Niehoff, Rabbi Abbahu

Self, Self-Fashioning, and Individuality in Late Antiquity New Perspectives Edited by Maren R. Niehoff and Joshua Levinson Mohr Siebeck Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 ISBN 978-3-16-158990-4 / eISBN 978-3-16-158991-1 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-158991-1 ISSN 2510-0785 / eISSN 2568-6623 (Culture, Religion, and Politics in the Greco-Roman World) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by epline in Böblingen using Minion typeface, printed on non-aging paper by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Maren R. Niehoff Fashioning this Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Constructing the Self David Lambert “Desire” Enacted in the Wilderness: Problems in the History of the Self and Bible Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Matthew Roller Selfhood, Exemplarity, and Cicero’s Four Personae: On Constructing Your Self after Your Model and Your Model after Your Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Margaret Graver Interiority and Freedom in Seneca’s De Beneficiis: Acts of Kindness and the Perfected Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Gretchen Reydams-Schils How to Become Like God and Remain Oneself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Karen L. King Becoming Fully Human: Contours and Expressions of the Self according to the Gospel of Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Yair Furstenberg Rabbinic Responses to Greco-Roman Ethics of Self-Formation in Tractate Avot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Charles M. Stang The Doubled Self and the Worship of the Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 VIII Table of Contents Joshua Levinson The Divided Subject: Representing Modes of Consciousness in Rabbinic Midrash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Laura Nasrallah The Worshipping Self, the Self in Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Edward Watts The Senses, the Self, and the Christian Roman Imperial Subject: Hagia Sophia as a Space of Directed Interiority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Self-Fashioning Catharine Edwards The Epistolographic Self: The Role of the Individual in Seneca’s Letters . . . 227 Eve-Marie Becker Paul’s Epistolary Self in and around Philippians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Ilaria L. E. Ramelli Autobiographical Self-Fashioning in Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Maren R. Niehoff A Hybrid Self: Rabbi Abbahu in Legal Debates in Caesarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Irmgard Männlein-Robert Move Your Self: Mobility and Migration of Greek Intellectuals to Rome . . . 331 Reuven Kiperwasser Narrating the Self: Tales of Rabbi Zeira’s Arrival to the Land of Israel . . . . . 353 Self and Individual in Society Clifford Ando Self, Society, Individual, and Person in Roman Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Jörg Rüpke Urban Selves: Individualization in Roman Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 Table of Contents IX Sarit Kattan Gribetz Constructions of the Self through Time: Gender, Text, Embodiment, Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 Mira Balberg The Subject Supposed to Forget: Rabbinic Formations of the Legal Self . . . 445 Ishay Rosen-Zvi Two Midrashic Selves: Between Origen and the Mekhilta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471 Alfons Fürst Individuality and Self-Agency: The Self in Origen’s Metaphysics of Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 Tobias Nicklas Constructing Individual Selves within Social Hierarchies: The Letters of Copres and Synesios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self Rabbi Abbahu in Legal Debates in Caesarea Maren R. Niehoff1 Rabbinic literature from Late Antique Palaestina affords unique glimpses into debates about Roman law, which intensified after Caracalla’s general grant of Roman citizenship in 212 CE.2 While numerous legal documents and rich epigraphic evidence have survived from other Roman provinces, especially Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece, Palaestina produced several large compilations in vernacular languages, namely, Hebrew and Aramaic, which offer precious insights into discussions behind the scenes.3 These rabbinic sources deserve our special attention in the context of a recent shift in scholarship from a metropolitan focus to local perspectives. In order to highlight the diversity of individual perspectives and the hybridity of identities in the Roman East, Caroline Humfress has introduced post-colonial theory in her analysis of mostly Christian locals, who chose Roman procedures and substantive law to promote their own interests and traditions.4 1 I thank the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies for providing the most supportive environment for our research group during the academic year of 2017–18 as well as the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant no. 2020/17) and CHRONOI for supporting the research on which this article is based. Thanks to Clifford Ando, Nicole Belayche, Nathalie Dohrmann, Werner Eck, Catherine Hezser, Benjamin Isaac, Hayim Lapin, Joshua Levinson, Orit Malka, Tzvi Novick, Yakir Paz, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Sacha Stern and Edward Watts for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. The responsibility for the content of the article is of course my own. I dedicate this article to Philip Alexander, who has contributed so much to our understanding of rabbinic sources in their diverse cultural contexts. 2 On the impact of Caracalla’s edict, see Honoré 2004; Ando 2006, 2008, 2012, 2016a; Eck 2018 (with emphasis on the extension of Roman citizenship); Millar 1969, 1999, 2002; and Scheid 2013, who cautions us not to overemphasize its impact on daily life. 3 On Egyptian sources, see esp. Mélèze-Modrzejewski 1970, 1990; Yiftach-Firanko 2009: 541–60, who both stress the continued authority of local Greco-Egyptian law, while the impact of Roman law has been highlighted by Humfress 2013 and Dolganov (forthcoming). On sources from Asia Minor and Greece, see Cabanes 1990; Kantor 2013 (forthcoming); Alkier and Leppin 2018; on Syriac engagements with Roman law, see Monnickendam 2012, 2018. 4 Humfress 2007, 2013; see also Galstener 1986; Connolly 2010; Harris 2012: 789– 814; Bryen 2012; Ando 2016. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 294 Maren R. Niehoff Rabbinic sources belong to the realm of local religious traditions, which served everywhere in the empire as strongholds of pre-Roman identities. While the different forms of “Paganism” in Late Antiquity were intricately connected to temples and priests, Judaism lost its main temple in 70 CE and developed a new urban elite in place of the priesthood.5 The Roman defeat of the Bar Kokhva Revolt in 136 CE further strengthened the rabbinic movement as an urban phenomenon entwined with structures of the Roman Empire, as Hayim Lapin, Catherine Hezser, and Natalie Dohrmann have abundantly shown.6 The rabbis, like their Christian counterparts, combined an independent religious authority with intellectual leadership and legal expertise. This concentration of power provided the rabbis with a remarkably dynamic position in the Roman Empire, and distinguished them from “Pagan” intellectuals, such as Libanius, the guardian of Greek culture in fourth-century Antioch, who positioned himself next to holders of religious authority in the temples and rejected the study of (Roman) law.7 Rabbi Abbahu played a special role in the negotiation of Roman law among Jews because he was the influential head of the Jewish community in Caesarea, the capital of the Roman province, which boasted of close ties with the emperors, had an extended Roman administration, and considerable expertise in Roman law.8 The latter aspect is especially relevant for our purposes and documented 5 On the theological implications of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, see Stroumsa 2009; and Balberg 2017, who emphasizes that the early rabbis remained ideologically committed to the sacrificial system, while at the same time reconfiguring the notion of sacrifice along Roman lines of interpretation. I use “Pagan” in inverted commas to signal that this term reflects an external perspective, as stressed already by Fédou 1988: 31–7; regarding the dangers of Christianizing interpretations, see esp. Scheid 2013. On the self-understanding of prominent “Pagan” authors relevant to Abbahu, see Irmgard Männlein-Robert and Charles Stang in this volume as well as Watts 2006, 2005, 2015; 2017a and b; Cribiore 2007; Stenger 2009; van Hoof 2010, 2014; Johnson 2013. 6 Lapin 1996 and 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; Hezser 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2011; Dohrmann 2003, 2008, 2009, 2018, 2019a; see also B. Cohen 1966; Jackson 1975, 202–34; Levine 1975a, 1989, 1992; Goodman 1983; Goodman and Alexander 2011; S. Cohen 1985, 1987; Hayes 1998, 2002, 2003; Furstenberg 2019 (forthcoming); Malka 2019; Malka and Paz 2019. See also Belayche 2001: 108–70, 2019, who analyzes the religious transformation of Jerusalem following the Bar Kokhva Revolt.; and Alexander 1990, 1992, 1992a, 1998, 2011, 2016, who illuminates the multi-cultural context of rabbinic literature. For research stressing rabbinic isolation, see Katzoff 1989, 2003; RosenZvi 2017a and b; Ophir and Rosen-Zvi 2018: 179–246. 7 See esp. Lib., Or. 30 “For the Temples,” Or. 2.4–9, 48.22–3; see also Nesselrath et al. 2011; Jones 1964: 986–1024; Sandwell 2007: 121–84. While the rabbis’ actual power over larger Jewish populations has rightly been questioned by Goodenough 1953: 68; Hezser 1997; S. Cohen 1999; Lapin 1999, 2013, 2018; and Mira Balberg in this volume, they still seem to have exercised considerable control by comparison to other intellectual elites in the Roman East. 8 For inscriptions on honorific statues in Caesarea, see Cotton and Eck 2006; Cotton et al. 2011, CIIP Vol. 2, no. 1211, 1212, 1213, 1223, 1271; for a general appreciation of Abbahu Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 295 in two texts, which are usually overlooked in studies of Late Antique Caesarea, namely the Encomium of Origen’s student, traditionally identified with Gregory Thaumaturgus,9 and a rescript in Justinian’s Digest on the Roman law school of the city. The Encomium contains the following important information about a legal advisor to the Roman governor in Caesarea: The governor of Palaestina at the time suddenly summoned my brother-in-law, my sister’s husband, alone – to his dismay, since it separated him from his wife – and took him away to be his assistant and share in the labors of ruling the people, for he was a legal expert (συνεπιβοηθήσοντα καὶ κοινωνήσοντα τῶν τοῦ ἔθνους ἄρχοντος πόνων· νομικὸς γάρ τις ἦν), and still is for that matter. (“Greg. Thaum.,” Enc. 65)10 The author’s brother-in-law, who most probably remained “Pagan,” is mentioned here as a nomikos who received a long-term appointment from the governor in Caesarea. A prolonged period of service is implied, which started before the author’s own arrival in Caesarea, and probably continued well after he left Origen’s school. The expression ἐξαίφνης, suddenly, in the above-quoted passage, indicates the spontaneous nature of the appointment. This procedure conforms to earlier practices, which enabled the governor to bring his chosen staff from abroad. Fronto, another governor, prepared himself for his office in Asia by enlisting numerous friends on whose loyalty and integrity he could rely (Ad Pium 8.1). The appointment of a legal advisor mentioned in the Encomium to Origen in 238 CE is significant. While it was generally in line with the wider tendency of professionalization in the Roman Empire, it may also have responded to the robust legal tradition in Judaism, which would have made legal expertise especially relevant in this province.11 By comparison, among Fronto’s advisors there was no jurist, but instead a military man. in the context of Late Roman Caesarea, see Levine 1975; see also Jörg Rüpke in this volume on the impact of Roman cities on the construction of individual identities. 9 The identification of the author of the Encomium with Gregory Thaumaturgus is based on Eus., H. E. 6.30, 7.14 and has been affirmed by many modern scholars, esp. Crouzel 1969. Following Nautin 1977: 83–5, 183–97, however, who pointed to contradictions between Eusebius’ information and the author of the Encomium, Dorival 2004 and Rizzi 2007 raised doubts about this attribution, based on internal and external considerations; for reviews of the positions, see Zambon 2018: 997–8; Satran 2018: 4–13. As there is no firm evidence for the identification and considering that Eusebius would have had good apologetic reasons to present Origen as being praised by a student who later became the bishop of Pontus, I relate to the author of the Encomium as an anonymous figure from the Greek East, who throws important light on third-century Caesarea. 10 Κηδεστήν μου ἄνδρα ἀδελφῆς ἐμῆς ὁ τότε ἄρχων τῶν Παλαιστίνων, τοῦτον παραλαβὼν ἐξαίφνης ἄκοντα μόνον, κεχωρισμένον τῆς ὁμοκοίτου, ἤγαγεν ἐνταῦθα, συνεπιβοηθήσοντα καὶ κοινωνήσοντα τῶν τοῦ ἔθνους ἄρχοντος πόνων· νομικὸς γάρ τις ἦν, καὶ ἔστιν ἴσως ἔτι·(ed. Crouzel, Crouzel 1969). 11 For details on the increasing professionalization of legal functions, see M. C. Jones 2007; Kantor 2017; Roueché 1998: 31–6; Honoré 2004. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 296 Maren R. Niehoff Moreover, there is evidence, albeit late, for the existence of a Roman law school in Caesarea. Our only testimony is Justin’s rescript closing it in 533 CE: We desire these three works which we have composed to be handed to students, as ordered now and by previous emperors, only in the royal cities and in the most excellent civitas of Beirut, which might well be called the nurse of the law, and not in other places which have earned no such privilege from our predecessors. We say this because we have heard that even in the most splendid civitas of Alexandria and in that of Caesarea and others there are unqualified men who take an unauthorized course and impart a spurious erudition to their pupils. (Just., Digest Const. Omnem 7)12 While most scholars have ignored the Roman law school in Caesarea, its general contours can be reconstructed by a juxtaposition of Jewish, Christian, and “Pagan” sources. Justinian’s complaint that the law school of Caesarea hosted “unqualified men who take an unauthorized course and impart a spurious erudition to their pupils” initially suggests that the jurists of the city were rather creative, perhaps even a bit like their colleagues in the famous law school of Beirut. Averil Cameron has, moreover, suggested that “the legal training which Procopius evidently had was not gained in Gaza, but [was] typical of Caesarea,” while Charlotte Roueché has proposed that Gregory Thaumaturgus had been “studying Roman law (apparently at Caesarea, at the same time as studying with Origen).”13 The latter view, however, does not accord with the autobiographical remarks of the author of the Encomium, who praises Beirut, his original destination, as “the school of these [Roman] laws,” and admits that his love for Origen prompted him to change course and instead study “Greek philosophy” in Caesarea.14 Such remarks imply that the law school in Caesarea can only have come into existence after the composition of the Encomium. The law school in Beirut provides a paradigm for the emergence of such institutions, which applies also to Caesarea, and assumes local initiative spurred by economic factors. The harbor of Beirut attracted trade, which brought business and a concomitant need for legal expertise. This in turn drew legal experts to the city, who began teaching and ultimately set up a more formal school.15 Caesarea enjoyed similar geographical and economic advantages as Beirut and developed into a thriving urban center.16 Its harbor, too, brought business, and thus most likely legal experts.17 Moreover, Caesarea was the seat of the Roman governor 12 “in Alexandrina splendidissima civitate et in Caesariensium et in aliis quosdam imperitos homines devagare et doctrinam discipulis adulterinam tradere.” Justin’s rescript regarding the Roman law school in Caesarea is briefly mentioned by Schemmel 1925; Geiger 1994: 7; and Humfress 2007: 83. 13 Cameron 1985: 5–6; Roueché 1998: 33; similarly, also Isaac 2017: 274, n. 65. 14 “Greg., Thaum.” Enc. 7–8, 62, 84, 133, with Crouzel’s comments ad loc; see also Patrich 2011: 115. 15 For details, see Collinet 1925: 24–5. 16 On the urban structures of Caesarea, see Patrich 2011: 91–116; Isaac 2011. 17 Geiger 2012: 66–72, identified two names of legal experts in the epigraphic evidence of Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 297 and had been granted the status of a colony by Vespasian, following his defeat of the Jewish revolt and his acclamation as emperor in the city.18 In this respect, too, Caesarea resembled Beirut, the leading colonial city of Phoenicia. Diocletian’s reign is the most likely time for the emergence of the Roman law school in Caesarea, because this emperor set up court in the Greek East, namely Nicomedia, fostered Latin as an administrative language, and encouraged three of his magistri libellorum to publish systematic collections of imperial rescripts.19 The works of Hermogenian and Gregorianus, which were commissioned by Diocletian, were probably written in the form of a codex and served to instruct students in the law schools, as well as wider circles of citizens eager to use Roman law. Diocletian’s active dissemination of Roman norms in the Greek East would have spurned the citizens of Caesarea to set up more formal structures of legal instruction. Both the Roman law school in Caesarea and the nomikos mentioned in the Encomium to Origen relied on Roman law in Latin. “Gregory Thaumaturgus” highlights the importance of Latin in imperial jurisprudence of the third century, admitting that the study of this language was rather difficult for him (Enc. 7). While Abbahu’s precise dates cannot be determined with certainty, he was most likely active under Diocletian, the last “Pagan” emperor with a deep commitment to traditional Roman values, who was appreciated by several contemporary rabbis.20 While Abbahu’s use of Latin loan-words in an exact, yet casual, Late Antique Palaestina who may have been active already in the 3rd century, albeit not in Caesarea, namely, Craterus, “the first among the people of Ascalon,” and Arrianus, known from a funerary inscription in Petra. 18 Scholars have debated whether the granting of colonial status was accompanied by the settlement of veterans or was titular in nature and based on the existing citizens, who were converted into colonists. Levine 1975a and Eck 2014: 154–55 argued for the settlement of veterans, the latter stressing the number of Latin inscriptions from Caesarea, which would imply a significant settlement of Latin speakers, and Pliny’s remark “nunc colonia prima Flavia a Vespasiano imperatore deducta” (Pl., N. H. 5,69). Isaac 2017: 272–75, by contrast, argued for the titular nature of the colony, highlighting Dig. 15.8, which says that Vespasian “made the Caesareans colonists” (“Caesarienses colonos fecit”) and granted them some tax alleviation (but not the status of Italian cities). Isaac also stresses Josephus’ statement that Vespasian “founded there no city of his own while keeping their territory [i. e., the land of the Jews], but only to eight hundred veterans did he assign a place for settlement called Emmaus (οὐ γὰρ κατῴκισεν ἐκεῖ πόλιν ἰδίαν αὑτῷ τὴν χώραν φυλάττων, ὀκτακοσίοις δὲ μόνοις ἀπὸ τῆς στρατιᾶς διαφειμένοις χωρίον ἔδωκεν εἰς κατοίκησιν, ὃ καλεῖται μὲν Ἀμμαοῦς) (BJ VII 217). 19 Liebs 1964; Corcoran 2007: 25–42, 2008, 2013; Connolly 2010: 39–46. Diocletian’s interest in the promotion of Roman law studies in the Eastern provinces is also reflected in his rescript to grant Arabian law students in Beirut exemption from their curial responsibilities in their home towns until the age of 25 (Cod. Just. 10.50, discussed by Collinet 1925: 29). 20 The dates of Abbahu are reconstructed by reference to his teacher Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias, who died around 280 CE and was visited by Abbahu after the latter’s ordination (jShab. 11a, jPes. 37c); see also Lachs 1970: 197, n. 1; Levin 197: 69–70; Bacher 1892: 88–89. On Diocletian see Jones 1964: 1: 42–52; Eck 2006; Demandt 2018: 20–34; on his positive reception by contemporary rabbis, see Marmorstein 1934. Note esp. the latter’s suggestion that GR 16.2 Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 298 Maren R. Niehoff way does not prove his knowledge of Latin, the cosmopolitan culture of Caesarea renders it very likely.21 Many Latin inscriptions have recently come to light, and many more may be discovered in future excavations, especially in the area around the Forum.22 Werner Eck argued on the basis of these inscriptions that Latin was the city’s dominant language throughout the third century CE, with the city council functioning in Latin.23 This conclusion needs to be nuanced by considering that most inscriptions so far discovered are in Greek, and point to the multi-lingual culture of the city, as Benjamin Isaac has stressed.24 Jewish inscriptions from the synagogue and the cemetery are virtually all in Greek.25 One epitaph in Greek mentions Symon and Iuliana, a couple with a popular Jewish and a popular Roman name, which may point to broader cultural contacts between these two cultures.26 Considering all the extant inscriptions, we get the impression of a strong presence of Roman institutions and Latin culture in Caesarea. The capital of the province was undoubtedly more Latinized than other cities in Late Antique Palaestina. Rabbi Abbahu, the leader and representative of the Jewish community in Caesarea, must have known enough Latin to communicate with Roman officials in their language and appreciate at least some Roman law. The eager interest of provincials in Roman law, which is attested throughout the empire, including Judaea, supports the assumption of Abbahu’s familiarity with at least some aspects of Roman law, especially such aspects as may reflect Abbahu’s gratitude for Diocletian’s monetary reform, which re-introduced the gold coin to stop the high inflation (Marmorstein 1934: 35–36). 21 Note Abbahu’s use of the word ‫“( קפנדריא‬compendiaria,” quick route) in jBM 11; ‫קרינה‬ (“carenum,” boiled wine) in jTer. 35c; ‫“( ספסילא‬subsellium”) in jBek.64,a. See also the discussion of Latin loan-words in rabbinic literature by Sperber 2012:184–97. The special conditions of Caesarea also nuance the conclusion of Price 2003: 165–83 that “the Palestinian rabbis certainly did not know Latin.” For Abbahu’s use of Greek in his Bible interpretations, see esp. GR 2.2, 14.2, 63.8; for the general background, see Lieberman 1962; Hirshman 2009. 22 For details, see Cotton et al. 2011, CIIP Vol. 2, see esp. no. 1227 (the first attestation of a consular governor of Judaea): 1228 (mentioning the career of a father and son in the city council, showing the social mobility and integration of local elites into the Roman administration): 1241 (the first attestation of the colony’s subdivision into vici after the Bar Kokhva Revolt): 1248 (mentioning “Iulia Agrippina, daughter of the primus pilus Iulius Agrippa,” who seems to have settled in Caesarea after his retirement from the Roman army): 1275 (mentioning a centurion’s club room for an association of soldiers). 23 Eck 2014: 154–55; see also Cotton and Eck 2002. See also Stern (forthcoming), who documents positive rabbinic attitudes towards the city councils from the third century onwards, with names of specific rabbis in the fourth century who served on the councils. 24 Isaac 2011, who stresses that official inscriptions do not necessarily reflect spoken language in daily life. 25 See esp. Cotton et al. 2011: CIIP Vol. 2, no. 1140 (which mentions the ἀρχισυνάγωγος): 1142 (which contains a quotation from the LXX), 1447 (epitaph of the son of Gabriel): 1469 (epitaph of Nehemia): 1490 (epitaph of “Iacodothe the hazan”). 26 Cotton et al. 2011, CIIP Vol. 2, no. 1554. Note also that Josephus Flavius, who settled in Rome, gave only to one of his three sons a Roman name, that is, Justus, while the other two had the Jewish names Hyrcanus and Agrippa (Jos., Life 5). Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 299 would affect the Jewish community.27 He will hardly have been less informed than Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea and devout Hellenist, who preserved legal documents in the library in Latin.28 Moreover, Yair Furstenberg has shown that Abbahu is presented in rabbinic literature as acknowledging Roman law as a legitimate legal system next to Jewish Halacha.29 In this article, I analyze Abbahu’s self-fashioning in legal debates with colleagues and laypersons. I ask how he related to others who were less inclined towards Roman law than he himself is presented to have been. I discuss which rhetorical strategies he is said to have chosen in order to introduce new concepts and define his role as a leading religious authority mediating Roman law. The importance of these questions was already recognized in Late Antiquity, when Abbahu’s postures were questioned. In a controversy about the study of Greek, Abbahu quoted his teacher Rabbi Yohanan as permitting “a man to teach his daughter Greek, as it is a decoration for her.” Rabbi Simon b. Abba dismissed this gesture of traditionalism in no uncertain terms: “[…] because he wants to teach his daughters Greek, he attributes it to Rabbi Yohanan.”30 Simon b. Abba thus suggested that Abbahu freely invented traditions and constructed role models as suited his interests in a given situation, much like Cicero, discussed in this volume by Matthew Roller. I focus on three distinct ways of self-fashioning attributed in rabbinic sources to Rabbi Abbahu, namely, letter-writing, pronouncing judgement at the rabbinic court in Caesarea, and Bible exegesis. While these means of self-fashioning belong to different literary genres and spheres of life, which are usually studied in isolation, they all shaped the image of Abbahu’s leadership and ought to be investigated in view of each other. Only by grasping these diverse aspects of Abbahu’s public activity can we appreciate the complexity with which rabbinic sources imagine his personality and begin to understand the enigma of his influence. In each domain of this activity, a high degree of self-consciousness is attributed to Abbahu, whether directly in his role as judge, or more indirectly as a letterwriter and Bible interpreter. By highlighting that Abbahu carefully designed his 27 On provincial interest in Roman law, esp. in Egypt, see Bryen 212: 798–800; see also Hezser 2019, who argues for the dissemination of Roman law among Palestinian Jews by way of hear-say and shared experience with non-Jews, especially in the realm of business connections. 28 Carriker 2003 lists a copy of Galenius’ Edict of Toleration, an imperial rescript, the letter of a governor and many letters of Constantine; on the library in Caesarea, see also Grafton and Williams 2006; Kofsky 2006 (with a special note on Eusebius’ familiarity with Latin on p. 58); Frenschowsky 2006 (suggesting that the library served only limited Christian circles within the church of Caesarea, an argument which requires further examination); and Bäbler (with emphasis on the beginnings of the library under Origen, who employed a large staff, including female calligraphers). 29 Furstenberg 2018: 14. 30 ‫ שמע שמעון בר ווה אמ׳‬.‫ מותר לאדם ללמד את בתו יוונית מפני שהוא תכשיט לה‬.‫ר׳ אבהו בשם ר׳ יוחנן‬ ‫( בגין דו בעה מלפה בנתיה הוא תלי ליה בר׳ יוחנן‬jPeah 15c, ed. Sussman 79). Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 300 Maren R. Niehoff image in relation to the different social contexts of his public appearance, rabbinic sources suggest that it was not least thanks to his studious self-fashioning that he was successful as a prominent rabbi mediating the increasing authority of Roman law. As a leader of the Jewish community in Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu both fashioned himself in distinct ways, and created a space for the self-fashioning of his community. His is thus a rare case where we see a two-directional construction of the Self, namely, both from below vis-à-vis the Roman administration, and from above vis-à-vis the Jewish community under his authority. Before we can begin our analysis of the relevant texts, a few introductory words need to be said about the nature of our sources. As is well known, the rabbis did not write individual treatises in which they presented themselves.31 Their voices are instead collected in larger compilations, which are organized as commentaries either on the Bible or the Mishna. Jacob Neusner has questioned whether the sayings attributed to individual rabbis can be taken seriously as expressions of their views, insisting that academically responsible work can only address the level of the redacted documents and their respective times.32 While the historically critical approach has produced important insights into the redaction and nature of the rabbinic sources, it must not hinder inquiry into individual traditions that have been preserved within the larger compilations.33 Personal contours of individual rabbis clearly emerge in rabbinic literature and have not been elided in the process of redacting the different compilations. It is to the distinct contours of Abbahu that I turn in this article, always bearing in mind their complex transmission. While the nature of rabbinic sources does not allow us to be certain about the historicity of any individual portrait, I study the distinct image of Rabbi Abbahu’s self-fashioning in order to investigate the construction of his hybrid Self conveyed in the literature. Whether or not this image reflects his historical personality precisely, it had a considerable impact on the redaction of the sources and outlined contours of self-fashioning in Late Antique Palaestina. The case of Abbahu poses special challenges, as the Babylonian Talmud preserves many sayings and stories that present him differently than he was shown in the earlier Palestinian sources. Geoffrey Herman recently drew attention to the fact that only the Babylonian Talmud describes Abbahu as belonging to the “House of Caesar.”34 In four independent stories the following images are pres31 On this well-known phenomenon in the context of Greco-Roman culture, see Vidas 2017; Dohrmann 2019b. 32 Neusner 1970, 1987, 2008. 33 Several academic communities have been aware of the problem of the historicity of rabbinic traditions and have offered solutions to overcome them; for details, see Kraemer 1994; Meir 1999; Kalmin 1999; Appelbaum 2010: 19–26; Goodman and Alexander 2011; Ben Eliyahu, Cohn and Millar 2012. 34 Herman 2018: 110–15; on the larger phenomenon of traditions migrating from Palaestina to Babylonia, see also Kalmin 2014. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 301 ented: the “ladies of the House of Caesar” greet him as “master of his people, leader of his nation, lamp of light”; he benefits his people by his position at “the house of Caesar”; and his colleagues flatter him on account of his position at “the house of Caesar.”35 In contrast to earlier scholars, who cautiously related to these stories as historical evidence, Herman stresses their unreliability.36 The image of Abbahu “as a powerful and influential court figure under Diocletian,” he stresses, goes far beyond anything suggested in the Palestinian sources, and concludes that this image is “the product of his reframing by the Babylonian Talmud.” While the Babylonian narrators may have referred to the Roman governor as the representative of the emperor rather than to Diocletian himself, Herman’s call for caution deserves serious attention. The Babylonian material reflects a much later redactional stage with conspicuously Eastern perspectives, which are one further step removed from Abbahu’s historical personality than the Palestinian sources from the fourth and fifth centuries. In this article I will therefore analyze only Palestinian sources, mostly the Jerusalem Talmud and Genesis Rabbah, both of which frequently cite Abbahu. 1. Abbahu’s Self-Fashioning in a Letter Concerning the Roman Governor The Jerusalem Talmud preserves a small collection of epistles to Jewish community leaders, mostly the Patriarch and the exilarch, which includes an exchange between Abbahu and three colleagues in Tiberias. This collection assumes letterwriting among the rabbis to be a regular activity and indicates their participation in broader epistolary habits of the empire.37 Abbahu’s correspondence is conspicuous in this dossier on account of its length. While the other letters are preserved in the most minimal fashion, amounting to one or two key expressions, the Talmud provides a context for Abbahu’s exchange and then quotes a highly stylized text. Parallel to Origen’s autobiographical letter preserved and contextualized by Eusebius, which is discussed in this volume by Ilaria Ramelli, Abbahu’s correspondence in the Jerusalem Talmud provides a fascinating image of the prominent rabbi’s self-fashioning: 35 bSanh. 14a, bHag. 14a, bYeb. 65b, bSot. 40a. Herman 2018: 113; cf. Bacher 1892: 94; Levine 1975: 68–69. For details on letter collections in Late Antiquity, see Harris 2018 on fragments of legal correspondences in Pliny’s Rome; and more broadly Sogno, Storin, and Watts 2016; on Seneca’s and Paul’s letters and their modes of self-fashioning in them, see Catharine Edwards and Eve-Marie Becker in this volume; for details of Libanius’ correspondence with the Jewish Patriarch, see Lib., Ep. 1098, 974, 1105, in Stern 1980: 292–93. 2. 595–7; Schwabe 1930; Stemberger 1987: 184–213; Appelbaum 2013: 158–59; Seeck 1906: 471–72, 162, 453; Petit 1956: 59, 110. 36 37 Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 302 Maren R. Niehoff R. Hiyya, R. Yasa and R. Immi pronounced judgement on Tamar. She went and complained about them to the proconsul (‫ = אנטיפוטה‬ἀνθύπατος)38 of Caesarea. They sent and wrote to R. Abbahu. R. Abbahu sent and wrote to them: We have already pacified three advocates (‫)ליטורין‬:39 Well born, Well learned and Tarshish – Eutokos, Eumathes, Thalassios; but bitter Tamar remains in her bitterness; we have tried to sweeten her, “yet the smelter smelts to no purpose” (Jer. 6.29) (jMeg. 3,1 74a, ed. Sussmann 764).40 The enigmatic nature of this story has thus far prompted only some brief discussions, which led to mutually exclusive interpretations depending on the part which was highlighted. While earlier scholars stressed Abbahu’s power, seeing that he was able to bribe three advocates, Hayim Lapin recently pointed to the rabbis’ lack of control over Tamar, who would not submit to the rabbinic verdict.41 The full complexity of Abbahu’s role and the image of his careful selffashioning, however, can only be grasped through an in-depth study of all the details of the story. The story is set off by the request of three Tiberian rabbis that Abbahu intervene with the Roman governor in Caesarea to help enforce their decision regarding Tamar. The background of this appeal is a competition between two legal systems, namely local law, personified by the rabbis, and metropolitan Roman law, personified by the governor. This situation is characteristic of the Roman provinces, especially following Caracalla’s general grant of Roman citizenship in 212 CE. This imperial decision significantly changed the status of local laws in the provinces, which continued to flourish but were officially reduced to customs, while Roman law ostensibly dominated and became increasingly available. The Severan jurist Ulpian perceived this transition sharply, stressing “those who are in the Roman world have become citizens from a decree of the emperor Antoninus.”42 In a similar vein, the third century Greek rhetor Menander remarked: “We conduct our affairs by the common law of the Romans.”43 In Caesarea the metropolitan perspective is well expressed by Origen’s Christian student, traditionally identified as Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his farewell encomium from 238 CE: The Vilna ms. spells the title ‫אנטיפוטא‬. Sperber 1984: 198; note esp. Sifre Deut. 343, 394 where the term is used in a similar context as in our story. 40 .‫ שלחון וכתבון לר׳ אבהו‬.‫ אזלת וקרבת עליהון לאנטיפוטה דקיסרין‬.‫ר׳ חייה ר׳ יסי ר׳ אימי דנון לתמר‬ ‫ אבמסיס‬,‫ טוב למד ותרשיש – אבדוקיס‬,‫ לטוב ילד‬:‫ ]כבר[ פיסנו לשלשה ליטורין‬:‫שלח ר׳ אבהו וכתב להון‬, (29 ‫ אבל תמר תמרורים בתמרוריה היא עומדת וביקשנו למתקה – ”ולשוא צרף צרוף“ )ירמיה ו‬.‫תלתסיס‬. 41 While Perlitz 1887: 67, and Bacher 1892: 94–5, stressed Abbahu’s influence, Lapin 2010: 273, sees this story as an expression of the limitations of rabbinic arbitration. 42 “in orbe romano qui sunt ex constitutione imperatoris antonini cives romanes effecti sunt” (Dig. 1. 5. 17), discussed by Honoré 2002. 43 Κατᾶ γὰρ τοὺς κοινοὺς τῶν Ῥωμαίων νόμους πολιτεύομεθα (Men., Rhetor. transl. Donald A. Russel and Nigel G. Wilson 363.11–12). 38 39 Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 303 Those marvelous laws of ours, by which the affairs of all people under Roman rule are regulated (οἱ θαυμαστοὶ ἡμῶν <νόμ>οι, οἷς νῦν τὰ πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τὴν Ῥωμαίων ἀρχὴν ἀνθρώπων κατευθύνεται πράγματα), and which are not composed or learned without labor, for while they are wise and precise and varied and marvelous – in short, most Hellenic – they have been expressed and transmitted in the language of the Romans (“Greg. Thaum”, Enc. 7).44 Origen’s student, himself a Greek-speaking intellectual, identifies to such a degree with Roman law that he speaks of it as “ours” and regards it as “most Hellenic.” Having spent several years studying with Origen in Caesarea, he assumes that Roman law applies throughout the provinces. Not everybody, however, was equally ready to blur the boundaries between the Romans and “us.” Roman jurists knew that at least some new citizens in the provinces would prefer their traditional laws. Aware of this complexity, Ulpian recommended to consider “local custom” (“mos regionis”), thus continuing the pluralistic approach of Gaius, who famously opened his Institutiones in 170 CE with a statement to this effect: “All peoples who are ruled by laws and customs partly make use of their own laws, and partly have recourse to those which are common to all men.”45 The third-century jurist Paulus furthermore commented: “If a question is raised as to the interpretation of a statute, we must first inquire what was the law the civitas formerly employed in cases of this kind; custom is the best interpreter of statutes.”46 Origen, moreover, testified that the Jewish ethnarch endeavored to negotiate Roman law, and to preserve Jewish jurisdiction in cases of capital punishment.47 This complex legal landscape sheds light on Tamar’s behavior in our story. Faced with the Tiberian rabbis’ decision, the content of which remains unknown to us but clearly displeased her,48 Tamar turns to Roman jurisdiction 44 οἱ θαυμαστοὶ ἡμῶν <νόμ>οι, οἷς νῦν τὰ πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τὴν Ῥωμαίων ἀρχὴν ἀνθρώπων κατευθύνεται πράγματα, <οὔτε> συγκείμενοι οὔτε καὶ ἐκμανθανόμενοι ἀταλαιπώρως· ὄντες μὲν αὐτοὶ σο<φ>οί τε <καὶ ἀκρ>ιβεῖς καὶ ποικίλοι καὶ θαυμαστοί, καὶ συνελόντα εἰπεῖν Ἑλληνικώτατοι· ἐκφρασθέντες <δὲ καὶ> παραδοθέντες τῇ Ῥωμαίων φωνῇ, καταπληκτικῇ μὲν καὶ ἀλαζόνι καὶ συσχηματιζομένῃ <πάςῃ> τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ βασιλικῇ, φορτικῇ δὲ ὅμως ἐμοί (ed. Crouzel, Sources Chrétiennes); see also Mitteis 1891: 1–14; contra Mélèze-Modrzejewski 1971: 313–24, who argues for a local perspective in the Encomium. 45 Just., Dig. 25.4.1; Gaius, Inst. 1,1. 46 Just., Dig. 1. 3. 37; see also P. Giss. I 40, II 8–9, which Kantor (forthcoming): 16, has interpreted in the context of a negotiation between metropolitan and local law. 47 Orig., Ep. Afr. 20. Origen presents a different picture in his newly discovered homilies on Psalms, where he says that Jewish customs, such as stoning the adulterer, can no longer be implemented because they clash with Roman law (Orig., Hom. 1 Ps. 77, par. 3, ed. Perrone et al.: 357). See also Berkowitz 2006: 12–3, who doubts the historical value of Origen’s statements in his Letter to Africanus and investigates the discursive representation of execution among the rabbis in the context of nostalgia and utopianism. 48 Perlitz 1887: 68 rashly assumed that Tamar had been convicted of adultery and that she was “ein ehebrecherisches Weib.” This reconstruction is obviously unfounded and reflects the author’s gender bias. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 304 Maren R. Niehoff and leaves behind local arbitration. Her appeal resembles that of Babatha, a Jewish woman who, in 130 CE, approached the Roman governor of Arabia to gain support for the dismissal of her son’s guardians. Hannah Cotton has shown that Babatha turned to Roman law and relied on Roman norms of guardianship.49 She appeared before the governor of Arabia, Haterius Nepos, “in Petra or elsewhere in the province,” namely wherever he happened to be exercising justice.50 Cotton identified this phrase as a reference to the assize system (“conventus”), namely, the custom of the governor to hear cases in several assigned cities of the province which he would visit over the course of the year.51 Tamar similarly chose to appeal to the Roman governor, directly turning to the capital of the province. The Tiberian rabbis are said to have appealed to Rabbi Abbahu, because they hoped he would use his elevated position in Caesarea to influence the Roman governor’s decision regarding Tamar. How did he react? Abbahu’s letter to his Tiberian colleagues is surprisingly enigmatic. Such manner of expression, however, can hardly have served as a camouflage to avoid Roman attention, as has sometimes been suggested,52 because he wrote in Hebrew, a vernacular unknown to the Roman authorities. Moreover, he openly mentioned his bribing of three advocates, which would have been the most sensitive information to be hidden away or transmitted in a more cryptic form. Abbahu’s letter instead offers a precious glimpse into local negotiations of Roman law, and reflects the complexities involved in a conversation among rabbis with varying degrees of commitment to Rome. Abbahu shows himself loyal to the cause of defending local customs and presents his efforts on behalf of his colleagues to implement their decision regarding Tamar: “We have already pacified three advocates: Well-born, Well-learned and Tarshish – Eutokos, Eumathes, Thalassios.” This highly stylized phrase, with peculiar names in both Hebrew translation and Hebrew transliteration of the Greek, averts the readers’ attention from one conspicuous lacuna: Abbahu does not mention his appeal to the governor himself. In other words, he is not depicted as trying to convince the person directly responsible for the decision about Tamar and the re-evaluation of the rabbis’ previous verdict. 49 Cotton 1993; Cotton’s interpretation has been accepted by Jones 2007: 1344; Czajkowski 2017; for different views, see Katzoff 1991, 2007. Note that the expression in our story “Tamar went and complained about them to the proconsul” sounds rather personal and may suggest that her complaint was more general in nature than filing a law-suit. The context of her complaint, however, leaves no doubt as to its legal character. The expression can thus not reflect the wording of Tamar’s appeal, but rather seems to echo the narrator’s or redactor’s perspective based on an identification with the Tiberian rabbis. 50 P. Yadin 23, II,1–5 ὅπου ἄν. 51 For details on the Assize system, see Burton 1975; and Eck 2014: 195–201, with special reference to Judaea. 52 See Sperber 2012: 44, who stresses that “the names have purposely been obscured, to escape the eyes of a possible censor.” Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 305 The Egyptian papyri show that such a step would have been the norm. Numerous parties in Egypt presented local law before the Roman governors judging their cases in order to assert traditional procedures and Egyptian values. The father of a certain Dionysia, for example, submitted a record of Egyptian customs to support his claim to dissolve his daughter’s marriage and take back her dowry.53 Dionysia’s lawyers, by contrast, prepared a file of precedents, which showed that “the law of the Egyptians” presented before the Roman judge had been dismissed as “inhuman.” Her lawyers, moreover, pointed out that in a previous case the woman was asked to decide “whether she wished to remain with her husband.” Tamar probably also appealed to the Roman governor in Caesarea in a case of family law, because this area of jurisdiction was strongly influenced by Roman law, which often provided women with more rights and opportunities than their local traditions allowed.54 Like Dionysia, Tamar is said to have employed lawyers to present her case. If Abbahu had seriously wished to intervene on behalf of his Tiberian colleagues, he would have known that he should tender a record of Jewish Halacha to the Roman governor. But his enigmatic letter implies that he did not use this option, and instead appealed to Tamar’s lawyers. This, at least, is the image of Abbahu in the letter, preserved by a later redactor. Abbahu’s final comment, that his efforts failed because Tamar insisted on her appeal, confirms that he respected her rights in the Roman legal system, knowing well that she was likely to get a decision in her favor, which would overrule the previous rabbinic arbitration. Abbahu’s letter further suggests that he did not provoke an open confrontation with his colleagues in Tiberias, probably considering his close cooperation with Rabbi Immi on other issues.55 He is instead depicted as having written a letter peppered with word-plays and a Biblical quotation, all of which would divert attention from the real issue, namely, his ultimate acceptance of Tamar’s appeal to Roman jurisdiction. Abbahu mentions the names of three advocates in Hebrew translation and then in Hebrew transliteration: “Well-born, Well53 P. Oxy. II 237, in Rowlandson 1998: 187. On the Roman impact on local family law in the provinces, see Kantor (forthcoming): 6, 16 (with emphasis on the diminishing of sibling marriages in Egypt). See also the following rescript by Diocletian and Maximian, which shows that the issue of Dionysia’s court case was still relevant at the time of Abbahu: “Our Father, and most religious Emperor the Divine Marcus, decided that the consent of a parent should not be considered as ratified where he gave his consent to the marriage in the beginning and afterwards revoked it, and the daughter under paternal control decided to remain with her husband, unless the act of the father was caused by some good and sufficient reason. No rule of law directs a wife to return to her husband against her consent. The father of an emancipated daughter cannot, at will, authorize her divorce. Given at Nicomedia, on the fifth of the Kalends of September, during the Consulate of the Caesars.” (Just., Cod. 5.17. 7). 55 Abbahu and Immi cooperated to excommunicate the Samaritans (bHul. 6a). For another case of their cooperation, see below section three of the article. 54 Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 306 Maren R. Niehoff learned and Tarshish – Eutokos, Eumathes, Thalassios.”56 These are not common Greek names. Is the similar sound of the first two a coincidence of history, or did someone line them up for literary purposes? Could Abbahu have invented them to create a humorous atmosphere? Whatever the case may be, he thus engages local perspectives, and suggests that interacting with Roman structures of jurisprudence involves acting in a culture foreign to his colleagues. Abbahu’s insistence on quoting the advocates’ names both in Hebrew and Greek discloses a hybrid form of self-fashioning as a man familiar with both worlds.57 His colleagues, who lived in a more secluded Hebrew- and Aramaic-speaking environment and were certainly less fluent in Greek, must have been impressed by this demonstration of cosmopolitanism. Abbahu’s letter features an additional word-play, this time on the name “Tamar,” which is originally connected to the motif of the palm tree (‫)תמר‬. He jokingly derives the name from the notion of bitterness (‫)מרר‬, stressing that she was too bitter to withdraw her appeal.58 This pleasantry, too, would have softened the disappointment of the Tiberian rabbis. To a similar effect, Abbahu concludes with a biblical quotation: “We have tried to sweeten her, “yet the smelter smelts to no purpose.”59 Classical Jewish literature is invoked as a rhetorically effective means of persuasion, insinuating that Tamar’s behavior is registered among the wicked deeds, which will ultimately be revenged by God. This sophisticated deployment of Classical literature resembles the techniques of the famous rhetor Libanius.60 In Ep. 1105, for example, Libanius turns to the Jewish Patriarch, pleading for mercy on behalf of the Roman governor, who apparently fell into disgrace largely on account of the Jewish leader’s anger at him. Anticipating his addressee’s resistance, Libanius writes: “Become an Achilles to Telephus, heal anger by mildness.”61 Libanius hopes that the Jewish Patriarch will adopt a 56 Note that the Vilna and the Venice ms Hebraize the transliterations of the Greek and write respectively “‫ "אבדוקים אבמסין תלתכים‬and “‫אבדוקים אבמסים תלתסים‬.” 57 Cf. Sperber 2012: 44, who assumes that Abbahu wrote in a cryptic style to avoid censorship and then argues that “a learned glossator retranslated the names back into Greek, removing obscurity from their identity.” Sperber, however, does not provide any reason for supposing such a later intervention in the text and the re-introduction of the Greek names, which had, in his view, been suppressed by Abbahu himself. Such a later redaction of the text would have to belong to the Babylonian stage of the transmission, when the Roman Empire could no longer exercise any censorship. At that time, however, it is highly unlikely that any redactor would have been interested or perhaps even been competent to retranslate the names of the advocates into Greek. Apart from suggesting a complicated and unlikely history of textual redaction, which has no parallel, Sperber misses the complexity of Abbahu’s self-fashioning in the letter. 58 My reading of this word-play as a humorous idea of Abbahu, responding to a specific situation, differs sharply from Yahalom 1973, who takes Abbahu’s plays on words as a reflection of a common manner of speech in third-century Palaestina. 59 Jer. 6.29. Abbahu may also have chosen this verse, because it appears in close vicinity to the expression ‫( תמרורים‬Jer 6:26). 60 For details on Libanius’ epistolary style, see van Hoof 2016; Watts 2018. 61 Lib., Ep. 1105, in Stern 1980: 2.597. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 307 Classical model to soothe his anger and agree to cooperate in contemporary politics. In the same manner, Abbahu is presented as appealing to his colleagues in Tiberias through recourse to the Bible, encouraging them to withdraw from any further action in the defense of Jewish Halacha against Roman law. Abbahu’s letter to his colleagues in Tiberias has revealed a highly complex image of his personality and shows him to be acutely aware of his self-presentation among fellow rabbis. The story in the Jerusalem Talmud constructs Abbahu as a prominent negotiator of Halacha and Roman law. His colleagues are shown as turning to him as an authority and expecting him to use his position to assert local against Roman law. At the same time, however, the story does not imagine Abbahu as directly appealing to the governor and, consequently, making the most effective effort of preventing Tamar from using Roman law in her favor. This hybrid image of Abbahu conforms to a Roman perspective and conveys that he would have appeared to the Roman administration as being fully committed to the metropolitan approach of Roman dominance over local customs. In conversation with his colleagues, however, who insisted on the authority of the Halacha, Abbahu is depicted as choosing diplomacy over direct confrontation. Rather than disclosing his recognition of the competing legal system as a viable option for Jews, he presents himself as a full supporter of the local cause, while at the same time inserting Greek words, which created an alienating effect and implicitly suggested his immersion in the Other culture. Quoting both Greek names and a biblical verse, Abbahu is situated in the very space between the two cultures. To borrow Homi Bhaba’s famous phrase,62 Abbahu emerges as a hybrid personality, employing his expertise on both sides of the cultural divide to facilitate a smooth functioning of Jewish society within the larger framework of Roman jurisdiction. Even though we cannot be sure to what degree this image of Abbahu reflects his historical personality, we note its significance. Rabbinic literature attributes to the leading rabbi of third-century Caesarea a hybrid and very sophisticated self-fashioning, which reflects the redactor’s sense of the possibility and even the importance of such a mediating position in Late Antique Palaestina. In this sense not only Abbahu’s Self is hybrid, but also that of the redactor and, by implication, that of the implied audience of the story. 2. Open Confrontation at the Rabbinic Court of Caesarea The Jerusalem Talmud preserves a story in Aramaic which depicts Abbahu in a completely different posture at the local court,63 namely in open confrontation 62 63 See esp. Bhabha 2004, 1983, 1991. I use the term “court” to reflect rabbinic language, even though it should be borne in mind that Abbahu’s court was in fact an institution of arbitration, which depended on the con- Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 308 Maren R. Niehoff with a Jewish fiancé who was not willing to abide by the rules of a betrothal contract, the symphon: A case came before Rabbi Abbahu: he [Abbahu] said to him [the betrothed]: go and deliver [the object promised in the symphon]. He replied to him: Rabbi, I have not acquired a wife and you say to me ‘go and deliver’?! Said Rabbi Abbahu to him: nobody has ever jested with me but this one (‫)מימיי לא שחק בי אדם אלא זה‬. He explained again (‫)חזר ואמר‬: if the man changes his mind, he delivers [the object]; if the woman changes her mind, she delivers. Was this not his previous judgement? He returned and made it a court document. The rule of the symphon is thus. (jKid. 3,2 63d, ed. Sussman 1170)64 This story is set in the context of Abbahu’s work as an arbitrator at the Jewish court of Caesarea, which was connected to the synagogue.65 It directly follows other cases in which a betrothal did not lead to marriage. Here, too, the betrothed attests that he has not “acquired a wife” and complains about the duties Abbahu imposes on him as the party retracting from the engagement. Abbahu is depicted as insisting in no uncertain terms on the conditions of the symphon, which obliges the withdrawing man to give his former fiancée the betrothal gift even though he had delayed delivering it until the engagement was already dissolved. Abbahu permits neither discussion nor negotiation and does not even bother to explain. He instead expresses disdain and disqualifies the fiancé as a jester, who disregards the obvious rules of betrothal. This remarkable posture of authority has been overshadowed by the redactor of the story, who mistakenly understood the expression ‫ חזר ואמר‬as an indication of Abbahu’s retraction, as if he accepted the fiancé’s claims.66 Seeing that Abbahu concludes the session at the court by repeating the conditions of the symphon, the redactor injects into the story his own question deriving from his mistaken interpretation, namely: “Was this not his previous judgement?” The redactor’s perspective and direct intervention in the text reflect an identification with the fiancé, whose claims are impatiently rejected by Abbahu. If Abbahu had retracted, the fiancé would, by implication, have convinced him and appeared in a more positive light. Nahmanides, a traditional interpreter of the Jerusalem Talmud, adopted the redactor’s perspective and further imagined a scenario in which the fiancé had already married the woman and self-confidently dismissed Abbahu’s sent of the parties and lacked the legal authority to enforce its decisions. In this sense Abbahu’s court significantly differed from the Roman court implied in the story about Tamar. 64 ‫ איזיל והב?! אמ׳‬:‫ אשה לא קניתי ואץ אמר לי‬,‫ ר׳‬:‫ אמ׳ ליה‬.‫ זיל הב‬:‫ ]אמר ליה‬.‫אתא עובדא קומי ר׳ אבהו‬ ‫ ולא הדא היא‬.‫ אין היא ח]ו[זרת בה תתן‬,‫ אין חזר ביה יתן‬:‫ חזר ואמ׳‬.‫מימיי לא שחק בי אדם אלא זה‬:‫ר׳ אבהו‬ ‫ סדר סימפון כך הוא‬.‫קדמייתא? חזר ועשאו מעשה בית דין‬. 65 ‫( ר׳ אבהו הוה יתיב דיין בכנישתא מרדתא דקיסרין לגרמיה‬jSanh. 18a; discussed by Levine 1975: 58). 66 The primary and secondary meaning of the root ‫ חזר‬is to repeat or return to a previous position, while only the tertiary meaning implies withdrawal (Levy 1879, 2: 32–3; Jastrow 1982: 446). Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 309 position.67 Leaving aside this traditional identification with the “wronged husband,” however, we must unearth the earlier layer of the story and attempt to reconstruct specifically Rabbi Abbahu’s perspective. We need to explain the image of his remarkable confidence in insisting on an aspect of marriage law, which later fell into disuse in the Jewish tradition. The symphon, as presented here by Abbahu, contradicts traditional Jewish notions in two important respects. While the Bible considers betrothal as the beginning of marriage initiated unilaterally by the man, who is not required to issue a written contract, the symphon is a mutual and written stipulation of conditions between a man and a woman, which need to be fulfilled in order for the parties to proceed to the next stage, namely, marriage.68 Moreover, the symphon envisions the possibility that women, too, would cancel the engagement. Abbahu uses here a specialized meaning of the term symphon, which reflects the Greek participle σύμφωνον (in agreement), but does not exist in Greek as a technical term. This specialized use resembles that of the similar Greek verb ἁρμόζω.69 The term symphon was already used in the Mishna as a loanword designating a postscript added to a contract.70 Leib Moscovitz has additionally shown that the rabbinic discussion about the non-fulfillment of its conditions under duress reflects the Roman category of legal fiction.71 The symphon invoked by Abbahu in the above passage distinctly echoes Roman notions of betrothal. The Roman background of his position emerges most clearly from his assumption of equality between men and women.72 His interpretation of betrothal is illuminated by several rescripts published by the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, some of them in Nicomedia. The emperors clarified that “a woman already betrothed to one man is not forbidden to repudiate her contract and marry another man.”73 They likewise stipulated that 67 Nahmanides ad loc. in Florsheim 2006: 308; this mistaken interpretation is repeated by Neusner 1984 ad loc., and Tilly 1995: 191. Guggenheimer 2008: 275–76 translates more accurately as “he rephrased and said,” and points to the fact that the Babylonian Talmud no longer recognizes the symphon. 68 On the development of Ancient Jewish notions of betrothal, which are increasingly influenced by Roman norms, see B. Cohen 1966: 279–348; Satlow 2001. 69 For the Greek use of this verb in the sense of betrothing, see the second-century grammarian Pollux 3.35; Jos., J. A. 20,140. Note that Philo, Spec. 2.30, uses the term in a rather more general sense, including “to marry.” 70 Note esp. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel, who insists on the symphon as an acceptable court document (‫ )מעשה בית דין‬by stressing that “if there are postscripts belonging to the documents, let him act in accordance with the post-script” (‫ יעשה מה שבסמפונות‬,‫אם יש עמהן סמפונות‬ (mBM1.8); see also tBM 1.13; Gulak 1934: 126–33; Sperber 1984: 119. 71 Moscovitz 2003: 122–24. 72 See also Furstenberg 2019, who identifies egalitarian features as characteristic of Roman divorce procedures, concluding that in the case of divorce no egalitarian measures were adopted by the rabbis, not even by the school of Hillel, which was otherwise open to Roman influence. 73 Cod. Just., 5.1.1. “Imperatores Diocletianus, Maximianus. Alii desponsata renuntiare con- Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 310 Maren R. Niehoff “although the written notice of repudiation may not have been delivered to the husband, or he may not have been aware of it, the marriage will, nevertheless, be dissolved” (Just., Cod. 5.17.6). Finally, the emperors assumed that a woman dissolving a betrothal is required to return the dotal gift received before the marriage.74 Moreover, Ulpian, the leading Roman jurist of the early third century, focused on the rights of the women, especially young girls. Defining betrothal as a “promise” and a stipulation, he stressed the “consent” necessary for its constitution.75 The guardians of a girl may, in his view, not terminate or initiate a betrothal “unless all this is done with the consent of the girl.”76 Ulpian even clarified the reasons allowing a woman to refuse the fiancé selected by her father: “A daughter is only permitted to refuse to consent to her father’s wishes, if he selects someone for her husband, who is unworthy on account of his habits and who is of infamous character” (Dig. 23. 1. 12). The Roman approach to betrothal naturally caused lively debates among the rabbis, who hastened to institute a contract of betrothal, but continued to disagree about its implications for the husband. Abbahu, who is quoted in the context of Kiddushin as an expert in the law of “the Gentiles,” is presented as the most fervent promoter of the Roman style symphon in Jewish circles. In his view, both parties have the right to repudiate the betrothal contract and are equally obliged to return the token of the promise. Abbahu also adopted the Roman notion of betrothal as a separate, preliminary act, which does not yet imply any marital obligations. He consequently allowed a woman, whose fiancé died during the period of betrothal, to marry another man rather than obliging her to marry his brother in a levirate marriage.77 His insistence that “if the man changes his mind, he delivers [the object]; if the woman changes her mind, she delivers” equally reflects Roman procedures and must be recognized as early evidence for the implementation of Roman law in the Eastern provinces. To ensure the correct use of the symphon, Abbahu specifies its precise formulation and obligations on several occasions, as, for example, in the following passage: dicioni ac nubere alii non prohibetur.” 74 Just., Cod. 5.17.3; see also a later rescript: “If, however, not being aware of them [the conditions of the fiancé, which led the woman’s party to annul the betrothal], they [the woman’s party] accepted the betrothal gift, or if, after it was given, some good reason arose to induce them to change their minds, after returning the gift they shall be free from any penalty (“isdem tantummodo redditis super alterius simpli poena liberi custodiantur”). We decree that all these rules shall likewise be observed with reference to men who are betrothed, whether they have received or bestowed such gifts, and that the penalty of quadruple damages, which was mentioned in former laws by which the amount of the betrothal gift was prescribed, shall be abolished.” (Just., Cod. 5.1.5). 75 Dig. 23.1.2, 23.1.4; see also Treggiani 1991: 146–7. 76 “nisi forte omnia ista ex voluntate puellae facta sint” (Dig. 23.1.6). 77 ‫ ר' אבהו אמ' מותרת להינשא‬.‫( מת מתוך סימפון‬jKid.63d, ed. Sussman 1171). Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 311 Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan said: The rule of the symphon is as follows: I so-and-so, son of so-and-so, betroth you, so-and-so daughter of so-and-so, on condition that I give you such-and-such an object and marry you on such-and-such a day. And if such-and-such a day arrives and I shall not have married you, I have no claims whatsoever. (jKid. 3,2 63a, ed. Sussmann 1170)78 Abbahu’s repeated insistence on the correct procedure of the symphon is not surprising, as alternative interpretations of betrothal enjoyed popularity among Palestinian rabbis and continued to circulate. The rabbis distinguished between the symphon and Kiddushin, being acutely aware of the fact that the latter is more binding than the former.79 Moreover, Rabbi Ba of Tiberias interpreted the symphon in terms of Kiddushin and consequently judged the case of a fiancé, who had died during the period of betrothal, in the exact opposite way from Abbahu. He did not permit the woman to marry another man, but instead required the procedure of levirate marriage with the brother of the deceased.80 Thus, Rabbi Ba expressed the traditional Jewish view of betrothal as the beginning of marriage. In the same traditional spirit, Rabbi Meir, an earlier Tannaitic authority from Tiberias, insisted that even when the condition of the betrothal was not fulfilled, the woman was married.81 In his view, a special clause was necessary if the husband intended for the non-fulfillment of the condition to cause the annulment of the marriage. Meir’s position proved so persistent that some signed “the symphon according to the method of Rabbi Meir regarding betrothal.”82 It is highly unlikely that Meir himself used the technical term symphon, as it is not associated with his name in the Mishna. Later generations seem to have recalled Rabbi Meir’s position and phrased it in terms of the symphon, which had in the meantime been introduced and was emphatically defended by Abbahu. Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud juxtaposes Rabbi Meir’s “method of the symphon” to that of Abbahu, thus suggesting that the latter encountered opposition from conservative quarters relying on Meir’s approach to betrothal. Given these vigorous rabbinic debates about Jewish practices of betrothal, how can we explain the image of Abbahu’s open and rather impatient confrontation with the fiancé at his court of arbitration in Caesarea? His impatience may have been prompted by his awareness that the symphon had been received in Jewish circles more reluctantly than he had hoped.83 At his own court in Caesarea, however, Abbahu is presented not only as insisting on what he considered advanced norms of marital law, but also as demonstrating his authority in no un78 See also Schremer 2003: 323, who stresses the 2nd person address to the woman, which he compares to a similar formula in the Kiddushin contract. 79 See esp. jKid. 63d: ‫ קידש בתוך סימפון הרי אילו קידושין גמורין‬.‫אלא הוא סימפון או קידושין‬. 80 ‫ ר׳ בא אמ׳ אסורה‬,‫ ר׳ אבהו אמ׳ מותרת להינשא‬.‫( מת מתוך סימפון‬jKid.63d, ed. Sussman 1171). 81 ‫( ר׳ מאיר או׳ בין ירדו )הגשמים( בין לא ירדו מקודשת עד שיכפיל תניין‬jEruv. 21b, ed. Sussmann 467–8). 82 ‫( ירדו לסימפון בשיטת ר׳ מאיר דקידושין‬j.Eruv. 21b, ed. Sussmann 468). 83 See also Satlow 2001: 81, who notes that the symphon may not have been widely used. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 312 Maren R. Niehoff certain terms. In the capital of the Roman province, the rules of Roman betrothal would be respected. Vis-à-vis a lay person judged at his court, Abbahu dispensed with the diplomatic language that characterized his letter to his colleagues in Tiberias. His language in that setting was clear and directly confrontational, establishing a steep hierarchy and implying that the fiancé had not sufficiently informed himself and was guilty of neglect. Moreover, the implication that he was jesting suggests that the fiancé lacked, in his view, respect for his specific approach and his known authority in Caesarea. The depiction of Abbahu’s self-fashioning in the two passages we have examined thus indicates an intriguing dependence on the social context of the different types of his public activity. Vis-à-vis colleagues in Tiberias, Abbahu is said to circumvent open collision, preferring to facilitate the application of Roman law in an indirect way. At the court of Caesarea, by contrast, he is imagined as openly insisting on the procedures of Roman law and challenging his complainant head-on. This difference in self-fashioning highlights the importance of locality.84 Rabbinic literature draws a complex legal landscape of Late Antique Palaestina, in which Abbahu respected other rabbis in their territory and considered diplomacy the best way of proceeding. In his own area of arbitration, however, he is assumed to have tolerated no deviance from the path outlined in consultation with Roman law. The capital of the Roman province, with its cosmopolitan culture and Mediterranean harbor, emerges as fostering a pro-Roman course, while Tiberias is more diverse. While Rabbi Yohanan is quoted as the source of Rabbi Abbahu’s notion of the symphon, other prominent Tiberian rabbis are presented in opposition to him. This picture of significant local differences resonates well with the image at the beginning of Tractate Ketuvot in the Jerusalem Talmud, which offers a list of differences between the Galilee and Judaea regarding marital customs. These differences in customs also had legal implications. People conducting themselves according to a certain set of regional traditions could not file law-suits on the assumption of the neighboring customs. Each territory had its own customs and legal landscape. Rather than one uniform rabbinic reaction to Roman law, rabbinic literature suggests different approaches, which were developed and defended by individual rabbis in their respective communities. The degree to which Roman law was implemented depended heavily on the personality of the rabbi responsible for the area in which one lived. Abbahu is imagined as using his impressive and charming personality to either facilitate or directly promote Roman law and support women’s rights in the two cases we examined. As the leading rabbi of the provincial capital, he was oriented towards Rome and sought to provide an anchor for her legal norms among his people, while other rabbis were eager to protect older 84 See also Belayche 2006 and Whitmarsh 2011, who have stressed the importance of local identities in other contexts of the Roman Empire. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 313 Jewish traditions. This situation of local diversity in Palaestina is not dissimilar to that in the Roman province of Germany, as observed by Tacitus, who describes the tensions between the citizens of the colony of Cologne and a “tribe separated from the colony by the Rhine.” The latter wished to steer a course against Rome, reprimanding their German brethren inside the city to “resume the manners and customs of your fathers” (“instituta cultumque patrium resumite”), and accusing them of enjoying “those pleasures which give the Romans more power than their arms bestow” (Tac., Hist. 4.73). Tacitus remarks that the urban Germans in the colonial city needed to be diplomatic towards the tribes, and found a polite way of responding to them without changing their way of life. 3. Abbahu’s Fashioning of Roman Law through Bible Exegesis The last area of Rabbi Abbahu’s self-fashioning which we will investigate in this article pertains to Bible interpretation, an area for which he was famous among synagogue-goers.85 The opening of Tractate Kiddushin of the Jerusalem Talmud shows that Abbahu read verses from the Book of Genesis with a view to comparing Jewish and general (Roman) marriage practices. The following passage provides an example: Until here concerning Israel. Regarding the gentiles: Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of R. Eleazar: it is written “behold you are a dead man, because of the women whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife” (Gen. 20.3), “they are liable if the woman was taken in marriage, they are not liable if she was betrothed.” (jKid. 1,1 58d, ed. Sussmann 1137) Similarly, Genesis Rabbah preserves Abbahu’s interpretation of the Biblical expression “[a man] cleaves to his wife” (Gen. 2.24): “The Noahites are liable if the women were taken in marriage but are acquitted in case they are betrothed.”86 In both passages Rabbi Abbahu explains a biblical verse about a non-Jew or a pre-Mosaic hero as a statement about the contemporary laws of the nations or 85 86 jBer. 6a, GR 30,8. GR 18.5, Theodor and Albeck: 166; for a comparison of these two versions of Abbahu’s interpretation, see Shapira 2014: 27–33, who contextualizes them in his general discussion of naturalistic or conventional conceptions of marriage, the former characterizing Qumran and the New Testament, the latter the rabbis. Shapira argues that rabbinic references to the Noahites preserve some of the older naturalistic conception of marriage. He also considers the possibility that the expression “acquitted” in GR 18.5 points to a distinction based on the status of the woman, namely whether she is married or betrothed. This is in my view the main point of Abbahu’s statement and I am interested in investigating his view in the context of contemporary, Roman law. On the notion of the Noahite laws in rabbinic literature, see also Paz 2009. The issue deserves further study in light of Cherreau 2014, who interpreted the Roman notion of the “law of the nations” as a post-2012 category of conventional law, which is distinct from natural law. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 314 Maren R. Niehoff the Noahites. Aware of Roman notions of betrothal as a preliminary procedure, which does yet not imply marital obligations, Abbahu asserts that the Gentiles are not liable for intercourse with a betrothed woman. Notably, he assumes a convergence between the Jewish Scriptures and Roman law. As far as he is concerned, Judaism from its earliest stage reflects Roman norms. This view contrasts with that of the Church Father Origen, who was happy to point out that Jewish Halacha was passé, because, among other things, it clashed with the reality of Roman rule and contradicted certain legal assumptions deriving from it. In his newly discovered Homilies on Psalms, delivered towards the end of his career in Caesarea ca. 254 CE, Origen states: Even if the sons of Israel want to conduct themselves according to the Law of Moses, whatever they may do, it is impossible. Let them perform the Passover [sacrifice] in the place which the Lord has chosen! Yet they cannot [as they lack access to the Temple in Jerusalem]. Let them stone the adulterer, but the authority of stoning is with the [Roman] rulers.”87 Faced with the exclusivity of Roman authority in matters of capital punishment, the Jews – according to Origen – had to withdraw from their traditional legislation and instead conduct themselves according to contemporary Roman law. Given this lively debate about the compatibility of traditional Judaism to the Roman Empire, we inquire how Abbahu related to cases of a clash between the two systems. How did he explain, for example, the famous polygamy of biblical heroes, a form of marriage which was, in his own days, actively prevented by Roman legislation? Diocletian’s rescript, crafted by Hermogenian in December 285 CE, makes the following statement about monogamy in the eastern provinces of the Empire: It is a matter of common notoriety that no one who is under the authority of Roman jurisdiction can have two wives at once (neminem, qui sub dicione sit romani nominis, binas uxores habere posse vulgo patet); as, by the Edict of the Praetor, men of this kind are marked by infamy, and the competent judge will not suffer such a case to go unpunished. (CJ.5.5.2)88 The expression “under the authority of Roman jurisdiction” (“sub dicione … romani nominis”) would apply particularly in the aftermath of Caracalla’s grant of citizenship in 212 CE. Diocletian envisions two ways of enforcing Roman norms: “infamia,” that is, social pressure, and punishment by court decision. This formulation indicates the emperor’s awareness that imposing Roman norms of monogamy in the East was a difficult and gradual process. In Late Antique Palaestina, 87 Hom. 1 Ps. 77, par. 3 (ed. Perrone et al.: 357); see also Mitchell (forthcoming); Fürst 2014: 275–87; Buchinger 2019 (forthcoming). 88 “Neminem, qui sub dicione sit romani nominis, binas uxores habere posse vulgo patet, cum et in edicto praetoris huiusmodi viri infamia notati sint. quam rem competens iudex inultam esse non patietur,” discussed by Mitteis 1891: 222 and Corcoran 2007: 25–42. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 315 we find examples of both methods of implementation mentioned by Diocletian. Rabbi Immi of Tiberias acted by directly pronouncing judgement on the matter, while Rabbi Abbahu supported the implementation of the Roman norm by creative Bible exegesis in more informal contexts of public teaching. Abbahu’s ally, Rabbi Immi, took a courageous decision in favor of monogamy, thus breaking with the long Jewish tradition of polygamy in the Bible and the Mishna:89 Rabbi Immi said: Even in this case [infertility] he must divorce [his first wife] and give her the payment for her marriage contract, for I say: whoever marries a woman in addition to his first wife must divorce and give the payment for her marriage contract. (bYeb. 65a)90 In this passage, Rabbi Immi introduces the idea of divorcing an infertile wife and marrying a new one instead of taking a second wife. He maintains that the husband must give his first wife the money promised in her marriage contract. Immi does not rely on biblical or rabbinic precedent for his ruling, but rather draws on his personal authority: “I say” – ‫אני אומר‬. This formulation implies that other rabbis judged the matter differently, but that in his jurisdictional territory, Immi would insist on monogamy.91 The Talmud places his ruling into the larger context of issues pertaining to polygamy. The report of Immi’s decision is followed by Rabba’s ruling in Babylonia concerning a man married to several wives, who is obliged to support each of them. Abbahu emerges in Genesis Rabbah as disseminating and implanting the Roman norm of monogamy. For this purpose, he highlights the partnership of Adam and Eve as a Divinely sanctioned ideal, insisting that: “The Holy One, blessed be He, took a cup of blessing and blessed them.”92 Abbahu moreover stressed the concept of an individual marriage partner, whom God assigns to each man: R. Phinehas in the name of R. Abbahu: In the Pentateuch, in the Prophets and in the Writings, we find that a man’s match derives solely from the Holy One, blessed be He (‫אין זיווגו‬ ‫)שלאיש אלא מן הקב׳ה‬. In the Pentateuch – “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said: The thing comes from the Lord” (Gen. 24.50); in the Prophets – “But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord” (Jud. 14.4); in the Writings – “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord” (Prov. 19.14). And sometimes 89 For a discussion of Jewish polygamy, see esp. Schremer 2003, who concluded that the Jews were consistently polygamous from the biblical period to the Babylonian Talmud, while Herr 1976: 46 n. 36, identified a monogamous moment in Palaestina which was later eclipsed by the Babylonian Talmud. Regarding notions of monogamy at Qumran, which do not seem to have been available to the rabbis or at least are not generally accepted by them, see Collins 2017 and literature cited there. 90 ‫ כל הנושא אשה על אשתו יוציא ויתן כתובה‬:‫ שאני אומר‬,‫אמר רבי אמי אף בזו יוציא ויתן כתובה‬. 91 Cf. Novik 2010, who discussed cases of the “for I say” formula in Tannaitic literature, referring to legal fictions. Our passage uses the term in a very different sense, continuing a connotation evident already in tShab. 12.12. 92 GR 8.13, Theodor and Albeck: 66 ‫ נטל הקב׳ה כוס שלברכה וברכן‬:‫א׳ ר׳ אבהו‬. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 316 Maren R. Niehoff he comes to his match (‫)אצל זיווגו‬, and sometimes his match comes to him. Isaac’s match came to him – “and he lifted up his eyes and saw there were camels coming” (Gen. 24.63); while Jacob came to his match – “and Jacob went out from Beer-sheba.” (Gen. 28.10)93 A central term in the above passage is “his match,” ‫זיווגו‬, which Abbahu extends even to Jacob, who deeply loved Rachel, while still having another wife, namely, Leah. To be sure, there are numerous occurrences of the noun ‫זוג‬, without a possessive, in the Mishna, Tosefta, and the Jerusalem Talmud, where it refers to a dual number in the context of witnesses, door-gates, animals, or other items.94 Even in Genesis Rabbah, where Rabbi Acha wonders why God did not create a partner – ‫ – בן זוג‬for Adam, the reference is to any partner of human kind, as opposed to animals (GR 17.4). Abbahu uses the term ‫ זיווג‬with a possessive suffix and envisions a personally designated partner in the distinctly Roman sense of “coniugium,” namely, a marriage partner with whom one builds a loving and trusting relationship according to Augustan ideals. From Cicero and Ovid onwards, partnership became a literary topos in Rome. Augustus reinforced this ideal by demanding that every citizen take a “wife who is chaste, domestic, a good house-keeper, a rearer of children […] to join you in prosperity and console you in misfortune.”95 Endorsing this policy, Livia dedicated a shrine to Concordia. Seneca’s loving partnership with his wife Paulina was so well-known that Tacitus still spoke about it.96 One generation later, the Roman philosopher Musonius asked “What is the chief end of marriage?”, to which he offered the emphatic answer: “community of life” and “perfect companionship and mutual love of husband and wife, both in health and sickness and under all circumstances” (Lect. 13.1–4). During the time of the Second Temple, Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, two authors with a strong Roman orientation, already embraced the idea of conjugal partnership and love.97 In Contra Apion, Josephus even tried to convince a Roman audience that Jewish law “recognizes only the natural union of a husband with his wife.”98 By highlighting Biblical examples of conjugal partnership, Abbahu is said to interpret the Jewish tradition in topical Roman terms, maintaining the compati93 GR 68, 3, Theodor and Albeck: 771 (on Theodor’s contribution to the edition and research of Genesis Rabbah, see Kadari 2017). – ‫ בתורה‬.‫ בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים מצינו שאין זיווגו שלאיש אלא מן הקב׳ה‬:‫ר׳ פינחס בשם ר׳ אבהוא‬ ‫ ויש‬.‫ בכתובים – ”בית והון“ וגו׳‬.‫ בנביאים – ”ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מי׳י“ וגו׳‬.‫”ויען לבן ובתורה ויאמרו“ וגו׳‬ ‫“ יעקב‬.‫ יצחק בא זיווגו אצלו – ”וישא עיניו וירא והנה גמלים באים‬.‫ ויש שזיווגו בא אצלו‬,‫שהוא הולך אצל זיווגו‬ ‫שבע‬-‫הלך אצל זיווגו – ”ויצא יעקב מבאר‬.” 94 See esp. mEruv. 10,1, tBM 10,11. 95 Dio 56.3.3; see also Veyne 1987: 33–42; Grimal 1980: 48–69; Balsdon 1962: 90–95; Dixon 1988: 1991; Treggiani 1991: 214–61, 249–51. 96 Tac., An.15.63, Agric. 6.1. 97 Philo, Abr. 246–7, discussed by Niehoff 2018: 133–36; Jos., JA 1.288, 1.298, 1.302, 1.306, 1.318, discussed by Feldman 1998: 328–32. On Philo’s and Josephus’ self-fashioning as religious authors in Rome, see Niehoff 2018a. 98 μῖξιν μόνην οἶδεν ὁ νόμος τὴν κατὰ φύσιν τὴν πρὸς γυναῖκα (Jos., C. Ap. 2.199). Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 317 bility of the two cultures. No reaction of his to obvious cases of biblical polygamy has survived. While this may be an accident of transmission, it may also indicate his positive approach of affirming areas of convergence and upholding the Bible as a model for contemporary Jews. In the area of Bible interpretation, which he regularly employed in the informal context of synagogue preaching, Abbahu did not choose confrontation. Rather than alarming his community by pointing to discrepancies between Biblical and Roman norms or by insisting on Roman monogamy against Biblical precedents, he used his rhetorical talents to construct a Jewish tradition that conformed to Roman norms. By showing that the Bible already features significant partnerships, Abbahu hoped to encourage such behavior in his own time as well. A rescript from the end of the fourth century indicates that, from a Roman perspective, the Jews were still traditional in the areas of Abbahu’s public activity, as the Roman emperor insists that “no Jew shall cling to his custom in contracting marriage, nor acquire wedlock according to his law, nor enter different marriages at the same time.”99 4. Conclusion The image of Rabbi Abbahu in the Jerusalem Talmud and Genesis Rabbah has emerged as highly complex and hybrid. He is depicted as an authority mediating Roman law in various ways suiting the different social contexts of his public activity. Reflecting a knowledge about his familiarity with Roman law, rabbinic sources present him as fashioning himself, in a letter to his more conservative colleagues in Tiberias, as a man versed in both cultures, but committed to the cause of defending Jewish Halacha. Circumventing open confrontation, he emerges as facilitating the implementation of Roman law, and taking only indirect steps to prevent it. His quotation of both Greek names and a biblical verse shows him to be a sophisticated rhetor familiar with both worlds. As an arbitrator in Caesarea, however, Abbahu is said to have used a completely different style of self-representation, namely, insistence on his authority, and sharp dismissal of divergent views. The Jerusalem Talmud creates in this context an intriguing image of legal diversity based on the local traditions of the different cities in Late Antique Palaestina. It is suggested that a prominent rabbi like Abbahu would accept the authority of other rabbis in their various domains of jurisdiction, while himself creating a space oriented towards Rome at his own court of Caesarea. Abbahu’s profile as an arbitrator is complemented by sayings about his less formal activity as a preacher and Bible interpreter. In this area he is 99 “Nemo iudaeorum morem suum in coniunctionibus retinebit nec iuxta legem suam nuptias sortiatur nec in diversa sub uno tempore coniugia conveniat” (CJ.1.9.7); discussed by Mitteis 1891: 222. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 318 Maren R. Niehoff said to have chosen a more indirect style of teaching, which accentuates convergences between the Scriptures and Roman norms. An advocate of monogamous family life, he suggested that the biblical forefathers had already set an example of conjugal partnerships. The hybrid image of Abbahu in rabbinic sources from Late Antique Palaestina further reflects traces of lively discussions, which were prompted among the rabbis by the increasing presence of Roman law in the third century CE. New opportunities of self-fashioning became available and prompted a more distinct positioning in relation to Rome. Given the relatively tolerant pragmatism of Roman rule in the provinces, individual rabbis were called to formulate their attitude vis-à-vis Roman law, the members of their communities, and the heads of other communities. Reflecting the knowledge that Abbahu served as the leading rabbi of Caesarea, the Jerusalem Talmud imagines him as adopting a distinctly pro-Roman course, which he conveyed in various ways depending on the context. He fashioned himself in diverse ways, carefully constructing his self-image to suit each of his public activities. Rabbinic sources thus suggest that Rabbi Abbahu’s personality was not a stable and given essence, but rather a hybrid construction which emerged in stimulating encounters with others sharing his multi-ethnic and multi-cultural environment.100 Moreover, Rabbi Abbahu has emerged as a leader with significant religious authority in Caesarea, facilitating novel constructions of individual selves within the framework of traditional Judaism. His hybrid position resembles that of the rabbis expressing themselves in Pirqe Avot, who engage contemporary Stoic philosophy.101 Abbahu introduced Roman norms, dressing them in known, often Biblical images, and thus encouraged members of his community to embrace novel forms of the Jewish tradition. While the women in the passages examined in this article are only talked about as objects of rabbinic arbitration, rabbinic sources suggest that Abbahu created a new space for their agency and individual self-definition. The preservation of his verdict on the fiancé and of his position vis-à-vis Tamar play an active role in the Jerusalem Talmud. Such images from third-century Caesarea, which were subsequently overlaid by contrary traditions, contributed to designating cultural hybridity as a viable option. The image of Rabbi Abbahu encouraged hybrid forms of self-fashioning, which would have been especially meaningful to women, who may have felt inspired to mind their new rights in the Roman Empire. The tradition of Abbahu’s sermons in the synagogue may furthermore have prompted women and men alike to fashion themselves in Roman ways and seek out meaningful marriage partners. 100 This construction of the Self correlates with Porphyry’s self-fashioning in Rome, which Irmgard Männlein-Robert analyzes in this volume. 101 For details, see Niehoff 2016; and Furstenberg in this volume, who stresses the rabbis’ transformation of Stoic values. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 319 Works Cited Alexander, Philip S. “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Rabbinic Midrash and Hermeneutics in the Greco-Roman World.” In A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by Phillip R. Davies and Richard S. White, 101–24. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. –. “Pre-emptive Exegesis: Genesis Rabba’s Reading of the Creation.” Journal of Jewish Studies 43, 2 (1992): 230–45. –. “‘The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism.” In Jews and Christians. The Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135. Edited by James D. G. Dunn, 1–25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992a. –. “‘Homer the Prophet of All’ and ‘Moses our Teacher’: Late Antique Exegesis of the Homeric Epics and of the Torah of Moses.” In The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World. Edited by L. V. Rutgers, P. W. van der Horst, H. W. Havelaar, and L. Teugels, 127–42. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. –. “Using Rabbinic Literature as a source for the History of Late-Roman Palestine: Problems and Issues.” In Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late Roman Palestine. Edited by Martin Goodman and Philip S. Alexander, 7–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. –. “Heraclitus’ Homeric Problems and Midrash Genesis Rabbah: Comparisons and Contrasts.” In Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy. Edited by Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert Tigchelaar, 38–67. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Alkier, Stefan, and Hartmut Leppin, eds. Juden, Christen, Heiden? Religiöse Inklusion und Exklusion in Kleinasien bis Decius. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Ando, Clifford. “Legal Pluralism in Practice.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, edited by Paul J. du Plessis, Clifford Ando, and Kaius Tuori, 283–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. –. “Colonialism and Colonization: Roman Perspectives.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Literatures of the Roman Empire. Edited by Daniel L. Selden and Phiroze Vasunia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016a. Oxford Handbooks Online (published May 2016): DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199699445.013.4 –. Imperial Rome AD 193 to 284. A Critical Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012. –. “Decline, Fall and Transformation.” Journal of Late Antiquity 1, 1 (2008): 30–60. –. “The Administration of the Provinces.” In A Companion to the Roman Empire. Edited by David S. Potter, 177–92. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Appelbaum, Alan. The Dynasty of the Jewish Patriarchs. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. The Rabbis’ King-Parables: Midrash from the Third-Century Roman Empire. Piscataway, NJ: Georgia Press, 2010. Bäbler, Balbina. “Für Christen und Heiden, Männer und Frauen: Origenes Bibliotheks- und Lehrinstitut in Caesarea.” In”Das Paradies ist ein Hörsaal für die Seelen.” Religiöse Bildung in historischer Perspektive. Edited by Peter Gemeinhardt and Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler, 129–51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Bacher, Wilhelm. Die Agada der Palästinensischen Amoräer. Vol. 2: Bd. Die Schüler Jochanans. Strasburg: Trubner, 1892. Balberg, Mira. Blood for Thought. The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2017. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 320 Maren R. Niehoff Balsdon, John P. V. D. Roman Women: Their History and Habits. London: Bodley Head, 1962. Belayche, Nicole. “The Religious Life in Aelia Capitolina from Hadrian till Constantine.” In Jerusalem in Roman-Byzantine Times. Images, Politics and Life of the City from Hadrian to Heraclius. Edited by K. Heyden and M. Lissek. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. –. “Les Immigrants orientaux à Rome et en Campanie: fidélité aux patria et intégration sociale.» In La Méditerranée d’une rive à l’autre: culture classique et cultures périphériques: Actes du 17ème colloque de la Villa Kérylos à Beaulieux-sur-Mer les 20 et 21 Octobre 2006. Edited by André Larone and Jean Leclant, 243–60. Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2007. –. Iudaea-Palaestina. The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth Century). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Ben-Eliyahu, Eyal, Yehuda Cohn, and Fergus Millar, eds. Handbook of Jewish Literature from Late Antiquity 135–700 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Berkowitz, Beth. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 2004. –. “The Postcolonial Critic.” Arena 96 (1991): 47–63. –. “Difference, Discrimination, and the Discourse of Colonialism.” In The Politics of Theory: Proceedings of the Essex Sociology of Literature Conference. Edited by Francis Barker, Peter Hulme, Margaret Iversen, and Diana Loxley, 194–211. Colchester: University of Essex, 1983. Bryen, Ari Z. “Judging Empire: Courts and Culture in Rome’s Eastern Provinces.” Law and History Review 30, 3 (2012): 771–811. Burton, G. P. “Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975): 92–106. Cabanes, Pierre. “Le Monde Grec Européen et la Cyrénaïque.” In Rome et l’Intégration de l’Empire. Vol. 2: Approches régionales du Haut-Empire romain. Edited by François Jacques and John Scheid, 299–331. Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1990. Cameron, Averil. Procopius and the Sixth Century. London: Duckworth, 1985. Carriker, Andrew. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Cherreau, Emmanuelle. “Le ius gentium: entre usages locaux et droit romain.” In Imperium Romanum en Perspective. Edited by Julien Duboulez, Sylvie Pittia, and Gaetano Sabatini, 305–20. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comte, 2014. Cohen, Boaz. Jewish and Roman Law. 2 vols. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1966. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law.” AJS Review 10, 1 (1985): 19–53. –. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1987. –. “The Rabbi in Second Century Jewish Society.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period. Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy, 922–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Collinet, Paul. Histoire de d’Ecole de Droit de Beyrouth. Paris: Société Anonyme du Recueil Sirey, 1925. Collins, John J. “Divorce and Remarriage in the Damascus Document.” In The Faces of Torah: Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 321 Edited by Michal Bar-Asher Siegal, Tzvi Novick, and Christine Hayes, 81–94. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2017. Connolly, Serena. Lives behind the Laws. The World of the Codex Hermogenianus. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2010. Corcoran, Simon. “The Gregorianus and Hermogenianus Assembled and Scattered.” Antiquité. Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome 125 (2013): 2–24. –. “Diocletian.” In Lives of Caesars. Edited by Anthony A. Barrett, 228–54. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. –. The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284–324. 2nd and revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007. –. “The Guardianship of Jesus Son of Babatha: Roman and Local Law in the Province of Arabia.” Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 94–108. Cotton, Hannah et al. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palestinae. Vol. 2: Caesarea and the Middle Coast: 1121–2160. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2011. Cotton, Hannah, and Werner Eck. “A New Inscription from Caesarea Maritima and the Local Elite of Caesarea Maritima.” In What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem? Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster. Edited by Leonard Rutgers, 375–91. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. –. “Governors and their Personnel on Latin Inscriptions from Caesarea Maritima.” Cathedra 122 (2006): 31–52 [Hebrew]. Cribiore, Raffaella. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. Crouzel, Henri. Grégoire le Thaumaturge: Remerciement à Origène. Paris: Cerf, 1969. Czajkowski, Kimberley. Localized Law. The Babatha and Salome Komaise Archives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Demandt, Alexander. Geschichte der Spätantike. Das Römische Reich von Diocletian bis Justin 284–565 n. Chr. 3rd. updated ed. Munich: Beck, 2018. Dixon, Suzanne. “The Sentimental Idea of the Roman Family.” Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome. Edited by Beryl Rawson, 99–113. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1991. –. The Roman Family. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Dohrmann, Natalie B. Not There: Empire: Intertextuality, and Absence.” In Literature and Culture in the Roman Empire, 96–235 CE: Cross-Cultural Interaction. Edited by Alice König, James Uden, and Rebecca Langlands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019a. –. “Jewish Books and Roman Readers: Censorship, Authorship, and the Rabbinic Library.” In Regarding Roman Power: Imperial Rule in the Eyes of Greeks and Romans, Jews and Christians, and Others. Edited by Katell Berthelot. Rome: École de France, 2019b (forthcoming). –. “Introduction.” In Cohen, Boaz, Jewish and Roman Law. A Comparative Study. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018. –. “Can “Law” be Private? The Mixed Message of Rabbinic Oral Law.” In Public and Private in Ancient Mediterranean Law and Religion. Edited by Clifford Ando and Jörg Rüpke, 187–216. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. –. “Law and Imperial Idioms: Rabbinic Legalism in the Roman World.” In Jews, Christians and the Roman Empire: The Poetics of Power in Late Antiquity. Edited by Natalie B. Dohrmann and Annette Yoshiko Reed, 63–78. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 322 Maren R. Niehoff –. “Manumission and Transformation in Jewish and Roman Law.” In Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context. Edited by Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern, 51–65. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. –. “The Boundaries of the Law and the Problem of Jurisdiction in Early Palestinian Midrash.” In Rabbinic Law in its Roman and Near Eastern Context. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 65–85. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Dolganov, Anna. “Reichsrecht and Volksrecht in Theory and Practice: Roman Jurists in the Province of Egypt (P. Oxy. II 237, P. Oxy. IV 706, SB XII 10929).” In Administration, Law and Administrative Law: Comparative Studies in Imperial Bureaucracy and Officialdom. Edited by M. Jursa and H. Täuber (forthcoming). Dorival, Gilles. “Est-il légitime d’éclairer le Discours de remerciement par la Lettre à Grégoire et réciproquement? Ou la tentation de Pasolini” In La Biografia di Origene fra storia a agiografia. Edited by Adele Monaci Castagno, 9–26. Turin: Pazzini, 2004. Eck, Werner. “Die Wirksamkeit des römischen Rechts im Imperium Romanum und seinen Gesellschaften.” In Diritto romano e economia. Due modi di pensare e organizzare il mondo (nei primi tre secoli dell’Impero). Edited by Elio Lo Cascio and Dario Mantovani, 747–82. Pavia: Pavia University Press, 2018. –. “The Presence, Role and Significance of Latin in the Epigraphy and Culture of the Roman Near East.” In From Hellenism to Islam. Edited by Hannah Cotton, 13–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. –. Worte and Bilder. “Das Herrschaftskonzept Diocletians im Spiegel öffentlicher Monumente.” In Die Tetrarchie: Ein neues Regierungssystem und seine mediale Präsentation. Edited by Dietrich Boschung and Werner Eck, 323–47. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006. –. “Devotus numini maiestatique eorum. Repräsentation und Propagierung der Tetrarchie unter Diocletian.” In Medien in der Antike. Kommunikative Qualität und normative Wirkung. Edited by H. v. Hesberg and W. Thiel, 51–62. Cologne: Vortragsreihe des Lehr- und Forschungszentrums für die antiken Kulturen des Mittelmeerraumes am Archäologischen Institut der Universität Köln, 2003. Fédou, Michel. Christianisme et Religions Paiennes dans le Contre Celse d’Origene. Paris: Beauchesne, 1988. Feldman, Louis. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. Florsheim, Yoel. Nahmanides’ Interpretations of the Yerushalmi. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 2006 [Hebrew]. Frenschkowski, Marco. “Studien zur Geschichte der Bibliothek von Cäsarea.” In New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World. Edited by Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas, 53–104. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Furstenberg, Yair. “The Rabbis and the Roman Citizenship Model: The Case of the Samaritans.” In The Crucible of Empire: the Impact of Roman Citizenship on Greeks, Jews and Christians. Edited by Katell Berthelot and Jonathan Price, 181–216. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. –. “From Competition to Integration: The Laws of the Nations in Rabbinic Literature within its Roman Context.” Dine Israel 32 (2018): 3–40 [Hebrew]. –. “The Status of the Samaritans in Early Rabbinic Law and the Roman Concept of Citizenship.” Zion 72 (2007):157–92. [Hebrew]. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 323 Galstener, Hartmut. “Roman Law in the Provinces: Some Problems of Transmission.” In L’Impero Romano et le Strutture economiche et sociali delle Province. Edited by Michael H. Crawford, 13–27. Como: Edizioni New Press, 1986. Geiger, Joseph. The Tents of Japheth, Greek Intellectuals in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Izhak Zvi, 2012 [Hebrew]. –. “Latin in Roman Palestine.” Cathedra 74 (1994): 3–21 [Hebrew]. Goodman, Martin. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A. D. 132–212. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1983. Goodman, Martin, and Philip S. Alexander, eds. Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late Roman Palestine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 volumes. New York: Pantheon, 1953–68. Grafton, Anthony, and Megan Williams. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Grimal, Pierre. Love in Ancient Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980. Guggenheimer, Heinrich W. The Jerusalem Talmud. Tractate Qiddushin. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Gulak, Asher. “Symphon in the Betrothal according to the Jerusalem Talmud.” Tarbiz 5 (1934): 126–33. Harris, Jill. “Saturninus the Helmsman, Pliny and Friends: Legal and Literary Letter Collections.” In Roman Literature under Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Literary Interactions, AD 96–138. Edited by Alice König and Christopher Whitton, 260–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. –. “Roman Law and Legal Culture.” In The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, 789–814. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. –. Law and Empire in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Hayes, Christine. “Palestinian Attitudes to Intermarriage in Historical and Cultural Context.” In Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire. Edited by Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz, 11–64. Leiden: Peeters, 2003. –. “Genealogy, Illegitimacy, and Personal Status.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and GrecoRoman Culture. Vol. 1. Edited by Peter Schäfer and Christine Hezser, 643–74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. –. “The Abrogation of Torah Law. Rabbinic Taqqana and Praetorian Edict.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco-Roman Culture. Vol. 1. Edited by Peter Schäfer, 643–74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Herman, Geoffrey. “In Honor of the House of Caesar”: Attitudes to the Kingdom in the Aggada of the Babylonian Talmud and Other Sassasian Sources.” In The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. Edited by Geoffrey Herman and Jeffrey l. Rubenstein, 103–24. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2018. Herr, Moshe D. “Marriage According to the Halakha from a Socio-Economic Perspective.” In The Families of Israel. Proceedings of a Conference on Jewish Thought, 37–46. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, 1976 [Hebrew]. Hezser, Catherine. “Did Palestinian Jews Know Roman law? Methodological Considerations and Case Studies.” In Re-thinking Judaism’s Encounter with the Roman Empire. Edited by Katell Berthelot. Rome: École de France (forthcoming). Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 324 Maren R. Niehoff –. “Strangers on the Road: Otherness, Identification, and Disguise in Rabbinic Travels of Late Roman Palestine.” In Journeys in the Roman East: Imagined and Real. Edited by Maren R. Niehoff, 239–53. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. Jewish Travel in Antiquity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. ed. The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. –. ed. Rabbinic Law in its Roman and Near Eastern Context. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –. “From Study House to Market Place: Rabbinic Guidelines for the Economy of Roman Palestine.” Antiquité Tardive 14 (2006): 39–46. –. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –. “Interfaces between Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. Vol. 2. Edited by Catherine Hezser and Peter Schäfer, 161–87. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “The Codification of Legal Knowledge in Late Antiquity: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Roman Law Codes.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. Vol. 1. Edited by Peter Schäfer, 581–641. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. –. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1997. Hirschman, Marc. “The Greek Words in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah.” In Tiferet Israel. Festschrift for Israel Francos, 21–34, 2009 [Hebrew]. Honoré, Tony. “Roman Law. From Cosmopolis to Rechtsstaat?” In Approaching Late Antiquity. Edited by Simon Swain and Mark Edward, 109–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. –. Ulpian. Pioneer of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Humfress, Caroline. “Thinking through Legal Pluralism: “Forum Shopping” in the Later Roman Empire.” In Law and Empire. Ideas, Practices and Actors. Edited by Joroen Duinden, Jill Harris, Caroline Humfress, and Nimrod Hurvitz, 225–50. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Isaac, Benjamin. “Latin Cities of the Roman Near East.” In id., Empire and Ideology in the Greco-Roman World, 257–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017; originally published in From Hellenism to Islam. Edited by Hannah Cotton, 43–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. –. “Caesarea.” In Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae Vol. 2. Edited by Hannah Cotton, et al., 17–35. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Jackson, Bernard. Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Jacques, François. “La Société.” In Rome et l’Intégration de l’Empire. Vol. 1. Edited by François Jacques and John Scheid, 338–45. Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1990. Jacques, François, and John Scheid, eds. Rome et l’Intégration de l’Empire. 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1990. Johnson, Aaron. Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Jones, Arnold H. M. The Later Roman Empire. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell, 1964. Jones, M. Christopher. “Juristes Romains dans l’Orient Grec.” Comptes rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 151–3 (2007): 1331–58. Kadari, Tamar. Julius Theodor and the Redaction of the Aggadic Midrashim of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem: Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 2017 [Hebrew]. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 325 Kalmin, Richard L. Migrating Tales. The Talmud’s Narratives and their Historical Context. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2014. –. “Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity as a Source for Historical Study.” In Judaism in Late Antiquity. Vol. 3. Edited by Jacob Neusner et al., 188–99. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Kantor, Gregory. “Greek Law under the Romans.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law. Edited by Edward M. Harris and Mirko Canevaro. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming). –. “Qui in Consilio Estis: The Governor and His Advisors in the Early Empire.” Istoricheskij Vestnik 19 (2017): 50–86. –. “Law in Roman Phrygia: Rules and Jurisdictions.” In Roman Phrygia: Culture and Society. Edited by Peter Thonemann, 143–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Katzoff, Ranon. “P. Yadin 21 and Rabbinic Law on Widow’s Rights.” Jewish Quarterly Review 97, 4 (2007): 545–75. –. “Children of Intermarriage: Roman and Jewish Conceptions.” In Rabbinic Law in its Roman and Near Eastern Context. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 277–86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –. “P. Yadin 18 Again: A Rejoinder.” Jewish Quarterly Review 82, 1–2 (1991): 171–76. –. “Daniel Sperber: ‘A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature.’” Journal for the Study of Judaism 20, 2 (1989):195–206. Kofsky, Aryeh. “Pamphilus and the Christian Library of Caesarea.” Cathedra 122 (2006): 53–62 [Hebrew]. Kraemer, David. “On the Reliability of Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud.” In Essential Papers on the Talmud. Edited by Michael L. Chernick, 276–92. New York: York University Press, 1994. Krauss, Samuel. Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum. 2 Vols. Berlin: S. Calvary, 1898–1899. Lachs, Samuel Tobias. “Rabbi Abbahu and the Minim.” Jewish Quarterly Review 60, 3 (1970): 197–212. Lapin, Hayim. “Toward a History of Rabbinic Powerlessness.” In Strength to Strength: Essays in Honor of Shaye J. D. Cohen. Edited by Michael L. Satlow, 329–40. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2018. –. “The Law of Moses and the Jews. Rabbis, Ethnic Marking and Romanization.” In Jews, Christians and the Roman Empire: The Poetics of Power in Late Antiquity. Edited by Natalie Dohrmann and Annette Yoshiko Reed, 79–92. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. –. The Rabbis as Romans: The Rabbinic Movement in Palestine, 100–400. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. –. “Aspects of the Rabbinic Movement in Palestine, 500–800 C. E.” In Shaping the Middle East. Jews, Christians, and Muslims in an Age of Transition. 400–800 C. E. Edited by Kenneth G. Holum and Hayim Lapin, 181–94. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 2011. –. “The Rabbinic Class Revisited: The Rabbis as Judges in Later Roman Palestine.” In “Follow the Wise”: Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee Levine. Edited by Zeev Weiss et al., 255–73. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. –. Economy, Geography, and Provincial History in Later Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 326 Maren R. Niehoff –. “Rabbis and Cities: Some Aspects of the Rabbinic Movement in its Greco-Roman Environment.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco-Roman Culture. Vol. 2. Edited by Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser, 51–80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “Rabbis and Cities in Later Roman Palestine.” Journal of Jewish Studies 50, 2 (1999): 187–207. –. Roman Civil Law and the Social History of Roman Galilee: A Study of Mishnah Tractate Baba Mesia. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998. –. “Jewish and Christian Academies in Roman Palestine: Some Preliminary Observations.” In Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia. Edited by Avner Rabin and Kenneth G. Holum, 496–512. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Levine, Lee I., ed. The Galilee in Late Antiquity. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. –. The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1989. –. “R. Abbahu of Caesarea.” In Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Edited by Jacob Neusner, 56–76. Leiden: Brill, 1975. –. Caesarea under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1975a. Levy, Jacob. Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim. Vol. 2. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1879. Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Liebs, Detlef. Hermogenians iuris epitomae. Zum Stand der römishcen Jurisprudenz im Zeitalter Diokletians. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Malka, Orit. “Disqualified Witnesses, Between Tannaitic Halakha and Roman Law: Archeology of a Legal Institution.” Law and History Review 37, 4 (2019). Malka, Orit and Yakir Paz. “‘Ab hostibus captus et a latronibus captus.’ The Impact of the Roman Model of Citizenship on Rabbinic Law.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 109, 2 (2019): 141–172. –. “A Rabbinic Postliminium: The Property of Captives in Tannaitic Halakha in Light of Roman Law.” Proceedings of a Conference on Judaism and Rome. Edited by Katell Berthelot, 2019 (forthcoming). Marmorstein, Arthur. “Dioclétien à la Lumière de la Littérature Rabbinique.” Revue des Etudes Juives 98 (1934): 19–34. Meir, Ofra. Rabbi Judah the Patriarch: Palestinian and Babylonian Perspectives. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad 1999 [Hebrew]. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Joseph. “L’Egypte.” In Rome et l’Intégration de l’Empire. Vol. 2: Approches régionales du Haut-Empire romain. Edited by François Jacques and John Scheid, 435–93. Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1990. –. “Grégoire le Thaumaturge et le droit romain.” Revue Historique 49 (1971): 313–24. –. “La règle de droit dans l’Égypte Romaine (État des questions et perspectives de recherches).” In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology. Edited by Deborah H. Samuel, 317–77. Toronto, ON: A. M. Hakkert, 1970. Millar, Fergus. “Ulpian, a Philosopher in Politics?” In Philosophy and Power in the Greco-Roman World. Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin. Edited by Gillian Clark and Tessa Rajak, 69–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. –. “The Greek East and Roman Law: The Dossier of M. Cn. Licinius Rufinus.” Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 90–108. –. The Roman Empire and its Neighbours. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 327 Mitteis, Ludwig. Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Kaiserreiches. Leipzig: Teubner, 1891. Monnickendam, Yifat. “Late Antique Christian Law in the Eastern Roman Empire.” Studies in Late Antiquity 2, 1 (2018): 40–83. –. “The Kiss and the Earnest: Early Roman Influences on Syriac Matrimonial Law.” Le Muséon 125 (2012): 307–34. Moscovitz, Leib. “Legal Fictions in Rabbinic Law and Roman Law: Some Comparative Observations.” In Rabbinic Law in its Roman and Near Eastern Context. Edited by Catherine Hezser, 106–32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Nautin, Pierre. Origène. Sa Vie et son Œuvre. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther et al. Libanios. Für Religionsfreiheit, Recht und Toleranz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Neusner, Jacob. Building Blocks. The Documentary Approach to the Study of Formative Judaism. Lanham, MD: University of America Press, 2008. –. A Theological Commentary to the Midrash: Genesis Rabbah. Lanham, MD: University of America Press, 2001. –. Why There Never was a “Talmud of Caesarea:” Saul Lieberman’s Mistakes. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994. –. Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel and the Initial Confrontation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987. –. The Talmud of Israel. A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. Qiddushin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984. –. A Life of Yohanan ben Zakai, ca. 1–80. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Niehoff, Maren R. Philo of Alexandria. An Intellectual Biography. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018. –. “Philo and Josephus Fashion Themselves as Religious Authors in Rome.” In Autoren in religiösen literarischen Texten der späthellenistischen und frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt. Zwölf Fallstudien. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Jörg Rüpke, 83–104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018a. –. “‘Not Study is the Main Objective, but Action’. (Pirqe Avot 1:17). A Rabbinic Maxim in Greco-Roman Context”, in The Faces of Torah. Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade, ed. M. Bar-Asher Siegal, Chr. Hayes and T. Novick, 45–72. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Novik, Zvi. “The ‘For I Say’ Presumption: A Study in Early Rabbinic Legal Rhetoric.” Journal of Jewish Studies 61, 1 (2010): 48–61. Ophir, Adi, and Ishay Rosen-Zvi. Goy: Israel’s Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Patrich, Joseph. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Paz, Yakir. Prior to Sinai. MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009. Perlitz, Gustav. “Rabbi Abahu. Charakter- und Lebensbild eines palästinensischen Amoräers.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 36 (1887): 6–88, 119–26, 269–320. Pétit, Paul. Les Etudiants de Libanius. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste, 1956. Price, Jonathan. “The Jews and the Latin Language in the Roman Empire.” In Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple Period, the Mishnah and the Talmud. Edited by Menachem Mor, Aharon Oppenheimer, Jack Pastor, and Daniel R. Schwartz. 165–80. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2003. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 328 Maren R. Niehoff Rizzi, Marco. “Ancora sulla paternita dell’Encomio di Origene. Spunti geographici e storico-soziali.” In Il Giusto che Fiorisce come Palma. Gregoria il taumaturgo fra Storia a Agiographia. Edited by Benedetto Claus and Vincenza Milazzo, 73–85. Roma: Institutum Patristicum, 2007. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “Rabbis and Romanization: A Review Essay”, in Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World. Edited by Mladen Popović, Myles Schoonover, and Marijn Vandenberghe, 218–45. Leiden: Brill, 2017a. –. “Is the Mishnah a Roman Composition?” In The Faces of Torah. Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade. Edited by Michal Bar-Asher Siegal, Tzvi Novick, and Christine Hayes, 487–508. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017b. Rowlandson, Jane. Woman and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Roueché, Charlotte. “The Functions of the Governors in Late Antiquity: Some Observations.” Antiquité Tardive 6 (1998): 31–6. Sandwell, Isabella. Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Satlow, Michael L. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Satran, David. In the Image of Origen: Eros, Virtue, and Constraint in the Early Christian Academy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2018. Scheid, John. Les Dieux, l’Etat et l’individu. Réflexions sur la religion civique à Rome. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2013. Schemmel, Fritz. “Die Schule von Caesarea in Palästina.” Philologische Wochenschrift 46 (1925): 1277–80. Schremer, Adiel. Male and Female He Created Them. Jewish Marriage in the Late Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center, 2003. Schwabe, Moshe. “The Letters of Libanius to the Patriarch of Palestine.” Tarbiz 1 (1930): 85–110 [Hebrew]. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society 200 B. C. E. to 640 CE. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Seeck, Otto. Die Briefe des Libanius zeitlich geordnet. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906. Shapira, Hayim. “Marriage among the Noahites in Talmudic Halacha – between Nature and Law.” Dinei Israel 30 (2014):19–42 [Hebrew]. Sogno, Cristiana, Bradley K. Storin, and Edward J. Watts, eds. Late Antique Letter Collections. A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2016. Sperber, Daniel. Greek in Talmudic Palestine. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2012. –. Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1984. Stemberger, Günter. Juden und Christen im Heiligen Land. Palästina unter Konstantin und Theodosius. Munich: Beck, 1987. Stenger, Jan. Hellenische Identität in der Spätantike. Pagane Autoren und ihr Unbehagen an der eigenen. Zeit. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019 A Hybrid Self 329 Stern, Sacha. “Rabbinic Sources.” In Appartenances religieuses et la participation civique dans l’Orient romain. Edited by Anne-Valérie Pont-Boulay and Nicole Belayche (forthcoming). Stroumsa, Guy G. The End of Sacrifice: Religious Transformations in Late Antiquity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Theodor, Julius, and Hanoch Albeck, eds. Midrash Bereshit Rabba. Jerusalem: Wahrman Books, 1965 [Hebrew]. Tilly, Heinz-Peter. Qiddushin-Antrauung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Treggiari, Susan. Roman Marriage. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Van Hoof, Lieve. “The Letter Collection of Libanius of Antioch.” In Late Antique Letter Collections. A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide. Edited by Cristiana Sogno, Bradley K. Storin, and Edward J. Watts, 113–30. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2016. –. ed. Libanius. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. –. Plutarch’s Practical Ethics. The Social Dynamics of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Vidas, Moulie. “A Place of Torah.” In Talmudic Transgressions. Engaging the Work of Daniel Boyarin. Edited by Charlotte E. Fonrobert, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Ahron Shemesh, and Moulie Vidas, 23–73. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Watts, Edward J. “Old Age in the Antioch of the 390s: A Reappraisal of Libanius’ Last Collection of Letters.” In Antioch II. Edited by Silke-Petra Bergjan and Susanna Elm, 221–34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. –. Hypatia. The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017a. –. “Athens between East and West: Athenian Elite Self-Presentation and the Durability of Traditional Cult in Late Antiquity.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017b):191–213. –. The Final Pagan Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2015. –. City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2006. Whitmarsh, Tim, ed. Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Yahalom, Josef. “Traces of Greek Culture in the Ancient Hebrew Piyyut.” In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Jewish Studies. Vol. 3, 203–13. Jerusalem: Hacohen Press, 1973. Yiftach-Firanko, Uri. “Law in Graeco-Roman Egypt: Hellenization, Fusion, Romanization.” In The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger Bagwell, 541–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Zambon, Marco. “Gregor Thaumaturgos.” In Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike. Vol. 1, edited by Christoph Riedweg, Christoph Horn, and Dietmar Wyrwa, 997–1005. Basel: Schwabe, 2018. Digital copy – for author's private use only – © Mohr Siebeck 2019