The Rabbis’ King-Parables: Midrash From the Third-Century Roman Empire 9781463222819

Citation preview

The Rabbis’ King-Parables

The Rabbis’ King-Parables Midrash From the Third-Century Roman Empire

Alan Appelbaum

Gorgias Press 2010

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2010 Copyright © 2010 by Alan Appelbaum All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-61719-159-6 ISSN 1935-6978 Cover art: The Emperor Septimius Severus, his wife and sons, Tempera on wood, Staatliche Museum zu Berlin

Gorgias Press

954 River Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Appelbaum, Alan. The rabbis’ king-parables : midrash from the third-century Roman Empire / by Alan Appelbaum. p. cm. -- (Judaism in context ; 7) Summary: Examines the ancient rabbis at work using parables about kings, parables that reflect the rabbis’ ideas about the relationship of humanity to God and also provides information about the Roman Empire. 1. Parables in rabbinical literature. 2. Kings and rulers in rabbinical literature. 3. Midrash--History and criticism. 4. Jews--History--70-638. 5. Judaism--History--Talmudic period, 10-425. 6. God (Judaism)--Love-History and criticism. 7. Rome--History--Empire, 30 B.C.-476 A.D. 8. Palestine--History--70-638. 9. Jesus Christ--Parables. I. Title. BM518.P3A67 2010 296.1’40937--dc22 2010022810 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

For Judy

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ...................................................................................ix Introduction ..............................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Methodology for Identifying Third-Century King-Parables ........................................................7 Chapter 2: Identifying and Classifying the Third-Century Rabbinic King-Parables...............................37 Chapter 3: Form and Structure ...........................................................65 Chapter 4: The Figure of the King .....................................................97 Chapter 5: Functions ..........................................................................119 Chapter 6: Settings ..............................................................................157 Chapter 7: The Figure of God ..........................................................175 Chapter 8: Third-Century King-Parables as Resistance Literature ..............................................................193 Chapter 9: Third-Century King-Parables as a Source of Roman History...................................................223 Appendix: Jesus’ King-Parables .........................................................271 Bibliography ..........................................................................................297 Index.......................................................................................................313

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure and an honor to thank the people who made this possible. An earlier version of this study was my doctoral dissertation at Yale, and first to be thanked is, of course, my dissertation director Steven D. Fraade, of the Religious Studies department. Steven is an inspiring model as a scholar and a teacher—original, incisive and wise, and also painstaking, patient and honest. I profited greatly from his comments on drafts of my dissertation and from his several seminars on tannaitic Midrash, Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I value his scholarship, his friendship and his leadership, enormously. Christine E. Hayes, also of Yale’s Religious Studies department, helped me structure my academic program and was always available and helpful no matter how crotchety and eccentric my wishes were. I am grateful for her brilliance and her kindness. This version of the project is a substantial improvement over the dissertation as a result of Chris’ comments and those of her fellow members of the readers’ committee: John H. Matthews of Yale’s Classics and History departments and Beth Berkowitz of the Jewish Theological Seminary. I profited enormously from my contacts with others at Yale, permanent and visiting faculty, postdoctoral associates, and students; among the standouts are Wayne A. Meeks, Seth Schwartz and Jeremy Hultin, and they will represent the others. Several of my friends supported my scholarly program, and I thank them, but the others will understand that the only one of them I name here is the late Michael Signer of the University of Notre Dame, who guided each step along the way from my original decision to retire from my first career as a Wall Street lawyer through the decision to go to Yale to the choice of dissertation topic and beyond. ix

x

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

My family has been marvelous. My late mother, Edith Appelbaum, was at least as pleased with and proud of my second career as she had been of my first, and one of the lesser blessings to me of her long life is that she read and commented on several of the earlier versions of the chapters that follow, as well as on some that did not make the cut. My children, Lynn and Alec Appelbaum, were the staunchest and most reliable supporters in every conceivable way, from the time in the early 1990s that they enthusiastically voted “yes” at a family dinner about the decision to retire from my practice and each step along the way until right now. And thanks to my daughter-in-law, Emily Blank, for her unflagging interest and steady encouragement, and to my mehutanim and dear friends Susan and Charlie Blank, who always understood what I was up to and took delight in the results. The support and encouragement I get from my family grows as my family grows. When my granddaughter Lizzie Appelbaum, then not quite four, learned that this book would be published, she presented me with a profusely illustrated book she had made for me; its only text is “I Love You Alan!”—a text that requires no exegesis, via king-parables or otherwise. My grandson Nate Appelbaum also encourages me in countless ways, although not yet specifically regarding my research, since he is almost three weeks old as of this writing. I could not have written this without my wife, Judith Appelbaum. She periodically convinced me that I could do it when I didn’t think so and that it was worth doing when I didn’t think so, and she helped me get the words not only right, but in the right order. But that’s just about this study. In every aspect of our life together, she empowers, enriches, enlightens, exhilarates and emboldens me—and she enchants me all the while. Of course this book is dedicated to her; everything I do is dedicated to her, as am I.

INTRODUCTION The ancient Rabbis are typically regarded either as scholars studying for the sake of learning or as lawyers combing their source materials to decide real or potentially real cases. Either way, they were hardworking professionals principally occupied in exegesis, in reading Scripture to derive legal and other conclusions from it. This is a study of the Rabbis at work, limited to one of the many methods by which they did their job: making comparisons with kings. It attempts to present a picture of them at work through a detailed analysis of one subcategory of the texts they left behind— that of the king-parable, the ‫משל למלך‬. The study is further limited in place to king-parables coming from Roman Palestine, and in time to those that I can reasonably and persuasively date to the period I call the third century. This period includes the careers of Rabbis from the fourth generation of Tannaim through many of the third generation of Amoraim. It corresponds in the larger world to the period between the accession of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus in 193 C. E. and Diocletian’s defeat of Carinus approximately ninety years later. These limitations create an unusual opportunity to show the Rabbis of a particular time and place not only doing their job, but doing their job in different ways and in different settings always by means of the same tool—comparison with what a king does or what a king is like. The study attends to the functions, forms, structures, settings and dramatis personae of these parables, and analyzes them with a view to uncovering the Rabbis’ distinctive ideas about the relationship of humanity to God. It is therefore of interest to students of rabbinic texts. But the project has aspects that make it of interest also to readers seeking to recover something about the Rabbis themselves, to those engaged in contemporary consideration of the plight of peoples in occupied lands among the 1

2

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

world’s oppressed, and to students of ancient history who usually do not encounter rabbinic texts. This study supplements the substantial research on rabbinic parables that has been going on for some years in Switzerland under the direction of Clemens Thoma. But it differs from that work not only in terms of limitations of time and place but also in other respects: It does not confine itself to the parables appearing in one collection of Midrash at a time; it largely resists the attraction of making connections among the parables themselves; and it downplays comparisons with New Testament parables, restricting them to a brief appendix and to those making comparisons with kings. King-parables, like other components of rabbinic literature, have been extensively studied, and as a result a communis opinio has developed about them. A major part of this study is devoted to reexamining it, and finding it wanting. The communis opinio goes back a long way. In 1903, Ignaz Ziegler, a rabbi in Carlsbad, published Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die römische Kaiserzeit. I have relied on Ziegler to collect the rabbinic king-parables on which this study is based. As a result of the time we have spent together, I have come to think of him almost as a friend, and therefore take pleasure in the fact that he is virtually always cited whenever king-parables are mentioned. Cited, but not read. The copy of his book in the Yale University library system that I have used had been borrowed only ten times since 1962, most recently in 1986. This is understandable: Ziegler, like virtually everyone of his time, read rabbinic material uncritically, treating it all as true and timeless; he dated the material haphazardly; he usually seemed to prefer the version of a parable contained in the latest source; least helpfully, he forced his points. For example, apparently based on the fact that the Hebrew word ‫ זקן‬and the Latin word senex (from which “senator” is derived) both mean “old man,” he translated a passage about a “king” and some “‫ ”זקנים‬specifically to refer to the emperor and the Senate and to reason from there; other examples abound. Nonetheless, Ziegler’s presupposition that the figure of the king in virtually all the king-parables was modeled on the emperor or a figure interchangeable for the Rabbis with the emperor is almost always accepted. Scholars as accomplished as David Stern,

INTRODUCTION

3

Martin Goodman and Galit Hasan-Rokem have had no hesitancy in citing Ziegler, and only Ziegler, for their statements that the model for the king in the parables was the Roman emperor. This study looks at that conclusion afresh, along with other generally accepted views about the parables, including the idea, most recently advanced by Daniel Boyarin, that the Rabbis told the parables in order to make Torah accessible to non-Rabbis, and, more important, the idea, championed by David Stern, that the figure of the king in the parables—no matter what earthly ruler he is modeled on—stands for, represents, is a stand-in for, God. This view has been accepted within the field of ancient Judaism and beyond, so that Craig Evans, a leading scholar of the historical Jesus, can conclude on its basis that because the rabbinic kingparables involve “God as king” they are the direct counterparts of the several Gospel parables about the Kingdom of God. Since the parables are literary texts produced by an intellectual elite in a country occupied by a world-empire, the study engages the questions of what contemporary theories of dominated groups, especially the “hidden transcript” concept of James C. Scott, has to say about king-parables, and, indirectly, what a study of the parables has to say about contemporary theories of dominated groups. Finally, scholars of Roman history traditionally bemoan the lack of sources for the third century, especially after the periods covered by Cassius Dio and Herodian. The various stories of R. Judah the Patriarch meeting the emperor, often called “Antoninus,” or of Rabbis traveling to Rome, are neither reliably dateable to the third century nor particularly believable. But the king-parables that are the subject of this study can be dated to the third century and the figure of the king in several of them is in fact modeled on the emperor or his representative in Syria/Palestine. Making a comparison to such a king necessarily involves knowing, or at least thinking you know, something about such kings and urges on us the question whether any of the king-parables can serve as additional sources of imperial history. Scholars of Jewish history and of rabbinics, whether or not they take references to emperors in the king-parables as historical, have often misunderstood the imperial background and failed to recognize differences in the nature of imperial power at different times and differences among individual emperors. I have carefully

4

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

dated the rabbinic sources to the third century and grounded my reading of them in Roman history. This yields “emperors” based more on, say, the Danubian professional soldiers of the postSeveran period than on Marcus Aurelius and Augustus himself, and thus both provides additional information on the third-century emperors and enriches our understanding of the parables. Just as the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle—probably also mostly written by a third-century Jew, although not a Rabbi or a follower of the Rabbis—provides information about real, specific thirdcentury emperors from the viewpoint of an eastern subject, the Rabbis’ accounts of “kings” may do so. But in any event, like the Oracle, they at least shed light on the attitudes of a group of literate citizens in a particular eastern province toward living, breathing emperors. One text from the collection known as Midrash on Psalms, or Schocher Tob, provides an entry point for the project. The verse before the Rabbis is Psalms 22:7, ‫איש‬-‫אנוכי תולאת ולא‬, and the parable is persuasively attributed to the first generation of Amoraim. ‫ תולאת‬is usually translated as “worm,” as in the Book of Jonah—the worm that eats the shady bush—and the verse is usually read, literally, to mean, “I am a worm, and not a man.” That fits the context of this Psalm; it is, after all, the Psalm that begins “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” But the program of Schocher Tob seems to require that negative texts be given a positive spin, and R. Joshua ben Levi treats ‫ תולאת‬here as somehow being a verb, not a noun, and as having the same meaning as ‫ מתלעים‬in Nahum 2:4—“empurpled,” or “clothed in purple,” there referring to soldiers. As a result the verse becomes a boast, not a plaint, and refers to Israel’s coronation of God at the Sea of Reeds: “I clothed you in purple, and am not an ordinary man.” I chose this passage as the beginning point of this work for several reasons. It illustrates the Rabbis making a comparison with a king—who else is dressed in purple?—without use of one of the classic forms of the ‫ משל‬but nonetheless at their most characteristically inventive. It demonstrates that they knew the current events of the Roman Empire, here emperors being made by their legions. It is a witness to the radical theological point uncovered several

INTRODUCTION

5

times in the study, that somehow God needed to be enthroned, made God, by Israel. And it serves to make another point for me: just as the Rabbis envisioned Israel making God a king the same way the legions made Roman generals emperors, I imagine the Rabbis themselves clothing characters in purple—enthroning kings—for use in their exegetical and hortatory enterprise.

CHAPTER 1: METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING THIRD-CENTURY KING-PARABLES INTRODUCING THE RABBIS Parables about “kings,” many of whom are modeled on Roman emperors or their representatives, constitute a minor but significant part of the output of the Rabbis of the eighty-eight year period from the accession of the Emperor Septimius Severus in 193 C. E. to that of Diocletian in 285 C. E., the period I call the third century.1

David Stern, the leading American scholar of the rabbinic parable, has argued against using the word “parable” as a translation of ‫משל‬ although he continues to use it, while Clemens Thoma, his European counterpart, seems to think the German word Gleichnisse is more precise than the Hebrew ‫משל‬. See Stern, David. Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature, 11. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1991; Thoma, Clemens. “Prolegomena zu einer Übersetzung und Kommentierung der rabbinischen Gleichnisse.” Theologische Zeitschrift 38 (1982): 514. I will generally express Hebrew words in Hebrew characters; exceptions include common terms like Tanna and Amora; names and titles of people, like Levi, Abbahu, Nesiah and Matrona; the names of the Hebrew letters; words included in the names of documents, like Mekilta, Rabbah and Pesiqta; names of weekly Torah portions included in citations to documents, like Ki Tisa and Bechukotai; names of books and articles, and words transliterated in works I am quoting or otherwise adopting from others. 1

7

8

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

What is a “king-parable,” and who are the third-century Rabbis? I classify as a “king-parable” any comparison with a king, both direct (this is like that) and contrasting (this is not like that) whether or not the comparison fits within the strict forms defined by others.2 My identification of the third-century Rabbis, on the other hand, is based on widely accepted views. The earliest were the fourth, and next to last, generation3 of “Tannaim” (the first “Rabbis.”) The latest “third century Rabbis” included many or most of the third generation of their successors, the “Amoraim.” These Tannaim flourished during the early Severan period at the beginning of the third century; several of the third generation of For the same periodization of Roman history as that I have adopted, see Walser, Gerold. “The Crisis of the Third Century A.D.: A ReInterpretation.” Bucknell Review 13, No. 2, 1, 3 (1965). See also Honore, Tony. Emperors and Lawyers, second revised ed., 48. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Others who follow this early dating of the third century are cited in Salway, R. W. B. “The Creation of the Roman State AD 200–340: Social and Administrative Aspects.” D. Phil. Thesis, The Queen’s College, Oxford, 1994. 2 See Goldberg, Arnold. “Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch.” Frankfurter Judaistische Beitraege 3 (1981); Thorion-Vardi, Talia. Das Kontrastgleichnis in der Rabbinischen Literatur, Frankfurt/Bern/New York: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986. Chapter 3, infra, will discuss the various forms of the third-century parables, which include the forms discussed by Goldberg and Thorion-Vardi. 3 It is customary to date the Rabbis in accordance with their chronological relationships with each other and to designate those relationships in terms of “generations.” The dating and sequencing of the generations of the Tannaim and the Amoraim are not as controversial as the dating and sequencing of “documents” of rabbinic literature, and I have relied on Albeck, Chanoch. Mavo le-Talmudim, Tel Aviv: Dvir Co. Ltd., 1969, and Strack, H. L., and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Markus Bockmuehl, tr. and ed., second printing with emendations and updates. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996, for dating the generations and placing individual Rabbis within them. See note 78, infra, and accompanying text regarding the treatment of third-generation Amoraim as “third-century Rabbis.”

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

9

Amoraim lived beyond the third century into the “new empire” of Diocletian and even into the Constantinian period, but their memories would have included earlier periods. R. Judah the Patriarch was among these Tannaim, and these Amoraim include such other rabbinic luminaries as R. Joshua ben Levi, R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish, and for at least parts of their careers, R. Levi, R. Abbahu and R. Isaac. Based on the names mentioned in their surviving literature, the Rabbis numbered only a few hundred at most.4 They were literate, at least in their native language or languages, and the vast number of Greek loan words in their literature suggests that at least some of them also spoke, and perhaps read and wrote, Greek. Despite the traditions that assign relatively humble occupations to some of them or their families—such as those calling R. Isaac “Nappaha” (the blacksmith) and R. Yohanan “bar Nappaha” (the blacksmith’s son)—that they were literate in the third century may suggest that they came from the upper reaches of society.5 They were intellectuals, with the curiosity about the world that word implies. Although they were primarily interested in law— specifically in divine law, and more specifically, in deriving divine law from the exegesis of texts from earlier periods that they regarded as divinely inspired—their surviving literature shows that they were nonetheless aware of and curious about all sorts of other matters. Moreover, the third-century Rabbis were city people, and, as such, would have been positioned to know more about the imperial government than they would have if they had lived in villages or, perhaps, on country estates, as earlier rabbinic generations had.6 See Levine, Lee I. The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 66–9. Jerusalem/New York: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi / The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989. 5 It has been estimated that only about 10% of the adult male population of the third-century Roman Empire was literate. Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods: Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire, 157, 178. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1999. 6 For their parables as a source of information about imperial history, see Chapter 9, infra. 4

10

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

They mostly lived in the largely Jewish Galilean cities of Tiberias and Sepphoris, but also in cities elsewhere in Palestine, including the very Roman coastal city of Caesarea.7 If it is correct that Jews were members of the city councils of the cities in which they lived, and there is little reason to doubt it, those Jews who were Rabbis or followers of Rabbis would have served along with their neighbors if they were wealthy enough.8 And, while imperial citizenship seems to have involved few if any additional rights by the third century, all of the Rabbis were citizens of Rome from the time Caracalla, the second Severan emperor, issued the Constitutio Antoniniana some time around 212 C. E., during the flourishing of the last generation of Tannaim. The Constitutio granted citizenship to all the free residents of the Roman Empire.9 At least that was the view of it expressed by two of Caracalla’s contemporaries: the historian, senator and twice consul Cassius Dio, whose History included that of the Severan dynasty and has even been called the “official version” of those years; and the jurist and politician Ulpian, praetorian prefect under a later Severan and already a mature jurist during Caracalla’s reign, perhaps then writing his treatises, which are consistent with the universalism arguably implicit in the Constitutio.10 The emperor is supposed to have said that he did this to thank the gods for “saving” him from his brother Geta. Dio, no fan of Caracalla personally, claimed the purpose was to raise revenue, since inheritance tax was payable only by citizens.11 See generally Lapin, Hayim. Economy, Geography, and Provincial History in Later Roman Palestine. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 2001. 8 See Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C. to 640 C.E., 136–42. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001. 9 The precise date is a matter of scholarly debate, but the familiar 212 is close enough for purposes of this study. 10 See Birley, Anthony. The African Emperor: Septimius Severus, 141. London: Eyre and Spottswood, 1988; Honore, Tony. Ulpian, 26. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. 11 Cassius Dio LXXVIII.9.4–6; Digest 1.5.17. For other views of Caracalla’s motivation, see Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337, 142. Cambridge (MA) / London: Harvard University Press, 1993; 7

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

11

But the view that Jews became citizens in 212 along with the rest of the free population of the Empire has not been uncontested. A papyrus published in 1910 sets forth three imperial pronouncements bearing on the right of a certain Egyptian to reside in Alexandria, one of which is the mutilated text of either a Greek translation of the Constitutio or of a restatement of the policy giving rise to it. The papyrus mentions a category of people called “dediticii” who may have been excluded from the grant of citizenship. Who were these dediticii? Using a Latin term in a Greek text implies a technical meaning, defining a category extending beyond the Greek-speaking part of the empire. A law of 4 C. E. had declared certain persons ineligible for citizenship to be “dediticii.” Perhaps their exclusion was reaffirmed. Perhaps new groups could be assigned that status subsequently. Scholars have often suggested that specific settlements of defeated barbarians were among such groups. While it is uncertain both whether dediticii were excluded and who they were, it appears that certain tribal groups, like the Baqates of Mauretania, did not become citizens in 212.12 Thus far, it would seem clear that literate, well-off, nativeborn residents of Palestinian cities would not have been dediticii. But one of the great nineteenth-century historians of Rome, Theodor Mommsen, suggested that Jews had earlier been made dediticii, perhaps as punishment for their first-century rebellion, and accordingly did not become citizens in 212; and one of the great historians of the Jews who worked in the earlier twentieth century, Shmuel Safrai, adopted Mommsen’s conclusions. Another such historian of the Jews, Gedaliah Alon, applied to them the suggestion of a distinguished twentieth-century historian of Rome, Rostovtzeff, Michael Ivanovitch. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, second edition, rev. by P. M. Fraser, 419. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. 12 See Salway, “Creation of the Roman State,” 31–2; Miller, S. N. “The Army and the Imperial House.” In Cook, S. A., F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth and N. H. Baynes, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History—Volume XII: The Imperial Crisis and Recovery A. D. 193–324, 45–6. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1939.

12

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

A. H. M. Jones, that all inhabitants of territories where the Romans had not allowed the creation of organized municipal governments were dediticii.13 No other conquered people was treated as Mommsen suggested: Tiberias, Sepphoris and the other cities in which the Rabbis and other Jews lived had organized municipal governments, making Jones’ suggestion inapplicable to them; and it is highly unlikely that Caracalla’s distinguished and well-informed contemporaries would have described the Constitutio as they did had Mommsen been right.14 In any event, later historians have forcefully disagreed with Mommsen and Jones, and the argument seems to have died a natural death.15 An additional indication that the Jews of Palestine, including the Rabbis, were citizens lies in Roman naming practices. Names included a heritable family name.16 New citizens -– say, the residents of a newly made colonia—adapted the practice first used by freedmen with regard to the names of their masters; they took as the counterpart of their family name that of the emperor or See Alon, Gedaliah. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70– 640 C.E.), tr. and ed. Gershon Levi, 687–9. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1980; Goodman, Martin. State and Society in Roman Palestine A.D. 132–21, second edition, 256 n. 85. Towota NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 2000. 14 Perhaps Mommsen’s conclusions and those of Alon and Safrai are examples of what John Collins and others have identified as a tendency to project contemporary issues of Jewish identity back into the ancient world. Mommsen consciously tried to bring the ancients “into the real world”: for him Roman landowners became Junkers, and, in his own words, “the consul had to become the burgomeister. Perhaps I have overdone it.” Mommsen’s letter to Henzen, quoted in Gooch, G. P. “Mommsen and Roman Studies.” In his History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century, 459, 461. Boston: Beacon Hill Press, 1959. Perhaps the same desire for “relevance” meant that Jews “had to” be something less than citizens of Rome, with Rome standing in for Germany and other European countries, and this view may have resonated with Alon’s and Safrai’s Zionist sensibilities. 15 See, e.g., Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, 342. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. 16 See Salway, “Creation of the Roman State,” 23. 13

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

13

similar Roman leader under whom they had become citizens. For example, we know that some Palmyrenes became citizens when Julius Caesar led Rome, because Palmyrenes used the name Julius for centuries. After 212, the name “Aurelius” became very popular, especially in the east; the new citizens were naming themselves after Caracalla, whose official name was Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.17 If there were Jews named Aurelius, it is even more likely that Mommsen, Alon and Safrai were wrong. The search for Jews named Aurelius is hindered by the fact that provincials were likely to have kept their “native” names along with their “Roman” names, and probably used their “native” names for “native” purposes. I have located only one clear and one or two likely Jews named after Caracalla in third-century Galilee. Aurelius Dionysius, perhaps a carpenter, is buried in Dalmatia and identified on his gravestone as “a Jew from Tiberias.”18 Aurelius Marcellinus, a retired centurion, and his wife Aurelia are buried in Tiberias.19 Tiberias was largely a Jewish city and the fact that this See id. at 34; Honore, Ulpian, 27; Levick, Barbara. Julia Domna, Syrian Empress, London/New York: Routledge, 2007 (Constitutio “massproduced” Aurelii). But some non-citizens may also have adopted the emperor’s name out of respect, pretension, dishonesty, or for some other reason. Potter, David S. The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180–395, 139. London/New York: Routledge, 2004, argues that Caracalla’s knowledge that new citizens would take his name was the reason behind the grant of citizenship: “he joined them to himself in a most obvious way, by changing all of their names to include his own.” 18 Noy, David, Alexander Panayotov and Hanswulf Blödhorn, eds. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, Volume I, Eastern Europe, 22–4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. The inscription, in Latin in Greek characters, includes a depiction of a carpenter’s axe (previously identified as an incense shovel, a common figure on Jewish gravestones) that suggests his occupation. In any event there is no reason to think that he, unlike the centurion discussed in the next note and accompanying text, was the beneficiary of any special non-dediticii status. 19 Di Segni, Leah. “Inscriptions of Tiberias” (Hebrew). In Hirschfeld, Yizhar, ed. Tiberias: From its Foundation to the Muslim Conquest, 78. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1994. Di Segni does not use these facts the 17

14

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Aurelius chose to retire there suggests that he, or Aurelia, was a Jew, or that both of them were. A group, like the Rabbis, acutely aware of their nation’s special place in the grand scheme of things, would have been especially likely to use their native names for native purposes and it is therefore no surprise that a Rabbi named Aurelius is not to be found.20 But there are names in rabbinic literature, including names of Rabbis, which may well have been versions or corruptions of “Aurelius.” Arius (“‫)”אריוס‬21—perhaps Aurelius with the lambda/lamed fallen away—is shown in Sifre to Deuteronomy and the Tosefta, works identified as coming from the third century, discussing with “R. Yosi” the question, familiar in rhetorical practice, of “who is way that Noy, Panayotov, Blödhorn and I do; she uses the centurion’s name to date the Greek-language gravestone to shortly after 212. A Jewish centurion named Aurelius would not necessarily make Mommsen wrong; it seems unlikely that senior Roman soldiers would have been dediticii even if other Jews were. Thanks to my colleague Joshua Ezra Burns for pointing these Aurelii out to me. 20 Not that they avoided using Greco-Roman names. Among the third-century Rabbis were R. Symmachus and R. Alexandri, respectively a fourth-generation Tanna and a second-generation Amora. 21 The name is transliterated “Arius” in Herr, Moshe David. “The Historical Significance of the Dialogues Between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 149, but “Arios” in Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, translated with introduction and notes by Reuven Hammer, 396. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1986, Neusner, Jacob. The Tosefta, 1038. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002, and Fraade, Steven D. From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy, 101, 102, 247. Albany: SUNY Press, 1991. Which of these transliterations conveys the more accurate pronunciation depends on whether the vav in the name was a ‫ שורק‬pronounced “oo” or a full ‫ חלם‬pronounced “oh.” (I have based the spellings of all the names that might derive from “Aurelius” on the printed editions of rabbinic works I have noted that I have used, and have not consulted the manuscript evidence, although I recognize that foreign names and words are particularly vulnerable to orthographic corruption.)

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

15

wise,” and being cited by Yosi as having asked a question about tithing.22 He is not identified as a Rabbi, but seems to have been a follower of the rabbinic movement as a student, favorite or follower of “R. Yosi.” Yosi may have been Yosi ben (“son of”) Kefar, Yosi ben Yehudah or Yosi ben Meshullam—all fourthgeneration Tannaim (making Arius, on the theory that he was younger than “Yosi,” just about the right age to have himself taken the name “Aurelius”) or Yosi ben Saul, himself a Tanna of the next generation. Scholars have identified Arius as a gentile convert to Judaism without explanation. Presumably Arius’ familiarity with rhetorical figures is not the basis for this identification, since R. Yosi seems equally familiar with them. That he has a Greco-Roman name does not make him a born gentile in light of the various Greco-Roman names attested for Jews, including Rabbis. Most likely these scholars follow Safrai and Alon on the inapplicability of the Constitutio Antoniniana to Jews, and therefore assume that someone with a name so close to “Aurelius” must have been a citizen and therefore born a gentile.23

Sifre Deut. 13 (Finkelstein ed., 22), t. B. Mes. 3:11. The text of Sifre Deut. I have used is Eliezer Ari Finkelstein, Sifre al Sefer Devarim, as republished, New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993; in translating this text into English, I have consulted Reuven Hammer’s translation cited in the previous note. The text of t. I have used is Tosefta, Edition of Saul Lieberman, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955; in translating this text into English, I have consulted Jacob Neusner’s translation cited in the previous note. (All translations from Hebrew in this study are mine; each time I mention a text for the first time I indicate someone else’s translation if I have consulted it in preparing mine.) 23 Herr, “Historical Significance.” followed by Reuven Hammer. Another scholar finds the evidence that Arius was a convert “too slim,” although he speculates that he may have been a gentile. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 247. 22

16

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

R. Haninah ben Auri (“‫)”אורי‬,24 also perhaps Aurelius with the lambda/lamed (and the grammatical ending) fallen away—is mentioned in Derekh Eretz Rabbah 1:4, a “minor tractate” of the Babylonian Talmud, as transmitting a saying of “R. Nathan.” Since this work is regarded, in spite of its later redaction, as a collection of sayings of Tannaim and early Amoraim25 it is likely that this is R. Nathan the Babylonian, a fourth-generation Tanna, and if R. Haninah’s father Auri was of the same generation as the teacher whose saying he is recorded as transmitting, this Auri was roughly the same age as Arius.26 I have located no other possible Aurelii connected with the Rabbis who lived that early, but once a pseudo-Roman family name was adopted, it was continued in later generations of the same family; examples are the Palmyrenes mentioned above and Priscus, the brother and prefect of the Emperor Philip, whose names included “Julius” in the mid-third century. The Palestinian Talmud mentions Isaac bar (also “son of”) Aurion (“‫)”אוריון‬.27 The Babylonian Talmud knows R. Achli—“‫אחלי‬,” who may have been a third generation Babylonian.28 “Achli” retains the alpha/aleph, the Elsewhere transliterated as “Uri,” but I have chosen “Auri” not only for reasons of presentation, but also because if the vav were a full ‫חלם‬ rather than a ‫“ שורק‬Auri” would indicate the better pronunciation. 25 Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 230. 26 Auri may, of course, be a Hebrew-based name meaning something like “of light.” 27 y. Shabb. 10 (6)(12d); Isaac is not called “Rabbi.” (The text of y. I have used is Talmud Yerushalmi, edition of Ya’acov Sussmann. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2001. In translating this text into English I have consulted Jacob Neusner and others, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1987.) Aurion, like Arius and Auri, preserves all the components of “Aurelius” except the lambda/lamed, but adds an additional sound to it; it may be a version of “Orion.” I have not been able to establish the rabbinic generation with which his son Isaac should be associated. 28 b.‘Erub. 12a. (The text of b. I have used is The Babylonian Talmud— Hebrew English Edition. Union City NJ: The Soncino Press Ltd, 1983. In 24

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

17

lambda/lamed and the iota/yud of “Aurelius,” and if the semiguttural “rolling” rho became the guttural chet, this name would contain all four of the components of Aurelius, and would be the only name I have discovered in rabbinic literature that does so.29 No Rabbi’s name was clearly “Aurelius.” But none of these names seems derived from the Bible, they seem generally not to be rooted in Hebrew words, and they must have come from somewhere. They do not prove that Mommsen, Safrai and Alon were wrong, but, combined with the evidence of Dio and Ulpian, I am confident that the current communis opinio is correct. This study will therefore treat the third-century Rabbis as literate, relatively comfortable, intellectual, curious, urban, taxpaying, perhaps civically involved citizens of the Roman Empire, distinguishable from other Jews (and perhaps from pagans) of their class and status only because they were principally engaged in discovering and discussing divine law applicable to themselves and to other Jews.

translating this text into English I have consulted the translation contained in that edition.) Achli is confused in b. with Yechiel, who was a third-generation Babylonian; I have not identified Achli by generation. If Achli were also a Babylonian, it would nonetheless not be surprising to find an “Aurelius” in Iraq, outside the territory of the Roman Empire; Rabbis traveled frequently between the two centers of their movement. 29 The rho might, however, have been a liquid consonant rather than a semi-guttural. “Arius,” “Auri” and “Aurion,” like “Achli,” contain at least three of the components of “Aurelius,” but it would not be surprising for more than one sound in a name to disappear over the years or for the order of the sounds to change, and rho/resh and lambda/lamed, as liquid consonants, tend to interchange, making it possible that a name that seems to retain one of them actually retains the other. It is possible that R. Ahilai (“‫)”אהילי‬, mentioned in some versions of b. Ber. 25b, and the several third-century Amoraim named Il’a (“‫)”אילעא‬, Ulla (“‫)”עולא‬, Ela (“‫)”אילא‬, and Elai (“‫ )”עילאי‬had names originating in “Aurelius.” Among the places these names appear are b. Ber. 13b, 25a; b. Shabb. 53b; b. Yoma 35a, 73b; y. Erub. 2(5).

18

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

USING “DOCUMENTS” Ignaz Ziegler’s 1903 collection contains and discusses close to a thousand rabbinic references to kings, usually in the form of parables.30 My first task is to isolate those that I can reasonably and persuasively set forth as being parables of third-century provenance. How I propose to do that is the subject of the rest of this chapter. I have been unable to limit the parables under study to those of third-century provenance on the basis of the texts alone. For example, parables that show the “king” only in the presence of Roman officials with titles that are not later than the third century Ziegler, Ignaz. Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die römische Kaiserzeit, Breslau: Schlesische Verlags-Anstalt v. S. Schottländer, 1903. Interest in king-parables has intensified in recent years, especially in Europe, as a result of the work of the Swiss scholar Clemens Thoma and his colleagues and students, culminating in the four volume study, first with Simon Lauer and then with Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen, Bern/Frankfurt/New York: Peter Lang, 1986–2000. This work deals with king-parables in Gen. Rab., a collection of amoraic exegetical and homiletical Midrashim, and with those in the later collections of homiletical Midrashim, Pesiq. Rab Kah. and Exod. Rab. (Exegetical and homiletical Midrashim are distinguished from each other, and examples of each are roughly dated for purposes of this study, in the final note in this chapter.) But Ziegler’s work remains my starting point, since Thoma and his colleagues have concentrated on the parables contained in three particular rabbinic works, proceeding one work at a time, while my goals require me to take account of all parables I believe likely to have come from the third century, no matter when or where collected. Other studies largely dealing with the parables in one work—respectively Lam. Rab., a collection of exegetical Midrashim, and Mek. de R. Ishmael, a collection of halachic Midrashim, see notes 60–63, infra, and accompanying text—are Stern, Parables in Midrash, and Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990. I do not, of course, accept Ziegler’s uncritical and entirely synchronic reading of the entire corpus of rabbinic literature or share his goal of relating as many parables as possible to specific events and personalities in Roman history. 30

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

19

are not necessarily third-century parables. The Rabbis were not writing institutional history, and memories of earlier versions of the Roman system lasted well into the medieval period and beyond. Nor can I responsibly make chronological assumptions based merely on content, such as Ziegler’s that a parable that shows the king with two rivals for the throne must refer to Septimius Severus and his two rivals Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus and therefore be third-century.31 An obvious first step is examining parables included in documents that date from the third century, and, while dating documents is more controversial than dating generations of Rabbis, several documents are almost universally recognized as coming from that period. But in the study of rabbinic literature, unlike in other fields, research claiming to be based on separate documents requires several words of additional explanation. The very word “document” has become so linked to the controversial methodological and substantive positions advocated by and associated with Jacob Neusner and his students to make it impossible to say that I will deal with separate “documents” without explaining my rejection of Neusner’s frequently and forcefully expressed views.32 The beginning point33 of Neusner’s position is his “documentary premise.”34 Neusner has not quarreled with the view

See Ziegler, Königsgleichnisse, 47. I will also treat this parable as probably third-century, because it comes, without attribution to an earlier Rabbi, see note 35, infra, from Sifre Deut., a “document” from the late third or early fourth century. See text at note 69, infra, and accompanying text. Moreover, I also agree with Ziegler that this parable reflects Severus and his rivals. See Chapter 9, note 747 and accompanying text, infra. 32 In “Is the Talmud a ‘Document’?” In Cohen, Shaye J. D., ed. The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, 3. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000, 3, Robert Goldenberg describes Neusner’s views as “ascendant.” 33 I am not trying to set forth the chronological development of Neusner’s approach, but rather to explain its principal elements in their conceptual progression. 31

20

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

that rabbinic “documents” as we have them were derived from previously existing written and oral material, but he claims that in the process of selection the compilers, editors or redactors of these documents so extensively shaped, sequenced and recontextualized the material they received as to make the remaining “document” the product of a single, although collective, “authorship,” and that any information we might use from or about the originators of the earlier material was completely obscured in the process. Accordingly, pursuant to the documentary premise, conventional source criticism is bootless; only the final document matters. The documentary premise therefore insists that a historian use a rabbinic document only to reflect the time of its final compilation or redaction and not to reflect any earlier time.35 And Neusner The term is Robert Goldenberg’s, from “Is the Talmud a ‘Document’?” Neusner prefers “documentary hypothesis,” apparently asserting a link to the revolutionary work of such as Wellhausen in bible studies. But the implicit analogy is misplaced, since Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis took what appears to the casual reader as a single document and found in it the various earlier documents known as J, E, P and D. If Neusner’s documentary premise were applied to the Hebrew Bible, perhaps each book would be studied separately but the premise would not allow the critic even to consider the existence of J, E, P and D within a book; simply stated, the documentary premise is inconsistent with source criticism, including the kind of source criticism of the bible pioneered by Wellhausen and others. See Hayes, Christine. “Halakhah leMoshe mi-Sinai in Rabbinic Sources: A Methodological Case Study.” In Cohen, Synoptic Problem, 61. 35 Why do I raise the documentary premise now? I was about to set out to find third-century material in third-century documents; this is consistent with the documentary premise to the extent I have so far explained it. I do so because of an unusual result my use of the documentary premise would have; a parable attributed in a third-century document to a second-century (or earlier) figure would have to be understood to evidence a third-century view. To get closer to the views of the third-century Rabbis, I need to exclude the views of their predecessors; honoring the dating of attributions to earlier sages in thirdcentury documents to the same extent and after the same analysis that I 34

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

21

takes the documentary premise an additional giant step. Not only has the process of compiling, editing and redacting received materials resulted in an authored text so unitary as to deny access to the underlying sources, but the process was consciously performed in furtherance of a larger purpose of the authorship based on unified and consistent religious or philosophic conclusions and premises.36 Therefore, a parable attributed to a third-century Rabbi in a fifth-century document could be used only to reconstruct fifth-century rabbinic views, and it would also be used in connection with the description of a fifth-century ideology discovered in the document as a whole.37 A third element of the Neusnerian approach, apparently thought of as a corollary of the documentary premise,38 is the conclusion that attributions of will honor the dating of attributions to third-century sages in later documents will help avoid this error. 36 The work of comparison of documents, in the service of which Neusner first advanced the documentary premise after noting the success of a similar approach in New Testament studies, thus has become the work of comparing the ideologies underlying the documents that he and his students claim to have discovered. Thus, Neusner would disapprove of my use of third-century documents to find third-century parables merely because in part I focus on the parables in a single document at a time without attention to an underlying ideology; he has strongly disapproved of the work on parables of Clemens Thoma and his colleagues, apparently because they did not use Neusner’s work to identify such an ideology in each of the documents they studied and compare these ideologies one to another. See Neusner, Jacob. “Information Without Knowledge: Clemens Thoma on the Parable.” In How Not to Study Judaism: Examples and Counter-Examples: Volume One: Parables, Rabbinic Narratives, Rabbis’ Biographies, Rabbis’ Disputes, 7–8. Lanham MD/New York/Oxford: University Press of America, 2004. 37 “The Parable Serves the Document and Responds to its Program.” Neusner, “Information Without Knowledge,” 30. See Neusner, Jacob. “Aimless Anthologizing: Jeffrey L. Rubenstein on Narrative.” In How Not to Study Judaism, 39. 38 See Green, William Scott. “What’s in a Name: The Problematic of Rabbinic Biography.” In Idem, ed. Approaches to Ancient Judaism, 80. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978.

22

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

parables and other sayings to named Rabbis are thoroughly unreliable.39 The documentary premise is inconsistent with the practices of those ancient historians who study populations other than the Jews. In spite of what may seem to be scholarly self-denial in refusing to go beyond the documents,40 the premise’s application to the study of antiquity outside the field of rabbinics would be hooted down. Responsible and highly-regarded historians of Rome have written, and continue to write, responsible and highlyregarded third-century history on the basis of fourth-century and much later “documents”;41 the documentary premise would require us to read Cassius Dio, as we have him, only for the history of the eleventh century, when Xiphilinus compiled his epitome.42 And the Perhaps recognizing that the unreliability of attributions is not in fact a logical corollary of the basic documentary premise—selecting, shaping and recontextualizing received material does not mean making it up—one of Neusner’s students has advanced another reason for refusing to accept attributions: the sayings that are the subject of the attributions are so highly formalized that the original saying must have been changed in language and perhaps in meaning. Green, “What’s in a Name,” 83. But, as Chapter 3, infra, will demonstrate, the forms of the third-century kingparable display significant variations. 40 Goldenberg, “Is the Talmud ‘a Document’?,” 4. 41 Seth Schwartz sets forth the conceptual progression of Neusner’s position in a different order than I do: “[T]o conclude that we must assume the falsity of attributions, that therefore (?) [sic] the documents are essentially pseudepigraphic and can be assumed to provide evidence only for the interests of their redactors, is in fact no longer a skeptical but a positivist position and is less plausible than the one it replaced. ... Neusner once again pushed ... [an] ostensibly cautious view too far by insisting that the documents are in fact self-contained ..., that each one is as it were a summary statement of the ideology of a discrete social organization. The result is not only bad history but also tautologous reading; if texts must be read in a rigorous way on their own terms, the only thing to say about them is to recapitulate their contents.” Imperialism and Jewish Society, 8–9. 42 On occasion, Xiphilinus is so read, as in the physical description of Byzantium in Cassius Dio LXXV.10. And no matter what one thinks of the documentary premise, there will be occasions when rabbinic literature 39

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

23

premise is inconsistent with contemporary trends of scholarship. Neusner’s insistence on locating an authorship, and, especially, his insistence on over-riding authorial intent, would draw smug smiles in the post-deconstruction academy, where the text is everything and even an individual author, named and often photographed, has all but disappeared.43 But a scholar need not conform to majority practices and even less so to what Neusner and others might dismiss as scholarly fashions. More to the point, the documentary premise is inconsistent with the way the Rabbis transmitted their traditions; they prided themselves on the accuracy of these traditions and on how accurately they reported them. Even the Rabbis’ warnings about the dangers of forgetting are consistent with the accuracy of oral transmission in the movement as a whole; they appear as echoes of the occasional although real slip-up by lesser figures in the movement seen through the admonishments of their seniors, who themselves seem to be claiming to have so slipped up only rarely if at all.44 The documentary premise is also inconsistent with the documents themselves. They never claim the kind of unity and intentionality on which the documentary premise is based. Quite must also be read exclusively in terms of the date of a document’s compilation or redaction, as well as frequent occasions when such a synoptic approach and source-criticism will go hand in hand. For a fine example of the latter, see Hayes, “Methodological Case Study.” 43 Neusner has confessed that he finds the work of literary critics—in this instance of rabbinic writing—“only mildly interesting.” Neusner, “Rabbinic Narrative: Documentary Perspectives on the Mishnah’s and the Tosefta’s Ma’asim,” 60 n. 4. 44 Examples from third-century Rabbis: b. Yoma 38b (R. Eleazar: whoever forgets any part of his study causes his children to go into exile); b. Menakh. 99b (Resh Lakish: he who forgets one word transgresses a negative commandment). Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 40, read these passages to indicate that much was forgotten in rabbinic times. Doubtless, but that does not mean either that what is remembered is remembered incorrectly or that the leaders of the movement or those who specialized in memorizing oral traditions forgot much.

24

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

the contrary; it is evident from the documents that their compilers were concerned to preserve distinctive layers within the traditions they received, not to obliterate them, and to preserve the heterogeneity of the materials they had.45 The opposite conclusion would require editors of extraordinary dedication and questionable purpose, for which there are no ancient (and few modern) models.46 Careful scholarship has demonstrated several instances in which the rabbinic compilers succeeded in preserving the variety of traditions they had received. Why does the Babylonian Talmud, probably redacted in the seventh century,47 show third-century Rabbis mentioning different academic institutions than later sages do? David Goodblatt explains this: terminology from third-century sources has been accurately preserved. He takes it one step further: the Talmud’s editors have not, generally speaking, homogenized the language of earlier amoraic generations.48 It should be emphasized that the nature of their academic institutions may well have been one of the “ideological” issues with which the redactors of the Babylonian Talmud were in fact concerned. Another example: what is meant by a “halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai” (a law to Moses from Sinai)? Christine Hayes has shown that the Mishnah, the earliest of the rabbinic documents to be redacted,49 preserved in the process of its redaction three sources that use the term in ways that conflict with later uses and with each other, suggesting that tannaitic redaction, like that of the anonymous later redactors of the Babylonian Talmud, was not a process that imposed ideological unity or that flattened or destroyed distinctive elements of various traditions serving as

See Hayes, “Methodological Case Study,” 64. See Kalmin, Richard L. “Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity as a Source for Historical Study.” In Neusner, Jacob, and A. Avery-Peck, eds. Judaism in Late Antiquity 3, Leiden/New York: E. J. Brill, 1999. 47 See the final note in this chapter. 48 “Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History.” In Bokser, Baruch M., ed. History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years, 31–44. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. 49 See text at note 56, infra. 45 46

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

25

sources for the final form of text.50 Again, the concept of a “halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai” is the sort of idea that an ideologically or religiously or philosophically conscious authorship would try to bring into line. A necessary premise behind the documentary premise—that each of the documents of rabbinic literature was completed at a more or less finite time –-is also problematic. Critics have pointed out that Neusner never demonstrates this.51 The lines among editions, redactions, compilations, anthologies and “mere” rescensions or manuscript variants of the rabbinic corpus are fuzzy. Even a scholar who agrees with Neusner that the final redactions mostly mirror the historical reality of the last redactors criticizes him for ignoring the manuscript traditions of the various “documents” and for claiming boundaries between them that do not exist.52 But even for Neusnerians, the parables I have studied can profitably serve—as other, smaller, groups of parables have as treated by other writers—generally to represent king-parables from Roman Palestine, both pagan and Christian, certainly for purposes of the discussion of functions, forms, settings and theology in Hayes, “Methodological Case Study,” 76. Hayes, at 90, carries her analysis of the use of the term up to and including b., and she concludes that there the authority of such a halakhah is equated with that of Scripture, although it preserves the older Palestinian conception of them as distinct sources of law. She points out that the chronological and geographical distinctions she has isolated support the proposition that b. preserves a range of source materials accessible to the critical scholar and is not the relatively undifferentiated document hypothesized by “documentarians.” See also Kalmin, “Rabbinic Portrayals of Biblical and Post-biblical Heroes”; Kalmin, Richard L. Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. 51 See Cohen, “Introduction,” in Synoptic Problem; Goldenberg, “Is the Talmud ‘a Document’?” 52 Schäfer, Peter. “Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis.” Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 146–50. See also Milikowsky, Chaim. “The Status Quaestionis of Research into Rabbinic Literature.” Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988): 201–11. 50

26

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and probably for chapter 8’s consideration of the possibility that the king-parable represents an unusual genre of literature of political resistance to an imperial occupying power.53 Chapter 9’s examination of king-parables as a source for third-century imperial history will be more problematic for readers still convinced by Neusner; I suggest that they pay attention only to those rabbinic texts cited as coming from third-century documents —I have underlined those citations to facilitate that exercise—and ignore the other texts I use.54

IDENTIFYING THIRD-CENTURY DOCUMENTS The following documents are generally regarded as having originated in the third century:55 Mishnah, Tosefta, Mekilta de R. Ishmael, Sifra, Sifre to Numbers and Sifre to Deuteronomy. Dating documents depends, of course, on diverse technical factors beyond the scope of this study; I have made no attempt to date any document independently. Instead, I have tried to determine the best scholarly opinion and then relied on it. The Mishnah is generally treated as the earliest extant product of the Rabbis; its compilation is traditionally although unconvincingly attributed to R. Judah the Patriarch, who is thought to have died the same year as did the Emperor Caracalla, 217 C.E.,56 and we may therefore associate it with the earliest of our thirdCompare Goldberg, “Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch,” the groundbreaking study of the parable’s most common form, in which Goldberg limited himself to 100 exegetical parables on the grounds that exegetical parables are the most interesting and that 100 parables was a large enough group to be statistically “relevant.” Id. at 4. The conclusions in Stern, Parables in Midrash, are largely based on the parables in a single collection, Lamentations Rabbah, a group of even fewer parables. 54 Chapter 9 may also serve such readers as the beginning point for using king-parables for purposes of the imperial history of the centuries in which the documentary premise would place them. 55 It is a commonplace of rabbinic scholarship that each of these (and later) documents underwent further changes over the centuries; it seems virtually impossible to fix the date of closure of any rabbinic document. 56 Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 81. 53

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

27

century Rabbis, the fourth generation of Tannaim who flourished in the early Severan period, the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. But the Mishnah contains no king-parables.57 The Tosefta, like the Mishnah, is a halakhic work, and has long been thought of as a commentary on the Mishnah. If so, we must regard it, and its contents, including its sole king-parable, as later than the reign of Caracalla.58 But that king-parable cannot be

Ziegler, Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch, 16, 67, 103, 364 included four passages from the Mishnah and treated them as king-parables, but they are not parables and they do not refer to the emperor; rather they are elements of the Mishnah’s version of the “Torah of the king,” the legal rules governing the conduct of a Jewish king., See Fraade, Steven D. “The Torah of the King (Deut 17:14–20) in the Temple Scroll and Early Rabbinic Law.” In Davila, James R., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, 39. Leiden: Brill, 2003. But see Goodman, Martin. State and Society in Roman Palestine A.D. 132–212, second edition, 264 n. 293. Towota NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 2000, following Ziegler. 58 As we have it, it is almost certainly amoraic, and quite possibly its present form dates from the beginning of the amoraic period; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 157. See Goodman, State and Society, 10. But more recently the view has been forcefully advanced that t. is not in fact a commentary on our Mishnah, but frequently contains in unedited or lightly edited form the “stuff” out of which m. itself was created. See, for example, Cohen, “Introduction,” in Synoptic Problem, summarizing the article by Hauptman, Judith. “Mishnah as a Response to ‘Tosefta’,” in the same volume. See Friedman, Shamma. “The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels.” In Fox, Harry, and Tirzah Meacham. Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies. KTAV Publishing House, 1999. More recently, Hauptman refined her earlier views and argued that t. is both a commentary on an earlier Mishnah and a source for m. Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005, and “The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah.” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 3 (2004): 1, http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/3–2004/Hauptman.doc. 57

28

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

persuasively treated as third-century,59 and the Tosefta, like the Mishnah, is not a source of the parables that are the subject of this study. Mekilta de R. Ishmael60 is a collection of “halakhic Midrashim”—verse-by-verse commentaries, emphasizing law, attributed to Tannaim—on the book of Exodus. Its dating is less certain than that of the other Midrash collections frequently thought of as third-century.61 I accept the judgment of others that a later dating has been decisively and definitively disproved by Menahem Kahana62 and the conclusion that the Mekilta is in the main the earliest of the rabbinic Midrash collections, although its final rescension is later than Sifra and the Sifres.63 Accordingly, I will t. Sotah 6:1 records in the name of Ben Paturi a reading of Job 27:2 to teach that one does not vow by the life of the king unless one loves the king. Under the definition I am using this is a king-parable, since it makes a comparison to a king. Probably uniquely, it uses a verse about God to advance a rule of conduct concerning mortal kings. But Ben Paturi is not mentioned in the standard works I have relied on in dating authorities, while Hyman, Aharon. Sefer Toldot Tannaim v’Amoraim. Jerusalem: Boys Town Jerusalem Publishers, 1964, dates him earlier than the third century. 60 The text of Mek. de R. Ishmael I have used is Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, paperback ed., 1976. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Lauterbach’s translation. 61 One of its foremost editors, Lauterbach, Mekilta, xix, regarded it as among the oldest rabbinic works, but it has been suggested that it is as late as the eighth century, and this view has been endorsed recently. See Wacholder, Ben-Zion. “The date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael.” Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968): 117–44; Moss, Joshua L. Midrash and Legend: Historical Anecdotes in the Tannaitic Midrashim 566, 33–4. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003. 62 “The Editions of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus in the Light of Geniza Fragments” [Hebrew]. Tarbiz (1986): 515–20. 63 See Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 130 n. 3; Boyarin, Daniel. “On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1990): 455–65; Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 192 n. 7; Yadin, Azzan. Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash, 187–8. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 59

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

29

treat it as on the whole providing rabbinic views with a terminus ad quem of around 250 C.E., the era of the Emperors Gordian III, Philip and Decius. Sifra64 is a collection of halakhic Midrashim on the book of Leviticus. As we have it, it appears to be in two layers with numerous additions. It is filled with material known from Mishnah and Tosefta, suggesting that it is later than both of them.65 For our purposes it seems safe to date its basic core to the second half of the third century,66 so that the terminus ad quem for most of the texts contained in it is the period beginning with the reign of Decius. Sifre to Numbers 67 is a collection of halakhic Midrashim on much of the book of Numbers. Again, this is not a homogenous work, but it seems safe to use a rule of thumb and date it for the purposes of this study as somewhat later than Sifra,68 so that the 2004. See also Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 255. More recently, Boyarin seems to have dated it somewhat later, although the inconsistency of his references may indicate only that he continues to believe its final rescension was later than Sifra and the Sifres and its compilation earlier. See Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004, 41 (“a late thirdcentury or early fourth-century midrash”), 135 (“the fourth-century midrash”), 137 (“late third century.”) 64 The text of Sifra I have used is Sifra d’Be Rab (Torat Kohanim), edition of I. H. Weiss. Vienna: Jacob Schlossberg, 1862. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Neusner, Jacob. Sifra: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988, which contains translations by Neusner and by some of his students. 65 See Moss, Midrash and Legend, 218–9; Apothaker, Howard L. Sifra, Dibbura de-Sinai: Rhetorical Formulae, Literary Structures and Legal Traditions, 11–32. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2003. 66 Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 263. 67 The text of Sifre Num I have used is Horovitz, Hayim Shaul. Sifre d’Be Rab: Sifre al Sefer Ba-Midbar. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Neusner, Jacob. Sifre to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. 68 Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 267.

30

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

terminus ad quem for most of the views contained in it is the period beginning with the reign, say, of Valerian. Sifre to Deuteronomy, halakhic Midrashim on the book of Deuteronomy, seems a bit later,69 suggesting that its basic core may contain memories as late as the reign of Diocletian, thus the entire third century. As a result, I will be treating all of the Midrash collections commonly referred to as tannaitic as in fact containing thirdcentury material.70

IDENTIFYING THIRD-CENTURY MATERIAL IN LATER DOCUMENTS The most important part of the Neusnerian approach that I must deal with in order to proceed with this study is the false corollary of the unreliability of attributions, what one of Neusner’s former students has called an assumption of “massive and massively skilful pseudepigraphy.”71 Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 273 (but noting that the school of Chanoch Albeck would date it to the turn of the fifth century); Fraade, Steven D. “Priests, Kings and Patriarchs: Yerushalmi Sanhedrin in its Exegetical and Cultural Settings.” In Schäfer, Peter, ed. The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco-Roman Culture, vol. 3, 323. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. 70 See Boyarin, “Tannaitic Midrashim,” 457, restating the view of an earlier era, e.g., Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain: Leur Condition Juridique, Economique et Sociale, 21. New York: Burt Franklin, 1914. 71 Cohen, “Introduction,” discussing Kalmin, “Rabbinic Portrayals of Biblical and Post-biblical Heroes” in the same volume. It has been long recognized, of course, that rabbinic attributions are not certain; at times different texts assign the same parable to a different Rabbi. Compare, for example, Lev. Rab 23:3 with Song Rab.2:5 [2]: The text of Lev. Rab. I have used is Midrash Vayikra Rabbah, edition of Mordechai Margolis. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Neusner, Jacob. The Components of the Rabbinic Documents, From the Whole to the Parts, X, Leviticus Rabbah. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997. The text of Song Rab. I have used is Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo’ar—Shir ha-Shirim. Jerusalem, 1983. In translating this text into 69

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

31

Even if we accept the documentary premise, it seems likely that the body of received materials was rich enough to provide genuine sayings for just about any point the later redactors wanted to include. In the absence of such sayings, parables could be offered anonymously, and they very often were. Why would the final redactors have bothered to create false attributions? To add credibility to a saying by attributing it to a recognized master? To associate a parable with a Rabbi with whom the redactors still felt a link,72 or with whom a particular point of view or attitude was associated? Perhaps the redactors of a particular document added named attributions to fit their “document” into the genre of rabbinic literature, which featured attributed sayings. But that suggests that only the later documents would be so structured, and that attributions in the earlier documents may be believed.73 None of these possible reasons seems to make the effort worthwhile or believing in it more plausible. I am convinced that an attribution may well be reliable as to the individual involved and, more important, is substantially reliable as to the period and region74 in which it originated. I will English I have consulted Neusner, Jacob. Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Such variations also occur in different manuscripts of the same text. Compare the editio princeps and Jewish Theological Seminary manuscript of Pesiq. Rab. 5:8 with the Vienna and Parma manuscripts. The text of Pesiq. Rab. I have used is Ulmer, Rivka, ed. Pesiqta Rabbati: A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based upon All Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997, which sets forth these and other manuscript variants. In translating this text into English I have consulted Braude, William G. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1968. 72 See Kalmin, Sages, 3. 73 I reject the idea that the formal nature of a parable ineluctably results in changing the original words and perhaps their meaning. A somewhat changed saying in a particular Rabbi’s name does not make the attribution unreliable. 74 I have excluded parables that seem to have originated in Sassanian Iraq. See Chapter 2, note 175, infra.

32

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

follow Christine Hayes and go an additional step: the Rabbis purposely used such attributions to preserve their understanding not only of who said what, but of when it was said.75 King-parables attributed to third-century Rabbis will be the subject of this study, along with parables from third-century sources and subject to the same limitations discussed above.76 I recognize that the later the source the more caution is called for in regarding such an attribution as accurate,77 but, like a Roman historian reading an eleventh-century epitome, I will accept the possibility of the accuracy of attributions appearing even in medieval documents. As indicated above, I will consider Rabbis from the fourth generation of Tannaim through the third generation of Amoraim to be thirdcentury Rabbis, although several third-generation Amoraim continued to flourish in the fourth century.78 If we count the third Hayes, Christine. Between the Babylonian and the Palestinian Talmuds: Accounting for Halakhic Differences in Selected Sugyot from Tractate Avodah Zarah, 13. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. As a matter of presentation, however, I will frequently write as if the attribution is in fact reliable as to the individual involved. 76 Indirect attribution (“R. Y said in the name of R. X”; “R. Y said that R. X said,” with R. X being a third-century Rabbi and R. Y being later, and with R. X being an earlier Rabbi and R. Y being third-century) may be thought to raise separate problems. Should an indirect attribution with R. X being a third-century Rabbi be treated as later than the third century, on the theory that the delay in attribution casts doubt on its correctness? I am inclined to go the other way, and regard the fact of the quotation as evidence of the Rabbis’ drive for accuracy. Should an indirect attribution with R. Y being a third-century Rabbi but R. X earlier be treated as earlier than third-century? I think so, for the same reasons. 77 See Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 40. 78 Some third-generation Amoraim did not live beyond the third century; R. Eleazar ben Pedat, for example, died in 279, the same year as did R. Yohanan, probably the most prominent second-generation Amora, and five years before the accession of Diocletian ended the third century for purposes of this study. But among those who lived and worked into the fourth century were R. Levi, the most prolific source of parables, R. Abbahu, and R. Judah Nesiah, the grandson and successor of R. Judah 75

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

33

generation of Amoraim for purposes of this study as a half generation, the earlier full generations averaged about a quartercentury each and those third generation Amoraim who worked in the third century did so for about half that. The next chapter will identify and classify the third-century king-parables.79 the Patriarch. See Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 86, 89–90. Special care must therefore be taken in treating parables remembered in the names of third-generation Amoraim as third-century. I have been unable to determine the life spans of most of the third-generation Amoraim. As a rule of thumb I have treated third generation Amoraim whose dates are unknown as if they, like Levi and Judah Nesiah, indeed lived into the fourth century. An example of the pitfalls of treating a particular Rabbi as having flourished during the entire period in which his generation is thought to have lived is Geiger, Joseph. “The Tombs of Remus and Romulus: An Overlooked Source and its Implications.” Estratto da Athenaeum—Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell’ Antichita 92 (2004): 245, 249. 79 As Ziegler did, I have considered king-parables from the following later documents, not all of which have yielded parables that I believe are third-century: the Palestinian Talmud (commentaries on the Mishnah and other sayings and discussions, from late fourth- to early fifth-century Palestine; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 170); Genesis Rabbah (one of the oldest collections of “exegetical Midrashim”—Amoraic exegesis of biblical verses, here on Gen—, probably from fifth-century Palestine; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 279); Lamentations Rabbah (exegetical Midrashim on Lam, probably from early fifth-century Palestine; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 285); Pesiqta de Rav Kahana (“homiletical Midrashim”—Midrashim supposedly in the form of homilies—from fifth-century or somewhat later Palestine; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 295; Braude, William G., and Israel J. Kapstein. “Introduction.” In Pesikta de-Rab Kahana. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975); Leviticus Rabbah (exegetical Midrashim on Lev from fifth- or sixthcentury Palestine; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 290): Avot de R. Nathan (a Palestinian compilation of uncertain date, in two versions, now appearing as one of the extracanonical tractates of the

34

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Babylonian Talmud; its editor believes its composition dates from third or fourth century, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, translated by Judah Goldin, xxi. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955; others date it later; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 226–7; it has recently been dated to the fifth or sixth century; see Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture, 169. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999); Song of Songs Rabbah (exegetical Midrash on Song from mid-sixthcentury; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 315, or perhaps earlier; see Boyarin, Intertextuality, 32): Ruth Rabbah (on Ruth, from early sixth-century Palestine; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 317); Pesiqta Rabbati (homiletical Midrashim of uncertain date, perhaps sixth or seventh century, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 302); the Babylonian Talmud (the Talmud par excellence, a compendium of commentaries on the Mishnah, Tannaitic, Amoraic and later sayings and discussions, Midrashim and other material, the completion of which is usually dated to seventh-century Iraq; see Chernick, Michael. “Introduction.” In Idem, ed. Essential Papers on the Talmud, 3. New York/London: New York University Press, 1994); Midrash on Psalms (developed in Palestine over extended period, perhaps from third to thirteenth centuries; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 323); Ecclesiastes Rabbah (exegetical Midrashim on Eccl from approximately eighth-century Palestine; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 318; Cohen, Shaye J. D. “The Conversion of Antoninus.” In Schäfer, Peter, ed. The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture 1, 164. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Tanhuma, in both its “standard” and Solomon Buber editions; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 303 (although core may be early fifthcentury; see id. at 305, its king-parables have also been called the last in the rabbinic tradition by Stern, Parables in Midrash, 36; more recently said to be generally dated to seventh or eighth century by Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 381); Deuteronomy Rabbah (a Palestinian collection of homiletical Midrashim on Deut, dated somewhere between the fifth and ninth centuries; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 308);

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING

35

Midrash Mishle (midrashim on Prov, of uncertain geographical origin, with advocates for Palestine, Iraq and Italy, most recently dated to the seventh to ninth centuries; see id. at 324); Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer (perhaps better thought of as “rewritten Bible” than as Midrash, by a single author in post-Islamic Palestine, perhaps eighth or ninth century; see id. at 328–30); Tanna debe Eliahu (dated somewhere between Babylonian Talmud and the ninth century, perhaps with earlier core; perhaps by a single author; has been described as standing midway between homiletical Midrash and an ethical treatise; ostensibly composed in Babylonia but a Palestinian origin has been suggested; see id. at 340; Stern, Parables in Midrash, 49); Exodus Rabbah (a combination of works of exegetical and homiletical Midrash on Exod, perhaps from tenth-century Palestine; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 309); Midrash Samuel (based on Midrashic literature and other material not otherwise attested, some very old; quoted in a tenth-century work; see id. at 357): Esther Rabbah (a combination, probably dating from twelfth- or thirteenth-century Palestine, of materials from some time after 500 C.E. and another, later exposition also of Esth; see id. at 318–9); Numbers Rabbah (a haggadic treatment of Num 1–7 combined with homiletical Midrashim on Num 8–36 which are probably earlier than the ninth century; see id. at 310–1; another scholar has related the final document to the school of Moshe ha-Darshan in eleventh-century France; see Cohen, “Conversion of Antoninus,” 157); Midrash Aggadah (freely revised compilation of earlier materials, produced by the school of Moshe ha-Darshan; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 355); Yalqut Shim’oni (anthology compiled from more than fifty works, some lost, by Shimon ha-Darshan in the twelfth or thirteenth century, perhaps in Spain; see id. at 351; Stern, Parables in Midrash, 211; Juster, Les Juifs, 22); Lekach Tob (written around the turn of the twelfth century by Tobiah ben Eliezer in Bulgaria, uses older works; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 356); and Bet ha- Midrash (a modern collection of lesser midrashim by Adolf Jellinek.)

CHAPTER 2: IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING THE THIRD-CENTURY RABBINIC KING-PARABLES Not all of the nearly 1000 rabbinic references to kings discussed by Ignaz Ziegler are king-parables,80 and I have concluded that no Not surprisingly he missed a few, including at least the following third-century parables: Sifra Emor pereq 13:8 (Weiss ed., 102a) (proper form of sacrifice compared with proper behavior before a king); Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 8 (Weiss ed., 44b) (Aaron and Moses compared to king’s wife and her sister); Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 5 (Weiss ed., 44b) (Israel compared to king’s expelled wife); Sifra Bechukotai pereq, 2:5 (Weiss ed., 111c) (Israel compared to king’s favored worker); Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 14 (Weiss ed., 42a–b) (Moses compared to king’s wife); Sifre Deut. 28 (Finkelstein ed., 44) (Moses compared to king’s servant); Sifre Deut. 43 (Finkelstein ed., 98–9) (Israel compared to king’s son); Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 397) (same); Sifre Deut. 349 (Finkelstein ed., 407) (Levites and Shimonites compared to king’s creditors); Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 409) (Benjamin compared to king’s son); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211–2) ( Israel compared to woman king is courting); Pesiq. Rab. 15:1–3 (God compared to king); Tanh. Ki Tisa 3 (same). The text of Pesiq. Rab Kah. I have used is Pesikta de Rab Kahana, edition of Bernard Mandelbaum. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. In translating this text into English I have consulted Braude, William G. (Gershon Zev), and Israel J. Kapstein. Pesikta de-Rab Kahana: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975. The text of the “standard” edition of Tanh. I have used is that of the Mantua edition as 80

37

38

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

more than 232 of those that are parables are from the third century:81 These 232 either occur in third-century documents and are not attributed to earlier Rabbis, or they occur in later documents where they are attributed to third-century Rabbis. They are the subject of this study: Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 will discuss their form, their functions and their settings: Chapter 7 reviews the Rabbis’ “theological” ideas contained in them; Chapter 8 will consider the king-parable as an unusual genre of literature of political resistance to an imperial occupying power, and Chapter 9 will examine the third-century king-parables as a source for the history of the Roman Empire in that century. But only about 40% of these parables can be used in Chapters 8 and 9 to cast light on the conditions, events and personalities of the third-century Roman Empire or evidence the Rabbis’ views of them, since the “kings” in the rest of them were probably not thought of by the Rabbis as Roman emperors, would-be emperors

set out in Ziegler’s appendix. In translating this text into English, I have consulted Berman, Samuel A. Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of TanhumaYelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes. Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1996. In counting parables, and in citing their rabbinic sources, I have counted, and cited, only the one I am treating as the earliest and have generally disregarded other sources with the same or parallel parables. Parables are occasionally presented in rabbinic literature in groups; whenever I refer to the number of parables in some category, I am putting their literary form over their substance and not dividing a “double” or “triple” (or greater multiple) parable into its components. For example, I count Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102), which is made up of six parables, including four third -century king-parables, as one parable. 81 This figure does not fully reflect the caution regarding later sources mentioned in the text at Chapter 1, note 77, supra. Occasions for exercising such caution will be indicated further on in this study by citation of the document in which a parable appears and otherwise.

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

39

or local or regional representatives of either.82 This is, of course, a significant departure from Ziegler, who treated virtually all the “kings” as Roman emperors, and from the contemporary consensus, based on Ziegler, which regards the emperor or his representative as the principal model for the king in these parables.83 My conclusion and my resulting disagreement with other scholars are based on careful consideration of all 232 third-century king-parables. I will not laboriously demonstrate the soundness of my conclusion with respect to every one; comparisons within three categories of parables—those about kings and their sons The Rabbis were not alone in calling the emperor a “king.” So, among others, did Herodian, III.8.6 and V.5.1, and, in the fourth century, the author of the Historia Augusta, Severus III.9. 83 See Stern, Parables in Midrash, 18, 93; Goodman, State and Society, 152–153; Hasan-Rokem, Galit. Tales of the Neighborhood: Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity, 38. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 2003. Stern concentrated on Lam. Rab., a work that contains a sizable number of third-century king-parables; the difference of opinion between us cannot be attributed to the idea that we are studying different texts. Despite Goodman’s reference to second-century Rabbis, he specifically illustrates this point with a parable from a third-century Rabbi. I do not know if Stern or Goodman undertook the kind of quantitative analysis that is the basis for my conclusion; Hasan-Rokem’s specific reliance on Ziegler for a point well outside the scope of her study indicates she did not. The view that the figure of the king is never based on Roman emperors or otherwise drawn from real life, and that treating any king-parables as echoes of historical events was Ziegler’s error, has also been advanced by a leading parables scholar. Like the consensus, it goes too far. See Thoma, Clemens. “Literary and Theological Aspects of the Rabbinic Parable.” In Thoma, Clemens, and Michael Wyshograd, eds. Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity, 30 and n. 11. New York/Mahwah NJ: 1989. That the figure of the “king” is based on the figure of the Roman emperor is a radically different claim than the much bolder but equally widely accepted, and even more incorrect, idea that the “king” is not a human character at all, but “only” a stand-in for God. Discussion of this idea will be deferred until Chapter 4. 82

40

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

(constituting approximately 26% of all third-century king-parables), parables about kings and their friends, and parables about kings and their wives—will suffice. For convenience, I will use the term “Imperial” for those parables in which the king seems modeled on a Roman emperor or his representative, and which therefore may be consulted for the historical purposes of Chapters 8 and 9. I call the majority of the third-century king-parables “Standard” to indicate their generic character. Who are the “kings” in the Standard parables? In one, Ahasuerus of Esther is compared to God.84 In at least one other the king is a Jewish king, who enforces Torah laws.85 Or they are vaguely eastern rulers, perhaps too eastern to be Roman emperors, like the king whose desired wife is so poor that she owns nothing but two nose-rings.86 But most often, they are fictitious, generic, or

Midr. Pss 22:27 (exegesis on Esth. 5:2). Sifre Deut. 26 (Finkelstein ed., 26–7). Ziegler, Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch, 121 claims a parallel in Plutarch for the law being enforced in support of his idea that this king is a Roman emperor. Martin Goodman agrees that this is a Jewish king, indeed a hoped-for Davidic king. Goodman finds kings depicted in parables as sitting in judgment, or employing powerful pedagogues, or using trusted agents, or burdened by ungrateful sons and unfaithful wives, to therefore be Herodian, and the “Ahasuerus” mentioned in the text accompanying the preceding note to represent Hellenistic kings. State and Society, 152, 264 notes 293–5. I have not uncovered a methodology, as Goodman seems to have, allowing for a distinction among Hellenistic, Herodian or messianic kings in the parables in which the king is not based on the Roman emperor or his representative, and regard them generally as equally fictitious, generic or fairy-tale. 86 Exod. Rab.15:3. The text of Exod. Rab. I have used is Sh’mot Rabbah, edition of Moshe Aryeh Mirkin, in Midrash Rabbah. Tel Aviv: Yavneh Publishing House, 1959. In translating this text into English I have consulted Midrash Rabbah—Exodus, translated by S. M. Lehrman. London/Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951. 84 85

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

41

fairy-tale kings, some of whom are also clearly not Roman emperors or their representatives for other reasons.87

KINGS AND THEIR SONS As mentioned above, third-century king-parables are often about a king and his son.88 Which of these might be understood to be Imperial king-parables, “about” Roman emperors, and therefore reflecting, among other things, the importance in the third-century empire of physical dynasticism—a significant departure from the High Empire of the second century, when all the emperors from Trajan through Marcus Aurelius were adopted by their predecessors? Which should be understood as Standard kingparables? I have included eighteen parables about kings and their sons among the Imperial king-parables. Some of them clearly evidence the Rabbis’ grasp of the importance of the dynastic principle in imperial succession; most plainly, a parable89 that contrasts God, who is the first and the last and beside whom there is no other90 with a king of flesh and blood, who has a father or a brother or a son; but also one that refers to a Boyarin, Intertextuality, 88, both compares and contrasts the kingparable with the fairy tale, but he uses the term “fairy tale” more technically than I do. 88 Boyarin, Intertextuality, 88, regards the king/son-parable as the most typical type. See also Goodman, State and Society, 153: “The most common motif [in the king-parables] is that of the bad son and the difficulty the king has in controlling him, the normal setting for the stories being the palace and, in particular, the triclinium where they dine, and the general theme being the charmed positions of sons in the eyes of their fathers.” Goodman’s is an overstatement. His remark in the footnote to this sentence that there are no stories of sons being put to death, and that therefore the kings are not members of the Herodian dynasty, seems a mistake, even if there is something particularly Herodian about kings putting their sons to death in the world of fairy-tale kings. See note 118, infra for a parable in which a king puts his son to death. 89 Exod. Rab. 29:5. 90 Isa 44:6. 87

42

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

king who avoids his oath to kill his son on the ground that he would be left with no successor.91 Another parable,92 which compares God telling Joshua to stand before Eleazar the priest to a king who made his friend his successor but told him nonetheless to attend on his son, may recall—perhaps with approval—the period when only adopted sons became emperors. A third parable in this category posits a brigand whose plot against the king is executed by an attack on the king’s son.93 I have also included as Imperial those parables that compare God giving calendrical authority to Israel with a king turning over a timepiece, or a ring, or a watchtower, or the keys to his storehouses, or even the guardianship over his orchards or his garden—common components of Standard parables—to his son or sons, on the theory that this indicates rabbinic awareness of imperial dynasticism.94 This is a much closer call, and these parables may indicate nothing more than rabbinic awareness that kings, presumably like Rabbis, tend to turn their possessions over to their children. Other parables may reflect the roles sons played in imperial government, and particularly in waging war.

Midr. Pss 6:3. Two parallel parables, also collected in Midr. Pss 6:3, tell of other kings who get around oaths to kill their sons, but since those kings do not specifically express concern about the succession, but only about the sons’ lives, I am treating them as Standard king/son-parables. These parables belong to a sub-genre in which the king avoids an oath by reasoning his way out of it: for example, an oath to strike his son with one hundred lashes is avoided (or fulfilled) by coiling the rope one hundred times and striking the prince once. See also Lev. Rab.32:2. 92 Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324). 93 Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57–8). Another reason for putting this parable in the Imperial category is that the line between “brigands” and “pretenders” can be vague and this parable can be understood as reflecting the Rabbis’ knowledge of the instability of the third-century throne. See generally Chapter 9, infra. 94 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102); Pesiq. Rab. 15:1–3; Exod. Rab. 30: 9. 91

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

43

R. Hiyya: a parable. Like a king who went out to war and had his sons with him. He became vexed with them. The next day the king went out alone and his sons were not with him. The king said, “If only my sons were with me, even though they vex me.”95

Other parables in which the king may be based on the emperor contemplate a son with a sufficiently independent role as to have his own military enemies96 and posit a king’s son himself made king over a presumably conquered group of barbarians.97 Still other parables show a group of imperial officials thinking that the king’s rapid-fire orders are being issued to them, but eventually realizing they are directed to his son,98 and the king feeding his legions but sharing his own dinner in the field with his son.99 One parable that is specifically about “Antoninus” and his sons is, on its face, about the Emperor of Rome and his.100 I have Lam. Rab.3: 20 (83). Perhaps this parable reflects such conflicts in real-life relationships between emperors and their sons, such as that of Septimius Severus with his sons Caracalla and Geta. The text of Lam. Rab. I have used is Midrasch Echa Rabbati, edition of Solomon Buber. Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrüder Romm, 1899. In translating this text into English I have consulted Neusner, Jacob. The Components of the Rabbinic Documents, From the Whole to the Parts, IV, Lamentations Rabbah. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. 96 Deut. Rab.1:23. The texts of Deut. Rab. I have used are Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo’ar—Sefer Devarim. Jerusalem, 1983, and Devarim Rabbah, edition of A. A. Halevi, in Midrash Rabbah. Tel Aviv: 1963. In translating these texts into English I have consulted Midrash Rabbah—Deuteronomy, translated by J. Rabbinowitz. London/Bournemouth/New York: The Soncino Press, 1951 and 1983. 97 Exod. Rab. 18:6. Another Imperial parable in Exod. Rab. 20:14 has another king’s son captured by another group of barbarians. Perhaps these two parables are recollections of Valerian, Gallienus and Valerian II. 98 Pesiq. Rab. 21:10. 99 Exod. Rab. 30:9. 100 Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 185–6). But I have classified Tanh. Va’era 2 (Buber ed.) 10b as a Standard parable, although it 95

44

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

also included as Imperial those parables that use Roman titles— prefect, dux, procurator, comes—in a context consistent with an imperial setting,101 and a parable perhaps recalling a fact about a historical emperor’s son.102 By contrast, in the forty-three Standard parables about kings and their sons, involving fictitious, generic or fairy-tale kings, the characters seem to occupy a different, more fanciful, vaguer, and smaller world. None of these kings is engaged in the serious business of civil government, unlike the kings in Imperial parables who ponder their succession and preside over judicial proceedings.103 Two of these Standard parables do involve military includes the “cosmocrator,” a title used by Roman emperors perhaps as early as Caracalla, since “cosmocrator,” unlike “Antoninus,” is not necessarily a reference to the emperor, and the context of this parable does not seem to be Imperial. For “cosmocrator,” see Levick, Julia Domna, 58 and n. 5, citing Preisigke, F., et al., eds. Sammelbuch grieschischer Urkunden aus Äegypten, 4275. Strasburg, 1913–93. The text of the Buber edition of Tanh. I have used is Midrasch Tanhuma, edition of Solomon Buber. Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrüder Romm, 1885. In translating this text into English I have consulted Townsend, John T. Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Rescension), translated into English with Introduction, Indices, and Brief Notes. Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1989, 2003. 101 Mek. de R. Ishmael Amalek 2 (Lauterbach ed., 2:150–1); Esth. Rab. 7:2; y. Sotah 1(9)(17c). The text of Esth. Rab. I have used is Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo’ar—Esther. Jerusalem, 1983. In translating this text into English I have consulted Neusner, Jacob. Esther Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. 102 Gen. Rab. 77:3 shows a king’s son wrestling with a professional athlete, perhaps a recollection of Marcus Aurelius’ son and successor Commodus. The text of Gen. Rab. I have used is Midrasch Bereshit Rabba. Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary by J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, second printing with additional corrections by Ch. Albeck. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965. In translating this text into English I have consulted Neusner, Jacob. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. 103 In the Standard parable in Exod. Rab. 38:8, the king is indeed shown as acting as a judge in a case in which his son is a party. The king puts his own purple robe on the son’s advocate so that bystanders will not

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

45

conflict, but neither is about real war; in one the king rescues his son after putting on “the cloak of revenge,”104 and in the other the king’s son is captured as a child in a “province by the sea,” a locale frequently encountered in fairy-tale parables, but the point of the parable is that he is not embarrassed to return.105 Freed from the responsibilities of government and war, the kings in Standard parables occupy themselves with the cultivation of their gardens, orchards and vineyards,106 or the management of their other property107 or with exercising their psychic powers.108 They also have household duties, apparently involving rather small

attack him. It is hard to count this as a depiction of the Roman emperor exercising jurisdiction or as reflecting the Rabbis’ notion of how such jurisdiction was exercised. 104 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211). 105 Sifre Deut. 345 (Finkelstein ed., 402). 106 For this reason it might have been apt to call Standard parables “garden-variety” parables. See Sifre Deut. 19 (Finkelstein ed., 31). See also note 94 and accompanying text, supra, for Imperial king-parables mentioning kings’ orchards and gardens. 107 Sifre Deut. 11 (Finkelstein ed., 19). 108 In Gen. Rab. 98:5, a king foretells that a snake will bite his son.

46

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

households for kings, that include childcare109 and, perhaps, household shopping.110 With time on their hands, these kings enjoy travel, sometimes to a province by the sea,111 but more often to visit their son or sons.112 But these family get-togethers are not always harmonious. The king may favor one son,113 although sometimes he is afraid to show it for fear of his other sons.114 Even when he does not favor one or more sons over others, he worries about appearing to do

Eccl. Rab. 3:11.2 (king keeps his son home from school); Tanh. Ki Tisa 10 (Buber ed.) 56b (king feeds son after school): Sifre Deut. 306 (Finkelstein ed., 330) (king supervises son’s tutor); Lev. Rab. 36:5 (king reminds sons to praise their slave nanny); Midr. Pss 22:22 (king helps his son erect a post, perhaps on the royal homestead); Lev. Rab. 22:8 (king teaches his son table manners); Gen. Rab. 83:3 (king favors outsider who fed his starving son.) The text of Eccl. Rab. I have used is Midrash Kohelet Rabbati, in Midrash Rabbah al Hamisha Homshei Torah v’Hamesh Migillot, volume IV. New York: KTAV Publishing House, no date. In translating this text into English I have consulted Midrash Rabbah—Ecclesiastes, translated by A. Cohen. London: Soncino Press, 1939. The text of Midr. Pss I have used is Midrasch Tehillim (Schocher Tob), edition of Solomon Buber. Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrüder Romm, 1891. In translating this text into English I have consulted Braude, William G. The Midrash on Psalms. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. 110 Pesiq. Rab. 23:3 (king sends son to store to purchase 1/20 of a dinar worth of a beverage.) 111 Pesiq. Rab. 21:27–28. This king stays away for many years, so that when he returns his son does not recognize him and mistakes both a prefect and a dux for his father. Despite the Roman titles, this is not about a Roman emperor; it seems impossible to believe that the third-century Rabbis thought of the emperor as someone who simply took lengthy vacations. 112 See e.g., Sifre Deut. 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404); Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412–3). 113 Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412–3). 114 Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 397). 109

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

47

so.115 Or the sons band together to protect their mother from further punishment by the king.116 This dysfunction may follow from the fact that the activity most ascribed to these kings regarding their sons is flying into unexplained rages117 followed by various punishments.118 Other kings —or perhaps the same ones?—are shown rejoicing with their sons119 and helping them win court cases.120 As for the sons, they seem no realer, and no more Roman, than their stick figure fathers. One is a baby plagued by flies;121 another burglarizes the palace;122 still another disgraces himself with slave girls;123 and another develops a perverse taste for carrion.124 Others vomit, either after having eaten bad food125 or after excess at a banquet house.126

KINGS, THEIR FRIENDS AND THEIR WIVES Analysis of king-parables concerning the relationship between the king and his “friends” yield the same results. In Roman usage “friend”—amicus in Latin—is a technical term meaning either a patron or a client, and the Rabbis often seem to be using the Hebrew equivalent—‫—אהוב‬in the same sense. Obviously, the

Exod. Rab. 20:14. Gen. Rab. 56:11. 117 Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103); Midr. Pss 106:6; Midr. Pss 6:3; Midr. Pss 3:3. 118 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 251–2) (exile and beatings, including beatings to death); Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103) (king wounds, and then heals, his son); Lam. Rab. 1:1 (9) (dresses him below his station); Song Rab. 8:12 (1) (turns him over to a servant for a beating.) 119 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 28:9 (Mandelbaum ed., 432). 120 Exod. Rab. 38:8. 121 Gen. Rab. 69:3. 122 Gen. Rab. 63:5. 123 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6 (Mandelbaum ed., 314–5). 124 Lev. Rab. 22:8. 125 Sifra Kedoshim pereq 12:14 (Weiss ed., 93d). 126 Sifre Deut. 43. 115 116

48

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

emperor’s, or a king’s, “friend” would ordinarily be his client, not his patron.127 Some parables seem to be “about” Roman emperors and their clients and therefore relevant to, among other things, the importance of patronage in and to the empire, and to explanations of the relations of emperors with others,128 but most do not. In Imperial parables, the Rabbis present kings as giving their friends preferential treatment in office,129 in property,130 in influence131 and in prestige.132 And the Rabbis may have understood that Romanstyle patronage was a matter of reciprocal exchange and of potential interpersonal difficulty.133 But in Standard parables the relationship is different: the king prefers a small meal with his friend to a great banquet,134 asks his friend to collect his lost daughter, whom he has spotted gathering in the stubble fields,135 or gives his daughter—the same daughter?—to his friend in marriage because of his great affection for him.136 When a king is just a king, a friend is just a friend. But

See Saller, Richard. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, paperback ed., 9–11. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2002. 128 See Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 115. 129 Pesiq. Rab. 14:17–18 (any preferment he wishes); Exod. Rab. 37:2 (made comes and praetor, while his brother is made strategos). 130 Lev. Rab. 5:6 (a fine gift); Song Rab. 1:1 (9) (jewels to a senator or council member (Hebrew: ‫בוליותוס‬, a Greek loan word) not specifically identified as the king’s ‫ אהוב‬but as someone great in the king’s household)). See also Deut. Rab. 3:3, involving financial transactions between a king and his friend. 131 Gen. Rab. 41(42):3 (king protects a province for friend’s sake); Gen. Rab.74:7, 74:7 (king confides in his friend.) 132 Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d) (king makes a holiday for a new friend.) 133 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211) (king’s friend showers king’s son with precious stones; king in reaction gives his son even more.) 134 b. Sukkah 55b. 135 Song Rab. 6:12 (1.) 136 Deut. Rab. 8:7. 127

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

49

not always: one parable has the king redeeming his friend’s son from captivity, but, without explanation, making him a slave.137 The situation is no different when we look at parables about kings and their wives. Only five parables about a king and his wife—“Matrona,” a Latin loan word—might be “about” Roman emperors. One king refuses the courtesies due his station when he enters a province until Matrona receives them first,138 perhaps a rabbinic recollection of Julia Domna, who had been highly honored during Septimius Severus’ reign,139 as might be the parable in which anyone who comes between the king and Matrona when they are in conversation is liable to death.140 Rabbinic support for the truth of the rumors of infidelity that attached to many empresses may be reflected in the parable in which Matrona, with the king’s knowledge, burns his portrait in order to warm up her lover,141 although support for the faithfulness of empresses may be Sifre Num. 115 (Horowitz ed., 127–8). Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:10 (Mandelbaum ed., 157–8). 139 See Birley, Septimius Severus, 115–6 (“Mother of the Camp”), 245 n. 35 (“Augusta”). 140 Deut. Rab. 1:21. 141 Lam. Rab. 1:9 (322.) I have included another king/Matrona parable, appearing in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 305–6), Lam. Rab. 3:21 (87) and Pesiq. Rab. 21:34, as Imperial for a unique reason. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, infra, most king-parables have two principal parts: a secular narrative to which a biblical verse or a statement about God or Israel or some biblical or rabbinic figure will be compared, and a conclusion making the comparison. In the other Imperial parables the reason for classifying them as Imperial is in the secular narrative; that, for example, is where we encounter the king who objects to having his portrait burned to warm up Matrona’s lover. The secular narrative of this parable would place it in the Standard category: the king gives Matrona a great deal of property in their wedding contract; he goes off to a province by the sea for many years (see notes 105 and 111 and accompanying text, supra) and she comforts herself and resists efforts by her friends to find her another husband by reading and re-reading the wedding contract. But in Lam. Rab. and in all five witnesses of Pesiq. Rab. contained in Rivka Ulmer’s synoptic edition, the second part of the parable compares the 137 138

50

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

found in the parable in which the king investigates such charges, dismisses them, and honors the man with whom Matrona had been linked.142 Standard parables, on the other hand, depict the king merely engaged in a difficult143 or prolonged144 courtship or suggest that such courtships were misguided. Matrona is too shy145 or the king otherwise finds petty fault with her146 or she loses things.147 He may abandon her,148 but most of all, he becomes angry with her,149 as he does with his sons.150

PERIODIZATION Dealing with even 232 parables all at once is unnecessarily cumbersome; subdividing them according to historical periods may offer significant presentational and heuristic value. Using the traditional method of dating the Rabbis to whom parables are attributed, these historical periods number six, coinciding with the careers of the fourth and fifth generations of Tannaim; the first and second generations of Amoraim; those members of the third generation of Amoraim, like R. Eleazar ben Torah to this wedding contract and the efforts of the nations of the world to make Israel abandon God with promises that they will make Israel dux, prefect and high officer to the efforts of Matrona’s friends. This use of Roman titles in the conclusion caused me to classify this parable as Imperial. 142 Lev. Rab. 27:8. 143 Exod. Rab. 21:5. 144 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211–2). 145 Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 8 (Weiss ed., 44b). 146 Gen. Rab. 46:4. 147 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 243) (myrtle branch; does this make him a Jewish king?); Deut. Rab.3:7; Exod. Rab. 42:8. 148 Pesiq. Rab. 21:27–28. 149 Num. Rab. 21:16 (after a prolonged and difficult courtship); Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 5 (Weiss ed., 44b); Sifre Deut. 43 (Finkelstein ed., 102); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:5 (Mandelbaum ed., 306–7); Gen. Rab. 56:11; Song Rab. 6:5 (1); Deut. Rab. 1:2; Exod. Rab. 15:16; Pesiq. Rab. 28:12–14. 150 See notes 117–118 and accompanying text, supra.

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

51

Pedat, who we know did not live into the fourth century; and, finally, those members of the third generation of Amoraim who we think did, like R. Levi, R. Abbahu and R. Judah Nesiah. Since Mekilta de R. Ishmael seems to have come from the period in which the first generation of Amoraim flourished, anonymous parables from Mekilta are periodized along with that generation. On the same theory, anonymous parables from Sifra and Sifre to Numbers are combined with those of the second generation of Amoraim, and anonymous parables from Sifre to Deuteronomy accompany those attributed to the third generation.151 These rabbinic generations also generate useful periodization of third-century imperial history. The period of the fourth generation of Tannaim is approximately that of the twenty-year combined reigns of Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla, who had continuing claims to being the heirs of the second century’s Antonine emperors. The fifth generation of Tannaim might have remembered those emperors but also known new sorts—Macrinus, the first not a senator; the later Severans, not only youthful easterners but a cross-dresser and a mama’s boy; and Maximinus, the first to rise from the military ranks. The first generation of Amoraim might also have known of the series of random events that historians call the Gordian revolt and that culminated in the acclamation of another boy-emperor, Gordian III; Gordian’s eastern war ended by Philip the so-called “Arab,” under whom troop rebellions and barbarian difficulties began in earnest; and Decius, who may or may not have persecuted Christians. The second generation of Amoraim might have been witnesses also to the earlier Danubian soldier-emperors and the increasing instability of the empire under those emperors, including Valerian (who was captured in war by Persia); his son, the controversial Gallienus; and Claudius II (who may or may not have deserved his reputation as victor over the Goths), as well as the rise

151

See Chapter 1, notes 64–69 and accompanying text, supra.

52

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

in the east of Palmyra under Odenathus and the “divided empire” in east and west. The third generation would complete the third century, perhaps with additional knowledge of the reuniting of the empire by Aurelian, including his defeat of Odenathus’ widow, Zenobia, while the longer-lived members of the third generation would go beyond the period of this study into the fourth century and the reign of Diocletian and perhaps even that of Constantine. Accordingly, this study will treat king-parables as coming from the following six periods, named after both rabbinic generations and imperial history: T4/Early Severan; T5/Later Severan; A1/Mid-century; A2/Divided Empire; A3a/Reunited Empire; and A3b/Transitional. I recognize that the borders between these periods, like the generations of the Rabbis and the dates of those generations, are quite porous. In an attempt to make them somewhat less so and to establish a measure of consistency, I have adopted some rules, which generally date parables later than they otherwise might be. A Rabbi with a name shared with others has been treated as the one suggested as the most prominent among them, or the most prominent haggadist among them, by the standard works I have relied on for dating Rabbis.152 Thus I have assumed that “Eleazar” is Eleazar ben Pedat and that “Isaac” is Isaac Nappaha. When none of the Rabbis bearing the same name was more prominent than the others, but all are third-century, I have dated the parable to the latest of them. Those standard works disagree about the dating of only four relevant Rabbis, and in each case only by one generation; I have used the later dating, sometimes with the result of excluding parables from this study as too late.153 When I have no knowledge Albeck, Mavo le-Talmudim, and Strack and Stemberger, Introduction. Albeck treats R. Shimon ben Halafta as a first-generation Amora; Strack and Stemberger regard him as a fifth-generation Tanna. Albeck counts R. Hama ben Haninah, R. Reuben and R. Judah ben Simon as third-generation Amoraim, while Strack and Stemberger call Hama and Reuben second-generation, and Judah fourth-generation. Accordingly, I have treated Judah ben Simon as fourth-generation and therefore fourth century and outside the scope of this study. To take some account of the 152 153

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

53

of the life span of a third-generation Amora, such as R. Isaac Nappaha, I have similarly assumed that he lived into the fourth century along with Levi, Abbahu and Judah Nesiah and have placed him in A3b/Transitional.154 Likewise, anonymous parables from Sifre to Deuteronomy are located in A3b/Transitional. Parables attributed to a third-generation Amora and transmitted by a later tradent have been placed in A3b/Transitional, even if they would otherwise be classified in A3a/Reunited Empire, to take some account of possible flaws in transmission. Parables ultimately attributed to a Rabbi whom I cannot date, but transmitted by a third-century tradent whom I can, have been dated according to the tradent.155 Rabbis classified as between the third and fourth generations, like R. Abin, are regarded as fourth generation and their parables have been excluded. Multiple156 and other parables attributed to more than one Rabbi in the same source, and parables attributed to different Rabbis in different sources, have been dated according to the latest of them or, when they are from the same period, to the more prominent of them, while parables attributed to a third-century Rabbi in one source and to a Rabbi from another century or presented anonymously in another source have been treated as not coming from the third century.

earlier dating by Strack and Stemberger, I have counted Hama and Reuben as part of A3a/Reunited Empire and not A3b/Transitional, on the theory that Strack and Stemberger’s dating may indicate that Hama and Reuben did not live into the reign of Diocletian. 154 Compare Cohen, “The Conversion of Antoninus,” 169 (third generation of Amoraim usually dated to the fourth century); Stern, Parables in Midrash, 125 (third-generation Amora dated to the first half of the calendar third century); Geiger, “The Tombs of Remus and Romulus,” 245, 249 (third generation of Amoraim dated to first third of the calendar fourth century). 155 Because of the increased uncertainty, even when the tradent would otherwise belong in A3a/Reunited Empire, I have placed the parable in A3b/Transitional. 156 See note 1, supra.

54

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

THE PARABLES BY PERIOD Ten parables come from the T4/Early Severan Period, all of them preserved in later documents.157 Nine of these parables are attributed to fourth-generation Tannaim, including five to R. Judah the Patriarch, with no other Tanna being credited for more than one.158 Another parable, recorded anonymously in the Mekilta159 and therefore otherwise to be regarded as coming from the A1/Midcentury period, is followed in the text with a comment on it by Judah the Patriarch, and thus I am treating the parable as contemporary with him or slightly earlier.160 Six of these parables come from third-century documents, one each from the Babylonian Talmud and Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, while two, both attributed to Judah the Patriarch, come from Ecclesiastes Rabbah, suggesting a 500 year gap between the parable as attributed and as redacted.161 These ten parables are equally divided between Standard and Imperial king-parables.

See Chapter 1, note 56 and accompanying text, supra. Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 and Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 1:185–186, 2:236) and Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324) can also be read as the products of redactors taking an earlier story attributed to Judah the Patriarch and free-standing remarks by R. Shimon ben Eleazar and R. Nathan and adding parables to them. I have usually concluded in such cases that the parable and the attribution do indeed go together. For parables as to which I have made the opposite conclusion, see note 175, infra. 159 Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236). 160 It is also possible that an earlier saying by Judah the Patriarch was attached to a later parable. 161 See Chapter 1, “Identifying Third-Century Material in Later Documents,” for why I think this is appropriate. While I would not ordinarily treat Eccl. Rab. and other collections of more or less its time as so late as to require even more caution than usual in accepting an attribution, the fact that these parables are attributed to Judah the Patriarch, the supposed author of the Mishnah and the most celebrated Rabbi of all, suggests that such caution is appropriate. 157 158

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

55

Only three parables seem to come from the T5/Later Severan period, all from fifth- or sixth-century collections,162 and all attributed to R. Hiyya the Elder.163 Of these, only one, the parable about the king who wanted his vexing sons with him when he went into battle,164 may be treated as Imperial. It is clear, therefore, that the king-parable is essentially an amoraic phenomenon; almost 95% of the third-century kingparables will be placed in the A1/Midcentury or later periods. Indeed, almost 59% of all the third-century king-parables seem to come from the third generation of Amoraim.165 The forty-two king-parables assigned to the first amoraic period166 include twelve anonymous parables collected in the Mekilta, five parables from Pesiqta de Rab Kahana and seven from Exodus Rabbah, quite a late document. Fourteen parables are attributed to a single Rabbi, R. Joshua ben Levi,167 who thus emerges as the earliest of the great third-century parablists. Almost 70% of these parables are Standard, a higher percentage than that for the third century as a whole. And forty-four more come from the A2/Divided Empire period, including eight anonymous parables in Sifra and six in Sifre Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83); Song Rab. 6:12 (1), Song Rab. 8:12 (1.) Tanh. Pekude 4, a late source, attributes a parable to R. Hiyya, without a patronymic, and ordinarily I would have cautiously assigned it to Hiyya the Elder, but Exod. Rab. 51:5, another late source, attributes the same parable to R. Hiyya bar Abba, a third-generation Amora, with the result that I am relying on the attribution in Exod. Rab. (In another instance, a Tanh. source conforms to Exod. Rab. in attributing a parable to Hiyya bar Abba. Compare Tanh. Va’era 2 (Buber ed.) 10b with Exod. Rab. 5:14.) 164 See note 95, supra, and accompanying text. 165 See Dschulnigg, Peter. Rabbinische Gleichnisse und das Neue Testament: Die Gleichnisse der PesK im Vergleich mit den Gleichnissen Jesu und dem Neuen Testament, 24. Bern/Frankfurt/New York/Paris: Peter Lang, 1988. 166 These include four attributed to R. Shimon ben Halafta, which, if Strack and Stemberger’s dating is preferred over Albeck’s (see note 153, supra) would be treated as tannaitic from the T5/Later Severan period. 167 Five of these are from later collections. 162 163

56

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

to Numbers. Eleven later collections provide the other parables, with seven coming from Pesiqta Rabbati, six from Pesiqta de Rab Kahana and five from Midrash on Psalms. The dominant figures of the second generation of Amoraim, R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish, also dominate the field of king-parables: Yohanan alone is credited with twelve; Resh Lakish alone with eleven;168 they are both presented in another two; and, very unusually, are shown, in effect, as speaking together in one other parable. The percentage of these parables that are Standard is smaller than was the case in the previous period. Only seventeen parables have been assigned to the A3a/Reunited Empire period as a result of including Rabbis in it only if either the ultimate authority or the tradent is known to have died before the end of the third century or if one of the two standard reference books placed the authority in the second generation of Amoraim.169 Of these seventeen parables, ten are attributed to R. Eleazar ben Pedat, the only third-generation Amora known to have died before the accession of Diocletian,170 and one other is transmitted by Eleazar from another thirdgeneration Amora, who presumably put the parable forth while Eleazar was still alive. Five of these eighteen parables are attributed to R. Hama, and one to R. Reuben, the two third-generation Amoraim whose death dates are unknown who are nonetheless assigned to the A3a/Reunited Empire period.171 These parables are fairly widely distributed among the sources, although six come from Genesis Rabbah; only one, attributing a parable to Eleazar, comes from one of the later sources. The percentage that is Standard is smaller than for the A2/Divided Empire period. With two apiece coming from later collections, one each from Exod. Rab., one for Yohanan from Deut. Rab., and one for Resh Lakish from a Tanh. source. 169 See note 153 and accompanying text, supra. 170 Including one indirectly, in which Judah Nesiah is shown correcting R. Samuel bar Nachman by citing an interpretation, including a parable, from R. Eleazar, identified by that Patriarch as Samuel’s teacher. y. Hag. 2(1) (77c.) 171 See note 153, supra. 168

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

57

It is hard not to believe that a substantial number of the remaining 119 parables placed in the A3b/Transitional period— over 51% of all the third-century king-parables—in fact originated in the A3a/Reunited Empire period. Said another way, a substantial number of the king-parables attributed to such as R. Levi and R. Abbahu, who are known to have lived and worked into the fourth century, must have come from the earlier part of their careers, and perhaps a greater percentage of those attributed to Rabbis (like R. Isaac) whose death dates I have been unable to learn, should have been assigned to the A3a/Reunited Empire period. For similar reasons, a meaningful number of the anonymous king-parables in Sifre to Deuteronomy probably originated in the A3a/Reunited Empire period. Of these 119 parables, twenty-two are recorded anonymously in Sifre to Deuteronomy, with the others found in subsequent collections, including about a third from the later collections of Ecclesiastes Rabbah, Deuteronomy Rabbah, Exodus Rabbah (itself providing thirteen), Esther Rabbah and the Tanhuma sources. Ten parables are attributed to R. Isaac, nine to R. Abbahu, seven to R. Samuel bar Nachman and five to R. Abba bar Kahana. Forty parables—more than three times as many as have survived from the two tannaitic periods combined and almost as many as have come down from each of the A1/Midcentury and A2/Divided Empire periods -– are said to have come from a single Rabbi, R. Levi.172 As a result, later chapters will mention Levi’s parables in a class of their own in the hope of revealing something about Levi as a parablist, as an exegete, as a preacher, as a leader of an elite within an occupied nation, as someone aware of conditions, events

Including a dozen from such later collections. As was the case with R. Judah the Patriarch, (see note 161, supra) it seems possible that, due to Levi’s eminence, later editors and redactors attributed parables to him that were not in fact his, perhaps as part of the “regularization” process (see note 184, infra). The same thing may have happened with respect to parables attributed to R. Joshua ben Levi, R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish. 172

58

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

and personalities of the Roman Empire, and, perhaps, as a man.173 A greater percentage of the parables from this period are Imperial than was the case with earlier periods, while Levi’s are almost equally divided between Standard and Imperial.

“KING-PARABLES” IN ZIEGLER’S WORK THAT ARE NOT THIRD-CENTURY KING PARABLES The numerate reader may be wondering what happened to the other 775-odd “king-parables” collected by Ignaz Ziegler at the beginning of the twentieth century. I have excluded them principally for one of three reasons: they are not parables;174 they are not about kings; they are not from the third century.175 Specific attention will also be afforded, for similar reasons, to parables attributed to Joshua ben Levi, Yohanan, Resh Lakish, Isaac Nappaha, Abbahu, Samuel bar Nachman and Abba bar Kahana. 174 As noted in Chapter 1, note 57, supra, four of the texts put forth by Ziegler are part of the Mishnah’s “torah of the king.” The fifth such example, Lev. Rab.6:5, is statement about how kings behave, rather than a comparison with a king, and was not about a king until it was retold significantly later in Yal., the version Ziegler relies on, although Isaac may well have known that the emperor often led the legions in person. The text of Yal. I have used is the Warsaw edition of 1887 set out in Ziegler’s appendix. 175 In addition, I have excluded any parable when I have concluded that it is not part of the attribution, on the theory that such parables are later than the attributed saying and therefore cannot be persuasively attributed to the third century. Examples include Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:22 (Mandelbaum ed., 220) (parable attached to a related remark by R. Eleazar ben Pedat); Lam. Rab. 3:1 (7) (parable about king getting angry at Matrona attached to remark by R. Levi on another subject); Song Rab. 3:6 (3) (parable about king’s son wrestling with bandit chief inserted between two similar statements, the first attributed to Levi; see note 102, supra, and accompanying text for a parallel to this parable in which the counterpart of the bandit chief is an athlete; his familiarity with this perhaps betterknown parallel is probably the reason Jacob Neusner here read ‫“—ארכיליסטים‬bandit chiefs”—as “athletes” in his translation of Song Rab.): Midr. Pss 4:4 (parable weak and unnecessary to make point already 173

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

59

Several parables have been excluded because they were not about kings when they were first recorded.176 Thus, in discussing the exegetical problem of whether God created the heavens or the earth first, an early parable177 compares the creation of the world to people putting up buildings, while in several later parallels, the comparison is to construction by a king.178 In Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, R. Levi compares the windows of the Temple to those in the dwelling of “a man”; that man has been transformed into a king in Leviticus Rabbah; Leviticus Rabbah appears to be somewhat later than Pesiqta de Rab Kahana.179

made by R. Hosheah); Deut. Rab.7:4 (conclusion of parable about a gardener-king a repetition of a remark by R. Shimon ben Halafta that preceded the parable). Compare those parables discussed in note 158, supra. While I might have included parables attributed to Babylonian Amoraim on the theory that they traveled to Palestine and may well have had knowledge about Roman matters even in Iraq, I did not, in order to focus on showing the Rabbis of a particular place, as well as of a particular time, at work. Ziegler presented very, very few parables with Babylonian origins, one of which, from Pesiq. Rab Kah. and attributed to Rab, is a parallel of a parable otherwise included, and only one other of which, in which the king worries about the temptations of ‫ זנות‬faced by his daughter (Lev. Rab. 23:7) may indicate a rabbinic view of the imperial family and therefore be Imperial. 176 See the final note in Chapter 1, supra, for the rough dates I am using for the various collections of rabbinic literature. 177 Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 8 (Lauterbach ed., 64). 178 The earliest of these seems to be Gen. Rab. 1:15. David Stern, Parables in Midrash 21 reports several such switches from tannaitic to amoraic material, and some within the tannaitic corpus, but I have located few switches from tannaitic to amoraic, and none solely within the tannaitic corpus. 179 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5 (Mandelbaum ed., 323); Lev. Rab. 31:7. Similarly a judge in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 406) is a king in Lev. Rab.30:2, a parable attributed to R. Abin, a fourth-century Rabbi. Jacob Neusner, How Not To Study Judaism 7, claims that shared materials in these two collections are primary to Leviticus Rabbah.

60

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

These transformations continue in even later collections. The man in a fifth- or sixth-century collection who hired workers to fill up a hole is a king by a twelfth or thirteenth-century one.180 The Babylonian Talmud,181 usually dated to the seventh century, offers a parable about a man who cultivates and waters his garden; in the twelfth century Tobiah ben Eliezer made this man into a king in Lekach Tob Genesis,182 or transmitted an intervening tradition that had done so.183 It thus appears that Amoraim and later Rabbis preferred that kings be included among a parable’s characters, as a matter of “regularization” or literary preference or “genre” or habit,184 which Compare Lev. Rab. 19:2 with Yal. I sec. 863. b. Sanh. 39b. 182 The text of Lekach Tob I have used is that of the Solomon Buber edition included in Ziegler’s appendix. 183 Sometimes the source thought of as earlier is the one with the king, and the later with the commoner. Pesiq. Rab. 29/30A: 2, a collection of uncertain date but perhaps from the sixth or seventh century, compares a necklace a king gave his son with the letters of the Torah, and that king is no longer a king in Deut. Rab.4:2, dated somewhere between the fifth and the ninth centuries. Again, Deut. Rab. may be preserving an earlier version of the parable. While Deut. Rab. attributes this parable to R. Levi, it is anonymous in Pesiq. Rab.; accordingly, and on the assumption that Pesiq. Rab. is earlier, I have not treated this parable as Levi’s or otherwise as third-century. If turning commoners into kings is part of the “regularization” process, so may be attributing a previously anonymous parable to R. Levi, the outstanding parablist, in which case Deut. Rab. could be thought of as here simultaneously regularizing and de-regularizing a received text. A king collecting taxes in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:7 (Mandelbaum ed., 412) is merely a tax collector in the substantially later Eccl. Rab. 9:5.7; perhaps this resulted from scribal error. 184 This possibility is reinforced by the fact that there are no parables about kings, but only about “one” or “rich men” or “lords” in the quite late Tanna debe Eliahu. If indeed this is by a single author, it may simply mean that he did not share this preference. Or its composition in postMuslim Iraq, if indeed that was where it was composed, resulted in less emphasis on kings or emperors. His “one” became a king at least once in Yal. Compare Tan. Eli. 1 with Yal. Shim’oni I sec. 826. The texts of Tan. 180 181

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

61

may explain why so many “kings” in the Standard parables under study do not behave like kings and need not be kings, those who tend orchards and gardens, who hire workmen, who build buildings, who take trips, as well as many of those who look after their children, dine with their friends, and fight with their wives.185 Most of Ziegler’s parables are too early or too late. Many of them, like the sole king-parable from the Tosefta,186 are attributed to Rabbis from the second and earlier centuries. Some of them especially justify my insistence of taking attributions just as seriously in third-century documents as in later ones.187 For example, R. Judah bar Ilai, a leading third-generation Tanna, is cited in a third-century document comparing the practice of biblical rulers who felt they had nothing if they had no dwellings in the Land of Israel with the custom “now followed” by kings who feel they have nothing if they have no villas in Rome.188 If, as Neusner’s documentary premise would have it, this is to be regarded as evidence of third-century, rather than second-century, events and conditions, it might be advanced as relevant to the question of Eli. I have used are Tanna debe Eliahu, Jozefow: 1852 and that of the Freidmann edition included in Ziegler’s appendix. 185 Two other parables that Ziegler included are not about kings in different ways. One attributes to R. Samuel bar Nachman a parable comparing God to a general (rather than a king) who governed a colonia and demonstrates that the tendency to populate parables with kings was not universal.. Deut. Rab.10:4. As indicated above, my references to Roman emperors are meant to include references to their representatives, such as this governor/general, although this parable may indicate that the Rabbis knew a governor when they encountered one. The Hebrew word ‫ קלניא‬is a loan word from Latin. My principal source for the derivations of loan words from Latin and Greek is Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996. Another such parable, Gen. Rab. 30:10, in which Resh Lakish compares God to the Jewish Patriarch, may show that Rabbis were not so ready to change a Patriarch into a king. 186 See Chapter 1, note 57, supra. 187 See Chapter 1, note 35, supra. 188 Sifre Deut. 353 (Finkelstein ed., 414–5).

62

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

whether the Emperor Maximinus ever visited Rome and questions concerning the background of the Emperor Decius.189 But Judah was long dead when Maximinus and Decius reigned. Similarly, another parable from a third-century document190 is not evidence that the third-century Rabbis thought the pro-Caesar (‫אנטיקיסר‬, defined as the highest dignitary next to the Emperor)191 had the job of being an advance man for the army, although such a view may have been held by R. Shimon ben Yochai, the second-century Tanna to whom this and many other king-parables are attributed. A substantial number of the parables collected by Ziegler are attributed to fourth-century and later Rabbis.192 Since I have confined this study to parables that originated in the third century, they have been excluded, of course, despite the possibility of unattested or mistaken transmission from the third century. Some that may evidence later memories of the conditions, events and personalities of the third century will be briefly mentioned here. They seem to reflect the importance of the armies to the thirdcentury emperor, the way the legions were financed and the difficulties of financing them.193 They may also refer to the various On Maximinus, see Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History 439 (never went to Rome); Potter, D. S. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, 25 (same). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. On Decius’ background, Sir Ronald Syme. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta, 196. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971, makes much of his rare and almost unique status as a senator and consul from the Danubian regions. 190 Sifre Num. 82 (Horowitz ed., 79). 191 Jastrow, Dictionary. 192 Among the parables I regard as too late is y. Avod. Zar. 3:1 (42c), attributed to a fourth-generation Amora said to be expounding before “Leazar,” which is what y. calls R. Eleazar ben Pedat, who died in the third century. I have concluded that y’s redactors put these Rabbis together, but that I may not. 193 See Exod. Rab. 41:4 (God, who gives Torah even when angry with Israel, contrasted with a king who gives his troops donatives (‫)דונטיבא‬, annona (‫ )אנונא‬and maintenance only when they are loyal); Tanh. Vayetze 22 (Buber ed.) 80b (God, who gives Shabbat along with other benefits, 189

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING

63

rebellions and rival emperors of the third century.194 Others might recall specific third-century conditions, events and personalities, like the importance of the east195 or the division of empire between Valerian and his sons.196 The previous paragraph is something of a foretaste of Chapter 9, in which Imperial third-century parables will be carefully examined for evidence of the Rabbis’ understanding of the conditions, events and personalities of the third century. But first I will explore other aspects of the third-century parable, starting with an analysis of the form and structure, including the principal dramatis personae, of the 232 parables, both Standard and Imperial, identified as coming from the third century.

contrasted with a king who when he allows troops to rest doesn’t give them donatives and when he gives them donatives doesn’t allow them to rest); Midr. Zuta, p. 14 (God’s punishment of leaders for Israel’s sins compared to king who punishes only the leaders of a rebellious legion because of how much they are paid.) The text of Midr. Zuta I have used is that of the Solomon Buber edition set out in Ziegler’s appendix. 194 See Tanh. Kedoshim 5 (Buber ed.) 37a (Israel, known by God’s name, contrasted with someone executed for calling himself “Augustus”); Exod. Rab. 8:1 (God contrasted with a king who permits others to call him “Caesar” or “Augustus”); Num. Rab. 20:19 (colleague of the king joins the rebels). 195 See Num. Rab. 11:5 (king in Rome sends his servant to Syria with 100 Roman pounds of gold). 196 See Bet ha-Midrash 4:74 (Jacob compared to a prince who left Rome with many of the king’s legions to go to a land of barbarians and was afraid to return). The text of Bet ha-Midrash I have used is that included in Ziegler’s appendix.

CHAPTER 3: FORM AND STRUCTURE DIRECT PARABLES The German scholar Arnold Goldberg was the first to consider the form of the rabbinic parable systematically.197 He studied 100 parables, a group he regarded as large enough to be statistically relevant, many but not all of which are king-parables and many but not all of which come from the third century. In his view, the most significant and interesting of them further Scriptural interpretation, and he accordingly limited his work to such Schriftauslegende parables.198 The form that Goldberg isolated for those 100 exegetical parables, here called “direct,” is not controversial and has been adopted or apparently independently proposed by others, although not in every detail.199 It is also the form of most of the 232 kingGoldberg, “Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch.” Goldberg asserts that no earlier scholar had treated the form of the rabbinic parable except in the context of comparison with the parables of Jesus (see Appendix) and I have found nothing that challenges his claim. 198 See also Goldberg, Arnold. “Form-Analysis of Midrashic Literature as a Method of Description.” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985): 159. I discuss the form, structure, function and settings of non-exegetical kingparables later in this Chapter and in Chapters 4, 5 and 6, infra. 199 See Stern, Parables in Midrash, 7–8; Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse, 8. In “Prolegomena zu einer Übersetzung,” 526, Clemens Thoma combines the five parts I have identified (see notes 200–10 and accompanying text, infra) into three and was followed in this by ThorionVardi, Kontrastgleichnis, 7, while in “Literary and Theological Aspects,” 26, 27, Thoma further combined the parts into a “bipartite structure” and was 197

65

66

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

parables, both Standard and Imperial and from all third-century periods, which are the subject of this study. This form may be restated as having five parts, preceded in the clearest examples of direct parables by quotation of the verse under exegesis: 1. An introductory word or phrase. Typical are “R. Poloni ‫”אמר משל‬-–R. Poloni said a parable; or “‫—”משלו משל‬they said a parable;200 or simply “‫—”משל‬a parable,201 or just the name of the Rabbi to whom the parable is attributed. This part is often omitted. 2. A word or phrase functioning as a marker of comparison. In its longer form this is the question “To what is the thing to be compared?” and an answer beginning “‫—”ל‬to.202 More often the question is implicit, and only “‫ ”ל‬remains as the marker of comparison;203 in this context “‫ ”ל‬is better translated as “like” than as “to.”204

followed by Boadt, Lawrence. “Understanding the Mashal and Its Value for the Jewish-Christian Dialogue in a Narrative Theology.” In Thoma and Wyshograd, Parable and Story, 16, and by Stern, David. “Jesus’ Parables,” 60, in the same volume. 200 Literally, something like “they parabled a parable.” 201 Goldberg, “Schriftauslegende Gleichnis,” 20–1 says that the word ‫ משל‬is an emphatic substantive with no other known function and that it arose from the phrase ‫ משלו משל‬as a shortening. Hereinafter I will transliterate “mashal ”(and the related “nimshal,” see note 209 and accompanying text, infra), on the grounds that they, like words such as Midrash and Gemara, have become loan words in English. 202 Sometimes the “thing,” which is often not a thing but a person or persons or a situation, is specified. While doing exegesis of verses from 1 Sam, Resh Lakish began a Standard parable by asking “To what is Saul to be compared?” Lev. Rab. 26:7. “To what are the worshippers of the stars to be compared?” is the beginning of the marker of comparison in Tanh. Pekude 4, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 203 “‫ ”כ‬in Deut. Rab. 1:23, an Imperial parable from R. Abba bar Kahana; “‫ ”דומה ל‬in Eccl. Rab.1:2.1, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 204 In at least one direct parable, what a king does not do is compared with what God also does not do; the unusual type of comparison requires

FORM AND STRUCTURE

67

3. A narrative on a secular topic. Goldberg calls this simply the narrative, or the “so-called picture page,”205 and describes it functionally as the “equivalence.” In king-parables, this is the part in which the king appears.206 4. A word or phrase functioning as a marker of the applicability of the secular narrative to the subject of the rabbinic task at hand;207 in the Schriftauslegende parables that Goldberg studied that task is always exegetical; such a marker is also present in non-exegetical king-parables that perform different tasks. This marker is usually the word “‫—”כך‬so, similarly, thus.208 5. The payoff, or punch line (Goldberg, with more dignity, calls this the correlate): the biblical verse or verses, or the statements about God or Israel or some biblical or rabbinic figure, or a combination thereof, being compared to the secular narrative. Goldberg describes this part functionally as the carrying out of the equivalence. Following other Americans, I refer to it with the that ‫ ל‬be replaced by its negative equivalent ‫אין‬. Tanh. Miketz 5, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 205 Goldberg, “Schriftauslegende Gleichnis,” 19. Other scholars have used other words or phrases to indicate this part, probably because calling it the “narrative” is confusing in that the nimshal often also comprises a narrative. See notes 228–46 and accompanying text, infra. Stern, Parables in Midrash, 8 calls it, following Clemens Thoma (see below) the “mashalproper”; they are followed in this by Boyarin, Daniel. “Rhetoric and Interpretation: The Case of the Nimshal (with response from David Stern).” Prooftexts 5 (1985): 268, 270, although sometimes with an edge as “the mashal—so-called—proper.” Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse, 8, calls it the “Rhema,” an unusual word that he equates with Erzahlung —tale or narrative. Clemens Thoma had combined this part with the marker of comparison that precedes it and called the resulting part the mashal-proper in “Literary and Theological Aspects,” 30, and the “practical bene” in “Prolegomena,” 526. 206 See Chapter 4, note 300, infra, for king-parables in which the king remains offstage. 207 Thoma, “Prolegomena,” 526 calls this the “revelation bene.” 208 See notes 220–2, infra, and accompanying text for markers of applicability other than ‫ כך‬with the same or different meanings.

68

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Hebrew passive form of mashal—nimshal.209 Daniel Boyarin has persuasively designated the nimshal the parable’s primary signifying moment. Although he pays more attention than Boyarin does to the secular narrative, David Stern does not disagree, and writes that the nimshal has “priority, chronological and ontological,” over the secular narrative.210 Examples will make this clearer. This is an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period: A parable [the introductory word]. To what is the thing to be compared? To [the longer version of the marker of comparison] brigands who entered the king’s palace, destroyed his property, killed his household211 and ruined the palace. At a later time the king sat in judgment over them. He seized them, crucified them and killed them, and thereafter dwelled securely in his palace with his sovereignty recognized throughout the world [the secular narrative]. So [the marker of applicability] it is written, “the sanctuary O Lord that your hands have established. The Lord will reign forever and ever.” (Exodus 15:17–18) [the nimshal].212

See Stern, Parables in Midrash, 7; Boyarin, “Rhetoric and Interpretation,” 270. Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse, 8, calls it the “Thema,” the topic, or the point, which is perhaps why he called the secular narrative the “Rhema.” Thoma. “Prolegomena,” 526, oddly calls it the “formula.” 210 Boyarin, “Rhetoric and Interpretation,” 270; Stern, Parables in Midrash, 69. In an earlier article, Stern had speculated that the nimshal is the result of reducing parables to writing and was added to the parable form when parables were no longer “presented orally within a living social context,” and therefore when their audiences could no longer grasp their messages without help. Stern, David. “Jesus’ Parables from the Perspective of Rabbinic Literature: The Example of the Wicked Husbandmen.” In Thoma and Wyshograd, Parable and Story, 59. 211 The Hebrew word “‫ ”פמיליי‬is a loan word from Latin. 212 Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 10. For the sake of demonstrating the five-part form I have described above, I have included here neither the quotation of a scriptural verse at the beginning of the parable nor some 209

FORM AND STRUCTURE

69

And a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period: R. Shimon ben Lakish [the introduction]: Like [the shorter version of the marker of comparison] a king who had three sons being raised by a slave woman. Every time the king sent greetings to his sons he would say, “Greet the one who is raising you” [the secular narrative.] So [the marker of applicability] when the Holy One May He Be Blessed remembers the merits of the Patriarchs he remembers along with them the merit of the Land [the nimshal].213

It has been argued that the formal nature of much rabbinic writing casts doubt on the reliability of included attributions. But since each of these five parts varies from parable to parable, this argument is not applicable to third-century king-parables, if it is applicable anywhere.214 But this variety does not mean that Goldberg and others are wrong in identifying the direct parable as a formal structure; “form” does not imply identity among examples of the form. On the contrary, formal analysis can contribute to the understanding of texts by demonstrating that texts that seem different are in fact in an important sense the same and, as in the case of texts like the rabbinic parables, by revealing differences in those that seem the same. Some of the more common variants in the introductory word or phrase and in the marker of comparison have already been

introductory material not relevant for present purposes, but of great importance to the meaning of the parable. See Chapter 4, text following note 316, infra. This parable is offered here as the model of an exegetical parable; the verse at the beginning is the same verse from Exod 15 with which the nimshal concludes, although the Mekilta does not include the key words “forever and ever” in the opening, perhaps to add even more punch to the punch line. 213 Lev. Rab. 36:5. 214 See Chapter 1, note 39, supra.

70

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

noted.215 Those variants are probably matters of scribal practice.216 For example, one of the Imperial parables mentioned in Chapter 2 as perhaps reflecting a patronal relationship between a “king” and his “friend,”217 from the A1/Midcentury period, includes the introductory word “mashal” in the Parma manuscript of Pesiqta Rabbati, the full question form of the marker of comparison in the editio princeps and the Jewish Theological Seminary manuscript, but neither an introductory word or phrase nor the long-form marker of comparison in that document’s other manuscripts.218 And of course the secular narratives vary, although they are populated by similar characters often engaged in similar activities.219 Greater variety appears in the marker of applicability than in the marker of comparison, and it is less likely that this is generally a result of scribal preferences, since the variations change the way the texts are read.220 Even though these markers are often single words,

See notes 200–4 and accompanying text, supra. Another is ‫אמשול‬ ‫ לכה‬mashal—I will tell you a parable. b. Sanh. 91a, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 216 See Goldberg, “Schriftauslegende Gleichnis,” 22. 217 Chapter 2, note 129 and accompanying text, supra. 218 Other variants that seem solely scribal include abbreviations of the longer form of the marker of comparison, shortening “‫ ”כך‬to “‫ ”כ‬and abbreviated Rabbis’ names. 219 See Chapter 4, note 300 infra. Compare Stern, Parables in Midrash, 35. 220 Some differences in this marker are likely attributable to scribal activity. In the Parma manuscript of Pesiq. Rab. 21:27–28 from R. Joshua ben Levi, there is no marker of applicability, although the other manuscripts and the editio princeps all have ‫כך‬. Markers of applicability other than ‫ כך‬may be the result of scribal preference: ‫( אפ‬Exod. Rab. 2:2, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period; b. Sanh. 89b, an Imperial parable from the A3b Transitional period) and ‫( לכך‬Pesiq. Rab Kah. Supplement 7:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 472), another Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period; Sifre Deut. 345 and 355 (Finkelstein ed., 402 and 422–3), Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period). These 215

FORM AND STRUCTURE

71

they alter the reader’s understanding of how the parable furthers the rabbinic task at hand. A reader has a different understanding of a parable that shouts “‫”הרה‬221—behold—than of one that mumbles “‫ ”אפ הככן‬or “‫”כך אילמלא‬222—so also here—or one that merely and conventionally observes “so.” The power of the parable to perform its task is enhanced when the sole marker of applicability is a traditional rabbinic formula for citation to Scripture, as in this Standard parable from R. Isaac: R. Isaac said a parable. Like the friend who honored the king with gifts and fine bowls. The king said, “Take this to the entrance to the palace so that all who enter and exit will see it,” ‫שנאמר‬, “Bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting” (Leviticus 4:4)223

markers do not result in a reading different from the one had ‫ כך‬been used; they mean essentially the same thing. 221 Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236), a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period. (The power of this parable is reduced by its specific and unnecessary identification of its argument as a ‫קל והומר‬. See text at note 243, infra.) A similar, but less dramatic, reading comes from the use of ‫לפכך‬, ‫ אפכך‬and ‫כך“—שכך‬,” but with more emphasis. See Deut. Rab. 3:7, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period with six nimshals, the fourth and sixth of which are introduced by ‫שכך‬, the first by ‫כך‬, and the others by ‫ אפ‬and Pesiq. Rab. 28:12–14, a Standard parable from R. Isaac, which also uses ‫ כך‬to introduce the second step of a double nimshal. 222 Song Rab.5:1 and Sifre Deut. 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404), Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period. 223 Lev. Rab. 5:6. See Stern, “Rhetoric and Interpretation,” 276. Other examples are Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 10; Gen. Rab. 77:3; Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354), Gen. Rab. 41(42):3, and Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 100), Imperial parables from the A3b/Transitional period. An effect similar to that of using ‫ שנאמר‬or ‫ ככתוב‬as the marker of applicability can be the result of omitting such a marker and proceeding headlong into the nimshal, although the only example of that I have found among the third-century king-parables, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 25:4 (Mandelbaum

72

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

But such power is reduced in those parables that forego typical markers of applicability and instead spell out the elements of the secular narrative being compared to the elements of the nimshal:224 “the king, this is the Holy One May He Be Blessed, and the sons, these are Israel”;225 “the king, this is the King of Kings of Kings, the garden, this is the world in which the Holy One May He Be Blessed put Israel to guard the Torah;”226 “this king is the King of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed, this tenant is the father and the mother.”227 Variants in the nimshal The three examples of parables given in full above have short nimshals consisting of only a Scriptural verse or of a single sentence. This is not typical. Most king-parables have longer, more complex nimshals.

ed., 382), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, mutes its power with an unusually wordy nimshal. 224 See Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies, 44. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1996: “[T]he mashal ... draws a series of parallels. ...[which it] leaves ... to the audience to figure out.” Stern does not note that some parables do indeed make the parallels explicit; while he specifically says that he is writing here about most parables, the context indicates that he means to include all those that are neither merely “illustrative” nor “secret speech.” A reading somewhat similar to that resulting from spelling out comparisons results when the marker of applicability is simply ‫—הוא‬this, it (Exod. Rab. 42:8, a Standard parable from R. Joshua ben Levi). See also Tanh. Ki Tisa 3, a Standard parable of R. Levi. 225 Pesiq. Rab. 15:1–3, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. 226 Exod. Rab. 2:2, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period. 227 Eccl. Rab. 5:13, a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period. Spelled out comparisons are sometimes inserted slightly more artfully into the text of the nimshal: “He [God] said to them ‘Bring two high generals and twelve senators’: this is Moses and Aaron, and the twelve heads of the tribes.” Deut. Rab. 3:3, an Imperial parable of R. Levi.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

73

The richest of these weave together verses from otherwise unrelated Scripture, taken from all over the Bible, to provide a new narrative to be compared to the secular narrative. Daniel Boyarin’s work on parables has emphasized the fact of these “intertextual” parables, and his discussion of them is his principal contribution to the study of the form and structure of rabbinic parables.228 Boyarin’s research on this topic was apparently limited to such parables appearing in the Mekilta de R. Ishmael, but dozens of other intertextual parables are included among the third-century kingparables, both Imperial and Standard, from all periods, and from many documents.229 A few of the longer nimshals that are less complex than the intertextual echo their technique but confine themselves to filling in interstices between Scriptural verses in the order in which they appear in the Bible. They do not create an entirely new narrative to be compared to the secular narrative, but rather extend, modify or complete a narrative already existing in Scripture. Here is R. Levi, perhaps positing a more insecure deity than usually envisioned, extending the story told in Exodus 19–20: R. Levi said a parable. Like a king who wanted to perform governmental acts outside the knowledge of the prefect.230 He said to him, “Do such and such a thing.” He answered him, “It Boyarin, Intertextuality, 80–116. Boyarin wrote elsewhere that the parable’s function is to provide a narrative genre within which a novel narrative can be created. “Rhetoric and Interpretation,” 272. 229 David Stern has strongly disagreed with Boyarin’s apparent view that the raison d’etre of the rabbinic parable is its ability to generate intertextual narratives. He resists Boyarin’s idea of the essential nature of the nimshal, claims that Boyarin misses the parable’s rhetorical function, and denies that parables provide a rationale for exegesis. See Parables in Midrash, 321. Stern further asserts that Boyarin’s Rabbis are concerned merely with relations between verses in an intertextual web, while his own are concerned with relations between God and Israel in history. “Rhetoric and Interpretation,” 279. More recently, Stern has retreated from his criticism of emphasis on the importance of intertextuality, although not in a discussion of parables. Midrash and Theory, 29. 230 The Hebrew “‫ ”אפפרכוס‬is a loan word from Greek. 228

74

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES is already done.” Again he said to him, “Go, call Poloni the counselor,231 and bring him with you.” Until he arrived, the king did what he wanted. So [‫ ]כך‬the Holy One May He Be Blessed wanted to give the Ten Commandments, while Moses was standing at his side. The Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “When I roll the firmament before them and say ‘I am the Lord your god’ they will say, ‘Who spoke, the Holy One May He Be Blessed or Moses?’ Rather Moses will go down, and, after that, I will say, ‘I am the Lord your god.’” So [‫]כך‬232 the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, “Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and have them wash their clothes.” (Exodus 19:10) He said to him, “I already sanctified them, as it says ‘for you did charge us, saying set bounds around the mountain and sanctify it.’” (Exodus 19: 23) He said to him, “Go down, and come up with Aaron with you.” (Exodus 19:24) As Moses went down, the Holy One May He Be Blessed revealed himself, as it says, “And Moses went down to the people,” (Exodus 19:25) and immediately thereafter, “God spoke.” (Exodus 20:1)233

The Hebrew “‫ ”סינקיטקוס‬is a loan word from Greek; it may mean “senator.” 232 Most parables with double nimshals, like this one, are “double” only as a matter of presentation. The first part is non-Scriptural, the second Scriptural, and the sense of the parable would not be altered if the second marker of applicability (other than any citation formula) were deleted. Other examples of such “false” double nimshals include Sifre Deut. 345 and 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404), Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period, and Tanh. Ki Tisa 3, a Standard parable of R. Levi. Other parables with multiple nimshals are better presented and discussed as intertextual, such as Exod. Rab. 42:8, a Standard parable of R. Joshua ben Levi. 233 Exod. Rab. 28:3. Other examples of this sort of “interstitial” thirdcentury king-parable are Sifre Deut. 306 (Finkelstein ed., 330), a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, in which the two parts of Job 20:27 (“The heavens shall reveal his iniquity; the earth will rise up against him”) are presented as illustrating, respectively, extra-scriptural statements by Moses to Israel that they will not be able to escape from God’s authority because the heavens keep records and even the earth 231

FORM AND STRUCTURE

75

Other longer nimshals start out as the sort of short exegetical nimshal mentioned above, but their scriptural citations are insufficient to make the point without help. The nimshal then augments or explains the verse. In this parable the scriptural verse is augmented with additional narrative, here in the form of dialogue, using much the same technique as those parables in which scriptural interstices are filled in: A parable. Like a king of flesh and blood who entered a province. His servants said to him, “Decree decrees over them.” He said to them, “No. When they receive my kingdom on them, I will decree decrees over them, for if they do not receive my kingdom how will they carry out my decrees?” So God said to Israel, “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:20) I am he whose kingdom you received in Egypt.” They said to him, “Yes, yes.” He answered, “And just as you have received my kingdom on you, receive my decrees.”234

Other nimshals are extended to explain rather than to augment: R. Samuel bar Nachman said a parable in the name of R. Jonathan. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who used to live in a province whose residents would anger him. The king got angry and went out of the city about ten miles and stayed there. Someone saw him and said to the residents of the province, “Know that the king is angry with you and he knows what they did, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 100–1), another Standard parable from the same period, which inserts a ketubah and a fixed period of marriage among the verses of Esth 2:16, and Pesiq. Rab. 14:17–18, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period, in which Solomon’s request that he be given wisdom is inserted between 2 Chr 1:7 [and 1 Kgs 3:5] (“Ask, what shall I give you?”) and 2 Chr 1:12 (“wisdom and knowledge are granted to you; I will also give you riches, possessions and honor.”) See also Song Rab. 1:1 (9), another Imperial parable from the same period, with a similar nimshal that uses only 1 Kgs 3:5. 234 Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 237–8).

76

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES asks to send legions on the city and destroy it. Go out and calm him down that he will not be far from you.” A clever one who was there said to them, “Fools, as long as he was among you, you didn’t ask anything of him, and now when he has distanced himself you go to his place and only maybe he will receive you.” And so it is written, “Seek the Lord while he may be found.” (Isaiah 55:6) That is, seek him during the Ten Days of Repentance, during which he stays among you.235

But on occasion such explanation seems the work of later redactors or scribes; here the secular narrative plus the verse from Psalms makes it clear that the verse is being interpreted to mean that God’s oath, made in anger, will be avoided, and the final two sentences are hardly necessary: R. Levi said a parable in the name of Bar Kappara. Like a king who became angry with his son and decreed that he will not enter the palace with him. What did the king do? He pulled it down, and built it again, and brought his son with him into the new palace. He is steady in his oath but nonetheless gathered his son to him. So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “wherefore in my anger I swore; they shall not enter my rest.” (Psalms 95:11) They didn’t enter this rest, but they entered another rest. To this rest they will not come but they will come to another rest.236

More often, and perhaps more artfully, the additional material comes before the verse, as in these two shorter domestic examples from R. Levi, both showing his skills as an exegete, with the first perhaps showing him in something of an antic mood: R. Levi said, Like Matrona, to whom the king said, “Pass before me,” and she passed before him and her face turned pale. She said, “Will you say that a disqualification is found in me?” The king said to her, “There is no disqualification in you, Pesiq. Rab Kah. Supplement 7:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 472), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. See also Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 14 (Weiss ed., 42a); Gen. Rab. 69:3. 236 Lev. Rab. 32:2, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period. 235

FORM AND STRUCTURE

77

only that the nail of your little finger is somewhat big. Remove it and the fault is gone.” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Abraham, “There is no disqualification in you, only this foreskin. Remove it and the fault is gone.” “Walk before me and be blameless.” (Genesis 17:1)237 R. Levi said a parable. Like Matrona, who was the subject of gossip concerning one of the greats of the kingdom. The king investigated the evidence and found nothing in it. What did the king do? He made a great banquet and he sat the man at the head of the table. Why all this? To show that the king investigated the evidence and found nothing in it. So when the nations of the world taunted Israel and said to her, “You made the golden calf,” and the Holy One May He Be Blessed investigated the evidence and found nothing in it, the bull was shown as the first of all the offerings. “A bull or a sheep or a goat.” (Leviticus 22:27)238

Gen. Rab. 46:4. Lev. Rab. 27:8. See also Midr. Pss 1:5, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period; Gen. Rab. 50:12, a Standard parable of R. Levi. As was the case in parables in which the explanation followed the verse, some of these explanations and augmentations seem to have been added by later redactors or scribes, since the connection between the verse and the secular narrative is quite clear. See Sifra Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 5 (Weiss ed., 44b), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, which compares “And the whole congregation came near and stood before the Lord” (Lev 9:5) with a secular narrative involving a matrona, who, after the king forgave her, dressed up and attended on the king excessively, and Exod. Rab. 21:9, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period, which compares “cast away [an alternative reading of the verb usually translated as ‘lift up’] your rod and stretch out your hand” (Exod 14:16) with a secular narrative involving a royal officer respected only when he carries his staff of office whom the king instructs to leave his staff behind and rely on the king’s power of capital punishment. Other parables use explanations both before and after the verse, including Tanh. Ki Tisa 3, a Standard parable of R. Levi. 237 238

78

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Longer, non-exegetical, parables need not include a verse from Scripture, as in this example from R. Levi, perhaps from a Yom Kippur sermon and perhaps providing some insight into the High Holy Day practices of the Rabbis: R. Mana of Shaab and R. Joshua of Sichnin said a parable in the name of R. Levi. Like a province liable to the king for the balance of its taxes.239 The king went to collect. The great ones of the province came ten miles out of town and praised him and the king released them of a third of their taxes. When the king arrived at the place five miles out of town, the magistrates of the province came and praised him and he released them of a third of their taxes. When the king entered the province all the men, women and children praised him and he released them of everything. The king said to them, “What is past is past; from now on we begin the calculation anew.” So when the great ones of the generation come on Rosh Hashanah and mortify themselves, the Holy One May He Be Blessed remits one third of their punishment. From Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur ordinary individuals mortify themselves and the Holy One May He Be Blessed releases them of a third of their punishment, and on Yom Kippur everyone mortifies themselves, men, women and children, and the Holy One May He Be Blessed says to Israel, “What is past is past, from now on we begin the calculation anew.”240

The Hebrew word ‫ דימוסיא‬is a loan word from Greek. Lev. Rab. 30:7, a Standard parable. See also Sifre Num. 115 Horowitz ed., 127–8); Lev. Rab. 4:4, a Standard parable of R. Levi. In form the parable set out in the text seems to be exegetical of Lev 23:40 (“on the first day”) but the connection between the parable and the verse before the Rabbis is not apparent. Somewhat shorter versions appear in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:7 (Mandelbaum ed., 412–3) and Eccl. Rab. 9:5.7, which spell the tradent’s name “Mani.” Eccl. Rab. 9:5.7 is exegesis on “Go, eat your bread with enjoyment” (Eccl 9:7), and it indeed concludes with God pronouncing that verse after “we begin the calculation anew,” an apparent reference to the end of the Yom Kippur fast. 239 240

FORM AND STRUCTURE

79

Another way parables increase in length is when a second parable is used as or in the nimshal. As a matter of form, this example is hybrid: part direct, and part either formless or an unusual second-person example of an antithetical parable: A parable. Like a king who decreed that his son not enter his palace with him. He entered the first gate and nobody spoke, the second, and nobody spoke, the third and they rebuked him and said to him, “Enough for you so far.” They said to him, “Enough for you already.” So when Moses cast down the two nations, Sichon and Og, and gave their land to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh, they said to him, “It seems as if the decree against you [that you not enter the Land] was not unconditional. Maybe we likewise have not been sentenced unconditionally.” Moses said before the Holy One May He Be Blessed, “Master of the Universe, are your ways like those of flesh and blood? A procurator decrees a decree; the president of the district can make him annul it. The president of the district decrees a decree; the decurion can make him annul it. The decurion decrees a decree; the hegemon can make him annul it. The hegemon decrees a decree; the prefect can make him annul it. The prefect decrees a decree; the great ruler comes and makes him annul it completely. For they are all but appointees, one superior to the other. Are your ways like their ways?”241

But the length of a parable is hardly an indication of its power or interest. Some third-century king-parables are longer than they might be, and less powerful, because of the inclusion of other genres of rabbinic language not necessary to make the point of the parable. In one of R. Levi’s parables, the nimshal is interrupted twice by the formulaic rabbinic question seeking the Scriptural source of a statement—‫מנין‬.242 Another example243 interrupts its Mek. de R. Ishmael Amalek 2. See notes 254–99 and accompanying text, infra, for antithetical, formless and hybrid parables. 242 Deut. Rab. 3:3, a Standard parable. Deut. Rab. 3:7, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period, interrupts its nimshal with ‫ מנין‬three times. Perhaps this indicates a preference on the part of the redactor of 241

80

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

nimshal, the point of which is a ‫—קל והומר‬an a minori proof —by specifically saying that it is a ‫קל והומר‬. Variety in nimshals does not necessarily come from their length. Among the parables containing the most significant deviations from form are those in which the marker of applicability is missing and a short nimshal precedes the secular narrative instead of coming after it.244 A brief example is an Imperial parable in which R. Joshua ben Levi is doing somewhat pedestrian exegesis of the use of the plural in “And God said let us make man” (Genesis 1:26): R. Joshua ben Levi said he consulted with the angels of heaven and earth. A parable. Like a king who had two senators and didn’t do a thing without their knowledge.245 Deut. Rab. or of the scribe of the manuscript on which this edition is based. 243 Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236), a Standard parable. 244 A very unusual sort of shorter nimshal that I have been unable to fit in any larger category is a brief narrative paraphrasing Scripture, from Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 358): “R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nachman, Like a province that rebelled against the king and the king sent a general to destroy it. The general was expert and calm. He said to them, “Give yourself a few days so that the king will not do to you what he did to such and such a province and its communities and such and such a prefecture and its communities.” So Hosea said to Israel, “My sons, do teshuvah, so the Holy One May He Be Blessed will not do to you what he did to Samaria and its communities.” The nimshal’s point seems to be the fact that Hosea said such a thing, not the substance of what he said. 245 Gen. Rab. 8:3. Other examples of parables in which the nimshal precedes the secular narrative are b. Pesach 103a, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period; Sifra Bechukotai, pereq 4:4 (Weiss ed., 112a), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period; Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed. 102), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period; b. Sukkah 55b, a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period; Sifre Deut. 357 (Finkelstein ed., 430) and Midr. Pss 86:7, Standard

FORM AND STRUCTURE

81

Or the nimshal might come neither after nor before the secular narrative, but be deftly combined with it: R. Levi said, Like a king who wanted to marry a woman from a good and noble family. He said, “I will not court her until I do some good for her. I will do some good for her and thereafter I will court her.” He saw her naked and he clothed her. “I clothed you with embroidered cloth.” (Ezekiel 19:10) At the sea he crossed her. “And the children of Israel walked on dry land in the midst of the sea.” (Exodus 14:29) And when they came upon her and would have seized her, he saved her.246

Some nimshals are more than short; they are absent. Frequently, though, such absence is illusory; although it is not reduced to words, the nimshal is nonetheless there. An example of such an implicit nimshal comes from R. Abba bar Kahana as he worked on reconciling two texts on the same subject: “A song of David, when he fled from his son Absalom” (Psalms 3:1) and “When he went up to the ascent of the mount of Olives, weeping” (2 Samuel 15:30, the narrative account of David’s flight from Absalom): R. Abba bar Kahana said a parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who became angry with his son and banished him from him his palace. The king sent out his ‫פדגג‬247 after him. He went and found him weeping and singing. His ‫ פדגג‬said to him, “Why are you both weeping and singing?” He said, “I weep because I have made my father angry with me and I sing because he has banished me and not sentenced me to death, and not only has he not killed me but

parables from the A3b/Transitional period; and Deut. Rab. 1:23, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 246 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211–2). The parable seems to be missing the final piece of the built-in nimshal, which must have been a scriptural text in which God saved Israel. 247 The Hebrew is a loan word from Greek.

82

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES he has banished me to a place where there are duxes and prefects.”248

Can the “missing” nimshal be anything other than that “so” David wept and sang at the same time: he wept for Absalom, but sang for his safety and the company of his court?249 But in at least one instance, a third-century king-parable has come down to us without a nimshal, explicit, implicit or built-in.250 A ‫ מין‬said to R. Ammi, “You say that the dead will come to life, but they turn to dust and can dust come to life?”251 He said to him, “I will tell you a parable. To what is the thing to be compared? Like a king of flesh and blood who said to his servants, ‘Go and build me a great palace in a place where there is no water and earth.’ They went and they built it. After a while it fell. He said to them, ‘Go back and build it in a place where there is water and earth.’ They said to him, ‘It is not possible for us.’ He got angry with them and said to them, ‘You built in a place where there was no water or earth. Where there is water and earth, you will certainly be able to.’ And if you don’t believe, go out in the field and look at a mouse, which today is part flesh and part dust and which tomorrow will be all flesh.”252

What might an implicit nimshal be? That the ‫מין‬, with no faith in bringing people back to life, is like the servants, who had no faith in their ability to rebuild the palace? If so, why would Midr. Pss 3:3, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. As William G. Braude pointed out in his translation of Midr. Pss, 2 Sam 15:34 shows a group of civil and ecclesiastical officials with King David—“duxes and prefects.” 249 Another parable with a missing but implicit nimshal is Lev. Rab. 1:14, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period, which interprets “He will see the very form of the Lord” (Num 12:8) with a parable of a king who appears dressed informally before his freedman. 250 See also Gen. Rab. 63:5. 251 As an aid in discussing the absence of the nimshal, I have included here introductory material excluded in other examples. 252 b. Sanh. 91a, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 248

FORM AND STRUCTURE

83

R. Ammi tell the ‫ מין‬a parable that does nothing but assert his wrong-headedness? Surely the nimshal would somehow make the point that, indeed, the dead will come back to life. Is the implicit nimshal that, like the servants who could build a palace in a place with no earth and no water, God can raise human beings from dust? But the palace fell, and undoubtedly Ammi believed that resurrection would be permanent. Moreover, his “proof” does not follow from the parable, but from rabbinic zoology to the effect that mice start out, at least in part, as dust, and if dust mice can become fully alive, why not human corpses? All the parable seems to contribute is the idea that there’s a great deal that ‫ מינים‬don’t know, including about miracles, and even so the reference to mice seems out of place. At one time Ammi’s parable had a nimshal, and it probably did not involve dust, or mice, or even the resurrection of the dead, but it got lost in the complex process of the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud.253

Some further evidence of nimshals lost in transmission may be provided by a nimshal that as we have it seems truncated or incomplete. See Song Rab. 4:5 (1), a Standard parable from the A3b/ Transitional period (“Like a king who had two precious pearls and put them in the balances: this one is not as big as that one, and that one is not as big as this one. So these are Moses and Aaron, equals.”) One Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 212), defies classification: R. Eleazar said, Like a king who wanted to marry a woman from a good and noble family, and he said, “I will not court her until I do good for her. I will do good for her and thereafter I will court her.” He saw her at the baker’s and he filled her basket with fine white bread, at the tavern keeper’s and he gave her spiced wine to drink; at the one who force-feeds birds and he filled her basket with force-fed birds, at the dried-fruits dealer and he filled her basket with dried fruits. At the baker’s and he filled her basket with fine white bread; “I am going to rain bread from heaven for you” (Exod 16:4); at the tavern keeper’s and he gave her spiced wine to drink: “Israel sang this song—‘spring up, o well” (Num 21:17); at the one who force-feeds birds and he filled her basket with force-fed birds “it brought quails from the sea” (Num 11:31); at the dried253

84

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

ANTITHETICAL PARABLES Those formal parables that do not compare a secular narrative with a biblical verse or other statement ostensibly to show similarities between them but rather contrast a secular narrative with such a verse or statement to show differences between them are less common than direct king-parables; only fourteen of the 232 parables that are the subject of this study fit in this category. The Israeli scholar Talia Thorion-Vardi was probably the first to study “antithetical parables” as a distinct form.254 She seems to have considered a vast number of parables, apparently going beyond those in Ignaz Ziegler’s collection, and they include kingparables and others from a period that includes but is not limited to the third century.255 She identifies four parts of the antithetical parable:

fruits dealer and he filled her basket with dried fruits “he nursed them with honey from the crags, with oil from flinty rocks.” (Deut 32:13) As was the case of the parable mentioned in note 223, supra, this one contains no marker of applicability, but it cannot be said that it proceeds headlong to the nimshal, since it has no nimshal as such. Instead, the nimshal is combined with a repetition of the secular narrative. It can easily be imagined that in an earlier version these verses were not so combined but were rather combined with the original narrative itself. If, however, the repetition of the narrative was deleted, and a marker of applicability added, we would be left with a “normal” direct parable with an intertextual nimshal. 254 Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse. Thorion-Vardi herself points out that she is the first to study the antithetical parable as a form, and I have found no reason to question her claim, although in the first volume of the monumental study of various parables in particular documents, published in the same year as Thorion-Vardi’s book, the Swiss scholars Clemens Thoma and Simon Lauer gave separate attention to the “direkt antithetisches Gleichnis.” Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Erster Teil, 132. 255 I have not located an antithetical king-parable from the T5/Later Severan period, a period from which only three king-parables seem to come, or from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, a period to which I have assigned only seventeen parables.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

85

1. An introductory summarizing statement, to the effect that God is not like a king of flesh and blood. This part is often omitted, and is included in only three of the fourteen antithetical third-century king-parables.256 2. Her “Part A,” a statement of what the king257 does, or what the king is like.258 This is a short narrative, often shorter even than b. B. Bat. 10a, an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period, Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, an Imperial parable from R. Abbahu, and Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. 257 While the contrast is usually specifically to a “king of flesh and blood,” three of the fourteen antithetical third-century king-parables contrast God simply with “flesh and blood,” and the question arises whether “flesh and blood” is an abbreviation for a “king of flesh and blood” or a reference to someone else or perhaps to humanity in general. Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse, 54–5 notes in this connection that in some parables (not from the third century) a “king of flesh and blood” becomes mere “flesh and blood” in a later source, suggesting to her that such kings were not modeled on Roman emperors themselves but on imperial appointees. She also notes that in other cases “flesh and blood” becomes a “king of flesh and blood” in later sources and speculates that this is a result of what David Stern elsewhere called the regularization process. See Chapter 2, note 184 and accompanying text, supra. The three third-century “flesh and blood” parables, all of which are Imperial, fit within her category of those in which the context makes it clear that “flesh and blood” is a king. In Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), from the A2/Divided Empire period, “flesh and blood” goes to war as a leader of many men; in Midr. Pss 86:4, from the A3b/Transitional period, “flesh and blood” is praised and the prefects who help him are praised along with him, and in Lev. Rab. 18:5, from R. Levi, “flesh and blood” gives out various sentences, including exile, banishment and imprisonment, and various benefits, including annona. “Flesh and blood” in the first of these could of course also be a general or other lesser official, but the others must be “kings.” See also Weiss, Daniel. “‘Thine is the kingdom’: The Holy One and kings of flesh and blood in the parables of Midrash Tanhuma,” presented at the New England Region of the Society of Biblical Literature 2003 Annual Meeting, which concludes that the phrases “king of flesh and blood” and “flesh and blood” became an element 256

86

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

those in the direct parables; comparison with direct parables will be facilitated if this Part is thought of as a secular narrative.259 3. A very brief introduction to what Thorion-Vardi calls Part B (this part consists of the word “but” in all fourteen of the thirdcentury antithetical king-parables.)260 4. Her “Part B,” what God261 does, or is like, demonstrated by a scriptural text. This is the counterpart to the direct parable’s nimshal and may be thought of as an antithetical nimshal. Like the nimshal in a direct parable, it is an antithetical parable’s primary signifying moment.262 In one Imperial parable the antithetical nimshal is augmented by additional material, as was the case of some of the direct parables discussed above; here a separate rabbinic tradition is cited: Flesh and blood is praised to his face and the prefects are praised with him. Why are they praised with him? Because they help carry his burdens. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like that. No man helps carry his burdens. You know

specifically of antithetical parables only in later documents (which he assumes are later parables), illustrated by a comparison of Mek. de R. Ishmael and the Buber edition of Tanh. 258 Sometimes this is preceded by a more general introduction to the parable, “come and see,” also used in other forms of rabbinic literature. See b. B. Bat. 10a; Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse, 25–6. 259 In Thorion-Vardi’s analysis, this part is preceded by another part, an introduction to this part, such as the words “a king of flesh and blood.” She recognizes that this “part” is often omitted, and it seems to me that when it is included, it is better understood as a statement of who the subject of “Part A” is than as a separate part. 260 Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse, 42 located several variants of this part in other antithetical parables. 261 This is always God in the fourteen third-century antithetical kingparables I have located, although the subject of Part B in the wider group of parables Thorion-Vardi analyzed includes the people of Israel, various biblical figures, and the Torah. Thorion-Vardi, Kontrastgleichnisse, 55. 262 See note 210 and accompanying text, supra. Parables demonstrating these parts are set out in the text at notes 270–3 and note 277, infra.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

87

this since R. Haninah and R. Yohanan said that the angels were created on the second day.263

Also, like direct parables, antithetical parables can generate a second, non-secular, intertextual narrative:264 A king of flesh and blood, when he goes out to war, takes all his armies with him, but when he goes to his ‫ מיומס‬festival,265 takes only enough of his ‫לגיונות‬266 to wait upon him. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed, when he goes out to war, he goes by himself, as it is written “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name” (Exodus 15:3.) But when he goes to his ‫ מיומס‬festival of giving Torah, see what is written: “Twice ten thousand were God’s chariots, thousands upon thousands, when the Lord came in holiness on Sinai,” (Psalms 68:18), and it is written “And the Lord my god will come, and all his holy ones with him.” (Zechariah 14:5)267

Midr. Pss 86:4 from the A3b/Transitional period. See note 228 and accompanying text, supra. 265 The Hebrew is a loan word from Greek; Roman Majuma (“May Day”) festivals involved largess to the legions and mock sea-fights. 266 The Hebrew is a loan word from Latin. 267 Midr. Pss 18:17. The parallel version of this parable in Pesiq. Rab. 21:24 leaves out the verse from Pss. Other antithetical third-century kingparables with intertextual nimshals are Mek. De R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32–33), an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period, which generates a narrative about God’s ability to simultaneously wage war and hear prayer from verses in Exod and Pss; Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100); an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided empire period, which generates a narrative of God going to war alone but to peace accompanied by many from verses in Exod and Pss; and Num. Rab. 1:2, an Imperial parable from R. Levi, which generates a narrative about Moses, Aaron and Miriam from verses in Mic, Josh and Num. Antithetical parables can also fill in the interstices of the scriptural narrative, as do some direct parables. See Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period that fills in the interstices in the scriptural narrative of the construction of the Tabernacle. 263 264

88

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Contrary to Thorion-Vardi’s final conclusion that the difference in function between direct and antithetical parables is one of “surprising clarity”—direct parables are exegetical while antithetical parables exemplify God’s rule, usually without a scriptural verse268—antithetical parables were in fact used by thirdcentury Rabbis to clarify textual difficulties, sometimes even as formal exegesis beginning with the verse being explained, as in the least complex exegetical direct parables. And most of the fourteen third-century antithetical king-parables I’ve located conclude with a scriptural verse. Here is R. Levi, as a theologian: It is written, “But you O Lord are on high forever” (Psalms 92:8). ... In the custom of the world, a king of flesh and blood269 sits in judgment. When he gives amnesty270 all the people praise him, and when he gives the death sentence271 they do not praise him. Why? They know there is unfairness in his judgments [the secular narrative.]272 But [introduction to the antithetical nimshal] the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like that. Rather whether it is the quality of goodness or the quality of punishment, “But you O Lord are on high forever.” [the antithetical nimshal].273

Another exegetical antithetical parable274 interprets the verse in Psalms 12:6 that God’s promises are pure by contrasting them with those of a king of flesh and blood who promises a group of

Kontrastgleichnisse, 133. Thorion-Vardi would treat the text up to here as a separate “part.” 270 The Hebrew word ‫ דימוס‬is a loan word from Greek, where it was apparently first used in connection with public games and festivals, where amnesties were given. 271 The Hebrew word ‫ ספיקולא‬is a loan word from Greek, where it is derived from the word for dart or javelin. 272 This is an unusually long secular narrative for an antithetical parable. 273 Lev. Rab. 29:2. 274 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 55) 268 269

FORM AND STRUCTURE

89

provincials baths and drainage ditches, but reneges. Still another275 explains why “The Lord bless you and keep you” (Numbers 6:24) comes before “it came to pass” (Numbers 7:1) by contrasting God with a human king who benefits the people of a conquered province only after they praise him. Other antithetical parables solve textual difficulties, but less obviously. In connection with interpreting the inconsistencies in Genesis as to whether the earth or the heavens were created first, R. Yohanan, without specifically mentioning those Genesis verses, contrasted kings of flesh and blood who build the lower part of a palace first and then add the upper part with God who created the earth and the heavens all at once.276 But Thorion-Vardi’s conclusion is wrong only in degree. The antithetical parable more often plays a non-exegetical role. The rabbinic tasks this Standard parable from Resh Lakish performs are emphasizing the specialness of the Sabbath and its importance to God and making a theological claim that the Sabbath is “for” God, not for those who rest on it. In the custom of the world, a king of flesh and blood who considers himself enlightened tells his servants, “Take a day for yourselves and work only six for me,” [the secular narrative] but [introduction to the antithetical nimshal] the Holy One May He Be Blessed says to Israel, “My sons, take six days for yourselves and only one for me” [the antithetical nimshal].277

The lesson of an exegetical antithetical parable need not be quite that lofty and may only encourage right conduct, such as charity: In the ways of flesh and blood, a man brings a great present to a king, and maybe he will receive it and maybe he will not receive it. If it turns out that he receives it, maybe he will see the king and maybe he will not see the king. But the Holy One Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 276 Gen. Rab. 9:3, 12:12. 277 Pesiq. Rab. 23:6. 275

90

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES May He Be Blessed is not like this. A man who gives a small coin to the poor merits and receives the face of the Shekhinah, as it is written, “I shall behold your face in tzedakah [here understood to mean “charity”]” (Psalms 17:15).278

FORMLESS PARABLES My analysis of the forms of direct and antithetical parables has built on the analyses of others. But—and this is an important “but”—a text need not follow a form to be a parable. I regard any rabbinic material making a comparison with a king as a “king-parable,” a broader definition than the strict forms treated by earlier writers.279 While study of the forms of formal parables is fruitful in providing insight into the way the Rabbis usually went about making comparisons with kings and the way those comparisons have come down to us, it is the fact and the substance of the comparison rather than its form or lack thereof that is important for the other purposes of this study: What rabbinic tasks were accomplished when the Rabbis made comparisons with kings? In what settings were such comparisons made? Does the figure of the “king” in Imperial parables serve as an object of political protest by the Rabbis, or do such comparisons reflect some other aspect of their status as members of an occupied society and dwellers in an occupied country? What do such comparisons tell us of the Rabbis’ views of the Roman emperors? What, if anything, do such comparisons tell us about the Roman emperors themselves? For all these purposes, a comparison with a king, a “kingparable,” hardly need be formal. I stress this because I am at odds with Arnold Goldberg, who concluded that a parable (Gleichnis) is different from a mere comparison (Vergleich) and that only Gleichnisse were worthy of attention, on the grounds that a Gleichnis is narrative, while a Vergleich is descriptive, that a Gleichnis is fictional, while a Vergleich need not be, and that a Gleichnis is “a little epic unity.” Since b. B. Bat. 10a, an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period. 279 See Chapter 1, text at note 2, supra. 278

FORM AND STRUCTURE

91

Goldberg’s project was limited to formal analysis of rabbinic parables, his argument makes sense for his purposes; it is impossible to do formal analysis of formless texts. Yet several formless parables indeed are or contain narratives and perhaps provide “little epic unities,” among them a narrative of a company of angels going before a man;280 a narrative of a king in mourning;281 a narrative of a king making a new friend and declaring a holiday for him;282 and a narrative of the angels wishing to sing before God as Israel passed through the Sea, and God not permitting it.283 At least eighteen of the 232 parables that are the subject of this study are formless, a group larger than the third-century antithetical parables, the form that was the subject of ThorionVardi’s entire book. Not all formless parables are completely without form. At one end of the spectrum is a parable that would be correctly classified as direct, by both Goldberg and me, but for the absence of markers of comparison and applicability; the addition of the words “‫ ”ל‬and “‫ ”כך‬at the appropriate places would render this parable formal. A king of flesh and blood acquires for himself a friend and makes a holiday for him; the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy

280

Midr. Pss. 55:3, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury

period. Pes. Rab Kah. 15:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 250–1), a Standard parable from the same period. 282 Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. 283 Exod. Rab. 23:7, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period. See also Mek.de R. Ishmael Amalek 4, also an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period including an interstitial narrative within Exod 18:14; and Esth. Rab. 1:19, an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, including an interstitial narrative within Esth 1:3. See also note 294 and accompanying text, infra, for an intertextual formless parable. For “interstitial narratives,” see notes 230–3 and accompanying text, supra (direct) and note 267, supra (antithetical). 281

92

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES One May He Be Blessed, when he establishes for himself a priest, how much the more so!284

But to extend the category of direct parable to include this parable would necessitate ignoring important aspects of the work of Goldberg and others.285 Similarly, one third-century parable resembles an informal version of the antithetical parable: R. Samuel bar Nachmani said, In all your days have you seen rebels against a king to whom he continues to give their sustenance? R. Jonathan said, It is written, “Even when they had cast an image of a calf for themselves” (Nehemiah 9:18), manna came down.286

But others are totally formless, en passant comparisons with kings. R. Hananiah ben Hachinai said, “Put two loaves between the thighs of the lambs and wave them and you will fulfill two verses of Scripture at once: bread with the lambs and lambs with the bread” [Leviticus 23:18 and 23:20]. Rabbi said, “You wouldn’t do this before a king of flesh and blood and you would do so before the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One

Sifra Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d). See also Mek. de R. Ishmael Amalek 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:179), in which Jethro sees Moses behaving “like” a king, a shadow marker of comparison; and Lev. Rab. 18:5, a series of Imperial parables attributed to R. Levi, in which “flesh and blood” does something and God does the same thing, as in a typical direct parable but which contain no markers of comparison or applicability. 285 See also Midr. Pss 55:3, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period, in which a company of angels goes before a man, saying “make way for the image of God” in implicit comparison to heralds going before images of the emperor; this might have been characterized as a direct parable without a marker of comparison and with an implicit nimshal. 286 Midr. Pss 3:3, an Imperial parable. 284

FORM AND STRUCTURE

93

May He Be Blessed? Rather, put this at the side of that and wave them.”287

Is Judah the Patriarch (“Rabbi”) here referring to what might be done at a ceremony of the imperial cult? Or just to the need not to engage in behavior that might be thought disgusting in the presence of a king? In any event, a comparison is made between God and a king, but without any formal characteristics. Another example may also refer to cultic practices involving “kings,” since it explains Numbers 7:10–11’s rules about the offerings by ‫ נשיאים‬by comparing Nachshon, the ancestor of kings, with a king: Why does Scripture say, “One ‫ נשיא‬each day”? Because Nachshon was a king,288 and he began the offering, he might have said, “I began the offerings and I will offer with everyone else every day.” Therefore it says, “one ‫ נשיא‬each day.”289

The comparison can be even more remote. This example does not seem to compare God to a king at first blush, but why else would R. Yohanan think of Israel as God’s “legions”? R. Yohanan said, The angels wanted to sing a song before the Holy One May He Be Blessed in the same night that Israel passed through the sea. The Holy One May He Be Blessed did not permit it. He said to them, “My legions are in trouble and you would sing a song before me?”290 Sifra Emor pereq 13:8 (Weiss ed., 102a), an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period. 288 On its face, this is more than comparison, but Nachshon was surely not a king himself. Perhaps the comparison is to his own descendants, the royal line of David, which would require this parable to be reclassified as Standard. 289 Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. 290 Exod. Rab. 23:7, an Imperial parable. See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 250–1), a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period, in which God wears purple; Midr. Pss 18:21, a Standard parable, in which Resh Lakish is quoted as commenting on “Who is on the Lord’s 287

94

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Like direct and antithetical parables, formless parables perform various rabbinic tasks, notably exegesis. Indeed, one of the most startling exercises of biblical interpretation I have found in any third-century king-parable is in one of the best examples of a formless parable. The verse under discussion is Psalms 22:7, ‫איש‬-‫אנכי תולעת ולא‬, usually and literally translated “I am a worm and not a man.” Much of the material that goes before this king-parable from R. Joshua ben Levi is devoted to spinning the verse so that it is positive, so that being a worm is somehow a good thing. Joshua achieves that result by completely revising the Scriptural verse; he treats ‫“—תולעת‬worm”—as having the same meaning as ‫ מתלעים‬in Nahum 2:4, meaning “empurpled,” or “clothed in purple,” there referring to “the valiant men,” but with this result here: ‫איש‬-‫אנכי תולעת ולא‬. R. Joshua ben Levi said, “I clothed you in purple, and am not an ordinary man.”291

As a result, the verse from Psalms is understood not as a lament, but as a statement that Israel enthroned God, presumably at the Sea of Reeds.292 Use of a king-parable is the least element of the daring, imagination and learning Joshua here displays, but his moves would have been impossible without the premise that God, side?” (Exod 32:26) by pointing out that everyone would want to be in the royal household. 291 Midr. Pss 22:20. See Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 2, 457 n. 44. The alternative translation “I am he who clothed you in purple” might approximate how Joshua gave effect to the scriptural use of ‫ אנכי‬rather than ‫אני‬. R. Samuel bar Nachman also changed the meaning of ‫;תולעת‬ he read it as referring, as in Exod 26:1, to the purple yarns used in the Temple, so that “I am a worm, not a man” became “I built a Temple for you with two kinds of purple, and am not an ordinary man,” but this use of “purple” does not refer to royal clothing, and this text is not a kingparable. Samuel was of a later generation than Joshua, and his exegesis here, on its face as startling as Joshua’s, is probably derivative; the two readings appears together in Midr. Pss 22:20. 292 The speaker in the 22nd Psalm is usually thought of as David, but I think the verse must be attributed elsewhere in Joshua’s radical re-reading.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

95

like human kings, somehow can be understood as wearing purple clothes.293 Formless parables need not be short; they can be complex, and, like formal parables, they can generate complex intertextual narratives. In a formless parable, R. Abbahu pointed out that a king is to be praised for billeting his legions in the desert, and compared such a king to God in a narrative about God’s care for Israel built from verses in Exodus, Psalms, Judges and Chronicles while contrapuntally offering a narrative of God’s punishment of Israel from verses in Lamentations.294 Chapter 2 showed that almost 59% of the third-century kingparables came from the last of the third-century Rabbis, the third generation of Amoraim.295 Not surprisingly, in light of the “regularization” phenomenon,296 this is not true for formless parables: that generation and the preceding generation together provided only approximately 56% of them,297 with 5% coming Other exegetical formless parables are the parable about Moses behaving like a king, which interprets Moses’ remaining seated in a negative way; the parable about a king making a holiday for a new friend, which is exegesis of “an ordination offering for a pleasing odor” (Lev 8:28); the parable about waving bread and lambs, and the parable about Nachshon, which clears up a redundancy in the biblical text. 294 Lam. Rab. petihah 16, an Imperial parable. 295 See Chapter 2, text at note 165, supra. 296 See Chapter 2, note 184 and accompanying text, supra. 297 Other third-century king-parables may be thought of as various sorts of hybrids. They can begin like direct parables but end like antithetical parables—see Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed., 2:24–25), an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period, and Exod. Rab. 29:5, the parable from R. Abbahu clearly evidencing the Rabbis’ grasp of the importance of dynasticism in imperial succession. Or, they can begin like antithetical parables but end like direct parables—see Deut. Rab. 1:21, a Standard parable from R. Yohanan, b. Sanh. 39a, an Imperial parable from R. Abbahu, and Midr. Pss 17:3, an Imperial parable from R. Levi, in all of which God is like a king of flesh and blood, and they can begin without a formal beginning but end with the nimshal of a direct parable—see Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach1 (Lauterbach ed., 1:185–6), 293

96

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

from Tannaim298 and almost 17% from the A1/Midcentury period.299 In the next chapter I will turn briefly to an aspect of the secular narratives of third-century king-parables, the notion that the king is not merely being compared to God, but is in some sense the same character, a stand-in for God.

R. Judah the Patriarch’s parable about Antoninus lighting the way for his sons, and Gen. Rab. 38:6, an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period. 298 The same percentage as for third-century parables as a whole, perhaps suggesting the relative absence of regularization at that time. See Chapter 2, text following note 96, supra. 299 At least once, members of the third generation are reported to have used a formless parable to comment on contemporary or “recent” events. While doing exegesis of Esth 1:3, R. Eleazar ben Pedat identified the “nobles” in the court of Ahasuerus mentioned there with the legions who acclaimed the “king” as “Augustus, that is, Caesar.” R. Isaac identified those legions with the Decumani and the Augustiani, who he said had advised “Nebuchadnezzar” to destroy the Temple, with the result that God replaced these legions with others, which Eleazar identified as the Herculiani and the Ioviani. Esth. Rab. 1:19. The Destructions of the First and Second Temples are here conflated. Diocletian, and the Tetrarchy he headed created the Herculiani and the Ioviani, whose names reflected the self-identification of members of the Tetrarchy with Hercules and Jupiter, after Eleazar had died. See Cameron, Averil. The Later Roman Empire AD 284–430, 33. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1993. The attribution of this final “fact” to Eleazar cannot therefore be historically accurate, although there is no reason to doubt that it comes from someone in the third generation of Amoraim who lived into the fourth century. See also Gen. Rab. 94:9, a direct Imperial parable, in which R. Isaac also mentions the Decumani and the Augustiani.

CHAPTER 4: THE FIGURE OF THE KING The figure of the king in the king-parables is generally taken to be God, or at the very least to stand for, represent, or be a substitute, symbol or metaphor for God.300 I have examined the parables in

My discussion of the secular narratives of the third-century kingparables is limited to the figure of the king. Other common characters are the king’s son; his wife or intended wife; his “friends”; the residents of a province, sometimes in rebellion, including their “great ones,” patrons and magistrates; the king’s armies, including their generals and on occasion a “hero” and a private soldier; various “royal” officials, frequently prefects, less often duxes and occasionally a procurator, a comes, an archon, a ‫ הגמון‬or a praetor; other dignitaries, called senators or council members or the “greats of the kingdom”; the king’s daughters; his servants and household members, including a tailor, a herald, a garden watchman, musicians, messengers, torturers, cooks, guards, a gatekeeper, an athlete, a butcher, a shepherd, a zookeeper, a steward, a broker, and some slave girls; banquet and other guests; tenant farmers and hired farmhands; his enemies, including brigands, barbarians and a pretender with a rival mint; prisoners; and vague chorus-like figures called “they” or “people” or “one,” sometimes a “clever one.” Parts are also played by the king’s father, brother, father-in-law, sons-in-law and sisters-in-law; tradesmen; a shopkeeper; petitioners; a would-be buyer of the king’s garden; a rhetor; Matrona’s second husband; a trespasser, a stranger and an acquaintance; a thief and his wife; and a flock of sheep, a pack of wolves, a dove (with a hawk in pursuit), a hungry bear, and several dogs, all adding up to a “corpus of well-known ... characters,” Boyarin, Intertextuality, 87. 300

97

98

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

this connection with an approach different from that of my predecessors and have come to a different conclusion. On the macro level, my approach is “rabbinic” rather than literary; it emphasizes that the king-parables are tools of the ancient Rabbis in performing scriptural exegesis and not independent literary or rhetorical texts.301 On the micro level, my approach emphasizes that in almost all of these parables the action or aspect of the king in one narrative—the one concerning secular events and usually a parable’s beginning—is on its face only being compared to (not identified with) an action or aspect of God in a second narrative—the one in the parable’s nimshal.302 I believe that the idea

In several parables the king is entirely or mostly offstage. See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57–58) (threat to his son); Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 394), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period (rhetor praises him); Sifre Deut. 345 (Finkelstein ed., 402) (his son returns); Deut. Rab. 2:36, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period (jewels stolen from him); Gen. Rab. 63:5, a parable from R. Levi (prince breaks into palace); Lev. Rab. 4:2, R. Levi’s parable about king’s daughter being “from above”; Midr. Pss 55:3, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period (herald goes before his icon); Sifra Kedoshim pereq 11:14 (Weiss ed., 93d) (prince with bad digestion); Sifra Tzav Mek. De Miluim 14 (Weiss ed. 42a–b) (queen agrees to serve for her daughter); Num. Rab. 9:1, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period (artist substitutes the head of the new king on the statue of the old king); Gen. Rab. 45:5, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period (prisoner asks king for freedom); and Sifre Deut. 355 (Finkelstein ed., 422– 423), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period (someone wishes to see the king). 301 Stern, Midrash and Theory, 3 notes that many scholars in Jewish studies who have concentrated on Midrash, himself included, had academic backgrounds in English or comparative literature, and that several critics and theorists from the general literary world have taken an interest in Midrash. 302 Although I have questioned Ziegler’s supposition that the figure of the king in the parables is based on the Roman emperor more vigorously than earlier writers, and may have studied more parables, my approach in Chapter 2, supra, is not meaningfully different than theirs. For a literary

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

99

that the king is a stand-in for God has resulted from insufficient attention to the parables’ exegetical purposes and a corresponding overemphasis on the parables as literary creations, and that it interferes with our ability to read the parables in their own terms, to take from them the Rabbis’ intent and meaning, and to appreciate some of the remarkable scriptural exegesis the Rabbis’ use of parables generated. David Stern is the principal champion of the view that identifies the figure of the king with God. He writes: [T]he mashal is essentially mimetic narrative. It is about events and characters, and particularly one character—the king, or God. Beyond all else, the mashal represents the greatest effort to imagine God in all Rabbinic literature. The achievement behind the mashal’s characterization of God is even more extraordinary in that virtually all the other characters appearing in the mashal are what students of narrative call types or stock characters. ... The one character in the mashal who is never a type or stock character is the king ... and this distinction among characters may stand, from a theological perspective, as an emblem of God’s profound difference from all else in the universe. ... [T]he more pressing question is the nature of God’s character, the precise personality of His characterization as king ...[,] the portrayal of God through the figure of the king.303

approach to the figure of God in the king-parables, not the figure of the king, see Chapter 7, infra. 303 Stern, Parables in Midrash 2, 93. At the outset of this influential book Stern writes that “the narrative’s protagonist is a king symbolizing God,” and later he discusses the Rabbis’ “paradoxical” choice of the emperor “as a symbol for God.” Id. at 2, 94. When he returned to the topic in a discussion of the parable of the king who abandoned Matrona for a trip to a province by the sea, he held to this view: “the king represents God.” Stern, Midrash and Theory, 46. See notes 331–2 and accompanying text, infra, for my argument that the king does not stand in for God in the specific parable Stern there discusses.

100

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

For Stern, the king in the king-parable is thus not merely compared to God, or even somehow similar to God. Rather, the king symbolizes God, he stands for God, he equals God, he is God. The gradations in meaning among these statements, if they exist, are not clear.304 The identification of the king with God has become a dominant idea in rabbinics scholarship, and beyond. For example, Craig Evans, a leading student of the New Testament, has written: The rabbinic parables frequently center on the actions of a king and/or his servants. Almost always this king is to be understood as God. ... [R]abbinic parables which speak of the activity of God the king may not be all that different from the parables of Jesus which speak of the kingdom of God.305

And the following remarks are from a study by folklorist Galit Hasan-Rokem: the royal parable, wherein God is substituted by a human king ..., in which the two rival authorities, the king and God,

I also disagree with Stern’s claim that the king is never “a type or stock character”; he often is in both Standard and Imperial parables. For some examples, see Chapter 2, notes 103–16 and accompanying text, supra. 304 Another leading scholar agrees, but perhaps only with respect to one parable—“it becomes clear that only one story is being told at all, for God is the king and Israel is the son” (emphasis in original). Boyarin, Intertextuality, 91–2, 149. (The king in the parable Boyarin here discussed is probably a stand-in for God, as he indeed is in many, although not close to most, including some of the intertextual ones in which Boyarin is most interested. See note 326 and accompanying text, infra.) Clemens Thoma sees the king as “the highest human representative. He is at the same time the most authoritative, the wisest and the most lovable father.” “Literary and Theological Aspects,” 38. This is also a view very much at odds with what the kings in many parables actually do. 305 Evans, Craig A. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, 265. Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001 (without citing any authority).

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

101

are effectively superimposed ... in which the king almost always stands for God.306

Stern and these other scholars mean what they say: a kingparable tells a story, and only one story, a story about one character; the portrayals of the king in the king-parables are attempts by the Rabbis to imagine God through the figure of the king; the characters of the king and God are superimposed on one another; narratives of kings in king-parables are close to Jesus’ picture of the Kingdom of God; the king and God are the same character. This view does not withstand analysis of the parables themselves.307 Obviously the king does not even come close to representing God in antithetical parables, in which the king is specifically not even like God, no less a symbol of God; Stern readily concedes this.308 Similarly, no one could claim that the figure of the king is interchangeable with God in those direct or formless king-parables in which the king is compared to someone or something other than

Hasan-Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood, 39, 40–41 (apparently relying on Stern’s Parables in Midrash). 307 That some parables specifically say things such as “the king is God” (see Chapter 3, notes 224–7 and accompanying text, supra), sheds no light on this question; context makes it clear that the Rabbis are only spelling out the comparisons they are making. Arnold Goldberg, “Rabbinische Gleichnisse,” 14 agrees that it is wrong to identify the king with God, but goes on to say that the king is also a metaphor for God. Perhaps all he means by this later remark is that a king is a particularly appropriate human with whom to compare God, especially in a literature that from time to time calls God the King of Kings of Kings. 308 Stern, Parables in Midrash, 94. Of course, an antithetical parable proceeds from the notion that there is something similar about a human king and God; otherwise why contrast them? But the similarity between them need not be, and probably is not, any greater than that they are both called “king.” 306

102

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

God.309 Together, these groups constitute almost 15% of the parables under study.310 In two of these direct parables it is especially clear that the king does not stand in for God, since in them the figure of the king is compared to Abraham and Moses, while other characters—a

In Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412–3), a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period, and Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed., 2:27), a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period, the king is compared to the Shekhinah, and in Song Rab. 8:5 (10), an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, the king is compared to the “holy spirit.” While the matter is hardly clear. I have counted these parables as comparisons to God, or aspects of God. 310 See b. Pesach 103a, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period (king compared to the Sabbath); Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 7 (Lauterbach ed., 1:245), a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period (the ministering angels); Eccl. Rab. 1:2.1, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period (both the Rabbis and a baby); Deut. Rab. 3:7, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period (both Abraham and God); Gen. Rab. 94:9, an Imperial parable; Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 413), a Standard parable, each from the A3b/Transitional period (both to Jacob); Sifre Deut. 3 (Finkelstein ed., 11–2), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period (Moses); Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52) (Nachshon); Tanh. Va’era 2 (Buber ed., 10b) (Pharaoh); Lev. Rab. 26:7, a Standard parable of Resh Lakish (Saul); Midr. Pss 3:3, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period (Absalom); Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 5:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 100–1), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period; Esth. Rab. 1:19, an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited empire period (both Ahasuerus). Less lofty than these kings, patriarchs and heros are some of the other figures to whom kings are compared: A king is one figure among those compared to all who must die in Eccl. Rab. 12:5, an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided empire period; two kings (and their prefects) are compared to different grades or shades of leprosy in b. Shebu. 6b, an imperial parable from the A1/Mid-century period; a king is compared to a wet nurse in Gen. Rab. 69:3. Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst identified this wet nurse with the Shekhinah in Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Dritter Teil, a move that overemphasizes the grammatical gender of the Shekhinah. 309

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

103

hero who comforts the king and a tutor to whom the king entrusts his son—are the ones compared with God.311 But what about the majority of the parables, those in which some aspect or action of a king is compared to some aspect or action of God? Of the seventeen direct parables set out in the last chapter (chosen for other purposes and with no attention given to the relationship of the figures of the king and God) only three present the king as a stand-in or representative of God: the parable about the conquering king who refused to issue decrees over the people until they accepted his sovereignty, the one about the king whose palace is destroyed by brigands and who subsequently executes them, and R. Levi’s parable of the king who forgives the debts of provincials who come to meet him. These seventeen are approximately 9% of the 184 third-century direct parables in which the figure of a king is compared to God, and a detailed study of the other 91% would yield similar results; in some of the other 91% the king is even more clearly not a stand-in for God than in those set out in Chapter 3.312 In one of these other parables the king sends his son to the store with a flask and a small coin; the son breaks the flask and loses the coin; and the king, after disciplining the boy, replaces the Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354), an Imperial parable; Sifre Deut. 306 (Finkelstein ed., 330), a Standard parable, each from the A3b/Transitional period. 312 I have not included among them Chapter 3’s formless parables on the supposition that advocates of the prevailing view that the king in kingparables is a stand-in for God would also take the prevailing position that these are not “parables.” I have also excluded Chapter 3’s parable of the king’s servants who built a palace on water, since it has no nimshal, express or implied, to which its secular narrative might be compared and it is therefore impossible for me to say what role the figure of “the king” is playing. The number 184 results from 232 (total) minus 14 (antithetical), minus 18 (formless), minus 21 (king not compared to God), minus 1 (no nimshal) plus 6 (antithetical and formless parables in which king is not compared to God and thus double-counted). 311

104

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

flask and the coin to give the boy a second chance to bring back the beverage of the king’s choice. In the nimshal God gives Israel a second chance—to receive one of the Ten Commandments—by using a different verb in Deuteronomy 5:12 regarding Sabbath observance than in Exodus 20:8.313 The king gives his son a second chance; God gives Israel a second chance; they are compared; but surely the king is not a representative or stand-in for God. The Rabbis had a serious exegetical problem before them. Why do two verses of Scripture have God using different words on Mount Sinai? Here (although not elsewhere) they surprisingly suggest that the two versions took place at different times, that Deuteronomy 5:12 gave Israel a second chance after they failed to obey Exodus 20:8. If we understand the presentation of this king—no matter what he was drinking—as an attempt to “imagine God ... through the figure of the king”314 we are sidetracked from evaluating rather startling exegesis of Scripture, and will miss the possibility that the Rabbis here may not have been serious, a possibility enhanced by the figure of this king. This parable makes clear that if the king in the secular narrative were a stand-in for God, we would learn something about God or God’s actions or motivations from the king’s actions. This would probably involve substantial parallelism between the events in the secular narrative in which the king appears and the events in the nimshal in which God appears, in the sequence of those events, and especially in the reasons for those events. We would find substantially similar “personalities” for the king and for God, and any emotions and desires ascribed to the king would probably be understood to represent to some extent the Rabbis’ idea of God’s emotions and desires.315 The parable of the king, his son and the broken flask meets none of these tests. But in the first of the three parables from Chapter 3 in which the king is indeed a stand-in for God, we do find substantial Pesiq. Rab. 23:3. The text of this parable is set out in Chapter 5 at note 387, infra. 314 See Stern, Parables in Midrash 2, 93, notes 303–6 and accompanying text, supra. 315 See Chapter 7, infra. 313

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

105

parallelism in action, sequence of action, and motivation between the first king’s refusal to issue orders and God’s enunciation of the First Commandment before the others. This teaches something about God, even though the parallel is far from exact.316 The parable of the destroyed palace shows greater and closer parallelism (although not evident from what was quoted in Chapter 3.) The parable is one part of the Mekilta’s exegesis of “The Lord will reign forever and ever” (Exodus 15:18); it is immediately preceded by the question and answer “When? When you [God] will build it with your two hands,” a question and answer in turn generated by the immediately preceding biblical verse, “the sanctuary ... that your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17.) The parable is set in the future and teaches about God in the future, when God’s reign will be secure and universally recognized as a result of his having rebuilt the Temple and destroyed the Romans, actions parallel to this king having rebuilt his palace and executed the brigands, and performed for parallel reasons with parallel emotions. The palace is a stand-in for the Temple; the brigands are stand-ins for the Romans, and the king is indeed a stand-in for God. In the third of these parables, the king’s forgiveness of taxes of various elements of the provincial population is almost exactly parallel with God’s forgiveness of the sins of various elements of the Jewish congregation on the High Holy Days, and with the parable R. Levi teaches an important lesson about God.317 The Rabbis are not saying that God thought that Israel would have failed to obey the other Nine Commandments if “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me” had not come first, in the way the king believed the provincials would have failed to carry out his decrees if they had not first accepted his sovereignty. 317 In several other parables the Rabbis employ the king to represent God in various ways, although anything even approaching identification is rare. See, e.g., Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed. 1: 185–6), an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period (“Antoninus” goes before his sons to honor them; God goes before Israel to honor them); Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83), an Imperial parable from the T5/Later Severan period (king misses vexing sons, God laments Israel’s exile); Sifre Num. 316

106

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

In the other fourteen of Chapter 3’s seventeen parables, the character of the king is not interchangeable with the character of God. Thus, if the secular narrative of Resh Lakish’s parable of the king with three sons raised by a slave woman were parallel with its nimshal, either whenever the king thought of his sons he would think of the slave woman or whenever God spoke to the Patriarchs he would ask them to speak to, or otherwise do something for, the Land. If the king is a stand-in for God, then the sons should be stand-ins for the Patriarchs and the slave woman a stand-in for the Land; as it is, the only parallelism is that the sons and the Patriarchs each come in sets of three, the slave woman and the Land each somehow cares for its own set of three, while the king indirectly greets the slave woman every time he greets his son, and God remembers the merits of the Land every time he remembers the merits of the Patriarchs.318 103 (Horowitz ed., 102), an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period (king orders provincials to criticize him directly, God wants people to speak against him, not against Moses); Sifra Bechukotai pereq 2:5 (Weiss ed., 111c), another Standard parable from that period (king pays all his workers fairly but pays the best worker the most; God is fair to the nations, but prefers Israel); Pesiq. Rav Kah. 6:3, another Standard parable from that period (king with two cooks asks one of them to prepare a second meal; God prefers Israel’s sacrifice to Noah’s); Gen Rab. 62:2, a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period (king shows banquet guests their dinner; God shows pious the world to come); Sifre Deut. 43 (Finkelstein ed., 102), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period (king tells banished queen to continue to wear her adornments; God’s commandments remain binding during Israel’s exile.) In the rest of this chapter I place parables in which the king is not a stand-in for God into various categories: these categories overlap, and more than one reason often exists for determining that the parable does not identify the king with God. 318 Similarly, there is no parallelism in action or motivation between Chapter 3’s parable of the king who got so angry at some provincials that he moved far away, and God, pleased with Israel during the Ten Days of Repentance, who moves closer to Israel than usual, except that the king

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

107

One way of highlighting the absence of identification of the king and God, using a “rabbinic,” rather than a literary, approach, is to focus on the parables’ modes and methods of exegesis. For example, the exegetical purpose of R. Isaac’s parable of the king who put his friend’s gifts at the entrance of the palace—in which the nimshal consists entirely of “‫שנאמר‬, ‘Bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting’”—is so quickly and definitively achieved that there seems to be no room for parallelism and no opportunity to learn anything about God. The similarity between this king putting his friend’s gifts at the entrance of the palace and God commanding that the sacrificial victim be brought to the and God both moved. Nor is there much in common between the angry king of Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 358), set out in Chapter 3, note 244, supra, who sent a prudent general to destroy a province and the loving God who sent the prophet Hosea to convince Israel to repent; it is the general, not the king, who preaches calm and patience to the provincials. See also the following Imperial parables from the A1/Midcentury period: Gen. Rab. 10:4 (angry king reduces the number of dancers before him, God causes the stars to take longer paths after Adam sinned); Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 8 (Lauterbach ed., 2:262) (provincials destroy images of the king, humans shed the blood of other humans, the images of God); Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236), a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period (king appoints different administrators over valuable and valueless property, God gives more commandments to Israel); Sifre Deut. 352 ((Finkelstein ed., 412–3) (king frequently visits his son, the Shekhinah goes into exile with Israel); Sifra Shemini, Mek. de Miluim 8 (Weiss ed., 44b), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period (queen’s sister urges her to serve the king, Moses urges Aaron to be High Priest); the following Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Sifre Deut. 306 (Finkelstein ed., 330) (king assigns rhetor to watch his son, God puts Israel under the Shekhinah’s protection); Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412–3) (king stays with his sad youngest son, God puts the Temple in Benjamin’s territory); Gen. Rab. 63:2 (astrologer-ruler rescues a prisoner from fire because he foretells that the prisoner will have a daughter who will marry a king, God rescues Abraham from Nimrod’s fire because of Jacob’s future merits); Eccl. Rab. 3:9.1 (king makes his banquet guests sit on what they brought, God tells those in Gehenna that their own acts got them there).

108

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

entrance of the Tent, so that each will be seen, is highly superficial; the king and God are neither doing the same things nor trying to do the same things.319 Sometimes exegesis, while not that abbreviated, can be so arbitrary or pro forma as to make it unlikely that the king in the secular narrative is a stand-in for God. For example, “you did not call upon me, o Jacob” (Isaiah 43:22) is interpreted by means of a parable of a king not invited to a banquet, and “he shall see the very form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:8) is interpreted with a parable of a king seen in his informal clothes by his freedman. Esth. Rab. 3:8, an Imperial parable of R. Levi; Lev. Rab. 1:14. See also, e.g., Deut. Rab. 1:21, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period (stranger inserts himself between king and Matrona, offered as exegesis for “between me and Israel” (Exod 31:17); the following Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period: Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8 (Mandelbaum ed., 30) (king whose flock is invaded by wolves tells the shepherd to count the sheep, offered as exegesis of Exod 30:12 concerning the census)); Song Rab. 5:1 (king gives a banquet, offered as exegesis of “Eat, friends” (Song 5:1)); Tanh. Ki Tisa 8 (king admires the way his garment clings to him, offered as exegesis of “For as the loincloth clings to one’s loins, so I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me” (Jer 13:11); the following Imperial parables from R. Levi: Gen. Rab. 36:7 (king blackens the face of a rival, God punishes Ham and a dog for having sex together); Exod. Rab. 37:2 (king makes his friend comes and praetor but makes his friend’s brother general, God gives Moses great responsibility—makes him comes and praetor—but makes Aaron High Priest) (note that Levi did unusual and original exegesis even in the course of otherwise arbitrary and pro forma exegesis); Gen. Rab 44:4, a Standard parable from R, Levi (king pays a worker for cutting down thorns, offered as exegesis of “Like thorns cut down, that are already in the fire” (Isa 33:12)). And when a parable’s exegesis is principally an exhibition of rabbinic virtuosity the figure of the king will not be important enough to be a stand-in for God, as in the parable of the two petitioners, one in his own name and one in the name of his fathers, which allowed R. Alexandri to show, with a flourish, Moses petitioning in the name of his fathers but being granted his petition in his own name, with the reverse for Hezekiah. Pesiq. Rav Kah. 25: 4. See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:6 (Mandelbaum ed., 180– 181), a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period (vacationing 319

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

109

Another category of parables in which the king is compared to God but is a stand-in for God in only a very limited sense, if at all, may be thought of as exegetical wishful thinking: a scriptural verse is turned on its head by comparison with a secular narrative in which the king undoes his oath by fancy footwork—as in Bar Kappara’s parable cited in Chapter 3, in which a king’s oath not to let his son into his palace is avoided by tearing down that palace and building a new one —so that such a secular narrative can be wishfully compared to an oath by God such as “they shall not enter my rest.” (Psalms 95:11.)320 The king is a stand-in for God as the Rabbis hope and pray God will be, not as they are sure God is. And sometimes a parable’s comparison does not involve much activity on the king’s part or any insight into or even statement about God, such as the parable of the two pearls of more or less equal size compared to Moses and Aaron; all the king does is weigh the two pearls, while in the nimshal God does nothing.321 Parables with intertextual nimshals seem particularly uncongenial to presenting the king as a stand-in for God. R. Levi’s parable, also set out in Chapter 3, of a king who would not court a woman without doing her some good is not one in which the royal swain represents God, who, in the nimshal, is not doing anything like “courting” Israel. Rather, the secular narrative provides a basis king’s daughters are accused of ‫זנות‬, God makes sure Israelite children born in Egypt look like their Israelite fathers); Num. Rab. 7:4, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period (king who happy with his cabbages—a reference to Diocletian’s retirement?—compared to God, mostly for the sake of a play on words.) 320 See also Midr. Pss 6:3, containing Standard parables from the A1/Midcentury and A2/Divided Empire periods and an Imperial parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period, in which kings avoid oaths to throw a sword at their sons, to strike their sons 100 blows and to pass a sword over their sons’ heads by first breaking the sword into pieces, by coiling the rope 100 times and striking once and by putting the sword in its casing. See Chapter 7, note 557 and accompanying text, infra, for a different reading of these parables. 321 See also Gen. Rab. 56:11, a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period.

110

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

for intertextual accounts of God clothing the people of Israel and allowing them to walk on dry land.322 This is not surprising, since, as we have learned from Daniel Boyarin, the secular narrative in an intertextual parable is constructed by the Rabbis to provide a basis from which to generate an intertextual nimshal.323 It is not likely— The more extensive parallel parable from R. Eleazar set out in Chapter 3, note 253, supra, contains intertextual accounts of God providing bread, wine, birds, and fruit to Israel. 323 See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. Supplement 5:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 464–5) (secular narrative of a king ordering people who wore black when his son died to wear white as his other son rejoices generates intertextual narrative of weeping and rejoicing mountains from verses in Jer and Isa); Song Rab. 8:12 (1) (secular narrative of servant who advises king’s son to ignore the king generates intertextual narrative of exile and idolatry from Dan and Ezek); Exod. Rab. 43:9 (secular narrative of king and unsuccessful tenant farmer generates intertextual narrative of Israel’s redemption from Egypt from Hos and Exod); Exod. Rab. 42:8 (secular narrative about a king upset over Matrona having lost pearls generates intertextual narrative about Israel’s sins from Jer and Exod); Pesiq. Rab Kah 15:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 251–252) (secular narratives about kings who are cruel to their sons generate intertextual narratives about the two exiles from Hos, Jer and Amos); Tanh. Pekude 4 (secular narrative of king’s enemy who overthrows his statue generates intertextual narrative about the nations’ hostility to Israel from Pss and Exod); Deut. Rab. 2:5 (secular narrative of powerful prefect generates intertextual narrative about Moses from Num and Deut); Sifre Deut. 349 (Finkelstein ed., 407) (secular narrative of king’s two creditors generates intertextual narrative about Shimon and Levi from Gen, Exod and Num); Lam. Rab. 1:1 (9) (secular narrative of king who dresses his son as an olive treader when he disobeys generates intertextual narrative from Ezek and Lam about how Israel is dressed, partly based on a word in Lam being spelled bet-dalet-dalet, as is “olive treader”); Tanh. Bechukotai 6 (Buber ed.) 56b (secular narrative of king who lights two lights generates intertextual narrative about lights and holiness from Gen, Lev and Isa); Deut. Rab. 3:3 (secular narrative of a king’s friend’s son who seeks return of a deposit his father made with the king generates intertextual narrative about the Exodus and the roles of Moses, Aaron and the heads of the tribes from Exod and Num); Exod. Rab. 15:13 (secular narrative of dux on whom his legions put purple generates intertextual 322

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

111

or at least it is not common—that the figure of the king in such a purposefully constructed secular narrative will measure up to be a stand-in for God.324 Although none of the parables set forth in Chapter 3 is interstitial,325 interstitial parables are like intertextual parables in that they do not generally involve kings who are stand-ins for God. narrative from different parts of Exod about God’s activities in Egypt); Exod. Rab. 18:6 (secular narrative of a king’s son first made king of a barbarian land and then enslaved by his subjects generates intertextual narrative of Joseph and Jacob in Egypt from Gen, Exod and Joel); the following Standard parables from R. Levi: Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:9 (Mandelbaum ed., 277–8) (secular narrative of king who takes credit for good wine but blames bad wine on his tenant farmer generates intertextual narrative on whether Israel is God’s people or Moses’ from Exod and Deut); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3 (Mandelbaum ed., 36) (secular narrative of king who invites his enemies to a banquet only to have them destroy the palace, necessitating that he execute them, generates intertextual narrative about relations with Edom and Egypt from Deut, Pss, Lam and Joel); Lev. Rab. 22:8 (secular narrative of king who keeps his gluttonous son at his own table generates intertextual narrative of idolatry in Egypt from Deut, Isa and Lev); Exod. Rab. 38:8 (secular narrative of king who dresses his son’s tutor in purple to protect him generates intertextual narrative of the resemblance of the priestly garments to those of the ministering angels from Exod and Isa). 324 Exceptions are Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed., 2:27) (secular narrative of king who follows his son from province to province generates intertextual narrative about the Shekhinah’s protection of Israel from Gen, Exod and Song, in which the figure of the king seems to be a stand-in for the Shekhinah); Pesiq. Rab. 15:1–3 (Parma and JTS mss. only) (secular narrative of king who guards his orchard himself until his sons are grown and then turns it over to them generates intertextual narrative about God’s control of new moons, festivals and intercalation passing to Israel from Gen and Lev); and Exod. Rab. 23:1 (secular narrative of “Augustus,” a stand-in for God, who sits, and a mere “king,” who stands, is used as the jumping-off point for intertextual narrative from Pss, Exod and Hab.) This last parable, from R. Abbahu, will be extensively discussed in Chapters 5 and 9. 325 See Chapter 3, note 230–3 and accompanying text, supra.

112

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Thus, in a parable to which Daniel Boyarin has devoted an entire chapter—a secular narrative of a king who owned two gardens, one entirely within the other, who then sold the inner garden, and whose guard could not on his own keep the buyer of the inner garden from entering the outer garden—generated an interstitial narrative of Moses and the personified Sea from verses in Psalms.326 Indeed, all types of constructed secular narratives designed by the Rabbis to provide jumping-off points for original and unusual exegesis are unlikely to contain “kings” who are stand-ins for God, as may be seen in the remaining three parables of R. Levi quoted in Chapter 3. The master parablist was also a master at setting up parables in which—on a verbal level—there seems to be substantial parallelism between the actions of the king and the actions of God, although the parallelism is artificial as well as artful. The king who makes his wife’s rumored paramour the guest of honor at a banquet is parallel with God making the bull (that is, the Calf) the first of the offerings; the king with the less than perfect wife whom he makes perfect by suggesting a manicure is parallel with God making Abraham “blameless” (Genesis 17:1) by commanding circumcision; the king who wants to perform governmental acts out of the presence of the prefect is parallel with God wanting Moses out of the way. But these are not parables in which the king is in fact a standin for God; like most intertextual and interstitial parables, they are parables in which the parallels between the king and God are created for the purpose of generating and supporting unusual exegesis; Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 5 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 228–9), a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period; Boyarin, Intertextuality, 93–104. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 227–8. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, treats this nimshal as a “mythic narrative” that fleshes out the literary figure of the sea in Pss and perhaps provides an echo of the mythic conflict of God with the sea in primordial times, giving Pss its “full mythic tone.” See also, e.g., Sifre Deut. 8 (Finkelstein ed., 16), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period (secular narrative of servant who improves the vineyard the king gave him generates interstitial narrative of Patriarchal agriculture from verses in Gen.) 326

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

113

reading these kings as stand-ins for God obscures the Rabbis’ point.327 Unlike Matrona’s unjustly accused friend, Israel was indeed guilty in the matter of the Calf; Levi could not have thought See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:10 (Mandelbaum ed., 157–8) (secular narrative of king who decrees that no provincial will wait upon him without having first waited on Matrona constructed as part of the exegesis of “It shall remain seven days with its mother” (Lev 22:27) to mean that a Shabbat must first pass before the animal may be sacrificed); Song Rab. 6:11 (1) (secular narrative of king who uses torturers as protection from brigands constructed to generate the conclusion that God provided a “stone,” the Torah, to protect against another “stone,” the Evil Inclination); Deut. Rab. 1:13 (secular narrative of general who gives the troops his own gold after the king instructs him to distribute a greater amount constructed to support the exegesis of “May the Lord, the god of your fathers, increase your numbers a thousand times, and bless you as he has promised” (Deut 1:11) as involving two separate promises, “a thousand times” and “as he has promised,” understood to be infinite in amount); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 243) (secular narrative of Matrona who is upset after losing one of her two myrtle branches and is consoled by the king who tells her to guard the one just as if she was guarding both constructed to advance the idea that God told Israel to guard their promise to “hear,” after they “lost” their promise to “do” upon the episode of the Calf, just as if they were still guarding both promises); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6 (Mandelbaum ed., 314–5) (secular narrative of prince who dallied with a slave girl, thereafter the only one willing to take him in after his disgrace, constructed to support conclusion that fig tree was the source of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden since “they sewed fig leaves together” (Gen 3:7)); Lev. Rab. 12:1 (secular narrative of king who executed a freedman and told his replacement to stay away from a tavern, constructed to support the conclusion that Aaron’s sons died because they drank too much wine, since Aaron was then commanded to drink no wine); Tanh. Ki Tisa 3 (secular narrative of king who pays a worker he diverted from his work just as much as those who worked the whole shift constructed to support claim that those who labor in Torah but die young have just as much merit as those who labor in Torah longer, part of the exegesis of “whether they eat little or much” (Eccl 5:12)). 327

114

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

otherwise, although in doing exegesis on why the bull is the first mentioned offering, he used the genre of Midrash and the subgenre of king-parables to present an unusual reading of “a bull.”328 And did Levi really think that God was concerned that the people would confuse Moses with him, as I suggested above? Not likely, but Levi’s formulation of a parallel secular narrative enabled him to solve the exegetical problem of why the words “Moses went down to the people” (Exodus 19:25) come immediately before “God spoke.” (Exodus 20:1) I suggested above that the parallelism between the Sign of the Covenant and Matrona’s manicure stemmed from Levi’s fey sense of humor; probably, and more important, the secular narrative he put forward enabled him to do creative exegesis of the word “blameless.” In some other parables the king and God couldn’t possibly be the same character, although perhaps not as clearly as in the parable of the king and his empty flask.329 I recognize that a great deal of judgment, with which others may disagree—particularly if they are otherwise convinced of the identity of the king in the secular narrative and God in the nimshal—can go into the determination of when a king and God “couldn’t” be the same character. For example, why do I treat a king who prefers the food served by one cook as a stand-in for God preferring Israel’s sacrifices, but a king with favorite underwear as not a stand-in for God having a favorite people? My judgments are based on my Lev 22:27. E.g., Gen. Rab. 8:10, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period (king ejects prefect from their wagon so people will know which of them is king, God puts Adam to sleep so the angels will know he is merely a man); Gen. Rab. 8:3, a Standard parable from R. Joshua ben Levi, (king does nothing without consulting two senators, God uses the plural in Gen. 1:26); Sifra Bechukotai, pereq 4:4 (Weiss ed., 112a), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period, (king busies himself with servant for evil, God says “I will set my face against you” (Lev 26:17)); Sifre Deut. 19 (Finkelstein ed., 31), Lev. Rab. 5:6, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period, (king feeds zookeeper to a bear as punishment for eating the bear’s food, God causes a priest to be consumed by fire as punishment for eating consecrated food.) 328 329

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

115

reading of the parables, and I have tried to resolve doubtful cases in favor of the king being a stand-in for God. Moreover, if the parables I have treated as involving a king who “couldn’t” be a stand-in for God were instead treated as parables in which the king is a stand-in for God, such parables would continue to represent a substantial minority both of the parables in which a king is compared to God and of all the thirdcentury parables.330 A final excellent example of a parable in which the king is not a stand-in for God, and in which attention to the tasks the Rabbis were performing in their own terms makes that clear, is the very parable David Stern put forth in Midrash and Theory to show that the king does represent God331 R. Abba bar Kahana in the name of R. Yohanan: Like a king who married Matrona and wrote her a large ketubah. It provided: “Such and such I give you; such and such ornaments I make for you; such and such treasures I give you.” He left her and went to a province by the sea where he stayed many years. Her friends confronted her and said to her, “How long will you sit here? Get a husband since you are a young woman and still active.” She would enter her house and take out her ketubah and read it, and calm herself. After a time the king returned from the province by the sea. He said to her, “My daughter, I am surprised that you waited all these years.” She said, “My lord the king, were it not for this large ketubah that you wrote for me my friends would have lured me away.” So, in this world the nations of the world confront Israel and say to them, “How long will you wait for your god, and give your souls to him, and be killed for him? Think of how many troubles he brings on you, how much contempt he brings on you, how many sufferings he brings on you. Come to us and we will make you dux, and prefect, and high officer.” And Israel enters the synagogues and the study-houses and takes a See note 334, infra. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 305–6). See Chapter 2, note 141, supra. 330 331

116

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES Torah scroll and reads in it “I will look with favor on you and make you fruitful and multiply you; and I will maintain my covenant with you.” (Leviticus 26:9) And they calm themselves.

While a divinity who abandons his “wife” to take a vacation at the seaside seems more like Jupiter Best and Greatest than like the Holy One May He Be Blessed, it is not hard to imagine a parable in which a king leaving his wife, even for the beach, would represent God turning away from Israel. But that is not this parable. The abandonment, the vacation and the beach are window dressing; they are not the point of the comparison the parable makes between this king and God. The parable’s hortatory message of comfort is easy to grasp, and is based on a comparison of but one of the king’s actions—his giving Matrona a ketubah, not his going on holiday—with the only action of God’s the parable mentions332—his promise to “look with favor on you and make you fruitful and multiply you; and I will maintain my covenant with you” (Leviticus 26:9)—in a secular narrative constructed for that purpose.333 The parable is not based on the king and God being in any way the same character: a financially generous but frivolous king who gave a large ketubah to Matrona, who in a difficult situation found comfort in it, is compared to the faithful and providential God, who made a promise to Israel, who in a difficult situation is to find comfort in it. The nimshal’s suggestion that God is somehow not with Israel at this very moment is window dressing for the point that God will in fact maintain the covenant; comfort would not otherwise be appropriate or needed. The two sets of window dressing are parallel, although the secular narrative’s is explicit, and the idea that the king is vacationing at the beach is therefore not totally The claim of the nations that it is God who has caused Israel’s grief is not the view of the parable or of the Rabbis who produced it. 333 This parable appears as substantially non-exegetical in Pesiq. Rab Kah. and Pesiq. Rab. 21:34, but in Lam. Rab. 3:21 (87), where I suspect it originated, it is exegesis of “But this I call to mind and therefore I have hope.” (Lam 3:21). See Chapter 5, infra, for discussions of both exegetical and non-exegetical parables with hortatory tasks. 332

THE FIGURE OF THE KING

117

irrelevant. But to emphasize that in order to argue for the identification of the king and God in this parable is to ignore the parable’s point. Like most of the others, this is a parable in which the Rabbis understood the king’s actions or situation not as the same as God’s, but merely as comparable to the extent necessary to use the parable in doing their work. In the future, the third-century Rabbis taught, God will rebuild the Temple and punish the Romans; at Sinai, God first identified himself before he issued any other commandments. But neither in the future nor in the past will or did God worry about Moses getting credit God deserved, or find fault with someone’s little fingernail. The kings in most of the parables are just kings, of the generic or fairy-tale variety; they are not stand-ins or representatives of God. To conclude: The king is a stand-in or representative of God in only a minority of third-century king-parables, roughly 20% of the direct parables in which the figure of a king is compared to God,334 and, obviously, a smaller percentage of the entire corpus of third-century king-parables. In most parables, the king is only a figure whose actions or aspects are somehow compared to God’s to accomplish various tasks the Rabbis undertook. This will become clearer in Chapter 5, which will examine in greater depth what the Rabbis were doing in telling parables.

If we reclassify the parables that “couldn’t” involve a king who is a stand-in for God, and the parable of the vacationing king, this percentage would rise only to somewhat more than 30%. 334

CHAPTER 5: FUNCTIONS How did the Rabbis of the third century use their king-parables in their work? What were the tasks that a parable helped them accomplish? As shown earlier, the Rabbis put forth king-parables principally in connection with their main overall work, the interpretation of Scripture. They also used them as part of their pastoral work—their efforts to console, encourage and instruct their followers and each other—but only to a lesser extent. This chapter will examine in greater depth how the Rabbis used king-parables to perform their exegetical and other tasks.

KING-PARABLES USED IN THE WORK OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE The surviving literature usually presents a verse from Scripture as being, in effect, on the table at which the Rabbis were sitting, as the topic of their immediate interest and inquiry. This is almost always the case in the collections of halakhic Midrashim—the Mekilta de R. Ishmael, Sifra and the Sifres—which are verse-by-verse commentaries on the Bible. It is also common in the collections of exegetical and homiletical Midrashim, although this may reflect redactional activity, especially in the later collections, and not necessarily the activities of the third-century Rabbis. Much less commonly, a verse is before the Rabbis, seemingly awaiting interpretation, and the Rabbis are then presented as changing the subject, so that another verse is before them by the

119

120

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

time they put forth a king-parable.335 I have not uncovered any different exegetical use of parables in such circumstances. Using Parables in Exegesis

Assigning all the work to the parable’s secular narrative A king-parable can do more than help the Rabbis perform an exegetical task; it can perform the task itself. Indeed, the secular narrative of a direct parable alone can be enough to accomplish the work. A familiar example: “He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting.” (Leviticus 4:4) R. Isaac said a parable. Like the friend who honored the king with gifts and fine bowls. The king said, “Take this to the entrance to the palace so that all who enter and exit will see it,” ‫שנאמר‬, “bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting.”336

The verse before the Rabbis prompts them to ask—implicitly, through the parable—an exegetical question: why is the sacrificial victim to be at the entrance; why not elsewhere—inside the tent, or further outside in an area set aside for the physical performance of sacrifice?337 The secular narrative—in which the friend is compared See, e.g., Num. Rab. 7:4; Lev. Rab. 24:2. On occasion such a change of subject is specifically signaled by the Rabbis’ designation of material as ‫“—דבר אחר‬another thing,” or “another interpretation.” See, e.g., Exod. Rab. 30:9, in which discussion of Pss 147:19 is presented as a ‫ דבר אחר‬in a discussion of Exod 21:1 and is illustrated by three king-parables. Material designated as ‫ דבר אחר‬more often continues to discuss the verse originally before the Rabbis, but reflects a different view. For an example, see Chapter 6, text at note 446, infra. 336 Lev. Rab. 5:6. 337 Sometimes the question is stated. See, for example, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:10 (Mandelbaum ed., 157–8), an Imperial parable of R. Levi, in which “It shall remain seven days with its mother” (Lev 22:27) is before the Rabbis and the anonymous voice of Pesiq. Rab Kah. explicitly asks “why seven days?” before setting forth Levi’s interpretation of the verse with the help of a king-parable. Although Pesiq. Rab Kah. is a collection of discourses or “homilies,” perhaps sermons, on the scriptural texts read in 335

FUNCTIONS

121

to Israel, the gifts to the victim, and the king to God—provides the answer, although not a particularly striking, original or uplifting answer: so that everyone will see it, and the Rabbis seal their answer with an abbreviated nimshal consisting only of a powerful marker of applicability and a repetition of the verse before them.338 Those direct parables with implicit nimshals, as discussed in Chapter 3, provide other examples of secular narratives sufficient on their own for the performance of the Rabbis’ exegetical tasks; in form, those secular narratives are the entire parables. Perhaps when the mashal-proper did the entire job, no explicit nimshal was thought to be needed, not even a marker of applicability or a repetition of the scriptural verse.339 But the Rabbis did not allow every secular narrative that could have done all their exegetical work to do so: sometimes they added unnecessary explanation. In this parable, the verse before the Rabbis is Exodus 30:12—“when you take a census of the Israelites”—and the over-riding exegetical issue is the inconsistency of a census with the biblical idea that Israel is numberless: R. Menahema said in the name of R. Bebai, Like a king who had a flock invaded and damaged by wolves. The king said to a synagogues for special Sabbaths and holidays, I am treating the portions of such texts discussed in such discourses as being “before the Rabbis.”) See Braude and Kapstein, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, xxviii. In other texts the verse before the Rabbis prompts them to ask a question not directly related to its interpretation. See Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5, an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period, in which “I am the Lord thy God” (Exod 20:2) is before the Rabbis and they ask why the Ten Commandments (including this verse) aren’t at the beginning of the Torah. 338 See also Song Rab. 5:1, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period; Esth. Rab. 1:20, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period; Sifre Deut. 355 (Finkelstein ed., 422–3), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. Parables in which the secular narratives, together with abbreviated nimshals, do all the Rabbis’ exegetical work are, of course, exceptions to Daniel Boyarin’s conclusion that the nimshal is generally a parable’s primary signifying moment. 339 See Midr. Pss 3:3; Lev. Rab. 1:14; Deut. Rab. 1:23.

122

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES shepherd, “Count my flock to determine how many are lost.” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, “Count Israel to determine how many are lost.”340

Perhaps if this parable was indeed part of a sermon, its oral nature or the level of learning of the audience resulted in the addition of the superfluous nimshal.

Assigning all the work to the entire parable Usually, of course, secular narratives are insufficient to make the Rabbis’ point about the verse before them. The secular narrative generally begins the process of exegesis, and the nimshal completes it; in such instances, the two principal parts of the king-parable, working together, do the exegetical job. But the amount of help the secular narratives need from the nimshals varies. Here not much help is needed; the verse before the Rabbis is “Cast away your rod” (Exodus 14:16). R. Simon said: A parable. Like an officer who goes outside with the staff of office in his hand. They said, “Were the staff not in his hand we would not honor him.” The king heard and said to him, “Leave the staff behind and go outside, and I will decapitate all who do not greet you.” So the Egyptians said, “it would not be possible for Moses to do anything without the rod; with it he struck the sea, with it he brought the plagues.” When Israel came to the middle of the sea, and the Egyptians pursued them, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, “Cast away your rod, so that they will not say, ‘Were there no rod, it would not be possible to call the sea,’” as it says, “cast away your rod.”341

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8 (Mandelbaum ed., 30), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 341 Exod. Rab. 21:9, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. The Hebrew that the Rabbis treat here as meaning “cast away” is usually translated as “lift up”; to that extent this text may also belong in the category of texts that use a king-parable in furtherance of a midrashic interpretation of Scripture already made. The reading of “cast away” 340

FUNCTIONS

123

Most readers or listeners would have understood, on the basis of the secular narrative alone, or accompanied by an abbreviated nimshal, that the Rabbis interpreted the verse to mean that God did not want Moses to carry his rod because the Egyptians did not respect Moses, and through him, God, without it. But the point is better made—since Moses’ rod was not a staff of office342—with the extra explanation; the secular narrative was not quite strong enough to do the work alone.343

seems based on words of the verse cited in the nimshal but not quoted there, “and stretch out your hand,” suggesting that Moses no longer had the rod in his hand. 342 Jastrow, Dictionary, suggests the staff of a centurion. 343 See also Lev. Rab. 36:5, Resh Lakish’s parable of the slave woman who raised the king’s sons, set out in Chapter 3; Gen. Rab.3:6, in which most of the work of tying together “and he separated” (Gen 1:4) with “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night” (Gen 1:5) is done by the secular narrative of a Standard parable from R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish about two guards who quarrel over their hours of employment and are told by the king that they respectively work days and nights; Exod. Rab. 7:4, in which R. Levi concludes that Exod 6:13 says “to Pharaoh king of Egypt” as well as “to the Israelites” to teach that evil people praise God from Gehenna, a conclusion strongly suggested by the secular narrative of his Standard parable of a king who plants a barren tree for wood with which to make baths and ovens; b. Sanh. 89b, in which the answer to the question why God said “‫“—”נא‬please”—when he commanded the Akedah might well have been provided by the secular narrative of the Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period of a king who says “please” to his general so that no one would think he had not supported him in earlier wars, standing alone; Deut. Rab. 1:13, in which the two promises of Deut 1:11—“increase your numbers a thousand times” (a limited promise) and “bless you as he has promised” (an unlimited one) -– are reconciled to mean that the first promise is Moses’ own and that only the second promise is God’s, an interpretation strongly suggested by the secular narrative of an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period of a general who gives each of the troops five gold pieces of his own but assures them that the king’s promise of a litra apiece is still good.

124

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Some secular narratives that are more fundamental to the presentation than was the narrative of the officer’s staff can also be significantly improved with a nimshal. For example, Exodus 18 had ended with the departure of Jethro for his own country; the very next verse was before the Rabbis. It begins, “On that very day [that is, the very day that Jethro left] they came into the wilderness of Sinai.” This chapter of Exodus introduces the giving of the Torah, and, while the issue is not articulated in the text that precedes the parable, the Rabbis were concerned about the possible implications of Scripture juxtaposing Jethro, who helped Israel with legal matters, and the site of the giving of the Torah with all its laws. R. Joshua ben Levi: Like a king’s son who went for a walk in the market and encountered a friend of the king, who filled his lap with precious stones and pearls. The king said, “Open for me my storehouses, so that my son will not say that were it not for my father’s friend my father would not have given me what he gave me.” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, “Let not Israel say that were it not that Jethro came and taught them laws, I would not have given them the Torah; rather I give you the Torah, with all its laws. “These are the laws that you shall set before them.” (Exodus 21:1)344

Similarly, this brief secular narrative introduces the idea of a holiday to honor a favored person; the equally brief nimshal drives it home: “An ordination offering for a pleasing odor.” (Leviticus 8:28) This teaches that the ordination offering is called a pleasing odor. Isn’t this a ‫ ?קל והומר‬A king of flesh and blood acquires for himself a friend and makes a holiday for him; the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed, when he establishes for himself a priest, how much the more so.345 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211–2). Sifra Tzav, Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d). See also Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57–8); Eccl. Rab. 12:5, an Imperial parable of Resh Lakish. 344 345

FUNCTIONS

125

A contrast to these parables is provided by the Rabbis’ treatment of “It is not like the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 11:10); the secular narrative does not even suggest the exegetical project it begins. This verse from Deuteronomy stimulated the Rabbis implicitly to ask how the Land of Israel is not like the land of Egypt. They appear to have been in a practical mood; reflecting the Land’s agricultural economy, the answer relates to sources of irrigation. A parable. Like a king who was walking on the road and saw a well-born man; he gave him a servant to serve him. Then the king saw another well-born man, well dressed and appearing to have been delicately reared, but busy in common labor. The king knew him and knew his parents. He issued a decree: “I will feed him by my own hand.” So all the nations are given servants to serve them. Egypt drinks from the Nile, Babylonia from its rivers. But the Land of Israel is not like this. Rather the people lie in their beds and God sends rain down on them.346

Unlike the idea of gifts from an outsider raised in the secular narrative of the parable of the king’s friend’s gifts, or the idea of making a holiday in the parable of the king’s new friend, the topic of irrigation is not broached, or even suggested, until the nimshal, unless the trope of rivers as servants of the countries in which they flowed was a familiar one. There seems even less chance that readers or listeners would have guessed that the glimpse of patronage practices in the eastern Roman Empire in the secular narrative of this Imperial parable has something to do with the sun having risen, even if they knew that the verse before the Rabbis was “The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar” (Genesis 19:23) and that R. Levi was seeking the reason for Scripture’s mention that the sun had risen. R. Levi said, Like a province that had two ‫פטרונין‬,347 one a ‫בן‬ ‫ מדינה‬and one an ‫עירוני‬. The king got angry and wanted to Sifre Deut. 38 (Finkelstein ed., 74), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 347 The Hebrew word is a loan word from Latin. 346

126

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES punish the people of the province. The king said, “If I punish them in the presence of only the ‫בן מדינה‬, then they will say that if the ‫ עירוני‬had been here he would have helped them. And if, on the other hand, I punish them in the presence of only the ‫עירוני‬, then they will say that if the ‫ בן מדינה‬had been here he would have helped them.”348

That is the secular narrative. Would it have helped the readers or listeners to know the date of the biblical events? Levi knew that date as one on which both the sun and the moon are visible at sunrise, perhaps having exegetically derived it from the verse’s reference to the sun having risen “on the earth.” And he related the visibility of both sun and moon to the religious practices of Lot’s neighbors. So it was that some of the Sodomites worshipped the sun and some worshipped the moon. The Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “If I punish them by day, they will say that if the moon had been here it would have helped them, and if by night, then they will say that if the sun had been here it would have helped them. Rather on the sixteenth of Sivan, when the sun and the moon are both visible, ” as it says, “the sun had risen on the earth. . .”349

At least once, the secular narrative not only provides no hint of the text’s exegetical project, but on its face fails to prepare for the exegetical work done by the nimshal alone. “After he had defeated Sichon.” (Deuteronomy 1:4) A parable. Like a king who took his armies into the desert. His armies asked him for fine white bread, and he said he would give it to them. They asked him for fine white bread a second time. The Gen. Rab. 50:12, an Imperial parable. The meanings of ‫בן מדינה‬ and ‫ עירוני‬in this context are uncertain except that the ‫ עירוני‬comes from a larger urban community than does the ‫בן מדינה‬. 349 See also Gen. Rab. 46:4 and Lev. Rab. 27:8, both discussed in Chapter 3, note 237 and accompanying text, supra, where I attributed the disconnect between the secular narrative of the first parable and its nimshal to Levi having been in an antic mood. 348

FUNCTIONS

127

prefect told them that even though the king was able he had no mills or ovens in the desert. So Moses said, “If I now reprimand Israel, they will say that I have reprimanded them because I have no power to bring them into the Land, and Sichon and Og have conquered us.” He did not do so, but waited until they entered the land and he had conquered Sichon and Og to first reprimand them. Therefore it says, “after he had defeated Sichon, king of the Amorites.”

Why, the Rabbis implicitly ask, does the introduction of the Book of Deuteronomy specify that Moses began his oration after he had defeated Sichon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan? The nimshal’s answer: a discourse earlier in time containing words of reprimand would not have been accepted by Israel. What does the secular narrative contribute? The comparisons are the king to God, the armies to Israel, the prefect to Moses, and the king’s ability to the entry into the Land and the defeat of Sichon and Og. The prefect reprimands the armies for making a request that cannot be fulfilled, even though the king is able. Is the point that he refrained from reprimanding them after their first request, when presumably the king was not yet able, but reprimanded them only once the king was? Probably, but those key elements of the narrative are missing.350 Sifre Deut. 3 (Finkelstein ed., 11), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. Reuven Hammer’s translation, Sifre 393, understands the text to mean that the king indeed gave the armies the fine white bread the first time they asked and that the prefect’s reprimand was based on the idea that since he had done it once, having in fact brought mills and ovens into the desert, he need not demonstrate his ability a second time. The counterintuitive reading that mills and ovens were indeed brought to the desert is dependent on Hammer giving effect to a word not included in the text that he “took” from another witness. Under his reading the reprimand is not for having made a request that cannot be fulfilled, but for making a request that need not be fulfilled, having been made and fulfilled once before, and the secular narrative would indeed prepare for the nimshal to the extent the reprimand follows a demonstration of ability, here of baking fine bread in the desert and in the nimshal of defeating Sichon and Og. But, so read, the secular narrative 350

128

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

EMPLOYING KING-PARABLES TO ILLUSTRATE, EXPAND, AUGMENT, SUPPLEMENT OR COMPLETE EARLIER EXEGESIS351

Frequently a king-parable offers support to exegesis previously made,352 most simply by illustrating a basic point. While this is hardly always the case,353 the style of an illustrative parable can follow the style of the earlier exegesis. Perhaps the best example is a parable that illustrates an interstitial narrative proceeding from the provisions of Exodus 12:44 that slaves, once circumcised, may eat the paschal sacrifice with a parable about a king who requires his banquet guests to show his seal, the nimshal of which is itself an intertextual narrative.354 Imaginative parables can illustrate other sorts of imaginative interpretations. After another Rabbi interpreted “you did not call upon me, o Jacob” (Isaiah 43:22) to mean that God would have liked to have been worshipped even after Israel worshipped idols,

makes little sense (even if mills and ovens were imagined as being taken out on campaign “for use in extraordinary circumstances,” Hammer, Sifre 393) unless it was somehow known that an army that has once eaten fine white bread should be satisfied ever after. 351 Two texts including formless king-parables, Esth. Rab. 1:19 and Midr. Pss 55:3, reverse this order; other material supplements the parable rather than vice versa. The formal nature of direct or antithetical parables prevents them from being supplemented by additional material; any additional material would be classified either as part of the parable’s nimshal (or the counterpart for an antithetical parable) or as a different text. 352 R. Levi seems to have been fond of using king-parables to illustrate his own exegesis done without a parable. See Esth. Rab. 7:2; Gen. Rab. 44:4. 353 For example, bold interpretations can be illustrated by repetitive or pedestrian parables. See Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed., 102); Midr. Pss 86:7. 354 Exod. Rab. 19:5.

FUNCTIONS

129

R. Levi picked up on the idea that such belated worship had the status of a serving of sweets and offered a parable to illustrate it:355 Like a servant of the king who made a banquet for the king’s legions and invited them all, but didn’t invite the king. The king said to him, “I would that you had treated me as you did my soldiers.” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “I would that my children treated me as the dessert that comes last, but ‘you did not call upon me, O Jacob.’”356

And imaginative interpretation of “And the Egyptians fled before it” (Exodus 14:27) to mean that, no matter what direction an Egyptian fled, the sea rushed against him was supported by this unusual and entertaining king-parable about another sort of predator assaulted from all directions. A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a dove who fled from a young hawk and entered the dining room357 of the king. The king opened the east window for her and she exited and flew away. The young hawk entered the dining room after her. The king closed all the windows after it and began to shoot at it with arrows. So, when the last of Israel arose from the sea, the first of the Egyptians went down into it. The ministering angels began to throw arrows, hailstones, fire and sulfur at them, as it is said, “I will pour down torrential rains and hailstones, fire and sulfur, upon him and his troops.” (Ezekiel 38:22)358

Unless, of course, R. Yosi bar Haninah’s interpretation was based on Levi’s parable, and the sequence became garbled in the course of transmission. 356 Esth. Rab. 3:4, an Imperial parable. The parable, however, does not quite work; not being invited at all is not quite parallel to being worshipped after false gods have been worshipped. Perhaps an earlier version of the parable had the king invited late, rather than not ever. 357 The Hebrew ‫ טריקלן‬is a loan word from Latin. 358 Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 7 (Lauterbach ed., 1:245), a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period. 355

130

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

But when the earlier interpretation is especially terse, the parable must amplify the exegesis, as well as illustrate it, if it is to make a contribution to the interpretation of Scripture. The anonymous voice of the Pesiqta de Rab Kahana had before it “This month for you” (Exodus 12:2), and its interpretation—“Reckoning of time is yours”—was bold, imaginative, uplifting and of social importance, but it may have been hard to follow; four named Amoraim over the generations amplified it through king-parables, themselves somewhat terse.359 R. Joshua ben Levi said, Like a king who had a timepiece; when his son grew up he gave him his timepiece. R. Yosi bar Haninah said, Like a king who had a watchtower; when his son grew up he gave him his watchtower. R. Aha said a parable. Like a king who had a ring; when his son grew up, he gave him his ring. R. Isaac said, Like a king who had many treasuries, with keys to each and every one of them; when his son grew up he gave him the keys.360

In its “original” scriptural sense, all Exodus 12:2 seems to have meant is that “this month” shall be the first month of the year;361 anonymous Rabbis had interpreted it to mean that God had assigned the authority to determine the dates of new months and festivals and to intercalate the year to humans, specifically to rabbinical courts. Would that point have become such an important element of rabbinic Judaism on the basis of the words “Reckoning of time is yours,” without more?362 And another named Amora through a carpenter-parable and “the Rabbis” through a physician-parable. 360 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102), from the A3b/Transitional period. See Chapter 2, note 1, supra. Tanh. Bo 12 (Buber ed.) 25a is an extended parallel. 361 And so it is interpreted in Exod. Rab. 15:13, including an Imperial parable of R. Levi. 362 See also Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 10, in which the now familiar parable of the king’s revenge on brigands who destroyed his palace amplifies an earlier, quite terse, interpretation: “When? When you build it with your two hands.” 359

FUNCTIONS

131

An imaginative parable supporting imaginative earlier exegesis can do more than illustrate the earlier interpretation; it can develop and extend it with additional ideas, such as the Mekilta’s that rain, hail, fire and sulfur from heaven joined the onrushing sea to torment the Egyptians.363 Similarly, after Song of Songs Rabbah has identified the “two breasts” of Song of Songs 4:5 with Moses and Aaron, R. Abba bar Kahana took the interpretation a step further: Like a king who had two precious pearls and weighed them: this one is as big as that one and that one is as big as this one. So, these are Moses and Aaron, equals.364

If the earlier exegesis is abstruse, an illustrative king-parable may be substantially simpler, and augment the midrash by bringing the interpretive enterprise down to earth. With “If it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt” (Leviticus 4:5) before him, R. Isaac Nappaha had asked how such a sinning priest would be punished, and concluded on the basis of the letters in both “thus bringing guilt” and “death by burning” that the answer is death by

See also Exod. Rab. 2:2, an interpretation of sequential verses from Pss 11:4, so that “The Lord in his holy temple” is interpreted to mean that prior to the Destruction the Shekhinah was in the Temple; “the Lord’s throne is in heaven” to mean that upon the Destruction she departed for heaven; and “his eyes behold, his gaze examines humankind” to still be true in spite of her departure, illustrated by a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period about a king who watched his workers from a high tower and pays good workers and punishes shirkers, just as God still “beholds” and “examines humankind” after the removal of the Shekhinah to heaven. The parable adds, or spells out, the idea of reward and punishment as the purpose of God’s attention. 364 Song Rab. 4:5 (1). See also Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103–4), in which the earlier interpretation derived the principle that words of Torah are the foundation of life from “you shall put these words of mine on your heart” (Deut 11:18), and the companion Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period of a king who first wounded his son and then nursed him added the thought that words of Torah are a counterforce to the Evil Inclination. 363

132

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

fire. He, his colleague or a later redactor found a plainer reason for the same conclusion and expressed it in a king-parable. A parable. Like a keeper365 of a bear who used to eat the bear’s meals. The king said, “Because he ate the bear’s meals, let the bear eat him.” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “Because he took from the consecrated things, let the fire eat him.”366

On occasion, a king-parable solves an issue left unresolved in the earlier material. Here the text before the Rabbis was “‫ גל‬upon the Lord, let him deliver—let him rescue” (Psalms 22:8) and it was not determined whether “‫ גל‬upon” means “confess to” or, as in another passage in Psalms,367 “put it on.” R. Yohanan used a Standard king-parable to solve the issue in favor of the intertextual reading: R. Yohanan said, Like a king’s son to whom they gave a post to put in a difficult place. His father saw and said to them, “Bring it all to me; I will put it in.” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to them, “Put it on the Lord; let him deliver— let him rescue”368

The Hebrew word ‫ שושנה‬may be a loan word from Greek. Lev. Rab. 5:6, a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 367 Pss 55:23, “put your burden on the Lord and he will sustain you.” 368 Midr. Pss 22:22. See also Sifre Deut. 345 (Finkelstein ed., 402), in which (a) an earlier ‫ דבר אחר‬had argued for reading ‫ מורשה‬in Deut 33:4 as “betrothal” rather than the more typical “possession” to generate the interpretation that the Torah is betrothed to Israel and therefore has the legal status of a married woman to the nations of the world, (b) the immediately preceding ‫ דבר אחר‬insists on the more common reading, concluding that the Torah is Israel’s possession, and (c) the king-parable about the captured prince not embarrassed to return to his “possession” concludes that a renegade Sage who returns to Torah study can do so because the Torah is his “possession,” favoring the view of the second ‫דבר אחר‬. For an extensive discussion of this text, see Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 56–60. 365 366

FUNCTIONS

133

At least once a king-parable seems to have been put forth to limit or reverse the thrust of the earlier material, material that may have strayed a bit too far from generally accepted rabbinic exegesis. The text before the Rabbis was “There has not arisen a prophet like Moses since in Israel” (Deuteronomy 34:10), and they focused on the words “in Israel” to make some comparisons of Moses with Balaam not unfavorable to Balaam. Balaam was shown, unlike Moses, to know both with whom he spoke and when. The Rabbis hastened to use a king-parable to put any ostensible superiority of Balaam into context: “A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To the king’s butcher, who knows the king’s expenses.”369

Sometimes a parable fails in its apparent attempt to illustrate, expand upon, augment, amplify, supplement or complete earlier material, even when the parable is presented as the answer to a specific question. Do we know any better why Gehenna, or the angel of death, is “very good” after we read either or both of these parallel texts, which appear consecutively in Genesis Rabbah? R. Zeira said, “Indeed, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31) This is the Garden of Eden. “Indeed, it was very good.” This is Gehenna. And how is Gehenna “very good”? Amazing! Like a king who had a garden, brought workers into it and built a treasury at the entrance. He said, “All who are fit in their work in the garden will enter the treasury, and all who are not fit in their work in the garden will not enter the treasury.” So all who treasure mitzvot and good deeds, behold, the Garden of Eden, and all who do not treasure mitzvot and good deeds, behold, Gehenna. R. Samuel bar R, Isaac said, “Indeed, it was very good.” This is the angel of life. “Indeed, it was very good.” This is the angel of death. And how is the angel of death “very good”? Like a king who made a banquet and invited the guests. He put a bowl full of good things before them. He said, “All who eat Sifre Deut. 357 (Finkelstein ed., 430), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 369

134

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES and bless the king will continue to eat, and all who eat and don’t bless the king will have their heads chopped off.” So all who occupy themselves with mitzvot and good deeds, behold, the angel of life, for all who do not occupy themselves with mitzvot and good deeds, behold, the angel of death.370

Is it just that it is “very good” that God has the means to enforce the rules? Maybe so, but perhaps a better comment on the conclusion that Gehenna and the angel of death are “very good” to the same extent as the Garden of Eden and the angel of life would have been restricted to Zeira’s first remark: Amazing! Reading Verses Together Often, as shown above, the Rabbis focused their exegetical attention on a single verse before them. Sometimes they did so to deduce the rationale for a specific scriptural rule,371 sometimes to explain why the verse expresses itself as it does,372 sometimes to flesh out a statement in the verse373 or to go behind its surface meaning to fill in details374 or teach a lesson.375 Sometimes they

370

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

period. For example, using parables previously cited, why a calf is to stay seven days with its mother, and why a sacrificial victim is to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting. 372 For example, why in the same verse God promises both to remember the Patriarchs and to remember the Land or why Scripture bothered to say that Lot arrived at Zoar after sunrise. Often this task involved explaining apparent redundancies in a single verse, such as references both to “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and to “your ancestors.” This important category of midrashic exegesis that consists of explaining apparent redundancies in Scripture is under-represented in exegesis using king-parables. 373 For example, providing the way, or at least a way, that the Land of Israel is not like Egypt. 374 For example, providing the way in which a sinning priest will be punished. 375 For example, asserting the equality of Moses and Aaron. 371

FUNCTIONS

135

seem motivated by a desire to display their own virtuosity, or perhaps by playfulness.376 But the Rabbis also used king-parables to perform important exegetical tasks arising from issues generated by reading more than one verse of Scripture at the same time: sometimes to connect them or tie them together, sometimes also to explain apparent contradictions by one verse of another.377 Tying verses together378 “But Moses said to God, ‘Who am I [that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?]’” (Exodus 3:11) R. Joshua ben Levi said: A parable. Like a king who married off his daughter and agreed to give her a province and a ladylike slave girl, but he gave her a Cushite slave girl. His son-inlaw said to him, “Didn’t you agree with her to give her a ladylike slave girl?” So Moses said before the Holy One May He Be Blessed, “Master of the Universe, when Jacob went down to Egypt didn’t you say to him, “I will also bring you up again.’ (Genesis 46:4) And now you say to me, ‘So come, I will send you to Pharaoh’ (Exodus 3:10) I am not the ‘I’ who said to him, “I will also bring you up again.”379

The Rabbis are not content with Moses’ argument in the verse before them that he is an inappropriate choice to go to Pharaoh and free the Israelites. They find it incomplete or otherwise unpersuasive. They provide him with a better case, which they illustrate with a parable about a king who broke a promise to his For example, R. Levi’s equation of perfection with neat nails. For example, connecting events such as Egyptians assaulted by the sea with the same Egyptians assaulted by fire and hail, and David fleeing Absalom with David weeping. 378 I am making a distinction, although the borders are occasionally fuzzy, between tying verses together so as to make a single narrative from them, such as this dispute of Moses with God, and interpreting the verse before the Rabbis by means of a second verse that they use to explain, augment or comment on it, as is the case of texts discussed below. 379 Exod. Rab. 3:4, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period. 376 377

136

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

daughter: God already promised that he would redeem Israel from Egypt, so Moses could have argued that he needn’t. Other examples of the Rabbis’ tying the verse before them to a verse in an entirely other part of Scripture are readily available.380 But texts tying the verse before the Rabbis to a verse abutting or nearly abutting that verse will provide more vivid pictures of the Rabbis at work.381 For example:

See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:5 (Mandelbaum ed., 306–307) (“I, I am he who comforts you” (Isa 51:12) tied to “I am the Lord your god” (Exod 20:2)) with an Imperial parable of Resh Lakish of a matrona who received double her marriage settlement when the king took her back, forming a narrative in which God promised at Sinai to provide twice the comfort in the messianic Jerusalem); Mek.de R. Ishmael Beshallach 5 (Lauterbach ed., 1:228–9) (Moses’ stretching out of his hand in Exod 14:27 tied to the 114th Psalm with a Standard parable of the buyer of a garden whom the guard didn’t permit inside without the king by his side, forming a narrative of the Sea fleeing because of God, not because of Moses); Exod. Rab. 20:14 (“God did not lead [a word that can also mean ‘calm,’] them” (Exod 13:17) tied to “but overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Sea” (Pss 136:15) with an Imperial parable of Resh Lakish of a king who was not calm until he had enslaved the enemies who had enslaved his son, forming a narrative in which God is not calm until the Egyptians are thrown in the sea); Gen. Rab 44:4 (“Do not be afraid, Abram” (Gen 15:1) tied to “like thorns cut down” (Isa 33:12) with a Standard parable of R. Levi of a man who picks up thorns in the king’s garden and is rewarded by the king, forming a narrative in which Abraham, afraid that the armies he defeated might contain a righteous man, is assured by God that they were all mere thorns.) At least one text, Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353) (“For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted share” (Deut 32:9)) tied to “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel as his own possession” (Pss 135:4) with a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period) ties together verses whose connection would be obvious to anyone who knew them both, suggesting that the purpose of the text is the hortatory message it produces or some sort of memory aid. See Chapter 6, notes 470–471 and accompanying text, infra. 381 Examples already given are the tying of Gen 1:4 and 1:5 and the tying of two parts of Deut 1:11 discussed in note 343, supra. 380

FUNCTIONS

137

“There arose a king in Jeshurun, when the leaders of the people assembled—the united tribes of Israel. (Exodus 33:5) May Reuben live and not die, even though his numbers are few. (Exodus 33:6)” What is the connection between this [the italicized words from Exodus 33:5] and this [the italicized words from Exodus 33:6 which immediately follow them]? A parable. Like a king who came to visit his sons. When he left, his sons and other relatives accompanied him. He said to them, “My sons, do you need anything? Tell me if there is anything you wish to discuss.” They said to him, “Father, we do not need anything and there is nothing that we wish to discuss other than that you be reconciled with our oldest brother.” So also here, were it not for the other tribes God would not have been reconciled with Reuben. And so it says, “the united tribes of Israel: May Reuben live and not die.”382

On its face, Exodus 33:5 ends a thought—a “historical” recollection of the beginning of kingship ostensibly before the event—while Exodus 33:6 begins a new series of thoughts, Moses’ blessings of the tribes, beginning with Reuben, the tribe descended from Jacob’s oldest son. The Rabbis explicitly sought a reason why the opening words of 33:6 came immediately after the closing words of 33:5—for them there must be a reason for every element of the words of Torah—and they found one, with the help of a remarkably weak and artificial king-parable obviously constructed for the purpose. Another example, one in which the Rabbis articulated their reason for tying together two adjacent verses. Why does Scripture first say, “May the Lord bless you and keep you” (Numbers 6:24) and after that, “it came to pass [that Moses had finished setting up the Tabernacle]” (Numbers 7:1)?383 R. Abbahu said that the ways of the Holy One May He Be Blessed are not like the ways of flesh and blood. A king of Sifre Deut. 347 (Finkelstein ed., 404), an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period. 383 This question is spelled out in the manner shown in the text only in the Vienna manuscript of Pesiq. Rab. 382

138

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES flesh and blood enters a province. Only after the residents of the province praise him and honor him, does he provide their needs: he builds for them a public bath,384 which provided much pleasure for them in the province. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like that. Israel had not yet built the Tabernacle when he first gave them blessings, ‫ככתוב‬, “May the Lord bless you” and only thereafter, “it came to pass.”385

Reconciling verses Sometimes the Rabbis noticed verses that were contrary to each other, and therefore in need of reconciliation. In perhaps the bestknown instance of inconsistency between scriptural verses, reconciliation was achieved by imposing a temporal sequence on Scripture, in a parable discussed in Chapter 4.386 Here (Exodus 20:8) it is written, “Remember [the Sabbath day]” but elsewhere “Guard.” (Deuteronomy 5:12) R. Yudan and R. Aibu in the name of R. Shimon ben Lakish: Like a king who sent his son to the storekeeper on an errand with an assarius and gave him a flask. He broke the flask and lost the assarius. He pulled his ear and pulled his hair but gave him money and a flask for a second time, and said to him, “Don’t do the same as you did the first time.” So when Israel lost “Remember” in the desert, God gave them “Guard,” ‫ככתוב‬, “Remember” and “Guard.”387 The Hebrew word ‫ דימוסיה‬is a loan word from Greek. Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, an Imperial parable. See also Gen. Rab. 69:3, the parable of the prince plagued by flies, in which the immediate proximity of “the angels of God were ascending and descending on it” (Gen 28:12) and “and the Lord stood beside him” (Gen 28:13) is interpreted to mean that the angels fled when God appeared. 386 I suggested there, text at note 314, supra, that this imposition of a temporal sequence may not have been entirely serious. 387 Pesiq. Rab. 23:3. I assume that the statement that Israel lost “Remember” “in the desert” refers to the episode of the golden calf, although that episode did not necessarily involve forgetting the Sabbath. See also Sifre Deut. 11 (Finkelstein ed., 19) and Deut. Rab. 1:13 (Moses’ 384 385

FUNCTIONS

139

The different language in Exodus and Deuteronomy is explained, at least here, with the notion that Deuteronomy’s version provided a second chance for Israel, comparable to the king giving his son a second chance to complete an errand for his thirsty father. In this parable R. Levi reconciled two well-known contradictory verses, first in favor of the sense of one and then in favor of the sense of the other. He tied the verses to three other verses and arranged the five verses in a chronological order with the first verse before him being regarded as somehow last in time. It is written, “Remember what Amalek did to you.” (Deuteronomy 25:17) But it is written elsewhere, “Don’t abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother.” (Deuteronomy 23:8) Come and see that the way of the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like the way of flesh and blood. In the way of flesh and blood, if one does evil to his fellow, the bitter memory never leaves his fellow’s heart. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like so. Rather ... when Israel left Egypt, Amalek, of the evil seed of Esau, came and did much harm to Israel. Nonetheless the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “Don’t abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother.” R. Levi said, To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who made a banquet, and he had two enemies. He invited them, and he said to those present, “Receive these enemies with friendly faces.” And thus they did. After they ate and drank they took an iron axe and destroyed the king’s palace. The king said to

specific blessing in Deut 1:11 to make Israel 1000 times as numerous reconciled with God’s promise to Abraham that his seed would be unlimited with parables, Standard and Imperial respectively, from the A3b/Transitional period, of a prince’s guardian who gives the prince his own gold and silver while still holding the king’s and a general who gives the army his own gold while waiting for the king); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:4 (Mandelbaum ed., 243) (“we will do and we will hear” (Exod 24:7) reconciled by R. Levi with the fact that they didn’t “do” “when they made the calf for themselves” (Exod 32:8) with a Standard parable of a king who dealt with Matrona having lost one of two myrtle branches by telling her to guard the one she still had as if she still had both.

140

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES them, “Isn’t it enough for you that I honored you that you destroy my palace and don’t acknowledge the honor that I gave you?” They left and they hung them, one next to the other. And so you find that after all the evil that . . . Edom did to Israel, God nonetheless commanded them, “Don’t abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother” [But according to Psalms388 Israel pointed out subsequent Edomite hostility to Israel.] ... The Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “Hang them one next to the other,” ‫שנאמר‬, “... Edom shall become a deserted waste.” (Joel 3:19). And so, ‫נאמר‬,“Remember.”389

First, Amalek hurt Israel, but God, although “not like flesh and blood,” acted in a way comparable to a king who invited his enemies to a banquet by calling Edom, of which Amalek is a part, Israel’s brother and commanding Israel to treat Edomites like brothers, like the king telling his other guests to treat his enemies with friendly faces. But once Israel reminded God of Edom’s enthusiasm at the destruction of Jerusalem—the “king’s palace”— God turned on Edom, and issued the commandment to “remember” Amalek, and perhaps stepped it up a notch to make Edom a deserted waste, while the commandment not to abhor Edom seems to have gone into abeyance. Reconciliation is not easy work, not even for Levi.390 Interpreting a verse via another verse In addition to responding to problems they encountered when they read two or more verses together, the Rabbis would read two or more verses together proactively by using one verse to interpret another. For example, when the third-century Rabbis engaged the “Remember, o Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem’s fall, how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!” (Pss 137:7). 389 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3 (Mandelbaum ed., 36), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. I have omitted references in this text to Egypt, which seem tacked on and distract from the text’s central subject. 390 The commandment not to abhor Edomites does indeed come before the commandment to remember Amalek in Deut., but this is not the basis for Levi’s midrashic re-ordering of events. 388

FUNCTIONS

141

Song of Songs, a love poem that earlier Rabbis had already understood as a metaphor of the relationship between God and Israel, they often treated its text as part of Exodus’ description of revelation and used a verse from Song of Songs to interpret a verse from Exodus, treating Exodus as the master narrative to which Song of Songs is a supplement, and simultaneously using Exodus to interpret Song of Songs. Here, the verse before the Rabbis was Song of Songs 1:2, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.” R. Yohanan interpreted the verse to concern Israel when it went up to Mt. Sinai. Like a king who wanted to take for himself a wife—a woman of good family.391 He sent a messenger to her home and the messenger spoke to her. She said, “I am not about to be his slave girl; I want instead to hear it from his mouth.” When he returned to the king, the messenger couldn’t stop smiling, but he did not say anything to the king. The king, who was wise, said, “This one can’t stop smiling, as if she has accepted me, but he doesn’t say so; it is as if she has said she wants to hear it from my mouth.” So Israel is the woman of good family, Moses is the messenger; the king is the Holy One May He Be Blessed, all at the time that “Moses reported the words of the people to the Lord.” (Exodus 19:8)392

With strong help from the king-parable, Yohanan, having first interpreted the verse from Song of Songs via the events reported in Exodus, explains, on the basis of the verse from Song of Songs, that the verse from Exodus means that the people wanted to hear directly from God; that is what Moses “reported ... to the Lord.” In this parable, the Rabbis also interpreted Song of Songs via Exodus, while interpreting Exodus via Song of Songs: R. Pinchas said in the name of R. Hosheah, “While the king was on his couch” (Song of Songs 1:12). “While the king”—the King of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed—“was on 391 392

The Hebrew word ‫ גנוסים‬is a loan word from Latin. Song Rab 1:2 (3).

142

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES his couch”—in the sky—he already anticipated [his descent on Sinai],393 ‫“ שנאמר‬and it came to pass, on the third day, while it was still morning.” (Exodus 19:16). Like a king who decrees, “on such and such a day I will enter the province.” The residents of the province sleep all night, and when the king comes and finds them asleep, he arranges for horn players, trumpeters and shofar players, the minister of the province wakes them up to go out and greet the king, and the king proceeds before them until he arrives at his palace. So the Holy One May He Be Blessed anticipated, ‫כתובכ‬, “and it came to pass, on the third day, while it was still morning” and “for on the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people” (Exodus 19:11) Israel slept all the night, for the sleep of Shevuot is pleasant and the night is short. R. Yudan said that not even a flea bit them. The Holy One May He Be Blessed found them sleeping and arranged for horn players, ‫ככתוב‬, “and it was on the third day, when morning came, with thunder and lightening.” (Exodus 19:16) Moses woke them up and led them to greet the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One May He Be Blessed, ‫ככתוב‬, “Moses brought the people out to meet God” (Exodus 19:17)394

See Jacob Neusner’s translation of Song Rab. Song Rab. 1:12 (2), a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period. David Stern has argued more generally that the internal hermeneutics of the king-parables are consciously self-reflexive and almost circular. Parables in Midrash 41. See also Song Rab. 4:12 (1) (“a locked garden is my sister, my bride” (Song 4:12) presented as God’s response to supposed taunts by the nations concerning “the Egyptians made the people of Israel work with rigor” (Exod 1:13) and concerning the chastity of Israelite women in Egypt, with a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period about a king returning from vacation whose daughters, accused of ‫זנות‬, demonstrate their innocence by producing their husbands.) The technique of interpreting another verse by means of the verse before the Rabbis was not limited to cases when the verse before them was from Song. See, e.g., Midr. Pss 17:3, an Imperial parable of R. Levi. 393 394

FUNCTIONS

143

The Rabbis answered why Leviticus 8:14 shows Moses performing priestly duties more simply by reading Exodus 4:14 to mean that Aaron was, at the time, still a mere Levite:395 “And it was slaughtered. Moses took the blood.” (Leviticus 8:14–15) A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a daughter of kings who was married when she was a child and it was agreed with her mother that she would serve until her daughter grew up and learned how. So Aaron, at the beginning, was a Levite, ‫“ שנאמר‬What of your brother Aaron the Levite?” (Exodus 4:14) But when he was chosen to be High Priest, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Moses, “You will serve me until Aaron learns how.”396

But using a verse from elsewhere in Scripture to interpret the verse before them is not always a simple matter, even when only a single word is involved. In a parable providing an extraordinarily rich picture of the Rabbis at work, to which I will return again, R. Abbahu noticed that the word “‫ ”אז‬appears both in Exodus and in Psalms. The verse before the Rabbis is Exodus 15:1—“Then [‫]אז‬ Moses sang”: This is written, “Your throne is established from of old [‫;]מאז‬ you are from everlasting.” (Psalms 93:2) R. Berechiah said in the name of R. Abbahu, Although “you are from everlasting,” your throne was not established and you were not known in your world until your sons sang a song. Therefore it says,

The Rabbis were unconcerned that a plain reading of the text preceding the text before them shows Aaron (and his sons) also performing priestly duties along with Moses: “[Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bull of sin offering] and it was slaughtered [by Aaron and his sons?] Moses took the blood.”(Lev 8:14– 15). 396 Sifra Tzav, Mek.de Miluim (Weiss ed., 42a–b), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. See also Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 4, an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period; Exod. Rab. 42:8, a Standard parable from the A1/Midcentury period. 395

144

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES “Your throne is established from of old [‫]מאז‬.” A parable. Like a king who made a war and won, and they made him Augustus. What is the difference in honor between the king and Augustus? The king stands on the ‫ לוח‬while Augustus sits. So Israel said, “In truth you existed before you created your world, and continued to exist after you created your world, but, ‫כביכול‬, you did so standing, ‫שנאמר‬, “he stood and measured the earth,” (Habakkuk 3:6) but not until we stood by the sea and sang a song with “‫ ”אז‬before you was your kingdom settled, and your throne established. Behold—“your throne is established ‫—מאז‬with “‫[ ”אז‬Moses] sang.” (Exodus 15:1)397

To interpret the verse from Exodus, the Rabbis read the Psalm, literally if atomistically, to mean that God’s throne was established from “‫—”אז‬that is, from the word “‫אז‬,” the very “‫”אז‬ that began the Song at the Sea, and thus to “prove” that God’s throne was established only when his people said so. This interpretation of “‫ ”אז‬from Exodus via “‫ ”מאז‬from Psalms to conclude that God’s rule was established by Israel’s Song at the Sea is dazzling. But this is not the only dazzling use of a verse from elsewhere in Scripture in this parable, nor is their exegesis the only aspect of the Rabbis’ world the parable reveals.

Exod. Rab. 23:1. Elsewhere the Rabbis linked the use of the word ‫ אז‬in Exod 15:1 to its use in Gen 4:26 (“then [‫ ]אז‬people began to invoke the name of the Lord”) and thereby connected the flooding of the sea in the days of Enosh with the parting of the Sea of Reeds. See Fraade, Steven D. Enosh and His Generation: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation, 34 n. 21. Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1984. On the rabbinic phrase, “‫כביכול‬,” see “The term kivyakhol and its Uses,” Appendix 2 to Fishbane, Rabbinic Mythmaking, which demonstrates that it refers either back to the theologoumenon (here the statements that God created the world standing and sat down when Israel sang at the sea) or forward to the offered prooftext in support, or both. For other aspects of the parable of the seated Augustus, see Chapter 4, note 334 and accompanying text, supra, and Chapter 9, notes 886–9 and accompanying text, infra, and “In Conclusion” in that chapter. 397

FUNCTIONS

145

The first step in fashioning this parable is the construction of the secular narrative, which is based on the Rabbis’ knowledge that “Augustus”398 was made such by his legions; this was presumably common knowledge among reasonably well-informed third-century provincials. The Rabbis go further; they voice the idea that “Augustus,” unlike a mere king, is seated. Where does this idea, fundamental to the parable, come from? I believe it is drawn from the Rabbis’ familiarity with Roman representational art. The king stands, while Augustus sits, “on the ‫לוח‬,” a word I have so far left untranslated. The most common translation of ‫ לוח‬is “tablet” or “board,” and I understand the parable to refer to a more or less two-dimensional visual representation, rendered on a “tablet,” of a sitting emperor and a standing “king,” or a figure the Rabbis took to be a king, rather than on either an actual event or on a representation in monumental art.399 This is not a translation; the word appears in the Hebrew. Thoma and Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Vierter Teil, speculate that Abbahu may have been thinking of an actual event, the triumph of Vespasian and Titus. No Rabbi saw that triumph, which took place contemporaneously with the beginnings of the rabbinic movement centuries before Abbahu’s time, and perhaps Thoma and Ernst mean some sort of visual representation of it, like the triumph of Tiberius shown on one of the Boscoreale cups. See Kleiner, Diana E. E. Roman Sculpture, 155 fig. 129. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1992; Kuttner, Ann L. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups. Berkeley. Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press, 1995. I am indebted to Professor Kleiner for her kind and generous guidance into the world of Roman art history. For other historical circumstances that this parable may reflect, including another triumph during Abbahu’s own time, see Chapter 9, notes 886–9 and accompanying text, infra. In some Roman art, seated emperors, but not the standing “kings,” are indeed shown as on platforms. See Kleiner, Roman Sculpture, 290 fig. 257, 334 fig. 299. See also the coins cited in note 401 and accompanying text, infra. Two talmudic passages associate ‫לוח‬, in the sense of “board,” with the word ‫“—בימה‬platform,” or “dais,” so that 398 399

146

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Where and how would the Rabbis—usually understood to have been uninterested in if not hostile to the visual arts—have seen such art? And incorporated it into their conceptualization of the difference between a mere king and the emperor, to be compared to God before and after his rule was “established”? Emperors are shown sitting and king-figures standing in Roman monumental art dating from and before the third century.400 Other Roman art, such as the Boscoreale cups, seems to have been based on monumental prototypes. Examples of such art based on such prototypes would have had ample time and opportunity to be produced and to make their way to Palestine, especially highly Romanized Caesarea where R. Abbahu flourished in the A3b/Transitional period. Moreover, at least one coin shows the emperor Trajan seated on a platform while crowning a standing client king, while another shows a seated emperor and a standing Gaul.401

one could be part of the other, and therefore suggest that ‫ לוח‬in this parable might be a platform on which an emperor could sit and a king could stand. y. Meg. 3:1 (83d) and b. Meg. 32a together stand for the proposition that while neither the ‫( לוחות‬or, in the Yerushalmi, the ‫ )לווחין‬nor the ‫ בימות‬have the holiness of the ark, they do have the holiness of the synagogue. But Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 345–6. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2000, concluded after extensive research that ‫ לווחין‬in this Yerushalmi passage means the boards on which the Torah scroll was placed, or a lectern, and not the ‫ בימה‬itself or part thereof. Other rabbinic texts use the word to mean sorts of platforms, although not platforms on which people stood. See t. Kelim B. Metz 8:4 and t. Shabb. 13:15 where ‫ לוח‬is used for a board under a mattress, and b. Shabb. 47a, which refers to the ‫ לווחין‬of an archer, explained by Rashi to mean small wood plaques on which the arrow presses before release. Thanks to my colleague Tzvi Novick for the various meanings of ‫לוח‬. 400 See Kleiner, Roman Sculpture, 290 fig. 257, 334 fig. 299. 401 See Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire, 2. 3, 37, 44, 51, 108 and figs. 4, 16, 87; Smallwood, E. Mary. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, 51. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1966, cited

FUNCTIONS

147

The Rabbis might have referred to the surface of silverware (like the Boscoreale cups) or of another medium, or of a coin, as a ‫ לוח‬even if it was not an actual tablet, or board, as modern Hebrew has come to use ‫ לוח‬to mean, among other things, a data table.402 Or a Rabbi or a follower of the Rabbis could have visited Rome (or another city), seen such an event or such a monument, and somehow made a picture of it on a ‫ לוח‬and brought it home. While this is not the place to debate whether the Rabbis were associated in any way with the synagogues whose art is briefly noted in Chapter 6,403 it is possible that an artist joined (or left) the movement.404 The secular narrative thus having established on this basis that the king being compared to God was seated when his rule was established, the nimshal turns to a verse from another part of Scripture, the prophetic Book of Habakkuk, to show that God was once standing. So Israel said, “In truth you existed before you created your world, and continued to exist after you created your world, but, ‫כביכול‬, you did so standing, ‫“ שנאמר‬he stood and measured the earth.” (Habakkuk 3:6)

And God, like the king who became Augustus, did not remain standing. “Not until we stood by the sea and sang a song with ‘‫’אז‬ before you was your kingdom ‫ התישב‬and your throne established.”

in Ben Zeev, Miriam Pucci. Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights. Leuven/Dudley MA: Peeters, 2005. 402 See Levy, Ya’acov, ed. Oxford English-Hebrew Hebrew-English, 142. Jerusalem: Kernerman Publishing Ltd and Lonnie Kahn Publishing Ltd, 1995. 403 See Chapter 6, note 464, infra. 404 For visits to Rome by Rabbis, see Ilan, Tal. “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 16 (2009): 363, 385–90; Herr, “Historical Significance,” 123, collecting the sources.

148

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

While the text does not say, especially in translation, that God sat down on the occasion of the Song at the Sea, the underlined Hebrew word the Rabbis chose to denote the beginning of God’s rule, translated above as “settled,” is the ‫ התפעל‬of the root ‫ישב‬, the ‫ קל‬of which is, of course, “sit.” In an untranslatable way the Rabbis tie the establishment of God’s rule to being seated, so that the seated Augustus becomes an even more powerful stand-in for God than a standing emperor would have been. The Song begins with ‫ ;אז‬it concludes, although the text does not mention it, with the words “The Lord will reign forever and ever.” The Rabbis often leave out parts of scriptural quotations that we would think actually make their point, as here, where once the Song that began with ‫ אז‬ended with the proclamation that the Lord will reign forever, God’s rule was truly ‫התישב‬. This text is an example of the Rabbis at work at their best and most distinctive, especially since its ultimate conclusion is about the role humans (or probably only Jews) play in the fact, and exercise, of divine sovereignty.

WHEN EXEGESIS USING KING-PARABLES INCLUDED THE RABBIS’ “POLITICAL” VIEWS The parable of the seated Augustus reminds us that the thirdcentury Rabbis were sophisticated Roman citizens, different from others of their class and status largely because they were principally engaged in the exegesis of Jewish Scripture. Their social class and status and their exegetical work, including the king-parables they employed, intersected, by revealing their views on several “political,” or at least inter-group, issues.405 As everyone knows, the Rabbis believed Israel was favored over all the other nations—“chosen.” They often expressed this view with marked hostility to the other nations. For example, a parable about a king’s tenant farmers who become progressively more dishonest through the generations calls Ishmael, the sons of Keturah, Esau and all the princes of Edom “evil.” Presumably this For their attitude toward foreign, particularly Roman, domination, see Chapter 8, infra. 405

FUNCTIONS

149

view included all the supposed descendants or representatives of these biblical figures and all agents of the imperial government and thus, in the Rabbis’ understanding, just about every gentile with whom they came in contact.406 At other times they just seemed sure of their own status, without hostility to others.407 When the verse before them was “I will look with favor on you” (Leviticus 26:9), they expanded on God’s favor to Israel with a parable that did all their exegetical work. They told a parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who hired many workers, and there was among them one worker who worked for him many days. The workers came in to collect their wages and that worker came in with them. The king said to that worker, “My son, I will address you. Behold, the others did a fair amount of work for me and I give them a fair wage. But you did a great amount and I think better of you.” So Israel is in this world asking wages before God, and Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353), a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period. See also Mek. De R. Ishmael Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach ed., 2:236). Surprisingly, hostility to the nations at least once may have been particularly focused on “God-fearers” who observed commandments without becoming Jews. See Deut. Rab. 1:21, an Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period comparing uncircumcised Sabbath-observing gentiles to a courtier who comes between the king and Matrona; this polemic may, however, refer to Christians, who purported to observe a “Sabbath,” although on the wrong day. On God-fearers, see Rajak, Tessa. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural an Social Interaction, 346–7. Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002. See notes 411–6 and accompanying text, infra, for the Rabbis’ views of other “religions.” 407 Gen. Rab. 63:2 and Tanh. Miketz: 5, Standard parables from the A3b/Transitional period, emphasize Jacob’s merit, probably premised on the fact that “Jacob” is “Israel,” or, along with the claim that Jacob was the only Patriarch all of whose issue were worthy mentioned in the text at the previous note, is a polemic against Christianity, which had been identified with “Edom” and had itself made a claim on Abraham. See, e.g., Rom 4. 406

150

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES the nations of the world are asking wages before God. God says to Israel, “My sons I will address you. Behold, the nations of the world did a fair amount of work for me and I give them a fair wage. But you did a great amount and I think better of you, ‫‘ נאמר‬I will look with favor on you.’ And ‘I will look with favor on you’ for good.”408

Note that in this text God does not “favor” Israel arbitrarily, but for the “great amount” it does. Great amount of what? Of performance of commandments, but the way or at least one principal way God “favored” Israel was simply by giving them more commandments to perform. Just as the son in this parable is favored by a full meal, Israel was favored by a full set of commandments.409 “He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt so with any other nation; they do not know his ordinances.” (Psalms 147:19–20) Notice to whom. To Jacob, whom he chose from all the nations. He gave only a part to the nations. He gave six commandments to Adam, added one for Noah, to Abraham eight, to Jacob nine, but to Israel he gave all. R. Simon said a parable in the name of R. Haninah. Like a king who had before him a table set with all kinds of food. His first servant entered and he gave him a piece of meat. To the second he gave an egg. To the third he gave some vegetables. And so on with each and every one. His son entered and he gave him everything on the table before him. He said to him, “To them I gave each a part, but I give all Sifra Bechukotai pereq 2:5 (Weiss ed., 111c), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. See also Pesiq. Rab. 10:13, in which R. Levi compares Israel to the contents of one small container among many, the only treasure the king counts. 409 But see Sifre Num. 115 (Horowitz ed., 127–8), in which a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period compares the relationship between God and Israel to that between a king and someone who, when redeemed, is made the king’s slave; in the nimshal Israel complains about the burden of the commandments and God reminds them that they are his slaves. 408

FUNCTIONS

151

to you for your possession.” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed did not give to the nations more than a part of the commandments, but when Israel arose and said, “all that the Lord speaks we will hear and we will do” (Exodus 24:7) he said to them, “See, the entire Torah belongs to you, as it says ‘he has not dealt so with any other nation.’”410

The Rabbis’ view was clearly that the nation Israel was favored over other nations. Is it also true that they thought Israel’s religion was superior to other contemporary religions, or is such an idea anachronistic? Scholars have correctly read the following parable as a polemic against Christology, and accordingly against Christianity, emphasizing R. Abbahu’s location in Caesarea, where he would have been more likely to have been in contact with Christians than in the Galilee.411 “I am the Lord your God.” (Exodus 20:2) R. Abbahu said: A parable. Like a king of flesh and blood rules, and he has a father or a brother. The Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “I am not like that; ‘I am the first’ (Isaiah 44:6) for I have no father, and ‘I am the last,’ (ibid.) for I have no brother, and ‘beside me there is no god’ (ibid.) for I have no son.”412

Bracketing the reference to the king’s brother,413 this is about Christian doctrine, which, of course, includes both a divine figure See also Midr. Pss 4:11 (nations are rewarded in this world for obeying the seven Noachide commandments; Israel will be rewarded in the world to come for obeying all 613.) 411 See Thoma and Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Vierter Teil, 114, who also see this text as a polemic against the emperor cult, which may have enjoyed a revival during Abbahu’s time, particularly in the later part of his career under Diocletian. The emperor cult must have been particularly objectionable to the Rabbis, since it involved not only an “idol” but also a living man. See Stern, Parables in Midrash, 94. 412 Exod. Rab. 29:5. 413 Abbahu does not mention a third person, other than the king’s brother; Origen had taught a trinitarian doctrine in Caesarea itself earlier in the third century, and Abbahu may have been aware of the idea of the Holy Spirit. See Young, Frances M. From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the 410

152

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

with a son and a divine figure with a father. And it must mean that Abbahu believed that “Christianity” was inferior to “Judaism.” But not every scholarly location of polemic against other “religions” succeeds. Consider the nimshal of the parable of the fast-talking king:414 So the Holy One May He Be Blessed stood and spoke rapidly on Mt. Sinai, ‫ככתוב‬, “then God spoke these words all at once” (Exodus 20:1). Michael said, “This business is with me.” Gabriel said, “This business is with me.” When God said, “I,” they said, “This business is with his sons and he will give the Torah to his sons.”

R. Yohanan read words usually translated “then God spoke all these words” as “then God spoke these words all at once.” The translator of Pesiqta Rabbati emphasizes “all at once” and concludes that R. Yohanan meant that revelation was complete at Sinai and that the text is therefore anti-Gnostic or anti-Christian.415 Doubtless Yohanan did believe that revelation was complete at Sinai—even the Oral Law was then also given to Moses416—but that is not the point of his midrash. God’s “business” was giving the Torah, and that business was with the people of Israel, whom he had brought out of Egypt for that purpose—a conclusion the Rabbis derived from a part of the verse before them that, like the end of the Song of the Sea in the parable of the seated Augustus, they did not repeat in the text as we have it. They cite the verse as “When God said ‘I’”; the full version of the occasion “when God said ‘I’” is Exodus 20:1:“I am the Lord your God, who brought you Literature and its Background, 64. London: SCM Press, 1983. See Chapter 4, note 309, supra, for rabbinic use of the concept of the “holy spirit.” Although virtually every third-century emperor wanted to be succeeded by his son, only a few were, while Abbahu’s mention of brothers may have been connected to his knowledge that his contemporaries the emperors Claudius II and Tacitus were succeeded by their brothers. See, e.g., Historia Augusta, Claudius XII.3; Tacitus XIV.1) 414 Pesiq. Rab. 21:10. 415 Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, 420 note 19. 416 See m. Avot 1.

FUNCTIONS

153

out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; you shall have no other gods before me.” God’s business is thus not with angels, for whom the dux and the general of the secular narrative are stand-ins. This is a text about God’s favoring Israel over the angels, by giving them, and not the angels, the Torah (and its commandments), and has nothing to do with other humans and their “religions.” Within Israel, the Rabbis regarded themselves and their followers as superior to other Jews. Ecclesiastes Rabbah contains a “seven ages of man” riff similar to that of Shakespeare’s melancholy Jaques,417 with a conclusion equally unflattering to the elderly. But the Rabbis quickly modify the final, deteriorated, stage, and render it inapplicable to themselves and their followers: This is true of ‫עמים הארץ‬.418 But of sons of Torah it is written, “and King David was old.” (1 Kings 1:1) Even though old, a king.419

The superior position in their societies that the Rabbis awarded themselves is also reflected in texts that, on their face, celebrate the importance of priests, since the figure of the priest was likely a stand-in for the Rabbi.420

USING KING-PARABLES IN THE RABBIS’ PASTORAL WORK Sometimes the third-century Rabbis used king-parables to further their pastoral agenda. They read Scripture to assure themselves and their followers of God’s favor, including, as mentioned in an earlier chapter, by standing biblical verses on their heads to read them as providing divine assurances of comfort rather than warnings of retribution421 Shakespeare, William. As You Like It, act 2, scene 7, in Kittredge, George Lyman, ed. Sixteen Plays of Shakespeare. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1946. 418 Literally, “people of the land,” Jews who, supposedly out of ignorance, did not follow the Rabbis. 419 Eccl. Rab. 1:2.1, from the A3b/Transitional period. 420 See, for example, Sifra Tzav, Mek.de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d). 421 See Chapter 4, note 320 and accompanying text, supra. 417

154

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

They offered other assurances of God’s faithfulness, as in the interstitial and intertextual narrative based on reading Psalms 137:2– 5 (“if I forget you, o Jerusalem, let my right hand wither”) together with Lamentations 2:3 (“he has withdrawn his right hand from them”) to attribute the oath in Psalms to God and to mean that God pulled back his right hand and has not returned it to its original place, having thus sworn not to forget Israel.422 I noted earlier instances of their exegesis offering political hope: they read Exodus to mean that Rome would be defeated and the Temple restored; they read it together with Isaiah to mean that God would then provide twice the comfort as ever before, in a land shown by Deuteronomy always to have been especially fertile. Moreover, this future world would be one, according to Song of Songs Rabbah, in which the Jews would be masters,423 returned to their own house, having feasted (on commandments) in the king’s: R. Yohanan opened . . . [“Then I was in his eyes as one who brings peace.” (Song of Songs 8:10)] Why? All the nations abused Israel and said to them, “If [you are beloved by God] why has he exiled you from his land and why has he destroyed his Temple?” And Israel answered them, “We are like a princess who goes to make a feast in her father’s house and finally returns to her own house in peace.”424

Perhaps pending such political triumph, but more likely as an alternative even for those who would live to see it, they also read Scripture with the help of king-parables to offer hope for a far better life, after death, possibly in the awesome, but casual,

Pesiq. Rab. 28:12–14, including a Standard parable from the A3b/Transitional period comparing Israel, who refused to sing in Babylon after having failed to sing properly in the Temple, with a princess who refuses to serve her second husband after having been banished for refusing to serve the king; this involves an earlier part of Pss 137:3 (“for there our captors asked us for songs.”) See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 55). 423 See Song Rab. 6:12 (1), from the T5/Later Severan period. 424 Song Rab. 8:10 (2). 422

FUNCTIONS

155

company of God, likened in this parable to a king taking a stroll with a tenant farmer: “And I will walk among you.” (Leviticus 26:12) They told a parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who wanted to go out for a stroll in the garden with his tenant, but the tenant hid himself from him. The king said to this tenant, “Why do you hide yourself from me? Behold, I do not go away from you.” And the Holy One May He Be Blessed says to the righteous, “Why do you hide yourself from me?” So in the future the Holy One May He Be Blessed will stroll with the righteous in the Garden of Eden in the world to come, and the righteous will see him and tremble before him. “ Behold, I do not go away from you.”425

The Rabbis also did exegesis that provided instruction on how to be among the “righteous.” The best time to connect with God is on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.426 Indeed, they taught that Israel on Yom Kippur is as pure as the ministering angels and, like them, may say the response to the Sh’ma aloud.427 Teshuvah wards off destruction;428 and, most of all, Torah study negates the Evil Inclination.429 At least once,430 the exegetical work of a text is so obvious as to suggest that what the Rabbis were doing in their exegesis was providing a frame for a hortatory message of God’s special connection with Israel. But such a frame was not always used. The Rabbis also offered hope, consolation and instruction, with the

Sifra Bechukotai perek 3:3 (Weiss ed., 111d), a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. See also Midr. Pss 25:9, a Standard parable from the A2/Divided Empire period; Gen. Rab. 62:2, a Standard parable from the A3a/Reunited Empire period. 426 See Pesiq. Rab Kah. Supplement 7:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 472) and Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:7 (Mandelbaum ed., 412–13) and parallel texts. 427 Deut. Rab. 2:36. 428 See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 364). 429 See Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103–4). 430 Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353). 425

156

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

help of king-parables, without exegesis.431 Such messages of hope took the form of assurances to their followers and themselves of God’s eternal and continuing closeness to Israel, in spite of appearances,432 assurances that the day will come when God “rises to rebuke the world and give the righteous their reward,” outdoing even Sinai,433 promises of the immortality of the soul,434 and instructions on the practical aspects of living according to God’s wishes.435 This examination of how the Rabbis used king-parables leads into the next chapter’s discussion of where they did so, of the settings in which the third-century king-parables were composed and told.

By “without exegesis” I mean that the Rabbis were not performing exegesis on or with the help of a verse before them. I do not mean that they did not cite Scripture to make their point; they usually did. 432 See Pesiq. Rab. 21:27–28, an Imperial parable from R. Joshua ben Levi. 433 Pesiq. Rab. 21:9, an Imperial parable from the A2/Divided Empire period. 434 See Eccl. Rab. 5:10.2, a Standard parable from the T4/Early Severan period. 435 See b. B.Bat. 10a, an Imperial parable from the T4/Early Severan period. 431

CHAPTER 6: SETTINGS Scholars have paid relatively little attention to where and for whom king-parables were composed and told. The early view put forth by Ignaz Ziegler and others posited that parables originated in the synagogue, where the Rabbis used them to communicate their teachings to “the people.”436 This view was an assumption, rather than the result of analysis, and may have been based on the simplicity of the form of many parables, their supposed similarity to folktales, the purported universality of their appeal, and the fact that many of them indeed help teach Torah lessons in an accessible way. Probably it was also influenced by notions of the functions of early Christian parables.437 More recently, Daniel Boyarin’s analysis has resulted in the same view and the conclusion that it was the Rabbis’ own. His position is based on this passage from Song of Songs Rabbah.438 “Besides being wise, Kohelet also taught knowledge to the people” (Ecclesiastes 12:9), and proved and researched, and formulated many meshalim—“and proved” words of Torah; See Ziegler, Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch, xix–xxi. Indeed, earlier generations tended to assign all haggadic midrash to the synagogue and to Rabbis communicating in popularly accessible ways to non-Rabbis. See Fraade, Steven D. “Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim.” Oral Tradition (1999): 14. 437 This assumption has been characterized as positing an almost manipulative urge to translate higher matters to reach simple people and dismissed as “reductive.” Hasan-Rokem, Tales of the Neighborhood, 60. 438 Boyarin, Intertextuality, 83. 436

157

158

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES “and researched” words of Torah; he made handles439 for the Torah. You will find that until Solomon arose, there was no ‫דוגמא‬.440

Boyarin thinks that the Rabbis—at least the Rabbi or Rabbis behind this ‫—דבר אחר‬meant that Kohelet/Solomon “taught knowledge to the people” only through formulating “many meshalim” and that the reference to ‫ דוגמא‬was only to meshalim. The interpretive activity which Solomon engaged in was the making of figurative stories that are “handles to the Torah”— stories, as I shall argue, which render the axiological meaning of the narratives of the Torah accessible. We see, therefore, that on the rabbis’ own account, the mashal is not an enigmatic narrative. Its central function is to teach knowledge to the people, to make “handles” for the Torah, so that the people (not an elect) can understand.441

Did Boyarin erect too heavy a structure on these few words in a minor text? Elliot Wolfson advanced the opposite reading of this passage—that it means that parables are designed to make Torah comprehensible “to one who possesses a discerning ear,” based on the similarity of the word translated as “handles” and the word for “ear.”442 Even if we put aside Wolfson’s suggestion, Boyarin’s reading is not required; equally plausibly we can read “taught knowledge to the people,” “proved and researched” and “formulated many Boyarin writes that “handle” is being used as in colloquial English to mean a way of access. Id. at 149. 440 Song Rab. 1:1(8). Boyarin correctly reads ‫דוגמא‬, a loan word from Greek, as “figure, simile, or paradigm,” and remarks that it is “practically an etymological equivalent of figura.” Intertextuality, 83, 149. 441 Boyarin, Intertextuality, 83. 442 Wolfson, Elliot R. Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, 336. New York: Fordham University Press, 2005. Boyarin has now said that the Rabbis’ “interpretive authority [achieved through Midrash] is located exclusively in the rabbinic Study House,” suggesting that he no longer holds the opinion set forth above. See Boyarin, Border Lines, 176–7. 439

SETTINGS

159

meshalim” in the disjunctive as three separate, although related, activities. And it is striking that Boyarin does not deal at all with the second activity the text assigns to Kohelet/Solomon—“proved and researched.” This is an odd phrase to have been inserted between a task—teaching—and the sole method for achieving that task— formulating parables—especially if it has no importance. The rabbinic text itself treats “and proved” and “and researched” as important enough to be regarded as separate activities each related to Torah, and Boyarin’s argument would have been more persuasive had he accounted for them.443 In any event, most contemporary scholars seem to have rejected the idea, whether based on the early assumption or on Boyarin’s analysis, that parables were generally created in the synagogues for the benefit of “the people (not an elect)” and Wolfson’s suggestion that this text indicates that it was indeed an elect for whom parables were told has not gained wide acceptance. Instead, the dominant view is that parables were made both for the people and for an elect, the Rabbis themselves. Rabbinic parables originated, in David Stern’s words, both “for the sermon in the synagogue and the lecture in the Rabbinic academy.”444 But this view, like the views of the early scholars that it has replaced, does not seem to be based on analysis, and no one has purported to determine which of these venues might have been the setting of most, or more, parables. Stern, for example, emphasizes that parables were used to communicate rabbinic views to nonRabbis445 but has also suggested that parables more often than not It is, of course, not impossible to read Boyarin to mean that the Rabbis thought Solomon did research and found prooftexts in the course of creating parables. 444 Stern, Midrash and Theory, 41. See Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse, 15 (sermons and instruction in the synagogue, learned discussion and scholarly instruction in the study house). 445 He reads another part of Song Rab. 1:1 (8)—a later king-parable comparing a king who uses a penny wick to find a valuable coin to one who uses a parable to understand Torah—to mean that the Rabbis used parables to “impress upon their audience the validity and authority of their view of the world.” Midrash and Theory, 41. (For a different reading of 443

160

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

were told to an elect group capable of understanding them on their own.446 Since so little is known about third-century Palestinian synagogues and rabbinic study houses,447 I will explore the

this parable, see Boyarin, Intertextuality, 87.) Stern’s possible preference at one time for a synagogue setting for the parables may have been further indicated by his earlier claim that only three texts come close to indicating a study house setting for reciting a parable: b. Nid. 45a, b. Ber. 11a and m. Sukkah 2:5. Parables in Midrash, 297. His argument there would have been strengthened had he pointed out that of these three only m. Sukkah 2:5 is a parable with educational content told by the Rabbis. b. Nid. 45a tells of a woman, raped as a small girl, who asks R. Akiva whether she is fit to marry a priest, he says she is, she then tells him a parable indicating that the sex was consensual (?!), and he reverses himself, apparently incorrectly, in order to test his students. In b. Ber. 11a R. Ishmael and R. Eleazar ben Azariah dine together, each changes his physical position to recite the Sh’ma, with Ishmael taking the correct position, and Eleazar tells Ishmael what he terms a “mashal,” comparing Ishmael to one complimented on his fine beard who then says he will shave it off. These texts are not evidence of study house settings—would a woman approach Akiva in the study house? would Ishmael and Eleazar have dinner there?—for the parables Rabbis told to illustrate points of Torah, especially since whatever Torah they taught was incorrect. In his later book, Stern continued to offer these two talmudic texts as evidence for study house settings of parables, but now in support of his statement that parables originated both in the synagogue and in the study house quoted above, as exceptions to his conclusion that there are “no” literary descriptions of parables delivered in either. See Midrash and Theory 41 and note 8, which do not mention m. Sukkah 2:5. 446 See Parables in Midrash, 4. See the last paragraph of this chapter on the audience in the synagogues in which the Rabbis may have told parables for a suggestion that may reconcile any inconsistency in Stern’s views. 447 For example, were there indeed “lectures” in the study houses, as scholars have assumed, or were the Rabbis’ activities closer to, say, contemporary research seminars? See Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 262.

SETTINGS

161

possibility that the settings of the king-parables can be discovered from the inside out. While surviving rabbinic texts are not records of actual events, they are close enough to be used for these purposes. Thus Stern has concluded that the exegetical contexts in which the parables have been preserved may in fact be original.448 But that the context of most of the parables is exegetical does not suggest a solution to the question of synagogue vs. study house. Of course the Rabbis were engaged in exegesis in their study houses, but making Torah accessible to others would also have basically involved exegesis; what would teaching Torah be about, for the Amoraim who produced almost 95% of the parables under study, other than exegesis of the Written Law?449 The textual context of a particular parable that we could somehow be sure originated in the synagogue for the edification of the masses would probably be just as exegetical as another hypothetical parable that we would be equally sure originated in the study house for the intellectual inquiries of the “elect.” Does the collection in which a parable now appears provide a clue to its original setting? Some collections of Midrashim containing king-parables are usually classified as homiletical— emphasizing that they contain material surviving in the form of homilies—450 and these “homilies” are often assumed to have been synagogue sermons.451 That assumption would enable us to classify the parables they contain—some 30% of the parables under study—as originating in the synagogue. But not all these texts are indeed “homilies,” and concluding that they come from the synagogue and are for “the people” is difficult. Stern, Parables in Midrash, 17. While the Tannaim, at least to the extent that their approach is evidenced by the Mishnah and the Tosefta, often pronounced the Law apodictically without the citation of a scriptural basis, none of the parables under study is from the Mishnah or the Tosefta. See Chapter 1, notes 56–59 and accompanying text, supra. 450 Pesiq. Rab Kah., Pesiq. Rab., Deut. Rab. and parts of Lam. Rab., Exod. Rab. and Num. Rab. See the final note in Chapter 1, supra. 451 See Chapter 5, note 337, supra. 448 449

162

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

An example will demonstrate that. A text from Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, the homiletical collection providing more third-century king-parables than any other, begins with the scriptural verse “in the third month” (Exodus 19:1), which it reads as “the third month is come” by adding an aleph to ‫“( ב‬in”) to form ‫“( בא‬is come”). The text follows immediately with three king-parables about the month in which the year begins, including the parable of the king who puts on the cloak of revenge and one of a king about to marry off his daughter. It then proceeds to later words of Exodus19:1, “on that very day they came into the wilderness of Sinai,” and immediately offers four additional king-parables: the parable comparing Jethro to a king’s generous friend; R. Levi’s parable of a king who seeks to marry into a good family; R. Eleazar’s parallel parable; and a later parable comparing a king who withdrew his decree that Romans may not marry foreigners when his daughter did so to God, who withdrew his “decree” in Psalms 115:16 that humans are not to enter heaven and that God would not come to earth to enable Moses to go up “to God” (Exodus 19:3) and God to “descend upon Mt. Sinai.” (Exodus 19:20).452 This does not seem to be a synagogue sermon. It might be connected with one, but no more than it might be connected with a study house exercise. Most likely, it is what it seems to be, a literary collection of king-parables, prepared perhaps by a late antique precursor of Ignaz Ziegler’s, tied to the procession of verses in Exodus 19 and motivated somehow by the “misreading” of ‫בא‬. It is possible, however, to hazard judgments in individual cases that parables appearing in homiletical collections are indeed homilies. Deuteronomy Rabbah is organized in terms of apparent homilies that it calls “halachot,” usually but not always on legal subjects. One halacha asks what a Jew who is traveling when Shabbat begins should do with his purse, and the answer is that he should give it to a gentile, since a gentile, although subject to the Noachide commandments, does not observe the Sabbath. The halacha expands on the subject of the limits of the Noachide commandments with R. Yohanan’s parable comparing someone 452

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 210–2).

SETTINGS

163

who comes between the king and Matrona with a gentile who observes the Sabbath. The teaching about the purse seems more likely to have been for the benefit of an unlearned congregation than a lesson for the Rabbis themselves, and I am therefore inclined to treat this parable as part of a sermon. Moreover, the hostility toward “God-fearers” demonstrated in Yohanan’s parable may have been directed to “God-fearers” (and/or their Jewish hosts) in the congregation listening to the sermon. On the other hand, the Rabbis might have been more interested in the Noachide commandments and their applicability than a lay audience would have been.453 A more useful—but also not dispositive—kind of textual context than the collection in which the parable now appears is that of the parable itself, in a discussion in the Midrash, or a sugya in the Talmud, or a “homily.”454 The location of the parables in larger textual units generally makes sense as we have them. These textual contexts of third-century king-parables usually not only show Rabbis doing exegesis, as Stern observed; they show Rabbis doing only exegesis, and doing exegesis for its own sake. The Rabbis do not appear to have been doing exegesis as part of their teaching but

Deut. Rab.1:21. See also Deut. Rab. 2:26, explaining, perhaps primarily to “laymen” but also to Rabbis, why the response to the Sh’ma is said aloud only on Yom Kippur. In contrast, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6 (Mandelbaum ed., 314–5) is the parable about the prince who disgraced himself with slave girls, and, while it is included in a homiletical collection, it seems to have been constructed only to settle an earlier dispute among Tannaim as to the nature of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. The dispute was probably not of immediate interest to a popular audience for a sermon, although such an audience might well have been quite interested in learning that the forbidden fruit was a fig and could have been brought up to date about the earlier dispute. 454 See Goldberg, “Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch,” 82. See also Sarason, Richard S. “The Petichtot in Leviticus Rabba: Oral Homilies or Redactional Constructions?” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 557, 563. 453

164

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

as part of their study.455 A verse from Scripture is presented as being, in effect, not only on the table at which the Rabbis were sitting, but on the table at which they were studying. This is almost always the case in the halakhic Midrashim, frequently the case in later exegetical Midrashim,456 and sometimes the case in Midrashim classified as homiletical.457 For most parables, therefore, their most useful textual context suggests that they originated in the study house.458 But the inquiry cannot end there. I agree with Stern that these contexts may be original, and I suspect they often are. I am sure, however, and I believe Stern would agree, that many of them are not. Rabbinic material, including king-parables, moved from text to text, partly as the result of the substantial editing and redaction all the texts went through over the centuries. I need not convert to Jacob Neusner’s documentary premise459 to be concerned that the apparent textual context of what survives may be as much or more the product of a later editor or redactor than of an earlier exegete. Perhaps the tasks for which the Rabbis advanced parables will tell something more about their settings. We roughly know the settings in which music for line dancing, or for campfire singing, or for listening to in hushed halls, originated. Can something similar be teased out from third-century king-parables? Among his several works emphasizing the Rabbis as a studying community, see Fraade, “The Torah of the King (Deut 17:14–20).” 456 Collected in Gen. Rab. Lam. Rab., Lev. Rab., Song Rab. and Eccl. Rab. Midr. Pss also usually seems to show the Rabbis at work studying the verse before them and solving problems encountered in the course of their study. 457 See, for example, R. Levi’s parable explaining that a calf may not be sacrificed unless a Sabbath has occurred since its birth, discussed in Chapter 5, the textual context of which is studying “It shall remain seven days with its mother” (Lev 22:27). 458 Of course, a parable could have originated in a synagogue sermon, been heard by a Rabbi, and imported into his study of a text with his colleagues. But it could also have so originated in the field, the shop or the marketplace, or at his mother’s knee. 459 See Chapter 1, notes 32–52 and accompanying text, supra. 455

SETTINGS

165

I have found few parables that perform tasks demonstrating that they clearly originated in one setting or the other. Virtually all exegetical parables do the work of teaching Torah lessons in an accessible way that the populace would have, or, in the minds of the Rabbis, should have, found interesting. But few of them cover elementary or obvious matters of contemporary practice or doctrine, and it is therefore hard to say that the Rabbis themselves would not also have profited from these teachings had they been taught in the study house. I suppose that Rabbis would not have needed much reminding of the importance of saying the Sh’ma, and accordingly I suggest that the parable of the provincials seeking distinguished houseguests originated in the synagogue. But Rabbis, perhaps more than others, did need to be reminded of the importance of Torah study, and therefore I do not think that the parable of the king who both wounds and cures his son necessarily originated in the synagogue, although it might well have. As they struggled for power and authority with other groups in Palestinian Jewish society, the Rabbis would even have welcomed those parables that helped raise the status of Rabbis among Jews generally, such as that of the king’s timepiece. Similarly, I cannot conclude that parables whose jobs were comfort and consolation were therefore for lay audiences, since the Rabbis needed comfort and consolation too. Indeed, as an elite, they might have felt the pain of living in an occupied country all the more,460 and intellectuals are hardly exempt from the fear of death. Thus, based on the tasks for which they were used, the bulk of the third-century king-parables might, again, have originated either in the synagogue or the study house. A few seem somewhat more likely on this basis to have come from the synagogue. When a parable and its surrounding text result not from the Rabbis closely studying a scriptural text but instead from their thinking about things like the physical layout of the Ten Commandments, it is tempting to see them in a synagogue setting:

460

See Chapter 8, infra.

166

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES How were the Ten Commandments given? Five on this tablet and five on this tablet. “I am the Lord your God” with “You shall not murder” written opposite it. This tells that as to all who shed blood it is accounted against him as if he diminished the image of God. A parable. Like a king of flesh and blood who enters a province, and they put up portraits of him and they erect statues of him, made images of him and they mint coins bearing his likeness. After a while they smash his portraits, overthrow his statues, and render his coins unfit, all diminishing his image. So for anyone who sheds blood it is accounted against him as if he diminished the image of God, as it is said, “Whoever sheds the blood of a human . . .for in his own image God made humankind.”(Genesis 9:6)461

And when a parable seems to be more about generating drama and excitement than about careful exegesis of a difficult verse, perhaps it was meant for “the people”: If you do such “the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you.” (Deuteronomy 11:17) A parable. Like a king who was going to send his son to a banquet house. He sat down to instruct him, and said to him, “My son, don’t eat more than you need and don’t drink more than you need, so that you will come home in good shape.” The son didn’t pay attention. He ate more than he needed and drank more than he needed, so that he vomited, dirtying other guests. They seized him by his hands and his feet and threw him behind the palace. So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to Israel, “I brought you into a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to eat of its produce and be satisfied with its goodness, and to bless my name for it. You disregarded the good. Suffer then the affliction that “the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you.”462

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 8 (Lauterbach ed., 2:262), an Imperial parable from the A1/Midcentury period. 462 Sifre Deut. 43 (Finkelstein ed., 98–9). 461

SETTINGS

167

A parable that simplifies an “earlier” midrashic interpretation might be the poster child for the parable as accessible Torah for “the people.” The parable of the gluttonous zookeeper is the only one of that sort isolated in Chapter 5, but it may not quite fit the bill.463 The correct form of punishment of a sinning priest would not have been of great interest to “the people,” perhaps other than the hereditary priests among them, unless the details of a restored Temple cult were part of any popular messianic hope.464 Accordingly, there would have been little need to bring R. Isaac’s abstruse teaching based on orthography “down” to the people. On the other hand, the Rabbis should have understood R. Isaac; why simplify his teaching just for them? Are we getting a glimpse of introductory education in the study house, a kind of Leviticus 101? A touch of humor? Or did the Rabbis want to teach lessons about the to-be-restored cult to “the people,” whether or not the people wanted to be taught? But simplification is not the only way a Torah lesson can be made more suitable for a lay audience. The emphasis might be changed, or material thought too upsetting for laypeople might be modified, as when Midrash apparently boosting Balaam’s reputation was undercut by a parable comparing his status as a prophet said to know things about God that Moses didn’t know to that of a royal butcher who knows the king’s budget, but merely his budget. Bold interpretations might have been illustrated by repetitive or pedestrian parables to facilitate their acceptance by a lay audience. And parables like that of the king’s timepiece, designed to clarify and drive home the point of “reckoning of time is yours,” See Chapter 5, note 366 and accompanying text, supra. Popular interest in priestly matters may be evidenced by synagogue art such as depictions of the Torah shrine, menorahs, shofar, lulav, etrog and incense shovel. See Levine, Lee I. “Contextualizing Jewish Art: The Synagogues at Hammat Tiberias and Sepphoris.” In Kalmin, Richard, and Seth Schwartz, eds. Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire, 91. Leuven: Peeters, 2003, and Fine, Steven. This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period, 95–126. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1997. 463 464

168

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

may have had a synagogue audience in mind, while parables like that of the dove pursued by the hawk, perhaps meant to be amusing, might have been designed to get its attention. On the other hand, Rabbis themselves might have needed or wanted to be restrained from letting their textual virtuosity make it seem that they favored Balaam over Moses. Maybe they wanted to have the important concepts they developed made more vivid, and even to be mildly entertained by a picture of a king involved in an ornithological chase scene.465 Thus, while some parables seem to have originated in the synagogue, virtually all of them may also come from the study house. Another small group of parables seems more suited to a study house setting than to that of a synagogue. As noted above, those parables engaged in solving problems involving the sacrificial cult may evidence concern with a subject of greater interest to Rabbis intensely studying Scripture than to a synagogue audience. Other parables that probably would not have interested “the people” are some of those that do little, if anything, more than demonstrate the Rabbis’ virtuosity, such as the parable of the king’s cabbages designed to foster word play involving “blossom” and “sprout,” or the one that inserts a king who dresses his disobedient son as an olive treader into the exegesis of Lamentations 1:1 because the same consonants appear in the words for “lonely” and for “olive press.” But not every complicated or virtuoso text should be assigned to the study house. When a parable’s job is to generate complexity and novel and unusual exegesis—as is most clearly the case for those that give rise to intertextual narratives —it might seem to come from the rabbinic study house, and, just because of its complexity and novelty, not to be the sort of thing created for lay congregations, any more than a parable based on the bet and two dalets in “olive press.” But consider this extraordinary example: Indeed, some of the parables that might on first blush be thought of as products of the study house because of the novelty and complexity of the exegesis they generate may well be among the more entertaining, such as R. Levi’s parable of Matrona’s fingernail. 465

SETTINGS ‫דבר אחר‬. “That the Lord your god will maintain with you the covenant and mercy.”466 (Deuteronomy 7:12) R. Shimon ben Halafta said, To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who married Matrona, who brought with her into the marriage two gems. The king had two other gems put in settings for her. Matrona lost the gems she had brought, and the king, as a result, put his away. After a while, she got herself together, found the two gems she had brought and began to wear them again. The king retrieved the two he had put away. The king said, “The four gems together will be made into a crown for Matrona.” So you find that Abraham gave his sons two gems, righteousness and justice. ‫ ?מנין‬It is written, “for I have chosen him that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice.” (Genesis 18:19) The Holy One May He Be Blessed provided two other gems, mercy and compassion, for Abraham’s sons, as it is written, “the Lord your god will maintain with you the covenant and mercy that he swore to your ancestors.” (Deuteronomy 7:12) And it says, “and show you compassion . . . as he swore to your ancestors” (Deuteronomy 13:17.) Israel lost theirs, the gems given by Abraham, as it is written, “you have turned justice into poison and the fruit of righteousness into wormwood” (Amos 6:12) The Holy One May He Be Blessed also put his away, as it is written, “I have taken away my peace from this people, my mercy and compassion.” (Jeremiah 16:5). Israel got herself together and brought back her two gems and began to wear them again. ‫ ?מנין‬It is written, “Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness.” (Isaiah 1:27) Then God retrieved the two he had put away. ‫ ?מנין‬It is written, “my steadfast love shall not depart from you and my covenant of peace shall not be removed.” (Isaiah 54:10) And when Israel brought hers back and the Holy One May He Be Blessed brought his back, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, The four together will be made into a crown for Israel, as it is said, “I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife 466

This word is more often translated “loyalty.”

169

170

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES in righteousness and in justice, in compassion and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord.” (Hosea 2:21)467

As the Rabbis studied Deuteronomy 7:12, R. Shimon ben Halafta is presented as having called up his knowledge of the entire Torah and to have created a parable for the sole purpose of generating a brilliant intertextual narrative in which, in the first “act,” Israel, represented by Abraham, provides herself with righteousness and justice—on her own, it seems—and induces God therefore to treat her with mercy and compassion. In the second act, Israel abandons righteousness and justice and thus causes God to stop treating her with mercy and compassion. In the dénouement, Israel recovers righteousness and justice—again, on her own—and God not only resumes his merciful and compassionate treatment of her, but “marries” her—enters into a relationship with her for all time—by presenting her with a crown made out of righteousness and justice and mercy and compassion. Accounting for a parable like this only as a study house product is unfair to the Rabbis’ “lay” audience. We are moved by this rabbinic tour de force; why wouldn’t they be?468 And since the linchpin of the reconciliation between God and Israel is the result

Deut. Rab. 3:7, including a Standard parable from the T5/Later Severan period. 468 See Thoma and Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Dritter Teil, 229, classifying Exod. Rab. 15:16, a Standard parable about a king who imprisons Matrona but visits her in prison that generates a highly complex intertextual narrative, as a Passover sermon. Some years ago, under the leadership of Norman J. Cohen, the construction of interstitial narratives was a popular form of adult education. See my “A Story of Cain.” New Traditions 3 (1986). If twentieth-century laypeople enjoyed and learned from creating such narratives, it would not be surprising if third-century laypeople had profited by hearing them. Similarly parables like that of Midr. Pss 22:20—turning the Psalmist’s lament that he is “a worm not a man” into a claim that Israel enthroned God—may have originated in the study house but would have appealed to “the people,” as would several of the other more unusual pieces of exegesis cited in this study. 467

SETTINGS

171

of Israel’s apparently unassisted recovery of its “gems,” it is highly appropriate as a sermon to the faithful, whether or not learned. We cannot conclude that parables designed to generate novel, complex and exciting exegesis were so designed in and for use in the study house, only that they were designed by the Rabbis who principally worked in the study house, but that has never been in question. The distinction is between virtuosity for its own sake, as with the letters in “lonely,” and virtuosity that advances the rabbinic agenda of teaching those Jews who were listening that their righteousness and justice will be rewarded by God’s compassion and mercy, or even that their circumcisions render them, unlike their neighbors, “perfect” in God’s eyes.469 Shimon ben Halafta did not call up the text of various Torah verses electronically or by consulting a Torah scroll. He knew them. Some parables seem better fitted to a study house setting because they seem to have been, at least to an extent, useful as memorization exercises. When, as they studied Genesis, the verse before R. Abbahu and his colleagues was “Bela died, and Jobab son of Zerah of Bozrah succeeded him as king” (Genesis 36:33), he was able to produce a king-parable with an intertextual conclusion: Like a king’s son who, while engaged in a dispute with another, ran out of food. A third party supplied his food. The king said, “I am only concerned with the one who supplied his food [and not with the one with whom he is engaged in a dispute].” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “Royalty had previously been uprooted from Edom, and Bozrah came and provided kings for it. Accordingly I am only concerned with Bozrah [and not with the places of origin of the previous kings of Edom],” as it is written, “For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom.” (Isaiah 34:6)470

This parable would have been of virtually no interest to a lay audience in a synagogue and it has little substantive teaching for the Rabbis. Perhaps its function was to assist in the memorization of There are, however, parables that solve genuine interpretive issues that may not be interesting to laypeople, like the meaning of ‫גל‬. 470 Gen Rab. 83:3, a Standard parable. 469

172

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

the two scriptural texts it contains, especially the less obviously important one from Genesis; if so, its intertextuality acts as a mutually reinforcing mnemonic device.471 The parable of the king who dressed his son as an olive treader also illustrates the possibility that some of the parables under study are the products of another sort of study-house exercise. I flirt with anachronism, but it is easy to imagine a master in the study house giving his students the assignment of producing a new reading of the first words of Lamentations, and the “winning” student focusing on the bet and the two dalets.472 The final category of parables that seem more likely to have come from the study house than from the synagogue are those apparently about matters of special concern to the Rabbis or especially within their frame of reference, such as parables that help solve a problem raised by earlier Rabbis,473 or parables that explain earlier teachings or are premised on them.474 On the other hand, of Abbahu could have expanded on the nature of God’s concern with Bozrah and cited verses such as Jer 49:13, Jer 49:22 and Amos 1:12. If my memorization suggestion is right, he probably did. Another parable that might have helped the Rabbis as a memory aid through its intertextuality is the parable of the man who picks up thorns in the king’s garden. On the Rabbis’ views on and approaches to the importance, purpose and structure of memory and techniques of building it, see Naeh, Shlomo. “Omenut Ha-Zicharon: Mivnim shel Zicharon v’Tavniyut shel Teqst b’Sifrut Chazal.” In Sussman, Ya’acov, and Dovid Rosental, eds. Mehqeri Talmud: Qovetz Mechqarim baTalmud u-be-Techumim Govlim Moqdash leZichrono shel Prof. Ephraim E. Urbach 3, 543. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2005. 472 Other parables that might have been the result of such exercises include the parable of the king who is undeservedly praised, which is supported by a string of twenty-two scriptural verses. Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 1 (Lauterbach ed., 2:8–9). 473 Such as the parable about the prince who disgraced himself with slave girls. 474 R. Levi seems to have favored this use of parables among others. See the parable he built on an earlier Rabbi’s idea of worship after idolatry being akin to dessert; Lev. Rab 12:1, a Standard parable he offered to explain why R. Ishmael, a second-generation Tanna, had taught that the 471

SETTINGS

173

course, such earlier teachings could have been simultaneously taught to a synagogue congregation. With that remark I have run out of “other hands.” The arguments based on textual context, tending toward study house origins, are of limited value. Consideration of the texts of the thirdcentury king-parables shows that most could derive from either setting, and most of those that seem more likely to have come from one could also have come from the other. By and large, the contemporary consensus is correct: The king-parables of the third century could have originated either in the synagogue “for the people” or in the study house “for an elect” and have been used in either. Perhaps the distinction between parables from the synagogue and parables from the study house is a distinction without much of a difference. Up to now, I have proceeded on the view— originating with the early scholars, endorsed by Stern and Boyarin, and accepted by others—that a parable “from” the study house was “for” the rabbinic elite and a parable “from” the synagogue was “for” the unlearned people. But scholars increasingly claim that in the third century the only synagogues in which the Rabbis might have preached were in effect their synagogues, synagogues attended by themselves and their relatively few followers, who may themselves have been quite learned.475 If this is right, the Rabbis of sons of Aaron died because they drank too much; Gen. Rab. 36:7, an Imperial parable he based on an earlier teaching of R. Hiyya; Exod. Rab. 38:8, a Standard parable in which he expanded on a teaching of his contemporary R. Isaac. But he was not the only Rabbi to use parables this way. See; Midr. Pss 86:4, an antithetical Imperial parable from the A3b/Transitional period based on a teaching by earlier named Rabbis; and Pesiq. Rab. 21:36, another version of the parable of the queen who doubled her marriage settlement, in which the parable is premised on knowledge of an earlier teaching that the word ‫ אנכי‬has elements of comfort. 475 “Minimizing rabbinic authority” has recently been called the “more or less scholarly consensus.” Satlow, Michael L. “A History of the Jews or Judaism?: On Seth Schwartz’s Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C. E to 640 C.E.” Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 151, 153.

174

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

the third-century were not leaders of Jewish society who on a regular and formal basis preached down to the multitude. They were a studying community with a few followers who were not that different, except probably for the extent of their learning, from their teachers. King-parables that originated in synagogues and king-parables that originated in study houses would, at that stage in the development of rabbinic Judaism, both have been “for an elect,” a conclusion entirely consistent with what this chapter has retrieved from its examination of the texts.

The synagogue long antedated the rise of the rabbinic movement and was probably created and led by local landowners into the third century and beyond, more or less uninfluenced by the Rabbis, whose leadership role in general Jewish society had not yet emerged. See Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society 259 et seq., outlining differences between “synagogues as a group” and rabbinic synagogues in an even later period, and attributing the rise of rabbinic leadership of Jewish society to the sixth century at the earliest; id. at 175, claiming that early rabbinic Judaism was attractive only to small numbers of Jews. See also note 442, supra, for the recent views of Daniel Boyarin. That such views are controversial is demonstrated by reactions to Schwartz’ book. See, e.g., Joseph Geiger, review of Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E, by Seth Schwartz. Scripta Classica Israelica 22 (2003): 338–42. For a more measured critique, see Fraade, Steven D. “Seth Schwartz’ Imperialism and Jewish Society,” presented at the Society of Biblical Literature 2003 Annual Meeting, arguing inter alia for the possibility that accounts in rabbinic literature of local legal and administrative functions being performed by Rabbis may have been accurate as early as the third century.

CHAPTER 7: THE FIGURE OF GOD Although Chapter 4 argued against the prevailing idea that the figure of “the king” in third-century parables usually refers to the God of Israel, the figure of “God” in the parables surely does. This chapter deals with what the Rabbis’ king-parables suggest about their understanding of God’s personality.476 What are his feelings and emotions as shown in them?477 Whom and what does he love or hate? Why? What does he do, and what motivates his actions? These questions can be pursued because God in a kingparable is a character in a narrative, and readers of narratives both directly know and infer what the characters in them are like. Sometimes readers know about a character’s traits because they are specifically described in the text of the narrative—Michael

I will not discuss what the parables have to say about such other important theological issues in rabbinic Judaism as creation, revelation, sin, repentance, holiness, theodicy, the Messiah, the resurrection of the body and/or the immortality of the soul, and eschatology more generally. On the Rabbis’ views on such issues, Schechter, Solomon. Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. New York: Schocken Books, 1961, reprint with an introduction by Neil Gilman, Woodstock VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993, remains an excellent introduction. 477 My own religious practices ordinarily prevent me from using gendered pronouns for God, even in a “merely” grammatical way. But “God,” as discussed in this chapter and elsewhere in this study, means God as believed in, worshipped, and obeyed by the ancient Rabbis, and is therefore not only grammatically masculine, but male. 476

175

176

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Corleone is college educated;478 sometimes the reader deduces such traits from other traits that are described and from the character’s actions—Michael is tortured. Excellent examples of traits being deduced from other, specifically described traits are provided by narratives portraying a character at times and in situations other than those of the narratives in which the character first appears. For example, novelist Michael Chabon was able to depict Sherlock Holmes at age 89 during World War II because he had read earlier texts that portrayed the character of a younger Holmes and that specifically described some of Holmes’ traits (his appearance, for example, and his interest in bees) allowing Chabon—among others—to deduce additional traits from Holmes’ behavior, including traits that would develop over time.479 I will not portray God at times or in situations other than those in which he appears in the kingparables, but the method behind this chapter is similar to that used by the authors of such works. This approach to “character” approximates what literary critics call “essentialist,” fundamentally treating character as the product of a personality or an idea, and best represented by the critical tradition from Henry James through E. M. Forster to Wayne Booth as well as by much psychoanalytic criticism. The essentialist position lies at the opposite end of a spectrum from the “nominalist” position, which sees character as merely a name for a locus of functions that a given figure serves in a narrative, associated with structuralist critics from Propp through Greimas and Barthes. Puzo, Mario. The Godfather, 17. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1969; reprint, New York: Fawcett World Library, 1970. 479 Chabon, Michael. The Final Solution: A Story of Detection. New York: Harper Collins, Fourth Estate, 2004. Returning to Michael Corleone, it is clearer that he is tortured in the film that continues his story than it is in the novel in which he first appears, since the authors of that screenplay had read the novel (indeed, one of them had written it) and were able to draw from it (and from its film version) traits of Michael’s character that developed over time. Coppola, Francis Ford, and Puzo. The Godfather, Part II. Screenplay: Paramount Pictures, 1974. 478

THE FIGURE OF GOD

177

My understanding of these positions is based on that of David Stern, whose work on God as a character in the king-parables I am following and building on.480 Stern wrote: What is God’s character? What type of personality does He have? To treat the representation of God in Rabbinic literature as a problem of literary characterization is not to demean Him. It is also, I hope, not an anachronism. By calling God a character, I do not mean to suggest that He was either a fiction to the Rabbis or any less an object of worship for them. Quite the opposite, to the extent that the Rabbis were intent upon characterizing God, it was precisely in order to make Him more of a God whom they could worship (emphasis in original).481

But I will part with Stern in important ways. The essay this quotation comes from is largely concerned with the Rabbis’ anthropomorphism, which Stern treats as a problem relating both to their beliefs and to their methods of expression. He is, of course, right that, according to Midrash (including king-parables), God is both anthropomorphic and anthropopathic, but this is not a problem for this study; the texts, and the character of God in them, are what they are. Moreover, confining this chapter to the figure of God as it appears on its own without confusing it with the figure of the human king reduces any problem that the anthropomorphism of the parables presents.482 Midrash and Theory, 79–80 and note 25. Stern thanks Alan Mintz for reminding him of the essentialist/nominalist divide in critical thinking about character. 481 Stern, Midrash and Theory, 79. 482 Here as elsewhere Stern expressed the view that “the Rabbis used the literary genre of the parable to portray God, albeit obliquely, in the form of a human king.” He was aware of the connections among this view of “king = God,” his presentation of the character of God, and his concern about anthropomorphism: “The recognition of this imperial model for the Rabbis’ portrait of God ... suggests how deeply rooted in history, in their own historical moment, was their construction of God.” Stern, Midrash and Theory, 74, 90 (a passage about anthropomorphism). Stern rightly criticizes Neusner’s notion that the Rabbis depicted God as 480

178

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

My treatment of inconsistencies in the character of God as presented in the king-parables is a more significant departure from Stern than my disregard of the issue of anthropomorphism. Stern first claims that the rabbinic representation of God lies somewhere between the essentialist and nominalist positions, combining features associated with both approaches.483 But when he explicitly treats texts that display inconsistencies in the character of God, he chooses the nominalist approach, without qualification, as the only way to read them.484 The two texts he focuses on in this regard are from the same part of Lamentations Rabbah, the collection Stern has principally used in his study of parables. Both concern God’s behavior after the Destruction of the Second Temple, but in one God is incarnate in the king-parables on the ground that Neusner overlooks the fact that the parables are, indeed, parables, and thereby makes unwarranted conclusions about God based on statements about the king. Id. at 77, discussing Neusner, Jacob. The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Stern’s own identification of the figures of the king and of God similarly increased his understanding of the scope and extent of the Rabbis’ anthropomorphisms, and therefore of the “problems” they generate. At least once Stern comes close to recognizing his error: “the anthropomorphism in [God’s own] ... confession [of failure in the first of the narratives from Lam. Rab. discussed in notes 485–6 and accompanying text, infra] must exceed the purely literal: the confession must be more than a propositional statement about the divine ontology, since, after all, God only likens Himself to a human king.” (Emphasis in original.) Stern, Midrash and Theory, 83. And that is all the Rabbis do as well. 483 Stern, Midrash and Theory, 80. When he writes that a “representation” by the Rabbis stands between the two critical positions, I assume he is using shorthand. “Essentialism” and “nominalism” are ways of reading, not ways of writing, and certainly not ways of putting together midrashic literature as it has come down to us. He must mean that the right way to read Midrash—especially, perhaps, anthropomorphic Midrash that is inconsistent with other anthropomorphic Midrash—is between the two positions, and not that the Rabbis themselves took a literary-criticism position about the texts they produced. 484 Stern, Midrash and Theory, 91.

THE FIGURE OF GOD

179

personally involved with the Destruction, having both caused it and mourned it, while in the other he shows “a stony, disturbingly cold detachment from His nation and their travails.”485 [T]he specific features of the separate portrayals of God require the nominalist approach to explain them. We will need to concentrate more fully on the functions each divinity serves and the roles each divinity is called upon to play in its respective narrative ... Each character is fully rooted in its own story.486

Stern leaves to his reader what caused the Rabbis to characterize God as involved (although inconsistently involved) in one narrative and as indifferent in the other; the rest of the essay deals with whether the Rabbis believed in the anthropomorphisms they employed. Clearly the purpose of a parable has some effect on how God is depicted in it, and doubtless it would be a worthwhile project to try to uncover the role the character of God plays in each narrative, lay a matrix of those roles over a table of the inconsistencies the texts include about the character of God, and then try to explain them in a strictly nominalist way. But that is a project for another time and another writer. More important, the fact that God is an inconsistent character in the king-parables is not a matter for concern. Rabbinic Judaism’s conception of God has long been recognized as including inconsistent traits -– for example, God is both transcendent and immanent and both just and merciful—and neither theologians nor historians have found it necessary to explain this through structuralist theory.487 Why may not God’s concern and God’s indifference also be treated as traits in tension with each other,

Id. at 86. Value-laden words like “disturbingly” confirm that Stern’s work attempts something more than analyzing texts. See Chapter 3, note 229, supra, for his statement that he is concerned with relations between God and Israel in history. 486 Stern, Midrash and Theory, 91. 487 Including David Stern in this very essay. Midrash and Theory, 86–7. 485

180

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

rather than, in Stern’s words, as evidencing two different characters who share only a name?488 On another level, is it unique or strange in world literature—it is neither in real life—that characters are involved in events concerning those close to them but simultaneously behave with apparent indifference, or are in fact indifferent but act as if involved? Or that the character moves from concern to indifference and back again almost instantaneously? To offer a later king-parable, we know how much Lear loves Cordelia at the very moment he banishes her, and not only because we know how the play comes out.489 In this chapter, I will examine several traits of the character of God that emerge from the king-parables; many of these traits are inconsistent with each other, and one very important trait is inconsistency itself.490 We know of some of God’s traits according to these parables the same way we know of Michael Corleone’s education in the narrative in which he first appears; they are specifically asserted, sometimes with the use of adjectives. God is mighty, wise and

Midrash and Theory, 86. And not only because of the steps taken by the noble Kent. Shakespeare, William. King Lear, act 1, scene 1. In Kittredge, ed. Sixteen Plays. 490 I will describe God’s traits as shown in these parables without calling attention to the period that a parable comes from or to the Rabbi to whom it is attributed. Since the parables under study come from only a few hundred men at most, and since these men were united in a jurisprudential and religious movement within one small country (and usually in one region of that country) during a period of less than ninety years, I believe that the character in their king-parables of the divinity to whose laws they devoted their lives may fairly be presented as the product of a coherent view. See Chapter 1, note 4 and accompanying text, supra. In any event, the rest of this chapter may be read as an act of homage to these men, in that it attempts a continuous account of what God is like in a body of texts appearing in disparate places; to that extent, it, like so many parables, is an intertextual narrative. 488 489

THE FIGURE OF GOD

181

merciful, and, perhaps surprisingly, rich.491 He keeps his promises.492 He is warlike and at the same time attentive to his creatures, for whose needs he provides.493 He is generous, allowing Israel to have six days for themselves.494 He is unique or solitary, or both.495 These traits appear in the king-parables with greater clarity than other traits do, because they come from antithetical parables. For example, God’s might, wisdom, mercy and wealth are mentioned in the course of contrasting him to a king of flesh and blood who claims those virtues but is really weak, foolish, cruel and poor. I do not claim that the Rabbis were reluctant to be similarly clear and specific about God’s personality and attributes in other forms of parables; I only point out that they largely were not.496 In any event, the God of the king-parables certainly is mighty, wise, merciful, faithful, providential and unique, and we are not surprised; these are also among the adjectives the Rabbis used for Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 1. Pesiq. Rav Kah.4:2. 493 Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4. 494 Pesiq. Rab. 23:6. 495 Exod. Rab. 29:5. 496 These antithetical parables may be better described as saying that God is not weak, foolish, cruel or poor, that he does not forget his promises, that he is not prevented from providing for his people when he is at war, that he does not give his servants only one day off per week, and, in his own words according to R. Abbahu, he is “not like that; ‘I am the first’ for I have no father, and ‘I am the last,’ for I have no son, and ‘beside me there is no god’ for I have no brother” (emphasis added). Do we see here antique Jewish roots of “negative theology,” the medieval doctrine, usually treated as having been built on Aristotelian thought as transmitted by Muslim philosophers, that “we cannot describe the Creator by any means except negative attributes”? Maimonides, Moses. The Guide for the Perplexed, tr. M. Freidlaender, second revised ed. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1904; reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 1956. See, e.g., Seltzer, Robert M. Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History, 398–9. New York/London: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc. / Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1980. 491 492

182

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

God in their liturgy. But God in the parables is an interesting and complex character, and he, like all such characters, has negative aspects to his personality, sometimes mixed together with his virtues. While it takes some digging to uncover his traits, the parables present him as usually easily recognizable;497 once even the Sea of Reeds recognized him.498 But, inconsistently with his might, on the sixth day of creation a ministering angel confused him with Adam,499 while at Sinai Israel could not distinguish among him, Michael, Gabriel and any member of their bands of angels.500 Perhaps as a result, he lets himself be seen so rarely that Moses is superior to all other prophets partly because he saw God,501 and God’s glory can, generally speaking, only be imagined.502 Nonetheless, at least once he wanted so much to be seen that he woke his potential viewers with thunder and lightning.503 Nevertheless, Israel couldn’t abide to see him,504 again inconsistently with his might, and after the momentary glimpse of his glory when he woke them and they confused him with members of his retinue, he seems to have become invisible again. Why did he want to be seen? So that Israel would never be able to excuse its idolatry by saying it would have been avoided if God had only let them see his glory at Sinai. This first glimpse of what motivates God seems odd; why does he care about what excuses for sin Israel might have offered? But this is not the only occasion when God’s reasons for his actions in the king-parables relate to

Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3, also an antithetical parable. See Song Rab. 5:10, yet another antithetical parable. 498 Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 5 (Lauterbach ed., 1:228–9). 499 Gen. Rab. 8:10. 500 Pesiq. Rab. 21:27–28. 501 Lev. Rab. 1:14. 502 Sifre Deut. 355 (Finkelstein ed., 422–3). 503 Song Rab. 1:12 (2). 504 Exod. Rab. 29:4. 497

THE FIGURE OF GOD

183

his concern, inconsistent with his wisdom and might, about what people might say.505 God is thoughtful and kindly; he deferred giving the Torah until Israel was strong enough to receive it.506 He is magnanimous, rewarding a short lifetime of Torah study as much as a long one.507 His kindness is also shown by the fact that he rewards charity, no matter how small in amount.508 Like thoughtfulness and generosity, many other aspects of God’s personality in the king-parables are related to his special relationship with Israel. That relationship is primarily one of love; Israel is his treasured special possession, and he treats them like a king counting and re-counting his gold.509 He loves Israel more than he loves his creatures in heaven,510 and, obviously, more than the other nations on earth.511 He has manifested his love for Israel in many ways, above all by giving them, and not the angels or the other nations, the Torah. God’s love for Israel extends to its land, which he associates with Israel’s ancestors512 and which he waters himself.513 In addition, he loves them so much that he went with them down into slavery in Egypt and accompanied them into exile to Babylonia, Persia and He is concerned about what people might say about him (see Gen. Rab. 50:12), what they might say about Abraham (see b. Sanh. 89b, in which he tests Abraham for a tenth time so that no one will say Abraham had not passed the first nine tests, a concern that is even harder to fathom than the other examples of this trait), and what they might say about Moses (Exod. Rab. 21:9). This characteristic may also be shown by his high level of concern about charges of sexual impropriety in Israel. See notes 526–7 and accompanying text, infra. 506 Eccl. Rab. 3:11.2. This may explain his responsiveness to Moses’ plea on Israel’s behalf discussed in note 519 and accompanying text, infra. 507 Tanh. Ki Tisa: 3. 508 b. B. Bat. 10a. 509 Pesiq. Rab. 10:13. 510 Deut. Rab. 8:7. 511 Exod. Rab. 30:9. 512 Lev. Rab. 36:5. 513 Sifre Deut. 38 (Finkelstein ed., 74). 505

184

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

“Greece.”514 When Israel is in trouble, his focus is solely on them; the angels may not sing praises to him at such a time.515 God’s love for Israel is further evidenced by his mercy toward them. He asks for and expects very little.516 He will punish them when they sin, of course,517 but he takes great joy in their repentance.518 His anger against them can be abated fairly easily, as when Moses calmed him down after the episode of the golden calf by emphasizing Israel’s immaturity.519 In fact, he purposely sends his anger and wrath far away to give Israel a chance to repent during the time it would take his anger and wrath to get to where they are.520 God’s mercy and love for Israel are also shown by his remarkable responsiveness when Israel takes the first step toward reconciliation.521 And he can forgive them on his own, without being asked.522 Like other loving fathers, God worries about how Israel is regarded.523 He informed the other nations of his great love for Israel so that they would treat Israel with honor.524 But, inconsistently with God’s might, the nations nonetheless mock Israel for its sins, and God goes so far to protect them from these taunts—even those that are deserved—as to honor the animal that was the means of Israel’s worst transgression.525 When the nations charged that Israelite women misbehaved with Egyptian men in Exod. Rab. 15:16. Exod. Rab. 23:7. 516 Esth. Rab. 3:4. 517 Exod. Rab. 2:2. 518 Song Rab. 8:12 (1). 519 Exod. Rab. 43:9. 520 y. Ta’an. 2:1 (61b). The limited speed of his anger and wrath is, again, inconsistent with God’s might. 521 Deut. Rab. 3:7. 522 Pes. Rab. 23:3. 523 See note 505 and accompanying text, supra, for God’s concern about what people might say. 524 Mek.de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 185–6). 525 Lev. Rab. 27:8. 514 515

THE FIGURE OF GOD

185

Egypt, God countered the scandalous talk by taking extra steps to make sure that children looked like their Israelite fathers.526 Indeed, his concern about potential charges by the nations of ‫ זנות‬by both Israelite men and women in Egypt, even before such charges were made, may have resulted in a temporary suspension of marital relations: The nations of the world used to taunt Israel and say, “And the Egyptians made the people of Israel work with rigor.” (Exodus 1:13) If that is what they said about their labor, how much worse would it be about what they did with their bodies and their wives? So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, “A locked garden is my sister, my bride.”527

As much as God has manifested his love for Israel in the past in ways large and small, he is holding even more of his love for the future. He has, with great drama, cursed himself and sworn the end of the exile;528 more practically, he has facilitated the return to the Land by keeping the commandments operative.529 He is focused on the future: he shows the pious, while they are still alive, their situation in the world to come,530 where Israel will be rewarded.531 In the future, even natural phenomena will rejoice with Israel,532 and God will be twice as comforting as he was at Sinai.533

Pesiq. Rav Kah. 11:6. Song Rab. 4:12 (1). The secular narrative of this parable concerns a vacationing king whose daughters are wrongfully accused of ‫ זנות‬in his absence. The nimshal therefore may mean only that Israel in Egypt was virtuous, but the emphasis remains on what the nations might say. 528 Pesiq. Rab. 28:12–14. 529 Sifre Deut 43 (Finkelstein ed., 102). 530 Gen. Rab. 62:2. 531 Eccl. Rab. 9:5:8; Midr. Pss 4:11. 532 Pesiq. Rav Kah. S5:2. 533 Pesiq. Rav Kah. 19:5 (Mandelbaum ed., 306–7); Pesiq. Rab. 21:36. 526 527

186

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

The parables do not say why, but it is clear that God is indeed waiting.534 The Rabbis asked why Scripture says that his goodness is “stored up” (Psalms 31:19) and the parable to which they assigned the task of answering their question makes it clearer that it is not only stored up, but stored up for the future. R. Yosi bar Haninah said a parable. Like a king who made a banquet and invited the guests. The fourth hour of the day arrived and they didn’t come; the fifth, the sixth, and they didn’t come. Towards evening the guests slowly began to arrive. He said to them, “I owe you great thanks because had you not arrived I would have had to throw the banquet to the dogs.” So the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to the righteous, “I owe you great thanks, for I created the world for your sake, and were it not for you, to whom would I give the goodness that I have prepared for the future, as it is written ‘How great is your goodness stored up for those that fear you’”? (Psalms 31:19)535

What are God’s plans for the other nations? They will be punished in the world to come. Why? Israel having asked him not to direct his anger and wrath toward them, he directs his anger and wrath, also at Israel’s suggestion, to the other nations, lest they go to waste.536 He does not hate the nations, though. On their own, they ordinarily do well enough, and he means to treat them fairly,537 but they are not Israel. Inconsistently both with his desire to treat them fairly and with his mercifulness, his punishment of them as a step in his own anger management and because of favoritism to Israel approaches, if it does not constitute, cruelty. A standard answer in other rabbinic literature is that he is waiting for Israel to repent, but this does not emerge from the king-parables under study. 535 Midr. Pss 25:9. 536 Midr. Pss 6:3. 537 Sifra Bechukotai, pereq 2:5 (Weiss ed., 111c). Whether they are punished sometimes seems dependent on whether they obey the few commandments he has given them; the parables differ on whether they do. 534

THE FIGURE OF GOD

187

Although wise, God can be indecisive, as when he keeps changing his mind about the right way for Israel to relate to Edomites;538 tempestuous, as when the Torah must talk him down from a rage caused by gentile blasphemy in which he decides to destroy the world;539 and jealous and competitive, as when he made sure that Israel understood that he, not Jethro, was their primary lawgiver.540 Although wise and mighty, he can be insecure, as in the parable of the king who wanted to act without his prefect.541 He may be vain, so that Moses knew to begin Deuteronomy 33 with his praise.542 And he may have a vindictive streak: it was not enough to save Israel, but Egypt also had to be punished543 and he found it appropriate to make Haman great before bringing him down.544 God plays favorites and is especially generous to those he loves.545 Of course he favors Israel over the nations, and consequently prefers the prophets of Israel to the prophets of the nations546 and favored Abraham over both Adam and Noah;547 indeed, he protected the whole world only for Abraham’s sake.548 But, probably because Abraham’s progeny included Ishmael, Esau and the sons of Keturah, he seems to have favored Jacob even over Abraham.549 Within Israel, he is partial to priests.550 Other

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3 (Mandelbaum ed., 36). See Song Rab. 8:14 (2). 540 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211–2). 541 Exod. Rab. 28:3. 542 Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 394). 543 Exod. Rab. 20:14. 544 Esth. Rab. 7:2. 545 Tanh. Ki Tisa 10 (Buber ed. 56b). 546 Gen. Rab. 52:5. 547 Gen. Rab. 49:2. 548 Gen. Rab. 41(42):3. 549 Gen. Rab. 63:2 and Sifre Deut. 312 (Finkelstein ed., 353). Stern, “Jesus’ Parables,” 61, suggests that this is a polemic against the Arab and Roman nations, perhaps in response to Pauline claims on Abraham. 550 Sifra Tzav Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d). See also Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324). 538 539

188

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

beneficiaries of his favoritism were Moses,551 Solomon552 and the tribe of Benjamin.553 He may have favored the tribe of Judah along with that of Benjamin over the other ten, and the kingdom of Judah over the kingdom of Israel, given his possible differing reactions to the two exiles: R. Yohanan said, Like a king who had two sons. He got angry at the first, seized a staff, hit him and exiled him. He said, “Woe to this one, for where is his rest in exile?” And also the second; he got angry with him, seized a staff, hit him and exiled him. He said, “I brought him up badly.” So when he exiled the ten tribes, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said to them, “Woe to them for they have strayed from me” (Hosea 7:13). But when he exiled the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, the Holy One May He Be Blessed said, ‫כביכול‬, “Woe is me because of my hurt.” (Jeremiah 10:19).554

He has favorite times as well as favorite people, during the High Holy Days555 or, in another mood, after a military victory.556 God’s relationship with Israel also provides a special window on aspects of his character substantially darker than the anthropopathic frailties mentioned above. His love and mercy for Israel are inconstant and unreliable. His treatment of them not only involves characteristics that are inconsistent with each other, like wisdom and indecisiveness, but is rife with internal inconsistencies and with inexplicable behavior. Num. Rab. 1:2. Pesiq. Rab. 17–18 and Song Rab. 1:1 (9). 553 Sifre Deut. 352 (Finkelstein ed., 412–413). 554 Pesiq. Rav Kah. 15:4. I say “his possible differing reactions” because, in the parable that immediately follows, Resh Lakish disagrees with his colleague and says that God indeed mourned the first exile, citing Amos 5:1, and (inconsistently with his might) did not have the strength to mourn the second, citing Jer 9:17. For these two parables as “a powerful mythic revision of God’s capacity to console the people,” see Fishbane, Rabbinic Mythmaking, 169–70 and 222. 555 Pesiq. Rav Kah. S7:3; Pesiq. Rav Kah. 27:7. 556 Sifre Deut. 26 (Finkelstein ed., 40). 551 552

THE FIGURE OF GOD

189

He undertakes to do them harm but finds pilpulistic ways of avoiding his undertakings.557 He wanted to assign his ownership of Israel to Moses after the incident of the Golden Calf, and then forgave them.558 He knows he will miss them, but exiles them anyway.559 No wonder Israel was surprised to have been redeemed.560 He created the Torah as a counterweight to the Evil Inclination,561 but the parables do not disclose why he created the Evil Inclination, unless it was as a counterweight to the Torah.562 He heals with that with which he wounds,563 but why does he wound at all? It is not known; he does not explain himself.564 Startlingly, God’s love for Israel can be so perverse as to be indistinguishable from cruelty, as when he wanted so badly to hear their voice that he afflicted them for no reason other than to make them cry out to him.565 And sometimes his harshness to them seems unrelated to love of any kind, and the Torah, both the evidence of and the reason for his love, seems like the punishment of a cruel master: Why recollect the Exodus from Egypt in connection with each and every commandment? A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king, the son of whose friend was taken captive. When he redeemed him he didn’t redeem him as a free man, but as a slave, so that if he made a decree and he didn’t Lev. Rab. 32:2; Midr. Pss 6:3. In Chapter 4, I treated these parables as evidencing a view of God that the Rabbis only wished for, so that he would find a way out of his undertakings. Using the approach of this chapter, I am now reading them as evidencing what they thought God was like. 558 Pesiq. Rav Kah. 16:10. 559 Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83). He may have solved this inconsistency by accompanying Israel into exile. See note 514 and accompanying text, supra. 560 Song Rab. 6:12 (1). 561 Sifre Deut. 45 (Finkelstein ed., 103–4). 562 Cf. Song Rab. 6:11 (1). 563 Lev. Rab. 18:5. 564 Lev. Rab. 12:1. 565 Exod. Rab. 21:5. 557

190

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES accept it he would say to him, “You are my slave.” When he entered a province he said to him, “Fasten my sandals, carry my things before me to the bath-house.” The son began to complain. The king brought out the bond and said to him, “You are my slave.” When the Holy One May he Be Blessed redeemed the seed of his friend Abraham he didn’t redeem them as sons, but as slaves, so that if he made a decree and they didn’t accept it he would say to them, “You are my slaves.” When they entered the wilderness he began to decree on them some of the lighter commandments and some of the more stringent commandments, such as Shabbat, marriage prohibitions, tzitzit and tefillin. Israel began to complain. He said to them, “You are my slaves. I redeemed you on the understanding that if I make a decree you will carry it out.”566

Loving parents can be cruel and selfish, but at times the Rabbis of the king-parables were so flabbergasted by God’s behavior that they depicted him as having set his face against Israel for evil.567 Why does God love Israel so much in the first place? Because they “cleaved to him”568 by having accepted the Torah.569 The parables are clear on that. But God’s love for Israel was principally manifested by his having given them the Torah; the parables are clear on that too. God loves Israel because they accepted the Torah; he shows his love by giving them the Torah they accepted. Which came first? The Rabbis do not ask. A character that feels an emotion because of another’s actions, and manifests that emotion by making those very same actions possible, is beyond being inconsistent or verbally inexplicable. Such a character is beyond description, and I think the Rabbis so understood God.570 Sifre Num. 115 (Horowitz ed., 127–8). Sifra Bechukotai pereq 4:4 (Weiss ed., 112a). 568 Tanh. Ki Tisa: 8; Pesiq. Rav Kah. 2:7. 569 Exod. Rab. 30:9. 570 A nominalist reading of this inconsistency would focus on the message about the Torah that the Rabbis wished to communicate when they said that its gift was the result of his love and when they said that its 566 567

THE FIGURE OF GOD

191

I will not go so far as to claim that the character of God that emerges from the king-parables is cruel, or perverse, or evil. But the catalog of his traits must include—along with the principal ones of might, wisdom, mercy and the rest, and the minor flaws like vanity and concern about potential gossip—that he is inconsistent, indescribable, ineffable, absolutely Other, and that such traits necessarily include that he is uncanny, incommensurate, and terrifying. The Rabbis learned this view of God from the Scripture they studied and knew so well: “I make peace and create evil” (Isaiah 45:7); “And it was on the way, in the camp, and the Lord met him [Moses] and sought to murder him” (Exodus 8:24); “my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” (Isaiah 55:8); “I will not go up among you, or I would consume you on the way” (Exodus 33:3). David Stern wrote that parables in which God is either closely bound to Israel or already alienated from the covenantal relationship show two characterizations that, “let alone both together,” are each “too unpredictable, too uncanny, to be anything other than a creation of the imagination.” Although he seems here to have come near the conclusion that the God of the parables is shown as incommensurate, he offered instead the idea of the “anthropomorphic paradox,” that the Rabbis could portray God’s full complexity only by portraying him as a human king.571 However, as I demonstrated in Chapter 4, the parables do not portray God as a human king. The God shown in the parables is indeed unpredictable and uncanny, but that is not a function of the Rabbis’ literary imagination; it is a function of their biblical theology. But another, equally ineffable, trait of God’s character emerges from the king-parables, and from it the Rabbis seem to have derived one of the cardinal principles of their Judaism. It acceptance was the cause of his love. Such an emphasis on the Torah rather than on God is consistent with much of the Rabbis’ worldview (see the final two paragraphs of this chapter) and it would be interesting to review the parables for their treatment of the Torah as a “character.” 571 Stern, Parables in Midrash, 101.

192

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

turns out that the mighty, incommensurate God of Israel needs and relies on people, or perhaps only on Jews. He felt that he had to earn the right to be Israel’s god in advance;572 more significantly, he was not their god until they made him so.573 And, once enthroned, and once he gave Israel the Torah, he was pleased to turn over divine functions to Jews, or at least to the Rabbis.574 Rabbinic Judaism’s Torah-centeredness and emphasis on study are the direct result of these theological understandings. How better to deal with, and live under the rule of, a strange and ineffable deity than to take advantage of the fact that—not the least inexplicable of his inexplicable actions—he has issued a set of instructions on how to do so that takes generations and generations of dedicated study to grasp? Especially when the instructions, properly understood, show that “here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”575

Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:237–8); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 211–2). 573 Exod. Rab. 23:1; Midr. Pss 22:20. 574 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:13 (Mandelbaum ed., 102); Pesiq. Rab. 15:1–3. See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:3 (Mandelbaum ed., 321). 575 John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961, available at www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/inaugural/35_kennedy.html, among other places. 572

CHAPTER 8: THIRD-CENTURY KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION The Rabbis were an intellectual elite working in their native language in a homeland occupied by a world empire. Accordingly, their king-parables invite analysis as a literature of resistance to the Roman Empire expressing opposition to the occupying power and hopes and ambitions for liberation.576 Do such opposition, hopes and ambitions usually emerge from these parables? And, if so, do they ever amount to evidence of actual resistance, perhaps even an attempt to cause physical rebellion by the Rabbis, their followers, or by a broader population? Or were the Rabbis more like collaborationists, or at

The subcategory of “resistance literature” to which the parables would belong is literature “written under occupation.” See Harlow, Barbara. Resistance Literature, xviii, 2, 8. New York/London: Methuen, 1987. Hadas, Moses. “Rabbinic Parallels to Scriptores Historiae Augustae.” Classical Philology 24 (1929): 258–62, long ago suggested that the parables revealed the attitude of an intelligent subject people to the conditions of Roman domination. See also Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism, xii. New York: Vintage Books, 1994 (“narrative” is “the method” colonized people use to assert their own identity and the existence of their history); Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts, 11. London/New York: Routledge, 2000 (“allegory” a common method in resistance literature). 576

193

194

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

least compradors,577 than resistance leaders?578 Such a status is supported by the view of some historians that the Jewish Patriarch, and through him the Rabbis he led, was close to the imperial government as early as the late second century.579 In considering the extent to which king-parables may be read as a literature of resistance composed under Roman occupation, this chapter will focus on evidence of resistance to the Roman emperor, rather than the Roman Empire, because the subject of the Imperial parables is, generally speaking, the man rather than the state, which means that evidence of resistance to the occupying power in them is likely to appear in the form of resistance to the person of the individual who led and probably personified it.580 This Portuguese word for local merchants is used by some postcolonial theorists for members of a colonized people who profit from the fact of colonization and cooperate with the colonizers See, e.g., Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture, 30. Oxford/New York: Routledge Classics ed., 2004; Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. In Other Worlds, 166–7. London: Methuen, 1987. 578 Cf. Said, Culture and Imperialism, 223 (lawyers often resistance leaders.) 579 See Goodblatt, David. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish SelfGovernment in Antiquity, 217–31. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994; Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, tr. David Chowcat, 168. Luxembourg: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995; Levine, Lee I. “The Jewish Patriarch (Nasi) in Third Century Palestine.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung II (1979): 649. I do not share this view, which has hardly gone unchallenged, but space does not permit elaboration of my reasons here. See also Webster, Jane. “Roman Imperialism and the ‘Post Imperial Age’.” In Webster, Jane, and Nick Cooper, eds. Roman Imperialism: Colonial Perspectives, 1, 8. Leicester: School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, 1996 (Rome ruled with the cooperation of local elites). 580 This approach is supported by two related parables in which Rome is represented not simply by “Edom,” as it often was, but by “the princes of Edom,” each more “evil” than his predecessors; if the princes are not merely a metonym for Rome/Edom but also can be read to stand for the emperors, Rome’s rulers have here been specifically equated with Rome in 577

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

195

If the consensus of previous scholarship that the figure of the “king” throughout the parables is usually based on the emperor or his representative was correct, a remarkably large percentage of the parables could be brought forth to demonstrate hostility to—and contempt for—the emperor, including those parables in which the “kings” are shown as busily fussing over their sons when they are not throwing swords at them or sending them to the corner store for a drink, and as acting out scenes from The Honeymooners with their wives. But I stand by the appropriateness of Chapter 2’s distinction between parables in which the “king” is based on the emperor or his representative and those in which he is not, and will use only Imperial parables in this chapter.

FIRST READINGS Antithetical Imperial king-parables—in which a secular narrative about a figure based on the emperor or his representative is contrasted with a verse or statement, often about God, to show differences between them—might be expected to lend themselves especially readily to the expression of negative views of the emperors, since the contrasting statements are by their nature positive. But only about half of them present the emperor unfavorably—he is weak, poor, foolish, cruel and false;581 his judgments and benefits are uncertain and riddled with passion and perhaps unworthy motives;582 he is unable to perform more than one governmental function at a time.583 The rest present the emperor in a neutral light.584 a setting of rabbinic hostility to them and to it. Sifre Deut. 312 and 343 (Finkelstein ed., 353 and 397, both from the A3b/Transitional period. 581 See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 1 (Lauterbach ed., 2:8–9), from the A1/Midcentury period; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2 (Mandelbaum ed., 55), from the A2/Divided Empire period. 582 See b. B. Bat. 10a, from the T4/Early Severan period; Lev. Rab. 24:2, from R. Levi. 583 See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32–3), from the A1/Midcentury period. 584 See Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 3 (Lauterbach ed., 2:24–5), from the A1/Midcentury period (the emperor and his soldiers, as humans,

196

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Imperial parables not in antithetical form are replete with hostility to the emperor. He often resembles the generic or fairytale kings of the Standard parables. His behavior is undignified and comical (it is hard not to smile at the picture of the Emperor of Rome shoving his prefect out of the wagon they shared so that they will not be confused with each other).585 He is cruel and quick to anger;586 he abandons his wife in order to take a long holiday;587 he is vain, jealous and duplicitous.588 The Rabbis so easily thought of the Emperor of Rome as a subject of contempt and ridicule that they were able to compare him (and his prefect) to grades of skin disease.589 Those parables in which the emperor’s flaws involve the performance of his governmental functions rather than his character or his personality enhance a claim to the status of third-

resemble each other); Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), from the A2/Divided Empire period (emperor goes to war with many but to peace discussions with a few); Pesiq. Rab. 21:24, from the A3b/Transitional period (goes to war with many but to festival with a handful); Midr. Pss 86:4, from the A3b/Transitional period (emperor helped by his prefects who are therefore praised along with him); Exod. Rab. 29:5, from R. Abbahu (emperor has a family); Lev. Rab. 18:5, from R. Levi (emperor wounds with a scalpel and heals with a balm); Num. Rab. 1:2, from R. Levi (emperor requires provincials to support his emissaries). But, as suggested in notes 612–7 and accompanying text, infra, portrayal of the emperor simply as a leader of armies, as in Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100) and Pesiq. Rab. 21:24, or as the head of the empire, as in Midr. Pss 86:4 and Num. Rab. 1:12, or as a dynast, as in Exod. Rab. 29:5, may be read as favorable, rather than neutral. 585 See Gen. Rab. 8:10, from the A1/Midcentury period. 586 See Gen. Rab. 10:4, from the A1/Midcentury period; Midr. Pss 6:3; b. Sanh. 39a, both from the A3b/Transitional period. 587 See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 19:4, from the A2/Divided Empire period. 588 See Sifre Deut. 343 (Finkelstein ed., 394), from the A3b/Transitional period; Esth. Rab. 7:2, from R. Levi. 589 See b. Sheb. 6b, from the A1/Midcentury period.

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

197

century king-parables as resistance literature.590 In them, the Rabbis represent him as inferior to or dependent on others—people lower than he was on the imperial organizational chart, including senators or other senior advisers591 and the head of the army,592 but also an “expert and calm” general593 and one or two “heroes.”594 He needs to curry favor with taxpayers and to forgive convicts to consolidate his power.595 He worries about the influence of minor rural patrons,596 and relies on a field commander for his cash flow needs.597 No wonder, then, that the Rabbis presented the emperor as finding it difficult to control his troops.598 The leader of an occupying power who cannot control his troops is one against whom resistance is not only attractive in imagination but perhaps tempting in practice, and presenting him that way might have indicated that actual resistance was not far from the Rabbis’ minds. Several other third-century parables present the emperor as in even greater trouble, and as subject to actual or imminent rebellion, especially later in the century,599 further strengthening the possibility that they constitute resistance literature. Not only is it difficult for him to control his troops, and to manage them under

Many of the parables discussed in the following paragraphs will be looked at again in Chapter 9 as evidence of rabbinic reflection of contemporary imperial events. 591 See Gen. Rab. 8:3, from R. Joshua ben Levi. 592 See Tanh. Ki Tisa 9 (Buber ed.) 58b, from Resh Lakish. 593 See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11 (Mandelbaum ed., 355), from R. Eleazar ben Pedat. 594 See Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354); b. Sanh. 89b, both from the A3b/Transitional period. 595 See Exod. Rab. 15:13, from R. Levi. 596 See Gen. Rab. 50:12, from R. Levi. 597 See Deut. Rab. 1:13, from R. Levi. 598 See y. Ta’an. 2:1 (61b), from R. Levi. 599 See Chapter 9, note 799 and notes 809–810 and accompanying texts, infra. 590

198

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

adverse conditions,600 but also he is guilty of falsifying his troop strength, or is ignorant of it.601 Worse, he is subject to armed insurrection by his own legions,602 and his own prefects seek to rule over him or instead of him.603 Other claimants to the throne are active,604 going so far as to establish rival governmental institutions in the emperor’s “own tent,”605 and they enjoy the support of other rebels.606 His rule is so uncertain that sometimes he can even recognize outsiders as “Augustus.”607 The Rabbis’ knowledge that emperors are made by the legions demonstrates their awareness that today’s emperor is subject to replacement by tomorrow’s.608 The emperor is even shown as subject to the power of mere brigands, like a victim of home invasion.609 An emperor like that is one against whom the possibility of rebellion is starkly apparent. But these are selected examples. The remaining Imperial parables, although somewhat fewer in number, point in the other direction. Those that portray the emperor as having both favorable and unfavorable qualities are not evidence of hostility to him. He is emotional and may be a dysfunctional father, but at the same time he is devoted to the successful performance of his military See Lam. Rab. petihah 16, from R. Abbahu; Sifre Deut. 3 (Finkelstein ed., 11), from the A3b/Transitional period. 601 See Gen. Rab. 94:9, from the A3b/Transitional period. 602 See Tanh. Ki Tisa 9 (Buber ed.) 58b, from Resh Lakish. 603 See Deut. Rab. 2:5, from the A3b/Transitional period. 604 See Tanh. Pekude:4 from the A3b/Transitional period. 605 See Gen. Rab. 36:7, from R. Levi. 606 See Mek.de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 8, from the A1/Midcentury period. 607 See Tanh. Bechukotai 6 (Buber ed.) 56b, from R. Levi. 608 See Midr. Pss 22:20, from R. Joshua ben Levi; Esth. Rab. 1:19, from the A3a/Reunited empire period; Exod. Rab. 23:1, from R. Abbahu. 609 See Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 10. That the emperor ends up triumphant over these brigands is a function of the emperor in this parable being a stand-in for God. See Chapter 4, text following note 316 and text preceding note 33, and note 4, supra. See also Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7, from the A1/Midcentury period (brigand just outside palace). 600

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

199

functions.610 He is painstaking in his revenge, arguably to the point of cruelty, but only in the service of his son and his dynasty.611 And parables that portray him in what seems a neutral light, as when he is shown only in terms of his rank in the hierarchy,612 or only as a (or the) military commander,613 or as a judge,614 are perhaps better understood as favorable. His rank has no equal615 and is so high that his image is regularly reproduced616 and carried about, preceded by heralds.617 The Rabbis obviously held judges in high esteem; and noting the emperor’s position as head of the occupying army suggests respect or fear if not admiration. Moreover, other parables clearly seem favorable to the emperor. In these, he is a model of one worthy of respect.618 He not only loves his sons619 and protects and supports them,620 but acts toward them in public so that others will honor them.621 He is attentive and empowering to his wife,622 whom he honors and treats fairly.623 As a patron, he is loving and generous to his

610

See Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83), the parable of the emperor whose sons vex

him. See Exod. Rab. 20:14, from the A2/Divided empire period. See b. Pesach 103a, from the A1/Midcentury period; Eccl. Rab. 12:5, from the A2/Divided empire period. 613 See Exod. Rab. 23:7, from the A2/Divided empire period. 614 See Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1:185–6), from the T4/Early Severan period; Lev. Rab. 18:5, from R. Levi. 615 See b. Pesach 103a. 616 See Num Rab. 9:1, from the A3b/Transitional period; Esth. Rab 3:4, from R. Levi. 617 See Midr. Pss 55:3. 618 See Sifra Emor pereq 13: 8 (Weiss ed., 102a). 619 See Mek.de R. Ishmael Shirata 7, from the A1/Midcentury period. 620 See Gen. Rab. 77:3; Deut. Rab. 1:23, both from the A3b/Transitional period. 621 See Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1:185–6), from the T4/Early Severan period; Exod. Rab. 18:6, from R. Levi. 622 See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 9:10, from R. Levi. 623 See Lev. Rab. 27:8, from R. Levi. 611 612

200

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

clients624 and enjoys close personal relationships with at least some of them.625 But, while manifesting his love for such people, he is more concerned with the proper exercise of his governmental functions.626 Indeed, these parables seem to emphasize the high quality of the emperor’s rule. He is shown as basing his office on the good he does his subjects,627 to whose requests and aspirations he is responsive.628 He is more steadfast than his subordinate officials,629 to whom he is supportive and loyal630 and in whom he has confidence.631 They, in turn, loyally and eagerly serve him.632 He works long hours as a judge,633 and meticulously separates his personal funds from those of the state.634 Rebels and pretenders are nowhere to be seen in this group of parables; the emperor is in complete command.635 Perhaps, therefore, the most that can be concluded from a reading of these parables on their own is that the Rabbis, or some See Pesiq Rav Kah. 14:17–18, from the A1/Midcentury period; Sifra Tzav, Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), from the A2/Divided empire period; Gen. Rab. 41(42):3; Lev. Rab. 5:6, both from the A3b/Transitional period. 625 See Gen. Rab. 52:5, from the A3b/Transitional period. 626 See Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324), from the T4/Early Severan period. 627 See Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:237–8), from the T4/Early Severan period. 628 See Song Rab. 8:5 (10) and Sifre Deut. 26 (Finkelstein ed., 40), both from the A3/Transitional period. 629 See Lam. Rab. 3:24 (99), from the A2/Divided empire period. 630 See Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed., 102), from the A2/Divided empire period; Exod. Rab. 21:9, from the A3b/Transitional period. 631 See Deut. Rab. 3:3, from R. Levi. 632 See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 21:10; Midr. Pss 18:21, both from the A2/Divided empire period. 633 See Mek. de R. Ishmael Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1:185–6), from the T4/Early Severan period. 634 See Pesiq. Rab. 10:13, from R. Levi. 635 See Midr. Pss 17:3, from R. Levi. 624

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

201

of them, some of the time, looked on the emperor with a hostility that could be the impetus to or the product of resistance to his rule, in a context consistent with and perhaps showing awareness of actual resistance among other groups in the Empire.

GETTING HELP FROM CONTEMPORARY THEORY In recent decades, substantial scholarly and critical attention has been paid to the situation of dominated people, including those dominated by world empires. The prospect of applying the insights and concepts of these scholars and critics to the king-parables is stimulating and attractive; and it has been for others before me who have attempted to apply these insights and concepts to the populations and texts of late antiquity, Jewish,636 Christian,637 and “pagan.”638 See Samuel, Simon. A Postcolonial Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, 62– 75. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2007; de Silva, David A. “Using the Master’s Tools to Shore Up Another’s House: A Postcolonial Analysis of 4 Maccabees.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 99; Berkowitz, Beth A. “Paradoxes of Power, ‘The Way that the Kingdom Does It’.” In Idem, Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Culture, 153. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006; Boustan, Ra’anan. “Imperialisms in Jewish History, From Pre- to Postmodern.” Perspectives 8 (2005); Boyarin, Border Lines; Lapin, Hayim. “Hegemony and its Discontents: Rabbis as a Late Antique Provincial Population.” In Kalmin and Schwartz, eds. Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire; Fine, Steven. “Non-Jews in the Synagogues of Late-Antique Palestine: Rabbinic and Archeological Evidence.” In Idem, ed. Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Greco-Roman Period, 224, 231–6. London/New York: Routledge, 1999; Boyarin, Daniel. “Homotopia: The Feminized Jewish Man and the Lives of Women in Late Antiquity.” Differences: A journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 7 (1995): 41, 71 n. 15. 637 See Jacobs, Andrew S. Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004; Idem, “The Lion and the Lamb: Reconsidering Jewish-Christian Relations in Antiquity.” In Becker, Adam H., and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the 636

202

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Potentially applicable scholarship and criticism may be conveniently and productively divided between the work of the school, movement or field of postcolonial studies and the work of James C. Scott as set forth in his Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts.639 Early Middle Ages. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Most of such work deals with the New Testament. See especially Samuel, Mark’s Story, also collecting and critically appraising earlier work on the New Testament and, to a lesser extent, the Hebrew Bible. See Frilingos, Christopher A. Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004; Horsley, Richard A., ed. Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006; Idem, ed. Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. David G. Horrell vigorously argues for the potential of postcolonial studies for understanding the New Testament in its socio-historical context in “Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future.” In Still, Todd D., and David G. Horrell, eds. After The First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later, 6, 19. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2009. See also Boyarin, Daniel. “Semantic Differences; or, ‘Judaism’/ ‘Christianity’.” In Becker and Reed, The Ways That Never Parted, dealing with both communities. 638 See Webster and Cooper, Roman Imperialism; Mattingly, D. J., ed. Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire, cited in Samuel, Mark’s Story 8 n. 7. Samuel himself has provided a postcolonial reading of Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe. Id. at 35–51. 639 New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1990. Others, however, have looked at postcolonialists and Scott together as a single category of work, and with salutary results. See Berkowitz, “Paradoxes of Power,” 154. See also Elliot, Neil. “Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 97; Horrell, “Contested Methodologies and the Future,” 19. On the other hand, de Silva, “Using the Master’s Tools,” a self-identified postcolonial analysis, cites neither any of the postcolonialists mentioned in this chapter nor Scott.

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

203

Postcolonial Studies Postcolonialism is a disparate field,640 and I will limit my discussion to theorists; the Roman Empire was not a capitalist society641 and those critics who concentrate on the material consequences of nineteenth- and twentieth-century capitalist states inserting their economic and political system into pre- and non-capitalist

Treating the postcolonialists and Scott separately is justified in part by the fact that they seem not to know, and certainly do not use, each other. See, e.g., Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back, 145, discussing development by North American slaves of the facility for speaking in front of “massa” in a way understood differently by fellow slaves, a prime example of Scott’s concept of the “hidden transcript,” without citation of Domination and the Arts of Resistance. See also Bhabha, The Location of Culture, chapter 5 (“sly civility,” without citing Scott). In the acknowledgments section of Domination and the Arts of Resistance Scott mentions various examples of contemporary theory on “power, hegemony, and resistance”—works of which he explicitly claims “knowledge”—with which he deliberately did not engage. None of the postcolonialist theorists mentioned in this chapter is mentioned there. He thus not only ignores them, but ignores them among the writers he acknowledges he ignores. 640 See Moore-Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics, 2. London/New York: Verso, 1997. (“plural in assumption, orientation and procedure and ... at times internally as well as mutually contradictory”); Horrell, “Contested Methodologies and the Future,” 19; Chrisman, Laura, and Patrick Williams. “Colonial Discourse and PostColonial Theory: An Introduction.” In Williams and Chrisman, Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory, 2. 641 See generally Finley, M. I. The Ancient Economy, updated edition. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1999; Hopkins, Keith. “Introduction.” In Garnsey, Peter, Keith Hopkins and C. R. Whittaker, eds. Trade in the Ancient Economy. London: Chatto & Windus, 1983. Money was of course a reason for empire, but it was obtained largely by squeezing taxes and tribute from the provincials rather than by any systematic exploitation of the provinces.

204

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

regions642 are not relevant to it;643 the two “colonialisms” or “imperialisms” are too different from each other to make comparison instructive.644 And not all postcolonial theory is potentially helpful. Of the work of the “big three” postcolonial theorists—Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha—only some of Bhabha’s concepts will shed any light on the rabbinic king-parables as resistance literature.645 See Chrisman and Williams, “Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory”; Young, Robert J. C. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, 31, 57, Oxford/Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 643 See Larsen, Neil. “Imperialism, Colonialism, Postcolonialism.” In Williams and Chrisman, Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory, 27. But see Young, Postcolonialism, 15; Horsley, Richard A. “Moral Economy and Renewal Movement in Q.” In Idem, ed. Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, 143, 151. Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. But cf. Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 123; Schwarz, Henry. “Mission Impossible.” In Schwarz, Henry, and Sangeeta Ray, eds. A Companion to Postcolonial Studies, 4. Malden MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. To dismiss the difficulties in applying such aspects of postcolonial theory to the Roman Empire on the grounds that Roman studies have always involved the analogy between past and present—as does Webster, “Roman Imperialism,” 9—is a response without substance. Webster concedes somewhat reluctantly that Roman and British imperialism are not “identical.” Id. at 4. 644 For attempted comparisons of Roman and modern imperialism by postcolonial thinkers, see Said, Culture and Imperialism, 68, 89, 154; Young, Postcolonialism, 25; Webster, “Roman Imperialism,” 3; Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 123. 645 Berkowitz, “Paradoxes of Power,” and Boyarin, Border Lines, use only Bhabha. While Simon Samuel cites and seems thoroughly grounded in all three (see Mark’s Story ix), his own postcolonial reading of Mark is exclusively rooted in Bhabha’s thought. Jacobs, Remains of the Jews, 7, 8, 181, 185, 208, uses all three. Frilingos, Spectacles of Power, a discussion of Rev, cites Said and Bhabha, but not Spivak, while Lapin, “Hegemony and its Discontents,” cites only Spivak but merely in support of his observation that the Rabbis might have acted in the interests of the dominant group. 642

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

205

Said does not help us understand the king-parables as resistance literature because his few insights on what the dominated, rather than the dominant, say are not relevant to the Rabbis,646 who did not need to find an ideological basis for a wider unity in their resistance efforts than had been known before or to achieve awareness of belonging to a subject people.647 Spivak, on the other hand, emphasizes what the dominated say, or rather what they do not and cannot say, and, since the Rabbis were not controlled in their discourse by the forces of Roman imperialism, See Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 51. Andrew Jacobs’ Remains of the Jews was able to use Said successfully to read texts of the dominant Christian empire about the dominated Jews and Palestine as helping to define Christian identity in much the same way that Said read modern texts about the Orient as helping to define Western identity. Jacobs thus provides an excellent example of how postcolonialism on the theoretical level can be used in the study of late antiquity. He notes the debate on the applicability of postcolonialism to premodern societies and persuasively justifies his own use of it. Id. at 9– 10. I obviously welcome Jacobs’ suggestion that postcolonialist analysis that introduces Jewish literature as a substantive and even subversive instance of colonial resistance may be possible, id. at 12–13, and this chapter was in substantial part motivated by that suggestion. It is, however, the obverse of Jacobs’ book: He ignores Jewish writings; I offer no account of imperial discourse about the Jews and about Palestine, because neither Cassius Dio nor Herodian—the only “metropolitan” sources I have consulted that are both from and about the third century— deals with third-century Jews, and later texts would not provide information about what the third-century equivalent of Said’s—or Jacobs’—“Orientalism” might have been. Since we do not have evidence of the Rabbis’ using Hebrew or Aramaic in the course of discourse in Greek, although we have the inverse, it is impossible to test the applicability to their parables of such other postcolonial theoretical concepts applicable to the discourse of the dominated as “catachresis” or the “metonymic gap.” See Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 34, 137. 647 Said, Culture and Imperialism, 210, 214, following Davidson, Basil. Africa in Modern History: The Search for a New Society, 156. London: Allen Lane, 1978. 646

206

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

and since their contemporary audience was fully able to hear them, her concepts do not help us hear whether and how they “spoke” resistance to Rome and Rome’s emperor in their parables.648 In her most widely discussed article, “Can the Subaltern Speak” (see Moore-Gilbert, “Spivak and Bhabha,” 452), she notes that those in the “First World” whom Antonio Gramsci dubbed subalterns—workers and others of inferior rank—are able to know their own conditions and to speak of them, and asks whether a subaltern on the other side of the “international division of labor” can also do so. Although she worked with Ranajit Guha and the Subaltern Studies group of Indian historians he led in the 1980’s (see Moore-Gilbert, “Spivak and Bhabha,” 453; Guha, Ranajit, and Gayatri C. Spivak, eds. Selected Subaltern Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), and follows him in describing all subordinate groups in South Asia as “subalterns,” in this essay she rejects his program as one that could hardly be more “essentialist and taxonomic,” and by rejecting it she rejects all claims to know what the subaltern would say, if (s)he could speak. Spivak associates Guha with Europeans like Foucault, and condemns them all as First World intellectuals speaking for the oppressed while masquerading as “absent nonrepresenters” who let them speak for themselves. “Can the Subaltern Speak,” 78–80, 87. Although at the end of her article she explicitly says, “The subaltern cannot speak,” her conclusion is more nuanced, see id. at 104: their “speech” is so permeated with the speech of the colonizer that non-subalterns such as Guha and Foucault cannot hear them with the tools for listening that they have. But others have read her to mean exactly what she said. See Jacobs, Remains of the Jews, 8, 66 n. 43; Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back, 175. Samuel, Mark’s Story, 17 cautiously describes Spivak’s conclusion to be that “the subaltern seldom speaks.” Unlike Said, Spivak is difficult to read, and perhaps as a result this article, and not only its conclusion, has been interpreted in several ways since its publication, including by Spivak herself. See Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Foreword: Upon Reading the Companion to Postcolonial Studies.” In Schwarz and Ray, A Companion to Postcolonial Studies, xix, characterizing some readings of it by others, including Gilbert and Larsen, and offering her view, as of a 2000 publication, that the article is not really about colonialism and is fundamentally an attempt to tell the personal story of Bhubaneswari Bhaduri (and why she could not be heard), whose “name is never mentioned in discussions” of her essay; I am therefore 648

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

207

Like Spivak, Bhabha is attentive to the discourse of the dominated; like her, he understands their discourse to be heavily affected by that of the dominant. But, entirely unlike her, he does not believe the discourse of the dominant to be so pervasive that we cannot hear the dominated’s voice. To the contrary, he understands the discourses of both the dominated and the dominant to be influenced by one another. Bhabha frequently discusses this mutuality of influence in terms of the “hybridity” of both colonizer and colonized in the postcolonial situation.649 But applying Bhabha in those terms to the Jews of late antiquity suggests revisiting the question of the extent to which they were “Hellenized,” a mess I wish to avoid beyond noting my general agreement that all Jewish culture during the Hellenistic period, including that of “anti-Hellenists,” was part of Hellenistic culture.650 Bhabha’s understanding of the mutuality of the discourses of dominant and dominated may be explained and applied in other terms, equally true to his theoretical insights and his own language. For Bhabha, the dominated, while they certainly can speak, do so at least in part in terms adopted—“appropriated”—from the dominant. Such “appropriation” is a manifestation of the

constrained to mention it. On her writing style, see Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 166–7 (including her attack on “clarity fetishists”); Young, Postcolonialism, 349. 649 See Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 265 and elsewhere. 650 See Boyarin, Border Lines, 18 and n. 72 (in context of a discussion of Bhabha’s hybridity concept); Webster, “Roman Imperialism,” 5; Gardner, Gregg. “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Benefaction in the Second Century B. C. E.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126, 327 (2007). For some of the diverging literature, see Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998; Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974; Kasher, Aryeh. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985, and Jews and Hellenistic Cities in EretzIsrael: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE – 70 CE). Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990.

208

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

dominated’s “ambivalence” about the dominant, who attract as well as repel, and who are not necessarily unqualifiedly opposed.651 Bhabha thus provides a possible alternative explanation for those Imperial king-parables that in a “first reading” are favorable to the emperor;652 they may be read instead as evidence of the Rabbis’ “ambivalence” to the emperor and through him to Rome. Moreover, such ambivalence can be understood to manifest itself in rabbinic “appropriation” of Roman institutions, motifs and themes. Clearly the mere use of the figure of the Emperor of Rome in texts designed for internal Jewish exegetical and pastoral purposes is an appropriation of that figure, and the appropriation is even clearer when he is used as a stand-in for the God of Israel.653 See Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 122, 145–74; Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 12, 19. 652 Collected in notes 618–35 and accompanying text, supra. 653 A particularly vivid example of such appropriation is the parable of the seated Augustus, in which the Rabbis appropriate not only the figure of the emperor, an emperor specifically called “Augustus,” but also appropriate the fact that emperors were made by the legions and an instance of Roman representational art, all in the service of making an “internal” theological point about the role of humanity in God’s ordering of the world. See the conclusion of Chapter 9, infra. How emperors were made by their troops was also appropriated for similar purposes in other third-century parables, including Midr. Pss 22:20, from the A1/Midcentury period. Other Roman institutions so appropriated in the Imperial kingparables include imperial dynasticism (Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83) from the T5/Later Severan period; Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57–8), from the A1/Midcentury period); imperial titles (Tanh. Va’era 2 (Buber ed.) 10b); imperial offices and officeholders (b. Pesach 103a, from the A1/Midcentury period; Eccl. Rab. 12:5, from Resh Lakish; Pesiq. Rab. 21:10, also from the A2/Divided empire period); imperial patronage (Sifra Tzav, Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), from the A2/Divided empire period); imperial pomp and circumstance (Midr. Pss 55:3, from the A1/Midcentury period); the receipt of petitions by the emperor (b. B. Bat. 10a, from the T4/Early Severan period); imperial expansionism (Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:23–238), from the T4/Early Severan period); and the names of particular imperial legions (Esth. Rab. 1:19, from the A3b/Transitional period). 651

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

209

But appropriation of the empire’s institutions, symbols and themes is not an act of resistance, and Bhabha goes a step further: appropriation necessarily includes mimicry, and mimicry is a defense, like camouflage.654 It comes “strategically from within” the dominated and is never far from mockery.655 Daniel Boyarin has claimed that mimicry “in its technical postcolonialist sense” itself constitutes resistance,656 but Bhabha does not go that far. Mimicry for him only contains the seeds of resistance.657 Mimicry never results in a simple reproduction of the dominant’s institutions, symbols and themes but is rather a “blurred copy”; that “blurred copy” continually suggests to the dominant that the dominated has an identity not quite like the dominant’s, and that suggestion cracks and threatens the certainty of dominance. Bhabha concludes that because it is always ambivalent on both sides, the relationship between the dominant and the dominated generates the seeds of successful resistance and therefore of its own destruction.658 If the theory is applicable, the Imperial parables should contain the seeds of Jewish freedom from Rome, even when on their face they seem favorable or neutral to Rome’s emperor and even if the mimicry (and mockery) in them does not itself constitute resistance. There is no reason to believe that the Rabbis would have been aware (“strategically from within”), at any level, of their parables as expressions of resistance, rather than of hope and aspiration, merely on the basis of elements of appropriation and mimicry. Texts that provide no hope of material forms of resistance— whether or not realized—can hardly be resistance literature. See Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 131. See Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 13. 656 Border Lines, 12. 657 See Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 265 (“a subversive strategy of subaltern agency that negotiates its own authority through a process of iterative ‘unpicking’ and incommensurable, insurgent relinking”); Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back, 175. 658 See Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 28–9; Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 13, 139–40. See also Berkowitz, “Paradoxes of Power,” 155. 654 655

210

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

And there is little material evidence that any instances of appropriation, ambivalence and mimicry have in fact destabilized any modern colonizer, as one of Bhabha’s more sympathetic readers has observed.659 In other words, Bhabha’s theory has not worked as a description of actual behavior in actual relationships in modern times between the dominant and the dominated.660 With the disadvantage of hindsight, this conclusion seems even more likely for relationships between Rome and the peoples of its conquered provinces. While Rome was invested in the virtue of Romanitas and the benefits of Romanization,661 it is impossible to imagine it experiencing the idea that provincials failed to be like Romans as in any way threatening to their rule (even if officials of the Raj might have been taken aback when they noticed that to be anglicized was not to be English).662 This is especially true for Rome’s Jewish subjects in Palestine, who had revolted at least twice in the previous two centuries. In spite of its initial appeal, therefore, postcolonial theory, including that of Bhabha, does not advance interpretation of thirdcentury king-parables.663 Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 134. But see Larsen, “Imperialism, Colonialism, Postcolonialism,” arguing that it is wrong to discard postcolonialist “strategies” denoted by Bhabha’s vocabulary of ambivalence, hybridity, migrancy, the in-between, as being “mere confabulations,” since they respond to the historical crisis of third-world nationalism. 661 See generally Woolf, Greg. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1999. See Garnsey, Peter, and Richard Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987, chapter 10; Millar, The Roman Near East, 147. 662 Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 125. 663 Beth Berkowitz and Andrew Jacobs have consulted Bhabha to much greater advantage than I have. Berkowitz asks a narrower question: How are we to read the Mishnah’s reference to capital punishment by decapitation as “the way that the kingdom does it”? Mere description, as Yair Lorberbaum would have it? Or as evidence that the Rabbis borrowed their (hypothetical) use of decapitation from the Romans? Neither, says 659 660

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

211

James C. Scott: Domination and the Arts of Resistance Scott had noticed that the poor in a Malay village where he was doing fieldwork spoke one way when the rich were present and another when they were not. These observations led to some of the conclusions of Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance.664 Domination and the Arts of Resistance, a later work, elaborates on those observations and conclusions in a more general and theoretical—or, in his words, schematic and eclectic—fashion. Proceeding from the idea that if different structures of domination work in the same way so will different patterns of resistance to them, he proposes that every subordinate group creates, out of its dominated situation, a “hidden transcript” that represents a critique of power spoken behind the back of the powerful, and that hidden transcripts bear a “family resemblance” to each other.665 The “hidden transcript” is uttered outside the earshot of the holders of power and thus in “secure” sites of relative freedom of expression.666 Scott treats the disparity between what is said there Berkowitz, based on her reading of Bhabha together with James C. Scott; the Tannaim are mimicking Rome, a potentially subversive strategy, displacing Roman authority by disrupting it, in an offstage “hidden transcript.” “Paradoxes of Power,” 161–3. (For Scott’s “hidden transcripts,” see notes 665–74 and accompanying text, infra.) Jacobs, Remains of the Jews, 185 uses Bhabha’s idea of appropriation—as he uses Said—in the context of the dominant’s discourse, and elsewhere uses his idea of hybridity. Frilingos, Spectacles of Power, 10, on the other hand, discusses Bhabha’s ideas of ambivalence and mimicry only to contrast Bhabha with Said in an introductory way; he does not apply Bhabha’s ideas to his own study of Rev. 664 New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, especially 284–9. 665 Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 21–2. (Going forward, citations to this book will be by page number only.) The primary groups he studied are slaves, serfs and subordinate castes, but he also takes account of occupied nations as well as the victims of racism and patriarchal sexism, and even prisoners. Pp. ix–xii. 666 See p. 121. See also Chapter 6, supra, on the relatively secure or sequestered sites where the third-century king-parables originated.

212

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

and what is said in the presence of power as a rough measure of what has been suppressed and concludes that the “hidden transcript” is therefore the privileged vehicle for nonhegemonic,667 contrapuntal,668 dissident, subversive expression669—that is, for resistance. It is obviously appealing to claim the status of “hidden transcript” for the third-century king-parables. They are texts, and thus more obviously “transcripts” than many of Scott’s own examples. They are hidden, since the occupying power did not know Hebrew,670 and surely had little interest in the “religious” writings of a perhaps insignificant group within a relatively insignificant province. The Rabbis and the Jews they purported to lead were politically, militarily and fiscally, if not necessarily culturally, subordinated to Rome and Rome’s emperor.671 I understand Scott to be here using “hegemony” in the sense associated with Gramsci as involving to some extent the consent of the dominated to the fact of domination. See pp. 71–3. As such, this concept was used by Guha and the Subaltern Studies group and by postcolonialists. See Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak,” 69, 103; MooreGilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 116; Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 116. But Scott is probably using Gramsci directly, without a Subaltern Studies or postcolonialist filter. See Lapin, “Hegemony and its Discontents,” for this and other meanings of “hegemony.” 668 The use of this word might be borrowed from the postcolonialists. The phrase “contrapuntal reading” is said to have been coined by Said to describe a way of reading English literature so as to reveal its implication in imperialism and the colonial process. Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 55. On the other hand, Scott is not addressing that sort of issue here and seems to mean nothing more than “contrary”; his inspiration is more likely to have been Bach than Said. See also the discussion of Richard Terdiman’s concept of “counter-discourse” in Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, Post-Colonial Studies, 56. 669 P. 25. 670 See pp. 120–1; Berkowitz, “Paradoxes of Power,” 162. 671 The attraction is augmented by the possibility of noting lesser points of Scott’s argument that seem particularly applicable to the situation of the Rabbis and their king-parables, such as his remark that 667

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

213

But there is a good deal more to the concept of the hidden transcript than that. A hidden transcript, as Scott coined and uses the term, cannot exist except in the context of and with reference to a “public transcript.” Generally speaking, a public transcript is what the subordinate says in the presence of the dominant;672 it is the dominated’s version of the dominant’s self-portrait that is designed to affirm and “naturalize” the dominant’s power and to conceal or euphemize the dirty linen of its rule.673 A hidden transcript, properly so called, must be something derivative, consisting of those offstage speeches, gestures and practices (and texts) that confirm, contradict, or inflect what appears in the public transcript.674 Several of the scholars who have used the concept of the hidden transcript in connection with the texts of late antiquity have been meticulous in this regard. Thus, Beth Berkowitz carefully identifies her project as involving instances of resistance embedded in postures of submission, that is, within the context of public transcripts.675 And, William R. Herzog II analyzes the New Testament parable of the emperor’s coin as containing Jesus’ utterance of both a public transcript of compliance and a hidden transcript of resistance.676 oral traditions are ideal vehicles for resistance (p. 169) and his observation that a supposedly ascetic priest shown to be promiscuous or a supposedly benevolent czar who fires on the peacefully assembled is an easy subject of both pathos and humor (pp. 105–6); so also the supposedly august emperor who behaves like a clown. 672 P. 4. Scott also uses the phrase to mean what the dominant themselves say, inadvertently planting the seeds of misuse, or at least misunderstanding, of the concept. See p. 18; notes 679–80 and accompanying text, infra. 673 P. 18. 674 P. 5. 675 “Paradoxes of Power,” 154. 676 “Onstage and Offstage with Jesus of Nazareth: Public Transcripts, Hidden Transcripts, and Gospel Texts.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 41. I discuss this parable in the Appendix. Boyarin, “Homotopia,” 71 n. 15, using Scott, points out that slaves taking names

214

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Others have not been so careful. Richard Horsley, long interested in the figure of Jesus in the context of revolutionary movements,677 chaired a session of the 2001 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature devoted to the possible use of Scott’s work in New Testament studies, which Scott attended as a respondent. Some of the papers presented at that session have since been revised and collected.678 that demonstrated their slave status, like Philodespot, used these names in safe places of private discourse, that is, within a hidden transcript, and not only in “public feigned performance,” that is, in the public transcript. Hayim Lapin’s use of Scott in “Hegemony and its Discontents” deals only with Scott’s concept of hegemony, and not with the idea of the hidden transcript. The one time Simon Samuel mentions Scott he correctly defines the hidden transcript as “offstage dissent to the official transcript of power” and elsewhere he opposes the hidden transcript to “the public transcript of the colonial kings and nations.” Mark’s Story, 118, 123. But he also refers to Jesus’ parables as “hidden transcripts,” similarly to the way Richard Horsley misuses the term. Id. at 127. See notes 679–80 and accompanying text, infra. 677 See several of his various earlier works cited in the bibliography in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. 678 Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. See Horsley, “Introduction: Jesus, Paul, and the ‘Arts of Resistance’: Leaves from the Notebook of James C. Scott,” in that volume, 1, 3. Three of the papers given in connection with the applicability of Scott to Q, the source of material in Matt and Luke not in Mark, have also been published, together with papers from a session of the 1999 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature dealing with the applicability of orality studies to Q and additional material on Scott and Q, as Horsley, Hidden Transcript in Q. Two of the three papers from the Scott session published in the second volume deal with Scott’s earlier work relating to the concepts of “moral economy” and “the little tradition” and only incidentally with the idea of the hidden transcript. Horsley, Richard A. “Moral Economy and Renewal Movement in Q,” and Moreland, Milton. “The Jesus Movement in the Villages of Roman Galilee: Archaeology, Q, and Modern Anthropological Theory.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcript in Q, 144 and 159. See Herzog II, William R. “The Work of James C. Scott and Q: A Response.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcript in Q, 211, 213, 215. The third paper from the Scott session,

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

215

Although he has clearly articulated the necessary relation in Scott’s thought of the hidden transcript of the dominated to their own public transcript, Horsley used “public transcript” mostly to mean that which the dominant themselves say—for example, public inscriptions, coins and most [Roman?] extant documents.679 In this reading, a “hidden transcript” can exist without being related to the dominated’s own public transcript, and any text that reflects political resistance can be read as a “hidden transcript.” Accordingly Horsley found “hidden transcripts” in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ career, including in declarations Jesus made to the dominant.680 By doing so, he added a new dimension to his studies of Jesus and his early followers in the context of revolutionary movements, and I must leave to others whether his arguments and conclusions made on this basis are sound. But by Kirk, Alan. “Going Public with the Hidden Transcript: Beelzebul Accusation and the Woes.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcript and Q, 181, 185, refers both to Domination and the Arts of Resistance and to Scott’s earlier work. See also Keller, Werner. “The Verbal Art in Q and Thomas: A Question of Epistemology,” and Robbins, Vernon K. “Oral Performance in Q: Epistemology, Political Conflict, and Contextual Register.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcript in Q, 25, 32 and 109, 115–6, papers from the orality and Q session respectively referring to Scott’s earlier work and to Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Scott’s responses are not published along with the papers in either volume and do not seem to be otherwise available. 679 He also found contemporary generalizations about the Judaism and the Hellenism of the first century as having been based on “public transcripts.” See Horsley, “Introduction,” to the first volume, 13. 680 See Horsley, “Introduction,” to the second volume, 20–1, (“once we read Scott, it is difficult to classify Mark’s narrative or the Q discourses as ‘public transcript’ ... Q represents ‘Jesus’ as having boldly declared the hidden transcript in the face of the power holders”); Horsley, “Introduction” to the first volume, 14, 18, 19; Idem, “The Politics of Disguise and Public Declaration of the Hidden Transcript: Broadening Our Approach to the Historical Jesus with Scott’s ‘Arts of Resistance’ Theory.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 61, 64; Idem, “Moral Economy and Renewal Movement in Q,” 155–7.

216

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

referring to all critiques of the dominant by the dominated as hidden transcripts, he neither applied nor extended Scott’s argument, and he reduced “hidden transcript” to a buzzword.681 Therefore to treat any material in the king-parables as hidden transcripts without committing this sort of error—for example, by simply labeling the negative material in them “hidden transcripts”—I must have knowledge of the public transcripts that they “confirm, contradict, or inflect.” Happily I do.682 Imperial parables in antithetical form, which contrast a “king” modeled on the emperor with God, provide the clearest instances of hidden transcripts, since they sometimes set them forth next to the public transcripts they contradict or inflect. This did not pass unnoticed at the SBL session; Warren Carter said that Horsley, without explanation, omitted discourse by the subordinates based on the flattering self-image of elites, that is (in Scott’s terms) the dominated’s public transcripts. “James C. Scott and New Testament Studies: A Response to Allen Callahan, William Herzog and Richard Horsley.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 81. Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre concluded that the Gospel narratives are part of the public transcript, and not evidence of hidden transcripts. “Communities Resisting Fragmentation: Q and the Work of James C. Scott.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcript and Q, 193, 198. See also Elliott, “Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts,” 110: Kirk, “Going Public with the Hidden Transcript in Q,” 11. As noted above, William Herzog, like Horsley a scholar of Jesus as a revolutionary figure, used the concept correctly. Kittredge, Cynthia Briggs. “Reconstructing ‘Resistance’ or Reading to Resist: James C. Scott and the Politics of Interpretation.” In Horsley, Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, 146, added the view that scholars might find Scott more useful in analyzing how historical communities have read the New Testament than in analysis of the text of the New Testament itself. 682 And more clearly than Herzog’s reading of the parable of the emperor’s coin discussed in the text at note 676, supra, especially if my reading of that parable is correct, according to which Jesus in fact endorses the payment of the tax, and there is no hidden transcript at all. See Appendix, note 959 and accompanying text, infra. 681

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

217

A king of flesh and blood enters a province and everyone praises him: that he is mighty, but he is weak; that he is rich, but he is poor; that he is wise, but he is foolish; that he is merciful, but he is cruel; that he is true, but he is false. There isn’t in him a single one of these qualities; everyone is a hypocrite to him.683

The Mekilta has spelled it out: the people of a conquered province, including the Jews (and the Rabbis among them), praise the occupying power any way they can and as much as they can, but their praises are false, spoken only because they are in the presence of power (everyone is a hypocrite “to him.”) If Scott is right that the disparity between the public and hidden transcripts is a rough measure of what has been suppressed, this parable indicates that the amount of resistance that the third-century Rabbis needed to suppress was enormous.684 And we learn from another parable containing both a public transcript and a hidden transcript that such false praise—the public transcript—is uttered even though the residents of an occupied territory know that it will result in no positive benefit for them, perhaps merely avoiding the negative consequences of failing to praise the emperor: The promises of flesh and blood are not promises. Rather, in the custom of the world, a king of flesh and blood enters a province, the people of the province praise him, and he is pleased by their praise. He says to them, “Tomorrow I will build public baths for you, tomorrow I will build bath houses for you, and tomorrow I will bring in drainage ditches for you.” He sleeps late: where is he and where are his promises? But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like this.685

Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 1 (Lauterbach ed., 2:8–9), from the A1/Midcentury period. 684 See p. 25. 685 Pesiq. Rav Kah. 4:2, from the A2/Divided empire period. 683

218

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

In another antithetical parable,686 the praise and honor recited in the public transcript result in benefits to the provincials (again, public baths), illustrating Scott’s insight that achieving rhetorical force for the dominant’s self-portrait among subordinates and having it included in the dominated’s own public transcripts must involve some concessions, for example, that they rule in the interests of the subordinated.687 In addition to false praise, the repertoire of public transcripts reflected in the king-parables included gifts to the emperor, designed to secure benefits, but revealed by a hidden transcript accompanying a report of such gifts as performed with little hope. In the ways of flesh and blood, a man brings a great present to a king. Maybe he will receive it and maybe he will not receive it. If it turns out that he receives it, maybe he will see the king and maybe he will not see the king. But the Holy One May He Be Blessed is not like this.688

Hidden and public transcripts are not always revealed in the same parable. This is a hidden transcript in a parable standing alone, without evidence in the parable of a related public transcript: A king of flesh and blood goes abroad to war, and provinces near his home location come and ask their needs before him, and they [the king’s representatives] say to the provincials, “He is troubled with war, he is going abroad. When he wins and comes back, then you come and ask your needs before him.” . ... A king of flesh and blood engages in war and is not able

Pesiq. Rab. 5:33, from R. Abbahu. Pp. 18, 103. For another instance of an antithetical parable in which the public transcript is “inflected,” rather than “contradicted,” by the hidden transcript, see Lev. Rab. 24:2, from R. Levi, in which the emperor is praised when he acquits a defendant and not when he convicts him; the hidden transcript reveals that his judgments are riddled with passion. 688 b. Baba Batra 10a, from the T4/Early Severan period. 686 687

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

219

either to feed his armies or to supply them with their other provisions.689

And public transcripts often appear in king-parables without being accompanied by a hidden transcript. Although the Rabbis told their parables outside the earshot of the dominant power and not in the actual presence of the powerful—the general setting of Scott’s hidden transcripts—they can still contain public transcripts; the favorable things the dominated say when alone are the same things they would have said in the presence of power. Moreover, a public transcript need not be as completely hostile to the dominant as those revealed in the antithetical parables quoted above; the dominated’s public transcript may at times sincerely and selfinterestedly adopt the claims the dominant make about themselves. Thus, the various direct and formless parables that praise the emperor as a ruler or military commander, or merely mention him as such,690 may be read not only as evidence of rabbinic appropriation,691 but also as public transcripts contradicted or inflected by the hidden transcripts in the large body of parables that are hostile to the emperor as a leader.692 For example: To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who enters a province. He said to them, “I will be king over you.” They said to him, “What good have you done for us that you will be king over us?” What did he do? He built a wall for them, brought water for them and made wars for them. He said to them, “I will be king over you.” They said to him, “Yes and yes.”693

I cited this parable earlier in a “first reading” that emphasized an aspect of the quality of the emperor’s rule, that he based his office on the good he does his subjects. With Scott’s help, we may re-read this parable as a public transcript, one that illustrates his Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32–3). See notes 612–7 and accompanying text, supra. 691 See note 651 and accompanying text, supra. 692 See pp. 70–105 on issues of Gramscian hegemony and “false consciousness.” 693 Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh (Lauterbach ed. 2: 229–30). 689 690

220

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

insight that the dominant’s version of their rule is sometimes included in the dominated’s public transcripts. The hidden transcripts that contradict or inflect this public transcript include the parable of the king who is unable to perform more than one public function at a time.694 While it is possible that even texts in the same compilation did not know each other, so that the second parable does not knowingly and purposefully contradict or inflect the first, the fact that these two parables appear in the same tannaitic compilation reinforces the propriety of reading them together.695 Another example: A parable. To what is the thing to be compared? To a king of flesh and blood who had a procurator in a province and the provincials speak against him. The king said to them, “Do not speak against my servant, rather speak against me.”696

I cited this parable earlier as favorable to the emperor in that he is shown as supportive of and loyal to his subordinates. With Scott’s help, we may read this assertion of support for a procurator as a public transcript, echoing the emperor’s self-portrait, See also, from a later compilation, the parable of the king who cannot manage his troops. 695 When related public and hidden transcripts come from different compilations, methodological issues become somewhat more difficult. I suspect that when a Rabbi composed a parable about the emperor as buffoon, he did so knowing that a substantial body of traditions existed about the emperor as great man, and that to that extent he knowingly and purposefully contradicted these other traditions. In addition, I do not think that application and extension of Scott’s concept to these parables requires such precise purposefulness; Scott’s Malay villagers, for example, need not have been thinking of what they had said in the presence of the rich yesterday when they uttered hidden transcripts outside their hearing today, and perhaps the same individuals did not make both sets of remarks. But I recognize that to this extent, I am reading “the kingparables” as a unified body of rabbinic (resistance) literature, and acknowledge that this may be problematic for some readers. 696 Sifre Num. 103 (Horovitz ed., 102). See also Exod. Rab. 21:9. 694

KING-PARABLES AS RESISTANCE LITERATURE

221

contradicted of inflected by other parables, including that of the emperor who throws his prefect out of the imperial wagon. Scott concludes that the hidden transcript, far from being a mere safety valve, is “a condition of practical resistance rather than a substitute for it.”697 Does the general failure of the Jews, and of the Rabbis who tried to lead them, to engage in “practical resistance” to Rome after the Bar Kokhba Revolt suggest either that Scott is wrong here, or that I am in my claim that the kingparables contain hidden transcripts in Scott’s own terms?698 Or did the rise of the Jewish Patriarch in Galilee in the fourth century— who interacted with the imperial government on behalf of the Jews of Palestine and elsewhere699—constitute a limited kind of “liberation” from Roman dominance that was related to earlier rabbinic resistance? More likely, the extent of the failures of the Great and Bar Kokhba Revolts indicates that late antique Jews (a population Scott did not consider) were an exception to his conclusion about practical resistance. In conclusion, with Scott’s guidance, even those parables that seemed inconsistent with opposition to the empire in a surface reading appear as evidence not merely of the Rabbis’ ambivalence” to Rome700 but, more substantively, of their genuine and conscious resistance to Roman rule and their hopes of freedom. And Scott provides still more help in reading the kingparables as resistance literature. [T]he trick to survival, not always mastered by any means, has been to swallow one’s bile, choke back one’s rage, and conquer

P. 191. The Jews of Palestine made no successful attempt at practical steps toward freedom from Rome until the early seventh century, and then only in cooperation with a Persian invader briefly victorious over the Christian empire. The Persians then turned on the Jews and returned Jerusalem to Rome until a few years later when the Arab conquest reached Palestine and Roman rule there ended. See Schäfer, Jews in Antiquity, 190–2. 699 See Schwartz, Seth. “The Patriarch and the Diaspora.” Journal of Jewish Studies 50 (1999): 208, and the works cited in note 579, supra. 700 See note 651, supra, for Bhabha’s concept of ambivalence. 697 698

222

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES the impulse to physical violence. It is this systematic frustration of reciprocal action in relations of domination that, I believe, helps us understand much of the content of the hidden transcript. At its most elementary level the hidden transcript represents an acting out in fantasy -– and occasionally in secretive practice— of the anger and reciprocal aggression denied by the presence of domination.701

Scott is here writing of African-Americans and of the heritage of slavery, but his words are applicable to a group of intellectuals whose remarkable memories echoed with the heritage of devastating military losses to Rome in the previous two centuries. Such memories could not but increase the Rabbis’ anger and wish for reciprocal aggression, and make the presence of domination more bitter and their resistance more meaningful. “The king” in these Imperial parables —the focus of their resistance—is not only the current emperor; he is, at the same time, Vespasian and Titus and Hadrian and Trajan, whose destruction and repression in the first and second centuries are “as if” here and now for the Rabbis.

701

Pp. 37–8.

CHAPTER 9: THIRD-CENTURY KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY Earlier chapters analyzed the third-century rabbinic king-parables in detail: their forms (or lack thereof) and structures; their dramatis personae, with special emphasis on the figure of the king and on the extent to which he was based on the Emperor of Rome or functioned for the Rabbis as a stand-in for the figure of God; their settings and audiences; the theology they evidence; the extent to which they may be read as showing resistance to imperial rule; and, most important, their role in connection with the work to which the Rabbis had dedicated their lives, interpreting Scripture and providing (or hoping to provide) leadership to the Jewish people. Might these parables also reflect the Rabbis’ understanding of imperial events and personalities? And thus function as a source of Roman history? For the Severan period and a bit beyond, scholars generally rely on the histories of Cassius Dio and Herodian, usually favoring Dio.702 His history goes only as far as the last Severan, who died in 235 C. E.,, while Herodian closes his account three years later with the accession of Gordian III. From then on, at least until the rise of Diocletian, the paucity of sources of Roman history is even greater, and routinely lamented. A. H. M. Jones was typical when he wrote: “[T]he middle years of the third century A.D. are one of the darkest periods in the history of the Roman empire. There is virtually no evidence except for a few bald chronicles of a See, e.g., Bowersock, G. W. “Herodian and Elagabalus.” Yale Classical Studies 24 (1975): 227, 229; Birley, Septimius Severus, 10. 702

223

224

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES much later date and the biographies of the Historia Augusta, . . . whose historical unreliability is generally agreed.”703

This is an overstatement, but not by much; the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, mostly written by a Syrian Jew contemporary with some of the third-century Rabbis,704 survives as the single direct contemporary literary source commonly consulted by historians of third-century Rome for the period after the accession of Gordian III.705 Although we know precious little about the principal author of the Oracle, we know that his contemporaries, the third-century Rabbis, were literate, relatively well off, intellectual, curious, urban, tax paying, civically involved Roman citizens.706 They thus seem remarkably well equipped to provide evidence about what one provincial group knew and thought of contemporary emperors or “Numismatics and History.” In Carson, R. A. G., and C. H. V. Sutherland, eds. Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956. Similarly, see Hartmann, Udo. Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 27. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2001; Graf, David F. “Zenobia and the Arabs.” In French, D. H., and C. S. Lightfoot, eds. The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Ankara in September 1988, 148. Oxford: BAR International Series 553(i), 1989; Alfoeldy, Geza. “The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 15, No. 1 (1974): 89, 92. 704 The idea in Prophecy and History, 232–3 that the author was a pagan is a rare lapse in judgment on D. S. Potter’s part. Mention of Ares in connection with the name of a people at war hardly requires the author to be devoted to that god; unlike a third-century Christian, a third-century Jew would not necessarily have been reluctant to mention gods he didn’t worship, or at least didn’t worship to the exclusion of maintaining a Jewish identity. See note 794, infra, for the possibility that Jews complied with the Decian requirement of universal sacrifice to the gods of Rome, and see generally Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society. 705 The great inscription at Naqsh-i-Rustam of the Persian king Sapor also survives, and is also commonly consulted. See Potter, Prophecy and History, 70. 706 See Chapter 1, supra. 703

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

225

their representatives. That their parables used “kings” modeled on the emperor as a step in the exegetical and pastoral work to which they devoted their lives indicates that the Rabbis were interested in the emperors and that they knew, or thought they knew, something about them. Like the views of the emperors expressed in the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, and unlike Dio’s and perhaps Herodian’s, the Rabbis’ understanding of the emperors can be understood as that of “men in the street.”707 This chapter claims that, incidentally to the tasks the Rabbis gave them, the king-parables may serve Roman historians as an additional, relatively untapped, contemporary source of Roman imperial history for the entire time span from the beginning of the Severan dynasty to the rise of Diocletian, both the period covered by Dio and Herodian and the “dark” period referred to by Jones and others, a longer time than that covered by the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle.708 Mention of these Roman historians and the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle exposes possible weakness in trying to use the third-century king-parables for such historical purposes. Dio, Herodian and the later chroniclers, who set out to write history, and the Historia Augusta, which purported to contain biographies, obviously named the emperors whose careers they reported, and the Oracle often—but not always—identified the emperors it

Potter, Prophecy and History, vii, properly emphasizes the importance of the Oracle as a source of such “popular history.” 708 See Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 453; Potter, Prophecy and History, vii; Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 10. Largely because of the distance that continues to exist between two academic fields and university departments (“classics” and “Judaic Studies”), Roman historians rarely use rabbinic texts. Even as that distance is being increasingly bridged, historians might decide that the effort involved in reading rabbinics for historical purposes on their own is not worth the rewards. The correlations revealed in this chapter between the parables and the traditional Greek and Latin sources could also be used by a student of rabbinic literature to locate a context for a given rabbinic parable. 707

226

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

referred to by code and otherwise.709 The third-century kingparables do not refer to individual emperors with any precision; even when they mention “Antoninus” or “Augustus,” it is not clear whom they mean or even whether they have a particular emperor in mind. Are specific mentions of specific emperors needed for the parables to be useful to the historian of the third-century empire? Surely not. Since the earlier chapters have demonstrated that the Imperial parables envisage Roman emperors –-“kings” in them wear purple, establish colonies, build public baths and drainage canals, give law, separate their private money from public funds, feed their armies and defend themselves from usurpers—it might have been sufficient to argue that the general picture they thus convey is enough to justify my claim that they are useful for Roman imperial historical purposes. But my claim, while modest, is not that modest.

Principally by the use of numerical equivalents of letters in emperors’ names. Potter, Prophecy and History, 219. Thus, 13 Sib. Or. lines 155–158 refer to two rulers, one with the number 70 (Valerian) and one with the number 3 (his son Gallienus). See also lines 21–25, where numerical references to Philip are supplemented by a mention of his Syrian origins and one of his son having the same name, and lines 84–84 (“of the number three hundred, with the initial of four”), with 300 standing for Trajan (his adopted name) and 4 for Decius. This emperor is also identified as “emerging from the Dacians.” But the Sibyl’s references are not always clear, and not always clearer than the connections between king-parables and specific emperors I propose in this chapter. See line 61, where the reference is to “a leader of men”; line 145, where the reference is only to a “king” with a short reign; lines 14–16, where the reference is to a young Roman king making war on Persia; and line 105, where a reference to an emperor with a bastard son is thought to refer to Gallus, although his son Volusianus was legitimate. See Collins, J. J. “Sibylline Oracles (Second Century B.C.—Seventh Century A.D.): A New Translation and Introduction.” In Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 454. New York: Doubleday, 1983. 709

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

227

If the parables were merely a window on how one provincial elite thought about and responded to the emperors, their specifics would still be of interest to students of imperial history. For example, a parable that suggests imperial corruption—something moderns would treat as bribe taking --710 cannot properly be used to indicate that the emperors of the period from which the parable dates (Septimius Severus and Caracalla) were corrupt. But it shows that some of their eastern subjects thought, or assumed, they, or earlier emperors, were, or it indicates the existence, at least among one population, of a standard trope about emperors and other powerful figures in general. But the third-century parables go beyond teaching us what the Rabbis thought. While we do not learn anything startlingly new about Roman emperors from them, they indeed provide information on the events and personalities of the empire, in two major ways. First, the parables often confirm what Dio, Herodian and later ancient sources report, as they contain material that jibes with such sources as historians of Rome generally understand them. For example, a parable from the early Severan period that refers to sacrifice performed “before a king of flesh and blood,” and therefore perhaps to the imperial cult,711 while probably not evidence that emperor-worship was particularly prevalent during the reigns of the early Severans or some specific earlier period, confirms ancient sources and contemporary historians to the effect

b. B. Bat. 10a, from the T4/Early Severan period. Sifra Emor pereq 13:8 (Weiss ed. 102a), from the T4/Early Severan period. See also Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52), from the A2/Divided empire period. Pursuant to Chapter 1, text at note 54, supra, I have underlined citations, such as these two, of rabbinic texts coming from third-century documents to assist readers convinced by Jacob Neusner’s documentary premise who wish to ignore texts that according to that premise are not from the third century and therefore would be of no use to the historian of the third century; citations to such texts are not underlined. 710 711

228

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

that the emperor was extensively worshipped in the east and had been since Augustus.712 Parables in this category might at first blush be thought to be of limited usefulness to the Roman historian. But, given the dearth of other available material, the prospect of any additional information is attractive. Thus, although classicists and ancient historians have long said, with Jones, that the Historia Augusta is at least as much a work of fiction as of history, written for purposes other than providing an accurate account of what happened in the past, they nonetheless continue to use it for historical purposes.713 Perhaps the experience of using the Historia Augusta might assist scholars trained in Roman history in also using the surviving literature of the Rabbis, composed primarily to aid their scriptural exegesis but also referring to historical events, for historical purposes. Second, and of more obvious and greater usefulness to the Roman historian, some parables serve to support information otherwise provided only in limited or suspect sources, such as, indeed, the Historia Augusta; others tilt the balance toward one particular scholarly explanation of the traditional sources, including whether the Severans represented an era of great change, why the troops favored Elagabal over Macrinus, Maximinus’ pre-imperial rank, the circumstances of Decius’ defeat and of Valerian’s capture, and whether Claudius II earned his victory cognomen “Gothicus”; still others in this second major category, of the greatest utility to the Roman historian, suggest answers to open questions, including the intent behind Decius’ decree of universal sacrifice, proper evaluation of Gallienus’ reign (including his supposed military reorganization), the relationship between Palmyra and the central

See Levick, Julia Domna, chapter 8, “Image and Cult,” on increased emperor worship as part of the supposed orientalization of the empire during the Severan years; Cassius Dio LI.20.7; Beard, Mary, John North and Simon Price. I Religions of Rome, 318. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1998. 713 See Syme, Emperors and Biography; Idem, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. 712

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

229

government, and the events surrounding the reunification of the empire under Aurelian. In order to set them as firmly as I can in historical context, I will deal with parables of all these types in the order of the periods I believe they refer to, mindful that the king-parables do not, of course, function as potential historical sources for every reign. And the cases in the second major category are limited in number, partly because, as the traditional sources become less and less useful, they have been less and less studied and fewer scholarly debates and open questions exist. Some additional methodological issues must also be addressed. How should the dating of a parable be related to events it seems to reflect? Is it better to assume lag time between an event and a parable in order to be sure that word of the event reached the Rabbis? For example, should a third-century parable about an emperor called “Antoninus” working hard as a judge714 be treated as concerning Antoninus Pius (138 C. E. to 161 C. E.) or Marcus Aurelius (reigned 161 C. E. to 180 C. E.) or some other pre-thirdcentury emperor, and not Septimius Severus (193 C. E. to 211 C. E.) or Caracalla (211 C. E. to 217 C. E.), the emperors of the parable’s period? Or should time lags be treated as resulting in inaccuracies, and should some idea of contemporaneity prevail? If so, this parable would be treated as about these early Severans, while the parables I offer below to support the generally accepted relationship between Severus and his wife, the Empress Julia Domna,715 would be treated instead as perhaps only involving the Palmyrenes Odenathus (corrector totius Orientis 261 C. E., died 267/268 C. E.) and Zenobia (regent from her husband’s death to 272 C. E.) or, say, the emperor Valerian (reigned 253 C. E. to 260 C. E.) and his wife. Since I suspect that there are no general answers to these questions, I will usually assume both that the Rabbis may have known what was going on more or less in their own time and that 714 715

Mek. de R. Ishmael, Beshallach 1 (Lauterbach ed., 1: 185–6). See notes 737–9 and accompanying text, infra.

230

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

they may have remembered things that happened earlier.716 And, as discussed above, the Rabbis did not name or otherwise identify the ruler of whom they were thinking when they told a parable reflecting his reign, so it is therefore impossible to pin down the “kings” referred to in the parables. For both these reasons, I will frequently cite a single parable as a possible source of information about more than one reign. While the Rabbis were not much concerned with historical detail, I have used details in the parables as historians of Rome use details when they read the conventional sources. For example, I read the fact that the emperor the Rabbis called “Antoninus” who works hard as a judge is shown with “sons” he loves and wants to honor more as a possible reference to Severus, famous for having two such sons, than to Caracalla, who had no son, or to Marcus, who had only one.717 Had I instead emphasized the fact that Caracalla was generally referred to as “Antoninus”718 and thereby identified this “king” with Caracalla, I might have helped Sometimes the question may be more answerable. Thus, Sifre Deut. 305 (Finkelstein ed., 324) from the T4/Early Severan period, about a king who wishes to be succeeded by his friend’s son, rather than his own — certainly not a reference to Severus and Caracalla—is better treated as an instance of substantial lag time and as referring to the second-century adoption practices of the Antonine emperors earlier than Marcus Aurelius—although they themselves in fact had no sons to bypass. 717 Marcus’ predecessor, Antoninus Pius, also had two sons, both adopted. 718 Severus claimed to have been adopted by Marcus (see Levick, Julia Domna 43; Potter, Empire at Bay, 109–10; Honore, Ulpian, 1), but he seems never to have taken “Antoninus” or any of Marcus’ other names for himself (Cassius Dio LXXVI.7.4; see Historia Augusta, Severus XII.8) although he gave them to Caracalla. See Cassius Dio LXXIX.3.3; Campbell, Bryan. “The Severan Dynasty.” In Bowman, Alan K., Peter Garnsey, and Averil Cameron, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History, Second Edition—Volume XII: The Crisis of Empire, A. D. 193–337, 1, 5–6. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2005; Birley, Septimius Severus, 119–20, 215; Magie, David. II The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 402 n. 2. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1924. 716

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

231

undermine the once prevalent view that Caracalla was of below average intelligence, a view that goes back to Dio, who hated him (probably for personal and financial reasons) but who nonetheless makes it clear that Caracalla was, at least, quite bright, and probably something of an intellectual.719 A final methodological issue is one of possible apparent circularity. When I identify an event in a parable with an event known from the mainstream sources and claim the similarity of the two accounts as confirmation of the mainstream sources, am I guilty of circular reasoning? If Professor Brown tells me that she saw Mr. Smith—the red-headed center on our university’s basketball team—at an astrobiology lecture yesterday, and then Professor Jones, known for his lack of interest in university sports, tells me that a remarkably tall young red-headed man sat in front of him at the same lecture, and I treat his information as confirming Brown’s and conclude for whatever reason that young Smith has an interest in astrobiology, have I engaged in circular reasoning? Clearly not, even though the issue of whether Smith attended the lecture or is interested in the hard sciences would not have come up in my mind had I not spoken to Brown. Offering a parable to support a limited or suspect traditional source does not involve circular reasoning any more than this example would had Brown been drunk when we spoke. And had Brown said that Smith was at the astrobiology lecture while Professor White claimed that he saw him at the geophysics lecture, it would not be circular reasoning to use Jones’ remark to prefer Brown’s account of Smith’s whereabouts over White’s. Similarly, if we had neither Brown’s account nor White’s and were pursuing the open question of whether Smith had interests outside basketball, surely Jones’ observation would suggest that he had, or, if he had added that the See Cassius Dio LXXVIII.11.3, 17.1, 18.4; LXXIX.8.4. For Caracalla as an intellectual, see Levick, Julia Domna, 89 and n. 15, collecting the authorities; Potter, Empire at Bay, 142 and note 81; cf. Campbell, “Severan Dynasty,” 17. Even if the emperor in the parable is Severus, it can be read in support of Caracalla’s abilities and interest in the demands of the job he was slated to get, in that the sons are shown as attentive to their father’s work 719

232

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

young man in front of him left shortly after the beginning of the lecture, that Smith’s interest was short-lived.

THE T4/EARLY SEVERAN PERIOD: SEVERUS AND CARACALLA Severus came to power after a civil war involving a sitting emperor and two other claimants to the throne.720 An earlier generation of scholars, led by Rostovtzeff, saw the accession of the Severans as the beginning of an era of great changes, none of them for the good. In this view, Severus and Caracalla were in effect the antiAntonines, who increased the power of the emperor and the army at the expense of the power of the senate and the municipal elites and whose rule amounted to the beginning of the deterioration, militarization and “barbarization” of the empire.721 In spite of He was first acclaimed by his troops in Upper Pannonia; while several parables from later periods—including Midr. Pss 22:20, from the A1/Later Severan period; Exod. Rab 23:1 from R. Abbahu; and Esth. Rab 1:19 and Exod. Rab. 15:13 from the A3b/Transitional period—reflect the fact that third-century emperors were often made by their legions, it is impossible to say that they refer to Severus any more than to several of his successors, including Macrinus and Elagabal in the T5/Later Severan period, Maximinus, Decius, Gallus and Aemilianus in the A1/Midcentury period, Valerian and Claudius II in the A2/Divided empire period, and Aurelian and Probus in the A3a/Reunited empire period. During the civil war, Severus relied on others actually to lead his troops, a fact perhaps confirmed by parables in which the emperor relies on others for military matters, although I suspect that they are similarly more applicable to other, more striking, situations of the later empire, and will refer to them below. 721 See Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 399–401. In this, his magnum opus, Rostovtzeff took the more measured view that there are elements of truth both in the understanding expressed in the text above and in the view that Severus was patriotic and broad-minded, intent on extending the culture and material advantages of Italy and the older provinces to the newer ones. See MacMullen, Ramsay. Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire, 69. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1962; Miller, “The Army and the Imperial House,” 9, 34. 720

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

233

emphasis by contemporary historians of Rome on continuity rather than change, the notion of the reign of the first Severans as just such a watershed has not been abandoned.722 Do the king-parables support the view of Severus’ accession as the beginnings of a major change in, and decline of, the empire? No less a figure among historians of late antiquity than Peter Brown thought so. Reading the following parable contemporary with the first Severans to refer to a “militarizing” emperor competing for honor with other elements of society such as the municipal elites, Brown wrote: “those clear-eyed observers of the third-century scene, the rabbis, were right to see in the usurping emperor no more than the urban philotimos writ large.”723 For the nuanced view, reminiscent of Rostovtzeff’s, that the Severan era marked the beginning of government dominated by the values of bureaucrats and soldiers rather than urban aristocrats, see Potter, Empire at Bay, 217. The picture of the Severan dynasty as the beginning of imperial decline is offered throughout Levick, Julia Domna, including on its first page and in its concluding paragraph, but attributed more to a combination of Saidian “Orientalism” (see Chapter 8, note 646, supra) and discomfort with the role of women in the Severan dynasty on the part of historians, ancient and modern, than to militarization or displacements of the Senate or the municipal elites or their values. See also Campbell, “Severan Dynasty,” 9–10. Salway, “Creation of the Roman State,” 1–2, discusses other scholars who hold a view like Rostovtzeff’s, which Salway does not, but notes that most scholars interested in a transition point between “classical” and “late” antiquity find it with the death of Severus’ grand-nephew by marriage Severus Alexander, the last Severan; a good example of this is Cameron, The Later Roman Empire, 3. (Salway helpfully collects the various terms used for the two supposed periods.) My own periodization of the “third century” as beginning with Severus does not stem from advocacy of any such historical break but from the fact that the Severans and their successors usually achieved their power through military means, with the first two and the last Severans at war as often as the later emperors, and from the fact that the rule of both of the two later Severans and of their successors was inherently unstable. 723 Brown, Peter. The Making of Late Antiquity, 46. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1978. 722

234

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who enters a province. He said to them, “I will be king over you.” They said to him, “What good have you done for us that you will be king over us?” What did he do? He built a wall for them, brought water for them and made wars for them. He said to them, “I will be king over you.” They said to him, “Yes and yes.”724

But although the parable may support the idea that the Rabbis saw these emperors more as benefactors than as occupiers,725 it hardly indicates that they saw them as competitive with someone else who was also trying to protect and irrigate the parts of the empire they cared about or, more important, that they saw these emperors as fundamentally different—as militarizers or usurpers— from their second-century Antonine predecessors. If the symbolism of a name was important to the Rabbis and if the parable’s hard-working imperial judge is Severus, they may have seen him as an Antonine; they called him “Antoninus.” This may indicate acceptance of Severan propaganda, but more likely the Rabbis were simply not aware of any meaningful change, leading them to use “Antoninus” as a generic name for an emperor equivalent to “Augustus.”726 Moreover, other parables seem to recognize the continuing importance of municipal elites in the east, at least if the Hebrew loan word from Greek—‫—בוליוטיס‬is properly translated as “council member,”727 and argue against the Rabbis’ seeing the emperor as a new source of philotimia by showing Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:237–8). But see Chapter 8, notes 665–74 and accompanying text, supra, on hidden transcripts. 726 For the importance of the name “Antoninus,” especially in the east, see Sir Ronald Syme, “The Nomen Antoninorum.” Historia Augusta, Severus XII.8 claims, probably wrongly, that this is how Severus himself used the name “Antoninus.” 727 Song Rab. 1:1 (9); Deut. Rab. 3:3. Jacob Neusner so renders the word in his translation of the first parable, while Ignaz Ziegler and Marcus Jastrow in his Dictionary both translate it as “senator.” (In Deut. Rab. 3:3, this word and one more clearly meaning “senator” are used interchangeably to mean the same thing.) 724 725

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

235

him as unable to help the provincials with their needs728 or as promising to do so and negligently failing.729 Nonetheless, the parable cited by Brown confirms the traditional sources’ account of the first Severans’ colonia policy, continued by the later Severans. Whether Severus continued or departed from the empire of the Antonines, his reign has long been characterized as one in which Roman jurisprudence flowered, with humanitarian ideals of freely available justice and the rule of law, as a result at least in part of his own hard work.730 As mentioned above, a king-parable contemporary with his reign or that of his son confirms this understanding, and indicates appreciation by the Rabbis—lawyers themselves—of Severus’ attention to legal matters; it shows “Antoninus” spending long hours as a judge. The parables are also useful with respect to the family and dynastic life of the early Severans. It is undisputed in the traditional sources both that Severus had hopes for each of his sons, and that each of them made him personally unhappy.731 Confirmation of this comes from the parable of the king and his vexing sons,732 which dates to the next period.733 Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32–33). Pesiq. Rav Kah. 4:2. Compare Pesiq. Rav Kah. 5:33, from R. Abbahu, in which the emperor does good for the provincials only once they praise him, perhaps suggesting, if Brown was right, a change in the Rabbis’ view of the emperors’ philotimia as the century progressed; surely the later emperors had less time for such generosity as they struggled to keep the empire together. 730 See Cassius Dio LXXVII.17.1; Honore, Emperors and Lawyers; Honore, Ulpian, 3; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 405. But see Campbell, “Severan Dynasty,” 11–2. 731 See Cassius Dio LXXVII.7.3, 11.1, 14.7, 17.2; Herodian III.2.3–5, 14.2; Birley, Septimius Severus, 160, 218, citing epigraphic evidence. 732 Lam. Rab. 3:20 (83). 733 This parable may also or instead recall an earlier emperor. Vespasian (reigned 69 C. E. to 79 C. E.) had his own troublesome sons, and the emperor in the parable misses both of his vexing sons when they are not with him in combat. Vespasian employed both Titus and Domitian in the field, while Severus did not so use his younger son Geta, 728 729

236

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Severus’ relationship with the empress Julia Domna is presented in the conventional sources as having been remarkable; they spent a great deal of time together734 and he bestowed many honors on her735 and her family.736 Both the closeness between them and the honor he paid her are confirmed by a parable in which R. Yohanan says that anyone who comes between the emperor and Matrona is liable to death,737 and by another of an emperor who refuses the courtesies due his station when he enters a province738 until Matrona receives them first, perhaps reflecting Severus’ visit to Palestine, apparently accompanied by the empress.739 Another “domestic” parable provides my first opportunity to offer rabbinic support of a commonly used but suspect source. The Historia Augusta—regarded as only slightly more reliable for Severus’ reign than for others—740 relates that he offered to make a young man prefect of the city but that the man declined on the grounds that being the emperor’s son-in-law meant more to him.741 whose only important duties were the administration of civil justice during Severus’ last campaign in Britain, when he was accompanied by the emperor’s council. See Herodian III.14.9. 734 See Cassius Dio LXXVII.17.5; Birley, Septimius Severus, 129, 138 (based on nonliterary sources) and plate 16. 735 See Cassius Dio LXXVI.15.6; Whittaker, C. R. I Herodian, History of the Empire, 283 n. 1, 367 n. 2. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1969, citing numismatic sources; Birley, Septimius Severus, 115–6, 245 n. 35; Levick, Julia Domna, 33, 53–4, 93–4. 736 See Whittaker, I Herodian, 305 note 3; Birley, Septimius Severus, 195. 737 Deut. Rab. 1:21. 738 Pesiq. Rav Kah 9:10, a parable of R. Levi. See note 769 and note 879 and accompanying texts, infra, for other possible twosomes, not necessarily married, to whom these parables might have been referring. 739 See Cassius Dio LXXV.2.4; LXXVI.13.1. See Levick, Julia Domna, 49–50. 740 See Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, 187; Barnes, T. D. “The Sources of the Historia Augusta.” Latomus Revue d’Etudes Latines (1978): 26. 741 Historia Augusta, Severus VIII.1.

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

237

This account is inconsistent with other ancient sources on the status of imperial sons-in-law, but is made more plausible by a parable in which the emperor offers a friend anything he wishes; the friend thinks of asking to be made prefect or a dux, but instead chooses to marry the emperor’s daughter.742 Caracalla continued his father’s policy of extending colonia status to communities in the East, such as Sebaste in Palestine and Palmyra and Emesa.743 Most scholars have not hazarded a view about which of these coloniae were made by father and which by son, but some earlier scholarship had found that Severus elevated Sebaste and Palmyra,744 while three more recent works find that it was Caracalla who elevated Emesa and perhaps Palmyra.745 A kingparable from the A3b period tilts the argument to the earlier view, since its reference to the two enemies of the king may well be to Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, Severus’ rival challengers to the sitting emperor: The residents of a province wished to ask the king to make their province a ‫קלניא‬.746 One time the king had two enemies

Pesiq. Rab. 14:17–18, from the A1/Midcentury period. In a parallel parable, Song Rab. 1:1 (9), from the same period, it is a council member (or a senator) who regards marrying the princess as the greatest prize. 743 Historia Augusta, Severus XVII: 1. See Matthews, John F. “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East.” Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984): 157, 162; MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian, 135; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 428; Haynes, Denys L. “Preface” to Browning, Iain. Palmyra, 10. London: Chatto & Windus, 1979. 744 Miller, “The Army and the Imperial House,” 18 (Sebaste); Haynes, “Preface,” 10 (Palmyra). 745 Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 59 (Emesa and Palmyra); Potter, Empire at Bay, 143 (Emesa and perhaps Palmyra); Levick, Julia Domna, 41 (Emesa). 746 The Hebrew is a loan word from the Latin. 742

238

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES and they fell before him. They said, “Behold, this is the time to ask the king that he make our province a ‫קלניא‬.”747

THE T5/LATER SEVERAN PERIOD: MACRINUS, ELAGABAL AND SEVERUS ALEXANDER Caracalla’s rule ended when an army faction behind his prefect Macrinus assassinated him during an eastern campaign. Macrinus was in turn overthrown after one year by soldiers supporting the oddest of all Roman emperors, the teenaged exhibitionist bisexual priest of a Syrian god, usually called after the name of that god. Elagabal (reigned 218 C. E. to 222 C. E.) was the grandson of Julia Domna’s sister, who presented him to the troops in Emesa as Caracalla’s illegitimate son. Elagabal’s antics eventually proved too much for both his grandmother and his aunt, who arranged that his even younger cousin, Severus Alexander (reigned 222 C. E. to 235 C. E.), succeed him.748 Elagabal’s accession resulted from Macrinus’ loss of support from the soldiers in Syria who had installed him in the first place, but scholars disagree on the emphasis to be placed on the factors Sifre Deut. 26 (Finkelstein ed., 40). (Hadas, “Rabbinic Parallels to Scriptores Historiae Augustae,” 259, long ago noticed a parallel between this parable and Historia Augusta, Severus IX.5.) Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 6 (Lauterbach ed., 2:237–8), in which a king enters a province but waits until they “receive my kingdom on them,” may also be apposite if “receiving” his kingdom is read as favoring Severus over Niger, who had been acclaimed in the east, and Albinus. For the linkage between elevation of a locality’s status to its support of Severus in the civil war, see Potter, Empire at Bay, 106. 748 See id. at 145–7, 149–50, 304–8; Birley, Septimius Severus, 193; Potter, Prophecy and History, 8; Campbell, “Severan Dynasty,” 22; Miller, “Army and the Imperial House,” 52, 55. This rapid turnover of emperors may be reflected in a parable from the next period (A1/Midcentury) of an emperor whose portraits, images and coinage are destroyed shortly after they are established, Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 8 (Lauterbach ed., 2:262), although the A1 period itself saw eight “legitimate” emperors and additional claimants in its brief eighteen years. See notes 770–802 and accompanying text, infra. 747

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

239

that caused them to turn on him. Was his overthrow primarily the result of efforts by the regionally prominent family and household of his grandmother, combined with Elagabal’s good looks, the troops’ belief in the dynastic principle, and his physical resemblance to Caracalla?749 Or were financial reasons more important? Macrinus, the first emperor not himself a senator, cut the pay of at least new recruits to the levels of Severus’ time as part of his efforts to achieve senate endorsement.750 It is impossible to separate these reasons completely since, if Macrinus’ tight-fistedness had been the troops’ main impetus to support Elagabal, it would have been understood by them in contrast to Elagabal’s family’s wealth and patronal relationship to them, a contrast perhaps reflected in a parable in which the emperor is wary of the power of local patrons.751 But support for emphasis on money issues as the explanation for Macrinus’ downfall may be provided by the earliest third-century Imperial parable explicitly to condemn a “king.” Mekilta de R. Ishmael Shirata 1, also from the A1 period, says that the emperor, although acclaimed as “rich,” is actually “poor.” Since calling the emperor “poor” seems odd on its face, especially as part of a litany of his faults along with such qualities as “cruelty” and “falseness,” perhaps the Rabbis meant not that he is actually poor, but that he is miserly; soldiers’ complaints about Macrinus in T5 Emesa would have had more than enough time to reach the Rabbis in A1

Potter, Empire at Bay, 148–51 takes this position most forcefully. See Cassius Dio LXXIX.31.1, 32.3, 38.4, LXXX.6; Herodian V.3.8–10, 4.2; Historia Augusta Macrinus IX.3; Millar, Roman Near East, 145; Miller, “Army and the Imperial House,” 52. 750 See Cassius Dio LXXIX.39.4; Campbell, “Severan Dynasty,” 20; Potter, Prophecy and History, 10; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 410. For the view that Macrinus had the army’s support but failed because his reign interrupted dynastic continuity, see Lo Cascio, Elio. “The Age of the Severans.” In Bowman, Garnsey and Cameron, Crisis of Empire, 137, 139. 751 For parables reflecting imperial patronage relationships, see Chapter 2, notes 128–37 and accompanying text, supra. 749

240

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Galilee.752 A few sections later, Shirata 4 tells of an emperor who cannot (or will not?) feed or provision his troops, which may also reflect Macrinus’ approach to his payroll. Elagabal’s peculiarities and Severus Alexander’s youth and reliance on the imperial ladies,753 especially when compared to the personalities of Severus and Caracalla, may be the reasons behind the Mekilta also here calling the emperor “foolish” and “weak.” Since the parable begins with the emperor entering a province, these charges may be associated with Severus Alexander, who visited Palestine.754 The A1 period itself did not, however, lack for emperors who might have been the ones the Rabbis called foolish or weak, including Maximus and Balbinus, the senators who briefly succeeded the first Gordians; Gordian III, yet another boyemperor; and Philip, who may well have made and then reneged on an unfavorable peace treaty with Persia.755 A difficult question of third-century imperial history arises here: When boys such as Elagabal, Severus Alexander and Gordian III were emperor, who ran the government? Several of the other traditionally used literary sources agree with Zosimus’ claim that the noted jurist Ulpian was Severus Alexander’s “overseer and partner in power,”756 and a rescript in Severus Alexander’s name calls Ulpian praetorian prefect and “my parent.”757 But a papyrus has been found that suggests to some that Ulpian died when Severus Alexander was still a small boy758 and Macrinus’ entire reign was spent in the region, perhaps making him especially well known there. See Millar, Roman Near East, 145. 753 See note 769 and accompanying text, infra. 754 See Millar, Roman Near East, 327. 755 See Potter, Prophecy and History, 37. The reference might also have been to Decius, whom the same author calls “quite stupid,” id. at 41. 756 Zosimus 11. See Cassius Dio LXXX.1.1; Eutropius 8.22; Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander LI.4; Orosius 7.18. 757 Honore, Ulpian, 36, citing CJ 4.65.44. 758 See Barnes, T. D. “The Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historical Tradition.” Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1968/1969 (1970): 13, 32. 752

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

241

other sources seem to limit Ulpian’s power to legal matters.759 Do the parables provide any resolution of this issue? Unfortunately not; while a parable from the next period about an emperor and a prefect whom the people could not tell apart760 suggests such a powerful prefect, prefects under these emperors would have had to be powerful, and prefects as powerful as Ulpian is generally supposed to have been go back at least to Tiberias’ reign761 and were common during the A1 period itself.762 On the other hand, the Rabbis’ depiction of a prefect who rules over the emperor until replaced by another, who also rules over the emperor, may be a recollection of the super-powerful prefects under Gordian III: Timesitheus, the emperor’s father-in-law, was succeeded by Priscus, who helped make his own brother Gordian’s successor.763 Severus Alexander is said to have turned the state’s business over to a council of senators,764 and a similar group seems to have been empowered under Gordian III.765 Some confirmation for these claims is found in later king-parables showing emperors unwilling to make decisions without the advice and approval of a ‫( סנקליטוס‬advisor or perhaps senator) or a ‫( סנקתדרוס‬associate) or of three friends, and these may well refer to boy-emperors and to such groups.766 Probably the most unusual powerful figures in the reigns of the last Severans—especially that of Severus Alexander—were their Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander XV.6. See Herodian VI.1.5. Gen. Rab. 8:10. 761 See Potter, Empire at Bay, 116–8. 762 See Midr. Pss 86:4, from the A3b/Transitional period. 763 Deut. Rab 2:4, from the A3b/Transitional period. See also Exod. Rab. 28:3, from the same period. Priscus served as corrector totius orientis under Philip. 764 See Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander XXIX.4–5. See also Campbell, “Severan Dynasty,” 22. 765 See Potter, Empire at Bay, 171–2. See also Campbell, “Severan Dynasty,” 22. 766 Gen. Rab. 8:3, from R. Joshua ben Levi (‫;)סנקתדרוס ;סנקליטוס‬ Gen. Rab. 49:2, from the A3b/Transitional period (three friends; associate). 759 760

242

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

grandmother and their mothers. It is “doubtless correct” that Julia Maesa and Julia Mammaea had “the arbitrament” under Severus Alexander,767 and the king-parables support Syme’s conclusion. The Hebrew loan word from Latin “Matrona,” although it usually refers in the king-parables to the “king’s” wife, need not; the word means a matron, a married lady of quality, usually but not always Roman, and it might well be the word the Rabbis would use for an imperial dowager.768 Thus, R. Yohanan’s parable about coming between a king and Matrona as a capital offense might have been referring to Severus Alexander and his mother, and the emperor who insisted that Matrona receive honors before he does when he enters a province could just as easily be Severus Alexander as his great-uncle by marriage.769

THE A1/MIDCENTURY PERIOD: MAXIMINUS, THE GORDIANS, PHILIP, DECIUS, GALLUS AND AEMILIANUS Severus Alexander—and his mother—were killed after his campaign against Persia.770 An officer named Maximinus (reigned 235 C. E. to 238 C. E.) was then acclaimed emperor by the troops.

Syme, Emperors and Biography, 147. See Herodian VI.1.1, 8.3; Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander XIV.1. Cf. Birley, Septimius Severus, 193; but cf. Levick, Julia Domna, 149. 768 See also Ilan, Tal. “Matrona and Rabbi Jose: An Alternative Interpretation.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 25 (1994): 18–51, arguing that “Matrona” in the texts she was studying was not the title of a Roman married lady of quality interested in Judaism but the personal name of a Jewish woman; another possibility is that she was a Jewish married lady of quality. 769 It may go too far to suggest that Matrona might also refer to Elagabal’s same-sex companion whom he wanted to make “Caesar,” especially since he referred to him as his husband, not his wife. See Cassius Dio LXXX.15.4. 770 Knowledge of Rome’s conflict with Persia is reflected in b. Shevuot 6b, from this period; Gordian III also marched on Persia later in the same period, as had Severus and Caracalla on Parthia. 767

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

243

His ancient reputation was one of special cruelty;771 perhaps he was in the Rabbis’ minds when the Mekilta, from this period, specifically called the emperor “cruel.”772 Maximinus was the first emperor to have come from Illyria,773 and another parable from the A2 period whose cruel military emperor seems more concerned with the province of his origin than with others774 helps confirm that Maximinus and several of his A1 and A2 successors, including Decius, Valerian II and Claudius II, were from the same Danubian region in which they led their troops.775 In spite of the virtually unanimous claim of the ancient sources that Maximinus was low ranking before he was emperor,776 modern scholars have increasingly concluded otherwise.777 Perhaps the Mekilta’s odd reference to an emperor who was “poor” indicates one such as Maximinus, who had never previously achieved high rank and the access to wealth that went with it, and is an additional ancient source for the older view. Maximinus’ reign ended when landowners in Libya revolted against the procurator there, and, since a new procurator could not help them without a new emperor, they acclaimed Gordian I and

See Herodian VII.1.1 See also b. Sanh. 39a, from the A3b/Transitional period. 773 See Herodian VII.1.2; Historia Augusta, Two Maximini I.5; Potter, Prophecy and History, 23–4; Syme, Emperors and Biography, 186. 774 Midr. Pss 6:3. 775 See Potter, Empire at Bay, 169 (Maximinus may have favored troops under his immediate command). 776 Herodian VII.2.2, .8.10; Aurelius Victor 25; Eutropius 9.1. The Historia Augusta has it both ways, claiming that Maximinus was both a herdsman of barbarian parentage and the commander of the entire army under Severus Alexander. Two Maximini i.5, II.1, VII.2 777 Compare Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 439 (low-ranking officer) with Potter, Prophecy and History, 24 (high-ranking officer); Drinkwater, John. “Maximinus to Diocletian and the ‘Crisis’.” In Bowman, Garnsey and Cameron, Crisis of Empire, 28, 29; (high-ranking equestrian). 771 772

244

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Gordian II, father and son, as emperors to rival Maximinus.778 These facts may be reflected in a parable in which an emperor chastises the people of a province for criticizing the procurator and not the emperor himself.779 The Gordians died during another African rebellion, and the Senate named two of their own, while the people of Rome surprisingly insisted that the young Gordian III be associated with them. When Maximinus’ troops turned on him and the Praetorian Guard turned on the senatorial emperors, young Gordian emerged as sole emperor in 238 C. E. He died during his eastern campaign780 and was replaced by Philip (reigned 244 C. E. to 249 C. E.)781 See Herodian VII.4.2–VIII.4.5. Sifre Num. 103 (Horowitz ed., 102), from the A2/Divided empire period. 780 The mostly Latin ancient sources are united that he won, while most modern authors conclude that he lost, on the theory that Philip would not have replaced him and made an unfavorable peace treaty with the Persians otherwise. See Ammianus Marcellinus XXIII.5.7; Historia Augusta Three Gordians XXVI.5–6; Eutropius 9.2; Aurelius Victor 27; Orosius 7.19 Zosimus 18 (a Greek source). The most emphatic of the modern scholars on this point is David Potter. See Prophecy and History, 37, 203, 208 (Ammianus dismissed as evidence of how entrenched “western sources” were); Empire at Bay, 236 (“the Roman tradition never seems to have admitted to the defeat.”) The king-parables provide no help on this issue, but even if they, like the other ancient sources, had claimed victory for Gordian, it is unlikely that contemporary historians would change their minds. See, e.g., Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 70, 76, 91. For the circumstances of Gordian’s death, see Potter, Prophecy and History, 210; Bowersock, G. W. Roman Arabia, 123. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1983: York, John M., Jr. “The Image of Philip the Arab.” Historia 21 (1972): 320, 324. 781 Philip presided over lavish games at Rome to celebrate the millennial anniversary of the founding of the city. This may be reflected in a parable in Gen. Rab. 10:4 from his period in which the emperor punishes the people of a province by reducing the extent of their games; although undoubtedly important in popular culture, games are infrequently mentioned in the king-parables. See Pesiq. Rav Kah. 21:24 from R. Judah Nesiah (Majuma festival); Lev. Rab. 24:2, from the A3b/Transitional 778 779

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

245

Philip’s reign ended when he sent Decius, a general of senatorial rank,782 to Decius’ home region to quell one rebellion too many.783 Decius was acclaimed emperor by his troops in 249 C. E., marched on Italy, and defeated Philip.784 But Decius’ reign had lasted only two years when he was soundly defeated in battle by the Goths; his body was never recovered.785 The harried king at war of several parables786 may reflect the Rabbis’ understanding of Decius. The parables are helpful in resolving two important scholarly disputes concerning Decius’ reign. Both ancient sources and modern scholars disagree among themselves as to the circumstances of his defeat by the Goths. Some understand him to have died a heroic death, perhaps involving the treachery of his successor Gallus (reigned 251 C.E. to 253 C.E.);787 others strongly suggest either that he was outfought by the Goths or that he period (using Greek loan word derived from games to mean “amnesty”); Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 37. The parables provide no guidance on the difficult open issue of Philip’s ethnicity. He was and is known as “Philip the Arab,” but he is best explained (by Millar, Roman Near East, 530–1) as a Greek and Latin speaking member of a family that had been Roman citizens for three centuries, although most others, led by G. W. Bowersock (Roman Arabia, 123) insist on identifying him with modern Arabs. See also Potter, Empire at Bay, 238 (“non-Roman, non-Greek background”). 782 See Alfoeldy, A. “The Crisis of the Empire (A.D. 249–270).” In Cook, Adcock, Charlesworth and Baynes, Imperial Crisis and Recovery. 783 That of one Pacantius, Decius already having put down rebellions by Marinus in the same region and by Jotapianus in the east. See Potter, Prophecy and History, 14, 39, 254. Jordanes XVI.28, a work focused on the Goths, claims that Philip sent Decius out against them rather than against Pacantius. 784 See Zosimus 20–23; Aurelius Victor 28. 785 Potter, Prophecy and History, 44–5. 786 E.g. Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32–3), from this period. 787 Zosimus I.23; Aurelius Victor 29; see Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 167.

246

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

stumbled into the swamp at Abrittus as a result of a misguided attempt to revenge his dead son.788 A parable from the next period supports the latter view; in it an emperor successfully rescues his son from barbarians but seeks even greater vengeance against them,789 perhaps a garbled version of Decius on his way to the swamp. Scholars also disagree on whether Decius’ famous decree in which he ordered the residents of the empire to sacrifice to the ancestral gods of Rome was aimed specifically at Christians or was a general policy.790 The leading current view—based on longavailable papyrological evidence that non-Christians obtained the necessary certificates of having sacrificed—seems to be that the decree may well have been both specific and general: Decius was after the Christians, but the easiest way to accomplish his goal was to make the requirement universal.791 Some support for the view that Decius was merely seeking the favor of the gods and not persecuting anyone is provided in a parable from the next period, claiming that “kings” offer sacrifice Jordanes XVI.102–103; Lactantius 4; Ammianus Marcellinus XXI.13; Potter, Empire at Bay, 246. 789 Exod. Rab. 20:14. 790 John Drinkwater has recently referred to Decius’ “persecution of Christianity,” while at the same time acknowledging that his principal concern was the maintenance of religious unity. “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 19, 61. On the other hand, Potter, Prophecy and History, 42, argued for a straightforward universal decree, which some Christians saw as an opportunity for martyrdom. Potter has since suggested that the decree unintentionally forced Christians to decide if they could sacrifice under these circumstances. Potter, Empire at Bay, 243. This debate goes back decades. Compare Lietzmann, H. “The Latin Church in the West.” In Cook, Adcock, Charlesworth and Baynes, Imperial Crisis and Recovery, 521, with Baynes, N. H. “The Great Persecution,” in the same volume, 656. 791 See Rives, J. R. “The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies (1999): 89, 135. But see Horrell, David G. “The Label Χριστιανος: 1 Peter 4:16 and the Formation of Christian Identity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 361, 374. 788

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

247

before anyone else does,792 perhaps indicating that the Rabbis thought of the emperor as actively interested in his ancestral religious practices. A related question is whether Jews were subject to the decree.793 Except to the limited extent that the parable of kings who sacrifice first suggests that Decius’ decree was universally applicable, including to Jews, and the argument from silence to the contrary—had they been subject to it there would be evidence in the parables of their reaction—the king-parables offer no help on Sifre Num. 47 (Horowitz ed., 52). Rives, “The Decree of Decius,” 138 n. 16, thinks that they were exempt on the basis of a passage from the Palestinian Talmud that he reads as suggesting an exemption for the Jews of Caesarea from Diocletian’s persecution of Christians, decades later, and the Martyrdom of Pionius 3.6, which shows Jews participating along with pagans in criticism of Christian refusal to sacrifice pursuant to Decius’ decree. But it is more likely that any Jews who would have dared to join complying pagans in public criticism of Christian noncompliance would have themselves complied (or perhaps otherwise obtained the necessary certification). The Martyrdom of Pionius therefore suggests that the Jews were not exempt and that they indeed may have sacrificed. More recent scholarship has questioned the reliability of the Martyrdom of Pionius and shown that it, unlike the Martyrdom of Polycarp, “does not even depict the Jews as advancing the persecution of Christians,” Gibson, E. Leigh. “Jewish Antagonism or Christian Polemic: The Case of the Martyrdom of Pionius.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 340, 357. Earlier scholars had argued that the notion of the Jews as a religio licita, mentioned in Tertullian, Apologeticum 21.1, resulted in an exemption from the Decian requirement. See Goodman, State and Society, 139 and nn. 77 and 78; Avi-Yonah, Michael. The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest, 148 and n. 46. Oxford: Blackwell, 1976; Juster, Les Juifs, 246 and n. 5. As they note, the idea of Judaism as a religio licita goes back centuries, and they, and perhaps Tertullian himself, may be uncritically echoing a substantially earlier situation the application of which may have been already limited, although some version of the concept may still have been in existence, or have been revived, in the fourth-century Christian empire, and reversed in the fifth. See Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine, 249. 792 793

248

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

this issue. In an article in which he cited the nimshal of a kingparable794 in which the nations taunt Israel for her devotion to God, Yitzhak Baer concluded that Jews were in fact subject to the decree just as much as other non-Christians. But his conclusion was based squarely on his common-sense view that “at a time when the state was collapsing, there was need for an expression of loyalty on the part of Jews just as there was on the part of the other inhabitants.”795 His citation of the king-parable was only in support of the idea that Jews were “still at the head of the battle against the pagan empire” in spite of the similar position of the Church, and not in support of his conclusion that Jews were subject to the decree. One of the more notable characteristics of the A1/Midcentury period was an increase in emphasis by emperors on physical dynasticism,796 a phenomenon confirmed by a parable Pesiq. Rav Kah. 19:4, from the A2/Divided empire period. Baer, Y. F. “Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire from the time of Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of A. D. 313” (tr. S. Applebaum). Scripta Hierosolymitana 12, 79, 102, 119 (1961). 796 Gordian II seems to have been chosen only because his father was chosen along with him, and his father may have been chosen in part because he already had a middle-aged son. See Historia Augusta, Two Maximini XV.8. Gordian III was apparently made Caesar under the senatorial emperors only because he was a Gordian. Philip became emperor, rather than his powerful prefect-brother Priscus, perhaps because Philip had a son (whom he made Caesar as a boy, see Ensslin, “Senate and the Army,” 87, and Priscus didn’t. See Potter, Empire at Bay, 236. Decius made his adult son Caesar according to Aurelius Victor 29, Eutropius 9.1 (who adds that the son was made co-ruler) and Orosius 7.21. Gallus may have immediately made his son Caesar, perhaps in association with Decius’ own son. Compare the various accounts in Zosimus 25, Aurelius Victor 30, Eutropius 10.5 and Orosius 7.21. The Severans were also concerned with physical dynasticism, real, imagined and feigned, and Macrinus renamed his son “Antoninus” (perhaps to avoid completely dishonoring Caracalla and to reinforce his claim that he had not killed him, see Cassius Dio LXXIX 19.1–2, Historia Augusta, Macrinus III.8), while Maximinus’ son seems to have been associated with 794 795

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

249

of the period in which a brigand seeks to harm the emperor simply by harming his son,797 and by parables from the next period in which enemies capture the emperor’s son.798 But the most striking thing about the A1/Midcentury period, as it blends into the A2/Divided empire period, is the instability of the emperors’ reigns. Although a third-century Roman emperor was never, of course, free from the possibilities of assassination, usurpation, rebellion and invasion, the A1 period saw an increase in the volume of such activity.799 These conditions are reflected in A1/Midcentury800 and A2/Divided empire801 parables; the Rabbis’ awareness of such things becomes even clearer in parables from subsequent periods that will be mentioned below.

his father’s reign, perhaps as “Caesar” (see Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander LXIII.2, Aurelius Victor 25). Of course, the parables offered from the A1/Midcentury and later periods on this subject may reflect earlier reigns also or instead. 797 Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 7 (Lauterbach ed., 2:57–58). This parable’s reference to “brigandage” so close to the emperor may also refer to the growing number of usurpations during the period. 798 Exod. Rab. 20:14. Additional parables on this theme from the A3/Reunited empire and Transitional periods are cited below. 799 Among late A1 figures, it is difficult to distinguish between Decius’ “legitimate” successors—Gallus (who was acclaimed by the troops who survived Abrittus) and Aemilianus (who was acclaimed in 253 C. E. by his own troops after defeating another group of Goths and then marched on Gallus)—and such “usurpers” as Marinus, Jotapianus and Pacantius (who were put down by Decius on Philip’s behalf) and Mariades, Valens and a second Priscus (who emerged during Decius’ own reign). See Potter, Prophecy and History, 46–7, 800 Mek. de R. Ishmael Shirata 4 (Lauterbach ed., 2:32–33) (troubles of the emperor at war), 7 (2;57–58) (“brigands” at palace gate), 10 (2:79–80) (“brigands” invade palace). 801 Midr. Pss 6:3 (troops rebel); Tanh. Ki Tisa 9 (Buber ed.) 58b (same); Exod. Rab. 23:7 (legions in trouble); Exod. Rab. 20:14 (barbarians).

250

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

THE A2/DIVIDED EMPIRE PERIOD: VALERIAN, GALLIENUS, A SEPARATE EMPIRE IN THE WEST, ODENATHUS OF PALMYRA, AND CLAUDIUS II. The pace of assassinations, usurpations, rebellions and invasions for which the A1 period was notable accelerated in the A2 period, as did the misfortunes of the emperors. Valerian, like Decius before him a veteran general acclaimed by his own troops, also came to an awful end. More awful by Roman standards: Rome’s ancient eastern rival took Valerian alive. A parable reinforces the plausibility of ancient sources, and the judgment of an increasing number of contemporary scholars, concerning the circumstances of Valerian’s capture by the Persians, as against a prominent, although perhaps fading, modern scholarly view. Zosimus, supported somewhat by the Historia Augusta, suggests that he visited the Persian king to sue for peace with an insufficient bodyguard;802 some moderns have argued that Valerian was defeated and captured in battle, with the treachery of the Persians having been concocted as a cover story to help hide his humiliation,803 although they are changing their minds.804 A parable from this period indicates this shift is appropriate and that the ancient writers are right:

Zosimus 36; Historia Augusta, Two Valerians I.2. See also a fragment from Petrus Patricius in Potter, Empire at Bay, 294. 803 Potter, Prophecy and History, 50, 332. See Watson, Alaric. Aurelian and the Third Century, 28. London/New York: Routledge, 1999. Cf. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 444. 804 Potter, Empire at Bay, 255–66, after noting that the Persian king had claimed to have captured Valerian in battle, states that Valerian was taken prisoner in the course of negotiations; he has clearly changed his mind since Prophecy and History. Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 42, also writes that Valerian and his staff were taken prisoner during face-to-face negotiations with Shapur. 802

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

251

In the way of flesh and blood, when he goes out to war, he goes with many men, but when he goes to peace he doesn’t go out like that, rather he goes with few men.805

Around the same time, “Uranius Antoninus,”806 a Sampsigerad dynast from Emesa, proclaimed himself emperor, although probably only as a way of asserting his local importance, and successfully resisted the Persians in Syria.807 He is known largely from his coins,808 and perhaps he is the usurper R. Levi had in mind when he told a parable about a rebel who puts up a mint in the “king’s” own tent.809 The parables reflecting unrest from the next two periods seem to demonstrate, by their increasing number, the increasingly precarious empire.810 Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100). Compare Pesiq. Rav Kah. 21:24 from R. Judah Nesiah, in which the emperor who goes out with but a few is going to a festival, not to peace negotiations. 806 The Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle places him after the accession of Aemilianus. See Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 291. 807 See Potter, Empire at Bay, 250; Stoneman, Richard. Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia’s Revolt against Rome, 101–2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992; Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 74–5, 438–9. But see Bowersock, Roman Arabia, 128, who sees him as one more “Arab” asserting a genuine claim to empire who chose the name “Antoninus” as a link with the “Arab emperors from the family of Julia Domna.” See similarly Levick, Julia Domna, 156–7. 808 See Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 323–5. 809 Gen. Rab. 36:7. See note 877 and accompanying text, infra, for the coins of Valballathus in the next period (A3a/Reunited empire), those including the emperor Aurelian and those not including him. 810 See Gen. Rab. 38:6, from the A3a/Reunited empire period (replacing the emperor in his palace); Midr. Pss 6:3, from the A3b/Transitional period, as are the remaining parables cited in this note (rebellion); Tanh. Pekude 4 (attempted usurpation); Pesiq. Rav Kah. 24:11 (a province rebels); b. Sanh. 39b (same); Gen. Rab. 94:9 (emperor shown as falsifying his troop strength); Gen. Rab. 41(42):3 (barbarians); Lam. Rab. petihah 16 (emperor and troops suffering hardships); Sifre Deut. 3 (Finkelstein ed., 11) (same, if my translation, rather than Hammer’s, is correct, see Chapter 5, note 350 and accompanying text, supra)); Sifre Deut. 805

252

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Valerian had made his son Gallienus co-Augustus immediately upon his own accession and, shortly thereafter, his grandson Valerian II Caesar, probably so that an emperor could always be with the troops on each of the empire’s multiple troubled borders.811 The difficulties of long-distance command are confirmed by the parable of a king who is effective only when he is personally in the province that needs his help,812 while a parable in which the emperor turns his son’s enemy over to him may refer to Valerian and Gallienus’ joint rule, with father and son focused on different enemies of the empire. Valerian II died in combat with northern invaders along the Danube.813 His service there, and his end, is confirmed by a parable in which an emperor’s son becomes “king” over a “barbarian” country, but is then enslaved by the same barbarians.814 While Gallienus emerged as the sole “legitimate” emperor after his father’s capture and his son’s death, little else about the Empire was united. In the same year the Persians captured Valerian, Roman legions on the Rhine acclaimed Postumus (Gallienus’ representative there) emperor.815 Before long, and for about fifteen years, he and his successors reigned over a functionally separate “Roman empire” that included most of Gaul, 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354) (surrounded by brigands); Song Rab. 6:11 (1) (same); y. Ta’an. 2:1 (61b) (emperor has difficulty controlling legions); Gen. Rab. 50:12 (emperor wary of power of local patrons); Deut. Rab. 1:13 (emperor strapped for cash). 811 Valerian stayed in the east, with his son in Gaul and Italy and his grandson along the Danube. See Potter, Prophecy and History, 49–50; Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 436. According to Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 43, it was Gallienus, not Valerian, who elevated Valerian II. 812 Song Rab. 8.5 (10), from the A3b/Transitional period (late enough, however, to be referring to Diocletian and his colleagues in a formally organized Tetrarchy). 813 Potter, Prophecy and History, 50–1. 814 See also Exod. Rab. 18:6, from the A3b/Transitional period. 815 See Walser, Gerold. “The Crisis of the Third Century A. D.: A ReInterpretation.” Bucknell Review 13, No. 2, 1, 6 (1965).

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

253

Britain, and parts of Germany and Spain.816 Gallienus could do little about this rival empire, although some ancient sources claim that his loose living enabled Postumus’ success in spite of Gallienus’ occasional sorties against him.817 Modern historians, however, treat the situation as one beyond Gallienus’ control.818 The Rabbis may well have been thinking of Gallienus’ acquiescence in Postumus’ empire in this otherwise oblique parable: R. Levi said a parable. Like a king who established a province and lit two lights in it. The king said, “Anyone who similarly lights two lights I call him ‘Augustus”’ and I will not be jealous of him.”819

If so, the Rabbis may provide a more nuanced view of Gallienus’ relationship with Postumus than do the other ancient sources or the modern writers. Reading the opaque reference to lighting two lights as a reference to effective governance, the parable says that if someone lights two lights (governs effectively) somewhere beyond the province in which I have lit two lights (my area of control) statesmanship and prudence dictate that I let him do so and focus on governing the area I can effectively govern, especially after several unsuccessful attempts to defeat him in the field.820 816

Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 457–9; Watson, Aurelian, 34–

37. Historia Augusta, Thirty Tyrants III.4–5; Aurelius Victor 9.8–9; Eutropius 33; see Potter, Empire at Bay, 263. 818 Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 444, Watson, Aurelian, 35; Potter, Empire at Bay, 263. A. Alfoeldy, one of Gallienus’ principal advocates in the court of historical opinion, regards the containment of Postumus’ power to the area of his empire as one of Gallienus’ several great accomplishments. Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 187. 819 Tanh. Bechukotai 6 (Buber ed.) 56b. 820 Alternatively, this parable might be read to refer to the power of Palmyra in the east, see notes 829–40 and accompanying text, infra, although Gallienus, who was meticulous regarding Odenathus’ titles, would not in fact have called him “Augustus.” If it does refer to Odenathus, the Rabbis would not have been the only easterners to give 817

254

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

The Rabbis may therefore to some extent support the modern view that Gallienus was very good at his job, or at least they may negate the idea in many of the ancient sources that he was, perhaps increasingly as his reign went on, a failure.821 A passing remark by Aurelius Victor that the emperor had prohibited senators from entering the army has led to the modern idea that Gallienus both broke with the Senate and reorganized the army, and that idea has in turn been a principal basis of the view of Gallienus’ greatness.822 But the parables do not support that

him a Roman imperial title; a Manichean Aramaic text calls Zenobia the “wife of Caesar.” The text, as translated by S. N. Lieu, is set out in Potter, Empire at Bay, 310. See Hartmann, Das Palmyrene Teilreich, 309; Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 54. 821 See Aurelius Victor 33; Eusebius 9.8; Historia Augusta, Two Gallieni XIII.9, Thirty Tyrants IX.3; Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 262, 269; Alfoeldy, “The Crisis of the Third Century,” 110; Alfoeldy, A. “The Invasion of Peoples from the Rhine to the Black Sea.” In Cook, Adcock, Charlesworth and Baynes, Imperial Crisis and Recovery, 138–51; den Boer, W. Some Minor Roman Historians, 75, 79. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 480. 822 Aurelius Victor 33. Aurelius Victor was strongly anti-Gallienus and pro-senatorial. See Lo Cascio, Elio. “The Government and Administration of the Empire in the Central Decades of the Third Century.” In Bowman, Garnsey and Cameron, Crisis of Empire, 156, 159– 160 (edict not so much at expense of senators as promotion of professional soldiers); Birley, Anthony. “The Third Century Crisis in the Roman Empire.” Bulletin of The John Rylands University Library of Manchester 58 (1975): 253, 276 (edict not an innovation); Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 56–57 (no such edict); Campbell, Bryan. “The Army.” In Bowman, Garnsey and Cameron, Crisis of Empire, 110, 117–8 (issuance of edict doubtful, although Gallienus decided not to consider senators for legionary commands; this became accepted practice); Walser, “The Crisis of the Third Century,” 6; den Boer, Minor Roman Historians, 85; Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 46. David Potter later emphasized that while proconsular governorships continued to exist, the period indeed saw an end to senatorial legateships. Empire at Bay, 258. The absence of bronze coins bearing “SC” from the beginning of Gallienus’

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

255

version of Gallienus’ achievements; parables from the next period continue to show the emperor with confidential and important relationships with people who are apparently senators.823 And the idea that Victor’s reference to Gallienus moving “hurriedly” from Gaul to Pannonia824 means that his supposed reorganization of the army increased its mobility825 is contradicted by a parable from the next period showing the emperor putting occupying troops in place to guard against others that is at least as strong as Victor in its contrary suggestion of a relatively immobile force.826 But another parable, from the next period, strongly supports Victor’s direct assertion that Gallienus dealt with the success of Postumus and his successors in the west by falsely claiming that he had pacified all the empire’s borders and shoring up that claim by holding frequent games and triumphs.827 In this parable, the “king” devotes many sword bearers and spearmen to the parade ground and thereby causes the people to think he would go to war with many more,828 indicating that the Rabbis agreed with Victor that Gallienus had been unable to protect the borders and devoted the troops he had to games. The situation in the east was much more complicated. Similarly to the rebellions in the west and on the Danube,829 two of

reign may indicate some sort of break with the Senate. See Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 183–4. 823 Gen. Rab. 8:3; Deut. Rab. 3:3. Of course, these parables may only reflect the Rabbis’ memory of earlier times or a later revival of senatorial power. 824 Aurelius Victor 33. 825 Birley, “The Third Century Crisis,” 280; Potter, Empire at Bay, 257; Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 43; Lo Cascio, “Central Decades,” 160. 826 See Song Rab. 6:11 (1). 827 Aurelius Victor 33. 828 Pes. Rab. 21:9. 829 Gallienus prevented the loss of all or part of the area previously assigned to his son, Valerian II, when he left Gaul (hurriedly or not) and put down the successive rebellions of Regalianus and Ingenuus in

256

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Valerian’s officers rebelled and came to control an area including Egypt and part of Europe.830 Gallienus asked831 the forces of the Syrian oasis city of Palmyra to stop them in the east, while his own forces engaged them in Europe.832 This was the first step in the east, like the west, becoming separated from Gallienus’ clear control. Gallienus made Odenathus, the ruler of Palmyra,833 corrector totius Orientis, the title Priscus had had under his brother Philip,834 Pannonia. See Aurelius Victor 33: Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 52; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 444. 830 See Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 52–3; Millar, Fergus. “Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria.” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971): 1, 8; Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 172–3; Stoneman, Palmyra and its Empire, 161; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 253. 831 The question of the relationship between Gallienus and Palmyra thus emerges at its beginning, since the right verb here is a matter of debate; “ordered” (Zosimus I.39), “directed” (Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 173) and “invited” (Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 53) are alternatives. Whether Gallienus initiated the relationship is also a matter of debate. See Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 429; Haynes, “Preface”. See also Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 42, suggesting that it was Valerian who first relied on Palmyrene cooperation. 832 See Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 52–3. 833 It is beyond the scope of this study to offer explanations of how Palmyra achieved the wealth and importance necessary for the successes of Odenathus and later of his widow Zenobia or of how the family came to be the rulers of Palmyra; the king-parables are silent on the issue. Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, especially at 76–99, is a comprehensive account of the rise of the family and of Odenathus individually. See also Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 341–2, 381–94. 834 Some scholars have based their analyses of the relationship of Gallienus and Odenathus on a close reading of this and his other various titles. See especially Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 90–2, foreshadowed by Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 175. This approach seems inapplicable to any of his Palmyrene titles (exarch, ‫ רש‬and ‫)מרנ‬ and any title Odenathus took for himself, perhaps including vir consularis and Shapur’s title, “King of Kings.” See Hartmann, Das palmyrenische

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

257

and Odenathus ruled the eastern part of the empire, including Palestine.835 Questions about Odenathus’ relationship to Gallienus, and the concomitant relationship of Palmyra to the central government, are among the most prominent third-century issues. The rabbinic king-parables may provide better information here than they do about other matters, since the Rabbis, like their contemporary of the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle,836 specifically knew of Palmyra, Odenathus and Zenobia.837 While Odenathus and Palmyra were undoubtedly sui generis,838 most scholars emphasize his position as a representative or delegate of the emperor, similar to Priscus under Philip, ruling the “Roman orient.”839 But others tend to see Palmyra more as a Teilreich, 106; Millar, Roman Near East, 157, 165; Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 174–5; Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire, 78. I suspect titles were not all that meaningful when so much power, supported and demonstrated by armed force, was at stake. 834 Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 439. 835 See id. at 330–2. 836 “A lion, terrible and frightful ... unblemished and great, will rule over the Romans, and the Persians will be powerless.” Sib. Or. XIII, lines 165–171. This part of the Oracle, covering the period from Valerian to Odenathus, is likely to have been written by someone other than the Oracle’s principal author, see note 704 and accompanying text, supra, who wanted to bring the Oracle quickly up to his own time. Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 151. 837 See, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 76:6 and b. Ketubot 51b, calling Odenathus by the Aramaic name “Ben Netzer,” y. Terumot 8:10 (46b), referring to Zenobia, and b. Yevamot 16a–b and y. Ta’anit 4:6 (69b), referring to Palmyra. “Natzor” has been independently identified by Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 88, as Odenathus’ great-grandfather. 838 See Millar, Roman Near East, 157; Browning, Palmyra, 150–1; Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire, 78. Zosimus treated Odenathus both as an enemy of Rome and as the restorer of its unity. See Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 25–6. 839 Id. at 7, 9, 10; see Historia Augusta, Two Gallieni III.4, X.4; Bowersock, Roman Arabia, 130; Potter, Empire at Bay, 260–1; Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 174. For Priscus under Philip, see Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 36.

258

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

functionally independent state, similar to the “Roman empire” centered on Cologne and Trier, and to view Odenathus more as the independent ruler of a Palmyrene empire.840 It is impossible to provide a king-parable that clearly supports the view of an independent Odenathus, since, had the Rabbis so understood him, the parable would merely show him in the role of the “king,” at war841 or concerned about dynastic issues842 or engaging in other “imperial” activities.843 In support of the view of Odenathus as Gallienus’ subordinate, some parables show the “king” as the senior person in relationship with others.844 In these parables the king is dominant over generals and other officials,845 or is shown in relationship with his “friend.”846 But the ambiguity of the relationship between Gallienus and Odenathus may be See Campbell, “The Army,” 114; Watson, Aurelian, 32. Cf. Millar, Roman Near East, 145. See also Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 45. 841 E.g., Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100) and Exod. Rab. 23:7, from his period. 842 Midr. Pss 6:3, from the next period. 843 E.g., Pesiq. Rav Kah. 4:2, from his period (entering a province); Song Rab. 8.5(10) (putting up his images); Esth Rab. 1:20 (holding court), both from the next period. 844 Since the Rabbis would have known the difference between Odenathus and a “prefect” or a “procurator,” titles used elsewhere in the kingparables, I have not considered parables involving those officials as possibly involving Odenathus. 845 See Lam. Rab. 3:24 (99), from the A3b/Transitional period (emperor dominant over generals along with prefects and other officials); Exod. Rab. 21:9, from the same period (officer’s power derives solely from the emperor); Midr. Pss 17:3, from the same period (only the emperor, not his archon, has power over taxes). 846 Although this is a term that usually follows Roman usage and evidences a patronage relationship, see Chapter 2, note 127 and accompanying text, supra, these parables might reflect the unique relationship between the emperor and the corrector-king. See Sifra Tzav, Mek. de Miluim 30 (Weiss ed., 42d), from the A2/Divided empire period (makes a holiday for his new friend); Lev. Rab. 5:6, from the A3b/Transitional period (gives his friend a gift). 840

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

259

reflected in a parable in which expected roles might be reversed— Odenathus is the “king” and Gallienus the “friend” for whose sake a province is protected. Like a friend of the king who enters a province, and for his sake the king protected the province. When barbarians came to attack him, they said, “Woe on us, now the king will not protect the province as before.”847

Still other parables suggest a figure even more like Odenathus as he is usually understood by modern historians: a great warrior and statesman, without whom the emperor would be powerless and on whom the emperor relies, but who nonetheless is loyal to the emperor. For example, this may be a version of Odenathus’ role against the rebels and against the Persians: Like a king of flesh and blood who fought many wars. He had a hero, who was victorious in them. He had yet another war. The king said to the hero, “Please stand up for me in this war that no one will say you were not in the others.”848

Another parable from the same period shows the hero reassuring the “king,” although surrounded by brigands, that he would sleep in his own bed;849 the reference to sleeping in his own bed might provide some rabbinic support for the picture of a luxuriating Gallienus shown in several of the ancient sources. The figure on whom the emperor depends is not always a “hero.” Sometimes, perhaps more accurately, he is an official. Like a province that rebelled against the king and the king sent a ‫ פורימלכוס‬to destroy it. The ‫ פורימלכוס‬was expert and calm. He said to the rebels, “Give yourself time so that the king will not do to you what he did to another province and its communities.”850

Gen. Rab. 41(42):3, from the A3b/Transitional period. b. Sanh. 89b, from the A3b/Transitional period. 849 Sifre Deut. 313 (Finkelstein ed., 354). 850 Pesiq. Rav Kah. 24:11. 847 848

260

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

“‫פורימלכוס‬,” a corrupt version of a Hebrew loan word from the Greek polemarchos,851 is usually translated, as in earlier chapters, as “general” or “commander.” That may be all the Rabbis meant to convey by it, but if they were aware of some of the word’s Greek meanings they may have deliberately chosen it to refer to Odenathus. Although the Greek literally means commander-inchief (from polemon—war—and arche—leader), and although in classical Athens it designated the archon who judged certain criminal cases, at other times and places in the Greek-speaking ancient world it referred, in spite of its literal military meaning, to an official having various civil functions.852 The Rabbis were probably aware that Odenathus began this part of his career in a military role but achieved high civil office, and using a word with a military background but a civil meaning seems particularly apt.853 If this indeed is a reflection of Odenathus, it is especially valuable. It treats the difficulties in the region as not merely the combination of a troop uprising with a foreign invasion, but as involving the loyalties of the region’s people, and it shows Odenathus using political skill, not armed force. Moreover, its conclusion indicates that Gallienus was still regarded as an opponent to be feared in his own right, as his victory over the rebels in Europe indicates. My transliteration of words from Greek characters is based on The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999, 5.3. 852 See Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, abridged, 653. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889, and the definition of the English word “polemarch” in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, third edition, 1536. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. The reversal of the rho and the lambda of the Greek word into the lamed and the resh of the corrupt Hebrew loan word is the result of the frequent interchange between these liquid consonants, see Chapter 1, note 29, and is unrelated to the ‫ מלכ‬root. The normal spelling of the Hebrew word follows the Greek, although the word is corrupted in various ways. See Jastrow, Dictionary, 1141 853 Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 151 emphasizes that the title of corrector totius orientis involved civil authority. 851

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

261

In another parable, R. Levi may have been using money as a metaphor for power or for military power in particular, and thus to have indicated that Odenathus, now solely in the role of a general, was indeed using his own power for Gallienus’ sake: To what is the thing to be compared? To a king who told the commander of the army to go and distribute a litra of gold to each soldier. He went and gave five gold pieces to some of them and ten to others. They said to him, “The king said to give to us a litra of gold each and you give us five gold pieces.” He said to them, “This is of mine; when the king comes he will give you his.”854

But the Rabbis may have been aware of ambiguities not shown in a picture of Odenathus as Gallienus’ loyal corrector or dedicated commander or “friend.” R. Samuel bar Nachman used this formless parable to interpret passages in Nehemiah in which God provides manna to rebellious Israelites: “In all your days have you seen rebels against a king to whom he continues to give sustenance?”855 It is likely that this formless parable is, in function, antithetical: God, who supports rebels, is contrasted to a human king, who of course (“in all your days have you [or anyone else] seen”) does not. But partly because of the absence of a formal structure to the parable this is not clear, and Samuel may have been comparing God to a specific, highly unusual, emperor, who “sustained” a specific, highly unusual, rebel (“in all your days have you ever [before] seen”), that is, to Gallienus in relation to Odenathus. If so, the Rabbis saw Odenathus as a rebel against Gallienus, but a rebel the emperor needed to support in spite of his rebellion. This is a more plausible understanding of the facts than the idea that Odenathus was either the emperor’s man in the east or an independent Oriental dynast. Because Odenathus and his older son were murdered, this parable also lends support to the view of those scholars who believe Gallienus played a role in their deaths; Gallienus would have seen Odenathus not only as a rebel but also Deut. Rab. 1:13. See also Num. Rab. 1:2, from the A3b/Transitional period. 855 Midr. Pss 3:30, from the A3b/Transitional period. 854

262

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

as a rival.856 If this reading is correct, it undermines the prevailing idea that Zenobia’s later claim of independence from Aurelian was a change of Odenathus’ policies.857 Another open question on which the king-parables may provide help is the existence of the victory on the basis of which Gallienus’ successor Claudius II (reigned to 270 C. E.)858 is still celebrated as “Gothicus”—victor over the Goths.859 The main source for this victory, the Historia Augusta, although thought to contain some authentic details of Claudius’ reign amidst much fiction,860 tells of a fantastic triumph over 320,000 armed Goths, equipped with 2000 ships, and their slaves and families, whom the magnanimous emperor declined to pursue further after they were stricken by plague.861 This account is confirmed to some extent by a brief statement in Eutropius that Claudius defeated the Goths in a great battle.862 Other ancient sources suggest that this version is incomplete at best. Zosimus reports a successful battle with the Goths, but one followed immediately by the Goths routing the Roman infantry but eventually succumbing to plague.863 Victor says only that Claudius wanted to drive the Goths out, not that he did.864 Ammianus has it

See Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 226; Graf, “Zenobia and the Arabs,” 145; Watson, Aurelian, 59. 857 See text following note 877, infra. 858 See Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 15, 55; Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 225; den Boer, Minor Roman Historians, 82. 859 See Drinkwater, “Maximinus to Diocletian,” 49; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 446; Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 18, 57–8; Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 297. But cf. Alfoeldy, “Crisis of the Empire,” 225. 860 Barnes, Sources of the Historia Augusta, 30. 861 Historia Augusta, Claudius VI.1–VII.6, IX.3–4 862 Eutropius 11. 863 Zosimus 1.43–.46. See Potter, Empire at Bay, 266 (“Latin tradition” remembers Claudius’ victory; Zosimus may reflect a “more reasoned contemporary view”). 864 Aurelius Victor 34. 856

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

263

that “foreign foes” roamed at will but that after Claudius was snatched by a “noble death,” Aurelian drove them out.865 The handful of third-century king-parables from this and later periods concerning an emperor personally engaged in war support the idea of mixed results. Only two show him victorious. Of these, one, involving barbarians, features the emperor’s son, and since Claudius probably had no son866 it is less likely to be an accurate remembrance of a historical “Gothicus.”867 The other, which will be discussed at length below, fits Aurelian much better than it fits Claudius.868 In three parables the emperor is shown as losing or in trouble,869 and in two others, including one about barbarians, outcomes are mixed or inconclusive,870 suggesting that the Rabbis would have agreed with Zosimus, or even Ammianus, more than with the Historia Augusta or Eutropius. After Claudius’ death, probably from the same plague that made him “Gothicus,” his brother Quintillus briefly succeeded Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI.5.7. “Gothicus” is attested by an inscription and by posthumous coins (see David Magie, III Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 173 n. 2) but Claudius would not have been the first or the last emperor to claim victory titulature (or have it claimed for him) based on a limited or questionable victory. Other coins call him “Parthicus”—victor over the “Parthians”—apparently reflecting a victory by Palmyra over Persia. Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 256, 266. 866 He was succeeded by his brother, indicating that he did not have a son since he was old enough when he died to have had a mature son. See Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 55. Further, while the representatives and panegyrists of the fourth-century emperor Constantine claimed Constantine’s father as Claudius’ son, Historia Augusta, Claudius XIII.3–4 shows him as Claudius’ nephew and other ancient sources show him as Claudius’ daughter’s son. See Magie, II Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 178 n. 1; Potter, Empire at Bay, 264. 867 Exod. Rab. 20:14, from the A2/Divided empire period. 868 See notes 886–8 and accompanying text, infra. 869 Exod. Rab. 23:7, from the A2/Divided empire period; Sifre Deut. 3 and 313 (Finkelstein ed., 11 and 354), from the A3b/Transitional period. 870 Sifre Num. 102 (Horowitz ed., 100), from the A2/Divided empire period; Exod. Rab. 18:6, from the A3b/Transitional period (barbarians). 865

264

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

him, a fact perhaps confirmed by their contemporary R. Abbahu’s antithetical parable in which God says that he, unlike a human king, “has no brother.”871

THE A3/REUNITED EMPIRE AND TRANSITIONAL PERIODS: AURELIAN, ZENOBIA OF PALMYRA AND OTHERS Aurelian (reigned 270 C. E. to 275 C. E.) defeated Quintillus after a very short war, while Odenathus’ widow Zenobia succeeded him as ruler of the east acting as regent for their son Valballathus.872 While Claudius II was still alive she had expanded Palmyrene power into Egypt, and by the first year of Aurelian’s reign she ruled the entire region as far west as the border of Galatia.873 Prevailing scholarly opinion holds, however, that she did not diverge from her husband’s policy of subordination to the central government874 until her rebellion was evidenced by Palmyrene coins showing Valballathus as “Augustus.”875 Do the parables offer help on this issue? The only hint of a powerful queen in the later third-century king-parables is in the one about a king who refuses honors in a province he enters until “Matrona” is first honored.876 If this Matrona is understood as Zenobia, the Rabbis might have been suggesting that she was powerful while Odenathus still lived, and thus perhaps that she continued, and did not diverge from, the policies of his regime.

Exod. Rab. 29:5. In the next period (when Abbahu was probably still alive), Florianus briefly succeeded Tacitus, who may have been his half-brother. See Watson, Aurelian, 108. 872 See Potter, Prophecy and Empire, 58–9. 873 See Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 278. 874 See note 857 and accompanying text, supra. 875 Zenobia’s earlier coinage had shown Aurelian on the coin’s obverse as Augustus, with Valballathus on the reverse with lesser titles. See Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 250–66. 876 Pesiq. Rav. Kah. 9:10. 871

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

265

Once Aurelian had brought the west back under his control,877 he marched east, defeated the Palmyrenes, and led both Zenobia and Tetricus, the last of the “Gallic emperors,” in his triumph.878 Most scholars now believe that Aurelian’s move east came first, and was the cause of the Palmyrene “usurpation” evidenced by the coins showing Valballathus as Augustus,879 although David S. Potter maintains that Zenobia initiated the hostilities.880 A parable of the emperor who resolutely dispatched a rebel who minted coins in the emperor’s own tent881—perhaps a way of describing the Valballathus/Augustus coinage—supports his view and suggests Aurelian moved east to counter Zenobia’s imperial ambitions for her son and herself. Aurelian had a reputation in antiquity for cruelty,882 although some ancient authors show him acting mercifully,883 and this confused picture is supported by a contemporary parable of a “cruel” king who kills all the residents of a rebellious province, contrasted with a “merciful” king who kills only half.884 No matter who was to blame for the war, and whatever Aurelian’s personal qualities might have been, he had reunited the empire. In Roman terms, he had restored the world; he was the restitutor orbis. The Rabbis may have indicated their awareness of his accomplishments in two later king-parables that show a king more

Either by defeating Postumus’ final successor or by negotiating and accepting his surrender and then appointing him a provincial governor. See Historia Augusta, Aurelian XXXII 3–4; Aurelius Victor 35; Eutropius 13. 878 See Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 241. 879 See id. at 255; Watson, Aurelian, 69. 880 Empire at Bay 260. 881 Gen. Rab. 36:7. 882 Lactantius 6; Eutropius 13. 883 Zosimus 51 and 61 show him issuing a general amnesty to those Antiochenes who had sided with Zenobia, and forgiving the leader of a later Palmyrene revolt as being beneath his notice, while Aurelius Victor 35 says he issued an amnesty in Rome. 884 b. Sanh. 39a. 877

266

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

successful against rebels than the kings in most parables from this period.885 More dramatically, the Rabbis suggest their view of the magnitude of his achievement in the parable of the seated Augustus, which involves a “king” who “made a war and won, and they made him Augustus.”886 “They”—surely the legions—made someone who was already a “king” something more than an ordinary king. They made this king the kind of king called “Augustus,” that is, the emperor of Rome.887 What had this “king” been before that? What did the Rabbis mean by a “king” who was then “made” Augustus? He must have been something less than the typical “king” of the Imperial parables—the emperor or his representative—perhaps an emperor in name only. I suggest that the parable indicates a remarkably accurate and sophisticated understanding of the preAurelian situation: Claudius II was a “king,” as were Odenathus and Postumus at the same time. When Aurelian eventually succeeded Claudius, he too was still merely a “king,” as Valballathus and Tetricus were when they succeeded Odenathus and Postumus. One such “king” in the Divided empire—even the one recognized by the senate in faraway Rome888 -– was no different and no greater than another, Midr. Pss 17:3; Tanh. Pekude 4. Exod. Rab. 23:1. The following quotations in the text are also from this parable, which is set out in full in the original sequence of its parts in Chapter 5, at note 397, supra. 887 On the other hand, this parable may be another example of the “regularization” process; on this theory, the sentence would have originally read something like, “A general made a war and they made him Augustus.” See Chapter 2, note 184, supra. 888 The fact that Aurelian had the title of “Augustus” before he reunified the empire is irrelevant to my understanding of the parable. As noted in Chapter 5, earlier scholars have speculated that the Rabbis were thinking of the triumph of Vespasian and Titus, two hundred years earlier, when they formulated this parable, an idea I disagreed with there. See Thoma and Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Vierter Teil, 26–31, Chapter 5, note 397, supra. If they were thinking of a triumph, it is more 885 886

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

267

especially if the “king” who ruled Palestine was not the one with senatorial support. But when Aurelian “made a war and won”—the victories over Tetricus and Palmyra being conflated here, quite correctly, into one “war”—he emerged from this group of kings as the only king who mattered, the emperor of Rome, “Augustus” deserving the name. Aurelian was succeeded by Tacitus (reigned 275 C. E. to 276 C. E.),889 and Tacitus briefly by Florianus, and Florianus by Probus (reigned 276 C. E. to 282 C. E.), and Probus by Carus (282 C. E. to 283 C. E.), and Carus by his sons, and then, at long last, by Diocletian in 285 C. E., all under circumstances that have become drearily familiar, as the “third century” came to an end.890 likely Aurelian’s, which featured both Zenobia and Tetricus; was unlikely to have excluded Valballathus, and may have included representatives— “kings”?—of other nations. Valballathus is presumed to have survived the war and lived in Rome along with his mother. See Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 417. For the presence of other nations, see Historia Augusta, Aurelian XXXIII. This possibility is dismissed by Hartmann, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, 473, but diffidently advanced by Graf, “Zenobia and the Arabs,” 146–8. The absence of the figure of a queen in the parable is striking if the principal historical event in the Rabbis’ minds was Aurelian’s victories over Zenobia and Tetricus, especially if they were thinking of the triumph, but the Rabbis probably accepted Zenobia’s position that her son was the “king.” Perhaps their ingrained cultural understanding of male superiority contributed to this acceptance, just as something like it was the reason behind Zenobia’s own stance. See text following note 876, supra, for Zenobia as “Matrona,” perhaps as high as the Rabbis’ worldview would let them go in the third-century king-parables, although elsewhere other Rabbis called her “Queen Zenobia.” See y. Terumot 8:10 (46b). 889 The third-century king-parables offer limited help on the related open questions of whether Tacitus was a general or a senator, whether he was chosen by the army or the senate, and when he was chosen, except that late parables referring to emperors with close contacts with senators might be read to support a supposed senatorial revival. 890 Historia Augusta, Aurelian XXXVI. 5–6, Zosimus 62, and Eutropius 15 all have Aurelian being killed by people convinced by his confidential clerk that they were in danger from the emperor. Tacitus was

268

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

IN CONCLUSION This final chapter has used several third-century king-parables to attempt to access what the king-parables have to offer concerning the historical events and personalities of that century, none perhaps to better advantage than the wonderfully rich parable of the seated Augustus. Continued focus on this parable helps reprise much of my earlier analysis of how the Rabbis used the genre of kingparables in their work and places my use of king-parables for purposes of historical reconstruction in proper context; the Rabbis told this parable, as they told all their parables, for purposes and in ways far removed from recording history. Without for a moment retreating from their opposition to Roman occupation, these Roman citizens in a minor province appropriated elements of imperial politics, titulature and art, but for their own highest non-Roman purposes: the exegesis of the word of God and the articulation of their theology, “internal” to them and to the Jews they sought to teach and lead, concerning the role of humanity in the ordering of the world. One way they interpreted scripture in their king-parables was by illustrating, expanding, augmenting, supplementing or completing an earlier unsupported rabbinic statement—in this case:

also killed, perhaps by the same group that killed Aurelian, see Watson, Aurelian, 107–8, although he may have died of illness. See Historia Augusta, Tacitus XIII.5. Florianus was killed by his own men, who seem to have switched allegiance to Probus. See Historia Augusta, Tacitus XIV.4; Aurelius Victor 37. Probus was killed by his own troops, perhaps after putting them to work on a drainage ditch (see Aurelius Victor 37) or possibly in conflict with Carus, his praetorian prefect and successor. See Mattingly, “The Imperial Recovery,” 317–8. Carus is said, untypically, to have died of illness or by lightning, while his son Numerian was killed by Aper, his father-in-law and prefect, in a coup attempt. See Historia Augusta, Carus, Carinus, Numerian VIII.3–4, XII.1–2; Aurelius Victor 38. Carus’ other son, Carinus, was killed by his own troops after a battle with Diocletian. Historia Augusta, Carus, Carinus, Numerian XVIII.4; Aurelius Victor 39.

KING-PARABLES AS A SOURCE OF ROMAN HISTORY

269

This is written, “Your throne is established from of old.” (Psalms 93:2) R. Berechiah said in the name of R. Abbahu, Although “you are from everlasting,” your throne was not established and you were not known in your world until your sons sang a song. Therefore it says, “Your throne is established from of old.”

Assigning all the exegetical work at hand to the parable,891 they performed their exegetical task by weaving together verses from Writings, Torah and Prophets to create a new intertextual narrative, and by employing their familiar, often dazzling, technique of finding the meaning of the verse before them, in this instance the verse from Psalms via other verses, here those from Exodus and Habakkuk. The hortatory message of this parable would have benefited both themselves in their study houses and their followers in the synagogues. They told this parable, as they told most, by adhering to a form I have called “direct.” Its five parts are clearly shown: an introductory word of the simplest type (“a parable”); a marker of comparison (“like”); a secular narrative (of the seated Augustus); a marker of applicability (“so”); and a nimshal (which they set up here by reversing the sequence of Aurelian’s acclamation and his victory in the secular narrative so that the emperor’s acclamation could become the parallel in the secular narrative of Israel’s song enthroning God, showing the relative unimportance to them of historical facts):892 Israel said, “In truth you existed before you created your world, and continued to exist after you created your world, but, ‫כביכול‬, you did so standing, ‫שנאמר‬, “he stood and measured the earth,” (Habakkuk 3:6) but not until we stood by Somewhat differently than other parables used to illustrate, expand, augment, supplement or complete an earlier unsupported statement, this parable seems to come from the same voice as the earlier statement does, R, Abbahu via R. Berechiah. 892 Or their historical understanding may have been garbled, as is the case in other parables. 891

270

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES the sea and sang a song with “‫ ”אז‬before you was your kingdom settled, and your throne established. Behold -– “your throne is established ‫—”מאז‬with “‫[ אז‬Moses] sang.” (Exodus 15:1)

They had extended the secular narrative to assert that the difference in honor between being king and being Augustus is that the king stands while Augustus sits. I derived my conclusions about the Rabbis’ understanding of imperial history from this parable largely on the basis of the clear difference in the Rabbis’ minds—a “difference in honor”—between a mere “king” and “Augustus” but there is nothing useful to the Roman historian about the “fact” that kings stand while Augustus sits, beyond that the Rabbis may have seen a tablet depicting such a scene. The Rabbis included and emphasized this “fact” solely for their primary exegetical and pastoral purposes, to enable the part of the nimshal’s intertextual narrative that comes from Habakkuk and to generate the nimshal’s change of the ‫ בנין‬of “sit” to reflect the establishment of God’s rule, thereby making a sitting Augustus an even more meaningful stand-in for God than a standing Augustus would have been. Unlike most of the kings in their parables—who tend their gardens, visit their sons and fight with their wives, this seated Augustus, squarely based on the historical figure of the emperor of Rome, functions as a remarkably effective stand-in for the God of Israel, and for the God of Israel in the specific situation the Rabbis’ theology depicts here. The Rabbis presented the figure of God in a positive light in this parable, as in many others, but subject to limits. They claimed that although God is eternal, sovereign, and eternally sovereign, his sovereignty was not established without the active participation of the people of Israel. To the Rabbis, the creator and ruler of the world was not really God until Israel acclaimed him. What king could represent him better than the restitutor of the world—shown as not really emperor until his legions acclaimed him? Because Aurelian could be so used for the Rabbis’ own purposes, we are able to use this parable for our historical ones.

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES The parables of Jesus of Nazareth and those of the Rabbis are increasingly examined in light of each other, perhaps reflecting a greater awareness by New Testament scholars of the usefulness of studying Jesus in the context of more or less contemporary Judaism. At the same time, the tendency of New Testament scholars to glorify Jesus’ purportedly vivid and lifelike parables at the expense of the Rabbis’ supposed pedanticism and literality seems to have abated.893 Almost all such comparative scholarship starts with Jesus’ parables, and the leading example that begins with the Rabbis, David Stern’s early article on Jesus’ parable of the wicked husbandman, is not part of an extended study of rabbinic parables. Further, no attempt has been made to limit the parables being compared to those involving one subject, such as kings, or to limit the rabbinic parables to those attributed to a period, such as the third century, comparable in duration to the one the parables attributed to Jesus purportedly come from. My opportunity to consider Jesus’ parables in connection with such an extended study and subject to such limitations may give this appendix added heuristic value. I will use Chapters 1 through 7 as a template, and lay my research on Jesus’ king-parables over it. See Evans, Craig. “Jesus and Rabbinic Parables, Proverbs, and Prayers.” In Idem, Jesus and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, 251. Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 2001, collecting the scholarship in note 1; Thoma and Wyshograd, Parable and Story, especially Clemens Thoma, “Literary and Theological Aspects of the Rabbinic Parable” and Stern, “Jesus’ Parables From the Perspective of Rabbinic Literature: The Example of the Wicked Husbandmen.” 893

271

272

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

The later chapters are not similarly useful, dealing as they do with century-specific matters. As I did with respect to rabbinic texts,894 I will treat any saying attributed to Jesus comparing someone or something to a king as a “king-parable,” regardless of the form of the text. And, as was also the case with respect to the king-parables, this is not the usual approach.895

INTRODUCING JESUS Chapter 1 introduced the third-century Rabbis—the last two generations of Tannaim and the first three generations of Palestinian Amoraim—as intellectually curious, urban, relatively comfortable, tax-paying, literate citizens of the Roman Empire, principally engaged in discovering and discussing divine law.896 This introduction of Jesus is limited to pointing out such characteristics of the third-century Rabbis that he does not share. Jesus is frequently shown citing and referring to the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, including in disputation with his opponents,897 in support of his own activities,898 and in a moment of his greatest suffering,899 Jesus is also shown as knowledgeable

See Chapter 1, note 2 and accompanying text, supra. See, e.g., Scott, Bernard Brandon. Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus, 16. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989, who generally limits “parables” to a form containing elements of the rabbinic direct parable as described in Chapter 3, supra, although in a later study he included the similitudes, which he calls “one-liners,” as “parables.” See Scott, Bernard Brandon. Re-Imagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, 17. Santa Rosa CA: Polebridge Press, 2001. See also Evans, “Jesus and Rabbinic Parables,” 264. 896 See Chapter 1—Introducing the Rabbis. 897 E.g., Mark 7:6–7; Matt 19:3–9; John 10:34. 898 Matt 21:13, 21:16, 22:31. 899 Mark 15:34; Matt 27:41. See also, e.g., Mark 4:12; Mark 10:48; Matt 6:38; Matt 15:4; Matt 19:18–19; Luke 10:27; Matt 9:13; Matt 10:35; Matt 15:8–9; Luke 8:10; Luke 22:37; Matt 21:16; Matt 22:42; Matt 23:44; Matt 24:15; Luke 13:35; John 6:31. 894 895

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

273

about the traditions of his opponents900 and as having sufficient mastery of Scripture to be able to combine verses from different texts and to use one Torah verse to argue against another. Thus he cited the Genesis verses concerning the creation of humanity “male and female” and providing that husband and wife are “one flesh” as trumping the Torah’s divorce rules.901 Yet nothing in the Gospel accounts suggests that Jesus was principally engaged in Torah or other study.902 This is not the only reason for rejecting the temptation to call Jesus a “Rabbi”903—a title, along with didaskalos, one of its Greek translations, frequently used for him in the Gospels.904 Nor does anything in the Gospel accounts suggest that Jesus had the wide-ranging intellectual curiosity of the third-century Rabbis, and the repertoire of figures he used in his parables seems

Matt 15:1–9. His manner of combining verses was, however, inconsistent with the practices of the third-century (and other) Rabbis, who would instead have attempted to reconcile the verses, probably on the basis that these verses from Genesis are applicable to all humanity, while the laws concerning the giving of a ‫ גט‬are only for Jews. See Matt 19:4–5; Chapter 5, note 409 and accompanying text, supra. 902 See John 7:15 (“How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?”); Boadt, Lawrence. “Understanding the Mashal and Its Value for the Jewish-Christian Dialogue in a Narrative Theology.” In Thoma and Wyshograd, Parable and Story, 159, positing Jesus’ nonparticipation in the “learned academy.” 903 See, e.g., Chilton, Bruce. Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. New York: Doubleday, 2000. 904 See, e.g., Mark 4:38; Mark 9:5; Mark 11:21; Matt 23:8; Matt 26:18; Matt 26:25; Matt 26:49; John 1:38; John 1:49. While “Rabbi” seems to have been a general title of respect in the Second Temple period, “the Rabbis,” as a movement or an identifiable group, did not begin until after the Destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. The conventional view that the Rabbis were simply a continuation of the pre-Destruction Pharisees argues against the idea that Jesus was a “Rabbi,” since he was so clearly not a Pharisee. 900 901

274

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

largely limited to those connected with village life.905 Like these figures, he was neither urban or relatively comfortable. Whether or not he and his family engaged in enough farming to be accurately called peasants, he certainly was a villager, and poor.906 On the other hand, if indeed he was a tektōn-—customarily rendered “carpenter”—his occupation would have been similar to those of a minority of third-century Rabbis, blacksmiths like R. Isaac or R. Yohanan’s father, who also made their livings by providing needed support services in an agricultural community.907 I need not join the debate over whether Jesus, like the Rabbis, was literate. It is enough for my purposes that he is shown reading in Luke 4:16–30, although specialists have noted that the reference to reading may not be part of the original story.908 Someone with the level of knowledge of Scripture that Jesus is presented in the Gospels as having almost certainly could read.909

See Scott, Hear Then The Parable, 85. See Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 278–81. New York: Doubleday, 1991; Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, 187. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; Borg, Marcus J. Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture and the Life of Discipleship, 39. papercover ed., 40. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991; Scott, ReImagine the World, 1. 907 Jesus is called a tektōn in Mark 6:3 and the son of a tektōn in Matt 13:55. Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, paperback ed., 25. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, using Gerhard Lenski’s categories, treats a carpenter as “an Artisan, in the dangerous space between Peasants and Degradeds.” Scott, Re-Imagine the World, 5, citing unnamed anthropologists, classifies carpenters among the “disposables.” Presumably Crossan and Scott would have ranked blacksmiths at the same level. See Chapter 1, text at note 5, supra. 908 See Meier, The Roots of the Problem, 268–78. 909 For a cautious response (regarding the next century) as to whether Jewish boys in the Galilee were regularly taught to read, see Goodman, State and Society, 71–2. See also, Borg, Jesus, 39, supposing a “mainstream” level of education that every Jewish boy, including Jesus, would have had. 905 906

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

275

Unlike the third-century Rabbis, Jesus was not a citizen of Rome, and would not have paid taxes directly to Rome while he remained in Galilee.910 He lived prior to the Constitutio Antoniniana. More to the point, he was not subject to direct Roman rule.911 Nazareth was part of the client-kingdom of Judaea from the time of Jesus’ birth,912 under Herod the Great and then his son Archelaus, until 6 C.E.,913 and then it was part of the more geographically limited client-tetrarchy of Herod’s son Antipas, the “Herod” of the Gospels. (If we accept the narratives in Matthew and Luke placing Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem in Judaea, he was nonetheless, at birth, a subject of Herod the Great.)

USING DOCUMENTS With respect to rabbinic king-parables, I rejected Jacob Neusner's “documentary premise,” and accepted attributions to third-century Rabbis of king-parables appearing in later documents, on the grounds that the Rabbis prided themselves on how accurately they preserved and reported earlier traditions and that the scholarship of Christine Hayes, David Goodblatt and Richard Kalmin, among others, has demonstrated that such pride was not misplaced.914 But I am unaware of any such ancient traditions or modern scholarship with regard to purported sayings of Jesus appearing in significantly later documents, and accordingly have limited the king-parables of This conclusion does not necessarily question the historicity of the king-parable of the emperor’s coin in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:14– 7, Matt 22:17–21, and Luke 20:22–26) and in Thomas 100, in which Jesus upholds the lawfulness of paying taxes to Rome, since all three of the canonical Gospels are clear that the incident took place in Judaea; Judaea had been subject to direct Roman rule since 6 C.E., when Jesus was still a boy. 911 I do not mean to suggest that first-century Galileans did not feel themselves subject to Rome, as did the third-century Rabbis, most of whom were also located in Galilee. See Chapter 8, supra. 912 Prior to 4 B.C.E. See Meier, The Roots of the Problem, 375–6. 913 See Millar, Roman Near East, 43–4; Schäfer, Jews in Antiquity, 101, 105. 914 See Chapter 1, notes 32–54 and accompanying text, supra. 910

276

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Jesus under study to sayings appearing in five documents—the four canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas—that are generally dated to the period from roughly 70 C. E. to the turn of the second century or a bit beyond. As was the case with third-century rabbinic king-parables, I have made no attempt to date these documents myself,915 but have relied on the consensus of scholarly opinion that the Gospel of Mark was probably composed around the year 70, followed within ten or twenty years by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and thereafter by the Gospel of John,916 and that the Gospel of Thomas was probably composed at roughly the same time as the canonical Gospels, although perhaps as late as the second century, but in any event contains some extremely ancient individual sayings.917 As my concern has been more with placing rabbinic parables in rabbinic generations and in Palestine than with assigning them to individual named Rabbis, this appendix is concerned with locating “Jesus’” parables in a time period and a geographic area and not with whether or not a particular king-parable was actually said by the historical Jesus rather than by members of the first-century

See Chapter 1, text following note 56, supra. See Meier, The Roots of the Problem, 43–5 and n. 8; Meeks, Wayne A. “Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities.” In Idem, In Search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays, 115, 116. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2002; Reinhartz, Adele. Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John, 37. New York/London: Continuum, 2001. 917 Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions, 377. New York: Doubleday, 1987; Cartlidge, David R., and David L. Dungan, eds. Documents for the Study of the Gospels, revised and enlarged ed., 19. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994; Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 32–3. The text of Thomas I have used is that in Layton’s book, which is based on his critical edition of the Coptic version and Harold W. Attridge’s critical edition of the three fragmentary Greek manuscripts, all found in vol. 1 of Layton, Bentley, ed. Nag Hammadi Codex II.2–7 Together with XIII.2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926 (1) and P. Oxy. I, 654, 655. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 915 916

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

277

church.918 In duration, the time period of Jesus’ parables— beginning with his ministry during the final years of the first third of the first century and ending with the composition of the last of the five documents in which the parables appear—is comparable to the period I have defined as the third century,919 although the geographic area, stretching perhaps from Antioch to Edessa, is larger than Galilee, the area that produced most of the thirdcentury rabbinic king-parables, and larger than all of Palestine.

IDENTIFYING AND CATEGORIZING JESUS’ KING-PARABLES Twelve texts920 from these five documents show Jesus making comparisons with kings; in the terms I have been using, he told twelve king-parables. Of the much larger body of rabbinic kingparables, Chapter 2 demonstrated that 44%—those I call “Imperial parables”—involved kings based on Roman emperors and emperor-like figures, while the kings in “Standard parables” were biblical, eastern, or Jewish kings, and, more often, generic or fairytale kings. The predominance of Standard parables over Imperial parables is even greater among Jesus’ parables, perhaps because the equation of the princeps with the familiar eastern figure of a king was not as clear to people who lived in the first century and who had only villagers’ views of Roman political reality as it was to urban citizens who knew of such as Elagabal, Gallienus and Aurelian.

See Stern, “Jesus’ Parables,” for a similar approach. See Chapter 1, text at note 1, supra. 920 For these purposes I count the versions of the same parable that appear in more than one of the texts as a single parable. Another potential king-parable is Thomas 21, in which Jesus speaks of a householder who takes steps to prevent a bandit from breaking into the “house of the kingdom” and stealing his possessions. Since the house is of the kingdom, the householder seems to be a king. But Layton renders the Coptic that literally means “kingdom” or “dominion” as “estate,” see note 917, supra, and I am therefore not treating this text as a king-parable. 918 919

278

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

One parable is Imperial on its face; Jesus makes a comparison to the emperor himself.921 Jesus’ only other possibly Imperial parable is Luke’s version of the parable of the man who entrusted money to his slaves; a nobleman going to a distant country to get kingship for himself may be an echo of Antony, an emperor-like figure, in Egypt.922 What of the other ten? Like the rabbinic parables involving Ahasuerus and Pharaoh, two of Jesus’ parables involve a biblical king, King Solomon,923 and the kings in the rest are generic, the kinds so often encountered in the rabbinic parables, who occupy themselves dressing up,924 dealing with their servants,925 giving dinners,926 and lording it over their subjects,927 although they also perform elementary governmental and military functions like collecting taxes,928 maintaining their households,929 going to war930 and having followers whose job it is to fight to protect them.931 Mark 12:14–17; Matt 22:17–21; Luke 20:22–26; Thomas 100 (the emperor’s coin). 922 Luke 19:11–27. In the parallel version of this parable, Matt 25:14– 27, this nobleman is merely “a man,” and no kingship is involved; this is a “king-parable” only in Luke. If the correct translation of the people dressed in fine apparel in Thomas 78 is indeed “emperors,” rather than “kings” or “governors,” the version of the parable of the reed in the wind in Thomas would also be Imperial. See note 957, infra. 923 Matt 6:28 and Luke 12:27 (the lilies of the field); Matt 12:42 (the queen of the south). 924 Thomas 78; Matt 11:7–11; Luke 7:24 (the reed in the wind). 925 Matt 18:21–35 (the unforgiving slave). 926 Matt 22:1–14 (the great dinner). The parallels in Luke 14:15–24 and Thomas 64 respectively involve “someone” and “a man”; this is a “kingparable” only in Matt. 927 Luke 22:24; Mark 10:42; Matt 20:24–28 (the kings of the Gentiles). 928 Matt 17:24–27 (the kings and their children). 929 Mark 3:23–26 (Satan’s house). In the parallel version in Luke 11:17–18, Satan is not compared to a king but is clearly presented as himself being a king. This is therefore a “king-parable” only in Mark. 930 Luke 14:31–33. 931 John 18:36–37. 921

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

279

SAYINGS THAT ARE NOT KING-PARABLES Of the rabbinic texts cited as king-parables by Ignaz Ziegler, I excluded several categories, among them those that do not make comparisons to kings or kingdoms although they have something else to say about them.932 This is the reason for excluding the largest category of Jesus’ sayings that refer to kings or kingdoms, the many parables about the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom in these parables is an actual kingdom, although not yet (or not fully yet) of this world, about which Jesus has something substantive to say; it is not a mere basis for comparison to another subject which is the real point of Jesus’ saying.933 That the “Kingdom-parables” are not king-parables is made clear when the Kingdom itself—the real point of the saying—is the thing compared to a king, as in Matthew 18:21–35 or 22:1–14. Similarly, Jesus referring to himself or Satan as a king, calling Jerusalem the “city of the great king,” and calling the apostles future kings do not constitute parables.934 I also parted with Ziegler in those instances in which I had concluded that an earlier version of a parable did not refer to a king although a later version did, a result of the preferences of the later Rabbis and the “regularization” process that helps to explain why so many parables include so many kings who act so little like See Chapter 1, note 57 and Chapter 2, note 174 and accompanying text, supra. 933 Contra Evans, “Jesus and Rabbinic Parables,” 265, who, as a result of accepting the common error that the figure of the king in rabbinic parables is a stand-in for God (see Chapter 4, supra), argues that the rabbinic parables, which speak of the activity of “God the king,” are not significantly different from parables that speak of the kingdom of God. 934 Matt 25:31–46; Luke 11:17–18; Matt 5:35; Luke 22:24. Compare those nimshals in rabbinic king-parables that specifically call God a king, or the King of Kings. See, e.g., Chapter 3, notes 224–227 and accompanying text, supra. The various texts in which Jesus is called the king of the Jews are excluded also because he does not use that phrase himself, and this Appendix is restricted to sayings attributed to him, just as the main body of this study is restricted to sayings attributed or otherwise attributable to third-century Rabbis. See, e.g., Mark 15:2; Matt 27:11; John 12:13. 932

280

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

kings.935 I will not attempt something similar here with respect to possible candidates for such treatment. Luke’s and Thomas’ versions of the parable of the great dinner936 (not containing kings) do seem to be earlier than Matthew’s (containing a king),937 but the paucity of Jesus’ king-parables leads me nonetheless to include the Matthew parallel as a king-parable, especially since the distances in time separating these versions is measured in years, rather than the centuries separating rabbinic collections. Further, I cannot form a judgment on whether Matthew’s version of the parable of the man who entrusted money to his slaves (not containing a king)938 should be treated as earlier or otherwise better than Luke’s version (containing a king).939

THE FORM AND STRUCTURE OF JESUS’ KING-PARABLES Chapter 3 classified the third-century king-parables according to their form and structure. Following Arnold Goldberg and others, I concluded that most of them are “direct parables,” the form of parable most commonly identified as such; following Talia Thorion-Vardi, I discussed “antithetical parables,” which contrast a secular narrative with a verse or statement to show differences between the king in the secular narrative and, in the case of the third-century rabbinic king-parables, God; using a different definition of “parable” than my predecessors, I identified a substantial number of “formless” third-century king-parables, more See Chapter 2, notes 176–185 and accompanying text, supra. Luke 14:15–26; Thomas 64. 937 Matt 22:1–14. See Meier, The Roots of the Problem, 313, 376 n. 104; Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 163–7; Idem, Re-Imagine the World, 11. 938 Matt 25:14–27. 939 Luke 19:11–27. The Jesus Project classified both as authentic sayings of the historical Jesus with reservations or modifications. See Bernard Brandon Scott, Re-Imagine the World 11. It may be that the part of this parable in Luke concerning the man about to be a king was once a separate parable, perhaps suggesting that at least this part of the parable is earlier, although more recently scholars have instead explained the presence of a king in Luke’s version in terms of Luke’s royal theology. See Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 222–3. 935 936

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

281

than the number of antithetical parables. Jesus’ king-parables were also direct, antithetical and formless. Jesus’ Direct Parables I divided the form of the rabbinic direct king-parable into five parts: an introductory word or phrase, such as mashal (a parable”), often omitted; a marker of comparison, most often the word ‫ל‬ (“like,” “to be compared to”); a narrative on a secular or mundane subject; a marker of the applicability of the secular narrative to the rabbinic task at hand, usually the word ‫“( כך‬so, similarly, thus”); and the nimshal, the biblical verse or other statement which is being compared to the secular narrative. Of Jesus’ twelve king-parables, two, both from Matthew, follow roughly the same form as the rabbinic direct king-parables and as each other, although their secular narratives, like many of Jesus’ other parables, are much longer than most of the secular narratives in their rabbinic counterparts. The parable of the unforgiving slave in Matthew 18:21–35: [No introductory word or phrase] The Kingdom of Heaven may be compared to [hōmoiōthē; the marker of comparison; the counterpart of ‫ ל‬940] a human king [“anthrōpō,” reminiscent of the “king of flesh and blood” often encountered in rabbinic king-parables] who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and his children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.” And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him by the throat, he said, “Pay what you owe.” Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you.” But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison 940

See also Evans, “Jesus and Rabbinic Parables,” 264.

282

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES until he would pay the debt. When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, “You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?” And in anger his lord turned him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt [the secular narrative]. So [houtōs; the marker of applicability; the counterpart of ‫ כך‬941] my heavenly father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart” [the nimshal.]942

The parable of the great dinner in Matthew 22:1–14: Jesus spoke to them in parables [en parabolais; the introductory word or phrase, although not presented as Jesus’ direct speech] saying “The Kingdom of Heaven may be compared to (hōmoiōothē; the marker of comparison] a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son.943 He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, “Tell those who have been invited, ‘Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready, come to the wedding banquet.’” But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his slaves, “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.” Those slaves went into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with See Evans, “Jesus and Rabbinic Parables,” 265. See Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 44. 943 This is the only instance in Jesus’ king-parables of the figure of the king’s son, appearing in a little more than a quarter of the third-century rabbinic king-parables, see Chapter 2, note 88 and accompanying text, supra. 941 942

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

283

guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe and he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?” And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” [the secular narrative] For [gar; the marker of applicability944] many are called but few are chosen [the nimshal.]945

Jesus’ Antithetical King-Parables Chapter 3, following Talia Thorion-Vardi, divided the antithetical third-century rabbinic king-parable into four parts: a brief introduction, often omitted, to the effect that God is not like a king of flesh and blood; a short narrative stating what such kings are like or what such kings do; a brief introduction to the next part, usually no more than the word “but”; and a statement of what God does, or is like, which I called the antithetical nimshal. Two of Jesus’ king-parables are antithetical in form, although they differ from the third-century rabbinic antithetical kingparables in that the kings are contrasted not with God but with Jesus’ apostles, and by extension with the leaders of the church, and with Jesus himself.946 Like so many rabbinic antithetical kingparables, neither includes the first part, a brief introduction. The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them [what kings do], and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But 944

Gar, closer to a conjunction, is a weaker marker of applicability than houtōs or ‫כך‬. See Chapter 3, notes 220–2 and accompanying text, supra, for variants in the markers of applicability used in the rabbinic kingparables. 945 The parallel version in Luke 14:15–24, not a king-parable, has no introductory word or phrase or marker of comparison and also uses gar as a marker of applicability. The parallel in Thomas 64, also not a kingparable, has no introductory word or phrase, marker of comparison or marker of applicability. 946 I leave it to others to say whether a contrast with the figure of Jesus himself, especially in the Gospel of John, is in fact a contrast with God.

284

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES [introduction to antithetical nimshal] not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves [antithetical nimshal; what those contrasted to the kings do.]947

And the parable of the fighting followers: If my kingdom were of this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews [what kings are like.] But [introduction to antithetical nimshal] as it is, my kingdom is not from here [antithetical nimshal; implicitly what the one compared to the kings is like.]948

Jesus’ Formless King-Parables Chapter 3 emphasized that while study of the forms of formal king-parables is fruitful in providing insight into the way the Rabbis usually went about the business of making comparisons with kings and the way those comparisons have come down to us, it is the fact and the substance of the comparison rather than its form or lack thereof that are important for other purposes of this study, including analyses of the tasks accomplished when the Rabbis made comparisons with kings and the settings in which such comparisons were made. The same is true regarding Jesus’ kingparables, especially since two-thirds of his king-parables are formless, perhaps an indication of an early place for him in the tradition of parable telling.949 Luke 22:24. In the parallel versions in Mark 10:42 and Matt 20:24– 28, these are called “rulers,” not “kings”: for present purposes these are nonetheless king-parables. 948 John 18:36–37. 949 Although almost 59% of all third-century rabbinic king-parables come from the third generation of Amoraim, approximately 22% of the formless parables are early, coming from Tannaim and the first generation of Amoraim. See Chapter 3, notes 105–7 and accompanying text, supra. “We should probably conclude that Jesus is at the beginning of the common folk tradition of the parable and for that reason his parables are not as stereotyped in form as those of the later rabbis.” Scott, Re-Imagine the World, 15. 947

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

285

As was the case with a third-century rabbinic parable,950 two of Jesus’ formless parables might have been classified as direct but for the absence of markers; the addition of the word “hōmoiōothē” or another marker of comparison at the appropriate place, and making the first sentence of the secular narrative declarative would render the parable of the calculating king direct: Or what king, going out to wage war, will not sit first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace [secular narrative.] So therefore [houtōs, a marker of applicability], none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions [the nimshal.]951

But the parable of the king who entrusted money to his slaves would need markers of both comparison and applicability to be called direct: He went on to tell a parable [parabolēn; word of introduction but not in Jesus’ direct speech] because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that that the Kingdom of God was to appear immediately. So he said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return. He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business with these until I come back.’ But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’ When he returned, having received royal power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had given the money to his slaves, to be summoned so that he might find out what they had gained by trading. The first came forward and said ‘Lord, your mina has made ten more minas.’ He said to him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.’ Then the second came, saying, ‘Lord, 950 951

See Chapter 3, note 284 and accompanying text, supra Luke 14:31–33.

286

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES your mina has made five minas.’ He said to him, ‘And you, rule over five cities.’ Then the other came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina. I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned I could have collected it with interest.’ He said to the bystanders, ‘Take the mina from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!” ‘I tell you to all those who have, more will be given, but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence’”[secular narrative.]952

The nimshal in this parable, however, is not absent: It is combined with the king’s last speech at the end of the secular narrative:953 In the now deferred Kingdom of God, when Jesus returns, to those who have—in this case, those who have faith in Jesus—more will be given, but from those who have nothing, even that will be taken from them, and those who reject Jesus’ kingship will be punished.954 Three of Jesus’ formless parables resemble formless versions of antithetical parables. The lilies of the field are not like a king,

Luke 19:11–27. The parallel parable in Matt 25:14–27, which is not a king-parable since its protagonist does not become a king, includes hōper gar—“it is as if”—as a marker of comparison and gar as a weak marker of applicability. 953 See Chapter 3, note 246 and accompanying text, for a parable attributed to R. Levi, another master parablist, in which the nimshal is combined with the secular narrative. 954 See Chapter 3, notes 249–53 and accompanying text, supra, for rabbinic king-parables with implicit and missing nimshals. 952

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

287

since they are clothed more gloriously.955 The queen of the south will rise up, because contemporary events are not like a king, but are greater.956 John the Baptist is no more like a king than he is like a reed in the wind; no one born of woman is greater than he.957 His three other king-parables are totally formless, en passant comparisons with kings. They include some of his best-known sayings. When Jesus spoke with Peter about the Temple tax, he compared God to the kings of the earth and, in a move highly reminiscent of many third-century rabbinic king-parables, the people of Israel to the children of such kings, and he concluded that the people of Israel need not pay the tax, although Jesus and Peter will, so as not to give offense.958 When Jesus taught that it was lawful for Judaeans to pay taxes to Rome, he compared God to the Roman emperor and concluded that each has his own domain.959 When he argued that he did not exorcize demons with the aid of dark powers, he compared Satan to a human king to show that a kingdom, like a house, divided against itself cannot stand.960

THE FIGURE OF THE KING IN JESUS’ KING-PARABLES Chapter 4 contested the prevailing view that the figure of the king in the third-century rabbinic king-parables always is or stands for Matt 6:28; Luke 12:27. Matt 12:42. 957 Thomas 78 specifically refers to “a person dressed in fine apparel [like your] governors (or ‘kings, emperors’)” while Matt 11:7–11 and Luke 7:24 refer instead to those who are in royal palaces. Those in royal palaces are, or include, kings. 958 Matt 17:24–27. See Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 229. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, also referring to this text as a “parable.” 959 Mark 12:14–17; Matt 22:17–21; Luke 20:22–26; Thomas 100. In the Thomas version the comparison is threefold: the emperor, God, and Jesus himself. 960 Mark 3:23–26. This text is explicitly called a “parable.” 955 956

288

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

God. Among the parables I first eliminated from that category were those in which the king is compared to someone or something other than God. I then argued, among other things, that the reasons for action of a king who is in fact a stand-in for God would teach something about God or God’s reasons for action. What of the figure of the king in Jesus’ king-parables? In ten of his parables, the king is compared to something or someone other than God: to flowers; to current events; to Satan; to John the Baptist; in two to the Kingdom of Heaven; to Jesus’ apostles and disciples; and in two others to Jesus himself. This leaves only two of Jesus’ king-parables in which the king might be a stand-in for God; one of them, while not formally antithetical, leaves no room to argue that the figure of the emperor, to whom taxes must be paid, is somehow such a stand-in. Is the king in the remaining parable, that of the king and his children, a stand-in for God? Yes; the king prefers his children just as the God of Israel prefers the people of Israel, and for the same reason, simply that they are his.

THE FUNCTIONS OF JESUS’ KING-PARABLES Chapter 5 showed that the functions of the third-century rabbinic king-parables were primarily scriptural exegesis, and, to a lesser extent, instruction, comfort and encouragement. The functions of Jesus’ parables are often regarded as more obscure; they are enigmas, according to one leading Jesus scholar.961 This view is partly the result of, and certainly intensified by, reports in all three Synoptic Gospels that Jesus said he spoke in parables in order that most of his listeners would not understand what he was talking about, a far cry from using them to instruct, Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume Three, Companions and Competitors, 645. New York: Doubleday, 2001. On the other hand, Bernard Brandon Scott regarded the parables as functioning as “handles” on the all-important symbol of the Kingdom of God. Hear Then the Parable, 61, although he has since written that they have mystified readers from an early time. Re-Imagine the World, 1. 961

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

289

comfort and encourage.962 Since this appendix is limited to twelve parables, it will be possible, and fruitful, to examine these parables afresh. “Legal” Parables It is a commonplace to say that the parables of Jesus were not, like those of the Rabbis, used for scriptural exegesis.963 Jesus’ kingparables include two that he used to help derive points of law, specifically tax law, although by reasoning, a technique also used by the Rabbis,964 rather than by exegesis. Comparing God to earthly kings, he concluded that Jews need not pay the Temple tax. Comparing God to the emperor of Rome, he concluded that Judaeans must pay taxes to Rome. An Excursus on Scriptural Exegesis with Parables But it is simply untrue that Jesus is never shown using a parable in the interpretation of a specific verse of Scripture; to show this I must go beyond his king-parables. A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, “They will respect my son.” But those tenants said to one another, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours. So they seized him, killed Mark 4:11–12; Matt 13:10–15; Luke 8:9–10. E.g., Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 54. 964 See, e.g., Mek. de R. Ishmael Bahodesh pereq 5, concluding on the basis of reasoning that the nations could not have fulfilled all of the commandments of the Torah. 962 963

290

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. Have you not read this scripture: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes.” (Psalms 118:22–23)965

The verse from Psalms is clearly being interpreted to have been fulfilled by the failure of the Jewish community at large to accept the claims about Jesus made by his followers; either he or his followers constitutes the stone that the builders rejected that has, or will, become the cornerstone. Reading ancient scripture to forecast recent events of great significance to the contemporary interpreting community is not the Rabbis’ style of biblical exegesis, but it is a method now familiar from the pesharim found among the Dead Sea Scrolls,966 in which, for example, an ancient prophecy that “the wicked surround the righteous”967 is interpreted to identify the “righteous” with the Qumran community’s leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, and “the wicked” with his enemy, the Wicked Priest.968 And on one occasion the Gospels present a parable— although again not a king-parable—doing something like exegesis in the Rabbis’ style. Several third-century rabbinic king-parables begin with the scriptural verse before the Rabbis, continue through the marker of comparison, the secular narrative and the marker of applicability and conclude with a nimshal consisting of the verse itself.969 This is an example of a parable approaching exegesis in the same style, although exegesis of part of Scripture that is presented as not yet constituting Scripture: 965

Mark 12:1–12. See also Matt 21:33–46; Luke 20:9–19; Thomas

65–66. See generally Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979. 967 Hab 1:4. 968 1QpHab I, 13. 969 See, e.g., the parable of the brigands who broke into the king’s house, which begins and ends with the same verse from Exod 15. 966

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

291

But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first. [the counterpart of the scriptural verse before the Rabbis] For the Kingdom of Heaven is like [homoia; the marker of comparison] a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage, he sent them out into his vineyard. When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, “You also go into the vineyard and I will pay you whatever is right.” So they went. When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around and he said to them, “Why are you standing here idle all day?” They said to him, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You also go out into the vineyard.” When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, “Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.” When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage. And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, saying, “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” But he replied to one of them, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?” Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?” [the secular narrative] So [houtōs; the marker of applicability] the last will be first and the first will be last [the nimshal, consisting of only the “verse,” slightly reworked.]970

If “the last will be first and the first will be last” were already Scripture when the parable was formulated, the parable would clearly be Schriftauslegende. I suggest that that brief saying was already 970

Matt 19:30–20–20:1–16.

292

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

regarded as both authoritative and inspired—as good a definition of “Scripture” as any971—and, based on the form and structure of rabbinic parables, offer this analysis in support of the view that while the nimshal may well be from the historical Jesus, the parable proper is not his but is a product of the members of the early church, building upon a saying they already revered. The Jesus Project, on the other hand, classified this parable, or something like it, among the parables Jesus undoubtedly said.972 Perhaps the voters were focused only on the nimshal. Instructional Parables Three of Jesus’ king-parables function to instruct his followers on how to behave. The parable of the unforgiving slave instructs them, through Peter, to forgive one another. The parable of the kings of the Gentiles instructs the smaller group of the twelve how to relate to each other. The parable of the lilies of the field instructs them not to worry about trivialities. A fourth instructional parable—that of the reed in the wind—teaches members of a crowd, not all of whom are Jesus’ followers, about John. Comforting and Encouraging Parables The parable of the king who entrusted property to his slaves serves to comfort his followers—they are those who already have, to whom still more will be given. Other parables of Jesus seem to combine comfort and encouragement to some with warnings to others. The parable of the great dinner functions to disturb and warn those to whom it is addressed—on its face, the chief priests and Pharisees, but perhaps others in the early church—but also to comfort his followers, or at least those who wear a “wedding robe,” whatever that might mean, by encouraging them to believe that their faith will be rewarded; they are the few who are chosen among the many who are called. The parable of the calculating king

See generally McDonald, Lee Martin, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002. 972 See Scott, Re-Imagine the World, 11. 971

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

293

may serve to assure them that the high cost of discipleship is not too high while warning them how high indeed it is. Rhetorical Parables The remaining three of Jesus’ king-parables serve to augment his arguments with his opponents, and have no counterpart in the third-century rabbinic king-parables, although it is possible to imagine narratives showing them using their parables in similar ways. These arguments range along a spectrum from how he has power over demons (Satan’s house) to the importance of the current situation and the unworthiness of the current generation (the queen of the south) to his own identity and the nature of his kingdom (the fighting followers.)

THE SETTINGS OF JESUS’ KING-PARABLES Chapter 6 discussed but did not resolve whether the rabbinic parables come from the synagogue, where they were primarily for the masses, or from the study house, where they primarily served the Rabbis themselves. What of Jesus’ king-parables?973 It is far beyond the scope of this appendix to attempt to investigate the settings of such of those parables that originated in the early church, since doing so would entail making judgments about the origins and literary history of the Gospels as we now have them. Instead, as Chapter 6 attempted to deduce the origins of the thirdcentury king-parables from the textual context in which we now have them,974 this appendix will focus only on the settings in which the Gospels present Jesus himself as having told the parables.975 This approach is facilitated by the fact that these parables, unlike most of the Rabbis’, are placed in a narrative context. See Goldberg, “Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch,” 5, emphasizing that the Sitz im Leben of the parables of Jesus was completely different from those of the parables of the Rabbis. 974 Chapter 6, notes 448–9 and accompanying text, supra. 975 But Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 42 observes that a search for the setting of Jesus’ parables is misdirected, arguing that there is no reason to assume that Jesus told a parable only once. 973

294

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Just as some rabbinic third-century king-parables seem to have been told in synagogues for the benefit of “the people,” the parables of the calculating king and of the king who entrusted money to his slaves were told to crowds of Jesus’ followers, apparently outdoors, for their benefit. The parable of the reed in the wind was told to another crowd, not all of whom followed Jesus, at least not yet, a crowd resembling the congregation of a first-century synagogue. As some of the Rabbis’ king-parables were told in the study houses for the benefit only of other Rabbis, some of Jesus’ were told only to members of his inner circle. The parable of the unforgiving slave was told to Peter, although he seems to have been meant to pass it or its message on, and the parable of the kings and their children was told to Peter privately, because Jesus knew that Peter had been asked about his master’s compliance with the Temple tax. The parable of the kings of the Gentiles was told just to his disciples, either to all twelve, as in Luke, or just to the two sons of Zebedee, as in Mark, or to either the twelve or the ten other than the sons of Zebedee, as in Matthew.976 And as many of the rabbinic parables might have been told for the benefit of either the many or the few, the sources are confusing for the parable of the lilies of the field, which was told either to a crowd, as in Matthew, or to the disciples away from the hearing of apparently that same crowd, as in Luke. The settings of others, like their functions, have no parallels among the rabbinic king-parables as we have them, in that they were told to opponents. The parable of the great dinner was told to the chief priests and the Pharisees. The parable of the queen of the south was told to the Pharisees and teachers of the law. The parable of the emperor’s coin was told to Pharisees and Herodians, as in Mark, or to their disciples or spies, as in Matthew and Luke. The parable of Satan’s house may have been told to some scribes, as in Mark.977 The parable of the fighting followers was told to Pilate at his headquarters.

976 977

Luke is alone in situating this parable at the Passover dinner. In Luke it is told to a crowd; did scribes come in crowds?

APPENDIX: JESUS’ KING-PARABLES

295

THE FIGURE OF GOD IN JESUS’ KING-PARABLES Chapter 7 treated the figure of God in the third-century rabbinic king-parables as a character in a narrative, and asked about God’s personality, emotions, actions and motivations. I concluded that, not surprisingly, God is shown as mighty, wise, merciful, faithful, providential and unique, and with a special and loving relationship with the people of Israel. But the parables also showed God, like all complex and interesting characters, to have negative aspects to his personality, including with respect to his relationship with his favorite, Israel. He seems inconsistent and ineffable, and he can be suddenly cruel and harsh to Israel to the point that the Rabbis could conclude that he had set his face against Israel for evil. A similar character of God may be present in Jesus’ three relevant king-parables, the one in which the figure of the king is a stand-in for God (the parable of the kings and their children) and the parables of the great dinner and of the unforgiving slave in which the Kingdom is compared to a king. Since the Kingdom is the, or a, field of God’s activities, those two king-parables tell us something about the figure of God in Jesus’ king-parables, even though the king in them does not himself stand for God. God in one of these parables is identified as merciful,978 and doubtless had we as many of Jesus’ king-parables as of the thirdcentury Rabbis’, we would find that God is also mighty, wise, faithful, providential and unique. And as in the rabbinic king-parables, the parable of the kings and their children shows a special relationship with Israel; God loves Israel for reasons that are not explained, because they are “his children.” The idea of God as ineffable is not something the Rabbis created; they derived it from Scripture. Jesus knew the same Scripture; God, in the parable of the great dinner, as in the rabbinic king-parables, also turns on “his children” for no obvious reason, first on the majority of them or their leadership, represented by those who declined the king’s invitation in the first place, and then

978

See Borg, Jesus, 130; Ehrman, Jesus, 173.

296

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

on those who have no “wedding robes”: “many are called but few are chosen.”979 I proposed that the Rabbis solved the problem of God’s uncanny and inconsistent behavior by taking advantage of the fact that their strange and ineffable God, in not the least inexplicable of his inexplicable actions, had issued a set of instructions on how to live which takes generations and generations of study to grasp, but which he entrusted to his beloved people and their learned leadership. That Jesus, and/or his followers, offered a very different solution is obvious. It is equally obvious that this topic is far beyond the scope of this study and my training or competence. But several of Jesus’ king-parables are consistent with the idea that such a solution was based largely on the right kind of faith in, and relationship to, the person of Jesus. The parable of the great dinner not only demonstrates God turning on his children but underscores the critical importance of proper faith in Jesus; those with “wedding robes” in this parable seem to be the same faithful as those to whom more will be given in the parable of the king who entrusted money to his slaves. The context of the parable of the lilies of the field, including the admonition to “you of little faith,” emphasizes the glory awaiting those of “much” faith. The parable of the reed in the wind, in its emphasis on the person of John the Baptist and his position as Jesus’ forerunner, foreshadows both the importance of proper discipleship in the parable of the calculating king and the status of Jesus stressed in the parable of the fighting followers.

See Comforting and Encouraging Parables, supra. Like the thirdcentury rabbinic parables, this parable is not told in the context of Israel’s sin, although, again, the body of the Gospels indicates that as the reason they are to be punished. For example, the parable of the queen of the south, a king-parable in which the king is not a stand-in for God, concerns the unworthiness of the present generation. 979

BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES Ammianus Marcellinus, History. Translated by John C. Rolfe. Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1950. The Babylonian Talmud-–Hebrew English Edition. Union City NJ: The Soncino Press Ltd, 1983. Dio Cassius, Roman History Books LXXI–LXXX. Translated by Earnest Cary on the basis of the version of Herbert Baldwin Foster. Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1927. Eutropius, Breviarium ab Urbe Condita. Translated by H. W. Bird. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993. Festus, Breviarium. Edited by J. W. Eadie. London: Athlone Press, 1967. Herodian, History of the Empire. Translated by C. R. Whittaker. Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1969. Jordanes, The Origin and Deeds of the Goths. English version by Charles C. Mierow. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1908. Josephus, The Jewish War. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1927. ___. Jewish Antiquities. Books XIV–XVII. Translated by Ralph Marcus. Completed and edited by Allen Wikgren. Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1943, 1963. Julian, The Caesars. Translated by Wilmer Cave Wright. London and New York: William Heinemann and The MacMillan Company, 1913.

297

298

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Lactantius, The Deaths of the Persecutors. In The Minor Works. Translated by Mary Francis McDonald. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1965. Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great.) According to the Text of the Manuscript belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna. Translated and annotated with Introduction and Indices by Gerald Friedlander. London and New York: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd and The Bloch Publishing Company, 1916. John Malalas, Chronicle. Translated by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys and Roger Scott. Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1986. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. Edition of Jacob Z. Lauterbach. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, paperback ed., 1976. Midrasch Bereschit Rabba. Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary by J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck. Second Printing with Additional Corrections by Ch. Albeck. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965. Jacob Neusner. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Midrasch Echa Rabbati. Edition of Solomon Buber. Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrüder Romm, 1899. Jacob Neusner. The Components of the Rabbinic Documents, From the Whole to the Parts, IV, Lamentations Rabbah. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997. Midrash Ba-Midbar. In Midrash Rabbah al Hamisha Homshei Torah v’Hamesh Migillot, volume IV. New York: KTAV Publishing House, no date. Midrash Rabbah—Numbers. Translated by Judah J. Slotki. London: Soncino Press, 1939. Midrash Kohelet Rabbati. In Midrash Rabbah al Hamisha Homshei Torah v’Hamesh Migillot, volume IV. New York: KTAV Publishing House, no date. Midrash Rabbah—Ecclesiastes. Translated by A. Cohen. London: Soncino Press, 1939. Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo’ar—Root, Esther, Jerusalem, 1983. Jacob Neusner. Ruth Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Jacob Neusner. Esther Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo’ar—Shir ha-Shirim. Jerusalem, 1983. Jacob Neusner. Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1989. Midrash Rabbah ha-Mevo’ar—Sefer Devarim. Jerusalem, 1983. Devarim Rabbah. Edition of A. A. Halevi. In Midrash Rabbah. Tel Aviv: 1963. Midrash Rabbah—Deuteronomy. Translated by J. Rabbinowitz. London, Bournemouth and New York: The Soncino Press, 1951, 1983. Midrasch Tanhuma. Edition of Solomon Buber. Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrüder Romm, 1885. Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Rescension). Translated into English with Introduction, Indices, and Brief Notes, by John T. Townsend. Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1989, 2003. Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu. An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of TanhumaYelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, by Samuel A. Berman. Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1996. Midrasch Tehillim (Schocher Tob). Edition of Solomon Buber. Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrüder Romm, 1891. William G. Braude. The Midrash on Psalms. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Midrash Vayikra Rabbah. Edition of Mordechai Margolis. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993. Jacob Neusner. The Components of the Rabbinic Documents, From the Whole to the Parts, X, Leviticus Rabbah. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997. Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by M. Freidlaender. Second revised edition. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1904; reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 1956. Paulus Orosius, Seven Books of History against the Pagans. Translated by Roy J. DeFerrari. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1964. Pesikta de Rav Kahana. Edition of Bernard Mandelbaum. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962.

300

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

William G. (Gershon Zev) Braude and Israel J. Kapstein. Pesikta de-Rab Kahana: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975. Pesiqta Rabbati: A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based upon All Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps. Edited by Rivka Ulmer. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. William G. Braude. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1968. Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Translated by F. C. Conybeare. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1912. Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Translated by David Magie. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1921. Sextus Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus. Translated by H. W. Bird. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994. Sh’mot Rabbah. Edition of Moshe Aryeh Mirkin. In Midrash Rabbah. Tel Aviv: Yavneh Publishing House, 1959. Midrash Rabbah—Exodus. Translated by S. M. Lehrman. London and Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951. The Sibylline Oracles, Book 12, and The Sibylline Oracles, Book 13. Collins, J. J. “Sibylline Oracles (Second Century B.C.— Seventh Century A.D.): A New Translation and Introduction.” In Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Sifra d’Be Rab (Torat Kohanim). Edition of I. H. Weiss. Vienna: Jacob Schlossberg, 1862. Jacob Neusner. Sifra: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Sifre d’Be Rab: Sifre al Sefer Bemidbar. Edition of Hayyim Shaul Horovitz, Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966. Jacob Neusner. Sifre to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Sifre Al Sefer Devarim. Edition of Eliezer Ari Finkelstein, as republished. New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

Hammer, Reuven. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1986. Talmud Yerushalmi. Edition of Ya’acov Sussmann. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2001. Jacob Neusner and others. The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Tanna debe Eliahu. Jozefow, 1852. Tertullian, Apologetical Works. Translated by Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly and Edwin A. Quain. Fathers of the Church. New York: Inc., 1950. ___. Disciplinary, Moral and Ascetical Works. Translated by Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly and Edwin A. Quain. Fathers of the Church. New York: Inc., 1959. Tosefta. Edition of Saul Lieberman. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955. Jacob Neusner. The Tosefta. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002. Zosimus, Historia Nova. Translated by James J. Buchanan and Harold T. Davis. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1967.

SECONDARY SOURCES Albeck, Chanoch. Mavo le-Talmudim. Tel Aviv: Dvir Co. Ltd, 1969. Alon, Gedaliah. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.). Translated and edited by Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1980. Alfoeldy, Geza. “The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 15, No. 1 (1974): 89. Apothaker, Howard L. Sifra, Dibbura de-Sinai: Rhetorical Formulae, Literary Structures and Legal Traditions. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2003. Appelbaum, Alan. “A Story of Cain.” New Traditions 3 (1986): 101. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. Second Edition. London/New York: Routledge, 2002. ___. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. London/New York: Routledge, 2000.

302

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Avi-Yonah, Michael. The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest. Oxford: Blackwell, 1976. Baer, Y. F.. “Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire from the time of Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of A. D. 313.” Translated by S. Applebaum. Scripta Hierosolymitana 12 (1961): 79. Barnes, T. D. The Sources of the Historia Augusta. Brussels: Latomus Revue d’Etudes Latines (1978). ___. “The Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historical Tradition,” Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1968/1969, 13 (1970). Beard, Mary, John North and Simon Price. Religions of Rome. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1998. Becker, Adam H., and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Berkowitz, Beth A. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Oxford/New York: Routledge Classics edition, 2004. Birley, Anthony. The African Emperor: Septimius Severus. London: Eyre and Spottswood, 1988. ___. “The Third Century Crisis in the Roman Empire.” Bulletin of The John Rylands University Library of Manchester 58 (1975): 253. Borg, Marcus J. Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture and the Life of Discipleship. Papercover ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. Boustan, Ra’anan. “Imperialisms in Jewish History, From Pre- to Postmodern.” Perspectives 8 (2005). Bowersock, G. W. Roman Arabia. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press. ___. “Herodian and Elagabalus.” Yale Classical Studies 24 (1975): 229. Bowman, Alan K., Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History, Second Edition—Volume XII: The Crisis of Empire, A. D. 193–337. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2005. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

303

___. “Homotopia: The Feminized Jewish Man and the Lives of Women in Late Antiquity.” differences: A journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 7 (1995): 41. ___. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990. ___. “On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1990): 455. ___. “Rhetoric and Interpretation: The Case of the Nimshal (with response from David Stern).” Prooftexts 5 (1985): 268. Brown, Peter. The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1978. Browning, Iain. Palmyra. London: Chatto & Windus,1979. Cameron, Averil. The Later Roman Empire. London: Fontana History of the Ancient World, 1993. Cartlidge, David R., and David L. Dungan, eds. Documents for the Study of the Gospels. Revised and enlarged ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Chernick, Michael, ed. Essential Papers on the Talmud. New York/London: New York University Press, 1994. Chilton, Bruce. Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Cohen, Shaye J. D., ed. The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000. ___. “The Conversion of Antoninus.” In Schäfer, Peter, ed. The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Cook, S. A., F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth and N. H. Baynes, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History—Volume XII: The Imperial Crisis and Recovery A. D. 193–324. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1939. Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. Paperback edition. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. de Silva, David A. “Using the Master’s Tools to Shore Up Another’s House: A Postcolonial Analysis of 4 Maccabees.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 99. den Boer, W. Some Minor Roman Historians. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972. Dschulnigg, Peter. Rabbinische Gleichnisse und das Neue Testament: Die Gleichnisse der PesK im Vergleich mit den Gleichnissen Jesu und dem Neuen Testament. Bern/Frankfurt/New York/Paris: Peter Lang, 1988.

304

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Evans, Craig A. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 2001. Fine, Steven. “Non-Jews in the Synagogues of Late-Antique Palestine: Rabbinic and Archeological Evidence.” In Fine, Steven, ed. Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Greco-Roman Period, 224. London/New York: Routledge, 1999. ___. This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the GrecoRoman Period. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1997. Finley, M. I. The Ancient Economy. Updated edition. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1999. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Fraade, Steven D. “The Torah of the King (Deut 17:14–20) in the Temple Scroll and Early Rabbinic Law.” In Davila, James R., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, 25–60. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ___. “Seth Schwartz’ Imperialism and Jewish Society.” presented at the Society of Biblical Literature 2003 Annual Meeting (2003). ___. “Priests, Kings and Patriarchs: Yerushalmi Sanhedrin in its Exegetical and Cultural Settings.” In Schäfer, Peter, ed. The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco-Roman Culture. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ___. “Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim.” Oral Tradition 14 (1999). ___. From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy. Albany: SUNY Press, 1991. ___. Enosh and His Generation: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation. Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Friedman, Shamma. “The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels.” In Fox, Harry, and Tirzah Meacham, eds. Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies. KTAV Publishing House, 1999. Frilingos, Christopher A. Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

Gardner, Gregg. “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benediction in the Second Century B. C. E.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 327. Garnsey, Peter, and Richard Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. ___., Keith Hopkins and C. R. Whittaker, eds. Trade in the Ancient Economy. London: Chatto & Windus, 1983. ___. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Geiger, Joseph. “The Tombs of Remus and Romulus: An Overlooked Source and its Implications.” Estratto da Athenaeum—Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell’ Antichita 92 (2004). Gibson, E. Leigh. “Jewish Antagonism or Christian Polemic: The Case of the Martyrdom of Pionius.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 340. Goldberg, Arnold. “Form-Analysis of Midrashic Literature as a Method of Description.” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985). ___. “Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch.” Frankfurter Judaistische Beitraege 3 (1981). Gooch, G. P. History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century. Boston: Beacon Press, 1959. Goodblatt, David M. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish SelfGovernment in Antiquity. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1994. ___. “Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History.” In Bokser, Baruch M., ed. History of Judaism—The Next Ten Years. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. Goodman, Martin. State and Society in Roman Palestine A.D. 132–212. Second edition. Towota NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 2000. Graf, David F. “Zenobia and the Arabs.” In French, D. H., and C. S. Lightfoot, eds. The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Ankara in September 1988. BAR International Series, 553(i). Oxford, 1989. Green, William Scott. “What’s in a Name: The Problematic of Rabbinic Biography.” In Green, William Scott, ed. Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978. Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

306

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Hadas, Moses. “Rabbinic Parallels to Scriptores Historiae Augustae.” Classical Philology 24 (1929). Harlow, Barbara. Resistance Literature. New York/London: Methuen, 1987. Hasan-Rokem, Galit. Tales of the Neighborhood: Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 2003. Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ___.“The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah.” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 3 (2004): 1, http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/ JSIJ/ 3–2004/Hauptman.doc. Hayes, Christine. Between the Babylonian and the Palestinian Talmuds: Accounting for Halakhic Differences in Selected Sugyot from Tractate Avodah Zarah. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Herr, Moshe David. “The Historical Significance of the Dialogues Between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 123. Honore, Tony. Emperors and Lawyers. Second revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. ___. Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods: Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1999. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979. Horrell, David G. “Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future.” In Still, Todd D., and David G. Horrell, eds. After The First Urban Christians: The SocialScientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later, 6. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2009. ___. “The Label Χριστιανος: 1 Peter 4:16 and the Formation of Christian Identity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 361. Horsley, Richard A., ed. Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

307

___. Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Hyman, Aharon. Sefer Toldot Tannaim v’Amoraim. Jerusalem: Boys Town Jerusalem Publishers, 1964. Ilan, Tal. “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 16 (2009): 363. ___. “Matrona and Rabbi Jose: An Alternative Interpretation.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 25 (1994): 18–51. Jacobs, Andrew S. Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. Jones, A. H. M.. “Numismatics and History.” In Carson, R. A. G., and C. H. V. Sutherland, eds. Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956. Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain: Leur Condition Juridique, Economique et Sociale. New York: Burt Franklin, 1914. Kahana, Menahem “The Editions of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus in the Light of Geniza Fragments” [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 515 (1986). Kalmin, Richard L. “Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity as a Source for Historical Study.” In Neusner, Jacob, and A. Avery-Peck, eds. Judaism in Late Antiquity, 3. Leiden/New York: E. J. Brill, 1999. ___. Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Kasher, Aryeh. Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE – 70 CE). Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990. ___. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Kleiner, Diana E. E. Roman Sculpture. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1992. Kuttner, Ann L. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press, 1995.

308

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Lapin, Hayim. “Hegemony and its Discontents: Rabbis as a Late Antique Provincial Population.” In Kalmin, Richard, and Seth Schwartz, eds. Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Levick, Barbara. Julia Domna, Syrian Empress. London/New York: Routledge, 2007. Levine, Lee I. “Contextualizing Jewish Art: The Synagogues at Hammat Tiberias and Sepphoris.” In Kalmin, Richard, and Seth Schwartz, eds. Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire. Leuven: Peeters. ___. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000. ___. The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine. Jerusalem/New York: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press / The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989. ___. “The Jewish Patriarch (Nasi) in Third Century Palestine.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 19 (1979): 649. MacMullen, Ramsay. Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1962. Matthews, John F. “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East.” Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984): 157. McDonald, Lee Martin, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002. Meeks, Wayne A. In Search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume Three, Companions and Competitors. New York: Doubleday, 2001. ___. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One, The Roots of the Problem and the Person. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Milikowsky, Chaim. “The Status Quaestionis of Research into Rabbinic Literature.” Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988): 201–11. Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1993. ___. “Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria.” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971): 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

309

Moore-Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics. London/New York: Verso, 1997. Moss, Joshua L. Midrash and Legend: Historical Anecdotes in the Tannaitic Midrashim. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003. Naeh, Shlomo. “Omenut Ha-Zicharon: Mivnim shel Zicharon v’Tavniyut shel Teqst b’Sifrut Chazal.” In Zussman, Ya’acov, and Dovid Rosental, eds. Mehqeri Talmud: Qovetz Mechqarim baTalmud u-be-Techumim Govlim Moqdash leZichrono shel Prof. Ephraim E. Urbach 3, 543. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Neusner, Jacob. How Not To Study Judaism: Example and CounterExamples, Volume One: Parables, Rabbinic Narratives, Rabbis’ Biographies, Rabbis’ Disputes. Lanham MD, New York/Oxford: University Press of America, 2004. Noy, David, Alexander Panayotov and Hanswulf Blödhorn, eds. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, Volume I, Eastern Europe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Potter, David S. The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180–395. London/New York: Routledge, 2004. ___. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights. Leuven/Dudley MA: Peeters, 2005. Rajak, Tessa. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural an Social Interaction. Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002. Reinhartz, Adele. Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John. New York London: Continuum, 2001. Rives, J. R. “The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 135. Rostovtzeff, Michael Ivanovitch. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Second edition, revised by P. M. Fraser. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Saller, Richard. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Paperback edition. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2002.

310

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Salway, R. W. B. “The Creation of the Roman State AD 200–340: Social and Administrative Aspects.” D. Phil. Thesis, The Queen’s College, Oxford, 1994. Samuel, Simon. A Postcolonial Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. London and New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Sarason, Richard S. “The Petichtot in Leviticus Rabba: Oral Homilies or Redactional Constructions?” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 557. Satlow, Michael L. “A History of the Jews or Judaism?: On Seth Schwartz’s Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C. E to 640 C.E.” Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 151. Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Translated by David Chowcat. Luxembourg: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995. ___. “Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis.” Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 139. Schechter, Solomon. Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. New York: Schocken Books, 1961, reprinted with an introduction by Neil Gilman. Woodstock VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1999. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C. to 640 C.E. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001. ___. “The Patriarch and the Diaspora.” Journal of Jewish Studies 50 (1999): 208. Schwarz, Henry, and Sangeeta Ray, eds. An Introduction to Postcolonial Studies. Malden MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Scott, Bernard Brandon. Re-Imagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Santa Rosa CA: Polebridge Press, 2001. ___. Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1990. ___. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Seltzer, Robert M. Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History. New York/London: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc. / Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1980. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

311

Stern, David. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1996. ___. Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge (MA)/London: Harvard University Press, 1991. Stoneman, Richard. Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia’s Revolt against Rome. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. Strack, H. L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. Second printing with emendations and updates. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Syme, Sir Ronald. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. ___. Ammianus and the Historia Augusta. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Thoma, Clemens and Hanspeter Ernst. Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Vierter Teil, Vom Lied des Mose bis zum Bundesbuch: ShemR 23–30; Einleitung, Uebersetzung mit Komentar, Texte. Bern/Berlin/ Brussels/Frankfurt/New York/Oxford/Vienna: Verlang Peter Lang, 2000. ___. Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Dritter Teil, Von Isaak bis zum Schilfmeer: BerR 63–100; ShemR 1–22: Einleitung, Uebersetzung mit Komentar, Texte. Bern/Berlin/Frankfurt/New York/Paris/ Vienna: Verlang Peter Lang, 1996. ___. and Simon Lauer. Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Zweiter Teil, Von der Erschaffung der Welt bis zum Tod Abrahams: Bereschit Rabba 1– 63: Einleitung, Uebersetzung mit Kommentar, Texte. Bern/Berlin/Frankfurt/New York/Paris/Vienna: Verlang Peter Lang, 1991. ___. Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen: Erster Teil, Pesiqta deRav Kahana (PesK): Einleitung, Uebersetzung, Parallelen, Kommentar, Texte. Bern/Frankfurt/New York: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986. ___. and Michael Wyshograd, eds. Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity. New York/Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 1989. ___. “Prolegomena zu einer Uebersetzung und Kommentierung der rabbinischen Gleichnisse.” Theologische Zeitschrift 38 (1982): 514. Thorion-Vardi, Talia. Das Kontrastgleichnis in der Rabbinischen Literatur. Frankfurt/Bern/New York: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986.

312

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Wacholder, Ben-Zion. “The date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael.” Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968): 117. Walser, Gerold. “The Crisis of the Third Century A. D.: A ReInterpretation.” Bucknell Review 13, No. 2 (1965): 1. Watson, Alaric. Aurelian and the Third Century. London/New York: Routledge, 1999. Webster, Jane, and Nick Cooper. Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives. Leicester: School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, 1996. Weiss, Daniel. “’Thine is the kingdom’: The Holy One and kings of flesh and blood in the parables of Midrash Tanhuma.” Presented at the New England Region of the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting (2003). Williams, Patrick, and Laura Chrisman, eds. Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader. Hemel Hempstead (UK): Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994. Wolfson, Elliot R. Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination. New York: Fordham University Press, 2005. Woolf, Greg. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1999. Yadin, Azzan. Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. York, John M., Jr. “The Image of Philip the Arab,” Historia 21 (1972): 320. Young, Frances M. From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background. London: SCM Press, 1983. Young, Robert J. C. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Oxford/Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. Ziegler, Ignaz. Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch die römische Kaiserzeit. Breslau: Schlesische Verlags-Anstalt v. S. Schottländer, 1903.

GENERAL INDEX Ahilai, R., 17n29 Aibu, R., 138–139 Akiva, R., 160n445 Albeck, Chanoch, 30n69, 52n153, 55n166 Alexandri, R., 14n20, 108n319 Alexandria, 11 Alfoeldy, A., 253n818, 256n831 Allegory in resistance literature, 193n576 Alon, Gedaliah, 11–12, 12n14, 13, 15, 17 Amalek, 139–140 Ammi, R., 82–83 Amoraim. See also Rabbis; specific individuals by name A1/Mid-century period, 52– 53, 54, 55, 57–58, 96, 248–249 A2/Divided Empire period, 52–53, 55–56, 57–58, 249, 250–264 A3a/Reunited Empire period, 52–53, 56–57, 264–267 A3b/Transitional period, 52–53, 57, 264–267 dating and sequencing of, 8n3, 32–33 described, 8–17

A1/Mid-century period, 52–53, 54, 55, 57–58, 96, 242–249 A2/Divided Empire period, 52– 53, 55–56, 57–58, 249, 250– 264 A3a/Reunited Empire period, 52–53, 56–57, 264–267 A3b/Transitional period, 52–53, 57, 264–267 Aaron (High Priest), 109, 131, 143, 173n474 Abba bar Kahana, R., 57, 66n203, 81–82, 115–117, 131 Abbahu, R., 9, 32n78, 51, 57, 95, 95n297, 111n324, 137– 138, 143, 146, 151, 151n411, 171, 172n471, 181n496, 264, 269 Abin, R., 53, 59n179 Abraham (Patriarch), 102–103, 150, 169–171, 183n505, 187 Abrittus, 249n799 Absalom, 82 Absent nimshals, 81–83 Achli, R., 16–17 Adam (Genesis), 150, 182 Adopted sons, 41–42 Aemilianus, 249n799 African-Americans, 222 Aha, R., 130 Ahasuerus, King, 40, 96n299

313

314

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Angels, 92n285, 133–134, 155, 182, 184 Anger of God, 47, 50, 186 Anonymous parables, 31 Anthropomorphism, 177–180, 191 Antipas, 275 Antithetical parables, 84–90 Imperial, 195–196, 199, 218 intertextual narratives, 87–88 Jesus’ parables, 280, 283– 284, 286–287 king not compared to God in, 101 negative views of emperors, 195–196 neutral views of emperors, 195, 199 parts of, 84–87, 283 textual difficulties clarified by, 88–89 Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius. See Caracalla, Emperor Antoninus (as generic emperor’s name), 3, 43–44, 226, 230, 234, 235, 248n796 Antoninus Pius, Emperor, 228, 230n717 Antony, 278 Aper, 268n890 Arab nations, 187n549 Archelaus, 275 Ares, 224n704 Arius, 14–15 Art, 145–147 Ashcroft, Bill, 193n576, 203n639 Assassination of emperors, 249, 250–251

Attributions, 30–32, 58n175, 61–62, 69 The Augustiani, 96n299 Augustus, 96n299, 144–148, 208n653, 226, 228, 234, 265, 266 Aurelian, Emperor, 52, 262– 263, 264–270 “Aurelius” as Jewish name, 13– 17 Babylonian Empire, 59n175 Baer, Yitzhak, 248 Balaam, 133, 167–168 Balbinus, Emperor, 240 Baqates of Mauretania, 11 Bar Kappara, 76, 109 Bar Kokhba Revolt, 221 Bebai, R., 121–122 Benjamin (tribe), 188 Ben Paturi, 28n59 Berechiah, R., 143–144, 269 Berkowitz, Beth, 210–211n663, 213 Bhabha, Homi, 204, 207–210 Bhaduri, Bhubaneswari, 206– 207n648 Blacksmiths, 274 Boscoreale cups, 145n399, 146, 147 Bowersock, G. W., 245n781, 251n807 Bowman, Alan K., 243n777 Boyarin, Daniel accessibility of Torah to nonRabbis, 3 on rabbinic appropriation of the empire’s institutions, symbols and themes, 209

GENERAL INDEX on common characters in parables, 97n300 dating of the Mekilta by, 29n63 figure of the king identified as God by, 3, 100n304, 110–112 on intertextual parables, 73– 74 king-parables compared and contrasted with fairy tales, 41n87 on king/son-parables, 41n88 on the secular narrative, 67n205 on the nimshal, 68, 121n338 on settings of parables, 157– 159, 173 on slave names, 213– 214n676 Bozrah, 171, 172n471 Braude, William G., 82n248 Bribe taking, 227 Brown, Peter, 233, 235 Bull brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting parable, 120–121 Burns, Joshua Ezra, 14n19 Caesar, Julius, 13 Caesaria, 151, 247n793 Cameron, Averil, 243n777 “Can the Subaltern Speak” (Spivak), 206–207n648, 212n667 Capitalism, 203–204 Capital punishment, 210– 211n663 Caracalla, Emperor as “Antoninus,” 230–231

315

assassination, 26, 248n796 characterization of reign, 228, 232–235, 237–238 citizens named after, 13–17 Constitutio Antoniniana, 10–14 Elagabal’s resemblance to, 239 fourth generation of Tannaim period corresponding to reign of, 27, 51 imperial corruption, 227 intelligence of, 231 march on Parthia, 242n770 Rabbis’ view of, 233–235, 237–238 relationship with his father, 43n95 Carinus, Emperor, 268n890 Carter, Warren, 216n681 Carus, Emperor, 267 “Cast away your rod” parable, 122–123 Census of the Israelites, 121– 122 Chabon, Michael, 176 Charity (tzedakah), 89–90 Christians and Christianity. See also Jesus Christ; Jesus’ kingparables Decius’ decree vs., 246–247 Diocletian’s persecution of, 247n793 Exod. Rab. 29:5 as polemic against, 149n407, 151– 152 New Testament, 21n36, 214–216 Pauline claims on Abraham, 187n549

316

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Q , 214–215n678, 280 Citizenship status of Jews of Palestine, 10–15 Claudius II, Emperor, 51, 152n413, 243, 262–263, 264, 265–266 Clodius Albinus, 19, 237–238 Cohen, Norman J., 170n468 Cohen, Shaye J. D., 30n71, 53n154 Collins, John J., 12n14 Colonialism. See Resistance literature Comforting parables of Jesus, 292–293 Commandments, 104–105, 121n337, 149n407, 150–151, 162–163, 165–166, 185 Commodus, Emperor, 44n102 Common characters in parables, 97n300 Comparisons, 66, 68–72, 90–91, 98–99, 116–117, 281–282, 285–286, 290–291 Compradors, 194 Conclusions, 49–50n141 Constantine, Emperor, 52, 263n866 Constitutio Antoniniana, 10–15 Contrapuntal reading, 212 Cooper, Nick, 194n579 Corleone, Michael, 175–176, 180 The “correlate,” 67–72 Corruption, 227 “Cosmocrator,” 44n100 Council members, 233 Creation of the world, 59, 89, 147, 182

Crossan, John Dominic, 274n907 Cultic practices involving kings, 93, 151n411, 227–228 ”Das Schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch” (Goldberg). See also Goldberg, Arnold, 26n53 David (King of Israel), 82, 94n292, 153 Death, 131–132, 133–134 Decius, Emperor, 29, 51, 62, 243, 245–248, 249n799 The Decumani, 96n299 Dediticii, 11–15 Demons, 287 The destroyed palace parable, 105 Didaskalos, 273 Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen (Thoma), 18n30 Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch (Ziegler). See also Ziegler, Ignaz, 2–3, 27n57, 40n85 Dio, Cassius, 10, 17, 22, 223, 225–226, 227, 231 Diocletian, Emperor, 30, 32n78, 52, 56, 96n299, 151n411, 247n793, 267 Direct parables, 65–83 hybrid parables, 79 of Jesus, 280, 281–283 king not compared to God in, 101–104 parts of, 66–72, 281 variants in the nimshal, 72–83 Di Segni, Leah, 13–14n19 Divine sovereignty, 148 Documents

GENERAL INDEX identifying third-century documents, 26–30 identifying third-century material in later documents, 30–35 Neusner’s “documentary premise,” 19–26, 30–31, 275 Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (Scott), 202, 211–222 Domitian, Emperor, 236n733 Double nimshals, 74n232 Drinkwater, John, 246n790 Dschulnigg, Peter, 67n205, 68n209 Earlier teachings augmented by parables, 172–173 Edom/Edomites, 139–140, 171, 187, 194–195n580 Egypt/Egyptians, 122–123, 125, 129, 131, 135–136, 184–185, 189–190 Ela, 17n29 Elagabal, Emperor, 238–239, 242n769 Elai, 17n29 Eleazar, R., 23n44, 80n244, 83– 84n253, 110n322, 161 Eleazar ben Azariah, R., 160n445 Eleazar ben Pedat, R., 32n78, 50–51, 52, 56, 58n175, 62n192, 96n299 Eleazar (priest), 42 Emesa, 237 Emperor cult, 93, 151n411, 227–228

317

Emperors. See Roman Emperors Emperor’s coin parable, 213 Encouraging parables of Jesus, 292–293 Ernst, Hanspeter, 18n30, 65n197, 145n399, 151n411, 170n468 Esau, 148–149, 187 Essentialism, 176, 177n480, 178–180 Evans, Craig, 3, 100, 279n933 Evil Inclination, 155 “Evil” traits of God, 190–191 Exile and exodus, 183–186, 189–190 Fairy tales, 41n87, 44–45 False attributions, 30–32 Figure of God, 175–192 anger, 186 anthropomorphism, 177– 180, 191 beneficiaries of his favoritism, 188 character approach to, 175– 176 concern for Israel’s honor, 184–185 God’s love for Israel, 183– 190, 185–186 God’s mercy, 184, 188–189, 295 God’s personality, 175–178, 295 holding love for the future, 185–186 inconsistent traits of, 179– 181, 188–190, 188–191, 295–296

318

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

indecisiveness, 187 Jesus’ king-parables, 295–296 negative theology, 181n496, 182 not seen by Israel, 182 reliance on Israel, 192 Stern on, 177–180, 191 traits represented in parables, 180–183 treatment of the other nations, 186 Figure of the king, 97–117 within antithetical parables, 101, 195 within direct parables, 101– 104 within formless parables, 101–102, 103n311 within interstitial parables, 111–112 within intertextual parables, 109–113 Jesus’ king-parables, 287–288 king and his empty flask parable, 103–104, 114 king as a metaphor for God, 101n307 modes and methods of exegesis, 107–109 parables in which the king is not a stand-in for God,, 114–115 as the Sabbath, 102n310 as the Shekhinah, 101n307 Fishbane, Michael, 112n326, 144n397 “Flesh and blood” parables, 85, 86n259 Florianus, Emperor, 267

Forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, 163n453 Forgetfulness, 23 Form and structure, 65–96, 269–270 antithetical parables, 84–90, 101, 195–196, 199, 218, 269–270, 280, 283–284, 286–287 direct parables, 65–83, 101– 104, 269–270, 280, 281– 283 variants in the nimshal, 72–83, 269–270 Formless parables, 90–96, 269– 270 exegesis, 94 figure of the king within, 101–102, 103n311 hybrid parables, 79 of Jesus, 280–281, 284–287 Foucault, Michel, 206n648 Fraade, Steven D., 15n23 Friends of kings, 47–49, 70 Frilingos, Christopher A., 211n663 Functions of parables, 119–156 interpreting scripture, 119– 127 parables to illustrate, expand, augment, supplement or complete earlier exegesis, 128–148 political views included within parables, 148–153 rabbis’ pastoral work, 153– 156 Gabriel (angel), 152–153, 182 Galilee and Galileans, 277

GENERAL INDEX Gallienus, Emperor, 43n97, 51, 252–262 Gallus, Emperor, 245–246, 248n796, 249n799 Games, 244n781 Garden of Eden, 133–134, 163n453 Garden parables, 45, 60–61 Garnsey, Peter, 243n777 Gaul, 255–256n829 Gehenna, 123n343, 133–134 Geiger, Joseph, 33n78, 53n154 Generals, 61n185 Genre, 60–61 Geta, Emperor, 43n95, 235– 236n733 Gibson, E. Leigh, 247n793 Gifts to the emperor, 218 Gleichnis, 90–91 God. See Figure of God The Godfather (film), 176, 180 Gods of Rome, 224n704 Goldberg, Arnold, 26n53, 65– 66, 67–68, 69, 90–92, 101n307, 280 Goldenberg, Robert, 19n32, 20n34 The Golden Calf, 112–114, 184, 189 Gooch, G. P, 12n14 Goodblatt, David, 24, 275 Goodman, Martin, 3, 39n83, 40n85, 41n88 Gordian I, Emperor, 29, 243– 244 Gordian II, Emperor, 244, 248n796 Gordian III, Emperor, 51, 240, 241, 242n770, 244, 248n796 Goths, 245, 249n799, 262–263

319

Governor/generals, 61n185 Gramsci, Antonio, 206n648, 212n667 Grandmother of emperors, 242 The great dinner parable, 280, 295–296 The Great Revolt, 221 Griffiths, Gareth, 193n576, 203n639 Groups of parables, 38n80 Guha, Ranajit, 206n648, 212n667 Hadas, Moses, 193n576 Halachot, 162–163 “Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai,” 24–25 Hama ben Haninah, 52–53n153, 56 Hammer, Reuven, 127–128n350 Hananiah ben Hachinai, R., 92– 93 Haninah, R., 87, 150 Haninah ben Auri, R., 16 Hartmann, Udo, 257n837, 260n853, 267n888 Hasan-Rokem, Galit, 3, 39n83, 100–101 Hauptman, Judith, 27n58 Hayes, Christine, 24, 32, 275 Hellenistic period, 40n85, 207, 215n679 The Herculiani, 96n299 Herodian, 39n82, 40n85, 223, 225–226, 227, 294 Herod the Great, 275 Herr, Moshe David, 15n23 Herzog, William R., II, 213, 216n681, 682 Hezekiah, King, 108n319

320

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Hidden transcripts, 3, 211–222 High Holy Days, 78, 105, 155 Hiyya, R., 43, 55, 173n474 Hiyya bar Abba, R., 55n163 Holidays to honor a favored person, 124 Holmes, Sherlock, 176 Homiletical parables, 161–164 Honor, 184–185 Horrell, David G., 202n637 Horsley, Richard, 214–216 Hosea (prophet), 80n244 Hosheah, R., 59n175, 141–142 Household duties of kings, 45– 46 Humor, 213n671 Hybrid parables, 79, 95n297 Hyman, Aharon, 28n59 Identifying and classifying thirdcentury rabbinic kingparables, 8, 37–63 groups of parables, 38n80 “king-parables” in Ziegler’s work that are not thirdcentury king parables, 58– 63 kings and their sons, 40, 41– 47, 235, 248–249 “kings” of parables as Roman emperors, 38–40, 98–99n302 kings, their friends and their wives, 40, 47–50, 70, 97n300 methodology for identifying third-century king-parables, 7–35 identifying third-century documents, 26–30

identifying third-century material in later documents, 30–35 Neusner’s “documentary premise,” 18–26, 30–31 the Rabbis, overview, 7–17 periodization, 50–58 standard parables, described, 40–41 Idol worship, 128–129, 151n411, 172n474, 182–183, 227–228, 247n793 Il’a, 17n29 Ilan, Tal, 242n768 Illyria, 243 Imperial parables, 40, 41–42, 44, 48, 49–50n141, 54–55, 58, 277–278 Implicit nimshals, 82–83 Indirect attribution, 32n76 Ingenuus, 255–256n829 Instability of emperors’ reigns, 249, 250–264 Instructional parables of Jesus, 292 Interpreting a verse via another verse, 140–147 Interstitial parables, 111–113, 170n468 Intertextual parables, 73–74, 87–88, 109–113, 110–111 Introductory words or phrases, 66, 68–72, 85, 281, 282, 284 The Ioviani, 96n299 Iraq, 17n28, 59n175, 60n184 Isaac, R., 9, 52, 53, 57, 71–72, 96n299, 107–108, 120–121, 130-132, 167, 274 Isaac bar Aurion, 16

GENERAL INDEX Ishmael, R., 160n445, 172– 173n474 Ishmael (Hebrew Bible), 148– 149, 187 Israel (land), 106, 125 Israel (people) as chosen nation, 148–153, 154, 295 exile and exodus, 183–186, 189–190 God not seen by, 182 God’s love for, 183–190, 185–186 God’s mercy for, 184 God’s reliance on, 192 honor of, 184–185 as religio licita, 247n793 Torah betrothed to, 132n368 Jacob (Patriarch), 149n407, 150, 187 Jacobs, Andrew, 205n646, 210n663, 211n663 Jastrow, Marcus, 233n727 Jesus Christ. See also Christians and Christianity, 272–275 birth, 275 the great dinner parable, 280, 295–296 identification with God, 100, 101 literacy, 274 not subject to Roman rule, 275 as “Rabbi,” 273n904 Jesus’ king-parables, 271–296 antithetical parables, 280, 283–284, 286–287 characters in, 278 direct parables, 281–283

321

documents, 275–277 emperor’s coin parable, 213 figure of God, 295–296 figure of the king, 287–288 form and structure of parables, 280–287 formless parables, 280–281, 284–287 functions of, 288–293 as “hidden transcripts,” 214n676 identifying and categorizing, 277–278 the Kingdom described in, 279 overview, 271–272 sayings that are not kingparables, 279–280 settings of, 293–294 wicked husbandman parable, 271 The Jesus Project, 280n939, 292 Jethro, 92n284, 124, 161, 187 Jews and Judaism. See Israel (people) Jobab son of Zerah of Bozrah, 171 Johnson-DeBaufre, Melanie, 216n681 John the Baptist, 280 Jonathan, R., 75–76, 92 Jones, A. H. M., 12, 223–224, 228 Joshua ben Levi, R., 4, 9, 55, 57n172, 74n232, 80–81, 94– 95, 124, 130, 135 Joshua (Hebrew Bible), 42 Joshua of Sichnin, R., 78 Jotapianus, 245n783, 249n799 Judaea, 275, 289

322

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Judah bar Ilai, R., 61–62 Judah ben Simon, 52n153 Judah Nesiah, R., 32–33n78, 51, 56n170, 251n805 Judah the Patriarch, R., 3, 9, 26, 32–33n78, 54, 57n172, 93, 96n297 Judah (tribe), 188 Judicial proceedings, 44 Julia Domna, Empress, 49–50, 228, 236, 238 Julia Domna (Levick), 233n722 Jupiter, 96n299 Kahana, Menahem, 28 Kalmin, Richard, 30n71, 275 Kennedy, John F., 192n575 Ketubah given to Matrona, 115– 117 Keturah, 148–149, 187 King and his empty flask parable, 103–104, 114 King Lear (Shakespeare), 180 “King of flesh and blood” parables, 85, 86n259 Kings. See Figure of the king Lamentations, 172 Lamentations Rabbah, 26n53 Lapin, Hayim, 214n676 Larsen, Neil, 210n660 Lauer, Simon, 18n30, 84n254 Lauterbach, Jacob Z., 28n61 Layton, Bentley, 277n920 Legal parables of Jesus, 289 Length of parables, 78–81, 95 Levi, R. contradictory verses reconciled by, 139–140, 218n687

deregularization of parable, 60n183 exegetical antithetical parables, 88, 128n352 figure of the king compared to God by, 109–110, 112– 114 “flesh and blood” parables, 85n257 High Holy Days presented in parables, 78, 105 hybrid parables, 95n297 king and Matrona parables, 58n175, 76–77 king who became angry with his son parables, 76 king who forgives the debts of provincials parable, 103 king who seeks to marry into a good family parable, 161 king who wanted to perform governmental acts outside the knowledge of the prefect parable, 73–74 money as metaphor for power, 261 narrative about Moses, Aaron and Miriam, 87n267 nimshals, 79–80 as the outstanding parablist, 60n183 periodization, 9, 32n78, 51, 57–58 rebel who puts up a mint in the “king’s” own tent parable, 251

GENERAL INDEX on sacrifice of a calf, 164n457 on the Sodomites, 125–126 two high generals and twelve senators parable, 72n227 windows of the Temple parable, 59 on worship, 129, 172– 173n474 Levick, Barbara, 233n722 Levine, Lee I., 146n399 Libya, 243 Literacy of Rabbis, 9 Lorberbaum, Yair, 210n663 “The Lord will reign forever and ever,” 105 Lot (Hebrew Bible), 125–126 Love, 183–190, 185–186 Macrinus, Emperor, 51, 238– 240, 248n796 Maesa, Julia, 242 Maimonides, Moses, 181n496 Majuma festival, 87n265 Mammaea, Julia, 242 Mana of Shaab, R., 78 Marcus Aurelius, Emperor, 41, 44n102, 228, 230 Mariades, 249n799 Marinus, 245n783, 249n799 Markers of applicability, 67, 68– 72, 282, 283, 285–286, 290– 291 Mashal, 66n201, 68, 281 Matrona gems brought into marriage by, 169–171 Ketubah given to, 115–117

323

parable of coming between a king and, 162–163, 236, 242 parable of Matrona’s fingernail, 168n465 as powerful figure, 242 R. Levi’s parables, 76–77 rumored paramour, 112–114 Zenobia as, 52, 228, 256n833, 262, 264–265, 267n888 Maximinus, Emperor, 51, 62, 240, 242–244, 248–249n796 Memorization, 171–172 Memorizing oral traditions, 23 Menahema, R., 121–122 Mercy, 184, 188–189 Methodology for identifying third-century king-parables, 7–35 identifying third-century documents, 26–30 identifying third-century material in later documents, 30–35 Neusner’s “documentary premise,” 18–26, 30–31 the Rabbis, overview, 7–17 Michael (angel), 152–153, 182 Military conflicts, 42–43, 44–45, 55 Minimizing rabbinic authority, 173–174n475, 174 Mintz, Alan, 177n480 Missing nimshals, 81–83 Mnemonic devices, 172 Mommsen, Theodor, 11, 12, 13, 14n19, 17 Money as metaphor for power, 261

324

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Month in which the year begins, 161 The moon, 126 Moore-Gilbert, Bart, 203n640, 206–207n648 Moses (Prophet) Aaron High Priest and, 108n319, 109 Balaam compared to, 133 census of the Israelites, 122– 123 favored by God, 188 figure of the king compared to, 92n284, 95n293, 102– 103, 112, 114 God seen by, 182 the Golden Calf, 184, 189 Israel reprimanded by, 127 Oral Law given to, 152–153 plea on Israel’s behalf, 183n506 praise for God, 187 priestly duties performed by, 143 on redeeming Israel from Egypt, 135–136 sent to Mt. Sinai, 141–142 Song of Songs 4:5, 131 Tabernacle set up by, 137– 138 tribes of Israel blessed by, 137 Mother of emperor, 242 Nachshon, 93 Naming practices of the Roman Empire, 13–17 Nathan, R., 54n158 Nathan the Babylonian, R., 16 Nazareth, 275

Nebuchadnezzar, 96n299 Negative theology, 181n496, 182 Neusner, Jacob, 19–26, 30–31, 58n175, 179, 61–62, 164, 177–178n481, 227n711, 233n727, 275 New Testament. See also Jesus’ king-parables, 21n36, 214– 216 Nimshals antithetical, 86–87, 284 double, 74n232 Jesus’ parables, 282, 283, 285, 286, 290–292 variants in, 72–83 Noachide commandments, 149n407, 150, 162–163 Nominalism, 176, 177n480, 178–180 North American slaves, 203n639 Numerian, Emperor, 268n890 Odenathus, 52, 228, 256–262, 265 Og, 127 Oral Law, 23, 152–153 Oral presentation of parables, 68n210, 213n671 “Orientalism,” 233n722 Origen, 151n412 Pacantius, 245n783, 249n799 Paganism. See also Idol worship, 247n793 Palestine, 10–15, 210, 221, 257 Palmyra/Palmyrenes, 13, 16, 228–229, 237, 256–258, 264– 265

GENERAL INDEX Parable, usage of term, 7n1 Parables in Midrash (Stern), 26n53 Parthia, 242n770 The paschal sacrifice, 128 Passover, 170n468 Pastoral parables, 153–156 Persia/Persians, 221n698, 240, 242n770, 250–252 Pescennius Niger, 19, 237–238 Peter (apostle), 294 Pharaoh, 135–136 Pharisees, 273n904, 294 Philip, Emperor, 16, 29, 51, 226n709, 240, 244–245, 245n781, 248n796, 256–257 Pilate, 294 Pinchas, R., 141–142 Plutarch, 40n85 Polemarchos, 260 Political views included within parables, 148–153 Postcolonial theory, 203–210 Postumus, 252–255, 265 Potter, David S., 224n704, 225n707, 243n777, 244n780, 246n790, 250n804, 254n822, 256n831, 265 Priests. See also specific priests by name, 131–132, 143, 153, 187 Priscus, 16, 241, 248n796, 256– 257 Probus, Emperor, 267 Prophecy and History (Potter), 224n704, 225n707 Psychic powers of kings, 45 Public transcripts, 213–216, 217–221 Punishment, 131–132 Purple clothing, 4–5, 94–95

325

Q, 214–215n678, 280 Queens. See Matrona Quintillus, 263–264 Rab, 59n175 Rabbis. See also specific individuals by name ambivalence towards Roman power, 208, 210, 221 dating and sequencing of, 1, 3–5, 8n3, 32–33, 52–53 historical identification as a movement, 273n904 Jesus’ characteristics compared to, 272–274 minimizing rabbinic authority, 173–174n475 occupations, 274 overview, 1–5, 7–17 shared names of, 52–53 superiority of, 148, 153, 192, 272 Reading scriptural verses together, 134–140 “Reckoning of time is yours,” 130 Reconciling scriptural verses, 138–140 Regalianus, 255–256n829 Regularization process, 57n172, 60–61, 85n257, 95–96, 266n887, 279–280 Reliability of attributions, 30– 32, 69 Repentance, 155, 184 Resh Lakish, 9, 23n44, 56, 57n172, 61n185, 66n202, 89, 93–94n290, 106, 123n343, 188n554 Resistance literature, 193–222

326

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

first readings, 195–201, 219– 220 Great and Bar Kokhba Revolts, 221 negative views of emperors, 195–198 overview, 193–201 positive view of the emperor, 198–200 Retribution, 153 Reuben, R., 52–53n153, 56 Reuben (tribe), 137 Rhema, 67n205, 68n209 Rhetorical parables, 293 Rives, J. R., 247n793 Roman Emperors. See also Figure of the king gifts to the emperor, 218 king figure based on the emperor, 38–40, 98– 99n302, 195 religious practices, 246–247 sons of, 41–43, 46–47, 55, 109n320, 199, 235, 248– 249, 282n943 titles used by emperors, 44 Roman Empire. See also Resistance literature appropriation of the empire’s institutions, symbols and themes, 208–210 art, 145–147 Bar Kokhba Revolt, 221 economic and political system, 203–204 equated with Edom, 194– 195n580 God's favoritism of Israel vs., 187n549

Jewish subjects in Palestine, 10–15, 210, 221 Majuma festival, 87n265 naming practices, 13–17 Rabbis' ambivalence towards power, 208, 210, 221 villas of kings within, 61–62 Rosh Hashanah, 78, 155 Rostovtzeff, Michael Ivanovitch, 232–233, 243n777 Royal clothing, 4–5, 94–95 The Sabbath, 89, 102n310, 104, 138–139 Sabbath-observing gentiles, 149n406 Safrai, Shmuel, 11, 12n14, 13, 15, 17 Said, Edward W., 193n576, 204–205, 212n668, 233n722 Salway, R. W. B., 233n722 Sampsigerad dynasty, 251 Samuel, Simon, 204n645, 214n676 Samuel bar Nachman, R., 56n170, 57, 61n185, 75–76, 80n244, 92, 94n291, 133– 134, 261 Sapor, King, 224n704 Satan, 287, 294 Schriftauslegende parables, 65, 67 Schwartz, Seth, 22n41 Scott, Bernard Brandon, 272n895, 288n961, 293n975 Scott, James C., 3, 202, 211–222 Scribal practices, 70–72 Sea of Reeds, 182 Sebaste, 237

GENERAL INDEX Second Temple. See also Temples (First and Second), 96n299, 178–179 Secular narratives, 49n141, 67– 72, 85–86, 110–111, 120– 124, 281–283, 285, 286, 290– 291 Senators, 233n727 Sepphoris, 10, 12 Settings of parables, 157–174 Jesus’ king-parables, 293–294 study halls and synagogues as, 157–168, 171–174 Severan dynasty. See also specific rulers by name, 10, 27, 51 Severus, Septimius characterization of reign, 228, 232–235 Empress Julia Domna, 49– 50, 228, 236 imperial corruption, 227 march on Parthia, 242n770 periodization, 19, 27, 51 Rabbis' view of, 233–237 rise to power, 232–233 sons, 43n95, 230, 235 sons-in-law, 236–237 women in the Severan dynasty, 233n722 Severus Alexander, Emperor, 233n722, 238, 240–243 The Shekhinah, 102n309, 131n363 Shevuot, 142 Shimon ben Eleazar, R., 54n158 Shimon ben Halafta, R., 52n153, 55n166, 59n175 Shimon ben Lakish, R., 69, 138– 139

327

Shimon ben Yochai, R., 62 Sh'ma, 155, 160n445, 163n453, 165 Sichon, 126–127 Sign of the Covenant, 114 Simon, R., 122–123, 150 Simon ben Halafta, R., 169–171 Sin, 184–185 Sinai, Mount, 104, 141–142, 152, 152–153, 161, 182 Sins, 131–132 Slaves/slavery, 128, 203n639, 213–214n676, 222 Society of Biblical Literature 2003 Annual Meeting, 174n475, 214–216 Sodomites, 126 Solomon, King, 157–159, 188, 278 Song at the Sea, 144–148 Sons-in-law, 236–237 Sons of kings, 41–43, 46–47, 55, 109n320, 199, 235, 248–249, 282n943 Sophistication of Rabbis, 148– 149 Spivak, Gayatri, 204–207 Standard parables, 40–41, 42, 44–45, 48, 50, 54–58, 61, 277 Stemberger, Günter, 23n44, 30n69, 52–53n153, 55n166 Stern, David on academic backgrounds of scholars in Jewish studies, 98n301 dating of Amoraim by, 53n154 on direct parables, 72n224

328

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

figure of the king identified as God by, 3, 99–100, 101, 115–117 on God as a character, 177– 180 on God's favoritism, 187n549 on God's traits, 191 on intertextual parables, 73n229 on Jesus' parable of the wicked husbandman, 271 Lamentations Rabbah studied by, 26n53, 39n83 on the narrative, 67n205 on the nimshal, 68 on origin of parables, 159– 160, 163–164 regularization process, 85n257 on settings of parables, 173 switches from tannaitic to amoraic material reported by, 59n178 on translation of “parable,” 7n1 on Ziegler, 2–3 Strack, H. L., 23n44, 30n69, 52– 53n153, 55n166 Structuralist theory, 176 Study houses, 160–165, 168, 171, 172–174 Subalterns, 206n648, 212n667 Succession of kings, 41–42 The sun, 125–126 Superiority of Rabbis, 148, 153 Syme, Sir Ronald, 242 Symmachus, R., 14n20

Synagogues as setting of parables, 157–168, 171–174, 293–294 Syria, 251, 256 T4/Early Severan period, 52– 53, 54, 232–238 T5/Later Severan period, 52– 53, 55, 238–242 Tabernacle, 137–138 Tacitus, Emperor, 152n413, 267 Tannaim. See also Rabbis; specific individuals by name dating and sequencing of, 8n3, 32 described, 8–17 subdivisions of parables corresponding to, 50–52 T4/Early Severan, 52–53, 54 T5/Later Severan, 52–53, 55 Tax collections, 60n183, 78, 105, 203n641, 287, 289, 294 Temples (First and Second), 59, 96n299, 105, 131n363, 154, 178–179, 287, 289, 294 Ten Commandments, 104–105, 121n337, 165–166 Ten Days of Repentance, 106– 107n318 Tertullian, 247n793 Teshuva , 155 Tetricus, 265, 267n888 Thema, 68n209 The theologoumenon, 144n397 Third century, defined, 7 Third-century king-parables as a source of Roman history, 223–270 A1/Midcentury period, 242– 249

GENERAL INDEX A2/Divided empire period, 250–264 A3/Reunited empire and transitional periods, 264– 267 methodological issues, 228– 232 overview, 223–232 rabbinic texts rarely used by Roman historians, 225n708 specific emperors not mentioned within thirdcentury parables, 226, 230 T4/Early Severan period, 232–238 T5/Later Severan period, 238–242 Thoma, Clemens on the emperor cult, 151n411 Exod. Rab. 15:16 classification, 170n468 on figure of the king, 100n304 Neusner on, 21n36 overview of research, 2, 18n30 parts of parables identified b, 65–66n199, 67n205, 68n209, 84n254 on the Shekhinah, 102n310 on translation of “parable,” 7n1 on the triumph of Vespasian and Titus, 145n399 Thorion-Vardi, Talia, 65n199, 84–90, 91, 280, 283 Tiberias, 10, 12, 13–14, 145n399, 241

329

Tiffin, Helen, 193n576, 203n639 Timesitheus, 241 Titus, 145n399, 236n733, 266n888 Tobiah ben Eliezer, 60 Torah. See also Commandments, 124, 132n368, 190, 192 “Torah of the king” (Mishnah), 27n57, 58n174 Trajan, Emperor, 41, 146 Travel by kings, 46 Tribes of Israel, 137 Tzedakah (charity), 89–90 Ulla (several third-century Amoraim), 17n29 Ulmer, Rivka, 49–50n141 Ulpian, 10, 17, 240–241 Uranius Antoninus, 251 Valballathus, 264–265, 267n888 Valens, Emperor, 249n799 Valerian, Emperor, 43n97, 51, 63, 228, 250–252, 256 Valerian II, Emperor, 43n97, 243, 252, 255–256n829 Vergleich (comparisons), 90–91 Vespasian, Emperor, 145n399, 236n733, 266n888 Victor, Aurelius, 254, 262–263 Vineyards, 45 Vows by the life of a king, 28n59 War, 42–43, 45, 55 Weapons of the Weak (Scott), 211 Webster, Jane, 194n579, 204n643 Weiss, Daniel, 85–86n257 Wellhausen, Julius, 20n34

330

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

Wet nurses, 102n310 Wives of kings. See Matrona Wolfson, Elliot, 158, 159 Women in the Severan dynasty, 233n722 Workers hired to fill up a hole parable, 59 Xiphilinus, 22 Yohanan, R. on Creation, 87, 89 as dominant figure of his generation, 56 father's occupation, 274 on God's favoritism, 188 guards who quarrel over their hours of employment parable, 123n343 intertextual parables, 132 Israel as God’s “legions,” 93 Ketubah given to Matrona parable, 115–117

parable about coming between a king and Matrona, 162–163, 236, 242 periodization, 9, 32n78 on restoration of the Temple, 154 on revelation, 152 on Song of Songs 1:2, 141 Standard parables, 95n297 Yom Kippur, 78, 155, 163n453 Yosi, R., 14–15 Yosi bar Haninah, R., 129n355, 130, 186 Yudan, R., 138–139, 142 Zebedee, 294 Zeira, R., 133–134 Zenobia, Queen, 52, 228, 256n833, 262, 264–265, 267n888 Ziegler, Ignaz, 2–3, 18–19, 37– 40, 58–63, 84, 98n302, 157, 233n727, 279

SCRIPTURE INDEX HEBREW BIBLE

15:3, 87 15:17–18, 68, 105 15:18, 105 16:4, 83n253 18, 124 18:14, 91n283 19:1, 162 19:3, 162 19:11, 142 19:16, 142 19:17, 142 19:20, 162 19:25, 114 19-20, 73-74 20:1, 114, 152-53 20:2, 121n337, 136n380, 15152 20:8, 104, 138-39 20:20, 75 21:1, 120n335, 124 24:7, 139n387, 151 26:1, 94n291 30:12, 108n319, 121-22 31:17, 108n319 32:8, 139n387 32:26, 94n290 33:3, 191 33:5, 137 33:6, 137

Genesis 1:4, 123n343 1:5, 123n343 1:26, 80 1:31, 133 3:7, 113n327 4:26, 144n397 9:6, 166 15:13, 136n380 17:1, 77 17:15, 112 18:19, 169 19:23, 125-26 28:12, 138n385 28:13, 138n385 36:33, 171-72 46:4, 135 Exodus 1:13, 185 3:10, 135 3:11, 135 4:14, 143 6:13, 123n343 8:24, 191 12:2, 130 12:44, 128 13:17, 136n380 14:16, 77n238, 122-24 14:27, 129, 136n380 14:29, 81 15:1, 143-44, 270

Leviticus 4:4, 71, 120-21 4:5, 131-32 8:14-15, 143

331

332

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

8:28, 95n293, 124 9:5, 77n238 22:27, 77, 113n327,114n328, 120n337, 164n457 23:18, 92 23:20, 92 26:9, 116, 149-50 26:12, 155 26:17, 114n329 Numbers 6:24, 89, 137 7:1, 89, 137 7:10–11, 93 11:31, 83-84n253 12:8, 82n249, 108n319 21:17, 83n253 Deuteronomy 1:4, 126-27 1:11, 113n327, 123n343, 139n387 5:12, 104, 138-39 7:12, 169, 170 11:10, 125 11:17, 166 11:18, 131n364 13:17, 169 23:8, 139 25:17, 139 32:9, 136n380 32:13, 84n253 33, 187 33:4, 132n368 34:10, 133 2 Samuel 15:30, 81 15:34, 82n248

1 Kings 1:1, 153 3.5, 75n233 2 Chronicles 1:7, 75n233 1:12, 75n233 Nehemiah 9:18, 92 Esther 1:3, 91n283, 96n297 2:16, 75n233 Job 20:27, 74-75n233 27:2, 28n59 Psalms 3:1, 81 11:4, 131n363 12:6, 88-89 17:15, 90 22:7, 4, 94 22:8, 132 31:19, 186 55:23, 132n367 68:18, 87 92:8, 88 93:2, 143-44, 269 95:11, 76, 109 114, 136n380 115:16, 162 118:22-23, 290 135:4, 136n380 136:15, 136n380 137:2-5, 154 137:3, 154n422 137:7, 140n388

SCRIPTURE INDEX 147:19, 120n335 147:19–20, 150 Ecclesiastes 5:12, 113n327 9:7, 78n240 12:9, 157-58 Song of Songs 1:2, 141 1:12, 141-48 4:5, 131-32 Isaiah 1:27, 169 33:12, 108n319, 136n380 34:6, 171 43:22, 108n319, 128-29 44:6, 151-52 45:7, 191 51:12, 136n380 54:10, 169-70 55:6, 76 55:8, 191 Jeremiah 9:17, 188n554 10:19, 188 13:11, 108n319 16:5, 169 49:13, 172n471 49:22, 172n471 Lamentations 1:1, 168 Ezekiel 19:10, 81 38:22, 129

333

Hosea 2:21, 170 Joel 3:19, 140 Amos 1:12, 172n471 5:1, 188n554 6:12, 169 Nahum 2:4, 4, 94 Habakkuk 1:4, 290n967 3:6, 144, 147-48, 269-70 Zechariah 14:5, 87 NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 5:35, 279n934 6:28, 278n923, 287n955 11:7-11, 278n924, 287n957 12:42, 278n923 13:10-15, 289n962 13:55, 274n907 15:1-9, 273n900 17:24-27, 278n928, 287n958 18:21–35, 281-82 18:21-35, 278n925, 279 19:30–20–20:1–16, 291n970 20:24-28, 278n927, 284n947 21:13, 272n898 21:16, 272n898 22:1–14, 282-83 22:1-14, 278n926, 279, 280n936

334

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

22:17-21, 275n910, 278n921, 287n959 22:24, 275n910 22:31, 272n898 25:14-27, 278n922, 280n938, 286n948 25:31-46, 279n934 27:41, 272n899 Mark 3:23-26, 278n929, 287n960 4:11-12, 289n962 6:3, 274n907 10:42, 278n927, 284n947 12:1-12, 290n965 12:14-17, 275n910, 278n921, 287n959 15:34, 272n899 22:24, 275n910 Luke 4:16-30, 274 7:24, 278n924, 287n957 8:9-10, 289n962 11:17-18, 278n929, 279n934 12:27, 278n923, 287n956 14:15–24, 283n939 14:15-24, 278n926 14:15-26, 280n936 14:31-33, 278n930, 285n948 19:11–27, 278n922, 280n939 19:11-27, 286n948 20:22-26, 275n910, 278n921, 287n959 22:24, 275n910, 278n927, 279n934, 284n947 John 7:15, 273n902 18:36-37, 278n931, 284n948

RABBINIC LITERATURE Mishnah Avot 1, 152n414 Sukkah 2:5, 160n445 Tosefta Kelim Bava Metziah 8:4, 146n399 Shabbat 3:15, 146n399 Sotah 6:1, 28n59 Talmud (Babylonian) Bava Batra 10a, 85n256, 90n278, 183n508, 195n582, 208n653, 218n688, 227n710 Berakhot 11a, 160n445 Derekh Eretz Rabbah 1:4, 16 Ketubot 51b, 257n837 Menakhot 99b, 23n44 Niddah 45a, 160n445 Pesach 103a, 80n245, 102n310, 208n653 Sanhedrin 39a, 95n297, 265n884 39b, 251n810 89b, 70n220, 123n343, 183n505, 259n848 91a, 70n215, 82n252 Shabbat 47a, 146n399

SCRIPTURE INDEX Shevuot 6b, 102n310, 242n770 Sukkah 55b, 48n134, 80n245 Yevamot 16a-b, 257n837 Yoma 38b, 23n44 Talmud (Palestinian) Avodah Zarah 3:1 (42c), 62n192 Megillah 3:1 (83d), 146n399 32a, 146n399 Tan'anit 2:1 (61b), 184n520, 252n810 4:6 (69b), 257n837 Terumot 8:10 (46b), 257n837 Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:2, 50n149 1:13, 113n327, 123n343, 13839n387, 252n810, 261n854 1:21, 49n140, 95n297, 108n319, 149n406, 163n453, 236n737 1:23, 66n203, 81n245 2:4, 241n763 2:5, 110n323 2:26, 163n453 2:36, 98n300, 155n427 3:3, 48n130, 72n227, 7980n242, 110n323, 234n727, 255n823

335

3:7, 50n147, 71n221, 7980n242, 102n310, 170n467, 184n521 4:2, 60n183 7:4, 59n175 8:3, 241n766 8:7, 48n136, 183n510 10:4, 61n18 Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:2.1, 66n203, 102n310, 153n419 3:9:1, 107n318 3:11.2, 46n109, 183n506 5:13, 72n227 9:5:8, 185n531 9:5.7, 60n183, 78n240 12:5, 102n310, 124n345, 208n653 Esther Rabbah 1:20, 121n338 3:4, 129n356, 184n516 3:8, 108n319 7:2, 128n352, 187n544 Exodus Rabbah 2:2, 70n220, 72n226, 131n363, 184n517 3:4, 135n379 5:14, 55n163 7:4, 123n343 8:1, 63n194 15:3, 40n86 15:13, 110-11n323, 130n361, 232n720 15:16, 50n149, 184n514 18:6, 111n323, 263n870 19:5, 128n354

336

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

20:14, 43n97, 47n115, 136n380, 187n543, 246nn789, 798, 801, 263n867 21:5, 50n143, 189n565 21:9, 77n238, 122-23n341, 183n505 23:1, 111n324, 144n397, 192n573, 232n720, 266n886 23:7, 91n283, 93n290, 184n515, 249n801, 263n869 28:3, 74n233, 187n541 29:4, 182n503 29:5, 95n297, 151n412, 181n495, 196n584, 264n871 30:9, 120n335, 183n511, 190n569 37:2, 48n129, 108n319 38:8, 44-45n103, 47n120, 111n323, 173n474 41:4, 62n193 42:8, 50n147, 74n232, 110n323, 143n396 43:9, 110n323, 184n519 51:5, 55n163 63:5, 47n122 69:3, 47n121 Genesis Rabbah 1:15, 59n178 3:6, 123n343 8:3, 80n245, 114n329, 255n823 8:10, 114n329, 182n499, 241n760 9:3, 89n276 9:9, 134n370

9:10, 134n370 10:4, 107n318, 244n781 12:12, 89n276 30:10, 61n185 36:7, 108n319, 173n474, 251n809, 265n881 38:6, 96n297, 251n810 41(42):3, 48n131, 187n548, 251n810, 259n847 44:4, 108n319, 128n352, 136n380 45:5, 98n300 46:4, 50n146, 77n237, 126n349 49:2, 187n547, 241n766 50:12, 77n238, 126n348, 183n505, 252n810 52:5, 187n546 56:11, 47n116, 50n149, 109n321 62:2, 106n317, 155n425, 185n530 63:2, 107n318, 149n407, 187n549 63:5, 98n300 69:3, 102n310, 138n385 74:7, 48n131 77:3, 44n102 83:3, 46n109, 171n470 94:9, 96n299, 102n310, 251n810 98:5, 45n108 Lamentations Rabbah 1:1 (9), 47n118, 110n323 1:9 (322.), 49-50n141 3:1 (7), 58n175 3:20 (83), 55n162, 105n317, 189n559, 208n653

SCRIPTURE INDEX 3:21 (87), 49-50n141, 116n333 3:24 (99), 258n842 petihah 16, 95n294, 251n810 Lekach Tob Genesis, 60 Leviticus Rabbah 1:14, 82n249, 108n319, 182n501 4:2, 98n300 4:4, 78n240 5:6, 48n130, 71n223, 114n329, 120n336, 132n366, 258n846 6:5, 58n174 12:1, 113n327, 172-73n474, 189n564 18:5, 85n257, 92n284, 189n563, 196n584 22:8, 46n109 22:8., 47n124 22:8, 111n323 23:40, 78n240 24:2, 195n582, 218n687 26:7, 66n202, 102n310 27:8, 50n142, 77n238, 126n349, 184n525 29:2, 88n273 30:2, 59n179 30:7, 78n240 32:2, 76n236, 189n557 36:5, 46n109, 69n213, 123n343, 183n512 Mekilta de R. Ishmael Amalek 2, 79n241 4, 91n283

337

Bahodesh 5, 54nn158, 159, 71n221, 80n243, 107n318, 121n337, 149n406, 289n964 6, 75n234, 192n572, 234n724, 238n747 8, 107n318, 166n461, 238n748 Beshallach 1, 54n158, 95-96n297, 105n317, 184n524, 229n714 5, 112n326, 136n380, 182n498 7, 102n310, 129n358 Shirata 1, 172n472, 181n491, 195n581, 217n683, 239 3, 95n297, 102n309, 111n324, 195-96n584 3:3, 182n497 4, 87n267, 143n396, 181n493, 195n583, 219n689, 235n728, 240, 249n800 7, 208n653, 249n797 7 (2;57–58), 249n800 8, 59n177 10, 68-69n212, 130n362, 198n609 10 (2:79–80), 249n800 Midrash on Psalms 1:5, 77n238 3:3, 47n117, 82n248, 92n286, 102n310 3:30, 261n855 4:4, 58-59n175 4:11, 151n410, 185n531

338

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

6:3, 42n91, 47n117, 109n320, 186n536, 189n557, 243n774, 249n801, 251n810, 258n842 17:3, 95n297, 258n842, 266n885 18:17, 87n267 18:21, 93-94n290 22:7, 4 22:20, 94n291, 170n467, 192n573, 208n653, 232n720 22:22, 46n109, 132n368 25:9, 155n425, 186n535 55:3, 91n280, 92n285, 98n300, 128n351, 208n653 86:4, 85n257, 87n263, 173n474, 196n584 86:7, 80-81n245 106:6, 47n117 Midrash Zuta p. 14, 63n19 Numbers Rabbah 1:2, 188n551, 196n584 1:23, 87n267 7:4, 109n319 9:18, 98n300 11:5, 63n195 20:19, 63n194 21:16, 50n149 Pesiqta Rabbati 5:33, 85n256, 87n267, 89n275, 138n385, 218n686 10:13, 150n408, 183n509

14:17–18, 48n129, 75n233, 237n742 15:1–3, 37n80, 72n225 15:1-3, 111n324, 192n574 17-18, 188n552 21:9, 156n433, 255n828 21:10, 152n414, 208n653 21:24, 87n267, 196n584 21:27–28, 46n111, 50n148, 182n500 21:34, 49-50n141, 116n333 21:36, 173n474, 185n533 23:3, 46n110, 104n313, 138n387, 184n522 23:6, 89n277, 181n494 28:9, 47n119 28:12–14, 50n149, 71n221, 154n422, 185n528 29/30A: 2, 60n183 Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 2:7, 190n568 2:8, 108n319, 122n340 3, 111n323, 140n389, 187n538 4:2, 88n274, 154n422, 181n492, 195n581, 217n685, 235n729 5:11, 75n233, 102n310 5:13, 38n80, 130n360, 192n574 5:33, 235n729 6:3, 106n317 9:10, 49n138, 113n327, 12021n337, 236n738, 264n876 11:6, 108-9n319, 185n526 12:11, 37n80, 45n104, 48n133, 50n144, 81n246,

SCRIPTURE INDEX 83-84n253, 124n344, 162n452, 187n540 12:22, 58n175 14:4, 50n147, 113n327, 139n387 15:3, 91n281, 93n290 15:4, 47n118, 110n323, 188n554 16:9, 111n323 16:10, 189n558 19:4, 49-50n141, 115n331,248n794 19:5, 50n149, 136n380, 185n533 20:6, 47n123, 113n327, 163n453 21:3, 192n574 21:5, 59n179 21:24, 251n805 24:11, 80n244, 107n318, 251n810, 259n850 25:4, 71-72n223, 108n319 27:2, 59n179 27:7, 60n183, 78n240, 155n426, 188n555 S5:2, 185n532 S7:3, 188n555 Supplement 5:2, 110n323 Supplement 7:3, 70n220, 76n235, 155n426 Sifra Bechukotai 2:5, 106n317, 150 n408, 186n537 3:3, 155n425 4:4, 80n245, 114n329, 190n567 Emor 3:8, 37n80, 93n287

339

Kedoshim 11:14, 98n300 12:14, 47n125 Shemini, Mekilta de Miluim 5, 37n80, 50n149, 77n238 8, 37n80, 50n145, 107n318 Tzav, Mekilta de Miluim 14, 37n80, 98n300 30, 48n132, 91n282, 92n284, 124n345, 187n550, 208n653, 258n846 Sifre to Deuteronomy 3, 102n310, 127-28n350, 251n810, 263n869 8, 112n326 11, 45n107, 138n387 13, 15n22 19, 114n329 26, 188n556, 238n747 28, 37n80 38, 125n346, 183n513 43, 37n80, 47n126, 50n149, 106n317, 166n462, 185n529 45, 47n118, 131n364, 189n561 45: 5, 8, 47n117 305, 54n158, 230n716 306, 46n109, 74-75n233, 103n311, 107n318 312, 136n380, 149n406, 155n430, 187n549, 195n580 313, 103n311, 252n810, 259n849, 263n869 343, 37n80, 46n114, 98n300, 187n542, 195n580

340

THE RABBIS’ KING-PARABLES

345, 45n105, 74n232, 132n368 345 and 355, 70n220, 98n300 347, 46n112, 71n222, 74n232, 137n382 349, 37n80 352, 37n80, 46n113, 102n309, 102n310, 107n318, 188n553 353, 61n188 355, 98n300, 121n338, 182n502 357, 80n245, 133n369 Sifre to Numbers 47, 93n289, 102n310, 247n792 82, 62n190 102, 85n256, 257, 87n267, 196n584, 251n805, 263n870 103, 80n245, 105-6n317, 220n696, 244n779 115, 49n137, 78n240, 150n409, 190n566 Song of Songs Rabbah 1:1 (8), 158n440, 159n445 1:1 (9), 48n130, 75n233, 188n552, 234n727, 237n742 1:2 (3), 141n392 1:12 (2), 182n503 3:6 (3), 58n175 4:5 (1), 83n253, 131n364 4:12 (1), 185n527 5:1, 71n222, 108n319, 121n338 5:10, 182n497 6:5 (1), 50n149

6:11 (1), 113n327, 189n562, 252n810 6:12 (1.), 48n135 6:12 (1), 55n162, 154n423, 189n560 8:5 (10), 102n309, 252n812 8:10 (2), 154n424 8:12 (1), 47n118, 55n162, 110n323, 184n518 Tanhuma Bechukotai 6, 110n323, 253n819 Kedoshim 5, 63n194 Ki Tisa 3, 74n232, 113n327, 183n507 8, 108n319, 190n568 9, 249n801 10, 46n109, 187n545 Miketz 5, 67n204, 149n407 Pekude 4, 55n163, 66n202, 251n810, 266n885 42:8, 110n323 Va'era 2, 43-44n100, 102n310, 208n653 2 10b, 55n163 Vayetze 22, 62-63n193 Tanna debe Eliahu 1, 60n184 Yalqut Shim’oni I sec. 826, 60n184

SCRIPTURE INDEX GREEK AND LATIN WORKS Ammianus Marcellinus History XXI.13, 246n788 XXIII.5.7, 244n780, 262-63 XXXI.5.7, 263n865 Aurelius Victor De Caesaribus 29, 248n796 30, 248n796 34, 262n863 Eutropius Breviarium 9.1, 248n796 10.5, 248n796 11, 262n862 13, 265n882 15, 266n890 Historia Augusta Aurelian XXXVI. 5-6, 266n890 Claudius VI.1–VII.6, IX.3–4, 262n861 XIII.3-4, 263n866 Jordanes Origin and Deeds XVI.102–103, 246n788 Orosius 7.21, 248n796 Zosimus Historia Nova 1.23, 245n787

341 1.43-46, 262n863 25, 248n796 36, 250n802 51, 265n883 61, 265n883 62, 266n890 I.39, 256n831

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Gospel of Thomas 21, 277n920 64, 278n926, 283n939 78, 278n922, 278n924, 287n957 100, 275n910, 278n921, 287n959 Lactantius Deaths of the Persecutors 4, 246n788 6, 265n882 Martyrdom of Pionius 3.6, 247n793 Tertullian Apologeticum 21.1, 247n793