1. Friedheim, Emmanuel, Rabbinisme et Paganisme en Palestine romaine: Étude historique des Realia talmudiques (Ier–IVème siècles) (Leiden: Brill, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar arrived too late to be considered here.

2. Millar, Fergus, “Transformations of Judaism under Graeco-Roman Rule: Responses to Seth Schwartz's Imperialism and Jewish Society,” Journal of Jewish Studies 57, no. 1 (2006): 139–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, similarly sees the importance of Belayche's book for a fuller appreciation of Schwartz's effort. Millar's essay only deals with Belayche's work peripherally, however. In some instances, I may be raising points that have been dealt with by others whose reviews are unknown to me. Though this is unavoidable, when appropriate, I do refer to some of the more important reviews with which I am familiar. It should also be noted that my primary concern here is the overlapping and intersecting content of the three works.

3. M. ‘Avodah Zarah 5:6.

4. See M. ‘Avodah Zarah 4:1; and Y. ‘Avodah Zarah 4, 43d. Cf. Schäfer, Peter, “Jews and Gentiles in Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Schäfer, Peter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 3:348fGoogle Scholar.

5. Cf. the discussion of “the coinage of Galilee” in Chancey, Mark A., Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 166–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Vita Porphyrii 64, 4–7; and Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, 44, 247f.

7. To this end, she provides useful maps of “cities that minted coins,” “the religious geography of Judaea and the Decapolis” at the outset of the revolt in 66 CE, “theatres of Roman Palestine,” and the distribution of second- to fourth-century synagogues. These maps are essential for gaining an appreciation of the Jewish areas of settlement, even if one can quibble with Belayche's assumptions about the dating of synagogues. Cf. Millar, “Transformations,” 145.

8. Cf. Jones, Arnold H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford: Oxford University, 1971), 278Google Scholar.

9. Cf. the discussion of Schwartz's assessment of these finds in the next section.

10. Belayche's identification of the “Antoninus” of rabbinic tradition with Caracalla is an example of her sometimes overacceptance of scholarly conventions—in this instance, the coziness of the Romans with the patriarchate under Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi. See my critique of Meshorer's view of the relevant coins in “Those Cantankerous Sepphoreans Revisited,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 555f.

11. See my article “New Perspectives on the History of Sepphoris,” in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. Eric M. Meyers (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 154.

12. See my article “On the Number of Synagogues in the Cities of ’Ereẓ Israel,” Journal of Jewish Studies 49, no. 1 (1998): 59–63.

13. I discussed the castra traditions at length in Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 15–45, 56–59, and argued that the “old castra of Sepphoris” was a Jewish encampment that was replaced by a Roman unit around 67 CE. The later castra was familiar to the Tannaim in the second century, who treat it from a halakhic perspective as a gentile institution. The assertion of Isaac, Benjamin, “Jews, Christians and Others in Palestine: The Evidence from Eusebius,” in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. Goodman, Martin (Oxford: Clarendon Press; Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, 66 n. 3, that “Miller does not discuss the presence of gentiles in the city” is, therefore, puzzling. My Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris, which was written before the excavations at Sepphoris began, was a methodological work aimed at demonstrating how advances in talmudic methodology could be invoked in the treatment of the realia referred to in rabbinic writings, in this case, that pertaining to an urban center. The “history” I was attempting to write certainly was intended to illustrate that the use of rabbinic sources for the reconstruction of events in the talmudic period was no longer business as usual. Certainly, there was no assumption that Sepphoris was exclusively a city of Jews, never mind a city of “rabbis and kohanim.” Cf. Schwartz, Imperialism, 142 n. 45.

14. See B. ‘Avodah Zarah 10a; and Friedman, Mordechai A., Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1980), 2:207–11Google Scholar.

15. Panarion 30, 12, 2.

16. Panarion 30, 11, 9–10.

17. See also Schwartz, Seth, “Some types of Jewish-Christian Interaction in Late Antiquity,” in Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire, ed. Kalmin, Richard and Schwartz, Seth (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 198fGoogle Scholar.

18. See Linder, Amnon, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987), 103–6Google Scholar. See note 19.

19. Rives, James B., Religion in the Roman Empire (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 116f., 130, 146f.Google Scholar Rives's assertion that many Jews, like Christians, never really desired to remove themselves from their communities (130) stands in stark contrast to Schwartz's view. Schwartz does admit at one point, p. 187, that the state might have regarded the Jews as a “discrete category of humanity” between the first and the fourth centuries, but only inconsistently. Rives, on p. 121, also contends that households had considerable freedom to pursue their own religious expression. See n. 85 herein.

20. The point about the Mishnah is made and elaborated by Millar, “Transformations,” 148–50. Here, I add that the tannaitic sources in general could have been better utilized. Cf. Goodman, Martin, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212 (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1983), 6–14Google Scholar.

21. Talgam, Rina and Weiss, Ze'ev, The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, Qedem Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 44 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2004), 127–31Google Scholar.

22. Nagy, Rebecca Martin et al. , eds., Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 58, 222Google Scholar. See esp. 221f. for a lamp with an aedicula that may represent a Torah shrine.

23. I have elsewhere argued for caution in using stone vessels as identity markers and especially as indicators of widespread purity practices. See Miller, Stuart S., “Some Observations on Stone Vessel Finds and Ritual Purity in Light of Talmudic Sources,” in Zeichen aus Text und Stein: Studien auf dem Weg zu einer Archäologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. Alkier, Stefan and Zangenberg, Jürgen (Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 2003), 402–19Google Scholar.

24. See Eshel, Hanan, “A Note on ‘Miqvaot’ at Sepphoris,” in Archaeology and the Galilee, by Edwards, Douglas R., and McCollough, C. Thomas (Atlanta, GA: Scholars' Press, 1997), 131–33Google Scholar, the substance of which is repeated in idem, “They're Not Ritual Baths,” (Featured debate on “The Pools of Sepphoris, Ritual Baths or Bathtubs?”) Biblical Archaeology Review 26, no. 4 (2000): 46–49.

25. Stuart S. Miller, “Stepped Pools and the Non-Existent Monolithic ‘Miqveh,’ ” in The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity. Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers, ed. Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, in press), 217–36. The stepped pools of Sepphoris will be discussed further in the volume that Eric Meyers, Katharina Galor, and I are preparing for publication.

26. Selkin, Carol Barbara, “Exegesis and Identity: The Hermeneutics of Miqwa'ot in the Greco-Roman Period” (PhD diss., Duke University, 1993)Google Scholar.

27. Again, see my article “On the Number of Synagogues in the Cities of ’Ereẓ Israel,” 59–63. Schwartz, Imperialism, 143 n. 46, further gives the impression that Y. Kil'ayim 9, 32b also includes a reference to thirteen synagogues at Tiberias. The two are completely independent traditions. That pertaining to Tiberias appears in B. Berakhot 8a and is also discussed in my article, pp. 55–58.

28. Kenishta' rabbta' de–Ẓipporin: Pesikta' de-rav kahana', piska' 18. See Miller, Stuart S., “The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered,” Harvard Theological Review 86, no. 4 (1994): 392–94Google Scholar; kenishta' de–Bavla'ei be–Ẓipporin: Genesis Rabbah 33:3 and 52:3; Y. Berakhot 5, 9a; and Y. Shabbat 6, 8a; kenishta' de–Gofnah de–Ẓipporin: Y. Berakhot 3, 6a.

29. See also Schwartz, Seth, “The Rabbi in Aphrodite's Bath: Palestinian Society and Jewish Identity in the High Roman Empire,” in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire, ed. Goldhill, Simon (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2001), 335–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. See Stern, Issachar, “’Omanut Ha-Demut Ba-Halakhah Bi-Tekufat Ha-Mishnah Ve-Ha-Talmud,” Ziyyon 61 (1996): 397–419Google Scholar.

31. Fine, Steven, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 116Google Scholar.

32. Ibid.

33. Miller, Stuart S., “‘Epigraphical’ Rabbis, Helios and Psalm 19: Were the Synagogues of Archaeology and the Synagogues of the Sages One and the Same?” Jewish Quarterly Review 94 (2004): 27–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On tannaitic grappling with pagan surroundings, see Halbertal, M., “Coexisting with the Enemy: Jews and Pagans in the Mishnah,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Stanton, Graham N. and Stroumsa, Guy G. (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998), 159–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. Schwartz's understanding of the sanctity of the synagogue would have been strengthened had he invoked Fine's earlier elaboration of the synagogue as “holy place.” See Fine, Steven, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997)Google Scholar. Schwartz, however, sees the function of the Torah scroll in the synagogue very differently than Fine.

35. Cf. Schwartz, “Some Types of Jewish-Christian Interaction in Late Antiquity,” 208f.

36. For what follows, see Miller, “On the Number of Synagogues in the Cities of ’Ereẓ Israel,” 64–66; and my article “The Rabbis and the Non-Existent Monolithic Synagogue,” in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue, ed. Steven Fine (London: Routledge, 1999), 57–70.

37. Actually, Schwartz does recognize that larger forces were in play and that the resuscitation of Judaism in late antiquity was a “product of the same political, social, and economic forces that produced the no less distinctive Christian culture” (184). He does not, however, make clear how much of the distinctive Jewish culture resulted from these forces and how much of it was appropriated from the surrounding Christian society.

38. Miller, Sages and Commoners, 165–67, 205f., esp. 404f.

39. “The Origins of Jewish Communal Organization in the Middle Ages,” Binah 1 (1989): 59–67.

40. Miller, Sages and Commoners, 276–97.

41. Cf. Yaron Eliav's review of Imperialism and Jewish Society, “The Matrix of Ancient Judaism,” Prooftexts 24 (2004): 123. Schwartz continues to pursue indications of a “licit and authorized religious community” in his “Rabbinization in the Sixth Century,” in Schäfer, The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, 3:59–69.

42. My use of “complexity” is derived from its application in the sciences and social sciences. See Miller, Sages and Commoners, 21–28, for a full elaboration of “complex common Judaism.”

43. Jones, Siân, “Identities in Practice: Towards an Archaeological Perspective on Jewish Identity in Antiquity,” in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period, ed. Jones, Siân and Pearce, Sarah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 34f., 38Google Scholar.

44. Ibid., 47.

45. See Miller, Sages and Commoners, 21, 27, 263f., 368, for various either/or perceptions that persist. On the difficulty of identifying material markers, see Meyers, Eric M., “Identifying Religious and Ethnic Groups through Archaeology,” in Biblical Archaeology Today, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, June–July, 1990 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 738–45Google Scholar.

46. Cf. Richardson, Peter, City and Sanctuary: Religion and Architecture in the Roman Near East (London: SCM Press, 2002)Google Scholar; and idem, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2004), esp. 3–16, 327–45.

47. All sorts of strategies have been proposed to replace the traditional Western notion of “Romanization.” Many of these have in common the realization that heterogeneity has to be accounted for. See Webster, Jane, “Creolizing the Roman Provinces,” American Journal of Archaeology 105 (2001): 209–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In Webster's formulation of “creolization,” material artifacts that seem to be Romanized may be understood differently depending on the context. Cf. Downs, Mary, “Refiguring Colonial Categories on the Roman Frontier in Southern Spain,” in Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures, ed. Fentress, Elizabeth (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000), 207Google Scholar. David Mattingly, in “Vulgar and Weak ‘Romanization,’ or Time for a Paradigm Shift?” review of Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization, by Simon J. Keay and Nicola Terrenato, eds., Journal of Roman Archaeology 15 (2002): 536–40, speaks of identities in flux and the problems of focusing on elites where material culture is concerned. Also cf. Woolf, Greg, “Beyond Romans and Natives,” World Archaeology 28, no. 3 (1995): 339–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. See Miller, Stuart S., “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994)Google Scholar, Division B, 1:1–8. On “Rabbinic Activity in the Cities,” see Miller, Sages and Commoners, 276–97, esp. 295f.

49. For a fuller discussion of nonrabbinic “commoners” in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el, see Miller, Sages and Commoners, 301–38, and my comments on Boyarin's Border Lines in the next section.

50. See Becker, Adam H. and Reed, Annette Yoshiko, The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003)Google Scholar. In his contribution to this volume, “Semantic Differences: or, ‘Judaism’/‘Christianity,'” 73, Boyarin acknowledges that Schwartz's work set the agenda for his own research.

51. Reuven Kimelman, “Identifying Jews and Christians in Roman Syria-Palestine,” in Meyers, Galilee through the Centuries, 327.

52. See Miller, “The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered”; and idem, “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris.”

53. See Miller, Sages and Commoners, 25f., esp. n. 78, where I explain how “complex common Judaism” differs from this approach. See the discussion that follows.

54. Much of this territory is covered in Border Lines, Chapter 8, 202–26, which Boyarin also published in expanded form as “The Christian Invention of Judaism: The Theodosian Empire and the Rabbinic Refusal of Religion,” Representations 85 (2004): 21–57.

55. See Boyarin, Daniel, “Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6, no. 4 (1998): 40 n. 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where he quotes Lieberman, S., “The Martyrs of Caesarea,” Anuaire de l'institut de philology et d'histoire orientales et slaves 7 (1939–44): 395Google Scholar. Lieberman's point in “The Martyrs of Caesarea” is that the Yerushalmi has valuable and oftentimes reliable historical information because it was produced close to the period with which it is largely concerned. Lieberman may downplay the importance of legends, but he does not argue, as Boyarin (cf. Border Lines, 223) claims, that “talmudic legend may be read as useful information for the history of the time and place of its production and not the time and place of which it speaks” (emphasis mine). That is Lieberman's general point about talmudic materials, not about rabbinic legend. In fact, Lieberman is less interested in legendary material per se than he is in the incidental realia and information found embedded in halakhic materials and in the “homilies” of the rabbis, which he believes often reveal the sentiments of the people. Aside from “The Martyrs of Caesarea,” see Lieberman, S., “Jewish Life in Eretz Yisrael as Reflected in the Palestinian Talmud,” reprinted in idem, Texts and Studies (New York: Ktav, 1974), 84Google Scholar.

56. See Yuval, Israel Jacob, Shenei Goyim be-Vitnekh: Yehudim ve-Noẓrim—Dimmuyim Hadadiyyim (repr., Tel Aviv: Alma-Am Oved, 2003)Google Scholar.

57. See Y. Yevamot 1, 3b; Y. Berakhot 1, 3b; and Y. Kiddushin 1, 58d. Cf. B. ‘Eruvin 13b and the discussion that follows below.

58. Cohen, Shaye J. D., “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984): 27–53Google Scholar.

59. See n. 57 herein.

60. For an example, see Miller, Stuart S., “Ẓippori ve-ha-Tefuẓot: ha-Hashpa‘ah ha-Mitmashekhet shel Merkaz Talmudi ba-Galil,” in Merkaz u-Tefuẓah, ’Ereẓ Yisra'el ve-ha-Tefuẓot bi-Yemei Bayit Sheni, ha-Mishnah, ve-ha-Talmud, ed. Gafni, Isaiah M. (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2004), 196–99Google Scholar.

61. For discussion and references see my, Sages and Commoners, 207 n. 224.

62. See Schwartz, Imperialism, 179, who, as we have seen, speaks of Jewish “appropriation” from Christian surroundings. Cf. Boyarin, “Semantic Differences: or, ‘Judaism’/‘Christianity,'” 72f.

63. See Segal, Alan F., Rebecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1986), 179–81Google Scholar.

64. See “Semantic Differences: or, ‘Judaism’/‘Christianity,'” 65, where Boyarin admits that “in some respects” Christianity may be regarded as the “parent religion.”

65. Church History 70, no. 3 (2001): 427–61.

66. Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh,” 41.

67. Jacob Neusner, “Daniel Boyarin's Border Lines. The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 9 (2006).

68. This is stressed in my two articles on the minim, “The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered” and “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris.”

69. Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (132–425), trans. McKeating, H. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 198fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Miller, “The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered,” 400–402. In what follows, I refine my overstatement pertaining to the use of the terms min and minim in my popular review of Border Lines, “The First True Religion?” The Jerusalem Report, October 3, 2005, 38–40. The review by Jack Miles that appeared in Commonweal, October 21, 2005, 31–34, affords an interesting contrast in the presentation of Boyarin's book to two distinct popular audiences, one largely Jewish, the other largely Christian. See too my response to Miles in Commonweal, December 2, 2005, 43f. I am grateful to Miles for our lively correspondence, in which he has helped me better appreciate his perspective.

70. See Miller, “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris,” 6f. Boyarin, Border Lines, 223f., discusses B. ‘Avodah Zarah 4a from a different angle.

71. See Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 16, which is discussed by Milikowsky, Chaim, “Gehinnom U-Fosh'ei Yisra'el ‘al pi ‘Seder Olam,’” Tarbiz 55 (1986): 329–37Google Scholar. Cf. Miller, “The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered,” 401 n. 93. See also Midrash Psalms 6; B. ‘Avodah Zarah 26a–b; and B. Rosh Ha-Shanah 17a.

72. Many examples from both tannaitic and amoraic materials may be provided to prove this point. One wonderful instance appears in Genesis Rabbah 14:7, which I discuss in “The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered,” 386–92. The midrash relates a confrontation between R. Yose ben Ḥalafta and a min in a house of mourning, where the min questions the rabbi's belief in bodily resurrection. Lots of candidates for this min can be suggested, but the metaphor that Yose uses to refute the min has an almost identical parallel in a roughly contemporary, Valentinian Gnostic source, the Gospel of Philip 63. The passage seems to be pitting two different understandings of the metaphor against each other, the rabbinic, which promoted bodily resurrection, and the Gnostic, which maintained a spiritual understanding. Yet the editors (or Yose?) of the midrash have no interest in telling us much about this heretic. In fact, the disputed metaphor may have been commonly invoked as words of consolation, which is Yose's ostensible purpose in referring to it in the first place.

73. See Goodman, Martin, “The Function of Minim in Early Rabbinic Judaism,” in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion, Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70, vol. 1, Judentum, ed. Schäfer, Peter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 501–10Google Scholar. Cf. Martin Goodman, “Modeling the ‘Parting of the Ways,’” in Becker and Reed, The Ways that Never Parted, 119–29. See also, in the same volume, Amram Tropper, “Tractate Avot and Early Christian Succession Lists,” 177–88; and idem, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography (Oxford: Oxford University, 2004), 224–40, who considers the difference between ‘Avot and apostolic succession lists and between Christian heresiology and the rabbis’ application of minim. He contends that the differing social structures of the two communities explains these divergences. The Tannaim were largely rabbinic disciple circles that were “preaching to the converted,” whereas the church fathers and eventually the institutionalized church sought to spread their “proto-orthodox” beliefs. Cf. Fine, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World, 116.

74. The classic discussion is still Katz, Jacob, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961)Google Scholar.

75. Cf. Miller, Sages and Commoners, 303f.

76. For fuller discussion of the ‘ammei ha-’areẓ and commoners in general, see Miller, Sages and Commoners, 301–38.

77. Cf. Schwartz, “Some Types of Jewish-Christian Interaction in Late Antiquity,” 204.

78. Boyarin, “Semantic Differences: or, ‘Judaism’/‘Christianity,'” 65.

79. Saul Lieberman, “Jewish Life in Eretz Yisrael as Reflected in the Palestinian Talmud,” 87f.

80. Y. ‘Avodah Zarah 4, 43d.

81. Y. ‘Avodah Zarah 5, 50a.

82. Y. ‘Avodah Zarah 5, 44d.

83. See the discussion in Tchernowitz, Chaim, Toledoth Ha-Poskim (New York: Jubilee Committee, 1946), 29–38Google Scholar.

84. Cf. Safrai, Ze'ev, The Missing Century: Palestine in the Fifth Century: Growth and Decline (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 53–62Google Scholar

85. Rives, Religion in the Roman Empire, 117–28, discusses the relationship of the household to public cult and asserts that there was some latitude where private and personal religious expression was concerned. On the greater household of the rabbis and the role its members played both in establishing halakhic practice and in promoting rabbinic Judaism, see Miller, Sages and Commoners, 339–93 and passim. Cf. Sivertsev, Alexei, Private Households and Public Politics in 3rd–5th Century Jewish Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002)Google Scholar and idem, Households, Sects, And the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005).