“I clothed you in purple”: The Rabbinic king-parables of the third-century Roman Empire

"I Clothed You ‫ ווו‬Purple" The Rabbinic King-Parables of the Third-Century Roman Empire

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University In Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

by Alan Appelbaum

Dissertation Director: Steven D. Fraade

May 2007

UMI Number: 3267203

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI UMI Microform 3267203 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

© 2007 by Alan Appelbaum AU rights reserved

Abstract "I Clothed You in Purple" The Rabbinic King-Parables of the Third-Century Roman Empire Alan Appelbaum May 2007 This is an analysis of comparisons the Rabbis made with kings, limited to Roman Palestine and to the ninety-year period beginning with the accession of the Emperor Septimius Severus in 193 C.E. and ending with the accession of Diocletian. Based primarily on the original rabbinic texts, it also draws on traditional Greek and Latin sources of imperial history and brings contemporary theory to bear. A major part of the study re-examines current scholarly views about king-parables and finds them wanting - including the still prevalent presupposition that "the king" is usually modeled on the emperor; the idea, recently renewed by Daniel Boyarin, that the Rabbis told the parables to make Torah accessible to non-Rabbis; and, most important, the idea, championed by David Stern, that "the king," no matter what earthly ruler he is modeled on, is a stand-in for God. The study also supplements the ongoing work on kingparables being done by Clemens Thoma and his colleagues in Switzerland. As the study attends to the king-parables' form, structure, functions, settings and characters, it emphasizes the Rabbis' distinctive ideas about the relationship of humanity to God.

Since the parables were produced by an intellectual elite in a country occupied by a world-empire, the study considers them as resistance literature and explores what contemporary post-colonial theory and James C. Scott's work concerning "hidden transcripts" may have to say about them. And since scholars of Roman history traditionally bemoan the paucity of sources for the period, it poses the hypothesis that making comparisons to "kings" modeled on emperors or their representatives involves at least thinking one knows something about them. The Rabbis' accounts of such "kings" not only shed light on the attitudes of a group of literate citizens in a particular eastern province toward living, breathing emperors but also provide information about third-century imperial history, sometimes confirming generally accepted readings of traditional sources, sometimes supporting sources that have been regarded as questionable, and sometimes helping to resolve open issues.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

ii

Introduction

1

Chapter 1 : Methodology for Identifying Third-Century Parables

8

Chapter 2: Identifying the Third-Century Rabbinic King-Parables

38

Chapter 3: Form and Structure

70

Chapter 4: The Figure of the King

101

Chapter 5: Functions

122

Chapter 6: Settings

162

Chapter 7: The Figure of God

183

Chapter 8: Third-Century King-Parables as Resistance Literature

207

Chapter 9: Third-Century King-Parables as a Source of Roman History

239

Appendix: Jesus' King-Parables

291

Bibliography

322

i

Acknowledgments It is a pleasure and an honor to thank the people who made this possible. First in that category among the Yale faculty is, of course, my dissertation director Steven D. Fraade, who provided an inspiring model of a scholar and a teacher -- original, incisive and wise, and also painstaking, patient and honest. I profited greatly from his comments and from his several seminars on tannaitic Midrash, Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I value his scholarship, his friendship and his leadership, enormously. Christine Hayes helped me structure my academic program and was always available and helpful no matter how crotchety and eccentric my wishes were. I am grateful for her brilliance and her kindness. Thanks to John Matthews, Harold Attridge and (visiting from Hebrew University) Daniel Schwartz for the courses I took with them; to Harry Attridge and John Matthews for joining Steven Fraade and Chris Hayes in administering required comprehensive examinations, and to Danny Schwartz and John Matthews for participating with them in the formal colloquium that led up to this study. Thanks to Jeremy Hultin, who read and commented on an earlier version of the appendix, and taught me a great deal in several other contexts as well. My gratitude also goes to Paula Hyman and Ivan Marcus, whose intellects and personalities help make Yale's Jewish Studies program the great one it is.

ii

In connection with the time period I am studying, thanks to Adela Collins, John Collins, Dale Martin, William Metcalf and especially Wayne Meeks. During my years at Yale, the faculty included outstanding visiting professors and post-doctoral fellows from elsewhere in the United States, from Israel and from the United Kingdom. Among those I was lucky to study with are Beth Berkowitz, Isaiah Gafni, Peter Heather, Lee Levine, Shlomo Naeh, Tessa Rajak, and especially Seth Schwartz. Several of my friends supported this effort, and I thank them, particularly Michael Signer of the University of Notre Dame, who guided each step along the way from my original decision to retire from my first career through the decision to go to Yale to the choice of dissertation topic. My family has been marvelous. My late mother, Edith Appelbaum, was at least as pleased with and proud of my second career as she had been of my first, and one of the lesser blessings to me of her long life is that she read and commented on several of the chapters that follow, as well as on some that did not make the cut. My children, Lynn and Alec Appelbaum, were the staunchest and most reliable supporters in every conceivable way, from the time that they enthusiastically voted "yes" at a family dinner about the decision to retire until right now. And thanks to my daughter-in-law, Emily Blank, for her encouragement and interest. I could not have written this without my wife, Judith Appelbaum. She periodically convinced me that I could do it when I didn't think so and that it

iii

was worth doing when I didn't think so, and she helped me get thé words not only right, but in the right order. But that's just about this study. In every aspect of our life together, she empowers, enriches, enlightens, exhilarates and emboldens me -- and she enchants me all the while. Of course this study is dedicated to her; everything I do is dedicated to her, as am I.

For Judy

ν

Introduction

This is a study of comparisons the Rabbis made with kings. It is a detailed analysis of a subgenre of rabbinic literature - that of the kingparable, the māšāllēmelek - largely within the genre of Mid rash, and it is further limited in place to king-parables coming from Roman Palestine, and in time to those that I can reasonably and persuasively date to the period I call the third century. This period includes the careers of Rabbis from the fourth generation of Tannaim through many of the third generation of Amoraim. It corresponds in the larger world to the period between the accession of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus in 193 C. E. and the defeat of Carinus by Diocletian approximately ninety years later. The study is therefore of interest to students of rabbinic texts. But the project has aspects that make it of interest also to readers seeking to recover something about the Rabbis themselves, to those engaged in contemporary consideration of the plight of peoples in occupied lands among the world's oppressed, and to students of ancient history who usually do not encounter rabbinic texts. The Rabbis are typically regarded either as scholars studying for the sake of learning or as lawyers combing their source materials to decide real or potentially real cases. In both cases, the Rabbis were hardworking professionals principally engaged in the job of exegesis, of reading Scripture to derive legal and other conclusions from it. The limitations I imposed on this study created

1

an unusual opportunity to show the Rabbis of a particular place and time doing their job in different ways and in different settings but always using the same subject, what a king does or is like. The study attends to the form, structure, functions, settings and dramatis personae of these parables, and analyzes them with a view to uncovering the Rabbis' distinctive ideas about the relationship of humanity to God. This work supplements the substantial work on rabbinic parables that has been going on for some years in Switzerland under the direction of Clemens Thoma. But it differs from that work not only in terms of limitations of time and place but also in other respects: it does not confine itself to the parables appearing in one collection of Mid rash at a time; it largely resists the attraction of making connections among the parables themselves; and it downplays comparisons with New Testament parables, restricting them to a brief appendix and to one category. King-parables, like other components of rabbinic literature, have been extensively studied, and as a result a communis opinio has developed about them. A major part of this study is devoted to re-examining it, and finding it wanting. The communis opinio goes back a long way. In 1903, Ignaz Ziegler, a rabbi in Carlsbad, published Die Koenigsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die roemische Kaiserzeit. I have relied on Ziegler to collect the rabbinic king-parables on which this study is based. As a result of the time we have spent together, I have come to think of him almost as a friend, and therefore

2

take pleasure in the fact that he is virtually always cited whenever kingparables are mentioned. Cited, but not read. The copy of his book in the Yale University library system that I used had been borrowed most recently in 1986 and only nine other times after Brevard Childs checked it out in 1962. This is understandable: Ziegler, like virtually everyone of his time, read rabbinic material uncritically, treating it all as true and timeless; he dated the material haphazardly; he usually seemed to prefer the version of a parable contained in the latest source; least helpfully, he forced his points. For example, based on the fact that the Hebrew word zāgēn and the Latin word senex (from which "senator" is derived) both mean "old man," he translated a passage about a "king" and some "zëqênîm" specifically to refer to the emperor and the Senate and to reason from there; other examples abound. Nonetheless, Ziegler's presupposition that the figure of the king in virtually all the king-parables was modeled on the emperor or a figure interchangeable for the Rabbis with the emperor is almost always accepted. Scholars as accomplished as David Stern and Galit Hasan-Rokem have had no hesitancy in citing Ziegler, and only Ziegler, for their unequivocal statements that the model for the king in the parables was the Roman emperor, as does a historian as distinguished as Martin Goodman, although he modifies the view slightly with the word "mainly." This study looks at that conclusion afresh, along with other generally accepted views about the parables, including the idea, advanced most recently

3

by Daniel Boyarin, that the Rabbis told the parables in order to make Torah accessible to non-Rabbis, and, most important, the idea, championed by David Stern, that the figure of the king in the parables - no matter what earthly ruler he is modeled on - stands for, represents, is a stand-in for, God. This view has been accepted within the field of ancient Judaism and beyond, so that Craig Evans, a leading scholar of the historical Jesus, can conclude on its basis that the various Gospel parables about the Kingdom of God are directly comparable to the rabbinic king-parables in that they involve "God as king," the direct counterpart of the Kingdom of God. Since the parables are literary texts produced by an intellectual elite in a country occupied by a world-empire, the study engages the questions of what the field of post-colonial theory and the work of James C. Scott concerning "hidden transcripts" have to say about king-parables, and, indirectly, what a study of the parables has to say about the field of post-colonial theory and the work of James C. Scott. Finally, scholars of Roman history traditionally bemoan the lack of sources for the third century, especially after the periods covered by Cassius Dio and Herodian. The various stories of R. Judah the Patriarch meeting the emperor, often called "Antoninus," or of Rabbis traveling to Rome, are neither reliably dateable to the third century nor particularly believable. But the kingparables that are the subject of this study can be dated to the third century and the figure of the king in some of them is in fact modeled on the emperor or his representative in Syria/Palestine. Making a comparison to such a king

4

necessarily involves knowing, or at least thinking you know, something about such kings and urges on us the question whether any of the king-parables can serve as additional sources of imperial history. Scholars of Jewish history and of rabbinics, whether or not they take references to emperors in the king-parables as historical, have often misunderstood the imperial background and failed to recognize differences in the nature of imperial power at different times and differences among individual emperors. I have carefully dated the rabbinic sources to the third century and grounded my reading of them in Roman history. This yields "emperors" based more on, say, the Danubian professional soldiers of the postSeveran period than on Marcus Aurelius and Augustus himself, and thus both provides additional information on the third-century emperors and enriches our understanding of the parables. Just as the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle - probably also written by a third-century Jew, although not a Rabbi or a follower of the Rabbis - provides information about real, specific third-century emperors from the viewpoint of an eastern subject, the Rabbis' accounts of "kings" may do so. If not, like the Oracle, they will at least shed light on the attitudes of a group of literate citizens in a particular eastern province toward living, breathing emperors. The text quoted in the title comes from the collection known as Midrash on Psalms, or Schocher Tob, which developed in Palestine over an extended period, perhaps as long as from the third to thirteenth centuries. The verse

5

before the Raibbis is Psalms 22:7, 'änöJdtôla'at wèlô'-'îs, and the parable is persuasively attributed to the first generation of Amoraim.

Tôla'at is usually translated as "worm," as in the Book of Jonah - the worm that eats the shady bush -‫ ־‬and the verse is read to mean, "I am a worm, and not a man." That fits the context of this Psalm; it is, after all, the Psalm that begins "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" But the program of Schocher Tob seems to require that negative texts be given a positive spin, and R. Joshua ben Levi treats tola 'at here as somehow being a verb, not a noun, and as having the same meaning as mëtulâ'îmin

Nahum 2:4 -- "empurpled," or

"dressed in purple," there referring to soldiers. As a result the verse becomes a boast, not a plaint, and refers to Israel's coronation of God at the Sea of Reeds: "I clothed you in purple at the Sea, and am not an ordinary man."

I chose this passage for the study's title for several reasons. It illustrates the Rabbis making a comparison with a king - who else is dressed in purple? without use of the classic form of the māšāl but nonetheless at their most characteristically inventive. It demonstrates that they knew the current events of the Roman Empire, here emperors being made by their legions. It is a witness to the radical theological point uncovered several times in the study, that somehow God needed to be enthroned, made God, by Israel.

6

And it serves to make another point for me: just as the Rabbis envisioned Israel making God a king the way the legions made Roman generals emperors, I imagine the Rabbis themselves clothing characters in purple, creating kings, for use in their exegetical and hortatory enterprise.

7

Chapter 1: Methodology for Identifying Third-Century King-Parables Introducing the Rabbis Parables about "kings," many of whom seem modeled on Roman emperors or their representatives, constitute a minor but significant part of the literary output of the Rabbis of the eighty-eight year period from the accession of the Emperor Septimius Severus in 193 C. E. to that of Diocletian in 285 C. E., the period this study refers to as the third century. 1 What is a "king-parable," and who are the third-century Rabbis? I count as a "king-parable" any comparison with a king; this is a wider category than the strict forms defined by others. 2 My identification of the third-century

1

David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge (ΑΛΑ) and London: Harvard University Press, 1991, 11, has argued against use of the word "parable" as a translation of for the rabbinic mašāl. On the other hand, Clemens Thoma, the leading European scholar of the rabbinic parable, seems to think the German word Gleichnisse is more precise than the Hebrew māšāl. "Prolegomena zu einer Uebersetzung und Kommentierung der rabbinischen Gleichnisse," Theologische Zeitschrift 38 (1982), 514. My transliteration of māšāl and other words from Hebrew characters is based on the "academic style" set forth in The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies, Peabody AAA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999, 5.1.1.1 - 5.1.1.4. Exceptions include common terms like Tanna and Amora, the names of the Hebrew letters, names and titles of people, like Levi, Abbahu, Nesiah and Matrona, words included in the names of documents, like Mekilta, Rabbah and Pesiqta, and of books and articles, and transliterations I am quoting or otherwise adopting from others. For the names of weekly Torah portions included in citations to documents, like Ki Tisa and Bechukotai, I have followed the transliteration convention used in The Torah: A Modern Commentary, New York: The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981. For the same periodization of Roman history as that I have adopted, see Gerold Walser, "The Crisis of the Third Century A. D.: A Re-Interpretation, " Bucknell Review 13, No. 2, 1, 3 (1965). Tony Honore, Emperors and Lawyers, second revised ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 48, also calls the period beginning with Septimius Severus the "third century, " although he extends it through the end of Diocletian's reign. Others who follow this early dating of the third century are cited in R. W. B. Salway, "The Creation of the Roman State AD 200-340: Social and Administrative Aspects." (D. Phil. Thesis, The Queen's College, Oxford, 1994.) 2

See Arnold Goldberg, "Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch, " Frankfurter Judaistische Beitraege 3 (1981); Clemens Thoma, "Prolegomena zu einer Uebersetzung, " 514 and Talia Thorion-Vardi, Das Kontrastgleichnis in der Rabbinischen Literatur, Frankfurt, Bern and New 8

Rabbis, on the other hand, is based on widely accepted views. The earliest were the fourth, and next to last, generation3 of "Tannaim" (the first "Rabbis.") The latest "third century Rabbis" included many or most of the third generation of their successors, the "Amoraim." These Tannaim flourished during the early Severan period at the beginning of the third century; several of the third generation of Amoraim lived beyond the third century into the "new empire" of Diocletian and even into the Constantinian period, but their memories would have included earlier periods. R. Judah the Patriarch was among these Tannaim, and these Amoraim include such other rabbinic superstars as R. Joshua ben Levi, R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish, and for at least parts of their careers, R. Levi, R. Abbahu and R. Isaac Nappaha. Based on the names mentioned in their surviving literature, the Rabbis numbered only a few hundred at most.4 They were literate, at least in their native language or languages, and the vast number of Greek loan words in their literature suggests that at least some of them also spoke, and perhaps read and York: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986. Chapter 3, infra, will discuss the various forms of the thirdcentury parables, which fnclyde the forms discussed by such as Goldberg, Thoma and ThorionVardi. I use "comparison" here to include both direct comparing - this is like that - and contrasting - this is not like that. 3

1 am following the customary practice of dating the Rabbis in accordance with their chronological relationships with each other and designating those relationships in terms of "generations." The dating and sequencing of the generations of the Tannaim and the Amoraim do not seem to be quite as controversial as the dating and sequencing of "documents" of rabbinic literature, and I have relied on Chanoch Albeck, Mavo le-Talmudim, Tel Aviv: Dvir Co. Ltd., 1969 and H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Markus Bockmuehl, tr. and ed., second printing with emendations and updates, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996 for dating the generations and placing individual Rabbis within them. See note 85, infra, and accompanying text regarding the treatment of third-generation Amoraim as "third-century Rabbis." 4

See Lee I. Levi ne, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, Jerusalem and New York: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989, 66-69.

9

wrote, Greek. Literacy in the third century may suggest that they came from the upper reaches of society, although perhaps not to the extent it would have in earlier periods, despite the traditions that assign relatively humble occupations to some of them or their families.5 They were intellectuals, with the curiosity about the world that word implies. Although they were primarily interested in law -- specifically divine law, and more specifically, at least for most of the third century, in deriving divine law from the exegesis of earlier texts that they regarded as divinely provided -- their surviving literature shows that they were nonetheless aware of and curious about all sorts of "secular" matters. Moreover, the third-century Rabbis were city people.6 They mostly lived in the largely Jewish Galilean cities of Tiberias and Sepphoris, but also in cities elsewhere in Palestine, including the very Roman coastal city of Caesarea.7 If it is correct that Jews were members of the city councils of the cities in which they lived, and there is little reason to doubt it, those Jews who were Rabbis or followers of Rabbis would have served along with their neighbors if they were wealthy enough.8

5

R. Yohanan and R. Isaac, for example, are sometimes respectively called "bar Nappaha" (the blacksmith's son) and "Nappaha" (the blacksmith.)

6

As such they would have been positioned to know more about the imperial government than they would have been if they lived in villages or, perhaps, on country estates, as earlier rabbinic generations had. For their parables as a source of information about imperial history, see Chapter 9, infra. 7

See generally Hayim Lapin, Economy, Geography, and Provincial History in Later Roman Palestine, Tubingen: J. C. B. Möhr (P. Siebeck), 2001.

8

See Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C. to 640C.E., Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001, 136-142. In note 40 on page 140 Schwartz bases the

And, while imperial citizenship seems to have involved f e w if any additional rights by the third century, all of the Rabbis were citizens of Rome from the t i m e the Emperor Caracalla issued the Constitutio

Antoniana,

which

granted citizenship 9 to all the free residents of the Roman Empire, around 212 C. E., 1 0 during the flourishing of the last generation of Tannaim. At least that was the view of the Constitutio

expressed by two of Caracalla's

contemporaries, the consul and historian Cassius Dio and the jurist and politician Ulpian. 11 The emperor is supposed to have said that he did this to thank the gods for "saving" him from his brother Geta. Dio, no fan of Caracalla's, claimed the purpose was to raise revenue, since inheritance tax was payable only by citizens. 12

possibility of Rabbis' being appointed to the city councils on a remark by R. Yohanan that one should avoid such service. If the tradition referred to in note 5, supra, is correct, Yohanan, clearly a leader within the rabbinic movement, would not have been among those asked to join the city council, suggesting another reason for his negativity about such service. 9

It may be more precise to refer to a grant of the ius italicum, the legal privileges first allowed to cities of Italy other than Rome itself, than to citizenship. See Richard Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia's Revolt against Rome, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992, 28. In any event, Roman citizenship now meant less than it had in earlier times, and the status of a citizen in society depended more on such things as the distinction between honestiores and humiliores. See generally Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. It is likely that a Rabbi's status within the larger society would have varied from Rabbi to Rabbi and have been unrelated to the particular Rabbi's status within the rabbinic movement. 10

The date is uncertain, but I use the familiar "212" for convenience; it is certainly roughly right. 11

Dio was a senator and twice consul. His History included that of the Severan dynasty and has even been called the "official version" of those years. See Anthony Birley, The African Emperor: Septimius Severus, London: Eyre and Spottswood, 1988, 141. Ulpian was praetorian prefect under a later Severan and already a mature jurist during Caracalla's reign, perhaps then writing his treatises, which are consistent with the universalism arguably implicit in the Constitutio. See Tony Honore, Ulpian, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982, 26. 12

Cassius Dio LXXVIII.9.4-6; Digest 1.5.17. Caracalla's reasons for issuing the Constitutio have long interested historians. Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of 11

But the view that Jews became citizens in 212 along with the rest of the free population of the Empire has not been uncontested. A papyrus published in 1910 sets forth three imperial pronouncements bearing on the right of a certain Egyptian to reside in Alexandria, one of which is the mutilated text of either a Greek translation of the Constitutio or of a restatement of the policy giving rise to it. The papyrus mentions a category of people called "dedictii" who may have been excluded from the grant of citizenship.

Who were these dedictii? Using a Latin term in a Greek text implies a technical meaning, defining a category extending beyond the Greek-speaking part of the empire. A law of 4 C.E. had declared certain persons ineligible for citizenship to be "dedictii." Perhaps their exclusion was reaffirmed. Perhaps new groups could be assigned that status subsequently. Scholars have often suggested that specific settlements of defeated barbarians were among such groups. While it is uncertain both whether dedictii were excluded and who they were, it appears that certain tribal groups, like the Baqates of Mauretania, did in fact remain peregrin! after 212.13

the Roman Empire, second edition, rev. by P. M. Fraser, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957, 419, saw in it a deliberate move to degrade citizenship: Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BCAD 337, Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1993, 142, relates it to Caracalla's imitation of Alexander, although "citizenship" was not a factor in Alexander's empire. 13

See R. W. B. Salway, "The Creation of the Roman State," 31-32; S. N. Miller, "The Army and the Imperial House," in S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth and Ν. H. Baynes, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History - Volume XII: The Imperial Crisis and Recovery A. D. 193-324, Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1939, 45-46.

12

Thus far, it would seem clear that literate, perhaps well-off, native-born residents of Palestinian cities would not have been dedictii. But one of the great historians of Rome of the nineteenth century, Theodor Mom m sen, suggested that Jews had earlier been made dedictii, perhaps as punishment for their first-century rebellion, and accordingly did not become citizens in 212; and one of the great historians of the Jews who worked in the earlier twentieth century, Shmuel Safrai, adopted Mommsen's conclusions. Another such historian of the Jews, Gedaliah Alon, applied to them Α. H. M. Jones' suggestion that all inhabitants of territories where the Romans had not allowed the creation of organized municipal governments were dedictii.14

No other conquered people was treated as Mommsen suggested, Tiberias, Sepphoris and the other cities in which the Rabbis and other Jews lived had organized municipal governments, and it is highly unlikely that Caracalla's distinguished and well-informed contemporaries would have described the Constitutio as they did had either Mommsen or Jones been right. As a result, later historians have forcefully disagreed with Mommsen and Jones, and the argument seems to have died a natural death.15

14

See Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E.), tr. and ed. Gershon Levi, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1980, 687-689; Martin Goodman, State and Society in Roman Palestine A.D. 132-21, second edition, Towota NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 2000, 256 η.85. 15

See, for example, E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976, 342. Perhaps Mommsen's conclusions and those of Alon and Safrai are examples of what John Collins and others have identified as a tendency to project contemporary issues of Jewish identity back into the ancient world. Mommsen consciously tried to bring the ancients "into the real world": for him Roman landowners became Junkers, and "the consul had to become the burgomeister. Perhaps I have overdone

13

An additional indication that the Jews of Palestine, including the Rabbis, were citizens lies in Roman naming practices. Names included a heritable family name.16 New citizens ‫־‬- say, the residents of a newly made colonia adapted the practice first used by freedmen with regard to the names of their masters; they took as the counterpart of their family name that of the emperor or similar Roman leader under whom they had become citizens. For example, we know that Palmyrenes became citizens, and thus that Palmyra became a colony, when Julius Caesar led Rome, because third-century Palmyrenes still used the name Julius. After 212, the name "Aurelius" became very popular, especially in the east; the new citizens were naming themselves after Caracalla, whose official name was Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.17 If there were Jews named Aurelius, it is even more likely that Mommsen, Alon and Safrai were wrong.

The search for Jews named Aurelius is hindered by the fact that provincials were likely to have kept their "native" names along with their "Roman" names, and probably used their "native" names for "native" purposes. This would have been especially true of a group, like the Rabbis, acutely aware of their nation's special place in the grand scheme of things. It is it." Mommsen's letter to Henzen, quoted in G. P. Gooch, "Mommsen and Roman Studies," in History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century, Boston: Beacon Hill Press, 1959, 459, 461. Perhaps the same desire for "relevance" meant that Jews "had to" be something less than citizens of Rome, with Rome standing in for Germany and other European countries, and this view may have resonated in Alon's and Safrai's Zionist sensibilities. 16

See R. W. B. Salway, "Roman State," 23.

17

See id. at 34; Tony Honore, Ulpian 27. But some non-citizens may also have adopted the family name of the emperor out of respect, pretension, dishonesty, or some other reason.

14

therefore no surprise that R. Aurelius is not to be found,18 and I have located only two clear Jewish "Aurelii" (one of whom was married, perhaps for good measure, to an "Aurelia") in third-century Galilee. 19 But there are names in rabbinic literature, including names of Rabbis, that may well have been versions or corruptions of "Aurelius."

Ari us20 - perhaps Aurelius with the lambda/lamed fallen away ‫ ״‬is mentioned in Sifre to Deuteronomy, a work identified as coming from the third

18

Not that they avoided using Greco-Roman names. Among the third-century Rabbis were R. Symmachus and R. Alexandri, or Alexander, respectively a fourth-generation Tanna and a second-generation Amora. 19

Leah di Segni, "Inscriptions of Tiberias," (Hebrew) in Yizhar Hirschfeld, ed., Tiberias: From its Foundation to the Muslim Conquest, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1994, 78, transcribes a Tiberian gravestone in Greek of one Aurelius Marcellinus, a retired centurion. Tiberias was largely a Jewish city and the fact that this Aurelius chose to retire there suggests that he was a Jew. We cannot know whether his wife Aurelia was herself a Jew. Di Segni uses this data in the opposite way than I do; she dates the gravestone to shortly after 212 on the basis of the centurion's name. This centurion's name does not make Mommsen wrong; it seems unlikely that senior Roman soldiers would have been dedictii even if other Jews were. But another collection of inscriptions (David Noy, Alexander Panayotov and Hanswulf Bloedhorn, eds., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, Volume I, Eastern Europe, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 22-24) includes a gravestone, found in Dalmatia and written in Latin in Greek characters, of one Aurelius Dionysius, identified on the gravestone as "a Jew from Tiberias." The editors are clear: "the deceased man was a Roman citizen descended from someone who obtained Roman citizenship through the Constitutio Antoniana as his nomen indicates." The inscription includes a depiction of a carpenter's axe (previously identified as an incense shovel, a common figure on Jewish gravestones) that may indicate this Aurelius' occupation. In any event there is no reason to think that he, unlike a centurion, was the beneficiary of any special non-dedictii status. I am indebted to my colleague Joshua Ezra Burns for pointing these Aurelii out to me; he has also located several other Jewish Aurelii buried in Asia Minor, Egypt, Europe and Syria, but only these two have a clear connection to Roman Palestine. 20

Spelled aleph-resh-yud-vav-samech. The name is transliterated "Arius" in Moshe David Herr, "The Historical Significance of the Dialogues Between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries," Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971 ), 149, but "Arios" in Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, translated with introduction and notes by Reuven Hammer, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986, 396. Which of these transliterations conveys the more accurate pronunciation depends on whether the vav in the name was a surcq pronounced "00" or a full holem pronounced "oh."

15

century. 21 He is not identified as a Rabbi, but seems to have been a follower of the rabbinic movement as a student, favorite or groupie of "R. Yosi," who may have been Yosi ben ("son of") Kefar, Yosi ben Yehudah or Yosi ben Meshullam - all fourth-generation Tannaim - making Arius, on the theory that he was younger than "Yosi," just about the right age to have himself taken the name "Aurelius" - or Yosi ben Saul, himself a Tanna of the next generation.

R. Haninah ben Auri22 - also perhaps Aurelius with the lambda/lamed (and the grammatical ending) fallen away - is mentioned in Derekh

Eretz

Rabbah 1:4, a "minor tractate" of the Babylonian Talmud, as transmitting a saying of R. Nathan. Since this work is regarded, in spite of its later redaction, as a collection of sayings of Tannaim and early Amoraim 23 it is likely that this is R. Nathan the Babylonian, a fourth-generation Tanna, and if R. Haninah's

21

See notes 61-63 and 70-72, infra, and accompanying text. In Sifre Deut. 13 (Finkelstein ed., 22), Arius discusses with R. Yosi the question, familiar in rhetorical practice, of "who is wise." The text of Sifre Deut. I have used is Eliezer Ari Finkelstein, Sifre al Sefer Devarim, as republished, New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Reuven Hammer's translation cited in the previous footnote. (All translations from Hebrew in this study are my own; each time I mention a text for the first time I indicate someone else's translation if I have consulted it in preparing mine.) Moshe David Herr, "Historical Significance," identifies Arius as a convert to Judaism, without explanation, and is followed in this regard, also without explanation, by Reuven Hammer. Presumably the basis for this identification is not Arius' familiarity with rhetorical figures, since R. Yosi seems equally familiar with them. That he has a Greco-Roman name does not make him a born gentile in light of the various Greco-Roman names attested for Jews, including Rabbis. Perhaps Herr follows Safrai and Alon on the inapplicability of the Constitutio Antoniana to Jews, and therefore assumes that someone with a name so close to "Aurelius" must have been a citizen and therefore born a gentile, and Hammer follows Herr. 22

Spelled aleph-vav-resh-yud and elsewhere transliterated as "Uri," but I have chosen "Auri" not only for reasons of presentation, but also because if the vav were a full hölem rather than a sûruq "Auri" would indicate the better pronunciation. 23

H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 230. 16

father Auri was of the same generation as the teacher whose saying he is recorded as transmitting, this Auri was roughly the same age as Arius. 24

I have located no other possible Aurelii connected with the Rabbis who lived that early, but once a pseudo-Roman family name was adopted, it would be continued in later generations of the same family; examples are the Palmyrenes mentioned above and Priscus, the brother and prefect of the Emperor Philip, whose names included "Julius" in the mid-third century. The Palestinian

Talmud mentions Isaac bar (also "son of") Aurion. 25 The Babylonian

Talmud knows R. Achli, 26 who may have been a third generation Babylonian. 27 "Arius," "Auri," "Aurion" and "Achli" contain at least three of the components of "Aurelius, " but it would not be surprising for more than one sound to

24

Auri may, of course, be a Hebrew-based name meaning something like "of light."

25

Spelled aleph-vav-resh-yud-vav-nun, y. Shabb. 10 (6)(12d); Isaac is not called "Rabbi." (The text of y. I have used is Talmud Yerushalmi, edition of Ya'acov Sussmann, Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2001. In translating this text into English I have consulted Jacob Neusner (and others), The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1987.) Aurion, like Arius and Auri, preserves all the components of "Aurelius" except the lambda/lamed, but adds an additional sound to it; it may be a version of "Orion." I have not been able to establish the rabbinic generation with which his son Isaac should be associated. 26

Spelled aleph-chet-lamed-yud.

27

b. 'Erub. 12a. (The text of b. I have used is The Babylonian Talmud - Hebrew English Edition. Union City NJ: The Soncino Press Ltd, 1983. In translating this text into English I have consulted the translation contained in that edition.) This name retains the alpha/aleph, the lambda/lamed and the iota/yud, and if the semi-guttural "rolling" rho became the guttural chet, this name would contain all four of the components of Aurelius, and would be the only name I have discovered in rabbinic literature that does so. (See below for the possibility that the rho could function not as a semi-guttural but as a liquid consonant.) Achli is confused in the Babylonian Talmud with Yechiel, who was a third -generation Babylonian; I have not identified Achli by generation. Supposing him also to be a Babylonian, it would not be surprising to find an "Aurelius" in Iraq, outside the territory of the Roman Empire; Rabbis traveled frequently between the two centers of their movement.

17

disappear over the years or for the order of the sounds to change,28 raising the possibility that R. Ahilai29 and the several third-century Amoraim named Ulla,30 Ela,31 ll'a, 32 and Elai33 had names originating in Aurelius.

None of these names is clearly "Aurelius." But none of them seems derived from the Bible, they seem generally not to be rooted in Hebrew words, and they must have come from somewhere. They do not prove that Mommsen, Alon and Safrai were wrong, but, combined with the evidence of Dio and Ulpian, I feel confident that the current communis opinio is correct.

in this study, then, the third-century Rabbis are understood to have been literate, relatively comfortable, intellectual, curious, urban, tax-paying, perhaps civically involved citizens of the Roman Empire, distinguishable from other Jews (and perhaps from pagans) of their class and status only because they were principally engaged in discovering and discussing divine law applicable to themselves and to other Jews. 28

In addition, rho/resh and lambda/lamed, as liquid consonants, tend to interchange, making it possible that a name that seems to retain one of them actually retains the other.

29

Spelled aleph-heh-yud-lamed-aleph-yud; the rho/resh and the iota/yud (as a separate sound) are missing. He sought to marry the daughter of a second-generation Babylonian Amora. b. Ber. 25b. In other witnesses, including those on which the Soncino version is based, this Rabbi's name is Ahai; I do not advance Ahai as a potential Aurelius. 30

Spelled ayin-vav-lamed-aleph, with the ayin filling in either for the alpha, if ayin was pronounced as a smooth-breathing vowel, as it usually is today, or for the "rolling" rho, if pronounced as a guttural as it is in modern Yemen and probably was in antiquity.

31

Spelled aleph-yud-lamed-aleph, missing only the rho/resh.

32

Spelled aleph-yud-lamed-ayin-aleph, perhaps replacing the "rolling" rho with a guttural ayin.

33

Spelled ayin-yud-lamed-aleph-yud. See note 30 supra, for the possible roles of the initial ayin. b. Ber. 13b, 25a; b. Shabb. 53b; b. Yoma 35a, 73b; y 'Erub. 2(5).

18

Using "Documents" Ignaz Ziegler's 1903 collection contains and discusses close to a thousand rabbinic references to kings, usually in the form of parables. 34 My first task is to separate from all the references to kings that Ziegler provides those that I can reasonably and persuasively set forth as being parables of third-century provenance. How I propose to do that is the subject of the rest of this chapter. I have been unable so to limit the parables under study on the basis of the texts. For example, parables that show the "king" only in the presence of Roman officials with titles that are not later than the third century are not necessarily third-century parables. 35 The Rabbis were not writing careful

34

Ignaz Ziegler, Die Koenigsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die roemische Kaiserzeit, Breslau: Schlesische Verlags-Anstalt v. S. Schottlaender, 1903. Interest in kingparables has intensified recently, especially in Europe, as a result of the work of the Swiss scholar Clemens Thoma and his colleagues and students, culminating in his four volume study, first with Simon Lauer and then with Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen, Bern, Frankfurt and New York: Peter Lang, 1986-2000. This work deals with king-parables in Gen. Rab., a collection of amoraic exegetical and homiletical Midrashim and with those in the later collections of homiletical Midrashim, Pesiq. Rab Kah. and Exod. Rab. (Exegetical and homiletical Midrashim will be distinguished from each other, and examples of each are roughly dated for purposes of this study, in the final footnote in this chapter.) But Ziegler's work remains my starting point, since Thoma and his colleagues have concentrated on the parables contained in three particular rabbinic works, proceeding one work at a time, while my goals require me to take account of all parables I believe likely to have come from the third century, no matter when or where collected. Other studies largely dealing with the parables in one work, respectively Lam. Rab., a collection of exegetical Midrashim, and Mek.de R. Ishmael, a collection of halachic Midrashim, see notes 64-69, infra, and accompanying text, are David Stern, Parables in Midrash and Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990. I do not, of course, accept Ziegler's uncritical and entirely synchronic reading of the entire corpus of rabbinic literature or share his goal of relating as many parables as possible to specific events and personalities in Roman history. 35

For example, a parable in Midr. Pss. 115:8 has the "king" promote someone to offices with titles early enough to be considered third-century as a reward for bringing him fine white bread in the desert, but there is no reason to regard this parable, anonymously offered in a document that developed from the third to the thirteenth centuries, as being that early. See the final footnote in this chapter. The text of Midr. Pss I have used is Midrasch Tehillim (Schocher Tob), Edition of Solomon Buber, Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrueder Romm, 1891. In translating this text into English, I have consulted William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. 19

institutional history, and memories of earlier versions of the Roman system lasted well into the medieval period and beyond; Napoleon was Consul (with great power) before he was Emperor. Nor can I responsibly make chronological assumptions based merely on content, such as Ziegler's that a parable that shows the king with two rivals for the throne must refer to Septimius Severus, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus and therefore be third-century.36 An obvious first step would be to examine parables included in documents that date from the third century, and, while dating documents is somewhat more controversial than dating generations of Rabbis, several documents are almost universally recognized as coming from that period. But in the study of rabbinic literature, unlike in other fields, research claiming to be based on separate documents requires several words of additional explanation. The very word "document" has become so linked to the controversial methodological and substantive positions advocated by and associated with Jacob Neusner and his students that saying I will study separate "documents" without explaining my rejection of Neusner's frequently and forcefully expressed views would, in many circles,37 be like claiming to play rpck , n roll without explaining that our band has neither a bass nor drums.38

36

See Ignaz Ziegler. Koenigsgleichnisse 47. I will also treat this parable as probably thirdcentury, because it comes, without attribution to an earlier Rabbi, see note 41, infra, from Sifre to Deuteronomy, a "document" from the late third or early fourth century. See text at note 75, infra, and accompanying text. I agree with Ziegler that this parable reflects Severus and his rivals. See Chapter 9, notes 42-44 and accompanying text, infra. 37

In "Is the Talmud a 'Document,'" in Shaye J. D Cohen, ed., The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, 3, Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000, 3, Robert Goldenberg describes Neusner's views as "ascendant."

20

The beginning point 39 of Neusner's position is his "documentary premise." 40 Neusner has not quarreled with the view that rabbinic "documents" as we have them were derived from previously existing written and oral material, but he claims that in the process of selection the compilers, editors or redactors of these documents so extensively shaped, sequenced and recontextualized the material they received as to make the remaining "document" the product of a single, although collective, "authorship" and that any information w e might use from or about the originators of the earlier material was completely obscured in the process. Accordingly, pursuant to the documentary premise, conventional source criticism is bootless; only the final document matters. The documentary premise therefore insists that a historian use a rabbinic document only to reflect the t i m e of its final compilation or redaction

38

Some critical historians of Jewish late antiquity, although they tip their hats to Neusner, simply ignore his approach in what they write. This seems unsatisfactory, both because a genuine giant deserves more careful and respectful treatment, and because the tip of my hat would be insincere. 39

1 do not mean to be understood to be trying to set forth the chronological development of Neusner's approach, but rather to be explaining its principal elements in what seems to be their conceptual progression. 4ω

The term is Robert Goldenberg's, from "Is the Talmud a 'Document.'" Neusner prefers "documentary hypothesis," apparently asserting a link to the revolutionary work of such as Wellhausen in bible studies. But the implicit analogy is misplaced, since Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis took what appears to the casual reader as a single document and found in it the various earlier documents known as J, Ε, Ρ and D. If Neusner's documentary premise were applied to the Hebrew Bible, perhaps each book would be studied separately but the premise would not allow the critic even to consider the existence of J, Ε, Ρ and D within a book; simply stated, the documentary premise is inconsistent with source criticism, including the kind of source criticism of the bible pioneered by Wellhausen and others. See Christine Hayes, "Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai in Rabbinic Sources: A Methodological Case Study," in Shaye J. D. Cohen, ed., Synoptic Problem 61.

21

and not to reflect any earlier t i m e . 4 1 And Neusner takes t h e documentary premise an additional giant step. Not only has the process of compiling, editing and redacting received materials resulted in an authored t e x t so unitary as to deny access to the underlying sources, but the process was consciously performed in furtherance of a larger purpose of the authorship based on unified and consistent religious or philosophic conclusions and premises. 42 Therefore, a parable attributed to a third-century Rabbi in a fifth-century document could be used only to reconstruct fifth-century

rabbinic views, and it

would also be used in connection with the description of a fifth-century

41

Why do I raise the documentary premise now? I was about to set out to find third-century material in third-century documents; this is consistent with the documentary premise to the extent I have so far explained it. I do so because of an unusual result my use of the documentary premise would have; a parable attributed in a third-century document to a second-century (or earlier) figure would have to be understood to evidence a third-century view. To get closer to the views of the third-century Rabbis, I need to exclude the views of their predecessors; honoring the dating of attributions to earlier sages in third-century documents to the same extent and after the same analysis that I will honor the dating of attributions to third-century sages in later documents will help avoid this error. 42

The work of comparison of documents, in the service of which Neusner first advanced the documentary premise after noting the success of a similar approach in New Testament studies, thus has become the work of comparing the ideologies underlying the documents that he and his students claim to have discovered. Thus, Neusner would disapprove of my use of thirdcentury documents to find third-century parables merely because in part I focus on the parables in a single document at a time; he has strongly disapproved of the work on parables of Clemens Thoma and his colleagues, apparently because they did not use Neusner's work to identify an underlying ideology in each of the documents they studied and compare these ideologies one to another. See Jacob Neusner, "Information Without Knowledge: Clemens Thoma on the Parable, " 7-8, in How Not to Study Judaism: Examples and Counter-Examples: Volume One: Parables, Rabbinic Narratives, Rabbis' Biographies, Rabbis' Disputes, LanhamMD, New York and Oxford: University Press of America, 2004 ("I cannot find where the results for one document are compared and contrasted with those for another. . . .1 do not ask Thoma to pursue lines of research others have ignored. My insistence on the comparison of documents . . . derives from work already completed and in print even before his work was well underway. In 1986 I published the comparison of Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, and in 1987 that of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta R a b b a t i . . . . neither item surfaces in his bibliography! What kind of scholarship is this?")

22

ideology discovered in the document as a whole. 4 3 A third element of the Neusnerian approach, apparently thought of as a corollary of the documentary premise, 44 is the conclusion that attributions of parables and other sayings to named Rabbis are thoroughly unreliable. 45 The documentary premise is inconsistent with the practices of those ancient historians who study populations other than the Jews. In spite of what may seem to be scholarly self-denial in refusing to go beyond the documents, 46 the premise's application to the study of antiquity outside the field of rabbinics would be hooted down. Responsible and highly-regarded historians of Rome have written, and continue to write, responsible and highly-regarded thirdcentury history on the basis of fourth-century and much later "documents"; 4 7

43

"The Parable Serves the Document and Responds to its Program." (Boldface in original). Jacob Neusner, "Information Without Knowledge" 30. "Each document shapes narrative to suit its larger purpose." Jacob Neusner, "Aimless Anthologizing: Jeffrey L. Rubenstein on Narrative," 39, in How Not to Study Judaism.

44

See William Scott Green, "What's in a Name: The Problematic of Rabbinic Biography," in William Scott Green, ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism, Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978, 80, ("We know about the early rabbinic figures what the various authorities behind the documents want us to know, and we know it in the way they want us to know it. Consequently, the historical context, the primary locus of interpretation for any saying attributed to a given master . . . is the document in which the passage appears, not the period in which he is alleged to have lived.")

45

Perhaps recognizing that the unreliability of attributions is not in fact a logical corollary of the basic documentary premise - selecting, shaping and recontextualizing received material does not mean making it up -- one of Neusner's students has advanced another reason for refusing to accept attributions: the sayings which are the subject of the attributions are so highly formalized that the original saying must have been changed in language and perhaps in meaning. William Scott Green, "What's in a Name," 83. But, as Chapter 3, infra, will demonstrate, the forms of the third-century king-parable display significant variations. See Chapter 3, note 19 and accompanying text, infra.

46

Robert Goldenberg, "Is the Talmud 'a Document,'" 4.

47

Perhaps Seth Schwartz' training in Roman history lies to some extent behind these conclusions about Neusner, which set forth the conceptual progression of Neusner's position in a different order than I do: "[T]o conclude that we must assume the falsity of attributions, that therefore (?) [question-mark in parentheses in the original] the documents are essentially 23

the documentary premise would require us to read Cassius Dio, as w e have him, only for the history of the eleventh century, when Xiphilinus compiled his epitome. 4 8 And the premise is inconsistent with contemporary trends of scholarship. Neusner's insistence on locating an authorship, and, especially, his insistence on over-riding authorial intent, would draw smug smiles in the postdeconstruction academy, where the text is everything and even an individual author, named and often photographed, has all but disappeared. 49

But a scholar need not conform to majority practices and even less so to what Neusner and others might dismiss as scholarly fashions. More to the point, the documentary premise is inconsistent with the way the Rabbis transmitted their traditions; they prided themselves on the accuracy of these traditions and pseudepigraphic and can be assumed to provide evidence only for the interests of their redactors, is in fact no longer a skeptical but a positivist position and is less plausible than the one it replaced. . . . Neusner once again pushed . . . [anj ostensibly cautious view too far by insisting that the documents are in fact self-contained. . . , that each one is as it were a summary statement of the ideology of a discrete social organization. The result is not only bad history but also tautologous reading; if texts must be read in a rigorous way on their own terms, the only thing to say about them is to recapitulate their contents." Imperialism and Jewish Society 8-9. 48

On occasion, Xiphilinus is so read, as in the physical description of Byzantium in Cassius Dio LXXV.10. And no matter what one thinks of the documentary premise, there will be occasions when rabbinic literature must also be read exclusively in terms of the date of a document's compilation or redaction, as well as frequent occasions when such a synoptic approach and source-criticism will go hand in hand. For a fine example of the latter, see Christine Hayes, "Methodological Case Study."

49

Neusner has recently confessed that he finds the work of literary critics — in this instance of rabbinic writing - "only mildly interesting." Jacob Neusner, "Rabbinic Narrative: Documentary Perspectives on the Mishnah's and the Tosefta's Ma'asim," 60 n. 4, in How Not to Study Judaism. Rabbinic literature has from time to time been advanced as a model for the same postmodern literary theories that would render the documentary premise irrelevant. See Susan Handelman, The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982; Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick, eds., Midrash and Literature. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986. For a more recent look at this phenomenon, see David Stern, Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1996.

24

on how accurately they reported them. 50 The premise is also inconsistent with the documents themselves. They never claim the kind of unity and intentionality on which the documentary premise is based. Quite the contrary; it is evident from the documents themselves that their compilers were concerned to preserve distinctive layers within the traditions they received, not to obliterate them, and to preserve the heterogeneity of the materials they had.51 The opposite conclusion would require editors of extraordinary dedication and questionable purpose, for which there are no ancient (and few modern) models.52

Careful scholarship has demonstrated several instances in which the rabbinic compilers succeeded in preserving the variety of traditions they had received. Why does the Babylonian Talmud, probably redacted in the seventh century,53 show third-century Rabbis mentioning different academic institutions than later sages do? David Goodblatt explains this: terminology from third-

50

Even the warnings about forgetting contained in the rabbinic literature seem to me to be consistent with the accuracy of oral transmission in the movement as a whole; they are echoes of the occasional although real slip-up by lesser figures in the movement seen through the admonishments of senior Rabbis, who themselves seem to be claiming to have so slipped up only rarely if at all. Examples from third-century Rabbis: b.Yoma 38b (R. Eleazar: whoever forgets any part of his study causes his children to go into exile); b. Menakh. 99b (Resh Lakish: he who forgets one word transgresses a negative commandment). Contra, H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 40, who read these passages to indicate that much was forgotten in rabbinic times. Doubtless, but that does not mean either that what is remembered is remembered incorrectly or that the leaders of the movement or those who specialized in memorizing oral traditions forgot much. 51

See Christine Hayes, "Methodological Case Study," 64.

52

See Richard L. Kalmin, "Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity as a Source for Historical Study," in Jacob Neusner and A. Avery-Peck, eds., Judaism in Late Antiquity 3, Leiden and New York: E. J. Brill, 1999.

53

See the final footnote in this chapter.

25

century sources has been accurately preserved. He takes it one step further: the Talmud's editors have not, generally speaking, homogenized the language of earlier amoraic generations.54 It should be emphasized that the nature of their academic institutions may well have been one of the "ideological" issues with which the redactors of the Babylonian Talmud were in fact concerned. Another example: what is meant by a "halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai" (a law to Moses from Sinai)? Christine Hayes has shown that the Mishnah, the earliest of the rabbinic documents to be redacted,55 preserved in the process of its redaction three sources that use the term in ways that conflict with later uses and with each other, suggesting that tannaitic redaction, like that of the anonymous later redactors of the Babylonian Talmud, was not a process that imposed ideological unity or that flattened or destroyed distinctive elements of various traditions serving as sources for the final form of text. 56 Again, the concept of a "halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai" is the sort of idea that an

54

"Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History," in Baruch M. Bokser, ed., History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years, Chico: Scholars Press, 1980, 31-44. Goodblatt was one of Neusner's early students. 55

See text at note 60, infra.

56

Christine Hayes, "Methodological Case Study," 76. Hayes, at 90, carries her analysis of the use of the term up to and including b., and she concludes that there the authority of such a halakhah is equated with that of Scripture, although it preserves the older Palestinian conception of them as distinct sources of law. She points out that the chronological and geographical distinctions she has isolated support the proposition that b. preserves a range of source materials accessible to the critical scholar and is not the relatively undifferentiated document hypothesized by "documentarians." See also Richard Kalmin, "Rabbinic Portrayals of Biblical and Post-biblical Heroes"; Richard L. Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Kalmin's criticism of Neusner and his school is less persuasive when he argues, in "Rabbinic Portrayals, " against the documentary premise on the grounds that various themes or patterns emerge precisely if documentary origins of evidence are ignored, that doing so can yield meaningful and consistent results. So can using it, depending on what "meaningful" means.

26

ideologically or religiously or philosophically conscious authorship would try to bring into line.

A necessary premise behind the documentary premise - that each of the documents of rabbinic literature was completed at a more or less finite time is also problematic. Critics have pointed out that Neusner never demonstrates this. 57 The lines among editions, redactions, compilations, anthologies and "mere" rescensions or manuscript variants of the rabbinic corpus are fuzzy. Even a scholar who agrees with Neusner that the final redactions mostly mirror the historical reality of the last redactors criticizes him for ignoring the manuscript traditions of the various "documents" and for claiming boundaries between them that do not exist.58

Identifying Third-Century Documents

The following documents are frequently regarded as having originated in the third century:59 Mishnah, Tosefta, Mekilta de R. Ishmael, Sifra, Sifre to Numbers and Sifre to Deuteronomy. Dating documents depends, of course, on 57

See Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Introduction," in Synoptic Problem; Robert Goldenberg, "Is the Talmud 'a Document."‫׳‬ 58

Peter Schaefer, "Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis," Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986), 146-50. Schaefer seems to take the extreme position on the non-closure of rabbinic documents, and his argument's insistence on studying only manuscripts would seem to turn rabbinics into a branch of medieval studies. For an excellent refutation, which does not make that "medieval studies' argument, see Chaim Milikowsky, "The Status Quaestionis of Research into Rabbinic Literature," Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988), 201-211. 59

It is a commonplace of rabbinic scholarship that each of these (and later) documents underwent further changes over the centuries; as noted above, see notes 57-58, supra, and accompanying text, it seems virtually impossible to fix the date of closure of any rabbinic document.

27

diverse technical factors beyond the scope of this study; I have made no a t t e m p t independently to date any document. Instead, I have tried to determine the best scholarly opinion and then relied on it.

The Mishnah is generally treated as the earliest extant product of the Rabbis; its compilation is traditionally although unconvincingly attributed to R. Judah the Patriarch who is thought to have died the same year as did the Emperor Caracalla, 217 C.E., 6 0 and we may therefore associate it with the earliest of our third-century Rabbis, the fourth generation of Tannaim who flourished in the early Severan period, the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. But the Mishnah contains no king-parables. 61

The Tosefta,

like the Mishnah, is a halakhic work, and has long been

thought of as a commentary on the Mishnah. If so, w e must regard it, and its contents, including its sole king-parable, as later than the reign of Caracalla. 62

60

H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 81.

61

Ziegler included four passages from m. and treated them as king-parables shedding light on customs associated with the emperor, see Ignaz Ziegler, Die Koenigsgleichnisse des Midrasch 16, 67, 103, 364, but they are not parables and they do not refer to the emperor; rather they are elements of m.'s version of the "torah of the king," the legal rules governing the conduct of a Jewish king. See Steven D. Fraade, "The Torah of the King (Deut 17:14-20) in the Temple Scroll and Early Rabbinic Law," in James R. Davila, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, 39, Leiden: Brill, 2003. But see Martin Goodman, State and Society in Roman Palestine A.D. 132-212, second edition, Towota Ν J: Rowman 6t Allanheld, 2000, 264 η.293, also treating these references as parables. 62

As we have it it is almost certainly amoraic, and quite possibly its present form dates from the beginning of the amoraic period, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 157, the time of Macrinus and of the two later Severan emperors Elagabal and Severus Alexander. See Martin Goodman, State and Society, 10 ("it is perverse to argue for [the date of compilation of t. as] anything later than c. A. D. 250, and it is very likely to be a good deal earlier in the third century".) But more recently the view has been forcefully advanced that t. is not in fact a commentary on our Mishnah, but frequently contains in unedited or lightly edited form the "stuff" out of which m. itself was created. See, for example, Shaye J. D. 28

But that king-parable cannot be treated as third-century, 6 3 and the

Tosefta,

like the Mishnah, is not a source of the parables that are the subject of this study.

Mekilta

de R. Ishmael64 is a collection of "halakhic Midrashim" - verse-

by-verse commentaries, emphasizing law, attributed to Tannaim - on the book of Exodus. Its dating is less certain than that of the other Midrash collections frequently thought of as third-century. One of its foremost editors regarded it as among the oldest rabbinic works, 65 but it has been suggested that it is as

Cohen, "Introduction," in Shaye J. D. Cohen, ed., Synoptic Problem, summarizing the article by Judith Hauptman in the same volume. See Shamma Friedman, "The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels," in Harry Fox and Tirzah Meacham, Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies, KTAV Publishing House, 1999. Most recently, Judith Hauptman has presented a refinement of her earlier views and argued that t. is both a commentary on an earlier Mishnah and a source for m. Judith Hauptman, Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach, Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005, and "The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah," Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 3 (2004), 1, http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/3-2004/Hauptman.doc. 63

1. Sotah 6:1 records R. Judah (R. Joshua in a variant witness), in the name of Ben Paturi, reading Job 27:2 ("As God lives, who has taken away my right, and Shaddai, who has embittered my soul") to teach that one does not vow by the life of the king unless one loves the king. Under the definition of king-parable I am using, see text at note 2, supra, this would be included, since it compares God to a king, although not specifically and without language of comparison. Probably uniquely it uses a verse about God to advance a rule of conduct concerning mortal kings. But Ben Paturi is not mentioned in the standard works I have relied on in dating authorities. He is presented in b. B. Metz. 62a as taking an intermediate position between those of R. Akiva and R. Yohanan on whether one should drink enough water to keep himself alive and watch his companion die. His "disagreement" with Akiva may suggest that he was earlier than that master. Aharon Hyman, Sefer Toldot Tannaim v'Amoraim, Jerusalem: Boys Town Jerusalem Publishers, 1964, dates him with the first generation of Tannaim. If an attempt were to be made to date the parable after the tradent rather than after the cited authority, it is still too early. R. Judah is probably Judah bar liai, a leading third-generation Tanna, and R. Joshua is probably Joshua ben Hananiah, a second generation Tanna. (The text of t. I have used is Tosefta, Edition of Saul Lieberman, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta, Peabody AAA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.) 64

The text of Mek. de R. Ishmael I have used is Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, paperback ed., 1976. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Lauterbach's translation. 65

Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta, xix. 29

late as the eighth century, 6 6 and this view has been favorably regarded recently. 6 7 1 accept the judgment of Daniel Boyarin that the late dating has been decisively and definitively disproved by Menahem Kahana, 68 and Boyarin's conclusion that the Mekilta

is in the main the earliest of the rabbinic Mid rash

collections, although its final rescension is later than Sifra and the

Sifres.69

Accordingly, I will treat it as on the whole providing rabbinic views with a terminus ad quern of around 250 CE, the era of the Emperors Gordian III, Philip and Decius.

Sifra70 is a collection of halakhic Midrashim on the book of Leviticus. As w e have it, it appears to be in two layers with numerous additions. It is filled with material known from Mishnah and Tosefta,

suggesting that it is later than

66

Ben-Zion Wacholder, "The date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael," Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968), 117-144. 67

Joshua L. Moss, Midrash and Legend: Historical Anecdotes in the Tannaitic Midrashim 566, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003, 33-34.

68

"The Editions of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus in the Light of Geniza Fragments," [Hebrew} Tarbiz (1986), 515-520.

69

Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 130 n.3; Daniel Boyarin, "On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim," Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1990), 455465. See also H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 255 (final redaction in second half of third century.) More recently, Boyarin has dated it somewhat later, although the inconsistency of his references may indicate only that he continues to believe its final rescension was later than Sifra and the Sifres and its compilation earlier. See Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004, 41 ("a late third-century or early fourth-century midrash"), 135 ("the fourthcentury midrash"), 137 ("late third century.") 70

The text of Sifra I have used is Sifra d'Be Rab (Torat Kohanim), Edition of I. H. Weiss. Vienna: Jacob Schlossberg, 1862. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Jacob Neusner, Sifra: An Analytical Translation, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988, which contains translations by Neusner and by some of his students.

30

both of them. 7 1 For our purposes it seems safe to date its basic core to the second half of the third century, 7 2 so that the terminus ad quern for most of the views contained in it is the period beginning with the reign of Decius.

Sifre to Numbers73 is a collection of halakhic Midrashim on much of the book of Numbers. Again, this is not a homogenous work, but it seems safe to use a rule of thumb and date it for my purposes as somewhat later than Sifra, 74

so that the terminus ad quem for most of the views contained in it is the

period beginning with the reign, say, of Valerian.

Sifre to Deuteronomy,

halakhic Midrashim on the book of Deuteronomy,

seems a bit later, 7 5 suggesting that its basic core may contain memories as late as the reign of Diocletian, thus the entire third century.

71

Sifra frequently derives from Scripture a halakhic principle that Mishnah or Tosefta states without biblical support, and this has led at least one scholar to offer Sifra as the best example of the success of the documentary premise; it may be understood as an ideologically based attempt to demonstrate that traditional law is in fact Torah based. See Joshua L. Moss, Midrash and Legend 218-19. See also Howard L. Apothaker, Sifra, Dibbura de-Sinai: Rhetorical Formulae, Literary Structures and Legal Traditions, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2003, 11-32. 72

H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 263.

73

The text of Sifre Num I have used is Hayim Shaul Horovitz, Sifre d'Be Rab: Sifre al Sefer BaMidbar, Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Jacob Neusner, Sifre to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. 74

H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 267.

75

H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 273 (but noting that the school of Chanuch Albeck would date it to the turn of the, fifth century); Steven D. Fraade, "Priests, Kings and Patriarchs: Yerushalmi Sanhédrin in its Exegetical and Cultural Settings," in Peter Schaefer, ed., The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco-Roman Culture, volume 3, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 323 (some time between the Mishnah and the Palestinian Talmud)

31

As a result, I will be treating all of the Midrash collections commonly referred to as tannaitic as in fact containing third-century material. 76

Identifying Third-Century Material in Later Documents

The most important part of the Neusnerian approach that I must deal with in order to proceed with this study is the false corollary of the unreliability of attributions, what one of Neusner's former students has called an assumption of "massive and massively skilful pseudepigraphy." 77 If I cannot

76

See Daniel Boyarin, "Tannaitic Midrashim," 457 (there is very good evidence that the tannaitic Midrashim are what they claim to be, edited collections of tannaitic Torah interpretations). After careful review, Boyarin is restating the view of an earlier period of scholarship. See, e.g., Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire Romain: Leur Condition Juridique, Economique et Sociale, New York: Burt Franklin, 1914, 21. 77

Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Introduction," discussing Richard Kalmin, "Rabbinic Portrayals of Biblical and Post-biblical Heroes" in the same volume. It has been recognized for a very long time, of course, that rabbinic attributions are not certain; at times different texts assign the same saying to a different Rabbi. Compare, for example, Lev. Rab 23:3 (attributed to R. Azariah via R. Judah bar Simon) with Song Rab.2:5 [2]: (substantially the same parable attributed to R. Simon via, first, R. Judah, and then R. Azariah.) The Song Rab. version could be treated as a third-century parable on the theory that this Simon is bar Pazzi, bar Zabdai or ben Gezirah, all third generation Amoraim, or, less likely, ben Lakish, a second generation Amora; the Lev. Rab. version would have to be dated later, since the ultimate authority there cited, Azariah, was a fifth generation Amora. The text of Lev. Rab. I have used is Midrash Vayikra Rabbah, edition of Mordechai Margolis, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Jacob Neusner, The Components of the Rabbinic Documents, From the Whole to the Parts, X, Leviticus Rabbah. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997. The text of Song Rab. I have used is Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo'ar - Shir ha-Shirim. Jerusalem, 1983. In translating this text into English I have consulted Jacob Neusner, Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1989. Such variations also occur in different manuscripts of the same text. Compare the editio princeps and Jewish Theological Seminary manuscript of Pesiq. Rab. 5:8, attributing a parable about the "king's" relations with his wife to "R. Abba," perhaps a third-generation Amora, with the Vienna and Parma manuscripts, attributing the parable to "R. Abin," at the earliest an Amora spanning the third and fourth generations and active in both locations, parables attributed to whom I have excluded from this study both because of dating and, to a lesser extent, geography. The text of Pesiq. Rab. I have used is Pesiqta Rabbati: A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based upon All Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps, edited by Rivka Ulmer, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997, which sets forth these and other manuscript variants. In translating this text into English I have consulted William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968.

32

justifiably treat as third-century material parables attributed to third-century Rabbis in works redacted later I will have to limit considerably the number of parables under consideration.

Even if we accept the documentary premise, it seems likely that the body of received materials was rich enough to provide genuine sayings for just about any point the later redactors wanted to include. In the absence of such sayings, parables could be offered anonymously, and they very often were. 78 Why would the final redactors have bothered to create false attributions? To add credibility to the saying by attributing it to a recognized master? To associate the parable with a Rabbi with whom the redactors still felt a link,79 or with whom a particular point of view or attitude was associated? Perhaps the redactors of a particular document added named attributions to fit their "document" into the genre of rabbinic literature, which featured attributed sayings. But that suggests that only the later documents would be so structured, and that attributions in the earlier documents may be believed.80 None of these possible reasons seems to make the effort worthwhile or believing in it more plausible.

78

Many examples of anonymous king-parables will be given in the course of this study.

79

See Richard L. Kalmin, Sages 3.

80

I reject the idea that the formal nature of a parable ineluctably results in changing the original words and perhaps their meaning. A somewhat changed saying in a particular Rabbi's name does not make the attribution unreliable.

33

I am convinced that an attribution may well be reliable as to the individual involved and, more important, is substantially reliable as to the period and region81 in which it originated. I will follow Christine Hayes and go an additional step: the Rabbis purposely used such attributions to preserve their understanding not only of who said what, but of when it was said.82

King-parables attributed to third-century Rabbis will be the subject of this study, along with parables from third-century sources and subject to the same limitations discussed above.831 recognize that the later the source the more caution is called for in regarding such an attribution as accurate,84 but, like a Roman historian reading an eleventh-century epitome, I will accept the possibility of the accuracy of attributions appearing even in medieval documents. As indicated above, I will consider Rabbis from the fourth generation of Tannaim through the third generation of Amoraim to be thirdcentury Rabbis, although several third-generation Amoraim continued to

81

I have excluded parables that seem to have originated in Sassanian Iraq. See Chapter 2, note 109, infra.

82

Christine Hayes, Between the Babylonian and the Palestinian Talmuds: Accounting for Halakhic Differences in Selected Sugyot from Tractate Avodah Zarah, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, 13. As a matter of presentation, however, I will frequently write as if the attribution is in fact reliable as to the individual involved. 83

Indirect attribution ("R. Y said in the name of R. X"; "R. Y said that R. X said," with R. X being a third-century Rabbi and R. Y being later, and with R. X being an earlier Rabbi and R. Y being third-century) may be thought to raise separate problems. Should an indirect attribution with R. X being a third-century Rabbi be treated as later than the third century, on the theory that the delay in attribution casts doubt on its correctness? I am inclined to go the other way, and regard the fact of the quotation as evidence of the Rabbis' drive for accuracy. See note 50, supra and accompanying text. Should an indirect attribution with R. Y being a third-century Rabbi but R. X earlier be treated as earlier than third-century? I think so, for the same reasons. 84

See H. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 40.

34

flourish in the fourth century.85 If we count the third generation of Amoraim for purposes of this study as a half generation, the earlier full generations averaged about a quarter-century each and those third generation Amoraim who worked in the third century did so for about half that.

The next chapter will identify the third-century king-parables. It will proceed, generation by generation, through third-century documents and later documents containing parables I have concluded are from the third century.86

85

Some third-generation Amoraim did not live beyond the third century; R. Eleazar ben Pedat, for example, died in 279, the same year as did R. Yohanan, probably the most prominent second-generation Amora, and five years before the accession of Diocletian ended the third century for purposes of this study. But among those who lived and worked into the fourth century were R. Levi, the most prolific source of parables, R. Abbahu and R. Judah Nesiah, the grandson and successor of R. Judah the Patriarch. See H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 86, 89-90. Special care must therefore be taken in treating parables remembered in the names of third-generation Amoraim as third-century. As a rule of thumb I have treated third generation Amoraim whose dates are unknown as if they, like Levi and Judah Nesiah, indeed lived into the fourth century. An example of the pitfalls of treating a particular Rabbi as having flourished during the entire period in which his generation is thought to have lived is Joseph Geiger, "The Tombs of Remus and Romulus: An Overlooked Source and its Implications," Estratto da Athenaeum - Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell' Antichita 92 (2004) 245, 249, which dates the third generation of Amoraim as having been "active in the first third of the fourth century" (in itself a rather late dating) and therefore dates R. Levi to the first third of the fourth century, leading to the result that a reference to "Romulus" in the Palestinian Talmud attributed to Levi is connected to the Romulus who was the son of Maxentius, whose claim to empire ended with his defeat by Constantine in 312, rather than to the Romulus who supposedly founded Rome together with his brother Remus. Geiger's article is brilliant, but would be without basis if Levi had died as early as did Eleazar. I have been unable to determine the life spans of most of the third-generation Amoraim. 86

Following Ziegler, I have considered king-parables from the following later documents, not all of which have yielded parables that I believe are third-century: the Palestinian Talmud (commentaries on the Mishnah and other sayings and discussions, from late fourth- to early fifth-century Palestine, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 170); Genesis Rabbah (one of the oldest exegetical Midrashim, that is, Amoraic exegesis of biblical verses, probably from fifth-century Palestine, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 279)·,Lamentations Rabbah (exegetical Midrashim on book of Lamentations, probably from early fifth-century Palestine, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 285): Pesiqta de Rav Kahana (homiletical Midrashim, that is, Midrashim supposedly in the form of homilies, from fifth-century or somewhat later Palestine, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 295; William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein, "Introduction," in Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975); Leviticus Rabbah (exegetical Midrashim on book of Leviticus from fifth- or sixth-century Palestine, see

35

H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 290): Avot de R. Nathan (a Palestinian compilation of uncertain date, in two versions, now appearing as one of the extracanonical tractates of the Babylonian Talmud; its editor thought its composition dates from third or fourth century, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, translated by Judah Goldin, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955, xxi; others date it later, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 226-27; it has most recently been dated to the fifth or sixth century, see Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999, 169); Song of Songs Rabbah (exegetical Midrash from mid-sixth-century, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 315, or perhaps earlier, see Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 32): Ruth Rabbah (from early sixthcentury Palestine, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 317); Pesiqta Rabbati (homiletical Midrashim of uncertain date, perhaps sixth or seventh century, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 302); the Babylonian Talmud (the Talmud par excellence, a compendium of commentaries on the Mishnah, Tannaitic, Amoraic and later sayings and discussions, Midrashim and other material, the completion of which is usually dated to seventh-century Iraq, see Michael Chernick, "Introduction," in Michael Chernick, ed., Essential Papers on the Talmud, New York and London: New York University Press, 1994, 3); Midrash on Psalms (developed in Palestine over extended period, perhaps from third to thirteenth centuries, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 323); Ecclesiastes Rabbah (exegetical Midrashim on book of Ecclesiastes from approximately eighth-century Palestine, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 318; Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The Conversion of Antoninus." in Peter Schaefer, ed., The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, volume 1, 164, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Tanhuma, in both its "standard" and Solomon Buber editions, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 303, (although core may be early fifth-century, see id. at 305, its king-parables have also been called the last in the rabbinic tradition, David Stern, Parables in Midrash 36; more recently said to be generally dated to seventh or eighth century, Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories 381 ): Deuteronomy Rabbah (a Palestinian collection of homiletical Midrashim on the book of Deuteronomy, dated somewhere between the fifth and ninth centuries, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 308); Midrash Mishle (midrashim on the book of Proverbs, of uncertain geographical origin, with advocates for Palestine, Iraq and Italy, most recently dated to the seventh to ninth centuries; see id. at 324); Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer ("rewritten Bible," rather than Midrash, by a single author in post-Islamic Palestine, perhaps eighth or ninth century, see id. at 328-330); Tanna debe Eliahu (somewhere between Babylonian Talmud and the ninth century, perhaps with earlier core; perhaps by a single author; has been described as standing midway between homiletical Midrash and an ethical treatise; ostensibly composed in Babylonia but a Palestinian origin has been suggested, see id. at 340; David Stern, Parables in Midrash 49); Exodus Rabbah (a combination of a work of exegetical Midrash on the book of Exodus and a work of homiletical Midrash thereon, perhaps from tenth-century Palestine, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 309); Midrash Samuel (based on Midrashic literature and other material not otherwise attested, some very old; quoted in a tenth-century work, see id. at 357): Esther Rabbah (a combination of materials from some time after 500 C.E. and another, later exposition of the book of Esther which combination probably took place in the twelfth or thirteenth century; Palestinian, see id. at 318-319); Numbers Rabbah (a haggadic treatment of Numbers 1-7 combined with homiletical Midrashim on Numbers 8-36 which are probably earlier than the ninth century, see id. at 310-11; another scholar has related the final document to the school of Moshe ha-Darshan in eleventh-century France, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Conversion of Antoninus" 157); Midrash Aggadah (freely revised compilation of earlier materials, produced by the school of Moshe ha-Darshan, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 355); Yalqut Shim'oni (anthology compiled from more than fifty works, some lost, by Shimon ha-Darshan in twelfth or thirteenth century, perhaps in Spain, see id. at 351; David Stern, Parables in Midrash 211; Jean Juster, Les Juifs 22);: Lekach Tob (written around turn of twelfth century by Tobiah ben Eliezer in Bulgaria, uses older

36

works, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 356); Bet ha- Midrash (a modern collection of lesser midrashim by A. Jellinek.)

37

Chapter 2: Identifying the Third-Century Rabbinic King-Parables

Of the nearly 1000 rabbinic references to kings presented and discussed by Ignaz Ziegler, plus the handful he missed,1 I have concluded that no more

1

These include the following third-century parables: Sifra Emor pereq 13:8 (Weiss ed., 102a)(proper form of sacrificial presentation compared with what one would do before a king); Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 8 (Weiss ed., 44b)(Aaron and Moses compared to king's shy wife and her sister who urges her to serve the king); Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 5 (Weiss ed., 44b) (Israel after it sins compared to expelled king's wife who waits to be forgiven); Sifra Bechukotai pereq 2:5 (Weiss ed., 111c) (Israel among the nations compared to worker who did much work and is thereby favored by king-employer); Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 14 (Weiss ed., 42a-b)(Moses performing priestly functions compared to king's wife standing in for king's daughter until she is ready to perform her duties); Sifre Deut. 28 (Finkelstein ed., 44)(Moses asking to enter the Land compared to servant who "honors" the king by complaining about the difficulty of his decree); Sifre Deut. 43 (Finkelstein ed., 98-99) (Israel sinning after entering the Land compared to son disregarding king's instructions about moderation at a banquet); Sifre Deut.343 (Finkelstein ed., 397)(lsrael among the nations compared to king's favored son); Sifre Deut. 349 (Finkelstein ed., 407)(Levites compared to creditor who repays a loan from the king and then lends to the king, Shimonites compared to creditor who does not repay and borrows more); Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 409) (Benjamin, in whose allotment the Temple was built, compared to king's favorite son); Pesiq. Rab Kah.12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211 -212)(God's treatment of Israel compared to king who does not court the woman he wants to marry until he does her some good); Pes7q.R0/j.15:1-3 (God giving calendrical authority to Israel compared to king turning his orchard over to his sons; this parable appears only in the Parma and Jewish Theological Seminary manuscripts of Pesiq. Rab., which may be why Ziegler missed it); Tanh. Ki Tisa 3 (God giving full rewards to Torah scholars who die young compared to king taking a stroll with a worker during working hours but paying him as much as the others). Ziegler missed other king-parables not coming from the third century. Undoubtedly I have missed still other third-century parables, all the more so because I made no independent effort to supplement Ziegler's work. The text of Pesiq. Rab Kah. I have used is Pesikta de Rab Kahana, edition of Bernard Mandelbaum, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. In translating this text into English I have consulted William G. (Gershon Zev) Braude and Israel J. Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana: R. Kahana's Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975. The text of the standard edition of Tanh. I have used is that of the Mantua edition as set out in Ziegler's appendix. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Midrash TanhumaYelammedenu, An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, by Samuel A. Berman, Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1996. See note 29 infra, regarding the text I have used of Solomon Buber's edition of Tanh. In counting parables, and in citing their rabbinic sources, I have counted, and cited, only the one I am treating as the earliest and have generally disregarded other sources with the same or parallel parables.

38

than 232 2 can reasonably and persuasively be identified both as king-parables and as coming from the third century. 3

These 232 parables are the topic of this study: chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 will discuss their form, their functions and their settings: chapter 7 will glean from them some of the Rabbis' "theological" ideas; chapter 8 will consider the possibility that the king-parable represents an unusual genre of literature of political resistance to an imperial occupying power, 4 and chapter 9 will examine the third-century king-parables as a source for the history of the Roman Empire in that century.

Only about 40% of these parables will be used in Chapters 8 and 9 to cast light on the conditions, events and personalities of the third-century Roman Empire or evidence the Rabbis' views of those conditions, events and personalities. Said another way, I think that the "kings" in slightly more than 140 third-century rabbinic parables were probably not thought of by the Rabbis 2

This figure is based on the parables in third-century documents not attributed to earlier Rabbis and the parables attributed to third-century Rabbis in later documents, and does not reflect the caution regarding later sources mentioned in the text at Chapter 1, note 84, supra. The occasions for exercising such caution will be indicated further on in this study by citation of the document in which a parable appears. The rough dating of rabbinic documents I have been using is set forth in the last footnote to Chapter 1, supra. 3

Subject, as always, to the caveat that parables attributed to some third-generation Amoraim may come from the early fourth century. Parables are occasionally presented in rabbinic literature in groups; whenever I refer to the number of parables in some category, I am putting their literary form over their substance and not dividing a "double" or "triple" (or greater multiple) parable into its components. For example, I count Pesiq. Rab Kah.5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102), which is made up of six parables, including four third -century king-parables, as one parable. 4

Long before the phrase "postcolonial theory" was heard anywhere, Moses Hadas, "Rabbinic Parallels to Scriptores Historiae Augustae." Classical Philology 24 (1929), 258-262 suggested that the parables revealed the attitude of an intelligent subject people to the conditions of Roman domination.

39

as Roman emperors, would-be emperors or local or regional representatives of either. 5 This is, of course, a departure from Ziegler, who treated virtually all the "kings" as Roman emperors, and is also opposed to the contemporary consensus, which regards the emperor or his representative as the principal model for the king in these parables. 6

"Kings" who are not Roman emperors

Biblical, Jewish and eastern kings

If they are not Roman emperors or their representatives, who are the "kings" in the other king-parables that I have concluded are of likely thirdcentury provenance?

Sometimes they are kings from the Bible. For example, the king to whom God is compared in one parable 7 is specifically Ahasuerus, whose scepter is

5

When they did so, the Rabbis were not alone in calling the emperor a "king." So did Herodian, e.g., III.8.6 and V.5.1, and, in the fourth century, the author of the Historia Augusta, see Severus III.9, and Eusebius, see Dale B. Martin, Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Christians, Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 2004, 218. The distinction between "legitimate" emperors and "pretenders" was often in the eye of the beholder, and seems to have depended on whether the would-be emperor was thought to have had the endorsement of the senate. 6

See note 13 and accompanying text, infra. For the opposite view, that the figure of the king is never based on Roman emperors or otherwise drawn from real life, and that treating kingparables as echoes of historical events was Ziegler's error, see Clemens Thoma, "Literary and Theological Aspects of the Rabbinic Parable," in Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyshograd, eds., Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity, 30 and n. 11, New York and Mahwah Ν J: 1989. Like the consensus, Thoma goes too far. That the figure of the "king" is based on the figure of the Roman emperor is a radically different claim than the much bolder but equally widely accepted, and even more incorrect, idea that the "king" is not a human character at all, but "only" a stand-in for God, see Chapter 4, infra. 7

Midr. Psalms 22:27.

40

treated as bringing life to the people as part of the exegesis of Esther 5:2. 8 At least one of them is a Jewish king, who enforces Torah laws concerning the produce of the sabbatical year. 9 Or they are vaguely eastern rulers, perhaps too eastern to be Roman emperors, 10 like the king whose desired wife is so poor that she owns nothing but two nose-rings. 11

Fictitious,

generic and fairy-tale

kings

Most often, they are fictitious, generic, or fairy-tale kings, some of whom are also clearly not Roman emperors or their representatives for other reasons. 12 My conclusion that most of the parables under study present kings

8

Had it not been clear that Ahasuerus should not be treated as based on a Roman emperor any more than Pharaoh in the parables in which he is mentioned, it would have been tempting to regard this parable as related to the imperial cult or to think of it as evidencing a rabbinic understanding of something like an ancient forerunner of the medieval "king's touch." Martin Goodman, State and Society 264 note 295, sees the "Ahasuerus" in these parables as representing Hellenistic kings. 9

Sifre Deut.26 (Finkelstein ed., 26-27). Ignaz Ziegler, Die Koenigsgleichnisse des Midrasch 121, who sees a Roman emperor in every "king," claims a parallel in Plutarch for the law being enforced. Martin Goodman agrees that this is a Jewish king and concludes that he was a hopedfor Davidic king. Goodman finds those kings depicted as sitting in judgment, or employing powerful pedagogues, or using trusted agents, or burdened by ungrateful sons and unfaithful wives to therefore be Herodian. Martin Goodman, State and Society 264 notes 293 and 294. I have not uncovered a methodology, as Goodman seems to have, allowing for a distinction among biblical, Hellenistic, Herodian or messianic kings in these parables. Rather, I have concluded that the majority of these kings who do not seem to be modeled on Roman emperors are fictitious, generic or fairy-tale kings. 10

It would not be surprising, however, if the Rabbis, easterners themselves, thought of the Roman emperor as an eastern monarch. u

Exod. Rab. 15:3. The text of Exod. Rab. I have used is Sh'mot Rabbah, edition of Moshe Aryeh Mirkin, in Midrash Rabbah. Tel Aviv: Yavneh Publishing House, 1959. In translating this text into English I have consulted Midrash Rabbah - Exodus, translated by S. M. Lehrman, London and Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951. 12

Daniel Bôyarin, Intertextuality 88 both compares and contrasts the king-parable with the fairy tale, but he seems to use the term "fairy tale" more technically than I do. One explanation for the presence of "kings" in the king-parables who are not based on Roman emperors or other officials and who hardly seem like kings at all is provided by the 41

who are not based on Roman emperors and my resulting disagreement with earlier scholars13 are based on careful consideration of all 232 third-century king-parables. I will not laboriously demonstrate the soundness of my conclusion with respect to every one; comparisons within three categories of parables - those about kings and their sons (constituting approximately 26% of all third-century king-parables), those about kings and their friends, and those about kings and their wives - will suffice. For convenience, I refer to the majority of the third-century king-parables as "Standard" and call those in

phenomenon described by David Stern as "regularization": the parable was originally not about a king, but as "king-parables" were standardized over time, protagonists in the secular narratives of parables became "kings" in later collections or later manuscripts. See notes 111121 and accompanying text, infra, for discussion and examples of this phenomenon. Another explanation for the presence of such "kings" in the king-parables is the possibility that the Rabbis did not always mean "king" when they used the word melek, which may also indicate a lesser authority figure. It is partly as a result of this possibility that we can never be sure that a parable that seems to model the figure of the "king" after the Roman emperor does not rather have his local or regional representative in mind, but I think that for purposes of distinguishing between "Imperial" and "Standard" parables, see text following note 13, infra, melek may be read as meaning "king." The "kings" in the Standard parables are no more modeled on the Roman governor of Syria-Palestine than they are on the emperor. 13

Most recently Galit Hasan-Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood: Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2003, 38 (king-parables use reality elements from contemporary courts of imperial royalty and provincial nobility, specifically relying on Ziegler); see David Stern, Parables in Midrash 18 (since Ziegler it has been recognized that the features of the "king" are modeled after those of the Roman Emperor), 93. As noted in Chapter 1, supra, Stern concentrated on Lamentations Rabbah, a work that contains a sizable number of third-century king-parables; the difference of opinion between us cannot be attributed to the idea that we are studying different parables. See Martin Goodman, State and Society 152 ("it seems reasonable to assume that the main patterns for regal behavior in the minds of second century rabbis would have been that of the Roman emperors.") Despite his reference to second-century Rabbis, Goodman specifically illustrates this point with a parable from a first-generation Amora, id. at 153; although the period covered by Goodman's book extends to the year 212 CE, that is, into the reign of Caracalla and the third century as defined in this study, few would date a first-generation Amora as early as 212. I do not know if either Stern or Goodman undertook the kind of quantitative analysis that is the basis for my conclusion that substantially more than half of the kings in third-century king parables are not patterned or based on Roman emperors; Hasan-Rokem's specific reliance on Ziegler for a point outside the scope of her study indicates she did not.

42

which the king seems modeled on a Roman emperor or his representative "Imperial." Kings and their sons Third-century king-parables are often about a king and his son. 14 Which of these might be understood to be Imperial king-parables, "about" Roman emperors, and therefore to reflect, among other things, the importance in the third-century empire of physical dynasticism - a significant departure from the High Empire of the second century 15 and perhaps an element in the dynastic tradition of the Jewish Patriarchate 16 - and which should be understood as Standard king-parables? I have included eighteen parables about kings and their sons among the Imperial king-parables.

14

Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 88 seems to regard the king/son-parable as the most typical type. See Martin Goodman, State and Society, 153: "The most common motif [in the king-parables] is that of the bad son and the difficulty the king has in controlling him, the normal setting for the stories being the palace and, in particular, the triclinium where they dine, and the general theme being the charmed positions of sons in the eyes of their fathers." Goodman's is an overstatement. His remark in the footnote to this sentence that there are no stories of sons being put to death, and therefore that the kings are not Herodian, seems a mistake, although I do not share the view that there is something particularly Herodian about kings putting their sons to death, especially in the world of fairy-tale kings. See note 45, infra for a parable in which a king puts his son to death, although not through a formal execution. See also note 9, supra. 15

AU of the emperors after Nerva, who replaced the Flavian dynasty, until Commodus (the son of Marcus Aurelius), from Trajan through Marcus, were adopted by their predecessors. See text preceding note 21, infra. 16

See Sacha Stern, "Rabbi and the Origins of the Patriarchate," Journal of Jewish Studies 65 (2003), 193. There is nothing intrinsic in the office of Patriarch, either as the head of the rabbinic movement or of Jews generally, which requires that sons should succeed their fathers.

43

Some of them clearly evidence the Rabbis' grasp of the importance of the dynastic principle in imperial succession; most plainly, a parable 1 7 that contrasts God, who is the first and the last and beside whom there is no other 18 with a king of flesh and blood, who has a father or a brother or a son, but also one that refers to a king who avoids his oath to kill his son on the ground that he would be left with no successor.19 Another parable, 2 0 which compares God telling Joshua to stand before Eleazar the priest to a king who made his friend his successor but told him nonetheless to attend on his son, may recall -perhaps with approval -- the pre-Commodan, pre-Severan period when only adopted sons became emperors. A third parable in this category posits a brigand whose plot against the king is executed by an attack on the king's

17

Exod. Rab. 29:5.

18

Isa 44:6.

19

Midr. Psalms 6:3. Two parallel parables, also collected in Midr. Psalms 6:3, tell of other kings who get around oaths to kill their sons, but since those kings do not specifically express concern about the succession, but only about the sons' lives, I am treating them as Standard king/son-parables. These parables belong to a genre in which the king avoids an oath by reasoning his way out of it: for example, an oath to strike his son with one hundred lashes is avoided (or fulfilled) by coiling the rope one hundred times and striking the prince once. Another example of this genre is Lev. Rab.32:2, in which the king gets around his oath that his son will not enter his palace by tearing the existing palace down and building a new one. 20

Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324).

21

Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57-58). Another reason for putting this parable in the Imperial category is that the line between "brigands" and "pretenders" can be vague and this parable can be understood as reflecting the Rabbis' awareness of the instability of the third-century throne. See generally Chapter 9, infra. I have also included as Imperial parables those that compare God giving calendrical authority to Israel with a king turning over a timepiece, or a ring, or a watchtower, or the keys to his storehouses, or even the guardianship over his orchards, or his garden, to his son or sons, on the theory that this indicates rabbinic awareness of imperial dynasticism. This is a much closer call, and these parables may indicate nothing more than rabbinic awareness that kings, 44

Other parables may reflect the roles sons played in imperial government, particularly warfare. A king is represented as wanting his sons with him in battle even when they vex him, 22 perhaps reflecting such conflicts in real-life relationships between emperors and their sons. Parables contemplate a son with a sufficiently independent role as to have his own military enemies 23 and posit a king's son himself made king over a presumably conquered group of barbarians. 24 One shows a group of imperial officials thinking that the king's rapid-fire orders are being issued to them, but eventually realizing they are directed to his son,25 and another shows the king feeding his legions but sharing his own dinner in the field with his son.26

presumably like Rabbis, tend to turn their possessions over to their children. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102); Pesiq. Rab. 15:1-3; Exod. Rab.30:9. 22

Lam. Rab.3:20 (83). The text of Lam. Rab. I have used is Midrasch Echa Rabbati, edition of Solomon Buber, Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrueder Romm, 1899. In translating this text into English I have consulted Jacob Neusner, The Components of the Rabbinic Documents, From the Whole to the Parts, IV, Lamentations Rabbah. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997.

73

Deut. Rob. 1:23. The texts of Deut. Rab. I have used are Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo'ar - Sefer Devarim. Jerusalem, 1983 and Devarim Rabbah, edition of A. A. Halevi, in Midrash Rabbah, Tel Aviv: 1963. In translating these texts into English I have consulted Midrash Rabbah Deuteronomy, translated by J. Rabbinowitz. London, Bournemouth and New York: The Soncino Press, 1951 and 1983. 24

Exod.Rob. 18:6. Ziegler here (but not elsewhere) understands the word I have translated as "barbarians" as "Berbers" and therefore locates the son's kingdom in North Africa. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996, defines the geographical term used in this passage from Exod. Rab. - bbarbbaiys' ‫ ״‬as meaning either any conquered province, or specifically Germania Barbara or Britannia when they were hostile to Rome, or North Africa. Another Imperial parable in Exod.Rab.20:14 has another king's son captured by another group of barbarians. 25

Pesiq. Rab. 21:10.

26

Exod. Rob. 30:9. 45

I have also included as Imperial those parables that use Roman titles in a context consistent with an imperial setting, 27 a parable perhaps recalling a historical fact about an emperor's son,28 and one not about a "king," but rather about "Antoninus," that is, on its face, about the Emperor of Rome. 29 By contrast, in the forty-three parables about kings and their sons that I regard as involving fictitious, generic or fairy-tale kings and therefore Standard, the characters seem to occupy a different, more fanciful, vaguer, and smaller world. None of these kings is engaged in the serious business of 27

In Mek. de R. Ishmael Amalek 2 (Lauterbach ed., 2:150-151 ), God, who has no superior, is contrasted to various officials: a low-level procurator, whose decrees can be annulled by the president of a district, who can in turn be reversed by a decurion, who can in turn be reversed by a hegëmôn, who can in turn be reversed by a prefect, who can in turn be reversed by the "great ruler"; while the phrase "great ruler" may suggest a non-Roman context, I think that consideration is trumped by the proliferation of Roman titles. In Esth. Rab.7:2, the king promotes a soldier who insulted his son through several Roman ranks before he punishes him. In y. Sotah 1(9)(17c), the king exchanges courtesies with the prefect. The text of Esth. Rab. I have used is Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo'ar - - Esther, Jerusalem, 1983. In translating this text into English I have consulted Jacob Neusner, Esther Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. 28

Gen. Rab. 77:3 shows a king's son wrestling with a professional athlete, perhaps a reference to Commodus; while this parable meets the criteria for third-century parables, the event arguably being recalled is from the second century. Such an instance of long rabbinic memory is not unusual. The text of Gen. Rab. I have used is Midrasch Bereshit Rabba, Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary by J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, second printing with additional corrections by Ch. Albeck, Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965. In translating this text into English I have consulted Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. 29

Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 185-186) (God compared to Antoninus who, after a session of judging, lit the way out for his sons.) Since this parable is attributed to R. Judah the Patriarch, the possibility that a patriarch would have been more knowledgeable about the emperor than other Rabbis is an additional reason to treat this parable as Imperial. On the other hand, I have classified Tanh. Va'era 2 (Buber ed.) 10b as a Standard parable, although it compares Pharaoh to the "cosmocrator, " a title used by Roman emperors at least from Diocletian, but perhaps earlier, on the theory that "cosmocrator," unlike "Antoninus," need not be a reference to the emperor, and the context of this parable does not seem to be Imperial. The text of the Solomon Buber edition of Tanh. I have used is Midrasch Tanhuma, Edition of Solomon Buber, Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrueder Romm, 1885. In translating this text into English I have consulted Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Rescension), translated into English with Introduction, Indices, and Brief Notes, by John T. Townsend, Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1989, 2003.

46

civil government, unlike the kings in Imperial parables who pondered their succession and presided over judicial proceedings.30 Two of these Standard parables do involve military conflict, but neither seems to be about real war; in one the king rescues his son after putting on "the cloak of revenge,"31 and in the other the king's son is captured as a child in a "province by the sea," a locale frequently encountered in fairy-tale parables, but the point of the parable is that he is not embarrassed to return.32 Thus freed from the responsibilities of government and war, the kings in Standard parables occupy themselves with the cultivation of their orchards and vineyards,33 or the management of their property34 or with exercising their psychic powers.35 They also have household duties, apparently involving rather small households for kings, that include childcare36 and, perhaps, household shopping.37

30

In Exod. Rab.38:8, the king is indeed shown as acting as a judge in a case in which his son is a party. The king puts his own purple robe on the son's advocate so that bystanders will not attack him. It is hard to count this as a depiction of the Roman emperor exercising jurisdiction or as reflecting the Rabbis' notion of how such jurisdiction was exercised. 31

Pesiq. Rab KahA2:U (Mandelbaum ed., 211).

32

Sifre Deut. 345 (Finkelstein ed., 402).

33

For this reason it might have been better to call Standard parables "garden-variety" parables. See Sifre Deut. 19 (Finkelstein ed., 31). But note that parables I have hesitantly included as Imperial on the theory that they reflect rabbinic awareness of imperial dynasticism also involve kings who are occupied with their orchards or their gardens. See note 21, supra.

34

Sifre Deut. 11 (Finkelstein ed., 19).

35

In Gen. Rai).98:5, a king foretells that a snake will bite his son.

36

Eccl. Rab. 3:11.2 (king rejects advice to keep his son home from school after an illness); Tanh. Ki Tisa 10 (Buber ed.) 56b (king feeds son from his own mouth after he comes home from school): Sifre Deut. 306 (Finkelstein ed., 330)(king requires tutor to sit and watch son); Lev. Rab.36:5 (king constantly reminds sons to praise the slave woman who raised them); Midr. Pss

47

With t i m e on their hands, these kings enjoy travel, sometimes to a province by the sea, 38 but more often to visit their son or sons.39 But these family get-togethers are not always harmonious. The king may favor one son, 40 although sometimes he is afraid to show it for fear of his other sons.41 Even when he does not favor one or more sons over others, he worries about appearing to do so. 42 Or the sons band together to protect their mother from further punishment by the king. 43 This dysfunction may follow from the fact that the activity most ascribed to these kings regarding their sons is flying into unexplained rages44

22:22 (king helps his son erect a post, perhaps on the royal homestead); Lev. Rab.22:8 (king keeps his son, who ate improper food, at his own table so that he will learn proper behavior); Gen. Rob.83:3 (king favors outsider who supplied food to his starving son.) The text of Eccl. Rab. I have used is Midrash Kohelet Rabbati, in Midrash Rabbah al Hamisha Homshei Torah v'Hamesh Migillot, volume IV, New York: KTAV Publishing House, no date. In translating this text into English I have consulted Midrash Rabbah - Ecclesiastes, translated by A. Cohen, London: Soncino Press, 1939. 37

Pesiq. Rab. 23:3 (king sends son to store to make a purchase worth 1 /20 of a dinar.)

38

Pesiq. Rab. 21:27-28.This king stays away for many years, so that when he returns his son does not recognize him and mistakes both a prefect and a dux for his father. Despite the Roman titles, this is not about a Roman emperor; it seems impossible to believe that the Rabbis thought of the emperor as someone who took lengthy vacations. 39

See e.g., Sifre Deut. 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404); Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412-413).

40

Sifre Deut.352 (Finkelstein ed., 412-413).

41

Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 397).

42

Exod. Rab. 20:14.

43

Gen. Rab.56:11.

44

Sifre Deut.45 (Finkelstein ed., 103); Midr. Pss 106:6; Midr. Pss 6:3; Midr. Pss 3:3.

48

followed by various punishments.45 Other kings -‫ ־‬or perhaps the same ones? are shown rejoicing with their sons46 and helping them win court cases.47 As for the sons, they seem no realer, and no more Roman, than their stick figure fathers. One is a baby plagued by flies;48 another burglarizes the palace49; still another disgraces himself with slave girls;50 and another develops a perverse taste for carrion.51 Others vomit, either after having eaten bad food52 or after excess at a banquet house.53 Kings, their friends and their wives Comparisons of king-parables concerning the relationship between the king and his "friends"54 yield the same results. Some seem to be "about" Roman emperors and therefore possibly relevant to, among other things, the 45

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 251-252)(exile and beatings, including beatings to death); Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103)(king wounds his son, but then plasters the wound); Lam. Rab. 1:1 (9) (dresses him below his station); Song Rab. 8:12 (1) (turns him over to a servant for a beating.)

46

Pesiq. Rab Kah.28:9 (Mandelbaum ed., 432).

47

Exod. Rab.38:8.

48

Gen. Rab.69:3.

49

Gen. Rab.63:5.

50

Pesiq. Rab Kah.20:6 (Mandelbaum ed., 314-315).

51

Lev. Rab.22:8.

52

Sifra Kedoshim pereq 12:14 (Weiss ed., 93d).

53

Sifre Deut. 43.

54

In Roman usage "friend" - amicus in Latin-is a technical term meaning either a patron or a client, and the Rabbis often seem to be using the Hebrew equivalent - ,aliùb ‫ ״‬in the same sense. Obviously, the emperor's, or a king's, "friend" would be his client, not his patron. The words patronus and cliens were avoided by patrons in favor of amicus, out of some sort of notion of good taste, but not by clients, and thus they appear in inscriptions. See Richard Sailer, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, paperbacked., Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2002, 9-11.

49

importance of patronage in and to the empire and to explanations of the relations of emperors with others, 55 but most do not. In Imperial parables, the Rabbis present kings as giving their friends preferential treatment in office, 56 in property, 57 in influence 58 and in prestige. 59 And the Rabbis may have understood that Roman-style patronage was a matter of reciprocal exchange and of potential interpersonal difficulty. 60 But in Standard parables the relationship is different: the king prefers a small meal with his friend to a great banquet, 61 asks his friend to collect his lost daughter, whom he has spotted gathering in the stubble fields, 62 or gives his daughter to his friend in marriage because of his great affection for him. 63 When a king is just a king, a friend is

55

See Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society 115; Chapter 9, notes 149-151 and accompanying text, infra. 56

Pesiq. Rab. 14:17-18 (king offers his friend, whom he loved "excessively," any preferment he wishes; friend settles on asking for the king's daughter in marriage); Exod. Rab.37:2 (king's friend made comes and praetor, while friend's brother is made stratēģos). 57

Lev. Rab.5:6 (king honors friend with a fine gift and displays it at the entrance to the palace); Song Rab. 1:1 (9)(king gives jewels to a senator or council member (Hebrew: bûlyôtôs) not specifically identified as the king's 'aliüb but as someone great in the king's household). See also Deut. Rab.3:3, involving financial transactions between a king and his friend; in one element of this double parable, the friend's son gets assistance from officials with Roman titles. See note 27 and accompanying text, supra, for when such titles serve as markers of a parable belonging in this category. 58

Gen. Rab.41(42):3 (king protects a province only because his friend is there); Gen. Rab.74:7, 74:7 (king speaks confidentially with his friend on the triclinium.) 59

Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d)(king makes a holiday for a new friend.)

6υ

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211 )(king's friend showers king's son with precious stones; king in reaction gives son even more.) See generally Richard Sailer, Personal Patronage. 61

b. Sukkah 55b.

62

Song Rab. 6:12 (1.)

63

Deut.Rab.8:7. There is no reason to support the attractive idea that this is the daughter and the friend from Song Rab. 6:12 (1.) 50

just a friend. But not always: one parable has the king redeeming his friend's son, who had been taken captive, but, without explanation, making him a slave. 64 The situation is no different when w e look at parables about kings and their wives. Only five parables about a king and his wife - "Matrona" -

might

be "about" Roman emperors. One king refuses the courtesies due his station when he enters a province until Matrona receives them first, 6 5 perhaps a rabbinic recollection of Julia Domna, who had been highly honored during Septimius Severus' reign, 66 as might be the parable in which anyone who comes between the king and Matrona when they are in conversation is liable to death. 6 7 Rabbinic support for the truth of the rumors of infidelity that attached to many empresses may be reflected in the parable in which Matrona, with the king's knowledge, burns his portrait in order to warm up her lover, 68 although

64

Sifre Num. 115 (Horowitz ed., 127-128).

65

Pesiq. Rab Kah.9:10 (Mandelbaum ed., 157-158).

66

See Anthony Birley, Septimius Severus 115-116 ("Mother of the Camp"), 245 n. 35 ("Augusta"). Other possible historical identifications of this Matrona are offered in Chapter 9, notes 66 and 191-192 and accompanying text, infra.

67

Deut. Rab. 1:21.

68

Lam. Rab. 1:9 (322.) I have included another king/Matrona parable as Imperial for an unusual reason. As will be discussed at some length in Chapter 3, infra, most king-parables have two principal parts: a secular narrative to which a biblical verse or a statement about God or Israel or some biblical or rabbinic figure will be compared, and a conclusion making the comparison. In the other Imperial parables the reason for classifying them as Imperial is in the secular narrative; that, for example, is where we encounter the king who insists that Matrona be attended first and the king who objects to having his portrait burned to please Matrona's lover. The secular narrative of this parable as set forth in all the witnesses, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 305-306), Lam. Rab.3:21 (87) and Pesiq. Rab. 21:34, would place it in the Standard category: the king gives Matrona a great deal of property in their wedding contract; he goes off to a province by the sea for many years, see text at note 32, supra; and she comforts herself and resists efforts by her friends to find her another husband by reading and re-reading the wedding contract. But in Lam. Rab. and in all five witnesses of Pesiq. Rab. 51

support for the faithfulness of such empresses may be found in the parable in which t h e king investigates such charges, dismisses them, and honors the man with whom Matrona had been linked. 69 Standard parables, on the other hand, depict the king merely engaged in a difficult 7 0 or prolonged 71 courtship or suggest that such courtships were misguided. Matrona 1's too shy72 or the king otherwise finds p e t t y fault with her 73 or she loses things. 74 He may abandon her, 75 but most of all, he becomes angry with her, 7 6 as he does with his sons.77

contained in Rivka Ulmer's synoptic edition, the second part of the parable compares the To rah to this wedding contract and the efforts of the nations of the world to make Israel abandon God with promises that they will make Israel dux, prefect and high officer to the efforts of Matrona's friends. This use of Roman titles in the conclusion caused me to classify this parable as Imperial. Because king-parables, like other subgenres of rabbinic literature, can be read for many purposes, the folklorist Galit Hasan-Rokem reads this parable as an example of rabbinic writings about the relations between neighbor women, although she quickly notes that these neighborly relations can stand for interreligious relations. Tales of the Neighborhood 40-41. 69

Lev. Rab.27:8.

70

Exod. Rab.21:5.

71

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed.,211 -212).

72

Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 8 (Weiss ed., 44b).

73

Gen. Rab.46:4 (king finds Matrona's little fingernail too big.)

74

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 243) (myrtle branch; does this make him a Jewish king?); Deut. Rab.3:7 (precious stones); Exod. Rab.42:8 (pearls.)

75

Pesiq. Rab. 21:27-28. This is the same parable mentioned above in connection with the king traveling to a province by the sea.

76

Num. Rajb.21:16 (specifically after a prolonged and difficult courtship); Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 5 (Weiss ed., 44b); Sifre Deut. 43 (Finkelstein ed., 102); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:5 (Mandelbaum ed., 306-307); Gen. Rab.56:11 (this is the same parable mentioned above in connection with sons banding together to protect their mother); Song Rab. 6:5 (1); Deut. Rab. 1:2; Exod.Rab. 15:16; Pesiq. Rab. 28:12-14 (expels her for refusing to serve him a cup; she remarries a pockmarked man, and refuses to serve him too.) 77

See notes 44-45 and accompanying text, supra.

52

Periodization Dealing with even 232 parables all at once is unnecessarily cumbersome; subdividing them according to historical periods may offer significant presentational and heuristic value.78 Using the traditional method of dating the Rabbis to whom parables are attributed, 79 these historical periods number six, coinciding with the careers of the fourth and fifth generations of Tannaim; the first and second generations of Amoraim; those members of the third generation of Amoraim, like R. Eleazar ben Pedat, who we know did not live into the fourth century; and, finally, those members of the third generation of Amoraim who we know did, like R. Levi, R. Abbahu and R. Judah Nesiah.80 Since Mekilta de R. Ishmael seems to have come from the period in which the first generation of Amoraim flourished, anonymous parables from Mekilta are periodized along with that generation. On the same theory, anonymous parables from Sifra and Sifre to Numbers are combined with those of the second generation of Amoraim, and anonymous parables from Sifre to Deuteronomy accompany those attributed to the third generation.81 These rabbinic generations also generate useful periodization of thirdcentury imperial history.

78

See Chapter I, note 85, supra.

79

See Chapter I, note 3, supra.

80

See Chapter I, note 85 and accompanying text, supra.

81

See Chapter I, notes 64-76 and accompanying text, supra.

53

The period of the fourth generation of Tannaim is approximately that of the twenty-year combined reign of Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla, a period with continuing claims to being Antonine. The fifth generation of Tannaim might have remembered those emperors but also know new sorts of emperors -- Macrinus, the first emperor not from the senatorial class; the later Severans, not only youthful easterners but apparently a drag queen and a mama's boy; and Maximinus, the first to rise from the military ranks. The first generation of Amoraim might also have known of the series of random events that constituted the Gordian revolt and culminated in the acclamation of another böy-emperor, Gordian III; Gordian's eastern war ended by Philip the so-called "Arab," under whom troop rebellions and barbarian difficulties began in earnest; and Decius, who may or may not have persecuted the Christians. The second generation of Amoraim might have been witnesses also to the earlier Danubian soldier-emperors and the increasing instability of the empire under those emperors, including Valerian (who was captured in war by Persia); his son, the controversial Gallienus; and Claudius II (who may or may not have deserved his reputation as victor over the Goths), as well as the rise in the east of Palmyra under Odenathus and the "divided empire" in east and west. The third generation would complete the third century, perhaps with additional knowledge of the reuniting of the empire under Aurelian, including

54

his defeat of Odenathus' widow Zenobia, while the longer-lived members of the third generation would go beyond the period of this study into the fourth century and the reign of Diocletian and perhaps even that of Constantine. Accordingly, this study will treat king-parables as coming from the following six periods, named after both rabbinic generations and imperial history: T4/Early Severan; T5/Later Severan; A1 /Mid-century; A2/Divided Empire; A3a/Reunited Empire; and A3b/Transitional. I recognize that the borders between these periods, like the generations of the Rabbis and the dating of those generations, are quite porous. In an attempt to make them somewhat less so and to establish a modicum of consistency, I have adopted some rules. A Rabbi who shares his name with others has been treated as the one suggested as the most prominent among them, or the most prominent haggadist among them, according to the standard works on which I have relied for dating Rabbis.82 When none seems to be more prominent than the others, but all are third-century, I have dated parables attributed to a Rabbi of a common name to the period in which the latest of them is thought to have flourished. Of the roughly two dozen Rabbis to whom parables discussed in this study are attributed, those standard works disagree about only four83 and in

82

Chanuch Albeck, Mavo le-Talmudim and H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction. Thus I have assumed that "Eleazar" is Eleazar ben Pedat and that "Isaac" is Isaac Nappaha. In addition, when a parable is attributed to "R. Hiyya," a name borne by both a third-century Tanna and a third-century Amora, and the text says that he "taught" the parable, rather than that he "said" it, I have concluded that the Rabbi behind the parable was the Tanna. 83

Albeck treats R. Shimon ben Halafta as a first-generation Amora; Strack and Stemberger regard him as a fifth-generation Tanna. Albeck counts R. Hama ben Haninah, R. Reuben and R. Judah ben Simon as third-generation Amoraim, while Strack and Stemberger call Hama and

55

each case only by one generation; I have placed these Rabbis in the later of the two proposed generations. When I have no knowledge of the life span of a third-generation Amora, a leading example of whom is R. Isaac Nappaha, I have, on the same principle, assumed that he lived into the fourth century along with Levi, Abbahu and Judah Nesiah and have placed him in A3b/Transitional. Similarly, anonymous parables from Sifre to Deuteronomy are located in A3b/Transitional.84 Parables attributed to a third-generation Amora and transmitted by a later tradent have been placed in A3b/Transitional, even if they would otherwise be classified in A3a/Reunited Empire, to take some account of possible flaws in transmission. Parables ultimately attributed to a Rabbi whom I cannot date, but transmitted by a third-century tradent whom I can, have been dated according to the tradent. 85 Rabbis classified as between the third and fourth generations, like R. Abin, are regarded as fourth generation and their parables have been excluded. Multiple86 and other parables attributed to more than one Rabbi in the same source, and parables attributed to different Rabbis in different sources, have Reuben second-generation, and Judah fourth- generation. Accordingly, I have treated Judah ben Simon as fourth-generation and therefore fourth century and outside the scope of this study. To take some account of the earlier dating by Strack and Stemberger, I have counted Kama and Reuben as part of A3a/Reunited Empire and not A3b/Transitional on the theory that Strack and Stemberger's dating may indicate that Hama and Reuben did not live into the reign of Diocletian. 84

Compare Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The Conversion of Antoninus," 169, who writes that the third generation of Amoraim are usually dated to the fourth century, as defined in this study, and David Stern, Parables in Midrash 125, who dates R. Isaac Nappaha, a third-generation Amora who I have placed in A3b/Transitional, to the first half of the third century. 85

Because of the increased uncertainty, even when the tradent would otherwise belong in A3a/Reunited Empire, I have placed the parable in A3b/Transitional. 86

See note 3, supra.

56

been dated according to the latest of them or, when they are from the same period, to the more prominent of them, while parables attributed to a thirdcentury Rabbi in one source and to a Rabbi from another century or presented anonymously in another source I have consulted have been treated as not coming from the third century. The Parables by Period Ten parables seem to come from the T4/Early Severan Period, all of them preserved in documents stemming from subsequent periods.87 Nine of these parables are attributed to fourth-generation Tannaim, including five to R. Judah the Patriarch,88 with no other Tanna being credited for more than one.89 Another parable, recorded anonymously in the Mekilta90 and therefore otherwise to be regarded as coming from the A1 /Midcentury period, is followed in the text with a comment on it by Judah the Patriarch, and thus I am treating

87

There are no king-parables in documents coming from the T4/Early Severan period, See Chapter 1, note 60 and accompanying text, supra.

88

Mekilta de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1:185-186) (God compared to Antoninus who, after a session of judging, lit the way out for his sons,) can also be read as the redactors of Mekilta taking an earlier Antoninus story attributed to Judah the Patriarch and adding a parable to it. I have usually concluded in such cases that the parable and the attribution do indeed go together. For parables as to which I have made the opposite conclusion, see note 109, infra. 89

Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324) can also be read as the redactors adding the parable to a freestanding remark by R. Nathan that Moses was disappointed not to have been succeeded by one of his sons. Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236), comparing a royal servant assigned to be custodian of straw and jealous of his colleague who got a better assignment with nations of the world struggling with the Noachide commandments, can also be read as the redactors adding the parable to a free-standing remark by R. Shimon ben Eleazar about the nations of the world being unable to deal with the 613 commandments. 90

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236).

57

the parable as contemporary with him or slightly earlier. 9 1 Six of these parables come from third-century documents, one each from the Babylonian Talmud and Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, while two, both attributed to Judah the Patriarch, come from Ecclesiastes Rabbah, suggesting a 500 year gap between the parable as attributed and as redacted. 9 2 These ten parables are equally divided between Standard and Imperial king-parables. Only three parables seem to come from the T 5 / L a t e r Severan period, all from fifth- or sixth-century collections, 93 and all attributed to R. Hiyya the Elder. 94 Of these, only one, the parable about the king who wanted his vexing sons with him when he went into battle, 9 5 may be treated as Imperial.

91

It is also possible that a redactor or editor of Mek. de R. Ishmael took an earlier saying by Judah the Patriarch and attached it to a later parable.

92

See Chapter 1, "Identifying Third-Century Material in later Documents," for why I think this is appropriate. While I would not ordinarily treat Eccl. Rab. and other collections of more or less its time, as so late as to require extra caution in accepting an attribution, the fact that these parables are attributed to Judah the Patriarch, the supposed author of the Mishnah and probably the most celebrated Rabbi of all, suggests that such caution is appropriate. In Eccl. Rab.5:10.2, God, who on death takes only the soul, is compared to a king who takes only his portion from the produce of a vineyard leased to a tenant farmer. In Eccl. Rab.9:5.8, God, who will reward the righteous in the world to come, is compared to a king who allows only those invited guests who acted intelligently to attend a banquet. I am unable to make a judgment based on the content of these parables as to whether they come from Judah the Patriarch or from his time. 93

Lam. Rab.3:20 (83); Song Rab. 6:12 (1); Song Rab. 8:12 (1.)

94

Two out of three begin "R. Hiyya taught." The third is attributed to Hiyya the Elder on the theory that he is the most prominent of the Hiyyas. See note 82 and accompanying text, supra. R. Hiyya the Elder was a student and perhaps a relative of Judah the Patriarch, H. L. Strack and Gunter Stemberger, Introduction, 82, and therefore may have had more insight than others concerning imperial events and personalities. See Chapter 1, note 3, supra. Tanh. Pekude 4, a late source, attributes a parable to R. Hiyya, without a patronymic, and ordinarily I would have cautiously assigned it to Hiyya the Elder, but Exod. Rab.51:5, another late source, attributes the same parable to R. Hiyya bar Abba, a third-generation Amora, with the result that pursuant to the text following note 86, supra I am relying on the attribution in Exod. Rab. (In another instance, a Tanh. source conforms to Exod. Rab. in attributing a parable to Hiyya bar Abba. Compare Tanh. Va'era 2 (Buber ed.) 10b with Exod. Rab. 5:14.) 95

See note 22, supra, and accompanying text. 58

It is clear, therefore, that the king-parable is essentially an amoraic phenomenon;96 almost 95% of the third-century king-parables will be placed in the A1 /Midcentury or later periods. The forty-two king-parables assigned to the first amoraic period include twelve anonymous parables collected in the Mekilta, five parables from Pesiqta de Rab Kahana and seven from Exodus Rabbah, quite a late document.97 Fourteen parables are attributed to a single Rabbi, R. Joshua ben Levi,98 who thus emerges as the earliest of the great third-century parablists.99 Almost 70% of these parables are Standard, a higher percentage than that for the third century as a whole. And forty-four more come from the A2/Divided Empire period, including eight anonymous parables in Sifra and six in Sifre to Numbers. Eleven later collections provide the other parables, with seven coming from each of Pesiqta Rabbati, six from Pesiqta de Rab Kahana and five from Midrash on Psalms. The

96

Indeed, almost 59% of all the third-century king-parables seem to come from the time of the third generation of Amoraim. See note 105, infra, and accompanying text. See David Stern, Parables in Midrash, 7. Among the other scholars who have noticed that parables are an amoraic phenomenon is Peter Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse und das Neue Testament: Die Gleichnisse der PesK im Vergleich mit den Gleichnissen Jesu und dem Neuen Testament, Bern, Frankfurt, New York and Paris: Peter Lang, 1988, 24. If David Stern means by a "tannaitic parable" a parable from a Tanna, rather than a parable from a document usually classified as tannaitic, it is not enough to say that they were not regularized as to form; they were rare. See also Stern's response to Daniel Boyarin, "Rhetoric and Interpretation: The Case of the Nimshal (with response from David Stern)," Proof texts 5 (1985), 268, 276. 97

See the final footnote to Chapter 1, supra.

98

Five of these are from later collections. Joshua may have had close ties with the Patriarch. See Lee I. Levine, Rabbinic Class 158.

99

These include four attributed to R. Shimon ben Halafta, which, if Strack and Stemberger's dating is preferred over Albeck's, see note 83, supra, would be treated as coming from the T5/Later Severan period.

59

dominant figures of the second generation of Amoraim, R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish,100 also dominate the field of king-parables: Yohanan alone is credited with twelve; Resh Lakish alone with eleven;101 they are presented together with contrasting elements of multiple parables in another two; and, very unusually, are represented, in effect, as speaking together in one other parable. The percentage of these parables that are Standard is less than was the case in the previous period. Only seventeen parables have been assigned to the A3a/Reunited Empire period as a result of including Rabbis in this period only if either the ultimate authority or the tradent is known to have died before the end of the third century or if one of the two standard reference books placed the authority in the second generation of Amoraim.102 Of these seventeen parables, ten are attributed to R. Eleazar ben Pedat, the only third-generaton Amora known to have died before the accession of Diocletian,103 and one other is transmitted by Eleazar from another third-generation Amora, who must have put forth the parable while Eleazar was still alive. Five of these eighteen parables are attributed to R. Hama, and one to R. Reuben, the two third-generation Amoraim whose death dates are unknown who are nonetheless assigned to the 100

Yohanan and Resh Lakish seem to have had a relationship with the Patriarch, although Resh Lakish's may have been a stormy one. See Lee I. Levine, Rabbinic Class 132, 152, 156-58. 101

With two apiece coming from later collections, one each from Exod. Rab., one for Yohanan from Deut. Rab., and one for Resh Lakish from a Tanh. source. 102

103

See note 83 and accompanying text, supra.

Including one indirectly, in which Judah Nesiah is shown correcting R. Samuel bar Nachman by citing an interpretation, including a parable, from R. Eleazar, identified by that Patriarch as Samuel's teacher, y. Hag. 2(1) (77c.)

A3a/Reunited Empire period.104 These parables are fairly widely distributed among the sources, although six come from Genesis Rabbah; only one, attributing a parable to Eleazar, comes from one of the later sources. The percentage of them that is Standard is less than for the A2/Divided Empire period. It is hard not to believe that a substantial number of the remaining 119 parables placed in the A3b/Transitional period - over 51% of all the thirdcentury king-parables - 1 0 5 in fact originated in the A3a/Reunited Empire period. Said another way, a substantial number of the king-parables attributed to such as R. Levi and R. Abbahu, who are known to have lived and worked into the fourth century, must have come from the earlier part of their careers, and perhaps a greater percentage of those attributed to Rabbis, like R. Isaac, whose death dates I have been unable to learn, should have been assigned to the A3a/Reunited Empire period.106 Of these 119 parables, twenty-two are recorded anonymously in Sifre to Deuteronomy, with the others found in subsequent collections, including about

104

See note 83, supra.

105

With the result that almost 59% of all the third-century parables are either attributed to third-generation Amoraim (from A3a/Reunited Empire and A3b/Transitional combined) or come anonymously from Sifre Deut. 106

For similar reasons, a meaningful number of the anonymous king-parables in Sifre Deut. probably originated in the A3a/Reunited Empire period. These considerations make it appropriate again to emphasize the uncertainty involved in dating the generations of Rabbis. Compare for example the dating of R. Levi to the first third of the fourth century in Joseph Geiger, "The Tombs of Remus and Romulus" with the dating of R. Isaac to the first half of the third in David Stern, Parables in Midrash 123. Here both Levi and Isaac are dated to the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century as defined in this study, that is, the second half of the calendar third century. See Chapter I, note 85, supra.

61

a third from the later collections of Ecclesiastes Rabbah, Deuteronomy Rabbah, Exodus Rabbah (itself providing thirteen), Esther Rabbah and the Tanhuma sources. Ten parables are attributed to R. Isaac, nine to R. Abbahu, seven to R. Samuel bar Nachman and five to R. Abba bar Kahana. Forty parables - more than three times as many as have survived from the two tannaitic periods combined and almost as many as have come down from each of the A1 /Midcentury and A2/Divided Empire periods - are understood to have come from a single Rabbi, R. Levi.107 As a result, later chapters will mention Levi's parables in a class of their own in the hope of revealing something about Levi as a parablist, as an exegete, as a preacher, as a leader of an elite within an occupied nation, as someone aware of conditions, events and personalities of the Roman Empire, and, perhaps, as a man.108 A higher percentage of the parables from this period are Imperial than was the case with earlier periods, while Levi's are almost equally divided between Standard and Imperial.

"King-Parables" in Zeigler's Work That are Not Third-Century King Parables The numerate reader may be wondering what happened to the other 775-odd "king-parables" collected by Ignaz Zeigler at the beginning of the

107

Including a dozen from such later collections. As was the case with R. Judah the Patriarch, see note 92, supra, it seems possible that, due to Levi's eminence, later editors and redactors attributed parables to him that were not in fact his, perhaps as part of the "regularization" process, see 119, infra. 108

Specific attention will also be afforded, for the same reasons, to parables attributed to Joshua ben Levi, Yohanan, Resh Lakish, Isaac Nappaha, Abbahu, Samuel bar Nachman and Abba bar Kahana. But see Chapter 1, notes 81-82, supra, and accompanying text, which emphasizes that attributions in rabbinic literature are more reliable for the time from which they come than for the particular Rabbi.

62

twentieth century. I have excluded them principally for one of three reasons: they are not parables; they are not about kings; they are not from the third century. 109 Not parables Five of Zeigler's references to kings are simply not parables; four are elements of the Mishnah's version of the "torah of the king," the legal rules governing the conduct of a Jewish king, and one is a descriptive statement about something kings do. 110

109

This is the reason that the sole king-parable from the Tosefta has been excluded. See Chapter 1, note 63 and accompanying text, supra. In addition, I have excluded any parable concerning which I have concluded that the parable is not part of the attribution, such as Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:22 (Mandelbaum ed., 220)(king goes out to the field with others as handsome as he is; attached to a related remark by R. Eleazar ben Pedat); Lam. Rab.3‫׳‬A (7) (parable about king getting angry at Matrona attached to remark by R. Levi on another subject); Song Rab. 3:6 (3) (parable about king's son wrestling with bandit chief inserted between two similar statements, the first attributed to Levi, about how Jacob knew the wresting angel would not prevail against him; see note 28, supra, and accompanying text for a parallel to this parable in which the counterpart of the bandit chief is an athlete; his familiarity with this parallel is probably the reason why Jacob Neusner here read 'arkîlîstîm as "athletes" in his Song of Songs Rabbah): Midr. Pss 4:4 (parable about the roles of the king and his council weak and unnecessary to make point already made by R. Hosheah); Deut. Rab.7:4 (conclusion of parable about a gardener-king is a repetition of a remark by R. Shimon ben Halafta that preceded the parable). Compare those parables discussed in notes 88, 89 and 91, supra. While I might have included parables attributed to Babylonian Amoraim on the theory that they traveled to Palestine and may well have had knowledge about Roman matters even in Iraq, I did not. Zeigler presented very, very few parables with Babylonian origins, one of which, from Pesiq. Rab Kah. and attributed to Rab, is a parallel of a parable already included, and only one other of which, in which the king worries about the temptations of zënût faced by his daughter (Lev. Rab.23:7) may indicate a rabbinic view of the imperial family and therefore be Imperial. 110

See Chapter 1, note 61, supra; Steven D. Fraade, "The Torah of the King (Deut 17:14-20)," 39. The fifth such example is Lev. Rab.6:5, a statement by R. Isaac that kings have their legions swear by the sword and say that a broken oath will result in that very sword cutting the offender's throat. In Lev. Rab. this statement is not about a king, as it became in Yal., although Isaac may well have known that it was often the case that the emperor led the legions in person. The text of Yal. I have used is the Warsaw edition of 1887 set out in Ziegler's appendix. See notes 111-121, infra, and accompanying text.

63

Not about kings Another group has been excluded because they do not appear to have been about kings when they were first recorded.111 Thus, in discussing the exegetical problem of whether God created the heavens or the earth first, an early parable112 compares the creation of the world to people putting up buildings, while in several later parallels, the comparison is to construction by a king.113 In Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, R. Levi compares the windows of the Temple to those in the dwelling of "a man"; that man has been transformed into a king in Leviticus Rabbah; Leviticus Rabbah appears to be somewhat later than Pesiqta de Rab Kahana,114 although Jacob Neusner disagrees and claims that shared material in these two collections are primary to Leviticus Rabbah."5 These transformations continue in even later collections. The man in a fifth- or sixth-century collection who hired workers to fill up a hole is a king by a twelfth or thirteenth-century one.116 The Babylonian Talmud,117 usually dated

111

See the final footnote in Chapter 1, supra, for the rough dates I am using for the various collections of rabbinic literature. 112

Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 8 (Lauterbach ed., 64).

113

The earliest of these seems to be Gen. Rab. 1:15. David Stern, Parables in Midrash 21 claims several such switches from tannaitic to amoraic material, and some within the tannaitic corpus, but I have located few from tannaitic to amoraic switch, and none solely within the tannaitic corpus. 114

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5 (Mandelbaum ed., 323); Lev. Rab. 31:7. Similarly a judge in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 406) is a king in Lev. Rab.30:2, a parable attributed to R. Abin, a fourth-century Rabbi. 115

E.g., Jacob Neusner, How Not To Study Judaism 7.

116

Compare Lev. Rab. 19:2 with Yal. I sec. 863. See also note 120, infra.

64

to the seventh century, offers a parable about a man who cultivates and waters his garden; in the twelfth century Tobiah ben Eliezer made this man into a king in Lekach Tob Genesis,118 or transmitted an intervening tradition that had done so. 119 It thus appears that Amoraim and later Rabbis preferred that kings be included among a parable's characters, perhaps merely as a m a t t e r of literary preference or "genre" or "regularization" or habit, 1 2 0 which may explain why so many "kings" in the Standard parables under study do not behave like kings and need not be kings, those who tend orchards and gardens, who hire

117

b. Sanh. 39b.

118

The text of Lekach Tob I have used is that of the Solomon Buber edition included in Zeigler's appendix. 119

Sometimes the source thought of as earlier is the one with the king, and the later with the commoner. Pesiq. Rab. 29/30A: 2, a collection of uncertain date but perhaps the sixth or seventh century, compares a necklace a king gave his son with the letters of the Torah, and that king is no longer a king in Deut. Rab.4:2, dated somewhere between the fifth and the ninth centuries. Again, Deut. Rab. may be preserving an earlier version of the parable. While Deut. Rab. attributes this parable to R. Levi, it is anonymous in Pesiq. Rab. ; accordingly, and on the assumption that Pesiq. Rab. is earlier, I have not treated this parable as Levi's or otherwise as third-century. David Stern, Parables in Midrash 21 refers to turning commoners into kings as part of the process of "regularization" of style. Attributing a previously anonymous parable to R. Levi, the outstanding parablist, might also be "regularization," in which case Deut. Rab. could be thought of as here simultaneously regularizing and deregularizing a received text. A king collecting taxes in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:7 (Mandelbaum ed., 412) is merely a tax collector in the substantially later Eccl. Rab.9:5.7; perhaps this is attributable to scribal error. 120

This possibility is reinforced by the fact that there are no parables about kings, using the word melek, but only about "one" or "rich men" or "lords" in the quite late Tan. Eli. If indeed this is by a single author, it may simply mean that he did not share this preference. Or its composition in post-Muslim Iraq, if indeed that was where it was composed, resulted in less emphasis on kings or emperors. His "one" became a king at least once in Yal. Compare Tan. Eli. 1 with Yal. Shim'oni I sec. 826.The texts of Tan. Eli. I have used are Tanna debe Eliahu, Jozefow: 1852 and that of the Freidmann edition included in Ziegler's appendix.

65

workmen, who build buildings, who take trips, as well as many of those who look after their children, dine with their friends, and fight with their wives.121 Two other parables that Ziegler included are not about kings in different ways. One attributes to R. Samuel bar Nachman a parable comparing God who governs heaven and earth to a general (rather than a king) who governed in a Roman province and in a colonic1122 and demonstrates that the tendency to populate parables with kings was not universal. Another,123 in which Resh Lakish compares God accompanying Abraham and Isaac to a Jewish Patriarch who walks with the elders, may show that Rabbis, especially those close to the Patriarch, 124 were not so ready to change a Patriarch into a king. Not

third-century

Too early A substantial number of the king-parables in Zeigler's work are attributed to Rabbis from the second and earlier centuries. Some of them serve to justify my insistence of taking attributions just as seriously in third-century documents as in later ones.125 For example, R. Judah bar liai, a leading thirdgeneration Tanna, is cited as comparing the practice of biblical rulers who felt 121

See notes 12-77, supra, and accompanying text.

122

Deut. Rab. 10:4. As indicated above, my references to Roman emperors are meant to include references to their representatives, such as this governor and general, although this parable may indicate that the Rabbis knew a governor when they encountered one. The Hebrew word qâlânëyâ is a loan word from Latin. My source for the derivations of loan words from Latin and Greek is Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary. 123

Gen. Rab. 30:10.

124

See note 100, supra.

125

See Chapter 1, note 41, supra.

66

they had nothing because they did not have dwellings in the Land of Israel with the custom "now followed" by kings who feel they have nothing if they have no villas in Rome.126 If, as Neusner's documentary premise would have it, this is to be regarded as evidence of third-century, rather than second-century, events and conditions, it might be advanced as relevant to the question of whether the Emperor Maximinus ever visited Rome and questions concerning the background of the Emperor Decius.127 But Judah was long dead when Maximinus and Decius reigned. Similarly another parable128 is not evidence that the thirdcentury Rabbis thought the pro-Caesar (Hebrew: ,antîqêysar, defined as the highest dignitary next to the Emperor)129 had the job of being an advance man for the army, although such a view may have been held by R. Shimon ben Yochai, the second-century Tanna to whom this and many other king-parables are attributed. 130

126

Sifre Deut. 353 (Finkelstein ed., 414-415).

127

On Maximinus, see Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 439 (neither went to Rome nor sought senatorial recognition); D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, 25, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990 (never went to Rome). On Decius' background, Sir Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta, 196, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971 makes much of his rare and almost unique status as a senator and consul from the Danubian regions. 128

Sifre Num. 82 (Horowitz ed., 79).

129

Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary.

130

Nor is the parable attributed to the school of R. Ishmael in b. Hag. 12b evidence of thirdcentury rabbinic knowledge of the custom of salutatio, except to the extent that if Ishmael's students knew about it in the second century, later Rabbis might also have known of it and except to the extent that such "schools" continued into the third century.

67

Too late 131 A substantial number of the parables collected by Ziegler are attributed to fourth-century and later Rabbis. Since I have confined this study to parables that originated in the third century, they have of course been excluded despite the possibility of unattested or mistaken transmission from the third century. Some that may reflect later memories of the conditions, events and personalities of the third century will be briefly mentioned here. They seem to reflect the importance of the armies to the third-century emperor, the way the legions were financed and the difficulties of financing them. 1 3 2 They may also reflect the various rebellions and rival emperors of the third century. 1 3 3 Others might recall specific third-century conditions, events and personalities, like the importance of the east, 134 the power of such prefects as Plautianus under

131

See text preceding note 85, supra. I have also classified as too late a fascinating parable concerning the "Cosmocrator" from y. 'Abod. Zar. 3:1 (42c) attributed to a fourth generation Amora said to be expounding before "Leazar, " which is what y. calls Eleazar ben Pedat, who died in the third century. Reluctantly, I have concluded that y's redactors put these Rabbis together, but that I may not. 132

See Exod. Rab.41:4 (anonymous parable contrasting God, who gives Torah even when angry with Israel, to a king who gives his troops donatives (Hebrew: döna'tibä'), annona (Hebrew: 'anônâ') and maintenance only when they are loyal to him); Tanh. Vayetze 22 (Buber ed.) 80b (parable attributed to a fourth-generation Amora contrasting God, who gives Shabbat along with other benefits, to a king who when he allows troops to rest doesn't give them donatives and when he gives them donatives doesn't allow them to rest); Midr. Zuta, p. 14. (God's punishment of leaders for Israel's sins compared to king who punishes only the leaders of a rebellious legion because they are paid 60 dinars daily.) The text of Midr. Zuta I have used is that of the Solomon Buber edition set out in Ziegler's appendix. 133

See Tanh. Kedoshim 5 (Buber ed.) 37a (anonymous parable contrasting Israel, known by God's name, with someone accused of calling himself "Augustus Poloni" and therefore executed); Exod. Rab. 8:1 (anonymous parable similarly contrasting God to someone who permits others to call him "Caesar" or "Augustus"); Num. Rab.20:19 (anonymous parable about a colleague of the king who joins the "brigands," that is, the rebels). 134

See Num. Rab. 11:5 (anonymous parable in which a king who lives in Rome sends his servant to Syria with 100 Roman pounds of gold.)

68

Septimius Severus or Timesitheus under Gordian III,135 the division of empire between Valerian and his son Gallienus,136 or even Gallienus suffering Odenathus to call himself a king or Aurelian's reaction to Zenobia's claim of the title of Augustus for her son.137

The previous paragraph is something of a foretaste of Chapter 9, in which Imperial third-century parables will be carefully examined for evidence of the Rabbis' understanding of the conditions, events and personalities of the third century. But first I will explore other aspects of the third-century parable, starting in Chapter 3 with an analysis of the form and structure, including thé principal dramatis personae, of the 232 parables, both Standard and Imperial, identified as coming from the third century.

135

See Exod. Rab. 31:15 (anonymous parable comparing the rich who were oppressive with "another" to whom the king opened his treasury with which he then oppressed the poor, killed widows, plundered the wretched and carried out violence and robbery.) 136

See A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash 4:74 (anonymous parable in which Jacob is compared to a prince who left Rome and her senators with many of the king's legions to go to a land of barbarians and was afraid to return.) The text of Bet ha-Midrash I have used is that included in Ziegler's appendix. 137

See Exod. Rab. 8:1 (contrasting God, who will put his crown on the Messiah, with a king who does not put his crown on someone else)

69

Chapter 3: Form and Structure

Direct Parables The German scholar Arnold Goldberg was the first to consider the form of the rabbinic parable systematically. 1 He studied 100 parables, a group he regarded as large enough to be statistically relevant, many but not all of which are king-parables and many but not all of which come from the third century. His selection principle was based on his observation that the parables he regarded as the most significant and the most interesting have the purpose of Scriptural interpretation, and he accordingly limited his work to such Schriftauslegende

parables. 2

The form that Goldberg isolated for those 100 exegetical parables is also the form of most of the 232 king-parables, both Standard and Imperial and from all third-century periods, which are the subject of this study. 3 That form,

1

Arnold Goldberg, "Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch." Goldberg himself, id. at 4, asserts that no earlier scholar had treated the form of the rabbinic parable other than in the context of comparison with the form of the parables of Jesus, see the appendix, infra, and I have found nothing that challenges his claim. 2

See also Arnold Goldberg, "Form-Analysis of Midrashic Literature as a Method of Description," Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985), 159. Those parables that he thought were not exegetical he called "rhetorical," saying that they were designed to cast light on a subject's meaning or make an argument. I discuss the form, structure, function and settings of non-exegetical kingparables later in this Chapter and in Chapters 4, 5 and 6, infra. 3

The form of the "direct' parable Goldberg set out is not controversial and has been adopted or apparently independently proposed by others, although it has not been universally followed in every detail. See David Stern, Parables in Midrash 7-8; Peter Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse 8. See also Clemens Thoma, "Prolegomena zu einer Uebersetzung, " 526, and Clemens Thoma, "Literary and Theological Aspects," 26, 27. In the first article Thoma

70

here called "direct," may be restated as having five parts, preceded in the clearest examples of direct parables by quotation of the verse under exegesis:

1. An introductory word or phrase. Typical are "R. X ,āmar māšāl" - R. X said a parable - or "māšlūm ā š ā l "- they said a parable 4 -‫ ־‬or simply "māšāl" -- a parable, 5 or just the name of the Rabbi to whom the parable is attributed. This part is often omitted. 2. A word or phrase functioning as a marker of comparison. In its longer form this is the question "To what is the thing to be compared" and an answer beginning "le" - -to. 6 More often the question is implicit, and only " l é " 7 remains as the marker of comparison; in this context "le" is better translated as "like" than as "to." 8

combines the five parts I have identified, see notes 5-15, infra and accompanying text, into three and was followed in this by Talia Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnis 7; in the later article Thoma further combined the parts into a "bipartite structure" and was followed in this regard by Lawrence Boadt, "Understanding the Mashal and Its Value for the Jewish-Christian Dialogue in a Narrative Theology," 16, also in Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyshograd, eds., Parable and Story, and by David Stern, "Jesus' Parables," 60, in the same volume. 4

Literally, something like "they parabled a parable. "

5

Arnold Goldberg, "Schriftauslegende Gleichnis," 20-21 says that the word "māšāT' is an emphatic substantive with no other known function that arose from the phrase "mašlū māšāl" as a shortening. Hereinafter I will transliterate the word "mashal"(and the related word "nimshal, " see note 14 and accompanying text, infra) phonetically, on the theory that they, like Hebrew words such as Midrash and Gemara, have become loan words in English. 6

Sometimes the "thing," which is often not a thing but a person or persons or a situation, is specified. While doing exegesis of verses about King Saul from 1 Sam, Resh Lakish began a Standard parable by asking "To what is Saul to be compared." Lev. Rab.26:7. "To what are the worshippers of the stars to be compared" is the beginning of the marker of comparison in Tanh. Pekude 4, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 7

"Kke" in Deut. Rab. 1:23, an Imperial parable from R. Abba bar Kahana; dômehlëin Eccl. Rab. 1:2.1, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 8

In at least one direct parable, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, that which a king does not do is compared with what God also does not do; the unusual type of comparison requires that lë be replaced by its negative equivalent 'ēyn. Tanh. Miketz 5.

71

3. A narrative on a secular or mundane topic. 9 Goldberg calls this simply a narrative, or the "so-called picture page," 1 0 and describes it functionally as the "equivalence." In king-parables, this is the part in which the king appears. 11 4. A word or phrase functioning as a marker of the applicability of the secular narrative to the subject of the rabbinic task at hand; 12 in the Schriftauslegende

parables that Goldberg studied that task is always

exegetical; such a marker is also present in non-exegetical king-parables that perform different tasks. This marker is usually the word "kkak" - so, similarly, thus. 13 5. The payoff, or punch line (Goldberg, with more dignity, calls this the correlate): the biblical verse or verses, or the statements about God or Israel or some biblical or rabbinic figure, or a combination thereof, which are being compared to the secular narrative. Goldberg describes this part

9

See Chapter 2, note 68, supra.

10

Arnold Goldberg, "Schriftauslegende Gleichnis," 19. Other scholars have used other words or phrases to indicate this part, probably because calling it the "narrative" is confusing in that the nimshal often also comprises a narrative. See notes 33-43 and accompanying text, infra. David Stern, Parables in Midrash 8 calls it, following Clemens Thoma, see below, the "mashalproper"; they are followed in this by Daniel Boyarin, "Rhetoric and Interpretation," 268, 270, although sometimes with an edge as "the mashal - so-called - proper." Peter Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse 8, calls it the "Rhema, " an unusual word that he equates with Erzählung ‫ ״‬narrative or tale. Clemens Thoma combines this part with the marker of comparison that precedes it and calls the resulting part the mashal-proper in "Literary and Theological Aspects," 30 and the "practical bene" in "Prolegomena," 526. 11

See Chapter 4, note 3, infra, for king-parables in which the king remains offstage.

12

Clemens Thoma, "Prolegomena," 526 calls this the "revelation bene."

13

See notes 25-28, infra, and accompanying text for markers of applicability other than kkak with the same or different meanings. Kkak can also be expanded, as in Sifre Deut.347 (Finkelstein ed., 404), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period (kkak 'îylmala'-- so also here.)

72

functionally as the carrying out of the equivalence. Following other Americans, I refer to it with the Hebrew passive form of mashal -- nimshal.u

Daniel

Boyarin has persuasively designated the nimshal the parable's primary signifying moment. 1 5 Examples will make this clearer. This is an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period: A parable [the introductory word]. To what is the thing to be compared? To [the longer version of the marker of comparison] brigands who entered the king's palace, destroyed his property, killed his household16 and ruined the palace. At a later time the king sat in judgment over them. He seized them, crucified them and killed them, and thereafter dwelled securely in his palace with his sovereignty recognized throughout the world [the secular narrative]. So [the marker of applicability] it is written, "the sanctuary Ο Lord that your hands have established. The Lord will reign forever and ever." (Exodus 15:17-18) [the nimshal]. 17

14

See David Stern, Parables in Midrash 7; Daniel Boyarin, "Rhetoric and Interpretation," 270. Peter Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse 8, calls it the "Thema," the topic, or the point, which is perhaps why he called the secular narrative the "Rhema. " Clemens Thoma. "Prolegomena," 526 oddly calls it the "formula." 15

"Rhetoric and Interpretation," 270. David Stern, who sometimes seems at pains to oppose Boyarin, does not disagree. Although he pays more attention than Boyarin does to the mashalproper, he writes that the nimshal has "priority, chronological and ontological," over the mashal-proper. Parables in Midrash 69. In an earlier article, Stern had suggested that the nimshal - "the so-called explanation" - i s the result of reducing parables to writing and was added to the parable form when parables were no longer "presented orally within a living social context," and therefore when its audience could no longer grasp its message without help. David Stern, "Jesus' Parables from the Perspective of Rabbinic Literature: The Example of the Wicked Husbandmen," 59, in Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyshograd, eds, Parable and Story. 16

The Hebrew word "ppamîlyây"' is a loan word from Latin.

17

Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 10. For the sake of demonstrating the five-part form I have described above, I have included here neither the quotation of a scriptural verse at the beginning of the parable nor some introductory material not relevant for present purposes, but of great importance to the meaning of the parable. See Chapter 4, text preceding note 30, infra. This parable is offered here as the model of an exegetical parable; the verse at the beginning is the same verse from Exod 15 with which the nimshal concludes, although the Mekilta does not include the key words "forever and ever" in the opening, perhaps to add even more punch to the punch line. 73

And a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period:

R. Shimon ben Lakish [the introduction]: Like [the shorter version of the marker of comparison] a king who had three sons being raised by a slave woman. Every time the king sent greetings to his sons he would say, "Greet the one who is raising you" [the secular narrative.] So [the marker of applicability] when the Holy One May He Be Blessed remembers the merits of the Patriarchs he remembers along with them the merit of the Land [the nimshat].18

Each of these five parts varies from parable to parable.19 This does not mean that Goldberg and others are wrong in identifying the direct parable as a formal structure; "form" does not imply identity among examples of the form. On the contrary, formal analysis can contribute to the understanding of texts by demonstrating that texts that seem different are in fact in an important sense the same and, as in the case of texts like the rabbinic parables, by revealing differences in those that seem the same. Some of the more common variants in the introductory word or phrase and in the marker of comparison have already been noted. 20 Whether an introductory word or phrase is used and if so which one, and whether the question "to what is the thing to be compared" is spelled out or implied, are probably matters of scribal practice.21 For example, one of the Imperial

‫״‬Lev. Rab.36:5. 19

With the result that the argument that the formal nature of much rabbinic writing is such as to cast doubt on the reliability of the attributions contained therein is not applicable to thirdcentury king-parables, if it is applicable anywhere. See Chapter 1, note 45, supra. 20

See notes 4-8 and accompanying text, supra. Another is ,amsôllēkā mashal - I will tell you a parable, b. Sanh. 91a, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

21

See Arnold Goldberg, "Schriftauslegende Gleichnis," 22 (redactors or scribes)

parables mentioned in Chapter 2 as perhaps reflecting a patronal relationship between a "king" and his "friend," 22 from the A1 /Midcentury period, includes the introductory word "mashal" in the Parma manuscript of Pesiqta

Rabbati,

the full question form of the marker of comparison in the editio princeps and the Jewish Theological Seminary manuscripts, but neither an introductory word or phrase nor the long-form marker of comparison in that document's other manuscripts. 23 And of course the secular narratives vary, although they are populated by similar characters often engaged in similar activities. 24 Greater variety appears in the marker of applicability than in the marker of comparison, and it is less likely that this is generally a result of scribal preferences, since the variations change the way the texts are read. 25

22

Chapter 2, note 56 and accompanying text, supra.

23

The publication of Rivka Ulmer's synoptic edition of Pesiq. Rab. has allowed me to compare its manuscripts. Other variants that seem solely scribal include abbreviations such as abbreviations of the longer form of the marker of comparison, shortening "kkak" to "kk"' and abbreviated Rabbis' names. 24

See Chapter 4, note 3 infra. See also David Stern, Parables in Midrash 35 (parables collected by Ziegler resemble each other in structure, motifs and diction, while nearly every one seems to be a singular composition.) 25

Sometimes differences in this marker are also likely attributable to scribal activity. In the Parma manuscript of Pesiq. Rab. 21:27-28 from R. Joshua ben Levi, there is no marker of applicability, although the other manuscripts and the editio princeps all have kkak. Other examples of markers of applicability other than kkak that may be the result of scribal preference are ,ap (Exod.Rab.2:2, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period; b. Sanh. 89b, an Imperial parable from the A3b Transitional period), and lëkkak (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Supplement 7:3 Mandelbaum ed., 472)), another Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period; Sifre Deut. 345 and 355 (Finkelstein ed., 402 and 422-423), Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period.) It is difficult to imagine a different reading when these markers are used instead of kkak; they mean essentially the same thing.

75

Even though these markers are often single words, they alter the reader's understanding of how the parable furthers the rabbinic task at hand. A reader has a different understanding of a parable that shouts "harê"1(> - behold

- than of one that mumbles " 'aphākākkēn"

or "kkak 'îylmala*'27

- so also here

‫ ־־‬or one that merely and conventionally observes "so." The power of the parable to perform its task is enhanced when the sole marker of applicability is a traditional rabbinic formula for citation to Scripture, as in this Standard parable from R. Isaac:

R. Isaac said a parable. Like the friend who honored the king with gifts and fine bowls. The king said, "Take this to the entrance to the palace so that all who enter and exit will see i t , " šene'ëmar, "Bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting" (Leviticus 4:4) 2 8 26

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236), a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period. But the power of this parable is reduced by its specific and unnecessary identification of the nature of its argument as a qalvëhômêr. See note 43, infra. A similar, but less dramatic, reading comes from the use of lëpikkak, 'apkkak and sëkkak- "kkak," but with more emphasis. See Deut. Rab.3:7, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period with six nimshals, the fourth and sixth of which are introduced by šēkkak, the first by kkak, and the others by ,ap, and Pesiq. Rab. 28:12-14, a Standard parable from R. Isaac, which also uses kkēn to introduce the second step of a double nimshal. 27

Song Rab.5:1, a Standard parable from R. Abbahu, and Sifre Deut. 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, respectively. 28

Lev. Rab.5:6. See David Stern, "Rhetoric and Interpretation," 276 on the use of a biblical verse as the entire nimshal. Other examples are Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 10, the parable set out above to illustrate the form of the exegetical parable; Gen. Rab. 77:3, the parable possibly recalling a historical fact about an emperor's son; Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period; Gen. Rab.41(42):3, another Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period; and Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 100), another from the same period. An effect similar to that of using seue'ëmaror kkakkâtûb as the marker of applicability can be the result of omitting such a marker and proceeding headlong into the nimshal, although the only example of that I have found among the third-century kingparables, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, mutes its power with an unusually wordy nimshal: R. Alexandri said, Like two men who each presented a written petition to the king. The first presented a petition in his own name but it was granted in the name of his 76

And such power is reduced in those parables that forego typical markers of applicability and instead spell out the elements of the secular narrative being compared to the elements of the nimshal:29

"the king, this is the Holy

One May He Be Blessed, and the sons, these are Israel"; 30 "the king, this is the King of Kings of Kings, the garden, this is the world in which the Holy One May He Be Blessed put Israel to guard the Torah;" 3 1 "this king is the King of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed, this tenant is the father and the mother." 3 2

forefather; the other presented a petition in the name of his forefather but it was granted in his own name. Hezekiah presented in his name, saying, "Remember now, ο Lord, I implore you, how I have walked before you" (2 Kgs 20:3) and was granted in the name of his forefather. "I will defend this city for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David." (2 Kgs 20:6). Moses presented in the name of his forefathers and it was granted in his own name. He presented in the name of his forefathers. "Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel" (Exod 32:13). And it was granted in his own name. "And God said I forgive you just as you have asked." (Num 14:20) (Pesiq. Rab Kah.25:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 382).) 29

The effect of such comparisons being so spelled out on the literary force of the rabbinic parables was well understood by David Stern, Midrash and Theory 44: "[T]he mashal is an allusive narrative told for an ulterior purpose: it draws a series of parallels. . . .Rather than make those parallels explicit, however, the mashal leaves them to the audience to figure out." Stern does not, however, indicate that he is aware that some parables do indeed make the parallels explicit; he specifically says that he is writing here about most parables, but the context indicates that he means to include all those that are neither merely "illustrative" nor "secret speech." 30

Pesiq. Rab. 15:1-3, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period.

31

Exod. Rab.2:2, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period.

32

Ecçl. Rab.5:13, a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period. Spelled out comparisons can also be inserted somewhat more artfully into the text of the nimshal: "He [God] said to them 'Bring two high generals and twelve senators': this is Moses and Aaron, and the twelve heads of the tribes." Deut. Rab.3:3, an Imperial parable of R. Levi. A reading similar to that resulting from spelling out the elements being compared may result when the marker of applicability is simply 1111 ‫ ״ י‬this, it (Exod. Rab.42:8, a Standard parable from R. Joshua ben Levi). See also Tanh. Ki Tisa 3, a Standard parable of R. Levi. 77

Variants in the nimshal. The three examples of parables given in full above have short nimshals consisting of only a Scriptural verse or of a single sentence. This is not typical. Most third-century king-parables have longer, more complex, nimshals. The richest of these weave together verses from otherwise unrelated Scripture, taken from all over the Bible, to provide a new narrative to be compared to the secular narrative. Daniel Boyarin's work on parables has emphasized the fact of these "intertextual" parables and his discussion of them is his principal contribution to the study of the form and structure of rabbinic parables.33 Boyarin's research on this topic was apparently limited to such parables appearing in the Mekilta de R. Ishmael, but dozens of other intertextual parables are included among the third-century king-parables, both Imperial and Standard, from all periods, and from many documents. A few of the longer nimshals that are less complex than the intertextual echo their technique but confine themselves to filling in interstices between Scriptural verses in the order in which they appear in the Bible; they do not 33

Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 80-116. Boyarin wrote that the parable's function is to provide a narrative genre within which the darshan creates a novel narrative. "Rhetoric and Interpretation" 272. He sometimes seems to say that that the raison d'etre of the rabbinic parable is its ability to generate intertextual narratives. This offends David Stern, who sees more value in the secular narrative standing alone than Boyarin or I do, and is thus led not only to deny Boyarin's apparent view of the essential nature of the nimshal and to claim that Boyarin misses the parable's rhetorical function, id. at 277, but also apparently to deny that parables provide a rationale for exegesis. See Parables in Midrash 321. Stern's dander got so far up as to permit him to claim that Boyarin's rabbis are concerned [merely] with relations between verses in an intertextual web, while his own are concerned with relations between God and Israel in history. "Rhetoric and Interpretation" 279. More recently, Stern has retreated from his criticism of Boyarin: "the . . .typical midrashic habit of viewing the Bible atemporally, of explaining Scripture through Scripture, and of connecting the most disparate and seemingly unrelated verses in order to create new and overreaching nexuses of meaning: in short, intertextuality that is elevated in midrash to the level of a virtual exegetical principle." David Stern, Midrash and Theory 29.

78

create an entirely new narrative to be compared to the secular narrative, but rather extend, modify or complete a narrative already existing in Scripture. Here is R. Levi, perhaps positing a more insecure deity than usually envisioned, extending the story told in Exodus 19-20: R. Levi said a parable. Like a king who wanted to perform governmental acts outside the knowledge of the prefect. 34 He said to him, "Do such and such a thing." He answered him, "It is already done." Again he said to him, "Go, call Poloni the counselor,35 and bring him with you." Until he arrived, the king did what he wanted. So [kkak] the Holy One May He Be Blessed wanted to give the Ten Commandments, while Moses was standing at his side. The Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "When I roll the firmament before them and say Ί am the Lord your god' they will say, 'Who spoke, the Holy One May He Be Blessed or Moses?' Rather Moses will go down, and, after that, I will say, Ί am the Lord your god."' So [kkakf6 the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, "Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and have them wash their clothes." (Exodus 19:10) He said to him, "I already sanctified them, as it says 'for you did charge us, saying set bounds around the mountain and sanctify i t . ' " (Exodus 19: 23) He said to him, "Go down, and come up with Aaron with you." (Exodus 19:24) As Moses went down, the Holy One May He Be Blessed revealed himself, as it says, "And Moses went down to the people," (Exodus 19:25) and immediately thereafter, "God spoke." (Exodus 20:1) 37 34

The Hebrew " 'epparkôs" is a loan word from Greek.

35

The Hebrew "sînqlîtaqôé' is a loan word from Greek; it may mean "senator. "

36

Most parables with double nimshals, like this one, are "double" only as a matter of presentation. The first part is non-Scriptural, the second Scriptural, and the sense of the parable would not be altered if the second marker of applicability (other than any citation formula) were deleted. Other examples of such "false" double nimshals include Sifre Deut. 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404), a Standard parable of a king visiting his sons from the A3b/Transitional period, Sifre Deut. 345 ((Finkelstein ed., 402), a Standard parable of a prince raised in a province by the sea from the same period, and Tanh. Ki Tisa 3, a Standard parable of R. Levi. Other parables with multiple nimshals are better presented and discussed as intertextual, including Exod. Rab.42:8, a Standard parable of R. Joshua ben Levi.

37

Exod.Rab.28:3. Other examples of this sort of third-century king-parable are Sifre Deut. 306 (Finkelstein ed., 330), a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, in which the two parts of Job 20:27 ("The heavens shall reveal his iniquity; the earth will rise up against him") are presented as illustrating, respectively, extra-scriptural statements by Moses to Israel that they will not be able to escape from God's authority because the heavens keep records and that even the earth knows what they did, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 100-101 ),

79

Others seem to start out as the sort of short exegetical nimshals encountered above, but their scriptural citations are insufficient to make the point without help. The nimshal then augments or explains the verse. In this parable the scriptural verse is augmented with additional narrative, here in the form of dialogue, using much the same technique as those parables in which scriptural interstices are filled in: A parable. Like a king of flesh and blood who entered a province. His servants said to him, "Decree decrees over them." He said to them, "No. When they receive my kingdom on them, I will decree decrees over them, for if they do not receive my kingdom how will they carry out my decrees?" So God said to Israel, "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:20) I am he whose kingdom you received in Egypt." They said to him, "Yes, yes." He answered, "And just as you have received my kingdom on you, receive my decrees."38 Others nimshals are extended to explain rather than to augment:

R. Samuel bar Nachman said a parable in the name of R. Jonathan. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who used to live in a province whose residents would anger him. The king got angry and went out of the city about ten miles and stayed there. Someone saw him and said to the residents of the province, "Know that the king is angry with you and he asks to send legions on the city and destroy it. Go out and calm him down that he will not be far from you." A clever one who was there said to them, "Fools, as long as he was among you, you didn't ask anything of him, and now when he has distanced himself you go to his place and only maybe he will receive you." And so it is written, "Seek

another Standard parable from the same period, which inserts a ketubah and a fixed period of marriage among the verses of Esth 2:16, and Pesiq. Rab. 14:17-18, an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which Solomon's request that he be given wisdom is inserted between 2 Chr 1:7 [and 1 Kgs 3:5] ("Ask, what shall I give you?") and 2 Chr 1:12 ("wisdom and knowledge are granted to you; I will also give you riches, possessions and honor.") See also Song Rab. 1:1 (9), another Imperial parable from the same period, with a similar nimshal that uses only 1 Kgs 3:5. 38

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 237-238).

80

the Lord while he may be found." (Isaiah 55:6) That is, seek him during the Ten Days of Repentance, during which he stays among you.39

More often, and perhaps more artfully, the additional material comes before the verse, as in these two shorter domestic examples from R. Levi, both showing his skills as an exegete, with the first perhaps showing him in something of an antic mood:

R. Levi said, Like Matrona, to whom the king said, "Pass before me," and she passed before him and her face turned pale. She said, "Will you say that a disqualification is found in me?" The king said to her, "There is no disqualification in you, only that the nail of your little finger is somewhat big. Remove it and the fault is gone." So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Abraham, "There is no disqualification in you, only this foreskin. Remove it and the fault is gone." "Walk before me and be blameless." (Genesis 17:1 )40 R. Levi said a parable. Like Matrona, who was the subject of gossip concerning one of the greats of the kingdom. The king investigated the evidence and found nothing in it. What did the king do? He made a great banquet and he sat the man at the head of the table. Why all this? To show that the king investigated the evidence and found nothing in it. So 39

Pesiq. Rab Kah. Supplement 7:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 472), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. See also Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 14 (Weiss ed., 42a), in which "What of your brother Aaron the Levite" (Exod 4:14) is explained to mean that Aaron was only a mere Levite when he was chosen High Priest so that God had to tell Moses to serve as High Priest until Aaron learned how, and Gen. Rab. 69:3, the parable of R. Abbahu about an infant prince plagued by flies, in which "and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it" is explained to mean that the angels fled when God revealed himself to them. But on occasion such explanation seems the work of later redactors or scribes; here the secular narrative plus the verse from Pss makes it clear that the verse is being interpreted to mean that God's oath, made in anger, will be avoided, and the final two sentences are hardly necessary: R. Levi said a parable in the name of Bar Kappara. Like a king who became angry with his son and decreed that he will not enter the palace with him. What did the king do? He pulled it down, and built it again, and brought his son with him into the new palace. He is steady in his oath but nonetheless gathered his son to him. So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "wherefore in my anger I swore; they shall not enter my rest." (Pss 95:11) They didn't enter this rest, but they entered another rest. To this rest they will not come but they will come to another rest. (Lev. Rab.32:2, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.,) 40

Gen. Rab.46:4.

81

when the nations of the world taunted Israel and said to her, "You made the golden calf," and the Holy One May He Be Blessed investigated the evidence and found nothing in it, the bull was shown as the first of all the offerings. "A bull or a sheep or a goat." (Leviticus 22:27) 41

Longer, non-exegetical, parables need not include a verse from Scripture, as in this example from R. Levi, perhaps from a Yom Kippur sermon and perhaps providing some insight into the High Holy Day practices of the Rabbis: R. Mana of Shaab and R. Joshua of Sichnin said a parable in the name of R. Levi. Like a province liable to the king for the balance of its taxes. 42 The king went to collect. The great ones of the province came ten miles out of town and praised him and the king released them of a third of their taxes. When the king arrived at the place five miles out of town, the magistrates of the province came and praised him and he released them of a third of their taxes. When the king entered the province all the men, women and children praised him and he released them of everything. The king said to them, "What is past is past; from now on we begin the calculation anew." So when the great ones of the generation 41

Lev. Rab.TJ-.Z. Among the other king-parables of this sort are Midr. Pss 1:5, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, which shows Abraham leaving the blessing of Isaac to God, since he himself could not bless him without also blessing Ishmael and the sons of Keturah, as a step in the exegesis of Gen 25:11 ("and it came to pass after the death of Abraham that God blessed Isaac his son") and Gen. Rab.50:M, a Standard parable of R. Levi, which claims that God punished idolaters on the 16th of Sivan, when both the sun and the moon are visible, to prevent both sun-worshippers and moon-worshippers from claiming that their punishment would have been avoided had their favored deity not been missing, as a step in the exegesis of Gen 19:23 ("the sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar"). As was the case in parables in which the explanation followed the verse, some of these explanations and augmentations seem to have been added by later redactors or scribes, since the connection between the verse and the secular narrative is quite clear. See Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 5 (Weiss ed., 44b), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, which compares "And the whole congregation came near and stood before the Lord" (Lev 9:5) with a secular narrative involving a matrona, who, after the king forgave her, dressed up and attended on the king excessively, and Exod. Rab. 21:9, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period, which compares "cast away [an alternative reading of the verb usually translated as 'lift up'] your rod and stretch out your hand" (Exod 14:16) with a secular narrative involving a royal officer respected only when he carries his staff of office whom the king instructs to leave his staff behind and rely on the king's power of capital punishment. Other parables use explanations both before and after the verse, including Tanh. Ki Tisa 3, a Standard parables of R. Levi. 42

The Hebrew word dîmôsyS ' is a loan word from Greek.

82

come on Rosh Hashanah and mortify themselves, the Holy One May He Be Blessed remits one third of their punishment. From Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur ordinary individuals mortify themselves and the Holy One May He Be Blessed releases them of a third of their punishment, and on Yom Kippur everyone mortifies themselves, men, women and children, and the Holy One May He Be Blessed says to Israel, "What is past is past, from now on we begin the calculation anew." 43

43

Lev. Rab.30:7, a Standard parable. In form this text seems to be exegetical of Lev 23:40 ("on the first day") but the connection between the text and the verse before the Rabbis is not apparent. Somewhat shorter versions appear in Pesiq. Rab Kah. Ύ1:7 (Mandelbaum ed., 412413) and Eccl. Rab. 9:5.7, which spell the tradent's name "Mani." Eccl. Rab. 9:5.7 is exegesis on "Go, eat your bread with enjoyment" (Eccl 9:7), and it concludes with God saying that verse after "we begin the calculation anew, " an apparent reference to the end of the Yom Kippur fast. (Other parables of this sort include Sifre Num. 115 Horowitz ed., 127-128), the parable of the king's friend's son who was made a slave, and Lev. Rab. 4:4, a Standard parable of R. Levi, comparing the soul to a princess married to a townsman who couldn't fulfill his obligations to her "because she is from above.") Some third-century king-parables are longer than they might be, and less powerful, because of the inclusion of other genres of rabbinic language not necessary to make the point of the parable. See Deut. Rab.3:3, a Standard parable from R. Levi, the nimshal of which includes two high generals and twelve senators and which is interrupted twice by the formulaic rabbinic question purportedly seeking the Scriptural source of a statement, inimyin, and Deut.Rab.3:7, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period which interrupts its nimshal with mimyin three times. Perhaps this indicates a preference on the part of the redactor of Deut. Rab. or of the scribe of the manuscript on which this edition is based. Another example is Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236), a Standard parable, which interrupts its nimshal, the point of which is a qal wâ'hômêr- an a minari proof - by specifically saying that it is a qal wâ'hômêr. Another way of extending a parable is to use a second parable as or in the nimshal. This example, part Standard and part Imperial from the A1 /Midcentury period, might also be characterized as a hybrid parable, part direct and part either formless or an unusual secondperson example of an antithetical parable. See notes 54-91 and accompanying text, infra, for antithetical and formless parables: A parable. Like a king who decreed on his son that he not enter his palace with him. He entered the first gate and nobody spoke, the second, and nobody spoke, the third and they rebuked him and said to him, "Enough for you so far." They said to him, "Enough for you already." So when Moses cast down the two nations, Sichon and Og, and gave their land to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh, they said to him, "It seems as if the decree against you [that you not enter the Land] was not unconditional. Maybe we likewise have not been sentenced unconditionally." Moses said before the Holy One May He Be Blessed, "Master of the Universe, are your ways like those of flesh and blood? A procurator decrees a decree; the president of the district can make him annul it. The president of the district decrees a decree; the decurion can make him annul it. The decurion decrees a decree; the hegemon can make him annul it. The hegemon decrees a decree; the prefect can make him annul it. The prefect decrees a decree; the great ruler comes and makes him annul it completely. For they are all but appointees, one superior to the other. Are your ways like their ways?" (Mek.de R. Ishmael Amalek 2)

83

But variety in nimshals does not necessarily come from their length. 44 Among the parables containing the most significant deviations from form are those in which the marker of applicability is missing and a short nimshal precedes the secular narrative instead of coming after it. A brief example is an Imperial parable in which R. Joshua ben Levi is doing somewhat pedestrian exegesis of the use of the plural in "And God said let us make man" (Genesis

1:26): R. Joshua ben Levi said he consulted with the angels of heaven and earth. A parable. Like a king who had two senators and didn't do a thing without their knowledge. 45 Or the nimshal might come neither after nor before the secular narrative, but be deftly combined with it:

44

A very unusual sort of shorter nimshal that I have been unable to fit in any larger category is a brief narrative paraphrasing Scripture, from Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 358): "R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nachman, Like a province that rebelled against the king and the king sent a general to destroy it. The general was expert and calm. He said to them, "Give yourself a few days so that the king will not do to you what he did to such and such a province and its communities and such and such a prefecture and its communities." So Hosea said to Israel, "My sons, do tësûbâ, so the Holy One May He Be Blessed will not do to you what he did to Samaria and its communities."

The nimshal's point seems to be that Hosea said such a thing, not the substance of what he said. 45

Gen. Rab.8:3. Other examples of parables in which the nimshal precedes the secular narrative are b. Pesach 103a, an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period; Sifra Bechukotai, pereq 4:4 (Weiss ed., 112a), a Standard parable from the A2ZDivided Empire period; Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed. 102), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period; b. Sukkah 55b, a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period; Sifre Deut.357 (Finkelstein ed., 430) and Midr. Pss 86:7, Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period; and Deut. Rab. 1:23, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Trans1'tional period.

84

R. Levi said, Like a king who wanted to marry a woman from a good and noble family. He said, "I will not court her until I do some good for her. I will do some good for her and thereafter I will court her." He saw her naked and he clothed her. "I clothed you with embroidered cloth." (Ezekiel 19:10) At the sea he crossed her. "And the children of Israel walked on dry land in the midst of the sea." ((Exodus 14:29) And when they came upon her and would have seized her, he saved her. 46 Some nimshals are more than short; they are absent. Frequently, though, such absence is illusory; although it is not reduced to words, the nimshal is nonetheless there. An example of such an implicit nimshal comes from R. Abba bar Kahana as he worked on reconciling two texts on the same subject: "A song of David, when he fled from his son Absalom" (Psalms 3:1) and "When he went up to the ascent of the mount of Olives, weeping" (2 Samuel 15:30, the narrative account of David's flight from Absalom):

R. Abba bar Kahana said a parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who became angry with his son and banished him from him his palace. The king sent out his tutor 47 after him. He went and found him weeping and singing. His tutor said to him, "Why are you both weeping and singing?" He said, "I weep because I have made my father angry with me and I sing because he has banished me and not sentenced me to death, and not only has he not killed me but he has banished me to a place where there are duxes and prefects." 48

46

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211-212). The deftness of this parable comes in part from its intertextuality. See note 33, supra, and accompanying text. The parable seems to be missing the final piece of the built-in nimshal, which must have been a scriptural text in which God saved Israel.

47

The Hebrew word ppëdâgôg is a loan word from Greek.

48

Midr. Pss 3:3, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period.

85

Can the "missing" nimshal be anything other than that "so" David wept and sang at the same time: he wept for Absalom, but sang for his safety and the company of his court?49

But in at least one instance, a third-century king-parable has come down to us without a nimshal, explicit, implicit or built-in. 50

A win said to R. Ammi, "You say that the dead will come to life, but they turn to dust and can dust come to life?"51 He said to him, "I will tell you a parable. To what is the thing to be compared? Like a king of flesh and blood who said to his servants, 'Go and build me a great palace in a place where there is no water and earth.' They went and they built it. After a while it fell. He said to them, , Go back and build it in a place where there is water and earth.' They said to him, 'It is not possible for us.' He got angry with them and said to them, 'You built in a place where there was no water or earth. Where there is water and earth, you will certainly be able to.' And if you don't believe, go out in the field and look at a mouse, which today is part flesh and part dust and which tomorrow will be all flesh."52 What might an implicit nimshal be? That the mîn, with no faith in bringing people back to life, is like the servants, who had no faith in their ability to rebuild the palace? If so, why would R. Ammi tell the mfna parable that does nothing but assert his wrong-headedness? Surely the nimshal would somehow make the point that, indeed, the dead will come back to life. Is the 49

As William G. Braude pointed out in his translation of Midr. Pss, 2 Sam 15:34 shows a group of civil and ecclesiastical officials with King David - "duxes and prefects." Another parable with a missing but implicit nimshal is Lev. Rab. 1:14, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, which interprets "He will see the very form of the Lord" (Num 12:8) with a parable of a king who appears before his freedman in his informal clothes. 50

See also Gen. Rab. 63:5.

51

I have included introductory material excluded in other examples as an aid in discussing the absence of the nimshal. 52

b. Sanh. 91a, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

86

implicit nimshal that, like the servants who could build a palace in a place with no earth and no water, God can raise human beings from dust? But the palace fell, and undoubtedly Am mi believed that resurrection would be permanent. Moreover, his "proof" does not follow from the parable, but from rabbinic zoology to the effect that mice start out, at least in part, as dust, and if dust mice can become fully alive, why not human corpses? All the parable seems to contribute is the idea that there's a great deal that mînîm don't know, including about miracles, and even so the reference to mice seems out of place. At one t i m e Am mi's parable had a nimshal, and it probably did not involve dust, or mice, or even the resurrection of the dead, but it got lost in the complex process of the redaction of the Babylonian

53

Talmud.53

Some further evidence of nimshals lost in transmission may be provided by a nimshal that in the form we have it seems truncated or incomplete. See Song Rab.4:5 (1 ), a Standard parable from the A3b/ Transitional period ("Like a king who had two precious pearls and put them in the balances: this one is not as big as that one, and that one is not as big as this one. So these are Moses and Aaron, equals".) See also note 46, supra. One Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 212), defies ready classification: R. Eleazar said, Like a king who wanted to marry a woman from a good and noble family, and he said, "I will not court her until I do good for her. I will do good for her and thereafter I will court her." He saw her at the baker's and he filled her basket with fine white bread, at the tavern keeper's and he gave her spiced wine to drink; at the one who force-feeds birds and he filled her basket with force-fed birds, at the driedfruits dealer and he filled her basket with dried fruits. At the baker's and he filled her basket with fine white bread; " I am going to rain bread from heaven for you" (Exod 16:4); at the tavern keeper's and he gave her spiced wine to drink: "Israel sang this song -'spring up, ο well" (Hum 21:17); at the one who force-feeds birds and he filled her basket with force-fed birds " i t brought quails from the séa" (Num 11:31); at the dried-fruits dealer and he filled her basket with dried fruits "he nursed them with honey from the crags, with oil from flinty rocks." (Deut 32:13) As was the case of the parable mentioned in note 31, supra, this one contains no marker of applicability, but it cannot be said that it proceeds headlong to the nimshal, since it has no nimshal as such, but rather the nimshal is combined with a repetition of the secular narrative; it can easily be imagined that in an earlier version these verses were not so combined but were rather combined with the original narrative itself. If, however, the repetition of the narrative was deleted, and a marker of applicability added, we would be left with a "normal" direct parable with an intertextual nimshal. 87

Antithetical Parables Those formal parables that do not compare a secular narrative with a biblical verse or other statement ostensibly to show similarities between them but rather contrast a secular narrative with such a verse or statement to show differences between them are less common than direct king-parables; only fourteen of the 232 parables that are the subject of this study fit in this category. The first to study these "antithetical parables" as a form distinct from that of the direct parable was the Israeli scholar Talia Thorion-Vardi, who works in Germany and published her study in German.54 She seems to have considered a vast number of parables, apparently going beyond those in Ignaz Ziegler's collection, and they include king-parables and others from a period that includes but is not limited to the third century.55 She identifies four parts of the antithetical parable:

54

Talia Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse. Like Arnold Goldberg regarding the form of the rabbinic parable in general, Thorion-Vardi herself points out that she is the first to study the antithetical parable as a form, id. at 18-19, and I have found no reason to question her claim, although in the first volume of a monumental study of various parables in particular documents, published in the same year as this work by Thorion-Vardi, the Swiss scholars Clemens Thoma and Simon Lauer gave separate attention to the "direkt antithetisches Gleichnis." Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Erster Teil 132. 55

1 have not located an antithetical king-parable from the T5/Later Severan period, a period from which only three king-parables seem to come, or from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, a period to which I have assigned only seventeen parables as a result of including parables attributed to Rabbis in this period only if either the ultimate authority or the tradent is known to have died before the end of the third century or if one of the two standard reference books placed the authority in the second generation of Amoraim.

88

1. An introductory summarizing statement, to the effect that God is not like a king of flesh and blood. This part is often omitted. 56 2. Her "Part A," a statement of what the king57 does, or what the king is like. 58 This is a short narrative, often shorter even than those in the direct parables; comparison with direct parables will be facilitated if this Part is thought of as a secular narrative.59

56

Of the fourteen antithetical third-century king-parables, this part is included only in three: b. B. Bat. 10a, an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period, Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, an Imperial parable from R. Abbahu ("the ways of the Holy One May He Be Blessed are not like the ways of flesh and blood") and Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period ("this is not the way of flesh and blood."). 57

While the contrast is usually specifically to a "king of flesh and blood," three of the fourteen antithetical third-century king-parables contrast God simply with "flesh and blood," and the question arises as to whether "flesh and blood" is an abbreviation for a "king of flesh and blood" or a reference to someone else or to humanity in general. Talia Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse 54-55 discusses this question and notes that in some parables (not from the third century) a "king of flesh and blood" becomes mere "flesh and blood" in a later source, suggesting to her that such kings were not modeled on Roman emperors but on imperial appointees. She also notes that in other cases "flesh and blood" becomes a "king of flesh and blood" in later sources and speculates that this is a result of what David Stern elsewhere called the regularization process. See Chapter 2, note 119 and accompanying text, supra. Our three third-century "flesh and blood" parables, all of which are Imperial, fit within her category of those in which the context makes it clear that "flesh and blood" is a king. In Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), from the A2/Divided Empire period, "flesh and blood" goes to war as a leader of many men, in Midr. Pss 86:4, from the A3b/Transitional period, "flesh and blood" is praised and the prefects who help him are praised along with him, and in Lev. Rab. 18:5, from R. Levi, "flesh and blood" gives out various sentences, including exile, banishment and imprisonment, and various benefits, including annona. "Flesh and blood" in the first of these could of course also be a general or other lesser official, but the others must be "kings." See also Daniel Weiss, "'Thine is the kingdom': The Holy One and kings of flesh and blood in the parables of Midrash Tanhuma, " presented at the New England Region of the Society of Biblical Literature 2003 Annual Meeting, which concludes that the phrases "king of flesh and blood" and "flesh and blood" became an element specifically of antithetical parables only in later documents (which he assumes are later parables), illustrated by a comparison of Mek. de R. Ishmael and the Buber edition of Tanh. 58

Sometimes this is preceded by a more general introduction to the parable, "come and see," also used in other forms of rabbinic literature. See b. B. Bat. 10a; Talia Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse 25-26. 59

In Thorion-Vardi's analysis, this part is preceded by another part, an introduction to this part, such as the words "a king of flesh and blood." She recognizes that this "part" is often omitted, and it seems to me that when it is included, it is better understood as a statement of who the subject of "Part A" is than as a separate part.

89

3. A very brief introduction to what Thorion-Vardi calls Part Β (this part consists of the word "but" in all fourteen of the third-century antithetical king-parables.)60 4. Her "Part B," what God61 does, oris like, demonstrated by a scriptural text. This is the counterpart to the direct parable's nimshal and may be thought of as an antithetical nimshal. It has the same function as the nimshal in a direct parable, and, like it, is the antithetical parable's primary signifying moment.62 Antithetical parables were used by the Rabbis to perform exegetical tasks, sometime even as formal exegesis beginning with the verse being explained, as in the least complex type of exegetical direct parables. This is an example from R. Levi, showing him as a theologian:

It is written, "But you Ο Lord are on high forever" (Psalms 92:8). . . . In the custom of the world, a king of flesh and blood6 sits in judgment.

60

Talia Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastsleichnisse 42 located several variants of this part in other antithetical parables.

61

This is always God in the fourteen third-century antithetical king-parables I have located, although the subject of Part Β in the wider group of parables Thorion-Vardi analyzed includes the people of Israel, various biblical figures, and the Torah. Talia Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse 55. 62

See note 15 and accompanying text, supra. In one Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period such a nimshal is augmented by additional material, as was the case of the direct parables discussed in note 38 and accompanying text, supra, here by citation of a separate rabbinic tradition: Flesh and blood is praised to his face and the prefects are praised with him. Why are they praised with him? Because they help carry his burdens. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like that. No man helps carry his burdens. You know this since R. Haninah and R. Yohanan said that the angels were created on the second day. Midr. Pss 86:4 63

Thorion-Vardi would treat the text up to here as a separate "part."

90

When he gives amnesty 64 all the people praise him, and when he gives the death sentence 65 they do not praise him. Why? They know there is unfairness in his judgments [the secular narrative.]66 But [introduction to the antithetical nimshal] the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like that. Rather whether it is the quality of goodness or the quality of punishment, "But you Ο Lord are on high forever." [the antithetical nimshalj. 67 But the antithetical parable more often plays a non-exegetical role. The rabbinic tasks this Standard parable from Resh Lakish performs are emphasizing

64

The Hebrew word "dîmôs" is a loan word from Greek, where it was apparently first used in connection with public games and festivals, where amnesties were given. 65

The Hebrew word "spîqûla" is a loan word from Greek, where it is derived from the word for dart or javelin.

66

This is an unusually long secular narrative for an antithetical parable.

67

Lev. Rab.29:2. As preserved in Lev. Rab., this parable, which is engaged in exegesis of Pss 92:8, follows a series of prooftexts in the name of R. Shimon ben Yochai, a second-century Tanna, demonstrating that God is magnified when he applies the attribute of justice to the wicked. Levi's parable, here transmitted by R. Berechiah, a fourth-generation Amora, goes beyond Rashbi to claim that God is exalted, and is therefore to be praised, whether he exercises the attribute of mercy or the attribute of justice, presumably not only with respect to the wicked. As it appears in Lev. Rab., this parable is both introduced and followed by the words "Forever your hand is above," which seem to be "explanatory" additions to R. Levi's parable from R. Berechiah or the redactor. Other examples of such exegetical antithetical parables are Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 55), interpreting the verse in Pss 12:6 that God's promises are pure by contrasting them with the promises of a king of flesh and blood who promises a group of provincials bath houses and drainage ditches but reneges on his promises, and Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period, that explains why "The Lord bless you and keep you" ((Hum 6:24) comes before "it came to pass" (Hum 7:1) by contrasting God with a human king who only benefits the people of a conquered province after they praise him. Other antithetical parables engage in exegesis less obviously. In connection with interpreting the inconsistencies in Gen as to whether the earth or the heavens were created first, R. Yohanan, without citing those Gen verses, at least as the parables have come down to us, contrasted kings of flesh and blood who build the lower part of a palace first and then add the upper part with God who created the earth and the heavens all at once. Gen. Rab. 9:3, 12:12. The existence of such exegetical antithetical parables seems to negate the conclusion of Talia Thorion-Vardi's book, Kontrastgleichnisse 133, that the difference between the functions of direct and antithetical parables is one of "surprising clarity" in that direct parables clarify textual problems while antithetical parables exemplify God's rule, usually without a scriptural verse. These exegetical antithetical parables indeed clarify textual problems; this Chapter has shown several direct parables that do not; Chapter 5, infra, will discuss the function of exegetical parables in greater detail; and most of the fourteen third-century antithetical kingparables I've located conclude with a scriptural verse.

91

the specialness of the Sabbath and its importance to God and making a theological claim that the Sabbath is "for" God, not for those who rest on it. In the custom of the world, a king of flesh and blood who considers himself enlightened tells his servants, "Take a day for yourselves and work only six for me," [the secular narrative] but [introduction to the antithetical nimshal) the Holy One May He Be Blessed says to Israel, "My sons, take six days for yourselves and only one for me" [the antithetical nimshalj.68

Like direct parables, antithetical parables can generate a second, nonsecular, narrative from otherwise unrelated scriptural texts, providing examples of intertextuality, as brought to our attention by Daniel Boyarin:69

A king of flesh and blood, when he goes out to war, takes all his armies with him, but when he goes to his Majuma festival, 70 takes only enough of his legions71 to wait upon him. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed, when he goes out to war, he goes by himself, as it is written "The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name" (Exodus 15:3.) But when he goes to his Majuma festival of giving Torah, see what is written: "Twice ten thousand were God's chariots, thousands upon thousands, when the Lord came in holiness on Sinai," (Psalms 68:18), and it is written "And the

68

Pesiq. Rab. 23:6. The lesson of such an antithetical parable need not be quite that lofty and may only encourage right conduct, such as charity: In the ways of flesh and blood, a man brings a great present to a king, and maybe he will receive it and maybe he will not receive it. If it turns out that he receives it, maybe he will see the king and maybe he will not see the king. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like this. A man who gives a small coin to the poor merits and receives the face of the Shekhinah, as it is written, "I shall behold your face in tzedakah [here understood to mean "charity"]" (Pss 17:15). b. B. Bat. 10a, an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period.

69

See note 32 and accompanying text, supra.

70

The Hebrew word is the loan word mâyûinâsr, Majuma festivals involved largess to the legions and mock sea-fights.

71

The Hebrew word is the loan word ligyônôt.

92

Lord my god will come, and all his holy ones with him." (Zechariah 14:5) 7 2

Formless Parables But -‫ ־‬and this is an important "but" - a text need not follow a form to be a parable. As already pointed out, I regard any rabbinic material making a comparison with a king as a "king-parable, " a broader definition than the strict forms treated by others, such as Goldberg and Thorion-Vardi. 73 While study of the forms of formal parables is fruitful in providing insight into the way the Rabbis usually went about the business of making comparisons with kings and the way those comparisons have come down to us, it is the fact and the substance of the comparison rather than its form or lack thereof that is 72

Midr. Pss 18:17. The version of this parable in Pesiq. Rab. 21:24, which I am treating as earlier and more reliable, leaves out the element from Pss, but is nonetheless intertextual. This parable is attributed to a patriarch, Judah Nesiah in ail the manuscripts of Pesiq. Rab., and less persuasively to his grandfather, Judah the Patriarch, in Midr. Pss. Other antithetical third-century king-parables with intertextual nimshals are Mek. De R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32-33), an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, which generates a narrative about God's ability to simultaneously wage war and hear prayer from verses in Exod and Pss, Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided empire period, which generates a narrative of God going to war alone but to peace accompanied by many from verses in Exod and Pss, and Num. Rab. 1:2, an Imperial parable from R. Levi, which generates a narrative about Moses, Aaron and Miriam from verses in Mic, Josh and Num. This parable from Mek. De R. Ishmael Shirata 4 is preceded in the Mekilta by a series of four antithetical parables contrasting God not with a "king of flesh and blood" but with "a hero in a province"; perhaps the king-parables in this source were once also about heroes, who became kings in the process David Stern called regularization, see Chapter 2, note 119 and accompanying text, supra. I can think of no reason why those characters shown as unable to sustain their armies and as putting off their subjects' needs during wartime are called "kings" and those shown with diminishing strength, as not knowing how to fight, as striking out against their own, and as unable to bring an arrow back are called "heroes"; that the "heroes" are not acting as kings in fact do is of no significance in light of all the imaginary, generic and fairy-tale kings we have already encountered. Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period fills in the interstices in the scriptural narrative of the construction of the Tabernacle, similarly to the direct parables discussed in notes 34-37 and accompanying text, supra. Mek. De R. Ishmael Shirata 1 Lauterbach ed., 2:8-9), an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, also generates multiple citations of Scripture, but not as a narrative. (God's "might" demonstrated by verses from Deut, Pss and Isa). 73

See Chapter 1, text at note 2, supra. 93

important for the other purposes of this study: What rabbinic tasks were accomplished when the Rabbis made comparisons with kings? In what settings were such comparisons made? Does the figure of the "king" in such comparisons serve as an object of political protest by the Rabbis, or do such comparisons reflect some other aspect of their status as members of an occupied society and dwellers in an occupied country? What do such comparisons, in Imperial parables, tell us of the Rabbis' views of the Roman emperors? What, if anything, do such comparisons tell us about the Roman emperors? For all of these purposes, a comparison with a king, a "king-parable," hardly need be formal. 7 4

74

I stress that a king-parable need not be formal because this view seems to be at odds with that of Arnold Goldberg, who concluded that a parable (Gleichnis) is different from a comparison (Vergleich) and that only Gleichnisse were worthy of his attention, on the grounds that a Gleichnis is narrative, while a Vergleich is descriptive, that a Gleichnis is fictional, while a Vergleich need not be, and that a Gleichnis is "a little epic unity. " Since Goldberg's project was limited to formal analysis of rabbinic parables, his argument makes sense for his purposes; it is impossible to do formal analysis of formless texts. Several formless parables indeed are or contain narratives and perhaps provide "little epic unities." See Mek.de R .Ishmael Amalek 4, an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period consisting of an interstitial narrative within Exod 18:14: Midr. Pss. 55:3, another Imperial parable from the same period, including a narrative of an angelic company going before a man; Pes. Rab Kah. 15:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 250-251), a Standard parable from the same period, including a narrative of a king in mourning; Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, in which a king acquires a new "friend" and makes a holiday for him; Exod. Rab. 23:7, another Imperial parable from that period in which the angels wish to sing before God as Israel passed through the Sea of Reeds but God did not permit it; Est/1. Rab. 1:19, an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, including an interstitial narrative within Esth 1:3. See also note 87 and accompanying text, infra, for an intertextual formless parable. For "interstitial narratives," see notes 34-37 and accompanying text, supra (direct) and notes 69-72, supra (antithetical). Since, for my purposes, the main element is the comparison and not the form in which the comparison is presented, I can offer a simple solution to the question why the Rabbis composed parables rather some other genre. First of all, comparing something to something else is a universal method of understanding or explaining either or both of the somethings. Second, everybody likes a story. Indeed, a contemporary Sage reports that "God made man because he likes stories." Elie Wiesel, The Gates of the Forest, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 94

At least eighteen of the 232 parables that are the subject of this study are formless. 75 As a group they provide more material than that furnished by antithetical parables, the form that was the subject of Talia Thorion-Vardi's entire book. Not all formless parables are entirely without form. At one end of the spectrum is a parable that would be correctly classified as direct, by both Goldberg and me, but for the absence of markers of comparison and applicability; the addition of the words "lé" and "kkak‫ "־‬at the appropriate

places would render this parable formal.

A king of flesh and blood acquires for himself a friend and makes a holiday for him; the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed, when he establishes for himself a priest, how much the more so!76

Perhaps it is a stretch to call this "formless"; another writer might have extended t h e category of direct parable to include it, although to do so would 1966, prologue (emphasis added.) Eventually David Stern's regularization process kicked in. See Chapter 2, note 119 and accompanying text, supra. 75

Another group of third-century king-parables may be thought of as "hybrid." They can begin like direct parables but end like antithetical parables. See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed., 2:24-25), an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period and Exod. Rab. 29:5, the parable from R. Abbahu clearly evidencing the Rabbis' grasp of the importance of dynasticism in imperial succession. They can begin like antithetical parables but end like direct parables. See Deut. Rab. 1:21, a Standard parable from R. Yohanan, b. Sanh. 39a, an Imperial parable from R. Abbahu, and Midr. Pss 17:3, an Imperial parable from R. Levi, in all of which God is like a king of flesh and blood. They can begin without a formal beginning but end with the nimshal of a direct parable. See Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallachl (Lauterbach ed., 1:185186), R. Judah the Patriarch's parable about Antoninus lighting the way for his sons and Gen. Rab. 38:6, an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period. 76

Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d). See also Mek. de R. Ishmael Amalek 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:179), in which Jethro sees Moses behaving "like" a king, a shadow marker of comparison.

95

have necessitated ignoring important aspects of the work of Goldberg and others.77 Similarly, one third-century parable resembles an informal version of the antithetical parable:

R. Samuel bar Nachmani said, In all your days have you seen rebels against a king to whom he continues to give their sustenance? R. Jonathan said, It is written, "Even when they had cast an image of a calf for themselves" (Nehemiah 9:18), manna came down.78 But others are totally formless, en passant comparisons with kings.

R. Hananiah ben Machinai said, "Put two loaves between the thighs of the lambs and wave them and you will fulfill two verses of Scripture at once: bread with the lambs and lambs with the bread [Leviticus 23:18 and 23:20]. Rabbi said, "You wouldn't do this before a king of flesh and blood and you would do so before the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed? Rather, put this at the side of that and wave them. Is Judah the Patriarch here referring to what might be done at a ceremony of the imperial cult? Or just to the need not to engage in behavior that might be thought disgusting in the presence of a king? In any event, a comparison is made between God and a king, but without any formal characteristics.

77

See also Midr. Pss 55:3, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period, in which a company of angels goes before a man, saying "make way for the image of God" in implicit comparison to heralds going before images of the emperor; this might have been characterized as a direct parable without a marker of comparison and with an implicit nimshal.

78

Midr. Pss 3:3, an Imperial parable. See also Lev. Rab. 18:5, a series of Imperial parables attributed to R. Levi, in which "flesh and blood" does something and God does the same thing but which contains no markers of comparison or applicability as in a direct parable and no "introduction to Part B" as in an antithetical parable.

79

Sifra Emorpereq 13:8 (Weiss ed., 102a), an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period.

96

Another example may also refer to cultic practices involving "kings, " since it explains Numbers 7:10-11 ‫׳‬s rules about the offerings by nâsy'îm by comparing Nachshon, the ancestor of kings, with a king:

Why does Scripture say, "One nāšy' each day"? Because Nachshon was a king,80 and he began the offering, he might have said, "I began the offerings and I will offer with everyone else every day." Therefore it says, "one nāšy'each day." 81 The comparison can be even more remote. This example does not seem to compare God to a king at first blush, but why else would R. Yohanan think of Israel as God's "legions"?82 R. Yohanan said, The angels wanted to sing a song before the Holy One May He Be Blessed in the same night that Israel passed through the sea. The Holy One May He Be Blessed did not permit it. He said to them, "My legions are in trouble and you would sing a song before me?"83 Like direct and antithetical parables, formless parables perform various rabbinic tasks, notably exegesis.

Indeed, one of the most startling exercises of biblical interpretation I have found in any third-century king-parable is in one of the most formless

80

On its face, this is more than comparison, but Nachshon was surely not a king himself. Perhaps the comparison is to his own descendants, the royal line of David, which would require this parable to be reclassified as Standard. 81

Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period.

82

The Hebrew word lîgyôn is a loan word from Latin.

83

Exod. Rab. 23:7, an Imperial parable. See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 250251 ), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which God wears purple; Midr. Pss 18:21, a Standard parable, in which Resh Lakish is quoted as commenting on "Who is on the Lord's side?" (Exod 32:26) by pointing out that everyone would want to be in the royal household.

97

parables. The verse under discussion is Psalms 22:7, 'anokî tôla'at

wèlo'-'îs,

usually translated "I am a worm and not a man." Much of the material that goes before this king-parable from R. Joshua ben Levi is devoted to spinning the verse so that it is positive, so that being a worm is somehow a good thing. Joshua achieves that result by completely revising the Scriptural verse; he treats tôla'at‫״‬

"worm" - as having the same meaning as mëtulâ'îm\n

Nahum

2:4, meaning "empurpled," or "dressed in purple," there referring to "the valiant men," but with this result here:

'Ânôkîtôla'at

wèlô'-'îs.

R. Joshua ben Levi said, "I clothed you in

purple at the Sea, and am not an ordinary man." 84 As a result, the verse from Psalms is understood not as a lament, but as a statement that Israel enthroned God, presumably at the Sea of Reeds85; use of a king-parable is the least element of the daring, imagination and learning Joshua here displays, but his moves would have been impossible without the

84

Midr. Pss 22:20. See William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, volume 2, at 457 n. 44. A literal translation might be "I am he who clothed you in purple" to approximate how Joshua gave effect to the scriptural use of 'änökl rather than 'anî. R. Samuel bar Nachman also changed the meaning of tôla'at, he read it as having the meaning in Exod 26:1 to refer to the purple yarns used in the Temple, so that "I am a worm, not a man" became "I built a Temple for you with two kinds of purple, and am not an ordinary man," but this use of "purple" does not refer to royal clothing, and this text is not a king-parable. Samuel was of a later generation than Joshua, and perhaps it is fair to think of his exegesis here, on its face as startling as Joshua's, as derivative; his reading appears along with Joshua's in Midr. Pss 22:20. 85

The speaker in the 22nd Psalm is usually thought of as David, but I think the verse must be attributed elsewhere in Joshua's radical re-reading.

98

premise that God, like human kings, somehow can be understood as wearing purple clothes.86 Formless parables need not be short; they can be complex, and, like formal parables, they can generate complex intertextual narratives. In a formless parable, R. Abbahu pointed out that a king is to be praised for billeting his legions in the desert, and compared such a king to God in a narrative about God's care for Israel built from verses in Exodus, Psalms, Judges and Chronicles while contrapuntally offering a narrative of God's punishment of Israel from verses in Lamentations.87 Chapter 2 showed that almost 59% of the third-century king-parables came from the last of the third-century Rabbis, the third generation of Amoraim.88 Not surprisingly, in light of the "regularization" phenomenon,89 this is not true for formless parables: that generation and the preceding generation together provided only approximately 56% of them, with 5% coming from Tannaim90 and almost 17% from the A1 /Midcentury period.91

86

Other exegetical formless parables are the parable about Moses behaving like a king, which interprets Moses' remaining seated in a negative way, the parable about a king making a holiday for a new friend, which is exegesis of "an ordination offering for a pleasing odor" (Lev 8:28), the parable about waving bread and lambs, and accompanying text, and the parable about Nachshon, which clears up a redundancy in the biblical text.

87

Lam. Rab. petihah 16, an Imperial parable.

88

See Chapter 2, note 105, supra.

89

See note 119 and accompanying, text, supra.

90

The same percentage as for third-century parables as a whole, perhaps suggesting the relative absence of regularization at that time. See Chapter 2, text following note 96, supra.

91

But it was members of the third generation who used the style of the formless parable to offer direct comments about contemporary or "recent" events and circumstances, including the fact that emperors were made such by the army. While doing exegesis of Esth 1:3, R.

99

In the next chapter I will turn briefly to an aspect of the secular narratives of third-century king-parables, the notion that the king is not merely being compared to God, but is in some sense the same character, a stand-in for God.

Eleazar ben Pedat identified the "nobles" in the court of Ahasuerus mentioned there with those legions whose acclamation is necessary for the "king" to be called "Augustus, that is, Caesar," so that somehow "the nobles" in Esth were understood as those to whom Ahasuerus owed his crown. R. Isaac then said those legions were the Decumani and the Augustiani, the very legions who had advised "Nebuchadnezzar" to destroy the Temple, with the result that God destroyed them and replaced them with others, which Eleazar identified as the Herculiani and the loviani. Esth. Rab. 1:19. "Nebuchadnezzar" here is a stand-in for Vespasian and/or Titus; the Destructions of the First and Second Temples are being treated as interchangeable. Eleazar died before the accession of Diocletian and the end of our "third century" while the Herculiani and the loviani were legions created by Diocletian and the Tetrarchy he headed, their names reflecting the self-identification of members of the Tetrarchy with Hercules and Jupiter. See Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire AD 284-430, Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1993, 33. The attribution of this final "fact" to Eleazar is therefore not historically accurate, although there is no reason to doubt that it comes from someone in the third generation of Amoraim who lived into the fourth century. See also Gen. Rab. 94:9, a direct Imperial parable, in which R. Isaac specifically mentions the Decumani and the Augustiani; Tanh. Exod. (Buber ed.) 2:2, a Standard parable, in which a third-generation Amora compares Pharaoh to the "cosmocrator," a title used by Roman emperors at least from Diocletian, but perhaps earlier.

100

Chapter 4: The Figure of the King

I have so far largely ignored the secular narratives of the third-century king-parables. Unlike the academic background of many others who have studied Midrash, mine is not in "either English or comparative literature" 1 ; perhaps that is why I fail to see any significant "aesthetic achievement" 2 in the king-parables or in either of their principal parts. Thus handicapped, I will restrict my treatment of the secular narratives to some observations about the identity of their principal character. 3

1

David Stern, Midrash and Theory 3.

2

David Stern, Parables in Midrash 2. Putting aside the compositional brilliance of the intertextual nimshals, I also do not agree with Daniel Boyarin that the narratives in nimshals are "vividly realized," although I agree with him that the narratives in most secular narratives are less "vividly realized" than those in nimshals. "Rhetoric and Interpretation" 271. See also Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 82 (parables schematic in their characterizations and plots and quite unrealistic.) Third-century king-parables do, however, occasionally employ little "literary" devices, like the secular narrative about two precious pearls generated by Song 4:5 ("your breasts are like two fawns"), Song Rab. 4:5 (1), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, but they do not get better than that. 3

The second most common character in these secular narratives is the king's son, see Chapter 2, notes 14-53 and accompanying text, supra. Other common characters are the king's wife or intended wife, usually called "Matrona, " see Chapter 2, notes 65-77 and accompanying text, supra; the king's "friends," see Chapter 2, notes 54-64 and accompanying text, supra; the residents of a province, sometimes but usually not in rebellion, including their "great ones," patrons and magistrates; the king's armies, including their generals and on occasion a "hero" and a single private soldier; various "royal" officials, sometimes unspecified or called the king's "associates" but frequently prefects, less often duxes and occasionally called a procurator, an archon, a comes or a praetor; other governmental dignitaries, called the "greats of the kingdom" or senators or council members; the king's daughters; the king's servants and household members, often unspecified, but including freedmen, a tailor, a guardian, a herald, a garden guard, musicians, messengers, torturers, cooks, guards, a gatekeeper, an athlete, a butcher, a shepherd, a zookeeper, a steward, a broker, and some slave girls; banquet and other guests; tenant farmers and hired agricultural workers; the king's enemies, including brigands, barbarians and a pretender who established a rival mint; prisoners; and vague chorus-like figures called "they" or "people" or "one," sometimes a "clever one." Parts are also played by members of the king's family, including his father, his brother, his father-in-law, 101

The figure of the king4 in the secular narratives of the king-parables has generally been taken to be, or to stand for, represent, or be a substitute, symbol or metaphor for, God.5 The following remarks are from a recent study: the royal parable, wherein God is substituted by a human king. . . , in which the two rival authorities, the king and God, are effectively superimposed . . . . in which the king almost always stands for God.6 his sons-in-law and his sisters-in-law; relatives, comrades and associates of other characters; tradesmen; a shopkeeper; petitioners; a would-be buyer of the king's garden; a rhetor; Matrona's second husband; a trespasser, a stranger and an acquaintance; some townsmen; a thief and his wife; and a flock of sheep, a pack of wolves, a dove (with a hawk in pursuit), a hungry bear, and several dogs, all adding up to a "corpus of well-known . . .characters, " Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 87. In several parables, in all or most of which the king is being compared to God, the king is entirely or mostly offstage. See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57-58), the parable about a brigand threatening the king's son; Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 394), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period, in which a rhetor's praise of the king before he asks for anything is compared with the sequence of verses in Deuteronomy; Sifre Deut. 345 (Finkelstein ed., 402), the parable of the unembarrassed returning king's son; Deut. Rab. 2:36, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a thief and his wife publicly wearing jewels stolen from the king being compared to saying the second line of the Sh'ma aloud; Gen. Rab.63:5, a parable from R. Levi about a prince who breaks into the king's palace; Lev. Rab. 4:2, R. Levi's parable about a daughter of kings being "from above"; Midr. Pss 55:3, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period in which a herald going before an icon of the king is compared to angels going before a man, made in the image of God, Sifra Kedoshim pereq 11:14 (Weiss ed., 93d), the parable of the prince with bad digestion; Sifra Tzav Mek. De Miluim 14 (Weiss ed. 42a-b), in which the queen agrees to serve for her daughter until the princess is old enough, Num. Rab. 9:1, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period about an artist who substitutes the head of the new king on the statue of the old king he had been making; Gen. Rab. 45:5, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, in which a prisoner who asks for freedom only for himself is compared to Abraham, who referred only to himself as childless; and Sifre Deut. 355 (Finkelstein ed., 422-423), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, in which one who wishes to see the king cannot even bear seeing the curtain at the entrance to the province. 4

Usually referred to as a "king," or a "king of flesh and blood," or just "flesh and blood," see Chapter 3, note 56 and accompanying text, supra, but once each as "Antoninus" and as the "cosmocrator," titles of the Emperor of Rome. 5

This is a different issue from that of whether the "king," as an entirely human character, is modeled on the Roman Emperor, see Chapter 2's lengthy discussion on which the difference between the Imperial and the Standard parable is based; the notably larger issue here is whether the "king," as he appears in the secular narrative, is a human character at all or whether he is more importantly a stand-in for God. That some parables specifically say such things as that "the king is God," see Chapter 3, notes 30-32 and accompanying text, supra, sheds no light on this question; context makes it clear that the Rabbis are only spelling out the comparisons they are making. 6

Galit Hasan-Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood 39, 40-41.

102

The author of those words did not reach those conclusions independently; she relied on the view of David Stern that the parables are mostly about God and the king as a single character. In Stern's influential book on parables, the king equals God, the king is G o d . 7 When he returned to the topic in 1996 in a discussion of the parable of the king who abandoned Matrona for a trip to a province by the sea, Stern held to this view: "the king represents God." 8 Obviously the king does not even come close to representing God in the fourteen antithetical parables, in which the king is specifically not even like God, no less a symbol of God; Stern readily concedes this. 9 Similarly, no one could claim that the figure of the king is interchangeable with God in the nineteen third-century direct or formless king-parables in which the king is compared to someone or something other than God. 10 Together, these groups constitute almost 14% of the parables under study.

7

David Stern, Parables in Midrash 93. On the next page Stern discussed the Rabbis' choice of the Roman Emperor "as a symbol for God. " 8

David Stern, Midrash and Theory 46. See notes 33-35 and accompanying text, infra, for my argument that the king does not stand in for God in this parable. For elements of Daniel Boyarin's position, see note 31, infra. Standing behind at least some scholarly views that the figure of the king represents God is an exalted notion of kingship quite at odds with what the kings in many parables actually do: "The king is the highest human representative. He is at the same time the most authoritative, the wisest and the most lovable father." Clemens Thoma, "Literary and Theological Aspects," 38. 9

David Stern, Parables in Midrash 94.

10

In three parables, the king is compared to the Shekhinah or to the "holy spirit" rather than to God called by one of God's common rabbinic appellations, usually the "Holy One May He Be Blessed," less often "he who spoke and the world came to be" or the "King of Kings of Kings," even less often ha-mâqôm, the "Place." The scope of this study does not permit me to investigate whether it is more accurate to say that in these three parables the king is being compared to God or not. To answer such questions it would be necessary to take a position, for example, on whether a rabbinic reference to the Shekhinah, God's "indwelling presence," is to 103

In one of these direct parables, the king is compared t o t h e Sabbath, 1 1 in another t o t h e ministering angels, 12 and in a formless parable both t o a baby and t o t h e Rabbis themselves. 1 3 In several parables, he is compared w i t h a biblical figure, a hero like Abraham, 1 4 Jacob, 1 5 Moses, 16 and Nachshon, 17 or a possible villain (himself royalty) like Pharaoh, 18 Saul, 19 Absalom, 2 0 and Ahasuerus. 21 Less lofty are some of t h e other figures t o whom kings are

a hypostasis of God, an aspect of God or something else altogether, and on what a rabbinic reference to the "holy spirit" may have had to do with trinitarian speculation in other communities in Palestine. A wish for completeness and a desire to be fair to the scholars with whom I disagree have led me to treat these parables as being comparisons to God under other names. See Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412-413), a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period, and Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed., 2:27), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which the king is compared to the Shekhinah; Song Rab. 8:5 (10), an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, in which the king is compared to the "holy spirit." 11

b. Pesach 103a, an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

12

Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 7 (Lauterbach ed., 1:245), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period. 13

Eccl .Rab. 1:2.1, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

14

See Deut. Rab 3:7, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which the king is compared both to God and to Abraham. 15

Gen. Rab. 94:9, an Imperial parable; Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 413), a Standard parable, each from the A3b/Transitional period.

16

See Sifre Deut. 3 (Finkelstein ed., 11-12), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 17

Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52).

18

Tanh. Va'era 2 (Buber ed., 10b).

19

Lev. Rab.26:7, a Standard parable of Resh Lakish.

20

Midr. Pss 3:3.

21

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 100-101), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period; Esth. Rab. 1:19, an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited empire period. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider whether it is fair to call Saul or Absalom, or even Ahasuerus, "villains."

104

compared: a king is one figure among those compared to all who must die; 22 a king is compared to a w e t nurse;23 two kings (and their prefects) are compared to different grades or shades of leprosy. 24 In t w o of these direct parables it is especially clear that the king does not stand in for God, since in them the figure of the king is compared to Abraham and Moses, while other characters -- a hero who comforts the king and a tutor to whom the king entrusts his son -- are the ones compared with God. 25 But what about the majority of the parables, those in which some aspect or action of a king is compared to some aspect or action of God? W e have a convenient group of representative parables to look at closely with this question in mind. 26 Chapter 3 set forth seventeen direct 2 7 parables in which the king is compared with God, chosen with a view to illustrating various 22

fed. Rab. 12:5, an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided empire period.

23

Gen. Rab.69:3, R. Abbahu's parable about the prince plagued by flies. Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst identified this wet nurse with the Shekhinah in Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Dritter Teil, a move that overemphasizes the grammatical gender of the Shekhinah and seems to assume away the question of whether the person with whom the king is compared must be God or an aspect of God. 24

b. Shebu. 6b, an imperial parable from the A1 /Mid-century period.

25

Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354), an Imperial parable; Sifre Deut. 306 (Finkelstein ed., 330), a Standard parable, each from the A3b/Transitional period.

26

1 will demonstrate their representativeness in the footnotes through other parables not set forth in full in Chapter 3's text or footnotes, having consulted all the relevant 183 parables, see note 27, infra. I have not cited all of them in the interests of readability. 27

I have excluded formless parables for these purposes on the theory that advocates of the view that the king in king-parables is a stand-in for God would argue that these are not parables, or at least that they are not the sort of parables in which the king is a stand-in for God. I have also excluded the parable of the king's servants who built a palace on water, since it has no nimshal to which its secular narrative might be compared and it is therefore impossible for me to say what role the figure of "the king" is playing.

105

points made in that chapter; in selecting them I did not give any weight to the relationship of the king to God embodied in their secular narratives. They represent approximately 9% of the third-century direct parables in which the figure of a king is compared to God. 28 If the king in the secular narrative is a stand-in for God, it is reasonable to expect to learn something about God or God's actions or motivations from the actions or motivations of the king in the secular narrative. This would probably involve substantial parallelism between the events in the secular narrative in which the king appears and the events in the nimshal in which God appears, in the sequence of those events, and especially in the reasons for those events. It is also reasonable to expect substantially similar "personalities" for the king and for God; any emotions and desires ascribed to the king would probably be understood to represent the Rabbis' idea of God's emotions and desires, kibëyâkôlto say that God has them. Is this what we find in our seventeen examples? Only three of these show the king presented by the Rabbis as a stand-in or representative of God: the one about the conquering king who refused to issue decrees over the people until they accepted his sovereignty, the one about the king whose palace is destroyed by brigands and who subsequently executes them, and R. Levi's parable of the king who forgives the debts of provincials who come to meet him.

28

232 (total) minus 14 (antithetical), minus 18 (formless) minus 21 (king not compared to God) minus 1 (without nimshal) plus 6 (antithetical or formless parables in which king is not compared to God and thus double-counted) equal 184.

106

There is substantial parallelism in action, sequence of action, and motivation, between the first king's refusal to issue orders and God's enunciation of the First Commandment before the others. This teaches something about God, or, more precisely, something about God's Torah,29 even though the parallel is not precise (the Rabbis are not saying that God thought that Israel would have failed to obey the other Nine if "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" had not come first, in the way the king believed the provincials would have failed to carry out his decrees if they had not first accepted his sovereignty.) Even greater parallelism, which is not evident from what has been quoted earlier, exists in the parable of the destroyed palace and the king sitting in judgment. The parable is part of the Mekilta's exegesis of "The Lord will reign forever and ever" (Exodus 15:18); it is immediately preceded by the question and answer "When? When you [God] will build it with your two hands," a question and answer in turn generated by the previous biblical verse, "the sanctuary. . . that your hands have established" (Exodus 15:17.) The parable is set in the future and teaches something about God in the future, when God's reign will be secure and universally recognized as a result of his having rebuilt the Temple and destroyed the Romans, actions parallel to this king having rebuilt his palace and executed the brigands, and performed for parallel reasons with parallel emotions. The palace is a stand-in for the

29

This should not be surprising, as it has been clear and will become clearer in Chapters 5, 6 and 7, infra, that the Rabbis were much more interested in explicating God's Torah than in explaining God.

107

Temple; the brigands are stand-ins for the Romans, and the king is indeed a stand-in for God. 30 In R. Levi's parable the king's forgiveness of the taxes of various elements of the provincial population is almost exactly parallel with God's forgiveness of the sins of various elements of the Jewish congregation on the High Holy Days, and the parable enables Levi to teach an important lesson about God.31

30

The idea that the "king" will "crucify" the brigands might suggest a later than third-century provenance for this parable, although crucifixion was a generally used Roman punishment, and mention of it by the Rabbis probably has nothing to do with Christianity.

31

See also Eccl. Rab. 9:5.8, a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period, in which the wise, who are ready to attend the king's banquet at a moment's notice, and the foolish, who aren't, are the exegetical hooks for "My servants shall eat but you shall go hungry" (Isa 65:13) so that the king is a stand-in for God; Eccl. Rab. 5:10.2, a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period, in which a king who takes his share of the produce leaving his tenant farmer's share subject to rot and thievery is an apparent stand-in for God taking the soul, leaving the body to corruption; Gen. Rab.62:2, in which a king who showed banquet guests what they would have to eat and drink is a stand-in for God showing the pious their rest in the world to come; Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83), R. Hiyya's parable about the king who missed his vexing sons from the battlefield; Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed.1: 185-186), in which Antoninus who lights the way for his sons so that they will be honored is an apparent stand-in for God going before Israel so that they will be honored; Song Rab. 6:12 (1 ), in which a secular narrative about a princess in a stubble field provides framework for exegesis of "Before I was aware, my fancy set me in a chariot" (Song 6:12)) so that the king is a stand-in for God; the following Standard parables from the A1 /Midcentury period: Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211), in which a king who dates the era from rescue of his son is a stand-in for God who began the era with the Exodus; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211 ), in which a king showers presents on his son after his friend did so as an apparent stand-in for God giving the laws after Jethro taught some laws; Exod. Rab. 2:2, in which a king watching workers from a high tower is an apparent stand-in for God observing who follows Torah and who does not in the course of exegesis of "his eyes behold, his gaze examines humankind" (Pss 11:4); the following Imperial parables from the A2/Divided Empire period: Exod. Rab. 20:14, in which a king who is not satisfied with merely rescuing his son from barbarians is an apparent stand-in for God when he decided to throw Egyptians into the sea; Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed., 102), in which a king who orders provincials to speak against him directly, not against his procurator, is an apparent stand-in for God, who wants the people to speak against him not against Moses; Lam. Rab. 3:24 (99), in which a provincial who attaches himself to the king is a stand-in for Israel who worships only God, so that the king is a stand-in for God; Sifra Kedoshim pereq 11:14 (Weiss ed., 93d), in which the prince with poor digestion is a stand-in for the Land in exegesis of "otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it as it vomited out the nation that was there before you" (Lev 18:28) so that the offstage king is a stand-in for God; the following Standard parables from the A2/Divided Empire period: Sifra Bechukotai, pereq 2:5 (Weiss ed., 111c), in which a king who pays all his workers fairly but pays the worker who

108

In fourteen of the seventeen parables set forth in Chapter 3, however, the character of the king is not interchangeable with the character of God.

worked hardest the most is a stand-in for God who is fair to the nations of the world but who prefers Israel; Sifra Bechukotai, pereq 3:3 (Weiss ed., 111d),in which a king who wishes to stroll with his tenant is a stand-in for God, who will accompany the righteous in the world to come; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 118-119), in which the king asking one of two cooks to prepare a second meal is apparent stand-in for God preferring Israel's sacrifice to Noah's; Gen. Rab. 41(42):3, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period, in which a king who protects a province only for the sake of his friend is an apparent stand-in for God who protects the world only for Abraham's sake; the following Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Sifre Deut. 43 (Finkelstein ed., 102), in which a king banishes his queen but advises her to keep wearing her adornments is a stand-in for God having made the commandments binding while Israel is in exile; Sifre Deut. 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404), in which a king who is urged to reconcile with one of his sons by his other sons is apparent stand-in for God in . .the united tribes of Israel. Let Reuben live and not die" (Deuteronomy 33:5-6); Sifre Deut. 8 (Finkelstein ed., 16), in which a king whose three servants each improved land given to him is a stand-in for God in various verses in Genesis; Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353), in which a king's progressively more evil tenant farmers are stand-ins for Abraham's progeny up to Jacob, with intertextual elements; Gen. Rab. 9:10, in which a king who executes those banquet guests who do not bless him is a stand-in for God creating the angel of death for those who do not practice commandments and good deeds; Gen. Rab. 9:9, (similar, involving agricultural workers rather than banquet guests and Gehenna rather than the angel of death); Exod. Rab. 30:9, three parables in which kings who turn their gardens over to theirs sons and give their sons the best food are stand-ins for God giving all the commandments to Israel; Pesiq. Rab Kah.5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102), a series of parables in which kings who turn various things oyer to their sons upon maturity are stand-ins for God giving Israel authority over the festivals and the new moons; Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103), in which a king who wounds his son and then gives him a remedy for the wound is an apparent stand-in for God's creation of both the Inclinations; Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103-104) (similar, but Evil Inclination and Torah); Song Rab. 6:2 (3), in which a king who goes around the world selecting plantings for his son's garden is a stand-in for God associating the righteous of the nations with Israel; Midr. Pss 1:5, in which a king who corrects a condition in his garden that was too difficult for his tenant farmer to correct is a stand-in for God blessing Isaac, Abraham having been unable to bless Isaac without also blessing his other sons; the following Imperial parables from R. Levi: y. Ta'an. 2:1 (61b), in which ä king who sends two hard legions far away to protect the people when he becomes angry is a stand-in for God's treatment of the angels of destruction, part of the exegesis of "slow to anger"; Gen. Rab. 50:12, in which a king unwilling to punish people in the absence of their patron lest they say the patron would have protected them is a stand-in for God punishing the Sodomites on the 16th of Sivan, when both sun and moon are visible, so that neither sun-worshippers nor moon-worshippers could make that claim, part of the exegesis of "The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar" (Gen 19:23); Pesiq. Rab. 10:13, in which a king who counts and recounts the contents of one small container while ignoring his other storehouses is a stand-in for God ordering a census of Israel but not of the nations. When Daniel Boyarin wrote that " i t becomes clear that only one story is being told at all, for God is the king and Israel is the son" (emphasis in original), Intertextuality 91, he is referring to a specific parable in his own translation, "based on recourse to the oldest manuscripts, " of Mek. de R. Ishmael, see Intertextuality 149, and attributed to R. Judah ben liai, a third-generation Tanna and therefore not from the third century; I have not located any general view of his on this subject, perhaps because intertextual parables, the ones in which he is most interested, seem particularly uncongenial to presenting the king as a stand-in for God. See notes 42-44 and accompanying text, infra.

109

The exegetical purpose of at least one -- R. Isaac's parable of the king who put his friend's gifts at the entrance of the palace, in which the nimshal consists entirely of "šene'êmar, 'Bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting'" 32 -- is so quickly and definitively achieved that there seems to be no room for parallelism and no opportunity to learn anything about God or much about God's Torah: even though this king puts his friend's gifts at the entrance of the palace and God commands that the sacrificial victim be brought to the entrance of the Tent, the king and God are neither doing the same things nor trying to do the same things. In other parables the king and God couldn't possibly be the same character, as in the explanation of the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 with a parable of a king who never did anything without the advice of two senators. It is hard to believe that R. Joshua ben Levi thought in any way and on any level that there are somehow two angels without whose advice God does not act; such a belief in three powers in Heaven would certainly have been heretical for a Rabbi.33

32

See also Lev. Rab. 5:6 for a variant of this parable. In the following footnotes I try to place various parables in which the king is not a stand-in for God into various categories: of course, these categories frequently overlap, and more than one reason often exists for deciding that the parable does not identify the king with God. 33

See also Gen. Rab. 8:10, an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which a king who ejects his prefect from their wagon so people will know which of them is king is compared to God putting Adam to sleep so the angels will know he is merely a man, offered as exegesis of "Turn away from man" (Isa 2:22)); Pesiq. Rab. 21:27-28, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which a king returning from vacation is surprised that his son confuses him with other officials, offered as exegesis of various verses, including the First Commandment; Pesiq. Rab.21:10, in which a king's orders are finally understood by officers as intended for his sons, offered as exegesis of the first word of the Ten Commandments; the following Standard parables from the A2/Divided Empire period: Sifra Bechukotai, pereq 4:4 (Weiss ed. 112a), in which a king busies himself with a servant for evil, offered as exegesis of "I

110

An excellent example of a parable in which the king is not a stand-in for God is the very parable David Stern put forth in his second book to show that the king does represent God, the parable of the vacationing king whose wife comforts herself by studying her marriage contract.34 The Rabbis did not present God, or a symbol for God, as doing such things as abandoning his "wife" or vacationing at a province by the sea. Jupiter may have done such

will set my face against you" (Lev 26:17); Pesiq. Rab. 23:3, the parable about the king who sends his son to the store, in which the son loses a coin, offered as exegesis concerning the different verbs regarding the Sabbath used in Exod 20:8 and Deut 5:12; Midr. Pss 25:9, in which a king thanks his banquet guests for finally arriving, offered as exegesis of "How great is your goodness stored up for those that fear you" (Pss 31:20); Midr. Pss 22:22, the parable about the king helping his son with a post, offered as exegesis of "put it on the Lord; let him deliver - let him rescue" (Pss 22:8): Midr. Pss 25:9, in which a king is persuaded by his procurator to have more guests at a banquet, offered as exegesis of "the Lord is good to all" (Pss 145:9); the following Imperial parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Midr. Pss 86:7, in which a king sends his evil legions far off, offered as exegesis of "They come from a distant land, from the end of heavens, the Lord and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole earth" (Isa 13:5); Deut. Rab. 1:23, in which a king who turns his son's enemy over to him, offered as exegesis of "See I have begun" (Deut 2:31); the following Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Sifre Deut. 19 (Finkelstein ed., 31), in which a tutor, tired of telling the king's son that these vineyards will be yours and these olive trees will be yours, offered as exegesis of "You have reached the hill country of the Amorites, which the Lord our god is giving us" (Deut 1:20); Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 397), in which a king afraid of most of his sons to give a favored son a gift, offered as exegesis of "Jacob was a perfect man living in tents" (Gen 25:27); Pesiq Rab Kah. 2:7 (Mandelbaum ed., 27), in which a king with favorite underwear, offered as interpretation of God's giving the commandments only to Israel; Lev. Rab. 5:6, in which a king who feeds a zookeeper to a bear as punishment for eating the bear's food is offered as interpretation of God causing a priest to be consumed by fire as punishment for eating consecrated food. I recognize that a great deal of judgment, with which others may disagree particularly if they are otherwise convinced of the identity of the figure of the king in the secular narrative and the figure of God in the nimshal, sometimes goes into the determination of when a king and God "couldn't possibly" be the same character. For example, why is a king who prefers the food served by one cook a stand-in for God preferring the sacrifice of Israel when a king with favorite underwear is not a stand-in for God favoring Israel with more commandments? My judgments are based on my reading of the parables, and I have tried to resolve more doubtful cases in favor of the king being a stand-in for God. See note 51, infra, which shows that if the parables I have treated as involving a king who "couldn't possibly" be a stand-in for God were instead treated as parables in which the king is a stand-in for God, such parables would continue to represent a substantial minority both of the parables in which a king is compared to God and of all the third-century parables. 34

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 305-306).

Ill

things, but not the Holy One May He Be Blessed. The hortatory point of the parable,35 that Israel is to find comfort in Torah in difficult times, is easy to grasp, and it is based on a comparison of the king's actions with God's in a secular narrative constructed for that purpose; it is not based on the king and God being in any way the same character: God, who gave Torah to Israel, who in a difficult situation found comfort in it, is compared to a king who gave a ketubah to Matrona, who in a difficult situation found comfort in it. If the secular narrative of Resh Lakish's parable of the king with three sons raised by a slave woman were parallel with its nimshal, either whenever the king thought of his sons he would think of the slave woman or whenever God spoke to the Patriarchs he would ask them to speak to, or otherwise do something for, the Land. If the king is to be treated as a stand-in for God, then the sons should be stand-ins for the Patriarchs and the slave woman a stand-in for the Land; as it is, the only parallelism is that the sons and the Patriarchs each come in sets of three, the slave woman and the Land each somehow care for its own set of three, while the king indirectly greets the slave woman every time he greets his son and God remembers the merits of the Land every time he remembers the merits of the Patriarchs.36

35

This parable appears as substantially non-exegetical in Pesiq. Rab Kah. and Pesiq. Rab.21:34, but in Lam. Rab.3:21 (87), where I expect it originated, it is exegesis of "But this I call to mind and therefore I have hope." (Lam 3:21 ). See Chapter 5, infra, for discussions of both exegetical and non-exegetical parables with hortatory tasks.

36

See also the following Imperial parables from the A1 /Midcentury period: Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 8 (Lauterbach ed., 2:262), in which there is little if any parallelism between the provincials who destroy images of the king and the humans who receive the death penalty for shedding the blood of other humans, the images of God; Gen. Rab. 10:4, in which there is no parallelism between a king becoming angry and reducing the number of dancers before him and God causing the stars to take longer paths after Adam sinned; Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5

112

That analysis may seem belabored; the point is more simply made when we look at other parables set forth in Chapter 3. There is no parallelism in action or motivation between the king who got so angry at some provincials that he moved away, and God, who is closer to Israel during the Ten Days of Repentance than otherwise. 37 Nor is there much in common between the angry king who sent a prudent general to destroy a province, and the loving God who sent the prophet Hosea to convince Israel to repent; it is the general, not the king, who preaches calmness and patience to the provincials. Sometimes the parable's comparison does not involve much activity on the king's part or any insight into or even statement about God or God's Torah, as in the parables of the two pearls of more or less equal size being compared to Moses and Aaron;

(Lauterbach ed., 2:236), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which there is no parallelism between a king appointing different administrators over valuable and valueless property and God giving more commandments to Israel than to the nations; the nations are not complaining about lack of commandments; Sifre Deut. 352 ((Finkelstein ed., 412-413), in which there is no parallelism between a king frequently visiting his son and the Shekhinah going into exile with Israel; Sifra Shemini, Mek. de Miluim 8 (Weiss ed., 44b), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, in which there is little if any parallelism between a queen's sister urging her to serve the king and Moses urging Aaron to function as High Priest; the following Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Sifre Deut. 306 (Finkelstein ed., 330), in which there is no parallelism between a king assigning a rhetor to watch his son and God putting Israel under the protection of the Shekhinah: Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412413), in which there is no parallelism between a king staying with his youngest son because the son is sad and God putting the Temple within the territory of Benjamin; Gen. Rab. 63:2, in which there is little if any parallelism between an astrologer-ruler who rescues a prisoner from fire because he foretells that the prisoner will have a daughter who will marry a king and God, who rescues Abraham from Nimrod's fire because of the merits of his future grandson Jacob; Eccl. Rab. 3:9.1, in which there is no parallelism between a king who makes his banquet guests sit on what they brought and will not brook their complaints and God who tells those in Gehenna that it is their own acts that got them there. 37

See also Mek.de R. Ishmael Bahodesh, pereq 5, a very similar parable.

113

all the king does is weigh the two pearls, while in the nimshal God does nothing.38 Although not evidenced by the examples from Chapter 3, sometimes the exegesis can be so arbitrary or pro forma as to make it unlikely that the king in the secular narrative is a stand-in for God. For example, "you did not call upon me, ο Jacob" (Isaiah 43:22) is interpreted by means of a parable of a king not invited to a banquet for his legions, and "he shall see the very form of the Lord" (Numbers 12:8) is interpreted with a parable of a king seen in his informal clothes by his freedman. 39

38

See also Gen. Rab. 56:11, a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, in which Matrona had ten sons, each banished by the king, compared to ten trials of Abraham. 39

Esth. Rab. 3:8, an Imperial parable of R. Levi; Lev. Rob. 1:14. See also Pesiq. Rab. 21:9, an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, in which a king who goes out with many soldiers on the parade ground, raising the question of how many more will accompany him when he goes to war, offered as exegesis of "When God will arise to establish judgment to save all the oppressed of the earth" (Pss 76:9); Deut. Rab. 1:21, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, in which a stranger inserts himself between a king and Matrona, offered as exegesis for "between me and Israel" (Exod 31:17); Exod. Rab 21:9, the parable in which a king tells an officer to go out without his staff of office, offered as exegesis of "cast away [another reading of the verb usually translated as "lift up"] your rod and stretch out your hand" (Exod 14:16); the following Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Gen. Rab. 83:3, in which a king only helps someone who supplied his son with food, offered as part of the exegesis of Gen 36:33, concerning the line of Bozrah as kings of Edom, based in turn on another verse in which the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8 (Mandelbaum ed., 30), in which a king whose flock is invaded by wolves tells the shepherd to count the sheep to see how many were lost, offered as part of the exegesis of Exod 30:12, concerning the census; Song Rab. 5:1, in which a king gives a banquet, offered as exegesis of "Eat, friends" (Song 5:1 ); Tanh. Ki Tisa 8, in which a king admires the way one of his garments clings to him, offered as exegesis of "For as the loincloth clings to one's loins, so I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me" (Jer 13:11), with intertextual component; the following Imperial parables from R. Levi: Gen. Rab. 36:7, in which a king blackens the face of a rival, compared to God's punishment of Ham and a dog for having sex together; Midr. Pss 17:3, in which it is noted that only a king can pardon, compared to Pss 17:2's statement that the Psalmist's judgment will come only from God's lips; Exod. Rab. 37:2, in which a king makes his friend comes and praetor but makes his friend's brother general, compared to God making Moses comes and praetor (based respectively on "he alone is faithful of all my household" (Num 12:7) and "Moses took his seat to settle disputes among the people" (Exod 18:13)), but making Aaron High Priest (note that Levi did unusual and original exegesis even in the course of arbitrary and pro forma exegesis); Esth. Rab.7:2, in which a king promotes an enemy before executing him, compared to Haman becoming great; the following Standard parables from R. Levi: Gen. Rab 44:4, in which a king pays a worker for cutting down thorns, offered as exegesis

114

And when a parable's exegesis is principally an exhibition of virtuosity, with little relevant taught about God and nothing very deep about God's Torah, the figure of the king will not be important enough to be a stand-in for God, as in the parable of the two petitioners, one in his own name and one in the name of his fathers, which allowed R. Alexandri to show Moses petitioning in the name of his fathers but being granted his petition in his own name, with the reverse for Hezekiah. 40 Another category of parables in which the king is compared to God but is a stand-in for God in only a very limited sense, if at all, may be thought of as exegetical wishful thinking: a scriptural verse is turned on its head by comparison with a secular narrative in which the king undoes his oath by fancy footwork -‫ ־‬as in Bar Kappara's parable in which a king's oath not to let his son into his palace is avoided by tearing down that palace and building a new one ‫ ״‬so that such a secular narrative can be wishfully compared to an oath by God such as "they shall not enter my rest." (Psalms 95:11.) 41 The king is a stand-in for God as the Rabbis hope and pray God will be, but they do not seem certain.

of "Like thorns cut down, that are already in the fire" (Isa 33:12), in the context of Abraham fearing that he might have killed an innocent man; Lev. Rab. 4:2, in which a townsman marries a princess but cannot satisfy her, offered as explanation of why the "soul is not satisfied: (Eccl 6:7) - because she is from above. 40

See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:6 (Mandelbaum ed., 180-181), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which a vacationing king whose daughters are accused of zënût is compared with God making sure that Israelite children born in Egypt look like their Israelite fathers to avoid claims of promiscuity with Egyptian men; Num. Rab. 7:4, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, in which a king who is happy with his cabbages (a reference to Diocletian's retirement?) in the evening but unhappy with them in the morning is compared to God, mostly for the sake of a play on words. 41

See also Midr. Pss 6:3, containing Standard parables from the A1 /Midcentury and A2/Divided Empire periods and an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, in which kings

115

Parables with intertextual nimshals seem particularly uncongenial to presenting the king as a stand-in for God; R. Levi's and R. Eleazar's parables about kings who would not court a woman without doing her some good are not ones in which the king represents God, who, in the nimshals, is not shown as doing anything like "courting" Israel. Rather, the secular narrative provides a basis for intertextual accounts of God clothing Israel, allowing them to walk on dry land, and rescuing them, or of God providing bread, wine, birds, and fruit to Israel. 42 This is not surprising, since, as we have learned from Daniel

avoid oaths to throw a sword at his son, to strike his son 100 blows and to pass a sword over his son's head are avoided by first breaking sword into pieces, by coiling the rope 100 times and striking him once and by putting the word in its casing. See Chapter 7, note 93 and accompanying text, infra, for a different reading of these parables. 42

See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. Supplement 5:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 464-465), a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period, in which a secular narrative of a king ordering people who wore black when his son died to wear white as his other son rejoices generates intertextual narrative of weeping and rejoicing mountains from verses in Jer and Isa; Song Rab. 8:12 (1), a Standard parable from the T5/Later Severan period, in which a secular narrative of an angry king who turns son over to a servant, who advises son to ignore the king, generates intertextual narrative of exile and idolatry from Dan and Ezek; the following Standard parables from the A1 /Midcentury period: Exod. Rab. 43:9, in which a secular narrative about a king and his unsuccessful tenant farmer generates intertextual narrative of Israel's redemption from Egypt from Hos and Exod; Exod. Rab. 42:8, in which a secular narrative about a king upset over Matrona having lost two pearls generates intertextual narrative about Israel's sins from Jer and Exod; Midr. Pss 6:3, an Imperial parable of R. Yohanan, in which a secular narrative about a king with two evil torturers generates intertextual narrative about the role of God's personified anger and wrath from Pss, Mic, Hos and Isa; Pesiq. Rab Kah 15:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 251-252), Standard parables from R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish, in which secular narratives about kings who are cruel to their sons generate intertextual narratives about the two exiles from Hos, Jer and Amos; the following Imperial parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Tanh. Pekude 4, in which a secular narrative about an enemy of the king who overthrows his statue generates intertextual narrative about the nations' hostility to Israel from Pss and Exod; Deut. Rab. 2:5, in which a secular narrative about a powerful prefect generates intertextual narrative about Moses from Hum and Deut; the following Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Sifre Deut. 349 (Finkelstein ed., 407), in which a secular narrative about two creditors of the king generates intertextual narrative about Shimon and Levi from Gen, Exod and Num; Lam. Rab. 1:1 (9), in which a secular narrative about a king who dresses his son as an olive treader when he disobeys generates intertextual narrative from Ezek and Lam about how Israel is dressed, partly based on a word in Lam being spelled bet-dalet-dalet, as is "olive treader"; Tanh. Miketz 5, in which a statement that a king only stands in his field when sheaves are piled in it, not when it is sown, plowed or weeded, generates intertextual narrative from Gen and Jer showing God only standing in the field on the occasion of "Israel is the Lord's hallowed portion, and the first fruits of the increase" (Jer 2:3); the following Imperial parables from R. 116

Boyarin, the secular narrative in an intertextual parable is constructed to provide a basis from which to generate an intertextual nimshal.43

It is not

likely - or at least it is not common -- that the figure of the king in such a purposefully constructed secular narrative will measure up to be a stand-in for God.44

Levi: Tanh. Bechukotai 6 (-Buber ed.) 56b, in which a secular narrative about a king who lights two lights generates intertextual narrative about lights and holiness from Gen, Lev and Isa; Deut. Rab. 3:3, in which a secular narrative about a king's friend's son who seeks return of a deposit his father made with the king generates intertextual narrative about the Exodus and the roles of Moses, Aaron and the heads of the tribes from Exod and Num; Exod. Rab. 15:13, in which a secular narrative about a dux on whom his legions put purple generates intertextual narrative from different parts of Exod about God's activities in Egypt; Exod. Rab. 18:6, in which a secular narrative of a king's son first made king of a barbarian land and then enslaved by his subjects generates intertextual narrative of Joseph and Jacob in Egypt from Gen, Exod and Joel; the following Standard parables from R. Levi: Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:9 (Mandelbaum ed., 277-78), in which a secular narrative about a king who takes credit for good wine but blames bad wine on his tenant farmer generates intertextual narrative on whether Israel is God's people or Moses' from Exod and Deut; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3 (Mandelbaum ed., 36), in which a secular narrative of a king who invites his enemies to a banquet only to have them destroy the palace necessitating that he execute them generates intertextual narrative about relations with Edom and Egypt from Deut, Pss, Lam and Joel; Lev. Rab. 22:8, in which a secular narrative about a king who keeps his gluttonous son at his own table generates intertextual narrative of idolatry in Egypt from Deut, Isa and Lev; Exod. Rab. 38:8, in which a secular narrative of a king who dresses his son's tutor in purple to protect him generates intertextual narrative of the resemblance of the priestly garments to those of the ministering angels from Exod and Isa. 43

See Chapter 3, note 32 and accompanying text, supra.

44

Exceptions seem to be Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed., 2:27), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which a secular narrative about a king who follows his son from province to province generates an intertextual narrative about the Shekhinah's protection of Israel from Gen, Exod and Song, in which the figure of the king seems to be a stand-in for the Shekhinah, Pesiq. Rab. 15:1-3 (Parma and JTS mss only), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, in which a secular narrative about a king who guards his orchard himself until his sons are grown and then turns it over to them generates an intertextual narrative about God's control of new moons, festivals and intercalation passing to Israel from Gen and Lev, and Exod. Rab.23:1, from R. Abbahu, in which a secular narrative about "Augustus" who stands, a stand-in for God, and a mere "king" who sits is combined with the idea that a song is required to establish a throne and used as a jumping-off point for intertextual narrative of God standing from Hab and reading "your throne is established mē'āz" (from Pss) together with " ,āz [Moses] sang" (from Exod)).

117

Although none of the parables set forth in Chapter 3 is interstitial, 45 interstitial parables are like intertextual parables in that they do not generally involve kings who are stand-ins for God. Thus, in a parable to which Daniel Boyarin has devoted an entire chapter, a secular narrative of a king who owned two gardens, one entirely within the other, who then sold the inner garden, and whose guard could not on his own keep the buyer of the inner garden from entering the outer garden, generated an interstitial narrative of Moses and the personified sea from verses in Psalms.46 Indeed, all types of constructed secular narratives designed to provide the jumping-off point for original and unusual exegesis are unlikely to contain "kings" who are stand-ins for God; this is equally true in non-intertextual and non-interstitial parables, as may be seen in the remaining three parables of R. Levi quoted in Chapter 3. This master parablist was also a master at setting up parables in which - on a verbal level - there seems to be substantial parallelism between the actions of the king and the actions of God. The king who makes his wife's rumored paramour the guest of honor at a banquet is parallel with God making the bull (that is, the Calf) the first of the offerings; the king with the less than perfect wife whom he makes perfect by suggesting a 45

See Chapter 3, note 34-37 and accompanying text, supra.

46

Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 5 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 228-229), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period; Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 93-104. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, 227-28, treats this nimshal as a "mythic narrative" that fleshes out the literary figure of the sea in Pss and perhaps provides an echo of the mythic conflict of God with the Sea in primordial times, giving Pss its "full mythic tone." See also Sifre Deut. 8 (Finkelstein ed., 16), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, in which a secular narrative of a servant who improves the vineyard the king gave him generates an interstitial narrative of Patriarchal agriculture from verses in Gen.

118

manicure is parallel with God making Abraham "blameless" (Genesis 17:1) by commanding circumcision; the king who wants to perform governmental acts out of the presence of the prefect is parallel with God wanting Moses out of the way. But these are not parables in which the king is in fact a stand-in for God; like most of the intertextual and interstitial parables already looked at, they are parables in which parallels between the king and God are created

to

generate and support unusual exegesis. 47 Unlike the unjustly accused friend of Matrona, Israel was indeed guilty in the m a t t e r of the Calf; Levi could not have

47

They may also be classified as parables principally involving the exhibition of exegetical virtuosity, although I have tried to include in the present category parables of greater substance than those I treated as principally exercises in virtuosity. See note 40 and accompanying text, supra. See also the following Imperial parables from R. Levi: Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:10 (Mandelbaum ed., 157-158), in which a secular narrative of a king who decrees that no provincial will wait upon him without having first waited on Matrona is constructed as part of the exegesis of "It shall remain seven days with its mother" (Lev 22:27) as meaning that a Shabbat must first pass before the animal may be sacrificed; Song Rab. 6:11 (1), in which a secular narrative of a king who uses torturers as protection from brigands is constructed to generate the conclusion that God provided a "stone," the Torah, to protect against another "stone," the Evil Inclination; Deut. Rab. 1:13, in which a secular narrative of a general who gives the troops his own gold after the king instructs him to distribute a greater amount is constructed to support the exegesis of "May the Lord, the god of your fathers, increase your numbers a thousand times, and bless you as he has promised" (Deut 1:11) as involving two separate promises, "a thousand times" and "as he has promised," understood to be infinite in amount; the following Standard parables of R. Levi: Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 243), in which a secular narrative of Matrona who is upset after losing one of her two myrtle branches and is consoled by the king who tells her to guard the one as if she was guarding both is constructed to support claim that after Israel "lost" "we will do" after the episode of the Calf God told them to guard "we will hear" as if they were guarding both; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6 (Mandelbaum ed., 314-315), in which a secular narrative of a prince who dallied with a slave girl, who was the only one willing to take him in after his disgrace, is constructed to support the conclusion that the fig tree was the source of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden since "they sewed fig leaves together" (Gen 3:7); Lev. Rab. 12:1, in which a secular narrative of a king who executed a freedman and told his replacement to stay away from a tavern is constructed to support the conclusion that Aaron's sons died because they drank too much wine, since Aaron was then commanded to drink no wine; Tanh. Ki Tisa 3, in which a secular narrative of a king who pays a worker he diverted from his work just as much as those who worked the whole shift is constructed to support the claim that those who labor in Torah but die young have just as much merit as those who labor in Torah longer, part of the exegesis of "whether they eat little or much" (Eccl 5:12).

119

thought otherwise, although in doing exegesis on why the bull is the first mentioned offering, he used the genre of Midrash and the subgenre of kingparables to present an unusual reading of "a bull." 48 And did Levi really think that God was concerned that the people would confuse Moses with him, as I suggested above? Not likely, but Levi's formulation of a parallel secular narrative enabled him to expound on why "Moses went down to the people" (Exodus 19:25) comes immediately before "God spoke." (Exodus 20:1) I suggested above that the parallelism between the Sign of the Covenant and Matrona's manicure stemmed from Levi's fey sense of humor; probably, and more important, the secular narrative he put forward enabled him to do creative exegesis of the word "blameless. " These are parables in which the Rabbis understood the king's actions or situation not as parallel to God's in any way, but merely as comparable to the extent necessary to launch novel exegesis. In the future, the third-century Rabbis taught, God will rebuild the Temple and punish the Romans; at Sinai, God first identified himself before he issued any other commandments. But neither in the future nor in the past will or did God worry about Moses getting credit God deserved, or find fault with someone's little fingernail. As is the case with most intertextual and interstitial parables, the secular narratives provide a basis for original exegesis; the kings in them are just kings, perhaps

48

Lev 22:27.

120

partly as a result of the regularization process49; they are not stand-ins or representatives of God. 50 What can we conclude? The king is a stand-in or representative of God in only a minority of third-century king-parables, roughly 20% of the direct parables in which the figure of a king is compared to God, 5 1 and, obviously, a smaller percentage of the entire corpus of third-century king-parables. In most parables, the king is not a stand-in for God. He is only a figure whose actions or aspects are somehow compared to God's to accomplish various tasks the Rabbis undertook. 5 2 This will become clearer in Chapter 5, which will examine in greater depth what the Rabbis were doing in telling parables.

49

See Chapter 2, note 119, supra, and accompanying test.

50

See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:5 (Mandelbaum ed., 306-307), a Standard parable in which Resh Lakish put forth an expelled matrona who demands a double marriage settlement and thus provided a framework for the exegesis of saying " ,ânôkî" twice in Isa 51:12 although only once at Sinai; Pesiq. Rab. 21:36, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period (similar). 51

If we reclassify the parables that I treated as "not possibly" involving a king who is a stand-in for God, see note 33 and accompanying text, supra, and the parable of the vacationing king, this percentage would rise only to somewhat more than 30%. 52

Arnold Goldberg, "Rabbinische Gleichnisse" 14 agrees with me that it is not right to say "the king is God," but goes on to say that the king is also a metaphor for God. Perhaps all he means by this later remark is that a king is a particularly appropriate human with whom to compare God, especially in a literature that from time to time calls God the King of Kings of Kings, see note 10, supra.

121

Chapter 5: Functions

How did the Rabbis of the third century use their king-parables in their work? What were the tasks that a parable helped them accomplish? As shown earlier, the Rabbis put forth king-parables principally, and not surprisingly, in connection with their main overall task, the interpretation of Scripture. To a lesser extent, they used them as part of what moderns might call their pastoral work, their efforts to console, encourage and instruct their followers and each other. 1

This chapter will examine in greater depth how king-parables helped the Rabbis perform their exegetical and hortatory tasks.2

King-Parables Used in the Work of Interpreting Scripture The surviving literature usually presents a verse from Scripture as being, in effect, on the table at which the Rabbis were sitting, as the topic of their immediate interest and inquiry. This is almost always the case in the 1

See, for example, Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 10 (Lauterbach ed., 2:79-80). This parable helped the Rabbis perform both their interpretative and pastoral tasks, since it helped them read "the sanctuary Ο Lord that your hands have established. The Lord will reign forever and ever" (Exod 15:17-18) and read it to mean that God will defeat Rome and rebuild the Temple. 2

Chapters 3 and 4 also pointed out that the Rabbis seem to have constructed king-parables as a step in generating intertextual narratives, see Chapter 3, note 33 and accompanying text, supra, and in otherwise facilitating novel and unusual exegesis, see Chapter 4, notes 42-50 and accompanying text, supra. For the view that parables were also used to develop or enforce mythic teachings, see Michael Fishbane, Rabbinic Mythmaking 113.

122

collections of halakhic Midrashim -- the Mekilta de R. Ishmael, Sifra and the Sifre s - which by definition are verse-by-verse commentaries on the Bible, but it is also common in later collections of exegetical and homiletical Midrashim.3 Using Parables in Exegesis Assigning all the work to the parable's secular narrative Sometimes a king-parable does more than help the Rabbis perform an exegetical task; it performs the task itself. Indeed, the secular narrative of a

3

1 recognize that this and other points I make in this chapter may well reflect redactional activity, especially in the later collections, and not necessarily the historical activities of the Rabbis. Much less commonly, a verse is before the Rabbis, seemingly awaiting interpretation, and the Rabbis are then presented as changing the subject, so that another verse, or even no verse at all, is before them by the time they put forth a king-parable. See, e.g., Num. Rab. 7:4, in which Num 5:2 ("command the Israelites that they put every leper out of camp"), the verse first before the Rabbis, leads to a discussion of Isa 17:11 ("you become debased on the day that you plant them, and make them blossom in the morning that you sow"), which is then interpreted with the help of a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a king whose cabbages sprout, and are therefore ruined, overnight, on the basis of the words for "blossom" and "sprout"; Lev. Rab. 24:2, in which discussion of Lev 19:2 ("you shall be holy for I the Lord your god am holy") leads to a discussion of God's attribute of justice, and Pss 92:8 ("but you ο Lord are on high forever") is brought to illustrate that God's attribute of justice and attribute of mercy are equally to be praised, with the help of an antithetical Imperial parable of R. Levi contrasting God to a king of flesh and blood who is praised only when he gives amnesty and not when he punishes. On occasion such a change of subject is signaled by the Rabbis' designation of material as dabar 'aļiēr-- "another thing." See, e.g., Exod. Rab. 30:9, in which discussion of Pss 147:19 is presented as a dabar 'ahērm a discussion of Exod 21:1 and is illustrated by an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period and two Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period. Material designated as dabar 'aliēr often, however, discusses the verse originally before the Rabbis, but reflects a different view from what has gone before. For an example, see Chapter 6, text at note 10, infra. Sometimes the Rabbis ask a question as an initial step in interpreting a verse before them. See, for example, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:10 (Mandelbaum ed., 157-158), an Imperial parable of R. Levi, in which "It shall remain seven days with its mother" (Lev 22:27) is before the Rabbis and the anonymous voice of Pesiq. Rab Kah. first specifically asks "why seven days?" before setting forth Levi's interpretation of the verse with the help of a king-parable. I am not distinguishing such texts from those in which, say, the text would proceed directly to the answer (in this instance, so that a Shabbat would intervene) without spelling out the question. Such texts are distinguished, however, from those in which the verse before the Rabbis prompts them to ask a question not directly related to the interpretation of the verse before them. An example is Mek.de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5, including an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period, in which "I am the Lord thy God" (Exod 20:2) is before the Rabbis and they are moved to ask why the Ten Commandments (including this verse) aren't said at the beginning of the Torah.

123

direct parable alone is occasionally enough to accomplish the work. A familiar example:

"He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting." (Leviticus 4:4) R. Isaac said a parable. Like the friend who honored the king with gifts and fine bowls. The king said, "Take this to the entrance to the palace so that all who enter and exit will see it," sene'ëmar, "bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting." 4

The verse before the Rabbis prompts them to ask -- implicitly, through the parable --an exegetical question: why is the sacrificial victim is to be at the entrance; why not elsewhere ‫ ״‬inside the tent, or further outside in an area set aside for the physical performance of sacrifice? The secular narrative - in which the friend is parallel to Israel, the gifts to the victim, and the king to God - provides the answer, although not a particularly striking, original or uplifting answer: so that everyone will see it, and the Rabbis seal their answer with an abbreviated nimshal consisting only of a powerful marker of applicability5 and a repetition of the verse before them. 6

4

Lev.Rab.5:b. David Stern, "Jesus' Parables" 59 suggests that all parables were without nimshals until they were written down. See Chapter 3, note 15, supra.

5

See Chapter 3, note 28 and accompanying text, supra.

6

See also Esth. Rab. 1:20, in which all the work of providing details of Ahasuerus' court is done by the secular narrative of an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period about kings giving judgment or holding court together with such an abbreviated nimshal; Sifre Deut. 355 (Finkelstein ed., 422-423), in which all the work of explaining an apparent contradiction about God's whereabouts in Deut 33:26 is done by the secular narrative of a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a provincial who wishes to see the king but faints at the sight of the curtain of the entrance of the palace together with such an abbreviated nimshal. Parables in which the secular narratives, together with such abbreviated nimshals, do all the Rabbis' exegetical work are, of course, exceptions to Daniel Boyarin's conclusion, with which I agree, that the nimshal is generally a parable's primary signifying moment. See Chapter 3, note 15 and accompanying text, supra.

124

Those direct parables with implicit nimshals, as discussed in Chapter 3,7 provide other examples of secular narratives sufficient on their own for the performance of the Rabbis' exegetical tasks; in form, those secular narratives are the entire parables. Perhaps when the mas/1a/-proper did the entire job, no explicit nimshal was always thought to be needed, not even a marker of applicability or a repetition of the scriptural verse.8

7

See Chapter 3, notes 48-49 and accompanying text, supra.

8

See Midr. Pss 3:3, in which all the work of answering the question raised by reading 2 Sam 15:30 ("when he went up the ascent of the Mount of Olives, weeping") in light of Pss 3:1 ("a song of David, when he fled from his son Absalom") - if he weeps, why does he sing and if he sings why does he weep? - is done by the secular narrative about a prince who weeps because the king is angry at him but sings because he hasn't been executed; Lev. Rab. 1:14, in which all the offered exegesis of "He shall see the very form of the Lord" (Hum 12:8) is in a secular narrative about a king who reveals himself to his freedman in informal circumstances; Deut. Rab. 1:23, in which why God said "see I have begun" (Deut 2:31), when on the surface no beginning has been made to give Sichon and his land over to Israel, is explained solely by the secular narrative of a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a king who turns his son's enemy over to him. A parable's secular narrative can do all a text's exegetical work, but fail to make much of a contribution to interpreting or understanding Scripture. See Song Rab.5:1, in which the exegesis of Song 5:1 ("eat, friends") is performed solely by the secular narrative of a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period about a king who gave a banquet and told his guests to enjoy it. Not every secular narrative that could have done all the Rabbis' exegetical work was permitted to: sometimes unnecessary explanation was added. In the passage below from Pesiq. Rab Kah., the verse before the Rabbis is Exod 30:12 - "when you take a census of the Israelites" - and the over-riding exegetical issue with which they are dealing is the inconsistency of a census with the biblical idea that Israel is numberless. R. Menahema said in the name of R. Bebai, Like a king who had a flock invaded and damaged by wolves. The king said to a shepherd, "Count my flock to determine how many are lost." So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, "Count Israel to determine how many are lost." Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8 (Mandelbaum ed., 30), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. Pesiq. Rab Kah. is a collection of discourses or "homilies, " perhaps sermons, on the scriptural texts read in synagogues for special Sabbaths and holidays. See William G. (Gershon Zev) Braude and Israel J. Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana xxviii. In this chapter, I am treating the portions of such texts discussed in such discourses as being "before the Rabbis." Unless further explanation was the result of the oral nature of the discourse or the level of learning of the audience, nothing of the exegesis offered would have been lost had the nimshal been omitted and the secular narrative left to do the job alone.

125

Assigning all the work to the entire parable Usually, of course, secular narratives are insufficient to make the Rabbis' point about the verse before them. But the amount of help they need from the nimshal varies. Here the verse before the Rabbis is "Cast away your rod" (Exodus 14:16).9 R. Simon said: A parable. Like an officer who goes outside with the staff of office in his hand. They said, "Were the staff not in his hand we would not honor him." The king heard and said to him, "Leave the staff behind and go outside, and all who do not greet you I will decapitate." So the Egyptians said, "it would not be possible for Moses to do anything without the rod; with it he struck the sea, with it he brought the plagues." When Israel came to the middle of the sea, and the Egyptians pursued them, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, "Cast away your rod, so that they will not say, 'Were there no rod, it would not be possible to call the sea,'" as it says, "cast away your rod."10 Most readers would have understood, on the basis of the secular narrative alone, or accompanied by an abbreviated nimshal, that the Rabbis interpreted the verse to mean that God did not want Moses to carry his rod because the Egyptians did not respect Moses, and through him, God, without it. But the point is better made - since Moses' rod was not the same sort of object as a

9

The Hebrew which the Rabbis were treating here as meaning "cast away" is usually translated as "lift up"; to that extent this text may also belong in the category discussed at notes 21 -41 and accompanying text, infra, texts in which a king-parable is used in furtherance of a midrashic interpretation of Scripture already made. The reading of "cast away" seems based on the continuation of the verse, cited in the nimshal, "and stretch out your hand, " suggesting that Moses no longer had the rod in his hand. 10

Exod. Rab. 21:9, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

126

Roman officer's staff of office 11 - with the extra explanation; the secular narrative was not quite strong enough to do the work alone. 12

More often, the secular narrative begins the process of exegesis, and the nimshal completes it; in these instances, the two principal parts of the kingparable, working together, do the entire exegetical job. Exodus 18 ends with the departure of Jethro for his own country; Exodus 19:1, the verse before the Rabbis, begins, "On that very day [that is, the very day that Jethro left] they came into the wilderness of Sinai." Exodus 19 introduces the giving of the Torah, and, while the issue is not articulated in the t e x t that precedes the parable, the Rabbis were concerned about the possible implications of 11

Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary, suggests on the basis of the word used that this is the staff of a centurion. 12

And, as pointed out in note 9, supra, the nimshal suggests the part of the verse on which the midrashic reading seems based. See also Lev. Rab. 36:5, in which all the work of explaining why in Lev 26:42 God promises both to remember the covenants with each of the Patriarchs and to remember the Land might well have been done by the secular narrative of the parable of the king who always accompanied his greetings to his sons with the request that they greet the slave woman raising them; Gen. Rab.3:b, in which most of the work of tying together "and he separated" (Gen 1:4) with "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" (Gen 1:5)is done by the secular narrative of a Standard parable from R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish about two guards who quarrel over their hours of employment and are told by the king that they respectively work days and nights; Exod. Rab. 7:4, in which R. Levi inquires why Exod 6:13 says "to Pharaoh king of Egypt" as well as "to the Israelites" and concludes, with the help of Pss 84:6, see notes 63-70 and accompanying text, infra, that evil people praise God from Gehenna, a conclusion strongly suggested by his Standard parable of a king who plants a barren tree in order to have wood with which to make baths and ovens; b. Sanh. 89b, in which the answer to the question why God said "na" - "please" - when he commanded the Akedah might well have been provided by the secular narrative of the Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a king who says "please" to his general so that no one would think he had not supported him in earlier wars; Deut. Rab. 1:13, in which the two promises of Deut 1:11 - "increase your numbers a thousand times" (an apparently limited promise) and "bless you as he has promised" (an unlimited one) - are reconciled to mean that the first promise is Moses' own and that only the second promise is God's, an interpretation strongly suggested by the secular narrative of an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a general who gives each of the troops five gold pieces of his own but assures them that those five gold pieces are not in fulfillment of the king's promise of a litra apiece and that the king will fulfill that promise upon his arrival. See also Sifre Deut. 11 (Finkelstein ed., 19), including a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, a text parallel to Deut. Rab. 1:13, reconciling Deut 1:11 with the unlimited promises of Gen 22:17. 127

Scripture juxtaposing Jethro, who helped Israel with legal matters, and the site of the giving of the Torah with all its laws.

R. Joshua ben Levi: Like a king's son who went for a walk in the market and encountered a friend of the king, who filled his lap with precious stones and pearls. The king said, "Open for me my storehouses, so that my son will not say that were it not for my father's friend my father would not have given me what he gave m e . " So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, "Let not Israel say that were it not that Jethro came and taught them laws, I would not have given them the Torah; rather I give you the Torah, with all its laws. "These are the laws that you shall set before them." (Exodus 21:1 ) 13

Since it introduces the idea of gifts from an outsider, the secular narrative is fundamental to the presentation. 14 "An ordination offering for a pleasing odor." (Leviticus 8:28) This teaches that the ordination offering is called a pleasing odor. Isn't this a qal wâ'hômêft A king of flesh and blood acquires for himself a friend and makes a holiday for him; the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed, when he establishes for himself a priest, how much the more

13

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211-212), an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period. Note the deftness with which the Rabbis brought a third verse, Exod 21:1, into their reconciliation of 18:27 and 19:1 and see notes 63-70 and accompanying text, infra. 14

See also Eccl. Rab. 12:5, reading Eccl 12:5 ("because man goes to his eternal home") to mean that while everyone dies, each has his own eternity, in which an Imperial parable of Resh Lakish about a king, his duxes, prefects and high generals who enter a city each according to his rank, although all through one gate, introduces the idea of unequal status in the same circumstances; Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52), concluding that "one nāšy'each day" (Num 7:10-11 ) was required lest Nachshon claim that he would offer every day, in which the formless parable calling Nachshon a king and saying that he began the offering introduced the figure of Nachshon to the process of exegesis of "one nāšy' each day." 15

Sifra Tzav, Mek.de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d). The parable's way of illustrating the earlier interpretation is probably based on the use of incense in the celebration of festivals. Note that the parable seems to comment on the earlier interpretation as well as to illustrate it. See also Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57-58), in which exegesis of "The enemy said, Ί will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them, I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them,'" consisting of the holy spirit responding to each 128

The brief secular narrative introduces the idea of a holiday to honor a favored person; the nimshal drives it home. The Rabbis' treatment of "It is not like the land of Egypt" (Deuteronomy 11:10) provides a contrast. The verse stimulated them to ask how the Land of Israel is not like the land of Egypt. They appear to have been in a practical mood, reflecting the Land's agricultural economy; the answer relates to sources of irrigation. But, unlike the idea of gifts from an outsider raised in the secular narrative above, the topic of irrigation is not broached, or even suggested, until the nimshal, unless the trope of rivers as servants of the countries in which they flowed was a familiar one. A parable. Like a king who was walking on the road and saw a well-born man; he gave him a servant to serve him. Then the king saw another well-born man, well dressed and appearing to have been delicately reared, but busy in common labor. The king knew him and knew his parents. He issued a decree: "I will feed him by my own hand." So all the nations are given servants to serve them. Egypt drinks from the Nile, Babylonia from its rivers. But the Land of Israel is not like this. Rather the people lie in their beds and God sends rain down on them. 16

And in this Imperial parable, the verse before the Rabbis is "The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar" (Genesis 19:23); R. Levi is seeking the reason for the importance of the sun having risen. R. Levi said, Like a province which had two patrons17, one a

bbênmëdînâ

and one an 'îrnnî. The king got angry and wanted to punish the people of

of these five claims with quotations from Scripture, is illustrated by an Imperial parable about a brigand who makes a similar series of threats against the king's son. 16

Sifre Deut. 38 (Finkelstein ed., 74), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

17

The Hebrew word "ppatrôiiîn" is a loan word from Latin.

129

the province. The king said, "If I punish them in the presence of only the bbēn mëdînâ, then they will say that if the 'îrônî had been here he would have helped them. And if, on the other hand, I punish them in the presence of only the 'îrnnî, then they will say that if the bbēn mëdînâ had been here he would have helped them." 1 8

That is the secular narrative. How many readers or listeners would have guessed that this glimpse of rural patronage practices in the eastern Roman Empire has something to do with the sun having risen? Would it have helped to have known the date of the biblical events? Levi knew that date as one on which both the sun and the moon are visible at sunrise, perhaps having derived it from the verse's reference to the sun having risen "on the earth." And he added some information about the religious practices of Lot's neighbors. So it was that some of the Sodomites worshipped the sun and some worshipped the moon. The Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "If I punish them by day, they will say that if the moon had been here it would have helped them, and if by night, then they will say that if the sun had been here it would have helped them. Rather on the sixteenth of Si van, when the sun and the moon are both visible, " as it says, "the sun had risen on the earth. . ." 19

18

Gen. Rab. 50:12, an Imperial parable. The exact meanings of bbēn mëdînâ and 'îronî in this context are uncertain; the 'îronî comes from a larger urban community than does the bbēn mëdînâ. 19

See also Gen. Rab. 46:4 and Lev. Rab. 27:8, R. Levi's parables about the matrona who needed a manicure, which began his exegesis of "Walk before me and be blameless," and about the slandered matrona, which began his exegesis of "A bull or a sheep or a goat," discussed in Chapter 3, notes 40-41 and accompanying text, supra, where I attributed the disconnect between the secular narrative of the first parable and its nimshal to Levi being in an antic mood.

130

And, at least once, the secular narrative not only provides no hint of the exegetical project, but on its face fails to prepare for the exegetical work done by the nimshal. "After he had defeated Sichon." (Deuteronomy 1:4) A parable. Like a king who took his armies into the desert. His armies asked him for fine white bread, and he said he would give it to them. They asked him for fine white bread a second time. The prefect told them that even though the king was able he had no mills or ovens in the desert. So Moses said, "If I now reprimand Israel, they will say that I have reprimanded them because I have no power to bring them into the Land, and Sichon and Og have conquered us." He did not do so, but waited until they entered the land and he had conquered Sichon and Og to first reprimand them. Therefore it says, "after he had defeated Sichon, king of the Amorites." Why, the Rabbis ask, does the introduction of the Book of Deuteronomy specify that Moses began his oration after he had defeated Sichon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan? The nimshal's answer: a discourse earlier in time containing words of reprimand would not have been accepted by Israel. What does the secular narrative contribute? The comparisons are the king to God, the armies to Israel, the prefect to Moses, and the king's ability to the entry into the Land and the defeat of Sichon and Og. The prefect reprimands the armies for making a request that cannot be fulfilled, even though the king is able. Is the point that he refrained from reprimanding them after their first request, when presumably the king was not yet able, but reprimanded them only once the king was? Probably, but those key elements of the narrative are missing.20

20

Sifre Deut. 3 (Finkelstein ed., 11), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. An alternative translation, favored by Reuven Hammer, Sifre 393, understands the text to mean that the king indeed gave the armies the fine white bread the first time they asked and that the prefect's reprimand was based on the idea that since he had done it once, having in fact

131

Employing king-parables to illustrate, expand, augment, supplement or complete earlier exegesis21

Frequently a king-parable offers support to exegesis already made,22 most simply by illustrating a basic point. While this is hardly always the case,23

brought mills and ovens into the desert, he need not demonstrate his ability a second time. In Hammer's reading, as in mine, the comparisons are the king to God, the armies to Israel, the prefect to Moses, and the king's ability to the entry into the Land and the defeat of Sichon and Og. The counterintuitive reading that mills and ovens were indeed brought to the desert is dependent on Hammer giving effect to a word not included in the text he was translating and "taken" from another witness. Under this reading the reprimand is not for having made a request that cannot be fulfilled, but for making a request that somehow need not, having been made and fulfilled once before. Under this reading, the secular narrative does indeed prepare for the nimshal to the extent the reprimand follows a demonstration of ability, here of baking fine bread in the desert and in the nimshal of defeating Sichon and Og. But the secular narrative in this reading makes little sense, even if mills and ovens were imagined as being taken out on campaign "for use in extraordinary circumstances," (Hammer, Sifre 393) unless it was somehow known that an army that has eaten fine white bread once should be satisfied thereafter. 21

It is impossible to discuss the reverse case except with respect to formless parables as discussed in Chapter 3, notes 75-91 and accompanying text, supra: no direct or antithetical parables can offer exegesis that is illustrated, expanded upon, augmented, supplemented or completed by other material, since the formal nature of these parables requires that such "other" material be classified either as part of the parable's nimshal (or the counterpart for an antithetical parable, see Chapter 3, text following note 37 and text at note 62, supra) or as a different text. Of the third-century texts including formless king-parables, only two supplement the parable. Esth. Rab. 1:19 identified "the nobles" of Esth 1:3 with the legions that designate an Augustus; it is followed by R. Eleazar's remark that they are the Herculiani and the loviani. Midr. Pss 55:3, supplements R. Joshua ben Levi's parable of angels going before a man because he is the image of God with an explanation attributed to R. Levi that this is done to protect men from demons. 22

"Already" or "earlier" do not imply earlier in time. See, e.g., Exod. Rab. 18:6, an Imperial parable about a king who honors his son's barbarian subjects but renounces his words when the barbarians overthrow the son, which R. Levi uses to illustrate his own "earlier" - presumably contemporaneous in fact - interpretation of "the Lord will pass through" (Exod 12:23) to mean that God will "pass over" (in the sense of "disregard") earlier words spoken. This technique, however, may be special to Levi. See also Esth. Rab. 7:2 and Gen. Rab. 44:4, both including Standard parables of his that illustrate his own earlier interpretations. 23

For example, bold interpretations can be illustrated by repetitive or pedestrian parables. See Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed., 102), which reads "why were you not afraid to speak against my servant" (Hum 12:8) to mean "why didn't you speak against me" and which is illustrated by an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period about a king who criticizes some subjects for speaking against his procurator and not against him; Midr. Pss 86:7, which reads Pss 86:15 ("slow to anger") in light of "They come from a distant land, from the end of heavens, the Lord and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole earth" (Isa 13:5), see notes 63-70 and

132

the style of an illustrative parable can follow the style of the earlier exegesis. Perhaps the best example is a parable that illustrates an interstitial narrative24 proceeding from the provisions of Exodus 12:44 that slaves, once circumcised, may eat the paschal sacrifice with a parable about a king who requires his banquet guests to show his seal, the nimshal of which does the earlier exegesis one better in complexity by generating an intertextual narrative.25

Other sorts of imaginative interpretations are also illustrated by imaginative parables. After another Rabbi interpreted "you did not call upon me, ο Jacob" (Isaiah 43:22) to mean that God would have liked to have been worshipped even upon Israel's conclusion of a worship service to idols, R. Levi (perhaps inspired by the discussion of Queen Vashti's ladies' banquet in Esther 1:9 set out earlier in the same text) picked up on an earlier Rabbi's idea that such belated worship had the status of a serving of sweets and offered a parable to illustrate it: 26

Like a servant of the king who made a banquet for the king's legions and invited them all, but didn't invite the king. The king said to him, "I would that you had treated me as you did my soldiers. " So the Holy One

accompanying text, infra, to mean that when God is not angry he sends his desire to punish far off, and illustrates it with an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a king who sends his evil legions far off when he has no desire to punish. 24

See Chapter 3, notes 34-37 and accompanying text, supra.

25

See Chapter 3, notes 33 and 69-72 and accompanying text, supra.

26

Unless, of course, R. Yosi bar Haninah's interpretation was based on Levi's parable, and the sequence became garbled in the course of transmission.

133

May He Be Blessed said, "I would that my children treated me as the dessert that comes last, but 'you did not call upon me, ο Jacob.'" 27 And imaginative interpretation of "And the Egyptians fled before it" (Exodus 14:27) to mean that, no matter what direction an Egyptian fled, the sea rushed against him was supported by this unusual and perhaps entertaining kingparable about another sort of predator assaulted from all directions.

A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a dove who fled from a young hawk and entered the dining room28 of the king. The king opened the east window for her and she exited and flew away. The young hawk entered the dining room after her. The king closed all the windows after it and began to shoot at it with arrows. So, when the last of Israel arose from the sea. the first of the Egyptians went down into it. The ministering angels began to throw arrows, hailstones, fire and sulfur at them, as it is said, "I will pour down torrential rains and hailstones, fire and sulfur, upon him and his troops." (Ezekiel 38:22) 29 But when the earlier interpretation is especially terse, the parable must amplify the exegesis, as well as illustrate it, if it is to make a contribution to the interpretation of Scripture. The anonymous voice of the Pesiqta de Rab Kahana had before it "This month for you" (Exodus 12:2), and its interpretation -- "Reckoning of time is yours" - was bold, imaginative, uplifting and of social importance, but it may have been hard to follow; four named Amoraim over

27

Esth. Rab.3:4, an Imperial parable. The parable, however, does not quite work; not being invited at all is not quite parallel to being worshipped after false gods have been worshipped. Perhaps an earlier version of the parable had the king invited late, rather than not ever. 28

The Hebrew trîqlîn is a loan word from Latin.

29

Alek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 7 (Lauterbach ed., 1:245), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

134

the generations amplified it through king-parables, themselves somewhat terse.30

R. Joshua ben Levi said, Like a king who had a timepiece; when his son grew up he gave him his timepiece. R. Yosi bar Haninah said, Like a king who had a watchtower; when his son grew up he gave him his watchtower. R. Aha said a parable. Like a king who had a ring; when his son grew up, he gave him his ring. R. Isaac said, Like a king who had many treasuries, with keys to each and every one of them; when his son grew up he gave him the keys.31 In its "original" scriptural sense, all Exodus 12:2 seems to have meant is that "this month" shall be the first month of the year;32 anonymous Rabbis had interpreted it to mean that God had assigned the authority to determine the dates of new months and festivals and to intercalate the year to humans, specifically to rabbinical courts. Would that point have become such an important element of rabbinic Judaism on the basis of "Reckoning of time is yours, " without more?33

An imaginative parable supporting imaginative earlier exegesis can do more than illustrate the earlier interpretation; it can develop and extend it

30

And another named Amora through a carpenter-parable and "the Rabbis" through a doctorparable.

31

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102), classified for purposes of this study as a single Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. See Chapter 2, note 3 and accompanying text, supra. An extended version of Joshua's parable is Tanh. Bo 12 (Buber ed.) 25a. 32

And so it is interpreted in Exod. Rab. 15:13, including an Imperial parable of R. Levi, which ties Exod 12:2 to "by me kings are made" (often translated "by me kings rule")) (Prov 8:15) and concludes that "this month" is the beginning of the year because it marks the beginning of God's reign. 33

See also Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 10, in which the now familiar parable of the king's revenge on brigands who destroyed his palace amplifies an earlier, quite terse, interpretation: "When? When you build it with your two hands."

135

with additional ideas, such as the Mekilta's

that rain, hail, fire and sulfur from

Heaven joined the onrushing sea to torment the Egyptians. 34 Similarly, after Song of Songs Rabbah has identified the "two breasts" of Song of Songs 4:5 with Moses and Aaron, R. Abba bar Kahana took the interpretation a step further:

Like a king who had two precious pearls and weighed them: this one is as big as that one and that one is as big as this one. So, these are Moses and Aaron, equals. 35

If the earlier exegesis is abstruse, an illustrative king-parable may be substantially simpler, and augment the midrash by bringing the interpretive enterprise down to earth. "If it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt" (Leviticus 4:5) was before the Rabbis. R. Isaac Nappaha had asked how such a sinning priest would be punished, and deduced that the answer is death

34

See also Exod. Rab. 2:2, an interpretation of sequential verses from Pss 11:4, so that "The Lord in his holy temple" is understood to mean that prior to the Destruction the Shekhinah was in the Temple, "the Lord's throne is in heaven" is understood to mean that upon the Destruction she departed for heaven, and "his eyes behold, his gaze examines humankind" to still be true in spite of her departure, illustrated by a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period about a king who watched his workers from a high tower and pays good workers and punishes shirkers, just as God still "beholds" and "examines humankind" after the removal of the Shekhinah to heaven. The parable adds, or spells out, the idea of reward and punishment as the purpose of God's attention. 35

Song Rab. 4:5 (1). See also Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103-104), in which the earlier interpretation derived from "you shall put these words of mine on your heart" (Deut 11:18) the principle that words of Torah are the foundation of life, and the companion Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a king who first wounded his son and then nursed him added the thought that words of Torah are a counterforce to the Evil Inclination; Sifre Deut.& (Finkelstein ed., 16), in which the earlier interpretation concluded that Scripture included the words "to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob" along with the words "to your ancestors" (Deut 1:8) to show that each Patriarch was worthy on his own, a thought expanded by a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a king's servant who improved both a field and a vineyard that the king had given him, which generated an intertextual narrative of each of the Patriarchs improving land.

by fire on the basis of the letters in both "thus bringing guilt" and "death by burning." He, his colleague or a later redactor found a plainer reason for the same conclusion and expressed it in a king-parable.

A parable. Like a keeper36 of a bear who used to eat the bear's meals. The king said, "Because he ate the bear's meals, let the bear eat him." So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "Because he took from the consecrated things, let the fire eat him." 37

On occasion, a king-parable solves an issue left unresolved in the earlier material. Here the text before the Rabbis was "go/upon the Lord, let him deliver ‫ ״‬let him rescue" (Psalms 22:8) and it was not determined whether "göl upon" means "confess to" or, as in another passage in Psalms,38 "put it on." R. Yohanan solved the issue in favor of the intertextual reading with a Standard king-parable:

R. Yohanan said, Like a king's son to whom they gave a post to put in a difficult place. His father saw and said to them, "Bring it all to me I will put it in." So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to them, "Put it on the Lord; let him deliver - let him rescue"39 36

The Hebrew word sûsnâ may be a loan word from Greek.

37

Lev. Rab. 5:6, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

38

Pss 55:23, "put your burden on the Lord and he will sustain you."

39

Midr. Pss 22:22. See also Sifre Deut. 345 (Finkelstein ed., 402), in which (a) an earlier dābār 'ahëir had argued for reading morāšāh in Deut 33:4 as "betrothal" rather than the more typical "possession" to generate the interpretation that the Torah is betrothed to Israel and therefore has the legal status of a married woman to the nations of the world, (b) the immediately preceding dābār 'a/iēr insists on the more common reading, concluding that the Torah is Israel's possession, and (c) the king-parable about the captured prince not embarrassed to return to his "possession" concludes that a renegade Sage who returns to Torah study can do so because the Torah is his "possession," favoring the view of the second dābār 'ahētr.

137

Sometimes a parable fails in its apparent attempt to illustrate, expand upon, augment, amplify, supplement or complete earlier material, even when the parable is presented as the answer to a specific question.40 Do we know any better why Gehenna, or the angel of death, is "very good" after we read either or both of these parallel texts, which appear consecutively in Genesis Rabbahl

R. Zeira said, "Indeed, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31 ) This is the Garden of Eden. "Indeed, it was very good." This is Gehenna. And how is Gehenna "very good"? Amazing! Like a king who had a garden, brought workers into it and built a treasury at the entrance. He said, "All who are fit in their work in the garden will enter the treasury, and all who are not fit in their work in the garden will not enter the treasury." So all who treasure mitzvot and good deeds, behold, the Garden of Eden, and all who do not treasure mitzvot and good deeds, behold, Gehenna.

R. Samuel bar R, Isaac said, "Indeed, it was very good." This is the angel of life. "Indeed, it was very good." This is the angel of death. And how is the angel of death "very good"? Like a king who made a banquet and invited the guests. He put a bowl full of good things before them. He said, "All who eat and bless the king will continue to eat, and all who eat and don't bless the king will have their heads chopped off." So all

Tanh. Ki Tisa: 3 shows R. Levi offering a Standard parable about a king who chooses to pay a worker with whom he took a stroll the same wage as those who work all day to show that the reward for Torah study is the same for those Sages who die young as for those who attain great age and thus to resolve a dispute in the earlier discussion over "whether they eat little or much" (Eccl 5:12). It is more likely here than elsewhere that the apparent use of a parable to solve an earlier disagreement is the product of redactional activity since the principal Rabbi named in the earlier material appears to be R. Tanhuma bar Abba, a fifth generation Amora. In at least one instance a king-parable seems to reverse the thrust of the earlier material, material that may have strayed a bit too far away from generally accepted rabbinic exegesis. In Sifre Deut. 357 (Finkelstein ed., 430), Deut 34:10 ("There has not arisen a prophet like Moses since in Israel") was before the Rabbis, who focused on "in Israel" to make some comparisons of Moses with Balaam not unfavorable to Balaam, shown, unlike Moses, knowing both with whom he spoke and when. A Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period hastened to put any ostensible superiority of Balaam into context: "A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To the king's butcher, who knows the king's expenses." 40

See note 3, supra.

138

who occupy themselves with mitzvot and good deeds, behold, the angel of life, for all who do not occupy themselves with mitzvot and good deeds, behold, the angel of death.41

Is it just that it is "very good" that God has the means to enforce the rules? Maybe so, but perhaps a better comment on the conclusion that Gehenna and the angel of death are "very good" to the same extent as the Garden of Eden and the angel of life, would have been restricted to Zeira's first remark: Amazing! The Work of Interpreting Scripture: Reading Verses Together Often, as shown above, the Rabbis focused their exegetical attention on a single verse before them. Sometimes they did so to deduce the rationale for a specific scriptural rule,42 sometimes to explain why the verse expresses itself as it does,43 sometimes to flesh out a statement in the verse44 or to go behind its surface meaning to fill in details45 or teach a lesson.46 Sometimes they seem

41

Gen. Rab. 9:9, 10, including Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period.

42

For example, why a calf is to stay seven days with its mother, and why a sacrificial victim is to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting.

43

For example, why in the same verse God promises both to remember the Patriarchs and to remember the Land or why Scripture bothered to say that Lot arrived at Zoar after sunrise. Often this task involved explaining apparent redundancies in a single verse, such as references both to "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and to "your ancestors." Explaining apparent redundancies in Scripture is an important category of midrashic exegesis seemingly under-represented in exegesis using third-century king-parables.

44

For example, providing the way, or at least a way; that the Land of Israel is not like Egypt.

45

For example, providing the way in which a sinning priest will be punished or details about Ahasuerus' court.

46

For example, interpreting a verse that everyone has to die to include the idea that status after death is unequal or identifying "two breasts" with Moses and Aaron and asserting their equality.

139

motivated by a desire to display their own virtuosity, or perhaps by playfulness.47 But the third-century Rabbis also used king-parables to perform important exegetical tasks arising from issues generated by reading more than one verse of Scripture at the same time: sometimes to connect them or tie them together, sometimes also to explain apparent contradictions by one verse of another.48 Tying verses together49 "But Moses said to God, , Who am I [that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?]'" (Exodus 3:11) R. Joshua ben Levi said: A parable. Like a king who married off his daughter and agreed to give her a province and a lady-like slave girl, but he gave her a Cushite slave girl. His son-in-law said to him, "Didn't you agree with her to give her a lady-like slave girl?" So Moses said before the Holy One May He Be Blessed, "Master of the Universe, when Jacob went down to Egypt didn't you say to him, "I will also bring you up again.' (Genesis 46:4) And now you say to me, 'So come, I will send you to Pharaoh' (Exodus 3:10) I am not the Τ who said to him, "I will also bring you up again."50

The Rabbis are not content with Moses' argument in the verse before them that he is an inappropriate choice to go to Pharaoh and free the 47

For example, R. Levi's equation of perfection with neat nails.

48

For example, connecting events such as the departure of the cloud with Miriam's leprosy, or Egyptians assaulted by the sea with the same Egyptians assaulted by fire and hail, and David fleeing Absalom with David weeping. Sometimes the Rabbis also read two or more verses together to solve a problem in one of them. See note 59 and accompanying text, infra.

49

1 am making a distinction, although the borders are occasionally fuzzy, between tying verses together so as to make from them a single narrative, such as this dispute of Moses with God, and interpreting the verse before the Rabbis by means of a second verse that they use to explain, augment or comment on it, as is the case of the texts discussed in notes 62-70 and accompanying text, infra. 50

Exod. Rab. 3:4, including a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period.

140

Israelites. They find it incomplete or otherwise unpersuasive. They provide him with a better case, which they illustrate with a parable about a king who broke a promise to his daughter: God already promised that he would redeem Israel from Egypt, so Moses would have argued that he needn't. Other examples of the Rabbis' tying the verse before them to a verse in another part of Scripture entirely are readily available. 51 But texts tying the verse before the Rabbis to a verse abutting or nearly abutting that verse may provide more vivid pictures of the Rabbis at work. 52 For example: "There arose a king in Jeshurun, when the leaders of the people assembled - the united tribes of Israel. (Exodus 33:5) May Reuben live and not die, even though his numbers are few. (Exodus 33:6)" What is the connection between this [the italicized words from Exodus 33:5] and this [the italicized words from Exodus 33:6 which follow them]? A 51

See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:5(Mandelbaum ed., 306-307), including an Imperial parable of Resh Lakish about a matrona who received double her marriage settlement when the king took her back, in which "I, I am he who comforts you" (Isa 51:12) is tied to "I am the Lord your god" (Exod 20:2) to form a narrative in which God already promised at Sinai to "say it twice" - to provide twice the comfort ‫ ״‬in the messianic Jerusalem; Mek.de R. Ishmael Beshallach 5 (Lauterbach ed., 1:228-229), the text to which Daniel Boyarin devoted a chapter, in which Moses' stretching out of his hand in Exod 14:27 is tied to several verses from the 114th Psalm to generate an intertextual narrative of the sea fleeing only because of God, not because of Moses, with the help of a Standard king-parable about the buyer of a garden whom the guard didn't permit inside without the king by his side; Exod. Rab. 20:14, including an Imperial parable of Resh Lakish about a king who was not calm until he had enslaved the enemies who had enslaved his son, in which "God did not lead (a word that can also mean 'calm,') them" (Exod 13:17) is tied to "but overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Sea" (Pss 136:15) to form a narrative in which God is not calm until the Egyptians are thrown in the sea; Gen. Rab 44:4, including a Standard parable of R. Levi about a man who picks up thorns in the king's garden and is rewarded by the king, in which "Do not be afraid, Abram" (Gen 15:1) is tied to "like thorns cut down" (Isa 33:12) to form a narrative in which Abraham, afraid that the armies he defeated might contain a righteous man, is assured by God that they were all mere thorns. At least one text, Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353), including a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, ties together verses - "For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted share" (Deut 32:9) and "For the Lord has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel as his own possession " (Pss 135:4) - whose connection would be obvious to anyone who knew them both, suggesting that the purpose of the text is the hortatory message it produces or some sort of memory aid, see Chapter 6, note 59 and accompanying text, infra. 52

Examples already given are the tying of Gen 1:4 and 1:5 and the tying of two parts of Deut 1:11 discussed in note 12, supra, and the tying of Exod 18:27 to Exod 19:1 discussed in note 13 and accompanying text, supra.

141

parable. Like a king who came to visit his sons. When he left, his sons and other relatives accompanied him. He said to them, "My sons, do you need anything? Tell me if there is anything you wish to discuss. " They said to him, "Father, we do not need anything and there is nothing that we wish to discuss other than that you be reconciled with our oldest brother." So also here, were it not for the other tribes ha-mâqôm would not have been reconciled with Reuben. And so it says, "the united tribes of Israel: May Reuben live and not die." 53

On its face, Exodus 33:5 ends a thought - a "historical" recollection of the beginning of kingship ostensibly before the event - while Exodus 33:6 begins a new series of thoughts, Moses' blessings of the tribes, beginning with Reuben, the tribe descended from Jacob's oldest son. The Rabbis sought a connection between them, and they found one, with the help of a remarkably weak and artificial king-parable obviously constructed for the purpose.

Another example, again one in which the Rabbis may have articulated their effort to tie together two adjacent verses.54

Why does Scripture first say, "May the Lord bless you and keep you" (Numbers 6:24) 55 ] and after that, "it came to pass [that Moses had finished setting up the Tabernacle]" (Numbers 7:1)? R. Abbahu said that the ways of the Holy One May He Be Blessed are not like the ways of flesh and blood. A king of flesh and blood enters a province. Only after the residents of the province praise him and honor him, does he provide their needs: he builds for them a public bath, 56 which provided much pleasure for them in the province. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is 53

Sifre Deut. 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404), including an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 54

This question is spelled out in the manner shown in the text only in the Vienna manuscript of Pesiq. Rab. 55

The rest of the three-fold priestly blessing of Num 25-26 should be understood to be mentioned here by implication.

56

The Hebrew word dîmôsyâ' is a loan word from Greek.

142

not like that. Israel had not y e t built the Tabernacle when he first gave them blessings, kkakkatûb,

"May the Lord bless you " and only

thereafter, "it came to pass." 57

Reconciling verses

Sometimes the Rabbis noticed verses that were contrary to each other, and therefore in need of reconciliation. In perhaps the best-known instance of inconsistency between scriptural verses, reconciliation was achieved by imposing a temporal sequence on Scripture. Here (Exodus 20:8) it is written, "Remember [the Sabbath day]" but elsewhere "Guard." (Deuteronomy 5:12) R. Yudan and R. Aibu in the name of R. Shimon ben Lakish: Like a king who sent his son to the storekeeper on an errand with an assarius and gave him a flask. He broke the flask and lost the assarius. He pulled his ear and pulled his hair but gave him money and a flask for a second time, and said to him, "Don't do the same as you did the first t i m e . " So when Israel lost "Remember" in the desert, God gave them "Guard, " kkakkatûb, "Remember" and "Guard." 5 8 57

Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, including an Imperial parable in antithetical form. See also Gen. Rab. 69:3, including the parable about the prince plagued by flies, in which the immediate proximity of "the angels of God were ascending and descending on i t " (Gen 28:12) and "and the Lord stood beside him" (Gen 28:13) results in the interpretation that the angels fled when God appeared, as the flies did when the prince's nurse appeared; Mek.de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6, which connects "you shall have no other gods before me" (Exod 20:3) to "I am the Lord your god" (Exod 20:2) as the beginning of a narrative of God first asserting his sovereignty and then issuing commandments via an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period of a king who refused to issue decrees to a group of provincials until they had accepted his rule. 58

Pesiq. Rab. 23:3. See also Sifre Deut. 11 (Finkelstein ed., 19) and Deut. Rab. 1:13 which reconcile Moses' specific blessing in Deut 1:11 to make Israel 1000 times as numerous with God's promise to Abraham that his seed would be unlimited with the help of parables, Standard and Imperial respectively, from the A3b/Transitional period about a prince's guardian who gives the prince his own gold and silver while still holding the king's and a general who gives the army his own gold while waiting for the king; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 243), in which R. Levi reconciles "we will do and we will hear" (Exod 24:7) with the fact that they didn't "do" "when they made the calf for themselves" (Exod 32:8) with the idea that God then told them to guard "we will hear" as if they were still guarding both, helped by a Standard parable about a king who dealt with Matrona having lost one of two myrtle branches by telling her to guard the one she still had as if she still had both. I assume that Pesiq. Rab. 23:3' s statement that Israel lost "Remember" "in the desert," like Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:4, refers to some extent to the episode of the golden calf, although that episode does not necessarily suggest forgetting the Sabbath. 143

The different language in Exodus and Deuteronomy is explained, at least here, with the notion that Deuteronomy's version provided a second chance for Israel, comparable to the king giving his son a second chance to complete the household shopping.

R. Levi first reconciled another famous verse with its apparent opposite, in favor of the sense of the apparent opposite, but concluded the issue according to the sense of the first verse, by means of tying the verses to three other verses and, again, by arranging the five verses in a chronological order with the first verse before him being regarded as somehow last in time. It is written, "Remember what Amalek did to you." (Deuteronomy 25:17) But it is written elsewhere, "Don't abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother." (Deuteronomy 23:8) Come and see that the way of the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like the way of flesh and blood. In the way of flesh and blood, if one does evil to his fellow, the bitter memory never leaves his fellow's heart. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like so. Rather . . . when Israel left Egypt, Amalek, of the evil seed of Esau, came and did much harm to Israel. Nonetheless the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "Don't abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother." R. Levi said, To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who made a banquet, and he had two enemies. He invited them, and he said to those present, "Receive these enemies with friendly faces." And thus they did. After they ate and drank they took an iron axe and destroyed the king's palace. The king said to them, "Isn't it enough for you that I honored you that you destroy my palace and don't acknowledge the honor that I gave you?" They left and they hung them, one next to the other. And so you find that after all the evil t h a t . . . Edom did to Israel, God nonetheless commanded them, "Don't abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother" [But according to Psalms59 Israel

59

"Remember, ο Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem's fall, how they said, ,Tear it down! Tear it down!" (Pss 137:7). For the role of "Edomites" in connection with the Destruction of the Second Temple, see Josephus, 777e Jewish War, H. St. J. Thackery, tr., Cambridge (AAA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1997 4.221-354, 4.566-574.

144

pointed out subsequent Edomite hostility to Israel.]. . . The Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "Hang them one next to the other," šene'ëmar, ". . . Edom shall become a deserted waste." (Joel 3:19). And so, ne'ëmar, "Remember. " 60 First, Amalek hurt Israel, but God, although "not like flesh and blood," acted like the king who invited his enemies to a banquet by calling Edom, of which Amalek is a part, Israel's brother and by commanding Israel to treat Edomites like brothers, a parallel to the king telling his other guests to treat his enemies with friendly faces. But once Israel reminded God of Edom's enthusiasm at the destruction of Jerusalem - the "king's palace" -- God turned on Edom, and issued the commandment to "remember" Amalek, and perhaps stepped it up a notch to make Edom a deserted waste, while the commandment not to abhor Edom seems to have gone into abeyance.

Reconciliation is not easy work, not even for Levi.61

Interpreting a verse via another verse

In addition to responding to problems they encountered when they read two or more verses together, the Rabbis would read two or more verses together proactively by interpreting one verse by means of another. For 60

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3 (Mandelbaum ed., 36), including a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. I have omitted references to Egypt - Israel's slavery there, Egypt's subsequent hostility to Israel shown by Lam 5:6, and God's prophecy about Egypt similar to that about Edom in Joel 3:19; they seem tacked on and in any event distract from the material about Edom, which is the central subject of the text. The text's references to "two enemies" hung one next to the other are parallel to the punishment of both Edom and Egypt prophesied in Joel. 61

The commandment not to abhor Edomites does indeed come before the commandment to remember Amalek in the Book of Deuteronomy in the form that we have it, but this is not the basis for Levi's midrashic re-ordering of events.

145

example, when the Rabbis of the third century engaged the Song of Songs, a love poem that earlier Rabbis had already understood as a metaphor of the relationship between God and Israel, they treated its text as part of Exodus' description of revelation, using the verse from Song of Songs before them to interpret verses from Exodus, and treating Exodus as the master narrative to which Song of Songs is a supplement, while simultaneously using it to interpret Song of Songs.

Here, the verse before the Rabbis was Song of Songs 1:2, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth."

R. Yohanan interpreted the verse to concern Israel when it went up to Mt. Sinai. Like a king who wanted to take for himself a wife a woman of good family. 62 He sent a messenger to her home and the messenger spoke to her. She said, "I am not about to be his slave girl; I want instead to hear it from his mouth." When he returned to the king, the messenger couldn't stop smiling, but he did not say anything to the king. The king, who was wise, said, "This one can't stop smiling, as if she has accepted me, but he doesn't say so; it is as if she has said she wants to hear it from my mouth." So Israel is the woman of good family, Moses is the messenger; the king is the Holy One May He Be Blessed, all at the time that "Moses reported the words of the people to the Lord." (Exodus 19:8)63

With strong help from the king-parable, Yohanan, having first interpreted the verse from Song of Songs via the events reported in Exodus, explains, on the

62

The Hebrew word gënûsîm is a loan word from Latin.

63

Song Rab 1:2 (3).

146

basis of the verse from Song of Songs, that the verse from Exodus means that the people wanted to hear directly from God; that is what Moses "reported." 64 More typically, and more simply, the Rabbis used a verse from elsewhere in Scripture to interpret the verse before them. 65 Why does Leviticus 8:14 show

64

Yohanan went on to say that "Moses had told the words of the people to the Lord" (Exod 19:9, the next verse) was not a repetition of Exod 19:8, but was included because the verse first says "I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and trust you ever after." (Ibid.) The change of verb from yäseb ("reported") to yäged ("told") was interpreted by Yohanan to mean a change of substance. See Song Rab. 1:12 (2), including a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, also showing the recursive nature of the interpretation of Song via Exod while interpreting Exod via Song: R. Pinchas said in the name of R. Hosheah, "While the king was on his couch" (Song 1:12). "While the king" -- the King of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed -- "was on his couch" -- in the sky ‫ ״‬he already anticipated [his descent on Sinai, as Jacob Neusner correctly pointed out in his translation of Song Rab.] sene'ëmar, "and it came to pass, on the third day, while it was still morning." (Exod 19:16). Like a king who decrees, "on such and such a day I will enter the province." The residents of the province sleep all night, and when the king comes and finds them asleep, he arranges for horn players, trumpeters and shofar players, the minister of the province wakes them up to go out and greet the king, and the king proceeds before them until he arrives at his palace. So the Holy One May He Be Blessed anticipated, kkakkatûb, "and it came to pass, on the third day, while it was still morning" and "for on the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people" (Exod 19:11) Israel slept all the night, for the sleep of Shevuot is pleasant and the night is short. R. Yudan said that not even a flea bit them. The Holy One May He Be Blessed found them sleeping and arranged for horn players, kkakkatûb, "and it was on the third day, when morning came, with thunder and lightening. " (Exod 19:16) Moses woke them up and led them to greet the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed, kkakkatûb, "Moses brought the people out to meet God" (Exodus 19:17) See David Stern, Parables in Midrash 41, which argues more generally that the internal hermeneutics of the king-parables are consciously self-reflexive and almost circular. See also Song Rab. 4:12 (1), in which "a locked garden is my sister, my bride" (Song 4:12) is presented as God's response to supposed taunts by the nations concerning "the Egyptians made the people of Israel work with rigor" (Exod 1:13) and a corollary taunt concerning the chastity of Israelite women in Egypt, illustrated by a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period about a king returning from vacation whose daughters, accused of zënût, demonstrate their innocence by producing their husbands. The technique of interpreting another verse by means of the verse before the Rabbis was not limited to cases when the verse before them was from Song. See Midr. Pss 17:3, where the verse before them, "from you let my vindication come" (Pss 17:2), was used to interpret "for he will not pardon your transgression" (Exod 23:21) with the strong help of an Imperial parable of R. Levi about provincials who foolishly ask a tax-collecting archon to reduce their taxes when only the king could do so.

147

Moses performing priestly duties? Because, on the basis of Exodus 4:14, Aaron was, at the time, still a mere Levite: 66

"And it was slaughtered. Moses took the blood." (Leviticus 8:14-15) A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a daughter of kings who was married when she was a child and i t was agreed with her mother that she would serve until her daughter grew up and learned how. So Aaron, at the beginning, was a Levite, šene'ëmar, "What of your brother Aaron the Levite?" (Exodus 4:14) But when he was chosen to be High Priest, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, "You will serve me until Aaron learns how." 6 7

But using a verse from elsewhere in Scripture to interpret the verse before them is not always a simple matter, even when what is used is a single word. R. Abbahu noticed that the word " , āz" appears both in Exodus and in

Psalms. His use of a verse from Psalms including that word to explain a verse from Exodus containing the same word is dazzling. The verse before the Rabbis is Exodus 15:1 - "Then [ 'āz] Moses sang": 65

Including in the exegesis of Song. See Song Rab. 6:12 (1), which interpreted "before I was aware, my fancy set me in a chariot" (Song 6:12) with the idea that the nations will, in messianic times, be amazed that a people once in "hard service in mortar and brick" (Exod 1:14) are now masters of the world.

66

The Rabbis were unconcerned that a plain reading of the text preceding the text before them shows Aaron (and his sons) also performing priestly duties along with Moses: "[Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bull of sin offering,] and it was slaughtered [by Aaron and his sons?] Moses took the blood."(Lev 8:1 '4-15). 67

Sifra Tzav, Mek.de Miluim (Weiss ed., 42a-b), including a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. See also Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 4, which, with the help of an Imperial parable in antithetical form from the A1 /Midcentury period about a wartime king who couldn't provide for his armies, understands the two parts of Exod 15:3 ‫" ״‬the Lord is a man of war" and "the Lord is his name" - to mean, respectively, that he fights against Egypt and that he sustains and provides for his creatures, via two verses from Pss, Pss 136:13 and 25, "to him who divided the sea" and "who gives food to all flesh"; Exod. Rab. 42:8, which answered the question in what way "they have been quick to turn away from the path that I have commanded them" (Exod 32:8) that they had committed "two evils" (Jer 2:13), with the help of a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period about a matrona who lost two pearls the king had given her hand to hand.

148

This is written, "Your throne is established from of old [mē'āz]; you are from everlasting. " (Psalms 93:2) R. Berechiah said in the name of R. Abbahu, Although "you are from everlasting," your throne was not established and you were not known in your world until your sons sang a song. Therefore it says, "Your throne is established from of old [mē'āž\." A parable. Like a king who made a war and won, and they made him Augustus. What is the difference in honor between the king and Augustus? The king stands on the tablet while Augustus sits.68 So Israel 68

Since the king stands "on the tablet" -- the most common translation of the Hebrew lûah is "tablet" or "board" --1 understand the secular narrative here to be based on a more or less two-dimensional visual representation, rendered on a "tablet," of a sitting emperor and a standing "king," or a figure the Rabbis took to be a king, rather than on a witnessed or remembered actual event. Emperors are shown sitting and king-figures standing in Roman monumental art dating from and before the third century as defined in this study. See Diana E. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992, 290 fig. 257 (Marcus Aurelius enthroned with barbarian kings standing before him, dated to 176-80 C.E.), 334 fig. 299 (Septimius Severus enthroned with bearded figures standing before him, dated to 204 or 205 C.E.) It has been argued that other Roman art was based on monumental prototypes. Examples of such art would have had ample time and opportunity to be produced and to make their way to Palestine, especially highly Romanized Caesarea where R. Abbahu, to whom this parable is attributed, flourished, by his A3b/Transitional period. Moreover, at least one coin shows a seated emperor and a standing Gaul. See Ann L. Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups, Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford: University of California Press, 1995, 2. 3, 37, 44, 51, 108 and figs. 4, 16, 87. The Rabbis might have referred to the surface of silverware (like the Boscoreale cups) or of another medium, or of a coin, as a lûah even if it was not an actual tablet, or board, as modern Hebrew has come to use lûah to mean, among other things, a data table. See Ya'acov Levy, ed., Oxford EnglishHebrew Hebrew-English, Jerusalem: Kernerman Publishing Ltd and Lonnie Kahn Publishing Ltd, 1995, 142. Or a Rabbi or a follower of the Rabbis could have visited Rome (or another city), seen such a monument, and somehow made a picture of it on a lûah and brought it home. While this is not the place to debate whether the Rabbis were associated in any way with the synagogues the art in which is noted in Chapter 6, note 46, infra, it is possible that an artist joined (or left) the movement. For visits to Rome by Rabbis, see Moshe David Herr, "Historical Significance," 123, collecting the sources. On the other hand, two talmudic passages associate variants of the word lûah, here apparently in the sense of "board," with the word bbîmâ - "platform," or "dais." y. Meg. 3:1 (83d) and b. Meg.32a together stand for the proposition that while neither the lûliôt (or, in the more extensive Yerushalmi text, the lûwëhîn) nor the bbîmôt have the holiness of the ark, they do have the holiness of the synagogue. This association of a lûah with a bbîmâ may suggest that the one could be an extension or part of the other, so that it is conceivable that the lûah in our passage is itself a platform or dais of sorts. (But see Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000, 345-346, who, after consulting "the traditional commentators to the Yerushalmi, P'nei Moshe and Qorban Ha-'edah; the Arukh Hashalem with Kohut's comments; Jastrow's and Sokoloff's dictionaries; and S. Krauss's Synagogale Atertuemer" concludes that lûwëhîn in this Yerushalmi passage means the boards on which the Torah scroll was placed, or a lectern, and not the bîmâ itself or part thereof.) Other rabbinic texts use the word to mean sorts of platforms, although not platforms on which people stood. See t. Kelim B. Metz 8:4 and t. Shabb. 13:15 where lûali is used for the

149

said, "In truth you existed before you created your world, and continued to exist after you created your world, but, kibëyâkôl, you did so standing, iene'ëmar, "he stood and measured the earth," (Habakkuk 3:6) but not until we stood by the sea and sang a song with " W

before you

69

was your kingdom settled , and your throne established. Behold -- "your throne is established mē'āž' - with " , āz[Moses] sang." (Exodus 15:1) 70

The use of "mē'āz"

to interpret " 'az'would be dazzling on its own.

When combined with the picture of emperors who sit and kings who stand, (apparently derived from non-Jewish representational art), with the vivid

boards under a mattress, and b. Shabb. 47a, which refers to the lûwéliîn of an archer, explained by Rashi to mean a small wood plaque on which the arrow presses before release. This raises the possibility that the parable refers directly to monumental art, or even to an actual event, in which the king is remembered as standing on a platform or some kind of board. (In the two figures from Diana E. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture cited above, the emperors, but not the kings, are indeed shown as on platforms.) I am indebted to Professor Kleiner for her kind and generous guidance into the world of Roman art history and to my colleague Tzvi Novick for his insights into the meanings of lûali. 69

The word here translated "settled" is the hitpa'doi the root yšb, the qal of which is, of course, "sit," reinforcing the idea that Augustus, one whose throne is established, sits. 70

Exod. Rab. 23:1. This parable is undoubtedly Imperial. On another occasion the Rabbis linked the use of the word 'āziη Exod 15:1 to its use in Gen 4:26 ("then [ 'āz] people began to invoke the name of the Lord") and thereby connected the flooding of the sea in the days of Enosh with the parting of the Sea of Reeds. See Steven D. Fraade, Enosh and His Generation: Pre-lsraelite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation, Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1984, 34 n. 21. Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Vierter Teil, Vom Lied des Mose bis zum Bundesbuch: ShemR 23-30; Einleitung, Uebersetzung mit Komentar, Texte, Bern, Berlin, Brussels, Frankfurt, New York, Oxford and Vienna: Verlang Peter Lang, 2000, 26-31, call this the parable of the enthroned emperor and speculate that Abbahu may have been thinking of the triumph of Vespasian and Titus. It is unlikely that any Rabbis saw that triumph, which took place centuries before Abbahu's time, and perhaps Thoma and Ernst mean some sort of visual representation of it, like the triumph of Tiberius shown on one of the Boscoreale cups. See Diana Ε. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture, 155 fig. 129. See also Mek. de R. Ishmael Amalek 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:179), a formless parable from the A1 /Midcentury period, in which Moses is compared to a "king" who sits while all around him stand. For other historical circumstances, including another triumph, that this parable may reflect, see the conclusion to Chapter 9, infra. On the rabbinic phrase, "kibëyâkôl, " see "The term kivyakhol and its Uses," Appendix 2 to Michael Fishbane, Rabbinic Mythmaking, that demonstrates that it refers either back to the theologoumenon (here the statements that God created the world standing and sat down when Israel sang at the sea) or forward to the offered prooftext in support, or both. 150

imperial imagery in the remarkable king-parable of a successful general being made Augustus, and presumably then sitting down, with the demonstration from Habakkuk that God once, as it were, would stand, and with the change of the bbinyyän of "sit" to reflect in an untranslatable way the establishment of God's rule so that a sitting Augustus is an even more meaningful stand-in for God, this text is an example of the Rabbis at work at their best and most distinctive, especially since its ultimate conclusion is about the role humans (or probably only Jews) play in the fact and exercise of divine sovereignty.

When Exegesis Using King-Parables Included the Rabbis' "Political" Views

The knowledge of how third-century emperors were made and the familiarity with non-Jewish art showed in the parable of the seated Augustus serves to remind us that the third-century Rabbis were sophisticated Roman citizens, distinguishable from others of their class and status only because they were principally engaged in the exegesis of Jewish Scripture. Their exegetical work revealed views they had on several "political," or at least inter-group, issues; such views emerge with the help of the king-parables they employed. This is not the place further to discuss evidence in the king-parables of their attitude, already encountered,71 to being subject to foreign, particularly Roman, domination; that will be the subject of Chapter 8.

71

See Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 10. For a discussion of competing views as to whether Midrash was generated primarily by exegesis or by the events of the day, which concludes that the

151

As everyone knows, the Rabbis believed Israel was favored over all the other nations - " c h o s e n " - a belief that had little if anything to do with how they f e l t about Roman rule. While it is dangerous to attribute opinions to "the Rabbis," whose opinions varied, usually they expressed this view in a manner demonstrating marked hostility to the other nations; 72 at other times they just seemed sure of their own status. When the verse before them was "I will look with favor on you" (Leviticus 26:9), they expanded on God's favor to Israel with a parable that did all their exegetical work. Rabbis were concerned with the issues of the day, but that their approach to that concern was through the interpretation of Scripture, see Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 19. 72

Mek. De R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236) asserts that the nations are unable to fulfill the Noachide commandments with the help of an Imperial parable from the T5/Late Severan period about an incompetent administrator of the king's store of straw who complained that he also did not supervise the king's store of precious metals and contains another parable through which R. Judah the Patriarch specifically equates Israel and the nations of the world, respectively, in the world to come with those mentioned in Isa 65:13 ("My servants shall eat but you shall go hungry.") Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353) includes a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a king's tenant farmers who become progressively more dishonest through the generations, and calls Ishmael, the sons of Keturah, Esau and all the princes of Edom "evil. " Presumably this view included all the supposed descendants or representatives of these biblical figures and all agents of the government and thus, in the Rabbis' understanding, just about everyone with whom they came in contact except perhaps ethnic Greeks not involved in the imperial administration. See also Gen. Rab. 63:2, a non-exegetical Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, which concludes that Abraham was saved from the fire of Nimrod only because of Jacob's merit; Tanh. Miketz: 5, a Standard parable from the same period, which concludes that God is called "God of Jacob" in Pss 146:5 because God "stood beside" Jacob (Gen 28:13), something not said of Abraham or Isaac. Is the emphasis on the unworthy issue of Abraham and Isaac -and the claims that Jacob was, in effect, the worthiest Patriarch and the only one whose issue were worthy -- to be read as polemic against Christianity, which had already made a claim at least on Abraham? See, e.g., Rom 4, in which Paul claims that it was Abraham's faith, not his works, which was "reckoned to him as righteousness," and that that took place before he was circumcised. For texts less hostile to the nations of the world, see notes 73-75 and accompanying text, infra. Hostility to the nations may have been particularly focused on those who, without becoming Jews, observed commandments addressed to Israel. See Deut. Rab. 1:21, which says an uncircumcised gentile who observes the Sabbath is liable to death, like the courtier, in the included Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period, who comes between the king and Matrona. (Conceivably, however, this polemic is directed against Christians, who purported to observe a "Sabbath," although on the "wrong" day.) See the discussion at notes 77-80 and accompanying text, infra, for evidence of the Rabbis' views of "religions" other than Judaism.

152

They told a parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who hired many workers, and there was among them one worker who worked for him many days. The workers came in to collect their wages and that worker came in with them. The king said to that worker, "My son, I will address you. Behold, the others did a fair amount of work for me and I give them a fair wage. But you did a great amount and I think better of you." So Israel is in this world asking wages before God, and the nation of the world are asking wages before God. God says to Israel, "My sons I will address you. Behold, the nations of the world did a fair amount of work for me and I give them a fair wage. But you did a great amount and I think better of you, ne'ëmar'I will look with favor on you.' And Ί will look with favor on you' for good." 73 Note that in this text God does not favor Israel arbitrarily, but for the "great amount" it does. Great amount of what? Of performance of commandments, but the way or at least one principal way 74 God "favored" Israel was simply by giving them more commandments to perform. 7 5 Just as the son in this parable is favored by a full meal, Israel was favored by a full set of commandments. 7 6

73

Sifra Bechukotai pereq 2:5 (Weiss ed., 111c), including a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. See also Pesiq. Rab. 10:13, in which R. Levi interprets "When you take a census of the Israelites" (Exod 30:12) to mean that Israel is the only nation God regards as his and therefore cares enough about to want to count, with the help of an Imperial parable about a king who counts only the contents of one small container, since it is the only one that is his, the others belonging to the "Fiscus. "

74

Midr. Pss 4:11, dated somewhat earlier, claims, to some extent contrary to Mek. De R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236), that the nations of the world are rewarded in this world for obeying the seven Noachide commandments but that Israel will be rewarded in the world to come for obeying all 613. Being reminded of that is the reason Israel is glad "when their grain and wine abound" (Pss 4:8), illustrated by the Standard parable of R. Joshua ben Levi about banquet guests who were gladdened by how well the king's dogs were fed. The parallel between the nations and dogs, brought out by citation of Isa 56:11, is not necessarily hostile to the nations because of the context of their performing those commandments they were given.

75

This may be another instance of a tendency of the Rabbis to recursive thinking. See note 65 and accompanying text, supra.

76

But see Sifre Num. 115 (Horowitz ed., 127-128), in which the relationship between God and Israel evidenced by the commandments is compared in a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period to the relationship between a king and someone who, when redeemed by the 153

"He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt so with any other nation; they do not know his ordinances." (Psalms 147:19-20) Notice to whom. To Jacob, whom he chose from all the nations. He gave only a part to the nations. He gave six commandments to Adam, added one for Noah, to Abraham eight, to Jacob nine, but to Israel he gave all. R. Simon said a parable in the name of R. Haninah. Like a king who had before him a table set with all kinds of food. His first servant entered and he gave him a piece of meat. To the second he gave an egg. To the third he gave some vegetables. And so on with each and every one. His son entered and he gave him everything on the table before him. He said to him, "To them I gave each a part, but I give all to you for your possession." So the Holy One May He Be Blessed did not give to the nations more than a part of the commandments, but when Israel arose and said, "all that the Lord speaks we will hear and we will do" (Exodus 24:7) he said to them, "See, the entire Torah belongs to you, as it says 'he has not dealt so with any other nation.'" The Rabbis' view was clearly that the nation Israel was favored over other nations. Is it also true that they thought Israel's religion was superior to other contemporary religions, or is such an idea anachronistic?77 Scholars have read the following text as a polemic against Chn'stology, and accordingly against Christianity,78 emphasizing R. Abbahu's location in Caesarea, where he

king, is made his slave; the nimshal emphasizes that God reminds Israel that they are his slaves when they complain about the burden of the commandments. 77

Of course the Rabbis were convinced of the superiority of the religion of Israel over ‫' ״‬âbôdâ zarā" - usually translated "idolatry" - the dominant "religion" of the Roman Empire in the third century. See note 78, infra. It is clear that to a very great extent the Rabbis identified the nation of Israel with the "religion" that nation practiced; hence the hostility to God-fearers suggested in note 72, supra; the nation could be joined, but non-joiners could not properly practice the "religion." 78

See Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Vierter Teil 114. Thoma and Ernst also see this text as a polemic against the emperor cult, which may have enjoyed a revival during Abbahu's time, particularly in the later part of his career under Diocletian after the end of the third century as I am using that term. The emperor cult must have been a particularly objectionable form of 'àbôdâ zārā to the Rabbis, since it involved not only an "idol" but also a living man. See David Stern, Parables in Midrash 94.The reference in the text to the emperor cult that they see is probably based as much or more on "I have no brother" as on "I have no son"; one emperor who received divine honors during his lifetime might be succeeded by his equally "divine" son or brother. Although virtually every thirdcentury emperor showed an interest in being succeeded by his son, only a few were. Claudius II

154

would have been more likely to have been in contact with Christians than he would have been in the Galilee. It is hard to disagree.

"I am the Lord your God." (Exodus 20:2) R. Abbahu said: A parable. Like a king of flesh and blood rules, and he has a father or a brother. The Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "I am not like that; Ί am the first' (Isaiah 44:6) for I have no father, and Ί am the last,' (ibid.) for I have no brother, and 'beside me there is no god‫( ׳‬ibid.) for I have no son."79 Putting aside the reference to the king's brother, this seems to be about Christian doctrine, which, of course, includes both a divine figure who has a son and a divine figure who has a father. 80 And it must mean that Abbahu believed that "Christianity" was inferior to "Judaism."

But not every scholarly attempt along these lines succeeds. Consider the nimshal of the parable of the fast-talking king:81 So the Holy One May He Be Blessed stood and spoke rapidly on Mt. Sinai, kkakkâtûb, "then God spoke these words all at once" (Exodus 20:1). Michael said, "This business is with me." Gabriel said, "This business is

was briefly succeeded by his brother Quintillus, see, e.g., Historia Augusta, Claudius XII.3, and Tacitus by his half-brother Florian, see e.g., Historia Augusta, Tacitus XIV.1. These emperors were probably third-century contemporaries of Abbahu, and he may well have been thinking of them when he referred to brothers. 79

Exod. Rab.29:5.

80

Abbahu may not have been aware of the Christian idea of a third divine person, although his perhaps contemporary, Origen, had taught a trinitarian doctrine in Caesarea itself earlier in the third century. See Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background, London: SCM Press, 1983, 64. See Chapter 4, note 10, and note 150f this chapter, for rabbinic uses of the concept of the "holy spirit." Abbahu's awareness of Christianity indicates that Jacob Taubes' claim that Jews divide the world into Jews and others and "that there are Christians is something that has not entered consciousness" was just as wrong for Abbahu and his third-century community as it is for our contemporaries and Taubes'. See Jacob Taubes, The Political Theology of Paul, Aleida Assmann, Jan Assmann, Horst Folkers, Wolf-Daniel Hartwich and Christoph Schulte, eds., Dana Hollander, tr., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004, 20. 81

Pesiq. Rab. 21:10.

155

with me." When God said, "I," they said, "This business is with his sons and he will give the Torah to his sons." R. Yohanan read words usually translated "then God spoke all these words" as "then God spoke these words all at once." The translator of Pesiqta Rabbati emphasizes "all at once" and concludes that R. Yohanan meant that revelation was complete at Sinai and that the text is therefore anti-gnostic or anti-Christian.82 Doubtless Yohanan did believe that revelation was complete at Sinai - where the Oral Law was also given to Moses83 - but that is not the point of his midrash as illustrated by the king-parable of which this is the nimshal. God's "business" was giving the Torah, and that business was with the people of Israel84 and not with angels, for whom the dux and the general of the secular narrative are stand-ins. This is a text about God's favoring Israel over the angels, by giving them, and not the angels, the Torah (and its commandments),85 and has nothing to do with other humans and their "religions."

Within Israel, the Rabbis regarded themselves and their followers as superior to other Jews. Ecclesiastes Rabbah contains a "seven ages of man" riff

82

83

William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati 420 note 19. See m. Avot 1.

84

This derives from the rest of Exod 20:2, the verse the Rabbis refer to as "When God said Τ ":"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; you shall have no other gods before me."

85

See note 75-76 and accompanying text, supra.

156

similar to that of the melancholy Jaques, 86 and equally unflattering to senior citizens. But the Rabbis quickly modify the applicability of the final stage:

This is true of ' a w î m hā'ārei*1.

But of sons of Torah it is written, "and

King David was old." (1 Kings 1:1) Even though old, a king. 88 And, as between the Rabbis and their followers, priority goes to the sages.89

Of course, rabbinic Judaism, specifically adherence to the Oral Law, is the correct form of religious belief and practice for Israel; being oral, it comes directly from the "mouth" of the "king," as a direct result of his love. The text before the Rabbis was "He then gave unto Moses" (Exodus 31:18), which they tied to "For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding." (Proverbs 2:6):

R. Isaac said, To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who had a son. When the boy came from the schoolhouse he found his father eating from a dish. His father took a piece and gave it to him. What did his son 86

William Shakespeare, As You Like It, act 2, scene 7, in George Lyman Kittredge, ed., Sixteen Plays of Shakespeare, Boston: Ginn and Company, 1946. While Jaques' speech treats the seven ages as acts in a play, since "all the world's a stage," Eccl. Rab. 1.2.1 responds to seven vanities found in Eccl 1:2 with the seven worlds that a man sees in the course of his lifetime. 87

Literally, "people of the land," this phrase refers to Jews who, supposedly out of ignorance, did not follow the Rabbis.

88

Eccl. Rab. 1:2.1, from the A3b/Transitional period.

89

See notes 30-33 and accompanying text, supra, for the special status of rabbinical courts. The superior position in their societies that the Rabbis awarded themselves is also reflected in texts which, on their face, celebrate the importance of priests, such as Sifra Tzav, Mek.de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), since the figure of the priest may well have been a stand-in for the Rabbi. The scholarship suggesting that the rabbinic movement may in fact have been competing for power and authority with the hereditary priesthood includes Steven D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy, Albany: SUNY Press, 1991; Stuart A. Cohen, The Three Crowns: Structure of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry, Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1998; and Catherine Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, Tubingen: J. C. B. Möhr, 1997.

157

do? He said to him, "I don't want that; I want what is in your mouth instead." Because he loved him he gave him a piece from his mouth. So "For the Lord gives wisdom" but in the case of those he loves, "from his mouth come wisdom and understanding." The Holy One May He Be Blessed gave Torah to Israel as a gift. "He then gave unto Moses." 90

Using King-Parables in the Rabbis' Pastoral Work

Sometimes the third-century Rabbis' interpretation of Scripture with the help of king-parables also furthered their pastoral agenda. They read Scripture to assure themselves and their followers of God's favor 91 and faithfulness. 92 As noted above, their exegesis offered political hope: they read Exodus to mean that Rome would be defeated and the Temple restored; they read it together with Isaiah to mean that God would then provide twice the comfort as ever before, in a land shown by Deuteronomy always to have been especially fertile and in a world, according to Song of Songs Rabbah, in which the Jews would be 90

Tanh. Ki Tisa 10 (Buber ed.) 56b.

91

Including by standing biblical verses on their heads to read them as providing divine assurances of comfort rather than warnings of retribution. See Chapter 4, note 41 and accompanying text, supra. See notes 72-80 and accompanying text, supra, for God's preference of Israel and Judaism over other nations and other religions.

92

See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 55), which read "Speak to the priests" (Lev 21:1) in light of "The promises of the Lord are pure" (Pss 12:6; the word translated "speak" in Lev and the word translated "promises" in Pss are the same word) and "The Lord is a true god" (Jer 8:10), with the help of the antithetical Imperial parable about a king who reneges on his promises. See also Pesiq. Rab. 28:12-14, which sets out an interstitial and intertextual narrative based on Pss 137:2-5 and reads "if I forget you, ο Jerusalem, let my right hand wither" (Pss 137:5) together with "he has withdrawn his right hand from them" (Lam 2:3) to attribute the oath from Pss 137:5 to be Cod's and to mean that God pulled back his right hand and has not returned it to its original place, having thus sworn not to forget Israel. The Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period included in this text about a princess who refuses to serve her second husband having been banished for having refused to serve the king relates to an earlier part of the narrative related to Pss 137:3 ("for there our captors asked us for songs"); Israel is said to have refused to sing in Babylon, having failed to sing properly in the Temple.

158

masters,93 returned to their own house, having feasted (on commandments)94 in the king's:

R. Yohanan opened . . . ["Then I was in his eyes as one who brings peace." (Song of Songs 8:10)] Why? All the nations abused Israel and said to them, "If [you are beloved by God] why has he exiled you from his land and why has he destroyed his Temple?" And Israel answered them, "We are like a princess who goes to make a feast in her father's house and finally returns to her own house in peace. "95 Perhaps pending such political triumph, but more likely as an alternative even for those who would live to see it, they also read Scripture with the help of king-parables to offer hope for a far better life, after death, possibly in the awesome, but casual, company of God, likened in this parable to that of two humans of unequal status on a stroll together:

"And I will walk among you." (Leviticus 26:12) They told a parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who wanted to go out for a stroll in the garden with his tenant, but the tenant hid himself from him. The king said to this tenant, "Why do you hide yourself from me? Behold, I do not go away from you." And the Holy One May He Be Blessed says to the righteous, "Why do you hide yourself from me?" So in the future the Holy One May He Be Blessed will stroll with the righteous in the Garden of Eden in the world to come, and the righteous will see him and tremble before him. " Behold, I do not go away from you." 96 93

See Song Rab. 6:12 (1), from the T5/Later Severan period.

94

See notes 74-76 and accompanying text, supra.

95

Song Rab. 8:10 (2).

96

Sifra Bechukotai perek 3:3 (Weiss ed., 111 d), including a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. See also Midr. Pss 25:9, which read "How great is your goodness stored up for those that fear you" (Pss 31:19) to refer to God having created the world for the sake of the righteous to whom he will give the goodness he has stored up for the future, with the help of a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. In addition, see Gen. Rab. 62:2, which, with the help of a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period about a king who gives his banquet guests a preview of what they will be served, reads "Strength and dignity are her clothing and she laughs at the time to come" (Proverbs 31:25) to mean that God shows the pious, while they are still in this world, the gift that they will be given in the world to come.

159

And, as teachers and leaders, their exegesis included instruction on how to be among the "righteous." The best time to connect with God is on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur,97 tësûbâ wards off destruction;98 and, most of all, Torah study negates the Evil Inclination.99 At least once,100 the exegetical work of a text is so obvious as to suggest that all the Rabbis were actually doing in their exegesis was providing a frame for the text's hortatory message of God's special connection with Israel. But such a frame was not always used. The Rabbis also offered hope, consolation and instruction, with the help of king-parables, without exegesis.101 Such messages of hope took the form of assurances to their followers and themselves of God's eternal and continuing closeness to Israel, in spite of appearances,102 assurances that the day will come when God "rises to rebuke the world and

97

See Pesiq. Rab Kah. Supplement 7:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 472) and Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:7 (Mandelbaum ed., 412-413) and parallel texts. According to Deut. Rab. 2:36, with the help of a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a man who steals the king's jewelry but doesn't let his wife wear it publicly, Israel on Yom Kippur is as pure as the ministering angels and, like them, says the response to the Sh'ma aloud. 98

See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 364;.

99

See Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103-104;.

100

Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353).

101

By "without exegesis" I mean that the Rabbis were not performing exegesis on or with the help of a verse before them. I do not mean that they did not cite Scripture to make their point; they usually did.

102

See Pesiq. Rab. 21:27-28, an Imperial parable from R. Joshua ben Levi in which the relationship of Israel to God is compared to that of a prince, who thinks a dux and a prefect are his father until the king says, "My son, why do you look these others over? There is nothing to them. But you are my son and I am your father." Might this text also have sought to discourage its audience from "looking others over"?

160

give the righteous their reward," outdoing even Sinai, 103 promises of the immortality of the soul, 104 and instructions on the practical aspects of living according to God's wishes. 105 This examination of how the Rabbis used king-parables leads into the next chapter's discussion of where they did so, of the settings in which the third-century king-parables were composed and told.

103

Pesiq. Rab. 21:9, with the help of an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period about how many sword-bearers and spearman accompany the king to the parade ground, and how many more when he goes to war. 1υ4

See Eccl. Rab. 5:10.2, which argues that the soul comes from God and returns to God when the body is turned over to worms and mildew with the help of a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period about a king who takes the best part of a leased vineyard back from his tenant farmer. 105

See b. B.Bat. 10a, concluding that one who gives a small coin to the poor will receive the face of the Shekhinah, with the help of an antithetical Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period about the difficulty of getting even an audience, no less a sought-after benefit, from flesh and blood. 161

Chapter 6: Settings

Scholars have paid relatively little attention to where and for whom king-parables were composed and told. Ignaz Ziegler was typical when he assumed that telling parables originated in the synagogue as a method the Rabbis used to communicate their teachings to "the people." 1 This view does not appear to have involved a great deal of thought on the part of its first proponents, 2 and may have been based on the simplicity of the form of many parables, 3 their supposed similarity to folktales, the purported universality of their appeal, 4 and the fact that many of them indeed help teach Torah lessons in an accessible way. 5 Probably it was also influenced by notions of the functions of early Christian parables. 6

1

See Ignaz Ziegler, Die Koenigsgleichnisse des Midrasch xix-xxi. Earlier generations tended to assign all haggadic midrash to the synagogue and to Rabbis communicating in popularly accessible ways, or to non-Rabbis. See Steven D. Fraade, "Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim," Oral Tradition (1999), 14. 2

It has been characterized as positing an almost manipulative urge to translate higher matters to reach simple people and dismissed as "reductive." Galit Hasan-Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood 60. 3

While ignoring the complexity of many others. See Chapter 3, notes 33-37 and accompanying text and Chapter 4, notes 42-48 and accompanying text, supra, and notes 51 -54 and accompanying text, infra, for parables apparently constructed as a step in generating intertextual and interstitial narratives and otherwise facilitating novel and unusual exegesis. 4

See Chapter 3, note 74, supra.

5

See notes 36-37 and accompanying text, infra.

6

See the appendix, infra.

162

But Daniel Boyarin advanced the same view not only as correct but also as that of the Rabbis themselves, basing his position on his reading of this passage from Song of Songs Rabbah.7

"Besides being wise, Kohelet also taught knowledge to the people," and proved and researched, and formulated many meshalim - "and proved" words of Torah; "and researched" words of Torah; he made handles8for the Torah. You will find that until Solomon9 arose, there was no dûgmâ'.w Boyarin thinks that the Rabbis - at least the Rabbi or Rabbis behind this dābār ahē.r11 - meant that Kohelet "taught knowledge to the people" only through formulating "many meshalim" and that the reference to dûgmâ' was only to meshalim.

The interpretive activity which Solomon engaged in was the making of figurative stories that are "handles to the Torah" - stories, as I shall argue, which render the axiological meaning of the narratives of the Torah accessible. We see, therefore, that on the rabbis' own account, the mashal is not an enigmatic narrative. Its central function is to teach knowledge to the people, to make "handles" for the Torah, so that the people (not an elect) can understand.12

7

Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality

83.

8

Boyarin writes that "handle" is being used as in the English colloquialism "I can't get a handle on that idea," that is, a means of access. Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 149. 9

As Boyarin points out, the Rabbis thought of Kohelet and Solomon as the same person.

10

Song Rab. 1:1 (8). Boyarin reads dûgmâ', a loan word from Greek, as "figure, simile, or paradigm" "practically an etymological equivalent of figura. " Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 83, 149. I find this translation correct, at least to the extent it is into English. 11

As indicated in the text, the verse before the Rabbis was Eccl. 12:9 ("besides being wise, Kohelet [also taught knowledge to the people.]") 12

Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 83 (emphasis added.) More recently, Boyarin has advanced the views that for the Rabbis "interpretive authority [achieved through Midrash] is located exclusively in the rabbinic Study House" and that the synagogue, unlike the study house, was

163

Did Boyarin erect too heavy a structure on these few words in a relatively minor text? His reading is not required; equally plausibly we can read "taught knowledge to the people," "proved and researched" and "formulated many meshalim" in the disjunctive as three separate, although related, activities.13 And it is striking that Boyarin does not deal at all with the second activity the text assigns to Solomon -- "proved and researched." This is an odd phrase to have been inserted between a task - teaching - and the sole method for achieving that task -- formulating parables - especially if it has no importance. The rabbinic text itself treats "and proved" and "and researched" as important enough to be regarded as separate activities each related to Torah, and Boyarin's argument would have been more persuasive had he accounted for them. 14 In any event, our contemporaries seem to have rejected the idea, whether based on the early assumptions or on Boyarin's analysis, that parables were generally created in the synagogues for the benefit of "the people (not an not a rabbinic institution during the period that is the subject of this study, suggesting that he no longer holds the opinions set forth in the text, or at least leaving open the questions of how and where the Rabbis communicated the "handles" for the Torah to "the people." See Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines 176-77. For a reading of this passage from Song Rab. 1:1(8) to the effect, contrary to Boyarin, that it presents the parables as making Torah available comprehensible "to one who possesses a deiscerning ear," based on the similarity of the word translated as "handles" and the word for "ear, " see Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, New York: Fordham University Press, 2005, 336. 13

Boyarin seems right that the reference to the creation of dûgrnâ' by Solomon likely relates back only to the formulation of meshalim, and it may well be that the "handles" refer only to the parables. 14

It is difficult, but not impossible, to read Boyarin to mean that the Rabbis thought Solomon did research and found prooftexts in the course of creating parables.

164

elect)." Instead, they have claimed that parables were made both for the people and for an elect, the Rabbis themselves. Rabbinic parables originated, the dominant view holds, both "for the sermon in the synagogue and the lecture in the Rabbinic academy."15 But this view, like the views of the earlier scholars that it has replaced, does not seem to be based on any analysis, and no one has ventured an opinion as to which of these venues might have been the setting of most, or more, parables.16

15

David Stern, Midrash and Theory 41. See Peter Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse 15 (sermons and instruction in the synagogue, learned discussion and scholarly instruction in the study house). 16

Stern may have thought that the principal audience for parables was the Rabbis themselves when he claimed that the task of understanding the parables was left to the audience, and thus perhaps that they originated in the study house more often than not. David Stern, Parables in Midrash 4. (But see the final paragraph of this chapter.) In his later book, however, Stern reads a part of Song Rab. 1:1 (8) other than that quoted in the text at note 10, supra‫ ״‬a later than third-century king-parable comparing a king who uses a penny wick to find a valuable coin to one who uses a parable to understand Torah - to mean that the Rabbis used parables to "impress upon their audience the validity and authority of their view of the world," a reading that seems bottomed on the idea that parables were used for communicating to "the people." David Stern, Midrash and Theory 41. (For an entirely different reading of this parable, see Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality 87.) Stern's tendency toward a synagogue setting for the parables may be evidenced by his claim that only three texts come close to indicating a study house setting for reciting a parable: b. Nid. 45a, b. Ber. 11a and m. Sukkah 2:5. David Stern, Parables in Midrash 297. (I suggest several other texts indicating a study house setting later in this chapter.) If Stern is right, the case against a study house setting is stronger than he might have thought, since of these texts, only m. Sukkah 2:5 involves a parable with educational content told by the Rabbis and perhaps in the study house; it illustrates the teaching that one can leave a sukkah on a rainy day if the porridge would be spoiled with a parable of a slave who comes to pour a drink and instead pours water on his master's face. b. Nid.45a, however, is a ma 'äseh about a woman, raped before she was three years old, who asks R. Akiva whether she is nonetheless fit to marry a priest. He says she is. She then tells him a parable indicating that the sex was consensual (?!) and he reverses himself. (Would such a conversation have taken place in the study house? Were women with halachic questions welcome visitors?) His students are amazed, since they know the Law in fact to be that a woman who has had intercourse only before three is fit to marry a priest regardless of consent, making the parable not only non-rabbinic but one that teaches an incorrect Torah lesson, and Akiva's reversal is explained as merely a way of testing his students, b. Ber. 11a is another ma'äseh, this one about R. Ishmael and R. Eleazar ben Azariah, like Akiva prominent second-generation Tannaim, dining together, presumably not in the study house. They both change their physical positions to recite the Sh'ma, prompting Eleazar to say that he will tell Ishmael "a parable." He then

165

Since so little is known about third-century Palestinian synagogues and rabbinic study houses, 17 1 will confine this chapter to exploring the possibility that the settings of the third-century king-parables can be discovered from the inside out. 1 8 It is a cliché to point out that the surviving rabbinic texts are not records of what actually happened. But what we have is close enough to use them for these purposes. For example, David Stern has concluded that the exegetical contexts in which the parables have been preserved may in fact be original. 19 Stern's observation that the textual context of most of the parables is "exegetical" does not, however, suggest a solution to the question of synagogue vs. study house. Of course the Rabbis were engaged in exegesis in compares Ishmael to one complimented on his fine beard who then says he will have it shaved off, since he reclined while Eleazar stood and stood when Eleazar reclined. Calling this -- which has no nimshal, no proof-text and no Torah lesson - a "parable" may have been a joke of Eleazar's. Moreover, if he was not joking, his "parable," like Akiva's questioner's, advanced an incorrect Torah lesson since the Torah is thought to follow the rulings of Bet Hillel: Ishmael responded to the "parable" by teaching Eleazar that he stood, not just to be in a position different than Eleazar's, but because Bet Hillel had ruled that the Sh'ma is said standing and that Eleazar, perhaps unknowingly, was following Bet Shammai by reclining for the recitation. These ma'äsim are not evidence of study house settings for the parables Rabbis told to illustrate points of Torah, even second-century Rabbis. In his later book, Stern continued to read these two talmudic texts as evidence for study house settings of parables, citing them as exceptions to his statement that there are "no" literary descriptions of parables delivered in either the synagogue or the study house. See David Stern, Midrash and Theory 41 and note 8, which do not mention m. Sukkah 2:5. 17

For example, were there indeed "lectures" in the study houses, as scholars have assumed, or were the Rabbis' activities closer to, say, the sort of vigorous questioning of juniors by seniors called the "Socratic method" in American law schools, or to contemporary research seminars? Regarding third-century synagogues, see the final paragraph of this chapter. 18

But see the final paragraph of this chapter. With his typical and wise caution, Arnold Goldberg has suggested that any attempt to place a parable as actual speech in a factual setting is hopeless. "Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch," 12. While I will not offer firm conclusions on the issue of synagogue vs. study house for more than a tiny handful of third-century king-parables, a reader who finds Goldberg's point compelling might fast-forward now to Chapter 7. 19

David Stern, Parables in Midrash 17.

166

their study houses, but making Torah accessible to the unlearned would also have basically involved exegesis; what would teaching Torah be about, for Amoraim, other than exegesis of the text of the Written Law?20 If t i m e travel could make us sure that a particular parable originated in the synagogue for the edification of the masses, its textual context would probably be just as exegetical as the equally hypothetical parable that we would be equally sure originated in the study house for the intellectual inquiries of the " e l e c t . " Does the collection in which a parable appears provide a clue to its original setting? Some Midrashim containing king-parables that I have studied are usually classified as surviving in the form of homilies, 21 and these "homilies" are often assumed to have been sermons. 22 If this is right, we might be able to classify the parables they contain as originating in the synagogue. 23 But not all these texts are indeed "homilies," 2 4 and judging whether those that

20

It is a commonplace to observe that the Tannaim, at least to the extent that their approach is evidenced by the Mishnah and the Tosefta, often pronounced the Law apodictically without the citation of a scriptural basis. But almost 95% of the third-century king-parables come from Amoraim, see Chapter 2, note 96 and accompanying text, supra, and of those that come from Tannaim, none is from m. or t. See Chapter 1, notes 61-63 and accompanying text, supra. 21

Those collected in Pesiq. Rab Kah., Pesiq. Rab., Deut. Rab. and parts of Lam. Rab., Exod. Rab. and Num. Rab. See the final footnote in Chapter 1, supra. 22

See Chapter 5, note 8, supra.

23

About 70, or some 30%, of the parables under study come from the collections classified as homiletical. See also Using "Documents" in Chapter 1, supra.

24

An example, chosen at random, from the collection providing more third-century kingparables than any other collection classified as homiletical, is Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 210-212). This text begins with the scriptural verse "in the third month" (Exod 19:1), which it reads as "the third month is come" by adding an aleph to bba ("in"), and follows immediately with three king-parables about the month in which the year begins, including two from the third century (the parable of the king who puts on the cloak of revenge and a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period about a king about to marry off his daughter. ) The text then proceeds to later words of Exod 19:1, "on that very day they came into the wilderness of Sinai, " and immediately offers four additional king-parables: the parable 167

are more often come from the synagogue and are for "the people" or come from the study house and are for "the elect" is difficult, although such judgments may be hazarded in individual cases.25 A more useful - but not dispositive -- kind of textual context in which to look for a parable's setting is that of the parable itself, as it might be isolated from the larger textual unit - the discussion in the Midrash, the sugya in the Talmud, the "homily" - in which it appears.26 The location of the parables in

comparing Jethro to a king's generous friend; R. Levi's parable of a king who seeks to marry into a good family; R. Eleazar's parallel parable; and a parable from later than the third century comparing a king who decreed that Romans may not marry foreigners but withdrew his decree when his daughter did so to God, who had issued a "decree" in Pss 115:16 that humans are not to enter heaven and that God would not come to earth but who withdrew it to enable Moses to go up "to God" (Exod 19:3) and God to "descend upon Mt. Sinai." (Exod 19:20). This does not seem to be either a synagogue sermon or a study house lecture, although it might constitute a part, or parts, of either or of both. Nor does it reflect the study-house scene I propose in notes 28-33 and accompanying text, infra, and elsewhere in this study. It seems to me to be a literary collection of king-parables, prepared perhaps by a late antique precursor of Ignaz Ziegler's or of mine, tied to the procession of verses in Exod 19 and motivated somehow by the "misreading" of bba. 25

For example, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6 (Mandelbaum ed., 314-315), including the parable about the prince who disgraced himself with slave girls, seems constructed to settle an earlier dispute among Tannaim as to the source of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden in favor of the view of R. Yosi that it was the fig tree. The tannaitic dispute was probably of interest mainly in the study house, but a popular audience might well have been quite interested in learning the actual nature of the forbidden fruit and could have been brought up to date about the earlier dispute. See notes 60-63 and accompanying text, infra. Deut. Rab. is organized in terms of "halachot," "homilies" usually but not always on legal subjects; 1:21 asks what a Jew who is traveling when Shabbat begins should do with his purse and the answer is that he should give it to a gentile, who is not obligated by the Noachide laws to observe the Sabbath. The text expands on the paucity of the Noachide commandments with R. Yohanan's parable comparing someone who comes between the king and Matrona with a gentile who observes the Sabbath. The teaching about the purse seems more likely to have been for the benefit of an unlearned congregation than a lesson for the Rabbis themselves, although the Rabbis would have been more interested in the applicability of the Noachide commandments than a lay audience would. But it is also possible that the hostility toward "God-fearers" demonstrated in the parable was directed to "God-fearers" (or their Jewish hosts) in the congregation listening to the sermon. See also Deut. Rab. 2:26, explaining, perhaps primarily to "laymen" but also to Rabbis, why the response to the Sh'ma is said aloud only on Yom Kippur. 26

See Arnold Goldberg, "Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch," 82. Goldberg called the parable a "texteme" and the larger text in which it appears a "co-text," but he may be forgiven since he wrote in German. See Richard S. Sarason, "The Petichtot in Leviticus Rabba:

168

these larger units generally makes sense as we have them. These textual contexts of third-century king-parables usually not only show Rabbis doing exegesis, as Stern observed; they show Rabbis doing only exegesis, and doing exegesis for its own sake. As presented in the surviving texts, the Rabbis do not appear to have been doing exegesis as part of their teaching but as part of their study.27 A verse from Scripture is presented as being, in effect, not only on the table at which the Rabbis were sitting,28 but on the table at which they were studying.29 This is almost always the case in the halakhic Midrashim, frequently the case in later exegetical Midrashim,30 and sometimes the case in Midrashim classified as

Oral Homilies or Redactional Constructions?," Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982), 557, 563, for the argument that several of the larger textual units in Lev. Rab. were constructed from passing references to Lev in "the context of direct exposition of other Scriptural texts" to fit the form of other material in Lev. Rab. 27

Among his several works emphasizing the Rabbis as a studying community, see Steven D. Fraade, "The Torah of the King (Deut 17:14-20)."

28

See Chapter 5, note 3 and accompanying text, supra.

29

1 recognize, of course, that the larger textual unit can and often does display a different setting, including that of a "sermon" or "lecture." See generally H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction 243-246. 30

Collected in Gen. Rab. Lam. Rab., Lev. Rab., Song Rab. and Eccl. Rab. Midr. Pss also usually seems to show the Rabbis at work studying the verse before them and solving problems encountered in the course of their study. See Chapter 5, note 3 and accompanying text, supra.

169

homiletical.31 For most parables, therefore, their most useful textual context suggests that they originated in the study house.32 But the inquiry cannot end there. I agree with David Stern that these contexts may be original,33 and I suspect they often are. I am sure, however, and also sure Stern would agree, that many of them are not. Rabbinic material, including king-parables, moved from text to text like jokes over the Internet, partly as the result of the substantial editing and redaction all the texts went through over the centuries. I need not convert to Jacob Neusner's documentary premise34 in order to be concerned that the apparent textual context of what survives may be as much or more the product of a later editor or redactor than of an earlier exegete.35 Perhaps the tasks for which the Rabbis advanced parables, including those delineated in Chapter 5, will tell something more about their settings. We roughly know the settings in which music for hip-hop dancing, or for 31

See, for example, Chapter 5, note 3, supra; R. Levi's parable explaining that a calf may not be sacrificed unless a Sabbath has occurred since its birth appears in Pesiq. Rab Kah., but the textual context as I am here using that phrase is that of the Rabbis studying "It shall remain seven days with its mother" (Lev 22:27). 32

Of course, a parable could have originated in a synagogue sermon, been heard by a Rabbi, and imported into his study of a text with his colleagues. But it could also have so originated in the field, the shop or the marketplace, or at his mother's knee. 33

See note 19 and accompanying text, supra.

34

See Chapter 1, notes 37-58 and accompanying text, supra.

35

"[According to one approach, exemplified by the work of Stern, Richard Sarason, Yonah Fraenkel and Joseph Heinemann, as well as Neusner] such formal rhetorical structures as the Rabbinic mashal. . . should not, and perhaps cannot, be . . . easily stripped in search of underlying . . . layers of exegetical tradition. Rather, they need to be appreciated in their extant textual forms as unitary compositions of literary artistry and imagination. . . . [reflecting] the way successive Rabbinic 'authors' or 'editors' skillfully received traditions to different rhetorical effects" Steven D. Fraade, "Literary Composition and Oral Performance, " 34.

170

campfire singing, or for listening to in hushed halls, originated. Can something similar be teased out from third-century king-parables? I have found few parables that perform tasks demonstrating that they clearly originated in one setting or the other. Virtually all exegetical parables do the work of teaching Torah lessons in an accessible way that the populace would have, or, in the minds of the Rabbis, should have, found interesting, including many of those collected in earlier chapters. This is probably one of the bases for the early assumption that parables originated in synagogue sermons.36 But few of them cover elementary or obvious matters of contemporary practice or doctrine, and it is therefore hard to say that the Rabbis themselves would not also have profited from these teachings had they been taught in the study house.37 As they struggled for power and authority with other groups in third-century Palestinian Jewish society, the Rabbis would even have welcomed those parables that helped raise the status of Rabbis among Jews generally.38

36

See text at note 5, supra.

37

Looking at two examples of parables that might have covered elementary or obvious matters of contemporary practice or doctrine, I suppose that Rabbis would not have needed much reminding of the importance of saying the Sh'ma, and accordingly I suggest that the parable of the provincials seeking distinguished houseguests originated in the synagogue. But Rabbis, perhaps more than others, did need to be reminded of the importance of Torah study, and therefore I do not think that the parable of the king who both wounds and cures his son necessarily originated in the synagogue, although it might well have. See also note 25, supra, for a text containing travel tips and about synagogue practice. 38

See, for example, the parable of the king's timepiece.

171

Similarly, I cannot conclude that parables whose jobs were comfort and consolation39 were therefore for lay audiences, since the Rabbis needed comfort and consolation too. Indeed, as an elite, they might have felt the pain of living in an occupied country all the more,40 and intellectuals are hardly exempt from the fear of death.41 Thus, based on the tasks for which they were used, the bulk of the thirdcentury king-parables might have originated either in the synagogue or the study house. A few seem somewhat more likely to have come from the synagogue, although rarely clearly.42 When a parable and its surrounding text result not from the Rabbis closely studying a scriptural text but instead from their thinking about things like the physical layout of the Ten Commandments, it is tempting to see them in a synagogue setting: How were the Ten Commandments given? Five on this tablet and five on this tablet. "I am the Lord your God" with "You shall not murder" written opposite it. This tells that as to all who shed blood it is accounted against him as if he diminished the image of God. A parable. Like a king of flesh and blood who enters a province, and they put up portraits of him and they érect statues of him images and they mint coins bearing his likeness. After a while they smash his portraits, overthrow his statues, and render his coins unfit, all diminishing his image. So for anyone who sheds blood it is accounted against him as if he diminished the image of God, as it is said, "Whoever sheds the blood

39

See Chapter 5, notes 91-105 and accompanying text, supra.

4Θ

See Chapter 9, infra.

41

See Chapter 5, note 98 and accompanying text, supra.

42

See also note 38 and accompanying text, supra.

172

of a human . . .for in his own image God made humankind."(Genesis 9:6)43

And when a parable seems to be more about generating drama and excitement than about careful exegesis of a difficult verse, perhaps it was meant for "the people": If you do such "the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you." (Deuteronomy 11:17) A parable. Like a king who was going to send his son to a banquet house. He sat down to instruct him, and said to him, "My son, don't eat more than you need and don't drink more than you need, so that you will come home in good shape." The son didn't pay attention. He ate more than he needed and drank more than he needed, so that he vomited, dirtying other guests. They seized him by his hands and his feet and threw him behind the palace. So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Israel, "I brought you into a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to eat of its produce and be satisfied with its goodness, and to bless my name for it. You disregarded the good. Suffer then the affliction that "the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you."44

A parable that simplifies an "earlier" midrashic interpretation might have been the poster child for the parable as the handle for accessible Torah for "the people." The parable of the gluttonous royal zookeeper is the only one of that sort isolated in Chapter 5, but it may not quite fit the bill. 45 The correct form of punishment of a sinning priest would not have been of great interest to "the people," other than the hereditary priests among them, unless the details of a restored Temple cult were part of popular messianic hope, if such hope

43

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 8 (Lauterbach ed., 2:262), including an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

44

Sifre Deut. 43 (Finkelstein ed., 98-99).

45

See Chapter 5, note 37 and accompanying text, supra.

173

existed.46 Accordingly, there would have been little need to bring R. Isaac's abstruse teaching based on orthography "down" to the people. On the other hand, the Rabbis should have understood R. Isaac; why simplify his teaching just for them? Are we getting a glimpse of introductory education in the study house, a kind of Leviticus 101? Another touch of humor? Or did the Rabbis want to teach lessons about the to-be-restored cult to "the people," whether or not the people wanted to be taught? But simplification is not the only way a Torah lesson can be made more suitable for a lay audience. The emphasis might be changed, or material thought too upsetting for laypeople might be modified, as when a Midrash apparently boosting Balaam's reputation was undercut by a parable comparing his status as a prophet to that of a royal butcher who knows the king's budget, but merely his budget. Bold interpretations might have been illustrated by repetitive or pedestrian parables47 in order to facilitate their acceptance by a lay audience. Parables like that of the king's timepiece, designed to clarify and drive home the point of "reckoning of time is yours," may have had a synagogue audience in mind, while parables like that of the dove pursued by the hawk, perhaps meant to be amusing, might have been designed to get its attention. 46

Popular interest in priestly matters may be evidenced by synagogue art such as depictions of the Torah shrine, menorahs, shofar, lulav, etrog and incense shovel. See Lee I. Levi ne, "Contextualizing Jewish Art: The Synagogues at Hammat Tiberias and Sepphoris," in Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz, eds., Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire, Leuven: Peeters, 2003, 91 ; Steven Fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1997, 95‫־‬ 126.

47

See Chapter 5, note 23, supra.

174

On the other hand, Rabbis themselves might have needed or wanted to be restrained from letting their textual virtuosity make it seem that they favored Balaam over Moses. Maybe they wanted to have the important concepts they developed made more vivid, and even to be mildly entertained by a picture of a king involved in an ornithological chase.48 Thus, while some parables seem to have originated in the synagogue, virtually all of them may also may come from a study house setting. Another small group of parables seems more suited to a study house setting than to that of a synagogue but, again, by no means clearly. As noted above, those parables engaged in solving problems involving the sacrificial cult49 may evidence concern with a subject of greater interest to Rabbis intensely studying Scripture than to a synagogue audience. Other parables that probably would not have interested "the people" are some of those that do little, if anything, more than demonstrate the Rabbis' virtuosity, such as the parable designed to foster word play involving "blossom" and "sprout"50 or the one that inserts a king who dresses his disobedient son as an olive treader into the exegesis of Lamentations 1:1 because the same consonants appear in the words for "lonely" and for "olive press. " 48

Indeed, some of the parables that might on first blush be thought of as products of the study house because of the novelty and complexity of the exegesis they generate, see notes 51-56 and accompanying text, infra, may well be more entertaining, such as R. Levi's parable of Matrona's fingernail. 49

See the parables of the king's friend's gifts, the slandered matrona, the holiday for the king's friend and the royal zookeeper.

50

See the parable of the king's cabbages.

175

Not every complicated or virtuoso text should, however, be assigned to the study house. When a parable's job is to generate complexity and novel and unusual exegesis -- as is most clearly the case for those that give rise to intertextual narratives

51

-- it might at first blush seem to come from the rabbinic study

house, and, just because of its complexity and novelty, not to be the sort of thing created for lay congregations, any more than a parable based on the bet and two dalets in "olive press." But consider this extraordinary example: Dābār 'ahēr. "That the Lord your god will maintain with you the covenant and mercy.52" (Deuteronomy 7:12) R. Shimon ben Halafta said, To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who married Matrona, who brought with her into the marriage two gems. The king had two other gems put in settings for her. Matrona lost the gems she had brought, and the king, as a result, put his away. After a while, she got herself together, found the two gems she had brought and began to wear them again. The king retrieved the two he had put away. The king said, "The four gems together will be made into a crown for Matrona." So you find that Abraham gave his sons two gems, righteousness and justice. Minayiri?3 It is written, "for I have chosen him that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice." (Genesis 18:19) The Holy One May He Be Blessed provided two other gems, mercy and compassion, for Abraham's sons, as it is written, "the Lord your god will maintain with you the covenant and mercy that he swore to your ancestors." (Deuteronomy 7:12) And it says, "and show you compassion . . . as he swore to your ancestors" (Deuteronomy 13:17.) Israel lost theirs, the gems given by Abraham, as it is written, "you have turned justice into poison and the fruit of righteousness into wormwood" (Amos 6:12) The Holy One May He Be Blessed also put his away, as it is written, "I have taken away my peace from this people, my mercy and compassion." 51

See Chapter 3, notes 33-57 and accompanying text, supra, for intertextual and interstitial narratives and Chapter 4, notes 42-48 and accompanying text, supra, for parables constructed to generate other forms of novel and unusual exegesis. 52

This word is more usually translated "loyalty."

53

See Chapter 3, note 43, supra.

176

(Jeremiah 16:5). Israel got herself together and brought back her two gems and began to wear them again. Minayin? It is written, "Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness." (Isaiah 1:27) Then God retrieved the two he had put away. Minayin? It is written, "my steadfast love shall not depart from you and my covenant of peace shall not be removed." (Isaiah 54:10) And when Israel brought hers back and the Holy One May He Be Blessed brought his back, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, The four together will be made into a crown for Israel, as it is said, "I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in compassion and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord." (Hosea 2:21 )54

As the Rabbis studied Deuteronomy 7:12, R. Shimon ben Halafta is presented as having called up his knowledge of the entire Torah and to have created a parable for the sole purpose of generating a brilliant intertextual narrative in which, in the first "act," Israel, represented by Abraham, provides herself with righteousness and justice - on her own, it seems -- and induces God therefore to treat her with mercy and compassion. In the second act, Israel abandons righteousness and justice and thus causes God to stop treating her with mercy and compassion. In the dénouement, Israel recovers righteousness and justice - again, on her own - and God not only resumes his merciful and compassionate treatment of her, but "marries" her -- enters into a relationship with her for all time - by presenting her with a crown made out of righteousness and justice and mercy and compassion. Accounting for a parable like this only as a study house product is unfair to the Rabbis' "lay" audience. We are moved by this rabbinic tour de force;

54

Deut. Rab. 3:7, including a Standard parable from the T5/Later Severan period.

177

why wouldn't they be?55 And since the linchpin of the reconciliation between God and Israel is the result of Israel's apparently unassisted recovery of its "gems," it is highly appropriate as a sermon to the faithful, whether or not learned. We cannot conclude that parables designed to generate novel, complex and exciting exegesis were so designed in and for use in the study house, only that they were designed by the Rabbis who worked in the study house, but that has never been in question. The distinction is between virtuosity for its own sake, as with the letters in "lonely," and virtuosity that advances the rabbinic agenda — teaching Jews who were listening that their righteousness and justice will be rewarded by God's compassion and mercy, or even that the marks of their circumcisions render them, unlike their neighbors, "perfect" in God's eyes.56 Shimon ben Halafta did not call up the text of various Torah verses with the use of a CD-Rom or even of a Torah scroll. He knew them. Some parables seem better fitted to a study house setting because they seem to have been, at

55

See Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Dritter Teil 229, classifying as a Passover sermon Exod. Rab. 15:16, a Standard parable about a king who imprisons Matrona but visits her there that generates a highly complex intertextual narrative. Some years ago, the construction of interstitial narratives was a popular form of adult education in some American circles. For an example, see my "A Story of Cain, " New Traditions 3 (1986.) If twentieth-century laypeople enjoyed and learned from creating such narratives, it would not be surprising if third-century laypeople had profited by hearing them. Similarly parables like that of Midr. Pss 22:20, turning the Psalmist's lament that he is "a worm not a man" into a claim that Israel enthroned God may have originated in the study house but would have appealed to "the people, " as would several of the other more unusual pieces of exegesis cited elsewhere in this study. 56

A middle ground is occupied by those texts that solve genuine interpretive issues that are not interesting to laypeople, like the meaning of gol.

178

least to an extent, useful as memorization exercises.57 When, as they studied Genesis, the verse before R. Abbahu and his colleagues was "Bela died, and Jobab son of Zerah of Bozrah succeeded him as king" (Genesis 36:33), he was able to produce a king-parable with an intertextual conclusion:

Like a king's son who, while engaged in a dispute with another, ran out of food. A third party supplied his food. The king said, "I am only concerned with the one who supplied his food [and not with the one with whom he is engaged in a dispute]." So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "Royalty had previously been uprooted from Edom, and Bozrah came and provided kings for it. Accordingly I am only concerned with Bozrah [and not with the places of origin of the previous kings of Edom]," as it is written, "For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom." (Isaiah 34:6)58 This parable would have been of virtually no interest to a lay audience in a synagogue and it has little substantive teaching for the Rabbis. Perhaps its function was to assist in the memorization of the two scriptural texts it contains, especially the less obviously important one from Genesis; if so, its intertextuality acts as a mutually reinforcing mnemonic device.59

57

The parable of the king who dressed his son as an olive treader also illustrates the possibility that some of the parables under study are the products of another sort of study house exercise. I obviously flirt with anachronism, but it is easy to imagine a master in the study house giving his students the assignment of producing a new reading of the first words of Lam, and the "winning" student focusing on the bet and the two dalets. Other parables that might have been the result of such exercises include the parable of the king who is undeservedly praised, which is supported by a string of twenty-two scriptural verses (Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 1, (Lauterbach ed., 2:8-9)), and the parable of the king in his clinging loincloth, which reads like a response to an assignment to relate Jer 13:11 to the material on the census in Exod (Tanh. Ki Tissa: 8). 58

Gen Rab. 83:3, a Standard parable.

59

Abbahu might have expanded on the nature of God's concern with Bozrah and cited verses such as Jer 49:13 ("By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, Bozrah shall become an object of horror and ridicule, a waste and an object of cursing, and all her towns shall be perpetual wastes "), Jer 49:22 and Amos 1:12. If my memorization suggestion is right, he probably did. Another parable that might have helped the Rabbis as a memory aid through its intertextuality is the parable of the man who picks up thorns in the king's garden. On the Rabbis' views on and approaches to the importance, purpose and structure of memory and techniques of building it,

179

The final category of parables that seem more likely to have come from the study house than from the synagogue are those apparently about matters of special concern to the Rabbis or especially within their frame of reference, such as parables that help solve a problem raised by earlier Rabbis, 60 or parables that explain earlier teachings61 or are premised on them. 6 2 On the other hand, of course, such earlier teachings could have been simultaneously taught to a synagogue congregation. With that remark I have run out of "other hands." The arguments based on textual context, tending toward study house origins, are of limited value. Consideration of the texts of the third-century king-parables shows that most could derive from either setting, and most of those that seem more likely to have come from one could also have come from the other. By and large, the

see Shlomo Naeh, "Omenut Ha-Zicharon: Mivnim shet Zicharon v'Tavniyut shel Teqst b'Sifrut Chazal, " in Ya'acov Sussman and Dovid Rosental, eds., Mehqeri Talmud: Qovetz Mechqarim baTalmud u-be-Techumim Govlim Moqdash leZichrono shel Prof. Ephraim Ε. Urbach 3, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2005, 543. 60

Such as the parable about the prince who disgraced himself with slave girls, which resolved an earlier dispute among Tannaim,

61

See Lev. Rab 12:1, a Standard parable from R. Levi, offered to explain why R. Ishmael, a second-generation Tanna, had taught that the sons of Aaron died because they drank too much. 62

See the parable R. Levi built on an earlier Rabbi's idea of worship after idolatry being akin to dessert; Gen. Rab. 36:7, an Imperial parable from R. Levi comparing a pretender to the throne with both Ham and a dog, which is based on the earlier teaching of R. Hiyya that Ham had sex with a dog on the ark, for which Ham was made dark-skinned and the dog was condemned to have sex in public; Exod. Rab. 38:8, a Standard parable from R. Levi expanding on a teaching of his contemporary R. Isaac; Midr. Pss 86:4, an antithetical Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period about a king whose prefects are praised along with him because they help him carry his burdens, in which the contrast with God is based on a teaching by earlier named Rabbis that the angels were created on the second day so that no one would think they helped with creation; and Pesiq. Rab. 21:36, another version of the parable of the queen who doubled her marriage settlement. As presented in Pesiq Rab., the meaning of the parable is premised on knowledge of an earlier teaching by R. Shimon ben Yochai, a second-generation Tanna, that the word änöki has elements of comfort.

180

king-parables of the third century could have originated either in the synagogue "for the people" or in the study house "for an elect" and have been used in either; close analysis of the corpus of third-century king-parables suggests that the majority view for rabbinic parables in general - set in both synagogue and in study house -- is right for them as well. 63 Straying somewhat beyond the stated scope of this chapter,64 however, suggests that the distinction between parables from the synagogue and parables from the study house may be a distinction without much of a difference. Up to now, I have proceeded on the view -- originating with the early scholars, endorsed by Daniel Boyarin, and accepted by others -- that a parable "from" the study house was "for" the rabbinic elite and a parable "from" the synagogue was "for" the unlearned people. But scholars increasingly claim that as late as the third century the only synagogues in which the Rabbis might have preached were in effect their synagogues, synagogues attended by themselves and their relatively few followers, who may themselves have been quite learned.65 If this is right, the Rabbis of the

63

Although I remain dubious about the study house as a venue principally for "lectures." See note 17 and accompanying text, supra.

64

See text at note 18, supra.

65

"Minimizing rabbinic authority" has recently been called the "more or less scholarly consensus." Michael L. Satlow, "A History of the Jews or Judaism?: On Seth Schwartz's Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C. Ε to 640 C.E.," Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005) 151,153. The synagogue long antedated the rise of the rabbinic movement and was probably created and led by local landowners into the third century and beyond, more or less uninfluenced by the Rabbis, whose leadership role in general Jewish society had not yet emerged. See Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society 259 et seq., outlining differences between "synagogues as a group" and rabbinic synagogues in an even later period and attributing the rise of rabbinic leadership of Jewish society to the sixth century at the earliest, id. at 175, claiming that early rabbinic Judaism was attractive only to small numbers of Jews, and my

181

third-century were not leaders of Jewish society who on a regular and formal basis preached down to the multitude in the manner of hirsute televangelists. They were a studying community with a few followers not that different, except probably for the extent of their learning, from their teachers. Kingparables that originated in synagogues and king-parables that originated in study houses would, at that stage in the development of rabbinic Judaism, both have been "for an e l e c t , " a conclusion entirely consistent with what this chapter has retrieved from its examination of the texts.

'"That My Mouth May Declare Your Glory': How Jews In Roman Palestine Invented Obligatory Prayer" (M.A.J. S. thesis, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1998), Chapter 4, arguing that the assumption made by various cited authors that the synagogue is a rabbinic institution is unwarranted and that the second-century synagogue had been founded and led by local gentry. See also note 12, supra, for the recent views of Daniel Boyarin. That such views are controversial is demonstrated by reactions to Schwartz' book. See, e.g., Joseph Geiger, review of Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E, by Seth Schwartz, Scripta Classica Israelica 22 (2003): 338-342. For a more measured critique, see Steven D. Fraade, "Seth Schwartz' Imperialism and Jewish Society, " presented at the Society of Biblical Literature 2003 Annual Meeting, arguing inter alia for the possibility that accounts in rabbinic literature of local legal and administrative functions being performed by Rabbis may have been accurate as early as the third century. 182

Chapter 7: The Figure of God

Chapter 4 argued against the prevailing idea that the figure of "the king" in third-century parables usually refers to God. But the figure of "God" in the parables surely does refer to the God of Israel himself. 1

This chapter deals with what their king-parables suggest about the thirdcentury Rabbis' understanding of God's personality. 2 What do they show him to be like? What are his feelings and emotions? Who and what does he love or hate? Why? What does he do, and what motivates his actions?3

These questions can be pursued because God in a king-parable is a character in a narrative, and readers both directly know and infer what characters in narratives are like. Sometimes readers know about a character's

1

My own religious practices ordinarily prevent me from using gendered pronouns for God, even in a "merely" grammatical way. But "God," as discussed in this chapter and elsewhere in this study, means God as believed in, worshipped, and obeyed by the third-century Rabbis, and is therefore not only grammatically masculine, but male. 2

1 do not reach the question whether the parable engenders or permits statements about God's personality more readily than other genres, compare the character of God that emerges from these parables with that which emerges from other rabbinic literature, or even consider to a meaningful degree any other rabbinic literature on the same or related questions. Just as earlier chapters were restricted to discussions of the form, structure, functions, settings and human characters in a body of literature limited by time and form, this chapter is restricted to a discussion of the divine character in the same particular body of literature. 3

1 do not deal with what the third-century king-parables have to say about such other important theological issues in rabbinic Judaism as creation, revelation, sin, repentance, holiness, theodicy, the Messiah, the resurrection of the body and/or the immortality of the soul, and eschatology more generally. (Life after death is averted to in Chapter 5, notes 74-83 and 110 and accompanying text, supra.) On the Rabbis' views on such issues, Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, New York: Schocken Books, 1961, reprint with an introduction by Neil Gilman, Woodstock VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993, remains an excellent introduction.

183

traits because they are specifically described in the text of the narrative Michael Corleone is educated 4 -- and sometimes the reader deduces such traits from other traits that are described and from the character's actions - he is tortured. 5

David Stern wrote:

What is God's character? What type of personality does He have? To t r e a t the representation of God in Rabbinic literature as a problem of literary characterization is not to demean Him. It is also, I hope, not an anachronism. By calling God a character, I do not mean to suggest that He was either a fiction to the Rabbis or any less an object of worship for them. Quite the opposite, to the extent that the Rabbis were intent upon characterizing God, it was precisely in order to make Him more of a God whom they could worship. 6 I am following and expanding on Stern's work here, but will part with him in important ways. In the essay from which the above quotation is taken,

4

Mario Puzo, The Godfather, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1969; reprint, New York: Fawcett World Library, 1970, 17. 5

This approach to "character" is on the "essentialism" side of the spectrum described by David Stern between "essentialism" and "nominalism." See notes 8-9 and accompanying text, infra. Taking such an approach to earlier texts, authors of works like Michael Chabon, The Final Solution: A Story of Detection, New York: HarperCollins, Fourth Estate, 2004, can portray a character at times and in situations other than those described in the narratives in which the character first appears. I will not portray God at times or in situations other than those in which he appears in the third-century king-parables, but the method behind this chapter is similar to that of the authors of such works; Chabon was able to describe Sherlock Holmes at age 89 during World War II because he had read earlier texts that contained the character of a younger Holmes and that specifically described some of Holmes' traits ‫ ״‬his appearance, for example, and his interest in bees ‫ ״‬and allowed him (and other readers) to deduce other traits from his behavior, including traits that would develop over time. Similarly, it is clearer that Michael Corleone is tortured in the film that continues his story than it is in the novel. Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo, The Godfather Part II. Screenplay. Paramount Pictures, 1974. But the authors of that screenplay had read the text of the novel (indeed, one of them had written it) and were able to draw from it (and from its film version) traits of Michael's character that developed over time. 6

David Stern, Midrash and Theory 79 (emphasis in original.) Apparently unlike Stern, I have not considered whether the third-century Rabbis were particularly interested in God's personality other than in connection with his actions and relationships.

184

Stern is largely concerned with the Rabbis' anthropomorphism, which he treated both as a problem relating to their beliefs and as a problem relating to their methods of expression. Stern is of course right that, according to Midrash (including the third-century king-parables), God is both anthropomorphic and anthropopathic but treating this as a problem is beyond the scope of this study; the texts are what they are, and the character of God in them is at times very human. Moreover, confining this chapter to the figure of God as it appears on its own without confusing it with the figure of the human king somewhat reduces any problem that the anthropomorphism of the parables presénts. 7

My treatment of inconsistencies in the character of God as presented in the king-parables is a more significant departure from Stern than my disregard of the problem of anthropomorphism.

7

It was in this very essay, his chapter "Midrash and Theology: The Character(s) of God," where Stern wrote that "the Rabbis used the literary genre of the parable to portray God, albeit obliquely, in the form of a human king." He was aware of the connections among his view of "king = God," his presentation of the character of God and his concern about anthropomorphism: "The recognition of this imperial model for the Rabbis' portrait of God . . . suggests how deeply rooted in history, in their own historical moment, was their construction of God." David Stern, Midrash and Theory 74, 90 (a passage about anthropomorphism.) Stern rightly criticizes Jacob Neusner's notion that the Rabbis depicted God as incarnate on the ground that Neusner overlooks the fact that the king-parables are, indeed, parables, and thereby makes conclusions about God based on statements about the king. Id. at 77, discussing Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Stern's own confusion of the figures of the king and of God similarly increased his understanding of the scope and extent of the Rabbis' anthropomorphisms, and therefore of the "problems" they generate. At least once Stern comes close to recognizing his error: "the anthropomorphism in [God's own] . . . confession [of failure in the first of the narratives from Lam. Rab. discussed in notes 11-17 and accompanying text, infra] must exceed the purely literal: the confession must be more than a prepositional statement about the divine ontology, since, after all, God only likens Himself to a human king." (Emphasis in original.) David Stern, Midrash and Theory 83. And that is all the Rabbis do as well.

185

Stern's approach to this issue begins with his analysis of two positions in literary criticism on the concept of "character": the "essentialist" position, which fundamentally treats character as the product of a personality or an idea and is best represented by the critical tradition from Henry James through E. M. Forster to Wayne Booth and much psychoanalytic criticism, and the "nominalist" position, associated with structuralist critics from Propp through Greimas and Barthes, which sees character as merely a name for a locus of functions that a given figure serves in a narrative.8

Stern first claims that the rabbinic representation of God lies somewhere between these two critical positions, combining features associated with both approaches.9 When he writes that a "representation" by the Rabbis stands between the two critical positions, I assume he is using shorthand. "Essentialism" and "nominalism" are ways of reading, not ways of writing, and certainly not ways of putting together midrashic literature as it has come down to us. He means, I am sure, that the right way to read Midrash -- especially, perhaps, anthropomorphic Midrash that is inconsistent with other anthropomorphic Midrash -- is between the two positions, and not that the rabbinic "authorship" itself took a critical position about the texts it produced.

When, however, he comes to treat texts that display inconsistencies in the character of God, he chooses the nominalist approach, without 8

See Midrash and Theory 79-80 and note 25. Stern thanks Alan Mintz for reminding him of this dichotomy in critical thinking about character.

9

David Stern, Midrash and Theory 80.

186

qualification, as the only way to read them. 10 The texts he focuses on are both from the same part of Lamentations Rabbah, a collection to which Stern has repeatedly turned throughout his career. Both concern God's behavior after the Destruction of the Second Temple, but in one God is personally involved with the Destruction, having both caused it and mourned it, while in the other he shows "a stony, disturbingly cold detachment from His nation and their travails."11

[T]he specific features of the separate portrayals of God require the nominalist approach to explain them. We will need to concentrate more fully on the functions each divinity serves and the roles each divinity is called upon to play in its respective narrative . . . . Each character is fully rooted in its own story.12 Exactly what the Rabbis' rhetorical strategies were that required an involved (although inconsistently involved) character of God in one narrative and an indifferent character of God in the other is something Stem leaves to his reader; the rest of the essay deals with whether the Rabbis believed in the anthropomorphisms they employed.

Clearly the purpose of a parable has some effect on how God is depicted in it, and doubtless it would be a worthwhile project to try to uncover the role the character of God plays in each king-parable narrative, lay a matrix of those roles over a table of the inconsistencies the texts include about the character 10

David Stern, Midrash and Theory 91.

11

Id. at 86. Value-laden words like "disturbingly" suggest that Stern is attempting something more than analyzing texts, which he undoubtedly is. See Chapter 3, note 33, supra, for his claim that Daniel Boyarin is concerned merely with relations between verses in an intertextual web, while he is concerned with relations between God and Israel in history. 12

David Stern, Midrash and Theory 91.

187

of God, and then try to explain them in a strictly nominalist way. But that it not my project and I have taken the essentialist view of character.13

More important, I am not distressed that God is an inconsistent character in the third-century king-parables. Stern's chosen text does not involve a king-parable14 and I have not studied it closely. But it is important to note that Judaism's conception of God has long been recognized as including inconsistent traits - for example, God is both transcendent and immanent and both just and merciful - and neither theologians nor historians nor literary scholars have found it necessary to explain this away by structuralist theory.15 Why may God's concern and God's indifference not also be treated as traits in tension with each other, rather than, in Stern's words, as evidencing two different characters who share only a name?16

On another level, is it unique or strange in world literature — it is neither in real life - that a character is involved in events concerning those close to him or her but simultaneously behaves with apparent indifference, or is indifferent but acts as if involved? Or that the character moves from concern to indifference and back again in nanoseconds? To offer a later king-parable,

13

But see notes 26-28 and 108 and accompanying text, infra, for readings that are at least partly nominalist. 14

Nor does the other text he discusses here, a passage from Gen. Rab. concerning the use of the plural form in Gen 1:26. 15

Including Stern in this very essay. David Stern, Midrash and Theory 86-87.

16

David Stern, Midrash and Theory 86.

188

we know how much Lear loves Cordelia at the moment he banishes her, and not only because we know how the play comes out.17

In this chapter I will examine several traits of the character of God that emerges from the third-century king-parables; many of these traits are inconsistent with each other, and one important trait is inconsistency itself.18

I will describe God's traits as shown in these parables without calling particular attention to the period of the third century that the parable that demonstrates a trait comes from or to the Rabbi to whom it is attributed. Since the body of parables under study come from only a few hundred men at most, and since these men were united in a jurisprudential and religious movement within one small country (and usually in one region of that country) during a period of less than ninety years,191 believe that the character in their kingparables of the divinity to whose laws they devoted their lives may fairly be presented as the product of a coherent view. In any event, the rest of this chapter may be read as an act of homage to these men: it attempts a continuous account of what God is like in a body of texts appearing in disparate places; to that extent, it, like so many parables, is intertextual. 20

17

And not only because the noble Kent tries to stop him. William Shakespeare, Kins Lear, act 1, scene 1, in George Lyman Kittredge, ed., Sixteen Plays.

18

See notes 93-107 and accompanying text, infra.

19

See Chapter 1, note 4 and Chapter 2, note 109and accompanying text, supra.

20

See Chapter 3, note 33 and accompanying text, supra.

189

We know of some of God's traits according to the third-century kingparables the same way we know about Michael Corleone's education or Sherlock Holmes' appearance in the narrative texts in which those characters appear; they are specifically asserted, sometimes with the use of adjectives. God is mighty, wise and merciful, and, more surprisingly, rich.21 He keeps his promises.22 He is warlike and at the same time attentive to his creatures, for whose needs he provides.23 He is generous, allowing Israel to have six days for themselves.24 He is unique or solitary, or both.25 These traits appear in the king-parables with greater clarity than other traits do, because they all come from antithetical parables.26 God's might, wisdom, mercy and wealth are mentioned in the course of contrasting him to a king of flesh and blood who claims those virtues but is really weak, foolish, cruel and poor. Human kings promise to build public baths but sleep in and forget; they cannot wage war and look after their soldiers at the same time; at their most enlightened, they give their servants only one day off each week; they are (or aspire to be) parts of dynasties.27 I cannot claim that the thirdcentury Rabbis were reluctant to be similarly clear and specific about God's 21

Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 1, an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

22

Pesiq. Rav Kah.4:2, an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period.

23

Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 4, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period.

24

Pesiq. Rab. 23:6, a Standard parable of Resh Lakish.

25

Exod. Rab. 29:5.

26

See Chapter 3, notes 54-72 and accompanying text, supra.

27

To this extent I am taking the Rabbis' rhetoric into account in making claims about God's character in the third-century king-parables. See note 13 and accompanying text, supra.

190

personality and attributes in other forms of parables; I can only point out that they largely were not. Since these parables are antithetical in form, they may better be described as saying that God is not weak, foolish, cruel or poor, that he does not forget his promises, that he is not prevented from providing for his people when he is at war, that he does not give his servants only one day off per week, and, in his own words according to R. Abbahu, he is "not like that; Ί am the first' for I have no father, and Ί am the last, ' for I have no son, and 'beside me there is no god' for I have no brother." 28 Do we see here antique Jewish roots of "negative theology," the medieval doctrine, usually treated as having been built on Aristotelian thought as transmitted by Muslim philosophers,29 that "we cannot describe the Creator by any means except negative attributes"?30 In any event, the God of the third-century king-parables seems to be mighty, wise, merciful, faithful, providential and unique, and we are not surprised. These are also among the adjectives the Rabbis used for God in their liturgy, and ones they would employ were we again to use a time machine and interview them on the subject. But God in the parables is a complex and interesting character, and, even though those time-machine Rabbis might downplay or deny it in our interview, he, like all complex and interesting

28

Emphasis added.

29

See, e.g., Robert M. Seltzer, Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History, New York and London: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc. and Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1980, 398-99. 30

Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, tr. M. Freidlaender, second revised ed., Routledge 6t Kegan Paul, 1904; reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 1956.

191

characters, has negative aspects to his personality, sometimes mixed together with his virtues. While it takes some digging to uncover his traits, he himself is usually easily recognizable;31 once even the Sea of Reeds recognized him.32 But, inconsistently with his might, on the sixth day of creation a ministering angel quite literally could not tell him from Adam,33 while at Sinai Israel could not distinguish among him, Michael, Gabriel and any member of their bands of angels.34 Perhaps as a result, he lets himself be seen so rarely that Moses is superior to all other prophets partly because he saw God,35 and God's glory can, generally speaking, only be imagined.36 Nonetheless, at least once he wanted so much to be seen that he woke his potential viewers with thunder and lightning.37

31

Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 3, an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period. This is another antithetical parable, and might be read as saying that God is not confused with his attendants in the manner of a human king. According to Song Rab. 5:10, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, God is distinguished from his attendants otherwise than by their garments, since they all are made of fire, but distinguished nonetheless. This is yet another antithetical parable, which might be read as saying that God is not distinguishable in appearance from his attendants merely by means of his clothing. 32

Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 5 (Lauterbach ed., 1:228-229), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period. 33

Gen. Rab. 8:10, an Imperial parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

34

Pesiq. Rab. 21:27-28, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

35

Lev. Rab. 1:14, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

36

Sifre Deut. 355 (Finkelstein ed., 422-423), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

37

Song Rab. 1:12 (2), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

192

Nevertheless, Israel couldn't stand the sight of him,38 again inconsistently with his might, and after the momentary glimpse of his glory when he woke them and they confused him with his retinue, he seems to have become invisible again. Why did he want to be seen? So that Israel would never be able to excuse its idolatry by saying that it would have been avoided if God had only let them see his glory at Sinai. This first glimpse at what motivates God seems odd and may show him as petty-minded; why does he care about what excuses for sin Israel might have offered in an alternative universe? This is not the only occasion when God's reasons for his actions in the third-century king-parables relate to his concern, inconsistent with his wisdom and might, about what people might say.39

God is thoughtful and kindly; he deferred giving the Torah until Israel was strong enough to receive it. 40 He is generous, rewarding a short lifetime of Torah study as much as a long one.41

38

Exod. Rab. 29:4, a Standard parable from R. Levi.

39

He is elsewhere shown as concerned about what people might say about him, see Gen. Rab. 50:12, R. Levi's parable of the two rural patrons, what they might say about Abraham, see b. Sanh. 89b, an Imperial parable of the A3b/Transitional period, in which he tests Abraham for a tenth time so that no one will say Abraham had not passed the first nine tests, a concern that is even harder to fathom than the other examples of this trait, and what they might say about Moses, Exod. Rab. 21:9, the parable of the officer's rod. His petty-mindedness may also be shown by his especially high level of concern about charges of sexual impropriety. See notes 59-60 and accompanying text, infra. 40

Eccl. Rab. 3:11.2, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. This may explain his responsiveness to Moses' juvenile-court plea on Israel's behalf. See note 52 and accompanying text, infra. His kindness is also shown by the fact that he rewards charity, no matter how small in amount, b. B. Bat. 10a, an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period.

41

Tanh. Ki Tisa: 3.

193

Like thoughtfulness and generosity, many other aspects of God's personality in the third-century king-parables are related to his special relationship with Israel. That relationship is primarily one of love; Israel is his treasured special possession, and he treats them like a king counting and recounting his gold.42 He loves Israel more than he loves his creatures in heaven,43 and, obviously, more than the other nations on Earth.44

He has manifested his love for Israel in many ways, above all by giving them, and not the angels or the other nations, the Torah. God's love for Israel extends to its land, which he associates with Israel's ancestors45 and which he waters himself.46 In addition, he loves them so much that he went with them down into slavery in Egypt and accompanied them into exile to Babylonia, Persia and "Greece." 47 When Israel is in trouble, his focus is solely on them; the angels may not even sing his praises to him.48

God's love for Israel is further evidenced by his mercy toward them. He asks for and expects very little. 49 He will punish them when they sin, of

42

Pesiq. Rab. 10:13, an Imperial parable of R. Levi.

43

Deut. Rab. 8:7, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

44

Exod. Rab. 30:9, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. See also notes 69-71 and accompanying text, infra.

45

Lev. Rab. 36:5.

46

Sifre Deut. 38 (Finkelstein ed., 74).

47

Exod. Rab. 15:16, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

48

Exod. Rab. 23:7.

49

Est. Rab. 3:4, R. Levi's parable about dessert.

194

course,50 but he takes great joy in their repentance.51 His anger against them can be abated fairly easily, as when Moses calmed him down after the episode of the golden calf by emphasizing Israel's immaturity. 52 In fact, he purposely sends his anger and wrath far away to give Israel a chance to repent during the time it would take for his anger and wrath to get to where they are.53 Anger and wrath thus join love for Israel among God's emotions, but he seems so far to have good control over them.

God's mercy and love for Israel are also shown by his remarkable responsiveness when Israel takes the first step toward reconciliation.54 And he can forgive them on his own, without being asked.55

Like other loving fathers, God worries about how Israel is regarded by others.56 He informed the nations of his great love for Israel so that they would treat them with honor.57 But, inconsistently with God's might, the nations nonetheless mock Israel for its sins, and God goes so far to protect them from

50

Exod. Rab. 2:2, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

51

Song Rab.8:12 (1), a Standard parable from the T5/Later Severan period.

52

Exod. Rab. 43:9, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

53

y. Ta'an. 2:1 (61b), an Imperial parable of R. Levi. The limited speed of his anger and wrath is inconsistent with God's might. 54

Deut. Rab. 3:7, R. Shimon ben Halafta's parable of the four gems.

55

Pes. Rab. 23:3, Resh Lakish's parable of the king whose son lost a coin.

56

See note 39 and accompanying text, supra, for God's concern about what people might say.

57

Mek.de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 185-186), an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period.

195

these taunts -‫ ־‬even those that seem deserved -- as to honor the animal that was the means of Israel's arguably worst transgression.58 When the nations charged that Israelite women misbehaved with Egyptian men in Egypt, God countered the scandalous talk by taking extra steps to make sure that children looked like their Israelite fathers.59 Indeed, his concern about potential charges by the nations of zënût by both Israelite men and women in Egypt, even before such charges were made, conceivably resulted in a temporary suspension of the means to fulfill the commandment to be fruitful and multiply:

The nations of the world used to taunt Israel and say, "And the Egyptians made the people of Israel work with rigor." (Exodus 1:13) If that is what they said about their labor, how much worse would it be about what they did with their bodies and their wives? So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, "A locked garden is my sister, my bride." 60 As much as God has manifested his love for Israel in the past in ways large and small, he is holding even more of his love for the future. He has, with great drama, cursed himself and sworn the end of the exile; 61 more practically, he has facilitated the return to the Land by keeping the

58

Lev. Rab. 27:8, R. Levi's parable claiming that the bull was made the subject of the first sacrifice because God had investigated the nations' taunts about the episode of the golden calf and "found nothing" in them. 59

Pesiq. Rav Kah., a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period.

60

Song Rab. 4:12 (1 ), a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period. The secular narrative of this parable concerns a vacationing king whose daughters are accused of zënût in his absence but who had in fact arranged their own marriages. The nimshal therefore probably means only that Israel in Egypt was virtuous and not "locked" in the sense I am suggesting. In any event the emphasis is on what the nations might say. 61

Pesiq. Rab. 28:12-14, a Standard parable from the A3b/Trans1'tional period.

196

commandments operative.62 He is focused on the future: he shows the pious, while they are still alive, their situation in the world to come,63 where Israel will be rewarded.64 In the future, even natural phenomena will rejoice with Israel,65 and God will be twice as comforting as he was at Sinai.66

The parables do not say why,67 but it is clear that God is indeed waiting. The Rabbis asked why Scripture says that his goodness is "stored up" (Psalms 31:19) and the parable to which they assigned the task of answering their question only makes it clearer that it is not only stored up, but stored up for the future.

R. Yosi bar Haninah said a parable. Like a king who made a banquet and invited the guests. The fourth hour of the day arrived and they didn't come; the fifth, the sixth, and they didn't come. Towards evening the guests slowly began to arrive. He said to them, "I owe you great thanks because had you not arrived I would have had to throw the banquet to the dogs." So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to the righteous, "I owe you great thanks, for I created the world for your sake, and were it not for you, to whom would I give the goodness that I have prepared for the future, as it is written 'How great is your goodness stored up for those that fear you'"? (Psalms 31:19)68

62

Sifre Deut 43 (Finkelstein ed., 102), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

63

Gen. Rab. 62:2, a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited empire period.

64

Eccl. Rab. 9:5:8, a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period; Midr. Pss 4:11, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period. 65

Pesiq. Rav Kah.S5:2, a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period.

66

Pesiq. Rav Kah. 19:5 (Mandelbaum ed., 306-307) and Pesiq. Rab. 21:36.

67

A standard answer in other rabbinic literature is that he is waiting for Israel to repent, but this does not emerge from the third-century king-parables. 68

Midr. Pss 25:9, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided empire period.

197

What are God's plans for the other nations? They will be punished in the world to come.69 Why? Not wanting to direct his anger and wrath toward Israel, because they asked him not to, he sends his anger and wrath, at Israel's suggestion, to the nations, lest they go to waste.70 But he does not hate them. On their own, they ordinarily do well enough, and he means to treat them fairly,71 but they are not Israel. Inconsistently with his desire to treat them fairly, as well as with his mercifulness, his punishment of them as a step in his own anger management program and out of favoritism to Israel amounts to cruelty.

Although wise, God can be indecisive, as when he keeps changing his mind about the right way for Israel to relate to Edomites;72 tempestuous, as when the Torah must talk him down from a tantrum caused by gentile blasphemy in which he decides to destroy the world;73 and jealous and competitive, as when he made sure that Israel understood that he, not Jethro, was their primary lawgiver.74 Although wise and mighty, he can be insecure, as

69

See the parables cited in note 64, supra.

70

Midr. Pss 6:3, an imperial parable of R. Yohanan. See also notes 58-60 and accompanying text, supra, on God's annoyance with the nations for making fun of Israel. 71

Sifra Bechukotai, pereq 2:5 (Weiss ed., 111c). Whether they are punished sometimes seems dependent on whether they obey the few commandments he has given them. The parables differ on whether they do so. See Chapter 3, note 74, supra.

72

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3 (Mandelbaum ed., 36), R. Levi's parable of the king's enemies at his banquet.

73

See Song Rab. 8:14 (2).

74

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211-212).

198

in R. Levi's parable of the king who wanted to act without his prefect. 7 5 He may be vain, so that Moses knew to begin Deuteronomy 33 with his praise. 76 And he may have a vindictive streak: it was not enough to save Israel, but Egypt also had to be punished 77 and he found it appropriate to make Haman great before bringing him down. 78 Although generous, 79 he plays favorites and is especially generous to those he loves. 80 Of course he favors Israel over the nations, and consequently prefers the prophets of Israel to the prophets of the nations, 81 favored Abraham over both Adam and Noah, 82 and protected the whole world for Abraham's sake. 83 Probably because of Ishmael, Esau and the sons of Keturah, he seems to have favored Jacob even over Abraham. 8 4 Within Israel, he is

75

Exod. Rab. 28:3.

76

Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 394), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

77

Exod. Rab. 20:14, an Imperial parable of Res h Lakish.

78

Esth. Rab. 7:2, an Imperial parable of R. Levi.

79

See note 41 and accompanying text, supra, but note that his generosity there displayed is to Torah sages, perhaps his favorites within his beloved Israel and may represent the same sort of favoritism shown in the remainder of the present paragraph. 80

Tanh. Ki Tisa 10 (Buber ed.) 56b, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, about God's love for Israel and gift to her of the Torah.

81

Gen. Rab. 52:5, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. See also Chapter 5, note 39, supra.

82

Gen. Rab. 49:2, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

83

Gen. Rab. 41(42):3, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

84

Gen. Rab. 63:2, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period; Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. David Stern, "Jesus' Parables," 61 has suggested that this is a polemic against the Arab and Roman nations, perhaps directed against the Pauline claim that true faith was achieved by Abraham.

199

partial to priests. 85 Other beneficiaries of his favoritism were Moses, 86 Solomon 87 and the tribe of Benjamin. 88 He may have favored the tribe of Judah along with that of Benjamin over the other ten, and the kingdom of Judah over the kingdom of Israel, given his possible differing reactions to the t w o exiles:

R. Yohanan said, Like a king who had two sons. He got angry a t the first, seized a staff, hit him and exiled him. He said, "Woe to this one, for where is his rest in exile?" And also the second; he got angry with him, seized a staff, hit him and exiled him. He said, "I brought him up badly." So when he exiled the ten tribes, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to them, "Woe to them for they have strayed from me" (Hosea 7:13). But when he exiled the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, kibëyâkôl, "Woe is m e because of my hurt." (Jeremiah 10:19). 8 9 He has favorite times as well as favorite people, during the High Holy Days90 or, in another mood, after a military victory. 91

85

Sifra Tzav Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), an Imperial parable from the AZ/Divided empire period. See also Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324), an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period. His partiality extends to Torah scholars, see notes 41 and 79 and accompanying text, supra, for whom priests may be a stand-in in the king-parables. 86

Num. Rab. 1:2, an Imperial parable of R. Levi.

87

Pesiq. Rab. 17-18 and Song Rab. 1:1 (9), parallel Imperial parables from the A1/Midcentury period.

88

Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412-413), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

89

Pesiq. Rav Kah. 15:4, a Standard parable. I say "his possible differing reactions" because in the parable that immediately follows, Resh Lakish disagrees with his colleague and says that God indeed mourned the first exile, citing Amos 5:1, but, inconsistently with his might, did not have the strength to mourn the second, citing Jer 9:17. Even in Resh Lakish's version, God seems to have liked the southern tribes better. For analysis of these two parables as "a powerful mythic revision of God's capacity to console the people," see Michael Fishbane, Rabbinic Mythmaking 169-70 and 222. See also Chapter 5, note 70, supra on "kibëyakôr‫·׳‬, here, Resh Lakish seems to be using the phrase in connection with the prooftext, since Judah and Benjamin were indeed exiled. 90

Pesiq. Rav Kah. Supplement 7:3, a Standard parable from the A1 /Midcentury period; Pesiq. Rav Kah. 27:7, a Standard parable of R. Levi.

200

Thus, not surprisingly given a complex character, we have seen several anthropopathic frailties like favoritism and pettiness among the traits assigned to God in the third-century king-parables along with more "God-like" qualities like wisdom and might. As noted above, 92 God's relationship with Israel provides a window on many aspects of his character, which include substantially darker traits.

His love and mercy for Israel are neither constant nor reliable. His treatment of them not only involves characteristics that are inconsistent with each other, like wisdom and indecisiveness, but is rife with internal inconsistencies and with inexplicable behavior.

He undertakes to do them harm but finds pilpulistic ways of avoiding his undertakings.93 Prior to forgiving them for the Golden Calf, he wanted to assign his ownership interest in them to Moses.94 He will miss them, but yet he exiles them. 95 No wonder Israel was surprised to have been redeemed.96 Neither the parablists nor we can tell why he is waiting to reward his beloved. He created

91

Sifre Deut. 26 (Finkelstein ed., 40), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period.

92

See notes 42-68 and accompanying text, supra.

93

Lev. Rab. 32:2 and Midr. Pss 6:3. In Chapter 4, I treated these parables as evidencing a view of God that the Rabbis only wished for, so that he would find a way out of his undertakings. Using the approach of this chapter, I am now reading them as evidencing what they indeed thought God is like. 94

Pesiq. Rav Kah. 16:10, a Standard parable of R. Levi.

95

Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83), the parable of the kings with the vexing sons.

96

Song Rab. 6:12 (1), an Imperial parable from the T5/Later Severan period.

201

the Torah as a counterweight to the Evil Inclination,97 but it is not known why he created the Evil Inclination, unless it was as a counterweight to the Torah.98 He heals with that with which he wounds,99 but, if so, why does he wound at all? It is not known; he does not explain himself.100

Startlingly, God's love for Israel can be so perverse as to be indistinguishable from cruelty, as when he wanted so badly to hear their voice that he afflicted them for no reason other than to make them cry out to him.101

And sometimes his harshness to them seems unrelated to love of any kind, and the Torah, both the evidence of and the reason for his love,102 seems like the punishment of a cruel master:

Why recollect the Exodus from Egypt in connection with each and every commandment? A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king, the son of whose friend was taken captive. When he redeemed him he didn't redeem him as a free man, but as a slave, so that if he made a decree and he didn't accept it he would say to him, "You are my slave." When he entered a province he said to him, "Fasten my sandals, carry my things before me to the bath-house." The son began to complain. The king brought out the bond and said to him, "You are my slave." When the Holy One May he Be Blessed redeemed the seed of his friend Abraham he didn't redeem them as sons, but as slaves, so that if he made a decree and they didn't accept it he would say to them, "You are 97

Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103-104), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transwitional period.

98

Cf. Song Rab. 6:11 (1), an Imperial parable of R. Levi.

99

Lev. Rab. 18:5, an Imperial parable of R. Levi, an antithetical parable perhaps to be read to mean that God does not heal with something other than the instrument by which he wounds.

100

Lev. Rab. 12:1, a Standard parable of R. Levi.

101

Exod. Rab. 21:5, a Standard parable of R. Joshua ben Levi.

102

See notes 105-108 and accompanying text, infra.

202

my slaves." When they entered the wilderness he began to decree on them some of the lighter commandments and some of the more stringent commandments, such as Shabbat, marriage prohibitions, tzitzit and tefillin. Israel began to complain. He said to them, "You are my slaves. I redeemed you on the understanding that if I make a decree you will carry it out." 103 Loving parents can be cruel and selfish, but at times the Rabbis of the third-century king-parables were so flabbergasted by God's behavior that they depicted him as having set his face against Israel for evil.104

Why does God love Israel so much in the first place? Because they "cleaved to him"105 by having accepted the Torah.106 The Rabbis are clear on that. But God's love for Israel is principally manifested by his having given them the Torah; the Rabbis are clear on that too. God loves Israel because they accepted the Torah; he shows his love by giving them the Torah.107 Which came first? The Rabbis neither ask nor care. A character who feels an emotion because of another's act, and acts out that emotion by his or her role in that

103

Sifre Num. 115 (Horowitz ed., 127-128), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided empire period. 104

Sifra Bechukotai pereq 4:4 (Weiss ed., 112a), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided empire period. 105

Tanh. Ki Tisa: 8 and Pesiq. Rav Kah. 2:7, Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period. 106

Exod. Rab. 30:9.

107

The Rabbis' understanding of God as ineffable in many ways - including with respect to the interrelationship of the giving and accepting of the Torah - may be what stands behind their tendency to recursive thinking. See Chapter 5, note 64, supra, for their tendency to recursiveness on an exegetical level.

203

very same act, is beyond being inconsistent or verbally inexplicable. Such a character is beyond description, and I think the Rabbis so understood God.108 Accordingly, I will not go so far as to claim that the character of God that emerges from the third-century king-parables was cruel, or perverse, or evil. But the catalog of his traits must include, along with the principal ones of might, wisdom, mercy and the rest, and the minor flaws like vanity and concern about potential gossip, that he is inconsistent, indescribable, ineffable, absolutely Other, and that such traits necessarily include that he is uncanny, incommensurate, and scary. The third-century Rabbis learned this view of God from the Scripture they studied and knew frontward and backward and inside out: "And it was on the way, in the camp, and the Lord met him [Moses] and sought to murder him" (Exodus 8:24); "my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways" (Isaiah 55:8); "I will not go up among you, or I would consume you on the way" (Exodus 33:3); "I make peace and create evil" (Isaiah 45:7). David Stern seems to have flirted with this conclusion. He wrote that, when parables show God either as closely bound to Israel or as already alienated from the covenantal relationship, they show two characterizations that, "let alone both together, " are each "too unpredictable, too uncanny, to be anything other than a creation of the imagination." He speedily retreated

108

A nominalist reading of this inconsistency would rely on the message about the Torah that the Rabbis wished to make in each instance. Such an emphasis on the Torah rather than on God is consistent with much of the Rabbis' worldview, see the final two paragraphs of this chapter, and it would be interesting to review the parables for their treatment of the Torah herself as a "character."

204

with the idea of the "anthropomorphic paradox, " that the Rabbis could portray God's full complexity only by portraying him as a human king.109 However, as I demonstrated in Chapter 4, the parables do not portray God as a human king, and Stern's own imagination has failed him; the God shown in the parables is indeed unpredictable and uncanny, but that is a function not of the Rabbis' literary imagination but of their biblically learned theology.

But another, equally ineffable, trait of God's character emerges from the third-century king-parables, and from it the Rabbis seem to have derived one of the cardinal principles of their Judaism. It turns out that the mighty, incommensurate God of Israel needs and relies on people, or perhaps only on Jews. He felt that he had to earn the right to be Israel's god in advance;110 more significantly, he was not their god until they made him so.111 And, once enthroned, and once he gave Israel the Torah, he was pleased to turn over divine functions to Jews, or at least to the Rabbis.112

109

David Stern, Parables in Midrash 101.

110

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:237-238), an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211-212), a Standard parable of R. Levi. To this extent, "king" does equal "god"; that is what the parables cited in this paragraph mean when they refer to God as Israel's king. 111

Exod. Rab. 23:1; Midr. Pss 22:20.

112

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102), the parable of the king's timepiece (and other items); Pesiq. Rab. 15:1-3, a parallel Standard parable from the A2/Divided empire period. See also Pesiq. Rab Kah.21:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 321), a Standard parable of Resh Lakish. See also Michael Fishbane, Rabbinic Mythmaking 111 ("the impact or role of human praxis upon cosmic and divine maintenance reconnects realms often thought to be utterly distinct in Jewish monotheism, and thus provides another avenue into ancient rabbinic myth. Rather than

205

Rabbinic Judaism's Torah-centeredness and emphasis on study are the direct result of these theological understandings. How better to deal with, and live under the rule of, a strange and ineffable deity than to take advantage of the fact that - not the least inexplicable of his inexplicable actions -- he has issued a set of instructions on how to do so which takes generations and generations of study to grasp? Especially when the instructions, properly understood, show that "here on earth God's work must truly be our own."113

marking faded myths or halting mythic theologies, these texts reveal a realm of living mythic religiosity in the heart of rabbinic Judaism.") 113

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961, available among other places at www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/inaugural/35_kennedy.html.

206

Chapter 8: Third-Century Kins-Parables as Resistance Literature

Introduction The Rabbis were an intellectual elite working in their native language in a homeland occupied by a world empire. Accordingly, their surviving texts present themselves as prime candidates for analysis as a literature of resistance to imperialism. 1 This candidacy is enhanced by evidence of the Rabbis' hostility to Rome, and of their hopes and ambitions for liberation, which appears throughout their literature, including in their third-century king-parables. 2 Does such hostility to Rome emerge from these parables simple and unalloyed? Does it amount to evidence of actual resistance? Or were the Rabbis

1

See Barbara Harlow, Resistance Literature, New York and London: Methuen, 1987, xviii, 2, 8., On the word "imperialism," see note 81, infra. See also Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism, New York: Vintage Books, 1994, xii ("narrative" is "the method" colonized people use to assert their own identity and the existence of their history): Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts, London and New York: Routledge, 2000, 11 ("allegory" a common method in resistance literature.) The Rabbis as the authors of such literature would accordingly be regarded as resistance leaders. Cf. Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism 223 (lawyers often such leaders.) It has been argued regarding another people of late antiquity subject to Rome that maintenance of ancestral religion and language and use of "native" names after acquiring Roman citizenship (practices shared with the Rabbis) amounted to a form of "passive" resistance. See Mohammed Benabou, La resistance africaine a la romanisation, Paris 1976, discussed in David Mattingly, "From One Colonialism to Another: Imperialism and the Mahgreb," in Jane Webster and Nick Cooper, eds., Roman Imperialism: Colonial Perspectives. Leicester: School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, 1996, 49, 58. But my focus is on a body of texts, and resistance not evident from them is beyond this chapter's scope. 2

It is hard to imagine a better example of such hostility and such ambitions than Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 10 (Lauterbach ed., 79-80), the parable of the king who avenges the destruction of his palace by brigands.

207

more like collaborationists or at least compradors3 than resistance figures, as suggested by the view of some historians that the Jewish Patriarch -‫ ־‬and through him the Rabbis he seems to have led ‫ ־־‬was close to t h e imperial government, as early as the third century? 4 This chapter will consider whether and to what extent the third-century king-parables may be read as a literature of resistance to Roman occupation. More precisely, it will focus on evidence in the third-century king-parables of hostility and resistance to the emperor, since the subject of t h e secular narratives in the Imperial parables is, generally speaking, the emperor or his representative rather than the empire, and since evidence of resistance to the occupying power in the parables is therefore likely to appear in the form of resistance to the person of the individual who led and perhaps personified it. 5

3

Several writers have adopted this Portuguese word for local merchants to refer to members of a colonized people who profit from the fact of colonization and cooperate with the colonizers. See, e.g., Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, Oxford and New York: Routledge Classics ed., 2004, 30, also citing Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, In Other Worlds, London: Methuen, 1987, 166-67. See also Jane Webster, "Roman Imperialism and the 'Post Imperial Age,"' in Jane Webster and Nick Cooper, eds., Roman Imperialism 1, 8 (Rome ruled with the cooperation of local elites.) 4

See David Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity, Tubingen: J. C. B. Möhr (Paul Siebeck), 1994 217-231; Peter Schaefer, The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, translated by David Chowcat, Luxembourg: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995, 168; Seth Schwartz, "The Patriarch and the Diaspora." Journal of Jewish Studies 50 (1999), 208; Lee I. Levine, "The Jewish Patriarch (Nasi) in Third Century Palestine, " Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung, II, (1979), 649. The leading examples of the related scholarship that treats the emperor and the patriarch as personal friends are Samuel Krauss, Antoninus und Rabbi and, still cited, Moshe David Herr, "Historical Significance." 5

This approach is supported by two related Imperial parables from the A3b/Transitional period, Sifre Deut. 312 and 343 (Finkelstein ed., 353 and 397), in which Rome is represented not simply by "Edom," as it often is, but by "the princes of Edom," each more "evil" than his predecessor; if the princes are not merely a metonym for Edom/Rome but also can be read to stand for the emperors, Rome's rulers have here been equated with Rome in a setting of rabbinic hostility to them and to it. 208

If the consensus of previous scholarship that the figure of the "king" throughout the parables is usually based on the emperor or his representative were correct, a remarkably large percentage of the parables could be brought forth to demonstrate hostility to -- and contempt for -- the emperor, including those in which the "kings" are shown as busily fussing over their sons6 when they are not throwing swords at them7 or sending them to the corner package store for a wee drop,8 attending Majuma festivals in public9 while enjoying private tete-a-tetes 10 with their special pals in private, and acting out scenes from The Honeymooners with their wives.11 But I stand by Chapter 2's distinction between Imperial parables in which the "king" is based on the emperor or his representative and Standard parables in which he is not, and believe that only Imperial parables are suitable for the historical reconstruction in this and the following chapter.

A Plain Reading Antithetical Imperial king-parables - those in which a secular narrative about the emperor or his representative is contrasted with a verse or

6

SeeEccl. Rab. 3:11.2.

7

See Midr. Pss 6:3.

8

See Pesiq. Rab. 23:3.

9

See Pesiq. Rab. 21:24.

10

See b. Sukkah 55b.

11

See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 19:5.

209

statemerit, often about God, to show differences between them 1 2 -- might be expected to lend themselves especially readily to the expression of negative views of the emperors, since contrasting statements about God are by their nature positive. 13 In fact, about half of them present the emperor unfavorably - he is weak, poor, foolish, cruel and false; 14 his judgments and benefits are uncertain and riddled with passion and perhaps unworthy motives; 15 he is unable to perform more than one governmental function a t a time. 1 6 But, probably because several of these parables are constructed to generate novel and unusual exegesis of Scripture, 17 slightly more than half present the emperor in a neutral light. 18

12

See Chapter 3, notes 54-72 and accompanying text, supra.

13

But cf. Chapter 7, supra.

14

See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 1 (Lauterbach ed., 2:8-9), from the A1/Midcentury period; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 55), from the A2/Divided Empire period. 15

See b. B. Bat. 10a, from the T4/Early Severan period; Lev. Rab.24:2, from R. Levi.

16

See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32-33), from the A1/Midcentury period.

17

See Chapter 3, notes 33-37 and accompanying text and Chapter 4, notes 42-48, supra.

18

See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed., 2:24-25), from the A1/Midcentury period (the emperor and his soldiers, as humans, resemble each other); Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), from the A2/Divided Empire period (emperor goes to war with many but to peace discussions with a few); Pesiq. Rab. 21:24, from the A3b/Transitional period (goes to war with many but to festival with a handful); Midr. Pss 86:4, from the A3b/Transitional period (emperor helped by his prefects who are therefore praised along with him); Exod. Rab. 29:5, from R. Abbahu (emperor has a family); Lev. Rab. 18:5, from R. Levi (emperor wounds with a scalpel on the basis of witnesses and heals with a balm); Num. Rab. 1:2, from R. Levi (requires provincials to support his emissaries.) But, as suggested in notes 49-51 and accompanying text, infra, portrayal of the emperor simply as a leader of armies, as in Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100) and Pesiq. Rab. 21:24, or as the head of the empire, as in Midr. Pss 86:4 and Num. Rab. 1:12, or as a dynast, as in Exod. Rab. 29:5, may be read as a favorable portrayal. If Sifre Num. 102 is a reflection of the emperor Valerian having been captured by Persia, see Chapter 9, text preceding note 104, infra, it would constitute an unfavorable representation of the emperor, or at least of that emperor.

210

The Imperial parables that are not in antithetical form are replete with hostility to the emperor.19 He often resembles the generic or fairy-tale kings of the Standard parables; his behavior is undignified and comical;20 he is cruel and quick to anger;21 he abandons his wife in order to take a long holiday;22 he is vain, jealous23 and duplicitous.24 The Rabbis so easily thought of the Emperor of Rome as a subject of contempt and ridicule that they were able to compare him (and his prefect) to grades of skin disease.25 Parables in which the emperor's flaws involve the performance of his governmental functions rather than his character or his personality enhance a claim to the status of third-century king-parables as resistance literature. 26 In them, the Rabbis represent him as inferior to or dependent on others -- people lower than he was on the imperial organizational chart, including senators or

19

Including the two mentioned in note 5, supra.

20

See Gen. Rab. 8:10, from the A1 /Midcentury period. It is always risky to see deliberate comedy in the Rabbis' surviving texts, but it is hard for a modern not to smile at the picture of the Emperor of Rome shoving the prefect out of the wagon they shared so that they will not be confused with each other. 21

See Gen. Rab. 10:4, from the A1 /Midcentury period; Midr. Pss 6:3 and b. Sanh. 39a, both from the A3b/Transitional period.

22

See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 19:4, from the A2/Divided Empire period.

23

See Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 394), from the A3b/Transitional period (but no vainer or more jealous than God in the same parable, see Chapter 7, notes 74 and 76 and accompanying text, supra.) 24

See Esth. Rab. 7:2, from R. Levi.

25

See b. Sheb. 6b, from the A1 /Midcentury period.

26

Many of the parables discussed in the following paragraphs will be looked at again in Chapter 9 as evidence of rabbinic reflection of contemporary imperial events.

211

other senior advisers27 and the head of the army,28 but also an "expert and calm" general29 and one or two "heroes."30 The emperor is shown as needing to curry favor with taxpayers and to forgive people his predecessors had found guilty in order to consolidate his newly achieved power;31 as concerned about the influence of minor rural patrons,32 and as relying on one of his field commanders for his cash flow needs.33 No wonder, then, that the Rabbis presented him as finding it difficult to control his troops.34 The leader of an occupying power who cannot control his troops is one against whom resistance is not only attractive in imagination but perhaps tempting in practice, and presenting him that way might have indicated that actual resistance was not far from the Rabbis' minds.35 Several other third-century parables present the emperor as in even greater trouble, and as subject to actual or imminent rebellion,36 further strengthening the possibility that they constitute resistance literature. Not only

27

See Gen. Rab. 8:3, from R. Joshua ben Levi.

28

See Tanh. Ki Ήsa 9 (Buber ed.) 58b, from Resh Lakish.

29

See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11 Mandelbaum ed., 355), from R. Eleazar ben Pedat.

30

See Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354); b. Sanh. 89b, both from the A3b/Transitional period.

31

See Exod. Rab. 15:13, from R. Levi.

32

See Gen. Rab. 50:12, from R. Levi.

33

See Deut. Rab. 1:13, from R. Levi.

34

See y. Ta'an. 2:1 (61b), from R. Levi.

35

But see note 144 and accompanying text, infra.

36

Especially later in the century. See Chapter 9, notes 96-196 and accompanying text, infra.

212

is it difficult for him to control his troops, and to manage them under adverse conditions,37 but also he is guilty of falsifying his troop strength, or is ignorant of it. 38 Worse, he is subject to armed insurrection by his own legions,39 and his own prefects seek to rule over him or instead of him.40 Other claimants to the throne are active,41 going so far as to establish rival governmental institutions in the emperor's "own tent," 42 and they enjoy the support of other rebels.43 His rule is so uncertain that sometimes he can even recognize outsiders as "Augustus."44 The Rabbis' knowledge that emperors are made by the legions demonstrates their awareness that today's emperor is subject to replacement by tomorrow's.45 He is even shown as subject to the power of mere brigands, like a suburbanite suffering home invasion.46 An emperor like that is one against whom the possibility of rebellion is starkly apparent.

37

See Lam. Rab. petihah 16, from R. Abbahu; Sifre Deut. 3 (Finkelstein ed., 11), from the A3 b/Transitional period. 38

See Gen. Rab. 94:9, from the A3b/Transitional period.

39

See Tanh. Ki Tisa 9 (Buber ed.) 58b, from Resh Lakish.

40

See Deut. Rab. 2:5, from the A3b/Transitional period.

41

See Tanh. Pekude:4 from the A3b/Transitional period.

42

See Gen. Rab. 36:7, from R. Levi.

43

See Mek.de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 8, from the A1 /Midcentury period.

44

See Tanh. Bechukotai 6 (Buber ed.) 56b, from R. Levi.

45

See Midr. Pss 22:20, from R. Joshua ben Levi; Esth. Rab. 1:19, from the A3a/Reunited empire period; Exod. Rab. 23:1, from R. Abbahu.

46

See Mek.de R. Ishmael Shi rata 10. That the emperor ends up triumphant over these brigands is a function of the emperor in this parable being a stand-in for God. See Chapter 4, note 30

213

But these are selected examples. The remaining Imperial parables, although somewhat fewer in number, point in the other direction. Those that portray the emperor as having both favorable and unfavorable qualities are not evidence of hostility to him. He is emotional and perhaps a dysfunctional father, but at the same time he is devoted to the successful performance of his military functions.47 He is painstaking in his revenge, arguably to the point of cruelty, but only in the service of his son and his dynasty.48 And those that portray him in what seems a neutral light are perhaps better understood as favorable. He is shown only in terms of his rank in the hierarchy,49 or only as a (or the) military commander,50 or as a judge.51 But his rank has no equal;52 it is so high that his image is regularly reproduced53 and is carried about, preceded by heralds.54 The Rabbis obviously held judges in high esteem; and noting the emperor's position as head of the occupying army suggests respect or fear if not admiration.

and accompanying text and text preceding note 34, and note 2, supra. See also Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 7, from the A1 /Midcentury period (brigand just outside palace.) 47

See Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83), the parable of the emperor whose sons vex him.

48

See Exod. Rab. 20:14, from the A2/Divided empire period.

49

See b. Pesach 103a, from the A1 /Midcentury period; Eccl. Rab. 12:5, from the A2/Divided empire period. 50

See Exod. Rab. 23:7, from the A2/Divided empire period.

51

See Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 185-186), from the T4/Early Severan period; Lev. Rab. 18:5, from R. Levi. 52

See b. Pesach 103a.

53

See Num Rab. 9:1, from the A3b/Transitional period; Esth. Rab 3:4, from R. Levi.

54

See Midr. Pss 55:3.

214

Moreover, another group of parables clearly seems to present the emperor favorably. In these, he serves as a model of one worthy of respect.55 He not only loves his sons56 and protects and supports them, 57 but acts toward them in public so that others will honor them. 58 He is attentive and empowering to his wife, 59 whom he honors and treats fairly. 60 As a patron, he is loving and generous to his clients61 and enjoys close personal relationships with at least some of them. 62 But, while manifesting his love for such people, he is more concerned with the proper exercise of his governmental functions.63 Indeed, this group of parables seems to emphasize the quality of the emperor's rule. He is shown as basing his office on the good he does his subjects,64 to whose requests and aspirations he is responsive.65 He is more

55

See Sifra Emor pereq 13: 8 (Weiss ed., 102a).

56

See Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 7, from the A1 /Midcentury period.

57

See Gen. Rab. 77:3; Deut. Rab. 1:23, both from the A3b/Transitional period.

58

See Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1:185-186), from the T4/Early Severan period; Exod. Rab. 18:6, from R. Levi. 59

See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 9:10, from R. Levi.

60

See Lev. Rab. 27:8, from R. Levi.

61

See Pesiq Rav Kah. 14:17-18, from the A1 /Midcentury period; Sifra Tzav, Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), from the A2/Divided empire period; Gen. Rab. 41 (42):3; Lev. Rab. 5:6, both from the A3b/Transitional period.

62

See Gen. Rab. 52:5, from the A3b/Transitional period.

63

See Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324), from the T4/Early Severan period.

64

See Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:237-238), from the T4/Early Severan period.

65

See Song Rab. 8:5 (10) and Sifre Deut. 26 (Finkelstein ed., 40), both from the A3/Transitional period.

215

steadfast than his subordinate officials,66 to whom he is supportive and loyal67 and in whom he has confidence.68 They, in turn, loyally and eagerly serve him.69 He works long hours as a judge,70 and meticulously separates his personal funds from those of the state.71 Rebels and pretenders are nowhere to be seen in this group of parables; the emperor is in complete command.72 And the attitude toward the emperor in parables in which he is a standin for God - which constitute about the same small percentage of Imperial parables as of third-century king-parables as a whole73 - appears clearly favorable. Perhaps, therefore, the most that can be properly concluded from a plain reading of these parables is that the Rabbis, or some of them, 74 some of the time, looked on the emperor with a hostility that could be the impetus to or the product of resistance to his rule, in a context consistent with and perhaps showing awareness of actual resistance among groups in the Empire.

66

See Lam. Rab. 3:24 (99), from the A2/Divided empire period.

67

See Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed.,,102), from the A2/Divided empire period; Exod. Rab. 21:9, from the A3b/Transitional period. 68

See Deut. Rab. 3:3, from R. Levi.

69

See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 21:10; Midr. Pss 18:21, both from the A2/Divided empire period.

70

See Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 Lauterbach ed., 1: 185-186), from the T4/Early Severan period.

71

See Pesiq. Rab. 10:13, from R. Levi.

72

See Midr. Pss 17:3, from R. Levi.

73

See Chapter 4, note 51 and accompanying text, supra.

74

It is a commonplace that it is a mistake to treat "the Rabbis" as univocal in their views, like talking heads on Fox News.

216

Getting Help from Contemporary Theory 75 But i t is not necessary to draw conclusions from a peshat reading alone. In recent decades, substantial scholarly and critical attention has been paid to the situation of dominated people, including those dominated by world empires, and a number of others before me have a t t e m p t e d to apply the insights and concepts of these scholars and critics to the populations and the texts of late antiquity -- Jewish, 76 Christian, 77 and "pagan." 7 8 1 propose to join them by considering the extent to which such insights and concepts are applicable to the analysis of third-century Imperial king-parables as resistance literature, and, to the extent that they are, by applying them. Potentially applicable scholarship and criticism may be conveniently and 75

Edward Said, the founder of colonial discourse theory (the first manifestation of the academic field of postcolonial studies) see note 89, infra, called the word "theory" a rubric under which many new disciplines like psychoanalysis, linguistics and Nietzschean philosophy, unhoused from traditional fields such as philology, moral philosophy and the natural sciences, are herded. Culture and Imperialism 37.

76

See Beth A. Berkowitz, "Paradoxes of Power, 'The Way that the Kingdom Does It,'" in her Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Culture, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, 153; Ra'anan Boustan, "Imperialisms in Jewish History, From Pre- to Postmodern," Perspectives 8 (2005); Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines; Daniel Boyarin, "Homotopia: The Feminized Jewish Man and the Lives of Women in Late Antiquity," differences: A journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 7 (1995), 41, 71 n.15; Hayim Lapin, "Hegemony and its Discontents: Rabbis as a Late Antique Provincial Population, " in Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz, eds., Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire, Leuven: Peeters, 2003. See also Michael L. Satlow, "A History of the Jews or Judaism?," 95, 151, 160. 77

See Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004; Richard A. Horsley, ed., Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006; Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004; Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. 78

See Jane Webster and Nick Cooper, eds., Roman Imperialism.

217

productively divided between the work of the school, movement or field of postcolonial studies and the work of James C. Scott set forth in his and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden

Domination

Transcripts.79

Postcolonial Studies

Since postcolonialism is a disparate field - "plural in assumption, orientation and procedure and . . . at times internally as well as mutually contradictory" 8 0 -- i t is necessary to consider what aspects of it are useful to the study of the texts and populations of late antiquity in general and to the texts of a subject people, like the Jews of Palestine, in particular.

79

New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990.Others, however, have looked at postcolonialists and Scott together as a single category of work, and with salutary results. See Beth A. Berkowitz, "Paradoxes of Power, " 154. See also Neil Elliot, "Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities," in Richard Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance 97. Treating the postcolonialists' work and Scott's separately is justified in part by the fact that they seem not to know, and certainly do not use, each other. (And, as far as I can tell, they are only used together by some of those working in Jewish and Christian late antiquity. See Hayim Lapin, "Hegemony and its Discontents, " 332; Beth A. Berkowitz, "Paradoxes of Power, " 154; Neil Elliot, "Strategies of Resistance," 97.) Is it possible that the postcolonialists just never came across Scott? See, e.g., Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back 145, discussing development by North American slaves of the facility for speaking in front of "massa" in a way understood differently by fellow slaves, a prime example of a "hidden transcript" and seemingly crying out for citation of Domination and the Arts of Resistance. And see Bhabha's notion of "sly civility," see, e.g., Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture chapter 5. On "hidden transcripts," see notes 117-121 and accompanying text, infra. As for Scott's failure to use the postcolonialists, the acknowledgments section of Domination and the Arts of Resistance mentions various other examples of contemporary theory on "power, hegemony, and resistance" - works of which he explicitly claims "knowledge" - with which he deliberately did not engage. He thus doubly ignores the postcolonialists, although they would quite properly regard themselves as theorists of "power, hegemony, and resistance." Perhaps he does not find them interesting or relevant, and perhaps they feel the same way about him. 80

Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics. London and New York: Verso, 1997, 2. See Laura Chrisman and Patrick Williams, "Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: An Introduction," in Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, eds., Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory 2.

218

At its core, postcoloriialism is the study of the effects of nineteenthcentury imperialism 81 and its aftermaths, marked by modern capitalist states forcibly inserting their economic and political system into pre- and noncapitalist regions and not necessarily involving the exercise of direct control. 8 2 Rome, however, was not a capitalist society; 83 money or money's worth was of course a reason for empire, but money was obtained largely by squeezing taxes and tribute from the provincials rather than by any systematic exploitation of

81

Different writers cited in this chapter make different distinctions between the words "imperialism" and "colonialism." See, e.g., Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism 9; Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism : An Historical Introduction, Oxford and Maiden MA: Blackwell Publishers, 200, 116-17; Jane Webster, "Roman Imperialism," 2. For my purposes they mean the same thing.

82

See Laura Chrisman and Patrick Williams, "Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory," Thus, Gayatri Spivak's emphasis on what she calls the international division of labor from socialized capital. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Can the Subaltern Speak," in Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, eds., Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory 89, originally published in Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson, eds., Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Urbana-Champagne: University of Illinois Press 78 and elsewhere. See Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 31 (US provides key model for study), 57 ("postcolonial" refers, among other things, to a global system of hegemonic economic power, the new imperialistic context of economic and sometimes political dominance; conditions that determine the global system in which a postcolonial nation is required to operate, heavily weighted to the interest of international capital and the G7 powers, as they then were.) Marxism in its later forms is accordingly among the most important of postcolonialism's intellectual forebears and ingredients. See Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism 194 and elsewhere; Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 6; Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory 2; Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back 153. It is not, of course, new ο apply Marx to the ancient world. See G. E. M. De Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Creek World from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. London: Duckworth, 1981. 83

Even if Moses Finley's observations on the importance of status over wealth and commerce were overstated. See generally M. I. Finley, The Ancient Economy, updated edition, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1999; Keith Hopkins, "Introduction," in Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins and C. R. Whittaker, eds., Trade in the Ancient Economy. London: Chatto & Windus, 1983.

219

the provinces. 84 And more was involved than imposing different economic systems.

"Modern European imperialism was a constitutively, radically different type of overseas domination from all earlier forms. Scale and scope were only part of the difference, though . . . Rome . . .controlled nothing like the size of the territories controlled by Britain and France in the nineteenth century. The more important differences are first the sustained longevity of the disparity in power and second, the massive organization of the power. " 8 5 The two "colonialisms" are thus so different as to make it unlikely that those facets of postcolonial studies principally concerned with material consequences or the "political ideals of transnational social justice" 8 6 are relevant to any study of late antiquity. 8 7 Accordingly, I will focus on

84

See Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism 68 (quoting the narrator in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness approvingly to this effect, contrasting Rome's "brute force" with the "efficiency" of modern imperialism), 89 (Rome bent on "loot"), 154 (commonplace of British imperialism that their empire was one of law and order while Rome's was one of robbery and profit); Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 25 (Roman model: direct taxation of people living in occupied land, administered through combination of military and political control); Jane Webster, "Roman Imperialism," 3 (principal financial motive behind earlier Roman expansion was the desire of individuals to amass wealth for their personal political ambitions); Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 123 (Roman Empire was the creation of a self-perpetuating oligarchy.) 85

Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism 221. Said was wrong about the longevity of the disparity of power. Palestine was subject to Rome from the first century BCE to the seventh CE, with brief and, for the Jews, disastrous exceptions.

86

Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 58. Thus, I have left aside thinkers such as Fanon and Cabrai, whose writings stem from their own revolutionary activities, on the grounds that their modern thought is not likely to be as helpful to this project as that which arises from the academy. I do not, of course, mean to suggest that the academic theorists I have consulted are not themselves enthusiastic supporters of movements for justice, as they understand it. 87

See Neil Larsen, "Imperialism, Colonialism, Postcolonialism, " in Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, eds., Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory, 27. But see Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 15; Richard A. Horsley, "Moral Economy and Renewal Movement in Q" in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006, 143, 151. But cf. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 123.; Henry Schwarz, "Mission Impossible," in Henry Schwarz and Sangeeta Ray, eds., A Companion to Postcolonial Studies, Maiden ΑΛΑ and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000, 4. To dismiss these difficulties in applying postcolonialism to the 220

postcolonialist thinkers who concentrate on "theoretical" discussion and whose concepts may facilitate insight into the status of the Imperial parables as resistance literature. But not all postcolonial theory is equally potentially helpful.88 Of the "big three" of postcolonial theorists -- Edward Said,89 Gayatri Spivak and Homi

Roman Empire on the grounds that Roman studies have always involved the analogy between past and present -- as does Jane Webster, "Roman Imperialism," 9 -- is a response without substance. Webster concedes somewhat reluctantly that Roman and British imperialism are not "identical." Id. at 4. 88

For example, applying Homi Bhabha's fundamental and often echoed point of the "hybridity" of both colonizer and colonized in the postcolonial situation (see Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture 265 and elsewhere) to the Jews of late antiquity would require reopening the question of the extent to which they were "Hellenized," a mess I wish to avoid beyond noting my general agreement with the idea that all Jewish culture during the Hellenistic period, including that of "anti-Hellenists," was part of Hellenistic culture. See Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines 18 and n.72 (in context of a discussion of Bhabha's hybridity); Jane Webster, "Roman Imperialism," 5. For some of the diverging literature, see Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998; Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974; Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights., Tubingen: J. C. B. Möhr, 1985 and Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-lsrael: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-lsrael with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE - 70 CE), Tubingen: J. C. B. Möhr, 1990; Seth Schwartz, "The Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem," in Martin Goodman, ed., Jews in a Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. See also notes 113-114 and accompanying text, infra. 89

Said is usually regarded as the founder of postcolonial studies, at least to the extent that he originated colonial discourse theory, the aspect that prompted the rest. See Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 41-42; Laura Chrisman and Patrick Williams, "Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: An Introduction," 5; Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 18; cf. Bārt Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory 17. But see Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back 198. See also Laura Chrisman and Patrick Williams, "Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: An Introduction," 15. Said proposed that Michel Foucault's conceptualization of "discourse" as the structures and sets of rules engendered by societal power that govern what is held as truth, counted as knowledge and regarded as "real" was applicable to the West's understanding and description - and therefore to its attitude to and treatment - of the "Orient." See Elizabeth Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn, Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2004, especially 114-115; Laura Chrisman and Patrick Williams, "Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: An Introduction," 5; Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Power 9-10; Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews 7; Neil Larsen, "Imperialism, Colonialism, Postcolonialism," 45-46

221

Bhabha -

90

1 will look only to Spivak and Bhabha. Said does not help us

understand the third-century king-parables as resistance literature because he does not deal with what the colonized say in ways relevant to the Rabbis.91

90

For example, Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory is organized around the idea that they are the most important thinkers in the field, as is his later article "Spivak and Bhabha," in Henry Schwarz and Sangeeta Ray, A Companion to Postcolonial Studies, 451. See also Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 18, 346, 349, 351, 372, 384, 393, 394, 410, 418; Neil Larsen, "Imperialism, Colonialism, Postcolonialism," 45, 48, 51; Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 187 (at least for colonial discourse theory.) But see Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back 196. For the use of all three in a study of late antique Christianity, see Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews 7, 8, 181, 185, 208. Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Power, a discussion of the Book of Revelation, cites Said and Bhabha, but not Spivak, while Hayim Lapin, "Hegemony and its Discontents," a discussion of the processes of transmission that account for a rabbinic passage about Adam and Eve deriving its imagery from Christian teachings about Christ, cites Spivak (and the Subaltern Studies Group with whom she engaged) but not Bhabha or Said. Beth A. Berkowitz, "Paradoxes of Power" and Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines, studies respectively of capital punishment among rabbinic Jews, Christians and Romans and of the ideas of orthodoxy and heresy among rabbinic Jews and Christians, use only Bhabha. 91

See Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory 51 (when Said mentions the counter-discourse of the colonized, he treats it somewhat dismissively.) It was hardly necessary for the Rabbis (using Said's words following Basil Davidson, Africa in Modern History: The Search for a New Society, London: Allen Lane, 1978, 156) to find an ideological basis for a wider unity in their resistance efforts than had been known before, which Said argues twentieth-century colonized nationalists had to find in the repatriation of that which the processes of imperialism suppressed in their past. Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism 210. Similarly, I need not try to determine how the Rabbis went about imagining their own past. Id. at 214. Said advances awareness of belonging to a subject people as the necessary founding insight of anti-imperialist nationalism, an awareness the Rabbis never lacked. Since we do not have evidence of the Rabbis' using Hebrew or Aramaic in the course of discourse in Greek, although we have the inverse, it is impossible to test the applicability to their parables of such other postcolonial theoretical concepts applicable to the discourse of the colonized as "catachresis" or the "métonymie gap." See Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 34, 137. Because of the amount of material in patristic and other literature of that period about Jews and Palestine, Andrew Jacobs' Remains of the Jews was able successfully to use Said to read texts of the Christian empire about Jews and about Palestine as helping to define Christian identity in much the same way that Said read modern texts about the Orient as helping to define Western identity. Jacobs thus provides an excellent example of how postcolonialism on the conceptual lèvel can be used in the study of late antiquity. He notes the debate on the applicability of postcolonialism to premodern societies and persuasively justifies his own use of it. Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews 9-10. See notes 81-85 and accompanying text, supra. I obviously welcome Jacobs' suggestion that postcolonialist analysis that introduces Jewish literature as a substantive and even subversive instance of colonial resistance may be possible. Id. at 12-13. To some extent this chapter is the obverse of Jacobs' book: he ignores Jewish writings, although he is aware of their existence; ideally I might have balanced my exposition of the king-parables as possible resistance literature with an account of imperial discourse about the Jews and about Palestine - but neither Dio nor Herodian, the only

222

Gayatri Spivak's most widely discussed article, "Can the Subaltern Speak," 92 begins by noticing that those in the "First World" whom Antonio Gramsci dubbed subalterns -- workers and others of inferior rank - - 9 3 are able to know their own conditions and to speak of them, and by asking whether a subaltern on the other side of the "international division of labor" can also do so. She uses "subaltern" to describe all subordinate groups in South Asia as Ranajit Guha and the Subaltern Studies group of Indian historians he led did in attempting to rid Indian historiography of effects of domination by colonialist and bourgeois-nationalist elitists. But instead of expressing sympathy with this project, 9 4 she rejects it as a program that could hardly be more "essentialist

"metropolitan" sources I have consulted that are both about and come from the third century - deal with third-century Jews, and texts written later about this period would not provide information about what the third-century equivalent of "Orientalism" of the third century might have been. 92

See Bart Moore-Gilbert, "Spivak and Bhabha," 452. Unlike her friend and senior colleague Said, see Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Foreword: Upon Reading the Companion to Postcolonial Studies, " in Henry Schwarz and Sangeeta Ray, eds., A Companion to Postcolonial Studies xv, xxi, Spivak is difficult to read, and perhaps as a result the article has been interpreted in several ways since its publication, including by Spivak herself. See Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Foreword," xix, characterizing some readings by others, including Bart Moore-Gilbert and Neil Larsen, and offering her view, as of a 2000 publication, that the article is not really about colonialism and is fundamentally an attempt to tell the story of Bhubaneswari Bhaduri (and why she could not be heard,) whose "name is never mentioned in discussions" of the essay; I am therefore constrained to mention it. On her writing style, see Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory 166-67 (including her attack on "clarity fetishists"); Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 349. 93

See Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 353 (Gramsci used term generally to mean those of inferior rank, interchangeably with subordinate and instrumental.) 94

She had worked with them in the 1980s. Bart Moore-Gilbert, "Spivak and Bhabha," 453. See Ranajit Guha and Gayatri C. Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

223

and taxonomic," and by rejecting it she rejects all claims to know what the subaltern would say, if (s)he could speak.95

Spivak associates Guha and his colleagues with Europeans including Michel Foucault and condemns them all as First World intellectuals speaking for the oppressed while masquerading as "absent nonrepresented" who let them speak for themselves.96 Her conclusion is not so much that the subaltern cannot speak,97 but that their "speech" is so permeated with the speech of the colonizer that non-subalterns such as Foucault and Guha cannot hear them with the tools for listening that they have. Since the Rabbis were not controlled in their discourse by the forces of Roman imperialism,98 and since their audience99 was fully able to hear them, Spivak's concepts do not help us hear whether and how they "spoke" resistance to Rome and Rome's emperor in their thirdcentury parables.100

95

See Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Can the Subaltern Speak," 78-80.

96

See id. at 87.

97

At the end of her article she explicitly says, "The subaltern cannot speak." Id. at 104. Others have read her to have meant just that. See Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews 8, 66 n. 43 (adding that while focusing on gender as a colonized space Spivak has since been more optimistic about possibilities of recovery and intellectual intervention, citing The Spivak Reader and A Critique of Postcolonial Reason); Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back 175. 98

See note 91 supra.

99

See Chapter 6, supra.

100

As noted in note 90, supra, Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews, and Hayim Lapin, "Hegemony and its Discontents" cited Spivak in connection with their studies of texts and populations of late antiquity. Lapin's use was limited to a single citation, 332 n.51, of "Can the Subaltern Speak" in further support of his observation that the Rabbis might have been the sort of group that, according to an article by Guha, might act in the interests of the dominant groups. See note 3and accompanying text, supra. Jacobs' use is confined to the brief

224

Like Spivak, Bhabha is attentive to the discourse of the dominated; like her, he understands their discourse to be heavily affected by that of the dominant.101 But, entirely unlike her, he does not believe the discourse of the dominant to be so pervasive that we cannot hear the dominated's voice. To the contrary, he understands the discourses of both the dominated and the dominant to be influenced by that of the other.102 Thus the dominated, while they certainly "can speak," do so at least in part in terms adopted -"appropriated" - from the dominant. Such "appropriation" is a manifestation of the dominated's "ambivalence" about the dominant, who attract as well as repel, and who are not necessarily unqualifiedly opposed.103 Bhabha thus provides a possible alternative explanation for those Imperial king-parables that on their face are favorable to the emperor;104 they may be read instead as evidence of the Rabbis' "ambivalence" to the emperor and, perhaps, through him to Rome. Moreover, such ambivalence can be understood to manifest itself in rabbinic "appropriation" of Roman institutions, motifs and themes. Clearly the mere use of the figure of the Emperor of Rome

treatment of that article mentioned in note 97 supra, and, at 208-209, using Spivak's remark on the usefulness of work on the mechanics of the constitution of the Other in support of his lack of attention to the authenticity of the Other. 101

And, like her, he is difficult to read, although in a different way. See Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory 166-67; Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism 349. 102

This idea is related to Bhabha's concept of hybridity. See note 88, supra.

103

See Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture 122, 145-174; Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 12, 19. 104

Collected in notes 55-73 and accompanying text, supra.

225

in texts designed for internal Jewish exegetical and pastoral purposes 105 is an appropriation of that figure, and the appropriation is even clearer when he is used as a stand-in for the God of Israel. 106 But appropriation of the empire's institutions, symbols and themes is not, on its face, an act of resistance, and Bhabha goes a step further: appropriation necessarily includes mimicry, and mimicry is a defense, like camouflage. 107 It comes "strategically from within" the dominated and is never far from mockery. 108 Mimicry contains the seeds of resistance 109 since it never results in a simple reproduction of the colonizer's institutions, symbols and themes. It is instead a "blurred copy" that continually suggests to the colonizer 105

See Chapter 5, supra.

106

See note 73 and accompanying text, supra. A particularly vivid example of such appropriation is the parable of the seated Augustus, in which the Rabbis appropriate not only the figure of the emperor, an emperor specifically called "Augustus," but also appropriate the fact that emperors were made by the legions, and an instance of Roman representational art, all in the service of making an "internal" theological point about the role of humanity in God's ordering of the world. See the conclusion of Chapter 9, infra. How emperors were made by their troops was also appropriated for similar purposes in other third-century parables, including Midr. Pss 22:20, from the A1 /Midcentury period. Other Roman institutions so appropriated in the Imperial king-parables include imperial dynasticism (Lam. Rab.3:20 (83), from the T5/Later Severan period; Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57-58), from the A1 /Midcentury period); imperial titles (Tanh. Va'era 2 (Buber ed.) 10b); imperial offices and officeholders (b. Pesach 103a , from the A1 /Midcentury period; Eccl. Rab. 12:5, from Resh Lakish; Pesiq. Rab. 21:10, also from the A2/Divided empire period); imperial patronage (Sifra Tzav, Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), both from the A2/Divided empire period); imperial pomp and circumstance (Midr. Pss 55:3, from the A1 /Midcentury period); the receipt of petitions by the emperor (b. B. Bat. 10a, from the T4/Early Severan period); imperial expansionism (Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:23-238), from the T4/Early Severan period); and names of particular imperial legions (Esth. Rab. 1:19, from the A3b/Transitional period). 107

See Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory 131.

108

See Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 13.

109

See Ho mi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture 265 ("a subversive strategy of subaltern agency that negotiates its own authority through a process of iterative 'unpicking' and incommensurable, insurgent relinking"); Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back 175.

226

that the colonized has an identity not quite like the colonizer's, a suggestion that cracks and threatens the certainty of the colonizer's dominance. Because it is always ambivalent on both sides, the colonial relationship generates the seeds of successful resistance and therefore of its own destruction.110 If the theory is applicable, the Imperial parables contain the seeds of Jewish freedom from Rome, even when on their face they seem favorable or neutral to Rome's emperor. But there is no reason to believe that the Rabbis would have been aware ("strategically from within"), at any level, of their parables as expressions of resistance, rather than of hope and aspiration, merely on the basis of elements of appropriation and mimicry. While texts surely have lives of their own, those that provide no hope of material forms of resistance - whether or not realized - cannot be resistance literature. And, as one of Bhabha's sympathetic readers has observed, there is little material evidence that any instances of appropriation, ambivalence and mimicry have in fact destabilized any modern colonizer.111 In other words, Bhabha's theory has not worked as a description of actual behavior in actual relationships in modern times between the dominant and the dominated.112 With the disadvantage of hindsight, this conclusion seems even more likely for 110

See Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture 28- 29; Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 13, 139-40. See also Beth A. Berkowitz, "Paradoxes of Power, "155. 111

Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory 134.

112

But see Neil Larsen, "Imperialism, Colonialism, Postcolonialism," arguing that it is wrong to discard postcolonialist "strategies" denoted by Bhabha's vocabulary of ambivalence, hybrids, migrancy, the in-between, as being "mere confabulations," since they respond to the historical crisis of third worldist nationalism.

227

relationships between Rome and the peoples of its conquered provinces. While Rome was invested in the virtue of Romanitas and the benefits of Romanization, 113 it is impossible to imagine it experiencing t h e idea that provincials failed to be like Romans as in any way that was threatening to their rule (even if officials of the Raj might have been taken aback when they noticed that to be anglicized was not to be English.) 114 This is especially true for Rome's Jewish subjects, who had revolted twice in the previous t w o centuries. In spite of its appeal, therefore, postcolonialism, including that of Bhabha, does not advance interpretation of third-century king-parables. 115

113

See generally Greg Woolf, Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. See Peter Garnsey and Richard Sailer, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987, chapter 10; Fergus Millar, Fergus, The Roman Near East 147. 114

Homi.K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture 125.

115

But see Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines 12, who accepts the idea of mimicry "in its technical postcolonialist sense" as constituting resistance. His book elsewhere uses other of Bhabha's concepts to good effect, but seems in fact to derive more from other theoretical frameworks, including the wave theory of linguistics and intertextuality. Beth Berkowitz has consulted Bhabha to much greater advantage than I have with a narrower question: how are we to read the Mishnah's reference to capital punishment by decapitation as "the way that the kingdom does it"? Mere description, as Yair Lorberbaum would have it? Or as evidence that the Rabbis borrowed their (hypothetical) use of decapitation from the Romans? Neither, says Berkowitz, based on her reading of Bhabha together with Scott; the Tannaim are mimicking Rome, a potentially subversive strategy, displacing Roman authority by disrupting it, in an offstage "hidden transcript." "Paradoxes of Power," 161-63. (For "hidden transcripts," see notes 117121 and accompanying text, infra.) Andrew S. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews 185 uses Bhabha's idea of appropriation in the context of a colonizer's discourse, and elsewhere uses his idea of hybridity. On the other hand, Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Power 10 discusses Bhabha's ideas of ambivalence and mimicry only to contrast Bhabha with Said; he does not apply Bhabha's ideas to his own study of Rev.

228

James C. Scott: Domination and the Arts of Resistance The relevant work of Scott, whose writing style is clear and vivid, can be summarized fairly easily. He had noticed that the poor in a Malay village where he was doing fieldwork spoke one way when the rich were present and another when they were not. These observations led to some of the conclusions of Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance.m

Domination and the Arts of Resistance, a later work, is his attempt to elaborate on those observations and conclusions in a more general and theoretical - in his words, schematic and eclectic -- way. Proceeding from the idea that if different structures of domination work in the same way so will different patterns of resistance to them, he proposes that every subordinate group creates, out of its dominated situation, a "hidden transcript" that represents a critique of power spoken behind the back of the powerful, and that hidden transcripts bear a "family resemblance" to each other.117

The "hidden transcript" is uttered outside the earshot of the holders of power and thus in "secure" sites of relative freedom of expression.118 Scott treats the disparity between what is said there and what is said in the presence 116

New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, especially 284-89.

117

James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance 21-22. (Going forward, citations to this book will be by page number only.) The primary groups he studied are slaves, serfs and subordinate castes, but he also takes account of the colonized, the victims of racism and patriarchal sexism, and even prisoners. Pp. ix-xii. 118

See p. 121. See also Chapter 6, supra, on the relatively secure or sequestered sites where the third-century king-parables physically originated.

229

of power as a rough measure of what has been suppressed and concludes that the "hidden transcript" is therefore the privileged vehicle for nonhegemonic, 119 contrapuntal, 1 2 0 dissident, subversive expression 121 -- that is, for resistance.

It is obviously attractive to claim the status of "hidden transcript" for the third-century king-parables. They are texts, and thus more obviously "transcripts" than many of Scott's own examples. They are hidden, since the occupying power did not read Hebrew, 1 2 2 and surely had little interest in the "religious" writings of a probably insignificant group within a relatively insignificant province. The Rabbis and the Jews they purported to lead were politically, militarily and fiscally, if not necessarily culturally, subordinated to Rome and Rome's emperor. 1 2 3

119

1 understand Scott to be here using "hegemony" in the sense associated with Antonio Gramsci as involving to some extent the consent of the dominated to the fact of domination. See pp. 71-73. As such this concept was used by Ranajit Guha and the Subaltern Studies group and by postcolonialists. See Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Can the Subaltern Speak," 69, 103; Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory 116; Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 116. But Scott is probably using Gramsci directly, without a Subaltern Studies or postcolonialist filter. See Hayim Lapin, "Hegemony and its Discontents," for this and other meanings of "hegemony." 120

Unlike his use of "hegemony," the use of this word might be borrowed from the postcolonialists. It has been said that "contrapuntal reading" was coined by Said to describe a way of reading English literature so as to reveal its implication in imperialism and the colonial process. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 55. On the other hand, Scott is not addressing that sort of issue here and seems to mean nothing more than "contrary"; his inspiration is more likely to have been Bach than Said. See the discussion of Richard Terdiman's concept of "counter-discourse" in Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies 56. 121

P. 25.

122

See pp. 120-21; Beth A. Berkowitz, "Paradoxes of Power, "162.

123

The attraction is augmented by the possibility of noting lesser points of Scott's argument or aspects of his language that seem particularly applicable to the situation of the third-century Rabbis and their king-parables, even if a bit out of context, such as his remark that oral traditions are ideal vehicles for resistance, p. 169, and his observation that a supposedly 230

But there is more to the concept of the hidden transcript than that. A hidden transcript, as Scott coined and uses the term, cannot exist except in the context of a "public transcript, " that is, of what the subordinate says in the presence of the dominant, 1 2 4 the subordinate's version of the dominant's selfportrait which is designed to affirm and naturalize the dominant's power and to conceal or euphemize the dirty linen of its rule. 125 A hidden transcript, properly so called, must be something derivative, consisting of those offstage speeches, gestures and practices (and texts) that confirm, contradict, or inflect what appears in t h e public transcript. 126 Referring to other sorts of critiques of the dominant by the dominated as hidden transcripts is neither an application of Scott's argument nor an extension of it; it simply reduces ascetic priest shown to be promiscuous or a supposedly benevolent czar who fires on the peacefully assembled is an easy subject of both pathos and humor like the cowardly lion, pp. 105-06; so also the supposedly august emperor who behaves like a clown or a cartoon character. 124

P. 4. Scott also uses the phrase to mean what the dominant themselves say, inadvertently planting the seeds of misuse, or at least misunderstanding, of the concept. See p. 18; note 127, infra. 125

P. 18.

126

P. 5. Some of those who have used the concept of the hidden transcript in connection with the texts of late antiquity have been meticulous in this regard. Thus, Beth Berkowitz carefully identifies her project as involving instances of resistance embedded in postures of submission, "Paradoxes of Power, " 154, that is, within the context of public transcripts. See also William R. Herzog II, "Onstage and Offstage with Jesus of Nazareth: Public Transcripts, Hidden Transcripts, and Gospel Texts, " in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance 41, discussed in note 127 and accompanying text, infra; Alan Kirk, "Going Public with the Hidden Transcript in Q 11: Beelzebul Accusation and the Woes," in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcript and Q.181; Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre, "Communities Resisting Fragmentation: Q and the Work of James C. Scott," in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcript and Q, 193; Neal Elliott, "Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts," 110. Daniel Boyarin, "Homotopia," 71 n.15, uses Scott in connection with slaves taking names that demonstrate their slave status, like Philodespot, and makes the puzzling claim that these names were used in what he terms a safe place of private discourse, that is, within a hidden transcript, and not only in "public feigned performance," that is, in the public transcript. (Hayim Lapin's use of Scott in "Hegemony and its Discontents" only deals with Scott's concept of hegemony, which Lapin applauds, and not with the idea of the hidden transcript. )

231

"hidden transcript" to a buzzword.127

127

In an email to Professor Scott on March 23, 2004, I asked whether the "written discourse of an intellectual elite in a colonized country fit[s] in your model, or does that strain it more than it should be strained?" In his remarkably kind and generous response the next day he said that my proposed "extension" of his argument seemed "completely plausible." He also referred me to the session of the 2001 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature devoted to the possible use of his work in New Testament studies, which he had attended as a respondent. Some of the papers presented at that session have since been revised and collected in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. See Richard A. Horsley, "Introduction: Jesus, Paul, and the 'Arts of Resistance': Leaves from the Notebook of James C. Scott," in that volume, 1, 3. Three of the papers given in connection with the applicability of Scott to Q, the supposed source of material in Matt and Luke not in Mark, have also been published, together with papers from a session of the 1999 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature dealing with the applicability of orality studies to Q and additional material on Scott and Q, as Richard Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcript in Q, In spite of the title of the second volume, two of the three papers from the Scott session deal with Scott's earlier work relating to the concepts of "moral economy" and "the little tradition" (James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976 and "Protest and Profanation: Agrarian Revolt and the Little Tradition, " Theory and Society 4 (1977), 1 -38, 211 -246) and only incidentally with the idea of the hidden transcript. Richard A. Horsley, "Moral Economy and Renewal Movement in Q" and Milton Moreland, "The Jesus Movement in the Villages of Roman Galilee: Archaeology, Q, and Modern Anthropological Theory," in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcript in Q. 144 and 159. See William R. Herzog II, "The Work of James c. Scott and Q: A Response," in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcript in Q,, 211, 213, 215. The third paper from the 2001 session, Alan Kirk, "Going Public with the Hidden Transcript," 185, refers to Scott's earlier work as well as to Domination and the Arts of Resistance. See also Werner Keller, "The Verbal Art in Q and Thomas: A Question of Epistemology" and Vernon K. Robbins, "Oral Performance in Q: Epistemology, Political Conflict, and Contextual Register, " in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcript in Q.25, 32 and 109, 115-116, papers from the 1999 session on orality studies and Q respectively referring to Scott's earlier work and to Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Scott's responses are not published along with the papers in either volume. Richard Horsley, long interested in the figure of Jesus in the context of revolutionary movements (see several of his various earlier works cited in the bibliography in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance) reads the idea of a "public transcript" mostly as that which the dominant themselves say ‫ ״‬for example, public inscriptions, coins and most [Roman?] extant documents. He also finds contemporary generalizations about the Judaism and the Hellenism of the first century as having been based on "public transcripts," see Richard A. Horsley, "Introduction," to the first volume, 13. Although he clearly understands the necessary relation in Scott's thought of the hidden transcript to the public transcript of the dominated, see Richard A. Horsley, "introduction, " to the second volume, 20-21, he is thus enabled to read, in effect, any text that reflects political resistance as a "hidden transcript, " and accordingly readily to find "hidden transcripts" in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' career. See ibid, ("once we read Scott, it is difficult to classify Mark's narrative or the Q discourses as 'public transcript' . . . Q represents 'Jesus' as having boldly declared the hidden transcript in the face of the power holders"); Richard A. Horsley, "Introduction" to the first volume, 19; Richard A. Horsley, "The Politics of Disguise and Public Declaration of the Hidden Transcript: Broadening Our Approach to the Historical Jesus with Scott's 'Arts of Resistance' Theory," both in Richard A. Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 61 ; Richard A. Horsley, "Moral Economy and Renewal Movement in Q," 155-157. See also Erik M. Heen, in Richard A. Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 123, 124; Allen Dwight Callahan, "The

232

To treat any of the material in the third-century king-parables as hidden transcripts, therefore, I must have knowledge of the public transcripts that they may "confirm, contradict, or inflect." Happily I do; 128 the public transcripts are sometimes in the parables themselves.

I started my discussion of a plain reading of the third-century kingparables as resistance literature with parables in antithetical form, on the grounds that hostility to the emperor would be most clearly shown when he is contrasted to God. 129 Antithetical parables also provide the clearest instances of public transcripts, since they sometimes set them forth next to the hidden transcripts that contradict or inflect them.

Arts of Resistance in an Age of Revolt," in Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 29; Milton Moreland, "The Jesus Movement in the Villages of Roman Galilee," 178-179. On the other hand, William R. Herzog II, like Horsley a scholar of Jesus as a revolutionary figure (see Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, "Reconstructing 'Resistance' or Reading to Resist: James C. Scott and the Politics of Interpretation," in the first volume, 45, citing his Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000) carefully analyzes Jesus' parable of the emperor's coin as containing Jesus' utterance of both a public transcript of compliance with paying the tax and a hidden transcript of resistance. William R. Herzog II, "Onstage and Offstage," 41. See also Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre's conclusion that the Gospel narratives are part of the public transcript, and not evidence of hidden transcripts. "Communities Resisting Fragmentation," 198. Indeed, the first volume itself contains the very criticism I am making here, from Warren Carter, who writes that Horsley omits without explanation discourse by the subordinates based on the flattering self-image of elites, that is, based on the public transcript properly so called. "James C. Scott and New Testament Studies: A Response to Allen Callahan, William Herzog and Richard Horsley," in Richard A. Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 81. Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, "Reconstructing 'Resistance'," 146 adds the view that scholars might find Scott more useful in analyzing how historical communities have read the New Testament than in analysis of the text of the New Testament itself. 128

And more clearly than Herzog's reading of the parable of the emperor's coin discussed in the previous footnote, especially if my reading of that parable is correct, according to which Jesus in fact endorses the payment of the tax, and there is no hidden transcript at all. See the appendix, note 18, infra. 129

See notes 12-16 and accompanying text, supra.

233

A king of flesh and blood enters a province and everyone praises him: that he is mighty, but he is weak; that he is rich, but he is poor; that he is wise, but he is foolish; that he is merciful, but he is cruel; that he is true, but he is false. There isn't in him a single one of these qualities; everyone is a hypocrite to him.130 The Mekilta has spelled it out: the people of a conquered province, presumably including the Jews (and the Rabbis among them), praise the occupying power any way they can and as much as they can, but their praises are false, spoken only because they are in the presence of power (everyone is a hypocrite "to him.") If Scott is right that the disparity between the public and hidden transcripts is a rough measure of what has been suppressed, this parable indicates that the amount of resistance that the third-century Rabbis needed to suppress was enormous.131

And we learn from another hidden transcript that such false praise - the public transcript - is uttered even though the provincials know that it will result in no positive benefit for them, perhaps merely avoiding the negative consequences of failing to praise the emperor:

The promises of flesh and blood are not promises. Rather, in the custom of the world, a king of flesh and blood enters a province, the people of the province praise him, and he is pleased by their praise. He says to them, "Tomorrow I will build public baths for you, tomorrow I will build bath houses for you, and tomorrow I will bring in drainage ditches for you." He sleeps late: where is he and where are his promises? But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like this.132

130

Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 1 (Lauterbach ed., 2:8-9), from the A1 /Midcentury period.

131

See p. 25.

132

Pesiq. Rav Kah. 4:2, from the A2/Divided empire period. In addition to false praise, the people's repertoire of public transcripts included gifts to him, designed to secure benefits, but revealed by an accompanying hidden transcript as performed with little hope. "In the ways of

234

In another antithetical parable,133 the praise and honor recited in the public transcript results in benefits to the provincials (again, public baths), illustrating Scott's insight that achieving rhetorical force for the dominant's version of their own public transcript among subordinates and having them included in the dominated's own public transcripts must involve some concessions, for example, that they rule in the interests of the subordinated.134

The public transcript is not, of course, always revealed in the very same parable that voices a hidden transcript. Here is a double hidden transcript in an antithetical parable standing alone, without evidence of a related public transcript:

A king of flesh and blood goes abroad to war, and provinces near his home location come and ask their needs before him, and they say to them, "He is troubled with war, he is going abroad. When he wins and comes back, then you come and ask your needs before him." . . . . A king of flesh and blood engages in war and is not able either to feed his armies or to supply them with their other provisions.135

flesh and blood, a man brings a great present to a king. Maybe he will receive it and maybe he will not receive it. If it turns out that he receives it, maybe he will see the king and maybe he will not see the king. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like this." b. Baba Batra 10a, from the T4/Early Severan period. 133

Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, from R. Abbahu.

134

Pp. 18, 103. See note 64 and accompanying text, supra, for another example from the Imperial parables. See also note 140 and accompanying text, infra. For another instance of an antithetical parable in which the public transcript is "inflected," rather than "contradicted," by the hidden transcript, see Lev. Rab. 24:2, from R. Levi, in which the emperor is praised only when he acquits a defendant and not when he convicts him; the hidden transcript reveals that his judgments are riddled with passion. 135

Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32-33).

235

The various direct and formless parables that praise the emperor as a ruler or military commander,136 or merely mention him as such,137 may be read not only as evidence of rabbinic appropriation,138 but also as evidence of the public transcripts that the hidden transcripts contradict. That they are assumed to have been told outside the earshot of Rome139 does not mean they are not public transcripts. A public transcript need not be as completely hostile to the dominant as those revealed in the antithetical parables quoted above; the dominated's public transcript may at times sincerely and self-interestedly adapt the claims the dominant make about themselves.140

And of course those direct and formless parables that are hostile to the emperor as a man141 and as a leader142 may be read as a large body of hidden transcripts that contradict or inflect both sorts of public transcripts so revealed.

Scott has therefore been extremely helpful in supporting the claim that the third-century king-parables are a form of resistance literature. With his guidance even those parables that seem inconsistent with opposition to the

136

Collected in notes 55-72 and accompanying text, supra.

137

Collected in notes 49-51 and accompanying text, supra.

138

See notes 103-106 and accompanying text, supra.

139

See note 118 and accompanying text, supra.

140

See pp. 70-105 on issues of Gramscian hegemony and "false consciousness."

141

Collected in notes 19-25 and accompanying text, supra.

142

Collected in notes 27-46 and accompanying text, supra.

236

empire in a peshat reading have been shown as evidence not merely of the Rabbis' "ambivalence" to Rome but, more substantively, of their genuine and conscious resistance to Roman rule and their hopes of freedom.

And Scott provides still more help in reading the third-century kingparables as resistance literature.

[T]he trick to survival, not always mastered by any means, has been to swallow one's bile, choke back one's rage, and conquer the impulse to physical violence. It is this systematic frustration of reciprocal action in relations of domination that, I believe, helps us understand much of the content of the hidden transcript. At its most elementary level the hidden transcript represents an acting out in fantasy - and occasionally in secretive practice - of the anger and reciprocal aggression denied by the presence of domination.143 Scott is here writing of African-Americans and of the heritage of slavery, but his words are applicable to a group of intellectuals whose remarkable memories echoed with the heritage of devastating military losses to Rome in the previous two centuries. Such memories could not but increase the Rabbis' anger and wish for reciprocal aggression, and make the presence of domination more bitter and their resistance more meaningful. "The king" in the thirdcentury Imperial parables -- the focus of their resistance -- is not only Septimius Severus or Decius or Probus, or whoever's rule is now felt; he is, at the same time, Vespasian and Titus and Hadrian, whose destruction and

143 Pp. 37-38.

237

repression in the first and second centuries are "as if" here and now for the Rabbis.144

144

And the facts of such earlier rebellions and the extent of their failures may explain the practical inapplicability to the Jews of late antiquity and the Rabbis who tried to lead them of Scott's claim that, far from the hidden transcript being a mere safety valve, it is "a condition of practical resistance rather than a substitute for it." P. 191. The Jews of Palestine made no successful attempt at practical steps toward freedom from Rome until the early seventh century, and then only in cooperation with a Persian invader briefly victorious over the Christian empire. The Persians then turned on the Jews and returned Jerusalem to Rome until a few years later when the Arab conquest reached Palestine and Roman rule there ended. See Peter Schaefer, Jews in Antiquity 190-192. On the other hand, it is possible that the growth of the power and authority of the Jewish Patriarch in the fourth century to the extent that Roman law recognized him was somehow related to rabbinic resistance in the third. But see Seth Schwartz, "The Patriarch and the Diaspora," arguing that the Patriarch's power grew more in the diaspora than in Palestine.

238

Chapter 9: Third-Century King-Parables as a Source of Roman History

Earlier chapters analyzed the third-century rabbinic king-parables in detail: their forms (or lack thereof) and structures; their dramatis

personae,

with special emphasis on the figure of the king and on the extent to which he was based on the Emperor of Rome or functioned for the Rabbis as a stand-in for the figure of God; their settings and audiences; the theology they evidence; the extent to which they may be read as showing resistance to imperial rule; and, of most importance, their use in connection with the work to which the Rabbis had dedicated their lives, interpreting Scripture and providing (or hoping to provide) leadership to the Jewish people. Might these parables also reflect the Rabbis' understanding of imperial events and personalities? For the period after 238 C. E., the paucity of sources is frequently noted, and the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle is the only direct contemporary source commonly consulted by historians of third-century Rome. 1

1

Α. H. M. Jones, "Numismatics and History," in R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland, eds., Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956, 13, is a typical lament for the absence of sources for the period: "[T]he middle years of the third century A.D. are one of the darkest periods in the history of the Roman empire. There is virtually no evidence except for a few bald chronicles of a much later date and the biographies of the Historia Augusta, . . . whose historical unreliability is generally agreed." See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2001, 27; David F. Graf, "Zenobia and the Arabs," in D. H. French and C. S. Lightfoot, eds., The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Ankara in September 1988, Oxford: BAR International Series 553(i), 1989, 148; Geza Alfoeldy "The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries," Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 15, No. 1, (1974), 89, 92. A Syrian Jew probably wrote the Third Sibylline Oracle; the contrary assertion seems a rare lapse in judgment on D. S. Potter's part. See Prophecy and History 232-33. Mention of Ares in connection with the name of a people to show that they are at war hardly requires the author to be devoted to that god; unlike a third-century Christian, a third-century Jew would not necessarily have been reluctant to mention pagan gods whom he didn't worship, or at least 239

The Rabbis - literate, relatively well-off, intellectual, curious, urban, taxpaying, civically involved Roman citizens 2 - s e e m well-equipped to provide evidence about what another provincial group knew and thought of contemporary emperors or their representatives, and the fact that their parables used "kings" to perform the exegetical and hortatory work to which they were devoted shows their interest in t h e m . 3 This chapter's study of the parables from the standpoint of imperial history shows that, incidentally to the tasks the Rabbis gave them, they may serve as an additional, relatively untapped, contemporary source of Roman history. 4

didn't worship to the exclusion of maintaining some sort of "Jewish" identity. See note 92, infra, for the possibility that Jews complied with the Decian requirement of universal sacrifice, and see generally Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society. Even if Potter is right that the reference to Ares suggests magical practices, this would not make the author any less Jewish, as Potter recognizes. On the other hand, Potter is right that references to a single "great god" do not necessarily mean the author was either Jewish or Christian, as argued by Rzach (Jewish) and Geffcken (Christian). Id. at 144, 242, 290. In any event, we know little about the principal author of the Oracle, including in comparison with what we know about the third-century Rabbis. 2

See Chapter 1, supra.

3

Like those of the authors of the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, any views they may have had of the emperors can be understood as those of "men in the street" unconnected to the imperial government. D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History vii, correctly emphasizes the importance of the Oracle as a source of such "popular history." Even if one were to take the view that the Patriarch of the Jews - who was certainly connected to the rabbinic movement and seems to have come from a leading position in that movement to a leading position in the larger society, at least by the end of the fourth century - owed his position to the imperial government and/or had continuing relations with high Roman officials, only a handful of "other" rabbis would have derived any meaningful connection with the imperial government through him. 4

The Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, which bridges the A1 /Midcentury and A2/Divided empire periods, covers a shorter period than the third-century king-parables do, which may provide information about the entire "third century" from Septimius Severus to the rise of Diocletian. See J. J. Collins, "The Sibylline Oracles, Book 13," in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, New York: Doubleday, 1983, 453; D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History vii; Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 10. 240

Often the parables confirm what other ancient sources report, and contain material that jibes with such sources as historians of Rome generally understand them. That alone is useful, of course. 5 But some parables also serve to support information otherwise provided only in limited or suspect sources, or to t i l t the balance toward one particular scholarly explanation of the traditional sources, or to suggest answers to open questions. 6 1 will deal with both these categories at once, proceeding chronologically, and mindful that the king-parables do not, of course, function as potential historical sources for every reign, and that they are helpful for a limited number of issues in the second category. Some methodological issues must be addressed first. How should the dating of a parable be related to events it seems to reflect? Is it better to assume lag t i m e between an event and a parable in order

It is important, however, to keep an eye out for instances in which rabbinic references to "Rome" and its institutions may represent controversies between Rabbis in Palestine and those in Babylonia or stand in for controversies between the Rabbis and other Jewish authority figures or the Church. 5

Their usefulness is limited somewhat by the generality of some of them. For example, a parable that refers to sacrifice performed "before a king of flesh and blood," Sifra Emorpereq 13:8 (Weiss ed. 102a), from the T4/Early Severan period, and therefore perhaps to the imperial cult, cannot be used to argue that emperor-worship was particularly prevalent during the reigns of the emperors of the period from which the parable dates or a specific earlier period, although it may provide confirmation that the emperor had been worshipped in the East since Augustus. See Cassius Dio LI.20.7; Mary Beard, John North and Simon Price, I Religions of Rome, Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1998, 318. (See also Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52), from the A2/Divided empire period, which may also refer to the imperial cult.) Similarly, b. B. Bat. 10a, from the same period, clearly suggests imperial corruption - something moderns would treat as bribe taking - but cannot properly be used to indicate that the early Severans were corrupt; it may be about earlier emperors, or may manifest a standard trope about emperors and other powerful figures in general. 6

As the traditionally used sources become less and less useful, they have been less and less studied, with the result that fewer scholarly debates and open questions exist for later reigns than for the period covered by Dio and Herodian.

241

to be sure that word of the event reached the Rabbis? For example, should a third-century parable about an emperor working hard as a judge7 be treated as concerning Marcus Aurelius (reigned 161 C.E. to 180 C. E.) or some other prethird-century emperor and not Septimius Severus (193 C. E. to 211 C. E.) or Caracalla (211 C.E. to 217 C.E.), the emperors of the parable's period?8 Or should time lags be treated as resulting in inaccuracies, and should some idea of currency prevail? If so, a parable would be assumed, without other evidence to the contrary, to be about an emperor more or less contemporary with it. This parable would then be treated as about these early Severans, while the parables I offer below to support the generally accepted relationship between Severus and his wife, the Empress Julia Domna,9 would be treated instead as only involving the Palmyrenes Odenathus (corrector totius Orientis 261 C. E., died 267 or 268 C. E.) and Zenobia (regent from 267/268 C. E. to 272 C. E.) or, say, the emperor Valerian (reigned 253 C. E. to 260 C. E.) and his wife. 10 Since I suspect that there are no general answers to these questions, I will usually 7

See Mek. de R. Ishmael, Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 185-186).

8

Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324), from the same period, may be an instance of a secular narrative with substantial lag time; its reference to a "king" who wishes his successor to be his friend's son, not his own, is certainly not a simple reference to Severus or Caracalla. On the other hand, perhaps this parable can be read as contemporary evidence of rabbinic hostility to the principle of physical dynasticism represented by both Severus and Marcus Aurelius before him ‫ ״‬and perhaps unimportant to Caracalla, who hated and killed his wife and had no son, see Cassius Dio LXXVIII.16.4 - and support for the adoption policies of the Antonine emperors earlier than Marcus. This seems unlikely, since around the same time, the Patriarch of the Jews seems to have been a hereditary office (although some Rabbis might have opposed that and voiced their opposition through this parable.) 9

See notes 27-32 and accompanying text, infra.

10

According to the methodology described in the next paragraph of the text, I will indeed suggest that these parables may also have something to do with later periods, and not only with respect to emperors' wives. See notes 66-67 and 191-192 and accompanying text, infra.

242

assume both that the Rabbis may have known what was going on more or less in their own time and that they may have remembered things that happened earlier. Unlike the authors of the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle and of the various Greek and Latin histories and biographies, the Rabbis were not consciously writing history and they did not name or otherwise identify the ruler of whom they were thinking when they told a parable reflecting his reign.11 As a result, it is impossible to pin down the "kings" referred to in the parables, and I will frequently cite a single parable as a possible source of information about more than one reign, sometimes preferring one application of a parable over others. While it would be a mistake to believe the Rabbis were much concerned with historical specifics, I have used details in the parables as historians of Rome use them in the conventional sources. For example, I read the fact that the emperor who works hard as a judge is shown with "sons" he loved and wanted to honor more as a possible reference to Severus, noted for having two such sons, than to Caracalla, who had no son,12 or to Marcus, who had only

11

Even when they referred to "Antoninus" or "Augustus," it is not clear whom they meant. See notes 22 and 200-202 and accompanying text, infra. For exceptions, although not in kingparables, see notes 142 and 192, infra, concerning rabbinic identification of Odenathus and Zenobia. 12

The opposite conclusion might have undermined the prevalent view that Caracalla was an intellectual lightweight, a view that goes back to Dio, who hated him (probably for personal and financial reasons) but nonetheless makes it clear that Caracalla was, at least, quite bright, and probably something of an intellectual. See Cassius Dio LXXVIII.11.3, 17.1, 18.4; LXXIX.8.4. One of Caracalla's name was indeed "Antoninus." See note 21, infra. Even if the emperor in the parable is Severus, however, it can be read in support of Caracalla's abilities and interest in the demands of the job he was slated to get, in that the sons are shown as attentive to their father's work.

243

The T4/Early

Severan period: Severus and

Caracalla

Severus became emperor after a civil war involving a sitting emperor and three claimants to the throne. 1 4 An earlier generation of scholars, led by Rostovtzeff, saw the accession of the Severans as the beginning of an era of great changes, none of them for the good. In this view, Severus and Caracalla were in effect the anti-Antonines, who increased the power of the emperor and the army at the expense of that of the senate and the municipal elites and whose rule amounted to the beginning of the "barbarization" of the empire. 1 5

13

Marcus was of course the next to last of the genuine Antonine emperors, and "Antoninus" was one of his names. 14

He was first acclaimed by the troops he commanded in Upper Pannonia. Several parables from later periods reflect the Rabbis' knowledge that third-century emperors were often made such by their legions, but it is impossible to say that they refer to Severus any more than to several of his successors, including Macrinus in the T5/Later Severan period, Maximinus, Decius, Gallus and Aemilianus in the A1 /Midcentury period, Valerian and Claudius II in the A2/Divided empire period and Aurelian and Probus in the A3a/Reunited empire period. Among such parables are Midr. Pss 22:20, from the A1 period; Exod. Rab 23:1 from R. Abbahu; and Esth. Rab 1:19 and Exod. Rab. 15:13 from the A3b/Transitional period. During the civil war, Severus relied on others actually to lead his troops, a fact perhaps confirmed by several parables in which the emperor relies on others for military matters, although I suspect that they are more applicable to other, more striking, situations of the later empire. 15

See Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 399-401. In this, his magnum opus, Rostovtzeff took the more measured view that there are elements of truth both in the understanding described in the text and in the view that Severus was patriotic and broadminded, intent on extending the culture and material advantages of Italy and the older provinces to the newer ones. See also Ramsay MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge ΑΛΑ: Harvard University Press, 1962, 69; S. N. Miller, "The Army and the Imperial House" 9, 34; Gedaliah Alon, 2 Jews in Their Land 681. Cf. Geza Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Third Century, " 110. In spite of recent emphasis by historians of Rome on continuity rather than change, the notion of the reign of the first Severans as just such a watershed has not been abandoned. See R. W. B. Salway, "Creation of the Roman State" 1-2 to that effect concerning our contemporaries, although noting that most scholars interested in a transition point between "classical" and "late" antiquity find it with the death of Julia Domna's grandnephew Severus Alexander; a good example of this is Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire 3. (Salway helpfully collects the various terms used for the two supposed periods.) This study's periodization of the "third century" as beginning with Severus does not stem from advocacy of any such historical watershed, but from the facts that the Severans and their successors achieved their power usually through military means, with the first two, and the last, Severans

244

Do the king-parables support such a view? No less a figure among historians of late antiquity than Peter Brown thought so. He read the secular narrative of the following parable from the contemporary T4 period to refer to a "militarizing" emperor competing for honor with other elements of society such as the municipal elites: "those clear-eyed observers of the third-century scene, the rabbis, were right to see in the usurping emperor16 no more than the urban phUotimos writ large":17 To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who enters a province. He said to them, "I will be king over you." They said to him, "What good have you done for us that you will be king over us?" What did he do? He built a wall for them, brought water for them and made wars for them. He said to them, "I will be king over you." They said to him, "Yes and yes."18

But although the parable may support the idea that the Rabbis saw these emperors more as benefactors than as occupiers,19 it hardly indicates that they saw them as competitive with someone else who was also trying to protect and irrigate the parts of the empire they cared about or, more important, that they saw these emperors as fundamentally different - as militarizers or usurpers --

at war as often as the later emperors, and that the rule of both of the two later Severans and of their successors was inherently unstable. 16

Given the dating of the parable, this would have been Severus or Caracalla and not any second-century or earlier emperor; the reference to usurpation fits Severus better. 17

Peter Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity, Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1978, 46. 18

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:237-238).

19

But see Chapter 8, notes 124-142 and accompanying text, supra, on hidden transcripts and their related public transcripts.

245

from their second-century Antonine predecessors.20 Indeed, if the symbolism of a name is important - it certainly was to Severus 21 - and if my reading of the parable of the hard-working imperial judge is correct, they saw the emperor in the parable as himself an Antonine; they called him "Antoninus. " 22 One of the great achievements traditionally attributed to Severus in his own right - and without regard to whether he continued the empire of the Antonines or represented a departure from them - was in the legal field. His reign has long been presented as one in which Roman jurisprudence, with 20

Moreover, parables from two and four periods later, Song Rab. 1:1 (9) and Deut. Rab. 3:3, seem to recognize the continuing importance of municipal elites in the east, at least if I am right in translating the Hebrew use of a loan word from Greek ‫ ״‬bbûleywetês - as "council member, " as does Jacob Neusner in his translation of the first parable. Ignaz Ziegler and Marcus Jastrow in his Dictionary both render it "senator." (In the second mentioned parable, "council member" and "senator" are used interchangeably as if they mean the same thing.) And Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32-33), from the A1/Midcentury period, shows an emperor unable to wage war and help the provincials with their needs at the same time and who treats waging war as his primary task, while Pesiq. Rav Kah. 4:2, from the A2/Divided empire period, features an emperor entering a province, making such promises, and negligently not fulfilling them. I see the historical value in the parable cited by Brown more in connection with the Rabbis' knowledge of the first Severans' colonia policy, continued by the later Severans. An emperor creating a colonia would of course benefit it. See notes 39-44 and accompanying text, infra. Compare Pesiq. Rav Kah. 5:33, from R. Abbahu, in which the emperor does good for the provincials only once they praise him, perhaps suggesting a change in the Rabbis' view of the emperors' philotimia as the century progressed; surely the later emperors had less time for such generosity as they struggled to keep the empire together. 21

Severus claimed to have been adopted by Marcus and thus to have been an Antonine. See Tony Honore, Ulpian 1. Although he seems never to have taken any of Marcus' names for himself, Cassius Dio LXXVI.7.4; see Historia Augusta, Severus XI1.8, he gave them to Caracalla, see A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus 119-20, 215; David Magie, II The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Cambridge (AAA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1924, 402 n.2. Dio, Herodian, the Historia Augusta and Aurelius Victor consistently call the second Severan "Antoninus." I have called him by the more familiar nickname "Caracalla," after a soldier's cloak he designed and wore and with which he outfitted his troops. Cassius Dio LXXIX.3.3. 22

It is unclear whether this represents acceptance of the Severan propaganda mentioned in the previous footnote or whether the Rabbis were simply not aware of any meaningful change, or some combination of factors. And they may have used "Antoninus" as a generic name for an emperor equivalent to "Augustus," as Historia Augusta, Severus XII.8 claims, probably wrongly, Severus did; if so, this is probably an early example of such use. See generally Samuel Krauss, Antoninus und Rabbi. See Sir Ronald Syme, "The Nomen Antoninorum, " in Emperors and Biography, for the importance of the name "Antoninus," especially in the east.

246

humanitarian ideals of freely available justice and the rule of law, flowered, as a result, at least in part, of his own hard work.23 As mentioned above, a kingparable contemporary with his reign or that of his son seems to confirm this picture of Severus; it shows the emperor, attended by his sons, judging for long hours, and perhaps indicates awareness and appreciation by the Rabbis lawyers themselves - of Severus' attention to legal matters. The parables are also useful with respect to the family and dynastic life of the early Severans. It is undisputed both that Severus had hopes for each of his sons, and that each of them was a source of personal unhappiness for him.24 Confirmation of this seems to come from the parable of the king and his vexing sons,25 which dates to the next (T5) period, although it may also represent a recollection of an earlier emperor, such as Vespasian (reigned 69 C. E. to 79 C. E.), who had his own troublesome sons.26 Severus' relationship with Julia Domna was remarkable; they spent a great deal of time together27 and he bestowed many honors on her28 and her

23

See Cassius Dio LXXVII.17.1; Tony Honore, Emperors and Lawyers, second rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, xi; Tony Honore, Ulpian 3; Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 405. 24

See Cassius Dio LXXVII.7.3, 11.1, 14.7, 17.2; Herodian III.2.3-5, 14.2; A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus 160, 218, citing epigraphic evidence.

25

Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83).

26

The emperor in the parable misses both of his vexing sons when they are not with him in combat, and it seems clear that Severus did not employ Geta in the field, unlike his use of Caracalla and Vespasian's of both Titus and Domitian. The only time important duties were delegated to Geta was when he administered civil justice during Severus' last campaign in Britain, when Geta had the emperor's council with him. See Herodian III.14.9. 27

See Cassius Dio LXXVII.17.5; A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus 129, 138 (based on nonliterary sources) and plate 16.

247

family. 29 Both the closeness between them and the honor he paid her may be reflected in the parables in which R. Yohanan says that anyone who comes between the emperor and Matrona is liable to death30 and in which an emperor refuses the courtesies due his station when he enters a province31 until Matrona receives them first.32 Severus' happy marriage may also have led to unusual care for his daughters and their husbands. The Historia Augusta, a source regarded as only slightly better for Severus' reign than for others,33 relates that he Offered to make one of his sons-in-law prefect of the city but that the young man declined on the grounds that being the emperor's son-in-law meant more to him. 34 This counter-intuitive account - imperial sons-in-law may well have been the "D-List celebrities" of the age - is made more plausible by a parable in which the emperor offers a friend anything he wishes; the friend thinks of

28

See Cassius Dio LXXVI.15.6; C. R. Whittaker, I Herodian, History of the Empire, Cambridge (AAA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1969, 283 n. 1, 367 n. 2, citing numismatic sources; A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus 115-16, 245 η. 35. See Mary Beard, John North and Simon Price, I Religions of Rome 355, for honors given her by others.

29

See C. R. Whittaker, I Herodian 305 note 3; A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus 195.

30

Deut. Rab.1:21, from the A2/Divided empire period.

31

This may reflect the occasion when Severus visited Palestine. See Cassius Dio LXXV.2.4; LXXVI.13.1. Julia Domna may well have been with him, as she had been in Parthia, Britain and perhaps Egypt.

32

Pesiq. Rav Kah 9:10, a parable of R. Levi. See notes 66-67 and 191-192 and accompanying text, infra, for other possible twosomes, not necessarily married, to whom these parables might have been referring. 33

See Sir Ronald Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968, 187; T. D. Barnes, The Sources of the Historia Augusta. Brussels: Latomus Revue d'Etudes Latines, (1978), 26.

34

Historia Augusta, Severus VIII.1.

248

asking to be made a prefect or a dux, but instead decides that marrying the emperor's daughter would be the greatest honor.35 While Severus had hoped to be succeeded by both his sons,36 after his death from illness the older one, Caracalla, became sole ruler, by merit 37 reinforced by fratricide. 38 Although even more of a soldier-emperor than Severus, Caracalla continued his father's policies, including the policy of extending colonia status to communities in the East, such as Sebaste in Palestine and Palmyra and Emesa, theoretically making their citizens the equivalents of those of Rome.39 Most scholars have not hazarded a view about which of these colonia were made by father and which by son, but some have found that Severus elevated Sebaste and Palmyra,40 while the most recent and most comprehensive work on Palmyra finds that it was Caracalla who made

35

Pesiq. Rab. 14:17-18, from the A1/Midcentury period. In light of the discussion in notes 7-10 and accompanying text, supra, about the time span between a parable and the event it may reflect, it is noteworthy that the Historia Augusta, in spite of its claims to have been written by several authors under Diocletian and Constantine, was almost certainly the work of a single late fourth- century author. See Sir Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography 1. In a parallel parable, Song Rab. 1:1 (9), from the same period, it is a council member (or a senator), not a son-in-law, who regards marrying the princess as the greatest prize. 36

See Tony Honore, Ulpian 25.

37

Cassius Dio LXXVIII. 1.1.

38

Cassius Dio LXXVIII.2.3.

39

See Historia Augusta, Severus XVII: 1. See John F. Matthews, "The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East, " Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984), 157, 162, Ramsay MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian 135; Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 428; Denys L. Haynes, "Preface" to lain Browning, Palmyra. London: Chatto & Windus, 1979, 10. See also G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia. Cambridge (AAA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1983, 121. 40

S. N. Miller, "The Army and the Imperial House" 18 (Sebaste); Denys L. Haynes, "Preface," 10 (Palmyra).

249

both i t and Emesa coloniaA\

A king-parable from the A3b period 42 lends further

support to the earlier scholarship, since its reference to the t w o enemies of the king may well be to Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, Severus' rival challengers to the Emperor Julianus:

The residents of a province wished to ask the king to make their province a qālānēyā.AZ One time the king had two enemies and they fell before him. They said, "Behold, this is the t i m e to ask the king that he make our province a qâlânëyâ. "44

Caracalla's rule ended when an army faction led by the prefect Macrinus, who succeeded him, assassinated him during a campaign against Parthia. 45

41

Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 59. He finds, however, that the family of Odenathus received Roman citizenship under Severus.

42

Sifre Deut. 26 (Finkelstein ed., 40).

43

The Hebrew is a loan word from the Latin.

44

A parallel between this parable and a passage from the Historia Augusta was noticed long ago by Moses Hadas, "Rabbinic Parallels to Scriptores Historiae Augustae," 259. See Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:237-238), contemporary with the first Severans, in which an emperor who enters a province delays issuing any decrees over the populace until they "receive my kingdom on them," a possible reference to Severus elevating one of these localities to higher status on the grounds that they "received" his kingdom, that is, favored him over Niger, who had been acclaimed in the east, and Albinus. See Historia Augusta, Severus IX.5. It is the text that immediately precedes this one that has the emperor delaying his decrees until he does the provincials some good. 45

Cassius Dio LXXIX.4.1-.5.5. He was thus the first emperor to be killed while in the field with his troops at the instance of a personally ambitious member of his entourage. See Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 144, who found such an assassination to be "of momentous consequence."

250

The TS!Later Severan period: Macrinus, Elagabal and Severus Alexander Macrinus' ruled only for a year; he was overthrown, after some military action, by supporters of the oddest of all Roman emperors, the teenaged crossdressing exhibitionist homosexual priest of a Syrian god, usually called "Elagabal" after that god. Elagabal (reigned 218 C. E. to 222 C. E.) was the grandson of Julia Domna's sister, who presented him to the troops in Emesa as Caracalla's illegitimate son. Elagabal's antics eventually proved too much for both his grandmother and his aunt, who arranged that his even younger cousin, Severus Alexander (reigned 222 C. E. to 235 C.E), succeed him.46 This rapid turnover of emperors may be reflected in a parable from the next period (A1 /Midcentury) of an emperor whose portraits, images and coinage are destroyed shortly after they are established,47 although the A1 period itself saw eight "legitimate" emperors and additional claimants in its brief eighteen years.48 Macrinus' failure resulted from his loss of support from the soldiers in Syria who had installed him in the first place, but scholars disagree on the emphasis to be placed on the factors that caused them to turn on him. Was his overthrow primarily the result of efforts by the locally prominent family and household of Julia Maesa, combined with Elagabal's good looks, the troops'

46

See id. at 145-47, 149-50, 304-08; Anthony Birley, Septimius Severus 193; D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 8; S. N. Miller, "Army and the Imperial House," 52, 55. 47

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 8 (Lauterbach ed., 2:262).

48

See notes 68-99 and accompanying text, infra.

251

belief in the dynastic principle, and his physical resemblance to Caracalla?49 Or were financial reasons more important? Macrinus, the first emperor not himself a senator, cut the soldiers' pay to the levels they had received under Severus as part of his efforts to achieve senate endorsement.50 Support for emphasis on money issues as the explanation for Macrinus' downfall may be provided by the earliest third-century Imperial parable explicitly to condemn a "king." Mekilta de R. Ishmael Shirata 1, also from the A1 period,51 says that the emperor, although acclaimed as "rich," is actually "poor." Calling the emperor "poor" seems odd on its face, especially as part of a litany of his faults along with such qualities as "cruelty" and "falseness."52 Perhaps the Rabbis meant not that he is actually poor, but that he is tightfisted; soldiers' complaints about Macrinus in T5 Emesa would have had more than enough time to reach the Rabbis in A1 Galilee.53 A few sections later, Shirata 4 tells of an emperor who cannot (or will not?) feed or provision his troops, which may also reflect Macrinus' approach to his payroll. Elagabal's 49

See Cassius Dio LXXIX.31.1, .32.3, .38.4, LXXX.6; Herodian V.3.8-10, .4.2; Historia Augusta Macrinus IX.3; Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 145; S. N. Miller, "Army and the Imperial House," 52. 50

See Cassius Dio LXXIX.39.4; D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 10; Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 410. It is impossible to separate these reasons completely since, if Macrinus' tight-fistedness were the main impetus to their support of Elagabal, it would have to be understood by the troops in contrast to Maesa's wealth and patronal relationship to them. For parables recognizing imperial patronage relationships, see Chapter 2, notes 54-60 and accompanying text, supra. 51

This is the antithetical parable I used first in Chapter 8 to illustrate hidden and public transcripts. 52

And "foolish" and "weak." See notes 54-55 and accompanying text, infra.

53

Macrinus' entire reign was spent in the region, giving him a chance to be better known there. See Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 145.

252

peculiarities and Severus Alexander's youth and reliance on the imperial ladies,54 especially when compared to the personalities of Severus and Caracalla, may be the reasons behind the Mekilta also here calling the emperor "foolish" and "weak." 55 A difficult question of third-century imperial history arises here: when boys such as Elagabal and Severus Alexander were emperor, who ran the government? Several of the other conventionally used literary sources agree with Zosimus' claim that the noted jurist Ulpian was Severus Alexander's "overseer and partner in power"56 and a rescript in Severus Alexander's name calls Ulpian praetorian prefect and "my parent. "57 But a papyrus has been found that suggests to some scholars that Ulpian died when Severus Alexander was still a small boy58 and other sources, while claiming great power for Ulpian during this reign, seem to limit it to legal matters.59

54

See notes 65-67 and accompanying text, infra.

55

Since the parable begins with the emperor entering a province, associating these charges specifically with Severus Alexander is suggested by the fact that he visited Palestine. See Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 327. The A1 period itself did not, however, lack for emperors who might have been the ones the Rabbis called foolish or weak, including Maximus and Balbinus, the senators who briefly succeeded Gordian I, Gordian III, yet another boy-emperor, and Philip, who may well have made, and then reneged on, an unfavorable peace treaty with Persia. See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 37. The reference might also have been to Decius, who the same author calls "quite stupid," id. at 41. 56

Zosimus 11. See Cassius Dio LXXX.1.1; Eutropius 8.22; Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander LI.4; Orosius 7.18. 57

Tony Honore, Ulpian 36, citing CJ 4.65.44.

58

See T. D. Barnes, "The Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historical Tradition, " Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1968/1969 13, 32 (1970. 59

Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander M.6. See Herodian VI. 1.5.

253

A king-parable from the next period about an emperor and a prefect whom the people could not tell apart60 may suggest such a powerful prefect, but the conclusion that the weaker the emperor the more powerful the prefect seems ineluctable -- prefects under these emperors would of course be powerful - and, in any event, super-powerful prefects go back at least to Tiberias' reign and were common during the A1 period itself, including during the reign of Gordian III, another teenager (the first was his father-in-law Timesitheus and the second was Priscus, who helped make his own brother Gordian's successor) and the following reign of Priscus‫ ׳‬brother Philip, in which Priscus served as corrector totius orientis.61 Power may be exercised, of course, without official titles. During Elagabal's reign, one Gannys (perhaps his mother's lover) and one Comazon (perhaps a dancer) may have wielded great power,62 while Severus Alexander is said to have turned the state's business over to a council of senators.63 Later third-century king-parables show emperors unwilling to make decisions without the advice and approval of another ‫ ־־‬called sinqlîtôs (advisor or perhaps

60

Gen. Rab. 8:10. In the parable in b. Pesach 103a from the same period, however, the prefect's only function is to be outranked by the emperor.

61

See Midr. Pss 86:4 from the A3b/Transitional period (emperors helped by prefects.) The Rabbis' picture of a prefect who rules over the emperor until another replaces him who also does may be a recollection of Timesitheus and Priscus under Gordian III. See Deut. Rab 2:4, from the A3b/Transitional period. See also Exod. Rab. 28:3, from the same period, in which the emperor tries to do things outside the prefect's knowledge. See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 37. 62

See Cassius Dio LXXIX.39.4, LXXX.6; David Magie, II The Scriptores Historiae Augustae 130 n.1.

63

See Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander ΧΧΙΧ.4-5

254

senator) and sinqtidrôs (associate) -‫ ־‬and these may well refer to boy-emperors, including Elagabal and Severus Alexander, and to such people and/or such a council.64 The most unusual powerful figures in these two reigns -‫ ־‬perhaps especially that of Severus Alexander -- were their mothers and their grandmother. It is "doubtless correct" that under Severus Alexander Julia Maesa and Julia Mammaea had "the arbitrament." 65 Support for this exists in the king-parables. The Hebrew loan word from Latin ,'matronā'," although it usually refers in the king-parables to a "king's" wife, need not; the word means a matron, a married lady of quality, usually but not always Roman, and it might well be the word the Rabbis would use for an imperial dowager. 66 Thus, R. Yohanan's parable about coming between a king and Matrona as a capital offense might have been referring to Severus Alexander and his mother, and the emperor who insisted that "Matrona" receive honors before he does

64

Gen. Rab. 8:3, from R. Joshua ben Levi. See Gen. Rab. 49:2, from the A3b/Transitional period, in which one emperor does nothing without the advice of his three friends and another will not act without the advice of his associate. Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed.,2:24-25), from the A1 /Midcentury period, showing a king with "heroes" to his left and to his right, seems to concern military advisers more than people who ran the government in the emperor's name. 65

Sir Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography 147. See Herodian VI.1.1, .8.3; Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander XIV. 1. Cf. Anthony Birley, Septimius Severus 193, claiming that Severus Alexander's mother had power and that his grandmother no longer did, although she did under Elagabal. 66

See also Tal llan, "Matrona and Rabbi Jose: An Alternative Interpretation," Journal for the Study of Judaism 25 (1994), 18-51, arguing that the "Matrona" in the texts she was studying was the personal name of a Jewish woman studying with R. Yosi.

255

when he enters a province could just as easily be Severus Alexander or his cousin as their great-uncle by marriage.67

The A1/Midcentury period: Maximinus, the Gordians, Philip, Decius, and others Severus Alexander - and his mother -- were killed after his campaign against Persia,68 and a military officer named Maximinus (reigned 235 C. E. to 238 C. E.) was acclaimed emperor by the troops after the killings. Maximinus' reputation is one of special cruelty;69 perhaps he was in the Rabbis' mind when the Mekilta, from this period, specifically called the emperor "cruel." 70 That he was stronger and more in command than his two or three predecessors may be suggested by two parables from the next period (A2/Divided empire), which display the pattern of an emperor entering a province, surrounded by his prefects and duxes, but emphasize that he outranks them all. 71 Maximinus was

67

It may go too far to suggest that "Matrona" might also refer to Elagabal's same-sex companion whom he wanted to make "Caesar, " since he referred to him as his husband, not his wife. See Cassius Dio LXXX.15.4. Severus Alexander's reign saw the first of a series of usurpers important enough to be remembered by name, although his exact name is uncertain; the first "Uranius Antoninus" arose in Edessa, see Sir Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography 159; W. Ensslin, "The Senate and the Army, " 71, but parables that deal with usurpers are more useful in connection with later reigns, in which they became increasingly prominent. 68

Knowledge of Rome's conflict with Persia is reflected in b. Shevuot 6b, from this period; Gordian III also marched on Persia later in the same period. See note 78 and accompanying text, infra. 69

See Herodian VI 1.1.1

70

See also b. Sanh. 39a, from the A3b/Transitional period (cruel emperor kills all the people of a rebellious province, merciful emperor kills half).

71

Lam. Rab. 3:24 (99), from R. Yohanan; Eccl. Rab. 12:5, from Resh Lakish. See also Pesiq. Rab. 21:10, from the same period, in which various officials vie with each other to serve the emperor.

256

the first emperor to have come from lllyria, 72 and another parable from the Ä2 period whose cruel military emperor seems more concerned with the province of his origin than with others73 may reflect the Rabbis' knowledge that Maximinus and several of his A1 and A2 successors, including Decius, Valerian II and Claudius II, were from the same Danubian region in which they led their troops. Ancient sources disagree, and scholars have debated, how high Maximinus ranked at the time he became emperor. 74 Perhaps the Mekilta's odd reference to an emperor who was "poor" indicates an emperor, such as Maximinus, who had never previously achieved high rank and whatever access to wealth went along with it. Maximinus' reign was ended by a series of random events.75 Landowners in Libya revolted against the procurator there, and, since a new procurator would do them no good on his own, acclaimed Gordian I and Gordian II as emperors to rival and replace Maximinus. These facts may be reflected in a parable in which an emperor chastises the people of a province for criticizing the procurator76 and not the emperor himself.77 The Gordians died during

72

See Herodian VII.1.2; Historia Augusta, Two Maximini 1.5; D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 23-24; Sir Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography 186. 73

Midr. Pss 6:3.

74

See Herodian Vll.2.2, .8.10; Aurelius Victor 25; Eutropius 9.1; Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 439 (low-ranking officer); D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 24 (high-ranking officer.)

75

See Herodian VII.4.2-VIII.4.5.

76

The Hebrew word is 'eppîtrôppôs.

257

another rebellion by another African, and the senate, which, having endorsed the Gordians, might as well have been hung for a sheep as for a lamb, named two of their own, while the people of Rome inexplicably insisted that Gordian III be associated with them. When Maximinus' troops turned on him and the Praetorian Guard turned on the senatorial emperors, young Gordian emerged as sole emperor in 238 C. E. Like Caracalla and Severus Alexander before him, Gordian embarked on an eastern campaign. Whether or not successful, 78 he died during it under doubtful circumstances 79 and was replaced by his prefect, Philip (reigned 244 C. E. -249 C.E.) 8 0 Philip presided over lavish games at Rome to celebrate the millennial anniversary of the founding of the city. This may have been the root of a parable from his period in which the emperor punishes the people of a province

77

Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed., 102), from the A2/Divided empire period.

78

Somewhat oddly, the mostly Latin ancient sources seem united that he won, while most modern authors conclude that he lost, apparently on the theory that Philip would not have replaced him and made an unfavorable peace treaty with the Persians otherwise. See Historia Augusta Three Gordians XXVI.5-6; Eutropius 9.2; Aurelius Victor 27; Zosimus 18 (a Greek source); Orosius 7.19; Ammianus Marcellinus ΧΧΙΙΙ.5.7. Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 70, 76, 91 is representative of the modern scholars, of whom the most emphatic is D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 37, 203, 208, who recognizes that the "western sources" have no suggestion of Gordian having been defeated, and reads Ammianus as evidence of how entrenched the mistaken western tradition was, rather than as evidence that it was correct. I have not been able to derive any instruction on this issue from the third-century king-parables. See note 197, infra.

79

See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 210; G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia 123: John M. York, Jr., "The Image of Philip the Arab," Historia 21, 320, 324 (1972). 80

The parables provide no guidance on the issue of Philip's ethnicity. As Philip "the Arab" he is best explained by Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 530-31, as a Greek and Latin speaking member of a family that had been, on the basis of his brother Priscus' name, Roman citizens for three centuries, although most others, led by G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia 123, insist that we can identify his ethnicity with that of modern Arabs.

258

by reducing the extent of their games;81 an important part of imperial popular culture, games are infrequently mentioned in the third-century king-parables.82 Philip's reign ended when he sent Decius, a general of senatorial rank,83 to Decius' home region to quell one rebellion too many.84 Decius was acclaimed emperor by his troops in 249 C. E., marched on Italy, and defeated Philip.85 But Decius' reign had lasted only two years when he was soundly defeated in battle by the Goths; his body was never recovered.86 The harried king at war of the parables87 may reflect the Rabbis' understanding of Decius. Both ancient sources and modern scholars disagree as to the circumstances of his defeat; some understand him to have died a heroic death, perhaps involving the treachery of his successor Gallus (reigned 251 C.E. to 253 C.E.);88 others strongly suggest either that he was outfought by the Goths or that he stumbled into the swamp at Abrittus as a result of a misguided attempt

81

Gen. Rab. 10:4.

82

See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 21:24 from R. Judah Nesiah (Majuma festival.) See also Lev. Rab. 24:2, from the A3b/Transitional period (Rabbis use a Greek loan word derived from public festivals or games to mean "amnesty").

83

See A. Alfoeldy, "The Crisis of the Empire (A.D. 249-270)," in S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth and Ν. H. Baynes, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History - Volume XII.

84

That of one Pacantius, Decius already having put down rebellions of Marinus in the same region and Jotapianus in the east. See D. S. Potter. Prophecy and History 14, 39, 254. Jordanes XVI.28, a work focused on the Goths, reports that Philip had sent Decius out against them rather than against Pacantius. 85

See Zosimus 20-23; Aurelius Victor 28.

86

D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 44-45.

87

E.g. Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32-33), from this period.

88

Zosimus 1.23; Aurelius Victor 29; see A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 167.

259

to revenge his dead son combined with lack of judgment. 8 9 A parable from the next period may support the latter view; in i t an emperor rescues his son from barbarians but seeks even greater vengeance against them, 9 0 perhaps a garbled version of Decius on his way to the swamp. Decius is best remembered for a decree in which he ordered the residents of the empire to sacrifice to the ancestral gods of Rome. Scholars have disagreed on whether this was aimed specifically a t Christians or was a general policy. 91 Some support for the view that Decius was merely seeking the favor of the gods and not persecuting Christians is provided in a parable from the next period (A2/Divided empire), claming that "kings" offer sacrifice before anyone else does92 and thus perhaps indicating that the Rabbis thought of the emperor as actively interested in his ancestral religious practices.

89

Jordanes XVI.102-103; Lactantius 4; Ammianus Marcellinus XXI. 13; D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 13, 41, 45.

90

Exod. Rab. 20:14.

91

Compare Hans Lietzmann, "The Latin Church in the West," 521, in S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth and Ν. H. Baynes, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History - Volume XII with N. H. Baynes, "The Great Persecution," 656, in the same volume. See also D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 42, arguing for a straightforward decree which some Christians saw as an opportunity for martyrdom. The prevailing current view - based on long-available papyrological evidence that non-Christians obtained the necessary certificates of having sacrificed ‫ ״‬seems to be that the decree may well have been both specific and general: Decius was after the Christians, but the easiest way to accomplish his goal was to make the requirement universal. See J. R. Rives, "The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire, " Journal of Roman Studies (1999), 89, 135. 92

Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52). J. R. Rives, "The Decree of Decius," 138 n. 16, thinks that Jews were exempt from the decree on the basis of a passage from the Yerushalmi that he reads as suggesting an exemption for the Jews of Caesarea from Diocletian's persecution of Christians, decades later, and Martyrdom of Pionius 3.6, which shows Jews participating along with pagans in criticism of Christian refusal to sacrifice pursuant to Decius' decree. But it is more likely that any Jews who would have joined complying pagans in public criticism of Christian noncompliance would have been those who had themselves complied (or perhaps otherwise obtained the necessary certification). If it has any relevance, therefore, MPio suggests that the Jews were not exempt and that they indeed may have sacrificed. In any

260

One of the more striking characteristics of this period was an increase in emphasis on physical dynasticism, by emperors and others,93 a phenomenon reflected in a parable of the period in which a brigand seeks to harm the event, more recent scholarship has questioned the reliability of MPio and shown that it, unlike the Martyrdom of Polycarp, "does not even depict the Jews as advancing the persecution of Christians" See E. Leigh Gibson, "Jewish Antagonism or Christian Polemic: The Case of the Martyrdom of Pionius, " Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001 ), 340, 357. Earlier scholars argued that the notion of the Jews as a religio licita resulted in an exemption from the Decian requirement of sacrifice. See Martin Goodman, State and Society 139 and nn. 77 and 78 (Jewish exemption from pagan worship as a religio licita still in effect during Decian persecution); Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest, 148 and n. 46, Oxford: Blackwell, 1976 (Judaism's earlier status as a religio licita reinstated in second century, no authority offered,); Jean Juster, Les Juifs 246 and η.5 citing the use of "religio licita" in Tertullian, Apologeticum. 21.1 (third century), in a discussion of the second-century Hadrianic persecution of Jews. As Goodman and Avi-Yonah note, the idea of Judaism as a religio licita goes back centuries, and they, Juster, and perhaps Tertullian may be uncritically echoing a substantially earlier situation the application of which may have been already limited. On the other hand, some version of the concept may still have been in existence, or have been revived, in the fourth-century Christian empire, although reversed in the fifth. See Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine 249. The third-century king-parables offer no help on this issue. Yitzhak Baer cited the nimshal of Pesiq. Rav Kah. 19:4, from the A2/Divided empire period, in which the nations taunt Israel for her devotion to God, to support the idea that Jews are "still at the head of the battle against the pagan empire" in spite of the similar position of the Church, but not in support of his conclusion in the same essay that Jews were in fact subject to the decree just as much as other non-Christians, a conclusion based squarely on his common-sense view that "at a time when the state was collapsing, there was need for an expression of loyalty on the part of Jews just as there was on the part of the other inhabitants. " Y. F. Baer, "Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire from the time of Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of A. D. 313," (tr. by S. Applebaum), Scripta Hierosolymitana 12, 79, 102, 119 (1961). 93

Gordian II seems to have been chosen by the young African nobles and endorsed by the senate only because his father was chosen and endorsed along with him, and his father may have been chosen in part because he already had a middle-aged son. See Historia Augusta, Two Maximini XV.8. Gordian III was apparently made Caesar under the senatorial emperors Maximus and Balbinus only because he was a Gordian. Philip became emperor, rather than his powerful prefect-brother Priscus, perhaps because Philip had a son (whom he seems to have made Caesar as a boy, see W. Ensslin, "Senate and the Army," 87), and Priscus didn't. See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 37. Decius made his adult son Caesar according to Aurelius Victor 29, Eutropius 9.1 (who adds that the son was made co-ruler) and Orosius 7.21. Gallus, who succeeded Decius on the battlefield, may have immediately made his son Caesar, perhaps in association with Decius' own son. Compare the various accounts in Zosimus 25, Aurelius Victor 30, Eutropius 10.5 and Orosius 7.21. Of course the Severans were concerned with physical dynasticism, real, imagined and feigned, and Macrinus renamed his son "Antoninus" (maybe to avoid completely dishonoring Caracalla and to reinforce his claim that he had not killed him, see Cassius Dio LXXIX 19.1-2, Historia Augusta, Macrinus III.8), while Maximinus' son seems to have been associated with his father's reign, perhaps as "Caesar," see Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander LXIII.2, Aurelius Victor 25. The parables offered from the A1 /Midcentury and later periods on this subject may, of course, reflect earlier reigns also or instead.

261

emperor simply by harming his son,94 and by parables from the next period in which enemies capture the emperor's son.95 But the most striking thing about the A1 /Midcentury period, as it blends into the A2/Divided empire period, is the instability of the emperors' reigns. A third-century Roman emperor was never, of course, free from the possibilities of assassination, usurpation, rebellion and invasion, but the A1 period saw an increase in the volume of such activity that continued to accelerate into the A2 period. Among late A1 figures, It is difficult to distinguish between Decius' "legitimate' successors, Gallus (who was acclaimed by the troops who survived Abrittus) and Aemilianus (who was acclaimed in 253 C. E. by his own troops after defeating another group of Goths and then marched on Gallus)96and such "usurpers" as Marinus, Jotapianus and Pacantius (who were put down by Decius on Philip's behalf) and Mariades, Valens and a second Priscus (who emerged during Decius' own reign). These conditions are reflected in A1 /Midcentury97 and A2/Divided empire98 parables; the Rabbis' awareness of such things

94

Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57-58). This parable's reference to "brigandage" so close to the emperor may also refer to the growing number of usurpations during the period.

95

Exod. Rab. 20:14. Additional parables on this theme from the A3/Reunited empire and Transitional periods are cited in note 184, infra. 96

See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 46-47. "Legitimacy" seems to have been largely a function of the happenstance of senatorial endorsement. 97

Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32-33) (troubles of the emperor at war), 7 (2;5758‫"( )־‬brigands" at palace gate), 10 (2:79-80) ("brigands" invade palace).

98

Midr. Pss 6:3 (troops rebel); Tanh. Ki Tisa 9 (Buber ed.) 58b (same); Exod. Rab. 23:7 (legions in trouble); Exod. Rab. 20:14 (barbarians).

262

becomes even clearer in parables from subsequent periods that will be introduced later in this chapter."

The A2/Divided empire period: Valerian, Gallienus, a separate empire in the west, Odenathus of Palmyra, and Claudius II. Valerian, a veteran general like Decius before him, successfully marched on Aemilianus when he, in turn, was acclaimed by his troops in 253 C. E. He immediately made his son Gallienus and his grandson Valerian II his co-Augusti, probably in order to be sure that an "emperor" could always be with the troops on each of the empire's multiple troubled borders.100 The Rabbis' understanding of the difficulties of long-distance command may be evidenced by their parable of a king who is effective only when he is personally in the province that needs his help,101 while a parable in which the emperor turns his son's enemy over to him may refer to Valerian and Gallienus' joint rule, with father and son focused on different parts, and different enemies, of the empire. Valerian II died in combat with northern invaders along the Danube.102 His service there, and his end, may be remembered by a parable in which an

99

See text at note 111, infra.

100

Valerian seems to have stayed in the east, with his son in Gaul and Italy and his grandson along the Danube. See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 49-50; Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teüreich 436. This system seems to foreshadow the factual situation under Gallienus, when Postumus and his successors ruled in the west and Odenathus and Zenobia ruled in the east, as well as the formal tetrarchy system later instituted by Diocletian. 101

Song Rab. 8.5 (10), from the A3b/Transitional period (late enough, however, to be referring to Diocletian and his colleagues). 102

D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 50-51.

263

emperor's son becomes "king" over a "barbarian" country, but is then enslaved by the same barbarians.103 Again like Decius, Valerian came to an awful end. More awful by Roman standards, perhaps, since the Goths - newcomers among Rome's enemies -killed Decius, while Rome's ancient eastern rival disgraced Valerian by taking him alive. The circumstances of Valerian's capture by the Persians are uncertain; one ancient source suggests that he visited their king to sue for peace with an insufficient bodyguard.104 This account is no longer generally believed. The contemporary scholarly view is that Valerian was defeated in battle, with the treachery of the Persians having been concocted as a cover story to help hide his humiliation.105 But a parable from this period suggests the ancient source is right:

In the way of flesh and blood, when he goes out to war, he goes with many men, but when he goes to peace he doesn't go out like that, rather he goes with few men.106

103

See also Exod. Rab. 18:6, from the A3b/Transitional period.

104

Zosimus 36. Support for this view is in Historia Augusta, Two Valerians 1.2, claiming to be a letter from Gallienus to Shapur and stating that his father had been taken prisoner "by guile." 105

D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 50, 332. See Alaric Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, London and New York: Routledge, 1999, 28. Cf. Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 444 106

Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100). Compare Pesiq. Rav Kah. 21:24 from R. Judah Nesiah, in which the emperor who goes out with but a few is going to a festival, not to peace negotiations. Those who emphasize the idea that Homi Bhabha's concept of mimicry is not far from mockery have fodder here. See Chapter 8, note 115 and accompanying text, supra.

264

Around the same time, "U rani us Antoninus,"107 a Sampsigerad dynast from Emesa, proclaimed himself emperor, although probably only as a way of asserting his local importance, and successfully resisted the Persians in Syria.108 He is known largely from his coins,109 and perhaps he is the usurper R. Levi had in mind when he told a parable about a rebel who puts up a mint in the king's own tent. 110 This Uranius may be a precursor of Odenathus of Palmyra, but the various other eastern "pretenders" of this period -- Macrianus, Callistus, Macrianus‫ ׳‬two sons111 -- have much in common both with Valerian and his "legitimate" predecessors and with the "pretenders" of the earlier period.112 The parables reflecting unrest from the next periods (A3/Reunited empire and Transitional) seem to demonstrate, by their increasing number, the increasingly precarious empire.113

107

The Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle places him after the accession of Aemilianus. See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 291 .See note 67 supra for an earlier pretender of perhaps the same name. 108

See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 48; Richard Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire 101102; Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 74-75, 438-439. But see G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia 128 who sees him as one more "Arab" asserting a genuine claim to empire who chose the name "Antoninus" as a link with the "Arab emperors from the family of Julia Domna." 109

See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empfre323-325.

110

Gen. Rab. 36:7. See note 190 and accompanying text, infra, for the coins of Valballathus in the next period (A3a/Reunited empire), those including the emperor Aurelian and those not including him. 111

See 134 and accompanying text, infra.

112

See A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 195. Jotapianus may also have been a Sampsigerad. D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History 248. 113

See Gen. Rab. 38:6, from the A3a/Reunited empire period (replacing the emperor in his palace); Midr. Pss 6:3, from the A3b/Transitional period, as are the remaining parables cited in

265

While Gallienus emerged as the sole "legitimate" emperor after his father's capture and his son's death, little else about the Empire was united. In the same year the Persians took Valerian, Roman legions on the Rhine acclaimed Postumus (Gallienus' deputy there) emperor, 1 1 4 and before long, and for about fifteen years, he and his successors reigned over a functionally separate "Roman empire" that included Britain, Gaul, Germany and Spain. 115 Gallienus could do little about this rival empire, and some ancient sources claim that his loose living enabled Postumus' success, in spite of Gallienus' occasional sorties against him. 116 Modern historians, however, t r e a t the situation as one beyond Gallienus' reasonable control. 1 1 7 The Rabbis may well have been thinking of Gallienus' acquiescence in Postumus' empire in this otherwise oblique parable:

this note (rebellion); Tanh. Pekude 4 (attempted usurpation); Pesiq. Rav Kah. 24:11 (a province rebels); b. Sanh. 39b (same); Gen. Rab. 94:9 (emperor shown as falsifying his troop strength); Gen. Rab. 41 (42):3 (barbarians); Lam. Rab. petihah 16 (emperor and troops suffering hardships) Sifre Deut. 3 (Finkelstein ed., 11) (same, if my translation, rather than Hammer's, is correct, see Chapter 5, note 20 and accompanying text, supra)); Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354)(surrounded by brigands); Song Rab. 6:11 (1) (same); y. Ta'an. 2:1 (61b) (emperor has difficulty controlling legions); Gen. Rab. 50:12 (emperor wary of power of local patrons); Deut. Rab. 1:13 (emperor strapped for cash.) 114

See Gerold Walser, "The Crisis of the Third Century A. D.: A Re-Interpretation," Bucknell Review 13, No. 2, 1, 6 (1965) 115

Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 457-459; Alaric Watson, Aurelian 34-37.

116

Historia Augusta, Thirty Tyrants III.4-5; Aurelius Victor 9.8-9; Eutropius 33.

117

Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 444, Alaric Watson, Aurelian 35. A. Alfoeldy, along with his father one of Gallienus' principal advocates in the court of historical opinion, regards the containment of Postumus' power to the area of his empire as one of Gallienus' several great accomplishments. A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 187.

266

R. Levi said a parable. Like a king who established a province and lit two lights in it. The king said, "Anyone who similarly lights two lights I call him 'Augustus'" and I will not be jealous of him." 8

If so, the Rabbis may provide a more nuanced view of Gallienus' relationship with Postumus than do the other ancient sources or the modern writers. If the opaque reference to lighting two lights may be read as a reference to governing effectively, the parable seems to have the king say that if someone lights two lights (governs effectively) somewhere beyond the province I have established in which I have lit two lights (my area of control) statesmanship and prudence dictate that I let him do so and focus on governing the area I can effectively govern, especially after several unsuccessful attempts to defeat him in the field. The Rabbis may therefore support to some extent the view of many modern scholars that Gallienus was very good at his job, or at least they may negate the idea in many of the ancient sources that he was, perhaps increasingly as his reign went on, a failure.119

118

Tanh. Bechukotai 6 (,Buber ed.) 56b. This parable might also be read to refer to Odenathus, although no emperor seems ever to have referred to him as "Augustus" and Gallienus may have been meticulous regarding Odenathus' titles. See notes 135-137 and accompanying text, infra. If it does refer to Odenathus, the Rabbis would not have been the only easterners to call him by a Roman title fitting an emperor; a Manichean Aramaic text calls Zenobia the "wife of Caesar." See Udo Hartmann, Das Palmyrene Teilreich 309; D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 54, 119

See Aurelius Victor 33; Eusebius 9.8; Historia Augusta, Two Gallieni XIII.9, Thirty Tyrants IX.3; Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 262, 269 ; A. Alfoeldy, "The Crisis of the Third Century, " 110; A. Alfoeldy, "The Invasion of Peoples from the Rhine to the Black Sea, " in S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth and Ν. H. Baynes, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History - Volume XII, 138-151 ; W. den Boer, Minor Roman Historians 75, 79; Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 480. The parable in which the emperor protects a province from barbarians only so long as his "friend" is there may represent another understanding of Gallienus' inability to keep Western Europe under control. Gen. Rab. 41(42):3, form the A3b/Transitional period.

267

Oddly, a passing remark by Aurelius Victor, a strongly anti-Gallienus fourth-century author, that the emperor had prohibited senators from entering the army120 led to the modern idea that Gallienus had both curtailed the powers of senators and reorganized the army, and that idea has in turn been the principal basis of the view of Gallienus' greatness.121 But the parables do not support that version of Gallienus' achievements; parables from the next period continue to show the emperor with confidential and important relationships with people who might well be senators.122 Similarly, Victor's reference to Gallienus moving "hurriedly" from Gaul to Pannonia123 seems to have suggested to at least one modern historian that Gallienus' supposed reorganization of the army increased its mobility,124 but a parable from the next period (A3b/Transitional) showing the emperor putting

120

Aurelius Victor 33. See Gerold Walser, "The Crisis of the Third Century, " 6; W. den Boer, Minor Roman Historians 85; cf. Anthony Birley, "The Third Century Crisis in the Roman Empire, " Bulletin of The John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 58, (1975) 253, 276 . (accepting existence of such an edict but claiming it was not an innovation); but see D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 56-57 (no reason to believe such an edict existed.) See also A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 183 (citing numismatic evidence for Gallienus' break with the senate.) 121

It has also been argued that the absence of bronze coins bearing "SC" from the beginning of Gallienus' reign is an indication of his break with the Senate. A. Alfoeldy, " Crisis of the Empire," 183-184. 122

Gen. Rab. 8:3 ("king" relies on two "sing/ipn"); Deut. Rab. 3:3 (tribal heads in Exod compared to twelve senators.) Of course, these parables may only reflect the Rabbis' memory of earlier times. It is also possible that they reflect a later revival of senatorial power. See note 203, infra. 123

Aurelius Victor 33.

124

Anthony Birley, "The Third Century Crisis," 280.

268

occupying troops in place to guard against others is at least as strong in its suggestion of a relatively immobile force.125 Victor's claim that Gallienus dealt with the success of Postumus and his successors in the west by falsely claiming that he had pacified all the empire's borders and shoring up that claim by holding frequent games and triumphs126 finds strong support in a parable from the same period in which the emperor devotes many sword bearers and spearmen to the parade ground and thereby causes the people to think he would go to war with many more,127 and by one from the next period in which an emperor who would go to war with many is said to go to his Majuma festival with but a few, 128 perhaps suggesting that the Rabbis believed that Gallienus had been unable to protect the borders because of a lack of manpower, with the result that he devoted the few troops he had to games. Whether or not Gallienus was as effective as he might have been regarding the west, loss of all or part of Central Europe - the area previously assigned to Valerian II -- was prevented when the emperor left Gaul (swiftly or not) and put down the successive rebellions of Regalianus and Ingenuus in Pannonia.129

125

See Sons Rob. 6:11 (1).

126

Aurelius Victor 33.

127

Pes. Rab. 21:9.

128

Pes. Rab. 21:24.

129

See Aurelius Victor 33: D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 52; Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 444.

269

The situation in the east was much more complicated. Rebellions similar to those in the west and on the Danube took place. They did not succeed, 130 but they were not quelled primarily by the power of the Roman Empire, and the defeat of these rebels was itself an important step toward the east also becoming separated from Gallienus' clear control. Odenathus, the ruler of the Syrian oasis city of Palmyra, now takes center stage. 131 In reaction to Valerian's capture, two officers, Macrianus and Callistus, successfully rallied some troops against the Persians and named Macrianus' sons Macrianus II and Quietus co-emperors. The Macriani then extended the area under their control to include Egypt and into Europe. 132 Gallienus asked 133 Odenathus, already a power in the region, to help stop them, which he did, defeating Quietus in the east while Gallienus' generals 130

See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 52-53.

131

Although not to the extent he does in the conclusion of the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle. "A lion, terrible and frightful. . . unblemished and great, will rule over the Romans, and the Persians will be powerless." Sib. Or. XIII, lines 165-171. This part of the Oracle, dealing with the period beginning with Valerian and ending with Odenathus, is likely to have been written by someone other than the Oracle's principal author who wanted to bring the Oracle quickly up to his own time. D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 151. It is beyond the scope of this study to offer explanations of how Palmyra achieved the wealth and importance necessary for the successes of Odenathus and later of his widow Zenobia or of how the family came to be the rulers of Palmyra. A comprehensive recent account of these issues is Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, especially at 76-99 for the rise of the family and of Odenathus individually. See also D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 341-342, 381-394 for Odenathus' career and background. 132

See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 52-53; Fergus Millar, "Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria, " Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971), 1, 8; A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 172-173; Richard Stoneman, Palmyra and its Empire 161; Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 253. 133

The right verb here is a matter of debate; "ordered" (Zosimus 1.39), "directed" (A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 173) and "invited" (D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 53) are alternatives. The question of the relationship between Gallienus and Odenathus thus emerges at its beginning. Whether the matter was initiated by Gallienus or by Odenathus is also unclear. See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 429 (Odenathus undertook defense of Gallienus' throne); Denys Haynes, "Preface" (Odenathus came to the rescue.)

270

defeated the other Macriani in Europe. 134 At this time, Odenathus had several titles, both Palmyrene and Roman; 135 after he secured the east for the central power against the Macriani and recovered northern Mesopotamia from Persia, Gallienus made him corrector

totius Orientis,

the t i t l e Priscus had had under

his brother Philip 136 and he gave himself Shapur's title, "King of Kings," to which Gallienus does not seem to have objected. 1 3 7 Whatever the various titles may have meant to him, to Gallienus or to their subjects and their armies, 138 Odenathus ruled the east, the same area Valerian had attempted to govern and protect himself, just as Postumus and his successors ruled the west. Questions about the relationship between emperor and corrector/king, and the concomitant relationship between the central government and Palmyra, are among the most prominent third-century issues. While Odenathus 134

See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 144-145; David F. Graf, "Zenobia and the Arabs," 144-145 (citing Zonaras). 135

Palmyrene: "exarch," ršand mm. Roman: vir consularis (the customary title for the governor of Syria); perhaps dux. See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 90-92, 101, 144; Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 165; A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 174-175; Richard Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire 78. He also seems to have already been a Roman senator. See Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 157, 165. 136

Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 439. He may have also received from his troops the title imperator, usually reserved for an emperor. See Alaric Watson, Aurelian 32. But see Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 184-185. 137

His widow may, however, have given him this title posthumously. See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 176, 179. 138

Some scholars have based their analyses of the relationship of Gallienus and Odenathus on a close reading of the various titles. See especially Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, foreshadowed by A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 175. This approach seems inapplicable to any Palmyrene title and any title Odenathus took for himself. (Udo Hartmann suggests that he may have made himself vir consularis in addition to taking Shapur's title. Das palmyrenische Teilreich 106.) In any event I suspect titles were not all that meaningful when so much power, supported and demonstrated by armed force, was at stake.

271

and Palmyra were undoubtedly sui generis,139

most scholars .emphasize his

position as a representative or delegate of the emperor, similar to Priscus under Philip, ruling the "Roman orient." 1 4 0 But others tend to see Palmyra more as a functionally independent state, similar to the "Roman empire" centered on Cologne and Trier, and view Odenathus more as the independent ruler of a Palmyrene empire. 1 4 1 Like their contemporary of the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, the Rabbis specifically knew of Odenathus, 142 and therefore

139

Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 157 ("very special circumstances"); see lain Browning, Palmyra 150-151 (could have sought imperial crown but restrained his ambitions); Richard Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire 78 (imperium over all the east subject to the emperor's imperium.) Zosimus treated him both as a restorer of the unity of the empire and as an enemy of Rome. See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 25-26. 140

Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 7, 9, 10; see Historia Augusta, Two Callieni III.4, X.4; G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia 130 (Gallienus content to leave Odenathus as protector of the east and "vice-regent.") A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 174 argues that Gallienus took steps to bring Odenathus closer to him. 141

See Alaric Watson, Aurelian 32 (although Odenathus was designated vice-regent, Gallienus wielded power over him that was only "nominal"). Cf. Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 145 ("independent military role.") 142

Gen. Rab. 76:6 interprets Gen 32:12 ("deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau") to refer to Odenathus; calls him "my brother, who advances against me with the power of Esau;" identifies him with the "little horn" of Dan 7:8, and recounts his victories over the Macriani and one Mariades. This passage and another rabbinic source described below calls him by an Aramaic name, "Ben Natzor." ("Natzor" has elsewhere been identified as Odenathus' great-grandfather. See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 88.) See Saul Lieberman, "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries, " Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (194647), 31, 37-38. While sources in addition to the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle indicate that non-rabbinic Jews viewed Odenathus and Palmyra favorably, see David F. Graf, "Zenobia and the Arabs," 146; Alaric Watson, Aurelian 64, most scholars seem to believe that the Rabbis were anti-Palmyra, perhaps after earlier hopes had been disappointed, see ibid. ; Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 327-330; David F. Graf, "Zenobia and the Arabs," 148, but their conclusions are unjustified by the rabbinic texts they cite other than Gen. Rab. 76:6. (These texts, like Gen Rab. 76:6, are not king-parables.) b. Yebam. 16a-16b at one point shows R. Yohanan, Odenathus' contemporary, saying ‫״‬ although the Talmud goes on to question whether he ever said it ‫ ״‬that converts are not accepted from Palmyra, but the same sugya states that Yohanan also took the position that such proselytes may be accepted (a conundrum concerning Yohanan's views on the subject expressed elsewhere, see b. Nid. 56b), and in any event his reason for preventing Palmyrene proselytes is remembered as being on the basis either of "the servants of Solomon" or of "the daughters of Jerusalem," - that is, not because they were from Palmyra but because they

272

perhaps their parables provide even better information about him than they do about others. Of course, if the Rabbis accepted Odenathus as the more or less independent ruler of the east, perhaps including Palestine,143 parables showing

were mamzerim, further suggesting that the Palmyrene "proselytes" involved were people who thought of themselves as Jews and perhaps were thought of as Jews by Jews other than the Rabbis, and hardly included Odenathus and his family. y. Ta'an. 4:6 (69b) attributes to R. Yohanan a remark that those who see the destruction of Palmyra are happy, but on the ground that Palmyra provided 8000 archers for the destruction of the First Temple and 80,000 for the destruction of the Second. Lam. Rab. 2:2 (120) contains the same remark without attribution, and attributes the same grounds to later Amoraim. These "events" are otherwise unknown and in any event unrelated to Odenathus and Zenobia's (and Yohanan's and such later Amoraim's) time. b. Mo'ed Qpt. 26a, to the effect that Samuel did not rend his garments upon learning that Shapur had slaughtered thousands of Jews, is indeed evidence that third-century Babylonian Rabbis were partial to Persia under Shapur, but being pro-Persia does not necessarily mean being anti-Palmyra just because Palmyra was, on occasion, one of Persia's enemies, and, even if it does, the story does not necessarily reflect the attitude of Palestinian Rabbis especially after Palmyra had brought a measure of security to the region. See Isaiah Gafni, Land, Center, and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity, Sheffield (UK): Sheffield Academic Press, 1997, 111; Saul Lieberman, "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries," 34-36. b. Yebam. 17a attributes to a Babylonian Amora the remark that Israel will have a festival when Palmyra shall have been destroyed. The anonymous voice of the Bavli immediately responds to the contrary in two ways: Tarmod (assuming that "Tarmod" here and elsewhere in these passages is "Tadmor, " the pre-Semitic name for Palmyra, see lain Browning, Palmyra 25) has already been destroyed; no, it was "Tammad" that had been destroyed. But the passage does suggest some contemporary opposition to Palmyra, although again not necessarily shared by Palestinian Rabbis. b. Ketub. 51b treats "Ben Natzor" as occupying a status between that of a king and that of a bandit. The context is an attempt to reconcile two earlier traditions about female captives of kings; are they or are they not treated like ordinary captives? It uses "Ben Natzor" as an example of a "king" whose captives are not treated as ordinary captives. The captive of a "king" treated as "ordinary" is a captive of a "king" like Ahasuerus; the captive of a "king" treated as "not ordinary" is of a king like Ben Natzor. The captive of a "bandit" treated as "not ordinary" is of a bandit like Ben Natzor; the captive of a "bandit" treated as "ordinary" is of an ordinary bandit. How can Ben Natzor be both a king and a bandit? When compared to a king like Ahasuerus he is a bandit, but when compared to an ordinary bandit he is à king. This sugya is not hostile to Odenathus; his unusual status was remembered by the compilers of the Bavli and was useful to them, interested as often in liminal cases, since he is a king, but not quite a king. On the other hand, the possibility that he was in some way a bandit is not favorable. b. Shai>6.31 a shows Hillel answering the question of why Palmyrenes have bleared eyes by saying that they live in sandy places, hardly a criticism of them even if manifesting ignorance of the nature of an oasis. 143

See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 330-332 and the previous footnote.

273

an unnamed "king" at war,144 or concerned about dynastic issues,145 or engaging in other "imperial" activities146 might reflect him, so that the only parables I can examine with a view to suggesting the Rabbis' understanding of the relationship of Gallienus and Odenathus - and thus of the central government and Palmyra -- are those in which the "king" is shown in relationship with someone else,147 and no conclusions can be drawn based solely on the number of such parables showing either the emperor as the senior person in relationship to generals and others148 or suggesting dependence of the "king" on someone else. In the first category are parables that concern the emperor and his friend. Although use of the word "friend" usually evidences a patronage relationship,149 these might reflect the relationship between the emperor and

144

E.g., Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100) and Exod. Rab. 23:7, from the A2/Divided empire period. 145

Midr. Pss 6:3, from the A3b/Transitional period.

146

E.g., Pesiq. Rav Kah. 4:2, from the A2/Divided empire period (entering a province); Song Rab. 8.5(10) (putting up his images); Esth Rab. 1:20 (holding court), both from the A3d/Transitional period. 147

On the theory that the Rabbis would have known the difference between Odenathus and a "prefect" or a "procurator," I have not considered parables involving those officials as possibly involving Odenathus, except when the subordinate officials are presented in a group of others suggesting the primacy of the emperor over all. 148

See Exod. Rab. 21:9, from the A3b/Transitional period (officer's power derives solely from the emperor); Lam. Rab. 3:24 (99), from the same period (emperor dominant over generals along with prefects and other officials); Midr. Pss 17:3, from the same period (only the emperor, not his archon, has power over taxes). 149

See Chapter 2, note 54, supra.

274

the corrector-king, just as those involving an emperor and a general might.150 But the ambiguity of the relationship between Gallienus and Odenathus may be reflected in a parable in which expected roles might be reversed - Odenathus is the "king" and Gallienus the "friend" for whose sake a province is protected. Like a friend of the king who enters a province, and for his sake the king protected the province. When barbarians came to attack him, they said, "Woe on us, now the king will not protect the province as before."" 151

More significantly, other king-parables suggest the existence in this period of a great warrior and statesman, without whom the emperor would be powerless and on whom the emperor relies, but who nonetheless appears loyal to the emperor - that is, of a figure like Odenathus as he is usually understood. For example, this may be a version of Odenathus' role against both the Macriani and the Persians: Like a king of flesh and blood who fought many wars. He had a hero, who was victorious in them. He had yet another war. The king said to the hero, "Please stand up for me in this war that no one will say you were not in the others."1

150

See Sifra Tzav, Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), from the A2/Divided empire period (king acquires a new friend and makes a holiday for him); Lev. Rab. 5:6, from the A3b/Transitional period (emperor gives his friend a gift). 151

Gen. Rab. 41(42):3, from the A3b/Transitional period. If this is indeed Odenathus as king and Gallienus as king's friend, the Rabbis misunderstood the sequence of their deaths. Odenathus died before Gallienus did (see Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 218) so any concern the Rabbis might have been evidencing about Odenathus no longer protecting the region after Gallienus died was misplaced. 152

b. Sanh. 89b, from the A3b/Transitional period.

275

Another parable from the same period shows the hero reassuring the "king," although surrounded by brigands, that he would sleep in his own bed;153 the reference to sleeping in his own bed might provide some rabbinic support for the picture of a voluptuous Gallienus shown in several of the ancient 154

sources. The figure who might be Odenathus is not always a "hero." Sometimes, perhaps more accurately, he is an official. Like a province that rebelled against the king and the king sent a ppôrëmalkôs to destroy it. The ppôrëmalkôs was expert and calm. He said to the rebels, "Give yourself time so that the king will not do to you what he did to another province and its communities."155

"Ppôrëmalkôs," a corrupt version of a Hebrew loan word from the Greek polemarchos, is usually translated as "general" or "commander."156 That may be all the Rabbis meant to convey by it, although if they were aware on some level of the word's Greek etymology they may have deliberately chosen it to refer to Odenathus; the Greek literally means commander-in-chief,157 but in classical Athens it designated the archon who judged certain criminal cases, and at other times and places in the Greek-speaking ancient world it referred

153

Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354).

154

Such as those cited in note 119, supra.

155

Pesiq. Rav Kah. 24:11.

156

1 translated it as "general" in earlier chapters. My transliteration of words from Greek characters is based on The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies, Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999, 5.3. 157

From polemon —war - and arche - leader.

276

to an official having various civil functions.158 The Rabbis were probably aware that Odenathus began this part of his career in a military role but achieved high civil office. 159 If this indeed is a reflection of Odenathus, it is especially valuable. It treats the difficulties in the region as not merely an uprising of two officers or a foreign invasion, but as involving the loyalties of the people of the region, and shows Odenathus using political savvy, not armed force. Moreover, it indicates that Gallienus was still regarded as an opponent to be feared in his own right, as his victory over Macrianus II suggests. In another parable, R. Levi may have been using money as a metaphor for power in general or for military power in particular, and thus to have indicated that Odenathus, now solely in the role of a general, was indeed using his own power for Gallienus' sake: To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who told the commander of the army to go and distribute a litra of gold to each soldier. He went and gave five gold pieces to some of them and ten to others. They said to him, "The king said to give to us a litra of gold each and you give us five gold pieces." He said to them, "This is of mine; when the king comes he will give you his."160

But the Rabbis may have been aware of ambiguities not shown in the picture of Odenathus as Gallienus' loyal corrector or dedicated commander or 158

See Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, abridged, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889, 653 and the definition of the English word "polemarch" in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, third edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, 1536. 159

Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 151 emphasizes that the title of corrector totius orientis involved civil authority.

160

Deut. Rab. 1:13. See also Num. Rab. 1:2, from the A3b/Transitional period, showing the emperor governing provinces -- the east? -- through "very great men."

277

"friend." R. Samuel bar Nachman used this formless parable to interpret passages in Nehemiah in which God provides manna to rebellious Israelites: "In all your days have you seen rebels against a king to whom he continues to give sustenance?"161 It is likely that this formless parable is, in function, antithetical: 162 God, who supports rebels, is contrasted to a human king, who of course ("in all your days have you [or anyone else] seen") does not. But because of the parable's formlessness this is not clear, and Samuel may have been comparing God to a specific, highly unusual, emperor, who "sustained" a specific, highly unusual, rebel ("in all your days have you ever [before] seen"), that is, to Gallienus in relation to Odenathus. If so, the Rabbis saw Odenathus as a rebel against Gallienus, but a rebel the emperor needed to support in spite of his rebellion. This seems a more plausible understanding of the facts than the ideas that Odenathus was either the emperor's man in the east or an independent Oriental dynast. Odenathus and his older son were murdered, and this parable lends some support to the view of those scholars who believe Gallienus played a role in their deaths; Odenathus would have been seen not only as a rebel but also as a rival.163

161

Midr. Pss 3:30, from the A3b/Transitional period.

162

See Chapter 3, notes 54-91 and accompanying text, on antithetical and formless parables.

163

See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 226; David F. Graf, "Zenobia and the Arabs," 145; Alaric Watson, Aurelian 59. If this reading is correct, it undermines somewhat the prevailing idea that Zenobia's claim of independence from Aurelian was a change of Odenathus‫ ׳‬policies. See note 195 and accompanying text, infra.

278

Gallienus himself died in 268 C. E. at the hands of a group of generals, probably including his successor Claudius II (reigned to 270 C. E.),164 who is still celebrated as "Gothicus" - victor over the Goths --165 but the customary ancient sources do not unequivocally support such a victory. The main source for this victory, the Historia Augusta, although thought to contain some authentic details of his reign amidst much fiction,166 tells of a fantastic victory over 320,000 armed Goths, equipped with 2000 ships, and their slaves and families, whom the magnanimous emperor declined to pursue further after they were stricken by plague.167 The Historia Augusta is confirmed to some extent by a brief statement in Eutropius that Claudius defeated the Goths in a great battle. 168

But other ancient sources suggest that this version is incomplete at best. Zosimus reports a successful battle with the Goths, but one followed immediately by the Roman infantry being routed by them, with the Goths being finished off not by Rome but by plague.169 All Victor says is that Claudius

164

See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 15, 55; A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 225; W. den Boer, Minor Roman Historians 82. 165

See Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 446 (title fully deserved); D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 18, 57-58 (victory over Goths treated as Claudius' defining accomplishment); Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 297. A. Alfoeldy, "Crisis of the Empire," 225 sees praise of Claudius as part of the senatorial reaction to Gallienus' reforms. 166

T. D. Barnes, Sources of the Historia Augusta 30.

167

Historia Augusta, Claudius VI.1-VII.6, ΙΧ.3-4

168

Eutropius 11.

169

Zosimus 1.43-.46.

279

wanted to drive the Goths out, not that he did.170 Ammianus has it that "foreign foes" roamed at will but that after Claudius was snatched by a "noble death," 171 Aurelian drove them out.172

The handful of third-century king-parables from this and later periods concerning an emperor himself engaged in a foreign war supports the idea of mixed results. Only two show him victorious. Of these, one, involving barbarians, features the emperor's son, and since Claudius probably had no son173 it is less likely to be a remembrance of a historical "Gothicus."174 The other seems to fit one of Claudius' successors better than it fits him.175 In three parables the emperor is shown as losing or in trouble,176 and in two others, including one about barbarians, outcomes are mixed or inconclusive,177 suggesting that the Rabbis would agree with Zosimus, or even Ammianus, more than with the other authors cited above. 170

Aurelius Victor 34.

171

But see note 178 and accompanying text, infra.

172

Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI.5.7. The cognomen "Gothicus" is attested by an inscription and by posthumous coins, see David Magie, III Scriptores Historiae Augustae 173 n. 2, but Claudius would not have been the first or the last emperor to claim victory titulature (or have it claimed for him) based on a limited or questionable victory. Other coins call him "Parthicus" - victor over the Persians - apparently reflecting a victory by Palmyra. Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 256, 266. 173

See note 185 and accompanying text, infra.

174

Exod. Rab. 20:14, from the A2/Divided empire period.

175

See notes 199-202 and accompanying text, infra.

176

Exod. Rab. 23:7, from the A2/Divided empire period; Sifre Deut. 3 and 313 (Finkelstein ed., 11 and 354), from the A3b/Transitional period.

177

Exod. Rab. 18:6, from the A3b/Transitional period (barbarians); Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), from the A2/Divided empire period.

280

Unusually for a third-century emperor, Claudius died of natural causes,178 and Aurelian (reigned 270 C. E. to 275 C. E.), after a brief war with Claudius' brother Quintillus, became emperor ending the A2/Divided empire period for purposes of this study. It had been a period that continued the previous one's emphasis on physical dynasticism. Valerian seems to have tried to build a system of governance on the principle of dynastic descent;179 Gallienus probably made his son Caesar;180 Macrianus and Ballista skipped a step and made the next generation emperors from the beginning of their rebellion;181 Odenathus' dynastic ambitions may be seen from his older son inheriting his early Palmyrene title "exarch"182 and from Zenobia's elevation of their younger son after his death. 183 Parables from the next period may reflect these fathers and sons.184 Quintillus was, briefly, the first emperor to succeed his brother since the end

178

Presumably the same plague that may have made him "Gothicus." See Sir Ronald Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta 203. 179

See note 100 and accompanying text, supra.

180

See Aurelius Victor 33; Historia Augusta, Two Gallieni ΧΙΧ.1.

181

D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 53.

182

Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 101.

183

See note 187 and accompanying text, infra.

184

Midr. Pss 6:3 (concern over having no one to give his "kingdom" to should his son die); Gen. Rab. 77:3 (athlete wrestling with son retreats from presence of "king"); Esth. Rab.7:2 (highly protective of son.) In the next period, dynasticism may have been on the wane, although not in Palmyra, where Zenobia claimed all of Odenathus' titles for Valballathus, including titles that were not hereditary by nature. See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 242-243. Aurelian and Probus seem not to have had sons, and there is no evidence that they gave any thought to their successors, although coins indicate that for a while the government was in the hands of Aurelian's widow. See H. Mattingly, "The Imperial Recovery," in S. A. Cook, F. E.

281

of the first century; 185 R. Abbahu's antithetical parable including God saying that he "has no brother" 1 8 6 may reflect this fact.

The A3/Reunited Zenobia of

empire and Transitional

periods: Aurelian

and

others;

Palmyra

Odenathus' widow Zenobia succeeded him as ruler of the east as regent for their son Valballathus. 187 While Claudius II was still alive she had expanded Palmyrene power into Egypt, and by the first year of Aurelian's reign she ruled the entire region as far west as the border of Galatia. 1 8 8 Prevailing scholarly opinion holds, however, that she did not diverge from her husband's policy of subordination to the "central" government 189 until her rebellion was evidenced by Palmyrene coins showing Valballathus as "Augustus." Zenobia's earlier

Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth and Ν. H. Baynes, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History - Volume XII, 310. On the other hand, Carus was succeeded by two sons, Carinus and Numerian, whom he had made Caesars immediately on his accession, id. at 321 ; Tacitus was briefly succeeded by his half-brother Florianus, and Probus is said not to have punished the followers of Florianus for rallying to their dead emperor's brother. See Historia Augusta, Probus XIII.3-4. 185

This indicates that Claudius II did not have a son, since he was old enough to have had a mature son when he died. See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 55. The representatives and panegyrists of the fourth-century emperor Constantine had claimed Constantius Chlorus (Constantine's father) as Claudius' son, while other ancient sources show him as Claudius' daughter's son. David Magie, III The Scriptores Historiae Augustae 178 n.1. The author of the Historia Augusta, writing later, also wanted to show Claudius as Constantine's ancestor, and may have evidenced knowledge that Claudius had no son when he showed Constantius as Claudius' nephew, not son or grandson; alternatively he may, as is often the case, here just been fooling around. Historia Augusta, Claudius XIII.3-4. 186

Exod. Rab. 29:5. In the next period, Florianus briefly succeeded Tacitus, who may have been his half-brother. See Alaric Watson, Aurelian 108.

187

See D. S. Potter, Prophecy and Empire 58-59.

188

See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 278.

189

See notes 139-141 and accompanying text, supra.

282

coinage had shown Aurelian as Augustus, with Valballathus on the coin's reverse with lesser titles. 1 9 0 The only hint of a powerful queen in the later third-century kingparables is the reference to a king who refuses honors in a province he enters until "Matrona" is first honored; 191 if this Matrona is understood to refer to Zenobia, the Rabbis might have been suggesting that she was powerful while Odenathus still lived, and thus perhaps continued, and did not diverge from, the policies of his regime. 1 9 2 Once Aurelian had brought the west back under his control, 1 9 3 he marched east, defeated the Palmyrenes, and led both Zenobia and Tetricus,

190

See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 250-266.

191

Pesiq. Rav. Kah. 9:10.

192

As was the case with Odenathus, the Rabbis specifically knew of Zenobia. y. Ter. 8:11 :(10) (46b) calls her "Queen Zenobia" and shows her pointing out to two Rabbis who had come rescue someone that the object of their efforts teaches that the creator performs miracles. This has been taken to show rabbinic hostility to Zenobia on the grounds that she was mocking the idea that God would provide such a miracle, causing the Rabbis to dislike her, see Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 330, but the Rabbis frequently showed gentile rulers interrogating Rabbis about the tenets of Judaism, and this might be merely another such instance. See generally Moshe David Herr, "Historical Significance." (This account ends with a third party bursting in on the scene, brandishing a sword which he claimed "Bar Natzor" had used to kill his brother, showing that the Rabbis knew of a connection between Odenathus and Zenobia.) Hartmann also cites another account in y. Ter. 8:11 :(10) (46b) about one Ulla, whom R. Joshua ben Levi convinced to turn himself over to the government, as further evidence of unrest in Palestine under both Odenathus and Zenobia, but under traditional dating Joshua lived before the ascendancy of Palmyra, and this story would relate to an earlier government. On the other hand, yet another passage in y. Ter. 8:11 : (10) (46b) has a violent scene set in Apipsoros, a word that may mean Palmyra. See Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary 104. But, perhaps as a result of the Rabbis' discomfort with the idea of a reigning queen, the parables provide no insight into various fascinating issues involving Zenobia and her rule, such as the nature of her court, her religious interests and inclinations, including her relations with the heretic bishop Paul of Samosata and with Jews and Manicheans (see Udo Hartmann. Das palmyrenische Teilreich 299-332) and any role other native easterners may have had in her downfall,. See id. at 383; G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia 137. 191

Either by defeating Postumus' final successor or by negotiating and accepting his surrender and then appointing him a provincial governor. See Historia Augusta, Aurelian XXXII 3-4; 283

the last of the "Gallic emperors," in his triumph. 1 9 4 Scholars now believe that the Palmyrene "usurpation" evidenced by the coins showing Valballathus as Augustus was in reaction to Aurelian's move east, 195 but the parable of the emperor who resolutely dispatched a rebel who minted coins in the emperor's own tent 1 9 6 -- perhaps a way of describing Valballathus' "Augustus" coinage -suggests the opposite, that Aurelian moved east to counter Zenobia's imperial ambitions for her son and herself. Aurelian had reunited the empire. In Roman terms, he had restored the world; he was the restitutor

orbis.m

The Rabbis may have indicated their

awareness of his accomplishments in two later king-parables that show a king more successful against rebels than the kings in most parables from this

Aurelius Victor 35; Eutropius 13. Such a transaction suggests a flair for statesmanship and perhaps for twenty-first-century style spin, 194

See Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 241.

195

See id. at 255; Alaric Watson, Aurelian 69.

196

Gen. Rab. 36:7.

197

He seems to have given himself this title. Alaric Watson, Aurelian 80. Aurelian had a reputation for cruelty. Lactantius 6; Eutropius 13. But Zosimus 51 and 61 show him issuing a general amnesty to those Antiochenes who had sided with Zenobia, and forgiving the leader of a later Palmyrene revolt as being beneath his notice, while Aurelius Victor 35 says he issued an amnesty in Rome. His cruelty is perhaps supported by the contemporary parable of the cruel king who kills all the residents of a rebellious province, contrasted with the merciful king who kills only half. b. Sanh. 39a. As was the case regarding Zenobia, the contemporary king-parables offer no help about other issues concerning Aurelian's reign, including the quality of hiš generalship (except to the extent it is evidenced by the more successful "king" mentioned above), his devotion to Sol Invictus and, unless she was his "Matrona, " his rumored liaison with Zenobia. See the conclusion of the remarkable Agnes Carr Vaughan, Zenobia of Palmyra, Garden City: Doubleday, 1967, sort of a twentieth-century Historia Augusta at its most fantabulous. Just as later third-century parables shed light on earlier third-century events and personalities, perhaps fourth-century or later parables, outside the scope of this study, would shed light on issues concerning Zenobia, Aurelian, and later third-century emperors, as well as those who had gone before. See notes 7-10 and 192, supra.

284

period.198 More dramatically, the Rabbis suggest their view of the magnitude of his achievement in the parable of the seated Augustus. A king made a war and won, and they made him Augustus.199

The text is clear that "they" made someone who was already a "king" something more than an ordinary king. They made this king the kind of king called "Augustus," that is, the emperor of Rome.200 What had this "king" been before that? What did the Rabbis mean by a "king" who was then "made" Augustus? He must have been something less than the typical "king" of the Imperial parables - the emperor or his representative -- perhaps an emperor in name only. I suggest that the parable indicates an understanding of the preAurelian situation along these lines: Claudius II was a "king," as Odenathus and Postumus were at the same time. When Aurelian eventually succeeded Claudius, he too was still merely a "king," as Valballathus and Tetricus were when they succeeded Odenathus and Postumus. One such "king" in the Divided empire - even the one recognized by

198

Midr. Pss 17:3; Tanh. Pekude 4.

199

Exod. Rab. 23:1.The following quotations in the text are also from this parable, which is set out in full in the original sequence of its parts in Chapter 5, at note 70, supra. This parable may have been about Diocletian, but since he ruled as the leader of a fouremperor Tetrarchy, the emphasis in this parable on the solitary status of "Augustus" makes the possibility of a reference to Aurelian, at last the sole emperor, more likely. As I have indicated several times, this parable, like several others, may also reflect the Rabbis' awareness that generals like Aurelian (and his successors and many of his predecessors) were typical third-century emperors. 200

On the other hand, this parable may be another example of the "regularization" process; on this theory, the sentence would have originally read something like, "A general made a war and they made him Augustus." See Chapter 2, note 119, supra.

285

the senate in faraway Rome - was no different and no greater than another. 2 0 1 But when Aurelian "made a war and won" - the victories over Tetricus and Palmyra being conflated here, quite correctly, into one "war" - he emerged from this group of kings as the only king who mattered, the emperor of Rome, "Augustus" deserving the name. 2 0 2 Aurelian was succeeded by Tacitus (reigned 275 C. E. to 276 C. E.), 2 0 3 and Tacitus briefly by Florianus, and Florianus by Probus (reigned 276 C. E. to 282 C. E.), and Probus by Carus (282 C.E. to 283 C.E.), and Carus by his sons, and then, at long last, by Diocletian in 285 C. E., all under circumstances that have become drearily familiar, as the "third century" came to an end. 2 0 4

201

Especially if the "king" who ruled Palestine was not the one recognized by the senate.

202

Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Vierter Teil 26-31 have speculated that the Rabbis were thinking of the triumph of Vespasian and Titus, two hundred years earlier, when they formulated this parable, an idea I disagreed with in Chapter 5, note 70, supra. If they were thinking of such a triumph, it is more likely Aurelian's, which featured both Zenobia and Tetricus, is unlikely to have excluded Valballathus, and may have included representatives of other nations. Valballathus is presumed to have survived the war and lived in Rome along with his mother. Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 417. For the presence of other nations, see Historia Augusta, Aurelian XXXIII. This possibility is dismissed by Udo Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich 473 but diffidently advanced by David F. Graf, "Zenobia and the Arabs," 146-148. The fact that the parable refers to only one standing king suggests to me that the Rabbis were not thinking of this triumph either. The absence of the figure of a queen in the parable is striking if the principal historical event in the Rabbis' minds was Aurelian's victory over Zenobia. Perhaps the Rabbis accepted Zenobia's position that her son was the "king," and accordingly made him the standing king of the parable. Perhaps their ingrained cultural understanding of male superiority contributed to this acceptance, just as something like it was the reason behind Zenobia's own stance. See notes 191-192 and accompanying text, supra, for Zenobia as "Matrona," perhaps as high as the Rabbis' worldview would let them go in the third-century king-parables, although elsewhere and probably later they called her "Queen Zenobia." 203

The third-century king-parables offer no help on the related questions of whether Tacitus was a general or a senator, whether he was chosen by the army or the senate, and when he was chosen, except that late parables referring to emperors with close contacts with senators might be read to support a supposed senatorial revival. 204

Historia Augusta, Aurelian XXXVI. 5-6, Zosimus 62, and Eutropius 15 all have Aurelian being killed by people convinced by his confidential clerk that they were in danger from the emperor. Tacitus was also killed, perhaps by the same group that killed Aurelian, see Alaric 286

In Conclusion This chapter has used several king-parables to attempt to access the Rabbis' view of historical events and personalities during that century, none perhaps to better advantage than the remarkably rich parable of the seated Augustus. Continued focus on this parable helps reprise much of my earlier analysis of how the Rabbis used the genre of king-parables in their work and places my use of king-parables for purposes of historical reconstruction in context; the Rabbis told this parable, as they told all their parables, for purposes and in ways far removed from recording history. Without for a moment retreating from their opposition to Roman occupation, these Roman citizens in a minor province appropriated elements of imperial politics, titulature and art, but for their own highest non-Roman purposes: the exegesis of the word of God and the articulation of their theology, "internal" to them and to the Jews they sought to teach and lead, concerning the role of humanity in the ordering of the world.

Watson, Aurelian 107-108, although he may have died of illness. See Historia Augusta, Tacitus XIII.5. Florianus was killed by his own men, who seem to have switched allegiance to Probus. See Historia Augusta, Tacitus XIV.4; Aurelius Victor 37. Probus was killed by his own troops, perhaps after putting them to work on a drainage ditch, see Aurelius Victor 37, or possibly in conflict with Carus, his praetorian prefect and successor. See H. Mattingly, "The Imperial Recovery," 317-318. Carus is said, untypically, to have died of illness or by lightning, while his son Numerian was killed by Aper, his father-in-law and prefect, in a coup attempt. See Historia Augusta, Carus, Carinus, Numerian VIII.3-4, XII.1-2; Aurelius Victor 38. Carus' other son, Carinus, truer to third-century form, was killed after a battle with Diocletian's forces, Historia Augusta, Carus, Carinus, Numerian XVIII.4, apparently by his own troops, Aurelius Victor 39.

287

One way they interpreted scripture in their king-parables was by illustrating, expanding, augmenting , supplementing or completing an earlier unsupported rabbinic statement - in this case: This is written, "Your throne is established from of old [mē'āz[. " (Psalms 93:2) R. Berechiah said in the name of R. Abbahu, Although "you are from everlasting," your throne was not established and you were not known in your world until your sons sang a song. Therefore it says, "Your throne is established from of old [mē'āz]."

Assigning all the exegetical work at hand to the parable,205 they performed their exegetical task by weaving together verses from Prophets, Writings and Torah to create a new intertextual narrative, and by employing their familiar, often dazzling, technique of finding the meaning of the verse before them, in this instance the verse from Psalms via other verses, here those from Habakkuk and Exodus. They also offered a hortatory message that would have been appreciated both by in their study houses and by their followers in the synagogues (as with most parables, the setting of this parable - study house? synagogue? - is uncertain). They told this parable, as they told most, by adhering to a form I have called "direct." Its five parts are clearly shown: an introductory word of the simplest type ("a parable"); a marker of comparison ("like"); a secular narrative (of the seated Augustus); a marker of applicability ("so"); and a

205

Somewhat differently than other parables used to illustrate, expand, augment, supplement or complete an earlier unsupported statement, this parable seems to come from the same voice as does the earlier statement, R, Abbahu via R. Berechiah.

288

nimshal (which they may have set up here by reversing the sequence of Aurelian's acclamation and his victory in the secular narrative so that the emperor's acclamation could become the parallel in the secular narrative of Israel's song enthroning God -- showing the relative unimportance to them of historical facts):206 Israel said, "In truth you existed before you created your world, and continued to exist after you created your world, but, kibëyâkôl, you did so standing, šene'ëmar, "he stood and measured the earth," (Habakkuk 3:6) but not until we stood by the sea and sang a song with " 'āž' before you was your kingdom settled (hitya'Seb), and your throne established. Behold - "your throne is established mē'āž' - with "'āz [Moses] sang." (Exodus 15:1)

They had extended the secular narrative to assert that the difference in honor between being king and being Augustus is that the king stands while Augustus sits. I derived my conclusions about the Rabbis' understanding of imperial history from this parable largely on the basis of the clear difference in the Rabbis' minds - a "difference in honor" -‫ ־‬between a "king" and "Augustus," but there is nothing historically significant about the "fact" that kings stand while Augustus sits beyond the possibility that the Rabbis actually saw or heard of such a scene or saw a tablet depicting it. The Rabbis included and emphasized this "fact" solely for their primary exegetical and hortatory purposes, to enable the part of the nimshal's intertextual narrative that comes from Habakkuk and to generate the nimshal's change of the binyyân of "sit" to reflect the establishment of God's rule, thereby making a sitting Augustus an 206

Or their historical understanding may have been garbled, as is the case in other parables.

289

even more meaningful stand-in for God than a standing Augustus would have been. Unlike most of the kings in their parables - who tend their gardens, visit their sons and fight with their wives, but who nonetheless, according to previous scholars, are drawn from the figure of the emperor to represent the figure of God - this seated Augustus squarely based on the historical figure of the emperor of Rome functions as a remarkably effective stand-in for the God of Israel, and for the God of Israel in the specific situation the Rabbis' theology depicts here. The Rabbis presented God positively in this parable, as in many others, but subject to limits. They claimed that although God is eternal, sovereign, and eternally sovereign, his sovereignty was not established without the active participation of the people of Israel. To the Rabbis, the creator and ruler of the world was not really God until Israel acclaimed him. What king could represent him better than the restitutor of the world shown as not really emperor until his legions acclaimed him? Because Aurelian could be so used for the Rabbis' own purposes, we are able to use this parable for our historical ones.

290

Appendix: Jesus' King-Parables The parables of Jesus of Nazareth and those of the Rabbis are increasingly examined in light of each other, perhaps reflecting a greater awareness by New Testament scholars of the usefulness of studying Jesus in the context of more or less contemporary Judaism.1 Almost all such comparative scholarship starts with Jesus' parables, while the outstanding example that begins with the Rabbis -- David Stern's early article, "Jesus' Parables from the Perspective of Rabbinic Literature: The Example of the Wicked Husbandmen" -- does not appear as part of an extended study of rabbinic parables. And no attempt has been made to limit the parables compared to those involving one subject, such as kings, or to limit the rabbinic parables compared to Jesus' parables to those attributed to a period comparable in duration to the one the parables attributed to him come from, such as the third century.2 My opportunity to consider Jesus' parables in connection with such an extended study and subject to such limitations may give this appendix a

! In addition, the tendency of New Testament scholars to glorify Jesus' purportedly vivid and lifelike parables at the expense of the Rabbis' alleged pedanticism and literality seems to have abated. See Craig Evans, "Jesus and Rabbinic Parables, Proverbs, and Prayers" in his Jesus and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 2001, 251, collecting the scholarship in note 1; Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyshograd, eds., Parable and Story, especially Clemens Thoma, "Literary and Theological Aspects of the Rabbinic Parable" and David Stern, "Jesus' Parables." 2

See notes 20-24 and accompanying text, infra.

291

heuristic advantage over earlier work. I will use Chapters 1 through 7 as a template, and lay my research on Jesus' king-parables over it. 3 As I did with respect to third-century rabbinic texts, 4 1 will treat any saying attributed to Jesus comparing someone or something to a king as a "king-parable," regardless of the form of the text. And, as was also the case with respect to third-century king-parables, this is not the usual approach.5

Introducing Jesus

Generally speaking, Jesus needs no introduction, and there is no reason for me to discuss various unorthodox views of him - ranging from apocalyptic prophet to political revolutionary to Cynic philosopher to magician - that have been advanced. Instead, I will merely point out characteristics of the thirdcentury Rabbis that he does not share. Chapter 1 introduced the third-century Rabbis - the last two generations of Tannaim and the first three generations of Palestinian Amoraim - whose king-parables are the subject of this study as urban, relatively comfortable, intellectually curious, literate, tax-paying

3

The later chapters are not similarly useful, dealing as they do with century-specific matters.

4

See Chapter 1, note 2 and accompanying text, supra.

5

See, e.g., Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989, 16, who generally limits "parables" to a form containing elements of the rabbinic direct parable as described in Chapter 3, supra, although he later included the similitudes, which he calls "one-liners," as "parables." Bernard Brandon Scott, Re-Imagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, Santa Rosa CA: Polebridge Press, 2001, 17. See also Craig Evans, "Jesus and Rabbinic Parables" 264 and notes 51-73 and accompanying text, infra.

292

Citizens of the Roman Empire, principally engaged in discovering and discussing divine law. 6 Nothing in the Gospel accounts suggests that Jesus was principally

so

engaged, 7 although he is frequently shown citing and referring to the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, including in disputation with his opponents, 8 in support of his own activities, 9 and in a moment of his greatest suffering. 10 He is also shown as having sufficient mastery of Scripture to be able to use one Torah verse to argue against another 11 and to combine verses from different texts. 1 2

6

See Chapter 1 - Introducing the Rabbis.

7

See John 7:15 ("How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?") See also Lawrence Boadt, "Understanding the Mashal and Its Value for the Jewish-Christian Dialogue in a Narrative Theology," in Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyshograd, eds., Parable arid Story 159, positing Jesus' nonparticipation in the "learned academy." This is not the only reason for rejecting the otherwise attractive move of calling Jesus a "Rabbi," see, e.g., Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, New York: Doubleday, 2000, a title, along with didaskolos, one of its Greek translations, see John 1:38, frequently used for him in the Gospels, see, e.g., Mark 4; 38; Mark 9:5; Mark 11:21; Matt 26:18; Matt 26:25; Matt 26:49; John 1:49, although a title he is said to have rejected for his disciples, Matt 23:8. "Rabbi" seems to have been a general title of respect in the Second Temple period, while "the Rabbis," as a movement or an identifiable group, did not begin until after the Destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. "The Rabbis" were probably drawn from various groups in preDestruction Palestine, Pharisees and others, See Peter Schaefer, Jews in Antiquity 133. Even the conventional view that the Rabbis had been Pharisees before the Destruction, or a wing of them, does not support the idea that Jesus was a "Rabbi," since he was so clearly not a Pharisee. 8

E.g., Mark 7:6-7; Matt 19:3-9; John 10:34.

9

Matt 21:13. He is also shown as knowledgeable about the traditions of his opponents. Matt 15:1-9.

10

Mark 15:34; Matt 27:41. See also, e.g., Mark 4:12; Mark 10:48; Matt 6:38; Matt 15:4; Matt 19:18-19; Luke 10:27; Matt 9:13; Matt 10:35; Matt 15:8-9; Luke 8:10; Luke 22:37; Matt 21:16; Matt 22:42; Matt 23:44; Matt 24:15; Luke 13:35; John 6:31. 11

Matt 19:4-5. Such a move is inconsistent with the practices of the third-century (and other) Rabbis, who would have instead attempted to reconcile the verses, probably on the basis that the Genesis verses that Jesus cited as trumping the Torah's divorce rules were applicable to all humanity, while the laws concerning the giving of a get are for Jews only. See Chapter 5, notes 58-61 and accompanying text, supra.

293

Nor was he urban or relatively comfortable. Whether or not he and his family engaged in so much farming as to be accurately called peasants, he certainly was a villager, and poor.13 And he was not a citizen of Rome. He lived prior to the Coristitutio Antoniana. More to the point, he was not subject to direct Roman rule.14 Nazareth was part of the client-kingdom of Judaea from the time of Jesus' birth,15 under Herod the Great and then his son Archelaus,

12

Luke 19:46. Compare Chapter 5, notes 64-71 and accompanying text, supra. I do not join the debate over whether he, like they, was literate. It is enough for my purposes that he is shown reading in Luke 4:16-30, although specialists have noted that the reference to reading may not be part of the original story. See John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, New York: Doubledày, 1991, 268-278. Someone with the level of knowledge of Scripture that Jesus is presented in the Gospels as having almost certainly could read. Were first-century Jewish boys generally taught to read, even in remote Galilee? For a cautious response regarding the next century, see Martin Goodman, State and Society 71-72. See also Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture and the Life of Discipleship, papercover ed., San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, 40, supposing a "mainstream" level of education that every Jewish boy, including Jesus, would have had. Nothing in the Gospel accounts suggests that Jesus had the wide-ranging intellectual curiosity of the third-century Rabbis. The repertoire of figures he used in his parables seems largely limited to those connected with village life. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then The Parable 85. 13

See John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem, 278-281 ; Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 187; Marcus J. Borg, Jesus 39; Bernard Brandon Scott, Re-Imagine the World 1. On the other hand, if indeed he was a tekton - - customarily rendered "carpenter" - his occupation would have been similar to some third-century Rabbis'. (He is called a tekton in Mark 6:3 and the son of a tekton in Matt 13:55.) John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 25, paperbacked., San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, using Gerhard Lenski's categories, treats a carpenter as "an Artisan, in the dangerous space between Peasants and Degradeds." Bernard Brandon Scott, Re-Imagine the World 5, citing unnamed anthropologists, classifies carpenters among the "disposables." Presumably Crossan and Scott would have said the same of blacksmiths like R. Isaac or R. Yohanan's father, exceptions to the conclusion that the third-century Rabbis were reasonably well-off, who also made their livings by providing needed services in an agricultural community. See Chapter 1, note 5 and accompanying text, supra. 14

1 do not mean to suggest that first-century Galileans did not feel themselves subject to Rome, as did the third-century Rabbis, most of whom were also located in Galilee. See Chapter 8, supra. 15

Prior to 4 B.C.E. See John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem 375-76.

294

until 6 C.E.,16 and then of the more geographically limited client-tetrarchy of Antipas, another of Herod's sons.17 Accordingly, unlike the third-century Rabbis, Jesus did not pay taxes directly to Rome.18

Using Documents With respect to rabbinic king-parables, I rejected Jacob Neusner's "documentary premise," and accepted attributions to third-century Rabbis of king-parables appearing in later documents, on the ground that the Rabbis prided themselves on how accurately they preserved and reported earlier traditions and on the scholarship of David Goodblatt, Christine Hayes and Richard Kalmin demonstrating that such pride was not misplaced.191 am unaware of any such ancient traditions or modern scholarship with regard to purported sayings of Jesus appearing in later documents, and accordingly have limited the king-parables of Jesus under study to sayings appearing in documents that are dated to the period from roughly 70 C. E. to the turn of the second century or a bit beyond.

16

See Fergus Millar, Roman Near East 43-44; Peter Schaefer, Jews in Antiquity 101, 105.

17

Antipas is called "Herod" in the Gospel accounts. If we accept the narratives in Matt and Luke placing Jesus' birth in Bethlehem in Judaea, he was nonetheless, at birth, a subject of Herod the Great. 18

This conclusion does not necessarily question the historicity of the king-parable of the emperor's coin in the Synoptic Gospels, Mark 12:14-7, Matt 22:17-21, and Luke 20:22-26, and in Thomas 100, in which Jesus upholds the lawfulness of paying taxes to Rome, since all three of the canonical Gospels are clear that the incident took place in Judaea; Judaea had been subject to direct Roman rule since 6 C.E., when Jesus was still a boy. 19

See Chapter 1, notes 37-58 and accompanying text, supra.

295

As was the case with third-century rabbinic king-parables, I have made no attempt to date these documents myself,20 but have relied on the consensus of scholarly opinion, which places five documents within that period. The Gospel of Mark was probably composed around the year 70, followed within ten or twenty years by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and thereafter by the Gospel of John.21 The fifth document I have used as a source of Jesus' kingparables is the Gospel of Thomas, composed probably at roughly the same time as the canonical Gospels, although perhaps as late as the second century, but in any event containing some extremely ancient individual sayings.22 As my concern has been more with placing rabbinic parables in rabbinic generations and in Palestine than with assigning them to individual named Rabbis, this appendix is more concerned with locating "Jesus'" parables in a time period and a geographic area than with claiming that a particular kingparable was, or was not, actually said by the historical Jesus rather than by 20

See Chapter 1, text following note 59, supra.

21

See John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem 43-45 and n.8, including discussions of a minority view that all the canonical Gospels were composed before 70, of Mark's sources, of the consensus opinion that the authors of Matt and Luke, working independently, used Mark and a lost collection known as Q and of dissents from that opinion, and of the probable independence of John from the Synoptic Gospels, and of disagreements with that view. See also Wayne A. Meeks, "Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity's Separation from the Jewish Communities," in In Search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002, 115, 116; Adele Reinhartz, Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John, New York and London: Continuum, 2001, 37. 22

Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions, New York: Doubleday, 1987, 377; David R. Cartlidge and David L. Dungan, eds., Documents for the Study of the Gospels, revised and enlarged ed., Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1994, 19; Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable 32-33. The text of Thomas I have used is that in Layton's book, which is based on his critical edition of the Coptic version and Harold Attridge's critical edition of the three fragmentary Greek manuscripts, all found in vol. 1 of Bentley Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex 11.2-7 Together with XIII.2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926 (1) and P. Oxy. I, 654, 655. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

296

members of the first-century church.23 In duration, the time period of Jesus' parables - beginning with his ministry during the final years of the first third of the first century and ending with the composition of the last of the five documents in which the parables appear - is comparable to the period I have defined as the third century,24 although the geographic area, stretching perhaps from Antioch to Edessa, is larger than Galilee, the area that produced most of the third-century rabbinic king-parables, and larger than all of Palestine.

Identifying and Categorizing Jesus' King-Parables Twelve texts25 from these five documents show Jesus making comparisons with kings; in the terms I have been using, Jesus told twelve kingparables. Of the much larger body of rabbinic king-parables, Chapter 2 demonstrated that 44% - those I call "Imperial parables" - involved kings based on Roman emperors and emperor-like figures, while the kings in

23

See Chapter 1, text at note 81, supra. See also David Stern, "Jesus' Parables," for a similar approach.

24

See Chapter 1, text at note 1, supra.

25

For these purposes I count all the versions of the same parable that appear in more than one of the texts as a single parable. Another potential king-parable is Thomas 21, in which Jesus speaks of a householder who takes steps to prevent a bandit from breaking into the "house of the kingdom" and steal his possessions. Since the house is called a kingdom, the householder seems to be a king. But Bentley Layton has rendered the Coptic that literally means "kingdom" or "dominion" as "estate," see note 22, supra, and I am therefore treating this text as other than a kingparable.

297

"Standard parables" were biblical, eastern, or Jewish kings, and, more often, generic or fairy-tale kings."26 The predominance of Standard parables over Imperial parables is even greater among Jesus' parables, perhaps because the equation of the princeps with the familiar eastern figure of a king was not as clear to someone who lived under Augustus and Tiberius, and who seems to have had only a villager's view of Roman political reality, as it would have been to people who knew of such as Elagabal, Gallienus and Aurelian, and knew of them from the point of view of urban citizens. One parable is Imperial on its face; Jesus makes a comparison to the emperor himself.27 Jesus' only other possibly Imperial parable is Luke's version of the parable of the man who entrusted money to his slaves; a nobleman going to a distant country to get kingship for himself may be an echo of Antony in Egypt.28 What of the other ten? Like the rabbinic parables involving Ahasuerus and Pharaoh, two of Jesus' parables involve a biblical king, King Solomon,29 and

26

See Chapter 2, notes 7-77 and accompanying text, supra.

27

Mark 12:14-17; Matt 22:17-21; Luke 20:22-26; Thomas 100 (the emperor's coin.) Compare the rabbinic parables referring to "Antoninus" and "Augustus."

28

Luke 19:11-27. It may also refer to something like the occasion when Herod's sons went to Augustus to have their father's will interpreted and, in effect, to determine how he would be succeeded, described in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Ralph Marcus tr., completed and edited by Allen Wikgren, Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1963, 17.219-249. In the parallel version of this parable, Matt 25:14-27, this nobleman is merely "a man, " and no kingship is involved; this is a "king-parable" only in Luke. If the correct translation of the people dressed in fine apparel in Thomas 78 is indeed "emperors," rather than "kings" or "governors," the version of the parable of the reed in the wind in Thomas would also be Imperial. See notes 30 and 70, infra. 29

Matt 6:28 and Luke 12:27 (the lilies of the field); Matt 12:42 (the queen of the south).

298

the kings in the rest are generic, the kinds so often encountered in the rabbinic parables, who occupy themselves dressing up,30 dealing with their servants,31 giving dinners,32 and lording it over their subjects,33 although they also perform simple governmental and military functions like collecting taxes,34 maintaining their households,35 going to war36 and having followers whose job it is to fight to protect them. 37

Savings that are not King-Parables Of the texts cited as king-parables by Ignaz Ziegler, I excluded several categories, among them those that do not make comparisons to kings or kingdoms but have something else to say about them, and are therefore not parables.38

30

Thomas 78; Matt 11:7-11; Luke 7:24 (the reed in the wind.)

31

Matt 18:21-35 (the unforgiving slave). But compare Bernard Brandon Scott, Re-imagine the World 100, reasoning from the amount of the sum owed to the king by the unforgiving slave that the king is a client of Rome and that the parable reflects the imperial tax-farming system. Even so, the king is not an emperor or an emperor-like figure. 32

Matt 22:1-14 (the great dinner). The parallels in Luke 14:15-24 and Thomas 64 respectively involve "someone" and "a man"; this is a "king-parable" only in Matt. 33

Luke 22:24; Mark 10:42; Matt 20:24-28 (the kings of the Gentiles.)

34

Matt 17:24-27 (the kings and their children.)

35

Mark 3:23-26 (Satan's house.) In the parallel version in Luke 11:17-18, Satan is not compared to a king but is clearly presented as himself being a king. This is therefore a "king-parable" only in Mark. See note 41 and accompanying text, infra. 36

Luke 14:31-33.

37

John 18:36-37.

38

See Chapter 2, note 110 and accompanying text, supra.

299

This is the reason for excluding the largest category of Jesus' sayings that refer to kings or kingdoms, the many parables about the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom in these parables is an actual kingdom, although not yet (or not fully yet) of this world, about which Jesus has something to say; it is not a mere basis for comparison to another subject which is the real point of Jesus' saying.39 That the "Kingdom-parables" are not king-parables is made clear when the Kingdom itself - the real point of the saying ‫״‬is the thing compared to a king, as in Matthew 18:21-35 or 22:1-14. 40 Similarly, Jesus referring to himself as a king does not constitute a parable.41 I also parted with Ziegler in those instances in which I had concluded that an earlier, and therefore preferable, version of a parable did not refer to a king although a later version did, a result of the preferences of the later Rabbis and the "regularization" process that helps to explain why so many parables include so many kings who act so little like kings.421 will not attempt something similar here, since I do not know whether Matthew's version of the 39

Contra Craig Evans, "Jesus and Rabbinic Parables" 265, who as a result of accepting the common error that the figure of the king in rabbinic parables is a stand-in for God, see Chapter 4, supra, argues that the rabbinic parables, which speak of the activity of "God the king, " are not all that different from parables which speak of the kingdom of God. 40

See notes 55-57 and accompanying text, infra.

41

Matt 25:31-46. Or when Matt 5:35 refers to the city of David as the "city of the great King" or when Luke's versions of the parables of Satan's house and of the kings of the Gentiles refer to Satan as a king and to Jesus' apostles as future kings. Luke 11:17-18; 22:24. Compare Jesus calling himself a king with those nimshals in rabbinic king-parables that specifically call God a king, or the King of Kings. See, e.g., Chapter 3, notes 31-32 and 76 and accompanying text, supra. The various texts in which Jesus is called the king of the Jews are excluded also for the reason that he does not use that phrase himself, and this appendix is restricted to sayings attributed to him just as the main body of this study is restricted to sayings attributed or otherwise attributable to third-century Rabbis. See, e.g., Mark 15:2; Matt 27:11; John 12:13. 42

See Chapter 2, notes 111-121 and accompanying text, supra.

300

parable of the man who entrusted money to his slaves (not containing a king) 43 should be treated as earlier or otherwise better than Luke's version (containing a king) 44 even if Luke's and Thomas' versions of the parable of the great dinner 45 (not containing kings) are earlier or otherwise better than Matthew's (containing a king.) 46 In any event, the distances in t i m e separating these versions, based on the dates assigned to the documents containing them, is measured in years, rather than the centuries separating rabbinic collections, and, for the purposes of this study, it is good to be king. 47

43

Matt 25:14-27.

44

Luke 19:11-27. The Jesus Project classified both as to be included as authentic sayings of the historical Jesus with reservations or modifications. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Re-Imagine the World 11. It may be that the part of this parable in Luke concerning the man about to be a king was once a separate parable, perhaps suggesting that at least this part of the parable is earlier, although more recently scholars have instead emphasized Luke's royal theology as the reason that this is a king-parable in Luke but not in Matt. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable 222-23 ("Luke apparently drew on the common repertoire of the throne claimant to recast a parable about a man going on a journey into an allegory for the enthronement and return of Jesus as king.") This suggests not that the Matt version is earlier than the Luke version, but that they are both variants of a common earlier parable. Ibid. 45

Luke 14:15-26; Thomas 64.

46

Matt 22:1-14. See note 32, supra. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable 65, stressing the difficulty in telling what is original and what is imitative as a result of the parables having been performed and re-performed orally. New Testament scholars have concluded that Luke's version is earlier, perhaps an authentic saying of the historical Jesus, and that Matt's is a highly redacted version of the parable as it existed in Q. See John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem 313, 376 n.104; Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable 163-67. Meier, reasoning from the idea that the king in Matt is a stand-in for God, see notes 75-85 and accompanying text, infra, concludes that the "someone" in Q as preserved in Luke was turned into a king in Matt so that the great dinner in Q could be an eschatological wedding banquet which God the King arranges for his son. Similarly, the Jesus Project classified Luke and Thomas' versions as to be included as authentic sayings of the historical Jesus with reservations or modifications and Matt's version as representing the perspective or content of a later tradition. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Re-Imagine the World 11. 47

Mel Brooks, History of the World: Part I. Screenplay. Twentieth Century Fox, 1981; see (or hear) Tom Petty, It's Good to be King (1995), perhaps a musical midrash on the line from Brooks' film. Nonetheless, I do not treat the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16:1931, as a king-parable even though the rich man is clothed in purple, synonymous with royal status in the rabbinic parables. See, e.g., Chapter 3, notes 84-86 and accompanying text, 301

The Form and Structure of Jesus' King-Parables Chapter 3 classified the third-century king-parables according to their form and structure. Following Arnold Goldberg and others, I concluded that most of them are "direct parables," the form of parable most easily and commonly identified as such;48 following Talia Thorion-Vardi, I discussed "antithetical parables, " which contrast a secular narrative with a verse or statement to show differences between the king in the secular narrative and, in the case of the third-century rabbinic king-parables, God;49 using a different definition of "parable" than my predecessors, I identified a substantial number, more than that of antithetical parables, of "formless" third-century king-parables.50 Jesus' king-parables also come in direct, antithetical and formless varieties. Jesus' Direct Parables I divided the form of the rabbinic direct king-parable into five parts: an introductory word or phrase, such as mashal - "a parable," often omitted; a marker of comparison, most often the word lë - "like," "to be compared to"; a narrative on a secular or mundane subject; a marker of the applicability of

supra. This rich man is surely not a king. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable 148, also citing Ex. Rab. 38:8, the parable of the king who dresses his son's tutor in purple to protect him, for the Rabbis' view of purple clothes as the symbol of royalty. 48

See Chapter 3, notes 1-15 and accompanying text, supra.

49

See Chapter 3, notes 54-62 and accompanying text, supra.

50

See Chapter 3, notes 73-83 and accompanying text, supra.

302

the secular narrative to the rabbinic task at hand, usually the word kkak-

"so,

similarly, thus"; and the nimshal -- the biblical verse or other statement which is being compared to the secular narrative. Of Jesus' twelve king-parables, two, both from the Gospel of Matthew, follow roughly the same form as the rabbinic direct king-parables and as each other, although their secular narratives, like those of many of Jesus' parables not involving kings, are often much longer than their rabbinic counterparts. The parable of the unforgiving slave in Matthew 18:21-35: [Nö introductory word or phrase} The Kingdom of Heaven may be compared to [hômoiôothê; the marker of comparison; the counterpart of 1έλ] a human king52 who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and his children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, "Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything." And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him by the throat, he said, "Pay what you owe. " Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, "Have patience with me, and I will pay you." But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, "You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?" And in anger his lord turned him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt [the secular narrative]. So [houtös; the marker of applicability; the 51

See also Craig Evans, "Jesus and Rabbinic Parables" 264.

52

"Aiithröpöbasilei," reminiscent of the "king of flesh and blood" so often encountered in rabbinic king-parables. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable 273 n. 22 for earlier scholarship to the effect that aiithröpöbasilei represents an Aramaic circumlocution equivalent to "king of flesh and blood."

303

counterpart of kkal?1] my heavenly father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart" [the nimshal.]54

The parable of the great dinner in Matthew 22:1-14: Jesus spoke to them in parables [en parabolais; the introductory word or phrase, although not presented as Jesus' direct speech] saying "The Kingdom of Heaven may be compared to (hômoiôothê; the marker of comparison] a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son.55 He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, "Tell those who have been invited, 'Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready, come to the wedding banquet.'" But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his slaves, "The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet." Those slaves went into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe and he said to him, "Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?" And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, "Bind him hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [the secular narrative] For [gar, the marker of applicabilité] many are called but few are chosen [the nimshal.]57

53

See Craig Evans, "Jesus and Rabbinic Parables" 265.

54

See Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable 44. David Stern, "Jesus' Parables," 70 emphasizes that these nimshals are in the form of brief morals. 55

This is the only instance in Jesus' king-parables of the figure of the king's son, appearing in a little more than a quarter of the rabbinic king-parables, see Chapter 2, notes 14-53 and accompanying text, supra. 56

Gar, closer to a conjunction, is a weaker marker of applicability than houtösox kkak. See Chapter 3, notes 25-28 and accompanying text, supra, for variants in the markers of applicability used in the rabbinic king-parables. 57

The version of the parable of the great dinner in Luke 14:15-24, not a king-parable, has no introductory word or phrase or marker of comparison and also uses gar as a marker of applicability. The version of the same parable in Thomas 64, also not a king-parable, has no introductory word or phrase, marker of comparison or marker of applicability.

304

Jesus' Antithetical Kin