HARVARD UNIVERSITY Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

DISSERTATION ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, appointed by the

Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations

have examined a dissertation entitled

Julian among Jews, Christians and 'Hellenes' in Antioch: Jewish Practice as a Guide to 'Hellenes' and a Goad to Christians

presented by Aryay Bennett Finkelstein

candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and hereby certify that it is worthy of acceptance.

Signature <^~VD"

Typed name: Prof. Shaye J.D. Cohen (Advisor)

Signature

Typed name: Prof. Emma Dene

Signature sTl / ^ Typed name: Prof. Jonathan Schofer

Date: April 22, 2011

Julian among Jews, Christians and 'Hellenes' in Antioch: Jewish Practice as a Guide to 'Hellenes' and a Goad to Christians.

A dissertation presented

by

Aryay Bennett Finkelstein

to

The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Jewish Studies

Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

April 2011

UMI Number: 3462773

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMT Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3462773 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

A ® uest ProQuest LLC

789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

©2011 - Aryay Bennett Finkelstein All Rights Reserved

Shaye J. D. Cohen Aryay Bennett Finkelstein

Julian among Jews, Christians and 'Hellenes' in Antioch: Jewish Practice as a Guide to 'Hellenes' and a Goad to Christians.

Abstract

Emperor Julian the Apostate ruled the Roman Empire between 361-363 CE in the

midst of its Christianization. Born and raised a Christian, Julian turned to theurgic

Neoplatonism and converted to Mithraism. As emperor he set out on a contentious policy

to turn the empire into a Neoplatonic ethnically-ordered empire in which his 'Hellenes'

would dominate.

Julian's project required that he create a 'Hellenic' identity based on Neoplatonic

principles. He also had to counter significant Christian opposition to his program. Julian's

rhetorical presentation of Jews played an important role in solving these issues and in the

creation of his Neoplatonic empire.

This dissertation analyzes Julian's rhetorical representation of Jews in his anti-

Christian polemic Contra Galileos and in his epistles to his high priests, Arsacius and

Theodoras. It demonstrates that Julian engaged in scriptural exegesis in order to define

ideal Jewish practice. By doing so Julian defined the boundaries of Jews, 'Hellenes' and

Christians, ethne which he placed on his imperial Neoplatonic ethnic map.

Julian's portrayal of Jewish practice was complex. Jewish practice was both a

model for 'Hellenic' practice and an example of un-'Hellenic' practice. Julian employed

a Neoplatonic hermeneutic in order to model ideal 'Hellenic' practice.

At the same time Julian appropriated Jewish and Christian Scriptures to

demonstrate the efficacy of Jewish practice and prove Christian supersessionist claims

false. As emperor he could combine interpretation with action to prove the truth of his

iii

claims and the superiority of his exegesis while delegitimizing Christian practices and

interpretations using the voices of Christianity's own prophets and apostles.

In his effort to destroy Christianity, Julian commented on specific Jewish texts

and practices that were hot-button issues in intra-Christian circles in order to persuade the

Judaizers in Antioch to question Christian interpretations of Scripture and join with Jews

in Jewish practice. In order to appeal to the Judaizers, who were familiar with Jews,

Julian's descriptions of Jewish practice resembled Jewish practice in Antioch.

IV

Table of Contents

Abstract iii

Acknowledgements xi

Notes on Style xiii

Introduction: Julian and Diaspora Judaism 1

I. Julian and H i s Pro gram 1

II. Julian's Writings 11

III. Jewish Life in Asia Minor 15

IV. The Jews of Antioch 19

V. Julian and the Jews: My Dissertation 25

VI. Scholarship on Julian and the Jews 33

VII. The Chapters of the Dissertation 36

Chapter One: Jewish Private Sacrifice in Contra Galileos: Reading Scripture. Building Empire 38

I. Introduction 38

A. Julian's Claims in CG 305D -306A and Its Setting 40

B. Brief Review of Scholarship on CG305D-306A 42

II. Part One: Deuteronomy 18:3 as a Source for CG 305D-306A and Its Exegesis 43

A. The term rar: Sacrifice or Slaughter? 43

a. TheMT 43

b. The Septuagint 45

c. Philo, De specialibus legibus 1.147 46

d. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 4:74 47

e. The Mishnah 48

B. Sacrifice in Private (sv d5pdKT0ic;) 49

C. Jews Eat Holy Things 50

D. Prayer before Sacrifice: The Ritual of the Ouaia combined with Sacrifice in

v

Theurgic Neoplatonism 52

III. Part Two: Jewish Private Sacrifice and Julian's Program 53

A. Background to Julian's Contra Galileos 53

B. Julian's Goals in CG and the Role of Judaism in it 55

C. Use of Deuteronomy 18:3 in Julian's Project 62

IV. Part Three: Practice and Julian's Argument in its Antiochene Context 63

A. Evidence of Jewish Sacrifice in the Diaspora 65

a. Evidence of the Slaughter of a Lamb on Passover in the Diaspora 65

i. Philo 65

ii. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 14:259-261 67

b. The Passover Sacrifice in the Tannaitic Period 69

c. The Fate of the Passover Lamb in the Third and Fourth Centuries 76

i. Zenon 77

ii. Augustine 77

d. Profane Slaughter: Shekhita in Julian's Day 79

B. Summary of Evidence for Sacrifice in Late Antiquity 79

C. Julian's Familiarity with Jewish Customs 80

D. Julian's Goals in CG 305D-306A: A Conclusion 81

V. Conclusion 82

Chapter Two: Feeding the Priests: Emperor Julian's Comments on Priestlv Gifts 84

I. Introduction 84

II. Part One: Deuteronomy 18:3 as a Source for Giving the Right Shoulder to the

Priests 84

A. Philo 86

B. Targum Onqelos on Deut 18:3 86

C. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 4:74 87

D. Early Rabbinic Texts on Deut 18:3 87

E. Bohairic Text of the Septuagint 88

vi

F. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut 18:3 89

G. Conflation of Verses in the Rendering of Deut 18:3 90

a. Leviticus 7:32-34 91

H. Defining the 27T1T 94

I. The Language of CG306A 95

a. The 8e^ioq couoc, 95

b. cwiapxai 95

III. Part Two: The Context and Function of Julian's Comments on Priestly Gifts in CG 306A 97

A. The Role of Priests in Julian's Writings 97

B. Giving to Jewish Priests in CG 306A 99

C. Julian's Methodology: "Rule-Making" and Biblical Exegesis 101

IV. Part Three: Julian's Address to the Christians and Evidence of Jewish Practice 103

A. Evidence for Giving Gifts to Priests after the Destruction of the Temple 105

a. Evidence of the Status of Priests in Late Antiquity 105

b. The Practice of Giving Priestly Gifts in Late Antiquity 108

i. Second Temple Period 108

ii. Post Destruction: Rabbinic Literature 109

c. The Patriarchal Tax: Whither the Priestly Gifts? 113

i. Genesis Rabbah 80:1 114

ii. The Panarion 116

iii. Chrysostom, Against the Judaizers 6.5:6 118

iv. Genesis Rabbah 80:1 Again 119

d. Did the Patriarch Usurp Rival Priestly Claims? 120

B. Julian and Priestly Gifts 122

V. Conclusion 124

Chapter Three: "When No Jew has to Beg": Julian on Jewish Care for their Poor. His Sources and Purpose 126

I. Introduction 126

vii

II. Part One: Jewish Charitable Institutions in the Sources 128

A. Biblical Law on the Poor 128

B. Post-Biblical Jewish Evidence 130

a. The Temple as a Repository for Alms for the Poor and as a Place of Almsgiving.... 130

b. Charity Outside of the Temple and in Synagogues 131

c. 'Hellenic' Evidence 134

C. From Individual to Communal Forms of Jewish Charity 136

a. Tamhui and Quppa as Historical Institutions? 140

i. Archaeological Evidence of Quppa 143

ii. Archaeological Evidence of Tamhui 145

D. Jewish Acts of Euergetism in the Roman World 146

E. Conclusion on Jewish Charity 149

III. Part Two: Charity in Julian's Empire and in His Other Writings 150

A. Julian's Charitable Program 150

B. Role of Judaism in Julian's Charitable Program 157

IV. Conclusion 158

Chapter Four: "You have filled the whole world with tombs and sepulchres": Julian's Attack on the

Christian Cult of Martyr Relics and Jewish Texts CG 335C-340A 159

I. Introduction 159

II. Part One: Julian's Comments on Christian Practice 161

A. Isaiah 65:4 162

B. Julian's Reading and Use of Isaiah 65:4 165

III. Part Two: A Jewish Practice of Incubation 166

A. Literary Evidence 167

a. Biblical Evidence 167

b. Josephus 170

c. Non-Jewish Evidence 171

B. An Inscription from the Shrine of Amphiaraos 172

viii

C. The Evidence of John Chrysostom 173

D. The Rabbis 175

E. Jews as Healers and Interpreters of Dreams 177

F. Conclusion 179

IV. Part Three: The Context of Julian's Remarks 179

A. Julian's Methodology to Combat the Cult of Christian Martyrs 183

B. The Role of Jews and Judaism in CG 335C-340A 190

V. Conclusion 193

Chapter Five: Dying for the Law in Julian's Letter to Theodorus 195

I. Introduction 195

II. Julian's Description of Jewish Practice 197

III. Jews who Die for their Laws {pxoXr() 198

IV. Dying Rather Than Eating Pig or Other Impurely Slaughtered Animals 204

A. Dietary Laws as a Jewish Identity Marker in Antique Jewish Culture 204

B. Dying for the Food Laws 208

C. 'Hellenic' Literature 210

D. The Jewish Refusal to Eat Pig in Neoplatonic Circles 213

E. Julian on the Jewish Refusal to Eat Pig 215

V. Julian's Use of Jews Dying for the Law in his Letter to Theodorus 216

VI. Conclusion 226

Conclusion: Your Neighbor, the Jew and his Texts 228

Bibliography 238

IX

To My Teachers and Family, who gave me the tools to gain understanding

rmnn pw ,ntK\ jn^n NX» ,mx nc7K T ! ' • T ' T T J ? T I T T T ' T T •• S —

Happy is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who obtains understanding

Proverbs 3:13

x

Acknowledgments

Dissertations do not write themselves nor are they the work of a single individual. I would like to thank my adviser, Shaye J. D. Cohen, for his careful reading of my work and dogged persistence at making me more exacting. You have made me a much better scholar. Emma Dench has not only been a second reader in this project but gently pushed the envelope on me while being a consistent cheerleader and a willing and helpful reader. Jonathan Wynn Schofer, my third reader, was tough at a crucial period in this project exactly when I needed him to be and then incredibly supportive, insightful and helpful at other points. You helped me see the value in my project. I owe each of you a debt of gratitude.

Various parts of this dissertation have been presented at the Harvard Judaism in Antiquity Workshop. Thank you to its coordinator Yonatan Miller and the participants who offered me useful feedback. Similarly in 2009-2010,1 participated in the New Testament Seminar for Doctoral Dissertations. Thank you to the organizers and participants for reading and discussing my work. I would like to thank the organizers of the various conferences in which I presented papers related to my dissertation: The Society of Biblical Literature (2009 and 2010) and the Association of Jewish Studies (2010). In addition, I have benefited from other readers of my work. They include: James Jumper, Jonathan Kaplan and Jonathan Lipnick.

My work has benefitted from many conversations over the years. I would like to thank the following people for their contributions: Moshe Bernstein, Ra'anan Boustan, Jonathan Kaplan, Gregg Gardner, Annewies van den Hoek, Oded Irshai, Christopher Jones, Jonathan Kaplan, Eitan Kensky, Lee Levine, Peter Machinist, Duncan Macrae, Jodi Magness, Yonatan Miller, Laura Nasrallah, Kimberley Patton, Michael Satlow, and Aharon Shemesh.

I began my graduate studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where I earned an M.A. in the History of the Jewish People, and I would like to thank Daniel R. Schwartz for introducing me to the field of Jewish Studies and encouraging me to pursue a PhD. I also benefitted from conversations and classes with Isaiah M. Gafni and Lee I. Levine.

During my time as a graduate student I have benefitted from the generosity of those who have donated scholarships to the Center for Jewish Studies at Harvard University and to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Thank you to the Raphael and Deborah Melamed Fellowship, the Leo Flax Fellowship, the Anna Marney Feldberg Fellowship, the M. Cahane Award, the Deborah Huttman Prize, the I. Asper Award for Jewish Studies and the Canadian Friends of Hebrew University.

Over the past two years I often found myself identifying with Emperor Julian, a lonely figure desperately trying to achieve an impossible task. It was often in these moments

XI

that I was reminded by family and friends that I was not alone and that, unlike Julian, this project need not end with my death. Special thanks to Irit Aharony, Hilary Bracken, Hannah Freedberg, George Gonzalez, James Jumper, Shil Sengupta, Christine Thomas, to my siblings, Kim, Jerry, Richard, Dalia, Sue and Robert and my nieces and nephews, Debra, Zachary, Tamar and Noam. I wish I lived closer to all of you.

I would like to thank my parents, Mel and Mindy Finkelstein for providing me with the education and support that enabled me to reach this moment.

Over the past year I have become a father to Isabel, a wonderfully clever and life-loving child who has brought a lot of joy into my life. Thank you Isabel for making me smile.

Without Jennifer, my wife, who is deeply invested in this dissertation, not only would the date below literally be six months later, but I would not have been inspired to be as creative as this project has required. Thank you for being my muse, and especially for providing me with the love, friendship and support I have needed. I am a lucky man and I love you!

Aryay Finkelstein

April, 2011

XII

Notes on Style

In this dissertation I have followed The SBL Manual of Style in matters of style. Journal titles are abbreviated in the footnotes; full citations are available in the bibliography. I have discussed my use of Julian's texts in the Introduction and have indicated the sources for each text and translation I use in the footnotes as they appear in the dissertation.

XIII

Introduction Julian and Diaspora Judaism

I. Julian and His Program

Emperor Julian (332-363 CE) ruled the Roman Empire from late November 361

to June 363 CE. His short reign belies a turbulent period during which he attempted to

replace a Christianizing Roman Empire with a 'Hellenizing'1 empire based on

Neoplatonic principles. This dissertation examines the role Julian's rhetorical

representation of Jews played in the creation of his empire.

Bora in Constantinople in 322 CE into Constantine's royal family, Julian was

raised as a Christian, but later became a 'Hellenic' Neoplatonist. By the time he was five

years of age Julian was an orphan, a victim of brutal events following the death of his

uncle, Constantine. That year, he and his half-brother, Gallus, were sent to their mother's

estate in Bithynia and entrusted to a eunuch named Mardonius for their education. In 342,

Constantius II isolated Julian and Gallus in Macellum, a castle in Cappadocia where

Julian studied Arian Christianity. Upon Gallus' appointment to the rank of Caesar in 348,

Julian left Macellum to Nicomedia, Pergamum and Ephesus, where he studied rhetoric

indirectly from Libanius and philosophy. Within a few years he began to study

Neoplatonism.

Neoplatonism,2 as espoused by Plotinus, retained the Platonic belief in the one

1 I use Julian's terms "Hellenes" and "Hellenism" rather than the traditional terms of "pagan" and "paganism" in this dissertation to describe the religion that Julian sought to create out of the common rituals performed by the Graeco-Roman groups in the empire.

2 Neoplatonism is a modern term used by scholars to denote a new development in the philosophical understanding of Plato in Late Antiquity.

1

transcendental, unchangeable, incorporeal god (Plato, Timaeus 29a), but added several

layers of gods between the transcendental god and the Demiurge. The Demiurge assigned

national gods to each ethnos, which presented their nations with laws.3 One could attain

knowledge about the Demiurge and his lesser gods through the myths contained in

Homer and Hesiod and through reason.4

By the early fourth century, two Neoplatonic traditions had developed based on

the philosophy of Plotinus. Porphyry, a third century Neoplatonist philosopher, stood by

Plotinus' emphasis of knowing God through ancient wisdom, oracles, myths and reason.

A second tradition, espoused by Iamblichus of Chalcis, accepted the basic doctrines of

Neoplatonism but believed true union with god could come only through acts of theurgy,

consisting of uttering magical sounds and names.5 The initiated would become one with

god through guided training, practice and purity of the soul. With their secret rituals,

mystery cults provided the best mediums through which such a union could be affected.

Julian favored theurgic Neoplatonism and was converted to Mithraism by a Neoplatonic

theurgist philosopher named Maximus in Ephesus in 355. Julian spent the summer of 355

in Athens where he was initiated into the cult of Eleusis.

In early November, Constantius II appointed him Caesar over Gaul. There Julian

was introduced into the world of politics, administration and military matters. He

surprised many by extinguishing revolts against several Gallic tribes and setting up an

eminently fair tax system which strengthened control over a perpetually unstable area of

3 Pauliina Remes, Neoplatonism, (Berkley, Calif.: University of California Press 2008); Andrew Smith, Philosophy in Late Antiquity, (London: Routledge, 2004).

4 Polymnia Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 5.

5 Andrew Smith, Philosophy.

2

the Roman Empire. Within five years Julian challenged Constantius II for sole rule of the

empire, a battle he won by default after Constantius IPs death in November 361.

As a member of Constantine's dynasty, Julian was expected to espouse

Christianity. However, from the time of his conversion in 355 until he became emperor,

Julian pretended to be a Christian while secretly worshipping his god Helios. In fact,

Julian saw himself as an agent of Helios/ Mithra.6 While in Gaul Julian had a dream7 in

which Helios foretold his ascension to the seat of emperor. When the time came, Julian

would set out on a different path than that of his family line: he would remake the empire

along a Neoplatonic ethnically-ordered system which mirrored Neoplatonic cosmology in

which Helios reigned as the Supreme God.

Julian's Neoplatonism was rooted in cultural and religious 'Hellenic' customs (TO

'EMnvucov). The ethnonym, 'Hellene', had been in use for many centuries and its

meaning had evolved over time. Where once it had defined a people who shared common

blood, common language, common cult places, sacrifices and similar customs, over time

became those people who shared a common culture and a common language. Thus the

term 'Hellene' stretched beyond ethnic and political boundaries.8 Being a 'Hellene'

meant adopting a way of life in which many different peoples could participate.9 Under

the Greek and Roman empires, 'Hellenic' culture was a tool used to integrate different

6 Klaus Rosen, Julian Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser, (Stuttgart: J.G. Klett-Kotta, 2006), 59.

7 Julian, Ep. 4, 384CD (Wright, LCL). In his work, To the Cynic Heracleios 227C-334D Julian recounts how Zeus assigned Helios to care for Julian. Helios sent Julian to rule and correct the mistakes of Constantius II.

8 Jonathan M. Hall, Hellenicity, Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chapter 6, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2000).

9 Glen W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Thomas Spencer Jerome Lectures, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 7.

3

ethnicities into their realms.10 In the third century, Neoplatonists such as Iamblichus

infused TO 'EAAnvucov with religious meaning,11 and read Homer and Hesiod as sacred

texts. By Late Antiquity, Julian and others began to use the term 'Hellenism' to define

paganism in its cultural and religious aspects.12

Julian swallowed Iamblichus' theurgic Neoplatonic beliefs whole, its religious

'Hellenic' components included. This included the older cosmological/political ethnic

framework in which each ethnos worshipped its local god according to its ancestral

customs.13 This religious system was polytheistic but also syncretistic and believed in one

Supreme Being. Not only did Julian view the empire through the Iamblichean prism but,

as emperor, he was determined to impose it on his empire.

Apologetic discourse in the fourth century was grounded in ethnic difference.

Thus Julian's 'Hellenizing' program required that he define the ethne around which his

empire was built. Julian was especially concerned with defining his 'Hellenes', whose

practices Julian created to mirror his Neoplatonic beliefs. Each ethnos possessed apolitea

which consisted of philosophical and theological principles.14

10 Hall, Hellenicity, 220.

In correspondence between Iamblichus and his students, the term TO 'EAAnvucov and "EXk^v are no longer cultural terms. Rather, they have become infused with a religious value, which rests on the belief that all of Greek culture is inspired by the Greek gods. Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism, 8; Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity, 10. In the New Testament, these terms mean 'pagan.'

Although Julian understood 'Hellenism' as a religion as well as a cultural phenomenon, he only used the word EXlnviouoc, (See Julian, Letter to Arsacius, 429C (Wright, LCL)) and TO EM^nvucov (Julian, Ep. 58 to Libanius, 400C (Wright, LCL)) once each. Similarly, he never used terms like Christianismos, Galileanismos or Judaismos.

13 Dominic J. O'Meara, Platonopolis, Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003), 116, 121.

14 Aaron P. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 53-54.

4

To create his 'Hellene' Julian set about defining him against 'Christian' and

'Jewish' others. By defining proper 'Hellenic' practice against illegitimate Christian

practices, Julian engaged in a process which Isabella Sandwell calls "rule-making."15

Julian grouped the ethne and assigned practices to each, which he judged for the purpose

of establishing proper norms for his group. Inasmuch as this process depended on the

personal views of the rule-maker, this was a highly subjective process. "Rule-making"

was a common practice among religious leaders in Late Antiquity, who sought to provide

clear definitions of what was and was not proper practice and thus define the boundaries

of their groups.16 It resulted in essentializing ethnic terms which did not necessarily

mirror reality and did not account for varieties within groups.

Julian's most systematic attempt to define 'Hellenes' against Jews and Christians

can be found in Contra Galileos (CG). Julian employed "rule-making" to engage in what

Aaron Johnson calls "ethnic-argumentation" in order to define the validity of an ethnos,

the constitution of which ensured each ethnos a place on his Neoplatonic imperial map.

When Julian marched into Constantinople in December 361 his task was entirely

clear. The cities and their cults, the central bases of ethnic and religious identities in the

Greek-speaking world had been in retreat since the third century when a new imperial

order had centralized power at the expense of the cities. Constantine's empire continued

this imperial order. Julian aimed to reverse this trend by strengthening the cities'

15 Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

16 Sandwell shows how Chrysostom engaged in rule-making in order to define the boundaries of Christianity.

5

institutions including the city council, the temples and their cults.17

The reinstatement of the cities to their former glory was a key aspect of Julian's

'Hellenizing' program. In order to recreate the cosmological Neoplatonic ethnically-

ordered system on earth, each ethnos had to worship its local deity as it had centuries

earlier in priest-led services at local temples. Worship, however, conformed not to the old

local cult, but was to mirror Julian's own theurgic Neoplatonic model of sacrifice with

prayer and was to take place three times per day in public temples and in private.

From the start Julian knew that his theurgic Neoplatonic ideology of sacrifice was

not common practice. He therefore created an empire-wide network of high priests which

was modeled on the successful Christian ecclesiastical hierarchy of bishoprics and

answerable to him as pontifex maximus}9 Julian chose like-minded men to be high priests

of large areas within his empire and funded their efforts to restore the 'Hellenic' temples

with monies recouped from the church.19 These men were responsible for choosing local

priests to serve in local temples.

The turn towards Late Antiquity was characterized by the belief that access to the

James B. Rives, Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) 250. The imperial system which relied on the cities did not meet the needs of a unifying public Roman religion. However, Julian's Neoplatonic ethnically-ordered system may have unified the empire had the cities been willing to adopt his system.

18 Julian was accused of aping the Church by Gregory Nazianzus. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration IV Against Julian, i.112 (PG 35.649); Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian, (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1976), 178; Nicholson takes issue with the Christian content of the priestly function of the high priests. See Oliver Nicholson, "The 'Pagan Churches' of Maximinus Daia and Julian the Apostate," JEH, 45 (2009): 1-10.

19 Julian was not the first pagan to appoint chief priests over large areas of the empire. Maximin Daia had done the same thing in the early fourth century. Joseph Bidez, La Vie de L 'Empereur Julien, Deuxieme Tirage, (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1965), and Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity and many other scholars agree that Julian's model was Christianity.

6

divine was mediated through special individuals.20 Julian sought to turn his priests into

such men. They were to be valued above the 7IOA,ITIKOI<;,21 to engage in moral behavior

and were to wear magnificent garbs when they carried out their priestly functions at the

temple. To attract the masses, priests were to dispense charity to the poor, the stranger

and even to prisoners.

Julian's first step as emperor, an edict of toleration, placed all religions on an

equal footing. Next he renewed the city councils. Whereas once the best and brightest of

the empire had left their cities for jobs in imperial administration in Rome and

Constantinople, Julian required that they stay and serve on the city councils. Other groups

which had been given exemptions from serving in curia were now forced to attend.22 It

was hoped that traditional euergetism would be revived.23

Scholars debate whether Julian was openly hostile to Christianity from the

beginning of his reign,24 or only later, once he saw the extent of Christianity's threat to

his plans.25 Julian was aware from the start that Christianity stood in the way of his

Peter Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), chapter one.

21 Julian, Fragment of a Letter to a Priest, 296B (Wright, LCL), 314.

22 Much to the chagrin of Ammianus this included military men who had served over fifteen years. Julian encouraged large families and therefore excluded fathers with thirteen children or more.

23 Euergetism is a modern term and is derived from the Greek term euergetes. In the Greco-Roman World until the end of the second century CE it involved the gifting by a benefactor of a gift to the city in return for recognition or honors. In the fourth century this was largely replaced by Christian charity exercised by bishops. See Paul Veyne, Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism, (London: Penguin, 1992). For more on euergetism see chapter three herein.

24 Glen. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978).

Bidez, La Vie de L 'Empereur Julien.

7

plans.26 Early in his reign he took steps to weaken Christianity.27 For instance, Julian

allowed the priests who observed the Nicene Creed to return to their posts as a way of

sowing dissent among Christian factions. He also took steps to impede the growth of

Christianity by instructing 'Hellenes' not to make martyrs of the Christians.28 His

Rescript on Christian Teachers, written after he had arrived in Antioch, sought to deprive

Christians of cultural 'Hellenism' because they did not believe in its religious myths.29 It

was also meant to prevent Christian leaders from influencing young minds.

Neoplatonists had all lamented Christianity and viewed it as a threat to their

Neoplatonic order.30 However, Julian's dislike and discrimination turned to overt

antipathy and heightened anti-Christian action when he identified successful Christian

opposition to his program's success.

Julian ruled in Constantinople from December 361 to May 362. Early on he began

to plan for his campaign against Persia. When spring arrived in 362, he began his journey

to Antioch, the Roman Empire's traditional base for military campaigns against the east.31

He travelled from Constantinople to Ancyra in Galatia where he stayed nearly a month

26 In Ep. 39 to citizens of Byzacium (Wright, LCL), Julian says that he has restored the city council which had been abandoned by those who became 'Galileans.'

27 He took back their lands and privileges and, when George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria, was killed by mobs of 'Hellenes' and possibly Jews, Julian merely reproached the 'Hellenes' but took no legal action.

28 Ep. 58 to Libanius and Ep. 40 to Hecebolius (Wright, LCL).

29 Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume II, (Wright, LCL), n36; cod. Theodosius 13.3:5; Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 4.

30 Porphyry wrote a tract called Against the Christians. For Neoplatonism's principled antipathy toward Christianity see the collected essays in: Christian Schafer ed. Kaiser Julian Apostata' und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), 2008.

31 Adrian Murdoch, The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World, (Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 2003), 114.

8

before moving on to Nicomedia and Cappadocia until he arrived in Antioch in mid-June

362. There he was to stay until March 5, 363, when he set out to wage war with Persia to

the east.

Antioch sets the scene for many of Julian's writings explored in this dissertation.

It was in Antioch that Julian came to the realization that the opposition to his plan, both

among 'Hellenes' but especially among Christians, was serious. It was in Antioch that he

began to act more rashly against Christianity and to devise a more pervasive strategy to

destroy it so that his program might succeed.

Julian had expected to find a 'Hellenic' city proud of its ancestral customs and

anxious to restore its storied traditions. What he found was a Christianized city that was

resistant to his reforms. Although, the Antiochenes welcomed him to their city, in time,

Julian and the Antiochenes began to hate one another. The populace resented Julian's

interference in the running of the curia. Gone were the days when the rich bestowed

benefits on the city in great acts of euergetism. The rich looked after their own interests.

Julian's attempt to set prices for grain in the Antiochene marketplace was met with

resistant opportunism by the elites as was his attempt to import imperial grain.

Trouble with the functioning of the curia was matched by what Julian found to be

the poor state of the city's ritual cult. Julian had sent a letter ahead of his arrival in

Antioch asking the governor of the city, his uncle Julian, to restore the temple to Apollo

at Daphne.32 Buried nearby were the bones of St. Babylas, which Gallus had interred

there. In the early fall of 362, Julian had the bones of St. Babylas removed from his

shrine in Daphne because it polluted the ground and, according to some reports,

32 Ep. 29 to Julian.

9

prevented Apollo's oracle from revealing its secrets.33 Christians protested the

disinterment, and accompanied the bones singing psalms. Julian was repulsed by the

Christians' burial of the dead by day and crafted an Edict on Funerals to combat such

action.34 Such acts contravened 'Hellenic' notions of purity and impurity.

In the fall of that year, Julian attended Apollo's shrine to celebrate an important

holiday but found that only he and a single priest bearing a goose were in attendance. The

experience left him deeply disillusioned. It emphasized the plight of his religious

program. When on October 22, Apollo's shrine burned down, Julian blamed the

Christians and shut down the central church in Antioch. There was now open rivalry

between Julian and the Christians.

Besides these problems, Julian simply appeared odd to the Antiochenes. His

constant sacrifice was unusual,35 as was his ascetic behavior. Julian claimed that he had

been mocked in public. He was not a man of entertainment. At some point there was even

a cry for the return of Constantius and Christianity.36 Antioch was a city in which

communities of Christians, Jews and 'Hellenes' lived in harmony.37 Julian's actions

threatened to bring social chaos.38

33 John Chrysostom, De sacto hiermartyre Babyla 2; Theodoret, Hist. eccl. 3.6. St. Babylas' remains had been moved and placed in a shrine in Daphne by Julian's brother, when he had been Caeasar a decade earlier. Daphne was a suburb of Antioch that was considered to be holy ground.

34 Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume III, (Wright, LCL), Edict on Funerals no. 56.

Ammianus Marcellinus, 22.12.

36 Misopogon, 360D.

37 John Chrysostom's Against the Judaizers attests to some Christians' interest and participation in Jewish observance. We also know from other parts of Asia Minor that 'Hellenes' took an interest in Jewish observance as well without converting {theosebeis). Given the advance of Christianity, it is clear that 'Hellenes' converted to Christianity as well. See my section on the Jews of Antioch herein.

38 Misopogon, 360D.

10

Julian left Antioch a bitter man in early March 363. He left behind a notoriously

difficult man to rule them. He headed to the Persian front where he was killed on June 27

of that year. His Persian adventure cost the Roman Empire dearly in land and resources to

the benefit of the Sassanid Persians.

II. Julian's Writings

Julian was a philosopher in his own right and a prolific writer. During his short

life, he wrote enough material to fill three volumes of the Loeb Classical Library. His

writings include letters, panegyrics, edicts and one polemical work. Except for Julian's

Letter to Arsacius, which may have been written just before he arrived in Antioch, all of

the works considered in this dissertation were written in Antioch.

At the heart of this dissertation is Julian's polemic Contra Galileos (CG), in

which Julian makes reference to Jewish practices of private sacrifice, the giving of

priestly gifts and incubation. Written over the course of many months in Antioch and

published in February 363, it was, as its title reveals, a work devoted to undermining

Christianity. In total it was three times the size of what is extant today. What is left has

been preserved from Cyril of Alexandria's Contra Iulianum written in the mid fifth

century. Cyril's work has many manuscripts.39 The fragments of CG were collected in its

most authoritative state by Carolus Neumann in 1880.40 CG was translated into English in

William J. Malley, A Preliminary Specimen of a Critical Edition of the Contra Julianum of St. Cyril of Alexandria, (Manila, Phillipines: Ateneo de Manila, 1959).

40 Carolus I. Neumann, Iuliani Imperatoris Librorum Contra Christianas Quae Supersunt, (Lipsiae: iEdibus B.G. Teubner, 1880). He relied on the three manuscripts of Cyril's work from Venice, one from Munich and the works of Aubert (1638), Spanheim (1696) and J. P. Migne (1859).

11

1923 by William Wright, who relied on Neumann and Spanheim.41 For the most part my

work follows that of Wright's although I do supplement with notes from Neumann and

others where appropriate. All of Julian's other works have been collected, ordered and

translated by Joseph Bidez and Franz Cumont, and by Wright.42 For these works, I

generally follow Wright and occasionally supplement with Bidez and Cumont.

Contra Galileos took shape after Julian confronted the Christians in Antioch and

was undoubtedly a response to the Christian challenge to his 'Hellenizing' program.

Julian carefully built his arguments against Christians using the following steps: First, he

examined both the 'Hellenic' and Judeo-Christian conception of God by comparing what

each tradition said about their god(s). Here he compared the myths of the Bible to those

of Homer and Hesiod;43 Second, Julian questioned why Christians chose to base their

beliefs upon the Jewish background rather than the 'Hellenic' one; and, finally, he

questioned why Christians did not even adhere to Jewish beliefs; In doing so, he

examined Jewish beliefs and practices while comparing them to 'Hellenic' practices.

CG also fits into a genre of Christian-pagan polemics that stretches back to the

second century CE. 'Hellenic' authors such as Celsus and Porphyry, and Christians like

Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea wrote treatises defending the charges leveled against

them by their interlocutors and advancing their own charges against the other. In the early

fourth century, Eusebius wrote his Historia Ecclesiae, in which he triumphantly

41 Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume III, (Wright, LCL), lxvi-lxvii.

42 Josef Bidez, and Franz Cumont eds., L Empereur Julien Oeuvres Completes, Tome 1, 2e Partie, (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1924).

43 Neoplatonic philosophers, like Julian, considered discussions of 'Hellenic' mythology as derived from its classical texts as religious statements. Raymond Van Dam accurately characterizes these classical texts as sacred texts for these philosophers. See Raymond Van Dam, Kingdom of Snow, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 167.

12

demonstrated that history proved the truth of Christianity. CG was, in part, a response to

Eusebius.44

Like 'Hellenic' polemicists before him, Julian employed rhetorical Jews in his

argument against Christians. He cast Jewish practices between "ideal" 'Hellenic'

practices and "abhorrent" Christian ones. Christians are presented as illegitimate bastards

of their parent Jewish and 'Hellenic' forbearers. This presentation of Jewish practice is

similar to that of other Greco-Roman pagans such as Celsus and Porphyry, a Neoplatonist

of the late third century who also used Jews to attack Christians, chastising Jewish beliefs

and practices where they, differed from paganism.45 Thus for Julian and these Greco-

Roman pagans Jews and Jewish practice played a dual role. On the one hand, they were

attacked as the fountainhead of Christianity, the key opponent to the success of Julian's

program. On the other hand, they were favored in comparison to Christians because Jews

kept their ancestral traditions.

In this dissertation, I also examine Julian's comments about Jews in his two letters

to his 'Hellenic' priests. My analysis will also consider Julian's Fragment of a Letter to a

Priest which is anticipated in the Letter to Theodorus, and Misopogon, Julian's satire

which he wrote against the Antiochenes around the same time he wrote CG.

44 Scholars have noticed the common lines of argument used by authors of this genre and Julian's polemic fits well into this framework. David Rokeah, Judaism and Christianity in Pagan Polemics: Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, (Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 1991); See also John G. Gager, "The Dialogue of Paganism with Judaism- Bar Cochba to Julian," HUCA, 44 (1973): 89-118.

45 Julian relied on the arguments of Celsus and Porphyry. See Johannes Geffcken, Zwei Griechische Apologeten, (Leipzig: : ^Edibus B.G. Teubner, 1907). Pagan authors differ in their views of Judaism. Numenius admired it. See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 2, (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1980), no. 363 A, 209ff.; Tacitus attacked it outright (Stern, GLAJJ, Vol. 2, n273-294, 7-93); Celsus (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, no. 375, 232-305) and Porphyry (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, nos. 450-466, 433-483) did both. See also Julian, Julian's Against the Galileans, (ed. R. Joseph Hoffman; Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2004).

13

According to Bidez, Julian's Letter to Arsacius, chief priest of Galatia, should be

dated to July 362 when Julian arrived at Antioch.46 Wright was uncertain but dated it to

June 362 while Julian was on his way to Antioch.47 Arsacius was the appointed high

priest of Galatia. In this letter Julian ordered him to set up hostels and feed the poor. He

also compared the state of philanthropy between Jews, Christians and 'Hellenes', who

failed to feed their poor,48 and mentioned that no Jew had to beg.

Bidez following Asmus argued for a dating of January 363 for Julian's Letter to

Theodorus, his High Priest of Asia, and his Fragment of a Letter to a Priest, labeling

them letters 89a and 89b.49 Julian's promise made to Theodorus in 89a to follow up with

a letter detailing his rules of priestly conduct seems to be realized in 89b. However,

Wright found Bidez's Letter 89b to be too repetitive of 89a, and concluded that they

ought not to be considered together, a fact I do not find convincing given Julian's

repetitive rhetoric.50

The Letter to Theodorus directed the high priest to select priests with specific

qualities. In the course of the letter, Julian admired the Jewish willingness to die for their

laws and starve rather than eat certain meat. Julian's Fragment of a Letter to a Priest lays

out in great detail what qualities Julian sought in his priests and how they ought to

46Bidez and Cumont, L'Empereur Julien, 98-101. For a contrary view see Peter Van Neuffelen, "Deux Fausses Lettres De Julien I'Apostat (La Lettre aux Juifs, Ep. 51 [Wright], et Lettre a Arsacius, Ep. 84 [Bidez])" VC55 (2001): 131-150.

47 Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume HI, (Wright, LCL), 67.

48 Rudolph Asmus, "Eine Enzyklika Julians des Abtriinnigen und ihre Vorlaufer", Zeitschrifi fur Kirchengeschichte 16 (1895): 45-71, 220-252.

4 Bidez, La Vie de L'Empereur Julien, 102-105.

Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume III, (Wright, LCL), lxii.

14

behave.

Julian wrote Misopogon while in Antioch probably by the end of 362. The work is

a satire in which he poked fun at himself through the eyes of the Antiochenes, with whom

he developed a contentious relationship. However, the letter turns into a bitter complaint

against the Antiochenes. The work's importance for this dissertation is that it gives us

insight into Julian's experiences in Antioch and a window into the nature of the resistance

to his person and program. This is important since it is in Antioch that all of our works

were written.

Finally, Julian wrote a Letter to the Community of the Jews in which he informed

them that he was freeing them from their taxes, and would rebuild their temple when he

completed his Persian campaign. Several authors have questioned the authenticity of this

letter.51 Wright argues that it is an authentic letter and most scholars today accept his

findings.52

III. Jewish Life in Asia Minor

Julian spent much of his life in Asia Minor and much of his reign in Antioch.53

Scholarly works about Jewish life in Asia Minor reveal a dynamic Jewry which retained

51 Bidez and Cumont, L'Empereur Julien; Johannes Geffcken, Kaiser Julianus, (Leipzig: Dietrich, 1914).

52 Wright dates this letter to late 362 or early 363 while Julian was still in Antioch. According to Bowersock's timeline, Julian had already tried and failed to rebuild the temple but intended to try again. See Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, 120-122.

The primary sources on Diaspora Judaism have been collected: The Egyptian Papyri in Tcherikover and Fuks Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (1957-1964); Menahem Stern's Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism; Lifshitz's Donateurs et Fondateurs; Amnon Linder's Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation; and, Schreckenberg's Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches Umfeld (I.-11. Jh.)53

as well as a number of works that consider inscriptions in local areas. For Asia Minor see: Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press 1991); Joyce Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987).

15

its Jewish identity while achieving full integration into the life of its surrounding

culture.54 Jewish life in Asia Minor is ancient and reaches back at least to the beginnings

of Seleucid rule. At some point in the second century BCE, and possibly earlier, the

Seleucid king granted Jews of different cities rights to live according to their ancestral

customs.55

When the Romans conquered Syria in 64-63 BCE, they granted the same rights to

Jews. In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus lists decrees by the Romans recognizing

Jewish ancestral laws. A number of decrees about the Jews of Sardis, the capital of Lydia,

demonstrate that Jewish rights were robust. In one, Jews were given the right to maintain

their topos (synagogue) where they could adjudicate their own matters (Josephus, A. J.

14:235). In another it was the duty of the market officials to provide the Jews with

appropriate foods (Josephus, A.J. 14:259-261).

Although there is evidence of conflict between Jews and non-Jews during the

Great Revolt of 70 CE, no major conflicts are recorded.56 In the second, third and fourth

centuries, Jews, Christians and 'Hellenes' lived together in peace.

Wayne A. Meeks and Robert Louis Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era, (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978); Walter Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, BandIIKleinasien, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2004); Marianne Palmer Bonz, "The Jewish Community of Ancient Sardis: A Reassessment of Its Rise to Prominence," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 93 (1990): 343-359. Marianne Palmer Bonz, "The Jewish Donor Inscriptions from Aphrodisias: Are They Both Third-Century, and Who Are the Theosebeis?" HSCP 96 (1994): 281-99; Bernadette J. Brooten, "The Jews of Ancient Antioch," in Antioch The Lost Ancient City. (ed. Christine Kondoleon; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 29-32; Angelos Chaniotis, "The Jews of Aphrodisias: New Evidence and Old Problems," Scripta Classica Israelica, 21 (2002): 209-242; Johannes Hahn, Diejudishe Gemeinde im spatantiken Antiochia: Leben im Spannungsfeld von sozialer Einbindung, religiosem Wettbewerb und gewaltsamem Konflikt. (eds. Robert Jutte, and Abraham P. Kustermann; Judische Gemeindeund Organisationsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. (Vienna: Bohlau, 1996), 57-90; Robert Louis Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983).

55 Kraeling, "The Jewish Community of Antioch," 138; Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 36.

56 Josephus, B.J. 7.100-111. After Titus put down the revolt in Judea he came to Antioch where 'Hellenes' of that city demanded that the Jews of the city be expelled.

16

Christian literary evidence suggests internal conflict between early Christians and

Jews in the first century CE. The New Testament reports instances of Jewish opposition

to Paul's preaching in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:45) and in Iconium. In 2 Corinthians

11:24 Paul is reported to have received forty lashes at the hands of the local synagogue.

The Jews of Asia Minor made their opposition to nascent Christianity felt in Judea as

well, arguing with Stephen in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9-15). However, this was an internal

Jewish matter that was limited to specific places and did not lead to violence.

A sizable amount of Christian literature with anti-Jewish attitudes was produced

in second century Asia Minor.57 This literature reveals familiarity with Jewish practice

and evidences attempts by Christians to define themselves against Jews. At times,

underlying the image of the Jew in these texts was their social situation in the Diaspora.58

There is a paucity of evidence for Jews in Asia Minor in the second and third

centuries. Coins of 200-250 CE which tell the story of the Flood and Noah's ark, suggest

Jewish-Christians biblical themes were valued in third century Asia Minor. Perhaps the

most important trend in Asia Minor in these centuries was a persistent effort by the

oracles of Apollo at Claros and Didyma to integrate the pantheon of 'Hellenism' into a

hierarchy governed by theos hypsistos, the Most High God.59 These efforts were

grounded in Neoplatonic philosophy. This new belief worshipped angels, especially the

57 Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is set in Ephesus according to Eusebius of Caesarea. The Martyrdom of Polycarp which took place in Smyrna of the 160s and the third century Martyrdom ofPionius also from Smyrna blamed Jews for attacking the martyrs. Melito of Sardis' Peri Pascha is another anti-Jewish production that shows familiarity with the Jewish seder.

Judith Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century, (New

York: T & T Clark), 2003.

59 Stephen Mitchell, "The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians," in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, (eds. Polymnia Athanassiadi-Fowden, and Michael Frede; Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1999), 81-148.

17

Archangel Michael, who linked men with the gods in 'Hellenic,' Jewish and Christian

belief in Asia Minor. Dedicatory inscriptions in Phrygia, Lydia and other sites in Asia

Minor in the third century refer to this god and sometimes to the pantokrator, a phrase

taken from the Sepfuagint. This evidence shows that Jews, Christians and 'Hellenes'

shared much in common in Asia Minor.60

When Jews reappear in fourth century Asia Minor they seem to be a dynamic,

self-assured group. The beautiful synagogue in Sardis, which existed in the third century

but was renovated on a grand scale in the fourth century, is a case in point. Its location on

a busy street, its large donatives and mixture of 'Hellenic' symbols interspersed with

Jewish symbols reveal a wealthy, confident and proud Jewish community, which

welcomed all peoples.

The Aphrodisias inscription now dated to the late fourth or fifth centuries shows

that some 'Hellenes' practiced Jewish law without converting (the theosebeis)*1 This is

consistent with Josephus' comment in the first century CE (B.J. 7.45) that Jews attracted

many Greeks to their synagogues.

Among Christians in Asia Minor, the impact of Judaism was no less potent. There

are several attestations from the first through fourth centuries that demonstrate that some

Christians observed Jewish law while believing in Jesus.62

In the period of time which is the subject of this study, the fourth century, there

Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, Volume IT. The Rise of the Church. (Oxford, U.K.: The Clarendon Press, 1993), 48.

61 Bonz, "The Jewish Donor Inscriptions," 281-99; Chaniotis, "The Jews of Aphrodisias," 209-242.

62 Col 2:16 may suggest that gentile converts to Christianity were urged by some Christians to adopt Jewish dietary practices. In the second century, Celsus was aware of Christians who accepted Jesus but lived according to Jewish law (Origen, Cels. 5.61). Irenaeus knew Christians who practiced circumcision, only read the Gospel of Matthew and led a Jewish way of life.

18

are several attestations of Christians who observed Jewish law. Both Jerome (Ep. 112.13)

and Epiphanius (Panarion 29.7) knew of Christians who observed Jewish law in Asia

Minor. Of particular concern to the Christian Church Fathers were the many Christians

who celebrated the Pasch according to the time set for the Jewish Passover. Evidence of

this practice can be found in Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia (Athanasius, Ep. Afr. 2) and in

Paphlogonia (Socrates, Hist. eccl. 4.28).

On the whole it seems that Jews co-existed and even competed with Christians

and 'Hellenes' in Asia Minor, while maintaining a strong Jewish identity.63

IV. The Jews of Antioch

Antioch was the capital of Syria, the seat of Roman civil and military officials in

Asia.64 Its significance in the early fourth century is underscored by the amount of time

Diocletian spent at a palace he built there. In the second half of the fourth century,

Libanius described the magnificence of this palace.65 The city's location, on main roads

heading east and west and only a few miles from the sea to the south, made it an

economic center for the rest of Asia Minor and a center for agriculture.66 It was also a

Fergus Millar, "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, (eds. Judith Lieu, John North, and Tessa Rajak; New York: Routledge, 1992), 97 -123 at 103; Walter Ameling, "Die Jiidische Gemeinden im Antiken Kleinasien." in Jiidische Gemeindeund Organisationsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. (eds. Robert Jiitte, and Abraham P. Kustermann; Vienna: Bohlau, 1996), 29-55 at 46-47.

George Haddad, Aspects of Social Life in Antioch in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, (New York: Hafher, 1949), 12-13.

65 Libanius, Or. 11.204-207.

66 Glanville W. Downey, Ancient Antioch. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963, 63-64.

19

religious and cultural center.67

Jews had lived in Antioch since its founding. Josephus claims that Jewish soldiers

in Seleucus Nicator's army settled there in the third century BCE. In the first century CE,

Josephus wrote that Jews lived all over Asia Minor but especially in Antioch (B.J. 7.43).

Sources suggest that Jews lived all over Antioch but especially in Daphne and in Hulta (2

Mace 4:33). However, we know little about the Jews of Antioch after the first century

CE.68

Fourth century sources on Antiochene Jewry are abundant and reveal a rich

Jewish life.69 The Jewish community was governed by a council made up of

representatives from the city's synagogues and headed by the gerousiarch.70 We know of

at least three synagogues in the city: one in the Kerateion, another called Asabinus and a

third mentioned by Chrysostom called Matrona in Daphne.71

Socially, the Jews of Antioch came from all stations of life. There were the

wealthy, but we also know of shopkeepers,72 artisans and tenant farmers.73 Julian's

Julian's respect for the temple of Apollo is evidence of this. Libanius' school of rhetoric located in Antioch was a center for learning for the brightest students of the Roman World.

68 According to Malalas, the chronicler of Antiochene history, the Jews had a magistrate in the late second century (Malalas, Chronographia, 290). We also know of a wealthy Jewish woman from 213 CE, Cornelia Salvia, whose will designated a bequest upon the Jewish Antiochene community.

69 The classic study about Jews in Antioch is Carl H. Kraeling, "The Jewish Community of Antioch," JBL 51 (1932): 130-160. Unfortunately, the limited excavations that have been carried out there have not revealed any evidence of Jewish life.

Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 61.

71 Hahn, Die judishe Gemeinde, 63.

72 John Chrysostom, Horn. Rom.l2.20:3, (PG 51.176).

73 Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 38.

20

contemporary, mentor and friend, the rhetorician Libanius (Or. 47.13-16), wrote of a

dispute he had with Jewish tenants whose family had farmed his land for four

generations. The wealth of Antiochene Jews was felt as far away as Apamea, where

mosaic inscriptions in a synagogue there reveal that the head of the synagogue of the

Antiochenes contributed to the synagogue in 391.

Our richest source for Jews in Antioch comes from John Chrysostom who lived in

Antioch in the 380s as a priest. According to Chrysostom, Jews observed the Sabbath

(Horn. Rom. 12:20; 51.176), Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkoth (Adv. Jud. 1.1; PG

48.844) and Passover (Adv. Jud. 3.2; PG 48.864). They practiced circumcision (Adv. Jud.

2.1; PG 48.858), abstained from eating blood (Adv. Jud. 6.3; 49.907), attended ritual

baths (Catech. ilium. 1.2; PG 49.225-226) and wore scriptural texts sewn into their

clothing (Horn. Jo. 53.3; PG 59.296).75 Rabbinic literature records (y. Sanhedrin 3.2 21a)

that the Jews of Antioch had their own Jewish tribunal.

The Jews of Antioch kept in close contact with the Jews of the Galilee and

believed the Land of Israel to be holy.76 Thus the wealthiest Antiochene Jews were buried

in the necropolis in Beth Shearim. The head of a Jewish governing council in Antioch

purchased a burial plot there.77 These burials also demonstrate a connection between

74 Stern, GLAJJ, 2, no. 495a.

This may mean phylacteries but it could also mean amulets. Wilken, John Chysostom and the Jews, 65.

76 Epiphanius, Pan. 30.12:1-9. In the aftermath of the Bar-Kochba rebellion, Jewish life moved to the Galilee. For a recent consideration of the communities living in Late Antique Palestine see: Hayim Lapin, Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, (Potomac, Md: University Press of Maryland, 1998).

77 Baruch Lifshitz, and Mostie Schwabe, Beth Shearim: Report on the Excavations During 1936-1940, Vol. II, no. 142 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1974); Brooten, "The Jews of Ancient Antioch," 29-32.

21

Antiochene Jewry and the Patriarch of Palestine.78 A second funerary inscription in

Tiberias of a daughter of a gerousiarch and wife of an archisynagogus of the

Antiochenes further supports a connection between the seat of the Patriarch and

Antiochene Jews.

The Patriarch's power among Diaspora communities is debated. The majority of

scholars find the Patriarch rose to power gradually in the Diaspora but debate about when

his power reached its zenith.79 Others argue that the power of the Patriarch cannot be

traced chronologically.80

There is no doubt that the Patriarch had considerable influence over Jewish life in

Antioch in the mid to late fourth century. In 364, one year after Julian's death, Libanius,

on behalf of the Jews of Antioch, wrote a letter to Priscianus, the new proconsul of

Palestine.81 Libanius wrote that the Jews of Antioch feared a certain tyrannical man, who

had once been on the council of elders, and was appointed a second time by the Patriarch

Another reason Antiochene Jews wanted to be buried in Beth Shearim is because Rabbi Judah the Patriarch and other patriarchs were buried there.

79The rabbinic and patristic evidence (Origen, Eusebius) do not agree with Roman sources (Julian and codex Theodosianus). Some believe that the Patriarch rose to prominence with his recognition in Roman Law. See Lee I. Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch in the Third and Fourth Centuries: Sources and Methodology," JJS 47 (1996): 1-32; Martin Jacobs, Die Institution des Judischen Patriarchen: Eine Quellen- Und Traditionskritische Studie zur Geschichte der Juden in der Spatantike, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995). Jacobs finds that the Patriarch's power in the Diaspora is elusive before the fourth century. Jacobs, Die Institution des Judischen, 346-348. In general on the Patriarch, see Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch," and Jacobs, Die Institution des Judischen; and, Efrat Habas Rubin, ha-Nasi ba-tekufah ha-Romit-Bizantit: le-toldoteha shel dinastiyah, PhD. diss. Tel Aviv University, 1991.

80 Seth Schwartz, "The Patriarchs and the Diaspora," JJS 56 (1999): 208-222.

81 See Stern, GLAJJ, 2, no. 504. For scholarship on the letters of Libanius to the Patriarch see: Moshe Schwabe, "Towards the History of Tiberias: An epigraphic study" in Sefer Yohanan Lewy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism, (eds. Moshe Schwabe and Joshua Gutmann; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1949), 216-221. The power of the Patriarch over Antiochene Jews is evidenced by eight letters between Libanius and the Patriarch between 388-393 CE and by one letter to Priscianus, the consul of Palaestina dated to 364 CE. See Moshe Schwabe, "The Letters of Libanius to the Patriarch of Palestine", Tarbiz 1.1, (1930): 85-110; Moshe Schwabe, "A New Document relating to the History of the Jews in the 4th Century CE Libanius Ep. 1251," Tarbiz 1.3 (1930): 107-121.

22

to become an archon on the council of elders.82 The Antiochene Jews turned to Libanius

to influence his friend, Priscianus, to intervene with the Patriarch in order to stop the

appointment. Chrysostom mentioned that Jews in Antioch sent money to the patriarch in

Palestine (Jud. gent. 16; PG 48.835).

The rabbis of Palestine are reported to have visited Antioch on a number of

occasions. The Palestinian Talmud records visits by the rabbis to the Hulath valley

outside Antioch to collect money.83 In Gen. Rab. 19.4, Tanhuma bar Abba who lived in

the late fourth century, came to Antioch to engage in a dispute with Christians about the

nature of God in Genesis 3:5. The rabbinic movement itself drew upon Jewish

Antiochene talent. In the fourth century Antiochene rabbis included Isaac Nappaha and

Ephas.84

Judaizers, so named by scholars because they kept Jewish customs while

maintaining their belief in Jesus, plagued John Chrysostom in late fourth century

Antioch. They were not new to the Syrian scene in the fourth century. In a third century

document, the Didaschalia Apostolorum, Christians were warned not to make

"distinctions of meat" and "purifications" (Did. apost. 26) and were ordered to make their

observance of the Pasch distinct from the Jewish Passover (Did. apost. 21).

Chrysostom upbraided the Judaizers of his church. These Christians attended

82 Schwabe, "The Letters of Libanius to the Patriarch of Palestine," Tarbiz 1.1, (1930): 85-110. Stern, GLAJJ, 2, no. 599 takes issue with Schwabe's interpretation.

83 y. Hor. 3:48a. Rabbis Akiva, Eleazar and Joshua are said to have visited the region in the second century to collect donations. Even if we assume that this was not a historical event, it shows that the rabbis in Palestine were aware of the Jews in and around Antioch and makes sense given the geographical proximity of Jews in Antioch to the Galilee. The story also implements the law of the giving of tithes found in t. Demai 2:1.

84 b. Kett. 88a; Gen Rab. 10.4

23

Jewish services in synagogues on the Sabbaths, the High Holy Days, and on the Feast of

Tabernacles. They considered synagogues and Jewish scrolls to be more holy than

churches and Christian books.85 They fasted with Jews, were healed by Jews and

celebrated Easter according to the Jewish calendar.86 This situation obfuscated the

boundaries between Judaism and Christianity and weakened the Christianization process

of the late fourth century.

The celebration of the Pasch according to the calendar set by the Jews was a

problem in Antioch as it was in the rest of Asia Minor. A synod in Antioch in 341 had

issued a canon threatening excommunication for those who followed the Jewish calendar

(canon 1). Yet, Christians in Antioch chose to ignore it (Adv. Jud. 3.3; PG 48.865). As

John saw it, the issue was whether his followers would obey the decrees of the Christian

Fathers who had set the date or the calculations of the Jewish sages.87

One may assume that Chrysostom's evidence of Jewish influence on Christians in

Antioch applied twenty years earlier in Julian's reign. The canons from the Council of

Laodicea, Phrygia in 364 CE, one year after Julian's death, support this assumption. The

introduction to the canons of that council states that its members gathered together from

various provinces of Asia Minor.88 Thus we can assume that some of the concerns

expressed in the canons also applied to Christianity in Antioch in the early 360s.

Canon 29 of that council ordered Christians not to proselytize or attend

85 All of this can be found in Chrysostom's first homily against the Judaizers (PG 48.843-856).

86 John Chrysostom, Homily 8 (PG 48.927-947)

87 Wilken, John Chrystostom and the Jews, 78.

Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents, Vol. 2, (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1876), 299.

24

synagogues on the Sabbath. Other provisions prohibited participating in Jewish festivals

(canon 37) or accepting unleavened bread (canon 38) or reading only the Old Testament

on the Sabbath (canon 16). Similar practices were prohibited in the Apostolic

Constitutions, thought to be a product of Syria and possibly even Antioch89 in the mid to

late fourth century.90

These documents suggest not only that Jews maintained their identity in Antioch

and Asia Minor during Julian's reign, but that their customs and holy places were

attractive to Christians, a fact that was not reciprocated by Jews. Chrysostom claimed that

Jews did not keep Christian ways (Adv. Jud. 4.3; PG 49.375-6).

V. Julian and the Jews: My Dissertation

In this dissertation I will examine Julian's rhetorical representation and use of

Jews in his works and demonstrate how he engaged in scriptural exegesis in order to

define ideal Jewish practice and Jewish identity. By defining Jews within certain

boundaries Julian also defined 'Hellenes' and Christians, ethne which he placed on his

imperial Neoplatonic ethnic map.

The most important source for Julian's comments about Jewish practice and

beliefs is Scriptures. Julian had studied the Old and New Testaments when he grew up as

a Christian. He had been a pupil of Diodore, an Arian who interpreted Scripture using the

Claudio Moreschini, Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature Vol. //(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson), 2005, 196.

90 See canon 65 on attending synagogues, canon 70 on keeping Jewish festivals and fasts and gifts on feasts such as unleavened bread.

25

Antiochene methodology, which interpreted Scriptures in light of its context.91 In

addition, as a lector, Julian gained proficiency with Scriptures.

When Julian became emperor he began his 'Hellenizing' program which sought

to turn the empire into a Neoplatonic ethnically-ordered regime. Julian set out to restore

cities and their temples and to define a 'Hellenic' super ethnos in order to give his empire

cohesion. Yet Julian's 'Hellenes' did not identify themselves as sharing a common set of

religious practices let alone the Neoplatonic practices which Julian sought. Similarly,

Christians were an ethnos with universal beliefs that threatened the political and religious

body of Julian's empire.

The answer to these vexing problems lay in exegesis. Julian employed scriptural

exegesis as part of his toolkit to define the groups in his empire. The Jews played an

important part in this effort. His rhetorical use of Jews was complex. On the one hand, he

ascribed to Jews ideal practices which he read out of Scriptures in order to model ideal

'Hellenic' practices. On the other hand, Julian set the boundaries for 'Hellenic' practices

by defining negative Jewish practices which he read out of Scriptures. Not only were

these associated with Christian practices, they were un-'Hellenic' Julian also used

Scriptures to define Jewish practices which would undermine Christian truth claims and

delegitimize Christianity. Julian's ploy played to his strengths. He knew the Scriptures

91 Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and Formation of Christian Culture, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 177.

92 Celsus makes the same claim about Christians in the Roman Empire of the second century CE. See Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984), 107-108, 118-121. In his syncretistic philosophical view, the worship of Jesus as a god threatened Roman monotheistic belief in the one god, while denying devotion to other divine beings. Such belief threatened the political structure of the Roman Empire which held that there was a single source for all things in Heaven and on earth. He also was disturbed by Christians' unwillingness to take part in civic responsibilities which he saw as a revolt against Greco-Roman institutions. Instead Christians developed their own laws and institutions that were outside the Roman realm. Celsus worried that if Christians attracted too many adherents it would disrupt the social cohesion of the empire.

26

and Christian methods of interpretation inside out.

Typically, 'Hellenes' such as Celsus and Porphyry placed their rhetorical Jews in

a dual role. On the one hand, Jews were mocked and berated for their inferior beliefs in

their god and inferior history in order to strike at the root of Christianity.93 In reality, the

only true Neoplatonist claim against Jews was their insistence on worshipping only one

God.94 On the other hand, Neoplatonists admired Jews95 and praised them for their

observance of their ancestral customs.

Julian took this a step further than his Neoplatonic ancestors. He wanted to create

a Neoplatonic empire. But Neoplatonism was limited to a very narrow group of scholars.

He could not simply impose it. Instead Julian read Jewish practice out of Scripture using

a Neoplatonic hermeneutic in order to define 'Jewish' practices which then could serve as

a model for 'Hellenic' practice. Given how often he bemoaned the apathetic state of

'Hellenic' practice, Julian needed a model for his 'Hellenes.' Thus Julian's rhetorical

'Jew' served as a model for his ideal 'Hellene.' In effect, he used Jewish texts as modes

of persuasion in the creation of his Neoplatonic empire and as tools to define the

boundaries of his own 'Hellenic' ethnos.

As we will see, Julian celebrated the similarities between Jewish and Graeco-

Roman practices of temples, sacrifice, prayer, priestly gifts, charity and observance of the

93 Celsus attacked Judaism in order to strike at the roots of Christianity. His criticisms are not dissimilar to Julian's writing almost two hundred years later. These struck against Jewish beliefs: 1. In the messiah; 2. The anthropocentrism of Judaism and Christianity; 3. The figurative and allegorical interpretation of Jewish history; 4. Mosaic cosmogony; and, 5. The humble origins of Moses and his followers. Stern, GLAJJ, 2, 226-227.

94 Julian, like Porphyry before him, believed that Judaism's and Christianity's belief in more than one supreme god ran counter to Neoplatonic theology in which there was one supreme god.

95 Porphyry admired the wisdom of the Hebrews and Julian admired Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for their theurgism. See Gager, "The Dialogue of Paganism," 89-118.

27

laws as interpreted by him from Scriptures. Like the 'Hellenes', Julian's Ioudaioi,

properly interpreted, were an ethnos. They too had a national god assigned by the chief

god, Helios, only Jews had improper beliefs about Him.96 Their practices were like those

of the other nations.

Since Julian imagined a Neoplatonic Empire consisting of ethne which adhered to

their ancestral customs, it was important that he root Jewish practice in its ancestral laws,

the laws of the Torah. This gave these practices special legitimacy and authenticity and

granted the Jewish ethnos legitimacy and a place on his Neoplatonic ethnic map.

Although Julian's interpreted Jewish practice was a model for 'Hellenes', Julian

consistently read 'Hellenic' practices out of ancient Greek texts such as Homer, Hesiod

and Plato. 'Hellenic' ancestral laws as read out of its ancient texts legitimized the

'Hellenic' ethnos.

However, Julian did not have a consistent view of the Jews. When it suited him he

could turn swiftly against them. For instance, he claimed that Christians learned to grovel

among tombs from Jews (CG 335D-306A). Thus Julian's rhetorical Jew could be a

positive or negative model for 'Hellenes.' Jewish practice could be 'Hellenic' or un-

'Hellenic.'

Julian's rhetorical Jew was also wielded as a weapon to attack Christianity. Julian

set about a thoroughgoing reading of Scripture to prove the falsehood of Christian truth

claims, reading these texts plainly while poking fun at Christian allegorical

Celsus made the same claim.

28

interpretations.97 This was in the tradition of Celsus and especially Porphyry,98 who used

Scriptures against Christian truth claims.99 Thus Julian was part of a small community of

Platonists and Neoplatonists who used Scripture as modes of persuasion against

Christians.

By putting Scriptures front and center, Julian attacked Christianity at its weakest

point. These were Jewish scriptures too. The Christians had appropriated them and

reinterpreted them to support their own theology claiming to be the "true Israel" and

therefore the successors of the Hebrews. Christian interpretation relied on the inefficacy

of Jewish practice in the absence of the Jerusalem temple and the invalidity of the Jewish

ethnos in the Christian present.

To counter the Christians, Julian demonstrated that Jews continued to practice

their ancestral laws as defined in the Torah. Jewish practice, as defined by Julian, put the

lie to Christian truth claims that Jewish practice was inefficacious. Secondly, he argued

that the Christians' failure to practice their Jewish or 'Hellenic' ancestral customs,

invalidated them as a legitimate ethnos100 and that they therefore had no place on Julian's

This did not stop Julian from reading 'Hellenic' sacred texts of Homer and Hesiod allegorically. Ironically, Julian's refusal to allow Christians to read Homeric texts allegorically, as he himself did, put Christians in a bind and prohibited them from being teachers.

98 Porphyry wrote two chief works against Christianity: Against the Christians and Philosophy from Oracles. The latter was a work in defense of the traditional religion of Rome and discusses the theology of ancient peoples including the wise Hebrews. These ancient religions were "oracles" for the source of belief in the One Supreme Being. See Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 136.

99 Celsus was the first to use Scriptures against the Christians. In the True Doctrine, written around 170 CE, Celsus tried to delegitimize Christianity for its failure to observe ancestral customs, which he viewed as central to the health of the Roman Empire. Rowland Smith is not sure whether Julian had Celsus' True Doctrine in front of him. Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate, (London: Routledge, 1995). Meredith, on the other hand, believes Julian relies far more on Celsus than he does on Porphyry. See Anthony Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian against the Christians." ANRWII, 23.2: 1119-1149.

100 Porphyry had made the same claim.

29

new ethnically-ordered Neoplatonic empire.

A typical Julianic maneuver was to counter the claims of the Church Fathers by

turning their own interpretations against them. Julian would appropriate passages from

Scriptures interpreted by a Church Father and, using popular Christian interpretive

methodologies, demonstrate that Christian interpretations were wrong. For example,

Julian countered Eusebius' claims in Preparatio Evangelica by showing the Church

Father's interpretations of the prophets to be false.

If Julian's scriptural exegesis was to have any impact upon Christians, he had to

prove himself to be a better exegete than Christian exegetes. In fact, Julian claimed to be

a better exegete than Christian or Jewish interpreters and prophets.101 This was not an

unusual ploy. Porphyry had argued that Christians did not understand their Scriptures

properly. Lactantius retorted that Porphyry misinterpreted Scripture.

Julian's chief interlocutor in CG was Eusebius of Caesarea, a Christian bishop of

the early fourth century who wrote several works after the rise of Constantine

demonstrating that Scripture and history proved Christian supersessionism over the Jews

and 'Hellenes.' As emperor Julian could mix polemic with action to undo Christian

supersessionist claims. Thus he could prove false Jesus' claim that the temple would not

be rebuilt by rebuilding it. Julian upended Eusebius' triumphal claims in the latter's

Demonstratio Evangelica and Onomastikon by showing them to be premature.

The definition and place of Jews had an important place in this literature. Julian

labeled the Jews of the past and the present with the same name - Ioudaioi. He was

directly responding to Eusebius' claim of Christian supersessionism, of being the "true

101 Fragment of a Letter to a Priest, 295D.

30

Israel." Eusebius had differentiated between "Jews" and "Hebrews."102 The Jewish ethnos

arose out of Egypt and their practices were limited to the Jerusalem temple and thus did

not apply to Diaspora Jews or to Christians.103 On the other hand, the "Hebrews" were an

ethnos which possessed ancient wisdom and were early monotheists. They were the

ancestors of the "Jews" and Christians were their successors.

Eusebius' distinction was central to his attempt to define Christianity. Andrew

Jacobs argues that Eusebius used the term "Hebrew" in order to construct "a historicizing

authentication of Christian truth."104 Thus people called "Hebrews" were Jews who could

relate to Christian identity.105 For Eusebius, Judaism and even Jews of the fourth century

were historicized into the past and were no longer a threat to Christianity.106

Julian set out to undermine Christian confidence. The 'Jews' of old, he argued,

were the same as the Jews of his day. They kept the same ancestral laws even in the

absence of the temple. Thus Christian self-assuredness and even their identity were

mistaken.

Julian's rhetorical representation of Jews and his definition of efficacious Jewish

practice could have had an enormous impact on the Judaizers of Antioch, who observed

Jewish customs and attended synagogues precisely because they saw Jewish scriptures

102 His use of these terms does not correspond to historical notions of past and present. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are 'Hebrews' but so are the Maccabees, Josephus and Philo as are some Jews in his own generation.

103 Jeremy M. Schott, Christianity, Empire, and Religion in Late Antiquity, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 150-151.

Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews, The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 32.

105 Jacobs, Remains of the Jews, 32

106 Jacobs, Remains of the Jews, 34.

31

and places of worship as more holy than their Christian counterparts. If Julian could

persuade some of these Judaizers that they should follow more Jewish practices, then he

would subvert Christian authority and split the Christian movement.

Julian sought to apply maximum pressure on intra-Christian fault lines in Antioch.

Thus he appropriated scriptural verses whose themes touched on sensitive controversies

within Christian ideological circles in order to maximize intra-Christian strife. If Julian's

effort was to succeed his definition of Jewish practices had to have some basis in reality.

The Judaizers who attended synagogues and participated in Jewish festivals would have

been intimately familiar with Jewish practices.

There can be little doubt that Julian knew the Jews of Antioch. Although only

highly polemical patristic evidence attests to his contact with Jews, there are numerous

reasons why he would have come into contact with them. First, Julian was directly

involved in the Antiochene market during a grain shortage. The Jews of Antioch likely

brought in their own meat with the permission of the Roman government. Second, Julian

attended Apollo's temple in Daphne and was aware of the Christian shrine of St. Babylas

there. No doubt he was aware of Matrona's synagogue and the Jewish community located

there as well.

Third, Julian's friend and teacher, Libanius, was very familiar with Jewish

practice in Antioch and in Palestine. Jewish tenant farmers had worked on Libanius' land

in Antioch for generations. He also had extensive correspondence with the Patriarch of

Palestine and taught his son in Antioch.

Julian also claims to have made contact with the Patriarch Hillel in his Letter to

the Community of the Jews. Thus Julian's knowledge of Jewry was likely first and

32

second-hand. What Julian actually observed about Jews is lost. Only small parts can be

surmised. However, his definition of Jewish practice likely had some basis in reality.

VI. Scholarship on Julian and the Jews

To date, scholars have studied in depth Julian's attempt to rebuild the Jerusalem

temple. Although there are a variety of explanations offered for Julian's rebuilding

project, most scholars agree that it was an attempt to undermine Christianity and to

bolster his 'Hellenic' program. Thus, if Jesus' prophecy of the Temple's destruction and

his promise that it would not be rebuilt (Matt 24:2) could be proved false, then Julian

would have removed one of Christianity's chief truth claims, undermining the religion as

a whole.107 Other scholars argue that this project was designed to bolster 'Hellenism' by

fostering local cult worship across the empire.108 Finally, some scholars view the

rebuilding project as a ploy to neutralize the large Babylonian Jewish community, which

was a potential threat to Julian's plan to attack Persia.109

Other scholarly works examine Julian's attitude towards the Jewish God. While

some have claimed that Julian equated the Jewish God with Helios, the Demiurge,110 most

Bowersock, Julian the Apostate; Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews.

108 Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods, 223.

109 Lena Cansdale, "Julian and the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple," Abr-Nahrain 34, (1996-1997), 18-29. The remaining scholarship on this project considers the rebuilding project in itself, trying to determine why it failed and exactly when it occurred. On the issue of why the project failed see: Yonahan Lewy, "Julian the Apostate and the Building of the Temple," in The Jerusalem Cathedra, Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geography and Ethnography of the Land of Israel, Vol. 3, (ed. Lee I. Levine; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983), 70-96; Michael Adler, "The Emperor Julian and the Jews" JQR, 5, (1893): 615-651; Sebastian P. Brock, "A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple," BSOAS 40 (1977): 267-286. On the event's dating see: Brock, "A Letter Attributed to Cyril,"; Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule, New York: Schocken Books, 1984; Bowersock, Julian the Apostate.

110 Lewy, "Julian the Apostate."

33

scholars take Julian at his word that the Jewish God is a sectional god, the god assigned

to the Jews.111 In a more nuanced consideration of this problem, John Gager has

suggested that Julian's opinion of the Jewish God was like that of Iamblichus and the

theurgic Neoplatonists, who argued that the Jewish God was powerful,112 but not Helios.

Another Neoplatonist camp represented by Porphyry equated the Jewish God with the

Demiurge.113

No one has considered systematically Julian's comments about Jewish practice.

His various statements about Jews and Judaism have been collected and annotated by

Menahem Stern, in his monumental work, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and

Judaism.

The most notable aspect of scholarly attention to Julian's comments on Jewish

practice is its absence. Scholars have speculated only on Julian's source for his comments

about Jewish private sacrifice and gifts to priests (CG 305D-306A) and none have noted

the opinions of their peers. No one has commented even briefly upon Julian's comments

on Jewish charity, the Jews' willingness to die for their laws or his claim that Jews

incubated.

Scholars have pondered only briefly the source of Julian's knowledge about

Jewish practice. Hans Lewy argued that Julian gained all of his knowledge about Judaism

from the Septuagint and from Eusebius' polemical works of Greeks against the Jews.115

Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods.

112 Julian, Letter to Theodorus, 454A.

113 Gager, "The Dialogue of Paganism," 89-118.

114 Stern, GLAJJ, 2, 502-572.

115 Lewy, "Julian the Apostate", 73.

34

Morton Smith challenged this view and claimed that Julian was aware of Jewish

practice.116 Scholars who agreed with Smith looked for intersections between Julian's

comments and rabbinic practices. Gedaliah Alon argued that Julian's description of

private Jewish sacrifice coupled with prayer must refer to the rabbinic practice of nOTTO,

or ritual non-sacral slaughter, which, he claimed, Julian witnessed.117 Rokeach suggested

that Julian witnessed the giving of a heave offering which he argued was comparable to a

sacrifice.118

Other scholars have noted the private nature of the described Jewish practice.

Fergus Millar compared Julian's comments with the immolation of a lamb on Passover

which according to Exodus took place in the home.119 However, Moshe David Hen-

considered the derivative priestly gifts of the sacrifice and suggested that Julian was

familiar with the priestly gift of hallah, a ritually sacred priestly tithe that was performed

in the home and in the Diaspora (m. Hallah 4:10).120 None of these scholars has attempted

to examine their claims in depth.

116 Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and the Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), 185 n94.

117 Gedaliah Alon, "Towards a Clarification of the Problem of Julian's knowledge of Jews", in Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, Vol. 2, (ed. Gedaliah Alon; Tel-Aviv: Kibbut Ha-Meuhad, 1970), 313. Alon claims that the law on ncrm* does not appear in the Bible and that a Jewish benediction before private slaughter can be found in t. Berakhot 6:11.

1 ' Rokeah, Judaism and Christianity, 236 nl68.

119 Millar, "The Jews of the Graeco-Roman," 97-123 at 107.

120 Moshe David Herr, "The Identity of the Jewish People Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple Continuity or Change?" Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Permutations and Transformations, (eds. Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007), 211-236 at 222 n68.

35

VII. The Chapters of the Dissertation

Chapters one and two examine Julian's claim in CG 305D-306A that Jews

sacrifice in private and give the right shoulder as a gift to priests. I will demonstrate that

Julian engaged in the exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:3 to which he added Iamblichean

Neoplatonic principles of sacrifice in order to claim that Jews continued to sacrifice in the

absence of the temple. Sacrifice was a key aspect of Julian's 'Hellenizing' program and

gifting to priests was meant to improve the prestige of priests and fund that institution

indefinitely. Jewish sacrifice and gifting to priests were to be a model for 'Hellenic'

practice. At the same time, Julian may have addressed the Judaizers of Antioch in an

effort to encourage them to keep the Jewish practice of slaughtering the Passover lamb

and widen the existing gulf within Christianity. I will show that Julian may have known

about the slaughter of the Passover lamb.

In chapter three, I examine Julian's very brief comment that no Jew had to beg in

his Letter to Arsacius, his chief priest of Galatia. I ask what Julian might have known

about Jewish charitable institutions and acts of charity and then consider what role Jewish

charity played within his Letter to Arsacius and in his attempt to define proper 'Hellenic'

practice.

In chapter four, I examine Julian's claim that Christians learned to grovel among

tombs from the Jews. In CG, Julian quotes from LXX Isaiah 65:4 that Israelites slept

among tombs for the sake of dream visions, a practice known in the Greco-Roman world

as incubation. After examining evidence for a Jewish practice of incubation in Antiquity,

I will demonstrate that Julian challenged Eusebius' interpretation of this same passage

and appropriated it in order to delegitimize the Christian cult of the martyrs which

36

worshipped among tombs. At stake was the Christian definition of holy space, an issue

that had special significance in the context of competition for holy space in Antioch.

Unlike in other instances, we will see that Julian's use of Jewish practice had negative

valences here.

Chapter five examines Julian's comments in his Letter to Theodorus 453C-D

about the Jews' willingness to die for the doctrines of their law, and to starve rather than

taste pork or eat anything that had been strangled or had the life squeezed out of it.

Julian's comments are not an observed phenomenon but are designed to portray proper

observance of ancestral laws to 'Hellenes.' Neoplatonic use of Jews who die for their

food laws began with Porphyry, who likely read 2 and 4 Maccabees. Julian employed this

notion and used the language from the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15:20 to challenge

Christian notions of martyrdom and to foment dissent among Christians about the

worship of the Maccabean martyrs in Antioch. In addition, he hoped to stir dissent

amongst the Christians by convincing the Judaizers that they should eat properly

slaughtered meat according to Jewish law just as the apostle James had required.

I will conclude this dissertation by drawing together its diverse strands and by

explaining Julian's rhetorical representation of Jews in order to draw boundaries between

'Hellenes', Jews and Christians. By identifying Jewish practice, Julian also defined ideal

'Hellenic' practice and delegitimized Christianity while fomenting dissent in its midst.

37

Chapter One Jewish Private Sacrifice in Contra Galileos: Reading Scripture, Building

Empire

I. Introduction

In the mid-fourth century CE, Emperor Julian claimed that Jews sacrificed in

private. This is an astonishing claim. To our knowledge, ancient Jewish authorities only

sanctioned sacrifice at the Jerusalem temple.1 In this chapter, I systematically analyze

Julian's comments about Jewish private sacrifice in CG 305D-306A in an effort to

understand what sources Julian drew upon, how he used them and to what ends. We will

see that Julian employed biblical sources to describe Jewish practice and engaged in

biblical exegesis using Neoplatonic modes of interpretation in order to define ideal

Jewish practice that would be a model for 'Hellenic' practice and, in the process,

undermine Christian truth claims. I will demonstrate that Julian's comments were set

within the social-historical background of Jewish-Christian-'Hellenic' relations of

Antioch and thus also suggest that a Jewish practice lay behind his claims in these

passages. Thus, when read with other evidence, Julian can be a useful historical source

for Jewish life in Late Antiquity.

In part one, I demonstrate that Julian engaged in the exegesis of Deut 18:3.

Although there were a number of interpretations of Deut 18:3,1 will show that Julian

received that passage from a certain tradition that included the "right" arm. Where Julian

deviated from Deut 18:3,1 will show that he added Neoplatonic aspects of sacrifice.

1 Jews sacrificed in other temples in the Second Temple Period. However, to our knowledge sacrifice ended with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, a point to which I will return later in this chapter.

38

Julian's exegesis of Deut 18:3 was specifically chosen for his polemical purposes.

In part two of this chapter, I consider why Julian engaged in exegesis of Deut 18:3.1

demonstrate that Julian appropriated Jewish-Christian Scriptures in order to argue that

Jews continued to sacrifice. This claim proved the efficaciousness of Jewish practice,

which undermined Christianity's supersessionist claims. In addition, by using

Neoplatonic methods of interpretation, Julian modeled an important practice for his

'Hellenes.'

Julian was not only a polemicist in the tradition of Celsus and Porphyry; he was

engaged actively in combating Christianity. We know that Julian's polemic went hand in

hand with his actions - legislation and building programs - that benefitted 'Hellenes' at

the expense of Christianity and that he made every effort to stir dissent among

Christians.2

Christian resistance to Julian's imperial program in Antioch formed the

background to CG. Thus it is reasonable to assume that Julian was countering Antiochene

Christianity in CG. Given the interest of many Antiochene Christians in Jewish customs,

Julian's claims about Jews must have had some basis in practice to be believable to

Christians. In part three, I examine what we know about a Jewish private practice of

sacrifice in the Diaspora and in Antioch, of which Julian may have been aware and

explain why I think Julian may be evidence for a Jewish practice of slaughter.

2 For instance, he invited the bishops who believed in the Nicene Creed back to their bishoprics in order to compete with the Arian bishops.

39

A. Julian's Claims in CG305D -306A and Its Setting

The central passages with which this chapter deals are laid out below with my

translation:

305D3 npoaf|K£i 8f| 'koinbv dvauvnoBfjvai xcov suTrpoaGev, a>v SVSKSV sppfiOn Kai xauxa. Aid xi yap d^oaxavTsq rjiawv ou%i xov xcov ToD8aicov dya7iaxs vouov ou8s su^svexs xolq wr' 8KEivou A,syousvoi<;; spst 7idvxco<; xiq o^u pX.E7r.cov. ou8s yap 'Iou8aioi Guouaiv. okX' eycoys dupXucbxxovxa 8sivcoc; auxov dTie ey co, 7rpcoxov LIEV, oxi un8s xcov aXkcov xi xcov 7tapd xolq 'IouSaioic; vsvouiausvcov saxi Kai uaiv sv cpuXaKfj. Seuxspov de, oxi Guouai (xsv ev d8pdKxoi<;4 'Iou8aToi Kai vuv sxi 306 A Ttdvxa ea0iouo"iv ispd Kai Kaxsuxovxai Ttpo xot> Guaai Kai xov 8s^iov couov 8i86aatv anapxaq xolq ispsuaiv , djtsaxspriusvoi 8s xou vaoij, fj, aq auxoic; sGoc; Xsysvv, xou dyidauaxoc;, drcapxa*; xcp 0seo xcov ispsicov si'pyovxai Tipoccpspsiv. vyLEiq 8s oi xfrv Kaivfiv Guaiav supovxsq, ouSsv 8eousvoi xfj<; 'Ispouaa^f||x, dvxi xivo<; ou Ousxs;

305D Now it is proper I remind you of the things I said earlier and for what purpose I said those things. For why, after rebelling/ seceding from us do you not love the law of the Jews nor abide by the things said by him (Moses)? No doubt some sharp-seeing person will say "But the Jews also do not sacrifice." But I, for my part, will expose him, being terribly short-sighted for first none of the laws observed by the Jews is also kept by you. Second, they sacrifice in private places.

3 06A Even now all things the Jews eat are holy5and they pray before sacrificing and they give the right shoulder to the priests as first fruits. Having been deprived of the temple, or as is their custom to call it, the sanctuary, they are prevented from offering the sacred things to God. But you, why, having found a new sacrifice, do you not sacrifice, since you have no need of Jerusalem?6

3 1 follow Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume II, (Wright, LCL), 406. For a complete critical edition see: Carl Johannes Neumann, Iuliani Imperatoris Librorum Contra Christianos Quae Supersunt, (Lipsiae: ^Edibus B.G. Tevbneri, 1880).

4 Stem follows John Aubertus, Opera Omnium Cyrilli Vol. 6, (Paris: 1638), MSM has aSparcoic;. The Latin translates in propriis. Menahem Stem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 2, (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1980). Stem follows Wright's translation.

5 "They eat all holy things" is also grammatically correct.

6 Translation is my own.

40

In these passages, Julian claimed that Christians failed to sacrifice, a practice that

Jews had always followed and continued to practice. That Julian intended 'sacrifice' and

not 'slaughter' is not immediately clear. The verb 0uco means 'to sacrifice' or 'to

kill '/'slaughter.'7 However, the parallel structure of Julian's argument in these passages

reveals his intentions. His statement that Jews continued to Ououoiv even in his day and

gave first fruit offerings to the priests, mirrors CG 3 06A where Julian acknowledged the

inability of Jews to sacrifice (0uco) and offer the first fruits of these sacrifices to God in

the absence of the Jerusalem temple. The clarity of 0i3co in CG 306 A illuminates its

meaning in GC 305D as sacrifice.

This conclusion is supported by the very structure of Julian's larger argument in

CG about Jewish sacrifice, which ultimately takes aim at Christians' failure to follow its

ancestral laws (Jewish). In the first words of CG 305D Julian implicitly referred back to

CG 43A where he set out CG's structure. These words along with its following clause

signal that CG 305D begins the next step in Julian's program to question why Christians

did not follow Jewish traditions of sacrifice.8 Current private sacrifice in CG 305D

appears immediately after Julian explained that Jews have always sacrificed in

accordance with their ancestral laws (CG 299A-305B).

Julian made the following five claims in his description of private sacrifice in CG

305D-306A. He claimed that:

7 Henry G. Liddell, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1996), 661.

8 Julian built his argument in CG using the following steps: First, he examined both the 'Hellenic' and Judeo-Christian conception of God and compared what each of the above groups said about their god(s); Second, he questioned why Christians chose to base their beliefs upon the Jewish background rather than on the 'Hellenic' one; and, finally, he questioned why Christians did not even adhere to Jewish beliefs; In doing so, he examined Jewish beliefs and practices while comparing them to 'Hellenic' practices. See CG 43A.

41

1. Jews sacrifice;

2. They sacrifice in private places (sv dSpdKxoic;);9

3. Jews eat only holy/sacred things;

4. Jews pray before sacrifice; and,

5. They give the right shoulder of the sacrifice to the priests as drcapxac;.

In this chapter I focus on claims one through four.

B. Brief Review of Scholarship on CG305D-306A

As we have seen, few scholars have considered the source of Julian's claim of

private Jewish practice. With the exception of Yohanan (Hans) Lewy who argued that

Julian gained all of his knowledge about Judaism from the Septuagint, from Eusebius and

from polemical works of Greeks against the Jews, every other scholar believed Julian was

familiar with a real Jewish practice.10 Thus Gedalia Alon argued that Julian knew of

noTitP, or ritual slaughter, which the rabbis coupled with prayer;11 David Rokeach

proposed he referred to the giving of a heave offering which was comparable to a

sacrifice;12 Moshe David Herr identified Julian's comment with the ritual of the giving of

9 The reason I split claims one and two will become apparent in the course of this paper.

10 Yohanan Lewy, "Julian and Rebuilding of the Temple," Zion 1-2 (1941): 3. Morton Smith made the general claim that Julian described a Jewish practice he was familiar with. See Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and the Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), 185 n94.

11 Gedaliah Alon, "Towards a Clarification of the Problem of Julian's knowledge of Jews," in Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, Vol. 2, (ed. Gedeliah Alon; Tel-Aviv: Kibbutz Ha-Meuhad, 1970), 313. Alon claims that the law on no'ruy does not appear in the Bible and that a Jewish benediction before private slaughter can be found in t. Ber. 6:11.

12 David Rokeah, Judaism and Christianity in Pagan Polemics, (Jerusalem: Dinur Center 1991), 236 nl68.

42

hallah; and, Fergus Millar suggested that Julian knew about the immolation of a lamb

on Passover eve.14

II. Part One: Deuteronomy 18:3 as a Source for CG305D-306A and Its Exegesis

With some exceptions, the content of CG 305D-306A strongly corresponds with

Deut 18:3. I will now examine Julian's statement about private Jewish sacrifice in detail,

compare it with Deut 18:3 and provide the exegetical history of that verse down to

Julian's day, in order to demonstrate that it was Julian's main source for these passages.

This verse states:

nw-nx TIW-DK mm Tirm nxa nyn nxa nprron uowa TPTV nn .mpm D'Tftm smrn lma1? irm

This shall be the priests' due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether an ox or sheep: they shall give to the priest

the shoulder, and the two jowls and the stomach.15

A. The term rat: Sacrifice or Slaughter?16

a. The MT

The meaning of mr in Deut 18:3 is ambiguous. It could mean sacrificial slaughter

or profane slaughter.17 The BDB lists the word mr as both a verb and a noun.18 In its

13 Moshe D. Herr, "The Identity of the Jewish People before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple: Continuity or Change?," in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Permutations and Transformations, (ed. Lee I. Levine; Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007), 211-236.

14 Fergus Millar, "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, (eds. Judith Lieu, et. als.; New York: Routledge, 1992), 97-123 at 107.

15NRSV.

16 Although Julian read the Septuagint, I will begin with the Masoretic text since there are no apparent differences between it and the vorlage of Deut 18:3 in the LXX. See John William Weavers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995), xii.

43

verbal and participial forms the word rQT means: 1. to slaughter for sacrifice; or 2. to

slaughter for eating.19 In its noun form, m? means a sacrifice eaten at a feast in which

God received the blood and the fat.20 Both the participle and the noun are present in Deut

18:3.

Given the verbal variation in the word's meaning it is surprising that the BDB

never finds the noun to mean a slaughtered animal for the purposes of consumption.

Exegetes of Deut 18:3 nevertheless applied the double meaning of the verb mt to its noun

form because its context lacked a geographical location for the act of rQT allowing for

either meaning.

In such cases of ambiguity scholars turned to other passages that use the same

term. Two different types of mT can be found in Lev 7:11-35 and in Deut 12:21. Lev

7:11-35 is a case of sacrificial slaughter. It takes place on an altar, is performed by a

17 My choice of terms is derived from Jacob Milgrom, "Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy," HUCA 47 (1976): 1-17. Sacrificial slaughter includes purification of the worshipper, preparation of the victim including its slaughter, the animal's burning on the altar by a priest, followed by a banquet. Profane slaughter does not include any rituals associated with sacrificial slaughter but does include slaughter and a meal. See Royden Keith Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952), 92.1 have condensed Yerkes' list of requirements for sacrificial and profane slaughter into its essentials.

18 Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, Charles Augustus Briggs, and Wilhelm Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius. (trans. Edward Robinson; Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1962), 256-257.

19 According to the BDB, slaughter for eating (including Deut 12:21) is connected to sacrifice since "all eating of flesh among ancient Hebrews was sacrificial." However, most scholars agree that Deut 12:21 involves profane slaughter.

20 BDB, 256-257. As in the case of a mi, a common meal (the Gucria) would follow the sacrifice. Profane slaughter does not include the burning of the animal on an altar and offerings to God and its purpose is human consumption.

44

priest (Lev 7:31) and is sacrificed to God (Lev 7:11).21 In Deut 12:21, the verb rat is used

to mean profane slaughter.22 Deut 12:21 states:

nmn aw law nwb y-rbx mrr inn1 ~wx aipan IBS prrp "o -|TOJ mx "wn -p-iiraa n Dxi -pnns -itz?SD i1? mm ina -wx -pxxntti "iipnn

If the place where the Lord your God will choose to put his name is too far from you, and you may slaughter as I have commanded you any of your herd or flock that the Lord has given you, when you eat within your towns whenever you desire.23

The context of this verse places the act of mr away from the temple and the altar.

As a result, scholars agree that the meaning of the verb nmn is "and you shall slaughter",

executed for the purpose of eating a meal.24 As I will demonstrate, Second Temple

exegetes and the rabbis read Deut 18:3 together with Deut 12:21.

b. The Septuagint

The Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, was completed by

the end of the third century BCE. It translates Deut 18:3 as follows:

Kai ai3xr| f| Kpiaic; xcov ispscov, xd rcapd xou Xaou, rcapd xcov Ouovxcov xd Ouixaxa, sdv xs uoaxov sdv xs rcpopaxov. Kai Scbasic; xov Ppaxiova xco ispsT Kai xd aiayovia Kai xo svuaxpov.

1 See Martin Modeus, Sacrifice and Symbol: Biblical selamim in a Ritual Perspective, (Stockholm: Almquist & Wicksell, 2005), 3149-3152.; Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary, Deuteronomy, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 170-171. On Deut 18:3, if those verses refer to similar sacrifices as those in Lev 7:32-34 it is strange that different items are offered to the priests in each of these passages. This has been rationalized by scholars as referring to practices in different times and places. This is difficult to accept given the different role of the priests in Deut 18:3 and in the verses that consider the D^B? mt; Deut 18:3 does not indicate that a priest plays any role in the mr while Lev 7:31 has a priest carry out the sacrifice while the person offering the sacrifice plays a smaller role in Lev 7:30.

221 note that Milgrom found that the slaughter was to be performed in the same way as a sacrificial slaughter. Jacob Milgrom, "Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key," 1-17.

23 NRSV.

24 Indeed BDB, 257 lists Deut 12:21 under the meaning of "slaughter for eating."

45

And this is the judgment of the priests in the things coming from the people from those who offer sacrifices/slaughtering whether it be a calf or a sheep. And thou shall give the shoulder to the priest and the cheeks and the maw.25

The Septuagint matches the later Masoretic text using 0uoia to translate nnr.

Liddell and Scott translate Ouoia as: a burnt-offering, sacrifice, or a victim in an offering,

all offerings to God.26 However, the noun's verbal root 0uco has a double meaning of

kill/slaughter or sacrifice.27

Given the ambiguities inherent in the verb 0i3co and in the noun 0uoia, one could

understand 7iapd xcov Ouovxcov xd 0u(j.axa as 'by the slaughterers of the slaughtered

animals' or as 'by the sacrificers of the sacrificed animals". Thus the translators of the

Septuagint preserved the ambiguity of the Hebrew term mr.

c. Philo, De specialibus legibus 1.147

Towards the end of the Second Temple Period two interpreters of the Pentateuch

grappled with the meaning of the mT/ Ouoia act in Deut 18:3. Philo of Alexandria, who

wrote at the beginning of the first century CE, translated Deut 18:3 in his work, De

specialibus legibus, 1.147:

arco 8e xcov s co xou Pcouou ©uousvcov svsKa Kpscocpayia<; xpia 7rpooxsxaKxai xco ispsi 8iSoo0ai, ppaxiova Kai oiayovac; Kai xo svuoxpov Katamusvov.

But of animals sacrificed/slaughtered away from the altar as meat for private consumption, three portions are appointed to be given

25

26

27

The translation is my own.

Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 811.

Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 813.

46

to the priest, the shoulder and the jaws and the maw, as it is called.28

Philo's translation followed that of the Septuagint. Although Philo added that the act of

sacrifice/slaughter took place away from the altar and for private consumption, it is

unclear if sacrificial or profane slaughter was intended. The act of slaughter could have

included the rituals of a sacrificial slaughter.29

d. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 4:74

Flavius Josephus was the first to translate Deut 18:3 as profane slaughter. In A.J.

4:74 the Jewish historian, writing some fifty years after Philo, interpreted Deut 18:3 as

follows:

sivai Ss Kai xoic; Kax' OIKOV 0UODOIV sucoxiac; svsKa xfjc; auxcov aXka uf| ©pnoKsiac; dvayiaiv Koui^siv xoic; ispsCoiv svuoxpov xs Kai %eX\)viov Kai xov 8s^iov Ppaxiova xou 0uuaxo<;.

Furthermore, any persons sacrificing/slaughtering animals at their homes for their own good cheer and not for the ritual are bound to bring to the priests the maw, the jaw, and the right leg of the victim.30

Scholars debate whether AJ. 4:74 is an interpretation of Deut 18:3 or Lev 7:32 or

some combination of the two.31 However, the clause uf] ©pnoKsiaq (not for the ritual)

Philo, Philo, De specialibus legibus 1, (Colson, LCL), 182-183. Note c indicates that Deut 18:3 is the source of Spec. 1:147. My translation follows Colson with some a few of my own changes.

2 Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions, 99. Suzanne Daniel linked Spec. 1.147 with Deut 12:21 and consequently suggested that this passage referred to profane slaughter. Philo, Les Oeuvres de Philon D 'Alexandrie, De Specialibus Legibus Vols. I et II, (trans. Suzanne Daniel; Paris Cerf, 1975), 96, n2. Nodet refers to the connection between Deut 12:20 and 18:3 in his commentary on Josephus, A.J. 4:74. Also see Josephus, Flavius Josephe, Les Antiquites Juives. Volume 2: Livres IVet V, 2nd ed., (trans. Etienne Nodet; Paris: Cerf, 1995), 19.

30 Josephus, Ant. 4.74 (Thackeray, LCL).

1 Josephus, Ant. 4.74 (Thackeray, LCL). Thackeray believed Josephus was relying on a mixture of Lev 7:32-34 and Deut 18:3. See Tigay, TheJPS Torah Commentary, 170-171 and my comments inn21. For a different conclusion see Robert. P. Gallant, Josephus' Expositions of Biblical Law: An Internal Analysis,

47

clarifies that Josephus understood the act of 0uco in Deut 18:3 as profane slaughter, which

is not the case for Lev 7:32.32 He also located the place of sacrifice in the home (Kax'

OIKOV).

e. The Mishnah

The Mishnah groups biblical and rabbinic laws into categories and separates

between sacrifice (mr) and profane slaughter (r^in). The redactors' placement of Deut

18:3 in m. Hullin33 indicates that, like Josephus, its mr was considered profane slaughter

andpartofntprni?.34

Jeffrey Tigay rightfully believed that the rabbis read Deut 18:3 in light of Deut

12:21.35 In this matter, the rabbis followed the interpretive tradition of Josephus, and their

interpretation evidences a continuing exegetical tradition of Deut 18:3 as profane

diss. Yale University, 1988, 164-165; Josephus, Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Vols. 1-4, (trans. Louis H. Feldman; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 354-355, n596.

32 The word Gpnoiceiac, is used in many ways by Josephus including: religious custom, religious worship, religious ritual, religious celebration, religious practice and performance of one's devotions - forms of liturgy, ceremonies, rites and cult. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf eds. et al., Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, Vol. II, (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 352. Liddell and Scott also define the word as cult, religious worship and ritual. See Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 806. The items donated to the priests are also different in the two verses. Gallant had corrected Thackeray's translation of xe^uviov in A.J. 4:74 from breast to jaw, suggesting that Lev 7:32 and Deut 18:3 are different verses completely and therefore that Josephus was relying solely on Deut 18:3. See also Feldman, Jewish Antiquities.

33 The first line of m. Hul. 10:1 matches the items given to the priests in Deut 18:3.

In separating an act of slaughter for profane purposes and an act of sacrifice the rabbis also established a different set of terminology. An animal slaughtered for the purposes of eating was hullin and classified as noTHP. Sacrifices to God were placed in tractate Zevahim and the verb/noun mr was limited to sacrifices. As a result, the term rat in rabbinic literature does not bear a one to one correlation with its use and meaning in the Bible.

35 Jeffrey H. Tigay on Deut 12:21. See Tigay, TheJPS Torah Commentary, 125.

48

slaughter. Amoraic sources commenting on m. Hullin 10 also explicitly linked Deut 18:3

with profane slaughter.36

B. Sacrifice in Private (£v d8p&KToi<;)

Julian claimed in CG 305D that Jewish private sacrifice took place in private (sv

dSpdKxoic), a claim which he presented in contradistinction to public sacrifice in the

Jerusalem temple (CG 306A): Just as giving first fruits to the priests, an alleged

continuing practice, and one which I will investigate in another chapter, is contrasted to

the giving of the first fruits to God, so too ev dSpdKxoic; stands in contrast to the public

temple.

The word d8pdKxoi<; is an hapax legomenon. Lexically the word is related to the

common word Sspxouai, a deponent verb meaning "I see".37 With a privative alpha the

participle means 'the state of being unseen.'

Julian's source for Jewish private sacrificial practice was most likely Josephus

(A.J. 4:74) who we have seen located Deut 18:3's slaughter Kax OIKOV and likewise

specified the right shoulder. Although scholars have not found evidence that Julian read

Josephus,381 am convinced that Julian was familiar with his works or with his interpretive

3 6 Seeb . /M. 10:132b.

37 Liddell and Scott do not list dSpdicroic,. They list dSpdKnc;, -eq and a5epKT|<; (unseen, invisible) and relate the word to 5epKoum which means to see, to see clearly. Adler suggests the word dSpdicroic, comes from the word 5£pKoum and means "that which is not usually seen". Michael Adler, "The Emperor Julian and the Jews." JQR 5 (1893): 615-651 at 602. The TLG lists four lexical sources; The earliest of the lexicographers, Hesychius of Alexandria (5th cent) has no entries for d5pdKTOi<;. For the word d6epicr|C, he has the following entry: on p erccov, r\ ayavnc, meaning: "not seeing" or "unseen", "secret", "unknown". For d8pdicr|c, he lists 6A.vyov xixp^n. Kai d8epKr|c, meaning: "a little blind" or "unseen". He has the genitive of d8pdicn<;, namely a8paKEc, as meaning aopaxov, meaning: "not seen."

38 Bouffartigue, who gathered Julian's sources, does not mention that Julian knew Josephus' works. See Jean Bouffartigue, L 'Empereur Julien et la Culture de son temps, (Paris: Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes, 1992). This finding is surprising given Josephus' popularity among the Church Fathers. See Michael E.

49

approach either through his teacher and confidante, Libanius, or, via the Antiochene

School of interpretation which was heavily influenced by Josephus and which he learned

from his teacher Diodore.39

Philo might have been another source for Julian's claim of private sacrifice had

Julian read him. He mentioned sacrifice of a lamb in the homes of each Alexandrian Jew

(sKdoxn 8s oiKta) on the eve of Passover (Spec. 2:148).40 However, there is no evidence

that Josephus read Philo.41

C. Jews Eat Holy Things

In CG 306A Julian claimed rcdvxa soOiouoiv ispd which means either: "all things

they eat are holy", or, "they eat all holy things." This is not a claim that is repeated in any

Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, (Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1989), 107-108. We also know that Josephus was read in the region Julian lived and ruled. In Antioch, Theophilus in the second century was influenced by Contra Apionem: Julian, Contra Apionem, 2.108 (Wright, LCL). Methodius, a bishop in Asia Minor in the late third and early fourth centuries cites the Jewish War. Eusebius, whose work Julian was familiar with {CG 222A), modeled his Church History on Josephus' works. The importance of Josephus' testimony to the Church turned his writings into regularly read materials among the Church Fathers. See Steven Bowman, "Josephus in Byzantium," in Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, (ed. Louis Feldman, and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University, 1997), 362-385.

39 Jennifer Dines, The Septuagint, (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 142. There is no scholarly work that addresses Julian's reception of the Septuagint but the Lucianic text was widely used in this period and especially in Antioch. For sources on the Antiochene school see: Robert Charles Hill, Reading the Old Testament in Antioch, (Leiden: Brill, 2005); Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and Formation of Christian Culture, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

40 Nils Martola, "Eating the Passover Lamb in House Temples in Alexandria: Some Notes on Passover in Philo," in Jewish Studies in New Europe: Proceedings of the Fifth Congress for Jewish Studies in Copenhagen, 1997 under the Auspices of the European Association for Jewish Studies, (eds. Ulf Haxxen et al: Copenhagen: A.C. Reitzel, 1998, 521-530. See also Ed Parrish Sanders, Judaism Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66CE, (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992), 133.

41 Bouffartigue, L 'Empereur Julien; Robert L. Wilken, "Philo in the Fourth Century," The Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 100-102. Philo interprets Exod 12:6 in QE 1:10.

50

other source. Even though Julian mentioned the dietary laws of Lev 11:3 (CG 314D), this

was not his source.42

Rather, this was part of Julian's larger argument against Christianity's refusal to

sacrifice, an argument he tied to their contention that sacrifices were impure (CG 305B).43

Oddly, Julian cited Lev 7:20 to refute the Christians, which states that it is the people that

make the sacrifice impure.

CG 3 06 A is merely a continuation of the argument that Christians ought to

sacrifice. The claim "all things Jews eat are holy" (CG 306A) appears immediately after

Julian claimed that Jews sacrificed in private (CG 305D). Given that he was talking about

a sacrificial practice in this passage, I think it most likely that the Ttdvxa means "all

meat." In his very next words, Julian described the ritual associated with private sacrifice

(prayer, giving those parts required by law to the priests). This suggests that, contrary to

the Christians, it was the ritual that made the meat holy. Thus Jewish sacrificial practice

was efficacious and Christians were wrong not to follow their ancestral laws regarding

sacrifice.44

No doubt Julian was aware that Christians claimed that the ritual of the Eucharist

constituted their act of sacrifice. Julian makes light of Christian sacrifice of the Eucharist

in order to remove any Christian argument that they continue to sacrifice. By calling

42 Sanders suggests that Jews in Alexandria followed Exodus 12 despite Deuteronomy's requirement that the paschal sacrifice take place only in Jerusalem. See Sanders, Judaism Practice and Belief, 133.

43 Gregory of Nazianzus claims that Christians will not eat impure meat (PG 35.921).

44 Julian understood sacrificial meat to be pure. It is also possible that he believed that separating out a part of a sacrifice for God or for His holy representatives, the priests, was an act of sanctification that was part of sacrifice. Indeed, everything the priests ate was sacred. See Sanders, Judaism Practices and Belief, 156. If the priests could eat these items certainly the rest of the sacrifice was sacred as well. Therefore, either of the two translations of Ttdvxa eoGiouaiv iepd are appropriate.

51

Christian sacrifice "new", Julian unlinks Christian sacrifice from Jewish sacrifice and

delegitimizes it since Christian practice of sacrifice does not follow Jewish ancestral

customs.

D. Prayer before Sacrifice: The Ritual of the Bvoia combined with Sacrifice in Theurgic Neoplatonism

Julian's claim that Jews Kaxsuxovxai 7tpo xou Ouoai, or, pray before sacrificing

does not derive from any known interpretation of Deut 18:3.45 In Homer, the ritual of

Ouoia follows the same ritual pattern each time. This ritual included lustration, prayer and

the slaying of the victim.46 We have seen that theurgic Neoplatonists considered Homer's

work sacred. Naturally, they emphasized the importance of performing prayer with

sacrifice. Julian's mentor,47 Iamblichus of Chalcis (De Mysteriis 5, 9), and his

contemporary, Sallustius (On the Gods and the Universe, 16), wrote that prayers without

sacrifice of animals was insufficient for worship of the gods; the two had to go hand in

hand. There are a couple of Jewish sources which combine sacrificial slaughter with

prayer but Julian would not have been familiar with them.48

In conclusion, Julian used the ambiguous term, !"QT/ Ouoia, of Deut 18:3 termed it

'sacrifice' and employed it as an ideal model for private sacrifice, borrowing mostly from

4 51 could not find it in Cyril of Alexandria's version of Deuteronomy. Cyril quotes Deut 18:3 in De Adoratione in Spiritu et Veritate, Book 13. CE. Cox, "Cyril of Alexandria's Text for Deuteronomy" lOSCS 10, (1977): 31-51.

46 Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions, 97-99.

47 By 'mentor' I do not mean that Iamblichus taught Julian since he died a century earlier. Rather, Julian was deeply influenced by Iamblichus' work.

48 Philo, Spec. 2.148. He says that participants in the slaughter of a Passover lamb in Alexandrian homes accompany slaughter with prayers and hymns, t. Ber. 6:11 links Jewish private slaughter with a benediction.

52

the exegetical tradition of Josephus in order to present a current day Jewish practice of

private sacrifice that was deployed against Christianity. To the extent Julian differed from

Deut 18:3, these changes reflected his Neoplatonist theurgic understanding of sacrifice

which required prayer.

III. Part Two: Jewish Private Sacrifice and Julian's Program

A. Background to Julian's Contra Galileos

Why would Julian have engaged in exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:3 and included

Neoplatonic elements in his exegesis? I will briefly sketch the background to CG before

explaining Julian's goals and how Deuteronomy 18:3 was an important part of this

process.

To create a 'Hellenic' Empire, Julian had to contend with an ascendant

Christianity. As a learned philosopher trained in rhetoric, Julian naturally turned his

abilities against Christians. Platonists such as Celsus and Porphyry had done the same

thing. Julian followed in their footsteps. His anti-Christian polemic, CG, marshaled

Jewish ancestral traditions and practices to attack the practices and beliefs of Judaism's

offspring, Christianity. Julian wrote it in the winter of 362/363 in Antioch, after

experiencing serious Christian opposition in the city of Antioch.49

Christians had reason to complain. Julian began his rule by fomenting confusion

within the Christian camp after bringing back Catholic bishops to their sees, causing

infighting between Arian leaders, who had enjoyed imperial support under the Arian

49 Julian, Mis. 357 states that the citizens of Antioch missed Christianity and Constantius II, an Arian. Presumably these people were Christians, people who were married to Christians or simply Christian sympathizers. There were also social and economic reasons why the Antiochenes objected to Julian's policies.

53

emperor, Constantius II, and their Catholic opponents. Within a month of attaining the

throne Julian failed to respond convincingly to the lynching of George of Cappadocia, the

Arian bishop of Alexandria, and made do with platitudes about peace among factions

when 'Hellenes' attacked Christian churches all over the empire. By mid-362 Julian had

banned Christians from teaching in classrooms for their failure to believe in the myths

contained in 'Hellenic' literature. This law prevented Christians from teaching the young

and attracting them to Christianity.50 The Church Fathers protested Julian's definition of

'Hellenism' as a 'religion/culture' rather than solely as a culture, because Christians also

claimed 'Hellenic' texts.51

It is no surprise that people living in the cosmopolitan metropolis of Antioch

where 'Hellenes', Christians and Jews lived side by side, shared in each other's traditions

and even intermarried, would object to Julian's policies; these affected societal life in

general and even intra-familial life.52 Julian's complaints about the Antiochenes in

Misopogon and the Alexandrians in his letter to them (Ep. 48, Ep. Alexandrians 433B-C)

demonstrate that 'Hellenes' in these metropoleis opposed his 'Hellenizing' program. He

had hoped that these 'Hellenes', who carried a rich 'Hellenic' cultural and religious

tradition, would welcome his 'Hellenizing' program over Christianity (Misopogon 347).

Evidently, many preferred Christian rule instead (Misopogon 357C).

Glen. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978).

51 Gregory Nanzianzen, "First Invective Against Julian the Emperor," 4-5, in Julian, Julian the Emperor: Containing Gregory Nazianzen 's Two Invectives and Libanius' Monody with Julian's Extant Theosophical Works, (trans. Charles W. King; London: George Bell and Sons, 1888), 2-4.

52 In Julian, Mis. 363, he claims that presumably 'Hellenic' wives fed the Galilean poor. This might suggest that the women were Christians as well. In Mis. 360D, the Antiochenes accuse Julian of turning their world upside down.

54

It is in the context of Julian's failure to re-orient the empire in the face of strong

Christian resistance that we should understand Julian's CG. By the time he finished

writing this work in early 363 he had been in Antioch for seven or eight months and by

Julian's own account, which we can take as evidence of his state of mind, he had met

with unrelenting opposition and mockery. The Christian threat to his efforts to remold the

Roman Empire motivated him to write CG, a work designed to delegitimize Christianity

and weaken its opposition to his 'Hellenizing' program.

Julian's intended audience were the literary elites in the Christian and 'Hellenic'

worlds.53 In addition, Julian likely hoped that these arguments would reach a wider

audience. They would be repeated by 'Hellenic' priests in the temples and castigated by

Christian leaders in the churches, where it would be rebutted and debated.

B. Julian's Goals in CG and the Role of Judaism in it

Julian had two primary goals in CG. First he constructed an ethnos he called

'Hellenes' by assigning practices to the Graeco-Roman peoples in his empire. It was his

hope to build a cohesive, observant, self-aware group of 'Hellenes' that could compete

with Christians for control of the empire. Second, he attempted to delegitimize the

Christian ethnos by proving Christian truth claims false thus placing them outside of his

politically-ordered Neoplatonic Empire.

Achieving his first goal was not a simple task. Julian's 'Hellenes' were not a

united group. They consisted of many peoples who followed their local traditions and

53 We know Libanius, Photius, Theodore of Mopsuetia, Philip Sideta and Cyril of Alexandria, among many other Church Fathers, read it. See Julian, Julian's Against the Galileans, (trans. R. Joseph Hoffman; Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2004), 83-87.

55

worshipped their local gods in different ways. Outside of a small circle of theurgic

Neoplatonist philosophers, Julian's very use of the term 'Hellenes' would have seemed

unusual. Such a term had never popularly or consistently been used to define a super

ethnos comprised of many different ethne.

Every ethnos had apoliteia, consisting of laws. With the exception of Jews and

Christians, peoples in the empire did not see themselves as sharing a common politeia,

comprised of religious laws. They did not share "a system of beliefs that was both

internally coherent and also separated from secular aspects of human life."54 In CG, we

see Julian constructing a 'Hellenic' identity out of shared commonalities among groups.

Julian organized and strengthened these different groups into a single entity that could

compete successfully against Christians.

Julian's portrayal of 'Hellenes' was influenced by his Neoplatonic beliefs. Thus

his portrayal of long-held 'Hellenic' traditions and beliefs in CG is misleading. His new

'Hellenic' empire was a Neoplatonic politically-ordered system which dictated that local

gods be worshipped by local ethne.55 This mirrored Neoplatonic cosmology which

envisioned local (also known as 'national' or 'sectional') gods, chosen by Helios, the

head god, whose earthly representative was Julian.

Similarly, the practices Julian assigned to 'Hellenes' were also Neoplatonic,

which is not to deny their basis in Graeco-Roman thought and practice. Julian's

'Hellenes' would have recognized many of the practices the emperor wished them to

54 James B. Rives, "Religion and Roman Empire," in Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire, (ed. Janet Huskinson; New York, Routledge: 2000), 245-275 at 246.

55 Domenic. J. O'Meara, Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003), 120-123.

56

practice even though they were somewhat nuanced. With a number of exceptions5 , many

'Hellenes' still practiced animal sacrifice in Late Antiquity,57 even continuing after the

practice was banned by Theodosius I in 382 CE.58

To assign practices to 'Hellenes', Julian identified his ethne ('Hellene', Jew and

Christian) and assigned practices to each, which he judged for the purpose of establishing

proper norms for his group. Illegitimate practices were defined against legitimate

'Hellenic' customs. Following Isabella Sandwell, I call this process "rule-making."59

For Julian, sacrifice was a practice that could unite 'Hellenes' across the empire.

The practice had special meaning for theurgic Neoplatonists. Unfortunately for Julian,

sacrificial practice was on the wane in parts of the Roman Empire in the mid-fourth

century (Misopogon). Even though sacrifice continued, it rarely matched the frequency or

involved the ritual demanded by Julian's theurgic Neoplatonism. Julian often bemoaned

his people's lack of enthusiasm for their ancestral traditions and contrasted their attitude

with the Jews' zealous fervor for observing their traditions. The best example of this can

Some 'Hellenes' such as Porphyry did not believe in the sacrifice of animals. (De abstinentia)

57 Animal sacrifice remained essential to Greek culture through the second century CE according to Petropoulou, but there is a lot of evidence that these sacrifices continued into Julian's time and beyond. Parts of the animal were given to the gods and other parts were given to the priests. See Maria-Zoe Petropoulou, Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism and Christianity 100BC to 200 AD, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 67. Prayer to household gods was common in Rome in Antiquity. See Sarah lies Johnston, ed., Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 366. Sometimes, Roman meals were accompanied by the offering of a smaller animal like a lamb or a goat. See Henk S. Versnel, ed., Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 435. Usually private sacrifice (Guoia) at home in the Greek world was accompanied by a large banquet. See Folkert von Straten, "Ancient Greek Animal Sacrifice: Gift, Ritual Slaughter, Communion, Food Supply, or What? Some Thoughts of Simple Explanations of Complex Ritual," in La Cuisine et I'autel: Les Etudes, Sciences Religieuses, (S. Georgoudi et al., eds.; Turnhout, Brepols, 2005), 15-29.

58 Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity and Hellenism in the First Four Centuries, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).

59 Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 20.

57

be found in Julian's Letter to the High Priest Theodorus (Ep. 20, 453C-D) where Julian

pointed to the Jews' admirable willingness to die rather than transgress their laws as a

counterpoint to 'Hellenic' indifference concerning their own laws.

In these instances we often witness Julian's attempt to hold up Jewish practice as

an ideal for his own group. Julian created an ideal 'Jew' which he read out of the

Septuagint, and employed it as a model for an ethnos that properly kept its traditions,

regular sacrifice being the important tradition in this case. Thus Julian's portrayal of

Jewish practice was a model for 'Hellenic' practice.

Julian's description of private and public Jewish sacrifice in CG should be viewed

in this light.60 Julian wanted his 'Hellenes' to practice sacrifice in private and in public. In

the Roman world public and private devotion to gods existed separately. While public

ceremonies of sacrifice were carried out by public officials at prescribed times and in

temples, private sacrifice differed markedly from one group to the next, although it

usually included prayer and sacrifice.61 In Julian's effort to create an 'Hellenic' ethnos he

used Jews as an ideal model of an ethnos that possessed an ideal regular practice of

private and public sacrifice. To achieve his ideal Jewish practice, Julian read private

sacrifice into Deut 18:3, a practice which the plain meaning of the verse could bear.

Julian's characterization of Jewish sacrifice in CG 305D-306A is identical to his

description of ideal 'Hellenic' notions of sacrifice: sacrifice takes place in private and in

Julian is careful to also employ "rule-making" to show Judaism's inferiority to 'Hellenism' even while he admires Judaism. His Letter to Theodorus where Jews are a model for 'Hellenes' also states in section 454 that Jews err by only worshipping one god. In CG Julian goes to great lengths to demonstrate 'Hellenism's' superiority over Judaism. For instance, he compares the gifts the gods have given to the 'Hellenes' with the pitiful gifts the Jewish God has given to the Jews (CG 178A-206B).

61 Rives, "Religion and Roman Empire," 245-275.

58

public and is coupled with prayer.62 This ideal form of sacrifice is Neoplatonic.63 Thus,

Julian employed a Neoplatonic hermeneutic in his interpretation of Deut 18:3, in order to

describe ideal Jewish- 'Hellenic' practice.

In some of Julian's other writings, he explicitly stated his desire that 'Hellenes'

engage in private and public sacrifice with prayer. In his address to the Antiochenes in

Misopogon 362D he wrote:

.. .wisp 8'up,cov auxcov Kai xfjc; ocoxnpiag xfj<; 7r.6A,scoc; ou8si<; Oust ouxs i5ia xcov TIO IXCOV OUXS r\ noXiq Kotvfj, [lovoq 5' 6 ispsuc;...

On your own behalf and on behalf of the city's welfare not one of the citizens offers a private sacrifice, nor does the city offer a public sacrifice, but only this priest.64

In this passage he castigated the citizens of Antioch for their failure to offer

proper sacrifice. This passage represents Julian's ideal program of sacrifice. It includes

both private and public sacrifice and it is to be offered not only by the priest but by all the

faithful.

That Julian's Jews were to be models for 'Hellenic' practice is implicit in CG's

framework. Immediately prior to Julian' description of Mosaic sacrifice (CG 299B-

305B), which precedes our CG 305D-306A, Julian claimed that 'Hellenes' observed the

Julian's 'Hellenizing' program was different than many practices across the empire. See Julian, Ep. 58 on March 10, 363 as he marched from Hierapolis to the Persian front. There he describes his encounter with the 'Hellenic' people of Batnae. Julian complains that, though these people are zealous in their sacrifice, they do so everywhere rather than in sacred space (Julian, Ep. 58, 400D). Their sacrifice seems to be unregulated and very much unlike Julian's notion of sacrifice.

63 As we have seen already, Iamblichus of Chalcis, De mysteriis 5, 9 and Sallustius, On the Gods and the Universe 16, theurgic Neoplatonists of the third and mid-fourth centuries CE, wrote that prayers without sacrifice of animals was insufficient for worship of the gods. Admittedly these authors do not mention private sacrifice.

64 Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume II, (Wright, LCL), 488.

59

same practices as the Jews (291 A) , including the practice of sacrifice. It was therefore

only logical that 'Hellenes' should practice sacrifice in the same manner.

It is the priests, however, who were to sway the masses of 'Hellenes' and future

converts by their holy practice. In his Fragment of a Letter to a Priest, Julian presented to

his priests a detailed program of priestly behavior including his requirement that priests

were to sacrifice both in public and in private. Priests were to pray ideally three times a

day66 and sacrifice to the gods in public and in private and at least at dawn and at twilight.

TaOxa ys bfyov smxn8susiv Kai suxsoOai TtolXdyivq xolq 0soi<; 18ia Kai 8nuooig udXioxa usv xpi<; xfj<; f|uspa<; si 5s uf| rcavxcoc; opOpou ys Kai 8siXr|c;. ouSs yap su^oyov dGuxov aysiv f|uspav (302B) f\ vuKxa xov ispcousvov. apxn 8e opOpoq usv fjuspac; 6v|/ia 8s VUKXOC;. si)A,oyov 5s ducpoxspcov xolq Qeolq drcapxecOai xcov 8taoxnudxcov, oxav s coOsv xf\q ispaxiKfji; ovxsc; xuy%dvcop,sv ^sixoupyiaq. <bq xd ys sv xolq ispoiq, ooa 7cdxpio<; 8iayopsusi vop,og, cpuXdxxsiv 7ips^si, Kai ouxs nMov ovxe sXaxxov xi 7ioinx£ov auxcov.

All this, at least, we ought to study to do, and we ought also to pray often to the gods, both in private and in public, if possible three times a day, but if not so often, certainly at dawn and in the evening. For it is not meet that a consecrated priest should pass a day or a night without sacrifice; and dawn is the beginning of the day as twilight is of the night. And it is proper to begin both periods with sacrifice to the gods, even when we happen not to be assigned to perform the service. For it is our duty to maintain all the ritual of the temples that the law of our fathers prescribes, and we ought to perform neither more nor less than that ritual.67

65 Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume III, (Wright, LCL), 403 n4. He indicates that this section of text exists in Cyril of Alexandria's text. This is supported by the fact that after he finishes his account of Jewish sacrifice (CG 306B), he repeats that Jews and 'Hellenes' shared "temples, sanctuaries, altars, purifications and certain precepts."

66 Besides the rabbis, no other group required prayer three times a day.

67 Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume II, (Wright, LCL), 329.

60

Julian drew a direct connection between a priest's prayer and sacrifice. Priests

were also to sacrifice at dawn and at twilight (CG 302B). These two passages follow each

other uninterrupted and were to be performed in order to fulfill "the law of our fathers."

By legitimizing Jewish practice, Julian placed Jews on his Neoplatonic ethnic

map; they were a legitimate ethnos by virtue of their adherence to their ancestral

customs.68 However, Julian emphasized that Jews were an ethnos which worshipped a

local god, who was subject to Helios, the supreme God of Julian's Neoplatonic-ordered

empire.

Julian also set his sights on destroying the Christian ethnos. CG 305D begins with

an attack on Christians' failure to sacrifice in accordance with the customs of their

fathers, the Jews.69 Julian had just presented Mosaic law on sacrifice (CG 299B-305B).

Now he showed that Jews continued to practice private sacrifice in accordance with their

ancestral traditions as laid out in Deut 18:3. Moreover, private sacrifice had all the

trappings of cultic ritual sacrifice, a ritual that purified the meat Jews ate. A continuing

efficacious Jewish sacrificial cult countered Christian supersessionist claims that

Christians were the "true Israel."

In CG 25 3 A Julian expressly states that he is testing Christian claims that they are

the "Israelites" and that they follow the laws of Moses and the prophets. Julian's claims

in CG 305D-306A are a direct response to Eusebius' invalidation of Jewish practice,

68 The Jewish people's significance is rooted in their practice of their ancestral customs. Julian engages in "ethnic argumentation" defined by Aaron Johnson as "the concern to strategically formulate ethnic identities as the basis for an apologetic argument." See Aaron. P. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), vii.

69 In my opinion, Julian's naming of Christians as "Galileans" is an attempt to place Christianity within a certain geographic boundary, an impossible process which only highlighted the fact that Christians were not an ethnos.

61

which he had argued could only take place at the temple in Jerusalem.70 Armed with

Scripture, Julian demonstrated that Jewish practice was valid in the absence of the

temple, even while deftly acknowledging that some practices required a temple in CG

306A.

Eusebius had historicized the Jews.71 He claimed that their practices were invalid

and that they were disconnected from their past as 'Hebrews.' By tying the 'Jews' of the

Old Testament with the Jews of his day through prescribed sacrifice, Julian showed that

Jewish ritual continued to be efficacious even without the temple and that the Jews of old

had never stopped practicing their ancestral customs. Jewish practice, as enunciated by

Moses, Eusebius' "Hebrew of Hebrews", was followed faithfully even in Julian's day.

Consequently, Christians could not be the "true Israel."

If anything, Christian claims to be the true 'Israel' or 'Hebrews' was invalidated

by their failure to follow Mosaic laws. Here Julian picked on Christians' failure to

sacrifice. Their failure to sacrifice demonstrated that they did not follow the laws of their

ancestors who were either Jews or 'Hellenes' and therefore, were not an ethnos that could

be placed onto Julian's Neoplatonic-ethnic map.

C. Use of Deuteronomy 18:3 in Julian's Project

Julian used the Septuagint to engage in "rule-making." Specifically, he employed

Deut 18:3 to assign a practice of private sacrifice to Jews. The passage itself in its

Hebrew and Greek forms (the LXX) is cryptic and could be translated as sacrifice or

Demonstratio Evangelica 1.3.1. See Jeremy M. Schott, Christianity, Empire, and Religion in Late Antiquity, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 151. Eusebius is the only Church Father mentioned by Julian in CG (222A).

Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews, The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 32. See my Introduction, 33.

62

slaughter, in private or in public. Julian's rendering of this passage allowed him to

present a Judaism that was an ally to his 'Hellenism' that would model his ideal practice

of private and public sacrifice and would undermine Christian supersessionist claims that

Jewish ritual was inefficacious in the absence of the temple.

Julian read Deut 18:3 in its plain sense. He was not contesting Christian readings

of the text as no one had any reason to interpret this passage before. Nevertheless, it was

part of Christian Scripture and of the law Christians claimed had been superseded by the

coming of Jesus. Julian appropriated the passage and used it effectively to cast doubt on

Christianity's truth claims.

Where Julian differed from Deut 18:3 he did so in noticeably Neoplatonic ways.

Prayer with sacrifice is notably 'Hellenic' and was especially emphasized by Neoplatonic

theurgic authors such as Iamblichus and Sallustius. Julian need not have mentioned

prayer at all in conjunction with private sacrifice. The Septuagint does not associate the

two. The fact that he chose to employ Neoplatonic concepts of sacrifice reveals that he

was primarily concerned with his greater program of sacrifice and the similarities he

could draw between Jews and 'Hellenes.' In effect, Julian used a Neoplatonic

hermeneutic to interpret Deut 18:3 in order to define his own group.

IV. Part Three: Practice and Julian's Argument in its Antiochene Context

As we have seen, CG was a work designed to weaken Christianity. It was written

in Antioch in the aftermath of several confrontations between Julian and the Christians

there. Before Antioch, Julian was aware of the Christian challenge to his 'Hellenizing'

program. It was only in Antioch that he realized the extent and effect of Christian

63

resistance on the success of his program. Having spent several months in Antioch, it is

reasonable to assume that Julian had Antiochene Christianity in mind when he wrote CG.

That is not to say that his arguments against Christianity were not directed against all

Christians or would not be effective throughout the Empire. Rather, I am arguing that

Julian primarily was responding to the Christian resistance he experienced in Antioch. In

that case, he had the situation of Antiochene Christians in mind when he wrote CG.

Therefore, one has to understand the situation of Christianity in Antioch and in Asia

Minor in general, where Julian had spent most of his life in order to anticipate what affect

he hoped his arguments would have.

Based on John Chrysostom's sermons delivered just over twenty years after

Julian's death, some or many Antiochene Christians kept Jewish practice, attended

synagogue on Sabbath and Festivals, kept Easter according to the Jewish calendar and

regarded Jewish books and the synagogue as holy. Similar practices were prohibited in

the Apostolic Constitutions, thought to be a product of Syria in the mid to late fourth

century. Christians were prohibited from entering synagogues, from partaking in Jewish

fasts, feasts and festivals and were warned not to listen to Jews about impurity from

menstruation. These documents suggest not only that Jews maintained their identity in

Asia Minor but that their customs and holy places were attractive to Christians in the late

fourth century. The canons from the Council of Laodicea reveal a similar situation in

Asia Minor in the early 360s.

Judaizers need not have been a large group. However, their close connection with

Judaism made them a threat to orthodox Christian identity. For reasons I soon will

explain, I believe Julian addressed himself to the Judaizers. To effectively do this Julian's

64

claim had to be believable to a group of Christians familiar with Jewish practices. Thus,

Jewish private sacrifice must have had some basis in fact. Indeed, Julian's claim that

Jews sacrifice Kai vuv may suggest that he was aware of a Jewish practice of private

sacrificial or profane slaughter.72 Therefore, I will now examine the evidence for a Jewish

practice of private sacrifice in the Diaspora both before 70 CE and after leading up to

Julian's time.

A. Evidence of Jewish Sacrifice in the Diaspora

Sacrifice outside the Jerusalem temple is prohibited in Deuteronomy.

Nevertheless, we find sacrifice in Jewish temples in Leontopolis in the Late Second

Temple Period and in the Elephantine temple in the early Second Temple Period. Private

sacrifice is not attested.

a. Evidence of the Slaughter of a Lamb on Passover in the Diaspora

i. Philo

Philo reported on the slaughter of a Passover victim in Alexandria. As we briefly

saw above, many of the features of sacrifice Julian described in CG 305D-306A -

sacrifice in a house coupled with prayers - was also mentioned by Philo in Spec. 2.148,

which states:

SKdoxn 6E oMa Kax' SKSIVOV xov xpovov o%fjua ispou Kai osuvoxnxa 7r.spiPsPAr|xai, xou ocpayiaoGsvxog ispsiou rcpoc; xf|v dpurnxoDoav sucoxiav suxps7ii o(j,svoi) Kai xcov STII xd ouooixia ouvsi^syusvcov dyvsuxiKoig rcspippavxripioic; KSKaOap evcov, o'i rcapaysyovaoiv oux cbc; sic; xd aXka ouurcooia %apiouu£voi yaoxpi 81' oivou Kai s8so|adxcov,

72 Julian may not have been aware of the difference or could not identify the difference in Jewish practice.

65

aXka 7idxpiov eQoq SK7t npcooovxs<; usx'EU%COV XS Kai uuvcov.7

On this day every dwelling-house is invested with the outward semblance and dignity of a temple. The victim is then slaughtered and dressed for the festal meal which befits the occasion. The guests assembled for the banquet have been cleansed by purificatory lustrations, are there not as in other festive gatherings, to indulge the belly with wine and viands, but to fulfill with prayers and hymns the custom handed down by their fathers.

Philo placed the slaughter of a lamb for Passover in each home (sKdoxn 8s

oMa)74 and described a ritual of sacrificial slaughter. Whether Philo's description

reflected actual practice or was exegetical is debated among scholars. Some believe Philo

was engaged in the exegesis of Exodus 1275 and claim that he was hellenizing the

slaughter of the Passover lamb by adding details of ritual that 'Hellenes' would have

expected. Others believe Philo was describing actual practice, arguing that Diaspora Jews

might have performed the Passover sacrifice in accordance with Ex 12 which, unlike

Deut 16, does not require that the Passover lamb be slaughtered in a central shrine.76

Philo's passage raises an interesting possibility. Private sacrificial slaughter for

the Passover meal may have taken place in many parts of the Diaspora pre-70.77 Such a

tradition would not have been affected by the loss of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. In

fact, we will soon see that several rabbinic stories describe acts of slaughter of lambs on

Passover outside Jerusalem. In my opinion, Philo's statement likely reflects a practice of

73 Philo, Spec.2 (Colson, LCL), 396-397. The English translation is taken from the same volume.

74 Martola, "Eating the Passover Lamb;" Sanders, Judaism Practices and Belief, 133.

75 Philo also interprets Exod 12:6 in QE 1:10.

76 The Passover slaughter of a lamb did not require a priest, an altar or a temple in its earliest period. See Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions, 85.

77 Mark 14:12-17 shows that the Passover meal was eaten in private houses in Jerusalem in Philo's time. Martola, "Eating the Passover Lamb," 523. Sanders, Judaism Practices and Belief, 133-134.

66

slaughter of the Passover victim, an act which may or may not have been equivalent to

the Passover sacrifice in the temple and which was performed by many Jews in the

Diaspora prior to the destruction of the temple.

ii. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 14:259-261

Evidence of sacrifice in the late Second Temple Period is sometimes read from

Josephus' A.J. 14:259-261. In the following passage Josephus quotes a resolution

addressed to the city of Sardis in response to a request by the Jews.

Yrjcpiaua Sap5iavcov. "sSo^s xfj Bou^fj Kai xcp 8r\ p.cp, oxpaxnycov sior|yr|oausvcov. S7isi oi KaxoiKouvxEq fjuxov EV xfj 7r.6A.Ei Iou8aioi 7toA,ixai noXka Kai \ieyaka cpiXdv0pco7ca soxnKOxsc; 8id 7iavx6<; 7iapd xou 8f|uoD, Kai vov EIOE^OOVXEI; E7ti xf|v PouXfrv Kai xov Sfjuov 7tapsKdX.soav, d7roKa0ioxausvcov auxoic; xcov voucov Kai xf\q sA-suGspiag U7i6 xf\q ouyKXf|X0D Kai xou 8f||j.ou xou 'Pcouaicov, 'iva Kaxd xd vo|ii^6usva sOn auvdycovxai Kai 7ioXixsucovxai Kai SiaSiKdt covxai ixpbq auxoug, SoOfj xs Kai xorcoc; auxott; sii; 6v ouXXsyousvoi (j.sxd yuvaiKcov Kai XEKVCOV ETCIXE COOI xdg 7iaxpiotx; £\)%aq Kai Guoiac; xcp Oscp. 8s86x0ai xfj PouAxj Kai xcp 8fipcp ouyKsxcopfjoOai auxoT<;...7r.pdoo£iv xd Kaxd xovq auxcov vououg...'

Decree of the people of Sardis. "The following decree was passed by the council and people on the motion of the magistrates. Whereas the Jewish citizens living in our city have continually received many great privileges from the people and have now come before the council and the people and have pleaded that as their laws and freedom have been restored to them by the Roman Senate and people, they may, in accordance with their accepted customs, come together and have a communal life and adjudicate suits among themselves, and that a place be given them in which they may gather together with their wives and children and offer their ancestral prayers and sacrifices to God, it has therefore been decreed by the council and people... to do those things which are in accordance with their laws.. ."78

Josephus, Ant. 14 (Marcus, LCL 489), 140-143.

67

The above decree sanctions the Sardian Jewish community to congregate for the

sake of communal life and to gather with their wives and children and offer the ancestral

prayers and sacrifices to God (svyaq Kai 0uoia<; xcp QECO).79

Whether sacrifice is intended hinges on the meaning of Ouoia.80 Sanders'

argument that Josephus referred to the Passover sacrifice is curious as there is no other

evidence to suggest that Passover offerings were ever offered in synagogues. Cohen

argued that Ouoia means a "communal meal" in this context but was unsure if these are

meals pursuant to sacrificial or profane slaughter.81 Whether such sacrifice is meant to

supplement or substitute the temple ritual is also unclear. The passage is a mystery to me.

In the absence of other evidence, I do not think this source should be used to claim that

sacrifice took place in some Diaspora synagogues in the pre-70 period or as evidence that

Jews sacrificed a paschal lamb in Sardis. It could just as well mean profane slaughter.

The phrase Euxac, Kai Ouaiac, is commonly used in Josephus' works. See Shaye J. D. Cohen "Were the Pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders of Communal Prayer and Torah Study in Antiquity? The Evidence of the New Testament, Josephus, and the Early Church Fathers" in Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress, (eds. Howard Clark Kee, and Lynn H. Cohick Harrisburg, Perm: Trinity, 1999), 89-105 at 98, n29.; Jutta Leonhardt, "Eu^ou Kai Guoai (A 14:260) - Opfer in der judischen Synagoge von Sardes" in Versammlung, Gemeinde, Synagoge, (ed. Carsten Claussen; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 189-203.

80 Admittedly, the term may reflect the language of the edict whose authors did not really know what went on in a synagogue. Most scholars assume this not to be the case. Sanders, Judaism Practices and Belief, 134. J. R. Brown also suggests this as a source for a Passover sacrifice. See James Russell Brown,

81 Shaye J. D. Cohen "Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue" in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, (Lee I. Levine ed.; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1987), 159-181, at 166. However, many other definitions of the term Ouoia have been offered by scholars. See Elias J. Bickerman, "The Altars of the Gentiles, A Note on the Jewish 'ius sacrum,'" Revue Internationale des Droits de I'Antiquite 5 (1958): 151; A. Thomas Kraabel, "Hellenism and Judaism: The Sardis Evidence," in Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel, (eds. J. Andrew Overman, and Robert S. MacLennan; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), 237-255 at p. 240-241. Marcus notes that the word Ouoiai; should be understood within the larger meaning of "offerings". See Josephus, Ant.\4 (Marcus, LCL), 143 nD.

68

b. The Passover Sacrifice in the Tannaitic Period

Jews reacted to the loss of the temple in a variety of ways. Those Jews who saw

the temple as central to Jewish practice would have been most affected.82 Regardless of

their opinions, there is little debate that the public sacrificial cult ended in 70 CE.83 Most

scholarly discussion focuses on the few pieces of evidence that private sacrificial acts

continued for a time on the Temple Mount.84 Evidence of sacrifice or profane slaughter in

the post-70 era is derived entirely from literary evidence and is often associated with the

Passover sacrifice.

The Apocalypse ofBaruch and Apocalypse ofEsdras portray the loss as a disaster but barely mention the loss of the sacrificial cult. Partially on the basis of the latter text, Gedaliah Alon claimed that Judaism was devastated by the loss of the temple. Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, Vol. 1 (trans. Gershon Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980), 44-51. George Foot Moore, on the other hand, claimed that the synagogue and prayer had largely supplemented and even replaced the temple in the Diaspora. George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, The Age of the Tannaim, (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1927), Vol. 1, 114 and Vol. 2, 13. The rabbis were aware of the temple's destruction, and discussed its implications for Jewish practice, but did not discuss the destruction itself. Shaye J. D. Cohen "The Temple and the Synagogue" in The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume 3, The Early Roman Period, (eds. William Horbury et als.; Cambridge: U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 298-325 at 313-315; For an interesting article on how the rabbis responded to the loss of the temple over time see: Baruch Bokser, "Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity" PAAJR 50 (1983): 37-61.

83 Emil Schurer, Geza Vermes, and Fergus Millar eds., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. 1, (Edinburough: T &T Clark, 1973), 521-523; Guy G. Stroumsa, "The End of Sacrifice: Religious Mutations of Late Antiquity," in Empsychoi Logoi Religious Innovations in Antiquity, Studies in Honour ofPieter Willem van der Horst, (eds. Alberdina Houtman et al.; Brill: Leiden, 2008), 29-46 at 40. Nevertheless, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries some scholars argued that sacrifice continued on the Temple Mount until 135 CE. See Friedenthal, Litteraturblatt des Orients X, (Leipzig, 1849). J. Derenbourg argued the opposite. See Joseph Derenbourg, "Essai sur l'histoire et la geographie de la Palestine d'apres les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques," (Paris: Imprimerie Imperiale, 1867), 480-482. In more recent years K.W. Clark has argued that sacrifice continued on the Temple Mount until 135 CE. See Kenneth W. Clark "Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after AD 70," NTS 6, (1959-1960): 269-280.

84 Alexander Guttman, "The End of Jewish Sacrifice" HUCA 38, (1967): 137-148. He thinks this is evidence that the rabbis knew of people who still sacrificed in the post-70 CE era.

69

Justin Martyr attacked Judaism over its inability to offer the Passover sacrifice.85

However, there is some evidence in rabbinic literature that Jews continued to slaughter a

Passover lamb. Whether they understood it as a paschal sacrifice is an open question.

The rabbis, concerned that all sacrifice end after the destruction of the temple,

debated whether Passover lambs should continue to be offered. Stories about Jews who

ate the paschal lamb after the temple's destruction in 70 CE abound in rabbinic literature.

At issue was that the slaughter of the Passover lamb and its roasting not be seen to be an

imitative act of the actual Passover sacrifice in Jerusalem and thereby constitute a

substitution for the latter.86 m. Pesahim 4:4 and other tannaitic literature suggest that the

rabbis had to deal with Jews who slaughtered a lamb on Passover eve.87

...•p^Dix vx ^IDN1? N^W ynw mpa -p^ix DTIOS ^ n ^ s ^IDX1? nn:ti? mp»

Where the custom is to eat flesh roast on the nights of Passover they may eat it so; where the custom is not to eat it roast, they may not eat it so.88

The rabbis' attempt to restrict the continuance of a custom they disapproved of to

places where it had existed in the pre-70 era, testifies to its popularity in the post-70 era.89

More importantly, it suggests that the custom of roasting Passover lambs existed outside

of Jerusalem.

Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone, 46.

Baruch M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism, (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1984), 105.

87 Bokser adds that they were prepared "in the manner in which the sacrifice was previously prepared." Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 90. However, this does not mean that they performed a sacrificial rite. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 101.

88 Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933).

89 Since Deut 16:5-6 limits the execution of the Passover sacrifice to the Jerusalem temple the rabbis considered such sacrifice to be illegal.

70

Many tannaitic stories on this issue center around the figure of Rabban Gamliel

II,90 who the Mishnah reports continued to roast a lamb on Passover, even though this

practice ran counter to the majority opinion of the rabbis.91 In the most famous story, R.

Gamaliel instructed his servant Tabi to roast a lamb on a perforated grill. The story

appears in m. Pesahim 7:2:

nuraa :~ims pi7X 'm .rfooxn ^y x1?! IIDED X1? noon nx T^IX rx wa .rftnoxn "73; noon riK i^ rftm xs rnns; ino,7 -laxw ^x^m p-a

nx "71D'' v^v -urn o-inn Vy ucnn 10: .iDipa nx ni^p1 -ran ^^ "ic-im .ifcipa nx f vip^ nVion ^y ina-ia nm .laipa

The Passover Offering may not be roasted on a metal roasting spit, nor on a grill. R. Zadok said: Rabban Gamaliel once said to his slave Tabi, "Go and roast the Passover offering for us on a grill." If it touched the earthen-ware of the oven, that part must be pared away. If its juice dropped on the earthenware and dropped again on the carcass, that part must be taken away; If some of its juice dripped onto the flour, he must take a handful away from that place.92

That Rabban Gamaliel, a leading rabbi of the post-70 era, roasted lambs on

Passover suggests that this practice took place not only among Jews at large but within

90 The identity of Rabban Gamaliel has been a matter of debate but most agree that these passages refer to Rabban Gamaliel II. See Schurer, History of the Jewish People, 522, n47; Derenbourg, "Essai sur l'histoire."

91 m. Besah 2:7 and its parallel m. Ed. 3:11 restate Rabban Gamaliel's position that a kid may be roasted whole (o"7j7n) on the eves of Passover in opposition to the rabbis. The meaning of O^pn is roasted whole. Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, Vol. 5, (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), 957-958.

92 Danby, The Mishnah.

71

rabbinic circles as well.93 It seems Rabban Gamaliel prepared an animal in a manner

similar but not identical with the Passover sacrifice.94

m. Pesahim 4:4 has shown that rabbis knew of Jews outside Jerusalem who

prepared Passover lambs. In t. Ahilot 3:9 and t. Ahilot 18:18 we have traditions of specific

towns outside of Jerusalem and Judea which prepared Passover lambs. In the first story,

the people of Beit Dagan in Judea were thought to have made certain that they

maintained their purity in order to carry out the Passover sacrifice in their village.

IO^T i-npi iD^m DTIDD my natf- 7nxn rmrrn p i rrm nwsra n ^ n 10:331 yima n^xn iD^a ^ i ra ^nnn nx i-iwpi a^axn

95.3iU7 irrrtOD itzrai a^xn is^m i~api

A case concerning in Beit Dagan in Judah a person died on the eve of Passover; and they went and buried [him]; and the women entered and tied the rope to the rolling stone. The men pulled [the rope] from the outside; and the women entered and buried [him] and the men went and made their Passover offerings in the evening.96

The words irrnoD WV suggest that they were prepared in a manner similar to the

preparation of the paschal sacrifice. Scholars debate whether the people of Beit Dagan

performed real sacrifices or non-sacrificial imitative acts of the sacrifice.97 It is interesting

Arguing in the alternative, Derenbourg suggested that if this mishnah refers to Gamaliel II then his statement applies to the Diaspora since he lived in Jamnia. Both James R. Brown and Gedaliah Alon argued that this story was historical fact. Alon argued that this was not a sacrificial act in imitation of the temple cultic ritual. Brown, "Temple and Sacrifice," 21 and Gedaliah Alon, The History of the Jews in the Land of Israel in Mishnaic and Talmudic Times, Vol. 1, (Tel Aviv: Ha'kibbutz Hame'uhad, 1927), 165.

94 Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 102.

95 M.S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices (ed. Saul Lieberman; Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1970). All extracts below from the Tosefta come from this volume. This text also appears in m. Ohal. 2:6.

96 Jacob Neusner ed., The Tosefta, Tohorot, (New York: Ktav, 1977), 87 with my modifications and those of Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 89-90. He questioned whether this is an accurate portrayal of events.

97 Bokser comments that the plain meaning of the text is that some people outside of Jerusalem after 70 CE were believed to offer a Passover sacrifice. See Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 104. However, Alon

72

that rabbinic disapproval is not mentioned. Although the historical context might be

either the pre or post-70 era, Alon argued for the post 70 CE era since the men of Beit

Dagan would have had but a short trip to take to make their Passover sacrifices in the

Temple when it stood.98

In t. Ahilot 18:18 the people of Ashkelon immerse themselves and eat their

Passover offerings in the evening.

•'TS "?w mam wnuw ~ispn -iry^x '-ii 'or 'm "^yaw '-n 'm nwra -iax nra nnx TO Tfrpu/x t? r\m i^i&> iwv TX1 p omD 'i rrm Tbi "...my1? IHTIDD nx I^DIXI i^moi p1?^ mxpbo^n cran D,_DI» p1?

A case concerning Rabbi and R. Ishmael the son of R. Yose and R. Eliezer Haqappar who spent the Sabbath in the stall of Pazzi in Lud, and R. Pinhas, son of Yair was sitting before them. They said to him, "Ashkelon- What do you rule concerning it? He said to them, "They sell wheat in their basilicas and they immerse themselves and eat their Passover offerings in the evening."... 10°

Clearly the rabbis believed that the Ashkelonites prepared Passover offerings in a

state of ritual purity.101 However, the Tosefta is silent on the intentions of the

Ashkelonites and on the opinion of the rabbis.102

argues that the people of Beit Dagan offered non-sacrificial Passover lambs in an imitative act of the sacrifice formerly offered in the Jerusalem temple after its destruction. Alon, History of the Jews, Vol. 1, 165.

98 Alon, History of the Jews, Vol. 1, 165.

99 Zuckermandel, 617.

1 ° Neusner, The Tosefta, 133 with my modifications.

1 In both t. Ahil. 3:9 and in this passage the people preparing the Passover offerings take precautions to do so in a state of ritual purity. The people of Beit Dagan go to great lengths to maintain their ritual purity. This reminds one of Philo's account of the Passover sacrifice in the home in Philo, Spec. 2.148 where the guests all come to the Passover banquet in a purified state, both of which echo the Bible.

102 Ashkelon is considered outside the Land of Israel and thus may be indicative of what occurred outside of Judea.

73

Rabbinic disapproval of imitative acts of the paschal sacrifice is registered in

stories about Theudas, the Roman, t. Besah 2:15103 depicts Jews in Rome who roasted

their lambs whole on the night of Passover and called them paschal lambs.

K\T\W ^D laaTi "?W3 ixipn vy-im i^xn ,J7S iVin oVipa m xm nrx •p-inxn aio ar ^ ^ n oVipn na, rw\v oVipa nr yx xinttf ^n lazrn p^w

o^ipa na. x1? "73X noD ^w li^x-in mu •T' ^ " n o ipfc ^y nos *?w V^iyi D ^ O rnpi1? nvrft ^ n 'an nx man 'an WX omn •'ov 'i ~iax 'asa finn a^ ip "oxn1? nnp xm qx i1? nax rrnoo ^ ^ n yc^pa pix

.D'noDimxyx-npw

What is a kid that is mequlas? It is wholly roasted, with its head and legs in its innards. [If] one has boiled any part of it whatsoever, seethed any part of it whatsoever, this is not mequlas. They prepare a lamb that is mequlas on the last evenings of Passover; a calf roasted whole on the evenings of the first day of Passover, but not a kid roasted whole[on the first festival day of Passover]. Said Rabbi Yose, "Theudas of Rome taught the Romans the custom of taking lambs for the night of Passover and preparing them mequlasim." They told him: "Now he is nigh unto feeding them Holy Things prepared outside the courtyard of the Temple [which is prohibited], "for the people call these [which they roast] "Passover lambs."104

The passage shows that some rabbis thought that were Jews in Rome who roasted

lambs on the eve of Passover which they believed the Jewish Romans called "Passover

sacrifices",105 and which the rabbis believed to be nearly equivalent to sacrifices in the

103 Although part of this text contains textual variants, the key part of the text from "Rabbi Yose said..." is stable. I use the version in the Tosefta because Baruch Bokser has convincingly argued that this is the original. See Baruch M. Bokser, "Todos and Rabbinic Authority in Rome," in Religion, literature, and society in ancient Israel, formative Christianity and Judaism, (eds. Jacob Neusner et al.; Lanham, Md. : University Press of America, 1987), 117-130.

104 Jacob Neusner, ed., The Tosefta, Moed, (New York: Ktav, 1981), 239 with my modifications.

105 The similar use of the verb I'Wiy and the word I'O^lpn as we saw in the traditions about Rabban Gamaliel in m. Besah 2:7 and m. Ed. 3:11 shows that Todos' preparatory instructions were no different than those of Rabban Gamaliel. Todos however is accused of leading Jews towards a forbidden practice of sacrifice, which can only have occurred in the Jerusalem temple, a charge absent in the Rabban Gamaliel tradition.

74

Temple.106 The location of the Theudas narrative in Rome provides the best test-imony of

a rabbinic understanding of far-flung Diaspora Jews who purchased lambs to roast on the

nights of Passover.

To sum up, there is enough evidence from Tannaitic literature to suggest that at

least some Jews in the Diaspora continued to slaughter a lamb on Passover eve perhaps

into the early third century when the Mishnah and Tosefta were edited. The fact that the

rabbis preserved traditions which countered their own law heightens their reliability as

sources. It seems that the rabbis recognized this phenomenon, only castigating it where

they believed Jews thought of it as an imitative act of the paschal sacrifice in Jerusalem.

In addition to evidence that clearly relates to slaughtering a lamb on Passover,

there is sporadic evidence that sacrifice took place on the Temple Mount in between 70 -

135 CE. K. W. Clark finds evidence of a continuing sacrificial cult on the Temple Mount

in Josephus in parts of the New Testament, in Christian writings of the early second

century and in parts of rabbinic literature.107 Both Hebrews 10:11,108 which states that

priests continued to make sacrifices in the temple, and Josephus' post-70 work, Contra

Apion 2:193, use the present tense when they discuss sacrificial practice as if the cult

continued. Most scholars dismiss Josephus' use of the present tense here.109 In m.

106 See Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 102-103 on imitative acts which refers to a non-sacrificial lamb prepared in the same way as the Passover offering.

107 Clark, "Worship in the Jerusalem Temple," Clark cites 1 Clement 40:5; 41:2-3 and the author of the Letter ofDiognetus write as if the sacrificial cult is still active. See Schurer, History of the Jewish People, 521. Besides m. Ed. 8:6,1 will consider the rabbinic evidence separately.

108 Clark, "Worship in the Jerusalem Temple," 276.

109 Eusebius, codex Laurentianus, codex Schleusingensis and the Latin translation read the present tense here, while Siegert, Schreckenberg, Vogel and Niese and Barclay amended it to the future tense. See Josephus, Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, Volume 10 Against Apion, Translation and Commentary, (trans. John M. G. Barclay; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 280. Schurer argues that Josephus and Heb 8:1-4 merely state what was lawful and not what existed. See Schurer, History of the Jewish People, 523.

75

Eduyyot 8:6, Rabbi Joshua Of the early second century had a tradition that the law

permitted sacrifice on the Temple Mount after the destruction. However, there is no

evidence of practice here.110

c. The Fate of the Passover Lamb in the Third and Fourth Centuries

There is no evidence of a continuing practice of sacrifice in rabbinic literature of

the Amoraic period, during which Julian reigned. With the exception of the Theudas

tradition, which appears in the Jerusalem Talmud111 and in b. Pesahim 53a-b112, all of the

evidence for a continuing practice of Jewish sacrifice comes from the Church Fathers.113

Jean Juster presented the testimonies of a number of fourth century Church Fathers,

who claimed that Jews slaughtered lambs on Passover.

Smallwood believes the use of the present tense refers to an ideal situation and expresses the hope that the ritual cult will be resumed in the future. See E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 347.

110 Scholars are divided on what historical information can be derived from this text. Derenbourg believed that Rabbi Joshua referred to the Temple of Ezra or that of Herod. See Derenbourg, "Essai sur l'histoire," 482. Schurer dismissed this mishnah preferring m. Ta'an. 4:6 which describes the end of the tamid sacrifice in 70 CE and an inference in m. Pesah. 10:3 that the Passover lamb was no longer offered post-70. See Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. Ill, (ed. Geza Vermes, and Fergus Millar; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 522. Clark concluded that Rabbi Joshua was referring to sacrifice on the Temple Mount between 70 and 135. See Kenneth W. Clark, "Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after AD 70." NTS 6 (1959-1960): 269-280 at 278.

111 y. Pesah. 7:1 34a. Similar versions are found in y. Besah 2:7 61c and y. MoedQat. 3:1 81d.

112 A similar version is found in b. Besah 23a and b. Ber. 19a.

113 The lack of rabbinic evidence may suggest an abandonment of this practice among most Jews, or, it might suggest a lack of interest on the part of the rabbis who put the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds together. Bokser has shown that variations in those passages from the Tosefta in Yom Tov reflect later rabbinic desires to retroactively demonstrate their narrative of power over all Jewish leaders in the Diaspora. See Baruch M. Bokser, "Todos and Rabbinic Authority in Rome." in Religion, Literature, and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity and Judaism, (eds. Jacob Neusner, et. al.; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1987), 129.

76

i. Zenon

In the middle of the fourth century Zenon of Verona wrote in his De Exodo that

"bitter men [Jews] unpleasantly chew common lambs with bitterness."114 While the use of

the present tense in this text convinced Juster that Jews ate the Passover lamb in Zenon's

time, I believe it is difficult to claim this as anything more than an interpretation of

Exodus 12:8.

ii. Augustine

The most reliable source for a Jewish practice of sacrifice or slaughter in the late

fourth century is Augustine's Genesis Against the Manichees.U5 This sources states:

6 Aetas, Mane autem fit ex praedicatione Evang. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et finitur dies quintus: incipit sextus, in quo senectus veteris hominis apparet. Hac enim aetate illud carnale regnum vehementer attritum est, quando et templum dejectum est, et sacrificial ipsa cessaverunt; et nunc ea gens quantum ad regni sui vires attinet, quasi extremam vitam trahit. In ista tamen aetate tanquam in senectute veteris hominis, homo novus nascitur, qui jam spiritualiter vivit. Sexta enim die dictum erat: "Producat terra animam vivam. Nam quinto die dictum erat: Producant aquae, non animam vivam, sed reptilian animarum vivarum; quoniam corpora sunt reptilian, et adhuc corporali circumcisione et sacrificiis tanquam in mari Gentium populous ille serviebat Legi.116

The Sixth Age. Morning came with the preaching of the gospel by our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the fifth day ended. There begins the sixth, in which the old age of the old man appears. For in this age that carnal kingdom was violently crushed, when the temple was torn down and the sacrifices came to an end. Now, in regard to the

114 "[Judaei] ingrate viles agnos cum amaritudine, homines amari manducant," (PL 11.521). Juster thought this was evidence of an actual practice of sacrifice. See Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans L 'Empire Romain, Leur Condition Juridique, Economique et Sociale, Tome Premier, (Paris: Libraire Paul Geuthner, 1914), 357, nl .

115 Augustine, Gen. Man. 1.23:40.

116 (PL 34.192); Augustine, De Genesi adLitteram, 1.23:40.

77

strength of its kingdom, that nation is drawing its last breath. In this age, nonetheless, like the old age of an old man, a new man is born and now lives spiritually. For God said on the sixth day: "Let the earth produce the living soul" For He said on the fifth day: "Let the waters produce," not a living soul, but "reptiles with living souls." For bodies are reptiles, and that people, as in the sea of nations, was still serving the Law with bodily circumcision and sacrifices.117

Although Augustine mentions the destruction of the Temple and the end of

sacrifices, and even though the verb in the last sentence is in the past tense, Augustine

thought he had claimed that Jews continued to sacrifice.118 This passage was sufficiently

troublesome to some Christians that Augustine, in his Retractions 1.10.2, withdrew his

claim of continued Jewish sacrifice.119 That verse states:

So too one might be upset by what I said concerning the people of Israel... For they were unable to offer sacrifices among the nations, just as we see that they now remain without sacrifices, unless one might perhaps regard as a sacrifice the immolation of the lamb at the time of Passover.120

Augustine's statement that Jews slaughtered a lamb on Passover is excellent

evidence from a Christian leader who had contact with Jews in Hippo that Jews continued

to slaughter a lamb on Passover. Therefore, it is possible to speak of a tradition of

preparing lambs for Passover among some Jews in parts of the Diaspora stretching from

Philo's time and continuing into the Tannaitic and through Julian's time. How

widespread this practice might have been and whether it occurred in Antioch or Asia

117 Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, 1. 23:40. (FC, Teske), 86.

1' See below, Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism, (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 309.

119 Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews.

120 Augustine, Gen. Man. 1.23:40 (FC, Teske), 86.

78

Minor where Julian wrote CG is unclear. However, there is every reason to think that it

occurred more often than is attested.

d. Profane Slaughter: Shekhita in Julian's Day

Jews in Late Antiquity ate meat. Unfortunately, rabbinic evidence does not

provide us with stories instancing the slaughter of an animal for profane purposes.

Rabbinic material about non-sacral slaughter is of a legal nature. Occasionally rabbis do

mention butchers, b. Hullin 132b reports that Rav Chisda excommunicated the butchers

of Huzal, located outside of Antioch, for failing to give the nnpm D rrVm yinm to

priests.121 However, we do not find cases ofhalakha I'ma'ase of slaughter itself.

B. Summary of Evidence for Sacrifice in Late Antiquity

Most of the evidence presented here is related to private acts of slaughter of the

Passover lamb. There is evidence that some Diaspora Jews continued to immolate a lamb

on the eve of Passover. In addition, while there is no evidence of Jewish non-sacral

slaughter of meat, we can be sure that it existed in Late Antiquity. Each of these would

have occurred in private.

121 In another case in b. Hul. 132b, R. Tavla suggests that a poor priest partner with a group of Israelite butchers who would be happy to do so since partnership with a priest would obviate the need for them to pay rai7m •I,n17ni unrn .

79

C. Julian's Familiarity with Jewish Customs

Apart from Julian's Letter to the Community of Jews, there is little direct evidence

that Julian was in contact with Jews.122 However, it is highly unlikely that he did not meet

Jews in Antioch. Antiochene Jewry was a large, vibrant and wealthy community.

Furthermore, Julian's involvement in the Antiochene market place during a grain

shortage, likely would have brought him into contact with Jewish officials who brought

kosher meat and oils to the city.

There is some evidence that Julian knew of the Jewish practice of immolating a

lamb on Passover. According to the testimonia of Cyril, below the critical apparatus of

CG 35ID in Neumann's commentary, which appears as CG 354A in our text, Cyril of

Alexandria quotes Julian accusing the Christians of not keeping the Sabbath, of not

immolating a lamb "in the manner of Jews" and of not eating unleavened bread as Jews

do. The apparatus states:

xnpetv a£u|j.a Kxe: aixiaxai 8e Jip6<; xouxou;, ©<; ur|xe uf|v aappaxi^ovxag uf|X£ \\x\v TovdaiK&q KcaaOvovrac xov duvdv UT)X£ uf|v apxouc; a^uu<n)c; saQiouaiv ETC'

auxcp123 (emphasis my own)

Keep unleavened bread etc: He charges them in addition to these things, that they do not keep the Sabbath, nor slaughter the lamb in the Jewish manner, nor do they eat the unleavened bread in addition on it.124 (emphasis my own)

This quote represents one testimonial of Cyril's rendering of what Julian accused

the Christians. Whereas the text in CG quotes the Christians' objection to "doing" the

122 In the past, scholars believed that the rabbis responded to Julian's plan to rebuild the temple. However, this evidence is unreliable. See Gtinter Sternberger, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, Palestine in the Fourth Century, (trans. Ruth Tuschling; Edinburgh: T &T Clark), 2000.

123 Neumann, Iuliani Imperatoris Librorum, 230 (apparatus). Neumann says that this has been left out of his version.

124 Translation is my own.

80

Passover, which likely means the sacrifice, as well as keeping unleavened bread, Cyril

above claims that Julian said or meant "in the Jewish way." If this reading is accepted, it

might mean Julian knew of Jews who slaughtered a lamb on Passover.125

If Julian knew of the slaughter of the Passover lamb, he either witnessed it

elsewhere or learned of it from others such as Libanius, who had Jewish tenants and

extensive contact with Jews. Julian could not have witnessed the slaughter of a lamb on

Passover in Antioch because he left the city before Passover of 363. Based on this

evidence, I tend towards the belief that Julian knew about the Jewish custom of

slaughtering the Passover lamb. Julian may actually have understood this act to be a

sacrifice.

D. Julian's Goals in CG 305D-306A: A Conclusion

When Julian claimed that Jews sacrificed in private, he not only suggested that

Jewish practice was efficacious, but he struck a chord with the Judaizers in Antioch. They

had significant contact with their Jewish neighbors and would have known of Jews who

slaughtered lambs on Passover. However, not a single Church Father, or canon of

Christian law claimed that Judaizers slaughtered a lamb on Passover. They had their own

new sacrifice. On the other hand, many of them protested Christians who received gifts of

unleavened bread on Passover.

Julian explicitly asks in CG 3 54A whether God forbade them to keep unleavened

bread but does not mention sacrifice.126 Yet, in his very next comment Julian continues

125 Alternatively, "in the Jewish way" might mean according to Scripture in which case this might not reflect Jewish practice in Julian's day. 126 There were Judaizers who received unleavened bread in the fourth century. See Canon 38 Council of Laodicea and Canon 70 of the Apostolic Constitutions. See F. J. E. Boddens Hosang, Establishing

81

with a sacrificial theme in a non-Passover context. The shift is abrupt and suggests that

something is missing. In my opinion, Julian suggested to these Judaizers that they ought

to slaughter lambs on Passover as well, a plea that Cyril suppressed.

This only has impact though if Jews were actually "sacrificing" in private. Some

Christians in Antioch kept Easter according to the Jewish calendar. Perhaps, Julian

suggested, they should keep the custom of the paschal slaughter as well. Julian is pushing

on pre-existing fault lines within Christianity. He hoped that if Christians sacrificed they

might yet slip further towards Judaism and away from Christianity. At the very least, he

was subverting Christianity.

V. Conclusion

In this chapter I have identified LXX Deut 18:3 as received through the exegetical

tradition of Josephus as Julian's source for CG 305D-306A. Where Julian diverged from

the Septuagint we see that he adds 'Neoplatonic' ideas of sacrifice. Julian engaged in

exegesis of Jewish Scriptures using a Neoplatonic hermeneutic in order to construct his

Neoplatonic ethnically-ordered empire, which mirrored Neoplatonic cosmology. Julian

used Scriptures to engage in rule-making. His interpretation of Deut 18:3 modeled an

ideal Jewish practice for his 'Hellenes' to imitate. It also placed Jews on his Neoplatonic

ethnic map since they adhered to their ancestral customs.

At the same time, he countered Eusebius and demonstrated that the Jewish

practice of sacrifice was efficacious even outside the temple and had continued since the

temple's destruction. In that event, Christian claims of supersessionism were void. Their

Boundaries, Christian-Jewish Relations in Early Council Texts and the Writings of the Church Fathers (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 99-101 and 120-121.

82

failure to observe still valid ancestral customs invalidated their bona fides as an ethnos

and left them without a place on Julian's ethnic map.

Julian wrote CG in Antioch where he faced considerable Christian resistance to

his program. During this period, his attacks on Christianity increased in degree and

frequency. Although CG was directed against all Christians, Julian likely had the

situation of Antiochene Christianity in mind. Antioch was a place where Jews, Christians

and 'Hellenes' interacted freely. Judaism was attractive to Christians and some were

Judaizers who participated in Jewish customs. Julian's comments about Jewish private

sacrifice in CG were meant to influence them. Thus Julian's claim about Jewish sacrifice

had to have had some basis in fact. Indeed we have seen that some Jews continued to

slaughter a lamb on Passover in their Diaspora homes. Julian seems to have been aware

of this practice and used it to influence the Judaizers to share in this Jewish practice. By

doing so, he hoped to weaken Christian identity.

83

Chapter Two Feeding the Priests: Emperor Julian's Comments on Priestly Gifts

I. Introduction

In the last chapter, I laid out Julian's five claims in CG 305D-306A and examined

the first four of them. In this chapter, I will take up Julian's final claim that Jews gave the

SeJjioc, <BU.OC, of the sacrifice to the priests as ciTcapxai.1 In part one, I will demonstrate that

Julian continued to engage in the exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:3 in order to claim that

Jews gave gifts to their priests. In part two, I will consider why Julian described a Jewish

practice of gifting to priests and why Deut 18:3 was employed to achieve his goals.

Finally, I will consider whether Julian was familiar with a practice of gifting to priests

and what purpose this served in his argument against the Christians. In the following

excerpt, I have reproduced only that part of CG 305D-306A that is necessary for this

purpose. The remainder of the passage can be found in the previous chapter.

305D .. .Kai vuv exi 306 A.. .Kai xov 8s^iov (BUOV 5i56aaiv aixapyhq xolq iepeuciv

Even now.. .and they give the right shoulder to the priests as first fruits.

II. Part One: Deuteronomy 18:3 as a Source for Giving the Right Shoulder to the Priests

Deut 18:3 is the only biblical source that mentions gifting the arm with the

shoulder of a slaughtered animal to a priest. Unlike Julian it does not mention the right

1 This term can mean 'first fruits,' and 'heave offerings' but in Hellenistic literature it means 'offerings.'

84

arm. However, I will demonstrate that Julian was likely the recipient of an exegetical

tradition of Deut 18:3 that specified the right arm.

Julian's designation of the right shoulder as a priestly gift is present in some of

the ancient textual traditions on Deut 18:3. Each tradition will be examined now and an

explanation of how the divergent traditions developed will be offered. Then Julian's

place in that tradition will become apparent.

The MT version of Deut 18:3 states:

nw-Dx -nw-nx mm TaiT nxa ayn nxa a^mon toD a HTT nn

This shall be the priests' due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether an ox or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two jowls and the stomach.2

As we have seen, the 17TIT is not identified.

The Septuagint translates Deut 18:3 as follows:

Kai ai3xr| rj Kpiaiq xcov ispscov, xd rcapd xou Xaou,rcapd xcov Ouovxcov xd Ouuaxa, sdv xs uoaxov sdv xs 7tpo(3axov. Kai Scoasig xov Ppaxiova x<5 ispsi Kai xd aiayovia Kai xo svucxpov.

And this is the judgment, for priests things due from those offering sacrifices whether a calf whether a sheep and he shall give to the priest the shoulder and the cheeks and the maw.3

Julian does not seem to be quoting from either the MT or the Septuagint. This is

particularly interesting in the latter case since Julian quotes or paraphrases freely from the

LXX in CG, a book he knew by heart, having learned it as a young boy.4 The evidence

2NRSV.

"Fourth stomach of ruminating animals." The New English Translation of the Septuagint. [Cited September 7, 2010.] Online: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition.

John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2004).

85

for this is clear. First, the right shoulder, mentioned in CG 3 06A is not specified in either

text.5 Second, Julian's failure to mention the u^xb and the mp in CG 306A also calls into

question his use of the LXX's translation of Deut 18:3. If he was drawing on the Bible,

one would have expected him to have included these two other terms as gifts to priests in

CG 306A.

I will now consider sources that reflect the MT model and those that agree with

Julian's specification of the right shoulder.

A. Philo

In his work, De specialibus legibus, 1.147, Philo interprets Deut 18:3 as follows:

anb 8s xcov s co xou Pcouou Ouousvcov svsKa Kpscocpayiac; xpia 7rpoo"xsxaKxat xcp ispsi 5i6oa0ai, |3pa%iova Kai aiayova<; Kai xo svuaxpov KaXoup,svov.

But of animals sacrificed away from the altar as meat for private consumption, three portions are appointed to be given to the priests, the shoulder and the jaws and the maw, as it is called.6

Philo follows the Septuagint in translating srrn as Ppa%icov. This is not surprising

given his general reliance on the Septuagint.

B. Targum Onqelos on Deut 18:3

xm1? rnn1! -i»x nx -nn nx xriDD] 'DD] p xay p X^HD1? nm TT r n (a xrirrpi xm"?i xv~n

5 In addition, although Julian's words of 5E^IOV cbuov refer to the srnrin Deutl8:3, all manuscripts of the LXX use the word Ppaxicov to translate ynr rather than Julian's roucc,. Although the word rouoc; does get used in the Septuagint to mean V ,^m or DDW (DDE': Gen 21:14, 24:15, 24:45, 49:15; Exod 12:34, 28:12. i re: Exod 28:25, 39:7, 39:18, 39:20; Num 7:9; Deut 33:12) it never translates smT.

6 Philo, Spec, 182-183, nC. (Colson, LCL). Except for a few of my own changes, this translation follows Colson.

86

This then shall be the priests' due from the people: everyone who offers a sacrifice, whether an ox or a sheep, must give to the priest the shoulder, the foreleg, the cheeks and the stomach.7

This early targum shows no differences from Deut 18:3 or from the Septuagint.

The Xim (= Hebrew ynr) is not identified.

On the other hand, listed below are a number of sources which do identify the 3tt"iT

as the one on the "right" side of the animal.

C. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 4:74

A.J. 4:74 paraphrases Deut 18:3 and renders the verse as giving the right arm

along with the jaw and maw to the priests.8

sivat 8s Kai Kax' OIKOV Ououciv sucoxiac; svsKa xfjg auxcov aXkh uf| Opucncsiac; dvdyKnv Koui^ew xolq iepeuoiv svuaxpov xs Kai yzkovvov Kai xov Ss^iov Ppaxiova xou Ouuaxoc;.

Furthermore, any persons slaughtering animals at their homes for their own good cheer and not for the ritual are bound to bring to the priests the maw, the jaw, and the right leg of the victim.9

D. Early Rabbinic Texts on Deut 18:3

Rabbinic sources that deal with the indeterminate i?l"il in Deut 18:3 also identify

the arm as the right arm or foreleg in the case of a quadruped. In the early third century,

m. Hullin 10:4 defined the arm.

"71-13 17X131 TH *?V Xim T "?W 13 TO H313-IX "?!tf piDH p yilTH "PPX

Onkelos, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (trans. I. Drazin; Jersey City, N.J.: Ktav, 1982).

I note here that Feldman has interpreted ppaxiova as leg rather than arm. Josephus, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books 1-4, (trans.Louis H. Feldman; Leiden: Brill, 2004).

9 Josephus, Ant. 4.74 (Thackeray, LCL).

87

Th mr •'X "7n v -pio iv mi3-ix *?W p-isn p pw iaix m w 'm pw r n r u "?tt> np'D •'n1? "?w p-ion p

What counts as 'the shoulder'? From the bend of the knee to the shoulder-socket, of the fore-leg; such too, is 'the shoulder' that is prescribed for the Nazirite. And the corresponding part of the hind-leg is called 'the thigh.' Rabbi Judah says: By 'the thigh' is meant from the bend of the knee to the fleshy part of the hind leg. What counts as 'the cheek'? From the bend of the jaw to the knob of the windpipe.10

A baraita in the Babylonian Talmud identifies the 5?1"1T of Deut 18:3 as the right

foreleg.11

V'n xnw 571—IT x"7X irx ix w srnr ~iaix nnx -pa1 smr m jmn -T'n pran jmn I M X3n -pnw 12ruioran ii^n X3~i -iaxi3 x i i ^n ^a jmm

yi~iT3^

The Rabbis taught in a baraita: The foreleg: It is the right foreleg. You say this is the right foreleg, or is it not, rather, the left foreleg? The Torah states: the foreleg. What is the teaching? As Rava said: the strongest of the hips. Here too, the foreleg: the strongest of the forelegs.13

E. Bohairic Text of the Septuagint

The fourth century Boharic manuscript of the Septuagint on Deut 18:3 states:

And this is the thing due of the priests, the ones from the people, who sacrifice the sacrifices whether an ox or a sheep and (the people) shall give the foreleg to the priest and the jawbone and the intestines (lit. that which is inside it).14

Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 528.

Adler makes reference to this baraita as well to explain CG 306A. See Michael Adler, "The Emperor Julian and the Jews." JQR 5 (1893): 615-651, at 602 n2.

This word comes from the root la1 "to endow with skill or strength." See Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Hendrickson, 2005), 580. He quotes this passage and says it means "the strongest" and refers to Genesis 32:33.

b. Hul. 134b. Translation is my own.

88

There is one note in the apparatus in the third from the last line that shows an alternative

manuscript tradition. With the changed reading, the text states:

And (the people) shall give the right foreleg.15

The note in the apparatus reveals either a stray manuscript reading or a later

emendation of that verse which reflects the process of determining which of the two

forelegs was meant.

F. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut 18:3

Most scholars date Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to no earlier than the seventh

century CE. However, this work draws on earlier sources. The relevant section states:

-izrx px -nn px •prn,"T TOT rn^D xas? p x^m1? ^ m xp^in TP yr\ 17xn3",pi 16Knpm xin,!7i x-'snx xm^i xran xsmx xm1? pum

So this shall be the portion due to the priests from the people, those who offer a sacrifice whether of oxen or sheep: they shall give to the priest the right shoulder, the lower jaw, the upper jaws and the stomach.

Each of the above sources indicates that the Bible refers to the "right" arm and

reflects the need amongst translators to clarify which arm was to be given to the priests.

Melvin K. H. Peters ed., LXX, A Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch, Volume 5, Deuteronomy (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 61. Thank-you to Mikael Haxby for translating the Bohairic text.

Peters, Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch.

Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1497. See also Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1984) 52 n8.

Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on the -Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1984), 230.

18 Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1984), 52.

89

The laws of God require exactitude, which forced exegetes to find out what was God's

will.

Since we can now confidently state that our earliest texts of Deut 18:3 do not

contain the word pa\ we may conclude that Josephus, the Mishnah, the Gemara, the

variation in the Bohairic manuscript of the Septuagint and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan have

all exegetically clarified Deut 18:3 by adding "right" to the smT.

G. Conflation of Verses in the Rendering of Deut 18:3

How did this development take place? One way to achieve clarity is to look for

similar verses that can be used to shed light on God's intention in the ambiguous verse. In

this way, some interpreters conflated Deut 18:3 with the text of Lev 7:32, a similar text

which included the word po\19 The process of conflation often occurs where two texts

that deal with similar issues differ from each other.20 In this type of conflation an exegete

reads a detail of the fuller text (Lev 7:32) into the unclear text (Deut 18:3), and leaves the

rest of the text untouched. Those authors who read the srnr as the paTt jmr either read the

"right" shoulder from Lev 7:32 into Deut 18:3 or borrowed from a tradition that had

already conflated these two texts. The need to clarify Deut 18:3 grew amongst exegetes

over time. Evidence of this can be seen from the steady increase in the number of texts of

this verse which added "right" to miT.

Harmonization occurs where one verse is used to explicate another and changes are made to the text. When interpreters make these changes it is called conflation. Thank you to Moshe Bernstein for explaining the difference.

20 Emmanuel Tov, "The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts," JSOT 31 (1985): 3-21.

90

a. Leviticus 7:32-34

As has already been suggested, the verse most commonly read with the gifts of

Deut 18:3 was Lev 7:32. MT Lev 7:32 and 7:34 state:

•3,»,7W Tarn im3I7 nai-m unn p^rn pw nxi 7:32

And the right thigh from your sacrifices of well-being you shall give to the Priest as an offering.21

Tnra 17X-w-,:i3 nxa Tinp1? nannn pw nxi nsiann nm nx -o 7:34 ."7X-w •'an nxa tf?is? prh inrraVi iron p-inx1? amx inxi nynbv

For I have taken the breast of the elevation offering, and the thigh that is offered from the people of Israel, from their sacrifices of well-being, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons, as a perpetual due from the people of Israel.22

The Septuagint translates these verses as follows:

7:32 Kai xov Ppaxiova xov Ss^iov 8cbasxs dcpaipsua xcp iepsi and xcov Ouaicov xou acoxnpiou uucov.

7:34 xo yap axnOuviov xou E7n0£uaxo<; Kai xov Ppaxiova xou dcpaipsuaxoc; s'llncpa rcapd xcov uicov Tapaf|^ djio xcov Ouoicov xou acoxripiou uucov, Kai sScoKa auxd Aapcbv xcp ispsi Kai xotg uiotc; auxou, vou.iu.ov aicoviov 7iapd xcov uicov TapanA.

7:32 And you shall give the right shoulder for a choice piece to the priest of your sacrifices of peace-offering.

7:34 For I have taken the wave-breast and the shoulder of separation from the children of Israel from the sacrifices of your peace-offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the priest and his sons, a perpetual ordinance due from the children of Israel.23

The reasons for conflation are clear upon an examination of these texts. Not only

do LXX Lev 7:32-34 and LXX Deut 18:3 use Ppaxicov to describe the items to be given

NRSV.

NRSV.

The Septuagint Bible (trans. Charles Thomson; Indian Hills, Colo.: Falcon's Wing, 1954).

91

to the priests in the case of a mr, but both verses deal with what is to be given to priests

upon the carrying out of a ri3T. Both are phrased as giving the priests their due and both

are commandments from God. They differ only in the location of the n3T. Thus it was

natural to read these verses together.

Given this overlap, confused exegetes reading these verses would have sought to

clarify what exactly was owed to the priests and conflated the texts. Second, even those

exegetes who paid attention to the different contexts of these verses - one took place in

the central shrine and the other took place in indeterminate places - would have been left

wondering which jmr was to be offered to priests and would have looked for close

parallels to answer that problem. In such a case, Lev 7:32-34 filled in the lacuna of Deut

18:3.25

Evidence that Deut 18:3 was conflated with Lev 7:32-34 is found in the Temple

Scroll.25 Columns XX: 14-16 and XXI: 1-4 are the only texts at Qumran that deal with

either of these two sources. 11QT XX: 14-16 reads:

The translators of the LXX often used the Greek word ppaxicav to translate the Hebrew word pw or "thigh" as well as the Hebrew word STTIT found in the Bible. Brown-Driver-Briggs is aware of the difference between SIIT and pw, noting that the latter refers to a thigh or the upper thigh when used in the context of sacrifice.

The translators of the LXX used the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, which in these two passages was the same as the MT. All manuscripts evidence that the Septuagint in Lev 7:32 translated its Hebrew source as 8e^iov Ppaxiova. All other manuscripts of the Septuagint on Deut 18:3 render its original Hebrew text as Ppaxicov. Although translators of the original Vorlage of the LXX did use other Greek words besides ppaxicov to render sn~iT, none of these appear in the Greek translation of Deut. At the same time, the translator of Deut always translated vnt as ppaxicov. Both of these facts indicate that the translator of the original Hebrew of Deut used the same Greek term to translate the original Hebrew term. Similarly, the translator of Lev always translated pw as Ppaxicov, except for one unidentified manuscript of Lev 7:32. See Edwin Hatch, and Henry A. Redpath eds. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), 772, for 6 KVTIUOC, under term Al. (an unidentified text). Thus ynt appeared in the original Hebrew source of LXX Deut 18:3 and pw appeared in the original Hebrew source of LXX Lev 7:32. In addition, the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Deut 18:3 did not contain pn'n while the original Heb of LXX Lev 7:32 likely read "paTi since one would not remove a clarifying word.

2611Q19, Temple Scroll, 11QT. The Temple Scroll does not identify which zeroah was meant in Deut 18:3.

92

nrnn nxi p?yn pw nx D,^33n p i n^'xn i]a nsi3[n]/nai"in mm1? "I^TI 2r.nDi3n namx ISTI 33E?n am TO vnixn nxi [n3pn nxi D^n^nJ/nxi

And they shall present the Lord an offering / [from] the rams and from the male lambs, the right thigh and the breast and / [the cheeks and the ma]w and the foreleg till the shoulder bone, and they shall wave them for a wave offering.28

11QT XXI: 1-4 reads:

/[rma1? mx3pm •"rftm myi-iTxn...nDiann]/[nTm nannn pw TH1 ni3n3I7i...] tn&y-iT1?! nan1? aiw pin1?...]

[for the priests shall] be the thigh of the wave offering and the breast]/ [of the wave offering.../ [the foreleg]s and the two cheeks and the maws for portions].../ [a perpetual statute from the children of Isr]ael and the shoulder which remains of the foreleg [for the Levites.../...]30

In 11QT XX: 14-16 and 11QT XXI: 1-4, Deuteronomy's portions of the iniTXn nxi

•"n^n nxi n3pn nxi are included in the noun ritual contained in Lev 7:32. Thus we have

evidence that the two verses were conflated and read together.

m. Hullin 10:1 is familiar with the tradition of reading Deut 18:3 in light of Lev

7:32, a practice we have seen in the Temple Scroll. Since the rabbis hold that Lev 7:32

refers to sacred sacrifices and Deut 18:3 to profane slaughter, they prohibit reading these

two verses together.

Josephus also likely conflated Deut 18:3 with Lev 7:32. Although there is no

direct evidence that Julian read Josephus, we saw in the last chapter that there is good

reason to think Julian was familiar with Josephus' interpretive tradition. We can conclude

27 Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert. J.C. Tigelchelaar eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls, Study Edition, II (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1242.

28 Yigael Yadin ed., The Temple Scroll, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 151.

29 Martinez and Tigelchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls.

30 Martinez and Tigelchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls.

93

that Julian was heir to a particular exegetical tradition of Deut 18:3 similar to Josephus

that identified the arm as the "right" arm having borrowed that description through

conflation of this passage with Lev 7:32.

H. Defining the »TiT

In addition to determining which jmr Deut 18:3 means, exegetes must also

determine what constitutes a yni. Ancient Jews found the word l?l"iT to be ambiguous.

The debate centered on whether the 37TIT or arm included or excluded the shoulder.31 The

Temple Scroll contained both traditions.32 Those that read the verse inclusively - namely

the upper arm with the shoulder - held that all of it went to the priests, while others, such

as the Qumranites, held that the part of the smT that did not include the shoulder went to

the priests while the rest went to the Levites.33 The rabbis staked a position in this debate

(m. Hullin 10:4) which included the shoulder. Julian inherited a similar tradition; couog

means "the shoulder with the upper arm."34 Thus Julian understood this passage to mean

that both portions were to be given to the priests.

31 Jacob Milgrom, "The Shoulder for the Levites," in Yadin, Temple Scroll, 169-176. Milgrom argues that one severs the foreleg above the shoulder whereas the hind leg was severed at the pelvis. It is impossible to differentiate between the shoulder and the upper arm because of the muscle and fat which obscure where they join.

32 Compare 11QT xx 14-16 and 11QT xxi 2-5 with 11QT xxii 8-11 and 11QT lx 6-7. The first two claim the ynr excludes the shoulder while the latter two include the shoulder.

33 The Levites did not receive a portion of the offerings in the Torah. However, the Qumranites derived the Levitic portion from reading Joshua 13:14 with Deut 18:3.

34 Henry G. Liddell, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1996).

94

I. The Language of CG 306A

a. The 8s i6<; (ojio<;35

Julian did not follow LXX Deut 18:3 fully. He used a synonym to the LXX's term

for 'arm' (ie. not Ppaxicov) and left out two of the three gifts in the biblical verse. Julian

was schooled in the Old and New Testaments, and studies show that he quoted from the

Septuagint liberally.35 Yet neither biblical texts nor later Jewish or Christian writers used

Ss^ioq couoc; as a stock phrase in a sacrificial context. Homer used the phrase SS LOC, cbuoc,

repeatedly but never to indicate sacrifice or priestly gifts.37

Most likely Julian quoted from memory and substituted the word couoc, for

ppaxicov. couoc, tends to be translated as the shoulder with the upper arm in classical

literature while Ppaxicov means the arm. Why Julian excluded the cheeks and the stomach

in CG 306A remains a mystery to me. However it is clear that he was paraphrasing Deut

18:3.

b. dnapyai

Julian wrote that the 6e<;i6c, couoc, was to be given to the priests as d^apxdt. This is

unusual as Deut 18:3 does not designate the priests' portions as dTiapxai.38 The term is

35 couoc; means "the shoulder with the upper arm" in Liddell and Scott.

Cook, The Interpretation of the Old Testament, 249.

37 The phrase Ss^toc, couoc, often appears in battle scenes in Homer and in Neoplatonic texts such as Porphyry's Quaest. horn. Odd. Theurgic and magical texts, with which Julian might have been familiar, use the plain meaning of 8e2;i6c, couoc,. See Corpus Hermeticum, fr. 24, section 11, line 10. See also Hans D. Betz, "Magica, PGM XXIVb 1-15," in Hans D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the Demotic Spells, IV, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986), 264.

38 In the Septuagint, &7tapxai is used to mean heave-offerings, tithes, and the "first o f something offered to God and his agents, the priests. Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint defined &7tapxr|: Beginning of a sacrifice, primal offering. Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon defined ourapxiV-

95

polysemous. Julian likely used it in its standard meaning of "offerings." Elsewhere in

CG, Julian used d7iapxai to mean the sacrifices themselves.39 This is because Greeks did

not usually differentiate between sacrifices and derivative offerings.40 The exception to

this rule is Artemidorus, a second century pagan who used d7tapxod as first fruits of an

offering of produce of wine press and of cattle set aside for priests (Artemidorus

Daldianus, Oneirocritica 3.3). However, I believe that Julian separated between the

sacrifice and the offerings to the priests simply because Deut 18:3 does so.

From a literary point of view, the giving of drcapxdi fits neatly into the immediate

literary structure of CG 3 06A. Just as an individual Jew gives gifts to the priests upon a

private sacrifice, so too Jews give d7tapxai to God upon a public sacrifice. With the

destruction of their Temple in Jerusalem, Jews were unable to give d7tapxai to God but

they still could give d^apxai to God's representatives on earth, the priests. This structure

substitutes the priests for God in the absence of sacrificial worship of God.

In conclusion, Julian used Deut 18:3 as a source for describing a Jewish practice

of gifting to priests.

Firstling for sacrifice, first fruits. Christians also continued to read cutapxii as heave-offering (Apostolic Constitutions 8.30.2) but expanded on its meaning to first fruits of Christian persons (Rom 16:5: their first convert in Asia). See Elias D. Moutsoulas, "APARXE: ein kurzer Uberblick iiber die wesentlichen Bedeutungen des Wortes in heidsnischer, jiidischer und christlicher Literature,"Sacrus Erudiri 15 (1964): 5-14.

Julian used the term this way in CG 346E when he described Cain and Abel's sacrifices to God as curapxai.

Porphyry, Abst. 2.16; Iamblichus of Chalcis, De vitapythagorica 17; and Celsus, Mr|9f|C, A,6yoc, 8:33.

96

III. Part Two: The Context and Function of Julian's Comments on Priestly Gifts in CG306A

Julian's exegesis of Deut 18:3 including the giving of priestly gifts served a

couple of functions in CG. First, Julian used a Jewish practice of gifting to priests read

out of the Bible as an ideal role model for how he wanted 'Hellenes' to treat their

priests.41 Second, the presence of functioning Jewish priests who still collected their

priestly gifts as required by Scriptures was meant to drive home the point that Jewish

cultic practice which required priests still existed. As we saw in the last chapter, Julian's

goal was to upend Christianity's supersessionary claims.

A. The Role of Priests in Julian's Writings

Priests had a senior role in Julian's new imperial order. They were to be the

leaders of society. To that end, Julian appointed chief priests (dpxtspsuq) over large areas

of the empire; they were responsible for choosing appropriate priests to fill in positions in

their districts and for instructing them (Fragment of a Letter to a Priest, 298C).42 Each of

these chief priests reported to and took their cues from Julian (Fragment of a Letter to a

Priest, 298C). Like all emperors before him, Julian was the pontifex maximus and

believed he had received the gift of prophecy from an oracle in Didyma (Ep. 18, 45 ID).

Julian was determined to build 'Hellenism', including its temples, and to

strengthen the priesthood in a way that both fit his ascetic personality, but more

41 Deut 18:3 and Julian's remarks in a Fragment of a Letter to a Priest below demonstrate differences in the conception of giving gifts to priests. Julian believed that priests should be honored because they administer to the gods by sacrificing and praying to them. These gifts were recompense for their holy services on behalf of men and not as gifts required by God as mandated in Deut 18:3.1 have found no evidence of any divine requirement for the collection of these gifts among 'Hellenes,' or in the writings of Julian's theurgic Neoplatonists, who do not even mention gifts to priests.

42 Examples are Theodorus, archpriest of Asia and Arsacius, archpriest of Galatia.

97

importantly in a manner that could compete with Christianity in attracting new converts.

He aimed to achieve this largely by emulating Christian success in religious leadership,

by making the temples places of respect and distribution centers of charity.43 The

'Hellenic' priests were to take on the role of the Christian clergy in feeding the poor.44

This would endear the priests to the masses. Julian's role as pontifex maximus meant that

power and prestige would ultimately flow to him and would thereby solidify his success

and power.

Under Constantine the Great, temples had been stripped of their riches and their

wealth redistributed among the churches. Julian sought to reverse this trend. Destroyed

temples were rebuilt. This attempt to rebuild 'Hellenism' required priests who could

devote themselves full-time to their vocation. Pre-Constantine, priests were free from the

curia. They were not required to work because they were supported by sacrifices of

worshippers at temples and were freed from paying taxes to the state. Post-Constantine,

'Hellenic' priests lost their support and their wealth, and, therefore could not compete

with the bishops.

In 362 Julian's new 'Hellenic' empire was in its infancy and was threatened by a

still empowered Christianity. In lieu of interest among large parts of the public for

'Hellenic' sacrificial practice (Mis. 344C) priests lacked the prestige they once had

possessed. Julian's description of a holy day that went uncelebrated at a temple in

Daphne demonstrates the 'Hellenic' priest's lack of a constituency as well as his lack of

43 Julian speaks about charity to the poor in his Letter to Arsacius and philanthropy in Fragment of a Letter to a Priest.

44 Peter Brown explains that the Christian clergy's claim to offerings was inherited from a pagan empire. Peter Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, (Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University Press, 2002), 31.

98

resources (Mis. 362). The lack of priestly prestige was of concern to Julian because it

threatened his 'Hellenizing' program.

In Fragment of a Letter to a Priest, Julian expresses his desire that his 'Hellenic'

priests be highly esteemed. He writes:

(296B).. .si)ta>yov 5s Kai xouc; ispsaq xiudv cog ^svcoupyoxx; Oscov Kai u^npsxag Kai SiaKOVOuvxac; fjp.iv xd rcpoc; xox>q Osoug, auv-S7iioxuovxac; xfj EK Oscov sic; f|Lid<; xcov dyaOcov 86asi. (296C) TipoOuouoi yap rcdvxcov Kai imspsuxovxat. 5ucaiov ouv d;io8i86vai Tiaatv auxoTg OUK s^axxov, si pf| Kai 7rlsov, f\ xolq 7to mKoTc; dpxouai xaq xiudc;.45

And it is reasonable to honor the priests also as officials and servants of the gods; and because they minister to us what concerns the gods, and they lend strength to the gods' gift of good things to us; for they sacrifice and pray on behalf of all men. It is therefore right that we should pay them all not less, if not indeed more, than the honors that we pay to the magistrates of the state.46

The end of the verse and its continuation highlight the reality of the place of the

'Hellenic' priests in society relative to the magistrates. At that point, the 7IO IXIKOI<; were

paid greater honors than the priests. Presumably, this included greater budgets as well.

Julian sought a re-alignment in values in favor of the priests. Sacrifice and prayer were to

be highly valued. This would enhance the priests' position in the empire.

B. Giving to Jewish Priests in CG 306A

Julian's creation of empire, which included his desire to enhance the position of

his priests, was on his mind when he wrote CG. The resistance to Julian's program in

45 Julian, CG, Volume II (Wright, LCL), 315.

Julian, CG 296D-297A, Volume II (Wright, LCL). Julian continues in his letter to describe how a priest ought to behave and conduct himself in public. Here Julian picks up on themes from Iamblichus who talks about the esteem with which holy men/theurgists should be regarded. The difference is Julian actually calls them priests.

99

Antioch constituted the background to its composition. As we have seen, Julian first

realized the strength of Christianity in Antioch, a place he had idealized as a center of

'Hellenic' learning and practice (Mis. 367C). CG was a way to attack and weaken

Christianity; it was also a defense of 'Hellenism' and a description of an ideal

'Hellenism' Julian hoped to promote. Based on his experience in Antioch, clearly not all

'Hellenes' were sacrificing as he wished, or, as he described in CG.

Judaism could serve as an ally to Julian's program. Julian's construction of an

ideal Judaism was to be a foil to his ideal 'Hellenism.' There are many places in Julian's

writings where Jewish practice served as a model for 'Hellenes.' His praise of Jews for

their fastidiousness in observing their laws (Letter to Theodorus) is evidence of this

phenomenon.47

Julian took care to describe the place of priests within Judaism. A passage in Cyril

of Alexandria left out of the Loeb edition declares that Jews and 'Hellenes' shared the

same laws and customs including sacrifices of atonement and purification.48 This passage

appears not long before Julian's comments about a Jewish tradition of priestly gift-giving

in CG 3 06A and just as he began to demonstrate that Jews in the Bible sacrificed. Later in

CG 306B, the passage following our CG 306A, he repeated his assertion that Judaism and

'Hellenism' shared many things and this time listed "temples, sacrifices, altars,

purifications and certain precepts." Temples, sacrifices and sometimes purification

required priests. Julian's words confirm this in CG 238C, a passage where he began to

chastise the Christians for their failure to adhere to Jewish law. In this passage he states

When he castigates them it is for their belief in one God.

Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume HI, (Wright, LCL), 403 n4.

100

that the Jews had precise laws concerning religious worship which included sacred things

and an indispensable role for the priestly profession. Therefore, in Julian's mind,

'Hellenism' and Judaism shared a similar role for priests.

C. Julian's Methodology: "Rule-Making" and Biblical Exegesis

As we have seen in the previous chapter, Julian employed what Isabella Sandwell

terms "rule-making."49 Normally "rule-making" requires that a leader define religious

groups by assigning specific practices to each, which he employs for the purpose of

establishing proper norms for his own group. Illegitimate practices are defined against

legitimate 'Hellenic' customs. It is the rhetorical definition of groups and their

association with practices deemed illegitimate that defines what is and is not allowed to

the dominant group.

Rather than focusing on negative practices that differentiate between groups in

order to separate them and cast judgment upon them, Julian affirmed the Jewish practice

of giving priestly gifts from a private sacrifice to priests as a model for 'Hellenes.' He

had already made the argument that Judaism and 'Hellenism' shared many customs in

common. However, 'Hellenism' lacked a system to compensate its priests. By comparing

positive Jewish practices of sacrifice with similar 'Hellenic' practices, Julian used the

opportunity to present to 'Hellenes' a Jewish practice that would aid his program for

compensation of priests.

'Hellenism' lacked god-given requirements to compensate priests. 'Hellenic'

priests had always lived off of the offerings people had made to the gods. In the Roman

Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 20.

101

turned Christian empire of the mid-fourth century, priestly income was diminished

greatly. Thus, when Julian compared Judaism positively to an ideal 'Hellenism', he also

was interested in its veneration of priests as exemplified by the tradition of giving priestly

gifts. It could serve both as something that ancient Judaism and ancient 'Hellenism' had

in common over and against Christianity but also as a model for the 'Hellenism' of his

own day, which clearly failed to venerate and to compensate its priests. Jews too, he

claimed, still practiced priestly gift-giving, and so should 'Hellenes.'50

In his quest to define Judaism using the method of "rule-making", Julian engaged

in the exegesis of the Septuagint. Within Ancient Judaism, Deut 18:3 was the primary

verse which linked regular sacrifice/slaughter with the giving of priestly gifts.

Generations of exegetes, including Josephus and the rabbis, characterized the act of Deut

18:3 as slaughter. However, Julian claimed the verse meant 'sacrifice.' This was an act of

appropriation and a perfectly reasonable reading of that text. Now Julian argued that acts

of giving first fruits to priests were the result of frequent private sacrifice, both acts he

wished the 'Hellenes' would adopt and both items he could read out of Deut 18:3.

As we have seen, this sacrifice did not require a Temple, which fit the situation of

Jews post-70 CE. In addition, this argument is well-placed within Julian's argument in

CG. By the time Julian reached CG 3 06 A he had just compared Judaism with

'Hellenism,' and commented approvingly on how Judaism shared many things in

common with 'Hellenism' including sacrifice. The connection between private sacrifice

and priestly gifts found in Judaism was one that 'Hellenes' must adopt as well.

CG is not a forum in which he could actively complain about a moribund 'Hellenism' which does not support its priests but we have already seen that it concerned him.

102

Consequently, Julian hinted that 'Hellenes' should sacrifice not only on holidays,

as they could not seem to manage in Antioch where he was writing CG, but also at every

meal. This both met his own custom of frequent sacrifice, which, by all accounts was

extensive (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 22.12:6-7), but more importantly, it raised

the status of the priests and funded their institutions in perpetuity, by virtue of their

regular receipt of priestly gifts.

In addition, Julian's comments on Jewish priestly gifts, continued his claim that

Jewish cultic practice was efficacious. Unlike in many other passages he interpreted,

Julian studiously avoided mentioning that he was interpreting Deut 18:3.1 suspect that he

did not wish to historicize Jewish practice. His emphasis that his practice occurs "even

now" supports this contention. The presence of priests who still collected their priestly

gifts as required by Scriptures implied that Jewish practice is alive and well even after the

fall of the Temple. It also meant that once the temple was rebuilt, there were priests

around to conduct the sacrifices. In other words, Judaism's efficacious fulfillment of

ancestral laws proved that they were the "true" Israel and erased Christian

supersessionary claims.

IV. Part Three: Julian's Address to the Christians and Evidence of Jewish Practice

Julian wrote CG while he was in Antioch and we have seen that he hoped to

influence not only 'Hellenes' but Christians as well. Christians in Antioch were familiar

with Jews and Jewish practice, as was Julian. Julian's claims had to be credible if he had

any hope of persuading Christians about the truth of his claims. However, evidence about

the giving of priestly gifts is limited. Outside of Rabbinic Literature and a couple of

103

examples in synagogue art51, Julian's CG is the only source which suggests that Jewish

priests collected priestly gifts in Late Antiquity after the destruction of the Temple. In

addition, besides the Babylonian Talmud, CG is the only source that claims priests

received the right shoulder in particular. Nevertheless, as we will see below, there were

authors who believed that Julian testifies to a Jewish practice of gifting to priests in the

fourth century. In this section I will examine whether Jews gave priestly gifts to priests in

Late Antiquity and whether Julian was aware of this practice.

Scholars who comment on CG 305D-306A often focus on the right shoulder and

attempt to match Julian's comments with those of rabbinic law. Michael Adler, for

example, argued that Julian was aware of the practice of the giving of the shoulder to the

priests and cites m. Hullin 10:1.52 David Rokeah suggested that Julian refened to the

heave-offering.53 Moshe David Hen argued that Julian's comments were an allusion to

the separation of hallah, a ritually sacred priestly gift practiced in the home (Num 15:20)

and required in the Diaspora.54 Each of these scholars assumed that Diaspora Jews in the

51 The inscription in the synagogue at Rehov which repeats, with slight changes, the Palestinian Talmud's halakhah concerning the requirement of tithing in the Land of Israel dates to the 6th and possibly 7th

centuries. Therefore, it is not relevant to this study. See Y. Sussman, "A Halakhic Inscription of the Bet-Shean Valley" Tarbiz 43 (1973-1974): 88 -158; and, Zeev Safrai "The Rehov Inscription" Immanuel 8 (1978): 48-57.

Adler, "Emperor Julian and the Jews," 602.

David Rokeah, Judaism and Christianity in 'Hellenic' Polemics, (Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 1991), 236 nl68.

m. Hal. 4:10. See Moshe D. Herr, "The Identity of the Jewish People before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple: Continuity or Change?" in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Permutations and Transformations, (ed Lee I. Levine; Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007), 211-236 at 222 n68.

104

fourth century followed rabbinic law, an assumption that is questionable given our

limited knowledge of Diaspora Jewish practice.55

A. Evidence for Giving Gifts to Priests after the Destruction of the Temple

To prove that Julian and some Antiochene Christians had knowledge of a practice

of giving priestly gifts, I must find evidence of priests in Late Antiquity who continued to

lay claim to their age-old rights of gifts, as well as evidence that Jews after the cessation

of the Temple cult continued to give priestly gifts to local priests in Antioch and its

environs.

a. Evidence of the Status of Priests in Late Antiquity

Unfortunately, the place of priests in Late Antique Judaism is ambiguous.

Traditionally, scholars have assumed that priests were an honorary caste without any real

authority or significance. Of late this image has been challenged both in Palestine and in

Babylon.56 It seems that priests maintained their identity as a distinct social group among

We know that archisyanogogoi were leaders of synagogues and that the institution of the patriarch was growing in the Roman World at this time. The rabbis, on the other hand, had no role in the synagogues of the Diaspora.

David Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck)), 228-229. Goodblatt argues that priestly ideology lay behind the Bar Kochba Revolt. Stuart Cohen argues that rabbinic anti-priestly polemics is evidence of a powerful priestly presence in Late Antiquity. Stuart Cohen, Three Crowns, Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry, (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press), 158-163. Trifon argues that priests had a central role in Byzantine Palestine. See Dahlia ben Haim Trifon, "The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Second Temple until the Rise of Christianity" PhD Diss. Tel Aviv University, 1985. Herman shows the same thing in Babylonia in Late Antiquity. Geoffrey Herman, "The Priests in Babylon in the Talmudic Period," M.A. Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998. The Talmud evidences tensions between rabbis and the priests over leadership in the Jewish world. See Reuven Kimelman, "The Priestly Oligarchy and the Talmudic Sages in the Talmudic Period" lion 2 (1983): 136-147.

105

Jews for centuries after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE and continued

to claim their gifts.57

Evidence that priests cultivated and maintained their special status can be found in

the necropolis of Beth Shearim where Diaspora priests were buried in separated plots of

land between the third and sixth centuries CE.58 Priestly designations, separate burial

plots, and elaborate sarcophagi demonstrate the self-awareness of an elite social Jewish

group, which sought to maintain its separate status.59 This carefully maintained status is

also evinced by lists of priestly courses that have been found in the Galilee and in

Yemen.60

Notwithstanding their special status, priests did not lead Jewish communities in

Palestine or in the Diaspora in the first through fourth centuries. This role was reserved

for archisynagogoi61 and later the Patriarch, who played an increasingly important role in

Rabbinic literature from the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods takes priestly life for granted, legislating law pertaining to priests, and evidencing rabbinic interaction with priests in Late Antiquity.

58 A Syrian priest is interred in Beth Shearim in the late fourth century. See Lea Ruth-Gerson, The Jews of Syria in Light of the Greek Inscriptions, (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2001), 292. Sometime between the first and early fourth centuries, priests from Sidon were buried in Beth Shearim.

Stuart Cohen, Three Crowns, 160.

60 The earliest known list is a Sabean-Hebrew inscription dated to the late fourth-century CE. Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. Ill, (ed. Geza Vermes, and Fergus Millar; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 16; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 555; Jacob Liver, Chapters in Priestly andLevitical History, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968); Ephraim Urbach, "Mishmarot u-Ma'amadot" Tarbiz 42 (1973): 304-327. Priests likely moved to the Galilee in large numbers in the third century CE. See Stuart Miller, Studies in the History and Traditions ofSepphoris, (Leiden: Brill, 1984).

61 Rajak and Noy have found that the office of archisynagogus is mentioned far more often in leadership positions in inscriptions. Tessa Rajak and David Noy, "Archisynagogoi: Office, Title and Social Status in the Greco-Jewish Synagogue," Journal of Roman Studies 83, (1993), 75-87. A Roman law of 330 CE placing priests at the top of the list of Jewish leaders who were to be exempt from the liturgy has largely been discounted by scholars who assume that the word "priests" actually means presbyter. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 496; Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1987), 132-138 n9. For a different opinion see Oded Irshai, "The Priesthood in Jewish Society

106

the late third, fourth and early fifth centuries in Jewish communities of the Diaspora.62 To

the extent priests occupied leadership roles in Diaspora communities, they did not do so

qua priests.63 Rather, their priestly designation was only an honorary title within Jewish

society, a society which recognized and honored the priestly caste. Any evidence which

suggests priestly leadership to some scholars is post-Julian.64

in Late Antiquity," Continuity and Renewal, Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine (ed. Lee I. Levine; Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 2004), 70-106 n76.

Scholars such as Linder believe that the patriarch gained power from the time of Constantine. See Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, 133, while Shaye Cohen and Martin Goodman date the zenith of the patriarch's power to the last quarter of the fourth century based on Roman law. See Shaye J. D. Cohen "Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue," The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, (ed. Lee I. Levine; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1987), 159-181 at 174; Martin Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212, (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld 1983), 116-118.

I have considered inscriptions that designate people as priests from Dura Europos, Sardis, Aphrodisias and Rome. Many of these inscriptions post-date Julian. Ameling notes that it is hard to establish clearly from inscriptions what role the priests played in Jewish society after the destruction of the temple. However, it seems to be an honorable title given to people. See Walter Ameling, lnscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, BandIIKleinasien, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2004), 158-159. In Dura Europos, Samuel the priest was a presbyter and an archon. George Hanfrnann, and Joanne Bloom, "Samoe, Priest and Teacher of Wisdom," Eretz Yisrael, 19 (1987): 10-14.The Sardis inscription on Samoe the priest and sophodidaskalos post-dates Julian. In Aphrodisias, a priest held the position of presbyter. In Rome, several priests were archons and one was an archisynagogos. Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960). In Hurvat Susiye in Palestine, a site which might date to the fourth century but whose dating is contested, a priest is also a scribe. Josef Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues, (Tel Aviv: Carta, 1978), 115-116.

This includes fifth century piyyutim and synagogue art which displays images of the Temple, sacrifice and the zodiac. Many of these recall the Temple watches, reflect fondly on the Temple cultic ritual and look forward to its reinstitution. Many of the most famous paytanim were priests. See Oded Irshai, "Confronting the Christian Empire: Jewish Culture in the World of Byzantium" in Culture of the Jews: A New History (ed. David Biale; New York: Schocken, 2002), 181-221 at 194. Although there is evidence of a piyyut in Oxyrhynchus that one scholar dates to the second century, the available evidence suggests that piyyutim emerged sometime in the in the mid-fifth century and was limited to Palestine. See Pieter A. H. de Boer, "Notes on an Oxyrhynchus Papyrus in Hebrew," VT 1 (1957): 49-57; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 552; Ezra Fleischer, "Studies on the Problems Related to the Liturgical Function of the Early Piyyut" Tarbiz 40 (1970): 60-63; Myron R. Lemer "On the Origin of the Piyyut: Midrashic and Talmudic Clarifications" Sidra 9 (1993): 13-34; Oded Irshai "The Role of the Priesthood" in Jiidische Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext in kulturraumlich vergleichender Betrachtung, (eds. Christoph Cluse, Alfred Haverkamp, and Israel Jacob Yuval; Hannover: Hahnische, 2003), 75-85 at 83; Oded Irshai argues that the embrace of piyyutim by synagogues indicates the Jewish public's adoration of priests. Irshai, "Confronting the Christian Empire," 194. On synagogue art see the remains at Sepphoris, Beit Alpha and Dura Europos, in Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 556.

107

b. The Practice of Giving Priestly Gifts in Late Antiquity

An honored priesthood may have continued to claim its priestly gifts. Although

only Julian and the Babylonian Talmud mention giving the shoulder to the priests, there

is evidence that priests continued to collect their gifts after 70 CE. In recent decades,

studies have been conducted on the giving of priestly gifts in Babylonia and in Late

Antique Palestine.65 No work addresses the collection of priestly gifts in the Roman

Diaspora where Julian lived.66

i. Second Temple Period

In the early Second Temple Period, tithes were brought to the Temple treasury by

Jews during the pilgrimages and distributed by the temple treasury to the priests and the

Levites.67

During Hasmonean times, this practice changed. John Hyrcanus II sought to

control the tithes and to use them for political purposes.68 Tithes and heave-offerings

were collected by state collectors and brought to Jerusalem where they were distributed

in accordance with the will of Hyrcanus. In opposition to Hasmonean appropriation of

Trifon, The Jewish Priests; Herman, "The Priests in Babylon."

Herman's work briefly considers this topic.

Aharon Oppenheimer, The Am-Haaretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 32. There is some debate about whether the Levites also received their gifts. See Oppenheimer, The Am-Haaretz, 38-41; Herman, "The Priests in Babylon." On related passages on collections for priests see: 1 Mace 3:49-50, 10:31; Judith 11:13; Tobit 1:6-7; Philo, Spec. 1:152.

The evidence cited by Oppenheimer and Alon is Caesar's Edict (Josephus, A.J. 14:203) and y. Ma'aser Sheni 5:56d.

108

these priestly gifts Gedaliah Alon argued that69 Diaspora Jews gave their priestly gifts to

local priests in the Diaspora, a practice which continued after the Temple's destruction.

Evidence from the Diaspora in the late Second Temple Period suggests that the

obligation to give priestly gifts persisted. Philo, Spec. 1.153-155, berates the

Alexandrians for not separating heave-offerings and tithes to priests, and Josephus (A.J.

14:244 ff), records an edict to the Jews in Miletus allowing them to manage their

produce according to their custom.70

ii. Post Destruction: Rabbinic Literature

Rabbinic literature divided up the biblically mandated priestly gifts into twenty-

four portions called rmro rruritt, which themselves were divided between priestly gifts

only required in the Land of Israel and those that were also required in parts of the

Diaspora.71 One of the twenty four priestly gifts given in the "y^ax was mpm •"riVm yntn

known simply as rmnon or xruriE "the gifts". These gifts were required wherever

slaughter occuned (m. Hullin 10:1).

Gedaliah Alon, "On Philo's Halakha," in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (ed. Gedaliah Alon; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), 89-137 at 97.

70 Oppenheimer, The Am-Haaretz, 50, n91-92. Herman thinks Philo meant heave-offerings and tithes. Herman, "The Priests in Babylon," 29.

There is evidence that the rabbis considered Hulath Antioch, the valley outside of Antioch, part of the 'Land of Israel' for some things such as rice (t. Demai 2:1). An early reference to ruino mana is in t. Hal. 2:7-10. The twenty-four priestly gifts are divided into three groups: a. ten to be eaten in the Temple; b. four in Jerusalem; and, c. ten within the borders of the Land of Israel. The first group contains: the sin offering, guilt offering and the communal peace offerings, sin offering of fowl, the suspense guilt offering, the log of oil in the case of a leper, the two loaves, the showbread, the remnant of the meal-offerings and the remnant of the omer. The second category contains: firstborn animals, first fruits, portions removed from a thank-offering and from the ram of the Nazirite, and skins of sacrifices. The third category contains: the heave-offering, heave-offering of the tithe, the dough offering, the first (shearing) of the fleece, redemption of the first born son, money given in exchange for the redemption of the firstborn donkey, the shoulder, cheeks and maw of a slaughtered animal, confiscated things by God, a field of inheritance and a stolen item from a resident alien.

109

According to Mishnaic Law, all of the priestly gifts were required to be given in

the Land of Israel. By the Amoraic Period (mid-third through fourth centuries), however,

there are fewer cases of people separating priestly gifts in the Land of Israel. In part this

was due to the economic difficulties of the third century.72 However, some people

continued to offer tithes. Thus, Rabbi Hiyya b. Abba, a priest, had to leave Palestine in

order to avoid accepting the tithe.73 At the same time Aharon Oppenheimer finds that the

category of tithes was expanded to include all things that grew from the land.74 In

addition, Dalia Trifon finds a number of cases attesting to the giving of first-born animals

to the priests both among the rabbis and among the people in Palestine in the Byzantine

Period.75 However, besides Julian's CG 306A, Trifon can find no instance where the

shoulder, cheeks and the maw were given upon a slaughter of an animal.76 Thus I

conclude that at least some priestly gifts continued to be given in Palestine in the third

and fourth centuries CE.

Babylonia is located outside the borders of the Land of Israel.77 Yet some gifts in

the Mishnah, such as the shoulder, cheeks and maw are required to be given anywhere.

72 Aharon Oppenheimer, "Hafrashat Ma'aser Ri'shon ba-Mes'iut she'leAhar Hurbab ha-Bayit ha-Sheini," Sinai 83 (1978): 267-287.

The same story appears in y. Seb. 3:34a. Presumably, he received his gift as a priest rather than as a rabbi. Trifon finds examples of a continuing separation of tithes among the sages in the Amoraic Period. Trifon, The Jewish Priests, 374.

Oppenheimer, "Hafrashat Ma'aser Ri'shon," 286-287, n74.

Trifon, The Jewish Priests, 367-368. Stuart Cohen finds instances of hallah, first fruits and heave-offerings in the third century. See Stuart Cohen, Three Crowns, 159 n58.

Trifon, The Jewish Priests, 365. She cites CG 306A as a possible example. If Julian was referring to a Jewish practice in his day then he likely witnessed it or had information about a practice in Antioch or in Asia Minor and not in Palestine.

I am referring here to ^"riai.

110

Herman finds several instances in the Babylonian Talmud where the shoulder, cheeks and

maw were given to priests.78 In the fourth century there is evidence in b. Hullin 133a that

the Babylonian rabbi, Abaye, who was also a priest, took these gifts. In b. Hullin 132a,

Rav Pappa, a Babylonian rabbi of the fourth century who was manied to a daughter of a

priest, ate these gifts on behalf of his wife as did Rabbi Imar and Rav Idi Bar Abun in the

fifth century.

The priests of the Amoraic period seem to have benefited more broadly from

priestly gifts than they had in the Tannaitic era.79 For instance, the Amoraic rabbis

expanded the obligation of giving priestly gifts from hallah to dough derived from rice.80

In b. Niddah 32a, there is a nwya in Pumbedita in which it is revealed that local sage-

priests were allowed to eat heave-offerings in the Diaspora provided they were in a state

of purity.81 Thus heave-offerings were allowed to be eaten by priests locally under certain

conditions.

In the Roman Diaspora there is little evidence of giving priestly gifts to local

priests. The existing evidence consists of potsherds from post-70 Edfu Egypt bearing the

word d7tapxr|. This suggests that the practice of giving heave-offerings continued in

Egypt.82 Although the Tannaim prohibited Diaspora Jews from giving heave-offerings to

See Herman, "The Priests in Babylon," 54 n215.

y. Hal. states that Babylonian Jews gave priests heave-offerings for wheat, wine and oil. See Herman, "The Priests in Babylon," 51.

Herman, "The Priests in Babylon," 51.

Herman finds that 13 Babylonian Amoraim are mentioned in connection with traditions about heave-offerings in Babylonia.

82 Oppenheimer, Am Ha 'aretz, 50. On the remains from Edfu see Victor Tcherikover, and Alexander Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, Vol. II, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), nos. 167-

111

priests in the Land of Israel,83 m. Hullin 2:2 suggests that some Diaspora Jews did not

stop trying and t. Sheviit 5:2 records that a Jew in Cilicia separated the heave-offering

despite rabbinic disapproval.84

The picture in the Diaspora of the Amoraic Period is not as clear. Although Rabbi

Yohanan states that the custom of separating heave-offerings in the Diaspora had ended

(y. Hallah 4:60a) long ago, Jews apparently continued to give priestly gifts as the

continuation of the sugya shows. Rabbinic evidence evincing the gifting of the shoulder,

cheeks and maw in the Roman Diaspora is non-existent.

The rabbis debated whether the Land of Syria was considered part of the Land of

Israel. It seems that parts of Syria qualified. Thus the rabbis in t. Demai 2:1 considered

Hulath Antioch, the valley outside of Antioch, part of the 'Land of Israel' for some things

such as rice. On the other hand, in y. Hallah 4:60a Rabban Gamaliel holds Syria to be a

foreign country for halakhic purposes. To the extent the laws of hallah apply there, they

are derived from rabbinic law rather than from the Bible.

181, 183a, 184-188. Herman argues this is circumstantial evidence for heave-offerings. Without knowing what this was I respectfully disagree.

830ppenheimer, Am Ha 'aretz, 49. See m. Hallah 2:2. While t. Peah 4:6 argues that there is a legal presumption requiring Jews to give heave-offerings and tithes to priests in the Land of Israel, the priests of Israel do not have a legal presumption to these gifts from Syria or from the Diaspora.

84 Rabbinic literature assumes that the separation of priestly gifts was standard practice in the Land of Israel following the destruction of the Temple. In the Mishnaic period, Rabbi Tarfon gave priestly gifts. In the second century, leases from the period of Bar Kochba require the separation of tithes from the produce of the land. See Pierre Benoit et al., eds., Les Grottes de Murabba'at, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 124-125 n24.

112

c. The Patriarchal Tax: Whither the Priestly Gifts?

Now I will suggest that an examination of sources that report on the collection of

the patriarchal tax also will reveal information about the collection of priestly gifts in the

Diaspora in Late Antiquity. Evidence for the collection of the patriarchal tax, commonly

known as the apostole, is substantial.85 Gen. Rab. 80:1, a source from the mid third

century but edited in the fifth century86 may be the earliest source that clearly refers to the

Patriarch's collection of the tax.87 The remaining sources all date from the mid to late

fourth century and include: Julian,88 Epiphanius,89 John Chrysostom,90 and the

Theodosian Code.91 Julian (Letter to the Community of Jews) is the first to claim that the

Patriarch collected his tax in the Diaspora, although his letter suggests that it had been

collected for some time.92 The tax was collected with tacit Roman approval throughout

the fourth century but only became law in the last decades of that century.

I will now argue that when Gen. Rab. 80:1, Epiphanius' Panarion 30.2:11, and

John Chrysostom's Against the Judaizers 6.5:6 are read together they demonstrate that

Lee I. Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch in the Third and Fourth Centuries: Sources and Methodology," JJS 47, 1 (1996): 1-32.

86 Most scholars date the stories of Genesis Rabbah to somewhere between the mid third to late fourth centuries. Hans-Jilrgen Becker, "Texts and History: The Dynamic Relationship between Talmud Yerushalmi and Genesis Rabbah," in Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, (ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 145-158.

87 Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch," 6.

Julian, Ep.51, Letter to the Community of Jews, Volume HI, (Wright, LCL).

89

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.11.2.

90 Chrysostom, Jud. gent. 16 (PG 48.835)

cod. Theodosianus 8.14, 17 and 29. 92 Cohen suggests that it was Constantine who first authorized the tax. See Cohen, "Pagan and Christian Evidence," 173.

113

the Patriarch usurped the priestly gifts which priests continued to claim in the fourth

century. We should expect that the Patriarch's usurpation did not occur everywhere at the

same time. Thus some Jews might have continued to give priests gifts in addition to the

Patriarch's gifts, assuming priests continued to make their age-old claims.

i. Genesis Rabbah 80:1

The story in Gen. Rab. 80:1 purportedly takes place in the Galilean city of Maon.

nm naxs -lax1? vw y^v ^unan ^ run m ntf? m n n xsm (x ^

•n^pm cnron nxr iya^ •WWEH KnE^m arm rraya ->ov (ia TO ^xpTrr) n"npn m y -iax (X n yunn) oD^an DD"? -O irrxn "i an rpm "7X-w n'n

,mjna T"D 'uaa ram an^n x1?! ,mim nnyr x1? na1? fin a^non T'ayn1? rmna 7"D an1? anna x1? na1? x-iw ITU irrwpm ^DI^D] f V^ x1? nx prn n m ,11^13 TOO: pin nx'wa wai f?x *?y 'ax "prn ,[rmm Yiarow rum]

(a:rr nnDi) DMrran oswa rrrr nn rrn DD1^ oswan DDV •O irrxn j?m 93...oy:» '1 yaw ,ri3Dn: Tin n ra arr^y [DD,?]"P1D,7

34a) "And Dinah, the daughter of Leah went out..." 'Behold any parable-maker who will make a parable about you will tell the following parable: "like mother like daughter" (Ezekiel 16:4). Yose of Maon interpreted in a synagogue of Maon: "Hear this Priests and listen House of Israel, and give ear House of the King because this judgment is for you" (Hosea 5:1) He said: In the future the Holy One Blessed be He will judge the priests according to the law: "why did you not exhaust yourselves in the Torah? Did you not enjoy the 24 priestly gifts from my sons?!" "Those (priests) said: 'Nobody is giving (them) to us.' "And listen House of Israel": 'Why did you not give them the 24 gifts (of the priesthood that I wrote in the Torah)?' Those said: 'On account of these things of the Patriarch's House they canied away all of them.' "And give ear House of the King for to you pertains the judgment." 'Were they yours?!' (the things which I said). "And this will be the law of the priests" (Deut 18:3). Therefore, against you is the attribute of justice turned. Rabbi heard this and was angry.. ,94

J. Theodor, and Hanoch Albeck eds. Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965), 950-953. Its parallel can be found in y. Sanhedrin 2:6 20c-d. Herr finds the version in Genesis Rabbah reflects a fuller version than that found in the Jerusalem Talmud. See Moshe D. Herr, "Between Churches and Theaters and Circuses" in Knesset Ezra, Literature and Life in the Synagogue, (eds. S. Elizur et al.; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1994), 105-119.

114

This story should be placed within the wider context of rabbinic competition

with the Patriarchate. Its main theme is certainly a castigation of the Patriarchate95 and

reflects tensions between the rabbis and the Patriarch, a familiar theme in rabbinic

literature dating from the mid third century through the fourth century.96

Rabbi Yose's upbraiding of the priests for not studying Torah when they had the

twenty four priestly gifts to support them and the people's claim that they were unable to

pay the priests because representatives of the Patriarch's House had come and taken "all

of them"97 either reflect contemporaneous claims of priests or draws on priestly historical

claims to their gifts that had long since ceased.98

In addition, a simple reading of the text suggests that the priests did not receive

their priestly gifts because the people had nothing left to give them after the Patriarch had

taken everything. However, I believe that the story also reveals that the Patriarch had

usurped the priestly gifts themselves. In order to conoborate my claim, I will examine

other sources that support this contention.

This is my own translation. There are slight differences between the manuscripts as they exist in the critical edition of Theodor-Albeck as well as some small differences in Manuscript Vatican 60, an early version of Genesis Rabbah of which Theodor-Albeck were unaware when they wrote their work.

95 Steven D. Fraade, "Priests, Kings and Patriarchs," in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture III, (ed. Peter Schafer; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2002), 315-344 at 326.

96 Ben Zion Rosenfeld, "The Crisis of the Patriarchate in the land of Israel in the 4th Century CE," Zion 53,3 (1988): 239-257.

97 This refers to the twenty-four priestly gifts. Compare this with the parallel in y. Sanhedrin which says "everything" which may refer to all the money.

98 Marmorstein argues that the priests are a metaphor for the sages. Arthur Marmorstein, "L'Opposition Contre Le Patriarch R. Juda II," Revue Etudes Juives 54 (1912): 59-66 at 60-61.

115

ii. The Panarion

Evidence that priestly gifts were being collected by the Patriarch's apostles in the

late fourth century is found in Epiphanius' Panarion 30.11.2. Epiphanius claims that he

heard from Joseph the Comes, one of the Patriarch's apostles, that the apostle collected

d7tapxai and £7ii8sKaxa in Cilicia on behalf of the Patriarch.99 In this paragraph he writes:

EupPePnKe ydp auxov xcp 'Icbar|7tov jxexd to d8puv0fjvat Toi36av xov 7raxpidpxnv, 6v 7iposi7ioupev (xd^a yap ouxcoc; ekeyexo), duotf3fj<; sveKa yepaq xcp 'Icoor|7rcp xr)q d7toaxo fj<; 5oi5vai xf|v OTtKap7iiav. Kai pex' £7tiaxoXcov ouxoq d7ioax£?tX,6xai eiq xfrv KI IKCOV yfjv. oq dvs^Owv eKstae anb £Kdaxr|c; 7i6 sco<; xr\q KiA,uciac; xd ErciSsKaxa Kai xdt; drcapxai; 7iapd xcov ev xfj £7tapxia Tou8aicov sia£7rpaxxsv.100

It happened that after the patriarch Judah (that may have been what he was called), of whom we spoke, became an adult, he gave Joseph for the sake of recompense the revenue of the apostleship. 2. He was sent with letters to the land of Cilicia. Going up there, he collected from each city of Cilicia the tithes and first fruits101 from the Jews in the province.102

One would have expected that Epiphanius would have used the term apostole tax

or a general term for taxes rather than erctSeKaxa and d7tapxai which are usually

This story is found in his castigation of the Ebionites, a Jewish-Christian group which appears in the Gospel of Matthew. Scholars question the reliability of Epiphanius' account of the Joseph the Comes story on several grounds. That the Jewish Patriarch collected tithes in the Diaspora is supported by independent sources. There is no reason to think that Epiphanius is less than truthful about calling these items EJuSeKocxa and anapyac,. For the reliability of the account of Joseph the Comes see: Ze'ev Rubin, "The Account of Joseph the Comes and the Attempts to Christianize the Galilee in the Fourth Century," lmmanuel 8 (1978): 104-116.

100 PG 41.424

Frank Williams translates (raapxac, as "first fruits" while Amidon (in the note below) translates it as "heave offerings." See Epiphanius, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop ofSalamis, Book I (Sects 1-46), (trans. Frank Williams; Leiden: Brill, 2009). "First fruits" is the more common meaning for this term. Herman, "The Priests in Babylon," 34 translates it as "heave-offering."

Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius Bishop ofSalamis, (trans. Philip. R. Amidon; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

116

translated as 'tithes' and 'first fruit offerings' respectively.103 These items are both

priestly gifts.

On the other hand, it seems that the Patriarch based his rule on his connection to

the Davidic dynasty.104 The term apostole is related to the aurum coronarium, gold pieces

collected as a semi-voluntary tax by kings and autonomous entities.105 The apostole

received its name from the fact that it was collected by the apostoloi of the Patriarch.106

Indeed, Origen states that some believe that the Patriarch was the descendant of David

and that his dynasty would continue until the coming of the Messiah.107 Rabbinic

literature also links the Patriarchate with the Davidic dynasty.108

On this basis, some scholars argue that Epiphanius used these terms £7n8£Kaxa

and drcapxai improperly.109 Although Epiphanius' story appears tendentious, there is

No one else calls the Patriarch's tax e7u5£Kcn:a and &7iapxac,. Eusebius first refers to the apostles sent to the Jewish communities in his Comm. Isa. 18.1 (PG 24.213). This letter does not mention taxes nor does it mention the Patriarch specifically. See Seth Schwartz, "The Patriarchs and the Diaspora," JJS 50 (1999): 208-222 at 217. In his Letter to the Community of Jews in 362 CE, Julian writes that he has written lulus, the Patriarch, to get him to reduce his taxes, which he refers to as the apostole. His letter suggests that the Patriarch had been collecting it for some time. John Chrysostom refers to the Patriarch's taxes simply as taxes (cpopouc,) Against the Judaizers 16 (PG 48.835). Jerome was also familiar with the Patriarch's apostles although he used the word silas.

See discussion in Martin Jacobs, Die Institution des judischen Patriarchen, Eine quellen- und traditionskritische Studie zur Geschichte der Juden in der Spdtanike, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995), 212-224.

Fergus Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977), 140-142.

Although it was voluntary, in effect Diaspora Jews gave the money to the Patriarch's apostles. In his effort to win the favor of the Jews, Julian writes that he has reduced the burden of taxes on them and has spoken to lulus, the Patriarch, to persuade him not to reduce his taxes, which he calls the apostole.

Origen comments that Gen 49:10 ('The scepter shall not be removed from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet') was applied to the Patriarch. See Origen, Princ. IV, 1:3.

108 y. Ta'an. 4:65a. See Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch," 21 nl25.

Herman, "The Priests in Babylon," 34. He argues that Epiphanius is confused and that the apostle would not have collected heave offerings to bring back to the Land of Israel because then the Patriarch would

117

nothing about the communal activities of the apostle Joseph that suggests that he was

disingenuous.110 Assuming Epiphanius is using the right terms, it seems the Patriarch

usurped priestly claims.

iii. Chrysostom, Against the Judaizers 6.5:6

Conoborating proof can be found in John Chrysostom's Against the Judaizers. In

the following passage Chrysostom demonstrates the inefficacy of Jewish life in the

absence of its Temple and priests. In so doing Chrysostom reveals something of Jewish

leadership of his day and its claims to authority. He writes:

nou ydp xd CEuvd xd 7iap' uuiv vi5v; not) 6 dpxi£p£u<;? nou Ss f) axoX,f|; Kai xo XoyEtov Kai f\ 8f|Xcoaic;; Mf] ydp pot xoug 7i.axpidpxac; xouxouc; suinc;, XOUC; Ka7if|Xou<; xovq suTiopouc; xovq 7idan<; 7tapavopia<; y£povxa<;. Holoq iepevq sine poi, xptapaxoc; OUK ovxoq EKEVVOU xou nakaiox), OU5E xfjg aXkr\q dyiaaxiac; andar\q; noloq i£p£u<;, erne pot, Ouaiaq OUK ouan<;, OU5E pcopou OU5E Xaxpeiaq; POU^EI aoi xou<; 7tspi xfjc; i£pcoauv£ig taxXrjaco vopouc;, 7icoc; xo 7taA,aidv syivovxo 'iva pdOnc, oxi ouxoi oi vuv rcaxpiapxat, nap' up.iv ^EyopEvoi oux iepsic; siatv. dAld ispEiq urcoKpivovxai Kai 7tai^ouai Ka0d7isp EV xfj cncnvfj, [idXkov 5E OU8E U7ioKpiaw Siaxpfjaai Suvavxai. xoaouxov ouxi xfjg d^nOEiac; povov, aXka Kai xfjc; imoKpiaEcoc; auxfjc; E^nKovxicOncav.111

Where are the things you held as solemn, where is your high priest, where is his robe, his breastpiece, and stones of declaration? Do not talk to me about those patriarchs of yours who are hucksters and merchants filled with all iniquity. Tell me, what kind of priest is he if the ancient oil for anointing priests no longer exists nor any other ritual of consecration? What kind of a priest is he if there is neither sacrifice, nor altar, nor worship? Do you wish me to speak of the laws governing the priesthood

have been contravening rabbinic law. Irshai argues that the use of these terms is a mistake since Jews did not separate tithes, although he notes Herman's evidence that the Babylonian diaspora was more ambivalent. See Irshai, "The Priesthood in Jewish Society," 78 n33.

Levine cautions that this story is tendentious but believes this part of the account is free from tendenz. See Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch," 25-26.

111 PG 48.911.

118

and how priests were consecrated in olden times? In this you would find out that those among you who are today called patriarchs are not priests at all. They act the part of priests and are playing a role as if they were on the stage, but they cannot carry the role because they are so far removed from both the reality and even the pretense of priesthood.112

Chrysostom's argument suggests that the patriarchs justified their claim to

leadership within Jewish circles by claiming to be priests and probably even high

priests.113 His knowledge of Jewish claims is credible since he lived in a city where

Christians and Jews lived side by side and because he demonstrated familiarity with Jews

in Antioch in his works.

Chrysostom's claim sheds light on Epiphanius' use of xa £7ti8£Kaxa Kai xaq

drcapxac;. Both had a Jewish source. If the Patriarch claimed to be a priest or even the

high priest, he would have demanded the priestly gifts that went along with this honor. In

fact, I argue that this is one of the Patriarch's justifications for the collection of these

taxes114 among Jews in the Diaspora, in which case Epiphanius' use of the terms xa

£7ti8£Kaxa Kai xaq anapxaq is likely a faithful transmission of his source.

iv. Genesis Rabbah 80:1 Again

Together, Chrysostom and Epiphanius may also shed light on Gen. Rab. 80:1.

Genesis Rabbah was edited likely in the early fifth century when the Patriarch still

112 Chrysostom, Saint John. "Discourses Against Judaizing Christians," The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 68, (trans. Paul W. Hawkins; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1979), 164-165.

Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch," 24. Levine claims that some Jews asserted that the Patriarch was a continuation of the Temple priesthood. I contend that these Jews were guided to this conclusion by the propaganda of the Patriarchate itself. I do not take Chrysostom's claim that there are no priests to mean that no priests were alive in his day.

114 Another claim is that he was from the House of David. See Origen, Princ. IV, 1.3; Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch," 23, nl25.

119

collected his tax. The Jews in the synagogue of Maon claimed not only that they had

nothing left to give but that the Patriarch had taken the priestly gifts themselves and I

suggest usurped the priestly gifts.

It seems that the Patriarch's legitimacy rested on his claim that he filled the role

of the High Priest or possibly was the High Priest. Prior to the change in Roman law in

the late fourth century, this was one basis upon which he claimed entitlement to collect

priestly gifts.115 Read together, these three sources demonstrate that the Patriarch usurped

the priestly gifts no later than the end of Constantine's reign, in the 330s.

d. Did the Patriarch Usurp Rival Priestly Claims?

The Patriarch's usurpation of the priestly claim to their gifts thus seems assured.

The question is: Did he usurp claims demanded by priests in the fourth century, or, were

these historical claims? Most scholars assume the latter.116 The evidence here is more

tenuous and entirely based on circumstantial evidence; however, I believe that the priests

had maintained their claims to priestly gifts in the third and fourth centuries. In the first

instance, my argument is based on the fact that some priestly gifts were collected in the

Amoraic Period and even expanded in Babylonia.117

In the second instance, it is based on the fact that Joseph the Comes collected

"tithes and first fruits" in Cilicia, Asia Minor, where rabbinic evidence of the early third

Epiphanius wrote the Panarion while he was the bishop ofSalamis in Cyprus and around the time he travelled to Antioch for a synod in 376 CE.

Steven. D. Fraade, "Priests, Kings and Patriarchs," in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture III, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2002). For an alternative view see Catherine Heszer, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997, 488.

To my knowledge, there is no reason to assume that circumstances in the Sassanian Empire heightened the role of priests in ways that differed from their role in the Roman Empire.

120

century recounts that a Jew brought his heave-offering to priests in Palestine (t. Sheviit

5:2).118 Such evidence bespeaks a tradition among some Jews in Cilicia to offer priestly

gifts, a tradition that likely continued from the Second Temple Period and had no reason

to end in the following hundred years at the end of which Joseph acted as the Patriarch's

apostle.

In the third instance, Gen. Rab. 80:1 is a derash that purportedly takes place in the

city of Maon where we know priests lived.119 Thus, it is possible that these priests were

real priests with real claims.120 The darshan interpreted Hosea 5:1 in a way that had

meaning for his own day and therefore addressed issues that existed either at the time the

story was created, or, at the time Gen. Rab. was edited. Such a reading demonstrates

tensions not only between the rabbis and the Patriarch but also between the Patriarch and

the priests.121

Finally, Gen. Rab. 80:1 and possibly Julian's Letter to the Community of Jews

suggest that some Jews looked unfavorably on the Patriatch's collection of the

apostole.122 This opposition may have been rooted in unhappiness with the Patriarch's

usurpation of priestly gifts.

I call this evidence reliable because it runs counter to rabbinic law, and yet is recorded by the rabbis.

The priestly orders show priests lived in Maon. See Irshai, "The Priesthood in Jewish Society," 77 n28.

120 In fact Rabbi Yose may have been a priest. See Irshai, "The Priesthood in Jewish Society."

121 Irshai believes the story refers to real priests. Irshai, "The Priesthood in Jewish Society," 78 n32. Herman concurs. See Herman, "The Priests in Babylon," 117. Catherine Heszer finds rabbinic opposition to the donation of priestly dues to priests in this story. She reads this story in conjunction with other Amoraic traditions which propose to give tithes to those who study Torah. See Heszer, Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement, 488.

Julian presents himself as a protector of Jewish interests. At the very least he thought he was performing an act of justice for the Jews who were overtaxed. Perhaps he was aware of Jewish resistance to the Patriarch's collection of the apostole.

121

B. Julian and Priestly Gifts

As we have seen, Julian is the first source outside of Rabbinic Literature that

attests to the Patriarch's tax. He seems unaware of the Patriarch's usurpation in his Letter

to the Community of Jews in 362.

397B £7ri Tik&ov 8E upag EucoxEtoOai PouXopEvoq, xov dSEtapov 'TouXov, xov ai8£ctpcbxaxov 7iaxpidpxnv, 7iapijv£ca Kai xfjv XEyopEvnv Eivai Jiap' uptv djioaxoX,f|v KcoX,uOfjvai, Kai pnKExi SuvaoOat xd 7rX,f|0r| upcov xivd dStKEiv xoiauxai<; cpopcov £io"7ipd^£orv...

And since I wish that you prosper more, I have admonished my brother lulus, your most venerable patriarch, that the levy, which is said to exist among you, the apostole, should be prohibited, and that no one any longer may have the power to deal unjustly with the matters of your masses by such great exactions of taxes.123

Julian used the term apostole to refer to the tax and made no mention of priestly

gifts. Yet, Julian's comments in CG 306A of the same year suggest that some Jews

continued to give gifts to priests even while the apostole was being collected on behalf of

the Patriarch.

It is possible that the Patriarch's collection of the apostole did not eliminate all

instances of gifting to priests. If we read Gen. Rab. 80:1 as reflecting real priestly claims,

it seems the people could not afford to pay both the Patriarch and the priests. However,

this story is set in Palestine and need not have been true for all Jews in the Diaspora.

Wealthier Diaspora Jews might have continued to give priestly gifts as they had always

done.

In addition, the Patriarch's claim to the apostole may have taken hold gradually

over different parts of the Diaspora.124 His collection of the tax probably grew with his

123 The Greek and its English translation are taken from Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume III, (Wright, LCL), 179.1 have made changes to the translation.

122

influence.125 Certainly he was collecting the tax throughout the Empire by the end of the

fourth century after his increase in rank and his claim to the tax were recognized in

Roman Law.126 Prior to that the geographical scope of the Patriarch's collection may have

been more limited thus leading to a mixed practice whereby some Jews continued to give

their priestly gifts to priests. One may assume then that the transition from giving

d7iapxai to the priests to giving them to the Patriarch was probably slow and uneven in

different places.

If we read CG 3 06A as reflecting a real practice among Jews about which Julian

had bona fide information, then Julian's comment on the Jewish practice of giving the

right shoulder to priests as dTiapxai suggests that some priests continued to receive their

priestly gifts in the mid-fourth century while the Patriarch collected the apostole. This

contemporaneous practice would then also be reflected by Julian's comments in CG

305D and CG 306A and in his Letter to the Community of Jews.121

At the end of the day, there is no evidence suggesting Antiochene Jews gave

some priestly gifts to their priests. They did give gifts to the Patriarch (Jud. gent. 16; PG

48.835). However, wealthy Jews might also have given gifts to priests. In fact, if Julian's

arguments were meant to persuade Christians, as well as 'Hellenes', then they had to

Schwartz argues that the Patriarch was probably not influential everywhere. See Schwartz, "The Patriarchs and the Diaspora," 221.1 should add that the Patriarch was powerful within Syrian Jewry based on his ability to remove a politician whom Libanius, on behalf of the Jews of Syria, asked to be removed.

125 The evidence from inscriptions suggests that the Patriarch already had significant standing in world Jewry by the late third century. See an inscription from a late third century synagogue in Stobi, Macedonia. Levine, "The Status of the Patriarch," 13.

One first hears of the Roman legal sanction of the Patriarch's collection of taxes by the apostles in 399, oddly when this right is repealed. However, the repeal was itself repealed by Arcadius in 404 CE.

Julian may have been tapping into resentment about this tax particularly among priestly Jewish circles when he wrote to the Jews that he had asked the Patriarch to lower his taxes.

123

have some basis in fact. As we have seen, Julian would have met Jews in Antioch and

known about Jews who farmed land for Libanius. Thus he might have come across a

practice of gifting the right shoulder to priests. Rabbinic law does allow the slaughterer to

give the shoulder the cheeks and the maw to different priests.128 Thus it is possible that

Julian had information about Jews who gave the right shoulder to priests.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, I have shown that Julian's presentation of a Jewish practice of

priestly gift-giving was meant to be a model for 'Hellenic' priestly compensation in

Julian's day and to prove the validity of Jewish law. Deut 18:3 was the perfect tool to

present a claim of a cunent Jewish practice of sacrifice and priestly compensation. It did

not require a temple; thus it could continue in the post-70 CE era. Indeed, we have seen

that much of CG 306A followed this passage.

If Julian wanted to convince Christians of the efficacious nature of Jewish

practice, his claim of a cunent Jewish practice would have had to have been verifiable.

Julian was not writing polemics to be read by a few pagan philosophers and Christian

bishops. Many Christians in Antioch were familiar with Jewish customs. Unfortunately, it

is impossible to prove that some Jews in Antioch gave the right shoulder to the priests. At

most, I have shown that some priestly gifts were given in the Diaspora of Late Antiquity

and that rabbinic law allowed Jews to divide the priestly gifts of Deut 18:3. Thus even

among rabbinic Jews it was possible that a priest received only a right shoulder and that

Julian witnessed this practice or heard about it. Furthermore, even though Chrysostom

128b.Hul. 132b.

124

tells us that the Patriarch collected the apostole from the Jews of Antioch, it is possible

that some wealthy Jews continued to give priestly gifts to priests in Julian's day.

Chapter Three "When No Jew has to Beg": Julian on Jewish Care for their Poor. His

Sources and Purpose

I. Introduction:

In May or June 362 CE Julian wrote a letter to Arsacius, his chosen chief priest

(dpxi£p£u<;) of Galatia, declaring his unhappiness with the progress of his 'Hellenizing'

program1 and outlining a 'Hellenic' charitable program that he hoped would successfully

compete with its Christian counterpart. 'Hellenic' priests were to set up hostels and

distribute imperially supplied food to the poor and the stranger.2 In the course of his

comments Julian ruefully remarked that no Jew had to beg. This chapter asks whether

Jewish institutions of care for the poor existed in Julian's time of which he might have

had knowledge and considers why Julian mentioned the absence of Jewish poor.

The chapter is divided into two parts. In Part One I examine Julian's comments on

Jewish charity in their context. I determine Julian's sources about Jewish charity, through

an examination of biblical, rabbinic and non-rabbinic evidence for the history of Jewish

charitable giving, and charitable institutions. Part Two examines the function of Julian's

reference to Jews in his Letter to Arsacius within the corpus of his writings and his

proposed charity program.

Julian's comments about the absence of Jews who beg are reproduced below:

1 Julian, Ep. 22, (Wright, LCL). Most scholars consider this letter authentic. For a contrary view see Peter Van Neuffelen, "Deux Fausses Lettres De Julien I'Apostat (La Lettre aux Juifs, Ep. 51 [Wright], et Lettre a Arsacius, Ep. 84 [Bidez])" VG 55 (2001), 131-150.

2 Glanville Downey, "Philanthropia in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century," Historia: Zeitschrift furAlte Geschichte, 4 (1955), 199-208 at 204.

126

aiaxpov ydp, E! XCOV p£v TouSaicov OUSEIC; psxatxEt, xpEcpouai 8E

oi 8UO"0"EPET<; raXiXaiot 7ipo<; xoiq Eauxcov Kai xovq f)p£xspouc;, oi 8E f)p£X£poi xfjc; 7iap' f)pcov £7riKoupiac; EVSEEII; cpaivovxai.3

For it is disgraceful that, when no one of the Jews begs, and impious Galileans support their own and ours, it is evident that our people lack aid from us.4

Julian's comments should be read in the context of his 'Hellenizing' program,

which sought to place his constructed ethnic group, the 'Hellenes', at the apex of the

Empire's social and religious order. To achieve this, he set out to replace the bishop's

patronage of the poor5 with that of his 'Hellenic' priests'. All of the elements of the Letter

to Arsacius - Julian's request that hostels (c^EvoSoKEia) be built in every city for all

strangers; and, his order that enormous amounts of com and wine administered to

Galatian strangers and beggars - demonstrate Julian's attempt to combine aspiration with

action.

Julian's brief comment about the absence of Jewish beggars immediately follows

his instruction that his priests ought to feed the poor and highlights their failure to do so.

It also precedes Julian's mention of Christian care for all people's poor. The comparison

of Jewish charity with Christian charity suggests that Jews had institutions to aid the

poor.6

3 Julian, Ep. 22, (Wright, LCL).

4 Translation is my own.

5 Peter Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 2002), 33.

6 Whether he means food alone or a mix of food, shelter and clothing is not clear. Julian did not indicate whether he meant the indigent or the conjunctural poor and I do not consider it pertinent to this chapter. The "conjunctural" poor were those who worked but could easily become indigent if they lost their jobs or if they were seasonally unemployed.

127

II. Part One: Jewish Charitable Institutions in the Sources

A. Biblical Law on the Poor

Julian's potential source(s) about Jewish care for their poor are both literary and

material. Our earliest source for Jewish charity is the Bible. Biblical law requires

individual acts of care and protection for the weakest elements of society: the poor,

widow, orphan, the stranger and the landless; one does not find biblical communal

institutions for the poor.7 The earliest laws are set in the agrarian context in which the

Israelites lived, and are limited to Israelites and the stranger alone (Deut. 15:11, 24:14;

Exod. 23:11; Lev. 14:21).

Examples of care for the poor set in an agrarian environment include leaving a

corner of the Israelite's field to the poor and the stranger (Lev 19:9-10; 23:22);8 and,

leaving his land fallow every seventh year for "the poor/needy of the Israelite people"

(Ex 23:11).9 That land was a basis for establishing need can be seen in Deut 14:28-29,

where the landless Levite is added to the list of recipients.10

God's law also protected the poor's basic needs from greedy lenders. Thus a poor

person's clothing could not be taken even if it had served as a pledge on a debt (Deut

7 The Bible's usage of ^y for the 'poor' and l"P3K for the 'needy' does not interest me here. See discussion in Gildas Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 167.

8 Lev 19:10 adds the gleaning of vineyards and Deut 22:19-22 adds gleanings that dropped but were forgotten and boughs of olive trees that have been beaten once already to detach the olives from the trees, to the list of items to be left to stranger. In these cases the poor is replaced by the orphan and widow (Deut. 22:19).

9 Similarly olive-yards and vineyards are to be left fallow for the same purpose.

10 Levites were paid a tithe every third year.

128

24:14, 16). The poor's daily wage had to be paid in a timely manner to insure that they

had food to eat.

Mosaic Law sought to include the poor as a vital part of the nation. To ensure that

the poor could participate in the national cult and enable expiation, the law permitted the

poor to offer less expensive sacrifices (Lev 14:20).

A more general notion of care for the poor can be found in Deut 15:7-11 which

requires Israelites to give alms directly to the poor. These verses state:

,T0N 7nN<? ]V3$ ^3 n^rr-1? T 7 If there is among you anyone in need, a member of :"nn?--i#& , I¥"]N? ,T"W "?nX3 your community in any of your towns, within the land

,qrn7-nt$ ymi) x'?-- 1? ]rii T#>$ that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-.ivrisn ,^mn ATT-m yspn N'7] hearted or tight- fisted toward your needy neighbor;

,tt317rn ;i? ,^7'-nS nnjri nnD-1? n 8 You should rather open your hand, willingly lending .17 "101?: 1?8 ,i"i'D0a n ^ip'ayri enough to meet the need whatever it may be.

;f ixn T$a ,]V3S 7'7n:!-N;7 ^ Ks 11 Since there will never cease to be some in need on nrisri nns ,-I'EN'?. ,q^?? "OiK l?-7V the earth, I therefore command you, "Open yourhand to

r?**1?1! ^J?1? ",nK!? m^-m the poor and needy neighbor, in your land."11

Deut 15's encouragement of personal almsgiving was extolled in later biblical and

post-biblical literature of the Second Temple Period. Until the Mishnaic Period, the

Bible's agricultural laws relating to the poor were rarely discussed. Daniel advised the

king to redeem his sins by beneficence (betsidkah) to the poor. In return, the king was

promised serenity (Dan 4.24).12 As Michael Satlow has observed, the Septuagint's

1' All biblical passages are taken from the NRSV.

12 This is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible of the term tsadakah, "righteousness," being used with the meaning of "alms, charity."

129

occasional translations of the Hebrew term tsadakah with the Greek EXEnporjuvri (charity,

alms) demonstrates the increasing identification of righteousness with giving alms.13

B. Post-Biblical Jewish Evidence

Jewish poor, like the poor everywhere in Antiquity, are silent. They tend to be

objects in literature and were used for various rhetorical purposes. Thus reaching

historical conclusions based on this literature is difficult.14 Nevertheless, there is

increased rhetoric about almsgiving in Second Temple texts. For example, the third

century BCE book, Ben Sira, repeatedly emphasized the importance of almsgiving (e.g.

LXX 4.1-10; 7.10; 12.3; 29.8-9; 40.17). The reasons for giving charity were justified

entirely by the benefits that charity confened on the giver; there was little attention paid

to the poor themselves (29.12).15

a. The Temple as a Repository for Alms for the Poor and as a Place of Almsgiving

By the end of the first century CE, Josephus writing in Rome (Against Apion

2.283) could boast that the Greeks and barbarians had attempted to imitate well-known

13 Michael L. Satlow, '"Fruit and the Fruit of Fruit': Charity and Piety among Jews in Late Antique Palestine," JQR 100 (2010), 244-277 at 263. He also notes that charity is increasingly justified by its ability to atone for sins. See also Ben Sira 3.30 (3.28 in Hebrew) where charity (tsadakah/ eksv\\Loarbvr\) protects its giver from divine punishment in the afterlife.

14 Gregg Woolf, "Writing Poverty in Rome," in Poverty in the Roman World, (eds. Margaret Atkins, and Robin Osbourne; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 83-99 at 86.

15 The Book of Tobit also promotes almsgiving (Tob 2.14; 12.8-9). Tobit also understands charity as a pious act that saves one from divine punishment. See Satlow, '"Fruit and the Fruit of Fruit," 263 n67.

130

charitable Jewish enterprises (xfrv xcov ovxcov dvdSooiv).16 Unfortunately, Josephus did

not provide us with details about the nature of these charitable institutions. However, he

is one among many authors to claim that charity took place at the Jerusalem Temple,

where it was common for pilgrims to give charity (Josephus, A.J. 4.227). The Book of

Acts 3:2 provides an example of a man who stood at the temple gate to seek alms from

those coming in and out of the Temple. Later the Mishnah claims that the Temple

contained a chamber of secrets where visitors gave alms and Jews in need took them

anonymously (m. Sheqalim 5:6). In addition, the Temple might have been used as a safe

place for the disadvantaged to store money.17

b. Charity Outside of the Temple and in Synagogues

Evidence of charity outside the Temple in the Second Temple Period is also

found. According to Josephus, the Essenes combined personal charity with communal

charitable programs. Individual Essenes provided alms and food to those in need

(Josephus, B.J. 2.134). In each city in which they were located, the Essenes had someone

who gave clothes to those strangers in need (B.J. 2.125). The Damascus Scroll charges a

communal overseer with the distribution of charitable funds within his community.

Money was raised through the imposition of a tax equivalent to two days wages each

16 The translation of'charity' captures the meaning of dvdSooiv in spirit. This is the only time Josephus used this phrase for charity. Josephus, Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, Volume 10 Against Apion, Translation and Commentary, (trans. John M. G. Barclay; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 328, nl 142. What Josephus meant is unclear.

17II Mace 3:10 claims that the Temple contained funds of widows and orphans.

131

month.18 To our knowledge, Essene practice is the only example of communal charity

outside of rabbinic literature.

Writing in first century Alexandria, Philo commented that people show

compassion or act charitably (E^EECO) when they see a poor person and located these

charitable acts in temples and in the market-place, places where people naturally

congregated.19

Nearly all examples of charity in the Second Temple and post Second Temple

Periods took place in the synagogue. Matt 6:2 takes almsgiving in the synagogue for

granted. Outside of Jerusalem, the synagogue naturally took the place of the Jerusalem

Temple for the reading of Scripture and prayers. Some were equipped with hostels for

travelers.20 Others welcomed strangers and sought to help them find business.21

Gregg Gardner has demonstrated that the Tannaim located charity in the

synagogue as well.221. Shabbat 16:22 states:

Damascus Covenant 14.12-16.

19 Philo, Som. 1.95.

20 A famous example is the synagogue of Theodotus in Jerusalem in the first century CE. Stanley A Cook, "The Synagogue of Theodotus of Jerusalem," PEFQS (1921): 26.

2 1 1 . Sukkah 4:6. People sat in the synagogues at Alexandria in professional guilds so that a traveler could find someone in his trade and earn a living.

22 Gregg E. Gardner, "Giving to the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism," PhD Diss. Princeton University, 2009, 90-92; Steven Fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period, (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1997), 35-60. However, the rabbis did not control the synagogue. Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Were Pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders of Communal Torah Study and Prayer in Antiquity? The Evidence of the New Testament, Josephus, and Early Church Fathers," in Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (eds. Howard Clark Kee and Lynn H. Cohick; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999); Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 412-529; Stuart S. Miller, "The Rabbis and the Non-existent Monolithic Synagogue," in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue (ed. Fine; London and New York: Routledge, 1999); Michael D. Swartz, "Sage, Priest, and Poet: Typologies of Religious Leadership in the Ancient Synagogue," in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue (ed. Fine; London and New York: Routledge, 1999).

132

mn1 xwrt? I7,DN no:on wai roun u^ivb npix fpois "px 'is •'NDW jra 77n TT'm mwa n7inn 7V V77Dritt I'xi irwN7 UTN rn Toiwa fsi nairm

•p-pna

The House of Shammai says: 'They do not allocate24 charity to poor on the Sabbath in the synagogue, even to marry off a male orphan and a female orphan; and they do not negotiate business affairs25

between a man and his wife; and they do not pray for the sick on the Sabbath.' But the House of Hillel permits [these]."26

This halakhah is part of a larger debate between the Houses of Hillel and

Shammai on various aspects of Sabbath observance (t. Shabbat 16:21-22).27 Whether

charity was allocated on the Sabbath is not relevant here. Rather, the connection between

charity and the synagogue is of importance. Gardner argues that the apportionment or

distribution of charity suggests the presence of a quppa, a communal charitable

institution to which we will return.28

t. Bava Batra 8:1429 and t. Terumot 1:1030 also place charity in the synagogue.

Their ruling that, guardians of orphans do not allot charity in the synagogue, suggests that

allocations of charity to others took place in the synagogue.311. Shekalim 2:16 claims that

Saul Lieberman ed., Tosefta Kifshuta. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973), 79-80.

24 Tpois means they "distribute," "apportion," or "assign." See Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. (New York: Hendrickson, 2005), 1199.

25 This is a quote from Jastrow, Dictionary, 1525.

26 Translation is my own.

In the majority of cases the rabbis favor the law of the House of Hillel.

28 Gardner, "Giving to the Poor," 93.

29 M.S. Zuckermandel ed., Tosefta. (Berlin: L. Gerschel, 1876), 409.

30 Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta, 109.

31 Ze'ev Safrai argues that these imply that regular allocations to the poor were made in the synagogue, although not necessarily on the Sabbath. Ze'ev Safrai, "The Communal Functions of the Synagogue in the

133

there was a container into which charity was given in secret in every city32 and Levine

claims that this was located in the synagogue.33 In fact, he argues that charity was pledged

on the Sabbath in synagogues34 and stored there.35

Evidence of pledging or distributing charity in the synagogue in the Amoraic

Period is weak. Lev. Rab. 32:7 is often quoted to support this contention. In Lev. Rab.

32:7, a Babylonian Jew who asked Rabbi Berechiah for charity was told to return the next

day when there would be a public allotment. The following day he found Rabbi

Berechiah in the synagogue preaching. Whether this is evidence that public allotments of

charity were handed out in the synagogue is unclear.36

c. 'Hellenic' Evidence

Jewish literary evidence linking charity to the synagogue is conoborated by

'Hellenic' literature which contains the image of the Jew begging in the synagogue

courtyard. This literature spans the first century BCE through the second century CE.

Land of Israel in the Rabbinic Period," in Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, (eds. Dan Urman, and Paul V. M. Flesher; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 181-204 at 192. See also y. Ter. 40b.

32 The chamber of secret donations is compared to that which was in the Temple.

Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 133 and 372.

34 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, n92. See Matt 6:2 and t. Sabb. 16:22. There are also rabbinic reservations about giving charity on the Sabbath in t. Ter. 1:10 and t. Sabb. 16:22.

Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, n94. However, all the evidence Levine brings is from the Books of Maccabees, Josephus and m. Seqal. 3-4.This evidence does not establish a practice beyond the first century since m. Seqal. imagines practice in the Temple.

36 Safrai argues that it means this. Safrai, "The Communal Functions," 193. However, the Yerushalmi version does not even contain the word 'synagogue' and the fact that Rabbi Berechiah was found (rrrouw) in the synagogue does not mean that was the place the distribution was made.

134

According to Josephus, a Graeco-Egyptian, named Lysimachus (2nd or 1st cent

BCE), claimed that, when Jews were in Egypt, they were afflicted with leprosy and other

diseases and took refuge in temples where they begged for food.37

Cleomedes, a Stoic, from the first century CE wrote on the circular motions of

celestial bodies. In mocking the style of Epicurus, Cleomedes attributed some of his

expressions as coming from: cmd pEonc; xfjc; TzpoGew)(f\q Kai xcov £7i' av'kalq

7tpoaaixouvxcov ("from the midst of the prayer house and those begging in its

courtyards").38

In Rome, the poet Martial (40-104 CE), claimed that the proverbial Jewish beggar

was taught to beg by his mother (Epigram 12.57).39 In Satires 3.290-296, the Roman

satirist, Juvenal (60-130 CE), implied that Rome was full of Jewish beggars.40 Juvenal

may have bonowed on a stock phrase to describe Jews.

Finally the second century CE writer, Artemidorus (Interpretation of Dreams

3.53), also mentioned Jewish beggars in the synagogue.41 He wrote that no one leaves the

synagogue without care but also claimed that beggars were looked poorly upon.

These observations may be rooted in an observed phenomenon - that Jews took

care of their poor at their public institution, the synagogue. Greco-Romans may have

37 Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.305.

38 Cleomedes, On the Circular Motions of the Celestial Bodies, 2.1:91; Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n333.

39 Stern, GLAJJ, 1, n246 "a matre doctus nee rogare Iudaeus"; Louis H. Feldman, and Meyer Reinhold eds., Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings, (Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress, Press 1996), 394.

40 See Juvenal, Satires 6.542-547 in Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n299. Feldman and Reinhold suppose that these pagans were really commenting on the phenomenon of Jewish charity. See Feldman and Reinhold, Jewish Life, 394.

41 Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n395.

135

taken note of this unusual practice, since they were not accustomed to directing their gifts

directly to the poor.42 However, relying on literary evidence to reach social-historical

conclusions is problematic.43 The "Jewish beggar in the synagogue courtyard" may have

been a stock phrase shared in common by writers in Antiquity.44 This suggests that the

historic event, if there was one, witnessed by the unknown creator of the phrase, is

hopelessly lost.

However, 'Hellenic' evidence intersects with Jewish and Christian evidence of

the same era. Even though these texts have different literary agendas, it is unlikely that

each would have concocted similar images of the poor gathered in synagogues. Thus, in

my opinion, each set of sources conoborates the other. In addition, it is logical to assume

that the poor flocked to the one place where Jews gathered - the synagogue - seeking

alms from their brethren.45

C. From Individual to Communal Forms of Jewish Charity

The rabbis placed great importance on the value of charity. In Tannaitic literature,

one finds biblical law on charity combined with communal charitable institutions called

tamhui*6 and quppa, presumably controlled by rabbis.47 These two institutions represent a

Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 9.

43 Woolf, "Writing Poverty."

44 Feldman claims that these authors all use a proverbial notion of the Jewish beggar.

45 For the centrality of the synagogue in Diasporan life see the discussion in Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 139-45, 169-73 and the sources in Anders Runesson, et al. eds., The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

A "dish," but here it means a "soup kitchen."

136

significant change in the concept of Jewish charity. The most radical exposition of this

change allows individuals not to give charity to poor people who seek it (t. Peah 4:8).

Unlike the evidence of charity we have seen so far, none of the literature on tamhui and

quppa specifies that these institutions functioned within the confines of the synagogue.48

Tannaitic literature on tamhui and quppa classifies the different kinds of poor,

discusses the nature of the institutions, what they provide to the poor, and in what

intervals, as well as financial issues such as how the institution is maintained by the

community, how that community is determined and the responsibilities of the individuals

in charge of the institutions. All of these are addressed as prescriptive laws created by the

rabbis.

On the whole, the Tannaitic discussion of tamhui and quppa is limited to m. Peah

8:749 and t. Peah 4:8-18. In general, the Tosefta fills in the lacunae about tamhui and

quppa in the Mishnah.50 Here the Tosefta parallels m. Peah 8:7 but also diverges from it

and expands greatly upon it.

A quppa is a "basket," but here it means a "fund" or "charity fund." The terms tamhui and quppa appear only occasionally in Mishnaic literature outside of Tractate Peah. Tamhui: m Ned. 4:4; m. Pesah. 10:1; m. Sabb. 3:5; Quppa: m. Ma 'as. 3:2. See Gardner on these sources. He shows that they are not institutions as they are in m. Peah and t. Peah. Gardner, "Giving to the Poor", 43-52.

The only possible exception in rabbinic literature may be found in y. Meg. 3:2 74a. According to the Korban Edah, the three gabbaim were appointed or perhaps approved by members of the synagogue. The evidence, however, is not supported convincingly by the language of the sugya.

49

This mishnah presents temporally-defined scenarios organized in ascending order and defined by the beggar's length of stay in town. In each instance, the beggar is given just enough sustenance to live (Deut 15:8 Tiona H). See Rodger Brooks, Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture, Tractate Peah, (Chico Calif: Scholars Press, 1983), 147.

The Tosefta is a tannaitic document that in many ways parallels the Mishnah and in other ways intersects with it. Scholars differ on the nature of the relationship between the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Some argue that the Tosefta is a commentary on the Mishnah. Others argue that similar language demonstrates that there was a collection of common sources from which both the Mishnah and the Tosefta arose and that the Tosefta represents the more authentic document. See Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Its Structure and its Sources, (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 1-7; Morton Smith, "The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature: A Correction," JBL 107 (1988): 111-112, and Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Introduction," in The

137

According to Tannaitic prescriptive laws, tamhui was an institution that operated

daily while the quppa operated on a weekly basis (t. Peah 4:9).51 The poorest people,

those who had less than two meals a day, received food from the tamhui on a daily basis

(m. Peah 8:7). Those persons who had less than fourteen meals in any given week would

collect from the quppa (m. Peah 8:7).

The tamhui and quppa also attracted different customers based on geographic

origins. For example, the tamhui would provide food to any poor person, while quppa

would only distribute to residents of that town (t. Peah 4:9). Resident eligibility for the

quppa required a person to stay in the town at least thirty days.

Both m. Peah 8:7 and t. Peah 4:8 discuss what provisions were to be given to the

itinerant poor who came to town. Such a person would receive a loaf of bread and, if he

spent the night, he would receive lodging as well.52 Food would consist of oil and beans

(t. Peah 4:8), except on the Sabbath when the itinerant poor was to receive enough food

for three days (m. Peah 8:7) consisting of oil, beans, fish and vegetables, (t. Peah 4:8). In

Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature (ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen; Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), vii-viii. For the latter view see: Judith Hauptman, "Mishnah as a Response to 'Tosefta'," in The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen; Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000): 13-34; Hauptman, Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts. (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2005; Hauptman, "The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah." Jewish Studies an Internet Journal 4 (2005): 109-132. Alberdina Houtman argues that the explanations present in the Tosefta existed in the common source and that the Mishnah and Tosefta chose to include or exclude parts for their own purposes. See Alberdina Houtman, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot andShebiit. (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1996), 230-37.

51 m. Peah 8:7 implies and t. Peah 4:9 states that tamhui was an institution that operated daily while quppa operated weekly.

52 Scholars dispute the meaning of parnasat leina (nons nr1?) in t. Peah 4:8. Brooks, following the Tosefot Yom Tov commentary, reads parnasat leina (ri03"is m^i) as "food." Hanoch Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, (Jerusalem: Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1965), reads parnasat leina (nD3nD rwb) as provision of shelter and a mattress on which to sleep. Brooks, Support for the Poor, 146, 200 n26. Moreover, if the mishnah had intended food alone, it would have used "pra instead of nons. See Gardner, "Giving to the Poor," 209 n4.

138

the event that they53 recognized the poor man they were to clothe54 him as well (t. Peah

4:8).

These institutions were regulated by charity collectors (gabbai sedaqah or

parnasim).55 Taxes for the quppa were collected by two people and distributed by three

(m. Peah 8:7). Our information on the regulation of the tamhui comes from Amoraic

literature where we learn that the tamhui is collected by three people (y. Peah 8:7 21a)

and distributed by three (a baraita in b. Bava Batra 8b).

The charity collectors had a defined tax base. Tax liability for the quppa began in

stages commencing thirty days after a person anived in town (t. Peah 4:9). The Tosefta

does not reveal whether the tax was to be taken as money or in kind. After six months a

person had to pay for clothing. Finally after a year he was required to pay city taxes.56

There is no evidence in Tannaitic Literature which reveals the location of collections for

these institutions. However, Amoraic sources suggest one such location was in the

marketplace.57

Presumably this means the distributors of the food.

541 follow Gardner's reading of 1D3 as "to clothe" instead of "to shelter" because clothing is likewise mentioned as a gift for the poor in t. Peah 4:10, while shelter is not discussed in this tractate. Gardner, "Giving to the Poor," 70 n5.

55 m Peah 8:7; m. Demai 3:1. t. Pea. 4:15 mention charity collectors (np7X ^m). The term parnas can mean a 'disburser of charity' or a 'leader.' See Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society," in William Horbury et al., eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume III: The Early Roman Period, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 922-990 at 948 nl 14 and 972 n223.

For the reading of TS?n 1DD (as in MS Erfurt) instead of Tyn "jy (as in MS Vienna), see Brooks, Support for the Poor, 148, 200 n32; Lieberman, The Tosefta, 57. Lieberman interprets T5?n 'DD as TJ?n 'oa - i.e. municipal taxes.

57 Lev. Rab. 37:2 states that charity officials solicited donations from people in the marketplace, y. Meg. 3:2 74a mentions jmsm N'JODO (the bench/stool of Maon) which may have been located in the marketplace; The Pnei Moshe's commentary on this sugya states that the bench was located in the market place. For a definition of N^oso see Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990), 386. See t. Seqal. 2:16 which mentions a secret

139

a. Tamhui and Quppa as Historical Institutions?

Gregg Gardner has suggested that tamhui and quppa were pre-rabbinic

institutions that the rabbis sought to control.58 As he has pointed out, there is little

evidence for tamhui or quppa prior to the Tannaitic Period. Nevertheless, Gardner points

to linguistic and conceptual parallels between the New Testament's use of kophinos

(Kocptvoq), and the quppa (Matt 14:20; Mark 6:43; Luke 9:17, John 6:13).59 He also finds

a Near Eastern phenomenon similar to a quppa.60

No archaeological evidence has been found for either quppa or tamhui. At the end

of the day, evidence for tamhui and quppa prior to the mid-third century is weak. Even if

we could establish that these institutions existed, it is possible they were not run

according to tannaitic prescriptions.

Increased rabbinic discourse in the Talmudic Period about charity in general and

tamhui and quppa in particular, suggests to scholars greater rabbinic involvement in

charitable institutions.61 As we have seen, it was the job of the charity collector, called the

parnas or the gabbai, to administer charity funds for the poor.62 Beginning in the late

quppa in every city. Rabbi appointed two brothers to the quppa. See b. B. Bat. 8:b; Ze'ev Safrai, The Jewish Community in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Period, (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1995), 66.

58 Gardner, "Giving to the Poor," 59.

Aside from the similarity in the form of the word, I am not clear why the New Testament passages are not closer to tamhui. Gardner, "Giving to the Poor," 59-60.

60 Gardner, "Giving to the Poor," 60.

61 Lee I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1989), 162.

Frank M. Loewenberg, From Charity to Social Justice: The Emergence of Communal Institutions for Support of the Poor in Ancient Judaism, (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 2001), 123. He also points out that they are called gabbaim in the Babylonian Talmud but parnasim in the Jerusalem Talmud. For respected status of sages who were parnasim see b. Git. 60a and Levine's discussion at Levine, The Rabbinic Class, 164.

140

third century, rabbinic literature records several instances of rabbis who held this office.63

On this basis, scholars have written about tamhui and quppa as part of historical Jewish

life in the Tannaitic and Talmudic Periods.64

Increased rabbinic discourse about control over charitable institutions in the

Amoraic Period conesponds to the bishops' supervision of charitable institutions in the

fourth century. Just as the bishops' administration of charitable institutions gave them

greater power over the people, so too the rabbis sought to increase their own prestige and

power within the Jewish community.65 Thus rabbinic evidence about tamhui and quppa

demonstrate the increasing stock charitable institutions had in rabbinic discourse. By

itself this discourse has little historical value.

To my mind, stories about rabbis who appointed parnasim,66and who gave food in

their homes67 are highly self-serving and designed to present the rabbis as benefactors of

the poor.68 Thus rabbinic discourse tells us about rabbinic aspirations at the time of the

Palestinian Talmud's redaction. In the late third and fourth centuries, individual rabbis

may have played a role as teachers or even as heads of funds, but if these institutions

existed, the rabbis likely filled these roles as respected leaders in their own right, rather

Levine, The Rabbinic Class. However, they did not completely dominate this office.

64 Hamel, Poverty and Charity, 216-19; Ze'ev Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London: Routledge, 1994), 50; Safrai, The Jewish Community in the Talmudic, 64—67.

Levine, The Rabbinic Class, 167.

66 y. Peah 8:7, 21a.

67 y. Peah 8:7, 21a.

68 Urbach claimed that the rabbis were in competition with the bishops to show leadership of charitable institutions. Ephraim Urbach, "Political and Social Tendencies in Talmudic Concepts of Charity," Zion 16 (1951): 1-27.

141

than as leaders of the Rabbinic Movement in Palestine which was marginal, according to

some scholars,69 but certainly growing in influence.

Rabbinic literature itself contains evidence that counters rabbinic prescriptive

laws about the administration of tamhui and quppa. For example, opposition to Rabbi

Yose's attempt to induct parnasim in the city of Kufra,70 suggests the rabbis did not

dominate the appointment of parnasim.

In addition, the Talmud can imagine situations where Jews received charity from

non-Jews.71 In y. Demai 4:6 24a we learn that, in mixed cities of Jews and Gentiles,

charity collectors - their religious identities are not specified - collected from both Jews

and Gentiles and their collections supported both populations. These stories remind us

that even if rabbinic evidence about tamhui and quppa reflect reality, these institutions

did not necessarily exist outside Palestine and, where they did exist, they were not always

under rabbinic control.

Cities like Antioch, with strong Jewish communities, and with close ties to

Palestine, may have supported its own charitable institutions; it is impossible to know.

Given Mark Cohen's recent study about charitable institutions in Medieval Egypt, one

must keep in mind how some local institutions took on different names and perhaps did

Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE -640 CE (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 113-128 especially 119-128. He argues rabbinic influence increased gradually but was not central to Judaism during the fourth century.

70 y. Pea/j 8:7 21a.

71 b. Sotah 47b. The gemara elsewhere prohibits Jews from accepting charity from idolaters (b. B. Bat. 10b).

142

not provide the same services as described in the Talmud.7 Thus even where the tamhui

and quppa existed, they may not have functioned as described in the Talmud.73

In summary, rabbinic literature provides us with little historical information about

tamhui and quppa in Palestine and especially in the Diaspora. Ultimately, these texts

teach us more about the desires and values of the rabbis who sought to control these

financially rich institutions than about social history on charity.

i. Archaeological Evidence of Quppa

Archaeological finds which have been identified as tamhui and quppa are not

conclusive. Some scholars believe that archaeological evidence shows that quppa was run

out of synagogues in Late Antiquity. Large caches of coins have been found in

excavations of synagogues in Hammath Tiberias, and Merot and have been identified as

quppot.74 In Merot, a village in Palestine, a synagogue was built in the late fourth or early

fifth century. Next to it a storage facility, pressed up against the synagogue, was found

which could only be entered through the prayer hall. Zvi Ilan characterized 485 out of the

roughly 1,280 coins as belonging to a quppa.75 However, the treasury could have been

Mark R. Cohen, Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 2005.

73 Cohen assumes that tamhui and quppa operated as they were described in the Tannaitic and Amoraic literature from Late Antiquity through the Medieval period.

Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 372, n95.

75 Z. Ilan & E. Damati, Meroth, The Ancient Jewish Village. The Excavations at the Synagogue andBet-Midrash, Tel-Aviv: Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, 1987, 66 and 127; Z. Ilan, Ancient Synagogues in Israel, (Israel: Ministry of Defense, 1991) 44.

143

used as a communal charity fund and/or a reconstruction fund for the synagogue. We

cannot be sure for what purposes these funds were used.76

Whatever these finds show, they all post-date Julian and are all located in

Palestine. In general, excavated synagogues found in modern day Israel have all been re-

dated to the mid-fourth century or later.77 The only synagogue that might have contained

a quppa that is both pre-Julian and located in the Diaspora is located in Stobi, Macedonia

where an inscription contains the words the "sacred funds."78 However, the inscription

makes no mention of charitable purposes whatsoever.79 It could have just as easily been a

synagogue building fund. In my opinion, these findings do not provide conclusive proof

of the existence of a quppa.

Similar finds have been made in Gush Halav. However, this cannot be dated to any earlier than the sixth century. See Eric M. Meyers, "Excavations at Gush Halav in Upper Galilee," in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, (ed. Lee. I. Levine; Detroit: Wayne State University Press), 75-77. The synagogue of Hammath Tiberias also contained a strong box located with money inside it set in a second floor room. However, this room is associated with that synagogue's sixth century reconstruction. See Moshe Dothan, "The Synagogue of Hamath Tiberias," in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, (ed. Lee. I. Levine; Detroit: Wayne State University Press), 63-69; Moshe Dothan, Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains Vol. I, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983); and, Moshe Dothan, Hammath Tiberias: Late Synagogues Volume II, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 25.

77 See the work of Jodi Magness, who has re-dated synagogues based on dating of pottery found at excavation sites. Tessa Rajak argues that the middle of the fourth century seems to be when the synagogue really took off as an institution. Tessa Rajak, "Jews, Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Sardis: Models of Interaction," in Tessa Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction, (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 455.

78 The tetrastood in the Stobi inscription may or may not have served as a guest house. See A. Thomas Kraabel, The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik, ANRW 19.1: 475-510, at 495. However, there is archaeological evidence that guest houses existed in some synagogues prior to the destruction of the temple. This probably involved sleeping quarters and feeding of guests, there is no evidence of a quppa or a tamhui.

Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 373.

144

ii. Archaeological Evidence of Tamhui

Besides one inconclusive finding in Aphrodisias, no evidence of a tamhui has

been found in excavations. Some scholars argue that a reference to patella in an

inscription in Aphrodisias is evidence of a rabbinic tamhui*0 A patella is a Latin word

which means 'dish' or 'plate', the same meaning as the tamhui found in rabbinic

literature. However, it is not clear that the inscription even reads patella. Even if it does,

it is unclear that tamhui is meant. Greek-speaking Diasporan Jews' normally rendered

Jewish concepts that did not have obvious Greek equivalents in terms of their function.81

Thus many scholars question whether the evidence supports a tamhui at all.82 Therefore,

the Aphrodisias inscription cannot be taken as clear evidence of tamhui.

In addition, the dating of the column has been a matter of great debate. The

original report claimed that side A of the column was written in the third century.83

However, Angelos Chaniotis and Marianne Palmer Bonz have argued separately that the

inscription should be dated to no earlier than the second half of the fourth century and

Joyce M. Reynolds and Robert F. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias, Supplementary Volume 12, (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Philological Society), 1987. Side A of the column talks about a patella of the dekany. ©EOC, PonOoc. 7tax£Ala5cfl[v] oi UTtoxExayusvot -rue, 5£icav(iac,) xcov (piXona0co(v) xarv KE

7tavx£u^oy(ouvxcov) Etc, a7C£v9r|ouxv xco 7iXn6i EKxiaafv] E£ iSicov uvnua.

81 Margaret Williams, "The Jews and Godfearers Inscription from Aphrodisias: A Case of Patriarchal Interference in Early 3rd Century Caria?," Historia: Zeitschriftfur Alte Geschichte, 41, 3 (1992), 297-310; Walter Ameling reads the inscription as a nominative sentence and thus does not find a tamhui at all. See Walter Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, BandII, Kleinasien, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2005), 73.

82 Tessa Rajak, "Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora," in The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome, Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction, (ed. Tessa Rajak; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 373-391 at 389; Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, (Berkeley, Calif: Berkeley University Press), 1999, 172. Ameling reads the opening line as an epithet of God who is "the helper of a person who has a meal." For an alternative construction of this text see Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, 75. Thus he reads patella as a meal.

83 Reynolds and Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers. Ameling agrees. Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, 80-81.

145

believe that the fifth or sixth centuries is a more fitting date.84 Their dating is supported

by Jewish graffiti in the Sebasteion which attests to Jewish activity in Aphrodisias dating

from the late fourth century and later.85

In summary, rabbinic discourse on tamhui and quppa demonstrates that the rabbis

placed high value on charity. However, it is difficult to conelate rabbinic discourse of

tamhui and quppa with historical institutions. If they existed, they were likely a

Palestinian phenomenon. No evidence exists for their existence in the Diaspora in the

Tannaitic or Amoraic periods.

On the other hand, evidence that Jewish poor received charity in the synagogue is

more reliable. 'Hellenic', Tannaitic, Amoraic and New Testament literature linking the

synagogue with charity suggests that Jewish poor were given alms by Jews who attended

synagogue from at least the first century and continuing through Julian's time. Thus it is

likely that Julian was aware of Jewish care for the poor in their synagogues.

D. Jewish Acts oi Euergetism in the Roman World

Jews also gave donations to benefit their communities. These were acts of

euergetism. Euergetism is a Greek word coined by Paul Veyne which describes gifts by

members of elite groups to the public in order to receive a reciprocal relationship with

members of non-elite groups.86 In the Classical Period through the High Roman Empire,

84 Angelos Chaniotis, "The Jews of Aphrodisias: New Evidence and Old Problems," Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002): 209-247. See also Marianne Palmer Bonz, "The Jewish Donor Inscriptions from Aphrodisias: Are They Both Third-Century, and Who Are the Theosebeis?" HSCP 96 (1994): 281-99. Evidence that this dating is taking hold can be found in: Susan R. Holman, The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 45-47.

85 Holman, The Hungry are Dying, 235.

Paul Veyne, Bread and Circuses, (London: Routledge, 1990).

146

euergetai donated sacrifices to temples, funded Roman games, gave food to the masses or

donated funds for a public structure.87 Most of the evidence for these acts is found today

in inscriptions.

In Late Antiquity, euergetism was transformed into care for the poor by the

bishops.88 The rabbinic movement at least rhetorically made similar claims to be the

benefactors of the poor albeit in their roles as parnasim. However, scholars have

identified a continuing if slightly modified practice of the old euergetism by Jews who

commemorated votive offerings in the synagogues. Such evidence is found in synagogue

inscriptions all over the Roman World and especially in Syria-Palestine.89

Jewish euergetism always had differed from its 'Hellenic' usage. Tessa Rajak has

shown that Jews in the High Roman Empire adapted Greco-Roman euergetism to Jewish

ends.90 In the fourth century, Jewish donation inscriptions mark a broadening of the

David Levinsky, "Mediterranean Piety: Religious Practice and the Creation of Jewish and Christian Society," PhD diss. Stanford University, 2009, 14.

88 Veyne, Bread and Circuses, 19-34.

89 Satlow, '"Fruit and the Fruit of Fruit," 272; See Margaret Williams, "The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of Judaism," in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3, The Early Roman Period, (eds. William Horbury, et. al..; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 75-93, at 84-91; Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 280-87; Michael L. Satlow, "Giving for a Return: Jewish Votive Offerings in Late Antiquity," in Religion and the Self in Antiquity, (ed. David Brakke, et. als.; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University, 2005), 91-108. Satlow argues that votive offerings in fulfillment of a vow memorialized in inscriptions in Late Antiquity in Palestine and in the Diaspora (Sardis) are evidence of popular religion. Although there is a strong tradition for votive offerings in Ancient Judaism, it lies dormant and then blossoms again in the fourth century CE at the same time as sanctity is ascribed to synagogues. Satlow believes that Jews gave votive offerings to the synagogue as they had to the Temple and were statements of personal piety rather than traditional acts of euergetism. On Jewish inscriptions see: Baruch Lifshitz, Donateurs et Fondateurs; Leah Roth-Gerson, Greek Inscriptions from Synagogues in the Land of Israel, (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 1987); Bernadette Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues, (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982); Joseph Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues, (Jerusalem: Carta, 1978), n25,43, 75, and 84.

90 Rajak, "Benefactors."

147

number of donors of the community while erasing any memory of major donors and of

the hierarchical structure of the synagogue.91

Notably, this euergetism benefited the community rather than the poor. However,

there are inscriptions which commemorate in euergetistic style acts of charity to the poor,

or, which laud men who held offices that benefitted the disadvantaged. One such example

can be found in an inscription in the Hamat Tiberias synagogue of the mid to late fourth

century which states, ' 'May peace be on all who give charity (mitsvatah) in this holy

place and who will give charity (mitsvatah). May it be for him a blessing, amen, amen,

selah, and for me amen."92 On the one hand, the benefactor makes a donation that he

hopes will benefit him ("May it be for him a blessing.. .and for me amen") (emphasis

added). Most unusual, is his encouragement of others who enter the synagogue93 to give

charity ( nmxa).94 As in most Jewish votive inscriptions from this era, this donation is

also presumably for the building of the synagogue.

A second place one finds a combination of euergetism with benefaction for the

poor is inscriptional evidence found on tombs. In a third or fourth century CE inscription

on a grave in Rome a person is called a "Lover of the [Jewish] community, lover of the

commandments, lover of the poor (cpiAxmevrn;). [In peace] the sleep of the archon."95

Whether this former archon had formal responsibility over the poor like the parnas or the

Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 286.

Naveh, On Stone and Mosaic, 48 n26.

93 Unlike evidence from Asia Minor, there is no evidence that non-Jews attended synagogues in Palestine. Thus the plea for charity probably fell on Jews alone.

94 This word means "commandment", "meritorious deed" or "charity" in Sokoloff, Dictionary, 325.

Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum Vol. 7n203, Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, II, no.24.

148

gabbai of rabbinic literature, is unlikely. Generally, a person highlighted his roles in the

community on his tomb. Instead, this inscription reflects the desire of the deceased to be

remembered as a friend of the poor, a fact which implies the community's high esteem

for giving to the poor.

Similar inscriptions praising individuals for acts of charity have been found. A

"phrontistes of orphans" was found in an inscription in Lydda.96 Literary evidence of a

person responsible for care of orphans can be found in tannaitic literature.97 However, the

identity of this person as a Jew is disputed98 and no such evidence exists in the Diaspora.

The title phrontistes is well known. Its holder generally was responsible for public

monies.99 Whether this also made him responsible for the poor is unknown. Overall,

material evidence of support for the poor is very limited.

E. Conclusion on Jewish Charity

In summary, Julian might have relied on any one of three sources for his

knowledge of Jewish charity. First, Julian was familiar with biblical requirements

requiring Jews to care for the poor. Second, there likely existed Jewish individual acts of

charity at synagogues. This explains the attestations in non-Jewish literature of the needy

who begged in the courtyard of synagogues. These acts arose out of biblical prescriptions

to aid the poor in Deut 15:7. Julian would have been familiar with Jewish charity from

96 Moshe Schwabe, "A Greek-Jewish Inscription from Lydda," Tarbiz 12 (1941) 230-233.

9 7 1 . 5.5. 4:19; t. Ter. 1:10.

9 See Safrai, The Jewish Community in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Period, 69.

99 Roth-Gerson, Greek Inscriptions, 174. The term appears in the general sense of one who is an overseer of finances in inscriptions no. 1, 2, 36, 37 and 66 in Lifshitz, Donateurs et Fondateurs.

149

his time in Antioch, a city in which a large Jewish community thrived. Third, the

acculturation of Jews in Graeco-Roman culture also allowed some Jews to express their

individual acts of charity in forms commonly found in euergetism. These Jews

commemorated their donation to the poor with glowing epithets. Nearly all of these acts

of charity came from individuals and were designated towards members of the local

Jewish community. Evidence of communal care for the poor in the first few centuries CE

is almost entirely literary and therefore its existence is difficult to assess. If Julian knew

of the Jewish poor, he likely knew of them from one of these sources.

III. Part Two: Charity in Julian's Empire and in His Other Writings

A. Julian's Charitable Program

Although it is unclear whether Julian had bona fide information about a practice

of Jewish charity in his day, it is clear that Jewish charity had a function to play in

Julian's rhetoric for the creation of his 'Hellenic' empire. As we shall see, each time

Julian raised the issue of charity it was within a context of creating his 'Hellenic' Empire.

Julian admits that 'Hellenic' practice was moribund (Letter to Arsacius 429C; Letter to

Theodorus 453C). To Julian, 'Hellenes' were listless and could not compete against

Christianity. On the other hand, Judeo-Christian practice provided a successful model of

how to win over new recruits and to empower people at the margins to rally to a group's

cause.

Prior to the fourth century, individuals in Judeo-Christian society gave alms to the

disadvantaged (poor, widow, orphan, stranger) as required by God's law. Among the

'Hellenes', members of the upper class would benefit the city with acts of euergetism.

150

Such acts would benefit all members of the city including the poor who canied home

food from a public feast. However, these were inegular and incidental occunences. All in

all, the poor were a largely unidentified group in Greco-Roman Antiquity.

Christian aid to the poor became an important function of the state in the first half

of the fourth century, which saw the maniage of the old 'Hellenic' model of euergetism

with a new Christian one.100 The emperor relied on bishopric networks to feed the poor.101

The poor would gather at the church and receive aid while listening to Christian

preachers. Thus bishops became benefactors of the poor, and the latter became their

clients.

In the process, Peter Brown has demonstrated that it was the bishops' care of the

poor which brought a whole new layer of society previously overlooked into political

play.102 Bishops grew in influence by virtue of the patronage ties they had developed with

their new poor clients. Thus the poor became a new but crucial factor in the religious

politics of the era.

Julian took power at a time when Christian charitable institutions were in the

process of transformation.103 If his 'Hellenizing' program was to succeed, he needed to

stem the tide of Christianity's centers of growth and implement programs that would

attract people to 'Hellenic' ways. The Letter to Arsacius highlights the importance of

1 Veyne, Bread and Circuses.

101 This is similar to earlier acts of emperors who opened up granaries for the people. However, in those cases these were not chiefly aimed at the poor per se nor were they delivered through the auspices of religious figures.

102 Brown, Poverty and Leadership.

103 In previous centuries there had been hostels where there was some care for the poor. In the middle of the fourth century large £EVO5OK£1(X were built which dealt with poverty systematically.

151

charity to Julian's 'Hellenizing' program for the Empire. Letter to Arsacius 429D is

evidence of Julian's belief that Christian charity and "pretended holiness" was successful.

To promote his 'Hellenizing' program, Julian had to compete with Christianity.

This he did by copying Christian institutions of charity.104 Refening to Christian practices

of charity in Letter to Arsacius 430A he explicitly states:

cov eKaoxov oi'opai xpflvai 7rap' f)po5v aXnGcoc; 87iiTr]5susa0ai

I believe that we ought really and truly to practice every one (of these virtues).105

Julian's imitation of Christian charitable practices and institutions is evident from

the nearly identical structure of Julian's philanthropic program to its Christian

counterpart. Julian was not the first to appropriate Christian institutions. Maximin Daia

copied Christian bishopric administration in the creation of his 'Hellenic' network of

priests in the early fourth century. Priests were to be the 'bishops' in Julian's charitable

enterprise. As pontifex maximus, Julian picked like-minded high priests for each province

in the empire. These high priests in turn picked priests to operate at the local level to

implement Julian's program.106

The Letter to Arsacius demonstrates that Julian adopted the same system of

coordination between the emperor and the chief priests as had existed between the

emperor and the bishops. Julian instructed Arsacius to teach all the priests in Galatia to

care for the strangers by setting up hostels in every city (Letter to Arsacius 430B) for all

104 Downey, "Philanthropia," 199-208.

105 Julian, Ep. 22, (Wright, LCL)

106 In his Letter to Theodorus, the High Priest of Asia, Julian explicitly states in 452D that Theodorus is the government of all the temples in Asia with power to appoint priests in every city.

152

peoples (Letter to Arsacius 430C) and to act piously (Letter to Arsacius 430A). Julian

was to supply the grain and the wine to each region and the priests were to distribute

them to all the poor of every religion or ethnicity.

In his Letter to Theodorus, the high priest of Asia, Julian gave his appointee afew

guidelines promising to produce a more complete manual for the guidance of priests in

general (Letter to Theodorus 453), in which philanthropy was to play a crucial role. The

manual of guidelines Julian promised must be his Fragment of a Letter to a Priest } m This

letter spells out at length all of the qualities a priest in his empire ought to possess,

including the giving of philanthropy, (289B). Julian went into some detail. Priests were to

give the poor food and clothes (289C). They were also to share their money with the poor

to meet their needs (290D). Priests ought not to distinguish between the morally upright

poor and prisoners. The latter ought to be cared for as well (291). All of these

prescriptions minor fourth century Christian behavior in the practice of charity.

As we have seen in other chapters, Julian employed what Isabella Sandwell terms

"rule-making"109, but in reverse. Normally "rule-making" requires that a leader defines

religious groups by assigning specific practices to each for the purpose of establishing

proper norms for his own group.

Sandwell examines John Chrysostom's method of "rule-making" in his sermons.

Chrysostom was engaged in the de-legitimization of Jewish practice in order to reclaim

107 Acting piously means worshipping the gods with their wives, children and servants and not entering theaters or taverns (Letter to Arsacius 430B), and treating the temples as holy (Letter to Arsacius 431C).

108 Bidez was convinced that the two belonged together and labeled the Letter to Theodorus as Ep. 89a and the Fragment of a Letter to a Priest as 89b.

109 Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 20.

153

Christian Judaizers. Thus, Jewish practice for Chrysostom was often associated with

other illegitimate groups such as the 'Hellenes.'

In his efforts to create a healthy and dominant 'Hellenic' empire, Julian coveted

Christian charitable practices and institutions because they were effective methods of

recruitment. This effort turns Sandwell's "rule-making" on its head. Rather than focusing

on negative practices that differentiate between groups in order to separate them and cast

judgment upon them, Julian bonowed Judeo-Christian practice as a model for 'Hellenes.'

Although his model of charity was Christian, Julian adopted charity and

transformed it into a 'Hellenic' practice. Philanthropy was no longer based on the

Israelite God's requirements for assisting the poor.110 Instead 'Hellenes' were to look to

the example of Zeus, the "God of Strangers" from whom came "all beggars and

strangers" and who considered even a small gift as precious (Odyssey 6.207; Fragment of

a Letter to a Priest 29IB). Philanthropy came from the gods and humans imitated the

gods' philanthropy by living a moral life.111 Thus no one could properly worship and

sacrifice to Zeus without carrying out the principles for which the great god stood.

Zeus as "God of Strangers" reflects Julian's own idealism for the classics, one he

picked up from his teacher Mardonius. Julian also used this justification for giving

charity in his Letter to Arsacius (431-43 IB). A similar quote is offered by Julian this time

from The Odyssey 14.56. There Julian wrote that to be faithful to this ideal meant not

allowing other groups - read Christians - to outdo the priests of the 'Hellenic' faith in

1 ' Julian defines philanthropy ((piA.av9p(B7tla) in Fragment of a Letter to a Priest 289A-291B. It includes moderate punishment (289C), sharing money with the poor (290D) and care for prisoners (291 A). See Conrad Rothrauff, "The Philanthropia of Emperor Julian," PhD. diss. University of Cincinatti, 1964, 1-3.

111 Vasiliki Limberis, "Religion" as the Cipher for Identity: The Cases of Emperor Julian, Libanius, and Gregory Nazianzus," HTR 93 4 (2000): 373-400 at 383.

154

their care for the poor. The well-known mantra of Zeus as "god of the stranger" was

repeated by Julian. Now Julian manipulated this principle, redefined it as charity, and

turned it into a moral imperative which demanded that priests give charity to the poor.

At the same time as Julian claimed charity as 'Hellenic', he was careful to

differentiate this practice from that of Christianity. His admiration for Christian charitable

practices was limited to the fact that they worked. Here we see Julian takes two different

attitudes in his writings about Christian charity. In his Letter to Arsacius written just

before or just as he arrived in Antioch, Christian charity is lauded. Seven months later,

when he wrote Fragment of a Letter to a Priest Julian is decidedly negative about

Christian practices of charity. By that time his rhetoric against Christianity was heated.

Christians devote themselves to charity to gain ascendancy through such practice

(Fragment of a Letter to a Priest 305C). Here Julian writes about how Christians enticed

children (an easily impressionable group) with cakes two or three times a day (305C) and

gained souls through their love-feasts (305D), an unholy practice. In Misopogon 363,

'Hellenes' (perhaps senators) allowed their wives to give items to the "Galileans" and

with it feed the poor.112 Thus by 363, Christian charity was a negative practice designed

to corrupt people. These were not the practices of 'Hellenes', who acted towards more

noble ends and did not exploit the weak or engage in depraved behavior.

Julian's charitable program must have seemed strange to most 'Hellenes.' The

essentially Christian program did not neatly fit into the confines of the old euergetism of

112 It is possible that 'Hellenic' (senators) were married to Christian women. Either way there is quite a bit of information about Christian charity that can even be located in the city of Antioch in the case of Misopogon. Julian wrote his Letter to Arsacius while he was on his way to Antioch in May 362.

155

the classic and High Empire.113 For one thing, it extended the notion of "giving"

considerably. It also changed the goals of such acts of giving. Finally, in ancient times,

philanthropy was not organized along religious lines. Priests were not primarily

euergetai. Therefore, it should not be surprising that one finds an element of heavy moral

suasion in Julian's effort to have the priests give charity to their flock as if this involved a

change of thinking. Julian argued that it was the greed of men that was to blame for

poverty (Fragment of a Letter to a Priest 290 A). Perhaps this was a veiled shot at the

priests. Parting from wealth was counter to their ambitions.

In fact, Julian's notion of charitable giving envisioned a different role for priests

in his empire that was also unusual. In Greco-Roman times, priests might have been

euergetai and thus benefitted the poor indirectly. However, priests were generally rich

people who benefitted financially from their positions. To give that wealth away ran

counter to regular practice. Therefore, for priests to be givers of charity on a mass scale

was new.114

It is of note that Julian ended his requirements of priests in Fragment of a Letter

to a Priest in the place where he began: that of giving charity. In Fragment of a Letter to

a Priest 305B he stated that a priest ought to possess love for God and love for his fellow

man. Proof of this love, he claimed, was sharing with those in need. And to highlight

Julian's 'Hellenic' motivation for these requirements of priests, the fragment ends with a

113 Paul Veyne argues that classic euergetism developed in Late Antiquity into the Christian care for the poor. See Veyne, Bread and Circuses.

Similarly Julian sought to appoint priests for life. Traditionally priests were appointed to their posts for a limited term. These positions were ones of honor but at times they were also stepping stones to higher office in the empire. Julian wanted to make sure that priests understood that it was their lives as priests and not as politicians that mattered (289). His requirements of priests are unusual - moral qualities over connections. Rothrauff, "Philanthropia," 73-74. He argues that the emphasis on the priests' morality breaks from the Roman tradition of choosing priests.

156

summary of the "cure" to what ails the 'Hellenic' faith: the lack of love for the gods

which requires love of strangers and beggars and love of their fellow man; For it was the

lack of these principles which allowed the Christians to gain converts.

B. Role of Judaism in Julian's Charitable Program

Julian likely saw the development of charity as a Jewish ancestral tradition arising

out of the Old Testament, although he does not mention ancestral customs. Christianity

owed this positive practice to Jews. However, this does not mean that Julian was unaware

of Jews who practiced charity. Given the literary and inscriptional evidence, Jews

probably did care for their poor on a local level and Julian came across the thriving

Jewish community of Antioch. However, it was charity as a Jewish ancestral tradition

that interested Julian.

In his Letter to Arsacius, Julian covets Christianity's charitable practices but

mentions Jewish charity only briefly. In my opinion, Julian mentions it partly as a reflex.

Whenever he thinks of Christians, he naturally thinks of Jews. After all, Christianity is

the illegitimate outgrowth of Judaism.115 At the same time, he may have felt the need to

remind his reader that legitimate Christian charitable practices were rooted in positive

Jewish ancestral customs.

Later when he sat down to write Fragment of a Letter to a Priest in early 363 in

Antioch, Julian felt far less charitable towards Christianity. There he turned to attack

Christian practices of charity as immoral. Christian charity involved immoral love feasts

and the enticement of helpless children to their religion with cake. 'Hellenic' practices of

115 This is true also in Fragment of a Letter to a Priest 295D. However, in this instance Christianity does not immediately follow his comments about Judaism.

157

charity had far more noble ends. In this context, Julian had no need to mention legitimate

Jewish practices of charity.

It is hard not to read the Letter of Arsacius, which begins with the sentence "The

Hellenic religion does not yet prosper as I desire", against Julian's Fragment of a Letter

to a Priest which castigates Christian charity even as Julian copies it. The first shows an

emperor devoted to the success of his 'Hellenizing' program. The latter shows a man

with an axe to grind against Christianity and bespeaks of Julian's experiences in Antioch

in the intervening months. Christianity was now a serious obstacle to overcome and not

simply a model on which to build his own charitable program.

IV. Conclusion

We have seen that Julian likely was familiar with Jewish acts of charity in the

synagogue from his time in Antioch. Indeed, this practice would have been consistent

with his knowledge of charitable practices outlined in the Old Testament and confirmed

his belief that Jews were the descendants of the ancient Israelites. We cannot know

whether he was familiar with the institutions of tamhui and quppa.

Julian's brief mention of the lack of Jewish beggars is strategically placed in his

argument in the Letter to Arsacius. His purpose was to remind his readers that, even as he

sought to co-opt Christian charitable practices, legitimate Christian practices of charity

were rooted in the legitimate ancestral customs of the Jews. Therefore, Julian could

legitimately praise and covet these practices even as he strove to justify and ground

'Hellenic' charity in its own ancestral customs, namely the law of Zeus as described by

Homer.

158

Chapter Four "You have filled the whole world with tombs and sepulchres": Julian's

Attack on the Christian Cult of Martyr Relics and Jewish Texts CG335C-340A

I. Introduction:

In this chapter I examine Julian's claim in CG 335C-340A that the Christian

practice of groveling among tombs was derived from an ancient 'Jewish' practice found

in Isaiah 65:4, of sleeping among tombs for the sake of dreams, a practice called

incubation.1 Julian claimed that the Apostles learned this practice from the Jews. This is

surprising information. No one has documented instances of Jews who slept among

tombs in Antiquity. In this chapter, I first examine this text and then in part two, I will

consider whether Julian knew of a Jewish practice of incubation or of sitting among

tombs and sleeping in caves. To this end, I seek to place Julian's comments within the

background of proven Jewish practice in the fourth century or earlier.

In part three, I will show that Julian is engaged in scriptural exegesis as a tool of

persuasion in order to weaken Christianity. He defines Jewish impure practices within

Jewish texts which he associates with the Christian practice of sleeping among tombs in

order to delegitimize the Christian cult of the martyrs.

Julian's negative portrayal of a Jewish custom is unusual, but reflects his

flexibility in using Jewish texts to various ends. Here he attacks Jewish practice as a

forerunner to Christian ritual. In effect, he appropriates Christian Scriptures to prove their

1 Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume III, (Wright, LCL), 417n3; John G. Cook, The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2004), 326.

159

practices illegitimate. As we will see, this is not the only place Julian attacks the

Christian worship of martyrs. At stake for Julian was the notion of the holy. Christians

thought the relics of the martyrs were holy instruments which could act as intercessors to

the divine. Not only did this offend 'Hellenic' notions of purity, but Julian had confronted

Christian competition on the ground at Daphne, where he had St. Babylas' bones

removed from his shrine in order to reestablish and proclaim the victory of an efficacious

shrine of Apollo, which itself later burned to the ground.

Incubation (8VKa0su8etv) is the practice of sleeping in a holy space for the

purpose of receiving a divine epiphany and divine help in one's dream.2 The practice is

best known in the cults of Aesculapius and Serapis in the Hellenistic world from

Hellenistic times to Late Antiquity and was usually practiced in shrines to these gods for

the purpose of healing.3 Other times the incubator only sought divine revelation.

Near Eastern incubation preceded and existed alongside Greek practice but did

not usually involve healing.4 These dreams tended to be mantic or prophetic and thus

predicted the future5 and might have occuned at an individual's ancestors' tombs in order

2 Hans D. Betz et al., eds., Religion Past and Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion, (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 444.

3 Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, and David E. Orton eds., Brill's New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, Vol. 6, (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 766. Cults of healing that employed incubation are also tied to the gods Apollo, Athena, Dionysius Trophanius, Hades Pluto, Amphiaros (a divinized hero), and Isis.

4 A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, (Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society, 1956). Oppenheim classifies Near Eastern dreams into several categories. The setting for the dream in the Near Eastern tradition is a shrine or a holy place. Incubation among the Greeks also takes place in shrines or holy places.

5 Scott Noegel "Dreams and Dream Interpretation in Mesopotamia and in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament] in Dreams: A Reader on Religious, Cultural and Psychological Dimensions of Dreaming, (Kelly Bulkeley ed.; New York: Palgrave, 2001), 45 - 71 at 45.

160

to secure their advice and protection.6 Graeco-Roman incubators went to a shrine or a

sacred site and sometimes engaged in self-purification practices such as fasting, sacrifice,

prayer, and ritual bathing. Sleep on a pallet or on animal skins in the temple followed in

order to receive a dream revelation.7 In some cults, doctor-priests made rounds during the

night spreading healing ointments on the afflicted. When morning came, a priest would

decipher the dream.

II. Part One: Julian's Comments on Christian Practice

The principal passages from Contra Galileos at issue are the following:

335C 7idvxa s7i^npd)oaxs xdcpcov Kai uvnpdxcuv Kaixoi OUK eipr|xat nap' uptv ouSapou xoig xdcpou; 7tpoaKaA,iv8£to"0ai Kai 7i8pi87isiv auxouc;.. .8339E Touxcov ouv ouxcog exovxrov, upeic; xmkp xivoq 7tpocKaA.ivSeta9£ xoic; pvf|pacn; aKOuoai Pou^eaGs xf|v aixiav; OUK syd> (painv av, akV 'Haaiac; 6 7ipocpf|xrig. «'Ev xoi<; uvf|paat Kai ev xoig o"Kr\kaiovq Kotpawxai 5i' evu7rvia.» 340A aKonetxe ouv, 6n(£>q nakaibv rjv xouxo xoic; 'IouSaioii; xr\q payyaveiai; xo epyov, syKaGsuSsiv xot<; pvfipaaiv evu7rvia)v %dpiv. 6 5f) Kai xoix; d7rocx6Xou<; upcov SIKOQ saxi pexd xfiv xoi5 8i5acncdXou xeX.suxfiv 87iixr]88uaavxa(; upiv xe s^ a.p%r\q 7iapa5ouvai xolq 7ipcbxot<; usTtiaxeuKoai, Kai xexviKcb-xepov upoov auxouq payyaveuaai, xolq 8s peG'sauxoxx; d7io8si^ai 8npoaig xr)q payyaveiaq xauxr|<; Kai p8sX,upiag xd spyaaxr|pia.

335C You have filled the whole world with tombs and sepulchers and yet in your scriptures it is nowhere said that you must grovel among tombs and pay them honor.. .339E Therefore, since this is so, why do you grovel among tombs? Do you wish to hear the reason? It is not I who will tell you, but the prophet Isaiah: "They

Joseph Blenkinsopp, "Isaiah 56-66," in the Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 272. Some scholars believe that the practice of incubation came to Greece via Ptolemaic Egypt, where it was associated with Serapis. Robert Karl Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis, (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 125.

7 Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 119, 122.

8 In the part I have omitted, Julian uses Jesus (Matt 8:21) to delegitimize the Christian practice of groveling among tombs.

161

lodge among tombs and in caves for the sake of dream visions." 340A You observe, then, how ancient among the Jews was this work of witchcraft, namely, sleeping among tombs for the sake of dream visions. And indeed it is likely that your apostles, after their teacher's death, practiced this and handed it down to you from the beginning, I mean to those who first adopted your faith, and that they themselves performed their spells more skillfully than you do, and displayed openly to those who came after them the places in which they performed this witchcraft and abomination.9

This passage is set in that part of CG which delegitimizes Christianity for failing to

follow Jewish law. At CG 327A Julian begins his attack on Christianity for worshipping

Jesus as another aspect of God. The worship of more than one entity as God allows Julian

to segue into the Christian worship at martyrs' tombs.

Few scholars have commented on this passage. Those that do, claim that Julian

meant practices of incubation.10 The combination of the words 3ipooKaA.tv8siCT08 with

syKaGeuSeiv" and the words 81' evu7tvia ("for the sake of dream visions"), which is

quoted from the Greek Bible, suggest a Greek practice of incubation.

A. Isaiah 65:4

Upon closer examination, Julian only claimed that Christians groveled among

tombs. The link between groveling, by which Julian meant prayer, and incubation may be

forced upon him by his use of LXX Isaiah 65:4. Before I consider how Julian read Isa

9 Julian, Vol. Ill, (Wright, LCL).

10 Julian, CG 335C-340A (Wright, LCL), 417n3; Cook, The Interpretation of the Old Testament, 326.

11 I have found this form of the word only in this passage of Julian. It also does not appear in Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1996), Edwin Hatch, and Henry A. Redpath eds. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), or in Geoffrey. H.W. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961). However, it comes from the word KaOsuSfjaat to lie down (Liddell and Scott A Greek-English Lexicon, 852) and appears as syKaGi etv in Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint, which translates from the word nE*1.

162

65:4 and the Septuagint, I will examine the Hebrew of the Masoretic text of Isa 65:4. It

states the following:

•n^D orr^rs p-isi Ttnn -ran n^sixn ,14irV " a m s m D'-apn 12anw-pn

The people sitting among graves and sleeping among rocks; the people eating swine's flesh and the broth of unclean meats in their vessels.15

The phrase M^ o n i m onnpn Dntzn'n can be read as two different cultic

practices or as a singular cultic act that is repeated using a parallel structure.16 In the

second case, "those who sit inside tombs" and those who "spend the night among the

preserved" or the dead, refer to the same cultic practice of ancestor worship.17 If we read

them as two different acts, sitting or crouching among tombs might meant to obtain

oracles from the dead18 or to pour libations on their tombs.19 Spending the night in

12 The word ruff1 can meant to sit or to crouch.

13 This word is derived from the Hebrew root nsr or "rock" but means "to keep secret" in its verb form. Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, Charles Augustus Briggs, and Wilhelm Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius. (trans. Edward Robinson; Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1962), 666. The word D'-nxi means "secret places."

14 The word ivb^ means "they lodge" or "they sleep over."

Translation is my own.

16 For the opinion that ir1?1 a n m i is a parallel to anapa D'awrn see entry on 1S3 in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringren, and Heinz Josef Fabry eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 9, (trans. David E. Green; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998).

17 Botterweck et. al, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.

18 Claus Westerman, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, Old Testament Library, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 401.

19 Thank you to Professor Kimberly Patton who suggested that 01_op3 D'OWPn might mean to crouch in order to pour a libation. As we shall see feeding and caring for the dead was an Israelite practice in the Iron Age. Joseph Blenkinsopp translated this verse as "squatting among rocks" and "spending the night in tombs" in order to communicate with one's ancestors. Blenkinsopp, "Isaiah 56-66."

163

caverns or among the rocks likely signifies incubation rites in order to obtain a dream

vision from one's ancestors.20

In my opinion, it makes no difference if one reads this as parallel cultic acts or as

two different practices. Each represents different aspects of the process of ancestor

worship - caring for one's ancestors and incubating in order to obtain visions of one's

ancestors. Sleeping at the graves of ancestors to receive a communication with a divine

being was common in the Ancient Near East and was practiced by Israelites even though

it contravened Deut 18:11.21

For Isaiah, these practices in 65:4, which included incubation, were negative

identity markers, illegitimate practices which he deemed non-Israelite.22 As we shall see,

some Israelites and Judahites believed in the supernatural powers of the dead, took care

of their familial dead and sought their advice through incubation.23

Julian only read the Bible in Greek, which unlike its Hebrew counterpart,

explicitly ties the act of sleeping among tombs to practices of incubation (8t'svu7rvia =

Westerman, Isaiah 40-66, refers to incubation; Blenkinsopp, "Isaiah 56-66," states that these practices were forms of ritual incubation in order to contact one's ancestors. People slept in cave tombs for this purpose.

21 Deut 18:11. Blenkinsopp, "Isaiah 56-66." Deut 18:11 states that the Israelites are not to have a person who consults the dead. Within the context of that verse, it looks like a specialist. However, with Blenkinsopp, I assume that the entire practice of consulting the dead is forbidden.

22 Perhaps those who saw the Temple of Jerusalem as the only locus where God could be worshipped (like Deuteronomy and Isaiah) would not countenance practices of incubation. Allowing such a practice would have detracted from their argument that the Jerusalem Temple was built on the holiest spot in the world, the place where God was most present.

23 Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, "Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material," JBL 111 (1992): 213-224. She applies this to Judahites in this article and to the Israelites elsewhere. In Judah, unlike in Israel, the Hezekian-Josianic reforms which centralized the cult further, deemed consulting the dead to be an inappropriate way of gaining knowledge Bloch-Smith, "Cult of the Dead," 223.

164

"for the sake of dream visions"). One may assume that the Alexandrian translators of the

Hebrew Bible read Greek incubation into this passage.

The Septuagint, with no substantial variations, reads as follows:

Kai ev xolq pvr|paai Kai sv xoT<; G7tr|A,aioi<; Koipcovxai 81' evu7rvia, oi eaGovxec; xprn i3£ia Kai ^wpov Guaiwv.. .24

And they lie down25 amidst tombs and caves for the sake of dream visions, eating flesh of pigs and the broth of sacrifices ...26

The Septuagint collapses the two claims into one - "lying amongst tombs" - no doubt

because the Greek translators read both of these practices as Greek incubation, a point

evidenced by their inclusion of the gloss "for the sake of dreams" and by their

substitution of "sit" with 'lie down."27

B. Julian's Reading and Use of Isaiah 65:4

Julian's use of 7ipoaKaX,iv8£ia0£ xolq pvf|paat in CG 339E, is similar to his

description £i3x£a0ai... xoic; 7tepi xovq xdcpoug KaXivSoupEvoig ypaSiotc; in Misopogon

344A "the old hags who wallow among the tombs to pray",28 which I believe reveals why

Christians 7tpoaKa^ivS£ia0£ xoic; pvripaoi in CG. Christians gathered at tombs to pray

because they believed the martyrs' relics to be intercessors to the divine.29

24 Joseph Ziegler ed., Isaias, Septuaginta (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1983), 360.

25 Can also mean 'fall asleep'. See Liddell and Scott A Greek-English Lexicon, 969.

Translation is my own.

27 This is not to say that they did not understand the original intent of the Hebrew LXX.

28 Translation is my own.

29 Julian, CG. 335C-340A (Wright, LCL), 415 n6. See also Liddell and Scott A Greek-English Lexicon, 1515 under 7ipooKaA.iv5e6uai. The phrase itself is familiar to Julian from Plato's work, Phaedo 81D. Generations later, Eunapius uses this phraseology - 7tpoaEKaXrv8ouvTO TOK; uvriuacn - to describe the

165

Did Julian think that incubation was a component of the Christian cult of martyrs?

Julian used Isaiah 65:4 to explain the origins of Christianity's worship of martyrs30

pointing to this 'Jewish' practice admonished by the prophet. Julian elided the Christian

practice of praying amongst tombs common in martyr cults with the practice of

incubation. This characterization likely was forced on him by the use of LXX Isa 65:4.31

In CG 340A Julian said that Christians learned to worship and incubate at tombs

from the Jews (TouSaioi). Julian generally used this term over 'Hebrews' when he

referred to Jews in his times or in the recent past. Thus it need not and should not be

taken as evidence in its own right that Julian understood the Jews of his era to be

practicing acts of sleeping among tombs for incubatory purposes. In fact, Julian's use of

the aorist tense in CG 340A (aK07t£Tx£ ouv, bncaq nakcabv fjv xouxo xoic; TouSaioic; xfjg

payyavriag xo gpyov, EyKa0£u8£iv xoic; pvtipaaiv Evujcvicov %dpiv), suggests that the

practice described by Isaiah ended among Jews in the past. Yet in the same fragment,

Julian claimed that the apostles learned this from the Jews. At the very least, he suggests

that Jews practiced incubation among tombs through the first century.

III. Part Two: A Jewish Practice of Incubation

This claim is surprising. Except for one case of a Jew who incubated, scholarship

has never noticed that Jews incubated beyond the Iron Age. Can we determine if Julian's

worship of Christians at martyrs' graves. Other attestations of the word do not exist in literature. Thus Julian in CG 335C-340A is primarily commenting on the Christian worship of martyrs at tombs which included prayer to obtain their intercessory powers. Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint, contains the word TrpocncaXea) which means "to summon."

301 will explain why he does so in part two of this chapter.

There is evidence of Christians sleeping in tombs in the fourth century, which I will survey in this chapter.

166

comments in CG 335C-340A were inspired by his knowledge of Jews who incubated in

his own time or in times past?

The line between rhetoric and reality is often bhured in Julian's writings.

However, the possibility that Jews incubated suggests itself to Wright, who commented

in a note on the Letter to the Alexandrians32 that Julian comments on incubation at the

obelisk. Wright suggested that this was possibly a martyr's grave at which Christians

worshipped or a site of Jewish and/ or Christian ascetic worship.33 In fact, there are

several literary sources and one epigraphic source that suggest that Jews did incubate in

Antiquity. I will examine the extant evidence that Jews incubated or at least discussed

incubation.

A. Literary Evidence

a. Biblical Evidence

Some ancient biblical stories may allude to incubation.341 have already alluded to

the Judahites and Israelites' cult of the dead in First Temple times, a cult supported by

biblical and archaeological evidence.35 The dead were thought to possess "preternatural

powers."36 Judahites fed and sacrificed tithed food to the dead at tombs37 and at other

32 Julian, Ep. 48.

33 Betz et al., eds., Religion Past and Present, 444.

34 God sometimes chooses the dream as a mode of revelation. Most of these derive from the Elohist tradition and the recipients include the patriarchs, prophets, kings and occasionally non-Israelites. See Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 70-71.

35 Bloch-Smith, "Cult of the Dead," 223. She argues that this practice can be distinguished from Canaanite practice. "Cult of the Dead," 214

36 "Cult of the Dead," 213

37 Isa 57:8, / / Chr 6:14, 32:33. The tombs themselves reinforced family claims to patrimony.

167

places. They slept in the tombs located in caverns in order to obtain dream visions. The

cult of the dead only began to disappear with pressure from the Jerusalem authorities in

the seventh century.

There are a number of biblical stories thought to be incubation scenes. In 1 Kings

l:3ff, Solomon goes to Gibeon, a holy place where the bronze altar of Bezalel, its

architect, stood. Solomon went there to seek God and offered up sacrifices. When he fell

asleep, God appeared to him in a dream and fulfilled his request for great wisdom. As in

typical incubation scenes, Solomon, the incubator seeks out a communication with the

numen of that holy place. He engages in purification practices (offers a sacrifice to God)

and then falls asleep. God appears in the dream and grants Solomon his request. The

parallel story in 2Chr 1:1-13 actually links the dream to the sacrifice, a practice not

uncommon in incubation rites.38

Susan Ackerman claims that God's appearance in Jacob's dream in Beth-El (Gen

28) is another example of a story of incubation. She argues that the passages in Gen

27:16ff. come from the E source, which interrupts an earlier continuous story from the J

source, which ran from Gen 27:1 to 15 into Gen 28. This story depicts an incubation

scene.39 She highlights the fact that Jacob wrapped himself in the skin of two kids (in Gen

27 before he sleeps in chapter 28, obtaining a dream vision) as a practice common to

incubation scenes in the cult of Aesculapius, where incubators lay on skins of sacrificial

Susan Ackerman, "The Deception of Isaac: Jacob's Dream at Bethel and Incubation on Animal Skin," in Gary A. Anderson and Saul Olyan, eds., Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 92-120 at 112.

39 Ackerman considers this to be an incubation scene even though Jacob did not seek out the dream.

168

victims.40 The Hebrew root ]ii is used both in Isa 65:4 and in Gen 28:11, suggesting that

both have a similar meaning. Finally, Jacob sets up a massebah when he awakes, offers a

sacrifice, and makes a vow to return to the place, all similar acts of incubation in the

Aesculapian cult.41 There are other stories in the Bible that arguably depict

incubation.42

Isaiah's castigation of a practice that scholars often interpret as incubation is

found in Isa 65:4.43 Julian himself quotes the LXX version which explicitly links this

passage to healing, a Greek use of incubation. Thus it seems the translators of the Hebrew

Bible into Greek understood the vorlage as meaning incubation.

What interests me in these passages is the fact that they are all older stories. Gen

27 and 28, which were initially incubation scenes were interrupted. Given what we know

of the Judahite cult of the dead, this suggests one of two things about the

compiler/redactor of Genesis. Either he sought to play down the initial incubation scene

in order to deflate the Judahite cult of the dead, or, by his time, incubation was no longer

a concern, and he simply interrupted the scene because he placed no value on it.

Similarly, the redactor of 1 Kings 1:3ff reveals the practice but does not place any

emphasis on it, suggesting that he did not see any problem with it either.

Ackerman, "The Deception of Isaac," 101. Pausanius says incubators at Amphairaos do the same. Ackerman, "The Deception of Isaac," 104; cf. Eleusian cult practice (Ackerman, "The Deception of Isaac," 98).

Ackerman, "The Deception of Isaac," 116-117. In the Aesculapian cult, the incubant awakes, sacrifices, vows to return, and records his thanks in an inscription.

Saul seeks the medium at Endor in 1 Sam 28:6 but God does not respond through dreams. This is not likely an incubation scene. Although David fasts in 2 Sam 12:15 to obtain an oracle of healing, the story does not include many incubation practices.

4 Eusebius is the only non-Jewish interpreter of this verse besides Julian.

169

In summary, at some point in the seventh century incubation and the cult of the

dead became negative identity markers for Judahites for which Isa 65:4 and Deut 18:11

are evidence. However, the rest of the Bible suggests that incubation occuned but was

not emphasized. Thus I conclude with the general statement that most Judahites did not

see incubation as an identity marker. Rather Israelites and Judahites shared in the wider

Near Eastern practices of incubation in the context of the cult of the dead.44

b. Josephus

By the beginning of the Second Temple Period one cannot find any Judean or

Jewish evidence of such practices. At the end of the Second Temple Period Josephus

described a scene resembling incubation in his description of the dream of Jaddus, the

High Priest, in A.J. 11:321—328. This is part of Josephus' account of the Jerusalemites'

dread in the face of Alexander the Great's advance towards Jerusalem. Jaddus called for

public prayers and offered sacrifice. He then fell asleep in the temple, and God spoke to

him in an oracle. When Jaddus awoke, he revealed the dream to his people.

Gnuse argues that the pattern of the dream-vision follows one of incubation.45

This pattern includes: (1) sacrifice and prayer, (2) sleep in a sacred place, (3) divine

theophany, (4) the recipient waking up, (5) public proclamation, and (6) fulfillment of the

divine command. Gnuse also finds language that would appear in dreams of incubation

including UTTVOUC; (= dreams) and £%papdxto"£u) (to address in an oracle), which is used

once when God spoke to Jaddus and again when Jaddus reported the dream to the

Even though Judahites adopted a particular variety of this practice, which was different from the Caananites, this does not suggest that it was a crucial aspect of their ethnic identity.

45 Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 228. This seems like ancient Near Eastern incubation.

170

people.46 Gnuse posits that Josephus was reluctant to state that Jews and most especially

the high priest practiced incubation because he sought to present a higher form of

Judaism, and incubation was not favored by the Graeco-Roman intelligentsia.

Gnuse's argument seems unlikely, simply because he only possesses one example

of an incubation scene from Josephus. If Josephus hid the practice in other parts of his

works then one would expect to find evidence of incubation scenes in his works. Since

there are none, I suggest that there is no evidence for a practice of incubation in Second

Temple Judea. Rather, this is a double dream sequence.47

c. Non-Jewish Evidence

Non-Jewish sources claim that Jews either incubated or were able dream

interpreters. Strabo in his Geography 16.34 gives an ethnography and history of the

Judeans. Jews, he claims, are Egyptians who were led out of Egypt by a discontented

Egyptian priest named Moses and set up a temple to a single God in Jerusalem. Judeans

were to honor the deity by abandoning all images and by setting up a sacred precinct and

a sanctuary, where people who had good dreams (Euovripouc;) would practice incubation

on their behalf and on behalf of the rest of the people.48

Strabo's sources for this practice are unrecoverable. Perhaps he did not know

what went on in the Jerusalem precincts of the temple since it was closed to non-Jews.

46 The difficulty with this interpretation is the lack of express language that indicates that this was an incubation scene. The narrative lacks other words like evKaOeuSeiv and other practices like sleeping on a pallet or on animal skin, though this is not fatal.

47 See Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus", AJSR 7-8 (1982-1983), 41-68.

48 Menahem Stern, GLAJJ, 1, nl 15.

171

Many non-Jewish authors in Antiquity believed the Jews were skilled at interpreting

dreams.49

In the ancient world priests were learned people and were often associated with

the interpretation of dreams. Of course, priests would have been associated with the

temple in Jerusalem. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Strabo drew upon early

Greek ethnographic works that likely ascribed to Jews abilities in dream interpretation.

Unaware of all Jewish cultic practice, he concluded that Jewish priests were engaged in

incubation. Unfortunately, these sources then do not offer much support for a Jewish

practice of incubation.

B. An Inscription from the Shrine of Amphiaraos

An inscription published by M. Mitsos was found in the Amphiareion of Oropos

in mainland Greece, carved into the marble.50 In it, an Ioudaios is manumitted on the

fulfillment of a number of conditions. The last part of the inscription produced below

gives the reason for which Moschos inscribed his dream.

.. .Mocxoc; Moaxicovoq 'Iou8aTo<; £VU7tviov iSebv 7ipoaxdcj-avxoc; xou 0£ou Apcpiapdou Kai xfjg 'Yyidaq, KaGa or>v£xacJ£ 6 Apqndpaoc; Kai r\ 'Yyfeta EV axr\kr\i ypdyavxa dva9£tvat 7ipdc; x<5i Booproi.

...Moschos son of Moschion, a Ioudaios, having seen a dream, at the command of the God Amphiaraos and Hygeia, (set up this inscription); just as Amphiaraos and Hygeia have commanded (him) to write it on a stele and to set it up at the altar.51

Stern, GLAJJ, 1, nl37. Pompeius Trogus claimed Josephus was the first to establish the scene as dream interpretation. Antoninus Diogenes, Stern, GLAJJ, 1, n250; cf. Porphyry, The Life of Pythagoras 11, no. 456a. In the sixth century Danascius, Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n549.

50 David M. Lewis, "The First Greek Jew," JSS 2 (1957): 264-266.

Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings ofJewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 98.

172

This inscription bears witness to the earliest Greek Jew known to historians and

makes clear that there were Jewish slaves in Greece in the first half of the third century

BCE. The name Moschos means "calf," and it is clear that he and his father, who also

bears a Greek name, were firmly entrenched in Greek culture.52 This is made even clearer

by the fact that Moschos slept in the temple in search of advice from a divine being,

which probably meant offering a sacrifice to the local god.53

Certainly he had no problems advertising the fact that he had incubated in a pagan

temple even while identifying as a Jew. Part of the incubatory process dictated that the

recipient testify to the miracle of his experience after the dream was completed. This

Moschos did by setting up the stele "as he was commanded" by the gods. He identifies

himself as a Ioudaios, probably an ethnic term, as he had been living outside of Judea his

entire life and here was performing a Greek ritual.54 While interesting, this one piece of

evidence is not determinative of wider Jewish practice. One can imagine, however, that

there were some self-identifying Jews living among Greeks who had no problem

participating in Greek practices. Incubation was not an identity marker for Moschos.

C. The Evidence of John Chrysostom

Another piece of evidence linking Judaism with incubation comes six and a half

centuries later. In Against the Judaizers 1.6:2 (PG 48.852), a passage cited below, the

52 Lewis, "The First Greek Jew," 265.

53 Lewis, "The First Greek Jew."

54 Cohen, The Beginnings ofJewishness, 98.

173

Church Father John Chrysostom claimed that Judaizing Christians incubated at Matrona's

synagogue in Daphne. Chrysostom said:

Kai xouxo ou 7t£pi xfjg evxauGa Aiyco Guvaycoyfjc; povov, dAAd Kai xfjc; ev Adcpvn. rcovripoxspov yap EKSI XO pdpaOpov 6 8f| Kalouai Maxpcovnc;. Kai yap noXkovq f)Kouaa xcov 7iiaxcov dvapaiveiv EKEI , Kai apaKaGeuSeiv xcp xorccp.

And I say this not only about the synagogue here in town but about the one in Daphne as well; for at Daphne you have a more wicked place of perdition which they call Matrona's. I have heard that many of the faithful go up there and sleep beside the place.55

The word 7rapaKa08u8siv is a cognate of syKaOeuSew, used by Julian in CG

340A, which means "to incubate." Clearly, Chrysostom believed that there were renegade

Christians who incubated in Jewish synagogues.56 Importantly, he did not claim that Jews

incubated there, but rather that a synagogue was the site for incubation.57 If this practice

existed in the 380s, it is possible that Christians were incubating in this synagogue in the

360s, when Julian wrote CG.

John Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians: A New Translation, Fathers of the Church, Vol. 68, (trans. Paul W. Harkins Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1977). I have changed the translation of xo pdpaGpov to "deep pit."

It is interesting that Eusebius seems to be unaware of a Christian practice of incubation. In the fifth century, Cyril of Alexandria also denied a Christian practice of incubation. See Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum 10.341(PG 76.1026c, d). In reality, it seems that some fourth century Christians practiced incubation in parts of the empire. This may not have been sanctioned, but Chrysostom's sermons show that his flock lived amongst other groups who shared in each other's practices. Thus the Christian practice was likely influenced by 'Hellenic' practices.

The larger context of Chrysostom's passage in Adv. Jud. is that Christians should not attend synagogues because they are not holy. Chrysostom claimed that the Judaizers engaged in practices that recognized the holiness and numinous quality of the synagogue. They took oaths there, celebrated holidays there, and engaged in incubation. By engaging in these acts, these Judaizers failed to recognize that Christianity had superseded Judaism. Chrysostom's goal, therefore, was to desacralize the synagogue. Thus he showed that Christianity had superseded Judaism such that nothing the Jews practiced was efficacious.

174

Vinson claimed that Matrona's synagogue may have been the same spot where

the bones of the Maccabean martyrs were kept.58 The Hasmonean synagogue attested to

in Malalas is the only known synagogue to have contained a crypt. The fact that

"Judaizing" Christians incubated at this site suggests that they regarded the place as holy.

Vinson believed that it was the bones of

the Hasmonean martyrs that attracted the Christians.59 According to Malalas, it was also a

contested site between Jews and Christians.60

D. The Rabbis

Rabbis often considered the phenomenon of dreams. They treat them in one of

three ways.61 Either they are prophetic, or are related to the psychological state of the

Martha Vinson, "Gregory Nazianzen's Homily 15 and the Genesis of the Christian Cult of the Maccabean Martyrs," Byzantion 64 (1994): 166-192. Matrona's synagogue appears three times in Chrysostom's writings, and Vinson believes Matrona likely meant "the matron's," whom she identifies as the Hasmonith. Vinson, "Gregory Nazianzen's Homily 15," 180. She believes that the act of going up to the synagogue (dvapaverv) means the edifice was located on a hill or a mountain. She also argues that TO PdpaOpov, which means a "pit," is probably a crypt that Chrysostom wants the Judaizers to avoid. Vinson, "Gregory Nazianzen's Homily 15," 181.

59 There are problems with Vinson's claim. For one, the location of the Maccabean synagogue in Daphne does not match Malalas' claim that the Maccabean martyrs were buried in the Kerateion in Antioch. Vinson tries to resolve this (Vinson, "Gregory Nazianzen's Homily 15," 181-183). Second, Shaye Cohen has noted the unusual practice of locating a synagogue over a crypt since rabbinic Jews considered the dead impure and therefore buried the dead outside the city. See Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue," in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Lee I. Levine ed.; Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987) 159-181. However, rabbinic Jews were not the only Jews around in Late Antiquity. Christians considered the synagogue holy because of its ark (kibotos) and because of its scrolls. For the sanctity of the synagogue see Steven Fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Graeco-Roman Period (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1997), 3. Thus there may have been other reasons why some Christians considered the synagogue a worthy place to incubate. Malalas may also be parroting Christian narratives that promote the antiquity and holiness of the site which, in reality, has no historical truth. Thus Rutgers, contra Malalas, argues that such a synagogue could never have been built. Leonard Victor Rutgers, "The Importance of Scripture in the Conflict between Jews and Christians: The Example of Antioch," in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (eds. Leonard Victor Rutgers et al; Leuven: Peeters, 1998) 287-303. In the end, the Jewish origins of the site and its connection with the Hasmonean martyrs are only speculative.

60 In the fourth century, the site was a Jewish synagogue. Ultimately, Christians appropriated the spot as their own holy space and replaced the synagogue with a church in the fifth century.

175

dreamer or the rabbis see in them as opportunities for interpretation rather than as

revelation. The greatest collocation of rabbinic material about dreams can be found in

"the Book of Dreams" (b. Berakhot 55a-57b), a collection of dreams and their

interpretations that is similar to the oneirocritical books found in Antiquity.62

The rabbis demonstrated familiarity with Graeco-Roman cultural ideas about

dreams which they sought to control, since interpreters represented alternative sources of

authority. To achieve this, the rabbis became professional dream interpreters,63 claimed

that a dream followed its interpretation64 and showed themselves to be superior

interpreters. Their superior moral qualities made them better interpreters since they

argued interpreters determined the meaning and realization of dreams.65 Positive dream

interpretations depended on the conect use and interpretation of scripture.66 Naturally, the

rabbis claimed to be the most skilled interpreters.

Yuval Harari, "The Sages and the Occult." in The Literature of the Sages, (eds. Shmuel Safrai et. al.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2006), 521-564 at 552.

62 Artemidorus Daldianus. Oneirocritica: The Interpretation of Dreams, (trans. Robert J. White; Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes, 1975).

63 Richard Kalmin finds that rabbis were professional interpreters in Tannaitic times. See Richard Lee Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia, (Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1994), 66.

64 They claimed that "dreams follow the mouth." See b. Ber. 55b; y. Ma 'aser Sheni 4:9, 55c.

65 Harari, "The Sages and the Occult," 556.

66 Galit Hasan-Rokem, The Web of Life, Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature, (trans. Batya Stein; Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000), 96. Rabbinic literature highlights the connection between dream interpretation and textual interpretation. Hasan-Rokem, The Web of Life, 102. See also Maren Niehoff, "A Dream Which is Not Interpreted is like a Letter which is Not Read," JJS 43 (1992): 58-84.

176

In the vast seas of rabbinic literature there are only three references to incubation

(t. Shabbat 6:7; b. Sanh. 65b; b. AbodZar. 55a).67 In t. Shabbat 6:7, touching the grave of

the dead in order to have a dream vision is classified as "the ways of the Amorites", a

term used to denote non-Jewish practice, b. AbodZar. 55a refers to 'Hellenic' incubation

which takes place in a temple. However, the rabbis do not claim that Jews take up this

practice. Rather this is a 'Hellenic' practice. This is particularly striking given the

opportunities the rabbis have to attack the practice. Neither the Book of Dreams nor b.

Shabbat 67a-b, which discusses and delegitimizes the "ways of the Amorites", mentions

the practice. All of the evidence presented suggests that most Jews did not incubate in

Antiquity, or in Late Antiquity.

E. Jews as Healers and Interpreters of Dreams

What role might Jews have played in incubation if any? Chrysostom's allusion to

a real practice of incubation in the Matrona synagogue at Daphne raises the role of Jews

in this process. Jews as healers and interpreters of dreams is well known in Antiquity.68 In

fact, Jews were in the business of healing. Jewish healing magic can be found in the

Greek Magical Papyri of Hellenistic Egypt.69 Naveh and Shaked have documented many

They comment on Deut 18:11 ("or that consults the dead") and say that it refers to one who starves himself and then spends the night in a cemetery so that an unclean spirit may rest upon him. (cf. t. Sanh. 6:7).

Juvenal, D. Iunii Iuvenalis Saturae XIII. Thirteen Satires of Juvenal, Vol. VI, (Charles Henry Pearson, and Herbert Augustus Strong eds.; London: Clarendon, 1892), 54ff. See Philip S. Alexander, "Bavli Berakhot 55a-57b: The Talmudic Dreambook in Context" JJS 46 (1995): 230-248, at 243.

6 Hans D. Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the Demonic Spells (Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1996).

177

Jewish magical bowls and amulets, which contain incantations for healing.70 The origins

of Jewish amulet-making are in the fourth century,71 although the earliest amulets found

in synagogues are dated to the fifth and sixth centuries.72 This suggests that the

synagogue became a locus of Jewish healing in Late Antiquity.73

Christian leaders were concerned about the spread of magical amulets and other

unorthodox cures,74 because it challenged their authority by allowing non-Christians to be

intercessors to the divine. The number of Jewish amulets and magic bowls suggest that

people saw Jews as possessing knowledge that enabled them to act as intercessors to

divine healing gods. Although Isabella Sandwell finds that no one group had a monopoly

over the production or content of amulets and incantations,75 there is evidence that Jews

were well represented in this field.76

Judaizing Christians may have incubated in synagogues because they identified

them as holy places and because they believed Jews were skilled at dream

Josef Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998).

Rebecca Macy Lessee, Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations, Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998), 354.

72 Lessee, Ritual Practices to Gain Power, 44, 50.

73 The evidence from Naveh and Shaked dates to a period a century after Julian. However, Chrysostom's evidence shows that synagogues were considered holy by many in the fourth century in Antioch.

74 At the same time, Jerome and Augustine comment on Christians who wrap phylacteries containing passages from scripture around their arms. Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 268.

75 Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. See pp. 267-275 for her discussion about amulets.

76 There is evidence that non-rabbinic Jewish scribes wrote these incantations and that they were connected to rabbis. See Alexander, "Bavli Berakhot 55a-57b," 247.

178

interpretation.77 M. D. Swartz has argued that the authors of early Jewish mystical texts

were among the leaders in the synagogue. These leaders were liturgical poets, targumists,

and scribes who were influenced by the rabbis but were not rabbis themselves. Such

people may have interpreted dreams for the Judaizers in Matrona's synagogue.78

F. Conclusion

I conclude this section of my analysis by stating that, after the First Temple

Period, apart from the odd self-identifying Jew who may have slept in temples for dream

visions, sleeping and praying amongst tombs was not a common practice among Jews.

Or, if it was, Jewish sources did not bother to discuss it. This suggests that incubation

was not an identity marker among Jews. Thus it is unlikely that Julian had bona fide

information of Jews who incubated. At most he had knowledge of incubation that took

place in the synagogue of Matrona and may have assumed that Jews incubated there. This

begs the question of what Julian was doing in these passages.

IV. Part Three: The Context of Julian's Remarks

Julian targeted the Christians cult of the martyrs in CG 335D-340A. Martyr cults

multiplied in the middle of the fourth century. Christians maintained their connection

with their past of persecution by worshipping the relics of local martyrs.79 These relics

77 Antoninus Diogenes and Pompeius Trogus believed that ancient Jews were skilled dream interpreters. See n. 49 herein.

7 See Michael D. Swartz, Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996).

79 Robert A. Markus, "How on Earth Could Places become Holy? Origins of the Christian Idea of Holy Places," JECS 2 (1994): 257-271 at 269.

179

were intercessors to the divine. Cemeteries were the principal place of congregation for

Christians until large churches were built beginning in Constantine's period.80

There is also evidence that Christians slept over at cemeteries. Eusebius mentions

Koipnxnpia, places to sleep in cemeteries (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.13), built no doubt to

fulfill Christian practice. There is evidence that Christians prayed at the tomb of the

martyr Aberkios in Asia Minor in the fourth century, a site probably located in a

cemetery,81 and archaeological evidence attesting to dining at a martyr's tomb in the

fourth century at Huarte, a town near Apamea, a city not far from Antioch.82

The cult of the martyrs presented a significant obstacle to Julian's 'Hellenic'

program. In Misopogon 361 Julian looks favorably on those who restored the shrines of

the gods' and overturned Christian tombs. In fact, Julian claims to have ordered this

Ramsey MacMullen, The Second Church: Popular Christianity A.D. 200-400 (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 9. Several of the Church Fathers attest to the gathering of Christians in cemeteries to revere the martyrs. Origen, Hom. Jer. 4.3, (PG 13.288D) is one such example. Eusebius states that an edict in 311 CE forbade the use of cemeteries for meetings. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 9.2.

81 Frank R. Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529, Vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 118. See MacMullen, The Second Church, 23.

82 MacMullen, The Second Church, 25. L. Deubner has collected a lot of evidence of Christian incubation at the tombs of saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Ludwig Deubner, De Incubatione (Leipzig, 1900), 56-109. See Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 126. Most of the documentation post dates Julian. However, incubating Christians appear in Egypt as early as the fourth century CE. For instance, Christians would incubate in the church of Kosmas and Damian; a small spot was designated for this purpose beside the small baptistery. Kosmas and Damian were twin healers and were martyred in 287 CE. The earliest churches set up in their honor date to the fourth century in Egypt. See Ludwig. Deubner, ed., Kosmos und Damian: Texte undEinleitung (Leipzig, 1907), 118, at line 26; Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 165. The documented stories of incubation at these churches come from Constantinople and date to after the fourth century. See Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 383. However, it is entirely possible that similar practices occurred in their churches in Egypt in the fourth century since they were both healing figures. See also Mary Hamilton, Incubation or the Cure of Disease in Pagan Temples and Christian Churches, (London: W.C. Henderson & Son, 1906) 119-127. Leslie S. B. Maccoull, "Duke University Ms. C25: Dreams, Visions and Incubation in Coptic Egypt," Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 22 (1991): 123-132, at 125. In addition, two decades after Julian, John Chrysostom claimed that Christians incubated in Matrona's synagogue in Daphne. See Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. 1.6:2 (PG 48.852). Christians may have incubated there because just like the martyrs' relics, they viewed the synagogue as holy. There is no evidence that this practice existed in Julian's day.

180

action. The 'Hellenes' of Emessa followed through on Julian's request (Mis. 361 and

357C).

Julian's use of the terms 0epa7isuovxec; Kai 7ipoaKa0su8ovx8(;83 to describe illicit

Alexandrian behavior (Ep. 48) suggests that people were incubating at a martyr's grave.

The term 7rpoo"Ka0suSovxec; is very close to eyKaGsuSsiv, a word Julian used to describe

Christian groveling among tombs in CG 340A. In Ep. 48 Julian expressly states his

concern that those who see the place might lose faith in the gods.84

Although Julian does not expressly mention Christians here, in a different Letter

To the Alexandrians (Ep. 47) he complains that many Alexandrians call themselves

'Galileans.' Thus Christians may have been those who slept at the obelisk in Ep. 48. At

the very least, Julian found the practice revolting and dangerous to his program.

Julian attacked the cult of the martyrs several times in his works: in his Letter to

Theodorus*5 in his Edict on Funerals, in Misopogon, possibly in his Letter to the

Alexandrians and in our passage. Each of these works was written in Antioch after the

Temple of Apollo burnt down in late October 362 and within two months of each other.

The destruction of the Temple of Apollo symbolized the dire circumstances

sunounding Julian's effort to create a 'Hellenic' Empire in the early winter of 363. As we

have seen the restoration of 'Hellenic' temples like Apollo's shrine occupied an

83Julian, Ep. 48.443B: oi yap Gecbusvoi TOUC, KaOsuSovrac, EKET, noKkov usv purou, noXk^q 5s aosAyslac, 7ispi xov TOTIOV cbc, ETUXSV OI5OT|C,, ours jncrrsuoucnv aurov OeTov eivai, Kai 8ia TTJV TCOV JtpoasxovTcov aurcp 5sioi8aiuoviav ajncrroTspoi rcspi TOUC; OEOUC, KaOicyravTai (For men who see those persons sleeping there and so much filthy rubbish and careless and licentious behavior in that place, not only do not believe it is sacred, but by the influence of the superstition of those who dwell there come to have less faith in the gods.) Julian's use of "rubbish and careless and licentious behavior" is typical psogos. See Robert L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 112-115.

84 He does not explain how this would happen exactly.

See my next chapter.

181

important place in Julian's program. The burning of Apollo's shrine just before Julian

began to write CG was a rejection of his program. Before it burned to the ground, the

temple had contained a famous oracle and thus had stood as a potent symbol of the power

of Hellenism.

Julian blamed the Christians for the disaster on October 22, 362 (Mis. 361B). At

the heart of the conflict was the cult of the martyr St. Babylas, a martyr of the Decian

persecution in the mid-third century, who Gallus had reburied on the temenos of the

ruined shrine of Apollo in Daphne in 351 CE. Julian ordered the bones removed most

likely because dead bodies polluted people and sites in 'Hellenic' tradition.86 He also may

have been trying to declare the superiority of 'Hellenic' holy sites over Christian holy

sites and thus the triumph of 'Hellenism' over Christianity.87

In response, the Christians, singing psalms, triumphantly canied the bones away

during the day, thus polluting people with whom they came into contact. The Christians

later spun the story that Julian had removed the bones of Babylas because Apollo's oracle

was silenced by the power of Babylas' relics. This clearly turned into a struggle over the

power of the holy.

Julian enacted his Edict on Funerals (Ep. 56) on February 12, 363 CE around the

time he was finishing CG. In this edict, he claimed his concern that the carrying on of

funerals during the day interfered with the lives of 'Hellenes' who were polluted when

they came into contact with dead bodies. At least one scholar believes that he was also

86 Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 5.19 (PG 67.1273, 1276). See Wendy Mayer, "Antioch and the Intersection Between Religious Factionalism: Place and Power in Late Antiquity," in 77ze Power of Religion in Late Antiquity (Andrew Cain and Noel Lenski, eds.; Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2009), 357-363.

87 For martyrs' tombs as holy sites see Markus "How on Earth."

182

concerned with curtailing the cult of the Christian martyrs. The appearance of the edict,

Julian's Letter to the Alexandrians, Misopogon and CG within a few weeks of each other

strongly suggest that Julian was concerned with the popularity of the cult of Christian

martyrs and with strengthening 'Hellenic' notions of the holy.

This cult threatened Julian's Neoplatonic empire, which was based on a

Neoplatonic political philosophy of the ethnes' worship of local deities. Local shrines

were to be the focal points around which local ethne would worship. Since Constantine,

Christians had destroyed 'Hellenic' shrines and replaced them with churches. Julian was

engaged in the same process but in reverse. He was mapping his new 'Hellenic' world

with local shrines, and given the context of the destruction of Apollo's shrine in Daphne,

the cult of Christian martyrs was likely competing with 'Hellenic' holy spaces in the

empire. Julian sought to weaken the cult of Christian martyrs any way he could.

A. Julian's Methodology to Combat the Cult of Christian Martyrs

Julian's efforts were manifested in a variety of ways. First, he removed the relics

of St. Babylas in Daphne, to no avail. Second, he banned Christian funeral processions

during the day time in part to weaken the propaganda influence of Christian processions.

Finally, in CG Julian engaged in scriptural exegesis to prove that neither the New

Testament nor the Old Testament sanctioned the worship of tombs. Thus Christian

practice was illegitimate.

Juana Torres, "Emperor Julian and the Veneration of Relics" in Antiquite Tardive Vol. 17. (ed. Jean-Michel Carre; Turnhout: Brepols, 2009), 205-214.

183

In CG, Julian used the rhetoric of definition to achieve his goal. He defined

incubation as a negative custom practiced by wayward Jews who taught it to Christians.

He also used psogos, a harsh rhetoric in order to delegitimize Christian practice. For

instance, he defined Christian practice as "groveling among tombs", labeled it a

'Christian' practice and associated it with early Jewish practice.89 Thus practices of

sleeping among tombs were negative practices, associated with unacceptable 'others.' A

'Hellene' would never engage in such practices.

At Julian's disposal in this project was the Septuagint. Like other Neoplatonic

philosophers before him such as Porphyry,90 Julian used the Septuagint to attack Christian

practice, which was a particularly powerful tool since Christians claimed the Old

Testament as their own. Isa 65:4 castigated ancient Israelites who sat among graves and

slept among the rocks "for the sake of dreams." Isaiah was an important prophet to

Christians since they thought he foretold the coming of Jesus.

At first blush, Julian's castigation of incubation seems like an odd choice. Like

many Neoplatonists,91 Julian approved of the cult of Aesculapius and Apollo (CG

235B),92 known for their effective incubatory practices.93 He even incubated at Cybele's

89 Interestingly, Julian never used the word 'martyrdom' in his works. He does not want to dignify this Christian practice.

90 Elizabeth Depalma Digreser, "Christian or Hellene? The Great Persecution and the Problem of Identity," in Religious Identity in Late Antiquity, (Robert M. Frakes, and Elizabeth Depalma Digreser, eds.; Toronto: Edgar Kent, 2006), 36-57.

91More significantly, Iamblichus, the father of theurgic Neoplatonism, wrote favorably about incubation. Iamblichus, de Mysteriis 3.3.

92This is not as obvious as one might think. There are numerous negative opinions about incubation among classic Hellenistic authors. Plato speaks out against incubation in his Timaeus 910A, where he speaks disparagingly about founding altars and shrines to obtain dream visions. Neither Aristotle, De divinatio per somnum 463b, nor Cicero De divinatione 1.39-65; 2.119-148 believed in the divine origins of dreams on rationalist grounds. See John S. Hanson, "Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity," ANRW, 22.2: 1395-1427, at 1399-1400. Unlike Aristotle and Cicero, Julian certainly

184

temple in the summer of 362. However, incubation was to take place only in holy places

such as temples, not in impure sites such as tombs.

CG 335D demonstrates that Julian was concerned with the impurity of tombs and

the cult of the Christian martyrs. In that passage, he quoted Matt 23.27 in which Jesus

said that dead people's bones were full of uncleanness as proof of the illegitimacy of

Christian worship of martyrs' relics. Incubation could only take place in holy spaces, and

Julian sought to reclaim the 'Hellenic' concept of purity and holy space which he defined

according to Neoplatonic principles.94

Julian's appropriation of Scriptures cast doubt on Christian interpretations and

therefore on the authority of Christian practice. In effect, this method allowed him to

redefine proper practice for Christians. To this end, he used an increasingly popular

method of interpretation derived from the Antiochene School, a method of interpretation

he studied with Diodore. Antiochene methodology began two decades before Julian and

became popular in the middle of the fourth century.95 The Antiochene School focused on

the historical context of the prophetic passages rather than on their allegorical

believed in the divine origins of dreams. While in Gaul he described how Helios visited him in his dream and offered a parable indicating that he would succeed Constantius to the throne , Julian, Ep. 4, Letter to Oribasius. There he also made mention of Homer's use of dreams. Illiad 16.233; Odyssey 19.336-348; 20.1-3. Other Greek and Roman sources that mention incubation are Aristophanes, Plut. 698-747; Aeneid 7.81-106.

Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, Volume II: The Rise of the Church, (Oxford, U.K.: The Clarendon Press, 1993), 89.

94 In Julian, Ep. 58, Letter to Libanius, he commented approvingly on the people of Batnae's participation in sacrifice. However, he complained about where they sacrifice. They sacrificed everywhere, while Julian wanted to keep even public sacrifice within the courtyard of a temple. Thus it seems Julian had more specific ideas of what constituted holy space than did other members of Graeco-Roman religions.

95 Robert C. Hill, Reading the Old Testament in Antioch, (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

185

interpretations. In Julian's interpretation of Scripture in general, he tends to focus on the

'literal' and 'historical'.

It is unlikely to be a coincidence that Julian chose Isa 65:4 to castigate Christian

practices of "groveling among tombs." In the early fourth century, the Church Father

Eusebius chose this verse to prove the wickedness of the ancient Israelites and to

associate this behavior with 'Hellenic' custom of his own day. Eusebius' comments on

Isa 65:4 are as follows:

Nihil fuit sacrilege quod Israel populus praetermitteret... Sedens quoque vel habitans in sepulcris, et in delubris Idolorum dormiens, ubi stratis pellibus hostiarum incubare Soliti errant ut somniis future cognoscerent. Quod in fano Aesculapii usque hodie enor celebrat ethnicorum multor-Umque aliorum, que non sunt aliud, nisi tumuli mortorum.97

Nothing of a sacrilegious nature did the people of Israel refrain from.. .sitting or dwelling in sepulchers and sleeping in the shrines of idols where they were wont to lie on the outspread skins of sacrificial victims for the purpose of learning the future through dreams. The heathens in their delusion celebrate this in the shrine of Aesculapius up to the present day and [in the shrines] of many others which are nothing but tombs of dead men.98

Eusebius seemed unaware of any Christian practice of incubation. This passage

was partly an attempt to justify Christian supersessionism over Jews and Judaism.99 It

was also an example of "ethnic argumentation", which Eusebius used to show the

96 This school allowed for an application of prophecy to several historical occurrences. Thus prophecy was eternal. Allegory had been the preferred method of interpretation and was associated with the Alexandrian School.

97 Eusebius, Commentarius in Isaiam, 28, 65.

See Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein eds., Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of Testimonies, 2 Vols. (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press), 143.

99 Michael J. HoUerich, Eusebius ofCaesarea 's Commentary on Isaiah: Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 33. HoUerich does not comment on this passage, but says Eusebius is concerned with supersessionism.

186

superiority of Christians over Greeks. Although Eusebius' supersessionist goals were

different from Julian's, his process was very much the same. He identified other religious

groups, associated their practices with other illegitimate groups, and sat in judgment of

their practices. His commentary gives textual justification to Christian practice in a

negative way.

Eusebius' supersessionist claims can be found throughout his works and

especially in the Praeparatio Evangelica, in which he interpreted verses of the Old

Testament to foreshadow the coming of Jesus and the success of the church. Like Julian,

he was a thinker schooled in 'Hellenic' thought but saw Constantine's rise to sole

emperor as the final validation of Christianity's supersessionist claims over Judaism and

'Hellenism.' The Septuagint was thus used as the proof text justifying Christianity's

political and religious success in the empire.

Eusebius was Constantine's and the church's chief propagandist and the creator of

a conceptual empire defined by Christian values. What separates Julian from Eusebius is

that the former acted qua emperor and qua philosopher-king and engaged himself in

scriptural exegesis for the purposes of destroying Christianity and building his 'Hellenic'

empire.

The Book of Isaiah's wealth of passages that, in Christian eyes, foretold the

coming of Christ and proved the success of Christianity enabled Eusebius to make

supersessionist claims indirectly. In this passage, Eusebius attributed the wicked practices

of sitting among tombs for the sake of dream visions, described by Isaiah in Eusebius'

Greek Bible, to the ancient Israelites. Implied in his language was that all Israelites

engaged in these practices. The wickedness of Israel was a leitmotif among

187

supersessionist thinkers who justified the coming of Jesus and the rise of Christianity by

pointing to Israel's wickedness. Notably, Eusebius' Israelites are purely scriptural; he did

not attempt to relate them or their practices to the Jews of his day.

"Rule-making" is evident in this passage as well. Christianity's chief opponent is

Julian's 'Hellene.' Eusebius compared the practice of incubation in the Aesculapian cult

of his own day with the practice of the Israelites in Isaiah's day. He identified evil

Israelite practice and compared it with 'Hellenic' practices, thus painting both with the

same brush of de-legitimization. While the spiritual supersessionist nuances of his

argument need not have been brought to bear against the followers of Aesculapius, it is

possible that Eusebius had political supersession in mind. Just as the Israelites had lost

their claim of being the "true Israel" because of evil practices, so too the 'Hellenes', had

lost their right to rule over the empire.

Julian turned this passage around on Eusebius. He demonstrated that Christians

performed the very acts that Isaiah castigated.100 Johnson described the technique

whereby an apologist uses another group's own voice against that group as "poaching."101

Poaching shows the origins of the source and that the other groups' interpretations of

their own holy books are misinterpretations.

By stating that Christians learned the practice from ancient Ioudaioi, Julian

labeled this practice as 'Jewish' and illegitimate by an authority holy to both Jews and

Whether Julian meant incubation here is not important.

1 Aaron P. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) vii. This countered Christian apologetic arguments (Eusebius for instance) and constructions of Christianity as an ethnos which were modeled on the Septuagint. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument, 24, 41 and 66.

188

Christians.102 Christian "groveling" among tombs was equivalent to the wicked acts

performed by 'Jews,' as evidenced by the prophet Isaiah. Of course Isaiah would never

have classified such heretical practices as 'Israelite.' Nevertheless, Julian quoted Isaiah as

evidence for a long-held illegitimate 'Jewish' practice that was passed on to early

Christians.103 At the same time, Julian classified this Judeo-Christian practice as anti-

'Hellenic', owing to its impurity, and therefore rendered it illegitimate. As a result, the

cult of Christian martyrs was rendered impure since they were located on relics.104

This is an excellent example of how Julian appropriated Christian Scriptures. He

read the text in its historical context and turned it around on Christianity. The Antiochene

method of interpreting Scripture was also Eusebius' method.105 Thus he showed that he

had greater ability to use Christian methodologies of reading texts than the Church

Fathers, who were poor exegetes. Effectively Julian argued that Eusebius was unable to

properly understand Isa 65:4.106

This is a powerful argument. It claims that the Church Fathers misunderstood

their own scriptures, while allowing Julian to question the very notion of Christian

holiness as it related to the cult of Christian martyrs. Moreover, Christian scriptures could

I will soon discuss Julian's appropriation of Christian texts as well as the place of Jews in this passage.

103 Julian's use of the term Ioudaioi is part of his archaizing tendency, identified by many scholars. It also serves to link Judaism with Christianity, a point I will consider soon.

1 Julian is also appropriating Jewish texts, giving them their own meaning to create a normative Judaism for various purposes.

105 Although Eusebius wrote before the Antiochene School's establishment, his methods are similar. See HoUerich, Eusebius of Caesarea 's Commentary on Isaiah, 95.

106 Julian does the same thing to invalidate Jewish exegetes in his Fragment of a Letter to a Priest, 295D.

189

be read to validate 'Hellenic' practice since 'Hellenes' did not incubate among impure

tombs but in holy temples.

By declaring Christian martyr tombs impure, Julian removed Christian holy

space. Effectively, Julian was denying the Christians a place on his Neoplatonic ethnic

map. This map was made up of ethne who worshipped their local gods in temples

following their ancestral laws. We have seen that Julian claimed that Christianity was not

a proper ethnos because it did not follow its ancestral laws. Here Julian claims that

Christians were not an ethnos because they had no holy spaces. Thus Christianity had no

place on Julian's imperial map.

B. The Role of Jews and Judaism in CG 335C-340A

What was the role of Jews and Judaism in Julian's CG 335C-340A? Like the

Jews in the Adver.sus ludaeos literature in which Eusebius and Julian figure prominently,

Julian's Jews are hermeneutical figures used to attack or support the positions of one

party over another.107

Julian's use of his rhetorical Jew bears some consideration. We have seen that

these passages are mainly concerned with the de-legitimization of the cult of Christian

martyrs on the basis of the impurity of tombs. This effort required that Julian de-sacralize

the definition of Christian holy space so that his pagan temples could prosper. As

emperor, Julian was peculiarly in a position to use many weapons to achieve this task of

empire building.

David Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict, (Leiden: Brill, 1982).

190

One such weapon was the appropriation of Christian Scriptures. Yet the Old

Testament was also Jewish Scripture. Therefore, in part, Julian was forced to deal with

ancient Jewish or Israelite practice. I believe that Julian's choice of the term Ioudaioi

rather than 'Israelite' may have been deliberate. Although Christians regularly assumed

that the prophetic critique of sinful Israelites applied to contemporary Jews, Julian used

the term Ioudaioi as contemporary figures or those of the recent past.108

The passage in Isaiah clearly is written before the term 'Jew' had even been

conceived. Julian's decision to use this term had a couple of purposes. First, Julian had a

practical consideration: using the term Ioudaioi allowed Julian to link the Jewish and

Christian practice of worshipping the dead. It allowed him to make the claim that

Christians learned this practice from the Jews which could only have happened in

relatively recent history. He did not want to associate worship of the dead with 'Hellenes'

and thus found the Jews the only logical choice.

Second, Christians used the term "Jew" as a derogatory term. Jews were a sinful

people. By labeling Christian worship of martyrs' relics 'Jewish', Julian turned the

opprobrious term back on the Christians.

In CG 335C-340A, Julian used "rule-making" to negatively portray Jewish

practice. Julian defined Jewish practices as 'other', which were separate from and not as

worthy as 'Hellenic' identity and practice. In fact this practice was antithetical to

'Hellenic' practice. This was doubly advantageous to Julian since he could tie Jewish

practice to Christian illegitimate practices. Since the Christians had claimed Jewish

Scriptures as their own, he used this source to lambaste Christian practices. By claiming

108 This is my observation from reading CG.

191

sleeping among tombs to be a Jewish practice he imagined that Jews of the first century

CE passed this tradition on to the apostles. However, the reader is not quite sure if the

practices spoken of belong to the past or are cunent. As this passage relates to Jews, it is

designed to call into question the validity of Jewish practices in the present.109

The affect on Christians was momentous. They followed the very worst practices

of the Jews, as defined by one of the most revered prophets in Christianity - Isaiah. Julian

himself argued that the Christians took the very worst parts of both Judaism and

Hellenism (CG 238B). Isaiah's castigation of the Israelites in 65:4 exemplified this

behavior. Therefore, we can see that Julian's modeling of Judaism and Jewish practice

gives him a strategic advantage.

The importance of Julian's exegesis of the Old Testament to his project cannot be

overstated. Effectively he reinterpreted the Old Testament using Christian methods of

interpretation (Antiochene School) to serve his own ends: the destruction of Christianity

and the building of his Neoplatonic and 'Hellenic' empire. Reinterpreting Scripture

allowed him to model ideal or illegitimate Jewish practice which, as we have seen, at

times could be an ally in his program against Christianity, but here functioned as a model

of 'other.' In doing so, not only did he compete with Christian exegetes such as Eusebius,

but with unnamed Jewish exegetes as well.110

His ability to do so was enhanced by his ability to change things on the ground.

Thus if Jesus said the temple would never be rebuilt and Jewish cultic practice would

109 Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument, 92. This might mean Julian was aware of Jews who incubated in his own day.

110 Julian complains about the lack of prowess among Jewish exegetes. See n.106 herein. He does not specify which exegetes he means. It is possible though completely speculative that he meant the rabbis. We have no evidence that Julian came into contact with any rabbi.

192

end, Julian could deny Jesus as a prophet and son of God by reinstating the temple and

cultic worship and thus remove one of Christianity's central truth claims.

V. Conclusion

This chapter began with an examination of Julian's sources for CG 335C-340A,

in which he claimed that Christians learned incubation from ancient "Jews." Julian's use

of Jews and Judaism can sometimes be distinguished from his knowledge of Jewish

practices. The evidence surveyed shows that few if any Jews incubated in Late Antiquity.

Jews in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods did not consider incubation to be an

identity marker and rarely bothered to mention it. Therefore, Julian did not draw on

Jewish practice to compose CG.

What then was he doing in these passages? He seems primarily concerned with

attacking the cult of the Christian martyrs by questioning the holiness of tombs. Thus

Julian attempted to de-sacralize Christian holy space which offended 'Hellenic' notions

of the holy. Julian's project in these passages was driven by the burning down of

Apollo's temple in Daphne, allegedly by the Christians. The Christian notion of the

holiness of martyr tombs threatened Julian's Neoplatonic program in which all ethne

would worship their local gods in temples. Secondly, Julian identified legitimate

'Hellenic' practice.

At Julian's disposal in CG 335C-340A was the Septuagint and Isaiah 65:4. Julian

attempted to appropriate Christian scriptures by claiming that his exegesis was far

superior to that of the Church Fathers. Here he was responding to Eusebius'

supersessionist exegesis of this same passage. Essentially Julian argued that

193

Christianity's own scriptures castigated the practice of sleeping among tombs. The upshot

was that the tombs of the martyrs were not holy, and thus Christian practice was

illegitimate.

The place of Jews and Judaism in CG 335C-340A is different than in Julian's

other comments on Jews and Judaism. Here Jews are engaged in practices that are

illegitimate and certainly un-'Hellenic' Thus in these passages Jews serve as an example

of what 'Hellenes' ought not to do.

194

Chapter Five Dying for the Law in Julian's Letter to Theodorus

I. Introduction:

In an epistle written to his dpxtepsug of Asia, Theodorus, Julian lamented the fact

that his 'Hellenes' had given up on their ancestral traditions. Once again he looked to the

Jews to offer a positive example for his people. He wrote:1

opcov ouv 7ioM.f|v psv oXvycopiav ouaav fipiv 7ipo<; xox>q Gsouc;, ot7taaav 8s euXdpeiav xfrv sic; TOUC; Kpsixxovac; d7is^nA,apsvnv vnb xfjcj dKaGdpxou Kai XuSaiacj xpu(pfjc;, del psv2 cbSupdprrv sycb Kax'spauxov xd xoiauxa XOUCJ, psv xfj3 Tou5aicov suasPsiac; o"X°Ml 7rpoosxovxacj ouxoo 5ia7rupoucj, <k>q aipsiaGai psv U7isp auxfjcj Gdvaxov dvsxsoGai 8s rcaaav svSsiav Kai Aapov, usicov biuisq pf) ysuaaivxo pn8s 7rvucxou pnS'dpa4 xou d7ioGAaPsvxo<;. n.pac; 5s ouxco paGupcoq xd 7ip6<; xoug Gsouc; 8taKsipsvoug, coaxs E7tiA£A,fja6ai psv xcov 7iaxpicov, dyvosiv 8s Xourov, si Kai sxdxGn 7r.amoxs xi xoiouxov. dXA.' ouxoi psv sv pspsi Gsoaspsicj ovxsq, S7isi7isp Gsov5 xipcaai xov ob<;6 d nGcocj ovxa Suvaxooxaxov Kai dyaGcoxaxov, bq s^ixpoususi xov aiaGnxov Koapov, 6v7 su otS'oxi Kai f|psic; aXXoi<; Gsparcsuopsv ovopaaw, siKoxa poi SoKouat 7T01SIV, XOUCJ vopoucj pf| 7iapapaivovxs<;, SKSTVO 8E povov dpapxdvsiv, oxi pf|

1 My translation follows Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, Volume II, (Wright, LCL). I added changes from the critical edition of Menahem Stern, GLAJJ, 2, as well as my own changes where I deemed it appropriate. Stern's critical edition follows Bidez and Cumont but adds in Hertlein's critical edition, Spanheim and Cobet. See Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n483. See Josef Bidez, and Franz Cumont eds., L Empereur Julien Oeuvres Completes, Tome 1, 2e Partie, (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1924); Frid Carol Hertlein, luliani Imperatoris que Supersunt Praeter reliquias apud Cyrillum Omnia, Vols. 1-2, (Lipsiae: ^dibus B.G. Teubneri, 1875); CarelG. Cobet, Annotationes criticae etpalaeographicae adIulianum, Vols. 1-11, 1859-1883; M. Ezekiel Spanheim, luliani Imp. Opera quae supersunt omnia, (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1696).

2 Stern pace Bidez and Cumont adds ouv here.

xfj not in Stern.

4 Wright follows Spanheim, luliani Imp. Opera, who adds 7TVIKTOU. Stern pace Bidez and Cumont has Kpecoc, xou uf| jiapaxpfjua instead of JUVIKTOU un5 dpa.

5 Wright follows Cobet, Annotationes criticae. Stem pace Bidez and Cumont has 6v.

6 Stern pace Bidez and Cumont omits TOV cbc,. He adds &A1' here.

7 Stern pace Spanheim has ovTtep.

195

Kai xou<; akXovq Gsoucj, dpsaKovxsg xouxop pd^iaxa xo) Gsw, Gspa7isuouaiv, aXX' f)ptv oiovxai xoiq sGvsatv d7ioKSKAr|pcflo-0ai povoic; auxoucj, dXa^ovsia PappapiKfj 7rpd<; xauxnvi xf|v a7t6vouxv s7rapGsvxEc;. oi 8e SK xfjcj Tatalaiac; SuaasPsiacj u3a7isp xi voanpa xcp pico xfjv sauxcov...

Therefore, when I saw that there is among us great indifference about the gods and that all reverence for the heavenly powers has been driven out by impure and vulgar luxury, I always secretly lamented this state of things. For I saw that those whose minds were attuned to the doctrines8 of the Jews are so ardent in their belief that they would choose to die for it, and to endure utter want and starvation rather than taste pork or any animal that has been strangled or had9 the life squeezed out of it; whereas we are in such a state of apathy about religious matters that we have forgotten the customs of our forefathers, and therefore we actually do not know whether any such rule has ever been prescribed. But these Jews are in part god-fearing, seeing that they revere a god who is truly most powerful and most good and governs this world of sense, and, as I well know, is worshipped by us also under other names. They act as is right and seemly, in my opinion, if they do not transgress the laws; but in this one thing they err in that, while reserving their deepest devotion for their own god, they do not conciliate the other gods also; but the other gods they think have been allotted to us Gentiles only, to such a pitch of folly have they been brought by their barbaric conceit. But those who belong to the impious sect of the Galileans as if some disease...10

In this chapter I will examine Julian's statement about Jews who die for their laws

in general11 and for the sake of food laws in particular. My first goal is to determine his

8 Wright translated a%oXr\ as "doctrine.' The relevant entries in Liddell and Scott for r\ CJX0 -1! a r e : learned

disputation, discussion or lecture; or, school. Henry G. Liddell, and Robert Scott eds. A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1747. When its verb o%olMja takes a dative person it means "to devote oneself." Julian likely meant teachings or laws of the Jewish religion to which the Jews were devoted. This understanding fits with how Julian understood a people's ancestral laws given by the gods to their peoples.

9 Not in Stern who follows Bidez and Cumont here. He adds "not" here. The alternative reading Kpscoc, TOU uf| 3tapaxprj(ia means meat that was immediately (slaughtered).

10 The text is cut off here. Wright believes that the Christians took it out because it was insulting to Christ. (Wright, LCL), 61 n2.

11 I am not using the term 'martyrdom' because Julian did not use the word martyr or martyrdom in his extant works. For a discussion of the debate over the development of the concept of martyrdom see: William. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967); Glen W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God. Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999); Jan William van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviors of the Jewish People: A Study of Second and Fourth

196

sources and, second, to elucidate what role dying for the law played in Julian's argument

both within his Letter to Theodorus and in the context of his empire-building project

more generally. My study will focus on the first half of this quote. As we will see, the

second part informs the passage's meaning, and while interesting, is not the subject of

this study.

II. Julian's Description of Jewish Practice

In this passage, Julian claimed that Jews willingly chose death over transgressing

their laws and, even chose to starve rather than eat pork or any animal that had been

strangled or had the life squeezed out of it. Although these appear to be two separate

claims, the logical flow of the passage within his larger argument suggests that Julian's

second statement was an illustration of the Jews' willingness to die for their faith.

Julian's comments are nestled within an epistle appointing Theodorus to be High

Priest over Asia, an appointment designed to implement Julian's grand program to

transform the Empire.12 By means of this letter, Theodorus was empowered to appoint a

network of worthy local priests to promote Julian's main agenda: the adherence of local

peoples to their ancestral laws (Letter to Theodorus 452C). This was no small task as the

'Hellenes' continued to follow their ancestral laws. It is here that Julian turned to the

Jews as a model people who observed their laws so scrupulously that they chose death

over their violation.

Maccabees, (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Paul Middleton, Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity, (London: T&T Clark, 2006).

12 Julian wrote this program is "dear to me" ("euoi uev cptA,ov"), Julian, Ep. 57(Wright LCL), 452C.

197

III. Jews who Die for their Laws (a%oh\)

Dying for the law was a common theme in late Second Temple Judaism, from

Maccabean times13 through the rabbinic period. It exists both as a literary genre in

Maccabean and rabbinic literature and as a general defining characteristic of Jews in the

works of Philo and Josephus. This theme has antecedents in the Book of Daniel.14

In 1 Mace, Jews fight and die for their laws and country, while the famous

martyrs of 2 and 4 Mace die "to defend their sacred laws" (2 Mace 6:28). Eleazar the

priest suffers a noble death rather than eat pork or the flesh of sacrificed meat to the

gods.15 In the next chapter, the seven sons choose to die rather than "violate the laws of

our forefathers" (2 Mace 7:2).

The Books of the Maccabees inspired a value of dying for the law. The

Assumption of Moses, written after the fall of the Temple, employed themes from I

Mace.16 In the first century CE Philo17 and especially Josephus elevated the value of

13 Tessa Rajak, "Dying for the Law: The Martyr's Portrait in Jewish Greek Literature" in The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome, (Tessa Rajak ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 99-113 at 100. Inherent in their deaths is a notion of victory.

14 In Dan 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego are placed in the fiery furnace for failing to worship the golden image of a god that Nebuchadnezar had set up and had commanded all his peoples to worship. Although the three did not die, they are early examples of Jews who suffered persecution for their laws. In Dan 6, Daniel himself is cast into the lion's den for praying to God. He too survived. Commentators stress the main theme of God's superiority over the Babylonian king. Suffering rather than transgressing God's laws is a secondary theme.

15 Arthur J. Droge, and James D. Tabor, A Noble Death, Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity, (San Francisco: Harper, 1992).

16 The story predicts that a man named Taxo from the tribe of Levi and his seven sons will arise and encourage the people to fast for three days and then retreat into a cave rather than transgress the laws (As. Mos. 9:6). Taxo and his seven sons remind the reader of the mother and her seven sons in 2 and 4 Mace. The retreat to the cave is similar to the men in 2 Mace 6:11, who refused to violate the Sabbath and went off into a cave where they were hunted down and killed. Taxo is ready to starve and die for the laws, although which laws are not identified. This work borrowed heavily from the books of the Maccabees. Shepkaru says 4 Mace in particular. Shmuel Shepkaru, Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and Christian Worlds, (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 52-54. Other Jews who took refuge in caves can be

198

Jewish willingness to die for their laws.18 After fighting a deadly war with Rome,

Josephus was eager to demonstrate Jewish willingness to die for their ancestral laws

rather than for their country. The antiquity of a nation's laws was a badge of honor in

Antiquity and one that could be honored by Romans, whereas fighting for one's land

posed a threat to Roman political hegemony. In reality, dying for the law was something

that many Jews were willing to do only when required. Jews prefened to accommodate

their 'Hellenic' sunoundings.

In rabbinic stories, the principle of dying for the law is called Death for Kiddush

HaShem (The Sanctification of God's Name).19 Galit Hasan-Rokem argues that this is not

a significant genre in rabbinic literature.20 In fact, in Tannaitic literature this term did not

exclusively refer to cases of dying for the law but rather broadly denoted any act that

sanctified God's name in public.21

found in 1 Mace 1:53: 2:31; 2 Mace 6:11; 10:6. In A.J. 14.15.5 Josephus relates how a man took refuge with his seven sons and slew all of them and then himself rather than submit to Herod.

Philo wrote that the pagan, Petronius, feared that the Jews would rather die than allow their laws to be violated (Legat. 209, 108-109).

18 Josephus, C. Ap. 1.42: it is innate in every Jew to remain faithful to the law and if necessary, to gladly die for the law. In C. Ap. 1.190 the Jews would rather suffer anything than transgress the laws. This theme appears in C. Ap. 2.146, 2.218, 2.219.

191 will continue to use the phrase 'dying the law' here because dying for the sanctification of God's Name meant dying for the law.

20 Galit Hasan-Rokem, The Web of Life, Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature, (trans. Batya Stein; Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000), 114.

21 Shmuel Safrai, "Martyrdom in the Teachings of the Tannaim," in Sjaloom: Ter nagedachtenis van Mgr. Dr. A. C. Ramselaar, (Theo C. de Kruijf and Henk van der Sandt, eds.; Hilversum: B. Folkertsma Stichting voor Talmudica, 1983), 146-147. Shmuel Safrai argued that, when the rabbis of this period used Kiddush HaShem to mean dying for the law, they referred to the "meritorious or miraculous event leading to sanctification."

199

By the Amoraic Period, the principle of dying for the law is more fully developed.

What is distinctive about rabbinic dying for the law is its use by the rabbis to assert and

justify their claims to leadership among Jews.22

The two rabbinic groupings of dying for the law stories, stories about the Asarah

Harugei Malkhut (The Ten Martyrs) and the Mother and Her Seven Sons,23 are refracted

back to the second century or earlier by the redactors of the Talmuds, suggesting that the

rabbinic notion of dying for the law was a creation of the Amoraim that they located in

the past. The Ten Martyrs, all rabbis,24 are a construction of the Amoraic Period, who

lived and died during the Hadrianic Persecution in the second century CE.25 The key

Shepkaru, Jewish Martyrs, 84.

23 See Hasan-Rokem, The Web of Life, 121. She observed that the rabbis and the Christians shared a narrative tradition about martyrdom. For more about the cult of the Maccabean martyrs see: Gerard Rouwhorst, "The Cult of the Seven Maccabean Brothers and their Mother in Christian Tradition," in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, (Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz eds.; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 183-207; Simcha Goldin, The Ways of Jewish Martyrdom, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 75-77. For different points of view of whether a Jewish cult preceded a Christian cult see: Marcel Simon, "Les Saints d'Israel dans la devotion de l'Eglise Ancienne," RHPR 34 (1954): 98-127; Carl H. Kraeling, "The Jewish Community of Antioch" JBL 51 (1932): 130-160; Julian Obermann, "The Sepulchre of the Maccabean Martyrs," JBL 49 (1930): 250-265; Margaret Schatkin, "The Maccabean Martyrs," VC 28 (1974): 97-11; Martha Vinson, "Gregory Nazianen's Homily 15 and the Genesis of the Christian Cult of the Maccabean Martyrs," Byzantion 65 (1994): 166-192; Leonard V. Rutgers, "The Importance of Scripture in the Conflict between Jews and Christians: The Example of Antioch," in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, (Leonard V. Rutgers et al., eds.; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 291-303. Rabbinic evidence in t. Ohalot 4:2, relates that a collection of bones was deposited in a synagogue in Lydda in Rabbi Aqivah's time. Rabbi Aqivah held that the bones did not impart impurity. This is the only literary evidence for this practice though no reason is provided for this action. The Christians eventually took up this practice themselves beginning in Julian brother's time when the bones of St. Babylas were buried near the church (Chrysostom).

24 Except for the Ten Martyrs, rabbinic claims of Jews who died rather than transgress the laws are never related to specific individuals.

25 Louis Finkelstein "The Ten Martyrs," in Essays and Studies in Memory of Linda R. Miller, (Israel Davidson ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1938), 29-55. For a list of the ten martyrs see Lam. Rab. 2:2 and the Midrash on Psalms 9:13. Most stories take place in Palestine. However, at least one tradition places Pappus and Lulianus in Laodicea. Most scholars do not include Papus and Lulianus on their list of martyrs. In his appendix, Finkelstein places Pappus and Lulianus on the list of the ten martyrs. One tradition places them in Laodicea (b. Taanit 18b or Gen. Rab. 11:4). See William Horbury "Pappus and Lulianus in Jewish Resistance to Rome," in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Proceeding of the 6th EAJS Congress Toledo, July, 1998, Volume I: Biblical, Rabbinical and Medieval Studies, (Judith T. Borrs, and Angel Saenz-Badillos eds.; Leiden; Brill, 1999), 289-295 at 292. These

200

stories here focus on the following rabbis: R. Hanina b. Teradjon (b. Abod. Zar. 17b-18a;

parallel in Sifre Deut 32:4 , 207; Sem. 8 and Kallah 18c); Rabbi Akiba (b. Ber. 61a-b, y.

Sotah 20c); Judah b. Baba (b. Sanh. 14a; b. Abod. Zar. 8b).26 The stories about Hannah

and her seven sons can be dated to no earlier than the fifth century and are set in the

Roman Empire (Lam. Rab. 1:16; b. Git. 57b; and, Pesiq. Rab. 43) usually after the

destruction of the Temple.27

The rabbis' desire to use the principle of Kiddush HaShem was mitigated by their

efforts to contain it. An example of this is the rabbinic law determining when a Jew

should perform an act of Kiddush HaShem.2* The very framing of the law is expressed in

the negative and limited to three instances: when a Jew is forced in private to (a) kill; (b)

commit incest; or (c) engage in acts of idolatry.29

In addition, opportunities for Kiddush HaShem were tightly controlled by a

number of factors. First among these was the well-known principle of Rabbi Ishmael who

stories and characters are fluid in rabbinic literature and cannot be fixed although they usually are located in the second century. Rather they are themes or topoi used by the rabbis for various purposes in their writings.

26 For more on the ten martyrs see Moshe D. Herr, "The Ten Martyrs," Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and Christian Worlds. (Shmuel Shepkaru ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 73-78.

27 These stories often are tied to stories about dying for the law during the destruction of the temple. Goldin believed that traditions about the mother and her seven sons from 2 Mace were reworked as oral traditions in the second century. Goldin, Ways of Jewish Martyrdom, 75.

28 The rabbis debated the meaning of these rules. Rabbi Dimi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan is said to have ruled that these three applied in a time when there were no persecutions. In times of persecution, however, a Jew should die for any one of God's laws. Rabbi Yohanan explained that the law in a time of no persecution meant only in private. In public, one was to die rather than transgress even the smallest commandment. See b. Sanh. 74a; y. Seb. 4,:35a and y. Sanh. 3:21b.

29 According to rabbinic tradition, this was decided in the House of Nitza in Lydda, probably during the Hadrianic persecution. See y. Seb. 4:35a with parallel in y. Sanh. 21b and b. Sanh. 13:8. See Alyssa M. Gray, "A Contribution to the Study of Martyrdom and Identity in the Palestinian Talmud," JJS 54 (2003): 242-271 at 253; Safrai, "Martyrdom in the Teachings of the Tannaim,"157. Safrai listed cases of earlier Jewish sources that also emphasized one or more of these commandments. Safrai, "Martyrdom in the Teachings of the Tannaim,"158.

201

interpreted Lev 18:5 "and live through them" to mean that Jews should choose to live by

the commandments and not die by them.30 He applied this principle to Jews who were

forced on pain of death to practice idol worship in private, while sanctioning death when

a Jew was faced with this choice in public.31

Secondly, Alyssa Gray has demonstrated with great skill that the sugya in y.

Sheviit has been carefully crafted by the redactors of the Palestinian Talmud to

demonstrate that even the laws sanctioning Kiddush HaShem were to be ignored unless

the Gentile's intention was malevolent.32 The best example of this is the Jews who baked

bread on the Sabbath for the Roman army's commander, Ursicinus, without a hint of

disapproval from the rabbis.33

Finally, the redactors who crafted these sugyot lived at a time when the Roman

Empire had been at peace with the Jews for generations and had respected their ancestral

laws.34 All of the martyrs had lived in the second century and expressly forbade their

students from following in their footsteps.35 Kiddush HaShem was a principle in theory,

30 Sifre, Aharei Mot. 13; b. Sanh. 74a and b. AbotR. Sar. 27b. In the alternative, Daniel Schwartz argued that this dictum was actually interpreted by the rabbis to mean that Jews should die for the laws so that they might live on in the afterlife. See Daniel R. Schwartz, "Ma Hava Leh Memar? 'Ve'Hai Ba'hem"' in Kedushat ha-Hayim ve-heruf ha-nefesh: Kovetz ma'amarim lezikhro shelAmir Yekutiel (ed. Isaiah Gafhi, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1992), 69-83 at 80.

31 Safrai, "Martyrdom in the Teachings of the Tannaim,"158.

32 If the Gentile set out to have the Jews transgress a commandment in public, then the Jews should choose death. Gray argued that the rabbis of the fourth century mentioned in y. Seb. 4:35a try to define a Jewish obligation towards God in order to strengthen their identity as God's unique people. See Gray, "A Contribution to the Study of Martyrdom," 266. The question of the Gentile's intention reveals that Jewish acts of Kiddush HaShem required a persecutor.

33 y. Seb. 4:35a.

34 Rabbinic literature from Rabbi Judah the Nasi demonstrates friendliness and accommodation with the Roman Empire, even as it looked forward to replacing Rome (Gen. Rab.) in the distant future.

35 b. Sanh. 14a; b. Abad. Zarah 8b, 27b; y. Abad. Zarah 2:2, 4a. See Shepkaru, Jewish Martyrs, 99.

202

but its practice was limited in effect. Thus Jews of the fourth century never faced the

choice of dying for the law.

Interestingly, the limited instances of non-Jews who claimed that Jews died for

their laws are also almost entirely limited to the second century CE. In his Historiae 5, 3

Tacitus36 remarked that Jews scorned death believing that those who died in battle or

through persecution would live on forever. In a passage we will explore in the next

section, the second century philosopher, Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes 3.

223)37 and third century philosopher Porphyry (De abstinentia 2.61) claimed that Jews

would rather die than transgress their food laws. One might attribute this theme to Roman

familiarity with Jews who had died for their laws in the wake of the revolt against Rome

(66-73 CE), the Revolt against Trajan (115-117 CE) and the Bar-Kochba Revolt (132-

135 CE) as well from the writings of Josephus, who died at the turn of the second

century.38 On the other hand, by Julian's day, Jews had been at peace with Rome for over

200 years. With the end of hostilities, persecution of Jews ended and, in time, the Jews'

"willingness" to die likely faded from 'Hellenic' consciousness.39

j b Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n281.

Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes 3. 223, GLAJJ, 1 n334.

38 Cassius Dio's remark that Jews who died fighting to save the temple met death willingly is not included because he does not attribute this characteristic to Jews in general. See Cassius Dio, "Historia Romana LXVI 6," in Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n430.

39 An exception to this can be found among pagan philosophers such as Porphyry and Sextus Empiricus. I will claim they represent an entirely different use of this topos. The only other source that indirectly declares the Jews' willingness to die for their laws comes from the Christian, Suplicius Severus, who wrote in 417 or 418, that the Christians on the Island of Minorca are said to have imagined that Jews urged each other on in the face of Christian opposition by encouraging themselves to be willing to die just as the Maccabees had done (Suplicius Severus, PL 20.734). He did not explicitly say that they are to die for their laws and may not have meant it, however, if Severus read the Books of the Maccabees, he would have known of their willingness to die for their laws. More likely, he was raising the topos of martyrdom, a theme which Christians automatically understood with reference to the Maccabees.

203

In the absence of evidence of Jews who died for the laws in the third and fourth

centuries, Julian's claims that Jews died for their laws is unusual. To our knowledge,

Jews were not persecuted in the middle of the fourth century and certainly not for their

dietary practices. Recent scholarship has defined the Jewish "revolt" against Gallus in the

350s as a local skirmish.40 There is no evidence here that Jews died for their laws during

this event. Similarly, there is no evidence that Jews were persecuted under Roman law in

the fourth century. Anti-Jewish law began in earnest in the last half of the fourth century

and evidence shows that is implementation was haphazard.41 At most, Jews experienced

discrimination prior to Julian's reign.

IV. Dying Rather than Eating Pig or Other Impurely Slaughtered Animals

A. Dietary Laws as a Jewish Identity Marker in Antique Jewish Culture

Jewish literature of Antiquity is rich with stories of Jews who scrupulously

followed their dietary laws. In captivity, Tobit refused to eat Gentile food, although other

Israelites did (Tob 1.10). Judith took everything she needed to eat over to Holofernes'

camp (Jdt 10.5). The Greek Esther reminded God that she never ate at Haman's table, nor

drank wines of pagan libations (Add Esthl4.17). According to 3 Mace, Jews in Egypt

separated themselves from the Egyptians with respect to food (3 Mace 3:4-7).

The observance of the food laws was an identity marker for Jews in the Late

Second Temple Period. Josephus is proud that Jewish food laws are kept in all parts of

40 Gunter Sternberger, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, Palestine in the Fourth Century, (Edinburgh: T&T, 2000); Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule. A Political History of Palestine from the Bar Kockba War to the Arab Conquest, (New York: Schocken Books, 1984).

41 Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987).

204

the Roman Empire.42 The key dietary limitations included: abstaining from pork, blood,

and meat sacrificed to idols.43 Josephus quotes a decree of Sardis instructing market

officials to provide suitable food for the Jews (A.J. 14:259-261). Dolabella, the legate of

Asia, complained in a letter to Ephesus that Jews were not able to obtain their ancestral

food, which suggests that generally Jews were allowed to obtain their own food supply

(Josephus, A.J. 14.245).44 On the whole, extensive pagan knowledge of Jewish dietary

customs, which I will soon canvass, suggests that most Jews kept their dietary laws.

More revealing is the fact that Josephus' other comments about the Jewish refusal

to eat pork are all a response to a pagan's denunciation of this custom. In Contra

Apionem 2:137, Josephus answered Apion's indictment: "He denounces us for sacrificing

demonic animals and for not eating pork."45 In C. Ap. 2:141 Josephus argued that even

Apion would have agreed that the most god-fearing among the Egyptians were priests

and they are all circumcised and did not eat swine's flesh. In effect, Josephus sought to

normalize Jewish practice by arguing that Egyptians did the same thing. Josephus'

response to pagan accusations concerning the Jewish refusal to eat pig suggests that this

was a reverse identity marker: Non-Jews evidently took note of the Jews' refusal to eat

pork and defined them on this basis.

Josephus, C.Ap. 282. On Josephus and the food laws see Rajak, "Dying for the Law," 126.

43 Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 54. However, evidence suggests that these laws were not always adhered to strictly. See Ed Parrish Sanders, Jewish Law From Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies, (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), 277.

44 Ed Sanders has suggested that some times and in some places Jews did not have suitable food. Sanders, Jewish Law.

45 Stern, GLAJJ, 1, nl76.

205

In Tannaitic Literature, not eating pig is an identity marker that does not appear

often. Although the sin of idolatry came to include certain food prohibitions, I argue that

the de-emphasis on the food laws is notable compared with Second Temple literature.

Interestingly, not one of the biblical or Second Temple stories I have mentioned

which deals with Jewish dietary laws was canonized by the rabbis. This may be a

coincidence. Although the rabbis do mention observance of food laws as a Jewish

identity marker from time to time, this is not emphasized. The best example of this

tendency is the treatment of the Books of Maccabees in rabbinic literature. The rabbis

never looked back on the Maccabean martyrs and remembered their sacrifice on behalf of

not eating pork.

Nevertheless there are tannaitic stories that emphasize not eating pig or kosher

meat as a Jewish identity marker.46 An example is t. Av. Zarah 4:6. There R. Simeon ben

Eleazar states that Israelites in the Diaspora are worshipers of idolatry because they go to

Gentile weddings even though they eat their own food and are served by their own

stewards.47

In tannaitic literature there is only one law that deals with identity in connection

with the prohibition of eating pig is t. Horayot 1:5. It states:

Tin -IBO ^Dixn 48D^a-n n^pw msnoi m^m ^ x -wwa nt nn a>ipw boixn CTN D w\±?7\ nx 'BIN rmrr '-a IDV '-i -\wnrr\ rawn nx V7nam ncn1" nmwm

49~t> nxn -irn T W -im rranyn nx 'aix 'n^x p ]wnv '-i

For a summary of the Jewish sources that mention the pig see: Jordan D. Rosenblum, '"Why do you Refuse to eat Pork?' Jews Food and Identity in Roman Palestine," JQR 100 (2010), 95-110. See also Jordan D. Rosenblum, Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 56.

47 See Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 54.

48 D^mi D pE? ms'-rai ml?-a] is a phrase that means not kosher in rabbinic literature.

206

He who eats abominations he is an apostate. If he eats carrion, and terefah-meat, abominations and things that creep, he who eats pig , meat and he who drinks libation wine and he who desecrates the Sabbath and he who hides his circumcision, Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Judah says "also he who is clothed in mixed species." Rabbi Simeon the son of Eleazar says, "Also he who does something after which his impulse does not lust."50

This story tells us that some rabbis regarded not eating pig meat as something that

defined a Jew. On the flipside, those who ate such meat were defined as Gentiles. The

Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael Nezikin 18 confirms this definition of the Gentile and applies

it to converts. A convert is someone who previously had pig meat between their teeth.

Thus the pig was used to draw boundaries between Jews and non-Jews. In summary, the

few tannaitic sources that speak about the pig suggest that, although the prohibition of

eating pig functioned as a boundary marker dividing Jews and non-Jews, it was rarely

used.

This began to change in the Amoraic Period. Rosenblum offers a number of

Amoraic sources where Rome is defined as the pig, or the anti-Jew.51 The rabbis took a

similar source to Josephus' A.J. 14.4-78 and argued that the pig was sent up the wall

sunounding the temple in a pulley for sacrifice when Pompey sunounded Jerusalem.52 In

fact it was the pig that destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in b. Menahot 64b.53

49 M.S. Zuckermandel, Tosefta. (Berlin: L. Gerschel, 1876), 474.

50 Translation is my own, except for the last dictum, which I quoted from Jacob Neusner ed., The Tosefta: Fourth Division, Neziqin, (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002). I am uncertain of this phrase's meaning.

51 See Rosenblum, "Why do you Refuse to eat Pork?," 103-105 and 108-110. See Gen. Rab. 63:8, 65.1.

52 Parallels in b. Sotah 49b; b. B. Qam. 82b; y. Ber. 4:1 7b and y. Ta'an. 4:8 68c; cf. Josephus, A.J. 14.4-78.

53 Av. R. Nat. A4 69-73 (ed. Schechter 23-24); cf. B7, 3-11 (ed. Schechter, 26). Also see Tg. Lam. 2:9 (ed. Brody, 149).

207

B. Dying for the Food Laws

Dying to avoid transgressing God's food laws was a subset of the Jewish principle

of dying for the law. Jewish and non-Jewish literary sources reveal that Jews were willing

to die rather than eat pig. The quintessential examples of Jews who are tortured and died

for the sake of food laws are the stories of Eleazar, the elderly scribe (2 Mace 6), and the

mother and her seven sons (2 Mace 7) described in 2 and 4 Mace.54

Outside of the Books of Maccabees, evidence that Jews died for their food laws is

limited to the first century. Describing the riots in Alexandria in 38 CE, Philo described

mobs which captured Jewish women and forced them to eat swine's flesh. Those that

resisted were tortured (Philo, Flacc. 95-96).55

Later that century Josephus wrote that the Essenes endured tortures rather than

blaspheme God or eat some forbidden thing (B.J. 2.152).56 An Essene who had been cast

out of the group ate grass until he died as he was not allowed to partake of another's food

The exact commandment these characters refused to transgress is elusive. In 2 Mace 6:18 the prohibition is against eating pork, forbidden by Lev 11:7 and Deut 14:8. Yet in the very next verse it is the meat of a pagan sacrifice. This may allude to Deut 12:16, 23 which forbid eating an animal whose blood is not completely drained. Similarly, in 2 Mace 7:1 the seven sons are tortured for refusing to eat pork but in 7:42 the prohibition is against eating meat of pagan sacrifices. I Mace is similarly unclear. 1 Mace 1:47 states that the violations included building shrines to sacrifice swine and ritually impure animals. 4 Mace lists them as two different violations: eating swine's flesh and things offered to idols (4 Mace 5:2). Josephus completely ignored the prohibition of eating pork in his recounting of the persecution. Josephus, A.J. 12:253; 13:273. The confusion stems from the fact that the Seleucids sacrificed pigs towards the new deity they established in the Jerusalem Temple. In that case, eating the flesh of a pig sacrifice violates two prohibitions: eating pig and later prohibitions against eating meat of pagan sacrifices. Alternatively, if Peter Schafer was correct in his assertion that Antiochus' sacrifice of the pig was a later addition to a Seleucid source, then this might explain the dual claims of these books. See Peter Schafer, Judeophobia, Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997) 68-69; See also Elias Bickermann, The God of the Maccabees, (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 15. 2 Mace is clear that all of the laws of the Jews were prohibited including circumcision, the Sabbath, feasts and the food laws (2 Mace 6:6, 10, 18). It was not just the biblical provisions that were prohibited according to some authors but also the oral law and customs that were part of the interpretative traditions of these verses.

55 Philo, In Flaccum, 9.354-357, (Colson, LCL).

56.. .iv'fi, pX,ao"(pr|ur|0"CDOTV TOV VOUO0ETT|V f\ cpdaycoaiv i t TCOV &auvf|6cov...

208

according to Essene law (B.J. 2.143). The Essenes' abnegation of food is part of

Josephus' heroic portrayal of this sect, and sounds like a topos rather than a fact. It is well

known that Josephus wrote B.J. for his Greco-Roman audience. Perhaps the Essenes'

refusal to eat forbidden food was meant to appeal to the Pythagoreans or the Cynics who

also had strict food laws.

Rabbinic Literature contains virtually no evidence of Jews who were persecuted

for their refusal to eat swine's flesh or meat containing blood. Even with the increase in

rabbinic references to the pig as an identifier of 'otherness', with one exception, we do

not find instances of Jews who died rather than transgress any of the food laws. Richard

Kalmin's study of rabbinic traditions about Roman persecution of the Jews in the second

century does not find a single reference to Roman persecution that involves coercion of

Jews to eat pork or ritually impure slaughtered animals.57

The only rabbinic account of near persecution on account of not eating impurely

slaughtered meat can be found in y. Sheviit 4:2 35a-b58 which states:

rr1? iax 59rt?2ii -ira n,!? "x , ara 'xaix in ^ crna nin xr»T -a xnx •on ^ap'a rr5n rx n,57 -iax -f? x^op x:x ]±i IDX rr1? n»x "rnx xr1? rrV "iax 'rox

ix -p ^ap xnn rtox f?^i -f? snia inn n1"? 'ax .n^an too ^rra xr1? XJXT lop •pn^a yaw XWT in xnx 'm mn i^x XM m -iax .'xa-ix 'xanx ix 'xnn1' "Tin1

60.mn ^ a i n m

R. Abba b. Zemina was working as a tailor for a Gentile in Rome. [The Gentile]

57 Kalmin, "Rabbinic Tradition."

58 Its parallel is found in y. Sanh. 3:6 21b.

59 The term rta: means carcass meat in the Bible but may refer to strangled meat in rabbinic literature. See Jastrow, 870.

60 Leiden mss. Peter Schafer, and Hans Jurgen Becker, Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi Band 1/3-5 OrdnungZerai'im: Demai, Kil'ayim undShevi'it, (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992.

209

brought him carcass-meat,61 and said to him: "Eat." He said to him: "I will not eat." He said to him: 'Eat, for if not, I will kill you." He said to him: "If you want to kill then kill, for I will not eat carcass-meat." He said to him: Now [that you have indicated you will not eat], know that had you eaten, I would have killed you. A Jew should be a Jew and a Gentile a Gentile. R. Manna said: "Had R. Abba b. Zemina heeded the words of the rabbis he would have eaten'[and thus been killed.]"62

Alyssa Gray has demonstrated that this sugya helps define when Kiddush HaShem

is allowed.63 As we have seen, she found that the redactor of this sugya argued that death

in public for Kiddush HaShem was sanctioned when the Gentile's intention was to force a

Jew to transgress the law. The above passage fits into this framework to serve this

didactic point.64

This story imagines that Jews are willing to die for their food laws even where the

rabbis do not require it. It also shares with Julian, the Gentiles admiration for Jewish

observance of their food laws. Whether this story is made up or a pre-existing story used

by the redactor to form this sugya is impossible to tell.

C. 'Hellenic' Literature

Perhaps the increased discourse about the pig among the rabbis of Late Antiquity

was due to an increased Jewish awareness that non-Jews identified them as those people

61 This means that it was slaughtered using impure methods.

62 Translation taken from Gray, "A Contribution to the Study of Martyrdom." If one takes out Gray's words in brackets at the end of the sugya it could mean that Rabbi Manna disagrees with the rabbis.

63 Gray, "A Contribution to the Study of Martyrdom," 246.

64 , Gray, "A Contribution to the Study of Martyrdom," 253.

210

who did not eat pig.65 In fact, we have plenty of evidence that pagans also defined Jews

by their limited cuisine.

Caligula's inquiry about the Jews' refusal to eat pig is acknowledged

malevolently by his courtiers who laugh (Philo, Legat. 362). Apion's charge that Jews do

not eat pork shows even more clearly how some Gentiles negatively viewed this Jewish

custom.66

This phenomenon has been explained by the important place of the pig in the diet

of Greco-Roman Meditenanean culture in the Hellenistic Period. The pig was the most

sacrificed animal in Greco-Roman Meditenanean culture and therefore the most eaten

animal as well.67 It was inevitable that non-Jews would have taken particular note of

Jewish abstinence from eating pig68 and would have identified this behavior as Jewish.

Although Jews were not the only people unwilling to eat pig, their diffusion throughout

the Diaspora increased their exposure to 'Hellenes' over Egyptian priests. This then

explains why we first hear of this identity marker in the Hellenistic Period.

In fact, all of the 'Hellenic' evidence attesting to the Jewish refusal to eat swine's

flesh can be found in literature spanning from the first through fourth centuries and

beyond.69 From Petronius, who claimed that Jews worshipped a pig-god,70 to Erotianus, a

65 This is difficult to determine as it seems that by the first century most Romans were aware that Jews did not eat pig. Why rabbis would have adopted this characterization in the fourth and fifth centuries for their own setting of boundaries is unclear.

66 Schafer, Judeophobia, 69.

67 David Kraemer, Jewish Eating and Identity Through the Ages, (New York: Routledge, 2007), 31.

68 Peter Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 16-17.

69 This dovetails with significant Roman interaction with Jews. Jews had been in Rome for some time but had only arrived there in large numbers in the first century.

211

glossator of Hippocrates, who knew that Jews should never be given pig's flesh as a cure,

it seems that first century Roman authors were well aware of the Jewish prohibition

against eating pig.71

In the early second century CE, Plutarch engaged in a lengthy discussion with his

friends on the reason Jews abstained from pork at a symposium in Euboea.72 The Stoic

philosopher, Epictetus, twice mentions the Jewish custom of not eating pork, each time

using the custom to establish a philosophical point: what is "right" from "wrong"73 and to

define the concept of holiness.74 Around the same time, Tacitus negatively commented

that Jews abstained from pork because it once caused a plague.75 Juvenal's pointedly

derisive joke that Jews allowed their pigs to grow old also demonstrates that the Jewish

refusal to eat pig was an identity marker.76 Later in the second century, the pagan

philosopher Celsus commented on Jewish peculiarities, among which was their refusal to

eat pig, which he said, Egyptians also practice.77

70 Petronius, Fr. 37. (Stern, GLAJJ, 1, nl95). See Schafer, Judeophobia, 11-1%.

71 Erotianus, Vocum Hippocraticarum Collectio cum Fragmentiis,(Stern, GLAJJ, 1, nl96).

72 Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales IV4:4-6:2. (Stern, GLAJJ, 1, n258).

73 Epictetus, (Stern, GLAJJ, 1, n252).

74 Epictetus, (Stern, GLAJJ, 1, n253).

75 Tacitus, Historiae K4.2 (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n281).

76 Juvenal, Saturnae VI160 (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n298); another reference in Juvenal, Saturnae XIV, 96-99 (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n301). He also lamented people who have given up laws of Rome and keep what Moses has handed down after circumcision Juvenal, Saturnae XIV, 100-104.

77 Origen, Cels. 5.41 (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n375).

212

D. The Jewish Refusal to Eat Pig in Neoplatonic Circles

Interestingly, Neoplatonic philosophers emphasized the Jews' willingness to die

rather than eat pork. In the late third century, the Neoplatonic philosopher, Porphyry,

displayed considerable knowledge of the Jewish refusal to eat pork. In De abstinentia

4.1478 Porphyry demonstrated his familiarity with the food laws in Lev 11:4-7, 10-12,

Deut 14:7-8, 10; 22:16. In verse 11 he claims that Jews in his day abstained from many

animals including the pig. He remembered that Jews suffered in order to keep their laws

in the time of Antiochus and in Roman times.

In De abstinentia 2.61, Porphyry used the food customs of Hebrews, Syrians,

Phoenicians and Egyptians to argue that Greeks should not transgress the laws of their

forefathers either.79 He writes:

Kai yap 8eivov av sin, Supouc; pev xcov ixOucov pf| av yeuoaaGai pnSs TOUC;

'E[3paiouc; OTXBV, OOMKCOV TS TOUC; noXXovq Kai Aiyu7rxicov Bocov 0nXsta>v, uXkh Kai paaiA,scov rcoXMrv psxaPaXstv auxoug auou8aadvxwv Odvaxov UTiopeivai paMxw f\ xfrv xou vopou 7iapdpaaiv, fipaq 5s xovq xfjc; (puascoc; vopoucj Kai xaq (Mac; 7iapayysMac; (poPwv evsKa dvOpumivrov fj xivoq piaacpnpiac; xfjc; duo xouxcov aipsiaGai 7tapaPaivsiv.80

For it would be a tenible thing, that while the Syrians do not taste fish and the Hebrews pigs and many of the Phoenicians and the Egyptians cows, and even when many kings strove to change them they prefened to suffer death rather than to transgress the law, we choose to transgress the laws of nature and the divine orders because of fear of men or some evil-speaking coming from them.81

Schafer claimed Porphyry was most interested in Hebrews here.82 Porphyry was

plainly concerned with his fellow Hellenes' failure to observe their ancestral laws. Like

8 Porphry, Abst. 4:14 (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n455).

9 Porphry, Abst. 2:61 (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n454).

0 Porphry, Abst. 2:61 (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n454).

1 Translation from Porphry, Abst. 2:61 (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n454).

213

Julian he turned to the Jews83 and other ethne, who ardently observed their food laws

even to the point of death.84 Both the context and the choice of highlighting Jewish

observance of their food laws are repeated in Julian, who read and used Porphyry

extensively.85 Porphyry and Julian would have read Celsus, another pagan philosopher of

the second century, who also had accused the Christians of failing to keep the food laws

in the manner of the Jews.86

Porphyry was one of a couple of pagan philosophers of his era to use Jewish and

other peoples' zealousness for their food laws as an example to encourage their own

people. Sextus Empiricus was a pagan philosopher of the second century who claimed:

'Iou8aToc; psv yap r] iepeucj Aiyu7txio<; Gdxxov av drcoOdvoi f\ xoipsiov cpdyoi

A Jew or Egyptian priest would prefer to die rather than eat pork.87

Therefore we may conclude that Julian likely drew on Porphyry in his statement

that Jews would rather die than eat pork. Julian differed from Porphyry in the content and

expression of the Jewish food laws, which was closer to Philo and Acts.

82 Schafer, Judeophobia, 75-76.

83 In Porphyry's case, he turns to the Hebrews.

84 Porphyry, Marc, 18; Schafer, Judeophobia, 76 n49.

85 Jean Bouffartigue, L 'Empereur Julien et la culture de son temps, (Paris: Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes, 1992), 382-385. Julian's arguments against Christians follow those of Celsus. See Anthony Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians," ANRW23.2:1119-1149 at 1144-1147.

86 Origen, Cels. 8.28-30.

87 Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyposes 3.223, (Stern, GLAJJ, 2, n334).

214

E. Julian on the Jewish Refusal to Eat Pig

Like Porphyry, Julian was familiar with the Bible and probably with the accounts

of the heroes' hanowing deaths in 2 Mace, who willingly died rather than eat pork or eat

meat of 'Hellenic' sacrifices. He also used this motif to strengthen his 'Hellenes' in their

adherence of their ancestral customs.88

In addition, Julian likely had real knowledge of Jewish dietary practices. As

Caesar of Gaul, and certainly as an emperor who dwelled eight months in Antioch, a city

with a longstanding and, according to Chrysostom writing twenty five years later, an

observant Jewish community, it is likely that Julian would have known of the Jewish

need for ritually slaughtered meat. The Roman administration was cognizant of the

Jewish community's requirement for specially prepared food and it seems that they made

provisions to meet Jewish demands. Josephus quotes an edict of the empire to Miletus

requiring the authorities to allow Jews to regulate their produce (Josephus, A.J. 14:244-

246) as well as an edict by the people of Sardis requiring that market officials of the city

be required to bring in suitable food for Jews (Josephus, A.J. 14.259-261). There is no

evidence that the Romans ever prohibited Jewish administration of its food laws.

In his Misopogon, Julian tells of being in the Antiochene marketplace. He

concerned himself with the economics of food in the city, even stepping in to instruct the

city council, setting market prices and supplying the city with food. Such close

interaction with city markets must have brought him into contact with the Jewish

administrative authorities responsible for the supply of food for the Jewish community.

Consequently, Julian would have known of the Jews' refusal to eat impurely slaughtered

Schafer, Judeophobia, 76.

215

meat including pork. In turn, Jewish dietary laws would have reinforced images of the

Maccabean martyrs in his mind, images that were reified by the emergence of a

Maccabean martyr cult that was just beginning at this time.89 Julian harnessed these

images towards his twin goals of jump-starting his 'Hellenizing' imperial program and of

destroying Christianity.

V. Julian's Use of Jews Dying for the Law in his Letter to Theodorus

The lack of evidence that Jews died for their laws in the fourth century and

Porphyry's use of the same theme tells us that Julian drew on a literary topos that Jews

would rather have died than transgress their laws and would have chosen to starve rather

than eat strangled meat or meat that had not had the blood squeezed out of it. The

question is why did he do this? Neoplatonists were opposed to any form of self-

mutilation.90

As we have seen in previous chapters, Julian was on a single-minded task to

create a 'Hellenic' Empire. His Letter to Theodorus is an excellent example of this

endeavor. In it, Julian appointed Theodorus dpxispeuc;, discussed the job's duties and then

advised him on how he and the priests Theodorus would appoint ought to behave. Here

Julian claimed that 'Hellenes' should keep the laws of their ancestors (Letter to

Theodorus 453B) and bemoaned the fact that these have been neglected (Letter to

Theodorus 453C).

89 Gregory Nazianzen's Homily 15, dated to 362 CE, is the first mention of a celebration of a cult of the Maccabees. It is unlikely that Gregory made it up whole cloth. Since the remains of the cult were later located in Antioch, it would seem likely that the cult also began there. See Vinson, "Gregory Nazianen's Homily 15."

90 Plotinus, Enneads 1.9; Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome, 65; Pieter Willem Van der Horst, "A Pagan Platonist and a Christian Platonist on Suicide," in VC 25 (1971): 282-288.

216

Now Julian pointed to the Jewish zeal for their laws as a counterpoint to the

'Hellenes' indifference to their own. Julian looked approvingly upon Jews who would

choose to die rather than to transgress their ancestral laws. Thus Jews were an example to

'Hellenes' of a people who kept their laws. As we have seen, Julian's 'Hellenic' Empire

was based on a politically-ordered Neoplatonic system in which each ethnos worshipped

its local gods and observed its local customs. Julian's 'Jews' fit nicely into this empire.

In fact, Julian placed the Jewish God within his 'Hellenic' pantheon in this letter.

However, unlike CG, where an ideal group of law-abiding 'Hellenes' was presented, the

Letter to Theodorus showed the real situation of moribund 'Hellenes' who did not

observe their ancestral traditions.91

Why did Julian pick on the Jewish refusal to eat pork? For one, it reflected

Julian's own categorization of the pig as an impure animal as he stated in his Hymn to the

Mother of the Gods, 177B.92 Julian's comments there are similar to that of Lamprias' in

Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales 4, who said pigs were impure because they could

never look up at the sky.93 This was one of four grounds upon which the ancients argued

91 This theme begins Julian's Letter to Arsacius and is contained in Fragment of a Letter to a Priest. In reality and as I have argued elsewhere, these 'Hellenes' are a constructed group and did not observe the laws of their fathers as Julian constructed them.

92 See Schafer, Judeophobia, 71.

93 Plutarch, Quaestionum Convivalum libri 5:3. Schafer, Judeophobia, 74.

217

Jews and Egyptian priests refused to eat pig meat. Julian considered this meat impure

and thus not subject to ritual sacrifice or consumption.95

More likely Julian bonowed this argument directly from Porphyry, whose works

were deeply familiar to Julian. Not only had Porphyry made this argument, but he had

used it in the same context: to encourage the 'Hellenes' to keep their own laws. Both

Porphyry and Julian admired parts of Jewish law, most especially because of its

usefulness in their attacks against Christianity. Both drew on Celsus, who also had

accused the Christians of failing to keep the food laws in the manner of the Jews.96 Thus

there was a 'Hellenic' philosophic tradition of attacking Christians for not following the

Mosaic food laws. This does not discount the possibility that Julian knew 2 Mace and

possibly 4 Mace as well. Like Porphyry, he also could have looked back on the

Maccabean martyrs as the best Jewish exemplars of dying for dietary laws.

The structure of Julian's Letter to Theodorus and the words Julian used to express

the Jewish refusal to eat pork or animals killed using non-sacral methods, suggests that

this was part of Julian's stock arguments against Christianity.97 As we have seen in CG,

Julian contrasted 'Hellenic' behavior with Jewish and then Christian behavior in order to

use Jewish behavior as an example for a diminishing 'Hellenism', and to compare it

94 Cristiano Grottanelli, "Avoiding Pork: Egyptians and Jews in Greek and Latin Texts," in Food and Identity in the Ancient World, (eds. Cristiano Grottanelli and Lucio Milano; Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2004), 59-93. See his comment on p. 78 that the last section in Julian, Or. 5, Hymn to the Mother of the Gods, (Wright, LCL), 177B, 490 reflects the mysterious knowledge on which his 'Hellenic' religious order was to be based. He noted Julian's admiration for Jewish beliefs.

95 All meat that is eaten ought to be sacrificed. See Julian, Or. 5, Hymn to the Mother of the Gods (Wright, LCL), 176C.

96 Origen, Cels. 8.28-30. Meredith argues convincingly, that Julian uses many of Celsus' arguments in Contra Galileos. See Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian."

97 The tripartite argument of comparing 'Hellenes' with Jews while castigating Christians makes no sense in a letter to a pagan priest if it was not an argument he also used in his polemic against Christians.

218

favorably against a demonic Christianity. The argument against Christianity begins at the

end of the letter and is cut off abruptly, almost certainly by Christian hands. It seems

Julian was about to compare Christ unfavorably to the Jewish God and, no doubt would

have compared Christianity's failure to follow its ancestral laws, including the dietary

laws of the Old Testament.

Had Julian merely mentioned the Jewish refusal to eat pork as Porphyry had, I

would have been persuaded that this argument only appeared in this letter. However,

Julian deliberately changed Porphyry's claim from merely a Jewish refusal to eat pork to

include a refusal to eat strangled animals, thus reflecting the language of Acts.98

Aside from rabbinic literature, only Philo and Acts (and Julian) discussed the

manner in which the animal was slaughtered. Besides Julian, these two are the only two

sources which use the language of 7XVIKXOU related to a prohibition on meat.99 In his

discussion about the biblical food laws, Philo claimed that some non-Jews "strangle and

throttle" animals and "entomb in the carcass the blood which is the essence of the soul."

(Spec. 4:122)100 This is an elaboration of the biblical law requiring that the blood of the

slaughtered animal be spilled out.

In Acts of the Apostles 15:20, 29, and 21:25, James lists the four regulations he

insists that Gentile Christians keep and includes meat of strangled animals. However, he

He did not seem to know Philo's works.

99 The curious phrase "bread of strangulation" is found in Joseph and Aseneth 21:14 but I am not sure what that means. It may refer to Aseneth's impurity for partaking in impure food. See Sanders, Jewish Law, 275.

100 Philo, Spec, 84-85 (Colson, LCL) Kaivdc, E7iivoouvt£c, f|5ovdc,, aOuxa 7tapacnc8udt/)ucnv, ayxovrec, Kai d7t07rviyovT£C,, Kai TTJV ouaiav Tfjc, \\fvyr\c,...

219

differentiates between meat from strangled animals and from eating blood.101 Acts 15:20

states:

akXa smoxeikai auxoic; xou a7isxso0ai xcov d^iaynpdxcov xcov siScoXcov Kai xfjcj jtopvsiac;102 Kai xou 7rvucxou103 Kai xou atpaxoc;.104

We should merely write telling them to abstain from food contaminated by idols, from illicit marital union, from meat of strangled animals and from eating blood.105

Christians in Antiquity argued over the exegesis of these prohibitions and made

changes to the text leading to a variety of manuscripts of the Apostolic Decree. Scholars

today continue to debate which prohibitions appeared in the original Apostolic Decree.

To the extent there is a consensus, scholars believe that all four prohibitions were present.

A sizeable minority of scholars continue to argue that Kai xou TTVIKXOU (meat from

strangled animals) was included by some members of the Church in the second century.

In any case, Julian's Bible likely included Kai xou UVIKXOU, the one prohibition

that interests us here. Of all of the prohibitions, strangled meat was the clearest. Eating

blood and contamination from idols could have meant many things.106 The prohibition

against eating meat from a strangled animal often served to explain what the prohibition

101 James does not include pig or any of the prohibited animals of Lev 11.

102 The phrase Kai xfjc; 7topv£iac, is missing in some manuscripts.

103 The words Kai TOU TTVIKTOU are absent in many manuscript traditions. One such example is in the Latin translation of Irenaeus' text (395 CE). Philo, Spec, 84-85 (Colson, LCL).

104 Acts 15:20, 29 and 21:25 have anumber of different manuscripts and many different meanings. There is a whole body of text-critical research on the Apostolic Decree. For an excellent synopsis see: William A. Strange, The Problem of the Text of Acts, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

105 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, The Anchor Bible, (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 551.

106 Strange, Problem of the Text of Acts, 98.

220

against blood meant.107 Where it did not, it sometimes was understood as an act related to

slaughter.108

Julian's use of the language of Acts was an argument aimed against Christianity.

His purpose was to embanass them for not following the Apostolic Decree in Acts. By

not doing so, Christians were acting in ways incongruous to their own faith.

Julian's method is plain. He appropriated Christian interpretation of Acts 15:20

by reading it plainly, as we have seen him do with Deut 18:3. By doing so, he entered a

Christian debate about this passage that likely had implications among Christians in the

cosmopolitan city of Antioch.109 Christian interpreters either read the word "strangled" to

be an example of not eating blood,110 removed the word from their texts111 or had

allegorized the Apostolic Decree.112 There is plenty of evidence that some Christians

107 Origen, Cels. 8.30. Ed Sanders argued that strangled meat was prohibited because it left blood in the carcass. See Ed Parrish Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE, (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992), 520 nl2. He cites Josephus, B.J. 2:591, A.J. 12:120. Sanders suggested that the Greeks accused the Scythians of strangling animals with a noose. Sanders argued that this charge's appearance in Acts suggests that strangulation was a common mode of animal slaughter in the Mediterranean of the first century. However, Strange argues that JTVIKTOU was added in the second century. See Strange, Problem of the Text of Acts, 105.

108 Strange, Problem of the Text of Acts, 99. This is similar to Philo, Spec, 4:122.

109 Robert M. Grant, "Dietary Laws Among Pythagoreans: Jews and Christians," HTR 73, (1980): 299-310.

110 In the early centuries eating blood was prohibited in the homilies of the Pseudo-Clementines (Ps.-Clem.l .4.2-3; 7.8; 8.23.1; 9.23.2) in Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 2.7; Strom. 4.15) and in Minucius Felix (Oct. 30.6). This led Strange to suggest that a reinterpretation of the Apostolic Decree took place in the second century and tended towards a 'ritual' rather than an allegorical sense. See Strange, Problem of the Text of Acts.

Irenaeus's text Haer. 3.12.14

112 Barnabas, 2; 4.6-8; 14.1-4; Tertullian allegorized blood to mean "murder." Tertullian, Pud. 12.4-5. Origen identified all items in the Apostolic Decree as items related to the activity of demons. Origen, Cels. 8.28ff.

221

refused to eat blood through the fourth century.113 In a city famed for its plain

interpretation of scriptures, Julian's interpretation might have had an impact.

This argument would have been laid out in full in Contra Galileos, most of which

is lost to history. We do have a part of CG in which Julian castigated Christians for their

failure to follow Jewish food laws. In CG 314C Julian questions why Christians ate

everything. He quotes Peter in Acts 10:15 and questions how he could have come to the

conclusion that the pig is pure, mockingly suggesting that perhaps it now chewed its cud

(CG 314D). Julian is nothing if not repetitive in his arguments. I suggest that he would

have laid out a fuller argument against this Christian practice in another part of CG.

This is an argument that would have reverberated deeply within Christian society.

Both Julian and Christians in Antioch were familiar with Jews and their practices.114

Twenty five years later, John Chrysostom described how some Christians in Antioch took

part in Jewish practices. Although he did not mention dietary laws, Christians would have

been familiar with Jewish dietary practices just like many others in Antiquity.U5 Julian's

argument would have brought home the reality to Christians that the Jews of the

Maccabean Period who died for Mosaic laws were the same Jews as their day, who also

kept their dietary laws, putting the lie to Christian claims of supersessionism, of being the

"true" Israel. This would have struck at the very nub of Chrysostom's worry that these

113 In the fourth century, the Apostolic Constitutions 7.20 allowed Christians to eat every kind of meat except meat with blood. In Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaei 32.13, Augustine commented on the fact that some Christians interpreted the Apostolic Decree to mean they should pour out the blood of an animal. Others believed that the prohibition against blood meant that killing was prohibited.

114 Kraeling argued that Jews of Antioch were on particularly good terms with the Christian Arian majority who lived there. See Kraeling, "The Jewish Community of Antioch"; Vinson, "Gregory Nazianen's Homily 15", 186.

115 In fact, in a third century document, the Didaschalia Apostolorum, Christians were warned not to make "distinctions of meat" and "purifications" (Did. apost. 26). However, there is no evidence that these "distinctions" continued to be made in the fourth century.

222

Judaizing Christians believed Jewish ritual to be more authentic and therefore more

effective. If James and the Jerusalem Church had demanded that Gentile Christians keep

Jewish food laws, then what had become of the Church and Christian practice since?

Joseph Bidez dated Julian's Letter to Theodorus to January 363, just before the

publication of CG}16 This places Julian in Antioch, where he could have learned about

the nascent Christian cult of the Maccabean martyrs. The Maccabean cult was first

mentioned in Gregory Nazianzen's Homily 15 now dated to 362 CE.117 Vinson claimed

that Gregory's oration demonstrated that the cult was in its infancy.118 However, the

Maccabean martyr cult would have begun at the site of the martyrs' shrine in Daphne, a

suburb of Antioch that Julian visited119, and would have preceded Gregory's oration.120

116 Bidez numbered the Letter to Theodorus 89a and the Fragment to a Priest as 89b and saw them as essentially one text. See Joseph Bidez, L 'Empereur Julien Oeuvres Completes, Tome 1, 2e Partie, (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1924), 102-105. The joining of these two letters has been debated on the grounds that there is repetition between the texts. See Rudolph Asmus, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte XVI, (Leipzig: Buchhandlung, 1895), 45 for a similar argument. W.C. Wright believed the letters should be separated and dates the Letter to Theodorus to May 362 while Julian was in Constantinople. Unfortunately, he based his dating on the grounds that the two letters could not be dated to the same time period because of the repetitiveness of the arguments. I do not find his dating persuasive. Julian was often repetitious. Secondly, the arguments in Fragment of a Letter to a Priest were addressed to all priests and thus, naturally repeated statements he made to Theodorus on a similar subject. See Julian, The Works of Emperor Julian, Vol. Ill, (Wright, LCL), 54, nl.

117 Vinson, "Gregory Nazianen's Homily 15," 169; Raphaelle Ziade, Les Martyrs Maccabees de Thistoire Juive au culte Chretien: Les homilies de Gregoire de Nazianze et de Jean Chrysostome, (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 143. Gerard Rouwhorst dated the cult to 360 CE. See Gerard Rouwhorst, "The Cult of the Seven Maccabean Brothers."

118 Vinson, "Gregory Nazianen's Homily 15."

119 It housed Apollo's temple which had burnt down in late October 362.

120 I do not believe that a Church Father in Cappadocia would have begun a martyr's cult. Rather it was the practice of some Christians in Antioch, who knew of the remains of the Maccabean martyrs and thirsting for a cult of martyrs, would have created it themselves. It is also not surprising that such a cult could have existed in Antioch, where Jews and Christians socialized and the latter venerated Jewish texts and holy places. We know of a Christian cult of Maccabean martyrs in Antioch in John Chrysostom's time twenty five years later. For more on the Maccabean martyr cult see Vinson, "Gregory Nazianen's Homily 15"; Rutgers, "The Importance of Scripture"; Obermann, "The Sepulchre of the Maccabean Martyrs"; Schatkin, "The Maccabean Martyrs."

223

Julian also may have been aware of the controversy that developed around the

worship of the Maccabean martyr relics. Both Gregory and Augustine reveal that there

was opposition to the Maccabean martyr cult precisely because these martyrs had died for

Jewish law.121 Even without knowledge of the division among Christians, Julian would

have realized the contradiction of Christians worshipping Jews who died for their laws.

Given his focus on Christianity's failure to follow its ancestral laws, a tool he used to

weaken Christianity, it is natural to assume that he would have taken every advantage to

highlight the illogic of Christian worship of Jews who had died for their laws. In typical

fashion, Julian was stirring dissent among Christians by appealing to the ancient Jewish

custom of keeping food laws in the hopes that those Christians who found Jewish

customs appealing might be persuaded by the words of one of the founders of the.

church.122

In fact, Julian sought to reclaim the Maccabean martyrs as Jews from the

Christians. By doing so, Julian engaged the Christians in a debate about the identity of

the Maccabean martyrs and, more importantly, about the nature of martyrdom in general.

True martyrdom, he argued, was to die for one's ancestral laws and not for belief in a

man, whom Julian likely went on to castigate in the part missing from his Letter to

Theodorus.m By re-characterizing martyrdom as death for the laws, Julian sought to

change the rhetorical discourse of martyrdom in order to subvert the established Christian

121 Rutgers, "The Importance of Scripture."

122 Julian created dissent in the church when he invited the Catholic bishops back to their sees after the Arian, Constantius, had demoted them.

123 Julian, The Works of Emperor Julian, Vol. Ill, (Wright, LCL), 61 n2.

224

norms and discourses about martyrdom.124 Thus Julian's failure to mention martyrdom

per se may be attributable to his redefinition of that term to die for one's laws.125 The

Maccabean martyrs were Jews who died for their dietary laws, laws that insist that they

eat no pork and only eat properly slaughtered meat, as James directs in Acts.126 This

suggests that a 'Hellenic' emperor engaged in the fourth century discourse on martyrdom

in order to strengthen 'Hellenes' and weaken Christianity.127

By speaking about dying for the law, Julian took a stand in one of Christianity's

most sacred understandings of itself. Eusebius' The Martyrs of Palestine, appended to his

Hist. Eccl, gives examples of martyrs who died confessing their faith in Jesus.128 The

Christian Church of the fourth century was built on the blood of the martyrs.129

Julian was very much aware of Christianity's development and use of its

martyrologies in the propagation of its faith.130 Martyrdom was like oxygen to the fires of

Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual and Classification, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 5. See also: George Heyman, The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University American Press), 2007, 162-170. On Christian use of martyrdom discourse in the fourth century see Michael Gaddis, There is No Crime for Those who have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire, (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2005), 69-70.

125 By not calling Christian acts martyrdom, Julian showed he did not want to dignify the institution. This observation is also true in his attack on the cult of Christian martyrs. He simply referred to tombs. One can safely assume that Julian was unaware of the rabbis' use of Kiddush HaShem in their own writings, especially since the redactors of the Talmud had yet to forge it.

126 Interestingly, Gregory of Nazianzen's Homily 15.921.35 states Christians do not eat impure meat.

127 For more on the discourse between Jews and Christians about martyrdom see: Boyarin, Dying for God, 116-120.

128 It is unclear, however, whether Julian was familiar with these works. Julian's familiarity with Praepartio Evangelica is well-known. See Bouffartigue, L 'Empereur Julien, 300, 385.

1 Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints, Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1981.

Thomas Sizgorich, Violence and Belief in Late Antiquity: Militant Devotion in Christianity and Islam, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 24. He saw the development of martyrologies as an

225

Christianity. Whenever Christians were able to martyr themselves, always in public in

Roman spectacles of theater, they gained the attention and admiration of non-

Christians.131 Julian joined the argument on his own terms. He combined his rhetoric

which undermined Christian identification of the Maccabees as Christian martyrs with

action by refusing to make martyrs of Christians in his day.132 As Thomas Sizgorich has

argued, Julian's unwillingness to persecute Christians made it difficult for them to make

sense out of the events of his reign.133 Now he took away their past heroes as well and

further loosened their connection to the Old Testament and Israelite heroes. If Christians

were no longer tied to the biblical heroes of yesteryear and no longer a persecuted group,

who were they?

VI. Conclusion

In conclusion, Julian would have known of the Jewish dietary restrictions from

his involvement with the Antiochene market economy and from literary works, especially

from Porphyry, Acts 15:20 and 2 Mace. Jews had stood out in Gentile eyes for their

refusal to eat pork, the main source of meat in the empire. Thus it was natural that Julian

turned to Jewish devotion to their dietary laws as an example of how 'Hellenes' ought to

observe their ancestral laws.

attempt to assert one reading of the common semiotics and symbols in order to reinforce Christian identity vis a vis pagans.

131 Eusebius even remarked that Christians had become soft in the decades before Diocletian's and Galerius' persecutions.

132 Gregory Nazianzen Or. 4 claims that Julian tried to trick Christians by not killing them outright and thus took away their claims to martyrdom. Nevertheless, twenty years later Ambrose could claim with conviction that Julian was a persecutor and that there were Christian martyrs. There are reports of Christian martyrs in Julian's day. See Gaddis, There is No Crime, 93-95.

133 Sizgorich, Violence and Belief 71.

226

The fact that Julian chose to adopt the language of the Apostolic Decree in Acts

15:20 reveals that he was not simply lifting an argument against Christianity's failure to

follow its ancestral laws. Julian deliberately chose the language of Acts, appropriating

Christian Scripture to stir dissent among the ranks. In a city where some Christians

placed greater value on Jewish holy places and customs, Julian hoped that his plain

reading of Acts would stir these Christians to keep their ancestral laws as spelled out by

apostolic law. In so doing, Julian was attacking Christianity's interpretations of its own

texts. Naturally, this interpretation required that Christians would have read this

argument. The structure of Julian's argument in his Letter to Theodorus suggests that this

appeared in an anti-Christian polemic like CG. In my opinion, Julian flushed this

argument out in CG in parts that are now lost to us, perhaps because the Church found

such arguments threatening.

Finally, Julian redefined Christianity's understanding of itself. Eusebius had

argued that Christians of the fourth century were the successors of the martyrs of

previous generations, including those that had preceded Christ. Julian sought to erase

their tie to the past, by redefining martyrdom as dying for Jewish law, especially those

laws which the Apostolic Fathers had deemed mandatory. At the same time he denied

them new martyrs, cutting off their oxygen and leaving them disoriented.

227

Conclusion Your Neighbor, the Jew and his Texts

Julian stood at the center of cultural and religious change in the fourth century. In

a sense his own experience embodied this change. Born a Christian, he became a

Neoplatonist 'Hellene.' But it is his position as emperor of the Roman Empire in mid-

process of Christianization that makes his change and perspective relevant. He reached

the pinnacle of power and had the ability to make enormous changes to the flow of

history at a young age. His personal journey and background had enormous importance

because it gave him the unique ability to impact both worlds from the inside.

Jews were an important part of Julian's consciousness. As a Christian, he was

familiar with the Jew as the 'other', a people who shared the Old Testament with the

Christians but had rejected Christ and therefore had lost their covenant with God to the

Christians. As a Neoplatonist philosopher, Julian understood Jews and Judaism in binary

ways. Jews were to be admired as the heirs to an ancient wisdom and for their

steadfastness to their laws, but reviled for their monotheistic beliefs. On the other hand,

they were tools with which to attack Christians. Attacking Judaism meant attacking

Christianity.

In this dissertation we have seen that Julian made rhetorical use of Jews and

Jewish practice to draw boundaries among the ethne that populated his empire. It is in the

intersections of Jewish, Christian and 'Hellenic' practice that Julian fashioned his

Neoplatonic ethnically-ordered empire which minored Neoplatonic cosmology. These

intersections allowed him to differentiate between groups.

228

Julian's 'Hellenizing' Neoplatonic program only worked if there were well-

defined observant groups of 'Hellenes', Jews and Christians. Therefore, Julian attempted

to pull these groups apart (eg. "rule making" and "ethnic argumentation"). Jews had a

place in this empire. Its offspring, Christianity did not.

The rhetorical role of the Jew is complex in Julian's writings. The Jews of his

polemic fit the classical polemical stereotypes used by Christians and 'Hellenes' from the

second to fourth centuries CE. Jews were attacked by 'Hellenes' as an inferior ethnos

from which Christianity sprang. In addition, as Porphyry and Julian used them, they were

models of an ideal ethnos which followed its ancestral laws.

However, Julian's rhetorical presentation of Jews differed from his predecessors.

Not only were Jews a model for proper devotion to their laws, but their very practices, as

defined by Julian's Neoplatonic exegetical analysis of Scriptures, were to serve as

examples for 'Hellenic' practices. In essence, Julian used Jewish texts as modes of

persuasion in the creation of 'Hellenic' practice. Julian had use for a foil for his

'Hellenes,' especially one into which he could read his Neoplatonic religious program.

Despite Julian's generally positive portrayal of Jews, his rhetorical use of Jews

does not belie a rigid ideologically-driven position concerning Jews. Rather, Julian

demonstrated flexibility in his rhetorical use of Jews. Thus he did not hesitate to turn

against Jews when it suited him to define the sources of Christian and therefore un-

'Hellenic' practices as he did when he attacked the Jewish source for the Christian

practice of sleeping among tombs for the sake of dream visions.

We have seen how exegesis of Scriptures is the key tool Julian employed to

achieve his goals. Julian appropriated Jewish and Christian Scriptures for two purposes:

229

First, he sought to read Neoplatonic ideals of sacrifice, prayer and purity out of the Torah

in order to provide his 'Hellenes' with a model of proper 'Hellenic' practices. Such is the

case with his descriptions of private sacrifice, gifting to priests, charity and dying for the

law.

Second, Julian read Scriptures in ways that questioned Christian truth claims and

practices in order to weaken and destroy Christianity. This required flexibility. At times,

Jews were paragons of a people which kept their noble ancestral laws, which Christianity

had rejected. Other times Judaism was the root of the evil that spawned Christianity.

Exegesis, however, does not take place in a vacuum. Julian had become painfully

aware of the strength of Christianity in Antioch and in the empire. To understand Julian's

program one has to understand Julian's opponent, Christianity in Antioch. Based on the

canons of Laodicea, published one year after CG, and John Chrysostom's sermons

delivered just over twenty years later, some of these Christians were Judaizers. They

occupied a space at the very intersection of Jewish and Christian borders and just inside

Christianity. The Judaizers kept Jewish practice, attended synagogue on Sabbath and

Festivals, kept Easter according to the Jewish calendar and regarded Jewish books and

the synagogue as holy.

Put another way, the Christian link to their Jewish past was very alluring, not

surprising in a world which valued ancient customs and laws. Jews were attractive and

Julian tapped into their allure. Julian's comments about Jews and Judaism, especially as

they appear in his polemical works, or, in works that clearly feature stock polemical

arguments against Christianity, should be read with this historical-social background in

mind. As a former Christian familiar with Christian polemics Julian could anticipate how

230

his comments might have been received by Christians. Not only did he have the

interpretations and supersessionist claims of Eusebius in mind, but he set out to persuade

the Judaizers as well.

To persuade the Judaizers, Julian had to describe identifiable Jewish practices.

There is every reason to think that Julian knew about Jewish practice in Antioch. He had

been in Antioch for over seven months, was involved in its economy and visited Daphne,

a suburb where Jews prayed and lived. In addition, the Jews of Antioch were a wealthy,

dynamic, self-assured, observant and influential community which interacted with

Christians and 'Hellenes' as equals. It is hard to imagine that Julian did not meet Jews

there.

Consequently, even though Julian's representation of Jews was mainly rhetorical,

there are good reasons to think that Jews and Jewish practices were lurking behind his

characterizations. In this event, Jews were not merely literary figures used to score points

against Christianity. They were active ingredients in a soup of ethnicities and religions

with shifting borders. Christians and 'Hellenes' in the middle of the spectrum might still

be influenced by others.1 We have seen evidence that many of Julian's comments may

have had some basis in fact even if there is no extant evidence from this period linking

the practice to Antioch or Asia Minor.

Julian's comments about private and public Jewish sacrifice and gifting to priests

had a number of functions. First, they allowed Julian to use his exegetical Jew as a foil

for how he would have liked his 'Hellenes' to practice 'Hellenism.' Thus he changed

Jews may have kept 'Hellenic' or Christian customs as well, but we have no evidence of this. What we do have are rabbis who make efforts to draw borders from engaging in 'Hellenic' acts in m. and t. Avod. Zar.

231

suneptitiously2 Deut 18:3 in order to characterize a Jewish practice that was really

influenced by Neoplatonic principles. Jewish law requires private and public sacrifice

with prayer. It also requires gifts to priests. If 'Hellenes' were to offer gifts to priests each

time they sacrificed, the 'Hellenic' priesthood would fund itself.

Second, this argument undermined Eusebius' claim that Jews could not practice

their religion and cult in the absence of the temple. Jewish priestly sacrifice was central to

the Jewish cult. Julian's claim was a reminder that Jewish practice was efficacious "even

now" (CG 305D). Jews sacrifice and "even now" have priests and still keep the laws of

the Torah that require priestly gifts. John Chrysostom was probably not the first

Christian to raise the absence of Jewish priests as an argument proving the

inefficaciousness of Judaism. Julian proved them wrong. This argument was meant to

sow doubt among the Christians. If the Jews of old and the Jews of today were one and

the same people and their practices were efficacious, this undermined Christian

supersessionist claims of being the "true Israel."

The final function is related to the second and anticipates Christian reactions.

Julian was telling the Judaizers of Antioch and Asia Minor to look over to the Jew they

were eating with or praying beside and to ask themselves if maybe they should also

sacrifice. This only has impact though if Jews actually "sacrificed" in private. Christians

likely saw some Jews slaughtering their lambs on Passover. Although we have no direct

evidence of such acts in Antioch, there are enough sources to suggest that it took place in

the post-70 Roman world and that Christians were familiar with this practice. Some

Christians in Antioch kept Easter according to the Jewish calendar. Perhaps, Julian

suggested, they should keep the custom of the paschal slaughter as well.

2 Julian often tells his readers which passage he interprets. In this case he does not.

232

As always, Julian was pushing on pre-existing fault lines within Christianity. This

was not an atypical ploy for Julian. We saw him do the same thing when he invited the

Nicene bishops back to their bishoprics to rival the Arian bishops in order to give

example to his edict of toleration.

Julian employed a similar tactic with the food laws. Again he admonished a

lackluster group of 'Hellenes' who showed no interest in preserving their ancestral laws

and offered an example of what proper adherence to the law ought to look like. However,

he used the language of the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15:20 to describe what Jews would

not eat, an unusual choice, unless this was really meant for Christian ears. But what

cunency would this have had with Christians in fourth century Antioch? At a time when

some Christians in Antioch found value in Jewish ancestral practices, Julian suggested to

the Judaizers that Christians ought to rethink their renunciation of the food laws. This

was after all 'legitimate' practice since the apostle James had insisted that all Christians

not eat certain foods.

Christian martyrdom and worshipping martyrs' tombs offended Julian. It ran

counter to his strong 'Hellenic' sense of purity and separation from impurity. Julian

reacted to Christian practice by banning funerals during the day. Julian's argument served

to define proper 'Hellenic' practice by defining what they ought not to do - worship

martyrs and mix with the dead.

Julian also realized the importance of martyrdom to Christian identity. This is

made plain by his order not to make martyrs of the Christians. The worship of martyrs

was essential to Christian identity because it offered its members a link to their own past

that reinforced their belief in Jesus. This was especially important in a world where

233

Christians were no longer a persecuted people. It served to mediate their transition to the

present. In addition, in a world that appreciated hallowed antiquity, it was important to

have tangible remains of that holy space that could mediate with the divine. Just as the

Judaizers considered Jewish books to be holy artifacts that imbued its sunoundings with

holiness, they might have appreciated the tombs of the saints, who were part of a long

tradition of people who died for their belief in Jesus, as loci of holiness.

The Church was invested in linking its present with its past. Christian dependence

on its past was precisely the reason Julian attacked Christian interpretations of Scripture.

The same could be said for Christian martyrdom. Christianity invested heavily in linking

Christian identity with the suffering of the martyrs. This too was linked to the Jewish

past. Eusebius had argued that Christians of the fourth century were the successors of the

martyrs of previous generations, including those that had preceded Christ. The hunger for

martyr-worship in the fourth century led to Christian cults of martyrdom, even that of the

Maccabees in Antioch, who according to the Church Fathers pre-figured Christ's ultimate

martyrdom.

Julian de-linked Christian martyrdom from its Jewish past, by redefining

martyrdom as dying for Jewish law, especially those laws which the Apostolic Fathers

had deemed mandatory and in so doing redefined martyrdom itself. The Maccabean

martyrs were Jews who had died for their food laws, Jewish ancestral laws which even

the Apostolic Decree demanded Christians keep. Dying for one's God-given laws was

admirable. Dying to protest faith in a man was nothing. Julian did not even dignify

Christian practice by calling it martyrdom. Rather, Christians "grovel" among tombs.

Again Julian could project the Christian reaction. Indeed, we hear in Gregory Nazianzus'

234

Homily 15 that some Christians denounced the cult of the Maccabean martyrs because

they considered it worship of Jews who died for their laws.

Julian was pressing on another Christian fault line and even dismissing a central

element of Christian identity. Given the recent debacle at Apollo's shrine in Daphne, first

the Christian competition over the space with the shrine of St. Babylas and then its

alleged destruction by the Christians, Julian was eager to undermine Christian notions of

'the holy' and martyrdom. The issue of holy space played out across the empire. On

Julian's orders 'Hellenes' attacked graves and churches in many cities. Julian gave them

scriptural sanction. He appropriated Scripture (Isaiah 65:4) to argue that Christian

worship of martyr shrines was unholy. Here he implicitly challenged one of Christianity's

renowned interpreters, Eusebius, who had interpreted this passage and called 'Hebrew'

activities in this passage 'Hellenic' Julian turned the passage around on him, questioning

Christian practice by showing himself to be a superior exegete than one of their best

exegetes.

This time Julian's use of Jews was not as a model for 'Hellenic' practice. He

linked Christian practice with learned illegitimate practices from the Jews. After all,

when Jews slept among tombs they were contravening their ancestral laws. Julian did not

make this point directly but it is clear enough. Thus the Christian practice of martyrdom

and worship of martyrs went against a plain reading of Scripture.

It is precisely because of Christianity's tie to its Jewish past that Julian could

point to Jewish practice with its implied basis in ancestral custom as a proper

manifestation of practice. When Julian wrote that "no Jew has to beg" in his Letter to

Arsacius he reminded his reader that this legitimate Christian practice of charity, which

235

he sought to copy, was rooted in positive Jewish ancestral custom. Julian made Christian

practices of charity a function of his priests just as it had been a function of the Christian

bishops. In this context it was par for the course to mention the origins of this legitimate

Christian practice. But Julian had to differentiate and 'Hellenize' the very practice he was

copying. This he achieved by grounding 'Hellenic' philanthropy in sacred 'Hellenic'

texts. Later in his Fragment of a Letter to a Priest, when Julian saw Christianity as a bete

noire, Julian attacked Christian charity as an immoral practice and did not even mention

Jewish practice.

In summary, Julian's comments about Jews and Judaism provide a window into

the influence of Jewish texts and of Jews themselves in fourth century Antioch. As

emperor, Julian was out to create a Neoplatonic ethnically-ordered empire. All of his acts

as emperor were pragmatic if not successful. His polemics were no different. CG was not

only a philosophical treatise. It was meant to persuade and it worked in tandem with

Julian's actions. Thus Julian addressed real issues and real peoples - the Judaizers. Even

though Julian's Jews are textualized peoples based on Scripture and Neoplatonic

interpretation, there are real Jews lurking behind his descriptions.

Julian's use of Jewish texts suggests that they were important instruments of

persuasion in the fourth century. They had cunency not only with Jews and Christians,

but with 'Hellenes' as well. In the third and fourth century in Asia Minor there was a

small group of 'Hellenes' who attended synagogues and heard the Scriptures in Greek.

Apparently, not only Middle and Neo-platonic philosophers learned Scriptures. One can

only imagine that with the rise of Christianity after Constantine, Scriptures circulated

among 'Hellenes' more widely, possibly because they converted and partially because

236

they shared in the sunounding culture. In open cultures such as those in Asia Minor

where different groups shared in the common touchstones of biblical stories (Noah's

coins), and leaned increasingly towards a belief in one Supreme Being, it is perhaps not

that surprising to find 'Hellenes' who might be persuaded by Jewish practices.

237

Bibliography

Biblia Patristica. Paris: Editions Du Centre Nationale, 1991.

Patrologia graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857-1886.

Patrdlogia latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844-1864.

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Online: http://www.tlg.uci.edu.

Ackerman, Susan. "The Deception of Isaac: Jacob's Dream at Bethel and Incubation on Animal Skin." Pages 92-120 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by Gary A. Anderson, SaulM. Olyan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991.

Adler, Michael. "The Emperor Julian and the Jews." Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893): 615-651.

Aichele, George and Gary A. Philips. "Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis." Semeia 69-70 (1995): 7-18.

Aland, Kurt, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger eds. The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998.

Albeck, Hanoch, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah (The Mishnah). 6 vols. 1952-1958. repr. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1988.

Alexander, Philip. S. "Retelling the Old Testament." Pages 99-121 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by Donald Arthur Carson, and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge, U.K.: The University Press, 1988.

Alexander, Philip. S. "Bavli Berakhot 55a-57b: The Talmudic Dreambook in Context." Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 230-248.

Allard, Paul. Julien L Apostat I, Tome Premier, Troisieme Edition, Revue et Augmentee. Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1972.

Alon, Gedaliah. "On Philo's Halakha." Pages 89-137 in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Edited by Gedaliah Alon. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977.

Alon, Gedaliah. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E.). Translated by Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980.

238

Alon, Gedaliah. Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, Vol. 2. Translated by Shmuel Safrai. Tel-Aviv: Kibbutz Ha-Meuhad, 1970.

Alon, Gedaliah. "Those Appointed for Money: On the History of Various Juridical Authorities in Eretz-Israel in the Talmudic Period." Pages 374-432 in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Edited by Gedaliah Alon. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977.

Alon, Gedaliah. "Towards a Clarification of the Problem of Julian's Knowledge of Jews." Page 313 Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, Vol. 2. Edited by Gedaliah Alon. Translated by Shmuel Safrai. Tel-Aviv: Kibbutz Ha-Meuhad, 1970.

Ameling, Walter. "Die Jiidische Gemeinden im Antiken Kleinasien." Pages 29-55 in Jiidische Gemeindeund Organisationsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Edited by Robert Jiitte, and Abraham P. Kustermann. Vienna: Bohlau, 1996.

Ameling, Walter. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, BandII, Kleinasien. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2005.

Anderson, Gary A. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987.

Armstrong, Arthur Hilary. "The Way and the Ways: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in the Fourth Century." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 1-17.

Artemidorus Daldianus. Oneirocritica: The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by Robert J. White. Noyes Classical Studies. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes, 1975.

Asmus, Rudolf. "Eine Enzyklika Julians des Abtriinnigen und ihre Vorlaufer." Zeitschrifi fur Kirchengeschichte 16 (1895): 45-71, 220-252.

Asmus, Rudolf. Julians Galilderschrift: im Zusammenhang mit seinen iibrigen Werken. Freiburg, Germany: Universitats-Buchdruckenrei, 1904.

Asmus, Rudolf. "Kaiser Julians Misopogon und seine Quelle." Philologus 76 (1920): 266-292.

Asmus, Rudolf. "Kaiser Julians Misopogon und seine Quelle." Philologus 11 (1921): 109-141.

Asmus, Rudolf. Kaiser Julians Philosophische Werke. Leipzig: Diin'schen Buchhandlung, 1908.

239

Athanassiadi-Fowden, Polymnia. Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1981.

Athanassiadi-Fowden, Polymnia. "The Chaldean Oracles: Theology and Theurgy." Pages 149-184 in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi-Fowden, and Michael Frede. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1999.

Atkins, Margaret, and Robin Osborne eds. Poverty in the Roman World. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Attridge, Harold W., and Gohei Hata eds. Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne University Press, 1992.

Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.

Augustine. St. Augustine on Genesis, Fathers of the Church. Translated by Roland J. Teske. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2001.

Avi-Yonah, Michael. The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule: A Political History of Palestine from the Bar Kochba War to the Arab Conquest. New York: Schocken, 1984.

Azar, Moshe. Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew. Jerusalem: Academy for Hebrew Language, 1995.

Aziza, Claude. "Julien et le Judaisme." Pages 141-158 in L Empereur Julien: de I'histoire a la legende 331-1715. Edited by Rene Braun, and Jean Richer. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1978.

Bacher, Wilhelm. "Statements of a Contemporary of the Emperor Julian on the Rebuilding of the Temple." Jewish Quarterly Review 10 (October 1897): 168-172.

Baras, Zvi, Shmuel Safrai, Menahem Stern, and Yoram Tsafrir eds. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, Volume One: Political, Social and Cultural History. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1988.

Bar-Asher, Moshe, and Steven Ellis Fassberg eds. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew. Scripta Hierosolymitana 37. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998.

Barclay, John M. G, and John Sweet eds. Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Barclay, John M. G. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, Volume 10: Against Apion, Translation and Commentary, Leiden: Brill, 2007.

240

Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE). Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1996.

Barclay, John M. G. Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004.

Barth, Fredrik. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Long Grove, 111: Waveland, 1969.

Basser, Herbert W. ed. Pseudo-Rabad: Commentary to Sifre Deuteronomy. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1994.

Baumgarten, Joseph M. "Critical Notes on the Non-Literal Use of Ma'aser/ Dekate." Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 245-261.

Baynes, Norman H. "The Early Life of Julian the Apostate." Journal of Hellenic Studies 45 (1925): 251-254.

Beard, Mary, and John North eds. Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. London: Duckworth, 1990.

Beard, Mary, John A. North, and Simon R. F. Price eds. Religions of Rome: Volume I, A History. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Beck, Roger. The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the UnconqueredSun. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Becker, Hans-Jurgen. "Texts and History: The Dynamic Relationship between Talmud Yerushalmi and Genesis Rabbah." Pages 145-158 in Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen. Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000.

Beer, Georg. Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50, mit Genehmigung der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Budapest. Jerusalem: Makor, 1979.

Belayche, Nicole. "Realia Versus Leges? Les Sacrifices de la Religion D'Etat au IV Siecle." Pages 343-369 in La Cuisine et I'Autel. Edited by Stella Georgoudi. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.

Belayche, Nicole. "Sacrifice and Theory of Sacrifice during the 'Pagan Reaction': Julian the Emperor." Pages 101-126 in Sacrifice in Religious Experience. Edited by Albert. I. Baumgarten. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Benoit, Piene, Jozef T. Milik, and Roland G. de Vaux eds. Les Grottes de Murabba 'at (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, II). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1961.

241

Berthelot, Katell. "Koinonia et Philanthropia dans le Contre Apion de Flavius Josephe." Pages 94-123 in Internationales Josephus- Kolloquium, Brussel 1998: Volume 4 of Miinsteranerjudaistische Studien. Edited by Albert. I. Baumgarten. Miinster: LIT, 1999.

Betz, Hans Dieter, Don S. Browning, and Bernd Janowski eds. Religion Past and Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Betz, Hans Dieter ed. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the Demonic Spells. 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Biale, David ed. Culture of the Jews: A New History. New York: Schocken Books, 2002.

Bickerman, Elias Joseph. "The Altars of the Gentiles, A Note on the Jewish 'ius sacrum.'" Revue Internationale des Droits de VAntiquite 5 (1958): 151.

Bidez, Joseph. La Tradition Manuscrite et Les Editions des Discours de L Empereur Julien. Ghent: Van Rosenberger & Rombaut, 1929.

Bidez, Joseph. La Vie de I Empereur Julien, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1930.

Bidez, Joseph. La Vie de L Empereur Julien, Deuxieme Tirage, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1965.

Bidez, Joseph, and Franz Cumont, L Empereur Julien Oeuvres Completes, Tome 1, 2e Partie, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1924.

Bidez, Joseph. Vie de Porphyre: Le Philosophe neo-Platonicien. Hildesheim, Germany: GeorgOlms, 1980.

Bij De Vaate, Alice J., and Jan Willem van Henten. "Jewish or Non-Jewish? Some Remarks on the Identification of Jewish Inscriptions from Asia Minor." Bibliotheca Orientalis 50 (1996): 15-28.

Binder, Donald D. Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.

Blanchetiere, Francois. "Julien Philhellene, Philosemite, Antichretien: L'affaire du Temple de Jerusalem (363)." Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980): 61-81.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah Fifty-Six-Sixty-Six. New York: Doubleday, 2003.

Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth M. "Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material." Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 213-224.

Blowers, Paul M. ed. The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity. Translated by Paul M. Blowers. Notre Dame, hid.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997.

242

Bodel, John, and Saul M. Olyan eds. Household and Family Religion in Antiquity: Context and Comparative Perspectives. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2008.

Bokser, Baruch M. "Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity." Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 50 (1983): 37-61.

Bokser, Baruch M. The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Bokser, Baruch M. "Todos and Rabbinic Authority in Rome." Pages 117-130 in Religion, Literature, and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity and Judaism. Edited by Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, Jonathan Z. Smith, Ernest S. Frerichs. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1987.

Bonz, Marianne Palmer. "The Jewish Community of Ancient Sardis: A Reassessment of Its Rise to Prominence." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 93 (1990): 343-359.

Bonz, Marianne Palmer. "The Jewish Donor Inscriptions from Aphrodisias: Are They Both Third-Century, and Who Are the Theosebeis?." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96 (1994): 281-99.

Borgen, Peder. "Philo of Alexandria: Reviewing and Rewriting Biblical Materials." Pages 37-53 in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Vol. IX. Edited by David T. Runia. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997.

Bonds, Judit Targarona, and Angel Saenz-Badillos eds. Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: Proceedings of the 6th EAJS Congress, Toledo, July 1998. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Bonet, Marcel. "Celsus: A Pagan Perspective on Scripture." Pages 259-288 in The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity. Edited by Paul M. Blowers. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997.

Boddens Hosang, F. J. E. Establishing Boundaries: Christian-Jewish Relations in Early Council Texts and the Writings of the Church Fathers. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringren, and Heinz Josef Fabry eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 9. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.

Bouche-Leclercq, Auguste. Histoire de la Divination dans L Antiquite. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1880.

243

Bouffartigue, Jean. "Julien Entre Biographie et Analyse Historique." Pages 79-89 in Antiquite Tardive Vol. 17. Edited by Jean-Michel Cane. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009.

Bouffartigue, Jean. LEmpereur Julien et la Culture de son Temps. Paris: Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes, 1992.

Boustan, Ra'anan Shaul, and Annette Yoshiko Reed eds. Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Boustan, Ra'anan Shaul. "Immolating Emperors: Spectacles of Imperial Suffering and the Making of a Jewish Minority Culture in Late Antiquity." Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 207-38.

Boustan, Ra'anan Shaul, Alex P. Jassen and Calvin J. Roetzel eds. Violence, Scripture and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Bowersock, Glen Wanen. Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Thomas Spencer Jerome Lectures, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Bowersock, Glen Wanen. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Bowersock, Glen Wanen. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Bowman, Steven. "Josephus in Byzantium." Pages 362-385 in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Feldman, Louis and Gohei Hata. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1997.

Boyarin, Daniel. Borderlines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Boyarin, Daniel. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Bradbury, Scott Allen. Innovation and Reaction in the Age of Constantine and Julian. Berkley, Calif: University of California Press, 1986.

Brakke, David, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and Jorg Ulrich eds. Beyond Reception: Mutual Influences between Antique Religion, Judaism, and Early Christianity. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006.

Brakke, David, Michael L. Satlow, and Steven Weitzman eds. Religion and the Self in Antiquity. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press, 2005.

244

Brand, Yehoshua. Klei haheres besifrut hatalmud. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1953.

Brandle, Rudolph. "Das Tempelneubauprojekt Julians." Pages 168-183 in Israel und Kirche heute: Beitrdge zum christlich-jiidischen Dialog: fiir Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich. Edited by Marcel Marcus, Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich, Ekkehard Stegemann, and Erich Zenger. Freiburg, Germany: Herder, 1991.

Bransbourg, Gilles. "Julien Ulmmunitas Christi, Les Dieux Cites." Pages 151-158 in Antiquite Tardive Vol. 17. Edited by Jean-Michel Cane. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009.

Braun, Rene and Jean Richer. L 'Empereur Julien: De I'histoire a la legende (331-1715). Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1978.

Bregman, Jay. "Elements of Emperor Julian's Theology." Pages 337-350 in Traditions of Platonism. Edited by John M. Dillon. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1999.

Brichto, Herbert Chanan. "On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement." Hebrew Union College Annual Al (1976): 19-55.

Bringman, Klaus. Kaiser Julian. Darmstadt, Germany: Primus, 2004.

Brock, Sebastian P. "A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40 (1977): 267-286.

Brock, Sebastian P. "The Rebuilding of the Temple Under Julian: A New Source" Palestine Exploration Quarterly 109 (1976): 103-107.

Brodd, Jeffrey. "Julian the Apostate and his Plan to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple." Biblical Archeological Review 11 (1995): 32-38.

Brooke, Alan England, and Norman McLean eds. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus. Cambridge, U.K.: The University Press, 1917.

Brooks, Roger. Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture, Tractate Peah. Chico Calif: Scholars Press, 1983.

Brooten, Bernadette J. "The Jews of Ancient Antioch" Pages 29-32 in Christine Kondoleon. Antioch The Lost Ancient City. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Brooten, Bernadette J. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues. Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1982.

Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, Charles Augustus Briggs, and Wilhelm Gesenius. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius. Translated by Edward Robinson. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1962.

245

Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles A Briggs eds. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

Brown, James Russell. "Temple and Sacrifice in Rabbinic Judaism." The Winslow Lectures. Evanston, Illinois: Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, 1963.

Brown, Peter. Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of Christianization in the Roman World. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Brown, Peter. "Christianization and Religious Conflict." Pages 632-664 in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 13: The Late Empire AD 33 7-425. Edited by Averil Cameron, and Peter Garnsey. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992.

Brown, Peter. The Cult of the Saints, Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Brown, Peter. The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Brown, Peter. Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire. Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures. Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University Press, 2002.

Browning, Robert. The Emperor Julian. Berkeley, Calif: University of California, 1976.

Brumberg-Kraus, Jonathan. "Meat-Eating and Jewish Identity: Ritualization of the Priestly 'Torah of Beast and Fowl' (Lev 11:46) in Rabbinic Judaism and Medieval Kabbalah." Association of Jewish Studies Review 24 (1999): 227-262.

Cameron, Alan. "Julian and Hellenism." The Ancient World 24 (1993): 25-29.

Cameron, Averil. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1991.

Cancik, Hubert, Helmuth Schneider, and David E. Orton eds. Brill's New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, Vol. 6. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Cansdale, Lena. "Julian and the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple."Abr-Nahrain 34 (1996-1997): 18-29.

Caspary, Gerard E. Politics and Exegesis: Origen and the Two Swords. Berkley, Calif: University of California Press, 1979.

246

Castelli, Elizabeth A. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

Chaniotis, Angelos. "The Jews of Aphrodisias: New Evidence and Old Problems." Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002): 209-242.

Charlesworth, James H. ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983.

Chertoff, Paul. "Asarah Batlanin and Haver Ir." The Jewish Quarterly Review 34 (1943-44): 87-98.

Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2001.

Christo, Gus George. Martyrdom According to John Chrysostom 'To Live is Christ, To Die is Gain.' Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997.

Chuvin, Piene. A Chronicle of the Last Pagans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Clarke, Ernest G. Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1984.

Clarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken N.J: Ktav, 1984.

Clark, Kenneth W. "Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after AD 70." New Testament Studies 6 (1959-1960): 269-280.

Cluse, Christoph, Alfred Haverkamp, and Israel J. Yuval eds. Jiidische Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext in kultur-rdumlich vergleichender Betrachtung von der Spatantike bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Hannover, Germany: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2003.

Cleary, John J. ed. Traditions of Platonism: Essays in Honor of John Dillon. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 1999.

Cobet, Carel Gabriel. "Annotationes criticae et palaeographicae ad Iulianum." Mnemosyne 8 (1859): 341-419.

Cohen, Jeremy. "Roman Imperial Policy toward the Jews from Constantine until the End of the Palestinian Patriarchate." Byzantine Studies 3 (1976): 1-29.

Cohen, Mark. R. Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005.

247

Cohen, Shaye J. D. "Adolph Harnack's 'The Mission and Expansion of Judaism': Christianity Succeeds Where Judaism Fails." Pages 163-169 in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester. Edited by Birger Albert Pearson, A. Thomas Kraabel, George W. E. Nickelsburg, Norman R. Petersen, and Helmut Koester. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1991.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. "Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus." Association for Jewish Studies Review 7-8 (1982-1983): 41-68.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. and Ernest S. Frerichs eds. Diasporas in Antiquity. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993.

Cohen, Shaye. J. D. "Epigraphical Rabbis" Jewish Quarterly Review 72 (1981-1982): 1-17.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. "Introduction." Pages vii-viii in The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen. Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. "Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue." Pages 159-181 in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1987.

Cohen, Shaye. J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness, Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley, Calif: Berkeley University Press, 1999.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. "The Judaean Legal Tradition and the Halakhah of the Mishnah." Pages 121-143 in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Charlotte Fonrobert and Martin Jaffee. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Cohen, Shaye. J. D. "The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society" Pages 922-990 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3. Edited by William Horbury, William Davies, and John Sturdy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Cohen, Shaye. J. D. "The Temple and the Synagogue." Pages 298-325 in in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3. Edited by William Horbury, William Davies, and John Sturdy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Cohen, Shaye. J. D. "Were the Pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders of Communal Prayer and Torah Study in Antiquity? The Evidence of the New Testament, Josephus, and the Early Church Fathers." Pages 89-105 in Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress. Howard Clark Kee, and Lynn H. Cohick. Harrisburg, Perm.: Trinity, 1999.

Cohen, Stuart A. The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

248

Conti, Stefano. Die Inschriften Kaiser Julians. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004.

Conybeare, Fred C. "Les Sacrifices D'Animaux dans Les Anciennes Eglises Chretiennes." Revue de L Histoire des Religion 44 (1901): 108-114.

Conybeare, Fred C , and A. J. McLean eds. Rituale Armenorum: Being the Administration of the Sacraments and the Brevity Rites of the Armenian Church. Oxford, U.K.: The Clarendon Press, 1905.

Conybeare, Fred C. "The Survival of Animal Sacrifices inside the Christian Church." The American Journal of Theology 7 (1903): 62-90.

Conzelmann, Hans. Gentiles, Jews, Christians: Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1992.

Cook, John Granger. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2004.

Cook, Stanley. A. "The Synagogue of Theodotus of Jerusalem." Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1921): 26.

Cooper, John. Eat and Be Satisfied: A Social History of Jewish Food. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1993.

Countryman, Louis William. The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accommodations. New York: E. Mellen, 1980.

Cox, Claude E. "Cyril of Alexandria's Text for Deuteronomy." International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Directory 10 (1977): 31-51.

Crawford, John S. "Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in Late-Antique Sardis." Pages 190-200 in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period. Edited by Steve Fine. London: Routledge, 1999.

Cummins, Stephen Anthony. Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean Martyrdom and Galatians 1 and 2. Cambridge, U.K.: The Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Cumont, Franz. "Comment Plotin Detourna Porphyre du Suicide." Revue des Etudes Grecques 32 (1919): 113-120.

Cyril of Alexandria. Contra Julien, Tome 1, Livres I et II. Translated by Paul Burguiere and Piene Evieux. Paris: Cerf, 1985.

249

Dahlen, Robert W. "Exile and Slaughter: The Authority of Scripture." Pages 95-102 in Reading the Bible in Faith. Edited by William H. Lazareth. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001.

Daley, Brian E. "Structures of Charity: Bishops' Gatherings and the See of Rome in the Early Church." Pages 25-58 in Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical, and Theological Studies. Edited by Thomas J. Reese. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1989.

Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Danker, Walter and Frederick W. Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Davidson, Israel ed. Essays and Studies in Memory of Linda R. Miller. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1938.

De Boer, Pieter A. H. "Notes on an Oxyrhynchus Papyrus in Hebrew." Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951): 49-57.

Den Boer, Willem. "Two Letters from the Corpus Iulianum." Vigiliae Christianae 16 (1962): 187-197.

Delehaye, Hippolyte. The Legends of the Saints. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998.

Derenbourg, Joseph. Essai sur I'histoire et la geographic de la Palestine d'apres les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. Paris: Imperiale, 1867.

De Ste. Croix, Geoffrey E. M. Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy. Edited by Michael Witby, and Joseph Streeter. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Detienne, Marcel, and Jean-Piene Vernant eds. The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks. Translated by Paula Wissing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Deubner, Ludwig. De Incubatione: capita quattuor. Leipzig: B. G. Teubneri, 1900.

Deubner, Ludwig. ed. Kosmos und Damian: Texte und Einleitung. Leipzig: 1907.

Diamond, Eliezer. Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Digreser, Elizabeth Depalma. "Christian or Hellene? The Great Persecution and the Problem of Identity." Pages 36-57 in Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Edited by Robert M. Frakes, and Elizabeth Depalma Digreser. Toronto: Edgar Kent, 2006.

250

DiMaio, Michael. "The Emperor Julian's Edicts of Religious Tolerance." The Ancient World. 20 (1989): 99-109.

Dines, Jennifer. The Septuagint. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

DiTommaso, Lorenzo and Lucien Turcescu eds. The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Dogniez, Cecile, and Marguerite Harl eds. Le Pentateuque d'Alexandrie: Text Grec et Traduction. Paris: Cerf, 2001.

Doran, Robert. "The Martyrs: A Sympathetic View of the Mother and her Seven Sons." Pages 189-221 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John Joseph Collins, and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1980.

Dorival, Gilles. "L'Originalite de la Bible Greque des Septante en Matiere de Sacrifice." Pages 309-315 in La Cuisine et VAutel. Edited by Stella Georgoudi. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.

Dothan, Moshe. Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains Vol. I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983.

Dothan, Moshe. Hammath Tiberias: Late synagogues Vol. II. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.

Dothan, Moshe. "The Synagogue of Hamath Tiberias." Pages 63-69 in Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Edited by Lee. I. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982.

Downey, Glanville W. Ancient Antioch. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963.

Downey, Glanville W. "Julian the Apostate at Antioch." Church History 8 (1939): 303-315.

Downey, Glanville W. "Philanthropia in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century." Historia: Zeitschrifi fiir Alte Geschichte 4 (1955): 199-208.

Drake, Harold Allen Ed. Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2006.

Drijvers, Hans J. W. East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984.

Drijvers, Hans J. W. "Jews and the Christians at Edessa." Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985): 88-102.

251

Droge, Arthur J., and James D. Tabor. A Noble Death, Suicide and Martyrdom Among Christians and Jews in Antiquity. San Francisco: Harper, 1992.

Edelstein, Emma J., and Ludwig Edelstein eds. Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of Testimonies, 2 Vols. Baltimore, Md: John Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Ehrlich, Ernst Ludwig. Der Traum im Alten Testament. Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1953.

Epiphanius, Saint, Bishop of Constantis in Cyprus. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop ofSalamis, Selected Passages. Edited and Translated by Philip R. Amidon. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Epiphanius, Saint, Bishop of Constantis in Cyprus. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop ofSalamis, Book I (Sects 1-46). Translated by Frank Williams. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Eusebius, of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea. The Ecclesiastic History. Edited by Kirsopp Lake, John Ernest Leonard Oulton, and Hugh Jackson Lawlor. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge Mass; London: Harvard University Press, 1926-1932.

Eusebius, of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea. The Ecclesiastic History and the Martyrs of Palestine. Translated by Hugh Jackson Lawlor, and John Ernest Leonard Oulton. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1927.

Fabre-Vassas, Claudine. The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians and the Pig. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Feldman, Louis H. Jew & Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1993.

Feldman, Louis H., and Meyer Reinhold eds. Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1996.

Feldman, Louis H. Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible. Berkley, Calif: University of California Press, 1998.

Feldman, Louis H., and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 1987.

Feldman, Louis H. "Reflections on Rutgers's 'Attitudes to Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period. '"Jewish Quarterly Review 86 (1995): 153-170.

252

Festugiere, Andre Jean. Antioche Paienne et Chretienne: Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie. Paris: Boccard, 1959.

Fine, Steven. Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Fine, Steven. This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1997.

Finkelstein, Louis. "The Ten Martyrs." Pages 29-55 w. Essays and Studies in Memory of Linda R. Miller. Edited by Israel Davidson. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1938.

Finn, Richard. Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice (313-450). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. A. Acts of the Apostles, The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

Fleischer, Ezra. "Studies on the Problems Related to the Liturgical Function of the Early Piyyut." Tarbiz 40 (1970): 60-63.

Foakes-Jackson, Frederick. John, and Kirsopp Lake ed. The Beginnings of Christianity, Parti, The Acts of the Apostles. London: MacMillian, 1933.

Fonrobert, Charlotte and Martin Jaffe eds. The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Fowden, Garth. Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Fraade, Steven D. "Priests, Kings and Patriarchs" Pages 315-344 in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture III, Edited by Peter Schafer. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2002.

Frakes, Robert M., and Elizabeth Depalma Digreser, eds. Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Toronto: Edgar Kent, 2006.

Frankfurter, David. "Voices, Books, and Dreams: The Diversification of Divination Media in Late Antique Egypt." Pages 233-254 in Mantike: Studies in Ancient Divination. Edited by Sarah lies Johnston, and Peter T. Struck. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Frede, Michael. "Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy in Later Antiquity." Pages 41-68 in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi-Fowden, and Michael Frede. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1999.

253

Fredriksen, Paula. Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 2008.

Fredriksen, Paula, and Oded Irshai. "Christian Anti-Judaism: Polemics and Policies." Pages 977-1034 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 4: The Late Roman Rabbinic Period. Edited by Steven T. Katz. Cambridge, U.K.: The Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Frend, William Hugh Clifford. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of the Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1981.

Frend, William Hugh Clifford. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Frey, Jean Baptiste. Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century BC to the Seventh Century AD. New York: Ktav, 1975.

Friedenthal, Marcus Beer. Litteraturblatt des Orients X., 1849.

Friedman, Shamma. Sefer haz-zikkaron le-rabbi Saul Liberman. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993.

Gaddis, Michael. There is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2005.

Gafni, Isaiah. "Josephus and I Maccabees." Pages 116-131 in Josephus, the Bible and History. Louis H. Feldman & Gohei Hata. Leiden: Brill, 1989.

Gafni, Isaiah. Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Gager, John G. "The Dialogue of Hellenism with Judaism- Bar Kochba to Julian." Hebrew Union College Annual 44 (1973): 89-118.

Gallant, Robert P. Josephus' Expositions of Biblical Law: An Internal Analysis. PhD diss. Yale University, 1988

Garnsey, Peter. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Gardner, Alice. Julian Philosopher and Emperor and the Last Struggle of Paganism Against Christianity. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1901.

Gardner, Gregg E. Giving to the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism. PhD diss. Princeton University, 2009.

254

Gardner, Gregg E. "Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century B.C.E." Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 327-343.

Geffcken, Johannes. Kaiser Julianus, Leipzig: Theodor Weicher, 1914.

Geffcken, Johannes. Zwei Griechische Apologeten. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1907.

Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer abhangigkert von der inner entwickelurg de Judenthums. Breslau: J. Hainauer, 1857.

Geiger, Joseph. "The Rebellion in the Days of Gallus and the Building of the Temple in the Time of Julian." Pages 208-217 in Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple until the Muslim Conquest: Political, Social and Cultural History. Edited by Zvi Baras, and Shmuel Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1982.

Geiger, Joseph. "The Spread of Christianity in the Land of Israel - From Its Beginnings until the Days of Julian." Pages 218-235 in Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple until the Muslim Conquest: Political, Social and Cultural History. Edited by Zvi Baras, and Shmuel Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1982.

Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius'Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed. Edited by Emil Friedrich Kautzsch, and Arthur Ernest Crowley. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1910.

Girard, Rene. Violence and the Sacred. Translated by Patrick Gregory. Baltimore, Md.: The John Hopkins University Press, 1977.

Giebel, Marion. Kaiser Julian Apostata: Die Wiederkehr der alten Gotter. Diisseldorf: Artemis & Winkler, 2002.

Gnuse, Robert Karl. Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Goldenberg, Robert. "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great." ANRW 19.2: 414-447 Part 2, Principal 19.2. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1979.

Goldin, Simcha. The Ways of Jewish Martyrdom. Turnhout: Brepols, 2007.

Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees, The Anchor Bible, A New Translation and Commentary. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976.

Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees, The Anchor Bible, A New Translation and Commentary. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.

255

Goodblatt, David M. "Suicide in the Sanctuary: Traditions in Priestly Martyrdom." Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 10-129.

Goodblatt, David M. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994.

Goodblatt, David M. "The Political and Social History of the Jewish Community in the Land of Israel." Pages 404-431 in The Cambridge History of the Judaism, Volume Four: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Evidence. Edited by W. D. Davies, and T. Katz. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman World. New York: Pantheon Books, 1953-1968.

Goodman, Martin D. "Jews and Judaism in the Meditenanean Diaspora in the Late-Roman Period: The Limitations of the Evidence." Journal of Mediterranean Studies 4 (1994): 208-24.

Goodman, Martin D. ed. Jews in a Graeco-Roman World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Goodman, Martin D. Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Goodman, Martin D. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983.

Goodman, Martin D. "The Jewish Image of God in Late Antiquity." Pages 133 -145 in Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire. Edited by Richard Kalmin, and Seth Schwartz. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.

Gordon, Richard L. "The Veil of Power: Emperors, Sacrifices and Benefactors." Pages 199-232 in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by Mary Beard and John North. London: Duckworth, 1990.

Grant, Robert M. "Dietary Laws Among Pythagoreans, Jews and Christians." Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 299-310.

Grant, Robert M. "Eusubius and the Martyrs in Gaul." Pages 129-136 in Les Martyrs de la Lyon (177). Edited Jean Rouge, and Robert Turcan. Paris: CNRS, 1978.

Gray, Alyssa M. "A Contribution to the Study of Martyrdom and Identity in the Palestinian Talmud." Journal of Jewish Studies 54 (2003): 242-271.

256

Gray, Alyssa M. "The Formerly Wealthy Poor: From Empathy to Ambivalence in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity." Association of Jewish Studies Review 33 (2009): 101-133.

Gray, George Buchanan. Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice. Oxford, U.K: Clarendon Press, 1925.

Green, Beatrice Cooper. The Political Career of the Emperor Julian. PhD diss. New York University, 1973.

Grig, Lucy. Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity. London: Duckworth, 2004.

Gross, Abraham. Spirituality and Law: Courting Martyrdom in Christianity and Judaism. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 2005.

Grottanelli, Cristiano. "Avoiding Pork: Egyptians and Jews in Greek and Latin Texts." Pages 59-93 in Food and Identity in the Ancient World. Edited by Cristiano Grottanelli, and Lucio Milano. Padova: SARGON, 2004.

Grottanelli, Cristiano, and Lucio Milano eds. Food and Identity in the Ancient World. Padova: SARGON, 2004.

Grottanelli, Cristiano. "Tuer des Animaux pour la Fete de Saint Felix." Pages 387-407 in La Cuisine etl'Autel. Edited by Stella Georgoudi. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.

Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Guinot, Jean Noel. "UHomelie sur Babylas de Jean Chrysostom: La Victoire du Martyr sur l'Hellenisme." Pages 323-341 in La Narrativa Cristiana Antica: Codici Narrativi, Strutture Formali, Schemi Retorici, XXIII Incontro di stusiosi dell'antichita Cristiana. Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1995.

Guttman, Alexander. "The End of Jewish Sacrifice." Hebrew Union College Annual 38 (1967): 137-148.

Haas, Christopher. Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict. Baltimore, Md: John Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Haddad, George. Aspects of Social Life in Antioch in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. New York: Hafner, 1949.

Hadot, Piene. Plotin, Porphyre: Etudes Neoplatoniciennes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1999.

257

Hahn, Johannes. "Die jtidishe Gemeinde im spatantiken Antiochia: Leben im Spannungsfeld von sozialer Einbindung, religiosem Wettbewerb und gewaltsamem Konflikt." Pages 57-90 in Jiidische Gemeindeund Organisationsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Edited by Robert Jutte, and Abraham P. Kustermann. Vienna: Bohlau, 1996.

Hall, Christopher C. Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove, 111.: JnterVarsity Press, 1998.

Hall, Jonathan M. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Hamel, Gildas H. Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine First Three Centuries CE. Berkley, Calif: University of California Press, 1990.

Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. ed. Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, Rene Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1987.

Hamilton, Mary. Incubation or the Cure of Disease in Pagan Temple and Christian Churches. London: W.C. Henderson & Son, 1906.

Hands, Arthur Robinson. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. London: The Camelot Press, 1968.

Hanfmann, George, and Joanne Bloom. "Samoe, Priest and Teacher of Wisdom." Eretz Yisrael 19 (1987): 10-14.

Hanson, John S. "Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity." ANRW22.2: 1395-1427. Part 2, Principat 22.2. New York: de Gruyter, 1980.

Harari, Yuval. "The Sages and the Occult." Pages 521-564 in The Literature of the Sages. Edited by Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2006.

Hardwick, Michael E. Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1989.

Harl, Kenneth W. "Sacrifice and Pagan Belief in Fifth- and Sixth- Century Byzantium." Past & Present 128 (1990): 7-27.

Harle, Paul and Didier Pralon eds. La Bible D' Alexandrie: Le Levitique. Paris: Cerf, 1988.

258

Harnack, Adolf. The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Translated by James Moffat. London: Williams & Norgate, 1904.

Hartney, Aideen M. John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City, London: Duckworth, 2004.

Hasan-Rokem, Galit. Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature (Contraventions: Jews and Other Differences). Translated by Batya Stein. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2000.

Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath eds. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998.

Hauptman, Judith. Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship Between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1988.

Hauptman, Judith. "Mishnah as a Response to 'Tosefta.'" Pages 13-34 in The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature. Brown Judaic Studies No. 326. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen. Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000.

Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Hauptman, Judith. "The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah." Jewish Studies an Internet Journal 4 (2005): 109-132.

Hefele, Charles Joseph. A History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents, Vol 2. Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1876.

Hellinger, Michael. Charity in Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature: A Legal, Literary and Historical Analysis. PhD diss. Bar-Ilan University, 1999.

Henten, Jan Willem van. "Jewish and Christian Martyrs." Pages 163-181 in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Marcel Poorhuis and Joshua Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Henten, Jan Willem van. "Martyrion and Martyrdom: Some Remarks about Noble Death in Josephus." Pages 129-141 in Folker Siegert, and Jiirgen Kalms eds. Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Brusselles 1998. Miinster, Germany: Lit, 1999.

Henten, Jan Willem van. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviors of the Jewish People: A Study of Second and Fourth Maccabees. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Henten, Jan Willem van. "The Martyrs as Heroes of the Christian People: Some Remarks on the Continuity between Jewish and Christians Martyrology with Pagan Analogies."

259

Pages 303-322 in Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective: Memorial Louis Reekmans. Edited by Mathijs Lamberigts, and Peter van Deun. Leuven, Peeters, 1995.

Herman, Geoffrey. The Priests of Babylon in the Talmudic Period. M.A. Thesis Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998.

Hen, Moshe David. "Between Churches and Theaters and Circuses" Pages 105-119 in Knesset Ezra, Literature and Life in the Synagogue, Edited by S. Elizur, Moshe David Hen, G. Shaked, Avigdor Shinan. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1994.

Hen, Moshe David. "Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian's Days." Scripta Hierosolymitana. 23 (1972): 85-125.

Hen, Moshe David. "The Identity of the Jewish People Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple: Continuity or Change?." Pages 211-236 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Lee I. Levine, and Daniel R. Schwartz. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2009.

Hen, Moshe David. "The Ten Martyrs." Pages 73-78 in Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and Christian Worlds. Edited by Shmuel Shepkaru. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Hertlein, Frid Carol. luliani Imperatoris que Supersunt Praeter reliquias apud Cyrillum Omni, Vols. 1-2. Leipzig: B.G. Teubneri, 1875.

Hezser, Catherine. "Codification of Legal Knowledge: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Roman Law Codes." Pages 581-641 in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture Vol.1. Edited by Peter Schafer. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1998.

Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997.

Heyman, George. The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University American Press, 2007.

Hill, Robert Charles. Reading the Old Testament in Antioch. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Hilhorst, Anton. "Was Philo Read by Pagans? The Statement on Heliodorus in Socrates Hist. Eccl. 5.22." The Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 75-77.

Himmelfarb, Martha. A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Hirshman, Marc G. A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Bible Interpretation in Late Antiquity. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1996.

260

HoUerich, Michael J. Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah: Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1999.

Holman, Susan R. The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Holman, Susan R. ed. Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008.

Hood, Renate V. A Socio-Anthropological Analysis of Gentile-Jew Relationships in Rome and Antioch. PhD diss. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.

Horbury, William, and David Noy eds. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Horbury, William. "Pappus and Lulianus in Jewish Resistance to Rome." Pages 289- 295 in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Proceeding of the 6' EAJS Congress Toledo, July, 1998, Volume I: Biblical, Rabbinical and Medieval Studies. Edited by Judit Targarona Bonas, and Angel Saenz-Badillos. Leiden; Brill, 1999.

Horbury, William. "Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose." Pages 143-182 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament. Edited by William Horbury, and Brian McNeil. Cambridge, U.K.: The Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Horbury, William, William Davies, and John Sturdy, eds.. The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Horovitz, H. S. and I. A. Rabin eds. Mechilta dRabbi Ismael. 2d. ed. 1931. repr. Jerusalem: Shalem Books, 1997.

Houtman, Alberdina. Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1996.

Hunt, Edward David. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312-460. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1982.

Hunt, Edward David. "Julian." Pages 44-77 in Averil Cameron, and Peter Garnsey eds. The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 13: The Late Empire AD 337-425. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Hunt, Edward David. "Were There Christian Pilgrims Before Constantine?." Pages 25-40 in Pilgrimage Explored. Edited by Jennie Stopford. Suffolk, U.K.: York Medieval Press, 1999.

261

Huskinson, Janet, ed. Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Iamblichus. Iamblichus: De mysteriis. Edited by Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon, and Jackson P. Hershbell. Translated by Emma C. Clark. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003

Ilan, Tal. "The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis and the Question of Jewish Diaspora Cemeteries." Scripta Classica Israelica 25 (2006): 71-86.

Ilan, Zvi. Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense Israel, 1991.

Ilan, Zvi, and Emmanuel Damati. Meroth, The Ancient Jewish Village: The Excavations at the Synagogue and Bet-Midrash. Tel-Aviv: Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, 1987.

Ilan, Zvi. "The Synagogue and Beth Midrash of Meroth." Pages 31 -36 in Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Edited by Rachel Hachlili.Tel Aviv: Misrad Habitahon, 1991.

Ilan, Zvi. "The Synagogue and Study House at Meroth." Pages 256-287 in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Edited by Dan Urman, and Paul V. M. Flesher. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Irshai, Oded. "Confronting the Christian Empire: Jewish Culture in the World of Byzantium." Pages 181-221 in Culture of the Jews, A New History. Edited by David Biale. New York: Schocken, 2002.

Irshai, Oded. "Dating the Eschaton: Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Calculations in Late Antiquity." Pages 113-153 in Apocalyptic Time. Numen Book Series: Studies in the History of Religions. Edited by Albert I. Baumgarten. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Irshai, Oded. "The Byzantine Period." Pages 95-128 in Israel Land, People State: A Nation and its Homeland. Edited by Avigdor Shinan, Aharon Oppenheimer, Avraham Grossman, and Joshua Kaniel. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2005.

Irshai, Oded. "The Priesthood in Jewish Society in Late Antiquity." Pages 70-106 in Continuity and Renewal, Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine. Edited by Lee. I. Levine. Jerusalem: Dinur Center for the Study of Jewish History, 2004.

Irshai, Oded. "The Role of the Priesthood." Pages 75-85 in Jiidische Gemeinden undihr christlicher Kontext in kulturrdumlich vergleichender Betrachtung. Edited by Christoph Cluse, Alfred Haverkamp, and Israel Jacob Yuval. Hannover: Hahnische Buchhandlung, 2003.

262

Isaac, Benjamin. "Orientals and Jews in the Historia Augusta: Fourth-Century Prejudice and Stereotypes." Pages 101-118 in The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Edited by Isaiah Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer, and Michael D. Swartz. Jerusalem: Graphit Press, 1996.

Jacobs, Andrew S. Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2004.

Jacobs, I. "Eleazar Ben Yair's Sanction for Martyrdom." Journal for the Study of Judaism 13 (1982): 183-186.

Jacobs, Martin. Die Institution des Judischen Patriarchen: Eine Quellen- Und Traditionskritische Studie zur Geschichte der Juden in der Spatantike. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995.

Japhet, Sara. "The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts According to a Document of the Second Temple Period." Pages 3-19 in Michael V. Fox ed. Texts, Temples and Traditions. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbraun, 1996.

Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

Jayne, Walter Addison. The Stealing Gods of Ancient Civilizations. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period. London: SCM, 1969.

Jerphagnon, Lucien. Julien Dit L'Apostat. Paris: Tallandier, 2008.

Johnson, Aaron P. Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Johnston, Sarah Illes, ed. Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Johnston, Sarah Illes, and Peter T. Struck eds. Mantike: Studies in Ancient Divination. Leiden: Boston: Brill, 2005.

Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin, John R. Martindale, and Janet Monis eds. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Jones, Lindsay ed. Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: MacMillian Reference, 2005.

263

Jones, Sian, and Sarah Pearce eds. Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Josephus, Flavius. Jewish War. Translated by Henry St. John Thackery. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.

Josephus, Flavius. Flavius Josephe, Les Antiquites Juives. Volume 2: Livres IV et V, 2" ed. Translated by Etienne Nodet. Paris: Cerf, 1995.

Josephus, Flavius. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books 1-4, Translated by Louis H. Feldman. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Josephus, Flavius. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books IV - VI. Translated by Henry St. John Thackeray, and Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge Mass; London: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Josephus, Flavius. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XIV-XV. Translated by Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.

Josephus, Flavius. Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 10, Against Apion. Edited by Steve Mason. Translated by John. M. Barclay. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Josephus, Flavius. Josephus-Vol. 1: The Life Against Apion. Translated by Henry St. John Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge Mass; London: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Josephus, Flavius. Life. Translated by Henry St. John Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.

Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Julian, Flavius Claudius. Contre Les Galileens: Une Imprecation Contre Le Christanisme. Translated by Christoper Gerard. Brussells: OUSIA, 1995.

Julian, Flavius Claudius. Juliani Imperatoris, Librorum, Contra Christianos. Leipzig: B.G. Teuberni, 1880.

Julian, Flavius Claudius. Julian's Against the Galileans. Edited by Hoffman, R. Joseph. Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2004.

Julian, Flavius Claudius. Julian the Emperor: Containing Gregory Nazianzen 's Two Invectives and Libanius' Monody with Julian's Extant Theosophical Works. Translated by Charles W. King. London: George Bell and Sons, 1888.

264

Julian, Flavius Claudius. The Works of the Emperor Julian Vol. I - III. Edited and Translated by Wilmer Can Wright. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1923.

Juster, Jean. Les Juifs Dans L'Empire Romain: leur condition juridique, economique et sociale, Tome Premier et Tome Second. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1914.

Kalmin, Richard Lee, and Seth Schwartz eds. Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.

Kalmin, Richard. "Rabbinic Tradition about Roman Persecutions of the Jews: A Reconsideration." Journal of Jewish Studies 54 (2003): 21-50.

Kalmin, Richard. Sages, Stories, Authors and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1994.

Kalmin, Richard. "The Use of Midrash for Social History." Pages 133-160 in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash. Edited by Carol Bakhos. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Kedar, Benjamin Z., and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky eds. Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land. New York: New York University Press, 1998.

Kimelman, Reuven. "The Priestly Oligarchy and the Talmudic Sages in the Talmudic Period." Zion 2 (1983): 136-147.

Kittel, Gerhard. "Das kleinasiatische Judentum in der Hellenistic -romischen Zeit." Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1-2 (1944): 9-19.

Kline, S. "Zur judischen Altertumskunde." Monatsschrift 76 (1932) 545-557.

Kline, S. "Neues zum Fremdenhaus der Synagoge." Monatsschrift 11 (1933) 81-84.

Knust, Jennifer Wright. Jewish Bones and Christian Bibles: The Maccabean Martyrs in Christian Late Antiquity. Violence and Representations of Violence among Jews and Christians Consultation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. New Orleans, La. November 2009.

Kondoleon, Christine. Antioch: The Lost Ancient City. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Kraabel, A. Thomas. "Hellenism and Judaism: The Sardis Evidence." Pages 237-255 in Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in honor of, and in dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel. Edited by J. Andrew Overman, and Robert S. MacLennan. Atlanta Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992.

265

Kraabel, A. Thomas. "The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik." ANR W19.1: 475-510. Part 2, Principal, 19.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1979.

Kraabel, A. Thomas. "The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions." Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 445-464.

Kraeling, Carl H. "The Jewish Community of Antioch" Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932): 130-160.

Kraemer, David C. Jewish Eating and Identity Through the Ages. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Kraemer, Ross S. "Jewish Tuna and Christian Fish: Identifying Religious Affiliation in Epigraphic Sources." Harvard Theological Review 84 (1991): 141-162.

Kraus, Matthew ed. How Should Rabbinic Literature Be Read in the Modern World? Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006.

Kroll, John H. "The Greek Inscriptions of the Sardis Synagogue." Harvard Theological Review 1 (2001): 5-55.

Kurtzer, Jared. '"What Shall the Alexandrians Do?' Rabbinic Judaism and the Meditenanean Diaspora." PhD diss. Harvard University, 2008.

Lacombrade, Christian. "L'empereur Julien et la tradition romaine." Pallas: Annales Publiees par la Faculte des Lettres de Toulouse 9 (1960): 155-164.

Lamberigts, Mathijis, and Peter Van Deun eds. Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective, Memorial Louis Reekmans. Leuven: University Press, 1995.

Lampe, Geoffrey Wilhelm Hugo. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1961.

Lapin, Hayim. Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine. Potomac, Md: University Press of Maryland, 1998.

Lash, Nicholas. "What might martyrdom mean?" Pages 183-198 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament. Edited by William Horbury, and Brian McNeil. Cambridge, U.K.: The Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Lauterbach, Jacob Zalle, Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael, Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1976.

266

Leemans, Johan, Wendy Mayer, Pauline Allen and Boudewijn Dehandschutter eds. 'Let Us Die That We May Live' Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria (c. AD 350-AD 450). London: Routledge, 2003.

Leemans, Johan ed. More Than a Memory: The Discourse of Martyrdom and the Construction of Christian Identity in the History of Christianity. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.

Leon, Harry J. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960.

Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. "Euxai kai thusai (A 14:260) - Opfer in der judischen Synagoge von Sardes." Pages 189-203 in Carsten Claussen ed. Versammlung, Gemeinde, Synagoge. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002.

Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck),2001.

Lerner, Myron R. "On the Origin of the Piyyut: Midrashic and Talmudic Clarifications." Sidra 9(1991): 13-34.

Lesbaupin, Ivo. Blessed are the Persecuted: Christian Life in the Roman Empire, A.D. 64-313. MaryknolLN.Y.: Orbis, 1987.

Lessee, Rebecca Macy. Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations, Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism. Hanisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1998.

Levine, Lee I. ed. Retsef u-temurah: Yehudim ve-Yahadut be-Erets Yisrael habizantit Notsrit. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2004.

Levine, Lee I. ed. Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1981.

Levine, Lee I. Caesarea under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Levine, Lee I. "Contextualizing Jewish Art: The Synagogues at Hammat Tiberias and Sepphoris." Pages 92-131 in Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire. Edited by Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.

Levine, Lee I. "Jewish Archaeology in Late Antiquity: Art, Architecture, and Inscriptions." Pages 538 in Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Edited by Steven T. Katz. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Levine, Lee I. and Daniel R. Schwartz, eds. Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2009.

267

Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Levine, Lee I. The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1989.

Levine, Lee I. "The Sages and the Synagogue in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of the Galilee." Pages 201-222 in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.

Levine, Lee I. "The Status of the Patriarch in the Third and Fourth Centuries: Sources and Methodology" Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996): 1-32.

Levine, Lee I, ed. The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, U.S.: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1987.

Levinskaya, Irina. The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting Volume 5: The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996.

Levinsky, David. Mediterranean Piety: Religious Practice and the Creation of Jewish and Christian Society. PhD diss. Stanford University, 2009.

Lewis, David Malcolm. "The First Greek Jew." Journal of Semitic Studies 2 (1957): 264-266.

Lewy, Yochanan. "Julian and Rebuilding of the Temple" Zion 1-2 (1941): 3.

Lewy, Yochanan. "Julian the Apostate and the Building of the Temple." Pages 70-96 in The Jerusalem Cathedra, Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geography and Ethnography of the Land of Israel, Vol. 3. Edited by Lee I. Levine. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1983.

Libanius. Libanius's Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Translated by Craig A. Gibson. Atlanta, Ga.: The Society for Biblical Literature, 2008.

Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1996.

LiDonnici, Lynn, and Andrea Lieber eds. Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Lieberman, Saul. Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the life and manners of Jewish Palestine in the II - IV centuries CE. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1942.

268

Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, Studies in the Literary Transmission, Belief and Manners of Palestine in I Century BCE - IV century CE. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950.

Lieberman, Saul. "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries." Jewish Quarterly Review 36 (1945-46): 329-370.

Lieberman, Saul. "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries." Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1946-47): 31-54.

Lieberman, Saul. "The Martyrs of Caesarea: Annuaire de L' Institute Orientales et Slaves" 7 (1939-1944): 395-446.

Lieberman, Saul ed. The Tosefta: The Orders ofZeraim, Moed, Nashim, and Nezikin. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955-1988.

Lieberman, Saul ed. Tosefta Kifshuta. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973.

Lieu, Judith. Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century. New York: T & T Clark, 2003.

Lieu, Judith, John A. North, and Tessa Rajak eds. The Jews Among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge, 1994.

Lieu, Samuel N. C. ed. The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic. Liverpool, U.K.: Liverpool University Press, 1986.

Lifshitz, Baruch, and Moshe Schwabe. Beth Shearim: Report on the Excavations During 1936-1940, Vol. II, no. 142 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1974.

Lifshitz, Baruch. Donateurs et Fondateurs dans les Synagogues Juives. Paris: Gabalda, 1967.

Lifshitz, Baruch. "Fonctions et Titres Honorifiques dans Les Communautes Juives." Revue Biblique 67 (1960): 58-64.

Lifshitz, Baruch. "Inscriptions de Cesaree." Revue Biblique 74 (1967): 50-59.

Lifshitz, Baruch. "Inscriptions Greques de Cesaree en Palestine (Caesarea Palaestinae)." Revue Biblique. 68 (1961): 115-126.

Lim, Richard. Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1995.

Limberis, Vasiliki, "'Religion' as the Cipher for Identity: The Cases of Emperor Julian, Libanius, and Gregory Nazianzus." Harvard Theological Review 93 (2000): 373-400.

269

Lincoln, Bruce. Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual and Classification. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Linder, Amnon. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1995.

Liver, Jacob. Chapters in the History of the Priests and Levites. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1968.

Loewenberg, Frank M. From Charity to Social Justice: The Emergence of Communal Institutions for Support of the Poor in Ancient Judaism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 2001.

Luderitz, Gert, and Joyce Maire Reynolds eds. Corpus Judischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1983.

Maccoull, Leslie. S. B. "Duke University Ms. C25: Dreams, Visions and Incubation in Coptic Egypt." Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 22 (1991): 123-132.

MacLennan, Robert S. Early Christian Texts on Jews and Judaism. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianity and Hellenism in the First Four Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

MacMullen, Ramsey. Christianizing the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

MacMullen, Ramsey. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

MacMullen, Ramsey, and Eugene N. Lane eds. Paganism and Christianity, 100-425 CE: A Sourcebook. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

MacMullen, Ramsey. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.

MacMullen, Ramsey. The Second Church: Popular Christianity A.D. 200-400. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.

Malley, William S. J. A Preliminary Specimen of a Critical Edition of the Contra Julianum of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Manila, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila, 1959.

Malley, William S. J. Hellenism and Christianity. Rome: Universita Gregoriana editice, 1978.

270

Marcos, Mar. '"He Forced with Gentleness' Emperor Julian's Attitude to Religious Coercion." Pages 191-204 in Antiquite Tardive Vol. 17. Edited by Jean-Michel Cane. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009.

Marcos, Natalio Fernandez. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Markus, Robert A. "How on Earth Could Places Become Holy? Origins of the Christian Idea of Holy Places." Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (1994): 257-271.

Markus, Robert A. The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Marmorstein, Arthur. "L'Opposition Contre Le Patriarch R. Juda II." Revue Etudes Juives 54 (1912): 59-66.

Martin, Dale B., and Patricia Cox Miller eds. The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies: Gender, Asceticism, and Historiography. Durham, N.C.; London: Duke University Press, 2005.

Martin, Edward J. The Emperor Julian: An Essay on His Relations with the Christian Religion. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; MacMillian, 1919.

Martin, Francis ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, VActs. Downers Grove, 111.: Inter Varsity Press, 2006.

Martinez, Florentino Garcia and Eibert J.C. Tigelchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Study Edition, II. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Martola, Nils. "Eating the Passover Lamb in House Temples in Alexandria: Some Notes on Passover in Philo." Pages 521-530 in Jewish Studies in New Europe: Proceedings of the Fifth Congress for Jewish Studies in Copenhagen, 1997 under the Auspices of the European Association for Jewish Studies. Edited by Ulf Haxxen, Hanne Trautner-Kromann, Karen Lisa Goldschmidt Salamon, and Lars M. Andersson. Copenhagen: A.C. Reitzel, 1998.

Marx, Alfred. Les systemes sacrificiels de TAncien Testament: Formes et Fonctions du Culte Sacrificiel a Yhwh. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Mayer, Wendy. "Antioch and the Intersection between Religious Factionalism, Place and Power in Late Antiquity." Pages 357-363 in The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity Edited by Andrew Cain, and Noel Lenski. Suney, UK: Ashgate, 2009.

Mayer, Wendy, and Pauline Allen eds. John Chrysostom. London: Routledge, 2000.

271

Mayer, Wendy. "Poverty and Generosity toward the Poor in the Time of John Chrysostom." Pages 140-158 in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society. Edited by Susan Holman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008.

Mayerson, Philipp. "Libanius and the Administration of Palestine." Zeitschrifi fiir Papyrologie undEpigraphik 69 (1987), 251-260.

Meeks, Wayne A., and Robert Louis Wilken eds. Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978.

Meier, Carl Alfred. Ancient Incubation and Modern Psychotherapy, Translated by Monica Curtis. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1967.

Meredith, Anthony. "Porphyry and Julian against the Christians." ANRW23.2: 1119-1149. Part 2, Principat, 23.2. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1980.

Metzger, Bruce ed. New Revised Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Meyers, Eric M. "Excavations at Gush Halav in Upper Galilee." Pages 75-77 in Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Edited by Lee I. Levine. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982.

Meyers, Eric M. "Jewish Art and Architecture in the Land of Israel." Pages 70-235 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by Steven T. Katz. Cambridge, U.K.: The Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Middleton, Paul. Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity. London: T&T Clark, 2006.

Miles, Richard. "Communicating Culture, Identity and Power." Pages 29-62 in Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire. Edited by Janet Huskinson. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Milgrom, Jacob. "Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy." Hebrew Union College Annual 47 (1976): 1-17.

Milgrom, Jacob. "The Shoulder for the Levites." Pages 169-176 in The Temple Scroll, Vol. 1. Edited by Yigael Yadin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983.

Millar, Fergus. The Emperor in the Roman World. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977.

Millar, Fergus. "The Jews of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora between Paganism and Christianity, AD 312-438." Pages 97-123 in The Jews Among Pagans and Christians In

272

the Roman Empire. Edited by Judith Lieu, John North, and Tessa Rajak. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Miller, Patricia Cox. '"A Dubious Twilight': Reflections on Dreams in Patristic Literature." Church History 55 (1986): 153-164.

Miller, Stuart S. Sages and Commoners in Late Antique Eretz Yisrael: A Philosophical Inquiry into Local Traditions in Talmud Yerushalmi. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2006.

Miller, Stuart S. "The Rabbis and the Non-Existent Monolithic Synagogue." Pages 57-70 in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue. Edited by Steven Fine. London: Routledge, 1999.

Milson, David. Art and Architecture of the Synagogue in Late Antique Palestine: In the Shadow of the Church. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Mitchell, Margaret M. "Christian Martyrdom and the 'Dialect of the Holy Scriptures': The Literal, the Allegorical, the Martyrological." Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 177-206.

Mitchell, Stephen. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, Volume II: The Rise of the Church. Oxford, U.K.: The Clarendon Press, 1993.

Mitchell, Stephen. "Ethnicity, Acculturation and Empire in Roman and Late Roman Asia Minor." Pages 117-147 in Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. Edited by Stephen Mitchell, and Geoffrey Greatrex. London: Duckworth, 2000.

Mitchell, Stephen. "The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians." Pages 81-148 in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi-Fowden, and Michael Frede.Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1999.

Modeus, Martin. Sacrifice and Symbol: Biblical selamim in a Ritual Perspective. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2005.

Modrzejewski, Joseph. The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995.

Montefiore, Claude J. G., and Herbert M. J. Loewe eds. A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Meridan, 1963.

Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, The Age of the Tannaim, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927.

273

Moutsoulas, Elias D. "APARXE: ein kurzer Uberblick iiber die wesentlichen Bedeutungen des Wortes in heidsnischer, jiidischer und christlicher Literature." Sacrus Erudiri 15 (1964): 5-14.

Muhlenberg, Ekkehard. "The Martyr's Death and its Literary Presentation." Studia Patristica 29 (1997): 85-93.

Mulder, Martin Jan ed. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1988.

Muir, Steven C. '"Caring for All the Weak' Polytheist and Christian Charity in Sardis and Smyrna." Pages 123-140 in Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Sardis and Smyrna. Edited by Richard S. Ascough. Waterloo, Ont: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 2005.

Muraviev, Alexei. "Three Martyrs of Chalcedon and the Persian Campaign of the Emperor Julian." Studia Patristica 29 (1997): 94-100.

Murdoch, Adrian. The Last Pagan, Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 2003.

Musurillo, Herbert A. ed. The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, Acta Alexandrinorum. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1954.

Naveh, Josef. On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1978.

Naveh, Josef, and Shaul Shaked ed. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985.

Naville, H. Adrien. Julien L Apostat et sa Philosophie du Polytheisme. Paris: Didier et Cie., 1877.

Nestle, Eberhard, and Kurt Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.

Neuffelen, Peter van. "Deux Fausses Lettres De Julien I'Apostat (La Lettre aux Juifs, Ep. 51 [Wright], et Lettre a Arsacius, Ep. 84 [Bidez])." Vigiliae Christianae 55 (2001): 131-150.

Neumann, Karl. Johannes. luliani imperatoris librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt. Leipzig: iEdibus B.G. Teubneri, 1880.

274

Neusner, Jacob. Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty: Part Two, Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Neusner, Jacob. Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Neusner, Jacob. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, A New American Translation, Volume III, Parashiyyot Sixty-Eight through One Hundred on Genesis 28:10 to 50:26. Atlanta Ga.: Scholars Press for Brown University, 1985.

Neusner, Jacob. The Tosefta: Its Structure and its Sources. Atlanta Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986.

Neusner, Jacob. The Talmud of the Land of Israel. Translated by Baruch M. Bokser. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Neusner, Jacob ed. Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part One: The Literary and Archaeological Sources. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Neusner, Jacob. "Intersecting Realms of Sanctification: The Slaughter of Animals for Secular Purposes in the Context of Sanctification in Rabbinic Judaism. Tractate Hullin in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi, and Bavli." Annali di Storria dell' Esegesi 18 (2001): 255-280.

Neusner, Jacob ed. The Tosefta. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002.

Neusner, Jacob, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green eds. The Encyclopaedia of Judaism Second Edition, Vol. IA-E. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Nicholson, Oliver. "The 'Pagan Churches' of Maximinus Daia and Julian." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 45 (1994): 1-10.

Niehoff, Maren. "A Dream Which is not Interpreted is like a Letter Which is not Read." Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 58-84.

Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. "La Spiritualisation des Sacrifices et le Culte Sacrificiel au Temple de Jerusalem Chez Philon D'Alexandrie." Semetica 17 (1967): 97-116.

Niquet, Heike. "Jews in the Iberian Peninsula in Roman Times." Scripta Classica Israelica 23 (2004): 159-182.

Nock, Arthur Darby. Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe. Cambridge, U.K.: The Cambridge University Press, 1926.

275

Noegel, Scott. "Dreams and Dream Interpretation in Mesopotamia and in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)." Pages 45-71 in Dreams: A Reader on Religious, Cultural and Psychological Dimensions of Dreaming. Edited by Kelly Bulkeley. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Norich, Anita, and Yaron Z. Elivar eds. Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Context and Intertext. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Judaic Studies, 2008.

North, John. "The Development of Religious Pluralism." Pages 174-193 in The Jews Among Pagans and Christians In the Roman Empire. Edited by Judith Lieu, John North, and Tessa Rajak. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Noy, David. Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Noy, David, and Walter Ameling eds. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2004.

Obermann, Julian. "The Sepulcher of the Maccabean Martyrs." Journal of Biblical Literature 49 (1930): 250-265.

O'Loughlin, Thomas. "Eusebius of Caesarea's Conceptions of the Persecutions as a Key to reading his Historia Ecclesiastica." Pages 91 -105 in The Great Persecution. Edited by Vincent Twomey, and Mark Humphries. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009.

Olster, David M. Roman Defeat, Christian Response, and the Literary Construction of the Jew. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994.

O'Meara, Domenic. J. Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 2003.

Onkelos. Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (based on A. Sperber's edition). Translated by Israel Drazin. Jersey City, N.J.: Ktav, 1982.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1956.

Oppenheimer, Aharon, Aryeh Kasher, and Uriel Rappaport eds. Bate-keneset atikim: kovets mehkarim. Jerusalem: Yad Yitshak Ben-Zvi, 1987.

Oppenheimer, Aharon. "Hafrashat ma'aser rishon bames'iut she'leahar hurban habayit hasheini." Sinai 83 (1978): 267-287.

276

Oppenheimer, Aharon. "Roman Rule and the Cities of the Galilee in Talmudic Literature." Pages 115-125 in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.

Oppenheimer, Aharon. The Am Ha-aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Translated by Lee I. Levine. Leiden: Brill, 1977

Origen, Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Origen, Contra Celsum. Edited by Miroslav Marcovitch. Boston: Brill, 2001.

Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.

Ottosson, Magnus. "Sacrifice and Sacred Meals in Ancient Israel." Pages 133-136 in Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985. Edited by Tullia Linders and Gullog Nordquist. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1987.

Overman, J. Andrew, and Robert S. MacLennan. Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of and in Dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992.

Parkes, James William. The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism. London: Soncino, 1934.

Parkes, James William. Judaism and Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Patlagean, Evelyne. Pauvrete economique et pauvrete sociale a Byzance 4-7 siecle. Paris: Mouton, 1977.

Pelletier, Andre. "La Philantrhopia de tous les jours chez les ecrivains juifs hellenises." Pages 35-44 in Paganisme, judaisme, christianisme: melanges offerts a Marcel Simon: Influences et Affrontements dans le monde antique. Edited by Marcel Simon, and Andre Benoit. Paris: Boccard, 1978.

Perkins, Judith. "Space, Place, Voice in the Acts of Martyrs and the Greek Romance." Pages 117-137 in Mimesis andIntertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Edited by D.R. MacDonald. Valley Forge, Perm.: Trinity, 2001.

Pernot, Laurent. "Le Sacrifice dans la Litterature Greque de L'Epoque Imperiale." Pages 317-328 in La Cuisine et I'Autel. Edited by Stella Georgoudi. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.

Peters, Melvin K. H. ed. A Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch, Volume 5, Deuteronomy. Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1983.

277

Petropoulou, Maria-Zoe. Animal sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100BC-AD 200. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Philo. Philo: in ten volumes (and two supplementary volumes). Translated by Francis. H. Colson, George Herbert Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge Mass; London: Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, 1929.

Philo. Flaccus. Translated by Francis. H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929.

Philo. On the Embassy to Gaius. Translated by Francis. H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929.

Philo. Les Oeuvres de Philon D Alexandrie, De Specialibus Legibus Vols. I et II. Translated by Suzanne Daniel. Paris: Cerf, 1975.

Philo. Special Laws. Translated by Francis. H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937.

Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin Wright eds. The New English Translation of the Septuagint. Cited September 7, 2010. Online at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition.

Poorthuis, Marcel, and Joshua Schwartz eds. Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Porphyry. Porphyry: On Abstinence from Killing Animals. Translated by Gillian Clark. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000.

Priest, John. "Testament of Moses." Pages 919-934 in James H. Charlesworth ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments .New York: Doubleday, 1983.

Prockter, L. J. "Alms and the Man: The Merits of Charity." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 17 (1991): 69-80.

Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai. "L'Observance des Fetes juives dans l'Empire Romain." ANRW. 2.21: 1288-1312. Part 2, Principat, 2.21. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1984.

Rahlfs, Alfred ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Priviligierte Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.

Rajak, Tessa and David Noy. "Archsynagogoi: Office, Title and Social Status in the Greco-Jewish Synagogue." Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 75-87.

278

Rajak, Tessa. "Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora." Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1996.

Rajak, Tessa. "Dying for the Law: The Martyr's Portrait in Jewish Greek Literature." Pages 99-113 in The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome. Edited by Tessa Rajak. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Rajak, Tessa. "Jews, Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Sardis: Models of Interaction." Pages 447-462 in The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction, Edited by Tessa Rajak. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Rajak, Tessa ed. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome, Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Rajak, Tessa. "The Rabbinic Dead and the Diaspora Dead at Beth She'arim." Pages 349-366 in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture Vol. I. Edited by Peter Schafer. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1998.

Remes, Pauliina. Neoplatonism. Berkley, Calif: University of California Press, 2008.

Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, Bernhard Justus, and George W. E. Nickelsburg eds. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, Volume 2 E-K. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Renucci, Piene. Les idees politiques et le gouvernement de I'empereur Julien, Brussells: Latomus, 2000.

Reynolds, Joyce M., and Robert F. Tannenbaum. Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary: Texts from the Excavations at Aphrodisias Conducted by Kenan T. Erim. Cambridge, U.K.: The Cambridge Philological Society, 1987.

Ricciotti, Giuseppe. Julian the Apostate. Translated by M. Joseph Costelloe. Milwaukee, Wis.: Bruce, 1960.

Ridley, Francis. A. Julian the Apostate and the Rise of Christianity: A Study in Cultural History. London: Watts & Co., 1937.

Ritter, Adolf M. "John Chrysostom and the Jews: A Reconsideration." Pages 141-154 in Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus. Edited by Tamila Mgaloblishvili. Richmond, U.K.: Curzon, 1998.

Rives, James. B. Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1995.

Rives, James. B. Religion in the Roman Empire. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2007.

279

Rives, James. B. "Religion in the Roman World." Pages 245-275 in Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire. Edited by Janet Huskinson. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Rokeah, David. Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict. Leiden: Brill, 1982.

Rokeah, David. Judaism and Christianity in Pagan Polemics - Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 1991.

Rokeah, David. "Notes and Studies: The Temple Scroll, Philo, Josephus and the Talmud." Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983): 515-526.

Rokeah, David. "Sources Concerning the History of the People of Israel - Comments about Jews and Judaism in Christian Literature." Pages 167-191 in The Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman World: Studies in the Memory of Menahem Stern. Edited by Isaiah Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer, and Daniel R. Swartz. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1996.

Roos, Lena 'God Wants it!': The Ideology of Martyrdom in the Hebrew Crusade Chronicles and its Jewish and Christian Background. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.

Rosen, Klaus. Julian Kaiser: Gott und Christenhasser. Stuttgart: J.G. Klett-Cotta, 2006.

Rosenblum, Jordan D. Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Rosenblum, Jordan D. '"Why Do You Refuse to Eat Pork?' Jews Food and Identity in Roman Palestine." Jewish Quarterly Review 100 (2010): 95-110.

Rosenfeld, Ben Zion. "The Crisis of the Patriarchate in the Land of Israel in the Fourth Century CE." Zion 53 (1988): 239-257.

Rosenthal, Franz. "Sedaka, Charity." Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950-51): 419-423.

Roth-Gerson, Leah. Greek Inscriptions from Synagogues in the Land of Israel. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 1987.

Roth-Gerson, Leah. The Jews of Syria in Light of the Greek Inscriptions. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center, 2001.

Rothrauff, Conrad. The Philanthropia of Emperor Julian. PhD diss. University of Cincinnati, 1964.

Roueche, Charlotte. "Interpreting the Signs: Anonymity and Concealment in Late Antique Inscriptions." Pages 221-234 in From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honor

280

of Averil Cameron. Edited by Hagit Amirav and Bart ter Haar Romeny. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

Rouwhorst, Gerard. "The Cult of the Seven Maccabean Brothers and their Mother in Christian Tradition." Pages 183-207 in Marcel Poorthuis, and Joshua Schwartz eds. Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Rubenstein, Jeffrey. Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.

Rubin, Efrat Habas. "ha-Nasi ba-tekufah ha-Romit-Bizantit: le-toldoteha shel dinastiyah." PhD diss. Tel Aviv University, 1991.

Rubin, Ze'ev. "Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period: An Historical Survey." Pages 199-238 in The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-648 CE). Edited by Yoram Tsafrir, and Shmuel Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press, 1999.

Rubin, Ze'ev. "The Account of Joseph the Comes and the Attempts to Christianize the Galilee in the Fourth Century," Immanuel 8 (1978): 104-116.

Rubin, Ze'ev. "The Spread of Christianity in the Land of Israel-From Julian until Justinian." Pages 236-251 in Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, Volume One: Political, Social and Cultural History. Edited by Zvi Baras, Shmuel Safrai, Menahem Stern, and Yoram Tsafrir. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1988.

Runesson, Anders, Donald D. Binder, and Birger Olsson eds. The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Runesson, Anders. The Origins of the Synagogue: A Socio-Historical Study. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001.

Runia, David T. Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Runia, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993.

Rutgers, Leonard Victor. "Attitudes to Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period: Reflections on Feldman's Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. " Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1995): 361-395.

Rutgers, Leonard Victor. The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

281

Rutgers, Leonard Victor. "The Importance of Scripture in the Conflict between Jews and Christians: The Example of Antioch." Pages 287-303 in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World. Edited by Leonard V. Rutgers, and Pieter Willem van der Horst. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

Rutgers, Leonard Victor. The Jews in Late Ancient Rome: Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Late Roman Diaspora. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Safrai, Shmuel. "Martyrdom in the Teachings of the Tannaim." Pages 145-164 in Sjaloom: Ter nagedachtenis van Mgr. Dr. A. C. Ramselaar. Edited by Theo C. de Kruijf and Henk van der Sandt. Hilversum: B. Folkertsma Stichting voor Talmudica, 1983.

Safrai, Shmuel, and Menahem Stern eds. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, Volume One. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1974.

Safrai, Shmuel, and Menahem Stern eds. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, Volume Two. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1976.

Safrai, Ze'ev. "The Communal Functions of the Synagogue in the Land of Israel in the Rabbinic Period." Pages 181-204 in Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Edited by Dan Urman, and Paul V. M. Flesher. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Safrai, Ze'ev. The Jewish Community in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Period. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1995.

Safrai, Ze'ev. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London: Routledge, 1994.

Safrai, Ze'ev. "The Rehov Inscription." Immanuel 8 (1978): 48-57.

Salamis, Saint Epiphanius. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop ofSalamis: Selected Passages. Translated by Philip R. Amidon. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Sanders, Ed Panish. Jewish Law From Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990.

Sanders, Ed Panish. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE. London: SCM Press, 1992.

Sandwell, Isabella. Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

282

Satlow, Michael L. "Fruit and the Fruit of Fruit: Charity and Piety among Jews in Late Antique Palestine." Jewish Quarterly Review 100 (2010): 244-277.

Satlow, Michael L. "Giving for a Return: Jewish Votive Offerings in Late Antiquity." Pages 91-108 in Religion and the Self in Antiquity. Edited by Brakke, David, Michael L. Satlow, and Steven Weitzman. Bloomington Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2005.

Sawyer, John F. A. ed. Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Saxer, Victor. "The Influence of the Bible in Early Christian Martyrology." Pages 342-372 in The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity. Edited by Paul M. Blowers. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997.

Schafer, Christian ed. Kaiser Julian 'Apostata' und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Schafer, Peter. Der Bar Kokhba Aufstand: Studien zum Zweiten Jiidische Krieg Gegen Rom. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1981.

Schafer, Peter. Judeophobia: Attitudes Towards the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Schafer, Peter, and Hans-Jiirgen Becker. Synopse zum Talmud Band 1/1-2, Ordnung Zera'im: Berakhot undPe'ah. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1991.

Schafer, Peter, and Hans-Jiirgen Becker. Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi Band 1/3-5 OrdnungZerai'im: Demai, Kil'ayim undShevi't. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992.

Schafer, Peter, and Hans-Jiirgen Becker. Synopse zum Talmud Band 1/6-11, Ordnung Zerai'im: Terumot, Ma'aserot, Ma'aser Sheni, Halla, 'Orla undBikkurim. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992.

Schatkin, Margaret. "The Maccabean Martyrs." Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974): 97-113.

Scheid, John. "Manger avec les Dieux. Partage Sacrificiel et Commensalite dans la Rome Antique." Pages 273-287 in Stella Georgoudi ed. La Cuisine etl'Autel. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.

Schiffman, Lawrence H. "Priestly and Levitical Gifts in the Temple Scroll." Pages 480-496 in Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Vol. XXX. Edited by Florentino Garcia Martinez and A. S. Van Der Woude. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

283

Schiffman, Lawrence H. "Sacral and Non-Sacral Slaughter According to the Temple Scroll." Pages 69-84 in Time to Prepare the Way into the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advance Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989-1990. Edited by Devorah Diamant, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Schiffman, Lawrence H. "Shelamim Sacrifices in the Temple Scroll." Pages 176-181 in Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, Volume XX, Yigael Yadin Memorial Volume. Edited by Amnon Ben Tor, Jonas C. Greenfield, and Abraham Malamat. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1989.

Schiffman, Lawrence H. "Temple, Sacrifice and Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls." Pages 165-176 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Edited by Florentino Garcia Martinez. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Schott, Jeremy M. Christianity, Empire, and Religion in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

Schreckenberg, Heinz. Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (l.-ll. Jh.). Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982.

Schurer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. I, Edited by Geza Vermes, and Fergus Millar. Edinborough: T &T Clark, 1973.

Schurer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. HI, Edited by Geza Vermes, and Fergus Millar. Edinborough: T &T Clark, 1986.

Schwabe, Moshe. "A Greek-Jewish Inscription from Lydda." Tarbiz 12 (1941): 230-233.

Schwabe, Moshe. "A New Document Relating to the History of the Jews in the 4th

Century CE Libanius ep. 1251." Tarbiz 1 (1930) 107-121.

Schwabe, Moshe and Baruch Lifshitz. Bet Shearim: Report on Excavations. Vol. 2. The Greek Inscriptions. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1973.

Schwabe, Moshe. "Chapters on Hellenistic Palestine at the Time of the Redaction of Talmud Yerushalmi. I: The Hellenistic High Priest in the Days of Julian the Apostate." Tarbiz 5 (1933): 358-69.

Schwabe, Moshe. "Greek Inscriptions Found at Beth She'arim in the Fifth Excavation Season 1953." Israel Exploration Journal 4 (1954): 249-261.

Schwabe, Moshe. "Libanius' Letters to the Nasi of Eretz Israel." Tarbiz 1 (1929): 85-110.

284

Schwabe, Moshe. "The Letters of Libanius to the Patriarch of Palestine." Tarbiz 1 (1930): 85-110.

Schwabe, Moshe. "Towards the History of Tiberias: An Epigraphic Study." Pages 216-221 in Sefer Yohanan Lewy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism. Edited by Moshe Schwabe and Joshua Gutmann. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1949.

Schwartz, Daniel R. Priesthood, Temple, Sacrifices: Opposition and Spiritualization in the Late Second Temple Period. PhD diss. Hebrew University, 1979.

Schwartz, Daniel R. "Ma Hava Leh Memar? 'Ve'Hai Ba'hem'" Pages 69-83 in Kedushat ha-Hayim ve-heruf ha-nefesh: Kovetz ma'amarim lezikhro shel Amir Yekutiel. Edited by Isaiah Gafni. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1992.

Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Schwartz, Seth. Josephus andJudean Politics. Leiden: Brill, 1990.

Schwartz, Seth. "The Patriarchs and the Diaspora" Journal of Jewish Studies 56 (1999): 208-222.

Schwartz, Seth. "Some Types of Jewish-Christian Interaction in late Antiquity." Pages 197-210 in Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire. Edited by Seth Schwartz, and Richard Kalmin. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.

Seager, Andrew R., and A Thomas Kraabel. "The Synagogue and the Jewish Community." Pages 168-190 in Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958-1975. Edited by George M. A. Hanfmann, and William E. Mierse. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Seaver, James Everett. Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire (300-438). Lawrence, Kans.: University of Kansas Publications, 1952.

Seccombe, David. "Was There Organized Charity in Jerusalem Before the Christians?" The Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1978): 140-143.

Shaw, Gregory. Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. University Park, Perm.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.

Shepkaru, Shmuel. Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and Christian Worlds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

285

Sherry, A. P. Midrash BereshitRabba: Codex Vatican 60. (Ms.Vat.Ebr.60.): A Previously Unknown Manuscript, Recently Established as the Earliest and Most Important Version of Bereshit Rabba. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972.

Siegert, Folker, and Jurgen U. Kalms eds. Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001: Studies on the Antiquities of Josephus. Miinster: LIT, 2002.

Simmons, Michael Bland. "The Emperor Julian's Order to Rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem: A Connection with Oracles?" Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43 (2006): 68-117.

Simon, Marcel. "Judaism et Christianisme en Gaule." Pages 257-266 in Les Martyrs de la Lyon (177). Edited by Jean Rouge, and Robert Turcan. Paris: CNRS, 1978.

Simon, Marcel. "La polemique anitjuive de Saint Jean Chrysostome." Annals de I'lnstitut de Philologie et Histoire Orientales et Slaves 4 (1936): 403-421.

Simon, Marcel. "Les Saints d'Israel dans la devotion de l'Eglise Ancienne." Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophic Religieuses 34 (1954): 98-127.

Simon, Marcel. "The Bible in the Earliest Controversies between Jews and Christians." Pages 49-68 in The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity. Edited by Paul M. Blowers. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997.

Simon, Marcel. Versus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (AD 135-425). Translated by H. McKeating. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Simonetti, Giuseppe ed. // Viaggio dell'Anima. Milan: Fondazione L. Valla, 2007.

Sivertsev, Alexi. Private Households and Public Politics in 3' -5' century Jewish Palestine. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2002.

Sizgorich, Thomas. Violence and Belief in Late Antiquity, Militant Devotion in Christianity and Islam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations. Boston: Brill, 2001.

Smith, Andrew. Philosophy in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 2004.

Smith, Jonathan Z. ed. Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

286

Smith, Jonathan Z. "The Domestication of Sacrifice." Pages 145-159 in Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Edited by Jonathan Z. Smith. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Smith, Jonathan Z. "The Temple and the Magician." Pages 172-189 in Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Edited by Jonathan Z. Smith. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Smith, Lacey Baldwin. Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World. New York: Knopf, 1997.

Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.

Smith, Morton. "The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature: A Conection." Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 111-112.

Smith, Roland B. E. Julian's Gods, Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate. London: Routledge, 1995.

Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990.

Solin, Heikki. "Juden and Syrer im westlichen Teil der romischen Welt. Eine ethnish-demographische Studie mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustande." ANRW 29.2:5%1-1%9, 1222-1255. Part 2, Principat 29.2. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1983.

Sox, David. Relics and Shrines. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985.

Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen: Comprising of the History of the Church fom AD 324 to 440. Translated by Edward Walford. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1860.

Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Sternberger, Gunter. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996.

Sternberger, Gunter. Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, Palestine in the Fourth Century. Translated Ruth Tuschling. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.

287

Stemberger, Gunter. "Narrative Baraitot in the Yerushalmi." Pages 63-81 in 77ze Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture Vol. I. Edited by Peter Schafer. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1998.

Sterling, Gregory. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Academy of the Humanities, 1980.

Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 2, Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974.

Strack, Herman L., and Gunter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Strange, William A. The Problem of the Text of Acts. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Stroumsa, Guy G. "The End of Sacrifice: Religious Mutations of Late Antiquity." Pages 29-46'in Empsychoi logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Albert De Jong, and Magda Misset-van De Weg. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa. The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha: An Account of the Excavations Conducted on Behalf of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1932.

Sussman, Y. "A Halakhic inscription of the Bet-Shean Valley" Tarbiz 43 (1973-1974) 88-158.

Swartz, Michael D. "Jewish Visionary Tradition in Rabbinic Literature." Pages 198-221 in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, and Martin S. Jaffee. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Swartz, Michael D. "Sage, Priest, and Poet: Typologies of Religious Leadership in the Ancient Synagogue." Pages 89-104 in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue. Edited by Steven Fine. London: Routledge, 1999.

Swartz, Michael D. Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996.

288

Talbot, Eugene. Oeuvres Completes de L 'Empereur Julien. Paris: Henri Plon, 1863.

Tanyar, Alev. The Jews and Christians of Imperial Asia Minor, The Literary and Material Evidence. M.A. Thesis Bilkent University, 2002.

Taylor, Miriam S. Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Tcherikover, Victor Avigdor, Alexander Fuks, and Menahem Stern eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, Volume 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957.

Tcherikover, Victor Avigdor, and Alexander Fuks eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, Volume II. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Teske, Roland J. The Fathers of the Church, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991.

Theodor Julius, and Hanoch Albeck eds. Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965.

Thomson, Charles trans. The Septuagint Bible: The Oldest Text of the Old Testament. Indian Hills, Colo.: Falcon's Wing Press, 1954.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. The JPS Torah Commentary, Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994.

Tones, Juana. "Emperor Julian and the Veneration of Relics." Pages 205-214 in Antiquite Tardive Vol. 17. Edited by Jean-Michel Cane. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009.

Tougher, Shaun. Julian the Apostate: Debates and Documents in Ancient History Series. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

Tov, Emmanuel. "The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (1985): 3-21.

Trebilco, Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press 1991.

Trifon, Dalia. Ben Haim. The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Second Temple until the Rise of Christianity. PhD diss. Tel Aviv University, 1985.

Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529, Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

Trombley, Frank R. "Paganism in the Greek World at the End of Antiquity: The Case of Rural Anatolia and Greece." Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 327-52.

289

Trzcionka, Silke. Magic and the Supernatural in Fourth Century Syria. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Trzcionka, Silke. Relating to the Supernatural: A Case Study of Fourth Century Syria and Palestine. PhD diss. University of Adelaide, 2004.

Turcan, Robert. "Le Sacrifice Mithriaque." Pages 341-372 inLe Sacrifice Dans L Antiquite. Edited by Jean Piene Vemant, Jean Rudhardt, and Olivier Reverdin.Vandoeuvres: Fondation Hardt, 1981.

Turcan, Robert. Mithras Platonicus: Recherches sur L Hellenisation philosophique de Mithra. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Universitah ha-'Ivrit bi-Yerushalayim, and Makhon le-mada'e ha-Yahadut eds. Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Permutations and Transformations, International Conference in Memory of Professor Menahem Stern: June 25-27, abstracts. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem Press, 2007.

Urbach, Ephraim E. "Mishmarot u-Ma'amadot." Tarbiz 42 (1973): 304-327.

Urbach, Ephraim E. "Political and Social Tendencies in Talmudic Concepts of Charity." Zion 16 (1951): 1-27.

Valantasis, Richard ed. Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Van Dam, Raymond. Kingdom of Snow. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Van der Horst, Pieter Willem. "A Pagan Platonist and a Christian Platonist on Suicide." Vigiliae Christianae 25 (1971) 282-288.

Van Neuffelen, Peter. "Deux Fausses Lettres De Julien I'Apostat (La Lettre aux Juifs, Ep. 51 [Wright], et Lettre a Arsacius, Ep. 84 [Bidez])." Vigiliae Christianae 55 (2001): 131-150.

Vaux, Roland de ed. Les Sacrifices de L Ancien Testament. Paris: J. Garalda, 1964.

Vaux, Roland de. "Les Sacrifices de Pores en Palestine et dans L'Ancien Orient." Pages 499-516 in Bible et Orient. Edited by Roland de Vaux. Paris: Cerf, 1967.

Vernant, Jean-Piene. "Theorie Generale du Sacrifice et Mise a Mort Dans La Thusia Greque." Pages 1-39 in Le Sacrifice Dans L Antiquite. Edited by Jean Piene Vernant, Jean Rudhardt, and Olivier Reverdin. Vandoeuvres: Fondation Hardt, 1981.

290

Versnel, Henk S., ed. Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Versnel, Henk S. "Self-Sacrifice, Compensation and the anonymous Gods." Pages 135-147 in Le Sacrifice Dans L Antiquite. Edited by Jean Piene Vernant, Jean Rudhardt, and Olivier Reverdin. Vandoeuvres: Fondation Hardt, 1981.

Veyne, Paul. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism. London: Penguin, 1992.

Veyne, Paul. When Our World Became Christian, 312-394. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Cambridge, U.K.; Maiden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2010.

Vinson, Martha. "Gregory Nazianzen's Homily 15 and the Genesis of the Christian Cult of the Maccabean Martyrs." Byzantion 64 (1994): 166-192.

Vitale, Antonio. "The Roman Curia as an International Centre of Collaboration and Charity." Concilium 127 (1979): 115-120.

Vogt, Joseph. Kaiser Julian und das Judentum. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939.

Von Straten, Folkert. "Ancient Greek Animal Sacrifice: Gift, Ritual Slaughter, Communion, Food Supply, or What? Some Thoughts of Simple Explanations of Complex Ritual." Pages 15-29 in La Cuisine et I'autel: Les Etudes, Sciences Religieuses. Edited by Stella Georgoudi, Renee Koch Piettre, and Francis Schmidt. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.

Walsh, Efthalia Makris. "Wealthy and Impoverished Widows in the Writings of St. John Chrysostom." Pages 176-208 in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society. Edited by Susan Holman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008.

Wasserstein, Abraham. "Non-Hellenized Jews in the Semi-Hellenized East." Scripta Classica Israelica 14(1995): 111-137.

Watts, Edward J. City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria. Berkley, Calif: University of California Press, 2006.

Weiss, Zeev. "Social Aspects of Burial in Beth She'arim: Archeological Finds and Talmudic Sources." Pages 357-371 in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.

Westerman, Claus. Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

291

Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995.

Wevers, John William ed. Deuteronomium. Sepruaginta: Vetis Testamentum Graecum. Gottingen: Vanderhoek & Ruprecht, 1977.

Whealey, Alice. "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum." Pages 73-77 in Josephus und das Neue Testament. Edited by Christfried Botterich, and Jens Herzer. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2007.

Whitters, Mark F. "Martyrdom as Cultic Death in the Book of Maccabees: Antecedents and Later Developments." Pages 97-120 in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Vol. 44. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. Washington D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008.

Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich. Libanios und Julian: Studien zum Verhdltnis von Rhetorik und Politikim vierten Jahrundert n. Chr. Munich: C. H. Beck'sche, 1995.

Wilken, Robert Louis. John Chrysostom and the Jews. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983.

Wilken, Robert Louis. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis and Theology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.

Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984.

Wilken, Robert Louis. "Philo in the Fourth Century." The Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 100-102.

Williams, Margaret H. "The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of Judaism." Pages 75-93 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period. Edited by William Horbury, William. D. Davies, and John Sturdy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Williams, Margaret H. The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans: A Diasporan Sourcebook. London: Duckworth, 1998.

Williams, Margaret H. "The Jews and Godfearers Inscription from Aphrodisias: A Case of Patriarchal Interference in Early 3rd Century Caria?." Historia: Zeitschrifi fiir Alte Geschichte 41 (1992): 297-310.

Wright, Wilmer Cave France. The Emperor Julian's Relation to the New Sophistic and Neo-Platonism. New York: Garland, 1980.

292

Woolf, Greg. "Writing Poverty in Rome" Pages 83-99 in Poverty in the Roman World, Edited by Margaret Atkins, and Robin Osborne. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Yadin, Yigael ed. The Temple Scroll, Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983.

Yahalom, Joseph. Poetry and Society in Jewish Galilee of Late Antiquity. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1999.

Yerkes, Royden Keith. Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism. New York: Charles Scribner's & Sons, 1952.

Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge, U.K.; Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Yuval, Israel Jacob. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Berkley, Calif: University of California Press, 2006.

Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge, 2003.

Ziade, Raphaelle. Les Martyrs Maccabees de I'histoire Juive au culte Chretien. Les homelies de Gregoire de Nazianze et de Jean Chrysostome. Leiden: Brill, 2007

Ziegler, Joseph ed. Septuaginta Isaias. Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1983.

Zuckermandel, M. S, and Saul Liebermann. Tosephta based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices with Supplement. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1970.

293