheer guess-work. That one or two Roman Jews frequented gymnasia does not make that a popular and widespread pastime among Italian Jews. However, considering the paucity of reliable sources for the history of the Jews in Italy in the first century CE, it is considered significant. The same Jewish actor/athlete was anxious to hide his Jewishness, apparently for the usual reasons of the assimilationist.8 The limits of Jewish Hellenism have been a bone of contention between scholars. One or two went so far as to describe Hellenistic Jews, while believing in the Jewish God and practising Judaism, also believed in pagan gods; and not only replaced Hebrew and Aramaic with Greek. Others held that Hellenistic Jews were rabbinic Jews as far as Judaism and its observance were concerned, but at the same time spoke Greek in daily life, employed Greek for sacral purposes in the synagogue and in the cemetery, and assimilated some Hellenistic beliefs and practices, varying from place to place and depending on time and circumstances. At some point in time and in some places Jews began to use Latin rather than Greek. That appears to be the most reasonable interpretation of the data at our disposal, which consist largely of tombal inscriptions, mostly in Rome, of the relatively small group of Jews who lived in Italy in Antiquity. If Hellenistic Jews means Jews who used Greek in their daily life, including the ritual, that is probably true of many Italian Jews in Antiquity, unless they used Latin before the Hebrew renaissance in the sixth- to eighth centuries. However, some scholars insist that the Greek in the Roman epitaphs and elsewhere in Italy proves only the sacral use made of Greek and that Greek was replaced by Latin within

8 Feldman, op. cit., pp. 59f.; Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, cit., 1, pp. 209f.; 3, pp. 113; Lieberman, op. cit., pp. 69f. and the references cited by both, e.g., M. Ṣabbath, 22.6; B. Ṣabbath, 67a. For divided view of tannaim on Jewish attendance at sports, see B. Avoda Zara, 18b. For the passage in Juvenal on Menophilus, see supra chapt. 4. On assimilation, etc., see Collar, Religious Networks in the Roman Empire, passim; Mor, Jewish Assimilation, passim. 316 chapter 8 a generation or two after the arrival of the immigrants in Italy. This does not signify that they ceased their allegiance to Judaism and the Jewish people. They did not go to the synagogues in Rome, Ostia, or Bova Marina to worship the Graeco-Roman gods. If they did that, or became Christians, they ceased to be Jews.9 We know next to nothing of the habits and customs in Italian Jewish homes in Antiquity. That they kept Jewish dietary rules appears certain. Hence they did not assimilate the food habits of their environment. There survived a graphic description of the Sabbath table of the Jews, couched in unfriendly terms, by Persius, a Roman satirist of the first century, probably an eye-witness account of what he encountered there. Then there is the tale of the Jewish tailor who overbid his pagan competitor when buying fish on Yom Kippur eve. But that is nearly all. Strangely it is garum, a fish sauce, or rather a Jewish variety of it that has left its mark in the records. Garum has an unusual history. It is described as a sauce prepared from fermented fish entrails, much used by the ancient Romans; yet in the 16th and 17th centuries it came down in the world and was recommended as a medicine for horses. There are many fish sauces that have been given that name. The Jewish garum, known as castum, is thought to have been a clear sauce, made for Jews and others who observed certain dietary laws. Such fish sauces apparently were popular also in Judaea.10

9 Views range from Frederiksen, Augustine and the Jews, cit., pp. 16f., who argues that “Hellenistic Jews, while believing in the Jewish God and practising Judaism, also believed in pagan gods—and not only replaced Hebrew and Aramaic with Greek”, to Feldman, Greek and Gentile, cit., pp. 48f., who posits that the Jews “were universally observant of the laws of the Torah”. He assembled ample proof that this was the view also of pagan contemporaries of the Jews in Antiquity, and highlights circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, dietary laws, and so forth. For these and others, see supra, chapt. 5, esp. note 4 and the quote there from Momigliano, who describes Roman Jews as “isolated”. Since many of these classical writers lived in Rome it is a fair assumption that they portrayed Roman Jews and their observances, or at least knew of them. If they did not, that was due to some agenda of theirs. See also below, note 37 on the references to Cassuto’s publications who had Latin replace Greek and Aramaic/Hebrew in daily use almost at once, practically everywhere, including even the south of the country. He based his assumption that a Latin version of the Bible existed in Rome in the days of the catacombs on some of the inscriptions found there. Be that as it may, his other inferences intended to show the existence of a Latin Bible in use by Jews in Antiquity hang by a thread. For the language of the epitaphs, see Kant, Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin, pp. 671f. 10 See supra, chapt. 5, esp. note 26, and the references there. For the tailor and the fish, see Genesis Rabba, 11. The tailor was rewarded for paying an exorbitant price for a fish on Yom Kippur eve by finding a pearl in the fish. The pearl is said to have sustained him for the rest of his life. See also Berliner, op. cit., 1, p. 98; Goldenberg, The Jewish Sabbath in the the culture of italian jewry 317

Generally speaking all this appears to be true. All the same there may have been small deviations from the strict observance of Judaism and its precepts, chiefly in the Diaspora other than Italy, such as Egypt, Asia Minor, and so forth. Also in Italy a few examples are said to have survived. Yet in view of their paucity and hence non-representative character they do not permit us to construct on them comprehensive and all-embracing generalizations either way. Among these examples are the paintings and decorations on the walls of the arcosolia and cubicula in the Villa Torlonia (via Nomentana) and the arcosolia and sarcophagi in the Vigna Randanini (via Appia Antica) catacombs in Rome. A sarcophagus in Villa Torlonia catacomb shows a half-nude male and a youngster with a snake, a maenad, a satyr and a wild animal. These have been identified as Dionysian motifs. Another sarcophagus is supported by lions’ heads; and yet another shows a griffin savaging a ram. A room at the entrance of the Vigna Randanini catacomb has on the ceiling a Victory, placing a garland on the head of a nude young man. Victory has a palm branch in one hand, and the youth another branch. The central figures are surrounded by birds, some identified as peacocks, and flowers dispersed between them. Additional birds are depicted on the walls, as well as pegasi, and an animal identified as a sheep in front of a caduceus. The fragment of a sarcophagus discovered nearby, the so-called “season sarcophagus”, displays a seven-branched candelabrum, surrounded by an allegory of the four seasons. Scholars have been disputing the linkage to Jews of the decorations, and, as usual, there emerged no clear-cut verdict. It has been pointed out that in this area Judaea was more tolerant than the Diaspora. Be that as it may, the distinct pagan character of some elements makes their Jewishness rather questionable. So the sarcophagi may have been prepared for non-Jews and subsequently bought from a merchant and used by Jews; while the paintings on the ceiling and walls possibly belonged to a room of an abandoned pagan cemetery. Even if all this were correct it is remarkable and significant that Jews were willing to be buried alongside pagan paintings or even inhumed in sarcophagi decorated

Roman World, pp. 414f.; Levi, Ebrei in Roma, cit., p. 85; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 62. For a definition of garum, see OED, s.v. Yet another interpretation is that garum derives from γάρον, the name of the fish whose intestines were originally used in the condiment’s production. The recipes are endless. For more on garum castum, see Berdowski, Tituli Picti, pp. 37f.; Id., Garum of Herod the Great, pp. 239f.; Id., Roman Businesswomen I, pp. 251f. And see Plinius, Naturalis Historia, 31.59, who suggested that this sort of garum was intended for Jews, but erroneously stated that it was made of scaleless fish. Altercatio Simonis et Theophili has garum (not mentioned by name) made of dried fish. See PG, 20, col. 1165f. Cf., however, Cotton et al., Fish Sauces from Herodian Masada, pp. 223f. 318 chapter 8 with pagan symbols. Some scholars have identified this tolerant Jewish attitude toward the art depicting pagan gods and mythological symbols present in Jewish places of worship and cemeteries with the permission granted by the rabbis to Jewish artisans to make idols. They forbade only the idols produced by non-Jews. That would contradict the interpretation of the paintings and decorated sarcophagi of Rome. As usual the conflicting views of scholars are legion, so that what was one man’s meat is another man’s poison. Briefly: there existed no uniformity.11 There is hardly any information on Jewish assimilation in Italy in Antiquity. A few socially high-ranking Judaeans who lived in Rome under pagan rule may or may not have assimilated partly or wholly into their pagan surroundings. One or two of whom we know have been described as apostates, while others were less outspoken in their abandonment of ancestral beliefs and practices. There was Berenice, the daughter of King Herod Agrippa I and mistress of Titus. One can hardly think of her as an Orthodox Jewess. Also other exiles who lived in Rome in the first and second centuries CE may or may not have assimilated to a degree into their environment. Such may have been the case of Josephus Flavius. Men such as Menophilus were a tiny minority, to judge by the paucity of evidence mentioning them. There was no more than a sprinkling of

11 Pegasus = the winged horse which sprang from the blood of the Gorgon Medusa when she was beheaded by Perseus; caduceus = the wand carried by Hermes or Mercury as messenger of the gods. On the decorations, see Cappelletti, op. cit., pp. 151f., 173f.; Frey, op. cit., 1, pp. CXXIf.; Goodenough, op. cit., 2, pp. 17f.; 3, pp. 737f.; Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora, passim; Koch, Jüdische Sarkophage, pp. 189f.; Konikoff, Sarcophagi from the Jewish Catacombs of Ancient Rome, passim; Leon, op. cit., pp. 203f.; Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 54f., 61f. It is not so much the figurative art of these decorations which would appear to contradict the biblical prohibition on graven images, since these are also present in some other ancient synagogues; excavations of synagogues in Judaea have revealed such decorations in mosaics and paintings. For instance, the Medusa in the synagogue in Khorasim, or Helius, the sun-god in the mosaic at Beth Alpha are often cited in this context; and there are others. In fact, by the third century CE if not before, the rabbis relented and tolerated “wall paintings”. See Feldman, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, cit., pp. 7f. (and the references cited there); Fine, Art, History and the Historiography, passim. And see, for instance, B. Avoda Zara, 42b–43b. On the excavations, see the reports of Sukenik on Beth Alpha and Dura Europos, e.g., The Ancient Synagogue in Beth Alpha, passim. On rabbinic attitudes to idols, see Urbach, Rabbinic Laws of Idolatry, pp. 149f., 229f. The technical details produced by sceptic scholars appear to prop up the ascription of some or most of these Roman decorations to pagans rather than to Jews. For bits of decorated glass, found in the catacombs, which may have been Jewish products, see supra, chapt. 4. However, most of the motifs on these bits and pieces are Jewish and so are the symbols depicted on them. the culture of italian jewry 319

Jews who assimilated into Graeco-Roman culture, society, and perhaps even into religion. An Alexandrian delegation to Emperor Trajan claimed that the council of Trajan was “filled with impious Jews”, whoever they were. The apostates were the counterparts of those Romans, mostly women, who sympathized with Judaism, some called God-fearers, who in few and far between instances are known to have converted to Judaism in Italy. The epitaphs of Italian Jews, mainly in Rome, but also elsewhere on the peninsula, contain a very small number of references to converts buried there, some six or seven in all. While the fragmentary nature of these inscriptions prevents any sort of statistical conclusions, it is all the same significant that the number of converts to Judaism in Italy during imperial times buried in the Italian Jewish cemeteries is negligible.12 While the Jews of Italy evidently employed Greek in the cemetery, both in Rome, around the city and in localities south of the capital, that does not necessarily imply that the Jews used that language in daily life in those areas where Greek was not the vernacular. Jewish émigrés (and not only they) were prone to employ an ancestral language for at least a generation or two for sacral purposes, out of piety, habit, and so forth. In those areas where Greek was the spoken language by the population in general, that underwent no change in later years and generations. However, since the epitaphs are not really representative of the Jewish population during the two to three centuries covered by the cemeteries of Rome, and more or less so elsewhere, jumping to conclusions on the strength of such fragmentary documentary evidence is fraught with potential pitfalls. That applies also to other elements, such as names, emerging from the inscriptions which comprise only a fraction of the names which existed once upon a time. So here too we have to do with fragmentary surviving documentation and no more. Inasmuch as these insecure documentary foundations are anything to go by, it is Rome that provides the overwhelming data for the names of Italian Jews in Antiquity. Some 550 names of Roman Jews have survived in the cemeteries.

12 See the publications on the epitaphs, chiefly now Noy, Jewish Inscriptions; and the publications on Sicily, Ostia, etc.; and see below, next chapt. See also, Feldman, op. cit., pp. 79f. By way of an example of the Jews outside Rome take Catania. There, some six Jewish epitaphs of Antiquity have been discovered. Of these, five are in Greek and one in Latin, plus a brief standard line in Hebrew. Any statistical conclusions based on such figures are sheer conjecture. See my Scylla and Charybdis, cit., p. 47. We fare no better for Venosa and other Jewish settlements where Jewish graves dated to Antiquity have come to light. On the alleged Jewish members of Trajan’s council, see CPJ, 2, pp. 82f.; Musurillo, Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, No. VIII. And see supra, chapt. 1, note 33. 320 chapter 8

Statistically—and with due caution—the Jews of Rome used Greek in the majority of epitaphs, yet deviated from that preference when it came to names, at least in regard to those that have survived. Just about half these names are Latin, only a third are Greek, a sixth Jewish (Hebrew/Aramaic), and the remainder mixed. That shows that Greek was not the decisive element in the catacombs as far as names are concerned, contrary to what everybody appears to assume. Rather assimilation to the prevailing Latin majority apparently was the keyword with regard to the onomastics of the Jews in Rome, at least for the period covered by the epitaphs. Whether that overflowed also into other areas of contact between Jews and their surroundings is anybody’s guess.13 The names include some of the better known appellatives in all three languages present in the epitaphs, but also some relatively rare ones are represented. In Rome, but also to some extent elsewhere popular Latin names for men were Aurelius, Faustinus, Gaius, Iulianus, Iustus and Victor; nearly all Greek names appear only once, though there are relatively many women called Irene; while among Semitic names first place for men take Iudas, Sabbatis (Sabbatius) and Simon, whereas for women places of honour are taken by such names as Aster, Faustina, Maria and Sara. Some other names also figure promi- nently. Strangely, rather few biblical names such as those of the Patriarchs have survived, except those reported in Hellenized configuration, i.e., Iudas for Iuda and the like. Some of the Graeco-Roman names may have been translations of Hebrew names, as Jews were wont to do throughout the ages. Scholars have identified naming propensities among the Jews of Rome, such as the conservative nature of the passage between generations which they are said to have practised. Also the occurrence of strictly pagan names, some representing pagan deities and mythical figures, has been interpreted as a sign of assimilation into the environment; or if you like, their relative paucity, as indication of the opposite. Notwithstanding the fragmentary nature of the epitaphs far-reaching conclusions based on the surviving onomastics have been arrived at. Among them

13 On the languages of the epitaphs, see the references mentioned supra, esp. n. 2. The Greek of the epitaphs, being the language of their overwhelming majority, has been identified as the Greek dialect employed by the Jews, the koine (on which supra). It should be borne in mind that the stonemasons and other artisans, who executed some of the inscriptions and texts, were not necessarily Jews. However, the graffiti probably were all done by relatives or cemetery personnel. Some are primitive indeed. The names of the Jews throughout the ages have attracted the attention of scholars since the days of Zunz, Namen der Juden, passim, through Cohen, Jewish Names, passim; Juster, op. cit., 2, pp. 221f. and Leon, Names of the Jews of Ancient Rome, pp. 205f.; Id., Jews of Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 93f.; Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 139f. (contra Leon). the culture of italian jewry 321 is the degree to which Jews adopted Roman usages of multiple names; the observance of the rule not to name a child for a person still alive; or one of the many habits and customs adopted in this context by Jews and others throughout the ages. It would appear that the nature of the documentary material largely prevents such conclusions.14 Most epitaphs are brief, irrespective of the language they were written in. Of many only fragments have survived. Only a few are detailed and the information conveyed in them is most revealing and hence rewarding. One is incised in Latin on a marble plaque, found in the catacomb of Monteverde, tentatively ascribed by various scholars as belonging to the first through the fourth century. It has been described as the longest epitaph found in Rome, and consists of 13 lines of dactylic hexametres. It says:

. . . Here lies Regina, covered by this tomb, That her spouse set up responding to his love of her. After twice ten, she spent with him a year and a fourth month with eight days remaining. She will live again, return to the light again. For she can hope therefore that she may rise into the age promised for both the worthy and the pious, who deserved to have an abode in the venerable country. Your piety has achieved that for you, your chaste life, your love of your people, observance of the Law the merit of your marriage whose honour was your concern. From these deeds there is future hope for you, and your grieving spouse seeks his comfort in that. . . .

The couple had adopted Latin, the language of their environment, also for sacral purposes. They had been married for some 21 years and believed in the afterlife and resurrection.15

14 Noy. op. cit., passim. The inscriptions outside Rome, datable to Antiquity, are by far outnumbered by those of Rome, with Venosa in second place after the capital. Not much can be made of the brief Hebrew words included in some epitaphs. The most frequent ,”peace on Israel. See Noy, “Peace upon Israel = שלום על ישראל peace, or = שלום one is pp. 135f. Significantly, the two surviving names of Jewish leaders of Roman Jewry in the second century CE are Todos (Thaddeus) and Paltion. While Thaddeus was originally an Aramaic name, adopted by Graeco-Romans in Antiquity, Paltion (Palation, Plation) was probably Graeco-Roman. 15 I have followed Leon, op. cit., pp. 248f. and Noy, op. cit., 2, No. 103, with only slight variations. 322 chapter 8

Another epitaph is from Venosa. It is the famous Faustina inscription, perhaps the most cited epitaph from southern Italy. It is generally dated to the sixth century, on the border between Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is styled in Latin with a brief sentence in Hebrew:

. . . [Latin] Here lies Faustina, daughter of Faustinus the father, aged fourteen years five months. She was her parents’ only child. Two apostoli and two rebbites recited lamentations for her. She caused great enough grief to her parents and tears to the town. [Hebrew] Resting-place of Faustina. May her soul rest. Peace. [Latin] She was the great-granddaughter of Faustinus the father and grand-daughter of Vitus and Asellus, who were the great of the town . . .”.

Though much shorter than the Regina epitaph this inscription is also revealing. It is evidence for the continued (or perhaps renewed) ties between the Jewish homeland and the Diaspora after the abolition of the patriarchate at the beginning of the fifth century. The family of Faustina were among the “great” of Venosa, or in other words probably decurions.16 A third epitaph is from Catania in Sicily. It is the inscription on the grave of Aurelius Samuel and of his wife Lasie Irene. It is worded mostly in Latin, except for a brief line in Hebrew. It is incised on a stone slab and is dated (exception- ally so) to the 21st of October 383. Samuel was a Latin-speaking Sicilian Jew, who had a double Hebrew and Latin name and was married to a wife known by a double Greek name. He invoked the Jewish and Roman authorities and the Tora to keep his memorial inviolate, and threatens transgressors with a fine to the treasury. In his days the Jewish patriarch was still a power to be reckoned with.17

Links of the Judaean Centre with Italy

The links between the rabbinic centres of Judaea and Italy were close and frequent, as they were with the rest of the Diaspora. Every year, as far we know,

16 Noy, op. cit., 1, No. 86. See also my Hebrew Revival among Early Medieval European Jews, cit., pp. 631f. (and the extensive references there). Whether the inscription belongs to Antiquity or is to be ascribed to the Middle Ages is, of course, a moot point. 17 See supra p. 92, and see my Jews in Sicily, cit., 1, No. 1 and the literature reported there. The stone-mason made a mistake. The 21st of October was a Saturday—not a Friday. He may have wanted to allay Jewish sensibilities by pretending that the inscription was incised on a week-day. the culture of italian jewry 323 the patriarchs sent apostoli to the communities abroad to collect funds, whatever their denomination, and while they went about their mundane business they acted as judges and appointed officers in the Jewish communities they visited. This goes a long way to explain the adherence of Italian Diaspora Jews to Jewish identity. Their hard core resisted assimilation for many centuries and eventually merged into the mediaeval scenery of Jewish life in that country. In that the Jews of Italy resembled those in other countries and were no exception to the rule. After the patriarchate ceased in the fifth century we hear nothing of these ties until the following century, when emissaries and rabbis, probably from the centre in Tiberias, went on a tour of southern Italy. Not surprisingly, soon after, the Hebrew renaissance which began to flourish in the Judaean centre at about that time spread also to the Jewish communities in Italy. Not only the emissaries of the patriarchs and those who followed them in the sixth century travelled to Italy and visited the Jewish communities there. Among the rabbinic visitors of Rome in earlier times there were some of the foremost tannaim, including men like Rabban Gamli’el of Yavne. They went to Rome on official business with the authorities and apparently also privately. Since the reports on these visits are couched in rabbinic aggadoth it is well- nigh impossible to unravel the exact timing or even the number of such visits. So scholars are divided (once again) over the time-table of the visits and on their number. Among the rabbis who travelled to Rome (in addition to R. Gamli’el) first place is taken by R. Joṣu’a b. Ḥanania, R. El’azar b. Azaria, and R. ‘Aqiva. There were also others, at least according to rabbinic legend, such as R. Juda b. Ṣamo’a and R. Yose b. Ḥalafta, tannaim of the fourth generation. Some, in addition to their political mission also preached and taught there, probably in one of the synagogues:

. . . Once upon a time R. Gamli’el, R. Joṣu’a, R. El’azar b. ‘Azaria and R. ‘Aqiva went to Rome and preached there: ‘God is unlike man. He (man) decrees and commands others to carry out (his decrees), while he himself does not do a thing. God is not like that’. There was present a heretic [Christian?]. When they were leaving, he said to them: ‘You are telling lies. Did you not say that God says and does? Why then does he not keep the Sabbath? . . . ’.

R. El’azar b. Yose, a tanna of the fifth generation, son of R. Yose b. Ḥalafta, taught there his views on a miqvah and its supply of water. Also R. Judah b. Titus, a Palestinian amora of the fourth generation stayed in Rome. So did his contemporary, R. Samuel Susarti (Susrata), a Palestinian, also an amora of the fourth generation. He was ordained rabbi although going abroad, because he declared 324 chapter 8 his intention to return. The rabbis also had talks with Roman “philosophers”, that is Roman savants or scholars. One of these goes as follows:

. . . Once upon a time four elders went to the inner kingdom, and they had a friend, a philosopher. They were R. Gamli’el, R. Joṣu’a, R. El’azar b. ‘Azaria and R. ‘Aqiva. Said R. Joṣu’a to R. Gamli’el: ‘Rabbi: ‘Do you want us to go and greet the philosopher our friend . . . ’. Said he to them: ‘Peace unto you, sages of Israel with R. Gamli’el at their head. . . .

On their way they encountered a Jewish settlement:

. . . R. Elie’zer and R. Joṣua and R. Gamli’el were on their way to Rome. They encountered some small children who were making mounds and were saying: that is how the Israelites were doing, this is for teruma and this for ma’aser. So they said: it makes sense that Jews live here. They went there and were welcomed. . . .18

18 Alon, History of the Jews in Israel, cit., 1, pp. 74f.; Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, cit., p. 251; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, p. 111; Herr, Historical Significance, cit., esp. pp. 139f.; Safrai, Visits of the Sages of Yavneh in Rome, cit., pp. 151f.; Stemberger, Beurteilungs Roms, cit., pp. 383f. Graetz dates the trip to 96 and proposes that all references deal with the same visit, whereas Safrai disagrees. As usual, this remains an open question, though it does look as if there had been more than one trip. On the whole episode, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 30. The citations are from Exodus Rabba, 30, tractate Derekh Ereẓ, 5, and J. Sanhedrin, 7.13 (parallels B. Yoma, 86a), respectively. On R. El’azar and the miqvah, see T. Nidda, 7.1 and parallels, such as B. Niddah, 58a. For R. Judah b. Titus, see J. Bikkurim, 3.3. Teruma and ma’aser are “offering” and tithe. On other quotes, see supra. There is no substance to the theory of some scholars that the “philosopher” was Josephus. On R. Samuel Susrati, see J. Baba Meẓia, 2.6; Berliner, op. cit., 1, p. 32; Krauss, Griechen und Römer, cit., pp. 86f.; Marmorstein, Diocletien a la lumière, p. 43. There are many references to the trip or trips of the sages to Rome. Among those that mention Italy specifically or are thought to belong Rome are: M. Ma’aser Ṣeni, 5.9; M. ‘Eruvin, 4.1; M. Ṣabbath, 16.8; M. Yoma, 8.5 (parallels J. Yoma, 8.5); M. Avoda Zara, 4.7 (parallels T. Avoda Zara, 6.7); M. Avoth, 4.15; T. Ṣabbath, 13.14; T. Sukkah, 2.11; T. Beẓa, 2.12; T. Yom Ha-Kippurim (= Yoma), 3.8; 8.5; T. Avoda Zara 4(5).6 (parallels B. Avoda Zara, 8a); T. Horayoth, 2.5 (parallels B. Gittin, 58a); T. Miqva’oth, 4.4; Ibid., 4.6 (parallels T. Nidda. 7.1; B. Nidda, 58a); J. Kil’aim, 9.4; J. Ṣevi’ith 4.2; J. Ma’aser Ṣeni, 4; J. Ṣevi’ith, 4.2 (parallels J. Sanhedrin, 3.5); J. Eruvin 1.7; J. Bikkurim, 3.3; J. Pesaḥim, 7.1 (parallels J. Mo’ed Qatan, 3.1); J. Yom Ha-Kippurim (= Yoma), 4.1 (parallels B. Me’ila, 17b; Tanḥuma, va-Yaqhel 10); J. Sukka, 2.4; J. Baba Meẓia, 2.6; J. Sanhedrin, 7.13 (parallels B. Yoma, 86a); J. Horayoth, 3; B. Ṣabbath, 127b; B. Roṣ Haṣana, 19a; (parallels B. Ta’anith, 18a; Megillath Ta’anith, 35); B. Yoma, 4b; 53b; 57a; 84a; 86a; B. Sukka, 5b; 23b; 41b; B. Yevamoth, 61a; B. Qidduṣin, 40a; B. Me’ila, 17a (parallels B. Yoma, 53b; Sifre Zuta, 6); the culture of italian jewry 325

Rabbinic literature also mentions other visits of sages to Rome. Thus R. Joṣu’a was there at least once and the following anecdote has been linked to him:

. . . We have learned (in the Baraita/Tosefta): Once upon a time R. Joṣu’a b. Ḥanina went to the great city of Rome. He was told that there was a child (from Jerusalem) in prison with beautiful eyes, pretty and his hair was arranged in locks (to be disgraced). So he went and stood by the prison gate and said: ‘Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?’ (Isaia, 42.24). Answered the child: ‘Did not the Lord? He against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient unto his law’. Said he: ‘I am sure that he will be a teacher in Israel. By God I shall not budge until I have redeemed him for whatever they ask’. Said they: ‘He did not leave until he had redeemed him for a large sum. Not many days passed until he taught the Law in Israel. Who was he? R. Iṣma’el b. ‘Eliṣa⁠’’.19

These trips went on and on, well into the third century, when, for instance R. Ioṣu’a b. Levi, a Palestinian amora of the first generation, came on a visit to Rome. There he is said to have seen pillars covered against the weather. Before him also another tanna, Simon Ṣezuri, of the fourth generation, visited Rome and claimed to have seen there the candelabrum of the Jerusalem Temple. Rabbinic literature also reports many a tale about the sufferings of Jewish prisoners in the wake of the uprisings in Judaea from 70 CE on and perhaps even before. Men were often tortured and executed and women and children were made to prostitute themselves in brothels, chiefly in Rome. One such anecdote is related by R. Yoḥanan b. Nafḥa, a Palestinian amora of the second generation, about the sister of Berurya, the wife of R. Me’ir, a fourth century tanna,

B. Niddah, 58a; B. Sanhedrin, 32b; 90b; B. Makkoth, 24a–b (parallels Sifre Deuteronomy, 80); B. Avoda Zara, 10b; 18a; 54b (parallels T. Avoda Zara, 7.3); Genesis Rabba, 2; 11; 13.9; 20.4; 33 (parallels Exodus Rabba, 30.9; Tanḥuma, Emor 6; Yalqut, Va-Yeḥi, 161); Mekhilta de R. Iṣma’el, Pisḥa, 5 (parallel, Ibid., Bo, 5); Leviticus Rabba, 27; Sifre, ‘Eqev, 43 (parallels Threni Rabba, 5.5); Sifre, Deuteronomy, 80; Deuteronomy Rabba, 2.24 (parallels Yalqut Psalms 47; B. Avoda Zara, 10b. [Qeti’ah named]; B. Nedarim, 50b); Midraṣ Ṣoḥer Tov (Midraṣ Psalms), 28.2 (parallels B. Pesaḥim, 53b, Midraṣ Ha-Gadol, Exodus 8.9); Ecclesiast Rabba, 1.7; 10; 10.7; 11; 11.1; Midraṣ Proverbia, 10.6; Canticles Rabba, 1.6; 8.5; Ruth Rabba, 6; Threni Rabba, 4.34; Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, version 1, passim. 19 T. Horayoth, 2.5; B. Gittin, 58a.; B. Avoda Zara, 8a. See Herr, op. cit., p. 138; Safrai, op. cit., p. 156. Evidently this is an anecdote, the same as that on R. Iṣma’el’s children, technically “impossible”. 326 chapter 8 leader of Judaean Jewry following the Bar-Kokhva uprising, and according to an aggadic phantasy, an offspring of the “convert” to Judaism Nero. The story is typical Aggada, whether at its best or not is a matter of taste. The details are fictional, but the background portrays real life. Whether it ever formed part of a preacher’s sermon in the synagogues of Italy is possible but not proven.20 R. El’azar b. Yose is linked to yet another tale of what is said to have occurred in Rome. There an expatriate from Sepphoris, Bar-Yohannes, wished to offer a banquet, and asked R. El’azar for advice:

. . . Bar-Yohannes wanted to entertain the great of Rome. There was R. El’azar b. R. Yose. Said he: ‘Let us consult our compatriot’. So he visited him. He said to him: ‘If you want to invite twenty prepare for twenty- five; and if you want to invite twenty-five, prepare for thirty’. Went he and prepared for twenty-four and invited twenty. So they were short of one thing. Some say it was artichoke and some say cooked dates. So he (Bar-Yohannes) brought gold and put it in front of him. He threw it in his face and said: ‘Do I eat gold? Do I need your gold?’. He came to R. El’azar b. Yose and told him the story. Said he: ‘By your life. I cannot but tell you that I should have done what you told me to do. . . .21

Many a story is told about the rabbis and the temptations of the big city and the like. One such tale links together Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, R. Ẓadoq, whom we have met in connection with R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai’s mission to Vespasian, and R. ‘Aqiva:

. . . Do not be perplexed by Joseph the righteous, since R. Ẓadoq was the great of his generation. When he was taken prisoner a Roman lady took him and sent him a pretty slave-girl. When he set eyes on her he looked at the wall so he might not see her. He sat all night and studied. In the morning she went and complained to her mistress. Said she to her: ‘I would

20 On R. Joṣu’a’s visit, see Genesis Rabba, 33; Leviticus Rabba, 27; Tanḥuma, Emor; Yalqut Psalms, 47. Levi, Ebrei in Roma, cit., p. 85. R. Simon’s claim is reported in B. Me’ila, 17a (parallels Sifre Zuta, 6). The claim is contested by Lieberman, Tosefta, 4, pp. 775f. The quotation is from B. Avoda Zara, 18a–b. See Berliner, op. cit., 1, p. 32; Krauss, Griechen und Römer, cit., pp. 12f.; Marmorstein, op. cit., p. 39; Vogelstein.-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 80. 21 Esther Rabba, Beginning. See Klein, Bar-Yohannes of Sepphoris in Rome, cit., pp. 47f. He identified Bar-Yohannes with Ionius, another former inhabitant of Sepphoris, who lived (and died) in Rome. See Noy, op. cit., No. 60. Cf., however, Id., Addenda et Corrigenda, cit., p. 137, who corrected Klein because according to him the dates do not tally. the culture of italian jewry 327

rather die than be given to this man’. So she sent for him and said to him: ‘Why did you not do with this woman as people do?’. Said he: ‘What can I do? I am of the family of the High Priest, a member of a great family. I thought to myself that if I had sex with her I would increase the number of bastards in Israel’. When she heard that, she let him go in honour. Do not be surprised at R. Ẓadoq, since R. ‘Aqiva was greater. When he went to Rome he was informed against to the ruler. He sent him two pretty women. He washed them, rubbed them in oil and adorned them like brides. They threw themselves at him all night. One said come to me, and the other said—to me. He sat between them, spat, and did not pay attention to them. They went and complained to the ruler. Said they: ‘We had rather die than be given to this man’. He sent for him and said: ‘Why did you not do as people do with women? Are they not pretty; are they not human as you are; he who created you did not create them?’. Said he: ‘What can I do? They smelled of dead meat, non-kosher food and vermin’.

There are other anecdotes of this genre, all intended to show up the chastity of the Jewish prisoners and their resistance to seduction and other temptations. The motives of their Roman masters are said to have been manifold, including the production of beautiful slaves and the like.22 We do not know how long the rabbis stayed in Rome, supposing that at least this element contained in the aggadic tales about them is to be relied on, but some may have done so at least for a while, extending their visit to the capital of the Empire for months or years. A tanna of the third generation, who survived the Bar-Kokchva uprising, left Judaea, as did many of his contemporaries, and settled in Rome permanently. He was R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ, a physician, who in Rome and apparently spent the rest )בית מדרש( founded a rabbinic school of his life there. To judge by the numerous references to him in rabbinic literature he was very active, and many sayings in Halakha and Aggada are attributed to him. He apparently left Judaea with a heavy heart. His emigration has been attributed to the persecutions of the Jews in Judaea under Domitian or Hadrian. According to one tale he had set out to emigrate from Judaea in the company of R. Judah b. Bethera, R. Hanina, brother of R. Joṣu’a and R. Jonathan. When they were about to leave the country they began to cry and turned back. Nonetheless, in the end R. Mathia settled in Rome. He was a tanna of the third generation and lived at the end of the first century CE and the first half of the second. One tradition makes him a contemporary of R. Simon b. Yoḥai, but

22 Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, version 1, 16 (ed. Schechter, p. 63). See also B. Qidduṣin, 40a; Herr, Historical Significance, cit., pp. 136f.; Stern, op. cit., 2, p. 40. And see supra. 328 chapter 8 that would make his life-span rather long. He is the author of a famous saying: “Be the first to greet anyone and be a tail to lions sooner than a head to foxes”.23 R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ too was the object of temptation by a pretty woman, this time Satan was the tempter, whom he withstood, but at the price of blinding himself. From that affliction he was cured by a miracle. While the Midraṣ tells the anecdote, the author describes R. Mathia’s “resembling the sun and his face like that of God’s angels”. He was considered by the rabbis one of the most authoritative sages of the second century. A tannaitic text states:

. . . It is taught: ‘Righteousness, righteousness you shall pursue’ (Deut- eronomy, 16.20). Follow the sages to a yeṣivah. Follow R. Eli’ezer to Lydda; R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai to Berur Ḥayil; R. Joṣu’a to Peqi’in; R. Gamli’el to Yavne; R. ‘Aqiva to Bne Beraq; R Mathia to Rome; R. Ḥanania b. Tradion to Sakhnin; R. Yose to Sepphoris; R. Juda b. Bethera to Neẓivin; R. Joṣu’a to the Diaspora (Babylonia); Rabbi (= Juda Nasi) to Beth Ṣe’arim. . . .

So R. Mathia found himself in excellent company and put his school on equal footing with that of the rabbinic luminaries of his days. Some of his teachings have been linked to the ongoing Jewish polemics with Christianity. That is possible but not proven. Mathia’s utterance on Halakha range from circumcision, through the Passover lamb, to the husband who has sex with his wife suspected of unfaithfulness.24

23 For the “Antoninus” tales, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 30. There is no evidence that the interlocutor of “Antoninus”, whether R. Juda Ha-Nasi or somebody else, ever set foot in Rome. On R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ, see Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten (book, 1903), cit., 1, pp. 380f.; Gordon, Mattia b. Haresh, passim; Leon, op. cit., pp. 37f.; Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 203f.; Segal, Matiah b. Ḥeresh, pp. 221f. (lengthy discussion on date of arrival in Rome); Toaff, Matia b. Cheresh, pp. 69f. Since it is unlikely that R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ met R. Simon b. Yoḥai in Rome, the story about R. Reuven b. Aristoble’s intervention with the senate in Rome became improbable and has to be rephrased. See B. Me’ila, 17a–b and supra, note 3. The Talmudim attribute various remedies to R. Mathia, see esp. J. Yom Ha-Kippurim (Yoma), 8.5; B. Yoma, 84a, e.g., for hepatitis, suffocation, tooth-ache (or stomatitis), and so forth. It does not say in the text where R. Mathia happened to be at the time. That doubt is applicable to many other sayings attributed to R. Mathia. The famous saying is from M. Avoth, 4.15. See Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism, cit., pp. 111f., on the discussion of whether this is linked to one of Julius Caesar’s proverbs or not. On the location of some of his sayings, see supra, note 18. Cassuto, Vetus Latina, p. 9 interprets Philo, Legatio, cit., 23 to mean that on his visit to Rome he found there a Jewish academy. That is open to doubt. 24 Tanḥuma, Ḥuqat, Add. (parallels: Yalqut Ṣimeoni (Abkhir), 161; Midraṣ Eser Ha-Dibroth [Yellinek, Bet Hamidraṣ, 1, pp. 79f.]). The quote is from B. Sanhedrin, 32b. See Applebaum, the culture of italian jewry 329

Todos (Thadeus) of Rome was one of the few individuals who wielded authority in second century Jewish Rome. Some place him as having lived during the reign of Domitian, others disagree. Whether he was a rabbi, perhaps a scholar trained in Mathia b. Ḥeres’ school, or a lay leader of the Jewish communities in Rome, is debatable. If he was a rabbi, he was not ordained, because in the second century ordination was not allowed outside Judaea. Other prominent Jews, who may have been rabbis in fact if not by title, lived in Rome at about his times, never obtaining the title of rabbi for the same reason. The earliest version of the story which was at the bottom of his claim to fame ran as follows:

. . . Said R. Yose: ‘Todos of Rome led the Romans habitually to take lambs of Passover nights and have them roasted whole’. Said they to him: ‘He is nearly making them eat sacrifices outside [the Temple], since they [Roman Jews] call them Passover sacrifices. . . .

A later Palestinian version of the same story blames Todos himself for issuing instructions to the Jews in Rome to this effect, and adds that if he were not Todos the rabbis would have banned him. The rabbis themselves queried that leniency toward Todos, exempting him from punishment, and asked whether this was due “to his being an important person”, or “to his being a belligerent person”. But in all probability the real reason was that he was supporting their upkeep in Judaea. Another rabbinic source, a Baraita, attributes to Todos the following:

. . . Come and listen: ‘Todos of Rome preached: >what made Ḥanania, Miṣa’el and Azaria sacrifice themselves in the furnace to sanctify the name of God?<. They applied to themselves qal va-ḥomer [the Talmudic logical rule of >the more so<] compared to frogs. Frogs, not committed to the sanctification of God’s name [martyrdom], are quoted as >coming into your house, etc., and into your ovens, and into your kneading troughs< (Exodus, 7.28). Since when kneading troughs are found near an oven? That means: while the oven is warm. We, who are commanded to sanctify the name of God, the more so . . . ’.

Organization of the Jewish Communities, cit., p. 500; Colorni, Legge ebraica, cit., p. 311; Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism, cit., p. 112; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 31. On some other halakhic statements attributed to R. Mathia, see M. Gerim, 2.3; M. Avoth, 4.15; B. Yevamoth, 61a; Mekhilta de R. Iṣma’el, Pisḥa, 5; Bo, 5. On ordination, see Maimonides, Miṣne Torah (Yad Ḥazaqa), Sanhedrin, 4.5–6. 330 chapter 8

Another Roman sage or leader in Rome, named Paltion (Palation, Plato), disagreed with Todos. Paltion is also quoted as a preacher.25

Scholars and Their Writings: From Caecilius of Calacte to Josephus

The many centuries of Jewish presence in Rome and in the rest of Italy during Antiquity produced relatively little literary and other writings that have come down to our times. Whether more than those which survived the ravages of time ever existed is uncertain. There are hints and traces of now lost works, but relatively few tangible facts have emerged. Nearly all scholars known to us by name were immigrants who stayed in Italy for part of their lives and even the Jewishness of some is doubtful. First and unique was Caecilius of Calacte in Sicily. But a great question mark hangs over his identity. Suidas (Suda) a 10th- century Byzantine chronicler, had this to say about him:

. . . A Sicilian, from Callactinos (Callacte is a town in Sicily). Rhetor. He was a sophist in Rome under Caesar Augustus, and until Hadrian. He was of servile parentage, some say, and his former name was Archagathus. He was of the Jewish faith. His books are numerous: Against the Phrygians, two books (it is alphabetically arranged); Demonstration that Every Word of Elegant Language has been Spoken (it is a selection of words, alphabetically arranged); Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero; How the Attic and Asian Styles Differ; On the Stylistic Character of the Ten [Attic] Orators; Comparison of Demosthenes and Aeschines; On Demosthenes, which of his speeches are genuine and which misattributed; On Things Said Consistently and Inconsistently with History by the Orators; and very many other works. I am surprised by his being Jewish: a Jew clever in Greek matters. . . .

25 T. Yom Tov (Beẓa), 2.15. Later versions are J. Pesaḥim, 7.1; J. Beẓa, 2.7; Mo’ed Qatan, 3.1; B. Berakhot, 19a; B. Beẓa, 23a; B. Pesaḥim, 53a–b. See Bokser, Todos and Rabbinic Authority in Rome, pp. 117f.; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, cit., p. 303; Rutgers, Late Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 204f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, pp. 30, 79. And see supra, chapt. 6, esp. note 12. The second quote is from B. Pesaḥim, 53b; Midraṣ Ṣoḥer Tov (Midraṣ Psalms), 28.2; Midraṣ ha-Gadol, Exodus, 8.9. See Alon, History, cit., 1, pp. 145f.; Beer, Theudas of Rome, pp. 236f.; Berliner, op. cit., 1, p. 39; Graetz, op. cit., 3, p. 164; Herr, Roman Government, cit., p. 188; Vogelmann, Todos da Roma, pp. 196f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, pp. 109f., 175. For a sermon of Paltion, see Canticles Rabba, 8.5. the culture of italian jewry 331

Suda is the only source for Caecilius’ Jewishness, and that at a distance of nearly a thousand years which divide the two. So, Caecilius having been a Jew, by birth or otherwise, is more than doubtful. However, since most scholars seem to believe Suda, we shall not exclude him from our narrative, though we cite him accompanied by a serious question mark. The works listed by Suda are more or less those known to have been authored by Caecilius. Only fragments of these have survived and these have been published. The exact number and titles of his writings is uncertain. Caecilius of Calacte was a rhetor, historian and literary critic. His contribution to historiography was an account of the slave wars in Sicily and a general treatment of history. He was a professional associate of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the leading expert of Greek in Rome at the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE. Furthermore, there may have been a link between Caecilius and the author of De Sublimitate, Longinus or somebody else.26 The philosopher Philo of Alexandria adorned the Jewish scene in Italy for a short while in 40 CE. At this point in time he paid a visit to Rome at the head of a delegation of Alexandrian Jews to Caligula as part of the struggle between the pagan and Jewish communities in the Egyptian metropolis. While there

26 Suda, Lexicon, s.v. Καικίλιος (= Adler, kappa, 1165); Jacoby, Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker; 1–3. How much Suda must remain suspect is shown by his mention of Hadrian as a contemporary of Caecilius and Augustus. Hadrian lived a century later. Rhys Williams, Caecilius of Calacte, pp. 302f., cites Ἰωνιά (Violarium = Bed of Violets), an historical dictionary, attributed to the Empress Eudoxia (11th century), wife of Constantine XI and subsequently Romanus XI, who reports more or less verbatim the text in Suda. She either copied Suda or drew on his sources. The fragments were published by Ofenloch, as Caecilius Calactinus, Fragmenta. He lists some 13 opera of Caecilius, now lost, some identical with those quoted by Suda. Plutarch apparently did not think much of him. The view that most of his writings did not survive Antiquity because of his outspoken support of classical (Attic) Greek against Asian vulgar Greek has not much to recommend itself. The number of such lost works is legion and the reason for their non-survival is manifold. In the last analysis, it is due to the destructive manner in which the ancient world disintegrated to be replaced by medievalism. The Renaissance redeemed some of the lost classical heritage, but for many writings it was too little and too late. See also supra and my Between Scylla and Charybdis, cit., pp. 8f., and further references there. And see Bivona, Sul presunto epitaffo di Cecilio di Calacte, cit., pp. 55f.; Coulter, Περὶ ὕψσους 3.3–4 and Aristotle’s Theory of the Mean, pp. 197f.; Juster, op. cit., 2, p. 255, n. 5; Kennedy, Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, pp. 364f.; Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 15f.; Manganaro, Giudei grecanici, cit., p. 32; Mutschmann, Genesiszitat in der Schrift περὶ ὕψσους, pp. 161f.; Reinach, Quid Judaeo cum Verre?, cit., pp. 36f.; Rothstein, Caecilius von Kalacte, pp. 1f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 3, pp. 629f. (and parallels Engl. ed.); Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 93. 332 chapter 8 is no doubt about his Jewishness, his impact on Italian Jewry is questionable, though he may have had a limited readership among its intellectual members. His chief claim to fame was that of a philosopher and not that of a politician in Rome, and the Roman escapade was no more than an isolated incident at the end of his life. His opera are an important source for the meagre history of Roman Jewry up to the middle of the first century CE and not the other way round. A very brief summary of his writings, which otherwise have little if anything to do with Italy, is the following: one group of his opera is largely exegetical. In it Philo examines and comments on the legal, philosophical and allegorical interpretation of the Pentateuch. Another is largely philosophical, and has been described as stoical with a measure of Platonian and neo-Pythagorean influences. However, this interpretation of Philo’s philosophy is controversial. A third is a collection of books on various subjects, such as on Avilius Flaccus, the Egyptian prefect appointed by Tiberius in 32 CE, said to have encouraged the outbreak of violence against the Jews of Alexandria, and according to Philo was executed for his complicity in this event. Or Philo account of his delegation to Caligula. Philo’s language was Greek, and his education classical and Jewish, but not Hebrew based. The rabbis hardly took any notice of him, whereas he was popular among Christians. They thought that his tenets supported their views, so that by them his writings survived. Except for a few Jewish mediaeval references Philo was taken up seriously by Jews only later, singularly by Azaria (Bonaiuto) de’ Rossi, the Italian Renaissance thinker. Philo and Maimonides tried to conciliate Judaism with Greek philosophy; one with Stoicism, and the other with Aristotelianism. The impact Maimonides made on Judaism was far greater than that produced by Philo.27 Whereas the Jewishness of Caecilius hangs on a thread and the links of Philo to Italy are tenuous, no such limitations apply to Josephus Flavius. Born in Jerusalem in 37 CE, as Ioseph b. Matityahu, of high-priestly stock, he defected to the Romans during the Jewish Revolt, became a client of the ruling Flavians and as such assumed their name. In 71 CE he settled in Rome and remained there until his death in 101 or thereabouts. We know a lot about him, chiefly thanks to his own writings. The advantage this affords us probably is balanced, and according to some outweighed, by the obvious personal bias which these writings contain. He wrote four books: The Jewish War, Antiquities

27 For a brief description of Philo’s visit and mistreatment at the hands of the emperor, see supra chapt. 1, esp. note 18. On the enormous bibliography on Philo and his writings, see supra, Introduction, esp. note 2. For Philo’s references to the history of the Jews in Italy, see supra, passim. On his attitude to Halakha, see Alon, Philo, pp. 30f., 452f. the culture of italian jewry 333 of the Jews, Against Apion, and his Life (in that order). His autobiography was his last opus, was unfinished, and therefore according to some, his most revealing. It is thought, however, to contain earlier sections. In the final analysis all four were apologetic, either personally, such as his Life, or of Jews and Judaism He meant to show how ancient and therefore venerable and legitimate Judaism, and hence Jews, were in Antiquity. Josephus presented copies of the Bellum Judaicum to Vespasian and Titus. Hence its reports on the capture and destruction of Jerusalem are thought to be accurate, at least according to their lights. No other Italian Jew in Antiquity, because this is what he became from his 34th year on, ever wrote as much on his faith and the history of his people as Josephus did. He was exceedingly lucky to have his writings survive to the present, though they underwent some interpolations and rewritings by those who adopted him and his opera to support their views, chiefly Christians. To Jewish mediaeval readers he became available mainly through the Hebrew adaptation of the texts by the anonymous Italian Yosifon in the 10th century.28 The Life and the Jewish War cover to some extent the same territory. This is why the more flagrant contradictions between the two have roused the curiousity of scholars. The fact that they were written at a distance of several decades respectively, time enough for many of us to change our minds, especially in retrospect, does not appear to explain all of the difficulties. Be that as it may, the historical “facts”, or rather the “facts” as Josephus had wanted them to emerge, had been questioned already in Josephus’ lifetime by Justus of Tiberias, who pilloried Josephus and his actions. His criticism of Josephus was the mainspring for the composition of the autobiography. So the need to counter Justus’ arguments probably coloured some of Josephus’ later views. Josephus opens his Life with a brief biographical note:

. . . My family is no ignoble one, tracing its descent far back to priestly ancestors. Different races base their claim to nobility on various grounds;

28 The literature on Josephus is vast. Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus, passim, is still a useful analysis of Josephus the historian. See also Schürer, op. cit., 1, pp. 74f. (and Engl. ed.). Recent additions to the thousands of books and articles on Josephus, editions and translations, outdone only by those on Philo, are Pastor et al., Flavius Josephus, passim; Sievers-Lemba, Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, passim. They alone contain nearly 50 papers on Josephus and the industry is still going strong. See also, Stern, Josephus Flavius as an Historian, pp. 22f.; Id., Joseph b. Matityahu, pp. 41f.; Troiani, Commento storico al “Contro Apione” di Giuseppe, passim; Id., I lettori delle Antichità giudaiche di Giuseppe, prospettive e problemi, pp. 343f. On Yosifon, see next volume. For the presentation to the emperors, see JV, 361. 334 chapter 8

with us a connection with the priesthood is the hall-mark of an illustrious line. Not only, however, were my ancestors priests, but they belonged to the first of the twenty-four courses, a peculiar distinction, and to the most eminent of its constituent clans. Moreover, on my mother’s side I am of royal blood; for the posterity of the Hasmoneans, from whom she sprang, for a very considerable period were kings, as well as high-priests of our nation. I will give the pedigree. . . .

Josephus then goes on to present the reader with a rundown of his early life. He praises the education he received and claims that at the age of only 14 the High Priests and other eminent Jews came to consult him on the Tora. However, that alleged erudition is not borne out by the misquotes and misrepresentations dispersed in his writings. At 16—so claims Josephus—he studied the beliefs and tenets of the three main parties of his time: the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Josephus than went on an interlude of ascetics in the desert, and at 19 decided to join the ranks of the Pharisees. His first contact with Rome occurred in 63 CE, when he interceded with Nero on behalf of some Jewish priests.29 After an absence of some two years Josephus returned to Jerusalem. He claims that as early as that he tried to calm the members of the emerging war party and have them desist from their plans to fight the omnipotent Roman Empire. By the end of 66, when the issue of war or peace was still in the balance, the “notables” of Jerusalem sent Josephus to Galilee. Josephus was then hardly 30. At this point occurs one of several contradictions in the accounts of Josephus. In the earlier version (Bellum Iudaicum) his mission was to take command of the Jewish forces there and to fortify the region against the expected Roman invasion; while in the later (Vita) he was entrusted with the task of pacifying Galilee and only subsequently became the commanding officer of the Jewish forces there. The second version also contains many details missing from the first.

29 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, passim. After the debacle of 70 CE Justus of Tiberias sought refuge with the Tetrarch Agrippa II. His opus, in which he attacked Josephus and blamed him for the collapse of Jewish resistance to the Romans in Galilee, written in the seventies of the first century, contained censorious remarks also about his lord and master Agrippa. So it is plausible that he did not publish it until after Agrippa’s demise, in the middle nineties of the first century. It was after the publication of Justus that Josephus decided to write another history of the Jewish War, this time in the form of an autobiography, to counter the narrative of Justus. The quotation is from JV, 1.1. On Josephus and the priests, see supra, chapt. 1, note 22. On Justus, see Rajak, Justus of Tiberias, pp. 345f. the culture of italian jewry 335

These changes in the text probably occurred as a result of the clash with Justus of Tiberias, to whom Josephus dedicated several pages in the second version. In the latter, he also glosses over the scene in Yodaphat (Yotapata) and refers the reader to the first version. What the qualifications of Josephus were as a military commander never really emerges from both accounts. In the autobiography, he states that he was unable to train his men properly because of the time element. Josephus also claims in the Jewish War that he copied the organization of the Roman army, taught his men the principles of tactics, chain of command and communications modelled on those of the Romans. He failed, however, to state where and when (supposedly) he himself had learned them, though he claims to have applied his military training and expertise successfully on the battle-field. Considering that he declares to have raised 60,000 infantry and 350 cavalry, in addition to 4,500 mercenaries and no fewer than 600 bodyguards, his whole military set-up strikes one as having been rather amateurish. However, he appears to have solved a serious problem: the daily supply of food and fodder to his fighting contingents. These may have been rather of a militia type as against the Roman regulars.30 In the end the Romans under Vespasian took Yodaphat, and Josephus with some of his men, were cornered in a cave. There they decided to commit suicide in order to escape the degradation of becoming prisoners.

. . . However, in this extreme distress, he [speaking of himself in the third person] was not destitute of his usual sagacity; but trusting himself to the providence of God, he put his life into hazard: ‘And now,’ said he, ‘since it is resolved among you that you will die, come on, let us commit our mutual deaths to determination by lot. He whom the lot falls to first, let him be killed by him that hath the second lot, and thus fortune shall make its progress through us all; nor shall any of us perish by his own right hand, for it would be unfair if, when the rest are gone, somebody should repent and save himself.’ This proposal appeared to them to be very just; and when he had prevailed with them to determine this matter by lots, he drew one of the lots for himself also. He who had the first lot laid his neck bare to him that had the next, as supposing that the general would die among them immediately; for they thought death, if Josephus might but die with them, was sweeter than life; yet was he with another left to the last, whether we must say it happened so by chance, or whether by the providence of God. And as he was very desirous neither

30 JBJ, 2.20.1–4; JV, 1.7. On Josephus’ army and its training, see JBJ, 2.20.7–8. On the comparison with the Roman army, see Ibid., 3.5.1–8. 336 chapter 8

to be condemned by the lot, nor, if he had been left to the last, to imbrue his right hand in the blood of his countrymen, he persuaded him to trust his fidelity to him, and to live as well as himself. Thus Josephus escaped in the war with the Romans, and in this his own war with his friends, and was led by Nicanor to Vespasian. . . .

Josephus was no fool and he may have known the solution to the “count-out” problem, so that by proposing the manner of suicide and the arrangements for the drawing of lots, which would leave him and Nicanor as the last to die, was no accident or the result of divine providence, but rather that of his “sagacity”.31 The main opus of Josephus is his Antiquities of the Jews. In it, as well as in Against Apion Josephus tried to demonstrate the antiquity and pre-eminence of Judaism as compared to other religions, and hence of the venerability of Jews as adherents of this religion. Antiquity in the view of Josephus, as in that of many of his contemporaries conferred legitimacy and validity on those who possessed it, in contrast to upstarts who lacked it. He describes his motives in writing history by his desire to have others share his knowledge of facts and events, especially those which he knew intimately from personal experience and to prevent their ignorance or distortion.

. . . Those who undertake to write histories, do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account, but for many reasons, and those such as are very different one from another. For some of them apply themselves to this part of learning to show their skill in composition, and that they may therein acquire a reputation for speaking finely: others of them there are, who write histories in order to gratify those that happen to be concerned in them, and on that account have spared no pains, but rather gone beyond their own abilities in the performance: but others there are, who, of necessity and by force, are driven to write history, because

31 JBJ, 3.8.6–8. The problem and its solution have been formulated thus: “There are n persons, numbered 1 to n, around a circle. Eliminate the second of every two remaining persons until one person remains. Given the n, determine the number of xth person who is eliminated”. The speech of Josephus at Jodaphat was different from that attributed by him to El’azar b. Ya’ir in Masada. In Ela’zar’s speech Josephus quotes him as saying that he was willing to serve god alone and not the Romans. That has been interpreted to signify in the tradition of Hannah and her seven sons ,)קידוש השם) self-inflicted martyrdom and of later generations. In Yodaphat Josephus rejected the call of his fellows not to surrender and instead to commit suicide. When faced with their adamancy he feigned acquiescence, but never really accepted their view. On El’azar’s speech, see JBJ, 7.8.6. the culture of italian jewry 337

they are concerned in the facts, and so cannot excuse themselves from committing them to writing, for the advantage of posterity; nay, there are not a few who are induced to draw their historical facts out of darkness into light, and to produce them for the benefit of the public, on account of the great importance of the facts themselves with which they have been concerned. Now of these several reasons for writing history, I must profess the two last were my own reasons also; for since I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew myself its particular actions, and what conclusion it had, I was forced to give the history of it, because I saw that others perverted the truth of those actions in their writings. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures. And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, to explain who the Jews originally were,—what fortunes they had been subject to,—and by what legislature they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise of other virtues,— what wars also they had made in remote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans: but because this work would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language. However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it; and, above all the rest, Epaphroditus, a man who is a lover of all kind of learning, but is principally delighted with the knowledge of history, and this on account of his having been himself concerned in great affairs, and many turns of fortune, and having shown a wonderful rigour of an excellent nature, and an immovable virtuous resolution in them all. I yielded to this man’s persuasions, who always excites such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable, to join their endeavors with his. I was also ashamed myself to permit any laziness of disposition to have a greater influence upon me, than the delight of taking pains in such studies as were very useful: I thereupon stirred up myself, and went on with my work more cheerfully. Besides the foregoing motives, I had others which I greatly reflected on; and these were, that our forefathers were willing to communicate such things to others; and that some of the Greeks took considerable pains to know the affairs of our nation. . . . 338 chapter 8

Josephus is thought to have followed in the footsteps of Graeco-Roman or Hellenistic historiography, but that too has been impugned. The first 10 volumes of the 21 of the Antiquities cover the biblical story of the Jews from the days of the Garden of Eden to the end of the biblical narrative; and the remainder relates the events of Jewish history from then up to the Great Revolt. Against Apion had a similar but limited objective, namely to refute the arguments of the Alexandrian Jew-baiter. Hence it was not only shorter than the Antiquities but also more limited in scope. Much research and scholarship have been invested in Josephus and his writings, sources, philosophy, historiography, and of course “mistakes”. While his personality has been controversial to say the least, he has been praised for his literary skill, his historical acumen, his unique defense of Jews and Judaism, and other qualities. Not only are his four books the most comprehensive history of the Jewish people up to his times, intended for the Greek intelligentsia, they also are a vast source for many lost texts of classical writers on Jews and Judaism. Whether many Jews of Italy in Antiquity derived their Jewish historical information and consciousness from the writings of Josephus, particularly their attitude to Jewish politics in Judaea before and during the Great War and the conduct of the war is doubtful, though some may have done so. However, no tangible proof to that effect has transpired. His imperial patrons, however, must have derived some satisfaction from his interpretation of their policies and military achievements. He made up to them and was in close contact with them, including his dependence on them, financially and otherwise. Whether that and his other “achievements” endeared him to his Jewish contemporaries is more than doubtful. He is said to have had little or no contact with the Jews of Rome, though this is an assumption ex silentio. The non-Jewish public, particularly the Christian one, was more interested in Josephus than were their Jewish compatriots. They apparently loved some of the passages that suited their book, interpolated Christological sections, and popularized the text through abbreviated and more readable versions. Sepher Yosifon did that for the Jewish mediaeval reader. More of that anon.32 Josephus made use of the writings of many of his predecessors. He did so to support his theses or to confute those which contradicted them. Since half of Antiquities deals with the biblical story, much ink has been poured over the

32 The quotation is from JA, Preface. For the literature on Antiquities, see supra, note 29 and the Introductions to the editions of Josephus by Shalit and others, especially Whiston, Williams (with an introduction by Smallwood), and so forth. Marcus Mettius Epaphroditus was a Greek grammarian, who spent most of his life in Rome. He was a book collector and was a friend of Josephus who put his large library at his disposal. the culture of italian jewry 339 question of which biblical text he used: the Hebrew, the Aramaic or one of the Greek ones, particularly the Septuagint. Not surprisingly there exists no unanimity among scholars on this issue. In fact, it is surprising how many, often contradictory views have been voiced on the sources of Josephus. However, there is no single text of the Bible to which we may point as the main source, and less so as the sole one of Josephus’ narrative. A man who had a vast library, such as that of Epaphroditus, at his disposal and wrote an extensive description of biblical history cannot be suspected of having gleaned his information from second- and third-hand information on the main topic of his book. The correct answer is probably that Josephus had more than one version and/or translation of the biblical text in front of him and selected, for one reason or another, interpretations to which he gave preference over their parallels. Furthermore, in his own words, Hebrew/Aramaic was his native tongue, while his Greek was secondary and imperfect, at least if by that is meant polished and elegant Greek. We know of no other Jew in Antiquity who lived in Italy most of his life, who put his intellectual and linguistic abilities toward the research into Jewish history and to the writing of a readable narrative based on such research. If there were such Jews in Antiquity in Italy all trace of their production, if any, was lost. All the same, it should be emphasized once again that Josephus had an agenda and an axe to grind, easily discernible to all readers.33

33 Ibid. and Barclay, Judaean Historiography in Rome, pp. 29f.; Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome, passim; Cotton-Eck, Josephus’ Roman Audience, pp. 37f.; Curran, Flavius Josephus in Rome, cit., pp. 65f.; Edmonton et al., Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, passim; Feldman et al., Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, passim; Foakes- Jackson, Josephus and the Jews, passim; Jossa, Jews, Romans and Christians, pp. 331f.; McLaren, Josephus on Titus, pp. 279f.; Marcus, Sobemenoi in Josephus, pp. 247f.; Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, passim; Id., Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome, cit., pp. 559f.; Moehring, Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus, pp. 864f.; Neusner, Josephus’ Pharisees: A Complete Repertoire, pp. 274f.; Niese, Bemerkungen über die Urkunden bei Josephus, pp. 466f.; Parente, Impotence of Titus, cit., pp. 46f.; Popović, Jewish Revolt against Rome, passim; Price, Provincial Historian in Rome, pp. 101f.; Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World, passim; Rajak, Josephus, the Historian and His Society, passim; Schreckenberg, Die Flavius Josephus Tradition, passim; Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, passim; Schwarz, Life of Josephus, passim; Spilsbury, Reading the Bible in Rome, pp. 209f.; Thackeray, Josephus the Man and the Historian, passim; Tuval, A Jewish Priest in Rome, pp. 397f. (who suggests that Josephus was not a Pharisee!); Yavetz, Reflections on Titus and Josephus, pp. 411f. And see supra, chapt. 7, esp. note 37. 340 chapter 8

The Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum and Beyond

A comparison of biblical and Roman Laws, known as Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, also known by some scholars as Lex Dei quam praecipit Dominus ad Moysen, was discovered in manuscript form in the 16th century and published since then in various editions in the Latin original and in translation. It is said to have been written in the fourth or fifth century CE, probably in Italy, though even that is contested. As is often the case, the book has been attributed to Jews and to Christians, including an anonymous Jew, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and so forth. However, the Jewish authorship makes more sense, since the text does not contain a single reference to emerging Christian law, Christian concepts or writings. The Christian dispossession of Judaism of the Bible, some parts of Hebrew literature, and so forth has been normal practice since the days of the Apostle Paul, and some traces of this process are usually discernable in the Christian versions and interpretations based on the Verus Israel principle. Furthermore, it makes sense that the Jews in the Diaspora, including those of Italy could find such a comparison between the two laws useful, in view of the existence of a separate Jewish legal administration, whatever its dimensions by law and in practice. Jews also must have liked the important rôle attached by the author of the Collatio to Jewish law, something one would not expect from a Christian. All the same Christian authorship and an intended Christian readership cannot be ruled out entirely. The author of the Collatio himself addressed his opus to “jurists”, not to arbiters, without specifying their religion. If the author or authors also had an apologetic purpose in mind, whatever their religion, that is a possibility, but no more than that. The surviving text is incomplete and probably forms part of larger book, which if that was ever written, has not survived. Otherwise, if the existing titles are all the author ever wrote, no rhyme and reason for his selection is apparent. The Collatio cites biblical law, and compared them to parallels in Roman law. It contains 16 titles which cover only a portion of Jewish law and hence of Roman law. Most relate to laws of the Decalogue, or are linked to them, while one or more deal with laws which have their origin in the rest of the Pentateuch (excluding Genesis). It is difficult to specify how many of the 613 commandments of Judaism mentioned in the Pentateuch are quoted or hinted at by the author of the Collatio. Many views have been offered on the biblical sources used by the author, the text or texts, and their language and formulation, ranging from the Septuagint to some of the Jewish and non-Jewish versions of the Bible in Antiquity, including the possibility that the author did his own translation from one or more the culture of italian jewry 341 of these sources. This issue still hangs in the balance and is not likely to be resolved soon. In addition to biblical sources the author of the Collatio quotes from Imperial edicts and Roman jurists, such as Aemilius Papinian, Domitius Ulpian, Julius Paulus, Herennius Modestinus and others, including sources in works attributed to them, legal collections, and so forth.34 The Collatio dealt with several legal issues in the following way:

. . . Moses says: ‘Whosoever is an adulterer with the wife of his neighbour, the adulterer and adulteress shall die. He who seduces a virgin not promised in marriage and ravishes her, must marry her defraying her dowry. If the father refuses and does not wish to give her to him in marriage he shall pay the father the dowry of a virgin . . . ’.

34 The literature on the Collatio is ample. See Cracco Ruggini, Ebrei e romani a confronto nell’Italia tardoantica, pp. 38f.; Cohen, Conversion to Judaism, pp. 38f.; Daube, Collatio 2.6.5, pp. 107f.; Frakes, Religious Identity and Purpose of the Compiler of the Collatio, pp. 126f.; Id., Lex Dei and the Latin Bible, pp. 425f.; Id., Compiling the Collatio, passim (based mainly on Mommsen’s edition); Hyamson, Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio, passim (containing a detailed description of the manuscripts and a rather hypothetical estimate of the extent of the use made of the Collatio in early mediaeval times); Mommsen, Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio, pp. 107f.; Noethlichs, Imperium Romanum, cit., pp. 200f.; Östersetzer, La “Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum”, cit., pp. 65f.; Rabello, Alcune note sulla “Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum”, pp. 177f.; Id., Sull’ebraicità dell’autore della “Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum”, pp. 339f.; Id., Sul decalogo cristianizzato e l’autore della Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, pp. 133f.; Id., Sui rapporti fra Diocleziano e gli ebrei, cit., p. 157f.; Id., Diocletian and the Jews, pp. 147f.; Id., Datazione della Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, cit., pp. 411f.; Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 210f.; Id., Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 235f.; Schrage, Date de la “Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum”, pp. 403f. (who cites the Latin editions of the book, starting with that published in 1573); Schreckenberg, Adversus Judaeos Texte, cit., p. 303 (who suggests as author of the Collatio Isaac, a converted Jew who reverted to Judaism and is said to have become involved in a dispute with Pope Damasus I in the second half of the fourth century); Schulz, Die Biblischen Texte in der Collatio, pp. 20f.; Smits, Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio, passim; Solazzi, Per la data della Collatio Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum, pp. 481f.; Id., Scritti di dirittto romano, 3, pp. 484f.; Volterra, Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, pp. 5f.; Id., Istituzioni del diritto romano privato, p. 15 (suggests as authors of the Collatio “Jewish circles” at the beginning of the fourth century. See the reviews of his paper). Some have moved the writing of the Collatio to other countries in the Empire such as North Africa. The author of the opus mentions his address to jurists in the Collatio, 7.1.1. The opposition to the Manichaeans, expressed in title 15, was commonplace ever since their appearance in the third century CE. So the reference to them does not really signify anything much. And see also supra. 342 chapter 8

This passage is made up from verses in Exodus and in Leviticus. It is followed by citations from Paulus, Marcellus and Papinian, on the same topic, dealing with the right of husbands to kill certain adulterers and their kin and of fathers to kill the daughter and the adulterer.

. . . [Paulus:] Making a brief interpretation of the punishment of adulterers, I have preferred to go through the chapters and to observe the order of the law. The first chapter of the Julian law on adultery repeals many preceding laws. In the second chapter it allows a father whose daughter is in his potestas, or has handed her to her husband by the same power, and who detains an adulterer in his house or in that of his son-in-law, or [the latter] entrusts the matter to him, the father may kill the adulterer with security, on condition he does so at once. Marcellus wrote in the 31st book of his Digesta that in the case of a widowed daughter he is allowed on the strength of his legal right to kill the adulterer and the daughter at once. Marcellus in the same book authorizes a father to kill a man of consular rank or his patron, if he catches the adulterer with his daughter. If he kills only the adulterer but not the daughter, he is guilty of homicide. . . .

This is followed by additional alternative situations and by similar quotations from Papinian and some more alternatives cited by Paulus.35 Another document, similarly in dispute among scholars, is the so-called “Letter of Annas to Seneca”. The text was discovered recently and the manuscript has been attributed to the early ninth century. The “author” is alleged to have been a high priest named Annania (or similar) and the addressee Seneca the philosopher. As usual the scholars who have dealt with the text have been unable to agree on its dating, and so forth. They are unanimous, however, that it was written in the later Empire, during the fourth or fifth century. The language of the letter is Latin and it has been suggested that it was written in Rome. However, the latter assertion lacks proof. Its central theme is the superiority of monotheism as compared to paganism. It has been evaluated as conversionary, or at least polemical. In fact,

35 Exodus, 22.16–17; Leviticus, 20.10; and linkage to Decalogue, 7; Collatio, 4. Paulus was a Roman jurist of the second half of the second century and the beginning of the third. Papinian, another Roman jurist, was his contemporary. Marcellus yet another Roman jurist, also lived around 200 CE, the author of Digesta, now lost. On the literature on adultery according to Roman law, the relationship between the Collatio and the Roman jurists, see Frakes, Compiling the Collatio, cit., pp., 257f., and on the jurists, op. cit., pp. 66f. The Julian law on adultery has survived only in fragments. the culture of italian jewry 343 the letter is addressed to “brothers” (in the plural) and not to a single person (Seneca). Anna’s alleged Jewishness is based on the fact that he rests only on the Bible and on Jewish apocryphal texts, such as the Sapientia Salomonis (Book of Wisdom), written by an Alexandrian Jew in the first century CE, and on the Jewish Sibylline Oracles. Anna is thought to be identical with Ananas (Ḥanania), a high-priest, who is mentioned by Josephus and was killed in 68 in the fighting. Other texts, such as the so-called letter of Mardochaeus to Alexander the Great, said to have been written by a Jew, merit even less attention.36 This goes a long way to show that an Italian Jew in Late Antiquity was educated enough to show familiarity with Roman law and another with philosophy, albeit allowing for serious doubts as to the Jewishness of these two texts. Also two texts, supposing that they are Jewish, produced during centuries of Jewish presence in Italy cannot be described as a widespread phenomenon, even allowing for the loss of others, their number unknown. We are on even less solid ground with regard to the language of the Bible in use by the Jews in Italy, other than its readings in the synagogue. Even that is not always verifiable. However, there is no doubt that Jews used the Bible, in synagogue and most probably elsewhere, such as in education. It is assumed by many that the reading in synagogue from the Bible on Sabbaths and holidays was in Greek, others proposed Hebrew instead. But which Greek rendering was it? What other translations were available to the Jews of Italy, assuming that many did not have enough Hebrew to comprehend the texts and not enough Greek in those areas where Latin was the vernacular? That all or nearly all had some Hebrew classes appears attested, but was that enough? As usual, some probably did have little Hebrew and some less. For how long did the rabbinic schools in Rome survive and what was their influence? Until Christianity adopted the Septuagint, say in the second century

36 The text was published by Bischoff, Brief des Hohenpriesters Annas an den Philosophen Seneca, pp. 1f. and is incomplete. See Cracco Ruggini, Lettera di Anna a Seneca, pp. 301f. (who strongly argues for Rome as the place at which the letter was written and delineates the environment which in her view produced the sort of document such as our “Letter”); Frakes, Religious Identity, pp. 136f.; Momigliano, New Letter by “Anna” to “Seneca”, pp. 217f.; Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 253f.; Wischmeyer, Epistula Anne ad Senecam, pp. 72f. Momigliano rejects the possibility that Anna had its roots in Seneca’s middle name, and I second his view. On the two Ananos, the homonymous father and son, both High Priests, see JA, 20.9.1. For the letter of Mardochaeus, see Dionisotti, Letter of Mardochaeus to Alexander the Great, pp. 1; Kazis, Book of the Gests of Alexander of Macedon, passim; Steffens, Mardochaeus Epistola ad Alexander, pp. 208f. 344 chapter 8

CE, it was probably the Greek version of the Septuagint, or so many scholars think. But what happened later? As usual this has become controversial.37 By then the Hebrew standard text of the Bible had been well established. The so-called Masoretic text underwent small changes even after that date, but they were insignificant. The Septuagint was not the only translation of the Bible into a foreign language. There was the translation of Onqelos into Aramaic and that of Aqilas into Greek. Their existence is not in dispute. Others, if there were any, have not survived, except as fragments. Apparently both translators were converts to Judaism. Onqelos is described as a nephew of Titus and Aqilas as a nephew of Hadrian. The latter is said to have tried to prevent the conversion of his relative to Judaism:

. . . Another thing. ‘Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them’ (Exodus, 21.1). as is written: ‘He declareth His word unto Jacob . . . He hath not dealt so with any nation’ (Psalms, 147.19–20) Once upon a time Aquila said to King Hadrian: ‘I wish to convert and become a Jew’. Said he: ‘Is it this nation you mean? How much have I humiliated it; how much have I have killed it? You would get mixed up with the lowest of nations. What have you seen in them that you want to become a proselyte of?’ Said he: ‘The youngest among them knows how the Holy One created the world, what was created on the first day and what was created on the second day, how long it is since the world was created and on what the world is founded; and their Tora is true’. Said he: ’Go and study their Tora, but do not get circumcised’. Said Aqilas to him: ‘Even a wise man in your kingdom and an old man a hundred years old cannot study their Tora if he is not circumcised. Since it is written: >He declareth His word unto Jacob and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation<. And to whom? To the children of Israel . . . ’.

37 Blondheim, Les parlers judéo romans et la Vetus Latina, passim; Cassuto, La Vetus Latina, cit., pp. 145f.; Id., Saggi delle antiche tradizioni giudeo-italiane della Bibbia, pp. 161f.; Id., The Jewish Translation of the Bible into Latin, pp. 161f.; Colorni, L’uso del Greco, cit., pp. 19f.; Jerchower et al., Judaeo Italian, passim; Juster, op. cit., 1, p. 365; Margolis, The Story of Bible Translations, passim; Scazzocchio Sestieri, Sulla parlata Giudaico-Romanesca, pp. 101f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 3, pp. 420f.; Sermoneta, Traduzione giudeo- italiana dei Salmi, pp. 196f. There is no shortage of assertive statements, such as the one by Cassuto, in Saggi, cit., p. 105: “. . . Senza dubbio già nei primi secoli dell’era cristiana gli ebrei dimoranti in Italia, e particolarmente a Roma . . . dovevano già avere una loro traduzione della Bibbia nel latino volgare, il quale fu ben presto la loro lingua parlata . . .”. The controversy is still raging and more recent participants have added their mite to it. Some, such as Sermoneta, have sided with Cassuto, others with Blondheim or Colorni. the culture of italian jewry 345

Both Onqelos and Aqilas converted. But while the Aramaic translation of Onqelos became part and parcel of the standard text of the Hebrew Bible including modern printed editions, the translation of Aqilas was lost, and only small fragments have survived. On the other hand, it has been suggested that it was Aqilas’ Greek version of the Bible which replaced the reading of the Septuagint in Italian synagogues once the Septuagint became anathema to Jews. There existed also other Greek translations, such as those by Symmachus, said by some to have been a Jew; and by Theodotion, a Hellenistic Jew, perhaps from Ephesus. Of both translations only fragments have survived in the (also) incomplete Hexapla of Origen (before 240 CE). Whether Jews ever made use of these renderings is an open question. Also Onqelos’ Aramaic translation has been marshalled to fill the vacuum left by the Septuagint. Furthermore, nothing has transpired to show that the Italian communities or some of their members were able to follow the rule laid down in tannaitic times that “in a community of non-Hebrew speakers, reading the Bible begins in Hebrew and finishes in Hebrew. If there is only one person who is able to read Hebrew, only one reads”.38 Aramaic and Greek were not the only languages into which the original Hebrew text was translated. Bible translations not from the Hebrew are thought to have been the handiwork of non-Jews. Much has been written about the Vetus Latina or Itala translations of the Bible into Latin, which preceded the Vulgate translation of Jerome. The latter, which included the New Testament, eventually became the version accepted by Christianity following Jerome’s days. It has been suggested that Judaeo-Christians did some of the Vetus Latina

38 The literature on the development of the Hebrew Bible is prolific. A summary is available in Talmon, The Cambridge History of the Bible, 1, pp. 159f. On the two translators, see the standard works. An attempt has been made to identify the one with the other, but it lacks supporting evidence. The quote is from Exodus Rabba, 30.12. Midraṣic literature offers additional anecdotes about the two. See T. Ṣabbath, 7(8).18; T. Ḥagiga, 3.2–3; T. Miqvaoth, 6.3; J. Megilla, 1.11; Genesis Rabba, 70.5; Tanḥuma, Miṣpatim, 3; B. Megilla, 3a; B. Gittin, 56a; B. Baba Batra, 99a; B. Avoda Zara, 11a. And see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 29. According to Epiphanius of Salamis, a fourth-century Cypriote Christian bishop, Aquila converted to Christianity before converting to Judaism. See his De mensuris et ponderibus, 14–15. And see, Tov, Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible, cit., pp. 237f. For Aramaic in Rome, see Diez-Macho, Neophyti 1, passim, based on the readings of some Italian epitaphs. And see Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas, pp. 1f.; Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 210f.; Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos, passim. On Theodotion, etc., see Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus, cit., 16–17; Ferguson, Backgrounds, pp. 438f.; Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, pp. 123f. And on the whole issue, see Rajak, Translation and Survival, passim. On the reading in Hebrew in communities of non-Hebrew speakers, see T. Megilla, 4(3).13. 346 chapter 8 translations, which preceded Jerome’s opus, or that the translators had Jewish teachers, but that is hypothetical. Furthermore, it has been affirmed that there existed Latin translations of the Old Testament, done by Jews for Jews, and used in Italy. However, from that does not follow that the Bible readings in synagogue were in Latin. Such Jewish-Latin Bibles probably were used to help those of the congregation who could not comprehend the Hebrew text. Scholars have been unable to agree on the language employed to read Scripture in synagogue. Some have the Jews of Rome, particularly those belonging to the congregation of the Hebrews, read the Bible in synagogue in Hebrew, and translate it into Aramaic to enable those with no Hebrew to comprehend the text. Others insist that the reading took place in Greek. Some have opted for the Septuagint version, while others suggest “vulgar” texts, including Latin ones. So at this juncture the issue still appears shrouded in mystery. Most scholars express themselves in comprehensive and uniform terms: The “Jews of Italy”, or those “of Rome”, without reference to place and time. In this area, too, a plea for diversity and changing circumstances is advis- able. What goes for a congregation in Rome in the second century does not necessarily apply to a Jewish community in Sicily in the fourth. Theodoret at the beginning of the fifth century may or may not have been portraying conditions in some parts of Italy in his times, but not those at a different age. In fact, he made no such claim. The tannaitic dictum on the reading of the Torah in synagogue where the vernacular was not Hebrew may have been applied in some parts of Italy during the early Empire. Again—it may not. We simply do not know. When we come to the sixth century, to the days of Justinian, conditions had changed once again. Christianity had won the day and Judaism was closing its ranks more than ever before; the Septuagint had become a Christian text, or so its leaders believed; the rabbis became intolerant towards the non- Hebrew Bible, except the Aramaic one; and a Hebrew revival set in, which eventually spread into the Diaspora, including Italy. Too little, even elemen- tary evidence has been forthcoming to glean more than this from surviving documentation.39

39 See the references cited supra, note 37. In addition, see Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism, cit., pp. 22f., 164f., who suggested that the Bible texts read in the ancient synagogue were “vulgate” texts, i.e., texts used for instruction and learning. As an example he cited the “Severus Scroll”, i.e., the text quoted by Moṣe Ha-Darṣan and David Kimchi (see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 46). He asserts that “. . . it is also unlikely that the vulgar text of R. Meir’s Torah, used in Rome in the third century C.E. derived from the temple”. On Jerome’s Bible, see Hasselhof, Revising the Vulgate, cit., pp. 209f. the culture of italian jewry 347

Finally a word or two about the training of some of the Jewish professionals occasionally cited in sources of Antiquity, such as lawyers, physicians and their like. It says practically nowhere how and where they were trained. It does not transpire whether Jewish lawyers in Italy went to the schools for rhetors and the doctors to medical schools such as the one in Alexandria, or were trained on the job. But the close relationship between medicine and philosophy in Antiquity (and subsequently in the Middle Ages) makes it almost certain that Jewish students of medicine trained in those days were exposed to the world of learning of their times. These Jewish students may have studied their profession from Jewish doctors, which would colour the additional education they received at the hands of their mentors. Thus Mathia b. Ḥereṣ was a tanna and a physician in Rome, who probably got his medical training from men in a Jewish environment in Judaea rather than from those versed in “Greek wisdom” elsewhere. However, others probably studied Greek philosophy, if they went to a school such as the one in Alexandria. What dimensions Jewish participation in the imperial service and/or professions such as law assumed at any point of time is sheer conjecture. Thus the imperial laws published at the beginning of the fifth century, excluding Jews from them may have affected unknown numbers, large or small, probably mostly in urban centres. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that at least some of these laws were not enforced on the ground. So while the tolerance of Jews in these professions lasted, those Italian Jews who climbed the social ladder and became lawyers, doctors, government officials and the like must have ceased to fit the stereotype description of the majority of Italian Jews in Ancient Rome and Italy, namely of belonging to the lower and perhaps lowest classes of society, at least in some places and at some points in time.40 Not only are we in the dark about the training of Jewish professionals, but the very existence of say Jewish doctors, often said to have been numerous in Antiquity, is rarely mentioned. We have seen the epitaphs from all over Italy mention doctors only twice. Jerome’s reference to a taberna Judaeorum may refer to such a tavern in Italy, but that is only a possibility. The medicine to be used to treat a fracture of the skull mentioned by Cornelius Celsius, a contemporary of Tiberius, in his encyclopedia, may have been that of a Roman physician, to judge by Celsus’ abode, though he may have lived elsewhere and at an unknown point in time. Then there is Rufus of Samaria, thought to have been Jewish, who is mentioned by Galen several times, though apparently he did

40 On the exclusion of Jews from the civil service, and so forth, see supra chapt. 3. On Mathia b. Ḥereṣ, see supra, in this chapt. and elsewhere, e.g., chapt. 4, note 9. 348 chapter 8 not think much of him. Like Galen himself, he settled in Rome in the second century CE. One of Galen’s references to Rufus was:

. . . These are the words of Rufus of Samaria, literally. They are words which could be praised only by a man whose home had been the land of the Palestinians, who knew no Greek before he came to Rome. Such a man had to be ashamed of himself, since he lived among Greeks but knew so little of their language, and rightfully gave rise to laughter and ridicule . . . The people of this man do not possess the ability to explain the books of the ancients by themselves; so this man collected the explanations from the commentaries of others; since he owned them all. With the help of these commentaries he wrote with care and eagerness explanations to the books of Hyppocrates. . . .

The Jewishness of Rufus has been doubted, but that suspicion is unfounded. There is no reason to believe that his coming from Samaria reflects on his Jewishness. He is thought to have been affluent and could afford the purchase of all the commentaries to Hyppocrates’ writings. Incidentally, Rufus had little or next to no Greek, and apparently wrote in Latin. Very few physicians are recorded in the seven centuries or so of the Jewish presence in Italy in Antiquity. If there were more they have left no visible trace. Other professions, such as lawyers and government officials, are hardly ever mentioned. There are one or two singular cases, such as that of Symmachus, advisor to Theodoric, but they appear to have been the exceptions that may prove the rule.41 The culture of Italian Jewry was Graeco-Roman, a more apt description than Hellenistic, which probably can be included in the former. They conversed in the vernacular, at least after a generation or two of their presence on the peninsula. In synagogue they read the Tora in Hebrew if they could and expounded the text to the worshippers in the vernacular, which would be either Greek or Latin, though recent arrivals may have preferred Aramaic. There was no uniformity in the synagogue and outside it and no continuity to cover all those seven

41 Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates Epidemica, 6; Pfaff, Rufus aus Samaria, pp. 356f.; Wenkebach-Pfaff, In Hippocratis Epidemiarum, passim (contains German translation of the Arabic rendering of Galen by Hunain Ibn Iṣḥaq); Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit., 2, p. 309, note 7. Another curiosity: Maimonides made excerpts from Galen. See also Stern, Philosophers and Scientists, pp. 85f., who mentions several other medical men whose Jewishness and/or links to Italy are tenuous. Among them is Jacob, a physician in the fifth century, described as an able diagnostician, said to have been active also in Italy. On Symmachus, scholarius, see supra chapt. 1, esp. note 54. the culture of italian jewry 349 centuries. In the cemetery conservatism and hence Greek was preponderant, at least until the fourth or fifth century, though again not everywhere. In some places acculturation to the environment probably was more pronounced than elsewhere. Except for the above Hellenistic literature was written mainly outside Italy. Italian Jewry, especially the intelligentsia, whatever its proportions, probably was among the readership. There were only very few men of letters among the Jews of Italy in Antiquity. Philo cannot really be described as an Italian Jew, though Josephus probably may. The other writers of Antiquity in Italy, Caecilius of Calacte and the anonymous authors of the Collatio and the Letter of Anna to Seneca may have been Jews, or may not. We simply do not know. As for the other professions, including medicine, surviving evidence is so scarce and so sporadic that information on Jewish participation in them is rather fragmentary. chapter 9 The Jewish Community

The Roots

The roots of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora, including those in Italy, are embedded in the Jewish local organizations in Judaea, their constitutions, functions, offices, elections, duties and powers, and so forth. Not everything encountered in Jewish local government in Judaea had its counterpart in the Diaspora or vice versa, but in principle the Diaspora leaned on Judaea and learned from it and not the other way round. Local conditions made for varia- tion, adaptation to the environment; and with the passage of time the Jewish community underwent changes linked to all this. The centre of Jewish communal life was the synagogue, as a communal meeting place and as a house of prayer. Therefore in many instances the terms synagogue and community are in fact interchangeable. In many localities, particularly in the smaller Jewish settlements, the same people fulfilled more than a single function. Those were more numerous than the individuals available there. The connection to Judaea was based on the strong ties that bound Diaspora Jewry to the national centre. Before 70 CE that was mainly the result of the linkage of Jews everywhere to the Temple in Jerusalem and all it stood for, and after its destruction it was the close relationship with the institutions of Jewish self-government in Judaea, the patriarchate and the Sanhedrin. As we have seen, the legal basis of Jewish autonomous communal organization was the religious freedom granted the Jews under Roman rule, implicitly or explicitly, individually or collectively, as adherents of Judaism, as members of a licit association (collegia) or of a similar body. In the absence of relevant documentation we are unable to say to what extent we may infer from the known details of Jewish communal activities in various Diaspora communities in the Middle East, North Africa and the Balkans unto conditions in Italy, or even to parts of that country such as Rome. The close relationship in Judaism between religion and its practice in daily life widened the scope of the religious freedom granted the Jews under Roman rule and extended them into areas which had only remote links to religion and its practice in the stricter sense of the word. The Roman legislator too found it difficult to define exactly what, if any, was the dividing line between the religious and secular in Judaism; and hence employed different terms for the same thing. That was valid in pagan Rome and did not really change in the

Christian Empire, though the latter imposed various limitations on the freedom that had been enjoyed by Jews in the earlier period.1 It is a fair assumption that most of the Jews who settled in Italy in the days of the Republic and the Empire came from Judaea, though some, a minority, are known to have come from elsewhere. So it is only natural that they brought with them to Italy some of the organizational and institutional forms and structures from their erstwhile homeland. So before examining the Judaeo- Italian communities and the institutions and forms they chose for themselves, we have to look at their parallels in Judaea, which in all likelihood were their prototypes. Tannaitic sources have this to say:

. . . One is compelled to build a wall, gates and a lock for the town. R. Simon b. Gamli’el says: ‘Not all small towns need a wall’. How long has one to live in a town to become a townsman? Twelve months. If one buys a dwelling in the town, one becomes a townsman at once . . . ’.

And:

. . . Townspeople may compel each other to build a synagogue; to buy them a Tora and Prophets; they may make rulings on prices and on weights and measurements, and on the salary of workmen; and they may establish conditions. The townspeople may ordain that he who appears before somebody has to pay so much; and he who appears before the ruler must pay so much; and he whose cow grazes among the seeds has to pay so much. . . .

One text deals with membership and the status of townsmen and the other defines the areas in which local government exercised its powers, including taxation and the maintenance of law and order.

1 See Bachrach, Jewish Community of the Later Roman Empire, pp. 399f.; Baron, The Jewish Community, cit. 1, pp. 3f.; Cappelletti, The Jewish Community of Rome, cit., passim; Claussen, Meeting, Community, Synagogue, cit., pp. 144f.; Fine, Sacred Realm, passim; Frey, CIJ, cit., passim; Id., Les communautés juives à Rome, pp. 267f.; Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, cit., passim; Kraeling, The Jewish Community of Antioch, pp. 141f.; Leon, Jewish Community of Ancient Porto, cit., pp. 165f.; Rajak, The Jewish Community and Its Boundaries, pp. 9f.; Id., Synagogue and Community, pp. 22f.; Richardson, Augustan Era Synagogues in Rome, pp. 17f.; Safrai, Jewish Community in the Talmudic Period, passim; Stern, Jewish Community, pp. 161f.; Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., 1, passim; Weinberg, Die Organisation der jüdischen Ortsgemeinden in der talmudischen Zeit, pp. 588f.; Weiss, The Synagogue at the Centre of Roman Diaspora, passim; Williams, Structure of Roman Jewry Re-Considered, pp. 129f. 352 chapter 9

Another tannaitic text, a Baraita, has the following:

. . . The sages say: ‘Alms are collected by two persons and are distributed by three—because one does not make impositions on the public by less than two; while one dispenses by three as in civil law’. ‘A soup-kitchen is collected by two and is distributed by three, since collection and distribution take place simultaneously. A soup kitchen is collected daily and alms from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve; a soup kitchen is for the benefit of all poor; alms are for a town’s poor only. Town people may turn alms into a soup kitchen and a soup kitchen into alms, and make changes at will. Town people may regulate measurements, prices, the salary of workmen and judge culprits at will . . . ’.

This tannaitic text deals with some of the social and economic regulations of their times. Other, similar texts have also survived and cover most branches of Jewish self-government.2 In theory, though perhaps not always in practice, Jewish local government in Judaea derived its authority from the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem before 70, and from whatever locality the Sanhedrin convened at after the destruction of the Temple. The Sanhedrin formulated many ordinances, such as the ones named after its varying seats or of individuals of suitable standing following the debacle of 70. However, this theory has to be checked against what we know (and that is often relatively little) of conditions on the ground, particularly the effec- tiveness of the rule by a central institution such as the Sanhedrin other than within the boundaries of its locale. Basically the Sanhedrin also was a Supreme Court, but assumed wider functions until at least the beginning of the fifth century. It was presided over by the Patriarch and the sages were its members. They applied the 613 commandments and their derivatives. Since religion was paramount and matters which nowadays would be considered strictly secular came under the Sanhedrin’s jurisdiction, the Jews in Judaea lived in a sort of theocracy. However, the secular authorities, such as King Herod, king of Judaea by grace of the Romans, and the Roman governors wielded the ultimate power in the country. Foreign policy, the army, and in the last analysis also law and order came under their purview. Apparently some of the rabbis welcomed the rule of Rome in matters of public order. They

2 M. Baba Batra, 1.5; T. 11.23. B. Baba Batra, 7b-8a deals with the question of taxation, whether the tax is a poll tax or an income tax and similar problems, social provisions and so forth, often citing tannaitic texts. See also M. Megillah, 3.1 on the townspeople selling and buying communal property, including a synagogue, a shrine, and so forth. the jewish community 353 coined the phrase: “Pray for the government. If it were not for the government people would swallow each other alive”. Also most of the revenues derived from taxation were garnered by the Roman treasury, though there was also internal Jewish taxation. It was precisely this background which created the conditions for some of the Jewish uprisings. In the Italian Diaspora no such problems arose, at least as far we know. There Jews were a tiny minority of citizens, who enjoyed certain religious liberties. If at times they extended them into areas which in reality were anything but religious, the pagan authorities usually refrained from interference. Under Christian rule the Roman attitude to such “transgressions” was less tolerant than before, but continued in one form or another. What exactly took place after the abolition of the patriarchate is still being debated. Scholars have been looking in vain for a “constitution” of the Sanhedrin, except in very general and changing terms. At times there were also competing forces at work, such as when the Sanhedrin, i.e., the sages and the patriarch were at loggerheads over questions of authority and precedence. The precise relationship between the Sanhedrin and local government is still an open question, and like everything else underwent adaptations and variations over time. To what extent all this impacted on the communities in the Diaspora we do not know, though perhaps a ray of light or two penetrate the otherwise dense darkness surrounding these relations. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the Jewish community in Judaea and that in the Diaspora. In Judaea many towns where Jews lived had a Jewish majority, as did rural Jewish settlements, so that in these places local authority was in Jewish hands, which in theory at least owed allegiance to the Jewish autonomous regime there, whatever its dimensions; whereas in the Diaspora this rarely if ever applied to the Jewish population even in towns such as Alexandria or Antioch. As for the source of communal authority in a more limited sense in the Diaspora, that varied from place to place and time to time. In Italy apparently there was no parallel that we know of to the strong central authority of the Alexandrian or Berenikian politeima which welded several Jewish communities into a central communal authority. Governing bodies such as local communal councils, or even local “patriarchs” are thought to have been identified here and there, but there is no certainty as to their powers, rules and regulations, standing in the community, and so forth. It has been suggested that they were the primates and that they were the representatives of the Patriarch in the communities in the Diaspora. There was no central super-community or similar institution, say in Rome or country wise in Italy. Whatever authority and powers the individual Jewish community in Italy wielded over its members was by mutual consent, i.e., voluntary. 354 chapter 9

If a member of a community chose to leave the fold and to became a pagan or Christian, or simply left Judaism for good, he ceased to be a Jew and as such a member of the Jewish community. He could not have his children circumcised, or enjoy the benefit of other religious services, including jurisdiction whatever its limits at any point in time, even if he had wanted to, and that under Roman law; and in all probability he was not welcome in the synagogue either. Nor could he enjoy any of the privileges, rights and exemptions granted Jews by the Roman authorities, particularly that of being allowed to send money to Judaea.3 The Sanhedrin and the Patriarchs were the chief source of power and authority of the communities. The Palestinian Jewish authorities were in constant touch with the Jewish communities in Italy, chiefly through the apostoli’, but also by direct contact, such as when rabbis went on visits to Rome or other Italian towns to collect money, or for other reasons. They passed on their

3 The authority of the Sanhedrin itself is based on the Bible and was elaborated on by later generations. References made here and passim are to the “great” Sanhedrin of 71 members and not to the local ones, whatever the latter were. See the relevant literature, esp. Alon, History of the Jews, cit., 1, pp. 114f.; Cohen, Roman Imperial Policy, pp. 1f.; Goodman, Roman State and the Jewish Patriarch, pp. 117f.; Ḥabas, The Patriarch in Byzantine Rome, passim; Hezser, Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement, pp. 406f.; Jacobs, Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen, cit., passim; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 391f.; Levine, Status of the Patriarch, pp. 24f.; Id., Ancient Synagogue, pp. 454f.; Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, cit., passim; Oppenheimer, R. Judah Nasi, passim; Rosenfeld, Crisis of the Patriarchate, pp. 239f.; Schwabe, Letters of Libanius, cit., pp. 99f.; Id., New Document, pp. 118f.; Schwartz, The Patriarchs and the Diaspora, pp. 208f.; Simon, op. cit., pp. 82f., 158f., and passim. The first patriarch known by name was Yose b. Yo’eser, who presided over the Sanhedrin in the middle of the second century BCE. The last one was R. Gamli’el the sixth, who officiated at the beginning of the fifth century CE, and was the last in the line. The office became largely hereditary. The phrase is attributed to the tanna of the first generation R. Ḥanina (Ḥanania) Segan Ha-Cohanim. See M. Avoth, 3.2. On the status of Jews and their legal rights and privileges in Italy, see supra, including their right to send money to the Temple in Jerusalem and after its destruction—to the patriarch. Apparently there exists no clear-cut distinction between Jewish religion and nation in the documents at our disposal even after the events of 70 CE. For legislation addressed to the primates, see CTh, 16.8.8, 29; and see supra, chapt.3, esp. note 31. On the Jewish calendar, see supra, chapt.1, esp. note 50. Jews preaching heterodox ideas in the synagogue, such as Christians, encountered strong opposition from the community and had to leave the congregation. See, for instance, the reception meted out to the apostle Paul in Antioch and elsewhere. The satirist Petronius apparently dwelt ironically on the consequences of a Jew refusing to circumcise and being compelled to emigrate. See Castelli, “Gratia migrabit ab urbe”, cit., pp. 315f.; Stern, op. cit., 1, p. 444. However, this “report” has to be taken with a pinch of salt. the jewish community 355 religious norms and legal decisions to the communities, appointed their officers and/or approved their election/appointment, at times or always, depending on whom you ask. That constant contact, which made a fourth-century Jew of Catania invoke the patriarchs to protect his grave from violation, was the one major element leaving its imprint on Italian Jewish communities. Whatever the political leanings of Italian Jews were before 70 CE, within a generation or two they had become rabbinic Jews, if they had not been that before. In Italy we do not hear even before 70 of Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, or any of the political splinter groups or factions so prominent in Judaean politics, numbering (or so it is claimed) up to some two dozen. If any of them ever were found there, they disappeared, along with those existing perhaps elsewhere, sooner or later. For this reason, though that is not the only one, Italian Jews apparently were never involved in the uprisings which shook other Jewish communities in Africa and the Middle East. Even those rabbis who sided with Bar-Kokhva and his uprising, such as R. ‘Aqiva, who is reported to have visited Italy, at least on one occasion, did not leave a mark on the Jewish political outlook of Italian Jewry, at least to the best of our knowledge. So it is to rabbinic Judaism, largely of the variety propagated by R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai and by the patriarchs and the Sanhedrin that we have to look when speaking of the orientation of Italian Jews. The fact that Italian Jews spoke the vernacular, Greek or Latin, and used it even in the ritual in no way diminished their allegiance to the Judaism adopted by the patriarchs and the Sanhedrin. Therefore, we have to look for the authority and power of the patriarchs and their “council” as the source of governance of the Italian Jewish community. That, of course, along with the legal position of the freedoms and rights granted the Jews of Italy by the Roman government. So, after 70 the links between the patriarchs and the Diaspora became stronger than ever before. It is most unlikely that the patriarchs’ emissaries and other rabbinic visitors came to Rome and elsewhere in Italy to collect money, preach, appoint officers or approve their appointment, act in a judicial capacity and the like, without leaving more than a passing mark on the communities. Of course, there were ups and downs in the relationship between the patriarchs and the Diaspora, though what happened in the immediate aftermath of the cessation of the former is not documented. Much has been made of the ups and downs in the stature, weight and influence of the patriarchs after 70 in Judaea and in the Diaspora, perhaps more so than with regard to any other position in Jewry during Antiquity. Some scholars have selected the times of Judah the Patriarch and some of his successors as highlights in the position of this Jewish functionary, of his standing and influence. Others have relegated the stories about Judah and one of the 356 chapter 9

Antonines to the realm of anecdote; while many have selected these very tales to underpin their belief in the political influence wielded by the patriarchs. Some have singled out the second half of the fourth century as the period during which the patriarchate reached the peak of its power and influence. Others have downplayed their importance precisely during this period. However, the majority claim to have ascertained that for long periods between the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the office, for more than 300 years, or half the period covering the presence of Jews in Italy in Antiquity, the patriarchs were an important factor in the life of Jews everywhere in the Roman Empire, including the Italian Diaspora.4 The mainstay of the patriarchate, chiefly financially, but not only that, was the tax collected from Jews everywhere in the Empire, in Judaea and in the Diaspora. As we have seen, it was called the aurum coronarium. Taxes also became a bone of contention between the rabbis in Judaea and the patriarchs. Even after the tax for the Temple had been converted by the emperors into the fiscus Iudaicus, Jews continued to levy internal taxes to maintain what was left of Jewish self-rule in the Empire. The tax, first in support of the Temple and subsequently the patriarch’s levy, was collected by the communities and was transferred to Judaea as early as the times of the Roman Republic. At some stage the patriarchs sent out apostoli to bring the tax to their treasury, while the Roman government set up a special tax office for the collection of the fiscus. At one stage the tax was identified with the emissaries and called by the Emperor Julian ἀποστολή. Saul, before he became Paul, went on a mission to Antioch to arrest Christians there and bring them back to Jerusalem. He was empowered to do this by the High Priest. Apparently some apostoli were well-known sages, such as R. Eli’ezer b. Azarya, R. Joṣu’a b. Ḥananya and R. ‘Aqiva, who also visited Rome and perhaps in the capacity of apostoli. However, their recorded mission as apostoli was to Antioch. R. ‘Aqiva also went on yet another mission abroad

4 For references, see prec. note. To complicate matters even further, some posit that links between Judaea and the Italian Diaspora or for that matter the entire Diaspora, were tenuous. That is not borne out by documentation. On the other hand one should not infer from all the actions and deeds of the patriarchs in Judaea to the Diaspora, unless this is supported by the sources. Perhaps this applies to the appointment of rabbis and judges by the patriarch; but see R. Judah’s “will”: J. Ta’anith, 4.2; Ecclesiast Rabba, 7.7; and B. Ketubboth, 103a–104b. There are discrepancies between the versions, probably due to the less dependable Babylonian tradition. See also Lieberman, Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries, cit., pp. 363; Oppenheimer, op. cit., pp. 177f. On the Jewish political parties and their ideolo- gies, see Finkelstein, The Pharisees, passim; Id., Pharisaism in the Making, passim; Hengel, Zeloten (+Engl. ed.), passim; Herford, Pharisees, passim. the jewish community 357 to raise money for the sages. Whether the patriarch’s apostoli went everywhere, even to the small communities does not transpire, though Christian sources appear to claim just that. Eusebius of Caesarea had this to say on the emissaries:

. . . We found in ancient writings that the priests and elders of the Jewish people in Jerusalem, after composing letters, dispatched them to all nations, in order to bring the teachings of Christ into disrepute among the Jews everywhere as a new and godless heresy, by announcing in their letters that they reject them . . . Their apostles, who carried paper letters . . . traversed the entire earth and brought the logos of our saviour into disrepute. Nowadays too it is a Jewish habit to appoint apostles, who carry encyclical letters of their leaders. Accordingly it is the duty of the Jewish apostles to teach religion, namely in their capacity of emissaries of the supreme authority in Jerusalem, whose letters probably contained only the main points of the teaching, while it was the duty of the apostles to announce the teachings of the Jerusalemite college in their sermons. . . .

This is what Eusebius suggested around the year 400. Whether the apostles went “everywhere” is, of course, open to doubt, nor were they sent out from Jerusalem at this point in time. Similar reservations exist with regard to the appointments of judges by the Patriarch, made by him single-handedly or in conjunction with his court. They undoubtedly applied in Judaea, but did they throughout the Empire? Furthermore, did rules valid in Judaea, particularly ordinances (taqanoth), also apply in Italy? On these issues too scholars are divided. All the same whatever patriarchal powers obtained in the Italian Diaspora at different points in time, there can be little doubt that the patriarchs and their successors were a political and legal force to be reckoned with in Italy throughout Antiquity right down to the end of the period. There were the epitaphs on the graves of Samohil Aurelius in Catania and of Faustina in Venosa, in far flung localities, far removed from the centres of changing governments in Italy. They bear witness to the esteem the patriarchs were enjoying in such remote places as these and how far their apostoli penetrated. The Roman legislator referred to patriarchs repeatedly until the extinction of the office. They were given titles reserved for high ranking Roman officials and evidently were greatly esteemed also by the authorities. As we have seen, these laws authorized the patriarchs to collect their taxes, thus giving the apostoli official status. The patriarchs were given judicial authority, including the imposition of the Jewish ban, powers over communal officers, as well as other rights and exemptions. These they delegated to others, including the apostoli. 358 chapter 9

We have every reason to believe that the latter part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth continued an existing situation and was not an innovation at a point in time when Christianity and its discrimination of Jews and Judaism began to make themselves felt. Even much of the legislation of Justinian in the sixth century confirmed many earlier laws, though some were altered to the detriment of the Jews and new ones, Christological and restrictive in nature, were promulgated. The Church Fathers also referred to the apostoli. The Faustina inscription shows that even after the cessation of the Patriarch’s office the apostolate continued, though who exactly sent out these apostoli in the sixth century and by what authority has yet to be ascertained. All told, the patriarchate and the apostoli were not uniform throughout the period they functioned. They had their ups and downs, due to changing political conditions and the situation on the ground. As usual, the sources have lent themselves to a variety of interpretations, which scholars have exploited to the hilt.5

5 See J. Sanhedrin, 2.6 and see further references in Levine, Status of the Patriarch, cit., pp. 6f. The rabbis also demanded to be tax-exempt and some apparently were. On the taxes, see supra, chapt. 4, esp. note 22. A patriarchal attempt to apply such an ordinance in Syria failed. See J. Ḥalla, 4.4. On Catania and Venosa, see supra chapt. 2 and the references cited there, esp. my Hebrew Revival, pp. 831f. On the mention of patriarchs in Roman law and the relevant references, see supra, chapt. 3. On Saul-Paul and his mission to Damascus, see supra, chapt. 7, and esp. the references in note 2. The story about the sages on a mission as apostoli, see J. Horayoth, 3.7; Leviticus Rabba, 5.4; Deutoronomium Rabba, 4.8. For another mission of R. ‘Aqiva, see J. Pesaḥim, 4.9. The apostoli are mentioned by Eusebius in the fourth century; see his Commentarium in Isaiam, 18.1; and see Jerome, Ad Galatias, 1.1–2 (who, knowing Hebrew, or so it would seem); Epiphanius, Panarion, 1.2.11. Eusebius, who ,שליח employed the Hebrew lived in the second half of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, asserted that the apostoli, on the orders of the patriarchs brought Jews back into the fold and had them observe Judaism. Similarly, centuries before Eusebius, Justyn Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, 17.1, 108.2, 117.3 noted that the Jews in Jerusalem sent specially qualified individuals all over the world to combat Christianity. Once arrived at their destinations they preached there. These emissaries were said to have been ordained, i.e., they were said to have been full-fledged rabbis, see supra, chapt. 7. The tale about the activities of Joseph, a convert to Christianity, who according to Epiphanius, had been a member of the Sanhedrin, sheds light on the powers and activities of the apostoli. Joseph went on a mission to the Jewish communities in Cilicia, in the capacity of an emissary. There he is said to have fired unsuitable communal officers and to have appointed others in their stead. See Epiphanius, op. cit., 2.30.10.9; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, pp. 395, 460f. (who doubts the story); Rubin, Joseph the Comes, pp. 105f. See also Acts, 28.17, 21 mentioning leading men of Jews in Rome “who were accustomed to receiving letters from Jerusalem”. On the apostoli see, Collar, Religious Networks in the Roman Empire, passim; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, cit., 4, note 21; Krauss, Die jüdischen Apostel, pp. 370f.; the jewish community 359

The Ritual in the Synagogue

The nucleus of the synagogue and one of its main purposes was its function as a place of worship, whatever worship consisted of exactly at the beginning, alongside its activities as communal centre. However, this too has become controversial. It has been suggested that the tendency of our sources, which in great part are the literary output of the sages, have caused the religious aspects of the synagogue to be exaggerated at the expense of the communal ones and that the community hall preceded the synagogue as a place of worship. That, so it was argued, allegedly emerges from archaeological evidence. Be that as it may, both elements existed and here as in most other things no uniform picture, valid everywhere and at all times, emerges from the sources at our disposal. Prayers by individuals, apparently mostly spontaneous and informal, go back to the Bible. Official or public prayers were part of the ceremonial in the Temple and are best described as divine service. But how and when did prayers and hence worship become part and parcel of public prayer in the synagogue? What were these prayers? And what about other, cognate topics linked to ritual in the synagogue; what were they and when did they start? We shall try to answer some of these questions as best as we can. There cannot be much doubt that the beginnings of worship in the synagogue were the reading of the Torah, followed where necessary (and that was the case more often than not) by a translation into a language familiar to and finally accompanied by hermeneutic homilies, the )תרגום( the audience and Midraṣim, usually linked to the biblical text read out to )דרשות( deraṣoth the public. The translations were made into the vernacular spoken by the audience. Some of these have survived, others have not. All contained literal renderings of the Hebrew and some contained aggadic embellishments. In Italy, if the reading was in Greek and that coincided with the vernacular that made the translation redundant. What exactly happened elsewhere we do not know. There were professional preachers, including some of the rabbis, and occasional ones, such as Paul in the synagogue in Antioch, or some of the Judaean visitors in Rome. Probably also a few of the apostoli were amateur or qualified preachers. The output of preachers was enormous and we may safely assume that they held forth on most if not all the hermeneutics attributed to them. If all their sermons have come down to us we do not know—probably not. They are reported in rabbinic literature, especially in Midraṣim, Midreṣe Aggadah

Mantel, op. cit., pp. 190f.; Vogelstein, Entstehung und Entwicklung des Apostolates, pp. 427f.; Id., Development of the Apostolate, pp. 99f. On the term applied by Emperor Julian to the tax, see his Epistolae, 25. 360 chapter 9 and Midreṣe Halakha, and sundry other opera, from tannaitic times right through the Middle Ages. Considering the “poetic licence” which the preachers permitted themselves, making their sermons the produce of their imagination and/or agenda, they still are an important historical source once the extraneous matter is peeled off. Of course, this is not always feasible. Nor do we know to what extent the surviving written versions of Midraṣim were true to the text of the original homily delivered to the synagogue audience or a literary text in its own right, formulated after the event. The latter interpretation appears the most likely at least of some Midraṣim.6 There is no telling to what extent events in Judaea, particularly the destruction of the Temple and following it the development of worship and prayer in the synagogue there, impacted on the Italian Diaspora in the synagogue. However, there can be little doubt that the major ritual of the pre-70 synagogue in Judaea, namely the reading, translation and exposition of Scripture, continued unabated. That has been variously attributed to Moses or to the Prophets. There is no telling how soon and to what extent additional rites and rituals were added to all that also in Italy, though no doubt eventually they did, whatever cycle was adopted, annual or tri-annual, or anything similar. It is thought that this was a gradual process until it became a fixed schedule. It has been suggested that an intermediate stage was Haftaroth readings after the Paraṣah on special occasions, also followed by sermons. The readings

6 See Bousset, Eine jüdische Gebetssammlung, passim; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, cit., passim; Fleischer, Antiquity of Obligatory Prayers, cit. pp. 397f.; Id., Reading of the Bible, pp. 25f.; Id., The Prayer of the 18 Benedictions, pp. 179f.; Id., Fixed Prayers, passim; Heinemann, Prayer in the Days of the Tannaim and Amoraim, cit., passim; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, cit., pp. 530f.; Zeitlin, The Tefillah, the Shemoneh Esreh, cit., pp. 208f. See also supra, chapt. 7, esp. note 10. The literature on the sermons in the synagogue is abundant and started nearly two centuries ago with Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, cit., passim. On prayers in Greek, see recently Horst, Early Jewish Prayers in Greek, passim. The attractiveness of the tales and anecdotes related in the sermons contributed to the interest in them, but, of course, it was not only that. See, for instance, Jerome, In Ezekielem, 33.33: “They say one to another: Come let us listen to this or that [preacher] who expounds the divine law with such marvelous eloquence. Then they applaud and make a noise and gesticulate with their hands . . .”. And Ibid. 341.31: “The preachers make the people believe that the fictions which they invent are true, and that after they have in theatrical fashion called forth applause . . . they arrogantly step forward and speak proudly and usurp the authority of magisters”. See Krauss, Church Fathers, p. 234; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, cit., p. 489. On some of the translations, see supra, chapt. 8. Translations were not obligatory everywhere or at all times. See J. Megillah, 4.1. For an incident linked to the practice that took place in Oria in the Early Middle Ages, see below, next volume. the jewish community 361 were accompanied by aliyoth, the callings of members of the public to the podium. Cohanim took “first call”, Levites “second” and the following ones called were Israelites. There were also intermediate stages of the weekday readings of the Tora on Mondays and Thursdays, until a “standard” system evolved. Again, we do not know, when, where and how this process took place, which, of course, invited a variety of opinions on this issue. Prayer proper as part of the worship ritual in the synagogue, developed alongside the readings of pericopae from Scripture. The main public prayer was the “18 benedictions” or amidah, which in actual fact were 19. As usual, scholars are divided about almost everything linked to these events. Some consider R. Gamli’el and the sages at Yavne path-breaking innovators as far as prayers are concerned, while others belittle their efforts and offer various solutions to the time element, the sequence and further details related to the development of this prayer and others. However, at present it appears that before Yavne no regular obligatory public prayer such as the “18 Benedictions” was practised in the synagogue. To what extent the prayer, drew on earlier traditions is (הסדיר( Ṣime’on Ha-Paquli, who edited debatable. Alongside the daily recitations of the “18 Benedictions” grew those of Sabbaths and holidays. The sequence of these, namely which grew out of which is yet another point of disagreement.7 The other main public prayer was the reading of Ṣema’ (Deuteronomy, 6.4f.) and its blessings. That had been taken over from the Temple service and had been revised. Other Temple rituals were also taken over by the synagogue. It has been suggested that these included the blowing of the ram’s horn (ṣofar). That became a Jewish symbol, spread to Italy and to the cemeteries of the .used for Sukkoth ,)לולב( Jews there. The same applies to the palm-tree branch The priestly blessing too started in the Temple and became part and parcel of the synagogue ritual. Also other prayers originated in the Temple and were

7 Fleischer, Reading of the Bible, cit., pp. 25f. and his debate with Naeh, Tora-Reading Cycle, pp. 167f. and the references cited there.; as well as the other publications of Fleischer and Naeh on this topic. And see Gilat, The Drasha and the Reading of the Torah, pp. 266f. On such special occasions, see T. Megillah, 4.1f. On Moses or the Prophets, see l.c. and Pesiqta Rabbati, 23; Yalqut Ṣime’oni, Exodus, beg. (Moses); Mekhilta de R. Iṣma’el, Va-Yisa, 1; B. Baba Qama, 82a (Prophets). On the 18 or rather 19 Benedictions, esp. the Birkat Haminim, see supra, chapt. 7, esp. note 10 and the references there. The most extreme view is that of Fleischer, who suggested that no communal prayer, synagogue or other, existed before Yavne. His adversaries claim the opposite. So it all depends on whom you ask. Unfortunately, there exists no overwhelming evidence for either assertion. See also Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, passim. The rabbis themselves were divided over the question of whether Yavne was innovative. They .preceded them )אנשי כנסת הגדולה( ”cited a tradition whereby the “Men of the Great Synod See B. Baba Qama, 17b. 362 chapter 9

transferred to the synagogue. These include the Hallel prayer, recited on holidays and a few other feast days. The minimum requirement for a synagogal congregation’s quorum of 10 was fixed sometime after 70. One of the reasons suggested for this proviso was that it was the minimum required for a “response”. These rabbinic enactments notwithstanding some scholars have belittled rabbinic interest in the synagogue and its ritual, at least relatively speaking. Whether this, if true, is due to the absence of relevant information or to other factors is not known. We know even less on the penetration of Judaean practices into the Italian synagogue, though eventually that took place. It has been suggested that these were the formative years of synagogue ritual throughout Jewry and that by the end of Antiquity the main elements of synagogue worship had evolved in the east and in the west. By then the rabbis had fully accepted the thesis that the prayer in the synagogue had replaced Temple service. Part of that evolution is echoed in the Jewish internal conflict which caused the publication of Justinian’s Novella 146. In due course other elements were added to divine service, including the Qeduṣah, the Qaddiṣ and poems of the piyyut variety, particularly to holiday prayers. Different traditions and rites persist to the present. The Italian rite is one of them.8

Some Archaeological Evidence: Inscriptions

Our chief source for information on the Jewish communities in Italy, particularly on that in Rome, are the inscriptions in the cemeteries mainly those in the catacombs. These contain most of the titles of functionaries, without, however, specifying what they stand for, or anything else other than the appellation and perhaps a word or two of praise, commemoration, and the like. Owing to the fragmentary nature of the epitaphs representing only a fraction of the Jewish population during Italian Antiquity, that makes them non-representative of

8 See Kimelman, The “Shema” Liturgy, pp. 8f. and his other publications on the prayer. On the Ṣema’ and the Temple service, see M. Tamid, 5.1. In the Temple it was recited along with the Ten Commandments, which were later dropped from prayer, for reasons unknown. Various explanations have been offered for this, none satisfactory. The minimum quorum goes back to tannaitic times. See M. Megillah, 4.3; Masekhet Soferim (approx. eighth century, but reporting earlier events), 10.6. On later developments, see Goldschmidt, Studies in Prayer and Piyyut, passim. On the Novella, see supra, chapt. 3, esp. note 33. For a list of prayers which were developed over the centuries, some perhaps in Antiquity, see the versions of the Hebrew daily prayer book and that for the holidays. It was not until near the end of the first millennium that the first prayer books were put together by the Gaonim. Today there exist two main versions: the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi, and a few minor ones. the jewish community 363 anything in particular including the titles mentioned in them. Unfortunately, thus, their value is as vague as most of the sources for Jewish Antiquity in Italy. So at best we can try to fill the vacuum by inference derived from documentation other than Italy, a rather insecure method of inquiry at the best of times. As we have seen the legal basis of the existence of their communities was assured to the Jews by the privileges granted them by Julius Caesar. In theory the Jewish community held elections for most if not all its officers. But theory aside, that did not take place on the ground, or at least not always. The epitaphs do not spell it out, but it is most unlikely that a young child was elected to communal office, though an officer officiating for life may have been elected initially. In this case as in many others the attempt to create rules and patterns were none existed has resulted in much speculation. That elections to some offices took place elsewhere, say in Antioch or in Tiberias, we do know, but was that procedure adopted in Italy, or if it was—was that the case at all times? Most probably the situation varied in accordance with time and place. One of the few mentions of such elections on the eve of Roṣ Ha-Ṣanah, in a fourth- century patristic homily, rather accentuates the problem instead of solving it, unless one has the often mentioned elections in Judaea serve as an indication for Italian practices also in this area. Another unsolved problem is whether elections took place in assemblies of all or some members of the community, in a more limited forum such as the gerusia, a committee and the like. Again, it stands to reason that there were differences linked to local conditions.9

9 The continuity of contributions from the Diaspora to Judaea is controversial, as with most other issues in Jewish history in Antiquity. We shall not enter the fray of the debate. On the epitaphs in Rome and elsewhere in Italy, see Bengtsson, Semitic Inscriptions in Rome, cit., passim; Bognetti., Inscriptions juives de Venosa, pp. 507f.; Colafemmina, Catacombe ebraiche nell’Italia meridionale, pp. 119f.; Kant, Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin, pp. 671f.; Klein, An Epitaph in Rome, pp. 1f.; Lazzarini, Iscrizioni da Ostia e Porto, pp. 185f.; Leon, Jewish Catacombs, pp. 299f.; Id., Jews of Venusia, cit., pp. 267f.; Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, cit., passim; Id., Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa, cit., pp. 162f.; Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions, passim; Rajak, Inscriptions and Context, pp. 226f. And see my Jews in Sicily, cit., 1, pp. 1f. On the privilege of Caesar, see supra, chapt. 1, esp. note 9. See Richardson, Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine, pp. 90f.; Id., An Architectural Case for Synagogues as Associations, pp. 90f. Contra Levine, who regards the Roman association as a parallel organization and hence does not subscribe to Richardson’s definition that the association was analogous to the synagogue and was its source. See his First Century C.E. Synagogue in Historical Perspective, cit., pp. 1f.; Id., Ancient Synagogue, cit., passim; And cf. Cappelletti, Jewish Community of Rome, cit., 3f., who suggests that the community was similar to sacra collegia. See also Frey, op. cit., 1, p. LXXXVII; Leon, Rome, cit., p. 174; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, cit., p. 427; Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft, passim. Kloppenborg et al., Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, passim. The 364 chapter 9

The Jewish autonomous institutions apparently were collegia in Roman and the )קהל( congregation ,)קהילה( eyes, while Jews called them community like. They meant more or less the same thing. The central element making up these institutions was the synagogue, both in the restricted sense of the word meaning a house of prayer and a meeting place which housed a variety of functions. In Hebrew there is no distinction between the house of prayer and the -meaning a place to congre ,)בית הכנסת( meeting place. There is only one term gate in, used to describe the house of prayer/meeting place, usually translated as synagogue. Schools are called just that. Some were housed separately in buildings of their own, and some in the synagogue. Scholars have been making a lot of the alleged difference between the proseuche (προσευχή) and the synagogue (συαγωγή), often describing the first as the building and the second as the location of the activities taking place within its walls. Both are Greek terms of which one means a house of prayer and the other a place of congregation. However, in this too uniformity was lacking and the employment of both terms varies. While before 70 the Temple in Jerusalem fulfilled many a function of the Jewish ritual, after that date if not before, in Judaea too the synagogue became -and served that purpose except for the sac )מקדש מעט( ”a “little sanctuary rifice ritual, which was exclusively of the Temple. But even before that date, particularly in the Diaspora a “little sanctuary” became a must for adherents of Judaism. While the Jewish “municipality” in Judaea served as a venue for dealing with the “secular” affairs of the Jewish public there, in the Diaspora, where the municipality was not Jewish, the synagogue as a meeting place for that same purpose or for a similar one probably made itself felt as early as the creation of the first Jewish communities there, very likely during the Babylonian exile. The earliest “hard” evidence for a synagogue is Egyptian papyri dated to the third century BCE. These are followed by an inscription in Delos. Still in Egypt, the Jews tried to set up a replica of the Temple in Jerusalem (the temple of Ḥonio), but it remained a lone effort since elsewhere no such attempt is known to have been made. However, it should be borne in mind that in Judaea, even before 70, there are said to have existed hundreds of synagogues, in addition to that on Temple Mount itself. In these synagogues the Bible was read

elections in the fourth century are mentioned in De Nativitate Sancti Ioannis Baptistae, once attributed to John Chrysostom and nowadays perhaps to another; Safrai, The Synagogue, pp. 908f.; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 3. p. 86 (based on the older editions of Chrysostomos’ opera, published in Basel 1547, 2, col. 1292 and in Venice 1548, 2, f. 272). For elections in Tiberias, see Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 598f. the jewish community 365 as borne out by the Miṣnah. These synagogues included some created and/ or frequented by Jews from abroad, such as from Rome, among them probably the Theodotos synagogue in Jerusalem and the like. The inscription of the Theodotos synagogue, found in Jerusalem shortly before World War One, is instructive and reveals much about synagogues in Jerusalem and in Italy. It has been ascribed to the beginning of the first century CE, i.e., a few years before the war of 70, and its Greek text reads:

. . . Theodotos, son of Vettenos, priest and archisynagogos, son of an archisynago= gos, grandson of an archisynagogos, con= structed the synagogue for the read= ing of the Law, for the teaching of the commandments, and the inn and rooms, and the arrange= ment for the water for those who come from abroad; which was founded by his fathers, by the el= ders and by Simonides. . . .

So here we have a Roman-Jerusalemite synagogue, called precisely by that name in Greek, in which the Bible was being read, the Torah was being taught, and in addition it housed an inn and auxiliary rooms. In pre-70 Jerusalem, the benefactors also installed a water supply, probably for ritual and other purposes.10

signify בית מועד and Beth Mo’ed בית ועד Other Hebrew terms, such as Beth Va’ad 10 different things, though there may have been instances when a synagogue was meant. The term “little sanctuary” is mentioned in Ezeqiel, 11.16, interpreted by the sages as “these are the synagogues and rabbinic schools” (B. Megilla, 29a). According to Levine, First Century C.E. Synagogue in Historical Perspective, cit., pp. 1f., first-century synagogues were communal buildings. Only later did they become places of worship. But: “. . . any kind of theorizing about the first century synagogue—its origin, essence, functions, and possible derivation—should be done with much caution and with an awareness that any suggestions must remain tentative, at best . . .”. This aptly describes the intent and gist of the present chapter. He rightly adopted the term “diversity” to describe the synagogue, a term which he attributes to Kraabel (see below). See also his other publications on the synagogue, esp. Ancient Synagogue, cit., passim. He cites also mediaeval references, including Gaonic ones. Cf. Binder, Into the Temple Courts, passim; Claussen, op. cit., pp. 144f.; Flesher, Prolegomenon to a Theory of Early Synagogue Development, passim; Görtz-Wrisberg, A Sabbath Service in Ostia, pp. 167f. (who point out that the Septuagint ,synagogue); Gutmann, Ancient Synagogues, passim; Heidel = עדה translated the biblical 366 chapter 9

In the absence of such precise information from Rome and its synagogues and for that matter from all of Italy, we may (perhaps with some trepidation) infer from the Theodotos inscription what the synagogues in Rome were like, although not a single building has survived. The conclusions drawn from the most detailed synagogue building which has survived in Italy, namely that of Ostia, derived from the interpretation of the ruins discovered there, fit into this framework, though the scholars who dealt with Ostia may have been influenced by the Theodotos inscription. It has been suggested that all synagogues were similar, although there were variations. Mention of Roman synagogues

Proseuche und Synagoge, pp. 157f. (who suggests Egypt as the country where the synagogue appeared for the first time between the third and second century BCE. He also thought that the “city gate” court was a forerunner of the synagogue); Hüttenmeister, “Synagoge” und “Proseuche” bei Josephus und anderen antiken Quellen, pp. 163f.; Kee, Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 CE, cit., pp. 1f.; Kraabel, Diaspora Synagogue, pp. 477f.; Id., Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues, pp. 79f.; Id., Excavated Synagogues in Late Antiquity from Asia Minor to Italy, pp. 227f.; Id., Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue, pp. 178f.; Lieu, The Synagogue, pp. 189f.; Mitternacht, Current Views on the Synagogue of Ostia, cit., pp, 521f.; Olsson, Origins of the Synagogue, cit., pp. 28f.; Id., Origins of the Synagogue: An Evaluation, cit., pp. 132f.; Overman-MacLellan, Diaspora Jews and Judaism, passim; Rocca, Purposes and Functions of the Synagogue, pp. 295f.; Runesson, Persian Imperial Politics, cit., passim (who takes the origins back to the reign of Darius [522–486 BCE]); Id. et al., The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E., passim. The existence of a synagogue on Temple Mount has been disputed by Hoenig, The Suppositious Temple Synagogue, pp. 55f. On the public reading of Scripture in the days when the Temple still stood, see M. Ta’anith, 4.2 and the commentators, e.g., R. Ovadia da Bertinoro. The answer to the question of when and where prayers were added to these readings divides scholars. See Fleischer, Fixed Prayers, cit., passim; Heinemann, Prayer, cit., passim. And see supra in this chapt. The temple of Ḥonio and its destruction on orders of Vespasian in 73 CE was described in JA, 7.10.2. On the Theodotos inscription, see Clermont-Ganneau, Découverte à Jérusalem d’une synagogue de l’époque hérodienne, cit., pp. 190f.; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, cit., pp. 56f.; Reinach, L’inscription de Theodotos, pp. 46f.; Riesner, Synagogues in Jerusalem, cit., pp. 179f.; Roth-Gerson, Greek Inscriptions, p. 78; Safrai, Pilgrimage, p. 56; Schwabe, Greek Inscriptions from Jerusalem, pp. 363f.; Tuval, A Jewish Priest in Rome, pp. 397f.; but cf. Neusner, From Politics to Piety, pp. 45f.; Id. Josephus’ Pharisees, passim. Hengel, ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea, p. 13, suggested that the Theodotos inscription was connected to the synagogue of the Greek-speaking Roman freedmen mentioned in Acts, 6.9. Some scholars dispute the Roman connection. On inns in ancient synagogues, see Klein, Zur jüdischen Altertumskunde. 1. Das Fremdenhaus der Synagoge, pp. 545f., 603f. Water supply in the synagogue may be linked to a miqveh, in addition to the normal ablutions before entering a synagogue. But there is disagreement over this proximity to water. On the miqveh and the synagogue, see Reich, Synagogue and the Miqveh, pp. 389f.; on a Roman synagogue in distant Babylonia (Meḥosa), see B. Megillah, 26b. the jewish community 367 goes back at least to the beginning of the first century CE. Philo describes them in the following words:

. . . How then did he [Augustus] look upon the great division of Rome which is on the other side of the river Tiber, which he was well aware, was occupied and inhabited by the Jews? And they were mostly Roman citizens . . . without ever having been compelled to alter any of their hereditary or national observances. Therefore, he knew that they had synagogues, and that they were in the habit of visiting them, and most especially on the sacred Sabbath days, when they publicly cultivate their national philosophy. . . .

Philo obviously refers here to the synagogue as both building and meeting place. The cultivation of Jewish “national philosophy” does not mean necessarily only the public reading of Scripture, though what else it may have included we do not know. Elsewhere he described proseuchai as schools where Jewish morals were taught, based on biblical texts. There—so Philo—philosophical discourses and discussions took place. Probably that was a projection of some Alexandrian practices, and not a portrayal of the situation in Rome. Whether the synagogues which Philo encountered on his visit in Rome in the days of Caligula were the first Roman ones in time does not transpire from his writings. It stands to reason that the Jews of Rome also in the days of the Republic, say a century or two before the days of Philo, had a place or places to congregate, although no trace of these places has survived, nor do we know what took place in them other than meetings of Jews and very likely readings of Scripture.11

The Officers

The officers of the Jewish communities in Italy were those of all Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Some are more frequently documented, while others are less so. What that is due to is difficult

11 On Ostia and its synagogue, see supra, chapt. 2, esp. note 52 and below. The quotation is from Philo, Legatio, 155–157. Significantly the Greek reads; προσευχὰς ἔχοντας και συνιόντας εἰς αὐτάς. This is not the only instance of such an equation. But elsewhere he described proseuchai as schools where Jewish morals were taught. On Philo’s overenthusiastic description of what did or did not take place in the synagogue, see his Moses, 2.215–6. And see Levine, Ancient Synagogue, cit., pp. 89f. 368 chapter 9 to ascertain and has invited much scholarly speculation. Apparently, the most important officer in the synagogue was the archisynagogos and according to some, he was also the principal officer of the community. The definition of his functions varies, but they appear to be linked mainly to worship in the house of prayer. Some scholars add to these duties of the archisynagogos that of overall patron of the synagogue, or benefactor. Some have made him the officer who dealt with everything taking place in the synagogue by way of prayer and ritual, the reading of Scripture, and so forth; others have belittled him and called him a sort of “glorified” sacrist. However, it should be borne in mind that in this area too differences are due to variations in time and place. The title is mentioned by most sources at our disposal: archaeological, legal, rabbinic and Christian, but they are irregularly distributed. All conclusions drawn from their unevenness would be hazardous. The inscriptions from Rome mention the title only four or five times and those from Italy outside Rome twice that number, although the total of Roman inscriptions outnumbers the others. In rabbinic texts the archisynagogos was known as the head of the congregation Its first mention in a tannaitic source relates to .)ראש הכנסת( or synagogue procedures in the Temple in relation to the reading of Scripture, so it goes back to pre-70 days:

. . . the sacrist takes the Torah and hands it to the archisynagogos; and the archisynagogos hands it to the deputy High Priest; and the deputy hands it to the High Priest. . . .

This passage describes the reading of Scripture in the synagogue on Temple Mount. The tannaitic references to the archisynagogoi are all positive and denote their elevated social position.12

12 Applebaum, Organization of the Jewish Communities, cit., pp. 464f.; Baron, Jewish Community, cit., 1, pp. 102f. and passim; Brooten, Inscriptional Evidence, cit., passim (who equates archisynagogos with “president of the community”!); Cappelletti, op. cit., pp. 9f.; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, cit., pp. 368f.; Floriani Squarciapino, Plotinus Fortunatus, archisynagogus, pp. 183f.; Horsley, New Documents, 4, passim; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 450f. (and the innumerable references cited there); Krauss, Synagogale Altertümer, cit., pp. 114f. and passim; Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 171f.; Levine, op. cit., pp. 415f.; Schürer, Gemeindeverfassung, cit., passim; Id., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, cit., 2, pp. 506f. (Engl. ed., 2, pp. 425f.); Vogelstein-Rieger, Rom, cit., pp. 42f.; Cf. Rajak-Noy, Archisynagogoi, pp. 75f., who think little of the title and less of the tannaitic sources mentioning them. The passage is from M. Yoma, 7.1; M. Sota, 7.7. R. Ovadia da Bertinoro commented: The archisynagogos was in charge of affairs in the synagogue. He appointed the reader of the haftara and of the Ṣema’, as well as the cantor. So, obviously, the term ḥazzan in the text the jewish community 369

The New Testament mentions them a few times: once in connection with Jesus’ healing of an archisynagogos’ daughter; and once on the occasion of another healing miracle. The second time Jesus was upbraided by an archisynagogos for having wrought the miracle on a Sabbath, a censorious remark which he rejected. The latter incident shows that the archisynagogos was in charge of religious observances, or at least thought that he was. In Rome in the first century they are said to have acted on behalf of the Jews when the apostles Paul and Peter attempted to conduct Christian missionizing activities there. Significantly they are said to have done this in cooperation with pagan priests. Some Fathers of the Church, such as Justyn Martyr, Epiphanius of Salamis and Palladius of Antioch also refer to them en passant. Also some laws and legal rescripts are addressed by emperors to leaders of the Jewish communities including archisynagogoi. The rôle of the patriarch in the appointment of the archisynagogoi, or rather that of his emissaries is a possibility, but that has been disputed. Be that as it may: most probably they derived their authority from the central institutions in Judaea, either directly or indirectly. Sometimes archisynagogoi were also donors to the synagogue. Evidently this did not detract from their position—on the contrary. It is, however, doubtful whether this was the motive for their appointment, even if in one or two instances this may be likely. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the archisynagogoi were not the only benefactors of synagogues. In fact, as in everything else, there is not uniformity either in time or in place with regard to anything linked to the office. Some archisynagogoi were reelected/ reappointed, others were not; some officiated for a given period, others for life; some inherited the title, while others went through some procedure or another; and in some instances the office became a family “heirloom”. Some archisynagogoi apparently were active, chiefly in religious affairs, whereas others regarded the title as no more than honorific. It should also be borne in mind that the meeting place of the congregation, whether in a building of its own, or in a private home (particularly in the smaller Jewish settlements), for

means sacrist and not cantor as it would in later days. According to T. Megillah, 3.13 the archisynagogos occasionally also read out from Scripture. It has been suggested that the ,That is debatable .)ראש העיר( archisynagogos was also the “head” of the municipality though in the Diaspora he may have been the chief officer of the combined Jewish institutions: synagogue and community—at least in some places and at certain times. See Safrai, op. cit., pp. 256f. Other mentions of archisynagogoi in rabbinic literature include: T. Terumot, 2.13; J. Berakhot, 3.1; B. Pesaḥim, 49a–b; B. Gittin, 60a. The synagogue on Temple Mount was some distance from the Temple and the altar, so that anyone attending a function at either place could not attend the other. 370 chapter 9 ritual purposes or communal ones was the same. In the smaller communities it was probably a single room, whereas in the larger communities the facilities were more elaborate. It is quite feasible that when the time came for performing the ritual the archisynagogos took over proceedings and when the community met for more mundane purposes a secular officer such as the archon was in charge. Here too diversity and not uniformity is the key to deciphering some of the enigmas, though by far not all. Lastly, the term appears also with reference to non-Jews, and hence, in that context, has no bearing on Jews and Judaism.13 Whereas the office of the archisynagogos was linked to the synagogue as a house of prayer, and his spheres of activity were centered round that religious institution in Jewish life, another officer, the archon (ἄρχων), was a “secular” officer of the community encountered throughout Jewish settlements in Antiquity, including those of Italy. They were considered the leaders of the community, or its executive officers. The office and the term go back to the Greek polis, where the archons acted as magistrates, sometimes up to nine in number. That, incidentally, was also the number of the titleholders in Egypt, at least for a while. In Rome the title appears on tombal inscriptions nearly 50 times and most Roman synagogues had archons on their roster of officers. Many are linked to individual Roman congregations. In relation to this officer the reservations over the entire issue also are valid. The office varied from place to place and period to period. If this rule is applied to the archon, many of the scholarly debates on this officer and his office become rather pointless. Though in Judaism it is often difficult to draw a well-defined dividing line between the religious and the profane, most writers identify the archon’s

13 Mark, 5.22, 35–8; Luke, 8.49. On the reaction of the archisynagogoi in the synagogue of Antioch to Paul’s sermon, see Acts, 13.15.; and on those in Corinth, see op. cit., 18.1–3 (Crispus). On the visit of the apostles in Rome, see Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha: Passio Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, 126, 128. The text is dated variously from the second to the fourth century. Until recently it has been considered a figment of the imagination, but lately scholarship has given it more and more credence. These are only a few of the mentions of archisynagogoi in Christian writings. Archisynagogoi as addressees of imperial laws are mentioned in CTh, 16.8.4, 13–14 (confusion of archisynagogoi with presbyters and apostles created by the codifier). For the Fathers of the Church, see Justyn Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, cit., 137; Epiphanius, Panarion, cit., 30.11.4; Palladius, Dialogus de Vita S. Chrysostomi, 15, and others. Palladius, Dialogus de Nativitate S. Ioannis, PG 47, col. 51: Annual or bi-annual nomination of archisynagogoi by patriarchs. On the patriarch and the appointment of communal officers, see also Avi-Yonah, Jews of Palestine, cit., p. 62; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 450f. On donors in the synagogue, see Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs, passim. the jewish community 371 sphere of activity with the non-religious functions of the congregation. In Italy there are known to have occurred at least two instance of an archon being also an archisynagogos, but they may not have been simultaneous, so that one must assume that the two offices did not overlap. Archons also had additional titles denoting their office. Some were archons designate or elect (μελλάρχων), former archons (ἐζάρχων), archons “of all honours” (ἄρχων πάσης τιμῆς), the latter ἄρχων perhaps a senior archon. Archons were eligible for reappointment/ election. If a community had more than one archon, these officers sometimes formed a sort of committee, chaired by an archon of archons. That is said to have happened in Tiberias in the fourth century CE.14 Another officer of the congregation, probably linked to both the house of prayer and the community as such, was the presbyter (πρεσβύτερος), an elder. This was a title encountered in many Jewish communities, east and west, including Judaea and over many centuries. In Judaea, in the first century, elders were among the founders of the Theodotos synagogue. However, in Italy the title as such appears only in the South, in Venosa and in the islands. Curiously, it was -Importance .זקן, זקנים also a title of women, presbytera. In Hebrew the term is wise they ranked alongside the archisynagogos and archons. According to a tannaitic source they were awarded special seating in the synagogue:

. . . How did elders sit? They faced the people and had their backs to the holiest. When the Holy Ark was set down they faced the people and had their back to the holiest. . . .

Also the Roman law-giver esteemed the elders and equalized them to those who dedicated themselves to the Jewish community and administered Jewish Law. Hence he exempted them from munera. This gave rise to the equation that the elders were members of the Sanhedrin in Judaea and of the gerusia

14 Frey, op. cit., passim, esp. 1, pp. LXXXVIIf.; Juster, op. cit., 1, pp. 443f.; Leon, op. cit., pp. 173f.; Levine, op. cit., pp. 427f.; Noy, op. cit., passim; Schürer, Gemeindeverfassung, cit., pp. 18f.; Williams, Exarchon, pp. 77f. For the archons who were also archisynagogoi, see Noy, op. cit., 1, no. 20 (Capua), 2, no. 322 (Rome). On Tiberias, see Stern, op. cit., 2, pp. 598f. Libanius, a fourth-century pagan rhetor in Antioch addressed one of his (many) letters to Priscianus, a high ranking official in Judaea. It deals with a rumour that an archon of Antioch, who had been dismissed from his post for tyranny, was seeking reelection. In it the patriarch in Tiberias is described as an archon of archons. That is the view of most scholars. Alon, Studies, cit., 2, pp. 315f. suggests that it was the patriarch himself, but that is doubtful. See JBJ, 7.47; Baron, Jewish Community, cit., 1, p. 142; Jacobs, Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen, cit., pp. 259f.; Kraeling, Jewish Community of Antioch, cit., pp. 136f.; Levine, Status of the Patriarch, cit., pp. 20f.; Schwabe, Letters of Libanius, cit., pp. 85f 372 chapter 9 in the Diaspora. If elders were members of the gerusia, there must have been officers by that title also in Rome, since gerusiarchs appear also in inscriptions of that town.15 The ḥazzan, in the rabbinic Hebrew of the first centuries, was the sacrist in the synagogues of that era and sometimes had additional functions. Some make him an assistant of the archisynagogos. In Greek his title was ὑπηρέτης. In Italy he appears only once on a Roman epitaph. That was not so much due to the lack of importance attributed to the office, but to the non-representative character of the surviving tombal inscriptions. However, in rabbinic sources he is mentioned more often than elsewhere. In the smaller communities his office and that of other officials were rolled into one:

. . . The people of Simonia [a village near Sepphoris] appeared before Rabbi [Juda the Patriarch] and said to him: ‘We ask you for an individual who would serve us as preacher, judge, ḥazzan, as well as teacher, and furnish us with all our needs’. So he gave them Levi. b. Sisi. They made him a big podium, put him on it and asked him. . . .

So Levi b. Sisi was a man who could turn his hands to many kinds of business, including that of the ḥazzan alongside other important communal functions. The ḥazzan’s duties included performing at funerals, reading of Scripture to the congregation, officiating at festivals and at various ceremonies, chiefly

15 See Noy, op. cit., 1, at Venosa, Catania, Sofiana and Malta. On the doubts relating to this office, see Leon, op. cit., pp. 181f. See also, Stern, Jewish Community, cit., pp. 168f. Much has been made of the rôle of women in the synagogue and the community. See Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, passim; Id., Inscriptional Evidence, cit., passim; Id., Female Leadership in the Ancient Synagogue, passim; Collins, Money, Sex and Power, passim; Goitein, Women’s Gallery, pp. 314f.; Haas, Recovering the Role of Women, passim; Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings, passim; Mayer, Die jüdische Frau in der hellenistisch- römischen Antike, passim; Safrai, Women’s Gallery, cit., pp. 329f.; Spigel, Reconsidering the Question of Separate Seating in Ancient Synagogues, pp. 62f. On the elders of the Theodotos synagogue, involved in the founding of that synagogue, see supra in this chapt. The quotation is from T. Megillah, 3.14. The law is CTh, 16.8.2 and the equation was formulated by Linder, Jews and Judaism in Roman Laws, cit., No. 9 (330). See also CTh, 16.8.13; Linder, Ibid., No. 27 (397). See supra, chapt. 3. There is some confusion between the patriarchs of Judaea and the local leaders of the Jewish communities. It sounds plausible that by patriarchs other than the Judaean one the legislator meant the leaders of the communities in the Diaspora. A third Roman law, CTh, 16.8.14 (399), lists the elders among those who until then had been responsible for the collection of the patriarch’s tax. See also Justinian’s Novella, 146 (553). the jewish community 373 linked to the ritual in the synagogue. He was even entrusted with the flogging in the synagogue of criminals convicted by Jewish courts. It appears that with the passage of time between the beginning of Antiquity and its conclusion many more tasks were added to the duties of the ḥazzan and its social “position” grew and increased accordingly.16 A title which occurred in Italy, particularly in Rome, relatively often was that of pater synagoges (πατὴρ συναγωγῆς) and mater synagoges (ματὴρ συναγωγῆς). They appear in some score inscriptions. The title is nearly always mentioned in conjunction with the synagogue. It is mentioned rarely in other texts of Diaspora communities and hardly at all in Judaea. It appears both in Greek and Latin texts. It was probably an honorific title, with no specific duties attached to the holders and conferred by the community for donations and similar benefits. What the qualifications of the title-holder were supposed to be is not spelled out anywhere, but that (whatever these were) probably changed from case to case and place to place. It has been suggested that the title was derived from the Graeco-Roman environment, where it was customarily employed in associations, both private and municipal. The pater enjoyed exemption from munera, granted to senior Jewish communal officers by Emperor Constantine in 330–331. Sometimes he held also other offices. The female equivalent of the title, mater, was simply the same title conferred by the community on a woman. It too appears relatively often on inscriptions from all over the Italian peninsula. Among them figures a woman proselyte who was mater of two synagogues.17 Other officers in Italian communities were the grammateus (γραμματεύς), sometimes described as a communal secretary, a scribe and even a teacher. It was one of the officers most often mentioned in the catacombs of Rome, some 25 times, and not even once in the Italian provinces. Even two such officers- designate called mellogrammateus (μελλογραμματεύς), appear among those

16 Krauss, Synagogale Altertümer, cit., pp. 121f.; Leon, op. cit., p. 190; Levine, op. cit., pp. 435f.; Noy, op. cit., 2, No. 290; Schürer, Gemeindeverfassung, cit., pp. 28f.; Stern, Jewish Com- munity, cit., p. 170. He had an important role in the synagogal service; see supra. The citation is from J. Yevamoth, 12.6. there are also other similar instances. See J. Ṣevi’ith, 6.1; Deuteronomy Rabba, Ve-Etḥanan. For other rabbinic references to the ḥazzan and to some of his additional duties, see M. Sota, 9.15; B. Sota, 49a; B. Eruvin, 55b, 74b. For numerous additional references, see Juster, op. cit., 1, p. 454; Schürer, l.c., and Levine, l.c. On the flogging of convicted offenders by the ḥazzan, see M. Makkot, 3.12.; T. Makkot, 5.2; B. Makkot; 23a. 17 Brooten, Women Leaders, cit., pp. 64f.; Noy, op. cit., 1, Nos 1, 5, 18, 56, 61–63, 68, 85, 86, 87, 90, 114–116, 176; 2, Nos. 209, 210, 251, 288, 540, 560, 577–579, 584; and the parallels in Frey, op. cit., passim; Leon, op. cit., pp. 186f.; Levine, op. cit., pp. 429f. and passim. For Constantine’s law, see CTh, 16.8.2, 4. See Linder, op. cit., Nos. 9a–b and supra. 374 chapter 9 buried in Rome,. The identification of the office reflects on its existence outside Italy. The minimalists make him a communal secretary pure and simple, which would parallel him to the secretary of the Sanhedrin or to the secretaries of Greek assemblies (βουλή). However, if the grammateus was (at least sometimes) also a scribe or a teacher, that would make him an officer often mentioned in rabbinic texts and elsewhere. As usual, scholars have been unable to agree on this issue. So, since in Rome no description of the office is given, the tasks entrusted to the grammateus remain an open question. Outside Italy the term grammateus as such is hardly ever encountered with regard to Jews, at least to judge by the epitaphs.18 The phrontistes (φροντιστής) was a communal officer whose exact functions do not emerge from the epitaphs. It has been suggested that he was linked to the construction of synagogues or parts of them. In Italy three inscriptions containing this officer’s title have come to light, two in Rome and one in Porto. He is mentioned also in Judaea and in other parts of the Roman Empire. Apparently he could officiate more than once and in conjunction with another office. The prostates (προστάτης), mentioned twice in Roman epitaphs, and once in Naples was yet another functionary whose duties are unknown, which has not prevented scholars from interpreting the title to mean another name for gerusiarch, patron, chairman, and so forth. The hiereus (ἱερεύς) was a Cohen, who had to perform a special benediction (priestly blessing) which goes back to biblical times (Numeri, 6.22f.), and reached the synagogue via the Temple. He was also the first individual to be “called” to the reading of the Tora. He appears in Roman Imperial legislation in a law of 330 at the head of a short list of Jewish synagogal functionaries. This has been belittled by scholars and some think that the legislator did not have Cohanim in mind. The gerusiarch was a chairman or member of the communal council, particularly in Rome, but also elsewhere, such as in Ostia. In Italy these officers were chairmen of individual community councils, naturally only where such councils existed.19

18 Baron, op. cit., 1, p. 102; Leon, op. cit., pp. 183f. (“It seems quite obvious that the grammateus was the secretary of the congregation”); Levine, op. cit., pp. 434 (undecided); Müller, Die jüdische Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom, pp. 115 (comparison to Sanhedrin and boulè); Noy, op. cit., 2, p. 538, list of references; Schürer, op. cit., pp. 30f. JBJ, 5.13.1 describes the secretary of the Sanhedrin Aristeas of Emmaus as a grammateus. Some authors explicitly or more cautiously suggested that the grammateus was secretary of the Roman gerusia, i.e., the supercommunity in Rome, which probably never was. See also Reinach, Le cimitière juif de Monteverde, pp. 113f.; Rossi et al., La catacomba ebraica di Monteverde, passim. 19 Leon, op. cit., 1, Nos. 17, 18, 23 30, 76, 87, 163; 2, Nos. 11, 86, 96, 109, 113, 124, 125, 130, 162, 164, 170, 189, 238, 321, 351, 354, 373, 389, 487, 540, 554, 556,558; and the parallels in Frey, op. cit., passim. Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, cit., pp. 108f. (Engl. ed., p. 114) suggests the jewish community 375

Lastly, there were some titles which denote personal qualifications rather than official rankings. These were the teacher, didaskalos (διδάσκαλος), the teacher of the law, nomodidaskalos (νομωδιδάσκαλος) and the scholar, nomomates (νομομαθής). If they had communal functions they were based on their professional expertise. They are linked to two communal institutions: the schools and the tribunals, respectively. The little we learn about Jewish schools in Italy in Antiquity is incidental, while further information can be gleaned only from inference and comparison to other contemporary Jewish communities in Antiquity, chiefly in Judaea. Therefore it is assumed, but by no means proven that Jewish children got their instruction from the teachers, but next to nothing transpires on their curriculum and syllabus or on the institutions they studied at. We are particularly in the dark about further education if any. How many or what proportion studied, say at the academy of R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ? How long did this institution endure? And again what was required of future teachers or scholars? R. Mathia himself obtained his education and his ordination as rabbi in Judaea. For many years rabbinic scholars could not obtain ordination outside Judaea, but that came to an end in Babylonia during the amoraic age there. We are completely in the dark about what happened in Italy at about the same time. Were the rabbis mentioned in inscriptions in Italy ordained? Were they local products or imported ones?. What rôle did they play in the Italian synagogue in Antiquity? All that is shrouded in darkness. No such difficulties arise in regard to other Jewish professionals, such as rhetors and the like, who went to Roman schools and then into practice. But that has nothing to do with Jewish educational facilities.20

that the variety of meanings of the title prevents its precise definition. See also Frey, op. cit., 1, pp. CIIf.; Leon, op. cit., p. 170; Levine, op. cit., pp. 414f., 435 and passim; Safrai, op. cit., pp. 86f.; Schürer, op. cit., pp. 15f. The law is CTh, 16.8.4, see Linder, op. cit., No. 9a. On the priestly blessing, see Levine, op. cit., passim, esp. pp. 519f., and the literature cited there. See also Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, cit., pp. 62f. All codes of Jewish law refer to it, e.g., Maimonides, Miṣneh Torah, 14.14. 20 Noy, op. cit., 1, Nos. 22, 36, 48, 86; 2, Nos. 68, 270, 307, 374, 390; and the parallels in Frey, op. cit., passim. Annatus, the teacher (didascalus) to whom the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II addressed their law on slaves (1415) held no official position. He happened to represent the Jews of Italy in their negotiations with the emperors, and “teacher” stands for his profession. On rabbis in ancient epitaphs, see Cohen, Epigraphical Rabbis, cit., pp. 1f. He lists some 60 such inscriptions. He suggests that rabbi may stand either for teacher, a title of esteem or an ordained individual. As for his agreement with Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, cit., passim, that ancient Jews were not rabbinic Jews, see below. On education in the time of the Miṣnah and the Talmud, see Averbach, Jewish Education, passim. 376 chapter 9

Instruction and Schools

So all we have are conditions outside Italy which probably reflect on those obtaining on the Apennine Peninsula, but which can be employed with reference to Italy only by inference. These are especially those in Judaea, though we do not know for sure to what extent they were carried out on the ground, there or elsewhere. According to Palestinian sources, later adopted by Babylonian ones, a sage should avoid a town which lacks 10 things, among which was a teacher and another a school. Another rabbinic saying runs: “A father’s duty was to circumcise his son, to redeem his first born, to teach him the Torah and a trade”. This saying does not spell out whether the father personally should teach and train his son, or whether he was to do this through a school or other training facility, private or public. In theory it could be both. It has been suggested that at first it was a father’s concern to get his son an education, but that with the passage of time, say in the third century CE, it became a communal duty. In this context it should be noted that significantly the sources mention only boys. The public school, which eventually it behoved the community to put at the service of the Jewish public and to finance began to emerge gradually toward the end of the Temple period. Later R. Juda Nesia, Palestinian amora of the first generation and patriarch, ordered the foundation of schools everywhere in Judaea. He entrusted the appointment of teachers and tutors to three sages. The patriarch assumed this task in Judaea and in the Diaspora. The exaggerated rabbinic statement of the existence in Jerusalem of 460 to 480 synagogues, mentions also that each had a school and a Beth Talmud:

. . . Did not R. Pinḥas say in the name of R. Hoṣayah there were 460 (480) synagogues in Jerusalem and each had a school and a Beth Talmud; a school for Scripture and a Beth Talmud for Miṣnah; and all were attacked by Vespasian. . . .

Of course, the whole statement is wildly imaginary, but perhaps contains a grain of truth, at least in regard to the statement that schools and Bathe Talmud were attached to synagogues. It is thought that private schools functioned alongside public ones. The “primary” school taught Scripture and employed soferim and apparently was a school as we understand it. The teaching of oral law took place in Beth Miṣnah and in Beth Talmud. There instruction was less formal and organized, while the teachers were scholars. In Italy perhaps they were ,)בתי מדרש( the nomodidaskoles and nomomates, or rebbites. Academies proper like the one of R. Mathia b. Ḥereṣ in Rome in the second century CE, were by the jewish community 377 far fewer, and normally were located only in larger urban centres. Attendance at “primary” school lasted until the age of Bar-Miẓwah or thereabouts. While primary school education was compulsory, at least as a religious duty, further education in oral law was voluntary, though the latter too was public and came under the purview of the community. Vocational training was not organized and probably was limited to apprenticeships. Salaries of teachers .)שכר בטלה( ”were not high. They are described as “remuneration for lost time They eked out their income with private contributions and donations. Tax or alms collectors could enforce contributions to the tax intended for education, unlike that for other purposes, for which they could not. The school was often in the synagogue. It has been suggested that in large communities schools were housed in special buildings. Compared with their Graeco-Roman environment and in particular with Italy and its centre Rome, it is thought that the educational system evolved by the rabbis endowed the Jewish population in Palestine and in the Diaspora with educational advantages not enjoyed by their non-Jewish contemporaries. In fact it is though that among Jews total illiteracy was relatively rare, though that probably was true only with regard to males. At the same time it should be noted that education for children in Graeco-Roman society was not a negligible entity.21 The development of the Jewish schooling system in Antiquity is still shrouded in darkness. Some scholars date it to the first century BCE, others to the first century CE, not to mention variations on these dates; some have suggested that it was the business of the Jewish community rather than anyone

21 B. Sanhedrin, 17b, and cf. J. Qidduṣin, 4.12. See T. Qidduṣin, 1.11; J. Qidduṣin, 1.7; B. Qidduṣin, 29b; Mekhilta (Iṣma’el), Pisḥa, 18. On R. Simon b. Yoḥai’s saying, see J. Ḥagiga, 1.7; Threni Rabba, Petiḥta 2; Threni Zuta (Buber), p. 35. The teachers here are called soferim. That would fit the occasional interpretation of grammateus encountered in the Roman catacombs to mean teacher and would increase the number of teachers being mentioned in the Italian epitaphs; though not too much weight ought to be attached to this. On the synagogues in Jerusalem, see J. Ḥagigah, 3.1; J. Ketubboth, 13.1. For schools in synagogues, see J. Megillah, 3.1; J. Ketubboth, 13.1. On the alms collectors and enforcement, see Leviticus Rabba, 30.1. On academies in Judaea and abroad, see Averbach, op. cit., passim; Baron, Jewish Community, cit., 1, pp. 150f.; Bousset, Jüdisch-christilicher Schulbetrieb, passim; Safrai, Education and the Study of the Torah, pp. 945f., and there pp. 969f. a listing of bibliographical references on education and sermons. For the teaching of Hebrew to children in the Diaspora, see supra, prec. chapt. (beginning), mentioned by Theodoret. It is difficult to say whether this statement was unique or nearly so, or that it was not considered necessary to mention an otherwise well-known fact. On education in Antiquity esp. in Rome, see (among others) Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome, passim; Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation, passim. On Jewish literacy, see Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, passim. 378 chapter 9 else’s task, while others have the rabbis assumintg responsibility for Jewish education as early as the days of R. Simon b. Ṣetah. However, care should be taken not to have later conditions catapulted into the past, near or distant. Be that as it may, by the first century CE Josephus Flavius described education as an accomplished fact throughout Jewry:

. . . Again the Law does not allow the birth of our children to be made occasion for festivity and an excuse for drinking to excess. It enjoins sobriety in their upbringing from the very first in order that they shall be taught to read and shall learn both the laws and the deeds of their forefathers, in order that they may imitate the latter, and, being grounded in the former, may neither transgress nor have any excuse for being ignorant of them. . . .

All the same, and as we have seen, the rabbis placed teachers near the bottom of the social ladder, so the much vaunted alleged Jewish propensity towards education must be accompanied by question marks. However, this was not universally so. In another saying attributed to R. Eli’ezer b. Horqenos, a tanna of the second generation in the second half of the first century, teachers were placed right after sages. The sages tried to improve the situation by heaping praise on teachers and by trying to have their pay raised. In Antiquity (and not only) then, teachers often were badly paid. Of course, that reflected on their social position, not only among Jews but also non-Jews. That, in turn, did not attract good teachers to the profession, and apparently there was considerable demand for able teachers. In Antiquity, too, this appears to have been a vicious circle. Various stratagems adopted by the Jewish authorities did little if anything to alleviate the situation. The Beth Miṣnah and Beth Talmud taught Oral Law and their graduates (or many of them) became sages. They were ordained, became members of the Sanhedrin, officiated in the communities as rabbis and judges, and in due course took over from their teachers in the academies. The first written edition and codification of Oral Law was the Miṣnah, the handiwork of R. Juda the Patriarch. Before that the Law was literally oral, aided at some stage by so- called “scrolls”—pro memoria. Additional and/or parallel legal material was collected in the Baraita and the Tosefta. The discussions which took place in the academies, chiefly in Judaea and in Babylonia, were codified in due course and became the two talmudim. It has been suggested that the academies taught also other subjects, such as astronomy and mathematics, philosophy and mysticism. However, it is doubtful whether these subjects were distinct and independent disciplines in the the jewish community 379 academies. In all probability they were auxiliary subjects taught to enable some students to deal with such problems as fixing the calendar, comprehending Jewish mysticism, and so forth. The main institution in Judaea, which presided over all others and took pre-eminence over them, was the Sanhedrin. As we have seen, it also acted as a supreme court. So there was a well-defined hierarchy, which lived on in Babylonia, though there it took on different forms and structures. Occasionally there was competition and strife between patriarchs and other sages and the like.22 The tannaim did not leave the curriculum entirely to chance and changing conditions, though they did not go into a detailed syllabus. There was a sort of curriculum and a division by age which they favoured. According to the Miṣnah they recommended or even ordered the following procedure, which has been described as a “standardized division”:

. . . He [R. Juda b. Thema, a second century tanna] said: ‘At five to Bible; at ten to Miṣnah; at 13 to the Commandments; at 15 to Talmud; at 18 to Wedding. . . .

This division was not necessarily adhered to everywhere and at all time. However, strict discipline was applied in Jewish schools, as for that matter in Roman ones, at times excessively so:

. . . a girl-slave belonging to Bar Fata passed a synagogue and saw a teacher beating a child excessively. Said she: ‘That man ought to be banned’. The case came before R. Aḥa. Said he: ‘You ought to worry lest you be banned’. On this it is said: ‘He who commits an outrage should be banned . . . ’.

22 See JCA, 1.42f., 2.151f., 204. Jewish sobriety and abstinence were not always strictly observed. On the rabbis and teachers, see supra, prec. chapt., esp. note 6. They were regarded as distinctly different from scholars, also socially. R. Eli’ezer’s statement is M. Sota, 9.15. Safrai, op. cit., pp. 959f., lists astronomy and the like as “associated disciplines”, whatever that means. For a listing of conflicting views and attempts to improve teachers’ pay, see Levine, op. cit., pp. 443f., esp. notes 175–180. On the issue of teachers’ pay, see Averbach, op. cit., pp. 54f. For attempts by some rabbis to improve the image and remuneration of teachers, see J. Ḥagigah, 1.7; Genesis Rabba, 65.22; Pesiqta de Rav Cahana, 27.2. Curiously the rabbis excluded women from the teaching profession, but later generations did not perpetuate this prohibition. 380 chapter 9

However, corporal punishment was not frowned upon, on the principle that ‘he who spares the rod hates his child’ (Proverbs, 13.24). The rabbis linked education to Jewish existence and its survival and emphasized the element of continuity involved in it.23

Other Communal Institutions

Of course, the schools and the academies were not the only communal institutions in Jewish Italy in Antiquity or anywhere else. As we have seen, scholars appear to be in agreement (for once) that the synagogue as a communal meeting place of the congregation preceded its function as a prayer house, whatever its name or title at this time, or that at least the two aspects were concomitant. At what stage precisely the synagogue began to transform itself into a house of worship is controversial. In the end worship in the synagogue became dominant but not exclusively so. That reflects on the interpretation of the (relatively) few archaeological discoveries of synagogue structures found in Italy. Those are chiefly the ruins discovered in Ostia and Bova Marina. The 11 Jewish congregations in Rome and the various other Jewish settlements in Italy, chiefly in the south of the country, left not a single synagogue structure, at least none that has been discovered so far. Even assuming that some of the Roman congregations did not possess a building of their own and met in private homes or the like, it is a fair guess that at least some of the larger ones owned some building or another. At least two of the congregations go back to the early years of the principate, being named after the rulers of that era. Also additional ones have not been excluded. What exactly the Jews of Rome did in this context in the days of Cicero or thereabouts has not yet been revealed. So it is mainly on the synagogue discovered in Ostia that we have to base our assumptions as to what the Italian synagogue looked like in Antiquity. If it is anything to go by it is most revealing also in regard to the functions of the Italian synagogue, in addition to the ritual that took place there. However, since the interpretation of the archaeological findings and some of the activities that are alleged to have taken place within the building are mutually

23 M. Avoth, 5.21. According to R. Ovadia da Bertinoro ad loc. the child’s father teaches him the alphabet and punctuation. Cf. Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 513c.; Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism, cit., pp. 192f. For other curricula, see Deuteronomy Rabba, Niẓavim, 3. The second citation is from J. Mo’ed Qatan, 3.1. On similar stories, see Midraṣ Ṣoḥer Tov, 91; J. Megillah, 3.4. On the rabbinic sense of continuity based on education, see Leviticus Rabba, 11.7. the jewish community 381 dependent, that makes the drawing of conclusions even more hazardous than normal.24 The synagogue ruins at Ostia, near Rome, were discovered accidentally in the early sixties of the 20th century. The original building goes back to the first century CE, but it has not been ascertained whether initially it was meant to be a synagogue or not. It was renovated at least twice in the following centuries and fell into disuse in or about the fifth century. As might be expected this aspect of the synagogue at Ostia has engendered controversy, not to mention other facets of the enquiry into the archaeological finds. The debate is still going on, chiefly on the early history of the building. The building in its final stage was equipped with an entrance area which contained a well. One entered the synagogue from a road in the east side of the building. From the vestibule several doors led into the rooms of the synagogue. Passing through some small rooms the functions of which are controversial one entered the main hall, which measured 187.5 square metres, out of the building’s total dimensions of 860 square metres, or nearly a quarter of the entire building’s area. The bima (podium) was situated opposite the entrance on the far wall. The aedicule, the niche which housed the Tora scrolls, or Holy Ark, was located to the left of the entrance to the hall, opposite the bima. To the left of the main hall there were two rooms, one small and one large, the purpose of which is uncertain. The larger room was equipped with benches. Finally to the left of the entrance there was what has been described as a kitchen. The earlier “editions” of the building are thought to have been smaller and the lay-out different. The Theodotos inscription may indicate what some of the otherwise uncertain functions of the building have stood for. It has been suggested that the building of the synagogue in Ostia was similar to those of Gentile associations and guilds. Inscriptions found in Ostia and nearby confirm that obviously the synagogue disposed of the usual officers: an archisynagogos, gerusiarch and pater. Apparently the Jewish community was large enough to justify the creation of a gerusia. The synagogue building at Bova Marina, near Reggio di Calabria, discovered in 1985, appears to have been similar to that of Ostia. It existed from about the second century CE to the sixth and also underwent renovations and exten- sions. Its claim to fame lies in the discovery in one of its rooms of more than 3,000 coins. It is likely that the synagogues of the Jewish communities in Rome, at least those which had synagogue buildings of their own, were similar to

24 On the congregations of Rome, see supra, chapt. 2. There are one or two references to buildings in Rome, e.g., in the tale attributed to Calixtus I, said to have broken into a synagogue on the Sabbath. See supra, chapt. 1, note 42. 382 chapter 9 the synagogue at Ostia. They numbered at least 11. Their names and locations emerge from the inscriptions in the catacombs of Rome, but their exact number is controversial. It stands to reason that they were not all identical, but none the less similar.25 One of the most important sources for the early history of the Jews in Italy are the inscriptions, in particular the epitaphs, found in and near Jewish cemeteries. Most of them were found in catacombs and a minority in open air cemeteries. Cemeteries making use of catacombs simply had a better chance of survival, not being exposed to the elements, though catacombs too had a tendency to disappear due to earthquakes, landslides and the like. It is a fair assumption that the Jewish communities took care of burials, maintenance of cemeteries/catacombs, and so forth, either directly or with the help of burial societies. The catacombs were discovered starting with 1602, and many have since disappeared or have become inaccessible. Often inscriptions are the

25 The excavations of the synagogue in Ostia have resulted in numerous publications. A collection of papers presented at a conference at Lund University was edited by Olsson et al., The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia, cit., passim. And see Binder, Into the Temple Courts, cit., pp. 322f.; Brandt, The Quarter Surrounding the Synagogue at Ostia, cit., pp. 19f.; Catto, Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue, passim; Fine-Della Pergola, The Synagogue of Ostia and Its Torah Shrine, pp. 42f.; Floriani Squarciapino, La sinagoga di Ostia, cit., pp. 326f.; Id., La sinagoga recentemente scoperta ad Ostia, cit., pp. 119f.; Id., Die Synagoge von Ostia Antica, cit., pp. 1f.; Id., La sinagoga di Ostia, cit., pp. 299f.; Id., Die Sinagoge von Ostia, cit., pp. 13f.; Id., The Synagogue at Ostia, cit., pp. 194f.; Id., Ebrei a Roma e ad Ostia, cit., pp. 129f.; Id., La sinagoga di Ostia (1964), passim; Hedner-Zetterholm, The Jewish Communities of Ancient Rome, cit., pp. 131f.; Kraabel, The Diaspora Synagogue, cit., pp. 497f.; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, cit., pp. 173f. and passim; Mitternacht, Current Views on the Synagogue of Ostia Antica, pp. 521f.; Runesson, The Oldest Original Synagogue, pp. 409 (contra White); Id., The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia, cit., pp. 29f.; Id., Water and Worship, pp. 116f.; Id., The Origins of the Synagogue, passim; Id., A Monumental Synagogue, pp. 171f.; White, Synagogue and Society, pp. 23f.; Id., Reading the Ostia Synagogue, pp. 435f.; Zevi, La sinagoga di Ostia, pp. 131f.; Id., Ostia, pp. 61f.; Zovatto, Le antiche sinagoghe di Aquileia e di Ostia, cit., pp. 53f. Runesson and Floriani Squarciapino opted for a building that was constructed to serve as a synagogue right from the beginning, while White posited an original private house which was converted into a synagogue. The debate rages also over other details. On Bova Marina and its synagogue, see supra, chapt. 2, and esp. Colafemmina, Jews in Calabria, pp. 2f., 95f.; Costamagna, Sinagoga di Bova Marina, cit., pp. 611f.; Id., Sinagoga di Bova Marina, cit., pp. 93f.; Noy, op. cit., No. 140 and the references cited there. Some of the furnishings said to have existed in the synagogues are hypothetical, such as the so-called “chair of Moses”. See Mack, Chair of Moses, pp. 3f.; Sukenik, Moses’ Cathedra, pp. 145f., and the references cited there. The “chair” probably was the preacher’s pulpit, which may or may not have been a permanent synagogal fixture. the jewish community 383 only historical source attesting a Jewish presence in a given locality. However, it should be borne in mind that the surviving tombs, especially those equipped with epitaphs, comprise only a tiny fraction of the Italian Jewish dead in Antiquity. They are better than nothing, but just about that and hence of limited use in many respects. The dating of the Jewish Roman catacombs and their inscriptions is also controversial. While in the past much has been made of the bricks found in them and the dates inscribed on the bricks, recently other views have come to the fore. According to the former view the catacombs were said to have been used by Roman Jewry starting with the first century (or even before) through the fifth. The subsequent line of thought has them start in the second half of the second century, also through the fifth. More technically advanced methods have brought the epitaphs back to the first century. While this is commendable, it is as yet far from perfect. Surviving Roman catacombs may or may or may not start at the end of the first century, or the beginning of the second and last for two or three centuries, but starting in the second century BCE and after the catacomb era, the Jews of Rome buried their dead either in catacombs or in open air cemeteries. So far the graves of the latter have not come to light. The catacomb burial method in Rome is paralleled by Christian ones. Catacombs were in use also elsewhere in Italy where suitable conditions prevailed.26

26 Frey, op. cit., passim; Noy, op. cit., passim, and the extensive references reported there. Such a society is mentioned in B. Mo’ed Qatan. 27b. Whether such a Ḥavurta existed also in Rome does not transpire. On Roman catacombs, see Bodel, From Columbarium to Catacomb, pp. 177f. He too underlines the fragmentary nature of surviving tombs and the resulting insecurity of drawing conclusions from so meagre a fraction of the total. On radiocarbon dating of the catacombs, whereby a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon to estimate the age of organic materials in a grave dug up by archeologists, see Rutgers et al., Radiocarbon Dates from the Jewish Catacombs of Rome, pp. 541f. On Villa Torlonia, see also his Radiocarbon Dating of Several Ancient Jewish Oil Lamps from Rome, pp. 1215f. And see, his Hidden Heritage, cit., pp. 54f. He and his colleagues examined charcoal fragments scattered in the mortar in the catacombs and soot in the lamps to arrive at the conclusion that the burial at Villa Torlonia started probably in the first century CE. As for the lamps themselves, their radio carbon dating puts them in the second half of the fourth century. Rutgers concludes that “the new data herein reported strongly suggest that the traditional dating of the Jewish catacombs at Villa Torlonia needs a careful and comprehensive re-evaluation”. I submitted the test described by Rutgers to Oded Lipschits of our Department of Archaeology, who rated them “insufficient” in a letter to me dated April 2012. On the dating of the catacombs, see, for instance, Deckers, Wie genau ist eine Katakombe zu datieren, pp. 217f. See also Fasola, Le due catacombe ebraiche di Villa Torlonia, pp. 7f.; Vitale, Le catacombe di via Torlonia, pp. 47f. For an overview on the catacombs, see Mazzoleni, Le catacombe ebraiche di Roma, 384 chapter 9

These were some of the main areas under the purview of the Jewish communities in Italy, especially in Rome. Largely owing to their religious observances they tended to congregate and meet in synagogues for a variety of purposes, all imbued with religion, but often essentially secular in character. There they also worshipped, first by reading Scripture and expounding it and as time went on by prayer and other ritual. In their synagogues they preserved their ancient traditions and cult, kept their identity, instructed the young, looked after the poor and ill, and finally buried their dead in Jewish graves. They set up suitable facilities toward these ends, such as ritual baths, libraries, hostels for visitors and for the celebration of festivities, private and public. They duly organized and governed themselves by a variety of officers, and probably drew up regulations and ordinances. Unfortunately not a single line of communal minutes, ordinances or other written material survived, so that we can only guess at their very existence. Those who remained in the fold of Judaism sooner or later became rabbinic Jews, if they had not been such already before they reached the shores of Italy, in close contact with the centres of Judaea, chiefly the patriarchs and the rabbis, to which they were linked by Roman law and inclination and through the apostoli. It appears that synagogues/communities in Italy, and probably also elsewhere in the Diaspora, were ruled by lay officers rather than by rabbis. The latter manned the Jewish courts, served as teachers and acted as the religious authority on the observance of Judaism and its precepts.27

pp. 289f.; and for the relationship between burials in Judaea and in the Diaspora, see Williams, Organization of Jewish Burials, pp. 165f. 27 This state of affairs is based on proof ex silentio during a period which has more documentary lacunae than dependable documentation. See, for instance, Leon, Rome, cit., p. 246. Furthermore, he doubts whether the rabbis, even Mathia b. Ḥereṣ and the rabbinic visitors from Judaea, exerted great influence in Italy. And see Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, cit., passim. Goodenough goes one step further and posits that most Jews in Antiquity, including those in Judaea, were nor rabbinic, but Hellenistic. Whatever the definition of Hellenism and Jews, I do not share his view, or that of his emulators, who belittle the influence of rabbinic Judaism after 70 CE even in Judaea, and rate it even less in the Diaspora. On libraries in the synagogue, see Jerome, Epistola, 36; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., 1, p. 172. See also JA, 16.162f. and supra, chapt. 1, note 12. And see Jerome, Epistola, 74, on Jewish scribes who copied texts; Vogelstein-Rieger, op. cit., p. 173. Conclusion

The seven centuries or so of the history of the Jews in Italy have one thing in common: they contain more lacunae than tangible and proven facts. That is largely due to the paucity of reliable sources; and even those which on the face of them appear to be solid enough to build a reliable narrative on, turn out to be shaky and untrustworthy. One would have thought that laws and government decrees were reliable historical facts. Unfortunately this is not the case, at least as far as the Jews of Italy are concerned. Not only are the laws contained in the two codices, those of Theodosius and of Justinian, only part of the laws from which the compilers and editors chose to select for us the codices, but some of the laws have been shown to be faulty in wording and deficient, at least at times. Furthermore, theory apart, we have no idea how many were applied in courts of law, or by the powers that be. Jurists have cast serious doubts on the validity of some such laws, and their claims must remain by force unanswered. Even fundamental laws which formed the basis of Jewish presence in Roman lands, particularly their freedom of religion, which perhaps was the foundation of all the rest, such as the one attributed to Julius Caesar, have not survived. We learn of them from other decrees and laws, but the original one has not come down to us. Another source, which one would have thought was casting some light on the history of the Jews, namely archaeological finds, are of use to a very limited degree only. Archaeological finds are the inscriptions in the cemeteries, mostly catacombs and the ruins of buildings. Their validity as useful historical sources diminish the closer one looks at them. The surviving texts of Italian Jews buried in the graveyards, catacombs or open air cemeteries over the centuries refer to only a tiny fraction of the Jewish population who lived and ended their days on the Apennine peninsula. Entire centuries left no such traces, and most surviving ones were found in Rome. Admittedly, that was the largest Jewish community in Italy in Antiquity, but it accounted for no more than a small part of Italian Jewry. Also they cover only a limited period, say the end of the first century to the end of the fourth CE, though that is controversial. Assuming that most of the 11 Roman congregations possessed some kind of building, notwithstanding the discussion over the exact meaning of the terms synagogue and proseuche, identified as congregation and building respectively, no remnants of any such building were ever discovered in the Italian capital. Outside Rome, chiefly south of the capital, there existed at least 56 Jewish settlements, most of which, if not all, very likely owned a synagogue building. Of these only two have been unearthed in recent years: in Ostia and

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004282360_�12 386 conclusion in Bova Marina. That, again, is a tiny percentage of the synagogues which must have existed. Any conclusions to be drawn from such fragmentary evidence must be treated with extreme caution. All other sources for the history of Italian Jews in Antiquity are literary in the wider sense of the word. Some are Jewish, others are non-Jewish: pagan or Christian. Most of the Jewish sources were written outside Italy. They are rabbinic writings, with the exception of a very few. They started with the Miṣnah, and went on to the Baraita, the Tosefta, the Talmudim, and the Midraṣim, and so forth, with a few others thrown in for good measure. None were meant to serve as historical documents. On the contrary, they were meant to interpret Scripture, entertain synagogue audiences, serve as apologetic and polemical literature, and so on. In other words: they had a purpose and an agenda. So they have to be peeled of their extraneous matter to reveal the historic elements they contain, if any. As far as we know they were written mainly in Judaea, or at least cited the rabbis who lived there at one time or another. Much of the matter contained in them and used to portray events and conditions in Italy originated elsewhere. Furthermore, while a text written in Judaea describing a visit of a rabbi to Rome and his doings there, may or may not have been based on an eye-witness account; that cannot be said of terms, institutions and other details which were valid in the homeland, but for which no Italian sources exist. These can be exploited for Italy only by inference, a hazardous method at the best of times. The non-Jewish literary sources are also beset with pitfalls. Some of the authors lived in Italy, at least for a while; others lived all over the Middle East and other countries along the Mediterranean littoral. It is thought that some of these texts made a considerable impact on Italy particularly Rome, naturally limited to the circles of the intelligentsia. All these authors mainly dealt with two aspects of Jews and Judaism: their history, or what passed for it, including biblical history; and contemporary views on the same topics. It would be well- nigh impossible to formulate a common denominator for these histories and stories, descriptions and analyses. Some had an animus, others were objective or disinterested, while again some were friendly. They went into the early history of the Jewish people, in Egypt and after, events in Judaea and elsewhere right down to contemporary happenings. The authors appear to have been fascinated by Jewish beliefs and rites, such as the faith in the invisible and monotheistic God; circumcision, dietary laws, the Sabbath, and so on. Some figures of the Jewish past also drew their attention: the Patriarchs, Moses, etc. All in all, Graeco Roman men of letters were a mixed lot and no unanimous views of Jews and their religion emerges from their descriptions. This resembles the Jewish attitude to Rome and Romans, or at least that, which the rabbis conclusion 387 formulated. They are a mixture of positive and negative pronouncements. That had a lot to do with the situation on the ground, particularly in Judaea. The relative tolerance of Graeco Romans towards the “other” no doubt facilitated the indulgence with which many Romans regarded Jews and Judaism. What influence, if any, they had on public opinion outside the educated classes we do not know. Nor do we know what the Jews of Italy thought about their Roman neighbours. When Christianity became the ruling religion in the Empire, Roman tolerance came to an end, though not overnight as some would have it. Jews and Judaism became ostracized and treated in accordance with Canon Law. Yet thanks to the Augustinian formula, which became the foundation of Jewish presence in Christian lands, Jews and Judaism went on to be tolerated in the Later Roman Empire, albeit not as freely as under pagan rule. The anti- Jewish incitement of the masses from the preachers’ pulpit ended in murder and mayhem also in Italy, curbed at times by the temporal power. As to Jewish attitudes toward Christianity in Italy only very few instances have surfaced. They and those reported by inference were negative. However, hardly any Jewish apologetic or polemical writings have survived, unless there existed early versions of books such as Toldoth Yeṣu. So we have to rely chiefly on the reports of Christian writers and their quotations, true or false, from Jewish apologetic statements. However, the imperial government reached a compromise with the Church also on the treatment of Jews, according to the principle: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. Pagan legislation had granted Jews complete religious freedom. All other Jewish liberties went back to this principle one way or another. It was underpinned by the Constitutio Antoniana, which made of all Italian Jews (among others) Roman citizens. Their congregations had been approved, whether as collegia or otherwise. At the same time, after 70 CE, they were subject to a special tax, the fiscus Iudaicus. At the same time they enjoyed special privileges and exemptions, such as that from military service. They also benefited from a special status as members of a community which owed allegiance to the patriarch in Judaea in certain matters until the fifth century when that came to an end. It continued for over a century in Christian times, though the Church frowned on it as contrasting with its view of God’s deprivation of the Jewish people of its temporal powers. Before and after Constantine the civic status of the Jews in Italy as citizens of the country they lived in was ensured, at least technically; and only certain details changed, usually for the worse. In due course Jews were excluded from public service. Christian legislation also dis- criminated against Jews on the economic level, such as in regard to the ownership of slaves. 388 conclusion

However, there were limits to Roman toleration even under paganism. Even then Jewish missionizing was frowned upon until it was completely outlawed under Christianity. In any event, there exist serious doubts as to the dimensions of Jewish missionizing and pagan conversion to Judaism. Parallel Christian legislation was intended to protect Christian sensibilities from real or imaginary Jewish offences. Christian discriminatory legislation came to a head towards the end of Antiquity, in the days of Justinian. He tried to interfere with the practice of Judaism and to prohibit Oral Law. Italian Jews were affected by Justinian’s laws only in those Italian areas which had been reconquered by Justinian’s armies. The wildest theories have been aired on the dimensions of the Jewish population in Italy in those days. Total numbers and percentage estimates have been bandied about without being grounded in dependable evidence. A careful examination of the data at our disposal has the numbers shrinking to a fraction of some of those propounded formerly. From the modest beginnings in the days of the Roman Republic the Jewish population probably reached its peak in the first two or three centuries CE and perhaps arrived at around 50,000, including some 20 percent, or up to 10,000 in Rome. Thereafter, the population of Italy and with it that of the Jews there decreased as a result of economic depression, warfare and other disasters. The majority lived in Rome and south of the capital, while a minority, probably a small one, lived north of Rome. That figure would include everybody, men, women and children, though not toddlers or slaves. Also, “sympathizers” and “God-fearers” are not included. Hence there is no substance to the assertion that the Jews of Italy, at least in their heyday in Antiquity, accounted for some 10 percent of the population. Far from it. The socio-economic setting of Italian Jewry is only rarely referred to in our sources in so many words. Most immigrants arrived there as prisoners of war, from the days of Pompey on. However, some came as free men, whether also of their free will is in dispute. Their legal status was determined accordingly and their social standing too. Their coreligionists emancipated the slaves and caused them to be freed as soon as possible. However, the poverty of most of them relegated the majority of Jews to the lower echelons of the social ladder. In Rome most of them lived in the poorer quarters of the capital. Notwithstanding some of the views expressed on Italian Jews, say on those of Ostia, most earned their living from menial labour, such as that of stevedores in the Roman harbour next to their main quarter, the Trastevere, or as kiln workers, dyers and the like, known for their odiferous and unpleasant character. Apparently it took many a generation before Italian Jews joined the ranks of the better-off sections of the population, became decurions, rhetors and other conclusion 389 professionals. In the south, in Naples, Jews were traders at the beginning of the sixth century, and they may have opted for this profession also elsewhere. In Venosa they belonged to the upper class a few years later. Christianity soon curbed their aspirations and imposed serious restrictions on their social and economic standing, chiefly for theological reasons. Even so, we learn very little of the occupations of Italian Jews throughout those seven centuries or so of their presence in the country in Antiquity. These include a few mentions of Jews in the arts, including the performing arts, perhaps in glass production and its ornamentation, and the like. If they had anything to do with some of the paintings and ornamentations found in the catacombs or near them, their participation in the fine arts may be added to the list; but that is doubtful. On the other hand there is every reason to believe that the Jews of Italy were affected by the politico-economic upheavals that beset the country in the centuries under review. There were very few Jewish men of letters in Italy during Antiquity. One, Philo of Alexandria, can be described as an Italian only with difficulty. He stayed in Rome in the days of Gaius Caligula, but only for a limited time. The other was Josephus Flavius, who spent the better part of his life in Rome and hence merits the description of Italian. Caecilius of Calacte may have been Jewish, but only one source, written a thousand years after his death, testifies to this. There are also two texts, the Collatio Legum Iudaicarum et Romanarum, a (partial) comparison of Jewish and Roman law, and the letter of Anne ad Senecam, a short philosophical treatise, which are thought to have been authored by Italian Jews. There may have been additional opera, chiefly translations of the Bible into Greek and/or Latin done by Italian Jews. That hinges on rather flimsy evidence and none of the results, if any, have survived. All in all, a rather poor crop. The most important literary contribution is that of Josephus. It contains many quotations from authors whose works have been lost. However, it suffers from two defects at least: In his book on the war of 70 and in his autobiography he tries to justify his treachery and his Antiquities are an apology of Judaism. Graeco-Roman culture gave much weight to antiquity and precedence in time. It was disdainful of newcomers, upstarts as it were, and valued seniority. To qualify for such veneration Philo, but particularly Josephus did their utmost to show that Judaism had been in existence since immemorial times and had preceded most other religions and cultures. Judaism was a contemporary of Greek philosophy, the most venerable of them all, or so they claimed. Josephus waded through the references to Jews and Judaism in ancient literature, denied the assertions of those who belittled Judaism and upheld those who praised them. What, if any impact they had on their fellow writers has not been revealed. 390 conclusion

However, Christian writers quoted them often. As for the rest of the population, it is doubtful that they ever read their works. A controversial topic related to the culture of Italian Jews in Antiquity is Hellenism. Attempts at defining the limits of this term, particularly in regard to Jews, have left the question very much open. It would appear that there is no single answer to this problem. It began with the use of the Greek language as the vernacular, spilled over into Tora readings and their translation, encompassed various other areas, such as the sacral other than the synagogal ritual, such as in the cemetery, and ended with complete assimilation into Graeco- Roman culture. Once it reached that point, its adherents ceased to be members of the Jewish community, in theory and in practice. So it would be wrong to call Italian Jewry Hellenistic simply because they may have employed Greek or Latin in one or more of these areas. More appropriate would be to define most Italian Jews as rabbinic who employed the vernacular, Greek or Latin, in daily life, may or may not have used a hallowed language in the cemetery, and after a generation or two following immigration probably adopted many of the habits of the environment in which they lived. They were not known to have belonged to one of the pre-70 Judaean political parties, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., which ceased to exist even in Judaea in the wake of the wars with the Romans. They were in close contact with the Jewish centre in the homeland. They were regularly visited by apostoli of the patriarchs, to whom they paid taxes, and by individual rabbis in that capacity or another, and apparently were rabbinic Jews very much like their brethren elsewhere in the Roman Empire, including Judaea. Some scholars chose Rome as their place of residence, including a tanna who founded there a rabbinic academy. Therefore, the artificial dividing line drawn between the Jews of Italy and those in Judaea never was. The limits of their Hellenism were chiefly linguistic, influenced, of course, by local and changing conditions. Even those Jews who used Greek or Latin extensively did not worship the Graeco-Roman gods in their synagogues or failed to observe the commandments. This justifies the drawing of conclusions regarding Jews of Italy by inferences from conditions in the homeland and particularly in the absence of direct information from Italy. Jewish congregations in Italy were organized in communities. At the centre of Jewish life there was the synagogue, which served both as community centre and as place of worship. The officers of the Jewish community were called by the titles customary in Jewish communities in Antiquity. They probably varied from place to place and from time to time. Often we do not know what the appellations stood for, what their function was, how they were appointed/ elected to their position, and how long that lasted. Probably they did not differ conclusion 391 substantially from their peers in other countries. Undoubtedly, they too underwent changes with the passage of time and place. Schools and education were an integral part of the Jewish community in Italy. Again we must depend on inference from Judaea, because Jewish schools in Italy have left hardly any trace at all. The rare surviving specimen of Italian synagogues in Antiquity, two in all, allow no more than speculation on what else went on in them, in addition to worship, teaching and the like. Last but not least of the communal activities of the Jews in Italy, were the cemeteries and in particular the catacombs. … So the present narrative does not deal with new documentation on the Jews of Italy in Antiquity, because hardly any has come to light in that country, except for the ruins of two synagogues in Ostia and Bova Marina and a few inscriptions. Attempts have been made to introduce new technical methods into the dating of archaeological evidence, but as yet they have not produced reliable results. The only substantial discoveries of recent years have been made in Israel, but they can serve for no more than hazardous inferences and models for conditions in Italy. During the last century, particularly during its second half, an enormous amount of research has gone into most aspects of Jewish history in Antiquity with direct and indirect bearing on the Jews of Italy. Therefore, it has been the object of this enquiry to separate the wheat from the chaff, or at least an attempt to do so. Texts have been re-examined; presentations and opinions have been reviewed. On these common sense and a modicum of criticism were brought to bear. The narrative itself has not been riddled with debates and refutations of unacceptable interpretations and views. That was left to the footnotes, where chapter and paragraph of most relevant views and presentations have been given; and if contrary to those of the present writer, duly rejected. The attached bibliography contains most sources, books and papers, dealing with the history of the Jews in Italy in Antiquity, or referring to it, more often quoted than not. Finally, we have tried to keep to the guidelines set out in the introduction and the reader is referred to them.

Bibliography

(H-Hebrew) Most references listed below are cited in the footnotes. Others have been incorporated into the text without citation. For additional references see the six bibliographies by Carpi, Consonni, Luzzato, Milano, Moldavi, and the present writer.

Abbreviations

AA Antichità Altoadriatiche AAP Atti dell’Accademia Pontaniana AAR Analecta Archeologica Ressoviensia AARC Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Constantiniana AASMPN Atti della R. Accademia di scienze morali e politiche di Napoli AASS Acta Sanctorum AG Analecta Gregoriana AIPHOS Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves AIUO Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJP American Journal of Philology AN Aquileia Nostra ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt ARIVSLA Atti del Real Istituto Veneto di scienze lettere ed arti ASE Annuario di Studi Ebraici ASPN Archivio storico per le provincie napoletane ASSi Archivio storico siracusano ASSO Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientale AV Archivio Veneto B Babylonian Talmud BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BCRFJ Bulletin du Centre de la Recherche française de Jerusalem Bd’A Bollettino d’Arte BHG Biblioteca Hagiografica Graeca BIDR Bulletino dell’Istituto di diritto Romano BJGS Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library BSB Bollettino storico della Basilicata BSJ Byzantine Studies Journal 394 bibliography

CA Classical Antiquity CAH Cambridge Ancient History CC Corpus Christianorum CEGRW Cambridge Economic History of the Graeco-Roman World CHB Cambridge History of the Bible CHJ Cambridge History of Judaism CIC Corpus Iuris Civilis CIJ Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum CJ Codex Justinianus CJu Conservative Judaism CMG Corpus Medicorum Graecorum CMH Cambridge Medieval History CP Classical Philology CPJ Corpus Papyrorum Iudaicarum CQ The Classical Quarterly CRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum CTh Codex Theodosianus EJ Encyclopedia Judaica GRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies GSAI Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana HER English Historical Review HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HZ Historische Zeitschrift IEJ Israel Exploration Journal ILR Israel Law Review J Jerusalem Talmud JA Josephus Antiquities JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum JBJ Josephus Bellum Judaicum JBITLW Jahresbericht der Israelitisch-Theologischen Lehranstalt in Wien JBL Journal of Biblical literature JCA Josephus Contra Apionem JJA Journal of Jewish Art JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JMS Journal of Mediterranean Studies bibliography 395

JQ Jerusalem Quarterly JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSJPHIP Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian and Hellenistic Period JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly JSeS Journal of Semitic Studies JSS Jewish Social Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies JV Josephus Vita JWCI Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes JZWL Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben LCL Loeb Classical Library M Miṣnah MDAI Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts ME Medieval Encounters MEFR Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome MHR Mediterranean Historical Review MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica MGWJ Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums MLd’I Medioevo Letterario d’Italia MSF Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi MT Monumenta Talmudica MWJ Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judentums NBAC Nuovo Bollettino di Archeologia Cristiana NCAH New Cambridge Ancient History NCMH New Cambridge Mediaeval History NSA Notizie degli Scavi dell’Antichità NT Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament Studies OED Oxford English Dictionary PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PG Patrologia Greca PL Patrologia Latina PP Past and Present PT Le Point Théologique PW Pauly Wissowa, Reallexicon QA Quaderni di Acme 396 bibliography

QEC Quaderni di epigrafia, Cattedra di epigrafia latina dell’università degli studi di Cagliari RAC Rivista di Archaelogia Cristiana RANL Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei RB Revue Biblique RBPH Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire REA Revue des Ètudes Anciennes REJ Revue des Etudes Juives RFIC Rivista di Filologia e d’Istruzione Classica RHPR Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses RHR Revue d’Histoire des Religions RMI Rassegna Mensile di Israel RPAA Rendiconti della Pontifica Accademia di Archeologia RPLHA Revue de Philology de Literature et d’Histoire Anciennes RQ Römische Quartalschrift RS Rivista Sarda RSA Rivista Storica dell’Antichità RSBN Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici RSI Rivista Storica Italiana RSR Recherches de Science Religieuse SA Sicilia Archeologica SAC Studi di Antichità Cristiana SCI Scripta Classica Israeliana SCO Studi Classici e Orientali SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum SDHI Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris SCI Scripta Classica Israelica SH Scripta Hierosolymitana SMSR Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni SP Studia Patristica SR Studi Romani SSCIAM Settimane di studio del centro italiano sull’alto medioevo SDHI Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris SY Sefer Yuḥasin T Tosefta TPAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association TZ Theologische Zeitschrift VC Vetera Christianorum ViC Vigiliae Christianae VI Vessillo Israelitico bibliography 397

ZAC Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins ZKA Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte und Archäologie ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentische Wissenschaft ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik ZRG Zeitschrift für Religions und Geistesgeschichte ZSSR Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte

Sources (Texts)

אבות דרבי נתן, מהד’ שונות Avoth de R. Nathan אסתר רבתי, מהד’ שונות Esther Rabbati ארבעה טורים, ליעקב בן אשר, מהד’ שונות Jacob b. Aṣer, Turim במדבר רבה, מהד’ שונות Numeri Rabba בראשית רבה )הו”ל אלבק, ח.(, ירושלים Bereṣith Rabba 1940 בראשית רבתי )הו”ל תיאודור ואלבק(, ירושלים Bereṣith Rabbati 1936 דברים רבה, מהד’ שונות Deuteronomy Rabba החילוקים שבין אנשי מזרח לבני ארץ ישראל )הו ”ל מרגליות, מ.(, ירושלים Margaliouth, Differences between Easterners and Palestinians 1938 ויקרא רבה, מהד’ שונות Leviticus Rabba חסרונות הש”ס, מהד’ שונות Omissions of the Talmud ילקוט )שמעוני, תנחומא וכו’(, מהד’ שונות Yalqut כלה רבתי, מהד’ שונות Khalla Rabbati מגילת תענית, מהד’ שונות Megillat Ta’anith מדרש איכה )רבה וזוטא(, מהד’ שונות (Midraṣ Threni (Eikha מדרש הגדול, מהד’ שונות Midraṣ ha-Gadol מדרש משלי, מהד’ שונות (Midraṣ Proverbs (Miṣle מדרש עשר הדברות )Midraṣ Eser Ha-Dibroth (Jellinek, Beth Ha-Midraṣ מדרש רבה לאסתר, מהד’ שונות Midraṣ Esther Rabba מדרש רבא לתורה, מהד’ שונות Midraṣ Rabba Pentateuch מדרש רבה לקהלת, מהד’ שונות Midraṣ Ecclesiast Rabba מדרש שוחר טוב )מדרש תהילים(, מהד’ שונות )Midraṣ Ṣoḥer Tov )Psalms מדרש תנאים )לדברים(, מהד’ שונות (Midraṣ Tannaim (to Deuteronomy מדרש תנחומא, מהד’ שונות Midraṣ Tanḥuma מכבים, מהד’ שונות Maccabees מכילתא, מהד’ שונות Mekhilta מסכת סופרים, מהד’ שונות Sofrim משנה, מהד’ שונות Miṣnah משנה תורה לרמב”ם, מהד’ שונות Maimonides, Miṣneh Tora 398 bibliography

סדר אליהו רבה וזוטא )תנא דבי אליהו(, מהד’ שונות Seder Eliyahu Rabba/Zuta (Tanna de Be Elyahu) סדר עולם, מהד’ שונות Seder Olam ספר הלכות הרי”ף )אלפסי(, מהד’ שונות Alfassi, Sepher Halakhot ספר המצוות לרמב”ם, מהד’ שונות Maimonides, Sepher Ha-Miẓvoth ספרא, מהד’ שונות Sifra ספרי, מהד’ שונות Sifre ספרי זוטא, מהד’ שונות Sifre Zuta פירוש לתורה מאת דוד קמחי )רד”ק(, מהד’ שונות Qimḥi’s Commentary to Pentateuch פירקא דרבנו הקדוש )הו”ל שענבלום, ש.(, Pirqa de Rabenu Ha-Qadoṣ פסיקתא רבתי, מהד’ שונות, Pesiqta Rabbati פסיקתא דרב כהנא, מהד’ שונות Pesiqta de Rav Cahana רות זוטא, מהד’ שונות Ruth Zuta שולחן ערוך ליוסף קארו, מהד’ שונות Joseph Caro, Ṣulḥan ʿArukh שיר השירים רבה, מהד’ שונות Canticles Rabba שמות רבה, מהד’ שונות Exodus Rabba תוספתא, מהד’ שונות Tosefta תלמוד בבלי, מהד’ שונות Talmud Bavli תלמוד ירושלמי, מהד’ שונות )ר’ גם מרגלית משה( Talmud of Jerusalem תרגום אונקלוס, יונתן בן עוזיאל וכו’, מהד’ שונות Targum תרגום שני )אסתר(, מהד’ שונות Targum Ṣeni

Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, v.e. Acta Sanctorum, 68 vols., Antwerp-Brussels 1643–1940 Acta S. Silvestri, v.e. Aemilianus, Opera, v.e. Alexander of Lycopolis, Contra Manichaei, v.e. Ambrosius, Opera, v.e. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, v.e. Anonymus, Didascalia Apostolorum, v.e. Anonymous, De Sublimitate, v.e. Aphrahat, Demonstrations, v.e. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, v.e. Appian, Opera, v.e. Apuleius, Opera. v.e. Aristotle, Opera, v.e. Arrianus, Epicteti quae supersunt Dissertationes, 2 vols., v.e. Artemidorus, Onirocritica, v.e. Athanasius of Alexandria, Opera, v.e. bibliography 399

Augustinus, Opera, v.e. Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus, v.e. Bar Hebraeus, Opera, v.e. Bardesanes, Opera, v.e. Caecilius Calactinus, Fragmenta (Ofenloch, E., ed.), Leipzig 1907 Cassiodorus, Opera, v.e. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, v.e. Celsus (Medicus), De Medicina, v.e. Censorinus, De Die Natali, v.e. Chrysostom, Opera, v.e. Cicero, Opera, v.e. Claudian, in Eutropium, v.e. Clemens Alexandrinus, Opera, v.e. Cleomedes, De Motu Circulari, v.e. Codex Justinianus (Corpus Iuris Civilis) + Novella, Digesta etc., v.e. Codex Theodosianus, v.e. Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, v.e. Columella, De Re Rustica, v.e. Commodianus, Opera, v.e. Constantinus VII (Porphyrogenitus), Opera, v.e. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum (see Frey) Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, v.e. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum, Series Latina, v.e. Corpus Iuris Civilis (CJ), v.e. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (Tcherikover, V.A. et al.), 3 vols., Cambridge Mass., 1957–1964 Cyprian, Opera, v.e. Cyril of Alexandria, Opera, v.e. Didache, v.e. Digesta, in CJ Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, v.e. Diodorus Siculus, Opera, v.e. Ephraem Syrus, Opera, v.e. Epictetus, in Arrianus, Opera, v.e. Erotianus, Vocum Hippocraticarum Collectio cum Fragmentis (Nachmanson, E., ed.), Uppsala 1917 Eusebius, Opera, v.e. Eutychius of Alexandria (Sa’id ibn Batriq), Opera, v.e. 400 bibliography

Evagrius (monachus), Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilem Christianum, v.e. Excerpta Valesiana, v.e. Firmicus Maternus, Opera, v.e. Flavius Josephus, Opera, v.e. Florus, Epitoma, v.e. Frontinus, Opera, v.e. Fronto, Epistulae ad M Caesarem et Invicem, v.e. Galen, Opera (=Medicorum Graecorum Opera), v.e. Gaudentius, Opera, v.e. Gregorius Nazianzenus, Opera, v.e. Gregorius Nyssanus, Opera, v.e. Hecataeus of Abdera, Opera, v.e. Herodotus, Opera, v.e. Hieronymus (Jerome), Opera, v.e. Hilary of Poitiers, Opera, v.e. Hippolytus of Rome, Philosophumena=Refutatio Omnium Haeresium, v.e. Horace, Opera, v.e. Iamblichus, Opera, v.e. Ignatius of Antioch, v.e. Julian (emperor), Opera, v.e. Justinus, Historiae Philippicae, v.e. Justyn Martyr, Opera, v.e. Juvenal, Saturae, v.e. Lactantius, Opera, v.e. Landolphus Sagax, Opera, v.e. Libanius, Opera, v.e. Livy, Ab urbe condita, v.e. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.-London, v.e. Lucan, Opera, v.e. Lucian, Opera, v.e. Lydus, De Mensibus, v.e. Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus, v.e. Macrobius, Saturnalia, v.e. Martial, Opera, v.e. Medicorum Graecorum Opera, Berlin 1956 Melito, bishop of Sardis, v.e. Minucius Felix, Octavia, v.e. Monumenta Germaniae Historica 1819f. Namatianus, Rutilius Claudius, De reditu suo, v.e. bibliography 401

Olympiodorus, in Aristotelis Meteoria Commentaria (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 12/1, pp. 163f.) Oracula Sibyllina, v.e. Origen, Opera, v.e. Orosius, Opera, v.e. Ovid, Opera, v.e. Oxyrhynchus Papyri, v.e. Palladius, Opera, v.e. Paradoxographus Florentinus, Opera, v.e. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca, latina (Migne et al., eds.), Paris, Turnhout Paulinus of Nola, Opera, v.e. Paulus, Julius, Sententiae (Sententiarum receptarum libri cinque), v.e. Pausanias, Graeciae Description, v.e. Persius, Saturae, v.e. Peter Chrysologus, Opera, v.e. Petronius, Opera, v.e. Philastrius (4th cent.), Bishop of Brescia, Opera, v.e. Philo of Alexandria, Opera, v.e. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, v.e. Photius, Opera, v.e. (esp. PG) Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, v.e. Plutarch, Opera, v.e. Polybius, Opera, v.e. Pompeius Trogus Opera, v.e. Pontius Maximus (Pseudo Chrysostom), De soltitiis et aequinoctiis et de nativitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae, v.e. Porphyry, Opera, v.e. Potamius (attributed to), Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae, v.e. Priscianus Institutiones Grammaticae, v.e. Procopius, Opera, v.e. Psalms of Solomon, v.e. Pseudo-Barnabas, Epistle, v.e. Ptolemaeus (Claudius), Opera, v.e. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, v.e. Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, v.e. Sallustius Neoplatonicus, De Deis et Mundo, v.e. Scholia in Iuvenalem, v.e. Scholia in Lucanum, v.e. Scholia in Vergilium, Servius et al., v.e. Scriptores Historiae Augustae, v.e. 402 bibliography

Sedulius, Opera, v.e. Seneca, Opera, v.e. Septuagint, v.e. Servius, Commentary on Virgil, v.e. Severus, Chronica, v.e. Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyposes, v.e. Silius Italicus, Punica, v.e. Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, v.e. Sokinus, Opera, v.e. Sozomenus, Historia Ecclesiastica, v.e. Statius, Opera, v.e. Stephanus Byzantius, Opera, v.e. Strabo, Opera, v.e. Suda, Lexicon (Adler, A., ed.) Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum, v.e., Urb Synesius of Cyrene, Epistolae, v.e. Tacitus, Opera, v.e. Tatianus, Orationes ad Graecos, v.e Tertullianus, Opera, v.e. Themistius, Opera, v.e. Theodoretus, Opera, v.e. Theophrastus, Opera, v.e. Tibullus, Carmina, v.e. Trogus, Pompeius, v.e. Ulpian, Opera, v.e. Valens, Vettius, Anthologiae, v.e. Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica, v.e. Valerius Maximus, Factorum et dictorum memorabilium, v.e. Varro, Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum, v.e. Venantius Fortunatus, opera, v.e. Xiphilinus, Epitome to Historia Romana (printed together), v.e. Zeno of Verona, Sermoni (Tractati), v.e. Zonaras, Opera, v.e.

Secondary Literature

אבי-יונה, מ., בימי רומא וביזנטיון: היסטוריה מדינית של יהודי ארץ-ישראל למן מרד בר-כוכבא ועד ראשית הכיבוש הערבי, ירושלים Avi-Yonah, In the Days of Rome and Byzantium 1980 אברבך, מ., החינוך היהודי בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים Averbach, Jewish 1982 Education bibliography 403

אופנהיימר, א., עם הארץ. פרק בתולדות החברה היהודית מימי התעצמותה של ממלכת החשש מונאים ועד סוף תקופת התנאים, )חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור( ירושלים .Engl) 1973 translation, Leiden 1977) Oppenheimer, Am Ha’Areẓ ———, רבי יהודה הנשיא, ירושלים Oppenheimer, R. Judah Nasi 2007 ——— )עורך(, מרד בר כוכבא, ירושלים Oppenheimer (ed.), Bar-Kokhba Revolt 1980 אופנהיימר, א., איזק, ב. )עורכים(, התפוצה היהודית בתקופה ההלינסטית-רומית, תעודה 12, תל אביב Oppenheimer-Isaac (ed.), The Jewish Diaspora 1996 אופנהיימר ורפפורט )עורכים(, יהודים ויהדות בימי בית שני: מחקרים לכבודו של שמואל ספראי, ירושלים Oppenheimer, Rappaport (eds.), Jews and Judaism in the Days of the 1993 Second Temple, the Miṣnah and the Talmud ———, ואחרים, היהודים בעולם ההלינסטי והרומי: מחקרים לזכרו של מנחם שטרן, ירושלים 1996 Oppenheimer et al. (eds.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman World אופנהיימר, ב. )עורך(, המקרא ותולדות ישראל. מחקרים במקרא ובספרות ימי בית שני לזכרו של יעקב ליוור, תל אביב Uffenheimer, B. (ed.), Volume in Memory of J. Lever 1972 אורבך, א.א., הלכות עבדים כמקור להיסטוריה החברתית בימי הבית השני ובתקופת המשנה והתש למוד, ציון 52 )1960(, עמ’ 141 ואילך Urbach, Laws on Slavery ———, דרשות חז“ל ופירושי אוריגינס לשיר השירים והוויכוח היהודי-נוצרי, תרביץ 30 )1961(, עמ‘ 148 ואילך )Urbach, Rabbinic Exegesis and Origen’s )Engl. version in SH 22 (1971 Commentaries ———, חז“ל, פרקי אמונה ודעות, ירושלים Urbach, Sages b.m., 41978 אחימעץ בן פלטיאל, מגילת יוחסין )הו“ל קלאר, ב.(, ירושלים Aḥima’az b. Paltiel, Chronicle 1944 איזק, ב., עמדת הרומאים כלפי היהודים והיהדות, ציון 66 )2001(, עמ‘ 41 ואילך Isaac, Roman Attitudes אילן, צ., דמתי, ע., מרות. הכפר היהודי הקדום: חפירות בית הכנסת ובית המדרש, תל אביב 1987 Ilan, Damati, Meroth אלבק, ח., סמיכה ומינוי בית דין, ציון 8 )1942/3(, עמ‘ 85 ואילך Albeck, Semikha ———, מבוא לתלמודים, תל אביב Albeck, Introduction to Talmuds 1969 אלון, ג., לחקר ההלכה של פילון, תרביץ 6 )1935(, עמ‘ 30 ואילך, 452 ואילך Alon, Philo ———, אילין דמתמנין בכסף, ציון 3 )1938(, עמ‘ 300 ואילך = מחקרים ח“ב, עמ‘ 15 ואילך ,Alon Those Appointed for Money ———, ביקורת על Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine ,קרית ספר 20 )1943(, עמ‘ 76 ואילך Alon, Review of Lieberman ———, מחקרים בתולדות ישראל תקופת המשנה והתלמוד, 2 כ‘, תל אביב Alon, 1957–1958 Studies ———, תולדות היהודים בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, 2 כ‘, תל אביב 1959–1962 Alon, History of the Jews in Israel אפלבאום, ש., יהודי קירינאיקה ומרדם בזמן טריינוס, ציון 19 )1954(, עמ‘ 23 ואילך,Applebaum Rebellion of the Jews of Cyrenaica אפרון, י., מזמורי שלמה—השקיעה החשמונאית והנצרות, ציון 30 (1965), עמ’ 1 ואילך Efron, The Psalms of Solomon 404 bibliography

אפשטיין, י.נ., מבוא לנוסח המשנה, ירושלים Epstein, Introduction to Text of Miṣnah 19642 בארון, ש., הרהורים על הדמוגרפיה ההיסטורית היהודית בימי קדם ובימי הביניים, בנתיבי הגות ותרבות, קובץ מוקדש למלאות שבעים שנה לפרופ‘ אריה טרטקובר )שפירא, י., מהדיר(, ירו�ש לים 1970, עמ‘ 31 ואילך Baron, Reflections on Jewish Historical Demography בויארין, ד., המדרש והמעשה. על החקר ההיסטורי של ספרות חז“ל. ספר הזכרון לרבי שאול ליבש רמן, ניו יורק-ירושלים 1993, עמ‘ 105 ואילך Boyarin, Historical Research of the Literature of the Sages בן שלום, י., ר‘ יהודה בר אילעי ויחסו אל רומי, ציון 44 (1984), עמ‘ 9 ואילך Ben Shalom, R. Iudah b. Ilai’s Attitude toward Rome בער, י., עם ישראל, הכנסייה הנוצרית והקיסרות הרומית מימי ספטימיוס סברוס ועד ראשית ימי קונסטנטינוס, ציון כ“א (1955), עמ‘ 1 ואילך )English version in SH pp. 7 ,)1961 117f. Baer, Israel, the Christian Church בר, מ., תודוס איש רומי ופולחן הקיסר דומיטיאנוס, ציון ,(1961) 26 עמ‘ 238 ואילך Beer, Theudas of Rome בר“ג, ד., מדליון יהודי מזכוכית-זהב מרומא. ספר זכרון לחיים אנצו סיריני, ירושלים 1970, עמ‘ 74 ואילך Ba”rag, D., A Jewish Glass Medallion from Rome בר כוכבא, ב., מלחמות החשמונאים, ימי יהודי המקבי, תל אביב Bar Kochva, The Battles 1980 of the Hasmoneans ———, עלילת הדם ההלניסטית—תוכנה, מקורותיה וגלגוליה, תרביץ 65 (1996), עמ‘ 347 ואילך Bar Kochva, The Hellenistic Blood Libel ———, היהדות של משה, והיהדות של ימי הבית השני—האתנוגרפיה היהודית של סטראבון, תרביץ 66 (1997) עמ‘ 297 ואילך Bar Kochva, The Jewish Ethnography of Strabo ———, החיבור האנטי-יהודי של אפולוניוס מולון, תרביץ 69 (2000), עמ‘ 1 ואילך ,Bar Kochva Apollonius Molon גוטמן, י., מלחמות היהודים בימי טריינוס, ספר אסף, ירושלים 1953, עמ‘ 149 ואילך Gutmann, War of the Jews ———, הספרות היהודית-ההלניסטית, ב“ח, ירושלים Gutmann, Jewish Hellenistic 1958–1963 Literature גויטיין, ש.ד., יציע נשים בבית הכנסת בתקופת הגאונים, תרביץ 33 (1964), עמ‘ 314 ואילך ,Goitein Women’s Gallery גולשמיט, ד., מחקרי תפילה ופיוט, ירושלים Goldschmidt, Studies in Prayer and Piyyut 1978 גורן, ש., לחימה בשבת לאור המקורות, סיני, ספר יובל, 1958 )ותגובת נריה, מ.צ.—אינטרנט( Goren, Fighting on the Sabbath גייגר, י., הגזירה על המילה ומרד בר כוכבא, ציון 41 (1976), עמ‘ 139 ואילך Geiger, Prohibition of Circumcision גילת, י.ד., הדרשה וקריאת התורה בבית הכנסת. יהודים ויהדות בימי בית שני המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים 1993, עמ‘ 266 ואילך Gilat, The Drasha and the Reading of the Torah גפני, י. )עורך(, מחקרים בתולדות ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים Gafni, Studies 1994 in Jewish History ———, מרכז ותפוצה. ארץ ישראל והתפוצות בימי בית שני, המשנה והתלמוד, ירושלים 2004 Gafni, Centre and Diaspora bibliography 405

דויטש, י., עדויות על נוסח קדום של תולדות ישו, תרביץ 69 (2000), עמ‘ 177 ואילך Deutsch, New Evidence on Early Versions of Toldot Yeshu דורמן, מ. ואחרים )עורכים(, ספר זיכרון לגדליה אלון: מחקרים בתולדות ישראל ובלשון העברית, תל אביב Dorman et al. (eds.), In Memoriam G. Alon 1971 דינור )דינבורג(, ב., הריסקריפט של דיאוקלטיאנוס ליהודה משנת 293 וההתאבקות בין הנשיאות והסנהדרין בא“י, ספר זכרון לגולאק ולקליין, ירושלים 1942, עמ’ 76 ואילך Dinaburg, The Rescript of Diocletian to Judah האק, מ., המזוייפת היא הצהרת יוליאנוס? יבנה 2 (1940), עמ‘ 118 ואילך Hack, Julianus היימאן, א., תולדות תנאים ואמוראים, ג“ח, לונדון Hyman, Toldoth Tannaim Ve’Amoraim 1910 היינמן, י., היהדות בעיני העולם העתיק, ציון 4 (1939), עמ‘ 269 ואילך Heinemann, The Attitude of the Ancients ———, התפילה בתקופת התנאים והאמוראים, ירושלים Heinemann, Prayer in the 19662 Period of the Tanna’im הירשמן, מ., שמואל הקטן. יהודים ויהדות בימי בית שני, המשנה והתלמוד, אופנהיימר ואחרים )עורכים(, עמ‘ 165 ואילך .Hirschman, Ṣemuel Ha-Qatan הר, מ.ד., השלטון הרומי בספרות התנאים, ירושלים Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic 1970 Literature ———, סיבותיו של מרד בר כוכבא, ציון 43 (1978), עמ‘ 1 ואילך Herr, Bar Kokhba Revolt ———, תגובתם של חכמים לשנאת ישראל בעולם ההלניסטי-הרומי, שנאת ישראל לדורותוה )אלמוג, ש., עורך(, ירושלים 1980, עמ’ 41 ואילך Herr, Reaction of the Sages הרשברג, א.ש., תנועת ההתגיירות הגדולה בתקופת הבית השני, התקופה 12 (1921), עמ‘ 129 ואילך; 13 (1922), עמ’ 189 ואילך Herszberg, The Great Conversion Movement ויס, צ., בית הכנסת במרכז התפוצה הרומית בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, עבודת גמר לקראת תואר מוסמך, אוניברסיטת ת“א Weiss, The Synagogue at the Centre of Roman Diaspora 1988 זלוטניק, י., זהוי של אמטונינוס ידיד רבי, סיני י”א (1947), עמ‘ 136 ואילך Zlotnik, Identity of Antoninus the friend of Rabbi חבס, א., הנשיא בתקופה הרומית ביזנטית—לתולדותיה של דינסטיה, 2 ח‘, תל אביב 1991 )דיסר�ט ציה( Ḥabas, The Patriarch in Byzantine Rome יוסיפון, ספר יוסיפון )הו“ל פלוסר, ד.(, ב‘ חלקים, ירושלים Sefer Yosifon 1978–1980 יילינק, א., בית המדרש, ו‘ חלקים, ירושלים Jellinek, Beth Ha-Midraṣ 19382 יעבץ, צ., הערות על טיטוס ויוספוס, תל אביב Yavetz, Notes on Titus and Josephus 1976 ———, אז ועתה: מחקרים, מסות, הרצאות, תל אביב Yavetz, Then and Now 2002 כהן, נ., שמות יהודיים ומשמעותם בתקופה ההליסטית והרומית באסיה הקטנה, ירושלים 1969 Cohen, Jewish Names ———, שמעון הפקולי הסדיר י“ח ברכות, תרביץ 52 (1983), עמ‘ 547 ואילך Cohen, Nature of Shim’on Hapequli’s Act כשר, א., יהודי מצרים ההלניסטית והרומית, תל אביב Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic and 1978 Roman Egypt (Engl. ed., Tübingen 1985) ———, הגירה והתיישבות יהודית בתפוצות בתקופה ההלניסטית-רומית. הגירה והתיישבות יהודית בישראל ובעמים )בעריכת שנאן, א.(, עמ‘ 65 ואילך Kasher, Jewish Migration and Settlement in the Diaspora. Emigration and Settlement 1982 406 bibliography

——— )עורך(, המרד הגדול, הסיבות והנסיבות לפריצתו, ירושלים Kasher (ed.), The Great 1983 Revolt לוי, י., יוליאנוס קיסר ובנין הבית, ציון 6 (1941), עמ‘ 1 ואילך )וכן בעולמות נפגשים, עמ’ 221 ואילך( Lewy, Julianus ———, דברי ציצרו על היהודים בנאום הסניגוריה על פלקוס, ציון 7 (1942), עמ’ 109 ואילך )עולמות נפגשים, עמ‘ 79 ואילך( Lewy, Cicero ———, עולמות נפגשים, מחקרים על מעמדה של היהדות בעולם היווני-הרומאי, ירושלים 1960 Lewy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism לוין, י.ל., בין רומה לביזנטיון בתולדות עם ישראל: תיעוד, מציאות ופריודיזציה, רצף ותמורה : יהודים ויהדות בארץ ישראל הביזנטית-נוצרית, ירושלים 2004, עמ‘ 7 ואילך Levine, Between Rome and Byzantium ——— )עורך(, רצף ותמורה: יהודים ויהדות בארץ ישראל הביזנטית-נוצרית, ירושלים 2004 Levine, Continuity and Change ליברמן, ש., יוונים ויוונות בארץ ישראל, ירושלים Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism 1962 ———, רדיפת דת ישראל, ס’ היובל לבארון, ח“ע, ירושלים 1974, עמ‘ רי“ג ואילך ,Lieberman Persecution ———, הכחשה, קתרסיס 3 (2005), עמ‘ 173 ואילך Lieberman, Dementi לייבזון, ג., על מה מנדין, שנתון המשפט העברי 2 (1975), עמ‘ 292 ואילך ,Leibson Excommunication For What לינדר, א., השלטון הרומי והיהודים בתקופת קונסטאנטינוס, תרביץ 44 (1974/5), עמ‘ 95 ואילך Linder, Roman Imperial Government and the Jews under Constantine ——— )עורך(, היהודים והיהדות בחוקי הקיסרות הרומית, ירושלים Linder, Jews and 1983 Judaism in Roman Laws מאק, ח., קתדרה דמשה וקתדרה דדרושה, קתדרה 72 (1994), עמ‘ 3 ואילך Mack, Chair of Moses מוניקנדם, י., אני אמית ואחיה אני מחצתי ואני ארפא )דברים לב:לט(: לגלגולה של טענה על תחיית המתים, תרביץ 76 (2008), עמ‘ 329 ואילך Monnickendam, I Will Put to Death מור, מ., הגורמים המידיים למרד בר כוכבא: בחינה מחודשת, תעודה 25 (2012), עמ‘ 173 ואילך Mor, Bar Kokhba Revolt מילאנו, א., ספר זכרון לחיים אנצו סיריני, ר‘ לועזית .Milano, see Engl ממודינה, יהודה אריה, שאלות ותשובות זקני יהודית )הו“ל סימונסון, ש.(, ירושלים Leone da 1956 Modena, Responsa Ziqne Yehuda מרמורשטיין, א., דורו של ר‘ יוחנן ואותות המשיח, תרביץ 3 (1932), עמ‘ 161 ואילך ,Marmorstein Age of R. Yoḥanan משה בן מימון )רמב“ם(, היד החזקה, דפוסים שונים Maimonides, Yad Ḥasaqa נאה, ש., סדר קריאת התורה בארץ ישראל:עיון מחודשת, תרביץ 67 (1998), עמ‘ 167 ואילך ,Naeh Torah Reading Cycle ניר, ר., הנצרות הקדומה : שלוש המאות הראשונות, רעננה Nir, Early Christianity 2009 סוקניק, א.ל., “קתדרא של משה” שבבתי הכנסת העתיקים, תרביץ 1 (1929), עמ‘ 145 ואילך Sukenik, Moses’ Cathedra bibliography 407

———, בית הכנסת העתיק בבית אלפא, ירושלים Sukenik, The Ancient Synagogue in 1932 Beth Alpha סימונסון, ש., תולדות היהודים בדוכסות מנטובה, ב“ח, ירושלים Simonsohn, Jews in 1962–1964 the Duchy of Mantua (Engl. Trans.) 1977 ספראי, ז., הקהילה היהודית בארץ ישראל, ירושלים Safrai, Jewish Community in the 1995 Talmudic Period ספראי, ש., האם הייתה קיימת עזרת נשים בבית הכנסת בתקופה העתיקה, תרביץ 32 (1963), עמ‘ 329 ואילך )נדפס גם בימי הבית ובימי המשנה : מחקרים בתולדות ישראל ח“א, עמ‘ 159 ואילך( Safrai, Women’s Gallery ———, העלייה לרגל בימי הבית השני, תל אביב Safrai, Pilgrimage 1965 ———, ביקוריהם של חכמי יבנה ברומא, ספר זיכרון לשלמה אומברטו נכון, ירושלים 1978, עמ‘ 151 ואילך Safrai, Visits of the Sages of Yavneh in Rome ———, בימי הבית ובימי המשנה: מחקרים בתולדות ישראל, 2 כ‘, ירושלים Safrai, In the 1994 Days of the Second Temple פוגלמן, מ., תודוס איש רומי, ס‘ זיכרון לשלמה ס. מאיר, ירושלים 1956, עמ‘ 196 ואילך ,Vogelmann Todos da Roma פוצ‘י ]בן זאב[, מ.,המרד בימי טריאנוס. יהודה ורומא )רפפורט, א., עורך(, עמ‘ 185 ואילך, 378 ואילך Pucci, Revolt in the Days of Trajan פורסטנברג, י., ‘עם הארץ’ בספרות התנאית והקשריו החברתיים, ציון ע“ח (2013), עמ’ 287 ואילך Furstenberg, Am Ha-Aretz פינקלשטיין, א. א., הפרושים ואנשי כנסת הגדולה, ניו יורק Finkelstein, Pharisees 1950 פלוסר, ד., המקורות היהודים של הנצרות, תל אביב Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early 1980 Christianity (English version New York 1987) פליישר, ע., לקדמוניות תפילות החובה בישראל, תרביץ 59 (1990), עמ‘ 397 ואילך ,Fleischer Beginnings of Obligatory Prayers ———, קריאה חד-שנתית ותלת-שנתית בתורה בבית הכנסת הקדום, תרביץ 61 (1992), עמ’ 25 ואילך Fleischer, Reading of the Bible ———, תפילת שמונה עשרה—עיונים באופיה, סדרה, תוכנה ומגמותיה, תרביץ 62 (1993), עמ’ 179 ואילך Fleischer, The Prayer of 18 Benedictions ———, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגשמותן, ב“ח, ירושלים Fleischer, Fixed 2012 Prayers צבי, פ., בית הכנסת של אוסטיה, ספר זכרון לחיים אנצו סיריני, עמ‘ 61 ואילך Zevi, Ostia צ’ריקובר, א., היהודים והיוונים בתקופה ההלניסטית, תל אביב Tcherikower, Jews and 1931 Greeks (1963) ———, היהודים במצרים בתקופה ההלניסטית-הרומית לאור הפאפירולוגיה, ירושלים 1945 (1963) Tcherikower, Jews in Egypt קאסוטו, מ.ד.א., התרגום העברי של המקרא ללטינית וחשיבותו לחקר התרגומים היווניים והארש מיים, ספר יוחנן לוי, ירושלים 1949, עמ‘ 161 ואילך Cassuto, The Jewish Translation of the Bible into Latin 408 bibliography

קארפי, ד., ואחרים )עורכים(, ספר זכרון לאנצו סיריני, ירושלים Scritti in memoria di Enzo 1970 Sereni קובק, י., אדרכן וקטיעה בר שלום, ישורון 8 (1875), ח“ע, עמ‘ 161 ואילך Kobak, Adarkhan and Qeʾtiah קיסטר, מ., עיונים באבות דר‘ נתן: נוסח, עריכה ופרשנות, ירושלים Kister, Studies in Avoth 1998 de R. Nathan קלוזנר, י., ישו הנוצרי ותקופתו, ב“ח, תל אביב Klausner, Jesus and His Times 19546 קליין, ש., כתובת אחת מקטקומבה שברומי, ידיעות ציון 2 (1930), עמ‘ 1 ואילך Klein, An Epitaph in Rome ———, בר יוחניס מצפורי ברומי, ידיעות החברה העברית לחקירת ארץ ישראל ועתיקותיה, ז (1940), עמ’ 47 ואילך ,Bar-Yohannis of Sepphoris at Rome, Klein קרויס, ש., פרס ורומי בתלמוד ובמדרשים, ירושלים Krauss, Persia and Rome in the 1948 Talmud and Midraṣim רבינוביץ, צ.מ., מחזור פיוטי רבי יניי לתורה ולמועדים, 2 ח‘, ירושלים Rabinovitz (ed.), The 1985 Liturgical Poems of R. Yannai רובין, ז., פרשת הקומס יוסף והנסיונות לניצור הגליל במאה הרביעית לספירה, קתדרה 26 )1983(, עמ’ 105 ואילך Rubin, The Comes Joseph רוזנפלד, ב., משבר הנשיאות בארץ ישראל במאה הד‘ לספירה, ציון 53 (1988), עמ‘ 239 ואילך Rosenfeld, Crisis of the Patriarchate רוט-גרסון, ל., ‘יראי אלוהים’ בכתובות יהודיות בסרדס, אשל באר-שבע ,(1976) 1 עמ‘ 88 ואילך Roth-Gerson, God Fearers ———, הכתובות היווניות מבתי כנסת בארץ ישראל, ירושלים Roth-Gerson, Greek 1987 Inscriptions רוקח, ד., הערות כוזביות, תרביץ 35 (1966), עמ‘ 122 ואילך Rokeah, Remarks ———, בן סטרא בן פנטירא הוא, תרביץ 39 (1970), עמ‘ 9 ואילך Rokeah, Ben Satra ———, עם ישראל ותורת ישראל בפולמוס הפאגאני-הנוצרי בקיסרות הרומית, תרביץ 40 (1971), עמ’ 462 ואילך )גם במחקרים בתולדות ישראל( Rokeah, Jewish People ——— )עורך(, מרידות היהודים בימי טראיאנוס 117–115 לסה“נ, ירושלים Rokeah, Jewish 1978 Uprisings under Trajan ———, אבות הכנסיה והיהודים בחיבורים כלפי חוץ וכלפי פנים, שנאת ישראל לדורותיה )אלמוג, ש., עורך(, ירושלים 1980, עמ‘ 55 ואילך Rokeah, Church Fathers and Jews ———, יוסטינוס מארטיר והיהודים, ירושלים Rokeah, Justyn Martyr and the Jews 1998 רז-קרקוצקין, א., הצנזור, העורך והטקסט: הצנזורה הקתולית והדפוס העברי במאה השש-עשרה, ירושלים Raz-Krakotzkin, Censorship 2005 רייזל, ע., מבוא למדרשים, אלון שבות Reizel, Introduction to the Midraṣim 2011 רייפנברג, א., מטבעות היהודים, ירושלים Reifenberg, Jewish Coins 1948 רפפורט, א. )עורך(, יהודה ורומא—מרידות היהודים, תל אביב Rappaport (ed.), Judah 1983 and Rome ]רפפורט, ש.י.[, מכתב כ“ד, כרם חמד 4 (1839), עמ‘ 204 ואילך Rappaport], Letter 24[ bibliography 409

שוואבה, מ., מכתבי ליבניוס אל הנשיא בארץ ישראל, תרביץ 1/ב (1930), עמ‘ 85 ואילך ,Schwabe Letters of Libanius ———, דוקומנט חדש לתולדות היהודים במאה הרביעית אסה”נ, תרביץ 1/ג ,(1930) עמ‘ 107 ואילך Schwabe, New Document ———, הכתובות היווניות של ירושלים, ספר ירושלים )אבי יונה, מ, עורך(, ירושלים-תל אביב 1956, עמ‘ 358 ואילך Schwabe, Greek Inscriptions from Jerusalem ———, וגוטמן, י. )עורכים(, ספר יוחנן לוי, ירושלים 1949 שוורץ, ד. )הו“ל(, חיי יוסף, מבוא, תרגום, פירוש, ירושלים Schwarz (ed.), Life of 2007 Josephus שטיין, מ., פסודו-הקטיוס, זמנו ומגמת ספרו על היהודים וארצם, ציון )מאסף( 6 (1934), עמ‘ 1 ואילך Stein, Pseudo-Hecataeus שטרן, מ., על היחסים בין יהודה ורומא בימי יוחנן הורקנוס, ציון 26 (1961), עמ’ 1 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Relations between Judaea and Rome ———, נבואה מצרית-יוונית והמסורת על גירוש היהודים ממצרים בהיסטוריה של כאירימון, ציון 28 (1963), עמ‘ 227 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Egyptian-Greek Prophecy ———, דרכו של יוסף בן מתתיהו בכתיבת ההיסטוריה, היסטוריה ואסכולות היסטוריות, ירושלים 1983, עמ‘ 22 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Josephus Flavius as an Historian ———, אהדה ליהדות בחוגי סנאטורים רומיים בתקופת הקיסרות הקדומה, ציון 29 (1964), עמ‘ 155 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Sympathy ———, דברי סטרבון על היהודים, ספר זיכרון לגדליה אלון, תל אביב 1971, עמ‘ 169 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Strabo on Jews ———, היהודים בהיסטוריוגרפיה הרומית בימי אוגוסטוס, ספר זכרון לחיים אנצו סיריני, ירושלים 1971, עמ‘ 79 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Jews in Roman Historiography ———, ניקולאוס איש דמשק כמקור לתולדות ישראל בימי בית הורדוס ובית חשמונאי, סםר זיכרון ליעקב ליוור, תל אביב 1972, עמ‘ 375 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Nicolaus of Damascus ———, פילוסופים ואנשי מדע יהודיים ושומרוניים ב“חיי איסידורוס “לדמסקיוס”, מחקרים בתו�ל דות עם ישראל וארץ ישראל 3 (1975), עמ‘ 85 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Philosophers and Scientists ———, גירושי היהודים מרומא בזמן העתיק, ציון 44 (1979), עמ‘ 1 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Expulsions of the Jews from Rome ———, שנאת ישראל ברומה, שנאת ישראל לדורותיה )אלמוג, ש., עורך(, ירושלים 1980, עמ‘ 27 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Hatred of Jews ———, הקהילה היהודית ומוסדותיה, הפזורה היהודית בעולם ההלניסטי-רומי, היסטוריה של עם ישראל ט’, תל אביב 1983, עמ‘ 161 ואילך Stern, Jewish Community ———, יהודי איטליה. הפזורה היהודית בעולם ההלניסטי-רומי, ירושלים 1983, עמ‘ 134 ואילך Stern, Jews of Italy ———, הברית בין יהודה ורומא בשנת 161 לפני הספירה, ציון 51 (1986), עמ‘ 1 ואילך )נדפס גם במחקרים( Stern, Treaty Between Judaea and Rome 410 bibliography

———, יוסף בן מתתיהו ההיסטוריון של “מלחמת היהודים”, עיונים בהיסטוריוגרפיה, ירושלים 1988, עמ‘ 41 ואילך Stern, Joseph b. Matityahu ———, מחקרים בתולדות ישראל בימי הבית השני, ירושלים 1991 )מהד‘ אלקטרונית Stern, )2004 Studies in Jewish History ——— )עורך(, הפזורה היהודית בעולם ההלניסטי-רומי, ההיסטוריה של עם ישראל )ט‘(, תל אביב Stern, Jewish Diaspora 1983 שנאן, ש., הגיה והתישבות בישראל ובעמים, ירושלים Shinan, Emigration and Settlement 1982 in the Diaspora שרמר, ע., מדרש והיסטוריה. כח האל ותקוות גאולה בעולמם של התנאים בצל האימפריה הרומית, ציון 72 (2007), עמ‘ 5 ואילך Schremer, Midrash and History

Abel, E.L., Were the Jews Banished from Rome in A.D. 19?, REJ 127 (1968), pp. 383f. Abusch, R., Negotiating Difference: Genital Mutilation in Roman State Law and the History of the Bar-Kochba Revolt. In: Bar Kokhba Revolt and Circumcision (Schäfer, P., ed.), Munich 1999, pp. 71f. ———, Circumcision and Castration in Roman Law and Culture under the Early Empire. In: The Covenant of Circumcision: New Perspectives on an Ancient Jewish Rite (Mark, W.E., ed.), Hanover 2003, pp. 75f. Acconcio Longo, A., Siracusa e Taormina nell’agiografia Italogreca, RSBN 27 (1990), pp. 33f. Achille, C., I giudei visti da alcuni intelettuali latini del II secolo e.v. Le testimonianze di Floro e Frontone, MG 8/2 (2003), pp. 279f. Adler, H.M., The Jews in Southern Italy, JQR OS 14 (1902), pp. 111f. Adler, M., The Emperor Julian and the Jews, JQR OS 5 (1893), pp. 591f. Alessandri, S., La presunta cacciata dei giudei da Roma nel 139 a.C., SCO 17 (1968), pp. 187f. Alexander, I., The Acts of the Apostles as an Apologetic Text. In: Apologetics in the Roman Empire (Edwards, M. et al., eds.), Oxford 1999, pp. 13f. Alon, G., The Attitude of the Pharisees to the Roman Government and the House of Herod, SH 7 (1961), pp. 53f. (Based on his Studies, pp. 26f.) Amersfoort (van), J. et al. (eds.), Juden und Christen in der Antike, Kampen 1991. Amico, V., Dizionario topografico della Sicilia, 2 vols., Palermo 1855 (Bologna 19832). Ankum, J.A. et al. (eds.), Mélanges Felix Wubbe, Fribourg 1993. Applebaum, S., Domitian’s Assassination: The Jewish Aspect, SCI 1 (1974), pp. 116f. ———, The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora, The Jewish People in the First Century (Safrai, S. et al., eds.), 2 vols., Assen/Amsterdam 1974– 1976, 1, pp. 420f. ———, The Organization of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora. In: The Jewish People in the First Century, 1, pp. 464f. bibliography 411

———, The Social and Economic Status of the Jews in the Diaspora: The Jewish People in the First Century, 2, pp. 701f. ———, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, Leiden 1979. Ascoli, G.I., Iscrizioni inedite o mal note, greche, latrine, ebraiche, di antichi sepolcri giudaici nel napoletano, Turin 1880. Askowith, D., The Toleration and Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire. The Toleration of the Jews under Julius Caesar and Augustus, New York 1915. Attridge, H.W., Hata, G. (eds.), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism Detroit 1992. Avi-Yonah, M., Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmud, Berlin 1962 (Engl. ed. New York 1976). ———, The Jews of Palestine, Oxford 1976. Avigad, N., Beth She’arim, III, New Brunswick 1976. Avneri, Z., Lucerne giudaiche trovate in Aquileia, RMI 28 (1962), pp. 466f. Aziza, C., Tertullien e le judaïsme, Paris 1977. Bacchiocchi, S., From Sabbath to Sunday. A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity, Rome 1977. Bacher, W., Die Agada der Tannaiten, MGWJ 31–33 (1882–1884), pp. 97f. (In book form v.e.). ———, Statements of a Contemporary of the Emperor Julian on the Rebuilding of the Temple, JQR, OS 10 (1898), pp. 168f. ———, The Jewish Community of the Later Roman Empire as Seen in the Codex Theodosianus. In: To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (Neusner, J. et al., eds.), Chico 1985, pp. 399f. Baldi, A., La Pompei giudaico-cristiana, Cava dei Tirreni 1964. ———, L’anatema e la croce, Ebrei e Cristiani in Pompei antica, Salerno 1983. Baltrusch, E., Die Juden und das römische Reich: Geschichte einer konfliktreichen Beziehung, Darmstadt 2002. Bamberger, B.J., Proselytism in the Talmudic Period, Cincinnati 1939. Baras, Z., The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James. In: Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Feldman, L.H., Hata, G., eds.), Leiden 1987 pp. 338f. Barclay, J.M.G., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE), Edinburgh 1996. ———, Apologetics in the Jewish Diaspora. In: Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (Bartlett, J.R., ed.), London-New York 2002, pp. 129f. ———, The Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome. In: Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Edmondson, J. et al., eds.), Oxford 2005. ———, Judaean Historiography in Rome: Josephus and History in Contra Apionem Book 1. In: Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Sievers, J., Lembi, G., eds.), Leiden-Boston 2005, pp. 29f. 412 bibliography

Bar-Kochva, B., Judas Maccabeus, Cambridge 1989. ———, Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, Berkeley 1996. ———, Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, Berkeley 1996. ———, An Ass in the Jerusalem Temple: The Origins and Development of a Slander. In: Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in the Character and Context with a Latin Concordance in the Portion Missing in Greek (Feldman, L.H., Levison, J., eds.), Leiden 1996, pp. 310f. ———, The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, Berkeley 2009. Barnes, T.D., Trajan and the Jews, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 145f. Baron, S.W., The Jewish Community, 3 vols., Philadelphia 1942. ———, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 18 vols., Philadelphia-New York 1952–1983. Barone-Adesi, G., L’età della Lex Dei, Naples 1992. Bartlett, B., How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome, Cato 14 (1994), pp. 287f. Bartlett, J., Jews in the Hellenistic World, Cambridge 1985. ——— (ed.), Jews in the Roman and Hellenistic Cities, London-New York 2002. Baum, G., The Jews and the Gospel, London 1961. Becker, A.H., Reed, A.Y. (eds.), The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and in the Early Middle Ages, Tübingen 2003. [Bedarida, G.], Scritti sull’ebraismo in memoria di G. Bedarida, Firenze 1966. Bellen, H., Συναγωγή τῶν Ἰουδαίον καὶ Θεοσεβῶν. Die Aussage einer Bosporanischen Freilassungsinschrift (CIRB 71) zum Problem der “Gottesfürchtigen”, JAC 8–9 (1965), pp. 171f. Beloch, J., Bevölkerungsgeschichte Italiens, 3 vols., Berlin-Leipzig 1937–1961. ———, Die Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt, Rom 1968. Bengtsson, P., Semitic Inscriptions in Rome. In: The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome (Olsson, B. et al.), Stockholm 2001. Benko, S., The Edict of Claudius of AD 49 and the Instigator Chrestus, TZ 25 (1969), pp. 406f. Berdowski, P., Tituli Picti und die antike Werbesprache für Fischprodukte, MBAH 22/2 (2003), pp. 18f. ———, Garum of Herod the Great (a Latin-Greek Inscription on the Amphora of Massada), AAR 1 (2006), pp. 239f. ———, Roman Businesswomen I: The Case of the Producers and Distributors of Garum in Pompeii, AAR 3 (2008), pp. 251f. Bergmann, J., Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik im Neutestamentlischen Zeitalter, Berlin 1908. Berliner, A., Geschichte der Juden in Rom, 2 vols., Frankfurt 1893. bibliography 413

Bernard, J.-E., Transferts historiographiques: Josèphe, César et les privileges juifs, BCRFJ 2 (1998), pp. 13f. Bertolini, D., Iulia Concordia Col. e la necropolis Cristiana sopraterra AV7 (1874), pp. 276f. Biale, D., Counter-History and Jewish Polemic against Christianity. The Sepher Toldot Yeshu and the Sepher Zerubavel, JSS 6 (1999), pp. 130f. Bickermann, E.J., Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 3 vols., Leiden 1976–1986. Bietenhard, H., Die Freiheitskriege der Juden unter den Kaisern Trajan und Hadrian und der messianische Tempelbau, Judaica 4 (1948), pp. 57f., 81f., 161f. Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Supplement Series 2), Sheffield 1988. Binder, D.D., Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogue in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta 1999. Bischoff, B. (ed.), Der Brief des Hohenpriesters Annas an den Philosophen Seneca, eine jüdisch-apologetische Missionsschrift (Viertes Jahrhundert?). Anecdota Novissima: Texte des vierten bis sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart 1984, pp. 1f. Bivona, L., Sul presunto epitaffo di Cecilio di Calacte, SA 5 (1972), pp. 55f. Blondheim, D.S., Les parlers judéo romans et la Vetus Latina. Etudes sur les rapports entre les traductions bibliques en langue romane des juifs au moyen âge et les anciennes versions, Paris 1925. Blumenkranz, B., Die Judenpredikt Augustins. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der jüdisch- christlichen Beziehungen in der ersten Jahrhunderten, Basel 1946. ———, Die jüdischen Beweisgründe im Religionsgespräch mit den christlich lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5 bis 11 Jahrhunderts, TZ 4 (1948), pp. 119f. (repr. Juifs et chrétiens, XIX). ———, Tacite anti-Semite ou xenophobe?, REJ 111 (1951), pp. 187f. ———, Perfidia, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (Bulletin Du Cange), 22 (1952), pp. 157f. (repr. Juifs et chrétiens, VII). ———, Juden und jüdisches in christlichen Wundererzählungen, TZ 10 (1954), pp. 417f. (repr. Juifs et chrétiens, IX). ———, Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde occidental, Paris 1960. ———, Die jüdisch-christliche Missionskonkurrenz (3 bis 6 Jahrhundert), Klio 39 (1961), pp. 227f. (repr. in Kirche und Synagoge). ———, Quelques notations démographiques sur les juifs de Rome de premiers siècles, SP 4 (1962), pp. 341f. ——— (ed.), Les auteurs chrétiens latins, du moyen âge sur les juifs et le judaïsme, Paris 1963. ———, Kirche und Synagoge. Die Entwicklung im Westen zwischen 200 und 1200. Kirche und Synagoge. Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden, 1, Stuttgart 1968, pp. 84f. 414 bibliography

Bodel, J., From Columbarium to Catacomb: Communities of the Dead in Pagan and Christian Rome. In: Roman Burial and Commemorative Practices and Earliest Christianity (Brink, L., Green, D., eds.), Berlin-New York 2008, pp. 177f. Bognetti, G.P., Les inscriptions juives de Venosa et le problème des rapports entre le Lombards et l’Orient, L’età Longobarda III, Milan 1967, pp. 507f. (Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 1954). Bokser, B.M., Todos and Rabbinic Authority in Rome. In: Religion, Literature and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity and Judaism. New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism (Neusner, J. et al., eds.), 1, Lanham 1987 (repr. Atlanta 1990), pp. 117f. Bokser, M., Justyn Martyr and the Jews, JQR 64 (1973), pp. 97f., 204f. Bonner, S.F., Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny, London 1977. Botermann, H., Die Synagoge von Sardis: Eine Synagoge aus dem 4 Jahrhundert?, ZNW 81 (1990), pp. 103f. ———, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius. Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1 Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 1996. ———, Die Massnahmen gegen dis Stattrömischen Juden im Jahre 19 n. C., Historia 52/4 (2003), pp. 410f. Bousset, W., Eine jüdische Gebetssammlung im siebenten Buch der apostolischen Konstitution, Göttingen 1915. ———, Jüdisch-christilicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom, Göttingen 1915 (Hildesheim2 1975). Bowersock, G.W., Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 1990. Boyarin, D., A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, Berkeley 1994. ———, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia 2007. Boyle, A.J., Dominik, W.J. (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, Leiden-Boston 2003. Brandon, S.G.F., The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, London 1968. Brandt, O., The Quarter Surrounding the Synagogue at Ostia. In: The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome (Olsson et al.), pp. 19f. Braude, W.G., Jewish Proselytizing in the First Five Centuries of the Common Era: The Age of the Tannaim and Amoraim, Providence 1940 (Alon’s review in KS 23, pp. 37f.) Braun, T., The Jews in the Late Roman Empire, SCl 17 (1998), pp. 142f. Brent, A., Hippolytus and the Roman Church, Leiden 1995. Brooten, B.J., Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, Chico 1982. ———, Inscriptional Evidence for Women as Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, Ann Arbor 1984 (University Microfilms). ———, Female Leadership in the Ancient Synagogue. In: From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity (Levine, L.I et al., eds.), Ann Arbor 2000. bibliography 415

Browe, P., Die Judengesetzgebung Justinians, AG 8 (1935), pp. 109f. Bruce, F.F., Nerva and the Fiscus Iudaicus, PEQ 96 (1964), pp. 34f. Bruce, I.A.F., Tacitus on Jewish History, JSS 29 (1984), pp. 43f. Büchler, A., Der Galiläische ‘Am-ha’Areṣ: Beiträge zur inneren Geschichte des paläs- tinischen Judentums in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten, Vienna 1906. Buhagiar, M., Late Roman and Byzantine Catacombs and Related Burial Places in the Maltese Islands, Oxford 1986. Buitenwerf, R., Book III of the Sibylline Oracles, Leiden-Boston 2003. Burn, A.R., Hic Breve Vivitur: A Study of the Expectation of Life in the Roman Empire, PP 4 (1953), pp. 2f. Burr, V., Rom und Judäa im 1 Jahrhundert, ANRW 1/1, New York 1972, pp. 875f. Cagni, L (ed.), Biblica et Semitica. Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni, Naples, 1999. Caietanus (Gaietano), O., Vitae Sanctorum Siculorum, 2 vols., Palermo 1657. Calderone, S., Per la storia dell’elemento giudaico nella Sicilia imperiale, RANL, classe scienze morali, storiche e filologiche S. 8, 10 (1955), pp. 489f. ———, “Superstitio”, ANRW II.1.2 (1972), pp. 372f. ———, Comunità ebraiche e cristianesimo in Sicilia nei primi secoli dell’era volgare. Il cristianesimo in Sicilia dalle origini a Gregorio Magno, Caltanisetta 1987, pp. 41f. (The) Cambridge Ancient History (CAH), 14 vols., Cambridge, v.e. (The) Cambridge Economic History of the Graeco-Roman World (CEGRW) (Scheidel, W. et al., eds.), Cambridge 2007. (The) Cambridge History of Judaism (CHJ), 4 vols. (v.e.), Cambridge 1984–2006. Cameron, A., Jews and Heretics—A Category Error? The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Tübingen 2003, pp. 345f. Cappelletti, S., La presa di Gerusalemme: influsso demografico sulla comunità ebraica di Roma, MG 8/2 (2003), pp. 269f. ———, Note sulla presenza ebraica in Italia settentrionale, QA 68 (2004), pp. 23f. ———, The Jewish Community of Rome from the Second Century B.C. to the Third Century C.E., Leiden-Boston 2006. Cardauns, B., Marcus Terentius Varro, Einführung in sein Werk, Heidelberg 2001. Carlebach, A., Rabbinic References to Fiscus Judaicus, JQR 66 (1975), pp. 57f. Carlebach, E., Schachter, J.J. (eds.), New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations: In Honour of David Berger, The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 33, Leiden-Boston 2012. Carleton Paget, J., Jewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Origins: Chimera or Reality, JSNT 62 (1996), pp. 65f. Carpi, D. et al. (eds.), Scritti in memoria di Enzo Sereni, Gerusalemme 1970. ——— (ed.), see Luzzatto, A., Bibliotheca. Carr, E.H., What is History?, Hammondsworth 1961. Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton 1971. 416 bibliography

Cassuto, U., Un’iscrizione giudeo-aramaica conservata nel Museo Cristiano Lateranense, NBAC 22 (1916), pp. 193. ———, La Vetus Latina e le traduzioni giudaiche medioevali della Bibbia, SMSR 2 (1926), pp. 145f. ———, Saggi delle antiche tradizioni giudeo-italiane della Bibbia, ASE 1 (1935), pp. 161f. Castelli, S., Gli ebrei di Roma inviati in Sardegna da Tiberio nelle fonti romane, Atti del X convegno internazionale Italia Judaica, Cagliari 17–20 novembre 2008 (Tasca, C., ed.), MG XIV/1–2 (2009), pp. 67f. ———, “Gratia migrabit ab urbe”: A Textual and Literary Note on Petrinius’ frg. 37 Ernout, JSJ 43 (2012), pp. 315f. Catto, S.K., Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue, London 2007. Charanis, P., Observations on the Transformation of the Roman World in the Third Century and the Question of the Fall of the Empire, ANRW II2, Berlin-New York 1975, pp. 551f. Charles, R.H., A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity, London 19132. Charlesworth, M.P., Some Observations on Ruler-Cult Especially in Rome, HTR 28 (1935), pp. 5f. Chillemi, F., Testimonianze ebraiche a Messina, Messina 2009. Clauss, M., Probleme de Lebensalter Statistiken, Chiron 3 (1973), pp. 395f. Claussen, C., Meeting, Community, Synagogue. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E., Papers presented at an International Conference at Lund University 2001 (Olsson, B., Zetterholm, M., eds.), Stockholm 2003, pp. 144f. Clermont-Ganneau, C., Découverte à Jérusalem d’une synagogue de l’époque hérodi- enne, Syria 1 (1920), pp. 190f. Cohen, B., Jewish and Roman Law, New York 1966. Cohen, D. et al. (eds.), Collected Studies in Roman Law, 2 vols., Frankfurt 1991. Cohen, J., Roman Imperial Policy toward the Jews from Constantine until the End of the Palestinian Patriarchate, BSJ 3 (1976), pp. 1f. ———, “Slay Them Not”: Augustine and the Jews in Modern Scholarship, ME 4 (1998), pp. 78f. ———, Living Letters of the Law, Berkeley 1999. Cohen, N.G., Jewish Names as Cultural Indicators in Antiquity, JSJPHIP 7 (1976), pp. 97f. Cohen, S.J.D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as an Historian, Leiden 1979. ———, Epigraphical Rabbis, JQR 72 (1981), pp. 1f.7. ———, Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Biblical Israel to Postbiblical Judaism, CJu 36/4 (1983), pp. 31f. bibliography 417

———, Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew, HTR 82.1 (1989), pp. 13f. ———, Was Judaism in Antiquity a Missionary Religion? In: Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation, and Accommodation: Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects (Mor, M., Klutznick, E., eds.), Lanham 1992, pp. 14f. ———, The Conversion of Antoninus. In: Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture (Schäfer, P., Hezser, C., eds.), Tübingen 1998, I, pp. 141f. Colafemmina, C., Di un’iscrizione greco-ebraica di Otranto, VC 12 (1975), pp. 131f. ———, Gli ebrei a Taranto nella documentazione epigrafica (secc. IV–X, La chiesa di Taranto 1, Galatina 1977, pp. 109f. ———, Nuove scoperte nella catacomba ebraica di Venosa, VC 15 (1978), pp. 369f. ———, Insediamenti e condizione degli ebrei nell’Italia Meridionale, Gli ebrei nell’alto medioevo: SSCIAM 26 (1980), pp. 197f. ———, Saggio di scavo in località Colline della Maddalena a Venosa. Relazione preli- menare, VC 18 (1981), pp. 443f. ———, Archeologia e epigrafica ebraica nell’Italia meridionale, Atti del convegno internazionale Italia Judaica, Bari 1981, Rome 1983, pp. 199f. ———, Tre iscrizioni ebraiche inedite di Venosa e Potenza, VC 20 (1983), pp. 443f. ———, Ebrei nel Lazio meridionale. Antichità paleocristiane e altomedievali del Sorano (Giulia, L. et al., eds.), Sora 1985, pp. 105f. ———, L’Insediamento ebraico. In: Archeologia di una città. Bari dalle origini al X secolo (Andreassi, G. et al., eds.), Bari 1988, pp. 513f. ———, Note su di una iscrizione ebraico-latina di Oria, VC 25 (1988), pp. 641f. ———, Gli ebrei in Basilicata, BSB 7 (1991), pp. 9f. ———, Gli ebrei nel Salernitano (sec. IV–XVI), Documenti e realtà nel mezzogiorno italiano in età medievale e moderna, Atti delle giornate di studio in memoria di Jole Mazzoleni, Amalfi 10–12 dic. 1993, Amalfi 1995, pp. 167f. ———, Ipogei ebraici in Sicilia, Gli ebrei in Sicilia sino all’espulsione del 1492, Atti del convegno internazionale Italia Iudaica, Palermo 1992, Rome 1995, pp. 304f. ———, Basilicata. L’Ebraismo dell’Italia Meridionale Peninsulare dalle origini al 1541, società, economia, cultura. Atti del Congresso Internazionale di studio organizzato dell’università degli studi della Basilicata, Potenza-Venosa, 20–24 settembre 1992 Galatina 1996, pp. 311f. ———, Gli ebrei a Fondi. Fondi tra.antichità e medioevo. Atti del Convegno (31 marzo–1 aprile 2000) (Piscitelli Carpino, T., ed.), Fondi 2003, pp. 307f. ———, Catacombe ebraiche nell’Italia meridionale, I beni culturali ebraici in Italia (Perani, M., ed.), Ravenna 2003, pp. 119f. ———, Una rilettura delle epigrafi ebraiche della Sardegna, Atti del X convegno internazionale Italia Judaica, Cagliari 17–20 novembre 2008 (Tasca, C., ed.), MG XIV/1–2 (2009), pp. 81f. 418 bibliography

——— (ed.), The Jews in Calabria. A Documentary History of the Jews in Italy 33, Boston-Leiden 2012. Collar, A., Religious Networks in the Roman Empire: The Spread of New Ideas, Cambridge 2013. Collins, J.J., The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, Missoula 1972. ———, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, New York 1983. ———, A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century. In: To See Ourselves as Others See Us (Neusner, J. et al.), pp. 184f. Collins, M.S., Money, Sex and Power: An Examination of the Role of Women as Patrons of the Ancient Synagogue. In: Recovering the Role of Women (Haas, P.J.), Atlanta 1992. Collon, S., Remarques sur les quartiers juifs de la Rome antique, MEFR 57 (1940), pp. 72f. Colorni, V., Legge ebraica e leggi locali, Milan 1945. ———, Gli ebrei nel sistema del diritto comune, Milan 1956. ———, L’uso del greco nella liturgica del giudaismo ellenistico e la Novella 146 di Giustiniano, ASD 8 (1964), pp. 19f. (=Judaica Minora, Milan 1983, pp. 1f. ) Consonni, M., Simonsohn, S., Biblioteca Italo-Ebraica, Rome 1997. Conticello de’ Spagnolis, M., Una testimonianza ebraica a Nuceria Alfaterna. Ercolano 1738–1988. 250 anni di ricerca archeological, Atti del convegno Ravello-Ercolano- Napoli-Pompei, 30 ottobre–5 novembre 1988 (Franchi dell’Orto L., ed.), Rome 1993, pp. 243f. Corda, A.M., Note di epigrafia dal territorio di Isili, QEC 2 (1995)’ pp. 1f. ———, Considerazioni sulle epigrafi giudaiche della Sardegna romana, SMSR 60 (1994), pp. 281f. Cordier, P., Les romains et la circoncision, REJ 160 (2001), pp. 337f. Costamagna, L., La sinagoga di Bova Marina nel quadro degli insediamenti tardoan- tichi della costa Ionica meridionale della Calabria, MEFR, Moyen Age 103 (1991), pp. 611f. ———, La sinagoga di Bova Marina (secc. IV–VI). I beni culturali ebraici in Italia (Perani, M., ed.), Ravenna 2003, pp. 93f. Cotton, H. et al., Fish Sauces from Herodian Masada, JRA 9 (1996), pp. 223f. Cotton, H., Eck, W., Josephus’ Roman Audience. Josephus and the Roman Elites, Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Edmonton et al.), pp. 37f. Coulter, J.A., Περὶ ὕψσους 3.3–4 and Aristotle’s Theory of the Mean, GRBS 5 (1964), pp. 197f. Cracco Ruggini, L., Ebrei e orientali nell’Italia settentrionale fra il 4. e il 6. secolo d. Cr., SDHI 25 (1959), pp. 186f. bibliography 419

———, Note sugli ebrei in Italia dal IV al XVI secolo, RSI 6 (1964), pp. 926f. ———, Il vescovo Cromazio e gli ebrei in Aquileia, AA 12 (1977), pp. 366f. ———, Pietro di Grado. Giudaismo e conversione nel mondo tardoantico, AA 17 (1980), pp. 139f. ———, La Sicilia fra Roma e Bisanzio. Storia della Sicilia 3, Naples 1980, pp. 1f. ———, Pagani, ebrei e cristiani: odio sociologico e odio teologico nel mondo antico. Gli ebrei nell’Alto Medio Evo. SSCIAM, Spoleto 1980, pp. 13f. ———, Ebrei e romani a confronto nell’Italia tardoantica, Atti del convegno internazionale Italia Judaica, Bari 1981, Rome 1983, pp. 38f. ———, Intolerance: Equal and Less Equal in the Roman World, CP 82 (1987), pp. 187f. ———, La lettera di Anna a Seneca nella Romana pagana e cristiana del IV secolo, Augustinianum 28 (1988), pp. 301–325. Croce, B., Teoria e storia della historiografia, Bari 19638 (Engl. ed.: History: Its Theory and Practice, London 1921). Crook, J.A., Titus and Berenice, AJP 72 (1951), pp. 162f. Curran, J., Flavius Josephus in Rome. In: Flavius Josephus, Interpretation and History (Pastor, J. et al., eds.), Leiden-Boston 2011, pp. 65f. Cuteri, F.A., Un ipogeo ebraico nella Valle dell’Ippari, SY 23 (2007), pp. 45f. ———, Ebrei e Samaritani a Vibo Valentia in età tardoantica. Le testimonianze archeologiche, SY 24–25 (2008), pp. 17f. Daube, D., Collatio 2.6.5. In: Collected Studies in Roman Law (Daube, D. et al., eds.), 1, Frankfurt 1991, pp. 107f. Deckers, J.G., Wie genau ist eine Katakombe zu datieren, Memoriam Sanctorum Venerantes, Miscellanea in onore di Victor Saxer, Città del Vaticano 1992, pp. 217f. Della Corte, M., Fabius Eupor, princeps libertinorum e gli elementi giudaici in Pompei, AAP, N.S., 3 (1950), pp. 347f. Della Pergola, S., La popolazione ebraica in Italia nel contesto ebraico globale. In: Storia d’Italia (Vivanti, C., ed.), Annali, 11,Turin 1997, 2, pp. 895f. ———, Histoire démographique du people juif: bref apercu. In: La société juive à travers l’histoire (Trigano, S., ed.), Paris 1993, 4, pp. 573f. Demougeot, E., L’empereur Honorius et la politique antijuive, Hommages à Léon Herrmann, Collection Latomus 44, Brussels-Berchem 1960, pp. 270f. ———, La politique antijuive de Théodose, Akten des XI internazionalen Byzantynisten Kongress 1958, Munich 1960, pp. 95f. Derenbourg, J., Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine d’apres les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques, Paris 1867. Dessau, H., Sur un nouvel édit de l’empereur Julien, RPLHA 25 (1901), pp. 258f. Diez-Macho, A. (ed.), Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Madrid 1968–1979. 420 bibliography

Di Giovanni, G., L’Ebraismo della Sicilia, ricercato ed esposto, Palermo 1784. Di Segni, R., La tradizione testuale delle Toledoth Yeshu: Manoscritti, edizioni a stampa, classificazioni, RMI 50 (1984), pp. 83f. Dionisotti, A.C., The Letter of Mardochaeus to Alexander the Great: A Lecture in Memory of Arnaldo Momigliano, JWCI 51 (1988), pp. 1f. Donfried, K.P., Richardson, P. (eds.), Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, Grand Rapids 1998. Dunn, J.D.G., The Parting of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity, London 1991. ——— (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, Tübingen 1992. Edmondson, J. et al. (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, Oxford 2005. Edwards, M.J. et al. (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire, Oxford 1999. Ehrhardt, A., Constantine Rome and the Rabbis, BJRL 42 (1959–1960), pp. 307f. Eisenstadt, S., Repertorium Bibliographicum Litteraturae Totius Iuris Prudentiae Hebraicae, Jerusalem 1931. Elbogen, I., Jewish Liturgy, Philadelphia 1993. Epstein, A., Ein von Titus nach Rom gebrachter Pentateuch-Codex und seine Varianten, MGWJ 34 (1885), pp. 337f. Evans, J.K., Wheat Production and Its Social Consequences in the Roman World, CQ 31 (1981), pp. 428f. Falkenhausen (von), V., L’Ebraismo dell’Italia meridionale nell’età bizantina (secoli VI–XI). L’Ebraismo dell’Italia meridionale peninsulare dalle origini al 1541, Atti del convegno internazionale di studio organizzato dell’università degli studi della Basilicata, Potenza-Venosa, 20–24 settembre 1992, Galatina 1996, pp. 25f. ———, The Jews in Byzantine Southern Italy. In: Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Culture (Bonfil, R. et al., eds.), Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 14, Leiden-Boston 2012, pp. 271f. Fasola, U.M., Le due catacombe ebraiche di Villa Torlonia, RAC 52 (1976), pp. 7f. Feldman, L.H., Jewish ‘Sympathizers’ in Classical Literature and Inscriptions, TPAPA 81 (1950), pp. 200f. ———, Asinius Pollio and His Jewish Interests, TPAPA 84 (1953), pp. 73f. (also in Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, pp. 37f.) ———, The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers, BAR 12/5 (1986), pp. 58f. ———, Hata, G. (eds.), Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, Leiden 1987. ———, Pro-Jewish Intimations in Anti-Jewish Remarks Cited in Josephus’ against Apion, JQR 78 (1987–1988), pp. 187f. (also in Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, pp. 177f.) ———, Proselytes and “Sympathizers” in the Light of the New Inscriptions from Aphrodisias, REJ 148 (1989), pp. 265f. bibliography 421

———, Origen’s Contra Celsum and Josephus’ Contra Apionem, ViC 44 (1990), pp. 105f. ———, Abba Kolon and the Founding of Rome, JQR 81 (1990–1991), pp. 239f. (also in Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, pp. 411f.) ———, Pro-Jewish Intimations in Tacitus’ Account of Jewish Origins, REJ 150 (1991), pp. 331f. (also in Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, pp. 177f.) ———, Jewish Proselytism. Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Attridge, H.W. et al., eds.), Detroit 1992, pp. 372f. ———, Some Observations on Rabbinic Reaction to Roman Rule in Third-Century Palestine, HUCA 63 (1992), pp. 39f. (also in Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, pp. 438f.) ———, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton 1993. ———, Proselytism by Jews in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Centuries, JSJPHIP 24 (1993), pp. 1f. ———, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1996. ———, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, Leiden-Boston 2006. ———, On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus. In: New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations in Honour of David Berger (Carlebach, Schachter), pp. 13f. ———, Reinhold, M., Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans, Edinburgh 1996. Ferguson, E., Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Grand Rapids 2003. Ferorelli, N., Gli ebrei nell’italia meridionale dall’età romana al secolo XVIII, Turin 1915. Fine, S., Art, History and the Historiography of Judaism in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden-Boston 2012. ——— (ed.), Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, New York-Oxford 1996. Fine, S., Della Pergola M., The Synagogue of Ostia and Its Torah Shrine. In: The Jewish Presence in Ancient Rome (Westenholz, J.G., ed.), Jerusalem 1994, pp. 42f. Finkelstein, L., Akiba: Scholar, Saint, and Martyr, New York 1936. ———, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, 2 vols., Philadelphia 19623. ———, Pharisaism in the Making: Selected Essays, New York 1972. Fiore, P., Il cippo di Quinto Cecilio Calactense e la zona archeologica dell’antica Calacta, Sicilia Archeologica 4 (1971), pp. 50f. ———, Ancora sul cippo di Quinto Cecilio, SA 5 (1972), pp. 75f. Flesher, P.V.M., Prolegomenon to a Theory of Early Synagogue Development. In: Judaism in Late Antiquity III: Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism IV: The Special Problem of the Synagogue (Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A.J., eds.), Leiden 2001. 422 bibliography

Floriani Squarciapino, M. La sinagoga di Ostia, Bd’A 46 (1961), pp. 326f. ———, La sinagoga recentemente scoperta ad Ostia, RPAA S 3, 34 (1961–1962), pp. 119f. ———, Die Synagoge von Ostia Antica, Raggi. ZKA 4 (1962), pp. 1f. ———, La sinagoga di Ostia. Seconda campagna di scavo, Atti del VI congresso internazionale di archeologia Cristiana. Ravenna 23–30 settembre 1962. SAC pubblicati a cura del Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 26 (1965), pp. 299f. ———, Die Sinagoge von Ostia nach der zweiten Ausgrabungskampagne, Raggi. ZKA 5 (1963), pp. 13f. ———, The Synagogue at Ostia, Archaeology 16 (1963), pp. 194f. ———, Ebrei a Roma e ad Ostia, SR 11 (1963), pp. 129f. ———, La sinagoga di Ostia, Rome 1964. ———, Plotinus Fortunatus, archisynagogus, RMI 36 (1970), pp. 183f. Foakes-Jackson, F.J., Josephus and the Jews: The History of the Jews as Explained by Flavius Josephus, New York 1930. ———, Lake, K. (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity, 5 vols., London 1920–1933. Folliet, G., Iudaei tamquam capsari nostrii sunt. Augustin, Ennaratio in Ps. 40.14, Augustinianum 44 (2004), pp. 443f. Frakes, R.M., Digeser, E. (eds.), Religious Identity in Late Antiquity, Toronto 2006. ———, The Religious Identity and Purpose of the Compiler of the Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum or Lex Dei. In: Religious Identity in Late Antiquity (Frakes, Digeser), pp. 126f. ———, The Lex Dei and the Latin Bible, HTR 100 (2007), pp. 425f. ———, Compiling the Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, Oxford 2011 (rec. Dillon, J.N.). Frank, T. et al. (eds.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, 6 vols., Paterson 1959. Frederiksen, P., Augustine and the Jews, New York 2008. ———, Irshai, O., Christianity and Anti-Judaism in Late Antiquity Polemics and Policies, from the Second to the Seventh Centuries, CHJ 4 (2006), pp. 977f. Freimann, M., Wie verhielt sich das Judentum zu Jesus und dem enstehenden Christentum? MGWJ 54 (1910), pp. 697f.; 55 (1911), pp. 160f. ———, Die Wortführer des Judentums in den ältesten Kontroversen zwischen Juden und Christen, MGWJ 55 (1911), pp. 555f.; 56 (1912), pp. 49f. Freudenthal, J., Hellenistische Studien I–II; Alexander Polyhistor und die vom ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke, Jahresbericht des jüdisch-theologischen Seminars “Fraenkel’scher Stiftung”, Breslau 1874–1875. Frey, J.B., Les communautés juives à Rome, RSR 20 (1930), pp. 267f. ———, Les juifs à Pompei, RB 42 (1933), pp. 365f. ——— (ed.), CIJ, 2 vols., Città del Vaticano 1936, 1952 + 2nd ed. [Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions] with Prolegomenon by Lifshitz, B., New York 1975. bibliography 423

Friedländer, L., Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augus-tus bis zum Ausgang der Antonine, 4 vols., Leipzig 1921–1923. Friedmann, M., Onkelos und Akylas, JITLW 3 (1896), pp. 1f. Fuks, G., Where Have All the Freedmen Gone? On an Anomaly in the Jewish Grave- Inscriptions from Rome, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 25f. Funkenstein, A., Anti-Jewish Propaganda: Pagan, Christian and Modern, JQ 19 (1981), pp. 56f. ———, Perceptions of Jewish History, Berkeley 1993. Gabba, E., The Growth of Anti-Judaism in the Greek Attitude towards Jews, CHJ, 2 (1989). pp. 614f. Gafni, I., Land Centre and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity, Sheffield 1997 (also in Hebrew). Gage, J., Les classes sociales dans l’empire romain, Paris 1964. Gager, J.G., Moses and Alpha, JTS 20 (1969), pp. 245f. ———, The Dialogue of Paganism with Judaism: Bar Cochba to Julian, HUCA 44 (1973), pp. 89f. ———, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, New York-Oxford 1983. Garnsey, P., Saller, R., The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1987. Gaudemet, J., Le partage législatif dans la seconde moitié du IVe siècle, Studi in onore di Pietro de Francisci II, Milano 1956, pp. 328f. Gebbia, C., Comunità ebraiche nella Sicilia imperiale e tardo antica, ASSO 75 (1979), pp. 241f. ———, Presenze giudaiche nella Sicilia antica e tardoantica, Rome 1996. Geiger, J., The Last Jewish Revolt Against Rome: A Reconsideration, SCI 5 (1979), pp. 250f. Gera, D., Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 BCE., Leiden, New York, Cologne 1998. Gerbino, C., Appunti per una edizione della agiografia di Lentini, s.l.et a (1993?). Gerlach, E., Die Weissagungen des alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus und das angebliche Zeugniss von Christo, Berlin 1863. Ghislanzoni, E., Castel Porziano, NSA 1906, pp. 410f. Giardina, A. (ed.), Società romana e impero tardoantico, 4 vols., Bari 1986. Gilat, Y.D., R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanus: A Scholar Outcast, Ramat Gan 1984. Ginsburg, M.S., Fiscus Judaicus, JQR 21 (1931), pp. 282f. Ginzberg, L., Legends of the Jews, 7 vols., New York 1909–1956. Giordano, B., Kahn, I., The Jews in Pompei, Herculaneum, Stabiae and the Cities of Campania Felix, Rome 2003. 424 bibliography

Golan, D., Judaei in the Scriptores Historiae Augusti, Latomus 47 (1988), pp. 318f. Goldenberg, R., The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World Up to the Time of Constantine the Great, ANRW II, Principat 19/1, Religion 9, Berlin-New York 1979, pp. 414f. Goldstein, M., Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, New York 1950. Goodenough, E.R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols., New York 1953–1968. Goodman, M., Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 175f. ———, Nerva and the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity, JRS 79 (1989), pp. 40f. ———, Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century. In: The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (Lieu, J. et al., eds.), London-New York 1992, pp. 53f. ———, The Roman State and the Jewish Patriarchate in the Third Century. In: The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York 1992, pp. 127f. ———, Jews and Judaism in the Mediterranean Diaspora in the Late Roman Period: The Limitation of Evidence, JMS 4 (1994), pp. 208f. ———, Mission and Conversion. Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire, Oxford 1994. ——— (ed.), Jews in the Graeco-Roman World, Oxford 1998. ———, Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kokhba War. The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered (Schäfer P., ed.), Tübingen 2003, pp. 23f. ———, The Fiscus Judaicus and Gentile Attitudes to Judaism in Flavian Rome, Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Edmondson et al.), pp. 167f. Goold, G.P., A Greek Professorial Circle at Rome, TPAPA 92 (1961), pp. 168f. Gordon, H.L., Mattia ben Haresh, medico romano del primo secolo, Rome 1934 (offprint from Policlinico). Görtz (v.)-Wrisberg, I., A Sabbath Service in Ostia. What Do We Know about the Ancient Synagogal Service? In: The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome (Olsson et al.), pp. 167f. Graetz, H., Jüdisch-geschichtliche Studien III, MGWJ 1 (1851–1852), pp. 192f. ———, Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvätern, MGWJ 3 (1854), pp. 311f. ———, Geschichte der Juden, 11 vols., Leipzig 1873–19094. ———, Die jüdischen Proselyten im Römerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian, Jahresbericht des jüdisch-theologischen Seminars in Breslau 1884. Grant, M., The Jews in the Roman World, London 1973. ———, Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation, London 1997. Graves, M., Jerome’s Hebrew Philology. A Study Based on His Commentary on Jeremiah, Leiden 2007. Grayzel, S., The Jews and Roman Law, JQR 59 (1968), pp. 93f. Grodzynski, D., Superstitio, REA 76 (1974), pp. 36f. Gruen, E.S., Diaspora Jews amidst Greeks and Romans, Cambridge, Mass. 2004. bibliography 425

———, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, Princeton 2012. Grünwald, M., Juden als Rheder und Seefahrer, Berlin 1902. Guterman, S.L., Religious Toleration and Persecution, London 1951. Gutmann, J. (ed.), Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research, Chico 1981. Haas, P.J. (ed.), Recovering the Role of Women. Power and Authority in Rabbinic Jewish Society, Atlanta 1992. Hachlili, R., Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora, Leiden 1998. Hadas-Lebel, M., Jacob et Esaü ou Israël et Rome dans le Talmud et le Midrash, RHR 201 (1984), pp. 369f. ———, L’image de Rome auprès des juifs—174 + 70 en deux siècles des relations judeo romaines, ANRW, II, 20/2, Berlin-New York 1987, pp. 715f. Hanfmann, G.M.A. (ed.), Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times, Cambridge, Mass. 1983. ——— et al., Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue. In: Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times, pp. 178f. Harnack (von), A., Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, NF 13, Hft. 4a Leipzig 1905. ———, Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho, Leipzig 1913. ———, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Gloucester, Mass. 1972. Harris, R., Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, HTR 19 (1926), pp. 199f. Hasselhoff, G.K., Revising the Vulgate: Jerome and His Jewish Interlocutors, ZRG 64 (2012), pp. 209f. Healy, P.J., The Valerian Persecution, New York 1972. Hedner-Zetterholm, K., The Jewish Communities of Ancient Rome. In: The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome (Olsson et al.), pp. 131f. Heidel, W.A. Why Were the Jews Banished from Italy in 19 A.D.? AJP 41/1 (1920), pp. 38f. ———, Proseuche und Synagoge: jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palästina, Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (Jeremias, G. et al., eds.), Göttingen 1971, pp. 157f. Heinemann, J., Noy, D. (eds.), Studies in Aggadah and Folk Literature, Jerusalem 1971. Hengel, M., Markschies, C., The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ, London-Philadelphia 1989. ———, Judaism and Hellenism, Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 vols., Minneapolis 19912. ———, Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegeung in der Zeit von Herodes I bis 70 n. Chr., Leiden-Cologne 19762 (Engl. ed. The Zealots, Edinburgh 1989). 426 bibliography

Henten, J.W. (van), Horst, P.W. (van der) (eds.), Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1994. Herford, R.T., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London 1903 (repr. New York 1975). ———, The Pharisees, London 1924 (repr. Boston 1962). Herr, M.D., The Historical Significance of the Dialogues between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries. Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature (SH 22 (1971), pp. 123f. ———, Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Day. In: Studies in History (Shatzman, I., Asheri, D., eds.), SH 23 (1972), pp. 85f. Herrmann, L., Chrestos, Brussels 1970. Hezser, C., The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, Tübingen 1997 (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 66). ———, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, Tübingen 1997. ——— (ed.), Rabbinic Law in Its Roman and Near Eastern Context, Tübingen 2003 (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 97). ———, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, Oxford-New York 2005. Hidal, S., The Jews as the Roman Authors Saw Them. In: The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome (Olsson et al.), pp. 141f. Hild, J.A., Les juifs à Rome davant l’opinion et dans la literature, REJ 8 (1884), pp. 1f.; 11 (1885), pp. 18f., 161f. Hoenig, S.B., The Suppositious Temple Synagogue, JQR 54 (1963), pp. 127f. Hoffmann, D., Die Antoninus Agadot in Talmud und Midrasch, MWJ 19 (1892), pp. 33f., 245f. Holleran, C., Pudsey, A. (eds.), Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches, Cambridge 2011. Hopkins, K., Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.–A.D. 400), JRS 70 (1980), pp. 101f. Horbury, W., The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy, JTS 33 (1982), pp. 19f. ———, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy, Edinburgh 1998. ———, Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh 1999. Horsley, G.H.R., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 7 vols, North Ryde 1981–1994 [4 (1987) on synagogue organization]. Horst (van der), P.W., Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity, Leuven 19982. ———, Early Jewish Prayers in Greek, Berlin-New York 2008. Hruby, K., Juden und Judentum bei de Kirchenvätern, Zürich 1971. Huber, W., Passa und Ostern, Untersuchungen zur Osterfeier in der alten Kirche, Berlin 1969 (Zeitschrift für Neutestamentische Wissenschaft, Beiheft 35). Hunt, A.S., Edgar C.C. (eds. and transl.), Select Papyri, LCL, 3 vols., London 1932–1959. Huteau-Dubois L., Les sursauts du nationalism juif contre l’occupation romaine. De Massada a Bar-Kokhba, REJ 127 (1968), pp. 133f. bibliography 427

Hüttenmeister, F.G., “Synagoge” und “Proseuche” bei Josephus und anderen antiken Quellen. Festschrift Schreckenberg, Göttingen 1993, pp. 163f. Hyamson, M., Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio, Oxford 1913 [Internet]. Ilan, Z., Damati, E., The Synagogue and Beth Midrash of Meroth, BAR 15/2 (1989), pp. 20f. Instone-Brewer, D., Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in Sanhedrin 43a, pp. 20 (pre-publication copy), also: Tyndale Bulletin 62 (2011), pp. 269f. Isaac, B., Shahar, Y. (eds.), Judaea-Palaestina, Babylon and Rome: Jews in Antiquity, Tübingen 2012. Jacobs, M., Die Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen, Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 52, Tübingen 1995. Jacoby, F. (ed.), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Leiden 2006—(elect. ed.) Janne, H., “Impulsore Chresto”, AIPHOS 2 (1934), pp. 531f. Jerchower, S. et al. (eds.), Judaeo Italian, Jewish Language Website 2002 (+ Blondheim, E.J.). Johnson, A.C. et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961. Johnson, E., The Present State of Sabazius Research, ANRW II 17, 3 (1984), pp. 1538f. Jossa, G., Jews, Romans and Christians. In: Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Sievers, Lembi), pp. 331f. Juster, J., Les juifs dans l’empire romain, 2 vols., Paris 1914. Kalmin, R., Schwartz, S. (eds.), Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire, Leuven 2003. Kanael, B., The Partition of Judaea by Gabinius, IEJ 7/2 (1957), pp. 98f. Kant, H.L., Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin, ANRW II, 20, 2, Berlin-New York 1987, pp. 671f. Kasher, A., Les circonstances de la promulgation de l’édit de l’empereur Claude et de sa letter aux Alexandrins, Semitica 26 (1976), pp. 9f. Kazis, I.J. (ed.), The Book of the Gests of Alexander of Macedon, Cambridge, Mass. 1962. Kee, H.C., The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E. Its Import for Early Christianity, NTS 36 (1990), pp. 1–24. Kennedy, G., The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, Princeton 1972. Kimelman, R., Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity. In: Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period (Sanders, E.P. et al., eds.), 2, Philadelphia 1981, 2, pp. 226f. ———, The “Shema Liturgy: From Covenant Ceremony to Coronation, Kenishta 1 (2001), pp. 8f. Kisch, G., Zur Frage der Aufhebung jüdisch-religiöser Jurisdiktion durch Justinian, ZSSR, Romanistische Abt. 77 (1960), pp. 395f.; 69 (1962), pp. 548f. 428 bibliography

Kislinger, E., Juden im bizantinischen Sizilien. Ebrei e Sicilia, Palermo 2002, pp. 59f. Klein, S., Eine Tannaitenfamilie in Rom, Jeschurun 3 (1916), pp. 442f. ———, Zur jüdischen Altertumskunde. 1. Das Femdenhaus der Synagoge, MGWJ 76 (1932), pp. 545f., 603f. ———, Aus den Lehrhäusern Erez Israels im 2–3 Jahrhundert, MGWJ 78 (1934), pp. 164f. Klinghardt, M., Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern, Tübingen 1996. Kloppenborg, J., Wilson, S.G. (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, London-New York 1996. Koch, D-A., Lichtenberger, H. (eds.), Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter. Festschrift Schreckenberg, Göttingen 1993. Koch, G., Jüdische Sarkophage der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike. In: What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem, Foerster Jubilee Volume (Rutgers, L.V., ed.), Leuven 2002, pp. 189f. Konikoff, A., Sarcophagi from the Jewish Catacombs of Ancient Rome: A Catalogue Raisonne, Stuttgart 1990. Korol, D., Il primo oggetto sicuramente giudaico a Cimitele, Boreas 13 (1990), pp. 94f. Kraabel, A.T., Melito the Bishop and the Synagogue at Sardis: Text and Context. In: Studies Presented to George Hanfmann (Mitten, D.G. et al., eds.), Cambridge, Mass. 1971, pp. 77f. ———, The Diaspora Synagogue. In: Archeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik, ANRW II, 19.1 (Haase, F., ed.), Berlin-New York 1979, pp. 477f. ———, The Disappearance of the ‘God-Fearers’, Numen 28/2 (1981), pp. 113f. ———, Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues. In: Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research (Gutmann), pp. 79f. ———, The Excavated Synagogues in Late Antiquity from Asia Minor to Italy, Internazionaler Bysantinistenkongress, Vienna 1982, pp. 227f. ———, Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue. Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times (Hanfmann et al.), pp. 178f. ———, Synagoga Caeca: Systematic Distortion in Gentile Interpretation of Evidence for Judaism in the Early Christian Period. In: To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Christians (Neusner et al.), pp. 219f. Kraeling, C.H., The Jewish Community of Antioch, JBL 51 (1932), pp. 130f. ———, Her Share of the Blessings: Women’s Religions among Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Greco-Roman World, New York-Oxford 1992. Krakauer, G., Die rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Stellung der Juden im sinkenden Römerreich, MGWJ 23 (1874), pp. 49f., 97f., 149f. bibliography 429

Krauss, S., Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers, JQR OS 5 (1893), pp. 122f.; 6 (1894), pp. 82f., 225f. ———, Toledot Yeshu. Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, Berlin 1902. ———, Die jüdischen Apostel, JQR OS 17 (1905), 370f. ———, Talmudische Archäologie, Leipzig 1910. ———, Antoninus und Rabbi, JBITLW 17, Vienna 1910. ———, Griechen und Römer, MT, V/1, Vienna 1913. ———, Synagogale Altertümer, Berlin-Vienna 1922, 1933. ———, Neuere Ansichten über “Toldoth Jeschu”, MGWJ 76 (1932), pp. 586f. ———, ed. and rev. by Horbury, W., The Jewish-Christian Controversy from the Earliest Times to 1789, Tübingen 1995. Kurinsky, S., The Jews of Aquileia. A Judaic Community Lost to History, Hebrew History Federation, Fact Paper 28, New York, s.a. [Internet]. Lacerenza, G., Frustula iudaica neapolitana, AIUO 58 (1998), pp. 334f. ———, Le antichità giudaiche di Venosa: storia e documenti, ASPN 116 (1998), pp. 293f. ———, Magia giudaica nella Sicilia tardoantica In: Gli ebrei in Sicilia dal tardoantico al medioevo (Bucaria, N., ed.), Palermo 1998, pp. 293f. ———, L’iscrizione di “Claudia Aster Hierosolymitana”. In: Biblica e Semitica: Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni (Cagni, L., ed.), Naples 1999, pp. 303f. ———, Per un riesame della presenza ebraica a Pompei, MG 5/1 (2001), pp. 99f. ———, Gli amuleti ebraici e sincretistici nella Sicilia tardoantica e bizantina. In: Ebrei e Sicilia (Bucaria, N. et al., eds.), Palermo 2002, pp. 53f. ———, Le iscrizione giudaiche in Italia dal I al VI secolo: tipologia, origine, distribuzi- one. I beni culturali ebraici in Italia (Perani, M., ed.), Ravenna 2003, pp. 71f. ——— (ed.), Hebraica Hereditas, Studi in onore di Cesare Colafemmina, Naples 2005. ———, e Pagano, M., A proposito delle testimonianze giudaiche di Nuceria Alfaterna, Apollo 11 (1995), pp. 64f. Lacombrade, C., Notes sur l’aurum coronarium, REA 51 (1949), pp. 53f. Lampe, P., From Paul to Valentinus. Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, Minneapolis 2003. Lane, E.N., Sabazius and the Jews in Valerius Maximus, JRS 69 (1979), pp. 35f. Lange (de), N.R.M., Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine, Cambridge 1976. ———, The Revival of the Hebrew Language in the Third Century, JSQ 3 (1996), pp. 342f. ———, The Hebrew Language in the European Diaspora, Te’uda 12 (1996), pp. 111f. Langer, R., The Earliest Texts of the Birkat Haminim, HUCA 76 (2006), pp. 63f. ———, Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat Haminim, Oxford 2012. 430 bibliography

Langmuir, G.I., From Ambrose of Milan to Emicho of Leiningen: The Transformation of Hostility against Jews in Northern Christendom. Gli ebrei nell’alto medioevo I, Spoleto 1980, pp. 313f. ———, Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, Berkeley 1990. La Piana, G., Foreign Groups in Rome during the First Centuries of the Empire, HTR 20 (1927), pp. 183f. Laqueur, R., Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus, Giessen 1920. Lazzarini, M.L., Iscrizioni da Ostia e Porto, La cultura ebraica nell’editoria italiana (1955–1990), Rome 1992, pp. 185f. Leon, H.J., The Language of the Greek Inscriptions from the Jewish Catacombs of Rome, TRAPA 58 (1927), pp. 210f. ———, The Names of the Jews of Ancient Rome, TPAPA 59 (1928), pp. 205f. ———, Sulphur for Broken Glass, TPAPA (1941), pp. 233f. ———, The Jewish Community of Ancient Porto, HTR 45 (1952), pp. 165f. ———, An Unpublished Jewish Inscription at Villa Torlonia in Rome, JQR 42 (1952), pp. 413f. ———, The Daughters of Gadias, TPAPA 84 (1953), pp. 67f. ———, The Jews of Venusia, JQR 44 (1954), pp. 267f. ———, The Jews of Ancient Rome, Philadelphia 1960 (Peabody 19952). Levi, A.J., Gli ebrei in Roma nel ricordo della Haggadà, Scritti in Memoria di Enzo Sereni, Jerusalem 1970, pp. 75f. Levi, I., La légend chretiénne de Bartholomée dans le Talmud (Légendes judeo-chré- tiennes II), REJ 8 (1884), pp. 200f. Levi, L., Ricerche di epigrafia ebraica nell’Italia meridionale, RMI 28 (1962), pp. 146f. ———, Le iscrizione della ‘tomba nuova’ di Venosa, RMI 31 (1965), pp. 358f. Levine, L.I. (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York 1992. ———, The Status of the Patriarch in the Third and Fourth Centuries: Sources and Methodology, JJS 47 (1996), pp. 24f. ———, The Hellenistic Roman Diaspora 70CE–235CE, CHJ 3 (2001), pp. 991f. ———, The First Century C.E. Synagogue in Historical Perspective, The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 1f. ———, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, New Haven-London 20052. ———, Schwartz, D.R. (eds.), Jewish Identities in Antiquity. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, Tübingen 2009. Lewin, A. (ed.), Gli ebrei nel impero romano, Florence 2001. Lewy, H., Hekataios of Abdera περὶ Iουδαίον, ZNW 31 (1932), pp. 117f. (Hebr. in: Studies in Jewish Hellenism, Jerusalem 1960, pp. 44f.) Lieberman, S., Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum, JQR 35 (1944–1945), pp. 1f. (57f. revised from article in AIPHOS 7 [1939–1944], 411f.) bibliography 431

———, Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries, JQR 36 (1946), pp. 329f.; 37 (1947), pp. 31f. (repr. in Texts and Studies, pp. 112f.) ———, The Martyrs of Caesarea, AIPHOS 7 (1939); varied version: JQR 36 (1946), pp. 239f. ———, Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York 1950 (also in Hebrew). ———, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 1950, 19622 (also in Hebrew). ———, Texts and Studies, New York 1974. Lieu, J., Accusations of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge 1998. ———, The Synagogue and the Separation of the Christians. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 189f. ——— et al. (eds.), The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, London 1992. Lifshitz, B., Fonctions et titres honorifiques dans le communautés juives, RB 68 (1960), pp. 62f. ———, Les juifs à Venosa, RFIC, NS 90 (1962), pp. 368f. ———, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives, CRB 7, Paris 1967. ———, Du nouveau sur les “sympathisants”, JSJPHIP 1 (1970), pp. 77f. ———, Prolegomenon, see Frey, Corpus (Sources). Linder, A., Ecclesia and Synagoga in the Mediaeval Myth of Constantine the Great, RBPH 54 (1976), pp. 1019f. ——— (ed.), The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Detroit 1987. ——— (ed.), The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, Detroit 1997. ———, Status of the Jews in the Roman Empire, CHJ 4, Cambridge 2006, pp. 128f. ———, The Legal Status of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire. In: Jews in Byzantium: (Bonfil et al.), pp. 149f. Littman, R.J., and Littman, M.L., Galen and the Antonine Plague, AJP 94 (1972), pp. 243f. Lo Cascio, E., The Size of the Roman Population: Beloch and the Meaning of the Augustan Census Figures, JRS 84 (1940), pp. 23f. Lods, M., Étude sur les sources juives de la polémique de Celse contre le chrétiens, RHPR 21 (1941), pp. 1f. Lotter, F., Die Entwicklung des Judenrechts in christlichen Abendland bis zu den Kreuzzügen. In: Judentum und Antisemitismus von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Klein, T. et al., eds.), Düsseldorf 1984, pp. 41f. ———, Die Zwangsbekehrung der Juden von Menorca um 418 im Rahmen der Entwicklung des Judenrechts der Spätantike, HZ 242 (1986), pp. 291f. Lucas, L., Zur Geschichte der Juden im vierten Jahrhundert, Berlin 1910. Luzzato, A., Moldavi, M., Bibliotheca Italo-Ebraica, Rome 1982. Luzzatto, F., Ebrei in Aquileia, RMI 16 (1950), pp. 140f. 432 bibliography

MacLellan, R.S., Kraabel, A.T., The God-Fearers—A Literary and Theological Invention, BAR 12/5 (1986), pp. 46f. MacMullen, R., Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100–400, New Haven 1984. McGing, B., Population and Proselytism: How Many Jews Were There in the Ancient World. In: Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (Bartlett), pp. 88f. McKay, H.A., Sabbath and the Synagogue. The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism, Leiden 1994. McKnight, S., A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period, Minneapolis 1991. McLaren, J.S., Josephus on Titus. In: Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Sievers, Lembi), pp. 279f. Maetzke, G., Porto Torres (Sassari), Iscrizioni funerarie romane, NSA 1964, pp. 323f. Mahler, E., Handbuch der jüdischen Chronologie, Leipzig, 1916. Maier, J., Jesus von Nazareth in der Talmudischen Überlieferung, Darmstadt 1978. ———, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike, Darmstadt 1982. Manganaro, G., Giudei grecanaci nella Sicilia imperiale. Documentazione epigrafica e figurativa, Ebrei e Sicilia, Palermo 2002, pp. 31f. Mantel, H., Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, Cambridge, Mass. 1961. Marcos, N.F., The Septuagint in Context, Leiden-Boston 2000. Marcus, R., The Sobemenoi in Josephus, JSS 14 (1952), pp. 247f. Margolis, M.L., The Story of Bible Translations, Philadelphia 1917. Mark, E.W. (ed.), The Covenant of Circumcision: New Perspectives of an Ancient Jewish Rite, Hanover 2003. Marmorstein, A., L’Épitre de Barnabé e la polémique juive, REJ 60 (1910), pp. 213f. ———, Reliionsgeschichtliche Studien, 2 vols., Skotschau-Pressburg 1910. ———, Les Persécutions religieuses a l’époque de R. Yohanan b. Nappacha, REJ 77 (1923), pp. 166f. ———, Dioclétien a la lumière de la littérature rabbinique, REJ 98 (1934), pp. 19f. ———, Judaism and Christianity in the Middle of the Third Century, HUCA 10 (1935), pp. 225f. Marrou, H.I., Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, Paris 1948. Mason, S., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, Leiden-New York-Copenhagen-Cologne 1991. ———, Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome: Reading on and between the Lines. In: Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Boyle, Dominik), pp. 559f. Massey, G., The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, London 1936. Mattingly, H., Sydenham., E.A., The Roman Imperial Coinage, 10 vols., London 1923– 2007 (v.e.). bibliography 433

Mayer, G., Die jüdische Frau in der hellenistisch-römischen Antike, Stuttgart 1987. Mazzoleni, D., Le catacombe ebraiche di Roma, SR 23 (1975), pp. 289f. Merrill, E.T., The Expulsion of the Jews under Tiberius, CP 19 (1919), pp. 365f. Messina, A., Il codice Vat. Gr. 1591 ed il romanzo agiografico siciliano, Byzantion 11 (2001), pp. 194f. Messina, A., Le comunità ebraiche della Sicilia nella documentazione archeologica, Henoch 3 (1981), pp. 200f. Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, 3 vols., Stuttgart 1921–1923. Meyers, E.M., Report on the Excavations at the Venosa Catacomb, VC 20 (1983), pp. 445f. Milano, A., Bibliotheca historica italo-judaica, Florence 1954 (+Supplemento). ———, Le sinagoghe del vecchio ghetto di Roma, SR 6 (1958), pp. 138f. ———, Storia degli ebrei in Italia, Turin 1963. Milano, A. et al. (eds.), Scritti in Memoria di Enzo Sereni, Jerusalem 1971. Millar, F., Gentiles and Judaism: God-Fearers and Proselytes (Schürer Engl. ed. 3.1), Edinburgh 1986, pp. 150f. ———, The Jews of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora between Paganism and Christianity, AD 312–438. In: The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (Lieu et al.), pp. 97f. Miranda, E., Due iscrizioni greco-giudaiche della Campagna, RAC 55 (1979), pp. 337f. Mitteis, L., Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Kaiserreichs: mit Beiträgen zur Kenntniss des griechischen Rechts und der spätrö- mischen Rechtsentwicklung, Leipzig 1891 (repr. Hildesheim 1963). Mitten, D.G. et al. (eds.), Studies Presented to George Hanfmann, Cambridge, Mass. 1971. Mitternacht, D., Current Views on the Synagogue of Ostia Antica and the Jews of Rome and Ostia. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 521f. Moehring, H.R., The Persecution of the Jews and the Adherents of the Isis Cult at Rome A.D. 19, NT 3 (1959), pp. 293f. ———, The “Acta Pro Judaeis” in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus: A Study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiography. In: Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (Neusner, J., ed.), Leiden 1975, pp. 124f. ———, Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Prophet and Roman Josephus, ANRW II, 21, 2, Berlin 1984, pp. 864f. Moldavi, M., Biblioteca Italo-Ebraica, Milan 1989. Mombritius, B., Sanctuarium sive Vitae Sanctorum, 2 vols., Paris 1910. Momigliano, A., Prime linee di storia della tradizione maccabaica, Rome 1930. 434 bibliography

———, I nomi delle prime sinagoghe romane e la condizione giuridica delle comunità in Roma sotto Augusto, RMI 6 (1931), pp. 283f. ———, L’opera dell’imperatore Claudio, Florence 1932. ———, Claudius: The Emperor and His Achievements, Oxford 1934 (Cambridge 19612). ———, Severo Alessandro Archisynagogus, Athenaeum, NS 12 (1934), pp. 151f. ———, The Unsolved Problem of Historical Forgery: The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, JWCI 17 (1954), pp. 22f. ———, Review of Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, Gnomon 34 (1962), pp. 178f. ———, Review of: Syme, R., Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, EHR 84 (1969), pp. 566f. ———, Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization, Cambridge 1975. ———, The New Letter by “Anna” to “Seneca” (Ms. 17 Erzbischöfliche Bibliothek in Köln), Athenaeum NS 63 (1985), pp. 217f. (=Ottavo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Rome 1987, pp. 329f.) ———, Pagine ebraiche, Turin 1987. ———, The Romans and the Maccabees. In: Jewish History, Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky (Rapaport-Alberti, A., Zipperstein, S.J., eds.), London 1988, pp. 231f. (repr. in Nono contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Rome 1992, pp. 747f.) ———, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Middletown 1989. Mommsen, T. et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), Berlin 1862–. ———, Der Religionsfrevel nach römischem Recht, HZ 64 (1890), pp. 389f. ———, Fragmenta Vaticana: Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio. In: Collectio Librorum Iuris Anteiustiniani, 3 (Krüger, P., Mommsen, T., eds.), Berlin 1890, pp. 107f. ———, Judaea und die Juden, Berlin 1936. ———, Römisches Staatsrecht, 3 vols., Graz 1952–19693. ———, Gesammelte Schriften, 8 vols., Berlin 19652. ———, Römische Geschichte, 8 vols., Munich 1976. Moore, G.F., Christian Writers on Judaism, HTR 14 (1921), pp. 197f. ———, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era and in Christianity, 3 vols. (repr.), New York 1979. Mor, M., Klutznick, E. (eds.), Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation, and Accommodation: Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects, Lanham 1992. Motta, L., La tradizione sulla rivolta ebraica al tempo di Traiano, Aegyptus 32 (1952), pp. 485f. Müller, C. (ed.), Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vols., Paris 1846–1870. Müller, N., Le catacombe degli ebrei presso la Via Appia Pignatelli, MDAI 1 (1886), pp. 49f. ———, Die jüdische Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom, Leipzig 1912. Munck, J., Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte, Aarhus 1954. bibliography 435

Murcia, T., Jésus adorateur d’une brique? B. Sanhedrin 107b: l’episode talmudique du séjour de Yeshu en Egypt, REJ 170 (2011), pp. 369f. Mussies, G., Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora. In: The Jewish People in the First Century (Safrai et al.), 2, pp. 1040f. Musurillo, H.A., The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, Oxford 1972. Mutschmann, H., Das Genesiszitat in der Schrift περὶ ὕψσους, Hermes 52/2 (1917), pp. 161f. Neubauer, A., The Early Settlement of the Jews in Southern Italy, JQR OS 4, pp. 606f. Neuburg, F., Glass in Antiquity, London 1962. Neusner, J., A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, ca. 1–80 C.E., Leiden 19702. ———, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man, Leiden 1973. ——— (ed.), Christianity Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, Leiden 1975. ———, The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Yamnia) from A.D. 70 to 100, ANRW, II, 19.2, Berlin 1979, pp. 3f. ——— et al. (eds.), To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity, Chico 1985. ———, Josephus’ Pharisees: A Complete Repertoire. In: Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Feldman, Hata), pp. 274f. ——— et al. (eds.), Religion, Literature and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity and Judaism, 1, Lanham 1987 (repr. Atlanta 1990). ———, Avery-Peck, A.J. (eds.), Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism III. The Special Problem of the Synagogue, Judaism in Late Antiquity 4, Leiden 2001. Niese, B., Bemerkungen über die Urkunden bei Josephus, Archaeol. B. XIII, XIV, XVI, Hermes 11 (1876), pp. 466f. ———, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der Makkabäischen Erhebung, Hermes 35 (1900), pp. 268f. Nietzsche, F., Morgenröthe (Daybreak), v.e. Nikiprowetzky, V., La troisième Sibylle, Paris-Le Haye 1970. Nock, A.D., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, 2 vols., Oxford 1972. Noethlichs, K.L., Die Gesetzgeberischen Massnahmen der christlichen Kaiser des vierten Jahrhunderts gegen Häretiker, Heiden und Juden, Cologne-Sülz 1971. ———, Die Juden im christlichen Imperium Romanum (4–6 Jahrhundert), Berlin 2001. Norden E., Das Genesiszitat in der Schrift vom Erhabenen, Berlin 1955 (also in: Kleine Schriften zum klassischen Altertum [Kytzler, B., ed.], pp. 286f., Berlin 1966). Novak, D., The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: The Idea of Noahide Law, Oxford 20012. Noy, D. (ed.), Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, 2 vols., Cambridge 1993–2010. 436 bibliography

———, The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa. In: Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (Henten, Horst), pp. 162f. ———, Writing in Tongues: The Use of Greek, Latin and Hebrew in Jewish Inscriptions from Italy, JJS 48 (1997), pp. 300f. ———, “Peace upon Israel”. In: Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Horbury, H., ed.), Edinburgh 1999, pp. 135f. ———, Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers, London 2000. ———, Review of Giordano, C., and Kahn, I., The Jews in Pompei, Herculaneum, Stabiae and the Cities of the Campania Felix, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 15 (2004), pp. 1f. ———, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe: Addenda et Corrigenda, Hebraica Hereditas, Studi in onore di Cesare Colafemmina, Naples 2005, pp. 123f. Olsson, B., The Origins of the Synagogue: An Introduction. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 27f. ———, The Origins of the Synagogue: An Evaluation. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 132f. ——— et al. (eds.), The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome. Interdisciplinary Studies, Stockholm 2001. ———, Zetterholm, M. (eds.), The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E., Papers presented at an International Conference at Lund University 2001, Stockholm 2003. Opelt, I., Die Polemik in der christlich lateinischen Literatur von Tertullian bis Augustin, Heidelberg 1980. Oppenheimer, A., Müller-Luckner, E. (eds.), Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch- römischer Zeit, Munich 1999. ———, The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of the Revolt: A Reconsideration. In: The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered (Schäfer), pp. 55f. Orsi, P., Noto Vecchio (Netum), esplorazioni archeologiche, NSA 1897, pp. 69f. ———, Nuovi ipogei di sette cristiane e giudaiche ai Cappuccini in Siracusa, RQ 14 (1900), pp. 194f. ———, Siracusa. Piccolo catacombe di sette ereticali e di ebrei nel predio Giuliano ai Cappuccini, NSA 1900, pp. 207f. Östersetzer, I., La “Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum”, ses origins—son but, REJ 97 (1934), pp. 65f. Overman, J.A., MacLellan, R.S. (eds.), Diaspora Jews and Judaism. Essays in Honour of A. Kraabel, Atlanta 1992. Palanque, J-R., Collégialité et partage dans l’empire romain aux IVe et Ve siècles, REA 46 (1944), pp. 47f., 280f. Parente, F., The Impotence of Titus, or Flavius Josephus’s Bellum Judaicum as an Example of “Pathetic” Historiography. In: Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome (Sievers, Lembi), pp. 46f. bibliography 437

Park, J.S., Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions, Tübingen 2000. Parker, A.J., Ancient Shipwrecks in the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, Oxford 1992. Parkes, J., The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, Cleveland-New York- Philadelphia 1961. Parkin, T.G., Demography and Roman Society, Baltimore-London 1992. Pastor, J. et al. (eds.), Flavius Josephus, Interpretation and History, Leiden-Boston 2011. Patroni-Griffi, F., Campania e Lazio meridionale. Atti del Congresso Internazionale di studio organizzato dell’università degli studi della Basilicata, Potenza-Venosa, 20–24 settembre 1992, Galatina 1996, pp. 249f. Pauly, A.F., Wissowa, G., Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart 1893–1980 [Engl. ed.: Brill’s New Pauly: “Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World”, Leiden 2006, with a chronological supplement 2007]. Pavolini, C., La vita quotidiana a Ostia, Rome 1986. Penna, R., Les juifs à Rome au temps de l’apôtre Paul, NTS 28 (1982), pp. 321f. Perani, M., Gli ebrei in Sardegna fino al secolo VI: Testimonianze storiche e archeologiche, RMI 57 (1991), pp. 305f. ——— (ed.), I beni culturali ebraici in Italia, Ravenna 2003. ———, Le testimonianze archeologiche sugli ebrei in Sardegna. I beni culturali ebraici in Italia, Ravenna 2003, pp. 147f. Pfaff, F., Rufus aus Samaria Hippokrateskommentator und die Quelle Galens, Hermes 67 (1932), pp. 356f. Picotti, G.B., Osservazioni su alcuni punti della politica religiosa di Teodorico, SSCIAM 3 (1956). pp. 173f. Pirenne, H., Mohammed and Charlemagne, New York 1957. Pisano Baudo, S., Storia della chiesa e dei martiri di Lentini, Lentini 1898. Popović, M. (ed.), The Jewish Revolt against Rome, Leiden-Boston 2011. Porton, G.G., The Stranger within Your Gates: Converts and Conversion in Rabbinic Literature, Chicago 1994. Posnanski, A., Schiloh. Ein Beitrag zur Gschichte der Messiaslehre, Leipzig 1904. Potter, D.S., The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180–395, London 2004. Pradels, W. et al., Das bisher vermisste Textstück in Johannes Chrysostomus, Adversus Judaeos, Oratio 2, ZAC 5 (2001), pp. 23f. ———, The Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom’s Eight Discourses Adversus Judaeos, ZAC 6 (2002), pp. 90f. Price, J., The Provincial Historian in Rome. Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Sievers, Lembi), pp. 101f. Pucci Ben Zeev, M., Qualche osservazione sulla tradizione letteraria della rivolta ebraica al tempo di Traiano (115–117 d.C.), RSA 9 (1979), pp. 61f. ———, La rivolta ebraica al tempo di Traiano, Pisa 1981. ———, Cosa pensavano i romani degli ebrei, Athenaeum 65 (1987), pp. 335f. 438 bibliography

———, Marcus Antonius, Publius Dolabella and the Jews, Athenaeum 82 (1994), pp. 31f. ———, Caesar and Jewish Law, RB 102 (1995), pp. 28f. ———, Ant. 14.186–267: A Problem of Authenticity. In: Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg (Katzoff, R. et al., eds.), Ramat Gan 1996. ———, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: New Perspectives, Te’uda 12 (1996), pp. 39f. ———, Jewish Rights in the Roman World Quoted by Josephus Flavius, Tübingen 1998. ———, Were They Seditious? The Jews of Rome in the Sixties BCE, Italia 13–15 (2001), pp. 9f. ———, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE, Leuven 2005. ———, The Uprisings in the Jewish Diaspora (116–117 CE), CHJ 4, Cambridge 2006, pp. 93f. Pugliese, S.G. (ed.), The Most Ancient of Minorities: The Jews of Italy, Westport-London 2002. Rabello, A.M., Alcune note sulla “Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum” e sul suo luogo d’origine, Scritti sull’ebraismo in memoria di Guido Bedarida, Florence 1966, pp. 177f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto 1, pp. 499f.) ———, Sull’ebraicità dell’autore della “Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum”, RMI 33 (1967), pp. 339f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, 1, pp. 513f.) ———, The First Law of Theodosius II, Christian News from Israel 21 (1974), pp. 159f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, pp. 413f.) ———, A Tribute to Jean Juster, ILR, 11 (1976), pp. 216f. ———, Sui rapporti fra Diocleziano e gli ebrei, AARC 2 (1976), pp. 157f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, 1, pp. 215f.) ———, The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire, ANRW II, 13, Berlin 1980, pp. 662f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, 1, pp. 247f.) ———, Il problema della ‘circumcisio’ in diritto romano fino ad Antonino Pio. In: Studi in onore di Arnaldo Biscardi II, Milan 1982, pp. 187f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, 1, pp. 169f.) ———, On the Relations between Diocletian and the Jews, JJS 35 (1984), pp. 147f. ———, Il problema del matrimonio fra ebrei e cristiani nella legislazione imperiale in quella della chiesa (IV–VI secolo), AARC 7 (1988), pp. 213f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, pp. 423f. ———, Sul decalogo cristianizzato e l’autore della Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanorum, RMI 55 (1989), 133f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, 1, pp. 527f.) ———, The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of the Bar Kochba Rebellion, ILR 29 (1995), pp. 189f. ———, Il divorzio degli ebrei nell’impero romano, Zakhor 3 (1999), pp. 11f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, 1, pp. 437f.) bibliography 439

———, The Jews in the Roman Empire: Legal Problems from Herod to Justinian, Aldershot 2000. ———, La situazione giuridica degli ebrei nell’impero romano. In: Gli ebrei nel impero romano (Lewin, A., ed.), Florence 2001, pp. 201f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto 1, pp. 351f.) ———, La datazione della Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanorum e il problema di una seconda redazione o del suo uso nel corso del quarto secolo. In: Humana Sapit. Études d’Antiquité Tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini (Carrié, J.M., Ruggini, L.C., eds.), Turnhout 2002, pp. 411f. ———, L’atteggiamento di Roma verso le conversioni all’Ebraismo. In: La condition des autres dans le système juridique de la Méditerranée (Castro, F., Catalano, P., eds.), Paris 2004, pp. 133f. (repr. Ebraismo e diritto, 1, pp. 461f.) ———, Ebraismo e diritto. Studi sul diritto ebraico e gli ebrei nel diritto romano (a cura di Lucrezi, F.), 2 vols. Soveria Manelli 2009. Radice, R., Runia, D.T., Philo of Alexandria. An Annotated Bibliography 1937–1986, Leiden 1986. Radin, M., The Jews among the Greeks and Romans, Philadelphia 1915. Raisin, J.S., Gentile Reactions to Jewish Ideals with Special Attention to Proselytes, New York 1953. Rajak, T., Justus of Tiberias, CQ NS 23 (1973), pp. 345f. ———, Josephus, the Historian and His Society, London 1983. ———, Was There a Roman Charter of the Jews?, JRS 84 (1984), pp. 107f. ———, Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities under Roman Rule: A New Approach. In: Approaches to Ancient Judaism V, Studies in Judaism and its Greco-Roman Context, 5 (Green, W.S., ed.), Atlanta 1985, pp. 19f. ———, The Jewish Community and Its Boundaries: In: The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (Lieu et al.), pp. 9f. ———, Inscriptions and Context: Reading the Jewish Catacombs of Rome. In: Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (Henten, Horst), pp. 226f. ———, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome, Leiden 2000. ———, Synagogue and Community in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora. In: Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (Bartlett), pp. 22f. ———, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible and the Jewish Diaspora, Oxford 2009. ———, The Rabbinic Dead and the Diaspora Dead at Beth She’arim. In: Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture (Schäfer, Hezser), I, pp. 349f. ———, Noy, D., Archisynagogi. Office, Title and Social Status in the Greco-Jewish Synagogue, JRS 83 (1993), pp. 75f. Rakover, N., The Multi-Language Bibliography of Jewish Law, Jerusalem 1990. Ranke (von), L., Sämmtliche Werke, 54 vols., Leipzig 1867–1890. ———, The Theory and Practice of History, Indianapolis 1973. 440 bibliography

Reich, R., The Synagogue and the Miqveh. In: Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (Urman, D., Flesher, P.V.M., eds.), Leiden 1995, pp. 389f. Reichart, K.D., Die Judengesetzgebung im Codex Justinianus, Kairos 20 (1978), pp. 16f. Reif, S.C., Judaism and Hebrew Prayer. New Perspectives of Jewish Liturgical History, Cambridge 1993. Reinach, T., ‘Quid Judaeo cum Verre?’ REJ 26 (1893), pp. 36f. ———, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaïsme, Paris 1895. ———, L’inscription de Theodotos, REJ 71 (1920), pp. 46f. ———, Le cimitière juif de Monteverde a propos d’un livre recent, REJ 71 (1920), pp. 113f. ———, L’empereur Claude et les juifs d’apres un nouveau document, REJ 75 (1924), pp. 113f. Reinhold, M., Diaspora: The Jews among the Greeks and Romans, Sarasota 1983. Reynolds, J.M., Tannenbaum, R., Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias. Greek Inscrip tions with Commentary, Cambridge 1987 (Cambridge Philological Society, Suppl. Vol. 12). Rhys Roberts, W., Caecilius of Calacte. A Contribution to the History of Greek Literary Criticism, AJP 18/3 (1897), pp. 302f. Richardson, P., Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine. In: Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (Kloppenborg, Wilson), pp. 90f. ———, Augustan Era Synagogues in Rome. In: Judaism and Christianity in First- Century Rome (Donfried, Richardson), pp. 17f. ———, An Architecural Case for Synagogues as Asssociations. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 90f. Rieger, P., The Foundation of Rome in the Talmud, JQR 16 (1926), pp. 227f. Riesner, R., Synagogues in Jerusalem. In: The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 4 (Bauckham, R., ed.), Grand Rapids 1995, pp. 179–211. Rivkin, E., Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources, HUCA 40/41 (1970), pp. 205f. Rocca, S., The Purposes and Functions of the Synagogue in Late Second Temple Period Judaea: Evidence from Josephus and Archaeological Investigation, Flavius Josephus, Interpretation and Analysis (Pastor et al.), pp. 295f. Rogers, R.S., Fulvia Paulina C. Sentii Saturnini, AJP 53/3 (1932), pp. 252f. Rokeah, D., Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict, Jerusalem 1982. ———, The War of Kitos. Towards the Clarification of a Philological-Historical Problem, SH 123 (1972), pp. 79f. Rosenthal, J., Bar-Hebraeus and a Jewish Census under Claudius, JJS 16 (1954), pp. 267f. Rossi, D. et al. (eds.), La catacomba ebraica di Monteverde: vecchi dati e nuove scoperte, Rome 2013. bibliography 441

Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols., Oxford 1953 (19982). ———, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford 1957 (19982). Roth, C., History of the Jews in Italy, Philadelphia 1946. Rothstein, M., Caecilius von Kalacte und die Schrift vom Erhabenen, Hermes 23/1 (1888), pp. 1f. Rotman, Y., Christians, Jews and Muslims in Byzantine Italy. In: The Byzantine World (Stephenson, P., ed.), London 2010. ———, Converts in Byzantine Italy: Vocal Representations of Jewish-Christian Rivalry. In: Jews in Byzantium (Bonfil et al.), pp. 893f. Roueché, C., A New Inscription from Aphrodisias and the Title πατήρ τής πόλεως, GRBS 20 (1979), pp. 173f. Rubin, S., Das talmudische Recht auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung mit dem römischen verglichen und dargestellt 1. Abt: Personenrecht. 1. Buch: die Sklaverei. ein Beitrag zur Lehre von den Menschenrechten im Judentume, Vienna 1920. Rubinich, M., Osservazioni sul materiale ceramico di Bova Marina, MEFR, Moyen Age 103 (1991), pp. 631f. Ruether, R., Faith and Fratricide: The Christian Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism, New York 1974. ———, The Adversus Judaeos Tradition in the Church Fathers: The Exegesis of Christian Anti-Judaism. In: Aspects of Jewish Culture in the Middle Ages (Szarmach, P.E., ed.), Albany 1979, pp. 27f. Runesson, A., The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora: A Response to L.M. White, HTR 92 (1999), pp. 409f. ———, The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia. The Building and Its History from the First to the Fifth Century. In: The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome (Olsson et al.), pp. 29f. ———, Water and Worship. Ostia and the Ritual Bath in the Diaspora Synagogue. In: The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome (Olsson et al.), pp. 116f. ———, The Origins of the Synagogue: A Socio-Historical Study, Stockholm 2001. ———, A Monumental Synagogue from the First Century: The Case of Ostia, JSJPHIP 33 (2002), pp. 171f. ———, Persian Imperial Politics, the Beginnings of Public Torah Readings and the Origins of the Synagogue. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 63f. ——— et al. (eds.), The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E. A Source Book, Leiden 2007. Rutgers, L.V., Archaeological Evidence for the Interaction of Jews and Non-Jews in Late Antiquity, AJA 96 (1992), pp. 101f. 442 bibliography

———, Roman Policy towards the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C.E., CA 13 (1994), pp. 56f. ———, The Jews in Late Ancient Rome. Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman Diaspora, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1995. ———, Interaction and Its Limits: Some Notes on the Jews of Sicily in Late Antiquity, ZPE 115 (1997), pp. 245f. ———, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism, Leuven 1998. ———, Justinian’s Novella 146. Between Jews and Christians. In: Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire (Kalmin, Schwartz), pp. 385f. ———, Nuovi dati sulla demografia della comunità ebraica di Roma, Hebraica Hereditas (Lacerenza, G., ed.), Naples 2005, pp. 237f. ———, Reflections on the Demography of the Jewish Community of Rome, Les cités de l’Italie tardo-antique (IVe–VIe siècle), École Française de Rome (Collection 369), Rome 2006, pp. 345f. ——— et al., Radiocarbon Dates from the Jewish Catacombs of Rome, Radiocarbon 44 (2002), pp. 541f. ———, Radiocarbon Dating of Several Ancient Jewish Oil Lamps from Rome, Radiocarbon 49 (2007), pp. 1215f. ——— (ed.), What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem, Foerster Jubilee volume, Leuven 2002. Safrai, S. et al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, 2 vols., Assen/Amsterdam 1974–1976. ———, Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel. In: The Jewish People in the First Century (Safrai et al.), 1, pp. 184f. ———, The Synagogue. In: The Jewish People in the First Century (Safrai et al.), 2, pp. 908f. ———, Education and the Study of the Torah. In: The Jewish People in the First Century, 2, pp. 958f. Saldarini, A.J., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, Version B, Leiden 1975. ———, Johanan b. Zakkai’s Escape from Jerusalem, JSJ 6 (1975), pp. 189f. ———, Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of the Fathers according to R. Nathan, Chico 1982. Salzman, M.R., The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in Book 16 of the Theodosian Code, Historia 42 (1993), pp. 632f. Sanders, E.P., et al. (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, 3 vols., London 1980–1982. Sandmel, S., The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity, New York 1969. Saulnier, C., Lois romaines sur les juifs selon Flavius Josephe, RB 88 (1981), pp. 161f. bibliography 443

Savino, E., Ebrei a Napoli nel VI secolo d.C. In: Hebraica Hereditas (Lacerenza, G., ed.), Naples 2005, pp. 299f. Schäfer, P., Die Flucht Joḥanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem und die Gründung des Lehrhauses in Jabne, ANRW II, 19/2, Berlin 1979, pp. 43f. ———, Der Bar Kochba Aufstand, Tübingen 1981. ———, Judaeophobia: Attitudes Towards Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge Mass. 1997. ———, The Bar Kokhba Revolt and Circumcision: Historical Evidence and Modern Apologetics. In: Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Oppenheimer, Müller-Luckner), pp. 119f. ———, Jews and Gentiles in Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah. In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture (Schäfer, Hezser), 3, pp. 335f. ———, The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World, London 20032. ——— (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, Tübingen 2003. ———, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton 2007. ———, Jesus’ Origin, Birth and Childhood According to the Toldot Yeshu and the Talmud. Judaea-Palaestina. Babylon and Rome: Jews in Antiquity, Tübingen 2012, pp. 139f. ———, Hezser, C. (eds.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, 3 vols., Tübingen 1998–2002. ——— et al. (eds.), The Toldoth Yeshu (‘The Life Story of Jesus’) Revisited. A Princeton Conference, Tübingen 2011. Schechter, S., Genizah Specimens, JQR OS 10 (1898), pp. 654f. Scheidel, W., Debating Roman Demography, Leiden-Boston 2001. Schirmann, J., Hebrew Liturgical Poetry and Christian Hymnology, JQR 44 (1953), pp. 123f. Schmelz, U.O. (comp.), Jewish Demography and Statistics, Bibliography for 1920–1960, Jerusalem 1961. ———, Glikson, P. (eds.), Jewish Population Studies, 1961–1968, Jerusalem 1971. ——— et al. (eds.), Jewish Population Studies. Papers in Jewish Demography, Jerusalem 1980, 1983. Schrage, E.J.H., La date de la Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanorum étudié d’après les citations bibliques, Mélanges Felix Wubbe, pp. 401f. Schreckenberg, H., Die Flavius Josephus Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter, Leiden 1972. ———, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1–11. Jh.), Frankfurt-Bern 1982. Schremer, A., Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, Oxford, New York 2010. 444 bibliography

———, Wayward Jews: Minim in Early Rabbinic Literature, JJS 64 (2013), pp. 242f. Schulz, F., Die Biblischen Texte in der Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, SDHI 2 (1936), pp. 20f. Schürer, E., Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit, Leipzig 1879. ———, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 4 vols., Leipzig 1898– 19013 (+Engl. Version, 3 vols. in 4, Edinburgh 1973–1987). Schwartz, S., Josephus and Judaean Politics, Leiden 1990. ———, The Patriarchs and the Diaspora, JJS 50 (1999), pp. 208f. Scramuzza, V.M., The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors towards Judaism. In: The Beginnings of Christianity (Foakes-Jackson, Lake), 5, pp. 277f. Seaver, J.E., Persecutions of the Jews in the Roman Empire (300–438), Lawrence 1952. Seeck, O., Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 N.Chr., Stuttgart 1919. Segal, L.A., R. Matiah ben Heresh of Rome on Religious Duties and Redemption, PAAJR 58 (1992), pp. 221f. Seliger, R., The Mid-Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian, Frankfurt-New York 20042. Sermoneta, J.B., La traduzione giudeo-italiana dei Salmi e i suoi rapport con le antiche versioni italiane. In: Scritti in memoria di Umberto Nahon (Bonfil, R. et al.), Jerusalem 1978, pp. 196f. Serrao, E., Nuove iscrizione di un sepolcreto giudaico di Napoli, Puteoli 12–13 (1988– 1989), pp. 103f. Sevenster, J.N., The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World, Leiden 1975. Sgherri, G., Chiesa e sinagoga nelle opere di Origine, Milan 1982. Shanks, H., The Destruction of Pompeii—God’s Revenge, BAR 36/4 (2010), pp. 60f. Sharf, A., Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade, London 1984. Siegel, J.P., The Severus Scroll and IQLsa, Missoula 1975. Siegert, F., Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten, JSJPHIP 4/2 (1973), pp. 109f. Sievers, J., Lembi, G. (eds.), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, Leiden-Boston 2005. Silverstone, A.E., Aquila and Onkelos, Manchester 1931. Simon, M., Verus Israel. Études sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’empire romain (135–425), Paris 1964. ———, Jupiter-Jahvé: Sur un essai de théologie pagano-juive, Numen 23 (1976), pp. 40f. Simonsohn, S., Gli ebrei a Siracusa ed il loro cimitero, ASSi 9 (1963), pp. 8f. ———, The Hebrew Revival among Early Medieval European Jews, Baron Jubilee vol., 2, Jerusalem 1974, pp. 831f. ———, The Jews in the Duchy of Milan, 4 vols., Jerusalem 1982–1986. ———, The Apostolic See and the Jews, 8 vols., Toronto 1988–1991. ———, The Jews in Sicily, 18 vols., Leiden-New York-Boston-Cologne 1997–2010. bibliography 445

———, Epigrafia ebraica in Sicilia, Annali della scuola normale di Pisa, S. IV, Quaderni 2 (1999), pp. 509f. ———, Between Scylla and Charybdis, Leiden-Boston 2011. ———, Jewish Italy: The Melting Pot of Mediterranean Jewry. The Jews in Southern Italy and in the Mediterranean Area from Roman Times to the Early Middle Ages (in print). ———, Consonni, M. (eds.), Biblioteca Italo-Ebraica, Firenze 2007. Slingerland, H.D., “The Jews” in the Pauline Portion of Acts, JAAR 54 (1986), pp. 305f. ———, Suetonius, Claudius 25.4 and the Account in Dio Cassius, JQR 79 (1988–1989), pp. 305f. ———, Suetonius 25.4, Acts 18 and Paulus Orosius’ Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII: Dating the Claudian Expulsion(s) of Roman Jews, JQR 83 (1992), pp. 127f. ———, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome, Atlanta 1997. ———, Modern Historiography on the Early Imperial Mistreatment of Roman Jews. The Most Ancient Minorities (Pugliesi), pp. 35f. Smallwood, E.M., Some Notes on the Jews under Tiberius, Latomus 16 (1956), pp. 314f. ———, Domitian’s Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism, CP 51 (1956), pp. 1f. ———, The Chronology of Gaius’ Attempt to Desecrate the Temple, Latomus 16 (1957), pp. 3f. ———, The Alleged Jewish Tendencies of Poppaea Sabina, JTS 10 (1959), pp. 329f. ———, Legislation of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius against Circumcision, Latomus 18 (1959), pp. 334f.; + Addendum, XX (1961), pp. 93f. ———, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1961 (19702). ———, Palestine ca. A.D. 115–118, Historia 11 (1962), pp. 500f. ———, The Jews under Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian. A Study in Political Relations, Leiden 1981. Smith, M., The Troublemakers, CHJ 3, Cambridge 1999, pp. 501f. Smits, N., Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio, Haarlem 1934. Solazzi, S., Fra norme romane anti-semite, BIDR 44 (1937), pp. 369f. Solazzi, S., Scritti di dirittto romano, 6 vols., Naples 1955–1972. ———, Per la data della Collatio Mosaicarum et Romanorum legume. In: Scritti di Diritto Romano (Solazzi), 3, Naples 1960, pp. 481f. (repr. from AASMPN 57 [1935], pp. 262f.) ———, Le unioni di cristiani ed ebrei nelle leggi del basso impero. In: Scritti di diritto Romano (Solazzi), 3, Naples 1963, pp. 49f. Solin, H., Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch- demografische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände, ANRW II, 29.2, Berlin 1983. 446 bibliography

Sordi, M., Il valore politico del trattato fra i Romani e i Giudei nel 161 a.C., QA 5 (1952), pp. 509f. ———, L’espulsione degli ebrei da Roma nel 49 d.C., Coerzione e mobilità umana nel mondo antico, Contributi dell’Istituto di Storia Antica 21, Milan 1995, pp. 259f. Spano, G., Gli ebrei in Sardegna, RS 1 (1875), pp. 23f. (repr. VI 27 (1879), pp. 115f.) Sperber, D., Nautica Talmudica, Ramat Gan 1986. ———, Nautica in Talmudic Palestine, MHR 15 (2000), pp. 29f. Spiegel, D., Die Kaiser Titus und Hadrian in Talmud und Midrasch, Vienna 1906. Spigel, C., Reconsidering the Question of Separate Seating in Ancient Synagogues. JJS 63/1 (2012), pp. 62f. Spilsbury, P., Reading the Bible in Rome: Josephus and the Constraints of Empire. In: Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Sievers, Lembi), pp. 209f. St. Clair, A., God’s House of Peace in Paradise. The Feast of Tabernacles on a Jewish Gold Glass, JJA 11 (1985), pp. 6f. Stallman, C.J., The Past in Hagiographic Texts: S. Marcian of Syracuse. In: Reading the Past in Late Antiquity (Clarke, G.W., ed.), Singapore 1990, pp. 347f. Steffens, K. (ed.), Mardochaeus Epistola ad Alexander, Historia de Preliis Alexandri Magni Rezension J3, Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 73, Meisenheim 1975. Stemberger, G., Die Beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen Literatur, ANRW II.19.2 (1979), pp. 338f. ———, Die römische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden, Darmstadt 1983. ———, Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit. Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter, Festschrift Schreckenberg, Göttingen 1993, pp. 347f. ———, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Minneapolis 1995. ———, The Birkat Ha-Minim and the Separation of Christians and Jews. In: Judaea- Palaestina, Babylon and Rome: Jews in Antiquity (Isaac, Shahar), pp. 75f. Stern, M., The Greek and Latin Literary Sources. In: The Jewish People in the First Century (Safrai et al.), 1, pp. 18f. ———, The Jewish Diaspora. In: The Jewish People in the First Century (Safrai et al.), 1, pp. 117f. ———, The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature. In: The Jewish People in the First Century (Safrai et al.), 2, pp. 1101f. ———, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols., Jerusalem 1980–1984. ———, Antisemitism in Rome. In: Antisemitism through the Ages (Almog, S., ed.), New York 1988 (see Hebrew). Stern, [M.A.], Aus Briefen, JZWL, 9 (1871), pp. 78f. bibliography 447

Stern, S., Calendar and Community. A History of the Jewish Calendar Second Century BCE-Tenth Century CE, Oxford 2001. ———, Jewish Calendar Reckoning in the Graeco-Roman Cities. In: Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (Bartlett), pp. 197f. Strack, H.L., Jesus die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischen Angaben, Berlin 1910. Stranton, G.N., Stroumsa, G.G. (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge 1998. Strazzeri, M.V., I giudei di San Fratello, Ubi neque aerugo neque tinea demolitur. In: Studi in onore di Luigi Pellegrini per i suoi settanta anni (Del Fuoco, M.G, ed.), Naples 2006, pp. 647f. Suda, Lexicon (Adler, A., ed.), 5 vols., Leipzig 1928–1938. Syme, R., The Imperial Finance under Domitian, Nerva and Trajan, JRS 20 (1930), pp. 55f. ———, Tacitus, 2 vols, Oxford 1958. ———, Emperors and Biography—Studies in the Historia Augusti, Oxford 1971. ———, The Historia Augusta—A Call of Clarity, Bonn 1971. Synan, E.A., The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages, New York-London 1965. Szarmach, P.E. (ed.), Aspects of Jewish Culture in the Middle Ages, Albany 1979. Talmon, S., The Old Testament Text, CHB I, pp. 159f. ——— (ed.), Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (JSP, Supplement 10), Sheffield 1991. Tamassia, N., Stranieri ed ebrei nell’Italia meridionale dall’età romana alla sveva, ARIVSLA 63 (1904), pp. 757f. Tannenbaum, R.F., Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite, BAR 12/5 (1986), pp. 54f. Taramelli, A., S. Antioco. Scoperte di antichità puniche e romane nell’antica Sulcis, NSA 33 (1908), pp. 150f. ———, S. Antioco. Ipogeo con sepoltura giudaica nella Necropoli Sulcitana S. Antioco, NSA 47 (1922), pp. 335f. Tcherikower, V., Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered, Eos 48 (1956), pp. 169f. ———, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959. Telfer, W., The Trustworthiness of Palladius, JTS 38 (1937), pp. 379f. Teppler, Y., Birkat Haminim. Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World, Tübingen 2007. Thackeray, H.St.J., Josephus the Man and the Historian, New York 1929. Thompson, L.A., Domitian and the Jewish Tax, Historia 31 (1982), pp. 329f. Toaff, A., Matia b. Cheresh e la sua accademia rabbinica di Roma, ASE [4] (1964–1965), pp. 69f. 448 bibliography

Toch, M., Jews in Europe 500–1050, NCMH 1 (20), Cambridge 2005. ———, The Economic History of European Jews: Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, Boston-Leiden 2013. Tov, E., The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in the Ancient Synagogue. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 237f. Transformation of the Roman World (Var. auth.), 14 vols. to date, Leiden 1997–. Trigano, S. (ed.), La société juive à travers l’histoire, 4 vols., Paris 1992–1993. Troiani, L., Commento storico al “Contro Apione” di Giuseppe. Introduzione, com- ment storico, traduzione e indice, Pisa 1977. ———, I lettori delle Antichità giudaiche di Giuseppe, prospettive e problemi, Athenaeum 64 (1986), pp. 343f. Tuval, M., A Jewish Priest in Rome. In: Flavius Josephus, Interpretation and History (Pastor et al.), pp. 397f. Ulrich, J., Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden: Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea, Berlin 1999. Urbach, E., The Rabbinic Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts, IEJ (1959), pp. 149f., 229f. Urbani, R., Zazzu, G.N., The Jews in Genoa, 2 vols., Leiden-Boston-Cologne 1999. Urman, D., Flesher, P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, Leiden 1995. Vallée, G., The Shaping of Christianity: The History and Literature of Its Formative Centuries (100–800), New York 1999. Van Kooten, G.H., Pagan and Jewish Monotheism according to Varro, Plutarch and St. Paul. The Aniconic Monotheistic Beginnings of Rome’s Pagan Cult—Romans 1:19–25 in a Roman Context. In: Flores Florentino, Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martinez (Hilhorst, A. et al., eds.), Leiden-Boston 2007 (Supplements to the JSJPHIP 112), pp. 633f. Vattioni, F., I nome giudaici delle epigrafi di Monastero di Aquileia, AN 43 (1972), pp. 125f. Verlinden, C., L’Esclavage dans l’Europe médieval, 2. vols., Bruges 1955–1977. Visotzky, B.L., Anti-Christian Polemic in Leviticus Rabbah, PAAJR 56 (1990), pp. 89f. Vitale, M., Le catacombe di via Torlonia e di Vigna Randanini a Roma, la sinagoga di Ostia. In: I beni culturali ebraici in Italia (Perani, M., ed.), Ravenna 2003, pp. 47f. Vivanti, C. (ed.), Storia d’Italia, Annali 11, Gli ebrei in Italia, Turin 1996. Vogelstein, H., Die Enstehung und Entwicklung des Apostolats im Judentum, MGWJ 49 (1905), pp. 427f. ———, The Development of the Apostolate in Judaism and Its Transformation in Christianity, HUCA 2 (1927), pp. 99f. bibliography 449

Vogelstein, H., Rieger, P., Geschichte der Juden in Rom, 2 vols., Berlin 1895–1896. Vogler, C., Les juifs dans le Code Théodosien, PT 33 (1979), pp. 35f. Vogt, J., Kaiser Julian und das Judentum, Leipzig 1939. Volterra, E., Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, Memorie della R. Accademia dei Lincei, S. VI, vol 3/1 (1930), pp. 5f. ———, Istituzioni di dirittto privato romano, Rome 1961. Wacholder, B., Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 3), Cincinnati 1974. Wallach, L., The Colloquy of Marcus Aurelius with the Patriarch Judah I, JQR 31 (1940/1), pp. 259f. Walser, G., The Greek of the Ancient Synagogue. In: The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Olsson, Zetterholm), pp. 260f. Wander, B., Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten: Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen, Tübingen 1998. Wardy, B., Jewish Religion in Pagan Literature during the Late Republic and Early Empire, II, 19, 1 (Haase, F., ed.), Berlin-New York 1979, pp. 592f. Wasserstein, A., Calendaric Implications of a Fourth-Century Jewish Inscription from Sicily, SCI 11 (1991–1992), pp. 162f. ———, Pagans, Jews and Christians, Review of Lieu et al., The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, SCI 11 (1991), pp. 166f. ———, The Number and Provenance of Jews in Graeco-Roman Antiquity: A Note on Population Statistics. In: Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg (Katzoff et al), pp. 307f. ———, The Legend of the Septuagint, Cambridge, Mass. 2006. Weinberg, M., Die Organisation der jüdischen Ortsgemeinden in der talmudischen Zeit, MGWJ 41 (1897), pp. 588f. Weingarten, S., Ancient Jewish Sausages, Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2010, Cured Fermented and Smoked Foods, Oxford 2012, n.p. Wenkebach, E., Pfaff, F. (eds.), In Hippocratis Epidemiarum: librum VI commentaria I–VIII, Berlin 1956 (C.M.G. 5.10.2.2). Werner, E., Melito of Sardes, the First Poet of Deicide, HUCA 37 (1966), pp. 191f. ———, The Sacred Bridge: Liturgical Parallels in Synagogue and Early Church, 2 vols., New York 1970, 1984. Werner, W., Eine Gerichtsverhandlung vor Kaiser Trajan, Hermes 50 (1915), pp. 47f. Westenholz, J.G. (ed.), The Jewish Presence in Ancient Rome, Jerusalem 1995. White, L.M., Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia, Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence, HTR 90 (1997), pp. 23f. (repr. Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome [Donfried, Richardson]), pp. 30f. ———, Reading the Ostia Synagogue. A Reply to A. Runesson, HTR 92 (1999), pp. 435f. 450 bibliography

Wilde, R., The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries, Washington 1949. Wilken, R.L., John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century, Berkeley 1983. Will, E., Orrieux, C., “Proselitisme juif?”, histoire d’une erreur, Paris 1992. Williams, A.L., Adversus Judaeos, Cambridge 1925. Williams, M.H., ‘Θεοσεβής γὰρ ᾖν’, The Jewish Tendencies of Poppaea Sabina, JTS 10 (1959), pp. 97f. ———, The Expulsion of the Jews from Rome in A.D. 19, Latomus 48 (1989), pp. 765f. ———, Domitian the Jews and the “Judaizers”, a Simple Matter of Cupiditas and Maiestas, Historia 39 (1990), pp. 196f. ———, The Organization of Jewish Burials in Ancient Rome in the Light of Evidence from Palestine and the Diaspora, ZPE 101 (1994), pp. 165f. ———, The Structure of Roman Jewry Re-Considered—Were the Synagogues of Ancient Rome Entirely Homogeneous? ZPE 104 (1994), pp. 129f. ———, The Jews of Early Byzantine Venusia: The Family of Faustinus I, the Father, JJS 50 (1999), pp. 38f. ———, Exarchon: An Unsuspected Jewish Liturgical Title from Ancient Rome, JSS 51 (2000), pp. 77f. ———, Alexander ‘bubularus de macello’: Humble Sausage-Seller or Europe’s First Identifiable Purveyor of Kosher Beef?’ Latomus 61 (2002), pp. 122f. ———, Jewish Inscriptions of the Graeco-Roman Period—an Update, BJGS 33 (2002), pp. 44f. ———, Jews in a Graeco-Roman Environment, Tübingen 2013 (Collected Papers, cont. many of the above). Willrich, H., Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-jüdischen Geschichte und Literatur, Göttingen 1900. ———, Urkundenfälschung in der hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur, Göttingen 1924. Wilmart, A., Homélies latines de Saint Jean Chrysostome, JTS 18 (1918), pp. 305f. Wirgin, W., Judah Maccabee’s Embassy to Rome and the Jewish-Roman Treaty, PEQ 101 (1969), pp. 15f. ———, Simon Maccabaeus’ Embassy to Rome—Its Purpose and Outcome, PEQ 106 (1974), pp. 141f. Wischmeyer, W., Die Epistula Anne ad Senecam, Eine jüdische Missionsschrift des lateinischen Bereichs. In: Juden und Christen in der Antike (Amersfoort (van), J. et al., eds.), Kampen 1991, pp. 72f. Yavetz, Z., Reflections on Titus and Josephus, GRBS 16 (1975), 411f. ———, Judeophobia in Classical Antiquity. A Different Approach, JJS 44 (1993), 1f. ———, Judenfeindschaft in der Antike. Die Münchener Vorträge, Munich 1997. bibliography 451

Zeitlin, S., Megillat Taanit as a Source for Jewish Chronology and History in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, JQR 9 (1918–1919), pp. 71f.; 10 (1919–1920), pp. 49f., 237f. ———, The Am Haarez, JQR 23 (1932–1933), pp. 32f. ———, The Edict of Augustus Caesar in Relation to the Judaeans of Asia, JQR 55 (1964/5), pp. 160f. ———, The Tefillah, the Shemoneh Esreh: An Historical Study of the First Canonization of the Hebrew Liturgy, JQR 54 (1964), pp. 208f. [=Studies in the Early History of Judaism 1, New York 1973, pp. 92f.] Zevi, F., La sinagoga di Ostia, RMI 38 (1972), pp. 131f. Zimmels, H.J., Jesus and “Putting up a Brick”, JQR 43 (1952–1953), pp. 225f. Zovatto, P.L., Le antiche sinagoghe di Aquileia e di Ostia, MSF 44 (1960), pp. 53f. Zunz, L., Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik. Zur Literatur-und Religionsgeschichte, Berlin 1832. ———, Namen der Juden: Eine geschichtliche Untersuchung, Leipzig 1837. Index of Persons

Abahu (R.) 299 Antonius Felix, governor 33 Abba b. Zabina (Zamina) (R.) 161, 162 Apion 186, 189, 190, 198, 200, 201, 207, 217, Abba Ḥanan (R.) 238, 239 229, 282 Abba Qolon 13, 14 Appian of Alexandria, historian 216 Abba Siqra 237 Appolodorus of Damascus, architect 187, 214 Abin (R.) 246 Appolonius (of Tyana?), philosopher 226 Abraham, passim Appolonius Molon 189, 190, 200, 219, 282 Acilius Glabrio, consul 39 Apuleius, poet 216 Acme, slave 159 ‘Aqiva (R,) 49, 57, 231, 232, 238, 241, 243, 252, Aerobundus, Praetorian prefect in the 299, 313, 323, 326–328, 355, 356, 357 East 151 Aquila 30, 171, 311 Aeschines 330 Aquilas, translator 47, 152, 240, 344, 345 Agrippa I, king 28, 81, 158, 206, 318 Arcadius, emperor 69, 94, 134, 137, 140, 145, Agrippa II, king 18, 33, 37, 38, 266, 334 149, 150, 165 Aḥa (R.) 66, 379 Archagathus, see Caeilius Aḥima’aẓ b. Paltiel 96 Archelaus, son of Herod 24, 111, 193 Agatharchides of Cnidus 187 Arigern, count 74 Alaric, Visigothic king 36, 72 Aristeas of Emmaus, grammateus 374 Alexander, impostor 23, 24, 100 Aristias 171 Alexander, Praetorian prefect of Egypt 165 Aristobolus, Hasmonean 221, 235, 310 Alexander, son of Herod 23, 24, 84 Aristobolus, son of Herod 23, 24, 84 Alexander butularus 169 Aristobolus of Banias 187 Alexander Polyhistor 190, 191, 282 Aristotle 181, 185 Alexander Severus, emperor 56, 57, 85, 121, Arrianus, historian 43, 214 227 Artapanus, historian 191 Alexander the Great 182, 307, 308, 343 Artemidorus, diviner 160, 219 Aliturius, actor 33, 170 Aryon, king 247 Alpha, see Moses Asclepiodotus 75 Alphius, martyr 91 Asclepiodotus, Praetorian prefect in the Alypius 65 East 136 Alypius of Tiberias 85 Asellus of Venosa 169, 322 Ambrose, saint and bishop 66–69, 104–106, Athanasios, patriarch 284 134, 135, 172, 285, 288, 289, 340 Augusta, wife of Bonus 169 Ammianus Marcellinus 52, 226 Augustinus, saint 104, 120, 132, 160, 162, 192, Amraphel, king 247 202, 203, 263, 282, 289–293, 305, 387 Anchialus 171 Augustus, emperor 6, 18, 20, 22–25, 78, 81, Annas (Annania) 342, 343, 349, 389 121, 122, 146, 158, 163, 179, 193, 196, 198, 330, Annatus, didascalus 144, 375 367 Antiochus Epiphanes, king 181, 187–189, 191, Aulus Gabinius, proconsul 192 195, 231 Aulus Vedius Collega, physician 162, 169 Antiochus I Soter, king 186 Aurelius Samohil (Samuel) 92, 322, 357 Antonia, sister-in-law of Tiberius 81 Aurelius Victor, historian 64 Antoninus Pius, emperor 7, 49, 51, 52, 130, Auxanius, pater 170 179, 215, 243–245 Avilius Flaccus, prefect 332 Antonius 100 Azaria 329 index of persons 453

Bala’am 297 Commodus, emperor 53, 127 Bar Fata 379 Constans, emperor 62 Bar Ḥanina 288 Constantine I, emperor 11, 53, 59–64, 73, 77, Bar Hebraeus 108–111 111, 115, 127, 131, 139, 142, 146, 225, 269, 281, Bar Qamẓa 236 304, 373, 387 Bar Yohannes 326 Constantine II, emperor 63, 142–144 Barnabas 265 Constantine XI, emperor 331 Basil I, emperor 89 Constantius II, emperor 63–65, 148, 283 Belisar, general 36, 70, 72, 99, 105, 157 Cornelius Celsus, encyclopaedist 162, 347 Ben Azai (R.) 312 Croce, Benedetto 2 Ben Stada (Pandera, Panthera) 296, 302, 303 Cynegius, Praetorian prefect in the East 142, Berenice, daughter of Agrippa I 37, 206, 318 146 Berenice, mother of Agrippa I 81, 195 Cyprian, bishop 280, 283 Berossus 186 Cyril of Alexandria, patriarch 65, 66, 225, Beruria, wife of R. Meir 48, 49, 325 292 Bocchoris, king 199, 209 Cyrinus, martyr 91 Bonaiuto (Azaria) de Rossi, writer 332 Cyrus, king 67 Burckhardt, Jakob 5 Damascius, philosopher 163, 228 Cadmus 183 Damasus I, pope 116, 341 Caecilius (Archagactus) of Calacte 6, 86, 87, Damocritus, philosopher/historian 206, 207 163, 164, 198, 208, 330, 331, 349, 389 Danaus 183 Caelia, whore 206 David, king 166, 167, 279, 293 Caesarius, Praetorian prefect in the East 140 Decius, emperor 59, 91 Calixtus I, pope 53, 161, 162, 265, 279 Decius Mundus 26 Caracalla, emperor 7, 54, 55, 118, 122, 124, Demetrius Soter, king 14 127, 139, 159, 160, 215, 244, 245 Demosthenes 330 Cassiodorus 73, 271, 281 Dio Cassius 25, 30–32, 43, 54, 55, 120, Castor the chronicler 187 220–222 Catullus, governor 33, 34 Diocletian, emperor 57–59, 104, 119, 127, 148, Celsus the philosopher 217, 218, 279, 282, 149, 164, 245 301, 302 Diodorus Siculus, historian 191, 207, 215 Censorinus, grammarian 222 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 331 Chaeremon 186, 199, 200 Domitia, empress 42 Chepheus, king 209 Domitian, emperor 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 129, Cicero 19, 20, 78, 111, 175, 190, 192, 193, 202, 166, 167, 206, 213, 327, 329 208, 330, 380 Donatus, proconsul 132 Claudia Aster 100 Claudius, emperor 28–31, 81, 101, 108, 110, Eirenaius, bishop 275 120, 121, 129, 171, 200 Elagabalus, emperor 55, 56 Claudius Ptolemy, mathematician and El’azar (Eli’ezer) b. Azariah (R.) 40, 102, 237, astronomer 215 356 Cleantes, philosopher 201 El’azar b. Dama 298–300 Clearchus of Soli 185 El’azar b. Pedat (R.) 248 Clemens of Alexandria, theologian 272, 275 El’azar b. Ya’ir, commander of Masada 336 Cleomedes, astronomer 215 El’azar b. Yose (R.) 254, 326 Cleopatra, queen 208, 235 El’azar Ha-Qalir, poet 260 Commodian, polemicist 59 Eli’ezer (R.) 296 454 index of persons

Eli’ezer b. Horqenos (R.) 298, 299, 311, 312, Gaius Julius Justus 102 323, 324, 328, 378 Galen, physician and philosopher 218, 219, Eli’ezer b. Yose (R.) the Galilean 255 347, 348 Elijah, prophet 226, 260 Galerius, emperor 62, 148 Eliṣa, prophet 295 Gallus, caesar 63, 64, 310 Eliṣa b, Abuya, heretic 300 Gamli’el II Nasi (R.) 40, 102, 274, 311, 323, Epaphroditus, grammarian and 324, 328, 361 bibliophile 337, 338 Gamli’el III, patriarch 69 Ephrem the Syrian, theologian 286 Gamli’el VI, patriarch 70, 354 Epictetus, philosopher 203 Gaudentius, bishop 67, 106, 285 Epicurus, philosopher 215, 218, 219 Geḥazi 295 Epiphanius of Salamis, bishop 46, 274, 285, Gelasius I, pope 100, 101 303, 345, 358, 369 Genseric, Vandal king 72 Eudoxia, empress 331 Gibbon, Edward 5 Eudoxius, painter 170 Gratian, emperor 67, 140, 142 Eupolemus, historian 15, 191 Gregory I, pope 11, 89, 113, 168 Eupolemus son of John 15 Euripides 207 Hadrian, emperor 45–48, 50, 51, 62, 123, 129, Eusebius, bishop 5, 40, 42, 166, 190, 191, 223, 214, 216, 227, 239–244, 248, 254, 257, 327, 281, 282, 289, 301, 303, 357, 358 330, 343 Eutaricus, son-in-law of Theodoric 74 Hai Gaon (Rav) 64 Eutropius, historian 226 Ḥama b. Ḥanina (R.) 256, 257 Eutychianus, Praetorian prefect in the Ḥanania 329 East 140, 150 Ḥanina b. Ḥanania (R.) 327 Eutychius, patriarch 61 Ḥanina b. Papa (R.) 250 Evagrius, Praetorian prefect in Italy 142 Ḥanina (Ḥanania) b. Tradion (R.) 48, 49, Ezra 223 251, 252, 328 Ḥanina (Ḥanania) Segan Ha-Cohanim (R.) Faustina 171 354 Faustina of Venosa 97, 169, 322, 357, 358 Hannibal 205 Faustinus 322 Hasmoneans (Maccabees) 13–19, 23, 43, 112, Faustinus, son of Isa, physician 162, 169 114, 115, 118, 129, 179, 193, 195, 205, 231, 234, Felix, governor 266 235, 242, 243, 251, 295, 296, 308, 309, 312, 315 Felix, Praetorian prefect of Africa 142 Hecateus of Abdera 182, 191, 220 Festus, governor 266 Hegesippus 42, 166, 167 Festus of Trento, historian 226 Ḥelbo (R.) 115 Firmicus Maternus, astrologer 225 Helen, empress 111 Flavia Domitilla 39–42 Heraclius, emperor 89 Flavius Ablavius, Praetorian prefect 139 Herennius Philo, historian 214 Flavius Clemens 39–42, 206, 222 Hermippus of Smyrna 186 Flavius Euschemon, procurator 175 Herod, king 23, 24, 37, 84, 100, 111, 115, 167, Florus, historian 214 193, 195, 203, 228, 352 Frontinus, official 205 Herodotus 2, 181 Fronto, rhetor and teacher 215 Hesychius (Hesyachus) 69 Fulvia, see also Paulina 25, 27 Hieronymus of Cardia, general and historian 182, 191 Gaius Caligula, emperor 27, 81, 236, 282, 331 Hilary, bishop 283 332, 367, 389 Hillel 57 index of persons 455

Hillel II 62, 63, 66 John Hyrcan II, Hasmonean 20–22, 221, Ḥilqiya (R.) 249 235, 310 Hippolytus of Rome, anti-pope 53, 161, 162, Jonathan (R.) 327 277, 279 Jonathan, sicarius 33, 34 Hiram, king 189 Jonathan, Hasmonaean 16 Ḥisda (R.) 296 Jonathan b. Uziel (R.) 64 Ḥiyya b. Abba (R.) 311 Joseph 326 Homer 209 Joseph, convert 358 Ḥonio 364, 4366 Joseph (R.) 235 Honorius, emperor 69–71, 94, 96, 129, Joseph Caro 154 134–138, 140, 143, 144, 149, 150, 163, 375 Josephus Flavius 4–6, 15–18, 20, 22–26, Horace 171 30–34, 37, 42, 43, 84, 100, 109–111, 115, 116, Hoṣayah (R.) 376 121, 122, 127, 128, 159, 165, 182, 185, 186, Hypatius, Praetorian prefect 140 188–190, 193, 195, 198–201, 204, 205, 211–224, Hyppocrates, physician 348 231, 234, 250, 275, 280, 282, 286, 289, 303, Hyrcanus, Hasmonean 221 304, 318, 330–339, 349, 378, 389 Joṣu’a, see also Yehoṣu’a Iamblichus, philosopher 224 Joṣu’a b. Ḥanania (R.) 40, 46, 47, 102, 241, Infantius, comes in the East 145 251, 257, 311, 312, 323, 325, 328, 356 Innocent, bishop 68 Joṣu’a b. Levi (R.) 161, 162, 237, 242, 250, 299, Ionius of Sepphoris 85 325, 328 Isaac 63 Jovian, emperor 67 Isaac 116 Judah (R.) 85, 235, 310 Isaac (patriarch) 256 Judah, physician 162, 163 Isaac (R.) 256 Judah II, (Judah Nesiah I), patriarch (R.) Isaac, convert 341 56, 57, 253, 258, 376 Isaac Alfassi 154 Judah III (Judah Nesiah II), patriarch (R.) Iṣma’el (R.) 238 58, 127, 148 Iṣma’el b. Eliṣa (R.) 325 Judah b. Bethera (R.) 327, 328 Iṣma’el b. Yose (R.) 246, 298, 299 Judah b. Gerim (Judan b. Giori) (R.) 253, 254 Jacob, physician 348 Judah b. Ila’I (R.) 251–253 Jacob b. Aṣer 154 Judah b. Ṣamo’a (R.) 50, 51, 323 Jacob of Khephar Sama (Sakhnin) 298–300 Judah b. Thema (R.) 379 James, brother of Jesus 300, 303, 305 Judah b. Titus (R.) 323 Jason of Cyrene 15 Judah Briel, rabbi 203 Jason son of Eleazar 15 Judah Ha-Nasi, patriarch (R.) 7, 49, 51, 52, Jeremia (R.) 311 244, 246, 309, 313, 328, 372, 378 Jeroboam, king 13, 85 Judah Maccabeus 14, 15 Jerome, saint 55, 163, 274, 288, 289, 290, 303, Judan (R.) 255 340, 345–347 Judas 101 Jesus, passim Jude 167 Johannes, pretender 163 Julian, emperor 55, 64–68, 106, 128, 131, 225, Johannes, Praetorian prefect in the East 146 226, 270, 356, 359 Johannes, usurper 138 Julianus 241 John Chrysostom 62, 106, 286, 287, 288, 290, Julius Caesar 20–23, 111, 118, 121, 122, 124, 175, 292 190, 195, 213, 268, 363, 385 John Hyrcan I, Hasmonaean 17, 18 Julos, see Hillel II 456 index of persons

Justin, emperor 138 Marcus Agrippa, general 22 Justinian, emperor 36, 62, 69, 72, 73, 76, 127, Marcus Aurelius Pylades 170 129, 131, 132, 134–136, 138, 140, 144, 146, 147, Mardochaeus 343 150, 151, 154–156, 228, 260, 261, 346, 358, Mariamme, queen 23 362, 388 Mark Agrippa, son-in-law of Augustus 81 Justus of Calabria 85 Mark Antony 21, 195, 208 Justus of Tiberias 334, 335 Martial 41, 80, 158, 160–162, 170, 206 Justyn Martyr, saint 265, 272–275, 277, 284, Mary (Miriam), mother of Jesus 288, 297 301–303, 369 Mathia b. Ḥereṣ (R.) 48, 50, 163, 327–329, Juvenal, satirist and historian 160, 162, 208, 347, 375, 376, 384 211–213, 215 Maxentius, emperor 59, 68 Maximian, emperor 148 Khedorla’omer, king 246 Meir (R.) 33, 47–49, 54, 236, 248, 313, 325 Melito, bishop 275 Lactantius Placidus, scholiast 228, 280, 281 Memnon of Heraclea, historian 204 Laetus, historian 189 Menander of Ephesus, historian 189 Lampridius, historian 55, 56 Menophilus, actor 39, 170, 318 Lasie Irene 92, 322 Merobaudes, consul 92 Leo III, emperor 89 Michael, archangel 13, 85 Leone da Modena 11 Milano, Attilio 1 Levi (R.) 13 Minucius Felix, apologist 275 Levi b. Sisi 372 Miṣa’el 329 Libanius, rhetor 226, 371 Mnaseas, historian 200 Livia Drusilla (Julia Augusta) 158 Modestinus (Herennius), jurist 51, 127, 130, Longinus, writer 331 139 Lucian of Samosata, writer 217 Momigliano, Arnaldo 5 Lucius Aiacius Dama 170 Moses, passim Lucius Caecilius Metellus Calvus 17 Lucius Dolabella 21 Narses, general 70, 72 Lucius Valerius Flaccus 19, 78, 192 Nathan (R.) 312 Luke 267 Nathan b. Joseph (R.) 312 Lusius Quietus 44, 45 Nathan the Babylonian (R.) 255, 256 Lydus, administrator and writer 214 Nebuchadnezzar 237 Lysimachus of Akexandria, writer 186, Neco, pharaoh 13, 85 198–200, 2009, 217 Nero, emperor 4, 5, 7, 31–33, 161, 170, 200, 202, 220, 236, 266, 326, 334 MacMullen, Ramsay 5 Nerva, emperor 40, 42–44, 144 Macrobius, writer 228 Nicanor 336 Magnus Maximus, emperor 285 Nicarchus, poet 207 Maimonides 154, 332, 348 Nicolaus of Damascus 187, 193, 194 Manetho, the Egyptian 185, 186, 199, 200 Nitai of Arbel 295 Marc Aurel, emperor 7, 50–53, 127, 244 Novatianus, anti-pope 277 Marcella, wife of Porphyry 225 Numenius of Apamea, philosopher 187, 216, Marcellus (Ulpius), jurist 342 217, 282 Marcellus, pater 169, 170 Marcia, mistress of Commodus 53 Odoacre, king 72, 86 Marcian, saint 87, 88, 91 Onqelos, son of Qalonymos, translator 40, Marcius Turbo 44, 45 47, 239, 344, 345 index of persons 457

Origen, theologian 217, 273, 279, 282, 302, Plutarch, historian 207, 208, 215, 331 303, 345 Polybius of Megalopolis 187, 188, 189 Orosius 30 Pompeius Trogus 186, 190, 196, 198, 209 Osarsiph 185 Pompey 18–20, 22, 78, 104, 111, 157, 158, Oṣaya (R.) 258 188–196, 216, 221, 231, 233, 235, 236, 261, 388 Pomponia Graecina 33 Palladius, Church Father 369 Pontius Pilate 265, 275, 282, 297 Palladius, Praetorian prefect in Italy 137 Poppaea 32, 33, 170 Paltion (Palation, Plato) 330 Porphyry of Tyre, philosopher 223–225, 282, Pancras, bishop 87, 91 301, 303 Panthera, see Ben Stada Posidonius of Apamea, philosopher 189, 191, Papinian (Aemilius), jurist 341, 342 194, 200 Pappos 241 Potamius, bishop 160 Pappos b. Juda 296 Priscianus, official 371 Pastor 75 Priscilla 30, 171 Patricius 63 Proclus, philosopher 228 Paul (Saul), apostle 31, 60, 87, 100, 119, 171, Procopius 75, 161, 168 223, 224, 264–268, 292, 304, 305, 340, 354, Ptolemy, king 187 356, 358, 359, 369, 370 Ptolemy b. Ḥabubu 17 Paul (Julius), jurist 127, 130, 142, 341, 342 Ptolemy b. Ruben 310, 311 Paulina, see also Fulvia 26 Ptolemy Chennus, grammarian 214 Paulinus, bishop 99, 292 Publius Catilius Hermias 170 Pausanias, geographer 216 Pythagoras 223 Persius, satirist 203, 316 Pescennius Niger, emperor 173 Qamẓa 236 Peter, apostle 87, 88, 369, 370 Qeti’ah bar Ṣalom 40, 42 Peter, bishop 75 Quinigesius, bishop 100 Peter Chrysologus, bishop 292 Quintilian, rhetor 39, 41, 206, 211 Petronius, governor 28 Quintus Mummius 14 Petronius, satirist 354 Quintus Tineius Rufus, consul 48 Petronius Arbiter 203, 204, 215 Petronius Secundus, praetorian prefect 42 Ranke (v.), Leopold 2 Philadelphus, martyr 91 Regina 321 Philaster, bishop 67, 69, 106, 284, 285 Remigius, master of the office 136 Philo of Alexandria 1, 6, 23, 25, 28, 78, 79, Remus and Romulus 13 110, 111, 116, 122, 158, 159, 198, 200, 214, 234, Reuven (Rubin) Istrabuli (Aristobolus) 275, 282, 289, 331, 332, 349, 367, 389 (R.) 49, 50, 311 Philostratus, Sophist 219 Romanus XI, emperor 331 Phlegon of Tralles, historian 214 Romuliano, Praetorian prefect in the Photius, patriarch 207 West 137 Pinḥas (R.) 249, 376 Romulus Augustulus, emperor 72, 73 Pinḥas b. ‘Aruba (R.) 172 Roth, Cecil 1 Placidia, mother of Valentinian III 138, 163 Rufus of Samaria 347, 348 Plato 216, 218, 225 Rutilius Namatianus 103, 104, 167, 168, 228 Pliny the elder 204, 205, 216, 223 Pliny the younger, writer 206 Sallustius Neoplatonicus 226 Plotina, empress 44, 45, 240 Salome 195 Plotinus, philosopher 223 Samuel (R.) 85, 235, 323 458 index of persons

Samuel Susarti (Susrata) (R.) 323 Tacitus 5, 25, 26, 43, 111, 159, 186, 198, 206, Sanchuniathon, historian 214 208, 209, 211, 212, 215 Sanḥerib 239 Tanḥuma (R.) 234, 248, 259 Ṣapur, king 257 Tertullian 53, 162, 265, 277, 279, 283, 301 Saturninus 25, 26 Themistius, philosopher 69 Saturninus, consul 92 Theodoret, bishop 307, 308, 346, 377 Sejanus 25–28 Theodoric, king of Ostrogoths 72–74, 104, Seleucids 14, 17 106, 121, 123, 164, 271, 348 Ṣemuel b. R. Itsḥaq (R.) 52 Theodoric II, king of Visigoths 76 Seneca, philosopher 25, 104, 162, 201–203, Theodorus, Praetorian prefect in the 206, 211, 228, 342, 343, 349, 389 West 140 Septimius Severus, emperor 53–55, 122, 123, Theodosius I, emperor 67, 68, 69, 105, 120, 129, 139, 160, 164, 173, 244, 245 121, 140, 142, 145, 149, 165, 285 Sextus Empiricus, philosopher and Theodosius II, emperor 60, 66, 69, 70, 73, 76, physician 215 127, 129, 131, 133, 135–138, 142–144, 163, 375 Silius Italicus, consul and poet 205 Theodotion 345 Silvester, pope 111 Theodotos son of Vettenos 365, 366, 371, Ṣime’on Ha-Paquli (R.) 361 372, 381 Simlai (R.) 250 Theophilus 189 Simon, Hasmonaean 16, 17 Theophrastus 181 Simon, son of Giora 36 Thid’al, king 247 Simon b. Gamli’el II, patriarch 243, 253, 255, Thucydides 2 310, 311, 351 Tiberius, emperor 25, 27, 28, 30, 81, 93, 94, Sim(e’)on b. Laqiṣ (R.) 247, 249, 254 111, 120, 129, 159, 168, 200, 202, 332, 347 Ṣimon b. Ṣetaḥ (R.) 295, 378 Timagenes 188 Simon b. Yoḥai (R.) 50, 250, 252, 253, 313, Titus, emperor 7, 13, 14, 33, 34, 36–38, 40, 46, 314, 327 56, 78, 96, 104, 110, 121, 172, 206, 233, 236, Simon Ṣezuri (R.) 325 239, 240, 242, 286, 318, 333, 344 Simonides 365 Titus Manlius 15 Sisra 239 Todos of Rome 243, 329 Socrates 201, 274 Trajan, emperor 39, 42–46, 101, 103, 216, Socrates Scholasticus 5 240–242, 319 Solinus, grammarian 222, 223 Triwane, chamberlain 75 Solomon, King 13, 14, 85, 189 Tryphon 272, 274 Spartianus, historian 44, 54, 55 Statius, poet 205 Ulla (R.) 246, 298 Stephanus, assassin of Domitian 42 Ulpian, jurist 51, 55, 127, 139, 341 Strabo of Amaseia (Pontus) 187, 193–196, Umbricius 212 217 Ursacia 105 Suda (Suidas), lexicographer 206, 207, 330, Ursacius 105 331 Ursicinus 63 Suetonius 5, 22, 25, 29–31, 38–40, 43, 111, 175, 208, 213, 222, 266 Valens, emperor 67, 136, 226 Sulpicius Severus, Father of the Church 169, Valentinian I, emperor 67, 136 286 Valentinian II, emperor 142, 145, 165 Symmachus, scholarius 76, 164, 348 Valentinian III, emperor 133, 136, 138, 140, Synesius of Cyrene, bishop 165 163 Syrianus, philosopher 228 Valerian, emperor 257 index of persons 459

Valerius Flaccus, poet 205 Yehoṣua b. Peraḥia (R.) 295–297 Valerius Maximus 16, 17 Yoḥanan b. Naphḥa (R.) 58, 325 Varro, writer 192, 193, 214, 222 Yoḥanan b. Torta (R.) 231 Varus, general 24, 25 Yoḥanan b. Zakkai (R.) 7, 231, 237, 238, 243, Venantius Fortunatus, poet 284 250–252, 298, 305, 326, 328, 355 Verres, proprietor 208 Yose b, Ḥalafta (R.) 252, 253, 311, 323, 328, 329 Verus, emperor 50, 51 Yose b. Ḥanina (R.) 256 Vespasian, emperor 33–35, 37, 42, 46, 58, Yose b. Qisma (R.) 232, 251, 252, 261 78, 100, 121, 161, 205, 219, 233, 236–239, 248, Yose b. Yo’eser 354 326, 333, 335, 336, 366, 376 Yose b. Yose, poet 260 Vettius Valens, astrologer 215 Vindex, governor 220 Zabidus 186, 187 Vitellius, emperor 220 Zacchaeus 284 Vitus of Venosa 169, 322 Ẓadoq (R.) 238, 326, 327 Zeno. bishop 283 Yannai, king 295 Zeno, emperor 72 Yannai, poet 260 Zeno, philosopher 201 Yehoṣua, see also Joṣu’a [Zuleika?], Potiphar’s wife 326 Geographical Index

Abdera 182, 220 Bova Marina 4, 23, 95, 316, 380–382, 386, 391 Acireale 92 Brescia 67, 106, 284, 285 Actium 22 Brindisi 96 Aelia Capitolina, see Jerusalem Britain 46, 157 Agrigento 89 Brusciano 99 Alexandria 9, 15, 28, 29, 34, 42, 45, 54, 56, 61, Byblus 214 80, 116, 122, 123, 126, 158, 187, 191, 200, 201, Byzantium, see also Constantinople 70, 214, 225, 234, 272, 275, 280, 282, 284, 292, 72, 76, 77, 89, 90, 96, 105, 107, 123 157, 207, 295, 319, 331, 338, 343, 347, 353, 367, 389 260, 330 Amaseia (Pontus) 193 Antioch 14, 15, 50, 52, 56, 65, 67, 87, 226, 264, Caesarea 64, 166, 223, 232, 256, 266, 281, 357 265–287, 353, 354, 356, 359, 363, 369, 371 Cagliari 93 Apamea 187, 189, 216, 282 Calabria 85, 94 Apulia 94, 96, 98, 110 Calacte 86, 330, 331, 349, 389 Aquileia 102, 105, 106, 138, 163, 170 Calahorra 206 Aquitania 286 Calatayud 206 Arabia 73, 87, 89, 166, 197 Callinicum (ar-Raqqa) 67–69, 105, 285 Ariccia 26, 27, 103 Campus Martius 80, 82 Ascalon 170 Capoterra 93 Asia 330, 331 Cappadocia 187 Asia Minor 4, 9, 19, 21, 124, 170, 216, 265, 307, Capri 25 317 Capua 100, 213 Assyria 209 Carthage 110, 134, 280 Athens 179, 228, 268, 310 Castel Porziano 102 Attica 330 Catania 85, 89, 91, 92, 180, 319, 322, 355, 357, Augusta 91 358 Caucania 94 Babylonia 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 63, 65, 109, 111, 113, 115, Chiaramonte Gulfi (Acrilla) 90 146, 154, 186, 239, 246–250, 255, 257, 258, Cilicia 358 294–296, 304, 306, 310, 328, 356, 364, 375, Cittadella Maccari (Pachino) 94 376, 378 Civitavecchia 103 Bactra 220 Cnidus 187 Balkans 105, 134, 157, 307, 350 Cómiso 90 Banias (Baneas, Paneas) 187, 256 Concordia 106, 169 Bari 98 Constantinople 36, 60, 64, 86, 157, 158, 165, Bashan 38 207, 259, 260, 286 Basilicata 96 Corinth 171 Benevento 98, 100, 102 Coronia 86 Berur Ḥayil 328 Crete 23, 208, 209 Betar 242 Cromazio 105 Beth Alpha 318 Cyprus 43, 185, 240, 285, 345 Bethlehem 288 Cyrene 23, 33, 44, 165, 220, 261 Beth-Ṣe’arim 64, 309, 310, 328 Bne Beraq 328 Dacia 51, 206 Bologna 104 Damascus 170, 187, 193, 196, 197, 214, 264, 358 geographical index 461

Delos 21, 364 Imola 292 Delphi 207 India 185 Dimi (R.) 235 Inmestar 132 Dora 187 Israel, see Judaea Dorii 186 Jaffa 195, 223 Egypt 4, 44, 52, 56, 61, 70, 83, 111, 124, 130, 165, Jericho 223 174, 175, 183, 185, 187, 192, 194, 196–199, 201, Jerusalem 7, 19–21, 28, 33, 34, 36, 44–48, 56, 202, 207, 209–211, 219, 221, 228, 229, 233, 61, 65, 66, 68, 70, 79, 81, 99, 100, 118, 153, 248, 250, 255, 261, 283, 295, 302, 307, 317, 160, 171, 181, 182, 185–188, 192, 200, 205, 206, 331, 364, 370, 386 209, 212, 216, 221, 223, 231, 235–239, 250, Elaea 82 264–266, 275, 280, 282, 289, 290, 295, 301, Elba 104, 168 325, 334, 350, 352, 354, 356–358, 364, 365, Emesa (Ḥoms) 106, 138, 169 376, 377 Emmaus 374 Judaea 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24, 28, 33, 34, Ephesus 22, 23, 189, 345 37, 38, 43–48, 52, 54, 57, 58, 62, 63, 66, 70, Erice 94 79, 83, 92, 97, 98, 102, 104, 108, 109, 113–115, Ethiopia 209, 224 118, 119, 121, 123, 126, 140, 146, 147–149, 153, 157–159, 161, 165, 167, 171, 173, 181–183, Falesia 103, 168 185, 186, 191–195, 200, 204, 205, 209, 212, Ferrara 103 214–216, 218, 219, 221–223, 226, 230–236, Follonica 104 239, 240, 244, 246, 249, 250, 252, 255, 257, Fondi 100–102 258, 260, 261, 264, 266–268, 277, 283, 294, Frattapiccola 102 296, 300, 301, 303, 304, 308, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316–318, 322–329, 347, 348, 350, 352, Galilee 28, 38, 83, 231, 23 2, 255, 259, 301, 334 354–357, 359, 360, 362–364, 369, 371–378, Gaul 4, 103, 157, 195, 284 384, 386, 387, 390, 391 Gela 89 Genoa 73, 74, 80, 104, 105, 271 Khephar Sama (Sakhnin) 298, 299 Germany 51, 133, 157, 206, 256, 257 Khorasim 318 Golan 38, 241 Grado 106, 107 Laodicea 241 Greece 4, 21, 22, 30, 43, 44, 85, 90, 91, 96, 98, La Spezia 168 100, 165, 179, 182–184, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, Lazzàro 95 193, 194, 196, 198, 200, 201, 204, 207, 212, Lebanon 83 214, 216, 218, 222, 224, 225, 229, 235, 247, Lentini 88, 91, 111 248. 250, 265, 307–311, 320, 322, 330, 348, Libya 194, 256 370, 374 Liguria 104 Grumento 102 Lilibeo 94 Lipari 85, 92, 93 Halicarnassus 331 Luni 168 Ḥamat Gader 241 Lydda (Diospolis) 64, 256, 297, 328 Heraclea 204 Lyon 275 Herculaneum 99 Hippo 289 Macomer 93 Malta 85, 87, 93, 266 Idumea 115, 186 Marano 100 Illyricum 134, 135 Marsala 94 462 geographical index

Masada 336 Phoenicia 195, 214, 221, 224 Mazzarino 89 Piombino 104 Medai (Elam) 247, 248, 250 Poitiers 283 Mediterranean 9, 11, 46, 47, 73, 83, 157, 167, Pompeii 98 171 Porto 101, 159, 374 Megalopolis 187 Porto de’ Falesi 104 Melos 23, 24 Potenza (Potentia) 98 Mesopotamia 44–46, 67 Pozzuoli (Puteoli, Dicearchia) 20, 24, 100, Middle East, see Near East 102, 266, 267 Milan 59, 60, 66–68, 71, 75, 102, 105, 106, 131, Puglia, see Apulia 134, 140, 172, 285, 288, 289 Pula (Pola) 107 Miletus 191 Pumbeditha 297 Modica 90 Monastero 106 Qumean 264 Mozia 94 Rabat 93 Nabbatea 108, 182 Ragusa 90, 94 Naples 72, 75–77, 99–102, 157, 160–162, 168, Ravenna 71, 72, 74–77, 80, 102, 103, 105, 129, 205, 261, 374, 389 137, 143, 163, 292 Near East 13–15, 105, 157, 186, 224, 308, 350, Reggio Calabria 95, 96, 142, 381 355 Rhodes 190 Neẓivin 328 Rome passim Nicaea 61, 220 Rosolini 90 Nocera Inferiore e Superiore 98 Nola 99, 292 Sa Idda Beccia (Isili) 93 North Africa 15, 36, 77, 83, 133, 134, 142, 165, Sakhnin, see also Khephar Sama 328 209, 276, 289, 341, 350, 355 Salamis 46, 345, 369 Noto (Netum) 90 Salento 96 Nuceria Alfaterna 98 Salerno 98 Numidia 289 Samaria 347, 348 Nuoro 93 Samatia 255 Samosata 217 Oria (Hyria) 96, 360 San Fratello (Filadelfio) 88, 89, 91 Ortigia 90 Sardinia 25, 53, 85, 93, 94, 111, 168 Ortonovo 168 Sardis 22, 275 Ostia 4, 23, 101, 102, 159, 170, 315, 319, 367, Sassari 93 374, 380–382, 385, 388, 391 Scolacium (Roccelletta) 95 Otranto (Hydrus) 96, 110 Scythopolis (Ṣe’an) Sepphoris (Diocaesarea) 63, 64, 85, 253, 299, Palazzolo Acreide 90 326, 328, 372 Palermo 89, 165 Sicily 58, 72, 85–92, 165, 168, 191, 208, 261, Palestine, see Judaea 6 266, 310, 319, 322, 330, 331, 346 Pandateria (Pentetone) 39, 40 Sidon 23 Parthia, see Persia Simonia 372 Peqi’in 328 Smyrna 186 Pergamon 18, 22, 218 Soli 185 Persia 45, 46, 57, 65, 66, 206, 228, 252, 253, Sofiana ((Philosofiana) 89 257, 258, 260, 310 Spain 4, 206 geographical index 463

Stridon 288 Trier 136 Subura 80, 83 Tripolis 83 Sulcis (Sant’Antioco) 93 Turkey 260 Susa (Shushan) 220, 250 Turris Libisonis (Porto Torres) 93 Syracuse 87, 90, 91, 266 Tuscia 104 Syria 4, 9, 17, 24, 28, 54–56, 84, 132, 164, 169, Tyana 227 182, 185, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 209, 219, 221, Tyre 14, 146, 165, 189, 223, 248 261, 265, 284, 307, 308, 311, 358 Uṣa 252, 253 Taormina 87, 94 Taranto 96, 110 Valle dell’Ipari 94 Tarsus 119 Venafro 101, 145 Telese (Telesia) 100 Venice 72 Termini Imerese 94 Venosa 96, 97, 162, 169, 170, 196, 319, 321, 322, Teutondom, see Germany 357, 358, 371, 389 Thessalonica 268 Verona 74, 75, 103, 283 Tiberias 58, 63, 64, 70, 85, 244, 333–335, 363, Vibo Valentia 95 364, 371 Vittoria 94 Tortona 68, 69, 103 Tralles 214 Yavne 47, 237, 238, 253, 274, 275, 297, 304, Trastevere 18, 32, 78–84, 158, 159, 161, 388 305, 323, 328, 361 Trento 226 Yodaphat (Yotapata) 335, 336 Subject Index

academies 6, 70, 154, 327, 328, 343, 375, Bar Kokhva uprising 46–49, 78, 129, 214, 377–380, 390 231, 232, 239–242, 251, 255, 261, 325–327, actors 33, 39, 170, 171, 315 353, 355 adultery and adulterers 146, 297, 302, 341, beggars and begging 160, 161, 212, 215, 219, 342 226 aedicule 381 Birkat ha-Minim (prayer of heretics) 274, agriculture 8, 57, 58, 86, 104, 141, 164, 166–168 286, 289, 300, 305, 361 Alenu (prayer) 205 books 23, 311, 330, 338 ‘am ha’areẓ 176, 311–314 Borborits 147 amora, see rabbi burial society (Ḥavurta) 382, 383 apocalypsa, apocalyptic 233, 257, 261, 269 butchers 170 Apocrypha 6, 15, 252, 343 apologetics and apologists 15, 30, 122, 186, caelicolae 127, 129, 130 189, 271, 275, 280, 333, 340, 386, 387 calendar 61–64, 76, 275, 280, 379 apostoli and apostolate, see emissaries Canon Law 124, 127, 272, 387 Aramaic 6, 15, 47, 83, 193, 212, 265, 273, cantors 368 307–311, 315, 316, 320, 321, 339, 344–346, carpenter 302 348 catacombs 2–4, 78, 80–86, 97, 105, 162, arbitration and arbiters 123, 131, 148, 150, 151, 169–171, 316–318, 320, 321, 362, 373, 377, 382, 154, 155, 314, 340 383, 385, 389, 391 archaeology 1–3, 84, 86, 87, 92, 93, 95, 98, celibacy 288 102, 106, 125, 229, 359, 362–368, 380, 381, cemeteries 2, 80–85, 89–91, 93, 97–99, 103, 383, 385, 391 104, 106, 114, 162, 169, 307, 308, 310, 315, archipherecitae 152, 154 317–319, 361, 362, 382, 383, 385, 390, 391 archisynagogos 140, 313, 365, 368–372, 381 chair of Moses 382 archon 273, 370, 371 Chaldean, see Aramaic army, see military Christians and Christianity 2, 5, 7–9, 11, 15, Aron Qodeṣ (Holy Ark) 4, 23, 371, 381 30, 31, 36, 40, 41, 47, 53, 54, 57–61, 63–65, artisans and artisanship 141, 164, 171, 318, 320 67, 68, 70, 74, 75, 77, 80, 86–88, 90, 91, 93, art and artists, see also painter, actor, etc. 101, 103, 104, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117–120, 122, 171, 389 124–126, 128–142, 145, 151, 153, 155–162, assimilation and acculturation 180, 259, 164, 167–169, 178, 186, 203, 217, 223–228, 307, 308, 314–323, 349 233, 259, 261, 262–306, 314, 316, 323, 328, astrology and astrologers 215, 225, 315 332, 333, 338, 340, 343, 345, 346, 353, 354, astronomy and astronomers 215, 378, 379 356–358, 368, 370, 383, 386–389 atheism and atheists 12, 40, 129, 179, 225, Church 7–9, 40, 60, 61, 67–72, 86, 102, 120, 267, 270, 272 123, 124, 129–132, 134, 142, 151, 156, 178, 227, aurum coronarium 66, 70, 174, 175, 254, 356, 263, 269, 270, 272, 275, 279, 285, 288, 290, 372 294, 387 autonomy, see self-government circumcision 38–41, 47–51, 55, 56, 62, 101, 103, 115, 116, 120, 129–131, 136, 141–145, 171, ban (ḥerem) 149, 152, 279, 295, 329, 357, 379 191, 196, 201, 203, 204, 206, 210–213, 226, banks and banking 53, 161 244, 259, 266–269, 273, 274, 276, 316, 328, baptism, see conversion 344, 354, 376, 386 baths 251, 253, 384 circuses 133, 251 subject index 465 citizens and citizenship 20, 22, 54, 69, 73, epidemics and plagues 51, 52, 108, 112, 114, 79, 118, 119, 121–124, 126, 132, 147, 156, 158, 173 173, 200, 263, 266, 281, 367, 387 epitaph, see inscription civil service, see public service eschatology 72, 233, 269 civil status, see also citizens 118–125 Essenes 205, 224, 264, 334, 355 cobbler 162 evidence 146, 147 Codex Justinianus 8, 73, 76, 127–129, 131, 135, excision 195 136, 140, 144, 146, 150, 385 excommunicate, see ban Codex Theodosianus 8, 73, 76, 127–129, 131, expulsions 16, 17, 25–31, 111, 129, 182, 183, 185 136, 150, 385 Collatio Legum Mosaicarum 340–342, 389 Fathers of the Church 8, 9, 46, 62, 64, 65, collegia 21, 148, 350, 364, 381, 387 67, 124, 134, 169, 217, 263, 270–293, 301–306, community, Jewish 4, 59, 63, 72, 80–84, 88, 358, 369, 370 89, 93, 96–99, 101, 105–107, 113, 123, 140, 148, fiscus Iudaicus 37, 38, 41–43, 58, 64–66, 113, 149, 153, 155, 165, 170–172, 174, 175, 232, 261, 121, 174, 175, 245, 356, 387 265, 275, 292, 301, 304, 323, 329, 331, 345, 346, 350–385, 387, 390, 391 garum 99, 316, 317 converts and conversion, see also geographer 216 proselytes 54, 55, 61, 62, 67, 70, 71, 76, 77, gerusia 139, 363, 371, 372, 381 87, 91, 105–107, 111–114, 116, 117, 124, 128–131, gerusiarch 100, 102, 105, 169, 374, 381 142–144, 203, 225, 228, 229, 236, 239, 240, get 156 243, 244, 261, 264, 265, 267–271, 277, 280, glass 171, 318, 389 281, 284, 290, 293, 305–349, 358, 388 god-fearers 32, 40, 43, 107, 113, 115, 129, 130, culture and cultural 11, 97, 153, 155, 158, 179, 213, 275, 319, 388 181, 219, 235, 243, 248, 307–349, 390 grammateus (and derivatives) 98, 373, 374, 377 decurions 54, 94, 96, 97, 122, 137–141, 159, Great Revolt, see Jewish War 160, 167, 168, 170, 173, 176, 322, 388 Greek, language and culture 2, 4, 6, 14, 15, demiurge 218, 224, 228 28, 29, 45, 86, 89, 90, 92, 96–99, 101, 108, demography 3, 8, 72, 78–117, 173, 176, 267, 388 152, 154, 162, 169, 178–180, 191, 206, 214, 215, Diaspora, passim 220, 235, 236, 243, 265, 273, 302, 308–311, disputes and disputations 30, 31, 111, 270, 315, 316, 319, 320, 331, 332, 339, 343–349, 272, 276, 277, 279, 284, 286, 302, 304 355, 359, 364–366, 372, 373, 389, 390 divorce 151, 156 guilds 165, 381 Donatists 133 hagiography 5, 10, 68, 86–88, 91, 111, 125 economy and economic 8, 11, 58, 63, 72, 73, half ṣeqel 19, 174, 175 78–80, 86, 95, 112, 131, 136, 139, 141, 157–176, Hammon 199, 209, 210 244, 254, 263, 272, 352, 387–389 ḥazzan 368, 369, 372, 373 education, see also schools 174, 334, 343, Hebrew 6, 14, 15, 83, 85, 90, 93, 96–99, 101, 376–380, 391 105, 152–154, 162, 169, 180, 182, 198, 203, 260, elders 61, 324, 357, 365, 371, 372 261, 265, 273, 279, 288, 307, 308, 310, 315, elections 363, 364, 369, 371, 390 316, 319–322, 332, 339, 340, 343–346, 348, embassy and ambassadors 15–17, 19, 21, 28, 358, 359, 362, 364, 372, 377 33 Hellenism and Hellenistic 6, 8, 15, 37, 46, 47, emissaries (apostoli) 9, 97, 98, 126, 148, 119, 120, 122, 126, 155, 185, 186, 191, 193, 201, 154, 155, 254, 261, 301, 312, 314, 322, 323, 218, 219, 229, 233–236, 243, 251, 267, 285, 354–358, 369, 370, 384, 390 303, 307–315, 338, 345, 348, 349, 384, 390 466 subject index heresy and heretics 67, 75, 88, 128, 146, 147, 249, 273, 275, 277, 284, 288, 292, 307, 308, 167, 258, 259, 264, 283–286, 294, 298, 300, 311, 315, 316, 319–322, 340, 342–346, 348, 301, 323, 357 355, 373, 389, 390 history and historians 43, 44, 54–56, 64, 160, law and legal (civil and criminal) 6, 8, 9, 162, 182, 189, 191, 200, 207, 208, 211–217, 331, 55, 60, 61, 63, 67, 69, 70, 73, 76, 80, 94, 116, 333, 336–339, 386 118–156, 158, 163, 183, 184, 213, 249, 254, 263, homily, see sermons 266, 325, 340–343, 347, 351, 352, 355, 358, hostel, see inns 368–370, 374, 375, 378, 385, 388 Hyksos 185, 186, 229 lawyers 163, 347, 348 legislation and legislator 2, 51, 60–62, 64, informers 38, 39, 43, 143, 144, 275, 300 69–71, 73, 76, 80, 118, 122, 123, 125–128, 131, inns 4, 365, 366, 384 133, 137, 138, 141–143, 146, 163, 177, 254, 263, inscriptions 2, 3, 26, 78, 81–86, 89–93, 272, 293, 350, 354, 358, 371, 372, 374, 387 95–102, 104–107, 115, 116, 125, 162, 169, levirate marriages 123 170, 174, 175, 180, 244, 275, 308, 309, 315, libraries 9, 338, 384 316, 319–322, 345, 347, 358, 362–367, 370, literature and literary 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 23, 53, 372–375, 377, 381–383, 385, 391 80, 86, 107, 116, 124–126, 131, 142, 153, 162, 177–179, 187, 192, 193, 196, 200, 202, 207, Jewish courts 126, 131, 148, 150, 151, 155, 373, 217–219, 228, 229, 233, 234, 236, 237, 245, 375, 379, 384 249, 254, 258, 260, 261, 269, 271, 274, 277, Jewish law 114, 115, 125, 126, 130, 131, 145, 146, 280, 288, 289, 294, 297, 299, 302, 304, 307, 150, 153, 155, 156, 204, 213, 302, 314, 340, 371, 308, 310, 312, 325, 327, 330, 331, 340, 342, 375, 389 359, 360, 386, 389 Jewish War 18, 32–34, 37, 118, 205, 212, 231, litigation 123, 147, 150 236, 238, 252, 261, 268, 305, 306, 309, 338, liturgies, see munera 352, 355 Lombards 72, 73, 77, 96, 98 Judaeo-Christians 30, 31, 100, 266, 267, 269, 272, 274, 300, 345 magic and magicians and sorcerers 197, 205, Judaism 7–9, 18, 19, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 216, 228, 295, 298, 301, 303, 315 40–42, 46, 51, 54, 56–58, 60, 63–65, 69, Manichaeism 60, 147 73, 86, 103, 104, 112–117, 119, 120, 122, 124, manumission, see slaves 128–132, 141, 142, 145, 146, 154, 155, 167, Marcomanni 52 171, 177–230, 236, 238, 239, 242–244, 261, markets 251, 253, 254 263–306, 312, 314–317, 319, 332, 333, 336, martyrs and martyrdom 59, 104, 206, 211, 338, 344–346, 350, 354, 355, 358, 364, 370, 242, 243, 266, 272, 329, 336 384, 386–389 mater 373 jurisdiction and judicial powers 22, 57–59, mathematicians and mathematics 215, 70, 73, 123, 136, 147–150, 154–156, 314, 354, 378 356, 372, 378 medicine, see also physicians 162, 163, 238, 286, 328, 347, 349 kiln workers 82, 170, 388 merchants 101, 164 messianism and messianic hopes 43, 45, 48, labourers 80, 105, 159, 170, 351, 388 58, 64, 217, 231, 233, 246, 247, 251, 252, 255, languages 4, 8, 76, 86, 92, 152–155, 169, 180, 258–261, 264, 268, 269, 276, 278, 289 206, 248, 249, 307, 309–311, 319–321, 343, metuentes, see god-fearers 346, 348, 359 military and military service 11, 15, 16, 20, 22, Latin 6, 86, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 101, 154, 169, 25–27, 44, 58, 64, 72, 75, 104, 106, 115, 120, 178–180, 196, 201, 204, 214, 215, 225, 248, 121, 124, 129, 133, 137, 157, 164, 166, 168, 169, subject index 467

179, 184, 199, 205, 206, 230–232, 248, 249, Pharisees and Pharisaism 7, 115, 224, 231, 255, 256, 261, 273, 309, 335, 338, 352, 387 264, 265, 268, 283, 296, 304, 307, 334, 339, minim and minuth 112, 259, 274, 294, 355, 390 298–301, 303 philosophy and philosophers 51, 69, 185, miqveh 366 186, 189, 193, 201, 203, 206, 207, 215–218, miracles 264, 268, 302, 328, 369 222–228, 234, 268, 269, 274, 301, 311, 324, mission and missionizing 16, 17, 27, 67, 69, 332, 338, 342, 343, 347, 378, 389 87, 112, 115, 116, 120, 151, 264, 266, 267, 270, phrontistes 374 271, 281, 304, 305, 309, 369, 388 physicians 129, 130, 162, 163, 169, 170, 215, 218, mixed marriages 143, 146 225, 228, 238, 267, 286, 327, 347, 348 moneylending 53, 161, 279 piyyut, see poetry Montanists 87–89, 147, 276 poets and poetry 103, 153, 158, 160, 168, 171, Moslems, see Arabs 196, 205, 216, 260, 284, 292, 362 munera 94, 122, 123, 139–141, 174, 371, 373 polemic 6, 9, 59, 64, 125, 201, 223, 271, 274, mysticism and magic, see also 280, 285, 297, 328, 342, 386, 387 messianism 89, 90, 378, 379 polygamy 123, 146 prayers, see ritual nation and national 18, 23, 27, 44, 47, 51, 79, preachers and preaching, see sermons 118, 119, 121, 123, 124, 128, 153, 158, 180, 183, presbyter 139, 152, 370, 371 184, 187, 191, 197, 199, 202, 203, 210, 214, 218, presbytera 98, 371 223, 248, 282, 334, 337, 344, 350, 354, 367 priests (Iereus, Cohen) 140, 357, 365, 374 necropolis, see cemeteries privileges 20–23, 28, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64, 70, Noahide commandments 115, 116 73–75, 105, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124–130, 140, 159, 173, 227, 354, 363, 387 onomastics 320 proselytes and proselytism 26, 33, 39, 40, 43, Ophites 147 52, 109, 113–116, 128–130, 174, 198, 211, 213, oral law, see also Jewish Law 114, 152, 254, 273, 373 154–156, 268, 269, 289, 376–378, 388 proselytization, see mission ordination 323, 329, 358, 375, 378 proseuche, see synagogue Ostrogoths 70, 72–75, 96, 99, 105, 107, 123, prostates 374 131, 133, 164 prostitution and prostitutes 26, 48, 206, 238, 239, 251, 253, 259, 289, 297, 325 pagan and paganism 2, 11, 40, 46, 53, 54, 58, pseudepigraphy 42, 43, 50, 233 60–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 77, 103, 112, 114–118, public office 55, 71, 122, 136–141, 163, 164, 120, 122, 125, 128–131, 133, 139, 141–143, 147, 347, 348, 387 155–157, 160, 162, 169, 177–230, 217, 220, Purim 132 223, 225–228, 232, 235–252, 259, 261, 263, 267–271, 275, 280–284, 293, 301, 310, 314–318, Quadi 52 320, 331, 342, 353, 354, 369, 386–388 Qidduṣ ha-Ṣem (sanctification of the name), painters 170 see martyrdom pater 140, 170, 373, 381 Qumran sect 264 patriarchs and patriarchate 7–10, 49, 51, 56–59, 61–66, 69, 70, 92, 98, 118, 123, rabbis and rabbinic 2, 6–9, 32, 39, 40, 44, 126, 139, 140, 148–151, 153–155, 175, 226, 46–48, 51–53, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 97, 99, 238, 243, 254, 255, 261, 308, 310, 314, 322, 100, 114–116, 125, 128, 130, 131, 145, 146, 154, 352–358, 369, 370, 372, 376, 378, 379, 384, 155, 161, 162, 171, 195, 229, 232, 233–246, 387, 390 249–255, 257–259, 261, 268, 284, 294–297, perfidus 280, 281, 283, 292, 293 299–306, 309, 311, 312, 314, 315, 318, 322, 323, 468 subject index rabbis and rabbinic (cont.) 314, 318, 319, 347, 352, 368, 373, 378, 379, 325–329, 332, 343, 346, 352, 354–356, 358, 388, 389 359, 362, 368, 372–376, 378–380, 384, 390 Solomon’s knot 95 real estate 57, 102, 134, 168 soothsayers and diviners 159–161, 212, 160, religion and religious (incl. liberty) 11, 61, 219, 226 64, 67, 103, 118, 120–124, 128, 131, 132, 135, sport 315 145, 148, 150, 153–156, 158, 174, 179, 180, 183, stevedores 159, 388 187, 189, 207, 221, 225, 232, 263, 264, 268, sympathizers 32, 33, 39, 40, 43, 113, 114, 129, 278, 309, 319, 322, 340, 350, 351, 353–355, 213, 268, 280, 284, 288, 289, 305, 388 357, 359, 369, 370, 377, 384, 385, 387 synagogal service, see ritual revolt, see Bar-Kokhva, war synagogues 2, 4, 9, 10, 23, 31, 45, 52–54, 56, rhetors 29, 41, 206, 211, 215, 226, 331, 347, 67–71, 74–85, 89, 91, 95, 96, 101, 104–106, 388 120, 121, 126, 134–136, 139, 152, 154, 158–161, ritual 4, 6, 10, 31, 115, 125, 155, 163, 182, 183, 170, 174, 213, 215, 219, 220, 242, 244, 247, 248, 232, 260, 261, 273, 274, 289, 301, 307, 315, 250, 255, 260, 261, 264–266, 271, 273–275, 359, 360–362, 364, 365, 366, 368, 370, 373, 280, 285, 286, 288, 292, 293, 305, 307, 310, 384, 390 315, 316, 318, 323, 326, 343, 345, 346, 348, Roman, passim 350–352, 354, 359–362, 364–377, 379–382, 384–386, 390, 391 sacrists 171, 368, 372 syncretism 17, 64, 90 Sadducees and Sadducean 155, 156, 224, 264, 265, 268, 302, 303, 334, 355, 390 tailor 161, 162, 316 saints 5, 40, 87–89, 106, 136, 162, 172, 272 Talmid Ḥakham (scholar) 313, 314 Samaritans 46, 59, 71, 94, 108, 127, 137, 147, 165 tanna, see rabbi Sanhedrin 139, 140, 148,149, 297, 350, tanners 80, 161, 162 352–355, 358, 371, 374, 378, 379 Tascodrogits 147 sarcophagus 106, 162, 169, 170, 317, 318 taxes, duty and imposts, see also Fiscus Sarmatians 52 Iudaicus and aurum coronarium 21, 38, sausage maker 169, 170 39, 42, 43, 54, 58, 63, 65, 66, 118, 138, 139, scholar (nomomates) 375, 376, 379 164, 165, 167, 172–176, 213, 245, 254, 351–353, schools 4, 16, 327, 328, 343, 347, 364, 367, 356, 357, 359, 377, 387, 390 375–380, 391 tax collectors 377 scribes 171, 268, 273, 373, 374 tax exemption 58, 358 self-government 352, 364 tax farmers 192 Septuagint 6, 15, 152, 198, 233, 273, 279, 288, teachers (didaskalos, nomodidaskalos) 171, 339, 340, 343–346 215, 289, 313, 314, 323, 325, 346, 365, sermons 6, 9, 10, 67, 154, 247, 248, 250, 372–380, 384, 391 255, 258, 261, 265, 266, 268, 271, 283, 284, Temple 19, 20, 22, 28, 33, 35, 38, 44–47, 286, 288, 290, 310, 323, 326, 329, 330, 355, 65–68, 109, 115, 118, 125, 172, 174, 175, 181, 183, 358–360, 363, 372, 377, 382, 387 184, 186–190, 192, 210, 221, 223, 229, 231, 232, ships and shipping 165, 166 235, 236, 239, 241–243, 252, 260, 266, 268, slaves 17, 18, 37, 51, 70, 71, 78, 79, 81, 84, 86, 276, 284, 286, 290, 300, 310, 325, 329, 350, 101, 107, 118, 124, 129–131, 136, 141–145, 158, 352, 354, 356, 360–362, 364, 366, 368, 369, 159, 168, 191, 192, 232, 327, 331, 375, 379, 387, 374, 376 388 theatres 133, 177, 178, 251, 315 smith and smithy 172 Toldot Yeṣu 304, 305, 387 social 11, 109, 118, 129, 157–176, 180, 212, 230, trade and traders, including maritime 101, 245, 263, 264, 268, 270, 272, 293, 309, 313, 141, 165, 170, 389 subject index 469

Vandals 72, 91 220, 222, 224, 231–233, 249, 258, 264, 282, Verus Israel 65, 67, 268, 269, 273, 275, 283, 310, 325, 334, 336, 388, 390 290, 292, 340 women’s gallery 4 Visigoths 72, 76 writer, see literature Vulgate 252, 288, 345 yeṣiva, see academy wars, see also Jewish war 24, 44, 59, 62–64, 66, 76, 78, 96, 97, 99, 104, 108, 110, 112, 114, Zealots 237, 238, 264 151, 157, 159, 173, 182, 184, 204, 205, 210, 211,

Plates

∵ 472 Plates Arch ofArch Titus . Plate 1 Plate Plates 473

Plate 2 Marcus Tullius Cicero. 474 Plates

Plate 3 Julius Caesar. Plates 475

Plate 4 Philo of Alexandria. 476 Plates

Plate 5 Josephus Flavius. Plates 477

Plate 6 Jewish Rome: Quarters and Catacombs. 478 Plates

Plate 7 Ceiling of Cubicle, Villa Torlonia Catacomb, Rome. Plates 479 Sarcophagus, Vigna Randanini Catacomb, Rome. Catacomb, Vigna Randanini Sarcophagus, Plate 8 Plate 480 Plates

Plate 9 Jewish Lamp, Roman Catacomb.

Plate 10 Jewish Gold Glass (Fragment), Vigna Randanini Catacomb, Rome. Plates 481 Mosaic Showing Solomon’s Knot, Bova Marina Synagogue. Marina Knot, Bova Solomon’s Mosaic Showing Plate 11 Plate 482 Plates

Plate 12 Ruins of Ostia Synagogue.

Plate 13 Epitaph of Aurelius-Samohil and his wife Lasia Irene, Catania. Plates 483

Plate 14 Mausoleum of Theodoric the Great, Ravenna. 484 Plates

Plate 15 Justinian. Plates 485

Plate 16 Codex Justinianus.