¹ On the world to come (), see m. Ber. 9.5. On resurrection, see below p. 386 n. 61.

² See Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1941; reprinted New York: Schocken, 1971) 359Google Scholar n. 24.

³ The latter could have been Jews who held Christian or Gnostic beliefs. Still, Christians and Gnostics were not the only ones deemed to be “two powers” heretics. By the end of the tannaitic period, as Alan Segal has shown, the rabbis had combined many different heresies into the elastic designation “two powers.” See Segal, Alan, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977) 58Google Scholar, 96–97 and 263–64. See also idem, Rebecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986) 151–58Google Scholar; and idem, “Judaism, Christianity and Gnosticism,” in Wilson, Stephen G., ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2: Separation and Polemic (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1986) 133–42Google Scholar. Goodman, Compare Martin, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212 (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983) 105–6Google Scholar. For the possible identification of min as a Samaritan, see Segal, Two Powers, 7 n. 7; for its application to Sadducees, see the discussion below p. 387.

⁴ See m. Meg. 4.8, 9; and y. Ber. 5.9c. See also Segal, Rebecca's Children, 149–50.

⁵ See Kimelman, Reuven, “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity,” in Sanders, E. P., ed., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 228–32Google Scholar. Compare Büchler, Adolf, “Über die Minim von Sepphoris und Tiberias im zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert,” in Judaica: Festschrift zu Hermann Cohens siebzigstem Geburtstage (Berlin: Cassirer, 1912) 271–95Google Scholar. References here are to the English version, idem, “The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Second and Third Centuries,” in idem, Studies in Jewish History (London: Oxford University Press, 1956) 245–74Google Scholar. See also Lieberman, Saul, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the 1I-IV Centuries (New York: Feldheim, 1965) 141Google Scholar, 196; and Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425) (trans. McKeating, H.; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) 200–201Google Scholar. Non-Jewish minim presumably included those whose arguments were anti-Israel. See Büch-ler, “The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias”; and Segal, Two Powers, 58 n. 40. Yaʿakov Sussman (“Heqer Toledot Ha-Halakhah U-Megilot Midbar Yehudah: Hirhurim Talmudiyim Riʾshonim Le-ʾOr Megilat Miqzat Ma'asei Ha-Torah,” Tarbiz 59 [1989–90] 53–54 n. 176 [Hebrew]) notes that the usage (“statutes of the minim”) is the correct reading at b. Tamid 31b, where the printed editions read 'pin (“statutes of the nations”). Compare t. Ḥul. 2.19. (I thank Marc G. Hirshman of Haifa University for calling my attention to Sussman's article.) For an overview of the problem of defining min, see Sperber, Daniel, “Min,” EncJud 12 (1971) 2–3Google Scholar; and Segal, Two Powers, 4–7. See also Alexander, Philip S., “The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Discussion,” in Dunn, James D. G., ed., Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1992) 8–9Google Scholar.

⁶ See Bagatti, Bellarmino, The Church from the Circumcision: History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians (trans. Hoade, Eugene; Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1971) 107Google Scholar; Saunders, Ernest W., “Christian Synagogues & Jewish-Christianity in Galilee,” Explor 3 (1977) 73–75Google Scholar; Schoeps, Hans Joachim, Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (trans. Hare, Douglas R. A.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 30Google Scholar; and especially Manns, Frederic, Essais sur le judeo-christianisme (Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1977) 165–90Google Scholar.

⁷ See Strange, James F., “Sepphoris,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary 5 (1992) 1090–93Google Scholar; and Meyers, Eric M., Netzer, Ehud, Meyers, Carol L., “Sepphoris—‘Ornament of All Galilee,’” BA 49 (1986) 10Google Scholar. See also idem, Sepphoris (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 16Google Scholar.

⁸ See Meyers, Eric M., “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archeological Evidence and Recent Research,” in Levine, Lee I., ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992) 321–38Google Scholar; and James F. Strange, “Six Campaigns at Sepphoris: The University of South Florida Excavations, 1983–1989,” in Levine, The Galilee in Late Antiquity, 353. Sherds with stamped Byzantine cross monograms dating to the fourth century are the earliest Christian artifacts found so far. See Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, “Ornament of all Galilee,” 18; and idem, Sepphoris, 16.

⁹ Scholem, Gershom, Kabbalah (New York: Quadrangle/New York Times, 1974) 12Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See especially Büchler, “The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias.”

¹¹ See Miller, Stuart S., Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris (Leiden: Brill, 1984) 7Google Scholar.

¹² See discussion below and especially nn. 31 and 70.

¹³ The parallels at b. ʿAboda Zar. 16b–17a and Eccl. R. 1.8 relate the content of Jacob's remarks that concerned Deut 23:18 and Mic 1:7. Accordingly, R. Eliezer was delighted with his understanding of these verses. This is probably a later expansion of the story. See Schiffman, Lawrence H., Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism (Hoboken: Ktav, 1985) 73Google Scholar. Rokeah, David (“Ben Setaraʾ Ben Panteraʾ Huʾ” Tarbiz 39 [1969] 9–12Google Scholar [Hebrew]) argues for the primacy of the Tosefta text and shows how the version in the Babylonian Talmud is derived from it. Compare Neusner, Jacob, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, the Tradition and the Man (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 1Google Scholar. 400–403. Note how the min in these parallel accounts uses the phrase (“it is written in your Torah”), clearly distinguishing himself as a non-Jew. This too is an indication of the late date of these versions, as a Jew is clearly intended at t. Ḥul. 2.24. See below n. 15. For a detailed analysis of the various versions of the story, see Maier, Johann, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978) 144–82Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See Bauckham, Richard, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990) 111Google Scholar; Herford, R. Travers, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903; reprinted New York: Ktav, 1975) 140–42Google Scholar; and Lieberman, Saul, “Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum,” in idem, Texts and Studies (New York: Ktav, 1974) 19–24Google Scholar. Lieberman shows how the episode accurately depicts Roman legal proceedings. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.32) related how Simeon son of Clopas, the bishop of Jerusalem, was martyred around this time. Eusebius regarded Clopas as the uncle of Jesus and reported that Simeon was a hundred and twenty years old at his martyrdom. In any event, Simeon was clearly a Jewish Christian. According to Maier (Jesus von Nazareth, 157–60), Eliezer was accused of involvement in some sort of sexually compromising situation. Maier pointed to the end of the passage in the Tosefta where R. Eliezer says “One should always distance oneself from ugliness and from that which resembles ugliness,” and he noted that the saying appears in other contexts where it refers to sexual immorality and impurity. While minut may at times have this connotation (for example, Eccl. R. 1.8), the saying attributed here to R. Eliezer does not always bear this meaning. See t. Yebamot 4.7; b. Ḥul 44b; and Gedaliah Alon, “Ha-Halakhah she-be-Torat Sheneim-ʿAsar ha-Shelihim” Tarbiz 11 (1939) 135–36. Maier viewed the “Yeshua” alluded to in the text to be some “halakhist,” not Jesus. Bauckham rightly responds (Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 110–11) that a charge of sexual immorality would not have been regarded as an offense by the Romans whereas belief in Christianity would have been. The view that the “Yeshua” intended is someone other than Jesus is unlikely. See Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 113–14.

¹⁵ See especially t. Ḥul. 2.20–21 where a Jew who acquires meat from “the hand of a min” is not to derive benefit from it. The text says that the children of minim are regarded as (“offspring of a prohibited liaison”), which would not be the case if the minim intended were non-Jews. Moreover, their books are considered to be those of diviners, as at t. Šabbat 13.5, which has Jewish minim in mind. See Schiffman, Who Was a Jew, 62–67. Neusner compares (Eliezer, 2. 330–34, 365–67) Eliezer's and Jesus' views on legal matters and concludes (pp. 332–33), “One cannot derive from these facts the conclusion either that Eliezer was sympathetic to Christian viewpoints or that he was aware of, and opposed to, Christian criticism of Pharisaism.” Neusner doubts that Eliezer can be linked to the minim and maintains that the passage emphasizes the perspective of Aqiba, which Eliezer is made to share, namely, that Jews should separate themselves from the minim, a view particularly apt for the period of Bar Kokhbah.

¹⁶ See Pritz, Ray A., Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill, 1988) 120Google Scholar. The town is sometimes taken to be identical to Sikhnin/Sakhnin in lower Galilee. See Miller, Studies, 104 n. 235. T. Ḥul. 2.22 and parallels (see Herford, Christianity, 103–4) mention a Jacob of Kefar Sama who came to cure R. Eleazar ben Dama in the name of Yeshua, but was prevented by R. Ishmael. Some (for example, Herford, Christianity, 106) have taken this person to be identical with Jacob of Kefar Sekhanya. If they are one and the same, Jacob would have been associated with two towns in the area of Sepphoris, but still not with Sepphoris proper. Kimelman's assertion (“Birkat Ha-Minim,” 231–32) that Kefar Sikhnin (Sekhanya) “was known as a place of minut” lacks support, as it seems to be predicated only on the fact that Jacob came from the town. Compare Urbach, Ephraim E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987) 985Google Scholar n. 65, who follows the same line of thinking. Smith, Morton (Jesus the Magician [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978] 179Google Scholar), Schiffman (Who Was a Jew, 70), and Bauckham (Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 120–21) maintain that two distinct Jacobs from different towns are intended. Bauckham accepts the identification of Kefar Sekhanya with Sakhnin and suggests that the Jacob intended in our story was James, the grandson of Jude, brother of Jesus! Bauckham's theory relies too much on our ability to identify Sekhanya and especially the town of Kokhaba with which he believes the Seanoauvoi were associated. See Bauckham, Jude and The Relatives of Jesus, 60–67, 116; and contrast Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, 120–21.

¹⁷ See Hyman, Aaron, Sefer Toledot Tannaʾim. Ve-ʾAmoraʾim (3 vols.; 1910; reprinted Jerusalem: Boys' Town, 1964) 2Google Scholar. 474 (Hebrew).

¹⁸ This is probably present-day Meshhed, which is a couple of miles southeast of Sepphoris. See Zuk, Zevika, Zippori Ve-ʾAtareha (Jerusalem: Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, 1987) 92Google Scholar (Hebrew).

¹⁹ Contrast b. Sanh. 67b (see also 65b, discussed below), where Rav Hanina and Rav ʾOshayaʾ engage in permissible “sorcery” (). Büchler doubts (“The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias,” 247) whether the minim of our passage are of “the same circle in Sepphoris as the wonder healer Jacob.”

²⁰ The fact that the incident is said to have occurred in the dome () of the bathhouse i s at least curious. The dome was often the area in which an idol was kept. See m. ʿAboda Zar. 1.7 and compare m. ʿAboda Zar. 3.4, both of which regard baths as a pagan context. On the , see Krauss, S., Qadmoniyot Ha-Talmud (2 vols; Berlin/Vienna: n.p., 1914–1923Google Scholar) 1.2. 314 (Hebrew).

²¹ The expression “said what he said” () is used with reference to the actions of both the min and Joshua. For the meaning “he cast a spell” or “he said a magic formula,” see Sperber, Daniel, Essays on Greek and Latin in The Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem: Makor, 1982) 155–56Google Scholar.

²² Herford automatically assumes (Christianity, 113–14) that the min in question is a Christian, and he even proposes, somewhat cautiously, that Jacob of Kefar Sama (see above, n. 16) is intended.

²³ Compare Exod. R. 30.9 where all three rabbis involved in the earlier incident are found in Rome. See below, n. 31.

²⁴ Actually, the saying, “Even if all mortals () gathered, they could not create a single gnat and infuse it with a spirit,” which R. Eleazar attributed to R. Yose ben Zimra, can be traced to tannaitic sources (where it appears unattributed), so R. Eleazar appears to be expanding its application to the event under discussion. See Sif. Deut. 32 (ed. Finkelstein, Louis; 1939; reprinted New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969) 54Google Scholar and the citations there. Compare the parallel at b. Sank. 67b, which has “barley” () instead of “gnat” ().

²⁵ Hence it was not regarded as sorcery () and was permissible. See the comments of David Fränkel, Sheyarei Qorban, in the Vilna edition of the Palestinian Talmud. Jacob Neusner writes (A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 5: Later Sasanian Times [Leiden: Brill, 1970] 180Google Scholar), “For the Rabbis, the difference between religion and magic was simple. They did not practice magic, but 'Torah' empowered them to do supernatural deeds.” Herford doubts (Christianity, 117) whether Joshua himself claimed to have had the purported magical skills. He suggests instead that Joshua's reputation led to such claims “in later times” when the stories were composed.

²⁶ Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.15. Compare Ps.-Clem. Horn. 2.26. For discussion, see Idel, Moshe, Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990) 5–6Google Scholar; and Luck, Georg, Arcana Mundi: Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Collection of Ancient Texts (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985) 34–35Google Scholar. For the passage from the Infancy Story of Thomas, see NTApoc, 1. 393. For the date of this work, see NTApoc, 1. 390–91.

²⁷ Idel, Golem, 3. Simon Magus was also said to have been able to animate statues. See Butler, E. M., The Myth of the Magus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and New York: Macmillan, 1948) 80Google Scholar, who notes the works of Daedalus, the statue of Memnon, oracular heads, and Prometheus's men of clay as examples of the prevalence among the pagans of such notions.

²⁸ The same would apply to the story alluded to above concerning Simon Magus. See Idel, Golem, 28.

²⁹ Oshayaʾ and Hanina were late third-century Babylonians, possibly brothers, who eventually studied under R. Yohanan in Palestine. See Albeck, Chanoch, Mavoʾ La-Talmudim (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1969) 221Google Scholar and 241, esp. n. 186 (Hebrew).

³⁰ See Idel, Golem, 29–33 and 39 n. 12. See also Lieberman, Saul, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs, and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950) 121Google Scholar n. 33. To be sure, Idel is primarily concerned with the episode involving Rava. Hanina's and ʾOshayaʾ's creation of a calf enhances the polemic and should be considered part of it. Idel places great emphasis on R. Zeira's comment upon examining Rava's anthropoid: “You are [coming] from the pietists (): Return to your dust.” He sees the use of as having a specific meaning of “those persons who meticuously perform the minutia of halakhic prescriptions.” Idel's argument would have been advanced had he considered the ʾOshayaʾ and Ḥanina incident as well, since these two sages were regarded as (“companions of the scholars”). See y. Šabbat 3, 5d. According to b. Sanh. 14a, R. Yohanan wanted to ordain ʾOshayaʾ and Hanina but never did. This has been thought to be the reason why they were characterized as (see Hyman, Toledot, 1. 116; and Margaliot, Moses, ʾEnziqlopedyah Le-Ḥakhmei Ha-Talmud Ve-Ha-Geʾonim [2 vols., 1960; reprinted Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1987] 1Google Scholar. 62), but the use of the term would seem to have other connotations, if Idel is correct.

³¹ So, at least, in the Babylonian Talmud. B. Ḣag. 5b (MS Munich) has the rabbanan respond to the news of Joshua's death with the cry, “How shall we contend with the minim ()?” This follows a story concerning a min and R. Joshua that takes place in the house of an emperor. Compare Exod. R. 30.9, where a min maintains before Joshua, R. Aqiba, R. Eleazar, and R. Gamaliel in Rome that God works on the Sabbath. B. ʿErubin 101a has a min disagree with Joshua over the meaning of Mic 7:4. Herford's identification (Christianity, 224 and 229–30) of the minim in the passages in Exodus Rabbah and b. Hag. with Christians because they are familiar with verses of the Hebrew scriptures is forced. Compare Buchler, “The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias,” 256–57 and 271, where he posits the existence of “Bible reading heathen” (see below n. 85). Eccl. R. 1.8 has Joshua apply an ointment upon his nephew as an antidote to the spell that the minim of Kefar Nahum (Capernaum) placed upon him, which reportedly caused him to ride an ass on the Sabbath. Herford (Christianity, 211–15) takes these minim to be Christians, as does Visotzky, Burton L. (“Overturning the Lamp,” JJS 38 [1987] 76–77Google Scholar). The use of spells and ointments, however, was not restricted to Christians. Indeed, the binding spells and invocations of (“prince of the sea”) found in the stories of Joshua and his colleagues (see above p. 382) are reminiscent of the ubiquitous defixiones (“binding spells”) that often included similar appeals to the dae-mons and gods. See Christopher A. Faraone, “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells,” in idem and Obbink, Dirk, Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 4–5Google Scholar. The tendency to see the various minim referred to in Ecclesiastes Rabbah as Christians is probably the result of the inclusion of the arrest of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in the passage. The excerpt, however, is clearly composite, and even the Eliezer story has been included in an embellished form. See above, n. 13, and compare Eccl. R. 7.26 where R. Issi (Nisi?) of Caesarea presents a list of examples of persons who were guilty of minut. The list is premised on Eccl. R. 1.8, and it too appears to be composite. See Kimelman, “Birkat Ha-Minim,” 394 n. 37; and Ir-Shai, Oded, “Yaʿaqovʾ Ish Kefar Nevuryaʾ—Ḣakham She-Nikhshal Be-Minut,” Meḣqerei Yerushalyim Be-Maḣshevet Yisraʾel 2 (1983) 154Google Scholar n. 4 (Hebrew; also on the identity of R. Issi; I thank Nili and Aharon Oppenheimer for this reference). The intention of the excerpt from Ecclesiastes Rabbah is probably that Joshua himself pronounced a spell as he applied the ointment. See Hirshman, Marc G., “Midrash Qohelet Rabbah: Chapters 1–4 Commentary (CH. 1) and Introduction” (Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1983Google Scholar) part 2, p. 61. The fact that Jesus is frequently associated with Capernaum (e.g., Matt 4:13; 8:5; Mark 1:21; Luke 4:31) is not enough reason to assume Christian involvement at Eccl. R. 1.8 either. Visotzky's assertion that the larger context of the passage from Ecclesiastes Rabbah includes the sort of charges (incest, magic, wife sharing) with which Christians and Jews accused heretics is, however, interesting. Note, though, that he also shows that pagans and Christians, apparently more frequently, exchanged these charges. The segment referring to Joshua could just as easily have had pagans in mind, and not Jewish Christians. The evidence simply does not allow for sweeping generalizations that the minim confronted by Joshua were Jewish Christians (see “Joshua ben Hananiah,” EncJud 10 [1971] 280Google Scholar; and compare Alon, Gedaliah, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age 70–640 C.E. [ed. and trans. Levi, Gershon; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980] 1. 306Google Scholar). In contrast, Gershom Scholem says (Jewish Gnosticism, Merkavah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition [2d ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965] 57Google Scholar) that Joshua “entertained relations with Gnostic heretics (minim)” and Podro, Joshua (The Last Pharisee: The Life and Times of Rabbi Joshua ben Ḣananyah, A First Century Idealist [London: Vallentine & Mitchell, 1959] 19Google Scholar, 46) portrays Joshua as a universalist who “debated every kind of opponent… impertinent and cunning questions were put to him by agnostics, Christians, Epicureans, Gentile philosophers and potentates, including the Emperor Hadrian.” Further (p. 46), “he was confronted by Shammaites, Christians, Gnostics, Roman society ladies and 'the princes of the world.'” Emmanuele Testa's attempt (Cafarnao IV: I Graffiti della casa di S. Pietro [Pubblicarioni dello Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 19; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1972] 96–97Google Scholar) to explain the word , which appears among the Aramaic graffiti found in “St. Peter's house” at Kefar Nahum/Capernaum, as an adjective describing a woman from Sepphoris () is not convincing. Testa assumes that the minim of Sepphoris were Jewish Christians (following Bagatti's lead, see above n. 6) and therefore concludes that the woman was a Jewish Christian pilgrim from Sepphoris. There is no way, however, to determine the identity or beliefs of the person, and in any event the date of the inscription is not certain. In addition, it is not clear that the person mentioned was a pilgrim. There is a lack of evidence regarding Peter's house and the existence of Jewish Christians at Kefar Nahum/Capernaum in the first and early second centuries. See Sanders, Jack T., Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: The First One Hundred Years of Jewish Christian Relations (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1993) 70–74Google Scholar. See also Snyder, Graydon F., Ante Pacem: Archeological Evidence of Church Life before Constantine (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985) 71–72Google Scholar.

³² See b. Sanh. 67b where an Arabian traveler () dismembers and then recreates a camel. In Pesiqtaʾ de-Rab Kahana Parah 'Adumah 7, a non-Jew () tries to get R. Yohanan ben Zakkai to concede that the red heifer ritual (Numbers 19) is nothing more than witchcraft ().

³³ See the parallels at Mid. Ps. 2.11; and Yal., Psalms, 622.

³⁴ The mourner himself may be the min intended. Gen. R. 14.7 reads, “Some say he was a min, some say there was a min present.” Compare the comments of Salomon Buber (Midrash Psalms [Vilna: n. p., 1891Google Scholar] 15a), who argues that “some say there was a min present” is a later addition.

³⁵ This is the usual understanding. According to Sokoloff, Michael (Qitʿei Bereshit Rabbah min ha-Genizah [Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982] 108Google Scholar [Hebrew]), it is Yose who inquires of the min as to why he is depressed; after all, he will see the deceased in the world to come. Sokoloff maintains that the text really reads (“depressed”) and not (“laughed”). Accordingly, editors who thought the latter word was intended emended the passage so that the min appears to ask Yose why he is laughing.

³⁶ Translations of verses of the Hebrew scriptures are based on Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985Google Scholar).

³⁷ Compare b. Sanh. 91a where the same saying is attributed to the school of R. Ishmael.

³⁸ See Epiphanius Haer. 19.7, for a Jewish Christian view of resurrection. Earlier Jewish Christians shared a belief in bodily resurrection with their fellow Jews. See Petrement, Simone, A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism (trans. Harrison, Carol; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984) 469Google Scholar. For other examples of minim who deny the notion of resurrection, see below, n. 61.

³⁹ See the comment attributed to R. Simeon ben Eleazar in Sif. Num. 15.31 (ed. Hayyim S. Horowitz, Siphre D'Be Rab [1917; reprinted Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1966] 122); and compare the similar remark assigned to R. Eliezer ben Yose in b. Sanh. 90b. Eccl. R. 5.12 has a Samaritan confront R. Meir on the issue. On the Samaritan view of resurrection, see Montgomery, James A., The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect, Their History, Theology and Literature (1907; reprinted New York: Ktav, 1968) 186Google Scholar, 239–40, and 250; and especially Isser, Stanley Jerome, The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 144–50Google Scholar. For the tannaitic view of the Samaritans in general, see Schiffman, Lawrence H., “The Samaritans in Tannaitic Halakhah,” JQR 75 (1985) 323–50Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Compare the similar objection of Isser (Dositheans, 146) to the seeming use of a verse from the Psalms by a Samaritan at b. Sanh. 90b.

⁴¹ It is very difficult to imagine a rabbi who would attribute a verse from the Psalms to a Samaritan. Nor is the editor of Genesis Rabbah likely to have done so. Only someone who was far removed from the original report and the actual situation in Palestine could have been responsible, and this is unlikely. It is well established that Genesis Rabbah, which was composed in Galilean Aramaic and mishnaic Hebrew, was written in the land of Israel. See Herr, Moshe D., “Genesis Rabbah,” EncJud 7 (1971) 399Google Scholar.

⁴² See Mark 12:18–27; Matt 22:23–33; Luke 20:27–40; and Acts 23:7–8.

⁴³ Schechter, Salomon, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (1887; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1979Google Scholar) 13a-b. Compare Saldarini, Anthony J., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan) version B: A Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 85–86Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ See Mason, Steve, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Leiden: Brill, 1991) 174Google Scholar; and Schiffman, Who Was a Jew, 44.

⁴⁵ See Lucretius De rerum natura 3.417–58; and the discussion in Wolfson's, Harry Austryn “Immortality and Resurrection in the Philosophy of the Church Fathers,” in idem, Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961) 84–87Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Following Philo's understanding of “breath” (πνή; Hebrew: ). See Wolfson, Harry Austryn, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947) 1Google Scholar. 388 and 394. See also idem, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, vol. 1: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation (2d rev. ed.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964) 366–69Google Scholar; and idem, “Immortality,” 84, 90. Tertullian (De anima 9), however, understands the “breath” as a material substance which filled Adam's body and, after contracting, became like the body in form. Tertullian, of course, shares the other church fathers' belief in resurrection. His disagreement is only over the nature of the soul, which he agrees is still dissimilar and, therefore, separable from the body. See Wolfson, “Immortality,” 84–87.

⁴⁷ Ibid., esp. 84 and 87. Wolfson notes three distinct views of the Epicureans, all of which are taken up by the church fathers without specifically mentioning the Epicureans. These are (1) that the soul is composed of atoms and is born, grows, and ages with the body, and hence i t is corporeal; (2) that a soul without a body cannot be conscious, know, or remember, as all of these faculties are the result of sensation which originates in the body; (3) a soul without a body cannot experience pleasure as it is based upon desire which is rooted in want. Since a bodiless soul cannot have wants, it cannot have desire either. The church fathers maintained that the resurrected body will not be subject to desires and so will not experience pleasure. On rabbinic notions of sensation after resurrection, see Marmorstein, Arthur, “The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead in Rabbinic Theology,” in Rabbinowitz, J. and Lew, M. S., eds., Studies in Jewish Theology (London: Oxford University Press, 1950) 155–56Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ See Saul Lieberman, “Some Aspects of After Life in Early Rabbinic Literature,” in idem, Texts and Studies, 245–46. Compare Salo Baron, Wittmayer, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (18 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1937–1983Google Scholar) 2. 310. The rabbis' knowledge of Greek philosophy in general was limited. See Saul Lieberman, “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” in idem, Texts and Studies, 216–34. The church fathers, in contrast, were familiar with Greek philosophy even though Epicurus is not explicitly confronted in their writings. For a different view of the rabbis' knowledge of Epicurean teachings, see Fischel, Henry A., Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy: A Study ofEpicurea and Rhetorica in Early Midrashic Writings (Leiden: Brill, 1973Google Scholar) esp. “The 'Four n Paradise,'” 1–34.

⁴⁹ See Schiffman, Who Was a Jew, 44. Galen's opposing of the views of Moses and Epicurus is at least interesting in this regard; see Galen De usu partium 11.14. See also Menahem Stern, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980) 307Google Scholar and 311–12. For other uses of the term , see below n. 67.

⁵⁰ Compare Schiffman (Who Was a Jew, 44), who claims that the m. Sanh. 10.1, a reference he dates to before 70 CE, may have included a member of the Sadducees. Marmorstein (“The Doctrine of the Resurrection,” 149), regards the minim who deny resurrection as “successors of the Sadducees.” See the curious remark attributed to R. Yose at (. Nid. 5.3 and b. Nid. 33b alluding to Sadducean women of his own day. For the persistence of Sadducaic views into the Middle Ages, see Baron, A Social and Religious History, 5. 187–89. On the interchangeability of and min, see below n. 67.

⁵¹ This parallel was pointed out by Gershenzon, Rosalie and Slomovic, Elieser, “A Second Century Jewish-Gnostic Debate: Rabbi Jose ben Ḣalafta and the Matrona,” JSJ 16 (1985) 8Google Scholar n. 22. See Wilson, R. McL., The Gospel of Philip: Translated from the Coptic Text with an Introduction and Commentary (New York: Harper & Row, 1962) 39Google Scholar, 112. The translation here is that of Wesley W. Isenberg in NHLE, 147.

⁵² See Urbach, The Sages, 653.

⁵³ On the closely related terms “soul” (ψυχή) and “spirit” (πνεῦμα) in Gnosticism, see Rudolph, Kurt, Gnosis: the Nature and History of Gnosticism (trans. Wilson, Robert McLachlan; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983) 88–91Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ See ibid., 190–94. According to the Gospel of Philip, Jesus rises not in the body with which he is buried, but in the “true flesh.” One who receives the spiritual garment or flesh can then join with the reality of the risen Jesus. See Perkins, Pheme, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 362Google Scholar. On the Treatise on the Resurrection, see the comments and translation of Malcolm L. Peel in NHLE, 52–57. Compare Wilson, The Gospel of Philip, 88–89.

⁵⁵ See Wilson, The Gospel of Philip, 112. For further discussion of Valentinian notions of resurrection, see Pagels, Elaine Heisey, “‘The Mystery of Resurrection’: A Gnostic Reading of I Corinthians 15,” JBL 93 (1974) 276–88Google Scholar. Pagels especially notes (p. 286) how 1 Cor 15:50 is used in the Gospel of Philip (see NHLE, 144) to refute the notion of resurrection in the flesh, at least in the literal sense.

⁵⁶ See Gershenzon and Slomovic, “A Second Century Jewish—Gnostic Debate,” 1–41. Compare Herr, Moshe D., “Dialogues between Sages and Roman Dignitaries,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971) 148Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Tal Ilan has analyzed all of the relevant passages in her forthcoming, “Matrona and Rabbi Jose—An Alternative Interpretation.” She contends that Matrona is transformed into a pagan figure in later and especially Babylonian materials. Ilan provided me with an advance copy of her article, for which I am grateful. For the use of Mcapcova in a synagogue inscription from Caesarea, see Roth-Gerson, Lea, Ha-Ketovot Ha-Yevaniyot mi-Battei Ha-Kenesset be-ʾErez Yisraʾel (Jerusalem: Yad Yitshak Ben Tsevi, 1987) 119Google Scholar (Hebrew).

⁵⁸ With this in mind, the view of the early sixth-century pilgrim Theodosius that the first-century Gnostic Simon Magus came from Diocaesarea (Sepphoris) is at least interesting. Eusebius, however, has a tradition from Justin that Simon was a Samaritan from the village of Gittho. See Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.13.3; and compare Acts 8:9. See also Wilkinson, John, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977) 155Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ On the glass industry in the neighborhood of Sepphoris in Roman times, see Kurinsky, Samuel, The Glassmakers: An Odyssey of the Jews, The First Three Thousand Years (New York: Hippocrene, 1991) 239–40Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Compare Ithamar Gruenwald who notes, “the Rabbis sometimes polemized against their adversaries in an indirect manner, either by quoting one of their ideas but in an inverted form, or by adding or dropping an element, or by giving it a new direction.” See Gruenwald, Ithamar, “The Problem of the Anti-Gnostic Polemic in Rabbinic Literature,” in Broek, R. van den and Vermaseren, M. J., eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 184Google Scholar. Gruenwald goes on to claim, however, that there is no anti-Gnostic polemic in the writings of the rabbis. Contrast the discussion of Altmann, Alexander, “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends,” JQR 35 (1945) 371–91Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Many texts add the words “in the Torah” () to the comment concerning the one who denies resurrection, but this appears to be a later gloss intended to connect the belief with scripture. See the mishnah at y. Peʾa 1.16b; and Schiffman, Who Was a Jew, 90 n. 5. Minim are frequently associated with denial of resurrection. A precis of the relevant traditions is in order. Y. Ber. 5.9c produces what appears to be a third-century discussion wherein i t is stated that the one who “comes before the ark” to lead the services and leaves out the benediction “who revives the dead” is regarded as a min. (It is unclear whether the attribution belongs to R. Simeon bar Pazi in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi or to R. Simeon himself. See Herford, Christianity, 205.) B. Sanh. 90b-91a has minim who ask Rabban Gamaliel to provide proof of resurrection and individual minim who contend with the Palestinian amora R. Ammi and with Gebiha ben Pesisa (on this Second Temple period figure, see Hyman, Toledot, 1. 299–300) over the same subject. Interestingly, the same sugia' has the Romans, Cleopatra, and an emperor challenge various tannaim on the same issue. Those who doubt the notion of resurrection in Palestinian sources include Hadrian (Gen. R. 28 and parallels), Esau (Gen. R. 63.11), and, of course, Elisha ben Abuyah (y. Hag. 2.77b). Elisha (“Aḣer”) has been variously identified as an Epicurean, a Gnostic, or as the rabbinic “heretic par excellence” who, at least at b. Ḣag. 15a, represents “proto-Merkabah heretics.” For Elisha as an Epicurean, see Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 1–34; as a proto-merkabah heretic and heretic par excellence, see Segal, Two Powers, 60–67. For a concise discussion of the view that Elisha was a Gnostic, see Gruenwald, “The Problem of the Anti-Gnostic Polemic,” 175–80. See also Stroumsa, Gedaliahu G., “Aḣer: A Gnostic,” in Layton, Bentley, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol. 2: Sethian Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 808–18Google Scholar. Cain too may have been seen as one who denied the resurrection, or at least the world to come. See Isenberg, Sheldon R., “An Anti-Sadducee Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition,” HTR 63 (1970) 433–44Google Scholar; and compare Marmorstein, “The Doctrine of the Resurrection,” 159–60. For a reference to as deniers of resurrection, see Milikowsky, Chaim, “Gehinnom U-Foshʿei Yisraʾel ʿal pi ʿSeder Olam,ʾ” Tarbiz 55 (1986) 311Google Scholar, 335 (Hebrew). Midrash Tanhumaʾ Parashat Nasoʾ 30 also assumes that the minim reject resurrection, but the parallel at Num. R. 14.1 does not mention minim. See Buber, Salomon, Midrash Tanhumaʾ ha-Qadum ve-ha-Yashan (Vilna: n.p., 1885Google Scholar) be-Midbar 21a.

⁶² Interestingly, Gnostics often appear alongside of or are referred to as Epicureans by the church fathers, apologists of early Christianity, and some philosophers. The studied comparisons between the two, however, eventually led to the abusive application of “Epicurean” to all heretics, just as in the rabbinic tradition. For a full discussion and sources, see Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 10. For a discussion of anti-Gnostic themes in Genesis Rabbah, see Neusner, Jacob, Genesis and Judaism: The Perspective of Genesis Rabbah: An Analytical Anthology (BJS 108; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 45–53Google Scholar. Neusner calls attention to passages in which the goodness of God's creation is questioned and remarks (p. 53) that “the polemic looks to be addressed to within.”

⁶³ See Lieberman, “Aspects,” 244–45, esp. his observation, “Problems of the soul and its state after death were of personal interest even to the common man: mere curiosity prompted any intelligent individual to make inquiries into the matter, and even the more sophisticated views of the philosophers reached the masses in a popular form…. All information to this effect came to them from second hand sources, or, at most, from the discussions of cynic philosophers who preached in the streets” (my emphasis).

⁵⁴ That the passage also suggests that the mourner himself may have been the min intended (see n. 34) only strengthens this argument. Accordingly, the mourner may have been designated as the min by someone who understood the seemingly heretical nature of the words attributed to this “great man of Sepphoris.” A later editor or scribe uneasy with the idea of Yose comforting a min may have decided to make his opponent someone else in the house of mourning. In all, the heretical view is the central focus of the story, which should not necessarily be seen as a polemic aimed at a specific sectarian group.

⁶⁵ “Torah” is obviously used loosely here to include all of the Hebrew scriptures and, in particular, Isaiah.

⁶⁶ In the narrative following our passage at Pesiqtaʾ de Rab Kahana 18 another such episode appears, but this time a pious man doubts God's ability to create the east gate out of a pearl. Here it is God, represented by a (“heavenly voice”), who indicates that the man deserves to be struck down, were he not truly pious. So really it is God who punishes those who question his abilities. Yohanan's gaze only serves as a vehicle for this divine punishment. Note also how the pious man pleads for his life when he realizes that he is wrong, in contrast to the min of our passage who brazenly declares “seeing is believing.” Our min thereby continues to rely on his own human cognition (rather than on Torah) to determine truth and, more to the point, does not concede at all to Yohanan, who represents the sages, that he really does possess insight into scripture.

⁶⁷ Compare the parallel at Yal., Isaiah, 477, where the word is substituted for min. Midrash ha-Gadol, Ex. 35, however, has min. In b. Sanh.100a, the definition of is attributed to the third-century sages, Rav and R. Ḣaninah. Interestingly, further along in the passage, it is suggested that one who insults a scholar is acting derisively against the Torah as well. For a discussion of the more common theological understandings of , see Schiffman, Who Was a Jew, 43–44; and Berlin, Meyer and Zevin, Shlomo Josef, eds., ʾEnẓiqlopedyah Talmudit le-ʿInyenei Halakhah (17 vols.; Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute, 1947–1979) 2Google Scholar. 136–37 (Hebrew). The passage in b. Sanh. 99b-100a adds a new, apparently amoraic nuance to , as one who affronts the rabbis. The assumption below i s that the story of the min in Pesiqtaʾ de-Rab Kahana is anterior to the version in the Babylonian Talmud, which, nevertheless, preserves the intent of the earlier version in starker terms. Pesiqtaʾ de-Rab Kahana is presumed to be a Palestinian work edited around the fifth century CE. See Strack, H. L. and Stemberger, G., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. Bockmuehl, Markus; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 321–22Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Compare the parallels at b. B. Batra 75a; and Mid. Ps. 87.2. The exact interrelationship of these passages warrants further examination.

⁶⁹ B. Ber. 58a preserves an anecdote concerning the late third- or early fourth-century amoraic sage Rav Sheshet who has a run-in with a disrespectful and derisive min and, according to one account, turns him into a heap of bones. In this passage, Rav Sheshet is challenged by the min to provide a proof text. He obliges, but this does not stop the min from further taunting the rabbi. It should be noted that the sages were sensitive to attacks on their self-respect even when directed at them by their colleagues. Compare the story at b. B. Qam. 117a where R. Yohanan brings about the death of Rav Kahana because he thought his colleague was mocking his intellectual abilities. For discussion of the ways in which God was thought to come to the rescue of scholars who had been insulted, at least in Babylonia, see Neusner, Babylonia, 5. 183–84.

⁷⁰ Contrast Ronald Reuven Kimelman (“R. Yohanan of Tiberias: Aspects of the Social and Religious History of Third Century Palestine” [Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1977] 188), who after suggesting that min may have the connotation of here, does not explore the possibility any further and does not examine the parallel texts. Instead he concludes, “It is not out of the question to consider the min of this tale a Jewish Christian.” He arrives at this conclusion because the min attends a synagogue, and Jerome (Epistulae 112.13 [PL 22. 924]), claims that the “Minaeans” (Latin, minaeorum; that is, Hebrew, minim) whom he regarded as Jewish Christians, are found throughout all the synagogues of the East (“per totas Orientis synagogas”). This alone is not sufficient proof, especially in view of the alternate versions. See below, n. 93. For other examples of minim who either challenge a haggadic interpretation or use biblical verses to deride the rabbis see b. ʿErubin 101a; b. Git. 57a; and b. Sukk. 48b. Gen. R. 82 in the printed editions has another interesting example, but see the edition of Theodor, Jehudah and Albeck, Chanock, Midrash Bereshit Rabbaʾ (3 vols.; 1912–1936Google Scholar; reprinted Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965) 2. 988.

⁷¹ See Büchler, “The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias.”

⁷² Ibid., 271. Büchler's finding is often disregarded by those who invoke his study. Although much of Büchler's evidence does not mention Sepphoris (or Tiberias) per se and may have no bearing on life in the city itself, his conclusion still warrants consideration. See Stuart S. Miller, “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris,” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (forthcoming).

⁷³ These include the tannaim Joshua ben Korhah, Simon ben Menasya, and Meir, as well as the amoraic sages Yonatan, Yannai, Simlai, and Judah ben Nakosa.

⁷⁴ For Rabbi's stay at Sepphoris see y. Kit. 9.32b; and y. Ketub. 12.35a and parallels. For Bet Sheʿarim, see Safrai, Shemuel, “Bet Sheʿarim in Talmudic Literature,” Eretz Israel 5 (1959) 210Google Scholar. Compare Stuart S. Miller, “R. Ḣanina bar Ḣama at Sepphoris,” in Levine, The Galilee in Late Antiquity, 200. The single, pertinent tradition regarding Rabbi, b. Hul 87a, is quite interesting since it actually involves two distinct minim. The first min asserts, “He who created the mountains did not create the wind and He who created the wind did not create the mountains, as is written (Amos 4:13): 'Behold, He who formed the mountains and [He] created the wind.'” Rabbi responds by pointing to the end of the verse which implies a single god: “His name is the Lord, the God of Hosts.” This min wishes to prove the existence of “two powers.” Büchler claims (“The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias,” 265–66) that “a Gnostic or a heathen Christian” is intended since the min wanted to prove the existence of two gods who participated in the creation process. Segal notes (Two Powers, 118) that the Septuagint provides at least part of Amos 4:13 with a messianic understanding: “And has told man his wish” () is rendered “and announces to man his messiah (χριστόςο).” The Hebrew is rendered as a single word, (“his messiah”), so “the heretic may also have combined the messianic interpretation of this verse with the argument about the number of deities.” Segal cautiously suggests that the min represents an orthodox Christian or a Christian Gnostic point of view. Caution is indeed warranted, however. The words are problematic because of the pronominal suffix ι (= “his”), the referent of which is unclear. This ambiguity naturally led to all sorts of speculation and explanations; the Septuagint's understanding is only one among many possibilities. See Paul, Shalom M., Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (ed. Cross, Frank Moore; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 154–55Google Scholar. (I am grateful to Gary Rendsburg of Cornell University for calling my attention to this work.) Moreover, it should be emphasized that this part of the verse is not included in the min's argument.

The passage goes on to explain that the min requested that Rabbi allow him three days to come up with a response. Rabbi fasts for three days, and just as he was about to break the fast, another min arrives with the news that the min who challenged him could not come up with an answer so he threw himself from a roof and died. Rabbi then invites the second min t o dine with him after which he offers the heretic the opportunity to drink “the cup of benediction,” that is, the wine over which the grace after meals was recited, or to receive forty gold coins instead. The min chooses the wine, at which point a heavenly voice ) declares that the cup of benediction is worth forty gold coins, a point which ties the entire passage together, since it begins with an inquiry into the value of this very cup. We are then informed in a curious gloss attributed to the third-century amoraic sage R. Isaac that this min had relatives among some noteworthy residents of Rome who were known as the family of bar Luianos.

That this second min is regarded as a Jew is evident from the passage. It is difficult to imagine a story about Rabbi in which he invites a non-Jew to eat and recite the grace with him. To assert, however, as Herford does (Christianity, 243), that this min is a Jewish Christian is going beyond the evidence. All we know is what we are told: the person was thought t o be a heretic, otherwise he would not have been designated a min, and the fact that he eats and then drinks the cup of benediction implies that he is a Jew. Indeed, the figure here may very well have been characterized as a min by the editor(s) of the passage, who concluded from his knowledge of the death of the original min that he too was one.

⁷⁵ See Büchler, “The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias,” 251, 269, and 271.

⁷⁶ The Yohanan traditions are discussed in Miller, “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris.”

⁷⁷ He is clearly identified as “ben Yose” in the Palestinian versions at y. Maʿaśer S. 4.55b and Lam. R. 1.14.

⁷⁸ One of the dreams is understood to be an allusion to the fact that the min had failed to grant a (“divorce document”) to his two former wives. Here as well as elsewhere, printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud often have (“Sadducee”) for min/minaʾ, since they have been tampered with by censors. The texts discussed here all read min/minaʾ in the better editions and manuscripts, particularly MS Munich.

⁷⁹ The other dreams convey the impression that he is guilty of all sorts of transgressions including incestuous and adulterous relations, kidnapping of a Jew, and stealing from the dead.

⁸⁰ The formula used at y. Maʿaser S. 4.55b is (“someone came before R. Ishmael b. R. Yose”), which is repeated, giving the impression that several dreamers were involved. Several of the dreams are identical to those that appear i n the Babylonian Talmud, but here there is no mention of a dreamer who failed to provide his wives with a .

⁸¹ See Lam. R. 1.14 where many of the same dreams appear, but this time they are presented first to a Samaritan () and then to R. Ishmael for interpretation; the latter, of course, bests his sectarian opponent. Ishmael and the Samaritans also appear in confrontation at Gen. R. 81.3 and y. ʿAboda Zar. 5.44d (but see the parallel at Gen. R. 32.10 which has R. Yonatan instead of R. Ishmael).

⁸² Büchler, “The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias,” 260–61.

⁸³ Segal, Two Powers, 118–19.

⁸⁴ Various areas of Judea and Samaria have been suggested for this location. See Fiensy, David A., The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1991) 37–38Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Both Herford (Christianity, 250) and Büchler (“The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias,” 253–54) maintain that the (min) who asserts that Israel is impure is unlikely to have been a Jew and was probably a Gentile Christian. Herford argues that a Christian “of Jewish extraction” would not have used scripture in an anti-Jewish fashion. Buchler finds it difficult to identify this min as a “heathen who read the Bible” because it is hard to believe that such a person would have had an interest in Israel's call, which he sees as underlying the min's charge. These arguments, however, are specious. The rabbis assumed that their antagonists—Jewish or otherwise—knew scripture and could quote it to their advantage. See, for example, m. ʿAboda Zar. 3.4. Jewish sectarians (for example, the Dead Sea sect) were known to have charged their opponents with uncleanness and to have substantiated their claims with scripture. At the same time, non-Jews, particularly Romans, may have objected to Israel's claim o t have been elected, as they too claimed to have been chosen by their gods. See Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959) 251–60. Thus, attempts to illustrate that Israel did not enjoy the favor of God need not have been generated by Christians who challenged the Jews' assertion that they were elected and claimed to be the true Israel. See Miller, “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris,” where the min of b. ʿAboda Zar. 4a is discussed; and compare Urbach, The Sages, 542–50. B. Pesah. 87b has a “certain min” invoke 1 Kgs 11:16 before Hanina to argue the inferior way i n which Israel treats other nations, particularly Edom. A Roman pagan is clearly intended, as the reference to Edom is undoubtedly a veiled allusion to Rome, and the expression attributed to the min at the end of the passage, ), has been shown by Lieberman (Greek in Jewish Palestine, 141) to be a pagan oath. (Here too, Herford [Christianity, 249–50] missed the point. Büchler [“The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias,” 252], however, regards this min as a “nationalist Roman.”) Lieberman shows, however, that this text is faulty and should really read R. Judah Nesiah instead of R. Hanina. Compare Urbach, The Sages, 930 n. 62. Be that as it may, the thematic similarity (that is, an attack on Israel-the Jews are ill disposed to others, they are transgressors who have been rejected, etc.) with our passage is evident. Buchler himself provides (“The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias,” 254) instances in talmudic literature of Gentiles who assert that Israel is rejected. It appears that the attribution of a verse to the min of our passage deterred Buchler from the more likely conclusion that he too is supposed to be a Gentile.

⁸⁶ See, in particular, Herford, Christianity, 72–75.

⁸⁷ The passage should be seen thus especially in view of Urbach's study showing that the rabbis did not disguise historical figures by presenting them as prophetic types. See Urbach, Ephraim E., “Derashot Ḣazal ʿal Neviʾei ʿUmot Ha-ʿOlam Ve-ʾAl Parashat Bilʿam,” Tarbiz 25 (1956) 281–82Google Scholar (Hebrew). Jacob Zallel Lauterbach argues persuasively (Rabbinic Essays [1951; reprinted New York: Ktav, 1973] 503–11Google Scholar) that the passage is an elaboration of the biblical story. For a review of the various views concerning the use of “Balaam” by the rabbis, see Goldstein, Morris, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition (New York: Macmillan, 1950) 64–66Google Scholar. Interestingly, Herford eventually retracted his view that all references to Balaam are allusions to Jesus. See Herford, R. Travers, The Ethics of the Fathers (1945; reprinted New York: Schocken, 1962) 142Google Scholar. Judith Reesa Baskin asserts (Pharaoh's Counsellors: Job, Jethro and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition [BJS 47; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983] 92Google Scholar) that the rabbis' comments on Balaam could have been “influenced by a knowledge of Christian claims and exegetical teachings.” This may be true but does not seem likely or provable in this instance.

⁸⁸ Compare Kimelman, “Birkat Ha-Minim,” 231; and see Miller, “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris.” By “sectarian inclinations” I do not wish to imply that such a person needed to have belonged to an actual group or sect, only that they may have had some views i n common. See also Alexander, “Parting of the Ways,” 9, who prefers “heretic” rather than “member of a sect” as the rabbinic intention behind min. Compare Herford, R. Travers, “The Problem of the 'Minim' Further Considered,” in Baron, Salo W. and Marx, Alexander, eds., Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut, 1874–1933 (New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1935) 361–62Google Scholar, who uses Sif Num. 15.39 (ed. Horowitz, 126): '“So that you do not follow your heart’—This is minut” to show that a min is one who “follows the dictates of his own selfish nature” as opposed to the will of God; the haeresis (“choice”) involved is obvious.

⁸⁹ Or, alternatively, it could involve a latter-day Sadducee. See the discussion above pp. 387–89 and n. 50.

⁹⁰ This assessment would seem to be further strengthened by Epiphanius's fourth-century claim (Haer. 30.11) that Diocaesarea (Sepphoris) was a Jewish town, since we might expect this church figure to acknowledge any traces of Christianity even if they were “Jewish.” (Compare Theodoret Historia ecclesiastica 4.22, who also regarded Diocaesarea as a Jewish place.) The alternative is to assume that Epiphanius regarded only orthodox Christians as “Christians,” which would rule out most Jewish adherents of Christianity. Thus, Epiphanius may not have considered the Ebionites to be Christians. See Stephen Craft Goranson, “The Joseph of Tiberias Episode in Epiphanius: Studies in Jewish and Christian Relations” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1990) 73–74. See also Haer. 29.7, where Epiphanius regards the Nazarenes as “in every respect, Jews and nothing more.” Goodman points out (State and Society, 106 and 236 n. 138), however, that Epiphanius at times (Haer. 30.5 and 30.9) distinguished Jews who professed belief in Jesus from other Jews. Hence, Goodman maintains, Epiphanius would also have commented on the existence of Jewish Christians in Galilee. Goodman also notes that those Jews who accepted Jesus and whom Epiphanius did consider resided outside Galilee. It could be argued, however, that Epiphanius regarded Joseph of Tiberias as an orthodox Christian who just happened to have been a Jew. The same may have been true of the Jew in Haer. 30.9, although Epiphanius provides us with too little information about his beliefs to be sure. After all, the heresiologists were primarily concerned with doctrine, not with the details of Jewish law such as circumcision. So it is not inconceivable that the fact that these individuals may have been Jews according to Jewish law was irrelevant to Epiphanius. What they believed may have been more important to him. See Simon, Verus Israel, 241 and esp. 477 n. 23, where the existing attitude in ecclesiastical Christianity toward Judaizers and Jewish Christians is clarified. See also, Taylor, R. E., “Attitudes of the Fathers toward Practices of Jewish Christians,” StPatr 4 (1961) 504–11Google Scholar.

Much ultimately depends on our definition of Jewish Christian and how broadly it is applied. If by this term we mean all Jews who have accepted Christian beliefs, whether orthodox or heretical, then perhaps Epiphanius could only be expected to acknowledge the presence of those whom he considered to be Christians. At the same time, Epiphanius's preoccupation with heresies might also lead to the conclusion that he would have noted any that existed at Sepphoris. The fact that he does not seem to know of either orthodox or heretical “Jewish Christians” at Sepphoris suggests that his assertion concerning the Jewish nature of the city may very well mean that there was no significant Christian settlement of any type there. On the terminological problem, see Simon, Verus Israel, 237–40, 253–54, and esp. 249, where he writes, “With even better reason must we renounce any endeavor to reduce the diverse manifestations of Jewish Christianity to a single or coherent doctrinal system.” Compare Visotzky, Burton L., “Prolegomenon to the Study of Jewish-Christianities in Rab-binic Literature,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 14 (1989) 47–70Google Scholar.

⁹¹ This is true especially if Tal Ilan is correct that the “Matrona” traditions (see above n. 57) really refer to a Jewish woman. Even if some of these traditions can be proven to ascribe Gnostic beliefs to this woman (whoever she is), they still cannot be regarded as evidence for a community of Gnostics at Sepphoris. Neusner's assertion that Genesis Rabbah, in which both the Yose/mm and most of the Yose/matrona traditions are found, frequently assigns anti-Gnostic views to third- and fourth-century sages only furthers our hesitation here. Genesis Rabbah's preoccupation with the cosmology of Genesis serves as a fitting context for polemics against minim with Gnostic views. Neusner points to the possible contrived nature of the source. See Neusner, Jacob, The Struggle for the Jewish Mind: Debates and Disputes on Judaism Then and Now (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988) 16Google Scholar.

⁹² See Simon, Verus Israel, 245–46, and 477 n. 25. The nebulous and elusive nature of the term min may in fact reflect this reality. Epigraphic evidence of the syncretism that existed during this period only further confirms this perspective. See, most recently, Laurence H. Kant, “Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin,” ANRW 2. 20/2 (1987) 682–90; and compare Kraemer, Ross S., “Jewish Tuna and Christian Fish: Identifying Religious Affiliation in Epigraphic Sources,” HTR 84 (1991) 141–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹³ In “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris,” I consider the R. Yohanan/mmim and R. Abbahu/minim traditions and arrive at similar conclusions vis-à-vis the situation in Tiberias and Caesarea. Jerome's reference to minaeorum (see above, n. 70) whom he identifies as the Nazarenes, does not in any way detract from the argument made here that the minim should not be seen as a specific group. Jerome seems to use the term as a designation for a haeresis, that is, as opposed to an organized group of Nazarenes. Moreover, he appears to co-opt the term from rabbinic usage and apply it to a Christian heresy. Even so, Jerome is vague here as to what constituted the heresy, as the beliefs he ascribes to the Nazarenes were orthodox Christian doctrine. Only his assertion that they “want to be both Jews and Christians” indicates some form of syncretism. Compare Pritz, Naz.arene Jewish Christianity, 49–50, who holds that Jerome did not meet groups of Nazarenes and at most only came into contact with individuals (p. 50 n. 12) in Syria who harbored this heresy. This is not to say that a group known as the Nazarenes did not live, say in Beroea (as Pritz contends), but that Jerome was not necessarily using the term minim/minaeorum in a technical sense to refer to such a community. Pritz, who suggests that minim originally referred to heretics in general and only eventually came to mean Jewish Christians and finally Gentile Christians, also makes the interesting observation (p. 106) that while “all Nazarenes are minim… not all minim are Nazarenes.” See Simon, Verus Israel, 198 and 255–56, who also proposes a progression from individual heretics to a sect. Simon contends that the earliest minim were a “collection of individuals,” that is, heretics who moved within rabbinic and synagogue circles, a position similar to that taken here. Simon supposes, however, that with time the effect of the invocation of birkat ha-minim in the synagogues was to isolate these heretics into distinct groups. Simon concedes, however, that the usage of min to refer to an individual heretic persisted into the third century, and it was not until the fourth century that the Talmud “represents the minim as clearly separated from the Jewish community.” Simon does not, however, differentiate between Palestinian and Babylonian usages, nor does he consider the formulaic way in which min is frequently used in the Babylonian Talmud. That the rabbis were describing a phenomenon from their own perspective must also be kept in mind. We have no clue as to how those designated as minim perceived themselves. Jerome's difficult usage is the single external evidence for the usage of the term. See Miller, “Further Thoughts on the Minim of Sepphoris”; and Cohen, Shaye J. D., “A Virgin Defiled: Some Rabbinic and Christian Views on the Origins of Heresy,” USQR 36 (1980) 3Google Scholar, who writes, “The Rabbis lumped together all those who questioned Rabbinic Judaism. It made no difference to the Rabbis whether their opponents were Gentile Christians, Jewish Christians, Gnostics of any variety, pagans, or dissident Jews; all of them, to the exasperation of later scholars were called minim. From the Rabbinic perspective they are all the same.” This flexible application of the term min is reminiscent of the way in which the rabbis used the “two powers” charge to describe a whole host of pluralistic beliefs (see n. 3) and, for that matter, how even the church fathers used convenient designations (see n. 62) to do the same. Thus the rabbis were able to circumvent specific heresies and avoid dealing with them in depth. See Segal, “Judaism, Christianity and Gnosticism,” 141. Marcel Simon discusses (Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus [trans. Farley, James H.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967] 93–96Google Scholar) the possibility that the terms reviaxcov and Meptaxcov that appear in Justin Martyr Dial. 80 are to be equated with minim. He concludes (p. 96) that they should not be taken as references to “a well-defined grouping or a particular sect.” For an interesting lumping together of minim with other general designations for sinners, including , in Seder 'Olam, see Milikowsky, “Gehinnom,” 329–37. Milikowsky finds (p. 332) the inclusion of minim peculiar since he regards it as the only term that can also have the connotation of a distinct group. In view of our findings here, however, its use in the excerpt from Seder 'Olam seems less striking.