Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine: 81 (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism) 9783161587580, 3161475461, 3161475267

Citation preview

Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Edited by Martin Hengel und Peter Schäfer

81

Catherine Hezser

Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine

Mohr Siebeck

Catherine Hezser received a Ph.D. in Jewish Studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York in 1992. Habilitation at the Free University in Berlin in 1997. Since Oct. 2000 she is Lippert Professor of Jewish Studies at Trinity College, Dublin.

ClP-Titelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Hezser, Catherine: Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine / Catherine Hezser. Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2001 (Texts and studies in ancient Judaism ; 81) 978-3-16-158758-0 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019 ISBN 3-16-147546-1 ISBN 3-16-147526-7

© 2001

by J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.O. Box 2040, D-72010 Tübingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Reutlingen, printed by Guide-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Heinr. Koch in Tübingen. ISSN 0721-8753

Preface The idea for this book occurred to me when I read William V. Harris' book on Ancient Literacy and realized that no similarly comprehensive study of literacy in ancient Jewish society exists. Most of the preliminary research for this study was carried out during my tenure as a Yad Hanadiv Fellow in Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem during the 1997-98 academic year. Without access to the excellent library facilities in Givat Ram and on Mount Scopus this study would have been impossible. Therefore I especially thank the sponsors of the Yad Hanadiv-Beracha Foundation for enabling me to spend such a productive year in Israel and Linn Lavie for her assistance with practical matters concerning the fellowship. Isaiah Gafni and Joshua Schwartz helped me in getting acquainted with the university library system and supported my search for published material in little known books and journals. Leah Di Segni advised me on Greek inscriptions, and Hanan Eshel gave me a copy of his bibliography on literary and non-literary Qumran texts. Ken Holum enabled me to use his collection of inscriptions from Caesarea before its publication. The actual writing of this work took place in Berlin, while I was a participant of the project "The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture", initiated by Peter Schäfer, and as a Heisenberg Fellow of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. I would like to thank both Peter Schäfer and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for their kind support. Pieter van der Horst, Martin Jaffee, and Seth Schwartz have read and commented on an earlier version of the first part of this work. I thank them for their suggestions and encouragement. It goes without saying that any remaining oversights and misunderstandings are my own. I finally thank Peter Schäfer and Martin Hengel for including this work in their series Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism. Berlin, July 2000

Catherine Hezser

Table of Contents Introduction 1. Social-Anthropological Approaches to Literacy 2. The Study of Literacy in Graeco-Roman Society 3. Jewish Literacy in the Biblical Period 4. Jewish Literacy in the Graeco-Roman Period

1 2 18 27 34

Part 1 : The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

37

1. Education

39

A. B. C. D.

Jewish Elementary Teachers and Schools The Contents and Procedures of Jewish Elementary Education . . . Greek Education for Jews Higher Education Amongst Jews in Palestine

2. The Costs and Distribution of Texts A. B. C. D. E.

Written and Oral Transactions The Costs and Availability of Scribes Writing Materials The Distribution and Ownership of Books The Existence of Archives and Libraries

3. The Socio-Economic Functions of Literacy A. City and Countryside B. The Social Status of Literates and the View of Illiteracy 4. Religion and Literacy A. The Written and the Oral Torah B. The Magical Use of Writing 5. Language Usage A. Prior Scholarship B. Language Acquisition

40 68 90 94 110 Ill 118 126 145 150 169 170 176 190 190 209 227 228 237

VIII

Table of Contents

C. Languages and Social Spheres D. Rabbinic Views On Languages

243 247

Part II: T h e O c c u r r e n c e of W r i t i n g

251

1. Letters

253

A. B. C. D. E.

253 259 267 275 288

Letter-Writing in Antiquity Letters in Josephus' Writings Letters in Rabbinic Literature The Material Evidence of Letters Summary

2. Documents A. B. C. D.

The Usage of Documents in Graeco-Roman Society Documents in Rabbinic Literature The Material Evidence of Documents Summary

3. Miscellaneous A. B. C. D. E.

291

Notes

Accounts, Lists, and Delivery Notes Name Tags and Tokens Personal Messages Inscriptions On Objects Summary

4. Inscriptions A. B. C. D. E.

The Epigraphic Habit in Antiquity Funerary Inscriptions Synagogue Inscriptions Other Inscriptions and Graffiti Summary

5. Literary Writing

292 297 309 328 331 331 337 340 343 353 356 357 364 397 413 419 422

A. Literary Composition in Antiquity

422

B. Jewish Literary Writing in Roman Palestine

425

6. Magical Writing

436

7. Summary

445

Table of Contents

IX

Part III: Participation in a Literate Society

449

1. The Readers of the Texts

451

A. Public and Private Reading B. The Process of Reading C. Readers and Audience 2. The Writers of the Texts A. Writing and Dictating to Scribes B. Writers, Hypographeis, and Illiterates C. The Social Contexts of Writing

452 463 465 474 474 476 489

3. Degrees and Distribution of Literacy

496

Bibliography Index of Literary References Index of Names and Subjects

505 537 550

Introduction The question of Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine is an issue of utmost importance for the understanding of ancient Jewish society as a whole. While ancient historians have already invested a lot of effort in the examination of the circumstances and occurrences of literacy in Graeco-Roman society, no similar study exists for Jewish society at that time. This lack is very striking, since social anthropologists have recognized for decades that the particular forms and uses of literacy are a constitutive feature of human societies both before and after the introduction of the printing press. The lack of respective studies of Jewish literacy may be due to the fact that scholars have tended to take a high Jewish literacy rate for granted. Because of the importance of the Torah in ancient Jewish society, at least as far as the literary sources are concerned, Judaism has been referred to as the quintessential "religion of the book". This assumption has never been subjected to a critical analysis, however. The question of Jewish literacy in antiquity needs to be examined on the basis of the available literary, epigraphic, and papyrological sources, conclusions reached in the study of literacy in Graeco-Roman society, and new approaches to the subject developed in the social sciences.

1. Social-Anthropological Approaches to Literacy Social-anthropological approaches to literacy can roughly be divided into the works of Jack Goody and the subsequent studies of other scholars who, in reaction to him, suggested alternative ways of approaching the subject. In the groundbreaking essay "The Consequences of Literacy", published in 1968 together with Ian Watt, Goody emphasizes the great difference literacy makes for any given society. 1 Although he is aware of the fact that "writing is not a monolithic entity, an undifferentiated skill" and that "its potentialities depend upon the kind of system that obtains in any particular society", 2 the essay draws broad distinctions between "literate" and "non-literate" societies and suggests wide-ranging cultural, political and economic "consequences" as the result of these basic features. The forms and contents of the traditional knowledge and world view of any given social group are allegedly dependent on the ways in which its traditions have been transmitted over generations and centuries. Goody and Watt categorically distinguish between oral and written transmission in this regard. Oral transmission consists of "a long chain of interlocking conversations between members of the group", communicated in face-to-face contact and stored in memory only. 3 The result of this form of transmission is the constant adaptation of the memorized tradition to new circumstances and the forgetting of elements which are no longer relevant, a process called "the homeostatic organization of the cultural tradition in non-literate society". 4 This process applies not only to myths but also to "sacred lore in general": traditions disappear entirely or are changed and attributed to other than their original "authors". 5 An important consequence of this process of oral transmission is the particular society's relation to the past: "the individual has little perception of the past except in terms of the present". 6 Accordingly, Goody and Watt view "oral" or "non-literate" societies as presentoriented, without a chronological order of the past. Rather, past and present, "myth and history merge into one". 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The essay is published in Goody (1968) 27-68. Goody in his introduction to the book in idem (1968) 3. See ibid. 29. Ibid. 30. Cf. ibid. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid.

1. Social-Anthropological

Approaches

to

3

Literacy

Only after "a widespread diffusion of writing" societies tend to notice inconsistencies in the transmitted traditions and develop "a much more conscious, comparative and critical attitude to the accepted world picture". 8 It becomes possible then to distinguish between truth and fiction, to recognize errors and superstitions, to notice chronological changes and to deliberately reject rather than readjust traditions of the past. 9 Accordingly, literacy has wide-ranging cognitive consequences. It enables the development of history and critical thinking, the construction of abstract categories and taxonomies, and the distinction between science and religion. 10 Goody and Watt argue that a widespread literacy has political consequences as well: it is important for the development of democracy but also leads to the emergence of hierarchies. On the one hand, it allows citizens to "read the laws, and take an active part in elections and legislation". 11 The "world of knowledge" is no longer the monopoly of particular political or social units. On the other hand, the mere quantity and complexity of the accumulated written cultural tradition prevent the individual from fully grasping it and require a "high degree of differentiation" of knowledges and abilities, including literacy itself: "The high degree of differentiation in exposure to the literate tradition sets up a basic division which cannot exist in non-literate society: the division between the various shades of literacy and illiteracy". 12 Accordingly, literacy leads to a greater individualization of experiences, a more complex division of labor, and a larger "social differentiation to which the institutions of literate culture give rise". 13 The individual has to select, adjust and eliminate "items from a highly differentiated cultural repertoire".14 The "mechanic solidarity" (Durkheim) based on common experience characteristic for oral societies is replaced by the segmentation and differentiation of society into distinct social units and specialized fields. In his later works Goody has partly corrected the categorical distinction between "oral" and "literate" societies, and he has emphasized that literacy is not the only factor which determines the social organization of a society. Yet he has affirmed the general ideas underlying his earlier argumentation. In his b o o k of 1986, The Logic of Writing and the Organization

of

Society,

Goody stresses that writing and the existence of written traditions are not the only but "significant" factors determining the nature of a given society, and that the technology of writing does not automatically lead to literate activity.15 Nevertheless he continues to speak of "oral" and "literate" cultures and draws con8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Ibid. 48. Cf. ibid. 48-49. Cf. ibid. 49-54. Ibid. 55. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 62. Ibid. See Goody (1986) XV.

4

Introduction

elusions with regard to their respective religious beliefs and practices. He suggests that religions which know alphabetic writing "spread literacy and equally that literacy spread these religions". 16 So-called "religions of the book" tend to be "world" rather than "national" religions. Members are not defined on the basis of territorial boundaries but on the basis of their commitment to a "Holy Book". 17 Accordingly, "literate" religions or "religions of the book" are often "religions of conversion, not simply religions of birth". 18 Through writing they can reach people outside of territorial and ethnic boundaries. In contrast to oral religions which are flexible and open for major changes, the Holy Book constitutes an unchanging basis, "the word itself remains as it always was". 19 Goody thinks that literary critics who argue that texts are created anew in the act of reading exaggerate. Interpretations may differ but the written text remains the same. This base-text is memorized and repeated over and over again.20 Literate religions tend to be universal, since "written formulations encourage the decontextualization or generalization of norms". 21 They "are clearly working on a more explicitly abstract (or generalized) base" and are less applicable to actual situations. 22 In addition, a specialization of roles develops. The priest or other religious functionaries become "custodians" and "prime interpreters" of the sacred texts. In an extreme case the religious functionaries are the only ones who can read: in this case the separation between the literate and illiterate segments of society corresponds to that between clergy and laity.23 Goody emphasizes that until the introduction of modern secular education "teaching (at least the promotion of advanced literate skills) continued to be dominated by religious specialists ..., a position that it was obviously in their interests to preserve in order to maintain their roles as gate-keepers of ideas". 24 They exerted power through control over the "reproduction of readers" and sometimes also of texts: "If the teaching of the skills of reading and writing is an intrinsic part of religions of the Book, its specialists inevitably acquire control of the input and output of a considerable segment of available knowledge". 25 By acquiring wealth through the purchase of land and through donations and wills the clergy established the economic base for perpetuating the religious knowledge which they controlled.26 By being institutionalized in this way the "Holy Word" "becomes a pro16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Ibid. 4. See ibid. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. See ibid. Ibid. 12. See ibid. Cf. ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 18. Cf. ibid.

4-5.

8-9. 15. 17.

1. Social-Anthropological

Approaches

to Literacy

5

foundly conserving force". 2 7 Subsequently, the existence of such an orthodoxy leads to the emergence of alternatives or heterodoxies, the so-called "little traditions". 2 8 While Goody's argumentation is general rather than specific, for the most part he seems to have Christianity (in contrast to pagan religions) in mind. Judaism seems to be concerned only as far as it constituted the biblical foundation of Christianity. Whether these considerations can also be applied to post-biblical Judaism remains an open question. In his book The Interface Between the Written and the Oral, published in 1987, Goody emphasizes that writing should be seen as only one of several factors which determine the constitution of a society. 29 He also points to the "many ambiguities in the use of the word literacy" 30 - which he applies "to the teaching of a system of writing" 31 - and reckons with the possibility that a society is characterized by a state of "restricted literacy". The impact of literacy on a specific society depends, e.g., on the nature of the script and the way it can be reproduced, the number of people able to read (and write) at various levels, the languages used, the areas in which writing appears and the content of the written tradition. 32 He also stresses the difference between a literate society and a literate individual. With regard to societies literacy means "the presence or absence of a written tradition"; as applied to individual persons it means "the ability to read or write to a particular level". 33 Because of the constant interaction of oral and written modes even those unable to read and write can participate in literate culture. 34 In his analysis of the historical development of literacy Goody distinguishes between particular societies more than in his earlier works and focuses on Africa and Greece. He presents Greece as the literate society par excellence in that literacy became democratized through instruction in the Greek alphabet, a "type of instruction that largely released literacy f r o m the constraints of the temple organization and the religious domain". 3 5 By contrast, in some (not specified) Near Eastern societies the use of writing was allegedly centralized and governed by religious, political and scribal interests. 36 In the Syro-Palestinian area "the uses of writing seem to have expanded in the religious and historical-literary domains relative to the political and economic". 3 7 The Hebrew Bible is seen as the result of these developments. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Ibid. 20. Cf. ibid. 22. See Goody (1987) 59. Ibid. IX. Ibid. See ibid. IX-X. Ibid. X. See ibid. XIV. See ibid. 56. See ibid. 107. Ibid. 55.

6

Introduction

Besides "oral" societies in which writing is unknown and "literate" societies where written literature is pervasive, Goody reckons with a state of "restricted literacy" in which writing is used for particular purposes only.38 On the one hand, he seems to identify this situation with "early literacy", in which nonliterary texts such as catalogues and lists were made. 39 But he also calls a situation in which literacy was limited to religious writings a state of "restricted literacy". 40 Although writing was also used by the courts, the magical-religious aspect dominated in that writing was primarily seen as a means of communication with God. Only after the introduction of (European) secular education did this situation change: literacy became a means of social advancement and illiteracy a liability.41 Despite his continued usage of the concepts of "oral" and "literate" societies, Goody emphasizes in this book that one cannot clearly distinguish between "oral" and "literate" tradition. Literate forms such as poems were composed orally, although they were transmitted (and in this process often changed) in written form. 42 The existence of writing must have had an impact on the development of oral traditions, it "leads to the creation of verse forms which would be ... inconceivable in a purely oral culture ,..". 43 Consequently one needs to examine the specific ways which memory and learning take in "literate" and "oral" societies.44 Goody's groundbreaking approach to literacy has received many critical reactions amongst both sociologists and historians. Only some of these works, namely those which suggest alternative ways to approach the subject, can be presented here. One of them is Brian V. Street's book Literacy in Theory and Practice, published in 1984. Brian Street criticizes Goody's so-called "autonomous model" and suggests to replace it by what he calls the "ideological model" of literacy which pays more attention to the respective social and intellectual contexts in which writing is used. Street uses the term "literacy" "as a shorthand for the social practices and conceptions of reading and writing" and explains: "what the particular practices and concepts of reading and writing are for a given society depends upon the context; that they are already embedded in an ideology and cannot be isolated or treated as 'neutral' or merely 'technical'". 45 He explicitly rejects the view of literacy as a neutral technology with automatically predictable consequences in any society whatsoever, a position which he associates with Goody here. In38

See ibid. 97-98. Cf. ibid. 99. 40 See ibid. 139. 41 Cf. ibid. 42 See ibid. 80 and 106. 43 Ibid. 106. 44 Ibid. 164-90 he exemplifies this with regard to the recitation of the Bagre in northern Ghana. 45 Street (1984) 1. 39

1. Social-Anthropological

Approaches

to Literacy

1

stead, the forms and uses of writing are intimately linked with the specific social organization and ideological formation of a given society and, accordingly, vary from one society to the next.46 Street also rejects the idea of progress from an "oral" to a "literate" society (with "restricted literacy" as an intermediary stage) underlying Goody's model (which reminds one of the Darwinian model of an evolution from "primitive" African to modern, developed European societies). Instead, no single direction into which literacy must necessarily develop can be traced. 47 The study of literacy must focus on particular societies and subgroups and units within societies and determine the specific uses and functions of reading and writing within and amongst these groups. A particularly important area of examination are the social institutions in which the acquisition and usage of literacy is embedded, institutions which have political and ideological significance within the society as a whole. The socialization process (within or outside of these institutions) which members of these societies undergo becomes especially significant with regard to both the acquisition of (various degrees of) literacy and the valuation of it. Thus, the "real significance [of literacy] for special social groups" is considered more important and a more appropriate area of study than the alleged universal consequences of a not further specified massliteracy.48 Goody's categorical distinction between "oral" and "literate" societies is jeopardized by the fact that most societies (in the past and present) live in an inbetween state, in which literate and oral modes of communication interact and various forms and degrees of literacy exist.49 Hardly any examples of Goody's "pure" types exist.50 Accordingly, it is not possible to examine these "pure" types' actual consequences. For the "shift" from oral to written modes (or vice versa) social explanations have to be offered which differ from society to society and from subgroup to subgroup: "The change is in the 'mix' of oral and literate modes and this is related to changes in the conventions associated with them". 51 A particular group may be successful in propagating a "literate mentality" which serves its ideological (and possibly also political) interests. Such a "mentality" 46

See ibid.: "... what practices are taught and how they are imparted depends upon the nature of the social formation. The skills and concepts that accompany literacy acquisition, in whatever form, do not stem in some automatic way from the inherent qualities of literacy, but are aspects of a specific ideology". 47 See ibid. 2. See also ibid. 64: Goody's arguments "implicitly tend towards determinism, despite explicit denials". 48 See ibid. 2. 49 See ibid. 45. See also ibid. 61: The hypothesis of "restricted" literacy enabled Goody to "maintain the purity of his ideal model". 50 Cf. ibid. 46 with reference to Ruth Finnegan. Even with regard to classical Greece, Goody's example for a "literate" society par excellence, Goody has constantly narrowed down the area for which full literacy can be assumed so that "one begins to get the impression that Aristotle alone is going to fit the bill" (ibid. 63). 51 Ibid.

8

Introduction

is constructed, however, and not the automatic consequence of technological progress. 52 Altogether, then, Street maintains that literacy "is itself a social product that has arisen as a result of political and ideological processes and institutions and its particular form has to be explained in terms of such processes". 53 These political and ideological processes are also responsible for the alleged "consequences" of literacy, such as a historical consciousness and democracy. It is not the mere phenomenon of writing itself which leads to these developments but the particular social, political and economic conditions which shape a society.54 These specific conditions need to be investigated alongside literacy. Literacy is not a single uniform proficiency; rather, different technologies and forms of writing pertain to different writing materials such as parchment, papyrus, and ostraca: "Each has its own specific history and is connected with particular social institutions and functions. Social control has often been exercised by means of control of the materials associated with it". 55 These various "socially constructed technologies are used within particular institutional frameworks for specific social purposes". 56 The concept of the "literate" and "illiterate" person is usually combined with a value judgment. "Illiterates" were often considered a danger or threat by those who represented the social establishment. The political (or religious) ruling classes were not interested in mass literacy as such, however, but in particular forms of literacy which conformed to their ideology. Thus they tried to control the processes of its acquisition: "The workers had to be convinced that it was in their interests to learn the kind of literacy on offer, in the kinds of institutions in which it was taught, but had to be restrained from taking control of it for themselves or develop their own alternative conceptions of it". 57 Accordingly, "the concrete forms and practices of literacy are bound up with ideology". 58 While literacy was a means of social control on the part of the educators, illiteracy did not necessarily lead to social disadvantage (or literacy to advance52

Cf. ibid. 47. Ibid. 65. 54 See ibid. 93-96. 55 Ibid. 97. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 105. See also idem (1987) 12: "It [i.e. the teaching of literacy] can, in fact, be used to do just the opposite, to embed pupils deeply in the ideology and social control of the teacher's social class and deliberately prevent them from arriving at a detached and critical appraisal of their real situation". Ibid. 15ff. As an example Street refers to the missionary schools installed by Europeans in their colonies and supposed to teach the natives European values. "Since the missionaries saw literacy practice as a means simply to conversion and to social control, they had no interest in providing any more than was necessary for this bare minimum. Teaching reading rather than writing was generally sufficient for this purpose, so that what writing was taught was severely limited in terms both of the materials the mission were prepared to make available and the uses to which they were prepared to see them put" (ibid. 17). 58 Street (1984) 105. 53

1. Social-Anthropological

Approaches

to Literacy

9

ment). Street points to Canada in the nineteenth century, where "many rewarding commercial posts could be held by an 'illiterate' person if he could get the bureaucracy performed by someone else". 59 Most important for such positions were the social skills which middle class society imparted. The ways in which writing was taught in many periods of history did not advance the children's ability of critical thinking. The ruling classes who controlled the educational institutions were not particularly interested in such abilities amongst the populace. Critical thinking was also not considered relevant to people's daily needs. 60 The particular combinations of oral, visual and literate modes in everyday life deserve further attention: "Visual signs, adverts and decorations themselves were as important as the letters and written words engraved on them when it came to finding one's way around. For many, in this context, hearing and seeing were more important than the new 'literate' culture". 61 Simple either/or distinctions such as Goody's cannot do justice to such conditions. The existence of autographs, seals, witnesses, ceremonial acts, oaths etc. suggests a mix of oral and literate modes. 62 Letters and documents could all be read out loud.63 In antiquity and the middle ages "writing was conceived as an extension of speaking ... It referred to composition" rather than to the mechanical act of writing which was the task of the scribe, "a minor and not very prestigious activity". 64 In this way, "people whom we would classify as 'non-literate' were able to participate in 'literate' practice either by listening/'reading' orcomposing/'writing'". 65 Officials could often read but nor write. 66 Street also deals with the so-called "religions of the book" in his study and suggests that "the authority and apparent fixity of the written tradition in such religions is the very characteristic that provides scope for individual mediators to offer their own interpretation as the authoritative one. Literacy appears to deny different interpretations while, in reality, facilitating them". 67 One is immediately reminded of the rabbinic practice of quoting biblical verses in support of rabbinic opinions and of the concept of the "Oral Torah" (which Street does not mention) when reading his continuation: "... each interpretation can claim to be more than just individual perception and can therefore dissociate itself from supposedly volatile oral usage, by claiming authority from the written text". 68

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Ibid. 107. See ibid. 110. Ibid. Cf. ibid. 115-16. Cf. ibid. 120. See ibid. Ibid. Cf. ibid. Ibid. 135. Ibid. 136.

10

Introduction

Like Brian Street, Ruth Finnegan has emphasized the importance of the social context and of power relationships for the proper understanding of literacy. In both the religious and political realm, the power of leaders "can be enhanced through the provision of a written record of their origins and justification". 69 Writing is especially advantageous for the development of a bureaucracy, since it enables official business to be conducted through documents. 70 In other areas, too, writing "gives permanence to verbal expression" so that "reliable verbal communication of lengthy and complex statements becomes systematically possible over a time". 71 Finnegan also agrees with Street concerning the constant interaction between orality and literacy. It is possible that in a society "written literature was accepted as the highest form, but for many people access to it could still only be through the spoken or enacted word". 72 The assumption of a binary opposition between orality and literacy is inappropriate because "most known cultures don't fit. In practice a mixture of media (oral and written) is far more typical than a reliance on just one, with writing being used for some purposes, oral forms for others". 73 The different ways in which different cultures use oral and written modes need to be investigated. While writing has obvious advantages, its consequences should not be seen in isolation, as Goody does. Writing must be considered "part of a whole process of change". 74 In examining this process, the evolutionary model "has only limited usefulness"; one rather has to "study the ptissible interaction of many factors in specific cultures and historical periods". 75 For example, while writing is certainly advantageous to bureaucracy, as already mentioned above, it is unlikely that it was a "sufficient condition" for the development of administrative organizations. Many other social, economic, and political factors contributed to such a development too. 76 Similary, control over writing was not the only means by which a political or religious leadership could exert its power. Control was also possible in oral communication modes: "One or another group may try to retain a monopoly over the teaching and learning of certain oral skills, or insist on the central importance of oral forms". 77 This could be the case in a situation where the leaders feel threatened by the competition which alternative forms of education or media of communication constitute. Generally, "all cultures recognize differ-

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

Finnegan 19. See ibid. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 141. Ibid. 148. Ibid. Cf. ibid. 149. Ibid. 167.

1. Social-Anthropological

Approaches

to Literacy

11

ing forms of discourse which people can manipulate and switch between for various purposes, no one any more 'natural' than the other". 78 Rationality, which Goody considered a consequence of literacy, is hard to specify and has various meanings. Abstract and systematic thinking as one form of rationality does not seem to have been dependent on writing, and writing does not automatically lead to systematic philosophy and logical thinking. 79 Finnegan argues that "these relationships are in fact more complex than can be summed up in simple causal attributions between literacy on the one hand and specific results on the other". 80 Literacy should be seen as an "enabling factor" (besides others) rather than an effective cause. 81 Like Street Finnegan suggests to turn away from Goody's simplistic universals and dichotomies and to focus on the actual forms and uses of literacy in specific societies.82 She emphasizes that the various uses of literacy can be very complex, especially in multilingual societies.83 One has to reckon with differences "between differing groups in the same culture (...), and interacting in different situations and contexts". 84 Issues such as the power to control specific communication modes, access to writing materials and texts, and values favorable of or detrimental to the acquisition and propagation of literacy need to be taken into account as well.85 Finally, one should be aware of the fact that historical development does not only consist of change but also of continuation and repetition. 86 Altogether, then, Street's and Finnegan's considerations make the examination of literacy and orality much more complex and sophisticated than was possible on the basis of Goody's model of dichotomies. Brian Stock has examined the specific ways in which writing and oral communication interacted in the medieval world. With regard to medieval society he suggests "the replacement of much linear, evolutionary thinking with a contextual approach, which describes phases of an integrated cultural transformation happening at the same time". 87 In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the usage of texts and writing happened in a milieu largely goverened by oral discourse: "... down to the thirteenth century, written traditions were largely islands of higher culture in an environment that was not so much illiterate as nonliterate". 88 In such a milieu, texts were used for a variety of purposes: they could serve to 78 79

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

See ibid. Cf. ibid. 151. See also ibid. 165: "orality can also be used for reflection and detachment Ibid. 159. Cf. ibid. Cf. ibid. 161. Cf. ibid. 162. Ibid. 164. Cf. ibid. 176-77. Cf. ibid. 177. Stock 5. Ibid. 7.

12

Introduction

record transactions, they functioned as evidence in case the memorizer or witness was absent, and they could finally supercede oral arrangements. Stock reaches the important conclusion that one cannot determine a clear development or transition from oral to literate modes but merely distinguish "complicated and often imperceptible" stages of interaction between the two. 89 Eventually, so-called "textual communities" developed, "groups of people whose social activities are centered around texts, or, more precisely around a literate interpreter of them". 90 The members of a "textual community" need not be literate themselves; they can gain access to the text through their interpreter's verbal communication. Concerning religious communities, William Graham has stressed the interplay between text and oral tradition and interpretation. In the Jewish and Christian "book religions" orality is much more significant than has usually been assumed. 91 The religious texts are read and recited, discussed and interpreted orally by the religious functionaries. The memorizing of texts plays a large role in education. 92 On the other hand, the written text may gain a special authority and sacred quality and even become the object of veneration. 93 This quality is also or perhaps especially appreciated by those who are not able to read the text themselves. Those who believe in the inherent power of the written word may use textual excerpts for magical and healing purposes. 94 Altogether, then, the written scriptures have a "multifaceted, relational quality" and "varying importance in varied sectors of religious life". 95 The function of orality within ancient and medieval societies has especially been examined by Walter Ong. Ong has stressed that cultures vary with regard to their usage of and preference for the various senses. 96 He argues that the "Hebrews tended to think of understanding as a kind of hearing, whereas the Greeks thought of it more as a kind of seeing ...". The Hebrew Scriptures, ancient Judaism and early Christianity all emphasize the "word of God". On the other hand, God as the "word" is also shown as occupied with writing, and writing "restructures thought". 97 Ong himself is aware of the fact that a simple dichotomy between the more visual culture of the Greeks and an oral-aural Jewish

89 See ibid. 9: "The change, ..., was not so much from oral to written as from an earlier state, predominantly oral, to various combinations of oral and written. In some areas of human activity like property law, orality was very largely superceded; in others, oral and written forms found their equilibrium with respect to each other". 90 Ibid. 522. 91 See Graham 5 - 7 . 92 See ibid. 35. 93 See ibid. 59. 94 Cf. ibid. 61. 95 Ibid. 164. 96 See Ong (1967) 3. 97 On the "writing" of God see ibid. 12-14. On the idea that writing "restructures thought" see idem (1977) 17ff., (1982) 78ff. and (1986) 23ff.

1. Social-Anthropological

Approaches

to

Literacy

13

culture cannot be maintained. Nevertheless he continues to write about the characteristics of "oral-aural cultures". 98 The educational institutions of antiquity, the Middle Ages and even the Renaissance favored oral modes of learning and thereby secured the continued significance of orality." Grammar, rhetorics, and dialectics (the so-called artes sermocinales) were amongst the major areas of instruction: "The formal cultivation of rhetoric thus quite as much as the formal cultivation of dialectic perpetuated the polemic institutions of the old oral-aural culture ...". 100 This teaching of the arts of argumentation also led to the phenomenon that particular views were "championed by a school of followers, attached to their intellectual leader by a kind of tribal loyalty, so that, ..., learning was caught up in personal commitments". 101 This focus on the authoritative statements of individual teacher-leaders allegedly continued and influenced the western academic traditions of modern times. 102 The fact that literacy cannot be defined univocally and encompasses various forms and degrees of reading and writing abilities has already been mentioned above and is emphasized by a number of scholars. Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole therefore suggest to speak of "literacies" in the plural. 103 The literacy level which a person achieves does not only depend on institutional criteria such as the educational system available to him or her; it is also dependent on social and personal factors such as age, place of living, profession, mobility, knowledge of languages, (religious) beliefs and attitudes.104 Scribner and Cole suggest to define literacy levels with regard to their functions. One needs to examine how individuals used the various types of languages and scripts which were available at a given place and time. Were these uses varied or limited? Did all individuals use the languages and scripts in the same way or were some uses highly specialized? 105 It is necessary to know the role of the various literate activities in a given society, to "understand the place of literacy within ... culture as a whole". 106 It will then be possible to determine the characteristics of the various literacies, for example, which kind of knowledge is transmitted in a particular language and/or script, how that language and/or script is learned and what the social context of its usage is.107 For Vai culture,

98 In idem (1982) he speaks of "primarily oral cultures" which have no texts, in contrast to literate cultures which also always know oral discourse. 99 Cf. Ong (1967) 2 0 8 - 9 . 100 Ibid. 215. 101 Ibid. 217. 102 Cf. ibid. 236. 103 See Scribner/Cole 132. 104 See ibid. 89. 105 See ibid. 18. 106 Ibid. 107 See ibid. 87.

14

Introduction

which Scribner and Cole analyzed, 108 literacy "turned out to be pluralistic in form and highly varied in its uses and combinations". 109 In contrast to Goody, who assumed that a homogeneous (yet never defined) "literacy" had predictable consequences wherever it occurred, Scribner and Cole argue that the various "literacies" have different cognitive consequences, that they are connected with different intellectual abilities, or none at all: "nonschooled literacy, ..., does not produce general cognitive effects ... At best we can say that there are several localized literacy-specific effects on certain task specific skills". 110 Since "cognitive skills, ..., are intimately bound up with the nature of the practices that require them", "in order to identify the consequences of literacy, we need to consider the specific characteristics of specific practices".111 And these practices can only be properly understood if seen in the context of the broader social system which generated and perpetuated them.112 Accordingly, Scribner and Cole are not so much interested in locating Vai culture on an abstract literacy scale, "but rather in understanding the social factors that operated in the past and that operate now to shape the contexts and nature of Vai literacy practices". 113 Harvey Graff correctly summarizes the state of social-anthropological approaches to literacy by the late 1980s as pluralistic: "no central theme governs expectations about the roles and meanings of literacy. Its very nature has itself become problematic ,..". 114 Literacy is seen as a "dependent variable", a variable dependent on the particular contexts in which it appears.115 The concept of "literacy" had to be deconstructed in order to be reconstructed and used in a meaningful way.116 A meaningful way in which literacy can be examined is to view it within specific cultural contexts which need to be determined on the basis of "historically specific material". 117 Graff quotes M.M. Lewis who wrote: "The only literacy that matters is the literacy that is in use. Potential literacy is empty, a void", and concludes: "The major problem, ..., is that of reconstructing the contexts of reading and writing: how, when, where, why, and to whom literacy was transmitted; the meanings that 108

The Vai are located in Africa, between Sierra Leone and Liberia. Ibid. 87. 110 Ibid. 132. 111 Ibid. 237. 112 See ibid. 113 Ibid. 237-38. 114 Graff 3. 115 See ibid. 5: "Literacy, increasingly, is connected to the larger network of communicative competencies (...), not contrasted dichotomously and developmentally from them; it is also conceptualized more as a continuous, widely varying, and nonlinear attribute. Its importance as shaper of attitudes and as a symbol and symbolic influence stands beside, in partial independence from, its role in cognitive and skill determination. To speak of literacy in the abstract is now considered hazardous, if not quite meaningless". 116 See ibid. 7. 117 Ibid. 23. 109

1. Social-Anthropological

Approaches

to

Literacy

15

were assigned to it; the uses to which it was put; the demands placed on literate abilities; the degrees to which those demands were met; the changing extent of social restrictedness in the distribution and diffusion of literacy; and the real and symbolic differences that emanated from the social condition of literacy among the population".118

In order to be able to examine these issues, studies of literacy must focus on specific societies. What literacy means in specific conditions cannot be assumed beforehand but must itself be the subject of research and analysis. The examination of literacy in a specific, geographically and chronologically defined society has, until now, mostly been done for Europe, and especially England in medieval and early modern times. Brian Stock's work on the eleventh and twelfth century has already been mentioned above. Rosamond McKitterick, who studied literacy in early medieval Europe, emphasizes that one should not simply restrict the understanding of literacy to the ability to read and write and, as far as reading and writing are concerned, reckon with various levels of competence. 119 Since writing was a professional skill, the upper classes were not required to write themselves: "That a man or woman used a secretary may tell us nothing about their own ability either to write or read but it does tell us that they were accustomed to use literate modes, even if indirectly, to conduct certain of their affairs". 120 Like Brian Stock McKitterick stresses oral means to familiarize the illiterate and quasi-literate with written texts. Accordingly, literacy should be seen as a mode of communication rather than a personal skill.121 Rather than trying to determine how many people in a given society could read and write, one should examine what role literacy and literate people had. 122 Literacy was not only a technical skill: "It was also a mentality, a form of ideology, through which power could be constructed and influence exerted, a frame of mind and a framer of minds; it was both a consequence of, and had as a consequence, particular kinds of social practice". 123 Clanchy has argued that this literate mentality had to also reach the lower strata of society for literacy to grow and expand beyond a small circle of clerics and administrators. 124 In medieval England after the Norman conquest the situation was especially complicated since a variety of languages were used. Each of these languages "performed distinct social and intellectual functions," 125 although they were also interchangeable in some regards. Differences between spoken and written languages existed in that the language of a written statement 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Ibid. See McKitterick 3. Ibid. 4. Cf. ibid. Cf. ibid. 6. Ibid. 320. See Clanchy 149. See ibid. 154.

16

Introduction

did not necessarily reflect the language in which that statement was originally made. Often Latin was used in documents, while English or French were spoken in court. 126 The personal knowledge of languages depended on "social status, age, domicile and personal ambitions and experience of life". 127 In general, being literate meant being learned in Latin, while the actual process of writing - in whatever language - was the task of the scribe.128 Accordingly, the scribe was the medium between the speaker who composed and dictated and the hearer who listened to what was read to him aloud: "Neither the hearer of a book nor the dictator of a letter needs to be a master of every detail of the scribal technique himself, just as modern managers are not required to type or to programme computers". 129 This situation persisted throughout the Middle Ages, despite the gradual increase in the usage and spread of documents. 130 As late as the 15th and 16th century people were generally not ashamed of being unable to write. While writing facilitated many things, "it was not absolutely essential for any of them", as David Cressy has stressed.131 Being able to write became more and more advantageous for merchants, while rural work and most crafts did not require writing abilities.132 Thus, despite the fact that the clergy propagated the importance of literacy, "the majority of people remained illiterate, at least to the extent that they could not write". 133 They were not yet ready to adopt the literate mentality of the clergy and the upper strata of society. Oral culture provided a satisfactory alternative, since it delivered both entertainment and information. Individuals who could write letters or documents could always be found and hired in exchange for a favor or a small fee. 134 Thus, Tudor and Stuart England "remained only a partially literate society", for "opportunities to learn reading and writing were constrained by social, economic, and domestic circumstances while facilities for the dissemination of basic literacy were underdeveloped". 135 The following conclusions can be drawn from this overview of social-anthropological approaches to literacy: (1) The issue of literacy has to be examined for particular, geographically and chronologically specified societies; (2) one has to distinguish between various types and levels of literacy and languages used; (3) the specific social contexts in which "texts" in the widest possible sense of the word were used need to be determined and the question who used these texts 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

See ibid. 160. Ibid. 174. See ibid. 218. Ibid. 219. Cf. ibid. 230. See Cressy (1980) 10. See ibid. 11-13. Ibid. 13. See ibid. 15. Ibid. 17-18.

1. Social-Anthropological

Approaches

to

Literacy

17

for what purpose asked; (4) there are no universally observable, univocal consequences of literacy; the uses and functions of literacy were rather dependent on both external social, economic and political circumstances and personal traits such as attitudes, intelligence and language skills.

2. The Study of Literacy in Graeco-Roman Society In his works The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural Consequences (1982) and The Muse Learns to Write. Reflections on Orality and Literacy (1986) Eric Havelock deals with the beginning of writing and the teaching of the alphabet in ancient Greek society. He emphasizes that literacy is not an automatic result of the existence of writing but depends on the emergence of a readership able to use the texts. 136 This possible readership has to be determined on the basis of indirect references such as hints in literary texts and inscriptions, which might point to those who were expected to read the texts, and portrayals of readers in ancient art.137 "It is the numerical ratio of this reading public to the total population using the spoken tongue which determines the degree to which 'literacy' and the 'literate man' [it is not clear whether Havelock uses 'man' for mankind here or does not reckon with female literacy at all] have come into existence at any given historical moment". 138 Of utmost importance for the emergence of a readership is the existence of an alphabet which can be learned easily. According to Havelock, only the Greek alphabet, which allowed to unambiguously identify a sound (or phoneme) with the specific shape of a letter and consisted of a limited number of shapes, fulfilled this precondition. In addition, an educational system which instructed young children in the alphabet had to exist. Havelock argues that these conditions prevailed in ancient Greece, while they were absent elsewhere. The Phoenician and North Semitic systems (from which Aramaic and Hebrew derived), for example, were unvocalized syllabaries, which assigned one sign to several sounds and one sound to different signs, a phenomenon which made reading difficult to learn. 139 Only Greek solved the problem of ambiguity, while Phoenician, Aramaic and Hebrew were "inherently ambiguous" scripts and therefore "less efficient reading instruments". 140 Havelock maintains that this basic difference had consequences not only with regard to people's ability to learn reading but also with regard to the literature created. Ambiguous alphabets such as Hebrew led to formulaic expressions and repetitions and to a concentration on religion and myth to enable readers to 136 137 138 139 140

See Havelock (1982) 57. See ibid. Ibid. 58. See ibid. 61-66. See ibid. 70.

2. The Study of Literacy in Graeco-Roman

Society

19

easily recognize the meaning of the text, while only the Greek alphabet allowed for details and eccentricities. 141 Since syllabic systems produced mere paraphrases and summaries of oral statements and compositions, "they supplied a simplified orthodoxy of statement and acceptability of narrative readily recognizable and easily deciphered by those skilled in using the system". 142 While the Greek alphabet democratized society by enabling everyone to learn to read it, societies which used Phoenician, Aramaic or Hebrew were characterized by craft literacy and had theocratic political systems. The priestly elites who were able to use the script had the highest prestige and exerted power over the rest of the population which had no access to writing. 143 According to Havelock, this situation also prevailed in the synagogues, where persons who could read and interpreted the Torah for an audience were needed. He suggests that "one of the reasons for the lore and learning which had accumulated round the books of the Judaic law lies in the original ambiguities of the script". 144 As already mentioned above, Havelock considers the particular type of the (Greek) alphabet and script to be only one of the preconditions of a widespread literacy amongst the population. Another requirement is the schooling system. He believes that at the end of the fifth or the beginning of the fourth century B.C.E., approximately three hundred years after the introduction of the alphabet, an institutionalized elementary education began in Greece. The teaching of the alphabet in schools allegedly "rendered the role of the scribe or the clerk obsolete, and removed the elitist status of literacy characteristic of craft-literate epochs".145 Like Goody, Havelock reckons with wide-ranging consequences of this allegedly "democratized literacy" in ancient Greece, for which he even uses the term "revolution". The possibility to store knowledge in writing not only enlarged the quantity of the transmitted traditions but also enabled a new thinking which distanced itself from and took a critical position toward traditional views. 146 Accordingly, the "literate revolution" advanced knowledge and stimulated scientific and philosophical thinking. 147 More recent studies of literacy in Graeco-Roman society are much more cautious in estimating the extent of literacy within the population, and they do not share Havelock's strict differentiation between a "pre-literate" and a "literate" 141 See ibid. 72-73. For Havelock, Homer similarly reflects an originally oral composition secondarily put into writing, see idem (1986) 59: "The language of Homer is storage language devised orally for the purpose of survival". 142 See idem (1982) 75 and (1986) 74. 143 See idem (1982) 75-76 and 83: "If Semitic societies in antiquity showed democratic tendencies, this was not because they were literate. On the contrary, to the extent that their democracy was modified by theocracy, with considerable prestige and power invested in priesthoods, they exhibited all the symptoms of craft literacy". 144 Ibid. 76. 145 Ibid. 83. 146 See ibid. 87-88. 147 Cf. ibid. 88.

20

Introduction

society in ancient Greece. Whether Greek would have been so much easier to read than Hebrew and Aramaic is also doubtful, since scriptio continua was commonly used in inscriptions and literary texts. In several works Rosalind Thomas has examined the interplay between "orality" and "literacy" in classical Greek society. Even from the fifth and fourth c. B.C.E. onwards, at a time when a large quantity of texts already existed, orality continued to be the prime medium of communication in a number of areas of everyday life. 148 Accordingly, the onset and diffusion of writing cannot be regarded as the "revolutionary" periods in Greek history Havelock declared them to be. Thomas emphasizes that archaic Greece should not be seen as an exclusively or primarily "oral" society, and that orality continues to be significant in a "literate" society as well. One has to reckon with a great "complexity with which the written and spoken words combined and interacted in Greece (...)". 149 Therefore the attempt to estimate the literacy rate, that is, the percentage of members of a society assumed to have been literate, is inappropriate; one should rather ask "how, and with what degrees of sophistication, it [i.e. writing] was used". 150 "Literacy", as far as antiquity is concerned, was not a clearly definable technical skill, but a highly complex phenomenon subject to constant change: "We are dealing in the classical period not simply with the presence or absence of literacy but with attitudes which partly govern the use of writing". 151 As already stressed by Brian Street, Ruth Finnegan and others who criticized Goody's approach, Thomas suggests to distinguish between the "literacies" of the various subgroups which made up Greek society: "We should surely expect different levels and, more important, different uses of literacy, amongst the highly educated, the different property classes down to the landless thetes, the women, the farmers w h o remained mostly in the country, the merchants, slaves, metics and others. Their needs and opportunities for using the written word would differ immensely; so it is probable they possessed different kinds of literacy". 1 5 2

Although literacy cannot be separated from the question of education, education in the reading (and writing) of the alphabet does not automatically lead to literacy skills. The development of these skills rather depends on whether and to what extent they are used in a person's subsequent life. The specific usages produce "differing 'effects' and different mentality". 153 In ancient Greece written contracts and validation through witnesses existed side by side. Witnesses were often trusted more than writing, and this distrust of writing is very important for a proper understanding of the role of and attitudes 148 149 150 151 152 153

See R. Thomas (1992) 3. See R. Thomas (1989) 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 26.

2. The Study of Literacy in Graeco-Roman

Society

21

toward literacy.154 It shows how much the use of writing is "linked ... with the customs and beliefs in the society" under examination. 155 Besides contracts people would mostly encounter writing in the form of public inscriptions and graffiti. On the basis of the contents of these "texts" Thomas assumes that in ancient Greece writing was primarily used for pragmatic reasons: "One may speculate on the attitudes to the written word and its uses that these formal inscriptions and laconic graffiti might have fostered. Certainly they are hardly the 'graphic counterpart of speech'". 156 Even amongst the educated, a "distaste for writing" existed. Plato derided the value of writing for philosophical education. He considered writing an assistant to memory only; it could not transmit knowledge itself but only the image of knowledge. Therefore the truly wise did not use writing. 157 Plato himself wrote his philosophical thoughts in the form of dialogues in order to adequately express the originally (and properly) oral and combative form of teaching. 158 This attitude was widespread amongst ancient philosophers and can be found as late as the Hellenistic period: some Hellenistic philosophers, such as Zeno of Citium and Carneades did not publish anything. 159 Accordingly, attitudes toward literacy are extremely important and literacy itself "appears to have a very complex relationship to the society in which it is found". 160 The view of ancient Greece as an "oral" or "literate" society is misleading, since no clearly definable and recognizable oral or literate characteristics exist.161 William Harris has been the first to write a monograph on Graeco-Roman literacy from a historical rather than a social-anthropological point of view and to base his study on a critical examination of the available sources. He rejects the "grandiose" theories of Goody and Havelock and writes: "The reaction of a historian faced with claims such as those of Havelock and Goody is likely to be a desire for detail". 162 Fundamental aspects such as the quantity and distribution of epigraphic sources, the availability of writing materials and the development of elementary education need to be investigated with regard to particular historical epochs and societies before any general conclusions can be drawn. Already in the introduction to his book Harris points out that when using the term "literacy" one needs to distinguish between people who can read and write and others who can only read, and to take into account the so-called semiliterates, that is, people who can only write slowly and/or read simple texts. 163 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163

See ibid. 29. See also eadem (1992) 3. R. Thomas (1989) 30. Ibid. 31. See ibid. 32-33. See R. Thomas (1992) 3. See R. Thomas (1989) 33 n. 64. Ibid. 33. See also eadem (1992) 26. See R. Thomas (1989) 33-34 and eadem (1992) 4. Harris (1989)41. See ibid. 5.

22

Introduction

Harris suggests to differentiate between mass literacy and scribal or craftman's literacy, the former being achievable under particular social, political, and economic conditions only: "writing ceases to be the arcane accomplishment of a small professional or religious or social elite only when certain preconditions are fulfilled and only when strong positive forces are present to bring the change about". 164 Preconditions for the existence of a large proportion of literate people amongst the populace are a wide distribution and easy availability of texts, an extensive and subsidized school network which offers elementary education free of charge, an economic need for a large quantity of people able to read and write, a connection between literacy and social mobility, and a religious or other ideological motivation for becoming literate.165 These conditions were mostly lacking in the ancient world, even at its most advanced stage. Accordingly, one has to assume from the outset "that the majority of people were always illiterate". 166 Not even the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century automatically led to a wide-spread literacy amongst the population. 167 In his study Harris tries to answer the following major question: "To what extent and in what circumstances did people cease to rely on oral communication or come to rely on the written word?" 168 He analyses the various situations of everyday life in which people would be likely to use writing, an approach which has also been suggested by Rosalind Thomas (see above) as the most appropriate way to examine ancient literacy. The result is a long list of functions which writing had in the ancient world. 169 Regarding each of these functions one has to ask, however, whether the same purpose could not also be achieved by other, oral, visual or symbolic means. General social phenomena such as the value attributed to memorization are very significant in this regard. In court procedures, for example, the personal testimony of a witness was often considered superior to a written testimony. Even the upper social strata, for whom the usage of writing was self-evident, sometimes preferred oral means of communication, such as speeches and recitations, to the written word. In addition, they dictated letters and longer compositions instead of writing them themselves. 170 Harris argues that with time writing invaded more and more areas of everyday life. In the religious realm, for example, texts obtained a magical meaning. Despite the expansion of written material and the practice of writing one should, however, not overestimate people's ability to read (and write). The time when the usage of texts was no longer limited to a few people who derived practical

164 165 166 167 168 169 170

Ibid. 11-12. See ibid. 15-21. Ibid. 13. See ibid. 14. Ibid. 25. See ibid. 26-27. See ibid. 29-36.

2. The Study of Literacy in Graeco-Roman

Society

23

advantages from the skill cannot be determined exactly. Yet Harries believes that this change must have happened before the end of the 4th century B.C.E. 171 In contrast to Thomas, Harris tries to establish a concrete literacy rate for the epochs under discussion. He is aware of the problems connected with this endeavour: "We shall obviously never know in a clear-cut numerical way how many people were literate, semi-literate, or illiterate in the Graeco-Roman world in general, or even in any particular milieu within it". 172 But this insecurity should not lead one to entirely abandon the attempt to determine literacy rates: "It may be useful to undertake the risky task of estimating the numerical limits within which the literacy of some of the more accessible of ancient populations must have fallen, even if the limits turn out to be very broad ones". 173 Since only a very small percentage of women is likely to have been able to read (and write) in the ancient world, Harris believes that even from the 4th c. B.C.E. onwards the literacy rate will not have surpassed 10-15 percent of the population. 174 In the Roman Empire at large regional differences are likely to have existed. Amongst the populations of the provinces many people will have been unable to understand either Latin or Greek. Rural areas are also likely to have differed from urban areas in this regard. While a high degree of literacy can be assumed for the urban upper classes, only a few artisans and merchants and even less farmers and rural workers will have possessed that skill. Since the majority of the population of the Roman Empire consisted of rural people and since women contituted approximately fifty percent of the population, one has to reckon with a literacy rate of 10-15 percent for the Roman period as well.175 In 1991 Mary Beard edited a collection of articles written by ancient historians in reaction to William Harris' work. All of these scholars praise Harris for having offered a synthetic analysis of the central issues regarding ancient literacy. On the other hand, they address aspects which Harris allegedly neglected and question parts of his methodology. In her own contribution Mary Beard points to the great religious significance of writing in the ancient world, not only within Christianity but also in paganism, an issue which Harris did not sufficiently address. Christianity as the "religion of the book" should not be contrasted with an allegedly "text-free" pagan world. 176 Rather, both paganism and Christianity (and one should add Judaism as well) were "defined in and around a written tradition" in that "writing played a central role in defining the nature of human relations with the divine". 177 In order to recognize the religious significance of writing one has to consider the symbolic 171 172 173 174 175 176 177

Cf. ibid. 329. Ibid. 7. Ibid. See ibid. 328. Cf. ibid. 330. See Beard 36. Ibid. 37.

24

Introduction

functions of texts in addition to their practical functions which are Harris' focal point. These symbolic functions were not necessarily dependent on people's ability to read and write. 178 Another issue which needs to be examined in this regard is the relationship between religious writings and the power of a religious elite. Beard refers to Richard Gordon's observation that writing turns a religion into an ideology and helps to maintain the social domination of an elite. 179 She points to the various collections of pagan priestly books as an example for such religious texts. These books contained an increasing number of partly conflicting religious decisions and precedents: "This proliferation of decision-making, in its turn, came to demand a whole set of higher-level rules and higher-level religious 'experts' to offer authoritative interpretation of the otherwise confusing mass of conflicting data, men of the élite who (unlike the majority) could assert their claim to 'understand the system'". 1 8 0 Beard agrees with Gordon that the preservation and interpretation of otherwise unintelligible religious traditions could foster the religious leaders' power. 181 Writing is intrinsically linked with power since "it raises the problem of closure and control: who has the right to determine or interpret those written representations". 182 One should examine whether these considerations can be applied to the writing down of rabbinic traditions as well. In his contribution to the joint volume Alan Bowman questions the persuasiveness of the source material on which Harris based his theory: one cannot assume a direct connection between the distribution of inscriptions and documents and the increase or decrease of literacy. 183 Scholars who believed in a high level of literacy seem to have been misled by their focus on the written remains: "the classical ancient world has a literate 'feel' to it, perhaps largely because so much of the evidence through which we interpret it is written evidence". 184 On the other hand, Harris seems to have drawn the opposite conclusions because he focused on the absence of texts. Many papyri have been lost and others have not been published yet. In addition, one has to ask whether and to what extent participation in a literate society was dependent on one's ability to read and write. Even if less than twenty percent of the population lacked that skill, the society in which they lived could be "profoundly literate": illiterates could participate in it through intermediaries who wrote and read for them. Accordingly, one has to assume that "a large proportion of the 80% + illiterate population was thoroughly familiar with literate modes". 185 178 See ibid. 39: "..., the character of a religious system can still be fundamentally determined by writing and by a 'literate mentality', even in situations where very few of the practitioners of that religion are themselves literate". 179 Ibid. 54 with reference to R. Gordon 184-91. 180 Ibid. 5 6 - 7 . 181 See ibid. 57. 182 Ibid. 58. 183 See Bowman 120. 184 Ibid. 121. 185 Ibid. 122. See also Hanson 159ff. on this issue.

2. The Study of Literacy in Graeco-Roman

Society

25

Bowman also suggests to examine the "social composition" of the literate minority more closely and not to automatically identify them with the highest social strata.186 In order to do so, one needs to analyze the "habits of literacy" and develop a "typology of writing materials and their uses". 187 Some writing materials such as leaf tablets and ostraca must have been cheap or could even be obtained free of charge. One has to determine in which contexts they were used, in which type of script they are written, and what information they record. 188 In this way one might obtain a more varied picture of writing habits in the ancient world. Like Bowman, Hopkins suggest to shift the focus to those who were literate and to examine their significance within society at large: "if adult male literacy was about 10% across the Roman Empire, then there were roughly 2 million adult males who could read and write to some extent in the empire as a whole". 189 These people are likely to have exerted a great influence on society both in the social, political and economic realms: "Over time, these literates increased the stored reserves of recorded knowledge, and thereby allowed both state and religion unprecedented control over the lives of the illiterate". 190 Hopkins examines this process in his article and emphasizes "the pervasiveness and effect of that sub-élite literacy", which becomes evident, for example, in bureaucracy, and has not been sufficiently treated by Harris.191 Altogether, Hopkins argues that in the Roman Empire both the quantity of literates and the density of the use of writing grew in comparison to earlier times, and that this increase was a response to a greater demand for literacy.192 Literacy unified the Roman Empire both as "a social symbol and an integrative byproduct of Roman government, economy, and culture". 193 Like money, writing "helped integrate the Roman empire into a single political system". 194 The relationship between writing and power has become the topic of a collection of articles edited by Alan Bowman and Greg Woolf. In their own contribution Bowman and Woolf emphazise that writing was used in various ways to construct power in antiquity: "The kinds of power constructed varied widely from empires to groups united by a common set of texts .. .". 195 It is necessary to analyse the relationship of literacy and power for the different societies and contexts in which writing appears. The power exerted through writing can be political, social, economic, religious, cultural, psychological or a combination of 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

See Harris 123. See ibid. 127-8. See ibid. 128. Hopkins (1991) 134-5. Ibid. 135. See ibid. 158. See ibid. 142. Ibid. 144. Ibid. 157. Bowman/Woolf 2.

26

Introduction

these. 196 It can be a power over (the writing and/or language and/or interpretation of and access to) texts or a power exercised by means of their use (e.g. through written court decisions and testimonies). Power over texts can be exercised by preventing certain texts from being written or from circulating widely; or it can consist of countering a wide variety of interpretations by suggesting an "authoritative" one. 197 Such conflicts of power can finally lead to the creation of alternative texts. 198 Power through texts becomes obvious where writing is used to legitimize spoken words (for example, the quotation of a Biblical verse to legitimize a rabbinic teaching) or a deed (for example, sales documents). It can also be executed through monumental public inscriptions placed at strategic places, irrespective of whether or not those who pass them can read the text: "often the fact that something was written down may have been as important as what it said". 199 Texts may also have been used to unite groups. With Brian Stock Bowman and Woolf speak of "textual communities" in this regard, "communities whose life and identity revolved around reading, writing and living in accordance with particular texts". 200 On the other hand, texts may create hierarchies within such groups in that they "provide a medium for the establishment and entrenchment of relations of dominance". 201 Altogether, then, one can find various combinations of literacy and power in the ancient world. 202 The overview given here already shows that literacy within Graeco-Roman society is a topic which has already been widely discussed. Harris' monograph must be considered a milestone in the historical approach to the subject. Hardly anyone has questioned his low estimation of the literacy rate in the ancient world. The focus on particular societies and epochs and the distinction between various subgroups and functions of "literacy" within these groups has many advantages over Goody's and Havelock's generalizing account. On the other hand, many scholars have warned against the focus on percentage rates and suggested to rather analyze the significance of literacy in those contexts where it appears and amongst those people who, in whatever form and to whatever degree, possess the skill. Accordingly, a combination of historical and social anthropological approaches to literacy seems to be the most appropriate way to proceed.

196

See ibid. 6. See ibid. 7. 198 See ibid. 199 Ibid. 9. 200 Ibid. 13. 201 Ibid. 202 In addition to the studies already mentioned, many more books and articles on particular geographical areas (such as Egypt or Sparta) and aspects of literacy (such as education and book production) exist. These works will be introduced and discussed later on, in the respective chapters which deal with these issues. 197

3. Jewish Literacy in the Biblical Period All of the examinations of ancient Jewish literacy written so far, whether in article or monograph form, deal with the biblical period only. The authors usually argue for a wide-spread or even a "mass literacy" at that time. Recently, however, some more critical scholars have questioned the communis opinio about Israelite literacy. They have stressed that a formal elementary school system did not exist at that time and that ancient Israelites lived in an "oral world" which made only spare use of writing. Joseph Naveh can be considered a representative of the older, traditonal approach. He suggests to speak of a "literate society" in cases where not only scribes and members of the upper classes but also people belonging to "the lower middle classes" are able to write.203 Such a situation is allegedly reflected in the usage of the vulgar cursive script in papyrus letters and documents, graffiti, ostraca, jar and seal inscriptions, in contrast to the chancellery cursive used by professional scribes and the extreme or free cursive used by the well-educated upper classes. 204 From the 6th c. B.C.E. onwards the epigraphic material shows an increased use of the vulgar cursive script. From this phenomenon Naveh concludes "that in the late 7th and early 6th centuries the people of Judah may be considered a literate society". 205 He points to de Vaux who, on the basis of the commandments in Deut. 6:9 and 11:20 to "write" (i.e. to fix mezuzot) on the doorposts of one's house, suggested that "every head of family could write". 206 Besides Naveh's undifferentiated usage of the term "literate society" (see the differentiations suggested by Harris and others above), his identification of the vulgar cursive script with the lower middle classes is problematic. A high proficiency in writing cannot automatically be associated with the upper classes only, as Bowman has emphasized (see above). On the other hand, members of the higher social strata who were not used to write themselves (since they mostly dictated their letters and documents to scribes) may have used the vulgar cursive when writing short notes or signing letters or documents. A person's writing style would vary in accordance with the type of text he or she wrote, rather than being an expression of his or her writing skills or social status.207 203 204 205 206 207

Naveh (1968) 68. See ibid. Ibid. 74. See de Vaux (1961) 49. See Morgan 32: "Hands were strongly differentiated according to what they were

28

Introduction

Accordingly, Naveh's reasons for the assumption of a wide-spread popular literacy in ancient Israel are not persuasive. As to his support of de Vaux's understanding of the above-mentioned biblical passages, the commandment to write does not presuppose that everyone was actually able to do so. In any case, mezuzot were usually written by professional scribes. Like Naveh, Millard maintains that epigraphical finds, when combined with biblical references, point to a wide-spread literacy amongst the ancient Israelites. "The total number of written documents surviving from antiquity is very large". 208 Millard admits that most of the texts seem to have been written by professional scribes and fall into the categories of monumental and professional inscriptions. Even "ephemeral records" on ostraca with a continuous text and the numerous inscribed weights and seals fall into the category of "professional" writing.209 Distinguished from these categories are the "occasional" notes, names written on pottery jars to indicate ownership and graffiti on walls. Whereas these "texts" were probably written by non-professional writers, Millard concludes: "Clearly, professional scribes were responsible for the bulk of Hebrew written documents". 210 Biblical references to writing allegedly provide another picture, however: "The tenor of the Old Testament books is to treat reading and writing ability as an ordinary accomplishment, and the surviving 'occasional' texts especially support that literary evidence". 211 Millard considers "classical Greece where the same simple script was the possession of every citizen" the appropriate standard of comparison with ancient Israel.212 Besides the fact that modern studies of ancient literacy have questioned mass literacy for classical Greece (see Thomas and Harris above), one might recognize an apologetic tendency in Millard's assumption that Israel equaled Greece in this regard. The source material adduced by Millard does not allow for the conclusion that "writing was theoretically within the competence of every ancient Israelite, not the prerogative of an elite professional class alone" and that "it was, in fact, quite widely practiced". 213 Although Millard may be right in maintaining that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", 214 the attempt to argue for popular literacy on the basis of a few "occasional" inscriptions and literary references to writing found in the Bible is not convincing. The unpublished doctoral thesis of Aaron Demsky, submitted at the Hebrew University in 1976, constitutes the first monographic treatment of ancient Israelwriting ...". Therefore it is difficult to determine, for example, whether school children who learned writing or scribes wrote in formal documentary hands. 208 Millard (1972) 98. 209 See ibid. 101. 210 Ibid. 211 Ibid. 108. 212 Ibid. 213 Ibid. 111. 214 Ibid. 110.

3. Jewish Literacy in the Biblical

Period

29

ite literacy. A large part (the first four chapters) of this study deals with scribal culture and schools, not only in Israel but also in Egypt and Mesopotamia. It is followed by a relatively short chapter on the "Conditions for the Spread of Literacy in Antiquity" which examines the technical advantages of the various alphabets and the influence of the alphabetic script on the Phoenicians and the Arameans. The two final chapters deal with "the Ancient Israelites as the 'People of the Book'" and the criteria to be used for measuring the literacy rate of the population of Judah between the eighth and sixth century B.C.E. Demsky correctly emphasizes that both literary (in his case biblical) and epigraphic sources need to be evaluated in order to examine ancient literacy. Yet he maintains the distinction between "craft literacy" and popular or mass literacy suggested by Naveh and Millard, which is much too categorical to be useful in this regard. 215 Documents could, for example, be written by scribes, whereas those who commissioned them added their postscripts and/or signatures. Laypeople's literacy was not only variegated in its forms and levels of proficiency, it was also not necessarily widespread and "popular", terms which suggest an equal distribution amongst all strata of society. By defining the ancient Israelites during the period of the Monarchy as a "people of the book" Demsky means that they were book-centered. It does not become clear, however, what he means by "book", for the Torah does not seem to have existed at that time. According to Siegfried Morenz, the beginning of the "book religion" may be dated to the time between Josia's cultic reform on the basis of the "book" of Deuteronomy at the end of the time of the kingdom of Judah and the early post-exilic time, when Ezra allegedly familiarized the returning exiles with the religious precepts of his God (cf. Ezra 7:21 and 25: "[H^N T P ) , whatever is meant by that term. 216 Whether the term "book religion" is appropriate for that early time is highly questionable, however. Critical scholarship dates the redaction of at least most of the Pentateuch to the post-exilic period. Even if one considers the term an appropriate characterization of Israelite/Jewish literacy, it only makes sense for a time when the "book" of the Torah actually existed and was also studied by non-priestly and non-scribal circles, i.e. for the end of the Second Temple and rabbinic period. Demsky's usage of the term for the time of the kingdom of Judah, i.e. before the Babylonian Exile, is certainly anachronistic. 217 Millard, who has already been mentioned above, adheres to his earlier position in later articles as well. He continues to distinguish between monumental, 215 On p.X of his English summary he writes: "The starting point of this study is the fact that literate societies that have left written documents fall into one of two general categories. The first is characterized by literacy limited to a class of professional scribes, and the second by widespread literacy which permeates through all classes of society". See also p. 73 in the Hebrew text. 216 See Morenz 711-12. 217 Demsky's view of literacy in the biblical period is also summarized in Demsky/Ilan 1-20.

30

Introduction

formal/professional, and occasional writings and believes that professional scribes were responsible for the large majority of monumental inscriptions, ostraca and writings on seals.218 The situation seems to have been different for small settlements outside of the scribal centres of Jerusalem and Samaria, however. With regard to the ostraca found at these places one must reckon with the possibility that they were written by laymen. 219 Although only a few papyri from that time have been preserved, according to Millard, the lack of evidence does not preclude the possibility that longer texts (than those to be found on ostraca) were recorded on papyrus in ancient Israelite society.220 He points to the existence of "casual or occasional texts" as support for the hypothesis that not only professional scribes but also "schoolboys and workmen" were able to write. He concludes that "there can be no question that writing was possible in Israel throughout the period of the Monarchy. Equally beyond dispute is the wide spread of writing". 221 In their responses to Millard's article Aaron Demsky and Joseph Naveh agree with his conclusion regarding the wide distribution and high degree of literacy amongst ancient Israelites.222 In contrast to these traditional views of literacy in the biblical period, three critical examinations of the issue have appeared in recent years. Against earlier scholars' approach Menahem Haran has pointed out that biblical proofs for widespread Israelite literacy "are inconclusive and it remains highly questionable whether, in historical reality, literacy was in fact widespread in ancient Israel.. ,".223 One has to assume that in ancient Israel "literacy did not succeed in reaching large groups of people by a constant, continuous and steady process of diffusion", and that "knowledge of reading and writing prevailed only among special groups and at certain times". 224 The ability to write one's name or a few letters or words cannot be compared with the professional writing skills of scribes, and the latter are likely to have carried out most types of writing.225 According to Haran, the abecedaries found in Israel should not be considered evidence of the existence of schools. 226 Rather, some of the locations where they 218

See Millard (1985) 303 and (1987) 25. See idem (1985) 303: With regard to the fifteen sites outside of Jerusalem and Samaria at which ostraca have been found he asks: "Should we assume there was a professional scribe operating at each, or can we suppose that military or government employees, or even private citizens, able to write, lived in them?" 220 See ibid. 305. 221 Ibid. 306. 222 See Demsky ibid. 349: "Prof. Millard, studying the epigraphic data, has cogently argued for widespread literacy in ancient Israel, especially during the later period of the Monarchy. I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusions"; Naveh ibid. 354: "I fully agree with the conclusion drawn by Prof. Millard that in pre-exilic Judah there was a widespread use of writing". 223 Haran (1988) 82. 224 Ibid. 225 See ibid. 83 and 92. 226 See ibid. 88-91. 219

3. Jewish Literacy in the Biblical Period

31

were found and the materials on which they were written "are proofs for the absence of any such connection". 227 Haran concludes that "scholars and educated people, among whom the scribes were included, were probably to be found within a fairly thin layer of the population, the representatives of which underwent long years of study in schools", whereas the majority of the population lacked any such schooling and must be considered entirely illiterate or barely literate with a rudimentary knowledge of letters only.228 Susan Niditch has studied the use and function of the "written word" within the basically "oral world" of Israelite culture in more detail. In contrast to earlier approaches to the problem, her analysis is based on "the idea that large, perhaps dominant, threads in Israelite culture were oral, and that literacy in ancient Israel must be understood in terms of its continuity and interaction with the oral world". 229 Rather than associating "oral" with "primitive" and "prebiblical", she suggests to examine the way in which "the oral world lives in the words of scripture". 230 On the basis of anthropological studies of the interaction between oral and literate modes she argues for assessing a particular ancient culture's literacy and orality according to "a continuum or sliding scale", rather than to distinguish categorically between the two realms. 231 The first two chapters of her analysis explore an "oral register" or "traditional style" in the written text of the Hebrew Bible in order to better understand the biblical poetic's process of composition, while the remainder of the work is concerned with more general issues and serves as an introduction into the study of ancient Israelite literacy. Like Haran, Niditch stresses the difference between the types of literacy which some artisans and traders may have possessed and the literacy necessary for the formation of the biblical tradition.232 The epigraphic evidence of writing in ancient Israel, such as short texts and letters on ostraca and papyri, shows that writing was used "for circumscribed purposes" only: "The vast majority of texts and letters are pragmatic and brief - military, military-commercial, or commercial in nature". 233 Texts for military and commercial purposes were commonly written by scribes and may have been read by secretaries only.234 She reaches the conclusion that "all of these examples of literacy in ancient Israel do not in the least overturn the suggestion that Israelites live in a world heavily informed by the oral end of the continuum .. ,". 235

227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235

Ibid. 88. See ibid. 95. Niditch 1. Ibid. 2. See ibid. 4. See ibid. 44. Ibid. 58. See ibid. Ibid. 59.

32

Introduction

This assumption is supported by the logistics of literacy in the ancient world. Collections of records such as the Samaria ostraca and the Lachish letters, if they do not "reflect 'waste basket' material or the stuff of recycle bins", may indicate that certain documents would be saved; but such texts are unlikly to have been consulted on a regular basis. 236 There is neither archaeological nor literary evidence for libraries in ancient Israel. 237 Besides the possible existence of scribal schools in urban centers such as Jerusalem, the arguments brought forth in favor of a general school system in biblical times are not convincing. 238 Writing skills desirable within certain professions "may well have been taught in the course of learning about or growing up in the family business". 239 The phenomenon that in the Hebrew Bible special power is ascribed to writing - for example, the references to God's writing and record book, and the sotah scroll ritual - clearly indicates that ancient Israelite society was a traditional oral culture: 240 "Israelite oral mentality is revealed in a host of passages in which writing serves a testimonial, symbolic, or iconic function". 241 On the other hand, evidence for a literate mentality is also to be found in the Bible: 242 "And yet even in the passages at the literate end of the continuum are nuances of orality, a reminder of the oral context that frames the use of writing, even in the postexilic period". 243 Another critical approach to the evidence and possibility of widespread literacy amongst ancient Israelites appears in a recent article written by Ian Young. Like Haran and Niditch, Young emphasizes that nobody has so far been able to demonstrate that a school system which aimed at educating the broad public in reading and writing existed in ancient Israel, or even that the knowledge of reading and writing was considered important by the populace. 244 Biblical texts often mention oral teaching instead. For example, "the educational ideal of Deut. xxxi 9 - 1 4 is that the priests will read the law before the assembled Israelites. There is no hint that it was considered necessary to educate the public to read it themselves". 245 Those whom biblical texts portray as being able to write are, besides God, the priests, public officials, and kings. 246 In all of these cases, however, the verb "to write" may also refer to the practice of dictating, so that even with regard to these circles one cannot automatically assume that they possessed the technical skill 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246

See ibid. 61-63. Quotation ibid. 63. See ibid. 63. See ibid. 70. Ibid. See ibid. 79-82. Ibid. 83 with further examples. See ibid. 97 with examples. Ibid. 98. See Young 2 4 2 - 4 3 . Ibid. 243. See the list of references ibid. 2 4 5 - 4 7 .

3. Jewish Literacy in the Biblical

Period

33

of writing. 247 In most of the cases where biblical texts refer to the general populace as the subject of "to write" or "to read" it seems that the act of writing was imagined to have been done through intermediaries. 248 Moreover, it is questionable whether and how far biblical texts provide evidence for the "literacy" of whole sets such as the prophets. 249 One has to reckon with the possibility "that there were illiterate prophets alongside literate ones ..."; '"the prophets' as a whole cannot at present be treated as a literate class". 250 The question of schools in ancient Israel has been examined anew in a recently published book by James Crenshaw. Crenshaw stresses that almost all ancient education "was purely vocational". 251 Professional knowledge was transmitted by parents to their children or to a set of children by the head of a (family-) guild. 252 One must assume that "none of this training required expertise in reading and writing", 253 which required a much more advanced level of education. 254 Schools which might have taught writing are never explicitly mentioned in biblical texts, and possible allusions to such institutions can always be explained in a different way.255 Neither can abecedary inscriptions be considered evidence for the existence of schools.256 Only if a great uniformity is evident in the script and spelling of the letters, a standardized scribal training may be assumed. 257 Such "scribal training for royal administrations in Israel had a purely pragmatic character", however, and seems to have been carried out in scribal guilds. 258 One has to conclude, then, that the many problems connected with literacy in the biblical period do not allow for generalizing statements such as those made by Naveh, Millard, and Demsky, especially not before all of the evidence provided by the material and literary sources has been critically assessed. Young summarizes the situation as follows: "We cannot assume that anyone except professional scribes was able to read and write unless the evidence points strongly to the literacy of another group", which, according to his analysis, it does not. 259

247

See ibid. 248. See ibid. 349-50. 249 See ibid. 251-52. 250 Ibid. 252. 251 Crenshaw VIII. 252 See ibid. 86. 253 Ibid. 87. 254 See ibid. 89. 255 See ibid. 90ff. 256 See ibid. lOOff. 257 See ibid. 106. 258 Ibid. 107. See also ibid. 108: "The simple fact that both Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts provide ample witness to the existence of schools requires one to ponder the absence of similar attestations in Israel". 259 See Young 245. 248

4. Jewish Literacy in the Graeco-Roman Period Although a large number of books and articles have been written on particular aspects of Jewish literacy in Graeco-Roman times such as, for example, schools and education and the status of the scribal class, 260 the broader topic of the practice of reading and writing among Jews of Roman Palestine has never been examined in detail before. In his study of Jewish sects from Maccabean times until 70 C.E. Albert Baumgarten has addressed the issue of literacy in passing and Meir Bar-Ilan has published an article on the illiteracy of the Palestinian rural population in the first centuries C.E. Before I describe the approach and structure of my own work I shall therefore briefly summarize their suggestions and conclusions here. Baumgarten has suggested that a close connection between literacy and sectarianism existed, that most of the members of pre-destruction Jewish sects originated from the literate and urban sectors of society. The sectarians considered themselves a chosen elite, "standing above society" and distinct from the unlearned "people of the land". 261 They can best be compared with members of Graeco-Roman philosophical schools in this regard. 262 Between the Maccabean period and the first century C.E. first efforts to establish the text of the Hebrew Bible seem to have been undertaken and the knowledge of the Torah became at least theoretically available to larger sectors of the population beyond the traditional realm of the priests. 263 This development went hand in hand with a larger spread of literacy necessitated by the emergence of an independent Jewish state: "The Jews of the period were becoming independent, requiring them to acquire the skills to run their new mini-empire, one of which is literacy". 264 Thus a Jewish literate culture in which written texts were widely used was established in Hellenistic times and this literate culture was mostly based in cities: "Literacy often goes hand in hand with urbanization". 265 Either those who are literate move to the cities or life in the cities requires the inhabitants to achieve certain reading and writing skills.

260 261 262 263 264 265

These studies will be discussed in the respective chapters below. See A. Baumgarten (1997) 50-51. See also idem (1998) 110. See idem (1997) 49 n. 36. See ibid. 118 f. and 130. Ibid. 122. Ibid. 137.

4. Jewish Literacy in the Graeco-Roman

Period

35

The connection between urban environments and literacy and rural areas and illiteracy has also been stressed by Meir Bar-Ilan. Bar-Ilan has pointed out that at the time when Judaism met Hellenism the literacy rate amongst the more "modern" Greeks must have been higher than amongst Jews who belonged to a "traditional society". 266 With increasing urbanization the Jewish literacy rate will have slightly increased, but one must not forget that ancient Jewish society remained an agrarian society in that the large majority of the inhabitants worked as farmers in the countryside. Statistical correlations between agriculture and illiteracy reached on the basis of studies of modern societies can be applied to antiquity and help determine the literacy level: "instead of discussing the percentage of the literate out of the total population, about which we have little data if any, we can deal objectively with the percentage of farmers in the population". 267 As a rule of almost universal validity it has been established that "the more agricultural the society, the higher the percentage of the illiterate people". 268 On the other hand, a decrease in agriculture always means an increase in literacy.269 Under Roman rule the urbanization of Palestine proceeded and the literacy rate will have grown accordingly.270 Bar-Ilan assumes that in some rural towns and settlements the literacy rate will have been below one percent, and some villages may not even have had one single individual who could read.271 Accordingly, "if there were towns with 1 % literacy, then the literacy of all the towns was not higher than 5% (at most)". 272 In cities such as Tiberias the literacy rate may have been double or triple that of the smaller towns, that is, 2-15%. With the illiterate rural population constituting approximately 70% of the total population of Roman Palestine, the 20% of urban population with a literacy rate of 1-5% and 10% of highly urban population with a literacy rate of 2-15% will not have changed the overall picture much. Bar-Ilan concludes that "it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel at that time (of Jews only, of course), was probably less than 3%". 273 On the basis of Bar-Ilan's estimates, the Jewish population of only the major Palestinian cities would have reached a literacy rate equal to that suggested by Harris for Roman society at large, whereas literacy amongst the vast majority of the Jewish population would have remained far below that rate. Complimentary to this view of a very restricted literacy rate amongst Jews in Roman Palestine is Albert Baumgarten's suggestion of a "partial return to oral266

Bar-Ilan (1992) 47. Ibid. 49. 268 Ibid. 48. 269 See ibid. 49. This relationship between literacy and urbanization was not a specific phenomenon of the 19th and 20th century but must be considered a "worldwide rule ... valid in former centuries and in the Land of Israel" as well, see ibid. 50. 270 See ibid. 52. 271 See ibid. 54. 272 Ibid. 273 Ibid. 55. 267

36

Introduction

ity" after the destruction of the Temple.274 Although one must assume that a literate culture existed in the cities of Roman Palestine, certain educated Jewish circles seem to have decided to refrain from writing and to conduct their discussions orally. Such "secondary orality" is especially prone to arise amongst closeknit networks with high group solidarity: their oral disputes would not lead to major frictions but could be "tolerated" as long as they did not assume a fixed written form. 275 Based on the social-anthropological approaches to literacy by Brian Street and others, which emerged in reaction to Jack Goody's work, and studies of literacy in Graeco-Roman society introduced above, the present study will examine the various forms, levels, and social contexts of reading and writing rather than try to determine ancient Jewish literacy rates. The sparseness of the material evidence and the possibly fictive nature of the literary sources makes any endeavour to achieve exact historical conclusions impossible. The first part of this work examines the conditions within ancient Jewish society which would have enabled some circles to use writing and prevented others from doing so. In the following second part a typology of the various forms of Jewish writing within Roman Palestine is established. On the basis of the results of these two parts the third and final section tries to reach conclusions about the ways in which various circles within ancient Jewish society participated in the use of writing, whether directly or through intermediaries. All of these issues are dealt with on the basis of a critical evaluation of the available epigraphic, papyrological, and literary sources. Since the historical method of a critical examination of the sources is insufficient for answering sociological questions, the concerns and implications of recent social-anthropological studies of literacy need to be taken into consideration as well. The broad time limits are Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E. and the onset of Islamic rule at the beginning of the seventh century C.E. While the development in the time before 70 C.E. will be considered, especially with regard to the Qumran material and the ossuary inscriptions from Herodian times, the focus is on the so-called rabbinic period after the destruction of the Temple and the expansion of the Jewish use of writing in early Byzantine times. The later literary creations of the Piyyutim and Hekhalot literature and the general development of Jewish literacy in medieval times will only be mentioned in passing here. The issue of medieval Jewish literacy would require a separate study which can only be accomplished when most of the Geniza material has been published.276

274 275

See A. Baumgarten (1997) 134. See ibid. 135. On conflicts and agreements amongst rabbis see also Hezser (1997) 2 4 0 -

54. 276

For a discussion of various aspects of medieval Jewish literacy see Reif's article listed in the bibliography.

Part 1

The Conditions for the Development of Literacy The types and distribution of writing within a given society are dependent on the specific conditions which reign in that society at a particular period of time. These conditions can either enable or impede the spread of writing amongst the various sectors of the population. Especially important in this regard are the ways in which reading and writing were taught and the question whether and to what extent primary education reached the lower strata of society. While reading and writing skills could also be transmitted within the family, and some poorer parents able to read and write may have taught their children some basic literacy skills, only public teachers and schools affordable by everyone would allow a wider spread of literacy skills beyond the confines of the wealthy leisured classes who could hire private tutors. 1 Another pre-condition for the spread of literacy to be examined in this regard is the availability of writing materials and texts. The various writing surfaces and fluids differed with regard to their distribution and costs and, accordingly, with regard to their potential users. In addition, the availability of and fees charged by scribes whom one could employ to write one's documents, letters, or literary compositions is an important criterium for a person's opportunity to participate in literate society and likely to have differed from place to place. Similar limitations are likely to have existed with regard to the availability of literary texts. Before the introduction of the printing press, the number of literary texts within circulation was severely circumscribed and access to them governed by private friendly exchange, which presupposed one's belonging to certain educated circles, even at places where private and public libraries existed. The need for being able to read and write within certain professions and trades will have determined whether or not people tried to acquire literacy skills and considered such an education relevant or irrelevant for their children. Besides such practical considerations, the social status of literates within society at large is likely to have played a role. Only those who associated literacy skills with professional advantage and upward mobility and held those who could read and write in high esteem are likely to have been motivated to become literate themselves or to impart such skills on their children. In addition, religious reasons might have kindled the desire to be able to read the Torah oneself. The propagation of the value of Torah study by rabbis may have convinced at least some of 1

See Harris (1989) 15.

38

Part I: The Conditions

for the Development

of

Literacy

their contemporaries of the necessity to acquire Hebrew reading skills. Others, however, are likely to have been satisfied with attending Torah lectures in synagogues and sermons delivered by rabbis in various private and public locales. The magic use of writing seems to have been largely independent of one's own ability to read and write. Written amulets whose textual content was known to the bearer were believed to carry supernatural power. Phylacteries and mezuzot also need to be viewed in this context. In addition, special power could be attributed to the Torah scrolls themselves. The believer would assume that the supernatural power was imparted on him or her by mere touch without being required to read and understand the scroll's written text. Those who actually possessed the ability to read and understand the text will have either encouraged, tolerated, or condemned such "primitive" usage of religious writing. In Roman Palestine the conditions for the spread of literacy were complicated by the usage of a number of different languages. The distribution of these languages is likely to have differed from place to place. In addition, the languages may have been used for different purposes in everyday life and in the administrative and religious realms. Ideological reasons may have determined the acquisition of literacy skills in one particular language such as Hebrew or Greek. Furthermore, questions of social status and the hope for social advancement are likely to have played a role. All of these aspects need to be examined in detail with regard to the Jewish population of Roman Palestine. Only on the basis of the particular circumstances which characterized Jewish society at that time and place can the distribution, types, levels, and functions of ancient Jewish literacy be determined.

1. Education In the past almost all scholars assumed that in addition to rabbinic academies an organized system of Jewish primary education existed in tannaitic times already. It was commonly argued that elementary schools ("120 'nil) were introduced in the Second Temple period and expanded throughout the country in early rabbinic times. The argumentation is usually based on an uncritical understanding of later Talmudic texts which are not only anachronistic in associating the educational institutions of the amoraic period with pre-70 times, but also vastly exaggerate with regard to the number of educational establishments likely to have existed at either time. An examination of the sources shows that references to teachers and schools rarely appear in tannaitic documents and are much more prevalent in amoraic sources. It seems that especially from the third century C.E. onwards rabbis promoted a particularly Jewish type of primary education as an alternative to GraecoRoman schools which must have been widespread in Palestine at that time. When arguing for an extensive system of public schools, scholars have rarely taken the basically private and informal nature of elementary education in GraecoRoman society and in antiquity into account. Throughout antiquity there is hardly any evidence for a central organization of schools or of political authorities initiating and/or funding elementary schools for the populace. The financial and ideational support of primary teachers and schools seems to have come from private individuals only, and especially from those most interested in a public which valued education, such as philosophers and rabbis. Rabbinic ideals reflected in literary sources cannot be taken as historical evidence about the real situation, and the idealized rabbinic view promoted a specific type of literacy only. In contrast to most prior scholars' assumptions, the Jewish schools to which rabbinic sources refer are likely to have taught reading skills only. The instruction in reading Hebrew aimed at the male pupils' ability to read the Torah. Secular educational skills, such as rudimentary writing, calculating, and the reading of other, non-biblical literary texts are never mentioned in this regard. Thus, even if the rabbinic ideal was widely practiced and adopted by the Jewish populace, which is doubtful, it would not lead to a widespread practical literacy. Rabbis seem to have promoted Torah-reading skills in order to create a support base for themselves, or at least to raise interest amongst their Jewish contemporaries for the higher Torah knowledge which was their specialty. A question which has rarely been examined is the possibility of a Greek education for Jews in Roman Palestine. Can it be assumed that Jewish teachers

40

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

and schools taught Greek in Palestine, or would Jews who wanted to learn to read and write Greek have to attend non-Jewish schools? Which opportunities to obtain a secondary education in subjects such as rhetorics or philosophy existed in Palestine in Roman times?

A. Jewish Elementary Teachers and Schools In Wilhelm Bacher's essay on "Das altjüdische Schulwesen" (1903) the apologetic character of the traditional depiction of Jewish education in antiquity becomes evident at the outset. 2 Bacher maintains that after 70 C.E. synagogue and study house where the "proprium" of ancient Judaism in comparison to contemporary paganism and that both institutions served the education of children besides being the locales of adult Torah study. 3 In the first centuries C.E. the Jewish community was allegedly united in considering the teaching and learning of its written and oral traditions the highest "national" goal. 4 Due to this development, the basis of Jewish education, which Bacher believed to have been established in Second Temple times, received particular scholarly attention. Bacher traces the very beginnings of Jewish Torah instruction back to Ezra the "scribe" whom he sees as the first teacher engaged in Jewish public education. According to Bacher, Ezra's public reading and explanation of the Torah (cf. Ezra 7:10 and Neh. 8:1-8) can be considered the "birthday of the ancient Jewish educational system". 5 While the biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah do not explicitly mention the establishment of schools by Ezra, Bacher thinks that a later Babylonian Talmudic text (b. B.B. 21b, according to which Ezra decreed to appoint school teachers) "does not lack inner truth", and that Ezra should be seen as the "founder" of Jewish education in Palestine. 6 From the time of Ezra onwards, the major subject of Jewish education was the Torah, and those who were able to teach the Torah were called "scribes". These later Torah teachers were "the successors of Ezra and the continuators of his work". 7 Bacher bases his views of the development of an organized Jewish school system on two Talmudic texts which would be quoted - and considered to be historically reliable - by almost all subsequent scholars who have dealt with the issue of ancient Jewish education. The first of these texts is b. B.B. 21 a which, due to its importance for the traditional view, shall be presented in translation here: 2

That this apologetic tendency is evident in almost all of the older studies of Jewish education is also shown by Gafni (1 ff. of the manuscript). 3 See Bacher 50. 4 See ibid. 53: After 70, Judaism provides "das Bild einer nationalen Gesamtheit..., deren höchstes Interesse das Studium, das Lernen und Lehren war, die als einziges nationales Gut den Gegenstand des Studiums, das Schrifttum und die Überlieferungen der Väter hegte". 5 Ibid. 54, my translation of: "Geburtstag des altjüdischen Schulwesens". 6 Ibid. 55, my translations. 7 Ibid., my translation.

I. Education

41

[A] "For R. Yehudah said [that] Rav said: That man shall truly be remembered for good, and Yehoshua b. Gamla is his name, for without him the Torah would have been forgotten in Israel. [B] For in the beginning, he who had a father, he [the father] would teach him Torah, [while] he who did not have a father would not learn Torah [at all]. What has been taught? 'And you shall teach them' [Deut. 11:19], and you shall teach. [C] They ordained [ i r p n i l ] that children's teachers should be set up in Jerusalem. What has been taught? 'For from Zion the Torah shall go forth' [Isa. 2:3]. And by then he who had a father, he [the father] would bring him up [to Jerusalem] and teach him [i.e. have him taught there], [but] he who did not have a father would not go up and learn. [D] They ordained p r p n i l ] that [children's teachers] should be set up in each and every district ["[^S] and that [children] should be entered at [the age of] sixteen or seventeen [years]. And [it happened that] he with whom his teacher was angry would rebel and go away. [E] Until Yehoshua b. Gamla came and ordained that children's teachers should be set up in each and every town [TJJ] and district [ i i n o ] , and that [children] should be entered at [the age of] six or seven [years]".

Bacher believed that this text, which the Babylonian Talmud transmits in Hebrew, is based on an old Palestinian tradition. Although in its present form it is "artificially constructed", it allegedly contains a "kernel of historical factuality", namely the reference to a continuous process of expansion and development of Jewish primary education which allegedly started in Persian times immediately after Ezra. 8 While the text attributes the final stage of this three-stage process to Yehoshua b. Gamla, one of the last high priests shortly before the destruction of the Temple (63-65 C.E.), Bacher thinks that the tradition originally referred to Yehoshua b. Perachiah, who lived at the time of John Hyrcanus, that is, two hundred years earlier. 9 He assumes that Yehoshua b. Perachiah was "the founder of general education for children in Palestine". 10 The second text quoted in this regard is y. Ket. 8:11, 32c: "And Shimon b. Shetach ordained [ | , p n n ] three things: ... and that the children should go to school [ISOH JTD1?], ...".

This text, which is also formulated in Hebrew and uses the same verb rppnit] as the Babylonian text quoted above, attributes the introduction of "obligatory" children's education to Shimon b. Shetach who lived at the time of Salome Alexandra in the first c. B.C.E. Bacher harmonizes the two texts by viewing Shimon b. Shetach as Yehoshua b. Perachiah's student and successor who continued and complemented his predecessor's task. 11 On the basis of these two texts Bacher assumes that a public system of Jewish primary schools was introduced in the 2nd c. B.C.E already, and that it was the result of Pharisaic influence on the Hasmonean dynasty. 8 9 10 11

See See See See

Bacher 56-57, my translations. ibid. 58-59. ibid. 59, my translation. ibid. 60.

42

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

In support of the claim that children's education was institutionalized and that schools existed in Palestine long before the end of the Second Temple period Bacher refers to Josephus' boasting remark that everyone of his coreligionists is knowledgeable of all the religious regulations of Judaism (C.A. 2.18, 178), and to y. Meg. 3:1, 73d par. y. Ket. 13:1, 35c, according to which 480 (or 460, according to the y. Ket. version) synagogues with associated schools existed in Jerusalem before the destruction of the city: "With this remembrance from the last days of Jerusalem we possess the most important reference to the organization of the ancient Jewish school system before the destruction". 12 The institutions of Jewish primary education allegedly resumed their twofold task of educating children in Torah and oral tradition in tannaitic and amoraic times. 13 Most other scholars who dealt with the issue of ancient Jewish elementary schools agreed with Bacher in assuming that the Babylonian Talmudic text b. B.B. 21a provided a historically reliable "outline sketch of the history of Jewish education". 14 They only differed with regard to the time period to which the text refers and the relationship between this Babylonian text and the text in the Palestinian Talmud which mentions Shimon b. Shetach in connection with some kind of educational reform. Louis Ginzberg (1928) believed that the three-stage development described in b. B.B. 21a circumscribed a two-hundred-year period, from the time of the soferim (around 300 B.C.E.) until the time of the Pharisees (100 B.C.E.).15 He calls Shimon b. Shetach "Father of the Jewish School", but does not explain how the Yerushalmi text in which he is mentioned relates to the Babli text quoted above. 16 Towa Perlow (1931) was more hesitant in attributing the introduction of schools to a particular time or person, viewing b. B.B. 21a as the testimony of a long process of development of Jewish schools which nevertheless existed long before the end of the Second Temple period. 17 Nathan Drazin (1940) reverted to identifying the three stages mentioned in b. B.B. 21a with particular groups and individuals. Although the "Men of the Great Assembly" and Shimon b. Shetach are not mentioned in this text, he thinks that it is "reasonable to assume" that they can be identified with the first two stages which he views as the introduction of advanced Torah study (by the "Men of the Great Assembly") and the establishment of high schools for older youth (by 12

Ibid. 61, my translation. See ibid. 62. 14 In the words of Ginzberg 8. 15 See ibid. 16 His quotation of b. B.B. 21a (ibid.) lacks any reference to Yehoshua b. Gamla (or Perachia). 17 See Perlow 24-26. He does not consider the reference to Shimon b. Shetach historically reliable, see ibid. 26: "Quoique séduisante, cette hypothèse ne s'appuie sur aucune preuve, car pour cette époque ancienne, les renseignements historiques contenus dans le Talmud manquent de précision; nous savans qu'il y eut des personages à qui nombre d'institutions ont été faussement attribuées en dénaturant les faits et les dates". 13

1.

Education

43

Shimon b. Shetach). 18 He identifies the second stage mentioned in b. B.B. 21a with the ordinance attributed to Shimon b. Shetach in y. Ket. 8:11, 32c, that "children should go to schools": "This ordinance meant the establishment of high schools for young adults from the age of sixteen or seventeen years". 19 Only shortly before the destruction of the Temple did Yehoshua b. Gamla recognize these schools' deficiencies, and he resolved to establish "free elementary schools for all boys ... Through his ordinance such schools were founded in every town and in every province where Jews resided in large numbers". 20 The same type of historically uncritical argumentation and harmonization of the two traditions continued in the 1950s and 60s, in the works of Max Arzt (1953),21 Eliezer Ebner (1956),22 Birger Gerhardsson (1961),23 Moshe Aberbach (1966),24 and Shmuel Safrai (1968).25 Gerhardsson realized that neither Philo nor Josephus ever mentioned Jewish elementary schools and that all of our "information" on such schools comes from later rabbinic sources.26 He explained this discrepancy by distinguishing between private and public schools. At the end of Second Temple times "private elementary schools" existed "in all the Jewish towns of Palestine, and ... the larger villages of Judaea also had such schools". 27 Only in early rabbinic times did these schools assume "the character of publicly organized and controlled establishments". 28 Thus, according to the communis opinio, a vast network of Jewish elementary schools, whether private or public, already existed in Second Temple times. The education of children (or rather: sons) by their fathers, mentioned in b. B.B. 21a, is customarily thought to have been the common practice in First Temple times, before the introduction of schools. The Deuteronomic commandment to teach God's ordinances to one's children (Deut. 6:7, cf. ibid, v.20) is usually referred to as evidence of the Jewish father's "formal obligation" to teach his son.29 It is 18

See Drazin 27-28. Ibid. 44. 20 Ibid. 46. 21 See Arzt 38, who refers to b. B.B. 21a. 22 See Ebner 38 ff. Ebner harmonizes the Yehoshua b. Gamla with the Shimon b. Shetach report in that he identifies the first stage described in the Babylonian text, i.e. the establishment of schools in Jerusalem, with the ordinance ascribed to Shimon b. Shetach in y. Ket. 8:11, 32c, see ibid. 42. 23 See Gerhardsson 57-59. 24 See Aberbach 162-164. 25 See S. Safrai 149-150. 26 See Gerhardsson 58. 27 Ibid. 59. 28 Ibid. 58. 29 See Perlow 23; Gerhardsson 57; Krauss (1966) 3:199-200. See also Drazin 3 9 - 4 0 : "Prior to the Second Commonwealth teaching was a parental concern except for the specialized training schools of the priests and of the prophets". This situation allegedly fitted the agrarian society of First Temple times. Ebner, 38, further refers to the end of 4 Macc. and to Philo, Hypothetica 7.13 in this regard ("The husband seems competent to transmit knowledge of the laws to his wife, the father to his children"). 19

44

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

generally assumed that at least in First Temple times this obligation was actually fulfilled by Jewish fathers. According to Drazin, fathers continued to be expected to provide an elementary education to their sons in Second Temple times, when institutions of higher education were introduced by the "Men of the Great Assembly". 30 These Jewish leaders noticed, however, that many fathers did not fulfill their task sufficiently, and this realization led to the establishment of public schools.31 Ebner attributes this change to "the accumulation of knowledge and the specialization of skills", which surpassed the competence of the "average family". 32 Scholars seem to assume that from Hellenistic times onwards, when schools were established and gradually expanded (see above), fathers' need to teach their sons themselves ceased to exist, and that at least those fathers who wanted to offer their sons an elementary education now had the opportunity to do so. All scholars agree that if girls were educated at all, they were educated at home, by their parents or other relatives. 33 Girls are unlikely to have attended the schools which boys frequented, and no separate schools for girls are ever mentioned in the sources. Those parents who provided at least a rudimentary education to their daughters will have been rare,34 and even rabbis differed amongst themselves as to whether Torah knowledge would be beneficial or disadvantageous for women. 35 Accordingly, Bacher's assumption of a "general and obligatory children's education", introduced by Shimon b. Shetach, 36 is certainly wrong, since it would in any case have applied to fifty percent of all Jewish children only. Statements by Josephus and within Talmudic sources (mentioned above in connection with Bacher) are customarily referred to as supportive evidence for the claim that the Jewish educational system was successful, that at places where schools existed almost all parents did send their sons to them in Second Temple

30

See Drazin 40. See ibid. 4 3 - 4 4 . See also Aberbach 161 with regard to Hellenistic times. Ibid, he refers to passages in Jewish wisdom literature concerning education at home, within the family. 32 See Ebner 43. 33 See Perlow 98; Demsky/Bar-Ilan 22; T. Ilan (1995) 204; Arzt 47: "Whether girls were given instruction is a moot question. There is no indication that they were part of the community school system. They must have been taught by the father". See also Krauss (1966) 3:239: "Von einer Frauenerziehung hören wir allerdings sehr wenig, und sicher ist es, daß die Mädchen die öffentliche Schule nicht besuchten, besteht doch sogar eine Art Verbot, Mädchen in die Thora einzuweihen und darin zu unterrichten, ...". M. Ned. 4:3 mentions the teaching of Scripture to both sons and daughters by their father. The issue is discussed in more detail in Pantel Zolty 104 ff. Ibid. 117 she suggests that "the more learned the family, the greater the likelihood that the girls would be educated". 34 See, however, Drazin 130: "Very few girls, indeed, were deprived of an elementary education". 35 Aberbach 164 correctly emphasizes that the negative opinion toward the education of women prevailed until the Haskalah. On women and Torah study see especially T. Ilan (1995) 190-204. 36 See Bacher 59. 31

1. Education

45

and rabbinic times.37 The underlying assumption is that since Jews were obliged to observe the Torah, all Jews were eager to gain knowledge of the Torah, and in order to gain knowledge of the Torah they had to be able to read the text. 38 Some scholars have mentioned certain geographical, economic, political, and social limitations of the Jewish school system, however. Ginzberg has suggested that Josephus' boasting statement concerning Jewish education may have applied to the situation in the cities only, while the countryside was probably still left without schools at his time.39 He also suggested that the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kokhba Revolt should be considered a "set-back to the cause of primary education", and that educational concerns were taken up again by Palestinian rabbis in the third century only.40 Ebner emphasized that school attendence was not obligatory, and that accordingly the existence of schools "did not mean that all local boys attended or were compelled to attend the school". 41 The boys' attendence depended on the success of religious leaders' moral persuasion. Another criterium to be considered in this regard was the socio-economic status of the parents. Aberbach has pointed out that only a small proportion of people had the spare time necessary to study Torah,42 and only a few parents will have been able to do without the work and salary of their children while they went to school. Similarly Gerhardsson writes: "It is quite evident that only people of certain circles sent their children to the bet sefer; the propertied classes and the representatives of Torah piety would". 43 Nevertheless, Gerhardsson and others think that "toward the end of the Amoraic period, school attendance was, to judge from the evidence, quite general, although not compulsory, among the Jews". 44 Safrai, according to whom Jewish education was obligatory, similarly assumes that "the phenomenon of a social stratum with a separate Am Aratzuth consciousness,..., did disappear during the period of the Amoraim". 45 It seems that the image of an orthodox, Torah-observant, normative Judaism from the time of Ezra until rabbinic times, from which only a small proportion of 37

See e.g. Perlow 27-28; Drazin 61; Arzt 36; Gerhardsson 58. See Aberbach 92. For the connection between Torah education and observance see Jos., C.A. 1.12 (60), 2.18 (178) and 2.25 (204). On the alleged universal observance of the Torah amongst Jews see also Jos., Ant. 3.8.10 (223): "Those laws, excellent beyond all standard of human wisdom, have ... been in every age rigidly observed, because they are believed to be a gift of God, insomuch as neither in peace, nor in war, under constraint, have Hebrews transgressed any of them". 39 See Ginzberg 9. 40 See ibid. 41 Ebner 49. See also Goldin 177, who stresses that the rabbinic propagation of Torah study constitutes an ideal rather than describing reality: "what such statements reflect is an ideal, perhaps in truth so lofty an ideal, that even most of those who would assent to it cheerfully, would be unable to fulfill it". 42 See Aberbach 161. 43 Gerhardsson 59. 44 Ibid. 45 S. Safrai 167. 38

46

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

the populace - commonly referred to as the am haaretz - diverged, underlies all of these depictions of ancient Jewish education. Certain religious leaders - usually referred to as the soferim, Pharisees, and later rabbis - are considered to have succeeded not only in creating hundreds of schools in which their ideal of Torah study could be fulfilled, but also in persuading the large majority of the Jewish population of Palestine to send their children to these schools and live according to rabbinic ideals. This theory implies that the religious specialists had a very large amount of communal and moral-spiritual authority, an issue which is very controversial in modern scholarship. 46 The main problem in dealing with Jewish education in antiquity is the sparseness and lack of historical reliability of the respective literary sources. The only literary source which explicitly refers to the organization of Jewish education in antiquity is the text transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud (b. B.B. 21a) quoted above. David Goodblatt has argued that in this text the reference to the development of primary education ("For in the beginning ...") does not seem to be a continuation of the statement attributed to R. Yehudah in the name of Rav, but should rather be seen as an addition explaining the words of Rav, attached by the Talmudic editors, which might be based on a baraita,47 Even if the text is tannaitic, it cannot be dated earlier than the end of the second or the beginning of the third century C.E., that is, hundreds of years after the events it describes purportedly happened. This great distance between the time mentioned in the text (even concerning the third stage of the educational process associated with Yehoshua b. Gamla) 48 and the time of the creation of the text makes its historical reliability very doubtful. 4 9 While b. B.B. 21a mentions teachers but not schools, the second text customarily quoted as evidence for Shimon b. Shetach's involvement in Jewish educational reforms, y. Ket. 8:11, 32c, does mention schools but "does not deal with the founding of the institution of the school and also not with the establishment of a network of schools". 50 Like the text transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud, this text was created long after its protagonist lived. Even if we are dealing with a tannaitic source, the time difference consists of a couple of centuries. Especially since there is no supportive evidence from other sources for associating Shimon b. Shetach with measures toward the advancement of Jewish education Josephus, who gives a detailed account of the time period in which Shimon b. 46 Cf. Hezser (1997) 3 5 3 - 4 0 2 for the relationship between rabbis and other Jews; ibid. 4 5 0 - 6 6 for rabbis' means of authority. 47 See Goodblatt (1980) 89. 48 If one assumes that Yehoshua b. Perachiah is meant here, the chronological distance between the event and its literary testimony would be even greater. Goodblatt prefers the lectio dijficilior which ascribes the ordinance to Yehoshua b. Gamla (shortly before the destruction of the Temple) and points out that, in any case, the other reading is not supported by any manuscript, see ibid. 91. 49 See ibid. 90. 50 Ibid. 83, my translation from the Hebrew.

1. Education

47

Shetach lived and is also much concerned with Jewish education, never mentions Shimon b. Shetach in this regard - one has to doubt the historical accuracy of the rabbinic text.51 Neither can the Talmudic text which maintains that hundreds of schools existed in Jerusalem prior to its destruction (y. Meg. 3:1, 73d par. b. Ket. 105b) be considered reliable evidence of the actual situation before 70 C.E. Not only are the numbers exaggerated, as scholars who refer to this text usually admit, but the entire narrative is aggadic in nature and unlikely to contain any historical truth. Since both the Palestinian and Babylonian version are Amoraic, they cannot be used in support of earlier tannaitic texts. 52 Nor are there any other sources which could support the notion of a Jewish school system in Second Temple times. 53 Nathan Morris has correctly emphasized that neither the Hebrew Bible nor the New Testament refer to Jewish elementary schools. 54 On the contrary, texts from the Second Temple period usually point to the home and the synagogue as the locales where Torah knowledge could be obtained. 55 Altogether, then, the Talmudic texts cannot be taken as historical sources but must be considered anachronistic and idealistic depictions of a Jewish educational system in pre-70 times.56 The Qumran community may have been an exception with regard to its emphasis on (and organization of?) the education of children and young adults in pre-rabbinic times. Steven Fraade has proposed to view the Qumran community, both with regard to the central camp and its branches, as a studying community which considered Torah study and interpretation not the prerogative of its leadership but the duty of the community as a whole. 57 He quotes a passage from the messianic Rule of the Congregation (lQSa 1:6-8) in this regard, which delineates a process of learning from childhood onwards: "From [his] youfth] they shall [t]each him the book of Hago, and according to his age they shall instruct him in the laws of the covenant. He shall [receive] [in]struction in their rules for ten years. If he proceeds well, then at [the age of] twenty he shall [be] registered so as to enter (his) allotted place within his family (and) to join the congregation of holiness". 5 8

According to this ruling, from the age of ten to twenty boys were to be instructed in the traditions particular to the Qumran group. Before the age of ten they 51

See ibid. 87. See ibid. 94. 53 See ibid. 94 ff., where Goodblatt analyzes texts from Josephus, Philo, and other postbiblical Jewish writings in this regard. 54 See Morris 3 - 4 . Ibid. 247 n. 1 he points out that a school is only mentioned once in the New Testament, in Acts 19:9, where a Greek school (ayo).r\ Tuoavvoi;) is referred to. 55 See Morris 4; Goodblatt (1980) 103. 56 See Goodblatt (1980) 103. 57 See Fraade (1993) 52ff. Ibid. 53 he writes: "... the Qumran community defined its elect identity, at least in part, in terms of its ongoing activity of study ...", and members seem to have been admitted, upgraded and downgraded on the basis of their knowledge, cf. the texts quoted and referred to ibid. 54 f. For the emphasis on study at Qumran see also Snyder 156 ff. 58 Translation with Fraade (1993) 55. 52

48

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

should be taught in the Torah and other writings. If this text is more than a merely theoretical ideal and reflects some reality, one must assume that the children obtained an elementary education before they could advance to the subjects listed here. This elementary education was probably offered by teachers who belonged to the community themselves. Fraade notes: "As brief as this passage is, it is our earliest and only evidence from the Second Temple period for a mandatory, communal curriculum of studies for children". 59 Do rabbinic sources provide evidence of Jewish elementary schools in tannaitic times? In general, in tannaitic sources references to the education of children are very sparse. It is striking, however, that the Mishnah, Tosefta, and tannaitic Midrashim - just like Josephus and other Jewish writings from Second Temple times - never explicitly mention schools. They only mention parents and (less frequently) individual teachers engaged in instructing children. M. Shab. 1:3 transmits a rule which prohibits a chazzan, who supervises children's reading on the Sabbath, from reading himself. T. Shab. 1:12 provides a variant version of this rule, attibuted to R. Shimon b. Gamliel, which does not mention a teacher at all: "Children prepare their chapters [of Torah] on Sabbath nights by the light of a lamp". The only incidence where a children's teacher is mentioned in the Tosefta is T. Meg. 3:38: "The story of David and Bat Sheva is not read or translated [cf. M. Meg. 4:10], but the sofer teaches [it] in the usual way". Although children are not explicitly referred to here, it is likely that they are meant to be the recipients of the instruction. Both the chazzan and the sofer are also associated with other functions in tannaitic texts. The chazzan appears as a prayer leader and synagogue official and the sofer as a scribe of Torah scrolls, documents, or other types of texts. 60 Perhaps the synagogue and writing functions were the main occupations of the chazzan and sofer, respectively. Since they were more or less familiar with the text of the Torah, some of these professionals may have occasionally taught Torah to children as well, perhaps in order to increase their wages. Neither the number of children taught nor particular locales in which the teaching took place are mentioned in the tannaitic texts. It is likely that such teaching took place whenever there were enough children to make it worthwhile, and at whatever place available for that purpose. One other type of children's teacher appears in a parable transmitted in Sifre Deut. 19 (p. 31 of the Finkelstein ed.). The parable starts with: "The matter may be compared to a king, who handed his son over to a paedagogue [313TS] ...". The paedagogue was a private teacher, tutor, and "nanny", whom wealthy parents hired for their children. The fact that he is mentioned in a parable featuring a king accords with his role in Graeco-Roman educational practice on which more will be said below. 59

Ibid. 55-56. Chazzan-. cf. M. Yoma 7:1, T. Bik. 2:8, T. Meg. 3:21; sofer: M. Sanh. 4:3, M. Shab. 1:3. On scribes see section I.2.B below. 60

1.

Education

49

More often than extra-familiar teachers parents are mentioned as teachers of their children in tannaitic texts. For example, M. Qid 4:14 discusses whether one should teach one's son a trade. In this connection, the Mishnah attributes to R. Nehorai the statement: "I should lay aside every trade in the world and teach my son only Torah ...". Whereas in the preceding text the teaching of a trade is explicitly ascribed to fathers, in this statement the teaching of Torah is considered a father's responsibility toward his son as well. This responsibility is made more explicit in T. Hag. 1:2: A minor, "[if] he knows how to speak, his father teaches him the Shema, Torah, and the holy language; if not, it would have been better had he not come into the world". Similarly, the Mekhilta (Pisha 18) states that the teaching of the Torah is one of the religious duties which a father has to carry out for his son. If the father does not fulfill his obligation, the son himself is responsible for his Torah education. The Midrash does not specify how the son would proceed, but justifies the rule by reference to the Torah itself. In Sifre Deut. 46 (p. 104 in the Finkelstein ed.), according to one particular rabbinic opinion, the biblical commandment applies to sons only but not to daughters: '"And teach them to your children' [Deut. 11:19-21]: your sons and not your daughters, the words of R. Yose b. Aqiba. On the basis of the verse at hand they have said: When a child begins to talk, his father shall speak with him in the holy language, teaching him the Torah. But if he does not speak with him in the holy language and teach him Torah, he is as if he would bury him [TQIp I'TiO I'P 'INT]".

Whether the anonymous continuation ("On the basis of ... they have said ...") refers to sons only, remains unclear. The emphasis on children's education as a parental duty continues in amoraic documents, especially in the Talmud Yerushalmi. According to y. Suk. 3:12(15), 54c, "If [a child] knows how to speak, his father teaches him the language of Torah". Y. Qid. 1:7, 61a transmits a baraita which has a parallel inT. Qid. 1:1: a father should teach his son swimming, a trade, and the Torah. The Yerushalmi cites Deut. 11:19 ("And you shall teach them to your children, talking of them ...") as an explanation of this rule. In addition to such theoretical recommendations, rabbis are portrayed as educating their sons and grandsons. According to a statement attributed to R. Chiyya b. Ashi in the name of Rab in y. A.Z. 4:4, 43d44a, "Rabbi was sitting and repeating [ " " C T i T ] to R. Shimon his son ...". An Aramaic story tradition in y. Qid. 1:7,61a relates that "R. Yehoshua b. Levi used to listen to the scriptural lesson of his grandson [1~Q 111 HwiTfi ^QS r p 1 T mn] every Sabbath evening". In a comment on the story it is emphasized that "whoever hears a [Torah] passage from his grandson is as if he heard [a voice] from Sinai". Deut. 4:9-10 ("And make them known to your children and children's children ...") is quoted in support of this view. In addition to such continued emphasis on the teaching of children within the family and in contrast to tannaitic sources, amoraic documents do mention schools, and they refer to extra-familiar teachers much more frequently than

50

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

tannaitic works do. This difference may partly be due to the fact that amoraic works, especially the Talmud Yerushalmi, are much more voluminous than tannaitic works and contain more aggadic traditions in which primary education would be mentioned. On the other hand, the increase of references to schools and teachers could reflect actual circumstances, namely, that from the third century C.E. onwards opportunities for a specifically Jewish type of children's education outside the home and family had become more numerous. The statement attributed to R. Pinchas in the name of R. Hoshaiah in y. Meg. 3:1,73d par. y. Ket. 13:1, 35c, which maintains that in pre-destruction times 480 synagogues, each with a "ISO ITU and a - n a b n JT3 attached to it,61 were situated in Jerusalem, has already been mentioned above. 62 Scholars have repeatedly quoted it in support of their argument that numerous schools existed in Second Temple times. While the text cannot be considered to provide historically reliable information about pre-70 Jerusalem and the numbers it provides are certainly exaggerated, the amoraim who formulated the statement may have projected the situation of their own times to an earlier period. If the statement contains some historical truth at all, it may indicate that schools, which were in some way associated with synagogues, did exist outside of Jerusalem in the third and fourth century. Another similar text referring to hundreds of schools is a baraita attributed to R. Shimon b. Gamliel in y. Taan. 4:8, 69a. According to this statement, 500 schools or "houses of scribes" (D'HSIO Till) existed in Bethar at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. 63 Even the smallest of these schools is said to have been attended by not less than 500 children. The baraita is part of a whole complex of traditions relating to Bethar and emphasizing the Torah knowledge and observance of its inhabitants in contrast to the cruelty of the Romans when subdueing them. In the continuation of the text all of the children are said to have been wrapped into their scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. Despite the fact that the baraita is attributed to a contemporary of the events, i.e. to R. Shimon b. Gamliel II who lived at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt, the numbers are as exaggerated here as in y. Meg. 3:1, 73d. The text indicates that rabbis associated widespread Torah knowledge with the supporters of Bar Kokhba, just as they thought that that knowledge was prevalent amongst the inhabitants of pre-70 Jerusalem. Whether schools for children actually existed in Bethar, and if so, which form they had, remains uncertain.

61 The "ISO ITD is said to have been used for K~lpO, i.e. Scripture, and the TlO'pn ITD for r r a n , i.e. rabbinic traditions (rather than "the Mishnah" as a document). The reference to the latter should have already prevented scholars from believing that the text accurately depicts the situation of pre-rabbinic times. 62 A parallel version is transmitted in Lam. R. Proem 12. 63 The text has a parallel in Lam. R. 2:2. On Bethar see Schafer (1983) 171-73, on the Bethar complex in rabbinic literature idem (1981) 136 ff.

1.

Education

51

By using the expression n"HEfiO TQ, the rabbinic authors and editors of this text may have underlined the private and informal character of the imagined Bethar "schools". Rabbis assumed that the teaching would take place in the private houses or in rooms within the houses of the teachers rather than in the more formal setting of a special building. 64 The Yerushalmi and amoraic Midrashim contain further traditions in which the teaching of children is said to have taken place in synagogues and study houses. According to a case story transmitted in y. Hor. 2:5, 46d, R. Yonathan asked R. Shimon b.R. Yose b. Laqonia a question whose answer the former should have known by himself. R. Shimon b.R. Yose b. Laqonia allegedly "wanted to throw a heap of stones at him. He said to him: A matter which children say in the synagogue every day [DV ^ZQ « n C D m p O K « " p i r O I H^O] you ask me!". They are said to have "heard the voice of the repeater teaching [IT^p 'in a certain biblical verse (Lev. 15:24). R. Shimon b.R. Yose b. Laqonia was a fourth-generation tanna and R. Yonathan seems to be identical with his student Yonathan b. Eleazar.65 While the story begins in Hebrew ^ nbtz?) and features tannaim, the continuation just quoted, which contains the reference to children's instruction in the synagogue, is formulated in Aramaic and may have been added by the Yerushalmi editors. The synagogue also appears as the locale where children's teaching takes place in another Aramaic and amoraic story in y. M.Q. 3:1, 81d, which begins: "A maidservant of Bar Pata was passing by a synagogue and she saw the teacher [~)20] hit a child more than was necessary ...". Here the assumption is that the strict teaching methods could not only be heard but also seen from outside by passers-by. As in the Yerushalmi, a number of stories in ARN and amoraic Midrashim tell of people passing synagogues, who notice that the instruction of children is taking place inside when hearing the voices of children or their teachers. According to a story in ARNA 15 (p. 61/31a in the Schechter ed.), a gentile passed a synagogue "and heard a child reading [tOlpEJ pirn 1 ? the verse Ex. 28:4. Similarly, at the end of the story about R. Shimon b. Yochai's purification of Tiberias in PRK 11:16 (p. 193 in the Mandelbaum ed.), it is stated: "When he left, he passed by the synagogue of Magdala and heard the voice of the chil, dren's teacher of Magdala [K'ruaT prQ"I K^p £>001] saying [ironically]: Behold, Bar Yochai has purified Tiberias!". Although Shimon b. Yochai 64

For the usage of this expression see also also Lev. R. 2:5 (p. 43 in the Margoliot ed.): "R. Shimon b. Yochai said: [A parable] concerning a king who had an only son. Every day he instructed a member of his household [IITD and said to him: Has my son eaten? Has my son drunk? Did he go to the house of the scribe [S~ISD rpn 1 ?]? Did he come back from the house of the scribe [fcOSD ETOn]?"; PRK 27:1 (p. 402 in the Mandelbaum ed.): "It has been taught: On the New Year, a person's sustenance is decreed [for the coming year], except for ... what children bring [as his tuition] to the house of their master [¡31 ITD^ •pS^IQ mpl]Tint£3]", par. Lev. R. 30:1 (p. 688). 65 See Strack/Stemberger 86.

52

Part I: The Conditions

for the Development

of

Literacy

was a third-generation tanna, the story is told in Aramaic and is an amoraic tradition. A teacher from Magdala is also mentioned in a story transmitted in a later Midrash, Lam. R. 3:9: "The teacher of Magdala [ t ^ U m K~ISO] used to arrange the candles every Friday [in the synagogue?], go up [to Jerusalem] to worship, and return and kindle them [before the beginning of the Sabbath] Although the synagogue is not mentioned here, it is probably assumed to have been the place where the kindling of the candles took place. This is another story which associates the teacher/scribe of Magdala with activities in the local synagogue. Besides synagogues, study houses are portrayed as places where children were taught. According to a story iny. Meg. 1:11,7Id (par. Gen. R. 1:11, p. 10 in Theodor-Albeck ed.), "On a cloudy day, on which sages did not come to the meeting house p ^ l i l m ' ? ] , 6 6 the children came [and] said: Let us hold a session [lit.: make a meeting house] so that [the study time] will not be lost [piTtf ^CO" KlITil i T 3 TOiJ]]". The story is introduced by the term TWDK and begins in Hebrew, but the children's speech ("They said: Let us hold a session ...") is transmitted in Aramaic, as in the case of the story in y. Hor. 2:5, 46d referred to above. The children allegedly discussed the meaning of the phenomenon that some letters of the alphabet have two forms (depending on whether they appear in the middle or at the end of a word). No teacher is mentioned in this connection, and the term NIDI! JTD in the children's speech may have been used to indicate that the children imitated adults' study sessions. In any case, the story suggests that children's learning did take place in a study house only when that place was not used by adults. Only in exceptional cases, when weather conditions prevented adults from using the study house for their Torah study, could children take advantage of the place. Both synagogues and study houses are referred to in connection with elementary education in PRK 15:5 (p. 2 5 4 - 5 in the Mandelbaum ed.): "R. Abba b. Kahana said: No philosophers in the world ever arose like Baalam b. Beor and Abnymos of Gadara. The nations of the world came to Abnymos of Gadara. They said to him: Can we conquer this nation? He said to them: Go and make the rounds of their synagogues and study houses. If you find there children chirping out loud in their voices [Q i 7lp3 CTSKD^O n i p i m ] , you cannot conquer them".

In this tradition, attributed to a third-generation amora, synagogues and study houses are presented as the (typical?) locales where one would encounter children reciting Torah verses. The Torah education of children in the two institutions in which adults would customarily read and interpret the Torah is presented as a major Jewish asset in the confrontation with foreign nations here. Just as no buildings which could be identified as study houses have ever been excavated in Israel, 67 no buildings which could unambiguously be identified as 66 67

For the usage of "11)11 m See ibid. 205.

and dh"!0 m

as synonyms see Hezser (1997) 202.

1. Education

53

schools have been discovered. 68 Nevertheless, the main halls of the late Roman and early Byzantine synagogues, or rooms adjacent to these synagogues, which are part of some synagogue complexes' ground plans, may have sometimes served as locales where children were taught, besides having had other purposes as well. A number of synagogues, such as the ones at Capernaum, Khirbet Shema, Na'aran, Meroth, Nabratein, Chamat Gader, and Bet Alpha have one or more adjacent rooms, whose exact purposes remain unclear.69 The so-called "house of Kyrios Leontis", consisting of three rooms north of the synagogue courtyard and part of the synagogue complex at Bet Shean, may also have served multiple communal purposes. 70 In most of these cases the entrance to the annex is through a door at one of the walls of the synagogue's hall. Perhaps in some of these later synagogues a distinction between liturgical and other communal functions was built into the architectural plan, with the main halls serving prayer purposes only, while other activities took place in adjacent rooms. With regard to the annexes to the synagogue at Meroth, Zvi Ilan has suggested that one of them served as a school and the other, decorated with a mosaic, as a study house. 71 Although the purposes of the rooms cannot be determined exactly anymore, it is likely that adjacent rooms and annexes connected with the other synagogues mentioned above sometimes served similar functions. In cases where 68

See also Morgan, 28, with regard to Graeco-Roman schools: "We have scarcely any archaeological sites even tentatively identifiable as 'schoolrooms'". 69 See the plans and descriptions in Chiat. For Capernaum see ibid. 380, plan no. 9: "The northwest annex contains an adjoining room built of basalt...; it can be entered either through the door at the end of the north aisle or by way of an external double staircase built against its west and east walls" (92). Khirbet Shema, ibid. 378, plan no. 3: there is a small plastered room connected to the hall by a doorway in the western wall; "Additional rooms have walls in common with the synagogue, but none communicates with it" (34). Na'aran, ibid. 385, plan no. 31: the side door of the western aisle opens to a room with a mosaic (cf. ibid. 257). Meroth, ibid. 378, plan no. 4: Annex A is a two-storied structure at the eastern wall of the synagogue hall, built at the same time as the synagogue; it had a single entry off the synagogue's eastern aisle (cf. ibid. 39); in addition, there is a second structure, Annex B, to the north of Annex A. Nabratein, ibid. 379, plan no. 5: "A room is indicated adjoining the synagogue's west wall" (43). Chamat Gader, ibid. 386, plan no. 34: the synagogue's main hall has a four-room annex adjoining its eastern wall; in addition, a larger southern room opens directly into the synagogue's eastern aile: "Benches were built against its south, west, and east walls" (309). Bet Alpha, ibid. 381, plan no. 15: there is an annex adjoining the hall on the western side (cf. ibid. 124). 70 For the building see Chiat 381, plan no. 16; see also ibid. 130: the entire synagogue is surrounded by a complex of rooms and annexes. For an explanation of the "house of Leontis" see Lifshitz (1967a) in connection with inscriptions no. 77a-c: Since dedicatory inscriptions have been found on the mosaic pavement and on a marble lintel, the building is likely to have been a public building belonging to the Jewish community of Bet Shean. What has been considered to be the private house of Kyrios Leontis, mentioned in one of the inscriptions, seems to be part of the synagogue complex or a synagogue annex. See also Hüttenmeister/ Reeg 1:63: "Vielleicht handelt es sich um ein öffentliches Gebäude oder ein Privathaus, das von dem Eigentümer für die Belange der Synagoge (Gästehaus?) zur Verfügung gestellt wurde, als eine solche in diesem Komplex eingerichtet wurde". 71 See Z. Ilan (1995) 274-77.

54

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

there were a number of rooms, each of the rooms may have had a particular purpose, while in those cases where there was only one additional room, this room served several functions at different times. Whether synagogue complexes were used for primary teaching will have depended on whether a teacher/scribe lived at (or occasionally visited?) a certain place, whether the local parents wanted their sons to be taught in what the teacher had to offer, and whether the teacher preferred to and was allowed to teach in the communal building rather than in a private house or courtyard. Many more synagogues existed in amoraic than in tannaitic times and the synagogue itself seems to have experienced a major development in the late third and fourth century C.E. This development was not only reflected in the architectural structure but also in the significance and function of the building. 72 In early Byzantine times the synagogue became the religious center of the Jewish community and a symbol of local Jewish identity. 73 Since the Jewish schools mentioned in rabbinic sources seem to have taught Torah-reading skills only, 74 that is, prepared male Jews to function as Torah readers in synagogues, the synagogue would be the appropriate setting for such instruction. The increase of references to "schools" and elementary teaching in amoraic texts may therefore be directly connected with the emergence and spread of synagogues especially in the Galilee at that time. The teaching of children could also take place at various other places, however, such as, for example, the courtyard of the teacher's home. M. B.B. 2:3 rules that residents of an insula who share a courtyard have no right to object to a children's teacher teaching his pupils there by claiming that the noise which accompanies his teaching prevents them from getting enough sleep. In the Talmud Yerushalmi (y. B.B. 2:3, 13b), however, an anonymous commentary on the Mishnah (which may have been formulated by the Yerushalmi editors) suggests that the neighbors may very well protest against such a teacher. 75 The fact that the Yerushalmi editors tried to prohibit such teaching activities, whereas the editors of the Mishnah allowed them, may have been due to an actual increase in elementary teachers setting themselves up in the courtyards of their homes and thereby adding to the crowdedness of these already crowded residential quarters in which the poorer strata of society lived. The reference to a possible sleep deprivation of the neighbors is probably due to the phenomenon that primary teaching began in the early morning hours, as Martial (9,68) illustrates: even before the first cock-crow the teacher's angry shouts and lashes can be heard and the neighbors ask for sleep. The latter would almost be willing to pay the teacher his fees for keeping quiet rather than shouting and disturbing everyone. 76 72 73 74 75 76

See See See See See

Tsafrir 148 ff. Hachlili (1997) 45. section I.l.B below. the more detailed discussion of these texts in Hezser (1998a) 504-8. ibid. 505. Cf. Arzt 46.

1.

Education

55

The Yerushalmi and amoraic Midrashim most often refer to individual teachers only, without mentioning a school or outdoor setting in connection with them. Teachers of a certain town or village and teachers assumed to have taught more than one child are mentioned relatively often in these documents. A number of texts suggest that some locales had a teacher/scribe while others did not. For example, according to y. Dem. 7:4, 26b, "R. Yochanan went to a certain place. He found the teacher/scribe [N~)SO] sleeping". Townspeople told him that he was fasting. The text implies that the place had only one teacher/scribe who probably fulfilled the functions of both teaching and writing. In y. Meg. 4:5, 75b R. Shimon is called "the teacher/scribe of Tarbanat [nmCDT «"ISO]". 77 Townspeople allegedly admonished him to cut the reading short so that their children could follow the text and learn how to read. When he refused to do so, they "dismissed him from his position of teacher/scribe [nm~IDD ]ft ¡T'? |T12)1]". The reference to the teacher/scribe of Tarbanat is reminiscent of "the teacher/ scribe of Magdala [N^IJCH N~)20]" mentioned in connection with the local synagogue in two independent traditions referred to above (PRK 11:16; Lam. R. 3:9). At least in the case of Tarbanat the assumption is that the inhabitants of the town or their representatives had the authority to dismiss the teacher. Perhaps he was assumed to be a functionary of the local synagogue who also acted as scribe and Torah reader. 78 In other cases, where more skills were required of the official, the local community is also said to have taken the initiative in finding an appropriate candidate. According to a story in y. Yeb. 12:6, 13a, the inhabitants of Simonia asked R. Yehudah ha-Nasi "to give us a person who is a preacher, judge, chazzan, a teacher of Scripture and mishnah [¡"DPO ISO], and who does everything we need". The parallel version in Gen. R. 81:2 is shorter and refers to "a person who will teach us Scripture and mishnah and judge our cases" only. A very similar story in y. Shebi. 6:1, 36d has the people of Bosra ask R. Shimon b. Laqish for an individual with the same abilities as those listed in the Simonia story in y. Yeb. 12:6, 13a. Only the term j^jfiQ is missing from the list. That the inhabitants of the place could protest against an appointment is indicated by a story in y. Taan. 4:2, 68a, where the people of Sepphoris are said to have prevented the appointment of R. Chaninah by R. Yehudah ha-Nasi. In contrast to the traditions about Tarbanat and Magdala mentioned above, in the cases of Simonia and Bosra the community officials were expected to be not only teachers of children and scribes but to know halakhic and aggadic traditions as well, that is, they had to be rabbis. 79 Even in amoraic times not all towns and villages seem to have had a children's teacher, and the inhabitants of places where a teacher/scribe resided were not 77 On the identification of this place see Levine (2000) 359 n. 8: it was located on the border between the Lower Galilee and the Jezreel Valley. Alternative identifications are Tarichaea and Trachonitis, see ibid. 78 See also Levine, ibid. 79 See Hezser (1997) 88 on these texts.

56

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

always willing to support him or did not support him sufficiently. One may assume that only a few parents sent their children to him to learn Torah, and the inhabitants may have only rarely needed his help as a scribe. Y. Hag. 1:7, 76c transmits the following Aramaic story tradition: "R. Yudah Nasia sent R. Chiyya and R. Assi and R. Ammi to pass by the settlements of the land of Israel to introduce to them Scripture and mishnah teachers P13JT

TT'Drm p s o p1? 'Dpna1? 'Piatzri « j n m K r r n p n ] . They came to one place and

did not find either a Scripture or a mishnah teacher. They said to them [i.e. to the inhabitants]: Bring us the guardians of the place [ a m p - n m I1? ]TTK]. They brought 80 them the watchmen FTICMO] of the place. They said to them: These are not the guardians of the place. These are only the destroyers of the place. They said to them: And who are the guardians of the place? They said to them: The Scripture and mishnah teachers [ « T ^ n m '"-ISO]". 8 1

The term !T"lp refers to a small settlement which can be a town or a village. 82 One may assume that especially Palestinian villages lacked children's teachers even in amoraic times. According to a tradition in y. Taan. 4:8, 68d, the fourth-generation amora "R. Zekhariah, son-in-law of R. Levi compared [the Israelites' flight from the Mountain of the Lord] to children who run away from [their] teacher and go out to the villages [ " - I E D 3 j t > j-pSDI «"lETO ]Q "DQITOf

The

statement implies that the villages would not have any elementary teachers. The above-quoted story about R. Yudah Nasia does not state whether the rabbis were successful in their attempt to set up children's teachers in places which lacked them. The success of such initiatives will have depended on the rabbis' force of persuasion and the local parents' acceptance of the functionaries. Whether or not a teacher could survive at a place ultimately depended on whether the inhabitants would send their children to him and approved of his teaching (see above). A number of traditions seem to suggests that certain locales were lacking in this regard. According to a statement attributed to R. Shimon b. Yochai in y. Hag. 1:7, 76c, "When you see towns [fTl'VI}] which have been uprooted from their location in the land of Israel, know that they did not pay the wage of teachers of Scripture and mishnah fDOQI •1~ID1D "DCD i p ' i n n K^O]". Because of parents' obvious disinterest in and lack of payment of elementary teachers, rabbis repeatedly encourage all members of local communities to contribute to teachers' maintenance. In a scriptural interpretation attributed to R. Tanchuma in Lev. R. 27:2 (p. 624 in the Margoliot ed.) bachelors are encouraged to donate money to children's teachers, even though they do not have children who would profit from their work. An anonymous statement in y. Peah 8:7,21a suggests 80 See Sokoloff, Dictionary, 383-4. Krauss, Lehnwörter, 403 derives ~IQ]0 from the Greek term auvTT)@r|g, "Aufseher". As an alternative, ibid. 402 he derives "11030 from Greek aevcrcwg, "Ratsherr", but thinks that the former derivation ("guardsman", "watchman") fits the y. Hag. context better. Senators would hardly be found in small settlements. 81 The story has a parallel in PRK 15:5 (p. 253 of the Mandelbaum ed.). 82 According to Krauss (1966) 3:202, the term RIT'Hp refers to "Niederlassungen ganz kleiner Art".

1. Education

57

that whoever resides at a place for more than twelve months should pay a tax from which teachers of Scripture and mishnah can be paid. This suggestion is preceded by other rabbinic recommendations for communal charity and the support of poor residents. These rabbinic proposals cannot be taken as evidence of a widespread communal appointment and financing of elementary teachers in Palestine. 83 They are mere suggestions which are very unlikely to have been followed everywhere. At places where teachers were appointed by community representatives, local donors who valued Torah education may have contributed to their salary and supplemented the fees which parents would (hesitate to) pay. The charitable action ascribed to R. Aqiva in a story in Lev. R. 34:16 (p. 812 in the Margoliot ed.), namely, that he donated money which R. Tarfon had given him to buy a field and support rabbis to children's teachers and students of Torah (ITJ"J5T0'TI IT "ISO1? N r r - l I N n • p s ' r i ] , i TK L n) instead, fits well into this context. Even if parents who sent their children to elementary teachers did pay the respective tuition fee, the salary of the teacher will have been very low. 84 Although no specific amounts of money are ever mentioned in rabbinic texts, according to a statement attributed to R. Berekhiah and R. Chiyya his father in the name of R. Nehorai, transmitted in PRK 27:1 (p. 402 in the Mandelbaum ed.), children's teachers receive a salary for lost time [j ,i TE)Il ~D2?] only. 85 Besides teachers who taught groups of students together, private tutors are mentioned in amoraic sources, although less frequently than the former and almost only in king parables. A king who had hired a "paedagogue" for his son already appeared in the king parable transmitted in Sifre Deut. 19 (p. 31 in the Finkelstein ed.), referred to above. The Yerushalmi contains only a single tradition about a private teacher hired by a rabbi for his son. According to y. Peah 8:9, 21b, "R. Hoshaiah the Elder [or: Great] 86 had a blind teacher for his son [ ¡ T I M IT3~l] The story continues to tell about the rabbi's mistreatment of the teacher by not inviting him together with his other dinner guests. The reference to the banquet suggests that the rabbi featured in the story was supposed to be wealthy. The phenomenon that he is said to have hired a private teacher for his son points into the same direction. The term "paedagogue" appears only once in the Yerushalmi, 8 7 in a king parable in y. Sanh. 10:2, 28b (with parallels in Gen. R. 42:3, p. 401 in the 83 Levine (2000) 417 ff. and 375 seems to believe that elementary teachers were almost always communal employees in Palestine and that the payment of teachers was a public issue. See also Gafni 13ff. (of the manuscript), who points to the distinction between Palestine and Babylonia in this regard. 84 Cf. Aberbach 164. 85 According to Drazin, 66, this means that the teacher was not allowed "to accept more pay than he was actually able to earn at some other work during the hours he devoted to teaching". See also Bacher 70; Arzt 39; Aberbach 164. The same type of teachers' salary is mentioned in y. Ned. 4:3, 38c: l^CDI] ]H j^'CQ "IDC. 86 For the usage of the adjective K21 after a name see Hezser (1997) 30Iff. 87 See Kosovsky's Concordance to the Yerushalmi 6:671.

58

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

Theodor-Albeck ed.? and in Lev. R. 11:7, p. 230 in the Margoliot ed.). A king is said to have handed over his son to a "paedagogue". This paedagogue wanted to kill the son. Instead of committing the crime himself, he planned to take away the child's wet-nurse, so that the infant would die unaided. Here, just as in the king parable in Sifre Deut. 19 (where the paedagogue is said to have shown the son the king's property and told him that all of it belonged to him, i.e. the son), the paedagogue is not portrayed as a teacher, but as a kind of babysitter or tutor, who was supposed to watch over the child but sometimes did the exact opposite. Criminal intentions are also ascribed to the paedagogue of another king parable transmitted in Lev. R. 10:3 (p. 20If. in the Margoliot ed.): "R. Abba b. Yudan said in the name of R. Acha: [This may be compared] to the son of a king who became very overbearing and took a sword to cut his father. The paedagogue said to him: Do not trouble yourself. Give me [the sword] and I shall cut [him]. The king glanced at him and said to him: I know your intentions. You said that it would be better if the sin attached to you and not to my son. For your [entire] life you shall not leave my palace, and what remains over from my table you shall eat, twentyfour annonas",88

Here the son plans to kill his father, while the paedagogue suggests to act as a mediator on behalf of the son. The king, who is aware of the plot, is said to have praised the paedagogue for his willingness to put himself in danger in order to prevent the son from committing a sin. Finally, in PRK 14:5 (p. 246 in the Mandelbaum ed.) a paedagogue, hired by a king, is said to have belittled the son and called him a "moron" [miO], which is subsequently explained (R. Reuven) as the Greek term [D"mO] for "idiot" [^"JS], The king is said to have fired the paedagogue. 89 Thus, in the Talmud Yerushalmi and amoraic Midrashim the term "paedagogue" is restricted to king parables, and this special type of private teachertutor is associated with the wealthy, in fact, with the imperial aristocracy only. In these parables the paedagogue appears as a mediator figure involved in the power games of the emperor's family, at times planning to kill the son and at others to risk his own life for sparing him. Except for the parable transmitted in PRK 14:5, where the paedagogue is said to have questioned his student's intelligence, the function of the paedagogue as teacher is never mentioned. Whether and to what extent this image accords with what we know about the paedagogue from Graeco-Roman literature will be discussed below. The phenomenon that the figure of the paedagogue is restricted to king parables and that a private tutor is only mentioned once in connection with a rabbi is striking. It may indicate that rabbis associated private tutors with the wealthy and with the highest strata of society only. Although the king of the king parables is not specifically identified as non-Jewish, the authors may have had a gentile 88 Jastrow, Dictionary, 82, explains annona with "ration, or portions of provision granted to courtiers as salaries or pensions". 89 On king parables featuring a paedagogue see also Ziegler 419-20.

1.

Education

59

king in mind. Only (gentile) kings are imagined to have hired a 313TS for their son, while the private teacher of R. Hoshaiah's son is called H I . It is possible that not only the terms were different but also the type of private teacher to which they referred. Since the private teacher which a wealthy rabbi would hire for his son had other functions than the paedagogue employed by wealthy non-Jewish families, he was referred to as Zl I, the common Hebrew term for Jewish teachers. 90 Before we compare the picture of ancient Jewish education, derived from rabbinic sources, with that of ancient education in general, which Graeco-Roman literature provides, the results achieved so far shall be briefly summarized here. It seems that in Second Temple and tannaitic times children's education mainly took place in the home and within the family. Since biblical times fathers were resonsible for educating their sons. Whether they did actually fulfill this task will have depended on their own education, their amount of spare time, and their attitude toward Torah learning. More schools and children's teachers are mentioned in amoraic than in tannaitic sources. This phenomenon may be due to the fact that from the third century onwards more teachers and schools were available and frequented by children in Palestine than in earlier times. In amoraic sources synagogues and study houses are mentioned as the locales where the instruction of children took place, or children could be instructed in the house of their teacher, or at any other convenient place. 91 The term "ISO i T 2 was probably used for any building or room within a building where children's teaching would customarily be conducted. It could be a room within a synagogue or another public or private building used for that purpose - and probably for other purposes as well. The phenomenon that synagogues, schools, and study houses are sometimes mentioned side by side does not preclude this possibility that synagogues (and study houses) were sometimes used for elementary teaching, as the Yerushalmi tradition about the "schools" allegedly associated with or attached to the synagogues in Jerusalem suggests. While in amoraic times some towns seem to have had a teacher, others, and especially villages, probably did not. In some locales elementary teachers seem to have been communal functionaries, and the communal representatives of the respective place will have been responsible for their appointment and dismissal. How common this phenomenon was we do not know. Elsewhere individual teachers will have set themselves up on their own initiative and offered their services to the local parents. The repeated rabbinic admonitions to pay teachers 90

Seth Schwartz suggested to me that 3 1 might be the translation of the Latin magister here. It is striking that a "paedagogue" is also never mentioned in connection with the patriarch in Palestinian rabbinic documents, although the patriarchal family was believed to have had a more positive attitude to Greek education than other rabbis, see section C below. 91 Synagogues and study houses: cf. Bacher 50 and 67; Krauss (1966) 3:204 (the school could have been a "house" connected with or attached to a synagogue); Perlow 33; Aberbach 166. Private homes of the teachers: cf. Bacher 68; see also Arzt 44, who considers these homes to have been owned by the community, however (see ibid. n. 80). For the possibility of a wide variety of teaching locales, including outdoor places, see Krauss (1966) 3:205.

60

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

suggest that at places where a teacher resided the parents did not always support him very well. Private tutors hired by individual families are only rarely mentioned in rabbinic sources. In both tannaitic and amoraic documents the Greek loanword "paedagogue" appears in king parables only. There is only a single reference to a private teacher employed by a rabbi. It seems that rabbis associated the phenomenon of the "paedagogue" with the non-Jewish and/or highest strata of society only. If we now turn to primary education in Graeco-Roman society, the phenomenon that a centrally organized system of public schools did not exist is most striking and relevant for the proper understanding of education in antiquity. Stanley Bonner has emphasized the role which education within the family has played in Roman society in antiquity.92 Roman literary sources contain numerous references to and descriptions of (upper-class) fathers teaching their sons.93 In his biography of the elder Cato, for example, Plutarch writes that Cato taught his son reading by writing stories for him in large letters.94 He continued to teach him more advanced subjects such as Roman law and sought to "mould his son in his own image". 95 The younger Cato finally became a jurist. Bonner stresses, however, that the education which Cato gave his son was exceptional even for the upper classes with regard to the amount of time he invested in the task and with regard to his own proficiency as a teacher.96 Yet it is clear that in educational matters, "long before Cato's day, the father's influence was paramount". 97 The father's obligation to teach his son was an ideal which could not be fulfilled by everyone, though: "circumstances could often arise which would prevent its realization in practice". 98 Fathers who had public positions were often too involved in politics to be able to spend time and energy on their children's education. Mothers and other relatives such as uncles and grandparents were sometimes occupied with children's education as well.99 When this instruction was not sufficient, private tutors could be hired. These tutors were considered a luxury, and they were usually employed by the upper classes only.100 The Greek paidagogos was a slave who accompanied a boy from early childhood until his early adulthood to the various places where he 92

See Bonner 10-19. See also Harris (1989) 233. Harris emphasizes that upper-class parents' obligation to teach their children reading and writing applied to sons only: "no known text applies this obligation to daughters". 94 See Bonner 10 with reference to Plutarch, Cato Major 20. 95 Ibid. 11. 96 See ibid. 97 See ibid, for examples. See also ibid. 12 with reference to Plautus, Mostellaria 120-54: parents "teach their children letters, law, and the principles of justice". 98 Bonner 12. 99 See ibid. 14-16. 100 See ibid. 35. 93

1. Education

61

received instruction. While he sometimes provided primary education himself, at least as far as the later stages of the boy's development were concerned, he was a supervisor rather than a teacher.101 Wealthy Roman families would sometimes employ Greek-speaking private teachers from foreign countries to teach Greek language and literature to their children. 102 The teachers would reside with one particular family for some time, or serve several families. 103 Sometimes these teachers opened their own private schools. 104 Since a certain number of private tutors were prisoners who were captured by the Romans in wars and sold to families as children's teachers after they were brought to Rome, 105 the reputation of the teaching profession was very low: "Thus, apart from members of the family, it was the slave, or freedman, rather than the freeborn citizen, who did most to lay the foundations of education for Roman children. In fact, as a result of the lowly origin and social position of such teachers, citizens of free birth who found their occupation in conducting primary schools were looked upon with disdain. Their remuneration, ..., was minimal, and they rated far below the 'grammarian' and rhetorician". 1 0 6

The low esteem in which elementary teachers were held was probably also due to the fact that they did not need any higher qualifications than being able to read: "techniquement, quiconque avait lui-même appris à lire était considéré comme capable de s'improviser maître à son tour".107 In Rome the state did not take any initiative in instituting, organizing, or funding public primary education. 108 Accordingly, the conditions in which primary education outside the homes of wealthy families took place varied according to the popularity and means of the respective teacher: "The teacher usually had to depend upon his fees for a livelihood; consequently the environment in which he worked might vary very much according to his personal 101 See ibid. 38-39. Marrou, 221, points out, however, that in Hellenistic Greek the term TKa&aYor/og often loses the sense of slavery and comes to denote the paedagogue and educator. Nevertheless, the teacher who taught children to read was commonly called 6i&daxaXoc;. 102 See Bonner 20-33. Cf. ibid. 27: "During this period of the later Republic, there is clear evidence that not only the sons but also the daughters of the upper classes benefited from the higher education which tutors could provide". Bonner provides a number of examples here. E.g., Pompey's daughter Pompeia was taught by a private tutor to read aloud a passage from Homer (cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 9.1.3). "From the late Republic onwards, there is considerable evidence that girls were often well read, especially in poetry, both Greek and Latin, and merited the compliment of being called docta puella". On the education of women in GraecoRoman society see also Cole, 23If., who points out that classes for girls existed in the Greek cities of the East in Hellenistic times. 103 See Bonner 22 and 31. 104 See ibid. 47. 105 See ibid. 23. 106 Ibid. 46. 107 Marrou 224. 108 See Morgan 25, who points to "the almost complete absence, for any period of antiquity, of evidence for any kind of formal central control or organization of teachers or schools or what was taught". See also Harris (1983) 96 and ibid. n. 41.

62

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and the a m o u n t h e could m a n a g e to pay for a hired r o o m . At the very lowest level, h e might not b e able to a f f o r d rented a c c o m m o d a t i o n at all, and m i g h t h a v e to teach w h e n and w h e r e h e could in the open air; and this w a s true also of Greece. If h e had suitable l i v i n g - a c c o m m o d a t i o n , the teacher m i g h t use it for the p u r p o s e of his school, either permanently, or at least as a first step". 1 0 9

Various settings are mentioned in the literary sources. In order to attract students, teachers would often sit with a class in the street, the colonnades, a square, or the marketplace.110 Bonner emphasizes that due to the Mediterranean climate much of the teaching took place in the open air: "Not that such teaching was in any way organized - it had a certain primitive simplicity about it, and all that the teacher needed was a seat, or bench, a few children and a book".111 Teachers who had the financial means to do so would rent a shop or an upper room (a so-calledpergula, which Bonner identifies with the hyperoon, a room or apartment above the shop in insulae, where the shopkeeper and his family often lived) and use it as a "school".112 Another possible teaching location were makeshift structures or booths. 113 Since such structures would not be able to survive the natural decay and other teaching locations not be distinguishable from ordinary accommodations, it is not amazing that "remains identifiable as schoolrooms have so rarely been found at Rome". 114 According to Harris, this lack of clearly identifiable school buildings "accurately symbolized the lack of interest in elementary education on the part of both society in general and the authorities in particular".115 Not all of the students who studied with such an elementary teacher would come from the poorer classes who could not afford a more agreeable way of receiving a basic education. 116 In all likelihood, the composition of these schools 109

Bonner 115. For examples and references see ibid. 116. E.g., Bonner refers to Dio Chrysostomus 21.9: "The teachers of letters sit in the streets with their pupils ...". See also Harris (1989) 2 3 6 - 7 and Morgan 3. 111 See Bonner 116. 112 See ibid. 119-120. Besides the pergula, the maenianum or 'balcony room' could be used for teaching purposes. See also Marrou 392 and Harris (1989) 2 3 6 - 7 . 113 Cf. Harris (1989) 236, who stresses the wretched conditions of most Roman schools, which "were, as far as we can tell, physically makeshift". 114 Bonner 122. See also Harris (1989) 236: As far as Pompeii is concerned, "there is no strong evidence that any particular building was devoted to this purpose, and the very notion may be anachronistic. No school has been identified at Ostia either. The famous painting from the house of Iulia Felix at Pompeii which illustrates a school scene seems to show that it took place at the edge of the forum, partly in a portico". 115 Harris (1989) 237. 116 Cf. ibid. 233: "It is likely in fact that most people outside the upper class relied on schools for the elementary education of their children". On the other hand, "some at least of those who were comfortably off sent their sons to elementary schools" (ibid. 238). Quintilian and Dio, for example, praise the advantages of schools in comparison to private teachers, cf. ibid. n. 332 for references. School exercises from the 3rd c. C.E. and later, published in the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum "assume that the boy who attends school comes from a family which had a good supply of slaves at home" (ibid. 238-9). Furthermore, the costs of writing tablets or papyrus used for such school exercises were relatively high, see ibid. 239. 110

1.

Education

63

differed from place to place. Sometimes students of different levels and ages would all be taught together," 7 while other schools may have been more homogeneous with regard to the pupils' proficiencies. The fee (merces) which the parents agreed to pay monthly or annually would be the teacher's only salary. Since this was a verbal agreement only and parents used to pay retrospectively, some parents tried to avoid payment altogether by claiming that their children had not learned anything or that they suddenly lacked the means to pay. Students might also go to another teacher shortly before the annual payment was due. Accordingly, teachers lived in constant anxiety over their payment and the loss of students." 8 While there are few references to the actual amount of money which teachers received, Bonner believes that the average payment was half a denarius per pupil per month, that is, four denarii for each pupil annually (since children would be taught eight months a year only). 119 If so, "a teacher would have had to have a very large school, and regular payments, to make as much as an ordinary workman, paid at a rate of a denarius a day". 120 Accordingly, "it remains very doubtful whether a primary teacher could have made a living wage without finding other means of supplementing his income", such as, for example, working as a scribe and writing wills. 121 In general, teachers' "general economic position can only be described as deplorable". 122 It would be alleviated only by occasional gifts. In the Roman world teachers were sometimes supported by private donors, who might be able to persuade other leading members of the community to contribute to their cause. 123 Whether the Hellenistic cities would employ elementary teachers, as suggested by Marrou, 124 is highly questionable, though. 117 Girls seem to have at least sometimes visited the schools as well, cf. Marrou 391, with reference to Martial 9.68.2. According to Harris (1989) 239, "a certain number of girls probably attended in some of the towns of imperial Italy, though there is no explicit evidence to that effect". 118 See Bonner 146-48. 119 See ibid. 150 with reference to Horace, Serm. 1.6.75. Marrou, 5 9 8 - 9 9 n. 9, refers to the same text when estimating teachers' salary, see also Harris (1989) 238. For the school year consisting of eight months only see Martial 10.62.1-12, where the (harvest) time from July to October is depicted as a kind of summer vacation. 120 Bonner 150. Marrou, 392, reckons that a teacher would need at least 30 regular students to earn as much as a qualified laborer or craftsman. 121 Bonner, 150, refers to an inscription (CIL 10.3969) which states that a ludi magister of Capua, probably in the Augustan period, "wrote out wills". 122 Ibid. See also Marrou 223 and 392, with references. 123 Harris (1989) 242 and Morgan, 27, refer to Pliny, Ep. 4.13, for the time of Trajan: Pliny allegedly proposed to the leading citizens of Como in Italy to hire teachers, and he offered to donate one third of what they would collect for this purpose. Harris notes, however, that "only one other gift for primary or secondary education is specifically known from anywhere in the Empire". 124 See Marrou 163f., who assumes that in Hellenistic times Greek education ceased to be the sole domain of parents. From then onwards the polis or municipality was allegedly held responsible for sponsoring education. The emperor only occasionally intervened as a private donor. Cf. Bonner 158.

64

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

There was no uniform policy concerning education amongst the Greek cities, and many cities lacked the means to support educational institutions. If they did have the money, cities would generally maintain ephebeia and gymnasia rather than primary schools. 125 As far as the Roman period is concerned, "there is little to suggest that any ordinary Greek city of this period took the large extra step of publicly financing elementary education". 126 Thus, even in the Greek cities, primary education would largely remain a private affair. Despite this situation in the Roman period boasting statements such as the one claiming that "everything [in the Empire] is full of gymnasia, fountains, propylaea, temples, workshops and schools" appear in the literature.127 Harris argues that this statement "is written from the particular point of view of the prosperous inhabitants of Greek cities. It is important evidence for an ideal believed in by many men of this class, but it tells us nothing whatsoever about the experience of the Romans as a whole". 128 This exaggeration concerning the number and distribution of educational institutions throughout the Roman Empire is reminiscent of the claims made in certain rabbinic texts (see above) that hundreds of schools existed in Jerusalem and Bethar in the first and second centuries C.E. These texts also express an ideal, namely that of the rabbis, rather than telling us anything about actual Jewish educational experience at that time. The actual number of schools in Roman Palestine in particular and in the Roman Empire at large is impossible to determine. As Harris correctly points out, the only evidence we have are incidental references in literary works and (in the case of Rome) in inscriptions. It is important to realize that "a single reference to a schoolmaster is no guarantee that a town possessed a continuously functioning school over a long period; nor does silence mean that any particular locality lacked a school". 129 All one can do is hypothesize on the basis of the evidence for teachers and schools that does exist. This evidence gives the impression that in amoraic times primary schools, in the sense of individual teachers providing some form of primary education for a short or long duration, existed in some towns, while, as in Rome, "most villages, ..., were probably without them". 130 When comparing what we know about primary education in Graeco-Roman society with the results concerning Jewish primary education in Roman Palestine, outlined above, the most striking similarity is the informal and unregulated character of almost all elementary teachers and schools in both societies. Primary educational institutions were neither established nor regulated or funded 125

See Harris (1989) 132. Ibid. 245. 127 See Harris (1989) 240 with reference to Ael. Arist., To Rome 97, referring to the time of Antonius Pius. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 241. 130 See ibid. 126

1.

Education

65

by the Roman government, and those "schools" which existed cannot have been obligatory in any way. In some cases the leading members of a local Jewish community may have agreed to jointly fund a teacher for their children, but there is no evidence of a country-wide organization of the school system by the patriarch or any other central authority. Teresa Morgan has suggested that literate education in antiquity should be seen as a "self-regulating system", in which "those who needed it, those who had the resources and those who had the incentive to acquire it were by and large the same group, though not necessarily composed of the same people or families in every generation". 131 Only "when more people needed to be educated (for instance, to vote or read Scripture) than have a sufficiently strong incentive or can afford to choose to learn", were outside incentives necessary. 132 Both the amoraic propagation of primary education and some local community representatives' efforts in support of children's teachers may be understood on this basis: In order to have more people interested in the Torah knowledge which they themselves had to offer, rabbis encouraged parents to send their children to schools. Similarly, community representatives needed Torah readers for the synagogues which flourished at that time. Parents' interest in their children's Torah education may nevertheless have remained very limited, though. Since Graeco-Roman literary texts, in contrast to rabbinic texts, almost exclusively deal with the affairs and life circumstances of the upper strata of society, private teachers employed by (or: bought by) wealthy families are mentioned much more frequently there than in rabbinic texts. As already pointed out above, the originally Greek phenomenon of the paedagogue appears in king parables only. Nevertheless the almost complete lack of references to children's private tutors in rabbinic documents is noteworthy. It might, on the one hand, point to rabbis' focus on the situation of the lower and middle classes only and, 133 on the other hand, be due to the fact that private tutors were usually foreigners and/or slaves who taught Greek. In the one case where a private teacher for a rabbi's son is mentioned, he is distinguished from such teachers by being called rav. The great variety of settings where primary education outside the home would be conducted, and the informal and improvisational nature of such teaching seem to have been similar in both Jewish and Roman society. 134 Both Jewish and Roman children will have been taught in open spaces, courtyards, and upper rooms of private houses. In both Jewish and Graeco-Roman society primary education did at least sometimes also take place in public communal buildings, 131

Morgan 33. Ibid. 133 Cf. Ebner 43: "undoubtedly there were rich Jews, who employed private teachers to instruct their children in general knowledge". 134 According to Kanarfogel, 17-32, the informal nature of Jewish elementary education and the lack of an institutional organization continued in Ashkenaz in the Middle Ages. Fathers were responsible for either teaching their children themselves or hiring a melammed for them: "Elementary education was the result of agreements between parents and teachers" (19). 132

66

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

namely gymnasia and palaestra135 or synagogue and study houses. The phenomenon that primary teaching could take place in synagogues and study houses would not always imply that the community had formally established a "school" at such a place. Those responsible for the upkeep of these buildings may have sometimes allowed private teachers to use it, or the buildings were simply left open and used by teachers on their own initiative, perhaps with the approval of the community. 136 The tradition about children entering a "meeting house" when it was not used by adults speaks for the latter possibility. In both Jewish and Graeco-Roman society the primary teacher seems to have been very poor. His poverty may have been alleviated by occasinal gifts and donations. The reference to Rabbi donating money to primary teachers instead of using it for the support of rabbis fits well into this context. While, in general, upper-class Romans are unlikely to have been interested in providing a basic education to the lower classes, 137 certain educated circles had a vital interest in promoting basic reading skills. Rabbis seem to have resembled Christian leaders 138 and ancient philosophers and historians such as Plato, Aristotle, and Diodorus Siculus in this regard. 139 At least in amoraic times, rabbis, much like philosophers who also taught a "higher" form of knowledge, seem to have realized that their own status as teachers depended on attracting students and their ability to propagate their message on the existence of an educated audience. 140 The more children were able to read Hebrew, the larger was the pool of potential rabbinic students and adult men who frequented study houses. 135

See Morgan 29. Cribiore, 19, maintains that teachers of higher education would also teach in temples or in the Museum, while gymnasia generally did not function as academic institutions. 136 With regard to the later Islamic period Goitein (1971b) 186 writes: "In larger cities, free competition prevailed among teachers, but synagogue buildings were given only to persons approved by the community". 137 Cf. Harris (1989) 98: "... their [individual children's teachers'] calling is despised by the social elite and perhaps by a wider segment of the citizens, as it was to be throughout antiquity. This attitude possibly derives from some feeling among the educated that part of their birthright was being sold in sordid circumstances. It also hints that the well-to-do saw very little, if any, social utility in the imparting of basic education". See ibid. n. 145 for references. 138 A religiously motivated propagation of children's education existed in early Christianity, cf. Marrou 452. Marrou refers to Chrysostom's tract on the education of children, whose authenticity has been questioned though (cf. S. Haidacher, Des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus Buchlein iiber Hoffart und Kindererziehung, Freiburg 1907). 139 See Harris (1989) 130: In Hellenistic times "the recommendations of Plato and Aristotle in favour of quasi-universal education must have won a certain amount of assent. Such a point of view may have been advanced in some of the now fairly numerous monographs which philosophers wrote about education, though the fact is not attested. Some such text is likely to lie behind Diodorus Siculus' praise of universal education for boys", cf. Dio. Sic. 12.12.4. Harris suggests that such theories may have coincided with cities and private citizens subsidizing teachers in the 3rd and 2nd c. B.C.E. See also ibid. 99ff.: Plato's Laws "was perhaps the first work to bring the notion of universal education before a sizeable public" (99), cf. book 7 of this work. For Aristotle see ibid. 100 n. 157. 140 See Hezser (1997) 100-105.

1.

Education

67

In comparison to the lowly image of the primary teacher in Graeco-Roman society, the religiously motivated interest in elementary Torah-reading skills may have elevated the social status of the teacher, if not in Jewish society at large, then at least in the eyes of those who shared rabbis' concern for Torah knowledge. 141 The limitedness of the teacher's proficiency, in contrast to the much broader and deeper traditional knowledge of the rabbis, at the same time put him in his place. 142 Contrary to the opinion of Bacher, Safrai and others it is clear that throughout antiquity Jewish education was voluntary. Accordingly, even at a place where an elementary teacher was (trying to make a) living, not all parents will have sent their sons to study with him. In all likelihood, a large number or even the majority of parents will have shared the opinion attributed to Elisha b. Abuyah in y. Hag. 2:1, 77b. Whenever he saw students sitting together with a teacher he allegedly said: "What are these doing here? This one should be a mason" etc. The students are said to have been convinced by him: they left their Torah teacher and went to learn a more practical profession. Despite the relatively low cost of elementary education (if the fees for elementary education in Jewish society in Roman Palestine were similar to those calculated for Rome by Marrou and Bonner), most parents are likely to have considered education a luxury. In addition to the actual teaching fees they would lose the money which their sons could have earned during the hours they spent at school. For many if not most parents this loss will have been exceedingly high. 143 If they gave their sons an education at all, they are likely to have let them learn the skills which they needed for economic advancement only. A primary education which focused on the reading of the Torah in Hebrew, at a time when the languages of everyday life were Aramaic and Greek, 144 is likely to have attracted the sons of parents who were not only economically able to afford such a luxury but also dedicatedly religious. They must have considered

141

See Goodman (1994) 107 f. For the relationship between scribes and rabbis see Hezser (1997) 467-75. Not all primary teachers will have been scribes, though. On the ambiguous presentation of primary teachers in rabbinic sources see also Arzt 39 (positive) and 4 2 - 4 3 (derogative). Ebner, 58f., argues against the notion that the low esteem in which primary teachers were held in Jewish society was a reflection of the low status of teachers amongst the Greeks and Romans, since the Jewish teacher was a free-born person and not a slave. Kanarfogel, 25 ff., believes that the elementary teacher had "diminished esteem" in Jewish society because the material he taught "did not require great breadth or depth of knowledge" (32), because he received compensation for his teaching and had to watch over young children (25). 143 With regard to children's education in the Greek cities in Hellenistic times Harris (1989) 135 thinks that since "in the great majority of Greek cities, ..., parents had to pay for their children's education", this phenomenon invalidates some scholars' claim that "all children normally went to school". I.e. although theoretically schools were not limited to the rich, only the reasonably well off would have been able to afford them. 144 See section 1.5 below. 142

68

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

Torah study more important than the learning of Greek and other secular skills. 145 Since the Jewish upper classes may have preferred a Greek education for their children, 146 only a relatively small percentage of the population remains. Whether these parents considered Torah-reading skills important will have depended on individual rabbis' power of persuasion.

B. The Contents

and Procedures

of Jewish Elementary

Education

The focus on the reading of the Torah in Jewish elementary education seems to have been customary at least since the last centuries of the Second Temple. The connection between teaching one's children letters and their prospective ability to read the Torah is repeatedly emphasized in Greek Jewish writings and by Josephus. For example, in the Testament of Levi, which Kee dates to the second c. B.C.E., 147 Levi admonishes his sons: "Teach your children letters also, so that they might have understanding throughout all their lives as they ceaselessly read the Law of God" (13:2). Similarly Josephus writes that the Torah "orders that they [children] shall be taught letters [x«i Y Q a ^ o a a Jtai6eiJ£iv], and shall learn both the laws and the deeds of the forefathers, in order that they may imitate the latter, and, being grounded in the former, may neither transgress nor have any excuse for being ignorant of them" (C.A. 2.25, 204). Before 70 C.E. the emphasis on the Torah was not a Pharisaic peculiarity but seems to have been shared by various groups and circles within Jewish society. Priests, Levites, and Sadducees were the traditional students of scribal schools and occupants of scribal positions. 148 Hengel assumes that the "wisdom tradition was probably native to such priestly-levitical circles". 149 Others, such as the Pharisees, Essenes, and early Christians made the familiarity with the Torah, which had been the privilege of the upper classes, an ideal for the common people and the laity too. This did not mean, of course, that everyone was now supposed to become a scribe. It merely meant that religious leaders of different persuasions are likely to have propagated Torah study as a means of Jewish selfdefinition and provided their own Torah interpretations which were often in conflict with each other. With regard to the post-70 C.E. rabbis one has to distinguish between the general recommendation to fathers to teach their sons Torah, which is already prevalent in biblical and tannaitic sources, and the propagation of a higher, that is, rabbinic form of Torah study, an ideal which only the amoraim seem to have 145 See Gerhardsson 59, who thinks, however, that this situation changed toward the end of amoraic times. 146 See section I.l.C below. 147 See Kee in Charlesworth 777-78. 148 See Hengel 1:78. 149 Ibid.

1. Education

69

implemented by accepting a wider variety of students and by occasionally providing public Torah sermons. 150 Since only fathers who knew letters and were knowledgeable of the Torah themselves would have been able to teach Torah to their children, in the first two centuries, when few opportunities for an elementary education outside the home existed, 151 children's basic instruction in the Torah would have been restricted to certain educated circles. 152 It seems that only in amoraic times children's teachers and schools became more widespread and rabbis more open with regard to propagating Torah study for the masses. Scholars who believed that an organized Jewish school system already existed in Second Temple times often considered this development the accomplishment or at least strengthening of the authority of the Pharisees. Ebner, for example, writes that "the founding of the public school constituted an important move to assure the spread of the Pharisaic teachings among the people", 153 it allowed the Pharisees "to secure a wide and lasting acceptance of their teachings among the people". 154 Similarly Hengel assumes that the "programme of education" for everyone, which, according to him, originated in the intellectual struggle with Hellenism, "was later developed by the Pharisees". 155 He argues that "without a considerable number of Jewish elementary schools, the rise of the Rabbinate, the extension of the popular Pharisaic movement and even the establishment of the institution of the synagogue, which presupposes a basic stock of people knowledgeable in the law in particular places, would be inconceivable". 156 This view has to be corrected on the basis of what has been said about Jewish elementary education above. The seeming increase of teachers and schools, that is, opportunities for children's basic education in Torah outside the home from the third century C.E. onwards may in some ways be related to amoraic rabbis' propagation of Torah study at that time. The propagation of Torah study in rabbinic sources cannot be directly linked to the Pharisees though. Even sayings which rabbinic literature attributes to sages who allegedly lived before 70 C.E. cannot automatically be considered trustworthy expressions or reflections of the Pharisaic view, as Peter Schäfer has emphasized. 157 Although some Pharisees as well as other Jewish leaders before 70 C.E. may well have recommended a basic Torah education for children, they never enforced this view by actually establishing schools. Even the later rabbis' relationship to elementary teachers and schools is difficult to determine. Although some amoraim seem to have urged parents to send their children to school and to pay the respective fees and sometimes even 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

See Hezser (1997) 100-104. See section 1.1.A above. See Hezser (1997) 96-100. Ebner 44. Ibid. 45. Hengel 1:79. Ibid. 82. See Schäfer (1991) 131-32.

70

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

donated money to elementary teachers, their activity in this regard (like that of Graeco-Roman philosophers) was limited to ideological and material support, but they did not set up teachers or establish schools themselves. In the large majority of cases, teachers will have offered their instruction on their own initiative, to make a living, and their survival as teachers will have depended on parents' willingness to have their children educated. In other cases local community representatives would decide to hire a teacher and choose the candidate themselves. What rabbis could do was to stress the importance of Torah study, but unless the parents themselves saw some value in Torah-reading skills, the teachers are unlikely to have succeeded. Thus, if rabbinic sources are to be considered trustworthy in that Jewish elementary education focused on Torahreading only, for the schools to attract pupils there must have been a popular awareness of the importance of Torah knowledge, an awareness which rabbis could foster, but which they had probably not created all by themselves. The notion that the Torah was the national Jewish heritage was not a Pharisaic-rabbinic peculiarity but probably shared by wider circles in ancient Jewish society. The rabbinic focus on the Torah as the primary and exclusive reading material and subject of instruction in Jewish elementary education may, perhaps, be viewed as a deliberate alternative to the focus on Homer in the Graeco-Roman education of children. The study of Homer seems to have been the first and foremost literary text which children would read, not only with private tutors but also in schools. 158 Teresa Morgan has noticed that out of the 150 literary fragments from known authors amongst the more than 400 Greek (and mostly Egyptian) school papyri which she has analyzed 97 are extracts from the Iliad (86) and Odyssey (11).159 This focus on Homer was not limited to Egypt but can be considered typical of the Graeco-Roman world from Hellenistic times onwards. 160 Excerpts from Homer were taught to the children immediately after they had mastered the alphabet: "Anyone who learned anything was likely to read some Homer, giving him a sense of belonging to Greek culture to some degree". 161 Morgan suggests that the focus on Homer as the very core of Graeco-Roman primary education had the function of both integrating and differentiating between the literate population. In Egypt - and one may assume that the same process happened in the Greek cities of Palestine as well - the teaching of Homer served to acculturate non-Greeks to Greek culture: 158

See Bonner 212. See Morgan 69 and 105. In contrast to the large number of fragments from Homer, 20 are from Euripides, 7 from Isocrates, 7 from Menander, and only one or two from other authors, see ibid. 69. 160 See ibid. 24: The Romans merely "adopted, adapted and promoted the pattern of literate education developed in the Hellenistic kingdoms with very few changes in either content or form". For the teaching of Homer to Roman children, including girls, see Bonner 20. Ibid. 27 he refers to Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 9.1.3 who reports that Pompey's daughter Pompeia was instructed by a tutor to read Homer aloud to her father. 161 Morgan 78. 159

1. Education

71

" H o m e r is the quintessential Greek author, associated with hellenism and pan-hellenism as far back as w e can trace. Reading H o m e r is, a m o n g other things, a statement of Greek identity, and more precisely of identity with those in a society w h o are reading H o m e r in any particular period". 1 6 2

Non-Greeks will have had more difficulties in reading and understanding Homer than those who grew up in the Greek tradition and were knowledgeable of the traditional expressions and myths. Accordingly, the study of Homer would also differentiate the learners on the basis of their backgrounds, create certain hierarchies and raise non-Greeks' respect for Greek culture: "it is typically those who have invested a certain amount in education who are most inclined to respect those with more". 163 It is probably no accident that the works of Homer are the only Graeco-Roman literary works explicitly mentioned in Palestinian rabbinic documents. While rabbis do not explicitly denounce them, they are already contrasted with "holy Scriptures" in M. Yad. 4:6, where they are declared "not precious [ p T 3 n j ] ^ ] " (by R. Yochanan b. Zakkai) and therefore not able to impart uncleanness to hands. In y. Sanh. 10:1, 28a someone who reads in the books of Homer is said to be like one who reads a letter, i.e. something read only once and quickly forgotten. In contrast to the Torah, such books "are given for recitation [or: reading lessions], for serious study they are not given ["nm K1? n m 1 ? " n m ]T:n^]". 1 6 4 This statement may be a poignant critique of the way in which Homer was actually used in Graeco-Roman primary education, for the pupils would only read extracts rather than study a larger passage or an entire chapter or the work as a whole. 165 The rabbinic support of Jewish primary teachers who would introduce children to Torah-reading, reflected in the literature at least from the third century onwards, may have been a more or less conscious effort to provide a particularly Jewish alternative to Graeco-Roman education and thereby provide students with a specifically Jewish identity. Just as the reading of Homer in GraecoRoman schools, the focus on the Torah in Jewish education will have both integrated and differentiated between the Jewishly educated. On the one hand, it created a larger pool of those who had some basic Torah knowledge, one of the most important criteria of Jewishness - in contrast to Greekness or Romanness in post-70 times. On the other hand, it privileged those whose families were religiously socialized, such as sons or relatives of rabbis. It also created an alternative hierarchy based on Torah knowledge, with the rabbi at the top of the pyramid. One may assume that at least some of those who had started to learn to 162

Ibid. 75. See ibid. 78. 164 Translation with Jastrow, Dictionary, 331. 165 See Morgan 109: On the basis of the extracts the pupil "was not learning a great deal of literature, nor in a very attractive form". There is no evidence that whole books were read in the primary school context or that even the context of a particular passage would be discussed, see ibid. 110. 163

72

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

read the Torah, whether or not they actually advanced to higher levels, would consider rabbis their heroes and show respect for them. 166 In the elementary school context the Aramaic-speaking pupils seem to have needed to acquire a passive knowledge of Hebrew only. As Ebner has correctly pointed out, there is "no indication, that the Rabbis urged or stressed the teaching of Hebrew as a spoken language to be part of the curriculum of either the elementary school or the academies of higher learning". 167 The ruling in T. Hag. 1:2, that a minor, "[if] he knows how to speak, his father teaches him the Shema, the Torah, and the holy language", does not necessarily imply that the child learned spoken Hebrew. The version of the tradition in Sifre Deut. 46 (p. 104 in the Finkelstein ed.) explicitly mentions the speaking of Hebrew: "When a child begins to speak, his father speaks with him in the holy language [SHlpPI p t i ^ 101? i m D TDK]", but this speaking of Hebrew is directly connected with - and was probably limited to - the loud reading of the Torah, since the text continues: "teaching him Torah. But if he does not speak with him in the holy language teaching him Torah, he is as if he would bury him". 168 Ebner correctly stresses that the ability to speak Hebrew, which a child acquired in this way, would be very limited and "not proceed far beyond the 'token stage' . . . Whatever ability to express himself in Hebrew the boy would eventually acquire was a concomitant gain, resulting from his study of the Bible, listening to and pronouncing the Hebrew version of the oral laws and reciting Hebrew prayers of the liturgy". 1 6 9

The very reference to Hebrew as the "holy language" seems to suggest that the usage of Hebrew would largely be restricted to the religious realm and to the practices of reading and reciting. In rabbinic times Hebrew was the language in which the Torah was read and in which certain prayers were recited, but not the language in which one would write letters or business notes. 170 Scholars differ over the question whether Jewish children's education involved reading only or whether they also acquired the ability to write. Bacher believed that the first instructional stage consisted of the reading and understanding of the Bible, but that children were taught writing as well: "Die Einführung in die Geheimnisse des Alphabets war naturgemäß der Anfang des Leseunterrichtes, mit welchem ohne Zweifel auch der Schreibunterricht verbunden war". 171 Simi166 Even with regard to education in modern societies Illich has noticed "that educational rituals reflected, reinforced, and actually created belief in the value of learning pursued under conditions of scarcity" (33). 167 Ebner 75. 168 Hebrew seems to be associated with the Torah in Mekh. Bachodesh 9 as well: "And the Lord said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: In the very language in which I speak to you, you will speak to my children. This is the holy language of Hebrew". The speaking of God to Moses found its expression in the Torah which is written in Hebrew, accordingly Hebrew is the holy language. 169 Ebner 75. 170 See section 1.5 below and the discussion of the evidence in part II. 171 Bacher 66.

1. Education

73

larly Drazin writes: "The children were no doubt taught by their parents not only to read Hebrew but also to write it", and "writing was common in the elementary schools, when they were established. 172 On the basis of the Lachish ostraca and the Elephantine papyri Drazin assumed that grammar and composition in both Hebrew and Aramaic were taught at Jewish elementary schools - which he believed to have already existed at that early time - as well.173 He thereby argued against Nathan Morris who excluded the instruction of writing from the supposed curriculum of elementary education. 174 That elementary education of children did not include writing has also been stressed by Safrai: "Writing was not studied in the schools ... Writing was taught separately, not as part of the school syllabus; yet it was fairly widespread and knowledge of reading certainly made it easier. Men copied books for themselves or preserved books for the use of their sons, but the knowledge of writing did not reach the extent of the knowledge of reading which was the common possession of all. There were scholars, even the most notable of their generation, who did not know this craft". 1 7 5

According to Morris and Safrai, writing was a special skill which was usually taught only at special schools for scribes.176 Connected with the issue of reading and writing is the question whether elementary education would be restricted to Hebrew and the Torah only or also comprised certain general skills needed in everyday life. According to Arzt, who believed that children would also be taught to write, "the teacher dictated to them sentences with mundane content which they transcribed on tablets". 177 Such "sentences with mundane content", if they were taught, are more likely to have been written in Aramaic than Hebrew. In Graeco-Roman society, a general education consisted not only of basic reading and writing skills, but also of the ability "to count, weigh, measure and calculate". 178 Morris has emphasized the absence of these subjects from Jewish elementary education, at least in the form in which rabbis discuss it, and considers this absence "the chief characteristic of the Jewish school, distinguishing it both from the contemporary Hellenistic as well as from the modern school". 179 He notes, though, that this phenomenon

172 Drazin 85; Ebner 76; Perlow 35: "l'école élémentaire ne comportait qu'un enseignement d'initiation comprenant la lecture et l'écriture, ...". See also Sawyer 54: "Reading and writing Hebrew were high on the educational agenda". 173 See Drazin 86. 174 Ibid. 111. According to Morris 81, throughout the rabbinic period writing "was regarded as a specialised art and was not taught in the elementary school", and ibid. 83: "The elementary school itself in that period did not as a rule teach writing to its pupils". 175 S. Safrai 154. 176 See also Cooper 90, and Demsky/Bar-Ilan 22: "Children were taught to read from the Bible, but not necessarily to write (Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, A6, p. 29)". 177 Arzt 44. 178 Bonner 35. 179 Morris 78.

74

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

does not exclude the possibility that some children were instructed in arithmetics privately, by parents or relatives. 180 Most of the scholars who dealt with Jewish elementary education in antiquity reckoned with an organized school system with a fixed syllabus for the first and following "grades". Such a picture of ancient schools seems to have largely been modeled on the primary schools of these scholars' own times. As already pointed out above, however, the ancient schools differed from our schools in their informal settings, lack of a fixed structure and syllabi, and the general variety of types and forms of teaching. In such a situation teachers are likely to have differed among themselves with regard to what they taught. Morgan has suggested to replace the traditional "curriculum model" by the so-called "core and periphery model": all children were taught the alphabet, some gnomic sayings, and certain passages from Homer, "but beyond these the content of education was very flexible, and people taught and learned different things for a variety of reasons Besides the teaching of the alphabet and certain Torah portions and prayers, the contents of Jewish primary education will have depended on a number of factors such as the teachers' own qualifications and expertise, parents' wishes, children's learning capacities, and the amount of influence which rabbis could exercise. Some teachers may have been able to teach Torah-reading skills only, while others could also explain the Torah and/or teach basic writing. Some parents will have wanted their children to read the Torah only, while others expected them to learn numerals as well. A certain amount of children will have left school for economic reasons before they ever proceeded to read a single Torah verse; others will have simply lacked the patience or intelligence to read a longer text. Sometimes rabbis will have been able to control the content of the teaching and sometimes not. The writings of Josephus provide only sparse evidence on the nature of ancient Jewish education. In C.A. 2.25 (204), already mentioned above, Josephus writes that the Torah orders that children should learn letters and "the laws and deeds of the forefathers" which they should imitate. Instruction in writing is never mentioned in this regard. Similarly, in other post-biblical and pre-rabbinic Jewish writings from Palestine the practice of writing seems to be restricted to scribes and to exceptional biblical personages. According to Jub. 4:17, Enoch "was the first who learned writing and knowledge and wisdom from (among) the sons of men ... and who wrote in a book the signs of the heavens". In 1 En. 12:4, Enoch is explicitly called "scribe of righteousness" and in 15:1 "scribe of truth".

180

See ibid. Morgan 72. See also Kaster, 346, who argues "that there were throughout the Empire schools of all shapes and kinds, depending on local needs, expectations, and resources. And in a world without centralized direction of education of any sort, that is only what we should expect". 181

1.

Education

75

Jub. 8:3 relates about Cainan (Shem's grandson and Noah's great-grandson) that "his father taught him writing. And he went forth in order that he might seek a place where he could build a city. And he found a writing which the ancestors engraved on stone. And he read what was in it. And he transcribed it." 182 The writing allegedly contained astrological lore. Ordinary Israelites who were neither scribes nor important biblical personages or their relatives are never portrayed as having been instructed in writing. Rabbinic literature is the major source of information on the contents and forms of ancient Jewish elementary education, but the evidence is scattered and scanty and may reflect rabbis' wishful thinking more than actual circumstances. The few tannaitic references to children's education point to fathers' instruction of their sons in the Torah according to M. Qid. 4:14, 183 and in the Shema, the Torah, and Hebrew according to T. Hag. 1:2. M. Shab. 1:3 refers to a chazzarCs supervision of children reading on the Sabbat. Although the Torah is not explicitly mentioned here, it seems to be the subject matter of the reading activity. This becomes more obvious in the text's parallel in T. Shab. 1:12, were it is said that "children prepare their [Torah] chapters []nTIT,C?~13 j T p f l O ] " on that day. In another passage the Tosefta permits a teacher/scribe to teach the biblical story of David and Bat Sheva, although it is not read and translated in the synagogue (T. Meg. 3:38). The Tosefta also contains the rather curious rule that one may send a child to a Samaritan, "to teach him the book [of the Torah, p i r n "fr ^""IDIOT I S O HQV?]" (T. A.Z. 3:1). According to this opinion, a Samaritan would be considered trustworthy with regard to teaching a child to read the Torah. In both the Mishnah and Tosefta instruction in writing is only mentioned in connection with Ben Qamsar, who allegedly knew how to write p r D H nK J m \ according to T. Yoma 2:8) but refused to teach the art of writing to others (K1? nron n&UO bv nQbb mn, according to the version in M. Yoma 3:11; " I a c c o r d i n g to T.). Neither text explains what the reason for his refusal was. According to b. Yoma 38b, he had a special technique of writing four letters at the same time. In any case, Ben Qamsar seems to have been a scribe associated with the Temple. In M. Yoma 3:11 he is listed together with other individuals and families who had specific functions in the Temple (besides writing: the preparation of the show bread and incense, singing), but did not want to share their special knowledge with others (e.g., apprentices) and were therefore remembered dishonorably. In this text the art of writing is clearly linked to the profession of the Temple scribe then. According to T. Shab. 11:17, "[If] a minor takes hold of a pen, and an adult seizes his hand and writes, he [the adult] is liable" to having transgressed the

182 The translation is by O.S. Wintermute in Charlesworth 2:71. Wintermute thinks that Jubilees was originally written in Hebrew by a Jewish author who lived in Palestine, probably in the 2nd c. B.C.E., see ibid. 4 3 - 4 5 . 183 See also Mekh. Pisha 18 and Sifre Deut. 46.

76

Part I: The Conditions

for the Development

of

Literacy

Sabbath law, but not if the child takes the initiative and guides the adult's hand in writing. This is the only tannaitic text in which instruction in writing, practiced within the family, might actually be hinted at. Another Tosefta text states that a teacher is not allowed to "write the Hallel and the Shema for a child's practice [13 I Q ^ n m p i r n b tfOGjl bbrt niTDn]", and if he did so, he has imparted uncleanness to his hands (T. Yad. 2:11). The text probably refers to a teacher writing the Hallel and the Shema on little pieces of papyrus or ostraca so that a child could learn to read and memorize them. Because these prayers contain the name of God, such a practice is explicitly forbidden here. The story about R. Aqiba's educational career in ARNA 6 (p. 29/15a in the Schechter ed.) is more detailed with regard to the way in which the alphabet was allegedly taught: Kin "[^il "He and his son went and sat before a children's teacher [ ^ K "Q2T1 m p i r n ' l a ^ a j . R. Aqiba took hold of the top of the tablet [Pll^n] and his son [took hold of] the top of the tablet. 184 He [the teacher] wrote for him the alphabet and he learned it, the Torah of the Priests [Lev. and Num.] and he learned it. He continued to learn until he had learned the entire Torah".

As in T. Yad. 2:11, mentioned above, the teacher is said to have written something down for the pupils. It is not clear whether he is imagined to have written the Hebrew alphabet only or whether he afterwards continued to write short passages from the biblical books of Leviticus and Numbers and from other books of the Torah too. R. Aqiba is not said to have written anything himself, he is merely said to have "learned", which probably means that he learned to read and memorize the letters and sentences shown to him. A similar situation is envisioned by another story in ARNA 15 (p. 61/3 la) about a person who allegedly came before Hillel. When Hillel told him that there were two Torahs, one written and one oral, he replied that he believed him concerning the written Torah but not concerning the oral one. Hillel is said to have written down certain letters of the alphabet for him, but he was unable to read them correctly and had to trust Hillel's reading. This was supposed to teach the person that he had to accept Hillel's reference to the existence of an oral Torah "in good faith". Although the story serves a particular purpose here, it is another instance of a teacher writing down the alphabet for a pupil to read. In ARNA 15 this story is immediately followed by another one about a gentile who passed a synagogue "and heard a child who read [lOlpO p i m 1 ? DOE?")]" the verse Ex. 28:4. The gentile allegedly decided to convert to Judaism and to become a high priest. As in the story about R. Aqiba, mentioned above, Hillel is said to have started with writing down the alphabet for him, then he proceeded to teach him the Torah of the Priests (D^HID m m HQ^I m H ^ n n t> n r D "tQlb i"Pm), until he was able to read Num. 1:51 himself (which says that non184

The story has a parallel in ARNB 12 (p. 29/15a) where the text reads: "He went to a

school n s o n rpa1? "I1? "[^H] and he began to read from a tablet [ITta Klip ^Tinm], he and his son". On the tablet called m1? in rabbinic literature see section I.2.C below.

1. Education

11

priests coming before the altar shall die) and realized that his wish to become a high priest was futile. Finally ARNA contains a parable which portrays a young boy who allegedly "meditated on" a biblical text all by himself: "To what may the matter be compared? To someone who had a young son. He left him and went to the market. He [the son] stood and took the scroll [¡7T30n] and left it between his knees, and he would sit and meditate upon it [¡13 u i ' H ' J . When his father came from the market, he said: See my young son whom I left and went to the market, what he has done on his own! He has studied [ID 1 ?] and taken the scroll and left it between his knees and sat down and meditated upon it" (ARNA 8, p. 37/19a).

As the astonishment of the father indicates, the child's practice is obviously presented as an exception here. The above-mentioned texts from ARN suggest that learning to read the Torah was not an easy task for a child and had to be taught step by step, starting with the Hebrew alphabet. Just as ARN, the Yerushalmi and amoraic Midrashim are slightly more explicit than tannaitic sources with regard to the contents and procedures of children's education. Traditions which mention that people who pass synagogues hear children reading certain biblical verses (cf. ARNA 15 above; y. Hor. 2:5, 46d; y. Shab. 6:9, 8c) suggest that teachers asked children to read the Torah aloud, probably sometimes individually and sometimes in unison. The reading of the Torah is also alluded to in other texts, such as y. Meg. 4:5, 75b which relates that the inhabitants of Tarbanat asked R. Shimon to cut his reading short so that their children could follow him and learn to read themselves. According to Lev. R. 7:3 (p. 156 in the Margoliot ed.), R. Assi suggested that children should begin their Torah study with the book of Genesis rather than with Leviticus (the so-called Torah of the Priests mentioned in some of the ARN texts above). Here, too, it is finally argued that Leviticus is the best starting point, since it deals with sacrifices which are pure just as the children are pure. Whether all primary teachers actually started with the book of Leviticus we do not know. Starting with Leviticus may have been a habit amongst some teachers, or it was a recommendation by rabbis which some teachers followed and others not. Nevertheless, the question which biblical text was taught first and which other texts were read in schools, or at least recommended by rabbis, is of great significance, since the large majority of pupils who went to these schools will not have learned much else. With regard to Graeco-Roman schools, Morgan has noticed that the gnomic sayings and excerpts from Homer which appear most frequently in Greek school papyri were "central to Greek culture", even if the pupil gained a superficial knowledge of them only: "What appears in these texts amounts to a series of symbols of Greek culture, and perhaps that is what the pupil aimed to acquire: a repertoire of references and tags which would mark him as a Greek, even before he - or even if he never - acquired a wider cultural knowledge in which to contextualize it". 185 185

Morgan 110.

78

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

While the creation story in Genesis dealt with the entire universe and mankind in general, the ritual laws of Leviticus were specifically Jewish or rather "Israelite": although they had hardly any practical significance after 70 C.E., for the rabbis who recommended their reading they provided the "core" of what the Jewish religion was about. Besides the ritual laws of Lev., the teaching of the Shema will have provided the child with another crucial element, namely Jewish monotheism. Even if he did not know anything else about Jewish history and tradition, the boy who knew a few ritual laws and could recite the Shema would possess some knowledge which distinguished him from his non-Jewish peers. 186 Four amoraic texts might suggest that children sometimes also learned to write letters, but none of them can be taken as unambiguous evidence in this regard. According to a story in y. Meg. 1:11, 71d par. Gen. R. 1:11 (p. 10 in the Theodor-Albeck ed.), which has already been mentioned above, children went to the meeting house on a cloudy day, when it was empty. They are said to have discussed why certain letters have two forms, depending on whether they occur at the beginning and middle or end of a word. They are not said to have known how to write the letters, however, but merely provided an explanation for the two different forms which they saw. For this explanation they are praised by rabbis and said to have been destined to become great scholars. Another text is the tradition attributed to R. Shimon b. Gamliel (II) in y. Taan. 4:8, 69a and to R. Gamliel (II) in Lam. R. 2:2 about the five hundred schools or "houses of scribes/teachers" (• , 1D1D TO), each with hundreds of pupils, which allegedly existed in Bethar before the Romans destroyed them. According to the y. version, "They said: If the enemy comes against us, with these writing tools [•"OirDOD] we will go out against them and stab their eyes out!" Both versions subsequently state that they were wrapped in their scrolls and burned alive. It is not entirely clear whether the children or the teachers are referred to here. If children are meant, those who formulated this text would reckon with the possibility that children possessed their own writing materials. As pointed out above, however, the text exaggerates with regard to the number of schools and may not be considered trustworthy. Writing instruments may have been mentioned here merely because they could be imagined as weapons and thereby help to illustrate the Bethar people's bravery in their confrontation with the Romans. M. Git. 3:1 rules that a divorce document which is formulated in a general way, not for a specific woman, is invalid. As an example for such a get the Mishnah alludes to someone "passing through the market and hearing the voice 186 Besides Homer, gnomic sayings, i.e. maxims and morals in the form of simple sayings or chreiai, often appear in the Greek school papyri and seem to have frequently been used in Graeco-Roman education by being copied and memorized; see Morgan 120ff. On the basis of this Graeco-Roman practice Goldin has suggested that "Jewish boys were taught aphorisms" as well (184). Although rabbinic texts never explicitly associate wisdom sayings and chreiai with the primary school context, they may have belonged to the "peripheral" subjects taught by some teachers at some places.

79

1. Education

of scribes calling

[ppO

D'HSIO

*7)p]: ' So-and-so is divorcing

So-and-so from

such-and-such a place'...". The meaning of the verb | , - lpQ in the Mishnah is not quite clear. The scribes could be imagined as pronouncing aloud what they were writing; or one scribe could be dictating the divorce formula to colleagues who were all writing it down at the same time. The Yerushalmi editors, who were aware of the indeterminacy of the Mishnah's formulation, identified those who were "calling", i.e. the scribes mentioned in the Mishnah, with "children's teachers

(mpirn 'in^C,

y. Git. 3:1, 44c), who allegedly dictated the text of the

divorce document to their pupils. Even if the Yerushalmi editors mention teachers and pupils in this regard, these pupils must be imagined as scribes' apprentices and not as ordinary elementary school children. Only scribal apprentices are likely to have learned how to write divorce documents. Accordingly, this Yerushalmi text does not provide evidence of writing as an integral part of Jewish elementary education. Finally, Gen. R. 1:4 (p. 6 - 7 in the Theodor-Albeck ed.) transmits the following parable: " [ T h e matter is like] a king w h o was married to a matron and did not have a son f r o m her. One time the king was found passing a market. H e said: G i v e me this ink and inkwell and pen f o r my son ["32^ "ITK ] , L H 3 i p i f ^ p l

" 3 ' r n I'PtS]. A n d they would

say: H e does not have a son. W h y does he request ink and an inkwell? T h e y returned and said: T h e king is an astrologer, and he sees that in the future he w i l l produce a son for himself'.

The parable assumes that the son of a king would learn to write. As already mentioned above with regard to the king parables featuring a "paedagogue", the authors of these parables may have had a gentile king in mind. In any case, the parable merely suggests that rabbis thought that upper-class people would want their sons to be instructed in writing - a notion which may well have had a basis in reality - but this parental ambition cannot be generalized. Altogether, then, rabbinic sources about children's education mention their instruction in the alphabet and in the reading of the Torah but never explicitly state that they were also taught to write. Instruction in writing is hinted at with regard to apprentice scribes (y. Git. 3:1, 44c) and children of the upper class (Gen. R. 1:4). This depiction of primary education may, to some degree, be due to rabbis' exclusive interest in children's Torah-reading abilities. One might argue that in reality, children may at least sometimes have been taught to write letters and short sentences too, whether by their parents or their teachers, but rabbis did not find it necessary to mention such mundane practices. Nevertheless, rabbis' almost exclusive reference to children's (loud) reading is striking. The rabbinic image of a Jewish primary education which, where it existed at all, focused on the reading of Hebrew letters and portions of the Torah, may have had some basis in reality. Its goal was to create a pool of men with a basic religious education who could serve as Torah readers in synagogues. If so, this type of education did not have any practical advantages. It was considered of

80

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

no use for girls because girls were not allowed to serve as public Torah readers. 187 The writing of Hebrew may have been taught to apprentice scribes only, and those who could write Hebrew could probably also write Aramaic. Besides these scribes, the one or other layperson will have acquired a certain proficiency in writing and instructed his children accordingly. On such private writing lessons and lessons in accounting, which will have been taught in certain merchant families and professional guilds, rabbinic sources remain mute. M. Qid. 1:10 already lists mishnah besides Scripture as a body of knowledge which a person should acquire (PTOOm ^D), and a statement attributed to Yehudah b. Tema in M. Abot 5:21 rules, "At five to Scripture, at ten to mishnah, ..., at fifteen to talmud",188 Similar lists of study areas appear in T. Sot. 7:21: Scripture, mishnah, midrash, halakhot, aggadot, talmud, and Sifre Deut. 161 (p. 21 If. in the Finkelstein ed.): Scripture, targum, mishnah, talmud. According to the story about Roman spies sent to study with R. Gamliel in Usha (Sifre Deut. 344, p. 400ff.), they studied Scripture, mishnah, aggadot and halakhot with him. 189 The exact meaning of the words mishnah and talmud is not entirely clear. It seems that both terms refer to rabbinic traditions in general and not to the Mishnah and Talmud as documents. In amoraic (or later) texts the term talmud may denote amoraic in distinction from earlier tannaitic, i.e. mishnah traditions. It needs to be stressed that none of the texts in tannaitic documents which deal with children's education mentions specific mishnah teachers. Mishnah teachers are only mentioned in y. Meg. 3:1, 73d, together with the Tlft^n P'D allegedly attached to the synagogues of Jerusalem (are the terms mishnah and talmud used synonymously here?), and in other traditions which refer to mishnah and Scripture teachers side by side with regard to their salary (y. Hag. 1:7, 76c; Lev. R. 27:2; Lev. R. 34:16; PRK 27:1), a patriarch's concern for their availability (y. Hag. 1:7,76c par. PRK 15:5), and their future reward by God (PRK 27:2). Thus, mishnah teachers are only mentioned in amoraic documents in a very general way and always together with Torah teachers, but they are never portrayed independently as actual teachers of children. The few references to mishnah teachers together with Scripture teachers in amoraic documents do not allow for the conclusion, held by many scholars, that an organized two-stage system of Jewish primary education for children existed throughout Roman Palestine. 190 As teachers of (rabbinic) oral tradition who 187 See also Cooper 94. Cf. Goitein (1971a) 84 and (1971b) 183 for later times: "Since the practical aim of elementary education was preparation for participating in the synagogue service, it was natural that girls, as a rule, were not sent to school". Similarly, Greek cities had no interest in the education of girls, since they would not assume any public administrational functions within the polis, see Harris (1983) 101. 188 For a possibly late origin of tractate Abot see Stemberger (1998) 32-33. 189 On this story and its parallels in the y. and b. see Hezser (1993) 15-24. 190 Cf. Bacher 61-62, who reckoned with the introduction of two types of Jewish elementary schools, one for Scripture and one for mishnah, before 70 C.E. already: "Die Zweiteilung der Lehre in schriftliche und mündliche Lehre brachte auch die Zweiteilung der Schule mit

1. Education

81

were nevertheless paid like Torah teachers the mishnah teachers were probably imagined by rabbis to have been "better" scribes, i.e. scribes who also knew some rabbinic traditions which they had memorized and repeated, but who were not themselves recognized as rabbis, i.e. as scholars who actually created the tradition by producing new halakhic and aggadic insights. 191 They were probably mentioned together with Torah teachers because they did not differ from them very much, except for their broader knowledge. In amoraic times some of the teachers/scribes who taught children may have specialized on extra-biblical rabbinic traditions and accepted more advanced pupils who already possessed some knowledge of Scripture. This does not mean, however, that this type of education was available everywhere, or that it was considered obligatory for children. In fact, only a few students will have proceeded to this type of schooling. Although rabbis recommended it as a kind of prerequisite for those who would later study with a rabbi, not even all those who did study with a rabbi are likely to have gone to a mishnah teacher before. According to Gen. R. 63:9 (p. 692-3 in the Theodor-Albeck ed.), for example, Jacob went directly to study houses (m®"T10 TO1?) after the thirteen years he allegedly spent together with his brother Esau in elementary school (~ISOn ITU).192 Similarly R. Aqiba is said to have studied with R. Eliezer b. Yehoshua immediately after he had completed his Torah studies with a children's teacher (see ARNA 6, p. 28/ 14b in the Schechter ed.). Accordingly, rabbinic traditions such as the statement attributed to Yehudah b. Tema in M. Abot 5:21 that children should go "at the age of five to Scripture, at the age of ten to mishnah, ..., at the age of fifteen to talmud", must be seen as idealistic expressions of rabbis' wishful thinking. One might ask whether this wishful thinking was not, to some extent, influenced by Graeco-Roman theories on the structure of education, which must also be considered ideal-typical rather than real, for the strict division between primary and secondary education is increasingly questioned by scholars.193 According to this model, primary education in antiquity began at the age of seven.194 The age at which boys were supposed to advance to higher types of education varied. Bonner notes that boys could begin their elementary instruction earlier than the age of seven and reach grammar school at the age of eleven or, if they sich" (62). According to him, two categories of elementary teachers existed, those who taught Scripture only and those who taught oral traditions ("Traditionslehre"). See also Krauss (1966) 3:230f.; Perlow 34; Arzt 35-36; Gerhardsson 57; S. Safrai 151; Ebner 57: "The Mishnah teacher occupies an intermediate position between that of the Bible teacher and the scholar ... His work was still with children, about the age of ten years and above, ...". 191 In the story about the people of Simonia and related traditions one community official, namely a rabbi, is assumed to be able to fulfill both functions, but not all mishnah teachers must have been rabbis. 192 Or, perhaps, these thirteen years were meant to include mishnah lessons, but they are at least not explicitly mentioned here. 193 See Kaster, 323 ff., and Botha, 203, with bibliographical references. 194 See Bonner 14.

82

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

started at seven, they might reach the proficiency for grammar school at age thirteen. The boys' individual ability and intelligence was probably more important than anything else in this regard. 195 The highest type of instruction, namely philosophy, would not begin before "they had just assumed the toga of manhood". 1 9 5 Perhaps the mishnah teachers mentioned in amoraic texts can be compared to the so-called grammatikos, the grammar teacher, whom Bonner defines as "a schoolmaster, who knew much more than the ordinary primary teacher, ..., and thus instituted a higher, or, as we should say, secondary level of education". 197 Strictly speaking, the grammatikos taught the students formal grammar, that is, the elements of speech and the metre and thereby "laid the foundations both for the subsequent study of the poets and for the training of the future orator". 198 Yet sometimes the term grammatikos (the teacher of grammar) and grammatistes (the teacher of elementary literacy) are used as synonyms, and the types of teachers which they denote are not clearly distinguishable from each other. 199 In contrast to the mishnah teachers depicted in rabbinic sources, the grammatikos was not a teacher of oral mores but dealt with written texts. He would teach the pupils to read Homer and other poets aloud: "The art of reading aloud and reciting from memory was much priced in antiquity, and the grammatici were recognized exponents of it". 200 In fact, the loud reading of classical texts would be the first major teaching goal after the first stage, which consisted in the learning of the alphabet, had been mastered. Since no satisfactory punctuation system existed, reading a text aloud was not an easy task. The teacher had to read the text to the pupils himself - and show them his handwritten accentuation before they would imitate him in chorus or read individually in front of the class. 201 Other texts, such as the Twelve Tables, had to be recited and memorized. Bonner vividly describes such a teaching procedure: "Any wanderer in the streets of Rome, w h o happened to be in the vicinity of a primary school, would soon be m a d e aware of the fact by the discordant concord of young voices, raised in a kind of sing-song as they repeated together, with varying degrees of gusto, the words which their teacher uttered". 2 0 2

This loud reading and reciting is very reminiscent of those rabbinic traditions which tell of people who passed synagogues and other locations where children were taught and heard them or their teacher reading or reciting texts. One may assume that the loud reading of Hebrew, especially if done from a Torah scroll 195

See ibid. 136-37. Ibid. 137. 197 See ibid. 49. 198 Ibid. 188. For the contents of grammatical education see ibid. 189-211. 199 See Morgan 28; Raster 329ff. 200 Bonner 220. 201 See ibid. 220-25. See also ibid. 172: Since "the letters ran on continuously along the line", the teacher had to mark the end of each word. 202 Ibid. 166. 196

1.

Education

83

rather than from a teacher's own written text, was as difficult for the Jewish students as the reading of Greek and Latin literary texts was for the Greeks and Romans. 203 Bonner points out that in Graeco-Roman elementary schools pupils were also expected to understand the meaning of the texts they read. In addition to the correct pronunciation, the pupil "both asked questions and was questioned in turn, to ensure that he fully understood". 204 In the actual teaching situation the teacher's instruction in reading and his commenting on the text often went hand in hand and could not be separated from each other. The comments were rather superficial and straightforward, though. They usually consisted of explanations of certain words, phrases, place names, and allusions to myths. 205 By contrast, philosophers would approach the texts with an entirely different attitude and use them as hints to and examples of deeper truths and morals. 206 While the grammar teachers' way of dealing with classical texts may have had its Jewish equivalent in the elementary teachers who taught children Scripture, the philosophers' higher form of criticism would in some regards be comparable to that of the rabbis. 207 Before the children were able to approach the texts, they had to be able to recognize letters and words and sentences. Accordingly, the teaching of the alphabet would constitute the very first step in both Jewish and Graeco-Roman primary education. The teachers would write each letter of the alphabet on the child's tablet, and then name and pronounce it. The children had to memorize the visual shape of the letter and connect it with a name and sound. 208 In GraecoRoman schools the children also learned to write the letters, by having the teacher guide their hands along the faint outlines of the letters (simulacra) before they would follow the traces with their stylus alone. Another method to teach writing was to incise the letters onto a wooden board and have the children follow these incisions with their stylus. When they had developed a "feel" for the shapes, they would be able to form the letters on a waxed tablet. A lot of practice consisting in the repeated copying of individual letters and the whole alphabet was necessary to gain some proficiency. 209 203 The Hebrew vowel system was only introduced in the 6th to 8th c. C.E. Without the vowels the correct pronounciation and understanding of the words would have been more difficult. The meaning of the words could be determined on the basis of the literary context only, cf. Morris 147-56. The Hebrew words were separated by spaces, though, see Millard (1992) 45. 204 Bonner 225. 205 See ibid. 237. 206 See ibid. 241. 207 On higher education in Jewish and Graeco-Roman society in antiquity see section 1.1 .D below. 208 See Bonner 166. 209 See ibid. 166-68. See also Marrou 236; D. Harvey, 69-71, with references. Cribiore, 9, argues that the primary emphasis was on reading skills, followed by basic writing. Only after instruction in basic writing would a more extensive training in reading follow.

84

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

The Graeco-Roman methods used to teach children writing, described by Bonner, are strikingly similar to the methods which Jewish scribes allegedly used to help illiterates make handwritten signatures, discussed in some detail in y. Git. 2:3, 44b. In the case of "witnesses who do not know how to sign" R. Shimon b. Laqish suggests that one should make an outline of the letters in (a pale color of) ink and they should retrace it in red ink. R. Yochanan, on the other hand, proposes to set before them a blank piece of paper and cut the letters out, and they would follow the lines of the cut. Since in both of these cases the resulting "signature" would not have the original form of the handwriting of the witnesses, it is suggested that the illiterates follow the main shape but not exactly. Finally R. Mana recommends to draw the outline of the letters with water. The witnesses would add ink and, as a result, only their own "writing" would be visible and the model disappear. It is noteworthy that in rabbinic literature these procedures are not mentioned in connection with the general education of children or instruction in writing, but only in a specific context where writing was actually needed. This phenomenon may suggest that in ancient Jewish society instruction in writing was generally given to laypeople only when, where, and to the degree in which it was actually needed for a particular purpose, rather than being considered part of regular primary education. 210 After having learned the letters of the alphabet, in Graeco-Roman schools children would proceed to syllables, words, sentences, and short continuous passages. Cribiore and Morgan, who have analyzed the surviving Greek school papyri from the Graeco-Roman period, have pointed to the great consistency in the type of exercises and procedures of instruction recognizable in these texts. 211 The texts reflect various educational levels. 212 Some seem to have been written by pupils, others by teachers. The main criteria for identifying the material as school texts are the type of writing, the layout, and the contents. 213 "The most important, and in general the most reliable criterion on which papyri are classified as educational, is their handwriting". 214 On the basis of palaeography Cribiore is able to distinguish the schoolboys' from the teachers' hands. 215 The teachers' writing is always very clear and simple, since it was meant to be a model for the students to emulate. 216 The pupils' writing, on the other hand, is uniformly "bad" or "crude" and shows difficulties with writing. 217 It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the hand of a schoolboy and that of a barely literate adult, though. 218 Although texts written by scribes may also occasionally have been 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218

See also S. Safrai 154 and Demsky/Bar-Ilan 22. See Cribiore 31; Morgan 70. For an earlier collection see Zalateo 160-235. For a detailed discussion of the different types of textual material see Cribiore 37 ff. See Cribiore 30; Morgan 40; Debut 251; Zalateo 163-64. Morgan 41. See Cribiore 97-118. See ibid. 102. See ibid. 103; Morgan 41 f. See Morgan 41.

1.

Education

85

used in school contexts, they would "look no different from any other professionally produced text" and therefore not be categorized amongst the school papyri. 219 As far as material evidence for Jewish writing exercises is concerned, a number of abecedaries with Hebrew (and Greek) letters have been found which can be dated to Roman Palestine. These abecedaries appear in the form of inscriptions on an ossuary and walls and as writings on ostraca and parchment. Scholars differ over the question whether they are to be considered writing exercises (and if so, whether by scribes or ordinary persons, and whether in a school context or not) or whether they had magical significance. The answer to this question depends, to some extent, on the context in which they appear. If they appear in a funerary context, on a tomb or ossuary, they are unlikely to have been scribes' or schoolboys' scribbles. 220 Ossuary no. 6 of the Goliath family tomb in Jericho, dated to the first century C.E., has eight Greek letters in four lines inside the lid which are a partial abecedary. As Rachel Hachlili has pointed out, these letters "cannot be explained, however, as a simple scribal exercise". 221 They rather seem to have had magical significance. Similarly, hall N of catacomb no. 1 at Bet She'arim has a Greek alphabet inscription (Schwabe/Lifshitz 73; CIJ 2:1092), dated to the 3rd c. C.E., carved on the arch of the passageway from room II to room IV, consisting of the first nine letters of the Greek alphabet. According to Schwabe and Lifshitz, this inscription seems to have had a "magic and apotropaic value, based upon astrological creeds, which attributed to the alphabetic lines an astral signification ...". 222 In addition, a complete Hebrew abecedarium has been found in catacomb 25 at Bet She'arim, and others may have been discovered there too, but they have not been published yet. 223 Finally, another alphabet inscription in a funerary context has been found on the wall of a passage between two burial chambers at Khirbet 'Eitun in the southern Judean coastal plain and dated to the 3rd-4th c. C.E. 224 It consists of the complete Hebrew alphabet. Bij de Vaate, who has examined all of these inscriptions in the context of epigraphic analogies in other cultures, concludes that the most likely assumption is that the families of the deceased believed in the apotropaic capacities of the alphabets, although the exact nature of these functions remains unclear. 225 219 Ibid. 43. See also Debut 251: "ainsi, par exemple, des exercises de tracé de lettres peuvent être dus non à des enfants, mais à des apprentis scribes ou à des ouvriers graveurs". They are therefore not listed amongst the school texts. 220 For alphabet inscriptions in the biblical period see Haran (1988) 86 ff. and Crenshaw 101 ff. See also Bij de Vaate 154: "A grave is an odd place in which to do one's homework". 221 Hachlili (1979) 48. 222 Schwabe/Lifshitz 46. 223 See Schwabe/Lifshitz, ibid. See also Bij de Vaate 150 n. 7 with reference to Patrich (1985b) 270 n. 12, who notes that many Hebrew abecedaries had been found at Bet She'arim but not been published yet. 224 See Kloner (1986) 125-32. 225 See Bij de Vaate 158-59: "Exactly what objective the authors of the alphabets from the Jewish graves had in mind, is not easy to determine ... Probably they were intended as a means

86

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

In the case of graffito abecedaries on the walls of desert caves the question of their possible function is even more difficult to answer. Like the abecedaries found in funerary contexts, these inscriptions are unlikely to have been schoolboys' exercises. Patrich has discovered a two-line alphabet inscription in Hebrew letters written with a pointed stick on the plastered wall of a cistern in the caves of el' Aleiliyat (Wadi Suweinit/Nahal Michmas, 10 km north-east of Jerusalem), which he assumes to have been used as a shelter by Jews at the time of the first Jewish revolt. The inscription consists of the alphabet written twice. The two lines seem to have been written by different hands in the formal late Herodian script (20-70 C.E.). 226 According to Rubin and Patrich, "the alphabet should be considered a protective magic formula, like the two menorot and the pentagram drawn in charcoal on the cistern wall (...)". 227 It is questionable, however, whether the symbols of the menorah and pentagram and the abecedaries really had the same apotropaic function. In any case, Patrich identified the type of writing of (both versions of) the alphabet inscription as "formal", that is, as that of a professional scribal hand. In addition to these inscriptions, abecedaries have been found on parchment and, most frequently, on ostraca, all of which can be dated to the 1st and 2nd c. C.E. Amongst the Hebrew and Aramaic non-literary texts on parchment found at Murabba'at, in the Judean Desert, and published by Benoit, Milik, and de Vaux, one palimpsest with an account and abecedaries (no. 10B) and another abecedary (no. 11) have been found. In both cases the editors characterize the script as a "literary" or "chancellery" script used by professional scribes and taught at scribal schools at the end of the 1st c. C.E. 228 The same applies to the Hebrew abecedaries on ostraca discovered at Murabba'at (nos. 73, 78-80), which are written in calligraphic (no. 73) or chancellery script (78-80), although in the case of no. 79 "éxécuté par une main peu habile". 229 Other ostraca with (partial) Hebrew alphabets have been found at Qumran, described by de Vaux as "l'exercise d'un scribe débutante," 230 and at Herodion (no. 53), of which Testa writes that "la scrittura è letteraria", 231 Greek abecedaries have been found at Masada (vol. 2, nos. 782-783) and believed by Cotton and Geiger to be ornamental in character rather than being writing exercises. 232 Emile Puech has published an ostracon inscribed with eight lines in Hebrew, whose origin is unknown and which he dated to the beginning of the 2nd c. of protection against any disturbance of the grave, whether by persons or by demons". On the magical significance of abecedaries in connection with the Goliath family tomb see also Hachlili (1984) 27-30. On the magical usage of the alphabet in general see Dornseiff 69-81. 226 See Rubin/Patrich 107 ff. 227 Ibid. 108. See also Patrich (1984) 383 and (1985a) 153 ff. 228 See Benoit/Milik/de Vaux (1961) 91-92. 229 Ibid. 178. 230 See de Vaux (1954) 229. 231 Testa 77. The ostracon has a round shape. On one side there is a partial alphabet (tf to D) and on the other side the complete alphabet is written twice, followed by the name "Ahyahu". 232 See Cotton/Geiger 122.

1. Education

87

C.E. 233 The first two lines consist of a complete alphabet p - N ; P - ^ ) , while the continuation is a list of names beginning with the letters of the alphabet from ft to ¡3. Almost all of these names have theophoric elements. Puech writes: "Cet exercise d'apprenti-scribe est unique en son genre. On a déjà mis au jour des abécédaires avec une liste de noms propres, mais la liste de ce document est purement artificielle et scolaire (didactique)". 234 The same list of personal names written in Hebrew letters in alphabetic order is found on two fragmentary ostraca from Masada (nos. 608-9), which suggests that writing these names was a standard practice. 235 Naveh thinks that the Masada ostraca as well as the one published by Puech "were writing exercises of beginners who did not deviate from the prescribed formula". 236 They must not have been school exercises, though. 237 Together with the abecedaries on ostraca found at Murabba'at, Qumran, Herodion, and Masada all of these ostraca could be considered exercises, perhaps to test the writing instruments, written by more or less skilled scribes, who adhered to particular formal rules. 238 Bij de Vaate points out that their interpretation "as writing exercises has a good deal of probability, considering that ostraca are cheap and ready at hand. On the other hand, the use of ostraca in magic is attested and even recommended in several recipes", 239 so that at least some of the above-mentioned items, namely the one published by Puech, which one might compare with alphabetical lists of names in magical papyri, the round ostracon from Herodion, published by Testa, and Murabba'at no. 73, where the alphabet is followed by personal names, could well have had a magical function and served as amulets. 240 Another text which Naveh considered a writing exercise by a scribe is the socalled "4Q Therapeia", a small piece of inscribed leather or parchment with meaningless words on it. Naveh has suggested that this text is not a medical document, as Allegro and Charlesworth assumed, but a writing exercise "by a fairly skilled person, perhaps a scribe, who used a small left-over piece of leather in order to write some meaningless words and letters and thus to accustom his hand to the pen and ink and to the writing material before beginning to write in earnest". 241 Like the writer of the ostracon published by Puech the writer "was 233

See Puech (1980) 118-26. Ibid. 122. 235 See Yadin/Naveh 61. See also Naveh (1986) 55. 236 Naveh (1986) 55. 237 Cf. Yadin/Naveh 62: "Nevertheless it should not be assumed that the latter were school exercises; they could have been written by any person familiar with pen and ink". 238 See also Coogan, 61-63, who suggests that despite chronological and geographical differences examples from Ugarit, Qumran, Murabba'at and Herculaneum show that certain rules applied to the writing of alphabets, that they were taught in different scribal schools to be written in a similar way. 239 Bij de Vaate 160. 240 See ibid. 160-61. See also Hachlili (1984) 30, who similarly reckons with a magical or mystical significance of at least some of the abecedaries on ostraca. 241 Naveh (1986) 53. See also Yadin/Naveh 62. 234

88

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

unconsciously guided by the alphabetical order", but in this case he "did not follow it strictly". 242 The "writing" of an ostracon inscription found at Greater Herodion is of a different nature. Naveh had initially described it as follows: "A scribble of an illiterate person appears on a sherd exposed in the service building ... Not a single letter is distinguishable, and it is hardly conceivable that someone who knew how to write would produce such meaningless strokes in pen and ink". 243 A number of ostraca with similarly indecipherable scribbles, some of which resemble letters, have been found at Masada. 244 Yadin, who compared the ostracon from Herodion with these ostraca from Masada, suggested that all of them "were used as scribal practices". On that basis Naveh revised his earlier opinion that the writing on the Herodion ostracon was done by an illiterate person: "After having become acquainted with the scribbles from Masada, I concur with Yadin's opinion on the Herodium scribble", namely, that it was also done by a scribe.245 He notes that such scribbles were made by scribes "in order to test their writing instruments". 246 As far as the instruction of writing in Jewish elementary schools is concerned, the material evidence concurs well with the evidence from Josephus and rabbinic documents, then: there is no unambiguous evidence that it ever took place. The phenomenon that practically all the abecedaries and scribbles on ostraca and pieces of parchment which had been identified as "writing exercises" can be attributed to scribes or apprentice scribes and probably had the function of testing the writing instruments rather than the writing skills, fits the literary evidence which restricts instruction in writing to scribes but does not depict it as part of Jewish children's elementary education received in primary schools. Since all of the ostraca with scribes' writing exercises are dated to the first and second century, whereas literary evidence for Jewish elementary teaching increases from the third century onwards, one might argue that in the tannaitic period instruction in writing was basically limited to scribes, but that it was available for all children in amoraic times. Such an argumentation is not based on any evidence, however, and is therefore not very persuasive. 247 242

See Naveh (1986) 55. Naveh (1981) 71. See also Netzer 109. 244 See Yadin/Naveh 6 3 - 6 4 , nos. 6 1 6 - 6 4 1 . 245 Yadin/Naveh 64. 246 Ibid. 247 The situation seems to have changed in Islamic times. Goitein (1971b) 557 n. 21 notes: "Single fragments of children's exercise books are found in several collections of Geniza papers. TS Box K5 contains a whole collection of them". Nevertheless, he assumes that in general children's instruction in writing did not advance beyond a very basic level: exercises in writing letters merely served as "a means to learn reading. Once the pupils had mastered the reading, the art of writing was not further pursued in the regular elementary s c h o o l . . . Only at a higher stage of schooling was the art of writing taught systematically" (ibid. 179). Calligraphy was only taught to "future government officials, physicians, religious scholars, and merchants". 243

1. Education

89

Another question to be posed with regard to the material evidence is whether there are any texts which can be identified as reading samples written by elementary teachers for their students. Krauss thought that Papyrus Nash, which probably originated in the Fayyum and contains the Decalogue in Hebrew followed by the Shema, might have been such a reading sample. 248 Burkitt, on the other hand, thought that the text, which he dated to the first c. C.E., served as a charm and was therefore folded up and buried by its owner. 249 This example shows how difficult it is to find criteria by which to determine the exact nature and function of a papyrus fragment, even in a case where the text is almost completely preserved and unlikely "to have extended beyond the single column". 250 In Qumran Cave 4 diverse Hebrew and Aramaic biblical and non-biblical literary fragments written on hide and papyrus have been found, many of which have not been published yet. 251 Whether some of these and other texts were written by teachers/scribes for their pupils' reading exercises is a hypothesis which can neither be proven nor entirely dismissed. No examples of texts with special accentuations or other devices to make the reading easier are noticeable, however, and the formal script together with the adherence to the masoretic text suggests that these fragments were parts of biblical scrolls. Thus, the assumption that some of these texts were especially written for children's reading exercises is a rather far-fetched hypothesis. Altogether, then, none of the material evidence is comparable with the Greek school papyri and Roman school textbooks which survived in later glossaries. 252 The abecedaries and scribbles on ostraca and parchment, if they did not have any magical significance, must be seen as scribal exercises, perhaps for the purpose of testing the writing instruments, rather than school exercises by children who attended Jewish elementary schools. Although some Jewish children may have been instructed in writing by their parents or the one or other teacher, neither rabbinic nor epigraphic sources support the notion that the writing of Hebrew letters was generally taught in Jewish elementary schools.

248 See Krauss (1966) 3:209. Ibid. 341 n. 64 he refers to N. Peters, Die älteste Handschrift der Zehn Gebote, Freiburg 1905, 9: "möglich ... für den Unterricht bestimmt gewesen". 249 See Burkitt 407. 250 Ibid. 251 See Maier vols. 2-3. 252 On the latter see Dionisotti 86ff. and Hopkins (1993) 25-26: textbooks for the instruction of children in Latin and Greek combined descriptions of everyday life with moralizing. They "were repeatedly revised over several centuries from the third century BC to the fourth century AD" (ibid. 25). The excerpts from the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum translated by Hopkins also describe the way writing was taught, see ibid. 26: The pupil takes a writing kit and exercise book to school. At school, he copies words and passages and shows them to the teacher who corrects the writing and advises him on how to improve it.

90

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

C. Greek Education for Jews The question whether and to what extent Jewish children learned to read and write Greek in Roman Palestine has usually not been examined by those who dealt with the "system" of Jewish elementary education, since rabbinic sources never explicitly mention Greek teachers and schools. The material evidence suggests, however, that the knowledge of Greek was widespread amongst the Jewish population of Palestine,253 and therefore the questions of language acquisition and proficiency levels are of great importance for the study of Jewish literacy. Unfortunately, evidence about the Jewish study of Greek in Roman Palestine is even more scarce than evidence concerning Jewish primary schools. As Hengel has pointed out, the learning of Greek was prevalent in some Jewish circles in Palestine in the 3rd and 2nd c. B.C.E. already. The Zenon papyri show that "the Greek language was known in aristocratic and military circles of Judaism between 260 and 250 BC in Palestine", and it was also "already widespread at the accession of Antiochus IV in 175 BC".254 The family of the Tobiads had a Greek secretary, and the grandchildren of Tobias are explicitly said to have been sent "one after the other to the famous teachers of the time", although only one of them (Hyrcanus) succeeded in his studies.255 Greek tutors will have been employed not only by the Tobiad family but also by the family of the high priest.256 Hengel summarizes the situation as follows: "All these points suggest that even f r o m the Ptolemean period the sons of the Jewish aristocracy in Jerusalem had the possibility of learning Greek language and customs; in other words, a long time before the establishment of the g y m n a s i u m and the ephebate there was something like a Greek elementary school - of course on a private basis". 2 5 7

The learning of Greek amongst Jews in Palestine did not vanish after the Maccabean revolt. It probably even became more common in Hasmonean and Herodian times. Hengel reckons with a "Greek elementary school" in Jerusalem which the sons of the Jewish aristocracy, including Herod, attended before advancing to higher studies.258 This educational tradition seems to have continued "later in the circles of the Jewish aristocracy, for example in the influential family of Simon son of Boethus" and within the patriarchal family.259 As far as Roman Palestine is concerned, Josephus is the only Jew who explicitly describes the way he learned Greek and received a Greek education. In Ant. 253 254 255 256 257 258 259

See part II below. Hengel 1:103. See ibid 59. See also Jos., Ant. 12.4.6 (191), 12.4.7 (196f.). See Hengel 1:76. Ibid. See ibid. 76-77. See ibid. 77.

1.

Education

91

20.12.1 (263) he boasts of his Greek learning: "I have also labored strenuously to partake of the realm of Greek prose and poetry, after having gained a knowledge of Greek grammar, although the habitual use of my native tongue has prevented my attaining precision in the pronunciation". His Greek learning was allegedly unusual for a Jew of his day, for Jews "give credit for wisdom for those alone who have an exact knowledge of the law and who are capable of interpreting the meaning of the holy Scriptures" (ibid.). 260 Besides mentioning his own Greek learning Josephus refers to Justus of Tiberias' Greek education 2 6 1 and to members of the Jewish aristocracy "well-versed in Greek learning [ávÓQÚoi x a i x f j ; ' E / . / ^ v i x f i í aocpíag |im:ay/nxóaiv], amongst whom were Julius Archelaus [the husband of Mariamne], the most venerable Herod, and the most admirable Agrippa h i m s e l f ' (C.A. 1.9,51). Josephus was allegedly able to sell copies of the Greek version of his book to them. Other members of the royal family said to have received a Greek (and Latin?) education are Archelaus and Philip, the sons of Herod, who "were receiving their education in R o m e " (Bell. 1.31.1, 602). One may assume that these members of the royal family, who had constant contacts with Roman dignitaries and administrators, would have needed some instruction in rhetorics as well. Since Josephus learned the Greek language and afterwards read Greek prose and poetry, he probably achieved the competency level of the Graeco-Roman grammar school. He often refers to Greek literary works and must have been able to read them, but he was not able to pronounce Greek correctly and to write a literary Greek without the help of native speakes. In C.A. 1.9 (50) he mentions the usage of assistants in writing the Greek version of the Jewish War. Josephus should probably be seen as an example of those upper-class Jews who had achieved a relatively high level of Greek education, being able to read and discuss Greek literature, although not able to write a faultless and stylistically sophisticated Greek without outside help. We do not know to what extent Josephus had already studied Greek in Palestine before he came to Rome. He never specifies who his Greek tutors were, but we may assume that he studied with private teachers. This type of private language instruction may have been common for upper-class Jews of his time. 2 6 2 Another option were Greek-language elementary schools which were probably primarily meant for and frequented by the children of Greek-speaking non-Jews and Diaspora Jews who had immigrated to Palestine. Such schools must have existed in the major cities and larger towns of Roman Palestine and will have been open to native Jewish children as well. While specifically Jewish elemen260 Josephus' emphasis on Torah study is also evident in Contra Apionem, where he stresses the widespread Torah knowledge amongst Jews. See C.A. 1.12 (60); 2.17 (175); 2.18 (178); 2.25 (204). 261 See Jos., Vita 9.40, referred to by Freyne 79. 262 On the mostly private character of Greek elementary instruction in Egypt see Bagnall 99-100.

92

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

tary schools focusing on Torah-reading seem to have become more widespread in Palestine from the third century onwards, Greek primary schools and teachers had a long tradition in Greek-speaking countries and probably existed at all places where a sufficient number of non-Jews and Diaspora Jews lived. 263 Just as rabbis never deal with the secular instruction given in professional (family) guilds, they may not have considered it necessary to mention Jewish students attending Greek elementary schools. Or perhaps the editors of the documents deliberately avoided all references to such schools because they constituted a more or less attractive alternative to Torah teaching. Rabbinic literature merely discusses the question of whether or not one may teach one's child Greek but never deals with the settings and ways in which Greek was taught. According to M. Sot. 9:14, "in the war against Titus [or: Quietus] 264 they decreed ... that a person should not teach Greek to his son". Since nobody had the authority to make such a decree at that time and, even if someone had possessed such authority, people's adherence to such a decree could not be controlled, the statement cannot be considered historically trustworthy. In addition, in the Mishnah the statement is part of a list of measures allegedly taken at politically difficult times, which only applied during those times but not before and afterwards. This is explicitly stated for the last of these measures but seems to hold good for the preceding ones as well. Sevenster concludes: "From this prohibition it therefore appears that it was in no way uncommon among the Jews in Palestine that a man taught his son Greek, and if this was forbidden in 117, there is good reason to assume that the custom had been observed for some time". 265 To the Mishnah text's general prohibition to teach one's children Greek at the time of Titus/Quietus the parallel in T. Sot. 15:8 adds that an exception was made for the family of R. Gamliel: "They permitted the house of R. Gamliel to teach their sons [or: children] Greek, because they were close to the [Roman] government •pTHp A variant of this baraita appears in y. Shab. 6:1, 7d, where it is stated: "Three things they permitted the house of Rabbi: ..., that they might teach their sons [or: children] Greek, since they were connected with the government •pplpT IT!©]". In the Yerushalmi this special permission granted to the patriarchal family is presented as a general exception, not linked to a particular period of time. Whereas the Tosefta version implies that at other times everyone was allowed to teach their children Greek, according to the Yerushalmi version, everybody except for the patriarch was prohibited to do so. The Yerushalmi version would then reflect a stricter attitude towards Greek education than the Tosefta. Both versions associate the learning of Greek with 263 Cf. Aberbach 161. S. Safrai 148 notes that such Greek schools would be meant for upper-class children only. 264 The Cambridge and Kaufman mss. have "Qietus", who was the leader of Trajan's army in 115 C.E. 265 Sevenster 47.

1. Education

93

contacts to the Roman upper class, and this notion might have had some basis in reality.266 Y. Shab. 6:1, 7d continues as follows: [A] "R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yochanan: A person is allowed to teach his daughter Greek, because it is an ornament for her [Tib ETIZDn SlilO ^SD], [B] Shimon b. Ba heard [it] and said: Because R. Abbahu wanted to teach his daughter Greek he attributed this [ruling] to R. Yochanan. [C] R. Abbahu heard [it] and said: [Something bad] shall c o m e upon me if I did not hear this [ruling] from R. Yochanan". 267

This text mentions another possible motivation for having one's children learn Greek, namely, that the knowledge of Greek is a skill which a well-educated Jewish girl should possess. Both types of motivation will have primarily applied to members of the Jewish upper class, since only they will have had contacts with members of the Roman government. Upper-class Jewish circles will also have been especially concerned with their daughters' success on the marriage market which included Greek-speakers. Such aspirations for a Greek education of daughters seem to have existed within the middle strata of society too, as the reference to R. Abbahu and R. Yochanan shows. According to the above-quoted text, even well-known rabbis were in favor of having their daughters learn Greek. Y. Shab. 6:1, 7d deals with Greek language instruction for daughters only, but what about sons? Y. Peah 1:1, 15c par. y. Sot. 9:16, 24c transmits the following comments related to the Mishnaic statement, "[These are the things which have no measure:] ... and [time spent in the] study of Torah" (M. Peah 1:1): "They asked R. Yehoshua [Vatican ms.: Rabbi]: Now what is the law as to a person's teaching his son Greek? He said to them: Let him teach [Greek to his son] at that hour that is neither day nor night". This answer has a parallel in T. A.Z. 1:20, and scholars differ over its possible meaning. Lieberman has suggested that in this statement the study of Greek was not forbidden entirely but only "inasmuch as it interferes with the study of the law". 268 Sevenster, on the other hand, concluded from this statement that at the beginning of the second c. C.E. "the campaign against the study of the Greek language and culture was initiated", although it "could not easily be enforced". 269 In any case, the anonymous Talmud objects to R. Yehoshua's argumentation: In another context R. Yishmael quoted Deut. 30:19 ("I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse, therefore choose life ...") to refer to the learning of a trade: even if it involves a lot of time better spent with Torah study, one may do it; consequently, one may also teach one's son Greek, even if it 266 See also S. Schwartz (1999) 220 who assumes that the patriarch and his agents, the socalled apostoloi, must have had some Greek rhetorical training. 267 This text has a parallel in y. Peah 1:1, 15c. 268 See Lieberman (1965) 16. See also idem (1962) 100. 269 Sevenster 50.

94

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

decreases his study time. Since R. Yehoshua's explanation (the study of Greek takes away time better spent with Torah study) is no longer persuasive, another explanation is provided: "R. Ba, the son of R. Chiyya b. Wa, R. Chiyya in the name of R. Yochanan: [One is forbidden to teach Greek to one's son, not because one would take time away from Torah study but] because of informers", i.e. someone who knows Greek might pass treacherous information to government spies. This explanation is striking in view of T. Sot. 15:8 and y. Shab. 6:1, 7d which permit the house of R. Gamliel and Rabbi to teach their children Greek exactly because of their alleged closeness to the government. Rabbis obviously distinguished between some prominent rabbis, who might have beneficial contacts with upper-class Romans, and their ordinary fellow-Jews who were suspected of conspiracies with the occupiers. Sevenster may be correct in suggesting that the sources give the "impression that a [literary] knowledge of Greek was the rule mainly among the upper classes", and that "it is quite possible that the middle classes all too eagerly imitated the customs of the upper classes in this respect and that a knowledge of Greek ... became a sort of criterion of social status". 270 The knowledge of Greek which some members of the middle strata of society such as, e.g., merchants achieved was probably much more basic than that of the patriarchal family. Not only those who attended Greek elementary schools will have been knowledgeable of Greek, but they were the ones who were literate in the language (to whatever degree). Greek was a spoken language in many parts of Roman Palestine and whoever lived near native Greek speakers, whether Jewish or not, is likely to have picked up some colloquial Greek. 271 Various proficiency levels in Greek are likely to have existed amongst Jews whose mother tongue was Aramaic, and upper-class Jews such as Josephus stood at the uppermost end of the scale. While a few rabbis from wealthy and "hellenized" families may have received instruction in Greek while they were children, Visotzky's suggestion that "many of the rabbis, if not most, were schooled in the same elementary educational system, learning letters and grammar in the same ways as their pagan counterparts", 272 is unverifiable and probably exaggerated.

D. Higher Education

Amongst

Jews in

Palestine

Just as in the case of primary schools for children a specifically Jewish type of higher education and various forms of Graeco-Roman secondary studies seem to have existed side by side in Roman Palestine. This does not mean, however, that both types were available everywhere and that everyone had equal access to them. 270 271 272

Ibid. 6 0 - 6 1 . See section 1.5 below. Visotzky 2 - 3 .

1.

Education

95

The specifically Jewish type of higher education was the study with a rabbi and the attendance of the so-called study houses. As I have already argued elsewhere, only very few of those who possessed a basic Torah training are likely to have proceeded to this stage. 273 Especially in tannaitic times, when there were few opportunities for a primary education of children outside the home, the instruction of children in Torah will have almost only taken place in families whose members were learned in Torah themselves, that is, in the families of rabbis. Although educational opportunities seem to have increased in amoraic times, only the children of those who could (a) afford to lose a breadwinner and (b) deemed Torah knowledge, which had no worldly advantages, sufficiently important to make such a sacrifice would send their children to Jewish elementary teachers. Out of this already circumscribed set of pupils only a certain percentage will have actually succeeded and, after a couple of years, been able to read and understand the Torah sufficiently well. Only a few of these will have wished to continue their studies by becoming the disciples and servants of a rabbi. Becoming the student of a rabbi, especially if he was famous, was probably sometimes seen as a way to increase one's social status. 274 On the other hand, rabbinical studies required financial security and meant great hardships for those whose families were not wealthy. The more time students spent with a master, the less time they had to earn a living. While rabbinic sources mention many (especially amoraic) rabbis who had ordinary professions, 275 students who had to serve rabbis all day long had to live from charity, if they were not supported by their masters or wives or rich benefactors, or possessed their own resources. 276 In addition to the economic aspect, issues such as the students' intellectual proficiency and personal affiliations will have played a role. Rabbis would reject those whom they did not like or whom they did not consider "worthy". 277 Although rabbinic discussions were in some ways based on the Torah and rabbinical students had to possess a broad Torah knowledge, they were not textcentered but oral disputes of particular theoretical problems. 278 Some students 273 For a more detailed discussion of the recruitment to rabbinic circles and rabbinic succession see Hezser (1997) 93-110. 274 See ibid. 106 with reference to Sifre Deut. 41 (p. 87 in the Finkelstein ed.). 275 See ibid. 259-266: Only a few rabbis are described as landowners and only a few prominent rabbis (e.g. R. Gamliel II and Rabbi) are said to have owned one or more slaves. The phenomenon that few trades and professions are mentioned for rabbis in tannaitic sources does not necessarily mean that all tannaim were wealthy. The lack of respective references in the Mishnah and halakhic Midrashim may rather be due to these documents' concise literary form, as the comparison with the more detailed Tosefta shows. In the Talmud Yerushalmi rabbis are often portrayed as artisans and merchants, professions which belonged to the middle stratum of society. On the basis of this evidence Hayim Lapin's assumption that all rabbis were rich and members of the upper classes (see idem, 1996, 500: "wealthy elites") is much too one-sided, especially with regard to the amoraim. 276 See Hezser (1997) 106-7 n. 156 for references. 277 See ibid. 104. 278 On the concept of the "Oral Torah" see section 1.4.A below.

96

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

may have occasionally taken written notes, but in general the memorization and adaptation of their masters' rulings stood in the foreground. 279 A few times rabbinic texts refer to written notes taken by particular rabbis, but these notes are not presented as those of disciples eager to document their masters' teachings. In addition, the formulaic references to these notes suggest that they had a particular function within the respective literary context rather than being trustworthy historical reminiscences. The first example for a rabbi's notetaking is provided in T. Shab. 1:13, in the context of a discussion of whether R. Yishmael tilted a lamp on the Sabbath in order to be able to read: "R. Nathan says: He most certainly did tilt it. And written on his [R. Yishmael's] notebook [10p3S b v 3U"D1] is: 'Yishmael b. Elisha tilted the lamp on the Sabbath. When the sanctuary will be rebuilt, he [i.e. I] will bring a sin offering'". 2 8 0

Such a notebook was a wooden tablet covered with wax which could consist of a number of "pages" fastened together but small enough to be "worn", that is, carried around.281 The note allegedly taken by R. Yishmael was not an account of a halakhic discussion but a memo reminding himself of his transgression and future punishment. 282 The same expression used in Hebrew in connection with R. Yishmael in T. Shab. 1:13 par. y. Shab. 1:3, 3b (lOpB ^ mrDI) appears two more times in the Yerushalmi, but in Aramaic ("'Dp " 2 b v ZTHD) and in connection with other rabbis.283 According to y. Kil. 1:1, 27a, "R. Yose [said] in the name of R. Chiyya b. Wa: They found written on the notebook [ r r o p r s bv T f D jirDtOK] of R. Hillel b.R. Valens; 284 R. Yonah in the name of R. Chiyya b. Wa: They found written on the wall [K^niD 3T13] 285 of R. Hillel b.R. Alem: 'A broad bean and a garden pea; a red grasspea and a grasspea; a hyacinth bean and a Nile cowpea [ n r f r O S Jim'TO ,H:TO1E ^ " S ] ' " . 2 8 6

279

On the process of memorization see Zlotnick (1984-85) 234-40. The text has a parallel in y. Shab. 1:3, 3b. 281 See Krauss (1966) 3:144: the loanword 0 p ] 2 is derived from the Greek jiivaij. On the pinax see especially Haran (1987-88) 151ff. and section I.2.C. below. See also Achtemeier, 14, on note-taking in antiquity: "Ease and speed of writing and of erasure made wax tablets the most popular medium for such notes, and they were widely employed in a variety of situations". 282 See also Lieberman (1962) 204: "In the case of R. Ishmael it served him as a record of his private memoranda; he noted there a mishap that occurred to him on the Sabbath". 283 According to Jaffee (1998) 52, these references "may be the only survivors of a larger body of unpreserved Tiberian traditions that acknowledge citation from written sources". 284 Variant forms of the name are found in the printed edition and manuscripts: the form "Valens" (0*711), probably the Hebrew transcription of the Greek Ofxi/.rig (I thank Seth Schwartz for this information), is transmitted in the Vatican and Sirillo mss., cf. Mandelbaum 295 n. 49. 285 Sokoloff 255 and Jastrow 627 translate K^HIO with "wall". Perhaps the (inner?) wall of R. Hillel b.R. Elam's private house/apartment or study house/room is meant. The wall may have served as a kind of blackboard or noticeboard. 286 Translation with Mandelbaum 21. 280

1. Education

97

Here the note which was allegedly taken by R. Hillel is also very short and consists of a list of different kinds of produce. It is the partial Aramaic translation of a list of items which also appear in M. Kil. 1:1. Since the tradition does not add anything new to the Talmudic discussion, it is not clear why the Yerushalmi editors quoted it. It appears towards the end of the discussion of M. Kil. 1:1 and seems to belong to "miscellaneous" comments which were related to the Mishnah but did not contribute much to its interpretation. 287 It is interesting to see that the text assumes that amongst the rabbis Aramaic versions of Mishnaic rules circulated and that tannaitic rules would be written down in Aramaic rather than in Hebrew. The rabbis who transmitted and edited this text seem to have considered the written Aramaic version of the tannaitic tradition at least as valid as a possibly oral Hebrew version. Finally, y. Maas. 2:4,49d mentions a note taken by R. Chilfai which is quoted as a comment on T. Maas. 2:3 ("Sages say: He makes of them [purchased dates and figs] an irregular meal and removes the offerings as produce which is certainly untithed"): "R. Yonah said: They found written in the notebook [¡VOprEQ n \ " p r D B K ] of R. Chilfai: 'He makes of them an irregular meal and removes the offerings as produce which is doubtfully tithed' ," 288

Here the note provides a variant version of a baraita which is found in the Tosefta and quoted before. Jaffee has correctly pointed out that "Hilfai's written version of that source (...) is cited as a serious challenge to the orally-delivered version". 289 The two versions serve as a basis for further discussion of the problem, in which the version found in R. Chilfai's notebook is first considered problematic ("And it is a difficulty [K'Dpl] ...") but later accepted. Like the Tosefta version, the ruling written in the notebook is not attributed to anyone. Since it is considered of equal authority as the Tosefta version, it does not seem to represent R. Chilfai's own opinion but must be considered a baraita which he had heard in a discussion and subsequently written down. Such notes, if they were taken at all, were probably taken by rabbis outside of halakhic discussions with colleagues, when giving advice to a lay person, when deciding a case, or when making a halakhically relevant observation, and served as a reminder for these rabbis themselves. 290 They cannot be considered evidence for students writing down their masters' teachings during study sessions.291 287

The tradition is followed by a short ethymological explanation of a term, also attributed to R. Yonah, which constitutes the end of the gemara to M. Kil. 1:1. 288 p o r t [j e q UO tation and discussion of the text see also Jaffee (1998) 51-52. 289 Ibid. 52. 290 On "reminder-books" see Gerhardsson 161 and ibid. n. 4. 291 Against Lieberman (1962) 204 who seems to refer to the above-mentioned texts (ibid, n. 18) as evidence for "Rabbis who are reported to have put down the Halakhot of their masters on codices". Gerhardsson, 29, believes that notes did exist but were only used in the private realm (and made from memory at home after the study sessions?): "They were used in

98

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

While rabbinical students probably had to be able to read the Torah, they did not have to be proficient writers. One may assume that only those rabbinical students and rabbis who had received a scribal training or were taught writing by their parents or private teachers were able to write properly. In all likelihood, a certain percentage of rabbinical students and rabbis were not able to write at all or knew only the rudiments of writing, such as writing their own name. 292 In contrast to primary education, rabbinic learning does not seem to have focused on the reading of the Torah text. It rather consisted of the disciples' loud repeating and memorizing of their masters orally expressed teachings and opinions. Deut. R. 8:4 transmits a story "concerning a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Yaqob w h o used to meditate on his entire study portion p - n n ' p n b o i - i m n a rvnto] in a single hour. O n c e when he fell ill, he forgot all that he had learned. W h a t was the cause of this? Because he did not speak the words out aloud [TSD "HOIK R^tO]. But R. Eliezer b. Yaqob prayed for him and all his learning c a m e back to him".

The process of learning by oral repetition is most frequently described in ARN. According to ARNA 5 (p. 26/13b in the Schechtered.), "Antigonos of Sokhohad two disciples who would repeat his words, and they would repeat them to disciples and disciples to disciples". Similarly, a disciple is instructed to find for himself a study partner with whom he can "read [Scripture] and repeat [rabbinic traditions]" (ARNA 8, p. 35/18a). This repeating of traditions should not take place at home, in the presence of children, "for every time when a person sits and repeats in his house, he chats with his children and [other] members of his household [and] wastes [time better used] for the [study of] Torah" (ARNA 21, p. 74/37b). 293 Although this depiction of rabbinic study, especially when appearing in amoraic documents, is probably colored by the rabbinic ideology of the "Oral Torah", the emphasis on the rabbi's oral instruction and the students' loud repetition is likely to have had some basis in reality. It does not exclude the possibility that some written collections of rabbinic traditions existed, at least as far as amoraic times

order to facilitate private repetition and the maintenance of knowledge, although the oral Torah in its decisive, public, contexts - the teaching of the oral Torah, legal proceedings, preaching, etc. - had to be repeated from memory"; "notes as may exist are of private nature and play a subsidiary role". See also ibid. 160. 292 For a more detailed discussion of rabbis' ability to write see section III.2 below. 293 See also, e.g., y. Git. 6:1, 47d: A quotation of a statement attributed to R. Huna in the name of Rab is followed by: "Shmuel heard [this teaching] from him and repeated it forty times". According to a story transmitted in y. Sheq. 2:5, 47a, a Babylonian allegedly avoided meeting R. Yochanan. R. Yochanan consequently complained that the Babylonian never cited a tradition in his name. Rabbis and rabbinical students seem to have visited other rabbis personally to consult them concerning particular halakhic problems. Gen. R. 94:5 (p. 1174-5 in the Theodor-Albeck ed.) states: "R. Yehoshua b. Levi said: I have made the rounds of all the experts of aggadah in the south to tell [explain to] me this verse, and they did not tell me, until I stood with Yehudah b. Pedayah ...".

1.

Education

99

are concerned. 294 But these works do not seem to have formed the basis of rabbis' teaching. 295 Hayim Lapin, who has compared rabbinic higher education with higher education in Christian "schools" or disciple circles, such as the one gathered around Origen in Caesarea, has also observed a certain difference between the two types of advanced studies with regard to their book-centeredness or lack of it. He notes that "the texts produced by Origen and Eusebius display a kind of scholarly 'bookishness' that is foreign to the rabbinic works". 296 It is obvious that Origen and Eusebius did not only possess Bible knowledge but were also rooted in the Graeco-Roman literary tradition, which they probably read and discussed with their students as well.297 On the other hand, much of Graeco-Roman higher education, especially rhetoric and philosophical teaching, took place orally, without the assistance of texts or the necessity to fix arguments in writing. 298 Loveday Alexander has shown that the rabbis did not stand alone in their "scepticism towards the written word", but can be seen as representatives of a general opposition to the usage of the written word in certain contexts within Graeco-Roman society at large. Alexander refers to Galen (2nd c. C.E.), who wrote: " T h e r e m a y well b e truth in the saying current a m o n g m o s t c r a f t s m e n , that reading out of a b o o k is not the s a m e thing as, or even c o m p a r a b l e to, learning f r o m the living voice". 2 9 9

Although rhetorical handbooks and written speeches existed, the "art of speaking" was mostly learned orally, by listening to rhetors and by giving a life performance oneself. Alexander stresses that "rhetoric continued to preserve not only the conventions of oral discourse ('speaking' and 'hearing' as against 'writing' and 'reading'), but also the conviction that a speech should be delivered in person, and should at least give the impression of ex tempore composition". 300 Accordingly, "as late as the fourth century C.E., rhetors discouraged the use of shorthand note-taking, 'in keeping with their tradition of memorization, public exhibition, and limited distribution'". 301 294

See sections 1.4.A and II.5.B below. See, e.g., y. Shab. 16:1, 15c, where "books" with aggadic writings are mentioned disparagingly. 295 On the probable coexistence of oral tradition and written transmission in early Judaism and Christianity see Talmon (1991) 149 and Jaffee (1998) 47-57. 296 Lapin (1996) 505. 297 See ibid. n. 57. 298 See Rawson 51: "But a great deal of activity that might be called intellectual was not dependent on books at all". On the similarities between rabbinic and Graeco-Roman philosophical and rhetorical education see also Jaffee (1998) 33-39. Snyder 18ff. analyzes the ways in which texts were used in the teaching of the various philosophical schools. 299 L. Alexander, 225, with reference to Galen, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos 6. 300 Ibid. 226. 301 Ibid. 227 with reference to Norman 126.

100

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

Alexander believes that Galen's attitude towards the oral nature of teaching must be seen in the context of the instruction in wisdom in Hellenistic schools. A passage in the Letter of Aristeas is representative of this tradition: "The good life, he said, consisted in observing the laws, and this aim was achieved by hearing [óiá xfjg áxQoáoewg, i.e. through oral instruction] much more than by reading [Siá xfjc; ávavváioeoji;]" (127). 302 Similarly Seneca wrote in the first c. C.E.: "However, you will gain more from the living voice [viva vox] and from sharing someone's daily life [convictus] than from any treatise" (Epist. 33,9). Seneca thereby expresses "the commonplace that the philosophic way of life can only be learned from daily intimacy with a philosopher". 303 On the other hand, Seneca argues that students should not merely memorize what they have heard but think about it themselves. Alexander understands Seneca to mean that "the true philosopher should be producing his own memorable sayings, not just passing on the sayings of others". 304 The opportunity for a creative adaptation and development of the memorized tradition is seen as the true advantage of oral teaching over book-learning: "... the received tradition is treated not as an inviolate, fixed body of doctrine but as a developing, organic system open to constant improvement". 305 In this regard, too, the acquisition of philosophical knowledge very much resembled the learning of rabbinic traditions. Alexander points out that "the accurate memorization of a master's teachings and their transmission to later generations via a chain of tradents" guaranteed the authenticity of that tradition, while books played only a secondary role in this regard. 306 Dillon wrote concerning the Middle Platonists: "In all this identification of sources we must bear in mind the obvious fact, all too often overlooked, that the chief vehicle for the transmission of Platonic doctrine during all this time is not so much a series of written and published treatises as the oral tradition of the schools, embodied, perhaps, in notes written up by either teacher or pupil (...), but only rarely taking a public form even theoretically observable to us". 307

According to Alexander, this practice was not limited to or characteristic of the Middle Platonists, "but simply a pattern of behaviour and expectation which was common in all the hellenistic schools". 308 The emphasis on oral teaching can even be traced back to Plato, who, in the Phaedrus, wrote that the invention of writing "will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory" (275a). 309 Plato viewed the written word as "the image o f ' and therefore second302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309

Ibid. 232 n. 2. Translation with R.J.H. Shutt, in: Charlesworth 2:21. L. Alexander 232. Ibid. Ibid. 235. Ibid. 233. Dillon 338 quoted in L. Alexander 233. L. Alexander 233-34. Referred to ibid. 237.

1.

Education

101

ary to the spoken word. 310 Alexander notes that in the context of this dialogue "Plato's real concern is with the difference between oral and written teaching rather than with rhetoric or with books in general". 311 The fact that Plato's own thinking was transmitted in the form of dialogues rather than systematic treatises also shows his high valuation of oral teaching. The dialogues also indicate, however, that Plato did not completely oppose writing, for he did write himself. 312 The preference for the oral over the written is also noticeable within ancient Christianity. Achtemeier has pointed to Papias, who said: "For I did not suppose that things gained from books would profit me so much as things gained by means of a living, surviving voice". 313 He suggests that the form of the written material, which was difficult to handle and read, and the fact that only a few copies of a literary work circulated, contributed to the frequent reliance on the oral word throughout late antiquity. 314 In the church of the second century C.E. the sentiment against writing was so strong that in his Stromateis Clement of Alexandria had to legitimize the use of written notes in his teaching. 315 Osborn shows that Clement's emphasis on the necessity of fixing the apostolic tradition in written form can be understood in the context of the heretics' claim that they possessed the true oral tradition. 316 Alexander may be right in suggesting that one should distinguish between an ideologically motivated rejection of writing (which found its expression in the notion of the "Oral Torah" and in the Platonic "Seventh Letter") and the practice of oral instruction which had a long tradition in Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman education and was carried on in rabbinic study circles as well. 317 The practice of oral instruction emphasized the role of the teacher, without whom such learning would be impossible. The teacher incorporated the "living voice", while "the text both follows that voice (as a record of teaching already given) and stands in a subordinate position to it (in that it may only be studied with the aid of a teacher .. ,)". 318 One of the settings in which adults' higher level Torah study took place was the study house. As I have argued elsewhere, any building or room within a 310 See Plato, Phaedrus 276a, referred to in L. Alexander 238. For the post-modern understanding of writing as a "supplement" to the spoken word see Derrida (1976) 6 - 2 6 . 311 L. Alexander 238. 312 The Platonic Seventh Letter in which the writing down of philosophy is discussed in detail will be dealt with in connection with the rabbinic notion of "Oral Torah" in section 1.4. A below. 313 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.4, referred to in Achtemeier 10 n. 39. 314 See Achtemeier 10-13. 315 See Osborn, 3 3 5 - 4 3 , with reference to the first chapter of Stromateis. 3,6 See ibid. 340. Ibid. n. 6 he refers to Bousset who saw in Clement "the beginning of a proper Christian literature". 317 See L. Alexander 241. See also Jaffee (1997) 534 n. 9. 318 L. Alexander 244. See also Jaffee (1997) 528 for rabbinic society: "Rabbinic distinctions between the written and spoken media of Torah are intimately connected to the social dominance of the Rabbinic Sage as a symbolic representation of Torah".

102

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

building where Torah study would customarily take place was probably called a "study house/room" [EHIQ ITU].319 Such a study house could be (a room within) the private house or apartment of a rabbi or a public building or room within a building which one or a number of (more or less) wealthy donors had established at certain locales. While, theoretically, any adult male Jew, 320 not only rabbis and their close circles of students, seems to have had access to a public study house at places where it existed, only those who had some Torah learning themselves and could engage in discussions are likely to have actually gone there. Public study houses will have been frequented by all those who were sufficiently learned but did not necessarily belong to rabbis' immediate disciple circles. One could go there whenever one had time to spare, without committing oneself to also serve a rabbi.321 The study house may have been somewhat similar to what is called a scholasterion in Graeco-Roman texts. Rawson describes the scholasteria as "rooms for study or teaching, where learned Greeks spent their days, often in company with the owner himself'. 322 In De Fin. 3.2.7 Cicero relates that he would occasionally go to the library in the country house of Lucullus at Tusculum, to consult the books he needed, and he met Cato there, who was surrounded by piles of books. Since this happened at a time when Lucullus was already dead, it seems that his library remained open for public use after his death. With regard to the time when Lucullus was still living, Plutarch (Luc. 42) writes: "His libraries were thrown open to all, and the cloisters surrounding them, and the study-rooms [0"/o/.uim|Dia>v], were accessible without restriction to the Greeks, who constantly repaired thither as to an hostelery of the Muses, and spent the day with one another, in glad escape from their other occupations. Lucullus himself also often spent his leisure hours there with them, walking about in the cloisters with their scholars, and he would assist their politicians in whatever they desired". 3 2 3

Here the scholasteria are described as study rooms close to a library and part of the library complex, where people could meet to read and discuss books. Simi319

See Hezser (1997) 195-214, and especially 202-4. At least on particular holidays women seem to have attended lectures at study houses as well, as T. Yoma 4:2 seems to suggest, cf. Hezser (1997) 207. T. Ilan (1999) 179 points to Beruriah as an example of a learned woman who not only attended study houses but also expressed her halakhic opinions there. The image of Beruriah, just like that of the ideal slave in the R. Gamliel-Tabi stories, may be a deliberate rabbinic construction, however, in which a woman (i.e., the paradigmatic alter ego of the rabbis) is made the representative of the rabbinic value of Torah study. 321 Lapin (1996) 500 is right in stressing the communal aspect of the Jewish study house over against the Christian "academy" of Origen in Caesarea. Not all study houses mentioned in rabbinic sources seem to have been study houses associated with a particular rabbi. The study houses mentioned for certain locales seem to have been truly communal and public, like the synagogues, and rabbis are never mentioned as their "leaders" or administrators. Access to rabbis' private study houses may have been more limited. For a more detailed discussion of this issue see Hezser (1997) 202-4. 322 Rawson 40. 323 Translation with the Loeb Classical Library edition. 320

1.

Education

103

larly, Torah scrolls must have been present (at least temporarily) in the study houses/rooms mentioned in rabbinic works. Like the scholasterion, the study house was a meeting place for intellectuals, but for those who possessed Torah knowledge rather than a knowledge of Graeco-Roman literature and philosophy. As such, it might have been a Jewish alternative to similar Graeco-Roman institutions visited by those who possessed a secular education. 3 2 4 But not all Jews who wanted to pursue a higher education would study with rabbis or frequent study houses. Some Jews who had been educated in the Greek language by Greek private tutors are likely to have proceeded to higher studies with grammatici, rhetors, and philosophers. Others may have learned Latin to attend the law school at Beirut where Roman legal traditions were taught. 3 2 5 On the basis of a statement attributed to R. Shimon b. Gamliel in b. Sota 49b, "There were a thousand young men in my father's house, five hundred of whom studied the Torah, while the other five hundred studied Greek wisdom", Lieberman assumed that "an academy of Greek wisdom existed in Jewish Palestine under the auspices of the Patriarch. It was established in the beginning of the second century for the purpose of facilitating the relations between the House of the Patriarch and the Roman government". 3 2 6 The teachers were Jews who knew the Greek sources well, and the academy was "officially recognized" within rabbinic circles. 327 He considers this statement historically trustworthy, since no rabbi would have invented such a proposition. There is no supporting evidence for such an academy within rabbinic or nonrabbinic sources, however, and Lieberman's assumption must be considered a rather far-fetched hypothesis. It is more likely that upper-class Jews who wanted to acquire a higher Graeco-Roman education would attend the schools of GraecoRoman rhetoricians, philosophers, and legal experts in Palestine and Syria. 3 2 8 Joseph Geiger has shown that already between the first c. B.C.E. and the first c. C.E. Ashqelon was the home of a large number of Greek intellectuals such as the grammarians Ptolemy and Dorotheus, the philosophers Antiochus, Sosus, Antibius and Eubius (the latter two were Stoics), and the historians Apollonius and Artemidorus. 3 2 9 324

On libraries see section I.2.E below. See Geiger (1994) 6. 326 Lieberman (1965) 1. See also idem (1962) 105. 327 Lieberman (1965) 1: "The members and teachers of the academy were in a position to make valuable information from Greek sources available to the Rabbis". From that time onwards, "the Jewish leaders felt that not only is 'Greek Wisdom' indispensable for proper relations with the Roman government but that Greek philosophy is a useful instrument in religious discussions, especially with the Gentile Christians who became more and more influential". Visotzky, 3, who accepts Lieberman's hypothesis without further analysis, draws far-ranging conclusions with regard to the allegedly comparable Graeco-Roman "Bildung" of the rabbis and the church fathers. 328 Similarly, Philo took it for granted "that the elite Jewish youth of Alexandria would be enrolled in Greek institutions", see Mendelson 82. 329 See Geiger (1991) 5 - 1 6 . 325

104

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

From the second half of the the first c. C.E. onwards many rhetoricians, representatives of the so-called Second Sophistic movement, lived or sojourned in the Greek cities of Palestine. 330 Caesarea "possessed a distinguished school of rhetorical and literary studies, going back to the imperial period". 331 In the fourth century, for example, Acacius of Caesarea, a rhetor and rival of Libanius, taught in Palestine after having been active in Phoenicia and Athens. Similarly, the philologist Orion, a native of Thebes in Egypt, came to Caesaria in the fifth century C.E.332 The school was able to attract famous sophists by offering them a high salary.333 Also renowned was the rhetorical school at Gaza. The study of the classical literary tradition was continued at that school even after the official conversion of the city to Christianity at the beginning of the fifth century C.E. 334 In addition, other Graeco-Roman intellectuals lived in nearby Syria. According to Geiger, a law school existed in Beirut in the first half of the third century C.E. already.335 By the fourth century Antioch was a center of rhetorical training. Ulpian of Ashqelon (died in 329 C.E.) had been a predecessor of Libanius, and Zenobius of Elusa (the native of a small and remote Palestinian town who died in 354 C.E.) had been Libanius' teacher of rhetoric there. 336 Besides Antioch, Gadara, situated east of the Jordan, "produced a whole series of significant poets and philosophers". 337 Already in Hellenistic times (3rd c. B.C.E.) Menippus, a pupil of the Cynic Metrocles, lived in Gadara, and approximately two hundred years later (2nd-1st c. B.C.E.) Meleager of Gadara, a poet and collector of epigrams, was active. Philodemus of Gadara (1st c. B.C.E.) was an Epicurean and a student of Zeno of Sidon. 338 At the time of Cicero, the Stoic philosopher Antipater of Tyre taught the younger Cato. 339 Hengel notes that from Hellenistic times onwards "all the philosophical schools were represented in Palestine and Phoenicia, but the preponderance of the Stoa is unmistakable ...". 34 ° Rabbinic literature occasionally mentions "Epicureans" and "Cynics", and meetings between Oenomaus of Gadara, Proclus, "Antoninus" (whom Wallach believed to be identical with Marc Aurel) and rabbis, but none of these references constitutes evidence for a rabbinic knowledge of Greek philosophy based on an actual study of philosophical texts. While Lieberman maintained that there was "no evidence that the Rabbis knew about the teaching of Epicurus more than the current general phrases", 341 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341

See Geiger (1992) 47-56. Downey 302-3. See ibid. 301. See ibid. 303. Cf. ibid. 308-9. See Geiger (1994) 6. See ibid. 301. Hengel 1:83. On Gadara as a Greek intellectual center in antiquity see also Geiger (1985) 3-16. See Hengel 1:86-87. Ibid. 87. Lieberman (1974) 223/130.

1.

Education

105

Hans-Jurgen Becker believes that the depiction of Epicureans in y. Sanh. 10:1, 27d-28a is based on concrete information about Epicurean teachings.342 Menahem Luz has argued similarly with regard to references to Greek Cynics in y. Git. 7:1, 48b and y. Ter. 1:1, 2a. The description allegedly accords with Cynics' characteristic behaviors, which the rabbis seem to have misunderstood but most likely observed. 343 However, the rabbinic references to Cynics and Epicureans provide no more than a "general impression" of these philosophical schools' teachings and life-style, 344 which may have been based on common popular knowledge about these philosophical schools in the ancient Mediterranean world. A more specific knowledge of Cynic, Stoic, and Epicurean teachings is not evident within these or any other rabbinic texts. 345 Luitpold Wallach believed that the (rabbinic) author of the Antoninus-questions was "a Hellenistic Jew capable of reading both Posidonius and Marcus Aurelius". 346 Similarly, Menahem Luz assumed that the rabbis who constructed anecdotes about dialogues between the figure of Abnomos and rabbis had a general knowledge of the Gadarene Cynic tradition associated with Oenomaus, although the latter's "peculiar philosophy cannot be identified here". 347 While these scholars carefully avoided historiographic conclusions, Warren Zev Harvey seems to believe that the meetings between rabbis and philosophers, which the stories describe, actually took place, when he writes that "several Rabbis had personal contacts with philosophers". 348 These contacts allegedly indicate that rabbis "could have ready access to philosophers who might guide them in their readings". 349 According to Harvey, the fact that only Antoninus and Oenomaus are featured in rabbinic literature as interlocutors of rabbis should not lead to the assumption that the rabbis "had not heard about any other philosophers". 350 Oenomaus and Antoninus were mentioned, "because they came into personal contact with the Rabbis"; other philosophers were not mentioned, because "it simply was not the practice of the Rabbis to cite non-Jewish authors".351 The assumption that the rabbis were well acquainted with particular philosophers and their doctrines is an argument from silence for which no rabbinic 342 See Becker (1998a) 4 0 7 - 8 . See also Becker (1998b) 3 8 7 - 9 6 , where he examines Stoic influence on a Yerushalmi text. 343 See Luz (1989) 59. 344 See Lieberman (1974) 223/130. 345 See also Stemberger (1979) 189: "In der rabbinischen Literatur gibt es somit keinen Beleg für eine direkte Kenntnis der philosophischen Schriften Griechenlands und des Hellenismus, wie ja auch die philosophische Fachterminologie des Hellenismus sich in den rabbinischen Texten überhaupt nicht niedergeschlagen hat". 346 See Wallach 280. 347 See Luz (1992) 80. For the identification of Abnomos with Oenomaus of Gadara see idem ( 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 ) 191-95. 348 W.Z. Harvey 87. 349 Ibid. 88. 350 Ibid. 351 Ibid. 8 8 - 8 9 .

106

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

evidence exists. Feldman correctly writes: "We may well wonder about the Greek philosophic influence on people who regard Oenomaus of Gadara (ca 120 C.E.) as the greatest Gentile philosopher of all time (...)". 3 5 2 Individual rabbis may have occasionally met and talked to Jewish and non-Jewish intellectuals who were well acquainted with Greek philosophy, but there is absolutely no evidence that a Palestinian rabbi mentioned in Palestinian rabbinic documents ever studied properly at a philosophical (or rhetorical) school. 353 Some of their upper-class Jewish contemporaries may have actually done so, however, or at least given their sons the opportunity of a Greek education. One of the letters which the rhetorician Libanius wrote to the "patriarch(s)" of Palestine between 388 and 393 may indicate that a patriarch who wanted his son to receive a nonJewish higher education would let him study abroad with a Roman rhetorician. 354 If Epistula 1098 was actually written to the Jewish nasi, it shows that the son of a patriarch studied rhetorics with Libanius in Antioch. 355 In that case the letter - like the entire correspondence - would be "evidence for the wide-ranging Hellenistic acculturation of the Jewish patriarchs". 356 The exact meaning of the term "Greek wisdom" (n , ]'P riCDH) in rabbinic sources remains uncertain, but it is likely that this general formulation referred to the various types of Graeco-Roman secondary education which included philosophy and empirical sciences. 357 Lieberman has argued that early rabbinic sources do not contain a general prohibition of the study of Greek wisdom, 358 352 L.H. Feldman (1993) 34. According to a statement attributed to R. Abba b. Kahana in Gen.R. 65:20 (Theodor-Albeck ed. p. 734), Bileam the son of Beor and Oenomaus of Gadara were the greatest philosophers of the world. 353 For a more detailed examination of the relationship between rabbinic literature and Graeco-Roman philosophy see Hezser (2000a) 16Iff. 354 On these letters see Schwabe (1930) 85-110; Jacobs (1995) 259-72; Hezser (1997) 4 4 6 - 4 7 . Schwabe and Jacobs discuss the identity of the addressee. 355 According to Jacobs (1995) 268, it is questionable, however, whether the addressee of this letter actually was the Jewish patriarch. The letter is addressed "To the same" in the singular while letter 1097 was addressed "To the patriarchs" in the plural. Another letter, possibly addressed to someone else, may have preceded letter 1098. Letter 1098 (published, translated and commented in Stern 2:595-6) asks the addressee not to be angry with his son, who had obviously run away in order to study with Libanius. When he came to Libanius the student already "knew how to learn" and had studied with a certain Argeius before. According to Stern 2:596, this Argeius was an old pupil of Libanius who was active in Pamphylia from 388 to 391 C.E. Stern notes that "it is hard to imagine that the son of the patriarch went so far away for the purpose of study ... Schwabe suggests that at some time between 391 and 393 Argeius taught rhetoric in one of the cities nearer to the seat of the patriarch, such as Berytus, and that the son of the patriarch had studied there under him before he went for advanced studies under Libanius at Antioch". 356 Jacobs (1995) 268 (my translation from the German). 357 On rabbis' possible knowledge of empirical sciences such as medicine and astrology see Veltri (1998) 302 ff. 358 See Lieberman (1962) 100-102. Ibid. 102: "None of the early rabbinic sources mentions the direct prohibition of the study of either the Greek language or Greek wisdom". He thinks that the prohibition only applied to the teaching of children. Halevy, 269-74, generally

1.

Education

107

and one can, in any case, not be certain that actual practice would have been in accordance with some rabbis' theoretical statements. The rabbinic concern with the issue suggests that the acquisition of a higher Greek learning was at least relevant amongst certain circles of the Jewish population of Palestine. In the Roman Empire three intellectual topics were dominant, grammatica, rhetorics, and philosophy, and all three were of Greek origin. 359 In general, Graeco-Roman philosophers considered philosophy the "crown" of education, while all other subjects were deemed subordinate to it. 360 On the other hand, educators such as Isocrates and Quintilian emphasized the rhetorical education which would lead to a political career. 361 While the study of the so-called liberates artes should theoretically precede the higher studies of literature, rhetorics, and philosophy, these preliminary studies would often be neglected by students who wanted to advance to higher studies at a relatively early age. 362 As in the case of primary education, the Graeco-Roman schools of higher studies "were established as a result of private enterprise" by individual teachers. 363 They each dealt with one particular subject, whether literature, rhetorics, or philosophy only. The state was mainly concerned with the establishment and control of the gymnasia and ephebeia which offered physical and military training. 364 In addition, Vespasian "established chairs of Latin and Greek rhetoric at Rome with salaries from the imperial treasury". 365 Philosophical schools, on the other hand, "were private foundations which owed their continuity ... in part to the fact that they possessed property left by the founder to his successors". 366 With regard to rhetorical education Clarke notes that students tended not to stay with one teacher: "In areas where there were a number of rival teachers numbers could fluctuate considerably, students moved about sampling one after another, or defected towards the end of the school year to avoid paying their fees". 367 Philosophers generally had a higher status than teachers of rhetoric and many of them came from wealthy families. 368 Similarly, the Roman students of agrees with Lieberman but stresses that the situation was different in Babylonia, where a much deeper aversion (though merely theoretical) toward Greek wisdom could be found. 359 See Rawson 320. 360 See M.L. Clarke, 2, with references. 361 See ibid. 5. 362 See ibid. 6 - 7 . At age sixteen, when he changed from the toga praetexta to the toga virilis, a boy could choose what he wanted to study. Clarke refers to Galen who "notes with regret an increasing tendency in his day to start philosophy without any previous study of grammar or rhetoric" (cf. Gen. R. 63:9 above). The encyclic arts continued to be studied in the Greek-speaking world, however, cf. Philo, who studied grammar, geometry, and music as a boy (De Congressu 14). On the contrast between the artes liberates and the artes sordidae see Kuhnert 4. 363 M.L. Clarke 7. 364 See ibid. 8. 365 Ibid. 366 Ibid. 367 Ibid. 33. On rhetorical education see also Rawson 143-55. 368 Rawson 79-80.

108

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

philosophy "came, as far as we can see, almost entirely from the upper class". 369 Such high-born origin seems to have applied to practically all students of higher education. While rhetorics and jurispudence were, to some extent, seen as a means to social advancement, almost all those who devoted themselves to these disciplines already came from the highest echelons of society.370 Rawson has made the important observation that even amongst the Roman upper class, higher education was rarely pursued for its own sake. Upper-class students would study disciplines such as rhetoric and jurisprudence only as long as and as far as it led to professional advancement or advancement in one's political career,371 whereas "intellectual activity was regarded by the upper class primarily as an ingredient of otium, or leisure - the time not spent on negotia",372 Accordingly, "few members of the upper class were so revolutionary as to abandon themselves largely or actively to study". 373 While law and rhetoric were "vocational subjects", parents would send their sons374 to philosophers to improve their moral character but not to turn them into philosophers themselves. 375 Thus Rawson concludes: "Not all, perhaps not many, members of the very highest aristocracy had serious interests or wrote. They could rely on birth alone for distinction". 376 This reliance on birth was hardly possible for provincials who aspired to a high social recognition within Graeco-Roman society at large. Hopkins has pointed out that Graeco-Roman education also served as "an instrument for the socialization of aristocrats": 377 "Education was to the cultural economy what money was to the monetary economy, a lingua franca by which elites of various sub-cultures could be assimilated and fused". 378 The result of the shared imitation of the upper class and assimilation of Greek culture was "that most upperclass Italians, Romans, Greeks, conquerors and conquered alike, shared an iden369

Ibid. 94. See ibid. 89-90. 371 Ibid. 38. 372 Ibid. 19. 373 Ibid. 38. 374 Rawson points out that in general (with a few possible exceptions) "women are inconspicuous in intellectual life" (48). While some upper-class girls probably received a primary education and could read and write, law and rhetoric were "vocational subjects, only for the men" (47). As to philosophy, "we hear of no girl working seriously with a well-known philosopher, let alone studying in Athens" (ibid.). 375 See M.L. Clarke 95. 376 Rawson 97. Hopkins (1978) 77 reckons that the number of adult Romans who had received a secondary education must have been very small. On the basis of Suetonius' claim that there were more than twenty grammar schools at Rome at the end of the Republic (On Grammarians 3), and assuming that each of these schools graduated ten students each year, "then at any one time there were about seven thousand adult Romans, who had been educated in the city of Rome". Altogether, then, "the number of educated adults remains a small proportion of the total living in the city of Rome". 377 See Hopkins (1978) 79. 378 Ibid. 370

I.

Education

109

tical high culture which was by origin alien to all except the Greeks". 379 One may assume that besides the hope for professional advancement the wish to participate in this Empire-wide elite culture constituted an additional motivation for wealthy Jews to obtain a Graeco-Roman education for themselves and/or their children.

379

Ibid. 80.

2. The Costs and Distribution of Texts Amongst the Jews of Roman Palestine documents and oral transactions seem to have existed side by side as far as business deals and changes in personal status were concerned. Only in a few particular situations will the average person have needed a document, and even then he or she could probably rely on the assistance of a professional scribe. The availability of scribes is likely to have varied from place to place and from pre-70 to tannaitic and amoraic times. At least by the third century C.E. all of the cities and most of the towns of Roman Palestine will have had one or more resident scribes who were able to write standard documents and short letters. The status and costs of hiring such scribes will have varied in accordance with their functions and the expertise with which they executed their tasks. Another aspect to be considered in connection with people's use of writing are the availability and costs of the various materials and instruments required for this activity. Certain types of material seem to have been used for particular purposes, although some overlappings could occur. The types of writing material differed with regard to their availability and costs as well as with regard to the ease or difficulty involved in preparing and handling them. In antiquity texts tended to be unevenly distributed in the public and private domain. Only very few individuals are likely to have possessed Torah scrolls, which must have been very expensive because of the preciousness of the material and the special care taken in writing them. Therefore Torah scrolls will usually have been public property, owned by the local community or particular groups in its midst. Small portions of biblical texts in the form of tefillin and mezuzot, on the other hand, are likely to have been more widely distributed and used by a greater variety of people in the private domain of their homes. Except for the Qumran finds, any library or public archive which may have existed before 70 and was, perhaps, attached to the Jerusalem Temple, seems to have vanished with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The Babatha and Salome Komaise papyri show that private "archives", that is, bundles of personal documents kept for future reference, also existed in antiquity. The survival of written material depends, to some extent, on the way in which it was stored and preserved as well as on the number of copies which circulated. Literary works (and other types of writing) of which only a few copies existed and which were not continuously recopied will have disappeared most quickly.

2. The Costs and Distribution

A. Written and Oral

of Texts

111

Transactions

According to rabbinic sources, formal documents were rarely if ever indispensable. Most often an oral declaration or ceremonial action seems to have been considered a valid alternative to written forms of transaction. According to the Mishnah, the acquisition of both landed and movable property (chattel), the purchase and emancipation of slaves, loans, halisah, betrothal and marriage, as well as wills in contemplation of death were not only possible on the basis of a written deed but also in one or more alternative ways. The Mishnah rules that landed property and movable property for which there is security in the form of land is acquired through the transfer of money, a document ("ICDO), or possession (HpTil), movable property for which there is no security through possession only, i.e. through the act of seizing it or using it for a certain amount of time (cf. M. Peah 3:6; M. Shebi. 10:9: M. Qid. 1:5).' The same three ways of acquisition apply to a non-Jewish slave (M. Qid. 1:3),2 while in the case of a Jewish slave taking possession (HpTil) is not mentioned as a possibility (M. Qid. 1:2). The emancipation of Jewish slaves could happen automatically, after the passage of six years, or through money or a document, as in the case of non-Jewish slaves (M. Qid. 1:2-3; M. Git. 1:4, 9:3). 3 A woman is obtained in ways similar to the acquisition of chattel, only that possession (ilpTFl) is substituted by cohabitation ( n « ^ , M. Qid. 1:1).4 Betrothal Q ' t j l T p ) , which the rabbis seem to have distinguished from marriage CpKltD1]), was effective when a small object of the value of at least a perutah was handed over and an accompanying oral statement was made, a rite which could even be carried out through an agent (M. Qid. 2:1). Although deeds documenting the rite of halisah are mentioned (M. B.M. 1:8), such a document does not seem to have been necessary for rendering the rite effective. 5 The effectiveness rather lay in the ceremony itself (M. Yeb. 12:2). Finally, loans could be granted on the basis of a 1

See also Falk 524. On the technical terms for possession through seizing something or drawing it near (HpTil etc.) see B. Cohen 131. Usucaption can be understood as one form of n p m . On usucaption see Zeitlin 177: "possession in which, a person who used a property for a determined length of time becomes the owner of the property". Usucaption must be based on justa causa, i.e. the legal right of possession. In general, one must have possessed (i.e. used) houses and real estate for three years for the possession to be considered valid, see ibid. 179. 2 Cf. Zeitlin 178: "If a man took possession of a slave and the owner did not protest then the possessor acquired all the rights over the slave". 3 In the Mishnah the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish slaves is taken over from the biblical text. Whether such distinctions were actually made in everyday life is very questionable, however. See my forthcoming article on slaves listed in the bibliography. 4 Cf. T. Qid. 1:1 where all three ways are explained. On this text and a general discussion of the procedure of betrothal see Hauptman 6 8 - 7 4 and T. Ilan (1995) 88-89. See also Zeitlin 97 and Falk 5 1 5 - 1 6 on the legal aspects. 5 In T. Yeb. 12:15 the writing of halisah deeds, whose purpose was to confirm the ceremony, seems to have been delegated to the past: "In the beginning they wrote deeds of halisah ..." Cf. T. Yeb. 13:1: "In the beginning they wrote deeds of refusal ...".

112

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

document of indebtedness or without such a document (M. Shebi. 10:1: r r t a n l i a r á n'T) ntDrá). 6 For marriage rabbis suggest that the writing and signing of the marriage contract (7CTD), which listed the husband's and wife's obligations, the items a woman brought into the marriage, and the amount of money the woman received from her husband in case of widowhood or divorce, was a necessary prerequisite (see M. Ket.).7 In order to end the marriage by divorce, a divorce document (CM) was needed (see M. Git.).8 For both the marriage and divorce documents the rabbis discuss the appropriate forms in which these documents should be written and delivered to the wife. In addition, at least in the case of someone who wanted to write over his landed property to his children, wife, slave, or someone else as an inheritance, rabbis considered a document necessary, as the term "to write over" pniDH) already indicates (cf. M. Peah 3:7). In this case, too, rabbis discuss the proper formulation of such a deed (cf. M. B.B. 8:7).9 The rabbinic discussion of all of these transactions needs to be studied more thoroughly and in comparison with the ways in which these procedures were carried out in Graeco-Roman society.10 Such an examination cannot be accomplished here and the summary given above can only be considered very general and preliminary. As in the case of all rabbinic rulings, one can never know for certain whether they were mere theoretical discussions or based on actual reality. Even if they had some basis in reality, their range of application must remain open. For example in the case of marriage contracts one could imagine that only in cases where a sufficient amount of property was involved people deemed it necessary to have such a document written, i.e. that the rabbinic discussion of marriage contracts really concerned the relatively wealthy strata of society only.11 The same may be true for written testaments and deathbed donations. Only those who had property in the form of land or a house or slaves or cattle will have seen the need to put their will into writing. Thus, although the Mishnah occasionally lists various types of documents, 12 and rabbis recommend their usage at least in

6

On deeds of indebtedness see Gulak 114-25. On the development and content of the marriage contract see Hauptman 6 2 - 6 8 and T. Ilan (1995) 89-94. On the legal issues involved see Gulak 52-95. 8 For the requirement of both, but the greater importance of the get in order to collect money in case of divorce see M. Ket. 9:9 and T. Ket. 9:5: If the woman is able to show the divorce document but not the marriage document, she may collect the money; if she can only show the marriage document, she cannot collect the money, since she is not considered properly divorced by the rabbis. In the latter case an exception was made only at a "time of danger". For a more detailed discussion of the get see Hauptman 109-29 and T. Ilan (1995) 141-47. 9 On wills (6ia0r|xr|) see Zeitlin 194-98; Falk 521; Gulak 125-36. 10 Michael Satlow is currently working on a study of marriage in ancient Judaism. 11 That a marriage contract was not absolutely necessary for a Jewish marriage to be considered valid is also assumed by Wasserstein (1989) 122 n. 81 and Cotton (1998) 177. 12 See e.g. M. M.Q. 3 : 3 - 4 , M. B.M. 1:7-8, M. B.B. 10:3-4. 7

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

113

certain situations, we do not know what percentage of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine in the first two centuries C.E. actually made use of them. 13 In a large number of situations oral statements, testimonies, and oaths seem to have sufficed. For example, according to case stories, legal cases on various issues where judged by rabbis on the basis of the litigants' (and witnesses') oral testimonies, and the judgment was similarly delivered orally. Day laborers seem to have been hired without a written contract, on the mere basis of being sent to work and being promised a certain wage. The laborer's actual commencement of his work seems to have made this oral contract effective. 14 A levirate marriage was constituted by the act of "bespeaking" PQKQ), which T. Yeb. 2:1 explains as follows: "What is bespeaking? [When the levirate husband says:] 'Behold, you are sanctified to me by money', or: 'by something worth money', or: 'by a deed'". In addition, the woman's oral agreement to the levirate marriage is necessary for the marriage to be valid (see ibid.).15 If someone testifies orally that he has killed the husband of a woman, rabbis allow the woman to remarry on the basis of the oral statement (T. Yeb. 4:5; cf. T. Yeb. 14:6-10). A person can even be raised to the priesthood on the basis of the testimony of a single witness (M. Ket. 2:8, T. Ket. 2:3). In tannaitic documents witnesses are mentioned over and over again in connection with damages to other people's property, issues of personal status, and various other cases which are too numerous to be listed here. In both the Mishnah and Tosefta two tractates deal extensively with witnesses, oaths and testimonies (cf. tractates Shebuot and Eduyot). Because of the importance of witnesses in all areas of rabbinic law, it is not amazing that the reliability and believability of witnesses was discussed in detail (cf., e.g., T. Ket. 2:2; ibid. 3:2; T. Mak. 1:4-11). The relationship between documents and witnesses seems to have been ambiguous, since the relatively greater authority of the one or the other became the subject of discussion (cf. T. Ket. 2:1: "Greater is the power of a document than the power of witnesses, and [greater is the power of] witnesses than the power of a document.. .").16 At least in tannaitic times, the issue does not seem to have been decided in one particular direction yet, although rabbis considered documents advantageous in certain situations (cf. T. Ket. 2:1). The combination of witnesses and documents also becomes evident in the phenomenon of having witnesses add their signatures to documents to assure that the transaction is valid.17 13

The papyrological evidence of the usage of documents is presented in section II.2 below. See Hezser (1990) 67-69. 15 Such an agreement was also necessary in the case of betrothal, see T. Qid. 2:8 and Hauptman 69-71. 16 A writ of divorce, unlike witnesses, is said to remove the woman from the domain of her husband and is therefore considered a more powerful means of separation. In the case of a husband who has died, witnesses' testimony is deemed more forceful than a statement in written form: Only if witnesses testify orally to the husband's death is the woman allowed to remarry. I.e. the greater or lesser value of documents and oral testimonies depended on the respective situation. 17 Cf. M. Ket. 2:3-4, M. Git. 1:1.5; M. Git. 9:4.8: M. B.B. 10:1-2. 14

114

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

The situation does not seem to have changed in amoraic times. On the contrary, in the Talmud Yerushalmi the validity of transactions on the basis of oral statements or the testimony of witnesses instead of written documents is confirmed and emphasized. For example, a statement attributed to R. Chiyya in y. Qid. 1:1,58b, which relates to M. Qid. 1:1 (a woman is acquired through money, a document, or intercourse), explicitly states that each of the three types of betrothal is valid by itself. They are subsequently explained on the basis of Scripture. According to amoraic discussions of donations, oral declarations of the dying are considered as valid as statements written by people while they were still healthy. Commenting on a tannaitic story about a Meronite who allegedly donated movable goods together with immovable property to heirs through an oral declaration, the gemara in y. Peah 3:8, 17d states: "R. Chanania said before R. Mana: Now was [this man] not upon his deathbed? [Wasn't that the reason that sages upheld his declaration?] For in usual practice, a person cannot acquire [possession] unless [the property is consigned to him] in writing; [nonetheless], in the case you have cited, [the person acquires possession] merely through a verbal declaration ...".' 8 Similarly, y. Peah 3:9, 18a transmits the following statement attributed to "R. Ba, R. Chuna in the name of Rav: [Through their rules the authors of the present passage of the Mishnah] have equated an oral consignment by a person on his deathbed with the written consignment of a healthy person who gave away some of his property". Oral wills of the dying are also considered valid elsewhere in the Yerushalmi. In y. B.Q. 9:11, 7a R. Zebid states in the name of R. Ba b. Mamal that a will made before witnesses is to be carried out. In the continuation of the discussion a story about the wife of R. Ba b. Chana is quoted who allegedly said before she was dying that a certain ring should belong to her daughter after her death. The assumption is that there were no outside witnesses. After her death her husband contested her statement. The case is said to have come before Rab who ruled that one should believe a dying person, since "it is not common for someone to lie when dying". 19 As in the case of donations and inheritances, the Yerushalmi assumes that in the case of loans both loans with documents of indebtedness and loans without such documents, which were made on the basis of oral statements in the presence of 18 The story itself does not describe the Meronite as a dying person. Nevertheless his oral donation is considered valid. The emphasis of the story does not lie on the written/oral issue, however, but on the requirement to transfer movable property together with land. 19 On the various forms of dispositions in contemplation of death see also Falk 520-21 and especially Yaron 46-84. Goitein (1978-79) 158, has pointed out that "Jewish and Islamic laws on wills are essentially identical. Both do not know the Roman or modern idea of a unilateral testament, but recognize dispositions made during a terminal illness or in similar situations and dealing mainly with the appointment of executors and the distribution of legacies. These laws reflect a society which trusted living persons more than written documents". Only in the Middle Ages did many people make testaments, as the Geniza material shows.

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

115

witnesses, occurred. A sugya in y. Ket. 11:1, 34b discusses the question of a person who had died and left property, and both his wife (on the basis of her marriage contract) and a creditor laid claim against the property (cf. T. Ket. 9:3). In the following anonymous discussion of the case it is suggested that the decision depends on whether the loan was secured by a verbal statement only or on the basis of a document. Similarly, y. B.Q. 10:1, 7b par. y. B.M. 1:6, 8a transmits a dispute between Rav and Shmuel concerning a person who lends money to someone on the security of on oral statement before witnesses only. The question is whether the lender may collect his dues from mortgaged property in such a case. In y. B.M. 4 : 2 , 9 c the advantages of doing business through a verbal statement become evident. If there was a verbal sales agreement only, even if the money had already been handed over, the seller could retract a sale as long as the buyer had not taken possession of the object. 2 0 Disadvantages of mere verbal transactions were the possible unreliability and untrustworthiness of witnesses. As in tannaitic sources, the problems connected with witnesses are discussed in the Yerushalmi. In y. Sanh. 3:8, 21c, for example, it is suggested to strictly examine witnesses in court in order to avoid any prior rehearsal amongst them which might lead to a harmonization of their statements. The question whether oral and written testimonies might be combined is discussed in y. Ket. 2:4, 26c: "R. Chaggai said [that] R. Zeira asked: If one witness [testifies] orally [HSD] and one witness in a document ptDÍCQ], what is the law concerning joining them together?" According to the subsequent discussion, a single witness's signature in a document is not worth anything. A longer discussion of the issue follows. Thus, both tannaitic and amoraic sources suggest that in some legal contexts either documents or oral statements/symbolic actions or both could be used. The rabbis discussed the various problems which this variable practice could cause, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the different forms of transaction. For marriage and divorce the amoraim, just like the tannaim before them, generally recommended the use of documents. Not all of their contemporaries seem to have followed them, however. 2 1 In y. Ket. 1:2, 25b (someone in the name of R. Chuna) and y. Ket. 9:11, 33c (R. Zeira, R. Abuna in the name of Rab) a distinction is drawn between "a place in which they do not write a marriage contract" (¡"QirD "ICDE? jTHTD " S © DIpQ) and "a place in which they do write a marriage contract" (i"iH T C CpC), 20 See the discussion of this sugya in Hezser (1993) 103-9. See also Falk 528: "Since movables were acquired by taking possession, not by payment of the price, there was merely a verbal promise, the breach of which was no 'breach of trust'". 21 See also Cotton (1998) 177: On the basis of P.Yadin 37 (= no. 65 in Cotton/Yardeni) she suggests that not only was there "no normative, authoritative and uniform marriage contract which Jews knew that they had to use", but one also has to "question the assumption that a written marriage contract was a sine qua non for the conclusion of marriage between Jews". The document seems to imply that an "unwritten marriage" could later be turned into an eyYC?acP0S Y YQau^iatocprjXaxeiqjl having fled, they set fire to it".

According to Bell. 6.6.3 (354), on the other hand, the archives were allegedly destroyed in 70 C.E. when Titus permitted his troops to destroy the entire city of Jerusalem: "He then gave his troops permission to burn and sack the city. For that day they refrained; but on the next day they set fire to the archive [no"/f.!ov], the Acra, the council-chamber, and the region called Ophlas, the flames spreading as far as the palace of Queen Helena, which was in the center of the Acra".

The allegation that Jews who wanted to get rid of bonds of indebtedness set fire to the archives is also expressed by Josephus with regard to another place. In 224

Ibid. 107. See the diagram of Egyptian administration in the early Roman Empire ibid. 108. For an alternative view of the Egyptian administrative system see Burkhalter 216. 226 See Cockle 110: grapheion, agoranomeion, bibliotheke, katalogeion, mnemoneion. 227 In 6 C.E. the Roman province of Judaea was established. The boundaries of the province changed several times during the first century C.E. After the Bar Kokhba revolt, in 135 C.E., the province received the official name Syria-Palestine. For the history and administration of Judaea under direct Roman rule see Pastor 136-167 and Schäfer (1983) 119 ff. 225

152

Part 1: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

Bell 7.3.4 (55) he write concerning Jews of Antioch immediately after the Romans' capture of Jerusalem: "For a fire having broken out, which burnt down the market-square, the magistrates' quarters, the record office [vQa|i(i«xotpijXdxiov] and the basilicas ...", Antiochus accused the Jews of the deed and the Antiochenes attacked them. An investigation by the governor found out, however, that they were innocent. In Bell. 7.3.4 (61) Josephus then attributes the deed to a few criminals amongst the Jews: "Not one of the Jews incriminated by Antiochus had any part in the affair, the whole being the work of some scoundrels, who, under the pressure of debts, imagined that if they burned the market-place and the public records [x& (5r]|i6aiu yyuHM-ttxal they would be rid of all demands".

This incrimination obviously served to avert the guilt from the Jewish community as a whole. Whether or not these Jews set fire to the archives in Jerusalem and Antioch, the texts imply that the archives were believed to safeguard the interests of the wealthy. In any case the Jerusalem archives will only have existed until 70 C.E. The grammatophylakes referred to in Bell. 2.17.6 (426-428) may, perhaps, be compared with the so-called bibliophylakes, or "keepers of the records", who were the heads of the Egyptian public record offices of each nome capital (Bi(3X.io0r)xr] 6r||ioaio)v Axr/cnv) and held office for one year.228 According to Cockle, in Egypt these public record offices would contain "a registry of real property, i.e. land and slaves, as well as official correspondence, official papers, tax returns, census lists, etc.". 229 In Roman times the census was held every fourteen years. 230 According to Luke 2:1-2, the first census took place under Augustus, when Quirinius was procurator in Syria.231 The census records would "show the age, sex, occupation, civil status, employment, and filiation of every member of each household. The returns were later correlated with the poll-tax and property-registers". 232 The public record offices will have kept private deeds as well. According to Bell. 2.17.6 (426-428) and 7.3.4 (61), the archives in Jerusalem and Antioch contained documents of indebtedness which some people were eager to destroy. Cockle has noted that the Roman government only allowed those documents to be produced in a court action which, if they had not been drafted by a notary, "had been given publicity (Srifiooiwoic;) by depositing two copies of the docu228 229

See Cockle 115. Ibid. 113. In 72 C.E. a separate archive for the registry of real property was created, see

ibid.

230

See ibid. 120. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.1.1 (1). See also Schäfer (1983) 120: The census did not happen at the time of Herod, as Luke assumes, but later, perhaps in 6 - 7 C.E. According to Cockle 120, the census may have started as late as 19-20 C.E., at least as far as Egyptian evidence is concerned. 232 Cockle 120. 231

2. The Costs and Distribution of Texts

153

ment in Alexandria in the state registry offices". 233 Those who lent money to others will have been especially interested in having their deeds registed at such an office in anticipation of possible litigations. The registering of private documents in a public archive may also be implied by the term t a ¿>r]|i6aia yodii^axa in Bell. 7.3.4 (61). According to Josephus, the pre-70 Jerusalem archives would also contain genealogical lists of priestly families. In C.A. 1.7 (31) he writes that a priest had to obtain a genealogy of his prospective wife's family "from the archives", and (ibid. 32) he alleges that written accounts of priestly marriages were kept in every Jewish settlement in the Diaspora. On the basis of these records "a statement is drawn up by them and sent to Jerusalem, showing the names of the bride and her father and more remote ancestors, together with the names of the witnesses" (ibid. 33). When the Jerusalem archives were destroyed, as in the event of rebellions and wars, the priests were allegedly able to "compile fresh records" on the basis of the Jewish archives in other countries (see ibid. 35 ff.: xcava jrd/av ex xcbv aQ^eicov 790(1 |_iaxa avviotavxai), so that "our records contain the names of our high priests from father to son for the last two thousand years" (ibid.). Whether Josephus can be considered trustworthy in this regard is doubtful, however. The argument that the records in the Jerusalem archive would be backed by records in foreign archives is also made with regard to public building expenses. In Ant. 8.2.8 (55) Josephus maintains that "to this day there remain copies of these letters [i.e. the correspondence between Hiram and Solomon concerning the building of the Temple, cf. 1 Ki. 5:7], preserved not only in our books but also by the Tyrans, so that if anyone wished to learn the exact truth, he would, by inquiring of the public officials in charge of the Tyran archive [tcov em xoi TUQLCDV YQANNATOCPUXAXEIOU SRMOAICOV], find that [their records] are in agreement with what we have said".234 The only archive in Roman Palestine outside of Jerusalem which Josephus mentions is said to have been in Sepphoris. According to Vita 38, Sepphoris had been subordinate to Tiberias under King Agrippa (I). When Felix became procurator of Judaea (in 52 C.E.), however, "Sepphoris, by submission to Rome, had forthwith become the capital of Galilee and the seat of the royal bank and the archives [dQxsto] "• Josephus never mentions the Sepphorean archives again, but they reappear in M. Qid. 4:5: "They do not examine [a priestly genealogy] backwards from [proof that one's priestly ancestor has served at] the altars ... And all those whose fathers are known to have 233

Ibid. 114-15. See also C.A. 1.17 (111): "Many of the letters which they exchanged are preserved at Tyre to this day". For a paraphrase of these letters see Ant. 8.2.6-7 (50-54). See also C.A. 1.17 (107): "For very many years past the people of Tyre have kept public records [ypâmiata ÔT)nooia], compiled and very carefully preserved by the state, of the memorable events in their internal history and in their relations with foreign nations". 234

154

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

been public officials [O'Din 1~IQ12i,Q] or charity collectors [ H p T i 'iO} - !], they marry them into the priesthood, and it is not necessary to examine [their ancestry backwards] after them. R. Yose says: Also he who was signed as a witness in the ancient archives of Sepphoris [ " n S ^ t D ¡ W H ' 2 1 1 0 "115 DTin ¡THE? "0 R. Chaninah b. Antigonos says: Also whoever was recorded in the king's army [iWICDOfcO DrDlD ¡TiltO]".

The priestly genealogies which, according to Josephus, dated back two-thousand years and were still preserved at his own time do not seem to have existed in tannaitic times anymore. 235 Therefore alternative ways to prove a family's priestly background had to be established. The rabbinic discussion shows that no fixed criteria were known to the tannaim in this regard. Therefore a variety of possibilities are suggested. The text seems to assume that only members of the priesthood would have served as witnesses to documents (or perhaps to specific types of documents only) which were registered in the archives at Sepphoris. This phenomenon as well as the reference to these archives as "old" or "ancient" suggests that the rabbis considered them to have existed in pre-70 times. 236 Whether the archives themselves, in whatever form, survived the Jewish war, or whether only the existence of their documents was known to the rabbis, is uncertain. With regard to the time after 70 C.E. Hannah Cotton has surmised the existence of public archives on the basis of the evidence which some papyrus documents provide. One of the documents belonging to the archive of Salome Komaise is a double document written in Greek which records the gift of landed property and part of a building by Salome Komaise's mother to her daughter Salome Komaise. 237 Cotton suggests that this gift may have been a preventive measure connected with the mother's second marriage, in case a male heir should subsequently be born to her (and might claim her property later). 238 What is striking is that the Greek of the document "is singularly ungrammatical and non-ideomatic". 239 Cotton therefore believes that it is the translation of an Aramaic original. The signatures are in Aramaic and Nabatean. The translation into Greek may have been made "to make the deed of gift valid and enforceable in a Greekspeaking court" or it may have been necessary in order "to deposit the deed in a public archive, similar to archives in Egypt, where private documents were deposited in public archives", 240 as we have already seen above. 235 For the assumption that genealogical records of Israelite families existed in ancient times see also PRK 3:10 (p. 48 in the Mandelbaum ed.) with regard to the Amalekites (cf. Deut. 25.17-19): "What did Amalek do? He went down to the archive of Egypt [jVmR ITD1? •'"KG and took volumes [of the genealogies] of the tribes [CPCDDtS 72} DiTOITCD] on which their names were inscribed p i p n DOtO DD ¡THC], and he went and stood outside of the cloud and shouted: 'Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yudah, I am your brother, come out, for I want to do business with you!' And when one of them came out, he would kill him". 236 See also Gulak 15. 237 Document no. 64 in Cotton/Yardeni. 238 See ibid. 204. 239 Ibid. 206. 240 Ibid. 207. See also Cotton (1998) 171.

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

155

Such an archive is explicitly mentioned in P.Yadin 19 (1.25-27): "And whenever Shelamzion summons the said Judah he will register it with the public archives". 241 Similarly, in P.Yadin 20 (1.12-13/34-36) Besas and Julia Crispina promise Shelamzion to register with the public archives a courtyard at En Gedi which had formerly belonged to her grandfather. 242 Cotton thinks that the public archive mentioned in these two papyrus documents was probably located at Ein Gedi and accepted Greek documents only. 243 Similar archives seem to have existed in the province of Arabia. According to P.Yadin 24 (1.4-6), Babatha's deceased husband had registered groves in her name in the so-called apographe. Cotton argues that this term "must refer to an official registration of property, presumably in the public archives". 244 In the case of both Shelamzion and Babatha these public archives served to safeguard the property rights of wealthy women. On the basis of another document from the Babatha collection Benjamin Isaac has warned against the assumption that a broad bureaucratic system controlled land registration and tax collection in the Roman provinces of Arabia and SyriaPalestine. P.Yadin 16 is a copy of an original document of land registration for the purpose of taxation preserved in the basilica at Rabbath-Moav. The document indicates that the declaration was made by the landowner in the chief town of the respective taxation district. 245 Most importantly, "there is nothing at all in the text which suggests that further copies were made and sent elsewhere". 246 The declaration was received by an equestrian officer stationed in the city, who would determine the amount of taxes to be paid, but this officer would not have copied the document and sent it to the archives of the cities which collected the taxes. 247 Isaac believes that the city authorities who collected the taxes would not have possessed copies of the land registration documents. Only Babatha herself would have possessed such a copy which protected her against excessive charges. 248 The evidence suggests, then, that in the Roman province of Arabia no extensive bureaucratic system existed, neither at the provincial nor at the local level, and that the system of tax payment was "simple and crude". 249 Local Jewish villagers, 241

See Cotton/Yardeni 207-8. See ibid. 243 See ibid. 244 See ibid. 245 Isaac (1998) 329, points out that this procedure, in which the land declaration was made by the owner, without any indication of a verification by Roman officials, was in accordance with a law formulated in the third century C.E. (Ulpian, Digest 50.15.4.1). 246 Ibid. 247 The registration of property and determination of taxes, on the one hand, and the actual collection of taxes, on the other, seem to have been separate procedures for which different administrative bodies were responsible: the provincial government for the registration and the city authorities for the collection, see ibid. 330. 248 See ibid. 249 See ibid. 331. Ibid. 330 he writes: "All we know about the administration of the Roman provinces in the second century, apart from Egypt, suggests that there was no such bureaucratic apparatus". 242

156

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

who knew the respective properties, seem to have functioned as middle men in the actual collection of taxes, which were then transferred to the cities and provincial authorities. 250 Isaac considers this example "instructive ... of how a large and primitive Empire could function without an elaborate state apparatus. At minimum costs in terms of manpower and bureaucracy it provided a rudimentary form of protection for the individual against exploitation, while guaranteeing the authorities a steady income from taxation". 251 Public archives are also occasionally mentioned in rabbinic sources. While the Mishnah specifically refers to the "ancient archives of Sepphoris", as already mentioned above, both the Mishnah and the Tosefta also refer to archives in general without specifying their location. According to T. M.Q. 1:12, for example, on intermediate days of festivals one may purchase fields, houses, vineyards, cattle, and slaves from gentiles "and one writes [deeds of sale] and registers [them] in the archives [ D ^ m m PI^OI 311131]". T. B.B. 8:3 rules that "[if] one wrote [a writ of emancipation for slaves] and deposited it for them in the archives [ • ^ " l i n j n ^ H^Um nrD], the archives have made acquisition" of the writ and the slaves are considered emancipated. T. M.Q. 1:12 explicitly refers to business transactions with gentiles in connection with archives, which suggests that the mentioned deeds would be written in Greek. The same may be the case in T. B.B. 8:3. Lieberman explains that even if these deeds were written in gentile registries and the writers and signatories were gentiles, the fact that they were registered in archives would render them effective. 252 In the Yerushalmi, just as in tannaitic documents, references to archives are sparse, and this may be due to the phenomenon that the public archives of post70 Palestine were all gentile Roman institutions. 253 In a statement attributed to R. Shimon b. Laqish in y. Sanh. 3:2, 21a a distinction is drawn between the archives in Syria (NmCOE? mtO"U>) and the so-called Torah courts (Hlin T l ) . The assumption is that the "archives" in Syria, or perhaps the public registries of the province Syria-Palestine in general, were not based on Torah law. As Cockle has pointed out with regard to Roman Egypt, the language of the legal contracts and documents would determine the law to be applied in cases of litigation: "In case of disagreement a Greek contract was judged by Greek law, an Egyptian Demotic contract by Egyptian native law, and a Latin contract by Roman law". 254 Thus rabbis would try to keep people from registering Greek contracts in public archives, since they would then automatically be taken out of their own sphere of 250

See ibid. 331-32. Ibid. 332. 252 See Lieberman, TK 10:423 ad loc. 253 Against Haran (1993) 56, who argues that "the modifiers qualifying the term 'archive'" in rabbinic texts suggest that the "'national' character of an archive was probably determined, ..., by the local population". All of the modifiers which he lists ibid, concern "gentile", "pagan", or "Samaritan" archives, though. No "Jewish" archives are ever explicitly mentioned in the sources. 254 See Cockle 107. 251

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

157

influence. Only Hebrew and Aramaic documents would be subjected to native law, i.e. Torah and rabbinic law in the case of Palestine. 255 There is no evidence that such documents were ever registed in archives or that public archives existed for the registration of Hebrew/Aramaic documents in post-70 Palestine. Before we turn to the discussion of private archives, the question of gaining access to public archives and consulting their records needs to be addressed. Most of the documents which belonged to Babatha and Salome Komaise are double documents in which the same text is written twice on one and the same piece of papyrus, the upper version being rolled and tied up.256 Out of the 35 documents associated with Babatha 23 are double documents written in Greek, Aramaic, and Nabatean. 257 Out of the 7 documents associated with Salome Komaise 4 are double documents, all of them written in Greek. 258 Both Koffmahn and Isaac have suggested that double documents were used in times and at places where the owners lacked access to authoritative archives which might guard them against frauds. 259 Double documents in which the inner text consists of a single sentence only must be excluded from this consideration, since in these cases the inner text could not serve verification purposes. 260 In the case of both Salome Komaise and Babatha, archives do seem to have existed and were sometimes used by the families, as indicated above. Isaac suggests that the usage of double documents despite the existence of archives "may indicate that the rural population did not wish to rely on archives and also demanded protection against falsification of documents". 261 The families' wish for private documentation of their property is very understandable on the basis of what we know about the functioning of public archives in the Roman world. Culham has pointed out that the Romans were not particularly concerned with original versions of a document or decree; for them, a copy, even if it did not match the original in all details, fulfilled the same function. 262 Accordingly, they "had not carefully filed master copies or originals at a spot from which they could have been routinely retrieved". 263 Once a document had been registered in a public archive, it would be practically impossible to consult. 255 Such cases seem to be envisioned in M. Shebi. 10:2: "One who hands over his documents to a court [| H i m b vrrnCDtD -lOinm], [these loans] are not canceled [by the Sabbatical Year]". The whole issue needs to be studied in more detail on the basis of both the papyrological and rabbinic evidence from Roman Palestine. 256 On the form and occurrence of double documents see especially Koffmahn 11 ff. See also Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 7ff. on the double documents belonging to Babatha. 257 See Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 8. 258 See Cotton/Yardeni 159. 259 See Koffmahn 29; Isaac (1998) 165. See also Pastor 158. 260 See Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 9: Three of the double documents from the Babatha collection fall into this category. 261 Isaac (1998) 165. On that basis Pastor, 158, asks: "Could the burning of the archives in Jerusalem be an indication that, once again, the archives contained falsified documents?" 262 See Culham (1991) 123. 263 Ibid.

158

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

Private persons would not gain access to these archives, and even prominent figures such as Cato would encounter great difficulties if they tried. 264 Thus archives mainly served as treasuries and storage rooms which would be controlled by the political authorities. 2 6 5 Documents deposited in archives, whether of an originally private nature or public decrees, were basically inaccessible to the populace. Therefore wealthy and aristocratic families would keep their own records within the realms of the household, in their private archives. 2 6 6 Rabbinic evidence for the private storage and preservation of documents is very sparse. M. Qid. 1:8 refers to the possibility that three documents are tied together. T. B.M. 1:14 is more detailed on this issue: "What is a package of documents [ICDE? ¡"ITUNl? Three tied together. What is a bundle of documents ptDC ^vj "|,~lDn]? Any which is tied up around the outside with a thread or a strap or something else". The phenomenon that a number of documents might be kept in a family's private house or apartment is hinted at in T. B.M. 1:9, which rules that found court decrees and prosbuls are to be returned to the person in whose name they are written, "whether he found them in the market-place or whether he found them among the documents of his father". Here the assumption seems to be that the father had not intentionally kept the documents (belonging to another person) amongst his own, but that they just happened to be muddled up with them accidentally. The documents which have been found in the Judaean desert and relate to Babatha and Salome Komaise have commonly been referred to as the family "archives" of these women. The Babatha documents were found "in a leather purse which was wrapped in sacking and tied with twisted ropes" at one particular cave, called the "Cave of Letters", at Nahal Hever, a wadi south of Ein Gedi. 267 Both the fact that these thirty-five documents were bound together and the phenomenon that they all relate to Babatha (although of varying dates, from 93/94 to 132 C.E., and varying languages) make it likely that someone, probably Babatha herself, intentionally stored and preserved them in this way. Yadin writes: "The documents had been laid in the case in a very neat and orderly manner, properly rolled and folded and tied up in separate batches, according to their subject matter, with a special band and strings or with a strip of cloth. Some of them, though dealing with a common topic, were found without a string, but placed beside each other in such a way as to suggest that they too had originally been tied together and their retaining strip of cloth or string had subsequently been eaten away". 268 264

See Small 57. See Culham (1989) 103 with regard to the aerarium in Rome. 266 See ibid. 105: "... the old senatorial families could expect their need for information to be met by archival resources in their own households and in those of their friends; they did not need an institution that might well work against their interests". According to Cicero, Sull. 42, even tabulae publicae, records of senatorial questions to witnesses followed by the witnesses' responses were kept in private custody, see ibid. 104. 267 See Yadin (1962) 235; Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 3-4. 268 Yadin (1962) 235. 265

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

159

Other documents not found in batches were separately wrapped in sacking. Yadin believes that "these documents were of special importance to the women of the family and had been wrapped up in this way to enable them to have them in their own personal keeping". 269 In the year when the last document was written or shortly afterwards "Babatha hid these documents in the cave where they were found". 270 She and her family, who originally lived in a village in the Roman province of Arabia, probably sought refuge in the cave when they feared Roman retaliations after the Bar Kokhba revolt had broken out.271 The documents almost all deal with property issues and lawsuits. 272 It is clear that Babatha "belonged, both by birth and by marriage, to the affluent stratum of local Jewish society" at her native village Mahoza. 273 The six Greek and one Aramaic documents which belong to the archive of Salome Komaise were similarly found at Nahal Hever. Some of the people mentioned in these documents also appear in the Babatha archive, since the families of both women came from the same village and probably knew each other.274 The time period to which the Salome Komaise documents are dated (125-131 C.E.) is much shorter than that of the Babatha archive, though. Since the documents were not found during the excavation of the site, it is not known whether they were bundled together.275 Like the Babatha documents, the documents belonging to Salome Komaise almost all deal with property issues, except for a marriage contract (which Cotton believes to have been written according to Greek law and custom). 276 A third set of documents was found in the Nahal Hever cave close to the Babatha archive. It consisted of a bundle of six documents "which had apparently originally been in a special leather case". 277 The documents can be dated to the time of Bar Kokhba and were written in Ein Gedi. 278 Yadin assumes that the documents belonged to a certain Eliezer son of Samuel, who appears as the beneficiary in most of them. 279 A fourth set are the fifteen Bar Kokhba letters also found at Nahal Hever, "at the bottom of the water skin still tied together with a cord". 280 Yadin believes that the letters "were brought to the cave by Yehonatan or Masabala", the addressees of most of them, "when they took 269 270 271 272

Ibid. 236. Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 4. See ibid. 4 - 5 . For a more detailed examination of the contents of these documents see section II.2.C

below. 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280

Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 22. See Cotton/Yardeni 3 and 158. See ibid. 160. See document no. 65 ibid. 227. Yadin (1962) 248. See ibid. 249. See ibid. 257. Yadin (1961) 41.

160

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

refuge in it". 281 They were probably stored there because "they backed up various confiscatory actions" carried out by the two. 282 In addition to these four sets, perhaps some of the documents found at another Judaean desert location, namely at Murrabba'at, belonged to family archives of a smaller size. When the Roman army approached in the winter of 134-35, "les résistants, qui ont emporté dans leur bagages leurs livres sacrés et leurs maigres archives de famille, meurent lentement de soif et de faim .. ,". 283 Although only a few such collections of documents belonging to particular Jews or Jewish families have been found for the Roman period so far, and although they all belong to the first half of the second century C.E., they may nevertheless have been typical for the document-preserving habits of wealthy land-owning Jewish families and Jewish officials in both tannaitic and amoraic times. 284 Their survival is probably due to the particular circumstances under which they were stored, and the cave storage was due to the politically dangerous situation. Those who stored the documents in the cave probably hoped to be able to recover them later. The documents will have accumulated during their lifetime and were considered worthy of being kept at a safe place, in case they had to be consulted again at a later time. 285 We now turn to the subject of Jewish libraries. Mechthild Kellermann, who has examined the three references to the term |3i(3^io9r)xri in the Septuagint (Est. 2:23; Ezra 6:1; 2 Macc. 2:13), argues that these references cannot be taken as evidence for the actual existence of libraries in post-exilic Israel.286 According to 2 Macc. 2:13-15, for example, Judah Maccabee collected all the books which had been dispersed during the war, as Nehemiah had formerly done. The reference to Judah Maccabee's collection of books serves to present him as a second Nehemiah then,287 but even the proposition that Nehemiah set up a library must be seriously doubted. The author "portrayed Nehemiah as an enlightened ruler of his own time" and "attributed to Nehemiah a feature typical of one of the Ptolemaic kings, the founders and owners of the Alexandrian library". 288 The encouragement of Egyptian Jews to borrow books from the Jerusalem collection (ibid, v.15) must also be seen in this context. 281

Ibid. 50. See ibid. 283 Benoit/Milik/de Vaux 69. 284 Cotton (1998) 172 has argued that "the Jews represented in the documents from the Judean Desert are not a fringe group", but rather "representative of Jewish society as a whole in the period under discussion. They present a faithful picture of the realities of life at the time that they were written". 285 See also Thatcher 131: "The preservation of such documents by private individuals suggests that individual Jews believed documents could offer legal protection, whether or not they themselves could read them". 286 See Kellermann 104-9. 287 See ibid. 108. 288 Haran (1993) 59. 282

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

161

A loan practice may be implied in the story about the translation of the Torah related in the Letter of Aristeas, although no library in Jerusalem which might lend out scrolls is ever explicitly mentioned there.289 The rather obscure passage in the letter of Demetrius to the king (Arist. 30), which refers to Hebrew scrolls which "have been transcribed somewhat carelessly and not as they should be, according to the report of the experts", 290 may indicate the necessity to have the "original" scrolls brought from Jerusalem. 291 In the correspondence between the king and the high priest Eleazar only the dispatch of the translators is mentioned though (cf. ibid. 35-51). Scrolls of the holy Scriptures were probably kept in the Jerusalem Temple in Second Temple times, and the high priest was the main guardian over them, but it is questionable whether such a collection might be called a "library". 292 With regard to both Hellenistic and Roman times Haran has pointed to the phenomenon that the number of Jewish literary works was very limited in comparison to the Graeco-Roman literary output and would probably not warrant the setting up of libraries. 293 Even if one combines the canonical books of the Bible with the apocryphal books, targumim, and collections of mishnayot, these works "could not raise the number of books the Jews possessed to an 'innumerable multitude'". 294 In addition, the non-canonical books, even though they were of a religious character, would probably not be kept side by side with the Pentateuch and the books which eventually formed the canon, neither in the Temple nor in collections controlled by rabbis. 295 Therefore Haran concludes that "there is no evidence for the existence of Jewish libraries from Second Temple times through the talmudic period", and that "the number of books the Jews had makes the existence of such libraries highly unlikely". 296 It is usually assumed that the Qumran community had its own "library", whether or not some or most of the texts were actually written on its premises. Whether the room which is commonly called the scriptorium served as a place 289 The only library mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas is the library of King Ptolemy in Alexandria, of which Demetrius of Phalerum was the librarian, see Arist. 9-10, 29, and 38. Josephus also refers to this library and its librarian in Ant. 12.2.1 (12 and 14-15), 12.2.4 (36) and 12.2.5 (49). 290 Translation with R.J.H. Shutt in Charlesworth 2:14. 291 Cf. Shutt's comment ad loc. 292 Wise 155 n. 110 points to R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, Grand Rapids 1985, 80-86, for a discussion of the passages in Josephus and the New Testament in which holy books are associated with the Temple in Jerusalem. For the later rabbinic association of Torah scrolls with the Temple see, e.g., y. Sheq. 4:2, 48a: "R. Acha, R. Tanchum b. Chiyya in the name of R. Simlai: Those who examine and correct the scroll [of the Torah belonging to the Temple] court receive their salary from the heave offering of the Chamber". 293 See Haran (1993) 57. 294 Ibid. 57, with reference to Josephus, CA 1.8 (38), who writes that Jews do not have an "innumerable multitude of books". 295 See ibid. 58. 296 Ibid. 59.

162

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

where scribes wrote manuscripts or as (part of) a library is uncertain.297 Nevertheless the fact remains that numerous fragments of biblical and other literary texts were found in eleven Qumran caves, where they were probably deposited during the first Jewish revolt. 298 They must have been collected, kept, and used by (some of) the people who lived at the site. 299 Therefore it is probably legitimate to speak of a library, even if its exact location and the way it functioned cannot be determined anymore. Martin has suggested to speak of a Qumran library "in a loose sense", and explains this as follows: " M e a n i n g either that w e m o d e r n s h a v e f o u n d a collection of ancient b o o k s at Q u m r a n or that s o m e f o r m e r g r o u p of p e o p l e gathered together ancient b o o k s at Q u m r a n , ( . . . ) . In neither d o w e imply directly and necessarily either a Settlement or a D e p o s i t a r y theory".300

Besides the probability that not all of the texts datable to the period of occupation of the site were authored and written by community members, Michael O. Wise has called attention to the phenomenon that some of the literary texts found at Qumran must have existed before the time a community is believed to have settled there.301 The hundreds of individual hands identified in the manuscripts 297

Scholars have questioned the possibility that the room was used as a scriptorium for scribes on the basis of the construction of the stone furniture (see Metzger 515 and de Vaux, 1959, 29) and the phenomenon that tables were not used as a writing base by scribes in antiquity (see Small 150-53). Metzger, 515, has defended the theory of the scriptorium and suggested that the scribes would sit on what was identified as a table and use the bench as a footrest. Other scholars have offered alternative explanations. Greenleaf Pedley, 26 ff., has suggested that the room together with the rooms below served as a library where books were produced, stacked, and read. Driver, 23-27, thought that the table and bench served as the furniture of a dining room. Similarly Donceel-Voute (referred to by Reich 158), who considers the Qumran site to be that of a Hellenistic villa, identified the room as a triclinium and the alleged table and benches as reclining beds and sofas. Reich (1995) 160 rejects this interpretation and suggests to return to the original theory of a scriptorium, as long as no better solution has been found. 298 These texts and fragments are published in the various volumes of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD) series. The publication project is not yet complete. For the unpublished manuscripts until 1992 see Tov (1992) and (1994). 299 Although M. Martin argues that most if not all of the non-community related manuscripts seem to have been written elsewhere, he writes: "The local possession of the manuscripts in some sense or other is undeniably proved by the archaeological evidence" (2:714). 300 M. Martin 2:714-15 n. 78. See also Hachlili (1988) 123 and ibid. 123-24, who provides a summary of the types of literary texts found there: "The Qumran library yielded about 200 manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, dating from the third century BCE until the second century CE ... These and a large number of Biblical commentaries, along with Aramaic and Greek translations of parts of the Bible, indicate that the Essenes were greatly interested in Bible study" (123). The post- and non-biblical manuscripts found at Qumran include community rules, poetical, liturgical and wisdom texts, biblical interpretations, and miscellaneous compositions, see ibid. 124. For a register of the contents of the collection see Fitzmyer (1975) 1152 and Vermes (1978) 27-28. 301 See Wise 139. Wise agrees with Martin's conclusions about the non-sectarion origin of most of the biblical scrolls. Ibid. 141 n. 58 he refutes Tov's objections (in idem, 1986) against Martin.

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

163

cannot be reconciled with the relatively small number of people who may have lived at the site.302 These considerations suggest that "at least some of the scrolls are the products of the broader book culture" at that time, and it is possible "that the great majority of the scrolls constitute a cross section of that trade (although it is still unclear how representative a cross section)". 303 Furthermore, the evidence of personal copies amongst the Qumran manuscripts, i.e. "copies which did not ordinarily circulate publicly and which were not produced by scribes", 304 suggests that private collections formed part of the collection of manuscripts found at Qumran. 305 Wise' hypothesis that many of the texts found at Qumran originated outside the community does not imply, however, that their origin was a public library in Jerusalem, as Rengstorf and Golb assume. 306 How frequently biblical scrolls were permanently kept at synagogues and study houses is uncertain. What is clear, however, is that Torah scrolls are frequently mentioned in connection with these sites in rabbinic sources.307 On the basis of a tannaitic reference to Torah scrolls owned by the inhabitants of a town (T. B.M. 11:23), and R. Yose's instructions to Bar Ulla, the chazzan of the synagogue of the Babylonians C K ^ i m K P E n i n K]On), concerning the unrolling of Torah scrolls (y. Yoma 7:1, 44b), Bar-Ilan has argued that already "in the first centuries C.E., the synagogue functioned as a kind of library". 308 Yet the rabbinic traditions he refers to do not specify whether the Torah scrolls would be kept at or brought to the synagogue. The texts can also not be dated to the first century C.E. The first archaeological evidence for Torah shrines in Palestinian synagogues has been dated by Meyers to the middle of the second and to the third century C.E.309 This earliest evidence consists of aediculae, which were not part of the 302

See ibid. 141-42. Ibid. 139, see also ibid. 143: "..., the Elephantine community was more than fifty times larger than estimates for Qumran. Yet it relied upon only a dozen or so scribes. And this total served over a period of three or four generations. Consequently only three or four were active in a generation - and apparently not all were full-time scribes". 304 Ibid. 143. The criteria for distinguishing between privately produced copies and copies commissioned by a book seller are not unequivocal, however, see Schubart 160ff. 305 See Wise 144. 306 Rengstorf (1980) 18-22, assumes that during the Jewish revolt high-priestly families tried to save the manuscripts of the Jerusalem Temple library by hiding them in the Qumran caves. Golb also reckons with a Jerusalem origin of the manuscripts, but does not ascribe them to a Temple library in particular, when writing: "... these manuscripts stem from first-century Palestinian Jews and are remnants of a literature showing a wide variety of practices, beliefs and opinions which was removed from Jerusalem before or during the siege, brought down to the Judaean wilderness and adjacent areas, and there, with the aid of inhabitants of the region, successfully hidden away for long periods of time" (idem, 1980, 11). See also idem (1989) 179. 307 In addition, S.J.D. Cohen (1987b) 164 points to Christian writers from the second century C.E. onwards who "referred to the presence of sacred scrolls in the synagogue". For references see ibid. 176 n. 16. 308 Bar-Ilan (1988) 35. 309 See Meyers (1997) 305. 303

164

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

original construction but "always built as an interior addition to the already existing Jerusalem-oriented wall". 310 The Torah niche, i.e. a stone structure built inside the wall, does not appear before the fourth century C.E. and the apse not before the end of the fifth. 311 Only with the innovation of the apse at the end of the fifth century C.E. "the Torah shrine became an integral element in the synagogue building and was constructed at the same time as the building itself'. 3 1 2 But not even then all synagogues received apses. Hachlili notes that "till now, no Galilean or Golan synagogue containing apses has been discovered". 313 According to Levine the Torah ark was probably often constructed of wood and would be brought into the synagogue for special ceremonies and on the Sabbath only, when the Torah was publicly read. 314 "Even as late as the third and fourth centuries, several sources indicate that the Torah scroll was not always a permanent fixture in the synagogue hall, but was brought in only for reading and then subsequently removed". 315 The introduction of the Torah scroll seems to have been accompanied by a special ceremony which "appears to have continued into the Byzantine period, especially in the Galilee and the Golan, at sites which had no permanent place for the Torah chest, as at Horvat 'Ammudim, Huseifa, Meiron, e-Dikke, Umm el-Qanatir, Horvat Kanaf, 'Assalieh, and Nevoraya (the last stage)". 316 In lack of a systematic study of the entire archaeological and literary evidence of Torah shrines we can only hypothesize that some synagogues in Roman Palestine may at some stage of their development have had one, whereas others never did. 317 The advantages of having a place within the synagogue for storing communally owned Torah scrolls is easily understandable and some syngogues' lack of such a permanent fixture is all the more striking. One could imagine that only one set of Torah scrolls existed at some places and that they were used for study when not read publicly in synagogues. The Torah was also central for the activities which took place in study houses, but no buildings which could be identified as study houses have been excavated. 318 Study houses and rooms probably lacked any distinctive architectural features, just as most ancient libraries did. With regard to libraries Small writes:

310

See Hachlili (1989) 2. See ibid. 3. 312 Ibid. 313 Ibid. 314 See Levine (2000) 328. 315 Ibid. 316 Ibid. 329. 317 For the lack of Torah shrines in certain synagogues see also Gamble 316f. n. 200. For archaeological evidence of Torah shrines "in the form of [stone] niches that extend into the wall of the synagogue" in late antique Palestinian synagogues and their iconographic depictions see also Hachlili (1996) 107-11, 118, 123. For rabbinic references to the ark of the Torah see Fine 32-34. 318 See Hezser (1997) 205. 311

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

165

"Because books have always been portable and their actual use depends on other items that are also portable, ancient libraries tended not to have a distinctive architecture". 319 Rabbinic sources never mention arks in connection with study houses. The storage containers used in study houses may have been less fancy, for unlike Torah shines in synagogues they did not serve any ceremonial purposes and were merely meant to protect the scrolls from dirt and decay. 320 With regard to any form of storage T. Meg. 3:20 rules that Torah scrolls may be put on top of Torah scrolls but scrolls of the Prophets may not. 321 The horizontal storage of the scrolls on shelves or in pigeonholes seems to be envisioned here. 322 Similarly the Torah may be wrapped with wrappings formerly used for scrolls of the Prophets, but scrolls of the Prophets may not be wrapped with wrappers of Torah scrolls (ibid.). "Wrappers of books" (•'"ISO mnSOQ) and "book bags" (•,]~113p) are also mentioned in a statement attributed to R. Yose b. Shimon in T. Kel. B.B. 6:9 in connection with purity issues. In T. Yad. 2:13 a container or box of a scroll is mentioned. Y. M.Q. 3:2, 82a transmits a baraita which gives instructions for the proper care of scroll wrappings: "they ... launder them in carbonate of soda or in some other kind of soap, on account of the honor owing to them". According to y. Ber. 3:5, 6d, "one must place a box containing scrolls at the head of the bed, not at the foot of the bed". All of these rulings indicate the special significance which rabbis attributed to Torah scrolls. They also show that Torah scrolls could be stored in many different ways. For a number of reasons synagogues and study houses are unlikely to have functioned as the Jewish equivalent of Greek and Roman public libraries in the ancient world. 323 The question whether collections of scrolls which may have been kept at these Jewish institutions can be called "libraries" naturally depends on the meaning which one attributes to the term. 324 Nevertheless, such scroll 319

Small 162. See Small, 48, on the various ways in which book rolls were kept in ancient libraries. 321 Haran (1993) 61 suggests that large scrolls which would comprise the entire Pentateuch or Prophetic writings, similar to the Torah scrolls used in synagogue services today, existed in rabbinic times already and are referred to in the passage. But see Sarna, 407, who points to the Qumran manuscripts as evidence for the "normal practice ... not to combine several Books into single volumes, but to restrict rolls to individual works", which will have continued to prevail in rabbinic times. He suggests to understand T. Meg. 3:20 and y. Meg. 3:1, 73b in connection with the storing and cataloguing practice of ancient libraries: "The three corpora of the Biblical Canon would be stored in the libraries each in its own section, and the individual Books that made up each corpus would be placed in the armaria in their appropriately assigned order and shelf-listed accordingly". 322 See Small 47. 323 See also Gamble 189-90: "As far as we know, Jewish libraries were not institutions in their own right, and we know of no discrete Jewish buildings that served as libraries. Indeed, though evidence is scant, those Jewish libraries that come to our attention bear little resemblance to Greek and Roman libraries". 324 Bar-Ilan (1988) 35 argues that "in the first centuries C.E., the synagogue functioned as a kind of library", and Gamble, 192, assumes "that most synagogues, and certainly all larger ones, had libraries - collections of texts for liturgical, educational, and archival purposes ...". 320

166

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

collections may, at most, be compared with the "libraries" of ancient Egyptian temples, called "House of the Book" or "House of the Tablet", in which liturgical and other religiously relevant texts were preserved.325 Similarly synagogues and study houses were not interested in collecting and keeping a wide variety of literary works, but concentrated on Torah scrolls and perhaps some other liturgically relevant literature only. 326 Only a relatively small quantity of these scrolls, or perhaps only one or two sets of each, may have belonged to local communities. 327 In synagogues these Torah scrolls were probably presented to the public only for the purpose of Torah-reading, that is, within a ritual context, and in study houses for the purpose of communal Torah study, probably under the guidance of Torah sages, whether or not they were rabbis. The scrolls may have been kept and were certainly used within the respective institutions, but the publicly owned exemplars are unlikely to have ever been lent out to individuals for private use or copying, or they were lent only to high standing community members who were friendly with the respective custodians. On the basis of Jerome, Ep. 36 ad Damasum 1.158, Krauss writes: "In Palestine, an institution analogous to our circulating libraries must have existed. Every synagogue seems to have possessed a collection of books, f r o m which the m e m b e r s were permitted to borrow. J e r o m e ' s teacher abused his privilege, and presented his Christian pupil with a volume lent him by the Synagogue authorities". 3 2 8

In the respective letter Jerome reports, however, that he met the Jew in Rome, not in Palestine. 329 Even if such a case actually happened in Rome, on the basis of his scholarship the borrower may have been granted certain privileges which distin325 According to Thompson 2, Greek writers sometimes refer to the type of literature preserved in Egyptian temples: "The great body of'it was of a liturgical or hermetical, occult philosophical, alchemical and medical character". On affinities between Egyptian Temple libraries and the preservation of Torah scrolls in synagogues see also Griffiths 13-14. 326 With regard to the library at Alexandria, Reynolds and Wilson note that "it is beyond doubt that great efforts were made to form a complete collection of Greek literature" (7). By the third century C.E. the library seems to have contained hundreds of thousands of volumes already (cf. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 350b). On the basis of the roughly 2000 manuscript fragments discovered at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum it has been estimated that the Epicurean library which existed at that place must have comprised more than 1100 complete rolls, see Snyder 46. For the presumed sizes of other ancient libraries see Haran (1993) 59-60, who writes: "Even if these figures are only a rough contemporary estimate, it is clear that the vast libraries of the ancient Near East and the Hellenistic world were altogether on a different scale in comparison with the twenty-two or twenty-four biblical books" (60). 327 According to Bar-Ilan (1988) 35, "it seems that in holy arks in the synagogues there were generally two to nine books and sometimes even twenty-one!" This number was much too small to constitute a public library, however. Even the Qumran library comprised hundreds of volumes. 328 Krauss (1894) 232. The Latin text reads: "Subito Hebraeus intervenit, deferens non pauca volumina, quae de Synagoga quasi lecturus accaperat et illico habes, inquit, quod postulaveras ...". 329 See Levine (2000) 272.

2. The Costs and Distribution

of Texts

167

guished him from other, ordinary community members. The text does not allow for the conclusion, however, that Palestinian synagogues had libraries which lent out books to all congregants who asked for them. Small has pointed to the differences between ancient and modern libraries as far as the actual access to books is concerned: "Public libraries did not exist in the modern sense of open access to anyone who walked in off the street". 330 The public libraries were either established by philosophical schools or by political rulers and access to them was extremely limited. Books were probably made available to famous scholars and personal friends of the librarians or custodians only. Gaining access to books "was probably a matter of whom you knew". 331 Most libraries seem to have been non-circulatory. "Though some libraries circulated their books, even these, however, probably limited that circulation to a select group". 332 On the background of ancient library practices in general and the fact that the number of books which synagogues and study houses possessed was extremely limited and of a precious quality, it is highly unlikly that all community members would have had direct access to communally owned Torah scrolls and were permitted to borrow them for their private reading. Besides references to the usage and possible storage of Torah scrolls in the Temple and some later synagogues there is no evidence of any activities by Jewish politicians or intellectuals to create a public library which would contain all available Jewish works (including those written in Greek), 333 and this lack may have been one of the reasons why some works of Greek Jewish literature survived through Christian channels only. Non-Jewish public libraries, where Greek and Roman works were kept, are likely to have existed in the larger Greek cities of Palestine. 334 They were either attached to gymnasia or to schools of higher education. In Roman imperial times "libraries were a common factor of both private and imperial munificence, in Rome and the provinces". 335 There is reason to assume that prominent Jewish intellectuals who were interested in Greek literature would have had access to these institutions, if they wanted to. The occasional connection of libraries with pagan temples and later with Christian scholarship and teaching may have prevented religiously committed Jews from using such libraries, though. 336 330

Small 44. Ibid. 332 Ibid. 46. 333 Wise, 161-62 and ibid. n. 135, points to B.Z. Wacholder, Nicholaus of Damascus, Berkeley 1962, who assumed that Herod possessed a royal library with at least forty Greek works which Nicholaus of Damascus was able to use. Wise is right in criticizing Wacholder's methodology: "the mere fact that Nicholaus had read an author does not prove that he had found him among Herod's scrolls". 334 See also Wise 161. 335 Reynolds/Wilson 24. 336 For the connection of libraries with pagan temples see Reynolds/Wilson 23; for Christian libraries such as the library of Origen at Caesarea see Cadiou 475 ff.; for the Christian take-over of formerly pagan educational institutions see Downey 317. 331

168

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

Some wealthy Jews may have possessed private libraries with a more or less large number of volumes, 337 and they may have made them available to their personal friends and aquaintances.338 Wise intimates that "private libraries among the wealthy became so common that Seneca thought them as essential for a wellequipped house as a bath". 339 The (fragments of) literary texts found at Massada and Murabba'at may have been part of private libraries which the refugees had brought with them there. In the case of Massada the identity of the refugees is hard to determine, but in the case of Murabba'at Wise assumes that they were "village aristocracy and gentry, to judge from the quality of their material possessions, and the amounts of money changing hands in their contracts". 340 As already mentioned above, Wise believes that works from originally private collections were also included in the library at Qumran. It is therefore likely that private book collections, although perhaps not "libraries" comparable in size to that of Lucullus, existed in some wealthy Jewish households in Roman times. Some may have comprised biblical scrolls only, while others also included Greek literary works. The phenomenon that rabbinic literature never mentions such libraries and that for the time after the Qumran, Massada, and Murabba'at materials no collections of literary papyri have been found in Roman Palestine does not necessarily exclude the existence of private libraries in late tannaitic and amoraic times. Roberts has correctly emphasized that the papyri which survived "are there to remind us how miserably little from the shelves of the great libraries of the ancient world percolated through the Dark Ages". 341

337 Krauss' generalization on the basis of Jerome in idem (1894) 232 seems to be wrong, though. According to Jerome, In Matt. 23.5, "Judaei alioquin armariae et arcae habent libros". Krauss concludes: "Jewish houses possessed shelves loaded and cases packed with books". 338 Small, 44, points out that private libraries would be "used by its owner and his friends" only. 339 Wise, 162, with reference to Seneca, Tranq. 9. 340 Wise 160. 341 Roberts (1963) 16.

3. The Socio-Economic Functions of Literacy The motivation of a person to learn to read and write, and the level which he or she achieved in one or both of these proficiencies, will have depended on the socio-economic role and functions of the various types of literacy skills, on the question whether to be able to read and write oneself, rather than using literate intermediaries, had clear social and professional advantages and enabled upward mobility. Only within particular sectors of society will the ability to read literary texts and to write personal letters have been considered a desirable accomplishment. In other sectors the literacy levels were set much lower and the mere ability to write one's own signature underneath a document will have distinguished a person from his or her entirely illiterate peers. In most areas of daily life oral means of communication seem to have been sufficient and perfectly adequate to carry out one's tasks, even in areas where written modes of transaction existed as well.1 In this chapter the identification of the sectors of ancient Jewish society in which literacy was considered necessary or at least desirable, and the determination of the respective size of these sectors, can be undertaken in a hypothetical and preliminary way only. On the basis of differences between rural and urban society and the various trades and professions within these broadly distinguishable social spheres one can predicate some general consequences. Because of large gaps in our knowledge of the political administration and socio-economic functioning of Roman Palestine, accurate results cannot be reached in this regard. It is also important to keep in mind that "the differences between the two types of literary public - the one with the need and the means for access to the written word, the other with neither the need nor the means for such access - are not limited to patterns in social stratification". 2 The attitudes towards illiteracy within a society also need to be examined in this connection. Bauml has pointed out that a clear distinction between the social status of literates and illiterates is often misleading. Within ancient and medieval societies illiterates who have access to writing through intermediaries may "in respect to their dependence on the written word for the exercise of their socialpolitical function, ... be classed with the literati, .. ,".3 On the other hand, since 1

See Bauml, 2 4 4 - 4 5 , who refers to a stratum of (medieval) society "which neither has, nor requires, access to literacy for the performance of its social functions". 2 Ibid. 245. 3 Ibid. 246.

170

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

they have no immediate access to written knowledge, "they are functionally dependent on orally transmitted directives for the conduct of their lives". 4 The highly educated strata of society may similarly resort to scribes to conduct their daily business, and the scribes who write the documents, letters, and literary texts must not, on the mere basis of that skill, have a particularly high social status. Accordingly, the technical ability to read and write, or the lack of that ability, does not automatically indicate a high or low social status.

A. City and

Countryside

Although some occupations and professions cannot be located in either the rural or the urban realm exclusively but were probably present within both, and although the rural surroundings will have participated in the "culture" of the cities to some extent, the two types of social space must nevertheless be distinguished when discussing literacy. 5 On the one hand, a steadily increasing urbanization and relative density of larger towns and cities is characteristic for the Roman period in Palestine. On the other hand, however, the large majority of the Jewish population seems to have continued to live in villages rather than in cities. 6 While a categorical distinction between literate city dwellers and illiterate villagers is certainly wrong, the fact that most of the Jewish inhabitants of Roman Palestine were rural artisans and farmers, who had little need for literate skills and little access to elementary teachers and schools, should caution against the assumption of widespread reading and writing skills amongst Palestinian Jews at that time. 7 Based on civil and ecclesiastical lists of the Byzantine period, Jones lists 36 cities in Palestina Prima and 15 cities in Palestina Secunda, 8 but the situation certainly differed in earlier times and was subject to constant changes. In addition, the way in which one defines a city determines the number of cities one counts. Broshi has reckoned that in late Roman and Byzantine times Western Palestine had 25 cities, which "were generally true cities - in the full sense of the term polls".9 This constitutes a relatively high density of urban areas, namely "a city to an average of every 600 sq. km". 10 Yet the size of the cities and the public facilities which they offered will have differed from one place to the next. 11 On 4

Ibid. 247. See already Bar-Ilan (1992) 48ff. See also Gellner, 6ff., with regard to Islamic society. 6 It may be recalled that according to Bar-Ilan (1992) 55, the rural population comprised approximately 70% of the whole. 7 For the differentiation between city and countryside in this regard see also Harris (1988) 10 and (1989) 190-193. 8 See A.H.M. Jones 522 ff„ tables X X X I X - X L I . 9 Broshi 3. 10 See ibid. 11 For a classification of the cities according to size see the map ibid. 4. 5

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions of Literacy

171

the basis of grain growing capacities and the total space occupied by urban areas in Byzantine Palestine Broshi assumes that at the end of the Byzantine period, around 600 C.E., a third of the population, non-Jews included, was urban. 1 2 Yet even if this estimate is correct, the relative percentage of Jews and non-Jews in Byzantine Palestine in general and in the urban areas in particular is far f r o m clear. In most of the cities of Byzantine Palestine Christians may have constituted the majority of the population, while Jews tended to remain in the traditional rural settlement areas, where the Christian impact was less obvious. Z e ' e v Safrai has examined the settlement patterns of Palestine in earlier Roman times. He differentiates between villages, towns (small or large), and cities with regard to their size and the presence of communal buildings and institutions and writes: "Municipal activities, government functions, economic affairs, the cultural and intellectual life of the provinces all revolved around the city". 1 3 Most of the cities were founded after 70 C.E. and especially in the late Roman and Byzantine period (from the third c. C.E. onwards), 1 4 and most of them were of a small or medium size, while only a few, such as Gaza, Scythopolis, and Caesarea, had a territory of over 700 dunam. 1 5 Safrai points to the "hyperurbanization which took place in the Byzantine period", which made Palestina Prima "one of the most urbanized provinces in the Byzantine Empire", 1 6 as Broshi had also observed. What one has to keep in mind, however, is the relatively late founding of most cities and the phenomenon that most of them "were, in one way or another, nonJewish". 1 7 Although Jews would eventually live in some of the cities too and form a more or less large percentage of their population, the newly established poleis were basically Hellenistic settlements with institutions such as theatres and stadia, constructed with the gentile population in mind. 1 8 Since the Hellenistic cities controlled the adjacent rural territories both administratively and economically, however, they also "had control over the [rural] Jewish population". 1 9 Although the precise percentage cannot be determined anymore, both the New Testament and rabbinic literature give the impression that the large majority of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine was rural and engaged in agricultural labor, as was also customary for the inhabitants of other parts of the Roman 12

See ibid. 5. Z. Safrai 19. For the description and classification of the various cities see ibid. 2 0 - 3 0 and the figures ibid. 31, which distinguish the cities according to their time of foundation and size. 14 See ibid. 31, figure 2. 15 See ibid. 31, figure 3. 16 Ibid. 24. 17 See ibid. 25. 18 See ibid. 32-33. 19 Ibid. 33. For the relationship between the cities and the surrounding countryside see also Freyne 75-91. 13

172

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

Empire. 20 In the rural sector large estates and small freeholdings will have existed side by side. The large estates would be cultivated by both free and slave labor and may have been partially leased to tenants. Both Isaac and Pastor have convincingly argued that after 70 C.E. wealthy Jews who had remained loyal to the Romans continued to own property in both Judaea and Galilee and were even sometimes able to increase their landholdings by being rewarded with or able to purchase confiscated land.21 In Second Temple times the large estates had belonged to the Hasmonean and Herodian rulers and their aristocratic friends, and this land-distribution policy basically continued after the revolts, under the Roman provincial government. 22 The Romans allowed their loyal supporters to maintain their estates or attributed to them plots which they had conficated. Besides the large estates belonging to upper-class Jews who had remained loyal to the Romans, at least some small freeholdings will have continued to exist after the destruction as well. Yet many former freeholders will have lost their family plots and were required to work other people's land as tenants or lessees. 23 All landowners will have been required to register their land and pay taxes on the basis of its size.24 Hopkins has argued that "the system of written tax-receipts acquainted many simple villagers with the importance of writing. The ignorant ran the risk of being excessively charged. They needed the help of friendly literates to ensure that they received and knew the meaning of the written receipts".25 One may assume that the owners of large estates would have been confronted with various types of written deeds on a consistent basis: they needed documentation of their ownership of land, had to maintain accounts, would lease land to tenants and give them receipts for the dues they paid, purchased or sold land, and lent money to debtors. 26 For the writing of all or at least most of these texts they would have their own (slave) secretaries at hand. Even if they were pious and able to read the Hebrew Bible and/or literate in Greek poetry and prose, the writing they had to do in every day life situations would probably be limited to the occasional note, personal letter, and signature to a business letter or document. In the Roman world estate owners tended to dwell in the cities, while their rural estates were supervised by middlemen. 27 For these estate managers, who 20 See Z. Safrai 33 and ibid. 104: "Agriculture was the main sphere of production in the ancient world in general as well as in the Roman Empire". 21 See Isaac (1998) 116-17; Pastor 161-62. For references to wealthy landowners in the writings of Josephus and in the New Testament see Pastor 146-47. 22 See Pastor 168-69. 23 See ibid. 169-70. 24 For the evidence of tax receipts amongst the Judaean Desert papyri see section II.2.C below. 25 Hopkins (1991) 139. 26 For these uses of writing see Harris (1989) 16-17. 27 See Brockmeyer 75 and 141; Buchsenschutz 296. Absentee landlords are also mentioned in New Testament parables, see e.g. Mt. 25:14-28. In the parable of the workers of the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-15) a supervisor remunerates the day laborers in the evening.

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions of Literacy

173

tended to be slaves, the ability to read simple non-literary texts and numbers and to write their own lists and accounts will have been advantageous, although perhaps not absolutely necessary, if there were others who could accomplish these tasks for them. Tenants will have needed written documentation of their tenancy agreements and of possible loans and debts, but such documents would have been written by professional scribes and subsequently read out to the involved parties. The latter had to add their own signatures only. Unlike the owners of large estates, tenants as well as small freeholders are unlikely to have been confronted with writing on a consistent basis. Neither will the large majority of rural workers, who were seasonal day laborers and agricultural slaves. These lowest strata of the rural population would probably rarely find themselves in a situation where their signatures were required. Day laborers were sent to the fields and paid at the end of the day on the basis of an oral agreement, while slaves could be emancipated with or without a deed. 28 Another, relatively smaller segment of the village population were the artisans and craftsmen. In general, those who worked in the manufacture of textiles, glass, pottery, and perhaps papyrus 29 in family workshops or larger businesses, would not have required literacy skills.30 One person amongst them who was able to make lists of deliveries and keep sales records would have been sufficient. Such record-keeping may have been less necessary or even entirely dispensable in the services which small-scale shoemakers, bakers, and slaughterers provided, since they did not sell large quantities of a certain product but were probably paid on an individual basis. Safrai has argued that "there is no proof that these professions were found in small settlements". 31 Farmers and artisans would probably sell their goods themselves in their own villages and at markets in larger towns, or they commissioned merchants who would sell them at a profit in their stores. "Every town had at least one store and usually many, and these are considered common and recognized institutions of town life". 32 At least some of the shopkeepers are likely to have kept account books and lists of the products delivered to them for resale. All of these practical literacy skills advantageous for estate supervisors, small freeholders, heads of family industries, and shopkeepers were rather rudimentary, consisting of the writing of occasional private notes, product labels, and signatures to documents only. Where they existed, they may have been transmitted from fathers to sons and from masters to their apprentices and did not require any formal schooling. 28

On day laborers see Hezser (1990) 67-70. On slaves see my forthcoming article on the subject, listed in the bibliography. 29 On these industries see Z. Safrai 190. 30 See Harris (1988) 11: "Un artigiano, ovviamente, non aveva necessità di leggere per svolgere il suo lavoro". 31 Z. Safrai 217. 32 Ibid. 224.

174

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

In contrast to farmers, artisans, and laborers, more extensive literacy skills will have been required, at least theoretically, of town clerks, judges of local courts, and officials of local communities. Although we know hardly anything about the local administration of villages and small towns in Roman Palestine, 33 Jewish town clerks are likely to have been responsible for various menial tasks, such as, for example, tax collection, market supervision, and charities. 34 Rabbinic sources mention parnasim as communal officials responsible for the distribution of charities. 35 In addition, "elders" seem to have functioned as representatives of local communities. 36 All of these local officials are likely to have communicated with the population in Aramaic, and Aramaic would also have been the language of their written records. The higher officials who had contact with the provincial government will have been required to speak Greek as well, but perhaps not to write it, if they could delegate the task to secretaries. Similarly, the proceedings of local courts in towns which were not poleis were probably conducted in Aramaic. 37 The judges will have been expected to understand the texts of the documents presented by the litigants in the course of a lawsuit. They will also have had to sign the occasional document or record themselves. Safrai assumes that in addition to judges professional witnesses existed who "functioned in the sense of modern-day notaries, authorizing various documents". 38 One may assume that at least ideally the Jewish judges and witnesses of local courts often had to be bilingual and able to read (and sign in) both Aramaic and Greek. Although they may have been able to rely on scribes for most of their business, practical literacy skills will at least have been advantageous for them. 39 The greatest need for literacy skills and the highest proportion of people who possessed these skills will have been found in the cities of Roman Palestine, but one has to keep in mind that in some of the cities, such as, for example, Caesarea, a large (or the largest) proportion of educated city dwellers will have been nonJews whose language was Greek. Therefore in cities more than in small towns and villages bilingual or Greek literacy skills will have been beneficial. In the coastal cities merchants who engaged in international trade would keep shipping lists and freight agreements and maintain commercial contacts with overseas business partners through letters. Safrai assumes that most of the inter33

For the time until 212 C.E. see Goodman (1983) 119-28. That local Jewish middlemen were responsible for the collection of taxes has been suggested by Isaac (1998) 331-32. See also Goodman (1983) 131: the tax collectors mentioned in rabbinic sources "are clearly Jews". 35 See Hezser (1997) 270-73. Goodman (1983) 121 assumes that they had wider functions in the administration of the local communities' finances. 36 See Hezser (1997) 277-86. See also Goodman (1983) 125. 37 On judges in local courts see Hezser (1997) 275—77. Depending on the makeup of the population, the local courts probably had a Greek/Roman, Jewish, or mixed membership, see ibid. 276. 38 See Z. Safrai 218. 39 On the problem of illiterate witnesses and judges see section 1.3.B below. 34

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions

of

Literacy

175

national traders in "non-Jewish" cities such as Caesarea, Gaza, and Ashqelon were non-Jews, while at least some of the traders in "Jewish" cities such as Joppa will have been Jewish. 40 The urban occupational sector most important with regard to literacy skills was the administrative realm. In cities where the majority of the population were non-Jews, non-Jews will have held all or most of the official municipal posts. Yet at least in some cities, from the late second and third centuries C.E. onwards, wealthy Jewish aristocrats seem to have been able to become members of city councils as well. 41 In all likelihood the language of the city councils was Greek, so that the Jewish members of these councils would have required Greek literacy skills. 42 Throughout the Roman period the predominant culture of the cities of Palestine was Hellenistic in nature. The cities were Hellenistic settlements with institutions such as theatres and gymnasia.43 Much of the intellectual life of the cities will have been carried out in Greek by Greek-speaking intellectuals. Accordingly, the motivation to learn to speak Greek and to read Greek literary texts will have been most intense amongst Jews who lived in cities. Although rabbinic literature does not provide much evidence in this regard, in all likelihood some of the wealthy Jewish city dwellers will have considered Hellenistic culture attractive. Perhaps more attractive than the alternative Torah-oriented way of life which rabbis propagated. Both in tannaitic and in amoraic times rabbis seem to have lived in and frequented villages as well as cities. The phenomenon that rabbis are more often connected with villages in tannaitic and with cities in amoraic documents may simply be due to the fact that by the third c. C.E. the number of cities had increased; or it may be related to the fact that the circles of rabbis from whom the editors of these documents derived their traditions lived in the cities rather than the countryside. 44 Thus, the rabbinic movement as such cannot be considered an exclusively urban phenomenon, but perhaps the development of at least some works of rabbinic literature can be linked to cities, such as the Talmud Yerushalmi, whose circles of editors probably lived in Caesarea, Sepphoris, and Tiberias in the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. 40

See Z. Safrai 272. See Hezser (1997) 2 7 3 - 7 5 . Goodman (1983) 130 stresses that the Jewish council members must be assumed to have been wealthy landowners. 42 That literacy was expected of city councilors has been stressed by Youtie (1973a) 625 n. 49: "illiteracy and service in the fSouXr| were thought to be incompatible". 43 See Z. Safrai 3 2 - 3 3 ; S. Schwartz (1998) 205. 44 For a more detailed discussion of this issue see Hezser (1997) 157-65. For the connection between rabbis and cities see also Lapin (1999) and (2000), who seems to exaggerate rabbis' urban location, though. The literary evidence which he examines in idem (1999) does not allow for the conclusion that in amoraic times rabbis were "a predominantly urban (and elite) movement" (ibid. 187), therefore Lapin dismisses it (see ibid. 204) and constructs a hypothetical model of urban social contexts in which rabbis allegedly functioned, see idem (2000). 41

176

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

Rabbis who dwelled in cities certainly contributed to the "intellectual life" of these cities, if the modern term can be applied to the situation in Roman times. They belonged to the probably small percentage of Jews whose literacy skills were not limited to practical matters but encompassed the capacity to read Hebrew literary texts. Between this type of "literary literacy", which rabbis, Torah scribes, and some members of the Jewish aristocracy will have possessed, i.e. which is likely to have been limited to religious and aristocratic circles and probably varied with regard to language and reading matter, and the various types and levels of practical literacy which some merchants, artisans, and farmers may have possessed, one has to assume a wide gap which will have been difficult to bridge. 45 Whether the gap between the Hebrew Torah-reading literacy of the rabbis and the Graeco-Roman literary education of the non-Jewish and probably also Jewish upper classes of the cities in Roman Palestine was similarly difficult to bridge remains an open question. A strict dichotomy between city and countryside with regard to the levels, types and spread of literacy in Roman Palestine should be avoided. Just as rabbis would sometimes live and sojourn in small towns and villages, and were perhaps predominantly based in rural Galilee until the third century C.E., not all Jewish city dwellers were Torah scholars or readers of Homer. In fact, the large majority of the population in both rural and urban areas will not have been able to read literary texts at all, whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, or Greek. A categorical distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic literacy in rural areas and Greek literacy in the cities is similarly inappropriate, as will be discussed in more detail in connection with the distribution of languages below. A number of scholars have already emphasized the economic and social connections between the cities and the surrounding countryside, and pointed to the "cultural continuum from city to country". 46 Business relations and mobility between rural and urban areas will have been paralleled by a flow of "traditional knowledge", whatever its nature and form, from city to countryside and vice versa.47

B. The Social Status of Literates

and the View of

Illiteracy

Except for the secretaries and officials employed in the administrative realm of the provinces, for the owners of large estates, and for the merchants engaged in larger scale commercial enterprises, practical literacy skills were neither abso45 Rabbis' attempts to bridge these gaps seem to have included public instruction in synagogues and study houses, which increased in the third (1997) 371-72. 46 For the economic relations between city and countryside in Roman 75-91 andAdan-Bayewitz/Perlman 153-72. The term "cultural continuum" 71, with reference to M. Goodman. 47 See Freyne 76-77.

sermons and Torah c. C.E., see Hezser Galilee see Freyne is used by Edwards,

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions

of

Literacy

111

lutely necessary nor especially valued in the ancient world. For most tasks which required writing, professional scribes and/or literate relatives or friends could serve as substitute writers. While illiteracy had some practical disadvantages, the most obvious being the illiterate person's greater liability to become a victim of fraud, in antiquity illiteracy did not carry the social stigma it does in modern societies.48 Although male members of the upper strata of society were generally assumed to be able to write, the mere ability to write did not go hand in hand with a higher social status, as the phenomenon of slaves functioning as secretaries and teachers shows. In both Graeco-Roman and Jewish society the connection between literacy and social status seems to have started at a much higher level and was largely independent of technical skills: Not the one who was able to sign his name or write a letter or document, but the one who was knowledgeable of and able to discuss the cultural tradition, i.e. participated in the highest realms of literate culture, was considered "educated", and entrance to these "educated" circles was guarded by those who were already inside. As already suggested above, in Roman Palestine just as in Roman Egypt and Rome itself the foremost medium of communication was speech. In almost all areas of daily life, with the exception of the commercial and administrative realm, business and personal relationships were conducted orally. Written documents and letters were rarely needed and oral messages easier to deliver and perhaps also considered more reliable than written words. In the rare instances in which documents were needed, these documents had to be written in a particular format for which even the highly literate would employ scribes. Although the requirement was that a person able to sign a document in his own handwriting should do so, those who were not able to write their names could ask a professional scribe or a relative or friend to sign on their behalf. Youtie has examined the identity of the so-called imoYoacpEijq in the papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt and reached the conclusion that in the large majority of cases, the person employed by the illiterate as a substitute signature-writer stands in a family or friendship relationship with him or her. Since illiterates could easily become the victims of inadvertent negligence or deliberately fraudulent behavior, the •uitoYQCKpexig had to be a person they could trust, either because of his professional stance or because of their personal relationship toward him. 49 Therefore it is not amazing that the tutOYQCicpEijg, where his relationship to the person in whose name the document is written can be determined, tends to 48 M.M. Lewis, 8 - 1 0 , distinguishes between different levels of illiteracy beyond the level of "functional literacy" in modern societies. He suggests, however, that only the lowest level, i.e. "the level of those who cannot even sign their names" (9), "merits the name of illiteracy, or the total absence of literacy" (10). Similar, though not the same, levels of illiteracy must also be assumed for ancient society. Those who could sign their name probably constituted the lowest "literate" level, which Lewis calls "crudely illiterate" but which could also be called "crudely literate" as far as ancient societies are concerned. 49 See Youtie (1975a) 2 0 5 - 6 .

178

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

be either a member of the immediate family, such as a husband, father, son, or brother, or a more distant relative, friend, business partner, or fellow immigrant from the same place of origin. 50 Only if no relative, friend, or colleague was available to sign on one's behalf, a person would ask a professional scribe to write the signature for him and pay him a small fee for his services. 51 Thus the Egyptian papyri show that in most cases illiterates seem to have had access to at least one person within their immediate or more remote family and friendship networks able and willing to help them out in the relatively rare cases where their signatures were required. Youtie suggests that the assistance which literates provided to their illiterate relatives and friends "promoted domestic cooperation" and "family solidarity". 52 Their general availability indicates that "a large body of illiterates could be integrated without risk into an ancient economy which rested primarily on agriculture and handicraft". 53 His ability to write signatures on behalf of others did not raise the imoYeacpeiis' social status above that of his illiterate relative or friend. Although "the acquisition by persons of the lower and middle classes of some degree of competence in writing ..., was regarded as a practical and therefore desirable accomplishment", it had "no implication of social superiority". 54 Youtie concludes: "Against this background illiteracy did not induce anxiety and literacy did not foster estrangement". 55 In Egypt, and probably in the Roman Empire as a whole, "reading and writing were, in practice, no more than convenient accomplishments, if you happened to have them, but no accomplishments necessary to a good life". 56 Under such circumstances it is not particularly striking that even administrative officials and church leaders were sometimes unable to write at all or able to write at a rather rudimentary level only, although they were generally expected to be literate. Youtie and other scholars have pointed to a number of examples in this regard. For example, Ischyrion and Petaus, Egyptian town clerks in the 2nd c. C.E., seem to have been able to write one particular signature formula in a crude 50

See ibid. 212-15. Women's guardians who acted as ímoYpacpeíc; for them would usually be husbands or relatives, see ibid. 213. The evidence of the Judaean Desert papyri is discussed below. 51 See ibid. 216-17. 52 See ibid. 220. 53 Ibid. 221. For a list of Egyptian papyri in which áYQá|j,|iaxoi appear, who have others who subscribe for them, see Majer-Leonhard. 54 Youtie (1975a) 220-21. 55 Ibid. 221. See also idem (1973a) 620: There is no evidence that illiteracy was a source of embarrassment: "The papyrus texts are entirely free of any comparable disturbance. Of many hundreds of private letters not one reveals the least trace of uneasiness on this score". Neither do the papyrus contracts in which illiterates have their signatures written for them by others, a phenomenon especially common for women but by no means limited to them, see ibid. 620: "Illiteracy in women was traditional at all levels of society, and therefore acceptable. But the same sense of indifference flows out from the agreements in which men only are concerned". 56 Youtie (1973a) 619.

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions of Literacy

179

handwriting only. For Petaus there is evidence that he could copy a model but was unable to write without it or understand what he wrote.57 Nevertheless he insisted on being counted among the literate and defended his colleague Ischyrion, who had been denounced as "illiterate" to his superior.58 Youtie assumes that for those who had appointed Petaus and Ischyrion as town clerks and representatives of villages, their wealth may have been a more important criterium for appointment than their literacy skills.59 Their cases were probably not the only ones where such oversight happened. 60 The phenomenon shows that even in the local administration literacy skills were not absolutely indispensable: "If the man couldn't write, he could always pay to have the writing done". 61 Another example is the case of Aurelius Ammonios, a "reader" in the church of the Egyptian village of Chrysis at the beginning of the 4th c. C.E. In a papyrus document he is characterized as someone "who did not know letters". While Youtie agreed with the first editor's suggestion that Aurelius Ammonios might have been able to read and write Coptic but not Greek, 62 and Wipszycka suggested that he might have refused to sign the document for religious reasons, 63 Clarke sees no reason not to take the formulation literally. The possibility that a lector may be able to read Coptic, Demotic, or Greek, but not write in any of these languages, should not be dismissed summarily.64 Merkelbach has pointed to documents from the 6th c. C.E. which indicate that a number of heads of monasteries belonging to the districts of Chalcedon and Constantinople were in fact entirely unable to write, while others were only able to sign their name or draw a cross instead. 65 For monastery heads other qualities were probably sometimes considered more important than literacy skills, so that Justinian's Novellas 6.4 and 123.12, requiring the clergy to be literate, seem to have addressed actual deficiencies. 66 The inability to write does not seem to have carried any social stigmata in Graeco-Roman society and could even be tolerated when exhibited by the clergy, since the mere technical skill of writing, if it was not accompanied by other status-relevant criteria such as wealth and aristocratic origin, was not associated with social superiority. In fact the status of scribes was generally low, although differences existed between the various types of scribes, with high administra57

See Youtie (1971) 239-41; idem (1973b) 677-93. See Youtie (1971) 239-40. 59 See Youtie (1973a) 622. 60 See ibid, and Harris (1988) 19: "E molto improbabile, per altro verso, che egli fosse l'unico a ricoprire un posto burocratico senza essere alfabeta". 61 Youtie (1973a) 622. See also Hanson 170: "... wealth and status were never a guarantee of literacy, although wealth and status no doubt enabled an illiterate or semi-literate to function more easily in the literate systems". 62 See Youtie (1975b) 104. 63 See Wipszycka 119. 64 See G.W. Clarke 103-4. 65 See Merkelbach 291-93. 66 See ibid. 294. 58

180

Part I: The Conditions

for the Development

of

Literacy

tive secretaries at the top and simple village scribes at the bottom of the scribal hierarchy. 67 The phenomenon that in Graeco-Roman society many scribes were slaves or freedmen will have contributed to the low regard for the profession amongst free citizens. Did Jewish society differ from Graeco-Roman society in its valuation of practical literacy skills and in its attitude towards illiteracy? The answer to this question is no. Neither rabbinic nor epigraphic sources provide any evidence for the notion that a person's inability to write even his or her own name underneath a document would have been regarded with dismay or disrespect by one's contemporaries or been shameful to the illiterate person him- or herself. Rabbinic texts deal with the inability to write in a matter-of-factly way and discuss ways in which the writing skills of others could be used to stand in for one's own deficiencies. Witnesses' signatures were required on various types of documents. 68 M. Git. 9:8(9) already allows witnesses to a divorce document written in Hebrew letters to sign in Greek or, if the document is written in Greek, to sign in Hebrew letters, reckoning with the possibility that a witness might be able to sign his name in Greek or Hebrew only. In addition, if only one witness able to write his name is available, the scribe who wrote the document may sign as well and thereby substitute for the second witness. In the Yerushalmi's discussion of this Mishnah the question whether those who sign the document must understand its content is addressed. According to a statement attributed to Rav, judges may sign a document even if they cannot read it, while witnesses may sign only if they are able to read what it says (y. Git. 9:9, 50c). This statement of Rab is subsequently said to stand at variance with the Mishnah passage mentioned above, which allowed witnesses to sign in a language different from that of the body of the document (in which they were not proficient). On the basis of this Mishnah one might assume that those who sign (in their own language) must not necessarily be able to read the document (written in a language which is foreign to them). The seeming contradiction is harmonized by the anonymous suggestion that the Mishnah might deal with the case of signatories who could read the foreign language but not sign their name in it and therefore had to sign in a language different from that of the document. That is, the Mishnah does not necessarily imply that those who signed were not able to read the text. Accordingly, Rab's suggestion, that witnesses sign only if they understand what they sign, does not stand in contradition to the Mishnaic ruling. The Yerushalmi further states that those who are able to sign in either language may choose the language of their signature themselves. The discussion shows how the multilingual situation complicated the validation of documents in Palestine just as in Egypt. The rabbis reckoned with judges 67 68

See section I.2.B above. See, e.g., M. Ket. 2:3-4 and 2:10; M. Git. 1:1.5; 2:5; 9:4; M. B.B. 10:1-2.

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions

of Literacy

181

and witnesses who were unable to read what they had to sign and could sign in one language only. They may have been able to read and sign in one language only, or to sign in one language and be able to only read the other. Witnesses and judges who could read and sign in both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek will have been scarce. Accordingly, various allowances had to be made to compensate for these limitations. In a later Yerushalmi sugya on the same Mishnah language problems are not assumed to have been the reason for a person's inability to sign. This Yerushalmi text presents some of the most famous rabbis as examples of people who would not - and probably could not - write their full names in Hebrew letters. 69 According to M. Git. 9:8(9), "[If] he wrote only his surname and her surname [nPD , ]m inD^jn]" on a divorce document, 70 the document is valid. In the Talmudic discussion (y. Git. 9:9, 50d) this allowance is further extended in a statement attributed to R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yochanan: "Even if he wrote his sign only, it is valid". Examples of rabbis who signed in this way are subsequently presented to support this rule: "R. Abbahu wrote an Alef [as his signature]; R. Chisda wrote a Samech [as his signature]". Not the letters N and 0, but the signs of the cross and the circle which resembled these letters are probably meant here. 71 If this understanding is correct, these two examples stand in line with the third and last one stated here: "Shmuel wrote [or rather: signed with] a palm branch". The fact that the Yerushalmi depicts some of the most famous rabbis as unable to write their own names in Hebrew letters clearly shows that a person's inability to write was not considered dishonorable but perfectly normal and entirely acceptable in ancient Jewish society. In y. Git. 2:3, 44b par. y. Shab. 12:4, 13d, a number of solutions are offered to assist "witnesses who do not know how to sign [Dinn1? ^ i n v •,~l£>]", and there, too, this inability is not linked to language problems. According to the first possibility, attributed to R. Shimon b. Laqish, "one makes a mark before them in ink and they sign [i.e. retrace] it in red ink". R. Yochanan, on the other hand, suggests to cut out the letters and have the illiterate witnesses follow the lines of the cut with ink. The problem with this solution is that the resulting shape would not represent the "original" handwriting of the witnesses. As a remedy, it is suggested that they follow the main shape but do not stick to it too closely. Finally, R. Mana proposes to make an outline of the letters with water and have the witnesses add ink.

69

There is no reason why they should not have signed their full names, as required by the Mishnah, if they had been able to do so. 70 The term PD'Dn may either refer to a nickname instead of the real name or to the family name only instead of the whole name, see Albeck ad loc. 71 In the case of R. Abbahu one might assume that the K was used because it was the first letter of his name. This theory does not fit the usage of a D by R. Chisda, though. He would have used a PI as an abbreviation of his name.

182

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

As in the other texts presented so far, the discussion is devoid of any derogative remarks or value judgments concerning witnesses' inability to sign without the help of models. The phenomenon that the rabbis found it necessary to propose ways in which an illiterate witness could be assisted in signing his name ways which resembled children's instruction in writing in Graeco-Roman society, as already indicated above - suggests that total inability to write (which does not exclude the ability to read) was widespread in Jewish society, and probably especially in the rural sector. While the illiteracy of the person in whose name a document was written could be remedied by having someone else sign for him or her (see the institution of the xmoyQcxqpeuc; mentioned above in connection with Egyptian and below with regard to Jewish papyri), a person who functioned as witness would generally be expected to be able to sign.72 If the ability to sign could not even be expected of witnesses, as the Talmudic discussion suggests, the inability to write must have been widespread. 73 It was only considered noteworthy in the relatively few cases where persons able to sign were required, namely when documents had to be validated. The opinion attributed to R. Eleazar in M. Git. 9:4(5), that divorce documents are valid without the signatures of witnesses, if they are handed over to the wife in the presence of witnesses, shows how ritual actions and oral statements could compensate for the lack of persons able to sign their names. The alternative oral procedure is justified by the remark that witnesses' signatures are not absolutely necessary, "for witnesses sign the divorce document only for the good order of the world [D^uri ]lpTl "DDQ]". This term is also repeatedly used in M. Git. 4:29 in connection with the divorce of women and the liberation of slaves, to explain practices which serve to maintain social harmony. I.e., it is recognized that witnesses' signatures on divorce documents might be useful in legal suits. Nevertheless, they are not considered absolutely necessary on the basis of halakhic law. In the Yerushalmi (y. Git. 9:5, 50b) the Babylonian sages Rab and Shmuel are said to have agreed with R. Eleazar's opinion, while the Palestinian amoraim R. Yochanan and R. Yannai allegedly considered divorce documents without witnesses' signatures invalid. 74 In the following case story the wife of a priest is said 72 Friedman, 487, points to examples from the Cairo Geniza documents where scribes signed for witnesses: "At least three of the Palestinian marriage contracts contain one or more signatures written not by the witness, who must have been unable to sign, but by the scribe, for him". He assumes that rabbis were opposed to this practice and therefore suggested the alternative of having the illiterate witnesses trace the shapes of the letters with their own hands. 73 See also ibid. 485: "Illiteracy was often widespread in small communities in antiquity ... At times, two witnesses who could sign their names simply could not be found. In some cases, the particular men who had witnessed the transaction could not sign". Friedman notes: "The problem persisted in the Gaonic period. A query addressed to Rav Sherira and Rav Hai states that 'because of our sins, most of our documents are found to be like this', with illiterates for the witnesses" (486). In the gaonic period, in contrast to rabbinic times, the illiteracy of witnesses was obviously considered shameful, at least by community leaders, since they saw it as a consequence of sins. 74 They are said to have agreed with "sages'" opinion in the Mishnah, i.e. with the anony-

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions of Literacy

183

to have come before R. Yochanan. The assumption is that she had a divorce document which lacked any witnesses' signatures. In her case R. Yochanan declared the document invalid. In another case concerning the wife of a simple Israelite, however, he declared such a document valid. Accordingly, no strict rules applied in such cases, and rabbis took the respective circumstances into account: signatures of witnesses were necessary where genealogical concerns played a role; they were recommended but not absolutely required in ordinary situations. 75 In some of the papyrus documents from the Judaean desert subscriptions have been preserved. Since the evidence will be discussed in detail below, a few remarks shall suffice here. Amongst the Greek papyrus documents from the Babatha archive published by N. Lewis nine had subscriptions. While two of them are translations into Greek on copies of the original documents, seven subscriptions in Aramaic and Nabatean are preserved. 76 The phenomenon that the subscribers would write in Aramaic and Nabatean rather than in Greek seems to indicate that they were not able to write Greek. 77 Whether they were able to read the Greek text of the documents we do not know. The text may have been translated for them orally. The phenomenon of the xutoyQaqpeij^, which Youtie discussed for the Egyptian papyri, appears in the Babatha papyri as well. In papyrus no. 15 a certain Eleazar son of Eleazar (who was not her guardian) subscribed for Babatha in Greek and stated that she "does not know letters": B/OMPA VKEQ ai)Tfjg EQioxriOelc; 8ta TO ai)xfj5 |ir] eidevai YQa^^axa. 7 8 Since the following attestations are in Aramaic and Nabatean, one may assume that Babatha could have subscribed in these languages as well, had she been able to. Thus the phrase "she does not know letters" refers to her inability to write in any language. In papyrus no. 22 Yochana son of Makhouta, subscribed for Babatha: DIED ¡"QfO, "I have written by order of Babatha". 79 This again shows that Babatha was not only illiterate in Greek but could not write Aramaic or Nabatean either. 80 mous rule at the beginning of M. Git. 9:4 which states that writs of divorce without witnesses' signatures are invalid. 75 For a similar, yet slightly different restriction of signatures to priests and Levites see T. Sanh. 7:1 (Zuckermandel ed. p. 425), referred to by Friedman 483: "In former times only priests, Levites and Israelites who intermarried with the priesthood used to sign the marriage contracts of women who are fit [to marry into the priesthood]". Friedman concludes that this "was not the custom during the Talmudic and subsequent periods", though. 76 They are listed in Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 136-49. 77 See also Greenfield (1993) 39. 78 Ibid. 40 he notes that this phrase, which also appears in some of the Egyptian papyri discussed by Youtie, "does not occur in either Greek or Aramaic in any of the other texts from Nahal Hever or Wadi Murabba' at, but there is evidence in some texts that men signed for other men and women". 79 Translation by Yigael Yadin and Jonas C. Greenfield, the editors of the Aramaic and Nabatean subscriptions, in Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 147. 80 See also Cotton/Yardeni 145.

184

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

The term xeie°X0 1 i aTT 15' which is equivalent to the -ujroyeacpEijg of the Egyptian papyri, appears in papyrus no. 61 f r o m the archive of Salome Komaise, edited by H. Cotton and A. Yardeni. 81 In this papyrus document, which is the copy of a land-declaration for the census in 127 C.E., the declarant, who seems to be the brother of Salome Komaise, did not write his own subscription (Eyodtpr) 5 i a x e L 0°X0 1 i O T O 1 J ) : "The fact that he used the chirocrista, Onainos son of Sa'adalos, rather than a guardian, proves that he was illiterate". 82 If Onainos son of Sa'adalos were identified as the guardian of the declarant, one might assume that the latter was a minor. But this is not the case here. Accordingly, the usage of a xeLO()yor|(7Tr|5 seems to be due to the declarant's illiteracy. 83 We do not know whether the x£ioo'/pr|aTr|c; originally wrote the subscription in Greek, i.e., whether the declarant was illiterate in Greek only or in any language. 8 4 As in the case of Babatha, the last possibility is more plausible. 8 5 In these papyri the formulae used to indicate that others wrote for persons unable to subscribe their documents themselves are as neutral as in the Egyptian papyri. In the Jewish just as in the Egyptian papyri the declarants' illiteracy (not only in Greek, but in any language!) is dealt with in a matter-of-factly way, and similar solutions to cope with this circumstance are evident. Both rabbinic texts and papyrological evidence indicate, then, that in Jewish just as in Egyptian society practical illiteracy, i.e. the inability to subscribe documents in one's name, was not considered strange or even contemptible, but ordinary and unremarkable, even for members of wealthy landowning families such as Babatha and the brother of Salome Komaise. In both Jewish and Graeco-Roman society the mere technical ability to read and write does not seem to have increased a person's social status in the eyes of his contemporaries, then. Being considered an "educated" person or a "sage" required a different type of expertise. Upper-class Roman men were expected to possess at least "a modicum of literary culture". 8 6 To be conversant with the classical literary tradition became a source of social prestige. The practical ability to read and write was considered self-evident amongst these circles: "Within the elites of the established GraecoRoman world a degree of written culture was a social necessity, and an illiterate 81

See ibid. 144. Ibid. 174. 83 See Cotton (1995b) 37. 84 See ibid. 31. 85 For further cases of subscriptions written for illiterates in the Judaean desert papyri see ibid. 3 9 - 4 0 with reference to papyrus no. 13 in Cotton/Yardeni: "Shflamzion] ... borrows the writing of Matat son of Shimeon [who wrote] what she said". See also papyrus no. 50 in Cotton/Yardeni: The second signature in Aramaic was written on behalf of the land seller's wife, indicated by the formula m Q O , "at her word", a formula which also appears in several other documents from the Judaean desert, see ibid. 124: "This indicates that the signature was not written by the person bearing that name, but rather by someone else". For further references see ibid, and Greenfield (1993) 4 0 - 4 1 n. 8. 86 See Harris (1989) 251. 82

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions of Literacy

185

male would have been regarded as bizarre". 87 This does not necessarily imply that upper-class men would practice their writing skills much. For such menial tasks they had their scribes and secretaries. They would usually add their signatures to letters and documents only and write the occasional personal note. 88 Some members of the aristocracy may have deliberately neglected to learn to write properly, since the skill of writing was associated with slave teachers and secretaries.89 In any case, not a neat handwriting but the ability to participate in literary culture, to be knowledgeable of and able to discuss the major literary works, indicated one's membership in the cultural elite.90 It needs to be emphasized, however, that wealth and literary culture did not necessarily go hand in hand: "Wealth itself was never an absolute guarantee of literacy; the newly wealthy might be very uneducated". 91 On the other hand, those who belonged to the lower strata of society, and even slaves and freedmen, might gain prestige and social status - not by mastering the technical skills of reading and writing - but by becoming intellectuals. The former slave Epictetus (c. 55-135 C.E.) whom his master allowed to attend the lectures of the famous Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus and who eventually became a central figure of Stoicism himself, can serve as an example in this regard. 92 Others who lacked an aristocratic family background could advance socially through knowledge of the law and/or rhetorics. Alfoldy refers to Salvius Julianus, a "new man" from Africa in the 2nd c. C.E., who was renowned for his legal expertise and eventually became a senator.93 According to Tacitus (Dial. 8.2-4), two leading senators of the Flavian period, who came from poor and lowly origins, were able to join thepotentissimi civitatis through their intellectual capacities and oratorial skills.94 One has to keep in mind, however, that although social advancement through higher education was theoretically possible, 95 the success stories were few in number and must be considered exceptional. 87

Ibid. 248. See ibid. 249. Their autograph would sometimes consist of a "barely legible scrawl", since they were not used to writing and "had no pressing need to write neatly". 89 See ibid. 249-50 for examples. 90 Ibid. 250 Harris refers to epitaphs as evidence for the Roman admiration of intellectual accomplishments: "The virtues ascribed to people in epitaphs are, it may be presumed, at least to some degree those which were really admired - and devotion to letters, to studia, to eloquence, to the Muses, is attested in abundance". 91 Ibid. 251. 92 For a list of slaves who became philosophers see Forbes 337-38. The most striking case is that of Epictetus. In general, however, philosophy "was kept out of the reach of slaves", due to the high regard in which it was held by Greeks. Besides philosophers, a few writers, such as Terence, were born or reared in slavery but enjoyed a liberal education. 93 See Alfoldy 114. 94 See ibid. 95 Alfoldy, 115, maintains that the ambivalence between personal merit and achievement on the one hand, and aristocratic birth and wealth on the other as criteria for determining one's social status were "typical of the Roman social system. On the one hand, it held to the precedence of noble birth and to the determination of social position according to origin, on 88

186

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

Herbert Grundmann has analyzed the usage of the terms litteratus and illitteratus in Roman literature and reached the conclusion that until the time of Augustus and the first c. C.E. the terms were used to denote the illiterate, like the Greek d y p a ^ a T o c ; , in contrast to someone who was able to read and write. 96 Yet from the first c. C.E. onwards the terms gained a new meaning, and this meaning was especially prevalent amongst philosophers and poets in contrast to agricultural and architectural writers. 97 Already in the first c. C.E. not everyone who was able to read and write was considered a litteratus, but only the person who had received a higher education ("nur der in höherem Maße Gebildete"). 98 Vice versa, a person who had not entered the higher realms of literary culture could be called inlitteratus atque idiota." The term litteratus became more and more equivalent to eruditus, although the degree of "erudition" a person had to possess to be considered a litteratus remained indeterminate. Sueton (De gram. 4) states that especially (proprie) those who interpret the poets (poetarum interpretes) are called litterati, and that some people distinguish between the litteratus and the litterator in that the former has absolute but the latter only mediocre erudition (et ilium quidem absolute, hunc mediocriter doctum existiment).100 The usage of the terms probably depended on the perspective of the person who made the judgment, on his relationship to the person(s) he described, and on the purpose of his classification. 101 The distinction between litterati and illitterati will have served to control the boundaries of a self-styled intellectual and cultural elite. By identifying all those who have not reached the realms of the litterae alteriores "illitterati", Seneca (De benef. 5.13.3) distinguishes himself and his philosophical colleagues from the great mass of "common" people and establishes the philosophers' superiority over them. Similarly Quintilian (Inst. 2.21.16) distinguishes the orator, who has undergone a formal rhetorical training, from the litigator rusticus inlitteratusque, who had gained his legal knowledge in an informal way. 102 In order to gain access to Graeco-Roman intellectual circles early Christian writers such as Minucius Felix, Augustin, and Hieronymus had to emphasize that they were litterati too. 103 the aristocratic principle, yet, at the same time, it offered scope for personal qualities and ambitions". 96 See Grundmann 15. This usage is reflected in the New Testament: In Acts 4:13, e.g., Peter and John are called äv8Qcojtoi a y p c i ^ a T o i >cai iöifljxai by the high priests and scribes, which is translated into homines illitterati (Itala)/sine litteris (Vulgata) et idiotae, see ibid. 6. On the expression in Acts 4:13 see also Kraus 434ff. 97 See Grundmann 15-16. 98 Ibid. 16. 99 Quotation from the satirist C. Lucilius (end of 2nd c. C.E.) in Grundmann, ibid. 100 See ibid. 16-17. 101 Ibid. 18 Grundmann refers to Cicero who addressed his audience as concursus hominum litteratissimorum as a captatio benevolentiae (Pro Archia poeta 2.3). For further references to the usage of the terms in Graeco-Roman literature see ibid. 17-22. 102 See ibid. 18-19. 103 See ibid. 19-22 for references and examples.

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions

of

Literacy

187

In rabbinic sources the term am ha-aretz is sometimes used to distinguish the Torah scholar from the ignoramus, i.e., the one who lacks such scholarship. Oppenheimer points to a statement attributed to R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus in M. Sotah 9:15 (a later addition to the Mishnah), which presents a hierarchical list with the sage at the top, followed by the scribe and the chazzan, and the am haaretz at the bottom. 104 The respective sets' Torah knowledge seems to be the distinguishing criterium here. Elsewhere the am ha-aretz is contrasted with the talmid chakham: "If a mamzer [the offspring of a halakhically forbidden relationship] was a talmid chakham [i.e., a disciple of sages] and a high priest an am ha-aretz, the mamzer who is a talmid chakham takes precedence over the high priest who is an am ha-aretz'' (M. Hor. 3:8; see also T. Hor. 2:10).105 Everyone who had not studied with a rabbi, i.e., who lacked the rabbi's higher form of Torah knowledge, would fall under the category of an am ha-aretz as it is used here. In M. Qin. 3:6 the "elders of the am ha-aretz" are contrasted with the "elders of Torah": While the formers' understanding "becomes unbalanced" ( ] n i n •¡rr'py nsntDQ) with age, the latters' understanding "becomes settled" ( j n i n rDtOTlO) when they grow old. According to T. A.Z. 3:8, one may sell Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot to an am ha-aretz, but one may not purchase tefillin from him. In a statement attributed to Hillel in M. Abot 2:5 the am haaretz is associated with the "I'D, the uncultured or mannerless person: both are said to have had no fear of sins. The lack of Torah knowledge is thus linked to moral depravity here. 106 Just as Quintilian considered a person who had not received a proper rhetorical training an inferior judge, rabbis wanted to limit the authority to give legal rulings to those who were Torah sages like they themselves.107 These texts may suffice as examples of the ways in which rabbis, just like Roman philosophers, poets, and rhetors, distinguished themselves from the "common folk" on the basis of their intellectual superiority, or rather: on the basis of 104

See Oppenheimer 98-99. The saying is quoted by R. Yochanan in y. Hor. 3:5, 48c par. y. Shab. 12:3, 13c in connection with the competition between two families in Sepphoris for the favors of the patriarch. One of the families is said to have gained an advantage over the other by acquiring Torah knowledge. On this story see Hezser (1997) 487. 106 Oppenheimer, 104, points out that some Mishnah mss. have "R. Hillel", the grandson of R. Yudah ha-Nasi, instead of "Hillel", i.e. the statement could be a later amoraic addition to the Mishnah. In any case, tractate Abot was probably edited later than the other tractates of the Mishnah, see Stemberger (1998) 4, who reckons with a long development of the tractate, which may have been completed at the time of the Caraites in the 8th to 10th c. C.E. only. 107 Cf. Oppenheimer, 107, with reference to MRS on Ex. 21:1 (Epstein/Melamed ed. p. 158) and on Ex. 18:22 (ibid. p. 133). In addition to the term am ha-aretz the term CDVin is occasionally used in rabbinic texts to distinguish the ordinary person from the sage, see Hezser (1998a) 472-74. But like the Greek equivalent i.6io'jxr|c, the term 2V~H was usually used for the private citizen and lay-person in distinction to the office holder on the one hand and the philosopher and rabbi as a "third category" on the other. 105

188

Part I: The Conditions

for the Development

of

Literacy

the expertise in Torah interpretation and oral traditions which they had gained during their apprenticeships with Torah scholars. In each case the "scholar" or "litteratus" is the one who has mastered the traditional literary tradition, whether that of the Torah or that of Homer or Plato and Aristotle, and is able to comment on, criticize, explain, and thereby also continue that tradition. Access to these intellectual circles was possible through discipleship only. Those who were already "members" of the intellectual elite decided whom they accepted into disciplehood and determined when that person was ready to be considered one of their own. 108 As already argued in connection with education and schools above, both in ancient Jewish and Graeco-Roman society the number of those students who advanced to the higher educational realms will have been very small. The number of those who actually underwent years of rabbinic, rhetorical, or philosophical training and were subsequently accepted by their teachers as rabbis, orators, and philosophers in their own right will have been tiny indeed. 109 The phenomenon that neither the " l i t t e r a t u s " nor the " c h a k h a m " were well defined categories resulted in blurred boundaries and uncertainties over who did or did not belong to the intellectual elite. Thus some people may have considered some Torah scribes "sages", just as some Romans considered a person with a "mediocre" knowledge of the classical poets a "litteratus", while a "real" scholar like Seneca would insist on the distinction. Despite the blurred boundaries, ambiguities, uncertainties, and pretenses, one may assume that within Jewish and Graeco-Roman society people will have had a rather clear notion of the criteria for belonging to the intellectual elite. To use the "core" and "periphery" model of education suggested by Morgan, a number of people may have moved at the peripheries, while only a few belonged to the core.110 The closer one came to the core, the higher the social status attached to one's proficiencies, at least from the viewpoint of those who had made it to the core or tried to reach it. Unfortunately, rabbinic sources provide the rabbinic perspective only and do not tell us anything about the existence of an alternative Jewish intellectual elite whose superiority was based on its knowledge of Greek literary texts (whether Jewish or non-Jewish) rather than, or in addition to the Torah. The writings of 108 On the informal ways of rabbinic succession and the ambiguity over a person's recognition as a rabbi see Hezser (1997) 9 3 - 1 4 2 . See also Morgan 7 9 - 8 0 : Since the ancient educational system (if one may call it a system) lacked any examinations, the assessment of the pupils' progress by their teachers determined their advancement to a higher stage. Such a "competitive educational system gives society, or the already-acculturated group, a high degree of control over criteria for entry into that group". 109 That the number of rabbis living in Roman Palestine at a particular period of time must have been very small, numbering not more than a few dozen, has recently been argued by Hopkins on the basis of statistical considerations, see p. 10 of his as yet unpublished typescript, listed in the bibliography. 110 See Morgan 7 1 - 7 2 . For the application of the core and periphery model to the rabbinic movement see Hezser (1997) 151-54.

3. The Socio-Economic

Functions

of

Literacy

189

Josephus can also not serve as trustworthy evidence on Greek-Jewish scholarship, since Josephus later identified himself with the Pharisees and stressed the superiority of Torah learning.111 As already suggested above, there must have been upper-class Jews like Josephus who received an education in both the Torah and Greek literary works, as Josephus himself insinuates, and a number of rabbinic texts which discuss whether one might study oneself or teach one's children "Greek wisdom" point into the same direction.112 In addition to Jews who combined Torah knowledge and Greek learning, there may have been others, especially immigrants from the Diaspora, who had received a Greek education only. They probably adopted the Graeco-Roman view of what characterized an educated person, namely the ability to know Homer, Plato and Aristotle. Although native Palestinian Jews with a Greek education may not have reached the same level of understanding which native Greekspeakers could aspire to, their mere efforts will have been valued by their rhetorical or philosophical teachers. Despite the hierarchy inherent in ancient education, Morgan has stressed that "the relative culture of its products was more important than their absolute level of attainment: a big fish in Panopolis need not, and generally did not, have the education of a big fish in Alexandria". 113 Accordingly, a rhetor like Libanius would regard a Jewish patriarch who possessed Greek learning and gave his son a Greek education his equal.114

111 According to S.J.D. Cohen (1987a) 146, Pharisaic power is especially emphasized in the Antiquities, but not in the earlier Jewish War. 112 See section I . l . D above. 113 Morgan 84. 114 On the letters of Libanius to the patriarch see Jacobs (1995) 259-72; Hezser (1997) 446-448.

4. Religion and Literacy Judaism is customarily called the quintessential "religion of the book" and the model and competitor of Christianity in this regard. 1 An examination of the role of the Torah in ancient Judaism can show to what extent this characterization of Judaism is valid and in which ways it has to be corrected. The view of the Torah as a holy book may have been connected with the veneration of the Torah as an artifact in addition to, or - amongst most Jews - rather than, a close study of its content. Even amongst rabbis who did study the Torah closely, their own halakhic and theological agendas may have ultimately taken priority. Brian Stock has analyzed the social phenomenon of "textual communities", i.e. sets of people who habitually gather for the purpose of studying books together. 2 One has to ask whether this category can also be applied to ancient Jewish society or at least to certain substrata within that society. Is the ability to read the text oneself a necessary requirement for participation in a textual community or can illiterates participate in it by listening to other people's readings and discussions? Finally the usage of writing for magical purposes needs to be examined. Not only amulets but phylacteries and mezuzot as well as letters and words written or incised upon one's skin may have been considered to possess magic properties. Was the magic use of writing a prerogative of illiterates or was its usage independent of one's literacy skills? The question may also be asked with regard to the magic use of the Torah scroll itself, e.g., for healing purposes. Since rabbinic literature presents the rabbinic view only, we cannot determine how widespread such a magic use of writing was amongst ancient Jews.

A. The Written and the Oral Torah There is no doubt that for Jewish religious circles both before and after 70 C.E. the Torah was of great importance as a compendium of ancestral traditions and lasting symbols. One may assume that even Jews who were not affiliated with one of the first century "sects" or the later rabbis, i.e. the "common (wo)man", ' On this term see especially Halbertal, who uses it in the title of his book. See also Stroumsa with regard to its application to early Christianity. 2 See Stock 522.

4. Religion and Literacy

191

had a notion of the Torah as part of their national-religious heritage. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the designation "book religion" is appropriate for Roman-period Judaism. Some Christian scholars have maintained that the focus on the Torah in postexilic Judaism was the basis for later Christianity's development into a "book religion". Thus Siegfried Morenz writes: "Das Christentum ist ein Kind der jüdischen Buchreligion". 3 Here the text-centeredness of post-exilic and preChristian Judaism is judged positively and contrasted with the cult- and sacrifice-centeredness of the early Israelite and pagan religions. 4 Other Christian scholars consider the alleged Torah-centeredness of the Pharisees and rabbis evidence of an ossification of Judaism at the time when it competed with early Christianity. It is maintained that from the first century C.E. onwards Judaism ceased to be a living religion and was represented by a few self-segregated scholars who engaged in an "apologetically rigidified understanding of the Torah" and a "nationalistic legalism", as Martin Hengel writes.5 Hengel already attributes to the Pharisees an "anxious and zealous fixation on the letter of the Torah" which allegedly stood in direct contrast to the "prophetic spirit" of the early church. 6 Scholars of rabbinic Midrash like to present rabbinic Judaism as a "book religion" because they view Midrash as a forerunner of (post-)modern literary criticism. Geza Vermes, for example, maintains that for the rabbis the interpretation of the Torah was central, that it was the basis of all practice and belief, 7 and James Kugel even assumes that the rabbinic focus on the study of Scripture "touched every member of the community". 8 Similarly Moshe Halbertal considers text-centeredness the main characteristic of Judaism throughout ancient and medieval times. 9 As William Scott Green has cogently argued, however, the book religion model reduces Judaism to scriptural exegesis rather than viewing it as a multi-faceted and constantly developing religion. 10 According to Siegfried Morenz, Judaism developed into a book religion from the time of Josiah's cultic reform on the basis of the book of Deuteronomy and Ezra's reading of the law in front of the entire congregation. 11 In post-exilic times the institution of the synagogue allegedly supplemented the Temple, and a liturgy based on the reading of the Torah developed side by side with cultic

3

Morenz 714. See ibid. 711-714. 5 Hengel 1:309. 6 Ibid. 313. 7 Vermes (1975) 60, referred to by Green 7. 8 Kugel 72, referred to by Green 7. 9 See Halbertal Iff. 10 See Green 7. " See Morenz 712. See also Leipoldt/Morenz 101; Halbertal 149 n. 18. 4

192

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

practices. 12 The creation of a canon of holy Scriptures fixed the format of the text which was allegedly considered authoritative. 13 Against this traditional view of the centrality of written biblical texts in postexilic Judaism Susan Niditch has emphasized that "large, perhaps dominant, threads in Israelite culture were oral". 14 Oral compositions stand behind the written work of the Hebrew Bible and the written texts were presented orally. 15 The entire aesthetic of the Bible was "grounded ... in an oral-traditional mentality". 16 Only a tiny percentage of Israelites will have been able to write literary texts or even to read them once they were written. To the large majority of the populace the written texts would have to be read out, paraphrased, and commented upon aloud. They would not perceive them as texts to be studied but as repositories of traditional knowledge to which only scribes like Ezra had direct access. Niditch has suggested that in a world dominated by an oral mentality writing acquires a symbolic and iconic function: it is often associated with divine revelation, and the written word itself is assumed to possess special power. 17 Morenz' proposition of the development of a fixed canon in the pre-70 period has also been questioned in recent times. A number of scholars have argued that the canonization of the Hebrew Bible did not take place at Yavneh, as traditionally assumed, but continued in later rabbinic times. Guiseppe Veltri writes: "Was eine fixierte Textgestalt anbelangt, m ü s s e n wir damit rechnen, daß d i e s e erst mit der Entstehung des Druckes i m 15. Jh. greifbar wird. A u f j e d e n Fall ist v o n e i n e m Kanon als präziser Anzahl v o n Büchern mit etabliertem Text in den entscheidenden Jahren des Judentums (die Mishna-Zeit) und des Christentums (Entstehung der Kirche) keine Rede". 1 8

The common assumption that the canon was fixed at a rabbinic assembly at Yavneh cannot be maintained. 19 It was commonly connected with the belief that the rabbis developed a Jewish orthodoxy and tried to exclude heretics. 20 The 12

See Morenz 712. See ibid. 713. 14 Niditch 1. 15 See ibid. 2 - 5 . 16 Ibid. 6. 17 See ibid. 7 9 - 8 3 . 18 Veltri (1990) 214. Van der Woude, 1 5 4 - 6 8 , has suggested that a uniformity and a pluriformity of textual traditions existed side by side in the centuries before the destruction of the Temple: The Jerusalem priests and scribes seem to have used a relatively uniform text, i.e., the proto-Masoretic tradition, while different textual versions seem to have been used elsewhere, as the diversity of textual variants found at Qumran indicates: these variants "show very clearly that the transmission of the Old Testament in the last centuries before the beginning of the Christian era, at any rate in some circles of Palestinian Judaism, was a fluctuating one" (156). 19 For the assumption of a fixation of the canon at Yavneh, which is especially prevalent amongst Christian Bible scholars, see Veltri (1990) 215. According to Beckwith, "the theory that an open canon was closed at the 'Council' of Yavne about 9 0 C.E. goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871" (60). 20 See Veltri (1990) 215. 13

4. Religion and

Literacy

193

concepts of a "synode" or "council" and an "orthodoxy" which fought against "heresy" are of Christian origin and inappropriate for ancient Judaism. 21 Studies by J.P. Lewis, Leiman, Schäfer, Stemberger, and Maier suggest that after the destruction of the Temple no synode or council which fixed the canon took place. 22 According to M. Yad. 3:5, rabbis disagreed over the question whether Qohelet and Song of Songs were able to impart impurity, i.e. were to be considered holy Scriptures. This discussion is not said to have taken place in the context of a synode, however, and it also does not allow any conclusions about the "closing" or "canonization" of biblical writings: being considered holy was not synonymous with being part of a fixed and authoritative canon. 23 No leadership figure or committee which could have made such a decision existed at that time. 24 Rabbinic differences of opinion on this issue continued to exist throughout the following centuries. Long after the time of the alleged synode rabbis discussed the holiness of the already mentioned books as well as that of others such as Esther.25 On the other hand, it it likely that by the first century C.E. most books which would later form part of the canon were already held in high esteem and distinguished from others by being considered holy. In C.A. 1.38-39 Josephus states that the inspired books are twenty-two in number, amongst them the five books of the Pentateuch. While the identity of the twenty-two books is not entirely clear, Beckwith suggests that Josephus may have excluded Qohelet and Song of Songs, the books whose holiness was also disputed by the rabbis in M. Yad. 3:5.26 Perhaps the distinction between the five books of Moses, the Prophets, and (other) Writings was also already in existence by the first c. C.E. 27 For the rabbis, the believed holiness or inspiredness of certain biblical books, and especially the Torah, required a special way of writing and handling them. Special rules for the writing of Torah scrolls are given (y. Meg. 1:11, 71c-d). 28 Holy Scriptures were to be saved from a fire and stored rather than burned when they could no longer be used (M. Shab. 16:1). If one finds a scroll in a field, one 21

See ibid. 217. See ibid. 217-18 with reference to J.P. Lewis, Leiman, Schäfer (1975), Stemberger (1977), and Maier (1982). See also Beckwith 58-59. 23 The text is discussed in Veltri (1990) 219ff. See also Beckwith 60. Goodman (1990) 105-6 suggests that other Jews may have considered other books holy than the rabbis did: "The rabbis would not have needed to assert, as they do at tYad. 2:13, that the books of the minim do not defile the hands, unless a real possibility that they might do so was recognized by at least some Jews of the time". 24 There does not seem to have been a patriarch before R. Yehudah ha-Nasi, see Hezser (1997) 4 0 6 - 1 7 . 25 See Beckwith 59: "All the rabbis named in B.T. Megilla 7a and Sanhédrin 100a as denying the canonicity of Esther ... belong to the third century C.E.". 26 Beckwith 51. 27 See ibid. 51-58. 28 See also Tractate Soferim. 22

194

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

has to sit with it and guard it until sundown (T. Er. 8:16). Even on the Sabbath one may roll back a scroll which slipped out of one's hand and passed the threshold, "for nothing which is [prohibited] because of the Sabbath stands against [the honor due to] the holy Scriptures" (M. Er. 10:3). People who sell Torah scrolls may not purchase scrolls of the Prophets from the proceeds (M. Meg. 3:1), and scrolls of the Prophets may not be stored on top of Torah scrolls (T. Meg. 3:20). Torah scrolls may not be carried while entering a toilet or bathhouse (y. Ber. 2:3,4c; Sifre Deut. 258), and they may not be placed in a box at the foot of one's bed (y. Ber. 3:5, 6d). Even the coverings of Torah scrolls become holy and may not be reused after they have been used for a Torah scroll (T. Meg. 2:13; y. Ned. 9:2,41c). Scrolls written in Hebrew and on parchment were believed to impart uncleanness to hands (M. Yad. 4:5). This view was allegedly held by Pharisees (in contrast to Sadducees) already (M. Yad. 4:6). According to an opinion attributed to R. Yochanan (ibid.; cf. T. Yad. 2:19), the ability to impart uncleanness is based on the "preciousness" (|rQT!) of the holy Scriptures. Beckwith suggests that rabbis' reference to holy Scriptures' ability to impart uncleanness was meant to protect them from careless treatment: "No one would be so apt to handle them heedlessly if he were every time obliged to wash his hands afterwards". 29 Martin Goodman assumes that the rabbis of the second and third centuries no longer knew the reason behind the traditional belief.30 He suggests that the Pharisees referred to holy Scriptures' ability to defile the hands in order to counter people's possible idolization of these writings.31 Goodman is certainly right in stressing the Jewish "belief that the physical scrolls which contained their sacred texts were themselves sacred objects".32 And this belief seems to have been shared by the rabbis who proposed the abovementioned behavioral rules for handling such scrolls. Rabbis seem to have been very concerned with "the external appearance of the text" and with the scrolls as holy objects.33 Leipoldt and Morenz have pointed out that holy Scriptures tend to be protected by an entire series of special customs which distinguish them from other texts.34 In ancient Egypt, for example, "several types of sacred and authoritative texts existed" which were of a magico-religious nature and customarily kept in temples.35 Harris and Beard refer to written Sibylline oracular books kept in charge of the Priesthood of the Fifteen (Quindecimviri sacris faciundis) at Rome and only consulted in times of crisis.36 The phenomenon that these books 29

Beckwith 62. Goodman (1990) 102. 31 See ibid. 104. 32 See ibid. 103. 33 Goodman (1990) 106 suggests that the Christian adoption of the codex form becomes all the more understandable on the basis of the rabbis' insistence on the form of the scroll. 34 See Leipoldt/Morenz 161. 35 See Bleecker 31-34. 36 Harris (1989) 154, 219; Beard 51. 30

4. Religion and Literacy

195

were more or less inaccessible to the public will have increased their sacredness and religious power in the eyes of the populace. The rabbinic emphasis on the biblical scrolls' ability to impart uncleanness may have served a similar purpose. Mary Beard has argued against Harris' and other scholars' strict distinction between Judaism and Christianity as book religions on the one hand and a cultoriented paganism on the other.37 She has suggested that in paganism "writing played a central role in defining the nature of human relations with the divine, and indeed the nature of pagan deities themselves". 38 In paganism - as well as in ancient Judaism and Christianity - the foremost function of sacred texts may have been symbolic, "to define the relationship between an individual and the divine; to constitute an identity for those who, like the gods, could not, after all, actually speak; and to hierarchize religious power", independent of people's ability to read and write. 39 In Judaism the masses probably saw the Torah as a national heritage and a symbol of God's lasting relationship with and election of Israel. This is indicated by the phenomenon of mass riots caused by Roman officials' destruction of Torah scrolls, related by Josephus. For example, shortly after Cumanus had become procurator of Judaea (48 C.E.), a Roman officer seized a Torah scroll and burned it. Josephus writes: "At that the Jews were roused as though it were their whole country which had been consumed in the flames" (Bell. 2.12.2, 229-30). The soldier had to be publicly executed in order to calm down the crowd. Thatcher writes: "It is hard to imagine that even a small percentage of the mob which gathered before C u m a n u s ' residence at Caesarea could read the scroll in question, but it is obvious that they interpret the soldier's act as an attack on their faith system. That non-literate persons associated their personal heritage and ideology with a written document to the point that they would riot and risk death for that document demonstrates the symbolic p o w e r of writing, and particularly of written revelation, in Palestine at the brink of the First Revolt". 4 0

Another indication of the symbolic value of the Torah is the Romans' display of a Torah scroll as their major spoil in the victory parade after the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple (Bell. 7.5.5, 150). Obviously "even Titus believed that the presence of the vanquished Jewish god was most clearly represented by the written word". 41 The episodes illustrate the symbolic value of the Torah, independent of people's ability or interest in reading and studying the text: "Sacred writings formed the core of Jewish ideology in the late Second Temple period, whether or not individual Jews could read them and whether or not specific customs were actually based on them". 42 37 38 39 40 41 42

See Harris (1989) 218-21, 298-306. See also Morenz mentioned above. Beard 37. Ibid. 38. Thatcher 134. Ibid. 130. Ibid. 128.

196

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

Once sacred texts have gained such a broad symbolic and ideological value amongst the masses, political and religious leaders can use them to obtain or maintain power. Thatcher suggests that some of the rebel movements of the Jewish revolt against Rome were aware of the high value of the Torah in people's consciousness and validated their actions by presenting themselves as defenders of the Torah and its values. 43 The most prominent participant in the revolt against Rome who later legitimized his actions by reference to the Torah is Josephus. Not only the rebels but all of the various pre-70 "sects" as well as the post-70 rabbis seem to have based their claims to authority on the Torah and on their superior understanding of the sacred text.44 One might ask whether the adherents of all of these "sects" constituted "textual communities" within pre-70 Judaism. Thatcher suggests to view the various rebel movements, who allegedly validated their actions by reference to the Torah, as "textual communities". 45 He considers all those who, like the rebels, believed that Roman domination "represented a compromise of the scriptural model for Jewish piety" members of these "textual communities", even though most of them will have been illiterate and unable to read and study the Torah themselves. 46 This usage of the term "textual community" is so general, however, that it lacks all significance and becomes rather useless as a description of a particular set's relationship to a sacred text.47 In the context of his study of literacy in medieval society Brian Stock has used the term "textual communities" for study groups: "Where there are texts, there are also presumably groups to study them. The process of learning and reflection inevitably influences the members: how individuals behave towards each other and how the group, if it is not transitory, behaves towards the outside world, will bear some relation to attitudes formed during the educational experience". 4 8 "From reading, dialogue, and the absorption of texts, therefore, it is a short step to ' textual communities', that is, to groups of people whose social activities are centered around texts, or, more precisely, around a literate interpreter of them. The text in question need not be written down nor the majority of auditors actually literate. The interpres may relate it verbally ,..". 4 9

Stock applies the term "textual community" to groups who assemble for the study of texts, whether or not all members are able to read and interpret the text 43

See ibid. 136. On the usage of the term "sect" see S.J.D. Cohen (1987a) 124-37. Thatcher 136: "In this sense, many of the rebel movements discussed in War, and to some extent all such movements collectively, may be considered textual communities". 46 See ibid. 137. 47 Carruthers seems to advocate a similarly broad view of textual communities when writing: "Literary works become institutions as they weave a community together by providing it with shared experience and a certain kind of language, the language of stories that can be experienced over and over again through time and as occasion suggests" (12). 48 Stock 522. 49 Ibid. 44 45

4. Religion

and

Literacy

197

themselves. It is unlikely, however, that the various rebel groups discussed by Thatcher were study groups whose leaders took time to interpret the Torah in front of the populace. Rebel leaders, who occasionally used the Romans' hostility against the Torah as a national Jewish symbol to legitimize their political actions, cannot be considered the leaders of "textual communities", and neither can those who agreed with their political agendas be considered members of such communities. Elisabeth Long has examined the interrelationship between the collective reading of texts and socializing activities in modern reading circles and argued that even today reading should be seen as a social enterprise which needs "the support of talk with other readers". 50 She emphasizes the phenomenon that "reading is socially framed": "collective and institutional processes shape reading practices by authoritatively defining what is worth reading and how to read it".51 Similar considerations have been expressed by Stanley Fish in his work on "interpretative communities". Fish has stressed that interpretation is always governed by a particular community's purposes, goals, values, conventions, that there is no "independent and context-free system of meanings". 52 For those who share these underlying categories and understandings as members of an "interpretative community" it becomes difficult "to explain to someone outside it a practice or a meaning that seems to him to require no explanation, because he regards it as natural". 53 Textual communities, i.e. sets of people who commonly read and discuss particular texts together, whether in ancient, medieval, or modern times, "not only empowered their members, but also helped to create community, sustain collective memory, and challenge tradition". 54 The role of the text itself may even become subordinate to the development of new forms of social interaction and the construction of social identity: "Reading in groups not only offers occasions for explicitly collective textual interpretation, but encourages new forms of association, and nurtures new ideas that are developed in conversation with other people as well as with books. Reading groups often form because of a subtext of shared values, and the text itself is often a pretext (though an invaluable one) for the conversation through which members engage not only with the authorial 'other' but with each other as well". 55

By sharing a set of values and engaging in the discussion of a particular text, textual communities "contribute to the formation of sociocultural identity". 56 Can any of the other movements or "sects" within pre-70 Judaism be called "textual communities" in the sense suggested by Stock and Long? Steven Fraade 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Long 191. Ibid. 192. Fish 321. Ibid. Long 193. Ibid. 194. Ibid. 205.

198

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

has proposed to view both the central and the branch camps of the Qumran community as "studying communities", 57 in which the interpretative authority rested not with particular leaders but with the community as a whole: "As stated in 1QS 5:2, the community is to be a union (yahad) with respect both to their commonly held property (hon) and their commonly studied and practiced Torah". 58 A prospective member would be examined "with respect to his insight and deeds" (1QS 6:13-15), and examinations of his subsequently acquired knowledge would continue during the years of his membership in the community: 59 "Entering the community is tantamount to entering the study and practice of its esoteric Torah". 60 The idealized image of the community as one engaged in collective study should not detract from its strict hierarchical organization. According to Fraade, each member's status within the community depended on the "insight" he had gained: "within his class each man is assigned a rank, from which he may be upgraded or downgraded on the basis of his examined knowledge and deeds (1QS 5.23-24)". 61 In the Damascus document the community is called "House of the Torah" (CD 20:13), and elsewhere the members are referred to as "the men of the Torah" (4QSd 1: l).62 Besides the Torah the members will have studied the sects' laws and regulations, and the knowledge which determined a person's status will have been the sect's particular interpretation of the Torah and its esoteric tradition. 63 The priestly and levitical officers seem to have instructed the new members in the sect's knowledge and led community members in their ritualized study sessions:64 "Thus, while study as a medium for the collective disclosure of esoteric Torah teaching and law characterizes the ongoing life of the community as a whole from its origins until its redemption, the specific authority to derive such law from the Torah and to apply it to the life of the community is the purview of particular communal functionaries, distinguished by their priestly or levitical class, intensity of study, and proficiency of learning". 6 5

Talmon has stressed that the Qumran "priests were heirs to a sophisticated urban culture of scriptural learning and handling of texts". 66 While these community 57

See Fraade (1993) 46 n. 1. Ibid. 52. See ibid. 53 with references. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 54. See also lQSa 1:6-8 quoted ibid. 55. 62 See ibid. 54-55 and 55 n. 25. 63 Cf. ibid. 56. 64 See ibid. 56-57 with reference to 1QS 6:6-8. Fraade suggests that "the man who studies the Torah day and night", who should be present at every study session of at least ten men (ibid.), may have been identical with the communal functionary presented as "the man who studies" in 1QS 8:11-12, see ibid. 62. 65 Ibid. 62-63. 66 Talmon (1991) 126. 58 59

4. Religion and

Literacy

199

officials will certainly have been learned in the various components of communal knowledge, not every community member may have been able to read the texts himself. Since reading was done communally, a few individuals able to read may have sufficied at the study sessions. They could transmit the scriptural and sectarian knowledge orally to illiterate members. 67 Besides the Qumran sectarians, the Sadducees and Pharisees may, perhaps, be called "textual communities".68 According to Josephus, Ant. 13.10.5f. (288-98), the Sadducees insisted on the validity of only those laws which were written in the Torah, while the Pharisees had an "ancestral tradition" in addition to the Torah which they followed as well. The "sect" of the Sadduccees seems to have consisted of members of the priestly aristocracy only, 69 i.e. individuals who would consider themselves the traditional guardians of the Torah and its "correct" interpretation. It is not striking at all that they would be opposed to Torah scholars outside their circles, and possibly of inferior social status,70 who threatened their monopoly by "selling" their own interpretations and rulings under the rubric of "ancestral traditions", in order to increase their authority. Schäfer has emphasized that interpretation of the "ancestral laws" and insistence upon their observance is a characteristic of the Pharisees as they are described by Josephus.71 The Pharisees' traditions may have consisted of oral interpretations and behavioral rules72 which they followed themselves and tried to propagate amongst the populace. 73 67 Fraade assumes that the references to nightly study sessions "presume that the community members were literate", see idem (1993) 58 n. 35. Although this may have been the case and the ability to read one of the prerequisites for entry into the (central camp of the) sect, one could also hypothesize that it was required of those who wanted to advance to higher positions within the sect but not absolutely necessary for everyone. At communal gatherings the texts would be read aloud and the esoteric knowledge and sectarian rules could also be taught orally to the new members. The study curriculum described in lQSa 1:6-8 was an ideal meant for children who grew up within the community. 68 A connection between pre-70 sectarianism and a high degree of literacy was already suggested by A. Baumgarten, see idem (1997) 48 ff. and (1998) 108 f. 69 See Schäfer (1991) 137. 70 Although some of the Pharisees may have been of priestly origin, others, perhaps the majority, were not. In all likelihood non-priestly scribes will have belonged to the Pharisaic party. 71 See Schäfer (1991) 158. 72 Goodman (1999) 18 suggested that the "ancestral tradition" of the Pharisees referred to by Josephus consisted of "traditional behaviour rather than traditional teachings". These two understandings of "ancestral tradition" are not mutually exclusive, however, but rather complementary: the traditional behavior was based on the traditional teachings. To assume "that the Pharisees were essentially conservative in behaviour" and that they merely followed the "status quo" (ibid.) is to fall into the traps of the Pharisees' own propaganda strategy: they will have presented their own rulings and interpretations as "ancestral traditions" which had always been followed in order to lend them authority. 73 The popular appeal of the Pharisees, occasionally mentioned by Josephus, may have been an exaggeration based on the phenomenon that they actually addressed the public and at least tried to convince them, while the Sadduccees kept their knowledge to themselves, within their social and priestly circles.

200

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

Just as the Qumran community had its own knowledge, which seems to have included a particular interpretation of the Torah, an esoteric tradition, and communal rules, the Sadduccees and Pharisees may be seen as "textual communities" with their own beliefs and practices, which they legitimized by reference to the Torah and the claim to its only "true" understanding. The competing claims of these various textual - or "interpretive" 74 - communities, each of which considered itself "normative" but none of which actually was, seems to have been characteristic of pre-70 Judaism. 75 The majority of the populace will not have belonged to any of these textual communities, or only moved at their borders. Most Jews will have been aware of the symbolic value of the Torah, as suggested above, but did not study its contents or participate in the intellectual discourse which developed amongst its experts. They may have occasionally listened to scholarly disputes, attended Torah-readings in synagogues, and memorized some central texts and stories, but they did not actually study the text of the Torah themselves. Edwards Shils describes people's relationship to their cultural traditions in the following manner: "Being respectful of their traditions is not the primary object of concern for most persons; there must b e very f e w individuals in any society w h o take as a primary task the strict adherence to what has been received as tradition. M o s t adult h u m a n beings must work under exigent conditions to gain their livelihood and to maintain the offspring they have brought into life". 7 6

The Essenes', Sadducces', and Pharisees' claims to a superior knowledge of the tradition may be seen as competing claims for religious authority and control at a time when the official Temple cult could not satisfy the religious needs of certain segments of the population anymore. 77 After the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. this striving for religious authority on the basis of the Torah was continued by the rabbis. Like the "sects" of the Essenes, Sadducees and Pharisees, the various rabbinic circles can, perhaps, be seen as "textual communities" which studied and discussed the Torah together. 78 74 Ong (1987) 21 defines interpretive communities as held together by a specific approach to texts, while textual communities are held together by the specific text which they study. 75 See Smith 115: In the first century C.E. Palestine seems to have "swarmed with special sects, each devoted to its own tradition". None of the major sects, i.e. the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees seems to have had a "real hold either on the government or on the masses of the people". See also Goodblatt (1989) 14, who stresses "the extent to which Smith's article has been ignored". Against Hengel/Deines 66, who argue that Josephus' portrayal of the Pharisees is "a completely accurate rendering of the real situation". 76 Shils 27. 77 The early Jesus movement may be seen as another competitor for religious authority, but does not seem to fit into the category of a "textual community". Although the gospels portray Jesus himself as knowledgeable of the Torah, Jesus and his disciples are never presented as studying the Torah together. Whether the early church developed into a textual community or contained textual communities within its midst cannot be discussed in this context. For Bible reading in early Christianity see Harnack, 27ff., and Gamble, 2ff. 78 For the rabbinic movement as a network of various small and interlinked circles of likeminded Torah scholars see Hezser (1997) 228-39.

4. Religion and

Literacy

201

These discussions produced a large and very diverse body of scriptural interpretations, behavioral rules, and theological ideas which the rabbis declared to be as authoritative as the written Torah. The notion of the "Oral Torah" was a relatively late rabbinic concept not used by the Essenes or Pharisees before. 79 The designation "oral" distinguished rabbinic traditions from biblical writings, while the term "Torah" connected them with the scriptural base. While the concept of the "Oral Torah" was specifically rabbinic, its function seems to have been similar to the Pharisees' presentation of their own views as "ancestral traditions" and the Essenes' lack of distinction between their own legal and exegetical extrapolations and the biblical text itself: namely, to demonstrate that they are "the legitimate, and the only legitimate, heir to biblical Israel". 80 Y. Peah 2:6, 17a par. y. Hag. 1:8, 76d transmits a long discussion on the issue of the Oral Torah. Various interpretations of Hos. 8:12, "Were I to write for him most of my Torah, would they not be regarded as foreign [ T l l T l IIFI ~h TifDK •QtOn] " I T 103]?" are offered. A statement attributed to R. Zeira in the name of R. Eleazar is related to the first half of the verse ("most of my Torah"): "Is m o s t of the Torah written? [No,] rather, m o r e are the matters w h i c h are derived [by exegesis] f r o m the written [Torah] than the matters d e r i v e d [by logic] f r o m the oral [Torah] [PlSH/nron ] 0 | - t O - n n ] . A n d is that so? Rather, m o r e b e l o v e d [ j ' T D n ] are the matters w h i c h are derived [by exegesis] f r o m the written [Torah] than the matters d e r i v e d [by logic] f r o m the oral [Torah]". 8 1

The passage, which is not entirely clear, seems to suggest (a) that the oral Torah is quantitatively larger than the written Torah, and (b) that those oral traditions which are somehow based on the written Torah are more numerous and more beloved by God than rabbinic traditions not based on the Bible. Especially interesting is the following comment on the second half of the verse ("would they not be regarded as foreign?") attributed to R. Abin:

79

Against Gerhardsson 21-23, who believes that the Pharisees already used the concept of the Oral Torah. For the Essenes' lack of this concept see Talmon (1991) 139. Whether the Pharisaic tradition was transmitted orally or in written form is uncertain, see the discussion in Neusner (1971) 1-18; idem (1973) 5 6 - 6 5 ; J.M. Baumgarten 7 - 2 9 ; Schäfer (1991) 136-37. In Ant. 13.10.6 Josephus states that the Sadducces rejected the Pharisees' traditions since they were not written in the Torah of Moses. The emphasis seems to be on their extra-biblical nature, not on their orality here. In any case, explicit references to the "Oral Torah" do not even appear in the Mishnah or Tosefta but only in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, see Neusner (1979) 60. Jaffee (1997) 534 n. 9 suggests that the concept "is probably a late thirdcentury development". 80 Talmon (1991) 148, with regard to the Essenes. Talmon, however, believes that the rabbis differed from the Essenes in this regard, since they "took pains, ..., to reveal the Oral Torah character of their legal expositions by wording them in terms and literary structures which differed perceptibly from the terminology and the genres of the biblical law corpora" (ibid. 146). While this is true, the function was nevertheless the same, since the rabbis maintained that their own rulings were based on divine revelations. 81 Translation according to Pene Moshe's understanding of the text.

202

Part I: The Conditions

for the Development

of

Literacy

"[For] what [is the difference] between us and the gentiles? Those bring forth their books and these [i.e. we] bring forth our books; those bring forth their records []n , - ins~l] and these [i.e. we] bring forth our records" (ibid.).

According to R. Abin, Jews differ from gentiles only in that they possess an oral tradition besides their scriptures. The statement shows that the amoraim were well aware of the book production that went on in their Graeco-Roman environment. They were probably also aware of the fact that they did not possess a similar quantity of books. By presenting the oral tradition as a Jewish peculiarity and a means to distinguish oneself from gentiles, they seem to have turned a disadvantage into an advantage and legitimized their actual lack of texts. 82 The Yerushalmi contains a number of statements which warn against writing down rabbinic traditions and at the same time suggest that some of these traditions did exist in written form. According to y. Meg. 4:1,74d, "things which were stated orally [must be presented] orally; things which were stated in writing [must be presented] in writing p r i m 2TD2 TIQ«]2? D n n n HE3D HDD •,-Q-[]". Although this statement is attached to a story about a scribe reading from a book with a written translation in a synagogue, it is stated in such a general way that it could also be applied to rabbinic traditions. According to a statement in y. Shab. 16:1, 15c, "as to an aggadic passage, one who writes it down has no share in the world to come; he who preaches it will be burned; and he who hears it will receive no reward. Said R. Yehoshua b. Levi: In my entire life I never looked into a book of aggadah, except one time I looked, and I found 175 sections of the Torah ...". A similar tradition follows: "R. Chiyya b. Ba saw a book containing aggadic writings. He said: If what is written in that book is correct, let the hand of the one who wrote it be cut off. Said to him the father of the one who had written it [that his son had written it] ...". He allegedly repeated his threat. The texts suggest that Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible as well as collections of aggadic traditions existed in written form, but that at least some amoraim were opposed to their existence and advised people against using them. As already pointed out above, various Mishnah collections and tractates also seem to have circulated in amoraic times and they are even said to have been studied by rabbis and their students. 83 Warnings against the usage of these texts are never expressed in the Yerushalmi sources. Perhaps the prohibition against writing only applied to the new traditions of the amoraim. Or the Mishnah collections and tractates were not identified as proper "books" and therefore did not fall under the prohibition. As rabbinic traditions the possibly written collections of mishnayot were nevertheless considered part of the "Oral Torah", and this seeming contradiction shows that the orality was part of the Oral Torah myth - i.e., it distinguished rabbinic from biblical traditions - rather than a description of these teachings' actual form of transmission. 82 83

See above for the lack of libraries in ancient Judaism. See section I.2.C for references.

4. Religion and

Literacy

203

Martin Jaffee has stressed that the ideological construct of the "Oral Torah" has to be separated from the possibly oral form of transmission of some of the rabbinic traditions. 84 He has suggested that the distinction between a Written and an Oral Torah "... did not at first describe the media in which texts were composed or preserved. Rather they described the modes of their public performance as literature ... The Written Torah was 'read' (qr') - in the sense that the text was sung aloud from a scroll in the course of its study and exposition. The Oral Torah, by contrast, was 'repeated' (snh) quoted from memory, without recourse to the mnemonic crutch of a written text (...)". 8 5

He assumes that both Torahs "existed in writing, and both were transmitted in an oral declamation that commonly included comment on and exposition of the text". 86 The so-called Oral Torah may have "lived out a long shadow-life as a loosely arranged, textually polymorphous collection of written sources with no discernible iconic significance (...)". 8 7 Jaffee's belief in the largely written nature of rabbinic traditions and his limitation of orality to the transmission and propagation of already written texts seems too categorical, though. With the exception of variant versions of (parts of) the Mishnah and a few story collections, in amoraic times written rabbinic traditions probably consisted only of occasional notebook entries, letters, and graffiti on walls. As already pointed out above, neither entries in wax tablet notebooks or on scraps of papyrus or parchment, nor letters on tablets or papyrus would usually be kept. 88 Since the advantage of the wax tablet was its multiple usage, notes and letters on such tablets would almost certainly be erased. Papyrus letters which contained important informations were probably sometimes kept, but since the Yerushalmi does not provide any evidence of an amoraic plan to edit a collection of amoraic commentaries on the Mishnah, i.e. a Talmud Yerushalmi, but, on the contrary, transmits probihitions against writing down traditions, one must assume that no particular attempts at preserving, storing, and systematically collecting such written scraps were made. In view of the lack of such a systematic preservation and collection it is most likely that the large majority of even those traditions which were actually written down had perished by the time the Yerushalmi was edited. 89 Therefore Jaffee's assumption that the 84

See Jaffee (1997) 534 n. 9. For the "interpénétration" of oral and written modes in rabbinic culture see also idem (1992), (1994), and (1998); with regard to aggadah see Shinan (1981). 85 Jaffee (1997) 534. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 536. Similarly Finkelstein reckoned with "shorthand notes, by which much of our tannaitic tradition was preserved during the centuries before it was completely edited and put into writing" (115). He suggests, however, that "the notes were used more frequently for informal aggadic study, than for that of the more formal halaka" (ibid.). 88 See section I.2.C above. 89 On the editing of the Yerushalmi see Hezser (1998b) 581-641. On the possibly written sources which the editors used see Becker (1999) 153-54. Becker's assumption that the Yerushalmi was not properly edited but came into being through a "natural" agglomeration of

204

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

larger part of the "Oral Torah" actually existed in writing seems to overstate the matter.90 The largely oral transmission of rabbinic traditions does not mean that the exact wording of these traditions was memorized and preserved from one generation of students to the next. Despite occasional references to the memorization of traditions and their significance as a memorial for one's teacher,91 it is most unlikely that traditions were repeated verbatim over centuries. 92 Jocelyn Penny Small has stressed the importance of memory for the processes of composition and organization of writing in antiquity: "Memory became the classical means of cognitively organizing and, most significantly, retrieving words".93 Accordingly, "training in memory was an integral part of the educational curriculum by the time of the Romans", 94 and the "need for better memory techniques increased in step with the increase in written texts".95 Works were composed on the basis of both written and memorized notes, 96 and memory played a "paramount role ... in the actual process of composing in antiquity".97 While sometimes using occasional scraps of written notes, authors and editors basically dictated to a scribe what they had composed in their heads. 98 Written notes played only a minor and subordinate role: "The idea of an ancient equivalent of modern note cards is totally misguided". 99 traditions over hundreds of years is very unlikely, though. It would have been practically impossible, since the rabbinic movement was not centrally organized and had no central archives or libraries where such a project could have taken place. 90 See also Reif 146: "Turning to the evidence of Hebrew codicology, one finds an almost total absence of Hebrew manuscripts between the second and the ninth centuries and it is unlikely that this is to be attributed to historical accident. More convincing would be the theory that the dominant tendency during these centuries was the oral one and that it was only with the expansion of the use of the codex, ..., that the trend was reversed".The largely oral nature of the rabbinic tradition in tannaitic and amoraic times is also stressed by Elman (ms.). 91 See, e.g., y. Git. 6:1,47d: The quotation of a statement attributed to R. Huna in the name of Rav is followed by: "Shmuel heard [this teaching] from him and repeated it forty times"; y. Sheq. 2:5, 47a: "It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: They do not make sepulchers for the righteous. Their teachings are their memorial". 92 For the memorizing of traditions in rabbinic society see Zlotnick (1984-85) 229-41. 93 Small 71. 94 Ibid. 136. 95 Ibid. 137. 96 See ibid. 178. 97 Ibid. 181. See ibid. 18Iff. for the way in which works were composed orally and then dictated to a scribe. 98 See ibid. 182: "Dictating to a scribe what one has composed in one's head continued as the norm until the fourteenth century AD, ... This generalization does not mean that some did not write first on wax tablets or papyrus. It means merely that most composed this way most of the time". 99 Ibid. 188. Ibid. 188 f. she explains why this was so: Sherds or tablets could not be easily sorted into stacks and organized in a satisfying way; one would not be able to find the correct note or fitting texts amongst hundreds or thousands of scraps or within many rolls. See also Ong (1987) 15: "... the use of notes was always exceedingly cumbersome by modern standards in a culture where paper was unknown: wax-surfaced wooden tablets and stiff, bulky

4. Religion and

Literacy

205

People were used to rely on their memory rather than to consult texts: "Because of the classical training in mnemotechnics, Greeks and Romans trusted their memories to an extent that we would never trust ours today". 100 This does not mean that their memory was accurate, though. Small points out that without tape-recorders and shorthand writers accurate reports of spoken words were probably impossible. 101 In any case, in the ancient world people had a different notion of what constituted "truth": "the ancient standard of 'accuracy' is 'gist'... Studies of natural memory have demonstrated that we are incredibly good at remembering gist and just as incredibly bad at remembering verbatim". 102 The consequences of relying on memory are streamlining of the material, conflation of similar items, chronological compression and dislocation, as well as fabrication of details. 103 These phenomena are as obvious in rabbinic literature as they are in Plutarch's writings. 104 The rabbis, just like Plutarch, "would make inferences based on 'gist', on what should have happened, even if it did not". 105 Small's study of ancient oral composition techniques should warn against the assumption that rabbinic works are based on an oral tradition which was transmitted verbatim over centuries, as well as against the belief that the editors merely collected and rearranged a large body of written scraps and pieces. In both tannaitic and amoraic times the large majority of rabbinic knowledge will have existed in oral form, while for the composition of rabbinic documents the occasional written notes and collections may have been used. 106 The oral tradition must be seen as a constantly changing adaptation and reformulation of earlier teachings in the context of new conditions, a development which was only brought to a halt with the writing down of a selection of that accumulated knowledge. Once they were written down, traditions could not be reformulated parchments are not so manageable as paper notebooks and, indeed, are not even very readily portable". 100 Small 189. 101 See ibid. 192. 102 Ibid. See also Ong (1987) 12: "Oral utterances do not have originals quite as texts do ... The quest for an 'original' utterance in this real, oral setting is quixotic, for each utterance emerges not simply from an earlier utterance but from a new new [sic!] existential context". Cf. Kelber 30: The search for an "original form" is evidence of the "bias of textuality and ignorance of oral behavior": "The concepts of original form and variants have no validity in oral life, nor does the one of ipsissima vox, if by that one means the authentic version over against secondary ones". 103 See Small 193. 104 For the evidence of these phenomena in Plutarch's writings see ibid. 105 See ibid. 195 with reference to Plutarch. The entire issue of the composition of rabbinic documents needs to be reexamined on the basis of new studies of ancient composition techniques. 106 Similar considerations have been applied to the early Christian tradition by Werner Kelber: "The concept of a predominantly oral phase is not meant to dispense with the existence of notes and textual aids altogether. The Q tradition, other sayings collections, anthologies of short stories, parables, miracles, and the like could well have existed in written form. But many of these texts served as simple recording devices and will not have transcended an essentially oral state of mind" (23).

206

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

anymore but only reinterpreted, as evidenced by the way in which the amoraim reinterpreted the Mishnah, a process which eventually resulted in a new body of knowledge which, when written down, took the form of the Talmud Yerushalmi. 107 A characteristic of the oral tradition is its heterogeneity and the difficulty of perceiving contradictions. With regard to early Christian traditions Kelber writes: "Unattached to material surfaces, words flow freely, are repeated and adjusted, spoken one next to another, and yes, even set against each other ... It is, we shall see, a function of the written gospel to 'implode' this oral heterogeneity and to linearize oral randomness".' 0 8

The rabbinic tradition must be considered similarly heterogeneous, consisting of a plurality of partly overlapping and partly contradictory views. 109 In the oral stage contradictions will have been noticed in conversations only or one became aware of them through rumors and hearsay. They will not have mattered much, and one may not even have paid too much attention to them. Once various teachings were written down, however, the contradictions will have become all too obvious and attempts at harmonizing them will have set in. The basically oral nature of the rabbinic tradition was connected with the centrality of the sage as the embodiment of that tradition. Although anyone who had learned to read could give Torah lectures in synagogues and even illiterates could come and listen to these readings, access to the "true" knowledge of the Torah was possible only through the mediation of the sage as the "Torah incarnate". 110 At least from the third century C.E. onwards rabbis seem to have given weekly sermons in synagogues, 111 but these sermons will have provided a very superficial knowledge only. They probably focussed on the rabbis' own values and ideals rather than explaining the actual contents of the Torah. 112 A more thorough rabbinic instruction was available only to a select few, through discipleship and service to a sage. Only the rabbi was sophisticated enough to notice and explain the complexities of the Torah and to guide and advise others in the religious way of life. Richard Gordon has suggested that in antiquity "writing offered a sovereign means of institutionalizing unintelligibility". 113 Commentaries only complicated 107 Kelber, 29, stresses the significance of the selection process which is characteristic for oral transmission and the eventual writing down of the tradition: "There must have been a multitude of words, sayings, and stories that never appeared in our gospels. If a message is alien to an audience, or a matter of indifference, or socially unacceptable, it will not be continued in the form in which it was spoken. It will either have to be altered, that is, adjusted to prevailing social expectations, or eliminated altogether". He calls this process "preventive censorship". 108 Ibid. 31. 109 See Hezser (1997) 240-54. 110 Neusner (1985) 386. See also Jaffee (1997) 538; Hezser (1997) 459. 111 See Hezser (1997) 371. 112 On the nature of rabbinic midrash see below. 113 R. Gordon 189.

4. Religion and

Literacy

207

matters and increased the amount of unintelligible k n o w l e d g e by offering "pseudoe x p l a n a t i o n s " and "imaginary e t y m o l o g i e s " . 1 1 4 W h a t they did, h o w e v e r , w a s to s e c u r e the role o f t h o s e w h o participated in this d i s c o u r s e : "All s o - c a l l e d traditional s o c i e t i e s p r o d u c e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e s e l f - a p p o i n t e d task it is to think through r e l i g i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s or to construct their o w n c o s m o l o g i e s " . 1 1 5 B y creating the s o - c a l l e d Oral Torah as an a c c o m p a n i m e n t to the written Torah, the rabbis m a d e t h e m s e l v e s i n d i s p e n s a b l e as the "true" guardians o f the written Torah's m e a n i n g and as the o n l y g u i d e s to a T o r a h - o b s e r v a n t l i f e . 1 1 6 In the d e v e l o p m e n t o f rabbinic thought the actual text o f the B i b l e s e e m s to h a v e p l a y e d a merely subordinate role, a role w h i c h can o n l y b e determined retrospectively, o n the b a s i s of the extant literary w o r k s . Edward Shils has stressed that i n n o v a t i o n is a c o m m o n f o r m of relating to the k n o w l e d g e o f the past: " . . . in those categories of human activities which attract persons of strong intelligence and imagination, it [traditional knowledge] is not likely to be held very long in the exact pattern in which it was received. Even a sacred text or a somewhat less sacred commentary, committed to memory and supported by a written version, cannot remain wholly intact ... If it is a moral or legal code, ..., the very attempt by a p o w e r f u l mind to understand it better will entail the discernment of hitherto unseen problems which will require new formulations; these will entail varying degrees of modification. Attempts to m a k e them applicable to particular cases will also enforce modifications. Such modifications of the received occur even when the tradition is regarded as sacrosanct and the innovator might in good conscience insist that he is adhering to the traditions as r e c e i v e d " . " 7 S h i l s is q u o t e d at l e n g t h here b e c a u s e his c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s e e m to c i r c u m s c r i b e the rabbis' relation to the Torah very w e l l . T h e earliest literary w o r k o f rabbinic J u d a i s m , the M i s h n a h , is a c o l l e c t i o n o f rabbinic r e g u l a t i o n s w h i c h are neither directly d e r i v e d f r o m Scripture nor arr a n g e d as a c o m m e n t a r y to it. A s N e u s n e r has p o i n t e d out, the M i s h n a h is the e x p r e s s i o n o f a s p e c i f i c a l l y rabbinic w o r l d - v i e w and w a y o f l i f e w h i c h has n o real p r e c e d e n t s in Scripture or e l s e w h e r e , neither in f o r m nor c o n t e n t . 1 1 8 In a 114

Ibid. Ibid. 116 See ibid. 191 with regard to Roman society and pagan religion: "The process can be understood as one which transformed an originally common cognitive project into an essentially arbitrary set of rules whose primary effect was to perpetuate élite control over the system". Concerning the rabbis, Green (1989) 16 writes: With the Oral Torah the rabbis "asserted their singular mastery over - indeed, their exclusive right to manipulate - the sacred artifact they deemed the emblem of Israel's identity". 117 Shils 45. Eric Hobsbawm's concept of "invented traditions" seems to point into the same direction: "'Traditions' which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented" (1). By "invented traditions" he means "a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past". 118 See Neusner (1982) 111: "... little in the actual contents of the document evoked the character or the moral authority of the written Torah of Moses", and ibid. 140: "Formally, 115

208

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

wider sense, however, the Mishnah can be viewed as a rabbinic "response to the Torah": it presents itself as a collection of revealed knowledge that can ultimately be traced back to Moses at Sinai and claims the same authority for itself. 119 The Mishnah does not need to cite Scripture because it "stands on the same plane". 120 The other way of relating to Scripture was the formal, exegetical one exemplified in Midrash. While the extent Midrashim are organized as commentaries on certain biblical books or passages, in Midrash, too, the actual relationship of the rabbinic exegesis to the scriptural base text is often very loose. In Leviticus Rabbah, for example, the rabbinic editors "laid down their own topical program, related to, but essentially autonomous of, that of the Book of Leviticus". 121 Rather than explaining the meaning of the biblical text, "the framers said what they wished to say in their own way - just as the authors of the Mishnah itself'. 1 2 2 The Torah merely provided a treasure-trove of symbols, events, personages, patterns, and keywords which the rabbis used to create their own understanding of the world. 123 They came up with new values, ideals, and regulations which were not the mere outcome of scriptural study but an expression of their very own ideology. Even the rabbinic usage of and relation to Scripture indicates the basically artefactual status of the Torah in ancient Judaism. The Torah was primarily seen "as a holy object, a thing to be venerated", not as a text in the form of a fixed discourse that could simply be read and interpreted. 124 Green has suggested that the lack of vowels played a significant role in this regard: Since the Torah lacked vowels, it contained no discourse and remained indeterminate. 125 "Because it was a holy artifact", however, "the Torah-writing by definition was heavy with significance; it was meaning-full". 126 This means that the rabbis could attach their own meanings and ideology to its very letters and words. 127 These considerations should suffice to show that the "book religion" model is insufficient as a description of post-exilic Judaism. For the large majority of the population the Torah had a symbolic and artefactual value only. Even though the redactionally, and linguistically the Mishnah stands in splendid isolation from Scripture". For a discussion of the relationship of the Mishnah to Scripture see ibid. 139-47. 119 See ibid. 14If. 120 Ibid. 142. For the relationship between Mishnah and Scripture see also Sarason's examination of the law of tithing in Seder Zeraim. He concludes: "The Mishnaic law of tithing begins in Scripture's facts and conceptions, but has its own distinctive interests and thrusts" (89). 121 Neusner (1989) 168. 122 Ibid. 123 Cf. ibid. 171. 124 Green 14. 125 See ibid. 126 Ibid. 127 Cf. ibid. 13: Numerous rules and regulations could be deduced from the mere occurance or repetition of certain letters and words.

4. Religion and

Literacy

209

rabbis did study the Torah, they were no monks who constantly pondered over ancient texts. They were concerned with practice and ritual, with developing their own rules and answers to the problems posed by everyday life. As Green has correctly pointed out, it "is misleading to depict rabbinic Judaism primarily as the consequences of an exegetical process or the organic unfolding of scripture". 128 Just like the ancient Christians, the rabbis basically developed a new form of religion in which, on the surface, the Torah was the "paradigm and prototype", 129 but it was actually "subordinated in the deep structure" of rabbinic thinking. 130

B. The Magical

Use of Writing

A number of scholars have already stressed the difficulties involved in defining magic and in separating it from religion proper. 131 The scholarly consensus today is to see magic as an integral part of religion, as a way of establishing contact with superhuman powers, which supplemented other forms of religious expression. 132 As such, it should not be judged as inferior to "intellectual" forms of religion or associated with the illiterate lower classes only. 133 Veltri has suggested that our negative view of magic (just as our positive view of the so called "book religions") is often based on a Protestant attitude towards religion, which is also noticeable amongst the representatives of the nineteenth century Wissenschaft des JudentumsP4 Magic has a long tradition within Near Eastern religions in general and Judaism in Palestine in particular. 135 Its academic study is only in its infancy. 136 Of the various forms of magic only the magical use of writing will be discussed here, and only in a preliminary way. 137 As already pointed out in the previous chapter, the Torah itself was considered a holy object and had obtained artefactual status 128

Ibid. 10. See ibid. 11. 130 Cf. Neusner (1984) 29. Green, 8, suggests that the book religion model "has a powerful intuitive plausibility in a culture in which religion is conceived largely in Protestant terms". 131 See, e.g., Swartz (1996) 19 and ibid. n. 64 with references to further studies; Veltri (1997) 1 - 2 and 18-20. 132 See Swartz (1996) 20: "Indeed, to separate or rank magic in opposition to religion not only misstates their relationship, but limits the sphere of religion, which can encompass the use of ritual power for the individual's needs". 133 See especially Schafer (1992) 159 with regard to Hekhalot literature. 134 See Veltri (1997) 19. 135 See Schiffman/Swartz 22: The Jewish magical tradition "has its roots in the biblical period, Hellenistic Late Antiquity, and the period of classical Rabbinic literature". Naveh/ Shaked (1993) 20 argue against the traditional view, represented by Blau, that magic was more prominent in Babylonia than in Palestine. 136 See Schafer (1990) 75 ff. 137 The magical use of writing deserves a much more detailed study which cannot be accomplished in this context. 129

210

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

by the first c. C.E. already. This belief in the sacredness of the Torah seems to have sometimes led to a magical understanding of the power inherent in the biblical text itself, in scriptural verses, the Divine name, or letters representing that name, whether in the form of Torah scrolls, mezuzot, tefillin, amulets, or tatoos on one's skin. A few rabbinic texts indicate a "magical" usage of Torah scrolls. M. Sanh. 2:4 (cf. T. Sanh. 4:7) rules that an Israelite king should possess a personal Torah scroll and take it with him wherever he goes: "[When] he goes out to war, he takes it with him; when he comes back, he brings it back with him; when he sits in court, it is with him; when he reclines, it is in front of him".

This ruling seems to imply that the Torah scroll was believed to possess protective and inspirational powers, that its mere presence in war and court situations would make a king victorious and just. The first part ("[When] he goes to war, he takes it with him") resembles the practice of soldiers in the English civil war, who carried Bibles in their pockets as a protection against bullets, as Cressy has pointed out: "The implication in all these cases is that the power of the Bible lay not simply in its text, to be unlocked by rigorous exegesis, but rather in its ineffable holiness, its sacred magic. The Bible as an object, symbolizing and encapsulating the word of God, was believed to do duty comparable to or superior to the Scripture as text". 138 In the Mishnah the following scriptural quotation is attached to the abovequoted ruling: "And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life" (Deut. 17:19). The editors may have cited this verse to correct a magical understanding, by suggesting that not the scroll itself but the king's study of it would be beneficial to him. Yet the very necessity of this correction indicates that a magical understanding of the ruling was possible, and that the editors were interested in preventing it. The following story transmitted in y. Taan. 3:8, 66d also seems to hint at the belief in the protective power of Torah scrolls and at the same time indicates rabbinic opposition to such a magical understanding: "[Concerning] Levi b. Sisi, troops [mD"3n] came to his town. He took a scroll of the Torah and went up to the top of the roof. He said: 'Lord of the worlds [or: ages]. If I have neglected a single word from this book of the Torah [NrPTIK I S O ] , let them c o m e up against us, and if not, let them g o away!' Immediately [people] looked for them but did not find them. His student did so [too], his hand withered [ i T T ri2G n ], but they went away. A student of his student did so [too], his hand did not wither, but they did not go away." 1 3 9 138

Cressy (1986) 99. The story is written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. While the narrative introduction is in Hebrew, from Levi b. Sisi's speech onwards the story continues in Aramaic. Therefore it is probably of amoraic origin. The proverb which follows the story after the introductory formula "A fool cannot be insulted, and the skin of the dead does not feel the scalpel", seems to have been secondarily attached to an originally independent tradition. 139

4. Religion and

Literacy

211

In this story, Levi b. Sisi is said to have sworn an oath by the scroll of the Torah. He could have sworn the same oath inside a building and without the presence of the scroll itself. The reference to Levi b. Sisi taking the scroll to the roof of his house, a synagogue, or the highest building in town may suggest that the roof (like a mountain) was believed to bring the rabbi closer to God and that the scroll functioned as a mediator between them, meant to make his oath more powerful and to elicit God's response. 140 The wording of the oath, in which Levi b. Sisi refers to his observance of the Torah, and the continuing narrative, which makes clear that the rabbi's piety caused God to divert the enemy, counteract an understanding which attributes supernatural power to the Torah scroll itself. Such an understanding is exemplified by later generations of students' attempts to imitate the ritual act. While Levi b. Sisi's immediate student was still able to obtain the same result, probably because he resembled his master in his piety, the more removed generations of students were unable to achieve their goal, probably because they believed in the effectiveness of the mere ritual itself. The withering of the hands of both students, in contrast to Levi b. Sisi whose hand remained intact, may indicate that the students died during the act,141 or that the scroll, when it was touched by someone whose piety was imperfect, did harm to the person rather than protecting him. A rabbinic attempt to counteract popular belief in the potency of Torah scrolls to bring about healing is transmitted in y. Shab. 6:2, 8b par. y. Er. 10:11, 26c: "If s o m e o n e said: ' C o m e and recite this verse over my son, b e c a u s e he is s u f f e r i n g ' ; ' P u t a scroll on h i m ' ; ' P u t phylacteries on h i m so that h e will b e able to s l e e p ' , it is forbidden".142

In the present Talmudic context it is not entirely clear whether the statement is meant to forbid such an action on the Sabbath only or on any day of the week. Taken by itself, the general prohibition is obvious, however. That rabbis found it necessary to utter such a prohibition indicates that a magical usage of both Torah scrolls and phylacteries was common amongst the populace. Whether it was also widespread, we do not know. With regard to Diaspora synagogues Shaye Cohen has suggested that they may sometimes have attracted non-Jewish visitors because the presence of holy scrolls gave them a numinous quality.143 Whether such a notion also motivated some Jews in Roman Palestine to visit synagogues cannot be ascertained but is at least possible. Amongst the remains of the Torah shrine in the apse of the sixth 140 Cf. Cressy (1986) 98 with reference to swearing on the Bible in seventeenth-century New England: "What was important was the public acknowledgement of the power of the volume to amplify and sanctify an oath". 141 The withering of hands is usually associated with the dead, see Jastrow, Dictionary, 562. 142 Cressy (1986) 99 points to Augustine's description of the early Christian practice of laying the gospel of John on the heads of those who suffered from a fever. 143 S.J.D. Cohen (1987b) 164 with reference to John Chrysostom, cf. ibid. 176 n. 17.

212

Part I: The Conditions

for the Development

of

Literacy

century C.E. synagogue of Maon/Nirim nineteen bronze amulets inscribed in Aramaic and Hebrew have been found. 144 They were probably placed or suspended there by people who believed that the closeness of the Torah would render the amulets more effective. David Cressy has shown that even in seventeenth-century New England, "in a religious culture set firm against superstition, the physical bound volume possessed some of the attributes of a religious icon or talisman". 145 It was the "unusual handling, devout care, and special public presentation" of the Bible which evoked such sentiments. 146 The phenomenon that the Torah was written in Hebrew and on parchment scrolls when the common language was Aramaic and papyrus was generally used for literary purposes, as well as the ritual presentation of Torah scrolls in synagogues and the regulations concerning its proper handling, all of the elements which distinguished Torah scrolls from other books, could easily provoke the belief in their supernatural potency. Amongst the Protestants of seventeenth-century New England, irrespective of whether they could read and despite the protests of the Puritan clergy, the Bible "was subject to a multitude of irregular uses". 147 It was, for example, employed "for swearing oaths, making decisions, predicting the future, and warding off devils. It could be imagined as a shield or a weapon, or used as a talisman or totem". 148 People are even described "carrying a Bible on a pole, like a legionary standard, when they went to dispute with their reprobate neighbours". 149 Accordingly, the Bible "served as an inspirational emblem and as a weapon, even without the necessity of being opened". 150 In contrast to seventeenth-century New England, where relatively many people will have possessed a copy of the Bible, one may assume that in Roman Palestine only a few rabbis and wealthy Jews will have owned Torah scrolls or been able to borrow them from relatives or friends. 151 Consequently, the rareness of Torah scrolls will have increased their holiness in the eyes of the populace. At the same time the magical usage of Torah scrolls would have been hampered by their costliness and relative unavailability. Two of the rabbinic traditions discussed above (M. Sanh. 2:4/T. Sanh. 4:7; y. Taan. 3:8, 66d) associate kings and rabbis with Torah scrolls. Israelite kings and rabbis, who were the most likely owners of such scrolls, were expected to know how to handle them. In their hands, even a usage which might look like magic would not really be considered magic, since they were already believed to stand in a special relationship to God. The common folk, however, which lacked such distinction, would have to rely 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

See Fine 33. Cressy (1986) 92. Ibid. Ibid. 94. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. See section I.2.D.

4. Religion and Literacy

213

on the power of the Torah itself. Such a usage of the Torah would be considered plain magic and therefore forbidden, as the ruling in y. Shab. 6:2, 8b par. y. Er. 10:11, 26c, quoted above, suggests. For magical purposes ancient Jews had alternatives to Torah scrolls in the form of mezuzot and tefillin which, although perhaps not believed to be as efficient as Torah scrolls, were probably cheaper to buy and easier to handle. According to Meir Bar-Ilan, the connection between the functions (and sometimes also the material forms) of tefillin, mezuzot, and amulets is immediately obvious. 152 Other scholars have pointed to the differences between the three types of religious objects containing writing. Concerning the mezuzah, Martin L. Gordon has argued that the first biblical passage on which the later rabbinic mitzvat mezuzah is based (Deut. 6:4-9) points to an instructional rather than a protective role: "The function of mezuzah, together with that of tefillin, is to arouse the religious consciousness, just as diligently teaching 'these words' to one's children". 153 In the second passage (Deut. 11:13-21) benefits are promised for a life according to the Divine commandments in general. He concludes: "In this light, recourse to mezuzah as a device for self-protection is a distortion of its fundamental purpose". 154 In his opinion, neither do rabbinic references provide evidence of a protective perception of the mezuzah.155 Only in post-talmudic times is a mystical understanding of the mezuzah noticeable in some of the literary sources. 156 Eva-Maria Jansson has also emphasized that the earliest references to the mezuzah in the Mishnah and Tosefta present its affixing on doors as a mitzvah, the fulfilment of a religious commandment. At the same time, however, rabbinic sources provide "clues to an understanding of the apotropaic notion - that is, the belief in the mezuzah as protective and avertive". 157 This apotropaic understanding of the mezuzah increased in gaonic times. 158 It was based on the popular fear of diseases and demons, on the biblical passages' reference to life or longevity as a reward of the mitzvah, and on the object itself: "Since ultimately Torah is the life-bringer and the mezuzah is a scroll containing words of Torah (...), this combination might easily have led to the perception of it as a Torah scroll in miniature - a representative of the life-bringing Torah". 159 Finally, the location on the door is indicative of a protective function: The threshold as the transition between the public and private domain would be the place where symbolic guardians of the house and its inhabitants would commonly be affixed. 160 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

See Bar-Ilan (1984-85) 379. See also Goodenough 209-210. M.L. Gordon 9. Ibid. 10. See the discussion of the relevant texts ibid. 11-21. See ibid. 17-18. Jansson 52. See ibid. 58. Ibid. 61. See ibid. The entrance to private homes had a special meaning, and special rituals and

214

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

A n apotropaic understanding of the mezuzah is already evident in tannaitic sources. The Mekhilta transmits the f o l l o w i n g comment on Ex. 12:23: '"The Lord will pass over the door' [Ex. 12:23]: behold, these matters [may be explained by an argument] qal vachomer. If with respect to the blood of the passover offering [prepared in] Egypt, which is the lighter one [bp], ... it is said: 'And he will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to slay you ...' [cont.], the mezuzah, which is more weighty [¡THOn], in that it bears the particular name of God ten times, applies both by day and by night, and is customary through generations, how much more so is it the case that [the words apply]: 'And he will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to slay you'?" (Mekh. Pisha 11) Here the custom of affixing a mezuzah at the doors of one's house is connected with and declared more important than the blood of the passover offerings, with which the doors and upper thresholds of the Israelites' houses were to be marked in order to protect them against being mistakenly included in God's vengeance against the Egyptians (Ex. 12:7,13). The greater importance of the mezuzah was due to the writing which it contained, specifically the repeated writing of the D i v i n e name. The apotropaic function of the mezuzah also seems to be implied in the story about R. Yehudah ha-Nasi and the Parthian king Artaban, transmitted in y. Peah 1:1, 15d: "Artaban 161 sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuzah. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is [only] worth one.follis\ He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something which I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep ~[0"T n'TQ "[b rntD3D Rim], as it is written: 'When you walk, it will lead you, [when you lie down, it will watch over you]' [Prov. 6:22]". Gordon reads the issues of the context into the story when suggesting that Rabbi's statement in the story points to "the enlightening spiritual effect of the words of the Torah, represented by and articulated within the passages of the mezuzah".162 While M. Peah 1:1 and the literary context of the story in the Yerushalmi emphasize the importance of Torah study, the story deals with the mezuzah as a precious object and a symbolic representative of the Torah. The preciousness of the mezuzah is obvious only to a person who, like Rabbi, believes in its protective power. The story is clear evidence of the phenomenon that even rabbis attributed apotropaic symbols were connected with it in antiquity. Pagans believed that particular gods watched over the threshold. See Hezser (1998a) 509 for references. 161 The Parthian king Artabanos V. (213-224) is referred to here, cf. Gen. R. 35:3 (TheodorAlbecked. p. 333) andb. A.Z. lOb-lla. Inb.A.Z. 10b-l la Artaban is mentioned together with Rav, and his relationship with Rav is compared with Antoninus' relationship with Rabbi: "Antoninus served Rabbi and Artaban served Rav. When Antoninus died, Rabbi said: The bond is loosened. When Artaban died, Rav said: The bond is loosened". 162 M.L. Gordon 13.

4. Religion and Literacy

215

to the mezuzah an apotropaic function, probably not only when explaining its meaning to outsiders. 163 Gordon also points to a passage in Targum Pseudo-Yonathan (Deut. 20:5) in this regard, but again dismisses its apotropaic meaning: "Who is the man who has built a new house, but has not affixed a mezuzah thereby completing it, let him go and return to his house, lest he incur guilt thereby and die in battle, and another man complete it". 164

According to Gordon, "the severe implications of an unaffixed mezuzah are depicted even in this passage in providential terms, as retribution by God for an unfulfilled obligation, not in terms of any protective potency within the mezuzahobject". 165 While a rabbi could understand the passage this way, a person who believed in the inherent power of the mezuzah would find his belief equally supported by the text: the negligence of affixing a mezuzah at the door of one's house is said to result in death and defeat. The passage is reminiscent of M. Sanh. 2:4, quoted above, which advises an Israelite king to carry a Torah scroll with him in battle, although, in contrast to the scroll, the mezuzah is meant to stay at home. Gordon presents the "correct" rabbinic view only and seems to assume that everyone shared it when writing: "The protective view is rooted, of course, in a belief in shedim (malevolent spirits), a popular phenomenon in the talmudic period. However, even where they may have shared the common belief in the demonic, the rabbis of the Talmud never permitted the function of mitsvot to be interpreted in these terms. Chazal clearly separated the realm of religion from that of the occult". 166 It is unlikely however, that every ancient Jew understood the mezuzah in this way. Torah scholars may have stressed that the affixing of the mezuzah was a mitzvah and that the fulfillment of this mitzvah, not the object itself, had beneficial consequences. They may also have emphasized that the mezuzah was meant as a reminder of God's commandments and every Jew's obligation to fulfill them, that it ultimately pointed to Torah study. Yet the ordinary person who was afraid of diseases and believed in the power of demons, who wanted to protect the private sphere of his home from the ills of the world, such a person would not care much about the subtleties of a scholarly understanding of the custom. The custom to affix mezuzot at the door of one's house was probably more widespread than the use of tefillin, not only because rabbis generally exempted women, slaves, and minors from the latter practice (see M. Ber. 3:3; but cf. T. 163 Jansson, 55-58, compares the Yerushalmi version of the story with the version transmitted in the She'iltot of R. Acha Gaon of Babylonia, composed in the eighth century, which adds an example for the mezuzah's protective powers: When Artaban attached the mezuzah to his door, a demon, which had taken possession of his only daughter, fled immediately. 164 Translation with M.L. Gordon 20. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 22.

216

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

Hag. 1:2 and Mekh. Pisha 17). The statement attributed to R. Meir in T. Ber. 6:25, "There is no man in Israel who is not surrounded by commandments: tefillin on his head, tefillin on his arm, a mezuzah on his doorpost", is certainly exaggerated and an expression of rabbinic wishful thinking rather than a description of reality. Haberman has suggested that only prominent rabbis and their adherents wore tefillin in antiquity,167 and some of them would wear them only occasionally.168 Y. Ber. 2:3, 4c transmits a discussion of individual rabbis' practices concerning tefillin,169 R. Yochanan b. Zakkai, who "never took off his tefillin, not in the summer, not in the winter" (ibid.), was obviously considered exceptional. As in the case of the mezuzah, the term tefillin does not appear in the Bible but only in the Mishnah, the Targums, and later literature.170 Four biblical passages (Ex. 13:9,16; Deut. 6:8, 11:18) mention a "sign" (mfc) to be put on one's hand and mSCDICD or a ]1~DT to be worn between the eyes on one's forehead, but the words are not explained and the ruling not further specified. 171 M. Men. 3:7 (cf. y. Sanh. 11:5-6, 30b) rules that four biblical texts should be written on the tefillin, but in rabbinic times different views concerning the number and identity of these passages seem to have prevailed. 172 Haberman argues that the tefillin of some people, whom rabbis considered heretics, contained the ten commandments only.173 Since tefillin contained the name of God and - in contrast to the mezuzah would be carried around, rules similar to those meant to protect Torah scrolls from profanation applied to them. For example, T. Ber. 2:20 rules that "one who enters a bathhouse, at a place where people stand dressed, ..., he may put on his tefillin, and, needless to say, he need not remove them [if he entered the bathhouse wearing them]; at a place where people stand naked, ..., he removes his tefillin, and, needless to say, he does not put them on". 174 If one finds tefillin in the public domain on the Sabbath, one is allowed to bring them into the house (M. Er. 10:1). Even the capsules of tefillin must be saved, just as the containers in 167

On the other hand, one could understand Mekh. Pisha 17 to mean that rabbis did not need to wear tefillin, and that others would wear them instead of and as a substitute for the study of the Torah: ' " A n d for a memorial sign between your eyes, that the Torah of God be in your mouth' - On the basis of this [verse] they say: Whoever puts on tefillin is as if he reads in the Torah, and whoever reads in the Torah is exempt from the [custom of putting on] tefillin". 168 See Haberman 175. 169 The text has a parallel in Pes.R. 22:5. 170 See Haberman 174. 171 See ibid. 172 See ibid. The four passages are the texts which, according to M. Tamid 5:1, the priests read in the Temple: Ex. 20:2-17 (the ten commandments), Deut. 6 : 4 - 9 (the Shema), Deut. 11:13-21, and Num. 15:37-41. According to M. Sanh. 5:1, some people would include five passages, i.e. one additional text. See also the discussions in Mekh. Pisha 17 and 18. 173 See ibid. 174-75, with reference to y. Ber. 1:5, 3c, Sifre Deut. 35 (on Deut. 6:8), Jerome's commentary on Ez. 24:15(17), and tefillin found at Qumran. 174 Cf. y. Ber. 2:3, 4c, and Jacobs (1998a) 2 4 6 - 4 8 on this text.

4. Religion and

Literacy

217

which Torah scrolls are stored (M. Shab. 16:1). Like Torah scrolls, tefillin are to be kept at the head of one's bed, not at its foot (y. Ber. 3:5, 6d). Mekh. Pisha 17 contains a long discussion of the proper ways in which tefillin should be worn. According to an oppinion attributed to Meyasha, the grandson of R. Yehoshua b. Levi, in y. Ber. 2:3,4c, one should put tefillin into a pouch and place them near one's heart. 175 The reference to "circular" tefillin [ i n ' r s n i"I2?in n^lJiy] in M. Meg. 4:8 may indicate that some individuals wore the biblical texts written on a band tied in a half-circle around their foreheads. 176 Thus, amongst those who did put on tefillin, the customs of how to wear them seem to have differed, and the meanings attached to the practice will likewise have been diverse. While rabbis understood tefillin as a symbol of the Torah and a reminder of the duty to study the biblical text (cf. Sifre Deut. 44, Finkelstein ed. p. 103), one may imagine that there were others who attached an apotropaic significance to the practice, similar to that of the mezuzah. Meir Bar-Ilan has argued that Jews would also write apotropaic signs, letters, words, and names on their bodies in ancient times. 177 Ez. 9:4 refers to marks on the foreheads of the righteous, which were meant to protect them, i.e. had apotropaic functions. Bar-Ilan assumes that the sign which the righteous bore consisted of the last letter of the old Hebrew alphabet (n), which may have had the form of a + or x, and symbolized the name of God. 178 Such a sign is also mentioned several times in the Apocalypse of John (Ape. 7:3-4,9:4,14:1,20:4), where its function seems to be the same as in Ez. 9:4, a text probably known to the author of the Ape. 179 Cross signs also appear on some Jewish ossuaries, where they seem to have had an apotropaic function. 180 According to Gen. 4:15, "the Lord put a mark on Cain" [niK j ' p b 'PI Gen. R. 22:12 (Theodor-Albeck ed. p. 219) provides several explanations, all of which understand JTIK to mean "sign" rather than "letter". Shinan points out, however, that an alternative explanation existed in ancient Jewish sources, namely to understand PIN to mean one of the letters of the name of God.181 Targum Jonathan translates Gen. 4:15 with KOEj ]0 « n » f p l 12N; bi) 'H DEH1 NTp1"). While Vermes translated this sentence with, "And the Lord traced a sign on the face of Cain, the great and glorious name", Shinan thinks that this trans175 In the context of the ongoing discussion, this suggestion applies to the time when one enters a water closet. But the tradition may have had a more general meaning before having been included in the talmudic context. 176 See Haberman, 176-77, for references. 177 See Bar-Ilan (1987-88) 37ff. 178 See ibid. 37. 179 In addition, Ape. 22:4 states that "his [i.e. Christ's] name will be written on their foreheads". The Great Whore is said to bear the name "Babylon" on her forehead (17:5), whereas Christ "had a name written which nobody knew, except for himself' (19:12). In 19:16 his garment has the inscription "king of kings and lord of lords". 180 See Kane's transcription of the Talpioth inscriptions in idem (1971) 103-8, against Sukenik's assumption that the inscriptions were Christian, in idem (1947) 351-65. 181 See Shinan (1975-76) 148.

218

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

lation is wrong and that the name itself should be seen as the "sign". 182 In later midrashic sources the sign on Cain is identified as one of the letters of the Divine name, meant to protect him from his enemies. 183 PRE 21 seems to associate the mark on Cain with tefillin when writing: "And he took one of the twenty-two letters which are in the Torah [i.e. in the alphabet] and wrote it on Cain's arm". The arm was also the place where one would affix tefillin.m The version of Targum Yonathan and later Midrashim referring to the writing of the name of God (or one of the letters representing that name) on one's skin may contain magical elements: according to Midr. Ps. 36:8, the name of God written on one's body protects a person in war.185 Shinan suggests that this understanding of Pltf may reflect a popular awareness of the hidden power of the Divine name, the power to protect and save its bearer, while some of the rabbis seem to have been opposed to such a belief. 186 The Mishnah also refers to the practice of writing on one's body. According to M. Shab. 12:3, "he who writes on his flesh [on the Sabbath] is liable. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, R. Eliezer declares him liable to a sin offering, and R. Yehoshua declares him exempt". 187 Elsewhere a particular type of bodywriting is specified: "He who writes a tattoo inscription [UpiJp i m r D I D ' - H r is only liable when "he writes and tatoos with ink, or with eye paint, or with anything which makes a lasting mark. R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: He is liable only if he will write the name of God [DtOil as it is written, ' ..., nor shall you tatoo any marks on you [DOD IDPH U p t f p m i r D I ] , I am the Lord' [Lev. 19:28]" (M. Mak. 3:6).

T. Mak. 4:15 (Zuckermandel ed. p. 443) further specifies or rather reinterprets the prohibition attributed to R. Shimon b. Yehudah in the name of R. Shimon: It is only forbidden to write the name of an idol on one's body, but not the name of God. Both texts can be considered evidence of the practice of tatooing one's body with the name of God, or letters of that name, and some rabbis' opposition to that practice. How widespread the custom was amongst Jews is impossible to determine, though. 188 Religious tattooing seems to have been practiced by an-

182

See ibid. 148-49, with reference to Vermes. See ibid. 149 with reference to Midrash Hagadol and Midrash Aggadah ad loc. 184 See ibid. 149 n. 8. 185 See ibid. 150. 186 See ibid, with reference to ARNA 12 (Schechter ed. p. 56: CnSOH OD2 iZJOntCDn b o fcOil p b n I1?. On the other hand, M. Taan. 3:8 states that Choni the circle-drawer swore by God's name (Vn:in JQI03). 187 See also T. Shab. 11:15 where a certain Ben Satra is said to have done so for learning purposes, since he was a "fool" and could not remember things. 188 Cf. Bar-Ilan (1987-88) 39-40. Bar-Ilan assume that even disciples of sages practiced this custom, in continuation of the ancient practice of the righteous to mark themselves, mentioned by Ez. 183

4. Religion and

Literacy

219

cient Egyptians and Syrians, but not by Greeks and Romans, who associated the practice with slaves and barbarians and considered it "a sign of degradation". 189 Bar-Ilan sees a close relationship between tatooing one's body, wearing tefillin, and attaching mezuzot at the doors of one's houses. All of these practices had apotropaic purposes. Deut. 6:8, "and fix it as a sign (Pl^b) on your hand", and Ex. 13:9, "and it shall be a sign for you on your hand", could easily be understood to mean that the writing should be done on the skin itself. 190 Whether the writing consisted of a letter, the name of God, or biblical passages, and whether it was done on skin or parchment did not really matter, for the meaning was the same: to indicate the bearer's belief in the power of God to watch over him and to save him from misfortune. 191 The possibly apotropaic significance of letters and alphabets in ancient Judaism has also been discussed in connection with the epigraphic evidence of alphabet inscriptions. Although the beginning of the apotropaic usage of the alphabet is unknown, Dornseiff supposes that the alphabets on early Greek vases, marble fragments, and walls of houses are unlikely to have had a merely ornamental function. 192 The large majority of the Jewish alphabet inscriptions from Roman Palestine are either on ostraca or ossuaries. 193 Most of them are written in Hebrew letters, while a few are in Greek. Against the opinion of earlier scholars who identified all of these inscriptions as writing exercises, Hachlili and Bij de Vaate have argued that at least some of these abecedaries could have had a magical significance for the Jews who wrote them or had them written for themselves. In her discussion of the partial Greek abecedaries (A - O/I) from a Jewish burial cave in Jericho (1st c. C.E.) and the Jewish cemetery at Bet She'arim (3rd4th c. C.E.) Hachlili has suggested to distinguish between alphabets on ostraca, which may have been scribal exercises, and those in funerary contexts. 194 In the Jericho burial cave the alphabet was found written on the inside of an ossuary lid which was not replaced but positioned so that the inscription would face the entrance. At Bet She'arim the alphabet was written on the arch of a passage between two burial chambers. 195 These locations indicate that the abecedaries had a special significance. Like similar abecedaries in pagan contexts, these Jewish exemplars will have had a magical and apotropaic function: the letters 189 On religious tattooing see C.P. Jones 144-45; on Graeco-Roman attitudes towards tattoos see ibid. 147 ff. 190 See Bar-Ilan (1987-88) 40. 191 See ibid. 41. For the discussion of similar references in Hekhalot literature see ibid. 4 2 50. 192 See Dornseiff 75-76. For a list of Graeco-Roman abecedary inscriptions see ibid. 158— 68. 193 See section 1.1 .B above. For a discussion of Jewish alphabet inscriptions from biblical times see Niditch 45-51. 194 See Hachlili (1984) 29-30. 195 See ibid. 27-29; Bij de Vaate 148-49.

220

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

were astrological symbols (oxoixeXa) meant to protect the deceased against evil spirits and demons which might disturb their eternal rest. 196 In the first centuries Jews seem to have shared the common ancient belief in the magical power of letters and employed them to their benefit. 197 To the two abecedary inscriptions in Jewish graves discussed by Hachlili Bij de Vaate has added a third, a complete Hebrew abecedary from Jewish graves in Khirbet Eitun (3rd-4th c. C.E.), written on the wall of a passage between two burial chambers, like the one at Bet She'arim just mentioned. 198 These alphabet inscriptions do not bear personal names and cannot be considered epitaphs. 199 Due to the funerary context, they are also unlikely to have been writing exercises or mere scribbles. 200 Bij de Vaate shares Hachlili's view that the three published alphabets in burial contexts had a magical meaning. 201 She stresses that "Judaism in the Graeco-Roman period was not an 'orthodox' self-contained monolith, and that, ..., the borderline between religion and magic was a faint one". 202 The alphabets may have been written to protect the graves against disturbances and/ or to ward off evil spirits. 203 "Though the exact objective which the authors had in mind, can only be surmised, it can be concluded that Jews shared with their contemporaries the belief that the alphabet could be used as an apotropaic means". 204 In view of the probably magical usage of the alphabet in funerary contexts one may also consider whether at least some of the alphabets on ostraca might have had a magical meaning rather than being mere scribal exercises. As already pointed out above, Bij de Vaate thinks that at least some of the ostraca with alphabets, found at Herodion and Murabba'at, may have served as amulets.205 The speculation about and symbolic explanation of individual letters was also part of the so-called letter mysticism ("Buchstabenmystik") which was widespread in the ancient world. 206 In ancient Christianity, for example, the Greek letters A and Q had a special significance. According to John Chrysostom, the A "held everything together" and was the "cornerstone of the entire building". 207 Similarly, Theodosius of Alexandria considered the A to symbol-

196

See Hachlili (1984) 30. See ibid. 198 See Bij de Vaate 150. She notes that several more abecedary inscriptions have been found at Bet She'arim but not been published yet. All of them consist of Hebrew letters. 199 See ibid. 148. 200 See ibid. 154. 201 See ibid. 157. 202 Ibid. 203 See ibid. 158-59. 204 Ibid. 159-60. 205 See section I.l.B and Bij de Vaate 160-61. 206 See Dornseiff 20. 207 Ibid. 21 with reference to John Chrysostom, Homil. 9, in Epist. ad Hebr. (Migne PG 63, col. 77). 197

4. Religion and Literacy

221

ize do'/f) TiA.r|Oou5.208 Other letters were similarly given symbolic meanings by ancient Christians as well as Graeco-Roman philosophers. 209 The Y was, for example, considered the v q « ^ « cpiloooqpov, which illustrated the teaching of the two ways, toward a life of virtue or a life of vice.210 According to Dornseiff, Jewish letter mysticism does not appear in Philo but is only evident in the later talmudic literature.211 According to a statement attributed to R. Yonah in the name of R. Levi in y. Hag. 2:1, 77c, "the world was created by the letter D". Anonymous explanations for this theory follow. A subsequent statement attributed to R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yochanan offers an alternative theory: This world and the world-tocome were created by two letters, which are also part of the Divine name, namely H and \ In the following anonymous discussion it is suggested that the letter il created this world and the letter , the world-to-come. Special significance is given to these letters' forms in connection with their symbolic explanations.212 The amoraim ruled that special precautions should be taken with regard to the writing and erasing of the Divine name. Y. Meg. 1:11, 7Id transmits a long and detailed discussion on this issue. The general tendency was to allow the erasure of prepositions which preceded the name of God, and sometimes the name together with the prepositions, whereas suffixes following the name were not to be erased. Certain forms and abbreviations of the Divine name may never be erased. Likewise some of the names of God were considered holy while others were not. According to a statement attributed to R. Yose (ibid.), the Divine names written with ¡T are always holy. Others, which consist of mere attributes, were considered secular. Furthermore, a sugya in y. Shab. 12:5, 13d discusses the question of how to deal with cases where the Divine name was written accidentally. The amoraim seem to have believed that the written name of God stood for God himself, that it symbolized God and participated in his power. Therefore its erasure and irresponsible usage was considered sacrilegious. As already pointed out above, a certain similarity between tefillin, mezuzot, and written amulets existed in antiquity. Neither the tannaim nor the amoraim seem to have prohibited the usage of amulets per se. On the contrary, amulets and tefillin are often mentioned together, and similar precautions applied to them. 213 On the Sabbath a man should not go out with "tefillin [or] an amulet when it is not by an expert [ n n m o n ]0 irKD p n ITOpn]. But if he went out 208

See ibid, with reference to Theodosius of Alexandria, Peri Grammatikes p. 4 (Goettling

ed.). 209

See ibid. 22 ff. for further examples. See ibid. 24 with reference to Pythagoras (in Persius 3.56). 211 See ibid. 26. 212 See also Gen.R. 1:10 (Theodor-Albeck ed. p. 8-9) for a long discussion on the meaning of the letters K and A collection of alphabet sayings, in which some of the letters are personified, follows. See also Gen.R. 12:10 (ibid. p. 107-8). 2,3 See also Blau (1897-98) 87-88. 210

222

Part I: The Conditions

for the Development

of

Literacy

[with it], he is not liable to a sin offering" (M. Shab. 6:2). The "amulet made by an expert" is specified in T. Shab. 4:9: "What is an amulet made by an expert? Any one which served to bring healing and did so a second and a third time." 214 According to M. Kel. 23:1, the same purity concerns apply to torn amulets and tefillin: "The ball, the shoe ..., the amulet, the tefillin, which were torn, he who touches them is unclean". On the other hand, the authors of the ruling in T. Shab. 13:4 may have had amulets in mind: "As to scrolls containing blessings, even though they contain the letters of the Divine name and many citations of the Torah, they do not save them, but they are allowed to burn them where they are ... Those who write blessings are as if they burn the Torah". 215 A story about "a certain person [who] would write blessings ..." follows. R. Yishmael is said to have examined and scolded him. The passage may indicate some rabbis' opposition to the writing and usage of amulets in general or certain types of amulets in particular. Irrespective of some rabbis' opinions, the references to amulets in rabbinic sources suggest that Jews - and perhaps even rabbis and their students 216 - had amulets written for themselves in both tannaitic and amoraic times. Joshua Trachtenberg writes: "Their use was very extensive in the Talmudic period, and, accepted by the rabbinic authorities". 217 The specification of "amulets made by an expert" "lent them a definite degree of acceptance". 218 Trachtenberg assumes that depite certain rabbis' dislike of amulets, "the common folk was very much addicted to this particular form of magic". 219 The written amulets "contained the most powerful elements of Jewish magic the names". 220 The text consisted of a mixture of the following elements: the names of God and the angels; scriptural phrases and quotations; the specification of the purposes for which the amulet was written; the name of the person who commissioned the writing.221 In addition to the writing, amulets often contained magical figures and signs. One of these signs is the x which, 222 according to Meir 214 See also y. Shab. 6:2, 8b, where T. Shab. 4:9 is quoted and expanded. Trachtenberg, 144, emphasizes that even the rabbis allowed the wearing of amulets "not made by an expert" on weekdays, and "the rabbinic responsa indicate that they were freely worn on the Sabbath as well". 215 See also y. Shab. 16:1, 15c. 216 Amulet 3 in Naveh/Shaked (1985) 51ff. was written for "Rabbi Eleazar son of Esther, the servant of the God of Heaven". According to the editors, "the pious formula 'the servant of the God of Heaven' no doubt indicates that 'Rabbi' is here used in a religious sense" (ibid. 38). 217 Trachtenberg 132. 218 See ibid. 219 Ibid. 132-33. 220 Ibid. 139. 221 See ibid. 140. According to Naveh/Shaked (1985), amulets mostly addressed health problems (31), and "the source of the disorder is deemed to lie in the intervention of evil spirits" (34). 222 See Trachtenberg 141. Ibid. 142 he notes that "some amulets consist entirely of such signs, with no written text at all".

4. Religion

and

Literacy

223

Bar-Ilan, could have been the sign on the body of the righteous mentioned in Ez. 9:4 and Ape. 223 In addition, the letters H and 1 had a particular magical significance, as the rabbinic discussion in y. Hag. 2:1, 77c already suggested. 224 Amulets were mostly used to prevent or cure diseases. 225 Diseases were believed to be caused by evil spirits which the Divine and angel names contained in the amulets were believed to avert.226 Similarly, the quotations from sacred Scriptures were "deemed to be of special magic power". 227 Amulets were written on various materials (metal, potsherds, parchment, paper, cloth). They were often folded or rolled and stored in a case or container.228 People would either wear them like jewelry (and tefillin) or place them in a particular location (like the

mezuzah).229

The connection between a written text and oral recitation, which Jaffee has stressed for rabbinic culture, 230 is noticeable in the case of amulets as well: "At some point in the praxis, the incantation is to be recited". 231 This is indicated by special signs within the texts and occasional vocalization, since "the proper pronunciation of those names is essential to the praxis". 232 Schiffman and Swartz further point out that "the literary style of the incantation lends itself to oral recitation, by virtue of the use of repetition and assonance, stereotyped formulae, and familiar phrases from Jewish Scriptures and liturgy". 233 The incantation is based on the ancient Jewish belief in the power of the word, and especially the power inherent in the pronunciation of particular biblical verses (e.g. in curse formulas) and the names of God. 234 The combination of the written and the spoken word in the amulet and the incantation may have been considered a particularly effective means against demons and the harms they caused. 223

See above. See Trachtenberg 143. Amulets also contained series of repeated letters with magical significance. Sperber, 7 I f f . , suggests that M. Shab. 12:3-5, which prohibits the writing of at least two letters on the Sabbath, might refer to double letters written in magic spells. 225 See Blau (1897-98) 92. Naveh/Shaked (1993) 3 1 - 3 9 point to the relationship between magic and medicine. Amulets were probably used alongside more conventional healing methods practiced by physicians, see ibid. 3 1 - 3 3 . According to y. Shab. 6:2, 8b, physicians were to decide whether an amulet was useful, see Veltri (1997) 278. According to Veltri, ibid. 291, rabbis permitted the usage of amulets as long as they served healing purposes. 226 See Blau (1897-98) 86; 227 Naveh/Shaked (1985) 36. 228 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) 14 and 21. 229 See Blau (1897-98) 91; Schiffman/Swartz 32. 230 See section 1.4.A above. 231 Schiffman/Swartz 33. See also Swartz (1990) 165-66. 232 Ibid. On the visual and oral significance of spells on ancient amulets see also Frankfurter 190. 233 Schiffman/Swartz 33. 234 For the belief in the power of the word see Blau (1897-98) 61 ff.; for the significance of the Divine names see ibid. 117 ff. For the quotation of biblical verses in amulets, on magic bowls, and in the magic texts from the Cairo Geniza see Naveh/Shaked (1993) 2 2 - 3 1 . For curses in the amulets from the Cairo Geniza see Schäfer/Shaked 17. 224

224

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

The identity of the writers and clients of the amulets is difficult to determine. Since everyone was threatened by diseases, and since the use of amulets for healing purposes seems to have been a common ancient practice, one may assume that they were used by a wide variety of people from different social stata. The recurrence to magic will have depended on the person's (or his or her relatives') belief or disbelief in the efficacy of amulets, the gravity of the illness and the failure to heal it by means of traditional medicine, and the availability and affordability of the amulets themselves. The writers of the amulets will have been scribes who either specialized in this type of writing or had gained their reputation from the writing of Torah scrolls. Naveh and Shaked have pointed to the close connection between magic and Jewish liturgy, and to the phenomenon that some amulets were found in synagogues. 235 Both the late antique synagogue imagery and the amulets reflect the combination of a rudimentary knowledge of the Torah (i.e. some of its stories, verses, personages) and a syncretism which may have been characteristic of a "popular" piety.236 This piety seems to have existed alongside the "scholarly" piety of the rabbis and interacted with it in certain ways. 237 Naveh and Shaked have also emphasized similarities between the magic of the amulets and Hekhalot literature, such as, for example, the usage of various names and epithets of God, the hymnic style, nomina barbara and angel names, and scattered letters of magical significance. 238 They have suggested to see the magic of the amulets as the "practical counterpart" of the theoretical deliberations of the Hekhalot literature: "The Hekhalot literature uses the techniques of magic in order to acquire secret knowledge concerning the heavenly world, whereas magic, as the practical counterpart of the mystical preoccupation, endeavours to harness the powers of the supernatural world to its purposes: to gain certain pragmatic aims for a particular person". 239 235

For the relation between magic and liturgy see Naveh/Shaked (1993) 22-31; for amulets found in synagogues: see iidem (1985) 37-38. On the relationship between liturgy and magic see also Schafer (1996) 541 ff. 236 Cf. Naveh/Shaked (1985) 38. See also Goodenough 290: "... the picture the amulets give of popular Jewish syncretism is essentially reliable ... At the same time, if Jews were thus familiarly using the figures and names of Egyptian gods, it becomes at least comprehensible, ..., how the synagogues and community cemeteries came to be so emblazoned with the sort of imagery we have seen". The syncretism of Jewish magic has also been stressed by P.S. Alexander (1986) 346. 237 Goodenough's strict division between the rabbis on the one hand and the syncretistic imagery of synagogues and charms on the other is certainly wrong. Goodenough attributes the charms and amulets to "what we might call the religious 'lower classes' of Judaism" in contrast to the rabbinic writings which "come from the religious 'upper classes'" (207). While the Judaism of the synagogue and the amulets was allegedly syncretistic, "the Judaism of the rabbis was a Judaism which rejected all of the pagan religious world ..." (ibid. 295). The entire question of the relationship between rabbinic literature, synagogue imagery, and the amulets needs to be reexamined. A first step into this direction has been made by Neusner in idem (1991). 238 See Naveh/Shaked (1993) 17-20. 239 Ibid. 19.

4. Religion and

Literacy

225

The Torah myth (the so-called Sar ha-Torah traditions) in Hekhalot Rabbati are particularly interesting in this regard. Schäfer circumscribes the Torah myth as follows: "Israel takes possession of the Torah ... not through the traditional way of learning, but with the aid of magic. The implementation of magic guarantees the complete knowledge of the Torah, and this is equivalent to earthly power". 240 On the one hand, the rabbinic value of Torah knowledge and the high status which accompanies this knowledge seems to have been accepted by the tradents and editors. On the other hand, however, magic means to gain immediate access to that goal without undergoing the long and arduous process of studying the texts were promised to the readers. Schäfer rejects Halperin's suggestion that the Torah myth was invented by and for the am ha-aretz in opposition to the rabbis.241 Rather, "everything points to the fact that all groups within the Judaism of late antiquity were affected by the revolution within the world-view through the penetration of magic, albeit, to be sure, in different ways and to a different extent". 242 The pseudepigraphic character of the material, i.e. its ascription to famous rabbis, and probably also the notion that Torah knowledge is connected with actual authority and status, seems to point to the post-talmudic period as the time when the texts were written down. 243 Perhaps the great increase in written study material at that time, i.e. the existence of Talmudim and Midrashim, caused widespread despair over ever being able to master the accummulated knowledge, especially amongst those who wished to become Torah scholars themselves but realized that they could not accomplish that aim. The Torah myth of the Sar ha-Torah traditions would give them a glimpse of hope. The Sar ha-Torah texts were probably not written by rabbis who did engage in Torah scholarship and were already established as authorities on that basis. Therefore Michael Swartz has suggested that the traditions reflect the "worldview of those whose literacy does not reflect an elite education", but who nevertheless shared the ethos of the rabbinic intelligentsia and wished to participate in their "honor, power, and wealth". 244 They probably stood "at the fringes of the rabbinic canon" and had acquired a rudimentary education in the Bible and rabbinic traditions.245 Scribes and synagogue functionaries such as "liturgical poets, ... preachers, targumists" would be the most likely candidates. 246 Synagogue-related circles have also already been suggested as the context in which Jewish amulets were written. 247 Scribes and synagogue functionaries 240

Schäfer (1992) 144. See also Swartz (1996) 26 ff. Schäfer (1992) 158, with reference to Halperin 437. 242 Schäfer (1992) 159. 243 For the pseudepigraphic character see ibid. Torah scholars seem to have gained institutional authority in the post-talmudic, gaonic period only, see Hezser (1997) 225-27. 244 Swartz (1996) 218. 245 See ibid. 246 See ibid. 219. 247 See the references to Naveh and Shaked above. 241

226

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

would have received a rudimentary religious education "and would have been influenced by the [rabbinic] academy yet did not participate fully in its intellectual life". 248 If one applies the circle and periphery model, they would stand at the peripheries of the rabbinic movement. 249 Their clients, however, are likely to have represented a much broader spectrum of Jewish society, encompassing the occasional rabbi and rabbinical student as well as the illiterate farmer. The magical usage of writing was not limited to the illiterate, but it can be considered especially appropriate for them. In order to believe in the apotropaic meaning of the mezuzah and the letters tatooed on one's skin, or to use the amulets which were written on one's behalf, one did not need to be able to read their texts. The incantations written in amulets would be memorized and recited aloud or the amulets would be considered effective when deposited at a particular place. Whereas rabbis admonished people to view tefillin and mezuzot as reminders of the necessity of Torah study, those who were neither able nor willing to engage in this study will have attributed other, less time-consuming and immediately obvious benefits to them. The magical usage of writing has to be seen in connection with the artefactual value of the Torah in ancient Judaism, a value which the rabbis seem to have shared and promoted to a certain extent, by declaring Torah scrolls and the written form of the Divine name holy. They thereby objectified the text of the Torah and (religious) writing itself. As a result they had to counteract the extreme forms which a popular belief in the power of writing could take, for example, the usage of Torah scrolls for healing purposes. Especially in a society where the quantity of texts was relatively sparse, where writing was only used in circumscribed contexts and for particular purposes, letters, alphabets, words, verses, and texts could easily obtain a supernatural meaning. 250

248 249 250

Swartz (1996) 219. See Hezser (1997) 151-54. See also Niditch, 79, for the biblical period.

5. Language Usage According to a statement attributed to R. Yonathan of Bet Guvrin in y. Sot. 7:2, 21c, "four languages are appropriately used in the world", namely Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew. While all of these four languages would be encountered in Roman Palestine, individual Jews' degrees of proficiency in two or more of them, their general distribution in the various social realms, and chronological and geographical variations in their usage are far from clear. The common notion of a wide-spread bilingualism or even multilingualism, expressed, for example, by Rabin ("Not only were there speakers of many languages, but the same individuals often spoke more than one language", 1 Lieberman ("The Greek language was known to the Jewish masses"), 2 and Spolsky ("... until the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE, the Jews of Palestine were essentially triglossic"), 3 is much too general to be useful as a description of the linguistic situation in Roman Palestine. Although the methods and results of psychological, linguistic, and sociological studies concerning the ways in which foreign languages are acquired and various languages used within modern societies cannot indiscriminately be applied to ancient societies, some of the considerations put forth in these fields are indeed very useful for a better understanding of the language usage of ancient Jews. Social scientists have developed a set of criteria relevant for the examination of individual language skills and the usage of languages for specific functions within a given society. This chapter will suggest ways in which the methodological considerations of these studies can be applied to the situation in Roman Palestine. The most important question to be asked in this regard is who used which language where and when for what purposes and why.4 Which conclusions can be reached when applying modern scientific studies' criteria for the development of bilingual skills to ancient Jewish society? Which factors will have determined the distribution of languages within the various ancient Jewish social spheres? To what extent is it necessary to differentiate between the oral and written and the merely oral use of the respective languages? 1 2 3 4

Rabin 1007. Lieberman (1965) 2. Spolsky 99. See Fishman (1965) 67.

228

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

A. Prior

of

Literacy

Scholarship

While scholars generally agree that during the Second Temple period Palestinian Jews gradually adopted Aramaic as their common language, 5 they disagree over the continuing relevance and usage of Hebrew in Hellenistic and Roman times. Most scholars believe that Hebrew remained a spoken language until the second or third century C.E. or even longer. According to Schmitt, for example, Hebrew was still used as a vernacular in certain circles until around 200 C.E. 6 Others suggest that spoken Hebrew was limited to certain geographical areas such as Judaea until 135 C.E. and the Galilee until the third century C.E. 7 While Fraade reckons with a continuous knowledge of Hebrew amongst the Jewish population of Palestine until late antiquity, 8 de Lange believes that Hebrew was revived as an everyday language in the third century C.E. only. 9 These scholars usually assume that the written evidence of Hebrew implies that the language was also spoken by those who wrote, commissioned, or used the texts. Since some of the Bar Kokhba letters and some of the Qumran documents are written in Hebrew, it is assumed that Bar Kokhba and his sympathizers and the Qumran community used Hebrew as a vernacular. 10 Others point to Hebrew ossuary inscriptions from the first century C.E. as evidence for a widespread popular usage of Hebrew. Thus Gundry writes: "One would think that in the presence of death a language of the heart would have been used, a language in which people habitually thought and spoke". 11 De Lange takes the Hebrew of the Mishnah as evidence for a revival of Hebrew as "a cultural vehicle", whatever that means, in the third century C.E. 12 Fitzmyer has already stressed that the Hebrew texts found at Qumran "do not tell us how much Hebrew was spoken among the Essenes, because they bear witness only to what is called a 'neo-classical Hebrew', a form of the language that may be only literary". 13 The same may be true for the Hebrew of the Mishnah. 14 In 5 See Schmitt 575; Fitzmyer (1970) 501; Rabin 1027; Naveh (1991-92) 315; S. Schwartz (1995) 12 ff. 6 See Schmitt 575-76. Cf. Hyatt 10. 7 See Rabin 1017-18 and 1036; Rendsburg 226. 8 See Fraade (1992) 274 and 281. 9 See de Lange 343. 10 See Schmitt 575; Hyatt 10. 11 Gundry 406. 12 See de Lange 345. 13 Fitzmyer (1970) 503. Schniedewind, 235, has recently called the form of Hebrew found in some of the sectarian writings from Qumran an "antilanguage" used for ideological reasons, "to set the speakers and their language apart from others". It seems more likely, however, that such an "antilanguage" was not spoken by the sectarians but used by their scribes in writing only. Ibid. 243 Schniedewind himself refers to Kutscher, according to whom the Aramaisms in the Isaiah scroll indicate that the mother tongue of the scribe was Aramaic. On the cultivation of a particular form of Hebrew by the Qumran community see also Hengel 2:151, n. 763. 14 According to Rabin, 1022, "mishnaic Hebrew shows signs of Aramaic influence", and this influence may be due to the phenomenon that the vernacular of the scribes was Aramaic.

5. Language

Usage

229

the case of Hebrew ossuary and sarcophagi inscriptions, "it is often hard to tell whether their inscribers spoke Hebrew or Aramaic". 15 According to Lifshitz, the usage of Hebrew in some of the inscriptions from Bet She'arim is due to the commissioners' desire to safeguard the tradition of Hebrew as the sacred language. 16 In all of these cases, Hebrew may have been employed as a written language for particular religious and/or representational purposes, not because it was the language with which the authors were most familiar and which they customarily spoke with their relatives and friends. 17 The most convincing model concerning the usage of Hebrew in the post-exilic period has been presented by Seth Schwartz. According to Schwartz, Hebrew was commonly spoken in Palestine until around 300 B.C.E., i.e. before the time of Alexander the Great. 18 From that time onwards until 70 C.E. Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic as the vernacular of the populace, while Hebrew remained the language of the Temple and the Torah, cultivated by the custodians of these major symbols of Jewish identity, the priests. 19 In the Hellenistic period "the Hebrew language began to be ideologized, so that its use was no longer a matter of indifference, but came to acquire symbolic weight and social importance". 20 The written texts in Hebrew do not reflect the actual linguistic situation; "what they are in fact evidence of is the ideological function of the Hebrew language in ancient Jewish society". 21 As the language of the Torah and the Temple priesthood Hebrew became "the language whose representation symbolized Jewish nationhood". 22 As such it was used on Hasmonean coins and during the revolts against Rome. 23 After 70, and especially after 135 C.E. the Hebrew language had lost its political importance, but it maintained its religious significance as a symbol of Jewishness. 24 The rabbis, who "saw themselves as continuators of the old pre-destruction curatorial class", propagated the learning of Hebrew as the "holy language". 25

For previous scholarship on the question whether mishnaic Hebrew is an "artificial" language (a hypothesis which Rabin himself rejects) see ibid. 1022-25. The term "artificial" is perhaps inappropriate, even for a language mainly or only used for literary purposes, as Schniedewind has argued: "From a functionalist and sociolinguistic perspective, there is no such thing as an artificial language" (238). 15 Fitzmyer (1970) 520. 16 See Lifshitz (1965c) 537-38 and idem (1969b) 251. 17 As an analogy one may point to the (sometimes faulty) Hebrew funerary inscriptions found in the Jewish cemeteries of Western countries today, where the families of the deceased speak English or German and know Hebrew as the language of prayer only. 18 See S. Schwartz (1995) 6-12. 19 See ibid. 12-31. 20 Ibid. 18. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 25. 23 See ibid. 26-27. 24 See ibid. 31-35. See also Sawyer 27. 25 S.Schwartz (1995) 31.

230

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

That the common vernacular of the Jews of Roman Palestine was Aramaic needs little explication. 26 Schwartz concludes that "the evidence from Palestine in the sixth to the third centuries B.C.E. is consistent with the view that the Jews, like almost all other national and tribal groups in the Levant and Mesopotamia, generally came to adopt Aramaic as their normal means of communication". 27 Already by the first century C.E. Aramaic was also occasionally used in writing, as some literary fragments found at Qumran, the first version of Josephus' War, as well as documentary papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions from Roman Palestine show. 28 Not all of the Aramaic texts found at Qumran will have originated from the sectarian community. They rather seem to represent a broader Aramaic literary activity which was not limited to Essene circles. 29 Later the Targumim and Midrashim, the Talmud Yerushalmi and some of the liturgical literature were written in Aramaic. 30 In contrast to Hebrew, Aramaic was not used for ideological reasons, but simply because it was the language with which one was most familiar and which would be understood by all of one's Palestinian Jewish contemporaries and some of one's non-Jewish neighbors. 31 Rabin has argued that unlike Hebrew (and one could add Greek), Aramaic was not "the bearer of a culture", that it did not stand "for a rich cultural content", at least as far as the first century C.E. is concerned: "neither literary nor spoken Aramaic carried in the world of first century Palestine any cultural message". 32 This is probably true despite the fact that parts of the Bible as well as a number of extra-biblical literary texts were written in Aramaic. The language most commonly used in Roman Palestine besides Aramaic was Greek. Since the time of Alexander the Great, Greek was the official language in which the governments and administrations of the Near Eastern provinces communicated with each other, and this practice seems to have continued under Roman rule. 33 As an international language Greek also obtained significance as the "language of the educated" ("Bildungssprache"), i.e. of those who wanted to participate in the Hellenistic political and cultural environment. 34 According to Schmitt, this double role of Greek as the language of the administration and of classical culture was especially evident in the East. 35 26 See especially S. Schwartz, ibid. 12-19, on the Aramaization of Palestine. On the usage of Aramaic amongst the "populations of the Fertile Crescent, from the Mediterranean to the Persian G u l f ' until the time of Constantine see also Millar 149-51. 27 S. Schwartz (1995) 19. 28 Cf. Fitzmyer (1970) 503 and especially 519ff. Rabin, 1029, and Treu, 127, assume that Josephus' War was originally written in Aramaic. 29 See Fitzmyer (1970) 521 and the discussion above. 30 On Aramaic liturgical literature, especially eulogies, see Yahalom (1996) 33ff. On the literary use of Aramaic see also Greenfield (1978a) 29; idem (1978b) 148 f. 31 Cf. Wasserstein (1995) 125: "The common language of these many diverse groups was Aramaic". 32 Rabin 1032. 33 See Schmitt 558-59; Treu 123. 34 See Schmitt 558-59. 35 See ibid.

J. Language

Usage

231

Many books and articles have already been written on the usage of Greek in Jewish Palestine, and although scholars differ over the amount of Greek which the Jewish population of the various geographical areas and social strata can be assumed to have known, some undisputed facts remain. One such fact is the increasing number of Greek cities with Greek constitutions founded in Palestine in Roman times. 36 "These Hellenistic cities dotted the countryside of Palestine for several centuries prior to the first Christian century and were clearly centers from which the Greek language spread to less formally Hellenistic towns, such as Jerusalem, Jericho, or Nazareth". 37 Another fact is that Greek was the language in which the Romans communicated with and issued decrees concerning the local Jewish population, not only in the Diaspora but in Palestine as well. 38 In addition, Greek will have been the language of communication between the Jewish leaders in Palestine and Jews in the Diaspora whose mother tongue was Greek. 39 One may assume that the ability to speak Greek was, on the one hand, an indispensable prerequisite for Jews who wanted to obtain public offices at the municipal level, offices which would bring them in contact with non-Jewish Greek-speaking officials. A knowledge of spoken Greek would have been equally indispensable for those who engaged in trade relationships with Greek-speakers, whether gentiles or Diaspora Jews. As the language of the upper levels of the administrative and political hierarchy and of international commerce, the Greek language will have been a status symbol, a professional necessity, and a despised reminder of foreign subjugation at one and the same time. On the basis of the written evidence of Greek attributable to the Jewish inhabitants of Roman Palestine, scholars have hypothesized about the Jewish population's knowledge of and proficiency in Greek as a spoken and a written language. Lieberman's and Lifshitz' studies have been groundbreaking in their argumentation for a widespread knowledge of Greek amongst Palestinian Jews, and this conclusion has been accepted by most later scholars. Lieberman's studies of rabbinic literature led him to assume that "the Greek language was known to the Jewish masses": 40 The occurance of Greek loanwords and Aramaic renderings of Greek expressions and proverbs in rabbinic documents allegedly indicates that the rabbis not only knew Greek but that "many of them were highly educated in Greek literature" 41 and Greek law.42 According to Lieberman, the average rabbi's proficiency in Greek can be considered repre36

See Fitzmyer (1970) 508. See also section 1.3.A above. Ibid. 38 Treu, 124, writes: "Die Verlautbarungen für den Osten wurden gleich in Rom griechisch ausgefertigt oder ins Griechische übersetzt". See also Schwind 87. Josephus often quotes or paraphrases Greek decrees, see Pucci Ben Zeev 46 ff. 39 See S. Schwartz (1999) 214ff. with regard to the patriarchs. 40 Lieberman (1965) 2. 41 Ibid. 66. 42 Idem (1974) 225-28. 37

232

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

sentative of "the Greek of the middle-class man in Palestine". 43 Despite these generalizations he notes that differences between the inhabitants of the hellenized and provincial towns on the one hand and the villages on the other are likely to have existed with regard to people's attitude toward Greek. In addition, issues of social status will have played a role. The middle class will have imitated the upper class in acquiring a Greek education. 44 Against Lieberman, Lifshitz has stressed that the usage of Greek loanwords and idiomatic expressions does not automatically prove the knowledge of that language by those who employed the respective words. 45 He points to the epigraphic material as a body of evidence much more important in this regard. While Lieberman's argumentation was almost exclusively based on rabbinic sources and concerned with rabbis, Lifshitz argues for a widespread popular knowledge of Greek on the basis of the evidence of Greek Jewish inscriptions from Roman Palestine: "Les vulgarismes phonétiques et grammaticaux sont presque universels. Or, précisément, cet aspect des inscriptions et surtout des épitaphs gréco-juives montre que la langue grecque était parlée par un nombre considérable de Juifs habitant les bourgades et les villages, et non pas seulement par les citadins ou les gens éduqués". 4 6

Lifshitz assumes that the relatives of the deceased formulated the texts of the inscriptions and that these texts are a direct reflection of their Greek language proficiencies: "Le grec était également la langue parlée par les auteurs des inscriptions de Besara". 47 This is allegedly indicated by the vocabulary and formulas used in the inscriptions. 48 Since the grammatical forms used in the inscriptions are often wrong, a methodical study of the Greek language and grammar can rarely be presupposed for their authors. 49 One must rather assume that these people acquired their knowledge of Greek through their daily contacts with native speakers. 50 Since not only the burial inscriptions but also almost all of the synagogue inscriptions from Bet She'arim are in Greek, Lifshitz assumes that Greek was also the official language of the synagogue in the cities of Palestine, just as it was the language of the Diaspora synagogue. 51 He believes that Greek was used by Jews as their language just as many other languages were to become "Jewish" languages qua being used by Jews in the subsequent epochs of Jewish history. 52 Besides rabbinic literature (Lieberman) and inscriptions (Lifshitz), Sevenster refers to the New Testament as an additional source for the estimation of Jews' 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Idem (1965) 2. See ibid. 27. See Lifshitz (1965c) 522 and idem (1970) 114. Lifshitz (1965c) 523. Ibid. 533. See ibid. See ibid. See ibid. See idem (1969b) 251. See ibid.

5. Language

Usage

233

knowledge of Greek in the first century. He assumes that even Jesus, whose native language was Aramaic, would have spoken Greek at least on some occasions, namely when he traveled to regions in Roman Palestine where many people spoke Greek. 53 As a Diapora Jew Paul would certainly have spoken Greek. The so-called "Hellenists" of Acts 6 were probably also Diaspora Jews who had settled in Jerusalem and whose mother tongue was Greek. 54 The "Hebrews", mentioned in the same passage, may have been Jews born in Palestine whose mother tongue was Aramaic. 55 These "Hebrews" probably understood more Greek than the "Hellenists" Aramaic: "The fact that Greek was a worldlanguage in those days, naturally stimulated the former tendency more than the latter". 56 Sevenster assumes that both Greek and Aramaic were spoken in first century Palestine, "though not always by everyone". 57 Like Lifshitz, Sevenster cautions against attributing too much significance to the occurrence of loanwords in rabbinic writings as evidence of rabbis' and Palestinian Jews' knowledge of Greek. 58 The quotation of proverbs, however, is of greater importance. Sevenster believes that rabbis who quote Greek proverbs were more familar with the Greek language than others and concludes: "Hence it is highly probably that many rabbis were completely familiar with Greek". 59 Sevenster stresses that "romanization implied hellenization, and hence probably strong official promotion of the use of Greek as well". 60 This hellenization will have provoked strong resistance amongst at least some Jews, though.61 Greek (like Latin) was the language of the foreign rulers and of pagan culture. At times of national uprisings, such as the Bar Kokhba revolt, the sentiments against Greek will have been particularly strong.62 On the other hand, a large section of the population was thoroughly familiar with Greek, so that it was "no longer being looked upon as the foreign language peculiar to the occupying forces" and associated with enforced hellenization. 63 As the Bar Kokhba papyri show, Greek was even used in this rebel leader's chancellery.64 Sevenster believes that "a knowledge of Greek was in no way restricted to the upper circles, ..., but was to be found in all circles of Jewish society, and certainly in places bordering on regions where Greek was spoken, e.g. Galilee". 65 53

See Sevenster 24 ff. See ibid. 31. 55 See ibid. 32-34, with Dalman and against Nepper-Christensen who assumes that they spoke Hebrew. 56 Ibid. 37. 57 Ibid. 38. 58 See ibid. 39 and 42. 59 Ibid. 44. 60 Ibid. 178. 61 See ibid. 178-79. 62 See ibid. 179. 63 Ibid. 179. 64 See ibid. 169-72 and section II.2.C below. 65 Ibid. 190. 54

234

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

Unlike Lieberman and Sevenster Lifshitz is sceptical with regard to the assumption that for members of the Jewish aristocracy a good knowledge of Greek was the rule and that the middle class imitated them in this regard. 66 Ancient Jewish literary sources, namely Josephus and rabbinic literature, indicate sentiments against Greek education amongst educated Jews. 67 On the other hand, the Theodotus-inscription and the Jerusalem ossuaries show that even before 70 C.E. many Jews of Jerusalem were hellenized. 68 The later Greek burial inscriptions from Jewish cemeteries in Bet She'arim and Caesarea and the Greek synagogue dedication inscriptions similarly suggest that broad sections of the Jewish population spoke Greek and that Greek was the official language of the synagogue at those places. 69 With Sevenster Lifshitz concludes that by and large Greek was not considered the language of the enemy, but had become a Jewish language just like Aramaic and Hebrew: "Je pense qu'à cette époque il n'y avait pas de langue nationale, de langue officielle de l'État dans le sens du nationalisme étroit, qui trouve son expression aussi dans le domaine de la langue". 70 Of the many other scholars who have likewise emphasized the significance of the Greek language for the Jewish population of Roman Palestine only a few can be mentioned here. Mussies has added a number of methodological considerations to the issue at hand. In the case of Greek inscriptions, the formulation may have been that of the stone-mason rather than that of the deceased's relatives, i.e. they do not necessarily reveal anything about the commissioners' knowledge of colloquial Greek. 71 The loanwords used in literary texts seem to suggest that "the Greek language played the same role as English does nowadays in many countries outside Britain". 72 Many people heard it spoken and were familiar with certain expressions, but they must not have been able to converse in it themselves or would use it in particular situations only. Greek names borne by Jews may also be indicative of the degree of hellenization within their families, but "no conclusions with regard to an actual command of Greek may be drawn from that fact only". 73 Nevertheless Mussies believes that "Greek was understood by many Jews". 74 Whether they were also able to read and write Greek is an entirely different question. 75 Martin Hengel has pointed to the Greek translation of the Bible as one aspect of the hellenization of ancient Jews. The translation of the Bible into Greek "continued in Palestine in the first and second centuries AD with Theodotion and 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

See Lifshitz (1970) 116. See ibid. 116-17. See ibid. 124-25. See ibid. 124. Ibid. 129. Mussies 1041. Cf. Griffiths 10 (with regard to Latin in Roman Britain). Ibid. 1051. Ibid. 1052. Ibid. 1056. See ibid.

5. Language

Usage

235

Aquila". 76 Septuagint fragments have been found at Qumran as well as in the caves used during the Bar Kokhba revolt.77 This "shows that the Greek translation of the Old Testament also came to be highly priced in Palestine .. .".78 Pieter van der Horst has estimated that approximately two-thirds of the funerary inscriptions found in Palestine are in Greek. 79 Like Lifshitz he assumed that "for a great part of the Jewish population the daily language was Greek, even in Palestine". 80 In a recent article he is more cautious, however, and suggests that "for most, or at least many, of the Jews in Palestine, Greek most probably remained a second language, certainly outside the urban areas". 81 One has to assume that "the degree of use and understanding of the Greek language probably varied strongly according to locality and period, social status and educational background, occasion and mobility". 82 In contrast to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, there is extremely little evidence for the usage of Latin by Jews in Roman Palestine. The only possible evidence one might adduce is the reference to "some [members] of the synagogue called that of the freedmen [xiveg xcov ex xfjg ouvaYtoyiiS A.£YO^EVT|C; Ai|3£Qtivcov]" in Acts 6:9. These people may have been former slaves of Roman owners who had returned to Jerusalem as Roman citizens after their manumission. 83 Whether this interpretation is correct and whether they spoke Latin remains uncertain, however. Theodotos, the freedman of Queen Agrippina, mentioned in a Greek ossuary inscription from Jericho, probably spoke Greek, and Greek may have been the language of other freedmen and -women as well.84 Latin loanwords appear in rabbinic documents, but they do not provide any information on the rabbis' knowledge of Latin beyond the few terms which had crept into Aramaic by that time. In addition, originally Latin terms usually appear with Greek endings in their Aramaic transcription and were possibly considered Greek words by the Jews who used them, as Kurt Treu has pointed out.85 This phenomenon indicates how certain aspects of Roman culture and society were transmitted in Greek disguise in the Eastern parts of the Roman Empire.

76 Hengel 1:101-2. On the usage of the Septuagint in Palestine see also Wasserstein (1996), who writes that "it is significant that in our early rabbinic sources we do not find any expression of dissatisfaction with the Septuagint until long after Aquila" (122). 77 See ibid. 1:102 with references ibid. 2:43-44 n. 20. 78 Ibid. 102. 79 See van der Horst (1992) 48. 80 Ibid. 81 Van der Horst 21 (of the manuscript). 82 Ibid. 21-22. 83 See D.B. Martin 122. He also points to other examples, based on inscriptions, of Palestinian Jews who may have been Roman citizens qua being freedmen of Romans. 84 For the inscription see Hachlili (1979) 62. 85 See Treu 132. This is also true for the term used for "freedmen" in Acts 6:9, mentioned above. The Greek AißegTivcov "is a transliteration of the Latin libertini, with a Greek ending", as D.B. Martin, 122, points out.

236

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of Literacy

Latin was the language of the Roman military settlers in Palestine, as well as the mother tongue of the Roman emperor and the highest ranks of his administrators.86 Certain public inscriptions were set up in Latin only,87 but those which concerned the native Jewish population would (also) appear in Greek. 88 Latin would be much less present in Roman Palestine than Greek. 89 The Romans did not take any steps to Latinize the East, since Greek was already well established as the international language at the time when they conquered the territories. 90 In general, then, the Jewish inhabitants of Roman Palestine will have seen little need for learning Latin. Perhaps they correctly associated Latin, which was spoken by the military, with Roman subjugation, and therefore deliberately avoided it, in contrast to Greek, which their own Hasmonean rulers had spoken and in which a whole body of Jewish literature existed. There may, of course, have been exceptional cases of ambitious upper-class Jews whose goal was a legal or political career, as Geiger has suggested. Geiger has argued that the usage of Latin in Roman Palestine was not limited to military and administrative circles. Important urban centers in which Latin was spoken, such as Beirut, were in the province's close neighborhood and speakers of Latin also lived in cities within Palestine, such as Caesarea, as the Latin inscriptions from that city indicate. 91 All those inhabitants of Roman Palestine who aspired to a political career beyond the local level are likely to have learned Latin, and a knowledge of Latin would have been indispensable for the young men who studied Roman law at the law school at Beirut, since they must have been able to read the Latin legal sources.92 The percentage of Latin speakers amongst Jews who eventually obtained the Roman citizenship remains unknown, though. 93 From the fourth century C.E. onwards, the influence of Christians from the western parts of the Roman Empire will have led to a wider diffusion of Latin in Palestine. 94 One may assume, however, that the Christian usage of Latin did not lead to an increase in Jews' interest in the language, but rather to a greater aversion.

86

See Geiger (1994) 3. See Fitzmyer (1970) 504: These were dedicatory inscriptions on buildings and aqueducts, funerary inscriptions of Roman legionaries, milestones, and tiles stamped with abbreviations of the Tenth Legion. 88 See ibid. 506, with reference to Josephus, Ant. 14.10.2 (191), who "mentions decrees of Caesar concerning the Jews which were formulated in Latin as well as in Greek". 89 The same was true for Egypt, see B agnail 231, who writes that "Latin occupied a marginal position, fulfilling some official functions but relatively little used between individuals and not the dominant language in any community in Egypt, even the army". 90 See Treu 123. 91 See Geiger (1994) 4 - 5 . 92 See ibid. 6 with references. 93 See ibid. 94 See ibid. 12ff. 87

J. Language

B. Language

Usage

237

Acquisition

In order to determine the likelihood of a widespread bilingualism or even trilingualism amongst Jews in Roman Palestine, one has to examine the factors which will have advanced or impeded an individual person's acquisition of a particular language and determined the level of proficiency which he or she achieved. Psycholgical and linguistic studies of language acquisition can clarify the various aspects to be considered in this regard. 95 Hamers and Blanc distinguish between bilinguality as an individual's personal ability to use more than one language, and bilingualism as the presence of two languages within one linguistic community so "that two codes can be used in the same interaction and that a number of individuals are bilingual (societal bilingualism)". 96 The development of societal bilingualism and personal bilinguality is a topic mostly dealt with by psychologists and linguists, while the ways in which two (or more) languages function in the various social spheres of one society are usually analyzed by sociologists. Naturally, the conclusions reached on the basis of these two different approaches overlap to some extent. The mother tongue of Jews born in Palestine will have been Aramaic, while that of newly arrived Jewish immigrants from the Diaspora will have been Greek. Whether and to what extent the Aramaic-speakers were also able to speak, read, and write Greek and/or Hebrew and the Greek-speakers Aramaic and/or Hebrew are complicated questions whose answers depend on criteria such as the presence of speakers of the other language in one's environment, the relative status of the languages within the respective society, one's group membership and cultural identity, one's intelligence and learning age. 97 The competence gained in a second (and third) language varies widely from one person to another, ranging from the mere knowledge of a few words and phrases to the capacity to converse (and read and write) easily in both (or all) languages. Even in the case of a "balanced bilinguality", i.e. a person's equivalent competence in both/all languages, this competence must not be very high or equally high for all situations in which the languages are used: "Dominance or balance is not equally distributed for all domains and functions of language; each individual has his own dominance configuration". 98 The social and cultural environment is of utmost importance for language acquisition: "Language acquisition cannot be envisaged outside the social and cultural context in which it takes place". 99 Amongst the determining factors in this regard are the presence of speech communities in one's environment and the 95 See also Weinreich 18: "Sprachkontakt ist somit am ehesten zu verstehen, wenn man ihn in einem umfassenden psychologischen und sozio-kulturellen Rahmen sieht". 96 Hamers/Blanc 6. 97 See ibid. 8. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 72.

238

Part I: The Conditions for the Development of Literacy

social norms and values which they represent. If speakers of one or more languages form part of a child's immediate social network of family and friends, the acquisition of those languages takes place within his or her socialization process. 100 Since the languages will be "used to a varying extent and for different functions by speakers with and around the child", the child's perception of the languages will be equally differentiated. 101 When the child grows older and forms new ties outside the original network, e.g. with neighbors and teachers, "the individual develops new group loyalties and adopts new language norms and behaviour". 102 One element of a person's socio-cultural environment is the status in which the various languages are held in the community: "According to whether the two languages are socially valued in his environment, the child will develop different forms of bilinguality". 103 The social network around the child, consisting of relatives, friends, and teachers, transmits its own "value system which determines the status and relevance of languages" to the child. 104 In societies where a number of different languages are spoken, power relationships amongst social groups also tend to be transferred to the languages which these groups represent: "As a result of power relations between social groups, a multilingual society confers different status upon languages by valorizing them to varying extents for socially desirable activities, by institutionalizing them as such and by conveying attitudes about them. The dominant group will legitimize its language and impose it as the norm on subordinate groups, who will either accept it or try to challenge it (...). The child's social network will usually reflect the societal values of the languages and transmit them to the child". 105

It is more likely for a member of the subordinate group to learn the dominant group's language, than for a member of the dominant group to learn the language of the subordinate group. 106 Language is an important part of a culture and therefore connected with other cultural entities such as values and beliefs. It is "a transmitter of culture" and "the main tool for the internalization of culture". 107 On the other hand, however, language and culture "are not homologous". 1 0 8 Those who speak the same language can be culturally diverse, whereas those who speak different languages can share one and the same culture. Accordingly, a bilingual individual may be 100

See ibid. 64 and 70. See ibid. 71: The child "internalizes the different kinds of social behaviour", "builds his own social representations of language; these social representations in turn determine how and for what functions he will use his linguistic knowledge". 102 Ibid. 70. 103 Ibid. 11. See also Weinreich's reference to the varying prestige of languages in idem, 18. 104 See Hamers/Blanc 72. 105 Ibid. 76. 106 See ibid. 77. 107 Ibid. 116. 108 See ibid. 101

5. Language

Usage

239

bicultural, if he identifies positively with both cultural groups which the languages represent. 109 The result of such a process is enculturation or acculturation. 110 But "a high bilingual competence does not always mean a cultural identity with a dual cultural membership; a person may become a fluent bilingual while remaining monocultural and identifying with one of the groups only". 111 This can either mean that the person maintains his original cultural identity, or that she renounces the cultural identity of her mother-tongue and identifies with the culture of the acquired language group only, i.e. becomes deculturated and assimilated. 112 The importance of language as a cultural characteristic varies from group to group, and even from subgroup to subgroup within one society. 113 A member of a subordinate language group for whom the native language is not an important aspect of his or her ethnic identity is likely to try to acquire competence in the higher status language. 114 If, on the other hand, a particular language is one of the core values of an ethnic community or subset of people, competence in other languages is likely to remain low. 115 A whole set of value judgments and prejudices may be applied to other languages and their speakers in order to make them appear inferior to oneself and one's community. 116 The special valuation of a language and the rejection of other languages therefore serves to foster group identity of which the language becomes a symbol. 117 This happens especially amongst those who feel that their social position is threatened by cultural change. 118 Their special valuation of an ethnic language does not necessarily imply that they actually speak that language: "For ethnicity is sometimes related more to the symbol of a language than to its actual use by the members of a group

109

See ibid. 11. See ibid. 123: Enculturation develops when "a child is socialized in a bicultural environment" and feels equally at home in both cultures. Acculturation means the adjusting of one's behavior to the new culture: "In a harmonious acculturation process a person acquires the cultural rules and language skills of the new culture and integrates them appropriately with his primary culture. In other words, his identity becomes bicultural". 111 Ibid. 11. 112 See ibid. 124: "When an individual adapts to a new culture at the expense of his primary culture we speak of a process of deculturation. Extreme deculturation leads to assimilation, which may be accompanied by first-language loss (...)". 113 See ibid. 117. 114 See ibid. 126. 115 See ibid. 116 See ibid. 129. 117 See ibid. 156. One has to keep in mind, though, that the boundaries amongst social groups and subgroups are not fixed but constantly changing, and the social relations amongst groups are dynamic, see ibid. On language as a symbol of group and national identity see also Weinreich 131-34. 118 See Weinreich 134. 119 Hamers/Blanc 157. See also ibid. 161: "As a symbol of ethnicity a language need not be used for communication". 110

240

Part I: The Conditions for the Development

of

Literacy

Whereas the identification of Greek as the "dominant language" of Roman Palestine is questionable, 120 everyone would agree that Greek was the language of the politically powerful administrational officials and the aristocracy of the Greek cities. It was the language of the politically and economically dominant groups, even if the foreign rulers did not attempt to impose the Greek language on the native population. At least as far as non-Jewish Greek-speakers are concerned, they will have felt little need and incentive to learn the native population's Aramaic. Perhaps the same was true for Jewish immigrants from the Diaspora, especially if they lived in the cities. The native population, on the other hand, will have been much more motivated to learn Greek, in order to be (at least theoretically) able to communicate with the ruling elite, to influence them and partake in their power, or simply for matters of convenience and/or prestige. Since Aramaic was not an essential component of Jewish identity,121 nobody will have been particularly interested in its preservation and its prevalence over Greek. This does not mean, however, that every Jew became a fluent speaker (or even writer) of Greek. Geographical, socio-economic, occupational, and ideological criteria will have determined the level of competence in Greek the individual Aramaic-speaker is likely to have achieved. Children who grew up in families whose extended relationship comprised native speakers of Greek, i.e. first-generation Jewish immigrants from the Diaspora, and/or whose parents valued Greek culture, wanted their children to pursue careers in the public administration, and had enough money to pay private tutors, will have been able to gain the highest possible competence in Greek. The simple town merchant who counted Greek-speaking non-Jews amongst his clients, but who lived in a village whose inhabitants spoke Aramaic only, will have picked up some Greek phrases but was probably not able to have more than a simple conversation in that language. His colleague who lived in a city such as Caesarea will have learned much more Greek by constant contact with Greek-speakers. One may assume that even if he had never received a formal Greek education, he was able to speak the language sufficiently well and could sometimes even identify some Greek letters and words in written form. Some Jews who lived in Greek cities may have sent their children to Greek elementary schools where they would read passages of Homer and receive some basic Greek writing skills as well.

120 For the difficulty in determining which language is the dominant one within a given society see Weinreich 102ff.: The dominant language may be the mother tongue of the majority of the population; and/or the language used for the most important public functions; and/or the language with the highest prestige. See also ibid. 130f.: One has to ask which language is dominant for whom? "Es ist jedoch grundsätzlich zu bezweifeln, ob es überhaupt lohnt, zwei miteinander in Kontakt stehende Sprachen um jeden Preis als 'obere' bzw. 'untere' zu etikettieren ...". 121 See S. Schwartz (1995) 13.

5. Language

Usage

241

The large majority of the Jewish population will not have had any ideological reservations against Greek. For them, it was just another language, whose knowledge was advantageous in certain everyday life situations, and especially if one wanted to advance socially and economically. The rural population was probably neither interested nor able to read or listen to readings of Greek literary works. They will have appropriated Greek culture through the images, symbols, and customs of everyday life rather than by means of studying the Greek classics. Only Jewish intellectuals and members of the upper classes will have had a clearer notion of higher Greek culture and seen the Greek language as a part of, though not identical with it. The children of upper-class immigrants from the Diaspora, who grew up with both Greek and Aramaic and/or Hebrew and equally valued both cultural backgrounds for which the languages stood, became enculturated. Other upper-class Jews whose mother tongue was Aramaic may have been especially attracted to Greek culture and considered the learning of the Greek language the first step towards acculturation. A third set of individuals, some rabbis amongst them, will have considered the knowledge of Greek beneficial, but rejected the culture for which the language stood. 122 A few will have considered both the language and the culture incompatible with Jewish identity. For the rabbis Hebrew was a "holy language", since it was the language of the Sinai covenant and the Torah, the language of God and creation. 123 According to Mekh. Bachodesh 9, "the Lord said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: In the very language in which I speak to you, you shall speak to my children. This is the holy language of Hebrew", and a statement attributed to R. Pinchas and R. Chilqiah in the name of R. Simon, transmitted in Gen. R. 18:4 (p. 164-65 in the Theodor-Albeck ed.), suggests that the world was created by God in the Hebrew language. 124 According to a baraita attributed to R. Meir in y. Shab. 1:6, 3c, the knowledge of Hebrew was as important as living in the land of Israel, the observation of purity rules, and the recitation of the Shema. The texts suggest that for the rabbis the Hebrew language was one of the core values of Jewish religious life. The knowledge of the Hebrew alphabet was a necessary prerequisite for the reading and study of the Torah. In order to enable children to read the Torah, rabbis repeatedly admonished parents to teach them Hebrew. 125 The emphasis 122 This does not imply, however, "that [all] the rabbis of our period, except for those who had come from Babylonia, knew Greek", as Spolsky, 99, assumes. The rabbis' knowledge of Greek will have greatly varied from one rabbi to the next, just as it did amongst the rest of the Jewish population. 123 Cf. S. Schwartz (1995) 33-34. 124 [seller of small wares, or "marchand de chiffons", as Frey ad no. 928 (Jaffa) translates], Lifshitz (1965a) nos. 15-16 mention a scriniarius, secretary, but no. 17, which also mentions one, has cross symbols. Applebaum/ Isaac/Landau no. 5: "Tomb of Jak[ob]os son of Julianos, ouv téxtcov [fellow craftsmen]". 154 Proselyte: see Lifshitz (1961b) no. 2 = Lehmann/Holum no. 165: "Memorial of the proselyte Aste [= Esther?] and of Paregorios [= Menahem?]. Thanks!". Priests: see Lifshitz (1967b) no. 1 = Lehmann/Holum no. 167, a fragmentary Greek inscription on white marble decorated with Jewish symbols: "Tomb of the priests M a ... and Elias and ... ema". According to Lifshitz ad loc., the designation "priest" is found here for the first time in a Caesarean inscription, besides the list of priestly courses published in Avi-Yonah (1962) and (1964). 155 See Landau (= Lehmann/Holum no. 169) with reference to a Greek inscription on a

376

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

Most of the funerary inscriptions from Caesarea are written on white marble slabs, which may have served as gravestones or plaques attached to tombs, whereas only a few are written on sarcophagi. 156 The marble slabs and sarcophagi were usually found at places which the excavators identified as burial sites. These burial sites were not confined to the area east of the hippodrome; rather, "much of the area surrounding Caesarea apparently was used for burials". 157 The inscriptions are usually carved in more or less carefully executed letters and must have been engraved into the marble by professional stone masons. 158 This did not prevent the occurrence of orthographic, grammatical and syntactic errors. 159 For some of the stone masons the writing of Greek seems to have caused some difficulties. Since only very few of the Caesarean inscriptions are written in Hebrew letters and even the addition of the Hebrew word •"fatO is rare, the Greek inscriptions' only perceptible indicator of the Jewishness of the deceased are conventional Jewish symbols (menorah, lulav, etrog).160 According to Lapin, the indication of ethnicity in Jewish inscriptions must be considered a new phenomenon of late antiquity. 161 Perhaps more noteworthy than the relatively few Jewish identity markers, however, is the lack of them in most of the inscriptions. Often the identification of an inscription as Jewish is possible only on the basis of seemingly Jewish names or Greek names commonly used by Jews, and/or the inscription's origin from a locale known to have been a Jewish burial place. Amongst the Caesarean Jewish epitaphs few inscriptions can be considered exceptional. Most epitaphs are very short and formulaic, merely marking the burial place of a particular individual or a number of persons (usually brothers, husband and wife, a mother with her children). 162 The formulas "God help [Geoc;

marble slab ornamented with Jewish symbols: "Tomb of Elias and [or: son of] Entolios from Krunai/Krounos [or: the Corsican, Kqouv(l)ou]". According to Landau ad loc., Kqouv(i)ou could be a vulgarism of the rare name "Kronios"; or it could refer to a native of Krunoi in Mysia near the Pontus; or it could denote a Corsican [Kquvlou]; or point to a place called 01j~lp ~I3D near Bet Shean. 156 For sarcophagi inscriptions see, e.g., Lifshitz (1961b) nos. 1 and 3, Lifshitz (1965a) no. 21. 157 Levine (1975) 47. 158 These stonecutters were not always experts in their profession as Schwabe (1953) no. 1 shows: "The form of the letters is evidence of the work of a simple stonecutter, a man not too precise in dividing the tablet's surface and in arranging the letters" (ibid. 129). 159 For such errors see e.g. Schwabe (1953) no. 2, where the names seem to have been written in the genitive clause and the apposition in the nominative clause: "Inscriptions of this kind, in which no attention is paid to syntax, are frequent in Palestine, especially among the Jews" (ibid. 236). 160 See, e.g., Schwabe (1951-52); Lifshitz (1961b) no. 5; idem (1964a) nos. 1-3; idem (1965a) no. 1; idem (1967b) nos. 1-2; idem (1971) no. 21; Negev no. 1; Landau. 161 Cf. Lapin 1 (of the typescript). 162 Sometimes a number of persons are mentioned together on a gravestone, see, e.g., Lifshitz (1961b) nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11.

4.

Inscriptions

377

(3or|0ei] Berenike" 163 and "One God, help [M]ari[a]nos"164, commonly found in Christian inscriptions, are unusual for Jewish inscriptions, but the individuals may nevertheless have been Jewish. A similar Greek inscription has been found on a marble tombstone or plaque from Binyamina, northeast of Caesarea: "One God, help Yudah [the] Elder".165 The marble is decorated with Jewish symbols, and "presbyter" may mean "elder" here. 166 Also unusual is a Greek inscription which seems to summon the descendants of the deceased to bury their deceased close to his tomb. 167 In this case, too, the Jewish origin of the inscription is uncertain.168 The formula "Nobody is immortal", written in Greek on a marble sarcophagus, 169 is known from pagan inscriptions. 170 Whether Jews used this formula as well is possible but remains uncertain.171 Like the burial inscriptions from Caesarea the large majority of the epitaphs from Jaffa are written in Greek, but there are a few bilingual and Aramaic inscriptions as well. 172 The inscriptions seem to have usually come from the Jewish necropolis at Jaffa which consisted of rock-cut tomb chambers similar to those found in and around Jerusalem.173 Some of them seem to have been tituli, 163 Lifshitz (1964a) no. 4 = Lehmann/Holum no. 136, who list this inscription under "invocation" rather than epitaph. 164 Lifshitz (1965a) no. 3 = Lehmann/Holum no. 138. 165 Lehmann/Holum no. 137. See also Herman, who translates: "Unique God, help! [This is the tomb] of Judah [the Presbyter]". 166 See ibid. 161. Horbury (1997) argues that the inscription was that of a proselyte. On this inscription see also Di Segni (1993), (1994a), and (1994b), and Barag (1994). According to Di Segni (1993), the inscription was not an epitaph but probably "attached to the walls of a synagogue" (134), see also eadem (1994). The inscriptions from Caesarea, mentioned above, are very similar, though, and seem to have been used in a funerary context. The inscription mentions "Year 471" as a date, but the era to which this number refers is unclear. Di Segni thinks that the date refers to the era of Dora and would then fall between 408/9 and 410/11 C.E. Barag, on the other hand, suggested that the date was counted from the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., i.e. it would point to 540/1 C.E. Di Segni's hypothesis is more convincing. 167 See Lifshitz (1965a) no. 8. 168 See ibid. 101. 169 See Lifshitz (1965a) no. 21. 170 See Lattimore 250-56: This theme "appears everywhere we turn" (ibid. 251). The form, "Be of good courage, nobody is immortal", is the most common expression (253). It was meant as a form of consolation addressed to the deceased, meaning: "Death cannot be escaped; it hangs over all alike" (251). As such, it is a "consolatory theme which may be called philosophical, ..., because it refers away from the experience of one man to the general experience of all men" (250). 171 Goodenough, 137, stresses that the expression "nobody is immortal" is not a denial of the possibility of a future life, but "rather the statement that since all men must die this person should not lose heart because of it". 172 Of the 69 inscriptions from Jaffa published in Frey (nos. 892-960) 45 are written in Greek only, in another 15 the main inscription is in Greek but accompanied by a few Hebrew letters or words, especially the word D i b s , 2 are bilingual (nos. 899 and 900), and 7 (nos. 892898) are in Aramaic. 173 This is assumed by Frey, 119, on the basis of earlier publications. Some of the inscriptions stem from collections, though.

378

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

plaques attached at the entrances to the sepulchres. 1 7 4 Others were gravestones placed within the tombs. 1 7 5 A l t h o u g h the dating is o f t e n uncertain, Frey a s s u m e s that many o f t h e m originated in the s e c o n d and third c. C.E. 1 7 6 For others f r o m the so-called Tabitha ground a fifth to sixth century C.E. date is more likely. 1 7 7 T h e Aramaic and bilingual inscriptions f r o m Jaffa are exceptional in that they frequently mention forms of the title "Rabbi". 1 7 8 T h e title also appears in a f e w Greek inscriptions to w h i c h the Hebrew word 01*72? is added. 1 7 9 Another fragmentary Aramaic inscription m a y refer to a s y n a g o g u e reader or to the daughter o f a rabbi. 1 8 0 In general, the epitaphs from Jaffa are as short as the o n e s from Caesarea, mentioning the d e c e a s e d and his or her status within the immediate f a m i l y only. The Aramaic and bilingual inscriptions s o m e t i m e s refer to the burial place as " D p , K m i O p or DlpO, 1 8 1 the Greek o n e s use the terms avdjtmjaic;, 1 8 2 TOJTOC;,183 0r]xr|,

184

[ivrifxa, 185 and |IT]|.K)OLOV, ,sa or the formula ' E v S a S e x l t e , 1 8 7

but usually present the name o f the d e c e a s e d only. S o m e t i m e s an inscription w a s m a d e for more than one individual. 1 8 8 174

See Clermont-Ganneau (1888) 99 and idem (1901) 138. See Schick's description of the Tabitha ground at Jaffa. Frey as well as the earlier publications usually do not specify the form of the stone on which the inscription was engraved but speak of "epitaphs" only. 176 See Frey 119. 177 See, e.g., Clermont-Ganneau (1888) 99-100. Cf. Levy (1993) who points to a burial complex from the Byzantine period at Jaffa/Abu Kabir, see also Milman Baron (1994). 178 See Frey nos. 892 (= Klein 112): "This is the grave of Yudan, son of Rabbi Tarfon ' D T ^ . May [his] soul rest in peace. May his memory be for a blessing. Shalom"; no. 893 (= Klein no. Ill): "Tanchum ' T T 3 . Shalom"; no. 895: very fragmentary, according to Klein's reconstruction, it mentions a "Chananiah, son of Rabbi Leazar of Alexandria. Peace". One of the bilingual inscriptions, Frey no. 900 (= Klein no. 110), mentions a rabbi as well. The Hebrew inner text reads: "This grave [is that] of Rab Yudan the priest 3~Q. May [his] soul rest in peace. Peace [?]". It is surrounded in the first and last line by the deceased's name and title in Greek: "Rab Yuda son of Yonatha[n]". 179 See Frey no. 943 (= Klein no. 112): "Naum son of Soimonos TCJV BapfSafk [= ' X l 13?]. Peace" (the word •1L?t2 is decorated with a menorah on each side), but see Clermont-Ganneau (1901) 141 (ad no. 10), who thinks that "Barbabi" was not a title but the family name. Frey no. 951 (= Klein no. 113): "Samuel [son of] Gallus BEQE|3L. Peace". 180 See Frey no. 896: N T p l = Klein no. 115: Klip. According to Kaplan's reconstruction in idem (1987) ad no. 896, the inscription should be translated as follows: "This [is the grave of] Kora, daughter of Rabbi Bisna - opposite". He completes 'T7 to " D H and reads S l i p as a name. 181 See Frey nos. 892, 897, and 900. 182 See Frey no. 903. 183 Frey nos. 910 and 913. 184 Frey nos. 915 and 933. 185 Frey nos. 923, 935, 937, 942, 948, 950, 960. 186 Frey nos. 938 and 941, 955. 187 Frey nos. 925 and 931. 188 See Frey nos. 901 (three brothers), 903 (five family members, the women not mentioned by their names but only referred to as "mother o f ' and "sister"), 910 (husband and wife, together with their son?), 912 (two men with different patronyms), 917 (mother and son), 919 (two colleagues), 921, 923, 927 (in these cases only the names of the deceased are given, whereas their relationship toward each other is not further specified), 934 (fellow-Alexandrians), 935 175

4.

Inscriptions

379

Often the deceased's and/or their family's Diaspora origin is mentioned in the inscriptions. 189 Except for one inscription mentioning a rabbi, 190 all of these inscriptions are in Greek. The phenomenon that many Jews from the Diaspora are buried in Jaffa and had their relatives commemorated by inscriptions had already been noticed by Clermont-Ganneau. 191 He assumed that the deceased had come to Jaffa in order to die on "holy land". 192 It is more likely, though, that they had chosen the city for professional reasons, because it was an important port city which offered plenty of business opportunities. Occupations are often mentioned in the inscriptions. 193 While some of them identify the deceased as important public figures (administrator, centurion, legate), most of the people represented in the inscriptions seem to have been merchants and even workers and fishermen, i.e., they belonged to the middle and lower strata of society. Religiously relevant information is rarely provided in the inscriptions. Besides the references to rabbis in the Aramaic and bilingual inscriptions mentioned above, priests and Levites are each mentioned only once. 194 Sometimes the inscriptions also mention the person who had commissioned the memorial and probably also purchased the tomb and arranged the funeral. 195 As in the inscriptions from Caesarea, women's names are rare. If women are mentioned, they are usually mentioned in their relation to men (wife, mother, daughter), sometimes with their personal names added and sometimes anonymously. 196 Only the Greek inscriptions are decorated with Jewish symbols, which are occasionally combined with the Hebrew word •1i?E}.197 The Aramaic and bilingual (siblings), 938 (wife and husband?), 942 (husband and wife?), 945 (members of an association of fishermen?), 948 (Bizzos family), 948 (two men from Neapolis), 953 (husband and wife?). 189 See Frey no. 895 (Alexandria?), 901 (Taselea), 902 (Babele), 910 (Cappadocia), 915 (Ptolemais), 918 (Alexandria), 920 (Parembole), 925 (Tarsus), 928 (Alexandria), 931 (Tarsus), 934 (Alexandria), 950 (Pentapolis), 956 (Diospolis), 957 (Neapolis). 190 p r e y n o 395 f h g inscription is very fragmentary. Whether the ending T i l really belonged to the name "Alexandria" is uncertain. 191 See Clermont-Ganneau (1901) 151. 192 See ibid. 193 See Frey no. 902 ( a p t o x o j t o g , baker), 918 ((ppovtiatri", administrator), 919 (cppovxioxr|5, administrator), 920 (xevtr|vdQK>5, centurion), 928 (YQutoitcoXog, dealer in small goods or chiffon merchant, according to Frey), 929 (yvacpewg, fuller, and « u ^ i v a , seller of cumin), 931 (XivoncbXog, linen merchant), 937 (Epyatog, worker), 939 ( a p t o x o j t o g , baker), 945 (fishermen?), 949 (jiQeafSeuxog, legate). 194 Levite: Frey no. 902; priest: Frey no. 930 (the designation "priest of Egypt" is somewhat strange; the father's name Leazar is added in Hebrew letters at the end of the Greek inscription). 195 See Frey no. 903 (Abudemos), 915 ("by order of his sister"), 927 ("by Jako[b])", 930 (Leazar), 953 (Saul, who has purchased the tomb from a certain Baruch); on no. 953 see also Clermont-Ganneau (1988) and (1901) no. 3. 196 Anonymous: see Frey no. 903; named: see Frey nos. 907, 910, 937, 938, 9 4 2 , 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 , 949, 953. 197 See Frey no. 902, 905, 924, 927, 941, 942, 952, 954: palm branch only; 914, 920, 922, 937: palm branch and Dl^tD; 918: palm branch and menorah; 930: palm and name in Hebrew letters; 946: palm branch, menorah andDI^D; 910,932: menorah; 943: two menorot andCr^O.

380

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

inscriptions are all bare of any symbols, the usage of Hebrew letters probably being considered a sufficient indicator of the deceased's Jewishness. For a number of other places in the Mediterranean coastal plain only one or two Jewish epitaphs have been discovered so far. Like the inscriptions from Caesarea and Jaffa, most of them are written in Greek. 198 Only one inscription from 'Illar (near Tel Aviv), which Mazar dates to Herodian times and which is the first Hebrew epitaph of this period found in the north of the country, is written in Hebrew, 199 and a fragmentary inscription from Yavneh in Aramaic. 200 A bilingual epitaph, written partly in Hebrew and partly in Greek, comes from K. Habra (near Yavneh).201 The following phenomena are noteworthy in connection with these inscriptions: In the bilingual inscription from K. Habra the Greek main text is preceded by the formula "Peace upon Yeshurun [or: Israel]". 202 The formula obviously served to express the deceased's and his commemorators' Jewishness and association with other Jews even more than the single word on some of the other Greek inscriptions. Also interesting is the way in which the Greek text of this inscription is written. According to Vincent, "le grec, pour élégante qu'en soit la gravure, a toute la barbarie de mise chez un scribe dont ce n'était point la langue". 203 This phenomenon has also already been observed in connection with other Greek inscriptions and some Greek papyrus documents above. In the Greek text of the inscription the son of the deceased commemorates himself: "Abra[ha]m, son of the late fjiaxàoioçl Robel [= Ruben] of Pharbe[thi]tis". Vincent writes: "L'inscription serait la signature d'Abram, qui fit ériger le tombeau à son père, plutôt que sa propre épitaphe". 204 Whereas Vincent dated the inscription to the 6th c. C.E., Klein believed that it was written during the first centuries of the common era.205 Stonecutters' errors have also been detected by Schwabe in the Greek inscription from Shiqmona. According to Schwabe, the inscription is full of orthographic and dittographic errors, so that one has to assume that the stonecutter 198 Shiqmona (near Haifa): see Schwabe (1944), who notes, however, that the exact provenance of the epitaph is unknown (it was published under "Shiqmona" in Klein's Sefer Hayishuv)\ see also Frey no. 883. K. Habra: see Kaplan (1944-45) = Schwabe (1944-45a); Lifshitz (1963a) no. 8. Lydda: see Schwabe (1941) = Lifshitz (1963a); Frey no. 1173; Reich (1994) nos. 1 - 2 . Ashqelon: see Di Segni (1990) no. 18. Apollonias: see Frey no. 891; according to Klein (ad no. 158), the inscription is not Jewish. Maioumas (near Gaza): see Frey no. 970 (with the Hebrew word m*7iÖ flanked by palm branches at the end). 199 See Mazar (1954). The inscription, "[Gr]ave of Menashe b. Yannai", is incised on the wall of a courtyard from which there are entrances to burial chambers. 200 See Avigad (1967b). The inscription "Chilfai b. Q ..." is written on a basalt stone. 201 See Vincent (1902) = Klein no. 163 and Frey no. 1175. According to Vincent, the inscription was found in a Jewish burial cave at the entrance to the tomb. 202 Vincent (1902) 437 reads "Yeshurun", Klein no. 163 "Israel". 203 Vincent (1902) 437. 204 See ibid. 205 See Klein 55.

4.

Inscriptions

381

"was not an expert", but rather someone who made trials in his work. 206 The inscription is also interesting with regard to the titles it contains: "Place of Namosa [son of] Manaemos [= Menahem] Mana, the distinguished comes and elder/legate [taxfxjtQOTCtToi) x6|iixoç x a i jtQea|3euTT]o]". Schwabe believes that the title jtQeafteuTTjo refers to an elder (jroéopuç, of which the correct genitive form is JiQea|3i)T8Qoç),207 while Frey derives it from jtQea|3£UTr|ç, legate, a high functionary in the provincial administration. 208 Schwabe dated the inscription to the 4th c. C.E. 209 Titles are also mentioned in some of the other Greek epitaphs. A fragmentary Greek inscription on a marble tablet from K. Habra mentions a "Kyrios Megas, son of the late [|iaxdQioç | Yochanan". 210 According to Schwabe, "Kyrios" should be understood as an honorary title here and equals the Aramaic ~IQ.211 Although the adjective iiamoioç usually appears in Christian inscriptions, Lifshitz considers the epitaph Jewish: "La forme du patronyme atteste l'origine juive du défunt. C'est une transcription exacte du nom hébreu avec la désinence du génitif grec". 212 Both Schwabe and Lifshitz date the inscription to the Byzantine period. One of the Greek epitaphs from Lydda mentions a guardian or administrator of orphans: "Place of Yethro Thinos [or: Thinas], guardian of the orphans [fpoovxioxoi! ÔQcpavœv]".213 The office of cpQOvuaTT]c; also appears in other Jewish inscriptions and seems to refer to a local administrator with varying functions. 214 On the basis of the Jewish epitaphs from the Mediterranean coastal plain discussed above one may reach the conclusion that the epigraphic habit was first and foremost adopted by (a) Jewish public figures in the local and provincial administration and (b) Jewish immigrants from the Diaspora. That such inscriptions would be written in Greek is not amazing then. Jewish merchants and other professionals of the lower and middle strata of society, who lived at places with a mixed Aramaic- and Greek-speaking population, or where the Greek population constituted the majority, are likely to have imitated this practice because they considered epitaphs a matter of prestige and/or because they simply liked this form of commemorating their dead. With the practice of epigraphy they would often adopt the language customary for the inscriptions, even if their

206

See Schwabe (1944) 115. See ibid. 122. 208 See Frey 114 ad no. 883. A legate is also mentioned in an epitaph from Jaffa, see Frey no. 949, mentioned above. 209 See Schwabe (1944) 124. 210 See Kaplan (1944-45). 211 See Schwabe (1944-45a) ad loc. 212 Lifshitz (1963a) 263. He notes that the name Megalos was also used by Jews. 213 See Schwabe (1941). The epitaph was first published by Ben-Zevie (1940-41) who considered it to be a Samaritan inscription. 2,4 See Schwabe (1941) 231 ff.: in Jewish inscriptions from the Diaspora the office is usually mentioned in connection with synagogues. See also Lifshitz (1963a) 261 n. 53 for references. The term also appears in two inscription from Jaffa, see Frey nos. 918 and 919. 207

382

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

mother-tongue was Aramaic. Whether this hypothesis also holds true for other regions such as Galilee will be examined now. As one would expect, almost all of the Jewish epitaphs from Galilee come from Tiberias (with Ch. Tiberias) and Sepphoris. 215 Despite the fact that the majority of its population was Jewish, most of the Tiberian epitaphs, commonly dated to the talmudic period, are written in Greek, some on sarcophagi and some on marble slabs. 216 Only very few are in Hebrew/Aramaic. 217 The inscriptions resemble those of Caesarea and Jaffa in their short and formulaic content which is usually limited to the identification of the deceased. Occasionally, but much less frequently than in the epitaphs from Jaffa, Diaspora origins are mentioned.218 As in the epitaphs from Jaffa and a few other coastal places public offices are sometimes referred to in the inscriptions. A sarcophagus inscription identifies the deceased as "... son of Isidores, po'uÀ.eiJtriç".219 Another inscription, on a white marble tablet, was written for "Leontina, daughter of Samuelos, the gerusiarch, wife of Thaumasios, archisynagogue of the Antiochians". 220 Lifshitz has pointed out that an archisynagogue from Antioch is mentioned in the mosaic inscription of a synagogue in Apamea, and that the name Thaumasis appears there as well: 221 "En tout cas il est assuré que le mari de Léontina était un

215 Only a few epitaphs have been found elsewhere in Galilee, see Schwabe (1948): a Greek epitaph from Ubidiah in Upper Galilee, which Schwabe dates to the 2nd to 3rd c. C.E.: "[Of] Julios Mareinos, HEQÎ^ct Çr|aavxr|ç". Whether the inscription is Jewish is uncertain, although the area where it was found was a Jewish settlement at the time. On the formula at the end of the inscription see Lifshitz (1963a) 262 ad no. 7: "L'auteur de l'épitaphe a voulu souligner que le défunt a passé sa vie en peine et tristesse". Another Greek epitaph found in a burial cave in Eben-Menahem (near Sumeiriya) reads " K o k h of Joseph", see Lifshitz (1969a) no. 4. On this inscription and the term "[ID see also Kutscher (1967) 273-79. An Aramaic inscription on a stone fragment mentioning a grave, with the name of the deceased not preserved, was found at Kefar el-Meshed near Nazareth, see Avigad (1967b). 216 See Gildemeister = Klein no. 170 and Frey no. 984; McCown; Schwabe (1949) nos. 4 9; Lifshitz (1973-74) nos. 1 - 4 = idem (1974) nos. 1 - 4 , on some of the formerly published inscriptions; Ovadiah; Lifshitz (1969a) no. 5 on the same inscription; Di Segni (1988) nos. 8 9 (= Gildemeister above), 13-16, and 2 5 - 2 8 (Ch. Tiberias). 217 See nos. 1 - 3 in Schwabe (1949): In no. 1 the word DI^IO on a piece of white marble, perhaps from a sarcophagus, seems to have been preceded by the name of the deceased. No. 2, on a fragmentary white marble slab, consists of five letters only; according to Schwabe, it may be the beginning of the Aramaic inscription of which no. 1 is the end. No. 3, on a basalt stone, is also fragmentary and difficult to decipher: the one word which is preserved could be the Aramaic transcription of of|[ia, "tomb", or it could be the name "Simon". 2,8 See Schwabe (1949) no. 5 (probably from Alexandria) = Lifshitz (1973-74) no. 1 (considers Alexandrian origin certain), cf. Di Segni (1988) no. 14 (Alexandria); Schwabe no. 7 (Antioch) = Lifshitz (1973-74) no. 3 = Di Segni (1988) no. 16. 219 McCrown no. 1. He allegedly found this inscription at the Jewish necropolis of Tiberias but notes that when he revisited the site again later, a large portion of the inscription was broken off and removed. The inscription is identical with Schwabe (1949) no. 9, Frey no. 985, and Di Segni (1988) no. 25. 220 Schwabe (1949) no. 7. Cf. Di Segni (1988) no. 16. 221 See Lifshitz (1973-74) 26 (ad no. 3) with refererence to idem (1967a) 39 and 56.

4. Inscriptions

383

dignitaire de la communauté juive d'Antioch". 222 Other, more ordinary and less prestigeous occupations are never mentioned in the inscriptions. Unusual in comparison with the epitaphs from the coastal region is the frequency with which the age of the deceased is indicated in the Tiberian inscriptions. 223 As in some of the other incriptions discussed above, the commemorators who commissioned an epitaph occasionally identified themselves in it. Especially interesting is the epitaph of a certain Sirikios, whose household slaves honored him with an inscription: "Out of thankfulness for our deceased lord [ÔEOJtÔTOu] Sirikios, we, his slaves [Gqé^to], have erected [it]". 224 Schwabe dated the inscription to the third c. C.E, 225 and this date (and the probable Jewishness of the inscription) was confirmed by Di Segni, who believes that it belonged to a mausoleum built for Sirikios and mentioned in the Yerushalmi. 226 Whether or not this identification is correct, Sirikios must have been a wealthy and prominent man. One of the Greek sarcophagus inscriptions from Tiberias is extraordinary in that it consists of a long lamentation formulated in the first person, that is, attributed to the deceased himself: "Here I lie, Amandos, who enjoyed every luxury [or: delicacy]. I lived like a god for many years. Honorably I commanded soldiers, in the rank of chief of ten [troops?]. And after my death I am worthy to live [?]. For who amongst human beings did live as luxuriously as me, and who was worthy of such love by his birthplace? I was always distinguished amongst all men. The birthplace longed for me, Tiberias, which gave birth to me". 2 2 7

Di Segni dates the inscription to the third c. C.E. 228 The Hellenistic influence on the formulation of the text is obvious. The deceased is identified as a Tiberian citizen who served in the Roman army. According to Di Segni, it is impossible to determine whether or not he was Jewish. 229 The Hellenistic style of the epitaph cannot be taken as an argument against the deceased's Jewishness, but the usage of the term loofléojç, "godlike", seems somewhat strange for a Jew. 230 Amandos did not formulate the inscription himself. His family, if Jewish, may have been influenced by epitaphs for Roman soldiers and considered a similar epitaph appropriate for a relative who was a soldier himself. 222

Lifshitz (1973-74) 24. See Gildemeister = Frey no. 984 and Di Segni (1988) no. 9; McCrown no. 1 = Schwabe (1949) no. 9 and Di Segni (1988) no. 25; McCrown no. 2; Schwabe (1949) no. 7 = Lifshitz (1973-74) no. 3 and Di Segni (1988) no. 16; Schwabe (1949) no. 8 = Frey no. 986 and Di Segni no. 26. 224 See Gildemeister = Schwabe (1949) no. 10, Klein no. 170, Di Segni (1988) no. 8. 225 See Schwabe (1949) 39. 226 See Di Segni (1988) 77 with reference to j ^ T T O ! KCS3 in y. Er. 5, a text associated with R. Shimon b. Laqish who lived in the 3rd c. C.E. 227 See Di Segni (1988) no. 27. 228 See ibid, ad loc. 229 See ibid. 91. 230 See ibid. 223

384

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

In contrast to the inscriptions from Caesarea, Jaffa, and Tiberias, the few epitaphs from Sepphoris published so far are Aramaic 231 or bilingual. 232 A more appropriate estimation of the language choice in Sepphorian epitaphs can only be made when all of the inscriptions have been published, though. Interestingly, the Hebrew/Aramaic and bilingual funerary inscriptions from Sepphoris, like those from Jaffa, customarily mention rabbis. 233 It seems, then, that rabbis preferred to be commemorated in Hebrew/Aramaic and bilingual inscriptions, whereas the majority of their coreligionists preferred Greek. By far the largest number of Palestinian Jewish epitaphs were found at the central Jewish cemetery at Bet She'arim in the Jezreel Valley, where both Palestinian and Diaspora Jews were buried from the third until the middle of the fourth century C.E. Gafni has pointed out that the reference to a Diaspora origin of the deceased and/or his family in an epitaph, for which examples have already been mentioned above, "shows only that he belonged to a certain community and family; it does not necessarily mean that his remains were brought from that place for interment". 234 Nevertheless, rabbinic sources suggest that in the amoraic period "it had become an accepted practice in certain Jewish communities to transfer their dead to the land of Israel for burial". 235 He believes that some of the epitaphs from Jaffa and Tiberias (see above) and especially those from Bet She'arim attest to this practice. Whether or not the burial of important Babylonian sages at Bet She'arim triggered the development of the custom, it seems to have been followed in amoraic times only.236 Only some of the Bet She'arim inscriptions belonged to Diaspora Jews, though. The majority, which lack references to the places of origin of the deceased, are to 231

See Sukenik (1931-32) no. 1 (= Frey no. 990) and 2; Sukenik (1945-46) nos. 1-2. See Naveh (1992-93) 31. See Sukenik (1931-32) no. 1 = Frey no. 990: the Aramaic inscription, "This [is the tomb] of R. Yudan, Yudan b ..." was written on the wall of a burial chamber. Sukenik refers to two other fragmentary inscriptions in Hebrew letters, found in the same chamber, which also seem to mention rabbis. Idem (1945-46) no. 1: "Rabbi [or: Rav] Yesa [= Joseph] m n v n " , written on a marble tablet decorated with a menorah. According to Sukenik, m n v n may be a cognomen referring to an eye disease ("white spots on the corona", see Jastrow 440). Ibid, no. 2 is a limestone inscription: "Tomb of Rav Menisas [son of?] Daniel". The bilingual inscription in Naveh (1992-93) 31 consists of the Hebrew text, "This grave [belongs to] Nachum and Yaqob, the sons of Rabbi Hasokhi. May his soul rest in peace". The Greek text is not provided ibid. 234 See Gafni (1981) 98, against Meyers (1971) 72, who argues that the custom of reburial in Palestine, or Jerusalem specifically, existed from Herodian times onwards and is already evident from references to Diaspora origins in ossuary inscriptions. According to Gafni, the ossuary inscriptions only indicate that people from the Diaspora resided in Jerusalem at that time. 235 See Gafni (1981) 96 with references. 236 See ibid. 99-100. Gafni assumes that R. Yehudah ha-Nasi was buried at Bet She'arim himself and that the desire to be buried near him motivated people to choose this cemetery. Jacobs (1995) 247 n. 95, on the other hand, rejects the hypothesis that R. Yehudah ha-Nasi was buried at Bet She'arim, since it is only based on a late Babylonian literary source (b.Ket. 103b). The hypothesis is indeed very weak. 232 233

4.

Inscriptions

385

be ascribed to "Jews who were brought from Galilee, from Bet She'arim and its immediate vicinity". 237 What is important, however, is that the necropolis of Bet She'arim seems to have been a rather expensive burial place, and the expenses will have increased for those who brought their dead relatives from distant places to the land of Israel.238 Accordingly, "those who were brought for burial to Bet She'arim from a greater distance were, ..., rich and honored citizens who usually bought a room or even an entire hall for themselves and their families". 239 The inscriptions are incised and/or painted on the walls, ceilings, and doors of burial chambers and passageways. They can be incised on lintels, which were attached to the entrances to the halls, or painted on marble stones which blocked the opening to the grave. Some inscriptions are written directly on the coffins or the coffin lids. Inscriptions are written for individuals as well as for two or three people who were relatives or who jointly acquired the plot. 240 Sometimes the same person is mentioned in more than one inscription. It needs to be stressed, though, that many burial chambers were bare of any inscriptions and that the amount of inscriptions varies from one hall to the next. 241 The large majority of the funerary inscriptions from Bet She'arim, that is, 213 are written in Greek or are bilingual. 242 Only 25 inscriptions are written in Aramaic or Hebrew only. 243 Most of the Hebrew and some of the bilingual inscriptions are found in catacombs 14 and 20, and a number of individuals with the title "Rabbi" are mentioned in them. 244 The same phenomenon, that epitaphs which 237

Nagakubo 58. See also Schwabe/Lifshitz, 217-18, for an examination of the origins of the deceased buried at Bet She'arim. Ibid. 219 they conclude that "the vast majority of the deceased buried in the necropolis came from Bet She'arim or from its immediate vicinity". 238 See Schwabe/Lifshitz 219. 239 See ibid. 240 See, e.g., Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 149 (husband and wife) and no. 83 ("partners" in burial). For examples of further collective inscriptions see nos. 60, 87, 92-94, 96. 241 See Nagakubo 61. 242 These inscriptions are published in Schwabe/Lifshitz. Of the 228 Greek and bilingual inscriptions published in this volume a few were found in the synagogue area and seem to have been donors inscriptions (see nos. 205, 207); one (no. 202) which refers to "Rabbi Samuel who arranges [the limbs of the dead] and of Judah who lays out the corpse", referring to the preparation of the corpse for burial, "may have served to mark the seats of the two men in the synagogue" (see ibid, ad loc.). A few other inscriptions found in the same location are too fragmentary to be identified (nos. 213-214, 216-218). 243 These inscriptions are published as nos. 1 - 3 , 5 - 8 , 11-28 in Avigad (1971a). Nos. 4, 9 and 10 are bilingual. 244 See Avigad (1971a): nos. 8 - 1 2 in catacomb 14 (nos. 9 and 10 are bilingual); nos. 13-28 in catacomb 20. For inscriptions with the title "Rabbi" see no. 9 (Hebr.: "This is [the grave] of Rabbi Gamaliel", underneath in Greek: "Rabbi Gamaliel"); no. 10 (Hebr.: "This is [the grave of] Rabbi Aniana", underneath in Greek: "Of Rabbi Anianos the Small [vavou]"); no. 11 (jCDpn N r j t f ) may refer to the same person; no. 15 ("Here lies Atio[n], the daughter of Rabbi Gamaliel b. Nechemiah, who died [as] a virgin, twenty-two years old, and Ation, daughter of Rabbi Yehudah b. Rabbi Gamaliel, who died [when she was] nine years old. And [after] six months they will stand up [with the righteous]"; no. 16 ("Rabbi Yehoshua b. Rabbi Hillel b. Ation, [may] his grave [rest] in peace"; no. 17 ("These are the inner and outer coffins of Rabbi

386

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

mention rabbis are written in Hebrew or Aramaic rather than in Greek or are at least bilingual, has already been observed in connection with the inscriptions from Jaffa and Sepphoris above. Whereas Shaye J.D. Cohen has argued that these "epigraphical rabbis" were not Torah scholars like the rabbis mentioned in rabbinic writings, and that in inscriptions the title "Rabbi" is merely used as a title of honor for any high-standing man,245 the clear preference of Hebrew and Aramaic in epitaphs mentioning rabbis, which is not limited to the Bet She'arim inscriptions but occurs elsewhere as well, and the fact that the sarcophagi belonging to rabbis and their families are often plain or at least bare of overtly pagan decorations 246 suggest that these rabbis were indeed Torah scholars, although they must not have been identical with any of the rabbis known from the literary sources. 247 Besides the rabbis, only very few other Jews had epitaphs written in Hebrew or Aramaic248 or in both Greek and Hebrew 249 at Bet She'arim. The Greek and bilingual epitaphs often mention the Diaspora origins of the deceased and/or their families and, though much less frequently, their origins elsewhere in Palestine. 250 As already pointed out above in connection with the Aniana and of [Rabbi] ..., the holy ones, sons of [Rabbi] ..."); no. 21 ("Miriam, daughter of Rabbi Yonathan, with her two daughters"); no. 22 ("This is the coffin of the three sons of Rabbi Yudan b. Rabbi Mesha"; no. 23 ("This is the coffin of Rabbi Yoshua the ..."); no. 24 ("This is the coffin of Kyra Mega, wife of Rabbi Yehoshua b. Levi. Shalom"); no. 25 ("This coffin [of] ... daughter of Rabbi Yehoshua ... Remember the righteous for a blessing"); no. 26 ("This is the coffin of [Rabbi] Gamaliel b. Rabbi Eliezer [who died] at the age of seventeen years. Remember the righteous for a blessing"); no. 28 ("This is the coffin of Rabbi Halil b. Rabbi Levi, who has made this cave". For bilingual inscriptions with the title "Rabbi" in other catacombs see Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 31 (Greek: "R[abbi] Paregoris", with the Hebrew transliteration of the name above); no. 43 (Greek: "... the son of Yose", Hebr. cont.: "Rabbi", Greek: "the pious is buried here. Have courage"); no. 45 (Greek: "Rib Joaas[ph]", with the name "Yehoseph" written in Hebrew letters above). 245 See S.J.D. Cohen (1981-82) 9ff. 246 See ibid. 12, where Cohen notes that five of the eight sarcophagi from catacomb 20 which mention rabbis are plain. The others are decorated with architectural motifs, shells, discs, or animals such as birds, fish, and lions. The sarcophagi of the rabbis were found near sarcophagi decorated with pagan symbols, though, and Cohen takes this as an argument against the epigraphical rabbis' identity as Torah scholars. On the tomb decorations in catacomb 20 see also Nagakubo 63-67. 247 On this issue see also Hezser (1997) 119-23. 248 See Avigad (1971a) nos. 1-3: Aramaic warning inscriptions in catacomb no. 12;nos. 5 6: Hebrew epitaphs for Yudan b. Levi, and no. 7, an epitaph for a certain Tabla in catacomb no. 14. In catacomb no. 20 a few (partly fragmentary) inscriptions do not mention rabbis (see nos. 18, 19, 20, 27). Whether these people (mostly women) were nevertheless relatives of the rabbis mentioned in the other inscriptions remains uncertain. 249 For bilingual inscriptions besides the ones mentioning rabbis see Avigad (1971a) no. 4 = Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 133 and ibid. nos. 29, 49 (mentioning priests), 54, 65, 79, 88, 117, 119, 122. In practically all of these cases the Hebrew is limited to the repetition of the deceased's name or the exclamation "woe". A few other times a Hebrew is added to a Greek inscription (see nos. 28, 69, 178, 203, 219), although "Shalom" could also be written in Greek (see, e.g., nos. 21, 25, 71, 72). 250 See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 46 ('Arab), 60 (Havarah), 79 ('Arab), 92 (Palmyra), 100 (Palmyra), 111 (Himyar in Southern Arabia), 119 and 121 ('Asia = 'Etzion-Geber), 136-137

4.

Inscriptions

387

e p i t a p h s f r o m J a f f a in w h i c h D i a s p o r a o r i g i n s are a l s o f r e q u e n t l y m e n t i o n e d , it is o n l y natural that D i a s p o r a J e w s w o u l d c o m m e m o r a t e their d e c e a s e d in G r e e k . U n l i k e t h e e p i t a p h s f r o m J a f f a a n d C a e s a r e a , d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , p r o f e s s i o n s are m e n t i o n e d r e l a t i v e l y s e l d o m in the B e t S h e ' a r i m i n s c r i p t i o n s , and l o w l y p r o f e s s i o n s are rare. 2 5 1 T h e f a c t that s o m e o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s m e n t i o n e d in the e p i t a p h s o w n e d entire burial h a l l s s u g g e s t s that t h e y w e r e v e r y s u c c e s s f u l in their p r o f e s s i o n s and h a d b e c o m e rich.252 T h i s p h e n o m e n o n , that m a n y o f the burial h a l l s in t h e c a t a c o m b s w e r e o w n e d a n d u s e d b y particular f a m i l i e s , 2 5 3 a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e s that the B e t S h e ' a r i m c a t a c o m b s s e r v e d a s the burial p l a c e o f t h e w e a l t h y . T h o s e w h o c o u l d n o t a f f o r d to b u y w h o l e c h a m b e r s c o u l d b u y i n d i v i d u a l p l o t s in c h a m b e r s b e l o n g i n g to o t h e r s or s h a r e burial c h a m b e r s , 2 5 4 but the e v i d e n c e f o r this p r a c t i c e is r e l a t i v e l y rare at B e t S h e ' a r i m i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h Caesarea and Jaffa discussed above. B e s i d e s t h e title " R a b b i " , w h i c h n o t o n l y a p p e a r s in H e b r e w a n d b i l i n g u a l but a l s o i n a f e w G r e e k e p i t a p h s , 2 5 5 o t h e r titles d e n o t i n g o f f i c i a l s w i t h i n t h e relig i o u s c o m m u n i t y or t h e p o l i t i c a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , s u c h as p r e s b y t e r / e l d e r , 2 5 6 g e r u s i a r c h , 2 5 7 a r c h i s y n a g o g u e , 2 5 8 and palatinus,259

are o c c a s i o n a l l y m e n t i o n e d

(Byblos), 138-140 (Yahmur), 141 (Antioch), 147 (Tyre), 148 and 164 (Beirut), 172 (Sidon), 178 (Phaene near Tyre), 197 (Ma'on), 199 (Tyre), 203 (Caesarea and Pamphylia), 221 (Sidon). 251 For references to professions see Schwabe/Lifshitz 79 (perfume dealer), 81 (physician), 92 (banker), 124 (teacher), 168 (perfume dealer), 188 (cloth dyer), 189 (cloth merchant). 252 Hall A of catacomb 4 with 7 rooms belonged to Leontios the banker (no. 92) and his family from Palmyra. The perfume dealer Paulinus (no. 168) owned hall G in catacomb 13. The family of Samuel the teacher (no. 124), who seems to have come from 'Etzion-Geber, is buried in hall A of catacomb 8. Schwabe and Lifshitz therefore assume that "teacher", &t&da[xaXocl is used as an honorific title rather than a profession here. Finally, Sabinos the cloth dyer (no. 188) and Julius the cloth merchant (no. 189), although their family connections are not expressly mentioned, may have belonged to a family which worked in the textile industry and owned hall B in catacomb 19. 253 For example, in catacomb 1 hall C belonged to Thyme and her family from Palmyra; hall E belonged to Julianus Gemellius and his family; hall F belonged to the brothers Karidas; hall G was owned by Rabbi Isaac son of Mokim and his family, perhaps from Palmyra: many generations of the family are buried in the four rooms; hall K was owned by a certain Leontios and his family etc. The name of the owner is usually written on a lintel at the entrance to a burial hall, or on the door itself. 254 For example, in the two rooms of hall P of catacomb 1 several unrelated family groups, perhaps all from Palmyra, are buried. Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 83 refers to "Jacob, Judah, partners of Paregoris and Alexandras from ...". The editors assume that the term "partners" identifies them as persons who jointly acquired a burial plot (ibid. 59 n. 9 with further examples). Sometimes the inscriptions are so short, consisting of the personal name of the deceased only, that it is impossible to determine whether or not family connections existed, see, e.g., hall A in catacomb 1. 255 See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 18 and 20, 41, 61, 180, 208. 256 See Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 110 (no origin mentioned). 257 Ibid. no. 141 (from Antioch). 258 See ibid. nos. 164 (from Beirut), 203 (from Pamphylia), 212 (no origin mentioned), 221 (from Sidon). 259 See ibid. no. 61. According to Schwabe/Lifshitz 41, "the Palatinus was an official either of the imperial treasury (fiscus) or of the state treasury (aerarium)".

388

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

as well. In addition, some individuals are identified as priests or relatives of priests. 260 Levites are never mentioned, however, and an epitaph which may have belonged to a proselyte does not explicitly identify her as such. 261 Only one inscription mentions a freedwoman, whose status as the householder of a highstanding master seems to have been relatively high. 262 The high social status of the deceased and their families is also sometimes indicated by certain attributes given to them in the epitaphs. A number of women carry the title xtioa 2 6 3 or uaroojva, 2 6 4 "lady", in front of their personal names. One man and one woman are called ^¿[iJtQog/^d^jtQav, "illustrious", and an archisynagogue ^afXJtQOTa-coc;, "most illustrious". 265 The adjective xodxioxoc, excellent, used for the father of a cloth merchant, may have been a moral attribute, though. 266 The most frequently used moral attribute appearing in the Greek inscriptions is 00105, "pious". 2 6 7 The characterization of the deceased as jrevrf/Qoq, "poor", seems to have likewise served to identify him as pious and virtuous rather than indicating his material poverty. 268 Once the term "servant of the Lord", which often appears in Christian epitaphs, is used for the owners of a burial hall in the Bet She'arim necropolis. 269 The age of the deceased at the time of burial is mentioned in one Hebrew epitaph only. 270 The relatively frequent references to the deceased's and/or their families' origins, professions, titles, and social and moral attributes in the Greek epitaphs at Bet She'arim suggest that these epitaphs did not merely serve as identification 260

See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 4 9 , 6 6 ("Sarah, daughter of Nechemiah, mother of the priestess, the lady Maria, lies here", i.e. the deceased woman's daughter Maria was the wife of a priest, see ibid. p. 43: "The relatives of the deceased wanted to indicate in the epitaph that Sarah was the mother of a cohen's wife. We cannot find a better proof of the high social status of the priests in the Jewish community"), 148, 180 ("The priest Rabbi Hieronymus"), 181. That the status of priests continued to be high in late antique Palestine is also indicated by the other inscriptions in which priests are mentioned (see above) and from rabbinic writings, see Hezser (1997) 4 8 0 - 8 9 . 261 Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 158 ("Here lies Sarah, the pious Jewess") may refer to a proselyte, see ibid. 137. 262 See Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 200: "The tomb of Calliope the elder [|ii£oxéQag], the freedwoman of Procopius, of blessed memory". The term |xit,0TEQag denotes an intendant or manager of a household with various functions. Another inscription which may implicitly refer to freed slaves is no. 191: "Here lies Semnous, also called Sirikis, our mistress". It is likely that Semnous was buried by her freed slaves, see ibid. 176. 263 See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 39, 56, 66, 70, 121, 130, 162, 219. 264 See ibid. nos. 136 and 137. 265 See ibid. nos. 164 (the archisynagogue Eusebius from Beirut), 179 (Procopius; XcifuiQog is misspelled here), 183 (Karteria, mentioned in a poetic inscription). 266 See ibid. 174 a d no. 189. 267 See ibid. nos. 3 4 , 3 5 , 3 8 , 4 1 , 4 3 , 126, 157, 158, 163, 173, 193. According to Nagakubo, 233, the adjective "pious" indicated "the state of felicity rather than the moral quality of the departed". It referred to "the post-mortem felicity of the soul in the heavenly realm". 268 See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 99 and 206. 269 See ibid. no. 184. 270 See Avigad (1971a) no. 15.

4.

Inscriptions

389

and ownership markers which provided orientation to the families, as the ossuary inscriptions did.271 They were probably also meant to perpetuate the memory of the deceased as high standing citizens and virtuous individuals and to distinguish the survivors as persons of good and honorable ancestry, as the Roman funerary inscriptions did. A few of the Greek inscriptions are formulated in the first person, that is, they pretend to be the words of the deceased, who identifies himself to the visitors (e.g., "I, X, lie here ..."). 272 Usually, however, the deceased are addressed by those who set up the inscriptions for them. The formulas most commonly used in the Greek inscriptions are E-U^IIIQI, "May your lot be good .. ,", 273 and BOCQOI, "Be of good courage .. .", 274 good wishes of a religiously neutral character addressed to the deceased in his tomb. The expression, "Nobody is immortal", which often appears in pagan inscriptions, can be connected with each of these formulas too.275 The Greek formulas, "Lord, remember your servant" 276 and "One God, help", 277 commonly used in Christian inscriptions, and the Hebrew formula, "Let the rightous be remembered for a blessing", 278 which are of an explicitly religious character, addressing God, appear much less frequently. Rather unusual is a Greek inscription in which the son addresses his deceased parents with: "May your portion be good, my lord father and my lady mother, and may your souls be bound [in the bundle] of immortal life". 279 Schwabe and Lifshitz assume that despite the Greek language the epitaph is typically Jewish in nature: "The son blesses his parents in Greek, which is his language, but expresses in fact his Jewish outlook. He employs words familiar to him, which express the Greek ideas of immortality, in order to portray the Jewish idea of the eternal life". 280 Also unusual is the formula, "Good luck for the resurrection of your souls", incised in Greek in the corridor of catacomb 20.281 Schwabe and Lifshitz believe that the inscription is related to the Hebrew epitaph for Atio and her niece Ation in the same catacomb, which states "... and [after] six months 271 On the inscriptions as orientation marks see Schwabe/Lifshitz 219: "The purpose of the Beth S h e ' a r i m inscriptions was usually to show the way to relatives of the deceased". Families from the Diaspora needed such orientation more than local families familiar with the cemetery. Therefore one may assume that Diaspora families were more likely to mark the burial spots of their deceased with inscriptions. 272 See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 92, 128, 129. 273 See, e.g., Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 2, 5 - 7 , 9, 13, 2 6 - 2 7 , 33, 47, 52, 56, 69 etc. 274 See, e.g., ibid. nos. 29, 3 9 - 4 1 , 43, 59, 84, 8 7 - 8 9 , 102 etc. 275 See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 59, 127, and 187. On the usage of this formula in Jewish inscription see also van der Horst (1994) 136-38. 276 See Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 184. 277 See ibid. no. 109. On the appearance of this formula in Palestinian inscriptions see Di Segni (1994b). Ibid. 97 she notes that at Bet She'arim the formula is painted on the arch of a passageway. It is not an epitaph for a specific person. 278 See Avigad (1971a) nos. 25 and 26. 279 See Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 130. 280 See ibid. 115. 281 See ibid. no. 194.

390

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

they will stand up [with the righteous]. 282 They even reckon with the possibility that both inscriptions were written by the same person: "Apparently, a member of the family of the deceased incised the Greek inscription either at the time of the funeral or during a visit to the grave". 283 The inscriptions also occasionally mention the person who arranged the funeral and/or bought the tomb. Especially noteworthy is a Greek inscription carved on the wall of a funeral chamber: "This ossuary is one of the lowest placed coffins of all. And it is a good thing that it has been placed above. It is of my uncle Papos, who brought us up". 284 The inscription was obviously "carved by the nephew of the deceased, who visited his uncle's grave a long time after the latter's death". 285 One may assume that he found the coffin and changed its location to improve its placement. He seems to have considered it his duty to do so, since his uncle was responsible for his upbringing. 286 The inscription was probably meant to enable relatives not present at the time of the transfer to identify the tomb later on. Sometimes inscriptions seem to have served as "official" certifications of ownership rights. This seems to be the case with an inscription written in Greek on the arch of a passageway, stating: "There are in the burial chamber six tombs which belong to Aidesios". 287 Such inscriptions were meant to prevent non-related individuals from burying their dead in the plots. Other inscriptions warned people against opening the coffin and taking out the bones in order to reuse the grave for someone else. Sometimes the forcefulness of the warning is increased by threatening with a curse anyone who might intend to do so. One such inscription in Greek is formulated in the first person, i.e. attributed to the deceased himself: "I, Hesychios, lie here with my wife. May anyone who dares to open [the grave] above us not have a portion in the eternal life". 288 A curse also appears in Aramaic warning inscriptions: "Whoever opens this grave upon the one who is in it, shall die at the end [as] a wicked [person]". 289 In both cases the punishment of the transgressor is delegated to God. This is also the case in another variant of the theme in a Greek inscription: "Anyone who changes this lady's place, He who promised to resurrect the dead will Himself judge [him]". 290 According to the editors, the formulation shows that "the author of the inscription was familiar with the Septuagint and with Jewish concepts in their Greek guise". 291 The violation of graves was so com-

282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291

See ibid. 181. The Hebrew inscription is published as no. 15 in Avigad (1971a). Schwabe/Lifshitz 181. Ibid. no. 131. Ibid. 119. See ibid. Ibid. no. 142. Ibid. no. 129. See Avigad (1971a) no. 1. Ibid. no. 2 is formulated in a similar way. Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 162. Ibid. 140.

4.

Inscriptions

391

mon in antiquity that the Romans prohibited it by law. 292 Another Greek inscription at Bet She'arim stresses that such behavior was doubly prohibited, by both Roman and Torah law: "Nobody shall open, in accordance with the divine and secular law". 293 The protection of tombs against violation is also a common theme of GraecoRoman funerary inscriptions. According to Lattimore, it was based on "the feeling, common to Greeks and Romans, that the tomb was a sacred place". 294 The various forms in which the warning was expressed often contained blessings of those who left the tomb undisturbed or curses of those who did not.295 Lattimore notes that "there must have been a widespread belief that such defensive curses would work, that the religious awe of the public in general would correspond to the intense concern felt by those who built the tomb".296 Curses commonly appear in epitaphs from Roman period Asia Minor, whereas Latin warning inscriptions usually consisted of a simple command or request only. 297 The warning not to disturb the dead in their tombs covered all kinds of infringements, "from the illicit sale of property on which the tomb stands to grave-robbery".298 Only two of the Greek epitaphs are formulated in a longer poetic style. 299 One of these inscriptions is written on a white marble slab which had originally been affixed to one of the walls of a heavily decorated mausoleum adjacent to catacomb 11: "I, the son of Leontios, lie dead, Justus, the son of S a p p h o , w h o , h a v i n g p l u c k e d the fruit of all [kinds of] w i s d o m , left the light, [and left] m y poor parents in endless m o u r n i n g , and m y brothers too, alas, in my B e t S h e ' a r i m . A n d h a v i n g g o n e to H a d e s , I, Justus, lie here with m a n y of my o w n kindred, since m i g h t y Fate so willed. B e of g o o d courage, Justus, n o b o d y is i m m o r t a l " . 3 0 0

292 De Zulueta refers to a Greek inscription on a marble slab published by Cumont in 1930, which was allegedly found at Nazareth. The inscription is an imperial enactment commanding "that graves and tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors or children or members of their house". Various possible types of grave violation are subsequently listed and the perpetrator is threatened with a trial. De Zulueta argues for the authenticity of the inscription and dates it to the first century C.E. If this date is correct, Augustus may have been the author of the enactment, but a Galilean origin would be impossible, since Galilee was not under Roman rule at that time. On Roman actions against sepulchri violatio see ibid. 193: "It was not till the end of the second century that Roman law adopted, or returned to, criminal punishment of the offence". 293 Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 134. 294 Lattimore 106. 295 See ibid. 107-109 for examples. 296 Ibid. 109. 297 See ibid. 118 and 119 for examples. 298 Ibid. 120. 299 See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 127 and 183. 300 Translation with Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 127 and van der Horst (1994) 136.

392

Part II: The Occurrence

of

Writing

A c c o r d i n g to the editors, the reference to Justus "having plucked the fruit of all w i s d o m " m a y indicate that he "was educated both in Greek and J e w i s h learning". 3 0 1 T h e authors of the inscription, probably the youth's parents, wanted to stress his erudition. The poetic style o f the epitaph suggests that they t h e m s e l v e s had s o m e Greek learning too. S c h w a b e writes: "The mausoleum frieze and the epigram itself are clear indications of the influence of Greek culture, in which Justus and his circle were steeped. Owing to this influence, they were able to understand Greek literature ... The standard of the epigram is not much lower than that of other verse inscriptions of the period ... This is factual evidence that in the Talmudic period, not only the family of the Patriarchs learned Greek, was educated, and conducted its life in the spirit of Greek culture, but that other families also were steeped in non-Jewish learning ... It is obvious that the author of the epigram had enjoyed a Greek education, was familiar with Homer, and had learned to compose epigrams, as indeed had every youth of his day who had frequented a Greek s c h o o l . . . He is a Jew and a Greek at the same time and knows how to use certain expressions in such a way as to awaken in the Jewish reader an echo of his Jewish ideas, whereas the Greek reader, or any adapt of Greek culture, hears an echo of Greek ideas and literature" 302 A Greek literary education can also be a s s u m e d for the author o f another poetic tomb inscription found at B e t She'arim: "This tomb contains the dwindling remains of Karteria, preserving forever the illustrious memory of a noble woman. Zenobia brought her here for burial, Fulfilling thus her mother's request. For you, most blessed of women, your offspring, whom you bore from your gentle womb, your pious daughter, for she always does actions praiseworthy in the eyes of mortals, built this monument, so that even after the end of life's term both of you may enjoy again new indestructible riches". 3 0 3 T h e inscription is incised on a white marble slab found in the courtyard of catacomb 18 and is preceded by the formula "suXoyia xfj o o i a " (="Praise be to the pious"). Various Jewish s y m b o l s a c c o m p a n y the inscription. Here, too, H o meric i n f l u e n c e on the poetic formulation is noticeable. 3 0 4 Interestingly, the author of the epitaph is a w o m a n , Zenobia, w h o arranged the burial and c o m m i s s i o n e d the inscription for her mother. In the first half o f the inscription the daughter identifies herself by name and in the s e c o n d part she addresses her deceased mother, congratulating her for having such a pious daughter w h o built the tomb for her. The inscription o b v i o u s l y serves as a m o n u m e n t for the daughter as m u c h as, or perhaps e v e n more than for the mother. It cel-

301

See Schwabe/Lifshitz 99. Ibid. 107. For the identification of Homeric phraseology in this inscription see van der Horst (1994) 136. 303 Translation with Schwabe/Lifshitz no. 183 and van der Horst (1994) 139. 304 See Schwabe/Lifshitz 159f.; van der Horst (1994) 139. 302

4.

Inscriptions

393

ebrates the daughter as a perfectly virtuous human being whose excellence is exemplified by the monument itself. 305 Although the authors of both inscriptions seem to have had some Greek literary learning, especially in the epic poetry of Homer, which was already taught at the elementary school level, the texts are deficient from a metric point of view.306 With regard to Zenobia's text, Schwabe and Lifshitz write: "The meter and the writing do not reveal a deep knowledge of the Greek language or metrics". 307 The authors had probably copied expressions and sentences from literary sources and rearranged them to suit their purposes, as was common in the composition of funerary epigrams. 308 That only two Jewish inscriptions of this kind have been detected for Roman Palestine may indicate that the number of Jews who possessed a Greek literary education was small. In addition, Jews who possessed such learning may have rarely enjoyed the Graeco-Roman practice of long poetic funerary inscriptions and preferred their epitaphs to be simple and short.309 With regard to the large majority of the more simple Greek funerary inscriptions from Bet She'arim Schwabe and Lifshitz have emphasized that "they give no evidence of a systematic learning of the language and its grammar". 310 The authors seem to have learned Greek by hearsay and through conversations rather than having received a more formal education in the language: "It does seem as though the authors of the inscriptions learned their Greek from their pagan neighbors and knew how to speak it, but only seldom did they have a broader educational background". 311 On the other hand, the mere quantity of the Greek inscriptions "proves that wide circles of the Jewish population were in some way influenced by the Greek language", 312 so much so that they commemorated their dead in Greek even if their mother tongue was Aramaic. 313 Besides the epitaphs discussed so far, only a few Jewish funerary inscriptions have been found in other regions of Palestine, and these inscriptions are usually

305 Day, 2 0 - 2 1 , has pointed out that sometimes a parallelism exists between the monument and the deceased in that both deserve praise: the monument serves as a marker of the praiseworthiness of the deceased. This phenomenon may be the case here as well. 306 See van der Horst (1994) 136 and 138. 307 Schwabe/Lifshitz 167. 308 See ibid. 162. 309 According to van der Horst (1994) 129, only 19 ancient Jewish epitaphs in metrical form have been found so far, with the two inscriptions from Bet She'arim being the only ones from Palestine. To these two one might add the Greek lamentation inscription from Tiberias (Di Segni, 1988, no. 27), mentioned above, but the Jewish origin of this epitaph for a soldier is uncertain. Another longer inscription, this time in Aramaic, is the so-called Abba-inscription from Givat ha-Mivtar, mentioned above. On this inscription see Rosenthal, Naveh (1973), Grinz, Tzaferis (1974). 310 Schwabe/Lifshitz 220. 311 Ibid. 312 Ibid. See also Nagakubo 62. 313 The usage of Greek documents by Aramaic speakers (cf. the Babatha and Salome Komaise papyri) can serve as an analogy.

394

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

dated to Byzantine times (4th-8th c. C.E.). For the Darom (Southern Judaea) a rather plain Greek inscription which merely identifies the deceased has been found on a lintel decorated with a menorah in a burial cave north of Bet Guvrin.314 A bilingual Aramaic and Greek epitaph was discovered hewn into the rock above the entrance of a tomb in Kh. Gemar (Gomer). The Aramaic text reads: "I, Eleazar, son of Abba Mari, made this tomb for Ilia Mari, a member of his household [or: his wife]. Have respect for it - an oath!" The Aramaic inscription is followed by the abbreviated "signature" of the writer, "Laza", in Greek. 315 The "oath" may stand for a warning against opening the tomb. 316 Most interesting amongst these Byzantine-period inscriptions are five Aramaic tombstone inscriptions from Zoar on the southern shore of the Dead Sea, published by Naveh. 317 These five epitaphs of eight to ten lines each are incised or written in red paint on sandstone, decorated with Jewish symbols. They are all formulated in the same way: "This is the tombstone of/May rest the soul of followed by the name of the deceased and the date of his death, with day, month, and year of the Sabbatical cycle, counted from the destruction of the Temple onwards. The inscriptions end with various forms of the exclamation •"frtZj. While scholars differ over the correct synchronization of the dates given in the inscriptions, they must in any case be dated to the fifth century C.E. 318 The references to the Sabbatical cycle and the destruction of the Temple at this late period is striking. They are a clear expression of the authors' allegiance to the Jewish tradition. Such clear signs of Jewishness are usually lacking in the epitaphs from the Golan, which Gregg and Urman date to the 3rd-7th century C.E. Dozens of Greek tombstone inscriptions with Greek and hellenized Latin names, often introduced with the Ouoasa-formula have been found at various sites, but they lack any evidence of the deceased's Jewishness. 319 The Jewish origin of the inscriptions can only be assumed, if they are written in Aramaic, 320 decorated with Jewish symbols, 321 and less certainly, if they contain Semitic names. 322 To summarize our results so far: Both similarities and differences exist between the Jewish funerary epigraphy of the third and fourth century and the earlier graffiti on ossuaries found in Herodian-period Jerusalem. Whereas two 314

See Avni/Dahan/Kloner 14-15. See Meehan 65. 316 See ibid. 317 See nos. 1 - 4 in Naveh (1985) and the fifth inscription in idem (1987). For prior publications see Cowley (1925), Ben-Zevi (1944), and Sukenik (1945). 318 See Naveh (1985) 115 with a table of the dates. 319 See Gregg/Urman 43: The religious identity of those for whom the tombstones were written remains unknown. Traditionally pagan names may also have been used by Jews, therefore it is possible that some of the tombstones belonged to Jews, but this cannot be proven. 320 See ibid. no. A F 4 1 p . 321 See ibid. no. 176. 322 See ibid. nos. 94, 107, 112-113, 117, 134-136, 151, 208, 212-214, 218, 233. 315

4.

Inscriptions

395

thirds of the ossuary inscriptions are written in Jewish (i.e., Hebrew square) script, the overwhelming majority of later epitaphs are written in Greek. The few Hebrew/Aramaic and bilingual inscriptions from Jaffa, Sepphoris, and Bet She'arim usually mention rabbis, that is, rabbis seem to have preferred to be commemorated in Jewish script while almost all of their fellow-Jews who practiced epigraphy did so in Greek. It seems that funerary inscriptions were especially set up by Jews who had immigrated to Palestine from the Diaspora and/or brought their deceased relatives to Palestine for burial. It was also practiced by public office holders and, as the "epigraphic rabbis" show, by those who held religiously relevant titles. In the cities of the Mediterranean coast some Jews from the lower strata of society seem to have occasionally adopted the epigraphic habit as well (cf. the inscriptions from Caesarea and Jaffa), whereas in Galilee (cf. the inscriptions from Tiberias and Sepphoris) and especially at Bet She'arim funerary inscriptions seem to have mostly been written for members of distinguished families and public dignitaries, and for some professionals from the middle strata of society who had become wealthy. In comparison to Roman epigraphy, the number of Palestinian Jews who did practice the habit seems to have been very small. Also striking is the general shortness of the inscriptions. Like the earlier ossuary inscriptions, later Jewish epitaphs are usually limited to the identification of the deceased and his or her position within the family. Nevertheless, a certain increase in the mention of titles and professions is noticeable in the later inscriptions, and the Bet She'arim inscriptions often use stereotypes to characterize the deceased as virtuous and distinguished individuals. Certain local preferences in the formulation of the inscriptions seem to have existed. 323 For example, the Caesarean inscriptions usually state that this is the "tomb o f ' or "place o f ' the deceased. The Bet She'arim inscriptions, on the other hand, often address the deceased directly with the formulaic expressions "May your lot be good" or "Be of good courage". The inscriptions from Tiberias are exceptional in that they frequently mention the deceased's age. It seems, then, that people used the inscriptions of others as their models, and/or that local stonemasons tended to adhere to particular forms. 324 Only in a few exceptional cases do inscriptions divert from the common type. In the case of the longer, poetic inscriptions, whose authors seem to have possessed a Greek literary education, Greek literature, and especially Homer, seems to have inspired the formulation. 325 The 323 With regard to Graeco-Roman epitaphs Lattimore, 19, points out that many formulae "are strongly localized", that is, appear in one area particularly. 324 On the usage of manuals by stonecutters and on the question of authorship of the inscriptions see Lattimore 17 ff. He stresses that the "imitative tendency" creates "formulistic crystallizations" (17). The stonecutters seem to have used manuals from which clients could choose, or the clients would look at other epitaphs for inspiration, see ibid. 18-19. 325 See ibid. 18: The literate would look at the literature in search for appropriate formulations.

396

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

term "authorship" can, in fact, only be used in connection with these longer, unusual inscriptions. It is possible, however, that even these inscriptions were composed by stonemasons rather than (or together with) the dedicators, "working from a stock of conventions". 326 Lattimore has pointed out that "generally in prose inscriptions there is no indication of age or occupation, nor any clue to distinguish bond from free". 327 Latin inscriptions tend to provide more details and sometimes consist of long descriptions of the merits and achievements of the deceased. 328 The most characteristic form of praise is the enumeration of virtues: "When men are praised it is usually for one of the standard excellences such as wisdom, temperance, righteousness, or courage". 329 In the Jewish inscriptions from Bet She'arim, "pious" is the most frequently used attribute which seems to designate a morally perfect way of life. Shaw has argued that in the western Empire of the first centuries C.E. funerary inscriptions were kept short and simple for economic reasons rather than because of cultural preferences. 330 The erection of a short epitaph, which consisted of the name of the deceased and his family relationship only, was a way of avoiding the anonymity of a mass grave.331 Economic reasons do not seem to have determined the common Jewish choice of short, formulaic epitaphs in Roman Palestine, though. With a few exceptions, even wealthy families adhered to the simple and plain form. It seems, then, that in late Roman Palestine some Jews adopted the Roman epigraphic habit and even preferred to commemorate their deceased in Greek, but usually took over some sterotypical formulas only rather than creating - or imitating - a more elaborate epigraphic style. The Jewish preference for short and simple inscriptions may have been connected with these inscriptions' function in the funerary context. In contrast to Rome and Roman Italy, where family burial chambers seem to have been rare or even absent, 332 in Roman Palestine and especially at Bet She'arim many burial chambers and entire halls were owned by families and used for the burial of their members only. The family-centered burial tradition, which is already visible in the tombs used for ossuary burial in Herodian-time Jerusalem, thus continued in later times. The inscriptions mainly served as orientations for the surviving members of the family, to perpetuate the family tradition and thereby preserve the decendants' own identity, rather than as a means of ostentation meant to

326

Hopkins (1983) 204. Lattimore 266. 328 See ibid. 270 ff. 329 Ibid. 293. See also Day, 17, who points out that already in archaic Greece grave markers served to bear public witness to the "status of the deceased as an dyaGog, one who had satisfied aristocratic society's highest standards". 330 See Shaw 463. 331 See Hopkins (1983) 211 and 217. 332 See ibid. 206. 327

4.

Inscriptions

397

impress the non-related visitor and passer-by. 333 Thus, some Palestinian Jews did adopt the Roman epigraphic habit and the Greek language which went with it, but they did so in a rather limited way, both with regard to the actual number of inscriptions and with regard to their formulations and functions. Only a tiny minority of Jews decided to set up elaborate epigrams for their ancestors, which served to exhibit their own Greek culture. This phenomenon is very striking and may indicate that even amongst those who possessed a Greek literary education only a few were willing to publicly exhibit their Greek culture and thereby diverge from their co-religionists.

C. Synagogue

Inscriptions

Besides the funeral realm, the synagogue is the second main context in which inscriptions were used by Jews in Roman Palestine. Although the dating of synagogue inscriptions is often uncertain, almost all of the inscriptions fall into the period between the third or fourth and the beginning of the seventh century C.E., that is, they were set up in late Roman-Byzantine times. The institution of the synagogue itself seems to have changed at that time, and the appearance of numerous dedicatory inscriptions was probably connected with and one of the consequences of this change. According to Yoram Tsafrir and Lee Levine, practically no archaeological evidence of synagogue buildings in Palestine exists for the second and early third century C.E., that is, for the two hundred years following the destruction of the Temple. 334 The later Galilean synagogues built from the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century onwards do not seem to have been direct continuations of the synagogues which existed in Second Temple times, neither with regard to their architectural plan nor with regard to their role within the community. They rather deviated from them in both form and function. Tsafrir reckons with "the influence of the general Byzantine matrix on the synagogues of that period in Israel". 335 Whereas the third-century synagogues seem to have been influenced by the building conventions of the Roman-Hellenistic world as, for example, exemplified by pagan temples, the architecture of the later synagogues of the fourth and following centuries is reminiscent of Christian basilical

333 For the usage of Roman funerary inscriptions and monuments as a means of ostentation, to impress the living, see Hopkins ibid. 2 0 5 - 7 and Lattimore 227. Family relationships were, of course, also important to the Romans. According to Shaw, 463, "the act of commemoration of the deceased by writing on stone became the focal point upon which the network of secular relationships in which he was most closely involved converged at the time of his death and burial". 334 See Tsafrir 148 and 154 n. 3; Levine (2000) 168, where he points to one or two possible exceptions. 335 See Tsafrir 148.

398

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

churches: "This transformation of architectural values began in the fourth century C.E. and reached its peak from the fifth century C.E. on". 336 With the architectural structure the role and perception of the synagogue within the Jewish community changed. On the one hand, the synagogue continued to serve as the community's central assembly place used for a variety of purposes. 337 On the other hand, the religious nature of the synagogue came to be much more emphasized. Thus Rachel Hachlili writes: "The synagogue buildings of the late antique period served as centers for the ritual practices now concentrated exclusively in the synagogues". 338 The main religious activities taking place in the synagogues were the reading of the Torah and the prayer service, and the Torah shrine became an important feature. 339 The synagogue was now seen as a replacement of the Temple and a holy place, a view which may have been influenced by Christian analogies. 340 The new centrality and representativeness of the synagogue as a visible symbol of the Jewish community probably prompted people's desire to be publicly associated with it. To have one's name inscribed in the sacred realm of the synagogue must have been considered a particular honor. The wish to publicly express one's identity as a member of the synagogue community will thus have been based on the elevation of the role of the synagogue itself in late antique and early Byzantine times. The large majority of the synagogue inscriptions are dedicatory inscriptions which honor and propagate individual and collective donors. 341 The practice of dedications was directly linked to the custom of euergetism, which was common in the Graeco-Roman world. Rogers refers to the so-called philotimia-model, according to which "a benefactor, motivated by religious sentiment, regard for fellow-citizens and the desire for posthumous prestige, bequeaths a relatively limited range of objects, usually money ... in exchange for the increased status or posthumous glory which the receiver could provide". 3 4 2

Euergetism was practiced in the realm of public buildings, entertainment and festivals, religious life and medicine. 343 It was "an intrinsic part of the moral

336

Ibid. 151. See Levine (1996a) 444 and idem (2000) 178f. 338 Hachlili (1997) 45. Cf. Levine (2000) 181 ff. 339 See Hachlili (1997) 43; eadem (1988) 166-87 on the various types of Torah shrines. 340 See Miller 65; Levine (1996a) 444ff.; idem (2000) 221 ff.; S.J.D. Cohen (1987b) 16165; Fine 2Iff. 341 On the different types of synagogue inscriptions see Hachlili (1988) 225-26. Besides dedication inscriptions a few inscriptions referring to the twenty-four priestly courses, two late "literary" inscriptions (Rehov and En-Gedi), and a few explanatory inscriptions which accompany mosaic images exist. On these see the discussion below. 342 Rogers 189. 343 See Rajak 308. 337

4.

Inscriptions

399

formation of the pagan elites" and an expression of the supreme virtues of cpiAav0Qcoma and |i£YaXoTpi'%ia.344 In the case of synagogues, the receiver would be the local community or its representatives, who administered the synagogue building. One may assume that the main benefactors were the most distinguished synagogue officials, namely archisynagogues, who often donated large amounts of money or founded or renovated entire synagogues. 345 They shared the role of benefactors with other title-holders, amongst them rabbis, and other more or less wealthy members of the community. With regard to the Sardis synagogue Palmer Bonz has suggested that synagogues were financed by a combination of a few large donations, a number of donations of a more modest size, and joint communal payments. 346 It seems that the donors inscriptions foster such a financing system by honoring those who contributed to the synagogue in the past and by providing incentives to others who might do so in the future. 347 Altogether, less donors inscriptions than epitaphs have been excavated and published so far. In contrast to the epitaphs, most of the donors inscriptions are written in Hebrew/Aramaic rather than in Greek. In his collection of 1978 Joseph Naveh lists 91 Hebrew/Aramaic synagogue inscriptions from Palestine (including the Golan), 348 whereas Lea Roth-Gerson has published 30 Greek synagogue inscriptions plus 6 from Bet She'arim (found in the synagogue area, but not necessarily synagogue inscriptions) in 1987. 349 A number of additional inscriptions have been published since then, so that in 1988 Hachlili refers to approximately 50 Greek and 110 Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions, 350 and in 1996 Levine reckons with more than a hundred Hebrew/Aramaic and around 70 Greek synagogue inscriptions. 351 According to my own estimation, approximately 55-60 Greek and 115-120 Hebrew/Aramaic synagogue inscriptions from Palestine have been published (or are alluded to in publications) so far. 352 344

See ibid. See especially Rajak/Noy 8 7 - 8 8 , who argue that the office of archisynagogue was an honorary office offered to wealthy people who would act as benefactors. 346 See Palmer Bonz 1 5 0 - 5 1 . 347 See also Rajak 309. 348 See Naveh (1978) nos. 1 - 8 7 and 107-110. 349 See Roth-Gerson nos. 1 - 3 0 and I-VI. 350 See Hachlili (1988) 225. 351 See Levine (1996b) 3 9 5 - 9 6 . 352 Besides the collections of Naveh (1978) and Roth-Gerson (1987) see Schwabe (1950) no. 2 (Caesarea, Greek); Schwabe ( 1 9 4 4 - 4 5 b ) , Reich (1980), and Naveh (1989) no. 9 (K. Habra, Aramaic); Ovadiah (1969) no. 3 and Glucker no. 4 0 (Gaza, Greek); Ilan/Damati nos. 1 3 and Naveh (1989) nos. 1 - 3 (Merot, Hebrew and Aramaic); Z. Ilan (1987-88), Ilan/Gal (1988), and Naveh (1989) no. 7 (Ch. Tiberias, Aramaic); Ben-Dov no. 2 and Di Segni (1988) no. 5 (Tiberias, Aramaic); Weiss/Netzer (allude to 10 Greek, 16 Aramaic and 1 bilingual mosaic inscriptions from synagogues in Sepphoris not published yet); Fitzmyer/Harrington A49 and Frey nos. 9 7 4 - 9 7 5 (K. Birim, Aramaic and Hebrew); Naveh (1989) 308 (a number of as yet unpublished inscriptions from the synagogue of Rehov); Naveh (1989) no. 2 - 3 (Qizrin in the Golan, Aramaic). 345

400

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

Synagogue inscriptions are much more widely distributed geographically than funerary inscriptions. They have not only been found in cities but also in small towns and villages. Naveh has already noticed that the Greek synagogue inscriptions mostly come from the coastal cities, from Caesarea and Gaza, and from cities such as Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Bet Shean and places in their vicinity, that is, from urban areas in which Greek-speaking Jews lived. 353 Roth-Gerson has confirmed this impression and stressed that only a few Greek synagogue inscriptions stem from the countryside. 354 Even in the cities, however, Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions often appear side by side, sometimes even in one and the same mosaic and/or synagogue. In Caesarea, Ashqelon, Gaza, Tiberias and Chammat Tiberias, Sepphoris, Bet Alpha and Bet Shean both Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic synagogue inscriptions have been found. In the coastal cities of Caesarea and Gaza the Greek inscriptions constitute the majority, whereas in Tiberias (with Ch. Tiberias) and Sepphoris the number of Greek and Aramaic/Hebrew inscriptions seems to be approximately equal. Smaller places such as Kefar Habra and the Galilean villages Kefar Kanah, Qorazin, Churbat Kanaf, Kefar Birim, Churbat Ammudim, Alma, Abellin, Er-Rama, Kefar Baram, Yesod Hama'alah, but also Chammat Gader and Naveh in the Transjordan Valley and Kokhav ha-Yarden in the Jordan Valley, Bet Guvrin, Hebron, Eshtemoa and Churbat Susiya in southern Judaea, and Jericho and En-Gedi in the Judaean Desert have Aramaic and Hebrew synagogue inscriptions only. The phenomenon that Greek synagogue inscriptions almost only appear in larger cities and that the villages seem to have set up Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions only might also explain why most epitaphs are in Greek. Perhaps the epigraphic habit was rarely adopted by the village population but almost only by city dwellers who were more ready to use Greek. That synagogue inscriptions did not necessarily have to be written in Jewish script is evidenced by the Greek synagogue inscriptions which also appear in Tiberias and Sepphoris. Obviously the synagogue as a holy place did not require inscriptions to be written in Hebrew as the holy language, for only relatively few Hebrew synagogue inscriptions exist, and they are usually not dedications but lists of priestly courses or quotations of biblical verses or explanations accompanying biblical figures and scenes. The Hebrew/Aramaic dedication inscriptions are more formulaic than the Greek ones. They usually consist of the formulas "X made y", often combined with "he shall have a blessing" or "he shall be remembered for good". Although the Greek dedications may also consist of the formulas "X has donated/built" , "For the salvation of ...", and "Remember for good and for a blessing ...", they are generally more variegated in style. Rajak has stressed that the Jewish dedica353 354

See Naveh (1978) 7. See Roth-Gerson 16.

4.

Inscriptions

401

tion inscriptions differ from the Graeco-Roman ones in that they are usually very short, providing the names and offices of the donors but lacking references to specific honors accorded to them. 355 She assumes that this "absence in the Jewish epigraphy of virtually all the language in which the transactions of euergetism can be conducted" can hardly be considered accidental. 356 This observation concurs with our conclusions concerning the Jewish epitaphs above. In late Roman and early Byzantine times Palestinian Jews adopted the epigraphic habit and the practice of euergetism, but did not follow the Graeco-Roman models entirely and in all details. The differences concerning the donated objects and amounts of money mentioned in the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek synagogue inscriptions are striking. The people commemorated in the Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions donated a lintel, 357 a gate, 358 a column, 359 a candleholder, 360 a stoa (or: seat of Moses) and steps, 361 a shrine, 362 a threshold, 363 a square, 364 that is, specific smaller parts of the synagogue building. Larger parts of buildings such as shops 365 or a study house/ room, 366 which may or may not have belonged to a synagogue, are rarely mentioned in the inscriptions. The amounts of money to which the Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions refer can be as low as half a denar, one denar, or three denars. 367 The amount of five golden denars is very exceptional and comes from a high-standing family whose members are all called kyris/kyra or comes,368 Entire mosaics are sometimes said to have been donated collectively, by the entire community. 369 In the two cases in which individual donors paid for a mosaic, each time in addition to another object, they are identified as Pinchas the priest and as "the holiness... Rabbi Issi the honorable priest Berabbi", i.e. as exceptionally distinguished, and probably very wealthy, holders of religious titles. 370

355

See Rajak 312. See ibid. 319. 357 Naveh (1978) nos. 1 (or: arch[ed gateway]), 42. 358 Ibid. nos. 11, 15, 21. 359 Ibid. nos. 12, 18, 40, 71. 360 Ibid. no. 16. 361 Ibid. no. 17. 362 Ibid. no. 20 (or: gate). 363 Ibid. no. 22. 364 Ibid. no. 110. 365 See ibid. no. 5. 366 See ibid. no. 6. 367 See ibid. nos. 35, 34, 57. 368 See ibid. no. 32. See also the three golden denars which Rabbi Ella/Alia and his brother are said to have given to the synagogue of Chammat Tiberias in Naveh (1989) no. 7 (against Ilan/Gal, who believe that they donated three ordinary denars only). 369 See the collective inscriptions in Naveh (1978) nos. 57 and 69. 370 See ibid. nos. 58 (Pinchas the priest) and 75 (Rabbi Issi). Pinchas also donated a basin, Rabbi Issi payed for the plastering of the walls in addition to financing the mosaic. The tabula in nos. 30 and 31 may also refer to a mosaic floor or at least part of it. 356

402

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

In many of the Greek dedication inscriptions, on the other hand, the donors have donated entire mosaics and founded or renovated whole or parts of synagogue buildings.371 The donation of a stoa and a column is mentioned only once.372 Whereas a Greek inscription honors Rusticus the founder of the synagogue of Dabura, an Aramaic inscription in the same synagogue mentions the donor of columns.373 The Greek inscriptions from the so-called house of Kyrios Leontis in Bet Shean, which may have been a private house which served as a synagogue,374 honor individual donors of the mosaics,375 whereas no Aramaic inscriptions of individual donors are known from that place. A Greek inscription from Tiberias refers to Proklos, the founder of the synagogue, whereas an Aramaic dedication inscription was written for the donor of a threshold.376 At the synagogue of Chammat Tiberias Greek inscriptions were set up for Ioullos, the parnas or surveillant ( jtqoveil usvo;), and for "Severos, Bqejtto^ of the very illustrious patriarchs",377 whose contributions seem to have been especially great.378 The Aramaic dedication inscription found in the same synagogue is a collective inscription wishing peace to "everyone who has given charity at this holy place and who in the future will do charity".379 It is quite obvious, then, that the wealthier donors were usually commemorated in Greek, even in Galilean cities, whereas the less wealthy were commonly referred to in Aramaic. The phenomenon that many or even most of the former were communal office holders may have been partly responsible for the language choice.380 Only two collective inscriptions are written in Greek,381 whereas numerous such inscriptions, honoring a set of anonymous donors, are amongst the Aramaic/Hebrew synagogue inscriptions.382 These anonymous donors are sometimes identified as "people of Arbel", 383 "[people of] the town",384 "all inhabitants of the village [ ¡ i m p ^D]", 385 ' 'all members of the holy congregation 371 Mosaic: see Roth-Gerson nos. 6, 7, 16, 21, 26 (part of mosaic), 27. Synagogue: ibid, nos. 11, 15, 19 (Theodotus inscription), 23 (renovation), 29 (gallery). 372 Stoa: see ibid. no. 17; column: see ibid. no. 20. 373 See Roth-Gerson no. 11 and Naveh (1978) no. 7. 374 See Hüttenmeister-Reeg 1:63: "Vielleicht handelt es sich um ein öffentliches Gebäude oder ein Privathaus, das von dem Eigentümer für die Belange der Synagoge (Gästehaus?) zur Verfügung gestellt wurde, als eine solche in diesem Komplex eingerichtet wurde". 375 See Roth-Gerson nos. 6 and 8. 376 See Roth-Gerson no. 15 (Proklos); Naveh (1978) no. 22. The other Aramaic dedication inscriptions are fragmentary and do not mention any object. 377 See Roth-Gerson nos. 16 (Ioullos) and 18 (Severus and Ioullos). 378 See Roth-Gerson 72. Ioullos is said to have "made everything"; Severos allegedly "completed [the work]". 379 See Naveh (1978) 26. 380 p o r t [j e r e f e r e n c e t 0 titles in dedication inscriptions see below. 381 See Roth-Gerson nos. 9 and 25. 382 See Naveh (1978) nos. 26, 33, 34, 39, 43, 46, 57, 64, 69, 83, 84. 383 See ibid. no. 33 (Chammat Gader!). 384 ibid. no. 34 (Chammat Gader). 385 See ibid. nos. 39 (Chusifa/Isfiya), 43 (Bet Alpha), 83 (Churbat Susiah).

4. Inscriptions

403

[ n n o n p n m i n n ^ n ^D]", 386 "the whole congregation [ n ' r n p ^D]",387 "the entire holy congregation [nET~Ip rfTTlp ^D]", 388 or "the holy congregation [ntonp n ^ n p ] " , 3 8 9 i.e. they are either members of the political-administrative unit of a town or village or members of a religious congregation. Perhaps one such designation implied the other, that is, the members of the congregation ( r f m p ) were the local Jewish residents (ilPIp ^11) and vice versa, and the term used in the inscription was merely a formulaic choice. Twice it is emphasized that the collectivity includes the "great and small [rP"ni)T1 ¡TO"!]", a distinction which may refer to the variegated social statuses but can also indicate that the anonymous donors included people of different ages ("older and younger people")-390 Sometimes collective inscriptions also mention a few individuals by name, in addition to the many who remain anonymous.391 The anonymous donors may have considered themselves part of a collectivity jointly responsible for a work and wanted to remain unidentified for moralreligious reasons.392 One could also imagine, however, that the "many", for whom collective inscriptions were set up, contributed small amounts of money only, amounts too small to be worthy of individual inscriptions. Since individual Aramaic inscriptions sometimes honor donors who contributed as little as half a denar, one denar, or three denars, the anonymous contributions may have been below that range. Or the collective contributions were made in kind rather than in money. At least in one case wheat is mentioned, which seems to have been collected and sold en masse to finance a mosaic.393 A community fund is never explicitly mentioned in the inscriptions, but it is also possible that the communal contributions were taken from such a fund. 394 The titles and professions mentioned in the Hebrew/Aramaic dedication inscriptions are almost all known from rabbinic literature. Especially noteworthy is the frequency with which rabbis are mentioned as synagogue donors in these inscriptions. One rabbi is said to have built a study house/room (as part of a synagogue building?), another donated an entire mosaic and financed the plastering of the walls, a third paid for a synagogue gate, and a fourth gave one trimissis.395 None of the Greek donors inscriptions mentions the title "Rabbi", 386

Ibid. no. 46 (Bet Shean). Ibid. no. 57 (Maon). 388 Ibid. no. 69 (Jericho). 389 See ibid. no. 84 (Churbat Susiah). 390 See ibid. nos. 39 and 69. 391 See, e.g., ibid. nos. 33, 34, 39, 43, 57. 392 Cf. Roth-Gerson 43 in connection with ibid. no. 9 (Bet Shean). 393 See Naveh (1978) no. 43 (Bet Alpha). See also no. 64 (Na'aran): "... whether he/she gave money or anything else". 394 c f Palmer Bonz, 151, with regard to the synagogue of Sardis. 395 See Naveh (1978) nos. 6 (Dabbura, study house/room), 15 (Ramah, gate), 29 (Sepphoris), 33 (Chammat Gader, one trimissis), 36 (Naveh), 43 (Bet Alpha), 60 (Na'aran), 70 (En Gedi), 75 (Churbat Susiah, mosaic, plastering of walls), 80 (Churbat Susiah), 82 (Churbat Susiah). Often the specification of the contribution is missing because of the fragmentary state 387

404

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

although a lot of other titles appear in them. 396 This phenomenon harmonizes well with the evidence of the funerary inscriptions discussed above. It seems, then, that Palestinian rabbis and their families wanted to be memorialized in Hebrew or Aramaic and usually refrained from using Greek. The appearance of rabbis as synagogue donors in late Roman and early Byzantine inscriptions also shows that rabbis supported these synagogues and were actively involved in their building and upkeeping. Especially striking is a Hebrew inscription from the synagogue of Churbat Susiah in a tabula ansata within the mosaic floor: 397 " R e m e m b e r e d b e for good the holiness of m y lord R a b b i Issi the h o n o r a b l e priest B e r a b b i [ ' D T D "DIDOn ] r o n " C K " X l ""TO] w h o has m a d e this m o s a i c and plastered its [i.e. the s y n a g o g u e ' s ] walls with plaster, [for] that w h a t h e d o n a t e d at the [marriage?] f e a s t [nntCOD] of R a b b i Y o c h a n a n the priest the scribe B e r a b b i his son [ i n ^ T n ISIDH j r o n p n v - m ] . P e a c e u p o n Israel". 3 9 8

Both the father and the son are honored with a multitude of religiously significant titles such as "rabbi", "priest", "scribe". They seem to have been the most distinguished and probably wealthy personalities of this community, for their inscription stands out amongst the other dedication inscriptions from that locale. Other titles and professions mentioned in the Hebrew/Aramaic donors inscriptions are chazzan,399 head/judge, 400 parnas,401 witness, 402 Levite, 403 and priest. 404 A few of the Aramaic inscriptions also mention the titles kyris/kyra and comes,405 but no archisynagogues appear in them. Interesting in this regard is an inscription within a circle in the mosaic floor of the synagogue at Chammat Gader:406 " A n d r e m e m b e r f o r g o o d kyris Hoplis and kyra P r o t o n f e ] and kyris Salustis, his sonin-law, and comes Phruros, his son, and kyris Photis, his son-in-law, and kyris C h a n i of the inscription. A rabbi is also mentioned in an inscription from Chammat Tiberias published in Naveh (1989) no. 7, Z. Ilan (1987-88), and Ilan/Gal (1988): he gave three (golden) denars. 396 A Greek inscription found in the synagogue area of Bet She'arim (see Roth-Gerson no.I) refers to a Rib Sumoelos (= Shmuel), but not as a donor: he is identified as someone involved in funerary procedures. 397 According to Hüttenmeister/Reeg 1:423 the synagogue was build in the 4th-5th c. C.E. They reckon with a later gaonic origin of the inscription, though, see ibid. 428: "Wahrscheinlich ist die Inschrift erst gegen Ende des Bestehens der Synagoge, im 9. oder sogar erst im 10. Jahrhundert, angebracht worden". Their argument for the late dating are the alleged gaonic expressions in the inscription. These expressions are also known from amoraic sources, however, and therefore cannot be taken as an argument for a gaonic date. 398 Naveh (1978) no. 75. 399 See ibid. nos. 20 (Churbat Ammudim) and 28 (Afeq). 400 See ibid. no. 21 (Avelin), according to Klein's (head) and Braslavy's (judge) reading; other readings are also possible, though. 401 See ibid. no. 63 (Na'aran). 402 Ibid. no. 77 (Churbat Susiah). 403 Ibid. nos. 80 and 82 (Churbat Susiah). 404 Ibid. nos. 58 (Na'aran), 74 (Eshtemoa), 75 (Churbat Susiah). 405 See ibid. nos. 32, 33, 34 (all Chammat Gader), 71 (Bet Guvrin). 406 According to Hüttenmeister/Reeg 1:153, the synagogue can be dated to the 5th c. C.E.

4.

Inscriptions

405

nah, his son, they and their children, w h o s e charitable o f f e r i n g s are present at every place, w h o gave here f i v e denars [of] gold. T h e k i n g of the w o r l d shall give his blessing u p o n their w o r k s . A m e n A m e n Sela". 4 0 7

The titles kyris/kyra identify the donors as members of a high-standing family, and their donations indicate that they were very wealthy. Although the inscription is in Aramaic, they may have spoken Greek (and come from the Diaspora?). The Aramaic language of the inscription was probably chosen by the community. All of the other donors inscriptions from Chammat Gader are written in Aramaic as well. Titles and professions mentioned in the Greek donors inscriptions are jtoovofi|ievo5/jroovoi]TTig (administrator; parnasl),m (poovxioxiiq (overseer),409 410 411 A{2 archisynagogue, presbyter/elder, scholasticus, comes,4U consul, 414 and 415 wood merchant. Especially high standing slaves or freedmen are referred to by the terms Oogjixog (slave or freedman of the house) of the patriarchs416 and |iii;oTE0oq (slave supervisor).417 Lee I. Levine has already noticed that the Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions from Palestine mention titles and offices also known from rabbinic sources, whereas the Greek inscriptions do not.418 The offices which appear in the Greek inscriptions are also known from Diaspora inscrip407

Naveh (1978) no. 32. See Roth-Gerson nos. 16 and 18 (Chammat Tiberias), where the two designations are applied to the same person (Ioullos). Both nouns are derived from the verb Jtoovoeco/ j i Q o v o o i n a i , to provide, superintend, take care, see Liddell/Scott, Lexicon, 1491. The term nQovorioia refers to the office of administrator and the jiQovoTyrrig/jiQovoiiiiEvog was a supervisor, administrator (e.g. of estates), or curator (e.g. of public buildings). Whether the Greek terms denote the office of parnas, known from rabbinic sources and mentioned in one of the Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions (see Naveh, 1978, no. 73), is uncertain. 409 See Roth-Gerson no. 27 (Caesarea). On this title see also Feldman (1996) 60 (Diaspora) and Levine (2000) 410. 410 See Roth-Gerson nos. 19 (Theodotus inscription from Jerusalem), 24 (Sepphoris, archisynagogues of Tyre and Sidon), 27 (Caesarea). See also the inscriptions from Bet She'arim ibid. II and VI which are not necessarily dedications, though. On the title see Feldman (1996) 56 (Diaspora) and Levine (2000) 3 9 0 - 4 0 2 . 411 See ibid. no. 19 (Theodotus inscription). See also jt(jeafi£UTr|5 in Glucker no. 41 = Frey no. 969 (Gaza). Whether the inscription is Jewish or Christian, a dedication or an epitaph is unclear. On the title see Levine (2000) 407 f. 412 See Roth-Gerson no. 24 (Sepphoris). The same inscription also mentions archisynagogues and a comes. 413 Ibid. 414 See Lehmann/Holum no. 84 with reference to a report by Avi-Yonah: A Corinthian capital from the Caesarean synagogue has a monogram mentioning a consul by the name Patricius. The present location of the find is unknown, however. 415 Roth-Gerson no. 21 (Gaza). 416 Roth-Gerson no. 18 (Chammat Tiberias). On Oqejitos see Liddell/Scott, Lexicon, 805: "slave bread in the home", also used of "adopted foundlings". Like the familia Caesaris, (former) slaves of the house of the patriarch will have enjoyed a particularly high status. Therefore this status is mentioned in the inscription. 417 See ibid. no. 17 (Chammat Tiberias). The term also appeared in an epitaph from Bet She'arim, see above. 418 See Levine (1996b) 395 and idem (2000) 422 f. 408

406

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

tions. 419 According to Levine, "this heavily Hellenized nomenclature undoubtedly held sway as a result of the extensive and intensive contact of these Jewish communities with the surrounding Graeco-Roman world". 420 Not only the titles but the entire administrative structure of these synagogue communities may have been influenced by Graeco-Roman models: "it is certain that Jews exposed to the wider Hellenistic scene not only adopted its terminology, but undoubtedly something of its modes of organization and administration as well". 421 If this was the case in Sepphoris, for example, were a lintel inscription honors archisynagogues and a scholasticus (as founders of the fifth c. C.E. synagogue?), 422 at least some rabbis, of whom one appears in a mosaic dedication inscription at that place, 423 seem to have come to terms with these synagogue leaders, although they are never mentioned in rabbinic sources. The "Hellenistic" administrative structure may have been adopted by the synagogues of Palestinian coastal cities such as Caesarea as well as by (some of) the synagogues of Sepphoris and (Chammat) Tiberias, i.e. at locales where many amoraic rabbis lived. That rabbis do not mention these officials is strange. Levine suggests that rabbis may have deliberately downplayed synagogue grandees, perhaps because tension and competition reigned between the two types of leadership figures. 424 The origins of the donors are rarely mentioned in the inscriptions. This phenomenon may indicate that the donors were usually locals. Only three of the Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions point to the donors' origins from other places within Palestine. A lintel inscription found at Alma refers to "... nah of Tiberias, who has made this lintel". 425 An Aramaic mosaic floor inscription from the Chammat Gader synagogue lists a number of people from outside Chammat Gader: "... And remember for good Menoqa 426 from Susita, the Sepphorean, and kyris Patriq [from] Kefar Aqaviah, and Yose b. Dosetai from Kefar Nachum, who all three gave three geramim ... And remember for good the people from Arbel who gave their pay [?]".427 Why these people gave money to the Chammat Gader synagogue rather than (or in addition to?) their local synagogues remains unclear. Perhaps they only originated from or formerly lived in the mentioned locales and were inhabitants of Chammat Gader at the time of their donation. The same consideration applies to a dedication inscription on a stone column of 419

See idem (1996b) 3 9 6 - 3 9 7 and (2000) 423. Idem (1996b) 397. 421 Ibid. 422 See Roth-Gerson no. 24. 423 See Naveh (1978) no. 29. 424 See Levine (1996b) 398. 425 See Naveh (1978) no. 4. The person memorialized here may have been the artisan rather than the donor. On the other hand, another lintel inscription, in which the artisan explicitly identifies himself as such, was found at Alma, see ibid. no. 3. 426 Or: "Moniqa" (Hüttenmeister-Reeg), or: "his child" (Naveh). 427 Naveh (1978) no. 33. 420

4.

Inscriptions

407

the former Kefar Habra synagogue. The inscription refers to "Yudan son of ... from Bet Shea[n who made this column?] and repaire[d] ...". 428 An Aramaic inscription from Avelin, of which various readings are possible, may mention a "Baruch from Alexandria who donated and made this gate". 429 Otherwise Diaspora origins are mentioned in a few Greek dedication inscriptions only. A marble lintel inscription from the so-called house of Leontis in Bet Shean refers to a "donation of Nonnos of Qiziqos". 430 According to Roth-Gerson, Qiziqos was located in Asia Minor, that is, like Leontis himself, who may have come from Alexandria, Nonnos had come to Palestine from abroad. 431 Another Greek dedication inscription from Sepphoris mentions "Yehudah the archisynagogue of Sidon ... Severianus Aphros, the very illustrious archisynagogue of Tyre".432 Roth-Gerson maintains that the inscription shows that Jews from abroad not only sent donations to Eretz Israel but also came to settle there. 433 Whether these archisynagogues actually lived in Sepphoris is possible, but remains uncertain. In both the Aramaic/Hebrew and the Greek dedication inscriptions women are vastly underrepresented. If they are mentioned at all, they are mentioned together with their husbands or as the daughters of prominent fathers. 434 At least as far as the Aramaic/Hebrew inscriptions are concerned, wives seem to have been mentioned only if the husbands were especially wealthy and/or distinguished, as the titles kyris/kyra and priest indicate. 435 One Aramaic inscription honors Chalipo, the daughter of a rabbi, who seems to have "gained merit" by contributing money herself, 436 just as "Domna, daughter of Iulianus", who is mentioned in a Greek dedication inscription from Ashqelon, may have done. 437 Extremely unusual is the case of "this woman Anatoliah who has given one denar for the honor of the synagogue", mentioned in an Aramaic mosaic floor inscription at Chammat Gader after kyris Leontis and kyra Qaliniqe who obviously donated much more, 438 and before the collective reference to the "[people of the] town who 428

See Schwabe (1944-45b) 31-33. Naveh (1978) no. 21. 430 See Roth-Gerson no. 8. 431 See ibid. 39. Leontis is never explicitly said to have come from Alexandria, but the images on the mosaic floor "made by Leontis" (see ibid. no. 6), especially that of a man in a ship, may point to an Alexandrian origin, see ibid. 34. 432 Ibid. no. 24. 433 See ibid. 109. 434 See Naveh (1978) nos. 32 (together with the husband, sons, and sons-in-law); 34 (together with the husband), no. 60 (together with her father). 435 See Naveh (1978) nos. 32, 34, 59. Cf. Roth-Gerson no. 2 (only Greek inscription where the wife is mentioned). 436 See Naveh (1978) no. 60. 437 See Roth-Gerson no. 3. Ibid. no. 28 the father donated "for the welfare of Matrona, his daughter". 438 The inscription is fragmentary, and the amount of money or object they donated is missing. 429

408

Part 11: The Occurrence of Writing

gave one trimissis" ,439 Why this woman is honored as an individual here despite her relatively small donation is unclear. Perhaps women are so rarely mentioned in synagogue dedication inscriptions because they would rarely contribute anything on their own. As long as their husband was alive they would not own any property themselves. Domna, daughter of Iulianius, Anatoliah, and Chalipo, daughther of Rabbi Safra, were probably widows who donated from their own (inherited) money. The donors are usually identified by their personal names and patronyms in both the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek inscriptions. In some of the Aramaic inscriptions the grandfather is mentioned as well. 440 Occasionally the main donor is mentioned together with his sons (and sons-in-law),441 or the donors are brothers. 442 This indicates that the dedication inscriptions honored the paterfamilias in the first place, and his male blood-relatives, such as fathers, grandfathers, sons, and brothers with him. Wives and daughters are mentioned very rarely and mothers or daughters-in-law never appear. The synagogue itself is sometimes called a "holy place" in inscriptions. 443 All of the synagogues to which these inscriptions belonged seem to have been built in the 5th/6th century C.E. or later. In a few other inscriptions the synagogue is simply called "this place" 444 or synagogue. 445 The Jewish community as a whole seems to have been blessed by the recurrent formula "Peace upon Israel" in Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions 446 and "a blessing to the people" in a Greek inscription.447 These formulas expressed the individual synagogue community's notion of being part of the much larger body of all Jews in Palestine and abroad. Some synagogue inscriptions honor the artisans in addition to the donors. In one Aramaic inscription from Alma (preceded by the Hebrew formula, "Peace be upon this place and upon all places of your people Israel"), the artisan identifies himself in the first person: "I, Yose b. Levi Halevi [am] the artisan who has made this [lintel]".448 Similarly, an Aramaic mosaic inscription from Bet Shean memorializes the mosaic maker with the words, "Remember for good the artisan who has made this work". 449 In two Greek inscriptions in the mosaic floors of the Bet 439

See Naveh (1978) no. 34. See, e.g., Naveh (1978) nos. 18, 19, 29, 30, 72. 441 See ibid. nos. 15, 32, 74, 75. 442 See ibid. 20; Roth-Gerson nos. 7 and 21. 443 See Naveh (1978) nos. 16 (Kefar Chananiah), 26 (Chammat Tiberias), 46 (Bet Shean), 60 and 6 4 - 6 6 (Na'aran); Roth-Gerson nos. 3 (Ashqelon), 10 (Gerash), 21 and 23 (Gaza). 444 See Naveh (1978) no. 1 (Ashdod) 445 See ibid. nos. 34 (Chammat Gader) and 71 (Bet Guvrin). The term KriEh:> might also refer to the congregation rather than to the building, though. In the Theodotus inscription (Roth-Gerson no. 19) the reference to the "synagogue" clearly refers to the building. 446 See Naveh (1978) nos. 1, 3, 50, 68, 70, 75. Cf. ibid. no. 69, where the donors are called righteous and "• , ""Qn to all Israel". 447 See Roth-Gerson no. 12. Cf. ibid. no. 25: "donation of the people". 448 Naveh (1978) no. 3. 449 Ibid. no. 47. 440

4.

Inscriptions

409

Alpha and Bet Shean synagogues the mosaic makers Marianos and Aninas, a father and son, are honored either by the respective communities in appreciation of their work or at their own initiative, to propagate their expertise. 450 Finally, a Greek inscription engraved on a marble tablet, which seems to have stemmed from a synagogue in Tiberias or Chammat Tiberias, mentions a marble maker: "The mercy of God [be with] Abraham, the maker of the marble [^aQiiaoioi)]".451 Some of the other inscriptions which simply state that someone "made" an object may also refer to artisans rather than to donors. Jewish just like GraecoRoman artisans may have (directly or indicrectly) used such inscriptions as advertisements of their work, hoping to be hired for further tasks on their account. The inscriptions of donors and artisans regularly appear on the mosaic floors, columns, lintels, architraves, and thresholds of synagogues and must have been readily visible to all those who entered the buildings. Interestingly, Weiss and Netzer point out that the Greek dedication inscriptions of the Sepphoris synagogue were almost all located in the central mosaic carpet of the nave and at the top of panels, whereas most of the Aramaic dedication inscriptions were located in the mosaic carpet of the northern aisle and between the columns. 452 Perhaps the donors who were commemorated in Greek in the mosaic of the central nave, that is, at a more prominent place, were more wealthy and/or distinguished than those commemorated in Aramaic dedications. The inscriptions are very fragmentary, though, and have not been properly published yet, so that this explanation must remain a mere hypothesis. Only a few synagogue inscriptions which are not dedications and therefore not related to the construction and financing of the building have been found so far. Amongst these non-dedicatory inscriptions are lists of the priestly courses, liturgical calendars, a halakhic inscription, quotations of biblical verses, and explanatory labels accompanying mosaic images and the depiction of the zodiac and the seasons. Fragmentary Hebrew inscriptions of the twenty-four priestly courses of the Bible (cf. 1 Chr. 25:8 ff.) have been found at Caesarea, Ashqelon, Rehov, Kissufim in the Western Negev, and an unknown place in Galilee 453 The Caesarean inscription lists the courses "in their order, together with their surnames and the 450

See Roth-Gerson nos. 4 and 5. Ibid. no. 14. Schwabe (1954) believed that Abraham was the stonecutter who fabricated the marble stones at the top of the synagogue columns. According to Roth-Gerson, the inscription has the style of a dedication, though, and may thank the artisan for his donation rather than for his work, see ibid. 60. 452 See Weiss/Netzer 4 1 - 4 2 . 453 See Naveh (1978) nos. 51 (Caesarea), 52 (Ashqelon), 56 (Kissufim). On the Kissufim inscription see also Z. Ilan (1973), who suggests that it belonged to the synagogue of Horvat M a ' o n or another undiscovered synagogue. On the inscription from Rehov see Naveh (1989) 308 (on plaster of wall). On the inscription from an unknown place in Galilee see Eshel (199192), who notes that this may be the first inscription of the priestly courses found in Galilee. 451

410

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

names of the locality to which they had moved after the destruction of the Second Temple". 454 The phenomenon that similar lists have been found at other places is "proving the prevalence of this custom of commemorating the courses in the Palestinian synagogues". 455 The inscriptions belong to synagogues of the fifth and sixth century C.E. Avi-Yonah notes that complete lists were found in liturgical poems of the 6th or 7th century, that is, a connection between these inscriptions and the synagogue liturgy seems to have existed. 456 The order of the courses seems to have been related to the order of the Sabbaths, and the use of the order for calendrical purposes is already attested for the Qumran sect.457 At Rehov two inscriptions identified by Fanny Vito as "liturgical calendars" were found in addition to the inscription with the priestly courses, but the inscriptions have not been published yet, so that their relationship cannot be determined. 458 The inscriptions found in the synagogue of Rehov are in many ways exceptional. 459 Fanny Vitto attributes several of the inscriptions to phase 2, that is, the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century C.E., when the original fourthcentury synagogue, which had been destroyed by fire, was rebuilt 460 The inscriptions appear on the plastered walls and columns of the prayer hall. They are written in Hebrew and Aramaic and, according to Vitto, "contain mainly benedictions as well as halakhic regulations and other texts related to the worship in the synagogue". 461 Other inscriptions are to be attributed to phase 3, that is, the sixth or seventh century, when the synagogue was renovated. A mosaic pavement with a long halakhic inscription in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic was added at the northern end of the synagogue at that time. 462 Fragments of plaster suggest that this inscription was also written on a wall of the synagogue. 463 The halakhic inscription deals with agricultural issues such as produce forbidden in the Seventh Year and tithes. It is specifically related to the Bet Shean area near Rehov and has a parallel in the Talmud Yerushalmi.464 454

Avi-Yonah (1962) 139. See ibid. 456 See ibid. 457 See ibid, with reference to Talmon (1958) 172. 458 See Vitto (1974) and (1980) and Naveh (1989) 308. The "liturgical calendars" were also written on the plaster of walls. 459 Until these inscriptions are published, one can only rely on Vitto's brief reports. 460 See Vitto (1980) 215. 461 Ibid. 462 See ibid. 217. For this inscription see Naveh (1978) no. 49. 463 See Naveh (1989) 308. 464 On the relationship between the inscription and the Yerushalmi text see especially Sussman (1973-74) 88 ff., with additions and corrections in idem (1974-75) 194, and idem (1981). Sussman thinks that despite deviations from the Yerushalmi (y. Shevi. 4 and y. Dem. 2) a textual version of the Yerushalmi different from ours seems to have constituted the basis of the inscription. The inscription paraphrases the rabbinic text and omits the names of the rabbinic authorities. It is formulated in a "straightforward and unambiguous" way, "as befitting a text intended for the instruction of practical law" (1981, 150). Cf. Lieberman (1975-76) 54-63. On the geographical issues concerning the inscription see Z. Safrai (1977) and (1978). 455

4.

Inscriptions

411

The inscription must be seen in connection with inscriptions in pagan temples, where treaties and laws were publicly exhibited, 465 the engraving of Roman edicts - which also existed in document form - on stone, 466 and also, perhaps, with the Christian practice, observable from the fourth century C.E. onwards, of inscribing tituli on the walls of churches. 467 The inscription on stone of texts which already existed in written form, at places where they were generally visible, will have served the purpose of a greater publicity and an expression of power. 468 Whether the Rehov inscription was meant to instruct the community in rabbinic agricultural law, was an expression of regional "patriotism", or decorated the synagogue, remains an open question. 469 It probably served all of these purposes together. Also exceptional are four Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions, one underneath the other and each within a tabula ansata, in the mosaic floor of the western part of the En Gedi synagogue. 470 The first section is a list of the thirteen forefathers from Adam to Japhet, taken from the beginning of the first book of Chronicles (1 Chr. 1:1-4). The second section lists the twelve signs of the zodiac (although the zodiac is not depicted in the mosaic), the twelve months of the year, the names of the three patriarchs, and the names of Daniel's three companions. Mazar has pointed out that listings of the signs of the zodiac and the months appear frequently in piyyutim in exactly the same order, that is, the inscription may have had liturgical connections. 471 The third section consists of a dedication inscription followed by the following curse: " E v e r y o n e w h o causes division b e t w e e n a m a n and his f e l l o w or w h o says something bad about his f e l l o w to the nations or w h o steals things f r o m his f e l l o w or w h o reveals The text is concerned with establishing exact boundaries which were halakhically relevant in connection with tithes and the Sabbatical Year. Safrai agrees with Sussman that the inscription must be dated to the time after the redaction of the Yerushalmi and uses a version of the text which differs from our manuscripts, see idem (1978) 5 4 - 5 5 . 465 On inscriptions in pagan temples see R. Thomas (1989) 31. 466 On inscribed decrees see Bowman/Woolf 1-2. 467 See Pietri 139-40: "Il semble en effet toujours aussi difficile de comprendre pourquoi ces tituli, dont beaucoup se présentent effectivement comme des oeuvres littéraires très élaborées, ont été gravés sur les murs des églises, au moment même où la grande masse de ceux qui fréquentaient ces sanctuaires était désormais apparemment dans l'incapacité de les comprendre et même de les lire". In contrast to the Rehov inscription, the tituli were especially created for being inscribed on the walls of particular church buildings, see ibid. 145. 468 p o r w r j t i n g as an expression of power see Bowman/Woolf 2. 469 See Sussman (1981) 151; Z. Safrai (1978) 57. 470 See Naveh (1978) no. 70 and (1989) no. 10 (on the donors inscription). On the En Gedi inscriptions see also Mazar (1970-71), Lieberman (1970-71), Urbach (1970-71), Rosenthal (1970-71), and Dotan (1970-71). 471 See Mazar (1970-71) ad loc. For the combination of the three patriarchs with Daniel's three companions he refers to Songs R. 7:8: "People swear in the name of He who set the world on three pillars. Some say: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and some say: Hannaniah, Mishael, and Azariah". Hebrew labels for each of the twelve signs of the zodiac (this time with a depiction!) and the months of the year, and Hebrew and Greek labels for the four seasons also appear on panel 5 of a synagogue mosaic from Sepphoris, see Weiss/Netzer 2 6 - 2 9 .

412

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

the secret of the town [ i i m p T HH] to the nations, He whose eyes wander over the whole earth and who sees the hidden, He shall turn his face against this man and his offspring and shall uproot him from under the sky and the entire people shall say: Amen and Amen, Sela".

The text is followed by another dedication inscription in the fourth and final section. The curse in the third section is very unusual for a synagogue inscription and has elicited various explanations. What is obvious is that the text addresses important community issues. 472 Mazar considered the text an oath connected with an event which caused a conflict within the community and resulted in revealing the "secret of the town" to gentiles. 473 This conflict may have happened at the time of the Persian expedition in 614 C.E. which created a schism between those who sided with the Persians and those who sided with the Byzantines. 474 In contrast to this political understanding of the text Lieberman has provided a socio-economic explanation. 475 He thought that the inscription was composed by the heads of a guild whose members produced balsam from balsam trees. They were only tenants of the Roman government, though, which owned the industry. Therefore they warn their members against revealing their trade secrets to the gentiles.476 Dotan believed that the correct text was iT,~)p~I mT~1, "secret of the Script" (i.e. the Bible) or "secret of the reading", and that the warning was connected with Justinian's measures against deuterosis, i.e. Jewish scriptural exegesis and Oral Law in 553 C.E., or with his later measures against the reading of Scripture altogether. By warning community members against revealing the "secret of the Script", the hidden Torah scrolls were protected, whereas a warning against the revelation of the "secret of the reading" would safeguard scriptural translations and commentaries. 477 All three explanations are rather far-fetched hypotheses, though, and the elusiveness of the text lets the "secret of the town" remain hidden to us. A few other synagogue inscriptions, which are not dedications, quote biblical verses: the LXX version of Isa. 40:31 ("Those who wait for God gain new power") appears in a mosaic floor at Caesarea, 478 Isa. 65:25 in Hebrew ("Wolf and lamb will graze together") next to a depiction of the end of days in the mosaic of a possibly 8th century C.E. bet ha-midrash at Meroth. 479 This last inscription resembles other synagogue mosaic inscriptions accompanying im472 See Levine (2000) 362: Here "the 'En Gedi community spelled out on the synagogue floor, for all to see and ponder, what kinds of behavior it found objectionable". 473 See Mazar (1970-71) ad loc. 474 See ibid. 475 See Lieberman (1970-71) 24-26. 476 See ibid. 477 See Dotan 213-15. Against Dotan, Barag (1971-72) 453 argues for the correctness of the first reading n m p l . 478 See Schwabe (1950) no. 2 = Hüttenmeister-Reeg 1:84 no. 7. 479 See Ilan/Damati no. 3.

4.

413

Inscriptions

ages or scenes and serving as their explanations or labels. For example, the name "David" appears next to the depiction of a figure with a harp or lyre in the mosaic floor of the Gaza synagogue, presenting David as Orpheus. 480 Similarly, the name "Daniel" is written next to a figure and lions in the mosaic floor of the Na'aran synagogue, identifying the image as that of Daniel in the lion's den. 481 The bet midrash belonging to the Meroth synagogue also had a Hebrew lintel inscription at its entrance, decorated with two eagles flanking a wreath: "May you be blessed when you come in and may you be blessed when you go out" (Deut. 28:6). 482 No other such entrance inscriptions are known from Palestinian synagogues, and the Meroth inscription seems to belong to a late stage of the building, as already noted above. 483 Interestingly, almost all of the non-dedicatory synagogue inscriptions (which are very few!) are written in Hebrew or Aramaic but not in Greek. 484 This phenomenon is probably due to the nature of these inscriptions, which quote or paraphrase biblical and rabbinic texts, accompany depictions of biblical figures and scenes, and sometimes have parallels in the synagogue liturgy. Since the literary "models" were written in Hebrew and Aramaic, so were the inscriptions which were based on them. The words and phrases inscribed in synagogue mosaics, on slabs of stone, and on the plaster of walls were not new and independent compositions. They must rather be seen as secondary adaptations of literary models - or oral ones in the case of liturgical texts? - for the synagogue context. 485 This adaptation seems to have happened relatively late and may postdate the period under discussion here (e.g. in the case of Rehov and Meroth).

D. Other Inscriptions

and

Graffiti

Only a few other inscriptions besides those associated with the synagogue or burial realm have been found for Roman Palestine. The probably earliest of these inscriptions were detected on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The socalled warning inscription prohibited gentiles from entering the inner courtyard 480

See Naveh (1978) no. 55. See ibid. no. 61. See also the Hebrew labels accompanying images in a synagogue mosaic from Sepphoris in Weiss/Netzer 2 0 - 2 3 (Band 3): "... one lamb", "and the other lamb", "oil", "flour", "trumpets". 482 See Ilan/Damati no. 2. 483 According to Ilan/Damati 92, a similar entrance inscription was found in the mosaic of a monastry in Bet Shean. 484 The only exceptions which I have found are the quotation of the LXX version of Isa. 40:31 in a mosaic floor inscription from Caesarea, mentioned above, and another mosaic floor inscription with the Greek version of Ps. 121:8, found near Kibbuz Mesilot in the Bet Shean valley, see Tzori no. 1. The latter, or perhaps both of these inscriptions may have been Christian, though. 485 On the relation between certain words and phrases in synagogue (dedication) inscriptions and Jewish liturgy see the articles by Foerster, Hurvitz, and Wieder listed in the bibliography. 481

414

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

of Herod's Temple. Although the inscription is believed to have existed in Latin and Greek, only two Greek copies of the text have been found so far.486 Both inscriptions were hewn in white limestone by stonecutters, and the letters were emphasized with red paint. Whereas one of them has "large and well-formed" letters,487 however, the other, fragmentary one "is clearly the work of an unskilled cutter, or else was done in haste".488 It is also possible that the cutter did not know Greek very well. 489 The poor legibility of the second inscription does not necessarily mean that "it was placed inconspicuously", as Iliffe believed. 490 Most visitors will have already been familiar with the text, so that the actual inscriptions only served as reminders or symbols. Fry assumes that they "were arranged at strategic locations in such a way that they could be easily seen".491 Bickerman has pointed to pagan analogies: such "warnings against trespassing upon holy ground were [also] placed at the gates leading to heathen temples". 492 The Jewish inscriptions must be dated to Herodian times, while a precise date is impossible to determine. 493 Another inscription found in the Temple area and attributable to Herodian times seems to have been set up by and for priests. The fragmentary Hebrew inscription on basalt stone probably refers to the place where the shofar was blown. 494 Graffito inscriptions from the Herodian until the Bar Kokhba period were found at Herodion. Unlike the ostraca inscriptions from that place, most of

486 See Iliffe 1; Bickerman 387-88; Fry 20ff. for a photograph, transcription and translation of the texts. For literary references to the warning inscription, especially in Josephus' works, see Fry 3 6 - 8 5 . 487 See Fry 22. The text in the translation of Clermont-Ganneau (see Fry 22) reads as follows: "No foreigner is to go within [the limits of] the balustrade and the enclosure around the sanctuary, and whoever should be caught will be responsible to himself because death follows". See also Bickerman 388. 488 Iliffe 1. See also Fry 24: The first two lines are too crowded, so that hardly any space is left between the letters; the margins are irregular, and some letters have an irregular form. 489 See Iliffe 2; Fry 25. The stonecutter may have simply copied the letters from the other inscription. The text differs with regard to one irrelevant word only, see ibid. 26. 490 See Iliffe 3. 491 Fry 60. 492 Bickerman 390. See also Fry 120: The warnings at the entrances of pagan temples "imposed a state of ritual cleanness as a condition for admission". Some even threatened the desecrator with death. 493 See Fry 83. Ibid. 115 f. he argues that Jews, perhaps Herod himself, rather than Romans, set up the inscriptions and initiated the promulgation of the death penalty for gentile trespassers. Herod could probably convince the Romans of the usefulness of such a measure in preventing rebellions. The Romans may have allowed Jews to enforce the decree, although the legal procedure that might have been followed remains unclear. It is also possible that the death decree was "a b l u f f ' only, "a threatening statement of intimidation", but some kind of punishment must have been involved to render it effective, see ibid. 128-29. 494 See Mazar (1970) 144: . . . D n b n j r p m ¡T±>. The last word may be m D n 1 ? . See also Dov no. 3: "To the house of the blowing [of the shofar?] to announce [the Sabbath?]". Ibid, nos. 4 - 7 he lists further Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions from Second Temple times which are very fragmentary and undecipherable, though.

4.

Inscriptions

415

which are written in Hebrew or Aramaic, 495 almost all of the graffiti are in Greek. 496 On the basis of their script Testa dates some of the Greek graffiti to the time of the Jewish occupation of the fortress in the first and second century C.E.497 The content of the inscriptions is very similar to that of the ostraca found at Herodion discussed above. They did not serve any particular practical purposes but were expressions of their writers' momentary feelings and personal preoccupations. Some of the inscriptions are directly related to the military situation. For example, no. 1 may be translated with, "Sound [the military drum]!" or "Celebrate a victory!" 498 The six-line inscription no. 36 may have been a joke against a fellow-soldier said to have been put on the list of debtors to the royal palace. 499 Other graffiti are expressions of love or jealousy or hope for a cure. For example, no. 6 claims that the "laurels" of a certain Zenodoros "will wither". Testa assumes that the writer was a poet jealous of his colleague Zenodoros' fame. 500 No. 9 is likewise formulated in a poetic style: "The mildness of May is a cure for Salamzion". Salamzion was obviously sick, and the writer hoped that spring would bring a healing.501 Another graffito can be identified as that of a lover, declaring his love for a certain Eraclea by using a proverbial phrase based on Aristophanes (no. 37).502 The rest of the Greek graffito inscriptions found at Herodion are simple memorials (cf. nos. 18 and 35), writing exercises (cf. no. 28), or of a pornographic character (cf. nos. 2-4). Especially striking is the depiction of a mule accompanied by the monogram AQ, beginning and end, representing Jesus Christ. The depiction was obviously meant as a blasphemy of the Christian belief, which is enforced by the drawing of a phallic symbol underneath. 503 Testa suggests that the graffito was drawn by an adherent of Bar Kokhba. 504 In any case, it is likely that the "artisan" was a Jew: "Un ebreo, dunque, poteva benissimo offendere il Cristo dei Cristiani, rappresentandolo come un mulo".505 The only Hebrew graffito is an oath formula which may be based on Job 38:28 (no. 13).506 As already pointed out in connection with the ostraca inscriptions from Herodion, the people who occupied the fortress seem to have been especially welleducated in either Greek literature or the Bible or both. The graffiti on the walls 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506

See section II.3.D above. Only Testa nos. 13 and 28 (a few Greek and Hebrew letters only) are in Jewish script. See Testa 95-102. See ibid. 17. See ibid. 57-58. See ibid. 25. See ibid. 28. See 59-62. See the image ibid. 41. See ibid. 39. Ibid. 111. See ibid. 30.

416

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

confirm this impression, since they are sometimes formulated in a poetic style and/or allude to classical literature. The degree of literacy exemplified by the inscriptions can therefore not be considered representative of Jewish society as a whole at that time. A few Jewish graffito inscriptions of approximately the same period were also discovered at Masada. All of the graffiti found at Masada are written in Latin or Greek rather than in Jewish script.507 A Latin bread-stamp inscription consists of the Jewish name "Josephu[s]". 508 This is "the only example of Jewish epigraphical evidence in Latin from Palestine". 509 The letters were stamped into the wall with a bread stamp while the plaster was still wet, i.e. "when the room was being prepared for habitation, some time after the Jewish occupation of the fortress in 66". 510 The usage of a bread stamp indicates that Josephus was a baker. He had probably supplied the Roman army with bread before he joined the rebels at Masada. 511 Some of the other names may also have belonged to Jews but the identification remains uncertain. 512 Similarly uncertain is the Jewish identity of the writers of graffiti consisting of commonly used formulas, such as ayaGr] Tir/;?1: "Although the formula is apparently not attested for Jews, it certainly has worn thin enough to have lost any pagan associations it may have held". 513 Other graffiti in late Herodian script datable to the end of the Second Temple period were found in a Judaean desert cave which seems to have served as a shelter for Jewish refugees during the first revolt. Patrich discovered two Hebrew alphabet inscriptions and another four-line Aramaic inscription written with a pointed stick on the plastered walls of a cistern in the caves of Nahal Michmas. 514 According to Patrich, the alphabets "should be considered a protective magic formula, like the two menorot and the pentagram drawn in charcoal on the cistern wall (...)". 515 The Aramaic inscription reads: "Yoezer has been taken away, the guards entered". It "records the entrance of the guards (mtrn), perhaps Roman, into the secret passages. This inscription may well be the last message of the writer, who found refuge in the cistern at the far end of the passage complex". 516 The rock inscriptions and graffiti found in the Sinai Desert probably belong to later times. In the case of those which are written in Greek, their Jewish origin 507

See nos. 928-945 in Cotton/Geiger. See ibid. no. 936. 509 Ibid. 207. 510 Ibid. 211. 511 See ibid. 512 See, e.g., no. 928 (Philo) and 929 (Telline?). 513 Ibid. 208. 514 See Rubin/Patrich 107-9 and Patrich (1984), (1985a) and (1985b). 515 Rubin/Patrich 108. See also Patrich (1984) 383. Two further Hebrew alphabet inscriptions written as graffiti on a wall were found at Bet She'arim, see Mazar (1957) 153-64. On alphabet inscriptions in general see section I.l.B above. 516 Rubin/Patrich 109. Cf. Patrich (1984) 383. 508

4.

Inscriptions

417

remains uncertain, for non-Jewish travelers and merchants passed through the area as well. Lifshitz has published a number of Greek graffiti, found near UmmSideira in the southern part of the Sinai, which seem to have served as "souvenirs" or commemorations rather than epitaphs, although they use the terms |ivr|a9r|, "may be remembered", and [rvrpoi, "memorial", commonly found in the funeral context. 517 The place where the inscriptions were found was not used as a cemetery but frequented by travelers who left their identity marks. 518 More than 300 graffito inscriptions in various languages were found by Abraham Negev at Wadi Haggag in the southern Sinai Desert, but most of them have not been published yet.519 Wadi Haggag was an important road station passed by traveling merchants and pilgrims. The large majority of the inscriptions, all of which are engraved on rocks, seems to have been written by non-Jews such as Romans, Christians, and Nabateans. For example, the ten Greek inscriptions on rock no. 5, which Negev dates to around 300 C.E., seem to have been written by high ranking officials or military commanders of the Roman-Egyptian administration. Only one or two of them may have been written by Jews. One inscription reads: "One God help Valerius Antigonos, strategos. Year 3 of the indiction". 520 The inscription is accompanied by the two Greek letters Y and ©, which may stand for theos hypsistos, "God highest", and the Hebrew letter 1, which probably stands for "fPIK, "one". 521 If so, the letters would indicate the writer's Jewishness by expressing the essence of Jewish monotheistic belief. The inscription is decorated with two palm branches. 522 Another inscription from the same rock no. 5 mentions an official by the name of Theodotos: "[By God's] mercy, remember Theodotos the eparch of Claudius". 523 In this case the writer's Jewishness is less certain since only based on the name. 524 On rock no. 2 of Wadi Haggag a menorah seems to be depicted, with traces of an indecipherable Greek inscription below.525 Negev also mentions five Hebrew inscriptions on rock no. 3, and Michael Stone lists one Aramaic and two Hebrew inscriptions from that rock in his catalogue, but they do not provide a transcription, translation, or date.526 Hopefully, all of the graffito inscriptions will soon be 517

See Lifshitz (1971) nos. 1, 6, 8. See ibid. 152. 519 See Negev (1975) and (1977). The Rock Inscriptions and Graffiti Project plans to collect and publish all rock inscriptions and graffiti from the Sinai, Negev, and Judaean Deserts. For a preliminary overview see the three-volume catalogue edited by Michael E. Stone. 520 Negev (1975) no. 9. 521 See ibid. 136. 522 On this inscription see also Di Segni (1994b) no. 35a-b, who points to the absence of Christian symbols as an argument for the writer's Jewishness. 523 Negev (1975) no. 8. 524 See ibid. 134-35. 525 See Negev (1977) rock 2 no. 53. 526 See Negev (1977) rock 3; Stone vol.1 nos. 112 (Aramaic) and 1719 (Hebrew); vol.3 no. 8197 (Hebrew). 518

418

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

available in published form. Negev believes that the Jewish inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic were written in the fifth century or later. 527 Jewish pilgrimage to the Sinai at that time was probably influenced by similar Christian practices: "The rarity of Jewish inscriptions and symbols may be taken as proof for that". 528 According to Naveh, such graffito inscriptions were prayers, calling to the deity for help and salvation in this and/or the future life. 529 Besides the inscriptions from the Temple area in Jerusalem and the graffiti and rock inscriptions from Herodion, Masada, Nahal Michmas, and Wadi Haggag a few other inscriptions unrelated to the synagogue or burial context and perhaps attributable to Jewish writers were discovered in bathhouses. 530 As in the case of the rock inscriptions from the Sinai, the large majority of the bathhouse inscriptions were written by non-Jews, and the Jewish identity of the writers can be assumed in a few isolated cases only. Most of the approximately sixty to seventy Greek inscriptions of the bath complex at Chammat Gader, which can be dated to the fifth and sixth century C.E., seem to have been engraved by stonecutters commissioned by visitors who wanted to express their gratitude to the healing place. 531 Only a handful of them may have been written or commissioned by Jews. For example, the name of "Hortasius, the engraver and juggler" may be a translation of the Hebrew name "^H, "and it is conceivable that the engraver may have been a Jew". 532 Another engraver by the name "Olepius" may also have been Jewish, just as the "Aninas" (= Aram. Chanina) of another inscription. 533 A few public buildings which may not have been synagogues but served other purposes carry inscriptions. The house of Kyrios Leontis in Bet Shean has already been mentioned above. The fact that its mosaic floor is inscribed with dedications indicates that it was a public building, perhaps a synagogue. Another building with an elaborate mosaic floor carrying inscriptions was excavated in Sepphoris. Like the house of Kyrios Leontis, the mosaic of this building in Sepphoris contains images associated with the Nile. A depiction of Nile festivals and hunting scenes is enclosed in a frame. At the top there is a row of birds with the Greek inscription, "Use with good fortune". The mosaic floor of another room shows a centaur holding a shield or bowl, accompanied by the Greek inscription, "God will help". According to the excavators the style of the mosaic suggests that the building was a public building, whose function remains unclear, though. 534 527

See Negev (1977) 77. Ibid. 79. 529 See Naveh (1979b) 27. Cf. the two similar inscriptions from Caesarea in Lehmann/ Holum nos. 137 and 137. 530 On bathhouses in Roman Palestine and Jewish visitors to them see Jacobs (1998a) 2 1 9 311. 531 See Di Segni (1997) 185. On the inscriptions from Chammat Gader see also Di Segni/ Hirschfeld (1986) 2 5 I f f . and Di Segni (1992/94) 307ff. 532 Di Segni (1997) 209 ad no. 25. 533 See ibid. nos. 42 (Olepius) and 70 (Aninas). Semitic names also appear in no. 48. 534 See Netzer/Weiss 15. 528

4.

Inscriptions

419

An Aramaic lintel inscription from Er-Ramah may refer to a guesthouse.535 There are no clear archaeological indications of a synagogue at that place.536 The building to which the inscription belonged may, in fact, have been a hostel, perhaps built as a synagogue annex.537

E. Summary The large majority of Palestinian Jewish inscriptions, which are mostly related to the synagogue and burial realm, was set up in late Roman and Byzantine times, that is, from the third/fourth to the sixth/seventh century C.E. At least as far as burial inscriptions are concerned, this later Jewish epigraphic habit was partly a continuation of earlier Jewish usages of inscriptions. It also constituted a new development, however, which seems to have been influenced by Roman epigraphy and euergetism. The setting up of synagogue donors inscriptions was furthermore connected with the growing prominence of the synagogue as a symbol of flourishing Jewish communal life in competition with the emerging Christian churches in Palestine. The Jewish private inscriptions from the Herodian and Bar Kokhba period consist of graffiti on ossuaries and occasionally also on walls, as the few examples from Herodion, Masada, and Nahal Michmas show. Almost all of the evidence of inscriptions from that period stems from Jerusalem (ossuary inscriptions, inscriptions on the Temple Mount) and the Judaean desert (graffiti). Except for the public inscriptions associated with the Temple, almost all of these inscriptions were executed informally, perhaps by lay-writers, and had no representative purposes. The ossuary inscriptions were meant to lead family members to the graves of their deceased relatives and to keep the memory of these relatives alive within the family, the graffiti on walls consisted of expressions of momentary feelings and exclamations. The Herodion inscriptions are exceptional in that almost all of them are in Greek and exhibit a relatively high (and unrepresentative) amount of literacy and literary knowledge. From the third century C.E. onwards Jewish inscriptions become much more numerous and widely distributed all over Palestine. Most of them were formally incised by professional stonemasons, and their contents exhibit a greater formality and representativeness. Titles indicating a high social status and adjectives char535 See Naveh (1978) no. 15. Ben Zevi (1933) 9 4 - 9 6 , translates: "In grateful memory of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Tedeor [= Tadai?], who built this house as a guest house [mnmiRT]". Below this inscription is written: "... is dead [or: buried] in front o f ' and "the gate", probably indicating the rabbi's burial place. Ben Zevi assumes that this inscription is "conveying presumably a warning to priests not to walk over that spot and thereby contract uncleanness" (ibid. 95). 536 See Hüttenmeister-Reeg 1:367. 537 See Ben Zevi (1933) 9 4 - 9 6 .

420

Part II: The Occurrence

of

Writing

acterizing the deceased as morally perfect appear much more frequently in these later inscriptions than in the ossuary inscriptions of earlier times. The later inscriptions were set up in the semi-public space of the burial ground and in the public sphere of the synagogue. They were therefore at least theoretically visible by everyone. On the one hand, these later Jewish inscriptions show that at least some Jewish circles adopted the Roman epigraphic habit in late antiquity. On the other hand, they indicate that the Jewish adoption of the practice had clear limitations and happened for both personal and specifically Jewish purposes rather than expressing one's Romanness, as Elisabeth Meyer has suggested in connection with other provinces. Especially striking is the shortness of the inscriptions. Both the burial and the donors inscriptions are usually formulated in a formulaic way and contain few individual traits besides the deceased's and the donors' names and titles, professions, and/or origins. Amongst the hundreds of epitaphs from Roman Palestine only two or three longer, poetic tomb inscriptions have been discovered. Jews thus refrained from exhibiting their Greek culture, even those who could theoretically have done so. They indicated the commemorated person's social status by adding titles and attributes, and perhaps also by the Greek language itself. The commemorated person's wealth was revealed by the material, decoration, execution, and location of the inscription as well as by references to the donated objects and amounts of money. His or her Jewishness was underlined by the occasional addition of Jewish symbols and by being commemorated in the synagogue itself. By the third and fourth century C.E. the synagogue had become the outward symbol of the Jewish community. To be commemorated in the synagogue must have been considered a great honor and an expression of one's communal allegiance. Most of the burial inscriptions are written in Greek. The usage of Greek seems to be connected with the urban Greek-speaking environment in which they appear. Besides the central burial place at Bet She'arim, burial inscriptions were almost only discovered at Caesarea and Jaffa, (Chammat) Tiberias and Sepphoris. It seems that with the Roman epigraphic habit the city dwellers would usually also adopt the Greek language in which the epitaphs were customarily written in the ancient Mediterranean world. At Bet She'arim as well as in the cemeteries of the coastal cities Jewish immigrants from the Diaspora and Jews who had died in the Diapora and were brought to Palestine for burial were interred. In addition, local Jewish officials and wealthy professionals adopted the epigraphic practice. In the coastal cities more than in Galilee some individuals from the middle and lower strata of society seem to have imitated this predominantly foreign and upper-class habit. In contrast to the burial inscriptions, synagogue inscriptions are mostly written in Aramaic/Hebrew. They are much more widespread than the former, appearing not only in cities but also in numerous villages and smaller towns. Most

4.

Inscriptions

421

of the donors inscriptions from cities such as Caesarea are in Greek, whereas the donors inscriptions of village and small town synagogues are almost exclusively written in Aramaic/Hebrew. This phenomenon underlines the conclusions reached on the basis of the epitaphs, namely, that the language choice was at least partly connected with the geographical - and cultural - environment. It was also linked to the commemorated person's wealth and social status, for those memorialized in Greek inscriptions usually contributed much more than the ones who appear in Aramaic or Hebrew inscriptions. The synagogue context did obviously not require the usage of a specifically Jewish language, since Hebrew inscriptions are sparse. One may rather assume that Aramaic was chosen because it was the common everyday language of the local population. The synagogue donors inscriptions show that the Graeco-Roman practice of eudaimonia, that is, of contributing money or goods to a public cause and receiving honor in exchange for the donation, was also practiced by Jews in Palestine. Private donations by more or less wealthy donors seem to have constituted the main and possibly the only financial basis of the institution of the synagogue in Roman and Byzantine Palestine. Dedication inscriptions fostered this financing system by propagating donations and attracting future contributors. They also bestowed honor on the individual donors and their families and allowed them to exhibit their status and wealth. Even though individual inscriptions could not be set up for everyone, collective inscriptions indicate that even the smallest donation was appreciated. These collective inscriptions probably constitute the "democratic principle" within this hierarchy of honor and wealth. 538 The Jewish epigraphic habit, which developed in late Roman and early Byzantine Palestine, was probably practiced in the first place by Greek-speaking Jews, urban Jewish communal officials and title holders, and wealthy Jewish businessmen. In the urban environment it was soon imitated by some members of the lower strata of the population. In the countryside, it reached all social levels through the synagogue. Collective inscriptions prevented the less wealthy from feeling excluded from the communal building effort. The dedication inscriptions allowed the named and unnamed individuals to identify themselves with the synagogue as the symbol of the Jewish community, which stood as a bulwalk against the christianization of the Holy Land.

538

On the collective inscriptions see also Levine (2000) 360-61: "All this, it should be noted, stands in sharp contrast to the mode of church building in Byzantine Palestine, where church authorities (bishops, deacons, or others) were almost exclusively named". See also S. Schwartz (1999) 214.

5. Literary Writing On the basis of the surviving literary works datable to the period under discussion here it seems that extra-biblical literary composition and writing was very limited in Roman Palestine. In Second Temple times Jewish literary writing may have been largely confined to priestly circles, as Josephus and the Qumran writings show. When these circles disintegrated in 70 C.E., all literary production seems to have come to a temporary end. It took centuries until a new set of literate religious leaders had established themselves who eventually decided to put their teaching into written form. For a long time the great valuation and honor attributed to the Torah in post-destruction Judaism may have prevented the creation of other literary works. The change from oral transmission of rabbinic traditions to written collections such as the Mishnah, Yerushalmi, and Midrashim must be considered a basically new development of late antiquity and early Byzantine times, which may have been influenced by Roman and Byzantine legal scholars' attempts at legal codification and by the general cultural climate. This chapter shall examine whether and how far our knowledge of ancient composition techniques can be applied to the development of rabbinic works. Scholars of classical antiquity have argued that ancient literary composition was an essentially oral process based on one's memory rather than on piles of written notes. What was composed orally was subsequently dictated to a scribe who was the actual writer of the text. Once the author had "published" his work by allowing its reproduction by booksellers and friends, he had lost all influence on its further development. Since no copyright laws existed, the author had no protection against the introduction of changes into his text. In fact, not one authoritative version but many more or less identical or different versions of each text circulated in antiquity. Rabbinic literature is unlikely to have been exceptional in this regard. Therefore no "Urtext" of rabbinic works can be established. Nevertheless one has to distinguish between a document's composition or redaction and the later scribal copying of the edited work.

A. Literary

Composition

in Antiquity

Whereas some scholars have stressed the use of written notes by at least some writers in antiquity, others have argued that ancient literary composition was an oral procedure in which the author mostly relied on his memory. According to

5. Literary

Writing

423

Roberts, Pliny the Elder used notebooks to record what he had read or thought, in preparation of his actual literary work.1 Roberts also believes that the oral tradition was occasionally enforced by written notes in early Jewish and Christian circles.2 Such notes, which were commonly written on waxed wooden tablets, 3 were not considered proper literary writing, though. 4 And they were sometimes not even written by the authors themselves. Richards has pointed out that Pliny had a notarius who would record his occasional reflections as well as passages from literary works recited at the dinner table.5 One may assume that almost all Roman literary writers were wealthy enough to be able to afford such secretaries, who would accompany them on their travels, be present at meals, and even follow them to the baths, that is, always be available. 6 In this way, huge collections of notes and extracts would accumulate over time, which could later be used as the basis of the actual literary creation. Against this composition theory proposed by Roberts and Richards, Small has argued that nothing like the modern scholarly note card collections existed in antiquity.7 Pliny is unlikely to have used "a pile of little tablets, of scraps of papyrus" when composing his Natural History.8 For practical reasons the assumption of large piles of notes in antiquity must be dismissed. Ostraca or wooden tablets could not be easily sorted into stacks. Neither could notes on papyrus rolls be conveniently organized. Particular sentences or marginal notes were difficult to find on such rolls.9 Small assumes that ancient authors would mostly rely on their own memory instead: "Because of the classical training in mnemotechnics, Greeks and Romans trusted their memories to an extent that we would never trust ours today". 10 The accuracy of the remembered was not particularly important to the authors. Without stenographers or tape recorders accuracy was also impossible to achieve.11 The gist of what had been said or heard or read was more relevant than the repetition of verbatim statements. 12 Quotations were usually not checked. 13 Ancient authors such as Plutarch streamlined, compressed, and dislocated the 1

See Roberts (1970) 54. See ibid. 55. 3 On writing tablets see section I.2.C above. 4 On the usage of notes and notenbooks see also Kenyon 92. 5 See Richards, 6 4 - 6 5 , with references. 6 See ibid. 65-66. Caesar obviously dictated his thoughts to his secretary while taking walks. See also Small 171. 7 See Small 188. 8 Ibid. 9 See ibid. 188-89. 10 Ibid. 189, with references to ancient authors. This does not mean that their memory was perfectly accurate, though, see ibid. 190ff. 11 See Small 192. 12 See ibid. 13 See ibid. 220: "The entire gamut of errors occurs in ancient quotations. The words are wrong. The author cited is wrong. The speakers are incorrect". For examples see ibid. 318 n. 80. 2

424

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

material, conflated similar items, and even invented additional examples to support an argument. 14 Whereas most Graeco-Roman and Christian writings were written by one particular author who explicitly identified himself, there were also other, collective works, composed by a number of editors, who often decided to remain anonymous. For example, collections of legal sayings and case stories associated with and attributed to a plurality of legal experts, such as Justinian's Digest, were compiled by a set of legal scholars who remained anonymous themselves. They seem not to have considered their own contributions to the earlier traditions significant enough to have justified an identification of authorship. 15 Another example of anonymous authorship are some books of the New Testament. 16 The gospels were not attributed to a particular apostle before the second century C.E. These attributions turned originally anonymous writings into pseudepigrapha. 17 Similarly, the editor of the alphabetical collection of the Apophthegmata Patrum, a compilation of sayings and stories of the Syrian, Egyptian, and Palestinian desert fathers of the fourth and fifth century C.E., does not reveal his identity. All of these compilations integrate a variety of (probably mostly oral) earlier traditions without molding them into a homogeneous whole. They can be called "intersubjective" in that they present more than one point of view. 18 The "publication" of a book consisted of its being released by its author and given to others for reading and copying purposes. 19 From that moment onwards, the author had lost all control over his work. Since no copyright laws existed, the work could be copied by any scribe and at any person's initiative. Textual changes and errors due to scribal misunderstandings would ensue. For example, the author's or a later scribe's marginal notes might be integrated into and become part of the body of the text, so that it would eventually be impossible to distinguish addenda from marginalia. 20 As a consequence of this practice of scribal recopying, not a set of identical texts but a variety of differing versions would circulate, each of them providing a unique text. 21 Even though booksellers would occasionally commission multiple scribes to make copies of a particularly sought-after work, such a project would not constitute an "edition" in the modern sense of the word. 22 Once released, the author could not recall his work and accuse the copyists of having misrepresented his text. 14

See ibid. 193. See Hezser (1998b) 607-9. 16 See Roberts (1970) 63. 17 See Hezser (1996) 3 8 4 - 5 . 18 See ibid. 388. 19 See especially van Groningen 3 - 5 . See also Easterling/Knox 172ff.; Reynolds/Wilson 23; Kenyon 70; Starr 213; Kleberg 56; Small 28. 20 See Sedgwick 91 on this procedure. 21 See van Groningen 7 - 8 . 22 See ibid. 8. On ancient booksellers see also Easterling/Knox 173; Reynolds/Wilson 23; Starr 220. Most often, however, booksellers would not commission multiple copies but make individual ones at the specific request of their customers only. 15

5. Literary

425

Writing

Before the introduction of the printing press no technique existed which could produce identical copies of a text. 23 Even if a text was dictated to a number of scribes at one and the same time and place, a practice which does not seem to have happened very often, 24 each scribe would produce a unique version which reflected his own (mis)understandings and slips of consciousness. 25 Usually scribes would copy the text from a written model which already diverged more or less from the author's "original" which would hardly be recoverable once the copying process was set into motion. Because of the differing qualities of the models and the variant expertise of the scribes the produced copies of a work would differ in quality as well, but their accuracy could rarely be checked on the basis of the "original". 26 The author might have given the "original" away for copying or it may have become lost after his death. Unless the original was deposited in a temple, library, or archive (and remained there for centuries), there were no means to distinguish between the "original" and the copies once the work was released. 27 Survival of a work over a longer period of time was only possible through recopying, and recopying was dependent on people's continued interest in a work. Works which interested only a few individuals at a particular time would not be recopied frequently and could easily get lost. Altogether, then, the lost works of antiquity will have vastly exceeded those which survived. 28 As already pointed out above, 29 books were usually written on papyrus and (much less frequently) on leather, i.e. on perishable materials which could only survive in a dry desert climate. 30 The major problem which ancient historians have to face - and which can never be solved in a satisfactory way - is whether the surviving material can be considered typical of literary practices of a particular time and place. 31

B. Jewish Literary

Writing in Roman

Palestine32

The only literary works which can with certainty be attributed to Palestinian Jews of the first century C.E. are the writings of Josephus and the no longer 23

See van Groningen 4. See Easterling/Knox 174; Cerny 28 (for Egypt); Small 27; Skeat (1956) 195 on the use of dictation. 25 Sometimes longer texts were also parceled out to a number of scribes, each of them being responsible for a particular section only, see Skeat (1956) 188 and Small 27. 26 See Reynolds/Wilson 11; Kenyon 71; Easterling/Knox 173. 27 Cf. R. Thomas (1992) 161. 28 See also Kenyon 32. 29 See section I.2.C above. 30 See Easterling/Knox 155. 31 See ibid. 170 with regard to Egypt. 32 The writing of biblical translations (Targumim) and the creation of liturgical poetry (Piyyutim) are excluded from the discussion here. Although the Targumim are often interpretations rather than literal translations of the base text, they were not meant to be original and 24

426

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

extant works of his opponent Justus of Tiberias. 33 Both had received a Greek education and were influenced by Graeco-Roman writing. Perhaps other Palestinian Jews with a higher education wrote literary works too, but little of this material has survived as far as the Roman period is concerned. 34 If they were written in Greek, such works may have been indistinguishable from the works of non-Jewish authors. Some of them may have been adopted by Christians and integrated into Christian works. The Jewish authority figures of later centuries may not have deemed them worthy of being recopied and transmitted to later generations. Although other Jewish literary works in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew may well have been written in the first centuries of Roman rule, practically nothing is known about such writings. A large number of manuscript fragments has been found in the Qumran caves, where they were probably deposited during the first Jewish revolt. Some of these manuscripts seem to have been written by Qumran scribes, whereas the origins of others remain uncertain. 35 The large majority of these texts are either biblical manuscripts or sectarian and apocalyptic writings, but not all of the fragments have been properly identified yet and may yield other, previously unknown compositions. 36 With the exception of some of the biblical manuscripts, the texts can roughly be dated to the time after the Maccabean revolt until 68-73 C.E. 37 Although the date of the texts usually cannot be established with certainty, many of the original compositions of the sect seem to have been written at the time of the flourishing of the sect in the 2ndc. B.C.E. or the first half of the l s t c . B.C.E., that is, they preceded the Roman period under discussion here. 38 In any case, the practice of literary composition and writing amongst the Qumran group cannot be considered representative of contemporary Palestinian Judaism as a whole. 39 What is most striking is that almost all Palestinian Jewish literary activity seems to have come to a temporary end with the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. 40 Perhaps this is because the Palestinian Jewish circles which were able to compose independent compositions. The literary collections of Piyyutim emerged in the Middle Ages and therefore postdate the period under discussion here. On Targumim see, e.g., Fraade (1992) and York; on Piyyutim see Mirsky (1965) and (1990), Yahalom (1987) and Yahalom/Sokoloff (1999). 33 On Justus of Tiberias see Schiirer 1:34-37. 34 See Hengel 1:88ff. See esp. the apocalypses. 35 See section I.2.E above. 36 See Tov (1992) 9 4 - 1 0 4 , and idem (1994) 81-88. 37 See Schiffman 133. 38 For the dating of the sectarian writings see Vermes (1977) 4 5 - 8 6 . Datable to the Roman period are, amongst other texts, the War Rule (1QM), the Temple Scroll (11Q Temple), and the Hymns (1QH). 39 Fraade (1993) 4 6 - 6 9 has stressed that the community as a whole considered itself a studying community, even if this image was idealized. The sectarian scrolls are never explicitly attributed to the authorship of the Teacher of Righteousness. 40 The apocalypses of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch may constitute an exception in this regard. They may have been written in Palestine at the end of the first or the beginning of the second century C.E.

5. Literary

Writing

All

such works were priestly circles, as the examples of Josephus and the Qumran writings suggest, and priestly circles disintegrated and/or lost all interest in literary compositions after the war. Until a new set of literate religious authorities had established themselves, a couple of centuries had to pass. Rabbinic works were not composed before the third century C.E. and the extant Palestinian Targumim require a similarly late dating. 41 All of these texts are more or less explicitly linked to the Hebrew Bible, and the centrality of the Bible in post-70 Judaism may have for a long time obstructed the emergence of other literary works. 42 An examination of the redactional processes of all rabbinic works would require a number of separate studies and cannot be accomplished here. 43 In the following I shall only briefly discuss the development of the Mishnah and the Yerushalmi, the two most important literary documents of late antique Judaism in Palestine, on the basis of our knowledge of ancient literary composition outlined above. During the tannaitic period rabbinic traditions were transmitted orally, and one may assume that oral transmission continued to be the main mode of transmission until the editing of the Yerushalmi in the fourth and fifth century C.E. 44 Whether a written and "published", that is, a relatively fixed text of the Mishnah circulated in amoraic times is a heavily discussed question. Saul Lieberman has suggested that the Mishnah was published orally rather than in writing: "Since in the entire Talmudic literature we do not find that a book of the Mishnah was ever consulted in case of controversies or doubt concerning a particular reading we may safely conclude that the compilation was not published in writing, that a written exhooiq of the Mishnah did not exist". 45 The oral "publication" of the Mishnah consisted of the memorization and recitation of the Mishnah text, or portions of it, by a tanna: "When the Mishnah was committed to memory and the Tannaim recited it in the college it was thereby published and possessed all the traits and features of a written EX&OOIC;".46 Accordingly, the tanna had the same authority and function as a written version of the text, he was a "living book". 47 The main problem with Lieberman's theory is that no analogies to such an oral "publication" are known from antiquity. Publication (sxbooic;) always signified 41 According to Shinan (1992) 241-51, the dates of the sources used by the Targumim suggest that the written Targumim cannot have existed prior to the fourth century C.E.: "The core of the Targum texts may therefore be dated between the fourth and eighth centuries" (245). The phenomenon of Aramaic translations of the Bible existed much earlier, though. 42 For this consideration see Stroumsa 16 (of the manuscript): "... in Judaism, the ubiquitous presence of the Holy Book(s) of the Torah achieved a paradoxical consequence: it prevented, or at the very least strongly limited, the writing of (other) books. For the Rabbis, in a sense, the only legitimate book was the Torah, the Book of the divine revelation. Its commentaries, i.e., all other books, should only remain oral, never consigned in book form. There is very little evidence indeed for Jewish books in Rabbinic culture before the Gaonic period". 43 For an introduction to rabbinic literature see Stemberger (1992). 44 On oral transmission of rabbinic traditions see section 1.4.A above. 45 Lieberman (1962) 87. 46 See ibid. 88. 47 See ibid. 90.

428

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

the release of a written text which its author/s considered finished and therefore fixed. 48 The oral recitation or reading of a text in front of an audience could be considered an oral form of publication, but such an oral publication was based on an already existing written version of the text. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that one tanna would have been able to memorize the entire Mishnah text, in a more or less accurate way, on the basis of mere hearsay, despite the claimed excellence of ancient memorization techniques. Lieberman tries to solve this difficulty by suggesting that each tanna was responsible for a particular section of the Mishnah only, or for a particular collection of mishnayot associated with or composed by one rabbi. 49 But this hypothesis stands in contradiction to his claim that each tanna would know and could be consulted with regard to the already fixed sequence of the Mishnah's clauses. 50 If each tanna knew particular parts of the Mishnah only, how could the entire Mishnah be transmitted from one generation to the next? Altogether, then, Lieberman's theory of the transmission and expansion of an orally published Mishnah - he seems to reckon which various stages of oral publication from R. Aqiba until R. Yehudah ha-Nasi 51 - is hardly convincing. The traditional theory of oral or written forerunners of the Mishnah, or parts of it, before its redaction in the early third century C.E. has been criticized by Neusner. Besides the various stages of oral publication of the Mishnah Lieberman had reckoned with private notes and collections of halakhot on rolls and writing tablets which formed the basis of the publications but were not published themselves. 52 Similarly Zlotnick posits the existence of student notes and "secret scrolls" supplementing a verbatim oral transmission of earlier traditions, a process which eventually led to the fixing and editing of the Mishnah by Rabbi. 53 Against these traditional theories Neusner stresses that the Mishnah "was formulated pretty much all at once, in a single process and through a sustained and incremental history of conglomeration and aggregation". 54 This phenomenon is indicated by the strongly patterned formulation of the Mishnah: "The unified and cogent formal character of the Mishnah testifies in particular to that of its ultimate tradent-redactors". 55 Whether the editors of the Mishnah also "published" the Mishnah in writing must ultimately remain an open question. 56 48

See above. See Lieberman (1962) 89 and 93. 50 See ibid. 89. 51 See ibid. 92 ff. 52 See ibid. 87: "Since all those writings had the character of private notes they had very little legal authority". They should rather be considered "private tutonvr||xata (notes) put down only for the use of their writer". 53 See Zlotnick (1988) 5 I f f . Like Lieberman Zlotnick seems to believe in an oral publication of the Mishnah. 54 Neusner (1987) 75. 55 Ibid. 104. 56 See ibid.: "Whether or not it also was copied and transmitted in writing, and whether or not such copies were deemed authoritative, are not questions we can answer on the basis of the 49

5. Literary

Writing

429

Whereas Neusner dismisses the notion of a development of the Mishnah based on the accurate transmission of oral (and/or written) traditions, 57 he nevertheless reckons with an oral composition and transmission of the text: "... the Mishnah is a book formulated and transmitted by means of memorization". 58 The mnemonic patterns in which the Mishnah is formulated enabled its easy memorization. 59 One may assume, then, that the editors already took provisions for its future oral recitation. "But whether or not the redacted pericopae derive from originally oral materials is a question that obviously cannot be settled, one way or the other, by the character of the materials which we have only in written form". 6 0 Neusner's rejection of the view that the Mishnah is the outcome of a directed process of oral transmission over centuries does not necessarily imply that the editors invented everything anew. They may well have had information on particular halakhic rulings and legal principles which they reformulated and reshaped when using them in their composition. 61 The emphasis, however, is on the entirely new process of composition and editing of the Mishnah, that is, on the editors' principles of formulation, ordering, and arrangement of the text: "... the system, the structure, the proportions and compositions, the topical program and the logical and syllogistic whole - these derive from the imagination and wit of the final two generations, in the second century A.D., of the authors of the Mishnah". 6 2 The nature and form of the traditional material before the redaction of the Mishnah is impossible to determine. A process of verbatim oral transmission of teachings from one generation to the next, as, for example, assumed by Zlotnick and Gerhardsson, is based on a fundamentalist reading of a few selected rabbinic passages. 63 Rabbis' claim to have accurate traditions from earlier generations must be seen in connection with the alleged Mosaic origin of rabbinic tradition Mishnah's internal evidence. The Tosefta certainly suggests that the Mishnah-pericopae were copied and glossed, but its evidence does not pertain to these larger issues". 57 See especially ibid. 133ff. For the possibility that some traditions circulated in written form see idem (1973) 56 and 58: the existence of written traditions may be indicated by glosses. It is uncertain, however, at what stage these traditions were formulated, since attributions are not reliable. Generally speaking, one can say: "If we cannot demonstrate through detailed analysis of individual pericopae, in all their readings and through all the exegetical complexities, that materials originally were written down, then we cannot be certain that was the case: what we cannot show, we do not know" (ibid. 65). This cautious formulation is preferable to Jaffee's assumption that most of the "oral tradition" actually existed in written form, see idem (1992) 56; cf. Finkelstein 115. 58 Neusner (1987) 61. 59 See ibid, and 62ff. for examples. But see Talmon's rejoinder in idem (1991) 173ff., who argues that "learning by rote of large portions of texts is in the last analysis a function of perseverance and technique, not of form" (175). 60 Neusner (1987) 73. 61 See ibid. 136 and 141. 62 Ibid. 136-37. 63 See Neusner (1971) 4 - 6 .

430

Part H: The Occurrence of Writing

as a whole: "The practice was highly anachronistic. It obviously did not accord with the technical attainments of the day or with long-established procedures". 6 4 Even if rabbis had actually "adopted such an unwieldy, anachronistic means", it could not, at the end, produce a document like the Mishnah. Neusner's theory of the composition of the Mishnah by one or two generations of editors, based on earlier, mostly orally transmitted material, whose exact form and character cannot be determined anymore, seems sound and stands in harmony with the general ancient composition practices outlined above. It is preferable to theories which claim that the editors had access to accurately transmitted oral or written source material which they merely combined to a new whole. 6 5 The editors' decision to create the Mishnah and the principles guarding their formulation and arrangement of the text must be considered an entirely new phenomenon without precedents in the rabbinic culture of the first two centuries C.E. Unlike Lieberman Neusner does not call the oral redaction of the Mishnah a "publication", and he at least reckons with the possibility that a written (and accordingly "published"?) version of the Mishnah formed the basis of its later recitation. Whether the collection of mishnayot associated with Rabbi (y. Shab. 16:1, 15c) and the various tractates of the Mishnah mentioned in the Yerushalmi can be considered written and published, i.e. officially released and publicly available versions of (particular tractates of) the Mishnah, remains uncertain. We do not know for sure whether the entire Mishnah existed in written form in amoraic times. Even if it did, it remains uncertain how many copies circulated, and whether all rabbis had equal access to the text in its entirety. If the Mishnah existed in written form, as is likely, each tractate may have been written on a separate (papyrus?) roll. Some rabbis or study houses may have had a copy of one or a number of particular tractates available only, which they studied and afterwards exchanged with other study circles. This hypothesis would explain the talmudic references to "[the tractate] Ketubot of the house of the teacher" (y. Ket. 2:4, 26c) and to the tractates Neziqin and Nedarim as rabbis' study base (y. B.Q. 9:14, 7a). Even if the tractates existed in writing, a tanna's duty may have been the recitation of particular parts of them in study sessions. The tanna's oral presentation may have had pragmatic reasons, for copies of Mishnah tractates may have been rare. They may have been owned privately by a few rabbis only rather than having been present in every local study house. The passage from oral teaching to written collections has been widely discussed by both anthropologists and legal historians. Carol Fleisher Feldman has stressed that in many cultures oral argument forms a central part of legal life: "So, for example, when a culture lacks a written genre of legal briefs, one often 64

See ibid. 15. Theories which claim that the Mishnah was based on accurate oral (Zlotnick) or written (Jaffee) sources are basically conservative in that they stress textual consistency over centuries and exclude the possibility of fundamental reformulations and changes. 65

5. Literary

Writing

431

finds there an oral genre that serves the same function, namely, of stating the case of the disputant". 66 Whether certain rabbinic literary forms such as case stories were basically "oral genres", that is, composed for oral transmission before their inclusion into written documents, is possible but uncertain. The assumption of a basically oral transmission of such forms does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a few written (though, perhaps, not published) story collections existed in tannaitic and/or amoraic times as well. The Mishnah's formal structure might point to the oral composition of the text. According to Denny, the usage of "networks of binary opposites", detectable in the argumentative structure of the Mishnah, in contrast to a hierarchical organization of the material, "is an aspect of contextualizing" typical of oral cultures. 67 "Higher differentiation", which is an aspect of a hierarchical, decontextualizing structure, "is making more distinctions within a thought unit, whereas higher contextualization,..., is making more connections to other thought units". 68 In the Mishnah (and, to a lesser degree, in the Yerushalmi as well), the various arguments are not arranged hierarchically and there is little differentiation in each small unit. Rather, the arguments are juxtaposed to each other and provide a context for each other, without finally resolving the issue at hand. They thereby integrate many diverse statements into one unit of thought. This integrative thinking seems to have been "developed in the service of social integration" in societies "at the middle levels of agricultural complexity", as Denny has pointed out. 69 The writing down of oral compositions "facilitates memory for texts and interpretations, enabling the preservation of more textual material and the development of a longer sequence of commentaries upon commentaries". 7 0 This function of writing already applies to preliminary private collections of halakhot and stories. Their existence in written form will have enabled their users to gloss them, as Neusner has already noticed. 71 The consideration that writing generates the development of commentaries is especially applicable to the Mishnah, though. The fact that at least some of the material integrated into the Yerushalmi consists 66

See Fleisher Feldman 49. See Denny 82. 68 Ibid. 66. 69 See ibid. 7 1 - 7 2 in connection with West African societies. These considerations necessarily need to be examined in more detail than can be done here. Denny argues that there is a "decrease in contextualization from agricultural to industrial society" and that decontextualization and "standard reasoning problems" (but not abstract logical thinking!) are a characteristic of modern Western societies (see ibid. 68). "The general cause for decontextualization, which can apply independently of literacy, is the growth of human societies beyond a size where all members share a common background of information. In small societies most interactions are face to face, between relatives and persons who have known each other all their lives" (ibid. 72). Similarly the editors of the Mishnah seem to have assumed that their colleagues possessed the background information necessary for understanding the text and thereby did not include any background details. For the modern reader this is what makes the Mishnah so difficult to understand. 70 Denny 77. 71 See Neusner (1973) 5 6 - 5 8 . 67

432

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

of comments on Mishnah passages and deliberations on the order of the Mishnah suggests that the base texts existed in written form. According to Olson, "writing permitted subjects to devote greater attention to the linguistic properties of the text, both its surface form and its logical structure". 72 Such linguistic and logical attention is noticeable in many amoraic comments on the Mishnah transmitted in the Yerushalmi. Olson has also stressed the change of addressees which accompanies the transition from oral discussion to written argument: "the publics reached by these written texts are no longer the primary oral audiences but the extensive network of readers, united only by their access to these forms of discourse". 73 With the publication of rabbinic texts the opinions attributed to a particular rabbi became known not only to his immediate students and adherents but to the sympathizers of other rabbis and later generations of rabbis as well. The publication of rabbinic documents such as the Yerushalmi (in the case of the Mishnah a written publication of the entire work in amoraic times is uncertain, as pointed out above) will have created new "textual communities", gathered around and occupied with the discussion and interpretation of the texts. 74 Since I have already dealt with the processes of redaction of the Yerushalmi elsewhere, 7 5 1 shall only focus on a few aspects here which come up in connection with Hans-Jürgen Becker's recent study of the development of the Yerushalmi and Gen. R. Against the traditional assumption that the Yerushalmi was edited in the fourth and fifth century, Hans-Jürgen Becker has argued that a proper redaction never took place. 76 He dismisses the concepts of an "Urtext" and of a "final redaction" and claims that various textualizations ("Vertextungen") circulated at least until the creation of the first printed editions. 77 Instead of reckoning with intentional redactional procedures he seems to assume that the collections developed by themselves and by chance, through a mere accumulation of traditions over centuries. Rather than analyzing the redaction-history of the Yerushalmi and Gen. R., Becker suggests that scholars should trace the changes and variations which the traditions experienced in the course of their transmission and even after their inclusion into the larger literary documents. 78 No linear tradition-historical development can be reconstructed, though. Rather, the transmission of variant textual versions should be seen as an open process without an intentional beginning or end. For Becker the fundamental openness and unfinishedness of the Yerushalmi and Gen. R. makes the distinction between redactional and scribal changes obsolete. He argues that the boundaries of the textures remained fluid thoughout the Middle 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Olson 255. Ibid. 256. See the general argument ibid. See Hezser (1998b) 581-641. See Becker's introduction in idem (1999). See ibid. 2 - 3 . See ibid. 5.

5. Literary

Writing

433

Ages. 79 This fluidity is allegedly visible in the manuscript variants which, according to Becker, are based on extensive additions and changes introduced by the copyists whose textual work did not basically differ from that of the earlier "editors". 80 Accordingly, the Yerushalmi was still developing after the fourth and fifth century C.E., that is, the time when it is customarily believed to have been edited. According to Becker's model, the "redaction" of the Yerushalmi and Gen. R. was not a one-time event but a complex and interlinked process which lasted more than a thousand years and comprised other rabbinic collections as well. Becker argues that the variants noticeable in parallel texts which appear in both the Yerushalmi and Bereshit Rabbah do not suggest a literary dependance of one document on the other but seem to be due to the texts' fluid transmission before and even after their inclusion into the larger works. 81 He believes that various probably already written versions of a text circulated individually or in collections, as commentaries on or unrelated to a particular Mishnah passage or scriptural verse, and eventually found their way into Gen. R. and the Yerushalmi. One must assume that with the exception of various versions of (individual tractates of) the Mishnah and a few halahkic and aggadic collections, 82 in amoraic times written rabbinic traditions continued to consist of occasional notebook entries and letters exchanged by rabbis. Neither entries on wax tablets nor letters would usually be kept. Since the advantage of the wax tablet was its multiple usage, notes and letters on such tablets would almost certainly be erased. Papyrus letters which contained important informations were probably sometimes kept, but since the Yerushalmi does not provide any evidence of an amoraic plan to edit a collection of amoraic commentaries on the Mishnah, i.e. a Talmud Yerushalmi, but, on the contrary, transmits prohibitions against writing down traditions, 83 one must assume that no particular attempts at preserving, storing, and systematically collecting such written scraps were made. Even if some pre-redactional written traditions and collections of traditions existed, this does not necessarily mean that the Yerushalmi accumulated over centuries without any redactional initiative. The assumption of a fluid and undirected process of (written) accumulation lacks the necessary social-institutional basis within rabbinic society and stands at odds with the ways in which books 79

See ibid. 6. See ibid. 81 See ibid. 16ff. 82 On aggadic and story collections see Yassif 103-45; Shinan (1981) 4 4 - 6 0 ; Hezser (1993) 269-82. An example of halakhic collections are the baraitot which appear in the Yerushalmi (and Bavli) and the Tosefta. On these baraithot see Elman (1991) 2: "The theory that sees the Tosefta as the direct origin of the toseftan baraitot in the Talmuds cannot be maintained without modification ...; indeed, the Tosefta did not take full shape until the geonic period". Different collections of such baraitot seem to have circulated in Palestine and Babylonia in amoraic times. See also idem 7 (of the manuscript), where he suggests that the sages of the Talmud had access to the baraitot through oral tradition only. One may also hypothesize, however, that at least some of the baraitot were transmitted in written (private and preliminary?) collections. 83 See section 1.4.A above. 80

434

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

were created in antiquity. No central rabbinic archive or library existed in which such an accumulation process could have taken place. Becker never deals with the wider social implications of his model, but the basic question is: Where and how could the fluid development have taken place? Should we assume that one rabbi deposited his commentaries on the Mishnah at a particular place and that later generations of rabbis came and added a few paragraphs to it? That after hundreds of years this "geniza" had reached the dimensions of a Talmud? Or that generations of scribes who copied collections of rabbinic traditions and added their own comments to them ended up with various similar (but why similar?) Talmuds? None of these scenarios seems convincing, because ancient book production would not and could not work that way. As already pointed out above, the usage of scraps and pieces of written notes was largely unknown to the ancients. Although they sometimes used written collections, they largely relied upon their memory. The composition of literary works was a basically oral process which resulted in the dictation to scribes. The practical scribal work was fundamentally different from the work of composition and not held in high esteem. Scribes were mere tools used by the composers, they were not literary creators themselves. The distinction between scribes and composers and scribal and redactional activities is fundamental to ancient book producation and should not be relinquished. It needs to be stressed that the manuscript variants, which are not so numerous and significant that a continuous process of creation until the first printed editions can be assumed, are the natural conseqence of ancient book publications. As already pointed out above, the publishing of a book or literary collection meant to allow its being re-copied multiple times. Since no copyright laws existed, the authors and editors had no guarantees against errors and changes introduced deliberately or unintentionally by the copyists. Accordingly, various versions of a text circulated. Nevertheless, the variants did not prevent the text from being considered one and the same work, which circulated in different manuscript versions over centuries. The modern category of one "original" text or "Urtext", against which Becker argues, never existed in antiquity. An examination of the broader editorial procedures noticeable throughout the Yerushalmi might yield results concerning the ways in which the Yerushalmi editors customarily dealt with earlier material. 84 The continuities noticeable in the redactional procedures show that the work of the "final" editors was not limited to the mere arrangement of the material according to the order of the Mishnah. The continuities also suggest that the document was edited by particular circles, at a particular period of time, and according to predetermined editorial principles. 85 The Yerushalmi is neither a scrap-book nor a garbage tin but a 84 For an examination of redactional procedures in the Bavot tractates of the Yerushalmi see Hezser (1993) 228 ff. 85 See Hezser (1998b) 614.

5. Literary

Writing

435

carefully constructed literary composition whose internal logic reveals itself to the initiated only. The composition of the Yerushalmi must be considered an entirely new phenomenon of late antiquity. Only when a written discursive structure existed was it possible to view individual opinions in a larger context and from a broader perspective, to compare them and determine their relationship to each other.86 Differences of opinion and contradictions would become obvious and elicit harmonizations and explanations. The unsystematic and complex nature of the text would make rabbinic scholars' mediation efforts necessary, that is, the publication of the Yerushalmi - and of other rabbinic works as well - confirmed and elevated the role of rabbis. 87 Whether the redaction and publication of the Yerushalmi was directly or indirectly influenced by Roman attempts at legal codification remains an open question. Like Roman legal scholars particular circles of rabbis will have seen certain advantages in the compilation of a multitude of legal opinions on a variety of subjects (and in the exclusion of others). When dealing with particular halakhic cases and questions, and when discussing specific halakhic problems with their students, rabbis would have a much larger contextual basis available once the Talmud was written. Eder has argued in connection with the Twelve Tables that the codification "must primarily be regarded as a measure to ensure aristocratic predominance; it was an attempt to stabilize the political and economic status quo". 88 One may similarly assume that rabbinic compilations, which gave permanence to the teachings and views of many generations of rabbis, were meant to stabilize rabbinic scholarship and secure rabbinic predominance in the religious-legal realm. By being united in one document, differing rabbinic opinions obtained a certain formal unity and created the image of a homogenous rabbinic class, even if actual consensus was hard to achieve. 89 Eder's consideration, that "the codification of law ... does not really appear as a concession to the many, but rather as a reaction of the few aiming at preserving their political influence as completely as possible", 90 can therefore also be applied to rabbinic society in late Roman and Byzantine Palestine.

86

See Bokser, 94-95, with regard to the Bavli. See Hezser (1998b) 638. 88 Eder 263. 89 Cf. ibid. 278 with regard to the Roman aristocracy. An interesting consideration put forward by Eder is that legal compilations might lead to a distribution of power and influence: "Other laws served the same purpose by distributing chances to gain political power and influence more equally among the aristocracy, ..., and by keeping individual aristocrats from assembling too many followers" (293). 90 See ibid. 264. See also ibid. 291: "... it is an objective consequence of every codification or act of lawgiving that the power of the ruling elite is secured. This result does not depend on the intention of the lawmaker, who does not need to understand the historical process induced by his own actions in order to achieve it". 87

6. Magical Writing Since literary references to the magic usage of writing have already been discussed in an earlier section, 1 this chapter will focus on the actual evidence of magic texts from Roman Palestine. Texts which were not written for magical purposes in the first place, but which some individuals may nevertheless have believed to possess magical powers, such as the Torah scroll, mezuzot and tefillin, will not be dealt with here. 2 Neither will this chapter deal with the possibly magic function of alphabet inscriptions, an issue which has also already been addressed above. 3 The literary forms of magic represented by the Hekhalot literature and the magic texts from the Cairo Geniza must be dated to medieval times and therefore postdate the period under discussion here. 4 Although "certain connections between the practice of magic in Palestine in the period of Late Antiquity and the literature of the Hekhalot" exist, the actual "details of these connections have not yet been precisely determined". 5 Whether and to what extent some of the practitioners of magic knew this literary tradition must therefore remain an open question which cannot be dealt with here. 6 Two magic literary works, Sefer ha-Razim ("The Book of Secrets") and Charva de-Moshe ("The Sword of Moses") may or may not have been written before the Islamic period in Palestine. Until critical editions and examinations of these books exist no chronological and geographical decisions can be made. 7 It is possible, though,

1

See section 1.4.B above. For a discussion of this issue see ibid. 3 On alphabet inscriptions see section I.l.B. 4 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) 30 and (1993) 12. 5 See Naveh/Shaked (1993) 17. 6 See ibid. 18 ff. for certain commonalities between the texts on metal amulets and Hekhalot literature. At least some of these elements also appear in liturgical texts and can therefore not be taken as evidence of the writers' knowledge of Hekhalot literature. Swartz (1990) 168 suggests that certain motifs and phrases were "at hand to both the liturgist and the magician". On the relationship between Jewish liturgy and magic see also Schäfer (1996) 5 4 I f f . 7 Sefer ha-Razim ("Book of the Secrets"), reconstructed by Margalioth on the basis of medieval fragments, may not have been composed before the 6th or 7th century in Palestine or Egypt. A project which prepares a critical edition and analysis of the text is presently undertaken under the guidance of Peter Schäfer at the Institut für Judaistik in Berlin. Whether Charba de-Moshe ("The Sword of Moses"), referred to for the first time in the gaonic period, was already written in amoraic times is similarly uncertain, as is its Palestinian or Babylonian origin, see Alexander in Schürer 3 : 3 4 4 - 4 5 and 3 4 7 - 5 0 ( S e f e r ha-Razim), 3 5 0 - 5 2 (Charba deMoshe). 2

6. Magical

Writing

437

that at least a few private and preliminary literary collections of Jewish magic circulated in late Roman and early Byzantine Palestine. 8 Two types of inscribed amulets from Roman and Byzantine Palestine have survived: gems (worn on rings) and medallions (belonging to bracelets) with images which are sometimes accompanied by letters, names, or words on the one hand, and thin metal sheets with longer, multiple-line inscriptions in tiny script (inserted in capsules) on the other. In the case of gems and medallions the writing was very limited. It could accompany the image and supplement its magic power, but the image could also stand by itself. Only in the case of the metal amulets did the writing, accompanied by magic signs and symbols, 9 become more significant. Whereas some of the surviving gems are datable to the amoraic period, the metal amulets can be attributed to the fifth c. C.E. at the earliest. The Jewish origin and usage of gems and medallions worn as amulets is extremely difficult to determine, since pagan and Jewish elements are often merged. 10 Especially common are amulets of the rider-saint type, which seem to have been produced in great numbers. 11 The image "dipicts a divine helper or saint who overcomes evil". 12 On many amulets the image of the rider was accompanied by the inscription E I 2 0 E O 2 , "one God" who helps and defeats evil. 13 Although the formula is the translation of Deut. 6:4, its Jewish origin is questionable. 14 One must assume that these amulets were worn by Jews, pagans, and Christians alike: "Such amulets were made in the form of pendants, medals, bracelets or rings, and seem to have been mass-produced". 15 Jews, pagans, and Christians may also have used medallions with Samaritan inscriptions. Hamburger believes that a medallion of the above-mentioned type 8 For a general survey on Jewish magical literature see Schafer (1991) 75 ff.; Alexander in Schiirer 3:342ff. 9 On these symbols or charakteres see Frankfurter 207: "Magical charakteres functioned, it seems, not so much as 'artificial' writing or cryptography, but as 'sacred' writing, in the sense of heavenly books". 10 On this issue see especially Goodenough 2 0 6 - 7 . Goodenough reckons with a steady gradation from amulets in which Jewish elements are "at least overwhelmingly present" to those in which "pagan and Jewish elements become inextricably mingled, so that there is no way whatever of telling whether charms in this group were written by Jews or pagans" (206). Goodenough believes that "we can ascribe much of the syncretism in charms to Jews themselves, though it is not possible to draw a clear line between pagan borrowing of Jewish divine names and Jewish borrowing of pagan divine names" (207). 11 See Bonner 221. 12 Hamburger (1959) 43. 13 See ibid. This formula also appears in a Jewish inscription from Caesarea (see Lehmann/ Holum no. 137) and in graffiti from the Sinai Desert, as pointed out above. 14 On this formula see Peterson and Di Segni (1994b). Whereas Peterson thought that the formula was typically Christian, Di Segni argues that it may also have been used by Jews and Samaritans. Yet despite the monotheism expressed in it, there is no evidence for a Jewish origin of the acclamation's usage. 15 Hamburger (1959) 43.

438

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

(with a rider-saint and an EIZ 0 E O 2 inscription) with an additional Samaritan inscription ("There is none like God, O Jeshurun", Deut. 33:26) on the reverse side, which was found at Caesarea and dated by Avigad to the 4th/5th century C.E., was not worn by a Samaritan: Samaritan amulets would consist of biblical quotations "without the addition of magical pictorial symbols". 16 The owner probably commissioned a Samaritan to add the inscription to the amulet "in order to enhance its magical power". 17 The phenomenon that practically all of the published Palestinian gem and medallion type amulets stem from Caesarea, where Jews, pagans, and Christians lived together in late antiquity, makes the exact identification of their owners all the more difficult. A number of these amulets were published by Lifshitz in 1964.18 The most commonly used materials on which the images and inscriptions were engraved were (black) stone, occasionally identified as jaspis, and metal (bronze, lead).19 Besides the rider-saint, a reaper with a tree often appears on gems, as does a standing male figure with a nimbus. 20 Another common image is that of a snake with a lion's head within a helios. 21 All of the inscriptions are in Greek. Some of them seem to point to Christian owners, such as the angel name "Michael" which often appears on Christian amulets. 22 Others are distinctly pagan, especially those which mention pagan gods and goddesses. 23 In most cases the inscriptions do not provide any hint concerning the religious affiliations of their owners, though. Inscriptions such as, for example, "One God help the widow" 24 or "Seal of God" 25 may have been used by Jews as well, just as the inscription, "One God help! A blessing for all", on a lead amulet from Ashqelon. 26 Only a few of the altogether 165 gems from the second to fourth century C.E. found in Caesarea and its surroundings and published by Hamburger in 1968 bear inscriptions.27 Hamburger suggests that the gems were mass-produced according to pattern-books with stereotypical motifs and owned by "ordinary citizens". 28 16

Ibid. 44. See ibid. 45. For a very similar bilingual amulet with a Greek and Samaritan inscription, made for a certain "Marciana", see Raffaeli 143 f. 18 See Lifshitz (1964b) 80ff. 19 (Black) stone: see Lifshitz (1964b) nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 (red stone), 18. Metal: see ibid. nos. 3 - 6 , 11. 20 Reaper: see Lifshitz (1964b) no. 1 and Bonner 7 2 - 7 7 and 272ff. Figur with nimbus: see Lifshitz (1964b) no. 7 and Di Segni (1994b) no. 10. 21 See Lifshitz (1964b) nos. 13 and 14 and Bonner 128f. 22 See Lifshitz (1964b) 83 ad no. 14. See also ibid. no. 15. 23 See ibid. nos. 8 - 9 . 24 See ibid. no. 5; cf. Di Segni (1994b) no. 9. 25 See Lifshitz (1964b) no. 2 (with "Solomon" on one side); cf. Bonner 208-10: the term "seal of god" appears in Ape. 7:2 and 9:4, but cf. Jer. 22:24, Hag. 2:23, and Sir. 49:11. 26 See Di Segni (1994b) no. 32. Ibid. 104 Di Segni points out that "the formula eiiXoyia jiaaiv often occurs in Jewish monuments", see the references ibid. n. 71. 27 See Hamburger (1968). 28 See ibid. 1. 17

6. Magical

Writing

439

Hamburger's collection increases the number of inscribed amulets which might have been owned by Palestinian Jews. For example, a gem on which a star and crescent are depicted together with a lion is engraved with the names "Iao" (= "Jahwe") and "Abrasax" (= ruler of the Gnostic heavens) in Greek. 29 According to Hamburger, "it is possible that both names were used not only as invocations, but that they should be considered as words possessing intrinsic magical powers". 30 The name "Iao" appears on a number of other amulets as well.31 Both Jews and non-Jews may have believed in the name's magic efficacy. 32 Especially interesting is a gem with a Hebrew inscription which differs from other similar items. 33 The depicted lion allegedly resembles the rider-saint figures which present Solomon as the rider. Therefore the letters on the reverse side may mean "Solomon" rather than "Peace". 34 Hamburger stresses that "Hebrew inscriptions on any kind of amulets are extremely rare, and mostly illegible". 35 Such an unintelligeable Hebrew inscription seems to appear on another gem which depicts the child Helios-Harpocrates riding a lion.36 The solar symbolism may express the idea that God is victorious. 37 The letters on the opposite side may be "a degenerate form of a Semitic alphabet. They remind us of the archaic Hebrew script used on coins of the First and Second War against Rome, here engraved in a haphazard manner". 38 They may also be mere "Zauberwriting", though, that is, not meant to be legible.39 Another possibility is that someone unable to write Hebrew but convinced of the magic power of Hebrew as the "holy language" tried to imitate Hebrew script. These amulets with Hebrew inscriptions may have been used by Jews, but the occasional Christian or pagan may have bought an amulet with a Hebrew inscription as well, just as Jews may have used amulets with Samaritan inscriptions. 40 The relevance of many or most of the amulets on metal plates41 excavated in Palestine and conveniently published in Naveh and Shaked's collections of (1985) and (1993) for an examination of Jewish writing practices in Roman and early Byzantine times is questionable on chronological grounds. None of these 29 See ibid. no. 113. On the belief in the potency of the Divine name see especially Blau (1897-98) 117-128. 30 Hamburger (1968) 15. 31 See ibid. nos. 117 and 120, 121. 32 See ibid. 17-18. 33 See ibid. no. 115. 34 See ibid, ad loc. Cf. Goodenough 227. 35 Hamburger (1968) 16. 36 See ibid. no. 116. 37 See ibid. 38 Ibid. 16. 39 See ibid. n. 191 with reference to F.M. Cross (orally). 40 See Hamburger (1959) and Pummer, 251 ff., who suggested that some of the amulets written entirely in Samaritan script and dated to the 3rd and 4th c. C.E. may have been used by Jews. His argument rests on the fact that some of them were found at Jewish sites. 41 Only one amulet on a potsherd has been published so far, see Naveh/Shaked (1985) no. 10.

440

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

amulets seems to be datable before the fifth century C.E. and those for which dates are given are related to the sixth to eighth century.42 Kotansky has argued for an unbroken history of amulet usage in the ancient Mediterranean from the seventh to fifth century B.C.E. onwards, 43 but he is unable to provide evidence for an early usage of amulets in Palestine. 44 Two Palestinian amulets published in addition to Naveh and Shaked are dated to the late fourth or fifth century.45 Although not all metal amulets seem to have been properly transcribed and published yet and/or are too fragmentary to be dated, 46 based on the evidence available so far one must therefore assume that the Jewish usage of relatively long magic texts incised on thin metal plates was a rather late phenomenon in Palestine which did not emerge before late Roman and Byzantine times. Whether amulets on leather or papyrus were used in earlier times (cf. M. Shab. 8:3) cannot be determined, since they would hardly have survived. Rabbinic sources suggest, however, that some (more simple?) types of amulets were already used by Jews in tannaitic and amoraic times. 47 The magical texts on thin metal sheets (usually silver or bronze) were folded or rolled up and inserted into a small metal container, resembling the mezuzah in shape. 48 These amulets could be worn like jewelry, e.g. fixed to a necklace or bracelet, or they could be placed or suspended at a chosen place, e.g. the house, the tomb, or the synagogue. 49 Once the texts were written and deposited in their case they would probably not be unrolled and read, the text was rather believed to possess an inherent magic potency and protect the bearers wherever they were. Naveh and Shaked believe that the one amulet on a potsherd published by 42 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) 24; comments on amulets nos. 2 - 3 and 11 (6th/7th c. C.E.), 16 (6th-8th c. C.E.). 43 See Kotansky (1991a) 267-68. 44 Ibid, he writes: "Moreover, although the pieces in the Naveh and Shaked corpus datable on archaeological grounds can be placed no earlier than the fifth or sixth centuries C.E., further documentary evidence for the use of engraved gold and silver amulets is well attested from at least the first century C.E. onwards", but none of his evidence for such early amulets stems from Palestine, see ibid. n. 5. 45 See Kotansky (1991b) and McCollough/Glazier-McDonald (1996) and (1997). 46 Only three of six amulets from the New York Public Library collection are published in Montgomery (1910-11). According to Montgomery, the amulets were found in Irbid and can be dated to the 2nd to 5th century C.E. They are very difficult to decipher though, and have therefore not been included in Naveh and Shaked's edition, see Naveh/Shaked (1985) 22. Ibid. 90 they state that nineteen amulets were found at Kibbutz Nirim in the north-western Negev and deposited in the storage room of the Israel Antiquities Department, but only three amulets from that site are published in their collection (nos. 11-13). The date of the rest is unlikely to differ from that of the three published ones, though, and the date given is very late (6th/7th c. C.E.). 47 In addition to M. Shab. 8:3, see, e.g., M. Shab. 6:2, M. Sheq. 3:2, M. Kel. 23:1, T. Shab. 4:9, y. Shab. 6:2, 8b and 8:3, l i b . 48 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) 14. 49 See ibid, and Schiffman/Swartz 32. Fine, 33, points to bronze amulets discovered near the Torah Shrine of the sixth-century synagogue of Maon (Nirim). They may have been suspended there in order to render them more effective.

6. Magical

Writing

441

them was written while the clay was still unbaked and meant to be thrown into the fire to develop its love charm efficacy. 50 The client seems to have hoped that the heart of the beloved person would burn just like the sherd burned in the furnace. All eleven amulets in Naveh and Shaked's collection whose Palestinian origin is certain are written in Jewish Aramaic. 51 Aramaic is also the language of the amulet from Sepphoris published by McCollough/Glazier-McDonald (1996) and of the three amulets allegedly from Irbid published by Montgomery. 52 This means that neither the clients nor the writers of these amulets attributed a particular magic potency to the Hebrew language. 53 An amulet discovered at Kh. Muslih near Hebron published by Kotansky is inscribed with a bilingual Hebrew and Greek text and is one of the rare bilingual amulets known so far. 54 The four lines in Hebrew at the beginning of the text are an invocation of God in biblical terms, whereas the Greek part, based on the LXX, deals with the more "mundane" request for health and invokes God as the creator. According to Kotansky, "the use of Hebrew at the beginning serves as an opening invocation, occupying a position usually reserved for prestigious angelnames, voces magicae, or the magical "/aQaxxfjQEg".55 It was probably connected with the "vigorous monotheism" maintained by the author throughout the text. 56 Also interesting is the author's obvious knowledge of Greek medical writing. 57 Kotansky believes that the author was a "Hellenistic Jew", belonging to "the more sectarian of the Jewish synagogues". 58 Veltri has correctly criticized this allocation and stressed that the lack of a "normative" Judaism at that time renders the term "sectarian" inappropriate for the description of Jewish magic. 59 The amulet may be viewed as evidence of some Jewish physician's Greek education in Roman Palestine. 60 This amulet indicates that Palestinian Jews would sometimes have their amulets at least partly written in Greek. In this case the Hebrew language and the biblical terminology at the beginning of the text suggest the Jewish identity of 50

See Naveh/Shaked (1985) 2 4 - 2 5 ad no. 10. See Naveh/Shaked (1985) nos. 2 - 3 (Horvat Kanaf), 5 (Emmaus), 8 (Teqoa?), 10 (Horvat Rimmon), 11-13 (Nirim), and (1993) nos. 16 (Horvat Marish), 17 (Tiberias), 19 (Horvat Kannah). 52 See the articles by Montgomery and McCollough/Glazier-McDonald (1996) and (1997). 53 In Naveh/Shaked (1985) and (1993) an amulet from Aleppo (no. 4) and an amulet of unknown provenance (no. 22) are written in Hebrew; a few others, whose origin remains uncertain, change from Hebrew to Aramaic (ibid. nos. 14, 24, 26); only one of them contains a Greek line as well (no. 14). 54 See Kotansky (1991b) 81 and idem (1994) no. 56. 55 Kotansky (1991b) 84. 56 See ibid. 57 See Kotansky (1994) 312-13. 58 Ibid. 313. 59 See Veltri (1996) 40. 60 See ibid. 3 9 - 4 0 . 51

442

Part II: The Occurrence of Writing

the owner. When the amulets are written entirely in Greek the possibly Jewish identity of the owners can hardly be determined but remains possible nevertheless.61 Five of the eleven amulets in Naveh/Shaked were written for female clients and three for men. 62 In three cases the clients remain unknown. 63 Of the three amulets published by Montgomery one was commissioned by a man for his daughter, one written for a man, and one does not preserve the customer's name. 64 The client of the amulet from Sepphoris, published by McCollough and Glazier-McDonald remains anonymous, whereas the Hebrew-Greek amulet published by Kotansky was written for a man. Based on these few surviving items one may reach the conclusion that the percentage of male and female clients of amulets was roughly equal. Although their social status is never indicated in the texts, the clients may have represented a cross-section of Jewish society.65 On the other hand, one might argue that these types of amulets were incised by experts on precious metal sheets and must have been quite costly. Whether the poorer sections of the population could really afford them is therefore questionable. Only one late amulet mentions the title of the client, namely that of a rabbi, who is called "servant of the God of Heaven". 66 The title was probably mentioned because it was considered religiously relevant, as the attribute shows.67 The texts are formulated in a relatively uniform way, sharing a number of elements such as references to the names of God and the angels, biblical expressions, specification of the amulet's function, and the name and matronym of the client. 68 The amulets were meant to protect the clients from harm caused by evil spirits or the evil eye, both of which were believed to cause diseases. The amulets were meant to serve either as prophylactic measures or as cures once the illness had started.69 The symptoms most often mentioned are fever and shivering.70 Other sicknesses such as a headache and some kind of bone disease, 71 or 61

Many more Greek amulets than amulets written in Hebrew/Aramaic have been discovered so far. These amulets could have been used by Jews, Christians, or pagans alike. Due to the syncretistic nature of amulets, it is difficult to determine what is Jewish in them, see Veltri (1996) 33. 62 Female clients: Naveh/Shaked (1985) nos. 2, 11, 12, 13, and (1993) no. 17. Male clients: (1985) no. 3 and (1993) nos. 16, 19. 63 Ibid. nos. 5, 8, 10. 64 See Montgomery no.A (father for daughter), B (fragmentary), C (man). 65 See McCollough/Glazier-McDonald (1997) 144. On the difficulty in determining the identity of the clients see also Schiffman/Swartz 4 5 - 4 6 . 66 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) no. 3. 67 See ibid. 38. 68 See Trachtenberg 140 and 296 n. 10. On the formulaic nature of the texts see also Schiffman/Swartz 53-60. 69 See Blau (1897-98) 86. 70 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) nos. 2 and 3, and (1993) nos. 17 and 19 (various types of fever are listed here). Cf. the amulets published by Kotansky (1991b) and McCollough/GlazierMcDonald (1997). 71 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) no. 11.

6. Magical

Writing

443

one or more illnesses affecting various body parts such as the eyes, the head, and the nostrils 72 are less often specified. In general, names of diseases are not provided. 73 Only the symptoms (fever and shivering) or the affected body parts (head, eyes, nostrils) are identified. Sometimes the amulets merely ask for healing and the cessation of pain in a summary way.74 Protection against evil spirits and the evil eye is sometimes explicitly requested as well.75 In general, no differences between the amulets written for male and female clients can be recognized. There are, however, specifically female or male objectives as well, such as the protection of a pregnant woman and her unborn child 76 or the guarding of a woman's child77 on the one hand, and the invocation of God to subdue one's local adversaries on the other.78 Whether the client of the love charm was a man or a woman cannot be determined anymore. 79 The authors of the amulets were obviously learned in magic practices. They knew the names of demons and spirits as well as the various symbols and letters believed to carry magic potency. At least some of them seem to have known certain biblical verses from the Torah and the Psalms as well, as verbal allusions and direct quotations show.80 The amulets were obviously written and used "in a milieu where the Bible was the sacred scripture, and quoting it, or at least pretending to quote it, was deemed to be of special magic power". 81 Whether the authors also knew magical recipe books or other types of magic literature is open to question. 82 In contrast to the gem and medallion type amulets on which writing was sparse and which may have been used by Jews in the second to fourth centuries already, the thin metal plaque amulets with long and elaborate inscriptions seem 72

See ibid. no. 5. An exception is no. 11, where the Aramaic transcription of the Greek xeq)a^aQyia, "headache", appears. 74 See, e.g., Naveh/Shaked (1985) nos. 3 and 13, and (1993) no. 17; cf. Kotansky (1991b) 1.9: "let there be cessation from every pain, and rest". 75 Demons and evil spirits: Naveh/Shaked (1985) nos. 2, 3, 11, 12,13; Montgomery text C. Evil eye: Naveh/Shaked nos. 2, 13; Montgomery text C (protection from the evil eye of the client's parents and of women!). On protection against the evil eye see Schrire 7 - 9 . 76 See Montgomery text A. 77 See Naveh/Shaked no. 12. 78 See Naveh/Shaked (1993) no. 16, 1.17-20: "... so may the inhabitants of this town be suppressed and broken and fallen before Yose the son of Zenobia". On this amulet see also Naveh (1985) 367ff., where he points out that this text is unique amongst the Jewish amulets from Palestine, but that certain formulaic analogies are to be found in Geniza texts. 79 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) no. 10. 80 See Naveh/Shaked (1985) nos. 3 (allusion to Dan. 3:6), 12 (allusion to Ps. 94:1 and Gen. 33:20?), 13 (quotation of Ex. 15:26), and (1993) nos. 16 (Ps. 115:1 and 138:2), 17 (Ps. 46:8,12). 81 Naveh/Shaked (1985) 36. See also Schiffman/Swartz 37-40. 82 On possible parallels see Naveh/Shaked (1993) 17ff. and Schiffman/Swartz 19 and 2 2 32. Naveh (1996) 453ff. points to certain similarities between the text of amulets and magical recipe books found in the Cairo Geniza and suggests that at least some of the Geniza material may be based on earlier Palestinian traditions. 73

444

Part II: The Occurrence

of Writing

to have been a new development of later Byzantine times. Common to both types of amulets is the usage of semi-precious stones and metals which cannot have been cheap. 83 If the gems were mass-produced, they were probably less costly than the later custom-made amulets with long inscriptions. In addition to the price of the silver or bronze the clients would have had to pay for the engraving of the inscription whose letters were so tiny that only an expert metal engraver would have been able to accomplish the task.84 One may assume that the poorer sectors of the population did not use such jewelry-like amulets at all,85 but resorted to cheaper amulets of papyrus or leather or in the form of found objects or produce which would hardly have survived. 86

83

Trachtenberg, 136, has pointed out that the stones themselves were believed to possess particular magic powers. For silver as a "lucky metal" see Schrire 24. Since silver was expensive, less costly metals such as copper or bronze would be used in its stead. 84 See Schrire 23: "It appears that the craftsmen-silversmiths often included in their repertoire that of manufacture of kameoth probably calling in the more learned scribes to write the inscriptions ...". Engraving tiny letters on thin metal surfaces must have been difficult, since the sheets could easily break, see ibid. 24. There were probably scribes who specialized on this type of writing. Cf. Schiffman/Swartz, 49-50, for the Geniza amulets. The scribe did not possess magical power himself. He only knew how to use the proper instruments: "The magician is principally a craftsman, plying a trade" (ibid. 62). 85 That such amulets were worn like jewelry is suggested by y. Shab. 6:2, 8b (expanding on the definition of an amulet made by an expert in T. Shab. 4:9): On the Sabbath an amulet may not be worn within a tube, as a bracelet or a necklace, since it would be considered an ornament. 86 For the usage of found objects as amulets see Trachtenberg 132. See also T. M.Shen. 1:3: "Produce in the status of second tithe ..., they do not make it [into] an amulet".

7. Summary This survey on the usage of writing in Roman Palestine leads to the following conclusions: It seems that during the first three centuries of Roman rule, that is, from the first century B.C.E. until the third century C.E., private citizens, if they used writing at all, did so mainly for temporary and pragmatic purposes: for occasional letters and documents, accounts and notes. The graffiti inscriptions on ossuaries from Herodian-period Jerusalem served as orientation markers for family members rather than propagating the status of the deceased. From the third century onwards, however, new developments seem to have occurred. Although the informal and family-oriented uses of burial inscriptions continued, more formal and representative epitaphs and dedication inscriptions appeared. These synagogue and burial inscriptions were not motivated by the immediate needs of everyday life and addressed nobody in particular. Similarly, rabbinic traditions were collected and "published" in written form. Both the inscriptions and the literary collections were public, that is, they were at least theoretically visible and accessible by everyone. Their commissioners seem to have had a sense of the future and of an audience, they wanted to give permanence to individuals and traditions of the past. The development toward more permanent, public, and representative forms of writing in Palestinian Jewish society of late Roman and early Byzantine times seems to have at least partly been influenced by contemporary Roman and Christian practices. The epigraphic habit was distincly Roman in nature, as was the practice of euergetism, which formed the basis of the setting up of donors inscriptions. The emergence of the synagogue as the religious center of the local community and its competition with Christian churches was another significant factor. The synagogue inscriptions publicized the wealth and distinction of the donors and expressed their identification with and loyalty to the synagogue as a specifically Jewish institution, at a time when Christianity became more and more powerful and visible in the Holy Land. The rabbinic decision to collect and publish the transmitted legal traditions of previous centuries may have been influenced by Roman legal scholars' attempts to bring some order into the reigning chaos and provide a better orientation for colleagues and students, although the result, the Talmud Yerushalmi, predates Justinian's Corpus Iuris Civilis.1 Whether midrashic-type compilations were 1

See Hezser (1998b) 6 3 I f f .

446

Part II: The Occurrence

of

Writing

influenced by Christian Bible scholars' exegetical work and collective arrangement of comments on particular biblical verses still needs to be examined in detail. 2 The development towards a more extensive use of writing in Byzantine times is also noticeable in connection with magic writing. In contrast to the earlier usage of gems, on which the few letters and words occupied a merely supplementary place or no place at all, the later Byzantine-period amulets on thin metal plates were inscribed with relatively long magic texts on whose formulation the magic potency depended. The post-Talmudic period also saw the development of literary forms of magic whose exact relationship to the practical magic of the amulets remains uncertain, though. Aramaic and Greek were the main languages used by Jews for writing in Roman Palestine. Greek was used for administrative documents and for letters exchanged between Jewish and Roman grandees. Wealthy landowning families who wanted to make their documents enforceable in non-Jewish courts would commission their writing in Greek, and wealthy businessmen used this language for their accounts and lists. Greek was also the predominant language of burial inscriptions set up by Jewish immigrants from the Diaspora, Jewish officials and dignitaries in urban centers, and a few members of the middle and, in coastal cities, lower strata of society who imitated this foreign and upper-class custom. As far as the religious realm is concerned, some synagogue dedication inscriptions in urban areas, set up for the wealthier donors, are written in Greek, as are a few inscriptions on gems which served as magic amulets and may have been used by Jews and non-Jews alike. One may assume that Aramaic was the language in which Jewish military leaders and rabbis communicated amongst themselves in writing. It was also the language in which most Palestinian Jews had their documents written and which was used by ordinary businessmen for everyday purposes such as delivery instructions, lists, notes, and labels. Most of the ossuary inscription of Herodian period Jerusalem are in Aramaic, as are the later synagogue inscriptions. These synagogue inscriptions were much more widely distributed than the burial inscriptions. They were not only found in urban areas but also in many villages and smaller towns. These Aramaic inscriptions tend to honor less wealthy donors and are occasionally set up for all inhabitants of a place or the synagogue community at large. Rabbis, who also sometimes appear in Aramaic donors inscriptions, seem to have preferred their burial inscriptions to be written in Aramaic as well. They and their students are likely to have also taken occasional notes in Aramaic and Aramaic was the language of their major literary collections of late Roman and Byzantine times. Like the Talmud Yerushalmi and various Midrash collections, the texts on thin metal amulets were written in Aramaic in contrast to the Greek of the gems. 2

See Visotzky's introduction in idem 3 ff.

7. Summary

447

The choice of Greek or Aramaic seems to have depended on a number of partly complementary factors then: urban/rural, wealthy/poor, as well as administrative/religious distinctions seem to have played a role. People who lived in urban areas, belonged to the wealthier strata of society, and were occupied in the administrative realm tended to use Greek more frequently for their writing purposes than the poorer population in the villages and countryside did, if the latter used writing at all. In the religious realm, whether the synagogue, rabbinic circles, or magic practices were concerned, Aramaic seems to have been preferred over Greek, at least as far as late antique and early Byzantine times - of which most of the evidence stems - are concerned. Sometimes all of these three criteria may have worked together to determine the language choice, whereas at other times only one or two of them applied. Despite the possibility to draw these broad generalizations, a certain variability is noticeable. For example, a few poorer city dwellers set up burial inscriptions in Greek, whereas some of the wealthy synagogue donors were honored in Aramaic. In such instances the urban/rural distinction seems to have been more significant than the wealthy/poor divide. In the case of religious functionaries, such as archisynagogues, honored in Greek dedicatory inscriptions, their socioeconomic status seems to have been most decisive. In addition, many or most of them originated from the Diaspora and/or lived in the so-called Greek cities of Palestine, where synagogue services would customarily be conducted in Greek. Hebrew seems to have been used in writing by a few individuals for particular ideological reasons only. While the Qumran sectarians and the rabbis who composed the Mishnah used Hebrew because it was the language of the Temple and therefore religiously significant, Bar Kokhba and some of his adherents sometimes wrote letters or documents in Hebrew because for them Hebrew was the national language of the Jewish people. Yet the evidence of Greek and Aramaic amongst the Qumran and Bar Kokhba material as well as the Aramaic of the Talmud and Midrashim shows that the common everyday languages of Roman Palestine were used in these circles as well. Altogether, only particular circles of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine seem to have actively used writing. Letters were used by political dignitaries and the military as well as by the later rabbis. Documents were mainly used by the landowning classes and by some businesspeople. The latter would also make use of writing for a number of more limited pragmatic purposes, to document their deliveries and to identify their produce. Burial inscriptions were set up by families to locate their graves and to memorialize their deceased, whereas synagogue inscriptions seem to have been set up by the community to honor its more or less wealthy and prestigious members and to uphold a financial system which depended on donations. The question whether and to what extent the different socio-economic strata were able to actively or passively participate in the use of writing shall be examined in more detail in the following part.

Part III

Participation in a Literate Society In ancient Jewish as in Graeco-Roman society writing was only one way of distributing knowledge and information. Besides writing, other, oral and representational means of communication existed: certain types of information were spread through rumors, in conversations, or by heralds. 1 Nevertheless, writing played an important role amongst Jews in Roman Palestine, as the previous parts of this study have shown. Even if only a very small minority of Jews can be considered to have reached the highest levels of literacy, whereas many were able to write their own signature only or were totally illiterate, Jewish society as a whole can be called a "literate society", that is, a society in which writing was employed in various social contexts in Roman-Byzantine times. The multiple ways in which literate, semi-literate, and illiterate Jews were able to participate in the use of writing shall be examined in this part. Jews obviously used writing for many different purposes in Roman Palestine. Amongst the pragmatic purposes illustrated above, military, administrative, business-, property-, and family status-related matters stand out. But writing also played a role in the maintenance of friendship and patronage relationships, in the remembrance of deceased ancestors, and in the upkeeping of a system of euergetism within the local Jewish community. An important part of the ancient Jewish religious heritage was preserved in writing and became the main written symbol of Judaism when the Temple as the ritual center was destroyed. The most important task of the following chapters of this study is the identification of those circles of Jews who used, were reached by, and/or had access to one or the other type of writing. To what extent is it possible to make social and gender-related distinctions regarding access to and usage of written forms of knowledge and 1 On conversations, rumors, and heralds as a means of spreading news see especially Riepl 322-35; on the central significance of cities in information distribution see ibid. 327f. The amora or "spokesman" of certain rabbis, mentioned in the Talmud Yerushalmi, seems to have been a kind of private herald who may have resembled public relations officers today. See, for example, y. Ber. 4:1, 7c par. y. Taan. 4:1, 67c, where Rabbi and R. Chiyya b. Abba are said to have instructed their "spokesmen" to make the public announcement that "whoever wishes to recite the [Sabbath] evening prayer may do so, even while it is still daytime". In connection with the issue of two groups eating in the same house, which may be combined for the recitation of the blessing over food, R. Berekhiah is said to have set up his "spokesman" in the middle of the hall to invite those assembled to recite the blessing on behalf of both groups (see y. Ber. 7:5, 11c). See also y. B.M. 2:2, 8b and y. Meg. 4:10, 75c, where the "spokesmen" of other rabbis are mentioned.

450

Part IH: Participation

in a Literate

Society

information? In which ways did access to written knowledge constitute power and determine power-relationships and hierarchies? Since reading was a more basic skill than writing in the ancient world, and since more people seem to have been able to read than to write, the practice of reading will be examined first. The various ways in which illiterates and barely literates were able to communicate in or gain information from written texts will also be part of the following considerations. Concerning both reading and writing practices, this part builds on the results reached in the previous parts and elaborates them on the background of our knowledge of reading and writing habits in Graeco-Roman and early Christian society.

1. The Readers of the Texts Whereas a number of opportunities to listen to public readings of literary works seem to have existed in the ancient world, the extent to which people would also read in the private realm of their homes is much more uncertain and debated amongst scholars. The answer depends, in part, on one's assessment of the private ownership and circulation of texts, an issue which has already been addressed above. 2 Related to the question of public and private reading is the issue of loud and silent reading in antiquity. How common was silent reading and who would practice it for what purposes? Were certain types of texts more prone to be read silently, whereas others were meant to be read aloud? Would readers not disturb each other if they read different texts aloud in the same room? Scholars have repeatedly pointed to the difficulties involved in reading ancient texts. Even if the words were divided by spaces, a reading aid which Greek texts usually lacked, the absence of punctuation, chapter divisions and titles and the great variety of handwriting styles made reading an arduous and time-consuming endeavor which required careful training. Papyrus rolls were cumbersome to handle and individual passages almost impossible to check. Therefore great emphasis was given to memorization and to the quoting and reciting of texts from memory. One may assume that the distinctions between reading and summarizing and reading and commenting on texts were often blurred. The carriers of letters would sometimes summarize their contents from memory rather than reading them out aloud in front of illiterate recipients. In the context of textual study readers would quote scriptural texts from memory and add their own comments and explanations. Public readers who addressed larger audiences might consider it their task to elucidate rather than merely present the text. Accordingly, listeners who had no access to the written version would often be unable to distinguish between the reader's own additions and changes and his reading base. Those who were able to read texts themselves were certainly in a stronger position than those who had to rely on the reading skills of others in order to gain access to the knowledge and information which texts contained. The literate intermediaries were able to manipulate the flow of information, they could either disseminate or restrict certain types of knowledge. One may assume that the smaller the quantity of people able to read, the more powerful were the literate, 2

See section I.2.D.

452

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

despite the fact that a large amount of information was distributed orally without recourse to writing.

A. Public and Private

Reading

Two broadly different types of public reading, that is, reading within the context of a public gathering of people, are distinguishable from each other, although there will have been some overlap as well. The first type consists of an individual or a sequence of individuals reading in front of a merely receptive audience of silent listeners. In the second type, on the other hand, most or at least many of those present are actively involved in the reading and discussion of the texts. Obviously, the two types of public reading happened in different social settings and involved different types of people. In the first case, a spacial and social distance between audience and reader existed. The reader functioned as a mediator for those who had no direct access to the text. In the second case, all of those present had the opportunity to actively engage themselves in the study of the text. The public reading in front of an audience was self-evidently done aloud, and the reader had to be very proficient to carry out his task in a satisfactory way.3 In Graeco-Roman society various settings existed in which such readings took place. For example, certain legal edicts and enactments would be made public in both written and oral form. 4 Authors would read from their works in the marketplace or in front of a gathering of friends. 5 Classical tragedies and comedies would be performed on stage.6 In early Christian communities religious texts were mostly read when members gathered for worship. According to Gamble, at the time of Justin Martyr (2nd c. C.E.) reading was already "a vital part of the weekly assembly". 7 It is not entirely clear, though, when this practice began and which texts were read at these meetings. 8 Gamble believes that the Christian reading of Scripture was influenced by the public Torah-reading practice of the synagogue. 9 Torah-reading seems to have been an important feature of all or at least some of the pre-70 synagogues in Palestine already.10 This phenomenon is attested by 3

Cf. Gamble 205. See Schwind 49ff.; Gamble 204. 5 For examples from the time of the Roman Republic see Rawson 52. 6 See Svenbro (1987) 35f.; Hadas 50ff. 7 Gamble 205. 8 See ibid. 206. Harnack, 33, points to 1 Tim. 4:13 where Timothy is "exhorted to 'public reading'"; the reading matter is not specified, however. For further New Testament references see ibid. 33 ff. 9 See Gamble 208. 10 On the multiple religious and secular functions of pre-70 synagogues in Palestine and possible local differences see especially Levine (1996a) 430 and idem (2000) 135 ff. 4

1. The Readers

of the Texts

453

Josephus, the New Testament, and the Theodotus inscription.11 After the destruction of the Temple, and especially in the later synagogues of the third and fourth century C.E., Torah lectures seem to have gained in importance and had become the central element of synagogue services besides the developing prayer liturgy.12 Rabbinic sources frequently mention the public reading of the Torah, and Jewish elementary education seems to have had the training of Torah readers as its goal. 13 Tannaitic texts already transmit rabbinic instructions on the proper form of the Torah-reading and the reading of the scroll of Esther and discuss the appropriateness of certain types of readers. For example, "on the festival day five [are called to read in front of the community], on the Day of Atonement six, on the Sabbath seven" (M. Meg. 4:2, T. Meg. 3:11). A reader should not read less than three verses of the Torah, and he should stop after every verse for the translator to translate (M. Meg. 4:4, T. Meg. 3:17). Deaf-mutes, idiots, and people who wear ragged clothes are not allowed to read the Torah (M. Meg. 2:4 and 4:6, cf. T. Meg. 3:30). The same exemption seems to have applied to women, slaves, and minors, but these categories were at least considered valid to read the Hallel Psalms (M. Suk. 3:10). 1 4 Their reading was considered embarrassing for male adult Israelites unable to read and therefore forced to passively listen and respond to them (see ibid.). In the case of (male) minors some rabbis seem to have been more lenient and welcomed their reading of the Esther scroll, though (see M. Meg. 4 : 5 - 6 ) . 1 5 All of these texts assume that any adult male Israelite who had obtained the required reading proficiency to carry out the task could read the Torah in public. " For references to scriptural readings in synagogues in Josephus and the New Testament see Gamble 323 n. 13. For the Theodotus inscription see Frey 2:332-35. Cf. Richardson 99: The synagogue to which the inscription refers was built "for the reading of the Torah and the study of the commandments", but it also served as a hostel for travelers from abroad. 12 On the increasingly religious outlook of the later synagogue see Levine (1996a) 4 4 4 - 4 5 . In T. Meg. 2:18 a number of functions of synagogues are listed: "They read [Scripture] in them, repeat [traditions] in them, and expound in them [ j m ^ E n m "3TO1 ] , ~fip]". This text's exclusive focus on the reading and interpretation of the Torah probably reflects the rabbinic perception of synagogues. 13 See section I . l . B above. 14 See also T. Meg. 2:7, where women, slaves, and minors are explicitly exempted from the reading of the scroll of Esther, since "they do not have the power to fulfill the obligation of the community". Cf. T. Meg. 3:11, where it is stated that "they do not bring a woman to read [Scripture] in public", whereas a (male) minor is not included in this prohibition. Whether T. Ber. 2:12, "Zabim and zabot, and menstruating women, and women after childbirth are permitted to read in the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings ...", refers to public or private reading practices is uncertain. On the basis of the texts mentioned above it seems very unlikely, however, that menstruating women were allowed to read the Torah in public. On women and Torah-reading see also Hauptman 232. 15 See also T. Meg. 2:8: "R. Yehudah said: I was a minor, and I read it before R. Tarfon in Lydda, and he accepted me. Rabbi said: I was a minor, and I read it before R. Yehudah in Usha, and elders were there, and none of them said a word ... From then onwards they adopted the custom that a minor may read [the scroll of Esther] in public".

454

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

M. Git. 5:8 specifies, though, that a priest and a Levite should be given priority in the order of reading, that "simple" Israelites should only read after them "in the interests of peace". The particular association of priests and Levites with the Torah in pre-70 times was obviously acknowledged by post-70 rabbis - especially by those who were priests themselves. The roles and functions of the rosh ha-knesset and the chazzan remain somewhat obscure, at least as far as tannaitic sources are concerned. According to T. Meg. 3:21, the "head of the congregation" (perhaps an honorary office similar to that of the archisynagogue) only reads when specially invited to do so, "for a person does not lower himself on his own initiative". Ordinarily, his task may have been the supervision of the reading rather than the reading itself.16 The chazzan, who also appears in a few synagogue inscriptions, seems to have similarly occupied a particular position as far as public Torah-reading was concerned (see ibid.).17 His function was not identical with that of the "reader" (lector, dvayvcoaxric;) of the church, however, which appeared at the end of the second century C.E. 18 In the Yerushalmi chazzanim are portrayed as, on the one hand, receiving instructions from rabbis concerning the handling of Torah scrolls and other synagogue-related issues, and on the other hand giving instructions to members of the congregation concerning the leading of prayers. 19 It seems, then, that at least by the third and fourth century chazzanim were responsible for the proper conduct of the synagogue liturgy including prayer and Torah-reading. They seem to have sometimes led prayers and read the Torah themselves but also delegated the tasks to other members of the community. 20 At least in smaller communities which could afford one official only, the function of the chazzan will have been one amongst a number of different functions which a communal official had to fulfill. The story about the people of Simonia asking R. Yehudah ha-Nasi to send them a person who could be "a preacher, judge, chazzan, scribe, teacher ["p^no "ISO |Tm ET"T1], and who does everything we need" may suggest that in late Roman and early Byzantine 16

On the "head of the congregation" and the chazzan in connection with Torah-reading in the Temple and the synagogue see also Levine (2000) 40, 126, and 395-96 with references. 17 See Levine (1996b) 395 and (2000) 4 1 0 - 1 7 . 18 On that office see Gamble 218: It is first attested for North Africa at the end of the 2nd c. C.E., see Tertullian, Praescr. 41. "By the middle of the third century it was well established everywhere" (ibid.). Gamble assumes that the illiteracy of some Christian officeholders may have caused the office to develop. Originally any member of the congregation was at least theoretically allowed to read. When the offices of bishops, deacons, and presbyters were introduced, the responsibility to read in front of the congregation rested on them: "It is likely that in some congregations the officeholders were not able to read or could not read well and thus relied upon literate members of the congregation to read under their official auspices" (ibid.). 19 See y. Ber. 5:3, 9c: the chazzan asks a member of the congregation to lead the Amidah, but a rabbi protests against his behavior; y. Sot. 7:6, 22a par. y. Meg. 4:5,75b: a rabbi instructs a chazzan in the proper unrolling of a Torah scroll. 20 Cf. Levine (2000) 396.

1. The Readers of the Texts

455

times, when the synagogue had become the religious center of the local community, literate individuals with multiple talents were much sought after as commununal functionaries. 2 1 One may assume that rabbis were the best candidates for such positions. The greater interest of rabbis in synagogue matters in amoraic times, suggested by rabbinic sources, and the occasional references to "appointments" of rabbis to communal posts should be understood on this background. 2 2 Besides the office of the chazzan the office of the meturgeman or translater seems to have developed further in amoraic times. The translator was not supposed to be identical with the Torah reader, nor should he base his translation on a written text. 23 He was rather required to translate ad hoc the verses which he heard the Torah reader read, for "things which were stated orally [must be presented] orally and things which were stated in writing [must be presented] on the basis of writing pTD2 3 r D 3 Tia«3C C m m ¡123 ¡1213 TIQK30 (y. Meg. 4:1, 74d). The Aramaic story tradition into which this Hebrew statement is integrated also suggests that scribes and/or elementary teachers occasionally functioned as translators. 24 They would already be familiar with the biblical text, a precondition for a good translation. How widespread the office of translator was, we do not know. It is possible, however, that by the third and fourth century C.E. translators from Hebrew into Aramaic were employed by most Aramaic-speaking synagogue congregations, since people's knowledge of Hebrew had vained. While one person read, the others listened. With regard to Christian scriptural lectures Paul Saenger has argued t h a t " . . . public lectio, buttressed theological and philosophical orthodoxy". 2 5 At least at the time of the lecture the audience had no direct access to the written text and had to rely on what was transmitted orally. In the semi-private space of study groups, on the other hand, everyone could at least theoretically look at the text, and all could engage in arguments about what was read. Even more prone to divergent thoughts and opinions was the practice of individual private reading: secluded in one's study, one could read whatever one liked and form one's own opinions without having to confront the opposing views and criticisms of others. 26 A person who attended a public reading was, on the other hand, dependent on other people's choice and presentation of the text. 27 21

See y. Yeb. 12:6, 13a par. Gen. R. 81:2. Another version of the story appears in y. Shebi. 6:1, 36d (the people of Bosra ask R. Shimon b. Laqish for help in finding an appropriate candidate). 22 On the closer connection between rabbis and the synagogue in amoraic times see Hezser (1997) 22Iff.; on rabbinic appointments in amoraic times see ibid. 86ff. 23 See y. Meg. 4:1, 74d; Pes. R. 5:1. Cf. Levine (2000) 465. On the basis of this and other texts York assumes "that a written Targum was in use in the synagogue early in the fourth century", see idem 77 f. 24 "R. Chaggai said: R. Shmuel b. Yizchaq went to a synagogue. He saw a scribe declaiming a translation from the book [KIS'O ]0 R D i r n CDOTD "130 i n «on] ...".Translation with Sokoloff 246. 25 Saenger 399. 26 See ibid. 27 To what extent the scriptural readings of the synagogue where already regulated in

456

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

Public readings also had many advantages, though. They gave all those unable to read literary texts themselves a chance to become familiar with at least a selection of literary writing. Not only illiterates would attend such gatherings. Even highly literate individuals were accustomed to listening to the loud reading of texts.28 Especially in circumstances where individuals' direct access to book scrolls was limited, public readings could serve as a substitute. Since very few ancient Jews are likely to have possessed Torah scrolls at home, 29 and since not everyone will have had the time and opportunity to visit study houses, public Torah-readings in synagogues were the main means of spreading Torah knowledge amongst the populace. They can therefore be considered to have had a certain democratizing function. 30 Especially for the large majority of women, who received no Torah education at home and would not regularly enter the male sphere of the study house,31 these public Torah-readings were the only option they had to obtain at least a basic familiarity with the Torah.32 At least from the third century C.E. onwards rabbis seem to have recognized the opportunity to reach a broader public by delivering weekly sermons in synagogues. 33 These sermons seem to have been connected with the Torah-readings and were more or less far-reaching explications of them. 34 Lieberman has already stressed that the scholarly level of these sermons will have depended on the prior education of the audience, on whether they were urban intellectuals or "simple-minded and unsophisticated" village folk. 35 Nevertheless, a clear-cut urban-village distinction may not always have existed in this regard, since wealthy urban Jews may have been more familiar with Greek literature than with the Hebrew Bible. 36 rabbinic times is uncertain. Even if a fixed lectionary system did not exist, certain regulatory mechanisms seem to have been in progress. Cf. Gamble 210. 28 See Balogh 232; Saenger 405; Gamble 205. 29 See section I.2.D above. 30 See also Harnack, 33, with regard to early Christian communities: "it was from this public reading that the community gained practically all its knowledge of the Bible". 31 On certain holidays women and children may have went to study houses as well, as T. Yoma 4:2 (Yom Kippur) suggests, see Hezser (1997) 207. 32 See the story about a woman who would regularly attend the Sabbath lectures delivered by R. Meir in the synagogue of Chammata, although her husband was opposed to these visits (y. Sot. 1:4, 16d). 33 See Hezser (1997) 371 with references. 34 On rabbis' public preaching as one of the settings from which rabbinic midrash derived see Hirshman 108 ff. Hirshman notes, however, that no direct connection between the literature and the setting can be drawn, since "our collections of aggada were redacted by scholars and are further from the original sermons than are the stenographic records of Origin's sermons" (113). 35 See Lieberman (1965) 161. 36 Hirshman's assumption that the Jewish audience will have been "steeped in the biblical text" due to the "rich history of Bible study which was the heart of Jewish elementary education" (ibid. 113) is certainly exaggerated, as our discussion of Jewish elementary education and schools has shown, see section 1.1 .A-B above. He is probably right, however, in assuming that the general Jewish knowledge of Scripture was higher than that of Origen's (formerly pagan) Christian audience.

1. The Readers of the Texts

457

Another type of joint reading happened in the context of the so-called study house. One may assume that in such settings men would read and discuss the same text together or work on different texts or textual passages simultaneously. Such joint study also took place amongst early Christians and amongst GraecoRoman philosophers and intellectuals. As already pointed out above, some ancient libraries had an adjacent scholasterion where scholars could meet and discuss the books they were reading. 37 Christians would meet in the houses of fellow-Christians and read scriptural texts, probably under the guidance of the most educated amongst them. 38 Some of the local Jewish study houses or rooms will have been public institutions, that is, gathering places established by the local community, e.g. rooms adjacent to or part of synagogue buildings, which were open to anyone (or rather: any male Jew). Others seem to have been semi-private places associated with - and probably established by - particular rabbis. 39 These rabbis may have made particular rooms in their private houses available to their local fellow-Jews for the purpose of Torah study.40 The phenomenon that such study houses/rooms are mentioned particularly often in amoraic sources concurs with amoraic rabbis' increased propagation of Torah study.41 In order to facilitate Torah study they would provide rooms where the activity could take place. The extent to which these rabbis controlled access to their study houses and led the discussions will have varied from one rabbi to the next. Both types of study houses were probably more common in larger towns and cities than in small towns and villages with a few literate inhabitants only.42 In both the public and the semi-private study houses the Torah seems to have been read aloud, 43 as already implied by the verb N i p ,44 or perhaps in a whisper37 See section 1.1 .D above, with references. Otherwise liberaries would not provide reading rooms. Only in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century college libraries at Oxford and Cambridge were public reading rooms provided, in which the books were chained to the desks and could be consulted directly. In these libraries "silence was first professed" (Saenger 397). 38 Cf. Harnack 63 n. 1: "It is a priori certain that, side by side with the central services for public worship, smaller more or less informal assemblies continued to exist, wherein, among other things, sacred books would be read". For further references see ibid. 39 See Hezser (1997) 2 0 2 - 1 4 with references. 40 This phenomenon would be comparable to the so-called house of Leontis in Bet Shean, a private house which served as a synagogue, see inscriptions nos. 5 - 9 in Roth-Gerson. Rawson, 52, points to "Vitruvius' note that orators need big halls in their houses for meetings" and recitals, see Vitr. 6.5.2. 41 See Hezser (1997) lOOff. 42 A statement attributed to R. Meir in ARNA 36 (Schechter ed. p. 108) implies that not every place had a study house: "R. Meir says: Everyone who has a study house in his town and does not go there has no share in the world to come". Similarly, y. Shab. 16:1, 15c refers to "a place in which there is no study house". On the concentration of study houses in cities see also Lapin (1999) 205 and (2000) 54. By analogy, Lapin (1996) 502 refers to third- and fourthcentury Christian academies which had as their "major locus and core constituency ... the cities and their wealthy educated populations". 43 Cf. Krauss (1966) 227 ff. 44 See Boyarin 17.

458

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

ing undertone so as not to disturb one's fellow-scholars. One may assume that a number of small sets of people studied different passages of the text simultaneously, although the analogy of modern yeshivot, which comes to one's mind immediately, is perhaps not entirely appropriate: the number of literate individuals and the availability of texts will have been much more limited in ancient times. In light of what has been said about the diffusion of Torah scrolls above, a study house may have had one set of Torah scrolls only. In addition, the focus may have been on the discussion of passages quoted from memory, for the unrolling of the scrolls was very bothersome and would damage them if repeated too often. 45 Not all of those present will have been required to read themselves. 46 Yet those who were able to read were in a stronger position, since the others were dependent on them. 47 One must assume that the practice of reading literary texts in private was not very widespread in antiquity, due to the low literacy rate and the limited availability of manuscripts. 48 Even members of the wealthy and educated strata of society would probably attend public and semi-private readings of literary works more often than delve over them alone in the seclusion of their homes. They would invite an author to read from his work in front of a number of family friends or have a slave recite poems as part of the after-dinner entertainment of guests rather than reading books alone, unless they were authors and scholars. 49 Whereas Harnack tried to argue that private reading was very common amongst ancient Christians from the end of the second century C.E. onwards, 50 Gamble has corrected this view and stressed that "the literature that survives reflects the capacities and viewpoints of Christian literate, who cannot be taken to represent Christians generally". 51 Familiarity with religious texts did not presuppose the practice of reading them alone and in private, since various opportunities to listen to readings outside one's home existed. 52 Wealthy Christian families may have organized private scriptural readings, similar to the literary recitations in 45

See also Elman 3 (of the manuscript). This phenomenon may be implied in ARNA 2 (Schechter ed. p. 14): "[When] someone comes from work in the evening, he should go to the synagogue or the study house. If he is accustomed to read [Scripture], let him read; and if he is accustomed to repeat [traditions], let him repeat, but if not, let him merely recite the Shema, then say the Prayer". 47 See also Gamble, 9-10, with regard to ancient Christian study sessions. 48 See Sedgwick 93. 49 See Sedgwick 93 f.; Saenger 399. 50 See Harnack 50ff.: On the basis of the Pseudo-Clementine epistle De Virginitate he assumed that homes which possessed no Bible were visited by traveling Bible readers who held "cottage lectures" there (see ibid. 63). Nevertheless, he admits that Origen repeatedly complains about his fellow-Christians' lack of interest in the Scriptures (see ibid. 69 ff. with references). Harnack believed that wealthy Christians would have Bibles copied at their own expense and lend them to or distribute them amongst the poor (see ibid. 77). 51 Gamble 4. 52 See ibid. 9: "The illiterate Christian found in the public reading of Christian texts at least as large and probably a more consistent opportunity than his pagan counterpart to participate in literacy and become familiar with texts". 46

1. The Readers of the Texts

459

the homes of the pagan aristocracy, except for the broader social mixture of the guests. Scholars have broadly discussed the question whether silent reading was practiced at all in antiquity. On the basis of a large range of relevant literary sources Balogh has argued that silent reading was exceptional amongst Greeks and Romans, that even individuals reading alone at home were accustomed to pronouncing the words and sentences aloud. 5 3 One reason for loud reading were the difficulties involved in deciphering ancient manuscripts. 5 4 In elementary schools children would always learn to read aloud only. Another reason was the ancient perception of letters as musical notes, each letter representing a different sound, a notion expressed in Augustin's dictum " o m n e verbum sonat".55 In the basically oral and rhetorical world of Graeco-Roman times a text was a mere accummulation of signs which received meaning through the mouth of the reader only. 56 The consequence was that texts would be read very slowly, but they would probably also stay longer in one's memory and be easier to recall. While Balogh's view is generally shared by other scholars, 57 exceptions to the rule do seem to have existed, as Knox has stressed. Especially scholars who read large amounts of texts and were more proficient than the ordinary reader are likely to have developed "a technique of silent, faster reading". 58 Horace, Ambrose, and Augustin, for whom such silent reading is reported, were probably not the only ones who practiced it. 59 Whereas Balogh claims that non-literary texts, such as letters, documents, and inscriptions would also usually be read aloud, unless their content was meant to be kept secret, 60 Knox believes that the silent reading of such texts was much more prevalent than Balogh and other scholars assumed. 61 It seems that both Balogh and Knox push their arguments too far into one direction. Based on the references they provide one may assume that silent reading did exist in antiquity but was limited to particular individuals (scholars, authors) and exceptional circumstances (necessity to read fast, to keep the text's contents secret). 62

53

See Balogh 8 8 f f „ 202ff. See Balogh 224f.; Saenger 370. 55 See Balogh, 225, with reference to Augustin, De dialect. 5,11. See also ibid. 203f. for similar expressions used by other ancient writers. 56 See ibid, and Saenger 371. On loud reading as a manifestation of the strength of orality see also Harris (1989) 36 and ibid. n. 37. 57 See, for example, Achtemeier, 15 ff., in connection with early Christians. Ibid. 17 he points to Acts 8:30, where it is said that Philip "heard" an Ethiopian read from the book of Isaiah. Cf. Hadas 51; Saenger 370-71; Hendrickson 192f.; Svenbro (1987) 32 and (1993) 5. 58 Knox 421. See also Svenbro (1987) 34. Saenger dates the general development of silent reading and its integration into literary education to much later times, namely to the context of twelfth- and thirteenth-century scholasticism, see idem 383 ff. 59 See Knox, 422ff., for a discussion of the sources. For more sources testifying to the practice of silent reading see Gilliard 689ff.; Slusser 499; Clark 698ff. 60 See Balogh 100-101 (letters), 205 (inscriptions). 61 See Knox 428. On the silent reading of letters see also Gilliard 690 and Small 22. 62 See also Small 22. 54

460

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

How widespread private reading of literary works was amongst ancient Jews cannot be determined anymore. In all likelihood, however, the number of Jews who did read in private was small: they had to be able to read literary works themselves or have family members or slaves who would read for them; they had to own books or have friends who would lend them out; they needed spare time and the motivation to use that time for reading. All of these conditions will have prevailed within relatively wealthy families only. The nature of the reading matter will have depended on the respective family's cultural identity and religious commitment. Wealthy immigrants from the Diaspora whose mother tongue was Greek, if they read literary works at all, may have preferred Greek literature to the Torah, and this may also be assumed for members of the urban Jewish aristocracy, who aspired to rise to or had already obtained high positions within the city administration. Some of these individuals may have read the Torah too, especially if they came from priestly families, as the example of Josephus shows. Some scribes and rabbis probably devoted themselves to Torah-reading only, but how many other Jews outside rabbinic circles read the Torah in private we do not know. The majority of those who did value the Torah may have shared the view attributed to the high priest Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas: "The good life, he said, consisted in observing the laws, and this aim was achieved by hearing much more than by reading" (ibid. 127). One gets the same impression from Josephus who writes that Moses already ordained that "every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it" (C.A. 2.17, 175). Obviously adult male Jews were so busy with their work that they had to be particularly motivated to attend Torah-readings even once a week. The Torah knowledge which they could obtain by listening to such readings will have been rather limited. Whether women were more eager to attend such lectures and did not need to be reminded of them is open to question. In any case, in all of these passages the emphasis lies on Torah observance rather than on study. 63 This is also the case in passages where Josephus urges children to learn to read the Torah. 64 Only very few of his contemporaries will have achieved Josephus' own level of education, as he himself stresses: "... though many have laboriously undertaken this training, scarcely two or three have succeeded, and have forthwith reaped the fruit of their labors" (Ant. 20.12.1,265). These few are the only candidates for whom private reading may be assumed. Rabbinic documents often portray rabbis as reading in private, but hardly anyone else. 65 They were the most likely private owners of Torah scrolls. How limited they deemed other Jews' willingness and ability to read the Torah on their own may be implied by the following tradition: "[If] he found [Torah] 63

See also C.A. 1.12 (60), Ant. 3.8.10 (223). See C.A. 2.25 (204): children should learn the laws of the Torah so that they "may neither trangress nor have any excuse for being ignorant of them". 65 For examples and references see section C below. 64

1. The Readers of the Texts

461

scrolls, he reads in them [at least? or: only?] once every thirty days. If he does not know how to read [HTip^ tfTP K*? OKI], he unrolls them" (M. B.M. 2:8). 66 The opening of the scrolls, whether for reading purposes or not, was meant to protect the scrolls from decay.67 Rabbis obviously tried to persuade people to spare some time and read the Torah, as an argument a fortiori in T. Sanh. 4:7-8 shows: If an Israelite king, who is busy with government matters, finds time to read the Torah "all the days of his life", all the more so should ordinary Israelites, who do not have such duties, find time for Torah-reading. Such admonitions would hardly have been necessary if people had actually acted according to rabbis' recommendations. When referring to private reading in a general and theoretical way, rabbis may therefore have had fellow-scholars in mind. 68 Whether such private reading was done aloud or silently is never specified in the texts. One may assume that at least at meetings of rabbinic colleague-friends in the home of rabbis the joint reading and discussion of particular sections of the Torah was done aloud. Perhaps the custom of reading the Torah aloud in public was regularly followed in the private sphere as well. Rabbis were probably not interested in covering large quantities of text but rather pondered over individual passages for a relatively long time. The loud reading would assist memorization and help make sense of the texts. There is a similar lack of evidence concerning the loud or silent reading of letters, documents, and inscriptions amongst ancient Jews. One may assume, though, that Jewish society did not differ much from Roman society in this regard. Secret letters and letters of accusation and blame would probably be read silently whereas others, which simply provided information, were read aloud. 69 Some official letters from the government seem to have been read aloud in front of the populace. Josephus relates, for example, that at the time when Alexander Balas had invaded Syria, the Seleucid king Demetrius I sent a letter to the Jewish high priest Jonathan to propose a friendly alliance and to recommend him to raise an army, whereupon Jonathan is said to have gone to Jerusalem to read the letter in front of the assembled people. 70 Under particular circumstances even secret letters would be read out aloud. According to Josephus, Herod accused his sons of plotting against him by reading out aloud in front of a council of Roman 66 Cf. T. B.M. 2:21, where this regulation is applied to new scrolls, whereas old ones should be opened once a year. 67 See Albeck ad loc. 68 For general references to scriptural reading, see, for example, the discussion of whether one fulfills one's obligation when reading the Esther scroll alone (y. Meg. 1:5, 70b): according to R. Yehudah, such a reading would be considered valid, whereas other rabbis disagree: The reading at home would be conducted in private, whereas the context assumes a public reading. The discussion of Sabbatical rules in M. Er. 10:3 reckons with the possibility that someone might read a scroll on the threshold of his house and it might slip away from him into the public domain (cf. the further discussion in y. Er. 10:3, 26a-b). 69 That letters would customarily be read aloud and that the silent reading of letters was exceptional is argued by Balogh 90, 91, 95, 101. 70 See Josephus Ant. 13.2.1 (39).

462

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

officials incriminating letters written by them. 71 Sometimes letter carriers seem to have read or summarized the contents of letters and/or provided further commentaries on or explanations to them. 72 The recipients of letters occasionally answered them orally, by instructing the carriers to return their message to the sender. 73 Similarly, rabbinic letters to local communities concerning the proper observance of festivals or other issues were probably meant to be read out aloud, although this is never directly stated in the texts. Letters with distant colleagues' halakhic opinions on particular cases may have been read in front of the litigants or when the issue was discussed with students. But rabbis will also have read letters in private, especially if private matters were concerned. Whether they did so aloud or silently will have depended on the contents of the letters and the circumstances in which they were read. As far as the reading of documents is concerned, rabbis reckoned with the possibility that the involved parties and witnesses, and even the judges who dealt with the case, were sometimes unable to read what they signed. 74 The deeds were probably always read out aloud and, if necessary, translated before they were signed. Involved parties unable to read the body of the document, for example, if it was written in Greek and they could read Aramaic only, or if they were entirely illiterate, could easily become subject to frauds and therefore had to be accompanied by literate (bilingual) individuals whom they could trust. The documents which some families kept at home were probably not reread unless controversies arose. In such cases the wealthy, on whose behalf most documents seem to have been written, could turn to literate relatives or scribes who would assist them in understanding the texts. 75 Would inscriptions be repeatedly read aloud? According to Svenbro, the pronunciation of the name of a deceased person or a donor, mentioned in an inscription, served to make that person present, to evoke his or her memory. 76 The voice of the reader served as an instrument to convey the content of the writing. 77 His or her voice, rather than the mere signs of the letters, gave posterity to the deceased and honor to the benefactor. 78 One of the most important functions of writing in largely oral cultures was the giving of names, onomatothesis.19 This 71

See Josephus Ant. 16.11.2 (363). See Josephus, Ant. 17.5.7 (133): Herod's letter to the Roman emperor is enforced by the envoy's "word of mouth". See also Achtemeier 17, with reference to Acts 15:27, Eph. 6:21— 22, Col. 4:7-8, and 1 Clem. 63:3. 73 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.8.3(318). 74 See section II.2.B with reference to y. Git. 9:9, 50c-d. 75 Cf. Balogh 232 n. 85: "Man mutet einer vornehmeren Persönlichkeit gar nicht zu, Akten und Dossiers selbst zu lesen; sie werden stets vorgelesen". 76 See Svenbro (1993) 44. 77 See ibid. 63. 78 See ibid. 64. 79 See ibid. 65. 72

1. The Readers of the Texts

463

function could not be fulfilled unless the inscriptions were read aloud to relatives and passers-by. How often this loud reading of inscriptions actually happened remains uncertain, though. It may have been limited to particular occasions.

B. The Process of Reading Scholars of Graeco-Roman society have repeatedly stressed the difficulties involved in reading ancient texts. First of all, some basic practical matters need to be considered, which will have affected even those who had learned to read and were theoretically able to do so. Eyeglasses did not exist in antiquity, whereas eye diseases and blindness are likely to have been even more common then than they are nowadays. 8 0 For those who had lost their eyesight, remedies will have been sparse, 81 and the deciphering of tiny manuscript letters will soon have become impossible. Another practical obstacle to reading was the lack of electric light. The best conditions for reading were given during the daylight hours, when most people were occupied with their work. Candles and oil lamps, which could be used as alternative light sources after sundown and within buildings, would not last long and illuminate small areas only. The large menoroth used in late antique synagogues probably had a very practical function in that they provided the light necessary for the Torah-reading. The rabbinic prohibition of reading by the light of a lamp on the Sabbath (see M. Shab. 1:3: does this rule not apply to synagogues or would synagogues not follow rabbinic strictures in this regard?), on the day when most people would have had the only spare time to study Torah, will have further restricted the reading opportunities of those who adhered to that rule. As to the texts themselves, scriptio continua and the lack of punctuation and division into chapters and paragraphs made the understanding of Greek and Latin literary manuscripts, documents, and inscriptions exceedingly difficult for all but the most accomplished and knowledgeable readers. 82 Those whose mother tongue differed from Greek will have had even more difficulties in reading Greek. 8 3 A merely visual identification of the letters would not reveal the meaning of the text. Only the transfer of the signs into sounds, i.e. the vocalization of the text by one's actual or inner voice, 8 4 would remind one of familiar words and expressions, so that the writing eventually made sense. Even those who had 80

For references to eye diseases in rabbinic texts see Veltri (1997) 119f., 162f., and 238. On the various types of eye diseases see Preuss 300ff.; on blindness see ibid. 313 ff.; on the lack of eyeglasses see ibid. 324. 81 See Preuss 320ff. 82 See Balogh 227ff.; Saenger 370f.; Sedgwick 93; Achtemeier 10f.; Gamble 203. 83 Cf. Svenbro (1987) 33, who provides an example of continuous writing in French. 84 Against Saenger 378, who argues that only word division would enable the development of silent reading in medieval times, Svenbro (1987) 34 maintains that the silent reading of a text written in scriptio continua was at least theoretically possible in antiquity already.

464

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

managed the alphabet and learned to read would customarily read very little in comparison to modern readers, and the cumbersome process of deciphering the text would take a very long time. 85 Those who had a prior knowledge of the general contents of the text would necessarily be able to read the text much faster and understand it more easily. Since the actual process of reading was so complex and difficult, even those who had learned to read and had access to manuscripts would try to memorize the texts they had read and rely on their memory when recalling them on later occasions. 86 Achtemeier refers, for example, to "the preference of Papias for the oral over the written gospel tradition long after the Gospels had been written down". 87 This preference was obviously shared by Seneca and other ancient philosophers: "In addition to a cultural bias in favor of the oral over the written, the sheer physical nature of the written page in classical antiquity militated against its ease of reading and in that way also contributed to the culture's reliance on the oral mode in communication". 88 Word division was customary for manuscripts written in Semitic languages. 89 On the other hand, in Hebrew and Aramaic the lack of vowels will have complicated matters. The spaces between words compensated for the lack of vowels. Without them the identification and distinction of words and sentences would have been impossible. 90 The extant manuscripts evince great variations regarding the quality of the respective handwriting and the ease with which word divisions are recognizable. For example, on the leather fragments with biblical texts from Murabba'at (PI. XIX-XXII in Benoit/Milik/de Vaux) the spaces between the words are very small, whereas the leather roll of the twelve prophets (ibid. PL LVIff) is written in neat handwriting and the word division is clearly visible. A marriage contract on papyrus (ibid. PI. XXX: no. 20) has very crowded letters at the top, whereas the scribe used more space for writing the bottom part. In Bar Kokhba's land lease contract (ibid. PI. XXXV: no. 24) the spaces between the words are easily recognizable, and the Bar Kokhba letters also tend to be written in a clear and legible script (see ibid. PI. XLVI: nos. 43 and 44; PI. XLVII: no. 46; PI. XLVIII: nos. 47-52). 91 Amongst the Judaean Desert documents published by Cotton and Yardeni a deed of sale (PI. Ill: no. 8a) shows hardly any word division, in contrast to other deeds, such as a waiver of claims (PI. VIII: no. 13) and further sales documents (PL. XI: no. 21; PI. XXVIII: no. 50). The Greek Salome Komaise documents in the same collection are al85

See Svenbro (1987) 33-34; Small 19. Cf. Saenger 374 n. 38: "Classical historians characteristically did not cite verbatim quotes but presented resumes of the ancient sources which they had at their disposal". Cf. Harnack 84. 87 Achtemeier 7 n. 19. 88 Ibid. 10. 89 See Millard (1992) 44 ff. 90 Cf. Small 19. 91 See also Cotton/Yardeni Pl.XX: no. 30. 86

1. The Readers

of the Texts

465

ways written in scriptio continua (cf. ibid. PI. XXXIV: no. 62, PI. XXXVIII: no. 63; PI. XXXIX: no. 64; PI. XLI: no. 65), as are Greek synagogue and burial inscriptions. 92 The inscriptions in Jewish script differ amongst themselves with regard to the existence and visibility of spaces between words as much as the documents and letters just mentioned. 93 One may assume that when Jewish elementary teachers taught Torah-reading, they would write the textual passages in the most legible way. And for the more advanced students they would choose manuscripts with clearly visible space divisions written in a formal hand. The reading of less formal handwritings and scripts with little or no word division would require a lot of reading practice and experience, especially if the text was relatively long and complex and the reader not familiar with its contents. Only those who were accustomed to reading many texts, such as, for example, scribes and rabbis, are likely to have been able to make sense of such writings. The proportion of Palestinian Jews able to read Greek documents, letters, and literary manuscripts in scriptio continua will have been even smaller. The relatively short and formulaic texts of Greek burial and synagogue inscriptions will have been much easier to identify. Even those who had received a basic training in Greek letters only may have been able to read such inscriptions. Altogether, then, different types and levels of reading proficiency would be necessary for reading the various types of texts.

C. Readers

and

Audience

Throughout antiquity only a small minority of (mostly) males was able to read literary texts themselves rather than listening to such texts being read out to them. In the pre-70 period the Qumran community may have been exceptional with regard to the quantity of members able to read, although Baumgarten is certainly right in assuming that "literacy need not have been an absolute requirement for membership". 94 The emphasis given to communal Torah study, suggested by some of the sectarian texts, 95 together with the multitude of biblical manuscripts found at Qumran, even if all or some of them were brought there from outside, seem to imply that a certain number of male members were able to actually read the texts. If the nightly study sessions mentioned in the Community Rule actually took place and study had a liturgical rather than merely intellectual significance, 96 those who actively participated in these sessions are likely to have been literate as far as Torah-reading ability was concerned, and "such 92

See, e.g., the photographs of the inscriptions in Roth-Gerson. See, e.g., the photographs of synagogue inscriptions in Naveh (1992) 118ff. and of ossuary inscriptions in Rahmani (1994). 94 A. Baumgarten (1997) 48. 95 See Fraade (1993) 5 2 f f . with references. 96 Cf. ibid. 56 with reference to 1QS 6 . 6 - 8 . 93

466

Part 111: Participation

in a Literate

Society

literacy would have contributed to the community's elect self-understanding". 97 One may assume, though, that even amongst the Qumranites there were various levels of literacy, and only a few outstanding individuals may have been "versed from their early years in holy books" (Josephus, Bell. 2.8.12, 159), a likely prerequisite for leadership roles. A relatively high level of literacy may also be assumed for the leaders of the Sadducees and Pharisees. 98 The sectarian disputes hinted at in Josephus' works, the New Testament, and rabbinic writings seem to presuppose a more than average amount of Torah knowledge amongst the leaders of the sects, a knowledge which will have been based on their direct acquaintance with the text. As a well-educated representative of the upper class Josephus himself was able to read both Hebrew and Greek, 99 and he occasionally refers to Greek books which he consulted when writing Antiquities. 100 He also hints at other Jewish readers of Greek texts, to whom he gave copies of his work, "among whom were Julius Archelaus [the husband of Mariamne], the most venerable Herod, and the most admirable king Agrippa himself' (C.A. 1.9, 51). The mentioning of members of the royal family suggests that Josephus is generally referring to upperclass Jews here. How large the number of upper-class Jews able to read Greek literary texts was at Josephus' time remains uncertain. Most of these upper-class Jewish readers of Greek will have been immigrants from the Diaspora, such as the archisynagogues and other title holders mentioned in Greek synagogue and burial inscriptions. But the number of native-born Jews with a reading knowledge of Greek may also have gradually increased in the first centuries, accompanying the process of urbanization in Palestine. Rabbinic discussions of whether one should teach one's children Greek and the association of Greek education with the patriarchal family can be considered traces of this development. 101 Jews' willingness to study the Torah and to have their children learn Hebrew letters may also have increased in late Roman and early Byzantine times. The increase of educational opportunities outside the home together with the greater religious significance of the synagogue and the possibly greater prestige of Torah readers will have motivated more male Jews to become Torah-literate. Nevertheless, the proportion of those who had reached the level where they were able to read the Torah in public, in front of the congregation, must have remained rather small. The Mishnah even reckons with the possibility that the high priest was unable to read (cf. M. Yoma 1:3 and 1:6). Although he was supposed to read the prescribed rite for the Day of Atonement as well as passages from Job, Ezra, and Chronicles "with his own mouth", learned elders may read it for him, if he has 97

Ibid. 58 n. 35. See also idem (1998) 65. See A. Baumgarten (1997) 5 0 - 5 1 . 99 See Ant. 20.12.1 (263f.). ,0 ° See, e.g., Ant. 8.6.2 (159): Hecataeus of Abdera; Ant. 12.2.12 (100): Letter of Aristeas. ' 0 1 See section I . l . C above. 98

1. The Readers of the Texts

467

forgotten or never learned how to read ( m Q ^ KQtO IK ¡YDE NGS, ibid. 1:3). Elsewhere in the Mishnah it is assumed that amongst those gathered for the reading of the scroll of Esther on Purim (M. Meg. 4:4-6) or for the recitation of the Hallel Psalms on Passover (M. Suk. 3:10) only a minor might be able to read, whereas the adults, whether male or female, are deemed to listen and respond after him. According to T. Meg. 2:8, certain rabbis practiced such reading while they were still minors. Minors able to read Scripture in public were probably known to be so much more educated than their peers that they were almost inevitably believed to become scholars in later years. The phenomenon that T. Meg. 3:12 rules in the case of "a synagogue which has only one who can read [ i m K^N l O p " ^ 'Q •pKitf nODH ¡Til]", that "he stands up and reads and sits down again seven times", thus fulfilling the task of seven readers, supports the assumption already put forth by Meir Bar-Ilan that "in some towns there was only one person who could read the Torah".102 The existence of small towns with illiterate inhabitants only is indicated by another tradition in the Tosefta which deals with the reading of the Hallel Psalms on Passover: "Inhabitants of a town who have nobody who can read the Hallel [ | n b T O T "33 nR R"lp,tO 'D], they go to the synagogue [of another town] and read [i.e., listen to the reading of] the first part, and go [home] and eat and drink, and [afterwards] return [to the synagogue] and complete [the reading] ..." (T. Pes. 10:8).

According to Bar-Ilan, the passage clearly suggests that the illiteracy of the inhabitants of some (probably small) towns was a real problem which could prevent people from acting according to certain rabbinic rules. 103 The Tosefta text indicates that rabbis tried to find ways to overcome the illiteracy problem: Whereas some towns (and villages) might lack proficient readers, neighboring towns with a synagogue would probably have at least one person who could read. Illiterates might join such a congregation and fulfill their obligation by merely listening to the reading. 104 Some villages and small towns may not even have owned a Torah scroll or a scroll of the book of Esther. According to a story transmitted in T. Meg. 2:4, R. Meir, when he came to Asya, did not find a scroll of Esther there: "So he wrote one out from memory and read in it [¡"DinO VSQ i"QrD]". The story is followed by another, similar one, according to which "R. Meir read [the scroll of Esther] in the synagogue of Tib'in" (ibid.). Although the stories cannot be considered historically reliable, villages which lacked Torah readers and Torah scrolls may have occasionally been visited by rabbis who brought their own scrolls and read Scripture in front of the congregation. 102 Bar-Ilan (1992) 54. See also idem (1987) 11. The parallel in Massekhet Soferim 11:2 (Higger ed. p. 218) has ~PU instead of nOlDn ITD, but the meaning seems to be the same. 103 See Bar-Ilan (1987) 5. 104 See also y. Meg. 4:1, 74d: "... one who hears [the scroll of Esther read] is in the status of one who reads it [ « n p 3 JJmBjntD]".

468

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

In the Yerushalmi rabbis are commonly depicted as having read Scripture in front of others. According to a statement attributed to Bar Qappara in y. Meg. 2:4, 73b, one should read the scroll of Esther before women and minors. The statement is followed by a narrative tradition stating that R. Yehoshua b. Levi acted accordingly: "He gathered his children and household and read it before ,them [jUTOlp l p l ] " . Another story tradition transmitted in y. Sanh. 1:2, 19a relates that "R. Yizhaq stood up and read in the Torah" and that "R. Nathan stood up and completed [the reading]". Similarly, R. Yochanan is said to have read the Torah before a congregation of Babylonians in Sepphoris (y. Ber. 5:1, 9a). In the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi rabbis are also commonly depicted as having read the Torah in private, whether alone or in the company of colleaguefriends. For example, R. Yishmael is said to have been sitting and reading by the light of a lamp on the Sabbath (T. Shab. 1:13). According to a story attributed to R. Yose, "R. Chalafta went to R. Gamliel in Tiberias and found him seated at the table of R. Yochanan b. Nezif. In his hand was the scroll of Job in translation, which he was reading" (T. Shab. 13:2). Rabbi allegedly studied Torah together with R. Shimon in the courtyard of his house in Teq'oa (T. Er. 5:24), and such readings would be continued on the roof in times of danger. In the context of Tosefta tractates Shabbat and Erubin all of these private Torah-reading sessions are supposed to have happened on the Sabbath, 105 but one may assume that at least amongst rabbis they were not limited to Sabbaths and holidays. 106 A story transmitted in the Yerushalmi even maintains that rabbis would read in the book of Psalms while visiting a bathhouse (y. Kil. 9:4, 32b par. y. Ket. 12:3, 35a). R. Chiyya allegedly refrained from greeting his colleague R. Yishmael b.R. Yose, whom he did not notice, since his eyes were focused on the aggadah of the book of Psalms (¡TDK D ^ T l I S O ^DD "] , iJ n n : ^ « ) . 1 0 7 Since the water of the immersion pools and the damp air within the pool rooms is likely to have damaged books, Jacobs suggests that a scriptural reading in one of the adjacent rooms of the bathhouse is imagined here. 108 A very similar story is told about Pliny the Elder. According to his nephew Pliny the Younger, Pliny would follow literary pursuits in the bath, during the time he was not in the water: "for all the while he was rubbed and wiped, he was employed either in hearing some book read to him, or in dictating himself' (Pliny, Ep. 3.5). 109 The stories indicate that both Jewish and Roman scholars were portrayed as using the time spent in baths

105 See T. Shab. 13:1, however, where reading holy Scriptures on the Sabbath - but not reviewing or checking or expounding them - is prohibited. 106 See also y. Shab. 16:1, 15c (par. Lev. R. 15:4): Rabbi, R. Chiyya the Elder, and R. Yishmael b.R. Yose were "reviewing the scroll of Lamentations on the eve of the Ninth of Av". 107 On this expression see Jacobs (1998a) 286. Ibid. n. 330 he refers to y. Shab. 7:1, 9b where a similar expression appears, which supports the conclusion that the reading (or skimming) of Scripture is referred to here. 108 See ibid. 286. 109 Quoted and translated in Richards 65.

1. The Readers of the Texts

469

for more serious intellectual activities which centered on reading, discussion, and, in the case of Pliny, even literary composition. Although rabbis repeatedly admonished their fellow-Jews to study the Torah, 110 rabbis are the only ones whom narrative traditions commonly depict as reading the Torah in private. This restriction may not have been a mere literary fiction, for one would imagine that rabbis were eager to state that others followed their advice, if they had actually done so. The limited extent to which individuals actually read Scripture in private was probably not only due to their lack of a respective reading proficiency. It was probably also due to the fact that Torah scrolls were very costly and could only be afforded by the wealthy. Few private households will have owned them, as argued above. 111 The repeated reference to rabbis studying Torah together may also be connected with the likely phenomenon that only some rabbis owned Torah scrolls. Those who lacked private scrolls but wanted to read the Torah in private, undisturbed by the noise of the study house, would have to visit their more wealthy colleagues and make use of their scrolls. Would rabbis also read and discuss written versions of the Mishnah in the way they studied scriptural texts? Scholars have emphasized that in Graeco-Roman society certain literary texts are best understood as "written speech": they reflected oral communications and were meant to be represented or performed orally rather than being closely read and studied in their written form. 112 Plato's dialogues, for example, "have a dramatic form (...) without being intended for the stage": "If, in this way, theatre is internalised in the book, the book in its turn is internalised in mental space". 113 The Mishnah may have likewise been meant for memorization and the tanna, mentioned in amoraic texts, seems to have occupied the role of the actor in whose mind the text was "inscribed" and who "pronounced" it in the "theatre" of the study house. The consequence of this 110

Similar appeals to reading the Scriptures were made by Christian leaders, see Harnack 42, 46f., 93. 111 See section 1.2.D above. 112 See Svenbro (1987) 34 f. and 41f. See also Balogh 231 f.; Hendrickson 184; Saenger 390; Small 21. One aspect of writing as "written speech" were the attributions of statements to particular individuals ("as X said"), see Sedgwick 90. Due to the "fluctuating nature of the tradition, and consequent uncertainty of authorship" (ibid.) these attributions cannot be taken as historically reliable: the names of the authors became mixed up and statements were wrongly attributed to one or the other well-known figure. " 3 Svenbro (1987) 41. Balogh, 231 n. 83, also points to the basically oral nature of ancient philosophical texts. The same consideration applies to the written speeches of rhetoricians: "Das Produkt dieses rhetorisch-rhythmischen Geistes war das rhetorische antike Buch, welches man laut schrieb fur den lauten Leser" (232). Sedgwick, 92, points to the oral nature of almost all ancient literature: "The rhapsodes still recited their epics; tragedy, comedy and dithyramb were still written with a view mainly to public performance ... The speeches of the orators were not always published after delivery - at least by their authors - and hence arose in later days vexed questions of authenticity. The teaching of Socrates was entirely oral, and the writings of Plato and Aristotle were only subsidiary to their main work as heads of schools". According to Small, 21, the writing of "true" text only developed in the Middle Ages and was linked to the usage of the codex and a page format.

470

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

procedure would be that rabbis and their students discussed the Mishnah on the basis of the tanna's oral proclamation rather than having direct access to the written versions themselves. This phenomenon may have stood behind the description of the Mishnah as "oral Torah".114 Another issue which needs to be considered in connection with the Mishnah is the possible restriction of the circle of readers and listeners. Sedgwick has pointed out that certain Graeco-Roman literary works are to be understood as "school" literature, meant for circulation amongst a small number of students and friends only: "For many centuries authors addressed themselves primarily to their own immediate circle, either of auditors or of disciples. The recitation of epic poems remained in the hands of a ' s c h o o l ' , on w h o m the poet's mantle was supposed to have fallen, w h o were themselves thought to have received something of his inspiration. In the same way there were 'schools' of medicine and of prophets, w h o inherited a constantly increasing body of literature ... W h a t manuscripts there were would be professional copies and jealously guarded". 1 1 5

Similarly philosophers, if they wrote at all, would not write for general circulation. Their writing was meant for their disciples and adherents only, and in order to deter the ordinary reader they "probably made it intentionally obscure or allegorical". 116 In contrast to Graeco-Roman philosophical texts Gamble assumes that "most early Christian texts were meant to speak to the whole body of the faithful to whom they were read". 117 The Mishnah seems to have been closer to philosophical texts in this regard. Like philosophical texts the Mishnah must be considered "school" literature, meant to be primarily read/heard and discussed by rabbis and their disciples.118 Whereas the Mishnah seems to have been written by and for rabbinic scholars, rabbinic scholars also tried to determine the reading matter of the broader public. They warned their fellow-Jews against reading the so-called "external" books. According to a statement attributed to R. Aqiba in M. Sanh. 10:1, "one who reads in external books [• , ]"li> , nn • " H 2 0 3 K T l p H ] " has no share in the world to come. These "external" books ("external" to the canon of holy Scriptures) 119 seem to 114

See also Elman 21 (of the manuscript), with regard to the situation in Babylonia, and ibid. 30 for the probably similar practice in Palestine. 115 Sedgwick 90. 116 Ibid. 91. 117 Gamble 40. The simple narrative style of the gospels suggests that they were read out aloud in front of the assembled congregation. 118 Cf. D. Kraemer, 128, with regard to the intended reader of the Bavli, who was probably even more advanced than the reader of the Mishnah: "Our reader was, at the very least, an advanced rabbinic disciple". 119 Cf. the statement attributed to R. Berekhiah the priest in Pes.R. 3:2: "The books of the Torah are no more than twenty-four, and whoever reads a book other than the twenty-four is considered as one who reads in external books [ l ^ t O m i K I D"HiDJJn 'in nSD i m p ® 'Q n , ]K'Tt D'HSOD N~np], of which the Torah has said: 'And of more than these, my son, beware'".

1. The Readers of the Texts

471

have been identical with the "books of the minim" mentioned in T. Shab. 13:5: in contrast to the holy Scriptures neither they nor the gospels are worthy of being saved from fire or any other damaging substances. In T. Yad. 2:13 and y. Sanh. 10:1,28a the books of Ben Sira are mentioned as an example for such "external" or "heretical" works. In the continuation of the Yerushalmi, however, such works, as well as the works of Homer and non-Jewish and Jewish literary works ("the books of Homer and all the books written from then onwards") are not explicitly forbidden as reading matter; they are merely said to have limited value, both in material and spiritual regards. Harnack has pointed out that although "formal decrees against reading the religious literature of the heathen and the heretics were not issued by the Church before the time of Constantine", Christian leaders would warn their coreligionists against reading "frivolous and obscene dramas", "books of magic and of strange religions", and "all heretical literature" before that time already.120 Interestingly, in early Christianity as in rabbinic society, "in increasing measure apocryphal books, even though they were innocent, indeed even though they were edifying, met with the same treatment as heretical books". 121 Warnings against the reading of such works could not be inforced, though, and therefore the leaders' control necessarily remained informal and unregulated. 122 Like the Mishnah the Muratorian fragment indicates that "it was the custom, even so early as A.D. 200 to add to the catalogue of the sacred writings received in the Church, either in an appendix or even in the text itself, descriptions of all that was rejected as heretical". 123 In both Judaism and Christianity the designation of certain writings as "heretical" or "external" to the holy Scriptures may thus be seen as a natural consequence or corollary of the notion of canonicity which developed at that time. Even if rabbis and Christian clerics were successful in preventing most of their coreligionists from reading non-canonical religious and pagan literary works themselves - most Jews and Christians will have been unable to obtain such works anyway 124 - they were probably unable to prevent them from attending public readings and performances on stage. Unfortunately, little is known about public or private readings of non-biblical Jewish or pagan writings in Roman Palestine. Such readings may at least have taken place within the homes of the educated upper classes. One can easily imagine upper-class Jews attending the dinners and after-dinner entertainments of their pagan patrons and busi120

Harnack 60-61. Ibid. 107-8. See also ibid. I l l , where Harnack assumes that "'apocrypha' gradually vanished from private reading" and "the sphere of private reading became ever more and more restricted". Whether the ecclesiastical authorities' admonitions were actually followed remains uncertain, though. 122 See ibid. 62. 123 Ibid. 62 n. 1. 124 On the costs and distribution of books in antiquity see section I.2.D above; on the existence of and access to libraries see section I.2.E. 121

472

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

ness-friends, and such dinners would sometimes include the recitation of Greek prose and poetry. 125 Those who belonged to the lower strata of society were probably exposed to the more trivial creations of pagan culture only. During the first centuries C.E. theatres were erected in many cities of the region. 126 Yet these theatres would rarely stage the classical Greek tragedies and comedies. They rather served as entertainment centers for the masses, presenting vulgar comedies, the so-called rrtimus, and pantomimes: "Both genres are characterised by trivialisation unlike the classical tragedies and comedies, which were shifted away from public theatres to private stages". 127 Accordingly, the public theatres would neither provide insights into classical Greek culture nor give the Jewish populace access to Greek literary works. The number of possible readers of ancient writings is likely to have increased in proportion to the shortness and simplicity of the texts. That is, more people will have been able to read letters consisting of a few lines only and short formulaic inscriptions than long and complex literary texts. Again, people able to identify certain labels on jugs and names on ossuaries may not have had sufficient reading proficiency to read a simple letter or a longer inscription. In the case of letters, the circles which Josephus and rabbinic texts present as having used this written means of communication, namely the military and administrative realm, members of high-standing families, and - at least from the third century C.E. onwards - rabbis, are likely to have been able to read the texts as well. Even if such letters were customarily written - and perhaps also sometimes read out - by messengers or personal secretaries, both the senders and the recipients can be assumed to have been capable of reading them themselves. As already pointed out above, letters seem to have usually been read out aloud, if they did not deal with intimate or secret matters. This loud reading would allow illiterate bystanders to grasp the contents of the texts. In this way both female family members, who probably often could not read, and rabbis' less educated sympathizers and clients would gain access to the information which the letters conveyed. Not all those on whose behalf documents were written will have been able to read them on their own, as the Babatha and Salome Komaise papyri demonstrate. All of the women whose signatures were written by their husbands or guardians could probably neither write nor read in any language. Whether all of the male signatories were able to read the texts is similarly questionable. At least in cases where the signatures are written in languages other than those of the document text, translators may have been necessary. Both the relatives of the deceased mentioned in epitaphs and the family members of the synagogue donors on whose behalf dedication inscriptions were set up will have been familiar with what their inscription said. They are unlikely to 125 126 127

See Hezser (2000c) 217. See Jacobs (1998b) 328. See ibid. 335.

1. The Readers

of the Texts

473

have repeatedly read the inscription, unless they wanted to commemorate the dead by pronouncing his or her name or show the inscription to visitors or relatives from another place. Visitors to cemeteries and synagogues may have occasionally read the inscriptions of unrelated individuals, especially if they knew the respective family or if the commemorated was a prominent and wellknown person. Since inscriptions were customarily read aloud, all those who were present will have been able to listen to the reading. Illiterates who were unable to read inscriptions themselves could ask literate relatives or bystanders for assistance. Monumental public inscriptions were probably regarded as an integral part of the urban environment which one took for granted without paying too much attention to them. They were usually set up in honor of the emperor, imperial officials, or local patrons, and to read them aloud meant to pay tribute to these Roman dignitaries. 128 Businessmen who used lists, accounts, and labels will have been able to read these simple notes themselves. Whether their reading skills were limited to this level or more extensive will have varied from one person to the next. The identification of certain recurrent letters and words that designated products, such as "wine" or "bread" or "tithe", and of the initials and full names of the products' owners constituted the very lowest level of reading skills and can perhaps not even be called rudimentary literacy. Altogether, then, only particular circumscribed circles within the Jewish populace will have been able to read literary and/or non-literary texts, and the number and size of these circles will have diminished in relation to the complexity of the texts. The large majority of Jews who did not belong to the circles of readers were nevertheless able to gain access to writing by listening to those who read the texts aloud, and loud reading was customary in connection with all types of writing in antiquity. Certain villages seem to have lacked any person who could read, that is, their inhabitants did not even have an opportunity to listen to others reading. Accordingly, in some rural areas access to writing will have been rather difficult. Villagers had to travel to the nearest town or city with literate individuals who could act as intermediaries. A center-and-periphery model of concentric circles may be applied to Jewish reading practices in Roman Palestine: At the center one has to imagine a very small number of highly literate people who could read literary texts in both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Then there was another, slightly broader circle of those who could read literary texts in either Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek only. They were surrounded by people who could not read literary texts but only short letters, lists and accounts. A broader proportion of the population may have been able to merely identify individual letters, names, and labels. They as well as the vast majority of their entirely illiterate contemporaries had access to texts through intermediaries only. 128

See C.M. Lehmann, 385 f., on the nature of public inscriptions in Caesarea.

2. The Writers of the Texts Writing skills will have been even less widespread than reading skills amongst the Jewish population of Roman Palestine. As a technical skill writing was primarily associated with scribes in the ancient world. Communication was generally conducted orally, and oral or ritual means of transaction without written documents seem to have been common in most areas of daily life. On the few occasions on which one needed a document or letter one could simply hire a scribe. Yet the rural population and all those who lacked the property which documents protected might not have needed any documents at all. Not many Jewish parents will have considered it necessary to teach their children writing, and the Jewish elementary teachers of whom we know from rabbinic sources seem to have usually taught Torah-reading skills only. The more practical writing and calculating skills were probably mostly imbued by private teachers hired by wealthy parents and within merchant families and guilds who would usually live in the cities and larger towns rather than in the countryside. Just as in the case of ancient readers, both scribes and non-professional writers will have greatly differed amongst themselves with regard to the degrees of their writing proficiency. Some scribes will have been able to write literary texts, whereas others were able to write letters and documents only. Some non-professional writers could write their own contracts and letters, whereas others could merely sign the documents and letters which scribes wrote on their behalf. One may assume that those whose profession, business, and/or social status required them to write frequently would be the most experienced writers, and that others who were rarely required to write would lose the skill, even if they had learned it once.

A. Writing and Dictating

to Scribes

In antiquity writing often meant dictating a text to a scribe rather than handwriting it oneself. Accordingly, if a literary text states that someone "wrote" something, we do not know whether he or she wrote it him/herself or had it written by a scribe. Even the highly literate who were able to write would customarily employ scribes for all but the most private letters and notes. To the professionally written letter or document they would add their handwritten signature only.

2. The Writers of the Texts

475

Members of the upper classes would have their own secretaries who would always be available should the need for writing arise. 1 The constant availability of scribes was necessary, since "in managing his practical affairs any well-to-do Roman or Greek was likely to make quite heavy use of the written word. The running of an upper-class household, with both town and farm property, had long involved the use of documents and the maintenance of more or less elaborate written records". 2 To those who could afford the employment of permanent secretaries the costs of papyrus and ink will not have mattered much. These costs were simply part of the overall expenditures which the management of estates incurred. Permanent secretaries were probably also employed by wealthy merchants who ran larger businesses requiring the constant writing of sales documents, lists and accounts. If they lived in the major cities of Palestine and had business contacts with gentiles, they will have needed bilingual scribes who were proficient writers in Greek as well as Aramaic. The owner of a large business enterprise may not have had the necessary time to keep the business records himself and therefore delegated the task to a professional writer. Other, less wealthy businessmen may have rarely used writing: "transactions of modest size were seldom in ordinary circumstances put into written form". 3 If the need for writing arose, e.g. to document a major delivery, they may have either handled it themselves, if they were sufficiently literate, or delegated it to a relative, friend, or assistant who could write. In situations requiring more formal letters and documents such as, e.g., debts and loans, professional scribes would be available. One may assume that artisans, who will have needed even less written records than small merchants, acted in a similar way. People also occasionally employed professional scribes for private purposes, for example, to have marriage, divorce, and inheritance documents written on their behalf, as the Babatha and Salome Komaise papyri show. One may assume that the use of private documents was much more common amongst the wealthy than amongst the poorer members of the population, since the latter had no or at least much less property to protect. They would therefore consider carefully whether the written deed was worth the costs of the material and the scribe. This was probably also the case with letters. If there were no relatives or friends who could write and deliver a written note (and recipients able to read the writing), the effort and expenditure would probably be deemed too large, since it was much cheaper and faster to transmit messages orally. 4 This may be the reason why no personal letters written by private individuals besides members of upperclass families and rabbis are mentioned in the literary sources or have survived amongst the papyrus finds of the period under discussion here. 1 2 3 4

See Richards 18-20. Harris (1989) 197. Ibid. 199. Cf. ibid. 230. See also Richards 23.

476

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

Richards suggests three reasons why a highly literate author such as Cicero or Atticus would have used a secretary to write a personal letter rather than writing it himself: he would use a secretary when an illness incapacitated him; when he wanted to devote time to other urgent matters; when he was simply too lazy to write himself. 5 Another reason why a secretary was used may have been the author's barely legible handwriting style.6 The secretary could record the author's words exactly in the way they were spoken, improve and edit the oral text in the process of writing, or compose and formulate the entire letter himself. 7 The sender (who was thus not even necessarily the author) might merely add a personal greeting and/or his signature to the text. Literary texts would almost always be written by scribes to whom the authors dictated their compositions or who copied already existing texts. As already pointed out above, literary composition was a basically oral endeavour, the author relying on his memory rather than on written notes, although such preliminary notes may well have existed in some cases, as the example of Pliny the Elder shows. 8 The actual process of composition required a degree of concentration impossible to achieve while traveling or reclining in a bathhouse. This complex process of literary writing - and even that of writing longer and more important letters - differed considerably from the occasional note-taking, and it often happened that such notes were later considered entirely negligeable. This is made evident by Pliny the Younger who, according to Richards, "adopted many of his uncle's customs", when writing: "I composed, indeed, a few trifles in my journey hither, which are only fit to be destroyed, as they are written with the same negligence and inattention that one usually chats upon the road". 9

B. Writers, Hypographeis, and

Illiterates

The previous discussion has already shown that the more complex and formal the writing, the greater the likelihood that specialist scribes were used to execute it. The most complex and difficult type of written material were literary texts, whereas accounts, lists, and labels stood at the other end of the scale. At least the vast majority of literary manuscripts found at Qumran were written by professional scribes "working according to certain methods and fixed principles", 10 even though they did not all belong to one and the same school and showed great variations in both style and orthography.11 As already pointed out 5

See Richards 62. See Harris (1989) 249. 7 See Richards, 2 4 - 5 3 , for a discussion of these possibilities. 8 See ibid. 6 4 - 6 7 . 9 Pliny, Ep. 9.10, quoted and translated in Richards 67. 10 M. Martin 1:408. 11 See M.Martin 1:95; Wise 140-41. Only the sectarian texts show some uniformity as far as the scribal tradition is concerned, whereas the biblical texts are striking in their heterogeneity. 6

2. The Writers of the Texts

411

above, scholars nowadays agree that not all of the (fragments of) literary manuscripts found in the caves were written at Qumran, by scribes associated with the sect. Many of them seem to have been brought there from outside. 12 Some manuscripts are written in Greek, some in Palaeo-Hebrew, and others in Hebrew square script. Some are copies of texts which existed prior to the establishment of the Qumran site, whereas others can be considered original compositions of the sectarian leaders. Hundreds of individual scribal hands have been detected amongst the manuscripts, with hardly any scribe having copied more than one single text and one text having been written by more than one scribal hand sometimes. 13 According to Martin, in the latter cases the secondary scribes did not merely correct the work of the primary ones but were often "adding substantial parts to the original text". 14 The professional scribes who wrote the biblical manuscripts seem to have differed amongst themselves with regard to their levels of literary writing proficiency: "The general impression one has is that in the scribes we are not dealing with haphazard, incompetent or completely ignorant men. They were, on the other hand, fallible, and their work - as they themselves tacitly admit - is far from perfect". 15 To some extent the lack of evidence for normative orthographic rules amongst the non-sectarian texts may have been due to the "historical evolution" and diverse geographical origin of the manuscript material. 16 At different times and locations scribes are likely to have followed different orthographic conventions. On the other hand, such different conventions cannot explain all of the orthographic diversity: "The writing is frequently careless and the text full of errors, and in many cases these were corrected in sundry ways". 17 According to Wise, some of the literary manuscripts found at Qumran can be identified as private amateur copies "which did not ordinarily circulate publicly and which were not produced by scribes". 18 The criteria he gives for such personal copies are that they are written on papyrus rather than on parchment and/or in a cursive or at least semi-cursive script. 19 He admits, however, that "many of these papyrus texts are written in book hands" and must accordingly be assumed to have been written by professional scribes. 20 Wise's assumption, that papyrus 12

See Tov (1986) 47: " . . . many scrolls were brought from the outside ... they give us a picture of the textual-reality in Palestine as a whole"; cf. Wise 139: "Thus on any analysis at least some of the scrolls are the products of the broader book culture, and I would argue that the great majority of the scrolls constitute a cross section of that trade (although it is still unclear how representative a cross section)". 13 See Wise 142, for exceptions see ibid. n. 65; cf. M. Martin 1:81. 14 M. Martin 1:90. 15 Ibid. 1:403. 16 See ibid. 2:711. Tov (1992) 37 notes that in contrast to the non-sectarian texts, "almost all sectarian compositions are written in the Qumran orthography and language ...". 17 Tov (1992) 43. 18 See Wise 143. 19 See ibid. 144-147. 20 Ibid. 149.

478

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

would have been used for private copies only, may perhaps also be questioned. Already in the pre-rabbinic period the usage of leather may have been customary for biblical books, but this custom must not have been followed everywhere. 21 In addition, the later rabbinic rule that biblical manuscripts have to be written on parchment scrolls (cf. M. Yad. 4:5, M. Meg. 2:2, y. Meg. 1:11, 71d) will have applied to both private and public copies and a distinction between the two spheres may not be appropriate in this regard. What remains, then, are approximately twenty literary fragments written in (semi-)cursive script on papyrus or on the back of an already used scroll (opisthographs). 22 Interestingly, all of the identifiable texts listed by Wise, with the exception of the book of Daniel (6Q7), are extra-canonical apocryphal, exegetical, or liturgical texts, such as the Apocryphon of Samuel-Kings (6Q9), a Pesher on Isaiah (4Q163), and the Enochic Book of the Watchers (4QEn). Such books probably circulated privately, being recopied by any literate individual interested in owning them. Such individuals may have preferred papyrus because it was a cheaper and more practical writing material than skin. 23 If they were able to write themselves or had relatives or friends who could accomplish the task, they may have refrained from hiring scribes. On the other hand, the usage of (semi-)cursive script is not a definite proof of non-scribal writing. Even scribes may have refrained from using calligraphic bookhand for books not commonly recognized as holy and commissioned by private individuals. Therefore the private ownership of these manuscripts seems more certain than their being written by non-professional writers. For the rabbinic period practically no material evidence of literary writing exists. 24 The earliest surviving evidence after the Qumran finds are the literary fragments from the Cairo Geniza, some of which may go back to pre-Islamic times, but whose dating ultimately remains uncertain. 25 Rabbinic literature, and especially the Talmud Yerushalmi, occasionally deals with the writing of biblical 21 Cf. Haran (1982a) 162: "The shift to skin as the standard material for copying sacred books was the outcome of particular circumstances which gained in force in the Second Temple period and were connected with the canonization of biblical literature". Haran believes that the replacement of papyrus by parchment took place in Hellenistic times, see idem (1982b) 86ff. On the usage of skin see also Blau (1902) 14f. and 21. 22 See Wise's discussion of these ibid. 149 ff.: twelve texts from caves 4 and 6 are written in (semi-)cursive on the recto of papyrus scrolls; eight texts from caves 1 and 4 are opisthographs, see the table ibid. 151. 23 Cf. Haran (1982a) 166. In idem (1984) 84 he refers to "the decisive advantage of papyrus over skin as a relatively inexpensive material, easily obtainable and suitable for every-day scribal activity" and to "the method of erasing by blotting out with water, suitable only for papyrus". 24 See Beit-Arie 10. 25 Cf. Bregman, 211-12, with regard to the dating of a fragment of ARN from the Cairo Geniza, which may be the earliest Geniza fragment and fragment of rabbinic literature published so far. For fragments of Hebrew biblical manuscripts found in Egypt and datable to any time between the third and ninth or tenth century C.E. see Sirat (1985) and (1989) 116.

2. The Writers of the Texts

479

scrolls, and some of the regulations of the later tractate Soferim, which in its present form must be dated to the eighth to tenth century C.E., 26 may be based on scribal practices of late Roman and early Byzantine times. There is no doubt that biblical scrolls were written in rabbinic-period Palestine. According to M. Meg. 2:2, the scroll of Esther must be written in Hebrew square letters ("Assyrian"), on a parchment scroll and with ink. In the Yerushalmi, the same regulations are applied to Torah scrolls (cf. y. Meg. 1:11, 71c-d, already referred to above). This Yerushalmi passage deals with the writing of Torah scrolls extensively. Torah scrolls are compared with tefillin and mezuzot with regard to the material to be used. Other sugyot deal with the proper way of writing scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot, and with issues such as the correct way of writing certain letters, combining words, correcting errors, inserting words between lines, leaving spaces between books and at the top and bottom, the size of the sheets, and the way of sewing them together. 27 These instructions probably originated with rabbis who were scribes of biblical scrolls, but the fact that they are included in the Yerushalmi shows that the proper way of writing holy texts was considered important by the late fourth- or early fifth-century editors of the Yerushalmi, irrespective of whether they were professional Torah writers or not. In Palestinian rabbinic documents rabbis are rarely depicted as occupied with writing Torah scrolls or the scroll of Esther. A tradition attributed to Rav in y. Suk. 3:12,53d par. y. Meg. 1:11,72a refers to "the Book of Psalms written by R. Meir". R. Meir is associated with the writing of a biblical scroll in y. Meg. 4:1, 74d as well. The Yerushalmi quotes a tannaitic story (cf. T. Meg. 2:5) according to which R. Meir went to Asya and did not find a scroll of Esther there. Therefore he decided to write one from memory. In the Genesis Rabbah parallel to the story (Gen.R. 36:8 ad Gen. 9:26-27, p. 343 in the Theodor-Albeck ed.) R. Meir is said to have first "recited it from memory' '("PSQ Tt) t r i p ! ) and then written it down, a formulation which may point to the practice of loud writing, a phenomenon which scholars have already stressed in connection with Graeco-Roman writing habits. 28 The Yerushalmi adds the following continuation to the R. Meir story: "R. Yishmael b.R. Yose said: I am able to write the entire Scripture from memory. R. Chiyya the Elder said: I can write it out for two hundred copper coins. What did he do? He bought flax seeds with two hundred copper coins. He sowed it, reaped it, made it into ropes, caught a deer, and wrote the entire Torah on the deer hide".

Whereas the first story about R. Meir implies that biblical scrolls were rare at some places, the second story about R. Chiyya the Elder seems to suggest why this was so. The hide on which the scroll had to be written was not easily 26

See Strack/Stemberger 217. On rabbinic instructions for scribes see also Krauss (1966) 135, Blau (1902) 115 ff., and Bar-Ilan (1988) 24 ff. 28 See Saenger 373 and 390f.; Balogh 212ff. 27

480

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

available everywhere and its procuring and preparation was a costly and timeconsuming process. 29 Furthermore, both the tradition about R. Meir in the Tosefta and the statement attributed to R. Yishmael b.R. Yose in the Yerushalmi focus on the respective rabbis' memory capacities rather than on their writing abilities. Torah scrolls were not supposed to be written out of memory but carefully copied from a written model. 30 If the rabbis' writing ability were to be emphasized, they could have been depicted as copying the text from a written prototype, as was customary for writing literary texts at that time. 31 The traditions rather try to convey the impression that the rabbis did not need to look at the written text or be reminded of it orally. They were so thoroughly familiar with it that they were able to recall every detail stored in their memory. Thus, although some rabbis may have been professional scribes who wrote Torah scrolls or were at least able to write them for their private use - and the proportion of such rabbis within the rabbinic movement at large is impossible to determine - the writing of Torah scrolls was not a task which rabbis would normally accomplish or which would have been expected of them. 32 Rabbis' familiarity with the Torah would be based on extensive oral discussions rather than on the merely technical copying of the written text. 33 That the copying of the text was considered a mere technical ability and the scribe not automatically believed to possess Torah "knowledge" is indicated by the reference to gentiles writing and selling Torah scrolls, scrolls which rabbis permitted people to buy, unless they were stolen from Jews and overpriced (cf. M. Git. 4:6). The Tosefta transmits the following case story in this regard: " A n event c o n c e r n i n g a gentile w h o w a s writing scrolls in Sidon. A n d the case c a m e b e f o r e sages. T h e y said: It is permitted to p u r c h a s e [them] f r o m h i m " (T. A . Z . 3:7).

29 See section I.2.C above. On the writing of Torah scrolls on deer skin see Bar-Ilan (1984— 85) 377. Ibid. n. 13 he notes that deer skin was probably more expensive than other types of hide. 30 See Gen.R. 36:8 (p. 343): "R. Zeira and R. Chananel in the name of Rab: Even a person as fluent in the Torah as Ezra shall not recite [the Torah] from memory and [then] write it down

p n m t d d sip 1 ' R^]". 31

See section II.5.A above. See also the harmonizing Babylonian tradition transmitted in Gen.R. 36:8 (p. 343): "There [in Babylonia] they say: He [R. Meir] wrote two scrolls. The first was hid [or: put into storage] and the second was accepted as valid", that is, only the second was considered valid because it was copied from a written model. 32 For the ambiguous relationship between rabbis and scribes and rabbis with the cognomen "the scribe" see Hezser (1997) 471-72. 33 The difference between the two skills is illustrated by a statement attributed to R. Eliezer on his deathbed in A R N A 25 (p. 81 /41 a in the Schechter ed.): "Woe is me for these two arms [which are like two] Torah scrolls departing from the world. For were all oceans ink and all reeds quills and all human beings scribes, they could not write down all that I have read and repeated, and derived from sages in sessions during my service to them ...". The tradition has parallels in Songs R. 1:3 (12a in the Wilna ed.) and b. Sanh. 38a.

2. The Writers of the Texts

481

In y. A.Z. 2:2, 41a a comment attributed to R. Shmuel b. Nathan in the name of R. Chama b. Chanina explains sages' ruling by identifying the gentile 34 as a proselyte to Judaism who had returned to his former ways, but had previously acquired the scrolls in a lawful way or knew how to write them correctly.35 If the latter understanding is correct, the gentile was assumed to have been able to learn Torah writing during the time he was a Jew.36 The mention of tefillin and mezuzot together with Torah scrolls in y. A.Z. 2:2, 41a and elsewhere already indicates that specialist writers were necessary for the writing of these small biblical excerpts as well. One may assume that tefillin and mezuzot were commonly written by the same scribes who also wrote Torah scrolls. 37 The statement attributed to R. Yehudah in M. M.Q. 3:4, that "a person may write out tefillin and mezuzot [on the intermediate days of a festival] for his own use", 38 seems to assume that the same person would ordinarily write tefillin and mezuzot for others, a work forbidden on these days. On the other hand nonspecialist writers unable to write entire Torah scrolls in calligraphic book hand may have sometimes copied the short passages (in cursive script?) for their own private use and even tried to sell them to others. Such tefillin were probably offered for sale at a cheaper price than the ones which were made professionally. Since they might contain errors, rabbis tried to convince people to use expertly made tefillin only: "They sell to an am ha-aretz scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot. But they buy tefillin only f r o m an expert [HnOIQ]. And if one has bought them f r o m one w h o is not an expert and f o u n d in his possession two or three pairs of tefillin, he examines on its basis one for the hand and one for the head in the case of the first pair, and so in the case of the second, third, and f o u r t h " (T. A.Z. 3:8). 3 9 34

In the Yerushalmi the gentile is said to have "sold" scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot in Sidon, whereas the Tosefta version explicitly states that he "wrote" scrolls. The Yerushalmi editors seem to have harmonized the text of the baraita with that of the previously quoted Mishnaic rule (M. Git. 4:6) which speaks of gentiles "selling" scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot. 35 See Pene Moshe ad loc. 36 Bar-Ilan (1988) 23 points to b. Git. 45b, b. Men. 42b, Mass. Sof. 1:13-14, where it is stated that Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot written by proselytes, heretics (minim), Samaritans, gentiles, apostates, slaves, women, deaf and dumb persons, fools, and individuals unable to read were considered faulty. They had to be hidden or burnt. Obviously such a strict rule did not exist in Palestine. 37 See also ibid. 25. 38 See also the Aramaic story in y. Meg. 3:4, 82a: "A person lost his tefillin on the intermediate days of a festival. He went to R. Chananel [who is assumed to have been able to write new ones for him] and he sent him to R. Abba b. Nathan [to ask him for permission to do so]. He [R. Abba b. Nathan] said to him [i.e. R. Chananel]: Give him your tefillin and go, write [a new set] for yourself', since the writing of tefillin for one's own private use is permitted on the intermediate days of a festival. See alsoT. Ber. 6:10: "One who makes tefillin for himself says ..." a particular blessing. 39 See also Mekhilta Pisha 17-18 on the proper writing of tefillin: the scriptural passages (Ex. 13:1-10. 11-16, Deut. 6 : 4 - 9 and 11:13-21) had to be written in a specific order and on a single piece of parchment. Sifre Deut. 36 (p. 65 in the Finkelstein ed.) deals with the writing of mezuzot: the writing had to be flawless and a mistake would render the entire text invalid.

482

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

Similarly rabbis wanted people to purchase magical amulets from experts only (cf. M. Shab. 6:2 and T. Shab. 4:9-10). The explanation which T. Shab. 4:9 offers, "What is an amulet made by an expert? Any one which served to bring healing and did so a second and a third time", shifts the focus away f r o m the form and outlook of the amulet towards its effects. In contrast to tefillin and mezuzot, whose writing was relatively regulated and whose "correct" form could therefore be examined, 4 0 no such regulations existed for amulets, so that one could not determine their "correctness" by merely looking at them. Whether an amulet was made by an expert magician (who did not necessarily have to be an expert writer!), could be found out on the basis of its healing capacities only. The Tosefta passage explicitly states that the same criteria apply to a written amulet and an amulet made out of produce: only if its effectiveness was proven was it permitted to be worn on the Sabbath. 4 1 The tiny letters on all of the thin metal sheet amulets f r o m Palestine published by Naveh must have been incised by more or less expert engravers, but these amulets do not seem to have been created before the fifth or sixth century C.E. and may not have been known to the rabbis of the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi. 4 2 Other written amulets on parchment, papyrus, or some other material may have existed, 4 3 but the rabbis did not care whether they were written by lay people or scribes. Neither may the form of the writing have mattered to the clients who used these amulets. One can imagine that the amulet business flourished in Roman-Byzantine Palestine and that many of those who could write a few letters in whatever language would take advantage of people's belief in the magical quality of writing and set themselves up as amulet writers. Whether they were successful will have ultimately depended on their reputation as effective magicians rather than on their writing capacities. Like literary texts, formal documents were almost always written by scribes, and the witnesses and involved parties merely added their handwritten signatures to them. Amongst all of the extant documents from the period under discussion here only one marriage contract (P.Yadin 10) may have been handwritten by the bridegroom and a sales contract (Cotton/Yardeni no. 9) by the seller. All of the other documents were written by scribes. Whereas the men involved in the transactions often - but not always! 4 4 - signed the deeds themselves, in Aramaic and 40 On variations concerning the biblical passages to be quoted in tefillin and the allegedly "heretical" custom of including or citing the ten commandments only see Haberman 174-75. 41 Cf. y. Shab. 6:2, 8b, where the Tosefta's definition of an expertly made amulet is expanded. 42 The love charm on a potsherd (no. 10 in Naveh 1985) was either written by a scribe or the lover himself while the clay was still wet and afterwards thrown into the fire as part of the ritual. Naveh dates this amulet to the fifth to sixth century C.E. too. 43 Cf. Naveh (1985) 14. 44 See, for example, Salome Komaise's brother, who used a hypographeus (Cotton/Yardeni no. 61), and all but one of the lessees who leased land from one of Bar Kokhba's administrators (Yadin, 1962, nos. 4 4 - 4 6 ) .

2. The Writers

of the

Texts

483

Nabatean rather than Greek and with variant handwriting skills, the women never did. 45 They rather had their husbands and guardians sign for them, probably because they could not write in any language rather than because they were women. The evidence of the Babatha and Salome Komaise documents suggests, then, that even those Jewish women who belonged to the higher strata of society and owned property themselves were often unable to sign and had to rely on the assistance of literate males. Only Julia Crispina, who seems to have been a wealthy Roman citizen and perhaps a member of the Herodian family, signed a document herself (cf. P.Yadin 20 and 25). Since the witnesses and involved parties often signed in languages other than the language in which the document was written, people's inability to write in a particular language cannot have been the reason for their usage of a hypographeus. If most Jewish women and some Jewish men who were property owners and belonged to the higher strata of society were unable to write their signatures themselves, one may assume that total inability to write was even more widespread amongst members of the middle and the lower classes who had hardly any property to protect and would therefore only rarely be confronted with documents they had to sign. The rabbinic rule that, "all are valid for the writing of a writ of divorce, even a deaf-mute, an idiot, or a minor. A woman may write her own writ of divorce, and a man may write his quittance, for the confirmation of a writ of divorce is only through its signatures" (M. Git. 2:5 par. M. Ed. 2:3), must be considered merely theoretical, then, as the suggestion that an idiot may write such a document already indicates. The emphasis of the statement lies on the great significance of the witnesses' signatures, a significance which is also indicated by another rule, according to which a divorce document is invalid, if "he [the husband] wrote it in his own handwriting, but there are no witnesses[' signatures] on it" or only one such signature (M. Git. 9:4). Although the surviving evidence for handwritten documents is very sparse, literate individuals may have sometimes written their documents themselves, probably because it was faster and cheaper than hiring scribes to accomplish the task. M. Ed. 2:3 transmits a story about an old man in a small town near Jerusalem who would lend money to all the townspeople. "And he would write [the bond of indebtedness] in his own handwriting and others would sign it PJTDI c r a m n C i n s i l " f U r C Q l " . Since the story refers to a small town, the assumption may be that no scribes were available at that place. If he had not been able to write himself, the old man would have had to go to Jerusalem. The writer is furthermore depicted as wealthy ("he would lend money to all the inhabitants of his place"). A wealthy landowner with practical literacy skills may have been imagined here. The rabbis usually associated the writing of documents with scribes, however. The above-mentioned traditions dealing with handwritten deeds can be consid45

See section II.2.C above.

484

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

ered exceptions to the rule and had to be explicitly stated. 46 For example, the scribe who writes a document for a loan on interest is said to violate a negative commandment by doing so (M. B.M. 5:11). Another mishnah discusses whether a scribe may write various types of documents (a writ of divorce, a loan document, a sale document etc.) while one party is absent, and determines who has to pay the scribal fees (M. B.M. 10:3; see also ibid. 10:4, where further types of documents are mentioned). According to T. Git. 2:7-8, the husband has to orally instruct a scribe to write the scroll for a woman accused of adultery. Even a king is assumed to use a scribe for the writing of a writ of betrothal or marriage and for a divorce document which he would merely sign himself (T. B.Q. 7:4). 47 The Yerushalmi's reference to witnesses who may not know how to sign (•mn L ? r UTT jr^iO D ,- IiJ) has already been mentioned a couple of times above (cf. y. Git. 2:3), as has the ruling that one may sign with a symbol rather than one's name, a practice for which prominent rabbis are presented as examples (cf. y. Git. 9:9, 50d). 4 8 All of these texts suggest that the ability to even write one's signature in one's own handwriting was not widespread at least at some places and that solutions to overcome this problem had to be found. It is somewhat strange that rabbinic literature never refers to the function of the cheirochrestes or hypographeus in this regard, but rather suggests that the illiterate should merely draw a sign or retrace pre-written letters with a pen (see ibid.), i.e. the illiterate's own activity, however limited it may have been, seems to have been preferred over against the usage of a literate substitute. Perhaps the rabbis envisioned a situation in which a literate substitute would not be available, for the outlines and models of the signature could be made ahead of time. Richards has pointed to the striking "lack, at least among the Oxyrhynchus papyri, of private letters f r o m illiterate persons, that is, a letter written strictly for private, non-business reasons by a secretary for an illiterate person". 4 9 As an explanation for this phenomenon he suggests that "an illiterate person did not send such types of letters" and preferred to send the message orally. 50 Lowerclass people may have generally avoided the usage of scribes for the writing of personal letters because of the costs involved. Since they were often illiterate, they had no other choice but to refrain from using letters altogether. Upper-class people could, on the other hand, hire scribes or use their own private secretaries to write any type of letter. Even if they could write letters themselves, they

46

See also Krauss (1966) 191; Goodman (1983) 59. See also, e.g., y. Git. 3:2, 44d (the usage of blank documents is valid because of the welfare of the scribe); y. Git. 4:2, 45c (concerning the payment of scribal fees in the case of divorce); y. M.Q. 3:4, 82a (a scribe may write bonds of indebtedness on the intermediate days of a festival if "he had nothing to eat"). 48 See also the reference to one who does not know how to write in connection with a bill of divorce in y. Ter. 1:1, 40b. 49 Richards 22. 50 See ibid. 23. 47

2. The Writers of the Texts

485

would usually dictate their letters and only add a greeting and/or their signature, as already pointed out above. The Babatha and Salome Komaise archives do not contain any letters. We do not know whether the members of these women's families did not write any letters or whether they did write them but did not consider them worthy of preservation. One may assume that wealthy families who were able to commission scribes to write their documents could also hire scribes to write their letters, even if they had no private secretaries. On the other hand, letters seem to have at least predominantly been used by political and military leaders at that time, as the evidence of Josephus and the Bar Kokhba letters indicates. 51 Perhaps in the first two centuries C.E. even wealthy Jewish families who could afford scribes preferred to submit their personal messages orally. From the third century C.E. onwards, some rabbis seem to have communicated with their colleagues at distant places by means of letters. 52 Neither the literary nor the papyrological evidence from Roman Palestine provides any information on other circles within Jewish society who might have used letters, and the limited evidence seems to fit our knowledge of the generally limited use of letters in Graeco-Roman society at large. 53 As far as references in Josephus and rabbinic literature are concerned, it is usually impossible to determine whether members of the royal family, military leaders, and rabbis wrote their letters themselves or had them written by scribes. The literary sources almost never state explicitly whether or not scribes were used. According to Harris, most of the Egyptian papyrus letters were not written by their authors, 54 and the Bar Kokhba letters point to the same phenomenon (with Bar Kokhba not even having signed most of the letters himself). Members of the Herodian family and other upper-class Jews will have used their private secretaries to write letters for them. Military leaders such as Josephus will have also customarily dictated their letters to their subordinates, just as Bar Kokhba did. Under certain circumstances, however, if the message was very secret or urgent or no scribe available at a particular time and place, they will have written their letters themselves. Whether rabbis wrote their letters in their own hand will have depended on their writing abilities and social status. Some rabbis were scribes and others will have been wealthy enough to employ private secretaries permanently or to hire scribes temporarily. At least the patriarch can be assumed to have had scribes available who would do all his paperwork for him. Nevertheless, scribes who wrote letters for patriarchs or rabbis are almost never mentioned in the documents. The only reference I have found is T. Sanh. 2:6, which presents R. Gamliel and elders in some official capacity, dictating a letter to Yochanan the scribe. 51 52 53 54

See See See See

sections II.l.B and D above. section II.l.C. II. 1.A above. Harris (1989) 231.

486

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

Whether Yochanan was assumed to have been R. Gamliel's personal scribe, the scribe of the Temple or sanhedrin, or a scribe of the market place, hired for that particular purpose only, is never specified. At least some of the later amoraic rabbis presented as letter writers may have written their letters themselves, especially if they merely consisted of short requests, questions, and legal notes. Or they stood in a friendly relationship with local scribes, whom they supported within the community and who were therefore willing to render them occasional services. In the case of inscriptions, the mosaic inscriptions of the later synagogues were, of course, made by the artisans who created the mosaics and who sometimes identified themselves by name.55 All of the formal inscriptions incised on marble slabs, sarcophagi, columns, and the like, whether in the funerary or synagogue context, will have been executed by professional stonemasons. The recurring formulas suggest that these stonemasons worked according to relatively fixed patterns with regard to the formulation of the text. Whether those who commissioned the inscriptions, that is, the surviving relatives in the case of the deceased and the community in the case of the donors, often formulated the inscriptions themselves, we do not know. But even if they did, they seem to have taken preexisting inscriptions as models, since - with the exception of the few longer poetic tomb inscriptions which exhibit the Greek literary knowledge of their authors 56 - the formulations are all very similar with slight variations only. Perhaps the commissioners chose certain formulas and attributions out of a list of possibilities which the stonecutters presented to them. 57 These professionally executed inscriptions provide no information whatsoever on the writing abilities of their commissioners then. 58 Sometimes it seems that Greek was not the mother tongue of the stonecutters who incised Greek inscriptions, for some of the Greek inscriptions contain orthographic and grammatical errors.59 A similar phenomenon has also been observed in connection with the Greek papyrus documents in the Babatha archive. 60 The mother tongue of at least some of the scribes who wrote these Greek papyri and inscriptions seems to have been Aramaic rather than Greek. Most of the earlier ossuary inscriptions as well as some of the later wall inscriptions at Bet She'arim are informal graffiti which seem to have been written by family members of the deceased or cemetery attendants. The non-professional character of these inscriptions is evidenced by the crudeness of the script. Since both the ossuary burial caves in and around Jerusalem and the later Bet She'arim cemetery seem to have at least predominantly been used by wealthy 55 56 57 58 59 60

See, for example, Naveh (1978) no. 47; Roth-Gerson nos. 4, 5, and 12. See Schwabe/Lifshitz nos. 127 and 183. Cf. Lattimore 18-19. See also Harris (1983) 94f. See section II.4.B. See Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield 6 and 13.

2. The Writers of the Texts

487

and high-standing families, one may assume that there was at least one family member who was fairly literate and able to incise a name or short inscription. Similar considerations apply to the graffito inscriptions on walls and ostraca found at Herodion, most of them written in Greek. These graffiti are unique amongst the material evidence of writing for the period under discussion here. As already pointed out above, the many literary allusions and formulations of the inscriptions suggest that they were written by individuals whose education greatly surpassed that of the large majority of the population. Other graffito inscriptions in the form of (partial) alphabets and repetitons of letters, especially when found on ostraca or parchment, seem to be exercises of scribes testing their tools. In addition, a few Hebrew and Aramaic graffiti and rock inscriptions found in the Sinai desert seem to have been written by Jewish travelers or pilgrims, but they seem to consist of individual letters or words only and stem from the fifth century C.E. or later. Simple lists, accounts, and labels, consisting of personal names and names of products and/or letters or numerals only, stand at the lowest end of the writing scale. These types of writing were probably mostly used and written by businessmen or their family members or assistants. Some of the Greek accounts from Murabba'at seem to have been connected with the collection of taxes, 61 however, and some of the lists of names in Hebrew letters may have been written for administrative or military reasons. Even in cases where the script is a mixture of calligraphic and cursive, the text was probably written by scribes rather than by lay people. 62 Both the script type and the contents of the text are no clear-cut indication of professional or lay writing. Nevertheless, some lists, accounts, delivery notes, and jar labels do seem to have been written by lay writers for business reasons. 63 Whether these lay persons' writing abilities were more extensive than demonstrated by the limited nature of the evidence cannot be determined anymore. The existence of scribes, stonemasons, and literate relatives and friends who could serve as hypographeis enabled the illiterate to participate in literate culture. The question is, however, to what extent illiterates actually did make use of these intermediaries. Those who lived in the major cities of Roman Palestine and were sufficiently wealthy will have had easier access to both scribes and literate relatives, friends, or acquaintances than poor village dwellers. The Babatha and Salome Komaise papyri can only serve as evidence on illiterate property owners' - and especially wealthy women's - use of hypographeis. Similarly, the Babatha and Salome Komaise papyri as well as the Bar Kokhba documents only demonstrate that property owners and military administrators employed scribes to write their documents and letters, irrespective of whether they were able or unable to write themselves. In much the same way most of the later synagogue and burial inscriptions were written by professionals for certain circumscribed circles of 61 62 63

See Benoit/Milik/de Vaux nos. 89, 90-94, 96-97. See ibid. no. 74 discussed above. See section II.3.A above.

488

Part HI: Participation

in a Literate

Society

more or less wealthy donors and more or less acculturated immigrants, office holders, and their imitators. To what extent the direct and indirect use of writing illustrated by the evidence can be considered representative of the writing practices of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine ultimately remains uncertain. Did the agricultural workers, farmers, and artisans of the countryside, who constituted the large majority of the population, also make use of writing, although they are neither represented by the surviving material evidence nor by the literary sources? It seems that only those who had to gain something by the usage of writing - whether in the form of material and pragmatic benefits such as the protection of one's property and the collection of bills, or in the form of more ideational benefits such as the maintenance of patronage and friendship ties and the public exhibition of one's family's honor and distinction - seem to have actually made use of texts. Those who had neither property to protect, nor client-friends at distant places, nor honorable families worthy of public commemoration simply did not need writing and will - certain'exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - have conducted all of their everyday life transactions orally. One might argue that the circles not represented by the evidence may either not have left inscriptions, literary works, or documents, or their texts became lost with the passing of time. With regard to the first possibility Lewis points out that "the only literacy that matters is literacy that is in use. Potential literacy is empty, a void". 64 Many people will have had the opportunity to use a scribe, unless they lived in a remote village. Whether they actually took advantage of this option, and if so, for what purposes, is the only thing that counts. As to the second argument, the survival of the material, there is not much reason to think that the material we have is not representative: Why should tens of thousands of inscriptions have survived in Roman Italy but only a few hundred in Palestine? The Italian climate and better preservation of the material cannot have been the reason. Again, a great number of private papyrus letters have been found in Egypt but practically none in Palestine. If such letters had actually been written by the Palestinian Jewish masses, the total lack of both papyrological and literary evidence would be more than strange. The lack of evidence does, of course, not exclude the possibility that the one or other Jewish artisan or farmer wrote a letter to a remote relative, perhaps by means of a scribe. But such private letters by "ordinary" people seem to have at least been rare occurences throughout the period under discussion here. If one considers the material and literary evidence not representative and, accordingly, insignificant, one could actually argue for whatever one likes, but all such arguments would be arguments from silence which can neither be proven nor dismissed. Therefore the only solution is to take the above discussed evidence as the basis for a determination of the social contexts in which writing was used. 64

M . M . Lewis 16.

489

2. The Writers of the Texts

C. The Social

Contexts

of

Writing

As already pointed out in the introduction to this work, the main objective in the study of literacy must be the determination of the social contexts in which writing was used. 6 5 These social contexts can only be recovered on the basis of "historically specific material", 6 6 since they differed from one culture to another and f r o m one period to the next. The "specific social practices of reading and writing" are always "culturally embedded" and can only be properly understood in connection with the social circles, institutions, and ideologies which used them to their own advantage. 6 7 When viewed in the social contexts in which they appear, the various forms of writing are often linked with the execution of power and authority, whether in the political, economic, social, or religious realm. 6 8 The first and foremost social realm to be discussed in this regard is the political-administrative sphere. The Roman administrators of the province and their Roman and Jewish subordinates on the local level are likely to have made ample use of writing, both in the form of documents and letters, and this official use of writing will have greatly surpassed the private use of texts. For the time until 70 C.E. references in Josephus' works provide many examples of the practice, although Josephus' quotations f r o m treaties, deeds, and letters are not necessarily genuine. 6 9 For the time after 70 C.E. the Roman administration of other provinces can serve as an analogy. William Harris has stressed that "the Roman Empire depended on writing". 7 0 The usage and dissemination of writing served the Roman authorities in their attempt to exert political control: "The affairs of magistrates and later of the imperial court, the taxation of citizens and provinces, and the affairs of innumerable city governments, the maintenance of the armed forces - for all these writing was indispensable". 7 1 Through letters the Roman state maintained contact with its officials in the provinces: "the emperor exercised power over his absent subordinates largely through correspondence, and indeed used texts on a large scale to deal with his subjects". 7 2 This diffusion of writing in the political-administrative realm meant that "many people were ... more or less deeply involved in the writing and reading, and also in the delivery, storing, and retrieving of the resulting texts", 7 3 and at least some of these officials will have been natives of the respective province. It almost goes without saying that the Jews who collaborated with the Romans in the 65

See, e.g., Graff 23; McKitterick 1; Stock 7; Street (1984) 2; R. Thomas (1992) 12. See Graff 23. 67 Street (1984) 2. 68 See Bowman/Woolf 2ff. 69 On the question of the authenticity of letters and documents quoted in Josephus' works see especially Gauger 329-30; Juster 153-54; Sint 130-31. 70 Harris (1989) 206. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 209. 73 Ibid. 206. 66

490

Part 111: Participation

in a Literate

Society

administrative realm had to be loyal supporters of the foreign government and knowledgeable of Greek, that is, they must have belonged to the most assimilated circles of the Jewish population. All of these characteristics - advanced levels of literacy, a good knowledge of Greek, sympathy with Graeco-Roman culture, loyalty towards the Romans or at least the desire to succeed in the political arena - can best be associated with members of the urban Jewish elites.74 By politically collaborating with the Romans, they participated in the use of writing to control the populace, even though they may also have sometimes used their intermediary role to gain certain advantages on behalf of the Jewish population of a particular place. How far the administrative use of writing affected the populace's contact with written texts is less clear, however. Public proclamations meant to reach all inhabitants of a place were probably made orally, even if certain decrees were posted in writing as well.75 Records about citizens, for example in the form of provincial censuses, were written by government officials: "None of this use of the written word required ordinary people to do any writing for themselves". 76 Land taxation would affect landowners only, and documents connected with taxation, such as the land registration document of the Babatha archive (Lewis/ Yadin/Greenfield no. 16; cf. Cotton/Yardeni no. 62) would be written by clerks of the respective government offices, with the landowners being required to add their signatures only, a task for which illiterates could use a hypographeus. The relatively wealthy, landowning circles of the population seem to have been the ones who would use documents in the legal sphere. These documents were meant to protect their property rights. The Babatha and Salome Komaise archives as well as the Bar Kokhba documents can serve as good examples of this practice. The families of Babatha and Salome Komaise made ample use of documents in inheritance disputes. All of the documents were written by scribes in Greek to make them enforceable in public courts and/or to register them in public archives.77 Marriage and divorce documents fall into the same category, since they also regulate property matters. The Bar Kokhba material testifies to the usage of documents to record the lease of land. The less wealthy, and perhaps even the wealthy in situations in which minor issues were concerned, will have eschewed the costs of professionally written deeds. In Rome written contracts, wills, and stipulationes were also mostly used by the upper classes. 78 In the first centuries C.E. the custom spread to some other 74 With regard to Egypt, Baines, 574, calls these officials the "core-elite" in distinction from the "sub-elite" of scribes. See also ibid. 580: "The work of writing is done by other, subordinate scribes. Literacy is thus necessary for high status, but writing is delegated by those who achieve that status". 75 See Harris (1989) 208. 76 Ibid. 209. 77 See section II.2.C above. 78 See Harris (1989) 198.

2. The Writers of the Texts

491

sectors of the population, but wills could still be made orally.79 With regard to Islamic culture Messick has shown that the use of documents as "legal instruments connected with the holding and transfer of real property" is typical for traditional societies with "restricted literacy". 80 Some of the Babatha documents such as petitions, summons, and depositions were written in connection with the court proceedings of the provincial governor's court. 81 It seems, then, that this court and those who brought their legal cases there used written records a lot. Whether the same phenomenon can be assumed for local public and private courts and for informal legal experts is less certain, though. Rabbinic sources do occasionally refer to documents drawn up before a court, and case decisions may sometimes have been issued in written form. 82 How common this practice was, we do not know. That rabbinic case stories are summaries of written records of court proceedings is very unlikely. Although the one or other rabbi may have kept private notes of certain cases, these notes were not meant for publication, are unlikely to have survived over generations, and would hardly have been understandable by someone who did not know all the details. It is more likely that the case stories were composed orally, for the purpose of oral transmission, and put into writing later on, by the editors of case story collections and/or the editors of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Yerushalmi.83 The economic use of writing is exemplified by delivery notes, accounts, and lists of produce amongst the papyrus finds from Murabba'at and elsewhere in the Judaean Desert. As already mentioned above, the large majority of the Aramaic business notes is written on potsherds, whereas most of the Greek ones are written on papyrus or hide. 84 This phenomenon may suggest that even some smaller and less hellenized merchants and distributors occasionally used writing to record their business deals. The notes helped them to keep track of the produce delivered and to remember the collection of the bills. Whereas most of the Greek accounts on papyrus and hide seem to have been written by scribes and may have been official documents, the Aramaic business notes on potsherds do not seem to have had any legal validity. They probably served the merchants and deliverers as memory aids, that is, they had utilitarian purposes only. Other potsherds inscribed with individual letters, names, and types of produce seem to have served as vouchers or labels. Inscriptions on jars indicate the contents or owners of the vessels. The evidence of a few business notes amongst the Judaean desert finds should not automatically lead us to suppose that all Jewish merchants would keep written records of their transactions or employ accountants who 79 80 81 82 83 84

See See See See See See

ibid. 203-4. Messick 42-43. Lewis/Yadin/Greenfield nos. 13-15, 23-26, 33-35. section II.2.B above. Hezser (1993) 379 with reference to Goldberg. section II.3.A above.

492

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

would do the writing for them. In Jewish as in Roman society most business transactions will have been conducted orally, without the use of writing. 85 One should not underestimate the role which writing played in the friendship and patronage networks of both the political-economic and intellectual elite, that is, amongst politicians, philosophers, rabbis, and Christian leaders. The exchange of letters between like-minded individuals of a similar status served to foster their social and ideological identity and distinction from the masses. 86 Through letters members of the network could exchange important information to which outsiders had no direct access. Letters could also be used to control and influence clients and subordinates, to disparage competitors and enemies, and to promote one's protégés and friends. Thus letters were an important means of power and authority of whose usefulness the political and intellectual elite seems to have been well aware. Rabbis seem to have made increasing use of letters from the third century C.E. onwards, at a time when Christian leaders' letterwriting flourished as well. Besides rabbis, the patriarch as well as members of the urban elite will have used letters for the mentioned purposes. Another form of writing which especially catered to the elite mentality, and which emerged in late antiquity only as far as Palestine is concerned, were dedication inscriptions. These inscriptions were an expression of the custom of euergetism and served to bestow honor on those who donated money or objects to the public institution of the synagogue. Although collective inscriptions seem to have democratized the principle somewhat, the honorable status of a person within the community will have increased with the value of his or her donation. A family which paid for an entire mosaic or the renovation of a building will have had a higher standing than those who paid for a column or candelabrum only. Those who donated a column or candelabrum will have been considered more wealthy and honorable than the donor of a few denars. Sometimes titles and attributions within the inscription explicated the donor's status. The emergence of donors inscriptions was linked to the emergence of the synagogue as the central religious institution in late antique and early Byzantine Judaism. Being commemorated in the holy realm of the synagogue was a sign of honor and an expression of one's Jewish identity and standing within the local community. The late antique burial inscriptions will have similarly served to perpetuate the name, honor, and piety of the individual or family on whose behalf they were written. The choice of the cemetery as well as the size of the burial plot, that is, whether an individual was buried in a cave together with unrelated others or whether a number of burial chambers belonged to one particular family, will

85 See also Harris (1989), who notes that it is doubtful "whether written accounts were systematically kept in all sizeable enterprises" (198). Rather, "it was natural for the Romans to buy and sell by means of spoken rather than written descriptions and by means of face-to-face dealings" (199). 86 See Hezser (2000c) 232-35.

2. The Writers of the Texts

493

have immediately indicated to the visitor whether the deceased and his family were prominent or not. Writing was also used to exert control and authority in the religious realm. Within ancient Judaism and Christianity the religious use of writing was probably more apparent and significant than in pagan cults, although one should also not underestimate the function of texts in paganism, as Mary Beard has emphasized. 87 Whereas anyone who went to a synagogue could gain some superficial familiarity with the Torah or at least with certain parts of it, only those who had direct access to the text, i.e. who could read it themselves, would determine its interpretation. Although rabbis were not the only ones who could read the Torah, they seem to have claimed a monopoly on its proper understanding. Since the text could be understood in more than one way, all those who propagated their own view as the "correct" one will have stood in competition with each other. 88 As I have shown elsewhere, rabbis' role-related authority seems to have been based on their ability to not only read but also interpret the Torah and to develop a whole system of behavioral rules on its basis. 89 After the destruction of the Temple rabbis tried to turn Torah study into the central aspect of Jewish religious life, and they proclaimed themselves as its only adequate representatives. In this process the notion of the Oral Torah served to legitimize their own teachings as Divine revelation. 90 To what extent they succeeded in convincing their fellowJews of the importance of Torah study and a Torah-observant life is open to question, though, and depends on a number of criteria such as parents' willingness to teach their children letters, the existence of elementary teachers, the image and persuasiveness of local rabbis, and the availability of alternative - and easier - ways of religious expression and coping with everyday life problems. Such alternative ways presented themselves in the form of magic rituals and amulets, in which Torah scrolls, verses, and letters of the alphabet were sometimes used to enhance the efficacy of the rite. 91 In some respects approaching a magician may have been considered an alternative to consulting a rabbi, whereas in other cases the two practices were complementary. For example, a magician would be approached in case a love charm was needed, but a rabbi consulted by a man who wanted to divorce his wife. If ritual purity was at issue - or considered the basis of a person's physical or spiritual illness - the borderline would have been more blurred. A magician would recommend his customer to use a gem or amulet or magic rite to get rid of evil spirits; a rabbi would recommend the person to lead a Torah-observant life and to follow his particular recommendations as far as the contraction of uncleanness was concerned. 92 87

See Beard 35 ff. On competition amongst rabbis see Hezser (1997) 2 4 1 - 4 4 , 255-57. 89 See ibid. 455 ff. 90 See ibid. 459. See also BowmanAVoolf, 8, for the "legitimisation of the present through (re)interpretation of an often unknowable past" in the Second Sophistic movement. 91 See sections 1.4.B and II.6 above. 92 For a detailed study of the relationship between magic and halakhah see Veltri (1997). 88

494

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

The numinous atmosphere of the early Byzantine synagogues may have provided another way of religiosity which was partly alternative and partly complementary to rabbinic Judaism's emphasis on Torah study. It was complimentary to rabbinic Judaism in that Torah-reading formed an important part of the ceremony and in that synagogue images sometimes represented biblical scenes or personalities in a way reminiscent of midrashic traditions. It was alternative to rabbinic Judaism in that it probably provided such a strong visual stimulation to the visitor that he or she would immediately feel particularly close to the Divine. 93 The visitor would notice that he or she had entered a holy place, and this notion would have been created independently of the Torah-reading or even the presence of Torah scrolls in the building. 94 On this background one can easily understand rabbis' fear that the power of the image would surpass the power of the text.95 Rabbis countered this threat by creating their very own body of texts, even though these texts would never become popular and their usage limited to scholarly circles. The difficulties involved in the understanding of rabbinic texts, whether the Mishnah or the Talmud, necessitated the assistance of the senior scholar or scholar-friend with whom the texts could be discussed orally. The form and content of the text itself promoted the oral form of study and teaching, the continuation of scholarly disciple circles, and the function of rabbis as intermediaries. The codification of traditional legal knowledge in the Talmud may also have served to unite the various competitive circles of rabbis as well as "to restrict innovation and reinforce the autonomy of the institution", 96 a process which seems to have come to a conclusion under the reign of Islam.97 Altogether, then, writing seems to have mostly - and perhaps almost exclusively - been used by the political, economic, and religious-intellectual elites in late Roman Palestine, whether they were urban Jewish officeholders collaborating with the Romans in the administration of the province, wealthy Jewish 93 On the impression which synagogue decorations would make on the entrants and viewers see S. Schwartz 15 (of the manuscript). 94 See ibid. 3f.: For rabbis the synagogue was holy because it housed the Torah scrolls; for the synagogue builders and most of its visitors the synagogue was holy per se. 95 This fear seems to be illustrated by the story about R. Chama b. Chaninah and R. Hoshaiah visiting the synagogues of Lydda and complaining about the money and effort invested in their building and decoration (y. Peah 8:9, 21b). In this story the rabbinic value of Torah study is directly juxtaposed to the numinous splendor of the synagogues. In Christianity textual study seems to have been less important and images and ceremonies more valued by the religious leaders. According to Fox, "much more was known through listening, singing, and looking than through personal textual study ...". 96 Bowman/Woolf 10. In contrast to the amoraim whom the Yerushalmi presents as individual personalities who reinterpreted and even changed and abrogated earlier tannaitic traditions, the Talmudic editors preferred to remain anonymous. Their contribution mainly consisted of harmonization rather than innovation. 97 On the codification of legal knowledge in antiquity with special discussion of the Yerushalmi see Hezser (1998b) 58Iff.

2. The Writers of the Texts

495

landowners and large-scale merchants, judges of local courts or rabbis. The usage of texts and writing was not the only basis and expression of these circles' power, but it certainly supported their authority claims and enhanced their means of controlling and influencing others. Less wealthy and prominent Jews seem to have sometimes imitated the elites' use of writing, whether for utilitarian reasons (e.g., lists and accounts) or simply because it was fashionable at that time (e.g., funerary inscriptions). But they do not seem to have imitated them in realms where writing would involve an unnecessary expense of money and considered a luxury (documents and letters).

3. Degrees and Distribution of Literacy Although the exact literacy rate amongst ancient Jews cannot be determined, Meir Bar-Ilan's suggestion that the Jewish literacy rate must have been lower than the literacy rate amongst Romans in the first centuries C.E. seems very plausible. Whether the average literacy rate amongst Palestinian Jews was only 3 percent, as Bar-Ilan has reckoned, 1 or slightly higher, must ultimately remain open. The question naturally depends on what one understands by "literacy". If "literacy" is determined as the ability to read documents, letters, and "simple" literary texts in at least one language and to write more than one's signature oneself, it is quite reasonable to assume that the Jewish literacy rate was well below the 10-15 percent (of the entire population, including women) which Harris has estimated for Roman society in imperial times. 2 If by "literacy" we mean the ability to read a few words and sentences and to write one's own signature only, Jews probably came closer to the Roman average rate. Whereas exact numbers can neither be verified nor falsified and are therefore of little historical value, for the following reasons the average Jewish literacy rate (of whatever degree) must be considered to have been lower than the average Roman rate: The first reason, which was already mentioned by Bar-Ilan, is the largely rural character of Palestine throughout antiquity. 3 The large majority of the Jewish population lived in the countryside, especially in the villages and small towns of Upper Galilee. Literacy, on the other hand, was a predominantly urban phenomenon, since reading and writing skills were mostly needed and therefore learned and practiced by the elites and sub-elites of the cities. 4 Although cities such as Sepphoris and Tiberias had connections with and influence upon the surrounding countryside, one may assume that the really literate rarely lived in rural areas, except for the one or other rabbi perhaps. And even rabbis seem to have increasingly moved to the cities and become more urban from the third century C.E. onwards. 5 Village-dwellers, who mostly worked in agriculture as laborers, tenants, lessees, and small freeholders, will have rarely needed writing. If the need arose, they could always go to the next town or city. 1 2 3 4 5

See See See See See

Bar-Ilan (1992) 55. Harris (1989) 328. Bar-Ilan (1992) 48 ff. Gellner 7: "Towns make literacy possible and valuable". Hezser (1997) 165.

3. Degrees and Distribution of Literacy

497

Unlike Graeco-Roman elementary schools, the Jewish schools of which we know from rabbinic sources do not seem to have taught practical writing skills or taught such skills in rare cases only. They rather tried to prepare boys for the task of reading the Torah in public. Even these types of schools seem to have been rare before the third century, i.e. before the synagogue as the religious center of the local community became widespread in Galilee. In contrast to primary schools in Roman Italy, which girls seem to have at least sometimes attended, the objective of the Jewish schools, namely to increase the number of public Torah readers, excluded girls from the outset, since girls were not allowed to function as synagogue readers, and Torah education was usually considered unnecessary for them. Jewish elementary education seems to have been dominated by religious specialists - elementary Torah skills were taught by scribes who wrote Torah scrolls, and these scribal teachers were supported by rabbis and it served to foster these specialists' roles. A pyramidal structure of education, which Messick has discovered in traditional Islamic society, seems to have prevailed in ancient Judaism as well: at the top of the Jewish educational pyramid "the identities of several of the most advanced and capable students merged with that of their teachers". 6 A larger number of students, who were unable to reach the highest level, could nevertheless become Torah readers and functionaries in synagogues. At the very bottom of the pyramid were those who obtained rudimentary reading skills only. Greek elementary schools in the cities of Palestine may have constituted an alternative pyramidal system. How many urban Jews used that system rather than - or in addition to? - acquiring a specifically Jewish education, and what proportion of them would eventually reach the top level of Greek learning, remains unclear, not the least because such Greek Jewish scholars may have been indistinguishable from non-Jewish Greek intellectuals. The great valuation of the Torah within ancient Jewish culture may have prevented the appreciation and preservation of other types of literary writing. 7 Torah scrolls were already distinguished from other books by the material on which they were written, at least as far as the official, publicly owned copies were concerned. Graeco-Roman literary texts would usually be written on papyrus rolls and Christians would soon adopt the "popular" medium of the papyrus codex. The preciousness of the material and the special care taken in writing Torah scrolls would make these scrolls very expensive and private ownership very limited. The precautions taken in storing Torah scrolls (cf. the Torah chests and arks and niches in the later synagogues) and the rituals accompanying the Torah's presentation in synagogues would all underline the sanctity and uniqueness of the one-and-only Jewish book. All of these practices would elevate the artefactual value of the Torah, which the populace would see as a holy object 6 7

Messick 45. For rabbinic society see Hezser (1997) 107. Cf. Stroumsa 16 (of the manuscript); Graham 61.

498

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

rather than as popular reading matter. It is therefore not amazing that by early Byzantine times the Torah scrolls had reached such a reputation that people would suspend their amulets close to Torah chests to render them more effective, that Torah scrolls would be placed on the body of the sick to heal them, and that even Christians would visit synagogues because of the holiness believed to emanate from the scrolls.8 Although rabbis propagated the study of the Torah by admonishing parents to have their sons learn Hebrew letters and adult males to frequent study houses, they claimed a monopoly on its interpretation. Only the very few who would apprentice themselves to rabbis could hope to ever reach that level of expertise. For all others, direct access to the Torah will have been very limited, despite the existence of study houses at some locales and despite the theoretical postulate that anyone could function as a Torah reader. Only a few male Jews will have been able to read and understand the text without outside help. Only a few will have been able to read the Torah in public and to discuss the Torah with rabbinic experts. To a certain extent, the rabbinic form of Judaism certainly promoted literacy and literacy rabbinic Judaism, but this connection between Judaism and literacy applied only as far as a special, limited form of literacy was concerned, and as far as it maintained and endorsed the position of rabbis. In contrast to Graeco-Roman society no Jewish public libraries seem to have existed in Roman Palestine. The large collection of biblical and extra-biblical manuscripts discovered and probably owned by the Qumran community must be considered exceptional in this regard. The sets of Torah scrolls owned by local communities, which were given a permanent place in some of the later synagogues, hardly constituted libraries. Some wealthy urban Jews may have had their own private libraries which included Greek Jewish and pagan works. But they will have lent their books to immediate friends and relatives only. Accordingly, the ordinary Jew would have had little access to reading material, unless he had wealthy book-owning friends and relatives or was a religious functionary. But one may assume that unless he was a member of the urban educated upper class or a scribe or rabbi, i.e. in an "extraordinary" position, he will have had little interest in and need for books anyway. It seems that less upper-class Jewish than upper-class Roman women were able to even write their own names, i.e. amongst Jews the female illiteracy rate will have been even higher than amongst Romans. 9 If even women from wealthy landowning families who managed their own property lacked the most basic practical literacy skills (cf. Babatha and Salome Komaise), one can be certain that illiteracy amongst middle- and lower-class women was almost total, the one or other exceptional case of a merchant's wife notwithstanding. That even upperclass males were sometimes entirely illiterate (cf. Salome Komaise's brother) 8 Amulets: see Fine 33; healing: see y. Shab. 6:2, 8b; Christians: see S.J.D. Cohen (1987b) 164 with reference to John Chrysostom. 9 Cf. Messick, 51, with regard to female illiteracy in traditional Islamic society.

3. Degrees and Distribution of Literacy

499

indicates how insignificant practical writing skills were deemed amongst Jews. There is no evidence whatsoever that illiteracy was considered degrading or that the mere ability to read and write would raise a person's social status. In Jewish as in Roman society the prevailing status criteria were parentage, wealth, and public office, the latter probably accompanied by some signs of Graeco-Roman culture, at least as far as high public office holders were concerned. Amongst rabbis, erudition in the Hebrew text of the Torah, not the ability to write letters, words, and sentences in Aramaic, was what really mattered. Similarly in Roman society writing was viewed as a mere technical ability associated with low-status scribes, whereas only the truly educated litteratus had a high status. Nevertheless, an upper-class male was expected to possess at least rudimentary reading and writing skills, whereas in Jewish society this does not seem to have always been the case, or perhaps was the case in cities and/or amongst the highest ranks of public officials only. In contrast to Egypt, where the Romans found a highly developed administrative structure already in place and made it suitable to their own needs, 10 the Roman adminstrative structure of Palestine seems to have been rudimentary only. In connection with the tax registration documents of the Babatha archive Benjamin Isaac has pointed out that little direct connection seems to have existed between the local Jews who functioned as tax collectors, i.e. occupied the lower ranks of the imperial administration, and the government archives where the landholdings would be registered. 11 The representatives of the city authorities who collected the taxes would not have copies of the land declarations at hand. It seems, then, that the tax collection procedure in the Roman province of Arabia "was simple and crude", 12 and probably representative of "an empire which did not possess an elaborate state apparatus". 13 Palestine may not have been different from other provinces except Egypt in this regard: "All we know about the administration of the Roman provinces in the second century, apart from Egypt, suggests that there was no such bureaucratic apparatus". 14 If the administrative structure of Roman Palestine was only rudimentary, the paperwork of the government bodies will have been much reduced, and one may assume that much less scribes were needed than in Egypt. Accordingly, the argument that provincials became acquainted with writing through the Roman administrative apparatus is only partly valid with regard to Palestine. 15 The Jews most affected by the provincial administration were the elites and sub-elites of the city. The main governmental bodies, such as the boule, of which Jews seem to have been able to become members after 212 C.E. 10 11 12 13 14 15

See Cockle 107. See Isaac (1998) 330. Ibid. 331. Ibid. Ibid. 330. For this argument see Hopkins (1991) 137.

500

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

only, would be found in the cities, and the higher and lower officials employed by the administration would also be located there. They would probably visit the villages only occasionally. As far as the small towns and villages are concerned, Youtie has shown that one could be a village or town clerk and illiterate. 16 Wealthy landowners most affected by the taxation of their properties and other administrative matters would tend to live in the cities. The number of small freeholders seems to have severely declined under Roman rule and especially after 70 and 135 C.E., because of the repeated partition of properties, the burden of the tribute to Rome, and the Roman confiscation of land. 17 From the time of Pompey's conquest onwards land would always be given to those who were most loyal to the government. 18 As a consequence, the village population would increasingly consist of individuals who were economically and personally dependent on the Roman-friendly urban land-owning grandees. These village laborers, slaves, tenants, and lessees will have had little direct contact with the Roman authorities and little need for writing. In practically all areas in which writing was commonly used in antiquity there is much less evidence for Jewish than for Roman society. In contrast to the thousands of letters known to have been written by Roman politicians and intellectuals and by Christian leaders, and the great number of papyrus letters from Egypt, only very few ancient Jewish letters have been found and are referred to in the literary sources. Again, in contrast to the many thousands of burial and dedicatory inscriptions collected for the Roman Empire at large, only a very small proportion of inscriptions of Jewish origin have been discovered for Roman Palestine. Whereas almost every major Roman street would have been flanked by houses covered with graffiti, the only comparable Jewish graffiti to speak of has been found at Herodion. Practically no creative literary writing seems to have taken place between Josephus and the Mishnah, and Jewish literary output seems to have been very limited during the entire period under discussion here. One may assume, though, that biblical texts were repeatedly recopied, that is, literary writing seems to have almost exclusively been a reproductive activity carried out by specialized scribes. The limitedness of the evidence for all types of writing cannot be explained away by reference to the general vicissitudes of document survival or the laziness of Israeli archaeologists, and the burden of proof rests upon those who argue that literacy was widespread amongst the Jewish population of Roman Palestine. Increased urbanization, economic expansion, and Roman-Byzantine influence may have expanded the Jewish uses of writing from the third century C.E. onwards. In the first two centuries certain circles within the Jewish populace seem to have used writing for temporary and pragmatic purposes only: for the 16

See Youtie (1971) 239 ff. See Isaac (1998) 112ff. 18 On the consistent pattern of land distribution see Pastor 87ff. (time of Pompey's conquest), 98ff. (Herodian period), 136ff. (direct Roman rule). 17

3. Degrees

and Distribution

of

Literacy

501

demarcation and identification of family burial plots, for guarding property rights, for collecting debts and keeping accounts, for identifying one's produce and indicating one's ownership of vessels. Only from the third century onwards do more permanent, formal, and representative types of writing appear. Funerary and synagogue inscriptions exhibit the economic wealth and moral character of the deceased and perpetuate the honor of his or her family, literary collections were created which gave permanence to valued religious traditions and would eventually make these traditions available to those who did not belong to the immediate disciple circles of particular rabbis. The Roman epigraphic habit, the religious significance of the synagogue, and the practice of euergetism, as well as the general late antique notion of living in a post-classical age, a notion which resulted in the inclination to collect and preserve traditions of the past, 19 may have influenced and affected the Jewish use of writing in early Byzantine times. At least two of the mentioned new types of writing of late Roman and early Byzantine times, namely funerary inscriptions and rabbinic literary collections, seem to have originated in the cities. Urban Jewish immigrants from the Diaspora, Jewish officials and wealthy merchants seem to have been the trend-setters as far as burial inscriptions are concerned. Such inscriptions were almost exclusively found in city cemeteries (Caesarea, Jaffo, Tiberias, Sepphoris), and many of those who were buried at Bet She'arim will have previously lived in cities. Similarly the rabbinic editors of the Yerushalmi (and probably other rabbinic documents as well) seem to have lived in cities, probably because only cities had larger, well-educated, and well-connected populations of rabbis who could easily get in contact with and elicit traditions from colleagues at more distant places. 20 Whether the practice of setting up dedicatory inscriptions in synagogues also began in the cities is uncertain but possible. The wealthiest donors would probably live in the cities, even if they had landholdings in the countryside and donated money or objects to village synagogues. Unlike funerary inscriptions, whose usage remained restricted to urban areas, donors inscriptions would become more widespread and reach the rural population as well. Throughout the period under discussion here oral forms of communication and transaction continued to be important besides and often instead of writing. One may assume that even over distances communication between "ordinary" Jews, who were neither members of the upper classes nor public officials or military leaders, was conducted orally, by the transfer of oral messages from one person to the next. Even rabbis seem to have made increased use of letters from the third century onwards only. Perhaps the rabbinic movement had become more numerous and geographically widespread by that time. Rabbis who had 19 See Hezser (1998b) 633. See also Sawyer, 56, for contemporaneous developments in early Byzantine times, "all occurring within the same vast international context, aware of one another and reacting to one another: the canonization of Christian scripture, the formulation of the Christian creeds, the compilation of the Talmud and the writing down of the Avesta". 20 See Hezser (1997) 180ff.

502

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

moved to the cities may have acquired writing skills and become acquainted with the advantages of networking through letter-writing. It seems that documents were almost exclusively used to protect one's property rights, which were especially threatened at the time of divorce and in connection with inheritances. The transfer and lease of landed property would probably always be confirmed in writing, whereas one may assume that in situations where minor movable property issues and small sums of money were concerned, people would probably not consider it worthwhile to hire a scribe and commission a deed. Otherwise the costs of the scribe and the material used would, in the end, have been larger than the value of the transaction. The phenomenon that a certain number of witnesses had to sign written transactions indicates that a combination of written and oral forms of attestation prevailed. The large majority of Jews would not commemorate their deceased by setting up inscriptions, and honorary inscriptions in synagogues appear very late. Most Jews would get acquainted with the Torah through public lectures rather than through direct access to the written text. What they would probably remember was a set of core stories such as the Exodus from Egypt, the binding of Isaac, and the giving of the Torah to Moses at Sinai, rather than consecutive narratives and an awareness of different versions of the same plot. Their knowledge of the Jewish tradition would consist of a number of such episodes, some of which would later be depicted in synagogue mosaics. Similarly, rabbinic traditions were transmitted orally and rabbinic knowledge transmitted from teacher to disciple on the basis of a personal relationship. The textualization of that knowledge was a relatively late development in comparison with the transmission of knowledge in Graeco-Roman and early Christian society. If our estimation of the low literacy rate amongst Jews in Roman Palestine is correct, what would have been the consequences of the spare use of writing? One may assume that in a largely illiterate or barely literate society, certain intermediate degrees of literacy notwithstanding, those who had reached a relatively high level of literate education would be most prominent. Although a high level of literacy must not necessarily have been accompanied by economic success, one may assume that the highly literate would be the people with most power, authority, and prestige within the community. In Jewish as in Roman and Egyptian society these highly literate individuals are to be located amongst the elites and sub-elites. The phenomenon that the size of these elite and sub-elite circles was much more limited in Jewish than in Roman society, especially after 70 and 135 C.E., will also have been responsible for the low Jewish literacy rate. Members of the elite were, for example, the Herodian family, Jewish military leaders and high officials, the Jewish patriarch, and the urban grandees who founded or donated much money to the later synagogues. Although the one or other wealthy and prominent rabbi may have belonged to the elite, in general rabbis must be considered to have been part of the sub-elites, together with scribes, judges, and minor officials. Hopkins has stressed that one should not underestimate the role

5. Degrees and Distribution

of Literacy

503

and power of these sub-elites within ancient society: "Over time, these literates increased the stored reserves of recorded knowledge, and thereby allowed both state and religion unprecedented control over the lives of the illiterate".21 The phenomenon that rabbinic literature is the only body of ancient Jewish knowledge from this period which survived and that rabbinic scholars gained major influence over Jewish communities in the Middle Ages must probably be seen on this background. Messick is certainly right in pointing out that the hierarchy of literacy is usually related to other hierarchies such as parentage, wealth, honor, occupation, "which together constitute the strata of social status". 22 That is, literacy cannot be isolated as a status criterium or the basis of an individual's or a set of people's power. Their direct access to and use of writing was only one element of the elites and sub-elites' authority, and the actual social status will have depended on other, complimentary criteria. For example, the patriarch's Greek learning was complimentary to his parentage, wealth, and well-connectedness, which together constituted the basis of his power. On the other hand, the power of the ordinary scribe was very limited despite his access to writing, because he ranked low with regard to all of the other status-relevant criteria, unless he occupied a high bureaucratic position or gained prestige as a Torah writer. One must assume that despite the possible existence of various intermediate levels of literacy between the illiterate and barely literate on the one hand and the elites and sub-elites on the other, the gap between the high-level literacy of the latter and the low-level literacy of the populace was rather large. The likely phenomenon that at least ninety percent of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine could merely write their own name or not write and read at all must lead to a new assessment of our understanding of ancient Judaism as a "book-religion" and a greater emphasis on other, non-textual forms of religious expression. How does our image of ancient Judaism change, if one has to reckon with a largely oral, ritual, and symbolic transmission of Jewish religious knowledge and the veneration of the Torah as a sacred object amongst the populace? What does this change of emphasis mean with regard to the formation of ancient Jewish identity? The power of symbols and images in synagogues and elsewhere needs to be reconsidered, and the rituals connected with the celebration of the Jewish festivals and accompanying the Torah-reading have to be reexamined. The numinous atmosphere of the later synagogue may have had a greater religious impact on most of its visitors than the content of the Torah-reading, and the usage of amulets may have been much more widespread than the attendance of study houses. Stories, images, rituals, and magic rather or at least more than the close study of literary texts will have spread Judaism and fostered ancient Jewish identity. Since Goodenough's work on "Jewish Symbols" the exact nature of the 21 22

Hopkins (1991) 135. See Messick 46.

504

Part III: Participation

in a Literate

Society

relationship between the different modes of religious expression is an unsolved problem which will certainly occupy scholars for many more years or even generations. The situation seems to have changed under Islam only, when rabbinic scholars gained prominence, more oral traditions were put into writing, and the contents of scrolls would eventually be copied onto codices. According to Reif, "the centralization and organization of the Jewish community under Islam made possible the wide distribution of such texts and their acceptance as authoritative". 23 When the codex form had been adopted in the early gaonic period, perhaps in the eighth century C.E., "texts other than Hebrew Bible scrolls ... began to make a wide appearance". 24 In the following centuries the much greater quantity, distribution, and availability of texts would increase the need for literacy and the number of Jews who would learn to read and write. In the Islamic period Judaism would develop from a largely oral and ritual religion into a "religion of the book", and it is probably no accident that the term "people of the book", ahi al-kitab, began to be used at that time. 25

23

Reif 145-46. See ibid. 146. 25 See ibid. 149. See also Stroumsa 2 (of the manuscript) who notes that the locution "does not appear to have had any clear antecedents, in either Greek, Syriac, or Hebrew". 24

Bibliography Dictionaries

and

Concordances

Georges, Karl Ernst. Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch. 2 vols. 14th edition. Hannover, 1976. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York, 1985. Kosovsky, Moshe. Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud). 7 vols and Onomasticon. Jerusalem, 1979-99. Krauss, Samuel. Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum. Part II. Hildesheim, 1987 (= Berlin, 1899). Liddell, Henry George/Scott, Robert. A Greek-English Lexicon. With a revised supplement. Oxford, 1996. Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. 4 vols. Leiden, 1973-83. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan, 1990.

Inscriptions Abel, F.-M. "Tombeau et Ossuaires Juifs Récemment Découverts". RB 22 (1913) 26277. Applebaum, Simon/Isaac, Benjamin/Landau, Yohanan. "Varia Epigraphica". SCI 4 (1978) 133-57. Avigad, Nahman. "Aramaic Inscriptions in the Tomb of Jason". IEJ 17 (1967a) 101-11. Avigad, Nahman. "Several Aramaic Inscriptions" (Hebr.). BJPES 31 (1967b) 211-17. Avigad, Nahman. Beth She'arim, vol.3: The Archaeological Excavations During 1953— 58. The Catacombs 12-23 (Hebr.). Jerusalem, 1971a. Avigad, Nahman. "The Burial Vault of a Nazirite Family from the Second Temple Period on Mount Scopus" (Hebr.). EI 10 (1971b) 41-49. Avi-Yonah, Michael. "A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea". IEJ 12 (1962) 137-39. Avi-Yonah, Michael. "The Caesarean Inscription of the 24 Priestly Courses" (Hebr.). EI 7 (1964) 24-28. Avni, Gideon/Greenhut, Zvi/Ilan, Tal. "Three New Burial Caves of the Second Temple Period in Heceldama (Kidron Valley)" (Hebr.). Qadmoniot 25 (1992) 100-110. Avni, G./Dahan, U./Kloner, A. "Bet Guvrin". Excavations and Surveys in Israel 5 (1986) 14-15. Bagatti, P.B ./Milik, J.T. Gli Scavi del 'Dominus Flevit', vol. 1 : La Necropolis del Periodo Romano. Jerusalem, 1958. Barag, Dan. "On the Topic of 'Qartah' in the Inscriptions from the Synagogue at Ein Gedi" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 41 (1971-72) 453-454.

506

Bibliography

Barag, Dan. "The Dated Jewish Inscription from Binyamina Reconsidered". Atiqot 25 (1994) 179-81. Barag, Dan/Flusser, David. "The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus". IEJ 36 (1986) 39-44. Ben-Dov, Meir. "Fragments of Inscriptions from the Synagogue in Tiberias" (Hebr.). Qadmoniot 9 (1976) 79-80. Ben Zevi, J. "AThird Century Aramaic Inscription in Er-Rama". JPOS 13 (1933) 94-96. Ben-Zevie, Y. "A Graeco-Samaritan Inscription from Lydda" (Hebr.). BJPES 8 (194041) 18-20. Ben-Zevie, Y. "Two Judaeo-Aramaic Epitaphs from the Vicinity of Zoar" (Hebr.). BJPES 10 (1944) 35-38. Bickerman, Elias. "The Warning Inscriptions of Herod's Temple". JQR 37 (1946-47) 387-405. Clermont-Ganneau, C. "Nouveau titulus funéraire de Joppé". Recueil d'Archéologie Orientale 1 (1888) 99-100. Clermont-Ganneau, C. "Inscriptions de la nécropole juive de Joppé". Recueil d'Archéologie Orientale 4 (1901) 138-51. Cowley, A.E. "A Jewish Tomb-Stone". PEQ (1925) 207-10. Dalman, Gustav. "Inschriften aus dem Ostjordanland". ZD VP 36 (1913) 249-65. Di Segni, Leah. "The Inscriptions of Tiberias" (Hebr.). Idan 11 (1988) 70-95. Di Segni, Leah. "Inscriptions from Ashqelon" (Hebr.). In: Ashqelon - 4,000 and Forty More Years, vol.1 (Hebr.). Tel Aviv, 1990. 67-90. Di Segni, Leah. "Greek Inscriptions of the Bath-House in Hammath Gader". Aram 4 (1992/94) 307-28. Di Segni, Leah. "A Jewish Greek Inscription from the Vicinity of Caesarea Maritima". Atiqot 22 (1993) 133-36. Di Segni, Leah. "The Date of the Binyamina Inscription and the Question of Byzantine Dora". Atiqot 25 (1994a) 183-86. Di Segni, Leah. "Elç Geôç in Palestinian Inscriptions". SCI 13 (1994b) 93-115. Di Segni, Leah. "The Greek Inscriptions of Hammat Gader". In: The Roman Bath of Hammat Gader. Final Report, by Yizhar Hirschfeld. Jerusalem, 1997. 185-266. Di Segni, Leah/Hirschfeld, Yizhar. "Four Greek Inscriptions from Hammat Gader from the Reign of Anastasius". IEJ 36 (1986) 251-68. Dotan, Aharon. "The 'Secret' in the Synagogue Inscription of 'En-Gedi" (Hebr.). Leshonenu 35 (1970-71) 211-17. Dov, Meir. "Hebrew Inscriptions Carved on Stone from the Temple Mount and Its Surroundings" (Hebr.). Cathedra 40 (1986) 3-30. Eshel, Hanan. "A Fragmentary Hebrew Inscription of the Priestly Courses" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 61 (1991-92) 159-61. Figueras, Pau. "Epigraphic Evidence for Proselytism in Ancient Judaism". Immanuel 24-25 (1990) 194-206. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt 15:5". JBL 78 (1959) 60-65. Fitzmyer, Joseph A./Harrington, Daniel J. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts. Rome, 1978. Foerster, Gideon. "Inscriptions from the Ancient Synagogues and Their Relationship to Versions of Blessing and Prayer" (Hebr.). Cathedra 19 (1981) 12-40. Frey, Jean-Baptiste. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Vol.2. Rome, 1952. Fry, Virgil Roy Lee. The Warning Inscriptions from the Herodian Temple. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Ann Arbor (U. Microfilms), 1986. Gildemeister, J. "Bemerkungen zu den griechischen Inschriften Freis und Schumachers". ZDPV 11 (1888) 38-45.

Inscriptions

507

Glucker, Carol A . M . T h e City of Gaza in the R o m a n and Byzantine Periods. B A R International Series 325. Oxford, 1987. Gregg, Robert C./Urman, Dan. Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights. Greek and Other Inscriptions of the R o m a n and Byzantine Eras. Atlanta, 1996. Grinz, Y.M. "The Inscription f r o m Givat Hamivtar - A Historical Explanation" (Hebr.). Sinai 75 (1974) 2 0 - 2 3 . Hachlili, Rachel. "A Jerusalem Family in Jericho". B A S O R 230 (1978) 4 5 - 5 6 . Hachlili, Rachel. "The Goliath Family in Jericho: Funerary Inscriptions f r o m a First Century A.D. Jewish M o n u m e n t a l Tomb". B A S O R 235 (1979) 3 1 - 6 5 . Herman, Gabriel. " A Jewish Tombstone f r o m Binyamina". SCI 11 (1991-92) 1 6 0 - 6 1 . Horbury, William. "The 'Caiaphas' Ossuaries and Joseph Caiaphas". P E Q 126 (1994) 32-48. Horbury, William. " A Proselyte's Heis Theos Inscription Near Caesarea". P E Q 129 (1997) 133-37. Houston Smith, Robert. "The Cross Marks on Jewish Ossuaries". P E Q 106 (1974) 5 3 - 6 6 . Hurvitz, Avi. " S y n a g o g u e Inscriptions and Their Relationship to Jewish Liturgy - T h e Linguistic Aspect" (Hebr.). Cathedra 19 (1981) 4 1 - 4 3 . Hüttenmeister, Frowald/Reeg, Gottfried. Die antiken Synagogen in Israel. Beihefte z u m Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B 12/1-2. 2 vols. Wiesbaden, 1977. Ilan, Tal. " T h e Ossuary and Sarcophagus Inscriptions". In: T h e A k e l d a m a Tombs. Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, ed. Gideon Avni and Zvi Greenhut. IAA Reports 1. Jerusalem, 1996a. 5 7 - 7 2 . Ilan, Zvi. " A Broken Slab Containing the Names of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses Discovered in the Vicinity of K i s s u f i m " (Hebr.). Tarbiz 43 (1973) 2 2 5 - 2 6 . Ilan, Zvi. " H a m m a t (Rakkah) - Aramaic Dedicatory Inscription". Excavations and Surveys in Israel 6 (1987-88) 110. Ilan, Zvi/Damati, Emanuel. "The S y n a g o g u e and Study House of Ancient M e r o t h " (Hebr.). Qadmoniot 20 (1987) 8 7 - 9 6 . Ilan, Zvi/Gal, Yizhaqi. "A Synagogue Dedication Inscription f r o m North of Tiberias" (Hebr.). Idan 11 (1988) 5 3 - 5 6 . Iliffe, J.H. "The 0 A N A T O 2 Inscription f r o m H e r o d ' s Temple". Q D A P 6 (1938) 1 - 3 . Kane, J.P. "By N o M e a n s 'the Earliest Records of Christianity' - With an E m e n d e d Reading of the Talpioth Inscription I H Z O Y 2 I O Y " . P E Q 103 (1971) 103-108. Kane, J.P. " T h e Ossuary Inscriptions of Jerusalem". JSSt 23 (1978) 2 6 8 - 8 2 . Kaplan, Y. "A Judaeo-Greek Inscription f r o m Kh. H a b r a " (Hebr.). B J P E S 11 ( 1 9 4 4 - 4 5 ) 25. Kaplan, Y. " N e w Readings in the Two D a m a g e d Aramaic Inscriptions f r o m the Ancient Jewish Cemetery at J a f f a " (Hebr.). EI 19 (1987) 2 8 4 - 8 7 . Klein, Samuel. Jüdisch-palästinisches Corpus Inscriptionum (Ossuar-, Grab-, und Synagogeninschriften). Vienna and Berlin, 1920. Kloner, A m o s . " A B C D e r i a n Inscriptions in Jewish Rock-Cut T o m b s " (Hebr.). P W C J S 9, 1985, Division A. Jerusalem, 1986. 125-32. Landau, J.H. "Two Inscribed Tombstones". Atiqot 11 (1976) 8 9 - 9 1 . Lapin, Hayim. "Palestinian Inscriptions and Jewish Ethnicity in Late Antiquity". Forthcoming in: Galilee, ed. E.M. Meyers. Lehmann, Clayton Miles/Holum, Kenneth G. T h e Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima. A S O R Archaeological Reports 5. Forthcoming. Levy, Yosef. "Yafo - Abu Kabir". Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12 (1993) 4 6 - 4 7 . Lieberman, Saul. "A Preliminary R e m a r k to the Inscription of E n - G e d i " (Hebr.). Tarbiz 4 0 (1970-71) 2 4 - 2 6 . Lieberman, Saul. "The Halakhic Inscription f r o m the Bet-Shean Valley" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 45 (1975-76) 5 4 - 6 3 .

508

Bibliography

Lifshitz, Baruch. "Greek Inscriptions f r o m Eretz Israel" (Hebr.). BJPES 22 (1958) 6 2 73. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Inscriptions grecques de Césarée au Palestine (Caesarea Palaestinae)". R B 68 (1961b) 115-126. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Beiträge zur palästinischen Epigraphik". Z D V P 78 (1962a) 6 4 - 8 8 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Notes d ' é p i g r a p h i e grecque". RB 70 (1963a) 2 5 5 - 6 5 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Inscriptions de Césarée en Palestine". R B 72 (1965a) 9 8 - 1 0 7 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Notes d'épigraphie palestinienne". RB 73 (1966) 2 4 8 - 2 5 7 . Lifshitz, Baruch. Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 7. Paris, 1967a. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Inscriptions de Césarée". RB 74 (1967b) 5 0 - 5 9 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Notes d ' é p i g r a p h i e grecque". RB 76 (1969a) 9 2 - 9 8 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Inscriptions de Sinai et de Palestine". Z P E 7 (1971) 151-163. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Varia Epigraphica". Euphrosyne N.S. 6 (1973-74) 2 3 - 4 8 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Varia Epigraphica". Epigraphica 36 (1974) 7 8 - 1 0 0 . Mazar, B e n j a m i n . " A H e b r e w Inscription f r o m 'Illar" (Hebr.). B J P E S 18 (1954) 153-57. Mazar, B e n j a m i n . "The Eighth Season of Excavations at Beth She'arim, 1956" (Hebr.). B J P E S 21 (1957) 153-64. Mazar, Benjamin. " A Hebrew Inscription f r o m the Temple Area in J e r u s a l e m " (Hebr.). Qadmoniot 3 (1970) 1 4 2 - 4 4 . Mazar, Benjamin. "The Inscription on the Floor of the S y n a g o g u e in E n - G e d i " (Hebr.). Tarbiz 40 (1970-71) 18-23. M c C r o w n , Chester C. "Epigraphic Gleanings". Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem 2 - 3 (1921-22) 109-15. Meehan, Charles. "An Aramaic Inscription f r o m Hirbet G e m a r " . Z D P V 96 (1980) 5 9 66. Milik, J.T. "Trois tombeaux j u i f s récemment découverts au sud-est de Jérusalem". Liber Annus 7 ( 1 9 5 6 - 5 7 ) 2 3 2 - 6 7 . M i l m a n Baron, Raqui. "Epigraphica Israelica. A Survey of Inscriptions f o u n d in Israel, and published in 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 " . SCI 13 (1994) 142-162. M o o r e Cross, Frank. "A Note on a Burial Inscription f r o m M o u n t Scopus". IEJ 33 (1983) 245-46. Naveh, Joseph. "The Ossuary Inscriptions f r o m G i v ' a t ha-Mivtar". IEJ 20 (1970) 3 3 - 3 7 . Naveh, Joseph. " N e w Inscriptions on Ossuaries f r o m Northern Jerusalem" (Hebr.). EI 10 (1971) 188-90. Naveh, Joseph. " A n Aramaic T o m b Inscription Written in Paleo-Hebrew Script". IEJ 23 (1973) 8 2 - 9 1 . Naveh, Joseph. On Stone and Mosaic. The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions f r o m Ancient Synagogues (Hebr.). Jerusalem, 1978. Naveh, Joseph. "Varia Epigraphica Judaica". IOS 9 (1979a) 17-31. Naveh, Joseph. "Graffiti and Dedications". B A S O R 235 (1979b) 2 7 - 3 0 . Naveh, Joseph. " A n Aramaic Consolatory Burial Inscription". Atiqot 14 (1980) 5 5 - 5 9 . Naveh, Joseph. "Another Jewish Tombstone f r o m Zoar". H U C A 56 (1985a) 103-16. Naveh, Joseph. "The Fifth Jewish Aramaic Tombstone from Zoar". LA 37 (1987a) 369-71. N a v e h , Joseph. "The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions f r o m Ancient S y n a g o g u e s " (Hebr.). EI 20 (1989) 3 0 2 - 1 0 . Naveh, Joseph. On Sherd and Papyrus. Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions f r o m the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods. Jerusalem, 1992. Naveh, Joseph. "Hebrew Versus Aramaic in the Epigraphic Finds after the Bar K o k h b a Revolt" (Hebr.). Leshonenu 57 (1992-93) 17-38. Negev, Abraham. "Inscriptions hébraiques, grecques et latines de Césarée Maritime". RB 78 (1971) 2 4 7 - 2 6 3 .

Inscriptions

509

Negev, Abraham. "Inscriptions on Rock No. 5 in Wadi Haggag, Sinai" (Hebr.). El 12 (1975) 1 3 2 - 4 1 . Negev, Abraham. "The Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, Sinai". Q e d e m 6. Jerusalem, 1977. Netzer, Ehud/Weiss, Ze'ev. "Zippori - 1990/91". Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12 (1993) 13-15. Orfali, R. Gaudence. " U n hypogée juif à Bethphagé". R B 32 (1923) 2 5 3 - 6 0 . Ovadiah, Asher. " A Jewish Sarcophagus at Tiberias" (Hebr.). B J P E S 31 (1967) 2 2 5 - 3 0 . Ovadiah, Asher. "Excavations in the Area of the Ancient Synagogue at Gaza (Preliminary Report)". IEJ 19 (1969) 193-98. Patrich, Joseph. "Les grottes de El-'Aleiliyat et la laure de Saint-Firmin". RB 9 (1984) 381-87. Patrich, Joseph. "Caves of R e f u g e and Jewish Inscriptions On the Cliffs of Nahal Michm a s " (Hebr.). EI 18 (1985a) 1 5 3 - 1 6 6 Patrich, Joseph. "Inscriptions araméennes juives dans les grottes d ' E l - ' Aleiliyat". RB 92 (1985b) 2 6 5 - 7 3 . Porat, Pinhas. "A N e w Boundary Stone f r o m the Southern Golan". SCI 10 (1989-90) 130-33. Rahmani, L.Y. "Review of Eric M. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth, Secondary Burials in their Near Eastern Setting". IEJ 23 (1973) 121-26. Rahmani, L.Y. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collection of the State of Israel. Jerusalem 1994. Reich, Ronny. "A Note on the Aramaic Inscription f r o m Kh. Habra". Atiqot 14 (1980) 96-98. Reich, Ronny. "Ossuary Inscriptions f r o m the ' C a i a p h a s ' Tomb". Atiqot 21 (1992a) 7 2 77. Reich, Ronny. "Ossuary Inscriptions of the Caiaphas Family f r o m Jerusalem" (Hebr.). Qadmoniot 25 (1992b) 114-116. Reich, Ronny. "Caiaphas' Name Inscribed on Bone Boxes". B A S O R 18:5 (1992c) 3 8 - 4 5 . Reich, Ronny. "Two Greek Burial Inscriptions f r o m Lod (Lydda)" (Hebr.). Atiqot 25 (1994) 4 7 - 4 9 . Rosenthal, E.S. " Z e v u " (Hebr.). Tarbiz 40 (1970-71) 3 1 - 3 2 . Rosenthal, E.S. "The G i v ' a t ha-Mivtar Inscription". IEJ 23 (1973) 7 2 - 8 1 . Roth-Gerson, Lea. T h e Greek Inscriptions f r o m the Synagogues in Eretz-Israel (Hebr). Jerusalem, 1987. Rubin, R./Patrich, J. "Wadi Suweinit". Excavations and Surveys in Israel 2 (1983) 107-9. Safrai, Z e ' e v . "Marginal Notes on the R e h o b Inscription" (Hebr.). Zion 42 (1977) 1 - 2 3 . Safrai, Ze'ev. "The Rehov Inscription". Immanuel 8 (1978) 4 8 - 5 7 . Schick, C. "Tabitha Ground at Jaffa". P E F Q S Oct. (1893) 2 8 6 - 9 7 . Schwabe, Moshe. "The Greek-Jewish Inscription f r o m Lydda" (Hebr.) Tarbiz 12 (1941) 230-33. Schwabe, Moshe. "Two Threefold Jewish Inscriptions f r o m Tallusa and f r o m Caesarea" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 13 (1942) 2 4 5 - 4 8 . Schwabe, Moshe. "Stonecutters' Errors and the Jewish Inscription f r o m S h i q m o n a " (Hebr.). Tarbiz 15 (1944) 113-25. Schwabe, Moshe. "Notes On the Kh. Habra Inscription" (Hebr.). B J P E S 11 ( 1 9 4 4 - 4 5 a ) 26-30. Schwabe, Moshe. "An Inscription on a Column f r o m the Habra Synagogue" (Hebr.). B J P E S 11 ( 1 9 4 4 - 4 5 b ) 3 1 - 3 3 . Schwabe, Moshe. ' " P e a c e upon Israel' - in Caesarea and the Thessalian Diaspora" (Hebr.). B J P E S 12 ( 1 9 4 5 - 4 6 ) 6 5 - 6 8 . Schwabe, Moshe. "A Greek Inscription f r o m Ubidiah in the Upper Galilee" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 19 (1948) 119-22.

510

Bibliography

Schwabe, Moshe. "On the History of Tiberias" (Hebr.). in: Yohanan Levi Jubilee Volume, ed. M o s h e Schwabe/Yehoshua Gutman. Jerusalem, 1949. 2 0 0 - 2 5 1 . Schwabe, Moshe. "The S y n a g o g u e at Caesarea and Its Inscriptions" (Hebr). Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume Hebr. Section. N e w York, 1950. 4 3 3 - 4 4 9 . Schwabe, M o s h e . " A Jewish Sepulchral Inscription f r o m Caesarea Palestinae". IEJ 1 (1950-51) 4 9 - 5 3 . Schwabe, Moshe. " A Jewish Epitaph f r o m C a e s a r e a " (Hebr.). B J P E S 16 (1951-52) 5 3 57. Schwabe, Moshe. "Two Jewish-Greek Inscriptions Recently Discovered at Caesarea". IEJ 3 (1953) 127-130, 2 3 3 - 2 3 8 . Schwabe, Moshe. "A Bundle of Jewish Inscriptions f r o m Eretz-Israel" [Hebr.]. B J P E S 18 (1954) 157-63. Schwabe, Moshe/Lifshitz, Baruch. Beth S h e ' a r i m , vol.2: T h e Greek Inscriptions. Jerusalem, 1974. Stone, Michael E. (ed.). Rock Inscriptions and Graffiti Project. Catalogue of Inscriptions. 3 vols. S B L Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta, 1992 (vols. 1 - 2 ) , 1994 (vol.3). Sukenik, E.L. "Notes on the Jewish Graffiti of Beth-Phage". J P O S 4 (1924) 171-74. Sukenik, E.L. "A Jewish H y p o g e u m Near Jerusalem". J P O S 8 (1928) 113-21. Sukenik, E.L. "Additional Note on 'A Jewish H y p o g e u m Near J e r u s a l e m ' " . J P O S 9 (1929) 4 5 - 4 9 . Sukenik, E.L. "Archaeological Remains at Sepphoris" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 3 (1931-32) 107-9. Sukenik, E.L. "Two Jewish H y p o g e a " . J P O S 12 (1932) 2 2 - 3 1 . Sukenik, E.L. "Jewish Tomb-Stones f r o m Z o a r " (Hebr.). K e d e m 2 (1945) 8 3 - 8 8 . Sukenik, E.L. "Two Jewish Tombstones f r o m Sepphoris" (Hebr.). B J P E S 12 ( 1 9 4 5 - 4 6 ) 62-64. Sukenik, E.L. "The Earliest Records of Christianity". American Journal of Archaeology 51 (1947) 3 5 1 - 6 5 . Sussman, Yaqob. "A Halakhic Inscription f r o m the Beth Shean Valley" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 4 3 (1973-74) 8 8 - 1 5 8 . Sussman, Yaqob. "Additional Notes to ' A Halakhic Inscription f r o m the Beth Shean Valley'" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 44 ( 1 9 7 4 - 7 5 ) 193-95. Sussman, Yaqob. "The Inscription in the Synagogue at Rehov". in: Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. Lee I. Levine. Jerusalem, 1981. 1 4 6 - 5 1 . Tzaferis, Vasilios. "Jewish Tombs at and near G i v ' a t ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem". IEJ 20 (1970) 18-32. Tzaferis, Vasilios. "The ' A b b a ' Burial Cave in Jerusalem" (Hebr.). Atiqot, Hebr. series, 7 (1974) 6 1 - 6 4 . Tzori, Nechemiah. "Four Greek Inscriptions From the Beth Shean Valley" (Hebr.). EI 10 (1971) 240. Urbach, Ephraim E. "The Secret of the En-Gedi Inscription and Its F o r m u l a " (Hebr.). Tarbiz 40 (1970-71) 2 7 - 3 0 . Vincent, H. " H y p o g é e judéo-grec découvert au Scopus". RB 9 (1900) 1 0 6 - 1 2 . Vincent, H. "Notes épigraphiques". RB 11 (1902) 4 3 6 - 3 7 . Vincent, H. "Ossuaires j u i f s " . RB 13 (1904) 2 6 2 - 6 5 . Vitto, Fanny. "The Ancient Synagogue at R e h o v " (Hebr.). Atiqot 7 (1974) 1 0 0 - 1 0 4 . Vitto, Fanny. "Notes and News: T h e Synagogue of Rehov". IEJ 30 (1980) 2 1 4 - 1 7 . Weiss, Ze'ev/Netzer, Ehud. Promise and Redemption. A S y n a g o g u e Mosaic f r o m Sepphoris. Jerusalem, 1996. Wieder, Naphtali. "The Jericho Inscription and Jewish Liturgy" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 52 ( 1 9 8 2 83) 5 5 7 - 7 9 . Wieder, Naphtali. "Additional Notes to ' T h e Jericho Inscription and Jewish L i t u r g y ' " (Hebr.). Tarbiz 53 (1983-84) 4 7 6 - 7 7 .

Papyri,

Ostraca,

and Jar

Inscriptions

511

Yellin, Abraham. "On the Newly Discovered Jewish Ossuary Inscriptions". JPOS 9 (1929)41-44. Zulueta, F. de. "Violation of Sepulture in Palestine at the Beginning of the Christian Era". JRS 22 (1932) 184-97.

Papyri, Ostraca, and Jar

Inscriptions

Aharoni, Y. "The Caves of Nahal Hever". Atiqot 3 (1961) 148-62. Aharoni, Y. "Expedition B - T h e Cave of Horror". IEJ 12 (1962) 186-199. Avigad, Nahman. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville, 1983. Baillet, M./Milik, J.T./De Vaux, R. Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumran. DJD 3. Oxford, 1962. Baillet, Maurice. Qumran Grotte 4. DJD 7. Oxford, 1982. Ben-Dov, Meir. "Hebrew Inscriptions Carved on Stone from the Temple Mount and Its Surroundings" (Hebr). Cathedra 40 (1986) 3-30. Benoit, P./Milik, J.T./de Vaux, R. Les Grottes de Murabba'at. DJD 2, Oxford 1961 (plates in separate volume). Beyer, Klaus. Die aramaischen Texte vom Toten Meer, vol.1. Gottingen, 1984. Broshi, M./Qimron, E. "A House Sale Deed from Kefar Baru from the Time of Bar Kokhba". IEJ 36 (1986) 201-14. Broshi, M./Qimron, E. "I.O.U. Note from the Time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt" (Hebr.). EI 20 (1989) 256-51. Broshi, M./Qimron, E. "A Hebrew I.O.U. Note from the Second Year of the Bar Kokhba Revolt". JJS 45 (1994) 286-94. Burkitt, F.C. "The Hebrew Papyrus of the Ten Commandments". JQR 15 (1903) 392408. Cotton, Hannah M. "A Cancelled Marriage Contract from the Judean Desert (XHev/Se Gr2)". JRS 84 (1994) 64-86. Cotton, Hannah M. "The Archive of Salome Komaise Daughter of Levi: Another Archive from the Cave of Letters". ZPE 105 (1995a) 171-208. Cotton, Hannah M./Cockle, W.E.H./Millar, F.G.B. "The Papyrology of the Roman Near East: A Survey". JRS 85 (1995) 214-35. Cotton, Hannah M./Geiger, Joseph. Masada vol. II: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 19631965. Final Reports: The Latin and Greek Documents. Jerusalem, 1989. Cotton, Hannah M./Qimron, Elisha. "XHev/Se ar 13 of 134 or 135 C.E.: A Wife's Renunciation of Claims". JJS 49 (1998) 108-118. Cotton, Hannah M./Yardeni, Ada. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites. DJD 27. Oxford, 1997. Cowley, A. "Hebrew and Aramaic Papyri". JQR 16 (1904) 1-8. Cross, Frank Moore. "The Development of the Jewish Script", in: The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of W.F. Albright, ed. G.E. Wright. New York, 1961. 133-202. Cross, Frank Moore/Eshel, Esther. "Ostraca from Khirbet Qumran". IEJ 47 (1997) 1728. Eshel, Esther and Hanan. "Fragments of Two Aramaic Documents Which Were Brought to Abi'or Cave During the Bar-Kokhba Revolt" (Hebr.). EI 23 (1992) 276-85. Friedman, Mordechai A. "Babatha's Ketubba: Some Preliminary Observations". IEJ 1 (1996) 55-76. Gophna, Ram/Sussman, Varda. "A Jewish Burial Cave of the Roman Period at the Foot of Tel Halif" (Hebr.). Atiqot 7 (1974) 69-76.

512

Bibliography

Ilan, Tal. "Notes and Observations On a Newly Published Divorce Bill f r o m the Judean Desert". H T R 89 (1996b) 1 9 5 - 2 0 2 . Katzoff, Ranon. "Papyrus Yadin 18 Again: A Rejoinder". JQR 82 (1991) 1 7 1 - 7 6 . Kiessling, E. S a m m e l b u c h griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, vol.VIII.2. Wiesbaden, 1967. Kutscher, Yechezqel. "The L a n g u a g e of the Hebrew and Aramaic Letters of Bar K o k h b a and His Contemporaries" (Hebr.). Leshonenu 25 (1961) 1 1 7 - 3 3 and 26 (1962) 7 - 2 3 . Kutscher, Yechezqel. ""[13 and its Cognates" (Hebr.) EI 8 (1967) 2 7 3 - 7 9 . Lacheman, Ernest R. "The So-Called Bar K o k b a Letter". J Q R 4 4 (1953-54) 2 8 5 - 9 0 . Lapin, Hayim. "Palm Fronds and Citrons: Notes on Two Letters f r o m Bar K o s i b a ' s Administration". H U C A 6 4 (1993) 111-135. L e h m a n n , M a n f r e d R. "Studies in the M u r a b b a ' a t and Nahal Hever D o c u m e n t s " . R d Q 4 (1963) 5 3 - 8 1 . Lewis, Naphtali/Katzoff, Ranon/Greenfield, Jonas C. " P a p y r u s Yadin 18". IEJ 37 (1987) 229-250. Lewis, Naphtali/Yadin, Yigael/Greenfield, Jonas C. (eds.). T h e Documents f r o m the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Greek Papyri. Jerusalem, 1989. Lifshitz, Baruch. "The Greek D o c u m e n t s f r o m Nahal Seelim and Nahal M i s h m a r " . IEJ 11 (1961a) 5 3 - 6 2 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Inscriptions grecques de Césarée en Palestine (Caesarea Palaestinae)". RB 69 (1961b) 115-26. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Papyrus grecs du désert de Juda". Aegyptus 42 (1962b) 2 4 0 - 5 8 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "The Greek Documents f r o m the Cave of Horror". IEJ 12 (1962c) 2 0 1 7. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Timbres amphoriques trouvés à Césarée de Palestine". R B 70 (1963b) 556-58. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Fragments grecs de papyrus et de parchemin découverts dans le désert de Juda". Scriptorium 19 (1965b) 2 8 6 - 8 8 . Milik, J.T. " U n e lettre de Siméon Bar Kokheba". R B 60 (1953) 2 7 6 - 9 4 . Milik, J.T. " U n contrat juif de l ' a n 134 après J.-C.". R B 61 (1954) 182-90. Milik, J.T. "Deux documents inédits du Désert du Juda". Biblica 38 (1957a) 2 4 5 - 6 8 . Milik, J.T. " L e travail d'édition des manuscrits du Désert de Juda". V T S 4 (1957b) 1 7 26.

Mishor, Mordechai. "A New Edition of a Hebrew Letter: Oxford Ms. Hebr. D.69 (P)" (Hebr.). Leshonenu 53 (1989) 2 1 5 - 2 3 . 2 5 8 - 6 4 . Naveh, Joseph. "The Inscriptions". In: Netzer, Ehud. "Greater Herodium". Qedem 13, Jerusalem, 1981. 71. Naveh, Joseph. "Published and Unpublished Aramaic Ostraca" (Hebr.). Atiqot 17 (1985b) 114-121. Naveh, Joseph. "A Medical Document or a Writing Exercise? The So-Called 4 Q Therapeia". IEJ 36 (1986) 5 2 - 5 5 . Naveh, Joseph. "Inscriptions on Pottery L a m p s " (Hebr.). EI 19 (1987b) 2 6 6 - 6 9 . Naveh, Joseph. " L a m p Inscriptions and Inverted Writing". IEJ 38 (1988) 3 6 - 4 3 . Netzer, Ehud. "Recent Investigations at Lower H e r o d i u m " (Hebr.). Qadmoniot 6 (1973) 107-110. Polotsky, H.J. "The Greek Papyri f r o m the C a v e of Letters". IEJ 12 (1962) 2 5 8 - 6 2 . Polotsky, H.J. "Three Greek Documents f r o m the Family Archive of Babatha" (Hebr.). EI 8 (1967) 4 6 - 5 1 . Porton, Bezalel. "A Survey of Aramaic Ostraca Letters" (Hebr.) Eretz-Israel 24 (1993) 164-74. Puech, Emile. "L'acte de vente d ' u n e maison à Kafar-Bébayu en 135 de notre ère". Revue de Q u m r a n 9 (1977-78) 2 1 3 - 2 2 .

Amulets, Gems, Tesserae, Coins,

Weights

513

Puech, Emile. "Abécédaire et liste alphabétique de noms hébreux du début du Ile s. A.D.". R B 87 (1980) 118-126. Qimron, Elisha/Strugnell, John. " A n Unpublished Halakhic Letter f r o m Q u m r a n " . Biblical Archaeology Today 2 (1985a) 4 0 0 - 4 0 7 . Qimron, Elisha/Strugnell, John. "An Unpublished Halakhic Letter f r o m Q u m r a n " . Israel M u s e u m Journal 4 (1985b) 9 - 1 2 . Qimron, Elisha/Strugnell, John. Q u m r a n C a v e 4.V: Miqsat M a ' a s e ha-Torah. D J D 10. Oxford, 1994. Rabinowitz, J.J. "Note sur la lettre de Bar Kokhba". R B 61 (1954) 191-92. Rokeah, David. "Qasrawet: T h e Ostracon". IEJ 33 (1983) 9 3 - 9 6 . Schwartz, Jacques. " R e m a r q u e s sur des fragments grecs du Désert de Juda". R B 69 (1962) 6 1 - 6 3 . Sijpestein, P.J. "A Note on P.Murabba'at 29". IEJ 34 (1984) 4 9 - 5 0 . Sirat, Colette. Les papyrus en charactères hébraiques trouvés en Egypte. Paris, 1985. Starcky, Joseph. "Un contrat Nabatéen sur papyrus". RB 61 (1954) 161-181. Testa, E m m a n u e l e . Herodion vol. IV: I Graffiti e Gli Ostraca. Jerusalem, 1972. Wasserstein, Abraham. " A Marriage Contract f r o m the Province of Arabia Nova: Notes on Papyrus Yadin 18". J Q R 80 (1989) 9 3 - 1 3 0 . Vaux, Roland de. "Les grottes de M u r a b b a ' a t et leur documents". RB 60 (1953a) 2 4 5 67. Vaux, Roland de. "Quelques textes hébreux de M u r a b b a ' a t " . RB 60 (1953b) 2 6 8 - 7 5 . Vaux, Roland de. "Fouilles au Khirbet Q u m r a n " . R B 61 (1954) 2 0 6 - 2 3 6 . Yadin, Yigael. "Expedition D". IEJ 11 (1961) 3 6 - 5 2 . Yadin, Yigael. "Expedition D - The C a v e of the Letters". IEJ 12 (1962) 2 2 7 - 5 7 . Yadin, Yigael. "The Excavation of M a s a d a 1963/64. Preliminary Report". IEJ 15 (1965) 1-120. Yadin, Yigael/Greenfield, Jonas C./Yardeni, Ada. " B a b a t h a ' s Ketubba". IEJ 34 (1994) 75-99. Yadin, Yigael/Greenfield, Jonas C./Yardeni, Ada. " A Deed of Gift in Aramaic Found in Nahal Hever: Papyrus Yadin 7 " (Hebr.). EI 25 (1996) 3 8 3 - 4 0 3 . Yadin, Yigael/Naveh, Joseph. Masada vol. I: T h e Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports: The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions. Jerusalem, 1989. Yardeni, Ada. " N e w Jewish Aramaic Ostraca f r o m Israel" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 58 (1988-89) 119-134. Yardeni, Ada. "New Jewish Aramaic Ostraca". IEJ 40 (1990) 130-152. Yardeni, Ada. "The Script in Two Fragmentary Deeds f r o m the A b i ' o r C a v e " (Hebr.). EI 23 (1992) 3 2 7 - 3 0 . Yardeni, Ada. "A Draft of a Deed f r o m Khirbet Q u m r a n " . IEJ 47 (1997) 2 3 3 - 2 3 7 . Zeitlin, Solomon. "A Note On the Fiction of the 'Bar K o k b a ' Letter". JQR 45 ( 1 9 5 4 - 5 5 ) 174-80. Zeitlin, Solomon. "The Fiction of the Bar Kokba Letters". JQR 51 (1960-61) 2 6 5 - 7 4 .

Amulets, Gems, Tesserae, Coins,

Weights

A p p l e b a u m , Shimon/Isaac, B e n j a m i n / L a n d a u , Yohanan. "Varia Epigraphica". SCI 6 (1981-82) 9 8 - 1 1 3 . Benoit, Roland. "Nouvelles 'brattées' trouvées en Palestine". RB 59 (1952) 2 5 3 - 5 8 . Bonner, Campbell. Studies in Magical Amulets, Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian. Ann Arbor, 1950.

514

Bibliography

Dalman, Gustav H. "Epigraphisches und Pseudepigraphisches". M N D P V 9 (1903) 17-32. Hamburger, Anit. "A Graeco-Samaritan Amulet f r o m Caesarea". IEJ 9 (1959) 4 3 - 4 5 . Hamburger, Anit. " G e m s f r o m Caesarea Maritima". Atiqot 8 (1968) 1 - 3 7 and plates. Hamburger, Anit. "Surface-Finds f r o m Caesarea Maritima - Tesserae". In: Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, 1975, 1976, 1979 - Final Report, ed. Lee I. Levine and Ehud Netzer. Q e d e m 21. Jerusalem, 1986. 187-204. K a d m a n , Leo. "The Hebrew Coin Script: A Study in the Epigraphy and Palaeography of Ancient Jewish Coins" (Hebr.). EI 6 (1961) 9 4 - 1 0 3 . Kloner, Amos. "Horvat Alim. Weights f r o m the Time of Bar Kokhba". Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1 (1987-88) 1. Kloner, Amos. "Lead Weights of Bar K o k h b a ' s Administration". IEJ 40 (1990) 5 8 - 6 7 . Kotansky, Roy. "Two Inscribed Jewish Aramaic Amulets f r o m Syria". IEJ 41 (1991a) 267-81. Kotansky, Roy. " A n Inscribed Copper Amulet f r o m 'Evron". Atiqot 20 (1991b) 8 1 - 8 3 . Kotansky, Roy (ed.). Greek-Magical Amulets. The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae, vol.1: Published Texts of K n o w n Provenance. Papyrologica Coloniensia 22/1. Opladen, 1994. Kushnir-Stein, Alia. "Two Inscribed Weights f r o m Banias". IEJ 45 (1995) 4 8 - 5 1 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "La Nécropole Juive de Césarée". RB 71 (1964a) 3 8 4 - 8 6 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Einige Amulette aus Caesarea Palaestinae". Z D P V 80 (1964b) 8 0 - 8 4 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Varia Epigraphica". Epigraphica 36 (1976a) 7 8 - 1 0 0 . Lifshitz, Baruch. "Bleigewichte aus Palästina und Syrien". Z D P V 92 (1976b) 168-87. McCollough, C. Thomas/Glazier-McDonald, Beth. " A n Aramaic Bronze A m u l e t From Sepphoris" (Hebr.). Atiqot 28 (1996) 161-65. McCollough, C. Thomas/Glazier-McDonald, Beth. "Magic and Medicine in Byzantine Galilee: A Bronze Amulet From Sepphoris". in: Archaeology and the Galilee. Texts and Contexts in the G r a e c o - R o m a n and Byzantine Periods, ed. Douglas R. E d w a r d s and C. T h o m a s McCullough. Atlanta, 1997. 1 4 3 - 4 9 . Meshorer, Ya'akov. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period. Tel Aviv, 1967. Meshorer, Ya'akov. " A Stone Weight f r o m the Reign of Herod". IEJ 20 (1970) 9 7 - 9 8 . Meshorer, Ya'akov. City Coins of Eretz Israel and the Decapolis in the R o m a n Period. Jerusalem, 1985. Mildenberg, Leo. T h e Coinage of the Bar K o k h b a War. Typos. Monographien zur antiken Numismatik, vol.6. Aarau, Frankfurt/Main, Salzburg, 1984. Montgomery, James A. " S o m e Early Amulets f r o m Palestine". J A O S 31 (1910-11) 2 7 2 81. Naveh, Joseph. ' " A Good Subduing, There Is N o n e Like It'. An Ancient Amulet From Horvat Marish in the Galilee" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 54 (1985c) 3 6 7 - 8 2 . Naveh, Joseph/Shaked, Shaul. Amulets and Magic Bowls. Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem, 1985. Naveh, Joseph/Shaked, Shaul. Magic Spells and Formulae. Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem, 1993. Pummer, Reinhard. "Samaritan Amulets f r o m the Roman-Byzantine Period and Their Wearers". R B 94 (1987) 2 5 1 - 6 3 . Raffaeli, S. " A Recently Discovered Samaritan Charm". J P O S 1 (1920-21) 1 4 3 - 4 4 . Schäfer, Peter/Shaked, Shaul (eds). Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, vol.2. T S A J 64. Tübingen, 1997. Schiffman, L a w r e n c e H./Swartz, Michael D. H e b r e w and Aramaic Incantation Texts f r o m the Cairo Geniza. Selected Texts f r o m Taylor-Schechter Box K l . Sheffield, 1992. Stager, Lawrence E. "Eroticism and Infanticide at Ashqelon". B A R 17:4 (1991) 3 4 53.72.

Secondary

Literature

Text Editions and

515

Translations

Albeck, Chanokh (ed.). Shishah Sidre Mishnah. 6 vols. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv 1988 (= Jerusalem, 1952-59. Charlesworth, James H. (ed.). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, 1983 (vol.1) and 1985 (vol.2). Epstein, J.N./Melamed, E.Z. Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. Jerusalem, 1955. Finkelstein, Louis (ed.). Sifra on Leviticus (Hebr.). 4 vols. New York, 1983-90. Finkelstein, Louis (ed.). Sifre on Deuteronomy (Hebr.). New York, 1969. Higger, Michael (ed.). Seven Minor Treatises and Treatise Soferim II. New York, 1930. Hoffmann, David (ed.). Midrash Tannaim. 2 vols. Berlin, 1908-9. Horovitz, H.S. (ed.). Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre Zutta (Hebr.). Jerusalem, 1966. Horovitz, H.S./Rabin, I. Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishmael. 2nd ed. Jerusalem, 1970. Lieberman, Saul (ed.). The Tosefta. The Orders of Zeraim, Moed, Nashim, and Nezikin (Hebr.). 4 vols. New York, 1955-88. Loeb Classical Library Edition of Josephus, translated by H.S.J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, and L.H. Feldman. 10 vols. 2nd ed. London, 1966-69. Mandelbaum, Bernard (ed.). Pesikta de Rav Kahana. 2 vols. 2nd ed. New York, 1987. Mandelbaum, Irving. The Talmud of the Land of Israel. A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, vol.4: Kilayim. Chicago, 1990. Margoliot, Mordechai (ed.). Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah. 2 vols. New York and Jerusalem, 1993. Schechter, Solomon (ed.). Avoth de-Rabbi Nathan. New York and Jerusalem, 1997 (= 2nd ed. New York, 1967). Theodor, J./Albeck, Ch. (eds). Midrash Bereshit Rabba. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Jerusalem, 1965. Zuckermandel, M.S. (ed.). Tosephta. Jerusalem, 1970.

Secondary

Literature

Aberbach, Moshe. "The Development of Hebrew Education from the Times of the Babylonian Exile until the Third Century C.E." (Hebr.). Shvile Hachinukh 26 (1966) 90-94.157-168 and 27 (1966-67) 103-109. Achtemeier, Paul J. "Omne Verbum Sonar. The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity". JBL 109 (1990) 3-27. Adan-Bayewitz, David/Perlman, Isadore. "The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period". IEJ 40 (1990) 153-72. Alexander, Loveday. "The Living Voice: Scepticism Towards the Written Word in Early Christian and in Graeco-Roman Texts". JSOT.S 87 (1990) 221-47. Alexander, Philip S. "Incantations and Books of Magic". In: Emil Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135), vol. 3.1, revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh, 1986. 342-79. Alexander, Philip S. "Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures". In: Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, CRINT II. 1, ed. Martin Jan Mulder. Philadelphia, 1988. 217254. Alexander, Philip S. "Orality in Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism at the Turn of the Eras". In: Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. Henry Wansbrough. JSNT Suppl. Series 64. Sheffield, 1991. 159-84. Alfoldy, Geza. The Social History of Rome. Baltimore, 1988.

516

Bibliography

Arzt, Max. "The Teacher in Talmud and Midrash", in: Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume, ed. M o s h e Davis. Engl. Section. N e w York, 1953. 3 5 - 4 7 . Avi-Yonah, Michael. Ancient Scrolls. Cassell's Introducing Archaeology Series. London, 1973. Bacher, Wilhelm. "Das altjüdische Schulwesen". JJGL 6 (1903) 4 8 - 8 1 . Bagnall, Roger S. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton, 1993. Baines, John. "Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society". M a n N.S. 18 (1983) 5 7 2 - 9 9 . Balogh, Josef. "Voces Paginarum". Philologus 82 (1927) 8 4 - 1 0 9 . 2 0 2 - 2 3 9 . Bardy, Gustave. "Simple remarques sur les ouvrages et les manuscripts bilingues". Vivre et Penser 3 ( 1 9 4 3 - 4 4 ) 2 4 2 - 6 7 . Bar-Ilan, Meir. "The Writing of Torah-Scrolls, Tefillin, Mezuzot, and Amulets on Deer Skin" (Hebr.). Beth Mikra 30 ( 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 ) 3 7 5 - 8 1 . Bar-Ilan, Meir. "Illiteracy A s Reflected in the Halakhot Concerning the Reading of the Scroll of Esther and the Hallel" (Hebr.). PAAJR 54 (1987) 1 - 1 2 . Bar-Ilan, Meir. "Magic Seals on the Body A m o n g Jews in the First C e n t u r y " (Hebr.). Tarbiz 57 (1987-88) 3 7 - 5 0 . Bar-Ilan, Meir. "Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism, Part Two: Scribes and Books in the Late Second Commonwealth and Rabbinic Period". In: Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder. C R I N T II.l. Assen and Philadelphia, 1988. 2 1 - 3 8 . Bar-Ilan, Meir. "Illiteracy in the L a n d of Israel in the First Centuries C.E.". In: Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society vol. II, ed. Simcha Fishbane etal. Hoboken, 1992. 4 6 - 6 1 . Baumgarten, Albert. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. SJSJ 55. Leiden, 1997. Baumgarten, Albeit. "Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations and Ancient Jewish Sects". In: Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. Martin G o o d m a n . Oxford, 1998. 9 3 - 1 1 1 . Baumgarten, J.M. "The Unwritten Law in the Pre-Rabbinic Period". JSJ 3 (1972) 7 - 2 9 . Bäuml, Franz H. "Varieties and Consequences of Medieval Literacy and Illiteracy". Speculum 55 (1980) 2 3 7 - 6 5 . Beard, Mary (ed.). Literacy in the R o m a n World. Journal of R o m a n Archaeology Supplement Series 3. Ann Arbor, 1991. Beard, Mary. "Writing and religion: Ancient Literacy and the function of the written word in R o m a n religion". In: Literacy in the R o m a n World, ed. Mary Beard. Journal of R o m a n Archaeology Supplement Series 3. A n n Arbor, 1991. 3 5 - 5 8 . Becker, Hans-Jürgen. Earthquakes, Insects, Miracles, and the Order of Nature". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and G r a e c o - R o m a n Culture, vol.1, ed. Peter Schäfer. T S A J 71. Tübingen, 1998a. 3 8 7 - 9 6 . Becker, Hans-Jürgen. "Epikureer im Talmud Yerushalmi". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and G r a e c o - R o m a n Culture, vol.1, ed. Peter Schäfer. T S A J 71. Tübingen, 1998b. 397-421. Becker, Hans-Jürgen. Die großen rabbinischen S a m m e l w e r k e Palästinas. Zur literarischen G e n e s e von Talmud Yerushalmi und Midrash Bereshit Rabba. T S A J 70. Tübingen, 1999. Beckwith, Roger T. "The Formation of the Hebrew Bible". In: Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder. C R I N T I I . l . Assen and Philadelphia, 1988. 3 9 - 8 6 . Beit-Arie, Malachi. Hebrew Manuscripts of East and West. Towards a Comparative Codicology. T h e Panizzi Lectures 1992. London, 1993. Bij de Vaate, Alice. "Alphabet-Inscriptions f r o m Jewish Graves". In: Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. J.W. van Henten and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden, 1994. 148-161.

Secondary

Literature

517

Birt, Theodor. Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältnis zur Literatur. Aalen, 1959 (= Berlin, 1882). Blau, Ludwig. Das altjüdische Zauberwesen. Graz, 1974 (= Budapest, 1897-98). Blau, Ludwig. Studien zum althebräischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Literaturgeschichte. 25. Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest. Budapest, 1902. Bleecker, C.J. "Religious Tradition and Sacred Books in Ancient Egypt". In: Holy Book and Holy Tradition, ed. F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp. Manchester, 1967. 2 0 - 3 5 . Bokser, Baruch M. "Talmudic Studies". The State of Jewish Studies, ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen and E.L. Greenstein. Detroit, 1990. 80-112. Bonner, Stanley F. Education in Ancient Rome. From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny. London, 1977. Botha, P.J.J. "Greco-Roman Literacy As Setting for New Testament Writings". Neotestamentica 26 (1992) 195-215. Bowersock, G.W. "The Babatha Papyri, Masada, and Rome". Journal of Roman Archaeology 4 (1991) 3 3 6 - 4 4 . Bowman, Alan K. "Literacy in the Roman empire: mass and mode". In: Literacy in the Roman World, ed. Mary Beard. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 3. Ann Arbor, 1991. 119-31. Bowman, Alan K./ Woolf, Greg (eds.). Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Cambridge, 1994. Bowman, Alan K./Woolf, Greg. "Literacy and power in the ancient world". In: Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, ed. A.K. Bowman/G. Woolf. Cambridge, 1994. 1 16. Boyarin, Daniel. "Placing Reading: Ancient Israel and Medieval Europe". The Ethnography of Reading, ed. Jonathan Boyarin. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, 1993. 10-37. Bregman, Marc. "An Early Fragment of Avot DeRabbi Nathan From a Scroll" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 52 (1982-83) 201-222. Brockmeyer, N. Arbeitsorganisation und ökonomisches Denken in der Gutswirtschaft des römischen Reiches. Bochum, 1968. Brodie, Robert. "Evidence for Divorce by Jewish Women?" JJS 50 (1999) 230-34. Broshi, Magen. "The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman Byzantine Period". BASOR 236 (1979) 1-10. Büchsenschütz, A.B. Besitz und Erwerb im griechischen Altertum. Aalen, 1962. Burkhalter, Fabienne. "Archives locales et archives centrales en Egypte romaine". Chiron 20 (1990) 191-216. Cadiou, René. "La bibliothèque de Césarée et la formation des chaînes". RevSR 16 (1936) 4 7 4 - 8 3 . Calderini, R. "Gli aygcinnaxoi nell'Egitto greco-romano". Aegyptus 30 (1950) 1 4 - 4 1 . Calhoun, George Miller. "Documentary Frauds in Litigation at Athens". CP 9 (1914) 134-44. Carruthers, Mary J. The Book of Memory. A Study in Medieval Culture. Cambridge, 1990. Cerny, Jaroslav. "Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt". An Inaugural Lecture delivered at University College London, 29 May 1947. London, 1952. Chiat, Marilyn Joyce Segal. Handbook of Synagogue Architecture. Brown Judaic Studies 29. Chico, 1982. Clanchy, M.T. From Memory to Written Record. England 1066-1307. London, 1979. Clark, W.P. "Ancient Reading". CJ 26 (1930-31) 698-700. Clarke, M.L. Higher Education in the Ancient World. London, 1971. Clarke, G.W. "An Illiterate Lector?" ZPE 57 (1984) 103-4. Cockle, W.E.H. "State Archives in Graeco-Roman Egypt From 30 BC to the Reign of Septimus Severus". JEA 70 (1984) 106-22.

518

Bibliography

Cohen, Boaz. "An Essay on Possession in Jewish Law". PAAJR 6 (1934-35) 123-37. Cohen, Shaye J.D. "Epigraphical Rabbis". JQR 72 (1981-82) 1-17. Cohen, Shaye J.D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia, 1987a. Cohen, Shaye J.D. "Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue". In: The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine. Philadelphia, 1987b. 159-81. Cole, Susan Guettel. "Could Greek Women Read and Write?" In: Reflections of Women in Antiquity, ed. Helen P. Foley. Philadelphia, 1981. 219-45. Coogan, Michael David. "Alphabets and Elements". BASOR 216 (1974) 61-63. Cooper, John. The Child in Jewish History. Northvale and London, 1996. Corbiers, Mireille, "L'écriture dans l'espace public romain". L'Urbs. Espace Urbain et Histoire, ed. École Française de Rome. Rome, 1987. 27-60. Corbiers, Mireille. "L'écriture en quête de lecteurs". Literacy in the Roman World, ed. Mary Beard. Ann Arbor, 1991. 99-118. Cotton, Hannah M. "The Guardianship of Jesus Son of Babatha: Roman and Local Law in the Province of Arabia". JRS 83 (1993) 94-108. Cotton, Hannah M. "Subscriptions and Signatures in the Papyri from the Judaean Desert: The XEIPOXPHZTHZ". JJP 25 (1995b) 29-40. Cotton, Hannah M. "Deeds of Gift and the Law of Succession in the Papyri from the Judean Desert" (Hebr.). EI 25 (1996) 410-15. Cotton, Hannah M. "The Rabbis and the Documents". In: Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. Martin Goodman. Oxford, 1998. 167-79. Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. New York, 1998. Cressy, David. Literacy and the Social Order. Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge, 1980. Cressy, David. "Books as Totems in Seventeenth-Century England and New England". Journal of Library History 21 (1986) 92-106. Cribiore, Raffaella. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. American Studies in Papyrology 36. Atlanta, 1996. Culham, Phyllis. "Archives and Alternatives in Republican Rome". CP 84 (1989) 10015. Culham, Phyllis. "Documents and Domus in Republican Rome". Libraries and Culture 26 (1991) 119-34. Day, Joseph W. "Rituals in Stone: Early Greek Grave Epigrams and Monuments". JHS 109 (1989) 16-28. Debut, Janine. "Les Documents Scolaires". ZPE 63 (1986) 251-78. Deissmann, Adolf. Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. 4th ed. Tübingen, 1923. Demsky, Aaron. Literacy in Israel and Among Neighboring Peoples in the Biblical Period (Hebr. with an English summary). Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1976. Demsky, Aaron/Bar-Ilan, Meir. "Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism, Part One: The Biblical Period". In: Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder. CRINT II.l. Assen and Philadelphia, 1988. 1-20. Denny, J. Peter. "Rational thought in oral culture and literate decontextualization". in: Literacy and Orality, ed. David R. Olsen and Nancy Torrance. Cambridge, 1991. 66-89. Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Baltimore and London, 1976 (= French ed. Paris, 1967). Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists. London, 1977. Dion, Paul-E. "Les types épistolaires hébréo-araméens jusqu'au temps de Bar-Kokhbah". RB 86 (1979) 544-79.

Secondary

Literature

519

Dionisotti, A.C. "From Ausonius' Schooldays? A Schoolbook and Its Relatives". JRS 72 (1982) 83-125. Donceel-Voûte, P.H.E. "'Coenaculum' - La Salle à l'étage du locus 30 à Khirbet Qumran sur la Mer Morte". Banquets d'Orient. Res Orientales (1992) 6 1 - 8 4 . Dornseiff, Franz. Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie. 2nd ed. Leipzig and Berlin, 1925. Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia, 1973. Downey, Glanville. "The Christian Schools of Palestine: A Chapter in Literary History". Harvard Library Bulletin 12 (1958) 297-319. Drazin, Nathan. History of Jewish Education from 515 B.C.E. to 220 C.E. Baltimore, 1940. Driver, G.R. "Myths of Qumran". The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 6 (1966-68) 23-27. Easterling, P.E./Knox, B.M.W. "Books and Readers in the Greek World". In: The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol.1, part 4: The Hellenistic Period and the Empire. Cambridge, 1989. 154-97. Ebner, Eliezer. Elementary Education in Ancient Israel During the Tannaitic Period (10220 C.E.). New York, 1956. Edër, Walter. "The Political Significance of the Codification of Law in Archaic Societies: An Unconventional Hypothesis". In: Social Struggles in Archaic Rome. New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub. Berkeley, 1986. Edwards, Douglas. "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement". In: The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine. New York and Jerusalem, 1992. 53-73. Elman, Yaakov. "Babylonian Baraitot in the Tosefta and the 'Dialectology' of Middle Hebrew". AJS Review 16 (1991) 1-29. Elman, Yaakov. "Orality and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud". Unpublished manuscript, to be published in Oral Tradition. Falk, Zeev W. "Private Law". In: The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. Shmuel Safrai and Michael Stern. CRINT 1.1. Assen, 1974. 5 0 4 - 3 4 . Feldman, Carol Fleisher. "Oral metalanguage". In: Literacy and Orality, ed. David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance. Cambridge, 1991. 4 7 - 6 5 . Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions From Alexander to Justinian. Princeton, 1993. Feldman, Louis H. "Diaspora Synagogues. New Light from Inscriptions and Papyri", in: Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, ed. Steven Fine. New York and Oxford, 1996. 4 8 - 6 6 . Ferguson, Charles A. "Diglossia". Word 15 (1959) 325-340. Fine, Steven. "From Meeting House to Sacred Realm. Holiness and the Ancient Synagogue". In: Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, ed. Steven Fine. New York and Oxford, 1996. 2 1 - 4 7 . Finnegan, Ruth. Literacy and Orality. Studies in the Technology of Communication. Oxford, 1988. Finkelstein, Louis. "The Transmission of the Early Rabbinic Tradition". HUCA 16 (1941) 115-35. Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretative Communities. Cambridge/Mass, and London, 1980. Fishman, Joshua A. "Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When?" La Linguistique 2 (1965) 67-88. Fishman, Joshua A. "Bilingualism With and Without Diglossia; Diglossia With and Without Bilingualism". Journal of Social Issues 23 (1967) 29-38. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.". C B Q 32 (1970) 501-31.

520

Bibliography

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography". JBL 93 (1974) 201-25. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Major Publications and Tools for Study. Missoula, 1975. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "Aramaic Epistolography". Semeia 22 (1981) 25-57. Forbes, Clarence A. "The Education and Training of Slaves in Antiquity". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 86 (1955) 321-60. Fox, Robin Lane. "Literacy and power in early Christianity". In: Literacy and power in the ancient world, ed. Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf. Cambridge, 1994. 126-48. Fraade, Steven D. "Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries". In: The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine. New York and Jerusalem, 1992. 253-86. Fraade, Steven D. "Interpretive Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran". JJS 44 (1993) 46-69. Fraade, Steven D. "Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran". In: Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. Leiden, 1998. 59-79. Frankfurter, David. "The Magic of Writing and the Writing of Magic: The Power of the Word in Egyptian and Greek Traditions". Helios 21 (1994) 189-221. Freyne, Sean. "Urban-Rural Relations in First-Century Galilee: Some Suggestions from the Literary Sources". In: The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine. New York and Jerusalem, 1992. 75-91. Friedman, Mordechai Akiva. Jewish Marriage in Palestine. A Cairo Geniza Study. New York, 1980. Gafni, Isaiah. "Reinterment in the Land of Israel: Notes on the Origin and Development of the Custom". Jerusalem Cathedra 1 (1981) 96-104. Gafni, Isaiah. "Jewish Elementary Education in Roman Palestine: Image and Reality". Paper presented at the JTS conference in March 2000. Unpublished manuscript. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven and London, 1995. Gauger, Jörg-Dieter. Beiträge zur jüdischen Apologetik. Untersuchungen zur Authentizität von Urkunden bei Flavius Josephus und im I Makkabäerbuch. Köln-Bonn, 1977. Geiger, Joseph. "The Athens of Syria: On Greek Intellectuals in Gadara" (Hebr.). Cathedra 35 (1985) 3-16. Geiger, Joseph. "Greek Intellectuals of Ascalon" (Hebr.). Cathedra 60 (1991) 5-16. Geiger, Joseph. "Greek Rhetoricians in Eretz Israel" (Hebr.). Cathedra 66 (1992) 47-56. Geiger, Joseph. "Latin in Roman Palestine" (Hebr.). Cathedra 74 (1994) 3-21. Gellner, Ernest. Saints of the Atlas. Chicago, 1969. Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript. Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis XXII. Uppsala, 1961. Gilliard, Frank D. "More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non Omne Verbum Sonabaf'. JBL 112 (1993) 689-96. Ginzberg, Louis. Students, Scholars and Saints. New York and Philadelphia, 1928. Goitein, Shelomo Dov. "Side Lights on Jewish Education from the Cairo Geniza". In: Gratz College Anniversary Volume, ed. Isidore D. Passow and Samuel T. Lachs. Philadelphia, 1971a. 83-99. Goitein, Shelomo Dov. A Mediterranean Society. The Jewish Communities of the Arab World As Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. Vol.2: The Community. Berkeley, 1971b. Goitein, Shelomo Dov. "Dispositions in Contemplation of Death - A Geniza Study". PAAJR 4 6 - 4 7 (1978-79) 155-78.

Secondary

Literature

521

Golb, Norman. "The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124 (1980) 1-25. Golb, Norman. "The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Perspective". The American Scholar 58 (1989) 177-207. Goldin, Judah. "Several Sidelights of a Torah Education in Tannaite and Early Amorical Times". Ex Orbe Religionum. Studia Geo Widengren, Part 1, ed. C.J. Bleeker et al. Leiden, 1972. 176-91. Goodblatt, David. "The Talmudic Sources on the Origins of Organized Jewish Education" (Hebr.). Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel 5 (1980) 83-103. Goodblatt, David. "The Place of the Pharisees in First Century Judaism: The State of the Debate". JSJ 20 (1989) 12-30. Goodblatt, David. The Monarchic Principle. Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. TSAJ 38. Tübingen, 1994. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol.2: The Archeological Evidence from the Diaspora. New York, 1953. Goodman, Martin. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212. Totowa, 1983. Goodman, Martin. "Sacred Scripture and 'Defiling the Hands'". JTS 41 (1990) 99-107. Goodman, Martin. "Babatha's Story". JRS 81 (1991) 6 9 - 7 5 . Goodman, Martin. "Texts, scribes and power in Roman Judaea". In: Literacy and power in the ancient world, ed. Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf. Cambridge, 1994. 99-108. Goodman, Martin. "A Note on Josephus, the Pharisees and Ancestral Tradition". JJS 50 (1999) 17-20. Goody, Jack (ed.). Literacy in Traditional Societies. Cambridge, 1968. Goody, Jack. The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge, 1986. Goody, Jack. The Interface Between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge, 1987. Gordon, Martin L. "Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Symbol?" Tradition 16 (1976-77) 7 - 4 0 . Gordon, Richard. "From Republic to Principate: Priesthood, Religion and Ideology". In: Pagan Priests, ed. M. Beard and J. North. London, 1990. 179-98. Graff, Harvey J. The Labyrinths of Literacy. Reflections on Literacy Past and Present. London, New York, and Philadelphia, 1987. Graham, William A. Beyond the Written Word. Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion. Cambridge, 1987. Green, William Scott. "Writing with Scripture. The Rabbinic Uses of the Hebrew Bible". In: Writing with Scripture. The Authority and Uses of the Hebrew Bible in the Torah of Formative Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner. Minneapolis, 1989. 7 - 2 3 . Greenfield, Jonas C. "Aramaic and Its Dialects". In: Jewish Languages. Theme and Variations, ed. Herbert H. Paper. Cambridge/Mass., 1978a. 2 9 - 4 3 . Greenfield, Jonas C. "The Languages of Palestine, 200 B.C.E.-200 C.E." In: Jewish Languages. Theme and Variations, ed. Herbert H. Paper. Cambridge/Mass., 1978b. 143-54. Greenfield, Jonas C. '"Because He/She Did not Know Letters': Remarks on a First Millenium C.E. Legal Expression". JANES 22 (1993) 3 9 - 4 4 . Griffiths, J. Gwyn. "Egypt and the Rise of the Synagogue". In: Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, vol. 1, ed. Dan Urman and Paul M. Flesher. Leiden, 1995. 3 - 1 6 . Groningen, B.A. van. " E K A O S I 2 " . Mnemosyne s.4 16 (1963) 1-17. Grundmann, Herbert. "Litteratus - illitteratus. Der Wandel einer Bildungsnorm vom Altertum zum Mittelalter". Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 40 (1958) 1 - 6 5 . Gulak, Alexander. Das Urkundenwesen im Talmud im Lichte der griechisch-ägyptischen Papyri und des griechischen und römischen Rechts. Jerusalem, 1935.

522

Bibliography

Gundry, Robert H. "The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine", JBL 83 (1964) 404-8. Gutmann, Joseph (ed.). Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research. Chico, 1981. Haberman, A.M. "On the Tefillin in Ancient Times" (Hebr.). Eretz-Israel 3 (1954) 1 7 4 77. Hachlili, Rachel. "Did the Use of the Alphabet Already Have a Magical Significance in the First Century C.E.?" (Hebr.). Cathedra 31 (1984) 27-30. Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Leiden, 1988. Hachlili, Rachel. "The State of Ancient Synagogue Studies". In: Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Third-Seventh Century C.E., ed. Rachel Hachlili. Proceedings of a Symposium at the University of Haifa, May 1987. BAR International Series 499. Oxford, 1989. 1 5. Hachlili, Rachel. "Synagogues in the Land of Israel. The Art and Architecture of Late Antique Synagogues". In: Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, ed. Steven Fine. New York and Oxford, 1996. 96-129. Hachlili, Rachel. "The Origin of the Synagogue: A Re-Assessment". JSJ 28 (1997) 3 4 - 4 7 . Hachlili, Rachel/Killebrew, Ann. "Jewish Funerary Customs During the Second Temple Period, in the Light of the Excavations at the Jericho Necropolis". PEQ 115 (1983) 109-32. Hadas, Moses. Ancilla to Classical Reading. New York, 1954. Halbertal, Moshe. People of the Book. Canon, Meaning and Authority. Cambridge/ Mass. and London, 1997. Hamers, Josiane F./Blanc, Michel H. Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge, 1989. Halevy, Elimelech Epstein. "Concerning the Ban on Greek Wisdom" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 41 (1971) 269-74. Halperin, David J. The Faces of the Chariot. Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel's Vision. TS A J 16. Tübingen, 1988. Hanson, Ann Ellis. "Ancient Illiteracy". In: Literacy in the Roman World, ed. Mary Beard. Ann Arbor, 1991. 159-98. Haran, Menahem. "Scribal Workmanship in Biblical Times. The Scrolls and the Writing Implements" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 50 (1980-81) 65-87. Haran, Menahem. "Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times". JJS 33 (1982a) 161-73. Haran, Menahem. "Bible Scrolls in the Early Second Temple Period - The Transition From Papyrus to Skins" (Hebr.). Eretz-Israel 16 (1982b) 86-92. Haran, Menahem. "More Concerning Book-Scrolls in Pre-Exilic Times". JJS 35 (1984) 84-85. Haran, Menahem. "The Codex, the Pinax and the Wooden Slates" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 57 (1987-88) 151-64. Haran, Menahem. "On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel". Congress Vol. Jerusalem 1986. VTS 40 (1988) 81-95. Haran, Menahem. "In the Margins of the Codex and the Pinax" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 58 (198889) 523-24. Haran, Menahem. "Archives, Libraries, and the Order of the Biblical Books". JANES 22 (1993) 52-61. Haran, Menahem. "The Books of the Chronicles 'Of the Kings of Judah' and 'Of the Kings of Israel': What Sort of Books Were They?" VT 49 (1999) 156-64. Harnack, Adolf von. Bible Reading in the Early Church. New Testament Studies 51. London and New York, 1912. Harris, William V. "Literacy and Epigraphy". ZPE 52 (1983) 87-111. Harris, William V. "L'analfabetismo e le funzioni della parola scritta nel mondo romano". Quaderni di Storia 14 (1988) 5-26.

Secondary

Literature

523

Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge/Mass, and London, 1989. Harvey, David. "Greeks and Romans Learn to Write". In: Communication Arts in the Ancient World, ed. Eric A. Havelock and Jackson P. Hershbell. New York, 1978. 6 3 78. Harvey, Warren Zev."Rabbinic Attitudes Toward Philosophy". In: 'Open Thou Mine Eyes ...'. Essays on Aggadah and Judaica. W.G. Braude Jubilee vol. Hoboken, 1992. 83-101. Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Rabbis. A Woman's Voice. Boulder, 1998. Havelock, Eric A. The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural Consequences. Princeton, 1982. Havelock, Eric A. The Muse Learns to Write. Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present. New Haven and London, 1986. Hendrickson, G.L. "Ancient Reading". CJ 25 (1929-30) 182-96. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols in one. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, 1991. Hengel, Martin/Deines, Roland. "E.P. Sanders' 'Common Judaism', Jesus and the Pharisees". JTS 46 (1995) 1-70. Hezser, Catherine. Lohnmetaphorik und Arbeitswelt in Mt. 20,1-16. Das Gleichnis von den Arbeitern im Weinberg im Rahmen rabbinischer Lohngleichnisse. NTOA 15. Freiburg and Göttingen, 1990. Hezser, Catherine. Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin. TSAJ 37. Tübingen, 1993. Hezser, Catherine. "Die Verwendung der hellenistischen Gattung Chrie im frühen Christentum und Judentum". JSJ 27 (1996) 371-439. Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. TSAJ 66. Tübingen, 1997. Hezser, Catherine. "'Privat' und 'öffentlich' im Talmud Yerushalmi und in der griechisch-römischen Antike". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol.1, ed. Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 71. Tübingen, 1998a. 423-579. Hezser, Catherine. "The Codification of Legal Knowledge in Late Antiquity: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Roman Law Codes". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and GraecoRoman Culture, vol.1, ed. Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 71. Tübingen, 1998b. 581-641. Hezser, Catherine. "The (In)Significance of Jerusalem in the Talmud Yerushalmi". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 2, ed. Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser. TSAJ 79. Tübingen, 2000a. 11-49. Hezser, Catherine. "Interfaces Between Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 2, ed. Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser. TSAJ 79. Tübingen, 2000b. 161-87. Hezser, Catherine. "Rabbis and Other Friends: Friendship in the Talmud Yerushalmi and in Graeco-Roman Literature". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 2, ed. Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser. TSAJ 79. Tübingen, 2000c. 189-253. Hezser, Catherine. "The Social Status of Slaves in the Talmud Yerushalmi and GraecoRoman Society". Forthcoming in: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 3, ed. Peter Schäfer. Hirshman, Marc. "The Preacher and his Public in Third-Century Palestine". JJS 42 (1991) 108-114. Hobsbawm, Eric. "Introduction: Inventing Traditions". In: The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge, 1983. 1-14. Hopkins, Keith. Conquerors and Slaves. Sociological Studies in Roman History. Cambridge, 1978. Hopkins, Keith. Death and Reburial. Sociological Studies in Roman History 2. Cambridge, 1983.

524

Bibliography

Hopkins, Keith. "Conquest by Book". In: Literacy in the Roman World, ed. Mary Beard. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 3. Ann Arbor, 1991. 133-158. Hopkins, Keith. "Everyday Life for the Roman Schoolboy". History Today 43 (1993) 25-30. Hopkins, Keith. "Numbers, Rabbis and Romans". Paper presented at the JTS conference in March 2000. Unpublished manuscript. Horst, Pieter W. van der. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 2. Kampen, 1991. Horst, Pieter W. van der. "Jewish Funerary Inscriptions. Most Are in Greek". BAR 18 (1992) 46-57. Horst, Pieter W. van der. "Jewish Poetical Tomb Inscriptions". Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. Leiden, 1994. 129-41. Horst, Pieter W. van der. "Neglected Greek Evidence for Early Jewish Liturgical Prayer". JJS 50 (1999) 278-96. Horst, Pieter W. van der. "Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy". Unpublished manuscript. Howard, G./Shelton, J.C. "The Bar-Kokhba Letters and Palestinian Greek". IEJ 23 (1973) 101-2. Hyatt, J. Philip. "The Dead Sea Discoveries: Retrospect and Challenge". JBL 76 (1957) 1-12.

Ilan, Tal. "Notes on the distribution of Jewish Women's Names in Palestine in the Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods". JJS 40 (1989) 186-200. Ilan, Tal. "Julia Crispina, Daughter of Berenicianus, a Herodian Princess in the Babatha Archive: A Case Study in Historical Identification". JQR 82 (1992) 361-81. Ilan, Tal. Jewish Women in Graeco-Roman Palestine. An Inquiry into Image and Status. TSAJ 44. Tubingen, 1995. Ilan, Tal. Integrating Women into Second Temple History. TSAJ 76. Tübingen, 1999. Ilan, Zvi. "The Synagogue and Study House at Meroth". In: Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, vol.1., ed. Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher. Studia Post-Biblica 47,1. Leiden, 1995. 256-88. Illich, Ivan. "A plea for research on lay literacy". In: Literacy and Orality, ed. David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance. Cambridge, 1991. 28-45. Isaac, Benjamin, "The Babatha Archive: A Review Article". IEJ 42 (1992) 62-75. Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East Under Roman Rule: Selected Papers. Mnemosyne Suppl. 177. Leiden, 1998. Jacobs, Martin. Die Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen. Eine quellen- und traditionskritische Studie zur Geschichte der Juden in der Spätantike. TSAJ 52. Tübingen, 1995. Jacobs, Martin. "Römische Thermenkultur im Spiegel des Talmud Yerushalmi". The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 1, ed. Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 71. Tübingen, 1998a. 219-311. Jacobs, Martin. "Theatres and Performances as Reflected in the Talmud Yerushalmi". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 1, ed. Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 71. Tübingen, 1998b. 327-47. Jaffee, Martin. "How Much 'Orality' in Oral Torah? New Perspectives On the Composition and Transmission of Early Rabbinic Tradition". Shofar 10 (1992) 53-72. Jaffee, Martin. "Writing and Rabbinic Oral Tradition: On Mishnaic Narrative, Lists and Mnemonics". JJTP4 (1994) 123-46. Jaffee, Martin S. "A Rabbinic Ontology of the Written and Spoken Word: On Discipleship, Transformative Knowledge, and the Living Texts of the Oral Torah". JAAR 65 (1997) 525-49. Jaffee, Martin S. "The Oral-Cultural Context of the Talmud Yerushalmi. Greco-Roman rhetorical paideia, discipleship, and the concept of Oral Torah". The Talmud Yeru-

Secondary

Literature

525

shalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol.1, ed. Peter Schäfer. T S A J 71. Tubingen, 1998. 2 7 - 6 1 . Jameson-Drake, David W. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. A Socio-Archeological Approach. J S O T Suppl. Series 109. Sheffield, 1991. Jansson, Eva-Maria. "The Magic of the Mezuzah in Rabbinic Literature". Nordisk Judaistik 15 ( 1 9 9 4 ) 5 1 - 6 6 . Johnson, Richard R. The Role of Parchment in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, 1968. Jones, A.H.M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford, 1971. Jones, C.P. " S t i g m a : Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity". J R S 77 (1987) 1 3 9 - 5 5 . Juster, Jean. Les juifs dans l'Empire Romain. Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale, v o l . l . Paris, 1914. Kanarfogel, Ephraim. Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages. Detroit, 1992. Kaster, Robert A. "Notes on 'Primary' and 'Secondary' Schools in Late Antiquity". Transactions of the American Philological Association 113 (1983) 3 2 3 - 4 6 . Kelber, Werner H. The Oral and the Written Gospel. The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Philadelphia, 1983. Kellermann, Mechthild. '"Wenn ihr nun eines von diesen Büchern braucht, so laßt es euch holen' (2 Makk. 2,15)". Z D P V 98 (1982) 1 0 4 - 1 0 9 . Kenyon, Frederic G. Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1951. Kim, Chan-Hie. "Index of Greek Papyrus Letters". Semeia 22 (1981) 1 0 7 - 1 1 2 . Kleberg, Tönnes. Buchhandel und Verlagswesen in der Antike. Darmstadt, 1967. Knox, Bernard M.W. "Silent Reading in Antiquity". G R B S 9 (1968) 4 2 1 - 3 5 . Koffmahn, Elisabeth. Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wüste Juda. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Vol. V. Leiden, 1968. Kraemer, David. "The Intended Reader As a Key to Interpreting the Bavli". Prooftexts 13 (1993) 1 2 5 - 4 0 . Kraemer, Ross S. "Jewish Tuna and Christian Fish: Identifying Religious Affiliation in Epigraphic Sources". H T R 84 (1991) 1 4 1 - 6 2 . Kraus. Thomas J. "'Uneducated', 'Ignorant', or Even 'Illiterate'? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of A T P A M M A T O I (and I A I Q T A I ) in Acts 4.13". NTS 45 (1999) 4 3 4 - 4 9 . Krauss, Samuel. "The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers" J Q R 5 (1893) 1 2 2 - 5 7 and 6 (1894) 8 2 - 9 9 . 2 2 5 - 6 1 . Krauss, Samuel. Talmudische Archäologie. Vol. 3. Hildesheim, 1966 (= Leipzig 1912). Kugel, James. "Early Interpretation: The Common Background of Late Forms of Biblical Exegesis". In: Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer. Philadelphia, 1986. 9 - 1 0 6 . Kühnert, Friedmar. Allgemeinbildung und Fachbildung in der Antike. Berlin, 1961. Lange, Nicholas de. "The Revival of the Hebrew Language in the Third Century C E " . J S Q 3 (1996) 3 4 2 - 5 8 . Lapin, Hayim. "Jewish and Christian Academies in Roman Palestine: Some Preliminary Observations". In: Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective After Two Millennia, ed. A. Raban and K.G. Holum. D M O A 21. Leiden, 1996. 4 9 6 - 5 1 2 . Lapin, Hayim. "Rabbis and Cities in Later Roman Palestine: The Literary Evidence". J J S 50 (1999) 1 8 7 - 2 0 7 . Lapin, Hayim. "Rabbis and Cities: Some Aspects o f the Rabbinic Movement in its Graeco-Roman Environment". The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol.2, ed. Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser. T S A J 79. Tübingen, 2000. 5 1 - 8 0 .

526

Bibliography

Lattimore, Richmond. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana, 1962. Lehmann, Clayton M. "The City and the Text". Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective After Two Millenia, ed. Avner Raban and Kenneth G. Holum. DMOA 21. Leiden, 1996. 381-91. Leiman, S.Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture. The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. Hamden, 1976. Leipoldt, Johannes/Morenz, Siegfried. Heilige Schriften. Betrachtungen zur Religionsgeschichte der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Leipzig, 1953. Levin, Miki, Judaic Epitaphs in the Land of Israel from the Mishnaic and Talmudic Period as a Source for Studying Social Phenomena (Hebr. with English summary). Unpublished MA thesis, Bar Ilan-University, 1998. Levine, Lee I. "Roman Caesarea. An Archaeological-Topographical Study". Qedem 2. Jerusalem, 1975. Levine, Lee I. (ed.). Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem, 1981. Levine, Lee I. The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. Jerusalem and New York, 1989. Levine, Lee I. "The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered". JBL 115 (1996a) 425-48. Levine, Lee I. "Synagogue Officials: The Evidence from Caesarea and Its Implications for Palestine and the Diaspora". In: Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective After Two Millenia, ed. A. Raban and K.G. Holum. DMOA 21. Leiden, 1996b. 392-400. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years. New Haven and London, 2000. Lewis, J.P. "What Do We Mean by Yavneh?" JBR 32 (1964) 125-32. Lewis, Morris Michael. The Importance of Illiteracy. London, 1953. Lewis, Naphtali. Papyrus in Classical Antiquity. Oxford, 1974. Lewis, Naphtali. Papyrus in Classical Antiquity. A Supplement. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 23. Brussels, 1989. Lewis, Naphtali. "The Babatha Archive: A Response". IEJ 44 (1994) 243-46. Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta Kifshuta. 10 vols. New York, 1955-88. Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. 2nd ed. New York, 1962. Lieberman, Saul. Greek in Jewish Palestine. 2nd ed. New York, 1965. Lieberman, Saul. "How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?" In: Texts and Studies. New York 1974. 216-234 (123-41). Lifshitz, Baruch. "L'hellenisation des juifs de Palestine ä propos des inscriptions de Besara (Beth-Shearim)". RB 72 (1965c) 520-38. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Etudes classiques en Israel". Euphrosyne N.S. 3 (1969b) 245-51. Lifshitz, Baruch. "Du nouveau sur l'hellenisation des Juifs en Palestine". Euphrosyne N.S. 4 (1970) 113-33. Long, Elizabeth. "Textual Interpretation as Collective Action". In: The Ethnography of Reading, ed. Jonathan Boyarin. Berkeley, 1993. 180-211. Luz, Menahem. "Abnimos, Nimos, and Oenomaus: A Note". JQR77 (1986-87) 191-95. Luz, Menahem. "A Description of the Greek Cynic in the Jerusalem Talmud". JSJ 20 (1989) 49-60. Luz, Menahem. "Oenomaus and Talmudic Anecdote". JSJ 23 (1992) 42-80. MacMullen, Ramsay. "The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire". AJP 103 (1982) 233-46. Maier, Johann. Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike. Darmstadt, 1982. Maier, Johann. Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer. 3 vols. Munich, 1995— 96. Majer-Leonhard, E. A I T A M M A T O I . Doctoral thesis. Frankfurt, 1913.

Secondary

Literature

527

Malherbe, Abraham J. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. SBL Sources for Biblical Study 19. Atlanta, 1988. Marquardt, Joachim. Das Privatleben der Römer, vol.2. Darmstadt 1990 (= 2nd ed. Leipzig 1886). Marrou, Henri-Irénée. Histoire de l'éducation dans l'antiquité. 6th revised ed. Paris, 1965. Martin, Dale B. "Slavery and the Ancient Jewish Family". In: The Jewish Family in Antiquity, ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen. Brown Judaic Studies 289. Atlanta, 1993. 113-29. Martin, Malachi. The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. Louvain, 1958. Marxsen, Willi. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Eine Einführung in ihre Probleme. 4th ed. Gütersloh, 1978. McCormick, Michael. "The Birth of the Codex and the Apostolic Life-Style". Scriptorium 39 (1985) 150-58. McGuire, Martin R.P. "Letters and Letter Carriers in Christian Antiquity". The Classical World 53 (1960) 148-200. McKitterick, Rosamond (ed.). The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge, 1990. Meier, Samuel A. "Women and Communication in the Ancient Near East". JAOS 111 (1991) 540-47. Mendelson, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College No. 7. Cincinnati, 1982. Merkelbach, R. "Analphabetische Klostervorsteher in Konstantinopel und Chalkedon". Z P E 3 9 (1980) 291-94. Messick, Brinkley. "Legal documents and the concept of 'restricted literacy' in a traditional society". IJSL 42 (1983) 41-52. Metzger, Bruce M. "The Furniture in the Scriptorium at Qumran". RdQ 1 (1958-59) 509-15. Meyer, Elizabeth A. "Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs". JRS 80 (1990) 74-96. Meyers, Eric M. Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth. Secondary Burials in Their Ancient Near Eastern Setting. Biblica et Orientalia 24. Rome, 1971. Meyers, Eric M. "Ancient Synagogues. An Archaeological Introduction". In: Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, ed. Steven Fine. New York and Oxford, 1996. 3-20. Meyers, Eric M. "The Torah Shrine in the Ancient Synagogue: Another Look at the Evidence". JSQ 4 (1997) 303-26. Millar, Fergus. "Epigraphy". In: Sources for Ancient History. Studies in the Uses of Historical Evidence, ed. Michael Crawford. Cambridge, 1983. 80-136. Millar, Fergus. "Empire, Community and Culture in the Roman Near East: Greeks, Syrians, Jews and Arabs". JJS 38 (1987) 143-64. Millard, Alan R. "The Practice of Writing in Ancient Israel". B A 3 5 (1972) 98-111. Millard, Alan R. "An Assessment of the Evidence for Writing in Ancient Israel". In: Biblical Archaeology Today. Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem April 1984, ed. Janet Amitai. Jerusalem 1985. 301-12. With responses by Aaron Demsky ibid. 349-53, and Joseph Naveh ibid. 354. Millard, Alan R. "The Question of Israelite Literacy". BiRe 3 (1987) 23-31. Millard, Alan R. "Were Words Separated in Ancient Hebrew Writing?" BiRe 8 (1992) 44-47. Miller, Stuart S. "On the Number of Synagogues in the Cities of 'Eretz Israel". JJS 49 (1998) 51-66. Mirsky, Aharon. The Beginnings of Piyyut (Hebr.). Jerusalem, 1965. Mirsky, Aharon. The Piyyut: The Development of Post-Biblical Poetry in Eretz Israel and the Diaspora (Hebr.). Jerusalem, 1990.

528

Bibliography

Moehring, Horst R. "The Acta Pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. A Study in Hellenistic and Modem Apologetic Historiography". In: Christianity, Judaism and Other Graeco-Roman Cults. Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Vol.3: Judaism Before 70, ed. Jacob Neusner. Leiden, 1970. 124-58. Moreau, Philippe. "La mémoire fragile: falsification et destruction des documents publics au 1er s. av. J.-C.". In: La mémoire perdue. A la recherche des archives oubliées, publiques et privées, de la Rome antique, ed. Ségolène Demougin. Paris, 1994. 121-47. Morenz, Siegfried. "Entstehung und Wesen der Buchreligion". TLZ 75 (1950) 710-16. Morgan, Teresa. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge, 1998. Morris, Nathan. The Jewish School. An Introduction to the History of Jewish Education. London, 1937. Mussies, G. "Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora". In: The Jewish People in the First Century, vol.2, ed. Shmuel Safrai and Michael Stern. Philadelphia, 1976. 1040-63. Nagakubo, Senzo. Investigation Into Jewish Concepts of Afterlife in the Beth She'arim Greek Inscriptions. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, 1974. Naveh, Joseph. "A Palaeographic Note on the Distribution of the Hebrew Script". HTR 61 (1968) 68-74. Naveh, Joseph. "Hebrew versus Aramaic in the Epigraphic Finds of the Second Temple Until the Bar Kokhba Period" (Hebr.). Leshonenu 56 (1991-92) 301-16. Naveh, Joseph. "On Jewish Books of Magic Recipes in Antiquity" (Hebr.). In: The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (Hebr. and Engl.), ed. Isaiah M. Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer, and Daniel R. Schwartz. Jerusalem, 1996. 453-65. Neusner, Jacob. "The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before A.D. 70: The Problem of Oral Transmission". JJS 22 (1971) 1-18. Neusner, Jacob. "The Written Tradition in the Pre-Rabbinic Period". JSJ 4 (1973) 56-65. Neusner, Jacob. "Oral Torah and Oral Tradition: Defining the Problematic". In: Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner. Brown Judaic Studies 10. Chico, 1979. 59-75. Neusner, Jacob. Formative Judaism. Religious, Historical, and Literary Studies. Brown Judaic Studies 37. Chico, 1982. Neusner, Jacob. "Judaism and Scripture. The Case of Leviticus Rabbah". In: Major Trends in Formative Judaism. Second Series: Texts, Contents, and Contexts. Brown Judaic Studies 61. Chico, 1984. 19-33. Neusner, Jacob. "Religious Authority in Judaism. Modern and Classical Modes". Interpretation 39 (1985) 373-87. Neusner, Jacob. Oral Tradition in Judaism. The Case of the Mishnah. New York and London, 1987. Neusner, Jacob. "Is Judaism a 'Biblical Religion'?" In: Writing with Scripture. The Authority and Uses of the Hebrew Bible in the Torah of Formative Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green. Minneapolis, 1989. 166-82. Neusner, Jacob. Symbol and Theology in Early Judaism. Minneapolis, 1991. Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word. Ancient Israelite Literature. Louisville, 1996. Norman, A.F. "The Book Trade in Fourth-Century Antioch". JHS 80 (1960) 122-26. Olson, David R. "Literacy as metalinguistic activity". In: Literacy and Orality, ed. David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance. Cambridge, 1991. 251-70. Ong, Walter J. The Presence of the Word. Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Religious History. New Haven and London, 1967. Ong, Walter J. Interfaces of the Word. Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture. Ithaca and London, 1977.

Secondary Literature

529

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. London and New York, 1982 (reprinted 1995). Ong, Walter J. "Writing is a Technology That Restructures Thought". The Written Word. Literacy in Transition. Wolfson College Lectures, 1985, ed. Gerd Baumann. Oxford, 1986. Ong, Walter J. "Text as Interpretation: Mark and After". In: Orality, Aurality and Biblical Narrative, ed. Lou H. Silberman. Semeia 39 (1987) 7-26. Oppenheimer, Aharon. The 'Am Ha-Aretz. A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Leiden, 1977. Osborn, E.F. "Teaching and Writing in the First Chapter of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria". JTS 10 (1959) 335-43. Palmer Bonz, Marianne. "Differing Approaches to Religious Benefaction: The Late Third-Century Acquisition of the Sardis Synagogue". HTR 86 (1993) 139-54. Pardee, Dennis. "An Overview of Ancient Hebrew Epistolography". JBL97 (1978) 32146. Pardee, Dennis. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters. A Study Edition. SBL Sources for Biblical Studies 15. Chico, 1982a. Pardee, Dennis. "La lettre araméenne passe-partout et ses sous-espèces". RB 89 (1982b) 528-75. Pastor, Jack. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. London and New York, 1997. Pedley, Katharine Greenleaf. "The Library at Qumran". RdQ 2 (1959) 21-41. Perlow, Towa. L'éducation et l'enseignement chez les juifs à l'époque talmudique. Paris, 1931. Peskowitz, Miriam. "'Family/ies' in Antiquity: Evidence from Tannaitic Literature and Roman Galilean Architecture". The Jewish Family in Antiquity, ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen. Atlanta, 1993. 9-36. Peskowitz, Miriam. Spinning Fantasies. Rabbis, Gender, and History. Berkeley, 1997. Peterson, E. E I S 0 E O 2 . Göttingen, 1926. Pietri, Luce. "Pagina in pariete reserata: épigraphie et architecture religieuse". La Terza Età dell'Epigrafia. Colloquio Aiegl Borghesi 86. Epigrafia e Antichità 9. Faenza, 1988. 137-157. Porton, Bezalel. Archives from Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968. Porton, Bezalel. "ANew Look: Aramaic Papyri and Parchments". BA42 (1979) 74-104. Posner, Ernst. Archives in the Ancient World. Cambridge/Mass., 1972. Preuss, Julius. Biblisch-talmudische Medizin. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Heilkunde und der Kultur überhaupt. New York, 1971 (= first ed. 1911). Rabello, A.M. "The Legal Conditions of the Jews in the Roman Empire". ANRW 11.13 (1980) 662-766. Rabin, Chaim. "Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century". In: The Jewish People in the First Century, vol.2, ed. Shmuel Safrai and Michael Stern. Philadelphia, 1976. 100739. Rajak, Tessa. "Benefactors in the Graeco-Jewish Diaspora". In: Geschichte - Tradition Reflexion. Martin Hengel Jubilee Volume 1, ed. Peter Schäfer. Tübingen, 1996, 30519. Rajak, Tessa/Noy, David. "Archisynagogoi: Office, Title and Social Status in the GrecoJewish Synagogue". JRS 83 (1993) 75-93. Rawson, Elisabeth. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. London, 1985. Reed, Ronald. Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers. London and New York, 1972. Reed, Ronald. The Nature and Making of Parchment. Leeds, 1975. Reeg, Gottfried. Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Literatur. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Nr. 51. Wiesbaden, 1989.

530

Bibliography

Reich, Ronny. "A Note on the Function of Room 30 (the 'Scriptorium') at Khirbet Qumran". JJS 46 (1995) 157-60. Reif, Stefan C. "Aspects of Mediaeval Jewish Literacy". In: The Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. Rosamond McKitterick. Cambridge, 1990. 134-55. Rendsburg, Gary A. "The Galilean Background of Mishnaic Hebrew". In: The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine. New York and Jerusalem, 1992. 225-40. Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. "Hirbet Qumran and the Problem of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves". Leiden, 1963. Resnick, Irven M. "The Codex in Early Jewish and Christian Communities". JRH 17 (1992) 1-17. Reynolds, L.D.AVilson, N.G. Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1974. Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. WUNT 2.42. Tübingen, 1991. Richardson, Peter. "Early Synagogues As Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine". In: Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. John S. Kloppenborg/Stephen G. Wilson. London und New York, 1996. 90-109. Riepl, Wolfgang. Das Nachrichtenwesen des Altertums, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Römer. Leipzig and Berlin, 1913. Roberts, Colin H. "Buried Books in Antiquity. Habent Sua Fata Libelli". Arundell Esdaile Memorial Lecture, 1962. The Library Association. Letchworth, 1963. Roberts, Colin H. "Books in the Graeco-Roman World and in the New Testament". In: The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol.1, ed. PR. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans. Cambridge, 1970. 48-66. Roberts, Colin H./Skeat, T.C. The Birth of the Codex. London, 1983. Rogers, Guy. "The Gift and Society in Roman Asia: Orthodoxies and Heresies". SCI 12 (1993) 188-99. Saenger, Paul. "Silent Reading: Its Impact On Late Medieval Script and Society". Viator 13 (1982) 367-414. Safrai, Shmuel. "Elementary Education, Its Religious and Social Significance in the Talmudic Period". Cahiers D'Histoire Mondiale 11 (1968) 148-69. Safrai, Ze'ev. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London and New York, 1994. Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society. Edinburgh, 1989. Sailer, Richard P./Shaw, Brent D. "Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves". JRS 74 (1984) 124-56. Sarason, Richard. "Mishnah and Scripture: Preliminary Observations On the Law of Tithing in Seder Zera'im". In: Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol.2, ed. William Scott Green. Brown Judaic Studies 9. Chico, 1980. 81-96. Sarna, Nahum M. "The Order of the Books". In: Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature, ed. Henry A. Fischel. New York, 1977. 527-33. Satlow, Michael. "Reconsidering the Rabbinic ketubbah Payment". In: The Jewish Family in Antiquity, ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen. Brown Judaic Studies 289. Atlanta, 1993. 13351. Sawyer, John F.A. Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts. Religion in the First Christian Centuries. London and New York, 1999. Schäfer, Peter. "Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne. Zur Trennung von Juden und Christen im ersten/zweiten Jh. n. Chr.". Judaica 31 (1975) 54-64, 116-24 (reprinted in: Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums. Leiden, 1978. 45-64). Schäfer, Peter. Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand. Studien zum zweiten jüdischen Krieg gegen Rom. TSAJ 1. Tübingen, 1981.

Secondary

Literature

531

Schäfer, Peter. Geschichte der Juden in der Antike. Die Juden Palästinas von Alexander dem Großen bis zur arabischen Eroberung. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1983. Schäfer, Peter. "Jewish Magic Literature in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages". JJS 41 (1990) 75-91. Schäfer, Peter. "Der vorrabbinische Pharisäismus". In: Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. Martin Hengel. Tübingen, 1991. 125-175. Schäfer, Peter. The Hidden and the Manifest God. Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism. Albany, 1992. Schäfer, Peter. "Jewish Liturgy and Magic". In: Geschichte - Tradition - Reflexion, Martin Hengel Jubilee Volume 1, ed. Peter Schäfer. Tübingen, 1996. 541-56. Schams, Christine. Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period. JSOT Suppl. Series 291. Sheffield, 1998. Schiffman, Lawrence H. From Text to Tradition. A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, Hoboken, 1991. Schmitt, Rüdiger. "Die Sprachverhältnisse in den östlichen Provinzen des Römischen Reiches". ANRW II.29.2 (1983) 554-86. Schniedewind, William M. "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage". SBL 118 (1999) 23552. Schrire, T. Hebrew Amulets. Their Decipherment and Interpretation. London, 1966. Schubart, Wilhelm. Das Buch bei den Griechen und Römern. 2nd ed. Berlin and Leipzig, 1921. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.A.D. 135), revised ed. by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Martin Goodman, and Matthew Black. 3 vols, and an index vol. Edinburgh, 1973-1987. Schwabe, Moshe. "The Letters of Libanius to the Patriarch of Eretz Israel" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 1-2 (1930) 85-100. Schwartz, Seth. "Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine". Past and Present 148 (1995) 3-47. Schwartz, Seth. "Gamaliel in Aphrodite's Bath. Palestinian Judaism and Urban Culture in the Third and Fourth Centuries". In: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol.1, ed. Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 77. Tübingen, 1998. 203-17. Schwartz, Seth. "The Patriarchs and the Diaspora". JJS 50 (1999) 208-222. Schwartz, Seth. "On the Program and Reception of the Synagogue Mosaics". Paper presented at the JTS conference in March 2000. Unpublished manuscript. Schwind, Fritz Freiherr von. Zur Frage der Publikation im römischen Recht, mit Ausblicken in das griechische und ptolemäische Reichsgebiet. Munich, 1940. Scribner, Sylvia/Cole, Michael. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge/Mass, and London, 1981. Sedgwick, W.B. "Reading and Writing in Classical Antiquity". The Contemporary Review 135 (1929) 90-94. Sevenster, J.N. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? NT Suppl. 17. Leiden, 1968. Shaw, Brent. "Latin Funerary Epigraphy and Family Life in the Later Roman Empire". Historia 33 (1984) 457-97. Shils, Edward. Tradition. Chicago, 1981. Shinan, Avigdor. '"And the Lord Put a Mark on Cain' - On Targum Jonathan to Gen. 4:15" (Hebr.). Tarbiz 45 (1975-76) 148-50. Shinan, Avigdor. "The Aggadic Literature: Written Tradition and Oral Transmission" (Hebr.). Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 1 (1981) 44-60. Shinan, Avigdor. "Hebrew and Aramaic in the Literature of the Synagogue" (Hebr.). Tura 1 (1989) 224-32.

532

Bibliography

Shinan, Avigdor. "The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry". In: T h e Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine. New York and Jerusalem, 1992. 2 4 1 - 5 1 . Sint, Josef A. Pseudonymität im Altertum. Ihre Formen und ihre Gründe. Innsbruck, 1960. Sirat, Colette. " L e livre hébreux dans les premiers siècles de notre ère: le témoignage des textes". Les débuts du codex, ed. A. Blanchard. Brépols, 1989. 115-24. Sirat, Colette. "Les tablettes à écrire dans le m o n d e j u i f ' . Les tablettes à écrire de l'antiquité à l ' é p o q u e moderne, ed. Elisabeth Lalou. Bibliologia 12. Turnhout, 1992. 53-59. Skeat, T.C. "The Use of Dictation in Ancient Book-Production". Proceedings of the British Academy 42 (1956) 1 7 9 - 2 0 8 . Skeat, T.C. "Roll Versus Codex - A New Approach". Z P E 84 (1990) 2 9 7 - 9 8 . Skeat, T.C. "The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-Advantage of the Codex". Z P E 45 (1992) 1 6 9 - 7 5 . Slusser, Michael. "Reading Silently in Antiquity". J B L 111 (1992) 499. Small, Jocelyn Penny. Wax Tablets of the Mind. Cognitive studies of m e m o r y and literacy in classical antiquity. London and N e w York, 1997. Smith, Morton. "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century". In: Studies in the Cult of Yahwe, vol 1, ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen. Leiden, 1996. 1 0 4 - 1 1 5 . Snyder, H. Gregory. Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World. Philosophers, Jews and Christians. London ans N e w York, 2000. Sperber, Daniel. Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic Literature. Ramat-Gan, 1994. Spolsky, Bernard. "Triglossia and literacy in Jewish Palestine of the first century". IJSL 42 (1983) 9 5 - 1 0 9 . Starr, R a y m o n d J. "The Circulation of Literary Texts in the R o m a n World". C Q 37 (1937) 2 1 3 - 2 3 . Stemberger, Günter. "Die sogenannte ' S y n o d e von J a b n e ' und das f r ü h e Christentum". Kairos 19 (1977) 1 4 - 2 1 . Stemberger, Günter. Das klassische Judentum. Kultur und Geschichte der rabbinischen Zeit. Munich, 1979. Stemberger, Günter. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch. 8th revised ed. Munich, 1992. Stemberger, Günter. "Verdienst und Lohn - Kernbegriffe rabbinischer Frömmigkeit? Überlegungen zu Mishna Avot". Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesungen 1997. Münster, 1998. Stern, M e n a h e m (ed.). Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol.2. Jerusalem, 1980. Stock, Brian. T h e Implications of Literacy. Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Princeton, 1983. Stoddart, Simon/Whitley, James. "The social context of literacy in Archaic Greece and Etruria". Antiquity 62 (1988) 7 6 1 - 7 2 . Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in G r e c o - R o m a n Antiquity. Philadelphia, 1989. Strack, H e r m a n n L./Stemberger, Günter. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrash. 7th edition. Munich, 1982. Street, Brian V. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, 1984. Street, Brian V. "Orality and Literacy as Ideological Constructions: some problems in cross-cultural studies". Culture and History 2 (1987) 7 - 3 0 . Stroumsa, Guy G. "Early Christianity - A Religion of the B o o k ? " Paper presented at the JTS conference in March 2000. Unpublished manuscript. Susini, Giancarlo. "Compitare per Via. Antropologia del Lettore Antico: Meglio, del Lettore R o m a n o " . Alma Mater Studiorum 1.1 (1988) 105-13. Svenbro, Jasper. "The 'Voice' of Letters in Ancient Greece. On silent reading and the representation of speech". Culture and History 2 (1987) 3 1 - 4 7 . Svenbro, Jasper. Phrasikleia. An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece. Ithaca and London, 1993.

Secondary

Literature

533

Swartz, Michael D. "Scribal Magic and Its Rhetoric: Formal Patterns in Medieval Hebrew and Aramaic Incantation Texts from the Cairo Genizah". HTR 83 (1990) 163-80. Swartz, Michael D. "Book and Tradition in Hekhalot and Magical Literatures". JJTP 4 (1994) 189-229. Swartz, Michael D. Scholastic Magic. Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism. Princeton, 1996. Talmon, Shemaryahu. "The Calendar-Reckoning of the Sect from the Judean Desert". SH 4 (1958) 168-73. Talmon, Shemaryahu. "Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, Or the Heard and the Seen Word in Judaism of the Second Temple Period". In: Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. Henry Wansbrough. JSNT Suppl. Series 64. Sheffield, 1991. 121-58. Tarn Steiner, Deborah. The Tyrant's Writ. Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece. Princeton, 1994. Thatcher, Tom. "Literacy, Textual Communities, and Josephus' Jewish War". JSJ 29 (1998) 123-42. Thomas, J. David. "The Latin Writing-Tablets from Vindolanda in North Britain". Les tablettes à écrire de l'antiquité à l'époque moderne, ed. Elisabeth Lalou. Bibliologia 12. Turnhout, 1992. 2 0 3 - 9 . Thomas, Rosalind. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge, 1989. Thomas, Rosalind. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, 1992. Thompson, James Westfall. Ancient Libraries. Berkeley, 1940. Tov, Emanuel. "The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the Origin of these Scrolls". Textus 13 (1986) 31-57. Tov, Emanuel. "The Unpublished Qumran Texts from Caves 4 and 11". BA 55 (1992) 94-104. Tov, Emanuel. "The Unpublished Texts From the Judean Desert". In: New Qumran Texts and Studies. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, ed. George J. Brooke. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah vol. XV. Leiden, 1994. 81-88. Trachtenberg, Joshua. Jewish Magic and Superstition. A Study in Folk Religion. New York, 1970. Treu, Kurt. "Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im Römischen Reich". Kairos 15 (1973) 123-44. Tsafrir, Yoram. "The Byzantine Setting and Its Influence on Ancient Synagogues". In: The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine, Philadelphia, 1987. 147-57. Urman, Dan. "The House of Assembly and the House of Study: Are They One and the Same?" In: Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, vol.1, ed. Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher. Studia Post-Biblica 47,1. Leiden, 1995. 232-55. Vaux, Roland de. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford, 1959. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel. London, 1961. Veltri, Guiseppe. "Zur Traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung des Bewußtseins von einem Kanon: Die Yavneh-Frage". JSJ 21 (1990) 2 1 0 - 2 6 . Veltri, Guiseppe. Eine Tora für den König Talmai. Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur. TSAJ 41. Tübingen, 1994. Veltri, Guiseppe. "Jewish Traditions in Greek Amulets". BJGS 18 (1996) 3 3 - 4 7 . Veltri, Giuseppe. Magie und Halakhah. Ansätze zu einem empirischen Wissenschaftsbegriff im spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Judentum. TSAJ 62. Tübingen, 1997. Veltri, Guiseppe. "On the Influence of 'Greek Wisdom': Theoretical and Empirical Sciences in Rabbinic Judaism". JSQ 5 (1998) 300-317.

534

Bibliography

Vermes, Geza. "Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis". In: Post-Biblical Jewish Studies. Leiden, 1975. 59-91. Vermes, Geza. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran in Perspective. Philadelphia, 1977 (= Cleveland, 1978). Visotzky, Burton L. Fathers of the World. Essays in Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures. W U N T 80. Tübingen, 1995. Wallach, Luitpold. "The Colloquy of Marcus Aurelius With the Patriarch Judah I". JQR 31 (1940-41) 259-86. Wasserstein, Abraham. "Non-Hellenized Jews in the Semi-Hellenized East". SCI 14 (1995) 111-37. Wasserstein, Abraham. "On Donkeys, Wine and the Uses of Textual Criticism: Septuagint Variants in Jewish Palestine". In: The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. Isaiah M. Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer, and Daniel R. Schwartz. Jerusalem, 1996. 119-39. Weinreich, Uriel. Sprachen in Kontakt. Ergebnisse und Probleme der Zweisprachigkeitsforschung. Munich, 1977 (= 2nd ed. The Hague, 1963). Weiss, Zeev. "Social Aspects of Burial in Beth She'arim: Archeological Finds and Talmudic Sources". In: The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine. New York and Jerusalem, 1992. 357-71. White, John L. "The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century B.C.E. to Third Century C.E.". Semeia 22 (1981) 89-112. Wipszycka, Ewa. "Un lecteur qui ne sait pas écrire ou un chrétien qui ne veut pas se souiller? (P.Oxy.XXXIII 2673)". ZPE 50 (1983) 117-21. Wise, Michael O. "Accidents and Accidence: A Scribal View of Linguistic Dating of the Aramaic Scrolls from Qumran". Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3 (1992) 124-67. Woolf, Greg. "Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire". JRS 86 (1996) 22-39. Woude, Adam S. van der. "Pluriformity and Uniformity. Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament". In: Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour o f A . S . van der Woude, ed. J.N. Bremmer/F. Garcia Martinez. Kampen, 1992. 151-69. Yadin, Yigael. Bar-Kokhba. London, 1971. Yadin, Yigael. "The Synagogue at Masada". In: Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. Lee I. Levine. Jerusalem, 1981. 19-23. Yahalom, Joseph. " P i y y u t as Poetry". In: The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine. Philadelphia, 1987. 111-26. Yahalom, Joseph. "Angels Do Not Understand Aramaic: On the Literary Use of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic in Late Antiquity". JJS 67 (1996) 3 3 - 4 4 . Yahalom, Joseph/Sokoloff, Michael. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity (Hebr.). Jerusalem, 1999. Yaron, Reuven. Gifts in Contemplation of Death in Jewish and Roman Law. Oxford, 1960. Yassif, Eli. "The Cycle of Tales in Rabbinic Literature" (Hebr.), JSHL 12 (1990) 103-45. York, Anthony D. The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School". JSJ 10 (1979) 7 4 - 8 6 . Young, Ian M. "Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part 1". VT 48 (1998) 2 3 9 53. Youtie, Herbert C. "Bgaôécoç yocKpwv: Between Literacy and Illiteracy". Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 12 (1971) 239-61. Youtie, Herbert C. "ArPAMMATOS: An Aspect of Greek Society in Egypt". In: Scriptiunculae, vol.2. Amsterdam, 1973a. 611-627. Youtie, Herbert C. "Pétaus, fils de Pétaus, ou le scribe qui ne savait pas écrire". In: Scriptiunculae, vol.2. Amsterdam, 1973b. 677-95.

Secondary

Literature

535

Youtie, Herbert C. " Y I I O r P A O E Y S : The Social Impact of Illiteracy in Graeco-Roman Egypt". ZPE 17 (1975a) 201-21. Youtie, Herbert C. '"Because They Do Not Know Letters'". ZPE 19 (1975b) 101-8. Youtie, Herbert C. "P.Mich.inv.855: Letter from Herakleides to Nemesion". ZPE 27 (1977) 147-50. Zalateo, Giorgio. "Papiri scolastici". Aegyptus 41 (1961) 160-235. Zeev, Miriam Pucci Ben. "Greek and Roman Documents from Republican Times in the Antiquities: What Was Josephus' Source?" SCI 13 (1994) 4 6 - 5 9 . Zeitlin, Solomon. Studies in the Early History of Judaism. History of Early Talmudic Law. New York, 1978. Ziegler, Ignaz. Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die römische Kaiserzeit. Breslau, 1903. Zlotnick, Dov. "Memory and the Integrity of the Oral Tradition". JANES 16-17 (198485) 2 2 9 - 4 1 . Zlotnick, Dov. The Iron Pillar Mishnah. Redaction, Form, and Intent. Jerusalem, 1988. Zolty, Shoshana Pantel. "And All Your Children Shall Be Learned". Women and the Study of the Torah in Jewish Law and History. Northvale and London, 1993.

Index of Literary References 1. Hebrew Bible Gen.

31:9-14

32

4:15 32:5 33:20

33:26

438

217 270 443

2 Sam. 19:6

269

Ex. 12:7.13 12:23 13:1—10. l l f f 13:9 13:9.16 15:26 18:22 20:2-17 21:1 28:4

214 214 481 219 216 443 187 216 187 51; 76

Lev. 15:24

51

76 140 216

Deut. 4:9-10 6:4-9 6:7.20 6:8 6:9 11:13-21 11:18 11:19-21 11:20 17:9 24:1 25:17-19 30:19

'

5:7

153

2 Ki. 18:37

271

Isa. 18:1-2 36:3 39:1 40:31 65:25

268 271 270 412-13 412

Jer.

Num. 1:51 5:23 15:37-41

1 Kl

50 213; 216; 481 43 216; 218 27 213; 216; 481 216 49 27 210 297 154 93

22:24

438

Ez. 9:4 24:15(17)

217; 223 216

Hos. 8:12

201

Hag. 2:23

438

Ps. 46:8.12 89:37 94:1 115:1

443 341 443 443

538 117:2 121:8 138:2

Index of Literary 341 413 443

Ezra 2:55 4:7 6:1 7:10 7:21.25

Qoh. 12:12

142

Song of Songs 7:2

8:1-8

40

1 Chr. 1:1-4

443

Est. 2:23

124 248 160 40 29

Neh. 341

Dan. 3:6

References

411

2 Chr. 160

24:4 34:3

119 119

2. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Arist. 9-10 29 30 35-51 127

1 Macc. 161 161 161 161 460

1 Enoch 12:4 15:1

74 74

Jubilees 4:17 8:3

12:6 12:20

261 260

2 Macc. 2:13-15 2:38-45

160 364

Sir. 49:11

438

Tobit 74 75

8:21

311

3. Qumran Literature CD 20:13

lQSa 198

1QS 5:2 5.23-24 6:6-8 6:13-15 8:11-12

1:6-8

47;

4QSd 198 198 198; 465 198 198

1:1

198

Philo and

539

Josephus

4. Philo and Josephus Philo De Congressu 14 107 Hypothetica 7.13 43 Josephus Ant. 3.8.10(223) 4.8.23 (253) 6.6.4 (120) 7.5.4 (110) 7.11.7 (293) 8.2.6-7 ( 5 0 f f ) 8.2.8 (55) 8.6.2 (159) 9.8.2 (164) 10.4.1 (55) 10.8.5 (149) 11.8.3 (317) 11.8.3 (318) 11.8.3 (319) 12.2.1 (12 ff) 12.2.4 (36) 12.2.5 (49) 12.2.12 (100) 12.4.6 (191) 12.4.7 (196f) 12.4.7 (201) 12.4.10 (225f) 13.2.1 (39) 13.5.4 (145) 13.5.5 (152) 13.5.8 (163f) 13.6.7 (214) 13.9.2 (259f) 13.10.5 f 14.2.3 14.10.1 (188) 14.10.2 (191) 14.10.10 (223) 14.12.2 (304) 14.12.3 (306 f) 14.12.4 (314f) 14.12.6 (323) 15.2.5 (24) 15.6.2 (168) 15.7.10(259) 16.8.4 (250f) 16.10.7 (332) 16.10.9 (355) 16.11.2 (363)

45; 460 297 119 119 119 153 153 466 119 119 119 260; 265 462 260 161 161 161 466 90 90 265 260 266; 461 260; 265 261 261 297 261 199; 201 131 362 236 261; 265 261 261 261 261 263; 266 265-266 297 266 263; 265 263 266; 462

17.5.7 (133) 17.5.7 (134f) 17.9.4 (227) 17.9.5 (228) 18.1.1 (1) 18.5.3 (123f) 18.6.2 (148f) 18.6.6 (182) 20.9.3 (208) 20.12.1 (263) 20.12.1 (265)

263; 462 262 263 263 152 368 263 263; 266 119 91; 243 460

Bell. 1.6.5 (137) 1.13.6 (261) 1.16.6 (317) 1.24.3 (479) 1.26.1 (529) 1.26.3 (528f) 1.27.1 (535) 1.31.1 (602) 1.31.2 (604 f) 1.32.2 (620) 1.32.3 (633) 1.32.6 (641) 1.32.7 (646) 2.2.3 (20) 2.8.12 (159) 2.10.5 (203) 2.12.2 (229f) 2.17.5 (426f) 2.17.6 (426-8) 2.21.6 (614) 4.10.6 (616f) 5.13.1 (532) 6.6.3 (354) 7.3.4 (55) 7.3.4 (61) 7.5.5 (150)

262; 267 261 261 119 119 262 265 91 262 263; 266 266 262; 266 297 297 466 265 195 297 151-2 263; 266 266 119 151 152 152-3 195

C.A. 1.1 (7) 1.7 (31 ff) 1.8 (38) 1.9 (50-51) 1.12 (60) 1.17 (107) 1.17 (111) 1.38-39 2.17 (175) 2.18 (178) 2.25 (204)

297 153 161 91; 466 45; 91; 460 153 153 193 91; 460 42; 45; 91 45; 68; 74; 91; 460

540

Index of Literary

Vita 9(40) 11 (48.50) 16 (84 ff) 36 (180) 41 (204) 44 (216 ff)

91 265 264 265 265 264

References 45 46 47 49 50 51 68

(230 ff) (236 ff) (245) (255) (260) (262) (381)

264 264 264 266 266 266 265

5. New Testament Mk. 2:6 9:14

Eph. 119 119

6:21-22

462

Col. Mt. 11:16-17 20:1-15 25:14-28

4:7-8 341 172 172

Lk. 2:1-2 16:1-8

152 134

Acts 4:13 15:27 19:9 28:21-22

186 462 47 268

462

Ape. 6 6:9 7:2 7:3-4 9:4 14:1 17:5 19:12 19:16 20:4 22:4

233 235 438 217 217;438 217 217 217 217 217 217

6. Rabbinic Literature Mishnah

10:4 10:6 10:9

Ber. 3:3

215

Peah 1:1 2:6 3:6 3:7

93; 214 121 111 112

Kil. 1:1

97

Shebi. 10:1 10:2 10:3

112; 2 9 8 - 9 9 157 298

298 298 111

M.Shen. 4:9 4:10.11 4:11

337 343 345

Shab. 1:3 6:2 8:2 8:3 8:5 10:4 12:3 16:1

48; 75; 4 6 3 222; 440 298 140; 440 267 267 218 193; 217; 247

Rabbinic Er. 10:1 10:3

216 149; 194; 461

Sheq. 3:2

4:3 5:5

466-67 466 75 337 48

Sot.

453; 467

3:8

218

Meg. 1:8 2:1 2:2 2:4 3:1 4:2 4:4 4:4-6 4:5-6 4:8 4:10

247 247; 249 140; 478-79 453 149; 194 453 453 467 453 217 48; 248

M.Q. 364 298 112; 297 123; 481

Yeb. 12:2

111

Ket. 2:3-4 2:8 2:10 4:7 4:7-10 4:8-12 5:1

2:4 3:4 7:1 7:2 7:5 9:14 9:15

44 149

127; 140 125 249 248 123 92 187

Git.

Taan.

1:5 3:3 3:3-4 3:4

298 112; 300 301 299

Ned.

Suk. 3:10

5:7 9:9 10:4 13:8-9

440

Yoma 1:3 1:6 3:11 4:1 7:1

Literature

113; 180; 301; 305 113 180; 305 301 116 301 301

1:1.3 1:1.5 1:4 1:5 2:5 3:1 4:2-9 4:6 5:8 6:5 9:3 9:4 9:4.8 9:4(5) 9:7 9:8(9)

302 113; 180 111; 303 305; 329 180; 483 78 182 480-81 454 267 111; 303 483 113; 180; 183; 304 182 305 180-81; 306-7

Qid. 1:1 1:1-3.5 1:8 1:10 2:1 4:5 4:13 4:14

114; 300 111; 302 158 80 111 153 124 49; 75

B.M. 1:7 1:7-8 1:8 2:8 5:11

298 112; 297 111 461 121; 484

542 10:3.4

Index of Literary 484

Kel. 16:1 23:1 24:7

B.B. 2:3 8:7 10:1 10:1-2 10:2 10:3-4 10:4 10:5.7 10:6

54 112; 300; 113; 133; 112; 298; 299 133;

References

299 305 180; 304; 308 304; 306 121; 125; 303 300 298; 308

128 222; 440 128

Ohal. 17:5

268

Yad. 3:5 4:5 4:6

193 141; 194; 247; 478 71; 194

Sanh. 2:4 4:3 6:6 10:1

147; 210; 212; 215 48; 121 364 142

Mak. 3:6

218 130; 331

Ed. 2:3

121; 298; 483

2:5 2:12 2:20 6:10 8:6 8:7 8:8-10

123 453 216 481

369 187 130; 316 80-81

299 298 298

Maas. 2:3

Abot 1:3 2:5 3:16 5:21

Ber.

Shebi.

Shebu. 7:1

Tosefta

97

M.Shen. 5:3 Bik. 2:8

344 48

Hor. 3:8

187

Men. 3:7 8:6

216 345

Bekh. 8:8

299

Tam. 5:1

216

Qin. 3:6

187

Shab. 1:12 1:13 4:9 4:9-10 8:12 8:13 11:15 11:17 12:3-5 13:1 13:2 13:5 13(14):4 13(14): 11

48; 75 96; 130; 148; 468 222; 440 482 299 140; 297-98; 303 218 75 223 468 148; 247-48; 468 471 143; 222 275

Rabbinic Literature Er. 5:24 8:13.16 8:16

148; 468 149 194

Pes. 10:8

467

Yoma 2:8 4:2

299 248

Meg. 2:4 2:6 2:7.8 2:8 2:13 2:18 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:17 3:20 3:21 3:30 3:31-36 3:38 3:41

467 248-49 453 467 194; 249 453 453 467 247 453 165; 194; 248 48; 454 453 248 48; 75 248

M.Q. 1:12

156

Hag. 1:2

113 115 112; 301

Sot. 7:7 7:21 15:8

249 80 94

Git. 75 102; 456

Suk. 2:5 2:10

3:2 9:3 9:5.6

49; 72; 75; 216; 241

1:1-3 1:4 2:1-2 2:4 2:7 2:7-8 2:8-9 7:6 7:8 7:10-11 7:13

302 306 302 302 302 121;484 300 300 133 305 304

Qid. 1:1 1:2 2:8

49; 111 130 113

B.Q. 7:4 9:1 9:31

121;484 143 143

B.M 1:5 1:5-9 1:9.14 1:20 1:21 2:21 5:23 11:23

299 297; 303 158 299 299 461 299 163

Yeb. 2:1 4:5 6:7 12:15 13:1 14:6-10

113 113 301 111 111 113

Ket. 2:1-3

113

B.B. 8:3 8:8-11 8:14 11:1 11:2.4 11:8 11:9 11:11

156 299 149 305 299 306 133; 308 305

544

Index of Literary

Sanh. 2:6 4:7 4:7-8 9:8-9

121; 268; 485 210; 212; 248 461 364

Mak. 1:2-3 1:4-11 4:15

299 113 218

A.Z.

2:6, 17a 3:8, 17d 3:9,18a 4:6, 18c 5:3, 19c 8:7,21a 8:9,21b

201 114 114 332 454 56; 148 57; 494

Dem. 2 7:4,26b

410 55

Kil.

1:20 3:1 3:7 3:8

93 75; 122 122; 480 187; 481

Hor. 187

2:10

13:21

122

105

M.Shen. 4:9,55b 5:2,56a

129; 344 123

Shab.

76; 141 142; 165; 193; 471 194

Talmud Yerushalmi Ber. 269 216 148; 216-17 165; 194; 217 123; 449 468 449

1:2,3b 1:3,3b 1:6,3c 1:11,4a 6:1, 7d 6:2,8b 6:9,8c 7:1,9b 7:2,9c 8:3, l i b 9:2, 12a 12:3, 13c 12:4, 13d 12:5, 13d 16:1, 15c

123 96 241 275 92-94; 129 211; 213; 222-23; 440; 482 77 468 143 440 123 187 181 221 99; 142; 202; 222; 430; 457; 468

Er.

Peah 1:1, 15c 1:1, 15d

1:1,2a

267

Yad.

3a 3c 4c 6d 7c 9a 11c

410 55

97

274

2:11 2:13 2:19

4 6:1,36(1

2:4,49d

Teb.Y. 2:15

Shebi.

165

Ahal. 17:6

96 468

Maas.

Kel. B.B. 6:9

1:1,27a 9:4,32b

Ter.

Men.

1:3, 1:5, 2:3, 3:5, 4:1, 5:1, 7:5,

References

93 214

3:5,21b 10:3,26a-b

300 461

Rabbinic Literature 10:11, 26c

211; 213

Sheq. 2:5, 47a 98; 4:2, 48a

204 161

Yoma 7:1,44b

163

Suk. 2:5, 53a 3:12, 53d 3:12(15), 54c 5:1, 55b

123 479 49 271

81c 81d 82a 82a

269 51; 273 165 123;484

Hag. 1:7, 76c 1:8, 76c 1:8, 76d 2:1,77b 2:1, 77c

56; 80; 124; 274 269 201 67 221, 223

Yeb. 12:6, 13a

55; 455

Ket.

Bez. 2:7, 61c

274

R.H. 1:6, 57b 2:8, 58b 3:1, 58d

273 275 305

Taan. 3:8, 4:1, 4:2, 4:8, 4:8,

3:1, 3:1, 3:2, 3:4,

545

66d 67c 68a 68d 69a

210; 212 123; 449 55 56; 124 50; 78; 134; 147; 308

Meg. 1:5,70b 1:7, 70d 1:7,71a 1:11,71b 1:11,71c 1:11, 71c-d 1:11,71d 1:11,72a 2:1,73a 2:4, 73b 3:1,73d 3:2, 74a 3:8, 74b 4:1, 74d 4:5,75b 4:10, 75c

461 273 273 250 247 193; 479 52; 78; 140-41; 221; 478 479 249 468 42; 47; 50; 80; 149; 165 269; 272 123 202; 455; 467; 479 55; 77; 124; 454 449

M.Q. 1:5, 80c 2:3, 81b

364 148; 297

1:2, 25b 2:3, 26b 2:4, 26c 2:11, 27a 6:7, 31a 8:11, 32c 9:9-10, 33b 9:11, 33c 11:1, 34b 12:3, 35a 13:1, 35c

115; 301 305 115; 142; 305; 430 305 300 41; 43; 46 303 115; 301 115 468 42; 50

Ned. 4:3, 38c 5:5-6, 39a-b 9:2,41c 10:8, 42b

57 149; 273 194 269

Sot. 1:4, 16d 7:1, 21b 7:2, 21c 7:3, 21c 7:5, 21d 7:6, 22a 9:16, 24c

456 249 227; 248; 250 123 123 454 93

Git. 1:1,43a 1:1,43b 1:5,43c 2:3, 44b 3:1,44c 3:1, 44d 3:2, 44d 4:2, 45c

302 299; 302; 306 302; 306 84; 181; 302; 306; 484 79 302 122-123; 301; 484 122; 484

Index of Literary

546 4:4, 45d 5:3, 46d 6:1,47(1 7:1,48b 7:2, 48d 8:12, 49d 9:5, 50b 9:8, 50c 9:9, 50c 9:9, 5Od

303 269; 303 98; 204 105 302 134 182; 304 303 180; 307; 492 181; 462; 484

114 298 302 49 300 271

B.Q. 8:1, 6b 9:11, 7a 9:14, 7a 10:1,7b

143 114 143; 430 115

115 449 115

54 123 300 300 299 123 134; 308 123

Sanh. 1:2, 18d 1:2, 19a 1:4, 19c 3:2, 21a 3:8, 21c 3:10, 21c 3:12, 21d 10:1, 27d-28a 10:1, 28a 10:2, 28b 11:5-6, 30b

481 49

Hor. 2:5, 46d 3:5,48c

51-52; 77; 272 187

Nid. 271 272

Talmud Bavli Yoma 38b

75

7a

193

Ket. 103b 105b

147 47

Git. 45b

481

B.B.

B.B. 2:3, 13b 6:3, 15c 8:7, 16b 8:8, 16c 8:9, 16c 9:1, 16d 10:1, 17c 10:4, 17c

2:2,41a 4:4, 43d-44a

Meg.

B.M. 1:6, 8a 2:2, 8b 4:2, 9c

A.Z.

3:2, 50c 3:4, 50d

Qid. 1:1, 58b 1:2, 59a 1:3,60a 1:7,61a 3:2, 63d 3:14, 74d

References

21a 21a-b

46 40; 42-43

Sanh. 100a

193

A.Z. 10b-lla

214

Men. 268 268; 275; 468 337 156; 272 115 148; 273 305 105 71; 142; 471 57 216; 269

42b

481

Mass. Soferim 1:13-14 11:2

481 467

Midrashim Mekhilta Pisha 11

214

Rabbinic Pisha 17 Pisha 18 Bachodesh 9

216; 481 49; 75; 216; 481 72; 241

547

Literature 81:2 94:5

55; 455 98

Lev.R. Midr. Tann. to Deut. 26:13

268

Sifre Num. 16

127

Sifre Deut. 19 35 36 41 44 46 161 258 269 344

48; 57-58 216 481 95 217 49; 72; 75; 241 80 194 302 80

ARNA 2 5 6 8 12 15 21 25 36

458 98 73; 81; 127; 141 77; 98; 141 218 51; 76-77; 141 98 480 457

2:5 5:5 7:3 10:3 10:4 11:7 15:4 27:2 30:1 34:12 34:16

51 271 77 58 270 58 468 56; 80 51 332 57; 80

Deut.R. fi-A o.^ PRK 2:5 3:10 5:11 11:16 14:5 15:5 15:17 27:1 27:2

270 154 116 51; 55; 124 58 52; 56; 80 116 51; 57; 80 80

Pes.R. 3:2 5:1

142; 470 455

ARNB 12

76

PRE 21

218

Gen.R. 1:4 1:10 1:11 12:10 18:4 28:13-14 31:8 35:3 36:8 42:3 63:8 63:9 69:4 75:5 81:1

79 221 52; 78 221 241 129 241 214 479-80 57 270; 275 81; 107 129 270 130

Lam.R. Proem 12 1:1 2:2 2:4 2:9 3:9

49 116 50; 78 134 124 52; 55

Midr. Ps. 36:8

218

Songs R. 1:3 7:8

480 411

548

Index of Literary

References

7. Graeco-Roman and Christian Authors Ael. Arist.

John Chrysostom

To Rome 97

64

Homil. 9

Augustine

Libanius

De fide rerum quae non videntur 6.9

Ep. 126 Ibid. 428.3 Or. 1.43 ibid. 1.184-5 ibid. 58.5

144

Cicero De Fin. 3.2.7 Pro Archia poeta 2.3 Sull. 42

102 186 158

1 Clem. 63:3

462

21.9

62

Diog. Laert. 7.168, 174

132

Diod. Sic. 12.12.4

268

Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.4 101 ibid. 6.23 124; 126 Praep. Evang. 350b

166

Gaius Inst. 4.47

311

Jerome Ep. 36 In Matt. 23.5

63 54 63 139

Origen 243

Plato Laws 7 Phaedrus 275a ibid. 276a

66 100 101

Mostellaria 120-54

60

Pliny Ep. 3.5 Ibid. 4.13 Nat. Hist. 13.74-82

468 63 131

Plutarch Cato Major 20 Luc. 42 Quaest. Conv.9.1.3

60 102 61; 70

Ps.-Callistenes

Horace Serm. 1.6.75

9.68.2 9.68 10.62.1-12 14.3-7

Plautus 66

Epiphanius Panarion 30.11

147 147 126 126 143

Martial

Cont. Cels. 2.34

Dio Chrysostomus

220

63

1.8.21

131

Quintillian 166 168

Inst. 2.21.16 10.3.31ff

186 127

549

Graeco-Roman and Christian Authors Seneca De benef. 5.13.3 Epist. 33.9 Tranq. 9

Theodosius of Alexandria 186 100 168

186

Theophrastus

Ulpian Dig. 50.15.4.1

Tacitus Dial. 8.204

221

Hist, plant. 4.8.4 131

Sueton De gram. 4

Peri Gram, p.4

185

155

Index of Names and Subjects

abbreviation 181, 335, 339 abecedary 30, 33, 85-88, 90, 219-220, 335 abecedary inscription 33, 2 1 9 - 2 2 0 academy 39, 102-103, 226 accounting 80, 349 aedicula 163 agoranomos 351 Alexander the Great 99-101, 119, 131, 224, 229-230, 248, 260, 262, 265-266, 315, 369, 4 3 6 - 4 3 7 , 461 alphabet 5, 18-20, 52, 70, 80, 83-87, 9 0 - 9 5 , 127, 130, 217-221, 241-242, 335, 416, 436, 439, 464, 493 am ha-aretz 1 8 7 , 2 2 5 , 4 8 1 amulet 140, 221-223, 4 3 8 - 4 4 4 , 482, 493 ancestral tradition 190, 199, 201 anonymous 49, 54, 56, 93, 115-116, 143, 180, 182, 221, 247, 267, 298, 3 0 6 - 3 0 7 , 365, 379, 4 0 2 - 4 0 3 , 424, 442, 494 Antoninus 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 , 2 1 4 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 1 apocrypha 141-142 apotropaic 85-86, 213-215, 217, 219-220, 226 Arabia 155, 159, 309, 313, 317, 329, 386, 499 Arad 258, 296 archisynagogue 382, 387-389, 399, 4 0 6 - 4 0 7 , 454 archive 110, 150, 151, 152-157, 159, 183-184, 275, 296, 309-310, 312, 315, 317-319, 425, 434, 486, 490, 499 Aristeas 100, 1 6 1 , 4 6 0 , 4 6 6 artisan 125, 347, 354, 366, 368, 406, 408, 409, 415, 488 audience 19, 66, 186, 206, 242, 357, 428, 445, 452, 4 5 5 - 4 5 6 , 465 authorship 280, 395, 396, 424, 426, 469 Babatha 110, 116, 155, 157-159, 183-184, 275, 289, 309-319, 323, 327, 329, 393, 472, 475, 483, 4 8 5 - 4 8 7 , 4 9 0 - 4 9 1 , 498-499 Bar Kokhba 45, 50, 127, 151, 159, 227-228, 233, 235, 276, 277-289, 309, 320,

322-324, 327, 342, 351-352, 354, 365, 4 1 4 - 4 1 5 , 419, 447, 464, 485, 487, 490 bath 168, 342, 349, 418, 468 benefactor 297, 351, 398, 462 betrothal 111, 113-114, 117, 130, 149, 273, 297, 300, 303, 484 bibliophylakes 152 bilingual 120, 124, 174, 227, 237-239, 243-244, 345-346, 352, 367, 3 7 4 - 3 7 5 , 377-380, 3 8 4 - 3 8 7 , 3 9 4 - 3 9 5 , 399, 438, 441,462,475 bilinguality 237, 238 book price 145 book publisher 145 book religion 29, 191, 208, 209 (see also under: religion of the book) bookseller 145-147, 150, 163, 422, 424 bookshop 145-146 book trade 145-146 boundary stone 363 bureaucracy 9, 10, 25, 156 burial 85, 219-220, 232, 234, 251, 348, 356, 3 6 4 - 3 6 6 , 368-370, 372-378, 380, 382, 3 8 4 - 3 8 5 , 387-390, 392, 3 9 4 - 3 9 7 , 413, 4 1 8 - 4 2 0 , 4 4 5 - 4 4 7 , 4 6 5 - 4 6 6 , 4 8 6 - 4 8 7 , 492, 5 0 0 - 5 0 1 Caesarea 99, 102, 104, 146, 167, 171, 174-175, 195, 234, 236, 240, 249, 272, 274, 347-349, 351-352, 354, 362, 374, 3 7 6 - 3 8 0 , 382, 384, 387, 395, 399, 400, 4 0 5 - 4 0 6 , 409, 4 1 2 - 4 1 3 , 418, 4 2 0 - 4 2 1 , 4 3 7 - 4 3 8 , 473, 501 calculate 73 calendrical 142, 269, 273-274, 410 canon 137, 142, 161, 165, 192-193, 225, 470 canonical 135, 141, 161, 471, 478 canonicity 193, 471 canonization 135, 192-193, 478, 501 capsae 136 cemetery 219, 224, 229, 234, 245, 352, 373, 384, 389, 417, 420, 473, 486, 492, 501

Index of Names and census 152, 184, 312, 318 chakham 187, 188 (see also under: sage) charity 57, 95, 154, 332, 402 charm 89, 441, 443, 482, 493 chazzan 48, 55, 163, 187, 375, 404, 454, 455 cheirochrestes 322, 329, 484 Chester Beatty papyri 136 children 18, 28, 33, 37, 40-63, 65, 66-75, 77-84, 88-95, 98, 106, 109, 112, 118, 122, 124, 129-130, 141, 147, 189, 199, 213, 238-243, 315, 341, 352, 364, 367, 369, 375-376, 391, 405-406, 439, 456, 459-460, 466, 468, 474, 493 Christianity 5, 12, 23, 66, 99, 101, 104, 138, 190-191, 195, 200, 220, 257, 445, 471,493,494 city 34-36, 42, 45, 61, 63-64, 66-67, 70, 75, 80, 91, 104, 106, 108, 110, 119-120, 122, 134, 151, 155-156, 167, 170-172, 174-176, 231-232, 236, 240, 243-245, 255, 261, 264-265, 271, 285, 292, 294, 351, 358, 361-362, 368, 374-379, 395, 400, 402, 406, 4 2 0 - 4 2 1 , 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 , 449, 457, 460, 472-475, 487, 489, 496-497, 499-502 (see also under: urban) codex 128-129, 136-139, 143-144, 194, 204, 334, 469, 497, 504 codification 422, 435, 494 coin 352 comes 43, 61-62, 78, 133-134, 210, 246, 275, 294, 304, 308, 342, 380-381, 401, 4 0 4 - 4 0 5 , 458 commentary 54, 131, 142, 207, 216, 268, 298, 307 composition 9, 19, 25, 31, 62, 73, 99, 204-205, 242-243, 248, 393, 422-423, 4 2 6 - 4 2 7 , 429, 4 3 0 - 4 3 1 , 4 3 4 - 4 3 5 , 469, 476 congregation 47, 191, 247, 402-403, 408, 454, 4 6 4 - 4 6 8 , 470 copyist 122, 125, 145, 147 copyright 145, 422, 424, 434 council 119, 151, 175, 1 9 3 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 5 - 2 6 6 , 311,313-314, 461 countryside 35,45, 170-171, 175-176, 231, 400, 421, 447, 474, 488, 496, 501 (see also under: rural) court 1 6 , 2 2 , 2 6 , 115-116, 133-134, 152, 154, 157-158, 161, 210, 256, 269, 272, 298, 303-305, 308, 311, 315, 317, 319, 3 2 5 , 3 2 8 , 4 8 9 , 491 craft 19, 29, 73, 123 craftsman 63, 99, 173, 332, 353, 375, 444 curriculum 48, 72-74, 199, 204

Subjects

551

debt 316, 325 dedication 234, 348, 359, 362, 398, 400, 402-409, 411-413, 421, 445-446, 472, 492 dedicator 362 delivery 173, 255-256, 278-279, 284, 286-287, 302, 331, 336-337, 353, 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 , 469, 475, 487, 489, 491 dialectics 13 Diaspora 91-92, 122, 153, 189,211, 231-233, 237, 240-245, 268, 271, 306, 342, 367, 374, 379, 381-382, 384, 386-387, 389, 395, 405, 407, 420, 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 , 460, 466, 501 dictating 3 2 , 7 9 , 2 0 4 , 2 6 8 , 2 8 2 , 4 6 8 , 4 7 4 , 4 8 5 dictation 425, 434 Diocletian 125, 138, 270, 275 Divine name 210, 214, 218, 221-222, 226, 439 divorce 78-79, 112-113, 115-116, 121-123, 133, 180-183, 267, 269, 295-298, 301-306, 320, 322, 324-325, 327-330, 475, 483-484, 490, 493, 502 donation 114, 402, 4 0 6 - 4 0 9 , 421, 492 double document 154, 313, 319, 325, 328 economic 2, 4 - 5 , 8, 10, 16-17, 22, 25, 45, 63, 67, 74, 95, 118, 138, 145, 169, 171, 176, 240, 254, 291, 294-295, 340, 346, 353-356, 359, 396, 412, 435, 447, 489, 491,492, 494, 500-502 economy 25, 108, 178 editing 203, 427, 428, 429 Egypt 26, 29, 70, 91, 104, 120, 130-132, 135, 136, 139, 145, 150-152, 154-156, 177-178, 180, 194, 214, 236, 244, 253, 266, 285, 294-295, 309-310, 323, 325, 343, 362, 379, 425, 436, 478, 488, 490, 499-500, 502 Elephantine 73, 127, 139, 163, 259, 275, 285, 294, 296 En Gedi 155, 276-280, 283, 311, 322, 403, 411-412 entertainment 16, 398, 458, 472 ephebeia 64, 107 epigram 392 epistolary form 255, 259 epistolography 257 epitaph 338, 359, 370, 377, 380-384, 386, 388-389, 392-394, 396, 405 erasure 96, 133-134, 221 error 131, 139 Essene 230, 282 Esther 116, 140, 193, 222, 247, 249, 273, 375,453,461,467-468,479

552

Index of Names and

etrog 277, 364, 376 eudaimonia 421 euergetism 398, 401, 419, 445, 449, 492, 501 eulogy 341 excommunication 273-274 exercise 74, 85, 87-89, 169, 254, 298, 357 Ezra 29, 4 0 - 4 1 , 45, 124, 160, 192, 247-248, 426, 466, 480 farmer 226, 488 female 18, 124, 262, 341, 352, 368, 442-443, 467, 472, 498 (see also under: women) fraud 134, 177, 293, 308-309 fraudulent 134, 177, 293, 308 friendship 177-178, 256-258, 260-261, 270, 289, 359, 449, 488, 492 Galilee 54-55, 119, 153, 164, 172, 176, 228, 233, 264, 268, 365, 373-374, 382, 385, 391, 395, 409, 420, 4 9 6 - 4 9 7 gem 438-439, 443, 493 genealogy 142, 153 gentile 51, 58-59, 76, 79, 103, 106, 122-123, 129, 141, 156, 171, 270, 275, 279, 302-306, 329, 414, 4 8 0 - 4 8 1 get 7, 9, 78, 112, 116, 130, 151, 256, 263, 301-302, 304, 306-307, 425, 493,501-502 girl 93, 108 graffiti 21, 27, 28, 86, 203, 252, 331, 335, 340, 354, 364, 366, 394, 413-419, 437, 445, 4 8 6 - 4 8 7 , 500 grammar 13, 73, 81-83, 91, 94, 107-108, 232, 315, 393 grammatikos 82 grammatistes 82 grammatophy lakes 152 Greek education 39, 59, 63, 68, 90, 91, 92, 93, 106, 189, 232, 234, 240, 243, 392, 426,441,466 Greek law 156, 159, 231, 312 Greek literature 91, 166-167, 231, 243, 392, 395, 415, 456, 460 Greek loanwords 143,231-232 Greek wisdom 103, 106-107, 189 guardian 161, 1 8 3 - 1 8 4 , 2 6 4 , 3 1 4 - 3 1 5 , 318-319, 321, 381 gymnasia 64, 66, 107, 167, 175 halisah 111, handwriting 177, 179, 276-277,

117, 298, 328 84, 119, 138, 145-146, 181, 185, 262, 267-268, 270, 282, 289, 296, 305, 313-314,

Subjects

318, 321, 326, 451, 464, 474, 476, 483-484 Hekhalot 36, 209, 219, 224-225, 436 herald 449 heresy 193 heretic 101, 192, 216, 258, 471, 4 8 1 - 4 8 2 Herod 90-91, 119, 152, 167, 261-263, 265-266, 297, 315, 341, 346, 351, 371, 414, 461, 466 Herodion 86-88, 220, 331, 340-342, 347, 354, 4 1 4 - 4 1 5 , 418-419, 487, 500 hierarchy 3, 26, 71, 180, 189, 231, 421, 450, 503 holiness 47, 193, 210, 212, 247, 269, 401, 404, 498 holy book 4, 126, 190, 427 holy language 49, 72, 229, 241, 249, 400, 439 holy place 398, 400, 402, 408, 494 Homer 19, 61, 70-71, 74, 77-78, 82, 135, 176, 188-189, 240, 392-393, 395, 471 honor 165, 194, 225, 242, 256, 357, 386, 398, 402-403, 407-408, 4 2 0 - 4 2 2 , 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 , 462, 473, 488, 492, 501, 503 hypographeus 294, 329, 476, 482, 483, 484, 487, 490 illiteracy 3, 6, 8, 34-35, 169, 175-178, 180, 182, 184, 255, 307, 329, 454, 467, 498-499 illiterate 4, 8, 11, 15-16, 22-25, 31, 33, 35, 88, 132, 169-170, 174, 177, 178-184, 186, 196, 199, 209, 226, 293-294, 307, 314, 316, 318, 321, 329, 359, 361, 368, 372, 449, 451, 458, 462, 467, 472-473, 476, 484, 487, 498, 500, 502-503 immortality 389 incantation 223 inheritance 112, 273, 301, 319, 327, 329, 344, 475, 490 ink 79, 84, 87-88, 121, 127-128, 130, 133, 140-142, 181, 218, 276, 286, 302, 336, 339, 342, 345, 366, 475, 4 7 9 - 4 8 0 intercalation 268-269, 273 interpretation 9, 12, 24, 26, 47, 56, 87, 97, 162, 188, 191, 197-200, 235, 248, 282, 320, 339, 350, 370, 432, 453, 493, 498 Islam 494, 504 Jaffa 374-375, 377-382, 384, 386-387, 395, 420 Jerusalem 30, 32, 36, 4 1 - 4 3 , 47, 50, 52, 59, 64, 80, 86, 90, 110, 118-123, 134, 151-153, 157, 160-161, 163-164, 192, 195, 231, 233-235, 264-266, 271, 273,

Index of Names and 285, 297, 308, 342, 344, 347, 350-351, 354-356, 365, 366-371, 373, 377, 384, 394, 396, 405, 413, 418-419, 445-446, 461,483,486 jewelry 223, 331, 351-352, 440, 444 John of Gishala 263 judge 45, 55, 168, 187, 255, 272, 390, 404, 454 jurispudence 108 ketubbah 301, 312, 316, 319, 322 king 48, 51, 57-60, 65, 79, 116, 119, 121, 147-148, 153, 161, 210, 214-215, 217, 260, 262, 265-266, 269-271, 332, 351, 405, 461, 466, 484

label 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 , 2 5 1 , 3 3 7 Lachish 32, 73, 258, 296 Latin 16, 23, 59, 61, 83, 89, 91, 103, 107, 138-139, 143, 156, 166, 176, 227, 233-236, 244, 246, 250, 279, 311, 313-314, 318, 335, 346-348, 354, 356-357, 362-363, 367, 370, 373-374, 391,394, 3 9 6 , 4 1 4 , 4 1 6 , 463 law 12, 19, 32, 56, 60, 68-69, 76, 91, 93, 103-104, 108, 113, 115, 124, 136, 140, 155-157, 159, 182, 185, 191, 198, 201, 208, 231, 236, 272, 292, 297, 302, 312, 319, 344, 391, 404, 407-408, 4 1 0 - 4 1 2 , 435, 460 lectio 46, 455 lector 179, 454 lecture 73, 246, 455 letter carrier 256, 265, 270 letter mysticism 220-221 Letter of Aristeas 100, 161, 460, 466 letter of recommendation 269 letter-writing 127, 253-254, 257-259, 263, 274, 284-290, 492, 502 Levite 379, 404, 454 Libanius 104, 106, 122, 126, 143, 146-147, 189, 274 liberales artes 107 librarius 313 library 32, 37, 102-103, 110, 150, 160-168, 202, 204, 260, 297, 425, 434,440, 457, 4 7 1 , 4 9 8 list 22, 32, 55, 87, 92, 97, 141, 178, 185, 187, 219, 248, 253, 315, 320, 333-335, 371-372, 375, 377, 411, 415, 486 literacy 1-39, 82, 90, 121, 169-170, 173-180, 185, 190, 196, 199, 225, 246, 251, 253-254, 288, 340, 374, 416, 419, 431, 449, 458, 465-466,

Subjects

553

473, 483, 488-491, 496, 498, 500, 502-504 literacy rate 1, 20, 23, 26, 29, 35, 458, 496, 502 liturgy 72, 191, 223-224, 249, 410, 413, 436, 4 5 3 - 4 5 4 loan 115, 121, 143, 161, 292, 295, 297-301, 307, 311-312, 320-322, 327-328, 330, 484 love charm 441, 443, 482, 493 Lucullus 102, 168 lulav 277, 364, 376 magic 38, 85-87, 190, 209-210, 212, 213, 220, 222-223, 224-225, 416, 4 3 6 - 4 3 7 , 439-441, 443-444, 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 , 471, 493, 503 magical 6, 12, 22, 85-87, 89, 190, 209, 210-213, 218-220, 222-224, 226, 252, 335, 349-350, 4 3 6 - 4 4 1 , 443-444, 482 mail delivery 255 manuscript 40, 46, 57, 137, 148, 166, 235, 375, 4 2 6 - 4 2 7 , 433-434, 458, 463, 470, 477, 494, 497, 504 market 77-79, 93, 120, 152, 158, 174, 242-243, 245, 351, 354, 362, 486 marriage 93, 111-113, 115-116, 122, 154, 159, 182-183, 258, 294-295, 297-298, 300-301, 303, 309-310, 312, 314, 316-317, 319-322, 324-325, 327-330, 404, 464, 475, 482, 484, 490 Massada 168, 345 measure 73, 93, 154, 319, 414, 435, 471 medallion 437-438, 443 medical 87, 166, 441 medicine 106, 223-224, 398, 470 medieval 11-12, 15, 36, 117, 143, 169, 191, 196-197, 251, 292, 436, 463 (see also under: Middle Ages) memorization 22, 96, 99-100, 204, 427-429, 451, 461, 469 memory 2, 6, 21, 82, 97-98, 100, 147, 197, 203-205, 207, 255, 338, 375, 378, 388-389, 392, 419, 422-423, 427, 431, 434, 451, 458-459, 462, 464, 467, 476, 479-480, 491 menorah 86, 274, 364, 375-376, 378-379, 384, 394,417 merces 63 merchant 80, 240, 333, 379, 387-388, 405, 474 meturgeman 455 (see also under: translator) mezuzah 27-28,38, 110,123-124, 140-141, 187, 190, 210, 213-217, 219, 221, 223, 226, 247, 436, 440, 479, 4 8 1 - 4 8 2

554

Index of Names and

Middle Ages 9, 13, 16,65, 114, 117, 146, 294, 426, 432, 469, 503 (see also under: medieval) Midrash 49, 52, 80, 142, 191, 206, 208, 218, 2 7 0 , 4 1 2 - 4 1 3 , 4 4 6 , 456 milestone 26, 363 military 30-31, 90, 107, 236, 255, 260-261, 264-265, 267, 275-277, 283, 286-290, 294, 313, 333, 335, 337, 363, 415, 417, 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 , 449, 472, 485, 487, 501-502 minim 1 4 2 , 1 9 3 , 4 7 1 , 4 8 1 Mishnah 48-50, 5 4 - 5 7 , 75, 78-82, 92, 9 5 , 9 7 , 111-114, 121-122, 125, 128, 130, 134, 142, 148, 156, 180-182, 187, 201-203, 206-208, 210, 213, 216, 218, 228, 242, 246, 267, 298, 300-302, 304, 306-308, 328, 344, 364, 422, 427, 428-434, 447, 4 6 6 - 4 6 7 , 469-471, 484, 491,494, 500 mnemotechnics 205, 423 mobility 13, 22, 37, 169, 176, 235 monarchy 29, 30 monastry 413 mother tongue 94, 228, 231, 233, 236-237, 240-242, 244-246, 249, 293, 310, 319, 323-324, 393, 460, 463, 486 multilingual 1 1 , 1 8 0 , 2 3 8 , 2 4 3 - 2 4 6 multilingualism 227 Nabatean 154, 157, 183, 285, 287, 309, 314-319, 326-327, 345,483 nasi 55, 106, 124, 187, 193, 214, 270, 276, 384, 454 (see also under: patriarch) nickname 181, 335 nomina barbara 224 notarius 423 notary 1 2 5 , 1 5 2 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 3 notebook 96-97, 1 2 9 - 1 3 0 , 2 0 3 , 4 3 3

onomatothesis 462 oracular 194 oral composition 1 9 , 2 0 5 , 4 2 9 , 4 3 1 oral genre 431 Oral Torah 9, 76, 95, 98, 101, 190, 201-204, 207, 470, 493 oral tradition 12, 42, 80, 99-101, 202, 205-206, 423, 429, 433 orator 82, 186 oratorial 185 orthodoxy 5, 19, 192-193,455 orthographic 376, 380, 477, 486 orthography 320, 373, 476, 477 ossilegium 364-365, 372 ossuary 36, 85, 217, 219, 228-229,

Subjects

234-235, 343, 356, 363, 364-374, 384, 389-390, 394-396, 419-420, 445-446, 465, 472, 486 Oxyrhynchus 136, 484 paedagogue 48, 57-61, 65, 79 pagan religion 207 paganism 23, 40, 195, 493 palaestra 66 papyrus 24, 30-31, 70, 73, 77-78, 84-85, 87, 89-90, 110, 132, 135-136, 166, 168, 172, 177-178, 182-184, 230, 233, 251, 254, 296, 304, 307, 309-312, 314-317, 320, 322, 329, 356, 393, 472, 475, 484, 486-487 Papyrus Nash 89 parnas 148, 174, 332, 351, 402, 4 0 4 - 4 0 5 patriarch 59, 65, 92, 93, 103, 106, 187, 189, 193, 268, 269, 270, 271, 274, 275, 405, 485, 492, 502 (see also under: nasi) patriarchal 59, 90, 92, 94, 466 patron 256-258 patronage 258, 269, 289, 449, 488, 492 patronym 367 performance 99, 169, 203, 311, 350, 469 Pergamum 138-139 Pharisaic 41, 68-70, 189, 199, 201 Pharisee 4 2 , 4 6 , 6 8 - 6 9 , 189, 191, 194, 199-201,342, 3 6 5 , 4 6 6 philosophical 19, 21, 34, 99-100, 104-107, 166-167, 186, 188-189, 256-258, 377, 455, 4 6 9 - 4 7 0 philosophy 11,40, 82, 101, 103-108, 185 philotimia 362, 398 phylacteries 38, 190, 211 (see also under: tefillin) pinax 96, 127-130, 136, 139, 276, 331 poetic 1 4 2 , 3 8 8 , 3 9 1 , 3 9 2 - 3 9 3 , 3 9 5 , 415-416, 420, 486 power 4, 10-12, 15, 19, 24-26, 32, 38, 58, 68, 113, 151, 189, 192, 195-196, 209-211, 213-215, 218-221,223, 225-226, 238, 240, 254, 263, 271-272, 341, 363, 411-412, 435, 437-439, 443-444, 450, 453, 489, 492, 4 9 4 - 4 9 5 , 502-503 prayer 48, 53, 123, 136, 229, 249, 347, 398,410, 449, 453,454, 458 presbyter 377, 387, 405 price 115, 125, 126, 130, 145, 146, 262, 3 6 3 , 3 6 5 , 3 6 6 , 4 4 4 , 481 priest 4, 76-77, 90, 119, 151, 153, 161, 182, 187, 260-261, 265-266, 275, 297, 304, 345, 368, 370-371, 375, 378-379, 388, 401, 404, 407, 454, 460-461, 466, 470

Index of Names and priestly 19, 24, 29, 68, 135, 153-154, 163, 198-199, 297, 325-326, 339, 345, 351, 355, 366, 370-371, 375, 398, 400, 409-410, 422, 4 2 7 , 4 6 0 property 12, 20, 58, 107, 110-117, 120, 134, 149, 152, 154-155, 157, 159, 172, 198, 261, 277, 280, 291, 295-296, 298, 300-301, 303-304, 310-312, 314, 316-317, 319, 323-325, 327, 358, 391, 408, 449, 4 7 4 - 4 7 5 , 483, 487-488, 4 9 0 - 4 9 1 , 4 9 8 , 501-502 prophet 269 prophetic 165, 191 prosbul 158 pseudepigrapha 141-142, 424 publication 145, 162, 280, 282, 284, 315-316, 318, 342, 347-348, 352, 362-363, 424, 427-428, 430, 432, 435,491 punctuation 8 2 , 4 5 1 , 4 6 3 Qumran 36, 47, 86-87, 89, 110, 141-142, 144, 146, 161-163, 165-166, 168, 192, 198-200, 216, 228, 230, 235, 282, 2 8 4 285, 287, 325-327, 333, 347, 354, 410, 422, 4 2 6 - 4 2 7 , 447, 465, 476-478, 498 reader 4, 18, 54-55, 65, 82, 138, 145, 148, 176, 179, 197, 225, 242, 245, 257, 378, 392, 431-432, 451, 453-455, 458-459, 462-467, 470, 472-474, 4 9 7 - 4 9 8 receipt 275, 299, 311, 318-320 recommendation 68, 77, 125, 255, 258, 263, 266, 269, 274 record-keeping 131, 173 Rehov 3 9 8 - 3 9 9 , 4 0 9 - 4 1 1 , 4 1 3 religion of the book 1, 4, 9, 23, 190, 504 (see also under: book religion) rhetor 104, 189 rhetoric 13, 99, 101, 104, 106-108, 146 rosh ha-knesset 454 rumor 124, 206, 449 rural 16, 23, 34-35, 131, 157, 169, 170-173, 176, 182, 241, 244, 329, 365, 447, 473-474, 496, 501 (see also under: countryside) sacred 2, 4, 12, 135, 140, 144, 163, 194-196, 207, 210, 223, 229, 357, 391, 398, 443, 457, 471, 478, 503 sacredness 195, 210 sage 101, 184, 187, 206 (see also under: chakham) salary 45, 57, 63, 80, 104, 121-122, 125, 132, 161

Subjects

555

sale 115, 121, 134, 148, 156, 292, 294, 297, 303, 312, 316, 320-321, 323-325, 327, 391,464, 4 8 1 , 4 8 4 sales document 3 0 3 , 3 1 5 Salome Komaise 110, 154, 157-159, 184, 275, 289, 309, 317-321, 323, 327, 329, 393, 464, 472, 475, 483, 485, 487, 490, 498 Samaria 30, 32, 296 Samaritan 75, 122-123, 156, 305-306, 349, 3 7 1 , 3 8 1 , 4 3 7 - 4 3 9 Sarha-Torah 225 scholarius 342 scholasterion 102-103, 457 scholasticus 4 0 5 - 4 0 6 school papyri 70, 77-78, 84-85, 89 science 3 scientific 19, 227 scribal 5, 16, 22, 29-30, 32-34, 68, 79, 85-89, 98, 118-120, 122, 124-126, 135, 138, 143, 146, 180, 219-220, 283, 422, 424, 432, 434, 4 7 6 - 4 7 9 , 484, 497 scribe 9, 16, 19, 30, 40, 48, 51-52, 54-56, 63, 68, 74-75, 79, 86-88, 110, 116, 118-125, 133, 145-146, 177-178, 180, 182, 187, 202, 204, 228, 255, 267-268, 270, 277-278, 280-283, 288, 296, 300, 302, 304, 306, 309, 313-314, 316, 318-322, 324-326, 332-333, 343, 372, 380, 404, 422, 4 2 4 - 4 2 5 , 444, 4 5 4 - 4 5 5 , 464, 4 7 4 - 4 7 5 , 477, 480, 482, 4 8 4 - 4 8 6 , 488, 498, 502-503 (see also under: sofer) scrinia 136 scriptio continua 20, 463, 465 scriptorium 146, 161, 162 seal 27, 267, 276, 438 secretary 15, 31, 90, 120, 125, 172, 174, 176-177, 180, 185, 262, 375, 423, 472, 475-476, 4 8 4 - 4 8 5 sect 196, 199, 285, 326, 410, 426, 477 Sepphoris 55, 153-154, 156, 175, 187, 374, 382, 384, 386, 395, 399-400, 403, 405-407, 409, 411, 413, 418, 420, 4 4 1 442, 468, 496, 501 sepulchri violatio 391 sermon 362 Shema 49, 53, 72, 75-76, 78, 89, 123, 140-141,216, 241,249, 458 Shimon b. Shetach 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 273 shop 62 shopkeeper 62, 130, 331 signature 84, 115, 121, 169, 172, 177-178, 180-181, 184, 268, 277, 280-283, 286, 294, 304-305, 307, 309, 316, 318, 321,

556

Index of Names and

324-325, 339, 349, 380, 394, 449, 474, 476, 483-485, 496 slave 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 7 , 102, 111-112, 119, 124, 172, 185, 262, 266, 294, 303, 309, 368, 405, 458 social status 16, 27, 37-38, 67, 9 4 - 9 5 , 116, 118, 145, 169-170, 176-178, 184-185, 188, 199, 232, 235, 260, 266, 340, 368, 388, 419-421, 442, 474, 485, 499, 503 sofer 42, 46, 48, 126, 141, 193, 467, 479 (see also under: scribe, teacher) soldier 195, 264, 281, 320, 383, 393, 415 sophist 125 sotah scroll 32, 127, 140 stenographer 423 stipulationes 490 stone mason 373 study house 40, 52-53, 96, 101-103, 147, 245, 401, 403, 430, 4 5 6 - 4 5 8 , 469 subscription 184, 314-315, 318-319, 321 summons 1 5 5 , 3 0 4 , 3 1 2 , 4 9 1 syllabus 73-74 synagogue 40, 4 7 - 4 8 , 51-55, 59, 66, 69, 75-76, 80, 123, 126, 137, 149, 163-166, 191, 202, 211-212, 224-225, 232, 234-235, 245, 247-248, 250-251, 348, 356-357, 360, 363-364, 377-378, 382, 385, 397-413, 418-421, 440, 445-447, 452-458, 465-467, 472, 4 8 6 - 4 8 7 , 492-494, 497, 501-503 talmid chakham 187 tanna 51,52, 427,428, 469 targum 80, 215, 217-218, 248, 427, 455 tattoo 218 tax 57, 150, 152, 155, 172, 174, 275, 312, 318-319, 499 taxation 155-156, 489-490, 500 teacher 1 3 , 4 0 - 4 1 , 4 8 , 5 1 - 5 2 , 5 4 - 6 3 , 65-67, 70, 73, 75-76, 81-83, 89, 100-101, 104, 107, 123-124, 127, 130, 141-142, 147, 166, 204, 257, 271, 387, 426, 430, 454, 502 teaching 4 - 5 , 8, 10, 13, 18-19, 21, 26, 32, 40, 4 3 - 4 4 , 4 8 - 4 9 , 51, 54-57, 59-62, 65-68, 70, 72, 74-75, 78, 82-83, 88, 92-93, 98-102, 104, 106, 122, 124, 126-127, 143, 167, 198, 204, 213, 221, 242, 422, 430, 469, 494 tefillin 110, 123-124, 140-141, 187, 210, 215-219, 221-223, 226, 247, 436, 479, 4 8 1 - 4 8 2 (see also under: phylacteries) Temple 29, 36, 39, 4 0 - 4 8 , 50, 59, 68-69, 75, 110, 118-123, 135, 153, 161, 163,

Subjects

166-167, 172, 191-193, 195, 200, 216, 228-229, 248, 250, 268, 286, 296, 342, 345, 347-348, 351, 371-372, 377, 394, 397-398, 410, 413-414, 416, 418-419, 422, 425-426, 447, 449, 453-454, 478, 486, 493 tenancy 1 2 1 , 1 7 3 , 2 9 8 , 3 2 8 tenant 303 tesserae 3 3 1 , 3 4 9 , 3 5 0 , 3 5 4 testament 2 8 , 4 7 , 6 8 , 114, 135, 136, 161, 171, 172, 186, 192, 232, 235, 257, 258, 263, 341,424, 452, 4 5 3 , 4 6 6 testimony 22, 26, 42, 46, 113-115, 133, 278, 292, 295, 305, 308 textbook 89, 147 textual community 12, 26, 190, 196-197, 199, 200, 432 theatre 349-350, 354, 469 theatre token 350 Theodotus-inscription 234 Tiberias 35, 51, 131, 148, 153, 175, 248, 263-266, 270, 272, 274, 374, 382-384, 393, 395, 399-402, 4 0 4 - 4 0 6 , 408-409, 420, 4 2 6 , 4 4 1 , 4 6 8 , 496, 501 tituli picti 3 3 1 , 3 4 4 , 3 4 6 , 3 5 4 Tobiad family 90 tomus 143, 144 Torah ark 164 Torah scroll 82, 137, 144, 147-149, 164, 190, 194-195, 210-211, 213, 215, 273, 436, 454, 467 Torah shrine 1 6 4 , 2 1 1 , 3 9 8 , 4 4 0 Torah study 37, 40, 42, 4 4 - 4 7 , 52, 68-70, 77, 91, 93-94, 101-102, 147, 166, 214-215, 226, 457, 465, 4 9 3 - 4 9 4 Torah-reading 39, 54, 67-68, 70-71, 74, 79, 92, 123, 166, 176, 242, 452-454, 460-461, 463, 465, 468, 474, 494, 503 trade 49, 93, 145-146, 163, 174, 231, 244, 292, 412, 444, 477 translator 279, 453, 455 (see also under: meturgeman) tuition 51, 57 tutor 48, 58, 61, 70 uncleanness 71, 76, 128, 142, 194-195, 247, 268, 419, 493 urban 23, 32, 34-35, 169-171, 175-176, 198, 235-236, 356, 361, 400, 420-421, 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 , 456, 460, 473, 490, 492, 494, 4 9 6 - 4 9 8 , 500-502 (see also under: city) urbanization 34-35, 170-171, 243, 374, 466, 500 Urtext 422, 432, 434

Index of Names and vernacular 228-230, 247, 249-250, 320, 323, 326-327 village 55-56, 118-120, 123, 132, 159, 168, 173, 179-180, 240, 244, 264, 280, 310, 317-318, 323, 336, 400, 402-403, 421, 456, 487-488, 496, 500-501 visual 9, 12, 22, 83, 223, 463, 494 weight 229, 351-352, 355, 358 witness 12, 22, 33, 113, 115, 117, 154, 180, 182, 228, 281, 304-305, 309, 324, 348, 396, 404 women 15, 20, 23, 44, 61, 78, 102, 108, 111-114, 116, 121, 124-125, 127, 149,

Subjects

557

155, 158-159, 178, 182-183, 215, 235, 246, 262-265, 267, 269, 272-273, 286, 297, 300-306, 312, 314-315, 317-319, 321, 325, 361, 368-369, 378-379, 386, 388, 392, 407-408, 443, 453, 456, 460, 468, 472, 481, 483-484, 496, 498 (see also under: female) writing exercise 87 Yavneh 192,380 Yehoshua b. Gamla 4 1 - 4 3 , 46 Zenon papyri 90 zodiac 3 4 9 , 4 0 9 , 4 1 1

Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Alphabetical

Index

Albani, M., J. Frey, A. Lange (Ed.): Studies in the Book of Jubilees. 1997. Volume 65. Avemarie, Friedrich: Tora und Leben. 1996. Volume 55. Becker, Hans-Jürgen: Die großen rabbinischen Sammelwerke Palästinas. 1999. Volume 70. - see Schäfer, Peter Cansdale, Lena: Qumran and the Essenes. 1997. Volume 60. Chester, Andrew: Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim. 1986. Volume 14. Cohen, Martin Samuel: The Shi ur Qomah: Texts and Recensions. 1985. Volume 9. Crown, Alan D.: Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts. 2001. Volume 80. Doering, Lutz: Schabbat. 1999. Volume 78. Ego, Beate: Targum Scheni zu Ester. 1996. Volume 54. Engel, Anja: see Schäfer, Peter Frey, J.: see Albani, M. Frick, Peter: Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria. 1999. Volume 77. Gibson, E. Leigh: The Jewish Manumission Inscriptions of the Bosporus Kingdom. 1999. Volume 75. Gleßmer, Uwe: Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch. 1995. Volume 48. Goldberg, Arnold: Mystik und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums. Gesammelte Studien I. Ed. by M. Schlüter and P. Schäfer. 1997. Volume 61. - Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung. Gesammelte Studien II. Ed. by M. Schlüter and P. Schäfer. 1999. Volume 73. Goodblatt, David: The Monarchie Principle. 1994. Volume 38. Grözinger, Karl: Musik und Gesang in der Theologie der frühen jüdischen Literatur. 1982. Volume 3. Gruenwald, I., Sh. Shaked and G.G. Stroumsa (Ed.): Messiah and Christos. Presented to David Flusser. 1992. Volume 32. Halperin, David J.: The Faces of the Chariot. 1988. Volume 16. Herrmann, Klaus (Ed.): Massekhet Hekhalot. 1994. Volume 39. - see Schäfer, Peter Herzer, Jens: Die Paralipomena Jeremiae. 1994. Volume 43. Hezser, Catherine: Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin. 1993. Volume 37. - The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. 1997. Volume 66. - Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. 2001. Volume 81. - see Schäfer, Peter Hirschfelder, Ulrike: see Schäfer, Peter Horbury, W.: see Krauss, Samuel Houtman, Alberdina: Mishnah und Tosefta. 1996. Volume 59. llan, Tal: Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine. 1995. Volume 44. - Integrating Jewish Woman into Second Temple History. 1999. Volume 76. Instone Brewer, David: Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. 1992. Volume 30. Ipta, Kerstin: see Schäfer, Peter Jacobs, Martin: Die Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen. 1995. Volume 52. Kasher, Aryeh: The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. 1985. Volume 7. - Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs. 1988. Volume 18. - Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel. 1990. Volume 21. Krauss, Samuel: The Jewish-Christian Controversy from the earliest times to 1789. Vol.1. Ed. by W. Horbury. 1996. Volume 56.

Texts and Studies in Ancient

Judaism

Kuhn, Peter: Offenbarungsstimmen im Antiken Judentum. 1989. Volume 20. Kuyt, Annelies: The 'Descent' to the Chariot.1995. Volume 45. Lange, A.: see Albani, M. Lange, Nicholas de: Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah. 1996. Volume 51. Lohmann, Uta: see Schäfer, Peter Loopik, M. van (Übers, u. komm.): The Ways of the Sages and the Way of the World. 1991. Volume 26. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P.: The Revelation of Elchasai. 1985. Volume 8. Mach, Michael: Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit. 1992. Volume 34. Mendels, Doron: The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature. 1987. Volume 15. Mutins, Georg von: see Schäfer, Peter Necker, Gerold: see Schäfer, Peter Olyan, SaulM.: A Thousand Thousands Served Him. 1993. Volume 36. Otterbach, Rina: see Schäfer, Peter Prigent, Pierre: Le Judaisme et l'image. 1990. Volume 24. Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam: Jewish Rights in the Roman World. 1998. Volume 74. Reeg, Gottfried (Ed.): Die Geschichte von den Zehn Märtyrern. 1985. Volume 10. - see Schäfer, Peter Renner, Lucie: see Schäfer, Peter Reichman, Ronen: Sifra und Mishna. 1998. Volume 68. Rohrbacher-Sticker, Claudia: see Schäfer, Peter Salvesen, A. (Ed.): Origen's Hexapla and Fragments.1998. Volume 58. Samely, Alexander: The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums. 1992. Volume 27. Schäfer, Peter: Der Bar-Kokhba-Aufstand. 1981. Volume 1. - Hekhalot-Studien. 1988. Volume 19. Schäfer, Peter (Ed.): Geniza-Fragmente zur Hekhalot-Literatur. 1984. Volume 6. - see Goldberg, Arnold - in Z-sammenarbeit mit Klaus Herrmann, Rina Otterbach, Gottfried Reeg, Claudia Rohrbacher-Sticker, Guido Weyer: Konkordanz zur Hekhalot-Literatur. Volume 1: 1986. Volume 12. - Volume 2: 1988. Volume 13. Schäfer, Peter, Margarete Schlüter, Hans Georg von Mutins (Ed.): Synopse zur HekhalotLiteratur. 1981. Volume 2. Schäfer, Peter (Ed.) in Zusammenarbeit mit Hans-Jürgen Becker, Klaus Herrmann, Ulrike Hirschfelder, Gerold Necker, Lucie Renner, Claudia Rohrbacher-Sticker, Stefan Siebers: Übersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur. Volume 1: §§ 1 - 8 0 . 1995. Volume 46. - Volume 2: §§ 81-334. 1987. Volume 17. - Volume 3: §§ 335-597. 1989. Volume 22. - Volume 4: §§ 598-985. 1991. Volume 29. Schäfer, Peter, and Hans-Jürgen Becker (Ed.) in Zusammenarbeit mit Anja Engel, Kerstin Ipta, Gerold Necker, Uta Lohmann, Martina Urban, Gert Wildensee: Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi. Volume 1/1-2: 1991. Volume 31. - Volume 1/3-5: 1992. Volume 33. - Volume 1/6-11: 1992. Volume 35. - Volume III: 1998. Volume 67. - Volume IV: 1995. Volume 47. Schäfer, Peter, and Shaul Shaked (Ed.): Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza. Volume 1: 1994. Volume 42 - Volume 2: 1997. Volume 64. - Volume 3: 1999. Volume 72. Schäfer, Peter (Ed.): The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. 1998. Volume 71. Volume II: 2000. Volume 79. Schäfer, Peter and Hezser, Catherine (Ed.): The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture II. 2000. Volume 79. Schlüter, Margarete: see Goldberg, Arnold - see Schäfer, Peter Schmidt, Francis: Le Testament Grec d'Abraham. 1986. Volume 11. Schröder, Bernd: Die 'väterlichen Gesetze'. 1996. Volume 53. Schwartz, Daniel R.: Agrippa I. 1990. Volume 23. Schwemer, Anna Maria: Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden. Vitae Prophetarum

Texts and Studies in Ancient

Judaism

Volume I: 1995. Volume 49. - Volume II (mit Beiheft: Synopse zu den Vitae Prophetarum): 1996. Volume 50. Shaked, Shaul: see Gruenwald, I. - see Schäfer, Peter Shatzman, Israel: The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod. 1991. Volume 25. Siebers, Stefan: see Schäfer, Peter Spilsbury, Paul: The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus' Paraphrase of the Bible. 1998. Volume 69. Stroumsa, G.G.: see Gruenwald, I. Stuckenbruck, Loren 71: The Book of Giants from Qumran. 1997. Volume 63. Swartz, Michael D.: Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism. 1992. Volume 28. Sysling, Harry: Tehiyyat Ha-Metim. 1996. Volume 57. Urban, Martina: see Schäfer, Peter Veltri, Giuseppe: Eine Tora für den König Talmai. 1994. Volume 41. - Magie und Halakha. 1997. Volume 62. Weyer, Guido: see Schäfer, Peter Wewers, GerdA.: Probleme der Bavot-Traktate. 1984. Volume 5. Wildensee, Gert: see Schäfer, Peter Wilson, Walter T.: The Mysteries of Rigtheousness. 1994. Volume 40.

For a complete catalogue please write to the publisher Mohr Siebeck • P.O. Box 2040 • 72010 Tübingen • Germany Up-to-date information on the internet at http://www.mohr.de.