Bruce Winters cites this book for the expulsion of Jews, but I did not see anything significant beyond quoting Seutonius and saying the sources were obscure.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "CGJ3HUUK", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/CGJ3HUUK", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/CGJ3HUUK", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/8CTSKX4M", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "CGJ3HUUK", "version": 14, "parentItem": "8CTSKX4M", "itemType": "note", "note": "A review of the 2005 edition (accidentally sent by Baker instead of the 2012 revision) by David Lincicum, with loads-o-links!
\nReview of Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005). 539 + xxxvi pp.
\nMany thanks to Baker (who acquired this through their purchase of Hendrickson’s backlist) for the review copy. I requested the volume because I noticed there was a 2012 revision of the book, but for some reason was sent the original 2005 version. Since I hadn’t read the 2005 version anyway, I thought I’d simply review this and do so by way of a thought experiment: if it fell to me to suggest revisions for a second edition, what would I change or include? If anyone has seen the 2012 version, perhaps they can comment on whether any of these changes have been made.
\nFirst though, it is worth stressing emphatically: this is a massively useful volume that puts an astonishingly broad range of literature (both primary and secondary) at the fingertips of its users. It is a book I will put into the hands of my postgraduate students to help them orient themselves to the dizzying array of texts one is expected to know in order to study the New Testament. As Martin Hengel once famously opined, the one who knows only the New Testament doesn’t know even that. So this book is a rich guide to all the byways that will provide renewed vistas of the New Testament and its subject matter, when approached cautiously and intelligently.
\n\n
After a brief methodological introduction, the bulk of the book considers major corpora of ancient writings (chapters 1-11), offers some brief examples of this material in action in sample NT exegeses (chapter 12) and concludes with no less than six appendices, covering the canons of Scripture that include the Apocrypha, a list of quotations, allusions, and parallels to the NT (something worth consulting for those writing on particular NT texts), parallels between NT and non-canonical Gospels (here somewhat awkwardly called ‘pseudepigraphal’), a list of Jesus’ parables and those of the Rabbis, a discussion of Jesus and Jewish miracle stories, and finally a brief treatment of messianic claimants in the first two centuries CE. The major chapters offer brief summaries of the relevant writings, bibliographies (which are pretty thin on non-English scholarship – a pity since advanced students are those most likely to use the volume, though perhaps a necessary concession to space constraints) and discussion of themes and connections to the NT. Clearly this is a lot of material packed into relatively small space.
\nAs I mentioned, my overwhelming reaction to this book is one of appreciation. But since critical suggestions for improvement are a form of the highest compliment to scholarly efforts, in what follows I’d like to briefly make some suggestions in the order of the chapters as they appear in the volume. Many of these are simply suggestions about what has appeared since 2005, though others are more substantial.
\n1. OT Apocrypha. A very useful chapter, with tables of Ezra and Esdras nomenclature that are worth bookmarking. While the differing canons are noted, 3 & 4 Macc and Ps 151 are treated in the next chapter (as are Jubilees and 1 Enoch, though it is not here noted that they function in some Eastern canons as apocrypha). In general there are very full bibliographies, and one finds (in contrast to some other places in the book) some good non-English language references.
\n2. OT Pseudepigrapha. This is a very good discussion of these texts, with much useful bibliography and helpful (if necessarily brief) orientating remarks. While naturally there are many works that could be added to update the bibliographies, I’ll simply focus on one major methodological question here. Robert Kraft’s important discussion [esp. chapters 1-2] (review here) of the difficulties in identifying these works as Jewish or Christian (extended by Jim Davila in his book, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha) could be taken more fully into account: should we assume that a work is Jewish unless proven Christian? Or does the process of transmission through Christian scribal hands suggest that some of these works might in fact be Christian? And isn’t it all much more complicated than is often assumed? We can look forward later this year to the publication by Eerdmans of more OT pseudepigrapha, under the revised title Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1.
\n3. Dead Sea Scrolls. This is one of the longest and most useful chapters in the book, supplying orientation to the contents of the DSS as a whole and also many comments on individual texts. One might simply note that the DJD series is now complete, save the revision of Allegro’s idiosyncratic volume V, and that much of the Hebrew & Aramaic texts in the editio princeps is available in a six-volume reader’s edition. There is also underway a new French edition and translation of the DSS, La Bibliothèque de Qumrân.
\n4. Versions of the OT. This is a concise and useful discussion of the versions of the OT and their potential relevance to the NT. A few minor updates: the first ET of the SamPent is about to be published. The New English Translation of the Septuagint has been published as well, and one might here also note the appearance of the Septuaginta Deutsch and the flood of German publications on the LXX. Also missing is any reference to the important French series, La Bible d’Alexandrie. One might have expected some discussion of the difference between Rahlfs edition and the larger Göttingen project for which Rahlfs is a stop gap measure. To keep up to date on the project of improving our knowledge of the Hexapla, note this important site (and note that one T. Michael Law is a contributor!). On the Vetus Latina, one could note the interesting work being done in Birmingham on the Gospel of John.
\n5. Philo and Josephus. In discussion of Philo, my biggest complaint is that Evans restricts himself to the material published in the Loeb series, and so misses some of Philo’s works: De animalibus: A. Terian, ed., Philo Alexandrinus, De animalibus (Chico, CA, 1981); De Deo: F. Siegert, “The Philonian Fragment De Deo: First English Translation,” SPhil 10 (1998), 1-33; Fragments of the Quaestiones et Solutiones (many of which are in LCL, but not all, and not all translated): F. Petit, ed., Philon d’Alexandrie, Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: Fragmenta Graeca (PAPM 33; Paris, 1978); J. R. Royse, “Further Greek Fragments of Philo’s Quaestiones,” in F. E. Greenspahn et al., eds., Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico, CA, 1984), 143-53; J. Paramelle with E. Lucchesi, Philon d’Alexandrie, Questions sur la Genèse II 1-7 (Geneva 1984); D. T. Runia, “A Neglected Text of Philo of Alexandria: First Translation into a Modern Language,” in E. G. Chazon et al., eds., Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone (Leiden, 2004), 199-207. A few other minor Philonic quibbles: one might have expected some discussion of the various commentary projects that Philo is engaged in; Philo is surely Middle Platonic rather than Neoplatonic; and though the importance of Philo for the interpretation of Hebrews is noted on p. 169, only two references to Philo appear in the appendix devoted to quotations, allusions, and parallels to the NT – an unfortunate oversight (and in general, Philo appears to have been under-utilized in the index). One might also have expected some mention of the helpful Philo bibliographies by D. Runia, et al. and the Brill commentary series, and now one could add the very useful Cambridge Companion to Philo. For Josephus, one might note that three more volumes in Brill’s commentary series have now appeared, and an ET of Yosippon is apparently in press by HUP (see here).
\n6. The Targums. This is one of the places the volume shines, given Evans’s own extensive work in targumic studies. I’d simply note that the Aramaic Bible series has now been completed, and point to two other important volumes on the targums: Paul V. M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011) and Martin McNamara, Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays (WUNT 279; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). I am perhaps slightly less optimistic about the relevance of the targums for NT study than Evans, but he provides some examples that are well worth consideration. But when we have 30 pages devoted to the targumim and only 9 pages devoted to Philo, this strikes me as a bit disproportional. And a major desideratum here arises: what we need is a one or two-volume Handausgabe distilled from the Aramaic Bible series. Couldn’t we simply strip the translations of all their notes and compile them so that one could know what Onqelos says without trudging off to a library? It would sell, wouldn’t it? I’ve written to the Liturgical Press to say so, but I’m not sure my email got anywhere. If anyone knows McNamara personally (the editor of the series), perhaps they could suggest it?
\n7. Rabbinic Literature. This is extremely useful as a guide to this complex literature. I suppose my major question is about non-Rabbinic Jewish literature that might have been discussed. Why nothing on the Hekhalot literature and merkavah mysticism, especially given its possible importance for mysticism in the NT (see, e.g., Rowland & Morray-Jones)? One would want, I think, to refer to the works of P. Schäfer on the Hekhalot literature, and to note also the classic work by Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. And while much of this work hasn’t yet been translated into English (though apparently Jim Davila is working on it), one could see, e.g., Martin Samuel Cohen, The Shi’ur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (Lanham: University Press of America, 1983) or the ET of the Sefer ha-Razim.
\n8. NT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. In this brief chapter, the focus is mainly on the apocryphal gospels – perhaps understandable given their high visibility, but I wonder if some attention to the apocryphal acts of the apostles (at least the five major ones that may have a claim to be 2nd or early 3rd c.) would be worthwhile? A number of primary source editions could be added: F. Bovon and P. Geoltrain, eds., Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (2 vols.; Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1997-2005) – this edition is too often overlooked, though it includes much of the excellent work by members of the French AELAC, including the fullest edition of the Acta Pauli to date. One might also note the editions of the apocryphal gospels by A. Bernhard and Ehrman & Pleše, not to mention the new edition of the first volume of Schneemelcher expected out at any time from Mohr Siebeck, and the Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts series by OUP. As for secondary texts, one might now add H.-J. Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels (London: T&T Clark, 2003); The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), several works on the much disputed Secret Mark (S. Carlson, P. Jeffrey, S. Brown, F. Watson, etc.), and Paul Foster’s massive commentary on the Gospel of Peter. Incidentally, in the case study on pseudepigraphy, there is a bit of tension between the leading statement that ‘the early church was aware of pseudepigraphy and did not approve of it’ and the concluding recommendation of D. Meade’s work (which stands in stark opposition to the leading thesis [which is to my mind defensible, though this does not imply that pseudepigraphy did not occur]).
\n9. Early Church Fathers. This chapter covers essentially the apostolic fathers (with some surprising gaps in bibliography, it must be said) and extremely briefly, other church fathers. Given the importance of reception history and global reconstructions of early church history for the interpretation of the NT, I wonder if it wouldn’t be worth including a bit more on the heresiologists in particular (esp. Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius), as well perhaps as more on Marcion given the way he has functioned recently in debates about the Gospel of Luke in particular. I’m not entirely sure that it would be fair to say that it is customary to cite Migne, when his editions are often so poor. Wouldn’t it be better to urge using the Corpus Christianorum volumes where available (some of which are now happily being translated)? Or the Sources chrétiennes or Die Griechischen Christliche Schriftsteller volumes. Anything but Migne, really! It is also worth noting that the Biblia Patristica has now been superseded by the online version.
\n10. Gnostic Writings. Here one would now of course want to include the Gospel of Judas, but also perhaps some other important primary and secondary sources: e.g., Foerster’s two volume collection of texts; M. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”; K. King, What is Gnosticism, and D. Brakke, The Gnostics.
\n11. Other Writings. This is a grab bag chapter that covers some very important ground: Greco-Roman authors, the Corpus Hermeticum, Samaritan writings, papyri, inscriptions, coins and ostraca. In some ways, this is the least satisfying chapter, due largely to the extremely brief treatment allotted to Greco-Roman writings. There is a sort of turf war in NT studies between those who envisage the Jewish background or milieu as more essential than the Greco-Roman, and this unfortunate dichotomy is something of a task for the current generation of NT scholarship to overcome. What might have been helpful is to devote a separate chapter to Greco-Roman authors entirely, and perhaps prefix it with a discussion of guides to this literature, instead of simply listing some of the more important authors with little information to go on. Then, why not have a breakdown by rough genre, and so discuss 1) Philosophy: Platonism, Aristotle and the Peripatetics, Cynicism, Skepticism, Stoicism, Middle Platonism, Epicureanism, all of which have been seen to be important at one time or another for the study of the NT. One need only think of the way in which Stoicism has been brought to bear as the background of Paul or the Fourth Gospel in some recent work by, e.g., Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Paul and the Stoics; Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul) or Gitte Buch-Hansen (It is the Spirit that Gives Life: A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel) to sense the importance of such philosophical sources. 2). Narrative, ranging from ancient history on the one side (and note the wide range of studies that have sought to place Acts in the range of ancient historiographical thought) to the novelistic tradition. 3). Ethical writings; while this may be implicit in philosophy, there have been notable attempts to place the NT in discussion with the moralists (e.g., Plutarch) and more guidance here would be useful (though mentioned briefly on p. 300). 4). Technical works on, e.g., physiognomy or medicine (e.g., the work done by M. Parsons on Body and Character in Luke and Acts). 5). Mystery religions, important for the NT since at least Reitzenstein (one could begin with M. Meyer’s collection of texts, The Ancient Mysteries). 6) Something on Greco-Roman associations, noting the new series by de Gruyter. In general, why not have a bit more discussion of the writings included in SBL’s series Writings from the Greco-Roman World?
\nThe discussion of papyri, inscriptions, coins and ostraca is very welcome and useful. In general, one can simply note here how online interfaces have changed the access to many papyri in particular. Tcherikover and Fuks’s Corpus papyrorum judaicarum (which is three volumes rather than two as stated on p. 310) is somehow (legally?) available on scribd.com (see volume 1, 2, and 3). And one should especially note the Leuven Database of Ancient Books (and their partner sites) and the Duke Database of Documentary Papyri. And of course many institutions are now placing images, if not always transcriptions, of their papyri online (e.g., Oxford). For inscriptions, it is also worth noting that J.-B. Frey’s old collection of Jewish inscriptions, long seen to be badly in need of revision, has been superseded in many places by newer editions in series by W. Horbury and D. Noy (CUP) and D. Noy, A. Panayotov, H. Bloedhorn, and W. Ameling (Mohr Siebeck) – for the details of these two series w/r/t Frey see this index in PDF – and the new Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae. Some illustrations for the coins in particular (perhaps on a companion website?) would be useful.
\nSo on the whole, this is an excellent volume. I’m sure the 2nd edition is even better than the first (which itself is a substantial reworking of a 1992 volume). These suggestions for improvement are offered in the hope that any of them that might be worthwhile could perhaps be taken up in a 3rd edition, or simply used ad hoc by those involved in the field. When beginning one’s research on one of these ancient texts, this will be among the first volumes to grab.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "46KAHFW5", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/46KAHFW5", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/46KAHFW5", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/4TGS97J2", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } } }, "data": { "key": "46KAHFW5", "version": 14, "parentItem": "4TGS97J2", "itemType": "attachment", "linkMode": "linked_url", "title": "EBSCO Record", "accessDate": "2013-01-12T13:04:22Z", "url": "http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001908694&site=ehost-live&scope=cite", "note": "", "contentType": "text/html", "charset": "", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "2286VFGR", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/2286VFGR", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/2286VFGR", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/N5XIP54H", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "2286VFGR", "version": 14, "parentItem": "N5XIP54H", "itemType": "note", "note": "Google Reader Pages Missing: 13, 18-20, 24-34, 38-43,47-54, 62-182 [do have 102, 103, 113, 134] 185, 186 ,188, 192, 198, 204, 205, 210,
\n- Conclusion
\nfor pages 56-60 see notebook Josephus.
\nQuote: 46
\n", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "E45QHSUF", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/E45QHSUF", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/E45QHSUF", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/3CH2VF2S", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "E45QHSUF", "version": 14, "parentItem": "3CH2VF2S", "itemType": "note", "note": "
Looked at 5 May 2011. Some marginally interesting articles. 1 by Collins- Exodus revisions.
\nOne by McDonald on the similarities between the ending of Acts and the ending of the Odessy.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "QD8NZXE5", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/QD8NZXE5", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/QD8NZXE5", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/HZFWR6H9", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "QD8NZXE5", "version": 14, "parentItem": "HZFWR6H9", "itemType": "note", "note": "Accession Number: ATLA0001602679; Physical Description: xii, 423 p ; Language(s): English; Contents: Introduction, by G Knoppers, O Lipschits and R Albertz. The Achaemenid Empire in the fourth century B.C.E.: a period of decline? by J Wiesehöfer. The settlement archaeology of the province of Judah: a case study, by O Lipschits and O Tal. Administration in fourth-century B.C.E. Judah in light of epigraphy and numismatics, by A Lemaire. Yehud stamp impressions in the fourth century B.C.E.: a time of administrative consolidation? by O Lipschits and D Vanderhooft. \"And they did not care to speak Yehudit\": on linguistic change in Judah during the late Persian era, by I Kottsieper. Archaeology and archaiologias: relating excavations to history in fourth-century B.C.E. Palestine, by L Grabbe. Idumea in the later Persian period (fourth century B.C.E.), by A Kloner and I Stern. The onomasticon of Mareshah in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, by E Eshel. The dating of the first phase of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in light of the archaeological evidence, by Y Magen. Do the earliest Samaritan inscriptions already indicate a parting of the ways? by B Becking. The governors of Samaria in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., by H Eshel. The late Persian formation of the Torah: observations on Deuteronomy 34, by K Schmid. The Pentateuch, the prophets, and the Torah in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., by R Achenbach. The canonical alignment of the book of Joshua, by R Albertz. Nehemiah and Sanballat: the enemy without or within? by G Knoppers. A new model for the composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, by J Wright. Who knew what? the construction of the monarchic past in Chronicles and implications for the intellectual setting of Chronicles, by E Ben Zvi. \"Those doing the work for the service in the house of the Lord\": 1 Chronicles 23:6-24:31 and the sociohistorical context of the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period, by J Wright. The development of Jewish sectarianism from Nehemiah to the Hasidim, by J Blenkinsopp.; General Note: Papers fr conf entitled \"Judah and the Judeans in the fourth century BCE\", University of Münster, 12-15 Ag 2005.; Indexes: p 405-423.; Issued by ATLA: 20100825; Publication Type: Book", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "VMXWTXV8", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/VMXWTXV8", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/VMXWTXV8", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/E5WZNFPR", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "VMXWTXV8", "version": 14, "parentItem": "E5WZNFPR", "itemType": "note", "note": "Accession Number: 26365074; Source Information: Jul2007, Vol. 5 Issue 2, p119; Subject Term: BIBLE -- Translating; Subject Term: JESUS Christ -- Name; Subject Term: JEWS; Subject Term: CHRISTIANS; Subject Term: BIBLE translators; Geographic Subject: ISRAEL; Number of Pages: 36p; Document Type: Article", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "86M74ZGV", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/86M74ZGV", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/86M74ZGV", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/5NK5A3HK", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "86M74ZGV", "version": 14, "parentItem": "5NK5A3HK", "itemType": "note", "note": "Accession Number: ATLA0001355840; Physical Description: xii,612 p ; Language(s): English; Contents: After the \"myth of the empty land\": major challenges in the study of Neo-Babylonian Judah, by H Barstad. The land lay desolate: conquest and restoration in the ancient Near East, by L Fried. Where is the \"myth of the empty land\" to be found? history versus myth, by B Oded. Periodization: between history and ideology: the Neo-Babylonian Period in biblical historiography, by S Japhet. Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period, by J Blenkinsopp. The relationship of the priestly genealogies to the history of the high priesthood in Jerusalem, by G Knoppers. Epoch and genre: the sixth century and the growth of hidden polemics, by Y Amit. Gibeon and the Gibeonites revisited, by D Edelman. The fasts in the book of Zechariah and the fashioning of national remembrance, by Y Hoffman. Nebuchadnezzar II and the Old Testament: history versus ideology, by R Sack. Babylonian strategies of imperial control in the west: royal practice and rhetoric, by D Vanderhooft. Neo-Babylonian military operations other than war in Judah and Jerusalem, by J Betlyon. Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period, by A Lemaire. Ideology and archaeology in the Neo-Babylonian Period: excavating text and tell, by C Carter. Demographic changes in Judah between the seventh and the fifth centuries B.C.E., by O Lipschits. The province of Samaria (Assyrian Samerina) in the Late Iron Age (Iron Age III), by A Zertal. Tell en-Nasbeh and the problem of the material culture of the sixth century, by J Zorn. Settlement of the Jews at Elephantine and the Arameans at Syene, by B Porten. The representation of foreigners in Neo- and Late-Babylonian legal documents (eighth through second centuries B.C.E.), by R Zadok.; General Note: Papers presented at an intl conf, Univ of Tel Aviv, Israel, My 29-31 2001.; Index: p 591-612.; Issued by ATLA: 20100825; Publication Type: Book", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "4Q8FT9E8", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/4Q8FT9E8", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/4Q8FT9E8", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/NW89NCAB", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "4Q8FT9E8", "version": 14, "parentItem": "NW89NCAB", "itemType": "note", "note": "Accession Number: ATLA0001607036; Hosting Book Page Citation: p 385-404.; Language(s): English; General Note: Papers fr conf entitled \"Judah and the Judeans in the fourth century BCE\", University of Münster, 12-15 Ag 2005.; Bibliography: p 402-404.; Issued by ATLA: 20100825; Publication Type: Essay", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "W2W2DNKI", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/W2W2DNKI", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/W2W2DNKI", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/M745N5BS", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "W2W2DNKI", "version": 14, "parentItem": "M745N5BS", "itemType": "note", "note": "Accession Number: ATLA0000757983; Language(s): English; Issued by ATLA: 20100825; Publication Type: Article", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "4A9G37CI", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/4A9G37CI", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/4A9G37CI", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/VIDC8KWS", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "4A9G37CI", "version": 14, "parentItem": "VIDC8KWS", "itemType": "note", "note": "Translation of: Zum Problem der \"Hellenisierung\" Judäas im 1. Jahrhundert nach Christus
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "B7BTBX6G", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/B7BTBX6G", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/B7BTBX6G", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/GH32KXT2", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "B7BTBX6G", "version": 14, "parentItem": "GH32KXT2", "itemType": "note", "note": "[268] Judeans in Alexandria were probably double the population of Jerusalem, which Sterling estimates as 75,000 (circa 70CE).
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "X52T4HZP", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/X52T4HZP", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/X52T4HZP", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/7IBN9XNU", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "X52T4HZP", "version": 14, "parentItem": "7IBN9XNU", "itemType": "note", "note": "Contents:
\nI. Genre and Historiography
\nII. Greek Ethnography
\nIII. Ethnography in Transition
\nIV. The Origins of Apologetic Historiography
\nV. The Hellenistic Jewish Historians, 137
\nVI. The Antiquitates Judaicae of Josephos, 226
\nVII. Luke-Acts, 311 [Photocopied]
\nConclusions:
\n\n
[Detailed]
\nI. Genre and Historiography
\nAncient Classifications, 3
\nModern Classifications, 10
\nToward a Theory of Genre, 12
\nApologetic Historiography, 16
\n\n
II. Greek Ethnography
\nLiterary Precursors, 20
\nHeketaios of Miletos, 22
\nLife, 22
\nPeriēgēsis Gēs, 25
\nTextual Problem, 25
\nContent, 26
\nForm, 29
\nFunction, 30
\nSignificance, 31
\nHerodotos, 34
\nLife, 34
\nHistories, 36
\nRelationship to Hekataios of Miletos, 36
\nContent, 40
\nForm, 45
\nFunction, 49
\nSignificance, 51
\nSummary, 53
\n\n
III. Ethnography in Transition, 55
\nHekataios of Abdera, 59
\nLife, 59
\nAigyptiaka, 61
\nTextual Problem, 61
\nContent, 64
\nForm, 72
\nFunction, 73
\nThe Jewish Excursus, 75
\nPeri Ioudaiōn, 78
\nAuthenticity, 80
\nContent and Form, 87
\nFunction, 88
\nSignificance, 91
\nMegasthenes, 92
\nLife, 92
\nIndika, 93
\nTextual Problem, 93
\nContent and Form, 95
\nFunction, 100
\nSignificance, 101
\nSummary, 101
\n\n
IV. The Origins of Apologetic Historiography
\nBerossos, 104
\nLife, 104
\nBabyloniaka, 105
\nPseudo-Berossos?, 105
\nContent, 108
\nForm, 113
\nFunction, 115
\nSignificance, 116
\nManethon, 117
\nLife, 117
\nAigyptiaka, 119
\nTextual Problem, 119
\nContent, 123
\nForm, 132
\nFunction, 133
\nSignificance, 134
\nSummary, 135
\n\n
V. The Hellenistic Jewish Historians, 137
\nTextual Problem, 141
\nEusebios, 142
\nAlexander Polyhistor, 144
\nLife, 144
\nWorks, 145
\nPeri Ioudaiōn, 153
\nDemetrios, 153
\nLife, 153
\nWork, 155
\nContent, 155
\nForm, 157
\nFunction, 162
\nSignificance, 166
\nArtapanos, 167
\n[Same]
\nPseudo-Eupolemos, 187
\nIdendity [Same: Life, Work, etc.]
\nEupolemos, 207
\n[Same]
\n\n
Life, 229
\nEvents, 229
\nSelf-Understanding, 235
\nRelation to Rome, 238
\nAntiquitates Judaicae, 240
\nHistoriographical Tradition, 240
\nContent, 245
\nForm
\nA Translation, 252
\nMajor Influences, 256
\nRewritten Scripture, 257
\nHekataios, Berossos, and Manethon, 258
\nThe Hellenistic Jewish Historians, 263
\nDemetrios, 265
\nArtepanos, 268
\nPseudo-Eupolemos, 280
\nEupolemos, 281
\nDionysios of Halikarnassos, 284
\nArs Narrandi, 290
\nOmissions, 291
\nAlterations, 293
\nAdditions, 295
\nTheological Controls, 295
\nSummary, 297
\nFunction, 297
\nGreek Audience, 298
\nRoman Audience, 302
\nJewish Audience, 306
\nSignificance, 308
\n\n
VII. Luke-Acts, 311 [Photocopied]
\n\n
Previous Research, 313
\nAncient Views, 313
\nModern Critical Assessments, 315
\nLife, 321
\nIdentity, 321
\nEthnicity, 327
\nDate, 329
\nSummary, 330
\nLuke-Acts, 331
\nUnity, 331
\nProgrammatic Statement, 339
\nThe Author and His Predecessors, 341
\nThe Traditio Apostolica, 341
\nSummary, 346
\nContents, 346
\nForm, 350
\nLiterary Influences, 350
\nMark, 350
\nLXX, 352
\nThe Hellenistic Jewish Historians, 363
\nJosephos, 365
\nHellenistic Forms and Elements, 369
\nSummary, 374
\nFunction, 374
\nAudience, 374
\nFunction, 378
\nRelationship to Christianity, 379
\nRelationship to Israel, 381
\nRelationship to Rome, 381
\nSummary
\nSignificance, 386
\nConclusions, 390
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "HW6AMTWW", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/HW6AMTWW", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/HW6AMTWW", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/PGSPDBUP", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "HW6AMTWW", "version": 14, "parentItem": "PGSPDBUP", "itemType": "note", "note": "Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. Boston: Brill Academic, 2001.
\n[See PDF]
\n[372]
\nCONCLUSION TO THE STUDY
\nThe purpose of the foregoing study has been to develop a framework against which to interpret Josephus's testimony about the Pharisees. This was necessary because of the inadequacy of previously proposed frameworks, which did not attempt to ground themselves in the bedrock of our author's thought. The present attempt, by contrast, has employed \"composition criticism\", which has meant here the analysis of Josephus's remarks on the Pharisees in terms of his narrative aims and of his outlook in general. Following is a statement of our larger conclusions.
\n1. Josephus himself is responsible for all of the deliberate descriptions of the Pharisees that appear in his works, (a) Even in those passages that describe Pharisaic activities before his own lifetime Josephus usually includes general observations, in the present tense, on such matters as their concern for ἀκρίβεια, their philosophical beliefs, or their popularity. It is antecedently probable that such accounts were at least shaped by Josephus, since he knew the Pharisees first-hand, (b) The vocabulary in these descriptions, … is characteristic of Josephus and is used in characteristic ways, (c) The parallels with his ordinary vocabulary extend to phrases and word associations like .... (d) The Pharisee passages thus support Schreckenberg's general conclusion about the grundsatzliche Einheit of Josephus's works:
\nSince the Pharisee passages share these marks of Josephus's identity, they cannot be detached from the rest of his narrative.
\n2. Josephus consistently represents the Pharisees as the dominant religious group among the Jews, who had the support of the masses. Their key role is evident at every point of Jewish history that Josephus deals with: under the Hasmoneans (Ant. 13:288-298; War 1:110-1 /Ant. 13:400-432); under Herod (War 1:571/Ant. 17:41-45); at the incorpora-
\n[373]
\ntion of Judea as a Roman province (War 2:162/Ant. 18:11-17); and at
\nthe outbreak of the revolt ( War 2:41/Life 21, 191-198). It is unlikely that Josephus's assumption of Pharisaic predominance is his (post-70) invention because: (a) it is an assumption, which appears even in his incidental references to the Pharisees (War 1:571, 2:411; Life 21); ( b ) it is presupposed by stories about the Pharisees that must have had a traditional (non-Josephan) origin ( e.g. , Ant. 13:288-298, 400-432); ( c ) Josephus was only directly acquainted with the pre-70 state of affairs in Palestine; and (d) most important, Josephus's tendency is to lament the popularity and influence of the Pharisees. But this ongoing lament over Pharisaic predominance would be unnecessary—indeed it would make no sense— if the Pharisees did not hold a dominant position in pre-70 Palestine. Josephus had no discernible reason to invent their popularity, since he regarded it as an unpleasant fact of life.
\n3. As the source critics well realized, Josephus displays a marked and consistent antipathy toward the Pharisees. This appears in his first reference to the group (War 1:110-114) and continues through Ant. (13:288-298, 400-432; 17:41-45; 18:15, 17) and the Life (191-307). Although he changes his attitude toward many parties in the course of his literary career (e.g. Herod, Alexandra Salome, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus), he consistently denigrates the Pharisees.
\n4. The focal point of Josephus's dislike of the Pharisees is their reputation for and profession of ἀκρίβεια in the laws. He thinks that this reputation is contradicted b y the Pharisees' actions (War 1:110-114; 2:162-166; Ant. 17:41-45; Life 191-198), so he laments their consequent popularity (War 2:162f.; Ant. 13:288, 400-432; 18:15, 17). Josephus consistently presents the Essenes as the most pious and virtuous of the schools (War 2:119-161; Ant. 15:371-379; 18:20) and therefore as deserving of praise. He even regrets that the Sadducees, whom he otherwise dislikes, must yield to \"what the Pharisee says\" (Ant. 18:17). As a priest, an accredited guardian of ἀκρίβεια and εὐσέβια, he considers himself authorized to assess the claims of others. The Pharisees' actions, he implies, refute any claim to, or reputation for, piety.
\n5. Two of the reasons for Josephus's antipathy seem to be (a) that several Pharisees, including Simon ben Gamaliel, were involved in the attempt to remove him from his post in the Galilee (Life 191-198) and (b) that, in his view, the Pharisees played a major and destructive role in the history of the Hasmonean house (War 1:110-114; Ant. 13:288-298, 400-432), to which he traces his own priestly, royal, and prophetic heritage (Life 1-6). These unprincipled power-mongers tried to destroy his own career even as they had long before used their influence to attack his hero, John Hyrcanus.
\n[374]
\n6. Josephus was not, and never claimed to be, a Pharisee. He was an aristocratic priest, descended from the Hasmoneans, and he was also fascinated by hemerobaptist religion (cf. Bannus and the Essenes). He always resented the Pharisees' hold on the masses but, like the Sadducees, he accepted this influence as a fact of life. Thus he acknowledges that when he ended his blissful years of wilderness retreat with Bannus and returned to the city, he began to involve himself in public life, which meant \"following the school of the Pharisees\".
\n7. Josephus is mildest in his deprecation of the Pharisees in the \"school passages\" (War 2:119-166; Ant. 13:171-173; 18:11-23), where he introduces all three of the Jewish αἱρέσεις to his Hellenistic readership. Even here one can detect anti-Pharisaic undertones in Josephus's choice of words (cf. δοκέω, τυγχάνω) and in his insistence on the outstanding virtues of the Essenes; but in Ant. 13:171-173, at least, he achieves complete neutrality. We may, however, note several features of the school passages.
\n(a) They are concerned only with the philosophical beliefs of schools, not with their actions. But Josephus agrees with the Pharisaic (and Essene) beliefs in fate and immortality. Indeed, he seems closer to the Pharisaic view on both issues. But the Pharisees only represented the popular middle ground on these questions, which Josephus evidently shared.
\n(b) In the school passages all three schools are portrayed positively. Josephus's purpose is to map out the range of philosophical speculation among the accredited schools of Judaism; in two of the school passages, he also wants to contrast the legitimate representatives of Jewish philosophy with the novel (and false) idea of unconditional freedom espoused by Judas of Galilee. This is clearly not the place for him to vent his personal animosities toward any of the groups, and one must look for subtleties in this regard. Whenever one of the three schools comes out more favourably than the others, however, it is always that of the Essenes (War 2:119-161; Ant. 18:18-23).
\n(c) Most important, the school passages are part of Josephus's \" ideal\" portrait of Judaism. His apologetic includes the claim that the Jews received a comprehensive code of noble laws from Moses and that they have preserved and observed this code exactly ever since. He presents Judaism as a superior philosophy. Alongside this recurring theme in Ant., however, he must also explain to Gentile readers how Judaism fell from its tremendous origins to become the defeated nation that it was at the end of the first century. In this story, he claims, the Pharisees have played a major role.
\nThe difference of emphasis between the Pharisee passages, in which [375] the group is openly vilified, and the school passages, in which Josephus discusses all three schools without obvious denigration, is traceable to this fundamental difference of purpose. On the one hand, the Pharisees can be cited as one of the Jewish groups who \"philosophize\" about such issues as immortality and fate. On the other hand, however, Josephus casts them as a constantly destructive force in the saga of Jewish history. Out of envy, they consistently opposed their rulers; they contributed much to the downfall of the Hasmoneans; they plotted against Herod; and, not least, they sought to oust Josephus from his command. Both sorts of passages reflect Josephus's characteristic vocabulary and themes and they overlap in content; so there is n o question of different sources accounting for the difference of emphasis. It is simply a matter of context.
\n8. It should perhaps be stressed, in view of the history of scholarship on early Judaism, that Josephus's antipathy toward the Pharisees had only personal causes, as far as we know. He never attacks Pharisaic piety per se, as a system, and indeed he shares the Pharisees' goal of ἀκρίβεια in the handling of the Mosaic Law. It would be quite illegitimate, therefore, to use the results of this study as supplementary evidence (along with, say, the Gospels and Paul) for the \"defects\" of Pharisaic religion. The crucial point here is that Josephus's perspective was that of a tiny minority in first-century Palestine: he was an avowed elitist. But we have seen ample evidence in his writings that the Pharisees enjoyed the steady and eager support of the ordinary people. Our author disdained both the Pharisees and the masses.
\nIf these conclusions are valid, the present study has provided a basis for interpreting Josephus's testimony about the Pharisees. And since Josephus is probably our most valuable witness to the history of the Pharisees, an interpretation of his evidence and his biases is already a major preliminary step toward the recovery of that history.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "Z993KWCJ", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/Z993KWCJ", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/Z993KWCJ", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/B56M9A4M", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "Z993KWCJ", "version": 14, "parentItem": "B56M9A4M", "itemType": "note", "note": "Mason's response to Freye's RBL Review:
\n(2009.11)
\nhttp://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/11/20091140-mason-josephus-judea-and.html
\nIn the fourth paragraph of his review, Professor Freyne claims that I make my position \"quite clear\" and quotes me to prove it. But there is an ellipsis in his quotation, curious because the omitted words express what he then says (after the quotation) is missing from my analysis! What he omits: \"That [citing Josephus as though he provided ready-made historical facts] would be cheating. There is no way around the historian's arduous work of seeking to understand each kind of evidence contextually, constructing and testing hypotheses, and admitting when the evidence is insufficient to permit proper demonstration of these hypotheses.\" Omitting these words, Freyne renders a verdict that would make no sense if he'd included them: \"This summary but sweeping statement will distress those who have believed that writing ancient history ... is an exercise in evaluating various hypotheses and judging their probability in a critical dialectic.\"
\n
In that first of eleven essays, to which Freyne's review is almost exclusively dedicated, my main concern (as I repeatedly stress) is the common situation in which Josephus is our only 'authority' (notice the chapter title), especially for the personalities and motives that drive history forward. We cannot, I'm afraid, take over his narrative as though it were factual. Why is that controversial? Much of the essay is a review of the way Josephus has been used historically, as an authority, and the problems with those uses. But I emphasize that where we have other independent evidence we are in much better shape (and I give examples).
Later chapters, notably those on 'Judaism/Judaeans' and the three on Christian origins, move from interpreting literary evidence to historical proposals. Professor Freyne does not mention any of those. Strange.
Otherwise, he offers a brief lament that my chapters on Pharisees and Essenes *in Josephus* are disappointing because I don't undertake full historical investigations of those groups there, comparing Josephus with other sources. He thinks that this is because I am so committed to my new perspective that I would consider historical investigation a blind alley. But this says more about the reviewer's response to what I am saying than about what I actually argue. I offer those analyses of Josephus' Essenes and Pharisees precisely as prolegomena to further historical research: the kinds of things I point out should be explained by any historical hypothesis. That is the opposite of a moratorium on history. I don't undertake a full investigation because, to treat each source on the Pharisees with equal care would require a book. If Professor Freyne wishes to see a book on the Pharisees he is free to write one. It is odd that he should expect me to write it and suspect that my failure to do so reflects a reluctance to engage in history. Those essays on Josephus' Pharisees were written for a book in which others were dealing with Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, etc.
Professor Freyne thinks that I should at least mention the archaeological evidence for Essenes. I am unaware of such evidence.
In sum: I don't call for an end to history (I'm one of the few SBL members who works in a history department and teaches history per se), but only ask that the history of Judaea be done responsibly, taking into account the character of Josephus' work. My current project is a book on the Judaean-Roman War of 66 to 74, a book in which I try to illustrate the principles I have been advocating for two decades. Not for the first or last time, I am baffled by a review.
\n
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "PUCK3XCK", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/PUCK3XCK", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/PUCK3XCK", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/38Z4K8IP", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "PUCK3XCK", "version": 14, "parentItem": "38Z4K8IP", "itemType": "note", "note": "
SBL biblio and footnote:
\nRajak, Tessa. \"The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence of Josephus.\" Pages 1–14 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
\nFOOTNOTE:
\nTessa Rajak, \"The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence of Josephus.\" in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauckham; vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting; ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995),
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "4GSKEP46", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/4GSKEP46", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/4GSKEP46", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/NX9R2DEU", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "4GSKEP46", "version": 14, "parentItem": "NX9R2DEU", "itemType": "note", "note": "Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.06.42
\n
Reviewed by Chris Seeman, Coe College (cjseeman@webperception.com)
Word count: 1405 words
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-06-42.html
\nThis collection of 27 essays (most of them previously published) spans nearly three decades of a prodigious scholarly career. As the title intimates, the unifying thread of these studies is their concern with documenting the impact of Hellenic culture and Roman rule on the Jews of Palestine and of the Mediterranean Diaspora (with one foray into Parthian territory). Throughout, Rajak is committed not only to exploring how these encounters shaped Jewish society and self-perception, but also with the ramifications of this process for our own understanding of the nature and potentialities of \"Hellenism\" -- a neologism which, we must remember, was itself coined by a Jewish author condemning (in polished literary Greek!) his countrymen's embrace of Greek institutions.
\nThe collection is arranged into four parts, proceeding more or less chronologically and geographically across the terrain of Second Temple and Late Antique Judaism. The contents are as follows. PART ONE: \"Judaism and Hellenism Revisited,\" \"The Sense of History in Jewish Intertestamental Literature,\" \"Hasmonean Kingship and the Invention of Tradition,\" \"The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism,\" \"Roman Intervention in a Seleucid Siege of Jerusalem?,\" \"Dying For the Law: The Martyr's Portrait in Jewish-Greek Literature;\" PART TWO: \"Ethnic Identities in Josephus,\" \"Friends, Romans, Subjects: Agrippa II's Speech in Josephus' Jewish War,\" \"Justus of Tiberius as a Jewish Historian,\" \" Josephus and Justus of Tiberius,\" \" The Against Apion and the Continuities in Josephus' Political Thought,\" \"Ciò Che Flavio Giuseppe Vide: Josephus and the Essenes,\" \"Josephus and the 'Archaeology' of the Jews,\" \"Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature,\" \"The Parthians in Josephus;\" PART THREE: \"Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?,\" \"The Jewish Community and its Boundaries,\" \"Jews and Christians as Groups in a Pagan World,\" \"Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora,\" \"Archisynagogoi: Office, Title and Social Status in the Greco-Jewish Synagogue,\" \"Inscription and Context: Reading the Jewish Catacombs of Rome,\" \"Jews, Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Sardis: Models of Interaction,\" \"The Synagogue in the Greco-Roman City,\" \"The Rabbinic Dead and the Diaspora Dead as Beth She'arim;\" PART FOUR: \"Jews, Semites and their Cultures in Fergus Millar's Roman Near East,\" \"Talking at Trypho: Christian Apologetic as Anti-Judaism in Justin's Dialogue,\" \"Jews and Greeks: The Invention and Exploitation of Polarities in the Nineteenth Century.\"
\nInasmuch as these essays may be taken to share an overarching thesis or starting point, it is their author's unswerving conviction that the \"Hellenization\" of groups or individuals cannot be measured by any externally derived, monolithic scale. Ethnic identity, as Jonathan Hall has pointed out, consists not primarily of indicia, but resides rather in self-definition, in categories and constellations generated by the actors themselves. To this paradigm shift Rajak adds the further methodological distinction that the study of Jewish identity in relation to Greek culture must differentiate between incipient acculturation (which need not even be conscious) and the deliberate use of Greek institutions or conventions as a tool of policy. \"Hellenism\" Rajak reserves for the latter. These two processes are separable, she argues, because the actors who encounter and engage them perceive them to be so. The topical and evidential diversity of Rajak's research in this volume reflects the challenges created by this agenda.
\nRajak wastes no time in tackling head-on the Hasmonean dynasty, whose career has traditionally been treated as the archetype of \"Hellenism vs. Judaism as a zero-sum game.\" In her incisive analysis of the rise of the Maccabees under Seleucid patronage, Rajak powerfully demonstrates that interdependence with Macedonian hegemony increased in direct -- rather than inverse -- proportion to Hasmonean efforts to present themselves in terms of traditional Israelite models of leadership: in coinage, literary production, and public pronouncements. The successors of Judas Maccabee, Rajak suggests, neither categorized their own actions, nor were categorized by others, in terms of degrees of \"Greekness.\" Rajak spends less time exploring the other side of this equation: to what extent the policies of the Hasmoneans (such as their forced circumcision of neighboring peoples) affected how \"Jewishness\" was conceived. Her suggestion (following Doron Mendels), that this novel tool of expansionism may have had more to do with a concept of territoriality than with a conversionist ethos, is a thought worth pursuing further.
\nJosephus is rarely absent from Rajak's deliberations. His own multiple identities as native aristocrat, Flavian client, and expositor of Judaism to a Greek world renders him a natural centerpiece for the collection. Josephus' substantial literary production adds important historiographic and rhetorical dimensions to Rajak's account. Rejecting simplistic caricatures of Josephus as a mere Flavian apologist or facile purveyor of interpretatio Graecae, Rajak undertakes close readings of Herod Agrippa's pre-revolt speech in Book 2 of the Jewish War, and of Josephus' descriptions of the Essenes in relation to the literature of Qumran, in order to produce a nuanced view of the complex interface between historical veracity, authorial voice, and audience expectations. In the case of Agrippa, she concludes that, while the speech is a literary artifact of Josephus, it nonetheless plausibly reproduces attitudes Agrippa is likely to have held. Agrippa's representation of Roman rule, though himself a beneficiary of it, falls well short of a benign view of empire (and hence should not be regarded as a mere cipher for Flavian ideology).
\nIn the case of the Essenes, Rajak persuasively demonstrates that, while Josephus based his depiction of the Essenes in Book 2 of the Jewish War on first-hand knowledge, the sequence of rubrics he deploys to arrange this information has been modeled upon the categories of Greek ethnographic writing and, less directly, on Plato and Aristotle's discussion of constitutional forms. This accounts not only for what details Josephus includes for his Greek audience but also which aspects of Essene life (derived from our knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls) he chooses to leave out. Rajak's analysis operates on the premise that Qumran was, in fact, an Essene community (a matter of continued scholarly debate). While she makes a good case for this, it does not necessarily follow that the Qumranites were foremost in Josephus' mind when he produced his description. Qumran may well have been Essene, but it need not have been representative of all Essenes. We should remain wary of Josephus' simplification of Judaism into a triad of \"philosophies\" with unitary identities and mutually exclusive boundaries.
\nPart Three of this collection (the Mediterranean Diaspora) fittingly begins with Rajak's groundbreaking -- and still provocative -- essay on Jewish civic status in the Roman world, which effectively demolishes the long-held notion that the Hellenistic polis was an ethnically bounded entity from which Jews were necessarily excluded, such that they required explicit legislation to make their standing secure. Rajak's arguments need not be rehearsed here. What is significant about the essay's inclusion in this collection is that the articles which follow it provide ample corroboration for its thesis on the basis of epigraphic evidence -- not for Jewish privileges, but for the integration of Jewish communities into Greek cities through the informal ties of private benefaction. This is seen not only in the \"donor inscriptions\" of Aphrodisias and Acmonia, but equally by the honorary character of titles pertaining to \"offices\" of the Jewish community, most notably that of archisynagogos.
\nThe counterpoint to Rajak's emphasis on the synagogue is her questioning of the degree of rabbinic (i.e., Palestinian) influence on the forms of Jewish life in the Diaspora. Rajak's assessment of this matter is largely negative, not with a view to minimizing the importance of the rabbinic movement to late antique Judaism but rather to emphasize the time it took for such influence to be exercised and felt abroad. Even in the holy land itself, as her critical appraisal of the tomb inscriptions of Beth She'arim indicates, the rabbis did not yet dominate social and religious life.
\nRajak's concluding essay is an exercise in modern intellectual and cultural history, rather than an analysis of ancient evidence; yet its relevance for the latter is obvious. As Rajak observes, the Romantic elevation of Hellenism to a cultural ideal by Herder, Renan and others set the terms in which Jewish history would be conceptualized in scholarly discourse as well as popular imagination during the 19th and into the 20th centuries. \"Greekness\" came to be defined by what it was not, and that was Judaism (or \"Hebraism,\" as the participants of that debate would have dubbed it). This legacy of oppositionally defined cultures is still with us today, and it is that which endows Rajak's reorientation of the subject with enduring value.
\n[Accessed 20 April 2012]
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z", "dateModified": "2014-02-07T12:53:24Z" } }, { "key": "E3KGKZJ8", "version": 14, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 246197, "name": "Early Christianity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/E3KGKZJ8", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/early_christianity/items/E3KGKZJ8", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/246197/items/IN75F6AZ", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 4239, "username": "benbyerly", "name": "Ben Byerly, PhD", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/benbyerly", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "E3KGKZJ8", "version": 14, "parentItem": "IN75F6AZ", "itemType": "note", "note": "Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2005.08.10
\n
Reviewed by Beth Pollard and Robert Kraft (epollard@mail.sdsu.edu and kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu)
Word count: 10944 words
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005-08-10.html
\nOverview and Essay 1, \"Jews, Greeks, and Romans\" by Martin Goodman (3-14) [RAK]1
\nThis collection of previously unpublished articles edited by Martin Goodman opens with the question \"How different from other people in the Graeco-Roman world were the Jews?\" For himself, Goodman proposes that \"the oddities of the Jews in the Graeco-Roman world were no greater than that of the many other distinctive ethnic groups, such as Idumaeans, Celts, or Numidians, who between them created the varied tapestry of society in this region and period\" (4-5). He wonders (always a good PhD exam question) \"how evidence about Jews and Judaism would be interpreted if we did not have such material preserved [by surviving rabbinic Judaism and Christianity] for these special religious reasons. What would be known of the Jews in this period if there were no rabbinic or patristic texts, no biblical writings, no works by Josephus, Philo, or other Jewish authors preserved by Christians , , , and nothing about Jews from the Roman world from the period after Constantine had placed a Christian filter over so many of the actions of the Roman state?\" (5). What if Jews were \"studied with the same tools as other peoples and other religions in the Graeco-Roman world, on a par with Gauls or Spaniards, or the worshippers of Isis or Mithras\"? (6).
\nGoodman goes on to outline the sorts of primary evidence available for approaching the subject in this manner: literary references, documentary materials (e.g. papyri), inscriptions, archaeological and iconographic remains. He points out that the interpretive framework provided by the disqualified Jewish and Christian sources (in this challenging methodological game) often colors even the work of epigraphists, numismatists and archaeologists in assessing their presumably more \"objective\" evidence. How would we know what constituted a \"Jewish\" name? Do we learn anything useful from the (unexpected) appearance of a Jewish coin in a given area? When is a pool just a pool (and not a ritual bath)? Or a scene depicting a ram caught in a thicket just decoration (wallpaper, mosaic carpet)?
\nJudaism as known from these limited sources would appear as an esoteric cult with strange dietary customs, a peculiarly strict attitude to sacred time (the sabbath), the odd practice of circumcising boys, a peculiar avoidance of images, an objectionable refusal to worship the gods of others, and a great leader of the distant past who had been called Moses. . . . It would be known that Judaism was the religion of a particular nation, but also that it was possible for outsiders to become full members of the Jewish religion in the same way that they could embrace a philosophy (11-12).
\nWhat is more, Goodman continues, such an approach would provide little awareness of \"the centrality of the Bible as a sacred text, both in the sense that its words carry specially sanctified authority and in the sense that a scroll of scripture is a sacred object\" (12). Except perhaps by extrapolation from the Dead Sea Scrolls (which, in transgression of his own methodological caveats, Goodman describes as \"writings of the obviously strange Jews who produced the sectarian texts found by the Dead Sea\" 12), what would be known of \"the centrality of the covenant between God and Israel or the importance of eschatological speculation in Judaism of this period?\" (12). \"Nor would historians be able to guess at the variety which consisted [existed?] within Second Temple Judaism\" (12).
\nIn short, in Goodman's scholarly world of \"as if,\" \"historians would still be aware of Jews as a distinct ethnic and religious group, but Jews would not seem anything like as marginal in the Graeco-Roman world as they do when their own, often jaundiced, views of the outside provide the basis for understanding them. Jews lived alongside non-Jews even in many parts of their homeland [Judea] to a much greater degree than scholars tend to allow\" (13). \"The corollary of this attempt to understand Jews without using special Jewish [and Christian] evidence [from the surviving traditions] is that, if it shows that Jews were after all not so different from other people, then the Jewish evidence itself can and should be used to illuminate wider Graeco-Roman history\" (13). \"The important question of the relation between public cult and domestic rituals or private emotions in ancient paganism might reasonably take the relation in Judaism of attitudes to the Temple and to personal religion as its starting point. . . . The main use of Jewish evidence may not be so much as an instance from which generalizations can always be made but more as a means to check or stimulate models for understanding how ancient society worked\" (14).
\nWithin this provocative methodological experiment, Goodman also provides a preview of the rest of the volume, which is divided into four parts: (1) \"The Hellenistic and Roman World: Jewish Perspectives\" (essays 1-4), (2) \"Social Integration?\" (essays 5-6), (3) \"Similarities?\" (essays 7-12), and (4) \"Differences?\" (essays 13-16). The use of question marks in these last three divisions is appropriate to the overall tone of this anthology in its attempt to ask questions and open new avenues of investigation and synthesis even while revisiting some old themes and issues. Not all of the contributors -- all of whom are recognized authorities on the subjects with which they deal -- will share Goodman's mindset as described above, but they all attempt to make better headway in their subject areas by avoiding past pitfalls and focusing on the primary evidence. As Goodman puts it at the end of his essay:
\nThe contributors to this volume have approached their discussions of the relationship of the Jews to the rest of the Graeco-Roman world from diverse perspectives and with the benefit of a variety of techniques and types of evidence. It is a prime aim of the book to familiarize readers from different backgrounds with all such approaches and to persuade them that this material can be made mutually comprehensible both to classicists and to those primarily concerned with Jewish history. Obscurantist specialists in both fields have too often in the past used their expertise as a means to prevent others from trespassing on 'their' history. Such attitudes are now generally changing, and our intention in this collection is to help to open up and encourage research across the boundaries between these disciplines, to the benefit of both. (14)\n
The volume concludes with an extensive bibliography of works cited, organized chapter (essay) by chapter and thus including lots of overlap/replication (251-278), followed by a valuable subject index (279-293). Bibliographical references in each essay are somewhat cryptic, normally giving only the author's last name and the date of publication, thus necessitating frequent reference to the bibliographies. The frontmatter also provides a list of abbreviations and a page identifying the contributors by academic position and location (mostly from Britain and Israel). Doubtless numerous suggestions for additional bibliography could be made, and it would have been a good idea to preface the bibliography with a section on items of general value for contextualizing the reader. For example, missing from the bibliography, and from many contemporary discussions of the subject, is the important essay by the late Kurt Treu, \"Die Bedeutung des Griechischen fuer die Juden im roemischen Reich\" [\"The Significance of Greek for Jews in the Roman Empire\"] from KAIROS 15 (1973) 123-144 [an English translation by William Adler and Robert Kraft is available online and at a second site.
\nThe book has few typographical or similar blemishes: correct \"Aufsteig\" to \"Aufstieg\" on the Abbreviations page; on p.12 line 4 from below (text), \"consisted\" should probably be \"existed\" (see above); on p.53 line 3 from below (text), read \"Reinach\" (as in n. 19; not included in the bibliography), not \"Reinarch.\" It is perhaps also worth noting [with SM] that the term \"Romanization\" seems to play different roles in chapters 9 and 16. Sacha Stern employs the concept of \"Romanization\" to indicate something the rabbis resisted (250), while Satlow at the end of his own piece argues that the rabbis themselves never employed such a \"culture conflict\" category (143).
\nEssay 2: Erich S. Gruen, \"Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the Third Sibylline Oracle\" (15-36) [BP]
\nIn this essay, Gruen scrutinizes the Third Sibylline Oracle for what it can tell us about \"Jewish self-image\" and the \"means and the motives\" of the incorporation of these pagan texts by Hellenized Jews in the Greco-Roman world. Gruen locates these within a Hellenistic and eschatological context. To accomplish this, he deftly sifts through arguments by past scholars on issues ranging from the \"unity or diversity of composition\" (17-18), the dating of the text (18-29), and its provenance (29-33). In addressing the issue of composition, Gruen highlights the events from the late Republic and early empire to which the Third Sibylline Oracle refers. He concludes that the mixture and overlap of historical events is too confused to allow for there having been a main corpus which was later redacted and suggests instead that \"multiple layers [were] built over time by diverse interests and sources\" (18). In challenging the mid-second century BCE dating of the text, which is based on the identification of the thrice mentioned seventh king of Egypt as Ptolemy VI Philometer, Gruen discredits earlier theories that this text represents an attempt by Egyptian Jews \"to ingratiate themselves with the Ptolemaic dynasty and to express a common basis for relations between Jews and Gentiles in Egypt\" (19). He further thoroughly debunks attempts at identifying the so-called triumvirate and Cleopatra in the text. Gruen unpacks the historical references to demonstrate that this text does not represent a contemporary historical situation. Instead, he places this text firmly in the tradition of apocalypticism: not recording events which have happened but envisioning what will come. Gruen concludes that this text represents Jewish resentment NOT ingratiation and connection (29). In turning to provenance, Gruen shows how the alleged Egyptian context has been based on the supposed Ptolemaic references which he has problematized with his historical analysis. The centrality of Rome as the ultimate villain in the oracle suggests to Gruen a broader Hellenic context. Gruen locates the vituperative attacks on Rome in the text in the eschatological foreboding of doom awaiting the Power which has already victimized the Greeks with whom the Hellenized Jews wished to identify and sympathize (33). Unfortunately, \"efforts to locate the message in precise time and place, with concrete intent and expectation, lead to blind-alleys\" (33).
\nOn the whole, Gruen tackles all these scholarly debates in order to refocus attention on the apocalypticism of the Sibyl's message and its significance for understanding Judaism in a Hellenistic context. Not surprisingly, this article will be of great use to students of Roman history, Greco-Roman religions and Hellenistic Judaism alike. Gruen has claimed this text for ancient historians who might not otherwise examine this corpus of texts, and he has placed the eschatological tradition out of which this text developed firmly within the Hellenic oracular milieu.
\n[Added note by RAK]
\nGruen opens the door to exploring such questions as when, how, and in what forms these sorts of Jewish materials evolved, and what they meant to their various audiences, including possibly \"pagan\" and certainly later Christian users.
\nEssay 3: Seth Schwartz, \"The Hellenization of Jerusalem and Schechem\" (37-46) [RAK]
\nThus the main use of Jewish evidence may be not so much as an instance from which generalizations can always be made but more as a means to check or stimulate models for understanding how ancient society worked. So Seth Schwartz suggests in his contribution to this volume that the experience of the Jews in the Hellenistic period provides a model of the process of Hellenization which can be applied elsewhere, and it is worth enquiring how many other (less well-documented) peoples in the Roman empire opposed the might of the state and yet, like the Jews, somehow flourished culturally, economically, and socially without ever identifying themselves with Roman society. (Goodman 14)\n
Seth Schwartz attempts to explore, admittedly more deeply than the hard evidence permits, the dynamics involved in \"the Hellenization of native cities\" in Asia Minor (Sardis) and Syria-Palestine (Jerusalem and Shechem). \"This type of city is of particular interest because it illustrates in the most critical way possible the changing character of ethnicity in the Hellenistic period, for it seems likely that apart from those who, wherever they lived, could plausibly claim Greek ancestry, the prevailing definition of 'Greek' now became formal: a citizen of a city with a Greek constitution was Greek\" (37).
\nSchwartz is especially interested in the dynamics of \"public\" and \"private\" as a possible explanatory lever for understanding how earlier (native) features could survive into and even help transform the nature of such Hellenistic cities. \"Greekness was now essentially a public and formal property,\" so that \"some preservation of the native culture, for which there is Hellenistic evidence, must have been taking place elsewhere than in the public sphere\" (38). In terms of externals, Hellenization in these locations was based on a Greek political structure (constitution) and led to establishment of a gymnasium and ephebate,and an appropriately Hellenized temple and/or religious awareness -- \"by becoming Greek, a community reordered its religious, cultural, political life along a new ideological axis\" which was also economically demanding since it involved \"the construction and maintanance of gymnasia, hippodromes, theatres, bathhouses, maybe new temples\" and thus \"cost lots of money\" (41). Nevertheless, \"the new Greekness functioned in two different ways to preserve elements, displaced and altered, of traditional cultures\" (42). One avenue was the rather public preservation of traditional terms, offices, languages and myths, notably in religious contexts. But the other way, available to our eyes mainly through analogy and speculation, is the \"preservation of local types of sexual behaviour, cuisine, medical/magical practice, even of pre-Greek languages. ... The very public and formal character of Greekness allowed the change to be less drastic than it might seem\" (43).
\nWith such a reconstruction in view, based on the slivers of pertinent evidence relating to the test cities in Asia Minor and Syria-Palestine, Schwartz bravely moves to broader applications: \"If I am right about the heightened sense of the private created by the diffusion of Greek culture in the third and second centuries BCE, then Hellenization was the first of several cases of large-scale and radical cultural transformations in the high and late antique Mediterranean and Near East which I believe all follow a roughly similar pattern, for reasons which I admit I do not know\" (43). Thus the Hasmonean Judaization of Palestine perhaps constitutes \"a sort of counter-Hellenization,\" affecting public life much more than private where various non-Jewish survivals are in evidence (e.g. Edomite practices). Similarly, if more grandly, the Christianization of the Roman empire follows similar patterns -- \"the character of the public culture changed\" and with it eventually even the shape of the cities as the private values of the publicly dispossessed produced major modifications (e.g. the once priviliged urban elite retire from their city homes to country estates, which further contributed to the reshaping of the cities).
\nUltimately, this provocative essay is less about \"the Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem\" than about how older cultural elements (language, stories, characteristic practices, values) can survive and even contribute to change even in the face of very concrete and radical external political and social transformations. Schwartz sees the concrete externals \"creating an unpoliced private space\" (44) in which some of the older features can to some extent exist and even resurface. This is an enormous topic which he can barely begin to explore in this essay. His subsequent monograph (2001) on Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World) takes the subject and arguments further. Of course, at some levels he is correct -- even under the most rigorous external conditions older values and features can survive and resurface (we have several modern examples). Exactly how and why this is true must vary significantly with time, place, and circumstances. Differences between the Hasmonean Judaization of Palestine and the 4th century (and subsequent) Christianization of the Roman world are quite radical, whatever similarities one wishes to highlight. Similarly the success of Islam, which Schwartz wisely avoids more than mentioning in this essay, introduces other variables. There is much to quarrel about, both methodologically and at the level of detail. Nevertheless, allowing Schwartz to prod one to think about these smaller and larger issues is itself a major boon.
\nEssay 4: Daniel R. Schwartz, \"Josephus' Tobiads: Back to the 2nd Century?\"(47-61) [TK]
\nDaniel Schwartz shows succinctly in his essay on the political history of the early second century BCE how the tendency of classical historians to dismiss the evidence of one Jewish author, Josephus, about Hellenistic politics is unwarranted, but not all Jewish texts are equally valuable in this regard: reflections of political history in rabbinic texts are only comprehensible as such because that history is already known from other sources. It is hard to think of any aspects of wider political history that could ever be firmly asserted on the basis of rabbinic evidence alone. (Goodman 13)\n
In an effort to demonstrate the \"use of Jewish evidence for the study of Graeco-Roman history,\" Daniel Schwartz turns his attention to early second century BCE Seleucid Syria. Following the defeat of the Ptolemaic army in 200 BCE, Antiochus III annexed Coele-Syria and, lacking any further challenges in the East, turned his attention towards Europe where he was met head-on by the newly disentangled (from the Second Punic War) Romans and repeatedly defeated. The subsequent Treaty of Apamea weakened the Seleucids both militarily and economically. Schwartz wonders why, at this time of Seleucid frailty, Ptolemaic Egypt did not attempt to reclaim Coele-Syria, noting that the \"standard\" solution rests upon the assumption that the union between Antiochus' daughter, Cleopatra I, to Ptolemy V Epiphanes (in 193 BCE) was enough to bring some amount of stability to the region. For Schwartz, this explanation is not entirely satisfactory as \"one would normally expect that there were some other terms to the agreement.\"
\nFurther muddying the waters, perplexing evidence from the accounts of Polybius, Livy, and Josephus is introduced in which there is some confusion about who controls Coele-Syria. Livy 42.29.5 (supported by Josephus, Jewish War 1.31) portrays Antiochus IV as an opportunist who considered using Roman involvement in the Third Macedonian War (171 BCE) \"to raise disputes about Coele-Syria in order to have a cause for war (against Egypt).\" But, asks Schwartz, why is such action necessary if Coele-Syria is firmly in Seleucid hands? He answers his question in the following manner (49-50):
\nObviously, both of our questions -- why did Ptolemy V do nothing to regain Coele-Syria, and what did Livy and Josephus mean by disputes Antiochus could raise about Coele-Syria -- could easily be resolved by the suggestion that Ptolemaic Egypt had indeed received back, from the Seleucids, some measure of their lost interests in that province.... Now the fact of the matter is, that Josephus indeed reports just such a Seleucid concession.\n
This concession comes in the form of Cleopatra's dowry a generation earlier which, according to Antiquities 12.154, was constituted of the tributes of Coele-Syria, Samaria, Judaea, and Phoenicia. Schwartz next informs the reader that it is into this context that Josephus introduces the Tobiads who are responsible for the collection of taxes in Coele-Syria.
\nAccording to Schwartz, Josephus' mention of the Seleucid dowry has been universally dismissed for three reasons: 1) Appian and Porphyry claim that Antiochus III gave Coele-Syria (as opposed to the tax-income from the province) to Ptolemy V as Cleopatra's dowry; 2) Polybius (28.20.6-10) mentions that Antiochus IV himself denied that his father had given Coele-Syria to Ptolemy V and convinced both himself and his audience (of Greek envoys) that he was right; 3) Josephus incorrectly placed the Tobiads in the early second century BCE rather than in the more generally accepted mid-to-late third century BCE. \"Accordingly,\" writes Schwartz, \"it is explained that Josephus thought the story concerns the second century and therefore invented his story of Cleopatra's dowry in order to account for Ptolemaic taxation after the Seleucid conquest.\"
\nThe first two objections are handled in a streamlined manner for it is the third objection that is of the most interest to Schwartz and to which he responds in eight points. All of his responses ably address the \"Tobiad question,\" (although point two has some degree of circularity to it) but it is the seventh point that seems to be the capstone of his argument and the caution that he wishes to give to historians of antiquity. Noting that there is normally a rush of \"scholarly enthusiasm\" when a new item of evidence is discovered that often leads to an exaggeration of the item's importance, Schwartz argues that this is precisely what occurred following the 1918 unearthing of the Zenon Papyri. The papyri \"clearly place a rich Tobias in Tranjordan, and in contact with the Ptolemaic government, in 259 BCE.,\" but in their enthusiasm, argues Schwartz, scholars contended that this Tobias was the father of the Joseph ben Tobias mentioned by Josephus (as having thrived in the early second century BCE), thereby causing a chronological discrepancy between Josephus and the Zenon Papyri. \"The fact is,\" argues Schwartz, \"that we know of Tobiads for centuries prior to the third century BCE and of 'sons of Tobias' in the second century BCE as well (Ant. 12.239-40) in the same region and with the same characteristics, so the discovery of epigraphic evidence for any Tobias cannot, by itself, pin down the dating of one mentioned in the literature.\"
\nSchwartz's conclusion (61) suggests the following:
\n[H]istorians might take a new look at the subject [of Josephus' account of the situation in Coele-Syria and the positioning of the Tobiad account] and, while leaving those papyri in the third century, where they were found, leave Josephus' story where he put it -- in the second, and receive with more of an open mind his account of Cleopatra's dowry. If that will help explain Ptolemaic passivity, Livy 42.29.5, and Josephus, War 1.31, so much the better.\n
Schwartz's essay does the scholar a solid service. First, it strengthens claims found in the works of three historians that Ptolemaic Egypt still had a stake in Coele-Syria, a stake that the Seleucid king Antiochus IV wanted to wrest from its grasp long after the former (Ptolemaic) empire's defeat at the hands of the latter (Seleucid) a generation earlier. Second, the cautious note Schwartz sounds is doubly effective in that it not only brushes away the assumptions of an earlier generation of scholars, but also serves as a reminder to modern students of antiquity not to repeat the missteps of our predecessors.
\nPart 2: Social Integration?
\nEssay 5: Benjamin Isaac, \"Jews, Christians and others in Palestine: The Evidence from Eusebius\" (65-74) [BP]
\nJews lived alongside non-Jews even in many parts of their homeland to a much greater degree than scholars tend to allow, as Benjamin Isaac shows in this book. (Goodman 13)\n
Putting aside efforts to come up with raw numerical population data or elaborate definitions of social identity, Isaac's goal in this essay is to employ the underutilized (in Isaac's estimation) Onomasticon of Eusebius, the early fourth century Christian church historian and panegyrist of Constantine, in order to address the question of \"what was the distribution of the various population groups in Palestine: pagans, Jews and Christians\" (65). Isaac grants the \"mixed\" nature of the urban population, but wants to problematize the assumption that rural villages were \"monocultures.\" Given this goal, Isaac's article deals largely with justifying the relevance of the Onomasticon for addressing the question at hand. Isaac argues that the Onomasticon represents \"consistent contemporary information\" with respect to garrisons, roads, and city territories; thus, Isaac extrapolates that when Eusebius designates a village as either \"entirely inhabited by Christians\" or a \"village of the Jews,\" such labels must be meaningful as well. This assumption is vital to Isaac's argument, since only \"eighteen of the hundreds of villages\" are precisely labeled with such terms by Eusebius (eleven Jewish, three Christian, and four Samaritan). A more serious problem with the Onomasticon is that it refers only to villages that have biblical importance. Isaac's reasoning that the number of sites considered is high \"in absolute terms\" (69) is less convincing. He attempts to deal with this problem further by comparing Eusebius' labeled Jewish settlements with rabbinic sources (70-71), the Christian heresiologist Epiphanius (71) and archaeological evidence of synagogues contemporary with Eusebius (71-73).
\nIsaac concludes with a suggestion that villages could rarely be described as homogeneous, and that Eusebius labeled the ethnically (or religiously) distinct eighteen villages as exceptions. The norms would be villages made of a mixture of pagans, Jews, Christians and Samaritans. Given this useful exploration of a particular application of Eusebius' Onomasticon, there were a few lines of inquiry which might have strengthened the argument. First, it would have been useful if an attempt had been made to deal with what Eusebius meant when he defined a place as Jewish, Christian or Samaritan. Granted Isaac stated that he did not want to deal with the complex issue of \"identity,\" but Eusebius' own definition of these labels should not be assumed. Secondly, Isaac might have focused a bit on what biases might have influenced Eusebius' labeling of these sites or even his purpose in writing this work. Finally, what was the relationship of this listing of biblical sites to Eusebius' other works? Despite these unanswered questions, Isaac's article exemplifies the praiseworthy goal of Goodman's collection, namely to open up disciplinary boundaries and incorporate varied evidence types to make sense of Jews in their Greco-Roman environments.
\nEssay 6: David Noy, \"Where were the Jews of the Diaspora buried?\" (75-89) [SP]
\nAs David Noy points out in his chapter, there is good reason to suppose that in such areas they were generally buried alongside non-Jews except where there is specific evidence for exclusively Jewish catacombs. (Goodman 13)\n
David Noy presents a review article briefly summarizing what is known of the many varieties of Jewish burials outside Palestine, with comparative material from Jerusalem and Beit Shearim presented as well. His primary diaspora location for examples is Rome and its environs, although he notes briefly the work of Trebilco in Asia Minor.
\nThese examples are loosely stitched together along with his assumptions and those of others, without presenting his thinking in the form of argument, observations, or extended development of conclusions based on the physical facts. One might ask, for example, whether the people who were inhumed/entombed/cremated or otherwise had a discernible fate for their physical remains were actually Jews. Noy acknowledges the difficulty of this question, but, for the examples he gives, one must take him at his word that this burial or that cremation is that of a Jew. We do not know, for example, whether (where names are available) he counts any non-Semitic names as Jewish, counts some such names as Jewish if they are well-attested, or counts all names in contiguity with clearly Semitic names as Jewish. Thus, this article serves best as a prolegomenon to an independent reconsideration of the phenomena associated with Jewish burials in the Diaspora.
\nPart 3: Similarities?
\nEssay 7: Albert Baumgarten, \"Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations and Ancient Jewish Sects\" (93-112) [SP]
\nAccording to Albert Baumgarten, the distinctive parties within Judaism which emerged in the Hellenistic age were for some reason more all-embracing than equivalent non-Jewish groups: they were greedy institutions which engaged much of the identity and efforts of their members, unlike equivalent philosophical schools or clubs, which involved only a part of their members' lives. (Goodman 3-4)\n
Baumgarten's article is a treat, an excellent example of complex comparison. He begins by describing the diversity of the phenomena being compared, and asks \"How can two sets of entitites, each set itself so multiform, usefully be compared to each other?\" In order to make such complex comparisons, for which there is a relative abundance of ancient material, Baumgarten needs an exceptional command of Hellenistic and Hebrew literature, and to make sense of it all, a wide knowledge of secondary discussions in sociology and history. Indeed, Baumgarten has the requisite command of material germane to the topic. With Baumgarten at the helm, the journey is fairly smooth, and we arrive at the destination with a much greater depth of understanding of the similarities and differences between Graeco-Roman voluntary associations and the Jewish sects at the turn of the era. Baumgarten concludes:
\nAs is regularly the case in successful comparative studies, a point clearer on one side of the comparison will have suggested a fruitful line of investigation on the other. (110)\n
In this case it is the hypothesis of dislocation that accompanies urbanization of the population, fairly clear in the case of Graeco-Roman voluntary associations, that may account for the rise of the Jewish sects.
\nIn one of the comparisons, between the Epicureans and the Essenes, Baumgarten lays out the evidence so clearly that, without needing to be explicit, it is easy to see that what has been called \"monastic\" is anachronistic and that restrictive community rules were found in a number of places in the ancient world. As Baumgarten indicates, even closer similarities between the restrictive Essene community rule and that of Greek associations is found in the imaginary Greek utopias, such as that of Iambulus' Children of the Sun (101). While Baumgarten does not chase down and comment on every implication, such examples provide a space, perhaps between reality and imagination, for the Therapeutics of Philo, or the Greek and Syriac History of the Rechabites, that sound so much like the Essenes or the Qumran community.
\nAnother comparison points up the dependence of voluntary associations, as well as sectarian Jews, on widespread literacy among their members. Unfortunately, Baumgarten does not develop the implications of this point, though many more questions can be asked.
\nIn ending his discussion of the rise of sects in comparison with the proliferation of voluntary associations in an environment of urban dislocation, Baumgarten concludes that:
\nThe solution at this stage is still incomplete. To complete it, at the very least one would need to find evidence -- direct and indirect, to the extent possible -- for a migration from the cities to the towns, and to Jerusalem in particular .... (111)\n
It seems more consistent with the previous discussion to read \"migration from the countryside to the towns.\"
\nEssay 8: William Horbury, \"Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles\" (113-134) [SP]
\nMore might be culled from Jewish sources about the general history of ancient religion, not just because, as William Horbury shows in his paper, some very basic notions found among Jews were also shared by pagan Romans, but primarily because so much more is known of the workings of Judaism than of any other cult. (Goodman 13-14)\n
This article deals with a fascinating topic in a less than fully satisfying manner. Horbury displays a mastery of the primary sources in Jewish biblical, apocryphal, Qumran, and pseudepigraphical materials; the NT and the early church fathers; and materials from Greek mythology. He alludes to the earlier scholarship that has considered the figure of the antichrist in Judaism and Christianity and the scholarly debate about whether an antichrist figure predates the arrival of Christianity on the world scene.
\nPerhaps partly due to Horbury's decision to refer to many ancient sources, the types of \"Judaism\" underlying his sources are largely undifferentiated. Similarly, the \"Christianity\" of which he speaks appears to be rather monolithic, represented by the NT and the early Church Fathers, and a few of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha obviously adopted and adapted, and transmitted, by Christians.
\nHorbury seems to use the term \"antichrist\" as an unspecific, categorical name for the opponent of some form of authority, whether God's anointed king or priest or prophet, or the long calm reign presided over by Caesar Augustus, or the Jewish theocracy of the early Hellenistic period, or the less specific rule of God in the hearts of humans, or a variety of eschatological saviors. This lack of specificity makes for a relatively confusing article that leaps from reference to reference. The article might make more sense if one knew instantly the text of all the references in all the literature cited.
\nThat is to say, Horbury lacks precision, first, in defining what he means by \"antichrist,\" and, second, in distinguishing between the varieties of literary treatments of \"antichrist\" he has catalogued. These varieties include the following:
\n* an actual ruler (Antiochus IV; the myth of Nero's return),
\n* mythic oppositional figures of the remote past (giants, Titans),
\n* an imagined future eschatological adversary,
\n* a prophecy fulfilled (repeated discussion of Isaiah 11),
\n* a specific adversary of an anointed hero/savior, and
\n* a more general adversary of the righteous.
\nHorbury concludes that \"despite the contrast between Christian and Jewish views drawn in much study of antichrist, Christian notions of antichrist derived from Jewish tradition . . . [which], however, had many points of correspondence with non-Jewish expectations current in the Greek and Roman world. The myth of the Titans and the giants was picked out by both Christian and pagan observers as particularly close to the antichrist myth. ... [Thus] it may not be out of place to speak of antichrist among gentiles as well as Jews in the Roman empire.\" (132-133).
\nEssay 9: Michael L. Satlow, \"Rhetoric and Assumptions: Romans and Rabbis on Sex\" (135-144) [SM, SP]
\nMichael Satlow shows how the assumptions of Palestinian rabbis about the social significance of particular homosexual acts were closer to those of their gentile neighbours than of their brethren in Mesopotamia. (Goodman 4)\n
[SM]
\nMichael Satlow seeks to illuminate methodological issues surrounding description and analysis of \"similarities and differences between various groups\" (135). In so doing, he considers three aspects of masculine sexuality: homoeroticism, the concept of \"wasted seed\" and rabbinic ideals of masculinity, demonstrating that the Palestinian rabbis have more shared assumptions with elite Greek and Roman men than they do with Babylonian rabbis. He concludes that the Palestinian rabbis' \"fundamental way of thinking at least about sexuality is virtually identical to those they label the 'other'\" (143). In this case, argues Satlow, it makes little sense to look for \"influences,\" which depend on the false assumption that these groups start out with real, discernable differences.
\nSatlow writes clearly and provides compelling illustrations for each of his three examples, building one conclusion upon another. Of particular interest are his illustrations of Babylonians misreading Palestinian ideas. On the one hand he does what this volume promises it will do, that is, he offers methodological insight into how Jews related to the rest of the Graeco-Roman world. On the other hand, the cost is to condense in too-brief compass a host of complex topics, such as how to interpret rabbinic literature, the relationship of the Palestinian and Babylonian talmuds, the meaning of ancient rhetoric, definitions of homosexuality and the construction of masculinity. Perhaps this is inevitable, and Satlow does consider all of these elsewhere in his work. Yet the reader receives the impression that she is reading an abstract. His conclusions depend on arguments more alluded to than made. The interesting examples he develops are rather overwhelmed by this shorthand theoretical apparatus.
\n[SP]
\nSatlow compares the underlying assumptions of the men who were Palestinian rabbis, Babylonian rabbis, and authors of (largely unspecified) Roman sources. That is, he explicitly states his assumption, without detailing evidence, that the authors of all his ancient sources were men (136).
\nSatlow has done considerable prior work on sexuality in the ancient world, so that here he asserts, rather than documents, his findings, referring to his own earlier work. From that earlier work he draws two examples. The first describes the attitudes toward homoerotic anal penetration shared by Palestinian rabbis and Roman authors. Specifically, the categorical view that anal penetration was humiliating and feminizing, involving lost control, was not shared by Babylonian rabbis. The second example focuses on the Babylonian redactor's phrase \"wasteful emission of semen,\" and also concludes that neither Palestinian rabbis nor Roman authors on masculinity would have shared the assumption that such emissions, by masturbation, interrupted intercourse, or homoerotic behaviors, were by themselves cause for concern.
\nWhat does appear to be shared by all the authors, according to Satlow, is the belief that a distinguishing feature of masculinity is self-control (138-143). This self-control defines what it is \"to turn a 'male' into a 'man'\" (141). And, Satlow argues, an essential attribute of women in the rabbinic and Roman views is the inborn inability to exercise the virtue of self-control.
\nSatlow summarizes as follows:
\nThe influence of the Greeks and the Romans on Palestinian rabbis went far beyond the occasional practice, linguistic oddity, or legal institution; many of the assumptions that generated Palestinian rabbinic rhetoric on sexuality almost certainly derived from those of the Greeks and Romans .... all share fundamental thought-categories and assumptions (143).\n
To Satlow, these identifiable assumptions, often differing from the assumptions of the Babylonian rabbis/redactor(s), bespeak a shared Mediterranean world, distinct from Arab or Eastern cultures (144).
\nSatlow's article has some infelicities of expression. For example, he construes the English translation of a Yiddish/German injunction to \"Be a mensch,\" as \"Be a MAN,\" where the word actually means \"be a human being\" rather than \"act with traits of manliness,\" as Satlow construes it (141). Being a human being may well involve a willingness to depart from stereotypically gendered behavior. At other points, Satlow occasionally loses control of his referents with pronouns that lack clear antecedents.
\nIt is not clear from this article whether Satlow has discussed differences and similarities that make a difference. That is, the rabbinic world may have been a small part of late antique Judaism(s), and the Roman souces cited (Juvenal 2.54-6 and Musonius Rufus 12.3) do not seem extensive or sufficiently representative (142).
\nEssay 10: Joshua Schwartz, \"Gambling in Ancient Jewish Society and in the Graeco-Roman World\" (145-166) [SP]
\nJoshua Schwartz points to parallel practices in gambling and other leisure activities (although he claims that Jews did such things with greater moderation). (Goodman 4)\n
Joshua Schwartz gives us an informative article that surveys available textual information on gambling, supplemented by the small amount of archaeological information. None of the information Schwartz presents is unequivocal evidence from which it is easy to draw conclusions. Thus, and admirably, he begins his chapter with an Introduction that summarizes the major difficulties of the material. Then, as difficulties arise, he supplements the evidence with informed suppositions and critical observations, more often of the rabbinic world than of the Graeco-Roman world.
\nThis is not a minimalist approach; as S. points out, there are a \"limited number of gambling sources [in rabbinic literature] ... [so that] sometimes it will be necessary to generalize from one time to another within the Second Temple, mishnaic, or talmudic periods or from Palestine to Babylonia and vice versa (146).\"
\nAlthough S. uses recognizable approaches to the rabbinic period, he does not identify them or note their critical limitations. Thus, he carefully dates three traditions (from m. Shabbat, m. Rosh HaShanah, and m. Sanhedrin) according to content and rabbinic citations, without critical awareness that this is a controversial technique among historians.
\nConsistently throughout the article, S. or the editor refers to Tractate Rosh HaShanah by the abbreviation R. Sh., reflecting the underlying Hebrew, where it is generally abbreviated R.H. in the English sources with which I am familiar. It is eventually clear which passage is intended, from the context, but the reader may spend some time trying to figure out if there is an unknown tractate designated R. Sh. The list of Abbreviations is of no help in this matter.
\nAlso, S. invokes a troublesome group of unexamined assumptions in one of his conclusions. He states:
\nIt should also be pointed out that none of the archaeological material found can be connected specifically with either women or children. Taken together with the fact that all of the Jewish literary traditions we have examined refer to adult males, it is possible that such gambling as did take place in Jewish society within the frameworks we have examined was basically a matter for adult males and not women and children. The conservative nature of Jewish society probably imposed sufficient social restrictions on such activity by women or children. This was quite different from the situation in Graeco-Roman society (163).\n
What is troublesome are a) the assumption that anything not specifically associated with women or children must be the province of adult males, b) merging this assumption about the archaeological data with the textual data taken to refer only to adult males, and c) further assuming social restrictions on women and children that differed from Graeco-Roman society. On this last point see Ross S. Kraemer, \"Jewish Women and Women's Judaism(s) at the Beginning of Christianity,\" where she repeatedly demonstrates that what we know of Jewish women's lives in the Graeco-Roman period probably does not indicate great differences from what we know of the lives of non-Jewish women (60-61, 72).
\nEssay 11: Hannah M. Cotton, \"The Rabbis and the Documents\" (167-180) [SM]
\nIn many aspects of life many Jews may have behaved like gentiles even in those matters which other Jews, including rabbis at the time, believed should be performed according to distinctively Jewish rules, as Hannah Cotton suggests in her study of the Jewish marriage documents found in the Judaean Desert. (Goodman 13)\n
Hannah Cotton considers marriage documents from caves in the Judaean Desert, notes a variety of similarities and differences between Greek and Aramaic documents, and concludes \"there was no normative, authoritative and uniform marriage contract which Jews knew that they had to use\" (177). Addressing the larger themes of the volume, Cotton argues that although the documents provide evidence for practices which differ from later halachic norms, \"the writers of these documents cannot and should not be regarded as assimilated Jews\" (173). In so far as Cotton raises questions about how to consider these behaviors in light of later norms, and especially in so far as she uses her expertise with these Judaean Desert texts to elucidate particular practices, this article is very interesting. In particular, she discusses signed oaths and the hotly debated issue of \"pre-marital cohabitation.\" Nonetheless, it might have been preferable if Cotton allowed her sources to present their own problems in their own terms rather than trying to solve them on other (rabbinic) grounds. The definitions Cotton offers, if satisfying her need to exonerate her document writers for their not being \"in harmony with what eventually came to be normative Jewish law\" (172), do little to further discussion of how to think about these people and their practices. According to Cotton: \"I have not found a better definition for what is Jewish than that such material eventually received halachic sanction, and is present in halachic sources\" (171-2). How many other writers in this volume would accept such a definition? The explicit equating of \"Jewish\" and \"rabbinic\" forecloses the very investigations made possible by Judaean documents such as those Cotton considers. Are some Judaisms more likely than others to be accepted and affirmed by the embryonic rabbinic movement? Why? Can we articulate arenas wherein we would expect most divergence? How is this process part of the larger Graeco-Roman world? What ramifications does it have for general study of this period? By choosing the definition she does, Cotton relinquishes more than she offers.
\nEssay 12: Aharon Oppenheimer, \"Jewish Penal Authority in Roman Judaea\" (181-191) [BP]
\nThe ability of the state to turn a blind eye to Jewish penal jurisdiction, as documented by Aharon Oppenheimer in his chapter, is highly significant for the general history of the operation of Roman government in less prominent provinces. (Goodman 14)\n
Aharon Oppenheimer uses Talmudic sources to investigate the extent to which Rome \"recognize[d] local law in the provinces\" and the extent to which local rulers could sentence offenders (181). Oppenheimer explores the following issues: the relationship between the Roman provinces of Judaea and Syria, the right for the Jewish courts to decide capital cases, the police force of the Patriarch, the use of non-Jews to carry out a sentence laid down by a Jewish court, the ability for individuals to appeal Jewish court decisions to Roman authorities, and the extent to which the Jews could make and enforce judgements concerning monetary penalties among Jews.
\nWhile Oppenheimer adduces intriguing examples from rabbinic commentary relevant to the issues at hand, a step outside the Talmudic sources would greatly enhance most of his arguments and would offer much needed context. For instance, Oppenheimer recounts the visit of a few Roman soldiers to study under Gamaliel and what that might mean for the relationship between Judaea and Syria, noting that \"the juxtaposition of events [Roman soldiers based in Syria studying Jewish law under Gamaliel and permission of some sort being granted to Gamaliel from the governor of Syria] is certainly evidence of some sort of connection between the two [provinces of Syria and Judaea]\" (183). Oppenheimer ignores the voluminous evidence from Josephus in his Antiquities and Jewish War and from epigraphic sources for the relationship between the ever-shifting status of Judaea in the first and second centuries and its provincial neighbor to the north. Josephus tells us quite a lot about the administration of Judaea, as a province from 6 to 44 CE under a praefectus of equestrian rank who operated under the imperium of the governor of Syria, although there were a few exceptions when limited local authority was granted to local rulers (F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 BC - AD 337 (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 47). From 44-66 CE, the province was administered by a procurator of equestrian status and after the First Jewish Revolt it was garrisoned with a legion and placed under a legatus of ex-praetor rank. Inscriptions give us his title: leg(atus) Augusti leg(ionis) X Fret(ensis) et leg(atus) pr(o) pr(aetore) provinciae Iudaeae (ibid., 76). After the Bar Kochba revolt, Judaea and the surrounding region becomes Syria-Palestina with two Roman coloniae (Caesarea and Aelia Capitolina), two legions, and an ex-consular governor (ibid., 61 and 107). There is no need for a deduction of this relationship based solely on Mishnaic sources as Oppenheimer suggests (182-83); the evidence for the relationship between Syria and Judaea and for the occupation by Roman soldiers is quite clear.
\nWhen analyzing the ability of the Jewish authorities to rule in capital cases, Oppenheimer presents Mishnaic cases involving death sentences meted out to animals that have killed humans. While Oppenheimer does briefly include limited evidence from Origen concerning implicit, de facto rights given to the Jewish Patriarch to judge on capital cases and the use of a police guard and non-Jews to do so, he does not explore or even acknowledge what would be an intriguing application of his discussion: the trial of Jesus. Recorded in the canonical Christian Gospels, this trial is preserved in texts that are roughly contemporary with the sources which Oppenheimer considers and that are produced within communities which are, at the least, varieties of the Judaism under discussion by Oppenheimer. Even with all of the source critical issues which would have to be considered, episodes relevant to Oppenheimer's argument include the seizure and trial of Jesus by various high priests, scribes, and elders (Matthew 26.3-4, 57-68; Mark 14.43, Luke 22.52, 66, John 18.12-14), the handing over of Jesus to Pilate, the local Roman authority (Matthew 27.1-2, 11-14, Mark 15.1-5, Luke 23.1, John 18.30-31), who passes him to the Roman soldiers for punishment (Matthew 27.27-31, Mark 15.16, John 19.1-1-2), but not before a dispute over authority in which Pilate suggests that this matter is under the jurisdiction of Herod (Luke 23.6-7). In ignoring this trial, Oppenheimer also neglects a large body of scholarship concerning these proceedings in their first century Jewish context. The Gospel accounts of the trial and punishment of Jesus demonstrate that the Roman and Jewish authorities were engaged in a complicated dialogue with one another, attempting to negotiate a tenuous working relationship. This one trial touches on several aspects of Oppenheimer's argument: the right of the Jewish authorities to decide capital cases, their use of a police force, and their use of non-Jews to carry out sentences.
\nIn terms of his final point on the extent to which Jewish authorities could make and enforce monetary penalties, Oppenheimer makes no mention of additional epigraphic evidence which would shed more light upon the issue at hand. Several contemporaneous Jewish funerary inscriptions refer to monetary penalties which must be paid to the Jewish authorities by anyone who violates the tomb. Take for instance the Rufina inscription from Smyrna in Asia Minor in which those who bury someone in her tomb who is not intended to be buried there are fined \"1500 denarii to the most sacred treasury and 1000 denarii to the Jewish community,\" with a copy of this formula having been \"deposited in the public archives\" (IvS I.295 = CIJ 741). Clearly, Rufina is calling on the authority of the Jewish community in Smyrna to enforce a monetary penalty. Additionally, in Asia Minor in particular, we know a great deal about the granting by the Romans of certain legal privileges to Jewish communities (Josephus Antiquities 14.12-26 and P. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (New York 1991), 8-12 [see below]). The comparanda from Asia Minor for these same sorts of issues could greatly enrich Oppenheimer's interpretation of the Palestinian situation.
\nOppenheimer does not offer any specific examples for parallels where the Roman legal authority co-existed with, or overlaid, local judicial practices. We should look outside Palestine not only for evidence of Jewish penal authority, as in the case of the enforcement of monetary penalties against tomb violators in Smyrna and the legal privileges of Jewish communities in Asia Minor in general, but also for parallels of Roman penal authority in dialogue with the authority of existing judicial-religious ruling authorities in the eastern and western provinces of the Empire. Examples include Roman interaction with, but ultimate annihilation of, Druidic law among the Gauls and Germans. Julius Caesar recorded how the Druids decided rewards and punishments in controversies, public and private, with respect to all crimes including murder, inheritance and boundary disputes (Gallic Wars 6.13). Druidic power was crushed by the Romans at roughly the same time as the crack-down in Judaea in response to the first Jewish revolt. An example of a more peaceful dialogue between the Roman rule and a local ruling priesthood is provided by the overlap of Roman control onto the existing Egyptian priesthood and its legal authority. Such parallels, among many, give much greater context for the ways in which Rome interacted with existing, local judicial-religious authority.
\nOppenheimer has published widely over the past three decades on Jews in the Greco-Roman period. Much of this work has been published in Hebrew, but some has been translated into English. It appears that this article exhibits some of the same problems noted by Lester Grabbe in his mention of Oppenheimer's 1977 work, Am ha-aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Leiden 1977; see L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian II: The Roman Period [Minneapolis 1992]). There are certain \"methodological deficiencies [resulting in] a harmonized picture drawn from rabbinic sources [which] is projected back into pre-70 times\" and taken entirely out of the wider context (Grabbe, 2.523-4, following S.J.D. Cohen reviewing Oppenheimer in JBL 97(1978) 596-97). A broader consideration of many of these issues discussed above, as well as others such as Roman provincial law in general, would give more texture to Oppenheimer's argument. Despite, or perhaps because of, this article's limited focus on the rabbinic sources for the administration of \"Jewish Penal Authority in Roman Judaea,\" however, Oppenheimer does bring to the forefront the relevance of this valuable source of evidence so often ignored by classical scholars of Greco-Roman Judaea.
\nPart 4: Differences?
\nEssay 13: Lee Levine, \"Synagogue Leadership: the Case of the Archisynagogue\" (195-214) [SP]
\nThis view is reinforced by the claim by Lee Levine that it is misleading to seek to understand synagogue leaders simply from parallels with the Graeco-Roman world because there is so much rabbinic evidence about such leaders that it is impossible to reconcile with the evidence about non-Jewish officials. (Goodman 4)\n
In this article Levine surveys the geographical extent of the great variety of sources attesting to the use of the title \"archisynagogue.\" His focus is on what information can be gathered concerning the communal function of those who bore the title; he concludes that over and above each source's specific concern, we have noted evidence time and again that this office included responsibilities other than religious or financial ones. An archisynagogue was looked upon by Jews and non-Jews alike as a leader and representative of his [sic] community. (212)
\nThat is, Levine appears to conclude that the archisynagogue was a male leader of the synagogue, while quoting evidence that pairs the title with a woman's name. Indeed, he names as the first of the recent discussions of the title Bernadette Brooten's groundbreaking study Women Leaders of the Ancient Synagogue, and summarizes her contribution in one sentence, without comment. He then goes on to use neutral language, sprinkled with masculine pronouns, for the remainder of the article. He concludes with emphatic use of the masculine pronoun without ever engaging Brooten's thesis directly.
\nHad he wished to focus only on the function of the archisynagogue, the use of gender-neutral language would have been appropriate. As it is, the author ducks the issue, and at the same time takes a stand, without supporting his position.
\nIn any event, L.'s article is especially valuable for the wealth of references he has collected, though one suspects that Brooten and others may have similarly exhaustive collections.
\nEssay 14: Margaret Williams, \"The Structure of the Jewish Community in Rome\" (215-228) [SP, BP]
\nSimilarly Margaret Williams argues that Jewish synagogues should not be identified with the collegia in the city of Rome, claiming that Jewish communal organization had a uniquely centralized character different from that of other ethnic and religious groups. (Goodman 4)\n
[SP]
\nThe article by Williams begins by reporting a \"consensus\" view on the organization of the many synagogues of Rome -- that they were loosely organized collegia, with no ruling council -- and then argues the contrary. Williams bases her argument on her reading of Josephus and other sources, and argues cogently and coherently that indeed there was an overall sense of a unified Jewish community at Rome.
\nWhile her philological argument is soundly developed, she seems to have little in the way of inscriptional evidence -- a single instance of a 3d century CE \"archigerousiarch\" -- to support her contention that the Roman Jewish community had a self-governing gerousia, \"council.\" She buttresses this argument by making reference to the mode of self-government by councils found in Judaea,and surmises that this mode was similarly the source for the existence of the Alexandrian gerousia.
\nThe evidence is not strong enough or plentiful enough to disconfirm the view that the Roman Jewish community lacked a ruling council. Williams carries the argument as far as it can go, however, and both possibilities deserve serious attention in future discussions.
\n[BP]
\nIn her essay, Williams challenges the \"conventional view of the structure of Roman Jewry,\" that the synagogues of the Jews at Rome were organized as private, exclusive and autonomous collegia, ruling out any sort of larger Jewish organization at Rome along the lines of the gerousia at Alexandria. She advances her argument in systematic fashion, first by countering the definition of the Roman synagogues as collegiate associations, then by presenting evidence for a central structure of Roman Jewry. Williams counters the collegia hypothesis by noting the minimal overlap between terms for collegiate offices and the terms for office holding in synagogues. In addition, she details the conflation of a passage from Josephus (Ant. 14.215) and two from Suetonius (Iul. 42.3 and Aug. 32.1), which has led, in her opinion, to the misidentification of synagogues at Rome as collegiate in nature. The problems with the Josephus passage, contained in the long list of purported decrees which Josephus argues to be evidence of Roman favor towards the Jews are well summarized by Williams (217-220).
\nWilliams, however, is harsher in her scrutiny of evidence against her claims of a unified supra-synagogal structure than on the sources which support her claims. She discredits the decree as recounted in Josephus, but uses Josephus as the starting point for a description of the corporate Jewish community at Rome (222-3); she points to the lack of alignment in terms used for collegia and synagogue officers (217), but allows for the absence of any explicit textual reference to a gerousia at Rome (222). In discussing Roman Jewry as an entity, Williams includes the expulsion of the Jews from Rome en masse (224). This was an action frequently taken against astrologers as well (even at the same time as Jews), yet this does not lead us to assert that there was a centrally organized group of astrologers (Suetonius, Tib. 36).
\nAs parallels to the postulated \"supra-synagogal structure\" of Roman Jewry, Williams offers the Sanhedrin, the organization of the Qumran sect, the Jerusalem council under James and the Apostles as represented in Acts and even Josephus' administration of Galilee in 66-67 (225). For officers in this administrative structure, Williams suggests the archigerousiarch inscription [G.H.R.Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 1 (1981), no. 73] as evidence. Williams' hypotheses are intriguing, but leave interesting implications remaining for consideration. In particular, what does such a supra-synagogal organization do for an understanding of Roman Jewry? It certainly suggests a separation of Jews, at least organizationally, from other inhabitants of Rome. What does such separation mean for Jewish identity, both internal and by others? Should we expect this gerousia structure outside Rome, elsewhere in Diaspora urban centers with multiple synagogues? How might such an organization change our interpretation of the larger Jewish community at sites like Sardis or Dura? Williams has certainly opened the door to new ways of understanding the corporate identity of Jews in urban contexts, even if her evidence for Rome itself remains somewhat ambiguous.
\nEssay 15: Tessa Rajak, \"The Gifts of God at Sardis\" (229-240) [DB]
\nThe archaeologists who linked to the Jewish deity the huge basilica found in the centre of Sardis because of the similarities between the iconography there and that of synagogues (identified as such by inscriptions) elsewhere might have been led by the Sardis dedications to Pronoia ('forethought') to follow Varro in identifying Jupiter/Zeus as the object of Jewish worship, since Pronoia was identified with Zeus by the Stoics;2 it is only by looking at the Jewish texts which survive through the Jewish and Christian traditions, as Tessa Rajak does in her study of these inscriptions, and by adopting assumptions about Jewish monotheism, that a historian can in fact suggest that Pronoia was not (as one might have expected from the dedications) herself the object of worship in the Sardis building. (Goodman 10-11)\n
Tessa Rajak's article seeks to \"work towards a closer definition of the Sardian Jews' integration\" (230-231) and to examine what kept the Jews as Jews. Basing her work on A.T. Kraabel's article \"Pronoia at Sardis,\" she re-examines the sources of the epigraphic use of the term \"pronoia,\" concluding that the benefaction inscriptions at Sardis \"expose traces of the mechanisms of self-differentiation\" and provide evidence that the Jews of Sardis maintained their distinctiveness (231) and were capable of deploying the forms of Jewish self-expression available from the wider world.
\nRajak's discussion of the \"pronoia\" inscriptions is largely concerned with refuting Kraabel's article in which he postulates that the influence of the Jewish use of the term \"pronoia\" at Sardis is pagan, not Jewish.2 Rajak is especially concerned with the \"theological weight\" Kraabel thinks the Sardis Jews placed on \"pronoia.\" She argues that his interpretation leads to the conclusion that Sardis Jewry was \"intellectually and spiritually as well as socially indistinguishable from its pagan environment\" (233). Additionally, his thesis ignores the \"excellent Jewish-Greek pedigree\" (233) of \"pronoia.\" She claims that 4 Maccabees 9.24, in particular, uses \"pronoia\" in the same absolute sense as the Sardis inscriptions. (Kraabel disagrees; see n. 1 below.) The possible 2nd century CE dating of 4 Maccabees (235, contradicting her statement two paragraphs earlier that 4 Maccabees is earlier than Philo and Josephus and the general consensus that its dating is pre-70 CE), puts it chronologically closer to the Sardis inscriptions than other pronoia references in Hellenistic Jewish literary sources. Another reason for the unqualified used of \"pronoia\" is that the name of God is frequently absent in Jewish inscriptions and \"this preference would in itself constitute a reason to leave pronoia unqualified\" (235). And since \"pronoia\" is prominent in (Greek?) donor epigraphy as a \"designation for the care and concern of benefactors,\" this Jewish usage can be seen as \"re-allocating the beneficence [to God], giving current Greek terminology ... a deliberate and value-laden twist\" (236).
\nThe phrase the \"gifts of God\" which appears in some of the Sardis inscriptions is \"in keeping with what might be judged to be the general spirit of Jewish benefactions, with their tendency...to undercut the claims of donors\" (236) and highlight what comes from God. What is remarkable about the Sardis inscriptions, according to Rajak, is the contrast with what was \"typical.\" Greek donors \"declare themselves...as donating ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ['from their own means/goods'] and expect to be thanked for it...It can only be a wholly deliberate departure when the Jews declare that it is God who should be thanked\" (238).
\nRajak concludes by stating that the Jews of Sardis used subtle means to mark themselves off as a group. They had to be familiar with the language of both Greek benefaction formulae and expressions employed by the wider Greek-speaking Jewry. The result was a local brand of Jewish epigraphy whose distinctiveness may or may not have been understood by the wider Sardis community.
\nThere are several problems with Rajak's discussion. First, she misses Kraabel's main thesis: that even though the term \"pronoia\" may have a pagan origin, the Jews of Sardis took it and used it in a language completely their own (Kraabel, 95). He is clear that the \"pronoia\" texts should be understood within a monotheistic framework. Secondly, she does not find fault with Kraabel where she could. He argues that, with only one other exception, no other synagogue uses \"pronoia.\" However, this is an argument out of silence rather than hard evidence. Rajak misses this point altogether. Thirdly, even if 4 Maccabees was written in the 2nd century CE, how does this really support Rajak's thesis? The language of 4 Maccabees itself is thoroughly influenced by Greek philosophy. Would not the source of influence of \"pronoia\" in this text be just as suspect as that in Sardis? What makes 4 Maccabees more Jewish (less Greek) than Kraabel's reading of the Sardis inscriptions?
\nEssay 16: Sacha Stern, \"Dissonance and Misunderstanding in Jewish-Roman Relations\" (241-250) [SM]
\nSacha Stern studies the social and political consequences of misunderstandings between Jews and Romans. In doing so, he tests the concept that Jewish evidence is typical of conquered peoples in the Roman world. In one case, he discusses the image of \"ploughing over Jerusalem,\" finding that Mishnah Taanit interprets as destructive that which \"is interpreted as a constructive act\" in an Aelia coin (243). He further argues that this coin type \"was sufficiently common to have been known to the Jews and rabbis of Palestine, and to have played a significant part ... in the making of mishnaic tradition\" (245). Stern finds this misunderstanding interesting but of little consequence. As a contrasting case he discusses the Jewish rejection of a gift by a Roman on his festival day (247) because of fears that, in accepting this gift, the Jew will cause the Roman to offer a sacrifice. Stern stresses the distinctiveness of this situation, concluding that \"the persistence of such misunderstandings as late as the third century was more specific to Palestinian Jews, and resulted from their deliberate resistance to Romanization\" (250). Although Stern's second example appears only in the two talmudim, and may or may not describe an historical occurrence, Stern explores a nexus of exciting ideas surrounding gift-giving, including the socio-political functions, the relative status of donor and recipient and the extent of the \"religious significance of this occasion\" (249) for the Roman sender of the gift.
\nPostscript [RAK]
\nWhile numerous loose ends remain (indeed, that is clearly part of Goodman's point in introducing the collection), we have also learned much that is positive, if not entirely new, from this anthology:
\n* There were Jews who produced Greek literature that developed non-Jewish attitudes and themes;
\n* Jewish sources can be useful -- with all due caution (especially regarding rabbinic materials) -- to the secular student of the Greco-Roman period;
\n* and even in Palestine/Israel, as well as throughout the Graeco-Roman world, Jews can often be seen as thinking and acting no differently from their non-Jewish neighbors -- although sometimes clear lines of demarcation are also apparent.
\nMartin Goodman has spent much of his scholarly career making similar points in various ways, and this volume provides a further contribution to those efforts, especially by highlighting the complexities that pertain to life \"back then,\" just as to our own lives. The title makes one stop and think -- why \"Jews in a Graeco-Roman World\" rather than \"in the\"? But an even more accurate title might be \"Some Jews in Some Graeco-Roman Worlds.\"
\nNotes:
\n
1. Reviewed by the members of the 1999 advanced seminar on early Judaism and early Christianity at the University of Pennsylvania conducted by Ross S. Kraemer (now at Brown University) and Robert A. Kraft [RAK, framework, ##1, 3] and attended by Susan Marks [SM, ##9, 11, 16], Debra Bucher [DB, #15], Sigrid Peterson [SP, ##6-10, 13-14], Beth Pollard [BP, ## 2, 5, 12, 14], Shira Lander, William \"Chip\" Gruen, Sarah Schwarz, Brad Kirkegaard, Jill Gorman, and Kim Haines-Eitzen -- the reviewers have been joined more recently by Todd Krulak [TK, #4]. Main responsibility for each review is indicated by the reviewer's initials. Final editing is the responsibility of Beth Pollard (epollard@mail.sdsu.edu) and Robert Kraft (kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu). We apologize for the extreme delay in making this review-anthology available, but are pleased to say that the book is no less relevant and important today than it was when it first appeared in 1999.
2. A.T. Kraabel, \"Pronoia at Sardis,\" in B. Isaac and A. Oppenheimer, eds. Studies on the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Te'uda 12. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publishing, 1996, 75-96. He bases his argument on two factors: in none of the Jewish sources does the word carry the singleness of meaning which it has in the Sardis inscriptions; and if the influence of other Jewish texts using \"pronoia\" was so widespread, we would find it in other synagogues as well (87).
Contents:
Diaspora Jews, Proselytes and God-fearers
CHAPTER 1: Diaspora Jews in the Book of Acts, 1
I. Jewish Identity and the Jewish Tax: The Religious Boundary, 2
II. Jewish Identity and the Circumcision of Timothy: The Ethnic Boundary, 12
CHAPTER 2: Proselytes: Non-Christian Evidence, 19
I. Epigraphic Evidence, 25
II. Literary Sources, 26
CHAPTER 3: Proselytes: Christian Evidence, 35
I. The Proselytes of Matthew 23:15, 36
II. Later Christian Evidence, 40
III. The Proselytes in the Acts, 46
CHAPTER 4: God-fearers: Epigraphic Evidence, 51
I. Introduction, 52
II. Evidence for God-fearers, 59
III. Indirect Epigraphic Evidence for God-fearers, 81
CHAPTER 5: God-fearers and the Cult of the Most High God, 83
I. Pagan Background, 84
II. Jewish Background, 95
III. The Most High God in Acts: Pagan or Jewish?, 98
CHAPTER 6: God-Fearers: The Bosporan Kindom: A Case Study, 105
CHAPTER 7: God-Fearers: The Literary Evidence, 117
I. Non-Christian Literary Evidence, 118
II. God-fearers in the Book of Acts, 120
Jewish Diaspora Communities
CHAPTER 8: Antioch, 127
CHAPTER 9: Asia Minor, 137
I. Introduction, 138
II. Ephesus, 143
III. Miletus, 148
IV. Pisidian Antioch, 150
V. Iconium, 150
CHAPTER 10: Macedonia and Achaia, 153
I. Thessalonica, 154
II. Beroea, 157
III. Athens, 158
IV. Corinth, 162
CHAPTER 11: Rome, 167
I. Literary Evidence, 168
II. Epigraphic Evidence, 182
CHAPTER 12: Conclusion, 195
APPENDIX 1: Syncretism — The Tern and the Phenomenon, 197
APPENDIX 2: The Meaning of \"Proseuche\", 207
I. Criteria for distinguishing Jewish Inscriptions, 298
II. The Meaning of \"Proseuche\", 213
APPENDIX 3: Inscriptions from the Bosporan Kingdom, 227
I. Dedications, 229
II. Manumissions, 231
III. Religious Associations, 242