Abstract
According to the mashal (parable) attributed to ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥai in Gen. Rab. 22:9, the murder of Abel (Gen 4:8â10) may be likened to a gladiatorâs death in the arena. This article argues that the parable assumes the audienceâs familiarity with gladiatorial shows, which came to an end in the early fifth century CE. Tracing the transmission of the mashal in Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas (Bereshit 9) and the earliest commentaries on Genesis Rabba, it further argues that the gladiatorial allusion was not understood after the demise of the games, and that the Tanḥumaâs version is a later reformulation. The preservation of the imagery in the earliest extant manuscripts of Genesis Rabba, despite the fact that it was not well-understood when they were produced, demonstrates the conservation of a reference to a late antique public institution in medieval copies and thus contributes to the knowledge of Genesis Rabbaâs textual history.
Introduction1
Throughout the Roman imperial period, gladiatorial combat, âa specifically Roman form of entertainment,â2 was staged in hippodromes, theatres, and amphitheatres of the Greek East.3 At Caesarea Maritima, Josephus reports that the inauguration of Herodâs theatre and amphitheatre ca. 10 BCE was celebrated with lavish shows such as are âcustomary at Romeâ which featured athletic spectacles, wild beasts, and a âgreat number of gladiatorsâ (
Knowledge of gladiatorial combat is evident in rabbinic texts. The Tosefta debates the permissibility of attending the games and reports (apparently accurately) that beans were a staple of the gladiatorial diet.12 Amoraic midrashim refer to gladiators in exegetical parables, and the Palestinian Talmud (Giá¹. 4.9, 46b) considers whether one should redeem those who sell themselves to a gladiatorial school.13 The Babylonian Talmud (Giá¹. 46bâ47a) reports that Resh Lakish was one such captive, and transmits the baraita that gladiators are so ravenous that they eat their main meal at the first hour of the day.14
This paper will examine a mashal in Gen. Rab. 22:9 that assumes the audienceâs knowledge of the rules of gladiatorial combat. Attributed to ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥai, renowned student of Rabbi Akiva, it likens the murder of Abel at the hands of his jealous brother Cain (Gen 4:8â10) to the slaying of a gladiator in the arena. As the gladiator died with the kingâs assent, the mashal daringly implies Godâs culpability in the first murder. Though this parable has been discussed in previous studies, notably the masterful analysis of Joshua Levinson,15 this paper will draw attention to two aspects of its textual history that have so far gone unnoted. First, the demise of the cultural institution to which the mashal refers can be dated relatively precisely to the beginning of the fifth century CE. In addition, a similar mashal appears in Midrash Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas (Bereshit 9). While this latter has been used as an explanatory parallel to elucidate the version in Genesis Rabba,16 this paper will focus on the differences between them, the most conspicuous being that, in Midrash Tanḥuma, the gladiators are missing. To determine the significance, I will first examine the version in Genesis Rabba in its own right. I will then turn to the earliest commentaries on Genesis Rabba to show that medieval exegetes struggled to understand the gladiatorial imagery. Finally, I will consider the place of the Tanḥumaâs text in the reception history of ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs mashal and the reasons the parable has been transmitted in two versions.
1 Athletic Gladiators in Genesis Rabba
Gladiators go by different names in rabbinic texts.17 According to a fragmentary citation in Nathan ben Yeḥielâs Sefer he-Ê¿Arukh, Midrash Yelammedenu used the standard Greek term in its exposition of Jacobâs blessings (Gen 49:1), reporting that, âA gladiator (
In ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs mashal, the combatants are designated by the generic term ʾatletin (
Caesarea Maritima, ca. third century CE
Citation: Journal for the Study of Judaism 54, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700631-bja10048
Image courtesy of Rivka Gersht; The Sdot-Yam Museum of the Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima, inv. CM.52.2Smyrna, ca. third century CE
Citation: Journal for the Study of Judaism 54, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700631-bja10048
Image courtesy of the National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden; inv. l 1901/7/10In Genesis Rabba, a parable of two athletic gladiators serves to expound Godâs exchange with Cain concerning the murder of Abel in Gen 4:9â10. The biblical text reads: âThe Lord said to Cain, âWhere is your brother Abel?â He replied, âI do not know; am I my brotherâs keeper?â The Lord said, âWhat have you done? The voice of your brotherâs blood is crying to me (
These verses raise several theological problems. First, Godâs enquiry into Abelâs whereabouts calls divine omniscience into question. In Genesis Rabba, this is addressed in three meshalim that treat Godâs words not as a request for information but as a rhetorical question inviting Cain to confess.29 The midrash then asks why God challenged Cain only after Abelâs murder rather than intervening early enough to save him. No resolution is forthcoming, and the audience is left with the disconcerting question of whether an omnipotent God who refrains from preventing evil is in fact complicit.
Gen. Rab. 22:9 reads:
Rabbi ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥai said, âThe matter is difficult to express and it is impossible for the mouth to state plainly. It may be likened to two athletes (ʾatletin) who were standing and fighting before the king. If the king so wished, he could separate them. He did not want to do so. One overcame the other and killed him, while [the loser] was crying out, saying, âLet my case be summoned before the king.â Similarly, âThe voice of your brotherâs blood is crying to me from the groundâ (Gen 4:10).â30
ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥai broaches this exposition with extreme caution. The introduction âthe matter is difficult to express and it is impossible for the mouth to state plainlyâ (
The statements that the two athletes were âstanding and fighting before the kingâ and that âif the king so wished, he could separate themâ identify the event as gladiatorial combat and the king as the editor or munerarius of the games. This was the role assumed by the Roman Emperor, provincial governor, local magistrate, or priest of the imperial cult who reinforced their public status by hosting lavish public spectacles. The editor occupied a position of honour in the amphitheatre, being seated in the imperial box, as can be seen in numismatic depictions of the Flavian Amphitheatre and on the funerary monument of Lusius Storax.38 The seating arrangement draws attention to the editor who enacts imperial power by assuming authority over the life and death of the contenders.39 The essential presence of this focus of authority at the gladiatorial games is reflected in the setting of the midrashic combat âbefore the king.â
The statement that the king âcould separateâ the fighters and that the loserâs death occurred when he declined to do so reflect the distinctive rules of gladiatorial combat.40 As emphasised by Michael Carter, during the fight itself, the aim of each gladiator was not to kill their opponent, but rather to incapacitate them, thereby compelling the loser to request the editor for reprieve (missio).41 The cliff-hanger moment when all awaited the editorâs verdict was frequently depicted on mosaics, murals, and oil lamps.42 For instance, Fig. 3 shows the mural uncovered at Pompeii in Regio V. It depicts the climax of the combat between a murmillo and thraex. The latter, with blood pouring from his wounds, has cast his shield aside and raises a finger to request reprieve.43 The winner, dagger in hand, is poised to deliver the coup de grâce as all await the editorâs verdict.
Mural of murmillo and thraex; Regio V, Pompeii
Citation: Journal for the Study of Judaism 54, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700631-bja10048
Reproduced upon authorisation of the Ministry for Cultural Heritage and EnvironmentâArchaeological Park of Pompeii. Further reproduction or duplication by any means is forbiddenIn reaching a decision, the editor could take into account the response of the audience. An inscription discovered at Beneventum records cries of missos missos, presumably of spectators impressed by a show of bravery, and iugula iugula (âcut his throatâ) of the mob baying for blood.44 A reference to the crowdâs acclamation may be found in the Toseftaâs discussion of the circumstances in which one is permitted to attend the âtheatres of the gentilesâ (t. Ê¿Abod. Zar. 2:7). According to Rabbi Nathan, the opportunity to âcry out and save livesâ is just cause for attendance.45 But whatever the opinion of the spectators, the decision regarding the loserâs death lay with the editor alone, who would be liable for the cost if a hired gladiator died.46 Documentary and epigraphic references therefore attribute a gladiatorâs death directly to the editor. In the Satyricon, for instance, at Trimalchioâs dinner party, Echion criticised Norbanus for hiring and killing only inexpensive gladiators, including equites comparable in stature to the depictions on an oil lamp: occidit de lucerna equites. And in Juvenalâs third satire, Umbricius complained about social upstarts, including former musicians at provincial shows who now hosted games of their own and âkill (occidunt) to please the crowds when the mob demands it with a twist of the thumb.â In both cases, the subject of the verb occidere is the editor rather than the gladiator who actually wielded the sword.47
In ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs mashal, the request for missio is expressed in a series of statements indicating that the king declined to separate the fighters, one overcame the other, the winner killed the loser, and the loser âwas crying out.â The narration of the loserâs cry after his death was a point of confusion in textual transmission; the word
The editorâs responsibility for the outcome is indicated by the loserâs statement, âLet my case be summoned before the kingâ (
These difficulties are removed if the statement âlet my case be summoned before the kingâ is understood as the petition for missio itself, an interpretation Levinson indicated was âpossible.â54 When understood in this way, the loserâs âcaseâ is their defeat at the hands of their opponent which is brought before the king to judge whether or not reprieve may be granted. The evidence cited above suggests that a losing gladiator sought missio by means of gestures rather than the spoken word. The parable vocalises the appeal in order to liken it to Abelâs blood crying aloud to God. By dramatically ending with this plea, the mashal brings us back to the moment of suspense when the loserâs life hangs in the balance. Though a curtain is drawn on the scene at this tense moment, the audience already knows enough to infer what happened next. By juxtaposing a request for missio with the narrative of Abelâs death, the midrash implies that God rejected the plea of the wounded Abel to intervene and save his life. Responsibility for the murder committed by Cain is thereby placed upon God, just as a gladiatorâs death was attributed to the editor. In accordance with the opening statement that âit is impossible for the mouth to state it plainly,â this is suggested rather than stated explicitly. If Abelâs blood crying to God is likened to a gladiatorâs appeal for missio, and the audience knows full well that Abel died, one may logically infer that God declined to intervene despite it being within Godâs power to do so.
2 Disappearing Gladiators in Medieval Commentaries on Genesis Rabba
In order to convey its meaning, ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs mashal assumes the audienceâs awareness of the principles of gladiatorial combat. Without such knowledge, one might well ask: What are ʾatletin? Why would such people fight in front of a king? Why was it the kingâs job to break up a fight? Why was the king responsible for the loserâs death rather than the fighter who struck the fatal blow? The reception history of this midrash, as documented in the earliest extant commentaries, lexica, texts, and marginalia, shows that these questions were sources of confusion during the course of its transmission.
The provenance of the earliest commentaries on Genesis Rabba has been traced by Israel Ta-Shma to eleventh- and twelfth-century Ashkenaz. Encountering âforeign vocabulary, uncertain readings and the distinct syntax of midrashic Aramaic,â the authors assembled interpretations and listed definitions of unfamiliar Greek words.55 This is evident in the commentary extant in a manuscript of the Library of the Jewish Community of Mantua. Judging by its leÊ¿azim and the authorities cited, it was likely composed by (anonymous) French scholars working about two generations after Rashi.56 It explains our parable as follows:
The matter is difficult to express. To attribute Abelâs murder to God, saying, âIf Blessed One so wished, he could have said to Cain, âYou should not kill your brother,â and he would have departed.â
It may be likened to two ʾet laytin (
×ת ×××××× ). The meaning is not apparent to me.Fighting. Contending with each other.
Separate [them]. One from the other, so that he would not have struck his partner.
Plead my case before the king. May my claim be sought from the king who was able to object but did not do so.
Crying to me. Seeking from me.57
The initial point that God should have warned Cain not to kill Abel is reminiscent of the halakhic principle of hatraʾah, the preventative warning issued by a witness to the would-be perpetrator of a crime. Though the discussions in tractate Sanhedrin focus on the necessity of such a forewarning for any subsequent conviction, here the attention is on whether an admonition might not have prevented the crime in the first place.58 As the divine witness failed to warn Cain, despite being able to foresee the results of the brothersâ altercation, God is held responsible.
In the second comment, the author confessed ignorance regarding the term by which the fighters are designated. The reason lies partly in the text at their disposal, in which ʾatletin was apparently written as two words, presumably because the scribe was unfamiliar with the Greek term.59 The commentator evidently could not clarify matters from any other source. But, whoever the ʾet laytin were, the author did not think they were competitors in a combat sport. This is clear from the note on âseparate [them],â where the king is blamed for not preventing one party from striking the other. This is a far cry from gladiatorial combat, where the whole point was for the participants to fight. Here the ʾet laytin, bound by the common rule of law like ordinary citizens, should not have been sparring in the first place.
The reason the king witnessed the fight is addressed in the medieval commentary on Genesis Rabba which, in the sixteenth century, was one of several that were spuriously attributed to Rashi. Judging by its leʿazim and the scholars cited, it was likely written by an eleventh- or twelfth-century Italian scholar who studied at the Rhineland academies.60 The comment reads:
ʾItlitin (
××ת××××× ). Ministers fighting and quarrelling. The one slain was crying out before he died, âLet my case be summoned before the king.â [This means], âLet my blood be avenged of the king,â because he should have separated [them]. Similarly, if it may be said, [Abel] was crying to the Holy One, blessed be he, that he should have separated them.61
Though I do not know why ʾitlitin has been defined as âministersâ or âattendants,â I suggest the protagonists are being considered among the numerous officials designated by non-Hebrew titles in the meshalim of Genesis Rabba.62 Though essentially guesswork on the part of the commentator, this identification supplies a credible reason for the altercation before the king and for his responsibility. At the point of death, the loser cried for vengeance against the ruler who tolerated violence in the court he was expected to govern. As in the Mantua commentary, the parable has been removed from the context of the arena and interpreted without reference to athletic imagery. The explanation nevertheless conveys the main point that it was the king, rather than the surviving fighter, who was responsible for the death.
The lexicon compiled by Nathan ben Yeḥiel of Rome in 1102, the Sefer he-ʿArukh, had a strong bearing on the reception history of the mashal. The entry ʾatletin cites three midrashim, beginning with our parable.63 The third is a fragment from Midrash Yelammedenu that appears to liken the sequence of Rosh ha-Shanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot to the sounding of the trumpet, the entry of the ʾitlitim (
The definition ânoblemenâ (
It may seem surprising that medieval commentators did not spot the midrashic reference to the most quintessential of Roman public spectacles. A comparison might be drawn with twelfth- and thirteenth-century descriptions of the monuments of Rome which designate the Colosseum as an ancient palace or pagan temple, revealing no awareness of its function as a venue for mass entertainment.73 Confirmation that rabbinic references to gladiators were not fully understood in the Middle Ages may be found in definitions of terms derived from the Latin ludus. According to the Ê¿Arukh, ludim and ludaʾei are neither gladiators nor lanistae, but cannibals.74 This is based on the statement in b. Å abb. 10a that the ravenous ludim eat at the first hour of the day. The Ê¿Arukh also cites the story of Resh Lakish who sold himself to the ludaʾei (b. Giá¹. 47a) who granted him a dying wish in the hope that this would make his blood more palatable.75 It therefore conceives of ludim and ludaʾei as people so voracious that, once they finish their early morning meal, they might just turn on you.76 Presented as a lexical definition, this shapes the readerâs understanding of the words wherever they occur in the rabbinic corpus.77
The same identification is in Rashiâs commentary on the Bavli. At Å abb. 10a, it defines ludim as âa nation called canelins (
3 Disappearing Gladiators in Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas
In her study of the Gospel parables, Mary Ann Tolbert accounted for the inherent openness of the parable form to multiple interpretations by analysing its structure in two parts. A narrative names a point of comparison and endows it with some significative value. But in the tenor of the parable, the primary focus of interest is merely named. The audience must supply information from outside the text at two points. First, contextual information is needed to understand the identity and qualities of the narrativeâs protagonists. Second, the audience must determine which narrative elements shed light on the primary focus of interest and how. In the case of our mashal, the medieval commentators concur regarding the tenor of the parable that God is blamed for a murder committed by Cain. However the contextual information needed to identify the narrativeâs characters and their roles was a point of disagreement and explicit confusion. Seeking the necessary extra-textual information, the expositors betrayed no knowledge of gladiators and turned instead to internal rabbinic references to ʾatletin, contemporary courtly culture, and the halakhic principle of hatraʾah. New contexts were thereby constructed for the narrative according to the principle of ârepresentational change.â One of the ten âlaws of transformationâ that Joachim Jeremias used for the synoptic comparison of Gospel parables, it accounts for the reformulation of a parable in the course of its transmission by replacing points of reference unfamiliar to new audiences with others that will more easily be understood. In the case of medieval explanations of our mashal, the transformations are effected through lexicography and exegetical comment rather than rewriting. Once the term ʾatletin and the reference to missio were glossed by words and concepts known to medieval audiences, a parable about gladiators became a story about courtiers, noblemen, or fighting citizens.86
Representational change may also be detected in the version of the parable in Tanḥ. ha-Nidpas Bereshit 9. As is well known, Tanḥuma is an expansive corpus of homiletic-exegetical literature of diverse date and provenance. The passage in question exhibits characteristics of what Marc Bregman identified as the latest, post-Islamic, stage of composition. Rather than a halakhic homily on the opening of a lectionary reading, it is a continuous interpretive paraphrase of an extended portion of Scripture that does not focus on prominent lectionary verses.87 Unlike early Amoraic midrashim that interweave Hebrew and Aramaic with Greek and Latin loanwords, the text is predominantly Hebrew. Of all extant sources of Tanḥuma midrashim, a great deal of late exegetical material is in Tanḥuma Buber and Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas. Within these two, we may also distinguish midrashim common to both, which likely come from earlier shared sources, from material that is distinctive to one or the other which may be later.88 The exposition of Cain and Abel is found only in Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas. Bregman suggested a terminus ante quem for some of its interpretive narratives in the early-eighth century.89 But a ninth-century date of certain passages is suggested by the presence of material also found in the Sheʾiltot of Rabbi Ạhai (e.g., Bereshit 2), the anti-Karaite paean to the Oral Torah (Noaḥ 1), and the reference to the two academies of Geonic Babylonia (Noaḥ 3).
Though Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas presents its interpretation of Abelâs death in a single authorial voice, the text is not of whole cloth. As has been shown by Yaakov Elbaum, Ira Chernus, Chaim Milikowsky, and Marc Bregman, the author-editors of Tanḥuma Buber and Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas incorporated and reworked earlier midrashim, including expositions known from Genesis Rabba.90 In Bereshit 9, for instance, the explanation that Cain and Abel argued regarding the division of the world resembles Gen. Rab. 22:7 in its vocabulary, phraseology, and choice of scriptural prooftext.91 A further source is indicated by Cainâs accusation that âinformantsâ (
Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas explains the cry of Abelâs blood as follows:
âCrying to meâ [means] âcrying against meâ (
צ×עק×× ××× ×¦×עק×× ×¢×× ). The matter may be likened (mashal) to two people who quarreled. One of them killed the other. A third person was present, but did not separate them. Against whom does everyone complain? It is not against the third person? For this reason it is written, âcrying to me.â [This means] âcrying against meâ (צ×עק×× ××× ×¦×עק×× ×¢×× ).93
There are notable similarities between this text and Gen. Rab. 22:9. Both expound the same biblical verse by means of a mashal in which two people fight to the death while a third is held responsible. In both, the antagonist is designated by the word
Unlike Genesis Rabba, the Tanḥumaâs mashal is entirely in Hebrew. Removed from the arena, there is no suggestion that the combatants were athletes, nor that the third person was a king; we are left to suppose that all three were ordinary citizens. In addition, Tanḥuma has introduced an audience of active onlookers, designated as âeveryoneâ (
To account for the similarities and differences between the two parables, I suggest that the Tanḥumaâs version has been reworked according to the principle of representational change. This can be explained partly by the date at which the post-Islamic exegetical narratives in the Tanḥuma were compiled, over two hundred years after gladiatorial combat had ceased. In order to convey the point without assuming familiarity with the rules, which is necessary to infer the meaning of the midrash in Genesis Rabba, the mashal has been transformed into a timeless parable of a brawl between two ordinary citizens in which a passive witness was blamed for the consequences.
Similar motivations underlie other reformulations in Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas. Bregman pointed to the yelammedenu homily on Exod 7:9 (Vaʾera 4), another version of which was discovered in the Cairo Genizah (TS C1.46). Expounding the transformation of Aaronâs staff into a snake, both texts enquire into the mishnaic teaching that one should not interrupt the recitation of the Amidah even when greeted by a king or when a snake is coiled around oneâs heel (Ber. 5:1). Questioning the connection between the scenarios, they liken the coils of the snake to the crooked ways of the Wicked Empire. In the Genizah text, a parody of the Roman imperial legal system serves as an exemplum: a court trial was rigged so as to convict the defendant, whose sentence was designated by the Greek term
While the editor of Vaʾera 4 appears to have excised a late antique cultural reference, the reworked parable in Bereshit 9 is evidence of a decision to incorporate a pre-existing mashal into a new exegetical narrative and of the concomitant desire to retell it without the gladiatorial imagery. This raises the question of why the compiler included the parable at all when it might simply have been passed over in silence. Though we cannot know the editorâs full reasons, the studies of Dov Weiss, Tova Sacher, Arnon Atzmon, and Matthew Goldstone have pointed to the prominence of critiques of God for ethical dilemmas in Scripture throughout the Tanḥuma corpus.95 Among Weissâs examples is the treatment of transgenerational punishment in Exodus, that the Lord âvisits the iniquity of parents upon children upon the third and fourth generationâ (20:4, cf. 34:7). The harshness is mitigated in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, which applies the punishment only if each successive generation is evil in unbroken continuity.96 Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas, however, accentuates the seeming injustice by juxtaposing the verse with Mosesâs statement in Deut 24:16 that âchildren should not be put to death on account of their parents.â According to Rabbi Levi, God assented to Mosesâs lenient ruling and agreed to abide by it. This exchange is staged as a dramatic confrontation in Numbers Rabba II, also part of the Tanḥuma corpus, in which Moses challenged God, âIs it really proper that the righteous should suffer for the iniquity of their parents?â Again God conceded the point.97
In the Tanḥumaâs retelling of Gen 4, the inclusion of the parable serves to incorporate a confrontation with God into the narrative of Abelâs murder. The way it has been reformulated makes the challenge more direct, explicit, and forceful than in Genesis Rabba.98 No longer is the voice of Abelâs blood like the petition of a single gladiator for missio, a request which was not intrinsically critical. In Tanḥuma the voice is designated as a âcomplaintâ and is articulated by âeveryone.â In Genesis Rabba, the parable simply invites a comparison between the denial of missio and Godâs actions in Gen 4 and leaves the audience to ponder the implications. By contrast, Tanḥuma tells a story in which the third party was roundly condemned, and directs the critique explicitly at God. The two meshalim thus derive their interpretation from the biblical text in different ways. The implication in Genesis Rabba is that Abel cried to God for deliverance, but not that he actually blamed God; after all, he was still alive at the time, so no murder had yet taken place for which God might be responsible. But the audienceâs conclusion that God was to blame for Abelâs subsequent death has been written into the mashal in the Tanḥuma.99 Rather than a cry for deliverance, the bloodâs voice is now the posthumous critique of âeveryoneâ who perceives the ethical dilemma and rails against God for the apparent injustice.
The Tanḥumaâs interpretation is incapsulated in the expression, ââCrying to meâ [means] âcrying against meââ (
4 From Arena to Commentary
The reception history of ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs mashal shows that medieval darshanim and commentators attempted to convey the central point by rewriting or reinterpreting without reference to gladiators. I suggest this was motivated by loss of historical memory as medieval readers did not know information that the parable assumes of its audience. ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs mashal is not intrinsically esoteric; it concerns a spectacle that was a public event.102 The meaning of the comparison is clear, provided only that one recognizes and understands the principles of gladiatorial combat. This raises the question of the mashalâs intended audience which was evidently expected to comprehend the late antique cultural reference.
In Victor Pfitznerâs study of New Testament athletic imagery, he argued that Pauline metaphors adapted conventional topoi that âmoved attention from the physical athlete who toiled for corruptible trophies to the moral athlete who trained in true virtue for indestructible prizes.â103 Though Pfitzner has since reevaluated his emphasis on the transmission of traditional imagery independently of firsthand experience, he recognized in his original study that it is difficult to see rabbinic athletic images as expressions of common rhetorical tropes.104 Though the ânoble athleteâ (
Like the mashal of Jacob and the athlete, ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs parable attaches no intrinsic virtue to athleticism. Wicked Cain is as much an athlete as righteous Abel.107 Without moralising, the parable focuses all attention on the actions of the divine editor. To grasp its point, the audience is presumed to be familiar with specific principles of gladiatorial combat rather than conventional tropes regarding athletic virtue. Pfitznerâs acknowledgement that detailed references are more likely to be based on public games familiar to the audience would explain this.108
The argument that the imagery in Gen. Rab. 22:9 reflects knowledge of a present reality raises the question of the extent to which Jews of Roman Palestine frequented public entertainment. Attention has focused on Josephusâs statement in Jewish Antiquities that the Herodian games in Jerusalem were âalien to Jewish customâ and a âblatant impiety.â109 Rabbinic discouragement from attending public entertainment has sometimes been taken as evidence that the aversion described by Josephus was widespread and enduring in Roman Palestine.110 On the other hand, Zeev Weiss, Catherine Hezser, and Loren Spielman have argued that rabbinic opposition countered the reality of widespread Jewish attendance, and that theatres would hardly have been maintained in cities with significant Jewish populations including Tiberias and Sepphoris if the inhabitants would boycott the events on principle.111 Weiss, however, presents gladiatorial games as an exception to his overall argument. The few amphitheatres discovered in Palestine and the Transjordan are located in Roman administrative centres or garrison towns, and there is little positive evidence for the staging of gladiatorial games beyond Caesarea and Bet Guvrin.112 But knowledge of gladiators certainly extended beyond the environs of the amphitheatre, as is shown by the widespread depictions of gladiators on oil lamps and graffiti.113 As Hezser has argued, awareness of popular culture could be gained in the street and marketplace regardless of rabbinic disapproval.114 A parallel may be seen in the teachings of Epictetus, who praised conquering the passions over the hollow triumphs of âdeplorableâ wrestlers, boxers, and gladiators, but nevertheless used athletic imagery to advocate forethought and commitment. To this end he compared the amateur who is today an athlete, tomorrow a philosopher, to children who play one moment as wrestlers, and the next as trumpeters, actors, or gladiators.115 The metaphor presumes an acquaintance with gladiators not in the amphitheatre, but in the games of children in the street. As knowledge of public spectacles might be gained in the marketplace as well as the arena, it may have been hard to escape an awareness of gladiatorial combat in the period in which it was a present reality, regardless of whether or not one went to the games in person.116
There is some evidence that midrashic sporting allusions kept pace with changing fashions. For instance, in Lev. Rab. 30:2, the palm branch that distinguishes the winner is likened to the lulav carried on Sukkot that differentiates Israel from the nations. Though Leviticus Rabba does not identify the sport in question, Midr. Ps. 17:5 reported the simile with specific reference to charioteers. Chariot racing reached the height of its popularity in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt following the introduction of the circus factions in the East from ca. 400 CE onwards.117 The factions feature explicitly in the midrash entitled The Throne and Hippodrome of King Solomon, dated to ninth- or tenth-century Byzantium. Here the performers and audience at King Solomonâs hippodrome in Jerusalem were divided according to the four factional colours: blue for the aristocracy; white for Israelites; red for city-dwellers; and green for the nations of the world. By depicting Solomonâs hippodrome as of similar dimensions to that at Constantinople, the Israelite king was accorded the symbols of Byzantine royal power.118
As is evident from medieval manuscripts of Genesis Rabba, ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs parable was still being told centuries after gladiatorial combat had ceased. Though the Tanḥumaâs reworking facilitated understanding, this version never replaced the text in Genesis Rabba but circulated in parallel. This dual transmission draws attention to the different textual histories of Genesis Rabba and Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas. In his argument that Genesis Rabba was a single work that, after redaction, was generally considered to be closed, Milikowsky drew a contrast with Tanḥuma midrashim that borrow from earlier texts to create homilies that were themselves freely re-edited and reformulated in transmission.119 The situation from the ninth to thirteenth centuries is illustrated by the texts in the Cairo Genizah. The earliest extant copies of Genesis Rabba, dated to the ninth or tenth century, contain a text similar to that found in parts of MS Vatican ebr. 30 organized according to numbered chapters.120 The Genizah fragments of Midrash Tanḥuma, by contrast, include gatherings of homilies on groups of lectionary readings rather than collections on the whole Pentateuch like Tanḥuma Buber or Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas. Some fragments contain different recensions of homilies known in these compilations, but much unique material provides evidence of ongoing fluidity and rewriting.121
Returning to the question of the redactional identity of Genesis Rabba, Milikowsky acknowledged that scribes of late manuscripts did supplement the text with âa sizable amount of additional material,â some of which was drawn from Tanḥuma midrashim, though he distinguished insertions from attempts to ârework the formulation of the received text.â122 In the case of ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs mashal in Genesis Rabba, extant manuscripts do reveal scribal changes, notably the deletion of
An important factor in the dual transmission of the mashal was the different status of Genesis Rabba and Tanḥuma in the spheres in which they circulated. While Tanḥuma Buber was read in medieval Ashkenaz, Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas on Genesis and Exodus was known among rabbinic communities of the Muslim world.125 As a consequence, the reworking of ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥaiâs parable may have been unknown to medieval Ashkenazi commentators. But a similar interpretation of the mashal in Genesis Rabba would nevertheless have been available readers of the Mantua commentary, where the athletes are also treated as ordinary citizens. In Ashkenaz, therefore, the transmission of the late antique parable with minimal editorial intervention did not mean that it was a dead letter due to the availability of secondary aids to understanding non-Hebrew words and unfamiliar realia. Further confirmation that the narrative did indeed have meaning can be seen in the Yalqut ShimÊ¿oni, where Genesis Rabbaâs version was incorporated without explanation or rewriting.126
The preference of the editor of the Midrash ha-Gadol for the Tanḥumaâs version, however, confirms knowledge of the rewritten parable in Jewish communities of the Muslim world. Moshe Lavee, in his studies of haggadic midrash in the Cairo Genizah, has noted that twelfth-century book lists testify to the wide circulation of Tanḥuma literature; Genesis Rabba, though by no means absent, appears relatively rarely. The differing degrees of authority accorded to the two sources are illuminated by a thirteenth-century record of a dispute that likely took place in the Babylonian synagogue in Fustat concerning the paytannic association of Elijah with the son of Yeroḥam, as in Genesis Rabba (71:9). Though the Tanḥumaâs contrary identification of Elijah as Phinehas was immediately familiar to the community, the argument that eventually won the day was grounded in the venerable authority of Genesis Rabba.127 In contexts in which both forms of our parable circulated together, therefore, they would have been distinguished by the different statuses, uses, and audiences of the works of which they were part. The Tanḥumaâs version, rewritten so as to be immediately intelligible in a popular homiletic setting, enabled the explication of Gen 4 to a wider audience. But it did not supplant the version attributed to the illustrious ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥai, which continued to be transmitted in the more authoritative, albeit less familiar, source of rabbinic interpretations of Genesis.
Genesis Rabba and Midrash Tanḥuma were first printed in Constantinople in 1512 and 1520â22 respectively, and were reprinted in Venice at the press of Daniel Bomberg in 1545. Editions produced in the same places at the same times disguised the different textual histories of the two versions of our mashal.128 When the sixteenth-century commentator Samuel Yafe interpreted the version in Genesis Rabba, he referred to the parable in Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas as if it were a disinterested explanation. Proposing that Genesis Rabba assumed Tanḥumaâs
Bibliography
Alon, Gedaliah. âSome Early Tannaitic Halachoth.â Tarbiz 9 (1938), 278â283 [Hebrew].
Arnold, Bradley. Christ as the Telos of Life: Moral Philosophy, Athletic Imagery, and the Aim of Philippians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).
Asher, Abraham ben. ʾOr ha-Sekhel (Venice: Griffio, 1567).
Atzmon, Arnon. âThe Same Fate Is in Store for the Righteous and Wicked: Form and Content in Midreshei Aggadah.â Journal for the Study of Judaism 43 (2012), 58â77.
Atzmon, Arnon. âMidrashic Traditions, Literary Editing, and Polemics in Midrash Tehillim 22: Between Judaism and Christianity.â Journal for the Study of Judaism 51 (2020), 97â124.
Atzmon, Arnon, and Ronit Nikolsky, âLet our Rabbi Teach Us: An Introduction to Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature.â In Studies in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature, ed. Ronit Nikolsky and Arnon Atzmon (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 1â17.
Bar-Asher Siegal, Michal. Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Bar-Ilan, Meir, and Shelomoh Zevin, eds. Talmudic Encyclopedia. 43 vols. to date (Jerusalem: Hotsaâat Entsiklopedyah Talmudit/Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1947-) [Hebrew].
Barth, Lewis. An Analysis of Vatican 30 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union CollegeâJewish Institute of Religion, 1973).
Barton, Carlin. The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
Bédier, Joseph. La chanson de Roland (Paris: LâEÌdition dâArt Henri Piazza, 1927).
Benveniste, Meir. ʾOt ʾEmet (Salonica: Jabez, 1564).
Berkowitz, Beth. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Blennow, Anna. âWanderers and Wonders: The Medieval Guidebooks to Rome.â In Rome and the Guidebook Tradition: From the Middle Ages to the 20th Century, ed. Anna Blennow and Stefano Fogelberg Rota (Boston: De Gruyter, 2019), 33â87.
Bomgardner, David. The Story of the Roman Amphitheatre, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2020).
Boustan, Raâanan. âIsraelite Kingship, Christian Rome, and the Jewish Imperial Imagination: Midrashic Precursors to the Medieval âThrone of Solomonâ.â In Jews, Christians, and the Roman Empire, ed. Natalie Dohrmann and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 167â182.
Boyarin, Daniel. âMidrash in Parables.â Association for Jewish Studies Review 20 (1995), 123â138.
Boyarin, Daniel. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).
Brault, Gerard. The Song of Roland: An Analytical Edition. 2 vols. (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978).
Bregman, Marc. The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2003) [Hebrew].
Brettler, Marc, and Michael Poliakoff. âRabbi Simeon ben Lakish at the Gladiatorâs Banquet: Rabbinic Observations on the Roman Arena.â The Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990), 93â98.
Brock, Sebastian. âGreek Words in Ephrem and Narsai: A Comparative Sampling.â Aram 11â12 (1999-2000), 439â449.
Brown, Shelby. âDeath As Decoration: Scenes from the Arena on Roman Domestic Mosaics.â In Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, ed. Amy Richlin (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 180â211.
Buber, Salomon, ed. Midrasch Tehillim (Vilna: Romm, 1891) [Hebrew].
Buber, Salomon, ed. Midrash Eikhah Rabbah (Vilna: Romm, 1899) [Hebrew].
Byron, John. Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry (Leiden: Brill, 2011).
Cameron, Alan. Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976).
Campanelli, Maurizio. âMonuments and Histories: Ideas and Images of Antiquity in Some Descriptions of Rome.â In Rome across Time and Space: Cultural Transmission and the Exchange of Ideas, c. 500â1400, ed. Claudia Bolgia, Rosamond McKitterick, and John Osborne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 35â51.
Carter, Michael. The Presentation of Gladiatorial Spectacles in the Greek East, Dissertation (McMaster University, 1999).
Carter, Michael. âGladiatorial Ranking and the SC de Pretiis Gladiatorum Minuendis (CILII 6278 = ILS 5163).â Phoenix 57 (2003), 83â114.
Carter, Michael. âButtons and Wooden Swords: Polybius 10.20.3, Livy 26.51, and the Rudis.â Classical Philology 101 (2006), 153â160.
Carter, Michael. âGladiatorial Combat with âSharpâ Weapons (ÏοιÌÏ Î¿ÌξÎÏι ÏιδήÏοιÏ).â Zeitschrift fuÌr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 155 (2006), 161â175.
Carter, Michael. âGladiatorial Combat: The Rules of Engagement.â The Classical Journal 102 (2006/2007), 97â114.
Carter, Michael. âGladiators and Monomachoi: Greek Attitudes to a Roman âCultural Performanceâ.â The International Journal of the History of Sport 26 (2009), 298â322.
Carter, Michael. âRomanization through Spectacle in the Greek East.â In A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, ed. Paul Christesen and Donald Kyle (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2013), 619â632.
Carter, Michael. âArmorum stadium: Gladiatorial Training and the Gladiatorial Ludus.â Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 61 (2018), 119â131.
Carter, Michael. âGladiators.â In The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, ed. Alison Futrell and Thomas Scanlon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 232â241.
Chernus, Ira. âOn the History of a Pericope in the Midrash Tanḥuma.â Journal for the Study of Judaism 11 (1980), 53â65.
Cohen, Menachem, ed. Mikraâot Gedolot âHaketerâ: Chronicles I & II (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2018).
Coleman, Kathleen. âFatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments.â The Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990), 44â73.
Coleman, Kathleen. âDefeat in the Arena.â Greece and Rome 66 (2019), 1â36.
Concannon, Cavan. ââNot for an Olive Wreath, but Our Livesâ: Gladiators, Athletes, and Early Christian Bodies.â Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2014), 193â214.
Cyril of Alexandria. Against Julian, ed. Christoph Riedweg. 2 vols. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016â2017).
Darmesteter, Arsène, and David Blondheim. Les gloses françaises dans les commentaires talmudiques de Raschi. 2 vols. (Paris: Champion, 1929â1937).
Dodge, Hazel. âAmphitheaters in the Roman World.â In A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, ed. Paul Christesen and Donald Kyle (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), 545â560.
Dörner, Friedrich. Inschriften und Denkmäler aus Bithynien (Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1941).
Dunkle, Roger. Gladiators: Violence and Spectacle in Ancient Rome (Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2008).
Edwards, Catharine. Death in Ancient Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).
Elazar of Worms. Rokeach: A Commentary on the Bible, ed. Chaim Konyevsky. 3 vols. (Bnei Brak: Klugmann, 1978â1981) [Hebrew].
Elbaum, Yaakov. âFrom Sermon to Story: The Transformation of the Akedah.â Prooftexts 6 (1986), 97â116.
Elkins, Nathan. âLocating the Imperial Box in the Flavian Amphitheatre: the Numismatic Evidence.â The Numismatic Chronicle 164 (2004), 147â157.
Emanuel, Simcha. ââWhen God Descended to Egyptâ: The Story of a Passage in the Passover Haggadah.â Tarbiz 77 (2007), 109â132 [Hebrew].
Esler, Philip. âPaul and the Agon: Understanding a Pauline Motif in Its Cultural and Visual Context.â In Picturing the New Testament, ed. Annette Weissenrieder, Friederike Wendt, and Petra von Gemünden (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 356â384.
Fagan, Garrett. The Lure of the Arena: Social Psychology and the Crowd at the Roman Games (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Fagan, Garrett. âGladiatorial Combat as Alluring Spectacle.â In A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, ed. Paul Christesen and Donald Kyle (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), 465â477.
Fishbane, Michael. The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989).
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Fitzgerald, John. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
Flaig, Egon. âGladiatorial Games: Ritual and Political Consensus.â In Roman by Integration: Dimensions of Group Identity in Material Culture and Text, ed. Roman Roth and Johannes Keller (Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2007), 83â92.
Freedman, Harry, and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English. 10 vols. (London: Soncino, 1939).
Friedman, John. The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981).
Friedrich, Jennie. âSaint Christopherâs Canine Hybrid Body and Its Cultural Autocannibalism.â Preternature: Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural 6 (2017), 189â211.
Gendelman, Peter. âA Chronological Revision of the Date of the Pottery Finds from the Eastern Circus at Caesarea Maritima.â âAtiqot 92 (2018), 105â136.
Gendelman, Peter. âCaesarea Maritima: Fortifications and City Expansion from the Time of Herod the Great to Late Antiquity.â In The Art of Siege Warfare and Military Architecture from the Classical World to the Middle Ages, ed. Michael Eisenberg and Rabei Khamisy (Oxford: Oxbow, 2021), 143â152.
Gersht, Rivka, and Peter Gendelman. âTombs and Burial Customs in Roman and Byzantine Caesarea.â In Cornucopia: Studies in Honor of Arthur Segal, ed. Michael Eisenberg and Asher Ovadiah (Rome: Bretschneider, 2019), 189â209.
Godlove, Shannon. âBodies as Borders: Cannibalism and Conversion in the Old English Andreas.â Studies in Philology 106 (2009), 137â160.
Golden, Mark. Greek Sport and Social Status (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2008).
Goldschmidt, Aryeh, ed. Maḥzor Vitry: le-Rabenu Simḥah mi-Vitri talmid Rashâi. 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Mekhon ʾotsar ha-posekim, 2003/4â8/9).
Goldstone, Matthew. The Dangerous Duty of Rebuke: Leviticus 19:17 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 2018).
Golvin, Jean-Claude. Lâamphithéâtre romain: essai sur la théorisation de sa forme et de ses fonctions. 2 vols. (Paris: de Boccard, 1988).
Goodman, Martin. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132â212, 2nd ed. (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2000).
Goodman, Martin. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (London: Allen Lane, 2007).
Gossuin de Metz. LâImage du Monde, une encyclopédie du XIIIe siècle: édition critique et commentaire de la première version, ed. Chantal Connochie-Bourgne, Dissertation (Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1999).
Grossman, Avraham. The Early Sages of France: Their Lives, Leadership, and Works (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995) [Hebrew].
Grossman, Avraham. Rashi and the Jewish-Christian Polemic (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2021) [Hebrew].
Grossmark, Tziona. ââThis May Be Compared to an Athlete Who Was Wrestling with a Royal Princeâ, God and the Arena in Jewish Rabbinical Literature.â Scripta Mediterranea 25 (2004), 3â20.
Hadad, Shulamit. âThe Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean.â Qedem Reports 4 (2002), 1â176.
Hagedorn, Dierk, and Bartlomiej Walczak. Gladiatoria: Medieval Armoured Combat: The 1450 Fencing Manuscript from New Haven (Barnsley: Greenhill, 2018).
Halbertal, Moshe. âIf the Text Had Not Been Written, It Could Not Be Said.â In Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination: Essays in Honour of Michael Fishbane, ed. Deborah Green and Laura Lieber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 146â161.
Harris, Harold. Greek Athletes and Athletics (London: Hutchinson, 1964).
Harris, Harold. Greek Athletics and the Jews (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976).
Harrison, James. âPaul and the Athletic Ideal in Antiquity: A Case Study in Wrestling with Word and Image.â In Paulâs World (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 81â109.
Hayward, C.T.R. Interpretations of the Name Israel in Ancient Judaism and Some Early Christian Writings: From Victorious Athlete to Heavenly Champion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Heffernan, Thomas. The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Heng, Geraldine. âCannibalism, the First Crusade, and the Genesis of Medieval Romance.â Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 10 (1998), 98â174.
Hertz, Naphtali. Perush le-Midrash ha-Rabot (Cracow: Prostitz, 1569).
Hezser, Catherine. âTowards the Study of Jewish Popular Culture in Roman Palestine.â In âThe Words of a Wise Manâs Mouth Are Graciousâ (Qoh 10, 12), ed. Mauro Perani (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), 267â297.
Hirschman, Marc. âThe Final Chapters of Genesis Rabbah.â In Genesis Rabba in Text and Context, ed. Sarit Kattan Gribetz et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 233â242.
Hopkins, Keith. Death and Renewal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
Horovitz, Ḥayyim, and Israel Rabin, eds. Mechilta dâRabbi Ismael (Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann, 1931) [Hebrew].
Hrychuk Kontokosta, Anne. âContests in Context: Gladiatorial Inscriptions and Graffiti.â In The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, ed. Alison Futrell and Thomas Scanlon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 330â341.
Humphrey, John. Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).
Hyman, Dov, ed. Yalqut ShimÊ¿oni. 11 vols. to date (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1973â).
Israeli, Yael, and Uri Avida. Oil-Lamps from Eretz Israel: The Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1988).
Jackson, Bernard. Theft in Early Jewish Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).
Jacobs, Martin. âTheatres and Performances as Reflected in the Talmud Yerushalmi.â In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser, vol. 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 327â347.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac, 1903).
Jellinek, Adolph, ed. Bet ha-Midrasch. 6 vols. (Leipzig: Nies, 1853â1878) [Hebrew].
Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables of Jesus, 3rd rev. ed. (London: SCM, 1972).
Jones, Christopher. âImaginary Athletics in Two Followers of John Chrysostom.â Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 106 (2011), 321â338.
Jones, Christopher. âThe Organization of Spectacle in Late Antiquity.â In Lâorganisation des spectacles dans le monde Romain: Huit exposés suivis de discussions, ed. Kathleen Coleman and Jocelyne Nelis-Clément (Geneva: Hardt, 2012), 305â328.
Junkelmann, Marcus. Das Spiel mit dem Tod: So kämpften Roms Gladiatoren (Mainz: von Zabern, 2000).
Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans lâEmpire Romain. 2 vols. (Paris: Geuthner, 1914).
Kadari, Tamar. âThe Redactional Role of Parables in Genesis Rabbah.â In Parables in Changing Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 160â181.
Kensky, Allan. âMidrash Tanhuma Shmotâ: A Critical Edition of âMidrash Tanhuma Shmotâ (standard edition) through Beshallah, Dissertation (Jewish Theological Seminary, 1990) [Hebrew].
Kloner, Amos, and Alain HuÌbsch. âThe Roman Amphitheater of Bet Guvrin: A Preliminary Report on the 1992, 1993, and 1994 Seasons.â âAtiqot 30 (1996), 85â106.
Kohut, Alexander. Aruch completum. 8 vols. (Vienna: Breg, 1878â1892) [Hebrew].
Kyle, Donald. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. (London: Routledge, 1998).
Kyle, Donald. Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, 2nd ed. (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2015).
Lampe, Geoffrey. A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961).
Latham, Jacob. Performance, Memory, and Processions in Ancient Rome: The Pompa Circensis from the Late Republic to Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
Lauterbach, Jacob, ed. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition. Based on the Manuscripts and Early Editions, 2nd ed. 2 vols. (Philadelphia: JPS, 2004).
Lavee, Moshe. âMidrash Tanḥuma in the Islamic Cultural Milieu.â In Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 417â418.
Lavee, Moshe. âLiterary Canonization at Work: The Authority of Aggadic Midrash and the Evolution of Havdalah Poetry in the Genizah.â Association of Jewish Studies Review 37 (2013), 285â313.
Lavee, Moshe. âTanhuma as a Textual Martyr: On the Reception of Tanhuma Literature in Literary and Documentary Genizah Sources.â In Studies in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature, ed. Ronit Nikolsky and Arnon Atzmon (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 31â62.
Lavee, Moshe, and Moshe Gan-Zvi. âFrom France to Fustat: the Influence of Cultural Emigration on the Role of Aggadic Midrash and Piyyut in the Debate Surrounding the Prophet Elijahâs Identity.â PeÊ¿amim 134â140 (2014), 109â154 [Hebrew].
Lawee, Eric. Rashiâs Commentary on the Torah: Canonization and Resistance in the Reception of a Jewish Classic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).
Lehnardt, Andreas. âThe Transmission of Midrash Tanhuma in Ashkenaz as Reflected in Binding Fragments from Germany.â In Studies in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature, ed. Ronit Nikolsky and Arnon Atzmon (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 63â100.
Levinson, Joshua. âFatal Fictions.â Tarbiz 68 (1998), 61â86 [Hebrew].
Lichtenberger, Achim. âJews and Pagans in Late Antique Judaea: The Case of the Beit Nattif Workshop.â In Contextualising the Sacred in the Hellenistic and Roman Near East, ed. Rubina Raja (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 191â211.
Lieberman, Saul. âRoman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum.â Jewish Quarterly Review 35 (1944), 1â57.
Lieberman, Saul, ed. Tosefta according to Codex Vienna. 4 vols. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955â1988) [Hebrew].
Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta Ki-Fshuá¹ah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta. 10 vols. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955â1988) [Hebrew].
Lipsius, Justus. Saturnalium Sermonum libri duo, qui de gladiatoribus, ed. Andrea Steenbeek (Leiden: Brill, 2011).
Lipsius, Justus. De amphitheatro et De amphitheatris quae extra Romam libellus, ed. Andrea Steenbeek (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
Loewe, Raphael. âLatin Superscriptio MSS on Portions of the Hebrew Bible other than the Psalter.â Journal of Jewish Studies 9 (1958), 63â71.
Long, Anthony. Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Lösch, Sandra, Negahnaz Moghaddam, Karl Grossschmidt, Daniele Risser, and Fabian Kanz. âStable Isotope and Trace Element Studies on Gladiators and Contemporary Romans from Ephesus (Turkey, 2nd and 3rd Ct. AD)âImplications for Differences in Diet.â PLoS ONE 9 (2014), 1â17.
Mann, Jacob. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. 2 vols. (Cincinnati: MannâSonne Publication Committee, 1940â1966).
Mann, Christian. âGladiators in the Greek East: A Case Study in Romanization.â The International Journal of the History of Sport 26 (2009), 272â297.
Marcus, Ivan. âWhy is this Knight Different? A Jewish Self-Representation in Medieval Europe.â In Tov Elem: Memory, Community and Gender in Medieval and Early Modern Jewish Societies, ed. Elisheva Baumgarten, Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, and Roni Weinstein (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2011), 139â152.
Margulies, Mordecai, ed. Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah. 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1953â1960).
Margulies, Mordecai. Midrash Haggadol on the Pentateuch. 5 vols. (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1975).
Marmorstein, Arthur. The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God. 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1927â1937).
Mazar, Benjamin. Beth Sheâarim: Report on the Excavations during 1936â1940, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1957) [Hebrew].
Mehlman, Bernard, and Seth Limmer. Medieval Midrash: The House for Inspired Innovation (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
Meyer, David. The Editorial Nature of the Yalkut Shimoni: An Exploratory Study of the Quotations of Bereshit Rabbah XXII, 8â10 in the Yalkut Shimoni, Dissertation (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2018).
Midrash Rabbah. 2 vols. (Vilna: Romm, 1884â1887).
Milikowsky, Chaim. âThe Punishment of Jacob: A Study in the Redactorial Process of Midrash Tanhuma.â Bar-Ilan Annual 18â19 (1981), 144â149 [Hebrew].
Milikowsky, Chaim. âOn the Formation and Transmission of Bereshit Rabba and the Yerushalmi: Questions of Redaction, Text-Criticism and Literary Relationships.â Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2002), 521â567.
Milikowsky, Chaim. âThe Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature.â In Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late-Roman Palestine, ed. Martin Goodman and Philip Alexander (Oxford: British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2010), 67â78.
Milliman, Paul. âThe Decline and Fall of Spectacle.â In The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, ed. Alison Futrell and Thomas Scanlon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 194â206.
Mintz, Alan. Ḥurban: Responses to Catastrophe in Hebrew Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984).
Murray, Alan. âIntroduction: From Mass Combat to Field of Cloth of Gold.â In The Medieval Tournament as Spectacle, ed. Alan Murray and Karen Watts (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2020), 1â6.
Mussafia, Benjamin. Musaf he-Ê¿Arukh (Amsterdam: Benveniste, 1655).
Navo, Nancy, Betty Schlossman, and Hildreth Yorkoff. âCatalogue.â In From the Lands of the Bible: Art and Artefacts (New York: AmericaâIsrael Cultural Foundation, 1968), 36â133.
Nissan, Ephraim. âA Sketch of the Pragmatics of the Devouring Mob.â La ricerca folklorica 66 (2012), 97â132.
Offenberg, Sara. âJacob the Knight in Ezekielâs Chariot: Imagined Identity in a Micrography Decoration of an Ashkenazic Bible.â Association of Jewish Studies Review 40 (2016), 1â16.
Olshanetsky, Haggai. âDo we really have Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Gladiators?â Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 8 (2021), 61â68.
Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. Les manuscrits hébreux dans lâAngleterre médievale: étude historique et paléographique (Paris: Peeters, 2003).
Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. âOn the Hebrew Script of the GreekâHebrew Palimpsests from the Cairo Genizah.â In The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire, ed. James Aitken and James Carleton Paget (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 279â299.
Patrich, Joseph. âThe Martyrs of Caesarea: The Urban Context.â In Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 259â282.
Payne-Smith, Jessie. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903).
Perles, Joseph. âThron und Circus des KoÌnigs Salomo.â Monatsschrift fuÌr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 21 (1872), 122â139.
Pfitzner, Victor. Paul and the Agon Motif (Leiden: Brill, 1967).
Pfitzner, Victor. âWas St. Paul a Sports Enthusiast? Realism and Rhetoric in Pauline Athletic Metaphors.â In Sports and Christianity: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Nick Watson and Andrew Parker (New York: Routledge, 2013), 89â111.
Poliakoff, Clare, and Michael Poliakoff. âJacob, Job, and Other Wrestlers: Reception of Greek Athletics by Jews and Christians in Antiquity.â Journal of Sport History 11 (1984), 48â65.
Porath, Yosef. âTheatre, Racing and Athletic Installations in Caesarea.â Qadmoniot 125 (2003), 25â42 [Hebrew].
Porath, Yosef. Caesarea Maritima (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2013).
Porath, Yosef. âThe Spina (Barrier) of the Eastern Circus at Caesarea Maritima.â âAtiqot 92 (2018), 1*â62* [Hebrew].
Potter, David. âConstantine and the Gladiators.â The Classical Quarterly 60 (2010), 596â606.
Potter, David. The Victorâs Crown: A History of Ancient Sport from Homer to Byzantium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Potter, David. âRoman Games and Spectacle: Christian Identity in the Arena.â In The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, ed. Alison Futrell and Thomas Scanlon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 182â193.
Robert, Louis. Les gladiateurs dans lâOrient grec (Paris: Champion, 1940).
Rotman, David. âAt the Limits of Reality: The Marvelous in Medieval Ashkenazi Hebrew Folktales.â Jewish Studies Quarterly 20 (2013), 101â128.
Rubenstein, Jay. âCannibals and Crusaders.â French Historical Studies 31 (2008), 525â552.
Sacher, Tova. âA String of Jewelsâ: Content and Composition in an Unknown Recension of the Tanhuma from the Cairo Genizah, Dissertation (Department of Jewish History, University of Haifa, 2020).
Schäfer, Peter, and Chaim Milikowsky. âCurrent Views on the Editing of the Rabbinic Texts of late Antiquity: Reflections on a Debate after Twenty Years.â In Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late-Roman Palestine, ed. Martin Goodman and Philip Alexander (Oxford: British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2010), 79â88.
Seesengood, Robert. Competing Identities: The Athlete and the Gladiator in Early Christian Literature (New York: T&T Clark, 2006).
Sefer Rabbot (Cracow: Prostitz, 1587).
Sefer Tanḥuma (Mantua: Rufinelli, 1563).
Segal, Eliezer. A Meeting-Place for the Wise: More Excursions into the Jewish Past and Present (Calgary: Alberta Judaic Library, 2008).
Segal, Moses. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927).
Shyovitz, David. A Remembrance of His Wonders: Nature and the Supernatural in Medieval Ashkenaz (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017).
Sokoloff, Michael. The Geniza Fragments of Bereshit Rabba (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982) [Hebrew].
Sokoloff, Michael. âThe Major Manuscripts of Genesis Rabbah.â In Genesis Rabba in Text and Context, ed. Sarit Kattan Gribetz et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 23â32.
Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 3rd ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2017).
Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, 2nd ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2020).
Sperber, Daniel. Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem: Makor, 1982).
Spielman, Loren. Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020).
Steinmetz, Devora. Punishment and Freedom: the Rabbinic Construction of Criminal Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).
Stemberger, Günter. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 9th ed. (Munich: Beck, 2011).
Stern, David. âDavid Stern Responds.â Prooftexts 5 (1985), 276â280.
Stern, David. Parables in Midrash (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991).
Ta-Shma, Israel. âAn Unpublished Franco-German Commentary on Bereshit and Vayikra Rabba, Mekilta and Sifre.â In Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature, vol. 1 Germany (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2004), 96â114 [Hebrew].
Talmud Yerushalmi. 7 vols. (Vilna: Romm, 1922).
Theodor, Judah. âMaʾamar Ê¿al perush Bereshit Rabba.â In Festschrift zu Israel Lewyâs siebzigstem Geburtstag, ed. Marcus Brann and Ismar Elbogen (Breslau: Marcus, 1911), Hebrew section 132â154.
Theodor, Judah, and Ḥanokh Albeck, eds. Bereschit Rabba (Berlin: Itzkowski, 1903â1929).
Tocilescu, Grigore. Fouilles et recherches archéologiques en Roumanie (Bucarest: âCorps Didactiqueâ C. Ispasesco & G. Bratanesco, 1900).
Tolbert, Mary Ann. Perspectives on the Parables: an Approach to Multiple Interpretations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
Tzaferis, Vassilios. âA Monumental Roman Tomb on Tel âEitun.â âAtiqot 8 (1982), 22â25 [Hebrew].
van Henten, Jan Willem, ed. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 7b Judean Antiquities 15 (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
van Stekelenburg, A.V. âThe Colosseum from Late Antiquity till the End of the Middle Ages: A Case of Lost Identity.â Akroterion: Journal for the Classics in South Africa 35 (1990), 126â133.
Ville, Georges. La gladiature en Occident, des origines à la mort de Domitien (Rome: Ãcole française de Rome, 1981).
Walde, Christine. âCambles.â In Brillâs New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. Antiquity, ed. Hubert Cancik and Helmut Schneider, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1015.
Walfish, Barry. Esther in Medieval Garb (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993).
Weinberg, Joanna. âMidrash in a Lexical Key: Nathan ben Yehielâs Arukh.â In Midrash Unbound: Transformations and Innovations, ed. Michael Fishbane and Joanna Weinberg (Oxford: Littman, 2016), 213â231.
Weiss, Dov. Confrontations with God in Late Rabbinic Literature, Dissertation (University of Chicago, 2011).
Weiss, Dov. Pious Irreverence: Confronting God in Rabbinic Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017).
Weiss, Dov. âDramatic Dialogues in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Midrashim.â In Studies in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature, ed. Ronit Nikolsky and Arnon Atzmon (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 249â269.
Weiss, Zeev. Games and Spectacles in Roman Palestine and their Reflection in Talmudic Literature, Dissertation, 2 vols. (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994) [Hebrew].
Weiss, Zeev. âRoman Leisure Culture and Its Influence upon the Jewish Population in the Land of Israel.â Qadmoniot 28 (1995), 2â19 [Hebrew].
Weiss, Zeev. âThe Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea.â In Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millenia, ed. Avner Raban and Kenneth Holum (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 443â453.
Weiss, Zeev. Public Spectacles in Roman and Late Antique Palestine (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014).
Weiss, Zeev. âMass Entertainment in the Cities of the Decapolis under Christian Hegemony.â Aram 28 (2016), 69â75.
Welch, Katherine. The Roman Amphitheatre: From Its Origins to the Colosseum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Wiedemann, Thomas. âDas Ende der römischen Gladiatorenspiele.â Nikephoros 8 (1995), 145â159.
Wiedemann, Thomas. Emperors and Gladiators (Abingdon: Routledge, 2002).
Williams, Benjamin. âThe Venetian Edition of Midrash Rabba in Cambridge University Library.â Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 15 (2015), 583â594.
Williams, Benjamin. Commentary on Midrash Rabba in the Sixteenth Century: The Or ha-Sekhel of Abraham ben Asher (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
Williams, Benjamin. âGnats, Flies, Fleas, and a Camel: A Case Study in the Reception of Genesis Rabba.â Jewish Quarterly Review 107 (2017), 157â181.
Williams, David. Paulâs Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).
Yadin, Azzan. Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004).
Yafeh, Samuel. Yefeh Toʾar, vol. 1 (Venice: Di Gara, 1597) [Hebrew].
Ziegler, Ignaz. Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch (Breslau: Schottlaender, 1903).
Zunz, Leopold. Ha-derashot be-yisraʾel ve-hishtalshelutan ha-historit, ed. and trans. Chaim Albeck (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1946/47).
I am grateful to Olympe de Becker, Marc Bregman, Sebastian Brock, Peter Gendelman, Moshe Lavee, Eyal Levinson, Paul Mandel, and Zvi Septimus for answering questions and sharing expertise. My sincere thanks to Ezra Chwat, César Merchán-Hamann, and Cassy Shachar for their help in accessing library resources during lockdown.
Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 115.
Carter, âRomanization through Spectacleâ; Carter, âGladiators and Monomachoiâ; Mann, âGladiators in Greek Eastâ; Golden, Greek Sport, 74â104; Carter, Presentation; Robert, gladiateurs.
Josephus, Ant. 16.136â141; cf. Ant. 15.341, J.W. 1.415. On the dating, see van Henten, Flavius Josephus, 249â50 n. 2329. Spielman, Jews and Entertainment, 18 n. 6, 20, 50, 66; Weiss, âJews and Games.â On whether the âamphitheatreâ may be identified as the western hippodrome, see the discussion and bibliography in Weiss, Public Spectacles, 24â28, 267; Welch, Roman Amphitheatre, 163â85; Dodge, âAmphitheaters.â
In addition, salvage excavations in 2010 confirmed the presence of an amphitheatre in the northeast of the city, dated to the second century CE. See Gendelman, âCaesarea Maritima,â 147; Porath, Caesarea, 27, 126, 131, 139, 155.
Eusebius, Mart. Pal. 7.4, 8:2â3 (Syriac 26, 30); Potter, âConstantine and Gladiatorsâ; Patrich, âMartyrs of Caesarea.â
On the gladiator lamp discovered at Beit Nattif, see Lichtenberger, âJews and Pagans,â 195â96. On Israel Museum 76.6.1482, 76.6.1179, and 76.6.1174, see Israeli and Avida, Oil-Lamps, plates 20, 25, and 28 (25, 27, 180). On the fragment discovered at the basilica gate at Beit Sheʾan, see no. 510 in Hadad, âOil Lamps,â 131â32. On 169860 in Erets Yisrael Museum, see Navo, Schlossman, and Yorkoff, âCatalogue,â 63 no. 191. On the lamp discovered in Catacomb 1, Hall M, Room IV at Beit SheÊ¿arim, see Mazar, Beth Sheâarim, 88, 127, 145, 147 fig. 23.4.
Hall C; Mazar, 125â27. On the graffiti in the Roman-period tomb at Tel Ê¿Eitun, see Tzaferis, âMonumentalâ; Olshanetsky, âDo we really,â 63â67.
Wiedemann, Emperors, 158; Wiedemann, âEndeâ; Milliman, âDeclineâ; Potter, âRoman Games,â 187; Potter, âConstantine and Gladiators,â 604; Jones, âOrganization of Spectacleâ; Mann, âGladiators in Greek East,â 277; Dunkle, Gladiators, 201â6. Kyle (Sport, 336) dates the end of gladiatorial shows in the East to the mid-fourth century. Writing between 416â428 CE, Cyril of Alexandria referred to gladiatorial combat as a thing of the past: âWhen Greek superstition still held sway, gladiatorial contests were performed by the Romans at particular times.â See Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian 4, 19 (697A) (ed. Riedweg, 1:287â88; cf. cixâcxvi).
Weiss, âMass Entertainmentâ; Weiss, Public Spectacles, 257.
Porath, âSpina,â 22*; Gendelman, âChronological,â 130; Porath, âTheatre,â 28.
t. Ê¿Abod. Zar. 2:7 is discussed below. On the sagina gladiatoria, see the statement attributed to Rabbi ShimÊ¿on in t. Beá¹£ah 1:23 (ed. Lieberman, 2:285; par. y. Beá¹£ah 1:11, 61a, cf. b. Beá¹£ah 14b); Brettler and Poliakoff, âRabbi Simeon,â 97â98. Cf. Galen, On the Properties of Foodstuffs 1:19 (K. 529), and the analysis of bone samples from the gladiator cemetery at Ephesus reported in Lösch et al., âStable Isotope.â Note, however, that Lieberman understands
On the parables, see below. On redemption, see also the statements attributed to Shimʿon ben Lakish in y. Ter. 8.5, 45d (par. y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:3, 41b).
b. Shabb. 10a, par. b. Pesaḥ. 12b. On Resh Lakish, see preceding note and Boyarin, Unheroic, 127â50; Bar-Asher Siegal, Early Christian, 119â32; Brettler and Poliakoff, âRabbi Simeon.â
Levinson, âFatal Fictions.â
See Bereschit Rabba, ed. Judah Theodor and Chanoch Albeck (henceforth: Theodor- Albeck), commentary ad loc. (216); Halbertal, âIf Text,â 148, 159 n. 6; Levinson, âFatal Fictions,â 79 n. 104; Freedman and Simon, Midrash Rabba, 1:189.
Grossmark, âThis May Be Comparedâ; Poliakoff and Poliakoff, âJacob.â
MS British Library (henceforth BL) Add. 26881, f. 224r; Theodor-Albeck, 1200 and commentary; cf. Kyle, Spectacles, 84; Spielman, Jews and Entertainment, 208â9.
See Buberâs edition of Lam. Rab. 5:1 (154); Stern, Parables, 133â34; Jastrow, Dictionary, 413 s.v.
Jastrow, 695, s.v.
Payne-Smith, Compendious, 237.
See notes 40 and 41.
Concannon, âNot for Olive Wreathâ; Williams, Paulâs Metaphors, 264â66; Seesengood, Competing, 55â61; Fitzgerald, Cracks, 140. Cf. note 3; and Weiss, Games, 261 n. 121.
See Gersht and Gendelman, âTombs,â 201â2.
Junkelmann, Spiel, 29.
On the contrast between athletic depictions of gladiators in the eastern provinces and text-based gladiatorial tombstones in the west, see Mann, âGladiators in Greek East,â 283â84; Hrychuk Kontokosta, âContests,â 336.
Dörner, Inschriften, 90â91 #91, plate 35/91.
Robert, gladiateurs, 21â22, 101â3 #41; image in Tocilescu, Fouilles, 225. The Syriac
Gen. Rab. 22:9. Kadari, âRedactionalâ; Byron, Cain and Abel, 82â92.
A similar expression with the same attribution occurs at Gen. Rab. 6:8. Considering how the sun and moon set, ShimÊ¿on ben Yoḥai stated, âIt is a very difficult matter, and it is impossible for any created being to settle it (
On the meaning of
See the aforementioned studies of Fishbane, and Halbertal, âIf Textâ; Yadin, Scripture as Logos, 138â41; Marmorstein, Old Rabbinic, 2:109â13, 126â32. Halbertal and Marmorstein include the introduction of this mashal among
Mek. R. Ishmael, Pisḥa 14 (ed. Lauterbach, 78; ed. Horovitz and Rabin, 51). See Fishbane, Biblical, 139â41, 353.
That Gen 4:10 is not being treated as a justificatory prooftext is demonstrated both by its meaning, which cannot be construed as a direct statement that God was culpable, and also by the introduction
Stern, Parables, 15.
Stern, 50.
Golvin, Lâamphithéâtre, 1:357â62; Bomgardner, Story, 11; Elkins, âLocating.â
Hopkins, Death, 14â20; Fagan, Lure, 96â120; Edwards, Death, 53â55.
âThe Roman gladiatorial games are peculiarâno similar form of public spectacles has been detected in Greek or any other culture ⦠It was the decision about life and death after the combat that made it so specificâ (Mann, âGladiators in Greek East,â 274). Though Zeev Weiss suggested other combat sports that might be meant (Games, 269â70; âRoman Leisure,â 12), the reference to missio clinches the matter, as was later recognised in Weiss, Public Spectacles, 162â63; cf. Levinson, âFatal Fictions,â 66 n. 24. Cf. the evidence cited above regarding wider reference to gladiators as athletes in the eastern provinces.
Carter, âGladiators,â 236â37; Carter, âRules of Engagementâ; Carter, ââSharpâ Weaponsâ; Carter, âButtonsâ; Coleman, âDefeat,â 2â12; Kyle, Sport, 284; Fagan, âGladiatorialâ; Ville, gladiature, 403â6, 410â24.
Wiedemann, Emperors, 93; Brown, âDeath,â 202; Flaig, âGladiatorial,â 87; Ville, gladiature, 424.
On the expression ad digitum in Quintilian, Inst. 8.5.20, and Martial, Spect. 31.5, see Ville, gladiature, 412.
CIL IX 1671 (ILS 5134); Ville, gladiature, 410â24; Dunkle, Gladiators, 129â40.
Par. y. Ê¿Abod. Zar. 1:7, 40a; b. Ê¿Abod. Zar. 18b. Jacobs, âTheatres,â 332â44; Berkowitz, Execution, 155â57.
Carter, âGladiatorial Rankingâ; cf. note 41.
Satyricon 45:11; Juvenal, Sat. 3:36â37. See further Brown, âDeath,â 205; Coleman, âFatal,â 50. Cf. Ville, gladiature, 417 n. 136, 419 n. 141; Barton, Sorrows, 19; Levinson, âFatal Fictions,â 70.
MSS Stuttgart Cod. Or. Qu. 32, f. 51r; Bodleian Opp. Add. Fol. 3, f. 43r; Bodleian Opp. Add. Fol. 51, f. 18v; National Library of Israel (henceforth NLI) 24° 5977, f. 28r. In MS BL Add. 16406, f. 31r, the word is missing from the main text but has been added in the margin.
Segal, Grammar, 226.
Levinson, âFatal Fictions,â 61; cf. Wiedemann, Emperors, 55â56.
Levinson, 79.
Levinson (79) notes the accusatory connotations of
Addressing this, Levinson (79) cites the paraphrase of the loserâs statement in Samuel Yafehâs commentary Yefeh Toʾar, f. 156r: âThe king is to blame for my injury, but who can appeal before him for judgement against himself?â Yafeh interprets this statement as a question because, in the standard printed text, it begins with the interrogative
Levinson, 79 n. 99.
Ta-Shma, âUnpublished,â 105 (cf. 107); Williams, âGnats,â 162â69.
See Ta-Shma, 96.
Steinmetz, Punishment, 15â18; Jackson, Theft, 230â32; Talmudic Encyclopedia, s.v.
The commentator interpreted hatletim (
Theodor, âMaʾamar,â 141â43; Williams, Commentary, 139â63.
Stern, Parables, 19â21.
MS BL Add. 26881, f. 20r.
Weinberg, âMidrash,â 224â25; Weiss, Games, 263, 273; cf. Latham, Performance.
Jacob himself is designated a
Marcus, âWhy is this Knight,â 140; Walfish, Esther, 224.
Maḥzor Vitry, ed. Goldschmidt, 2:429; Emanuel, âWhen God.â
Mikraâot Gedolot âHaketerâ, ed. Cohen, 223. According to a comment attributed to Eleazar of Worms, the entourage that accompanied Jacob to Egypt (Gen 50:9) comprised
Though possibly an allusion to
Including the Likutin mi-Bereshit Rabbah (MS Bodleian Opp. Add. Fol. 3, f. 446v; Ta-Shma, âUnpublished,â 106). The definition was recorded alongside Gen. Rab. 22:9 in MS Munich Cod.hebr. 97, f. 24v, and printed in the margin of the Venice: Di Cavalli, 1566 edition (f. 15r). It is given in Benveniste, ʾOt ʾEmet, f. 25v, and Hertz, Perush, f. 6v.
Ziegler, Königsgleichnisse, 312.
Stekelenburg, âColosseumâ; Blennow, âWanderers.â On the question of why further textual sources (e.g., Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 18:52â56) were not brought to bear on the identification of material remains of gladiatorial combat, see the discussion in Campanelli, âMonuments,â 41. See, though, the reference to the Colosseum in the Ê¿Arukh, s.v. â
BL Add. MS 26881, f. 201râv:
Though the meaning of
Cf. the treatment of lodgers in b. Sanh. 109b.
See, for instance, the comments in the Penei Moshe of Moshe Margolies and Korban ha-Ê¿Edah of David Fränkel on y. Giá¹. 4:9, 46b, in the Vilna edition (6:50).
Darmesteter and Blondheim, Gloses, 1:24.
Cf. Lev 18:21; Deut 12:31; 18:10; Ps 106:28, 37â38. In Wis 12:3, 5, âthe former inhabitantsâ of the Lordâs holy land are accused of âsacrificial consumption of human flesh.â See further Segal, Meeting-Place, 68â71; Nissan, âSketch,â 101â5.
Bédier, Chanson, 50 (cf. Gerard Brault, Song, 1:464 n. 25).
On the Crusades in Rashiâs commentary, see Grossman, Rashi, 22â27, 74, 84â87, 107â12, 240, 320, and the bibliography cited. On cannibalism in Crusader narratives, see Rubenstein, âCannibalsâ; Heng, âCannibalismâ; Friedman, Monstrous, 10, 12, 59â86. These freely incorporate folkloristic and legendary themes, including the conversion of St Christopher who grew up among dog-faced, cannibal Canaanites; the mission of Saints Matthew and Barnabas to the cannibals in Phrygia and Scythia; and Cambles the cannibalistic king of the Lydians. See Friedrich, âSaint Christopherâsâ; Godlove, âBodiesâ; Walde, âCambles.â
âLa sont jaiant et Chanilleu, / Qui tout deveurent comme leu.â Gossuin de Metz, LâImage, II.2.2197â8; ed. Connochie-Bourgne, 3:820 (cf. 2:471â93, esp. 485; 3:1070).
MS Corpus Christi College 9b, f. 57r. The comment was prompted by the lack of information regarding the etymology of ludim: âeb[rei] nesc[iunt] interpretationem ludini dicuntur homines habentes mentum ad pectus et dicuntur deuorare homines gal[lice] chinelis.â See Loewe, âLatin,â 66â67; Olszowy-Schlanger, Manuscrits, 212â19. Shyovitz, Remembrance, 135â38; Rotman, âAt Limitsâ; cf. b. Giá¹. 14b.
On the relationship between Rashiâs commentary and the Ê¿Arukh, see the discussion and bibliography in Grossman, Early Sages, 247â48.
Tolbert, Perspectives, 19, 25â26, 37â40, 52, 55; Jeremias, Parables, 26â27, 33â42. I cite the work of Tolbert and Jeremias to note that the inherent polyvalency of rhetorical forms marked by insufficient ânaming of meaningâ has been observed in distinct corpora of parables, not to assert any underlying contextual association between such corpora; see further Stern, Parables, 15, 18â20.
The extended discourse on Gen 4, Bereshit 9â11 follows two homilies on the third seder of the triennial cycle (beginning Gen 3:22). By linking homilies on sequential lectionary pericopes with continuous exegetical material, a more continuous exposition of the opening chapters of Genesis has been constructed. See Mann, Bible, 1:46; Bregman, Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, 166â68, 180; Atzmon and Nikolsky, âLet our Rabbi,â 8.
Bregman, 167â68, 184â88; Lavee, âMidrash Tanḥumaâ; Atzmon and Nikolsky, âLet our Rabbi,â 4.
Bregman, 244 n. 321. Kensky dated the completion of Tanḥuma ha-Nidpas between the second half of the eighth century and the end of the tenth century (Midrash Tanhuma Shmot, 78).
Milikowsky, âPunishmentâ; Chernus, âOn Historyâ; Elbaum, âFrom Sermonâ; Bregman, 184.
On the relationship between the parable of the watchman and the thief in Tanḥ. ha-Nidpas Bereshit 9 and the prefect (ʾiparkos) and the murderer in Gen. Rab. 22:9, see Kadari, âRedactional,â 163â66.
The only non-Hebrew words in the discourse on Gen 4 (
Bregman, Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, 99â101, 167; Lieberman, âRoman,â 24â26.
Weiss, âDramaticâ; Sacher, String, 38â39, 108â10, 121â23, 169â71; Atzmon, âSame Fateâ; Goldstone, Dangerous, 205â35.
Ba-ḥodesh 6 (ed. Lauterbach, 324; ed. Horovitz and Rabin, 266â67).
Tanḥ. ha-Nidpas Shoftim 19 (Sefer Tanḥuma, f. 100r); Num. Rab. 19:33 (Midrash Rabbah, vol. 2, second pagination, 165). See Weiss, Pious Irreverence, 168â80.
Dov Weiss also identified this heightened accusatory tone in the preceding midrashim in Tanḥ. ha-Nidpas Bereshit 9 (Confrontations, 234â36).
To use Sternâs terminology,
The statement is at the beginning of the midrash in MSS Columbia X 893 M 5843, f. 7r; Palatina Cod. Parma 3254, f. 6v; Bodleian Hunt. Don. 20, f. 4v; Angelica 61, f. 12r; Yeshiva University 1372, f. 13r; and ed. Mantua, f. 3v. It is at the end in MS Parma; MS Angelica; ed. Mantua; MS Vatican ebr. 44, f. 12v; and ed. Constantinople, sig. âª
Ed. Margulies, 1:120. Stemberger, Einleitung, 392â93.
Contra Stern, Parables, 50.
Pfitzner, Paul; Pfitzner, âWas St. Paul,â 92; cf. Jones, âImaginaryâ; Esler, âPaulâ; Harrison, âPaul.â
Pfitzner, Paul, 73â75; Spielman, Jews and Entertainment, 216.
Philo, Migr. 6.27; Mut. 12.81 (cf. Somn. 1.20.129). Harris, Greek Athletics and Jews, 69â71; Poliakoff and Poliakoff, âJacob,â 64â65.
Hayward, Interpretations, 256â57; Grossmark, âThis May Be Compared,â 7â9.
In pitching athlete against athlete, its purpose is different from patristic imagery in which athletic neophytes, martyrs, and even Christ fight not against athletes like themselves, but against the world, the flesh, and the devil. For instance, in Gregory of Nyssaâs Treatise on the Inscription of the Psalms, the opponents of the
Pfitzner, Paul, 3. In distinguishing the degree of first-hand knowledge that detailed and generalised athletic metaphors may assume of the audience, a point that emerged in Pfitznerâs study, I do not suggest any necessary contextual association between different corpora in which such images are found. Cf. Poliakoff and Poliakoff, âJacob,â 48, 53, and the discussion of Epictetusâs athletic images in Harris, Greek Athletes, 130â31.
Josephus, Ant. 15.268â276.
E.g., Sifra Aḥarei Mot, perek 13:9; t. Ê¿Abod. Zar. 2:2â7 (par. y. Ê¿Abod. Zar. 1:7, 40a); Ruth Rab. 2:22. Alon, âSome Earlyâ; Juster, Juifs, 2:239â41; Pfitzner, Paul, 73â75. As objections to attending public spectacles are also found in the works of pagan and Christian moralists (notably Seneca, Letters 7.2â4; Tertullian, De spectaculis; John Chrysostom, Contra ludos et theatra), they evidently do not constitute evidence of universal compliance; see further the references in Wiedemann, Emperors, 141â60.
Spielman, Jews and Entertainment, 6, 127â219; Hezser, âTowards,â 274.
Weiss, Public Spectacles, 61â66, 108â12; Kloner and HuÌbsch, âRoman Amphitheaterâ; Spielman, Jews and Entertainment, 94.
Goodman, State, 83.
Hezser, âTowards,â 268.
Epictetus, Ench. 29.3; Diatr. 2.18.22â23; 3.15.5â6; Arnold, Christ, 117â19; Long, Epictetus, 120, 169, 202â3, 215â16.
On gladiators as omnipresent topics of conversation, see Tacitus, Dial. 29; cf. Horace, Sat. 2.6.44.
Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah, ed. Margulies, 694â95 (par. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2, Tanḥ. (Buber) Emor 27); Midrasch Tehillim, ed. Buber, 128; Perles, âThron,â 137â38; Weiss, Public Spectacles, 100â108, 151â57; Spielman, Jews and Entertainment, 201â3; Humphrey, Roman Circuses, 539; Cameron, Circus, 201â29; Potter, Victorâs Crown, 308â20. On the dating of Midrash Psalms, see Atzmon, âMidrashic Traditions.â
Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, 5:39; Mehlman and Seth, Medieval Midrash, 135â48; Boustan, âIsraeliteâ; Milliman, âDecline,â 198â200.
Milikowsky, âStatus Quaestionis,â 69â70, 75.
Olszowy-Schlanger, âOn Hebrew Scriptâ; Sokoloff, âMajor Manuscripts,â 29â30; Sokoloff, Geniza, 36 (compare, for instance, the chapter headings in MS St. Petersburg Yevr. III B 958, f. 1r, and MS Vatican ebr. 30, f. 143r).
Lavee, âTanhuma,â 33â39; Bregman, Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, 180.
Milikowsky, âOn Formation,â 527â28, 530; Schäfer and Milikowsky, âCurrent Views,â 85â86; Stemberger, Einleitung, 186, 310â11. On the Tanḥuma midrashim in the final chapters of Genesis Rabba, see Sokoloff, âMajor,â 30â31; Hirschman, âFinal.â On those in Gen. Rab. 75, see Zunz, Ha-derashot, 78, 339 n. 66; TheodorâAlbeck, commentary at 884.
Ed. Constantinople: Naḥmias, 1512, sig.
This has been confirmed by the discovery of fragments of Tanḥuma Buber in the âEuropean Genizahâ; see Lehnardt, âTransmission,â and the bibliography cited.
Meyer, Editorial, 491â514.
Lavee, âTanhuma,â 48â49, 57â58; Lavee, âLiterary,â 288â93; Lavee and Gan-Zvi, âFrom France,â 111â13, 130.
Sefer Rabbot (Constantinople: Naḥmias, 1512); Midrash Tanḥuma (Constantinople: Solomon ben Mazal Tov, 1520â22). On the Venice 1545 edition of Midrash Rabba, see Williams, âVenetianâ; Tanḥuma was similarly issued by Adelkind under Bombergâs imprint.
See note 53.
